I was thinking the same. At least some of those 2009 D's should be F's IMO. I know it's D+ and below, but I think a differentiation between the D and F games makes a difference when looking at it this way.
2009 D and below games: wk 4 New Orleans wk 6 Buffalo wk 11 New England wk 15 Atlanta 3 of those games I rated as an F (NO, Buf & NE) 2010 D and below games: wk 1 Baltimore wk 8 Green Bay wk 13 New England wk 14 Miami I rated GB, NE and Mia with an F.
No. Are you grading on a curve? If you want to compare the two seasons shouldn't you grade the games the same?
I'm not comparing one game to another any way. I'm grading his performance in a particular game. If he sucked ass then it's an F whether he threw 4 INTs or 2.
What difference does it make. Would you grade his performance in the NE or GB game any better than an F? If so then you're nuts. He played terrible in those games.
My only point is that his worst games this year weren't nearly as bad as his worst games last year. I don't see how a 5 INT game could be given the same grade as for example the GB game where he played pretty bad and had 2 INT's. I mean a pile of shit is a pile of shit, but some can stink worse than others.
An F is an F. Just because one F is slightly better than another doesn't mean that it shouldn't be given on honest grade. I'm sure Sanchez himself would say the same thing. Instead of looking at the negative, look at the positive. He had two more games than he had the previous year where I rated extremely high.
I'm don't think I'm looking at it negatively, it's a positive thing that his worst games this year were better. If your grading system has those games graded equally then I don't know what to think about it.
At the end of the day a shitty game is a shitty game. I'd rather not evaluate a player by "his shitty games were better this year than his shitty games were last year". I graded him with 4 awful games this year and 4 last year. The more important thing to note is that he had 2 more games this year than last year where he played great.
How would he be ranked based upon the fact that he was ranked 28th in Qb's in 2009 and 27th in 2010 when he has more weapons and a better line than most of the Qb's in the League. He had the 9th most attempts in the league and was tied for 16th in touchdowns and had one more than suck superstars as John Kitna and Shaun Hill. Ryan Fitzpatrick has seven more touchdowns playing with the bills and a swiss cheese offensive line. He did not do anything to screw anything up in the playoffs and looked decent at times but was that really progress over the previous years regular season. Especially after a full year in the system.
Rankings are dangerous, they don't take into account how many tims he saved us. He came up big for us in big spots all year and led us to 4-5 wins that we probably shouldn't have won. he was much more valuable than rankings suggest and despite having lesser #s than a guy like Matt Cassell he was a better QB this year.
You're copy and paste bullshit is boring. And you disappeared after his great performances late in the season. You can't say anything anymore. You're a joke.
I agree with that stats are very overrated at times because there are regular season Quarterbacks and playoff ones. The problem is with all the players we might lose he is going to have to play even better for us to get back to where we were this year and I just hope he can do it over the course of sixteen games.
I was on here and I did say that he played great in New England and the play he made with Braylon was a Sb Qb caliber play in Indy but the facts are the facts and he has to get better in the regular season for us to win a Sb. Home Field advantage is Key.
You act like if he's not a top 5 QB he's complete dogshit and he's not allowed to have growing pains. Who are we going to lose on offense? One WR? No one? The defense isn't going to drop from 3rd to 16th. This is a Rex Ryan defense. they don't drop below 6 Since you have a hard on for rankings, that should calm you down.
