Jets -- One of the Most Improved Defenses in Draft?

[LIJetsFan]

22 hours ago, Mainejet said:

Do I need to go down through the list of players drafted at 20 overall that came in and made immediate contributions? It would also be especially easy on this team given the fact that they had so many holes to begin with.

But the biggest reason and the reason why I will ultimately be proven right over all that weakest link crap you keep shoveling will be the Jets record. This team will win no more than about 6 games this season. As of May 25th, 2016 they are destined for a 5 or 6 win season.

So if you enjoy having a bunch of dingbats running this team that will be no better than all the failures of the past, go right ahead. But the point of the NFL, is to win the SB and the Jets don't even have a snowballs chance in hell of doing that in 2016.

Per the bold:

I hear this a lot so I don't intend to single you out specifically.  I just wanted to state that IMHO to many fans, esp those that read/post frequently on message boards, there is much much more to the NFL and fandom than the winning a SB.  For just one more example, just ask a random tailgater why he's out there barbecuing, etc.    

[PepPep]

1 hour ago, Raideraholic said:

Without a doubt one of the dumbest articles every written. How can a team that was the fourth rank defense in the league be the most improved on defense. Not to mention they are playing a much tougher schedule , and probably going to finish next season with a worse defense ranking.( even though they might have improved on defense( lb position)). 

Three teams jump out improving the most this offseason on defense.  The Giants, the bills, and the Raiders.      Those three teams will jump up the most this year on defense from last year ranking.

Bills were a top defense unit that was hurt by having a lot of injuries last year .( this group has a chance to bounce back). 

The Giants and  the Raiders have made so much improvement on that side of the ball.

I don't think the focus here was on how much the overall defense would improve over last year. I think the point was more so RE: which team used the draft to potentially improve their defense the most. It really doesn't have much to do with the schedule, ranking or OFFSEASON improvement. I think the author looked specifically at the draft- what kind of value the teams got, where they drafted, who they drafted and how they were able to fill their defensive needs through the draft. You can argue that its inaccurate but I don't think its "Without a doubt one of the dumbest articles every written." 

But I WOULD say the only reason the Jets are on there is b/c they addressed a dire need on defense- speed at LB. They probably should not be #2 on the list though.   

[jamesr]

On 25/05/2016 at 5:32 PM, Mainejet said:

That's a defeatist attitude. And in particular the bolded part..... Well, why can't that happen? Teams do it all the time because they added those few extra missing pieces in that draft. They found those "diamonds in the rough" late in the draft. They made deals that sent their team over the top.

And maybe the term "dingbats" is not what you wanted to hear? But all I can see is another GM/HC doing the very same things as past regimes and EXPECTING different results. Now, wasn't there a very prominent 20th century physicist that called that "insanity"?

They put all their hopes and dreams in the draft. They HOPE they'll be able to go on a shopping spree once every say 5 to 10 seasons and get the sure fire performers.

I say lets not let the cap get in our way. lets plan for each and every season so we can land that highly coveted FA when available. I say lets make plenty of deals so we can trade back (certainly in this last draft) and accumulate players in the 2nd and 3rd rounds when all the talent was there. Lets trade a great DL while we can still get something in return for him. Lets not get some pretty good running backs and then leave them with no one to block in front of them.

Otherwise, we are falling into the same bad habits that every regime tries. I have seen this play out over and over again and it NEVER works. Tanny got that shopping spree in 2008. That coupled with a few good draft picks made this team competitive but never ultimately won us a SB. Same with Terry Bradway when he went on a shopping spree in the 2004 offseason. It NEVER worked. NEVER.

So whe you see the very same things play out over and over again and it never works, don't you think it would go logic that you need to change things up?

Would you agree though, that continually "changing it up" by firing the GM / HC and expecting the next guys to suddenly turn it around, is exactly what you said in the first bolded bit - doing the very same things and expecting different results?

Successful teams are the ones that are the most stable, not the ones who continually fire and hire ... now I know it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation on that front, that success breeds stability and stability breed success. But you can choose to be stable, you don't get to choose to be successful. So in my mind you have to install that stability first, before you can be successful. JMHO, I'm not saying it's the only way to do it, but I've seen enough of the hire & fire route recently (here and elsewhere ... Cleveland especially!) to be sick and tired of it. In fact, I'd hold up Oakland and Jacksonville as examples of the stability approach ... they're both heading in the right direction, but it's been a slow process for each regime (third or fourth year and they're hoping to compete for a play off spot this year). I haven't seen many (any?) examples of the "quick turnaround" teams in recent years, who've gone from also-rans to serious contenders in a short time frame.