Here is the truth about why everyone turned on Mark Sanchez. In August of 2011, Eli Manning got on the Kay's show claiming to be an elite QB. He followed it up with a Super Bowl title. So after that, it created this whole perception that you had to have an elite QB to win, and that if you had an elite QB on your roster, you were always in contention. I heard that nonsense day after day, month after month...... Then the 2012 season finally arrived, the Jets were absolutely devoid of talent, especially on offense, but everyone was saying; "well if Mark Sanchez can play like an elite QB, it doesnt matter who is around him". Completely stupid, completely baseless, and as the season went on the fanbase turned on him despite being on a team that had no chance of making the playoffs. Anyone who expected Mark Sanchez to get better in such a garbage environment was both stupid and moronic. Ultimately after the 2012 seaason, that was the end for Mark Sanchez. Now fast forward to the 2013 season, Eli "elite" Manning starts off 0-6, Ben "elite" Roethlisberger starts off 0-4, and all the people who were running around saying that if you have an elite QB, you are always in contention, backed off that stance. Its a team game, Eli and Ben go as their teams go, when they have a good team, they win, when they have a bad team they lose. When Sanchez had a good team, he won, when he had a bad team, he lost.
1) That perception existed long before Eli Manning. 2) I don't believe that Eli Manning is an elite quarterback (he's far too inconsistent), but it is absolutely true that having an elite QB on your roster pretty much ensures that your team is in the mix every single year.
If you have a top 5 QB, yes, otherwise no. having Brady-Rodgers-Peyton-Luck-Brees gives you a shot every year but after that no. You dont need an elite QB though, thats what everyone was shoving down everyones throat at the time. Now everyone has backed off that stance after Flacco and Wilson won it.
Totally agree. The problem isn't with the principle that having an elite QB is of paramount significance, but rather, the problem is with how liberal people have become in using words like "elite." To me, "elite" = "best of the best" = "Cream of the crop" = "all-pro." Personally, I would say that only the top 10% (or top 3, roughly speaking) of QBs in the league are worthy of those illustrious titles. Over the past 5 years or so, that would mean Manning, Brady, and Rodgers. That's it. Brees is really close, but I'd take the other three over him. And Luck is still a bit young (although, I think he is clearly going to be there over the next decade or so).
Of course you don't need one, but having one almost automatically puts you in contention every single year.
Yep, but the term "elite" became so broad. People were calling guys like Matt Ryan elite...... elite = top 4-5, not top 10. Eli is not elite, Flacco is not elite, they are good but its disrespectful to the top guys to put guys like Eli and Flacco in the same category. A 1/3rd of the league cannot be elite......
The difference btw Mark '09/'10 and Eli '07/'11 was that Eli's D/STs played GREAT in the title games and Mark' did not.
You see that's the whole argument...you assume that I mean the only reason the Jets lost was because of Mark...Never said that, in most cases, but they didn't win because of him either. 99% of the time you could plug in any other jag and those results are the pretty much the same. Sanchez wasn't/isn't that good. Just a poor man's JAG...nothing more.
I thought you were done responding to me? I see your argument, you try to take credit away when we win and blame when we lose. Got it. we don't make 2 title games w/ many other QBs. Many supposed much better QBs have had much more talent around them w/o the same results. that is the thing that cracks me up, people think a QB is interchangeable. As if he had absolutely nothing to do w/ those runs when the opposite is true. He was vital to both runs, if he doesn't play as well as he did we don't make either title game and we didn't lose either title game b/c of poor QB play. People act is if we had top 5 talent when we weren't close to the top 5 in terms of our roster. we won w/ great coaching, good D, good QB play.
Wins are all that matter, yes....but it's a team stat and not an individual stat. IF Sanchez is to get credit for the wins in to the post season then he is to shoulder the blame for the losses as well You claim stats are fantasy and mean nothing and yet you then put up passing stats..right. Here's a hint, higher Completion % increases the chances of your team scoring, decreases the amount of time the opponents have the ball. TD's are obvious, the more of those you put up the more points your team puts up and the more likely your team is to win. Interceptions are obvious, the fewer you throw then the longer your team keeps the ball, the more chances your team has to win the game. The more of them that you throw the more chances the other team will put up more points. Those are the 3 factors a QB brings in to any game that can help his team win or lose. those are the only 3 factors a QB brings in to a game, well technically there is a rushing factor for some QB's. Sanchez has NEVER been good at any of them. He had one good TD year in 2011 and one good interception year in 2010. His good TD year was offset by his high turnovers and his low turnover year was offset by his low TD's. You talk about winning and losing, but those 3 factors are the ONLY thing a QB brings to the game. And if Sanchez had been leading STL yesterday and lost with the same score you would have been blaming everyone but Sanchez...and that's my problem with you Junc, you blame everyone but Sanchez and view any criticism of Sanchez as being bashing. At best Sanchez will only be Trent Dilfer, and if he plays for 20 years might find himself on a championship team at some point....or maybe, just maybe, he'll learn to read defenses, learn to lead receivers, learn not underthrow passes, learn to read the whole field.... I wouldn't bet my next lunch on him learning to do all that, but he could.
