Jump to content

Sanchez sucks.


Sperm Edwards

Recommended Posts

this coming from MR Extreme himself. I was talking about a specific situation ,.... god for bid we should ask for a few talented players on this offense and strike me down dead if I dare say a few pro bowlers like most of the good offenses in this league trot out onto the field.

I wonder how Sanchez would do with Roddy White, Julio Jones, Tony Gonzalez, and Micheal Turner ?

JiF?

nunoc.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This I'm on board with. While I agree Sanchez sucks and his occasional glimmers can be maddening, I'll still take a QB who puts up a legitimately impressive QB performance over one who I hate to watch each and every week, win or lose, like I did with Chad.

Every throw is total excitement! Anything can happen, and usually does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another one who can not comprehend what they read.

What i have said time and time again, is that the offense as a unit is terrible.

Up until this week, zero running game, zero receivers, and questionable playcalling.

All I have ever said is that he is one of many problems, not the only problem.

I thought after 2010 he showed enough promise, but they screwed up the personnel something fierce last year and this year, and he and the entire offense has been dog crap.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension, it's pretty bad.

List of excuses followed by "he was good in 2010 when...." blah blah blah. Typical of a Sanchez apologist. Do you read what YOU write?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the real question is whether or not you think it's worth investing another several years in Sanchez to even find out.

Sanchez has this year and next, it's essentially contractually guaranteed that he's here because cutting him in offseason is a $17 million cap hit and keeping him here costs a little over $12 million. So "several" isn't happening. Sanchez has these next 10 games and some of next year for everyone to "find out."

An easy way to find out is if he has a good remainder of the season. More of vs. Bills & Indy rather than the 4 other abominations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

incidentally Rodgers had very pedestrian #'s this year until last night. o-line gave him more time than they had all year and voila! He suddenly looked super again.

Difference is Rodgers looks pretty damn good when things don't go well around him, and looks like one of the best QB's of all-time when they do.

Sanchez looks like the worst QB of all-time when things don't go well, and looks like an average NFL QB when they go perfectly. On Sunday all 44 guys came to play and Sanchez looked decent. Meanwhile QB's around the league are throwing for 300+ or 400+ yds with sh*t defenses and very few playmakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes he did.

Chicago - 219 1 TD 1 INT

@ Seattle - 223 0 TD 0 INT

@ Indy - 235 3 TD 1 INT

If you think those aren't pedestrian stats for Rodgers you're wrong. He was even asked after the Houston game about the criticism he's been taking this year.

I'm not saying Sanchez can aspire to be Rodgers. What I'm saying is that even the best in the league has down games when he's not being given time to throw the ball and victimized by drops.

You said pedestrian numbers, not pedestrian numbers for Rodgers. And even still, you are isolating 3 games and ignoring 2 and summing that up to say he has been pedestrian through 5.

Every QB's numbers are pedestrian when you cherry-pick his better games out of the mix. And again, 4 of his 6 games came against the 4 top defenses in the league.

Would his Indy performance be just as "pedestrian" if Indy hadn't scored 27 points in the 2nd half of their game? Still completed nearly 2/3 of his passes and rushed for almost another 60.

The premise you seem to be alluding to is that he's only a top QB when he has all the time in the world. Truth is he had pretty bad protection last year as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The premise you seem to be alluding to is that he's only a top QB when he has all the time in the world. Truth is he had pretty bad protection last year as well.

I believe Eli has been the only QB sacked more than Rodgers since he took over the starting job in Green Bay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What i have said time and time again, is that the offense as a unit is terrible.

Up until this week, zero running game, zero receivers, and questionable playcalling.

All I have ever said is that he is one of many problems, not the only problem.

The inherent fatal flaw in this argument is that the number 1 problem behind Sanchez' poor production this year is not lack of running game, poor receivers or questionable playcalling. It is that he leads the NFL in off-target incompletions. Those are poor throws on open receivers when Sanchez is not under duress.

Prior to the Texans game he had 35, the majority of which have come in his four straight horrible performances following the Bills game. He had only 2 that I recall in the Colts game, which explains his 61% completion percentage in the game. The same was true in the Bills game.

Those errant throws are 100% on Sanchez. They have nothing to do with the running game, OLine protection, or dropped passes. They are Sanchez' mistakes alone.

If he reduces his off-target incompletitons by, say, 45%, which isn't a big number (for example, rather than having 35, he'll have 20 missthrows), his completion percentage for the year would actually skyrocket from 49% all the way to over 60%. That means extended drives and more scoring opportunities. So even if the run is stopped or the receivers drop balls, if Sanchez makes more on target throws the offense dramatically improves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Eli has been the only QB sacked more than Rodgers since he took over the starting job in Green Bay.

