he wouldn't have had Al Toon, Wesley Walker and Mickey Shuler to throw to though who were better than Braylon, Cotch & keller and Indy was a better team than any ken faced in postseason. throw it down field like mark's 80 yd TD pass? once we lost Greene we had no threat of a run game and 2 premiere pass rushers attacking us from both sides of the DL. ken the statue wouldn't have had time to look downfield. watch mark's 80 yd Td and see what he does to give himself extra tenths of a second to make that play, watch the Keller TD and see him as gets smashed while he is releasing it. Things Ken couldn't do. You know Mark led his team over Peyton's team in postseason, right? you showed me 6 games, I corrected you on 4 of them.
You act as though Braylon, Cotchery and Keller are some scrubs. They can still make plays on the ball sure it isn't Toon, Walker and Shuler but they are still good players. Ken despite all of that is the better passer. Ken could easily make that throw to Braylon. Ken again, prob the best deep passer in Jets history. Ken O'Brien has made those plays in the past. Regarding the Bold - this is a completely different game and even so, the only reason we truly won that game was inept coaching by the Colts HC. You didn't correct me in anything - fact of the matter is the QB didn't do shit those 4 games you "corrected" me in. Like I said before, he either didn't do anything at all, or turned the ball over at an alarming rate. That is the point.
Remember, we got Braylon after 4 games. no offseason, no training camp, learning new playbook as our rookie QB was. Braylon was MUCH better in year 2. Ken held onto the ball looking for the deep ball, he took a millions sacks. we had a really good OL in '85 or '86 and he got sacked 62 times. That's not productive for an O when the QB is taking silly sacks. Yep, Mark leading that great last minute drive had nothing to do w/ it, it was all the inept coaching of the colts. you told me the run game carried us, that clearly wasn't the case.
The offensive line in 2009 was better than the one in 85 or 86. Even so, Ken STILL had better #s and was more productive in 85 then Mark throwing 20 interceptions in 2009. I would rather have a QB that has a problem holding onto the ball a little too long then a QB that is completely TO prone. It's not productive for an O when the QB is turning the ball over at an alarming rate. Mark's opportunity would not have came if not for the inept coaching. Like I said, #1 rushing game in the NFL in 2009 - it carried us 6 games along with the defense. Mark contributed to about 3 of our wins in 2009. Ken in 85 > Mark in 09. Not disputable.
....the two had reached the point of no return and at that moment decided they could wait no longer, that they needed to engage each other in full congress right then and there on the spot! In a flash, in broad daylight on the side of a near-abandoned country road, the two were at once fully ensconsed in the throes of pure, unadulterated carnal passion. He was a fully-tumescent stallion possessed; she a swollen, wet and sotted mare whose glandular scents rented the air with notice of total abandonment. As he continued breaching her nether crevice with each and every thrust that carried forth his monument to manhood, her undulating hips arched higher and higher to meet his unrelenting love tusk as she approached a shattering climax she could not believe existed before, when suddenly from out of nowhere, a UPS truck being operated by former USC and NFL quarterback Mark Sanchez struck the two young lovers, killing them both instantly. The End.
the '09 OL was better but the OLs of '85 and '86 were good. ken made them look worse than they were. 15 of his 20 INTs came in 4 games, most of his games he wasn't turning it over like crazy. the inept coaching by Peyton failing to convert that final 3rd down to ensure they would kick w/ no time left? #1 in rankings, not a great rushing attack. Ken in '85 was better than Mark in '09 but I'd still want mark as my QB b/c he gave us a chance to win big. The position is about more than #s. Mark contributed to 3 of our wins. rush O carried us to 6? you don't watch a lot of football, huh?
not miserable, just deal in reality. I still appreciate Wesley, ken and company but I am not going to pretend they were hall of famers that led us to 5 SBs. Wesley dropped a lot of balls, if he had better hands he would have been a great WR. he was an incredible weapon w/ his speed.
