Can't wait for the Jets-Bengals tomorrow, but I will watch Eagles-Patriots tonight to see how Sanchez is looking. He played his best game of his career at New England. It can also be argued he played his worst game their too.
This made absolutely no sense to me. Also, if you go back to read my post you will realize I never mentioned "statistics"; I said success as in wins/championships. You apparently must be part of the my QB must be a fantasy stalwart crew; I'm not. I really do not care what kind of numbers my QB puts up as long as we are winning! Generally speaking great franchise caliber QBs win. If I can achieve that same level of success with a mediocre QB in the right system sign me up. I've been a fan too long to be waiting for my very own Manning.
See this is what I agree with, PRIOR to the Super Bowl I ripped that receiving corp to shreds, they were overrated, they were not as good as they appeared statistically, etc. That is also why I was so upset with the Jets signing Decker, he is not that good of a reciever, he is not a #1, and not even a #2. I am not even sure if he even showed up for the Super Bowl, was he even in the building?!?!
I answered that; asking the same question just about another player doesn't change that. Barkley not being better than Sanchez doesn't mean the system isn't making Sanchez look better than Sanchez would be otherwise. Hence why your question is either illogical or dishonest. The question is meaningless and I described why. The discussion is about how systems can make QB stats better than if those QBs were in another system. The player is the second equation in that discussion. Identify the system you identify the player. Which offensive system would you like to discuss? Chip Kelly's? Fine. Or are you attempting to argue that Chip Kelly doesn't run an offensive system that inherently leads to inflated offensive numbers? Let's take Tom Brady for example since one of your schticks is to discredit stats without context but now conveniently want to eliminate context to applaud stats. Tom Brady was great in a conservative offense, according to you, early in his career and is great in a wide open offense later in his career. What is the common denominator in those two different styles if play? Brady. Clearly it doesn't matter what system he plays in, he will perform at an elite level. But if a player only performs at a high level in one specific system but not in another, well, that would point to the system being the driving force. Thus is basic logical thinking.
The bold is a stretch. Also DT balled out in the SB like a clear #1. What happened in the SB is what I feel generally always happens when a top O meets a top D; they lose. It's much easier IMO to field a great offense than it is a top D as everything is geared towards giving the O the advantage. You can gimmick your way to a great O but not a great D. You give the choice of having a best D in the league vs the best O; I will take the former every time and twice on Sundays.
This is not the first this happenned though, when the Broncos beat the Steelers in the playoffs, Decker again was a no-show (O catches I believe). I think Thomas is good but its laughable to think that Decker is going to play the role of a #1.
But the whole thing doesnt matter though, the QB can only play against the defenses he is going against. If he is putting up numbers, then he is putting up numbers. End of story, you cant discredit him for putting up the numbers he puts up, the defense is getting paid millions to stop him.
I didn't mean to say that they could only have success with Manning. I meant to say that he helped them develop into very efficient impact players. More focused, better route running, better technique. I think the common misconception about receivers that succeed with Peyton is that they can only play well with him under center. It's more like he knows how to develop receivers. Better than most WR coaches.
Would Tom Brady do well in a system that had a lot read option and bootlegs? Every player needs a system that suits their skill set to some degree. It's the job of the GM and coaches to match personnel with the right schemes. BTW a player can perform at high level or poorly in many different systems. Just because a guy like Foles is doing well in Chip Kelly's offense, it doesn't mean that's the only system he could do well in. Maybe, MM's WCO and other similar systems were just not the best systems to maximize his talents. Lastly, while some of their coaches, teammates and responsibilities have changed, I don't think guys like Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers…etc. have played in a whole lot of different systems in their careers. Part of their greatness is their mastery of the systems they run.
you can make all the excuses you want. just let me know the QBs you think were made by the system. that's all. whatever system you want to discuss is fine but tell me the ones that were made by it good Brady example but Nick Foles was a young QB who barely played as a rookie so how can you say it is the system w/o allowing him to succeed w/o it? Mark had success here, he's now a vet and he's fully healthy w/ talent around him. if h succeeds it will be the system? why?
God forbid Nick Foles gets injured, but if he did before Week 1: Do you believe Mark Sanchez could lead the Eagles to the playoffs and win the NFC East? I do. That is really rare in the NFL.
Because it was the quick offensive tempo that GASE installed, along with the plays that he created. (YES Peyton was the mastermind on the field but Gase put him over the top with the philosophy of the offense, the quickness of the snap of the ball, etc) 2004: 336 Completions 497 attempts (68 completions of 20+) 2013: 450 Completions 659 attempts (68 completions of 20+) So when we look at the striking difference, the Broncos last season took 162 more pass attempts than what they did in Peytons 2004 season (which at the time was his best). That is over a 30% increase in the amount of throws, it is a very large amount. On top of that, they had 114 more completions, all of which were short passes. So how do you explain this? well Gase put an emphasis on a very high tempo offense based around completing many short passes (some of which resulted in large gains). His Brocnco team last year (342 yards a game) averaged 50 more yards a game than Peyton 2010 (293 yards a game) team which was at the time his highest yards per game ever. These arent just small numbers, we have NEVER seen Peyton average 300 yards a game, and he jumped to 342. A lot of these major differences (including the 30% increase in the amount of attemps from his best season in 2004), had to do with Gase. Peyton was probably heading toward a 2004 like season, but Gase took it to the highest level in NFL history because of the philosophy he implemented.
LOL Jetblue is the same guy who laughed at me when I said I would take Wilson any day of Peyton in Super Bowl 48.
Yes, and it will come down to week 17 at the meadow lands. (Which would be the first Giants game I ever attended)
While I don't think he is capable of putting up the crazy #s Foles put up last year. I do think he could lead them to winning the NFC East and the playoffs.
