Judy Battista, the N.F.L. reporter for The New York Times, answers questions from readers.
Two things: One, how long will Tim Tebow last as the starting QB of Denver. And what kind of impact do you think he will have? I.E., will he win the spot for the season and win, or will he go the Cam Newton route and show flashes of brilliance yet still lose out in close games?
– Posted by Justin, Quad Cities
The Denver Broncos should only hope that Tebow looks like Newton does, because Newton has been spectacular — far beyond what anybody expected. Tebow is not Newton, though. Newton does not have throwing mechanics issues, for one, and he is a superior athletic talent to Tebow. Having said that, the spark Tebow provides the offense when he is in the game is undeniable.
I imagine that at least for the first few games, he will look a lot like he did when he went in at halftime last week: some badly misfired throws, some short completions, some thrilling running. One of the biggest concerns with his style of play is that no team wants their starting quarterback to get crushed by linebackers on a regular basis — can Tebow hold up to that week after week?
That’s why everybody wants him to become more of a pocket passer. I think he will give the Broncos a jolt and, as opponents will discover at least early on, he will be a challenge to prepare for because of the threat that he’ll run. But the Broncos’ losses have not all been Kyle Orton’s fault, so if the defense doesn’t start playing better, Tebow alone won’t be able to change the results.
Unless he is absolutely terrible or gets hurt, I expect he’ll be the starter the rest of the season. This is a move made as much for the future as for now. The Broncos have to find out if he can be a starting quarterback in the N.F.L. The coaches and John Elway clearly didn’t think he could do it at the start of the season and if they are right, they’ll have to draft a quarterback next spring.
What happened to the Jets linebackers? I don’t see them making the big plays they made the last two years, especially Bart Scott. Does this account for the run production against the Jets?–Posted by Stoli, Washington, D.C.
If you remember, Bart Scott didn’t look great at the end of the playoffs last year either. Lots of things have happened — the departure of Kris Jenkins certainly does not help the linebackers or the defense as a whole, and at least from my perspective, the defense has looked a little slower this season so far. The fact that the Jets could not stop BenJarvus Green-Ellis — a nice running back, but not exactly Adrian Peterson — last week, when they knew the Patriots wanted to run, is telling and troubling because if the Jets’ offense continues to fall behind, the Jets are going to see more running until they prove they can stop it. They are currently ranked 26th in rushing yards yielded. Last year they finished ninth
Why are the Eagles sticking with their obviously flawed wide 9 defensive scheme AND sticking Asomugha in zone coverage most of the time? It’s beyond me why anyone would bother working so hard (and spending so much money) to get a player like Nnamdi and then play him in a zone 90 percent of the time.–Posted by Rich, Atlanta
Great questions and right now unanswerable. The Eagles’ defense is a mess across the board — the linebackers are not good (and that’s being especially exposed by the Wide 9), nobody is tackling well, only Cullen Jenkins and Jason Babin are living up to their free agency hype — but it’s hard to scrap an entire defensive system midstream and start over. The Eagles are clearly hoping that some of their issues are due to lack of familiarity and that once everybody settles in and knows where they are supposed to be, the gaping holes will disappear. That may be wishful thinking, and Andy Reid could be answering for a long time why he thought it was a good idea to make his longtime offensive line coach his defensive coordinator in the same year when there would be massive influx of new personnel and limited time to work together.
Do you think the new rule placing kickoffs at the 35 will survive after this season?–Posted by Dave, Connecticut
Yes, I do, because it is having exactly the effect the N.F.L. wanted when it voted for it: reducing the number of collisions on kickoffs. By drastically reducing the number of kickoff returns, it has definitely accomplished that. This was a move made for safety reasons — some of the biggest and most damaging collisions happen on kickoff returns — not for aesthetics. The N.F.L. knew it would greatly decrease the number of kickoff returns, and even though big returns are some of the most exciting plays in football, the league was willing to take that tradeoff if it meant cutting down on big hits.
The Chargers, who usually stumble out of the gate, are 4-1 and in first place– does that mean they won’t make the playoffs?–Posted by zb, New York
Ha! No, I think they’ll make the playoffs, and it probably helps that there hasn’t been much attention paid to them this year. Also helps that, while the Raiders are surprising, the Chiefs and Broncos have struggled early.
A lot of heat gets put on the Jets offensive coordinator, Schotty. But don’t you think he and Rex Ryan are simply calling the plays that they think the QB can make without turning the ball over?–Posted by Steve, Connecticut
Yes. I think the coaches know their offensive line is in transition (read: not very good right now) and therefore they can’t make Mark Sanchez spend too much time back there waiting for plays to develop. Sanchez is still not overly accurate, and at this point I’m not sure that is ever going to get better. You have to wonder if he will ever be the kind of quarterback who can consistently take over a game and win it on his own. It probably told us a lot that the Jets did not take too many shots outside the numbers and down the field last week, just to test a Patriots defense that had really been struggling in that area.
