Building an Offense

[Matt39]

Sanchez supplied the opponent with 7 points so take away one of those TDs.

 

16 points.  16 net points is what the offense needed to win.  14 net points or less and we lose.  Sanchez & the offense put up 12.  12 measly points in the championship game.

 

The defense looked pretty bad, and I'm hardly a Rexapologist, but they were that much worse because they had to keep marching back onto the field every time they got off it.

 

Sanchez has been a demoralizing disease of this franchise for years, to the point where we have this thread that was designed to deflect blame away from him.

 

 

Nonsense.  They were on their way to the HOF.  It cost draft picks to get them.  We couldn't even give away a draft pick to get someone to accept Sanchez.

 

Hence my point about it being a team loss.

[j4jets]

Not really.

 

 

2009

 

@ Bengals (24-14 W):  12-15, 182 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT's

 

Efficient performance, but Sanchez didn't have to do much.  We ran the ball 38 times and the defense took care of the rest.

 

So three incompletions gets him a an average grade? Who would have thought? Did you forget this team was completely based on a ground and pound philosophy with a rookie HC, rookie QB and a rookie RB, all playing in their first NFL playoff games. Do you recall who the Jets starting WRs were? Yes, neither one of them haven't started in a while. Sanchez made plays when they counted. I give him an A for this performance. If 12/15 for 182 yards and a TD isn't solid, Im not sure what is.

 

@ Chargers (17-14 W):  12-23, 100 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT

 

For any other team, this would be a woeful performance leading to a loss.  However, thanks to Shonn Greene's second straight 100+ yard day and another truly remarkable defensive effort, the Jets came away with another road victory.  We picked off Rivers twice and only allowed 61 yards on the ground.  

 

 

Again, a ground and pound team, mauling the opponent while Sanchez is given a conservative game plan. Chargers pass D was an above average unit so I give Sanchez a B for coming out victorious with just one mistake.

 

@ Colts (30-17 L):  17-30, 257 yds, 2 TD's, 1 INT

 

Sanchez played well in the first half, but ultimately didn't make enough plays in this one and it came back to haunt us.  80 of those yards were on a play-action run and catch by Braylon Edwards when a porous Colts D was selling out on the run.  Once Shonn Greene hurt his ribs and Peyton Manning figured out the defense, we had no hope of Sanchez leading us to victory.

 

 

 

Sanchez made enough plays in this game to win. The D was SUPPOSED to stop Manning. Its how this team was built, low scoring games where the D holds it own. Manning tore the defense apart, but this was Sanchez' best playoff game at the time. Nick Folk missed (or Feely?) a couple of crucial FGs. Sanchez' only int in the game came when the Jets were down 30-17 with about 5 or so minutes left. I say this was a solid performance.

 

 

2010

 

@ Colts (17-16 W):  18-31, 189 yds, 0 TD's, 1 INT

 

Again, nothing special in this one.  Tomlinson's 82 yards and 2 TD runs plus another monumental defensive effort against Peyton Manning got us the W.

 

 

No doubt, the D played lights out. But that shouldn't overshadow Sanchez' game. He had another good game. One pick, yet he remained efficient. He did lead the game winning FG drive, so I say he made enough plays to win the game. Solid in my book.

 

@ Patriots (28-21 W):  16-25, 194 yds, 3 TD's, 0 INT's)

 

This was Sanchez's only quality playoff performance, and even in this one, he still failed to get to 200 yards.  He also did it against a Patriot defense that has been woeful in the pass defense department for years now.  Certainly the Jets getting 5 sacks and a crucial David Harris interception were at LEAST equally responsible for the win as Sanchez was.

 

 

 

If you are to beat Manning and Brady in back to back playoff games on the road, the D has to do its part, as evident by Sanchez's excellent performance here.

 

@ Steelers (24-19 L):  20-33, 233 yds, 2 TD's, 0 INT's)

 

Sanchez did absolutely nothing in the 1st half of this game and had a crucial fumble that put the Jets in a 24-0 hole.  By the time he finally got going against a Steeler defense that was playing conservative, it was far too late.

 

 

 

Steelers had the ball for 21 minutes in the first half. We all know our D played terrible in this game. The fumble was a very close call and it could have gone either way. So the officials just stayed with the call on the field. Sanchez wasn't anything special in the first half but he did have some really good drives in the 2nd half. 3 minutes in to the second half, the score read 10-24. 16 of Tomlinson and Greene's 18 carries went for 37 yards. And even then, Jets team had a huge momentum going in to the final few minutes, except the D couldn't stop Rothlisburger, giving up three first downs. Sanchez played really well in this game too.

