(March, 2011) Hey, Mike. You're Losing Me, Man.

[Oldfan]

...Well, if I may, I've pointed out how the Lions have ignored their OL, and a possible result of this is that Stafford is made of glass and missing a hell of a lot of time to bad injuries for a QB. (as I recall, all of his injuries have happened in the pocket.)

I think you have to take your QB when the opportunity presents itself. It's the same with all the positions. If the draft offers O-line talent, you take it. If the draft offers a QB, you take him.

---------- Post added May-14th-2011 at 06:18 AM ----------

I think you are stuck in the 1980s OF . You cannot take 5-7 to build a dynasty anymore . You simply cannot ...

What does 5-7 mean? If you are talking about years, I don't know where you got those numbers, but it wasn't from me. How long it takes will depend on where you begin and how good you are in recognizing young talent. The Redskins could build a solid core in two or three years if they do well in the draft.

The only reason that its harder to become the number one franchise today than in the 80s is that we now have 31 teams to beat.

Smart teams find ways to get their players in FA, the draft, through trades, or plucking people from obscurity .

If you don't talk about the primary ways of obtaining talent, that's a meaningless statement. Is there a smart team that wasn't built primarily through the draft? Doesn't it make sense then that if you need to rebuild your core, it must be done primarily through the draft?

Bang - You also didn't mention in the Jets rise to prominance the role of their D - D still wins championships and a strong forceful (not necessarily statistically great) D trumps most things .

The first time I heard someone say "Defense wins championships," Lombardi's Packers were used to support the argument. The Packers annually had the #1 ranked defense, while their offense came in at #4 or 5.

The problem is that those rankings use yards as a measurement. The Packers had the best ball control offense in the game's history. Their long, time-consuming drives resulted in games with fewer drives for both teams which, in turn, lowers the yardage numbers for both offense and defense.

The Jets have been playing a boring, conservative, ball control offense since young Shotty arrived. That kind of offense makes the defense look better than it really is.

[Bang]

I agree with all of that.

However, my point was that for the most part they were a mediocre to bad team. Then they made some "rebuilding" moves and also made some "win now" moves. According to Oldfan, that can't possibly lead to success, even though it has.

I give a lot of credit to Rex Ryan, personally. I think he's a hell of a motivator, and his players respond to him. His attitude is infectious and it's got that whole team believing in itself. That can be more than half the battle.

Well, you know,, in looking over what I have written about the Jets, Lions, Rams.. it shows me that Oldfan and I arent too far apart after all.
Because in analyzing all of those situations, especially in my last post, it is obvious that rookie QB has a tougher road if the OL isn't tight. (Now, this is indeed "no kidding" type info, but just the same...)
Which falls directly into OF's line of thinking of core positions rather than core players.
Detroit fills their core LT position with a sub par player, and Stafford pays the heavy price.
The Rams fill the tackle spots with young draft choices, and Bradford excels in part because they did well.
And now with the Jets, I'm pointing out that Sanchez has the luxury of these stud linemen to protect him while he learns.

~Bang

[Oldfan]

...Regardless of what you think they should or shouldn't do, I'm pretty confident the Ford family isn't going to fire Schwartz after this season. That organization has become about patience and building properly and they won't make a senseless knee jerk decision about their coach even if they have another losing season. Besides, Detroit is trending up. 8-8 is a more realistic goal for them than it is for us. They're already picking after we are...

I don't think you could do much better than Mayhew and Schwartz have done when you think about how little they had to work with. The trade of Roy Williams to Dallas was like hitting a homerun in their first AB; they have avoided the temptation to clog their roster with FAs, and they have taken the BPA in making their top picks rather than trying to force to fill needs. If Stafford's nagging shoulder problem can be corrected by surgery, they are in good shape. He looks like a winner to me.

[Bang]

Bang - You also didn't mention in the Jets rise to prominance the role of their D - D still wins championships and a strong forceful (not necessarily statistically great) D trumps most things . The next most important thing is the trenches specifically the OL - I think we took some steps that way last year but I do question what the plan is this season .

I'll credit Ryan all day for that. Defense is his game, and he definitely has that unit primed and ready for every single snap.

