Jump to content

Are Schotty & Sparano weak OC's, or do the Jets just have no talent on offense?


BlackDynamite

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Winning a Super Bowl with a bad QB is like trying to win an NBA title with a team full of white dudes. Can it happen? Sure. Likely? Bitch, please.

/noracist

If there's one reason I want the 2012 Jets to succeed it's to start shoving this out the door. The NFL as a QB's league is f'n boooooooooooooring and too easy to fix.

"You can drive a car with your knees if you want to. It doesn't make it a good idea." -- Chris Rock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know pretty quickly if a QB "has it" or not. Who cares about how many QB's you have to cut? A franchise QB is pretty much all that seems to matter these days, so you do what you can until you find one. Along the way, you can also feel free to pick up some stopgap QB's like a Favre or Hasselbeck.

I don't see an issue with having "too many QB's". Next year, for instance, we're probably dumping either Tebow, Sanchez, or both depending on what happens. We'll then bring in 1 or 2 QB's to replace them, maybe a veteran capable of starting and a 1st or 2nd rounder. The next year, if needed, we cut 3rd-stringer McElroy and bring in another one in the 3rd or 4th if need be. The next year, we re-evaluate.

And in an instance where you have a Matt Flynn type on the bench, you trade him.

I'm tired of talking to you. :winking0001:

You don't know that quickly. If you did, you would know during the draft and that would be it. If Matt Flynn is the guy that is your star QB, and you trade him and keep say... Mark Sanchez, how does that help you team? You would have to push a guy out the door every 3 years and assuming you have a decent starter, every two. IMO, that just isn't enough time. Now I wave the white flag

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's one reason I want the 2012 Jets to succeed it's to start shoving this out the door. The NFL as a QB's league is f'n boooooooooooooring and too easy to fix.

But aren't you just exception fishing?

Last year we came very close to a SB matchup featuring Alex Smith vs. Joe Flacco. That wouldn't change the "you need an elite QB" meme. It would just be an exception to the trend of the last 15 yrs.

Sanchez needs to have a good season if the Jets want any success. Does he have to be "elite"? Not necessarily, but the lack of elite play decreases the margin of error. The Jets D should be good enough that if Sanchez is good, then the Jets should win over 10 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But aren't you just exception fishing?

Maybe. Maybe it's just a different way of building a team. Eventually the QB fetish this league has will die down, even if it's just slightly.

Sanchez really just needs to handle his role competently. I'm really curious as to what this offense will show during the regular season...It's a shot at something different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but it is just one type of music, and it did die down slightly in the mainstream.

Sigh, point = whizzed by. As for the valuing of QB's, you pulled that completely out of your ass. Between the new rookie salary structure, continued low success rate, and high turnover rate, there's not one variable showing that could possibly be a trend anywhere in the future. The Saints didn't just pay Brees a gajillion dollars because QB's may be trending downward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Saints paid Brees a gajillion dollars because he's an elite QB who's built up a HOF resume with them, is still fairly young, etc...there's plenty of reason for them to do that.

Of course I pulled it out of my ass. There's nothing more valuable than the QB in the NFL right now. There just isn't enough elite QB talent out there and there will be coach who figures out how to work around that. Hell, since '09 we've seen defensive juggernauts put themselves deep into the playoffs with the most mediocre of playoff QBs. I didn't say the decline is imminent or even trending downward (yet), but someone out there

The snag in that hope is that the NFL has built it's whole rulebook around making it possible for the QBs to pile up numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There just isn't enough elite QB talent out there and there will be coach who figures out how to work around that.

No sh*t? What do you think they'll try?

Building an elite defense? Loading up their running game? Maybe putting someone under center who may not necessarily be able to throw but can run really well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh, point = whizzed by. As for the valuing of QB's, you pulled that completely out of your ass. Between the new rookie salary structure, continued low success rate, and high turnover rate, there's not one variable showing that could possibly be a trend anywhere in the future. The Saints didn't just pay Brees a gajillion dollars because QB's may be trending downward.

