this would be a nice move. all us fans could skip the offseason optimism and go right to hating this guy. i love saving time
FWIW, Mike McCarthy was the offensive coordinator of the 32nd ranked offense before becoming the Packers head coach and that's worked out pretty well for Green Bay.
WOOOO! One story that had a good ending. Is this supposed allow for optimism of this speculation? Who honestly wouldnt rather a coach from a SUCCESSFUL offense? McCarthy actually had success on offense with Favre when he was his QB coach and the next year won Assistant coach of the year. The 49ers offense was plagued by injuries and had a rookie QB and they ranked 31st. So out of all of his years, you look at his worst year? Koetter has produced not much at all. His best success is a 15th ranked offense in 5 years. How would this be an improvement over what our current offensive staff?
Being an OC for the Jets where you have to completely run our offense is different then HC of a team with amazing players on offense and a great OC.
They beat playoff teams like Pittsburg, Cincy, the Giants, and Detroit in the regular season. Despite the easy division schedule they took care of business against tougher opponents as well.
They beat Pitt at home when Roethlisberger was a gimp. Cincy never beat a winning team this year and was a joke of a playoff team. Detroit was a nice win and the Giants were a nice home win. They had a very favorable schedule. 13-3 is nothing to laugh at, but you could look at there schedule after about 8 weeks and pretty much pencil them into the #2 seed. I don't think they'll be able to keep up with the Saints next weekend.
This is kind of a myth. There is a new trend that with Rex Ryan in the forefront where teams are beginning to load up against the pass on their rosters, and the heavy rushing teams will benefit if the have most of those teams on their schedule. Rules changes will always favor the pass at this point, but offensive production tends to balance itself out when given an adjustment period. As far as coaches go, I am surprised more people aren't talking about the possibility that the Jets could be looking at a combo of Sparano and Haley to replace Schotty.
Exactly. The NFL today is a QB/passing game centric league. The old school mentality of basing your offense on 3 yards and a cloud of dust is no longer the formula for success that it once was. The Super Bowl MVPs since 2000 have been Warner, Lewis, Brady (2x), Jackson, Branch, Ward, P. Manning, E. Manning, Holmes, Brees, and Rodgers. That's 7 QBs, 3 WRs, and 1 LB, and 1 Safety. The last running back was Terrell Davis in 1998 and before that Emmit Smith in '94 and OJ Anderson in '91. This should make it pretty damn clear that if you want to win a Super Bowl in this league (which should be the Jets goal) that you MUST have a potent passing attack.
Rex does it while keeping a huge but slow front 7 which slows down most rushing attacks. It's vulnerable against McCoy and McFadden types, but for the most part stout against the run. You do make an interesting point about it eventually balancing out, I hope you're right.
Why do superbowl MVP's matter? All that matters is which team wins. Not true. You might think that after watching the Packers last year, but lets look at the last six years since I believe there was a major uptick in passing stats around 2005-2006. The first number it the teams overall defense, the second is their pass offense, the third is their rushing offense. 2010 Packers (5th Defense) (5th Passing ) (24th Rushing) 2009 Saints (25th Defense) (4th Passing) (6th Rushing) 2008 Steelers (1st Defense) (17th Passing) (23rd rushing) 2007 Giants (7th Defense) (21st Passing), (4th Rushing) 2006 Colts (21st Defense) (2nd Passing), (18th rushing) 2005 Steelers (4th Defense) (24th passing), (5th Rushing) Three of the last six superbowl winners have had a bad pass offense (ranked 17th or lower!). So you do not need a pass offense to win the Superbowl. Of those teams that didn't have a good pass offense, you will notice they all ranked high on defense (above 7th) and rushing with the exception of the 2008 Steelers which had the #1 defense. The only team that won with a good passing game, a bad defense, and a bad rushing attack was the 2006 Colts.
The league has changed drastically the last few years, especially this year towards the passing game. What happened in 2008 isn't really relevant anymore IMO. We had three 5000 yard passers in 2011, two of them breaking a 30 year old record.
In 2008 Brees broke 5000 yards, in 2009 there were ten 4000 yard passers (like this year). I agree this year is more out of control than the previous one, but the uptick in passing stats started a few years earlier...It's just getting worse (or better for people who like arena league football). I can't really find the article, but there was one that pegged part of this to rule changes in the mid 2000's? I did find these: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/01/run-pass-balance-historical-analysis.html http://deadspin.com/5849055/the-real-reason-for-the-nfls-passing-explosion http://bloguin.com/thisgivensunday/...er/the-evolution-of-the-nfl-passing-game.html I do agree it's out of control. Maybe part of this years uptick is because of YAC due to stronger enforcement of hitting defenseless WRs? The deadspin article mentions this. I still think you don't have to totally build your team around pass offense, and that usually teams also have a good run offense, or a good defense to complement a pass offense. I do still think you can win running the ball, look at Denver and Baltimore this season. It's just that the rules favor passing.
They were above average up the middle and average at the edge in terms of run defense. Maybe that can be attributed to the loss of Bryan Thomas, but I also thing it's attributable to their dependency on teams to attack the hashmarks in the passing game. The Jets maintained 6th ranked passing defense from 2010 to 2011 but dropped from 3rd ranked rushing defense all the way down to 13th. You can't just attribute that to a couple of injuries.
Just for fun, Sanchez was about 500 yards short of 4000, and had 8 games where he passed for under 200 yards. Had he put up an additional 65 yards in those games, Sanchez would be in the 4000 club. Also looking at the 4000 club, all of them have some damn good receivers.
I was just trying to point out that the teams that did win were propelled to victory in the Super Bowl by their respective passing games (QB or WR) and that when it comes to winning a championship that having a strong running game has not been nearly as important as having a strong passing game. The Steelers in 2008 had the league's best defense and won that game for 2 reasons: the 100yd INT return and Holmes turning into superman. Even with Pitts great defense that year, they do not win that game without Holmes and the passing game being as good as it was. The Giants in 2007 won their SB because of Eli Manning and because of David Tyree's ridiculous catch. The top rusher in the game was Ahmad Bradshaw who gained a whopping 45 yards and was a non factor. The Giants do not win this SB without Eli Manning. I am not at all saying that a strong running game isn't important, because it obviously is. All I am saying is that teams that win Super Bowls tend to at least have the ability to be very dangerous throwing the ball, and that that ability is often the deciding factor when it comes to winning a championship.
