Who cares if 14 points comes from the special teams if a D allows 28 points like the Broncos did against Baltimore? Even when you consider the 2 STs scores the O still needs to score 14 points to win because the D allowed 28 points. Our D allowed 17 points to the Steelers in the AFC Championship game and scored a safety. The O only needed to score 16 points to win. That is only 2 more points needed than the O that got 14 pts from STs because the D allowed 28 points. Our D allowed 10 points to the Tebow Broncos. We only needed to score 11 points to win. That's 4 points LESS than the team that got 14 pts from the STs. In that Tebow Bronco game the D even gave us 3 points when they put the O in FG range after a fumble recovery. So technically the O only needed to earn 8 points on their own to win. 6 LESS than the team that got 14 pts from STs. What is the difference? Mark Sanchez has had the same advantage as Manning getting 14 points from the STs many times and still lost. There is no difference for an offense when a D only allows 14 points to a team or if the D allows 28 points and gets 2 TDs from STs. The O still needs to score 14 points either way. Let me know how many games Mark Sanchez has lost when the O only needed to score 14 or less. You can't count the pick 6's Mark throws to the other team as part of the deficit. Let me know what you find out.
Laugh, I already gave you one, a primary one even and not even his worst, your the one that keeps deflecting because you can't beat the argument that you take one play series out of context of the entire game. You try to deflect by saying "you can watch your stat sheet's, I'll watch the games" all you want, but in the Steelers games I gave 0 stats, other than #of 3 and outs and time's of possession on each drive, oh and turnovers. All game relative to that specific game, just like your asking for. The fact is Junc you can't wrap your head around the fact that you can both watch the game AND use stats in conjunction....99% of the time they'll support each other when used in conjunction AND in FULL context of the ENTIRE game. But you were right Junc, every game is different....but the key phrase is GAME, as in the ENTIRE game, all 60 minutes of the game. You tried, and failed, to defect with a 50 yard QB winner and have been repeatedly debunked. A QB who puts up 300 yards and 4 TD's but loses 35 to 28 it's the defense that lost the game...(unless the QB also threw 5 Pick 6's). If a QB throws 50 yards and 1TD and wins the game 7-6 It's the DEFENSE that won the game. But what you fail to grasp Junc is when I talk about stats I'm talking 2 or 3 specific stats usually...Completion percentage which show's the QB's efficiency, Turnovers....I also do talk TD's...Much less often do I refer to total yards because on a game by game basis those flexuate a lot. However, when a QB is consistently at or under 200 yards it's a trend and not a game by game basis situation. Stats when used in conjunction with watching the games and careers gives the most true and objective viewpoint possible. Those who rely only on their eyes are prone to seeing only what they want to see....
So you think he's worse than Gabbert, Ponder, and all those other QB's with 2-5 years of experience ?
He said "statistically he is the worst qb of ALL TIME with at least 50 starts" Gabbert & Ponder have a few games to catch up to Sancho.
Sanchez would have blown out the Patriots. The talent on the field this year is one hundred trillion billion times better than last year. Clyde Gates is a shitty player but he has another year under his belt. Stephen Hill can't catch but he has another year of experience. Stop paying attention to the name on the back of the jersey. That number you see is a fantasy number.
No I don't put more weight on "crunch time" because A lot of times by the time "crunch time" comes along it's too late. to me the entire game is Crunch time, every play matters for all 60 minutes. A missed opportunity in the first can cost you a game just as much as a missed opportunity in the 4th. Take the Steelers game for example, the offense was so putrid in the first half that 4 of it's 5 drives were under 2 minutes, and 3 of those were under 1 minute 4 seconds. (not to mention faux pas costing the team 14 points in the game, 7 off the fumble and 7 by not getting in to the end zone or any points at all on 1st and goal in the 2nd half). By the time "crunch" time came the Jets were two scores down. Even in the 2nd half the Jets Offense was only able to score when the Steelers were playing a soft defense.) The entire game matters, not just the last 2 minutes or last couple of series. If you do well early the stress on the defense is less, they don't have to play perfect, they don't have to take chances. And that's the difference between you and me Junc, you look at just small parts of the game, I look at the game as a complete game, every down, every snap. One play in the first series can cost you the game just as much as one play in the last series. The score is for the entire game. Also you do realize that your contradicting yourself when you say the defense played well enough to keep the team in the game but not bury teams. When you have an offense that was as putrid as the Jets offense was the Jets defense kept the game winnable. In 2009 in wins the jets defense with Sanchez as QB never gave up more than 17 points. In 2010 the Jets Defense gave up 17 or fewer points 6 times, and the Jets LOST 3 of those 6 games, in fact those 3 losses the jets defense gave up 10 or fewer points. To me, in today's scoring friendly rules if your defense gives up 20 or fewer points you should win the game, or at least played well enough to win the game meaning to onus falls on the offense. This season of the 33 games played only 8 games have been won by offenses scoring fewer than 20 points. in 2012 only 34 games were won by teams scoring fewer than 20 points, or 13% of all games played in 2012. That number is pretty consistent over the past 5 years or so, it flexuates a little of course between 9% and 18% normally. (just a fun, and depressing side note, the Jets played in 3 of those 34 games, or almost 10% of those games). And that's the cold hard fact, if you have an average defense that gives up between 23-25 points a game (depending on the season for an average defense) you should be right around .500 IF you have an average offense. Statistics bear this out 90-95% of the time, and yes that