Yawn, Exactly my point, a QB doesn't have to be good when they are surrounded by elite talent, they just have to take care of the ball. Dilfer over his career was pretty good about protecting the ball, Sanchez only could protect the ball by the coaching staff limiting what he was allowed to do. If they had let Sanchez play the way he had in the regular season and not limited him in the type of offense he ran the Jets don't win...Sanchez in his career has never been able to take care of the ball. And therein lies my argument, if you are going to be a game manager at QB you had damn well better take care of the ball. Sanchez can't and everytime the coaching staff opens up the game for him he craps the bed. the only time Mark is successful is if the coaching staff keeps a tight reign on him and keeps him from crapping the bed. That can work on a short term basis, like a couple games in the playoffs, but if your QB isn't talented enough to be a big stat guy and isn't smart enough to be a low turn over guy if you let him play the game then he's not much of a QB is he?
I guess Joe's 15 TDs and 17 INts really carried the team in the reg season?(see I can post stats w/o context too) mark was a HUGE reason we made the playoffs in 2010, he had 4-5 late game comebacks to help us win or we aren't close to a playoff team. Namath needed to win ONE game at HOME to get to the SB, he faced a team that he LOST to in the reg season and had a better record than the Jets and still we hosted them. Not to mention we played in a weak division where the 2nd place team was at .500. A little different than 2010, right? Namath was elite at times, the reason they didn't make the playoffs in 1967 was b/c of Joe and let's not forget that they only made the postseason twice w/ Joe. He set a YARDAGE record, congrats! in that same season he cost us a chance to win the division by throwing 9 INTs in a late 3 game losing streak that cost us a chance at the division. yards are nice, wins are better. Yep, Joe opened the run game, he also forced Baltimore into 5 TOs too, right? If no one feared our pass game how did we run so well? Using your theory Ds would have focused on our run game to slow them down since they knew we couldn't throw, right? The opponent was so scared they turned it over 5 times which was the main reason we won. Did Joe play a large role? Absolutely but he didn't carry us to a title. Who cares about pass yds? it's about WINS. Mark made plays to WIN. Go back to that 1967 season, incredible year for yardage but what did it matter when he threw away the season? At no point have I ever said stats don't matter, they keep them for a reason. They give us a gauge but they don't tell us everything we need to know. All TDs look the same on a stat sheet but not all TDs are equal. This is something folks like you don't understand, you'll post things like rankings or Joe's record setting yards w/o telling the whole story. By the way, you do know the AFL was known as a passing league, right? Should we not count those #s?
when did we have elite talent w/ Mark? Peyton manning has had elite talent since day 1 in this league, shouldn't he then have about 10 SBs? Dilfer was pretty good at protecting the ball? Dilfer's first 4 years starting vs. Sanchez's first 4 years starting: INTs: TD: 63 MS: 69 fumbles: TD: 16 MS: 20 pretty close but Dilfer has 1712 attempts while Mark had 1867 so how was Dilfer pretty good at protecting the ball?
he had 4-5 leate season comebacks if you apply the term loosely. Lets put Marks 2010 performance stats in to context In the 4th Quarter with the game within 7 points Sanchez completed a whopping 45.6% of his passes. with 2 TD's and 3 interceptions...pretty damn clutch huh? in the last two minutes of a half, first or second, he was marginally better, almost great by Sanchez's standards with a 54.6% completion rate with 3 TD's and 3 interceptions... In the month of december he completed 53.8% of his passes with 1 TD and 5, yes 5, interceptions. He damn near cost the team a playoff birth. In the second half of games in 2010 he completed a whopping 50.0% of his passes with 8 TD's and 8 Interceptions. In the 4th quarter of games he completed a miserable 46.2% of his passes with 2 TD's and 4 interceptions. The only time Sanchez's numbers looked good in 2010 was when the team was trailing by 9 or more points in the second half, when he completed 61% of his passes, but no TD's..but kudos he didn't throw any picks either. Then again at that point defenses tend to play soft. Your eyes can be deciving, stats don't lie.
So now your admitting the team ran well, that's easy, the Jets had a very good running game despite teams loading up the box on the Jets. They had a mauling O-line and RB's that could carry the rock. Any argument that Joe wasn't a much better QB who, when compared to other players of his period, was a top 5 QB over the decade of the 60's as a whole. Sanchez when compared to his peers is a bottom 5, at best.
There you go again posting black and white stats w/o context. vs. NE: leads us to TD to put away NE game at Mia: leads us to 10 pts to win that game at Den: Den, trailing in final possession by 3. scrambles on 4th down, gives Holmes a chance to make a play setting up GW TD. at Det, trailing by 10 w/ 4 mins left. Leads us to 10 pts, we win toss and win game on 1st possession of OT at Cle: leads us to last second TD win in OT after D blew late game lead to send it to OT vs. Hou, trailing by 4 w/ under a minute left from inside our 30 and no TOs, leads us to GW TD at Pit: led us to GW pts at Pitt for 1st ever win in Pitt. but the cumulative stats tell us he sucked b/c he struggled in garbage time at NE or had a bad game vs. Miami and Baltimore. This is a perfect example, you can ignore all the great things he did and post stats w/o context to try to put him down.
