Rex & Cro: Jets Defense Is Top 5

[JetNation]

Antonio Cromartie was asked about Rex Ryan’s comments that the Jets were going to have a top-five defense this year.  Here is what Cromartie had to say, “I think for me, I agree with him 100 percent. It’s just about us going out and making sure that we do our jobs and making sure we cut down on mental errors and cut out the self-inflicted wounds. For us, we feel like we have a good front seven to get to the quarterback, (we) just (have) to make sure we’re communicating from the safeties to the linebackers and out to the corners.”

The Jets defense will have several new starters this year.  Two new safeties, possibly one new corner alongside Cromartie, Bart Scott is gone and there is some new blood on the defensive line.  Does Cromartie anticipate a drop off as a result of these changes?

I don’t really think it’s going to be any kind of drop off. I think we have a great group of guys that understand what we’re trying to accomplish here as a defense (and) as a whole. We understand the method that Rex wants and Coach Thurman wants also. (There) is a formula for us going out and just doing it and playing up to the best of our abilities.

 

Follow Me:

View the full article

[MexiRoll6]

I really dislike how the NFL judges top defenses. In my mind it is about points given up. That to me is the ONLY indicator of an NFL defense's success. How many yards they give up doesn't matter a bit to me. If the Jets have the Pats stuck at their own one yard line and Vereen goes on a 90-yard run but the Jets force a FG or a turnover, THAT is the measure of the defense. Points allowed is the criteria for me and in that category the Jets are not good. True, turnovers play a factor in that but the name of the game is to limit the amount of points your opponent scores.....period. 

[Sperm Edwards]

I really dislike how the NFL judges top defenses. In my mind it is about points given up. That to me is the ONLY indicator of an NFL defense's success. How many yards they give up doesn't matter a bit to me. If the Jets have the Pats stuck at their own one yard line and Vereen goes on a 90-yard run but the Jets force a FG or a turnover, THAT is the measure of the defense. Points allowed is the criteria for me and in that category the Jets are not good. True, turnovers play a factor in that but the name of the game is to limit the amount of points your opponent scores.....period. 

 

What about the defense taking over after our QB turns it over in Jets territory & they give up only a FG after a 3 & out? Or the same thing where the other team takes over in Jets territory following a long kick/punt return? How is that on the defense that maybe didn't allow a first down but gave up points? Even if they give up the TD, you're still talking about a defense that has to defend an endzone more than others.  Law of averages suggests they are going to give up more points and more TDs than an equally-good defense that doesn't start with such unfavorable field position so many times.

 

I think you have to look at both.  If you see a team #5 in yards but #24 in points, you know something's not adding up and chances are you're not talking about the 5th-best defense in the league.   Likewise, if you're giving up all those yards and hardly any points, you're still not talking about some great defense.  You could just be looking at a defense that is typically afforded a longer field so the field position is placing an x-factor strain on opposing offenses.  They can screw up multiple plays in one drive and still force a punt or a low-percentage FG attempt.

 

But I agree points are more important than yards.  Particularly since that's what determines the winner & loser of the game.  In ranking yardage alone, the defense can also blow coverages on 3 plays and get 3 defensive holding/PI calls to make up for the crappy coverage, and then give up a TD or FG.  Meanwhile from a yardage standpoint it looks like they stopped the other team cold and only gave up one 3-yard TD or something.

 

Also yardage-ranking favors teams that suck against the run plus can't score points (sound familiar?).  Why pass (or why take unnecessary chances passing deep) when you can run the ball or dink & dunk and eat up the clock?

 

The other reason you have to look at both is that they don't usually keep track of DEFENSIVE points surrendered.  That's left for the fans to calculate on their own.  But at a glance the defense is going to get penalized (ranking-wise) for crappy offenses that turn the ball over and/or crappy special teams units that allow big returns & fumble returns of their own.

 

Ultimately, though, for all of these reasons teams & individual players also have to pass the eyeball test. 

[Greenseed4]

I would hope that the defense stats reflect points given up by the defense.  Because in our case, the offense has been know to give up points (a couple times).

  

In my FF league there is no distinction, the program just credits the defense for total points scored against the team.  Which is crap. 

