No Haynesworth against the G-Men [edit: Pats and Jets fans discuss Sanchez]

[Rob0729]

Re: No Haynesworth against the G-Men

I think this whole thing is overblown. Yes, it would have been good for Haynesworth to get in a game or two, but it isn't neccessary. He is a DT with nearly a decade worth of experience. What he will do here is not much different than what he did in Washington and Tennessee. It isn't like a WR coming in who has to learn new routes, presnap reads and route adjustments, and getting timing with the Qb. A DT either tie up blockers for other plays or try to penetrate the o-line and make plays himself.

The only place I can see there being a potential problem is if he is two gapping, the ILB or MLB needs to get a little continuity on his tendencies on where he is going to open the gap. Not nearly as big of a deal as other positions have, but with both Spikes and Fletcher out the last couple of weeks it wouldn't have made much of a difference anyway.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Re: No Haynesworth against the G-Men

I think this whole thing is overblown. Yes, it would have been good for Haynesworth to get in a game or two, but it isn't neccessary. He is a DT with nearly a decade worth of experience. What he will do here is not much different than what he did in Washington and Tennessee. It isn't like a WR coming in who has to learn new routes, presnap reads and route adjustments, and getting timing with the Qb. A DT either tie up blockers for other plays or try to penetrate the o-line and make plays himself.

The only place I can see there being a potential problem is if he is two gapping, the ILB or MLB needs to get a little continuity on his tendencies on where he is going to open the gap. Not nearly as big of a deal as other positions have, but with both Spikes and Fletcher out the last couple of weeks it wouldn't have made much of a difference anyway.

I believe that it is unusual for a NEW defensive player to miss all of preseason as Belichick likes to instill his complex defensive schemes early to get the player acclimated to being a Patriots defender......HOWEVER

The difference in the situation with Haynesworth IMO is that BB has one thing in mind for this guy...its not as much to be a tackling machine or big on stopping the run,but more of simple HEAVY Pass Rush pressure and to Maul the opposing QB as much as possible...that you do not need to train,just be a beast and get to the QB and make him pay dearly...thats the reason Haynesworth is here for and you don't need a course in destroying the passer,Albert already knows how to.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: No Haynesworth against the G-Men

I believe that it is unusual for a NEW defensive player to miss all of preseason as Belichick likes to instill his complex defensive schemes early to get the player acclimated to being a Patriots defender......HOWEVER

The difference in the situation with Haynesworth IMO is that BB has one thing in mind for this guy...its not as much to be a tackling machine or big on stopping the run,but more of simple HEAVY Pass Rush pressure and to Maul the opposing QB as much as possible...that you do not need to train,just be a beast and get to the QB and make him pay dearly...thats the reason Haynesworth is here for and you don't need a course in destroying the passer,Albert already knows how to.

Other positions it is tough for a new player to step in. It isn't as unusual for a DT to step in this system and play without a preseason game. Ted Washington was traded to the Patriots on August 20, 2003 and didn't play in the preseason and made an immediate impact. Granted he falls into the category of having a special role, but he had zero 3-4 NT experience prior to August 20, 2003.

 

[spacecrime]

Re: No Haynesworth against the G-Men

I wonder if he will have some rust against the Dolphins though.

How would rust show itself on a guy whose job it is to push hard for 5 feet each play?

I mean, how could you tell if a big DLinesman was rusty?

 

[spacecrime]

Re: No Haynesworth against the G-Men

I think this whole thing is overblown. Yes, it would have been good for Haynesworth to get in a game or two, but it isn't neccessary. He is a DT with nearly a decade worth of experience. What he will do here is not much different than what he did in Washington and Tennessee. It isn't like a WR coming in who has to learn new routes, presnap reads and route adjustments, and getting timing with the Qb. A DT either tie up blockers for other plays or try to penetrate the o-line and make plays himself.

