[Mr_Jet]

Jetsfan115, on 16 October 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

If sanchez would have done what rivers did lats night, people would be at his door with torches and pitchforks

They would have erected a guillotine in the middle of Time Square and chopped his head off by now.

[Mr_Jet]

S-Dubb, on 16 October 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

So is the theme... "the less Sanchez can pass for the better?" ... "the less effect he has on the game the better?"

He wasn't called to do much. I do like how he took care of the football and threw 2 TD's. The one to Stephen Hill was an elite throw.

My concern is he was carried by the run game (which he was). However, does Sanchez's career hinge on if he has a run game or not? because if he needs to still heavily lean on the run that's not the QB we need. Not saying I want him pass all the time by I would like him to pass when we have to. Situationally when he's called upon to do so.

Sanchez gets a pass this week. He was carried by the running game. I would like him to put together 2 consecutive good games. Not one week he looks pop Warner and the next a top 10.

CONSISTENCY!

So you're saying at some point in the 3rd quarter the offense should have stopped doing what was working for them, stop doing what was winning the game, and said "okay let's start doing something different just because." That's Brian Schottenheimer type of thinking right there. Let's stop doing what's working and do something else just for the hell of it. What would be the point of Sanchez having 300 passing yards in that game when it was the 2 TDs that helped win us the game. I don't care if he had only had 2 passing yards in that whole game as long as he still had the 2 TDs and 0 INTs like he did.

This dude is damned he does and damned if he doesn't. You guys want to see some sort of Air Coryell, Madden on rookie mode type of offense is all what it really comes down to. If he had passed for 450 yards but had 0 TDs and 2 INTs, I seriously doubt any you guys would have been gushing about the 450 passing yards. We all know the talk on here would be about the 2 INTs all this week, especially if we had lost the game.

[SecondHandJets]

The reality is that some people here think that the Jets should spend another high pick on a QB whereas a high pick to help our QB will go much further in getting us to the Super Bowl. I'll take 2 TDs and 89 yards anyday of the week because that means we won.

[S-Dubb]

Mr_Jet, on 16 October 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

So you're saying at some point in the 3rd quarter the offense should have stopped doing what was working for them, stop doing what was winning the game, and said "okay let's start doing something different just because." That's Brian Schottenheimer type of thinking right there. Let's stop doing what's working and do something else just for the hell of it. What would be the point of Sanchez having 300 passing yards in that game when it was the 2 TDs that helped win us the game. I don't care if he had only had 2 passing yards in that whole game as long as he still had the 2 TDs and 0 INTs like he did.

This dude is damned he does and damned if he doesn't. You guys want to see some sort of Air Coryell, Madden on rookie mode type of offense is all what it really comes down to. If he had passed for 450 yards but had 0 TDs and 2 INTs, I seriously doubt any you guys would have been gushing about the 450 passing yards. We all know the talk on here would be about the 2 INTs all this week, especially if we had lost the game.

It's not about damned if he does or damned if he doesn't. It's about dumping everything on the table, sorting it out and making a choice. When I look through his body of work I see an INCONSISTANT QB. The words "QB" and "inconsistency" don't belong together. When they do QB's lose their jobs and get traded around the league until their careers die. The CONSISTANT ones become the starter and embark on a long career. Barring serious injury.

I'm not "hating" his numbers. The run game worked extremely well against a porus run defense and he played game manager around it. It's effective when the run game works but have you noticed a theme Mr.Jet? The last few games the Jets have looked absolutely horrible. Why though? oh, thats right... we couldn't run the football!! Therefore Sanchez had to create with the passing game and we've struggled. Do you see the theme? It's not about 1 game. It's never been about 1 game. It's about consistency over a long period of time. I don't see it!!!

I'm not going to retract because he had 1 decent game. I hope he proves me wrong but I see what's in front of me. Gathered information over his 4 year career and looked through his body of work.

- He struggles reading coverages
- he's "gun shy"
- he's inconsistent
- cant carry this offense (even if it's half a game). We're always pissed with the run game or defense because their not dominating. Then when we turn to the QB to post blame people get pissed off. lol
- lacks fire and passion

The good ones DEMAND excellence. He doesn't. He never chews out his WR's. Where is the fire?

