Jump to content

Jets Haven't Allowed 300 Yard Passer in 22 Games


Recommended Posts

Why is passing for over 300 yards good?  Go to last years 2 SB teams as an example.  Hurst had 1 300 yard game in 3 playoff games.  A loss to the Chiefs.  In his other 2 games he passed for 121 and 154.   Mahomes had 1 300 plus yard passing game in last years playoff.  A win against the Bengals.  He had 195 in their other win and 182 in the SB.

300 yard games aren't a goal.  Wins are the goal.  Their is no evidence that 300 yards is actually a good stat.  

Teams don't average over 300 yards passing per game in a season and it's not a goal of any team in any game.   It's a crazy measuring stick. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I think it's a combination of things all leading to a result.

1. The Jets have a good pass defense. It's not totally shut-down - or anyway, it certainly isn't always - but it's very good. I'm listing this first because I don't want the ancillary reasons to come across as negating this. At times this D is downright nasty and that's the truth. 

2. The Jets haven't built up many big leads that results in two things:

A) letting teams get a lot of garbage time yards while our D is in prevent, allowing plenty underneath so long as it's away from the sideline & the clock keeps ticking.

B) teams with potent passing attacks in such situations getting more than just garbage-time yards (i.e. shootouts)

C) if you have a lead vs. the Jets, as most have, why bother passing? Even if our run defense is pretty decent, it still eats up the clock. To avoid that, our defense would have to be total shutdown: teams can move the chains without getting gobs of yards per carry; all they need is enough to get 10 yards, or even half that plus an easy TE dumpoff. Seattle stopped passing early because of this; ditto Cleveland; 

D) lack of hurry-up for the final quarter. Even if a drive results in the same # of yards on a per-drive basis, there are 1-2 fewer drives. Just saw this with KC. 

3. Covering shorter routes from TEs, quick slants, and to RBs by design or checkdown, hasn't exactly been the D's strong suit, but it moves the chains without necessarily giving up a wad of yardage (CJM's 4th down embarrassment to lose the Detroit game notwithstanding, truth is 4400-yard/29-TD passer Goff had barely 200 yards & 0 TDs until then). Lawrence did this to us; lots of dink & dunk that didn't get a lot of yards (nor a lot of yards/attempt) but did move the chains & keep the clock ticking with a 2-TD lead. 

4. Small sample size containing a combination of weak passing teams plus a weak Jets offense rarely forcing them into abandoning the run themselves. We faced Green Bay literally the game after Rodgers first broke his thumb. We faced Chicago with their QB2 throwing to weak receivers; we faced Miami 2 of 2 times with Skyler Thompson rather than Tua; 

5. Remember bend but don't break? This defense is generally very strong except they're don't bend but do break, in a sense. They shut down quickly the other side on most drives, but give up scores on those they don't.

e.g. Opening game last year they forced 6 punts (typically after just 1-2 series) and a pick. That's good for yardage numbers. Meanwhile they also gave up 3 TD drives and lost (a TD and a FG had drives start in Jets territory, too). Similar with the Vikings game: 3 long TD drives, but very little other than that (and 2 more FG "drives" that began in Jets territory i.e. not much yardage to gain)

 I just got on a call so I have to end it here = fewer words = your loss.


image.png.4967527a41e881e9fff7518b92dc97cc.png

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Biggs said:

Why is passing for over 300 yards good?  Go to last years 2 SB teams as an example.  Hurst had 1 300 yard game in 3 playoff games.  A loss to the Chiefs.  In his other 2 games he passed for 121 and 154.   Mahomes had 1 300 plus yard passing game in last years playoff.  A win against the Bengals.  He had 195 in their other win and 182 in the SB.

300 yard games aren't a goal.  Wins are the goal.  Their is no evidence that 300 yards is actually a good stat.  

Teams don't average over 300 yards passing per game in a season and it's not a goal of any team in any game.   It's a crazy measuring stick. 

Agreed. 

I'd also add that total yards (whether they be total rushing yards, total passing yards, or total yards overall) can be incredibly misleading. Completion %, yards per attempt, yards per play, etc., are much more useful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, slimjasi said:

Agreed. 

I'd also add that total yards (whether they be total rushing yards, total passing yards, or total yards overall) can be incredibly misleading. Completion %, yards per attempt, yards per play, etc., are much more useful. 

