Saw this earlier today. Surprised no one has posted it yet. When I was watching last week's game, I was thinking how useful it could be to have Sanchez on the sidelines for a play or two to talk with Sparano. http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/jets/post/_/id/15586/sparano-says-wildcat-doesnt-hurt-marks-flow Sparano: Wildcat doesn't hurt Mark's flow FLORHAM PARK, N.J. -- There's been plenty of debate surrounding the Jets' Wildcat package since the team acquired Tim Tebow in late March. One of the most recent critiques goes a little something like this: if Mark Sanchez is throwing the ball well, inserting Tim Tebow in a Wildcat package -- or in at quarterback in any formation -- will just throw off his rhythm. Offensive coordinator Tony Sparano doesn't buy that theory one bit. In fact, he sees an added benefit with putting Tebow behind center; it gives him a chance to talk to Sanchez in the middle of a possession without burning a timeout. "As soon as Mark gets to the sidelines he's like, 'Oh what's next? What are you thinking?" the Jets first-year offensive coordinator said. "For me, it's an additional timeout ... it's another way to get more information to him. I think those are real positive things during the course of a game." Sparano also downplayed the idea that Tebow would ruin Sanchez's rhythm. "There's so many people that say well, 'There's this flow and you interrupt this flow. (But) we interrupt that flow when you're on the sideline and the defense is on the field too. So it happens during the course of a game. It's not something that I get too worked up about." Sparano said that he hasn't addressed it with Sanchez or Tebow. The Wildcat didn't seem to have a negative affect on Sanchez in the Jets' win over the Bills. Sanchez threw for 266 yards and three touchdowns. He was picked off once, but connected on 19 of 27 passes. Two of his touchdowns came directly after plays in which Tebow was the quarterback. In all, Sparano and the Jets went to the Tebow package for eight plays against Buffalo. It produced just 22 yards, with Tebow running five times for 11 yards.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. If Sparano really believed this, he would have pulled his starting QB for the backup for one play in every drive when he was in Miami, something he of course never did. And of course the supposed point that it's just like when the defense is on the field is utterly moronic, since the difference in that case is that you're not using up one of your own offensive downs with a backup QB on the field. It all seemed to work out fine in week 1, and that's great, but I still think that virtually no one would agree that pulling a QB in the middle of a drive is in general a sensible thing to do, other than because you actually think the other guy is better or he brings something unique to the table if used in limited doses. The entire Tebowcat experiment is for the second reason, and no other.
I agree it's a stretch to act as if it's that big of a positive, but as for Sparano doing it in Miami if he really believed in it, that's a completely different situation. They aren't putting in a back-up QB in the base offense, they are putting in a back-up QB with plays designed specifically for his strengths (which are unique at the QB position). Now the effectiveness of these designed plays is hard to say at this point, but I don't think the comparison to benching a QB for a back-up running the same plays is fair. So while I agree with you that this has no bearing on why they're calling these plays, I do lend Sparano a bit more credibility than you do on this supposed secondary bonus.
I am about as anti-Tebow as you can get (ironic that this got moved to the Tebowmania page). In general, I don't like the idea of taking a QB out, but it did seem like Sanchez played well coming off those plays. I think to some degree it can help him focus of the situation. Will be interesting to see how this plays out going forward.
From what I've gathered so far, Tony Sparano doesn't seem to be a bullshitter, rather, he's a straight shooter. And no, the "defense on the field" point isn't moronic. Hell, just look at the Buff game. We get a turnover, Sanchez drives down for a TD. Sanchez then goes to the sideline for the kickoff. Buffalo starts down the field, Sanchez still on sidelines. We get another pick, Sanchez comes back in and starts driving down the field. Whoops, end of quarter timeout. Sanchez comes back on field for 2nd Q, immediately throws a TD. Wash, rinse, repeat. So let's see there. Td pass, off to the sidelines, back on the field after another pick, off to the sidelines again for change of quarter, immediate TD pass. Where in there did Sanchez's "rhythm" get disturbed ? And yes, I purposely left out Tebow coming in and running WC plays just to demonstrate that there were other times when Sanchez spent MORE time on the sideline without being affected.
Sanchez was 4-5 with two TDs after WC plays, and the miss was when he airmailed Holmes. Clear advantage with the extra time out.
He was specifically asked in a leading way "what do you say to the idea that it disrupts Sanchez rhythm or disrupts the flow?" He was just saying he doesn't think it does, it's like a timeout. He never said the reason he does is for the timeout.