Look, he's trying to make something of his hanging career. He's trying to put it together. I give him credit. Sometimes things weren't meant to be. I don't see it in Sanchez and I can't understand how some of you can't see it. Rooting for him to succeed for moral support reasons is good and all but numbers are numbers and what I see with my own eyes on Sunday is all I need to make an assessment. Hope I'm wrong but I'm not wrong about certain things very often.

[Mr_Jet]

S-Dubb, on 17 October 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:

It's not about damned if he does or damned if he doesn't. It's about dumping everything on the table, sorting it out and making a choice. When I look through his body of work I see an INCONSISTANT QB. The words "QB" and "inconsistency" don't belong together. When they do QB's lose their jobs and get traded around the league until their careers die. The CONSISTANT ones become the starter and embark on a long career. Barring serious injury.

I'm not "hating" his numbers. The run game worked extremely well against a porus run defense and he played game manager around it. It's effective when the run game works but have you noticed a theme Mr.Jet? The last few games the Jets have looked absolutely horrible. Why though? oh, thats right... we couldn't run the football!! Therefore Sanchez had to create with the passing game and we've struggled. Do you see the theme? It's not about 1 game. It's never been about 1 game. It's about consistency over a long period of time. I don't see it!!!

I'm not going to retract because he had 1 decent game. I hope he proves me wrong but I see what's in front of me. Gathered information over his 4 year career and looked through his body of work.

- He struggles reading coverages
- he's "gun shy"
- he's inconsistent
- cant carry this offense (even if it's half a game). We're always pissed with the run game or defense because their not dominating. Then when we turn to the QB to post blame people get pissed off. lol
- lacks fire and passion

The good ones DEMAND excellence. He doesn't. He never chews out his WR's. Where is the fire?

Look, he's trying to make something of his hanging career. He's trying to put it together. I give him credit. Sometimes things weren't meant to be. I don't see it in Sanchez and I can't understand how some of you can't see it. Rooting for him to succeed for moral support reasons is good and all but numbers are numbers and what I see with my own eyes on Sunday is all I need to make an assessment. Hope I'm wrong but I'm not wrong about certain things very often.

Look, I get the frustration with Sanchez. I do. But again I ask if we cleared out everybody, then what? Who is this great QB we're looking for and where is he and how do we get him? Those are the questions nobody has an answer too. And really have we really given Sanchez the tools to succeed? Inconsistency at the WR position every year. Not answering the RT question sooner when it was clear it was going to be a problem. Not firing Schottenheimer right after Rex became the HC. Now when somebody brings these things up they get accused of making excuses for Sanchez. Plus like I said last week, we can't even go into rebuilding mode right. If recent history is any indicator we're going exceed expectations in that rebuilding year. In the years we were expected to win 4 or 5 five games tops, we end up winning 9 or 10 games. So I don't even have faith we're going to be able to go into rebuilding mode right. We'll get rid of Tanny, Rex, and Sanchez after this season and then win like 10 games next season and go into the 2014 season with the hope of winning the Super Bowl that season.

[ROBJETS]

Mr_Jet, on 17 October 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

Look, I get the frustration with Sanchez. I do. But again I ask if we cleared out everybody, then what? Who is this great QB we're looking for and where is he and how do we get him? Those are the questions nobody has an answer too. And really have we really given Sanchez the tools to succeed? Inconsistency at the WR position every year. Not answering the RT question sooner when it was clear it was going to be a problem. Not firing Schottenheimer right after Rex became the HC. Now when somebody brings these things up they get accused of making excuses for Sanchez. Plus like I said last week, we can't even go into rebuilding mode right. If recent history is any indicator we're going exceed expectations in that rebuilding year. In the years we were expected to win 4 or 5 five games tops, we end up winning 9 or 10 games. So I don't even have faith we're going to be able to go into rebuilding mode right. We'll get rid of Tanny, Rex, and Sanchez after this season and then win like 10 games next season and go into the 2014 season with the hope of winning the Super Bowl that season.

I see your points but if you take out the visits to the playoffs and AFC Championship games and judge mark solely on his performance its pretty similar to Tim Couch stats wise.
http://espn.go.com/n.../1752/tim-couch


You say what have we had to look for in another qb? Not my job.Jets management get paid for that. All I know is he needs to go. Some teams stick with with qbs to long and the Jets are one of those teams.

