Really hard to say that Sanchez was getting the ball out faster considering he took 2 sacks in limited snaps in the pre-season. One against the Jags who have a dreadful pass rush and one in the limited snaps he had vs the Giants. Sanchez over his career has been among the longest pocket timed QB's in the NFL who weren't scramblers, Vick was the longest last year. Sanchez over the years has also taken a higher % of pressures as sacks according to I think thats' from either football insiders or a similar stat site. In other words Sanchez has always held on to the ball to long. Lets look at 2012, since I have those stats handy. Sanchez was pressured 100 times over the season. sounds like a lot doesn't it? Not really, there were 21 QB's in the NFL that had more pressures in 2012 than Sanchez, the most being Andrew Luck with 166. Sanchez took 34 Sacks in that 100 pressures. But that's not a fully accurate comparison since not all QB's drop back the same number of times. Sanchez was pressured in 29.3% of his drop backs, there were 19 NFL QB's who were pressured on more of the drop backs than Sanchez. Sanchez had a sack % of 23% There were only 6 QB's that had a higher percentage sack % based on pressures, Only 2 of those were pressured more than Sanchez, Aaron Rodgers and Jay Cutler. What does this tell us? it tells us that Sanchez is among the longest pocket time QB's, and that's pretty consistent throughout his career. Just a note, Sanchez was one of 6 QB's to throw 0 TD's under pressure. He had the 4th lowest throw away percentage under pressure of all QB's. AND the lowest completion percentage of any QB when under pressure. There is one surprise that I found in 2012, Under pressure Mark had the 3rd lowest interception percentage when under pressure. And this is perplexing because that means most of his interceptions came when he WASN'T under pressure. Meaning that, at least in 2012, his interception were even more inexcusable because they came when he had time. That's something I hadn't realized.
Interesting to see that Marks INT numbers dip when he is pressured. Then again, his problem has always been with reading coverages, and not so much with getting the ball out under pressure.
do we need the childish name calling? grow up. I am fair w/ everyone, I can't help it if other folks either A) don't understand the game or B) don't understand what I actually post. Our OL played very well in the pass game. All sacks are not on the OL. New GM, have you notice how Rex has been neutered? you think that was Rex's idea? if rex had power mark would have been declared the starter before the Giant game and started that game not been in there in the 4th getting hurt. This is basic stuff guys, using that flawed logic no good players would ever be let go by their teams.
Yes, probably because he was holding the ball so long under pressure that he never released the ball even, bringing about fumbles and sacks and head butts, etc.
Okay, I get it now. Idzik is the one who wants to move on from Mark, not Rex! And Idzik is the reason Mark didn't start against the Giants and he's also the reason why Mark was inserted into the 4th Q of an absolutely meaningless game. This had nothing to do with Rex and everything to do with Idzik! Idzik must go! The foolish moron doesn't know unbelievable talent when he see it!
Yes it was Idzik and Woody. When a new GM comes in what does he usually get to do? hire a new HC and pick a new QB. Did Idzik get to hire a new HC? No so he desperately wanted to put his stamp on the team and bring in the new QB. This isn't really that complicated and again using your flawed logic no team would ever let go of a decent player. Unitas' career? never would have happened along w/ Steve Young, Rich gannon, Jim Plunkett, Bill Belichick never would have been hired in NE, etc...
your point is? where have I said he's coming back? the only way he plays for us again is if Geno implodes and hopefully that doesn't happen.
There will never be a changing of your mind on this QB. Worse, you've already started immortalizing him. Now that his shoulder is shot, we'll never know what year 5, 6, 7 and 8 would have brought, but I can only guess, based upon his slide into oblivion and obscurity. But you'll find a way to let us all know what a HOFer he would have become, how he would have once again taken us to the POs and beyond. How he'd go down in history as the next Joe Montana. But we'll never know that. And that's to your advantage now, as you build the case that 95% of all Jets fans are wrong about this guy and can't possibly know football and "can't grasp the basic information." The basic information is, this guy stinks up the field worse than most NY Jets quarterbacks I can think of I'm not talking teams now, I'm just talking QB play.
the real problem is that you don't read my posts, you perceive what you want to believe. At no point did I ever call him great or say he would be great but if someone defends him at all then the less knowledgeable Jet fans think that person is saying mark is great. There was much more to it than just the QB but everyone thinks it was all Mark's fault. I defend what is right and will always do so, if that bothers people that's ok with me.
