Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

The Jets defense>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The Jags

 

Sacks is only one part of the equation.

Quote:I assumed they were better.  Yes.  And I still do.  I think that line will finish the year with more sacks, disruption, pressures etc.  

 

3.5 sacks vs 6 as of right now is interesting - for sure - but not indicative of the Jets pass rush vs the Jags.  The Jets will have a better line and those three will be a big part of it.  I hope I'm wrong, but I don't put much weight on those figures after three games. 

We have 8 sacks from our D-line rotation. The reason we don't run the jets scheme isn't because our line can't get pressure.

Quote:The scheme isn't the problem. We play the same scheme as Seattle, and it works well for them. It's the talent on our defense that's the problem. We don't have a pass rush, our linebackers can't cover or shed blocks, our corners look lost, and our safeties are always in no mans land. 

 

Unfortunately to much of this is true.

 

It's not the scheme, it's the players trying to run the scheme.

Quote:We have 8 sacks from our D-line rotation. The reason we don't run the jets scheme isn't because our line can't get pressure.

I'm saying they get more consistent pressure than we do and they will continue to do so.   The Jags do not get consistent pressure.  The Jets secondary sucks this year. They depend on moving the QB off his spot. We don't do that nearly as much as they do.  The sacks in Philly are obviously an outlier game for the Jags as well. 

I sounds good in theory but when you don't have any kind of offense it's too risky to play like that. If the qb beats it then it's basically a 40 yard pick up every down.


I'd rather the slow death than a quick one. Maybe someone makes a play or the qb makes a mistake.


And I like our scheme we just need a few better players for it.

Quote:I'm saying they get more consistent pressure than we do and they will continue to do so.   The Jags do not get consistent pressure.  The Jets secondary sucks this year. They depend on moving the QB off his spot. We don't do that nearly as much as they do.  The sacks in Philly are obviously an outlier game for the Jags as well. 

We are 3 games in and you are calling an outlier lol!

 

Just admit you did a lazy analysis for difference between the jets and the jags defense.

Quote:Put everybody at the line of scrimmage and feast or famin as Dilfer explained


Play a casino type defense.


We are so much more behind other teams on defense. Even if our offense is averaging 30 points per game, we would still be 0-3.

If we scored 30 I think we limit their opportunities to score

Quote:We are 3 games in and you are calling an outlier lol!

 

Just admit you did a lazy analysis for difference between the jets and the jags defense.

Try to follow.

 

 I admitted that I assumed that the trio of Richardson ,Coples and Wilkerson had more than 3.5 sacks this season.  I didn't admit to anything about "analysis."  If you aren't able to recognize that the Jets have a better and more consistent pass rush than the Jags  -- then it's your analysis that's "lazy."  Although - for the record - I was trying to keep this civil.  You want to throw around LOL's and "lazy" labels?  - then know your stuff.   Check out the Jets D. Their line is better than ours. It's that simple.  

 

 And - oh, hell yeah - I'm calling the first half of the Philly game an outlier.  Damn right it's an outlier. The Jags pass rush has spitted and sputtered since that one solid half of pressure.  In 180 minutes - 12 quarters of football - the pass rush looked good for about 25 minutes. Sometimes sucking against back-ups.  If it's not an outlier - what is it?  Was that the "real" pass rush for one half in Philly  - but they've just been taking it easy for the past 10 quarters of football since then??  

 

You want an internet cookie because I thought those three pass rushers had more sacks so far?  Great. Kudos to you - but don't start something you're aren't informed enough to finish. 

Right now, on every single play at least one defensive player doesn't do his job. He forgets his assignment, overplays, or tries to do someone elses job. There is no trust. Has little to do with schemes. If you make the scheme more complicated, a la the Jets, it just more likely for there to a be a breakdown. If you make it too simple, then it will get figured out by the end of the game.

 

The only way to really fix the defense is to get them off the field. Limit their number of plays on the field, so that other teams have less time to work their weaknesses and expose them.  That and maybe one in while, going all in with an All Out Blitz all because if there will be a blown coverage anyway, might as well have that guy blitzing from the start. 

Quote:Try to follow.

 

 I admitted that I assumed that the trio of Richardson ,Coples and Wilkerson had more than 3.5 sacks this season.  I didn't admit to anything about "analysis."  If you aren't able to recognize that the Jets have a better and more consistent pass rush than the Jags  -- then it's your analysis that's "lazy."  Although - for the record - I was trying to keep this civil.  You want to throw around LOL's and "lazy" labels?  - then know your stuff.   Check out the Jets D. Their line is better than ours. It's that simple.  

 

 And - oh, hell yeah - I'm calling the first half of the Philly game an outlier.  Damn right it's an outlier. The Jags pass rush has spitted and sputtered since that one solid half of pressure.  In 180 minutes - 12 quarters of football - the pass rush looked good for about 25 minutes. Sometimes sucking against back-ups.  If it's not an outlier - what is it?  Was that the "real" pass rush for one half in Philly  - but they've just been taking it easy for the past 10 quarters of football since then??  

