Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
T0mShane

"[Sanchez] would be the starter for us as soon as he walked in the door"

Recommended Posts

Registered members do not see this ad. Click here to create your free account today.
Registered members do not see this ad. Click here to create your free account today.

Wilson didnt have a great game on Sunday. He also had a fumble inside his own 20 that resulted in a TD for the Niners. Overall, sure, the difference between the 2013 Seahawks and the 2010 Jets was pretty apparent at the QB position....but for the title games neither were the main reason they won or lost.

 

Sanchez may not have been "the main reason they won or lost", but he's a huge reason why the offense was again ineffective, which did absolutely nothing to help them win.

 

Fact is, for the entirety of his career, the best compliment you can give Sanchez is, "he played well enough to win" and the second best is  "he's not the main reason we lost."  That's pretty bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanchez may not have been "the main reason they won or lost", but he's a huge reason why the offense was again ineffective, which did absolutely nothing to help them win.

Fact is, for the entirety of his career, the best compliment you can give Sanchez is, "he played well enough to win" and the second best is "he's not the main reason we lost." That's pretty bad.

Against that defense in Pittsburgh you'll take Sanchez's line that day. If the defense could have stopped Mwndenhall, they win that game.

Russell Wilaon just had that game. His defense just stopped the run. The Jets didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against that defense in Pittsburgh you'll take Sanchez's line that day. If the defense could have stopped Mwndenhall, they win that game.

Russell Wilaon just had that game. His defense just stopped the run. The Jets didn't.

 

Maybe so.

 

But, you're creating a scenario in which the defense needed to be great in order to win.

 

That, and the Seahawks offense scored 23 points.

 

The Jets offense scored only 17, and gave up a touchdown.  The difference is far from insignificant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe so.

 

But, you're creating a scenario in which the defense needed to be great in order to win.

 

That, and the Seahawks offense scored 23 points.

 

The Jets offense scored only 17, and gave up a touchdown.  The difference is far from insignificant.

 

The defense was bad in the first half. It's tough for any offense to overcome that. At Pittsburgh it's usually a death sentence.

 

The defense was also given the opportunity to make a stop with 3:30 left in the game. They couldn't. In hindsight- Rex should have gone insides there, as the D didn't force one 3 and out all game. 

Edited by Matt39

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't even get through this mess, but Schottenheimer did fine with his prior 2 QBs, both pro bowlers.  Also Bradford had noticeable improvement.  Not that I wish for BS to return, but this blame everyone except Sanchez for his own actions and failures is old.

 

All the things you're mentioning would be enough to hide any bad QB.  If we need all those things, we can get by with someone of Sanchez's backup-level skills for the veteran minimum.

 

Also as someone else mentioned, you're going back a long way to find just a few players.  Every team has had players they didn't re-sign and weren't awful.  But we haven't had many in recent years and Sanchez won't be either.

To be clear: I don't want Sanchez back. Nor do think geno is worth a squirt of pee pee. My argument is that neither had a chance with an HC like Rex. The offense is absolutely barren of talent. Barren. There isn't a vet QB in the league who would have willingly come to play with this offense the last two years. But a I have a problem with blaming young QBs as if they alone represent wins and losses. There must be a supporting cast. Has to be. And there has been crap here on O since Rex has become the coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The defense was bad in the first half. It's tough for any offense to overcome that. At Pittsburgh it's usually a death sentence.

 

The defense was also given the opportunity to make a stop with 3:30 left in the game. They couldn't. In hindsight- Rex should have gone insides there, as the D didn't force one 3 and out all game. 

 

Ok.  The offense was bad pretty much all game. Just cause it's Pittsburgh doesn't mean you can be content to win 2-0.  The offense, as we'd seen many times before with Sanchez, and many times since, was completely ineffective.  The defense did not make them go three and out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The defense was bad in the first half. It's tough for any offense to overcome that. At Pittsburgh it's usually a death sentence.

 

The defense was also given the opportunity to make a stop with 3:30 left in the game. They couldn't. In hindsight- Rex should have gone insides there, as the D didn't force one 3 and out all game. 

 

It says something that you need to keep coming up with new criteria for the basis of your argument.  Now it's all about 3 and outs, while ignoring such apparently insignificant things as points scored.  Even then you'd need to add the caveat that 3 and outs only can be used as a criteria to criticize the Jets defense and not their offense, otherwise the offense was still absolutely awful based on your most recent argument.  After all, there were repeated three and outs from the O throughout the game, at one point even having three consecutive.  Are we supposed to believe that three drives that totaled less than 4 minutes and only resulted in 7 points for the opponent had no significant impact on the outcome of a 5 point game or even just the TOP?  Or does your first argument, time of possession, only qualify as a criticism of the D as well?  I'm curious how it would be the defenses fault when the offense can't maintain a drive.  This new theory also seems to suggest that even when the D was getting stops and generating turnovers throughout the game, it didn't count simply because it happened after the first three plays of a drive.  Except of course when the Jets D got the ball back after one play, but that was conveniently omitted and apparently doesn't count either because it wasn't technically a three and out.

