2011 was acceptable because he also accounted for 30+ TDs in the air. That's what we thought he could become, a gunslinger who might hold onto the ball too long trying to make the big ball (Big Ben, Romo, Eli). It went away middle of his 3rd year and never came back in his 4th.
If we had someone that didnt turn the ball over on average twice a game, we probably would have about 9 wins. Its as simple as that. Now Im not saying Andy Dalton would have been that guy, but I doubt he turns the ball over as much as Sanchez... I do believe that he was the fastest QB to get the ball out of his hands last year, so that surely helps. If we have a QB that doesnt turn the ball over massive amounts, we win the Arizona game with ease. We win the Titans game, we have a much better chance at winning the Seahawks game (where Sanchez threw an Int in the end zone) and the Bills game (where he threw a pick 6). Who knows about the Chargers game because Greg McElroy wouldnt be starting his first NFL game then... If we have a QB that turns the ball over half as much as he did, the season is completely different. Honestly, all anyone really asked of him (sadly) was not to turn the ball over as much. No one expected him to be a top 5 or 10 QB. He couldnt even do that though.
No we could not have and that is the point. What is this total misnomer that the Qb makes the receivers better it has never been that way great receivers make a Qb better. Brady could not make Lloyd better but Brady broke records with Moss and Welker. Look at the best Qbs in the league all of them have great receiving cores not average but great. So the best Qbs (Which Mark is not) need great receivers but Mark playing with Scrub receivers not only that but hurt scrub receivers is supposed to make them better. Is that really your argument? First logical argument you have made. I agree but the fumble did not lose us the first or second NE game but cost us the Tennessee game.
His 30+ was with his rush tds included. I agree that his 2011 was better than people think. In fact I thought his 2011 was better than his 2010. His numbers were all better across the board than 2010, except the turnovers. I don't think he really fixed his turnover problem in 2010 though, so I wasn't surprised. Realistically, if you look at him through 2011 until he was hurt late in the season (ie, ignore the last 3 games where he had 7 turnovers) he had improved every year in yards, completion percentage and touchdowns. But he never really fixed his turnover problem in my mind (2010 was an aberration). The stretch from late 2011 including 2012 has seen a big drop off in his numbers we can chalk this up to injury and talent if we're being generous. We're still left with a QB that puts up sub par numbers and has a turnover problem. But he was getting better up until late 2011. Can Mornhinweg fix him? Maybe.
Pop quiz: Jerricho Cotchery had one 1000 yard season his whole career. Who was throwing to him? a. Chad Pennington b. Mark Sanchez c. Brett Farve (Hall of Fame bound QB)
Good call on the 30+ included rush. For some reason I thought it was throwing. Injury or something, nobody expected him to regress to his rookie year in year 4. Year 3 was something to build on until the middle and end. The bad games from the second half of year 3 became the norm in year 4.
except leading us to one of the best recrods in the league and to 4-5 late game reg season comebacks but you have your stats and stats tell you everything. do we count dropped TDs too since he had a bunch? do we take away the 2 BS INts at GB? how about the INts where a receiver ran a wrong route or they dropped the pass into a defender? stop talking about statistical anomalies. The bulk of our run game was w/ Greene and LT, they comibned to average less than 4.2 YPC which is good but far from great. The #s get skewed w/ week 17 and the "great" game from Joe McKnight. Is there a D? since the year he had 1,000+ our starter most of the year was Kellen Clemens. He had 858 rec yds w/ HOF bound Favre in 2008 playing 16 games, in 2009 w/ rookie Sanchez playing only 14 games he had 821 rec yds. Favre attempted 522 passes in 2008, Sanchez 364 in 2009.
Was the Super Bowl played in Indianapolis in 2009? Just like the stats from Manning's playoff road game losses are irrelevant, so is that fact since the Super Bowl was not at home. It is not a realistic expectation to go into the Colts building and expect to win by only scoring 17 points. Your argument of how many points Manning led his O to in 11 playoff losses is irrelevant since the Colts only lost 3 of those games at home. What is relevant is how many points the Colts scored at home before they played the Jets in 2009. Since it seems that you are not very good with numbers, I will write it all out for you. Here are all of the Colts home playoff games prior to playing the Jets in the 2009 AFC Championship game. 1999 Tennessee Titans, Colts scored 16 2003 Denver Broncos, Colts scored 41 2004 Denver Broncos, Colts scored 49 2005 Pittsburgh Steelers, Colts scored 18 2006 Kansas City Chiefs, Colts scored 23 2006 NE Patriots, Colts scored 38 2007 San Diego Chargers, Colts scored 24 2009 Baltimore Ravens, Colts scored 20 So, you were right. My numbers are off. I must have miscalculated somewhere. They actually averaged MORE than the 27.3 PPG I said before. :rofl2: The Colts scored an average of 28.6 PPG. Thanks for reenforcing my point! 17 is less than 28.6, right? :rofl2: One of the best records in the league? Out of the 6 AFC teams that qualified for the playoffs that year, only 1 team had a worse record.
You said he was top 10(ish) which is a stat. I posted stats that show that you were totally wrong. Not a little wrong. But really wrong. But hey, lets face it you're just shooting for that "most argumentative" award again and you don't care how much bullshit you have to post, or how much trolling you have to do to get it.
Football is not a stat sport. THere's so much more that goes into it other than stats. It's not baseball. Stats are easily over or under stated in football. Sanchez was a top-10 QB in 2010.
you were off though and those #s are skewed by beating 2 bad Denver teams. It's not that hard to beat Peyton led O's in January, in games they lose they have averaged less than 15 PPG.
top 10 is not a stat, there's more to this game than individual stats. I care more about WINS and making plays to win, Sanchez did a great job w/ that in 2010- better than most of the QBs in the league.
Sure. But ignoring them completely becomes an easy copout for people who want to spew nonsense and pretend they are the only ones who watch games/understand context/etc. Plenty of people watch the games and understand that in the grand scheme, stats are a supplement to the argument they bring to the table.
:lol: How does that help you? The Colts scored MORE than what I wrote, not less. You were right....about being wrong. Here you go again making stupid statements and trying to back them up with irrelevant stats. What does losses that aren't at home have to do with the Jets playing the Colts at home? The Colts at home PPG stats are skewed because of 2 home playoff wins against Denver, who ranked 9th in points allowed both years? What about the 2 road losses you use at NE, in the elements, when the Colts scored a combined 17 points? I suppose that didn't skew your stats? Using stats from road game losses are irrelevant since we were playing the Colts in their building. It is hard to beat the Colts at home in January. They only lost 3 home playoff games prior to 2009. They lost those 3 games by a combined total of 10 points. Even if you only want to look at the home playoff losses and exclude their wins at home, they still averaged 19.3 PPG in those home playoff losses. 17 is less than 19.3, right?
Top 10 is a stat. If you say he's a top 10 it's in SOMETHING, and yes that is usually measured in statistics and not the opinions of internet warriors. If it's your opinion that he was a top 10 QB in 2010 despite ranking in the mid 20's in significant categories, well then your opinion is wrong.
Ok, so he was Top 10 in your heart too. Thanks for backing up that rational argument with an emoticon.
