I do worry for Mark's mind, after watching that Titans game. He clearly had had enough with everything that happened in 2012 by then, and benching him was the right move at the time. Week 17 vs. the Bills doesn't bother me, as the team had already checked out and Sanchez did not know he would be starter til late in the week. The question you have to wonder is can he get his mind back on track in 2013? That would be my only concern going into the 2013 season with him as the starter.
im sorry but its always completely hilarious when a person posts stats that are wrong, and then other people quote them and accept them as correct and try and use it against someone else the egg has left its shell and hit you directly in the face
That is a valid concern, that is my biggest issue w/ him as well. If Geno becomes the QB I will be rooting for him to succeed. We can't bury him(like we have Mark) if he struggles as a rookie or 2nd yr QB but I know our fanbase would do that.
NYJ and NYG are win now or gtfo football teams Fans will make it known when they don't like something. This franchise is one of the hardest to win b.c you are battling other teams and half the fans in your city. Jets win they are on top of the world. They lose and off with their heads.
Why should THAT matter?? Don't you know that in the SanchezisagoodQB Bizzarro world, the smaller sample size always trumps the much bigger sample size. It's like some kind of "Alice in Wonderland" version of statistics.
Sanchez just doesn't have the anticipation and field vision that is required to be an NFL caliber QB. In college, his WRs were so much better athletically than the guys defending them, that most of his passes were to guys that were wide open guys. But to be a good NFL QB, you can't just see who's open, but where the other defenders are, and who can help out. I think Sanchez throws interceptions to safeties and LBs more than usual because of this, because he usually just sees if his WR is beating his CB. This is why the ground and pound worked better for us, because defenses had to go a bit more man to man, so when he did have to throw, it worked to his natural tendency. But once the running game wasn't elite, teams could back off, and Sanchez was essentially dead. It's really not his arm or athletic ability that is the problem. It's the way he recognizes open WRs and what he classifies as open. This is one thing, that I think Geno has on Sanchez by far. He's used to having defenses being back to defend the pass, so he's much more inclined to look away safeties and get it away from defenders at a much better clip than Sanchez ever was. Sanchez wasn't the reason we won those playoff games. It was a team effort, similar to how say Trent Dilfer won a SB. Not like Sanchez was driving down the field like a crazy passing QB. I do think Sanchez will be better in a WCO, because it fits better into what he can do, but I think Geno will be much better, so even with improvement, I doubt he wins the competition. I'd keep him as the backup. Garrard, probably gets hurt or sucks, I'd be surprised if he actually amounts to anything.
Except in your version of statistics, you exclude interaction, confounding - not to mention any sort of and simple cause and effect relationship. Sample size is not the be all factor that implicates validity or reliability of any outcome if you fail to account for all of the covariates that are likely to explain the outcome in your analysis.
The cause and effect relationship between the defense giving up a late score and Sanchez playing like garbage all game is pretty clear. The shorter the offense is on the field, the longer the defense is on the field. The longer you're asked to shut the other team out drive after drive, the more likely you are to get physically or mentally fatigued and give up a late score. Pretty simple. Pretty hard to blame a defense for a loss when the offense has given up more points than the defense 59 minutes into the contest. And yes ... Sample size is pretty important when your only argument is based on putting more value on a 6 game sample (9%) than you're puttingn on a 62 game sample (91%). Most reasonable people would call that argument invalid and ridiculous.
You are assuming that the two samples you are referring two are from the same population, when in fact the they are drawn from a mixture of distributions under very different conditions. Sample size only matters when the validity of your analysis holds. Who cares what the sample size is when you fail to account for possible variables that can explain some or all of the outcome. People refer to sample size because of the central limit theorem. One thing that the central limit theorem requires is that the estimates be of values drawn from the same distribution, and that values be independent of each other. One example of how your reference to sample size falls short is that there is likely a relationship between the level of Sanchez's success and the players that the Jets had on offense. Because of this, you cannot throw everything into one large pot without acknowledging they were produced under different conditions. This is just one example of how these assumptions are not met when focusing only on Sanchez and his overall success, game by game, or year by year, without accounting for anything else, like offensive talent.
