Why does everyone think the Bucs of no talent on offense? That's just stupid. Completely different scenarios too.
I don't quite get the Freeman hype. He's like a boxer with a record against unknowns; since when does that count?
Quarterbacks take a lot of benefit and a lot of blame when their teams suck, and a lot of times it's not deserved either way. It took Mike Vick training and killing fighting dogs for most pundits to admit that, prior to his incarceration, he wasn't a very good quarterback. When the Falcons were winning on the strength of their defense and running game and Vick managing with his legs, no one questioned his superstardom. The fact of the matter was, he was merely average. I give Sanchez a lot of credit. He played one year at USC. He plays for one of the more conservative, least innovative OC's in the NFL, and I believe that is enough to stifle any QB's development, but he's succeeded despite it. That said, he's a work in progress. He's not putting any team on his shoulders just yet. He has his good moments, and he has his woeful moments. His lack of accuracy really hinders him, and I think it only encourages a tightwad like Schotty to be more conservative. I think with more attention to detail, he can be great, but he's got a long way to go. At this juncture, Josh Freeman is clearly better. He plays in a worse division, sure, but he's throwing to inferior receivers, and his numbers are light years better. The Bucs don't win as much as Sanchez because the Bucs aren't as good as the Jets, player for player. You can't give Sanchez all the credit for the Jets being a better team, obviously, but as absurd as that sounds, that's what people do. -X-
I agree w/ part of your statement but Vick was a top QB in Atlanta. Not a top passer but a top QB. The QBs job is to win not to put up great #s and he did nothing but win while in Atlanta. he's a much better passer today and thus much more dangerous overall but he was a good QB and a winner in Atlanta. His time in Atlanta was very underrated. Freeman's weapons are on par w/ Sanchez's weapons. Maybe they don't have quite the experience but talent wise they are right there and while I like Freeman he had one big game to win(against a mediocre team at home) and couldn't do it. Sanchez was better despite the lesser #s, that doesn't mean sanchez will have the better career but right now Sanchez is better.
tampa bays OL has never been consistently good. nor anywhere near as good as ours. hes thrown to relative nobodies and young upstarts as opposed to what sanchez has been given. their defense well need i say how it compares to the jets Blount has been a steal for them though
A good argument can be made that the best WR on either team last year was Mike Williams and the best RB LeGarrett Blount.
This is the line of reasoning I'm talking about. If Vick is a "winner" because his defense kept games close enough for him to win despite a propensity for turnovers, getting sacked, and and being inacurate, then it must follow that Phillip Rivers is a loser, even though he throws for 3 touchdown passes and 400 yards and the special teams, defense, and running game suck, because he couldn't "overcome." It's totally subjective. Looking back, yes, Vick was a weapon, but he was never really the franchise player he was made out to be. His presence on the roster didn't make that defense good at pass rushing and limiting scoring, and the passing game, which was considered a bust when Vick was there, flourished upon him leaving. Roddy White and Michael Jenkins, who were considered whiffs by Atlanta's front office, became a dynamic duo.
He's a winner b/c he made plays to win games. They didn't have great defenses in Atlanta, they were middle of the pack. I do think Philip Rivers is overrated, he's a great passer but you are judged on wins and the only div rd win he has as a starter he didn't finish the game and Billy Volke led the biggest drive of that game. Too many people get too into fantasy #s and think that defines QB play. I'm not sure where you get this notion that Atlanta had a big time defense. They made the playoffs on the legs and arm of Vick not behind that average defense.
QBs have to perform the whole match every match. Although Sanchez keeps getting Ws, he hasn't been a good QB in the "everydrive" part of the game. Freeman has been a better QB based on this. But Sanchez has proven that he IS clutch in the biggest moments in the biggest games in the hardest situations. Freeman has proven that he MAY be clutch; when he's been required to do it, he has made a good job out of it, but he hasn't been challenged as much as Sanchez (NY / top teams / road playoffs). Considering that most likely is possible to improve your everyday game, as opposite as learning to play in the clutch, I rather take my chances on what Sanchez may become instead of Freeman. So, we still need to find out who takes the next step sooner or better: Sanchez improving his everyday everydrive game (it should be achievable) or if Freeman is really clutch in bigger games in bigger scenarios in bigger moments (probably we'll never know). Meanwhile, I wouldn't accept a trade Freeman-Sanchez.
