ok i thought the point of contention was that we ran the ball far more often than we passed in order to protect sancho from fucking up. which we did, but you would have to switch the qb scramble runs to pass calls to make the numbers really be valid.
Sanchez certainly deserves credit for 2009 and accolade for 2010 ,no argument there. problem is he has played 2 additional seasons that you are ignoring. this has nothing to do with yards, TDs, comp %, rating, etc..., so please do not confuse or deflect what we are talking about. and what we are talking about is that when the offensive talent around him diminished, he wasn't good enough to be a difference making QB. we know he can be a good QB with talent around him, that isn't the point. teams with QB's that are absolutely dependent upon that talent, and are not good enough to be a QB that makes those players around him better, rarely win Super Bowls. there are only a few occasions where average QB's won Super Bowls, and when they do it wasn't because of them; the context shows other parts of the teams that are great and made their play possible. so the question is again, how can you argue against people criticizing Sanchez for not being good when your own argument is dependent on admitting it? not that he hasn't played good when he has had very good pieces around him, but good on his own to a level that he makes those other parts better.
Obviously we don't know all those things and we cannot truly evaluate performance b/c of it but I am fair w/ all QBs and I take everything into account. his point was we ran more b/c Mark which is true obviously but not to the extent he thinks b/c he is adding scrambles and trick plays to the totals.
He needed 2011 horribly and was horrible for 75% of the 2012 season but the talent around him has regressed more than he did. I think he made pieces around him better early on but he hasn't had much to work with since. I wish he got the chance to play this year, I think he would have had a huge bounce back year but it wasn't meant to be. I hope w/ Geno we have opportunities to reach SBs and I don't care what his #s are as long as he is making plays to win.
It would be a shorter list of games he won for the jets....and I'm not taking last minute "heroics" where he sucked all game, turned the ball over a couple times, go 3 and out on half or more of his drives where the defense held the other team to within 6 points and Mark becomes the "hero" with a last minute drive on a game that if he'd been a half assed decent QB the game would have been in the bag long before that point. In other words ruling out "Tebow" games of sucking for 55 minutes out of a 60 minute game. The simple fact is this, I could take the time to find every game that Mark potentially lost for the Jets...but it's easier to point to the Steeler's playoff game where 3/4 of the game were 3 and outs, and a first and goal that would have changed the entire game where he couldn't get the 6. I know on that game you like to blame the Defense because they couldn't get the ball back one more time, and in a sense that's true...if you take that series out of context of the entire game. It never dawns on you that if Sanchez hadn't been so inept in the game overall, with 1/4 of his yards coming on one pass play (roughly)..(and yes that's fair for me to bring up since you so often degrade the running game as shit save for one or two big plays that "throw the numbers out of synch". Hello Goose, Meet Gander). But back to point, if Sanchez hadn't been so inept with 3 and outs and had managed to score the Steelers NEVER get to have the ball back to just suck up the clock at the end of the game. Sanchez's shitty play had put the defense in an almost impossible situation, granted the defense didn't play well in the first half but they weren't helped at all by an offense that couldn't generate crap in the way of drives. Yes the Jets were down by 3 touchdowns and a FG at halftime...but don't forget 7 of those points came from who? That's right Mr. "I turn the ball over" Sanchez. If Sanchez doesn't cough up that ball and runs a half way competent offense in the first half the Jets aren't down 24, at worst it's 17-0 and in reality if they can just generate enough yardage. In the first half 3 of the Jets first 5 drivers were 1 minute or less, well 64 seconds or less. The other two drives were 2 minutes even and just over 4 minutes. Do the math, that's 9 minutes the offense was on the field in the firsts 30 minutes of the game....What's worse is all the 1 minute or less drives were back to back to back. And you blame the defense? yes the defense gave up a long first drive...on the Steelers next possession the Jets picked off a pass giving Sanchez the ball on the Jets 35 yard line, the great Sanchez led the Jets to -2 yards and a punt..In the third Quarter the Jets defense AGAIN picked off a pass, the Great Sanchez led the Jets to a 50 second 3 and out. One of the two Jets touchdowns was on a great run by Holmes that on a short pass gave Sanchez 1/4 of his yards. Are you starting to see the picture here Junc and the flaw in your faulty logic? You take one series of the game and take it out of the context of the whole game and then blame the defense when in reality the ineptness of SAnchez all game had put the Jets in a bad situation. And again, the Defense didn't play well in that first half, But Sanchez gave them NO HELP AT ALL. As for a comment you made earlier, if a team wins the game with the QB having 50 yards passing..who won the game? It sure as hell wasn't the QB who spent the game handing the ball off.
