http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/05/22/backfields/index.html 25. New York Jets Decrease font Decrease font Enlarge font Enlarge font Mark Sanchez Every rookie quarterback is questionable, and the Jets' Mark Sanchez is no different. Who: QBs Mark Sanchez, Kellen Clemens; RBs Thomas Jones, Leon Washington Add/subtract: Brett Favre was set free to pester the NFC North for a job. Shonn Greene is a third-round pick that adds pop to the backfield, which Sanchez will need very much. Questionable: Any rookie QB is a question, even this Mark. And how much of a problem will Jones' agitation for another new deal be? The Thought: Sanchez needs to perform well and fast or face a New York-media-and-fan onslaught over his beefcake photo shoots and a high-profile rookie start a la Matt Leinart. Maybe it's a USC thing.
this won't go over well with the board. I get why its at 25. No QB that has the respect of a defense to keep them from loading up on the run, so they are expecting the run game to take a fall from last year. Fine, i accept that analysis. I'm not angry with it. I'd like the Jets to prove them wrong. I do not expect the same run dominance as last year unless one of the QBs can keep a defense honest... or, Schotty devises shifts and movements that can keep a defense off balance.
Leaving the Jets ranking totally out of it, it's a horrible column. First, it's just goofy to combine QBs and RBs in any kind of a ranking. Doing that is how you end up with stupid things like Maurice Jones-Drew part of the league's 32nd-ranked backfield. That's just dumb. Is Garrard-Jones-Drew in any way worse than the group offered up by Detroit, Washington, Seattle, Cleveland (and I could go on). I'd take those two players with broken legs over the combinations most of those other teams provide. You'd also like to think CNNSI would be competent enough not to misspell the name of a superstar running back like Steven Jackson, but I guess that's too much of a challenge for them.
I personally think 25 is underrating the Jets' backfield, but I'm not going to get too worked up over it. It is just some guy's opinion which means absolute zip.
The article title is misleading. It should be the best QB/RB combos in the NFL. "Best backfields" leads one to believe they mean the best RB's on a team. How could you have a scrub Pats backfield of Maroney and over the hill Fred Taylor in the Top 5. I mean what are they basing this on. Are they basing it on Maroney who has been an injury waiting to happen for his 3 yr career and hasn't come close to living up to expectations. He played in 3 games last year. And in those games he rushed for a grand total of 93 yards. Yes a whopping 31 yards a game. Furthermore I saw Belicheat take him out of games in favor of Slammin Sammy in a few games because of his lack of production. Fred Taylor has so much wear and tear on him for 32 he's like a 38 yr old RB. He is the most weathered RB in the NFL today. I like Fred but his best days are wayyy behind him. Besides Sammy Morris was NE's best back last year when healthy. And to not have the Carolina Panthers, the most dynamic running game in the league last year in the Top 5, another joke. This is purely about ranking RB's. Panthers have a so-so Qb in Jake Delhomme and they still managed to run on everyone last year including the vaunted Giants D which they shredded on Monday Night. DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart are at least Top 5 in the league. More like Top 3. I'd move San Diego down to 5 and have 1.) Giants 2.) Carolina 3.) Dallas 4.) Maybe Philly at 4 but not crazy about their backfield besides Westbrook.
Well then that means the Patsies have a good shot of at least finishing #24 on the best backfields list one ahead of the Jets. However this list is about all 32 teams in the league not just the Jets and Pats. Furthermore your statement lends even more credence to why this article is BS. They talk about Maroney and Taylor to support putting the Pats in the Top 5 in their article, yet their rushing success last year had almost nothing to do with Maroney. Contradictions abound.
The Pats were 6th in the league in rushing last year. I believe Brady, Taylor and a healthy Maroney are an upgrade to their backfield. The Pats have a great OL better than ours. While I don't think Brady will be as good as he was, I do believe he will be substantially better than either Clemens or Sanchez next year. I suspect with Brady back the Pats will have defenses much less locked into the box which should open their running game more. I also believe we will have more rushing attempts but far less YPC next year without Favre. Hard to see us in the top 15 in rushing yards with either a rookie QB or Clemens at QB. I can see the logic of this before the season starts.
True. You make some very good points. Logically what you're saying makes perfect sense. I just personally think there's 5 backfields in the league better than theirs. Atlanta was the one I forgot to mention earlier. I'd take Philly out of the Top 5 completely and put Atlanta in their place.
I could argue some of this stuff. In terms of yards per carry, the Jets were 5th and the Pats were 7th. New England's line allowed 48 sacks -- only four teams allowed more. Certainly Brady is an upgrade at quarterback, but Fred Taylor in while LaMont Jordan is gone looks like a wash given Taylor's age. As for Maroney, well, he's always healthy in the offseason. By this column's ridiculous groupings of QBs and RBs, the Patriots certainly belong ahead of the Jets. But I disagree that their running game or offensive line are better than New York's; the two are fairly comparable (and I at least like the Jets' backs much better).
It's an ok ranking. Jones is at the age where many RB's just fall off a cliff in terms of production. Sanchez is an untested rookie and Clemens failed his test. If the Jets backfield does well next year nobody will be surprised, but if it's a weakness on the team nobody will be surprised.
We ran a spread O and were essentially a passing team. The big YPC were a result of that. NE ranked 1st in rushing 1st downs and 1st in rushing 1st down % we were very pedestrain in both catagories in the bottom half of the league. The Jets were a pass first team we passed in running situations where YPC go down.
Well, New England also did an awful lot of running out of passing formations. Kevin Faulk, their second-leading rusher with over 500 yards, averaged over 6 yards per carry. He played almost exclusively in passing formations on passing downs. I agree the Jets were a pass-first team, but New England actually attempted more passes than the Jets did, and given Faulk's 83 carries -- most of which were out of passing formations -- it's not like their additional rushes over the Jets mean they were more of a running team. The lines are comparable. New England's looked a lot more ordinary with Cassel running the offense than Brady. Fortunately they still have arguably the league's most dangerous downfield threat at wideout to help out.
The item seems fair to me. It's not like the Jets have a proven backup QB. What is limiting with a rookie QB isn't the experience against the NFL but his knowlwdge of the play book. Teams need to dummy down offenses when rookies play.
NE attempted more passes than we did because they ran 114 more offensive plays than we did. NE passed 53% and ran 47% of their plays. We passed on 57% of our plays and ran 43% of our plays. 4% is significant. We were a bottom half of the league running team in attempts. Why do we have a big YPC and rank in the bottom half of the league in rushing attempts? The answer is clear, we were not a running team. We didn't move the chains, gain first downs by running the ball.
