Sanchez the worst QB EVER that has started 4 cons. seasons

[Irish Jet]

My favorite part is Sanchez predicting a playoff run this season.

 

Rex must be proud of his Son.

 

Better to be proud of a failure than ashamed of a murderer.

 

Now f*ck off.

[Matt39]

Him and Joey Big Game are the same person and player. Its eery. 

[Bleedin Green]

You know what's even crazier? All four seasons he gave the Jets the best chance to win because of terrible management decisions and the absence of any real back-up QB.  It's easy to rail on Mark Sanchez, but you have to remember that he didn't trade up to draft himself in 09, he didn't start himself right away, he didn't sign Mark Brunell to be his back-up and he sure as hell didn't give himself an unwarranted extension.

 

Accountability.

 

That's why, more than any other reason, Mike Tannenbaum was sh*t-canned earlier this year.  He was actually held accountable for his utter failures.  Sanchez?  Not so much.  He's still been a miserable failure and no amount of failures from anyone else associated with the Jets changes that in the least bit.

[Bleedin Green]

In defense of Rex/Sanchez, no coach would have given up on him after two years. In 2010 he legitimately did improve, and had a solid enough post-season to at least think he could develop further.

 

The 3rd season was really only when we started to realise what we had, or more to the point - what we didn't have. Even then , I can't really blame us for sticking with him, especially once Manning had shown he wasn't interested - RGIII and Andrew Luck were out of reach, there were no obvious alternatives. The contract extension was an absolutely hilarious piece of incompetence though, one of the worst moves in NFL history, even worse than Tebow.

 

After last season it was obvious Sanchez was done, and we have replaced him, even if he starts week 1. The replacement is on board.

 

I can actually agree about the first two years, but it was blatantly obvious to anyone who had ever watched a second of football that the Jets needed to, at the very least, bring in some legitimate competition for Sanchez before last season, and Tebow was literally the last QB in the league that should have been (and obviously they didn't let him compete with Sanchez anyway, not that it would have made a difference).  And then of course there is the contract, which I think you rather accurately described already.

[SoFlaJets]

what sucks is how Tannenbaum emulated his hero Bill Parcells by rewarding a player a big contract that will hamstring the team that he is leaving. Parcells gave Marvin Jones and Mo Lewis big raises then split out the door-just like MT gave Sanchez that ridiculous and unwarrented raise

[Bleedin Green]

52 turnovers in the last 2 seasons. 

 

And to think, that already league-leading number could have been even higher had he not been benched for a game and a half.

[CrazyCarl40]

That's why, more than any other reason, Mike Tannenbaum was sh*t-canned earlier this year. He was actually held accountable for his utter failures. Sanchez? Not so much. He's still been a miserable failure and no amount of failures from anyone else associated with the Jets changes that in the least bit.

Tanny's failures made it nearly impossible to rid the Jets of Sanchez. It's almost over and then you can find someone else to hate.

[Sperm Edwards]

I'd like to point out how much higher Richard Todd is (or how much closer to average he was) than Sanchez.

[ZachEY]

It's hardly a professional or subjective article.  This author is obviously biased, and bases his entire premise upon a single statistic (the QBR) which has been discussed ad naseum for reflecting nothing.  It doesn't measure what you do, it measures how you do it.  Do you guys really give a sh*t about completion pct if we're winning games?  Think Tebow's Denver fan base gave a sh*t about his 3.5 quarters of crap per game? For sh*ts and giggles go look at what Andrew Luck pulled out last year. Like Mark he threw 18 picks and fumbled the ball 9 times; he even had a worse cmp pct.  But he won games. When Mark was winning games, ugly or not, we weren't seeing these smear articles.  

   

Mark Sanchez is an easy target. Take your shots like this literary wonder working for SB`Nation. 