It would have been easier to say you can't do it. when you don't do it then give me one example as the Pitt game it shows you clearly have no idea what you are watching. you can see things looking at yards, what if all 50 yards came on the last drive to win the game? You would rather see 300 yds in mostly garbage time action than less yardage making plays to win. That sums everything up.
games are won by the totality of the 60 minutes of play. if a QB throws for 50 yards only but they come on the last drive of the game, then he led a game winning drive, not that he won the game. if the defense doesn't keep the game in striking distance for the other 59 minutes one final drive becomes meaningless. but you put more weight on that final minute than the play of the other 59. that is ludicrous. the opposite is true. if the QB throws for 500 yards and 9 TD's and 0 INTs, but fails on the final play of the game and they lose 68-63, the QB did not lose the game. the defense that gave up 68 points did. nobody would ever blame the QB in that situation, just as they would never applaud a QB that wins a 7-6 game for throwing a TD at the end and 50 yards total despite being so completely inept. the applause goes to the defense that gave up 6 points all game despite a completely shitty QB performance. that is context.
The cat and mouse game continues... Ultimate Troll Unlimited and TGG's version of Access Hollywood. Like AH and DWTS, mindless "entertainment" with zero substance. Repetitious, redundant arguments about how good Sanchez is and why he needs to be immortalized, now that he's been injured and quite possibly will never start again. So terrible. So unfair. The guy who would have taken us to the promised land. But, oh no.... wait.... he's been injured!
Does anyone else notice the similarities between the Seahawks 2012 season when they drafted Wilson with the Jets 2009 season with Sanchez? Top tier defense, good running game, made the playoffs with the wildcard. I think Wilson is a better QB with better decision making but I'm getting a sense of Deja-vu watching their team.
the Jets never dominated a top-tier team the way Seattle did last week or against the Niners last year. that's a huge difference to me. we were very good, but not capable of dominating a team on both sides of the ball. that is the difference between the two, and a significant one.
I don't think the Seahawks are that dominant on offense. They did struggle to win against the Panthers in week 1. The 5 turn overs the defense caused against the Niners lead to a lot of the 28 pts they put up but your right the Seahawk D is better then the Jets D during the two years we went to the conference championship.
I dont think the Seahawks D has been better than the Jets in 09. They have a huge homefield advantage but that 09 D was nasty. Seahawks got shredded in the playoffs last year and aren't the same D on the road. Very good regardless.
the Jets are a team, so when you discuss the Jets as a whole you are discussing both the offense and the defense. the Jets defense dominating the Pats doesn't equate to the Jets, as a whole, dominating the Pats. when a team dominates another, you get blowouts. when only one side of the ball dominates, you get close games. that game in 09 was a close game, and thus not the Jets dominating the Patriots.
it isn't an issue of every part of the team being more dominant than the other. we are talking team, as a whole, which includes the offense as well. if you want to claim that the Jets defense was better, fine, go ahead. that is a completely different discussion. I am talking about the team, which includes how the team performed in total, which includes the offense. why is there so much confusion about something so clear? defense -- one part of the team. team -- all parts of the team.
Junc you don't know any of those things either yet it's always the other players faults. There's a reason no team is lining up to offer the Jets a deal like the Buc's got for Young, (if I recall it was a 2nd and a 4th) or no one is lining up like they did for Plunkett when the Pat's traded him for a QB and I believe multiple 1sts. I doubt you could even get a 6th or Sanchez at this point...and in a QB hungry league there's only one reason no one is lining up to trade for him, he sucks.
LOL Junc, typical crap. What if all 50 yards came on the last drive to win the game? It means the REST of the team won the damned game by keeping it close for 55 minutes. It's just another example of how you take one series of plays out of context with the whole of the game. Your approach is like looking at the fact the moon orbits the earth and therefore assume that the rest of the universe also circles the Earth. It's a false perspective and show's myopic vision with a lack of overall understanding of the game. keep piling the bullshit. Tebow moments don't count. I can give you a lot of reasons, Turnovers cost games. Nothing is more detrimental to a teams chances of winning than turnovers. Over his career he's top 3 or 4 QB's in total turnovers...he's also the lowest of that group in points scored. And they're all more important.
