Why does the kind of offense have to do with a poor completion percentage? If he was playing in a crazy vertical passing game offense where half his throws went at least 30 yards in the air, I could understand a low completion percentage. That's not the case, of course. Sanchez does not play in an offense where it is difficult to be accurate.
Sanchez can be erratic, for sure, but he tends to get the job done when it's on his shoulders late. Freeman's only quality win is against a New Orleans team that shut it down halfway through the game. Mark has gone to New England, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, San Diego and Cincinnati and beaten playoff teams in their own stadiums. He's also beaten New England twice at home. I like Freeman and I think he's going to be a really good QB, but there is no way to know how he'll cope with the pressure of winning big games until he's in them and winning them. We know Sanchez can do it, we don't know if Josh can, yet. I'm simply saying I prefer the tried and tested commodity over the maybe-could-be guy.
See part of the problem is that Sanchez has been so erratic in the regular season, that when he has played pretty good in the postseason it seemed that he was playing great. He played good against Cincinnati, San Diego, Indianapolis, and New England but actually was not great. Those were not Bradshaw and Montana-like playoff performances. He was great against Seattle in Week 16 when both teams were fighting for playoff spots. You didn't consider that a big game. I'll assume because Seattle had a below-.500 record. Well, it was a big game for Tampa Bay and Seattle. Remember, the Buccaneers had the same regular season record as the eventual Super Bowl champions. That game against Seattle was about as important to the Buccs as the Indianapolis game was to the Jets late in the 2009 regular season. Nah, he didn't do it by himself. He had a ton of help from his teammates. We are discussing who is the better quarterback- not who plays on the better team. I believe the Jets are a better team than the Buccs. I also believe the Buccs have a better QB than the Jets. We are going to have to agree to disagree about whether or not Tampa Bay's December/January games of last season were big. I see that you included Sanchez's win over Pittsburgh. That was a regular season game. Yeah, I know. The Jets had a tougher schedule.
I thought his performance against New England was stellar. He had some struggles early on but once he and the rest of the offense got going he played really well.
You are absolutely correct! I'd rather Sanchez win several SUPER BOWLS for us rather then get to the PRO BOWL! Its a team game and we win with Sanchez! When the going gets tough, the tough get going! That is Sanchez in a nut shell!
Haters gonna hate and sports writers need something to write about. The team was good enough to support a caretaker QB while he was gaining experience. Sanchez will continue to improve and become only better. The stats below tell me all I need to know about the kind of QB we have. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...yoff-clutch-than-tom-brady-ben-roethlisberger Yet, even Kurt Warner cannot match the clutch playoff heights New York Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez has reached in his first six postseason games. Sanchez might not be the first name a person thinks of when thinking of clutch playoff quarterbacks, but there is no denying how much better he has been in the playoffs then the regular season. The improvement is astounding. In the playoffs, Sanchez experiences an 11.2 percent increase in completion percentage (from 54.4 percent to 60.2 percent), a 12.1 percent increase in yards per pass attempt (from 6.6 to 7.4), a 38.2 percent increase in adjusted yards per pass attempt (from 5.5 to 7.6), a 20.7 percent increase in net yards per pass attempt (from 5.8 to 7.0), a 52.1 percent increase in adjusted net yards per pass attempt (from 4.8 to 7.3), a .8 percent increase in yards per completion (from 12.1 to 12.2), a 72.7 percent increase in touchdown percentage (from 3.3 percent to 5.7 percent), a 50.0 percent decrease in interception percentage (from 3.8 percent to 1.9 percent) and a 56.1 percent decrease in sack percentage (from 5.7 percent to 2.5 percent).
Yeah, that was his best playoff game. It didn't come against a great defense, though. An A grade was appropriate. If he gave that kind of performance against a Pittsburgh or Baltimore or Green Bay defense, then he'd get an A+.