Yes along with TOP and field position.  Sometimes the total offensive plays are a good indication as well.  If a team is running more plays by a significant amount it usually indicates they are dominating the game.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is they give it up in chunks that lead to points. They can go 3-6 drives in a row where they only give up a completion or two then they have two drives a game where the opposing offense marches down the field for big TD drives. They aren’t like those 2010s NE defenses that gave up lots of yards every drive but then clamped down for a FG/TO/punt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Biggs said:

Why is passing for over 300 yards good?  Go to last years 2 SB teams as an example.  Hurst had 1 300 yard game in 3 playoff games.  A loss to the Chiefs.  In his other 2 games he passed for 121 and 154.   Mahomes had 1 300 plus yard passing game in last years playoff.  A win against the Bengals.  He had 195 in their other win and 182 in the SB.

300 yard games aren't a goal.  Wins are the goal.  Their is no evidence that 300 yards is actually a good stat.  

Teams don't average over 300 yards passing per game in a season and it's not a goal of any team in any game.   It's a crazy measuring stick. 

I think I saw a stat that said that 300 yard games are only won 46% of the time. Time of possession and turnovers have a much bigger impact on the final score.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hex said:

I think I saw a stat that said that 300 yard games are only won 46% of the time. Time of possession and turnovers have a much bigger impact on the final score.

It could be argued that teams who throw for a lot of yards are doing so because they are playing from a trailing position, much like teams who rack up a lot of rush yardage are often playing with a lead. You run because you're winning, rather than win because you're running.

What is upsetting as a Jets fan is that we have very few 300+ yard passing games despite trailing for such a disproportionate amount of time. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Biggs said:

Yes along with TOP and field position.  Sometimes the total offensive plays are a good indication as well.  If a team is running more plays by a significant amount it usually indicates they are dominating the game.

Field position average isn't a big thing. We were 30th in opposing offenses' starting field positions but really we're talking about 2-3 yards difference from the mean, and it turns out was just 1 yard different than the NFC champs and 1.7 yards different than the world champs.  Like, is it a real factor when someone starts on the 27 instead of the 25? I think that's a hard argument to make.

Could be that right after a turnover or punt, when the other team quickly gets back on with a short field, the offense is (at that time) tired and dejected. Reasonable as that sounds, I'm not aware of any evidence that it's so. Overwhelmingly, most scoring/TD drives our D surrenders go for more than 50 yards (if not 60-80 yards). So while it sounds good and seems to make sense, I don't know there's any truth to it being a factor in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Field position average isn't a big thing. We were 30th in opposing offenses' starting field positions but really we're talking about 2-3 yards difference from the mean, and it turns out was just 1 yard different than the NFC champs and 1.7 yards different than the world champs.  Like, is it a real factor when someone starts on the 27 instead of the 25? I think that's a hard argument to make.

Could be that right after a turnover or punt, when the other team quickly gets back on with a short field, the offense is (at that time) tired and dejected. Reasonable as that sounds, I'm not aware of any evidence that it's so. Overwhelmingly, most scoring/TD drives our D surrenders go for more than 50 yards (if not 60-80 yards). So while it sounds good and seems to make sense, I don't know there's any truth to it being a factor in reality.

Who said field position average?  You realize a team that doesn't move the ball on O is getting field position through punting and recieving kickoffs on scores.  Offense to offense we are moving the ball 8 yards less per average per drive from our opponent.  We are scoring at roughly .40 percent of the rate of our opposition.  When a score happens the team scoring kicks off and gives the opponent good field position to start from.   When a team punts generally they are putting their opponent in bad field position unless they are pinned inside their 20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Biggs said:

Who said field position average?  You realize a team that doesn't move the ball on O is getting field position through punting and recieving kickoffs on scores.  Offense to offense we are moving the ball 8 yards less per average per drive from our opponent.  We are scoring at roughly .40 percent of the rate of our opposition.  When a score happens the team scoring kicks off and gives the opponent good field position to start from.   When a team punts generally they are putting their opponent in bad field position unless they are pinned inside their 20.

Like it or not, and however the starts of any drives come about, you are referring to starting field position average, when you're extrapolating that as a reason the Jets' defense hasn't surrendered these 300+ yard passing games.

Further, there's no statistical evidence put forth that suggests most of the scoring against us occurs on short fields. The only 30-point game the D surrendered this year resulted mostly from long drives, not short fields: 3 drives of 70+ and another of 55 led to 24 of the Cowboys' 30 points. They did get 2 late FGs following Cook's fumble and Zach's first pick, but at that point it was the 4th quarter & they were already down by three scores. 

Also you're making assumptions about crappy offenses (like ours) that punt a lot, yielding results of all these short fields when it does not. Kickoffs following scores typically result in field position between the 25-30 yard line. One need not pin an opponent via a punt to beat that or get within that ballpark.

