Bleedin Green Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 This forum sux --state an opinion and the personal attacks begin ---the trolls are residents in this forum---I read last week about the bickering problem from the mods --yet they let it continue ---few guys with 5000 + posts w/no life get brave behind a computer screen---I posted a reasonable topic and then got attack for the subject matter and get 190 + reply's--- Id love to debate some of these wussys -FACE to FACE and see how brave and aggressive they want to be LOL Dont bother to tell me to go to another forum, Im already gone. s Wow, this one really takes the cake. First off we have the guy who started with the personal attacks on others crying like a baby about other people attacking him now, then he tries to pull "the number of posts" BS out again, as if that means a damn thing, after already being made to look like a complete moron with his "I've been a fan longer than you've been alive" verbal diarrhea, and then to top it all off, we have the real "tough guy" who talks about what wussies everyone else is, while threatening people with violence in a face to face confrontation that he knows full well will never happen. Yeah buddy, you're a real ******* winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Haven't read the entire thread but I will say again that Sanchez > Eli. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 During one stretch last year it seemed like Eli was being victimized by the tipped ball INT multiple times a week. I just think if people are going to lean so heavily on dropped INTs as a legitimate negative stat, they have to give equal weight to dropped passes as a legitimate positive stat and the two tend to cancel each other out when analyzing a QBs overall accuracy IMO. Unless you're going to show that Sanchez's receivers dropped 4x as many passes as the next-most-victimized QB, as is the case with dropped picks apparently, that won't cancel it out. He needs to be more accurate with his passes and more aware of where defenders are and stop telegraphing his passes so much. It can come with time and he's hardly damaged goods or anything close to it. But ignoring it is the equivalent of sticking fingers in your ears and yelling "La la la la la la la" on end. There's plenty he can improve upon in his game. I don't even think that's subject to opinion as he's clearly been inconsistent and clearly has been among the lowest-rated passers. Don't understand why this is received with such vitriol by some since even his critics acknowledge the guy has something others don't and love that the guy's a gamer as the seasons close and into the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 z z z z z z I have a life ... but to get to my "idiotic " post Sanchez played great tonite and Shotty is above reproach (that's why they brought Tom Moore in) LOL Man am I dumb! LOL .Like I said Dweebs. U forum geeks are the sad ones...OK the QB looks great...lol online bravehearts lol,,, then again I dont hve 2000 posts-or 6000 or 13k...LOL the other way around dweeb LOL z z z z z z I have a life ... but to get to my "idiotic " post Sanchez played great tonite and Shotty is above reproach (that's why they brought Tom Moore in) LOL Man am I dumb! LOL .Like I said Dweebs. This forum sux --state an opinion and the personal attacks begin ---the trolls are residents in this forum---I read last week about the bickering problem from the mods --yet they let it continue ---few guys with 5000 + posts w/no life get brave behind a computer screen---I posted a reasonable topic and then got attack for the subject matter and get 190 + reply's--- Id love to debate some of these wussys -FACE to FACE and see how brave and aggressive they want to be LOL Dont bother to tell me to go to another forum, Im already gone. s No, no. Let me tell you. Go to another forum. Shoo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Unless you're going to show that Sanchez's receivers dropped 4x as many passes as the next-most-victimized QB, as is the case with dropped picks apparently, that won't cancel it out. He needs to be more accurate with his passes and more aware of where defenders are and stop telegraphing his passes so much. It can come with time and he's hardly damaged goods or anything close to it. But ignoring it is the equivalent of sticking fingers in your ears and yelling "La la la la la la la" on end. There's plenty he can improve upon in his game. I don't even think that's subject to opinion as he's clearly been inconsistent and clearly has been among the lowest-rated passers. Don't understand why this is received with such vitriol by some since even his critics acknowledge the guy has something others don't and love that the guy's a gamer as the seasons close and into the playoffs. I'm honestly expected to believe that NO other QB in the NFL threw more than 4 "dropped interceptions" over the course of the whole year? And you really honestly wonder why the validity of this stat is called into question? Just off the top of my head I can think of Jets defenders dropping multiple potential picks in 4-5 games last year. So if there are 4-5 other QBs who threw at least two "dropped