Again, no discredit for him being part of the team....but I'm not going to embellish his role either, or any players role. The facts are simple, in 2009 when Sanchez passed more than 20 times the Jets lost, all 7 of the Jets losses came in games where Sanchez was asked to step up and couldn't or got careless with the ball. 7 of the 9 wins came by having Sanchez do the absolute minimum. As I've stated, the Jets could win IF Sanchez doesn't turn the ball over....but the fact remains that Sanchez is a low efficiency passer, low production passer who turns the ball over with great frequency...you can live and win with the first two, but not the latter without the first two.
He manned the most important position on the team yes...and they won how? by having him do the minimum...they lost how? By him turning the ball over with great frequency. I've given credit to him in 2010 for not turning the ball over that year and as a result the Jets winning 11 games that season...the only season he's turned the ball over fewer than 23 times....far fewer.... Thank you for reinforcing my point on why Sanchez is not the answer though, 3 out of 4 seasons being a turnover machine...that's a pattern.
Legler, I've also said that if Sanchez had kept his turnovers down the Jets would have beaten the Patriots in 09 and won the division most likely. and if Sanchez had kept his turnovers down in 11 the Jets probably win 11 or 12 games and make the playoffs again.... But if an apple was an potato it would be a vegetable instead of a fruit. And If Sanchez could have been smarter with the ball he would have been truly a QB you could win because of and not inspite of.
No you don't 'got' it. Excuses? That in this case was a non-sequitur. You play fast and loose with your assumptions and you inferred that Sanchez would've had SBs (plural). Presumptuous. Moreover your post begrudged the 69 Jets 'cakewalk' to the SB by defeating the Raiders, a team who had trounced the soon-to-be SB champions, the HOF-laden K.C. Chiefs let alone the Colts who were coming off their own 34-0 NFL Championship wipeout of the Browns. Your support of the Jets is 'fanboy' conditional. My Jet-love on the other hand has always been and always will be unconditional. I win (again) .... I'm out.
If it's a team accomplishment, then everyone one on said team especially those starting definitely deserve credit. Let alone the guy who handles the ball on every offensive snap. The thing is both are true, Sanchez was a maddeningly inconsistent turnover-proned QB who managed to win 4 playoff games. When one goes back and looks at Trent Dilfer, they will call him an average at best QB who's also a Super Bowl champion.
lovely article, with just one flaw....it's saying the Jets miss Sanchez because Geno is playing even worse...not that Sanchez played well, the whole basis is that Geno is playing worse...no argument there. He points out the "similar" numbers in their rookie seasons but ignores the fact that Geno threw for 600 more yards, but if he acknowledged that then he would also have to acknowledge that Geno threw around 80 more times than Sanchez, or just under 20% more passes than Sanchez. He would then also have to acknowldge that Sanchez in his rookie season was picked off on 5.5% of his passes, as opposed to Geno's (still very poor) 4.7%. He also comments on Geno in his one non turnover game this year having had a fumble that was recovered by the offense. He fumbled 8 times in his rookie season, compared to 10 by Sanchez (in one fewer game and 80 or so fewer drop backs and a lot fewer runs, 36 attemtps for Sanchez and 72 for Geno) The reality is in their rookie seasons Geno took better care of the ball than Sanchez...not giving praise to Geno because he hasn't taken good care of the ball, not by any means. He also neglects to mention two key factors...in 2009 and 2010 the Jets had a top 5 defense both years and a top 5 offensive line to work behind, Geno has had neither (and neither did Sanchez in 2012). Yet despite having a much better offensive line and a much better defense Sanchez won 1 more game a rookie...again, not saying Geno's good...he's not, at least to this point in his career. But saying we'd rather have Mark Sanchez right now that Geno? yeah, maybe...but then again right now I'd rather have Colt McCoy than Geno....so that's not saying much.
If Favre cared enough for his teammates and the Jets fans to not sabotage the 08 season, we would be in the SB. If Mo lewis doesn't knock Bledsoe out 10+ years ago, we probably win the division those years to. Shit happens. I thought we got what what one would expect, if not more, from a first and second year QB who had only 16 collegiate starts. It all depends on how you look at it. I don't see the value in trying to find the weakest link in what was 2 great seasons. Odds are there probably weren't anything better available to us at the time. We let go of Sanchez thinking we couldn't do any worse, and now look at us.
