he started to produce after many years w/ Rivers. why didn't he produce right away w/ him since he magically makes everyone great? SD used him a lot more, he went from 5th/6th option inn NE to 2nd/3rd in SD. his touches went up, he had a million dumpoffs and a took a huge step back w/ yds per. they got worse together. mark's #s actually went up but that's the only time the fantasy fans don't care about #s but his play dipped in 2011 w/o a doubt. the talent around him dipped too. 3 of the top 4 weapons on that O were out of football after that season.
I never said he magically makes everyone great. I said he makes players around him better compared to Sanchez who never did that. SD used him a lot more, correct. But he became a better player in SD then he ever was with his two previous teams. You make it sound like its just very simple to throw a dump off pass and get 8 yards a pop on them. Much more QB's should be doing that then. Teams have to respect Rivers ability to throw the ball down the field, which allows a player like Woodhead (whose not really that good) to slip out of the backfield and catch check downs for 8 yards. It's not about numbers. It's about how you play the position. Sanchez didn't play well, thats why people cast aside his 2011 numbers. Because they know how he played.
Sanchez did do that and Sanchez never played in a QB friendly system w/ the amount of talent that Rivers had around him. he was not a better player b/c of the QB, he was better b/c they used him more. Sanchez did play well outside of 2012.
Sanchez was never once an above average QB. Thats unacceptable when you draft him 5th overall. He was only better because they used him more? So Rivers gets no credit for getting him more involved in the offense? By just saying Sanchez never had the talent Rivers had it's like your giving all the credit to the players Rivers throws to and none to the man himself. But then you wax poetic about Sanchez in 2009 and 2010 and give the guys he played with basically no credit and talk about how great Mark was when in reality Sanchez wasn't that good anyway.
Btw I just saw this post. So if you think Mark Sanchez is bad your an "average fan. There's so much wrong with that statement. Your the average fan that doesn't understand what a QB needs to do to make his offense run correctly junc. Everyone from posters on this board, to people around the NFL have bashed Mark's performance at QB. But you know better, therefore your the "smart fan" and we are all "average" because we don't agree with the large minority of people who actually think he was good? How does that make any sense at all? You also keep going back to QB ratings, something i've never brought up. You know who does bring it up though? Rex does. Watch his post game press conferences. You love him as the coach of this team (as do I) and he brings it up a lot. In reality it's actually a very baseless statistic that doesn't tell you the true measure of a QB. There are far better advanced metrics out there to use when judging a players besides just your eyes WHICH CANNOT tell you the entire story.
he was a top 10ish QB in 2010(anywhere from 8-12) so that's above average. Clearly Rivers is why he was used more and put up better #s. it's all Rivers. Mark had very good weapons in 2010 and was a top 10 type QB, the other years he didn't have good talent and still was good for a rookie in 2009 and good overall in 2011. I do think that. I think if you think Mark is bad or can't play in this league you show a lack of understanding of the game. That doesn't mean he wasn't putrid at times or that he is great so don't confuse the statements. I do love Rex, he may discuss QB ratings and stats that make his team look good in the media. That's not what he and his staff are discussing behind closed doors.
lol @ some of this bullshit. Floyd an 80 ball a year guy when roughly 15-20 guys do that a year. And lol @ Patrick Turner's "success"...all 120 yards of it
here comes another know nothing average fan. Floyd absolutely can be an 80 catch guy and I didn't say Turner was good just that his ONLY success happened w/ Mark. Floyd is a damn good WR, you would think w/ the great Philip Rivers he would make him much better as he tends to do w/ all the players he has played with.
Take a look at who caught 80 balls last year(Vincent Jackson didn't) and if you think Floyd is in the same class you are a moron. But I know you will say he is even after you take a look and think "damn, I was talking out of my ass". Polish that internet image buddy. But I know better
oh, Jackson only had 78(career high by the way, luckily for him Philip Rivers made him). you bring nothing to a discussion, please move along.
you are hopping on to a discussion that has been going on and picking out a point here or there that has nothing do w/ anything. you are good at harping on meaningless points and taking every word literally. What you aren't good at is having an intelligent football discussion.
Lmao. What part was I not supposed to take literally? Him being an 80 ball a year guy, which is absurd? You said "absolutely". And that's me taking things literally??? Lol my bad. Seems like anytime you say something dumb you trot out that excuse. And I'm not even being literal, he is not close to being around an 80 ball a year guy. Let's face it, you made up something ridiculous to back up your BS argument against Rivers. If he truly was a guy that should be catching 80 a year but Rivers is holding him back then certainly those knowledgeable guys you claim to talk to should be lining up to trade for a guy that would be a 15-20 range wr every yr but clearly is not. You say I'm nitpicking things but I'm taking your arguments that you have exaggerated and showing that you are building your argument on a mountain of complete bullshit. But thats what you do. And I give you credit. You are the best at it
Turner never had any success, saying he did shows that lack of understanding of the game that you call everyone out for who doesn't share your views on Mark Sanchez. Floyd is a solid productive player, he's not a guy who is going to catch 80 balls and be featured highly in an offense. Your trying to make his ceiling higher then what it is to make Rivers look bad or look like he's not getting the most out of a player lol.