[SayNoToDMC]

Blaine Gabbert is a top 5 QB

[Scott Dierking]

What about the defense taking over after our QB turns it over in Jets territory & they give up only a FG after a 3 & out? Or the same thing where the other team takes over in Jets territory following a long kick/punt return? How is that on the defense that maybe didn't allow a first down but gave up points? Even if they give up the TD, you're still talking about a defense that has to defend an endzone more than others.  Law of averages suggests they are going to give up more points and more TDs than an equally-good defense that doesn't start with such unfavorable field position so many times.

 

I think you have to look at both.  If you see a team #5 in yards but #24 in points, you know something's not adding up and chances are you're not talking about the 5th-best defense in the league.   Likewise, if you're giving up all those yards and hardly any points, you're still not talking about some great defense.  You could just be looking at a defense that is typically afforded a longer field so the field position is placing an x-factor strain on opposing offenses.  They can screw up multiple plays in one drive and still force a punt or a low-percentage FG attempt.

 

But I agree points are more important than yards.  Particularly since that's what determines the winner & loser of the game.  In ranking yardage alone, the defense can also blow coverages on 3 plays and get 3 defensive holding/PI calls to make up for the crappy coverage, and then give up a TD or FG.  Meanwhile from a yardage standpoint it looks like they stopped the other team cold and only gave up one 3-yard TD or something.

 

Also yardage-ranking favors teams that suck against the run plus can't score points (sound familiar?).  Why pass (or why take unnecessary chances passing deep) when you can run the ball or dink & dunk and eat up the clock?

 

The other reason you have to look at both is that they don't usually keep track of DEFENSIVE points surrendered.  That's left for the fans to calculate on their own.  But at a glance the defense is going to get penalized (ranking-wise) for crappy offenses that turn the ball over and/or crappy special teams units that allow big returns & fumble returns of their own.

 

Ultimately, though, for all of these reasons teams & individual players also have to pass the eyeball test. 

Jets defense was not as good as its ratings say they were last year.

 

The first 2 years, Rex built a very, very good defense and I could not quibble calling them one of the best (beside the penchant for giving up the late game changing drive more often than usual.

 

The last 2 years the defense has not passed the muster as a top 10 unit.

[Sperm Edwards]

Jets defense was not as good as its ratings say they were last year.

 

The first 2 years, Rex built a very, very good defense and I could not quibble calling them one of the best (beside the penchant for giving up the late game changing drive more often than usual.

 

The last 2 years the defense has not passed the muster as a top 10 unit.

 

I missed the part where I was referring to last year's Jets D (or the one prior) as a top unit.

[Scott Dierking]

I missed the part where I was referring to last year's Jets D (or the one prior) as a top unit.

Why does it always have to be about "you"

[Integrity28]

Defensive rankings win championship?

 

Who cares.

 

Priority should be the Lombardi at all costs, even the precious top-5 defensive ranking that Rex seems to covet over having a winning team.

[Bugg]

Defensive rankings win championship?

 

Who cares.

 

Priority should be the Lombardi at all costs, even the precious top-5 defensive ranking that Rex seems to covet over having a winning team.

Wrecks has nothing else to sell. Grant you the offense gives away time of and field possession like 2 dollar whores. But teams facing the Jets in  2012 knew their offense sucked. There wasn't much need to throw deep all game to beat them.

[Integrity28]

Wrecks has nothing else to sell. Grant you the offense gives away time of and field possession like 2 dollar whores. But teams facing the Jets in  2012 knew their offense sucked. There wasn't much need to throw deep all game to beat them.

 

I don't think it's about what he's selling, it's about what he's prioritizing.

 

Defensive rankings matter to defensive coordinators, wins matter to coaches. 

[kay_gee]

so can Cro play both ways? TOP 5 OFFENSE!!!1!

[Gastineau Lives]

Wrecks has nothing else to sell. Grant you the offense gives away time of and field possession like 2 dollar whores. But teams facing the Jets in  2012 knew their offense sucked. There wasn't much need to throw deep all game to beat them.

Exactly, they could just throw those high percentage short passes to the tune of 54% ALL DAY

[Greenseed4]

I don't think it's about what he's selling, it's about what he's prioritizing.