Who only QB'd the team for 1/2 the season and got through the Superbowl by doing the absolute minimum behind a league best defense (and one of the all time great defenses) and a very solid running game. The reality is you can win with Any QB if you put them on the right team and have them do the minimum. Both years that Dilfer made the playoffs he played QB for the team who's defense allowed the fewest points in the league that year and won the takeaway give away battle. put the just about any player on the right team and if he keeps his mistakes to a minimum that year you can get a win...you won't win consistently, but you can win.
Don't know if I agree with the bold as I don't think you can win a championship with Geno as your QB. Quick question if you had to bet on Geno or Sanchez having a chance to start again in this league in the future which one would it be and why?
You actually kind of make my point, if Mark had progressed over the course of his career we wouldn't be having this discussion, the problem is Mark in year 4 was still only showing the same occasional flashes that he showed in year 1 and was still making the same mistakes and misreads in year 4 that he was making in year 1, he wasn't progressing. He had one, what is to this point in time, fluke year where he was 1/2 his turnovers in his other 3 years and he had one, again what is to this point in time fluke, year in which he was basically double the number of TD's of any of his other seasons. 1 time is not a trend, 3 times is. No one doubts his arm strength, but lets face it strong armed QB's are a dime a dozen in college. The question is will he ever mature in to a legitimate NFL quality starter of at least average quality? To me the most telling part is watching him on the sidelines....when you see good QB's (even backups) they're on the sideline studying game plans, head in the books, watching the field...Mark doesn't tend to be doing that...he's eating hotdogs and chicken fingers (slight exaggeration but you get the point, his heads just not taking it seriously.). Yes he did well in training camp...but he's always done well in training camp, even in the preseason most guys aren't going full speed..the defense isn't doing exotic blitzes and coverages, players aren't trying to bury the QB.... I'm not saying that Sanchez will never be a good QB, but I think it's unlikely because of his lack of developement and progress over 4 years....but sometimes, just sometimes, a player doesn't wake up till they lose their job and get cut and then a light will come on saying "man I really have to work to be good, I can't coast"...doesnt' happen often, but it does happen.
Everyone on the team deserves credit, but I'm not taking one quarterback over another based purely on a team statistic. That makes no sense to me. I'm looking at the overall picture. Sure, Sanchez played really well in a handful of playoff games, but his overall play throughout his entire career has been, in my opinion, very poor. Pass by pass and game by game, he has been well below average by every objective measure of individual assessment. No player "wins" playoff games. Mark Sanchez, nor Dan Marino, nor any other quarterback for that matter, has ever "won" a football game. There is that wording again - To me, Sanchez has never "won" any football game. Nor has any other individual. I don't even consider it to be a logically sound statement. I think the Jets won 4 playoff games with Mark Sanchez as their starting quarterback. There's a world of difference in those two statements to me. My statement accounts for context - In this case, the context being that the Jets were a run-first team that tried desperately to play around their young, mistake prone quarterback every chance they got. I don't discredit Mark for his role in those games. He played very well in most of them, and had he not, we wouldn't have won any of them. But, I also don't let those 4 games override the overall crux of his play throughout his 60+ NFL starts. The guy completed 55% of his passes, had 89 total turnovers, and 80 total TDs (Passing +Rushing) in four years of play. That essentially bottom lines it for me. Again, I just see it as a fundamental difference in football perspective. To me, Mark was a below average quarterback. To others, he was the "winner" of 4 road playoff games. Dan Marino only "won" one road playoff game. I see the appeal . . . just not the logic. And Trent Dilfer sure is a Superbowl Champion. But, so is everyone else who played on the 2000 Ravens. Dan Marino never got to be a Superbowl Champion, but to me, he accomplished infinitely more in his career than Dilfer (and probably everyone else on the 2000 Ravens) could ever dream of.
