Sanchez extension, fits the team well. Loking at it in hindsight AFTER drafting Smith, makes zero sense. See above. Remember, prior to the draft they brought in no one that was going to be the opening day starter over Sanchez.
Hahah. I think Tanny got caught up in the hype on the players without really evaluating them. There was no rush to extend Sanchez who was still on his rookie contract if I remember things correctly. I don't think Tanny was sure on how to build the team so he got who he wanted instead of what we needed. Oh well I think we needed a fresh look on our roster and Idzik brings that
He had nothing on offense and mostly mediocre Ds. I understand it was a different game but that doesn't excuse so few TDs w/ so many INTs and he was primarily responsible for them missing the playoffs in 1967 w/ his awful play down the stretch. If he was plus 3 as a rookie, why couldn't he be plus as a 2nd, 3rd, 4th year QB? he wasn't even close as a 2nd yr QB. I don't know how many times it has happened but the AFL wasn't littered w/ great QBs, Joe ha a +3 TD to INT ration and the AFL was not as good as the NFL yet. Players like Namath helped them close the gap.
Does anyone understand we never seriously went after Peyton? we made a courtesy call, unless he was coming here for cheap we had no shot. We had Peyton's long time OC on staff in 2011 and instead we hired TONY SPARANO to run our offense immediately after the '11 season. That tells us ALL we need to know about how serious we were about going after the choker.
junc, how can you speak so strongly about a guy you didnt watch play? in a time when you didnt see the games? i am not a namath guy, all i can do is listen to the guys who did see him and do remember the way things were at that point. it surely was a different era of offense.
This does a good job demonstrating my point that Sanchez is soft. In 2009, we were 4-6 and closed out the year going 7-2 (including playoffs where he played well). He also played decently in the post season of 2010. The years when he degenerated were 2011 and 2012 when the oline was pretty shoddy. Sanchez is soft. He takes one big hit and it throws him off for several games at a time and it seems the small sacks still affect him more than they should. If he is to survive another season, he needs extra protection. The Jets need to do what the Patriots do on the line to keep Brady protected.
It made sense at the time. He was helping the team clear cap room. Did you miss that part? So essentially he got one more guaranteed year, and we got the ability to pro rate his bonus out till next year.... Neither Manning,Nor Tebow had anything to do with it. And like I said, from a team standpoint, going forward, its flawless. LaCanfora is just plain wrong, and has an obvious hard on for the Jets or Tannenbaum. You cant credibly make the case that giving Tony the Choker 26M in cash, is a better contract than betting 8.5 on Sanchez...the guy that has actually won playoff games.
I have read enough, seen enough and talked to enough people associated w/ the game to post an educated opinion. That doesn't make my opinion right but I can offer an intelligent opinion.
Thats why Marty is here, The Pats dont protect Brady, so much as they get the ball out quickly, primarily between the hashmarks, and almost always inside the numbers, which is the polar opposite of what our last two OCs did.
Cap. Room. And the mechanics of the extension favor the team in a big way. Sanchez was going to be the starter this year, 8.5 is not a big deal, insofar as if he plays well enough to keep, the extension virtually assures he will renegotiate. Breakdown.... http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Jets-Gesture.html
You crazy...he had some pretty good defensive u its and a shit loaf of pro bowl players. If I wasn't stuck in So. Florida on my smartphone I'd dial up some useless stats. He wasn't that good in the playoffs. Kinda like an inverse Sanchez...
Duper and Clayton were overrated and that's pretty much all he had on O most of his career, he got Irving Fryar and keith Jackson late in their careers, never had a big time RB, he had a couple of good Ds(he made the SB w/ one and the div rd w/ another) then had good stat Ds late in his career but those Ds always choked in a big spot.
Marino would not use a running game! I was at a game vs the Jets in miami where he had the ball on the 1 yard line and a first down. Rather then punch it over he threw for an easy TD only it was picked off. The guy wanted huge stats and got them but is still called NO RING MARINO. If he used a running game to his advantage he was great enough to win a few SBs. But the offense was all him.
Shula never got him a running game because Danny Boy woulda never stood for it, he wanted all the spotlight and records on him - running game and winning be damned. They could've traded for Emmitt Smith in his prime and Danny woulda thrown a fit if they tried pounding the rock consistently instead of letting him toss it all over the field. There had been some good RBs come through Miami's system in the Marino years but of course history shows he never had a running game because Danny got his way. The Ultimate Me-first player. At least Keyshawn, T.O., etc. had the testicular fortitude to be out loud about being a selfish player, Marino was the worst kind, he'd complain about not having pieces, then complain if any of his pieces outshined him. Tough to win a SB when you have a team leader like that, as we saw. That being said he was a tremendously good QB and owned our Jets. Can't take anything away from that.
Here's something from "The Marino Myth" Biased for sure, But something to chew on... In his 17-year career, Marino played with 55 players named to the Pro Bowl. Marino himself was named a Pro Bowler nine times. He won 8 out of 18 playoff games. Want to know the real reason why Marino never won a Super Bowl? Sadly, the answer sits with Dan Marino himself. Simply put, Marino did not elevate his game in the playoffs. In fact, his played dropped off quite noticeably. Marino has a career regular season passer rating of 86.4. His postseason passer rating was just 77.1. He played in 18 playoff games, and won just eight of them. In his one Super Bowl appearance (a 38-16 loss to the 49ers in Super Bowl XIX), Marino completed 29 of 50 passes for 318 yards, 1 TD and 2 INTs. It adds up to a weak 66.9 passer rating. One wonders what might have happened had his two Super Bowl drives that ended in interceptions ended in touchdowns instead. Remember that 1998 Miami team that had the best defense in football? It made the playoffs, but Marino failed to hold up his end of the bargain. The season ended in the second round of the playoffs, with Marino coughing up two interceptions against Denver and posting a passer rating of just 65.5. Yet another opportunity for Marino to win a Super Bowl tossed into the hands of an opposing defender. In fact, Marino threw at least one interception in 13 of his 18 career playoff games. He threw two or more interceptions 10 times. The Dolphins went just 1-9 in those 10 Marino multi-interception playoff games.
I think see your point of view on things, basically Tanny did the team a favor by structuring Sanchez's contract in such a way that should this playoff tested QB excel he'd be in a properly adjusted contract from 2014 on with little room to try and renegotiate to something grossly large. if he isn't good after 2013 or sucks after 2014 they could cut him with no strings attached. ...except that he got a bloated inescapable contract this season for really no reason. Or okay, thats incorrect, they did it because they had the utmost faith he'd be worth it... and no other reason. They COULD have let him play for his contract last year, and THEN go into that scenario where he's given a higher amount of pay for the next several years with little impact if he's gone thus giving you the best value you can get (pay the man if he's worth it, cut him easy if he's not) but they didn't. I understand there was also a need to cut his base salary last year as well, but they could have handled that better. They only wound up cutting 6mil they could just restructured that to the next year. Its not like he was Revis or something where he had leverage, he wasn't going anywhere and wasn't in the best scenario to negotiate. There was no reason to do what they did in the fashion they did. We hurt our ability to move on if he was bad last year, we gave him a fat guaranteed contract for 2013 after 2011 for no reason. Sure its easier to part with him in the future but our ability to cut him and spend elsewhere this year was lost, it would have been much better to wait out 2012 before giving him an extension or more money at all.