There were first overall picks that didn't last as long as Mark. The most I'm seeing is 5 years and I believe Mark will probably last longer than that.Almost all of Marks stats look like these guys. Mark just has a few more tds. Turnovers for Mark are just as bad as these guys. Mark has a lot of fumbles along with his int`s not to mention to the team recovered fumbles of Mark and the multitude of dropped int`s Mark has that far exceeds any other starting qb in the four years Mark has been starting. Mark may have more tds than these guys but a qb cant be in the bottom of the league or in the bottom 3 to 5 of all starting qbs in the league 4 years straight in almost every category possible and be considered a legitimate starter.Also Mark is no more accurate or less accurate than these other draft picks.

Hell some of these guys didn't even get a full 4 years to start and prove themselves like Mark. Most of these guys were drafted higher than Mark and were not even given the chances Mark has had.Mark has started from day one and every game save one game he sat out the last game of the season in 2010

http://espn.go.com/n...amarcus-russell
http://espn.go.com/n.../1427/ryan-leaf
http://espn.go.com/n...3529/david-carr
http://espn.go.com/n...96/matt-leinart
http://espn.go.com/n...763/cade-mcnown
http://espn.go.com/n...754/akili-smith

If all these teams would have thought like you do about not going another direction the Texans wouldn't have gotten Carr, and the Chargers wouldn't have gotten Brees and Rivers,and the Bengals wouldn't have gotten Palmer and Dalton. At least these teams knew not to stay with the mediocre players no matter how highly they were picked. The Jets are similar to the Redskins except worse. At least they kept trying different qbs and once their record was bad enough and they found the right draft they picked up RG3. The Jets just stick with a mediocre qb instead of moving on or even giving any of the backups a chance.


You say if we dont stick with Mark and bring up the past. You really cant bring up Clemens because he was only starting because of injury. He was never the starter. The one year he was going to be the starter it was given to Favre

Chad started from 2002-2007(other than injuries). Drafted 2000
Favre was never meant to be a franchise qb being brought in. Jets hope to get 2 or 3 years out of him and groom another qb. It didn't work out.

Chad was given 7 years of starting and was released due to injuries and management knew they had to go another direction.
Mark has had 4 full years without major injuries. If he was going to ever be accurate,consistent and good he would be there by now. He looks nearly as bad as he did when he came into the league with a few baby steps forward. No major improvements anywhere. Its more than poor management.

Its time to move on. The Jets screwed up big time taking a guy with one year of college experience. Id rather the Jets bench him or get rid of him and would rather have one really bad year and get a high draft pick and hope we can get a Luck, Dalton, Ryan, RG3,etc.... than keep having around .500 years every single year and just be far enough out of the qb picks slated to have a bright future than those picks with obvious question marks.

Mark was one of those question marks when he was drafted and the Jets had to trade up to get him. Like I said Id rather have a shitty year than hope there is an improbable draft with like a crap load of highly talented qbs.

[S-Dubb]

Mr_Jet, on 17 October 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

Look, I get the frustration with Sanchez. I do. But again I ask if we cleared out everybody, then what? Who is this great QB we're looking for and where is he and how do we get him? Those are the questions nobody has an answer too. And really have we really given Sanchez the tools to succeed? Inconsistency at the WR position every year. Not answering the RT question sooner when it was clear it was going to be a problem. Not firing Schottenheimer right after Rex became the HC. Now when somebody brings these things up they get accused of making excuses for Sanchez. Plus like I said last week, we can't even go into rebuilding mode right. If recent history is any indicator we're going exceed expectations in that rebuilding year. In the years we were expected to win 4 or 5 five games tops, we end up winning 9 or 10 games. So I don't even have faith we're going to be able to go into rebuilding mode right. We'll get rid of Tanny, Rex, and Sanchez after this season and then win like 10 games next season and go into the 2014 season with the hope of winning the Super Bowl that season.

See there are different layers to this Sanchez thing. There are the intricacies as to why he's been so bad. Most importantly poorly managed. I totally agree with anyone you thinks he's been poorly managed because he has. However are those excuses to keep him on this team as a starter? no their not. Tanny and Rex went after Sanchez and pursued him aggressively. So forever linked will be Rex, Tanny and Sanchez. Tanny messed up badly. Not saying Tanny is incompetent, perhaps he wanted to win so badly that he let he's greed get the best of him. The wheeling and dealing has kind of destroyed this team.

I'm not a guy that's scared to rebuild. Seems like that's all I've ever known. Win a few games, make a playoff run or 2 after 3-4 years we rebuild. This situation is nothing different. We had a new regime, they had a plan intact and it failed and yea it sucks but can't keep kicking a dead horse.