And I think you dont show a clear understanding of the game so it goes both ways. Your blinded by the 2009 and 2010 runs the team made. You came to a point sometime during that where you decided Mark Sanchez was untouchable when in reality he still had a lot to prove as a player, he never did with the Jets. He could salvage his career somewhere, I never said he couldn't. But your blind if you think he performed well as a Jet. The idea that you think he was a top ten QB in 2010 tells me all I need to know. I didn't say it was all Rivers and give no credit to Woodhead, but you like to place all the credit on the other player and none on the QB (except in Marks case and other cases where the QB has won "big games"). It's a clear double standard. Maybe not. But what Rex's staff did come to a decision on behind closed doors is that Mark Sanchez was not the guy to move forward with.
It's just BS. Sanchez was good, Tannenbaum was good, Rex is good(true), Schottenheimer was good, but not a QB friendly system guy. He is just a homer
You are missing the point here. Sanchez was good. Brian Schottenheimer was good. It was the DEFENSE that sucked when it mattered and that's why Jets couldn't advance. Stats lie all the time, and stats make the defense look good but makes Sanchez look bad. REAL fan with REAL understanding will see through this. If you don't happen to be one of the select few 'REAL' fan with 'REAL' understanding behind the numbers, you don't know football. Did I miss anything? [I doubt that.]
I remember watching that game with my dad against Pittsburgh. He was pissed. If the Jets stopped Roethlisberger from running, they would have won the superbowl that year imo. I think they could have beaten Green Bay
1. It's always VERY hard to win when the OFFENSE gives up a TD. If Sanchez didn't fumble the ball for a TD, Jets wouldn't have been 21 pts down at half time. 2. What's more, if your defense creates turnover for your offense, you need to make it count in any way you can. 3-and-out is NOT how you respond to a defensive big play; and that's exactly what Sanchez did. 3. Ok. The defense didn't play 'PERFECT.' Did the offense? NO. When your offense loses 14 points [7 for a fumble returned for TD, and another 7 for failed 4th down attempt at the goal line] that's a total 28 point swing. If you thought any team could overcome that kind of fuck-up, you haven't been watching NFL playoff. 4. Last, but not the least; the above summary was the 'JUNC POINTS.' That's not how real fans watch it. Sanchez fucking sucked big dick in the first half, managing only 3 points while giving up 7 himself. Defense kept creating turnovers and kept the team in game in the 2nd half, scoring 2 and taking the possession with a safety along the way; but the offense failed hard once again with 4th down conversion. Now, to blame the loss on Jets D failing to contain Roethlisberger at the last minute is nothing short of being asinine.
his only success(as limited as it may be) came with Mark. Floyd is really good, I think he can be much better than his #s show. he has been hurt in recent years which obviously hurt his production but pre injury I loved Floyd. I wanted the Jets to get him when he was a FA a few years ago. Either way Rivers didn't turn Floyd into anything, Floyd developed and I am sure Rivers helped but he was w/ Rivers for years before he made any impact. you make it sound like Rivers instantly turned him from lowly UDFA to a highly productive player. I am not blinded by anything. I know how hard it is to win in January and that many supposed much better QBs w/ more talent haven't done as well. To think mark was just along for the ride shows a lack of understanding. He absolutely performed well as a Jet. was he great? of course not but he was vital to 2 title game runs, he only had one losing season and only one bad season where everything went against him. That is what most fans fail to realize, they act like he had a chance in 2012 and it was all on him. Eli manning had top 10 weapons a year ago and was WORSE than Mark 2012. mark was in an impossible spot. It wasn't a Rex decision, it was an Idzik decision. Idzik came in, had no ties to Mark. drafted a QB, set up a sham competition then had an out when Mark got hurt or there would have been a huge controversy at QB. then he used the injury and cap space to get rid of him. Nah, they all sucked. we came the closest to a SB that we have since SB III but they all sucked and should have been fired/traded/released/etc... you sure do know your football! The defense led the team no doubt about it, we were a D first team BUT we did not have a great D, if we did they wouldn't have blown a double digit lead in Indy and they wouldn't have led Pitt run all over them then allow them to run out the clock. 1. it's also hard when before that TD(which was a forward pass by the way) when the D puts you in a 17-0 hole and allows the opposing O to have a 10 min drive to score a TD to start the game. 2. where were all these big plays? 1st INT was essentially just a 4th down stop, Ben was running, saw he couldn't make it and flipped it to give his receiver a chance, we picked it and fell down. It wasn't some momentum changing moment. the next play we tried a trick play w/ Cotch and lost 4 yards setting up 2nd and 14- Mark's fault? then we had a false start to make it 2nd and 19- Mark's fault? see why we went 3 and out? the next INT was thrown up for grabs deep, we got the ball at the Pitt 11. You act like we got TOs all day setting our O up in great FP. 3. didn't play perfect? they were awful in that 1st half putting us in a terrible spot. It was freezing that day and Pitt took the opening drive 9 mins for a TD keeping our O cold on the sidelines. That set the tone and they ran over us all 1st half. They did better in the 2nd half and the O got us back w/in a score w/ plenty of time left. what did the D do? allowed Pitt to run out the clock. yeah, they weren't perfect. 4. Yeah it was Mark's fault we had penalties, Polamalu blindsided him as he was throwing and the D allowed Pitt to control the game. All Mark's fault. By the way, if we don't have that fumble it is 17-0 and Pitt is getting the ball near midfield so it likely would have been at least 20-0, we went into the LR down 21 so not a big difference. he led us right down the field for that big FG before the end of the half and then a quick TD to open the 2nd half and we were back in the game.
