You are conflating things, which is a large part of the problem. Ben didn't have a good game. What he did have were moments where he came through in the clutch, even while having a bad day overall. Ben threw INTs when having had the ball on the Jets 32 and 37 yard lines. They weren't "red zone" interceptions, but teams are expected to come away with points in those situations as at worst, you are looking at a 52 yard field goal. Also throw in Ben's fumble then recovery for a safety. That's a bad game overall.
Yeah but Sanchez played better. Just because Ben played better than his #s didn't mean he played better than Sanchez. This is classic Junc, ask a question change the argument. You asked this "Which QB had the better game:" Then you answer with "Ben played much better than his #s and made plays to win the game, he got Pitt to a big lead then when we had a chance he converted 2 3rd downs to seal it. " You never addressed your original question, you created a false argument with the poster who answered and tried to win the false argument you created. The question you asked was which QB played better, not who played above/below their stat line or who got the win. Which QB played better, Sanchez. Which QB got the win, Big Ben. Two different statements, two different arguments.
JUNC --- You love to bring up the fact that we were a game away from the Superbowl in 2009 and 2010 with Sanchez. We all get it. We were there too. The difference is, all the rest of on here realize that we didn't achieve that BECAUSE of Sanchez. He was along for the ride and pretty much weighed us down most of the time. The only reason he didn't completely derail us was because we were loaded with talent in those years. Enough talent to OVERCOME having him as our QB. In 2009 We were in inch away from being the first team in NFL history to miss the playoffs despite having the #1 running game and #1 defense. Seriously ... what more do you need to know about Sanchez than that?? So YES ... I'll say it again. If Mark Sanchez is our QB next season we have NO SHOT to be competitive. Zero. He had two years to show he could lead a lesser talented team to victories and he responded by providing us with the worst QB play in the sport ... and it wasn't even close. Everyone knows we won't be loaded with talent next season ... And yet you STILL think we have a chance to win with Mark Sanchez? You think HE'S the guy to elevate the players around him?? :lol: Did you watch any part of the last 19 games? THAT guy might be your QB ... And you're OK with that?? Absolutely mind-boggling.
Sanchez was historically bad in the 2009 regular season.. He had 28 turnovers! He had a month where he had 10 turnovers and only 2 TDs.. Another separate month with 3 Tds and 8 Turnovers.... If he was drafted to the Jacksonville Jaguars and not the NYJ, that season would've been just laughable. Blaine Gabbert looks like an all-star compared to that! 2009 - historically bad 2010- average 2011- bad 2012- historically bad
Those moments were the difference in the game so he had a good game overall b/c of it. One of his INts was on a 4th and 1 and didn't get returned, it was the same as if getting stuffed running on 4th and 1 so even if he doesn't throw the INT at the 32 Pitt doesn't have a chance to kick the FG b/c it was 4th down. Ben did have the better game, he got Pitt out to a 17-0 lead. mark did a great job to get us back in it but he was constantly playing from behind due to ben and Pitt's O. Ben was better, he made plays to win the game.
stop w/ the historically bad nonsense. He had 23 turnovers not 28, in 2010 Eli threw 25 picks w/o factoring in fumbles so stop w/ tjhe historically bad stuff. he had 3-4 awful games but the majority of the year he was good. 2009: good for a ROOKIE, very good in postseason 2010: very good, even better in postseason 2011: mediocre 2012: bad
Really now? The main reason Big Ben played better than Sanchez was because his team won the game? Sanchez played better than Big Ben at the QB position. Big Ben's team beat Sanchez's team. You have to differentiate. "Making plays to win the game" is such a unique phrase and a cop out of an argument. You do understand you can "Make plays to win the game" and lose the game right? That winning a game doesn't mean one player didn't play better than another player. Or for you if Team A beats Team B, QB A automatically played better than QB B because QB A "Made plays to win the game"?
Have to disagree just a bit. He included the caveat of "for a rookie", which is correct. In most cases, you don't expect a rookie QB to be out there carrying a team like Brady or Peyton Manning does. You hope that they aren't out there looking like Ryan Lindley "Good for a rookie" != "Good for an experienced QB" as there are different expectations.
