we were alive in week 17, the team crumbled late and mark was bad late- it happens. Not a great year but not a bad year. 3 of his top 5 weapons going into season would be out of football by the end of it.
That's simply a logical fallacy. Sure, it's incredibly rare. But, there is no logical reason it can't turn out that way . . . and guess what? It did. Mark was always the weakness of those two teams. He had a few nice playoff games (and a few mediocre ones that we won anyway), but that doesn't change the fact that he was a below-average quarterback, who we consciously tried to play around for both of those two seasons. When we finally let him have more impact on the offense in 2011, he shit the bed. The story going into 2011 was about how he was going to take that next step and become a strength, rather than a weakness. We were going to become a more balanced offense that could throw it more and run it less. And the more Mark had on his plate, the worse he played and the more our offense suffered, as a result of that. He was never good. As the running game got worse and worse around him and he had to throw more, it became more and more obvious how quintessentially inaccurate he was and how inadequate of an every-down passer he actually was.
show me all the examples in NFL history where a team won 4 road playoff games in back to back seasons w/ a bad QB? mark was very underrated on those teams, no he wasn't Brady but he outdueled him in the biggest game they ever played. We had quality talent, we weren't the '85 Bears on D and the '93 Cowboys on O around the QB, we didn't have any elite players on O at the skill positions. this notion that we were talented enough to carry a bad QB 2 straight years is insane, the 80s bears couldn't do it but we could?
That's irrelevant. There don't have to be examples for it to be possible. There is a first time for everything. Before the merger, people may have well have said: "Show me an example where an AFL team competed with an NFL team?" That fallacious bit of reasoning didn't keep the Jets from winning Superbowl 3. And once more, you are talking about team accomplishments and trying to link them to individual merits and achievements. The problem is that, by any objective standard, Mark's individual performance varied from very mediocre to outright poor over those two seasons. He just wasn't very good. The Jets won a lot of close, competitive games in those years playing around Mark. Our passing game was always the weakness of those teams and Mark's lack of accuracy was always the biggest reason why.
The exact opposite has turned out to be true. Mark rode the legacy of those two Championship game appearances to 4 years of unquestioned sanctuary as the starting quarterback of the New York Jets. The preposterous and utterly comical notion that Mark "lead" the Jets to two AFC Championship games, allowed him to remain the starter FAR longer than he ever would have otherwise (And Rex is largely to blame for falling prey to that obvious fallacy)
The 80s bears had one of the greatest single seasons in the history of professional sports on their way to a 15-1 regular season and a resounding playoff run in which they allowed a grand total of 10 points in three playoff games. They accomplished more in that single season than the Jets did in 2009 and 2010, combined. Then they followed up that run with another, dominant 13-3 season. Yeah, they were upset in the divisional round by the Redskins (and even if they had beaten them, they would have had to win @ the 14-2 NYG). They did PLENTY.
It's not irrelevant, if it is so easy to do why haven't better teams w/ better QBs been able to do it? The AFL had played the NFL 2 times before SB III, we have seen almost 90 seasons of the NFL w/ another 10 so in the AFL. how did we come back all those games through the air if the pass game was a weakness? Mark was a huge part of those title game teams, we were a D first team but even truly great D's(which we weren't close to) need quality QB play to win and we got that thanks to Mark. The 80s bears were set up to win for a long time, why did they never make another SB? B/c McMahon was always hurt and they never got quality QB play again. Chicago was actually 14-2 in 1986 and had the 1 seed so they would have hosted NYG. No matter how great the D is(and our D was never great) you need quality QB play to win consistently and we got that. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, you don't have to throw for 300 yds to have a good game. mark in the '09 div rd outplayed Rivers despite throwing for just 100 yds. The difference was at QB, Rivers tried to do much and killed his team, Mark did not and made a few big plays to help us win.
just glad that Suck has NOT been the QB of the NYJ this season and won't be on the NYJ at ALL in 2014 and beyond. BTW this season our rookie QB has won 6 games with 3 remaining last season our fourth year experienced QB won only 5, the sixth win coming when Greg McElroy came in and bailed out the team from the guaranteed loss to the Cardinals that Suck had "led" the Jets to into the second half
The Ravens won a Super bowl with thoroughly mediocre QB play. How did they do that? They cut the number of throws the guy had to make and relied on their defense and running game to create field position and also control the clock. The 2000 Ravens gave Trent Dilfer 14, 16, 18 and 25 pass attempts in the post-season and won a Super Bowl. The Jets almost got away with that also in 2009 giving Mark Sanchez 15 and 23 pass attempts in the two playoff wins. The Colts got away from the defense and the run game became a spectator and the Jets lost the AFC Championship game. The 4 playoff wins was a great thing for the team and Sanchez but it wasn't his wins. It was their wins. And as soon as they were no longer good enough neither was he. That's the story of his career with the Jets.