[Mr_Jet]

ROBJETS, on 18 October 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

I see your points but if you take out the visits to the playoffs and AFC Championship games and judge mark solely on his performance its pretty similar to Tim Couch stats wise.
http://espn.go.com/n.../1752/tim-couch

No you can't take out the playoffs appearances. If you're going to count the bad you have to count the good too. You can't slant the statics to the prove a point. If you're going to judge Sanchez at all you have to take the good with the bad a vice versa.

Quote

You say what have we had to look for in another qb? Not my job.Jets management get paid for that. All I know is he needs to go. Some teams stick with with qbs to long and the Jets are one of those teams.

No I asked WHO is this next QB and WHERE is he right now? I mean if it's Jets management that get paid to make those decision then one would think that they see first hand the problems this team has. And they probably know more than some fans on a message board on how severe the problems with this team are or aren't. So I trust their judgement more than my own because as you said THEY get paid to make these decisions. I highly doubt they are blind to the problems we see. You're right some teams stick with QBs too long like the 49ers with Alex Smith and some teams don't stick with their QBs long enough like the Chargers with Drew Brees. I'M NOT SAYING OUR SITUATION IS THE SAME AS THOSE, so let's be clear about that. I'm saying that you have to look at the entire canvas when it comes to this team's problems. Sanchez's inconsistent play is not our only problem and IMO it's not our biggest problem and not the reason we have trouble beating the better teams in the league. Now with Revis on IR for the rest of this season solving that problem just became a lot harder.

Quote

If all these teams would have thought like you do about not going another direction the Texans wouldn't have gotten Carr, and the Chargers wouldn't have gotten Brees and Rivers,and the Bengals wouldn't have gotten Palmer and Dalton. At least these teams knew not to stay with the mediocre players no matter how highly they were picked. The Jets are similar to the Redskins except worse. At least they kept trying different qbs and once their record was bad enough and they found the right draft they picked up RG3. The Jets just stick with a mediocre qb instead of moving on or even giving any of the backups a chance.

First of all I never once said we don't need to go in another direction when it comes to Sanchez. Never once said that. I've said this entire season it is still too early to tell. He's had good games and made some big plays. He has also had some bad games and some bone headed plays. I'm holding my judgement until we are more than halfway through the season. Now in regards to the Texans and David Carr they didn't go in a different direction when they got Carr because Carr was their first ever draft pick. They were an expansion team Carr's rookie season. Now Carr to Schaub is a different story. Now with Brees and the Chargers you're partially right. They had Doug Flutie and then drafted Brees to be their franchise QB in 2001. Then in 2003 the team wasn't playing well and they benched their franchise QB (Brees) and put Flutie back in then drafted a new franchise QB in 2004 with Eli/Rivers. How has all that worked out for the Chargers now almost 10 years later? Brees is in New Orleans with a Super Bowl ring and Rivers (though a good QB) just through away a 24-0 lead in 30 football minutes while now in his 9th season. The difference between the Jets and the Redskins since 2000 is the Redskins got there QBs through free agency which led them to have a QB carousel in the decade before RGIII. The Jets on the other hand have only drafted 3 QBs to be their franchise QB. Outside of a one shot deal with Favre, we didn't sign a QB solely to be our starting QB unlike the Redskins. What you call the Redskins trying different QBs I call a QB carousel.

Quote

You say if we dont stick with Mark and bring up the past. You really cant bring up Clemens because he was only starting because of injury. He was never the starter. The one year he was going to be the starter it was given to Favre

Not true about Clemens, he got his chance in 2007 and not because of injury. Pennington was not playing well in 2007 and was benched after the Jets were 1-7. Just like Pennington in 2002, Clemens was handed the reins in 2007 not because of injury but because the coach wanted to give our 2nd round pick and our QB of the future a shot at starter. But Clemens did not play well and showed no signs of ever being the answer in the future. If Clemens had even shown even a little sign of future promise in 2007, they would have never went after Favre 8 months later.

Quote

Chad started from 2002-2007(other than injuries). Drafted 2000
Favre was never meant to be a franchise qb being brought in. Jets hope to get 2 or 3 years out of him and groom another qb. It didn't work out.

