The talent around Sanchez is only marginally better this year. Who knows how Hill will respond after injury and still being raw. Holmes back? I guess that will help. Worst supporting cast ive ever seen in 2012. This year its not much better if at all.
QBs make their receivers. Guys like Tone and Kerley aren't these bottom tier receivers the Sanchez lovers like to make them out to be. Are they Fitz and Megatron? No, but a good QB makes them better. Sanchez is not a good QB. He's a fucking failure that has brought nothing but more shame to a franchise that hasn't done shit in over 40 years. He will do NOTHING but fuck up and embarrass us in 2013. COUNT ON IT.
Tone - out for year Keller - out for most of the year Hill - dropsies. raw. out for good portion with injury after that: Cumberland Kerley Jason Hill (cut later) Clyde Gate Reuland This is what Sanchez played with last year. Sure, Sanchez is not even half the QB that Peyton Manning is - I get that. See how much better Peyton could have fared with THAT kind of receiving corp though. (If I have to reiterate: blind hatred toward the kid is equally moronic as homeric defense for the kid a la junc/Hobbes)
52 turnovers in 2 years. Nuff said. That's on Failchez, not the receivers. Make all the excuses you want, but Intchez is done. Thank God.
I like looking up old highlights and stats and boxscores and stuff to learn more. Like I was amazed Stafford so rarely turns the ball over and while I knew DET loved to throw and use Stafford I didn't know it was that much. It's interested looking it up and these posts give me a starting point.
You say that you enjoy logical thinking. Wrap logic around this: You, that starting QB for the NYJ's, and your #1 offensive threat, Jeremy Kerley, and your RB Shonn Greene try to establish an offensive success story. Go.
mark sanchez couldn't carry those guys jocks so I really hope you don't mean once he "acclimates" he will be simms, brees or young-that will NEVER happen as far as the excuses go, at their worst those guys never looked as bad as sanchez last year
That's what makes the farce even worse. Everyone can see that Sanchez has played like complete dog shit for the last two (and you could argue 4) years. Most of us say it's just because he's dog shit. Others, who are delusional, like junc, say that he is good, but he didn't have the weapons to succeed. Even if you agree with junc, the Jets don't have any more weapons now then they did the last two years! If your argument is that Sanchez was dog shit last year because he didn't have the weapons, then you are conceding he will be dog shit this year with the same lack of weapons, in which case we should start Smith. If you believe, as I, and all intelligent people do, that Sanchez is utter dog shit regardless of who he has around him, then we should start Smith. Either way it should be Smith.
This is true if Smith is ready to start. However, if MM or Lee feel that Smith needs more seasoning, there's no reason why they should feel compelled to play him early. This is especially true considering that ATL-PITT-NE-CIN-NO stretch in the middle of the season. It's important that the CS keep their own counsel on Smith's readiness and not bow to FO demands, particularly after seeing how rushing Sanchez lowered both his ceiling and floor.