The only reason QBs may trend "downward" in the future is if there is a dirth of good young ones. That actually happened from about 1998 to 2003. Besides Peyton and Palmer, there were a string of 1st round QB busts (including the infamous Leaf), so teams look to reclamation projections or "no stone unturned" QBs such as Kerry Collins, Brad Johnson, Rich Gannon, Vinny Testeverde, Trent Dilfer, and Kurt Warner. Then there was the QB class of 2004 that produced Eli, Big Ben & Rivers, and teams started to look to young QBs again.

The 2000 Ravens squad wasn't built to marginalize the QB, they had no other choice because they're starter was Tony Freakin' Banks and there was no real better option out there.

Because the QB importance is strictly a supply issue, once we see colleges not producing enough quality QBs over a stretch, then we'll see the downward trend. But that's not happening anytime soon with the likes of Eli, Ben, Rivers & Rodgers in their late 20s/early 30s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brady was awful against Baltimore. Evans dropping that pass in the endzone and Cundiff being a douche had nothing to do with the Pats having an elite QB.

Niners might have won if they did better than 1-13 on 3rd down, but I'm pretty sure the Giants still would have been punting and the guy fumbled two punts.

Yeah, while I think the original point has merit, last year's Super Bowl is pretty much the single worst example you could ever give to support it. Those two games were complete disasters that had little, if anything, to do with the winning team's QB. The Patriots have nothing but blind luck to thank for the fact that they didn't lose or at least get forced into OT, and that was after the referees repeatedly called back Brady's INTs on fabricated penalty calls. Truth be told, the Pats should have been blown out in that game, in large part because of Brady's awful play. As for the Giants, they were twice given the ball in scoring range based on pure luck and then later were handed the ball back after their own fumble that very well could have cost them the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason QBs may trend "downward" in the future is if there is a dirth of good young ones. That actually happened from about 1998 to 2003. Besides Peyton and Palmer, there were a string of 1st round QB busts (including the infamous Leaf), so teams look to reclamation projections or "no stone unturned" QBs such as Kerry Collins, Brad Johnson, Rich Gannon, Vinny Testeverde, Trent Dilfer, and Kurt Warner. Then there was the QB class of 2004 that produced Eli, Big Ben & Rivers, and teams started to look to young QBs again.

The 2000 Ravens squad wasn't built to marginalize the QB, they had no other choice because they're starter was Tony Freakin' Banks and there was no real better option out there.

Because the QB importance is strictly a supply issue, once we see colleges not producing enough quality QBs over a stretch, then we'll see the downward trend. But that's not happening anytime soon with the likes of Eli, Ben, Rivers & Rodgers in their late 20s/early 30s.

I think supply's the last thing that could be a problem now. The investment required financially has plummeted. Meaning the risk/reward ratio has gone through the roof. Wheedon went in the first this year. Ponder went 12th. Neither guy had any business doing so. Teams are going to see how Gabbert crashing didn't hamstring Jax for the long term and it's only going to reinforce this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think supply's the last thing that could be a problem now. The investment required financially has plummeted. Meaning the risk/reward ratio has gone through the roof. Wheedon went in the first this year. Ponder went 12th. Neither guy had any business doing so. Teams are going to see how Gabbert crashing didn't hamstring Jax for the long term and it's only going to reinforce this.

True, but when I mentioned supply I was referring to colleges producing quality QBs. Now teams can bust on a 1st round QB without it being a franchise killer. Teams will still be drafting QBs and have more freedom to do so with less financial investment, but they are still captive to what colleges are sending them. Once that supply of quality QB diminishes, then we'll see the downward trend to what happened in the late 1990s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No sh*t? What do you think they'll try?

Building an elite defense? Loading up their running game? Maybe putting someone under center who may not necessarily be able to throw but can run really well?