INTs" in a single game, I am supposed to believe that only one QB in the whole league not only threw more than four, but he threw four times as many as the next guy? Sorry but that's bullsh*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 I'm honestly expected to believe that NO other QB in the NFL threw more than 4 "dropped interceptions" over the course of the whole year? And you really honestly wonder why the validity of this stat is called into question? Just off the top of my head I can think of Jets defenders dropping multiple potential picks in 4-5 games last year. So if there are 4-5 other QBs who threw at least two "dropped INTs" in a single game, I am supposed to believe that only one QB in the whole league not only threw more than four, but he threw four times as many as the next guy? Sorry but that's bullsh*t. I believe that is correct. Someone posted the numbers here not long ago. I could be remembering wrong, but I think Sanchez had 4x the number of dropped picks as the 2nd guy. It is not bullsh*t and you don't even sound sorry. Therefore you are a liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbatesman Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 I believe that is correct. Someone posted the numbers here not long ago. I could be remembering wrong, but I think Sanchez had 4x the number of dropped picks as the 2nd guy. It was closer to 2x. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/extra-points/2010/fo-mailbag-dropped-interceptions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 It was closer to 2x. http://www.footballo...d-interceptions But we're still not sorry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 It was closer to 2x. http://www.footballo...d-interceptions Meh, I think both extremes of this argument are just a tad bit misguided. I think it's tough to say that the numbers have absolutely no value, because it certainly does fit into the category of issues with accuracy and reading defenses, whether or not those plays would have really resulted in INTs under different circumstances. On the other hand, trying to use it as some all-damning point is going too far as well. Just reading the first paragraph of the article tells you that the people reporting are giving a whole list of reasons why there are undoubted accuracy issues with the list itself. Not to mention, I find it a little difficult to take a list too seriously when you've got the league-leader in INTs having 1 out of every 6 of his actual INTs discounted and yet somehow there seems to be no interest in making adjustments for INTs marked against their new proposed league leader that were nothing short of horrid officiating on completed passes. Sanchez still has plenty of room for improvement, and I certianly won't argue against the fact that this supports that argument, but to try to prove anything more than that with an at least somewhat flawed data set is more a case of first taking a stance and then trying to find things that support it than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 This conversation is still going on? Its simple. We should have drafted Josh Freeman. Mark Sanchez is the suck. But what he lacks as a QB, he totally makes up for as a model. He's very cute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 It was closer to 2x. http://www.footballo...d-interceptions Peyton Manning was 2nd with 7? He sucks!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 I'm honestly expected to believe that NO other QB in the NFL threw more than 4 "dropped interceptions" over the course of the whole year? And you really honestly wonder why the validity of this stat is called into question? Just off the top of my head I can think of Jets defenders dropping multiple potential picks in 4-5 games last year. So if there are 4-5 other QBs who threw at least two "dropped INTs" in a single game, I am supposed to believe that only one QB in the whole league not only threw more than four, but he threw four times as many as the next guy? Sorry but that's bullsh*t. anti jet's biased'd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Meh, I think both extremes of this argument are just a tad bit misguided. I think it's tough to say that the numbers have absolutely no value, because it certainly does fit into the category of issues with accuracy and reading defenses, whether or not those plays would have really resulted in INTs under different circumstances. On the other hand, trying to use it as some all-damning point is going too far as well. Just reading the first paragraph of the article tells you that the people reporting are giving a whole list of reasons why there are undoubted accuracy issues with the list itself. Not to mention, I find it a little difficult to take a list too seriously when you've got the league-leader in INTs having 1 out of every 6 of his actual INTs discounted and yet somehow there seems to be no interest in making adjustments for INTs marked against their new proposed league leader that were nothing short of horrid officiating on completed passes. Sanchez still has plenty of room for improvement, and I certianly won't argue against the fact that this supports that argument, but to try