Never said Dilfer was anything special but you don't need a great QB to win big. Dilfer was perfect for that team and an underrated part of that team. Notice how many SBs they went to in the years after they let him go? when did weeks 13 and 14(games 12 and 13) become the final weeks of the season? oh we backed into the playoffs? I love that one, we won 11 games and clinched in week 16 but we backed in which was Sanchez's fault, right? jamaal Charles averages almost 6 YPC, why doesn't KC just hand it to him every play? that means they'd get a 1st down every 2nd play! you are comparing taking out a meaningless week 17 game which was essentially an exhibition game to taking out key plays from a game? he lost ONE fumble, sorry that bothers you. did you know in 2006 Tom Brady fumbled 12 times?13 times in '03, 12 times in '02, Peyton has fumbled 6 or more times 5 times in his career, Eli has fumbled 13 tims TWICE in his career. You may want to brush up on this game before you respond so you don't look quite as foolish as you already have.
FROM NYJUNC: you are using stats to make your evaluations, I can almost guarantee you are not watching enough of those QBs to know if they were the reason their teams missed the playoffs. Some guys put up great #s in meaningless action, others do their damage when it means something. That's all I care about. he played excellent football in 2010, those that would ask for him to be removed if he had an identical 2010 season and we made antoher title game do not have any clue what they are watching and proves my point in this entire discussion. Your contention that I would rather have stats than wins is completely off base. My point is that if you go through the last 50 years, Brees' 2004 stats ( esp completion rate and Td/Ints) generally correlate to a winning season. But as I stated several times, (and you seem to be agreeing with me), if he puts up those stats and blows a play-off game, he'll be gone. Going back to the OP, Sanchez will need to show improvement to stay beyond next season. Brees-2004 numbers and a good showing in the play-offs would show that. You say that you would be happy with a repeat of 2010, because he was "excellent" that year, and anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a clue. The worst thing that could happen to the Jets is for Sanchez to repeat his 2010 performance (which was far from excellent, BTW), and have the Jets come up short in the play-offs. Jets would get pounded in the press, called losers, choke artists, etc. In case you haven't noticed, we don't seem to get much support in the media. The prevailing wisdom would be to get rid of him. The only good thing about a 2010 repeat performance would be that Sanchez might become tradeable.
Ahh there you go again, I never said final weeks of the season in the original post, my exact quote was "In the closing weeks of the season, the playoffs on the line." and that was put in to context with the followup statements in the same article. Again, on the fumbles, football 101, the basics...Putting the ball on the ground is ALWAY bad. That's simple basics, you put the ball on the ground even if you don't lose the fumble, and it's at best a 50/50 chance who recovers, it's still a busted play and usually a loss of yardage. Again, yes he lost only 1 of 9 fumbles, unless you are claiming skill of recovering the fumbles (which would be foolish) he was simply lucky that more weren't turnovers, the NFL average on losts fumbles is around 60% when the offense puts the ball on the ground. Basics. Again, on your Charles 7.0 comment, if you had read, you know basic reading comprehension 101, I said after the statement that of course not every play goes by average, but it remains a good measuring stick. Yes the Jets Backed in to the playoffs. The Jets lost 3 of the last 4 games that season Sanchez QB'd in the season, that is almost perfect definition of backing in to the playoffs. Although in the end those games didn't matter in home field advantage, at the time any of those games COULD have resulted in home field advantage for at least one game in the playoffs and possibly even a bye week. In the end the Patriots won out the season and I won't put the Patriots loss entirely on Sanchez's shoulders, though the 3 picks didn't help, but had the Patriots lost just one game of those last 4 and the Jets had won and the Jets had won against Miami and the Bears there's a very good chance the Jet win the division and I believe if memory serves they would have had a bye week. So Yes Junc, they did back in to the playoffs. Also regarding Fumbles, Sanchez has NEVER fumbled less than 9 times in a season, NEVER. And as soon as Sanchez comes close to the success level of and the production level of the QB's you mentioned I'll let the fumble number slide abit, but when your a below average QB who can't carry a team on his shoulders every ball on the ground is a double bad thing. As far as Dilfer, really? You don't need a great QB to win big? No you don't HAVE to have a great QB to win big....but the last 20 years shows that it REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY helps....But thank you for making my closing argument, and why it's time to boot Sanchez. Sanchez=Dilfer= Totally replaceable for 3-4 million a year by any John Doe who just takes care of the ball, in your definition. thank you, and good night.
is there really much of a difference btw "closing" and "final" weeks? nice try at deflecting though. He lost ONE fumble. backed in winning 11 gams and clinching in week 16:lol: Once we lost to NE we had no shot to get a home playoff game. Whether we beat Mia and Chi or not we would have been a WC team. his first 2 years he lost 4 total. Brady's first 4 years he fumbled 43 times, sanchez through 4 years? 43 times that made your argument? your argument couldn't be any weaker so if that made it that should tell you something.