Well, most specifically the last one as a truly long term solution attacking specifically the QB position. That said, yeah all those work as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree it is preferable to have a great QB. It's the most important oosition. On the other hand, look at the QBs that won playoff games last year: In addition to Eli, Brady and Brees, you have the following: Joe Flacco? Alex Smith? Garbage. Tebow? Ha. TJ Yates? In the two years prior Sanchez himself won four playoff games. While I agree it's not the favored way to do it, I wouldn't say the days of winning with a sh*tty QB are over.

Playoff games... Of course. But therein lies the problem. You need to win at least 3 playoff games in a row to win a Super Bowl. As you say later, if you can win playoff games, you can win it all... That's not necessarily true. A playoff game is one game. A Super Bowl is basically a series sweep in any other sport. It's not just one game. You need to be good enough to sweep the series. Another way of looking at it would be to say, if you can make a foul shot, you can make them all. Why doesn't it work like that? If Ray Allen and I stepped to the Free Throw Line and both took one shot, there's a good chance we'd both make them. If we took 10, I'd bet on him. You? Back to football... In any given playoff game, the margin of error is already small. Winning 3 or 4 in a row, your margin of error is much smaller. In the regular season, if the Jets won 3:1, then we'd all be thrilled with a 12-4 season. And still, that ratio wouldn't be good enough in the playoffs. Of course, you don't have to be better than 12-4 to win it all, but I think my point is pretty clear by now. Can a team with with even an above average QB win 4 games in a row against the toughest competition in the league? Maybe... But we haven't seen it in a long time.

Great QB's overcome mistakes. Mistakes are made over a 4 game stretch against good teams. Teams who don't have QBs that can lift the rest of the team typically suffer some kind of letdown over the 4 game stretch. Having Mark Sanchez (or, insert another Bad - anything below Very Good QB) means the rest of the team has to perform just about flawlessly to win. That's way to much pressure, and way to much expectations over a 3-4 game stretch. The evidence is in the last 9 years of Super Bowl winners. And, if a non-elite QB wins it this year, than we can say, once every 10 years, a non-elite QB can win the Super Bowl, which aren't exactly the odds I'd be looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I said I waved the white flag on this already, but...

Nobody is denying that it is preferable to have a top flight QB. What I am saying is that making that the be all, end all may be detrimental to the team in certain circumstances. The fact is, Flacco and Smith did all they had to do to win get to the super bowl last year. They both are closer to suck than elite. Sure it will take more luck, but let's not act like it's impossible, like it is completely insurmountable to deal with an non-future HOFer back there. It can be done and it will be done. Why not by us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent point that winning the superbowl is equivalent to a 4 game sweep in any other sport. You need consistent QB play and a great defense. Can Sanchez play 4 mistake free games in a row?

Playoff games... Of course. But therein lies the problem. You need to win at least 3 playoff games in a row to win a Super Bowl. As you say later, if you can win playoff games, you can win it all... That's not necessarily true. A playoff game is one game. A Super Bowl is basically a series sweep in any other sport. It's not just one game. You need to be good enough to sweep the series. Another way of looking at it would be to say, if you can make a foul shot, you can make them all. Why doesn't it work like that? If Ray Allen and I stepped to the Free Throw Line and both took one shot, there's a good chance we'd both make them. If we took 10, I'd bet on him. You? Back to football... In any given playoff game, the margin of error is already small. Winning 3 or 4 in a row, your margin of error is much smaller. In the regular season, if the Jets won 3:1, then we'd all be thrilled with a 12-4 season. And still, that ratio wouldn't be good enough in the playoffs. Of course, you don't have to be better than 12-4 to win it all, but I think my point is pretty clear by now. Can a team with with even an above average QB win 4 games in a row against the toughest competition in the league? Maybe... But we haven't seen it in a long time.