 

And I remind you, 5 first downs allowed in the entire second half... that's right, 5.  THIS is the basis you are using for blaming the loss entirely on the defense.  Meanwhile, the Jets offense scored 17 points and gave 7 to the opposition.  That means the O provided a 9 point window for the D to work with in order to win.  The Jets defense could have allowed 60 points and it still wouldn't change that from being an absolutely pathetic offensive performance, but they actually only gave up 17 and scored 2.  You can try as hard as you like to dismiss that, but none of this will ever change those facts, and they will continue to refute your argument.

 

Nobody is trying to argue that the Jets D was perfect that day, or anywhere close to it.  But in the end the Jets offense was absolutely awful, and worse than the Jets D throughout and by every measure presented so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear: I don't want Sanchez back. Nor do think geno is worth a squirt of pee pee. My argument is that neither had a chance with an HC like Rex. The offense is absolutely barren of talent. Barren. There isn't a vet QB in the league who would have willingly come to play with this offense the last two years. But a I have a problem with blaming young QBs as if they alone represent wins and losses. There must be a supporting cast. Has to be. And there has been crap here on O since Rex has become the coach.

If the 2013 Jets had the same offensive supporting cast from 2010 they would have won the AFC East, and lost to the Broncos in the AFCCG, yes with G Smith QBing! The Oline was still way above average, LT was terrific the first 12-14 games, and in the Patriots playoff game, Keller, Cotchery, healthy B Edwards, and a healthy pretending to be choir boy so he can cash in millions version of Santonio Holmes, with Greene closing out 4th quarters putting teams to sleep!

From there the lockout happened, Tanny's trading of draft picks, and letting the Oline fall apart, giving Holmes that contract, and thinking Sanchez was the next E Manning is where it all went wrong.

But that 2010 Jets offensive supporting cast was VERY GOOD!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says something that you need to keep coming up with new criteria for the basis of your argument.  Now it's all about 3 and outs, while ignoring such apparently insignificant things as points scored.  Even then you'd need to add the caveat that 3 and outs only can be used as a criteria to criticize the Jets defense and not their offense, otherwise the offense was still absolutely awful based on your most recent argument.  After all, there were repeated three and outs from the O throughout the game, at one point even having three consecutive.  Are we supposed to believe that three drives that totaled less than 4 minutes and only resulted in 7 points for the opponent had no significant impact on the outcome of a 5 point game or even just the TOP?  Or does your first argument, time of possession, only qualify as a criticism of the D as well?  I'm curious how it would be the defenses fault when the offense can't maintain a drive.  This new theory also seems to suggest that even when the D was getting stops and generating turnovers throughout the game, it didn't count simply because it happened after the first three plays of a drive.  Except of course when the Jets D got the ball back after one play, but that was conveniently omitted and apparently doesn't count either because it wasn't technically a three and out.

 

And I remind you, 5 first downs allowed in the entire second half... that's right, 5.  THIS is the basis you are using for blaming the loss entirely on the defense.  Meanwhile, the Jets offense scored 17 points and gave 7 to the opposition.  That means the O provided a 9 point window for the D to work with in order to win.  The Jets defense could have allowed 60 points and it still wouldn't change that from being an absolutely pathetic offensive performance, but they actually only gave up 17 and scored 2.  You can try as hard as you like to dismiss that, but none of this will ever change those facts, and they will continue to refute your argument.

 

Nobody is trying to argue that the Jets D was perfect that day, or anywhere close to it.  But in the end the Jets offense was absolutely awful, and worse than the Jets D throughout and by every measure presented so far.

 

At Pittsburgh in January- no it's not going to always be about points scored. It's about ball control, field position and turnovers. The defense couldnt get off of the field in the first half and forced 0 three and outs all game. That's not going to cut it in Pittsburgh.

Edited by Matt39

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

yeah many teams but Jets fans know better ...its all about the QB because if they are good they make everyone that much better. Im really shocked guys like Clyde Gates have not caught on with other teams I mean hes soooo damn fast and stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great, as I said before, cant wait for these "many teams" to watch this bum perform, and especially watch their fans completely go ballistic when this guy makes throws that not even Ronald McDonald could make in his dreams. He made more "WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT" throws than any QB I have ever witnessed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At Pittsburgh in January- no it's not going to always be about points scored. It's about ball control, field position and turnovers. The defense couldnt get off of the field in the first half and forced 0 three and outs all game. That's not going to cut it in Pittsburgh.

 

Yes, every football game ever played is about points scored.  You need to score more points than the other team to win, it's kind of how the game works.  You could just as easily (and more accurately) say the offense couldn't stay on the field throughout the game, had repeated three and outs all game, and scored only 10 more points for themselves than the opposition; that's not going to cut it anywhere.  As far as your other points, none of them reflect well on the offense.