Yes I agree it hinders an offense but I'm still amazed you blame both losses on the D when clearly it was a team loss. The offense being hindered you know didn't affect the whole losing part of the championship? The 17-0 hole (you know the 0 was contributed by the offense) and the then 24-0 since the offense deicded to contribute - points? You really can't blame the D only for either loss. It's not like the D gave up 42 after we threw 35 points on the board. It was the whole consistency thing, we couldn't put together 2 solid halves of football on both sides of the ball and neither side was/is elite enough where playing for 1 half is enough to capture a win.
Junc will never ever grasp the importance of having a decent Qb on a team. He defends him not by using stats, but on his ability on making plays to help the team win when it counts. Is he clutch in your eyes junc? He has two or three times over "not made plays to help the jets" in every season of his career, in comparison to when he has made plays! Timely plays when it counts is what you argue for, which is a joke! Hey junc, count all the bad plays and missed chances, and then all his so called team leading plays, and the score would look like 100/1 bad to good! Count it junc, what would it look like?
We were a D first team and our D didn't show up either game. The Giants 2 SBs their D was great each title game, ours blew a double digit lead in '09 then got pushed all over the field in Pitt. They played well to keep pitt down as our O came back in 2010 but when given a chance to get the ball back to our O w/ a chance to win they failed. That's why I blame the D.
if we only had a great QB like Philip Rivers who has had more talent and a weaker division yet has less playoff wins but it's all about the QB #s!
Junc, dont you get tired of defending the same shitty QB over and over? It seems like thats what 20,000 of your 39,000 posts are about...
I asked you to show us all what you see, that we all don't! Count his good and bad and Tell us what you see! Enlighten this crowd please. You can't can you? And the 10 Pitt game, he lost it for us score wise on the turn over that gave them points! If he doesn't, we win 19-17. That's the way you look at him and our D. They gave up 17 points, Sanchez gave us 19 points, but take away7 of his points cause he gave them to Pitt. We lose 17-12, and he caused it, not the defense.
yes there is a difference between closing weeks and final weeks. As stated, unless your claiming Mark has magical power over who recovers a fumble, it's just luck...plain and simple. Anyone with an ounce of Football knowledge knows a ball on the ground is NEVER a good thing and at best a 50/50 chance to recover. Period. But keep talking it's amusing. Yes it is backing in to the playoffs when you at QB lose 3 of your last 4 games, which has always been my argument and you know it. And yes the Jets did have a chance to win the division, the Patriots won the Division by 3 games, had the jets won the other two games and the the Patriots lost just one of their last 5 it's a tie...and, we would have had at least the exact same conference record, maybe better, the same divisional record, maybe better, and we had split on the head to head as the Jets won the first meeting between the two teams. So Yes, the Jets could have very well won the divison that year. Stating anything different shows that A) you don't understand football, and b) you don't understand math (which may explain your fundamental misunderstanding and underapreciation of valid statistical metrics). Further more, using Tom Brady as an example for 43 fumbles in comparison to Sanchez is, well Pretty stupid and you know it. Brady, since you chose him as your example, has never thrown more than 14 interceptions in his career. Only thrown less than 20 touchdowns twice in his career (his rookie year and the year he was injured and missed the season). Has NEVER completed less than 60% of his passes, and by the second season of his career he was able to CARRY the Patriots when the defense wasn't playing it's best. And your using him as your benchmark to defend Sanchez? The Fumbles have been the one mark against Brady the first 4 years of his career, The fumbles have only been one of many of Sanchez's flaws, He's in accurate, inefficient, unable to carry his team when the defense and running game aren't at their best. Brady when his team is down by 3 scores has NEVER been out of a game, when the jets are down by 2 scores in the second half Sanchez is pretty much done. When Sanchez has 1/4 the success of Brady we'll forgive Sanchez's fumbles the same way that Brady's early career fumbles were overlooked. But the difference between Brady and Sanchez is Brady can make up for his mistakes by not throwing picks AND being a dangerous and accurate passer. Sanchez can't. Is that REALLY the comparision you want to make. Keep talking, it's funny.
i should have known unc was behind this thread still kicking around long after it should hvae died. i wondered for days why oh why did it keep coming back up to the top. now i understand why. its been unced.