Exact-a-mundo

 

[JetFan1]

Re: No Haynesworth against the G-Men

The problem with Sanchez is his consistency. He can be horrible for 3 1/2 quarters (which happens too frequently) and then come through in a clutch late in the fourth. He makes way too many mistakes and he was lucky last year in that department because he had a league high 13 dropped INTs which is I think double than the #2 guy in that category.

I also think his playoff performances have been overrated. He has had great games, good games, and mediocre games in the playoffs.

Sanchez is good enough to win as long as the Jets have a top defense. When the team needs him to step up his game and win the game for himself, he has yet to prove it with any consistency. The Jets don't need an elite QB as long as their defense is a top defense though.

The Jets defense declined last year from the year before. If that decline continues and at a more significant rate, Sanchez might become a liability. If the defense is the same or better, I think Sanchez won't get exposed.

Sanchez has been inconsistent during the regular season, most rookie and 2nd year QB's are, all the great ones of the game of yesterday and today did the same.

But to suggest his playoff performances are overrated is typical Patriot fan BS spinning, it's because he's performed his best during the playoffs that you even suggest it. His performance in the playoffs last year was that of what a franchise QB should perform, playing against elite competition at the peak of the season, and he delivered. You can also point back to his performances during the season in the games he lead late-in-the-game drives to win the game from behind.

Those games alone are a mark of a good QB who has the upside to be elite, he's not there yet, and no Jets fan has said this, not any Jets fan that has a clue, and it's equally as clueless and ignorant to suggest Sanchez has been overrated in the post-season or can never become a QB to the level Brady has or others like him.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: No Haynesworth against the G-Men

Sanchez has been inconsistent during the regular season, most rookie and 2nd year QB's are, all the great ones of the game of yesterday and today did the same.

But to suggest his playoff performances are overrated is typical Patriot fan BS spinning, it's because he's performed his best during the playoffs that you even suggest it. His performance in the playoffs last year was that of what a franchise QB should perform, playing against elite competition at the peak of the season, and he delivered. You can also point back to his performances during the season in the games he lead late-in-the-game drives to win the game from behind.

Those games alone are a mark of a good QB who has the upside to be elite, he's not there yet, and no Jets fan has said this, not any Jets fan that has a clue, and it's equally as clueless and ignorant to suggest Sanchez has been overrated in the post-season or can never become a QB to the level Brady has or others like him.

Since you didn't act like a pentuate child, I will respond.

Sanchez was wildly inconsistent in the playoffs last year. Let's look at his games last year:

- He sucked the first half of the Steelers' game. He had a good second half, but that was after the Steelers amassed a 24-3 lead in the first half and were protecting the lead in the second.
-Against the Colts, he was a mediocre 18 for 31 for 189 yards with no TDs and 1 INT.
- He had a great game vs. the Pats completing 16 for 24 for 194 yards, 3 TDs, and 0 INTs.

So out of three games, Sanchez had 1 1/2 good games and 1 1/2 bad games. Of course that is just Patriots spin. The defense won the Colts' game holding the Colts to 16 points along with a great running game. Both overcame a poor performance by Sanchez in that game. The entire Jets team sucked in the first half vs. the Steelers, but Sanchez's completion percentage was about 50% in that half if I remember.

Yes, Sanchez's playoff performances have been overrated. He is sometimes great. He is sometimes good. And sometimes he is mediocre.

As for his upside, I don't think he will ever be elite because his decision making sucks. I don't know whether he cannot see the field or he doesn't make good decisions, but he makes a lot of bad choices and we have seen nothing in the preseason that has shown he has improved in that area. He is likely to continue to have a below 60% completion percentage possibly for his entire career.

 

[JetFan1]

Re: No Haynesworth against the G-Men

Since you didn't act like a pentuate child, I will respond.

Sanchez was wildly inconsistent in the playoffs last year. Let's look at his games last year:

- He sucked the first half of the Steelers' game. He had a good second half, but that was after the Steelers amassed a 24-3 lead in the first half and were protecting the lead in the second.
-Against the Colts, he was a mediocre 18 for 31 for 189 yards with no TDs and 1 INT.
- He had a great game vs. the Pats completing 16 for 24 for 194 yards, 3 TDs, and 0 INTs.