Junc as we saw, Mark Sanchez is rookie season did not live up to the current crop of QBs who immediately started coming from the draft. GP CMP ATT CMP%YDS AVG TD LNG INT FUM QBR RAT 16 265 434 61.1 3,440 7.93 16 70 11 2 74.1 87.7 16 257 428 60.0 2,971 6.94 14 70 12 6 43.2 80.3 16 300 516 58.1 3,398 6.59 20 84 13 3 45.8 80.4 16 252 393 64.1 3,118 7.93 26 67 10 3 69.6 100.0 16 339 627 54.1 4,374 6.98 23 70 18 9 65.0 76.5 15 196 364 53.8 2,444 6.71 12 65 20 8 31.6 63.0 15 258 393 65.6 3,200 8.14 20 88 5 3 71.4 102.4 Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Andy Dalton, Russell Wilson, Andrew Luck, Mark Sanchez, RGIII Out of QBs who recently started 15 or more games in their rookie season, these were their stats. Sanchez is the worst. Lowest TDs, lowest comp %, most INTs, second most fumbles, lowest ypa So if Sanchez had a good rookie season by your standards, these rest of the QBs on this list had GREAT to HISTORICALLY AMAZING rookie season. Sanchez's rookie year was below average. We didn't need much from him because our run game and defense were great. Come post season time, he did one main thing that helped us win, he stopped turning the ball over. He played good in his first 3 playoff games, but 15 games tells us more than 3. As we saw, the turnover problem went away in year, and of course was our best year with him starting at QB, and it came back in full force in year 3 and 4. The only way to compensate for turning the ball over so much, is to cancel it out by scoring a ton of touchdowns which is what Mark did in the beginning of year 3. Down the stretch of year 3, we got turnovers only Mark which we then got for the majority of year 4.
I lack reading comprehension? I'm deflecting? No, I'm simply not pointing to the stats and realities that everyone else has already pointed to when responding to you. They don't do any good, obviously, or we wouldn't have ourselves another thread like this one with the same crap that's been in a dozen other threads. I'm instead picking apart your inconsistencies and your contradictions of yourself. YOU are hurling insults just as much as everyone else. Just because you don't curse or call someone a personal name like an idiot or a moron doesn't mean you aren't insulting anyone. "your lack of reading comprehension" "you guys don't know what you're watching" "you guys like to point to fantasy #s, I look at what I'm watching" These are all holier than thou, condescending insults that assume that no one can comprehend the sport like you can.
There was something to build off on for Mark. He played good in year 2 and led some big time drives. In year 3, he scored a ton more for us and has some GREAT games, but down the stretch it started to get away from him. He had the atrocious DEN game, followed by a great BUF game, followed by 2 games against WAS and KAN where we hid him and he followed the strategy of not doing any dumb with the ball. Then came the last 3 games of the season, PHI he didn't played well and the team didin't play well. NYG where the OC left him out to dry and we saw again Sanchez throwing 40-50 times a game is not going to be productive for him, then the MIA game where INT down 3 with 8 mintues left at the 50. INT down 6 with 3 minutes left at the MIA 10. We thought maybe Sanchez could shake that off, but it just became a sign of things to come. He gets back to the basics, we can win games with him. However, it sucks we have to get back to the basics with our 5th year QB. We can win with an older version of him we saw 2 years, the question is, will we ever get that Mark Sanchez back? Even that version of Sanchez would be an improvement over this version, but then we would need even more improvement to consistently compete with him at QB.
Look at my list of current QBs who started the majority of games their rookie year. I thought maybe Junc was right and Sanchez was like any other rookie. Not in this day and age though, he underperformed his rookie year compared to other starters from day 1
again, his #s were skewed by 3-4 really bad games and those other 5 QBs combined for 3 playoff wins as rookies(1 came from a head to head battle) and most of the QBs on this list were GREAT as rookies. I didn't say mark was great, I said he was GOOD for a rookie. Those rookie QBs in the playoffs: 153-273, 1753 yds, 6 TDs, 10 INTs, 67.6 rating, led O's to 17.8 PPG, 3-5 record Mark Sanchez: 41-68, 539 yds, 4 TDs, 2 INTs, 92.7 rating, led O to 19.3 PPG, team to 2-1 record w/ 2 road wins.
Agreed. I remember sitting there at the games saying "man, kid is a rookie, hope he gets better" because was pretty bad. The only reason he was starting at all was because the alternative was Kellen Clemens. The past few years, rookie QBs have come out and started immediately and many have made an impact. Particularly when you compare draft positions. Sanchez at 25, he's done well and he's good "for a rookie". Sanchez at 5, and not so much. It's only recently that rookies have gotten to play immediately, and Sanchez's rookie season was comparable to the guys who did it before, and didn't learn behind a vet for a couple of seasons. But in comparison to more recent years, he was well behind the rookie curve.