It does get tiresome defending what is right but most fans are sheep that blindly follow "experts". as long as the board posts moronic stuff I will be here to counter. QBs fumble, they get blindsided- it happens. He lost ONE fumble in 2010. there's no such thing as backing in, you either win the required amount of games to get in or you don't. It's very simple. now we are tryingto rewrite history w/ the Jets winning 2 more games and the Pats losing another game. Brilliant. who cares about Brady's INTs? this is about fumbles. you have been roasted over and over and over in this discussion.
Brady is a million times the Qb that nacho is junc please don't try to compare the two, its preposterous! Brady may have more fumbles, but since nacho can't compete with Brady in any way, he started his own category.......they call this new category BUTT FUMBLES! Sancho was so scared he tried to act like an ostrich and stick his head in Brandon Moores ass! He led our team that night! He led our team against the titans too, instead of catching the low snap or simply diving on it, nacho tried to do more than stick his finger in his own ass. But he failed and our season ended because of him, not our defense, or inept receiving corp. just another added to the list of Sanchez making plays for his team!
of course he is, he's the best of his generation. No one is comparing them as players, just poitning out how silly it is to bash Sanchez for 1 lost fumble in 2010.
Ahh I've been roasted over and over? really? ha. It's not about rewriting history, the fact is when they were playing the games noone knew if the Pats would lose another game or not, the future at that point was unwritten. Unless of course you want to argue that the results were preordained and it was fate, in which case the teams should just higher psychics, skip the season and go straight to crowning the league champion. No, with 5 games on the schedule the Jets were in the thick of winning the division, which eventually they would lose by 3 games. But at the time it was an unknown and by losing 3 of those 5 games (the finial difference in the standings) Sanchez played SMALL in the 3 of 4 that the team lost (remember he didn't QB the final game). To claim that the division was lost as soon as the Jets lost to the Patriots is just idiotic. Yes there is such a thing as backing in to the playoffs, when you go in on a losing run it is by definition backing in to the playoffs. If you don't get in to the playoffs at that point it's called backing out of the playoffs. The Jets won the wild card not because of what Sanchez did or the Jets did, but other teams failing to win their games. Backing in to the playoffs is having to rely on other teams to lose in order to seal the deal, and not getting in to the playoffs by winning your way in to them, but rather by losing your way in to them thanks to other teams also losing. Who cares about Brady's interceptions, this is about fumbles? In your eyes maybe, because to win your argument you need to focus on a very very very narrow aspect of the game. But it's not about fumbles, it's not just about interceptions, it's about being a good QB. Fumbles were the only knock against Brady early in his career. If Sanchez were half as competent as Brady, or any other QB in the other aspects of his games the fumbles wouldn't be as much of an issue. The problem is Sanchez isn't. He's an innacurate passer who even when he completes a pass it's normally either behind the reciever, or low, or high, or requires a diving catch. He's always late delivering the ball, lacks anticipation, doesn't have good field perception, 4 years in to his career he still locks on to recievers and telegraphs his throws. (there's a reason he's a league leader in Dropped interceptions). And you still go back to the one lost fumble, would call you broken record, but half the younger people here wouldn't get the reference. Again, who recovers a fumble is largely just luck. Whena QB fumbles he's often got a lot of defenders around him and the O-line generally is looking at the defenders and unaware of the ball being on the ground initilly, this puts the offense at a disadvantage normally in recovering fumbles, unles of course the ball bounces just right for it to wind with the offense recovering. in other words everytime an offense fumbles there's there's a slight advantage towards the Defense recovering, if you fumble 9 times and recover all but one of them on offense you've won the lottery in those terms. anyone with knowledge of the game understands this... Fact is Sanchez plays small under pressure more often than he plays big. If he doesn't have an running game that he can playaction off of he can't pass, period. If he doesn't have a defense that can keep the game within 1 score in the second half, he can't overcome it. The simple fact is a good QB raises the level of play of those around him. A bad QB lowers the level of play of those around him. Sanchez is the latter, he can only survive if surrounded by studs on both sides of the ball. Sanchez has never made any player better...I take that back, he's made opposing defenses look better.
