The Jets suck (merged)

[averywhitehall]

I don't know where you are getting that he improved over the regular season. His QB rating was higher after week 8 than after Week 17. In the one playoff game that he played well in (Cin) he threw 15 passes. You saying his "Passes were on the money" his Comp% was below 60% against SD and IND.

The obvious fact that Jet fans don't seem to comprehend is that the modern NFL is a QB driven league. Sanchez can throw 18 passes and "manage" the game and beat the Bills and Titans, but against the elite offenses you are going to have to score points. The Jets think that their D will win them a championship, but looked how you fared against top flight QBs, who could can handle the blitz. Manning torched you both times. Lost to the Saints, beat Brady w/o Welker and Galloway running the wrong routes, then got smoked in the 2nd game. Rivers played OK and wins the game if Keading doesn't miss 3 FGs.

It's not 1975, you need more tha a running game and a good D.

Actually the Jets held the Drew Brees to 190 passing yards in that game. We lost because of 3 INT's by Sanchez...one of which was returned for a touchdown by Darren Sharper.

Speaking of Interceptions...do the Pats win the second game if Mark Sanchez doesn't throw 4 picks one of which was also returned for a touchdown?

 

[Sivy]

Actually the Jets held the Drew Brees to 190 passing yards in that game. We lost because of 3 INT's by Sanchez...one of which was returned for a touchdown by Darren Sharper.

Speaking of Interceptions...do the Pats win the second game if Mark Sanchez doesn't throw 4 picks one of which was also returned for a touchdown?

Yes..because they are a far better team than the jets.

 

[Sciz]

Well, considering that 2 of the picks were on 3rd down and would've led to punts anyway, along with the way Welker was shredding the Jets' defense, I definitely think so. Take out those 4 picks, and it's still only 8 completions in 21 attempts. That's still pathetic.

 

[eom]

Actually the Jets held the Drew Brees to 190 passing yards in that game. We lost because of 3 INT's by Sanchez...one of which was returned for a touchdown by Darren Sharper.

Speaking of Interceptions...do the Pats win the second game if Mark Sanchez doesn't throw 4 picks one of which was also returned for a touchdown?

you should do his PR.

I think you were building a better case for him when you were vehemently DENYING that he sucked, but I was never in debate club.

 

[ausbacker]

Actually the Jets held the Drew Brees to 190 passing yards in that game. We lost because of 3 INT's by Sanchez...one of which was returned for a touchdown by Darren Sharper.

Speaking of Interceptions...do the Pats win the second game if Mark Sanchez doesn't throw 4 picks one of which was also returned for a touchdown?

Do the Giants win the Superbowl if Tyree doesn't catch a bull**** ball on his helmet and the referees stop play to call the sack on Manning?

Point is it doesn't matter as it happened. What ifs = bulldust.

 

[Patriot 37]

Actually the Jets held the Drew Brees to 190 passing yards in that game. We lost because of 3 INT's by Sanchez...one of which was returned for a touchdown by Darren Sharper.

Speaking of Interceptions...do the Pats win the second game if Mark Sanchez doesn't throw 4 picks one of which was also returned for a touchdown?

You don't see the correlation between Sanchez playing poorly in games against top QBs ?

It's because he actually had to make plays because his team was behind.

 

[Joker]

"yeah...but ..if...and...er...uh and..the Jets weeee-un!!!!"

do the Pats win the second game if Mark Sanchez doesn't throw 4 picks one of which was also returned for a touchdown?

 

[lillestroom]

They do now.

They dont have a decent blind side at LT or LG. Sacks galore.

 

[Zeus]

It happens every single day.

I wake up.

The sun has risen.

And the jets still suck ...

 

[Northside]

NY Jets QB & Lance Bass Double Team Bon Jovi | TMZ.com

 

[Ring 6]

NY Jets QB & Lance Bass Double Team Bon Jovi | TMZ.com

Posted as a warning to the new acquisitions re: dropping the soap.

 

[Deus Irae]

 

[Tunescribe]

This is my favorite thread, ever!

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The only reason the JEST don't suck infinitely is that Nature abhors a vacuum.

 

[averywhitehall]

You don't see the correlation between Sanchez playing poorly in games against top QBs ?

It's because he actually had to make plays because his team was behind.

The guy was a rookie.

I mean sure...he brought the Jets back from a deficit to beat the Patriots but that was only a 9 - 3 deficit.

What about playing from behind in the first two playoff games and winning? But those were only 1 possession deficits so I guess that's not enough for Patriot fans.

I guess I'm missing something: Because rookie's bring their teams back...from double digit deficits...against top QB's...all the time. Must be because Sanchez is the first to fail at this that they harp on him about it. That's gotta be it. Rookies QB's never have trouble adjusting to the speed of the NFL game, and they are experienced as it gets, and they already know the playbook by heart, and they're ingrained with NFL defenses because of all the study sessions they've had. So if rookie QB's can't bring their teams back from deficits against top QB's it has to be the rookies fault somewhere.

Maybe someone can tell me the point of discussing football with people who find it very difficult to put things in perspective.

 

[Ring 6]

The guy was a rookie.

I mean sure...he brought the Jets back from a deficit to beat the Patriots but that was only a 9 - 3 deficit.

What about playing from behind in the first two playoff games and winning? But those were only 1 possession deficits so I guess that's not enough for Patriot fans.

I guess I'm missing something: Because rookie's bring their teams back...from double digit deficits...against top QB's...all the time. Must be because Sanchez is the first to fail at this that they harp on him about it. That's gotta be it. Rookies QB's never have trouble adjusting to the speed of the NFL game, and they are experienced as it gets, and they already know the playbook by heart, and they're ingrained with NFL defenses because of all the study sessions they've had. So if rookie QB's can't bring their teams back from deficits against top QB's it has to be the rookies fault somewhere.

