Please.... No more bringing in yesterday's stale lunch. I wouldn't devote one single dime to bringing in any QBs, period. Draft something as an afterthought in the 5-6 round if you must, with the hope that by some slim chance, you've hit the Las Vegas 4% possibility that he might be the next Tom Brady. Otherwise, you draft to build the team. We're going nowhere this year fellas, whether we bring in somebody else's discarded laundry or not. But you draft to build the team this year and you draft again the same way next year and hope Mr. Right is available to us for 2014. We are so screwed I can't even imagine how we got here. It's all a bad dream.
Watching that video again continues to make me sick. Again I will say IF the flight boys were still around, JETS would of had a game last Sunday. To get rid of players he was growing well with has been a MASSIVE mistake.
100 %. And trust me. Go back and watch week 1 and the St Louis game. On another thread someon pointed out that MM picked Vicks completion % up 10 points. If he gets five on Mark, that puts him over 60. The darksiders have utterly lost their minds
Shits no bad dream, this is what happens when your Front Office starts dicking around thinking that the team doesn't need to improve. Getting rid of players that worked. Jets put this on themselves. I agree with everything else you said though. This is the only way to rebuild.
I refuse to watch that video. That guy no longer plays QB for the Jets and hasn't in a long time. Not sure who we had on the field the past 2 seasons but it sure isn't that guy in that video!
We won 11 games due to the passing game? What the fuck are you watching? Dan Marino highlights? Joe Montana highlights? Go watch again, you are so far off its funny! And you say everybody else has trouble seeing the game? Hahahahahah! Funny junc, you are funny! Who are you lying to? You have no idea how football is played, that's all I can see in your posts!
Yes, I did and week 1 I saw a Bills team that didn't play physical with the Jets at the LOS. It was Sanchez's only good game of the season besides the Foxboro game. Week 10 was crap offensively all-together. Nothing good offensively against the Seahawks. Lack of skill players really showed that week. I used to support Mark to the very end until there was a point in time where I saw the same thing over and over for 16+ games, the fumbles, the lack of reading defenses. There are some things you can control and some things you cannot, the things Mark could control, he's done an awful job at.
Considering the nature of NFL, it would have been difficult for any front office to resign/replace the talent they loss through free agency and retirement that particular offseason. And if you think it's easy to replace/find talent in the NFL look no further than the Patriots who haven't had a legit deep threat since Moss, the Packers whose running game has sucked for a few years now, and also the Giants, whose secondary has been atrocious (just off the top of my head).
vs. NE: sanchez throws 3 TDs at Mia:Sanchez throws 3 TDs at den: late game scramble and deep pass to Holmes draws flag setting up GW TD at Det: trailing by 10 w/ 4 mins left, score 10 late pts then long catch and run set up GW FG at Cle: last second TD in OT wins it vs. hou: amazing final minute comeback highlighted by hige downfield pass to Edwards and percect corner EZ pass to Holmes that's 6 of our 10 regualr wins(week 17 was like an exhibition game). AGAIN, WATCH the games please.
Problem is the only "stat" Junc really follows is QB Wins, and then only under playoff conditions. Junc Likes to knock Namath because he has less playoff wins than Sanchez and that Namath was a career 1 under .500 QB. What Junc forgets is that Namath DID win the Superbowl while Sanchez failed to reach that level. When this is pointed out he claims the defense lost the games for Sanchez. Now here are the fatal flaws with that argument. If a QB is responsible for a teams wins, then he is by default responsible for the teams losses as well. You can not claim QB X "won" all the games, but the team around him "lost" all the games. That's just nonesense. To illustrate the fault of this argument with Junc, he knocks Namath for having been an under .500 QB for his career, not that there is any comparison between the two, but Namath 4 years in to his career was 30-24-4, 6 games over .500 in the win/loss (I'll address the ties momentarily). Sanchez after 4 years is 33-29, or 4 games over .500. Now we can not predict how many tie games the Jets would have won in overtime, But we can apply the 1960's rules of overtime ends a game to Sanchezs numbers to "normalize them". if we do that the Jets have been in 5 OT's in Sanchez's career, during which they were 3-2. so his adjusted record would be 30-27-5, or 3 games over .500. It's true that at this point in his career Sanchez has "won" 4 playoff games and lost 2. But by this point in his career Namath had led the Jets to a Superbowl win...I'll take that over a higher number of playoff wins any day. So you see the flaw here in assigning wins to a QB? If, as Junc says,s Namath was a mediocre QB for having been a sub .500 QB over the full length of his career, what does that make Sanchez at this point in his career? But, again since Junc claims Namath was a mediocre QB lets look at this further because Junc always uses numbers in context right? ha ha. All numbers are based on the first 4 years of each players career. League averages are based on the total average of the league over the 4 years of each players career covered, in the case of Namath 1965-1968 in the