You're right. It would've been a completely different game. Revis would've had 3 INT's (2 of them returned for TDs) Mark would've been sacked by Mangold's ass this time. I'm glad we've moved on to Geno.....
Anyone who fears sanchez will go to another team and have some kind of great success is a complete moron. there, i said it. the guy has consistently been the worst QB in football for 4 years. he has had different OC's, different WR's, different HB's, but the only constant is him being an awful turnover machine. that wont change. he will never start in this league again
for get "won without a sweat" we lose and dont crack double digits in points if sanchez starts. he gets sacked a minimum 8 or 9 times and throws 4 picks at least with that pressue
Typical ludicrous statement. Of course, we'll never know either way because he didn't start. But it certainly seems foolhardy to make such predictions. One can only therefore guess, based upon what we know from the past. So, let's see... Given the fact that we weren't able to run the ball effectively and our QB was pressured considerably and Tampa Bay's DBs were hammering our receivers unmercifully while doing a great job of covering the deep ball, and given the fact that all of the above are conditions under which Sanchez really stinks up the field, how on earth can you make a statement like that? Won fairly easily? Really? Please explain how Mark Sanchez would have guided the Jets to a "fairly easy" win.
what do meaningless fantasy #s have to do w/ anything? has mark ever been good at putting up meaningless #s? You guys love to make things up. you really should start watching football b/c if you think he's been the worst QB in football for 4 years you show how little you know. it's mind boggling anyone can make such an asinine statement. I feel embarrassed for you.
Your logic is flawed, If Namath played under today's rules with today's surgery techniques He'd be putting up 5,000 yards 60-62% completion ratios, his TD's would be up and his interceptions down. Though He'd still throw more picks than the average QB most likely. Mark has never overcome his deficiencies, the team has. With even average QB play in 2009 the team has home field advantage for at least one playoff game. In 2010 if Mark has even average QB play the team wins 13-15 games. in 2011 if Mark has even average QB play the team wins 10 games. in 2012 if Mark has average QB play the team is .500. There you go with the playoff appearances, so what? Did he lead the team with his uber talent to the Superbowl? No? big whoop. His play cost the team home field advantage. Period. yes Gannon had some wins, but he was also turning the ball over on roughly a 1 turnover to 1 TD ratio. team winning in spite of the QB play and by limiting how much he participated, not one of those 3 seasons did he throw more than 370 passes, and in the year the team won most he threw under 280 passes. The less the QB does the more the team wins, sound familiar? It should, it sounds exactly like Sanchez. Again trying to equate Sanchez with Unitas is laughable on every level. Your ploy to draw Namath in to the debate and even remotely associate Sanchez with Namath is laughable. Yes Sanchez has more playoff wins than Namath, but Namath has the one that counts. Namath was also named All Pro several times, led the league in several categories and oh yeah, was League MVP 2 times. By the time Namath was Sanchez's Age he'd been rookie of the year, league Leader in yardage twice, set a record for yardage once, been a league MVP twice, been an 3 time AFL pro-bowler...oh yeah, and had a very nice shiny ring. The only thing Sanchez and Namath have in common are they played QB for the jets and had a penchant for interceptions, the difference is Joe brought so much to the table it offset the pickoffs. Did I mention that Joe had a Ring by the time he was 25? Did the points allowed play any role in 1989-1990 for Gannon? Of course it did, Defense is on the field more because of turnovers and 3 and outs...on the field more = more snaps = more points allowed due to shorter fields and a tired defense....1990 Gannon completed a paultry 52% of his passes with 16 Interceptions on 349 pass attempts. He also fumbled 10 times...he also had a very pedestrian 6.5 YPA. In other words his inept play and turnovers hampered the Vikings chances of winning, dramatically. So yes, it did make a difference, but as usual you missed the point, kind of Like Sanchez. Really? they won more with him than without him? ROFL. Lets see, the two years BEFORE Gannon they averaged 10.5 wins a season The two years AFTER Gannon they averaged 9.5 Wins per season. The 3 years WITH Gannon they average 8 wins per season as a team. and Gannon only led them to an average of 6 wins per season as a starter on average. But lets give him credit for the other QB wins, in what world is it that 8 is greater than 10.5 or 9.5? I think that tells a lot about your analytical skills. So Chiefs. during the time he was with the chiefs he managed an 11-8 record as a starter. over those same years the chiefs were 29-19 so in games not started by Gannon they were 18 and 11, it's worth noting that 5 of his wins came in one short stint of 6 starts where guess what, he threw under 180 passes, again...with Gannon the less he does the more the team wins. The key to winning with Gannon was to keep him doing as little as possible to keep him from screwing up the game. So again your math fails you, they won more without him than with him. The one year he was their main QB they lost. Every other year he was the backup QB coming in due to Injuries to the Grbac. which means what Junc? Yep it means the other team was game planning for the OTHER QB and not Gannon. During his time with the Chiefs the team average 10 wins a season, Gannon averaged 3.5 wins per season. Remind me again under what math system 6.5 wins by the other QB is less than 3.5 wins per season by Gannon? Or in what world the 11 games per season the chiefs averaged before Gannon threw his first pass as a chief is less than the 10 wins per season the Chiefs had as a team while he was a chief? You've hung yourself out to dry really good this time Junc.