With Favre I think we all knew it was a one shot deal. You could tell by his body language in that first press conference after the trade that he didn't want to be in New York. He wanted to be in Green Bay all along and if not there than with Minnesota to stick it to GB. Throughout that entire season even though we'd never say it out loud, I think we all knew in the back of our minds he was unhappy as a Jet and win or lose he was gone after 2008. We were either going to win the Super Bowl and he'd "retire" or we were not going to win the Super Bowl and he was going to "retire." Before they pulled the trigger Woody and Tanny both had to have known Favre didn't want to be a Jet and wasn't going to play more than one season with them. They figured if we get Favre and win the Super Bowl, that'll give us some time with fans and help us sell tickets and PSLs during our lean years afterwords. I know if the Jets had won the Super Bowl in 2008 I wouldn't have minded a few years of 3-13 seasons afterwords. I would've had that memory of that SB victory to hold on to. That's what Woody and Tanny were betting on.

Quote

Chad was given 7 years of starting and was released due to injuries and management knew they had to go another direction.
Mark has had 4 full years without major injuries. If he was going to ever be accurate,consistent and good he would be there by now. He looks nearly as bad as he did when he came into the league with a few baby steps forward. No major improvements anywhere. Its more than poor management.

Its time to move on. The Jets screwed up big time taking a guy with one year of college experience. Id rather the Jets bench him or get rid of him and would rather have one really bad year and get a high draft pick and hope we can get a Luck, Dalton, Ryan, RG3,etc.... than keep having around .500 years every single year and just be far enough out of the qb picks slated to have a bright future than those picks with obvious question marks.

Mark was one of those question marks when he was drafted and the Jets had to trade up to get him. Like I said Id rather have a shitty year than hope there is an improbable draft with like a crap load of highly talented qbs.

As I and many others have said many times before. Players like Luck and RGIII don't come along in every draft. Let's say we tank it right now and end up 3-13. We'd likely get the 1st or 2nd pick. Now tell me where in college football today is there an Andrew Luck or RGIII that will be there for us next April to draft? That's what I've been asking because some of you guys are acting like sure thing, franchise QBs grow on trees and are there for the picking in every draft. Luck is one of those players who could have came out a year earlier and been a number 1 pick. Maybe it's still too early in the college football season to see who could be a number 1 QB. But by this time in last year we already knew about Luck and were learning about RGIII. I definitely wouldn't start singing the praises of Andy Dalton just yet. He is still only in his second season right now. Matt Ryan has a better team or as Dubb would call it better "help" around him than Sanchez currently does. So I don't know if Ryan would have any more success on this Jets team than Sanchez has.

[Jetsfan0099]

None of those QBs have the playoff numbers that Mark has and none of those QBs had 32 TDs in a season. Sanchez has only 1 season where he threw more INTs than TDs, that was his rookie season. Those QBs throw more INTs every year.

[ROBJETS]

Mr_Jet, on 18 October 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

No you can't take out the playoffs appearances. If you're going to count the bad you have to count the good too. You can't slant the statics to the prove a point. If you're going to judge Sanchez at all you have to take the good with the bad a vice versa.

I'm just saying none of it had to do with Sanchez the Jets making it to the playoffs. mark hurt the team more than he helped them his first two season.Very similar to Grossman passing with the Bears. They had a top defense and top running game. Both the Bears and the Jets would have probably won the Super Bowl if they had even an average qb that was actually able to game manage. Sanchez hasn't yet proven that he can throw with any good team and put up high numbers.He never has except against bad teams. If you compare Marks numbers against the bad teams compared to his numbers against the good teams over his 4 year career you will see a tremendously huge difference This is why he is so inconsistent. He is good enough of a qb to beat most bad teams with his arm but not even a good enough qb to even manage a game against the good teams let alone win with his arm unless he has a top league defense and running game.Grossman turned the ball over a lot but he was capable of putting up high numbers. I personally think Sanchez is far worse than Grossman was.Either way both of them proved they couldn't lead their teams with their arms no matter who is worse.

Quote

No I asked WHO is this next QB and WHERE is he right now? I mean if it's Jets management that get paid to make those decision then one would think that they see first hand the problems this team has. And they probably know more than some fans on a message board on how severe the problems with this team are or aren't. So I trust their judgement more than my own because as you said THEY get paid to make these decisions. I highly doubt they are blind to the problems we see. You're right some teams stick with QBs too long like the 49ers with Alex Smith and some teams don't stick with their QBs long enough like the Chargers with Drew Brees. I'M NOT SAYING OUR SITUATION IS THE SAME AS THOSE, so let's be clear about that. I'm saying that you have to look at the entire canvas when it comes to this team's problems. Sanchez's inconsistent play is not our only problem and IMO it's not our biggest problem and not the reason we have trouble beating the better teams in the league. Now with Revis on IR for the rest of this season solving that problem just became a lot harder.

