The last thing that this forum needs right now is to discuss Free Agency or draft prospects. We don't need to decide what kind of team we want to become next year. Don't want to know what other teams are doing. Where the interesting prospects are landing or going to land. Who we can afford. Who we could use. Nope. We need to talk way more about Mark Mother_Fucking Sanchez. Lay it on me sugar. With that in mind, here is my submission for TheGangGreen.com 2012 thread of the year. It has been an honor participating in an historic thread such as this already, and I truly look forward to seeing so many other people creating magical discussion within this simple little thread's pages. My plan of attack is to present a very new and exciting concept for so many of the Sanchez detractors out there in TheGangGreen and even UnitedStates Nation. I intend to analyze Mark Sanchez's future prospects using something known loosely in secret, powerful circles as "the facts". I have tried this strategy in the past with the wild beast known as the Sanchez hater. Successes have been mixed. Changing tactics, I now seek to meet the beast head on with a full scale charging attack. My first and only submission for the side of the prosecution in my opening arguments is this link: http://skepticalsports.com/?p=2171 While it is clear that the author of this article chose not to integrate Mark Sanchez into the discussion of this article due to the still early nature of his career, it is equally obvious that he authored it knowing full well that Sanchez is out there and landing himself in 4th place all time on this list. I'm sure he and many savvy others will be watching closely as Sanchez's career continues to progress. For those of you unfamiliar with rigorous statistical analysis in sports, suffice it to say that the correlation percentage (R squared score of .72) drawn in this study suggests that this statistic predicts with an EXTREMELY high degree of accuracy the future success of a quarterback who meets the criteria, (were the starting quarterback of their team for the majority of their rookie season in the NFL). Everybody you see on the top of that list had a very successful NFL qb career and 6 out of 7 of them won at least 1 SuperBowl, with a jaw-dropping 12 SB's combined between them. That Sanchez ranks in 4th on that list of all time greats is mind-boggling. That the statistic has been as accurate as it has is tumescence-inducing for anyone with half a brain. QB GS Att Int Int% SB PB Terry Bradshaw 8 218 24 11.01% 4 3 Troy Aikman 11 293 18 6.14% 3 6 Steve Bartowski 11 255 15 5.88% 0 2 John Elway 10 259 14 5.41% 2 9 Jim Plunkett 14 328 16 4.88% 1 0 Peyton Manning 16 575 28 4.87% 1 11 Joe Namath 9 340 15 4.41% 1 5 Carson Palmer 13 432 18 4.17% 0 2 Jeff George 12 334 13 3.89% 0 0 Drew Bledsoe 12 429 15 3.50% 0 4 David Carr 16 444 15 3.38% 0 0 Tim Couch 14 399 13 3.26% 0 0 Bernie Kosar 10 248 7 2.82% 0 1 Mark Sanchez 15 364 20 5.49% ? ? Yeah boys just peg Mark right up there in 4th in front of oh who is that? John Elway?....just before...Troy Aikman? Comfortably in front of who else? Peyton Manning? Drew Bledsoe? Joe Willie? Willie Namath?? This article brought to you by the same kind folks who meticulously argued that Dennis Rodman is statistically the most effective player to ever participate in the game of basketball. In history. Through intense statistical analysis if you feel like reading what amounts to a short novel you can see how Rodman contributed an unearthly freakish amount of value to his teams by essentially purely getting every rebound on the floor and playing defense and not even trying to do anything else (i.e. shooting). Highly recommended read. Back to the issue at hand. Mark Sanchez did what his rookie year? Did what? Wait, so you're saying it's not that flukey that he almost won the Super Bowl in his first 2 years in the league as an underaged and under-experienced captain of the entire team? So like, we're going to have to get used to those kinds of runs a lot more? And based on this chart, we can expect Sanchez to average around what, 1.6 Super Bowl Victories in his career? You're saying probably 2 Super Bowls? Interesting.
That link you posted has got nothing to do with Sanchez. Sanchez wasn't first overall. I'd like to see such chart for ALL first round QBs. This sample size is just too small to mean anything.
Hah I love the argument the article said: What the article said is those QBs who played the worst their rookies year ending up having more SB wins. What you are arguing is because Sanchez played so poorly his rookie year he is set for greatness. It is probably the best argument one can make about Sanchez. I congratulate you on your creativity. It did make me smile. I would take it a step further and argue that if Sanchez can increase his interception and fumble percentage even more we will be much closer to a SB win as we will be much closer to having a new QB. The Jets lead the league last year in giving up points after turnovers. If Sanchez can just do a little better who knows how good we can be.
Good catch. I didn't realize it was limited to #1 overall Qb's. Well this was a stupid thread. On the other hand I would tend to assume that if you extended the search paramaters out to the top 5 picks there would still be a pretty strong trend in this favor. I don't think the statistic is some accident, there clearly is something to it.