Sanchez hung 30 on detroit, with a more expansive list of throws, week 2. Part of the reason Cumberland and Kerley got massacred, aside from dorty play, was perdictable calls. Maybe when Geno learns how to go down the sodeline accurately that will change. But dont pretend he played his way on to the field. he didnt. sanchez did. Till Rex went full on Kotite.
You don't know what you're talking about. The Melbourne Kangaroos will pick him up in a heartbeat and he'll go on to win the Australian Outback Superbowl. There, you heard it here first.
Apples...oranges. Lets talk about playing for for Scottenheimer. Oooh, bradford had a career year, where did their offense finish.. Call us back when he produces a top 10passing offense. Not with Penny. Not with Favre. If Micahel fucking Andretti and I go to indianapolis, and I get a ferrari, and he gets a chevy cobalt, im pretty sure I beat his ass.... Sometimes, its not just the guy carrying the spear. So much for your analytical skills.
we'll never know but mark looked very good and in command of this new offense. Even assuming he has the same TOs that lead to the same pts I think we would have scored more on O. Our QB was not pressures considerably, he had a ton of time to throw most of the game. He was pressured some but overall against an excellent front our OL did a very good job in pas protection. You are judging mark on 2012 when he stunk, the team stunk, they had no talent and the OC was brutal. He looked completely different this camp w/ the new offense.
Well, you're saying we would've won either way; but with Sanchez, we would've won "without the sweat." So, how, exactly would that have been accomplished? By Sanchez fumbling 0 times, or throwing 0 picks, or throwing for more yards, or more TDs? That seems to be the only way we would've won "without the sweat." But, that shouldn't matter because those are just meaningless fantasy #s. Do numbers and stats count or not? Because, based on what you're saying, it appears that you don't seem to know.
No he's not been good at that, what he has been good for is more turnovers than points scored though!
You miss the point, Saint Sanchez steps on the field and the opposition just surrenders....it's you know, magic!
More expansive playbook. He put 30 on detroit, that has a similar defense. And go back and watch the offensive p,ays in Sundays game. Geno makes maybe, two throws Sanchez wouldnt have, misses about 6 he would have, and gets two receivers killed down the seam. Say what you want about Sanchez, but the same throw thatCumberland got decapitated on, Sanchez makes, on time. Geno is a rookie so this isnt a knock, but hes routinely late, and stares guys down.
Yeah but Mark always looks pretty good in camp. Everybody does when they're wearing a red shirt. I am saying that given the conditions on Sunday, Mark would have had his hands full. Geno was throwing the ball away. Mark still doesn't do that. Geno scrambled excellently and decisively. Mark doesn't do that. Geno throws crisp darts accurately. Mark doesn't do that. So these are reasons I am providing why Mark would not have done any better than Geno did on Sunday. And, BTW, none of these aforementiones Sanchez traits are attributable to lack of talent or OCing. It's just the nature of the guy vs. GS.
Joe had crappy #s and outside of 1 season didn't win a playoff game. He also doesn't get to the SB in this era as he doesn't get a bye he didn't deserve and a home game he didn't deserve needing one win for a SB. If not for Mark we win 6-7 games in 2010 if our D doesn't blow 3-4 games we easily make the playoffs w/o Brady maybe we win 7-8 games last year. No QB would have succeeded w/ our lack of talent. He didn't get to a SB b/c his supposed "dominant" Ds folded in each title game. I never compared mark to Unitas, just using the example of flawed logic that if we let Mark go it means he can't play. Joe cost them the 1967 season, Joe has less playoff wins, Joe had more talent and had more talent around him and could only win 2 playoff games but he had pretty white shoes! You are comparing different teams w/ and w/o him. You ignore all logic. we are counting KCs record in years Gannon never started? I love when you need to make things up to try to make a point after the point was shredded in my previous post. I love the 10.5 wins a season to 3.5, that's classic. we count 1995 when they went 13-3 and he didn't play? 1996-1998 he started 19 games, KC went 11-8 in those games 1996-1998 they played 29 games w/o him starting. KC went 12-11. which was better?
by leading the O to more pts, I don't care what his yardage would have been or his rating but he would have led us to more pts. No he doesn't, the O looked dreadful in camp last year. I agree w/ Geno throwing the ball away, that is something mark needed to learn. Could Marty have helped? we'll never know. Mark has an excellent arm, mark can run too. The issues last year had more to do w/ poor talent leading to bad habits and poor decision making. This year receivers are actually open unlike last year.- part good health, part scheme.
He hasn't really progressed that much since his rookie season. And good QB's overcome bad coaching. You're right Sanchez would probably be the starter but his injury could be the blessing in disguise that allows Geno the chance to play early on.