 

He includes three gifs: two are interceptions from his 5-turnover game against Tennessee, and you'll never guess what the other one is. Then there's this quote referencing donkey sh*t and circumcision:  

 

 

His biggest issue isn't Mark's play, it's the duration of his poor play.  He conveniently excludes quarterbacks with less than four years starting experience. 

If anything this shows that our team was able to overcome his deficiencies and make it to the AFCC game DESPITE Mark. But it also reflects our coaching staff, coordinators, and those with the powers from above who decided to keep him around for a fourth, and now a fifth year...and were unable to make him a better player.  If there are 100 quarterbacks in the NFL (starters and backups) Mark is probably somewhere around the 35th best one.  We'll see what this draft class has, but I'm glad Mark isn't Brady Quinn, or Matt Leinhart, or every other clipboard holder.  

 

1) Had to Neg Rep you for giving yourself positive rep to cancel out BGs.  

 

2) Most of this post is so full of crap I can't even imagine you believing it yourself.

 

3) QB rating is not the worlds greatest statistic, that is true.  But, it is made up of real data, and being the WORST means something.  The difference of a few points individually isn't worth a debate, but as a general guide, especially when normalized and averaged over seasons, it is telling.  It's telling that Young, Montana, and Rodgers are on top and Sanchez and Harrington are at the bottom.

 

4) Completion percentage isn't the end-all be-all of stats, but it does help you win games.  There are extreme outliers like Chad Pennington in every argument, but in general, the better your completion percentage, the better you are.  And, we're not winning games.  We did make the playoffs twice, but we also only had one season with double-digit wins.  Our 1st year, we basically backed in at 9-7.  Recently, we've been 8-8 and 6-10 and it looks likely we're heading for another bad year.  So, I DO want a higher completion percentage than we've gotten the last 4 years, yes.

 

5) Tebow's Denver fanbase gave a crap about two things: 1) Jesus and 2) Tebow.  There's an argument to be made that those two are the same and there's a reason he was shipped off to the Jets after that season, because he's a bad football player at the NFL level.

 

6) As for "Mark winning games" we had a great team around him, including the leagues #1 defense and the leagues #1 running game, and we still didn't win the division.  So, lets not look back at 20-13 in the regular season over two years as some sort of powerhouse.  We most assuredly were not.

 

7) It's not "convenient" that he excludes players with less than 4 years starting experience for the same team, it's the point that he's trying to make.  No QB has the interaction of as much rope as Sanchez has been given and hanging himself as badly.  He says in the beginning that most QBs don't last 4 years with the same team, especially ones as bad as Sanchez.  The point isn't just about sucking, its about sucking and duration of time allowed for sucking.  Sanchez and Joey Harrington are the clubhouse leaders in that category.

 

8) You end on your first valid point of the whole thing.  There was a time that we were good enough to overcome and win DESPITE Sanchez.  Unfortunately, we no longer are.  That team got old and too expensive, and needed to be broken up.  The mess we've been in over the past two years is largely because we drafted a bad QB, but also because of how we spent money and traded away draft picks for our shot which Sanchez was largely responsible for blowing.  So, should the team rebuild around a QB in the hopes of being good enough to win DESPITE him?  You're also correct in that it falls on management and coaching.  Absolutely.  Mark is only responsible for his sucking, he should not be expected to bench or cut himself.  That's management's fault.

 

9) If Mark is around the 35th QB, ok, no need to debate that, with 32 teams, you've essentially made the point that he should not be starting.  So, thanks, I suppose we are done here.  Let's start someone else.

[Irish Jet]

Who knows, maybe he does a Drew Brees and improves by almost 20 points, making him just a good bit below average. 

[slats]

I can actually agree about the first two years, but it was blatantly obvious to anyone who had ever watched a second of football that the Jets needed to, at the very least, bring in some legitimate competition for Sanchez before last season, and Tebow was literally the last QB in the league that should have been (and obviously they didn't let him compete with Sanchez anyway, not that it would have made a difference). And then of course there is the contract, which I think you rather accurately described already.