applies over a full season. Last year there was an anomaly in the Colts who actually allowed more points per game than they scored and still wound up at 11-5 so no system is perfect, they had a lot of blow outs one direction or another and that knocks things off kilter, but over the course of a season if one team scores fewer than 20 points the other team will win that game 80-90% of the time. Back to Sanchez, in 2009 and 2010 the Jets defense gave up 20 or fewer points in 21 of 31 games that Sanchez was the QB in. In 2009 the Jets won no games that the defense gave up 20 or more points. in 2010 the jets won two games where the defense gave up 21 or more points. (remember .500 should be 23-25 points allowed). In the league on average you should win about 50% of your games you give up 23 to 26 points in IF you have at least an average offense. Think about that for a moment, in the two playoff years you have 2 games where Sanchez led the offense to cover up for a average or worse defensive game. Sanchez led offenses on the other hand lost 5 Games where the defense gave up 17 or fewer points, and 3 of those 10 or fewer points. So you can easily say that Sanchez has, just off of that raw data, cost the Jets more games than he's won. Factor in the 37 turnovers over those two seasons and the number of games costs probably rises even further. And that's in his two seasons where he "led" the jets to victory. All but two wins in Sanchez's first 31 games were games the Team should win 85% of the time, 5 of his losses in the first 31 games were in games the team should win 90-95% of the time (when you factor in that 3 of those the defense allowed 10 or fewer points). I think in 2012 there were only 2 or 3 games where the winner scored 10 or fewer points, that's 1% of all games played, or 99% of the time a team should win those, not 50% of the time. But back to the main point....It's all about the entire game, not just one series of plays. Every play in a game matters. Most games are won or lost on one or two key plays over 60 minutes...most of the time the game is won or lost before the 4th quarter and most of the time the team that turns the ball over the fewest number of times wins the game...which brings us back to Marks single biggest flaw....He is and always has been a turnover machine who doesn't have the offensive production to offset it. He's a mediocre QB who if the defense isn't at least average in a game can't win.
Gabbert Won't make 50 starts in the NFL if he keeps playing as he has, and statistically he's about even with Sanchez, or if you like QB rating he's light years above Sanchez in that regard (though I hate QB Rating stat) Ponder statistically has been a better QB in the Key categories than either Sanchez or Gabbert. Ponder has a 59.1 Career completion percentage, higher than Sanchez has ever had in any season, let alone his career. and he's never thrown more picks than TD's and over his relatively short career is in the + territory on total turnovers to points, albeit just slightly. In short if Ponder just does what he has done thus far in his career he'll be better than Sanchez...and Ponder probably won't make50 starts either.
So finally, what are the win loss numbers for all these better qb's in the last 5 years? Bcuz we know good qb's make their Team better, and thus win more than they lose? Everything in Sports ultimately comes down to wins and losses. In order to be a part of winning Team you got to, you must be doing something right... No??? Even when the QB is running out of bounds and gets hit late by a bone headed defender, the QB did something to win the game rt?
To compare any qb from top rated to lowest rated is so difficult bcuz... Some teams have better coordinators, receivers, backs, indoors vs outdoors, etc... It's easy to say ponder is better than Gabbart or any qb unless everything from the media market to the stadium turf is taken into account... Pretty difficult... Sanchez fans can remember the best playoff experience or the haters can remember the benching last year. Until he is not healthy throwing the ball, we should be speaking of Geno. It's his Team, for now lol. Also where is thread "All about Mark Sanchez", instead this negative titled one? Unless we have a xxxxx sucks thread for everybody .. The hate is great right from the thread title lol
Sanchez has likely cost the Jets a couple of wins a season over the period he was their starting QB. He's not mediocre, he's bad. Philip Rivers is mediocre. Jay Cutler is mediocre. Carson Palmer is mediocre. Mark Sanchez is a bad QB. Like Josh Freeman. Like Brandon Weeden. Like Chad Henne. Call it what it is. We've been giving Sanchez passes for every reason under the sun since he was force fed as a rookie and had a bad season. We need to call it what it is.
That proves it's an overated stat, as Gabbert is AWFUL! AWFUL as Sanchez would be an instant upgrade, believe it or not. He makes Mark look like Ben Rothlisberger.
Not to mention, nacho in his first seasons had a very very good offensive line and running game ! Half the people on this board could have put up stats like him. He has never been known as a "playmaker" like junc believes. Nacho held our team back, then our window of opportunity came and went. If we were lucky enough to have an "aged Kurt Warner" in 09 or 2010, we may have beat Indy, and Pittsburg. We may have won a Super Bowl if nacho wasn't the detriment he is.
Sure as shit...Monday morning, Junc will respond like the the little old lady in the old Wendy's commercials... "Where's the context?" Ironic. When someone articulately contextualizes the entire argument, the meager mind of Junc is incapable of truly understanding it. Maybe it's better that way. His head would explode right there in his cubicle at work.
In two of Geno's first three games, he has amassed more total yards from scrimmage than Sanchez did in all but a handful of starts in his 4 year stint as starting quarterback.
AND ... Every time he attempts a screen pass, I don't find myself yelling at the screen ---- Nooooo!!!!!!! Very refreshing.
what if he never wins a playoff game on the road but wins multiple ones at home and a Super Bowl? that is why depending on such a situation is an asinine argument -- because by itself it is meaningless if there are other possibilities that make it a moot argument.
It is very strange to see so many passes consistently hit our receivers in their hands. It makes me feel like I am watching another team.
