The 98 passing offense was vastly superior to what the Jets have now. It's not the point I'm making. The Jets running game is extremely capable and in my opinion is better than the overall running game the Jets had in 98. As for Greene, it's speculation. Going into the draft Shonn Greene was the top prospect I wanted of anyone in the entire draft, and when we got him I went nuts... I was absolutely THRILLED with that pick. I don't know for sure that he'll be great but my gut tells me he will be. He's the reason I'm comfortable with letting Jones go. I'm very much looking forward to Washington starting and Greene being the change of pace.
I don't think you can make a generalization about what will happen with contracts. That's always dependent on each player, and will continue to be so.
I just see so many leave and I can't remember the last one who may have been re-signed. Vets now, not people coming off their rookie deals. Washington will be one of those.
While I love the talent assembled in the Jets' starting ranks, you can't just fall in love with the players and say this was the best way to assemble a team. Tannenbaum traded 2 entire drafts for 4 players and then half-assed it via free agency up until 2008. He was doing it the BradWay. That's mainly the reason for our terrible depth. Look at the teams that are successful year-in and year-out. They re-load depth through the draft every single year. The flame-outs are the teams that refuse to deepen their rosters. i.e. the Redskins. That's a team that has no idea how to approach the draft and their roster suffers for it.
The teams that reload on depth had great starters to begin with. The Colts were awful until Peyton Manning came along. Once they had him, reloading depth was much easier. EDIT: What kind of depth did the Patriots have until Tom Brady materialized out of nowhere? Now that the Jets have Mark Sanchez, as well as the rest of the supporting cast in place, it'll be much easier. I also strongly disagree that Tannenbaum was doing things the BradWay. Tannenbaum's tenure and Bradway's should be clearly set apart from one another. Every trade Tannenbaum has made so far has panned out, and most of his draft picks as well. If you do a side by side comparison, Tannenbaum's been much stronger overall. He hasn't brought us gems like Doug Jolley and DeWayne Robertson.
I'm hardly condemning him. Lets just take this one step at a time though. I have hopes for him but I'm not allowing myself to get too excited about anything at this point. His college footage is pretty nice and he's made flashes in preseason, so we'll see. I'm not building any statues yet.
Nor am I. We have Jones for now and Greene doesn't have to do much. I'm expecting Greene to be utilized as a closer much in the same way LaMont Jordan was used when he was on the Jets... and I bet he'll look just as good. Jones has to know that it's futile for him to look for a new contract with Greene on the roster. Once this year is up Jones will be gone, Washington will be the starter, and Greene will be the 1-2 punch.
Agreed. Keller should be an absolute beast and nightmare for opposing defenses this year. In a way he is the replacement for Coles.
You concede the 98 passing O was "vastly superior", but attempt to balance that consideration by claiming the current running game is "better". Putting aside that there is some question whether that is in fact the case - as much as I am a Jones and Leon fan, Martin and that OL lead by Mawae was pretty effective - somewhat better is not vastly superior. In short, the O was much better in 98 no matter how you slice it.
It's not better. I'm arguing that the running game is better. It is relevant because the Jets are going to run a hell of a lot more than the Jets did in 98. I'd also argue that our weapons in the passing game while not great are good enough to keep the opposing defenses honest. The Jets offense is good enough to compete for the playoffs, no matter how you slice it.
we don't have enough in the passing game to keep anyone honest because a possession receiver and a 2nd year TE with a rookie QB with 16 starts in college has to decimate the 1st 3 teams they face in a row through the air before anyone in the NFL will take them seriously. They will play 8 in the box every snap until proven otherwise, and otherwise isn't coming any time soon.
We have a rookie QB, a rookie HC, very little in terms of depth at any position other than RB and S and you're comparing this team to the '98 squad? What what?
As I understand the argument, it is that the D will be very strong, and need only be complemented by a good running game, conceding the passing game is so so. First of all that does not add up to a team that is comparable to the 98 team. Beyond that I think Mick is correct, in fact it's just about a given in the NFL, that opposing D's will put 8 in the box until you make them pay for it. A very good running game can do well against a D who has to play honest, concerned about the passing attack? One that does not have the passing threat? Not so much. I think this should really be beyond discussion. Going further, the argument is that in fact the passing game WILL keep other teams honest. I highly doubt that, but perhaps they might surprise us. But counting on the passing game to keep opponents on their heels? I can't understand where that comes from.
This is an argument I hear all to often and I think it's not correct at all. Teams that run the ball face teams that stack the box to stop the run. This is a fact of life in a league that looks at film and game plans week to week. Teams that run the ball also match up to run the ball they don't run the ball effectively because they keep teams honest. That's not to say that running teams don't set up big play events during a game and use play action to kill the opponent set up to stop the run. What everyone assumes on this board is that we have a running game that can match up with teams that are coming in to stop the run. While the Jets were effective at running the ball last year the Jets were not a running team last year. It is yet to be determined if we can be a running team and match up with opponents who will come in with defensive game plans to stop a running team.
Putting words into my mouth. I compared our running game to that of the 98 running game. I'm not comparing the entire offense. If you want to make the argument that the 98 passing offense opened things up for the 98 rushing offense that is fine. If you also want to make the argument that the 08 passing game opened up things for the 08 rushing game, then I would counter that is going from Favre and Coles to Sanchez and a committee that much of a downgrade that suddenly our rushing game is going to drop off the face of the planet?
We have a rookie QB that has shown flashes of great things to come. We have a rookie HC who has shown balls and a polar opposite approach to football that Mangenius brought. We also have a rookie HC whose going to act in the capacity of defensive coordinator, something he's been nothing short of incredible at, and it's amazing how suddenly everyone is forgetting the Bob Sutton hate from last season. Our depth has only improved from last season at most positions. In fact, the only MAJOR dropoff from last season is losing Coles, who had a subpar year by his standard. And no I'm not comparing this team to the '98 team, I was making a point how our rushing game is superior to what we had the year we almost went all the way.
And hopefully those flashes continue throughout the season. I hope you're not expecting a rookie QB to come in and play better than Favre did for 3/4 of the season last year. He will almost certainly struggle throughout the season, especially early on. He may be great one day, but I wouldn't expect to think he will be in '09. He's a rookie. I am excited that Ryan will be a good coach but he hasn't proven anything as a HC yet other than he likes to talk. Sure he could be great, but he's not Bill Parcells. We've improved depth at most positions?? DL - No NT - No LB - Maybe Westerman. I haven't seen him yet. CB - Maybe - If Lito proves he's better than he looked against the shitty Giants receivers. He looked worse than Lowery or Law against them. S - Yes OL - Maybe - we don't know if Slauson is worth a damn TE - less depth WR - less depth QB - No RB - Yes Having a rookie QB is almost certainly a huge drop off from the first 3/4 of last season. I don't know if I really agree with that either.
