Keeping Cavanaugh a Mistake

[Scott Dierking]

going into 2011, there isn't a football person or football fan alive that would have thought that turning Alex Smith into a successful NFL quarterback (after 6 years of doing ZERO) was a bigger task than improving Mark Sanchez (who in two seasons had taken his team to the conference championship game twice)

and that still remains the case NOW

and next year after Mark Sanchez leads the Jets to that win in February in Indy, that number will go from few to ZERO

Harbaugh is an excellent, excellent football coach and has a mind for the offensive side of the ball.

Rex on the hand............

Sanchez has A LOT he needs to fix. And number one is his mindset. He seems to trail off in games mentally. That can be more difficult to overcome than any physical problem.

But, he does have flashes. That is all we have to hang on to at this point.

[Larz]

lol

nobody here has any knowledge of this guy, except to say he sucks

lol

[Sperm Edwards]

Harbaugh is an excellent, excellent football coach and has a mind for the offensive side of the ball.

Rex on the hand............

Sanchez has A LOT he needs to fix. And number one is his mindset. He seems to trail off in games mentally. That can be more difficult to overcome than any physical problem.

But, he does have flashes. That is all we have to hang on to at this point.

I hope he is. But then, Joey Harrington had flashes.

I'd be more comfortable if the defense holding the opposition to 10 points translated to an automatic win. Ratings shmatings. Year-total numbers don't take into account situations (when in the game it is, and how close the game is). For example, does it matter if Philadelphia beats us 45-13 or 45-19?

[afosomf]

Harbaugh is an excellent, excellent football coach and has a mind for the offensive side of the ball.

Rex on the hand............

Sanchez has A LOT he needs to fix. And number one is his mindset. He seems to trail off in games mentally. That can be more difficult to overcome than any physical problem.

But, he does have flashes. That is all we have to hang on to at this point.

His flashes of brilliance are way offset by his waves of sukiness

[Sperm Edwards]

His flashes of brilliance are way offset by his waves of sukiness

I wish he was on some other team so I could laugh harder at this.

[Scott Dierking]

His flashes of brilliance are way offset by his waves of sukiness

I never said they weren't. But, others have said there is NOTHING to work off of. That is simply not true

[Scott Dierking]

I hope he is. But then, Joey Harrington had flashes.

I'd be more comfortable if the defense holding the opposition to 10 points translated to an automatic win. Ratings shmatings. Year-total numbers don't take into account situations (when in the game it is, and how close the game is). For example, does it matter if Philadelphia beats us 45-13 or 45-19?

Id be more comfortable if the defense did not give up last drive TD's for other teams to win the game. But then I would not be a Jet fan. I said nothing about any ratings

[SayNoToDMC]

I'm only responding to the notion of it being lose-lose because of the reasons you outlined. If he became an efficient game manager who just minimizes mistakes, moves the chain on 3rd & short, and can make a great downfield throw once in a while I would be thrilled. He absolutely makes great downfield throws once in a while, but so does every QB who has enough pass attempts. I'd take it if he was efficient and accurate (even if it means a lot of small ball) which he is neither.

Without googling it would you know who Smith's QB coach was? not suggsting you don't but I have no clue. Harbaugh gets all the credit for his turn around, he's a player coach like Rex, the differance between Rex and Harbaugh is I can't draw a comparison's to the Scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz when I talk about Jim. The 49ers where basically us 2 years ago except I think their coach has a better chance of maintaining that level of play longterm and creating a more stable situation for him. I dont think Alex Smith is anything special.

P.S. I'm not the dude from draft covrage who almost jumped off the balcony when Sanchez was drafted......, Though I swear my reaction was probably worse. I only say this cause I made joke like 2 years ago and I'm still getting PM's from people cause apperantly that guy is rich, I saw you comment on it the other day. I am infact probably a 1%er but on the wrong end of the spectrum

[Sperm Edwards]

Id be more comfortable if the defense did not give up last drive TD's for other teams to win the game. But then I would not be a Jet fan. I said nothing about any ratings

RZ efficiency ratings are ratings of RZ efficency.

