Jump to content

Eifert is the one that's gonna hurt.


T0mShane

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This is from PFT today. I think Richardson will be a nice player, but I think Eifert is going to be giving us Warren Sapp nightmares all over again. Dude is a monster:

 

Tyler Eifert: 39 rec. 445 yds, 2 TDs. 

 

Im not having Warren Sapp type nightmares whatsoever. Actually, Im glad we have Milliner and Richardson. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outstanding in Round 1 (A+) with the emergence of Milliner down the stretch.  And the trade for Ivory with the 4th pick was excellent. (A)  I'll  give him a pass on all the other wasted picks.

Overall B

 

If Geno turns out to be a good pick the draft is an A+.  We will know more after this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did the Jets tight ends fair this year? Did they have to split time with Jermaine Gresham? Those numbers probably would have made him our leading receiver.

 

Well ... Jeff Cumberland was 26/398/4 and let's not forget, he had to split time with that beast Konrad Reuland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did the Jets tight ends fair this year? Did they have to split time with Jermaine Gresham? Those numbers probably would have made him our leading receiver.

You say that like it necessarily hurt his numbers. Gresham drew more attention than Eifert did. So did 3 WRs - including more or less the game's best one - and a RB. As Cincy's 5th receiving target he wasn't exactly the focus of defensive gameplans. Those numbers would seem better if he'd missed a handful of games. 20-30 yards per game is a pretty quiet season.  It means in 2013 he was an afterthought as a receiver, like Kellen Winslow, except he happened to play the whole season.  If he had a couple of monster games and was quiet in several others, then you could maybe argue his lower numbers were due to other factors. Plus as much as Dalton is no elite QB, he wasn't exactly rookie Geno Smith either.

People like to transplant other receivers' numbers with better QBs onto the Jets as though those numbers would have remained the same with the Jets QB. Like the Jets' receivers these past 5 years. They look at the numbers with a terrible QB and draw the conclusion that the players aren't very good, based on an unstated theory that those are the same peak numbers the player would have had with a better QB and a far less conservative gameplan.

 

Except there's no basis for it.  You can't just plop a player and his stats from one team in one system and place them onto another and assume they remain either more or less the same or better.

 

If Eifert gets 440 yards on the Bengals while being allowed to basically roam free, it's entirely possible if not outright likely that he gets fewer yards on the Jets with a (mostly bad) rookie QB and nowhere near the same caliber receivers - let alone another 1st round, pro bowl TE - drawing the defense's attention away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well ... Jeff Cumberland was 26/398/4 and let's not forget, he had to split time with that beast Konrad Reuland.

 

I think the better comparison is Kellen Winslow. Cumberland was the starter and Winslow was the #2 TE.  As our #2 TE, Winslow's numbers were the same or better than Eifert's on a per-game basis (30 yards per game, more or less), and the Jets didn't have a WR who not only drew not only the other team's top corner, but took a safety shading over to him a whole lot.

 

Not saying I'd rather have Winslow than Eifert - far from it - but if Eifert was on the Jets I think I have an idea of what his numbers would have been.  

 

Nowhere near the difference-maker that Richardson was.  What the future holds for both is an unknown, but so far I'm quite comfortable with the decision Idzik made.  Also it's not the one I would have made, but I knew little about Richardson at the time and I was very much in the "Another f*cking defensive lineman???" crowd when the pick was made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say that like it necessarily hurt his numbers. Gresham drew more attention than Eifert did. So did 3 WRs - including more or less the game's best one - and a RB. As Cincy's 5th receiving target he wasn't exactly the focus of defensive gameplans. Those numbers would seem better if he'd missed a handful of games. 20-30 yards per game is a pretty quiet season.  It means in 2013 he was an afterthought as a receiver, like Kellen Winslow, except he happened to play the whole season.  If he had a couple of monster games and was quiet in several others, then you could maybe argue his lower numbers were due to other factors. Plus as much as Dalton is no elite QB, he wasn't exactly rookie Geno Smith either.

People like to transplant other receivers' numbers with better QBs onto the Jets as though those numbers would have remained the same with the Jets QB. Like the Jets' receivers these past 5 years. They look at the numbers with a terrible QB and draw the conclusion that the players aren't very good, based on an unstated theory that those are the same peak numbers the player would have had with a better QB and a far less conservative gameplan.

 

Except there's no basis for it.  You can't just plop a player and his stats from one team in one system and place them onto another and assume they remain either more or less the same or better.

 

If Eifert gets 440 yards on the Bengals while being allowed to basically roam free, it's entirely possible if not outright likely that he gets fewer yards on the Jets with a (mostly bad) rookie QB and nowhere near the same caliber receivers - let alone another 1st round, pro bowl TE - drawing the defense's attention away.

 

Ah yes, the Penning-Chez conundrum.  Apparently receiver play is always the cause of poor QB production, yet QB play is never the cause of poor receiver production.  Granted Eifert was a rookie so should conceivably show some improvement and perhaps turn out to be a very good player, but as you said, you cannot blindly assume that his production levels would remain the same with a significant downgrade of QB play.  Even more absurd, you cannot assume that his production would have actually improved simply because he supposedly would've been a higher ranked target with the Jets, only focusing on the more potential opportunities while ignoring the reality of then being a greater focus of the opposing defenses.

