Vicious89x Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Its not comforting. It just means that these Qb's dont grow on trees and every team without one is in the same position, so it doesnt really set you back at all. Again, its not like any of the younger QB who hypothetically the Jets could have are that much better than Sanchez. I find comfort in that at least we know he steps up in the big spots and that I believe he's good enough to win a SB. Personally I think you have lots of people here who say he could potentially be that. Then there are others who say no, he's not that and he probably won't be that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious89x Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Yeah, but its funner just to criticize Sanchez with obscure Seinfeld references and Spiderman pics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 They're not funny though breh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Yes. Yankee fans don't boo when the team is winning big. Derek Jeter is always winning big. Mostly at life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Personally I think you have lots of people here who say he could potentially be that. Then there are others who say no, he's not that and he probably won't be that. This. The latter is particularly concerning, hence the previous statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 So have we come to a consensus to fire Shotty yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason423 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Didn't really mean money. I meant having to find a new quarterback all over again. I dont think it sets you back. I look at being set back from a rookie as investing alot of time in a player and being awful during that time only to remain awful for years and never get any benefit out of it. It gets compounded when the player keeps you from being able to upgrade the talent. There are only a handful of QB's in the league who really become difference makers---Id say from the last 10 years or so its been Manning, Brady, McNabb, Roethlisberger, Rodgers, and Rivers that were drafted by their team and Warner and Brees who were free agent pickups--- and pretty much anyone else we would all be looking to get rid of for various reasons. Some other guys might make that list, but thats it for now. So I just dont see Sanchez as any different than the majority of the NFL. I do think if the Jets front office and head coach honestly thought that they would have been as good as they were in 2009 they never would have drafted Sanchez. They would have made that trade early for Edwards and done everything in their power to bring Favre back. If Favre would have been willing to come back the Jets would have won the Super Bowl that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aten Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 I do think if the Jets front office and head coach honestly thought that they would have been as good as they were in 2009 they never would have drafted Sanchez. That's fair, but even if they didn't know they were going to be that good they were negligent if they didn't realize that the team was peaking. So this is basically saying that our best shot still wasn't good enough to bother with a real quarterback. Worst part is that might actually be true considering that he's actually been good in the playoffs. **** this ******* team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I dont think it sets you back. In terms of finding another franchise QB? Of course it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 OK, hypothetical fun-time! The Seahawks land the first overall pick. Pete Carroll calls you and says he'll give you that pick for Mark Sanchez, and you'd end up with Andrew Luck. Any takers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 OK, hypothetical fun-time! The Seahawks land the first overall pick. Pete Carroll calls you and says he'll give you that pick for Mark Sanchez, and you'd end up with Andrew Luck. Any takers? Admiral Akbar says this thread's about to take a turn for the interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason423 Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 OK, hypothetical fun-time! The Seahawks land the first overall pick. Pete Carroll calls you and says he'll give you that pick for Mark Sanchez, and you'd end up with Andrew Luck. Any takers? A few years ago probably not since the player would cost 60 million or so, but now with the cost around 20 Id say you would do it contingent on Sanchez just remaining status quo this year. The NFL is always about the neverending search to find a great QB. Unless you have one of those handful of players I mentioned above you have to take the gamble and try to upgrade the position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious89x Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Admiral Akbar says this thread's about to take a turn for the interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 OK, hypothetical fun-time! The Seahawks land the first overall pick. Pete Carroll calls you and says he'll give you that pick for Mark Sanchez, and you'd end up with Andrew Luck. Any takers? I would make the deal, but I doubt Tanny and Rex would do it. You can see their strategy--ascending QB and core players in their primes. With Luck it would be ascending QB and core players past their prime. What would be interesting if a team like the Rams get the No. 1 pick. Would they pass on Luck for Bradford? Could their GM sleep at night faced with that decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 OK, hypothetical fun-time! The Seahawks land the first overall pick. Pete Carroll calls you and says he'll give you that pick for Mark Sanchez, and you'd end up with Andrew Luck. Any takers? My broke a$$ would pay for Sanchez's flight. It won't happen simply because of the hours, money, and more hours invested in Sanchez, but I have a man crush on Andrew Luck. He's not quite as badass as pre-shoulder injury Sam Bradford, but he also hasn't had his shoulder wrecked and rebuilt. It'd be cool to have a QB who can move despite being tall and heavy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 My broke a$$ would pay for Sanchez's flight. It won't happen simply because of the hours, money, and more hours invested in Sanchez, but I have a man crush on Andrew Luck. He's not quite as badass as pre-shoulder injury Sam Bradford, but he also hasn't had his shoulder wrecked and rebuilt. It'd be cool to have a QB who can move despite being tall and heavy. Luck is like Big Ben without the stupid INTs and multiple rape allegations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Luck is like Big Ben without the stupid INTs and multiple rape allegations. YET. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 OK, hypothetical fun-time! The Seahawks land the first overall pick. Pete Carroll calls you and says he'll give you that pick for Mark Sanchez, and you'd end up with Andrew Luck. Any takers? This really isnt that exciting. Of course you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I'm well aware of that. I know 3 games is a small sample size although it's about 1/5 of the season. We'll see where his number lie later on, but again, his completion % (the main thing everyone bitched about last year) is getting better. Baltimore's a good defensive team, so we'll see how it goes then. Alls I'm saying is he's heading the right way, especially in completion %. If he keeps it up we'll be good, and it's hard evidence that you can't blame Sanchez for this loss, as the title name suggests. The completion percentage over 3 games this year is only proof of improvement if you think prior to 2011 he played 1/3 of his games against weak Jacksonville-types and 2/3 of his games against weak secondaries showing soft zone defense to prevent quick-strike 50-yard plays. Five automatic first downs by pass interference or defensive holding, plus a fumbled kickoff, plus surrendering 220+ yard rushing? I haven't seen anyone pin this loss on Sanchez despite how many here feel they've needed to make some argument against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 OK, hypothetical fun-time! The Seahawks land the first overall pick. Pete Carroll calls you and says he'll give you that pick for Mark Sanchez, and you'd end up with Andrew Luck. Any takers? Did Pete Carroll fall and hit his head? Is anyone within tackling distance of him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious89x Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Did Pete Carroll fall and hit his head? Is anyone within tackling distance of him? Yes but we didn't' take the right angle and he got on the outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barcs Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 The completion percentage over 3 games this year is only proof of improvement if you think prior to 2011 he played 1/3 of his games against weak Jacksonville-types and 2/3 of his games against weak secondaries showing soft zone defense to prevent quick-strike 50-yard plays. Five automatic first downs by pass interference or defensive holding, plus a fumbled kickoff, plus surrendering 220+ yard rushing? I haven't seen anyone pin this loss on Sanchez despite how many here feel they've needed to make some argument against it. I was just agreeing with the thread title. Like i said, if he keeps it up, he will be miles better this year. If he doesn't, then hey, I was wrong. So far he's looked decent, but this game against the Ravens will be a sort of measuring stick for him. If he's still in the same place statwise next week and we come away with the win, I feel he'll be THAT GUY for us this season. It's still early, like you mentioned, but so far so good. I wouldn't call Oakland's defense a pushover, our receivers couldn't get open almost the entire 2nd half. The cowboys as well. Both of those teams came with very good defensive gameplans against us, however. In the Cowboys game we adjusted a little bit better, in Oakland we did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.