Nope. He thinks he's right. He think he's always been right. He'll always think he's right. This is his crusade. We're the poor bastards who simply do not embrace The Truth as he thinks we should, despite him endlessly preaching the gospel.
it's so great to have fans. I appreciate all of you, I wish you could read but I still appreciate all of you.
In other news......RG III is average....Blaine Gabbert is the pits.....Josh Freeman is horrible.....and lots of other 2/3/4/5 year QB's are stinking up the joint, many with more weapons than Sanchez. If Sanchez is mediocre and at best Top 16-18 QB, that's not bad compared to what's out there.
There were games in 09 that they ran the ball more than they threw it. Vs Houston rush yards/attempts 42-190, pass yards/attempts 18-31 Vs Patriots rush yards/attempts 31-117, pass attempts 14-22 Vs Titans rush yards/attempts 31-83, pass attempts 17-30 Vs Saints rush yards/attempts 27-132, pass attempts 14-27 Vs Dolphins rush yards/attempts 30-138 pass attempts 12-24 Vs Bills rush yards/attempts 40-318 pass attempts 10-29 Vs Raiders rush attempts/yards 54-316, pass attempts 9-16 Vs Dolphins rush attempts/yards 40-127, pass attempts 20-35 Vs Jaguars rush attempts/yards 29-110, pass attempts 30-26 (first game Sanchez threw more than they ran) Vs Patriots rush attempts/yards 26-104, pass attempts 8-21 Vs Panthers rush attempts/yards 39-139, pass attempts 13-17 Vs Bills rush yards/attempts 43-249, pass attempts 7-15 Vs Bucs rush yards/attempts 41-175, pass attempts 12-23 (Mark Sanchez DNP) Vs Falcons rush yards/attempts 33-99, pass attempts 18-32 Vs Colts rush yards/attempts 44-202, pass attempts 12-19 Vs Bengals rush yards/attempts 57-257, pass attempts 8-16 So based on these FACTUAL numbers how in the fluck did the Bills and Raiders games "skewed the numbers" when the Jets ran the ball more than they threw it in all but one game? So when I and others say the run game carried the offense it's not an attempt to slight Mark, but its based on facts.
Can we agree on these basic facts and maybe just CLOSE this !$%!@%^@*! thread ????? (1) Mark Sanchez has been a below-average QB during his 4 years in the NFL, and for most stretches of the Jets 2 playoff seasons in 2009 and 2010. (2) Mark Sanchez has been a Top 10 QB in many late-game 'clutch' situations and has been a Top 10 QB in 6 playoff road playoff games (97 Rating for both 2009 AND 2010). I don't know ANYBODY on this site who wanted Mark gone after 2010. Then, with a QB entering his 3rd year, we got rid of 3 of his top 4 WR's: Brad Smith, Jericho Cotchery, and Braylon Evans. Cotchery and Evans had huge games to beat NE in the playoffs. Then, with a QB entering his 4th year, we hired TONY SPARANO (stop laughing) as the OC despite his never having done it before (he was an OL coach). NFL experts now say they are 'shocked' that a guy who lost 75% of his starting WR's and then had Sparano as his OC has 'regressed.' Gee.....YA THINK !!!??????????
go back and read all my posts slowly so you can absorb the info. Just a little recap: I have NEVER called mark Sanchez great or said he would ever be great I have NEVER said he carried us anywhere I have ALWAYS said the D led the team and was reason #1 we made the 2 title games this is interpreted by the unreasonable anti-Sanchez crowd as: "Junc says mark Sanchez is as good as Tom Brady, our D sucks and we wouldn't have won 3 games w/o Mark." running more than throwing is more a product of having leads. It doesn't tell us anything by itself. at Houston, our run game stunk most of the day until the game was basically out of reach and Jones had 2 long runs to make the yardage look good. vs. NE: 3.7 YPC is good? we got a lead early in the 2nd half and our D played great. It was start #2 for mark and his first against NE. They were right to be cautious. vs. Ten: did that 2.7 YPC really help us? we threw more than we ran, 4 mark runs upped that total but our RBs ran it 27 times. at Saints: mark struggled and despite being down we ran the ball. RBs ran it 21 times, Mark threw 27 at Mia: week after NO disaster, they were going to be cautious. run game and mark were good. at oak: we dominated on ground vs. Mia: ran and passed the same amount. vs. Jags: 3.8 YPC. threw 30 times, ran 28 at NE: struggled. vs. Car: week after struggling at NE, ran for 3.1 YPC. at Bills: got hurt at TB: didn't play vs. Atl: ran 28 times on 3 YPC, threw 32, at Indy: ran it to keep game close until Indy removed starters vs. Cincy: we dominated them from the start. blind stats, that's so unlike you:rofl:
And when did I say you said any of that? I said that saying the defense is the number 1 reason we lost was unreasonable. Then you said something about reading comprehension. That's not blind stats that's facts. The run game carried the offense. You dismiss stats that doesn't suit your agenda.