 

 

I count 1 solid playoff performance, 2 mediocre ones, 1 below average one and 2 terrible ones.  Certainly no one can look at the above numbers, especially in the context of today's pass-happy NFL, and conclude that all 6 of these performances were "solid".  Not even close.

 

Would really like to see which game you graded what. I hated Sanchez last year, but I give the man the credit when he played well.

[Smashmouth]

nice post j4jets

[pedro55]

So three incompletions gets him a an average grade? Who would have thought? Did you forget this team was completely based on a ground and pound philosophy with a rookie HC, rookie QB and a rookie RB, all playing in their first NFL playoff games. Do you recall who the Jets starting WRs were? Yes, neither one of them haven't started in a while. Sanchez made plays when they counted. I give him an A for this performance. If 12/15 for 182 yards and a TD isn't solid, Im not sure what is.

 

 

 

Again, a ground and pound team, mauling the opponent while Sanchez is given a conservative game plan. Chargers pass D was an above average unit so I give Sanchez a B for coming out victorious with just one mistake.

 

 

 

Sanchez made enough plays in this game to win. The D was SUPPOSED to stop Manning. Its how this team was built, low scoring games where the D holds it own. Manning tore the defense apart, but this was Sanchez' best playoff game at the time. Nick Folk missed (or Feely?) a couple of crucial FGs. Sanchez' only int in the game came when the Jets were down 30-17 with about 5 or so minutes left. I say this was a solid performance.

 

 

 

No doubt, the D played lights out. But that shouldn't overshadow Sanchez' game. He had another good game. One pick, yet he remained efficient. He did lead the game winning FG drive, so I say he made enough plays to win the game. Solid in my book.

 

 

 

If you are to beat Manning and Brady in back to back playoff games on the road, the D has to do its part, as evident by Sanchez's excellent performance here.

 

 

 

Steelers had the ball for 21 minutes in the first half. We all know our D played terrible in this game. The fumble was a very close call and it could have gone either way. So the officials just stayed with the call on the field. Sanchez wasn't anything special in the first half but he did have some really good drives in the 2nd half. 3 minutes in to the second half, the score read 10-24. 16 of Tomlinson and Greene's 18 carries went for 37 yards. And even then, Jets team had a huge momentum going in to the final few minutes, except the D couldn't stop Rothlisburger, giving up three first downs. Sanchez played really well in this game too.

 

 

 

Would really like to see which game you graded what. I hated Sanchez last year, but I give the man the credit when he played well.

 

  Besides that Patriots playoff game,  Sanchez was a game manager.   Yes, the Jets were a ground and pound defensive team, but sometimes you need the QB to win a game for you.  Manning killed the Jets defense in 2010 and they went on to the super bowl.    Sometimes the QB needs to win you games.  Sanchez can't do that and he's gotten worse ever since.    Now he's the butt fumble joke QB.  

 

  Look at last seasons playoffs.   Games ended 30-28, 38-35,  etc.   You can't have a QB who can't get you a few TDs.   It's become a pass happy pass friendly NFL.  You just count on a defense to keep Tom Brady or Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers or Matt Ryan etc to 14 points.    Expecting that game in and game out from a defense now is ridiculous.    Thats the problem with Sanchez and the jets offense.   If the opposing team scores 20 points, the Jets are in trouble.     You don't win in the NFL with a QB like that.    And the playoffs have shown that when the Jets defense wasn't on their game and only allowing 14 points,  the Jets wind up losing.

[JoeKlecko]

+1

 

I love that they looked hard at the OL, but I like it specifically for a few reasons:

 

1. They didn't take a f*cking guard with the 9th pick in the country, no matter how great he's supposed to be.  No matter if he goes to the HOF.  No matter if it's a weak top of the draft.  You don't take a f*cking guard with a top 10 pick. The strength of the draft was (supposedly) OL.  In a draft like that, you take your linemen later, and you take them often.  You piss away higher picks on OL when there are just 1 or 2 guys to get before the talent drops off a cliff to permanent backup & UDFA talent level.  Rumor is he had Cooper as one of his "two guys" higher than Milliner (the other being Austin).  If true, particularly if Milliner is even 70% of Revis, then knowing the haul we were able to get with later picks, we dodged a bullet.  A real CB opposite Cromartie is going to serve us much better than a guard, and is both far more difficult and far more expensive to find in free agency.   