 

You want an internet cookie because I thought those three pass rushers had more sacks so far?  Great. Kudos to you - but don't start something you're aren't informed enough to finish. 

Informed? You are the one who didn't know what he is talking about so don't talk to me about not being informed when I am the one who had to explain it to you in the first place.

 

I never said their defense wasn't better. I just pointed out that the reason you gave was utter nonsense based on lazy analysis and you not having a clue as to what you were talking about. You even admitted to the fact that you didn't know your actual facts. Why don't you do some actual analysis and come up with a valid reason and quit trying to argue lazy mistake?

 

Also I would like you to quit misusing the term outlier because it has absolutely nothing to do with what you predict will happen and everything to do with the actual data, and with only 3 out of 16 games played it is absolutely impossible for you to determine which game is the outlier.

 

So quit using it. It doesn't back up your point. It just lazy fall back term that just demonstrates even more that you are talking out your rear.

BTW, here's some non lazy analysis as to why the jets get more pressure.

 

The reason is the 5.5 sacks by their starting LBs, 4.5 by the LBs who aren't the ROLB and wouldn't be considered part of the front 4 in a 3-4 scheme, vs 0 for the jags starting LBs. Heck, the jets leading sack player is one of their inside LBs who wouldn't even be considered one of their front 5.

 

They are creating pressure from places other than their front 4 or 5 where the jags are relying almost entirely on their front 4.

 

Our starting LBs struggle with eluding blockers when blitzing. This is probably a big reason for the change at the "otto" LB. The jags have to start getting pressure from the second level. Otherwise lazy ignorant people up north will erroneously think the jags front 4 aren't very good at getting pressure on the QB.

Quote:Otherwise lazy ignorant people up north will erroneously think the jags front 4 aren't very good at getting pressure on the QB.

They haven't been. Except for two quarters. I can call that an outlier if I want. So far - it has been.  And thanks for pointing out what linebackers do in a 3-4 defense. LOL.  Very enlightening. 

 

"Up north?"  That's cute. You really showed the dumb yankee.  (I was born and lived in Jax for 25 years, wise guy)

 

 I have already conceded that I made a false assumption about Coples/Wilkerson/Richardson's sacks. I still think they are more disruptive in that scheme than any three you select from ours. Anything else? 

Quote:They haven't been. Except for two quarters. I can call that an outlier if I want. So far - it has been.  And thanks for pointing out what linebackers do in a 3-4 defense. LOL.  Very enlightening. 

 

"Up north?"  That's cute. You really showed the dumb yankee.  (I was born and lived in Jax for 25 years, wise guy)

 

 I have already conceded that I made a false assumption about Coples/Wilkerson/Richardson's sacks. I still think they are more disruptive in that scheme than any three you select from ours. Anything else? 

Obviously you have no clue as to what linebackers do. If you did, you wouldn't have erroneously credited the the D-line for the pressure the LBs created.

 

It sad that I have to spoon fed you all this info because you are too lazy to make a valid analysis.

 

But instead of actually basing your arguments with fact, you just choose to lazily make up your own definitions for terms and call it a day.

Quote:Obviously you have no clue as to what linebackers do. If you did, you wouldn't have erroneously credited the the D-line for the pressure the LBs created.

 

It sad that I have to spoon fed you all this info because you are too lazy to make a valid analysis.

 

But instead of actually basing your arguments with fact, you just choose to lazily make up your own definitions for terms and call it a day.

Wow. You just want to keep beating a dead horse, huh?  The only thing you've informed me of was the sack numbers for the jets aforementioned trio. 

 

BTW  - One of the outside linebackers in the Jets scheme often functions almost almost exactly like our LEO.  Please stop with the high and mighty act.  Seriously - I understand the role of the LBs in a 3-4.   Stop being a jerk.

 

And I'll continue to credit Richardson and Wilkerson for pressure they and LB's get. They collapse the pocket, move the QB off his spot and Wilkerson often gets sacks in the process.  He just hasn't had that many this year.  Sometimes the other LBs benefit - sometimes they make great plays. 

If I may interject into this conversation; if we are talking from a systematic stand point I think it would be even harder for them to a scheme like the jets. They run a true 34 defense so there are elements that allow guys to get pressure from all angles. We run a hybrid but it is a 43. It looks like a 34 though.


The reason I like the scheme because you can find guys who are journey men and turn them into all pros. The scheme is just that a scheme and a player no matter what their limitations are can excel in ours.


The jets on the other hand need guys who are actually good. I believe their players could come to our team and run our scheme to perfection but I don't think that holds true the other way around.


If Sheldon was our 3 technique oh boy.

Quote:Wow. You just want to keep beating a dead horse, huh?  The only thing you've informed me of was the sack numbers for the jets aforementioned trio. 

 

BTW  - One of the outside linebackers in the Jets scheme often functions almost almost exactly like our LEO.  Please stop with the high and mighty act.  Seriously - I understand the role of the LBs in a 3-4.   Stop being a jerk.

