They will only be competing for two games and then Ryan will name his starter. At that point the competition is over.
One of the reasons we were effective against the run was Revis could shut down the big down field play to teams with one big time reciever. You can't fault him because our D was set up to allow the slot and running back to kill the weak spot in our D no pass rush without the blitz leaving no one to cover the Running Backs and slot reciever. Our LB were all about stopping the run and we were very inexperienced on the other side. I suspect the reason we got Bart was to give us a linebacker that could cover the underneath option? I also suspect we will bring more pressure. You might see the ypc go up a little but over all having a top CB frees up guys to do other things. The Steelers, Raiders, Redskins, Cowboys teams along with the Pats first couple of SB teams had some monster players at CB. The ability to man up against top players is a huge advantage for the D. The fact that our D wasn't able to exploit that is one of the reasons Mangini is gone.
Both of them are window dressing without a pass rush and decent coverage in the flats. Sometimes your blanket pattern-reads don't make any sense to me. Safety is not nearly as important as you seem to be making of it. I think you are basically obsessing over the fact that we traded up for Revis.
This is a different era. We have the salary cap now that effectively limits what a team can spend on each position by limiting the overall salary of the team. The 70's Steelers did indeed have an excellent CB in Mel Blount. They also had Pro Bowl defenders at DE, DT, OLB, MLB and S. They were able to have it all because they didn't have to give up any of the pieces due to an artificial constraint like the salary cap. The Redskins also had that luxury, as did the early 90's Cowboys teams before the cap had fully landed on the playing field. The Pats first couple of Super Bowl teams had great CB's and great safeties and Belichik kept the latter and got rid of the former. It's not like the Pro Bowl voters don't have CB's to choose from on every team and somehow the Super Bowl winning teams are cornerback-less with 4 safeties or something. Pro Bowl safeties have a disproportionate share of the Super Bowl wins to their credit. Pro Bowl Cornerbacks do not. That's just what it is.
The Pats won their first SB against the Rams because they had the CB's to disrupt their big play O. That was also in the cap era. The Cap doesn't mean you ignore the opportunities to pick up elite talent in the draft when it's your time to pick. If it happens to be CB you do it. In the case of Revis we moved up gave up little to get real quality. It only cost us if we had gotten two good players who started for a more reasonable price. You can't assume that to be the case. Every draft is different. Revis is one of the top players from that draft and we have him tied up. He's an impact player and you don't win SB without impact players regardless of where they are in the lineup.
Whoops edit: rechecked facts. Both of the Patriots CB's had interceptions in that game, which makes sense given the high number of passes that Warner threw and the pressure he was under all game. Otis Smith contributed basically at the same level that Ty Law did (Isaac Bruce had 5 catches for 56 yards and Torry Holt had 5 for 49) and the pass rush took care of the rest. None of this is to suggest that Ty Law was not a great CB, and that he did not contribute to New England's two Super Bowl wins that he was active for. He's just the exception to the rule, not the standard. If you have two serviceable CB's you are set to go for the Super Bowl. If you don't have a great safety between them you probably are not. That's just what it is. You think Bill Belichik let Ty Law and Asante Samuel walk because he didn't think they were great players? He let them go because he knew that having a great player at CB was way down the list of things that a team needed to have to win.
He let Ty Law go because he had an injury and was done. If Samuels makes the pick against the Giants they Pats win another SB. Samuels wanted huge money and he effectively pulled a Doug Brien in the big moment.
Nice thread hijacking, guys! ================================================= Joking aside: 1. I am in agreement with Br4dw4y5ux to a degree; we all saw how Patriots dismantled Jets defense in the second game. As shut-down corner as Revis gets, he cannot cover the entire field. His presence will help the defense, no doubt. 2. Back to the original topic: Should Kellen start this year? Interception or not, I think he should get the nod. For various reasons, of course a. I like what I see from Sanchez; he never makes the same mistake twice. He definitely could use a year of watching bad QB play. Indirect mistakes, that is. On top of that, I would hate to see the rookie fail in his rookie season - those type of failures grow on the player, and they tend not to recover from those. b. Realistically, Jets are still at least a year away from contending seriously. Depth must be restocked this off season, before anything. So... I think it only makes sense to let the rookie start the new era with full arsenal, with solid depth around the entire roster. c. If Clemens happens to do well this season - then Jets can trade him away next year for some value, so that's even better. I would endorse Sanchez playing this year under one circumstance; that is, when the game is foregone conclusion (in win) - then he may play a few snaps during the 4th quarter, against a demoralized defense.
Kellen, no doubt, is a better player than he has been the last few years. But I think his interceptions during practice are enough not to want him being a starting QB for any NFL team. Sanchez is going to be the starting qb, when the season begins. I wish the Jets would have gotten a vet QB to back him up, though. Kellen, no matter how much better he has become, scares me. Sanchez better remain healthy.
This really is not a huge factor. If Sanchez is the starter and goes down the Jets are likely screwed for the season regardless of who the person is who comes in to replace him. I'd actually prefer that it be Clemens than some 30 year old journeyman who's never been good enough to take the job somewhere else. At least with Clemens there'd be a chance that he'd find his game when the pressure ramped up and his chance came. There are very few Kerry Collins out there, journeyman QB's who were good enough to play in a Super Bowl once upon a time and might regain some of that ability if the situation arose again.
I certainly don't. You can only write off so much in preseason action, and I don't know the play selection that was given to Clemens versus the play selection that was given to Sanchez, but I think it was pretty obviously which QB: 1) Had a better pocket presence. 2) Had better footwork and accuracy. 3) Had better control of managing the offense. All three are easily Sanchez right now. Clemens will have to play out of his mind in camp and in the Ravens game to be anywhere close to Sanchez in this QB competition. I'm not big on starting rookie QBs in week one, but if Sanchez continues to play like he did on Friday night, he will get my vote.
Seems to be a proper bump! Remember back in the day so many of you were on his jock wanting him to start. Yea you can add me to that list too. Ugghhhh Since he'll be the starter Mon Night against the Seahawks, I say he throws no less than 2 picks. Predictions?
To make matters worse for Rams fans. The Rams can break their lease after the 2014 season and move if they so choose. Which looks to a real possibility if not a threat to extort money for a new stadium or upgrade. Imagine losing your football team twice.
Could you imagine if the Rams moved back to LA, and the Jaguars moved into StL? Would it be worse to not have a team or to have them?
Clemens has some pieces around him in the offense now. If he can't do anything, well then he probably won't be on an NFL roster next year.
I'd much rather have a team no matter what than no team. Because even if my team was dogshit, if we beat a good team, I'd never shut up.
