As long as we are illogically looking at team statistics to assess individual performance, we may as well throw these out there: Eagles with Foles starting: 5-2 (Since Foles started the Texans game and Mark finished it, I'm not counting it as a win for Foles) Eagles with Sanchez starting: 3-4
Translation...the teams you need to beat if you're a playoff team....aka the championship bound teams....with good QB's.... League leader in turnovers during the span of time he was starting. Junc, the desperation of your argument is that you're now resorting to "fantasy stats", the few that make Mark look good anyway.
There's no desperation at all, only reality. Scored more, allowed more so O was better and D was worse and faced more difficult teams. that makes it harder to win.
True, but there's a point you missed in trying to buoy your argument. The point spread separation was greater under Sanchez than it was under Foles, aka on a large enough sample size that means Sanchez led teams should have won MORE games not less than Foles teams since the differential between offense score and defense allowed was greater for Sanchez than for Foles. This explains a lot about why you don't like stats, you don't understand them or their application.
scored more, allowed more. O was better under Sanchez. to blame him shows lack of understanding of the game.
So, then, I suppose their record is very reflective of having two mediocre quarterbacks? It's kinda what you would expect. Neither guy "led" his team to wins over teams the Eagles had no business beating. Now, back to logical land where we use individual metrics to assess individuals and reserve the team statistics for analysis of teams, we see that Mark's overall production is pretty mediocre.
Not realizing that Sanchez is a backup quarterback in the NFL shows a lack of understanding of . . . a lot of things.
he's starting and has done a good job, he's not a Rodgers type that can carry a bad defense but he almost did.
In a road playoff game against top seed Atlanta; Russell Wilson threw for 385 yards and two scores, ran for 60 yards and a score, led his team to 28 points, rallied back from 20 down, gave his team the lead with just 34 seconds left in the game and you didn't say he got it done. You said he "needs to find a way to win the game." Is it fair to say Sanchez needed to find a way to win that Skins game and failed to deliver?
Your showing your ignorance of stats there Junc, Scored more yes, allowed more yes, point differential for sanchez translates to more expected wins by Sanchez over Foles, the opposite is true in this case. and while we're at it, are you including points scored in Junk time? Because if you are then you are disqualifying the excuse of his turnovers during "junk time". That's the problem with cherry picked circular logic that ignores basic mathematical principles, you always wind up tripping yourself up in the circles.
Eagles under Foles: vs. JAX: 420 yards, 3 turnovers (all by him), 34-17 win @ IND: 458 yards, 1 turnover (by him), 30-27 win vs. WSH: 379 yards, 1 turnover (not by him), 37-34 win @ SF: 213 yards, 4 turnovers (two by him), no offensive points, 26-21 loss vs. STL: 352 yards, 3 turnovers (two by him), 34-28 win vs. NYG: 448 yards, 2 turnovers (both by him), 27-0 win @ ARZ: 521 yards, 3 turnovers (two by him), 24-20 loss Overall: 5-2 record, 399 yards per game, 2.43 turnovers per game, 12 turnovers by Foles Eagles under Sanchez vs. CAR: 365 yards, no turnovers, 45-21 win @ GB: 429 yards, 4 turnovers (all by him), 53-20 loss vs. TEN: 462 yards, 2 turnovers (both by him), 43-24 win @ DAL: 464 yards, 1 turnover (not by him), 33-10 win vs SEA: 139 yards, 2 turnovers (one by him), 24-14 loss vs DAL: 294 yards, 3 turnovers (two by him), 38-27 loss @ WSH: 495 yards, 2 turnovers (both by him), 27-24 loss Overall: 3-4 record: 378 yards per game, 2 turnovers per game, 11 turnovers by Sanchez Both QBs had the same amount of turnovers in the same amount of games (7 1/2)
Sanchez is a serviceable as a backup and in 2015 he will be backing up a starter. He is not a franchise QB. He does well under perfect circumstances. He sucks when there is a pass rush or a scheme that confuses him, completely unable to make a play. A starting NFL QB can make plays under imperfect circumstances, Sanchez can not. Romo has had as many (or more) turnovers than Sanchez in the last couple of seasons, however, he started and is still a franchise QB because he is a playmaker. Mark could deliver a football to an open receiver when the pass protection let him, but so can most average QBs.
fun fact: Since week 9 (the week Mark took over for an injured Foles), Mark Sanchez leads the NFL in turnovers (with 13).
The Eagles were going to the playoffs when Sanchez took over. They were eliminated Sunday night by the Seahawks win. The Eagles lost 4 games to the teams that beat them out and Sanchez was the QB for 3 of those losses. They won a game also against those teams and Sanchez was the QB for that game as well. They lost 3 in a row at the end of the season in which any of the wins would have kept them alive going into week 17. Vintage Sanchez. My guess is that Chip Kelly is prioritizing acquiring a QB at this point and grudgingly coming around to the position that replacing DeSean Jackson with Riley Cooper wasn't the best personnel management decision he'll ever make. Jackson had 6 catches for 126 yards on Sunday against the Eagles.
