Except, last uear...it was one of tue things he actually improved on, and btw....just as a hypothetical, taking your 72% stat, if you take a number of his incompletions, to convert the 50 missing receptions, his actual overall completion percentage would have been where it shoukd be. The problem, did not appear so much to Be Sanchez...the drop off in backfield completions is directly attributable to 3 factors. No LT. Sparano sucking. Hey, your argument was ok. But it was off the point, and the fact that he converted closeto 25% of his total number to backfield players. In 2011, kind of weakens your point. Greene not being a pass catching back catching back. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nyj/2011.htm See above. In fact receptions to backfield members accounted for abot 30% of his completions, and a little over 20 pct of attempts. His ability to make those plays is not what you make it out to be. But, since you concede the 2012 season as a systemic failure, that means the really bad year that you can really hang Sanchez on, os 2011. So, stellar colleger year, rose Bowl victory, 400 yards. Back to back AFCCG seasons. No drafted decent wrs. One bad season . In fact, piggybacking of your Tannehill assertion earlier, he was barely marginally better than Sanchez, last year...playing under far more favorable circumstances.
He was replaced b/c of his poor play in big games, something we didn't have to worry about w/ Sanchez. Their D allowed 12 PPG and they were 1-2 in postseason with him. It's not fair to assume that since the Defense blew multiple leads that season only to watch the pass O bail them out. The run game stats are skewed b/c of over 300 yds in a meaningless week 17 game where starters barely played plus trick plays w/ Brad Smith. TB in 1999 was 5th in rush yds, in 2000 they were 9th so they ran the ball well. who rated the 2010 Colts the 2nd best O in the game? and under peyton Manning in playoff losses they average scoring under 15 PPG so they scored more in our loss than they do on average in postseason losses. Rankings are nice, in 2006 Indy was ranked 23rd in PA yet in postseason they allowed under 13 PPG and carried them to a SB title. Our D was very good, nowhere am I saying we didn't win w/ D first but our D was nowhere near as good as TB. we held NE to 21(really 14, theya dded a garbge time TD), that was a huge reason why we won but the O scoring 28 was a big reason as well. TB held SL's O(just as good as NE) to 9 pts allowed and they lost b/c King led them to just 6 pts. The Pitt game our D killed us, they allowed a LONG drive to start the game and get us down early, before we could breath we were down 17-0. Pitt definitely got conservative on O and D but our O gave us a chance pulling w/in 5 but the D couldn't get a stop on the last drive allowing Pitt to run out the clock. There is absolutely no comparison to what mark Sanchez did compared to Shaun King. The only important #s are the postseason ones and they aren't close despite more talent on TB(2 years later they'd be SB champs, 2 years later we'd be 6-10) and a significantly better defense. Our D folded in title games, their D stepped up.
this is why having a discussion with him is not possible. there is NOTHING you can say to get him to change his mind. he has predetermined that the final result will be x and no matter what information you put in front of him he will twist and turn it to say x. junc i dont take it personal, and i understand why you would spice it up a little bit. my only point is that your shit talk game is weak and sounds more like a whiny kid who didnt get beat up enough when he was a kid. i am going to try again to not let you suck me into the mark sanchez vortex, its only a matter of time before he disappears anyway.
