Well considering the next year (this year) Luck dropped his INT% dramatically, raised his completion %, raised his TD % slightly, raised his passer rating, and basically overall became much better at protecting the ball, it's harder to hold it against him since he improved from it. Sanchez on the other hand, didn't improve and his one 2010 year of low turnovers looks more like an outlier than an actual trend of him getting better at protecting the football
No one in this thread is saying they'd take Sanchez over Andrew Luck though. As far as chances, I feel Sanchez deserves one more. It won't be on this team, but it should be.
No I know that, but in talking about dropped INTs, it's brought up about Sanchez because that year is an outlier in his 4 years. His turnovers were at a career low. But when you look at it, it looks more like some good luck than Sanchez actually getting better at stopping turnovers. At the time, after 2010, I thought it was a dumb stat and Sanchez was obviously improving at protecting the football. I was wrong
You do realize the last two of the four years are below average in terms of NFL talent? You simply cannot cut the stats as is without taking into account everything that likely contributed to them, including Mark's poor play.
If he ends up as a starter I hope it's with a team loaded with offensive weapons and a good oline. So that way there is no more speculation. He either sinks or swims. I just hope the shoulder doesn't become an excuse.
If Mark is smart he is working out with a Qb guru who will try to teach him discipline. Even if it takes electro shock therapy Mark has to train himself not to throw the ball into coverage something he should have learned a long time ago. And to think of himself as a game manager not a franchise Qb (which he isn't). But I don't really see anything new coming from him. We didn't see it in exhibition games last year, he still was careless and turned the ball over esp in red zone situations. As soon as there's pressure he'll fold.
Places Mark could start in 2014: 1. Houston Texans 2. Minnesota Vikings 3. Jacksonville Jaguars 4. Cleveland Browns 5. Oakland Raiders 6. Tampa Bay Buccaneers 7. Tennessee Titans Could be more, but those are what I see right now.
Yes I understand there was less talent. I also understand you can protect the football better than what Sanchez has done in his career no matter the talent around you. That's why the dropped INTs is used for Sanchez to partially explain why his INT rate was low that year but not the other 3. That's also why, people haven't harped on it with Luck, because he didn't throw a ton of INTs this year. He cut his interceptions down. If they went up, people would have pointed to the dropped INTs saying, "hey maybe he just got some breaks last year and this should have been expected"
Going into the draft, I think this is accurate. Tennessee I'm not too sure about with depending on how ready Locker can be. Once the draft rolls around, I expect 2-4 teams to drop off the list.
Mostly true, but what about Alex Smith ? Jeff Garcia ? Phil Simms (lost his starting job in Year 5 !!) ??
I'm gonna respond to this but keep in mind I'm doing so using Sanchez apologist logic. Why would Houston want Sanchez when they could keep Schaub who has had good years prior to 2013. Or even Bridgewater? Sanchez isn't any better than the QB's on those other teams.
Where are the Jets on that list? He can has just as much chance winning the starting job here as he would on the teams listed.
Let the Joe Namath knows abslutely nothing about football posts begin. http://www.newsday.com/sports/footb...who-should-be-jets-qb-going-forward-1.6828141
I think Sanchez would be a good fit in Oakland. they good draft Sammy Watkins and they also have some nice young talent in Moore, Streater, Holmes and Kasa.
What is with the use of the word "of" in place of "have"? It doesn't make sense. I am not asking this for any reason other than curiosity. Example: You should HAVE purchased beer at the store. Rex Ryan is the head coach OF the New York Jets.
What happened to your theory that we who thought Sanchez was dog shit are racists? http://forums.theganggreen.com/showthread.php?p=2617240#post2617240 Green, black, orange, or yellow, Sanchez is dog shit. I'll take Geno in a heartbeat over that trash.
Below is what I posted in response to some pretty negative comments about Sanchez: "To be honest, most of the hate for Sanchez sounds like a mix of disappointment and jealousy. There are reasons to be concerned about Sanchez, sure. The hate for him is near a personal level. I've even wondered if some of it is possibly racist in nature." If me saying that I have wondered about something irks you - so be it.