~Bang

---------- Post added May-14th-2011 at 05:14 PM ----------

I don't think you could do much better than Mayhew and Schwartz have done when you think about how little they had to work with. The trade of Roy Williams to Dallas was like hitting a homerun in their first AB; they have avoided the temptation to clog their roster with FAs, and they have taken the BPA in making their top picks rather than trying to force to fill needs. If Stafford's nagging shoulder problem can be corrected by surgery, they are in good shape. He looks like a winner to me.

I'd agree but I don't think the BPA has helped them in their early picks. I mean, it HAS, they've gotten some good players,, Suh is going to be a stud for many years I believe.. Fairley should be very good as well.. but they have ignored that OL, and Stafford is truly at risk now. Any hit can be it. (Now, I know that is the same for any player at any time, but with him it's magnified because of the nature of these injuries.)
Surgery is one thing, but unless they plan on reinforcing those clavicle bones, I don't know what they can do. (Then again, I'm no surgeon. There may be a way.)
I just know that the clavicle is the weakest bone in the body, eaiest to break. It has very little support, and once broken it gets progressively weaker. It only takes nine pounds of pressure to snap a healthy one,, you can do it with a well placed thumb.
I think their ignoring the OL to over-stock on DL is going to haunt them.
And it's a shame, because I love Stafford's moxie, his leadership and enthusiasm. He has everything it takes to be a fine QB and great leader in the league. Everything but healthy shoulders.

~Bang

[Oldfan]

...I think their ignoring the OL to over-stock on DL is going to haunt them. And it's a shame, because I love Stafford's moxie, his leadership and enthusiasm. He has everything it takes to be a fine QB and great leader in the league. Everything but healthy shoulders.

It's true that the Lions have not spent a high draft pick on an O-lineman. It's also true that Matt Stafford was injured when sacked. However, I don't think you can jump to the conclusion that Matt Stafford would not have been injured if the Lions had drafted an O-lineman to protect him.

Left Tackle Jeff Backus, who allowed the hit that injured Stafford, had a very good year in 2010 allowing just 4 sacks in 16 games. By comparison, Trent Williams, the fourth pick in the draft, allowed 11.5 in 14 games. Russell Okung, another highly regarded prospect at LT the Lions passed on, allowed 4 sacks playing only in ten games.

http://hosted.stats.com/fb/findplaye...on&position=95

The Lions were #6 in the NFL with 27 sacks allowed
The Skins were #28 with 46 sacks allowed

[Bang]

It's true that the Lions have not spent a high draft pick on an O-lineman. It's also true that Matt Stafford was injured when sacked. However, I don't think you can jump to the conclusion that Matt Stafford would not have been injured if the Lions had drafted an O-lineman to protect him.

Left Tackle Jeff Backus, who allowed the hit that injured Stafford, had a very good year in 2010 allowing just 4 sacks in 16 games. By comparison, Trent Williams, the fourth pick in the draft, allowed 11.5 in 14 games. Russell Okung, another highly regarded prospect at LT the Lions passed on, allowed 4 sacks playing only in ten games.

http://hosted.stats.com/fb/findplaye...on&position=95

The Lions were #6 in the NFL with 27 sacks allowed
The Skins were #28 with 46 sacks allowed

this is true, any player can be taken out at any time. He has been injured in the pocket, and frankly, over the last few years they haven't kept many QBs standing for very long. They may not give up many sacks, but they seem to have a lot of QBs using the medical plan.
I don't even expect that you have to spend a high pick on an OL, but they've only picked four total (including the one this year, their last pick ofv the draft,, practicaly an afterthought, it would appear.) Even trying to maybe take some late round fliers, practice squad material,, developmental players, but I don't even really see that.
Backus is not bad, but he's getting into his 11th year now.. perhaps they felt he could hold it down long enough for them to rebuild other units first. I just think they've gone way to heavy on one side of the line.

~Bang

[Oldfan]

...Backus is not bad, but he's getting into his 11th year now.. perhaps they felt he could hold it down long enough for them to rebuild other units first. I just think they've gone way to heavy on one side of the line...

I think it more likely that Martin Mayhew has read my posts and has been convinced that any roster-building plan that begins with, "We should do this first..." is doomed to fail.

Picking good players out of the draft is tough enough without adding "need," a factor which has nothing at all to do with the quality of the player. If you have two players who grade out pretty much on a par, then need is a tiebreaker.

