Why? It's easy enough to look up...but since your lazy and basically ignorant. Sure. As you stated 2011 Sanchez, 2012 Bradford Attempts-Sanchez 543 , Bradford 551 +8 Attempts Bradford. Completions-Sanchez 308, Bradford 328. + 20 Bradford. Comp %-Sanchez 56.7, Bradford 59.5. +2.8% Bradford. Yards-Sanchez 3,474, Bradford 3,702. +228 yards Braford. YPA-Sanchez 6.4, Bradford 6.72. +.32 Bradford. TD-Sanchez 26, Bradford 21. +5 Sanchez Int's Sanchez 18, Brdford 13 -5 Bradford. QBR Sanchez 33.6, Bradford 51.6. +18 Bradford Rating Sanchez 78.2, Bradford 82.6 + 4.4 Bradford. Sanchez was the 5th most intercepted QB that year, Bradford was the 15th. And since your brough Jackson in to the equation. Lets compare him to Greene from the same year then shall we? Since your trying to set up Jackson as the excuse for why Sanchez didn't do as well as Bradford. Attempts-Jackson 257, Greene 253. +4 Jackson Yards-Jackson 1042, Greene 1054, +12 Greene AVG yards-Jackson 4.1, Greene 4.2. +.1 Greene Longest run- Jackson 46, Greene 31. +15 Jackson # of runs 20+ yards-Jackson 5, Greene 4. +1 Jackson TDS. Jackson 4, Green 6. +2 Greene Yards per game. Jackson 65.1, Greene 65.9 +.08 Greene fumbles. Jackson 0, Greene 1. -1 Jackson 1st downs gained. Jackson 47, Greene 46. +1 Jackson. Greene was litterally an equal to Jackson in the two seasons being reviewed. But there is considerable distance between Sanchez's "best year" and Bradford's last year. Now Bradfords no world beater, in fact he's heavily criticized and may be on his last leg as a starter going in to this year. But he never the less did have his best season this year as well. But The fact that a QB you say sucks clearly beat Sanchez in the year comparison that YOU chose, what does that make sanchez? Nice try, go back to directly to lack of information jail, do not pass go.
Actually he was already setting the stage to try to move the goalpost by putting in a comment about Bradford being able to hand the ball off to Jackson and insinuating that Sanchez in 2011 didn't have the luxury. Except I went ahead and posted Jackson's stats vs Greene's and they were almost identical.
But here's the real kicker for you Hobbes. 4th Quarter +/- 7 points Sanchez was 47.1% completions vs 59.7% Sanchez 5.49 Yards per attempt, 7.2 yards per attempt Bradford Sanchez 3 TDS 2 Interceptions. Bradford 5 TD's 2 interceptions. So late in the game with the game on the line Bradford by FAR outproduced Sanchez.
Also add in fumbles lost Sanchez 8 Bradford 1 Defensive TDS from Sanchez turnovers 6 (5+the SD TD that was ruled a fumble on on Keller but was all Sanchez) Sack % when pressured Sanchez 24% Not to mention sanchez's OL was a ton better. In 2011 the Jet OL gave up the 5th least amount of QB hits and 12 least pressures.
Thank you 1968 for the Bradford / Sanchez comparison. I mentioned this a few weeks ago when Hobbes was using the Schotty excuse, but I didn't have the energy or desire to break it all down the way you did. You knocked it out of the Park! And also some good info from Noam. It's amazing how all the Sanchez excuses turn into just that - EXCUSES, as soon as you put them under close scrutiny. The fact is, the guy is just a terrible QB and it's plain to see just by watching him play. The simple explanations in life are most often accurate ones. Months ago I made a post about the Greek astronomer Ptolmey, who refused to believe the Earth revolved around the Sun. He made up this complicated, intricate, convoluted model of the solar system which made it appear that the Earth was in the center and everything revolved around us. His ridiculous model set science back hundreds of years until people like Copernicus and Gallileo came along and convinced people that there was a much simpler and accurate model ... A Sun Centered solar system. This reminds me so much of Hobbes and JUNC and the other handful of Sanchez delusionists. There's no reason to come up with a dozen different, ridiculous excuses for why Sanchez has terrible numbers. There's a much simpler and easier explanation --- He's a TERRIBLE QB. And keeping him around will only set the franchise back for as long as he's here. It's time to see the light and move forward!