Great QB's overcome mistakes. Mistakes are made over a 4 game stretch against good teams. Teams who don't have QBs that can lift the rest of the team typically suffer some kind of letdown over the 4 game stretch. Having Mark Sanchez (or, insert another Bad - anything below Very Good QB) means the rest of the team has to perform just about flawlessly to win. That's way to much pressure, and way to much expectations over a 3-4 game stretch. The evidence is in the last 9 years of Super Bowl winners. And, if a non-elite QB wins it this year, than we can say, once every 10 years, a non-elite QB can win the Super Bowl, which aren't exactly the odds I'd be looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason QBs may trend "downward" in the future is if there is a dirth of good young ones. That actually happened from about 1998 to 2003. Besides Peyton and Palmer, there were a string of 1st round QB busts (including the infamous Leaf), so teams look to reclamation projections or "no stone unturned" QBs such as Kerry Collins, Brad Johnson, Rich Gannon, Vinny Testeverde, Trent Dilfer, and Kurt Warner. Then there was the QB class of 2004 that produced Eli, Big Ben & Rivers, and teams started to look to young QBs again.

The 2000 Ravens squad wasn't built to marginalize the QB, they had no other choice because they're starter was Tony Freakin' Banks and there was no real better option out there.

Because the QB importance is strictly a supply issue, once we see colleges not producing enough quality QBs over a stretch, then we'll see the downward trend. But that's not happening anytime soon with the likes of Eli, Ben, Rivers & Rodgers in their late 20s/early 30s.

I dont think its a dearth of good ones its about what works in the NFL. The reason things trended downward in a short period is because teams didnt win with the QB. Parcells and Gibbs treated them as complete spare parts. The famous Bears were all about defense. The Dallas Cowboys treated Troy Aikman more as a manager surrounded by great talent than the centerpiece. Thee feeling was the AFC went all in on the QB and consistently went belly up against the defense and conservative gameplay oriented NFC.Even the Montana 49ers were considered to have tough defenses to go along with the innovative offense. It was 94-99 that changed things because Aikman did begin to get more credit. Steve Young won with San Francisco in an incredibly explosive offense. Favre was up in Green Bay. Elway started winning championships too (though he was not the driving force too many still seem to think he was). It was those few years that brought around the 1999 draft and even after that I think some teams didnt buy in. If a guy like Pennington came in the draft now he'd be a top 10 pick. We got him near 20.

Once Manning, McNabb, and Culpepper established themselves teams started going wild with the drafting. I remember when I first started doing the draft tracking how bizarre it seemed that there were no 2nd round QBs taken. What was really going on was teams were overvaluing the 2nd round prospect and drafting him in round 1(Ramsey, Grossman, etc...). Teams are always pushing the QB prospect up the board and now with the financial commitment less its going to happen more and more until there is a push for the non-QB driven teams to consistently win championships. Thats going to take forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I said I waved the white flag on this already, but...

Nobody is denying that it is preferable to have a top flight QB. What I am saying is that making that the be all, end all may be detrimental to the team in certain circumstances. The fact is, Flacco and Smith did all they had to do to win get to the super bowl last year. They both are closer to suck than elite. Sure it will take more luck, but let's not act like it's impossible, like it is completely insurmountable to deal with an non-future HOFer back there. It can be done and it will be done. Why not by us?

For the same reason i'll risk the small chance of getting egg on my face by telling you youll never win mega millions. It's happened to others but odds arent good that it will happen to any given individual. GMs job is to maximize the odds of winning, not throw up his hands and say "a squad like ours rarely wins it all but it has happened!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think supply's the last thing that could be a problem now. The investment required financially has plummeted. Meaning the risk/reward ratio has gone through the roof. Wheedon went in the first this year. Ponder went 12th. Neither guy had any business doing so. Teams are going to see how Gabbert crashing didn't hamstring Jax for the long term and it's only going to reinforce this.

I think the salary ramifications will be the most interesting part of the whole QB development process. Ill be curious to see how many teams really cut bait and move on and how many of them struggle with letting go of a guy they believed in. When our guys signed Mark Sanchez they really had a great contract with him, all things considered. They gave him a deal that gave the Jets all kind of leverage in year 4 and 5 to protect themselves in case he busted. I think it came somewhat off the Matt Ryan blueprint from Atlanta those his deal ran 1 year longer. Its a stark contrast to the contract given to Matthew Stafford in Detroit which has been a nightmare for the Lions and stuck them with him for the duration of the contract even if he had busted or the minefield that is Sam Bradfords deal.