The mean net punt these days is just over 40 yards, but consider that averages in lots of punts that are purposely kicked shorter from midfield or closer that won't travel (nor net) as far. Taking those out of the average, when punting from one's own side of the field the average net is going to be closer to 45 yards. 

Therefore: if your offensive drive gets out to at least your own 35-40 yard line a punt doesn't result in great yardage for the opponent like you presume it does. Kick from your own 35, net 45 yards past that = opponent starts on their own 20. 

Teams that miss field goals and fail to convert 4th downs (in traditional 4-down territory) - i.e. reaching or barely-missing FG range - will likewise give the opponent more favorable starting field position to that of a punt that originates from anywhere past one's own 20 or so. 

Unless the Jets were punting from their own 10-20 on like a third or more of their of drives, the vast disparity in starting field position assumptions is a myth. Punting from one's own 10? No doubt about it. But that is a comparatively low amount of drives. 

That's why even the worst offenses in the league, year after year, don't lead to opponents starting drives more than a few yards difference to that of the league average.

It's just not the factor it would seem to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Like it or not, and however the starts of any drives come about, you are referring to starting field position average, when you're extrapolating that as a reason the Jets' defense hasn't surrendered these 300+ yard passing games.

Further, there's no statistical evidence put forth that suggests most of the scoring against us occurs on short fields. The only 30-point game the D surrendered this year resulted mostly from long drives, not short fields: 3 drives of 70+ and another of 55 led to 24 of the Cowboys' 30 points. They did get 2 late FGs following Cook's fumble and Zach's first pick, but at that point it was the 4th quarter & they were already down by three scores. 

Also you're making assumptions about crappy offenses (like ours) that punt a lot, yielding results of all these short fields when it does not. Kickoffs following scores typically result in field position between the 25-30 yard line. One need not pin an opponent via a punt to beat that or get within that ballpark.

The mean net punt these days is just over 40 yards, but consider that averages in lots of punts that are purposely kicked shorter from midfield or closer that won't travel (nor net) as far. Taking those out of the average, when punting from one's own side of the field the average net is going to be closer to 45 yards. 

Therefore: if your offensive drive gets out to at least your own 35-40 yard line a punt doesn't result in great yardage for the opponent like you presume it does. Kick from your own 35, net 45 yards past that = opponent starts on their own 20. 

Teams that miss field goals and fail to convert 4th downs (in traditional 4-down territory) - i.e. reaching or barely-missing FG range - will likewise give the opponent more favorable starting field position to that of a punt that originates from anywhere past one's own 20 or so. 

Unless the Jets were punting from their own 10-20 on like a third or more of their of drives, the vast disparity in starting field position assumptions is a myth. Punting from one's own 10? No doubt about it. But that is a comparatively low amount of drives. 

That's why even the worst offenses in the league, year after year, don't lead to opponents starting drives more than a few yards difference to that of the league average.

It's just not the factor it would seem to be. 

I never said punts shorten field position.  They generally increase field position for the punting team.  Its free yards for failure.  Its one of the reasons the mean starting positions are very close.  Scoring reduces field position.  You have to kick off.
 

We are losing  8 yards O to O on every drive.  We are getting less yards and less points on average on every drive.  We are getting less yards per play and less plays.   The other team is gaining field position and turning it into points.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Biggs said:

I never said punts shorten field position.  They generally increase field position for the punting team.  Its free yards for failure.  Its one of the reasons the mean starting positions are very close.  Scoring reduces field position.  You have to kick off.
 

We are losing  8 yards O to O on every drive.  We are getting less yards and less points on average on every drive.  We are getting less yards per play and less plays.   The other team is gaining field position and turning it into points.  

I don't think it works like that, though.

This theoretically additive 8 yards, compounded drive after drive to become 40 yards after 5 drives or something, resets to zero (or pick your starting point/value) every time there is a scoring event and/or longer drive (long enough for the opponent to start any drive inside or around their own 25).

It's not some cumulative see-saw event where they see 8 yards more than we saw and it compounds until it results in a short field possession for them. That's not what happens. 

BTW I'm enjoying this, so thank you; no one else will argue this mundane bull***t with me. :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jets fans-  Masters of finding the black lining in everything positive.

Zach throws 300/4TDS/80% this weekend. There will be a multitude of posts about how he was "late", the 2nd TD was a terrible underthrown pass, he missed a wide open Wilson on a dump off, he "dirted" a ball, and the only reason he had a good game was because Denver sucks. Zach is still not a "NFL QB"

Just gets old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...