Just to be clear, I don't give all credit for Mark when we won and he deserved his share of the blame when we lost. It's not about any particular #s for me, it is about how you accumulate those #s and when you accumulate them over the actual accumulations. I use the Houston game week 1 2009 as an example. everyone looks at the stat sheet and thinks Thomas Jones was great and carried he O but 80% of his yds came in garbage time. a guy padding stats in meaningless moments does not impress me. what that player does I the critical parts of games is what impresses me. He had 2 bogus INTs credited to him in 2010 in that GB game, at worse both were fumbles by our receivers and neither should have been a TO. It make the #s look worse when looking at a statsheet. he struggled that day anyway but overall in 2010 he was REALLY good. His #s were better in 2011, he wasn't anywhere near as good in 2011. I am not saying the QB lost the game for SL last night just that I don't care about individual #s. I care about winning and Mark only had 1 losing season w/ the worst offensive talent we have had since 1995 and the worst in the league. Trent Dilfer is vastly underrated again b/c of fantasy #s. Baltimore does not win that SB w/o him. So I don't confuse folks, this does NOT mean he was the reason they won, they won w/ D first like we did(except our D wasn't great) but even truly great defenses(again, we didn't have one) need quality QB play to win. Bal got that in 2000, we got it w/Mark.
in the games the Jets won in the post season only once did he exceed 25 attempts. In the 3 times he exceeded 25 attempts the Jets lost 2 of them. In 3 of the 4 wins he threw a total of 2 TD's...2. in 3 of the 4 wins he threw fewer than 25 times, one time less than 20. In other words the less Sanchez did the more likely the Jets were to win the games...the more Sanchez did the more likely the Jets were to lose. Lets not forget the colts game in 2010, the jets were driving to score at the close of the 1st half Jets have the ball 1st and 10 on the Colts 19 and the Jets trail 7-0. What does Sanchez do? Incomplete Pass, Incomplete pass, Interception..... Jets lose that game if the Jets defense gives up much of anything in that game....the Jets defense gave up 1 TD to Manning and 3 FG's...it's the ONLY reason the Jets win that game. In short your boy stunk up the Indy game in his "Great" 2010 year and got out of the mess why? Because the defense kept the Colts out of the endzone on all but 1 drive all game long and the running game saved Sanchez's ass. Period. End of Story.
Again Junc, your talking individual game stats...and on an individual game basis I would often agree that stats can be misleading...but not over a full season and not over a career. Over time the anomalies even out and good breaks are counterbalanced by the bad ones.....when I talk about Sanchez's stats by and large I'm talking about his season and career stats...not his individual game stats. Although I do refernece individual games within context.
hmmm, maybe b/c we were trailing and had to throw is why we lost? at Pitt he brought us back and gave us a chance but the D failed in the biggest spot. we were a balanced offense, we didn't just throw to throw. That's what teams like SD did and why they stunk in postseason. Mark stunk that first half of the '10 WC game at Indy and was GREAT the 2nd half including leading the GAME WINNING drive in the final minute on the ROAD setting up his K for a chip shot. The Jets O didn't punt in the 2nd half until late and that was only b/c Holmes dropped a sure 1st down. The D then allowed Indy to take the lead and got lucky Peyton is a choker and for some reason tried to roll out and hit a receiver, we were an inch from losing that game if that pass is completed but Peyton gave "crappy" Sanchez less than a minute and amazingly enough that awful QB set up a chip shot for the win. Go back and watch that 2nd half and see how many big throws(and runs) he made on 3rd downs? yeah we pounded it w/ the ground game after he had a bad 1st half but we don't win w/o him. those individual stats get compiled over seasons. we don't watch every QB every snap like we did w/ Mark, fans of most teams whine about their QBs. the bottom line is that it is hard to win in January and we FINALLY had a QB we could win big with and we threw him out. Mark's #s are skewed by 3-4 awful games as a rookie(where he threw 15 of his 20 INTs) and 2012 where he had the worst talent in the league around him led by Tony Sparano.