 

Defensive rankings matter to defensive coordinators, wins matter to coaches. 

 

BOOM.  

 

I can't think of another head coach who talks about the specific ranking of either side of the ball. 

[rillo]

Good to know. 

[Sperm Edwards]

Why does it always have to be about "you"

 

Because you quoted me, you silly goose.

[JoeKlecko]

so can Cro play both ways? TOP 5 OFFENSE!!!1!

 

Of course he can!  Just ask him.  Last year he said he was the best receiver on the team.

[SayNoToDMC]

Of course he can! Just ask him. Last year he said he was the best receiver on the team.

He said second best, he was being modest

[JoeKlecko]

He said second best, he was being modest

 

Dammmm!  That's my second mistake today.  I must be slipping. LOL

[GKnight83]

Well it appears the Jets have seen the game film and the D got yelled at.  I am assuming Cro got a lot of crap for his poor tackling as he then proceeded to go out and pound on the jets already depleted receiving corp.  There you have it - our team of 1's and individual egos.

[Kleckineau]

Rex predicts top 5 "D"

I guess thats an improvement over predicting visits to the White House and by the way even during his 1st 2 years here when the defense actually was a really top flight defensive team they never were and  to this day still arent a defensive unit that would get the big time pivotal stop. I'd rather see a statistically middle of the road defense that comes up big at crunch time to win big games.

[LWC611]

Don't talk about it Rex, be about it...

[Il Mostro]

I don't give a rat's ass about Top 5.  What I do like is Cro's new found chipiness.   This and telling the offense to "shut up and play" are indicative of the attitude that goes a long way in making him the leader of the D.  Who would have thunk it?

[Sperm Edwards]

BOOM.  

 

I can't think of another head coach who talks about the specific ranking of either side of the ball.

I admit it does irk me a bit. Every post-game presser he rambles off about a dozen stats it seems. The stats aren't the reasons we lost or won. They are compilations of numbers that don't tell the whole story because they don't tell WHY they are good or bad stats. Stating the reasons themselves instead would make the stats redundant.

In other words a defense doesn't suck one game because the other team's 3rd down conversion percentage was high. That would suggest there's a "low opponent 3rd down conversion" play that they practice. What he should be addressing is the REASONS for those stats: "We missed a bunch of tackles [or couldn't get any pressure on the QB or we blew pass coverages or whatever] so the other team stayed on offense." THAT is the reason a defense is bad on a given day (same thing when they or the offense is good).

The reason it bothers me is it makes me concerned that game plays called are dictated by statistics from our prior game rather than focusing on why the stats were bad in the first place. I don't know, that probably doesn't happen, but it just makes it sound so over-simplified that the concern is the coach has over-simplified it (and in that case the problem will not be remedied).

It's like with my favorite whipping boy QB. Just because 5 passes in a row are completed doesn't mean he made 5 good passes in a row. Maybe there was only a completion because of good catches. Maybe someone else was open for a deeper pass that would have been of greater benefit. Maybe if the pass was placed better then a 10-yard pass would have turned into a 30-yard TD. Stats, looked at by themselves, can suggest good play when it wasn't (much like drops on perfect passes aren't on the QB even though the QB is the only one who suffers statistically).

[MexiRoll6]

Anyway, today Rex went back on his statement - or rather he took back his statement - saying he, "Didn't want to put any additional pressure on the players." Maybe the mighty mouth is learning, but as usual it is too little too late. Rex needs to learn that once those words escape your lips and are caught on tape, that's it. You said it. Forever. My advice to rex after he made the SB boast was to just shut up and coach the team. He didn't listen.

[Bugg]

I admit it does irk me a bit. Every post-game presser he rambles off about a dozen stats it seems. The stats aren't the reasons we lost or won. They are compilations of numbers that don't tell the whole story because they don't tell WHY they are good or bad stats. Stating the reasons themselves instead would make the stats redundant.

In other words a defense doesn't suck one game because the other team's 3rd down conversion percentage was high. That would suggest there's a "low opponent 3rd down conversion" play that they practice. What he should be addressing is the REASONS for those stats: "We missed a bunch of tackles [or couldn't get any pressure on the QB or we blew pass coverages or whatever] so the other team stayed on offense." THAT is the reason a defense is bad on a given day (same thing when they or the offense is good).