BTW, the Lions spent a 5th round pick on this player:

Rob Sims, 26, was the Seahawks’ starting left guard last year, but the new Pete Carroll regime decided he didn’t fit the zone-blocking scheme of offensive line coach Alex Gibbs and asked him to stay away from the facility the last few weeks while they worked out a trade.

[skinsnshanny]

I

The problem is that those rankings use yards as a measurement. The Packers had the best ball control offense in the game's history. Their long, time-consuming drives resulted in games with fewer drives for both teams which, in turn, lowers the yardage numbers for both offense and defense.

The Jets have been playing a boring, conservative, ball control offense since young Shotty arrived. That kind of offense makes the defense look better than it really is.

2010 Jets ranked 3rd in overall defense (there was a major drop after 3), lets test your overrated theory
2010 Jets ranked 3rd in yards per play (there was a major drop after 3)...hmmm
(Also, the Jets were number 11 in pays against...)

2009 Jets ranked first in overall defense
2009 Jets ranked first in yards per play. (also first in points)
---->But not only that, they were .6 yards/play better than number 2. (thats a huge gap!)
---->number 2 was .6 yards ahead of...number 19.
(The Jet also did NOT have the fewest plays run against them....)

Not even close. So much for the jets overrated theory.

[Oldfan]

2010 Jets ranked 3rd in overall defense (there was a major drop after 3), lets test your overrated theory
2010 Jets ranked 3rd in yards per play (there was a major drop after 3)...hmmm
(Also, the Jets were number 11 in pays against...)

2009 Jets ranked first in overall defense
2009 Jets ranked first in yards per play. (also first in points)
---->But not only that, they were .6 yards/play better than number 2. (thats a huge gap!)
---->number 2 was .6 yards ahead of...number 19.
(The Jet also did NOT have the fewest plays run against them....)

Not even close. So much for the jets overrated theory.

I can't make sense of the way you used your stats in this context. Out of Brian Schottenmheimer's five-year run with the Jets, you picked a couple of stats from 2009 and a couple others from 2010, making the cherry -picking obvious.

"The apple doesn't fall far from the tree." Brain Schottenheimer's offense in nothing but a more complex, WCO-tinged version of "Martyball." To prove or disprove that statement, one might provide the following:

A team playing a conservative, ball control game would logically be ranked higher in rush attempts as a percentage of all plays. However, since all teams run more when they have a lead, this stat would have to be broken down by situations.

Also, a team playing a conservative, ball control game will adopt a conventional, Walsh-WCO approach to their passing game. Brian Schottenheimer does this . So, logically, a team that does a lot of short passing is playing that game (Chad Pennington was good at that). That stat would rank the Jets on average yards per completion minus yards after catch (YAC).

On the other hand, any knowledgeable football fan who has watched Young Schotty's offense a few times over the past five years would not need the stats to confirm my observation.

A knowledgeable fan would not question my claim that a ball control offensive strategy will enhance the ranking of the defense either. The reasons are purely logical deductions to one who understands the game.

Jim Zorn's WCO, playing ball control, helped Blache's defense to a higher ranking. Shanahan's McNabb-generated big play offense, unable to play ball control, made the defense look worse than it really was.

[pimpumd]

I can't make sense of the way you used your stats in this context. Out of Brian Schottenmheimer's five-year run with the Jets, you picked a couple of stats from 2009 and a couple others from 2010, making the cherry -picking obvious.

Come on Oldfan, this is a pretty weak response. Skinsnshanny just showed you that the Jets were ranked in 1st and 3rd in the league in consecutive seasons in defensive yards per play (not total yards). That is not cherry-picking statistics. It is showing you that, even if it's correct that Brian Schottenheimer's offense allows the opposing offenses less possessions and therefore less overall yardage against the Jets D, the Jets D was still the best in the league in average defensive yards per play---completely disproving the total yardage argument you made.

On the other hand, any knowledgeable football fan who has watched Young Schotty's offense a few times over the past five years would not need the stats to confirm my observation.

A knowledgeable fan would not question my claim that a ball control offensive strategy will enhance the ranking of the defense either. The reasons are purely logical deductions to one who understands the game.

This is absolutely laughable, OF. Come on, this is just a convenient way for you to throw out any statistics that don't support your opinion. Utter bull****.

