Like Hobbes pointed out the full record doesn't take into account injuries that occurred after the teams played the Jets. There is no exact science no matter how you look at it, but I compared them both ways. It is a negligible 2.4% difference or a 4.5% difference in winning percentage from 2008 to 2009. When you take into account the Colts and Bengals games the advantage goes to 2009 for the easier schedule. You provided examples that weren't close to the Houston example as well. Bal: over 3:00 left in the game. Buf: They had the ball on the Buf 30 when Buf fumbled the kick return. They had it with 1:57 left on the Buf 30. Hou: over 3:00 left in the game. Most of the examples you brought up either had nearly twice as much time left or they were in much better field position. My 4 examples in just 1 season are as close as the examples you came up with over his entire career. I don't have that view for the Houston game. I said I didn't think NE was giving a 100% effort. The facts are Brady was on the field 80% of the game. Houston won that game facing Brady, not scrubs. We beat the Colts by facing scrubs not by facing Peyton. You are the only person here that is giving credit to a team that faced scrubs 50% of the time while not giving credit to a team that faced Brady 80% of the time. :breakdance: Sorry junc your double standards makes me giggle like a teenage girl. I'm man enough to use LOL! Just a month or two ago I proved your numbers wrong when you added the points that the Bucs D allowed incorrectly. I just did it again two post ago when you compared the 2008 and 2009 schedules. You excluded games and came up with the wrong numbers. I posted the records of every team we faced in 2008 and 2009. My numbers are right in front of you. I would tell you to add them up but I don't have much confidence that you will be able to come up with the correct answer. :lol:
In 2008 we missed the playoffs with a HOF QB. In 2009 we made the AFCC game with a rookie QB. I can give two shits which schedule was easier or harder whne you make the playoffs all games are hard and 2008 we did not make the playoffs 2009 we did and played well. Going back and dissecting every game we lost or won is stupid. Every game has woulda, coulda, shoulda, moments. To discredit Sanchez you have to discredit the playoff wins on which every other QB in the league is judged upon. I am not a Tebow fan but I give him credit for what he did in 2011 and the wins . Did he get lucky maybe but the team won and Tebow deserves credit but he also lost coming down the stretch. Sanchez has won more playoff games than other QB in Jets history but we want to discredit it? We had good defenses and RB before why could not other QBs in Jets history do that? Eli sucked until he won he still throws a million INT but he won the Superbowl he deserves the accolades. How many Playoff wins does Stafford, Bradford, Newton, Ryan, Dalton have? The rest of the stats do not really matter how the ball bounced in those games do not matter they even out over the years. The truth is Sanchez can not play like he did down the stretch last year and remain the QB. Why, because he did not win and that is what the NFL is all about winning. If Sanchez starts next season and throws for 50 yds and no tds and the Jets win he will keep playing . Ho throws for 300 and the Jets lose (Second Pats game) he will be replaced. It is really that simple.
That probably had nothing to to with Rex turning the defense into the best in the league in 2009 or having the #1 running game in the league with over than 100 more rushing attempts than any other team in the league. Oh and both teams finished 9-7 btw. Awesome argument.
we faced a much easier sched in 2008, the 2009 D was obviously much and while we didn't lead the league in rushing in 2008 we did have over 2,000 yds on the ground w/ 4.7 YPC along w/ a future HOFer at QB. I thought a team couldn't run w/ a QB as bad as sanchez though? teams didn't respect the pass game I am told and would have sold out to stop the run. How were we still able to run?
That HOF QB tore his biceps and had a slight tear in his rotator cuff. We were 8-3 at one point. We lost the last 4 out of 5 when Favre threw 2 TDs and 8 interceptions. But I'm sure the torn biceps had nothing to do with it. We got let in the playoffs thanks to the Colts in 2009. It is great that Sanchez was an outstanding game manager for us in the playoffs but what good is that when you can't win enough games to make the playoffs? Let alone it not being realistic to keep the kind of talent we had around him that allowed him to succeed.
His legacy is that he plays through pain, his injury didn't force him to make rookie mental mistakes. It's not like he was playing well before the injury. he had one good stretch of football all year long, we lost b/c he made boneheaded decisions late in the year. We got let in to a div title in 2008 but couldn't take advantage, at least the '09 team took advantage of a break.