 

2. They are clearly committed to BPA in the draft.  The heart of any GM says he wants his rookies to start right away if possible, but the head knows that if this is true then we'd have 3 mid-round rookies starting on our OL.  So the best-case scenario is lousy.  Therefore he took BPA - or more correctly, who he had on his list as the BPA - even if it meant going back to the same part of the field pick after pick when we had obvious needs elsewhere.  A smart GM gets in love with a player, not the position he plays.

 

3. He clearly knows we needed an upgrade at QB but didn't panic despite all the rumors of this team or that team taking Smith or any other QB.  Stayed in his spot and didn't put multiple eggs into the Geno Smith basket by using 2-3 draft picks on him the way his predecessor did with Sanchez, Greene, Hill, and others.  Same thing with the OL.  Waited for the draft to come to him - particularly at the draft's area of strength - instead of trading up for his guy out of fear that he won't be there.  Ironically, the only real position I'd advocate doing that with is QB and he still stayed cool and waited for Geno to fall to us; he's not a can't miss prospect so if someone else grabs him we'll find our QB somewhere else.  Difference between drafting with your head & drafting with your balls.

 

4. We brought in 2 dirt-cheap free agents and re-upped Austin Howard, all on 1 year deals to pair with our 3 rookies at those 3 positions.  Keep in mind Peterman, before last year's downturn, was a pretty highly-ranked guard.  Last year was either the beginning of the end of his career, an off-season for some unknown reason, or just a guy who'd run his course with that team.  You find out which one by signing him to a 1-year deal at or near the vet minimum.  Plus-side for all 3 on these 1-year deals, is that any that get signed elsewhere (in '14) can us a compensatory pick.  Nothing huge, but it's more than we'd get if we inked any to a 2 year deal and then cut him after only 1.

 

 

The thing is this is all theory, though.  In the end it will come down to the talent he's drafted as much as the strategy used.  If most of them pan out he'll look like a genius for getting 5 or more starters for a team in serious rebuild mode.  Otherwise he'll just look like another fool Jets GM who passed up on this or that great player.

 

Excellent post and I'm in agreement with everything save possibly for the bolded statement, and it might just be a matter of semantics.  I think that smart GMs don't fall in love either with players or positions and don't always handle the draft in the same slavish and predictable way, but most often they draft from BPA or a combination of value and need.  You sort of contradict yourself and support my position with your 3rd point.  If he had fallen in love with Smith, then he would have traded up for him to make sure he got him.  Incidentally, supposedly he did try to trade up for Smith, but whether the team(s?) he spoke with wanted too much, he thought better of trading up since it was Tanny's raison d'etre, or he simply got lucky, he didn't.  

 

I absolutely LOVE the way he has handled this offseason so far, and I think anyone else would be hard pressed to do as much positive as he has with so little to work with and such a bad situation.  I might have made some different choices in the draft than he did, and may have immediately cut Goodson and said the heck with the money they had paid him, but can understand what he has done and why.  Things may not work out for the Jets with him, but if not, it won't be because he didn't make wise, calculated decisions and do the best he could under the circumstances.  I'm not a betting man, but if I were, so far my money would be on Idzik succeeding and the Jets, at the very least, becoming a solid, well-run franchise that is consistently good, if not a winner of multiple Lombardi Trophies.

[O23]

I'd say the 52 turnovers was a pretty major factor.  And the 2 games where we got blown out that I can remember was the Eagles game in '11 (which we knew going in was an AWFUL matchup) and the Charger game in '12 (with McElroy under center).  We had very few blowout losses in the Rex era.  Even that terrible Titans game last season was close.

 

I would just like to point out that the NFL should have done us all a favor and contracted both teams after that god awful display.

[Sperm Edwards]

Excellent post and I'm in agreement with everything save possibly for the bolded statement, and it might just be a matter of semantics.  I think that smart GMs don't fall in love either with players or positions and don't always handle the draft in the same slavish and predictable way, but most often they draft from BPA or a combination of value and need.  You sort of contradict yourself and support my position with your 3rd point.  If he had fallen in love with Smith, then he would have traded up for him to make sure he got him.  Incidentally, supposedly he did try to trade up for Smith, but whether the team(s?) he spoke with wanted too much, he thought better of trading up since it was Tanny's raison d'etre, or he simply got lucky, he didn't.  

