If you look at the plays run in OT, when the Jets still could win the game, I can't think of a single play where it would have been obvious they should have run it instead of passing. They passed on second and nine, and completed, third and six and did not, the others were all at least ten yards from first downs, and the int was on third and ten, hardly a running down. If the Jets had run on the plays in OT they attempted to pass and failed, they would have been booed, and I probably would have booed, too.
Yup- Exactly..... When Leon ran it down to the 29 yard line with his 33 yard run. First and 10 on the 29, Leon 5 yard gain, down to the 24. Second and 5, no gain. It's third down now on the 24, I was saying kick it on third down but we all know that didn't happen. We had that game won even after all the BS, that series will haunt me all week.
Tom Brady has thrown 4 picks in a game 6 times. Peyton had his worst game in 2007 with 6 picks against SD. Brett Favre has 5 games with 4 ints and one game with 5 ints. Damn Marino had two games with 4 picks and two games with 5 picks.
I am not sure we are on the same page. yeah, Leon had that great run, but Sanchez also completed the 22 yarder to Edwards. The sequence before the holding call was three straight runs that failed to convert a first down even if Hartsock had not been called for holding. The point is, I don't think the OC can be criticized at least in OT for passing too much.
I never said that, I was saying earlier that no matter what Schotty did he would've gotten booed. OT was different, I was more talking about the second half in response to a post about the second half and what the game plan was. I never mentioned OT until agreeing with uou, so yeah two different topics.
Jim Fassel doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. Favre became the starter his second year and threw for over 3000 yards. His fourth year he threw for over 3800 yards and 33 touchdowns. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FavrBr00.htm Steve Young got traded to the 49ers after his second year. Since he was playing behind probably the greatest QB of all time, he didn't see significant action until he was 30 years old. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/Y/YounSt00.htm Elway threw for over 3800 yards his third year. His fourth year he (i) made the Pro Bowl (ii) had "The Drive" (iii) led led the Broncos to the Super Bowl. Sure, Reeves had issues with him, because Reeves was a control freak. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/E/ElwaJo00.htm In any case, Elway is a poster child for the benefits of getting benched as a rookie. Fassel does have a point with Bradshaw. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTe00.htm Terry Bradshaw was a below-average passer for his first five years, even by 1970s standards (it was a lot harder to throw in the 1970s than now, and passing stats have to be evaluated accordingly). Testaverde is another interesting case: threw a mind-bending 35 interceptions his second year, made the Pro Bowl for the first time in his tenth season. He won't go to the Hall of Fame, but he had a very respectable career. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TestVi00.htm Here's the thing, though: of all the QBs who complied Terry-Bradshaw like numbers in their first five years, Bradshaw is probably the only one in the Hall of Fame. Generally, QBs who suck for that long suck their entire careers. At best they rise to respectability, like Testaverde. Also, of course, QBs who play that badly don't remain starters unless they are playing for really horrible teams. Bradshaw was always battling to keep his job (it didn't help that he kept getting hurt). More to the point, if Sanchez keeps his job and plays as badly as Bradshaw and Testaverde did in their first five years (which won't happen), he will get Rex Ryan, Ryan's successor, and Ryan's successor's successor fired.
what about phil simms, jim plunkett, doug williams(maybe not him), johnny unitus, fran tarkington.....i'm sure there are more.
Good question. Plunkett was a No. 1 overall pick who was pretty bad early on with Patriots. After a couple of rough years with the Niners, wound up winning a couple of Super Bowls with the Raiders. Not a Hall of Famer, though, and you have to give him a pass for not doing well with the Patriots, who were a Mickey Mouse operation at the time. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PlunJi00.htm Simms was mediocre/hurt for his first four years, then threw for 4000+ yards in his fifth. Wow! He was 25 y/o as a rookie -- anyone know why that is? Again, not a Hall of Famer, I don't think. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SimmPh00.htm Williams was never really good anywhere, not even the USFL. But he was good in the Super Bowl. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WillDo01.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Williams_(American_football) Unitas and Tarkenton were both stars early. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/U/UnitJo00.htm http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TarkFr00.htm
i think i remember reading that unitus got cut early in his career and tark had to fight to prove himself because of height, but i may be wrong on those.
Yes, you are right about Unitas. He was drafted by Pittsburgh (1955) in the 9th round, presumably because he didn't play much his senior year of college. He got cut before the season started. The Colts signed him in 1956, but apparently the Browns wanted him too. Supposedly Unitas' first NFL pass was intercepted and returned for a touchdown and his first handoff was a fumble. But he improved very quickly after that. In 1957 he was the league's best passer. In 1958, of course, the Colts won the NFL championship in the famous OT game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Unitas I think I have read that about Tarkenton's height too, but I am not sure I believe it. A lot of mythologizing goes on in football books, and writers tend to play up the adversity that great players faced early on. That's something to bear in mind with Unitas' early struggles too: in 1955 there was one league, the NFL, of 12 teams with 40-man rosters. So, 480 players total. It was really hard to catch on. Today there are over 1500 players in the NFL. Anyway, Tarkenton was 6'0", which I would guess was maybe a hair on the short side of normal for QBs in the 60s and 70s. He beat the Bears 37-13 in his 1961 debut as a rookie (though he had some horrible games after that). In any case, he was the expansion Vikings' starter from the very beginning of his career. So whatever doubts people had about his height, it didn't keep him off the field. With the AFL in business and the NFL expanding, Tarkenton definitely had an easier path to a starting job than Unitas had six years before. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TarkFr00/gamelog/1961/
my point was that some people were questioning sanchez's throwing ability in bad conditions because of bad throws. so all i was pointing out was that others had those same questions asked about them and they worked out. meaning that just because sanchez has seemingly had some issues it doesn't necessarily mean he won't be able to adjust to bad conditions in time as others have.
I agree with you but I think Braylon is better than Mason. My point was intended to put the notion to sleep that Sanchez can't have success because he only has one receiver, I think many teams have success with one good receiver, it all depends on the play calling and the scheme they use. As everyone has been saying the bottom line is there was no rhyme or reason for putting the game in Mark's hand. But you all know my feelings about this scheme, I hate it and I know they will not be successful with it, BS has done nothing with this system since he implemented it.
Yes we watched the game, but I think that you have to be honest and admit that we would not have those td's without the penalties and the fake punts, our offense was 3 and out on many drives.
its true we did have to get a little gimmicky to advance the ball at times. i was thinking that as i watched the miami game. that is often a sign the O is not really clicking during the game. but still he has shown he can make all the throws, its just not going to happen over night.
i think some people are also forgetting how extensive some of these QBs' careers have been when you include their college years. peyton manning, for instance, actually played for 4 years at univ of ten (not complete freshman season though). steve young had an equally impressive career at brigham young. sanchez only played one season as i understand it at USC, right? it's hard to compare sanchez to some of these hall of fame QBs...sanchez simply doesn't have enough games under his belt to extrapolate a good guess for his future success.
Of course, Manning was on a miserable team with little talent! They built the team around him. Sanchez is on a WIN-NOW type team. That is a big difference. Sanchez is aiming the ball and looking silly doing it. He plays with little confidence. he looked tentative yesterday. Time to sit him and let him collect his thoughts. he is superbly talented and will eventually do well. Why ruin his confidence like they did with DAVID CARR?
a bit off topic. but do you think carr will eventually re-emerge as a solid starting qb for some team? i find his case to be interesting.