Really, while you're at it, why not break down play by play to determine consistency. You're nitpicking, and it's funny you pick out the Steelers game as the mark of evaluation, when he played two very good games before that against the Colts and the Steelers.

So out of three games, Sanchez had 1 1/2 good games and 1 1/2 bad games. Of course that is just Patriots spin. The defense won the Colts' game holding the Colts to 16 points along with a great running game. Both overcame a poor performance by Sanchez in that game. The entire Jets team sucked in the first half vs. the Steelers, but Sanchez's completion percentage was about 50% in that half if I remember.

Yes, Sanchez's playoff performances have been overrated. He is sometimes great. He is sometimes good. And sometimes he is mediocre.

As for his upside, I don't think he will ever be elite because his decision making sucks. I don't know whether he cannot see the field or he doesn't make good decisions, but he makes a lot of bad choices and we have seen nothing in the preseason that has shown he has improved in that area. He is likely to continue to have a below 60% completion percentage possibly for his entire career.

He was the 3rd highest rated QB in the playoffs last year, he had nearly 700 yds passing, 5 TD's, and 1 INT, with a QB rating of near 100.

By comparison, how has Brady performed in his last 3 playoff games, it would be interesting to see if you would be willing to break down a very similar comparison. I can save you the trouble and remind you that he was awful against the Jets last year, awful against the Ravens the year before, and wasn't that great in the Super Bowl in 2008. And this was at Brady's peak in terms of his development and his career, in Sanchez, we are talking about a two year NFL player.

In the playoffs, all QB's are facing the best teams, the best defenses, obviously they are facing their stiffest challenges and toughest competition, You're trying too hard to downplay Sanchez' performance.

As for his decision making and not ever becoming elite, now you're just being a homer, his decision making has improved between his rookie year and his second year. He has already looked that much better this pre-season than in his first two years during the pre-season. By virtue of his physical and mental maturation at the NFL level he will improve, you've resided to hate and hope that he doesn't progress, that's lame.

Tom Moore, former Indy OC who worked with Manning for most of his career, and is now an assistant with the Jets, and has far better credentials than you or any of us has said Sanchez is just as talented, and has just as much potential as Manning did after his second year. That doesn't mean he will ever get there, but it surely means a lot more than you're giving him credit for.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: No Haynesworth against the G-Men

Really, while you're at it, why not break down play by play to determine consistency. You're nitpicking, and it's funny you pick out the Steelers game as the mark of evaluation, when he played two very good games before that against the Colts and the Steelers.

He had a very good game vs. the Colts?!? He completed 58.1% of his passes, had under 200 yards passing, and no TDs vs. 1 INT.



He was the 3rd highest rated QB in the playoffs last year, he had nearly 700 yds passing, 5 TD's, and 1 INT, with a QB rating of near 100.

By comparison, how has Brady performed in his last 3 playoff games, it would be interesting to see if you would be willing to break down a very similar comparison. I can save you the trouble and remind you that he was awful against the Jets last year, awful against the Ravens the year before, and wasn't that great in the Super Bowl in 2008.

In the playoffs, all QB's are facing the best teams, the best defenses, obviously they are facing their stiffest challenges and toughest competition, You're trying to hard to downplay Sanchez' performance.

Brady is an established elite QB. He has three Super Bowl rings, two MVP titles, and broken the single season TD record. He has nothing to prove.

The whole "last three playoff games" thing is a go to red herring that Jets fans like to bring up. Since as you pointed out, that one of those last three playoff games was a Super Bowl appearance, maybe we should compare the two QBs' stats in Super Bowls or how about comparing their AFC Championship records (4-1 vs 0-2 BTW). I can throw out red herrings that have nothing to do with the subject too.