 

I absolutely LOVE the way he has handled this offseason so far, and I think anyone else would be hard pressed to do as much positive as he has with so little to work with and such a bad situation.  I might have made some different choices in the draft than he did, and may have immediately cut Goodson and said the heck with the money they had paid him, but can understand what he has done and why.  Things may not work out for the Jets with him, but if not, it won't be because he didn't make wise, calculated decisions and do the best he could under the circumstances.  I'm not a betting man, but if I were, so far my money would be on Idzik succeeding and the Jets, at the very least, becoming a solid, well-run franchise that is consistently good, if not a winner of multiple Lombardi Trophies.

 

I just meant that you pick the player not the position.  When your turn comes up you as GM say you are in love with player x more than player y, not that I'm in love with player x but he doesn't play TE so I'm not taking him.

 

Clearly this is what Idzik did - for better or worse as we'll ultimately see - because next to LT and C, the last thing this team needed was another DT.

 

In the context I was using, BPA is a list from top to bottom of who you love the most down to who you love the least.

[Sperm Edwards]

You clearly meant to derail this thread great job !!! Because everything football MUST at some point tie in to Sanchez .

This thread was meant to be a dissertation in why it's not a QB's fault if he sucks -- namely if the team doesn't follow your formula, then even a good one will fail.  It is a position you have harped on since Sanchez has begun sucking for us, so indirectly it is therefore intended to then further distance yourself from criticism over your past repeated judgment that Sanchez was a good QB.  

 

At some point, you have to accept that an enormous part of any plan for building an offense needs to be that the QB has to hit his receivers when they're open.  If Geno can't, he'll be no better than his predecessor and we'll still be in need of a QB.

[Sperm Edwards]

Hence my point about it being a team loss.

 

And my point is getting bounced from the playoffs would have been a "team loss" for any number of successful SB teams if their QB was Sanchez-level at putting points on the board.

 

This past year forget about the SB, Baltimore never would have gotten past Denver without a real QB.  Instead it would have been months of offseason complaints about how it wasn't you-know-who's fault that the special teams gave up 2 TDs and the defense gave up another 3 more and how no one could have overcome that. (Hell, look at the mulligan people still give Sanchez over the Pittsburgh game and primarily blame the defense that gave up 15 net points).  Meanwhile they didn't lose with double the adversity our offense was faced with.

 

The point is people - the right people - can overcome situations like that, as Flacco showed.  And in today's NFL having such a QB, even if they're not Rodgers-level elite, is required.  The rest of this "building an offense" stuff is nice, but absent a QB who can hit an open receiver none of it matters.

[Smashmouth]

This thread was meant to be a dissertation in why it's not a QB's fault if he sucks -- namely if the team doesn't follow your formula, then even a good one will fail.  It is a position you have harped on since Sanchez has begun sucking for us, so indirectly it is therefore intended to then further distance yourself from criticism over your past repeated judgment that Sanchez was a good QB.  

 

At some point, you have to accept that an enormous part of any plan for building an offense needs to be that the QB has to hit his receivers when they're open.  If Geno can't, he'll be no better than his predecessor and we'll still be in need of a QB.

 

You can argue all you want its obvious to me you wanted to make this about Sanchez as did 80 . It plainly states in the OP this was about Geno moving forward and building an offense from this point on. if I feel the Jets did a poor job in the past then thats my opinion. That does not mean I think Sanchez is a Good QB but it does mean I feel he may not have been given what he needed early on to succeed. You can disagree with that all you want as well but its not the basis for this thread. Once again, like I said to 80 give it up already.

[Jetsfan80]

You can argue all you want its obvious to me you wanted to make this about Sanchez as did 80 . It plainly states in the OP this was about Geno moving forward and building an offense from this point on. if I feel the Jets did a poor job in the past then thats my opinion. That does not mean I think Sanchez is a Good QB but it does mean I feel he may not have been given what he needed early on to succeed. You can disagree with that all you want as well but its not the basis for this thread. Once again, like I said to 80 give it up already.

 

Its been a pretty good 8-page discussion, Smash.  But as to the point of the thread, until we know what Geno brings to the table its hard to tell how we're supposed to build the offense.  I'm hopeful the players we already have will look better with him under center.  I think building up the OL and running game was a good start.  Obviously we didn't do anything to address TE and that would appear to be the next step if Hayden Smith sucks. 

