Didn't we have a couple double digit streaks of scoreless first quarters under Schitty? A feet which he proceed to repeat in St. Louis I might add.
Calvin Pace was stealing money for the better part 3 years. He got released, resigned for peanuts and proceeded to have his best year as a pro. He did so at the age of 33, which is prehistoric in terms of the NFL. Sanchez is 27-28 and he has nothing more to give? Boggles the mind.
I don't have an each game one, but yahoo has this http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/9269/situational/?season=2009 2009: 63.0 1st Q: 67.8 2nd Q: 64.4 3rd Q: 88.3 4th Q: 42.3 When Ahead: 64.2 When Tied: 20.1 When Behind: 80.0 2010: 75.3 1st Q: 66.9 2nd Q: 94.4 3rd Q: 81.1 4th Q: 55.5 When Ahead: 77.5 When Tied: 68.2 When Behind: 76.5 2011: 78.2 1st Q: 73.6 2nd Q: 88.7 3rd Q: 61.8 4th Q: 83.6 When Ahead: 79.7 When Tied: 73.7 When Behind: 79.2 2012: 66.9 1st Q: 59.6 2nd Q: 65.7 3rd Q: 64.0 4th Q: 73.7 When Ahead: 97.4 When Tied: 32.6 When Behind: 70.5 Note, this is passer rating, not QBR. Passer rating does not include fumbles, rushing yards, or rushing TDs. Only passing stats, the formula is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer_rating
For Sanchez's career: Career: 71.7 Home: 71.5 (below his average) Away: 71.9 (above his average) Games 1-8: 75.5 (above his average) Games 9-16: 66.2 (below his average) September: 86.0 (above his average) October: 65.2 (below his average) November: 78.7 (above his average) December: 59.6 (below his average) January: 63.7 (below his average) *One-sided: 74.7 (above his average) *Not Close: 73.6 (above his average) *Close: 69.5 (below his average) *Late&Close: 44.6 (below his average) *Note, I do not know what defines each of these categories. I can't find the definition of them on their stats page. Also via the Yahoo page from above, except career stats
When your talking about Mark being a short term solution as well it doesn't really matter who has a longer shelf life. Unless you think Mark can still be the answer. Again, it comes down to what you think of him as a player. I don't think Mark is much different then Hill or Jackson. Therefore, I wouldn't mind seeing one of those guys brought in over Mark to fill the type of role i'm talkig about. I can make a case that more is known about Mark then the other guys (minus Vick for now), its why I mentioned their names. Mark's started 62 games Jackson 34 Hill 26 Sanchez is younger, and your right those guys being in their 30's now and having only started that few of games probably tells you a lot about them as players. But to be fair Jackson is 17-17 and Hill 13-13. So it can't be all that bad. Mark's 33-29 and is more "battle tested" (if you put a lot of stock in those things) then the other two. But he's done that while throwing 68 TD's and 69 picks. Both of the other two guys (especially Hill) have thrown more TD's then INT's. When we are talking about a veteran backup capable of pushing Geno while also being able to step in and at least manage a game that's an important thing. I'm not coming at it from the standpoint of "I hate Mark Sanchez so much". I'm simply taking a step back and taking everything into account. I don't think he has to be punished for his crimes. Like I said I simply don't think he is any good. I'm also a big fan of advanced metrics as I think they tell the story that stat lines don't. Which is why I always laugh when people respond to certain posts I make and say "you just like fantasy numbers". In 2012 according to PFF Mark Sanchez graded out as the 37th best QB out of 38 QB's who qualified to be ranked. Mike Vick graded out as the 32nd best In 2011 Mark once again graded out as the 37th ranked QB out of 38 to qualify, right in front of Blaine Gabbert. Vick that year graded out as the 11th best QB and Tavaris Jackson who started 14 games for the Seahawks graded out as the 20th ranked QB that year. In 2010 Mark Sanchez graded out as the 28th ranked QB out of 37 to qualify. Vick graded out as the 11th ranked QB and Hill as the 13th ranked QB. And in 2009 Mark Sanchez ranked 39 out of 40 who qualified while Shaun Hill ranked 21st. It depends how much stock you put into something like that. But, they grade a player based off of every play. Not just a final stat line or 1 or 2 big throws. I'm sure most people have heard of PFF but here's some things I grabbed from their grading system just for the hell of it.
Wow, that is unreal. I don't know what to make of those stats. Sanchez was BETTER in Q4 2012 than in 2010, even with all those comebacks (I guess Q4 doesn't include OT?). Might need to look at that game-by-game because 1 or 2 clunkers may have skewed the results. Still, it was a fascinating breakdown, thanks guys.
No change of scenery is a legit thing. Sometimes players outstay their welcome. I want Sanchez gone because he's a bad QB. I want a QB that can push Geno while being able to run an offense if called upon and won't create a distraction if they're sitting on the bench. What makes Sanchez better than Fitzpatrick?