Yeah, that phenomenon is *what I wrote about above. He's so bad in the regular season that when he performs at league average levels or a little bit above league average in the postseason, it seems as if he is playing great and that he is clutch and really knows how to elevate his game in the postseason and he's a magician and all that type of stuff. * ____________________ A Bleacher Report article about Sanchez being more clutch in the postseason than three QBs who led teams to Super Bowl victories during their first (Warner and Brady) or second (Roethlisberger) trip to the postseason? Do I really want to click on that link and read that article? I don't know. Warner made one of the great clutch throws in Super Bowl history when he connected with Isaac Bruce for 73 yards with two minutes remaining in the 4th quarter of a 16-16 game. Brady made key plays against Oakland and St. Louis in his first Super Bowl season. Roethlisberger, while awful in Super Bowl 40, was excellent in the AFC Chamnpionship Game and efficient vs Cincinnati and Indianapolis. He also made the biggest tackle in the postseason that year.
He plays the most important position for the Jets and most of us (devilonthetownhallroof and weird baseball poster Cappy are two of the few exceptions) joined this board to discuss the Jets. So that's why we care.
When I talk about big games, I mean games against strong opponents, not just important games. You can't seriously suggest that a win in Pittsburgh (with a shoulder injury don't forget) is comparable to a win over a terrible Seattle team? I never said that Sanchez played great games in the playoffs, I said he won games. After all, in the playoffs that's what matters. I don't agree that having a better team makes that much difference. Your run game doesn't go anywhere if nobody respects your QB and your defense can't win any game on their own. Without a good QB you win nothing.
To me, big games are either regular season games that teams need to win to boost their playoff hopes or are actual playoff games. I wouldn't start looking at opponents till I needed to break a tie when comparing teams or quarterbacks. Was Seattle really terrible? By any dictionary definition they were not. They were not a 2-14 team. They did win a playoff game against the defending Super Bowl champions and they did so in convincing fashion. Also, Freeman played head and shoulders better vs Seattle than Sanchez did in the regular season game in Pittsburgh.
Well nobody really respected Sanchez as a rookie but they respected Braylon's ability to get open off a play fake which is why a lot of teams would keep a safety over the top of the CB covering him and the Jets were the best rushing team in the league.
These "Sanchez gets no respect" threads are getting out of hand and are showing the rest of non-Nazi loving world that our fanbase is extremely insecure when none of us Jets fans should get an iota of a fuck. We have an efficient, and more importantly, WINNING quarterback. The fact more than 75 percent of the posters on this MB give such a shit about what others think makes no sense to me. You should know better than anyone. I'm old enough to have sat through Todd, Ryan, Brister, O'Brien, Foley, etc., etc, the list is never ending. Why can't motherfuckers just enjoy a good thing when they have it, instead of eternally bitching about what outsiders think?
Although this is not a Steelers message board, when do the "Terry Bradshaw was mediocre/just ok" threads start?
Yes, Seattle were really terrible. Particularly on the road. They were 7-9 in the weakest division in recent NFL history. Sanchez would have played head and shoulders better vs Seattle than he did in Pittsburgh. Any decent QB would. It's because Pittsburgh can play defense. Freeman and Sanchez have almost identical stats against top 10 defenses, apart from the W-L, so you can't even say Josh has done better work against those top defensive opponents.
I think there is a Top 5 right now: 1. Peyton Manning 2. Aaron Rodgers 3. Tom Brady 4. Drew Brees 5. Ben Roethlisberger and everybody else. Sanchez could be #6. (Yes, his jersey number)
Not that it's entirely relevant any longer, but the original article did not rank Sanchez 20th. It ranked him between 16 and 20.
He is? Since when? He was part of our organization in one of the worst stretches in team history, I don;'t have a high opinion of him. By the way, he doesn't have sanchez ranked at 20, each list is alphabetical so he is anywhere btw 16-20 on his list.
HUH?????? Why do football fans care how good their QB is relartive to the other QB's in the league. REALLY? This is what fans have done since the begining of competitive sports. Wether or not you have a legitimate Top Tier QB is pretty Freaking relevant to the prospects of the future of your team.... IMO, Sanchez has a TON to prove and he may have to do it with a weaker WR core.