Honestly I dont watch enough college football to give you an answer and I'm not one to throw out names without actually seeing the talent myself. I grew up in Arizona and an Arizona fan and I dont get many of their games in Maryland. I'm not into college football enough to pay for it like I do with Sunday ticket and I dont really want to deal with crappy or lagging streams online. i have a top of the line tv and I want to watch every thing I can in 720 or 1080. If i cant I usually dont watch.

Quote

First of all I never once said we don't need to go in another direction when it comes to Sanchez. Never once said that. I've said this entire season it is still too early to tell. He's had good games and made some big plays. He has also had some bad games and some bone headed plays. I'm holding my judgement until we are more than halfway through the season. Now in regards to the Texans and David Carr they didn't go in a different direction when they got Carr because Carr was their first ever draft pick. They were an expansion team Carr's rookie season. Now Carr to Schaub is a different story. Now with Brees and the Chargers you're partially right. They had Doug Flutie and then drafted Brees to be their franchise QB in 2001. Then in 2003 the team wasn't playing well and they benched their franchise QB (Brees) and put Flutie back in then drafted a new franchise QB in 2004 with Eli/Rivers. How has all that worked out for the Chargers now almost 10 years later? Brees is in New Orleans with a Super Bowl ring and Rivers (though a good QB) just through away a 24-0 lead in 30 football minutes while now in his 9th season. The difference between the Jets and the Redskins since 2000 is the Redskins got there QBs through free agency which led them to have a QB carousel in the decade before RGIII. The Jets on the other hand have only drafted 3 QBs to be their franchise QB. Outside of a one shot deal with Favre, we didn't sign a QB solely to be our starting QB unlike the Redskins. What you call the Redskins trying different QBs I call a QB carousel.

For the record I meant Shaub not Carr.I'm pretty sure you probably figured that out.Id have to be a total moron to think Carr was anything. They sucked with Carr. Carr was a total bust. That was just a typing error.As far as Flutie ...he played pretty well at times but he was more of a Tebow type player than a legit qb.Meaning he was exciting for the fans and sold seats and made news but definitely not a franchise qb.As far as Rivers and Brees...Brees was playing after Rivers was drafted but apparently they just wanted Rivers as their starter. Personally I thought Brees was good in SD. This was a head scratcher. Maybe Brees had a bad attitude who knows.As far as that game being blown I put that all on Schotty. I still dont know why they have kept him around. He makes a lot of bad decisions over the years yet he is still there. The Chargers were playing good defense. They should have stuck with short passes and running the ball the whole second half or at least the whole fourth quarter. The Broncos would have been able to come back without Brees throwing those stupid long bombs that led to interceptions. Not sure why they went with those plays. Bad coaching

Quote

Not true about Clemens, he got his chance in 2007 and not because of injury. Pennington was not playing well in 2007 and was benched after the Jets were 1-7. Just like Pennington in 2002, Clemens was handed the reins in 2007 not because of injury but because the coach wanted to give our 2nd round pick and our QB of the future a shot at starter. But Clemens did not play well and showed no signs of ever being the answer in the future. If Clemens had even shown even a little sign of future promise in 2007, they would have never went after Favre 8 months later.

The Jets had a really crappy offense line in 07. It was far worse than last year when Hunter was getting Sanchez hit.The whole line was breaking down. Whether Clemens had it or not you cant judge a qb if they are under intense pressure on 99% of the plays ever game.Clemens may not have been a legit starter but that isnt a fair shot. He could of done no less than Sanchez or any other qb could have done with the running game and oline the team had in 09-10.

[Mr_Jet]

ROBJETS, on 19 October 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

I'm just saying none of it had to do with Sanchez the Jets making it to the playoffs. mark hurt the team more than he helped them his first two season.Very similar to Grossman passing with the Bears. They had a top defense and top running game. Both the Bears and the Jets would have probably won the Super Bowl if they had even an average qb that was actually able to game manage. Sanchez hasn't yet proven that he can throw with any good team and put up high numbers.He never has except against bad teams. If you compare Marks numbers against the bad teams compared to his numbers against the good teams over his 4 year career you will see a tremendously huge difference This is why he is so inconsistent. He is good enough of a qb to beat most bad teams with his arm but not even a good enough qb to even manage a game against the good teams let alone win with his arm unless he has a top league defense and running game.Grossman turned the ball over a lot but he was capable of putting up high numbers. I personally think Sanchez is far worse than Grossman was.Either way both of them proved they couldn't lead their teams with their arms no matter who is worse.