And this, along with the Sanchez extension, is roughly 90% of the reason that Tannenbaum was let go. If Rex had a legitimate replacement available last year, and Tanny hadn't extended him, Sanchez would've been removed from the starting lineup last year, and removed from the team this year.

Yes, Sanchez sucked for three years, but last year was the point where they should've started to do something concrete about it. That's when they failed miserably.

[T0mShane]

Seriously. Best Captain yet.

[dbatesman]

Favorite.

[ZachEY]

That's why, more than any other reason, Mike Tannenbaum was sh*t-canned earlier this year.  He was actually held accountable for his utter failures.  Sanchez?  Not so much.  He's still been a miserable failure and no amount of failures from anyone else associated with the Jets changes that in the least bit.

 

Exactly what Chaz Shiliens was saying.

[Sperm Edwards]

Who knows, maybe he does a Drew Brees and improves by almost 20 points, making him just a good bit below average. 

 

Where do you get it from that Drew Brees is below average?

 

Sanchez average rate+ = 83.5 (-16.5 = below the league average)

Brees average rate+ = 105 (+5 = above the league average)

 

Shouldn't surprise; Brees throws a lot of picks.  The last 5 years he's balanced that out by usually leading the NFL in TD passes and passing yards, but throwing that many interceptions takes a toll on your passer rating even when you're throwing that many passes.  Plus the compilation didn't eliminate his bad seasons, for those only thinking of pro-bowl Brees and not non-pro-bowl Brees (which there were multiple years of).

 

 

Someone didn't read, look at the chart carefully, or both.

[ZachEY]

what sucks is how Tannenbaum emulated his hero Bill Parcells by rewarding a player a big contract that will hamstring the team that he is leaving. Parcells gave Marvin Jones and Mo Lewis big raises then split out the door-just like MT gave Sanchez that ridiculous and unwarrented raise

 

Fortunately, it only hurts us this year.  And, honestly, besides us having to keep Sanchez, I'm not sure how much.  It may be just because there's no money available, but it doesn't look like Idzik was after the big names at all.  I don't think there was a player we really wanted that we didn't get this year.  Maybe we'd have liked to have kept Landry.  But, honestly, how many more years does Landry have left for that money?  Same with Holmes.  He took a paycut, and is cuttable after next year.  We're actually in good shape going forward.  Great shape if Geno can play.

[ZachEY]

Who knows, maybe he does a Drew Brees and improves by almost 20 points, making him just a good bit below average. 

 

Did find that funny how much better BAD Drew Brees was than Sanchez, let alone GOOD Drew Brees..

[ZachEY]

Where do you get it from that Drew Brees is below average?

 

Sanchez average rate+ = 83.5 (-16.5 = below the league average)

Brees average rate+ = 105 (+5 = above the league average)

 

Shouldn't surprise; Brees throws a lot of picks.  The last 5 years he's balanced that out by usually leading the NFL in TD passes and passing yards, but throwing that many interceptions takes a toll on your passer rating even when you're throwing that many passes.  Plus the compilation didn't eliminate his bad seasons, for those only thinking of pro-bowl Brees and not non-pro-bowl Brees (which there were multiple years of).

 

 

Someone didn't read, look at the chart carefully, or both.

 

He meant, if Sanchez, like Brees, improves 20 points, then Sanchez will then be "a good bit below average".

[Jetsfan80]

Favorite.

 

Am I your favorite?  I am weak and always seek validation.

[Sperm Edwards]

And this, along with the Sanchez extension, is roughly 90% of the reason that Tannenbaum was let go. If Rex had a legitimate replacement available last year, and Tanny hadn't extended him, Sanchez would've been removed from the starting lineup last year, and removed from the team this year.

Yes, Sanchez sucked for three years, but last year was the point where they should've started to do something concrete about it. That's when they failed miserably.