I'm so glad the Super Bowl Bucs were brought into the conversation. Further proof that the WCO™(worst case offense) works. There's an old saying in football...Defense wins championships. John Gruden knew it. Mike Ditka knew it. Even Brian Billick knew it. And now Rex Ryan knows it. Why do you think he kept saying that Sanchez gave us the best chance to win? He never said Sanchez was a great quarterback, he was talking about the overall scheme. After two years of success with a rather mediocre Mark under center, he knew we were on the right track. Perfect time to utilize the WCO™. At it's core, the WCO™ is based on fresh ideas and proven concepts that, while appearing counter-intuitive to the average fan, have proven that you can win in this league if you fully commit to it. Here's a few of the basics... Interceptions are good- It puts the strength of your team back out on the field while giving the offense a chance to game plan their next turnover. Case in point, the Thanksgiving Day game vs. the Pats. If our defense had been on the field during those 52 seconds, we wouldn't have turned the ball over three times. Try and counter that logic. Sure, that makes sense you say, but we let them score 35 points in the 2nd quarter. How can we win like that? Hey...that's on the offense for not stopping them from running into the end zone. The plays not over once you turn the ball over. It's like Gene Hackman said in the totally unbelievable movie "Heist"..."the plan was good, the plan woulda worked". You still need to have a highly unlikely series of events transpire that work in your favor...and you need to tackle. Scoring points is bad- It tends to motivate the other team to score points also. Matter of fact, field goals are really bad. If we score three points, it pisses them off and they might score 7 points. Then we're down four points. Another field goal doesn't even close that gap. Think about that. We'd need to score three field goals just to overcome their one score. That's just not smart football. Offense is highly over-rated- Has Dan Marino ever hoisted the Lombardi Trophy? Dan Fouts? Jim Kelly? Hell no....but Trent Dilfer has! Come on, think about it. Pre WCO™, we had Brett Favre on the team. Didn't help a bit. If offense was important in the WCO™, would we have hired Tony Sparano? And Tim Tebow?....don't get me started. The coaches realized early on that Tebow was better suited to serve as a diversion than to play quarterback in the WCO™. They let him sit on the bench and run around topless in the rain. Let ESPN wonder endlessly about him than examine what we're really up to. Listen, it's tough to put together a good offense together in the today's NFL. Sure, the league helps by changing the rules, but offensive players are always seeking the limelight and scoring so they can do their little "look at me" dance in the end zone. Who needs that. Football is a team sport first and foremost. Plus they're always wanting more money cause they think they're so cool. That's why Braylon had to go. Bad is good- This is the foundation of the WCO™...its very DNA. After decades of boring, inept losing football, the Jets are taking the opposite approach. To quote Jerry Seinfeld... "If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right." It's imperative that we do the exact opposite of what we've done in the past The only success in recent years has been because we fooled other teams into not taking us seriously...i.e Indy & Cincy. That enabled us to sneak into the playoffs and make some noise. Think wolf in sheep's clothing. We went a bit too far the last two seasons, but we'll get it right this year. Absolutely no one is taking us seriously. Back to "bad is good". Ok...think turnovers are bad? Not anymore. We turn a negative into a positive by playing to our strength. When Sanchez led the league in red zone effectiveness, it didn't get us to the Super Bowl, did it?. That's why Tebow was brought in to run the wildcat down there. Turns out we didn't need him for that as we rarely got that close to scoring. The other aspects of the WCO™ were working well enough. And if we did stumble past the 50 yard line, we could count on Mark to heave one of his coffin corner interceptions to pin the other team deep. Again, this play may look stupid on the surface, but it accomplishes all the primary goals of the WCO™. First, it doesn't motivate the other team, it actually fills them with a sense of over confidence. It makes us look inept, so we can sneak up on them later. And it avoids scoring those pesky field goals. Scoring points can be important, but only at the end of a game so as not to piss off the other team. Look to the Arizona game as a perfect example of this. We ran the WCO™ so effectively that we lulled the Cardinals into a comatose state. Then VOILA!...we pulled our starting qb (once he threw 3 ints.) and let the 3rd string backup score the winning touchdown. Again, I implore you to watch the video link below. It perfectly sums up what the Jets new philosophy. http://youtu.be/1Hk4FdjIF5U I know it's a lot to take in all at once. Be patient and please remember that like all revolutionary ideas, the WCO™ is gonna take some time to get all the players in place to run it effectively. We're seemingly set on offense.
