I actually think of it the other way around. We weren't really in the Colts league two years ago, and even coming as close as we did to knocking them off with a rookie QB was an incredible feat. On the other hand, I still believe that we were a better team in than Pittsburgh last year. Hell, I believe that we were a better team than Green Bay last year. We just came out flat in the first half for whatever reason, and coming back on the road against a great defense was too much to ask. Until the day I die I'll believe that we should've won the title last year though.
I believe that there are now and always have been two kinds of franchise QB. The first category, the one that has won most of the Super Bowls in NFL history, is the game manager who takes the team on his shoulders in clutch time and finds a way to win. The second category, which is less numerous and has won fewer Super Bowls overall is the big superstar who is expected to pass for 300 yards a game or close to it and who is expected to carry the offense to a performance that will win games all by itself. In the first category you have (from the time Super Bowls began): Bart Starr, Len Dawson, Terry Bradshaw, Bob Griese, Roger Staubach, Ken Stabler, Ken Anderson, Joe Montana, Phil Simms, Joe Theismann, Jim Kelly, Troy Aikman, Steve Young, Ben Roethlisberger, etc. In the second category you have Johnny Unitas, Joe Namath, Dan Fouts, John Elway, Dan Marino, Brett Favre, Drew Bledsoe, Peyton Manning, Kurt Warner, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Philip Rivers (making the assumption he will eventually get to a Super Bowl like everybody else here) and Eli Manning. The first category of franchise QB's has won the vast majority of Super Bowls at this point and Tom Brady was in that category for all 3 of the Patriots wins as was John Elway when he finally broke through. The second category has picked off a ring here and there but they are nowhere near as successful as the game managers. We want Sanchez to be in that first group really badly. That's what would give the Jets a shot at a dynasty. Having him turned into a successful gunslinger would hurt the team if you look at the historical record. It's paradoxical but generally speaking the QB's in NFL history who have let their teammates do a lot of the work right up to crunch time and then taken over the game are the ones who have won the championships. The all-world guys have had wonderful numbers in their career but have had real trouble winning it all.
"Game manager" types probably win more Super Bowls because being on a really good team allows QBs to take a more passive approach to the game. Take Ben Roethlisberger for example: we've seen that, if necessary, he can step up and throw for 350 yards to win games for Pittsburgh. It's just more effective to keep the ball on the ground, work the clock, minimize the risk of turnovers, and let your defense win games for you. All I want is for Sanchez to be a good QB. The quality of the team around him will determine whether or not he ends up in your first group or your second; as long as the Jets win games I don't really care how they do it though.
I wouldn't get rid of Rodgers because I would have seen him in practice everyday and my coaching staff would have said "hey we got something in this kid". just like they did when they traded their HOF QB to us because they knew they could sustain success because Aaron is good. Hello? do you really think no one in that organization knew Rodgers was atleast decent? Tell you what QB turned elite in his 3rd year? seriously? Peyton's 3rd year starting: 16 16 357 571 62.5 4,413 7.7 33 15 20 131 94.7 Rivers 1st year starting: 16 16 284 460 61.7 3,388 7.4 22 9 27 144 92.0 Brees 3rd year starting: 15 15 262 400 65.5 3,159 7.9 27 7 18 131 104.8 Ryan's 3rd Year: 16 16 357 571 62.5 3,705 6.5 28 9 23 158 91.0 look at even Freeman in his second year (didn't even start a full year in his rookie season): 16 16 291 474 61.4 3,451 7.3 25 6 28 195 95.9 Common man your making it too easy. Copy and paste from NFL.com thats all I have to do? this list goes on. And these are only active players. Its just silly to sit here and act like you have no doubts about Sanchez. I like the moxy and the toughness from the kid. I want him to be good but there is something not quite right out there. He has too many moments that leave me scratching my head...to much for a player who has 2 solid full years of starts and playoffs. I think were all a little impatient here, we have a good team around him and I think we all kind of think to ourselves "wow, if we could just have an elite QB this team could be unstoppable". And that is what I'm dreaming of.
