[1968jetsfan]

The Miami game it can be 100% proven the loss was directly on Sanchez's shoulders, all 3 of his picks were turned in to field goals. the defense gave up a total of 12 yards off of those 3 turnovers, yes all three turnovers were deep in Jets territory, the Jets lost that game 19-17.

Against the Giants Sanchez had 2 picks and a fumble, the defense bailed him out on the fumble with an intercepted pass on the Giants first play after the fumble which set up an 11 yard TD by Sanchez. Sanchez led the Jets on exactly 4 drives of 25 yards or more, 9 drives of 15 yards or less, and of course 3 turnovers.

Against the Eagles Sanchez threw for 150 yards, 2 interceptions, and a fumble. 3 turnovers. Sanchezs fumble leads directly to a 12 yard touchdown drive.
Mark sanchez throws a red zone interception which leads directly to 7 points by Philly.
So Sanchez turnovers costs the Jets 14 philly points and took 7 points off the board from the Jets. Granted teh Jets probably lose that game anyways but the Jets defense took the ball away from Vick and company 4 times in the game, Sanchez couldn't lead the Jets offense to anything, and this is a game that they claim "moore" was in teh booth calling for the jets. 3 Jets drives of 25 yards or more, 3! 8 drives of 12 yards or less. only 3 drives between 13 and 25 yards...

But yeah, whatever, the defense lost the games for the jets....whatever. Those games sure look Moore look like a failue if Junk and Hobbes is correct.

[Acad23]

I had just about forgotten how lousy we looked on offense last year.

[laxin]

Originally Posted by Hobbes3259

The offense bombed? They blew out Washington and KC. Then the defense gave up 400 yards to philly, and 331 to the Vagiants in the subsequent weeks...thats on the offense?


Sam Bradford, you are joking right?

First off, once again, the question lacks any context. Bradford, did not play with a cast of cast offs last year. But...he had an average year.

But....Sanchez beat his ass....head to head.

And dont go to the QB plays against the defense canard.

Bradfords coach, had 3 years against the Jets d. And got his ass handed to him.

Sanchez went 15/20, and didnt need to throw a pass in the last 8 minutes of the game, where Bradford actually looked JUST LIKE SANCHEZ , got picked by Eric Smith on a ridiculous out route at bad depth..,and strip sacked by Mo Wilk, recovered by Bart Scott.

(btw...Scott should have gotten cut that day. He got chased down with a 10 yard lead, by Matt fucking Mulligan)

I was just asking, because Bradford had 1 season with Schotty, and had one solid receiver (Amendola) who is an oft injured UDFA that has bounced around teams. If you look outside of Amendola, the Rams had nothing. No TE, hardly any receivers, and an aging/injured Steven Jackson. Oh yeah, and Bradford played behind an absolutely horrible offensive line. The defense was not good, hardly average if you look at other than the stats.

So what am I getting at? You clearly think very lowly of Bradford... yet In one year with Schotty, Bradford played better than Sanchez did in three years. I will definitely give Sanchez the fact that he had the "gamer" thing going for him where he could make some comebacks... but there's no denying that passing yards, completions, TDs and low turnovers greatly influence the outcome of games. Bradford was better than Sanchez at everything except for TDs, but was much lower in turnovers (only 14 compared to Mark's 26). Bradford also took a team that has as little all around (including defense) talent as there is in the NFL and was a field goal away from being 8-8. Its not leading a team to the playoffs, but certainly solid considering the Rams went 2-14 the year before.

And I wasnt even going to bring up the defenses... but as Beastbeach noted, offenses vs defenses is how football works. Mark Sanchez played a much worse defense than Bradford did. Just because Mark Sanchez beat Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, it sure as hell doesnt mean he's better than them. It is in fact a team game, ya know.



Mainly, I was just seeing your stance on Bradford... and be it as I figured, it shows that you a clearly biased to Mark Sanchez as a person/player and cant look at it objectively even if you are led to the conclusion. If Bradford had Mark's defense and supporting cast, we are probably playoff contenders as well during that time frame. Its clearly all hypothetical, but Bradford did well enough in the same offense Sanchez played in, yet you view them on totally different levels- so much that you laughed at the thought.

Originally Posted by 1968jetsfan

You know what's funny about Hobbes claiming Moore was in the booth full time during the last part of the season? Sanchez had his worst games at the end of the season in 2011. 7 TD's 7 INT's in his last 4 games of 2011.

Well that doesnt matter I suppose because the defense played poorly as well. To be as fair as possible, Sanchez did "rush" for 3 TDs over those 4 games... but he did also lose 3 fumbles. Either way you look at it, he didnt play well. It was an entire team collapse, and that includes Sanchez as much as it does the defense.