Because your magic 8 ball tells you that's the case. But lets go through your wonderful little list of QB's, we'll ignore the Headcoach because coaches get hired and fired all the time. We'll stay on target, something you and Sanchez have trouble doing Unita's career? Bad choice, he failed the interview process and never even took a snap in training camp. No track record to judge one way or the other. No comparison to the Sanchez Situation with 4 years of data. Rich Gannon? Gannon was a horrible QB who played for several good teams during his career, he wasn't a winning QB until he went to Oakland who didn't find success in his career until he turned 34. Plunkett, like Gannon, didn't find success until he was 33 years of age, also with Oakland at that point. It's worth noting that prior to Plunkett's arrival in in Oakland Plunkett had never had a winning season as a starter (Since you like QB wins so much) he was also statistically horrible through the first 10 years of his career. He was so prized by the raiders that he wasn't activated for a single game in 1978. In 79 he was thought so highly of that he attempted a total of 15 passes. he caught a break when Pastorini broke his leg in 1980. It's worth noting that in the 10 years prior to Plunketts arrival the Raiders had never had a losing season over that span, they had a losing record in Plunkett's 2nd season as a starter with them. Steven Young, the best of the bunch you listed that actually apply in some way to Sanchez, didn't start with the 49ers until he was 30, he didn't start full time till he was 31. He sat learning from one of the games best in Joe Montana for 4 1/2 seasons. So basically your saying that the Jets should hold on to Sanchez until he's 31-33ish hoping that he's then gives the team 2-3 good years, right? So basically your arguing that at his best potential he's a Dilfer. Which is all Gannon or Plunkett gave the Raiders, god knows Gannon was reviled in KC for being a horrible QB, and KC fans back then knew a good QB when they saw one. Your whole argument is based around 2 QB's who drifted from team to team generally sucking wind and one QB who was who was traded to the 49ers for a 2nd and 4th round pick to back up Joe Montana....Sign me up for trading Sanchez for a 2nd, let alone a 4th, and forget about getting both a 2nd and a 4th...to play backup. Young wasn't undervalued. Young was traded for very good value by the Buc's.
If Sanchez was good Idzik doesn't draft Geno. If Idzik was hired in Indy you think he drafts Geno? Or Washington, Carolina, SF, Sea etc? You can make the argument about replacing the head coach.
It's common football sense. why is unitas a bad example? he failed w/ Pitt and had to catch on w/ another team. That means some team didn't think he was good enough. was Gannon horrible or just in horrible situations? either way teams deemed him not able to play in this league so using your flawed logic he never would have had a chance to become a league MVP. Just b/c a player moves on from one team doesn't mean they suck, the history of this league is littered w/ good players cut from other teams. Teams make mistakes, in this case a new GM came in and wanted his guy in there. If not Sanchez would have been anointed starter early in preseason and we still would have been 1-0 w/ an improved Sanchez thanks to improved talent and an improved OC.
So your logic for keeping Sanchez is all paranoia that he goes somewhere else and becomes good? For every Plunket, Young, Gannon there are 1000's of QB's that goes somewhere else and still sucks.
Of course I read your posts. How and why do you say such a thing? Because I disagree with you? In case you don't realize it, you're not the last word on Mark Sanchez, nor are you an expert. 95% of the Jets fans have had it with this guy. For God's sake man, you know enough about football to be a pretty decent evaluator of talent. But so do many other Jets fans, so please stop with the demeaning comments. I never said you thought he was great or would be great, so you can also stop insunuating that and deflecting in this way. Mark has had his chance here. His ineptness isn't all about other players, coaches, surrounding circumstances, injuries and (now) Idzik. His inabilities have to fall on his shoulders at some point. Not all of his failures have been caused by external forces. He's got to be responsible for his decisions, bad choices, lousy reads, inexplicable low percentage shots, intolerable ball security and horrible timing and innacuracy. You defend him as if you don't see these inadequacies. Damn straight I do. And I've been watching the Jets for as long as you have. And I know what I perceive and I know how to translate that into what I believe. And I know this QB doesn't have it. That's what I believe and that's the bottom line and that's why you get so much static here in this thread, because 95% of Jets fans see what I see... that he just doesn'tn have it and that it's time to move on.
227 you have been watching them alot longer than he has. he was a 70s baby so anything before the early 80s is pure conjecture on his part. even when he tells us all about how joe namath wasnt really that good.
its funny when stuff like this happens. it happens pretty regularly with you but i usually dont feel like going back and quoting it. although i can say i have now for hte first time used the m quote button. i didnt call YOU anything. i said it makes you SEEM LIKE, not that you were. i said it that way very specifically so that i wouldnt be accused of name calling or attacking. so it appears as though YOU are the one who doesnt really understand what others are posting. you are as fair as bill oreilly.