The running game and Rex's defenses hide Sanchez. As long as Rex is coach our defense will make sure Sanchez does not look but so bad because he will rarely have to shoot it out with another team. There are Qb's who played better to the talent they are surrounded with and it is nowhere near what we have
When he has had to shoot it out, he has done a pretty good job. For instance I remember Miami and Chicago... both games lost in the end because of the defense, not because of our quarterback.
You are correct but they are the exception not the rule. We need him at a level where he can shoot it out with the Sb Caliber teams and Qb's and know he can win. He is not there yet. Hopefully he can make it but the jury is still out.
He did outperform the best QB in the league on the road in the div round. Sanchez is still developing, the positives are he got much better in year 2 and he isn't intimidtaed by big games or big moments. He's going to keep getting better, will that be enough to be a top QB? I don't know but I'm confident we can win Super Bowls w/ him(Heck, I'll take just one) and that is more important to me.
I completely agree with your take on Vick in Atlanta. The Philly CS did alot with him last year to elevate his play. But in Atlanta he was just not a very good passer, and as you point out that was not really on the other players in the passing attack. Credit to Andy Reid and his people, though, for getting Vick to perform better last year. (Ftr I think Reid is one of the better HC's in the league, all around.)
Agree on all counts. I'm not sure what people expect out of a 2nd year QB, but the progress was incredibly heartening. I have a lot of hope for the guy going into his 3rd season.
I still say that you can't just ignore statistics. This has nothing to do with me being obsessed with fantasy sports (which I don't even play), or ESPN, or any of that other nonsense. There needs to be a measuring stick on how well an INDIVIDUAL performs because everyone isn't on an even playing field. A bad football team knows that Mark Sanchez isn't going to carry them. A loaded team like the Jets knows they can be patient, but watch how quickly that patience runs out if Sanchez completes well below 60% of his passes again this season. Sanchez came up big in a few big spots last year, as did Freeman. However, if Sanchez plays as poorly as he did in the first round @ Indy and had Freeman's Tampa defense (17th total defense instead of 3rd), the Colts probably win that game by two scores. Cromartie's return would have meant nothing. Even if he has a solid game like he had @ NE (the 30th ranked pass defense), you're still ignoring the larger sample size of regular season games. When grading out players, you can't punish someone like Freeman for being on an extremely young football team that's still learning how to win. We have no idea how Freeman would have performed in a playoff situation and that's not his fault. He has to be listed ahead of Sanchez because he's the far more consistent football player. And we have no idea whether Freeman could handle New York or not, so you can't use that against him either. We do know that he's poised, he's a great leader, and he's an extremely hard worker (yeah, he held camps too.) Given those traits, there's little reason to believe he wouldn't succeed in New York. As for Vick, he only had 2 playoff seasons in Atlanta. Not really sure if I'd say "all he did was win".
Freeman is "the far more consistent football player"? I don't see it. Their stats againts top 10 defenses are almost a wash. Who cares how many losing teams Freeman beat up on? He's still never won a meaningful game against a team with a winning record.
"He's still never won a meaningful game against a team with a winning record." You obviously missed the entire point of individual v. team success. The easiest way to settle it would just be to watch their throws. You can't watch a Jet game and tell me that Sanchez has natural accuracy. He's been as wild as they come. There were a few big missed throws in the first half of that Indy playoff game alone that made you want to pull your hair out. He doesn't have a 54.8 completion percentage because he's putting it on the money. He's got a loaded offense with quality veterans all around him and he's still erratic. That's what I mean about consistency. Freeman's lowest QB rating in a game last year was 61.4. Sanchez came in below that 6 times. Freeman is working with kids. Talented players but kids still learning the game nonetheless. I'm not saying stats are everything but when the difference in QB rating is that drastic it's largely because of the performance level of the player.