to prove anything more than that with an at least somewhat flawed data set is more a case of first taking a stance and then trying to find things that support it than anything else. all it means is that Sanchez caught more then his fair share of breaks last year and all things being equal should've thrown more INT's then he did.. Anyone who watched the game without thier Klacko Green Goggles ® on would acknowledge it.. Since he's young I'd argue against it's predictive value with the lone exception of measuring his year 1 to year 2 performance improvement or lack there of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbatesman Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Meh, I think both extremes of this argument are just a tad bit misguided. I think it's tough to say that the numbers have absolutely no value, because it certainly does fit into the category of issues with accuracy and reading defenses, whether or not those plays would have really resulted in INTs under different circumstances. On the other hand, trying to use it as some all-damning point is going too far as well. Just reading the first paragraph of the article tells you that the people reporting are giving a whole list of reasons why there are undoubted accuracy issues with the list itself. Not to mention, I find it a little difficult to take a list too seriously when you've got the league-leader in INTs having 1 out of every 6 of his actual INTs discounted and yet somehow there seems to be no interest in making adjustments for INTs marked against their new proposed league leader that were nothing short of horrid officiating on completed passes. Sanchez still has plenty of room for improvement, and I certianly won't argue against the fact that this supports that argument, but to try to prove anything more than that with an at least somewhat flawed data set is more a case of first taking a stance and then trying to find things that support it than anything else. The data set isn't flawed at all. It's just a list of things that happened. Sanchez threw thirteen passes last year that were not interceptions purely by dint of the defender having butterfingers. I honestly don't understand why people get upset about this. The conclusions suggested by the data--Henne probably isn't as terrible as people around here like to think, Sanchez needs to stop throwing the ball to the other ******* team--are so uncontroversial and self-evident that I imagine most thinking people have already reached them, regardless of what FO says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 The data set isn't flawed at all. It's just a list of things that happened. Sanchez threw thirteen passes last year that were not interceptions purely by dint of the defender having butterfingers. I honestly don't understand why people get upset about this. The conclusions suggested by the data--Henne probably isn't as terrible as people around here like to think, Sanchez needs to stop throwing the ball to the other ******* team--are so uncontroversial and self-evident that I imagine most thinking people have already reached them, regardless of what FO says. Sanchez just needs to stay cute. Everything else is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 The data set isn't flawed at all. It's just a list of things that happened. Sanchez threw thirteen passes last year that were not interceptions purely by dint of the defender having butterfingers. I honestly don't understand why people get upset about this. The conclusions suggested by the data--Henne probably isn't as terrible as people around here like to think, Sanchez needs to stop throwing the ball to the other ******* team--are so uncontroversial and self-evident that I imagine most thinking people have already reached them, regardless of what FO says. That's all I was saying. He doesn't suck. He's young and is still learning. If it continues like this without improvement that's one thing. But I think you put it well. It is utterly uncontroversial to say that Sanchez has to stop throwing the ball to defenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpartanJet Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 The cryptkeeper just put Sanchez in the "Chad Pennington" catagory. Oh the humanity I can't think of a worse insult or words that would sting more than to be called a Chad Pennington. http://espn.go.com/n...fl-starting-qbs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoFlaJets Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 SE-I asked PFFocus about Cotchery and he had 10 drops last year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 The cryptkeeper just put Sanchez in the "Chad Pennington" catagory. Oh the humanity I can't think of a worse insult or words that would sting more than to be called a Chad Pennington. http://espn.go.com/n...fl-starting-qbs That is terrible.. Hopefully SMC has prepared a brief on this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoFlaJets Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 The cryptkeeper just put Sanchez in the "Chad Pennington" catagory. Oh the humanity I can't think of a worse insult or words that would sting more than to be called a Chad