Their D's the last few years have been vastly underrated just like their D's during the dynasty were vastly overrated. Their D kept them in both SBs, of course they blew each one late but to be fair an offense like NE's w/ a QB like Brady should have scored more. I think we can kind of separate 2009 & 2010 from 2011 & 2012. 2009 Sanchez was a rookie, 2010 he was much better and a key reason why we were as good as we were. They did cut it to 14-11 then we had the Cotch play and Holmes TD. 21 pts should be good enough for that O in most cases though. The failures of their O in big spots has hurt them more than their D in recent years. A rookie who played major minutes all year. As a rookie w/ a future HOFer: Keller: 48-535, 11.1 avg., 3 TDs rookie Pettigrew w/ rookie Stafford and old Culpepper played 11 games, prorate his #s to 16: 43 recs, 503 yds, 11.5, 3 TDs #s almost identical with far worse QBs. Pettigrew is MUCH better than Keller and I like keller. Keller is a good TE. It's not really about winning, it's about posting the truth. I am wrong sometimes, not in this case though. The posters that oppose me have one thing- rankings. I don't evaluate strictly based on rankings and if you ever get a chance to talk to people connected w/ the league you'll understand they don't either. I'm not an average fan, if people are insulted by being called an average fan that is on them. I understand the game better than most, that doesn't mean better than all but I understand it better than the average fan. I am lucky in that where I work I get to discuss these types of things w/ people that played, coached, were GMs, etc... I have learned a lot through the years, when I was younger I evaluated more on stats w/o context too. I have evolved and I am trying to help others. Whether they want to accept it or not is on them and I still don't claim to know it all, I know a lot but I don't know a fraction of what people that are in the game know and I always try to learn even though it may not look like it. Throughout all these debates I may be unwavering but I can pick up a point or 2 here and there. Goodbye. You were roasted now move along, go out kicking and screaming like a child instead of trying to rebut what I wrote. See ya. If healthy it's better by a wide margin, still not very good but MUCH better IF healthy. You know Holmes missed most of the season, right? I like kerley, he's a good slot guy but he was our #1 WR and on a good team he should be the 3rd or 4th option. No QB would have made our healthy talent last year successful. Not many posts bother me but the homer comments do b/c they couldn't be more false and it's just lazy to say I am a homer b/c I defend what is right. I have NEVER said Mark Sanchez is great, was great or will ever be great. I have never said he carried us anywhere, I speak the truth about him. He was a big part of our success and he's been a big part of our failures. My main point through all this is you don't give up on a young QB that has shown what he has shown and that we have won w/ as much as we have w/ him. It's not easy to win in this league, we have a QB we KNOW we can win with and we want to throw him away b/c he sucked w/ kerley, Schilens, gates, Cumberland, reuland as his main weapons.
lack of logic alert, average fan alert. There is nothing logical about that post, it is a whiny fan post that doesn't understand the game.
do those same people still think that herm edwards was a leader of men? and the fact that you spend umpteen hours on here during the typical work day makes me think you work at home alone and are actually talking to your cat. you say one thing and then turn around and say the opposite, even your stance is absurd. you defend him like he is the greatest thing since sliced bread but then fall back to saying i dont think he was great. i LOVE being an average fan i also dont have time to go looking up stats or rewatching football games so i can convince myself that i know something on the internet. the shame is that even if mark sanchez gets cut and goes to another team and sucks OR plays and sucks and gets cut you will still continue to defend him until there is another argument to pick up. the fact is the arguments have been made, and the points have been made and you and i actually agree on the general picture of things more than you would even realize its when you get down to the details that i think your entire outlook is skewed and often you judge based on the name of the guy and your own preconceived arguing points. its the final countdown
Seemingly logical, but it is not in fact. It is a sweeping generalization that overly simplifies the situation. Rex Ryan knows nothing about constructing an offense. Equally as clueless was Sparano. Mornhinweg would be a world class difference from either of the two combined. (Hell. He is better than Schottenheimer for crying out loud.) Not necessarily because Mornhinweg is the world beater (He probably is - but I'll reserve my comment on that.) It's more or so because the other two are so thoroughly clueless when it comes to constructing an offense. Consider this. The QB is responsible for identifying the Mike, and locating the safeties to figure out the coverages. All right - Sanchez sucks at that, but if he kept making same stupid error over and over again, don't you think there has to be something else at work too? After all, Sanchez does not design the protection schemes or designate the blocking responsibilities (like Peyton does.) If the design of the play is like shit, then the QB is going to play like shit. Favre ditched Schottenheimer's bullshit for a reason. Now, add the steaming sack of shit that is Matt Cavanaugh. Unless you somehow got a QB that is 1. seasoned vet and 2. had a reasonable level of success already, the combination of the two factors above should send any young QB to his death knell - probably on an express track. As I have been harping all season long, Sanchez's fundamental has regressed a lot. Footwork, sight adjustments, and internal clock in the head, and keeping cool under the pressure. Everything. (The last part comes from knowing what he can do even when things break down. In Sparano-designed offense? Good luck with that.) During later half of the season last year, Sanchez didn't even look like half the QB that he was in his rookie season. I've been saying all along about how Jets fucked this kid up squarely up in his ass. The next worst thing they can do is to start Geno, when the offense is short-handed. I advocate Sanchez starting not because I think Sanchez will win a lot of games. I want to see him start because 1. it is a low-risk, high reward gamble and 2. I want to see the Jets protect the rookie QB prospect at least once in a blue moon.