Rex Grossman QB a team that made it to the SB in 06. There are countless examples of second rate QB's going deep into the playoffs. Most of them had one thing in common, really good teams that didn't need really good QB play.
Because the NFL Playoffs is a crapshoot . . . We are talking about Single-Elimination, here. It's just the nature of the sport. There have been countless playoff games (particularly in the divisional round) where the better team probably hasn't won. It happens. And this still isn't relevant to Mark Sanchez being a bad NFL quarterback. Mark's average level of play was anywhere from decidedly below average to poor. He had a handful of good moments and good games, and what you tend to invariably do when assessing him is ignore the crux of his bad play and selectively focus on the handful of shining moments he had. Game in and game out he was, at the very best, mediocre. There have been a ton of examples of mediocre quarterbacks being on the winning side in playoff games. It happens. It doesn't give Mark Sanchez a lifelong pass to consistently suck at quarterback and still get to keep his job. Again, for the billionth time, using Playoff wins (a TEAM statistic) to asses the individual merits of a quarterback (an INDIVIDUAL) is terribly illogical. So What? A plethora of quarterbacks could have won with that 85 team. Just because they couldn't replace him with someone good enough to get the job done doesn't change the reality that a number of quarterbacks in the league that year were certainly physically capable of winning with that team. Jim McMahon was a good player, but the idea that he was the essential cog to their championship is silly. Minor point, but this is false. Both the Giants and Bears were 14-2, but the Giants had the #1 seed because they owned the better conference record.
Thank you. Why doesn't junc understand this? Hey Junc, was Trent Dilfer a better quarterback than Dan Marino? What about Brad Johnson? Do you see how silly your argument is?
sg3 pulling the same shit here that got him banned from The Gang Green 2 years ago and banned from Jets Insider last year. Hey sg3, try not to ruin this site too. I still don't understand why a supposed Jet "fan" has the pathological obsession to shit on a current Jet, hell any Jet. _
What is your standard for a winning QB? Straight logic from what you wrote would say the QB W-L record, and Cutler is over .500 making him a winning QB. Could you expand on what makes a QB a winning QB or not? From your post I just quoted, I can only use wins and losses and that points to Cutler being a winning QB. Also, Jay Cutler is more wins over .500 than Mark Sanchez for example. Joe Flacco had 4 in 3 years. Although Flacco is better than Sanchez even though I vehemently argued against that in 2010 and even 2011. And just remember, road playoff games means you weren't good enough to win your division. I don't know why that's so important. He didn't really outduel Brady since they faced different defenses and circumstances. But if he did, then he joins the fabled group of legends that include Eli Manning, Joe Flacco ,and Jake Plummer! He's properly rated. A QB that had a great game against NE in the playoffs, and forgot to show for 1/2 the Pitt game and 1/2 the IND game in that playoff run. In the first half of both those games, the Jets offense managed a total -4 points! He's an inconsistent QB, the Jets never knew what they were getting from. Ah we didn't have elite offensive players at the skill positions (including QB), but why do you ignore the OL? Is the OL not important? I would have to double check, but I think the Jets OL, running game, D, and ST were top 10 in 2009 and 2010. That's a pretty talented team. From time to time, they got some great QB It's always their wins, regardless if it's Sanchez or not. I think overall on here, Sanchez is properly rated once you take out the outliers on both sides. He was a good QB for the Jets, but overall his QB career ends up being average. How did this all relate to Geno? Well if wins is your thing, he has the same amount as Sanchez, a 4 year starter, did last year with as bad or even worse talent and the same bad injury luck the Jets had last year offensively. Now using wins doesn't seem like such a great idea right? (And really Sanchez had 5 wins, it's a joke QBs get credit for wins/losses when they leave a game where they contributed to a win/loss but the team result was a loss/win.) But more to Geno, really the Jets are in a tough spot. When healthy, the Jets offense looks kind of competent which is more to say than last year. MM seems to know how to call a proper game and Geno has shown ability to throw the football. The bad part for the Jets, this season didn't really clarify the QB decision. Geno is going to stay next year in my mind, even if he doesn't become the franchise QB, he could be a backup and this team doesn't have the resources to try and improve depth at a position when they have so many holes at starting positions elsewhere. Keeping Geno after this year is a must in my mind. You let him compete again this offseason against what I hope is stable, veteran QB and see if the year in the offseason and some added talent helps. If it doesn't, oh well he doesn't start and could be backup if needed (or Simms). If he does win, cool you either avoided a disaster with the other QB you were competiting him against, or he really improved. Maybe the other QB wins but Geno showed improvement, maybe you flip Geno. There really is no downside of keeping him next year even if he loses the QB comp to Simms and another veteran QB. If he's seeing the field in this scenario next year, well the Jets season was already done (2 injured QBs). Geno came into the Jets in a completely different scenario than Sanchez did as a rookie, so it's silly to compare what the Jets did with Sanchez and what they should do with Geno. If Geno never pans out, he never pans out. But not giving him this offseason and letting him go would be opening yourself to an unnecessary risk.