 

The over-arching theme of everything I've argued is that good QB's make the players around them appear better.  That's the starting point.  Its why I'm hoping Geno starts from Week 1 so we can see as much of him as possible.  I strongly doubt the system or players we have will "ruin him" like many would argue happened to Sanchez.  I'm hopeful he can elevate the whole offense so we won't have to have discussions like these where we argue ad nauseum about which skill players or OL were the wrong guys to have.

[j4jets]

Besides that Patriots playoff game, Sanchez was a game manager. Yes, the Jets were a ground and pound defensive team, but sometimes you need the QB to win a game for you. Manning killed the Jets defense in 2010 and they went on to the super bowl. Sometimes the QB needs to win you games. Sanchez can't do that and he's gotten worse ever since. Now he's the butt fumble joke QB.

Look at last seasons playoffs. Games ended 30-28, 38-35, etc. You can't have a QB who can't get you a few TDs. It's become a pass happy pass friendly NFL. You just count on a defense to keep Tom Brady or Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers or Matt Ryan etc to 14 points. Expecting that game in and game out from a defense now is ridiculous. Thats the problem with Sanchez and the jets offense. If the opposing team scores 20 points, the Jets are in trouble. You don't win in the NFL with a QB like that. And the playoffs have shown that when the Jets defense wasn't on their game and only allowing 14 points, the Jets wind up losing.

In 2009 and/or 2010, Jets had Jenkins, Pace, Scott, Harris, Cromartie and Revis making plays defensively. More than 40% of their salary cap was tied between those 6 players. And with a rookie QB, it meant the D was going to win games for them. And the D was top 5 those years, just like how it was supposed to be. Offensively, Sanchez had a rookie RB and an aging, slow n retiring LT. He had Braylon who had his best years in NY outside of his one pro bowl year. He had Cotchery, who has caught an average of one catch a game since leaving the Jets in 2011. He had Holmes who didn't play until wk5. He did have Keller as his go to guy but couldn't block for his life. That's an average at best offense only because the OL was one of the best those years.

Playing on the road as a rookie/2nd yr QB in playoffs and winning 4 out of 6 games isn't exactly a piece if cake. Road playoff games, rookie, average offense, winning record and playoff QB rating in the 90s doesn't suggest a below average QB performance.

[Matt39]

And my point is getting bounced from the playoffs would have been a "team loss" for any number of successful SB teams if their QB was Sanchez-level at putting points on the board.

 

This past year forget about the SB, Baltimore never would have gotten past Denver without a real QB.  Instead it would have been months of offseason complaints about how it wasn't you-know-who's fault that the special teams gave up 2 TDs and the defense gave up another 3 more and how no one could have overcome that. (Hell, look at the mulligan people still give Sanchez over the Pittsburgh game and primarily blame the defense that gave up 15 net points).  Meanwhile they didn't lose with double the adversity our offense was faced with.

 

The point is people - the right people - can overcome situations like that, as Flacco showed.  And in today's NFL having such a QB, even if they're not Rodgers-level elite, is required.  The rest of this "building an offense" stuff is nice, but absent a QB who can hit an open receiver none of it matters.

 

Flacco is better than Sanchez, duh. We're comparing two different games here though. Flacco's performances at Pittsburgh in the playoffs were terrible, which would probably be a better comparison. Flacco 2010 vs Pitt he was much worse than Sanchez in the divisional round.

 

Going forward- the Ravens got better. They added a Torrey Smith, a Dennis Pitta, Bernard Pierce- guys all capable of making plays.

 

The Jets added a Raven reject in Mason, Plaxico....and whomever else.

 

Flacco on this current Jets offense would struggle.

[#27TheDominator]

Why is time of possession supposed to be completely the fault of the defense?  Shouldn't the offense... you know... control the clock a little bit? 

[JoeKlecko]

I just meant that you pick the player not the position.  When your turn comes up you as GM say you are in love with player x more than player y, not that I'm in love with player x but he doesn't play TE so I'm not taking him.

 

Clearly this is what Idzik did - for better or worse as we'll ultimately see - because next to LT and C, the last thing this team needed was another DT.

 

In the context I was using, BPA is a list from top to bottom of who you love the most down to who you love the least.

