Unitas doesn't qualify because he never even took a practice snap, didn't have an established NFL track record, which Sanchez does have. Unitas failed in the interview process with the coaching staff and was cut never even having taken a practice snap with the Steelers. Sanchez, and your other examples had established track records of at least 2 full seasons in the NFL AS STARTERS. aka they have track records. Unitas just falls on to the same type of list as players cut in training camp after being drafted or who were signed as UDFA's. No NFL track record. They are two separate things. Your taking a lot on Assumptions with the Sanchez thing and your letting it color your viewpoint, DRASTICALLY. Just the mere fact that you state as fact that Sanchez would have been better is in illogical assumption. As far as drastically better team? You mean an O-line that's still a turnstyle on the right side of the line? Or the elite running backs who averaged 1.2 yards a carry? Or Maybe you mean the receiving corps, which is really pretty much the same receiving corps they entered in to last season with and still doesn't have a full speed Holmes. And don't say last year doesn't count because he put up the same type of performance that he put up in his previous 3 seasons, dogshit. You don't accidentally wind up the worst QB in the league over the past 4 years by accident. Only Gabbert rates lower...well unless you go by the useless Passer rating, in which case Gabbert is markedly better than Sanchez. Gannon came to a Chiefs team in 1995 that hadn't had a losing season since 1988 and had only won less than 10 games in that stretch. Gannon started for the Chiefs only one full season in 1998, the first losing season the team had had in a decade, the season after that when Gannon was gone the Chiefs had a winning record again. Bad situation? He came to a winning team and the one year he took the helm they lost. He posted poor numbers that season. As for his time with the Vikings. He didn't start a single game his first 3 seasons with the Vikings. When he took the helm of the Vikings in 1990 the Vikings had been a winning team in each of the 4 previous seasons. His first 3 years starting the for Vikings they instantly became losers. The did post a winning record his last year as QB, they went to ground and pound and limited him to under 280 attempts and they won. Coincidence? after he departed the Vikings went right back to winning. So lets see, he takes the helm of a winning Vikings team, takes the reigns and they become a losing football team, they limit him as to what he does and they become a winning football team by limiting the damage he can do. He goes to the Chiefs, who had been a winning football team, takes the helm and they start losing...until he leaves and they start winning again. he goes to Oakland and finds success, but not until he's 32. He's been with 2 winning teams prior to that who he led to defeat. And that's not counting his one season in Washington where he couldn't take the job away from lame duck Rypien who Washington was DESPARTLY trying to get away from. hey Junc, learn your football...I lived in Kansas City during the Gannon years and the years right before and right after, I'm more the familiar with him, I watched him play.
and junc, for every gannon where the light really does come on when he's in his 30's, there are 100's that the light never comes on for. The problem is Junc that you want to believe so much that you've become a fanboi incapable of seeing what's before your eyes. But consider this, would Gannon have ever become good if he hadn't had the experience of being on several different teams and learning from several different coaches and philosophies before he figured it out in his early 30's? Probably not.
You guys are way too serious for this. If your sick of Sanchez then you should be happy to know he will probably never start for the Jets again. Sad but true. His decline can be attributed to multiple factors - mostly declining talent around him. He had a statistically better year in 2011 than 2010 and had the Jets held some continuity in the WR core and improved the OL instead of letting it deteriorate, they may have made some noise in the playoffs. We were 1 play away from a PO appearance - Cro's fumble at OAK. 2012 was a clusterfuck. If Mark wasn't injured, he probably would have started and we would be ok. That isn't saying Geno is a bust or he wouldn't eventually take over. But a better OC a better OLine, and a flat ~ improved receiving core (plus a good TE) would have made Mark look a lot better. I think this was a much better pre-season that in the last couple years. I'm not going to defend Sanchez and say nothing was his fault. But I also know that he can't carry the lion's share of the blame without looking at the whole situation. Mark got gun-shy and skittish cause his OLine deteriorated and he hung on to the ball too long cause none of his WRs got any separation. Did he miss open WRs? Yes. Was it every down? No. Did he make some poor decisions for throwing? Yes. Was it every play? No. There are two sides to the story. However, its all conjecture and speculation and we will never know since he will most likely never start again for the Jets.