So being the geek that I am I decided to research how many Qb's have actually been taken in the top 5 picks in the past 40 years with a high rookie year int% as the starter for any decent percentage of the season. I figured there can't be too many. Sure enough the only Qb's to go in the top 5 picks and started their rookie year with an int% over 4.5% since NFL.com tracks int% stats since about 1975 are: Ryan Leaf- What more can you say his career was short and injury laden. Who knows. Jim Everett- Long decorated NFL qb career including 2 NFC championship appearances and 1 Pro Bowl. Had an int% of 5.5% through only 6 games as starter. Mark had 15. I think an argument can be made that you could consider including Mark close to the paramaters of this list. His #5 pick makes him exclusive enough that very few other Qb's that were put in the same role even existed and the ones that did probably reinforce the trends of the #1's if anything.
The reason its a positive indicator, is because the QB's who are given the chances to make those mistakes early, are the ones who develop the fastest, and are not kicked directly to the curb by their franchises in years 3-4. When you allow a young QB to make those mistakes instead of strapping him down, and not letting him throw ever, they tend to learn to move past those mistakes faster. As of right now, the only thing you can say with certainty is that Mark Sanchez, has not moved past some of those mistakes by the completion of his third year. I'm a believer and I know the kid is going to step up big time this year, and as a result, the Jets are going back to the postseason and from there, its anybodys game as both the Giants and Packers proved the last two years.
i noticed you didn't mention the likes of jeff george, david carr and tim couch. stats can be found to make an arguement for almost anything, but the one thing you can't overlook is the fact, when sanchez was put in a position to take on leading the team, he failed miserably! if you stop being a homer and look at sanchez honestly, you'll see a guy that was simply a game manager while the defense lead the team to 2 afc championship games. sanchez was put in a position to take on more of a leadership role and carry the offense and couldn't hack it, and thats a fact. i'm lmao over the people here that refuse to see sanchez for what he is, a bottom of the league qb that isn't ever going to be as good as the noodle was, and he sucked! after sanchez collects his twenty million over the next two seasons his career will be over and out of the league rich and banging hot chicks because of his money.
Top 5 post season QB rating of all time. 5th most touchdowns in the NFL last year. I say we're in good shape with Sanchez.
He is a third year QB with limited starting experience in college. Anyone listening to what hey are saying about Ryan Tannehill he is a project because he did not have enough college starts. (He had more than Mark) We should be thrilled about where Sanchez is in his development as a QB going into his fourth year. He could not carry a team his third year in the league how many QB's have not many. The Lockout hurt the Jets on offense and the horrible offense hurt our defense. Three and outs kill a team built like the jets they need to keep the ball for big chunks of time and make an occasional big play. Sporano will help with this Mark will be better.
Maybe the reason why high ints for a rookie QB are positive it that it shows personality. A QB determined to 'go for it' and try to make things happen. Something that's in his DNA. Some rookie QB's are like a deer in the headlights running around scared stiff (Clemens tended to be like that). Others (Sanchez possibly) care less about a possible negative outcome and favor pushing the envelope for a possible game changing outcome. And they pay the price in the beginning. just a thought.
All I'll add to this is a note that every one of the guys above Sanchez on that list started for a mediocre team, in most cases a really bad one, and with the exception of Peyton Manning got jerked for performance issues during the year - sometimes multiple times. You can't compare Mark Sanchez to anybody on that list because nobody else got drafted with the expectation by his team of doing anything more than sucking on the way to a lost season. The Jets are in the Twilight Zone with Mark Sanchez career at this point. He's got some real talent but everything they've done so far has worked against bringing it out with the sole exception that they have provided him with a ton of in-game experience to try to work it out on his own.
I'm a Sanchez fan and supporter, but I hate the stat comparisons to QB's from the past. The game has changed tremendously since most of those guys were rookies. Hell, we just saw a season where 2 QB's broke a nearly 30 year old passing record.
I don't think the game has changed as much as we think it has. I think we're in a cyclical phase where the passing game is dominant primarily because a few great QB's are out there at the same time. I think the game has been unduly influenced by Peyton Manning in particular. I don't think Tom Brady would be throwing as many passes as he has been for the last 5 seasons if the Colts hadn't relied mainly on Peyton's amazing skills as a QB. I don't think Drew Brees would be a focal point like he is without the Manning influence. I don't think Aaron Rodgers would be throwing as much as he has without that effect either, coupled with the fact that he followed a gunslinger as Packer's QB. I think most teams that are airing it out like there is no tomorrow aren't gaining all that much if anything from doing so. It's really just a few guys that are spearheading this era and I suspect that as they age out we'll see a more balanced game becoming the norm again. The rules have changed significantly but not as much as they changed in the 40's and 50's and by the 60's and 70's the NFL was back to being a run-dominant game. It was a cyclical thing. The AFL made it look like passing was dominant for a bit but that was mainly a ticket-selling gambit.
It hasn't changed too much? You get 15 yards if you hit a WR with your helmet or breathe on the neck of a top 10 QB. We can argue about if Peyton or the rules changed the game, but Statistically in the past few years there has been quite the uptick in passing, so much so that comparing stats from 20 years ago and today doesn't make much sense. Is a 4000 yard passer in the early 90's just as good as one today, or did they have to be a lot better back then to hit that mark?