Good stats, now thats an argument, My pont on the Sanchez/Bradford part, was to hush the "Bradford had a career year under Schotty" crowd, who spout that phrase like Bradford lit it up. he didnt. He was roughly as good as Sanchez. As for bringing Jackson into it, one, I didnt look up their stats, so thanks... The point I was making was that a defense is more likely to afford Jackson MORE attention, than Greene. I dont think thats an unfair observation, and if you started a thread called " better RB, Jackson or Greene",thats not a close call. So, it follows, that the difference between the two, should give a better throwing opportunity to Bradford... But even if you disagree with that, The original point remains. "Bradford had a career year under Schotty' is essentially a red herring.
See above. PS. Sanchez will remain on the roster. So, I guess you guys are all correct, amd Rex,Idzik, and MM....dont get it either. Any more than the guys doing calendar math for 'June 1st'...
From the Wikipedia definition: Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor from William of Ockham, and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
Bway, you are posting that on a thread where the June 1 DESIGNATION had to be explained a half dozen times. Instead of Occam, you could have went DaVinci. "Simplicity is the ultimate Sophistication' Two points on this thread. You cannot hang the organizational pooch screw of 2012 on the QB. Sanchez had a crap 2011, no aeguing that. Hes also been successful in meaningful spots for the organization.
:lol: If you would actually read my post you would see that nothing was magically excluded. I clearly said there was 2:56 left when Sanchez attempted that pass and how much time was left when the Jags got the ball back. You missed the entire point of my post which was in response to you saying Sanchez completed a pass in an obvious passing situation with the game on the line. It was not an obvious passing situation and the game was not on the line at that point. I'm not saying completing that pass didn't help us win that game. It did! I'm not questioning the call to run 2 plays later either. Just pointing that you are incorrect when you say the game was on the line earlier. The game was on the line 2 plays later when we ran the ball. It wouldn't have been the smartest decision to throw it but if we complete that pass the game is over. I've seen it tons of times where teams trust their Qbs in that situation to throw and that team closes out the game instead of giving the ball back to the other team. If we complete that pass, we don't have to worry about anything. Instead we gave it back to the Jags and had to worry when they got all the way to our 28 yard line with the clock stopped at 27 seconds.
Yes, but on balance he's been a terrible QB and the simplest hypothesis that explains that result is that he's a terrible QB.
Too bad there couldn't be an expansion team in Mexico City. We might have had a destination for Mark to go to.
Don't waste your time explaining this to these average fans. They refuse to utilize the "bad is actually good" paradigm. And to prove it, I looked up Sanchez' Defense-adjusted Yards Above Replacement stats on Football Outsiders (how apropos). Take time to gaze upon this data...it's really something. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb At the top of the list are sub-par qbs like Manning, Brees, Rodgers and some guy named Brady. Somewhere near the middle is Bradford. At the very bottom is our boy Sanchez. Now keep in mind that this is a ranking of 39 quarterbacks, so Sanchez being at the bottom is very important for the next step. Using our "bad is good" toolkit, we simply flip the list on it's head. Now Sanchez is not only at the top, he's head & shoulders above even the qbs that threw less than 100 times last year. Guys like McElroy, Tebow, Leinart and Yates. To further bolster the argument, look down the page at the qb rushing stats. Sanchez is at the very bottom there too...I mean the top. Whew...even I forgot to flip the list around for a second. That's amazing! This absolutely proves the "bad is good" theory. I may even suggest, if I can be so bold, that we take it up a notch. Really bad is really good. But there is something to be concerned about. Now that our 'secret weapon' Shonn Greene has left us, how to we keep Chris Ivory under wraps this season? It may be tough for Sanchez to stay at the bottom.
it sure is a good thing we have sancho instead of one of those guys at the to... errr i mean bottom of the list. especially that manning guy, he sucks... so did brett favre too. i bet he was at the toppppp.... err i mean bottom of the list too. yay bizarro world!
Now it's up to Sanchez. If he comes out and plays like he did week one last year, we'll be off to a bad start. He needs to quickly get back to his late season form. If he plays really well, Rex should bench him, just to remind him what's at stake. If he's not hearing boo's from the average fans, start fumbling or throw some interceptions. But don't go overboard right away, warm up with some pump fakes and ball slapping. Keep the score close enough so that the defense has a chance to be bad.
this is certainly... telling of Sanchez's ability. I mean, seeing so many QB's with more or less the same amount of games played as he has get the type of stats that they do compared to him certainly makes him... stand out.
This is what Nyjunc and Hobbes have been saying all along. I was late to the party, but it's clear as day to me now. Sanchez is head & shoulders apart from other quarterbacks. If he hadn't of been benched in the Arizona game last year, we might have moved up in the draft! We need him on the field.. I'm hoping the defense steps it up this year. If we can get behind early and Sanchez has to throw more, he might set some records that will never be broken.