So glad to see you fine fellows eviscerating Junc's Win-Loss usage. Attributing team wins to the Qb, especially when making comparisons, is pretty dumb. It's not quite as stupid as the an-Interception-is-as-good-as-a-punt thing, but it's awfully close to that level of stupidity.
Hmm this is interesting. If you just switch MM for Schotty this year, I think worse. If you put Geno on the 2009 or 2010 team, I think Geno is statistically better because the Jets could put and use him in more effective PA and get him moving more. I think they could also limit his throws better with that stronger team. Also, the WR core in 2010 was relatively healthy the whole year and LT was a great pass catching back. Ivory is not very good at it, and Powell is reliable but not LT standards. 2009, we would have run it more definitely, like we did with Sanchez, but younger Braylon + Geno's top ability this year to throw the deep ball, would have made for some big bombs out of PA. So overall I think Geno performs better than this year if he's on the 2009 or 2010 team. I think if Schotty/Sparano came to this 2013 team, he performs the same or worse. If you pluck and drop Geno on the 2012 team, I think he performs the same since offensively there isn't much difference. What about you? I don't think mine is too unreasonable. We all judge QBR, QB rating, TD-INT ratio closely to see if they make sense but we just take W-L at face value, why? It's another statistic that doesn't tell the whole story unless we let it.
No one could have succeeded with Sparano, the guy just wasn't cut out to be OC. As bad as Geno has looked this year he would have been even worse.
They did it by getting quality QB play, Dilfer was vital to their SB run. Notice how long it took them to get back to a SB after Dilfer despite usually having great Ds? Mark was vital to both our title game runs, we got leads int he first 2 games and didn't have to throw as much, in the title game after the D blew a double digit lead and Greene got hurt we couldn't run anymore and had to pass. Every QB needs talent, he took much less talented teams into Indy, SD and NE and was a huge reason why his team beat those teams. Did rex ever win another playoff game? did he win any road playoff games? he had an elite D in a weak NFC where the 2 seed was 10-6(in 2010 we were a 6 seed at 11-5). In that SB run Rex had 3 TDs total and 3 INTs. mark has 3 INTs in 6 road playoff games and had a game where he threw 3 TDs in a single playoff game. you guys make it too easy to shred your weak arguments. is there anyone at there that can give me a challenge? ok so since it's a crapshoot we should see numerous examples of bad QBs winning 4 road playoff games over 2 years- heck 4 playoff games anywhere over 2 years. Mark's was good to very good most of those years w/ some awful games sprinkled in. This game is about WINNING, if you can't help your team win what good are you? He never had a 2012 Broncos team around him or a 2000s Chargers or Colts. he had good teams around him, nothing special. why didn't they win when other QBs had to play? NFL.com has Chi as the #1 seed. I don't know what the tiebreakers were back then. using today's NYG gets 1 seed but nfl.com has Chi. His post was nonsense and I already shredded it. Who is saying Dilfer was better than Marino? marino had mediocre teams around him and he elevated many of them to playoff teams. Sure a top 5 all time QB would have been able to win but Bal would not have won w/o quality QB play. Brad Johnson was so bad he took 3 different franchises to the playoffs, notice how many SBs the great Bucs Ds made w/o him? This is EXACTLY the point, average fans think you need to throw for 300 yds to have a good game. Dilfer was vital to Bal, Johnson was vital to TB and mark was vital to us. They all gave their teams chances to win big in January. The difference btw those teams is that in title games Bal and TB stepped up while our Ds stepped back.