He was flawless in the playoffs and I puke when i say that. The man didnt miss a attempt even in -29 degree weather.... Amen! When will he stop staring down receivers! And throw it away!! Drives me nuts!
Pretty much what I'm getting at. I love Mauga but he fits David Harris role better than Scotts. At least in my opinion. Seeing as nobody is touching his spot, he can be someone who rotates around in an out of blitz packages and be fine though. I want a OLB'er prospect within the first 2 rounds this draft. Westerman is an extra body worth keeping as your bottom of the list rotation guy. We keep hearing stories but if he was so good I think hed make the field more often. Unless they think hes a liability in run stop. I havent really pounded the table for any OLB'ers cause I agree with what were doing for the most part. All I'm pointing out is something the defense obviously lacks, I'm not condemning an obviously good unit. But the lack of real athleticism in our OLB's kills us over the middle and in the flats. I also pointed out the very schemes that made our defense successful in the playoffs are when Rex stopped blitzing DB's so frequently and disguised zone drop coverage with the typical unbalanced overloads with DB's in the box Brady tore us up with earlier that year. I also pointed out how a true pass rush OLB would open up Rex's scheme to be even more aggressive or disguise the blitzes into what would be a 4 man rush with various stunts and looks of confusing coverage. and your harping over how weve looked in two games, I'm thinking in the playoffs against elite gameplans from elite teams. and long term beyond this season. maybe i shouldve clarified that myself.
I don't know what qualifies as a game manger, but If throwing for 3,500 and 25 plus td's makes you one, wouldn't that put pretty much all of the superbowls in that classification??? This team is probably going to have to molde it's self around the Buccs and Ravens 2000 if they are going to win a superbowl.
Colts - injuries weakened the secondary & Jets didn't have enough quality defensive backs .... Manning just mercilessly took advantage of it & defense became ineffective. Steelers - Defense came out & played horribly. They couldn't tackle & Mendenhall ran through people like he was Jim Brown. Sanchez is not the reason Jets failed to reach the SB. The Jets D didn't play like a championship defense in either AFC Championship Game. What I'll agree with is that Sanchez inconsistency is why the Jets can't finish regular season with 2-3 losses like the Pats. However, Jets playoff exits under Rex occur when his defenses didn't deliver.
Following up on your idea. I'm not looking for Sanchez to be Brady/Manning/Rogers either. Of course I'd definitely be happy if he can reach that elite level. However, if Sanchez can play at the Phil Simms or Roethlisberger level consistently, I think Jets can challenge Pats for the division.
My only concern with Sanchez is that he still tends to lock onto his recievers. I don't think this should still be an issue in year 3 but it seems it still is. Mostly my concern,like others, is the offensive line. What was once a strength now seems like a liability,both in the passing game and the running game. I have to believe as the year goes on things will start getting better. I'm hoping the lockout had something to do with it and guys just need to get up to speed?
Rivers SAT FOR HIS FIRST 2 years, so that argument is retarded. Brees sat for his first year so his third year is equal to Marks fourth. fail again Ryan's third year is good...not elite. Tell me, how many playoff games did Rivers, Ryan, and Brees in the first 3 years of their career? I asked you to find a QB that turned elite in his THIRD year, not third year starting, and the only person you gave me was Manning. And Manning might go down as an all-time great. You're ready to give up on a QB with 2 years under his belt won 4 playoff games on the road, because you don't like his footwork. You qualify as SOJF.