Again, Sanchez's aggregated stats are good because he had one terrific game and some good stats in garbage time. Why not discuss each individual game like I did?


I am not trying very hard to downplay Sanchez' performances, I am using basic facts and stats. Once again, you brought little to the conversation to counter my argument other than allegations of homerism and the "Yeah, but whatabout Brady" defense. Challenge my claims on their merits rather than just turn everything into a referendum on my "homerism" and "clowndom". You might be behaving nicer on this board, but you still bring Little substance to your arguments. You had six paragraphs and only one sentence actually addressed my argument.

 

[JetFan1]

Re: No Haynesworth against the G-Men

He had a very good game vs. the Colts?!? He completed 58.1% of his passes, had under 200 yards passing, and no TDs vs. 1 INT.



He was the 3rd highest rated QB in the playoffs last year, he had nearly 700 yds passing, 5 TD's, and 1 INT, with a QB rating of near 100.



Brady is an established elite QB. He has three Super Bowl rings, two MVP titles, and broken the single season TD record. He has nothing to prove.

The whole "last three playoff games" thing is a go to red herring that Jets fans like to bring up. Since as you pointed out, that one of those last three playoff games was a Super Bowl appearance, maybe we should compare the two QBs' stats in Super Bowls or how about comparing their AFC Championship records (4-1 vs 0-2 BTW). I can throw out red herrings that have nothing to do with the subject too.

Again, Sanchez's aggregated stats are good because he had one terrific game and some good stats in garbage time. Why not discuss each individual game like I did?


I am not trying very hard to downplay Sanchez' performances, I am using basic facts and stats. Once again, you brought nothing to the conversation to counter my argument other than allegations of homerism and the "Yeah, but whatabout Brady" defense. Challenge my claims on their merits rather than just turn everything into a referendum on my "homerism" and "clowndom". You might be behaving nicer on this board, but you still bring no substance to your arguments.

Yeah, I didn't think you would want to bring up those performances, that is weak and lame, and completely discredits your opinion on the topic.

You can comment on Sanchez' playoff performance with a fine toothpick and comb, and downplay his performance as a 24 year old QB only completing two years in the NFL, but you don't even want to touch a comparison with Brady over a similar 3 game performance game-span, as an elite, well established future HOF QB because the comparison doesn't fit your spin and your agenda as Sanchez has outperformed him. These are the facts, the stats are there for you to see, you just don't want to touch them, and instead, would prefer to weasel out using the spin that it's a "red herring."

I'm bringing plenty of substance, it just doesn't fit your agenda.

Lame!

 

[strngplyr]

Re: No Haynesworth against the G-Men

Really, while you're at it, why not break down play by play to determine consistency. You're nitpicking, and it's funny you pick out the Steelers game as the mark of evaluation, when he played two very good games before that against the Colts and the Steelers.



He was the 3rd highest rated QB in the playoffs last year, he had nearly 700 yds passing, 5 TD's, and 1 INT, with a QB rating of near 100.

By comparison, how has Brady performed in his last 3 playoff games, it would be interesting to see if you would be willing to break down a very similar comparison. I can save you the trouble and remind you that he was awful against the Jets last year, awful against the Ravens the year before, and wasn't that great in the Super Bowl in 2008. And this was at Brady's peak in terms of his development and his career, in Sanchez, we are talking about a two year NFL player.

In the playoffs, all QB's are facing the best teams, the best defenses, obviously they are facing their stiffest challenges and toughest competition, You're trying too hard to downplay Sanchez' performance.

As for his decision making and not ever becoming elite, now you're just being a homer, his decision making has improved between his rookie year and his second year. He has already looked that much better this pre-season than in his first two years during the pre-season. By virtue of his physical and mental maturation at the NFL level he will improve, you've resided to hate and hope that he doesn't progress, that's lame.

Tom Moore, former Indy OC who worked with Manning for most of his career, and is now an assistant with the Jets, and has far better credentials than you or any of us has said Sanchez is just as talented, and has just as much potential as Manning did after his second year. That doesn't mean he will ever get there, but it surely means a lot more than you're giving him credit for.

