It actually makes perfect sense. Its like Hobbes defending Sanchez. He defends Sanchez for his few great plays or comebacks and he defends him for the one season where we were great in the redzone. Similarly, he crucifies the defense for the one drive here or there where they didnt play well. Those who look at the big picture can see that Sanchez didnt play well the majority of his career, and that the defense has been great for the most part of the last 4 years... Not judging them on bits and pieces, but the whole picture... At least he's consistent with his reasoning (no matter how flawed it is).
Lets make a deal if Sanchez wins the job and plays like his usual shit self that you won't blame MM like you blame Sparano and Schotty. Deal?
hobbes this is getting painful, i am about to have to put you back on ignore with champ because you really do sound like him with your rambling posts of idiocy. i think a couple of people have explained why your point is silly, i dont see any reason for me to do it again. i agree with them on this one.
This is likely true of every defense in the league. It is just the nature of the game. This is also true of most teams. It is especially true of teams with sub-par offenses (e.g. the Jets led by Mark Sanchez) because those teams are rarely able to close out games early. I don't have any clue what this is supposed to say, but I have watched more than my fair share of Jets games. In fact, I've only missed a few over the past several years. I'm not just commenting based on statistics alone. Mark Sanchez's performance has not been limited in any way by his defense, and last I checked that is what this thread supposed to be about. It is no mistake that his best years have come when the Jets defense was one of the few elite ones in the NFL. Even when that hasn't been the case, he has still had the advantage of an above average defense, and therefore has no right to complain. Give Sanchez a truly average defense for the past four years, and his performances would be even worse than what they have been. It you are going to judge a QB, that is the basis to which you should be judging him.
Fuck GOPATS. Problem is, even with a new coordinator, we still have Edsel like talent on the receiving end of Sanchez's (or Geno's) wobbly throws.
No, Hill, Kerley and Cumberland will be enough, if Holmes is ready for week 1 Sanchez cant ask for more. It would also be the first time he returns the same set of WRs.
Said the Sanchez critic calling hiself Browning Nagle. Some judge of QB talent. At least I picked a real cartoon character. Gee whiz.
They were ok in the Miami game, putrid, when it counted in the Denver game. If the stregnth of the team is the defense, you cant say allowing a team to go 98 yards, in the last two minutes, capping it with. A 21 yard TD run is playing well. Its also nice to see you agree with me on the Moore/schotty thing.... http://forums.theganggreen.com/showpost.php?p=2379450&postcount=217
Yup. I made it up. Here is a real time, from that Denver game. Bur me and Junc are the only ones seeing it. 19 pages of Eric Smith sucks, and Ole Revis.mthe 16 million dolar man. http://forums.theganggreen.com/showpost.php?p=2334301&postcount=75
See we are not saying whether or not the defense did good, we are saying if they played better than the offense, which they did in the MIA and DEN game. That;s how bad our offense was, our defense gave up a 98 yard game winning drive and the offense played worse that day. Yeah I never though Schotty was anything more than an average OC. I don't think Moore alone is why our RZ offense was great in 2011, I think having Plax helped, but our 3rd conversion rate dropped in 2011 and we had more turnovers going the opposite way for 6, so well it cancelled out and left us at 8-8
Percentages don't lie, 3rd down mades do lie. percentages tell how often teams were successful against the defense in 3rd down situations, 3rd downs made on the other hand tells you very little. It can simply mean that they had substantially more 3rd down plays than the other teams, or substantially fewer. As for your later post saying the Jets defense gave up more 3rd down conversions late in the game, this wouldn't be surprising considering how inept the offense has been under Sanchez. All 4 seasons among the leagues worst 3 and out ratios, among the leagues worst 5 minute (or longer) drive ratios, and being among the leagues highest turnover offenses. In other words the Jets offense puts the Defense on the field, and on the spot, a lot. Defenses, all defenses, wear down as a game goes on. Defenses who have offenses that can stay on the field more do better late in games because they're still fresh. If you watch and understand the game, as you claim, you'd know this to be true.
This is just a laughable argument, I'm sorry but it is. To say Percentage doesn't matter but total attempts does matter because it means the defense failed more often at stopping 3rd downs? Stop and think for just a moment Hobbes, I mean seriously. If you are among the league leaders in stopping 3rd down conversions on a percentage you are by default cutting down the number of possible attempts. Hint, stopping an offense on third down 66% of the time means that 2 out of 3 3rd down conversions fail, that's regardless of how many attempts are made. By simple deduction a team that allows a fewer percentage of 3rd down conversions will have a fewer number of 3rd down attempts. Unless the offense is turning the ball over, or keeping a lot of short possessions. There is one other factor that will push a defenses number of attempts high in this regard, not giving up a lot of big plays. When you have an offense that can't stay on the field because they are among the league leaders in short possessions then by default your defense is going to have more 3rd down attempts made against it. Sanchez alone last year gave the other team 26 extra possessions, that's read more potential 3rd down conversion attempts, off of his turnovers. That's not including all the 3 and outs and the ton of drives that got just 1 first down. When you make the argument that the raw number, in this case, means more than the percentage you are just so far out there in your argument that it's just silly.