I want Santonio Holmes gone because he cost too much and we need to upgrade the position. I want Bart Scott gone because we need to upgrade the position. I want Vlad Duccase (sp) gone because we need to upgrade the position. I want Wayne Hunter gone because we need to upgrade the position. I want Eric Smith gone because we need to upgrade the position. I want Sanchez gone because he cost too much and we need to upgrade the position
Fair enough... Though, to be honest, I don't think you can find one post by me that states Sanchez is a good QB. I get lumped with the fans of Sanchez because I happen to arbitrarily argue the same point. I don't know if Sanchez is or can be a good QB. My point is that it is absurd to look at his tenure with the NYJ's as any meaningful tally of his "true" capabilities. It is my opinion that very few, if any, QB's would have succeeded on this team. It irks me to see QB's like Stafford, Romo, Schaub, etc have noticeably more talent around them in one season than Mark has in his 4 years, and people convince themselves that it makes no difference. Perhaps Sanchez has had enough talent to be a successful QB. In my opinion, that is not overwhelmingly apparent. More interesting though, are the people who ridicule Sanchez and praise Geno. Maybe they see something in Geno that they don't in Sanchez. I support Geno as much as Sanchez - I think Geno is in a better position to succeed because he hasn't been thrown into the fire. He has been benched, lessons learned, and he will likely have this continue into next year, along with an increase in true offensive talent around him.
I wonder if Bears boards had long pointless threads in 2009 about whether or not fans really wanted Rex Grossman gone after he led them to the Super Bowl in 2006? Rex with the Bears: 31 starts, 19 wins, 12 losses, 54.2 completion pct, 33 TD, 35 Int, 6.4 YPA, 2 playoff wins, 1 Super Bowl loss. And, no, the Bears fans recognized that the guy above was just a mediocre backup level QB.
Sanchez is much better than Grossman. I was literally at a matchup of the two in 2011. Grossman couldn't do anything. The Jets offense was in a funk, but Sanchez still looked much better. Different situation, but hey, if Mark goes to a new team and turns into the next Grossman, I will give you credit for calling it.
Sanchez is not much better than any NFL QB at this point, backup or not. I get that you guys like what you've seen out of him when things were going good. My problem is that things have been going good for him less than half the time in his NFL career, which is why his completion percentage for his career is so low and his turnovers are so high and the Jets offense has sucked balls so much when he was on the field. I get that he hasn't had a lot of help recently, but he also hasn't helped out the people he has had on the field either. Somebody has to be the kick starter on offense or the offense never gets going and Sanchez except for a few scattered games has never been the kick starter for the Jets. BTW, the lack of talent around him factor is real in recent years but he was loaded for bear in his first two years and the numbers weren't good then either. At a certain point you have to realize that lack of talent around him isn't an eternal crutch. He's never had a completion percentage above 56.7. The one year he was good with the turnovers he led the NFL with 15 dropped interceptions. He's never been anywhere near 7 YPA passing. As a result of the three factors above he's never had a QB rating above 78 or so. Those are the stats of a mediocre NFL QB. Rex Grossman is right in the vicinity. At a certain point you just have to accept the fact that Mark Sanchez isn't going to be a good QB without a lot of help and a very friendly system and if you're going to do all that why wouldn't you do it with somebody who was better to start with?
Idk if it's his true capabilities or not. But this is all we have to judge him on. We can't ignore what we've seen just to assume he's better than he's shown. His first 3 years he had a good supporting cast. Good oline, good defense and good running game. You may be right about 2012. But throughout the majority of his career he's had a good team around him. You guys think that because we didn't have Calvin Johnson that they didn't give him help.
Andrew Luck lead the league in dropped interceptions in 2012. I'm guessing you would never hold that against him.
I agree. If the Jets had a better QB option than Mark, I would be fine with letting him walk. However, Mark is better than Geno and Matt. He also would be better, in 2014 at least, than any of the rookie QB's or potential FA QB's. Just my opinion.
And while he was doing that he was throwing 627 passes, not 507, and he was averaging just under 7 yards per pass attempt. Ok, so I get the point that young QB's sometimes get lucky in terms of what is intercepted and is not. So then you have to look at the next data point in the series and that was 2013 for Luck, where he had a 60%+ completion percentage and threw just 9 picks in 570 pass attempts. The problem from Sanchez point of view is that he's never done anything that suggests that he's capable of being a good NFL QB. While I doubt that Luck will be a great NFL QB there's little question that he's going to be a good one.
Even if this is true, why would the Jets be better off with a mediocre mid-career QB than spending a year trying to develop a good young one? It just doesn't make sense. There's a reason that QB's do not have long thoroughly mediocre careers as starters in the NFL. The position is too important to waste a year or two on trying to fix somebody who is not good enough after several years of development. Every now and then you get a mid-career surprise out of a QB but that's all on the QB. It's up to him to elevate his play to the point that the NFL cannot say no. By the time he has 3 or 4 really mediocre years in he's used up his chance.
So he used up his chance by being a rookie, sophomore, and being on two horribly, mediocre at best, shitty teams thereafter? Tough crowd.
"If Mark Sanchez doesn't have a future in Gotham, will other teams come calling? One coach of a quarterback-needy team told the New York Post this week that the Jets passer wouldn't be out of work for long if Gang Green cuts him this offseason. "We'd take Sanchez," the coach told the newspaper. "He'd be the starter as soon as he walked in the door for us."" http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...anchez-would-start-if-jets-cut-him-coach-says
