Let's compare the playoff teams: seeds: 1 '97 KC vs. '09 Indy: HUGE edge Indy 2 Pitt vs. SD: big edge SD 3 NE vs. NE- I'll take Brady led Pats over Bledsoe led Pats 4 Den vs. Cincy- huge edge Denver 5 jax vs. NYJ- edge Jets 6 Miami vs. Bal- edge Bal it's hard to compare b/c again sometimes more wins doesn't mean better. The AFC only went 31-28-1 against the NFC, in the NFC more than half of their teams had losing records. In '09 the AFC went 37-27b against the NFC where only 6 of 16 teams had losing records. #s aren't always black and white, sometime you have to dig deeper. maybe you didn't watch football in 1997? we went from 1 win in '96 to 9 in '97, the AFC was getting stronger but not quite strong. we got back w/in 5 in that Pitt game but the D failed. at Indy we got shut out but we lost our run game when Greene went out and Sanchez was a ROOKIE. Stewart was carried much more than sanchez but again Stewart needed 1 win each year at HOME, one of those wins was a 7-6 win. The other win the D allowed 3 points. In 2 div rd games at HOME their D allowed a TOTAL of 9 pts. The fewest amount of pts our D allowed in any single game was 14 pts. 37-
Ehh in 11 Eli only had 1 overall turnover in the playoffs and that leaves out his regular season where he was much more positively impactful on the Giants than Sanchez has ever been for the Jets. 07 I could see 10 Sanchez succeeding on, maybe not 09 though. The key thing about Eli and that offense was that they never let a deficit get out of control like we did in Pitt. Even when their defense decided not to show up for a quarter, they usually had already put up enough points, or responded with points so I don't think in either of those SB runs they were ever down by 3 scores. Their offense has never put up 0 points in half like we did in IND in 2009. The only time they put up 3 points in a half was against NE in the 07 SB where their defense only gave up 7 and the offense didn't give away any points. The defense was very impactful, but the offense never let the game slip away out of control which has happened in both of our championship games. Eli probably doesn't that let our offense no show for a half in both championship games. That could be just enough to send us to the SB. 2011 Eli on 2010 Jets or 2009 Jets probably has a good chance at winning the SB and that's completely leaving out what he could have done in the regular season impacting the division and etc.
yep and he needed TWO dropped INTs, 1 fumble that was ruled down and TWO STs TOs to eek out a W in SF in the title game. The biggest difference btw us in '10 and NYG in '11 in the title games was they ruled an obvious fumble down for NYG or SF wins and they ruled an incomplete pass a fumble for us giving Pitt a TD in a close game.
Sanchez was the following QB ratings throughout his career: 2009: bottom 3 in football 2010: bottom 5 in football 2011: bottom 7 in football 2012: UNRATED So yes, he "did better when he had great players". Instead of being the 31st QB in football, he was ::wait for it:: the twenty-third best! It is a complete myth that Sanchez was some sort of good player when given a good team. The good team was good in spite of the joke QB. /thread
be a smarter fan than just looking at QB ratings. The only joke is the fan who evaluates strictly based of off #s out of context.
What context? When he was on a great team, he was sill one of the worst QBs in football. This is the NFL. He's had four years to crack the top 20, something top ten drafted QBs do with EASE in this current NFL, and he's never managed to come close! He was never good.
Junc when a QB is consistently ranked at the bottom that doesn't tell you nothing at all? You have QB's like Brady and Rodgers that are consistently ranked in the top 10 that doesn't mean anything? We see a QB in Sanchez that stunk when the talent was better and stunk when the talent dwindled.
You are pretty unbelievable with how you try to spin things. You say more than half of the NFC teams had losing records in 1997 compared to only 6 in 2009. What you don't mention is that among those 6 teams with losing records, only 2 had 5 or more wins. In 2009 you had St. Louis, Tampa and Detroit with a total of 3 wins or less. Compare that to 1997 where 6 of the 8 teams with losing records won 5 or more games.
Dropped INTs. Come on Junc, that's a terrible stat to use ESPECIALLY when trying to argue something FOR Sanchez. It's a terrible stat in general, can't believe you just used it. It's one of the most subjective stats (nobody ever defines drops to start with) ever and holds no weight unless you rank it for every QB in the league and then add in dropped catches to balance it out. Then you have to take into account how many times the QBs threw the ball to really figure if the stat means anything. Also you never addressed the point, the GMEN weren't shut out in either championship game. In both they posted 6,10,10,7 in their 4 halves of championship games. We put up 17,0,3,14 in our halves. Then throw in the bad call that really meant the 3 we earned was negated by the fact we gave up 7 offensively. Yeah the Giants won a close game, so what? That brings nothing to the discussion of the point that the Giants offense was able to not let games slip away. The offense literally no showed for us for 4 straight quarters in championship games. Eli didn't let his team do that, and that probably puts the 09/10 team to have a better shot at winning their championship games. Maybe they still don't, but they probably have a better shot. 2010 he was a good player. Not great, but good. He was a key piece to the team getting 11 wins and a key piece to the team getting 5 losses. He was also a key piece to the 2 playoff wins and a key piece to the 1 playoff loss. In 2009 it could be argued he was more hidden and tucked away on offense, in 2010 it wasn't the case. That's revisionist history. You also failed to point out Sanchez was improving each year before 2012 :up:
of 15 NFC teams in 1997 8 had losing records. 53% had losing records of 16 NFC teams in 2009 6 had losing records. 38% had losing records which is worse?