Football is a team sport as we all know and the idea that Sanchez had nothing to do with the success had in 2009 and 2010 is factually untrue. He was the one throwing the ball. He was the one making the reads. He was the one that took the ball when it was snapped at the very beginning of each play. They weren't playing 10 on 11 out there. Now you can argue that he wasn't good and didn't meet your standards of how a rookie and 2nd year QB should play, but you can't argue that he wasn't a part of the team and didn't contribute to the team's success those seasons.


Jets comeback playoff win against the Colts:

CLT 30 Pat McAfee kicks off 71 yards, returned by Antonio Cromartie for 47 yards (tackle by Taj Smith)
NYJ 46 Mark Sanchez pass complete short right to Braylon Edwards for 9 yards (tackle by Antoine Bethea). Braylon Edwards fumbles (forced by Antoine Bethea), recovered by Braylon Edwards at IND-45
CLT 45 Mark Sanchez pass complete short left to Santonio Holmes for 11 yards (tackle by Justin Tryon)
CLT 34 LaDainian Tomlinson up the middle for 2 yards (tackle by Eric Foster)
CLT 32 Mark Sanchez pass complete deep right to Braylon Edwards for 18 yards (tackle by Jacob Lacey)
CLT 14 Nick Folk 32 yard field goal good


Who was the one passing that ball? It wasn't nobody. The Jets weren't playing with 10 players during that series.

Quote

For the record I meant Shaub not Carr.I'm pretty sure you probably figured that out.Id have to be a total moron to think Carr was anything. They sucked with Carr. Carr was a total bust. That was just a typing error.As far as Flutie ...he played pretty well at times but he was more of a Tebow type player than a legit qb.Meaning he was exciting for the fans and sold seats and made news but definitely not a franchise qb.As far as Rivers and Brees...Brees was playing after Rivers was drafted but apparently they just wanted Rivers as their starter. Personally I thought Brees was good in SD. This was a head scratcher. Maybe Brees had a bad attitude who knows.As far as that game being blown I put that all on Schotty. I still dont know why they have kept him around. He makes a lot of bad decisions over the years yet he is still there. The Chargers were playing good defense. They should have stuck with short passes and running the ball the whole second half or at least the whole fourth quarter. The Broncos would have been able to come back without Brees throwing those stupid long bombs that led to interceptions. Not sure why they went with those plays. Bad coaching

I can argue Carr was a bust because he was a rookie QB starting on an expansion team. I've never heard of a rookie QB having success with an expansion team. After a while because he was sacked so much in Houston, Carr started hearing footsteps and feeling pressure that wasn't even there. He never had a chance to develop. With the Chargers the fact still remains that they drafted Brees to be their franchise QB, benched Flutie and named Brees the starter. Then when they weren't playing well in 2003 they benched Brees and put Flutie back in then drafted a new franchise QB just 3 years after drafting Brees. The Chargers never gave Brees time and in the end it came back to bite them in the ass.

Quote

The Jets had a really crappy offense line in 07. It was far worse than last year when Hunter was getting Sanchez hit.The whole line was breaking down. Whether Clemens had it or not you cant judge a qb if they are under intense pressure on 99% of the plays ever game.Clemens may not have been a legit starter but that isnt a fair shot. He could of done no less than Sanchez or any other qb could have done with the running game and oline the team had in 09-10.

Clemens had his shots and it's as simple as that. Rex named Clemens the starter before training camp opened in 2009. If Clemens who in 2009 had three years on Sanchez had truly been the better QB he would have beaten Sanchez out for the job. So not only did he get his shot in 2007 but before the trade for Favre, he was going to have to compete with Pennington in camp in 2008 and there was even talk about Brett Ratliff getting in the competition. Then in 2009 he couldn't even beat out a rookie who only started for one season in college. No if Clemens had been the starter in 2009 or 2010 this team would not have gone to the playoffs. Clemens could not move in the pocket and had happy feet.