I continue to hear from everyone it seems (Rex Ryan, Mark Sanchez, other current Jets, former Jets, pundits, analysts and prognosticators) that this Jets offense “isn’t built to put up huge numbers of yards or 30+ points/game.” Judy, what group in the offense ( O-Line, receivers, running backs, etc) would agree with that statement?–Posted by Steve, Connecticut
Not sure I entirely understand the question, Steve, but let me give it a shot. If the offense is built to run the ball, it’s clearly not built to be a scoring machine. Furthermore, as we’ve already discussed, the Jets seem reluctant to let Sanchez go downfield with his passes. This is not going to be a Packers/Patriots kind of offense, clearly, even though the receivers probably think they are capable of it. I don’t think saying it’s not built to put up 30 points a game is derogatory, it’s just the truth. This team is supposed to win by playing great defense and running the ball. Right now, it’s not doing either of those, and it doesn’t have a passing game capable of overcoming it, the way we saw Brady do in the first few weeks of the season.
To what extent are the Steelers’ difficulties this season due to their offensive line or the age of their defense? And what explains the dramatic increase in the number of yards rushing the defense is allowing this year? Is it regression to the mean, or something more insidious?–Posted by Carey, Pittsburgh
Well, the offensive line is a MASH unit, and the impact of that can’t be overlooked. They are getting Roethlisberger hit constantly. I haven’t seen enough of their games to know what is happening to their defense, except that their run defense is clearly giving up more yards than usual. But the defense is still ranked second in the league in yards given up. It will be interesting to see if the wallopping of the Titans marks the turning point for the Steelers.
Are the 49ers and Alex Smith for real? What is Smith’s QB rating score?–Posted by Ole Holsti, Salt Lake City
Alex Smith might be the best argument going for the value of good coaching. He was left for dead and his career looked to be over, and — presto — bring in Harbaugh. Now he’s third in quarterback rating (104.1 with seven touchdowns and one interception), behind only Brady, who is second, and Rodgers, whose rating is an absurd 122.9. Short answer: yes, the Niners are for real. They are playing well, and the rest of their division is a mess. If they don’t win it, I’d be shocked. This weekend’s game against the Lions will probably tell us a lot about them.
It’s safe to say the 49ers will win their division. They’re playing better football than anyone else in the NFC West. Can they prove that a team doesn’t need an elite QB to win big?–Posted by Greg, Silicon Valley
You’re assuming that Alex Smith — a former first pick — is not elite. I’m not sure we should do that. He has had a carousel of coaches and offensive systems and has never had a coach with the offensive mind or devotion to quarterback development that Harbaugh brings. I’m not saying Alex Smith is Aaron Rodgers, but with consistent coaching and an offense that suits him, he might be in the second tier of quarterbacks.
We see so many games plod along (see Jet offense most of last year), until crunch time then suddenly come alive in a flurry of offense, risk taking and big plays — what drives this transformation? Are the coaches inherently conservative until they have to open up? Is it really the grand chess match until inches become yards (yes, that “Any Given Sunday” reference) or the ball bounces one way or another?–Posted by BankerBoy, New York
I think it’s a combination of things. Yes, if a team is trailing and the clock is winding down, they have to take more chances going downfield. And, on the flip side, the team that holds the lead is often in some kind of a prevent defense, which allows the bigger opponent to get bigger chunks of yards, as long as the plays stay in front of the defense. In other words, force the opponent to drive down the field, but don’t give up the touchdown. You can’t say coaches are inherently conservative — how would you explain the offensive attacks of the Packers, Patriots, Saints, Colts (with Manning)? But you can say that coaches play to the strengths of their teams as long as they possibly can and deviate from that only when forced to.
Given the success of Victor Cruz and the fact that Steve Smith has not been a factor in the Eagles offense (according to Sheil Kapadia of Philly.com, he played in three snaps last week and has not been targeted in the past two weeks), doesn’t Jerry Reese and the Giants front office deserve some credit for not overpaying for Smith, especially considering the backlash the front office received from the media and fans after Smith signed with the Eagles?–Posted by Matt Barbarasch, New York
I don’t think anybody thought the Giants should overpay Steve Smith. But the criticism came when the number of players that the Giants theoretically wanted to keep piled up — including Kevin Boss (who was definitely overpaid by the Raiders) and Smith. There is no question that the Eagles thought Smith would be healthier sooner than the Giants did. The Giants trusted their doctors who, after all, did the surgery on Smith. So far, it looks like the Giants made the correct bet. As for Victor Cruz, he is delightful when he makes those circus catches, but he has also made some bad mistakes. If the Giants had been able to retain Smith — and not rush him back on the field — there’s not much question who the better receiver would be, if the health of both is equal.
No comments:
Post a Comment