 

And I'll continue to credit Richardson and Wilkerson for pressure they and LB's get. They collapse the pocket, move the QB off his spot and Wilkerson often gets sacks in the process.  He just hasn't had that many this year.  Sometimes the other LBs benefit - sometimes they make great plays. 

Both their OLBs have a whopping 1 sack a piece so I don't know where you think they are getting this "LEO" pressure from. Our two top "LEO"s have combined for 4 sacks. Advantage jags by a big margin. Another lazy analysis. You just continue to blabber like an ignorant fool.

 

It's the successful blitzes by the LBs that don't play the "LEO" which is the difference between the pressure generated by the two units, not the play of the front 4.

 

When Wilkerson got 10.5 sacks last year, it was the first and only time any of those guys ever got more than 5.5 sacks in a season in their entire careers. So not only do you not have current evidence to back your claim that their front 4 produces more pressure but you also don't have any historical evidence to back that claim.

 

You want me to quit beating a dead horse, then quit bringing it back to life by continuing to defend your lazy assessment that has been proven over and over again to be misguided and erroneous. I'm sorry my introduction of a little fact and research blew up your little preconceived notions.

Quote:Both their OLBs have a whopping 1 sack a piece so I don't know where you think they are getting this "LEO" pressure from. Our two top "LEO"s have combined for 4 sacks. Advantage jags by a big margin. Another lazy analysis. You just continue to blabber like an ignorant fool.

 

It's the successful blitzes by the LBs that don't play the "LEO" which is the difference between the pressure generated by the two units, not the play of the front 4.

 

When Wilkerson got 10.5 sacks last year, it was the first and only time any of those guys ever got more than 5.5 sacks in a season in their entire careers. So not only do you not have current evidence to back your claim that their front 4 produces more pressure but you also don't have any historical evidence to back that claim.

 

You want me to quit beating a dead horse, then quit bringing it back to life by continuing to defend your lazy assessment that has been proven over and over again to be misguided and erroneous. I'm sorry my introduction of a little fact and research blew up your little preconceived notions.

LOL. I guess you win the internet and the Jets should just go ahead and trade Richardson, Wilkerson and Coples for Davis, Clemons and Branch ASAP.  ( or which ever lineman you want to trade for Wilkerson - since he lines up everywhere and causes havoc from anywhere ) 

 

"entire careers" was comical, BTW. So many years to contemplate there.   Nice job brushing 10.5 sacks under the rug as well. Cause that's obviously unimportant too.  Along with his 32 hurries that I referenced repeatedly. Guess I didn't spoon feed that one enough. 

 

Anyway - You win, bro.  I can't stomach anymore of your punk-[BLEEP]-{bad-wore-removed} garbage.  Enjoy your high horse.   I'm out and I'll bow to your infinite knowledge if it makes you feel better. 

Quote:LOL. I guess you win the internet and the Jets should just go ahead and trade Richardson, Wilkerson and Coples for Davis, Clemons and Branch ASAP.  ( or which ever lineman you want to trade for Wilkerson - since he lines up everywhere and causes havoc from anywhere ) 

 

"entire careers" was comical, BTW. So many years to contemplate there.   Nice job brushing 10.5 sacks under the rug as well. Cause that's obviously unimportant too.  Along with his 32 hurries that I referenced repeatedly. Guess I didn't spoon feed that one enough. 

 

Anyway - You win, bro.  I can't stomach anymore of your punk-[BLEEP]-{bad-wore-removed} garbage.  Enjoy your high horse.   I'm out and I'll bow to your infinite knowledge if it makes you feel better. 

So now I'm a punk for pointing out how lazy and sorry you are at analyzing football?

 

Of course I'm going to win. It's not hard to beat the crap out of ignorant.

 

So if the "punk" can completely take you to task, then what does that make you? Some kind of Nancy boy?

 

You are a perfect fit for NYC. I wish they would take all of our idiotic wanna be know-it-alls.

 

You and TMD can enjoy hanging in the NE patting yourselves on the back for your so called "knowledge" which is nothing more than what's left of last nights dinner that you pulled out your rear.

Quote:So now I'm a punk for pointing out how lazy and sorry you are at analyzing football?

 

Of course I'm going to win. It's not hard to beat the crap out of ignorant.

 

So if the "punk" can completely take you to task, then what does that make you? Some kind of Nancy boy?

 

You are a perfect fit for NYC. I wish they would take all of our idiotic wanna be know-it-alls.

 

You and TMD can enjoy hanging in the NE patting yourselves on the back for your so called "knowledge" which is nothing more than what's left of last nights dinner that you pulled out your rear.

LOL. No, you're a punk for continually insulting me and turning this whole  thing into name-calling. It's, petty and immature.  But - now that we're here….

 

Some kind of Nancy Boy? Hmmmm.   I like it.  Completely lacking on many levels creatively - but a little old-school.  Nancy-Boy.  Yeah - let's go with that. LOL. I'll run that by TMD  -- see if he approves.  

 

OK. Carry on.  I'll just be up here in New York not behaving like a xenophobic idiot. 

Caldwell revamped this defense to be Seattle South, not the Jets.