Your generalizing and twisting my words around. I never said I was ready to give up on Sanchez now. Only that if he doesn't improve quickly. It wasn't exactly Brees's third year but if Sanchez has those numbers next year I would be surprised. Ryan may not be elite at this moment but he is certainly on a much better track than Mark. Ryan has already begun to take over games and bring that command and awareness to the position. Not mentioning Freeman? his year last year was great for a 2nd year guy. And yea he may not be quite elite but he definitely is getting there if he keeps it up. Stafford hasn't even started an entire season but his overall numbers and performances in the games he has started are very good. He is clearly ahead of Sanchez. With Rivers yes he sat for two years but those numbers I gave you are from his 1st year starting. sitting for two years is great but Mark got the experience from playing plus two consecutive AFC championship games where he played well through most of those playoffs games except for the 1st half in the steeler and colt game. While sitting is good how does playing all that time not make you better and more experienced? Logic would say that playing should atleast provide some help in growing and learning as a QB. No QB is the same and all of these guy's experiences and when they started playing is all different. But I have shown that generally some big steps and growth have occurred around the 3rd and 4th year. And I'll say again that I'm not giving up on Sanchez yet. But I am discouraged with what I've seen so far. And judging from the others in this thread I'm not the only one.
It's clear that you're wrapped up in stats. That's fine...whatever floats your boat. Here's why I'm not worried about Mark: He won 4 playoff games on the road in his first 2 years! How many has Ryan, Rivers, and Freeman won combined? 2 I don't think Mark is going to be Manning, Brady, etc... but he will get better, it's a progression. But I'd take a QB that knows how to win over a guy that compiles stats.
Tom Brady threw 69 TD passes total in 2001, 2003 and 2004 when the Patriots won it all. His highest season for TD passes prior to the 50 in 2007 was the 28 he threw in 2002 when the Patriots went 9-7. The year he threw 50 the Pats went 16-0 but when he couldn't produce a super game at the end the Giants better overall team effort won the day. The year Peyton Manning threw 49 TD passes and had a 121 passer rating the Colts got blown out in the AFC Division Round when Manning had an off day and the Patriots better team effort won the game. That's my point on the difference between being an all-world QB and being a game manager. There's not a lot of evidence that being an all-world QB brings home a trophy in the end. Sometimes things peak just right and the team and the QB both have an awesome year at the same time and win it. That's what happened with Drew Brees in 2009. He's one of the few QB's of the last generation who won the Super Bowl in their best season. Most of the time the trophies are won by a QB having a good, not great, season and a defense that shuts people down. That describes the Patriots run, it describes the Buccaneers win, it describes both of the Steeler wins, it describes the Giant's win. Set against that you have the Kurt Warner Rams, the Peyton Manning Colts, The Drew Brees Saints and maybe the Aaron Rodgers Packers although they had no shot at a Super Bowl, let alone winning one without that defense last year. All-world QB's are over-rated. They're very valuable but they're not as valuable as a great defense.
We had considerable discussion in another thread about "slow starts" last year and then what to do about it this year. If you read my other thread, Ryan challenged the offense to score on the opening drive (according to Holmes), and they did. The difference was like night and day. Making that first 3rd down conversion took the edge off, the earlier the better. But yeah, I totally agree about that Pittsburgh game. It was too little, too late. The Jets played like hell in the 2nd half but there was no way you're going to make up for a flat performance for the first 30 minutes. This is why Ryan was challenging them on Sunday. He doesn't want to see that slow start crap again this year.
This comment worries me(discussing the hit he took against Jax): http://www.nj.com/jets/index.ssf/2011/09/jets_mark_sanchez_will_no_ques.html This is asinine, this whole emphasis on comp %. That will come w/ experience, we don't need him taking safe passes just to get up the comp %. we cannot take away his agressiveness. So far his comp % is way up but I don't feel he has played anywhere near as well as a year ago. I'm not worried, I think he's going to have a very good year but comments like this irritate me.
The exact quote is "I wanted to stay in and rack up more completions for myself, just to keep playing well and get back on track and feel good about the game when we left it." I agree. Totally assinine. Forget about "feeling good," man, you won the game and move on to the next!
ANJI is our resident Sanchez hater. Sanchez could win 5 SBs, and if his numbers aren't 1st round fantasy draft worthy, that idiot will not give him any credit. He doesn't know football. Good post though.