 

OK, as I thought it was semantics.  

 

When I think of a GM falling in love with a player, it's not necessarily because he's the BPA, but could be. More likely, it's because that player's supposedly the best prospect at a position of strong need for the team and/or is an amazing physical specimen with great measurables (speed, strength, explosiveness, agility, athleticism) and/or had an off the charts Combine, Pro Day or workout with the team. Then the GM thinks that he's the only possible player at that position who can help the team and will trade multiple picks and/or players to move up and take him.  In those situations, the GM doesn't let the draft "come to him" but rather is very aggressive in going after the prospect he covets.  All too often, those prospects fail.  Think of Tanny.  Think of Al Davis and Raiders.  Towards the end of his life, he seemed to always fall in love with the fastest draft prospects regardless of their production in college.

[Bleedin Green]

Sanchez was at 60% that game with 2 TD's. The defense couldnt wrap up for 30 minutes. Sanchez outplayed Ben too. 

 

There are a ton of games to roast Sanchez's abysmal play for...I cant say the two title games, especially the Steeler game as ones you really want to kill him for.

 

There's something to say about Manning probably having his best playoff game of his career against Rex's defense too.

 

Then apparently you must not have paid all that close of attention to those title games.  Those two games saw 3 out of 4 quarters of scoreless offense and a -4 point first half offensive contribution respectively.  Sanchez was abysmally awful.  Just because the rest of the team didn't carry his sorry ass to victory like they had for the prior two weeks in each of those postseasons doesn't absolve him of all blame for his complete uselessness.  He may not have been the only problem in those games, but even slight competence at the QB position ensures an easy victory for at least the Steelers game.  Just like Doug Brien's lame ass didn't absolve Herm and Chad of their complete incompetence the prior time around, a few missed tackles don't excuse Sanchez's ineptitude.

[Matt39]

Then apparently you must not have paid all that close of attention to those title games.  

 

You're right as a Jets fan of 25 years I decided not to pay attention to the AFC championship games.

 

If youre going to put the first quarter of the Steelers game on Sanchez.....well....idk what to tell you. Sanchez significantly outplayed Ben in that game yet a slightly competent QB beats them? ok. 

 

How's this- if even slightly competent tackling occurred in the first half- the Jets win the game.

[Jetsfan80]

So three incompletions gets him a an average grade? Who would have thought? Did you forget this team was completely based on a ground and pound philosophy with a rookie HC, rookie QB and a rookie RB, all playing in their first NFL playoff games. Do you recall who the Jets starting WRs were? Yes, neither one of them haven't started in a while. Sanchez made plays when they counted. I give him an A for this performance. If 12/15 for 182 yards and a TD isn't solid, Im not sure what is.

 

 

 

Again, a ground and pound team, mauling the opponent while Sanchez is given a conservative game plan. Chargers pass D was an above average unit so I give Sanchez a B for coming out victorious with just one mistake.

 

 

 

Sanchez made enough plays in this game to win. The D was SUPPOSED to stop Manning. Its how this team was built, low scoring games where the D holds it own. Manning tore the defense apart, but this was Sanchez' best playoff game at the time. Nick Folk missed (or Feely?) a couple of crucial FGs. Sanchez' only int in the game came when the Jets were down 30-17 with about 5 or so minutes left. I say this was a solid performance.

 

 

 

No doubt, the D played lights out. But that shouldn't overshadow Sanchez' game. He had another good game. One pick, yet he remained efficient. He did lead the game winning FG drive, so I say he made enough plays to win the game. Solid in my book.

 

 

 

If you are to beat Manning and Brady in back to back playoff games on the road, the D has to do its part, as evident by Sanchez's excellent performance here.

 

 

 

Steelers had the ball for 21 minutes in the first half. We all know our D played terrible in this game. The fumble was a very close call and it could have gone either way. So the officials just stayed with the call on the field. Sanchez wasn't anything special in the first half but he did have some really good drives in the 2nd half. 3 minutes in to the second half, the score read 10-24. 16 of Tomlinson and Greene's 18 carries went for 37 yards. And even then, Jets team had a huge momentum going in to the final few minutes, except the D couldn't stop Rothlisburger, giving up three first downs. Sanchez played really well in this game too.

 

 

 

Would really like to see which game you graded what. I hated Sanchez last year, but I give the man the credit when he played well.