And Dilfer led his team to how many playoffs over his career? Which is my point. Dilfer was a mediocre QB who relied on vastly superior talent around him in order to ride to the playoffs. Regarding Manning, yeah he really had elite talent surrounding him when the Colts. So elite that the colts were 3-13 that year allowing the Colts to hae the #1 pick in the draft. but within 2 years Peyton led them on his arm to a 13-3 season with over 4,000 yards in the air. Granted they were 3-13 his rookie year, but hard to win when your team gives up 450 points. But that begs the question, has Manning always had great talent around him? or did he make the talent around him great? all things considered you'd have to argue the latter. I don't know why you keep trying to compare Sanchez to elite QB's, it just show's how shallow your football IQ is.
But if Mark couldn't throw how did we run it so effectively? We had Thomas Jones and Shonn Greene, not exactly Walter Payton and Jim Brown. If we had no thrat of a pass game how did we run it so well? awesome but Joe only led his teams to 2 postseasons, I don't care about the individual #s. I care about winning and he didn't do enough of it. Joe had a brief window as a top QB and even in his best years was an INT machine.
To the contrary, those are fully within context, within the context of overall situations over the course of a season..Yes you can pick and choose your instances in a microcasm, but here's the thing. The more narrow the example you have to use to try to prove your point, the less likely your conclusion is in being correct. What your eyes tell you is seldom what actully was. You can find specific instances where the Sun seems to orbit the Earth through casual observation, but that doesn't make it the truth. Whether the team won or lost the games in question isn't the issue, it's what Mark contributed to the team what won or lost the game that matters. and the stats don't lie, Mark contributed practically nothing.
Again idiot, imagine how good the running game would have been with a QB who could throw the ball. The Jets running game behind the fantastic O-line of 09 and 10 bashed even the best defenses despite them being keyed on the run and stacking the box. The Jets running game WAS that good with that O-Line. Plain and simple.
Dilfer helped his teams reached a bunch of postseasons just like mark was on his way to. He walked into Indy and day 1 had young marshall faulk, Marvin Harrison, Ken Dilger, Marcus Pollard. He was surrounded by elite talent from day 1, he never had a #1 WR like Jeremy Kelrey or had a Chaz Schilens starting for him. In year 2 they moved Faulk and brought in some schlub named Edgerrin james, they would add Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clar, Garcon, etc... through the years. They were 3-13 the year before Manning and the first year of Manning and '99 started them out in a run of great reg seasons only to watch Peyton struggle in January. Manning has always had elite talent around him and he has also made players better. Mark is not anywhere near Peyton overall but in January Mark doesn't gag, Peyton does. You want to see shallow football IQ? re-read your incredibly weak arguments that keep getting torn to shreds.
And neither has Sanchez, nor will he. Good QB numbers don't insure victory, but they greaty improve the Chances, quick...name the last crap QB to reach the Superbowl....I'll give you a couple ours to research it.
Yep fully w/in context:rofl2: No need for childish name calling, accept your beating like a man and use it to become a better fan. How come that OL and run game didn't carry us to a title game in 2008 w/ a
I probably don't need that many ours to find it. why couldn't we ever win a playoff game in a season besides 1968 if Joe was so great?
So you think Rex Grossman was a good one? No matter what we discuss I always get the upper hand w/ you. By the way, Delhomme had a very good postseason for Carolina that year but thanks for saving me ours by telling me Delhomme was the last one:lol:
Eh I call em as I see em in this case, besides your constant demeaning of other posters as "average fans" kind of earned you the insult. and yes, it was fully within situation context, telling how a player performs under a specific set of circumstances is a fully scientifically accepted model in statistical analsyis, or any analsysis for that matter. Taking a matter out of context is using a specific example which is the exception to the overall peformance in a specific circumstnace and trying to make that outlying example look like the norm. It's called distortion of facts by taking an isntance that is true in one very specific instance and saying it's true as an overall trend in similar circumstances, which is what you do..repeatedly. And that is taking things out of the larger context.
Obsessive junc posts aside, I think that the main obstacles of a game like this would be time and objectivity. So you pit Mark Sanchez against Ryan Leaf, just also as an example. Most of the clickers are Jets fans and are tired of Sanchez, and I'd also guess that most of them only had allegorical knowledge of that completely worthless piece of trash Leaf due to their ages. They would vote Sanchez. Not that it made sense, but because they were emotional about the situation with Sanchez, and Leaf meant nothing to them.