We didn't bury Mark his 1st or 2nd year. We buried Mark sometime during his 4th year when he was completing less than 50% of his passes and looking like a really bad QB. The opening post in this thread was 10/9/12. It may feel to you like you've spent two years fending off the unwashed hordes all trying to mess up the guy from GQ but it's been about 6 months.
My question to you is, how can you judge a QB on an offense with 0 weapons, a bad offensive line, Tebow and his maniacs, average running backs and Tony Sparano leading it? It is not a coincidence that 2012 was Sanchez's worst season. Erase that season and he has played in 6 playoff games and his worst season the team was (8-8). Want to throw all that away just because of one season of disaster (mostly caused by the Jets themselves)? The answer seems to be yes.
Because there are a lot of signs that don't have to do with the talent around him that cropped up. Things like when to throw the ball away/force a throw. When to take a sack vs when to throw it up for grabs. Ball security. Consistently throwing receivers open on simple crossing passes. Also, in his worst season (excluding 4), the team went 9-7. His rookie year is far worse than his 3rd year. His 3rd year was much more promising than his rookie year. Using his team's record is really silly. You can't throw away 2.5 season of poor play (1/2 of year 3, all of year 4, all of year 1) and focus on the other 1.5 years. He needs to make a big step forward to continue being starting QB on this team, and it all starts mentally which seems to be something that's far worse than lack of physical tools.
We didn't judge him based on 2012. We judged him based on 2012 and the last half of 2011 and 2009. We judged him based on crappy completion percentages all 4 seasons. We judged him based on leading the NFL in turnovers. We judged him based on what we saw in front of us. Here's a really important thing to remember about statistics and how they work. It's very rare for somebody to have very good stats and actually be bad. It's equally rare to have really bad stats over a sustained period of time and be any good. The problem Sanchez has is that none of his stats look particularly good and most of them look pretty hideous. It's hard to have a lifetime completion percentage of 55.1% in 1,867 passes in this passing era. Most QB's who are inaccurate get gonged out long before they get to that number of throws. It's hard to have more Int's than TD's over that number of attempts. Again most QB's get taken off the field when things get that bad. The reason Sanchez got the number of passes he did despite his lack of overall success as a passer is because he got a pass on his really bad rookie year. He got thrown onto a team with a #1 defense and a #1 rushing attack and the bad rookie season got poo-poohed because that defense and rushing attack took the Jets deep into the playoffs. By year 4 the free passes are over, and that includes do-overs based on the system and talent around you. Sanchez has shown nothing in 4 years at this point that suggests he is capable of being a plus QB in the NFL, let alone a really good one. If he'd shown us some real talent along the way he wouldn't be on his way out the door. Then again if he'd done that his numbers wouldn't be so bad that they're pushing him out the door.
Let us not forget the multicollinearity of regression in the on field performance of Mark Sanchez. Mathematically, it can be expressed easily- Or, in layman terms...Sanchez sucks no matter how you look at it.
Foley played a role in a couple of wins. So what? Our QB situation was still much better than it was the year before. The biggest difference was the coaching staff and our schedule. I'm talking about the Pitt teams with O'Donnell and Kordell Stewart. You say they were not a great team, yet your post shows 7 playoffs apps from 1992 to 2001 with 4 AFC Champ games. That is making the playoffs 70% of the time with a Super Bowl App. They earned 5 bye weeks. They did all of that 2 QBs that were not great. They did it with a strong defense and running game. The comparison to Sanchez is not identical but it is a fact that they made it to 4 AFC Champ games with those QBs. Those were team accomplishments just like the 2 AFC Champ games we went to with Sanchez were team accomplishments. Sanchez played a small role in those team accomplishments. The new GM didn't draft a QB because he wanted his own guy. He drafted a QB because he knows that Sanchez is not the guy you want as your starting QB. You don't want the team to be the anchor for your QB. You want the QB to be the anchor for your team. I don't believe Geno is the answer either, but I hope I am wrong.