 

 

So because of our style of play as ground and pound, outputs like 12-23 for 100 yards is not only excusable, but a GOOD performance?  Just because those were good performances by Sanchez's standards doesn't make them good performances by the league's standards.  Given how poor he's been for his entire career he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt for doing the bare minimum to get us by in those playoff wins.  He was carried by a stellar team both seasons.  That's why he gets the grades I give for his individual performances.

[Jetsfan80]

You're right as a Jets fan of 25 years I decided not to pay attention to the AFC championship games.

 

If youre going to put the first quarter of the Steelers game on Sanchez.....well....idk what to tell you. Sanchez significantly outplayed Ben in that game yet a slightly competent QB beats them? ok. 

 

How's this- if even slightly competent tackling occurred in the first half- the Jets win the game.

 

Sanchez didn't "outperform" Roethlisberger.  I'd say the same defense you knock for missing tackles had a stellar day against a 2-time Super Bowl winner while the Sanchez-led offense didn't score d*** for points until the game was already out of reach.

[Matt39]

Sanchez didn't "outperform" Roethlisberger.  I'd say the same defense you knock for missing tackles had a stellar day against a 2-time Super Bowl winner while the Sanchez-led offense didn't score d*** for points until the game was already out of reach.

 

Roethlisberger barely had to pass the ball because the run defense was so terrible the first 30 minutes.

[Bleedin Green]

Holmes and Edwards were both well on their way to destroying their careers before they ever got to the Jets. That's how they got to be Jets in the first place.

 

Edwards perhaps, but Holmes got to the Jets because Big Ben raped a couple of bitches.

[#27TheDominator]

If you think that Sanchez played well in that Steelers game, maybe you should review how he did prior to the fumble.  I think he completed 3 passes.  One was a 3 yard pass on 3rd and 14 and one a 7 yard pass on 2nd and 19.  He ******* sucked.  The refs were calling a tight game and the Jets moved the ball on PI and illegal hands penalties.  The same things that helped the Steelers extend drives on 3rd downs. 

[Sperm Edwards]

If you think that Sanchez played well in that Steelers game, maybe you should review how he did prior to the fumble.  I think he completed 3 passes.  One was a 3 yard pass on 3rd and 14 and one a 7 yard pass on 2nd and 19.  He ******* sucked.  The refs were calling a tight game and the Jets moved the ball on PI and illegal hands penalties.  The same things that helped the Steelers extend drives on 3rd downs. 

 

Crazy talk.  A decent QB wouldn't have helped because it was a team loss.  Because we lacked weapons and ruined him.   

[Bleedin Green]

You're right as a Jets fan of 25 years I decided not to pay attention to the AFC championship games.

 

If youre going to put the first quarter of the Steelers game on Sanchez.....well....idk what to tell you. Sanchez significantly outplayed Ben in that game yet a slightly competent QB beats them? ok. 

 

How's this- if even slightly competent tackling occurred in the first half- the Jets win the game.

 

So wait a second, in one breath you're talking about how much better Sanchez played than Ben and in the next trying to pin the loss entirely on the defense?  I take it you're oblivious to the blatant contradiction that exists there, right?  Based on the nonsense you're spewing in this post, only two possible conclusions can be drawn from this, either:

 

1)  You believe Sanchez to be a significantly better QB than Ben.

 

OR,

 

2)  You believe Ben to a better QB than Sanchez, but believe he had a significantly worse performance and therefore the logical conclusion would be that the Jets defense must have significantly outplayed the Steelers D.

 

I can't imagine you're anywhere near stupid enough to believe #1 and therefore, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn would be #2.  After all, for a significantly better QB (which Ben unquestionably is) to, by your analysis, have a significantly worse game, there would have to be credit given to the performance of the opposing defense.   Especially when compared to another defense who apparently allowed such a supposedly impressive performance from such an awful QB.  Of course in this scenario I'm also not sure how this doesn't result in a Jets' victory unless this allegedly quality QB performance out of Sanchez was ultimately completely fictitious.

 

Once again, you're trying to blame a defense that allowed 15 net points over an offense that scored 10 net points.  Those are the facts of the situation, and they cannot be disputed, no matter how much you try to spin it.  Drawing any conclusion from those facts other than a clearly incompetent performance by the offense is absurd.  I have to ask, were you one of those same people who argued that the offense wasn't to blame for their 3 point contribution against the Steelers in their prior playoff matchup?  It's essentially the same absurd logic being applied in a desperate attempt to once again absolve the team's biggest headache of any blame despite his uselessness at the game's most important position.

