Ok, so I did the Sanchez vs top third defenses numbers and I was a bit surprised. He's worse against them but not by leaps and bounds. He's very bad against the Ravens but other than that the dropoff is not huge. I used Defensive Yards Allowed, which is how the teams are ranked by default, and I did not look at passing defense vs rushing defense just the aggregate numbers for all teams in a year. I used the top 11 teams to insure that nobody who could reasonably qualify as top third was left out. Sanchez has had 21 starts in his NFL career, regular season and playoffs, against a team that finished in the top 11 in defensive yards allowed for the season in question. In that sample he has attempted 580 passes and completed 299 of them for a 51.6% completion percentage. He's passed for 3,590 yards against those defenses and gotten 6.2 yards per attempt. He's thrown 17 TD's and 18 Int's. In other words his performance against top 11 defenses looks just a bit worse than his overall performance. I then looked at the number of games where he had been protected, particularly as a rookie, and decided to try to parse by pass attempts made. I arbitrarily set the dividing line at 25 pass attempts to indicate protected or not. Several very weak games went into the protected column as well as a number of good ones. Sanchez has had 9 starts against top 11 defenses where he attempted 25 passes or fewer. In that sample he has attempted 179 passes and completed 104 for a 58.1% completion percentage. He has passed for 1,259 yards in those games or 7 yards per attempt. He has thrown 7 TD's and 8 Int's in those games. Sanchez has had 12 starts against top 11 defenses where he attempted 26 passes or more. In that sample he has attempted 401 passes and completed 195 for a 48.6% completion percentage. He has thrown for 2,331 yards or 5.8 yards per attempt. He has thrown 10 TD's and 10 Int's in those games. Just putting the numbers out there as they stand.
How about vs teams with high sack totals (can it be broken down by that)? Could be an indicator vs the passrush vs overall defense
No. Had you not cherry picked, you mighthave actually seen the post, where I said, that once the schedule is decided, SOS, is fairly meaningless. And their 2009 records mean shit after the fact. At least when the stat is static, its an indication of how the team drafted, and progressed or regressed. Once the draft happens, and the rubber meets the road, its useless. SOS os bad enough on its own, using it after the fact, is goofy. Take 2009, Jets/colts when the Colts were in the playoffs, and the Jets werent. Colts lose, jets beat a 14 win team....does post season SOS really tell you anything? Rmfe.
We'd have to figure out how to define a high sack total to do that. I'm not sure I see an easy way to do that. One of the things that made the breakdown above easier was that I didn't ask why a team had given up less yards than most teams in the season in question. I just took it on faith that a team that allowed fewer yards was probably a better defense than a team that allowed a lot of yards. If we start looking at sacks then we also need to look at sack percentage and whether or not the team in question was playing with late leads often and choosing to drop more people in coverage and so on. I might do the top 11 pass defenses this evening if I get the time to do it. I'm not sure that will tell us a lot more than the overall top 11 defenses by yards allowed. Teams tend to allow a larger portion of their yards in the air as it is and so I would expect the lists to be not much different. The differences are as likely to reflect on a weak run defense as on a strong pass defense.
Well, that, and being subject to long developing pass plays. One of my arguments all along. Look at Penny in 2006/2007 +1 TD/Int ratio, in the same system, and Penny was a cerebral, and accurate passer....yet in 2010, and 2011....sanchez had a better ratio.
They played hard for 2 1/2 qtrs., they sat for a qtr and a half. That game was still probably more difficult than any of the games against the 11-5 dolphins or Pats in 2008. The bottom line is this- the 2009 sched was clearly more difficult than the 2008 sched. He built his legacy on playing through pain, he won a SB playing through pain. NO EXCUSES. We played 13 teams.
Bway, see above, my contention is, the routes just took too long to develop, and comparing Penny, before BS amd after, seems to indicate that problem lies in the route concepts, which.....concurrently.....will lead to skewing the sack totals. With Sanchez, we have neither before or after, but against the Ravens he gets the crap kicked out of him, One suspects they know the ball takes some time to come out..., Look at Rexs philsophy...Im taking away the run, and Daring you to pass. Against the three day pass play, you can see how that plays out.
