rankings mean nothing to me especially when he calls the plays and mostly calls passes. he started w/ Faulk then had Edge. 1 HOFer, another HOF caliber back. when they won the SB the run game carried the O that postseason even though they didn't have big names. as usual I discuss reality and try to avoid making excuses for great players. everyone wants to make an excuse for Peyton when it has come down to him just not being able to handle the biggest moments. (according to what you posted) 1998 29th ranked, had MARSHALL FAULK who wasn't at his best but still averaged over 4 YPC, had 1300 yds and 6 TDs 1999 18th, Edge had 1500 yds, 13 TDs but this was 18th ranked run game? come on. do I need to go on? I can do the same w/ D rankings especially considering his Ds allowed less pts in postseason than the supposed "great" NE Ds.
You can choose whatever context you want and yeah, all you do, all you've ever done is attack an ex-Jet--which is ok--just own it. You dumped shit on him last game and grudgingly admitted he had a "nice" game but then you HAD to throw in all the caveats (shitty pass defense, very bad teams, great talent around him, almost threw a pick blahblahblah) and you choose to dredge up bullshit from 3 and 4 and 5 years ago as if any of that matters today. No one--least of all me, said he's a great QB or a savior. He played 2 really nice games. Full stop. Don't tell me he didn't because of some irrelevant shit from his past. 2 nice games. _
Classic, you challenge me on a stat question to identify a player over 4 years stats compared to mark and then completely ignore the analsys of the question...not hard to figure out...
He played 1 nice game, he played a game prior to that where he turned to ball over twice (yeah I know I know, one of them shouldn't have been an interception)...sorry I have higher standards of what's good and that wasn't a good game. Where did I grudgingly say Sanchez had a nice game, he did...I said he was having a nice game midway through the 2nd quarter with NO PRESSURE to say so. However, those "Caveats" are reality and context. Sorry this isn't pop warner football, this is the NFL. You don't get an attaboy great game for just doing what's expected. But yeah whatever stsokes, you've proven that it doesn't matter what I say and unless I suckle on Sanchez's golden jock and say greatest game ever that you'll just say I'm dumping on him.
Sick of hearing this "i was time to move on" nonsense..... If you have a franchise QB, you don't "move on", you build around him and support him. Was Sanchez an elite QB? no, not even close, but people expected a lot from him, and thats why people were so upset when he struggled in 2012, but his struggles in 2012 ARE excusable due to the offense that he was working with. Sanchez did not "regresss", thats all I kept hearing, the team around him disipated, he was actually improving, but he could not improve statistically with the offense he had, impossible. Thats why the Sanchez we have seen over the last 2 games, has looked a lot like the 2010 Sanchez, rather the 2012 one. He finally has an offense around him, the Jets blew it, period, and while he continues play well, it will be like a knife digging into the heart of this franchise; deeper and deeper, and my god if he reaches the Super Bowl, this Jets franchise is going to look very very bad, it would actually be worse than what happened with the Giants in 2011....
BTW, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. You forgive the past, you don't forget the past and wash it away.
He didn't regress because he never progresse and why did faulk have the yardage? Because defenses were sitting back defending the pass and not stacking the box and playing against the run. Team rank Junc, not individual rank, TEAM RANK......the NFL is not a game of individuals, it's a game of team results. And yes, please go on Junc, please do. because you can try to twist it, you can try to manipulate it but the fact is and remains the that the team rank is the team rank when compared to the teams peers. Nice try.
I don't give a shit if you suck on his golden jock or not--you've shit on the guy for years and now that he's played 2 good games (not 1, 2) you STILL feel compelled to dump on the guy bringing up things irrelevant to those games from years ago. It's all irrelevant--I'm not saying he's back, he's a savior, he's great. He played 2 good games and I'm happy for an ex-Jet. Shit on him all you want, I think it's pathetic but you should care what I say. _
ROFL....sad boy, sad...but you contradict yourself again...I compliment him, but because i keep perspective I'm crapping on him? rofl. Keep coming stokes, you remind me of a political ad, all attack, all fiction.