Are we not talking about playoff wins and giving the credit to Sanchez? Why should I care that he doubled his stats in the 1st half of the Colts game loss? Again, no one said Tampa's D wasn't better. Our D was great in the playoff wins. You don't think a D that held opponents to an average of 11 points in two playoff wins is great? How come I didn't see a single stat comparing the running games each QB had in wins? I think I know why. :rofl: 99 Tampa vs 2009 Jets. Tampa's running game in playoff win: 27 carries-44 yards-1 TD Jets running game in 2 playoff wins: 80 carries- 340 yards - 3 TDS Huge edge Jets! Tampa's YPC in playoff win: 1.6 YPC Jets YPC in playoff wins: 4.2 YPC Huge edge Jets! Tampa's running game in all playoff games 50 careies-121 yards-1 TD Jets running game in all playoff games: 109 caries 426 Yards 3 TDs Huge edge Jets! I wonder if those 340 yards and 3 TDs that came from the running game in those 2 playoff wins had anything to do with Sanchez "Leading" his team to more points? :rofl: King and Sanchez are two QBs that are / were not very good and both were carried to success. That doesn't mean they played the same role in wins, but they both were carried. Win4ever and many others laid it all out for you and you still don't get it. You should change your screen name to Nygeno. The rumors that are going around seem to fit you nicely. "He doesn't know what he doesn't know." :rofl2: Nice job Acad23!! Your posts make me laugh almost as much as Junc's and Hobbes'. Lol!!!
those are meaningless out of context stats and at least a few of those yards came in garbage time. he conveniently doesnt see the importance of the stats that go completely against his argument.
Actually, if you look at 2000 for King and 2010 WC game, they have extremely similar stats. Sanchez: 18/31, 189 Yards, 0 TD, 1 INT King: 17/31, 171 Yards, 0 TD, O INT The difference? Sanchez's team bailed him out and they advanced, while King's did not. King got 43 yards total in rushing help that game. PFS rated them the second best in offense that year. In 2006, the Colts scored 23, 38, and 29. The only game their defense actually won for them was with the Ravens, when they won 15-6. Brady shredded their defense, and they got a bit lucky in running into an anemic offense ran by stud Rex Grossman. For quick reference: Grossman that year, put up this line in 16 games: Sanchez in 2010 as well: 3139 Yards, 23 TD, 20 INT, 73.9 Rating at 54.3% completion. 3291 Yards, 17 TD, 13 INT, 75.3 Rating at 54.8% completion. What happened to Grossman? He got benched the next year as a 27 year old. What Sanchez did in 2010 and what King did in 2000 is extremely similar, infact I didn't even think it was until looking it up. We can argue about the teams that surrounded them and if the 2010 Jets defense was better or worse than the Bucs defense in 2000. The whole gist being, that both QBs were helped out immensely by a very good D and a very good running game, hence they were the weak point on that team. The Bucs moved on. We didn't. My whole point being, there is enough precedent out there showing that Qbs that put up the stats that Sanchez did while still having team success due to other factors were still benched the following year. We didn't bench Sanchez, but gave him 2 more years (primarily because we invested too much into him with the 5th pick overall), but it's time to move on. This isn't an adversely new idea that is being pushed here to bench Sanchez. It's happened plenty of times in the past, and he's gotten his fair share of chances. Saying all this, if he beats out Geno and Garrard in mini-camp, I'll be rooting for him to succeed in Game 1 as any other Qb on my team. However, there is enough evidence in the past to show that he won't be nearly as successful as we need him to be, unless there is some unexplained or unexpected gain from him physically and/or mentally. The stats make it pretty clear that Sanchez is a below average QB, not only in the bad years, but also when the team was winning. The Steelers game sucked, because they actually had Rothlesberger bottled up on the final play of importance, where he got the completion. I believe he shook himself out of a surefire sack for pretty much any other QB, and then completed a pass while on the run to a sliding WR. I don't blame the defense as much for that, as Rothlesberger's physicality on that one. It was heartbreaking to watch, because we should've gotten the ball back, but whoever it was, that had a shot at the sack, didn't complete it.