I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Please direct me to this post. Either you are comminucating your ideas poorly, or your ideas just don't make sense. One of the biggest problems with your "static stats" are that they don't take into account draft picks or progression of rookies, etc. For example, if you are trying to figure out the difficulty of playing the 2012 Colts as an opponent, is their "static" record of 2-12 in 2011 a good indication? Of course not. It doesn't take into account the fact that they drafted a franchise QB, and made a bunch of other player and personell changes. On the other hand, their 2012 record of 9-7 is a pretty good indication of how good they were. That is the one that you should be using to measure SOS in 2012, not your "static" statistics from the previous year. Using the current year's records as a measure of SOS does have one big flaw, and that is the fact that your team's wins and losses affect your opponents perceived strength. For example the 2007 Patriots went 16-0. I don't care to look up their opponents records, but I'm guessing it looks like a pretty weak schedule. Part of that is due to the fact that the Patriots beat all of those teams. That doesn't mean that those teams were actually any easier to beat for the Patriots, but their record make them look easier after the fact. I'm not sure if that is part of what you were arguing, but the solution isn't to use the past years records instead. The solution would be to ignore the opponents record against the Jets (or in the case of my example, the Patriots) and only focus on their record against other opponents. No, using SOS at the start of the season is goofy, because it is rarely a true reflection of what the current team looks like. In many cases teams have new QBs, HCs, star free agent pickups, etc. Using SOS after the season is over is much better, because the teams records are generally a good indication of how easy or hard they were to beat that season. The fact that playoff upsets exist doesn't automatically mean that teams' win-loss records are completely useless in telling you how good they were. That is a horribly lazy and inaccurate argument.
I hope you don't think I am supporting Shotty, as if you wanted to look through this board, I was ripping him while Sanchez was a USC
This is your response? :rofl2: He was also addicted to pain killers. He was 27 when he won the Super Bowl. What major injury was he playing with? He was 39 years old and had a torn biceps and rotator cuff. Use some common sense like you always tell others to do. Yes junc, we played 13 teams. You are like talking to a child that just can't comprehend something. :lol: We played 16 games. Again, you can't exclude 3 games and add the other 3 to the full season SOS without coming up with the wrong numbers like you did. I already proved it to you. I listed the entire 2008 and 2009 schedules with the records. PLEASE go add them up and compare the win percentages to the winning percentages that you came up with. You will find that your numbers are nearly double the correct ones. You were wrong. Plain and simple. Get over it! It is a 4.5% difference in winning % out of 256 games! That is negligible all by itself. Take into account that we played the 14-2 Colts and 10-6 Bengals that skew the 2009 numbers and it is clear 2009 was the easier schedule. I thoroughly enjoy this but for your own sake, please stop embarrassing yourself.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hruby/101216_brett_favre_injuries&sportCat=nfl he's made a living playing through pain. STOP with the excuses as far as the SB I assume he was hurt b/c he was ALWAYS hurt, he's a drama queen. His injury didn't ruin our 2008 season, HE ruined it. Stop talking about SOS, you show how little you know about this game. The #s show it was tougher, anyone who knows anything about this game would tell you it was tougher. it's not debatable. It wasn't debatable when you were going along w/ the fake #s 1968 posted and it sure isn't debatable w/ the real #s. Have someone who understands this game explain it to you so maybe you'll be able to understand.