First of all I did not challenge you to identify Eli. I asked you if you thought those stats were that of a JAG, which you did answer. So thank you for answering as I did forget thank you. If Eli's #s in his first 4 years are that of a JAG, then that's consistent with Sanchez being a JAG as their numbers were very similar. What followed I didn't particular care for. Somehow how you managed to take Sanchez and Eli's first 4 years numbers which are pretty much a statistical tie and turn it a bunch of statistical gibberish (.0125 difference CMP% in throwing in cold weather games …blah blah blah). You want some kind of credit for that? I thought I was being nice by ignoring it.
You're in denial, that's ok. Back handed compliments with digs on the competition and defaults to irrelevant spread sheets and fake stats and metrics from years ago. It's ok, you can hate the QB even though he's an ex-Jet. Pathetic, but that's the type of fan you are. _
Sanchez has talent. The NYJ ran a shit offense around him that he wasn't able to overcome on his own. Now he is on a team that is well coached offensively and he is able to play to his abilities that also likely masks his deficiencies which is the point of coaching any position. Bad coaching hurts talent, good coaching enhances talent. Is there really any other dynamic that needs to be discussed?
To me opportunity is what really counts. Esp in the NFL where very good players sometimes don't even get a chance. They get cut, bounce around practice squads for a few years and then are out of the picture. So when people say Mark was ruined by the Jets it to me is the dumbest comment imaginable. When he got every chance. Mark had 62 starts. Were the conditions perfect. No, they never are. My question. What about all of those excellent college Qbs who never even got one start.
ahh yes, doesn't have a run game but when he does it's all b/c teams were scared of Peyton especially that rookie year when he had almost 30 INTs. rankings are nonsense by themselves, you have to dig deeper. he's always had quality run games at the least. I don't need to twist, I see things realistically. just seeing rankings doesn't do it for me.
Again, you are out of context. you are looking at the whole of the numbers, which are similar, but ignoring how they arrived at those numbers. That gibberish as you call it is why you don't comprehend the difference....you see a total, but don't understand how they got there, you only look at the end similarities. In one case you have Manning who started off very very badly his first season, was still bad his second season, but had improved, and his third and 4th seasons were improvements over that..they were all consistent, no one year anomalies that were far above the other seasons in one stat category. And that's how the numbers in the end come out looking some what similar, but even the numbers aren't similar. the biggest difference is the fact that over the 4 years manning's TD turnover was a boarderline acceptable 1.20 while Sanchez's was slightly (I think) 0.98 or 0.97? The only reason Sanchez's stats look similar to Mannings in the end is that Sanchez had a 1 year spike in TD's that was 47% or so better than his next best and an interception spike downwards that was 40ish percent better than his normal (or do I have those two reversed and it was 47% interceptions 40ish percent TD's? either way same point) what you have if you take away the two spikes in those two stats is a guy who was pretty much exactly the same statistical QB each and every year. and those two spike are the only two things that keep Sanchez and Mannings' first 4 years similar. Well there is the Completion percentage thing...Sanchez was always around 54-55% +/- 1%. Manning started off abysmally low, sub 50%, became better his next year, and better the next two years. in fact all of Mannings stats began low his rookie year and he his results show a learning curve...Sanchez's was pretty much a flat line with 2 blips but no curve. One was learning, the other was not.
Laugh, dude you are the most pathetic attack dog ever. If a back handed compliment is being truthful then yes, it was a backhanded compliment....or should we play pop warner and give winners trophies to everyone? Sorry, I'm not going to sugar coat it. It's the NFL, your past history stays with you until you can PROVE you are beyond that point. When Sanchez gets clean praise from me it'll be because he earned it, not because it's a "Feel good" moment.
Someone explain this. WTF DOES IT MEAN TO RUN A QB FRIENDLY SYSTEM?!?! Shouldn't every team be running a QB-friendly system? I mean, are they saying that teams personally make the offense unlivable for a QB? That is the absolute worst excuse I've ever heard for a QB playing well. Chip said himself, if the system isn't QB-friendly, it's probably not a good system.
