ahhh deflecting. got it. just so you know the longer the post doesn't make the post better. 4 seasons 1 under .500 2 playoff apps 4 playoff wins these are facts. play w/ them as you see fit. how is it speculation? he made it twice and we were alive week 17 of 2011. the only time we were out week 17 was 2012. where is the speculation? Peyton has consistently carried his teams to early exits in postseason. How many playoff wins does Romo have? How many title game apps does Rivers have? all guys w/ much more talent around them in divisions w/o the Pats yet outside of Peyton each other guy has not had the postseason success Mark has had. Manning is a choker, I deal in reality. That man should have 4-5 SBs and has one in a postseason he threw 3 TDs and 7 INTs. The O gets their share of the blame at Pitt but the game came down to the D needing one stop. they could have allowed a 1st down and gotten a stop but they allowed 2 and gave our O no chance. 2 years later in Denver in the div rd the Bal D got their O the ball back and they tied it up. Our O never got a chance. Your post meant nothing, you simply copied play by play sheets w/o the actual context of the game. they "choked" at the GL and set up the safety so the next TD pulled them w/in a TD before the D actually choked and blew any chance to win. the D got the ball off an INT inside the Jets 15 yd line on a heave down the sidelines, you act as if they gave the O the ball in Pitt territory. Had we scored when we got stuffed then the D most likely fails on the next possession b/c Pitt doesn't fumble so they can fall on Ben for the safety. The D played well until we needed them most, the O played well in the 2nd half. It's too bad the O never got a chance to get one more possession.
EVERY member of those playoff teams (coaches, FO and players) deserve credit for what they accomplished together. The whole without Mark's this or that crap is so silly since he was what we had. It's not like we had Peyton Manning on the bench and chose to start Sanchez instead. When we had a 1st ballot HOFer behind center with essentially the same roster, we had a complete meltdown at the end of the season and missed the playoffs. Maybe we should have asked him to do nothing too. Sanchez and everyone else on that team gets to own those 2 years just like they own the 2 that followed. No matter how bad you want to, you can never take that away from them, in your case, him.
The hall of famer if you'll recall had a shoulder injury towards the end of the year. If you've read my whole argument through this thread, long as it is, you'd realize that my emphasis is that win loss is a team stat and that the Jets as a team were at their best when Sanchez did the least, that's demonstrable fact. What my point is that Sanchez could have been exchanged with just about anyone because he didn't really bring a lot to the plate in 2009, I've given him credit for keeping his turnovers low in 2010 (albeit there is subjective evidence that it was due to an extraordinary number of dropped passes, but that's subjective rather than objective so we won't got there) and that reduction in turnovers helped the team to an 11-6 record. But it's no coincidence that with the return of the interceptions came the return of the mediocre record. I'll even give him a degree of credit for the 2011 team being 8-8 due to his 34 TD season, but I can't really give him too much credit because he did turn the ball over 26 times which pretty much negated his, by far, best TD season. The reality is Sanchez is a QB who over 4 years turned the ball over 89 times and in those 4 seasons only had one where he turned it over fewer than 23 times. If you're not a QB who puts up TD numbers and efficient in your passing then a team just can not win consistently with a QB like that. My problem with Sanchez though is this, in year 4 he was making the same bad reads and poor decisions that he was making in year 1. He wasn't progressing and it was time to move on, I've seen that picture before.
he didn't have a shoulder injury and that player made his career playing through pain so he doesn't get the injury excuse. he played the same way in Sept as he did when supposedly hurt in Dec. he sabotaged our season. ohhhhh dropped passes, how come you don't note all the TDs dropped or dropped passes? or the 2 bogus INTs vs. GB in 2010? I love the excuses. this is EXACTLY why we deserve this team, our terrible fanbase doesn't appreciate anything.