case of Sanchez 2009-2012. All stats from Pro-football reference.com It's worth noting that Namath played in 55 games and started 51 during that time while Sanchez played in 62 games and started 62 games. All stats are passing only. Total Yards Namath 12753 yards, Sanchez 12092 yards Yards per game Namath 231.9, Sanchez 195.03 (note that Namath actually started 5 less games than he played in which lowers his average slightly) Yards per attempt Namath 7.6, Sanchez 6.5 Interceptions Namath 87, Sanchez 69 Touchdowns Namath 78, Sanchez 68 Completion% Namath 50.0%, Sanchez 55.1% Interception ratio Namath 5.1%, Sanchez 3.7% TD ratio Namath 4.6%, Sanchez 3.6% Okay so thus far, out of the 7 categories Namath appears to lead in 4 of the 7, which would seem to say on the surface that Sanchez is roughly equal overall to Namath..and in a sense, at this point, that appears to be correct. However, the two players have played under different eras, so to see how they really compare to each other we have to compare how each relates to the league average during the time periods in question as it's no secret the passing rules have changed dramatically over the past 50 years. so, lets compare them to their league average peers, and you'll see that while their numbers appear even, they really aren't. I'm only going to compare 4 stats, because I don't have time to do the computations to take it futher, but these are the key 4 stats anyways. TD percentage, INT percentage, Yards per attempt, and completion percentage. TD% Namath 4.6% league average 4.8%, Namath was .2% under the league average. Sanchez 3.6%, League average 4.3%, Sanchez was .7% under league average. Both were below their Peer average in this category. (under is bad) Int% Namath 5.1%, leageu average 5.6%, Namath was .5% under the league average. Sanchez 3.7%, league average 2.9%, Sanchez was .8% over the league average. In this case Namath was .5% better than the league average, Sanchez .8% worse than the league average. comp% Namath 50%, League average 46.7%, Namath was 3.3% better than the league average. Sanchez 55.1%, league average 60.7%, Sanchez is under the league average by 5.6% In this case Namath was better than the league average while sanchez was below it. YPA Namath 7.6 yards per attempt, league average 6.7. Namath averaged .9 yards more per pass attemt than the league average. Sanchez 6.5 yards per attempt, league average 7.1 Sanchez .6 yards less per attempt. It's interesting to note there that despite being in a pass unfriendly period Namaths yards per attempt were actually above average even for this pass friendly era. so in the 4 key QB categories Namath was well over the league average in 3 of the 4, while sanchez was well under the league average in all 4 categories. (I would have included sacks but there are no sack numbers for Namath until 1969 when the stat became a tracked stat for QB's) So if Namath was at the very least an above average QB for his time period, and Sanchez is at best subpar to an average NFL QB, and if under Junc's view Namath was a mediocre QB in context to his time, what does that make Sanchez in context to his time? Fact is Sanchez is a very subpar QB in comparison to his peers, the only stat anyone can cling on to with Sanchez is 4 playoff "wins". Which has been pointed out that 3 of those 4 wins the offense if it even showed up would have won thanks to the defense. QB wins are a meaningless stat, they are a team stat. But the numbers don't lie, Sanchez is, in every measurable way a medicore QB who's stats only look good if compared to players from the 60's and 70's. Whats even more funny is if Sanchez had those same stats in the 60's he still would be a subpar QB in 2 of the 4 categories despite the Current league aveage being better than the 60's average in 3 of 4 categories. (the only reason that the 60's had a higher TD% was that there were a lot less fewer passes thrown overall). It's also worth noting that due to a shortage of time I only used the AFL numbers and did not combine the NFL numbers from the 60's so that may skew the results slightly, but I barely had time to get this done...if desired I can later compute in the NFL, though it won't change things although Namath would probably lose a little ground on the peers completion percentage lead). Stats are all about context, Junc claims to use it, but seldom does.
See here is a case of Junc appearing to use context, but in actuality is out of context. He credits Sanchez for TD's or passes that set up running TDs, but fails to note that many of Sanchez's Td's were really set up by the defense or the running game. In short, an attempt to make Sanchez look better by looking at a few select plays in certain lights to make him appear to be a stud. He words things like a politician to put the in the best possible light...
It was not his only good game. Week 10 he completed 75 percent, mostly in bad spots. Fumbling is a. Inching point. You have to consider the player, in the context of scheme, and coaching. Vick. Omp,Erin oer enrage was 10 points lower, before MM.
I know; that's why it cracks me up when people are so quick to blow everything up. The 2 biggest mistakes chronically bad organizations make a lot, is blowing things up at the first sign of trouble and thinking they are a player so away at the first sign of success. The Jets do both a lot and our fans and the media often encourage it.
Bullshit. Without using Juncs games...he did most of weeks 1 and 10, as well. And while I agree with Junc...rather than just say he's wrong, if you are going to dispute him, the box s ores are on NFL.com. Prove it.
