Discussion in 'NFL Football Forum' started by Deus Irae, Dec 18, 2009.
Sunday's Starter (No Surprise) Is Sanchez
i agree with the sentiment of the thread. i think the jets would be better with Clemens at QB after he gets a couple of games and a few weeks of practice as starter under his belt.
but the jets believe that the sanchize is the QB of their future and that any growing pains he goes through this year will be to their longer term advantage.
from what i've seen of him, my own layman's view is that he will be at best a solid/good NFL QB and that they will need to rely on a punishing running game and great D if they're going to have any hopes of going long in the postseason in the sanchez era.
more than sanchez i think its their OC who wants to showcase sanchez throw the ball for some reason even when they can run the ball effectively. our own oc has issues but the jets OC isnt any smart either.maybe its directions from the owner to showcase the franchise to sell PSL's.
It may be better for this year to let Clemens take the reins, but once they decided to start the year with Sanchez it made it very difficult to pull him. Young QBs can have fragile psyches and that might set him back a bit and make him tighten up when he plays.
If they'd started the year with Clemens, then it's easier to go to the rookie later if the season falls apart. Less pressure, more time to learn.
The Jets now rely on defense and Jones running.
With the potential of Matt Ryan and Michael Turner out this weekend, I don't know if Atlanta will have the offense to capitalize on all of Sanchez's picks this weekend.
In retrospect, it seems like starting Sanchez was a poor decision. They may have done more to hurt his confidence than develop it. Obviously with a rookie QB the jury is still out, but I think they're better off with Clemens as the starter. Sucks for them because Clemens isn't going to score a lot of points, either.
I'm with you, in that I don't think that Clemens is the answer. I just think that it's not likely Sanchez can go 3 games without giving at least one of them away at this point in his career..
The Jets should win this week because next week they don't have a chance in hell.
This weeks game isn't a gimme even if Sanchize wasn't playing because Mat Ryan and Michael Turner practiced on a limited baises yesterday which was surprising to say the least..
I don't see how the experience would do anything to hurt Sanchez. Peyton Manning has said that being able to start his rookie year (with a 3-13 record, 71.2 rating) was a big help.
David Carr certainly wasn't helped by it.
It also didn't help he didn't have an offensive line..
Haha fair enough Deus... but my point is if it doesn't help, I don't see how it could hurt. If someone's psyche is fragile enough that one bad season will ruin his career, he's not cut out to be a QB in this league in the first place.
They came within a field goal of New Orleans last week, so it's not like they have no shot against the Jets. Frankly, I expect Atlanta to win.
There are a lot more David Carrs, Tim Couches, Alex Smiths, Akili Smiths, Ryan Leafs, Joey Harringtons, etc. etc. than there are Peyton Mannings and Ben Roethlisbergers. The numbers definitely support the idea that starting too early can damage your rookie QBs, *especially* when they only have one year of college starting experience under their belts. Every single one of those guys had the physical talent to be an NFL all-pro, that's why they were drafted so high. Of course a lot of them would have busted no matter what, but the disparity is very striking nonetheless.
If you want to start a debate about whether it's better to start QBs right away vs. sit them at first, acknowledging the merits and downsides of each position, then there's a lot of directions that that could go in (FWIW, I'm firmly in favor of more slowly acclimating QBs to the pro game). But to suggest that there is no potential downside at all to the 'start him right away' method is simply wrong.
Maybe those guys just weren't cut out for the NFL? There's no proof any of them would have suddenly been great QB's had they sat and learned for the first year. Most rookies should come with reduced expectations (if the Jets and their fans were banking on Sanchez having a great first season and a deep playoff run they need to lower their expectations bottom line). Unless you're Lebron James, Tim Duncan, Sydney Crosby, etc it should be understood that a poor rookie season isn't the end of the world. Believe me I'd love to join in the Jet bashing and criticize them for starting Sanchez too early also but I just don't see how getting real time NFL experience is a bad thing for any young player.
I hope the flash cards are big enough for him to see them.
I said the same thing in my post, so I'm not sure what new ground you're trying to break here...
Post-by-post, you're moving the goalposts by about a mile. you previously said that you didn't see how starting Sanchez as a rookie could hurt him in the long term. AKA there's no conceivable downside. AKA you look at the laundry list of failed first-round QBs, all of which were blessed with enormous talent, and you conclude that there's no way that any of that could have been the product of starting too early?
When you look at the fact that the vast majority of all-pro QBs *didn't* start as rookies, and a disproportionate number of flameouts did, both must be a coincidence? That's ridiculous
Agree with the first part, not so much with the second. For quarterbacks, having a rookie season as bad as what Sanchez has had does not bode well at all. Very, very few QBs recover from this bad of a start and go on to become all-pro caliber players. His rookie year has been Cade McNown-esque; the only reason people are still so gung-ho about him is that he's playing in NY. They want him to be good, and they'll ignore the fact that he's shown nothing as a rookie as long as humanly possible.
Someone on this board did a detailed breakdown that I'll have to try to dig up and re-post with proper attribution, because it gave an extraordinarily compelling case. And even then, we're talking about the relative weighting of the upsides versus downsides of to start or not to start.
What you're arguing is something totally different, which is that there is no conceivable downside to starting a player before he's ready. That's an absurd argument, and I'd be legitimately surprised if you could find a single NFL coach who agrees with you. Many might say that on the whole it's better to do it than not do it, but I highly doubt that any will say that there is no risk whatsoever.