I once read an article showing how Sage Rosenfels was the most efficient RZ QB and Peyton Manning was mediocre. The biggest problem is that it is a flawed statistical ranking. No fan or HC or stat geek would choose that QB or that offense over the Manning Colts offense that year.

First off, the red zone is an arbitrary demarcation line. There is no significant difference between a play run from the 20 or from the 23. So a QB who throws a completion - let alone a TD completion - from 21 yards out is given no credit in this part of the field, yet one who completes an 8-yard pass on 3rd & 10 from the 20 is considered "efficient" here.

Second, RZ is a very small percentage of plays so every play - both good and bad - is so magnified one would have to look at RZ "efficiency" over a career rather than a single season because the sample set is so small. A single pass - let alone two - that bounces off a receiver's hands into the hands of a defender in the same season could affect the gross rating and rating relative to all others.

So now after removing over 80% of the pass attempts, you're left with a small number greatly affected by a small number of plays, with game importance and situation playing no part in this efficiency rating. It's the same as showing tons of stats showing how good the Jets defense is and treating a meaningless TD drive the same as a game-losing TD drive. A team gives up a garbage-time TD no one cares; a team gives up a game-losing drive to Tebow and it's the whole ball game. RZ efficiency is the type of stat that weighs garbage-time and crunch-time identically.

What is the RZ efficiency surrendered of the Jets' opponents relative to others' opponents? Is it a significant difference? I don't know because no one bothers to look that up.

In particularly good games, did the opponent field a secondary (or a total defense) decimated by significant injuries? I don't know because no one bothers to look that up, and a defense's injured or banged-up or second-string secondary is weighted the same as their healthy, starting secondary.

Since you're dealing with such a small sample, the number of times that yards-to-go is affected by penalties gets magnified. How much is this a factor? On any given drive we all know it's particularly significant once the field gets small. Is that considered in ranking RZ efficiency? I'd be shocked to learn that it is. Efficiency on 3rd and 5 from the 20 is weighted the same as 3rd and 15 from the 20, meanwhile we all know there's a world of difference in how difficult those are to convert to 1st downs or touchdowns.

Lastly, what are the factors that determine efficiency? Is it yards? Is it completion percentage? Is it just points? Are FG points measured as success the same as TD points in measuring success? And is the measure using the same rating criteria from ESPN to NFLN to FO to whomever? (I'm not criticizing; I really don't know). The point here is RZ efficiency is not an absolute like how many points are scored in a season, which is why RZ efficiency, which you are quoting, is a rating.

It is a flawed efficiency rating, just like QB rating. Good QBs (and good offenses) are good, mediocre ones are mediocre, and bad ones are bad. Which is why you have to look with your eyes. Hey, if Welker catches that lousy pass in the superbowl is Tom Brady therefore a better QB? A stat similar to RZ efficiency would suggest the answer is yes. Meanwhile my eyes tell me that whether he catches it or not the pass was crap.

[Scott Dierking]

RZ efficiency ratings are ratings of RZ efficency.

I once read an article showing how Sage Rosenfels was the most efficient RZ QB and Peyton Manning was mediocre. The biggest problem is that it is a flawed statistical ranking. No fan or HC or stat geek would choose that QB or that offense over the Manning Colts offense that year.

First off, the red zone is an arbitrary demarcation line. There is no significant difference between a play run from the 20 or from the 23. So a QB who throws a completion - let alone a TD completion - from 21 yards out is given no credit in this part of the field, yet one who completes an 8-yard pass on 3rd & 10 from the 20 is considered "efficient" here.

Second, RZ is a very small percentage of plays so every play - both good and bad - is so magnified one would have to look at RZ "efficiency" over a career rather than a single season because the sample set is so small. A single pass - let alone two - that bounces off a receiver's hands into the hands of a defender in the same season could affect the gross rating and rating relative to all others.