The defense/special teams coming onto the field is not the same as leaving the field while your offense stays there. This is a poor argument from someone who usually has good arguments. Everything you mentioned the whole offense comes off the field. The offense doesn't continue on without Sanchez. And every time Sanchez comes on the field after all of the stops, it's always 1st down. Not 2nd or 3rd down like after a WC play. Come on. I wish I could find it now, but the Holmes pass and the Kerley pass (or another bad throw) were after the "timeout". So I'm still waiting to see if that was coincidence that his two worst passes (barring the flip) came after these plays or not.
When the whole entire offense comes off the field, Sanchez comes off the field as well does he not ? As has been said a number of times, Sanchez was 4 of 5 for an avg of 12.2 ypa with 2 TDs on passes immediately following a Tebow WC play. 1st and 10 at NYJ 30 (Shotgun) Direct snap to T.Tebow. J.McKnight right end to NYJ 33 for 3 yards (M.Williams). 2nd and 7 at NYJ 33 M.Sanchez pass short right to J.Cumberland to NYJ 44 for 11 yards (N.Barnett). 1st and 10 at BUF 37 (Shotgun) Direct snap to T.Tebow. B.Powell left end to BUF 33 for 4 yards (G.Wilson). 2nd and 6 at BUF 33 M.Sanchez pass incomplete short right to S.Holmes. 1st and 10 at BUF 16 (Shotgun) Direct snap to T.Tebow. T.Tebow left tackle to BUF 12 for 4 yards (C.Kelsay). 2nd and 6 at BUF 12 M.Sanchez pass short right to J.Kerley for 12 yards, TOUCHDOWN. 1st and 10 at BUF 36 (Shotgun) Direct snap to T.Tebow. T.Tebow right tackle to BUF 33 for 3 yards (Sp.Johnson; J.Byrd). End of Period 2nd Quarter Play by Play 2nd and 7 at BUF 33 M.Sanchez pass deep left to S.Hill for 33 yards, TOUCHDOWN. 2nd and 6 at BUF 12 (Shotgun) T.Tebow left tackle to BUF 12 for no gain (Ky.Williams; N.Barnett). 3rd and 6 at BUF 12 (Shotgun) M.Sanchez pass short right to J.Kerley ran ob at BUF 7 for 5 yards. New York Jets challenged the first down ruling, and the play was Upheld. (Timeout #2.)
And does the rest of the offense stay on or go off the field? When Sanchez comes back on the field, is it a first down or has is offense ran a play that affects down and distance? Come on now, big difference between coming onto your field with your whole offense on 1st and 10 and coming onto your field with a sub package on 2nd and 7 or 3rd and 6. When Sanchez and the offense come out together, they go out together on first and 10. I ma trying to think of a weird penalty situation or something where they won't go out on first and 10 but can't think of one. So 99% of the time they go out there 1st and 10 knowing down and distance. Coming into the game after a wildcat play, it's either going to be 1st and 10 (which didn't happen last game) or 2nd/3rd and a distance. Big difference there. And thanks for the game stats. His two worst throws were after a WC as well as 2 TDs. The Tone throw was a wide open overthrow, and the Kerley stopped him from getting a 1st down (which I still think he got). That's why I said I am waiting to see if the worst throws were a coincidence or not. What a shock I am waiting to see if two bad passes after two WC plays are a result of the in and out, or just a coincidence. God forbid I want to wait and see more examples to form an opinion. If you want to sum up my argument here it is: Did Sanchez come onto the field after Tebowcat in 1st and 10? (no) Does he come out with his whole offense after defensive stops, TDs, etc on 1st and 10? (yes) Did Sanchez have his two worst throws (barring the flip) after a Tebow/WC play? (yes) Is this a cause for concern, I am not sure yet that's why I am want to wait. I don't understand what I said that is outrageous. That coming into a game on 3rd and 6 is different than coming into the game after kickoff with your whole offense on 1st and 10? That Sanchez threw some bad passes in addition to good passes after Tebowcat so I am not fully behind it? How outrageous
Guys, last week didn't really show anything. The Bills imploded (largely in part to Jets' D blowing up Fitzpatrick). We need to see how all this works against a tougher opponent in Pittsburgh and on a consistent basis to really understand how Tebow coming in affects Sanchez. Not taking anything away from Sanchez, but it just wasn't a good test for what the Jets are trying to do.
Tebow just burned a Steelers timeout for us. He came in and the Steelers weren't sure what to expect and they called time. That alone makes the trade worth it imo.
I'm a relatively new poster and I like to watch Tebow play too, but if you are anywhere close to honest in your assessment of Sanchez's passing today. His receivers had a ton of drops.
He's a troll -- do you know what that means? I means he doesn't like Tebow, is mocking him, and tries to draw unwitting posters into an argument by typing outrageous stuff like that. It's a parody of a Tebow fan he's doing -- he doesn't really think that. Troll = disingenuous.