The reason it bothers me is it makes me concerned that game plays called are dictated by statistics from our prior game rather than focusing on why the stats were bad in the first place. I don't know, that probably doesn't happen, but it just makes it sound so over-simplified that the concern is the coach has over-simplified it (and in that case the problem will not be remedied).

It's like with my favorite whipping boy QB. Just because 5 passes in a row are completed doesn't mean he made 5 good passes in a row. Maybe there was only a completion because of good catches. Maybe someone else was open for a deeper pass that would have been of greater benefit. Maybe if the pass was placed better then a 10-yard pass would have turned into a 30-yard TD. Stats, looked at by themselves, can suggest good play when it wasn't (much like drops on perfect passes aren't on the QB even though the QB is the only one who suffers statistically).

Simply under Wrecks there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of self-analysis and not sure they employ any real quality control people to break down tape. They gave up almost nothing  to a Cards team without a real QB; is that something they celebrated? Statistically it was almost certainly wonderful, but practically meaningless. Indicates Ryan is his dad, crowing about stuff that doesn't much matter to a winning football team because this is not a winning football team. Above all without a QB that can get the offense in the end zone regularly there's no point. Ryan is dead man walking trying to pad his resume for his next DC job. 

 

And I'm fine with Idzik keeping him around for this dead year. This team isn't winning anything this year. Get rid of the bad contracts, find out who can be a player here in 2014 and start fresh with a new head coach after Ryan gets canned in January.

[MexiRoll6]

In other words a defense doesn't suck one game because the other team's 3rd down conversion percentage was high. That would suggest there's a "low opponent 3rd down conversion" play that they practice. What he should be addressing is the REASONS for those stats: "We missed a bunch of tackles [or couldn't get any pressure on the QB or we blew pass coverages or whatever] so the other team stayed on offense." THAT is the reason a defense is bad on a given day (same thing when they or the offense is good). 
Exactly right Sperm and Rex's defense is notorious for missing tackles while going for the big "wow" hit. I see it every game, with guys sliding off players or getting spun off. I wonder why Rex doesn't make tackling, rather than 'scheming' a priority.

[DMaynard]

I think the defense would be a lot better if they played a base 4-3 instead of 3-4. Not only because they have more good d-linemen than LBers, but I think 5 of the 7 are better suited to the 4-3. Coples is not an OLB. He is potentially an ideal weakside 4-3 DE. Richardson is ideally suited for the 3 technique DT. Muhammad can play either, but probably strong side DE in a 4-3 a little better. Ellis would probably be equally suited for the 3-4 NT or 4-3 strong side DT. I think Davis would be better at strong side 4-3 OLB than inside 3-4.

 

The only downside I see is playing MLB in a 4-3 would be more difficult for Harris's limited sideline to sideline range than 3-4 inside LB. And Pace does not have the quickness to be as effective as a weakside 4-3 OLB. 

 

But Rex is a stubborn boy.

[JoeKlecko]

Anyway, today Rex went back on his statement - or rather he took back his statement - saying he, "Didn't want to put any additional pressure on the players." Maybe the mighty mouth is learning, but as usual it is too little too late. Rex needs to learn that once those words escape your lips and are caught on tape, that's it. You said it. Forever. My advice to rex after he made the SB boast was to just shut up and coach the team. He didn't listen.

 

It's who he is.  That's why I think his fans better enjoy the next 4-5 months and soak it up for all it's worth, because I don't think he'll be with the team following the season.  He just doesn't get it.  He focuses on the wrong things and can't get beyond his stupid bravado.  He's a very good DC (not great, because his D units don't come up with the great plays to stop drives and win games), players love to play for him (for a while), but not a complete or good HC.

[Apache 51]

Rex being Rex, this D is young gonna be sick in 2 years.

[JoeKlecko]

Rex being Rex, this D is young gonna be sick in 2 years.

 

Too bad he won't be here to see it.  

[T0mShane]

Like a baseball player on a losing team who will recite his batting average even after committing two errors in the field.