[Oldfan]

pimpund: Come on Oldfan, this is a pretty weak response. Skinsnshanny just showed you that the Jets were ranked in 1st and 3rd in the league in consecutive seasons in defensive yards per play (not total yards). That is not cherry-picking statistics. It is showing you that, even if it's correct that Brian Schottenheimer's offense allows the opposing offenses less possessions and therefore less overall yardage against the Jets D, the Jets D was still the best in the league in average defensive yards per play---completely disproving the total yardage argument you made.

This is the argument I made: "Defense wins championships" is not true. This mistaken belief is the result of defenses being overrated based on the total yardage rankings which are enhanced by ball control style offenses. The defensive yards-per-play stat offered is irrelevant to that argument.

Even if I had claimed that the Jets had a lousy defense, the defensive yards-per-play stat would not disprove me on its own because teams that are suseptible to the run more than the pass will have deceptively low defensive yards-per-play stats because runs average 4 yards per play while passes average 7 per play.

Ranking offenses and defenses accurately would require a complex formula of the kind that they are working on at Football Outsiders. The only thing you prove when you use individual NFL stats to attempt it is that you don't understand the problem.

[skinsnshanny]

This is the argument I made: "Defense wins championships" is not true. This mistaken belief is the result of defenses being overrated based on the total yardage rankings which are enhanced by ball control style offenses. The defensive yards-per-play stat offered is irrelevant to that argument.

Even if I had claimed that the Jets had a lousy defense, the defensive yards-per-play stat would not disprove me on its own because teams that are suseptible to the run more than the pass will have deceptively low defensive yards-per-play stats because runs average 4 yards per play while passes average 7 per play.

Ranking offenses and defenses accurately would require a complex formula of the kind that they are working on at Football Outsiders. The only thing you prove when you use individual NFL stats to attempt it is that you don't understand the problem.

No you said the Jets defense was overrated.

I showed you it wasnt.

Plain and Simple

[pimpumd]

No you said the Jets defense was overrated.

I showed you it wasnt.

Plain and Simple

Yep.

That kind of offense makes the defense look better than it really is.

The Jets defense is actually as good as it looks.

[Oldfan]

No you said the Jets defense was overrated.

I implied that when I stated these two facts: The Jets have been playing a boring, conservative, ball control offense since young Shotty arrived. That kind of offense makes the defense look better than it really is.

For clarification, let's suppose that NFL yardage stat show a team's defense at #5 and the offense at #10. If the offense runs a ball control scheme, the defense should be ranked lower and the offense higher. If the offense is a big play offense, weak on ball control, then the defense should be ranked higher and the offense lower.

I showed you it wasnt.

All you showed is that you don't understand that the defensive yards-per-play stat is not a reliable stat for grading defenses. It might even be more deceptive as a measurement than the NFL's total yards rankings which stats guys make jokes about.

[pimpumd]

I implied that when I stated these two facts: The Jets have been playing a boring, conservative, ball control offense since young Shotty arrived. That kind of offense makes the defense look better than it really is.

For clarification, let's suppose that NFL yardage stat show a team's defense at #5 and the offense at #10. If the offense runs a ball control scheme, the defense should be ranked lower and the offense higher. If the offense is a big play offense, weak on ball control, then the defense should be ranked higher and the offense lower.

This is baloney. The per-play averages make this type of argument irrelevant. You don't discount a good defense simply because it happens to be on a team that also has a ball-control offense. That's ridiculous.

The Chargers led the league in offense, in both total yards and yards per play. They were a big-play offense. They were first in the league in +20 yards passing plays, second in the league in +40 yard passing plays. However, this big-play Chargers also led the league in defense in total yards, and were second in defensive yards-per-play (4.6 yards per play).

This totally flies in the face of what you just said. You are assuming that a ball-control offense will always have a better time-of-possession than a big play offense, thereby allowing their defense to play less and therefore allow fewer yards. This just isn't the case. The Chargers led the league in time-of-possession despite it's big-play offense. Perhaps that's because it's highly rated defense was able to consistently get off the field and get the ball to the offense. According to you, the Chargers' big-play offense should have precluded it's defense from leading the league in total yards allowed.

All you showed is that you don't understand that the defensive yards-per-play stat is not a reliable stat for grading defenses. It might even be more deceptive as a measurement than the NFL's total yards rankings which stats guys make jokes about.

Wrong. See above. You only say this because it doesn't fit your description of the Jets defense.