Junc, how do you copy a full play by play and then have it out of the game context? you can only take something out of context when you edit it down to a specific single instance of the game.....like, Oh I dont know, maybe narrowing the example down to how the defense couldn't make a final stop in the last 3 minutes and then blaming the loss on the defense. and you talk about how you don't conjecture, but then go on to conjecture that if the offense hadn't been stuffed then the defense would have most likely failed on the next possession (despite the fact that in reality on the next possession the defense got the ball right back to the offense). But hey, whatever you have to distort right? Yes Peyton has had 8 playoffs where they exited after game 1....but they were in the playoffs and had their ticket...they failed of course to reach the prize. But you have to get the ticket in order to get to the prize and Peyton in almost every season had them where they had the ticket, and 3 times they got the prize of getting to the Superbowl and won it once...as a team. Like I've said consistently, the only point of the regular season is to get a ticket to the playoffs, the only point of the playoffs is to get to the Superbowl. If, in the end, you don't reach that final goal then the season as a whole is a failure. No One but die hard fans remember who won the division year in and year out, no one cares if you won a couple playoff games. But the point is that if you have a QB like Manning, Rivers, or any of the top 50% of QBs you'll make the playoffs far more consistently than if you have a QB who is a bottom 50%...and any time you make the playoffs you have a chance because on any given day even the worst NFL team can defeat the best NFL team on occasion, not often, but sometimes. The Question is do you have a QB who can consistently lift your team year after year and get them in to the playoffs where they have a chance to go on? Since you brought Manning in to the argument, Manning has had his team in the playoffs for all but 3 seasons of his career if I recall correctly, maybe 4. Some of those teams were very good teams all around, some weren't. Here's a secret, by the time you get to the playoffs the QB play doesn't matter a whole lot, both teams are likely to have very good QB's at that point, it's the better team and which team has the better day that wins the day. Yes, bad QB play can cost a game, and great QB play can win the game, but so can play at any position at that point. In the NFL many games are decided by just one or two key plays in a game...often you don't know they were key plays until after the game, but sometimes you know in the real time moment. But Junc, here's the thing...you like to accuse others of being "average fans". You like to accuse others of being out of context, yet almost every argument you make is out of context...the most recent case of this is of course your attempt to cherry pick the last drive of the pittsburgh game and keep it out of context with the rest of the second half and the dries immediately before hand that led to that situation...those immediately preceding drives ARE keeping it in context of the game...by limiting to just that last stop is to take it out of the context of the game.
Deflecting again Junc? all evidence is that he did have...coaches have said so, etc..but hey whatever. and I said I wasn't including dropped interceptions because they were subjective.....I never gave numbers, never included them in the equation or evaluation. But I note that you have no issue with bringing in the fantasy what if numbers yourself, when the suit your purpose. Nice try to deflect though, really. nice try...getting desperate?
it doesn't take into consideration what actually happened on each play. I don't recall every play specifically, maybe it was Mark's fault but basing that off a PBNP sheet seems silly but when you have nothing I guess that is what you do? The Ds came up small in a million big spots, Pitt had their way w/ them in the 1st half, got a big lead then wasn't attacking. when they needed 1st downs to close it out they got them so yeah I can assume they have done something had we scored to make it it 24-17. Peyton is an al time great, his teams will always be in the playoffs mainly b/c of him then they will get sent home early more often than not b/c of him. the Pitt game came down to needing one stop, our D failed. sorry if that bothers you b/c it's not all Mark's fault. do you know what deflecting is? I don't make the excuses, I only bring up the dropped TDs when whiny fans bring up the silly dropped INTs. every QB has potential INTs dropped as well as potential TDs. Clearly I am desperate. is there anyone who can challenge me? this discussion is getting boring w/ someone who is so clearly beneath me.
You can't have it both ways. If wins and losses are a team stat, then EVERYONE on said teams get credit for the wins just like they all get the blame for the losses. So those teams including and not limited to Sanchez get credit for 2 AFCC runs, and the 2 teams that followed get credit/blame for missing the playoffs. At the end of the day you giving him credit or not for those seasons doesn't really matter because he already has it. Rightly or wrongly, in the lexicon of judging QBs records matter especially playoff wins. Years from now when someone looks at the Jets record books they will see that guy won quite a few playoff games, on the road for that matter. Unfortunately, they won't find your novel long posts about how truly deserving or undeserving he was for those accomplishments to know the real truth. I guess you can take comfort in knowing though and pass it on to your grandchildren, who I hope would be Jets fans despite Sanchez.