So now after removing over 80% of the pass attempts, you're left with a small number greatly affected by a small number of plays, with game importance and situation playing no part in this efficiency rating. It's the same as showing tons of stats showing how good the Jets defense is and treating a meaningless TD drive the same as a game-losing TD drive. A team gives up a garbage-time TD no one cares; a team gives up a game-losing drive to Tebow and it's the whole ball game. RZ efficiency is the type of stat that weighs garbage-time and crunch-time identically.

Lastly, what is the RZ efficiency surrendered of the Jets' opponents relative to others? Is it a significant difference? I don't know because no one bothers to look that up.

In particularly good games, did the opponent field a secondary (or a total defense) decimated by significant injuries? I don't know because no one bothers to look that up, and a defense's injured or banged-up or second-string secondary is weighted the same as their healthy, starting secondary.

Since you're dealing with such a small sample, the number of times that yards-to-go is affected by penalties gets magnified. How much is this a factor? On any given drive we all know it's particularly significant once the field gets small. Is that considered in ranking RZ efficiency? I'd be shocked to learn that it is. Efficiency on 3rd and 5 from the 20 is weighted the same as 3rd and 15 from the 20, meanwhile we all know there's a world of difference in how difficult those are to convert to 1st downs or touchdowns.

Lastly, what are the factors that determine efficiency? Is it yards? Is it completion percentage? Is it just points? Are FG points measured as success the same as TD points in measuring success? And is the measure using the same rating criteria from ESPN to NFLN to FO to whomever? (I'm not criticizing; I really don't know). The point here is RZ efficiency is not an absolute like how many points are scored in a season, which is why RZ efficiency, which you are quoting, is a rating.

It is a flawed efficiency rating, just like QB rating. Good QBs (and good offenses) are good, mediocre ones are mediocre, and bad ones are bad. Which is why you have to look with your eyes. Hey, if Welker catches that lousy pass in the superbowl is Tom Brady therefore a better QB? A stat similar to RZ efficiency would suggest the answer is yes. Meanwhile my eyes tell me that whether he catches it or not the pass was crap.

Again, I said nothing of any rating. What I noticed is Sanchez played better on that area of the field, If his rating was actually higher there, GREAT. my eyes are not deceiving me.

I like plays that work better down in the Red Zone, because they actually lead to pints. Points have shown a large inclination toward helping teams win games. Amazing concept, I know.

I also like players who perform better in the Red Zone because it yields 2 things in my eyes:

-An ability to perform when the stakes are highest (again, this pertains to points, which pertains to helping teams win)

-The field is actually shrunk in the Red Zone for a QB and the ability to fit a ball in a spot is decreased. Players are compressed and area to move lessened. Simple laws of physics tell me that more accurate passes are needed in compressed zones of players and fields.

Those are my reasons for having hope. I do not know of ratings that you speak of, but thanks for confirmation.

I don't ask that you agree, merely that you try and know that I DO have reason to see hope. You may not choose that route of thinking. That is fine. You are obviously smarter than me and me and a dog. But that will not change what I see and think

[Sperm Edwards]

Again, I said nothing of any rating. What I noticed is Sanchez played better on that area of the field, If his rating was actually higher there, GREAT. my eyes are not deceiving me.

I like plays that work better down in the Red Zone, because they actually lead to pints. Points have shown a large inclination toward helping teams win games. Amazing concept, I know.

I also like players who perform better in the Red Zone because it yields 2 things in my eyes:

-An ability to perform when the stakes are highest (again, this pertains to points, which pertains to helping teams win)

-The field is actually shrunk in the Red Zone for a QB and the ability to fit a ball in a spot is decreased. Players are compressed and area to move lessened. Simple laws of physics tell me that more accurate passes are needed in compressed zones of players and fields.

Those are my reasons for having hope. I do not know of ratings that you speak of, but thanks for confirmation.