[SenorGato]

If you think that Sanchez played well in that Steelers game, maybe you should review how he did prior to the fumble. I think he completed 3 passes. One was a 3 yard pass on 3rd and 14 and one a 7 yard pass on 2nd and 19. He ******* sucked. The refs were calling a tight game and the Jets moved the ball on PI and illegal hands penalties. The same things that helped the Steelers extend drives on 3rd downs.

Don't blame Sanchez, those plays were designed and called that way. He was just a boy FFS.

[SenorGato]

Edwards perhaps, but Holmes got to the Jets because Big Ben raped a couple of bitches.

Yeah well Holmes smoked weed and put a dick pic online.

[Jetsfan80]

Roethlisberger barely had to pass the ball because the run defense was so terrible the first 30 minutes.

 

Oh, so people praise the idea that Sanchez played WELL in the postseason because he let his running game do the work for him.  Yet Roethlisberger doesn't get the same pass.

[Bleedin Green]

Roethlisberger barely had to pass the ball because the run defense was so terrible the first 30 minutes.

 

Yet in the midst of this supposedly unforgivable defensive performance that allegedly saw no need for Ben to throw the ball, the Jets still managed to pick him off, only to see their offensive counterparts thank them with a 3 and out that handed the ball right back to Pittsburgh.  Then of course the next time the offense saw the field, they handed the Steelers another 7 points.  Try as you might, there's still no conclusion to be drawn, even during the defense's worst stretch of the game, that the offense wasn't still performing even worse.

[shhwagah]

Our offense was terrible last year. Worst in the league as far as I'm concerned, no need to drag the defense into this. 

[Matt39]

Oh, so people praise the idea that Sanchez played WELL in the postseason because he let his running game do the work for him. Yet Roethlisberger doesn't get the same pass.

We're talking about one game. I'm not giving anyone a pass. Hence the term team loss. You guys are the ones trying to pin the entire loss on one player.

I never once said Sanchez played well in that game. He just wasn't the only reason. Missed tackles are a fundamental part of the sport.

[Jetsfan80]

We're talking about one game. I'm not giving anyone a pass. Hence the term team loss. You guys are the ones trying to pin the entire loss on one player.

I never once said Sanchez played well in that game. He just wasn't the only reason. Missed tackles are a fundamental part of the sport.

 

Meh.  I say its the # 1 factor.  You say its one of many equally culpable factors.  Nowhere else to go with this.

[Matt39]

Meh.  I say its the # 1 factor.  You say its one of many equally culpable factors.  Nowhere else to go with this.

 

If a defense lets a team run the ball down their throats for 10 minutes to begin the game, without the slightest threat to even have to pass the ball....its a big reason, no doubt.

[#27TheDominator]

If a defense lets a team run the ball down their throats for 10 minutes to begin the game, without the slightest threat to even have to pass the ball....its a big reason, no doubt.

 

 

It's a common theme around here, but it's not true. The Jets certainly got run on, particularly for such a strong D.  OTOH, during the first drive alone were the following plays - 3rd and 7 illegal use of hands on Cro automatic 1st; 6 yard pass to Wallace on 3rd and 5; 3rd and 12 Roethlisberger scramble for 12.  In fact, they got 3 first downs rushing that drive, but one was Roethlisberger's scramble. 

[Matt39]

It's a common theme around here, but it's not true. The Jets certainly got run on, particularly for such a strong D. OTOH, during the first drive alone were the following plays - 3rd and 7 illegal use of hands on Cro automatic 1st; 6 yard pass to Wallace on 3rd and 5; 3rd and 12 Roethlisberger scramble for 12. In fact, they got 3 first downs rushing that drive, but one was Roethlisberger's scramble.

Would be interesting if Cro didn't commit that penalty. That allowed Pitt another 6 minutes or so of clock down the Jets throat. The entire team couldn't tackle. Mendehall caught a screen if memory serves and the entire team was out if position.

[Sperm Edwards]

Would be interesting if Cro didn't commit that penalty. That allowed Pitt another 6 minutes or so of clock down the Jets throat. The entire team couldn't tackle. Mendehall caught a screen if memory serves and the entire team was out if position.

 

There were a lot of missed opportunities.  Not just individual plays but entire possessions.  It was sickening; we really could have beaten them.