So Steve Young is a JAG because he was considered a bust in Tampa and only found success after being traded to team with better talent and system. Got it; it all makes sense now! This is very educational.
I could see Kapernick getting traded, especially if Harbaugh leaves. Its an odd situation. To bad Kelly didnt go afer Manziel, but it would have been a hard sell after the season foles had last year.
This is akin to people having compared Pennington to Montana way too early. I get that you are loving Sanchez having something of a rebirth, but enjoy it for what it is now. He's already broken your heart once. Let him actually get where you think he can go before you have that climax.
No this is you as usual in such a hurry to argue, mock or insult that you failed to understand the context of the Steve Young reference before responding. Steve Young was in response to this original post below where 1968jetsfan implied that if a QB's success was dependent on weapons, coaches and scheme then said QB was a JAG. Thus, I'm afraid you are the one guilty premature ejaculation.
for every Steve Young example you can give I can give at least 4 or 5 first rounders over the past 30 years that were just Jags...there are some who are late bloomers. but Comparing his situation to Sanchez? Sanchez had started 63 games, Young had started 19 when he was traded. By the time Young had started his 63rd game he was 32 years old. Young hadn't even attempted more than 400 passes until he was 31. He'd only attempted as many as 300 passes 1 time in his career prior to being 31. In short Young was never given a chance to see who or what he was until he was 32. Sanchez had 63 starts as a Jet, 1,867 attempts (which is only 800 less than Young had his entire career). While late bloomers do happen they aren't that common and in some cases a late bloomer is just someone who finally got a chance to start on a regular basis. Not a very good comparison point.
Saying it's a comparison is at best deflecting or at worst really poor reading comprehension. This is not about Sanchez but about your theory that if a QB's success was dependent on weapons, coaches and scheme then said QB was a JAG. Steve Young is just an example of a QB who found success once his weapons, coaches and scheme improved. So now the rule is that you have to have played a certain number of games. Based on the modified rule, are we to assume that Young would have developed into the HOF QB he turned out to be in SF in Tampa with no weapons, bad coaching and a system that didn't match his skill after 63 starts? Smith has had 24 starts. Is above the "…never given a chance to see who or what he was" threshold or below?
Dude, don't high horse me, your entire presence in this thread has been trying to mock people. You could have used any player to compare and you chose Young. That wasn't an accident so stop trying to pretend it was.
Fixed it for you. Conversely, your entire presence in pretty much ALL threads is to try to mock or insult. I'm trying to punch holes in the guys outlandish theory who else am I going to use, Quincy Carter?
Man, for a know-it-all you are a serious complainer. There are plenty of quarterbacks that didn't work out after their first team and went on to success. You made sure to use a Hall Of Famer with Super Bowl rings. Stop playing the fool, you pretend to be an expert everywhere else.
I'm not arguing about quarterbacks that didn't work out after their first team and went on to success. I'm specifically arguing about any QB whose success was dependent on weapons, coaches and scheme then said QB is a JAG. Do you actually agree with this theory or is this just an extension of your hard on for me?
It wasn't my assertion, you need to read more and better....I was applying Hobbes logic to the argument, not my own argument.....my argument always has been that a good QB raises the quality of his team and a bad QB lowers the quality of his teams play. A JAG has a neutral effect. Young is a player who was in SFO and struggled in his few starts with SFO prior to turning 31. and if I go back through all of the drafts back to 1985-2009 here is the list of QBs who weren't above average or better after their first 2 seasons. Jim Everett #3 Houston 1986 Chuck Long #12 Detroit 1986 ken Stouffer #6 St Louis 1987 Andre Ware #7 Detroit 1990 Jeff George #1 Colts 1990 Dan McGuire #15 Seahawks 1991 David Klingler #6 Bengals 1992 Rick Mirer #2 Seahawks 1993 Heath Shuler #3 Redskins 1994 Trent Dilfer #6 Bucs 1994 Kerry Collins #5 Panthers 1995 Ryan Leaf #2 Chargers 1998 Tim Couch #1 Browns 1999 Akili Smith #3 Bengals 1999 Cade McNown #12 Bears 1999 Daunate Colepepr#11 Vikings 1999 David Carr #1 Texans 2002 Joey Harrington #3 Detroit 2002 Brian Leftwitch #7 Jaguars 2003 Alex Smith #1 49ers 2005 This is a true late bloomer..but he needs just the right team behind him, he's a game manager. Vince Young #3 Titans 2006 Matt Leinart #10 Arizona 2006 JaMarcus Russell#1 Oakland 2007 Exactly how many of these QB's came on and matured to become anything more than just a JAG.....1....Alex Smith. That's 1 QB drafted in the first 15 slots out of 23. 16 of these were top 7 picks, 13 were top 5 picks. How many is that who changed teams or became a late bloomer in success? The Steve Young argument is a fools journey and you know it.
And this is where you lose the argument. The argument is IF you need elite talent and the right scheme to be successful. The Young argument might be valid if he'd ever had a chance to show he couldn't be....he was with the Bucs for 2 seasons and started 19 games...that's not enough time to really evaluate a young player, they're still getting their feet wet at that point.
So what is the correct number of games to evaluate a young player, is it the same for all positions and how is that number derived?
1968jetsfan I'd be curious to get a list of who you felt were "good QB "that"…"raise[d] the quality of [their] teams" in the NFL.
I am happy to see Sanchez doing well in Philadelphia, but I think this is a case of Alex Smith 2.0. Sanchez, when surrounded by talent and a good system, has the ability to be a good game manager. He won't win you games by himself that often, but will do just enough to win most of them. I don't think he can carry an offense and that's ok. Finding a quarterback that can carry an offense is extremely difficult. Right now the Eagles just need a guy who doesn't lose them games. They have the talent surrounding Sanchez and a system that favors his skill set which is why he is playing well at them moment. When with the Jets (beginning in 2011), the offensive talent around Sanchez began to deteriorate and he couldn't make up for the lack of talent. He constantly tried to make something out of nothing and the result was shit. Sanchez is now more comfortable knowing that he doesn't have to carry the team and he's in a system that masks quarterback flaws (turnover prone in the case of Sanchez). His ceiling is an above average game manager and his basement is a turnover prone nightmare. This is why I don't believe he will ever be a great quarterback in this league, but who knows at this point. I hope he does well enough so people don't just remember him for that one play.
It was either you or Hobbes that said you don't draft a top 5 QB to be a JAG...But the truth is the vast majority of top 10, or top 5 QB picks turn out to be JAGS or worse and almost none of them go on to fit your "steve young" model, which doesn't fit because they bucs gave up on him in his second year. Plain and simple I never judge a QB too much based on their first 3 years in the league as starters..for most it takes 1-3 years just to get their feet on the ground in the NFL, very rare is the college QB who sets the world on fire his rookie year (and most of those flame out pretty quickly). Peyton, arguably the best QB in this generation, struggled his rookie season as an example. It's all about being consistent in evaluation, I apply exactly the same criteria to all QB play regardless of the team the play for and regardless of if they were ever Jets...if anything I give Jets QBs an extra year over other teams QBs. But it is, in the end, the exact same criteria. I'm willing to bet that if Sanchez had played on any team other than the Jets your praise of him, or that of Junc or Hobbes, wouldn't be anywhere near it's current level and I'd even be willing to bet you'd have called him a crap QB if he had played on any other team.
I said prospects don't always reach their potential but guys drafted top 5 overall are not JAGs. You would be right about the bold with the caveat that I would probably be basing it on just stats. However, having the benefit or burden of watching every single pass Sanchez has thrown, I can't in good conscious ignore the nuances of his situation.