Maybe someone can tell me the point of discussing football with people who find it very difficult to put things in perspective.

Your thinking is all backwards. You want the fact that he sucked as a rookie to be proof that he will be better this year. There simply is no evidence to support that.
He sucked last year, he sucked this year is a valid argument supported by the history of the NFL to be true much more often than not.
You are taking the counter argument that he sucked last year but won't suck this year because you have decided that its common for sucky rookies to be good in their 2nd year. Thats not the case, and you have not really even tried to show it, simply arguing that because you said it then it must be true.
You are arguing the equivalent of 2+2=5 and 5+5=10 so 2+2+5=10
And when someone points out that 2+2+5 does not equal 10 you are saying it has to because 5+5=10.

Feel free though to give me the list of QBs (limit it to first round or top half of first round if you like) who sucked as rookies in the last say 10 years, then show me how many got beter and how many sucked.

Your indignance toward everyone while believing that must accept that there is any validity to your made up assumption that sucky rookie QBs are better in year 2, is ignorant.

 

[eom]

Mark Sanchez's 09 stats: 2700 yards passing---23 touchdowns---11 interceptions.

I think if he can build on those numbers this year the jets will be unstoppable.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Mark Sanchez's 09 stats: 2700 yards passing---23 touchdowns---11 interceptions.

I think if he can build on those numbers this year the jets will be unstoppable.

That depends on which numbers he builds on.

 

[averywhitehall]

Your thinking is all backwards. You want the fact that he sucked as a rookie to be proof that he will be better this year. There simply is no evidence to support that.
He sucked last year, he sucked this year is a valid argument supported by the history of the NFL to be true much more often than not.
You are taking the counter argument that he sucked last year but won't suck this year because you have decided that its common for sucky rookies to be good in their 2nd year. Thats not the case, and you have not really even tried to show it, simply arguing that because you said it then it must be true.
You are arguing the equivalent of 2+2=5 and 5+5=10 so 2+2+5=10
And when someone points out that 2+2+5 does not equal 10 you are saying it has to because 5+5=10.

Feel free though to give me the list of QBs (limit it to first round or top half of first round if you like) who sucked as rookies in the last say 10 years, then show me how many got beter and how many sucked.

Your indignance toward everyone while believing that must accept that there is any validity to your made up assumption that sucky rookie QBs are better in year 2, is ignorant.

I am not ignorant...far from it.

All right...let's dive deep into this one. I love the challenge!

A) I'm not trying to say the fact that he sucked as a rookie automatically means he is going to be better during his second year. I'm saying that you (nor any other fan) should judge a rookie QB on the basis of him bringing his team back from a double digit deficit against top QB's. Not too many rookies, if any at all, have done that in NFL history. So why should Sanchez be the first to do so? Why must he be judged based on something that most rookie QB's are expected not to succeed at?


B) You've given me a difficult challenge to name all the rookie QB's who've come in + started as rookies + sucked + gotten better the next year.

First of all: when you say the player 'sucked as rookies' did you mean compared to other rookies or compared to the average NFL quarterback?

But I digress...

There are only a handful of QB's who were top half of first round or higher (16th pick or higher) drafted since 2000 (10 years ago) who even played the as a rookie.

2000 Draft: No QB's taken in top half...only first round QB was Pennington (who sat)

2001 Draft: Michael Vick started 8 games and threw 2 TD and 3 INT's... Improved to 16 & 8 respectively next season.

2002 Draft: Joey Harrington & David Carr...two points for you.

2003 Draft: Carson Palmer (DNP) Byron Leftwhich went from 14 TD 16 INT as a rookie to 15 & 10 respectively next season.

2004 Draft: Eli Manning started 7 of his 9 games as a rookie. Went from 6 TD 9 INT to 24 & 17 respectively next season. Phillip Rivers (DNP). Big Ben (didn't suck and doesn't qualify into debate)

2005 Draft: Alex Smith started 7 of 9 games he played in. Went from 1 TD 11 INT to 16 & 16 respectively next season. Aaron Rodgers & Jason Campbell were from the same draft but barely touched the field.

2006 Draft: Vince Young (Made the pro-bowl as a rookie and does qualify into debate)
Matt Leinart (another point for you) Jay Cutler (played 5 games 9 TD 5 INT so he doesn't qualify)

2007 Draft: JaMarcus Russell (another point for you), Brady Quinn also drafted but played 1 game.

2008 Matt Ryan & Joe Flacco (does not qualify)

So to sum it up:

I get points for: Leftwhich, Alex Smith, Eli Manning, & Michael Vick

You get points for: David Carr, Joey Harrington, JaMarcus Russell & Matt Leinart.

So based on the challenge you threw down I guess we're even and it can go either way. Sanchez can either go the way of JaMarcus Russell or go the way of Eli Manning.

Have a nice night.

 

[BSR]

So to sum it up:

I get points for: Leftwhich, Alex Smith, Eli Manning, & Michael Vick

You get points for: David Carr, Joey Harrington, JaMarcus Russell & Matt Leinart.

So based on the challenge you threw down I guess we're even and it can go either way. Sanchez can either go the way of JaMarcus Russell or go the way of Eli Manning.

Have a nice night.

There is that whole math thing again. It doesn't equate to either Manning or Russell. Based on what you presented he has an 11% chance of being Manning and an 89% chance of being those other guys. And that is without challenging your selection of who is good in their second year. Really the only player that could be qualified as having a "good" season is Manning and even he had a 52% completion percentage and a mediocre rating in the 70%s.

Sanchez might turn out to have a good or great season, but history sure isn't with him on that one.