JF80 & Sperm, please stop making the Rodgers/OLine analogy. It's a completely different offensive philosophy. Rodgers has one of the quickest releases in the NFL, sub .35 seconds, but he holds the ball longer than most because the McCarthy offense is premised on bigger pass plays. The sacks are merely collateral affect. They know that even with a sack they can make it up on the next pass play. Rodgers has always been a high sack QB and it is directly related to McCarthy's scheme. I remember watching an ESPN segment on this a couple of years back.

The Giants, on the other hand, have a crappy Oline. Green Bay doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JF80 & Sperm, please stop making the Rodgers/OLine analogy. It's a completely different offensive philosophy. Rodgers has one of the quickest releases in the NFL, sub .35 seconds, but he holds the ball longer than most because the McCarthy offense is premised on bigger pass plays. The sacks are merely collateral affect. They know that even with a sack they can make it up on the next pass play. Rodgers has always been a high sack QB and it is directly related to McCarthy's scheme. I remember watching an ESPN segment on this a couple of years back.

The Giants, on the other hand, have a crappy Oline. Green Bay doesn't.

I watch a lot of Packers games, just about every week. The defense is in the backfield pretty fast. That is not part of McCarthy's planned scheme unless he has the IQ of broccoli.

He does hold the ball longer, but that is in large part due to his ability to buy longer time with his feet. He most certainly does not just stand there like a fool who shall not be named here, expecting the OL to buy him 4-5 seconds of time. Rodgers is flushed out of his comfy spot in the pocket in less than 2 seconds quite regularly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would his Indy performance be just as "pedestrian" if Indy hadn't scored 27 points in the 2nd half of their game? Still completed nearly 2/3 of his passes and rushed for almost another 60.

I agree with the rest of your post, so I deleted that part. Would he even have had those numbers if Indy didn't keep scoring? Sanchez might have gone for a lot more if Indy could have put points on the board and made it necessary. I don't think we "hid" Sanchez this past week. I think Indy did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JF80 & Sperm, please stop making the Rodgers/OLine analogy. It's a completely different offensive philosophy. Rodgers has one of the quickest releases in the NFL, sub .35 seconds, but he holds the ball longer than most because the McCarthy offense is premised on bigger pass plays. The sacks are merely collateral affect. They know that even with a sack they can make it up on the next pass play. Rodgers has always been a high sack QB and it is directly related to McCarthy's scheme. I remember watching an ESPN segment on this a couple of years back.

The Giants, on the other hand, have a crappy Oline. Green Bay doesn't.

I don't think it really matters how the sacks happen. The argument seems to be that QB's (like Sanchez) should struggle to produce when they get taken down a lot. Rodgers and Eli have yet are still highly productive QB's. Sanchez mostly has his jersey clean compared to these guys, with a lot of his sacks happening by simply holding the ball too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sanchez has this year and next, it's essentially contractually guaranteed that he's here because cutting him in offseason is a $17 million cap hit and keeping him here costs a little over $12 million. So "several" isn't happening. Sanchez has these next 10 games and some of next year for everyone to "find out."

But that's not enough time to get Julio Jones, Michael Turner, and Tony Gonzalez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watch a lot of Packers games, just about every week. The defense is in the backfield pretty fast. That is not part of McCarthy's planned scheme unless he has the IQ of broccoli.

He does hold the ball longer, but that is in large part due to his ability to buy longer time with his feet. He most certainly does not just stand there like a fool who shall not be named here, expecting the OL to buy him 4-5 seconds of time. Rodgers is flushed out of his comfy spot in the pocket in less than 2 seconds quite regularly.

McCarthy definitely takes advantage of Rodgers athletic ability but who wouldn't? He really is the perfect QB if you could build one. But again, it is by design that he holds the ball longer. Yes, he can avoid the pressure, but giving up sacks isn't a big deal for them because of their philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it really matters how the sacks happen. The argument seems to be that QB's (like Sanchez) should struggle to produce when they get taken down a lot. Rodgers and Eli have yet are still highly productive QB's. Sanchez mostly has his jersey clean compared to these guys, with a lot of his sacks happening by simply holding the ball too long.

Right. But the point is that Rodgers holds the ball too long because he's supposed to, and Sanchez does it because he's a clown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the rest of your post, so I deleted that part. Would he even have had those numbers if Indy didn't keep scoring? Sanchez might have gone for a lot more if Indy could have put points on the board and made it necessary. I don't think we "hid" Sanchez this past week. I think Indy did.

Well then we disagree on that, particularly since Rodgers didn't put up any numbers in the 2nd half other than getting clobbered by Indy. The 47 yards he got on his last 3 pass attempts represent the majority of his passing yards after halftime.

I do not think that Sanchez's numbers in limited attempts can be extrapolated to assume the same production in twice as many. I am pretty comfortable in my belief the end numbers would have been worse and a couple of turnovers would have been in the mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it really matters how the sacks happen.

Really, it does though, and not just based on scheme. Clearly, getting blown up by an unblocked rusher in 1.2 seconds is not the same as taking a sack 5 seconds after the snap, because you have the pocket presence of a Pop Warner QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McCarthy definitely takes advantage of Rodgers athletic ability but who wouldn't? He really is the perfect QB if you could build one. But again, it is by design that he holds the ball longer. Yes, he can avoid the pressure, but giving up sacks isn't a big deal for them because of their philosophy.