it is a terrible thing to use BUT TWICE Eli threw the ball up for grabs into double coverage and each time SF DBs collided and prevented the INT. It doesn't matter if they were shut out in a half. They scored 20 in regulation at GB in '07 and 17 at SF in '11. We scored 17 each time- is that a huge difference? The difference in NYG '07/'11 and NYJ '09/'10 was D/STs not QBs
He has never, even "when he had good player around him", been in the top half of the league in passing yards. Should we ignore that too? How bout his INTs? Can we count those? He was bottom five in the league every year except 2011, where he was still in the bottom half. How about completion percentage? He has never even cracked 57%. He basically hovers around 53-56 every single year. He is in fact remarkable consistent with this shitty percentage. His banner year he threw for a whopping 56% completion percentage. This was a top 10 draft pick who has made a fortune off of his status as a top pick. And he's abysmal in every possible category. He is quite simply the worst starter over that 4 year period, and yet was drafted not just to be average (which he falls way short of), but to be an elite QB. The guy is an epic failure.
Originally Posted by Acad23 Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Sanchez. All he basically said was that Sanchez won more games when he had better receivers to throw to and a better rushing game around him. No shit. Not giving up on him? Sorry, I didn't see that written. Hey, don't get me wrong. We're stuck with Sanchez, unless Garrard totally wows them in camp. It is what it is. If Sanchez thought last year was difficult, this year will be a steeper hill to climb. He'll be under scrutiny by the fans and the media from the start of camp. I've repeatedly said that Mark Sanchez was extremely lucky to have been picked up by the Jets. I can't think of another team that has had the perfect blend of elements that have enabled him to continue to start games, let alone stay with the team. He's a likable kid, says all the right things, and he's shown that he can play winning football when surrounded by decent talent. You can say that about just about every 2nd string qb in the league. None of them has played in two league championship games. I know he's given me some thrilling moments in the past four years. Too bad lately they've been face palm bad moments. The Jets have done themselves and the fans a disservice in the manner in which they've handled Mark's development. That's part of the reason this thread is over 350 pages and counting. But back to Cowher. His comments are worthless. Plus, he's an asshole.
LMAO!!! Winner! He has no logical retort. Please tell me how a QB who is league worst in turnovers, completion %, and QBR, as well as below average in passing yards and TDs, could ever be considered anything but "not good".
The Jets are out the 8.5 million anyway. He is worthless as a backup. The Jets would be better off cutting him loose and using Mcelroy and/or Gerarrd as the backup/s. He is a waste of a roster spot and a cancer on the team.
It is a terrible stat but you are going to use it anyway? That's an interesting take on what to do. Trust me, dropped INTs is not a stat you want to open the door on, especially in a Sanchez thread. Sanchez looks absolutely TERRIBLE if you open the door to dropped INTs being allowed in the discussion. Wanna clarify why it doesn't matter we were shut out in a half? We were up 17-13 got the ball, didn't score. Colts go up 20-17. Then we don't score again. We get a stop. We don't score again. I'm 99%, no wait 100%, 7 points or even 3 points would have mattered. The difference between the two teams was that the offense for the Giants offense remembered football is 4 quarters AND defense AND special teams. Granted the GMEN kicker in 07 champ game was brutal. 2 missed FGs in the 4th quarter when the game was tied at 20? One with 7 minutes left, one to win the game. Brutal misses. Luckily, 3rd time was the charm, but man kicker almost cost them the game twice.
Can you define a fantasy stat? Because yds, comp%, INTs, and TDs are stats that are used specifically for a QB. And together, they paint a clear picture of what you are getting from a QB or what you got from a QB year to year. I can see how passer rating is a fantasy stat since it is an arbitrary formula. I can see wins are a fantasy stat. I can see dropped INTs as a fantasy stat. But yards, avg yards per attempt, INT, INT %, TD, TD%, fumbles compiled together a great picture of what a QB does year to year.
so have we circularly concluded that kordell stewart was in fact a good quarterback, who just needed a few more years to figure it out?