What does Brady's performance have to do with Sanchez and his inconsistency in both the regular season and playoffs? The two are not related.

Tom Moore's statement means nothing. Do you think he's going to publicly state "Hell, this kid ain't no Manning, that's for sure! Ha!" You tell every young QB they have the potential to be the next Manning, Marino, Brady, Montana, etc. You don't tell them they will never amount to anything or will never complete more than 60% of their passes in their career, etc.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: No Haynesworth against the G-Men

As for his decision making and not ever becoming elite, now you're just being a homer, his decision making has improved between his rookie year and his second year. He has already looked that much better this pre-season than in his first two years during the pre-season. By virtue of his physical and mental maturation at the NFL level he will improve, you've resided to hate and hope that he doesn't progress, that's lame.

I am quoting Football Outsider when I say that he was lucky about his INTs because of all the dropped INTs last year. To be fair, I did misquote them. I said he had 13 dropped INTs, in reality he had 15 which is three times as many as he had last year:

As a rookie, he threw 12 touchdowns and 20 interceptions. Last season, he recorded 17 touchdowns and 13 interceptions. His passer rating increased 12.3 points.

Numbers often can be misleading. Randomness aided Sanchez considerably.

Football Outsiders game-by-game research concluded Sanchez led the NFL -- by far -- in dropped interceptions.

Sanchez had 15 of them, three times as many as his rookie season. He had six more dropped interceptions last year than the closest quarterbacks, Carson Palmer and Peyton Manning.

Sanchez made 507 pass attempts, far fewer than Palmer (586) or Manning (679). Sanchez threw an interception or had one dropped on 5.5 percent of his throws.

His combination of interceptions and drops were lower as a rookie. Only five of them were dropped for a total of 25, but they accounted for 6.9 percent of his 364 attempts

Sheer luck buoyed Mark Sanchez's stats - AFC East Blog - ESPN

So apparently Football Outsider is a Patriot homer too.

Tom Moore, former Indy OC who worked with Manning for most of his career, and is now an assistant with the Jets, and has far better credentials than you or any of us has said Sanchez is just as talented, and has just as much potential as Manning did after his second year. That doesn't mean he will ever get there, but it surely means a lot more than you're giving him credit for.

Tom Moore had one of the best QBs of all time to work with and he had the easiest job in the world because he would give Manning concepts and Manning would call his own plays. Just because Moore worked with Manning doesn't mean he can turn Sanchez into an elite QB. Manning was clearly on the path to elite status as a rookie and only had so many INTs because the Colts decided the season was going to be shot anyway and they let Manning throw the ball all the time to learn.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: No Haynesworth against the G-Men

Yeah, I didn't think you would want to bring up those performances, that is weak and lame, and completely discredits your opinion on the topic.

You can comment on Sanchez' playoff performance with a fine toothpick and comb, and downplay his performance as a 24 year old QB only completing two years in the NFL, but you don't even want to touch a comparison with Brady over a similar 3 game performance game-span, as an elite, well established future HOF QB because the comparison doesn't fit your spin and your agenda as Sanchez has outperformed him. These are the facts, the stats are there for you to see, you just don't want to touch them, and instead, would prefer to weasel out using the spin that it's a "red herring."

I'm bringing plenty of substance, it just doesn't fit your agenda.

Lame!

LOL! I said that Sanchez was inconsistent in the playoffs which made his playoff performance is overrated. I went on to show how he was inconsistent. You countered that argument by using his agragated stats to prove I am wrong. You don't get why you didn't really counter my argument?

 

[JetFan1]

Re: No Haynesworth against the G-Men

I am quoting Football Outsider when I say that he was lucky about his INTs because of all the dropped INTs last year. To be fair, I did misquote them. I said he had 13 dropped INTs, in reality he had 15 which is three times as many as he had last year:



Sheer luck buoyed Mark Sanchez's stats - AFC East Blog - ESPN

So apparently Football Outsider is a Patriot homer too.

