Billshank Redemption Posted November 6, 2011 Posted November 6, 2011 yea good stuff people need to break things down more
Rex Ryan's Lapband Posted November 6, 2011 Posted November 6, 2011 NFL.com article overall reasonable analysis of Bills and Jets strenghts/weaknesses had this: "At the end of the day, the Jets have limited opposing quarterbacks to a league-low 60.5 quarterback rating, equaling a tough assignment for any signal-caller." Had me wondering, so I looked under the hood. And it's not so simple. 1st game Romo: 101.9 QB rating. Nope, not a tough assignment for him, just some clutch boneheadedness 3rd game Campbell: 81.7 QB rating. That's pretty standard for Campbell in a run-centered Oak O. Nope, not particularly tough day for him. 5th game Brady: 100.7 QB rating. Typically Brady. So three overall decent QB (I know some will disagree about Romo and Campbell, but overall that's what they are - decent QB) had quite nice outings. Just another day at the office, no tough assignment at all. Here's the ugly. 2nd game Carolina QB by Committee: Luke McCown 1.8 QB rating (no, that's not a typo - zero-one-point-eight: it was a good idea to release David Garrard and his 2010 90.8 QB rating, why?) Blaine Gabbert 102.8 QB rating (hmmm, maybe that's why?) 4th game Joe Flacco 37.4 QB rating (he's always been a hot-n-cold guy - traditionally it's been Cincy and GB who really pwn him but he seems to be having a bad year) 6th game Matt Moore 41.8 QB rating 7th game Philip Rivers 51.4 QB rating (a low point in an INT-prone year) The Jets beat up on two hapless backups in McCown and Moore, and gave a serious bad day to two quality QB who are overall having poor (for them) years. In other words, it's not that the Jets are limiting every QB they face to a mediocre QB rating of 60. It's "bimodal" to use the geek term - 3 of the 5 "decent" QBs they've faced have done just fine thank you, while 2 "decent" QB have struggled against them and they just beat the snot out of a couple of backups. Looking a little further under the hood, the Ravens are 13th and the Chargers 19th in sacks given up, while the Ravens are a dismal 23rd in the league in QB hits given up. These facts might have some bearing on the struggles of their QB against the blitz-happy Jets. As we all know, the Bills are #2 in sacks given up and #7 in QB hits, a testament to both good OL play and quick decision making/release by Fitz. We're on our 3rd string LT, but he did OK last couple games against a good pass rusher. So. If the OL continues its consistent play and Fitz continues his ability to read-and-react, there is absolutely no reason to believe he will not have a good outing. On the other hand, if the OL falls apart and we can't adjust by leaving in blockers, the Jets could give Fitz fits. Oh, by the way - the Jets are 15th in QB hits and 17th in sacks given up. It would surely be kind of us to ensure Sanchez has the view of the Ralph from his back, with a 300 lb behemoth atop him. Though I'm not picky, a 250 lb LB would do. so... how'd that work out today?
Astrobot Posted November 6, 2011 Posted November 6, 2011 Great post. It isn't a call for drafting OT in RD#1, since Bell-Hairston are injured, and Levitre played out of position. I'd like to see a field-stretching WR. I'd like a better Plan B at QB in case Fitz is injured. And I'd like better edge-sealing than I saw from our OLB/DE's today.
Recommended Posts