I thought I posted the exact production stats for each Jets team. The 1985 team was statistically better than 2009 or 2010 when it came to overall production, which is essentially the full body of work. You are referring to just running game and passing D, NOT the full body of work. Having a great running game and passing D doesn't automatically make you better than another team who excels more overall, while you dominate 2 categories.
85 team did not average more rushing yards then the 09 Jets team. Jets 09 was a better overall defense. Stats won't fully tell you that. Of course the 85 passing yards were better because they had a better pure passer at QB. Ken you could argue had the best deep ball in Jets history. The argument between me and Junc is who would have been a better fit at QB in 2009.
Oh, this shit-stain again that I keep trying to scrape off my flip flop? Okay, once more. You are too fucking stupid to understand that when you are talking about CAREER accomplishments and how they rank vis-a-vis other CAREER QBs, choosing to give someone production that they did not achieve is, quite frankly moronic. Giving Sanchez credit for what he did in years 5 through 9 of his Jet career in order to compare him to O'Brien's 9 year Jet CAREER is one of the dumbest things I've read here. Go look up Marks stats from his Jet year 5 through 9 and tell me how they compare to O'Brien's. _
I used it to find a point of comparison, not to say that they are Sanchez' stats in 5 years. Jesus Christ, how do you not understand? I can't put it any simpler. NFL stats guys pro rate stats all the time when trying to compare careers that are of various lengths of time. Pro rating is the same as taking the averages. I can't believe your reading comprehension and understanding of basic math is that piss poor. I'm not saying those are Sanchez' numbers. They could get worse, they could get better. Who knows, it's his career average vs O'brien's career average. I should have said TD% or YPG rather than pro rating it so that the extremists can understand that I AM NOT ARGUING THAT SANCHEZ WILL HAVE THOSE STATS. I'm finding a equal ground to compare their production for each year they were on the team. It's not rocket science, I'm not making anything up. It's the only way to reference each guy's contribution equally. I guess I should have done YPG and TDsPG for the slow people that don't understand even though prorating produces the exact same comparability. Oh well. My bad for not keeping it simple. _
Not when you're talking about whole careers. If we're really going to project, let's do a REAL mathematical model and go with Sanchez's trend from 2010 (real good) to 2011 (mediocre) to 2012 (dreadful) and see where that trend goes. It's a career discussion, not what they averaged OVER their career. By that metric, Frank Reich was the best. That's just as stupid as saying Sanchez's career numbers match up with O'Brien's. Sanchez isn't first second third fourth or fifth in any Jet career category (other than playoff wins) so you can't put him above the career leaders. If he was good enough not to get kicked to the curb, he might have been the greatest Jet QB ever. Had he made it to his eight year, maybe he might have made it to his second pro bowl like O'Brien. A silly honor, but something Mark--who I was a huge fane of-- never came close to in his 4 years. Barcs is just trolling me, I get it. He can't be that stupid. _
Regarding my posting "similar" arguments, I have no idea what you are talking about. In ranking a player's career importance to a team against another, I "projected" stats? I referred to potential future play with another team? I plead not guilty. Ever see Angel Heart?
you clearly are just looking at statsheets, if you watched the games and actually remembered them you'd understand. stop hurling insults, go and do some research. I asked you to tell me which games the run game carried us, you couldn't answer it. That tells me all I need to know.
Isn't looking at stat sheets doing research? I watched the games, I'll tell you each game the run game carried us. I already presented the W6 Bills game where we rushed for 318 yet a certain QB fucked that up for us. Wk4 @ Saints - Thomas Jones (TD in the 2nd half to cut it to 10-17) and the defense kept us in the game but that QB threw 3 interceptions and we lost. Wk7 @ Raiders - Gave us 14 points before the half Wk13 @ Bills - Running game put us in position to put up FGs - Mark threw only 15 times. Had a good TD throw to Braylon WK16 @ Colts - Running game and defense got us this win - though Peyton and the starters sat down WK17 vs Bengals - I was at this game. Thomas Jones / Greene was too much for the Bengals Those are just examples - Even so, 2 of those loses could have been wins with O'Brien over Sanchez. That would have given us an 11-5 record
at Saints: Jones had 13 carries for 48 yds, 3.7 YPC and minus that 15 yd run he averaged less than 3 YPC on his other 12 carries. mark definitely cost us that game but the run game didn't do much either. at raiders: run game carried the day at Bills: do you not remember Mark got hurt in the 3rd qtr and never returned? That's why he had 15 attempts. do you remember the beautiful bomb to Braylon that bounced off his facemask? RBs gained 91 yds on 18 carries after Mark got hurt(5.1 YPC). Jones had 23-109 in game, running out clock had 29 yd run, other 22 carries averaged 3.6 YPC at Colts: after Indy removed regulars midway through 3rd we ran itn24 times for 132 yds, 5.5 YPC. through first 3 qtrs. w. Indy regulars in we ran it 15 times for 68 yds. the team played well enough to keep that game close and we ran them out of the building after the backups came in. vs. bengals: we ran all over them. I would say 2 of your examples are correct, 2 isn't that many. Ken won 11 games exactly ONE time, Mark won1 1 games one time in 3 fewer seasons. to suggest we win more w/ Ken has no basis in reality. mark was responsible for the No loss and Buf loss, just 2 of our 7 losses.