[1968jetsfan]

Originally Posted by laxin

I was just asking, because Bradford had 1 season with Schotty, and had one solid receiver (Amendola) who is an oft injured UDFA that has bounced around teams. If you look outside of Amendola, the Rams had nothing. No TE, hardly any receivers, and an aging/injured Steven Jackson. Oh yeah, and Bradford played behind an absolutely horrible offensive line. The defense was not good, hardly average if you look at other than the stats.

So what am I getting at? You clearly think very lowly of Bradford... yet In one year with Schotty, Bradford played better than Sanchez did in three years. I will definitely give Sanchez the fact that he had the "gamer" thing going for him where he could make some comebacks... but there's no denying that passing yards, completions, TDs and low turnovers greatly influence the outcome of games. Bradford was better than Sanchez at everything except for TDs, but was much lower in turnovers (only 14 compared to Mark's 26). Bradford also took a team that has as little all around (including defense) talent as there is in the NFL and was a field goal away from being 8-8. Its not leading a team to the playoffs, but certainly solid considering the Rams went 2-14 the year before.

And I wasnt even going to bring up the defenses... but as Beastbeach noted, offenses vs defenses is how football works. Mark Sanchez played a much worse defense than Bradford did. Just because Mark Sanchez beat Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, it sure as hell doesnt mean he's better than them. It is in fact a team game, ya know.



Mainly, I was just seeing your stance on Bradford... and be it as I figured, it shows that you a clearly biased to Mark Sanchez as a person/player and cant look at it objectively even if you are led to the conclusion. If Bradford had Mark's defense and supporting cast, we are probably playoff contenders as well during that time frame. Its clearly all hypothetical, but Bradford did well enough in the same offense Sanchez played in, yet you view them on totally different levels- so much that you laughed at the thought.



Well that doesnt matter I suppose because the defense played poorly as well. To be as fair as possible, Sanchez did "rush" for 3 TDs over those 4 games... but he did also lose 3 fumbles. Either way you look at it, he didnt play well. It was an entire team collapse, and that includes Sanchez as much as it does the defense.

Oh I won't say the defense played flawlessly and doesn't deserver part of the blame, but lets be real, when on about 70% of possessions the offense is 3 and out or 4 and out the defense is getting gassed. The time of possesion gets skewed because of the 3 or 4 drives longer than 20 yards the Jets ate a LOT of clock which balanced possession out, but the fact remains that in the least 4 games Sanchez turnovers led directly to around 28 points, give or take a little, and on only one of those did the opposition have to drive more than 15 yards to score. In short the defense was on the field alot and if your offense is that inept over 80% of the game it puts ALOT of pressure on the defense. Especially when the defense takes the ball away from the other team 4 times, like the eagles game, and the offense basically gives it right back to them either off a turnover or 3 and out.

[Br4dw4y5ux]

This isn't an excuse for Sanchez but I think practicing against Rex's defense is a terrible way to prepare an offense for the season. Rex has made a living making opposing QB's, often very good ones, look silly. You don't want to prepare the Jet's offense to face the only defensive schemes in the NFL that they will never see during the season.

Baltimore had a terrible time developing their young QB's until Flacco came along and Rex left after that season to coach the Jets.

Practice is important but having the Jet's offense practicing against a 34/46 hybrid gives them no practical experience they can carry into the season since nobody else runs that look.

[Acad23]

Originally Posted by Br4dw4y5ux

Practice is important but having the Jet's offense practicing against a 34/46 hybrid gives them no practical experience they can carry into the season since nobody else runs that look.

They don't run that scheme in practice.

I mean, they wouldn't, would they?

[jdon]

Originally Posted by Br4dw4y5ux

This isn't an excuse for Sanchez but I think practicing against Rex's defense is a terrible way to prepare an offense for the season. Rex has made a living making opposing QB's, often very good ones, look silly. You don't want to prepare the Jet's offense to face the only defensive schemes in the NFL that they will never see during the season.

Baltimore had a terrible time developing their young QB's until Flacco came along and Rex left after that season to coach the Jets.

Practice is important but having the Jet's offense practicing against a 34/46 hybrid gives them no practical experience they can carry into the season since nobody else runs that look.

Yes. I remember reading several times over the years about how bad the D made him look in practice. Seeing lesser defenses should have encouraged him, but he possesses such a fragile confidence that it had a negative effect, instead. Being impressed with the way Mark ordered dinner for everyone when they recruited him really should not have been a major feather in Mark's cap. Waiters may be annoying sometimes but they do not blitz.

[1968jetsfan]

it's early in the preseason workouts, so I'm not reading much in to anything right now....
but....its' not a good start for a QB who's biggest knock is not taking care of the ball.