I don't ask that you agree, merely that you try and know that I DO have reason to see hope. You may not choose that route of thinking. That is fine. You are obviously smarter than me and me and a dog. But that will not change what I see and think

First off, I don't claim to be smarter than anyone other than G.O.B. I can't pass judgment on your dog's intelligence because I've never met your dog or seen its SAT scores.

Second, if you're using RZ efficiency as a means of judgment you are in fact using a rating as a means of judgment. RZ efficiency is a rating. Plus you just ignored all the factors I listed without any response as though every one of them has no bearing.

[Scott Dierking]

First off, I don't claim to be smarter than anyone other than G.O.B. I can't pass judgment on your dog's intelligence because I've never met your dog or seen its SAT scores.

Second, if you're using RZ efficiency as a means of judgment you are in fact using a rating as a means of judgment. RZ efficiency is a rating. Plus you just ignored all the factors I listed without any response as though every one of them has no bearing.

I have said nothing of RZ efficiency. Why you want to keep putting that in my mouth, makes me wonder as to your bedroom practices. If there is a statistic that helps back up my premise in some small way, GREAT. But, Sanchez performed better in the RZ with my eyes. My dog's too. But she is incredibly stupid.

Any stat or rating can be disproven through any minutia of detail that is the wont of the opposing protagonist. That is your entire role here, and why Max pays you so much.

[Bugg]

Again, I said nothing of any rating. What I noticed is Sanchez played better on that area of the field, If his rating was actually higher there, GREAT. my eyes are not deceiving me.

I like plays that work better down in the Red Zone, because they actually lead to pints. Points have shown a large inclination toward helping teams win games. Amazing concept, I know.

I also like players who perform better in the Red Zone because it yields 2 things in my eyes:

-An ability to perform when the stakes are highest (again, this pertains to points, which pertains to helping teams win)

-The field is actually shrunk in the Red Zone for a QB and the ability to fit a ball in a spot is decreased. Players are compressed and area to move lessened. Simple laws of physics tell me that more accurate passes are needed in compressed zones of players and fields.

Those are my reasons for having hope. I do not know of ratings that you speak of, but thanks for confirmation.

I don't ask that you agree, merely that you try and know that I DO have reason to see hope. You may not choose that route of thinking. That is fine. You are obviously smarter than me and me and a dog. But that will not change what I see and think

Would guess without even looking Sanchez was among the leaders in QBs for 3 and outs. Also that the drives he started were less likely to end up in a TD than those of half of the other QBs.WOuld guess that while he maye have been efficient in the RedZone, his team's drives were less likely to get there than roughly half of the other NFL starting QBs. And we know he led the NFL in turnovers. It is fair to say that when the Jets had no alternative but to desperately hope at the end of a game that Sanchez has on several occasions managed to bring his team back, and that is to his credit. Also the OC was a dick, but that may not make Sanchez any better by changing to Sparano. But may be the Jets were behind so often because their QB is lousy and his CS doesn't trust him to throw anything more than a 3-yard pass. Let me understand; in year 4 of an well-paid NFL QB's career, we are AGAIN going to dumb down/simplify the offense? And now the big idea is to again hand the ball off 40 times a game in a league where the rules practically beg you to pass? Further the rules by design handcuff defenses, so much of our supposed advantage is basically negated.

I want Rex Ryan and the Jets to win it all. But I don't see progress with Sanchez. You can change all the parts around him, but if at this point he still cannot be trusted to be even mediocre, we are in trouble. Which is why we should cut bait.

[Bugg]

delete

[Sperm Edwards]

I have said nothing of RZ efficiency. Why you want to keep putting that in my mouth, makes me wonder as to your bedroom practices. If there is a statistic that helps back up my premise in some small way, GREAT. But, Sanchez performed better in the RZ with my eyes. My dog's too. But she is incredibly stupid.

Any stat or rating can be disproven through any minutia of detail that is the wont of the opposing protagonist. That is your entire role here, and why Max pays you so much.

That is not why Max pays me. It's not payment per se anyway. We choose to call it favors for favors.

And while you didn't use the term red zone efficiency here in this thread I'm pretty sure you did in the thread you were alluding to with your first reply in this one.