Junc his numbers weren't skewed by 3-4 really bad games. Those were games that counted and he played bad in. In fact couldn't I just turn around and using your argument, Sanchez's numbers are skewed by his 3 good playoff games? Take those away and he was terrible his rookie year. Bad argument by you. Games count as much. This is you going back to "Well if you throw out his bad games, he isn't bad". In multiple arguments you now have thrown out 4 games from his rookie season, the last 3 games of his 3rd year, and all the games from his 4th year. That's 23 games, over a 1/3 of his total games started. Again separate his regular season play from his playoff play from team wins. His regular season was not good for a rookie, it was average to below average for a rookie. In fact it was the worst of a rookie that did this recently, but since they were rookies everything gets bumped up and it was an average/below average season. His playoff play was good .He stopped turning the ball over a lot which was a great help to us. He complemented a team with a great run game and defense tremendously. The Jets went 2-1 with him in the playoffs and he played good. Those 3 games don't override the 15 games before them though. They are in addition to those 15 games and overall his rookie season was "mehh to ehh to average". Compared to other rookies at the time, it was bad. Well look at Ryan and Flacco the year before Sanchez. That was when in my mind the boom really started. Both of them started day 1, both of them played good for a rookie. Sanchez came in and while we made the playoffs he did not play as good as either one did. But what was exciting about Sanchez was our team found a way to win with him at the QB position in the playoffs while the Falcons' couldn't with Ryan and the Ravens could with Flacco. On top of that we could look at Dalton the following year, who also put up better stats than Sanchez in a better division (Steelers/Ravens twice). Dalton's team couldn't find a way to win his rookie year, but he came out of there and played well. This new crop this year with Wilson, Luck, Griffin is incredible. They set the bar ever higher.
How many games did you go to? the only bad home games he had were Buf and Atl. Ryan still sucks in postseason, 5 years later has ONE playoff win despite playing w/ much more talent and hosting 3 playoff games. Flacco this potseason finally stepped up consistently. Flacco as a rookie didn't have as many INTs but in postseason threw 1 TD and 3 INTs while sanchez had 4 and 2. Dalton put up better stats against an easier sched, yep he had a tougher division but he lost all 4 games to Pitt and Bal and in his lone postseason game he threw ZERO TDs and THREE INTs.
Can we start this thread over, on a logical point. He got drafted after 11 starts removed from his last High School start. Normally we look for a skill position player, to come of age as it were, 3 years in. That's a guy with several years of college ball. Then you factor in Schotty (10 rating points lower in his offense for Favre, and Pennington) Then Sparano, who Westhoff described as inept. Then Gilyard,Gates,Reuland. I'm not defending Sanchezs bad play, but those are the facts. He lit up Buffalo, week one. Then St Louis, week 10. He can play. I respectfully suggest that the jury is out, until Morinheg has a shot at him.
Junc this year he lit Buffalo up at home. Hill had a monster game. Never mind, context is my friend. Not this year.
I go to every single home game. Haven't missed a home game in 6 years. I even go to a couple of road games in most years. What's your point?
The JAX game was at home? Not a pretty one to write home about either for Sanchez. Actually the ATL team was not very talented this year. They were considered one of the worst #1 seeds of all time in the NFL. The Jets on the other hand in their first 2 years were rated better all around than the Falcons of this year. Don't let preconceived notions get in the way of your thinking. I'm sorry you missed Flacco's two postseason before this one if you think he started playing consistently in the playoffs right now. Again, playoffs are in addition to their regular season play. They don't replace it, they don't override it. As we see with Sanchez, his playoff play didn't override the fact over the course of a season he is a turnover machine. For whatever reason he limited turnovers in his two playoff runs, but over the course of season, still has trouble giving the ball away. Also, didn't you throw away 3-4 bad games for Sanchez his rookie year? Fine I'll take that argument and throw away Dalton's 3-4 bad games and Flacco's and Ryan's and look they all still had better rookie seasons than Sanhcez. I like how in one post you throw away 3-4 bad games for Sanchez, the next post focus on 1 game out of a 16 game season for Dalton. Stay consistent. If you throw out games for Sanchez, throw them out for Dalton, Flacco, etc.