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-karpuc/why-jets-fans-should-miss_b_6057470.html Why Jets Fans Should Miss Mark Sanchez Posted: 10/28/2014 10:47 am EDT Dan Karpuc Become a fan Director of Content at Tradesports.com, Editor of TradesportsInsider.com Imagine if your entire career was summed up in these two words: "butt fumble." Well, that's Mark Sanchez's reality. After a four-year career in the Big Apple playing for the New York Jets, Sanchez's entire career in green is often times summed up with an image of his helmet snugly on the toosh of offensive lineman Brandon Moore. Sadness and anger from Jets fans, coupled with laughter from the rest of the league/planet led to Sanchez's departure from the brutal New York media. The "City That Never Sleeps" never welcomed him with open arms. But, it's that city that should be desperately missing him right now. Let's fast forward to the present day and then make some comparisons. Warning: diehard Jets fans, you might want to stop reading right now. These numbers are brutal. The Jets lost to the Buffalo Bills by the score of 43-23 in Week 8. But, it's really the way that it happened that makes you cringe if you bleed green. Geno Smith, who started the game, went 2-of-8 for 5 yards passing and threw a shocking three interceptions... in the first quarter. His replacement, Michael Vick, went 18-of-36 for 153 yards, an interception, and fumbled the ball a depressing four times, losing two of them. Labeling the Jets franchise as "a mess" right now might be an understatement, as a six-turnover game didn't really come as a major surprise for a team that came into the game with a 1-6 record. Smith has gone just one game this entire season without turning over the ball, which came in a loss to the Patriots in Week 7 (he fumbled in that game, but the offense was able to recover it). This was Smith's ninth-career multi-interception game in just 24 starts as an NFL quarterback. His inability to protect the ball and control the offense effectively has hampered the Jets running game, which is most likely the best part of the team, because defenses know that if they force Smith to throw the ball and take things into his own hands, the Jets are at a huge disadvantage. Chris Ivory hasn't been bad as the first-string running back, but could be much better if there was a threat to the defense at the quarterback position. Sanchez, who had 17 multi-interception games in four years as the Jets starter, was not exactly known for hanging onto the ball, but was much better at controlling the game and giving the defense something to worry about... at least more than Smith. Lets take a look at what Sanchez did in his first two seasons versus what Geno Smith did in his rookie year and what he's currently up to in his second year. Sanchez and Smith both struggled in their rookie seasons. Sanchez played in 15 games, passed for 2,444 yards, 12 touchdowns, and 20 interceptions. Smith played in 16 games, passed for 3,046 yards, 12 touchdowns, and 21 interceptions. Similar, right? Not really. Sanchez's 2009 team went 9-7, finished second in the AFC East, and advanced all the way to the AFC Championship Game before losing. In the playoffs, he supported the running attack, and threw four touchdowns and two interceptions with a rating of 92.7 over three games. When the spotlight was on him the brightest, he stepped up to the plate. Last season, Smith led the Jets to an 8-8 record. Once referred to as the "Sanchize," Sanchez matured in his second season, throwing 17 touchdown passes and 13 interceptions for 3,291 yards in 16 starts. Yet again, he led the team to the AFC Championship game, where they lost for the second straight year, but he performed better than the previous year, throwing five touchdowns and just one interception over three games after an 11-5 regular season. This year, Smith has regressed, has thrown seven touchdowns to 10 interceptions, and has the Jets at the bottom of the league with a 1-7 record. Sanchez appeared as a leader to the media, even up to the end of his time in New York. Smith appears lost, confused, and annoyed. The Jets were 34-30 in Sanchez's tenure, won four playoff games, and advanced to the AFC Championship twice, coming very close to a Super Bowl appearance especially in 2010. The Jets are currently 9-15 in the Geno Smith era, which is most likely soon to be marred by a fired head coach, fired general manager, and one of the worst seasons in recent Jets history. While Sanchez is currently content as the backup to Nick Foles in Philadelphia, it's fairly obvious that he would be an improvement to either Smith or Vick in New York right now. (Rex Ryan and John Idzik must be kicking themselves... it would have been a perfect time to let Tim Tebow run the show!) Geno supporters and Jets fans out there who hate me for writing this article: Do you honestly believe Geno Smith can lead your team to the playoffs? Use any argument you'd like about the differences between this year's team and the 2009 and 2010 teams, but ultimately, team success is based on solid quarterback play above all else and that quarterback's ability to control the offense and lead their team. Smith doesn't have that "it" factor. Sanchez might not have either, but he certainly had hints of it. From a once-respected franchise under Sanchez, the Jets have quickly gone to irrelevant and then to a laughingstock under Smith. It looks as though Jets fans should be hoping for a high draft pick to land a top collegiate quarterback. A level-headed leader like Jameis Winston might be a nice fit (ha-ha).
See, this is the quintessential source of our disagreement. I would say there is no such thing as a "guy" winning playoff games in the NFL. Wins are a team statistic. Assessing the merits of an individual utilizing a team statistic is fundamentally illogical to me. That's what these circular Sanchez debates always come down to. People who like Sanchez look at the 4 road playoff wins as a direct reflection of Mark's ability and people who don't like Sanchez look at the 4 road playoff wins as a direct reflection of the team's overall ability at that time. In one thought process, the assessment of Mark and the team is taken as a collective whole, while in the other, the assessment of the team is compartmentalized from the assessment of the individual player. To be fair, the collective thought emanating from the national sports media most certainly favors your point of view. I don't think either point of view is invalid, but I think they are a result of two strikingly divergent ways of assessing the football.
if it was easy any QB would do it. he has the 3rd most road wins in postseason history. we did not have the '85 Bears D or '00 Ravens/'02 Bucs. we had good Ds, no one carried Mark. he was vital to the success of those teams.
Again, we just look at things differently. We are never going to agree on the logic of the argument, in and of itself. You say Mark was "vital" to the success of those teams. I say there's no way a quarterback with his lack of efficiency could ever have been "vital" to those teams. It's just a different way of assessing the game.