Pennington. http://espn.go.com/n...fl-starting-qbs what IS it with ESPN and their lists this year anyway? Every day they are ranking players-especially the QBs-who CARES?!!!? It doesn't matter who is number 5 andf who is #7 and if Mark Sanchez is #20-all I care about is who's winning the games and Sanchez has done pretty damn good in that department Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Mr. Mackey is dead wrong. Andy Dalton is significantly better than Cam Newton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 The data set isn't flawed at all. It's just a list of things that happened. Sanchez threw thirteen passes last year that were not interceptions purely by dint of the defender having butterfingers. I honestly don't understand why people get upset about this. The conclusions suggested by the data--Henne probably isn't as terrible as people around here like to think, Sanchez needs to stop throwing the ball to the other ******* team--are so uncontroversial and self-evident that I imagine most thinking people have already reached them, regardless of what FO says. I don't disagree with your conclusions from the data, and I certainly don't think the data is completely useless, as I said in my initial post. That said, I also don't think the numbers are by any means bible and it is flawed simply in the fact that it's admitted by the source as not to be complete, as well as a list of questions that get brought into play when the data starts using clearly subjective analysis in the absolutely absurd additions and subtractions that make up that Adjusted INT number. Let's be honest, if you really want to play that game you need to start looking at a whole lot more factors, as they are greatly over-simplifying this analysis. Is it fine to use as a general comparative analysis? Sure, but trying to use these numbers as any sort of real quantitative measure is beyond ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYJets90 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Just remember, everyone wrote Drew Brees off after his third year when they drafted Rivers to replace him, and his numbers were similar to Sanchez's. A lot of Interceptions and incompletions. Brees hardly played in his first year so his fourth year would be like Sanchez's third. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFanInDenver Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Let me get this. We beat the number 1 QB in his own crib when it mattered the most with a QB that is in the so called "Chad Pennington" division. Interesting! P.S: Can this list finally end the Henne > Sanchez debate ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetscode1 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 this site is starting to give me a headache-every day it's the same stupid crap-people fighting, people calling each other names, people pretending to be all-knowing-I think it's time to take a break SFJ, your one of the sane guys, stick around and ignore the chaff...thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetscode1 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 This conversation is still going on? Its simple. We should have drafted Josh Freeman. Mark Sanchez is the suck. But what he lacks as a QB, he totally makes up for as a model. He's very cute. Coulda, woulda, shoulda...we were desparate for a QB that draft...IIRC...Mayock and many others had Sanchez #1 ahead of Stafford...never mind Freeman...yes Josh landed at our original pick at 17...but no way could we have expected that and also doesn't factor in that if we sat there TB could have moved up ahead us and still gotten him...unless you want to discuss taking Freeman at #5 overall...remember we didn't really have the ammo to move up that far and the only way we get a deal is with Mangini who took a bunch of his old players in lieu of draft pciks...doubt we could have made a deal with any other team...and if you still would entertain taking Freeman #5 overall...he had more flags than any of the other QBs coming out that year (only played one year at Kansas State, maturity issues). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Coulda, woulda, shoulda...we were desparate for a QB that draft...IIRC...Mayock and many others had Sanchez #1 ahead of Stafford...never mind Freeman...yes Josh landed at our original pick at 17...but no way could we have expected that and also doesn't factor in that if we sat there TB could have moved up ahead us and still gotten him...unless you want to discuss taking Freeman at #5 overall...remember we didn't really have the ammo to move up that far and the only way we get a deal is with Mangini who took a bunch of his old players in lieu of draft pciks...doubt we could have made a deal with any other team...and if you still would entertain taking Freeman #5 overall...he had more flags than any of the other QBs coming out that year (only played one year at Kansas State, maturity issues). He also padded his stats against crappy competition last year and will come back to reality this year with a significantly tougher schedule. The NFC South was a mirage last year; the Saints, Falcons and Bucs all benefitted greatly from getting to play the NFC West and