I don't think their D was vastly overrated. They scored a decent amount in the 01 playoffs and held team in check most of the game so that the offense only needed to put up 17-20 points. Where as in now the defense isn't that good and that's one of the reason even though Brady and the offense is much more effective in 07 or 11 or 10 than it was in 10 the lack of top tier defense is the reason those seasons didn't end up in a SB win. It's a tightrope and the team swayed too much to being offensive orientated than team orientated. That led to a decline (major in my opinion) of the defense. The Pats secondary was better playing with the lead and so with the pass rushers, and the NE offense gave them that opportunity quite often. The times the NE struggled in the playoffs, you are correct saying the passing offense struggled, but it struggled in the SB years also, the difference is that they couldn't lean on the run game or defense anymore. It's a tightrope, you can build a consistent regular season team by having a top QB in the league, you get a SB team by all 3 units coming together and giving and taking as they play tougher competition in the playoffs. The offense should have scored more, but their winning SB runs had low scoring games where the defense pull through enough. You need that defense to be mostly effective to win the SB in the playoffs. IT's been the downfall of many teams in recent years like the Saints vs SEA, NE vs pick your team, GB vs NYG. Ok if we separate 09 and 10, we were on the other side of the line. Instead of being like the current NE strategy of jumping out to quick leads with the offense to help the defense, we were built to keep games close by the defense/run game to let the offense avoid shootouts. We were on the otherside of the tracks so to say, and too much there. That's why 2010 was much more impressive than 2009 in my opinion, we were more balanced but the inconsistency problems haunted us all year long and held us back. Again, I think it's a combination. The offense has not performed near to the regular season expectations they bring on themselves, but that offense is still better than their 01,03,04 offenses. That means something else was different, and that comes down their defense in my opinion. If their defense was better they could get away with a poor game from the offense. I think they were built too much on the Brady and the offense clicking than a balanced team. I think they are swinging back to a balanced team with their RBs looking better and their defense improving. That should be scary for other teams in the league
'01 they played really well and they keyed that run BUT they did blow a 2 TD lead in the 4th qtr of the SB. Their D was mostly effective to win the SB. In 2003 they won 32-29, the last 2 SBs they allowed 19 and 17 pts. Of course it is a combo but they are driven by their O and the O failures I believe have hurt them more.
Nor do they seem to get how small the margins between Success and Failure really are. 2 completions a game, gets him at 60%. god forbid he gets 4. If he puts up 40 scores and only 20 turnovers in 2011...the Jets are probably a playoff team, and we arent having this conversation. (thars just taking 6 from one column, putting it in the other, eradicate 4 picks and two lost fumbles....not all that difficult) Thats a manageable margin for the OC to work with.....
Can we agree that Holmes, Keller, Kerley, and Edwards are all decent players whom Sanchez is comfortable throwing to? Okay, well in 14 of 16 games last season, Sanchez had at least two of them available. In some of those games he had three. It was a patchwork unit, and below average compared to the rest of the league, but Schillens, Gates, Cumberland, and Reuland were NOT his "main weapons" unless he chose them to be. RGIII had a pretty successful year with Santana Moss as his only real quality receiver. Pierre Garcon is decent, until you consider the fact that he missed 6 games and played the rest with torn ligaments in his foot. Other than that RGIII had Fred Davis (who also missed 9 games) and a bunch of nobodies. Other QBs are much more efficient than Sanchez at getting production out of any given amount of talent.