I'm not trying to have it both ways. Every player contributes, Sanchez was part of those teams and nothing can ever take that way from him. However, just like every other player on the team you can look at the players performance and see what they added to or subtracted from the team. Did they enhance their teams chances of winning or did the diminish their teams chances of wining? take this years Jets for example. the team is losing and tehy are losing as a team. Every member of the team is losing and is a part of those losses. However, you can look at each individual player and position and mark them as a plus, and JAG or a minus at their position as to what they are contributing. It's just a fact of life that some players contribute more and others less, some are drags on the team others are engines that drive the team, they are all connected, they all share the wins and losses and all contribute, but how much depends on the player and the position. Which brings us back to Sanchez, the Jets won most when Sanchez did the least. The more the Jets asked Sanchez to do, the more likely a negative outcome in the end. I wouldn't be in this thread if some people weren't claiming Sanchez was the reason the Jets were in the playoffs, if some people didn't blast the defense and running game in order to make Sanchez look far better than he actually was. The plain and simple truth is the Jets won in 2009 despite Sanchez. Sanchez contributed in 2010 by only turning the ball over 14 times, the only time in his career he's turned it over fewer than 23 times. Sanchez CAN be effective when he doesnt' turn the ball over, I've said this many times. But he does turn the ball over, and he does it A LOT, #2 in total turnovers over the 4 years he was a starter. The Jets could win with Sanchez as long as he kept his head out of his ass and didn't turn the ball over, but again 4 seasons as a starter, only 1 season with fewer than 23 turnovers. You can not win consistently with a QB who doesn't put up big numbers AND turns the ball over that much. It would also help if he could complete at least 59 or 60% of his passes just to help on efficiency. Granted that's only maybe 1 or 2 extra completions a game, but that's 1 or 2 extra first downs a game and that extra 1 or 2 first downs can make a huge difference in a games outcome. People call Sanchez a game manager, but a real game manager is efficient in his passes and takes care of the ball.
I don't look at 4 playoff wins as a measure of ability but as an accomplishment worthy of credit no different than crediting him for the losses and how aggressively bad he and the team was in 2012. What's illogical to me are those that try to discredit or qualify this accomplishment.
Lol Junc, your deflecting because you're making a focal point of your argument something that when I mentioned it I said I wasn't factoring in because it was subjective data. No whining, no comparisons to other QB's no statement of numbers, but just an acknowledgement that several respected analytical sites had made reference to dropped interception's being abnormally high that year. It wasn't even focal point of my argument, or even a subpoint....but you made it a focal point of your rebuttal...and that is by nature deflecting. True, Pittsburgh "had their way"with the Jets defense in the first half, something I've acknowledge. But what you fail to acknowledge was how utterly inept in the first half the Sanchez led Jets offense was....0 points. In 5 first half drives the Jets had exactly 2 drives that netted more than 5 yards and only 1 that was over 30. No drive longer than 7 plays, and only 1 drive that was over 2 minutes. The Jets defense was on the field for just over 20 minutes of the first 30 minutes of the game. the offense couldn't give them a breather and yes they gave up points, and that's on the defense...but the offense did absolutely nothing for them...nothing. the Defense forced two turnovers (counting a safety as a turnover) in the second half...allowed zero points. but it's the defenses fault because they couldn't stop that last 3 minute drive. Never mind it was an exhausted defense from being on the field for 35 minutes, well okay 34 minutes 47 seconds, of the game. which is slightly decieving since the Jets offense mustered only 3 drives of greater than 3 minutes all game...and one of those 3 drives was twice as long as the other two drives over 3 minutes. but yeah, take it out of context, focus only on that last possession, take it out of the full context of the game....and then, and only then, is it the defenses fault because they couldn't stop a last 3 minute drive to give the inept offense just one more chance.
LOL...He man'd the most important position on the team, arguably the most important position in all of sports; of course, he was "one" of the reason the Jets were in the playoffs. And let's be honest the hate compels you to be in this thread as who can sit idly by when favorable comments are being posted about Sanchez.
See, I look at the "accomplishment" purely as a team accomplishment. In terms of playoff wins, I don't think there is any "accomplishment" of Sanchez to be disqualified in the first place. He played really well in the majority of those games (he was average in the San Diego and Indy games). But, that's where I leave it. I look at his overall standard of play on a big picture. Over the course of 60+ NFL starts, I saw an alarmingly inaccurate, turnover-prone passer who struggled mightily when the play broke down. I think he's a guy who you can get by with on a run-heavy, defense-first team, but a backup on a team that lives and dies by its passing game. Others looked and saw a guy who "won" four road playoff games . . . It's just a different way of looking at things.