But even with all that said the Jets couldnt see fit to do what should have been done and either defer unguaranteed money to next year or flex their muscle and force Sanchez to a paycut. For whatever reason they essentially guaranteed him two more years because there seems to be a split in the front about whether he is or is not the guy. Houston hung onto David Carr far longer than they financially needed to. Same goes with San Francisco and Alex Smith. Other than Sanchez that trend had reversed somewhat recently (Tebow, Quinn, Russell, all the guys from 2006) but I just wonder with owners who fall in love with the QB and GMs who survive the QB will they get themselves in further financial trouble just because they are chasing something that isnt there or will they see the new contract structures as more reason to abandon ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: QB supply; If the steroid testing in baseball is legit, I think a lot of prep QBs who are also pitchers (saddled with 84 MPH fastballs) will choose to stick with football now that there's no magical way to gain six extra MPH's. One positive test for juice can effectively end their baseball careers, whereas sticking with football gets them four years as a god on a college campus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the same reason i'll risk the small chance of getting egg on my face by telling you youll never win mega millions. It's happened to others but odds arent good that it will happen to any given individual. GMs job is to maximize the odds of winning, not throw up his hands and say "a squad like ours rarely wins it all but it has happened!"

Yep. That's exactly what I said. I said forget the QB and throw up your hands.

Look at the Ravens. Do they act like Joe Flacco is the second coming? I'm sure if they came across somebody better they'd jump, but they are as likely as any team to be in the super bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but when I mentioned supply I was referring to colleges producing quality QBs. Now teams can bust on a 1st round QB without it being a franchise killer. Teams will still be drafting QBs and have more freedom to do so with less financial investment, but they are still captive to what colleges are sending them. Once that supply of quality QB diminishes, then we'll see the downward trend to what happened in the late 1990s.

What leads you to believe this would be the case? Spreads have been around for quite some time now and it's not like they're taking up that much larger of a ratio than in recent history to where they'd effect the draft like that. Despite being on his 3rd school, Meyer's just one guy, and the top recruits coming out every year still reflect what the pros tend to look for. It's not like they're dwindling in numbers or going to schools that can't develop them accordingly. The top kids out of HS are still heading to USC, 'Bama, Georgia...etc. And coaches like Brown or Stoops have historically shown they'll still coach their kids up from a pro standpoint even while having them run some variation of a spread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the salary ramifications will be the most interesting part of the whole QB development process. Ill be curious to see how many teams really cut bait and move on and how many of them struggle with letting go of a guy they believed in. When our guys signed Mark Sanchez they really had a great contract with him, all things considered. They gave him a deal that gave the Jets all kind of leverage in year 4 and 5 to protect themselves in case he busted. I think it came somewhat off the Matt Ryan blueprint from Atlanta those his deal ran 1 year longer. Its a stark contrast to the contract given to Matthew Stafford in Detroit which has been a nightmare for the Lions and stuck them with him for the duration of the contract even if he had busted or the minefield that is Sam Bradfords deal.

But even with all that said the Jets couldnt see fit to do what should have been done and either defer unguaranteed money to next year or flex their muscle and force Sanchez to a paycut. For whatever reason they essentially guaranteed him two more years because there seems to be a split in the front about whether he is or is not the guy. Houston hung onto David Carr far longer than they financially needed to. Same goes with San Francisco and Alex Smith. Other than Sanchez that trend had reversed somewhat recently (Tebow, Quinn, Russell, all the guys from 2006) but I just wonder with owners who fall in love with the QB and GMs who survive the QB will they get themselves in further financial trouble just because they are chasing something that isnt there or will they see the new contract structures as more reason to abandon ship.