You only bolded the first part and ignored the most important part of the sentence "and have them do the minimum". If you put say Geno on a team with a top Defense, a top end O-line and a average or above running game running behind that Oline opening holes and you limit that QB to doing just the bare minimum....then yes you can win with Geno. In fact you could take last years Geno, put him on the 2009 Jets and cut his pass attempts down by 20% or so (bringing him down to Sanchez's attempt level) and the jets probably win 1 or 2 more games than Sanchez did...why do I say this? mostly because of Geno's ability to run the ball. Geno ran the ball much more effectively than Sanchez, averaging 5.1 yards per carry as opposed to 2.9 yards per carry. with a long carry of 32 yards as opposed to 12 yards for Sanchez. that and the fact that Geno's interception percentage was lower than Sanchez's (despite having the worse O-line and receiving corp in their rookie seasons). It's purely speculation of course and it still would have been bad QB play, but I"m 100% certain that Geno on that team ends up with roughly the same results, maybe a little better due to his mobility and fewer fumbles. Not praising Geno mind you, not by any stretch. But he did "lead" the team to an 8-8 record with a much worse defense and a much worse O-line, and a worse Receiving corp from top to bottom than Sanchez had in 09. Note that I put "Lead" in quotations. I suspect both will have a chance to start again at some point in time., the real question is if either will ever start 16 games in a season again or be a season opening starter. I think they'll both get a chance to compete to be opening day starters and keep the job for the full season...they've both got the physical tools. The question is if either one ever gets the mental part of the game down and if Geno can improve his mid range passing accuracy and Sanchez can improve his short range passing accuracy. But the key is if either player can mature mentally to the game and what the game requires mentally. Peyton Manning doesn't do what he does because he's got great tools, neither does Tom Brady, they don't have great arms, Neither is very mobile...but they are both very smart and very accurate and they play the game with NFL "maturity", for lack of a better word. Every QB in the league, even backups, have the tools...its' what they learn to do with those tools and how smart they are with the tools they have that determines how good the QB is and how much they contribute to a teams "win factor". I wouldn't bet on either being a season starter and keeping the job for 16 games...but they'll both get their chances.
but this whole Sanchez vs Geno thing is distracting really, it's like asking would you rather have your left pinky cut off or your right? it's a choice between too poor options (at least to this point of each of their careers).
I know it wasn't addressed to me, but it's easily Sanchez because, despite what I obviously think, the "he won 4 playoff games" argument is a popular one.
I personally don't buy into the whole progression and regression thing. Many times it's just an excuse used for being wrong about a player. Players gain experience, get opportunities and/or are put in better or worse situations but in the end they are what they are. If Mark Sanchez down the line starts consistently producing in a manner that changes your perception of him, it won't be because he regressed as a Jet then decided to stop eating hot dogs and chicken fingers. It will be because he was always that guy and the organization failed get that from him.
Totally agree with this. Being a good QB in the NFL is about making good decisions over and over . . . and over again, often times under duress. (and then, of course, being accurate enough to get the ball to where it should go). For the record, I always tend to defend young quarterbacks longer than most because I believe it can take awhile for a young QB to develop the confidence and field vision necessary to consistently make good decisions. In fact, I defended Sanchez quite passionately through 2009 and 2010. I always pointed out how young he was and how he deserved a chance to get better. I didn't fall off the Sanchez bandwagon until late 2011 (Started with the Tebow game - a game Mark played terribly in . . . and I really wasn't firmly off the bandwagon until the middle of the 2012 season). I've personally always felt that year 3 was the year when a quarterback should start to make significant strides and almost completely overcome the dreaded "rookie mistakes" that plague young quarterbacks.
I know what you are saying but young players get better, though. If Geno magically gets another chance to start (somehow) and magically turns into a stud somewhere down the road ("magically" might be an understatement), I think it's safe to say that he will have improved his play markedly in doing so.
I was curious to know if you saw potential starter in either one. I've always seen quality starter ability in Sanchez which I feel will ultimately bear itself out. Conversely, I've always seen back-up at best ability in Geno. It is distracting if your ability to assess a player is only via a stat sheet.
He can start but I doubt his putrid footwork, poor situational football awareness, and terrible anticipation goes away or some genius coach is able to develop an effective offense around that.
Totally agree. But, one might argue that Geno shares all three of those qualities with Mark. I agree that Mark was much better in year 2 than Geno has been, but by year 4, I don't know . . . I just don't see it with Sanchez.
