Lomax went to two Pro Bowls. He played on horrible Cardinals teams for almost his entire career. Played in Air Coryell as I recall, although I don't know if was fully evolved at that point. Blake had a bunch of injuries during his career and a really bad habit of following Bruce Coslet around. I could see Sanchez having that kind of career if the injuries started to mount and he kept following Schotty as he changed teams.
The straw men people setup in the argument are the other part of the problem. People make a post supporting Sanchez and suddenly they've said he's going to be top 5 or Dan Marino when in fact all they've said is they think he's going to be a good QB. I understand Dolphins fans who think that Dan Marino is the definition of what a good QB is, since the franchise has only had two good QB's in it's history. It just doesn't make sense when other fans take support for Sanchez and turn it into "you think he's gonna be Marino." If we thought he was gonna be Marino or Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady we'd have said that. I don't think anybody has said that.
Actually, that's not at all what I've been doing. I've said it numerous times that I think Sanchez has a lot of improvement that he needs to make. However, it's clear to me that his stats show steady improvement. Not MIND-BLOWING improvement, but considering the limitations of his supporting cast this season, I count it as pretty impressive that he improved at all! I also think that most people here that are bashing him are not basing their opinions on anything substantial. Basically, their emotional and want to blame someone. Hey, I'm all for that. Just make sure it's the right person. You want to point fingers? I say point it at Schotty who's done basically nothing in six years. Jets offensive rankings in Schotty's time as OC: 2011 - 25th 2010 - 11th 2009 - 20th 2008 - 16th 2007 - 26th 2006 - 25th
Ok, then what are people getting at when they compare Mark Sanchez's 3rd year to players like Brady, Brees, and Rodgers? People are arguing that he's progressing similar to three future HOF quarterbacks who have won 5 superbowls between them, and probably 6 after this season. To me, it looks like the ones comparing them are certainly trying to get at something.
If you look at points and not yards (and everyone should-yards are stupid measure for either offensive or defensive rankings), he's a little better- going from 2006 to the present he's been 18th, 25th, 9th, 17th,13th and 13th. We should still dump his ass.
You can't compare Sanchez and Rogers third years because Rodgers wasn't playing yet. Brees third year was actually worse than Sanchez. The Chargers went 2-9 in his starts and he turned the ball over a lot without producing very many TD's in the process. Brady's third year? He had a pretty good season and the Pats missed the playoffs anyway going 9-7. He had a good line in front of him the whole season and he had Charlie Weis whispering sweet nothings in his ear, which included what the defense was planning to do on the next play based on the signals the Patriots had stolen. Seriously, I don't think anybody is comparing Sanchez to these guys in the context of he's that good. I think people are using Brees to point out that he probably isn't as bad as he looked this year, and like Brees even when he looked bad there were flashes that drew a spark eventually.
I can't speak for everyone, but when I use those guys as a basis for comparison I'm merely trying to speak the same language as the Sanchez haters. They WANT a QB like Brees, Manning, or Brady and it seems that nothing less will suffice. So, when I make a statistical argument I compare him with the best. Now, I don't do this to "cherry pick" as some say. I will readily acknowledge that Sanchez's numbers aren't as good as those guys (for the most part), but they also aren't that much worse.
It was my comparison chart and it was used to illustrate that Sanchez isn't as bad as people make him out to be. For reference I used Bree's 4th season, Brady's 4th season, Rodgers' 6th season.
Realistically you can't compare due to different circumstances but Mark was nowhere near any of those seasons in terms of effectiveness. Eli Manning's third year? Yeah that works. Ben Roethlisberger's third year? Check. Brees third year? Oh yeah. The circumstances make the man. You give Sanchez a good line, a sound offensive philosophy that is proven to work and good receivers around him and he'd have had a much better season than what he had. Look at the guys you're trying to compare him too. Drew Brees had Norv Turner as his offensive coordinator in 2004. He had Antonio Gates as his tight end. He had Mr TD, LaDainian Tomlinson as the back behind him and he had four years in the system at that point. That's one of the best offensive coordinators in recent history and two of the most talented offensive assets a QB could want playing with him. Breakout season was setup for him and he took advantage of it. Tom Brady had Charlie Weis as his offensive coordinator, another great mind in Belichik and he had the damn defensive playcalls on a pipeline into his helmet. It was also his 4th year in the league so he had a bit more experience than Sanchez. Aaron Rodgers was working in a system that had produced two great QB's in a row before him (Majkowski tragically derailed by injury before he could fulfill) and that was set to train strong-armed guys to play well in December in Green Bay. He had Mike McCarthy, another offensive guy, watching over his development and he had two great receivers already there when he was ready to go in Driver and Jennings.
You can't possibly compare people sitting on the bench waiting their turn to people who are playing. I argued this earlier. Compare the first three years Brady, Brees or Rogers played to the first three years Sanchez played and there is no comparison.
16 pages on who to point their finger at. This is ridiculous. Does Schotty deserve all the blame? No. Does Sanchez? No. Does the O-line? The running game? The receivers? No. Are they all to blame? Hell yes! Do you know why the offense is broken? Because overall it's just not that good. Not Sanchez, not the running game, not the o-line, not the receivers, not the tight ends, not the OC. This was never a Super Bowl caliber offense, or hell, even a playoff caliber offense. It's a bottom of the barrel offense that, based on talent, should have been middle of the pack (and it wasn't). You can point to redzone efficiency, but I'll call that a statistical anomaly since we were rarely ever there. We're not going to find a savior at any one position with our first pick. Just take the BPA in the draft and try to plug some holes in FA. The moral of the story is that if you don't think Sanchez is upgradable, you're delusional. If you think cutting him without a plan is the right thing to do, you're delusional. I still think that Sanchez supporters are ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room known as his contract. 3 years into a 5 year deal, and some of you are still proclaiming him to be "the future". Unless they're signing him to a very cheap deal after 5 years, I want nothing to do with it. But there will be those of you that think if he performs better next year, we should throw a boat load of money at him. I sure as hell hope they don't.
Sanchez gets extended next season if he plays well and the Jets make the playoffs and play well there. It doesn't really matter how he plays next season if the Jets don't make the playoffs because that will likely cause the FO and CS to get swept and a new coach will want his own guy at QB.
Yards are a much better identifier of what type of offense you have. Thats the reason they call it total offense. If you don't have the yards you can't hope to maintain high levels of scoring like the Jets did this year and it showed the last three weeks.
Right, Tannenbaum does..he drafts the players, signs the players, makes the contracts and decides who will coach..he picks them all.
I did. And it wasn't actually that bad. In case you missed it earlier: He was off for sure, but not in the "no comparison" or "nowhere near" marks that have been tossed around. I originally posted this to provide some perspective of all the doom and gloom Mark Sanchez stats posts that keep being tossed around here.
Comes down to cost and effectiveness. If he's effective and comes at a discount, then sure. If you want to basically extend his ridiculous rookie contract out, then no chance in hell. I'll take him at his 2013 salary of 4 mil a year.
The Jets will not want to make a change at QB if year 4 turns into something good for them in the playoffs and Sanchez has performed well. They're really unlikely not to extend him at that point given that year 26 was good because generally year 27 and 28 are great in that circumstance. If they don't make the playoffs it just isn't going to matter what Sanchez did. I don't think Tanny and Rex hang around in that situation even if the Jets miss at 9-7. 9-7 got Mangini fired.