Logic definitely points to the latter considering how high some of these guys are going. It's been two drafts now and 4 teams are guilty. It's not just Miami. QB's taken in the first taken at 10 or lower will be given a 2-year audition, 3 tops. Late 1st's might even be on a tighter leash if their team gets a high enough pick in a year like this past. Gabbert got what, 4 years, $12 million? No incentive to invest a whole other season in something that's not probabilistic. A GM saves his job, keeps the team moving, and keeps the fanbase hopeful. Watch the Jets draft Jones or something next year at 16. There's almost no reason anymore to not pull the trigger 1/2 to a full round ahead of time aside from missing out on a premier player at another position; but considering it's a QB's league, that's not going to be nearly as crazy as it used to be. Tannehill may indeed be a big, dumb hillbilly, but you can't blame Miami for pulling the trigger on that one. And Cleveland's almost a lock to take Wilson when they bottom out this year. Weeden is terrible. But that's how it is, teams are going to be willing to trade away 2nd and 3rd rounders to give a kid an audition, because it's worth the risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The greatest defense of the modern era, the 2000 Baltimore Ravens:

Allowed less than 200 yards of offense six times

Allowed 7 points or less in a game 8 out of 16 games (4 shutouts)

(Plus 3 times in the Playoffs!)

Allowed 4 rushing yards in a game against Cincinnati

Allowed 165 total points for the season (NFL record)

Ray Lewis Defensive Player of The Year

Jamal Lewis/Priest Holmes combined for 1950 rushing yards

23rd in the NFL in passing

TE Shannon Sharpe led the receivers with 67 recs 810 yards

(Dustin Keller last year led the Jets in receiving with 65 recs 815 yards)

Super Bowl QB: Trent Dilfer (started 8 games, plus Playoffs. 12 TD 11 INTs, 1500 yards. Rating: 76)

BD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the history of the Jets franchise, when have they ever come up with a Rich Gannon or Kurt Warner?

Testaverde in '98 is the best I could come up with. Not a HOFer or near-HOFer but was a great, great QB move for us.

Picked him off the scrap heap on BB's recommendation and was a top 5 QB that year and truly led us to the AFCCG a hell of a lot more than Sanchez "led" us there. We might have even been to the SB the next year with him if if Mr. Clutch Martin didn't fumble the ball week 1 of '99 starting right off where he left things in that Denver game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The greatest defense of the modern era, the 2000 Baltimore Ravens:

Allowed less than 200 yards of offense six times

Allowed 7 points or less in a game 8 out of 16 games (4 shutouts)

(Plus 3 times in the Playoffs!)

Allowed 4 rushing yards in a game against Cincinnati

Allowed 165 total points for the season (NFL record)

Ray Lewis Defensive Player of The Year

Jamal Lewis/Priest Holmes combined for 1950 rushing yards

23rd in the NFL in passing

TE Shannon Sharpe led the receivers with 67 recs 810 yards

(Dustin Keller last year led the Jets in receiving with 65 recs 815 yards)

Super Bowl QB: Trent Dilfer (started 8 games, plus Playoffs. 12 TD 11 INTs, 1500 yards. Rating: 76)

BD

This is a nice fantasy, but Replacing that guy with Darrelle Revis just doesn't seem to work, does it? Our linebackers are atrocious They ruin the entire defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. That's exactly what I said. I said forget the QB and throw up your hands.

Look at the Ravens. Do they act like Joe Flacco is the second coming? I'm sure if they came across somebody better they'd jump, but they are as likely as any team to be in the super bowl.

yeah, i think i have a hybrid opinion. winning with a competent (but not elite) QB is within the realm of reasonable liklihood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, i think i have a hybrid opinion. winning with a competent (but not elite) QB is within the realm of reasonable liklihood.

Right. We can pray that Sanchez plays like a competent QB and then we are at least in the realm. It's a lot more likely than Sanchez, Tebow or whoever we decide to try to get next suddenly becoming elite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...