Nice job in quoting an article of a writer who also happens to work in Boston for the Boston Herald.

I mean really, you want me to go out and dig up biased articles? Your agenda remains, and it is still weak.

Tom Moore had one of the best QBs of all time to work with and he had the easiest job in the world because he would give Manning concepts and Manning would call his own plays. Just because Moore worked with Manning doesn't mean he can turn Sanchez into an elite QB. Manning was clearly on the path to elite status as a rookie and only had so many INTs because the Colts decided the season was going to be shot anyway and they let Manning throw the ball all the time to learn.

I never said Moore would develop anybody, I said since he has been hired by the Jets and has worked with Sanchez, he has been impressed and has commented as much:

“I am absolutely thrilled to be here,” Moore said after the Jets’ three-hour practice today. “I met with Rex a couple of times and he offered me a chance to stay active in the game that I love. I really think that Mark can be special.”

Moore has been quoted as saying Mark has unlimited potential.

It's funny how now you're downplaying the comments of Tom Moore because that too doesn't fit your agenda against Sanchez.

It just kills you to admit that Sanchez does have that kind of potential, and that's all I'm saying here. Some Pat fan doesn't think Sanchez can be elite, Tim Graham, from Boston, said so, but Tom Moore, who developed Peyton Manning, and loves what he has seen in Sanchez, he doesn't know what he's talking about, right Rob?

 

[JackBauer]

Re: No Haynesworth against the G-Men

I mean really, you want me to go out and dig up biased articles? Your agenda remains, and it is still weak.

You know what's weak? Ad hominem rebuttals.

I do find it rich that since the writer is connected to Boston, his writing is ipso facto disqualified, but when Mark Sanchez's "consultant" says nice things about him... well, his opinion is unimpeachable!

Really, what did you expect him to say? "To be honest, guys, I think he has a ceiling somewhere between Jason Campbell and Joe Flacco"?

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Re: No Haynesworth against the G-Men

Nice job in quoting an article of a writer who also happens to work in Boston for the Boston Herald.

I mean really, you want me to go out and dig up biased articles? Your agenda remains, and it is still weak.

[quote[Tom Moore had one of the best QBs of all time to work with and he had the easiest job in the world because he would give Manning concepts and Manning would call his own plays. Just because Moore worked with Manning doesn't mean he can turn Sanchez into an elite QB. Manning was clearly on the path to elite status as a rookie and only had so many INTs because the Colts decided the season was going to be shot anyway and they let Manning throw the ball all the time to learn.

I never said Moore would develop anybody, I said since he has been hired by the Jets and has worked with Sanchez, he has been impressed and has commented as much:



Moore has been quoted as saying Mark has unlimited potential.

It's funny how now you're downplaying the comments of Tom Moore because that too doesn't fit your agenda against Sanchez.

It just kills you to admit that Sanchez does have that kind of potential, and that's all I'm saying here. Some Pat fan doesn't think Sanchez can be elite, Tim Graham, from Boston, said so, but Tom Moore, who developed Peyton Manning, and loves what he has seen in Sanchez, he doesn't know what he's talking about, right Rob?

[/QUOTE]

Are you still here?

What part of Patriots board and Haynesworth are we missing?

Let me summarize

Sanchez may or may not have great potential. It's a question for others since we really don't give a rat's rear.

He mostly sucks.

He has been "clutch" in the post season because the aura of Sanchez made Kaeding miss three chip shot field goals. He has been "clutch" by throwing 3 TD's against the Patriots. Just make sure the drives are only about 30-40 yards. Anything longer is unclutch. Make sure you also get some really good returns.

When faced with being a "franchise" QB in the AFCCG, he is Sanchez not Sanchize.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: No Haynesworth against the G-Men

Nice job in quoting an article of a writer who also happens to work in Boston for the Boston Herald.