That is your problem. You assume and don't actually care about the facts. How many times do I have to repeat it? I don't care that he made a living playing in pain. He was much younger and addicted to pain killers. He was 39 years old when he tore his biceps and you can assume all you want that it didn't affect his play. It doesn't change reality. http://www.nj.com/jets/index.ssf/2009/09/favre_told_ny_jets_he_was_hurt.html I'll take the guy's word who was actually dealing with the injury over some Superfan on a message board. Here you go with the usual "talk to someone that knows the game...blah...blah...blah," LoL!!! Why don't you post an argument that contains some facts instead of your usual assertions. Like the winning percentage differing by just 4.5 % over 256 games which doesn't include the Colts and Bengals games that were easy wins. Anyone with any common sense will tell you that 2009 was the easier schedule since the facts back that up. I never went along with any numbers just the overall point. You actually posted wrong numbers yourself. Didn't your mother ever tell you to never throw stones when you live in a glass house? :lol:
Thank you for the nice post. Now, he talked with Schotty. Then went to Seattle, A team with an undersized defense, while the Jets still had a ground game. It snowed. Did we run it down their throats? No. They put it up 31 times, taking 4 sacks, and 2 picks in the process, while they were averaging over 4.5 ypc.
what you don't understand is that he is making excuses, he wants praise for being the "iron man" and the injury excuse when he doesn't play well. He didn't suck b/c of an injury, he sucked b/c he made poor decisions and never really wanted to be here. This is a man who, when "healthy", was outdplayed by Jamarcus Russell, Ryan Fitz and Tyler Thigpen in consecutive games. I didn't post wrong #s, we played 13 teams. I posted the records of those 13 teams we played.
we ran it 25 times and 5 of our passes came late down 7-10 pts so it was basically 50/50 as far as run/pass. we lost b/c favre threw balls up for grabs, the great Seneca Wallace didn't seem to have a tough time throwing in that weather completing over 70% of his passes w/ zero TOs.
We lost because Favre was injured, it was snowing, and we should have been pushing them all over the field. I know you think better of Schotty than I do, but that game was horrendous, we were getting 4.6 a carry, and had a guy at QB whose injury made him....human.
the YPC was skewed b/c we caught them off guard on a few Tony Richardson runs. Jones was our workhorse and he averaged under 4 YPC so we weren't running it very well. Favre looked the same he had all year, making the same dopey decisions. We lost b/c he sucked, he cist us a div title. we win it w/ Chad.
im so glad we have mark sanchez.. he is so much more of a leader, that he leads teams to better results than those of hall of fame qbs. guys with ALL sorts of records couldnt lead the team to 9-7 like he did... oh wait they did... hmm well the schedule was different. brady yeah there was brady. no pay no attention to the difference in the 09 defense... the one with different players and different attitude. dont believe that hype. he leads them to AFC DIVISIONAL ROUND PLAYOFF CHAMPIONSHIP WINS BOOM WHERES THE TROPHY!!!! TWICE with the same team even though it was different years and there were different players. which he readily will tell you about our competition. but this fucking guy sancho man he was so fucking awesome that he led them to the same record even though he had to face tom superfuckingstar brady. NOT ONCE BUT TWICE!!!!!!! that fucking brady guy is so fucking awesome that he doesnt even need a team, he just needs to NEED to win. now we will disregard needing to win when it benefits us, you know like in 2009. but man that brady if you give him 1:47 and put him 7 points down he will lead his team to VICTORY... even though he hasnt done it consistently, but those were different things. different teams, different years. fantasy stats. that fuckin tom fucking brady is the best (ends the hoppa commercial voice) dont forget fantasy stats. if that damn first ranked defense had just been good and not sucked at the most important time for them to step up even though the rest ofhte team let them down.... yeah man oh man if those guys had just been perfect just one more game. man that sancho he could have won something ALMOST...ALMOST as important as the VAUNTED AFC DIVISIONAL ROUND PLAYOFF FUCKING CHAMPIONSHIP.... they would have been 1 game past that immortal victory and almost to teh point of being able to play for something that normal fans actually even give a shit about. you know this thread says all sanchez complaints go here. maybe we should create another thread for all sancho ball washing. and absurd twists of the wind in order to argue with people for thousands of pages. i think that nobody should post in this thread for the entire weekend and then watch as junc melts down on monday when he has nobody to argue with.