When Mark Sanchez had access to a great offensive line, a group of good veteran receivers, a strong running game and a great defense he was an acceptable NFL QB. Think about it.
he helped us reach 2 title games when he had something close to that, think about it. oh and he NEVER had a great defense or great OL. very good yes, great? no way.
You see, I'm not going to address this point by point because it exemplifies everything that you do in order to defend Sanchez. You blame everyone but Sanchez when things go wrong and you give all the credit to Sanchez when things go right, even if Sanchez had NOTHING to do with what went right. If the defense in the Colts game doesn't hold Peyton to 1 TD and 3 FG's Sanchez NEVER gets his chance later in the game...if Sanchez plays well in the game and throughout the game then last second "heroics" aren't necessary. Yes, Stats get compiled over a season...that's the point...they normalize over time....they provide a base line of indicative performance for THAT player. and when compared to other players of that year or era it provides an accurate baseline as to how much that player helped or hurt his team relative to his peers. The greater the sample size the more indicative the actual performance. Regarding to being able to win in January...he couldn't win when it mattered most now could he? (bear in mind I consider wins and losses a team stat, but since you want to accredit it to Sanchez we'll go there). When the lights were at their brightest, when the AFC Championship was on the line Mark failed to provide the win...twice....No one remembers who lost an AFC Championship game except the fans of that team, everyone remembers who won or lost a Superbowl. So when it counted the most in a manner that YOU CHOOSE to prioritize he failed. and since winning or losing is all the QB in your book then he sucks whenever the spotlight is at it's brightest. 0-2 in AFC Championships. 2-5 On Monday Night Football, THE PREMIER EVENT during the season, THE GAME. On thursday's he faired a little better, at least he was .500...but man he embarrassed himself there. So lets see, when the spotlight is it's brightest, when the glare is at it's best...when the team most needed him to step up big.....he lost.... Again, as far as I'm concerned wins and losses are a team stat, it's you that says in the end all that matters for a QB is if they won or lost...and under those terms when the lights been brightest Sanchez has always been the smallest. Your criteria, not mine.
Please show me exactly where I am saying it was all Sanchez? and that I blame everyone but him when things go wrong? where did I say the D was bad or the D didn't help? I have said it a million times how we were a D first team and the D led us so please show me these quotes? He gave his D a double digit lead in the 2009 title game, they couldn't hold it. In 2010 got the game w/in 5 pts, the D couldn't get a stop. Mark played better in both title games than our supposed big time D did. no one cares about Monday Night football anymore and even at its peak you can't compare to a postseason game. 0-2 in championships- both times D failed. big time D's don't blow double digit leads. big time D's get the ball back for their O w/ the game on the line.
The defense wasn't great? the Jets Defense was top 5 in points allowed both in 2009 and 2010...#1 in points allowed in 2009...that is a top great defense, best in the league... in 2009 the Jets allowed 8 passing TD's (6 fewer than the next best team) and led the league in 3rd down conversions prevented at 32% For the record, those 8 passing TD's allowed for the year is fewer passing TD's allowed than any of these all time great defenses (73 Rams, 10 TD's, 76 Steelers, 9 TD's, 77 Falcons 9 TD's, 85 Bears 16 TD's, 91 Eagles, 16 TD's, the 2000 Ravens, 11 TD's..)...and three of those great defenses played BEFORE the passing rules changed to open up the passing game (back when only one player had ever thrown for 4000 and 3000 was considered an elite season.) and those 3 great defenses also played 14 game seasons! In 2009 the Jets Defense gave up 1.4 TD's per game to the other teams offense....that is after subtracting out points allowed by the Special teams or TD's scored directly off a turnover (pick 6, fumble recovery for 6, etc). in 2009 opposing offenses accounted for only 83.5% of all the points scored against the Jets, 2nd best total in the league that year.....in 2010 the Jets defense did allow 2.2 TD's per game by the other teams offense....which was still a top 6 defense in terms of points allowed. and yes, for that season that does mean the Jets had an elite defense since in the end is POINTS that determine wins and losses...and it means the offense didn't come close to carrying it's load.