Huh?!? I quoted an article from Tim Graham of ESPN who works for ESPN, not the Boston Herald. In fact, he does actually write for a newspaper for one of the teams in the AFC East. He is the enterprise reporter for the BUFFALO NEWS.

Twitter

I mean really, you want me to go out and dig up biased articles? Your agenda remains, and it is still weak.

How is it a biased article? Tim Graham is the AFC East blogger for ESPN and he covers the entire AFC East and the same guy who predicted the Jets would win the Super Bowl last year.

I never said Moore would develop anybody, I said since he has been hired by the Jets and has worked with Sanchez, he has been impressed and has commented as much:


Moore has been quoted as saying Mark has unlimited potential.

It's funny how now you're downplaying the comments of Tom Moore because that too doesn't fit your agenda against Sanchez.

It just kills you to admit that Sanchez does have that kind of potential, and that's all I'm saying here. Some Pat fan doesn't think Sanchez can be elite, Tim Graham, from Boston, said so, but Tom Moore, who developed Peyton Manning, and loves what he has seen in Sanchez, he doesn't know what he's talking about, right Rob?

You claim I used biased reporting to prove my point (which I easily proved you wrong) and then you go on to used biased reporting from a paid consultant of the NY Jets. If Moore thought he was nothing more than an average QB, do you think he would say it publically? With Woody Johnson writing his checks?

 

[JetFan1]

Re: No Haynesworth against the G-Men

LOL! I said that Sanchez was inconsistent in the playoffs which made his playoff performance is overrated. I went on to show how he was inconsistent. You countered that argument by using his agragated stats to prove I am wrong. You don't get why you didn't really counter my argument?

Yes, you downplayed his performance in the playoffs, I gave you stats and facts that suggested otherwise. You decided to breakdown his performance on a series by series basis. That is weak in itself.

I also asked you to pull stats for Brady over a 3 game span, his last 3 playoff games, use a comparable measuring stick, and by comparison, we are talking about a 24 year old QB with two NFL seasons under his belt, and a future HOF QB entering his 13th season, because we both know the comparison isn't even close, you want nothing to do with it, how shameless.

 

[JetFan1]

Re: No Haynesworth against the G-Men

Huh?!? I quoted an article from Tim Graham of ESPN who works for ESPN, not the Boston Herald. In fact, he does actually write for a newspaper for one of the teams in the AFC East. He is the enterprise reporter for the BUFFALO NEWS.

Twitter




How is it a biased article? Tim Graham is the AFC East blogger for ESPN and he covers the entire AFC East and the same guy who predicted the Jets would win the Super Bowl last year.






You claim I used biased reporting to prove my point (which I easily proved you wrong) and then you go on to used biased reporting from a paid consultant of the NY Jets. If Moore thought he was nothing more than an average QB, do you think he would say it publically? With Woody Johnson writing his checks?

So now you want to discredit Tom Moore, who has worked in the NFL for 37 years, but want to give credence to some clown in the Boston media who hasn't played a football or worked in the sport a down of his life.

How pathetic are you?

 

[JetFan1]

Re: No Haynesworth against the G-Men

Are you still here?

What part of Patriots board and Haynesworth are we missing?

Let me summarize

Sanchez may or may not have great potential. It's a question for others since we really don't give a rat's rear.

He mostly sucks.

He has been "clutch" in the post season because the aura of Sanchez made Kaeding miss three chip shot field goals. He has been "clutch" by throwing 3 TD's against the Patriots. Just make sure the drives are only about 30-40 yards. Anything longer is unclutch. Make sure you also get some really good returns.

When faced with being a "franchise" QB in the AFCCG, he is Sanchez not Sanchize.

Who derailed this thread? It wasn't me, you have an issue, talk to Rob.

To say Sanchez "mostly sucks" is about as competent statement as I can get out of a 3 year old.

And we are now evaluating Sanchez' post-season performance because of missed FG's? That's rich. The endless spinning continues...