why is saying the D being the #1 reason we lost unreasonable? we were a D first team, we expected our D to play at a certain level, they failed to do so. They blew a double digit lead in the '09 title game and after the game got w/in a score in the '10 title game they allowed Pitt to run out the clock. The blind stats comment was in response to 1968 not you. Your stats were partially blind, very misleading and mostly incorrect.
how about you go back and tell me how many times we ran it against 8 in the box. i know it was a shit ton because nobody had any respect for mark sanchez in 09 or 10 or 11. that is a pretty easy thing to realize. and how many teams have run it more than passed it or even been close in the last 5 years? not too many that have "good" to "very good" quarterbacks. you do that because you have a good defense and a qb who can barely get out of his own way. on a side note, have you had this conversation over there on the fins board? how many of your supposed 24k posts were in that one and how did it turn out? are you over there spreading hte knowledge to the idiots just like you do here?
you tell me how many times we faced 8 in the box, how in the world could we run w/ the decent backs we had w/ constant 8 in the box? not happening. It happened at times but again he was a ROOKIE. we played conservative, that doesn't mean our run game was great b/c it was not. We had a couple of great games that skewed #s and average fans that just look at rankings, etc... think we ran it at will. Thank you for following me over there as well. I will spread the truth and try to help the average fans no matter where I post.
Here's what he's teaching us :rofl: Originally Posted by nyjunc If Tb had mark Sanchez they'd be 2-0, if they get Rex and sanchez next year they will go to the SB w/ all the talent on that team.
I am sorry you don't understand this game. W/ less talent around the QB w/ the Jets we nearly made 2 SBs, why couldn't he make a SB w/ more talent in TB? Please explain w/ all this great football knowledge you have?
If you have some time to kill, wander over to buffalorange.com and see how SuperJunc "schools" the average fans over there.
Junc, your argument is so stupid it is embarrassing. the answer is obvious and simple -- because Rex and Sanchez in Tampa Bay with more talent wouldn't be playing the same teams that the Jets in 09 and 10 played, so just because they have a better team in Tampa doesn't mean the other teams in the league are simply inferior to them. you see, it is possible for those other teams they would be playing against in Tampa to have improved as well and be better than they are, regardless of whether the team in Tampa is more talented than the 09 or 10 Jets. or is your argument dependent upon the concept that the entire NFL reverts back to how good they were in 09 and 10 and only Tampa with Rex and Sanchez are allowed to improve? then yes, you're right, how could they not make the Super Bowl? of course, that ignores the fact that the Jets making the AFCCG in 09 and 10 doesn't mean they would have made the NFCCG because they would have played different teams and thus they may not have won those games. so even if you want to champion the static 09 and 10 NFL, even then there is no argument to be made that their improved hypothetical Tampa squad will still be better than the Super Bowl winning Saints or Packers who they would have to face in the NFC playoffs. c'mon, man, with all your wisdom how could you not see the flaw in your argument from a mile away.
Except that you give Mark credit for winning close games, except when he doesn't then you blame the D. The offense didn't put up any points in the first half of the '10 title game, and the offense failed to score any points in the 2nd half of the '09 title game. But it was ALL on the defense according to you. The bread and butter if the team in those years were the run game and defense, but that still doesn't absolve the offense of not doing their job. The defense failed in that game but so did the O. What was incorrect about the stats?
