What Sanchez needs to be able to do is take those good stretches he has - how he played in playoff games, his comeback against the Colts, his regular season clutch moment - Detroit, Cleveland, Houston, ... the guy wasn't The Sanchize because he was garbage. He just lacked consistency. I think MMs offense is so QB friendly that Sanchez, with Ivory, Powell, and Goodsen (when Back), the offensive line, and some good young weapons on the outside could have a nice surpirsing season.
I have been saying the exact same thing to people for some time. I just hope that he gets the chance.
False. Rex dubbed Mark "The Sanchize" half-jokingly, before he ever did anything to earn the moniker. Mark was anointed as a franchise quarterback from day one.
And back to back AFC Championship game appearances didn't hurt. Say what you will about he was carried - but at the end of the day a defense doesn't get a career W-L record.
The Daily News is reporting that the Jets feel that Geno "out performed" Sanchez before the Ankle injury. I am wondering which week Matt Simms will get his first NFL start
Wow 7 on 7 drills he had 7 good passes and modified full speed. In his games he was garbage and sprained his ankle running without being touched.
No, the defense doesn't get a career W-L by itself, but neither does Mark Sanchez. And outside of the loony Sanchez nut-huggers, the vast majority of the people who watched the 2009 and 2010 Jets play would likely agree with the statement that Mark was probably single biggest weakness on those two teams. Yes, he had some awesome clutch moments. But his play was always generally marred by inaccuracy and poor decision making. Statistically speaking, he's been one of the worst tenured starting quarterbacks in the league over the last 4 years. And you know what? . . . My eyes have told me the same thing.
Was he weak - yes, but did the guy step up in clutch moments, handle tough times, handle the media, the stress, and the pressure like a pro - yes. The guy was learning on the job in the toughest market in the country and did a very nice job -- took on Manning, Rivers, and Brady on the road in the playoffs and won - he outplayed Brady - he was the reason they won that game.
No, he didn't "take on" Manning, Rivers, and Brady in the "playoffs" . . . unless you are referring to some secret tennis league that I am unaware of . . . In actuality, the Jets took on the Colts, Chargers, and Patriots in the NFL playoffs. Stop using the fallacious argument that quarterbacks take on other quarterbacks, and thus, have win/loss records in the NFL. This is a purely illogical media creation. In the NFL, TEAMS have Win/Loss records because football is a TEAM sport. Mark's individual performance has never been very good, and for most of his career, it's sadly been pretty terrible.
But when the likes of rivers, Brdy, Manning etc WIN playoff games they are Lauded as big time winning playoff quarterbacks. Sanchez deserves a TON of credit for those 4 ROAD playoff wins.....he played well in all 6 of his playoff games.....even the losses.....85 in the hall, I agree if people are going to give him criticism, which is well deserved, then his accomplishment to deserve credit as well.
Bullshit - QBs are the only position that has a W-L stat associated with their names. And he led an amazing final drive in that Colts game, he was solid against the chargers, and was incredible in NE. In the playoffs he completes 60%, 11TD, 3 INT, and a 90 rating....you can't say the guy was a no show in the playoffs.
My argument is that it is inherently illogical to validate or invalidate a quarterback's merits strictly on his team's ability to win and lose games. I just think it's fundamentally bad reasoning. I think you have to look at a quarterback's individual performance in the context of many other factors (his team's record merely being ONE of those factors). As a result, I reject the entire media driven notion of assessing quarterbacks on team statistics such as "playoff wins". Dan Marino is one of the two or three greatest quarterbacks I have ever had the opportunity to see . . . he has a depressingly meager playoff record. He has one road playoff "win" (I just love how people assign "wins" and "losses" to individuals in a team sport) . . . Mark Sanchez has four. Dan Marino is "8-10" (whatever that means) in playoff games. Peyton Manning is "9-11". Mark Sanchez is 4-2. None of this means dick to me.
Just the way it is QBs are rated at the end of the day with W-L -- Marino is the greatest QB to never win a SB, Manning got one which prevents people from looking at his amazing failures in the past -- where he played like shit in many playoff games. QBs are seen as a leaders, they make the big money, have the big responsibility, and are praised when they win and vilified when the lose.
Oh, they absolutely do. And personally, I think it's complete and utter bullshit. It's inherently illogical and goes to ridiculous lengths. This bit of fallacious reasoning is perhaps the biggest single reason that we have morons on this message board who want the Jets to actually continue to start an obviously terrible quarterback. It's a misguided notion . . . partially because it's hopelessly stuck in the past (it comes from looking backwards, not forwards) and partially because it fundamentally confuses team accomplishments with individual accomplishments.
What does that have to with anything? Revis tore his ACL without being touched, Santonio his foot, the Giants safety this past preseason game his ACL without being touched. Why do I see this being brought up as a supposed "negative" for Geno? I don't get it. At the end of the day we have 0 established NFL QBs on our roster INCLUDING a healthy Sanchez because he wasted away his good will away the last 1.5 years with his horrendous decision making. No matter what QB we put out there, we have NO idea what to expect from them.
Being "Just the way it is" has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong. A lot of irrefutably terrible ideas and practices were "just the way things were" for long periods of time, in all walks of life, and in all facets of history. The problem is, it is a completely illogical notion and its importance gets stretched to ridiculous lengths.
This is just nonsense. Would it be theoretically possible to be 9-7 or 10-6 with sanchez at QB if the rest of the team was great enough? Yes, we saw that his rookie year. The problem is that with any other QB, and that same great cast, you would be 12-4 or 13-3. There is simply no reason to keep a guy who proven he sucks and struggle to surround him with a superb supporting cast in order to make him look average while there are a million better guys out there who could win a superbowl with a superb supporting cast.
They had a top tier defense but when did they have an offense weapon that was top tier? An Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, Vincent Jackson, Victor Cruz? Whan did they havea guy that teams had to game plan for? The offense has had an average cast of characters...the last guy they had that teams had to worry about broke his leg in Oakland and never played for the Jets again.