Put Sanchez back there with the same "philosophy" and he takes twice as many sacks without the gobs of rushing yards. We saw that last year.

Rodgers holds the ball longer by moving around and creating more time to be had. Sanchez just holds the ball longer period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it really matters how the sacks happen. The argument seems to be that QB's (like Sanchez) should struggle to produce when they get taken down a lot. Rodgers and Eli have yet are still highly productive QB's. Sanchez mostly has his jersey clean compared to these guys, with a lot of his sacks happening by simply holding the ball too long.

Sanchez sucks, bro. He sucks when he has pressure on him, he sucks when he has time.

My point here and elsewhere is that Sanchez can correct his suckage when he has time and it's solely up to him and perhaps Clueless Cavanagh to do it.

As to Rodgers and Eli, both deal better under pressure for different reasons. Rodgers buys time and Eli simply doesn't give a sh*t. He'll take a major hit just to complete a pass. The NFCCG last year was remarkable. I've never seen a QB take such a pounding and never miss a snap in the game. That's who Eli is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put Sanchez back there with the same "philosophy" and he takes twice as many sacks without the gobs of rushing yards. We saw that last year.

Rodgers holds the ball longer by moving around and creating more time to be had. Sanchez just holds the ball longer period.

Duh, that's because Sanchez sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then we disagree on that, particularly since Rodgers didn't put up any numbers in the 2nd half other than getting clobbered by Indy. The 47 yards he got on his last 3 pass attempts represent the majority of his passing yards after halftime.

I do not think that Sanchez's numbers in limited attempts can be extrapolated to assume the same production in twice as many. I am pretty comfortable in my belief the end numbers would have been worse and a couple of turnovers would have been in the mix.

Maybe. I don't think we can extrapolate at all, but the Jets dominating performance kept Sanchez from getting to throw on a weak ass D. I would take those "pedestrian" numbers Rodgers has for Sanchez any time. I'd be psyched and I think we'd be much better than 3-3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which means this thread is titled fairly well.

LOL, that is true.

The hope should be that by the end of the year, taking the season as a whole, we can conclude that Sanchez didn't suck this season. We can't ignore that pure suckage stretch (Pitt-Mia-SF-Tex), but put them in context and say he didn't repeat that in the other 10-12 games.

It's like a shooter who has a bad month or a hitter he slumps during May and June but picks it up in the summer. That should be the hope IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, that is true.

The hope should be that by the end of the year, taking the season as a whole, we can conclude that Sanchez didn't suck this season. We can't ignore that pure suckage stretch (Pitt-Mia-SF-Tex), but put them in context and say he didn't repeat that in the other 10-12 games.

It's like a shooter who has a bad month or a hitter he slumps during May and June but picks it up in the summer. That should be the hope IMO.

Well, if hope is all that it takes, I'm liquidating my 401k, paying the penalties, and dropping it all on the Jets at 70-1 to win the Super Bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, that is true.

The hope should be that by the end of the year, taking the season as a whole, we can conclude that Sanchez didn't suck this season. We can't ignore that pure suckage stretch (Pitt-Mia-SF-Tex), but put them in context and say he didn't repeat that in the other 10-12 games.

It's like a shooter who has a bad month or a hitter he slumps during May and June but picks it up in the summer. That should be the hope IMO.

Let me tell you something about hope...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if hope is all that it takes, I'm liquidating my 401k, paying the penalties, and dropping it all on the Jets at 70-1 to win the Super Bowl.

But that's what fandom is all about, isn't it?

We can only hope that Cano, ARod, Granderson & Swisher remember they have testicles before tonight's game, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me tell you something about hope...

There's a reason why being a Jets fan is the worst hell on earth: hope. Every man who has ventured to the Meadowlands over the years has looked up at the Giants banners and imagined winning a Super Bowl. So easy...so simple. And, like shipwrecked men turning to sea water from uncontrollable thirst, many have died trying. I learned here that there can be no true despair without hope. So, as I terrorize the Jets, I will feed their fans hope to poison their souls. I will let them believe I'm a winner. You can watch them clamoring over each other to make excuses for me. You can watch me torture an entire fanbase and when you have truly understood the depth of your failure, I will fulfill Rich Kotite's destiny: we will go 0-16. And then--when it is done, and the Jets are ashes--then you have my permission to die.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's what fandom is all about, isn't it?

Not for me. Fandom is all about being snarky and rooting for my chosen teams to fail so that I can be proven right.

We can only hope that Cano, ARod, Granderson & Swisher remember they have testicles before tonight's game, right?

I'm a Queens guy, so my only baseball-related hopes revolve around Fred and Jeff Wilpon being indicted and Jason Bay getting hit by a bus on Northern Blvd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...