The running game got us back within a score. Mark's pick 6s were the reason we lost that game. This one would be correct. Damn too bad injures are part of the game. Mark did nothing to help us that game therefore the running game won it for us on O. Indy removing the starters again is an excuse. At the end of the day we ran the ball well the entire game. It kept us in the game along with the defense. O'Brien with this team would have won 11 games. Mark lost us the NO, BUF, and you could argue the Falcons game where he tossed 3 picks to keep Atlanta in the game. He tossed 4 in NE. You cannot turn the ball over the way we did and expect to win. O'Brien had a very low interception rate therefore on this team, the 2009 Jets it would translate to more wins. My point in the end is valid.
This man tossed 20 interceptions in 2009, O'Brien had only 8 there is NO way the 2009 Jets aren't better with Sanchez as opposed to O'Brien. Open your eyes, realize the truth Junc.
Sanchez had what, 52 turnovers in two years? I don't care about anything else because that stat says it all. He was a turnover machine his entire Jets career, it's asinine to put his name in the discussion for best Jets career QB.
oh so one play meant they carried us. got it. the run game didn't do much and again mark placed a perfect pass to Braylon deep that Braylon dropped. the run game didn't do much, we kept it close and when the starts came out we ran all over them. but O'Brien had MORE talent in a weaker era, how could you say he'd win more? it makes no sense. Mark lost the NO and Buf games. the Atl game we had a late lead and had shut them down all game but in crunch time the D folded again. The NE game he may have been responsible for but that was more of a team loss, the D wasn't very good either. O'Brien was a huge reason we lost in the playoffs vs. NE and Cle, put mark on those teams and we probably win. at last there is a basis for my theory. Your point is not valid, you showed 2 games where the run game carried us. Your point has been debunked rather easily. In postseason. O'Brien- 2 starts, 4 INTs Sanchez- 6 starts, 3 INTs some day you will be able to understand what you are watching.
More excuses from Junc. You are living in a world where hypothetical scenarios hold true. Dropped passes from Braylon? This doesn't matter. Welcome to reality buddy. Does not change the fact that in 2009, O'Brien would have been a better QB then Mark.
where did the run game carry us? you can keep saying this stuff and make yourself believe it but it's just not true. You are in way over your head here. yep, in 2009 we would have won the SB w/ the great Ken O'Brien. The man who couldn't win a playoff game w/ more talent around him facing weaker teams would have easily elevated us to SB champs!
I never said we would win the SB - but my point is that the 2009 team would have been better. I already posted the games where the run game carried us. About 6 games that season. Some games the defense carried us. Maybe a few games where Mark deserved the credit for the W (Texans, Titans for example). Sorry Junc, Mark Sanchez is not the best QB in Jets history.
we made the title game so if we were better we would have at least made the SB. if you think the reason we lost to Indy was b/c of the QB you don't know what you are watching. you showed 2 games where the run game carried us, good job. where did I say Mark was the best in Jets history? I actually rank mark 4th, 1 spot ahead of Ken O'Brien.
I think Ken O'Brien would have been better equipped to beat the Colts. I thought Sanchez played a good game, but O'Brien is a better pure passer. He's absolutely more intelligent as a QB and makes better decisions. The coaching staff at that juncture would have trusted Ken more to throw the ball down the field. I know exactly what I was watching, Peyton raped out secondary - but again, O'Brien did go up against Dan Marino and O'Brien did hold his own (and he out-performed him in one of the greatest QB battles ever) I showed you 6 games where the running game carried us as opposed to any other position on offense. You can't dispute that because the QB didn't do shit those 6 games. He either didn't do anything at all, or turned the ball over at an alarming rate.