 

You fool.  I've read right here on this message board that the reason he was fired was for drafting Sanchez when he was a legitimate first-round prospect, not for extending him after we already knew he sucked.  Not going to say who made this claim, but his name rhymes with Clitonti.

[Sperm Edwards]

He meant, if Sanchez, like Brees, improves 20 points, then Sanchez will then be "a good bit below average".

 

I read it as him mistakenly seeing the "120" line as the "average" line, and saw that Brees was a good bit below it.  Or at least that that the blue Brees line appears to not even reach the midline of the chart (to the left of what, visually, would seem to be 50% or average).

[Sperm Edwards]

The one thing somewhat misleading about the chart is that it shows 80 as the zero-line instead of zero.  Makes it look, at a glance, like someone better - but still mostly sucky, like Richard Todd - is 4-5x as good.  Todd was much closer to the average QBR over his career than Sanchez, but he wasn't 4x closer.

 

It's not technically wrong, as it is clearly labeled, but at an initial glance it's misleading.

[Bugg]

Where do you get it from that Drew Brees is below average?

 

Sanchez average rate+ = 83.5 (-16.5 = below the league average)

Brees average rate+ = 105 (+5 = above the league average)

 

Shouldn't surprise; Brees throws a lot of picks.  The last 5 years he's balanced that out by usually leading the NFL in TD passes and passing yards, but throwing that many interceptions takes a toll on your passer rating even when you're throwing that many passes.  Plus the compilation didn't eliminate his bad seasons, for those only thinking of pro-bowl Brees and not non-pro-bowl Brees (which there were multiple years of).

 

 

Someone didn't read, look at the chart carefully, or both.

Brees also typically throws a lot of deep balls, invariably those are going to get less accurate the further they go upfield. Testaverde was like this. if you throw deep and get intercepted it's still a bad thing, but often not much worse than a bad punt. Doesn't always work out, but at least it's high risk high reward. There are 11 guys who have a shot at making the tackle. When you don't throw more than 5-7 yards INTs hurt worse because there are fewer guys to make the tackle and the interceptor is further upfield. It's high risk low reward. Which again is another reason Sanchez sucks.

 

And the sulking after turnovers is something no other successful QB does. NONE. You would think he would like to try to improve, to look at the photo, talk to the coaches, see what he did wrong.Eli Manning (hey,remember last years' big year 4 comparison here?) does that every time, focusing on the task at hand.  Not emo boy who is down at the end of the bench pouting like mommy made him eat his peas. WTF? 

[Klecko73isGod]

Well, at least he is not WORSE than Joey Harrington. 

[Klecko73isGod]

The one thing somewhat misleading about the chart is that it shows 80 as the zero-line instead of zero.  Makes it look, at a glance, like someone better - but still mostly sucky, like Richard Todd - is 4-5x as good.  Todd was much closer to the average QBR over his career than Sanchez, but he wasn't 4x closer.

 

It's not technically wrong, as it is clearly labeled, but at an initial glance it's misleading.

 

 

Notice that Kenny O'Brien is right there in that meaty part of the curve.

[JohnnyLV]

easy guy.  You and I both got it wrong. 

 

Burnley Jet said it best, (paraphrasing) "I don't need a blue line to tell me what my eyes tell me".

and Bergen Jet gets the nod for summarizing that neither metric reflects well on Mark Sanchez.  But, I've never said that Mark Sanchez is a statistical wonder.  He's not. 

 

There are two metrics at play here.  The one reflected in the chart (passer rating), and the one I mistakenly referenced in my post (the QBR).

While I appreciate you attempting to explain the QBR to me, I didn't understand the relevance since the chart doesn't graph the QBR it graphs the passer rating.  But now I see where the misunderstanding lies.  I myself mislabeled it in my post/rant.  My bad.  

 

That being said, it's my post, I can wail if I want to.  I'll just be that waily whiny guy who likes Mark Sanchez despite the stats he put up last year. 