I don't care what his legacy is. It is proven that he had a torn biceps and a tear in his rotator cuff. He said it affected how he was able to throw the ball. Makes perfect sense to me. I bet if he played with a broken arm and leg you would still be going on and on about his legacy of playing through pain. No excuses. :lol: Favre's torn biceps and rotator cuff didn't force him to make rookie mental mistakes but the injuries to the WRs this year did make Sanchez forget the play in the huddle and make bonehead decisions. You can't make this stuff up. Lol!! Did you finally figure out why you can't exclude 3 divisional games when calculating an overall winning percentage of a full schedule? Is that why you didn't address my last post? Wise move! :rofl2:
When did he tear his rotator cuff? that is completely different than the bicep and last I checked CHAD PENNINGTON(you know, the one everyone wanted gone that took a team half as talented as the Jets to 11 wins and a div title in 2008) brought us w/in a missed kick of the AFC Championship game in 2004. He built his career playing through any injury, he doesn't get to play then get the injury excuse. he made awful decisions, his arm was more than fine. It is just an excuse. They played 13 teams, I took the records of all 13 teams and added them up. No matter what way you slice it the 2008 sched was much weaker than 2009. no matter how many excuses you make it won't change that fact.
It is the only argument that matters. In 2008 we had to beat the Dolphins to make the playoffs in 2009 the Colts. 2008 we did not 2009 we did. The D was better with Rex the O was better running but worse passing. Ultimately the 2009 team was better that is why they made it the AFCC. These are just the facts 2 playoffs wins to none. What else matters?
Why do you seem to think that a "static" statistic is somehow better than a dynamically changing one? If you were interested to know how the Yankees were doing right now, what would you do? Look at the current standings, right? That is a dynamic ranking. You wouldn't look at last years results as a measure of how good they are right now. In December, if I want to know how Adrian Peterson is playing, what should I do? Look up the RB rankings for 2013 statistics such as yards, TDs, fumbles, etc., right? Dynamic statistics. Why would I look at last years results? If I want to know the quality of the opponents that the Jets played in 2009, why would I look at their 2008 results when I can look at their 2009 records? There is way more turnover and significant changes during an offseason than there are significant injuries during a season that can screw up the results. A dynamic statistic of the current results is way more useful, assuming that you are far enough into the season that your sample size is reasonably large. Since the season is over, we have all of the data for 2009, which is a hundred times more useful for determining a team's quality in 2009 than any data that you take from 2008.
Maybe someday in the future Sanchez's past wins will matter.. Joe Namath won a SB in 1969, maybe we should start him?
I agree that New England probably would have won, but I'm not ready to jump to conclusions like that. I think the same thing about Indy. What makes them so different? The only differences that I see (NE pull Brady later during the game, and with a deficit; not lead) would indicate the opposite of the argument that you are trying to make.
My point all along is if we take credit away from NYJ for beating Indy why do we take credit away from NE for taking guys out/not playing hard vs. Hou? Teams have the ability to choose who plays, we took advantage and so di Houston. Houston had a chance to beat us week 1 and they would have made the playoffs but we crushed them in Houston. In 1993 we had Houston backups in week 18 to make the playoffs- we lost 24-0. In 2004 Buf had Pitt backups in week 17 at home, they lost. You still have to win the game even though we got a break, good teams take advantage of breaks and we were a good team.
There is not let into the playoffs you play the game the Jets one there is no rewriting history. Did the Colts not try to win that game? Elway won the Superbowl with a torn bicep no excuse. This game is about winning and losing and taking the opportunity when presented. Sanchez was good enough to get us to two playoff appearances and not good enough in two and has won four of the playoff games he has played in more than any other Jets QB. Wins is what matters. In the other two years he had us in the playoff hunt until the last few games. No credit we did not make as we did not make it 2008 which was similar 2011. We praise Favre and discount Sanchez bullshit they both sucked. Sanchez loses this year and plays poorly he is gone he wins he stays. I much rather go 11-5 with statistically bad QB than go 7-9 with a statistically good QB. Things have changed this season Rex has brought in a coordinator that changes the way Rex likes to play. This will make our offense statically better but it might actually make our defense worse. If it works we could be a 10 win team if not we may struggle to win 5. What happened in '08 and '09 '10 '11'12 is done matter ,what will happen this season is what matters. The jets failed in '08 had success in '09 and '10 and failed in '11 and '12 with a lot of FO and coaching mistakes. There is no rewriting history with he was hurt this team did not show up yada yada yada. We lost to the colts in '09 (they were better) and almost beat the Steelers in '10 ( we probably were better) we still lost and that is a fail of a game but a good season.