Try this one: Brian Schottenheimer calls more efficient plays in the RZ than most NFL OC's. We just lost him to St. Louis. Now I don't believe that, but it holds just as much weight as Sanchez's bulb suddenly brightening in a certain part of the field. We'll see how efficient he is in the RZ without Plaxico. Hope he is because the 2011 Jets minus this supposedly superior RZ efficiency (eliminating the superior OC, by the numbers, and the team's top RZ target) finish 5-11 instead of 8-8.

[Klecko73isGod]

I hope he is. But then, Joey Harrington had flashes.

I'd be more comfortable if the defense holding the opposition to 10 points translated to an automatic win. Ratings shmatings. Year-total numbers don't take into account situations (when in the game it is, and how close the game is). For example, does it matter if Philadelphia beats us 45-13 or 45-19?

I disagree. Joey Harrington didn't have a single flash.

[Sperm Edwards]

I disagree. Joey Harrington didn't have a single flash.

Of course he did. And where are your litany of Sanchez-esque excuses for Jokey Harrington about all his bust receiving targets, terrible defenses, terrible ground games, terrible coaching, terrible OL protection, and terrible playcalling?

Or is Sanchez singularly a victim of these things in a way that no one else is?

[Scott Dierking]

That is not why Max pays me. It's not payment per se anyway. We choose to call it favors for favors.

And while you didn't use the term red zone efficiency here in this thread I'm pretty sure you did in the thread you were alluding to with your first reply in this one.

Try this one: Brian Schottenheimer calls more efficient plays in the RZ than most NFL OC's. We just lost him to St. Louis. Now I don't believe that, but it holds just as much weight as Sanchez's bulb suddenly brightening in a certain part of the field. We'll see how efficient he is in the RZ without Plaxico. Hope he is because the 2011 Jets minus this supposedly superior RZ efficiency (eliminating the superior OC, by the numbers, and the team's top RZ target) finish 5-11 instead of 8-8.

If we are going to put EVERYTHING on the coaches, then players don't even matter, and we don't need to have all the discussions we do here.

[Klecko73isGod]

Of course he did. And where are your litany of Sanchez-esque excuses for Jokey Harrington about all his bust receiving targets, terrible defenses, terrible ground games, terrible coaching, terrible OL protection, and terrible playcalling?

Or is Sanchez singularly a victim of these things in a way that no one else is?

I was in jokey mode. You're clearly in feisty mode this morning.

[Scott Dierking]

Would guess without even looking Sanchez was among the leaders in QBs for 3 and outs. Also that the drives he started were less likely to end up in a TD than those of half of the other QBs.WOuld guess that while he maye have been efficient in the RedZone, his team's drives were less likely to get there than roughly half of the other NFL starting QBs. And we know he led the NFL in turnovers. It is fair to say that when the Jets had no alternative but to desperately hope at the end of a game that Sanchez has on several occasions managed to bring his team back, and that is to his credit. Also the OC was a dick, but that may not make Sanchez any better by changing to Sparano. But may be the Jets were behind so often because their QB is lousy and his CS doesn't trust him to throw anything more than a 3-yard pass. Let me understand; in year 4 of an well-paid NFL QB's career, we are AGAIN going to dumb down/simplify the offense? And now the big idea is to again hand the ball off 40 times a game in a league where the rules practically beg you to pass? Further the rules by design handcuff defenses, so much of our supposed advantage is basically negated.

I want Rex Ryan and the Jets to win it all. But I don't see progress with Sanchez. You can change all the parts around him, but if at this point he still cannot be trusted to be even mediocre, we are in trouble. Which is why we should cut bait.

If you want the Jets to pass more, and be the team that airs it out, your problems are not with the QB, they are with the coaches, and their philosophy.

[Sperm Edwards]

If we are going to put EVERYTHING on the coaches, then players don't even matter, and we don't need to have all the discussions we do here.