Why would someone make up a big compelling case about this lol. It's purely psychological within the player. What else, would every defense in the league figure the QB out in 1 season and that's it? Like I said, if someone's psyche is fragile enough that one bad season kills his confidence completely rather than inspiring him to work on his weaknesses, he's probably not NFL QB material. I'm not going to argue with NFL coaches saying they'd rather sit the QB and make him learn, all I'm saying is if they do make the 'mistake' of starting him too early, whatever psychological downside there is shouldn't outweigh the positives of building the experience and kill his career like people are suggesting it will to Sanchez.
Pure conjecture. Not supported by either evidence or any prevailing line of thought among professionals. Just an opinion on my hard, but I think you severely underestimate the role that confidence, knowing what he's doing wrong when he makes mistakes, and reinforcement of good mechanics vs. bad has to do with forming a player.
Guys coming in from college aren't even close to finished products. There are many, many cases, for example, of QBs who come into the league and immediately start behind crappy offensive lines have their internal clocks and confidence permanently ruined, on a fundamental, mechanical level. They never get comfortable standing back in the pocket, planting, confidently looking downfield and throwing, because in all of their in-game experience, that isn't even an option. They know that if they try they'll get drilled. For that reason alone, there are plenty of coaches who won't start their young QBs behind crappy lines.
That's a completely different point than what you originally made. There's a huge difference between saying there are no downsides and saying that those downsides are outweighed by the positives. I still disagree with you, but now you have an arguable point.
it's funny how anyone here thinks there's some kind of pattern to a great qb.
hm..maybe he shoulda waited a year and waited for an injury to the starter.
orrr sit behind an avg-solid nfl starter for a few years..or perhaps a legend?
nah let's let him roll around on a few teams and go dominate the north for a little while....maybe even bagging some groceries for extra hand eye coordination?
if you're great you find a way
They also have to play @Indy - who is shooting for perfection.
The Jets are nothing more than a tease - one minute they're the darlings of the sports world, the next the stinkers of the sports world.
Rememer that 1986 team, which started 10-1, and then fell back to the pack? Although to be fair, they lost 3/4 of their DL. Even Pittsburgh's MARK MALONE lit them up.
So coaching, player development, and how you bring guys along doesn't matter? If they're good, they'll become good, and if they're not they won't? You should probably inform all 32 NFL franchises that they no longer need to employ position coaches, then, since there's apparently no need for them. I'm sure they'll be psyched at the chance to save money.
Given the NY media fishbowl and the hype and unreal expectations, this guy is doomed
Based on what's been said elsewhere here, experience seems to suggest that it's the rare player who can put up a bad first season and turn into a franchise QB.
The thing that surprised me most when the Jets decided to put so much on the line for this guy (first round pick, some trades, willing to sacrifice a season to get him ready) was that they would bet so heavily on a guy who had a history of injuries, who only had 13 NCAA starts under his belt and of whom Pete Carroll said that he needed another season at the college level (yes, Pete had ulterior motives for that statement, but he generally puts the welfare of his players first).
I live in NYC and unfortunately watch Sanchez a lot and listen to the tabloid mediots talk about him. No one seems really sold on him, but they realize that the Jets have invested so much in him that they look for reasons to like him and say all the right things, though without a lot of enthusiasm.
IMHO, Sanchez is just another in a long line of mistakes by Jets management and ownership; in this case, it will probably cost the franchise a good five years to undo the damage and move on.
Now, he's coming to the end of his first season as the brunt of a lot of jokes and with braces on both of his knees. I agree with those who argue that playing him tomorrow in what will be a very cold and wind-swept stadium, with snow swirling around if not falling, is probably a big mistake. The risk of further injury or a really bad, demoralizing game is pretty high.
As a Pats fan and Jests hater, I'm happy about that. But, on another level, it's a source of constant dismay to a fan of the history of the NFL that a franchise built by Weeb Ewbank and Joe Namath has fallen into such disarray not to mention into the hands of an owner as clueless as Woody ("Is the ball still stuffed with feathers?") Johnson.
I wanted Clemmens to start the season, and if he was not cutting it to bring Sanchez in around week 6 or 8, that was my ideal situation to see Sanchez watch and learn from the sidelines.
I am a fan of Clemmens, us both being born and raised in OR and having spent a small amount of time with some of his family. Problem is he is apparently the suck, Clemmens had his chance to win the starting spot with 3 years experience in Schottys system and going up against a rook and he failed.
I am not a big X's and O's guy but to me Sanchez seems to be a better more polished QB then Clemmens and I think gives the Jets a better shot at winning.
With an elite #1 Defense and a border line elite O line and rushing game, all the Jets QB needs to do is hand off the ball and limit turnovers. Both Sanchez and Clemmens are capable of that.
well...yes. it's a combination of something more complex and layered than absolutes. The reason the Rothlesbergers, the Palmers, the Mannings (both) exist is because the team had to take that risk on them. Does Brett Favre become the QB he is now had the Jets drafted him? Would he eventually find the field again like Testeverde, Flutie, and Gannon did?
How would a rookie Tom Brady fare starting from day one? Does it sabotage a future Dynasty?
This is my take on em; the Jets aren't a better team when Clemens is in the lineup. The best player plays period, Sanchez is better than Clemens and the Jets are a better team with Clemens on the bench.
He's a high risk/reward player. But the Jets defense is strong enough to sustain probably 2 turnovers (guess). If he can limit it to that then the Jets win big time...they become a better team now and their franchise qb gets 'XP' points.
Pro-football-reference.com blog Random trivia
Separate names with a comma.