|
Arguments as to why we will see the 2009 week 10s Mark Sanchez instead of week 2s
We all know that Mark Sanchez has been struggling so far this year,but in last year's meetings with the young QB against the Pats we saw a very promising QB of the future in week 2 of 2009 almost outplaying Brady in that 16-9 victory with an outstanding 101 rating,then in week 10 we saw a very different almost insecure version of the same guy who got burned for 4 INTs and a 38 QB rating
Sanchez had a below average start to his career but he did have a Jeckyl and Hyde year where he looked decent one week and horrid the next Last years games vs the Patriots Week 2 - 14 of 22 passing for 163 Yards and a 101.1 QB Rating - 1 TD and ZERO INTs - He was calm and cool especially for a rookie,made no mistakes and was very comfortable in control of his offense,looked at that time like the Jets may have found thier QB of the future and possibly rookie of the year Week 10 - 8 of 21 passing for 136 Yards and a 38.1 QB Rating - 1 TD and 4 INTs - He was extremely poor in his decisions and was forcing throws into tight coverage and looked like he was not ready for the NFL What is your argument as to why we will see the 2009 Week 10s version of Mr Sanchez and not the 2009 Week 2 version? |
Re: Arguments as to why we will see the 2009 week 10s Mark Sanchez instead of week 2s
My argument would be that at that time, no one had much tape on Sanchez. As people learn more about him and his weaknesses, it's easier to break him down.
The other reason we were able to limit him more in the second game is our offense was MUCH better, which meant he had to do more. If he can manage a game, he can be average. If he has to win it for you, he's terrible. Now why did our offense do so much better the second game? Two words: Wes Welker. |
Re: Arguments as to why we will see the 2009 week 10s Mark Sanchez instead of week 2s
Quote:
It's was Brady's second game back from injury and the Jets plan was to blitz the hell out of him before he had full confidence in his repaired knee. They signed KOC the week before the game and passed him from room to room among coaching staff to get the calls etc. Either the jets knew the calls or the Pats had to change them all with a few days notice, a sure fire way to have mix-ups. |
Re: Arguments as to why we will see the 2009 week 10s Mark Sanchez instead of week 2s
I fully expect a score closer to week 2 last season of 16-9 in this upcoming game than a 38-14 pounding from week 10 ..this game will be another hard hitter.
I don't think too many teams will be putting up 30 points on this Jets defense,even with an offense like ours which appears strong in most areas,Brady will not have the time he had last sunday,he will need to choose quickly before he gets killed because you know Rex is bringing the front 7 and the back 4 on blitzes all game long. I think the difference makers in this game will be Tate and Edelman who hopefully will play,I think Rex is planning on taking out Moss which he did both games last year and will keep it tight on Welker in the slot. |
Re: Arguments as to why we will see the 2009 week 10s Mark Sanchez instead of week 2s
Quote:
|
Re: Arguments as to why we will see the 2009 week 10s Mark Sanchez instead of week 2s
I would go with what the other posters have said. It wasn't so much that Sanchez was great the first time out (he actually scored about the same, true?), it was that we were the "not ready for prime time" team. I remember thinking Brady looked scared before that game when Welker was a game time scratch, and Brady couldn't get anything going. He was getting killed and looked timid all game. He's looked "on" both preseason and last week, so I expect a score somewhere around 24 from us, even with the Jets great D, and somewhere around the 14-16 range for the Jets, again. Don't forget, the Jets haven't seen our 3 tight end attack, and Flacco to Boldin (or Mason) is no Brady to Moss (or Welker).
|
Re: Arguments as to why we will see the 2009 week 10s Mark Sanchez instead of week 2s
Quote:
|
Re: Arguments as to why we will see the 2009 week 10s Mark Sanchez instead of week 2s
What Sanchez had in week 2 last year:
- Never down by more than 6 points - Leon Washington returning kicks (37, 40, 43 yd returns) - Hanson punting for the Pats...just horrible - AD, Woods, Burgess, Springs on defense (no Mayo) What Sanchez will face on Sunday: - Pats offense at full strength, including Brady/Welker...pressure to score - Leon Washington is not walking through that door - Neither is Hanson (thank God!) - Healthy Mayo, experienced Butler/Chung, faster and more aggressive pass defense |
Re: Arguments as to why we will see the 2009 week 10s Mark Sanchez instead of week 2s
Quote:
Second, I think the Jets' running game was better last year than this year. Shonn Greene has not shown in the preseason or the first game that he can be "The Guy" like Thomas Jones. Tomlinson has played well, but he doesn't fit into the "Ground and Pound" Jets philosophy enough to be a lead back. Third, the Pats offense is likely to force Sanchez to throw like he did in week 10 last year more than week 2 last year. The Pats couldn't score in week 2 which meant that they never asked Sanchez to carry the offense. They asked him to do it in week 10 and Sanchez turned the ball over 5 times. |
Re: Arguments as to why we will see the 2009 week 10s Mark Sanchez instead of week 2s
Quote:
I would say that too. If the Pats lose this game, it should be because they couldn't score more than 14 points on the Jets. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 © Copyright 2000-2012. PatsFans.com Is a Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties. This site is owned and operated by I&K Internet Design Enterprises, LLC
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
The opinions posted in this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of our staff at PatsFans.com or USA Today.
We are not affiliated with the New England Patriots™ or the NFL™. The Photo Used In the header was taken by Ian Logue.