With the exception of a one year spike in TD production his 2011 season was within the statistical noise variation of every other year of his career. His 2012 season was pretty much dead on with his career average. But even if you call 2011 his career year he still ranked bottom 1/3 or lower bottom 1/5 in most, and even his best stat 32 TD's (including rushing TD's) only netted him +6 over his turnovers
I wanted to keep Mark b/c I know he can play and I know we can win with him. when you make statements about how great I think mark is it proves you don't read my posts b/c those words have never been typed by myself. stop insinuating that? I acknowledge his deficiencies but he can and has overcome them. He's had one bad year in 4 years and we are running him out of town for the next flavor of the month- a guy fans were already turning on prior to him ever taking a real snap. I have seen this cycle for years and year and years- every 2-3 years we want a new QB and new HC and we wonder why we never make and win a SB. the facts are Namath is one of the most overrated players in the history of the game, if we played today you guys would be bashing him to death and running him out of town. read it again, you don't even know what you post and next time just say "Mr. junc, I apologize for not knowing what I am talking about. Going forward I will pay more attention to your knowledgeable posts so that some day I may be able to engage in an intelligent debate w/ you and the rest of the board". Unitas didn't have 2 title game apps so you are right but he failed in Pitt and using that flawed logic that means he as done. Same thing w/ Kurt Warner and others. Gannon was 5-1 as a starter in 1997. they went from 7-9 in '98 to 9-7 in '99, not a huge difference and he was a .500 QB for an under .500 team in 1998. 1997: Gannon won 83% of his games, KC won 80% of games he didn't start. 1998: Gannon won 50% of his games, KC won 33% of their games In Minny he was 19-16 as a starter in 3 years. the other 13 games Minny went 6-7 you know what they scored in 1989 when they went 10-6? 21.9 PPG you know what they scored in 1990 when they went 6-10? 21.9 PPG you know what they allowed? 1989 17.2, 1990 20.4- do you think this played any role? he left Minny where they won more w/ him than w/o him and went to KC where they won more w/ him than w/o him. KC's next playoff season would be 2003. does that sound like a team ascending when he left? is there anything that you post that you actually have an idea what you are talking about? your problem is you want fantasy #s from your QB not wins. I bet you would be much happier w/ Geno or mark if they threw for 300+ yds, 2 TDs and lost than if they threw for 200 and won. it's all about fantasy #s for you. To you Eli Manning was spectacular the other night even though he played a major role in costing his team a game they should have easily won.
Jets are getting good praise with their new found offense. Now imagine how much better they'd be if the QB that actually won the competition was playing...??
Here's what I said: "I never said you thought he was great or would be great" And here's your reply: Who doesn't read posts? For God's sake, Junc, if you're trying to try to impress us with your debating skills, the least you can do is not accuse someone else of your own inattentiveness.
Not much better as we're currently 1-0. If anything we'd be 0-1. But thanks for your valuable insight.
Steve young as well. Except none of those guys had success early on, or showed enough talent, to let the organization determine of the Offense being run was the problem. Better to flush another first round pick, and 60 mil in the crapper. With Gholston, you knew because Rex is a top notch DC.
we would have won fairly easily w/ Mark on Sunday. same record w/ but w/o the sweat. I am happy w/ Geno so far, I hope he keeps getting better. Mark is hurt and his time here is done so time to move on.
No. A 60 million dollar investment, thats had One losing season in 4, deserves to be evaluated under proper management. Especially when theonly reason he isnt playing is because he got injured, not because the pther guy played his way onto the field. And Fwiw, Sanchez manages more than 13 points, 6 net last Sunday. And there are as many secound round picks that dont pan out.
And I posted my quote as well. Again, reading comprehension is your problem, not mine. In my post #16543 above, I clearly state that "I never said you thought he was great or would be great." And that's true. I did go on to say that you are trying to immortalize him now, after the shoulder injury and now that he is done here, and would probably be going on to try to turn him into someone who WOULD HAVE GONE ON TO GREATNESS by becoming a HOFer. I am not blaming you for saying he's great now, but I can see you trying to convince others that he would have taken us to new heights, just as you did with Chad Pennington. There's a difference. Do you get the discrepancy now? BTW, you might possibly have had a valid point with Penny. But with this guy, no chance. Sanchez is a far cry from Pennington. He doesn't have it.
@junc apart of your argument is the fact that you bring up other QB's that had success later on in their career as a reason to keep Mark. Sanchez has a history of shitting the bed when getting pressured so I know for a fact we probably lose the game yesterday with Mark starting.
"Without the sweat"? And how would we have accomplished that? By Sanchez putting up meaningless fantasy stats? Choose one side of your mouth to speak from, you hypocrite.
"Fact" and "Probably" do not go together. I also disagree. It would have been a completely different game and too hard to actually get into hypotheticals.
It wouldn't matter if Sanchez miraculously goes on to win 3 SB MVPs somewhere else.. It's still the right decision for the Jets to move on from him here and now. The wrong decision would be to hang onto those 2 AFCCG appearances as if they can still salvage something out of him. The horrible decision would be to keep him because they are afraid he will have success elsewhere. It's fucking over. lets move on.
AGAIN that was AFTER all of this happened. You backtracked, I accept your apology. I never said Chad was great either but we haven't had too many stretched of good QB play in our history which is why we haven't won consistently. We had a young, durable QB w/ one bad season and we threw him away based on that one bad season where no QB could have succeeded. My point is I don't like to give up on young players w/ talent especially ones that have had so much success for our team. would he have fumbled to set up an easy TD? maybe, would he have thrown a pick? maybe but he has better command of the offense and we would likely have scored more. TB didn't bring crazy pressure, our QB had tons of time most of the day.
So true. So so so sooooooooo true. Bottom line. I would not have gone in that direction, but that direction has been taken.
