Quarterly Breakdown of Rex Ryan's tenure

[Badger]

	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
2009	3-1	1-3	2-2	3-1
2010	3-1	3-1	3-1	2-2
2011	2-2	3-1	2-2	1-3
2012	2-2	1-3	2-2	1-3
2013	2-2	2-2	1-3	3-1
Total Pct	.600	.500	.500	.500

I wanted to lay this out when I saw the discussion that was starting in the Growing up Geno thread.

The last Q of the season has been a problem for the last two years, but as Puck mentioned, that may have been the result of an older roster not being able to keep up an adequate level of play late in the season. But if for whatever reason we have a lousy last Q this year, it'll look like a pretty bad trend and would definitely factor into whether Rex gets to stay or not.

Also noticed that we've never had a 4-0 or 0-4 Q. We've never lost more than 3 in a row under Rex, and while we did have a 5 game and a 4 game win streak in 2010 they just didn't fit neatly into a Q.

[624]

I'm willing to write last year's last quarter off because of all the bullshit but 2011 sucked.

[MexJetinBcn]

I don't think those stats on their own represent a trend of any kind, for various reasons.
- First of all, they don't take into account strength of schedule, which definitely affects the chances of a team winning a game.
- Second, dividing it by quarters is a bit arbitrary, why not fifths or thirds? I understand that it's easier that way, but we might different results by dividing the schedule on a different way.
- Third, the sample size is still too small for each quarter. Imagine we would have done this on the first two years we could have said, "the Jets are decent finishers!". Or just the last two, "the team was too veteran and crumbled in the end (as you said)". It's just too arbitrary.
- Fourth, they don't take into account injuries or the strengh of the Jets' roster for any given year.

It's a nice effort of analysing but I don't think it means much more than a source of good talking points.

[hawk]

I don't think those stats on their own represent a trend of any kind, for various reasons.
- First of all, they don't take into account strength of schedule, which definitely affects the chances of a team winning a game.
- Second, dividing it by quarters is a bit arbitrary, why not fifths or thirds? I understand that it's easier that way, but we might different results by dividing the schedule on a different way.
- Third, the sample size is still too small for each quarter. Imagine we would have done this on the first two years we could have said, "the Jets are decent finishers!". Or just the last two, "the team was too veteran and crumbled in the end (as you said)". It's just too arbitrary.
- Fourth, they don't take into account injuries or the strengh of the Jets' roster for any given year.

It's a nice effort of analysing but I don't think it means much more than a source of good talking points.

Can't really divide a 16 game season into 3rd's or 5th's.  It's really all moot because the team is not nearly the same as it was the past 4 seasons.  However, Rex is the only common denominator. 

[Badger]

I don't think those stats on their own represent a trend of any kind, for various reasons.
- First of all, they don't take into account strength of schedule, which definitely affects the chances of a team winning a game.
- Second, dividing it by quarters is a bit arbitrary, why not fifths or thirds? I understand that it's easier that way, but we might different results by dividing the schedule on a different way.
- Third, the sample size is still too small for each quarter. Imagine we would have done this on the first two years we could have said, "the Jets are decent finishers!". Or just the last two, "the team was too veteran and crumbled in the end (as you said)". It's just too arbitrary.
- Fourth, they don't take into account injuries or the strengh of the Jets' roster for any given year.

It's a nice effort of analysing but I don't think it means much more than a source of good talking points.

Talking points is all I'm going for here. I want to see what conclusions anyone might draw from it or even disputing that any conclusion can be drawn from it.

I think 4+ years is a decent sample size. More would be better but it's not too small.

Edit: Breaking it down by quarter isn't arbitrary either. Many coaches look at their season that way. I believe Marvin Lewis spoke about it on Hard Knocks this year, someone correct me if I'm misremembering.

[Tommy]

I'm not going to count Q4 of 2012 since we didn't have a shot at the playoffs, but Rex was able to lead the team to the playoffs in two of the 3 years that we were in the hunt. 2011 sucked because we definitely had the talent, and were in it through December.

[Miamipuck]

Talking points is all I'm going for here. I want to see what conclusions anyone might draw from it or even disputing that any conclusion can be drawn from it.

I think 4+ years is a decent sample size. More would be better but it's not too small.

Badger, is it possible to edit in which quarter the bye week fell? I would be interested to see that.


I think the first 4 years you can draw several conclusions,  as the roster aged the performance later on in the season gradually degraded. You can also see that even with horrid QB play, Rex has been a consistent coach. The Jets have only had  a losing quarter in 4 of 18 chances. I think that's funny because we never think of a Rex Ryan team being consistent, in fact they seem maddening inconsistent.

I am cautiously optimistic that he can keep this team from having a falloff. If I had a gun to my head I would say the Jets finish 9-7. That's one hell of a season with this roster.


Edit: I differ with everyone in the respect, I do not think the 2011 team was all that talented. It was an aging roster full of guys that were on the downside/twilight of their careers.

[Badger]

Badger, is it possible to edit in which quarter the bye week fell? I would be interested to see that.

Off the top of my head it always fell in the late 2nd or early 3rd.

Edit: I differ with everyone in the respect, I do not think the 2011 team was all that talented. It was an aging roster full of guys that were on the downside/twilight of their careers.

I remember entering the 2011 season thinking we hadn't upgraded at a single position, and as the season played out it was apparent we had several downgrades.

[Miamipuck]

Off the top of my head it always fell in the late 2nd or early 3rd.

I remember entering the 2011 season thinking we hadn't upgraded at a single position, and as the season played out it was apparent we had several downgrades.

To take it a step further, how many from that roster are contributing players this year, not too many.


I counted 18- Cro, Cumberland, Ducasse, Ellis, Brick, Folk, Harris, Holmes, Howard, Kerley, Lankster, Mangold, McIntyre, Pace, Powell, Turfant, Mo, K. Wilson.

[Libero_2]

To take it a step further, how many from that roster are contributing players this year, not too many.


I counted 18- Cro, Cumberland, Ducasse, Ellis, Brick, Folk, Harris, Holmes, Howard, Kerley, Lankster, Mangold, McIntyre, Pace, Powell, Turfant, Mo, K. Wilson.

I can only think of one more from the 2011 roster, Nick Bellore

Which means we've undergone a 2/3 roster turnover in two seasons, pretty ridiculous to think about

[NDMick]

I can only think of one more from the 2011 roster, Nick Bellore

Which means we've undergone a 2/3 roster turnover in two seasons, pretty ridiculous to think about

It makes me appreciate just what Idzik was hired to fix.

It's a freaking mess.

[Ignatius J Reilly]

I can only think of one more from the 2011 roster, Nick Bellore

Which means we've undergone a 2/3 roster turnover in two seasons, pretty ridiculous to think about

Not that unusual.  The Patriots, including IR players, have 21 who were on their roster in 2011.

EDIT: The Packers are the high end.  They still have 28 players from 2011.

[624]

How many players are still on the team from Rex's first season in 2009?

I count 4 off the top of my head.

[Libero_2]

How many players are still on the team from Rex's first season in 2009?

I count 4 off the top of my head.

There's gotta be more than 4

Sanchez
Brick
Mangold
Harris
Pace

Are definites

Lankster
Trufant (late 2009 add I believe)
Bellore

Are others that I think showed up in 09

[624]

There's gotta be more than 4

Sanchez
Brick
Mangold
Harris
Pace

Are definites

Lankster
Trufant (late 2009 add I believe)
Bellore

Are others that I think showed up in 09

I didn't count Sanchez because he's not on the active 53.

I know that Lankster and Trufant were definitely not here in 2009.  Pretty sure Bellore wasn't as well.