Rex Grossman gets more ridicule than any other quarterback in the NFL, and rightfully so. Aside from a handful of games in the Bears’ 2006 Super Bowl run, he’s played like hell, amassing 31 touchdowns to his 33 interceptions over five seasons in the league. In reality, though, Grossman is nothing more than a more-hyped Brett Favre.
Grossman thrived in Steve Spurrier’s Run and Gun offense at Florida, earning his bread on long-distance bombs. He was the college game’s quintessential gunslinger. But his reckless play did not match his personality, and his leveled demeanor allowed his mercurial rise to occur early. As a result, he was the victim of high expectations as a youngster.
Favre, on the other hand, had the personality to match his play. He throws a few interceptions? Just Brett being Brett. He’s addicted to painkillers? Brett being Brett. Ultimately, his loose personality let him forget about pressure and enjoy the game, and it also eliminated much of the hype around his skill.
Without reading into his success last year, the Jets think they’re getting that same Favre of yore: the gun-slinging, freewheeling cannon of a man. Last season he kept a 95.7 passer rating, while averaging just less than 260 yards a game. He piled up 28 touchdowns to just 15 picks. Most of all, he led his team to the NFC Championship game and proved to be able to hit Jennings deep with relative frequency.
That’s the most important aspect to the Jets offense. Laveranues Coles has the ability to get over the top of the defense just about whenever he wants, and is extraordinarily good at catching balls in traffic; but Chad Pennington never had the arm to be able to get it deep to him consistently. With Favre, who has epitomized “gunslinger” throughout his career, it would seem that this problem has been solved. It’s hard not to think of Coles as a better Greg Jennings, and Favre had no problem finding Jennings for 12 TD’s last year.
In his first year, McCarthy thought he was inheriting the same situation: a wide-open offense fueled by the deep threat. When allowed to run wild, the aged Favre posted TD/INT ratios of 20/29 and 18/18 in 2005 and 2006, respectively. It wasn’t until McCarthy implemented a version of Bill Walsh’s West Coast Offense in his second season that freed up the deep ball, and helped Favre regain success on the Tundra.
And that’s the conundrum: how can the Jets use Favre to maximize their talent? They can’t expect to have him for much longer than a year or two, so do they unleash the Favre and let him and Coles run defenses ragged, risking copious interceptions; or do they continue pounding the ball with a more effective deep-threat looming?
Favre has to learn an entirely new offense, and if certain aspects of the playbook slip his mind he’d resort to his instincts and improvise. That usually means going deep. If this becomes a consistent occurrence, it becomes a question of whether or not Favre can keep his arm fresh.
The Jets offense has always been sort of a conflicted personality. Pennington was built for a dink-and-dunk system; Cotchery and Coles fitted for a run-and-gun approach. Favre had the ability to fit the style of his wideouts, creating the offensive cohesion that leads to success; but whether or not he still has that ability is what I still cannot reconcile.
3 comments:
damn, okay this actually made sense. but one thing i couldnt fathom is why you would compare rex grossman to brett favre-- talent wise? saying that brett is a less-hyped version of grossman. Although brett can sometimes get a little geeked up and throw some wild balls, resulting in an interception or two, i dont see how favre's talents could be compared to grossman's mockery of playing QB. (yeah thats kidna harsh, but hey.. i'm a packer fan, what do you expect) :) brett has proven through his 16 seasons that he has what it takes to be a great ball player. Grossman on the other hand, has yet to prove his "skills", at least in the professional league.
I like your articles though. :)
The Grossman/Favre comparison was one of style, not talent. Grossman, like Favre, is pretty reckless. The difference, to me at least, is that Grossman's psyche does not match his play, and that's why he hasn't found success at the pro level. I guess you could say he's a fraud, in a sense; just a regular quarterback with a strong arm posing as a carefree gunslinger because of his role as such in college. Because Grossman was so good so early he was schooled constantly on how to be a better quarterback, but ultimately that probably inhibited his progress because it just further detached him from his style. My saying that Favre was a less-hyped version of him meant that Favre was less-schooled with lower expectations, allowing him to come into his own and play the way his style dictates. And that accounts for most of the discrepancy in talent.
Thanks for reading, though.
Ahh, okay. I guess I just misundertood what you were trying to say. It makes more sense now. :)
Post a Comment