Regardless O'Brien still tossed up 20 TDs to 8 INTs despite making the offensive line look "worse" with a better line. O'Brien = better passer 4 games that with a better passing QB could have led to wins. Mark was directly responsible for 4 loses that year. It was the time-out that gave the Jets more time. The running game was reliable, consistent, and won us a lot of games that year along with the defense. The bold part is exactly what I have been trying to prove - there's nothing more to this debate it's over then. The rest is pure speculation at this point. Ken was the better passer, the more intelligent QB. He would have gained the trust in the CS and the CS would have dialed up more passing plays for Ken in the 09 title game. The position is more about #s I agree. BUT Ken was better than Mark therefore he would have helped us much more in the reg season. That could have led to more wins and ultimately potential home-field. 4 games where Mark fucked the Jets. That could have been 13 wins. 3 wins Junc that's right. I think you are stuck in a reality where Mark was a better QB. Well welcome to this reality - he fucking sucks.
he took less chances waiting for the big play, that's not necessarily better. you don't think Ken had 4 bad games? the Jets were in a great spot regardless of the TO. the run game was not consistent, it was consistent in garbage time and vs. bad rush Ds. That is very different. better #s doesn't mean better for a particular team, there were many better QBs in the league in '09, not many better for our situation. If we had a Rivers type we don't make the title game b/c he tries to do too much and makes the big mistakes which Mark didn't do. we would have needed 2-3 more wins to win the division. I don't think you understand what you are watching.
I understand what I am watching - you are just close minded. You are constantly trying to dig deep and find excuses. You already said Ken was a better QB (which was my intent) - no need to discuss this any further.
I do dig deeper, thank you. I actually am open minded, when people bring up valid points I appreciate it. When they don't I will poke holes in what they post. I understand why that would be frustrating but bring better info and you won't have to worry about it. Ken as a vet was better than mark as a rookie but that doesn't mean he was better for our 2009 team. AGAIN, the man couldn't win w/ MORE talent against WEAKER competition so how was he going to win w. LESS talent against TOUGHER competition?
Notice I said you tried to dig deeper. We don't have to get into a psychological discussion in regards to your posting style. It is what it is. What you told me was already evident. Regarding the bold - uh yes it does. Didn't I just say Mark was TRULY responsible for like 3 of the team's wins? He rode the pine man. We put colored wristbands on the bastard. He wasn't ready to play. Glad he stepped it up in playoff time but that does not discount the crap he put up during the regular season. Ken was a better QB and would have been a better fit in 09. The offense with a good line and running game would have helped O'Brien far more than Mark. You already told me what I needed to know. Ken was better then Mark in those 2 years.
the problem is you don't understand what I write and you don't understand the game. You like looking at boxscores. he wasn't ready to play yet played well the majority of the season and was really good in postseason. I am trying to help you, please allow me to.
Nah, I understand the game just fine. I am not looking at box-scores either. Wow what a lie. We hid Mark as much as we could his rookie year especially as the season progressed. He was efficient in the Bengals post-season game. San Diego, helped make the plays to win the game - defense played well, the running game came through in the end. Believe me I don't need help from someone who thinks Mark Sanchez was the best thing since sliced bread. It's all about the entire body of work. you aren't see the point - you are only looking at what Mark did well (very small sample). Maybe you were drunk in the games where Mark played like shit?
clearly you aren't just looking at boxscores based on your little breakdowns of the supposed games the run game carried us. Mark was good the majority of the year, 3-4 awful games skewed things and made him look worse than he was but he played well in 70% of his games in the reg season. efficient? he was almost flawless at Cincy, had 3 incompletions and 2 were drops including what would have been a long TD. at SD, #s weren't great but he was very good making big plays for us. The difference in that game was at QB, Rivers tried to do too much and cost his team the game, mark didn't and allowed our D to win it. That's the thing, I never called Mark great or even said he would be great. I properly evaluate him unlike the throngs of average fans who think he was Kyle Mackey. mark was a vital player on those 2 title game teams and we didn't lose either title game b/c of him.
I am going by what I remember along with the box-score to confirm my findings. 2009 wasn't that long ago Junc. We played excellent defense and ran the ball. Mark had some decent games (3 or 4) but nothing to merit him having a good rookie year. 12 TDs to 20 INTs isn't a good rookie year. Mark was not good the majority of the year. His role was very limited. He played within the role, but when they asked him to pass more it led to turnovers. That was the story of Mark's career. Not disagreeing with your bold part, however the point is that 85 Ken was better then 09 Mark. That to me is all I needed to know - you already admitted this. The difference in the SD game was that we played as a unit as a team better than the Chargers. Don't you remember the Revis INT? The Greene run? The Thomas Jones 1 yard play? It wasn't just about Mark - stop making it out to be that way. Maybe you need to watch the games and maybe you need to change your perspective on some things. If Mark was as good as you preached, he would still be here.