I don't know what you're talking about here. If you're saying he improved on his short accuracy in 2012, uh, no. He was terrible like he always has been. We all witnessed that and his 59% completion % behind the LOS bears that out. The 72% number is from 2011 because you brought up 2011. How does him completing 25% of his total number to backs in 2011 weaken my point? My point is that he has always been awful at short passes. In 2011(you brought it up) he was 2nd worst in the league at completing them. Why do you keep talking raw numbers as if completed passes to backs increasing means he is good at them? His accuracy on them is terrible. The fact that they dropped off in 2012 doesn't really matter because he sucked at them even in years you claim he was good. You keep talking yourself in circles. Again, what is your point here? Who cares how much % they comprised of his total? What matters is the fact that he only completed them 72% of the time, good for 2nd worst in the league. And that was his best year for that stat! And you don't think that's a problem? Think about this, good QBs in this league complete around mid 60% on all their passes and Sanchez has a career behind the LOS completion % of 66.6%. How can you watch the games and then see a stat like that and not realize his short accuracy is awful? That most definitely is going to affect coaches playcalling and them drawing up those designed short passes. It is his worst pass! I'm going to stop at this part of your post before you call me longwinded and can't keep up.
You are fixated as usual on one game that you use to try and make your lame point. Tampa wasn't even the best defense that year, they were third but yes they played a good game. And if you think the game was played the same in 1999 as it is now you need to start watching.
Had Sparano, not totally abandoned passing to the backfield, even a cursory compariosn of 2011/2012 indicates that Sanchez, would have in fact...eclipsed 60%. they went from 5 receptions a game to the backs, to 1.5. Based on the number of passes thrown, it would have taken about two completions a game to eclipse 60%. they gave up on 3.5 per game. (also, abysmal numbers like rhattells rhe DC to not bother defending the flat.)
when did we hold opponents to 11 PPg in playoff wins? 14 14 21 17 we have allowed 17 PPG. 14 in '09, 19 in '10. run game stats are skewed a bit, you guys act like we were running it down the throats of everyone, the one game where the run game was consistent all game was '10 WC game vs. Indy. Vs. SD and Cin we struggled w/ the exception of 2 big runs. Yes our run game was better but the rush totals are a little overrated and it's amazing we ran it so well considering we couldn't throw and defenses could just focus on our run game, right? take out the one run at Cincy and Jones/Greene averaged 3.6 YPC take out the one run at SD and Jones/Greene averaged 3.3 YPC Our run game was a tad overrated The bottom line is this: postseason #s: Sanchez(6 games): 95-157, 61%, 1155 yds, 9 TDs, 3 INTs, 94.3 rating, led O to 20 PPG, 4-2 record, won 4 road playoff games, won multiple playoff games in multiple years King(3 games): 45-92, 49%, 491 yds, 1 TD, 3 INTs, 55.1 rating, led O to 8 PPG, 1-2 record, only win was a home win by 1 pt where he led O to whopping 14 pts. Sanchez never led us to less than 17 pts King led TB to 14 pts once and a combined 9 pts in the other 2 games Sanchez's D allowed 19 PPG King's allowed 12 PPG make any other excuses you want but we can see the two aren't close.
