He was a waste of $, he played 1 true season as a Jets starter and completed 56% of his passes. If that's better than Sanchez, we might as well put Ray Lucas and his 9 games as a starter (which was more impressive than O'Donnell) ahead of Sanchez. Uhh, I know I just got trolled.
I don't know what to tell you. O'Donnell was better in his one full season as a Jet than Sanchez was in any of his four seasons.
the sad thing is I think he's being serious. you really should find another hobby unless your hobby is that you like to embarrass yourself. if that is the case you do a great job.
Looks like I caught you all in a bad moment. Anyway, my pet peeve when discussing QBs of the NYJ is how much hate Todd gets compared to how much love O'Brien gets. Both were flawed but gave us some good moments too. I find the two quite equal and actially give the edge to Todd based on his 2-2 postseason record compared with O'Brien's 0-2.
1977 was the best draft in Jets history. Todd had the sack exchange and Wesley Walker in their younger, healthier days. Saying that Todd was better than O'Brien because of team accomplishments (such as playoff victories) is like the one stubborn and delusional poster insisting that Sanchez is better for the same reasons. O'Brien was the better QB.
Both Todd and O'Brien had teams around them capable of winning in postseason, they had more talent relative to the league than Mark Sanchez had for him. Todd and O'Brien were both mostly awful in postseason while Sanchez mostly very good but whiny Jet fans cannot appreciate it b/c they don't understand what they are watching. The QBs job is to win especially when they have the pieces to win, Ken had them and failed but b/c he threw a pretty deep ball and had some incredible highlights Jet fans overrate him.
Now if we could just figure out who the stubborn delusional poster is that I was referring to in my last post. Who could it be?
You said that Ken O'Brien had more talent around him relative to the rest of the league. I challenge that statement. Sure O'Brien had talent around him. But MORE than other teams in the league? I challenge that statement
"Both Todd and O'Brien had teams around them capable of winning in postseason, they had more talent relative to the league than Mark Sanchez had for him." OK, I misunderstood your post. However, that is a HUGE generalization to make in a single sentence, is it not?
The AFC stunk in those days, Todd and O'Brien arguably had more talent overall and definitely compared to the AFC in the era they played. Mark Sanchez played much better in his playoff games than Ken or Todd did in their playoff games. If Mark played like Ken or Todd we don't make a single title game.
so what were saying here is that if.... just if... somehow.... we had a time machine.... in which we could stick the immortal mark sancheese-alini sancho sanchez and send him back to numerous points in time.... the jets would probably have 5 maybe 8 superbowl titles. yup i am pretty sure that is the tree he is barking up at this point.
I think it's an unfair generalization to say that the entire conference stunk because an NFC team won most of the Superbowls. The AFC had some serious talent in the 80's.