 

Ball control:  The Jets D certainly had problems at the beginning of the game with their tackling, but at the same time the Jets offense could not maintain a drive to save their lives, featuring three drives that lasted under a minute and multiple others which did not surpass a couple of minutes, with the exception of an 8+ minute drive that resulted in no points.  Outside of the offenses 3 scoring drives, they produced a grand total of 103 yards of offense on the day, 80 of which came on that one drive.  That means 23 yards of offense produced from more than half of their offensive drives.  You can't get further away from ball control than that.

 

Field position: The O went 3 and out on just under half of their drives, which not only negatively impacts field position, but also negates any impact that field position had on the success of their drive, especially considering some of those drives went for negative yardage.  They also failed to do much with field position when they did have it (unless you'd like to argue the 40 yard line no longer qualifies as good field position).

 

Turnovers:  The D generated 3 turnovers, 2 of which saw the offense subsequently go 3 and out.  The O had a turnover that handed 7 points to the Steelers.

 

What about any of these things paints the offense in any sort of positive light?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The losses weren't on any single player or coach. It's a team game. Many factors played into those losses, mainly, playing a better team...but carry on with the pitch forks and find the one person to blame. It's the JN way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The losses weren't on any single player or coach. It's a team game. Many factors played into those losses, mainly, playing a better team...but carry on with the pitch forks and find the one person to blame. It's the JN way.

 

It's the JN way because of people like you.  

 

I wasn't this way when I was young and beautiful.  You are to blame.  You made me this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the JN way because of people like you.

I wasn't this way when I was young and beautiful. You are to blame. You made me this way.

You should have aged better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oakland?

Cleveland?  Probably not...dont think Lombardi would make such a claim.

Jax?  He's not better than Henne and they're all about an open competition, so doubt Caldwell would say that.

Houston?  maybe

Min?  Not better than Cassell

St. Louis?  Maybe with the Schotty connnection

I think its the Raiders. Sanchez is a Cali guy and would fit in with the misfits in Oakland. Plus, he would get to throw a couple of pick sixes against the Jets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its the Raiders. Sanchez is a Cali guy and would fit in with the misfits in Oakland. Plus, he would get to throw a couple of pick sixes against the Jets.

If he does go to Oakland, they should look to also add Jamarcus Russell, and if that doesn't work, you can always give Ryan Leaf a call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, yeah, Sanchez didn't cost Rex two Super Bowl appearances.

 

He was easily the weakest link on two Super Bowl-caliber rosters.  You've said it before, no HC can win a title with a "C" QB anymore.  Sanchez was an "F".  Rex hitched his wagon to the wrong QB, but your boy Idzik didn't think that was a good enough reason to jettison him. 

Edited by Jetsfan80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was easily the weakest link on two Super Bowl-caliber rosters.  You've said it before, no HC can win a title with a "C" QB anymore.  Sanchez was an "F".  Rex hitched his wagon to the wrong QB, but your boy Idzik didn't think that was a good enough reason to jettison him. 

Geno was our QB this year....it was only Idzik's first year as GM...how do you judge someone for something committed in the past when this year he was using the GM's guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting, just as the reactions around here will be.

The vets out there are terrible. It's not hard to make a case that Sanchez (at a significantly reduced rate) is their best veteran option. Young, has won some (playoff) games, knows the system. I'm not advocating it -at all- but I can see the argument.

The draft will also be interesting. Jets have a lot of picks, but they're not currently in position for one of the top QBs this year, and (maybe) outside of Bridgewater, they all have question marks of their own. Do they spend a second or third rounder on an even more questionable QB? Or do they go with a safer pick at another one of their many needs? Any QB taken in the first four rounds will be a story around here, and a perceived threat to win the starting job.

And the thing is, the Jets need a QB (or two) who is a threat to win the starting job. I'm sure Idzik hopes that Geno is the answer. That he'll at least be a competent starter. With so little out there in terms of potential replacements, it'll be very interesting to see how he addresses it.

That would not surprise me at all with the way our FO operates.  He would also likely beat out Geno if give the oppurtunity.

I'm just hoping we also address QB in the draft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was easily the weakest link on two Super Bowl-caliber rosters.  You've said it before, no HC can win a title with a "C" QB anymore.  Sanchez was an "F".  Rex hitched his wagon to the wrong QB, but your boy Idzik didn't think that was a good enough reason to jettison him. 

 

Sanchez's career playoff numbers are a solid B.

Edited by Matt39

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, yeah, Sanchez didn't cost Rex two Super Bowl appearances.

 

That's true, it was only the one time that Sanchez was by far the most significant reason amongst many that cost the Jets an appearance.

 

The other time he merely was a contributing factor in the overall failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×