This is why we don't look at #s alone. The #s are similar but did Shaun King lead his team into chip shot range in the final minute to win the game? did he help his team score 17 pts or did he lead them to 3 pts? Philly didn't even score until 3 mins left in the 1st half, how much better could their D have been? and that TD was after a Shaun King fumble put the ball at the TB 15 yd line. The game is more than just #s. Grossman led his top D to ONE postseason app(the other postseason it was orton who led them and rex who started the playoff game). The NFC was brutal and he had to win 2 home games, he beat a 2 seed that was 10-6 at home to get to the SB. mark on that team and they win the SB. None of those guys led teams to multiple postseason apps, none of those guys won postseason games in multiple postseasons- Mark did. Stats only tell you so much, Mark was so much better than his #s in 2010but as the talent has eroded around him his #s have been in steep decline. Give him talent(like every QB not named Brady needs) and he'll win. Give him Schilens and gates and he'll lose(like any QB would). 3rd best in one year could be the best in another. You know that right? and I am fixated on title games, I saw NYG's D step up twice w/ similar teams all around, I saw TBs D twice step up- they made one SB and missed another but us? we failed to show in either game. NYJ title games 2009 & 2010: allowed 24 PPG TB title games 1999 & 2002: allowed 10 PPG In 1999 they faced the ST. LOUIS RAMS on turf at SL- the greatest show on turf. Old fashioned astroturf that played to the speed of the Rams and they held them to 9 pts. SL averaged about 28 PPG. They averaged 31 PPG at home including the div rd of the playoffs and they were held to NINE pts. You can give me the era excuse all you want but it doesn't fly, it's not like we are comparing them to a 70s team.
Eclipsed 60%? At no point have we been talking about his overall completion %. You address absolutely nothing in my posts and just ramble. This is why I make you define the terms of discussion because you always end up changing things around. Please try to keep up or this whole thing is meaningless. I am challenging your assertion that the coaches need to draw up more short passes and I am saying that is a bad idea because he is terribly inaccurate at them. I have shown this and you are now talking about something completely different. I'll ask my simple question again: Why would coaches draw up more short throws when he is bad at them? Why would they design throws like that when his career number for them (66.6%) is around the area that most good QBs display for their total completion %(mid to low 60s)?
More? How about the same. And do you think that when your primary Recievers are Kerley and Cumberland because your best pass catchers are injured, that you should tamp down that part of the game? Yeah. Makes great sense. Infact, you just undercut your entire rant. If he hit at 66% on those throws..i think its safe to say thats higher than his overall completion percentage, now isnt it? Maybe instead of being eager to argue my posts, you might want to consider the inherent illogic first. Hmmm..Marks hitting at 54 % overall. He hits at least 66% on passes to the backs, and all of our WRs are hurt, lets forget about the backs. Theres the answer to the question you asked...I guess having Sparano in Miami, has eroded your football logic. Greene and McKnight werent even close to their previous years totals, much less the team numbers, and once your WR corps becomes suspect, that total should have gone up, much less remained static, or decreased. My original point was how inept the offense was run last year. You keep shifting theground. His delivery does not account for a 60 pct dropoff from the prior year. The only rationally assumption, to make is.that the QB remains relatively static, and playcalling is the difference. And, since you seem to refrain from acknowledging the simple fact of OC ineptitude, any thinking person would draw the conclusion, that refusing to even attempt to throw to the backs, is basically ceding an advantage to the opposition defense. Anyway, since you were kind enough to undercut your argument, and wish to ignore the point I was making, just to disagree, lets move on to a different subject....
Don't be absurd. They aren't going to throw more passes in the backfield when he hits them 66% of the time and those type of passes carry far less chance at a conversion than downfield throws. Sure Sparano did a bad job, but dumping it off constantly when the result is that it is a completion is 6 times out of 10 and a reduced chance of a first down. Talk about understanding basic football logic. And at no point was our disagreement about the O being bad last year. You seem to have this idea that everybody ignores that but you, when it is the exact opposite. Stop arguing about things people have already conceded. But surely intelligent people can analyze football within the circumstances of any given year. This is the most important part of your post. I admire you for once for manning up and admitting you just don't want to go point for point with me. I wouldn't want to keep looking foolish either. Cheers :beer:
Average fans, like Beast, don't understand that since Sanchez sucks at every aspect of quarterback play, we need to play to his strongest weakness. That's just smart football.
No, thats Math. 66% > 54%. and...I left out...if his average on those throws was 66%.... what does that say about the rest of the attempts in his 54%. yes, lets fo with the lower percentages more often. You guys get irked over the reasonable defense of Sanchez, that cote the mitigating circumstances. But, haters, put more thought into being snide and snarky, than discussing the issue.
