Fair enough. So just as you say the Jets AFC title game losses are on the defense because they deserved most but not all of the blame, you'd also so the Eagles game was on the Giants defense for the same reason. That's fair. Eli did have 25 picks but numbers without context mean little. Ten of his interceptions came on dropped or tipped balls by his receivers. One of the interceptions in the Packer game was actually caught out of bounds but the Giants didn't have the timeouts to challenge. He also only had only two interceptions dropped by defenders, whereas Sanchez led the league with 15. I assume dropped interceptions matter to you because you mentioned them when trying to knock Eli down a peg for his efforts in the NFC title game in SF. Otherwise why even bring them up?
However. The anti sanchez crowds react with far more vitriol.....when the pro sanchez case is made..... And its gotten measurably worse since Smith was drafted.
He had a few tipped balls, that happens. It wasn't an extraordinary # and some of those tipped balls were b/c of poor throws. see the video clip below: [YOUTUBE]2tUsUoMIHZc[/YOUTUBE] 1. tried to squeeze btw multiple defenders, a little behind Nicks. 2. not his fault 3. ball was high, Barden is a huge target and he had to jump for it. 4. throws into triple coverage 5. throw behind receiver and a little bad luck 6. throws w/ left hand 7. bad throw on the run 8. bad throw into double coverage 9. tipped ball but high and away 10. tipped but again high and away and WR was getting hit as he was attempting to catch 11. awful throw 12. miscommunication 13. bad read 14. bad read/throw 15. bad read/throw 16. bad throw 17. terrible decision 18. bad throw 19. bad throw 20. tipped at line 21. miscommunication 22. bad read/throw 23. bad read/throw 24. bad decision while being tackled 25. not his fault of the 25 2 weren't his fault and they had 2 miscommunications that may or may not have been his fault. This notion that it was all bad luck b/c of tipped balls is false. Many of the tipped balls were poor throws.
you are really going to sit here and say that 3 was elis fault? it hit the guy in the hands? I could say its elis fault but you consistently blame the receivers if the ball hits them or is anywhere in their general vicinity when mark throws it. this is why you are absurd, its one set of rules for sanchez and another completely different set of rules for in this case manning. stop being douchey and apply the rules the same to each guy.
the dropped INTs? that stat is BS, every QB has dropped INTs. The difference btw them counting a DL dropping a potential INT and the ONE situation I brought up for Eli was that he threw 2 different passes up for grabs(he did that a lot in 2011) and the passes were so bad that each time 2 SF DBs collided to knock the ball away from each other.
that WR is 6'6" and had to jump and stretch for that ball. That's on the QB. name one instance where I blamed receivers? you have nothing to go on, find me a video like this and I'll evaluate it the same way. Most of those TWENTY FIVE INTs were Eli's fault. It's funny, Eli had 25 INts w/ excellent talent, mark 18 w/ awful talent and you will bash mark up and down and make excuses for Eli. Now if Eli was a Jet QB you guys would be whining and wanting to run him out of town.
Junc talking to himself. ^^ I can understand why you wouldn't want to try and explain how you say the main culprit was the D for the Pitt loss while still blaming the D for the NE loss when it was the O that failed when they had a chance to win it in OT. :lol: The average fan sees that as a double standard. But carry on SuperFan. I salute you. Dude, getting benched before the season starts would be failure as well. You said if Sanchez didn't start, the bet was off. You can see why I thought you might back out if Sanchez gets benched during the season. I won't be one of them. I believe he can rebound to become an average QB again if things around him are just right. From what I've seen for 4 years, I just don't believe he will ever be more than average at best. If he does become that, I will gladly say I was wrong.
The D BLEW a lead in the final minute then allowed NE to score to open up OT. It's just mind boggling. All this info at our fingertips yet so many don't understand it.
Who had the ball last with a chance to win? The O only scored 3 points while giving the D 7 in the first half of the Pitt game. That is negative 4 points scored. The O took up 8 minutes of clock in the 4th quarter and came away with 0 points. You want to forget all of that and blame the D since they didn't give the O a chance at the very end. You won't even say that was a team loss like you did for the Tennessee loss when the O turned it over 5 times and scored just 10 points. In the NE game, they had that chance you wanted in Pitt and failed, yet the D still gets the blame. :lol: You know what you would be saying if the D did get the O the ball back in that Pitt game and the O didn't score? You would be complaining that we had to use all of our timeouts and that we didn't have enough time. You would be blaming the D for giving up 17 points the first half. The D would get the blame from you regardless, unless they pitched a shutout and scored a safety to win 2-0. :breakdance:
the D put us in a 17-0 hole then w/ a chance to give our O a chance to win it they allowed Pitt to run the clock out. At least in NE they gave our O a chance and the O gave us a lead which of course the D blew.
The D didn't put us in that hole alone. The O had 5 possessions in the first half. Went 3 and out twice, ended another drive with 0 points, turned the ball over for 7, and then kicked a FG when we were down 21 points. Down 14 they went on an 8 minute drive and came away with 0 points. In NE, the O actually scored a TD when they went on a 7 minute plus drive in the 4th. hmy: The D held NE and we tied it on the next drive. If the O scored on that 8 minute drive instead of coming away with nothing in the Pitt game, we would have had plenty of time to tie it. It is hilarious how you ignore every bad thing the offense did to hurt us in those games and blame the D because of the very end. Then turn around and still blame the D when the O had the last drive with a chance to win it at the very end. :rofl2: Carry on SuperFan. I'm out!
yep, and if our D played like their D in those SB runs Mark Sanchez would have at least made a SB or 2 if not win 2.
Yeah...I don't see that much difference in the way either qb plays the game. Eli takes as many or more risks with his play. He's been surrounded with more talent on the other end of his tosses as well. I seem to recall he had a few good backs running the ball too.
It's because the Giants organization built the team around Eli and brought pieces to help him succeed. The Jets failed to do that, and that's why they are in this situation they are in right now.
Isn't that what I said? It's one thing to compare Eli against Sanchez, but if we start comparing organizations... the only thing that the Jets have over the Giants is a better home stadium.
The only reason Sanchez had the success he did in his first two seasons was because of the team that was built around him. We couldn't afford to keep that team together. They needed the QB to take step forward and when he didn't, they gave him a ridiculous contract extension. That is why they are in the situation they are in right now.
Lets compare Sanchez to Stafford that I sure most on here would take in a second. Pure Season Numbers Stafford 4900 yd 59% completion 20 tds 17 pics 3 fumbles 79.8 QB rating - 4 wins Sanchez 2900 yds 54% 13 td 18 int - 6 wins My point is Matt did not play that much better than Mark and only won 4 games with arguably a much better team. Why is nobody calling for Matts head?