the Panthers twice, pretty much gave all three 6 easy wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aten Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Sanchez threw thirteen passes last year that were not interceptions purely by dint of the defender having butterfingers. Oh no you dint. Could you really not find a more subtle way to avoid using a word that shares its root with something that isn't implied by correlation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kleckineau Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I love the kid but this is bad, he gets that glazed over look and he looks like Kyle Boller---I still blame Shotty---the kid has tools on this offense...he needs to let it go and sling it . Thread still has legs despite the opening salvo from the ususal "I ♥ Sanchez" mocking birds, If he is so bad why did he lose get to 2 AFCCGs in a row crowd." Not possible you are onto something is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Oh no you dint. Could you really not find a more subtle way to avoid using a word that shares its root with something that isn't implied by correlation? To the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Coulda, woulda, shoulda...we were desparate for a QB that draft...IIRC...Mayock and many others had Sanchez #1 ahead of Stafford...never mind Freeman...yes Josh landed at our original pick at 17...but no way could we have expected that and also doesn't factor in that if we sat there TB could have moved up ahead us and still gotten him...unless you want to discuss taking Freeman at #5 overall...remember we didn't really have the ammo to move up that far and the only way we get a deal is with Mangini who took a bunch of his old players in lieu of draft pciks...doubt we could have made a deal with any other team...and if you still would entertain taking Freeman #5 overall...he had more flags than any of the other QBs coming out that year (only played one year at Kansas State, maturity issues). Nobody had Sanchez ahead of Stafford. Thats just silly. Stafford was the consensus # 1 pick. Many people saw Freeman as a stud and just as many saw Sanchez as a bust. He's a great model but not a very good QB. I hope he proves me wrong because I really like the kid. But we should have stayed put and drafted Freeman. (eventhough we didnt give up much to get the model) He also padded his stats against crappy competition last year and will come back to reality this year with a significantly tougher schedule. The NFC South was a mirage last year; the Saints, Falcons and Bucs all benefitted greatly from getting to play the NFC West and the Panthers twice, pretty much gave all three 6 easy wins. Yes, padding his stats was his goal and not leading his team to a 10-6 season. It was all about padding his stats instead of just playing good sound Football twice as good as anything Mark has ever sniffed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbatesman Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Oh no you dint. Could you really not find a more subtle way to avoid using a word that shares its root with something that isn't implied by correlation? I mainly liked it because it can also mean "mark." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbatesman Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I mainly liked it because it can also mean "mark." ...which, I now recognize, is probably exactly what you were saying. /dullard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Nobody had Sanchez ahead of Stafford. Thats just silly. Stafford was the consensus # 1 pick. Many people saw Freeman as a stud and just as many saw Sanchez as a bust. He's a great model but not a very good QB. I hope he proves me wrong because I really like the kid. But we should have stayed put and drafted Freeman. (eventhough we didnt give up much to get the model) Yes, padding his stats was his goal and not leading his team to a 10-6 season. It was all about padding his stats instead of just playing good sound Football twice as good as anything Mark has ever sniffed. This is just you being dense. No one remotely suggested his goal was to pad his stats. It just what tends to happen when you play against pure crap. He was terrible against every good defense he faced. His passer rating against Pittsburgh was 67.1, against Atlanta he had a 72.0 one game and a 61.4 in the other, his passer rating against Baltimore was 67.6. Conversely, he topped a 100 rating against Carolina twice, and lit up Arizona, Washington, and San Fran. His record in games against teams with winning records was 1-5. He was 9-1 in games against losing teams, his only loss - Detroit (the only one with a respectable defense.) Face it, when it comes to actual results, your boy Joshie is a tall, black Chad Pennington with a live arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I mainly liked it because it can also mean "mark." The other day a buddy of mine posted on his FB that his tomatoes blew away in the hurricane, to which I replied; "Maybe they were trying to ketchup with the rest of the debris." Turns out that would wind up being the 2nd best pun of my week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.