So the name of the game is that the coaching (on offense) is terrible until we get into the red zone. But it's not actually due to the coaching. Rather, at that point our QB - and the whole offense for that matter - stops listening to his stupidity and as a direct result of that we get some points on the board.

[Sperm Edwards]

I was in jokey mode. You're clearly in feisty mode this morning.

I saw more Rex Ryan comments on NFLN.

[Scott Dierking]

So the name of the game is that the coaching (on offense) is terrible until we get into the red zone. But it's not actually due to the coaching. Rather, at that point our QB - and the whole offense for that matter - stops listening to his stupidity and as a direct result of that we get some points on the board.

Again, why do you choose to put words in my mouth. YOU brought up coaching having to do with results in the field. I was merely mocking you.

[Bugg]

If you want the Jets to pass more, and be the team that airs it out, your problems are not with the QB, they are with the coaches, and their philosophy.

I think there is in fact a problem. The game has changed,and Ground and Pound practically is investing in beepers and CDs in 1995. Running the ball has been devalued. Top to bottom the jets might have a talent-wise superior defense to the Jints, but the Jints have a disruptive pass rush, which now matters more.

[bitonti]

. And we know he led the NFL in turnovers.

that was true for a while. But a late push got Josh Freeman to the NFL lead. He had 22 INT and 5 lost fumbles for 27 total turnovers. Sanchez had 18 int and 8 lost fumbles for 26 total turnovers.

[Scott Dierking]

I think there is in fact a problem. The game has changed,and Ground and Pound practically is investing in beepers and CDs in 1995. Running the ball has been devalued. Top to bottom the jets might have a talent-wise superior defense to the Jints, but the Jints have a disruptive pass rush, which now matters more.

It has always been about a pass rush, which Rex used to be able to invent. Unfortunately for him, the TE position continues to evolve.

Whether a ground and pound team can go all the way is debateable

[indigo394]

Things got thrown off-track last year. Sanchez needs strong guidance and last year offensive coaching was split up. I think the new OC will set things straight - simplify and demand accountability.

[Scott Dierking]

Things got thrown off-track last year. Sanchez needs strong guidance and last year offensive coaching was split up. I think the new OC will set things straight - simplify and demand accountability.

If a QB needs to be told there has to be accountability, there are huge problems.

[Bugg]

Things got thrown off-track last year. Sanchez needs strong guidance and last year offensive coaching was split up. I think the new OC will set things straight - simplify and demand accountability.

How much more can you simplify it? They're gonna hand off even more? Pass even shorter? C'mon.

[Sperm Edwards]

Again, why do you choose to put words in my mouth. YOU brought up coaching having to do with results in the field. I was merely mocking you.

I am mocking the people who blame Schottenheimer and think everything will be fine since the favorite scapegoat is gone by suggesting Schottenheimer is some sort of redzone genius.

Only someone with your unparalleled egotism thinks everything is about himself. In fact, I can mock more than one person at a time. Don't get me started.

[#27TheDominator]

I love the fact that we are discussing red zone efficiency as a reason other QB coaches would want to work with Sanchez in a thread about Cavanaugh. Cavanaugh was tasked with increasing red zone efficiency this year. Seems like maybe he's not the incompetent you all claim?

[#27TheDominator]

I love the fact that we are discussing red zone efficiency as a reason other QB coaches would want to work with Sanchez in a thread about Cavanaugh. Cavanaugh was tasked with increasing red zone efficiency this year. Seems like maybe he's not the incompetent you all claim?

[SenorGato]

I love the fact that we are discussing red zone efficiency as a reason other QB coaches would want to work with Sanchez in a thread about Cavanaugh. Cavanaugh was tasked with increasing red zone efficiency this year. Seems like maybe he's not the incompetent you all claim?

So you're gonna tell me you didn't see the influence of Tom Moore in the rz efficiency?

[#27TheDominator]

So you're gonna tell me you didn't see the influence of Tom Moore in the rz efficiency?

I'm not gonna tell you sh*t, but I 'll probably do it twice. Android increases post counts!