No . . . but it's certainly reasonable to expect them to score more than THREE . . . lol Once more, Sanchez sucked. The fact that the defense also sucked isn't relevant to that assertion. Sanchez was horrible that night. You can nitpick the defense all you want, but the bottom line is that the defense held the opposition to 10 points and turned them over several times deep in their own territory . . . and our offense couldn't put the ball in the endzone once. Four games is a significant sample size . . . it's 25% of an NFL season. If you told me that my starting quarterback was going to have an annual 4 game stretch in which he would throw 15 picks . . . I'd go get myself another starting quarterback. Again, he was a rookie . . . So, I don't see the need to fixate on the turnovers he committed in 2009. However, we have very different ideas of what it means to be consistently turnover prone. (Also, it's worth noting that the Jets threw the ball less frequently than anyone in the league that year . . . Mark Sanchez had 20 interceptions on only 364 pass attempts)
Only 1 in 2010, the fumble problem has been a last 2 years thing. so if we lost 45-24 it would have made you feel better? he wasn't good but out D was equally to blame for allowing Bal to hold the ball for 40 mins. Does 4 games(27% as he played 15 games that year) tell us more or does 15 games(73%) tell us more? Consistently TO prone was mark last year where he only had 3 games w/o a TO. In 2009 he had 7 games w/o a TO. 11 wins: NE: pass O Mia: pass O Buf: rush O Min: rush/pass(amazing we had no TOs in that monsoon) Den: pass O Det: pass O Cle: pass O Hou: pass O Cin: rush O/STs Pit: pass O/STs Buf: exhibition game
So he turned the ball over 17 times in 4 games? Is that really true? Basically, at that point, you are going to lose no matter what. It doesnt matter what the defense really does at that point. If you are putting your team in that position, you are losing the game.
I wouldn't expect an average fan to understand that if the offense could drive the ball and score more than 3 points, that the other team would definitely not be scoring 45. Another example of junc posturing like he understands this game, but only posting like it when it suits his narrative. For somebody that doesn't rely on fantasy stats or ESPN, I sure get the depth of a Cris Carter or Skip Bayless from his analysis. Please stop responding to this paid Jets PR puppet.
Please go the FIRE REX thread where he wrote the incredible: "Parcells took over a VERY TALENTED 1-15 team" SIMPLY INCREDIBLE!, I guess that if they went 0-16 that year, then Parcells would have been taking over a talentless team BUT since they won ONE GAME, they were very talented! The guy is amazing, possibly more than HOBBES!
that's what you took out of today's discussions? don't you have a meaningless point to try to expose so you can be the king of the average fans for a day?
I wouldn't expect you to admit that thinking 2 ways on the exact same point of contention isn't meaningless. But that is because I know your employer keeps a close eye on this. Do your thing man. I hope I didn't put a dent in your hopes for a raise. Seriously. I don't want to affect your actual career just your e-career.
I hope his career is not based on calling 1-15 teams talented! 2-14 must mean super bowl contenders, and 3-13 must mean ALL WORLD! AMAZING!
I a guessing you are a second account for BB or one of these guys b/c you read like many of them. Stop polluting the threads, if you have something reasonably intelligent to say please participate but the nonsense you are posting today needs to stop.
you have to understand that not all situations are the same. I don't mind dealing w/ you, I just wish you'd engage in some discussions rather than the hit and run nonsense.
You are being intentionally ignorant and it is cute. The isolated point of contention was not dealing with the situation. Although I understand it is your instinct to go that route. The point of contention is what the 35/36 yard line is. And you showed your true colors. For once, stop trying to spin this and you won't look so biased. Stop with the straw men and acting like I am acting like this isolated point is a big deal as it pertains to the situation. We both know I am not saying that. We both know that the point I am trying to make is that you let your perception get skewed by the point you want to make. Don't try to argue it. We both KNOW that. It is no longer in dispute Just do better from now on. Go ahead and give me your one-lined attempt at dismissal. That is what I expect from an average fan/paid NYJ puppet. Maybe the easiest thing is just to ask you this: Is, or isn't, the 35 yard line near midfield?
Not every situation is the same, I may have misspoke but again it was meaningless to the argument at hand. I made a mistake, it makes your meaningless point look valid b/c of it so it was my mistake but we both know it had nothing to do w/ the actual argument.
Blah blah blah. Lol @ you misspoke. More like you misremembered your own analysis. And if it were meaningless you wouldn't have brought it up, saying "so now the 35 yard line is near midfield?", trying to win a point. Stop running. Nevermind. Are you going to answer the question or not? Is the 35 yard line close to midfield or not? Question 2: Does it depend on whether Sanchez has the ball at the 35 yard line?