But if you want to shut me up, perhaps telling me to ignore his playoff stats isn't the way to go.  Because as your aforementioned QBR metric shows, he actually didn't suck as much ass in the playoffs as he normally does.  For that retort, you might want to reference Burnley Jet's approach, and just say that he didn't pass the eye test.  

 

 

It DOES NOT graph QB rating. It graphs a comparison of your QB rating to the average QB rating in the league to show where you fit in the league relative to each other. Say 5 people take a test and get 20, 40 ,60, 80 and 100. So the average is 60. If we normalize the 60 against a 100, we would get .33, .66, 1, 1.33, and 1,66. That number shows how you did relative to everyone else, where 1 is average below 1 is below average and above 1 is above average. The underlying statistical value does not matter, it shows how you are performing relative to your peers. So 5 people take the same test and get 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50. Even though the group did worse on the test they are still normalized to 33, .66, 1, 1.33, and 1,66.

 

So the chart shows that relative to his peers for the four years he has started no other QB that has been a starter for that long has been so far below the average as Sanchez. It indisputably shows how bad he is compared to other QBs in the league.

[NJ]

[dbatesman]

Am I your favorite? I am weak and always seek validation.

<3

[#27TheDominator]

1) Had to Neg Rep you for giving yourself positive rep to cancel out BGs.  

 

5) Tebow's Denver fanbase gave a crap about two things: 1) Jesus and 2) Tebow.  

 

 

6) As for "Mark winning games" we had a great team around him, including the leagues #1 defense and the leagues #1 running game, and we still didn't win the division.  So, lets not look back at 20-13 in the regular season over two years as some sort of powerhouse.  We most assuredly were not.

.

 

 

Not Coors?  Don't they give a crap about Coors?

 

I actually think the 2010 Jets were a powerhouse.  Yes, their record wasn't insanely good, but they were a nasty, nasty team to play. There was not a team in the league that would pencil in a win against them. They only lost two games by more than 4 points all season and in one of those they held the opponent to single digits.  Sure they got blown out by the Pats, but they also beat them twice. I guess it depends how you define powerhouse.  If you mean the all-time great, certainly not, but they were one of the best teams that year.

[CTM]

rex is an idiot

[JohnnyLV]

Not Coors?  Don't they give a crap about Coors?

 

I actually think the 2010 Jets were a powerhouse.  Yes, their record wasn't insanely good, but they were a nasty, nasty team to play. There was not a team in the league that would pencil in a win against them. They only lost two games by more than 4 points all season and in one of those they held the opponent to single digits.  Sure they got blown out by the Pats, but they also beat them twice. I guess it depends how you define powerhouse.  If you mean the all-time great, certainly not, but they were one of the best teams that year.

 

 

And if we had had a decent QB, we could have been dominant. I agree with a previous poster that what the Jets did for the first two years made sense. But he needed a competent backup in 2011 and last year he needed no extension and true competition because the writing was on the wall that we had seen his ceiling. Alas, 1 of the 10 Sanchez lovers still left is our head coach.....

[T0mShane]

what sucks is how Tannenbaum emulated his hero Bill Parcells by rewarding a player a big contract that will hamstring the team that he is leaving. Parcells gave Marvin Jones and Mo Lewis big raises then split out the door-just like MT gave Sanchez that ridiculous and unwarrented raise

If only there was a salary cap expert around back then to advise Parcells to be more fiscally prudent.

[T0mShane]

rex is an idiot

How dare you demonize the victim?

[Lizard King]

This article makes light of two very troubling problems in the Jets personnel office:

They are painfully, by far, the slowest in evaluating quarterback (and probably offensive) talent.

- therefore it stands to explain why they gave Sanchez Franchise QB status.

-while we have a new GM, the rest of the staff was involved in this recent draft and we have to write off most criticism on Idzik for it. Lots of that staff was canned.

-While excited for Geno, no logical argument exists that the Jets made the right choice.

-Therfore, temper your expectations.

[Matt39]

2009 team > 2010 team, IMO.