 

This is the same argument that came up last year with those people who were crying foul that apparently the Jets were the only team too stupid to realize that Keenan Allen was destined for greatness, despite being passed over by every team multiple times before being drafted in the third round.  Somehow it seems to be lost on those same individuals that this coincided with what was arguably the greatest season of Rivers' career and that Allen would have come nowhere close to matching those numbers with the Jets, even if he had been the Jets #1 receiver from week 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always said the one thousandth time is the charm.

 

So, it has been charming since May? 

 

I think it's a good question. Would you rather have had Jason Witten or Richard Seymour?

 

Eifert is not Witten and even if he were I'd still take Seymour.  Dline has more value than TE IMO.  The TEs that have real value are actually WR anyway.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it has been charming since May?

Eifert is not Witten and even if he were I'd still take Seymour. Dline has more value than TE IMO. The TEs that have real value are actually WR anyway.

You thought Konrad Reulen was a viable starting TE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You thought Konrad Reulen was a viable starting TE.

 

Absolutely not.  I think Konrad Rueland is a JAG and that a JAG TE + good WR is much better than a JAG WR and good TE. 

 

*EDIT: I didn't even think Reuland was a JAG.  I thought he was an aspiring JAG and could possibly be a guy that could play in the league.  I thought the same about Cumberland. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes, the Penning-Chez conundrum.  Apparently receiver play is always the cause of poor QB production, yet QB play is never the cause of poor receiver production.  Granted Eifert was a rookie so should conceivably show some improvement and perhaps turn out to be a very good player, but as you said, you cannot blindly assume that his production levels would remain the same with a significant downgrade of QB play.  Even more absurd, you cannot assume that his production would have actually improved simply because he supposedly would've been a higher ranked target with the Jets, only focusing on the more potential opportunities while ignoring the reality of then being a greater focus of the opposing defenses.

 

This is the same argument that came up last year with those people who were crying foul that apparently the Jets were the only team too stupid to realize that Keenan Allen was destined for greatness, despite being passed over by every team multiple times before being drafted in the third round.  Somehow it seems to be lost on those same individuals that this coincided with what was arguably the greatest season of Rivers' career and that Allen would have come nowhere close to matching those numbers with the Jets, even if he had been the Jets #1 receiver from week 1.

 

I'm not assuming anything is always anything.  Smith didn't have a lot of help at receiver, but he was pretty terrible as a rookie.  Just as Sanchez was pretty terrible for 4 years before that.  If a lousy receiver is wide open, and the QB misses him pretty badly, where it falls incomplete or is fairly easily picked off, that pass probably isn't completed if you replace Clyde Gates with Calvin Johnson. Megatron will bail a QB out of so-so passes, but awful passes still won't get completed.

 

The best example, and I've brought it up before, is Sanchez's predecessor at USC.  A far better and more polished prospect than Sanchez, Leinart was considered one of those "sure thing" types.  Supposedly deadly-accurate, with prototypical size, and was more "NFL-ready" than anyone since Peyton Manning.  Goes to Arizona where his WRs are Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin (both stud veterans already).  And Leinart still sucked.  Horribly.  Warner steps in and pretty much every full game he plays he's throwing over 300 yards/game.  With a sucky OL and a kind of sucky ground attack that scared no one.  Then enter the 2007 season.  They hand the job to Leinart again.  And he's awful again.  Leinart would start games, suck, then Warner would come in and pass the ball all over the field.  Then Leinart would get the starting nod the following week again.  Finally, after a few weeks of this nonsense, the starter decision is taken out of Wisenhunt's hands when Leinart breaks his collarbone.  Warner comes in again for good (except when he's banged up himself and Rattay comes in), and Arizona - despite the time wasted on Leinart (and Rattay) - finishes with a top-5 passing attack. 

 

No matter how good their receiving weapons were, you can't just stick a Matt Leinart or Tim Rattay in there and figure it's still going to be dangerous (or even reliable).  Same with Sanchez or (at least as a rookie) Geno Smith.  

 

A great pair of receivers doesn't make a bad QB into a good one.  A bad set of receivers hurts a good QB, but he'll still be good.  Look at Brady last year.  Julian Edelman? That's the secret sauce? Every other receiver on the team - including Vereen, their receiving "weapon" out of the backfield, not to mention Gronk, was either injured or vying for the league lead in dropped passes like that was their freaking intention.  Hernandez was in freaking prison and waited until after free agency and the draft was over in mid-June to do it.  There was no "consistency" there at receiver in any sense of the word. Nor at RB, where Belichick kept spitefully pulling & inserting this one or that one from game to game.  And they still finish with a top 10 passing attack, Brady's still a star QB, NE wins a dozen games and nearly gets to the superbowl.  Compare the Jets' receivers in Sanchez's "much improved" 2nd year with the 2013 Patriots' mess of receivers.  Brady would have had another 500-1000 yards with Edwards+Cotchery+Holmes+Keller and LT catching passes out of the backfield.  And the same crew here would be whining that we never gave Sanchez such a solid group of receivers.

 

A bad QB is a bad QB until such time as he ceases to be a bad QB.  Good or great receivers may hide things or make a QB's ineptitude less apparent, but they won't change him into a good QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...