I already provided you the links in this thread where the surgeon said Favre had a tear in his rotator cuff as well as a torn biceps. You call call it whatever you want. It is a fact that he had a torn biceps and a tear in his rotator cuff. I could care less about his legacy of playing through pain. He said it affected how he could throw the ball and that makes perfect sense. They played 13 teams but played 3 of them twice. If you wanted to just compare the SOS for just the AFC East teams you could exclude the extra games but you can't exclude them from a full season SOS without coming up with the wrong numbers. I already proved this by showing you the full season SOS of 2008 compared to 2009. It is a difference of 4.5%. You came up with an 8% difference which is nearly double the correct answer. You were wrong. A 4.5% difference is nothing and it doesn't even take into account the Colts and Bengals games. How that equals much tougher in your mind is anyone guess. You can make all the excuses you want and apply your eye test. The proof is in the facts. What I saw with my eyes is backed up by the facts. What you claim is not backed up by the facts. End of debate.
In 2009 the last two teams on the schedule rolled over for us. We had to play well on defense for a half to make the Colts roll over but they did in the end. When Peyton Manning left the game the Colts were up 15-10 in no small part because the Jets offense couldn't score against the Colts 18th ranked defense. If Manning stays in that game the Colts beat the Jets and no playoffs that year.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but it seems you're trying to pretend like Sanchez is the reason why the '09 9-7 team was better than the '08 9-7 team. But clearly you're conceding that the '09 team was worse at passing, so how did Sanchez make them better? I have to be missing something.
Could he throw the football? YEP did he play? YEP he is evaluated on how he played and, like MOST of the year, he sucked down the stretch costing us a div title. NO EXCUSES they played 13 teams, I gave info for 13. Even adding the other div games 2009 still EASILY comes out on top so stop w/ this silly debate. You look even worse than usual trying to argue this point. How is what you claimed backed up by facts when the facts state 2009 was tougher? The eyes and the facts state it was tougher. You can't be for real, can you? In 2008 we couldn't score against the 29th ranked Den D, 13th ranked SF and 30th ranked Sea D's. Would people have preferred we lost that game? it's so silly for Jet fans to bash the team for taking care of business but I guess they prefer 1993 when the Oilers rolled over and we got shut out. MAYBE and if the D didn't blow the Atl, Jax and Mia games we don't even need the Indy game? We needed it and peyton exited a CLOSE game which we won. Sorry if that bothers you.
"Taking credit away" is a vague term, and I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it. When you are evaluating how difficult a team's schedule was, yes, the fact that they played a team who sat their best players and put little effort forth throughout the game should be taken into account. That isn't "taking credit away" from the winning team, it is just being realistic. That game was easier for the Jets to win because of all the aforementioned factors, and therefore their schedule as a whole was slightly easier as well. It is just simple logic. And yes, all of the above also applies to the Texans, who had a slightly easier schedule since they played the Pats in a game that was meaningless for NE.
No the Colts were not trying to win the game or they wouldn't have put the guy who was leading his team to scores on 50% of his drives on the bench and replacing him with the worst QB in the league with the rest of the scrubs. Why do we take into account the talent around him when he loses but don't like to talk about the talent that was around him when he won? You want a statistically bad QB that wins in a team game? John Elway doesn't agree with you and neither do I. He traded a QB that won a playoff game in his first year as a starter. You know why? Because he knew they didn't win because they had a bad QB. Put a bad QB on a great team and you can win games. Put a great QB on a bad team and you will still lose games. Sanchez hasn't change much in 4 years but we went from back to back AFC Championship games to not even making the playoffs. I wonder why that is? Lol at the no excuses for Favre's torn biceps. If you can show me proof of a significant injury to Sanchez like I can show you for Favre then I will also excuse Sanchez for his play at the end of 2011. I don't care if he went out there with 2 broken arms. It doesn't change reality that a torn biceps will affect how you throw the ball. Did we play 13 games each season? You excluded 3 games and included them in a full season SOS. How many times do I have to explain to you that you can't do that and come up with the correct answer? You are wrong! A 4.5% difference in the winning percentage that includes the 14-2 Colts and 10-5 Bengals who laid down for us is not easily coming out on top. Only in your world. :lol:
