Sperm Edwards Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 The difference between the Seahawks and the Jets is that they produce guys like Sherman and Chancellor and Baldwin, which makes it easier to overcome giving boneheaded contracts to hack wideouts or whiffing on a high OL pick. As a cap aficionado, you know better than most how important it is to cultivate high-level production from non-premium draft slots. If their GM blew the #6 pick on Vernon Gholston and followed that up with trading our #1 and #2 (and more) to move up to #5 to draft Mark Sanchez, I'd say that's a pretty big handicap. Also hard to produce mid-round picks when the GM trades so many of them away. #3 and #5 for Jenkins (who then needed a new contract). #3 and #5 for Braylon (who then needed a new contract). #3 or something for 1 season of Favre. #2 for Cromartie (who then needed a new contract). #1 and #2 for Revis (good as he turned out). #4 to move up a handful of slots for Dustin Keller (Jordy Nelson drafted in our orig slot). #3 and a #5 to move up for David Harris (think that's what it was). #5 for Holmes (who then needed a new contract). Equivalent of a #3 for Thomas Jones. #4 and #7 to move up for Shonn Greene. #4 and #5 (think that's what it was) for Lito Sheppard. #6 to move up for Joe McKnight. #4 and #6 for Tim Tebow. I'd say the chances of developing mid-round draft picks was sharply reduced by the lack of picks actually used on draftees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 This playoffs so far, Wilson has been along for the ride. Wilson was a big part of Seattle's success this season though. He's a great player on a great team. It's never been about one player- you seem to think otherwise. I think 1 player can - and often does - make a huge difference. Teams play defense against the Seahawks (with Wilson) differently than they play against the Jets (with Sanchez). He's a threat to pass and a threat to run and he doesn't turn the ball over. Not exactly nothing. I can't penalize Wilson because beast mode didn't flop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 I think 1 player can - and often does - make a huge difference. Teams play defense against the Seahawks (with Wilson) differently than they play against the Jets (with Sanchez). He's a threat to pass and a threat to run and he doesn't turn the ball over. Not exactly nothing. I can't penalize Wilson because beast mode didn't flop. Dont disagree with you- but the Jets two playoff runs weren't doomed because of Sanchez imo- he wasn't the only reason they lost. Over the course of the season Wilson is a million times better than Sanchez ever was....but like T0M has pointed out, Rex did get adequate QB play during both runs. The team just fell short in other areas. The difference between the Jets and Seahawks were way more than the QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 It wasn't bad luck that led the Jets to 1. Draft Sanchez, 2. Grant him the starting job, 3. Surround him with punk exiles 4. Hire Sparano 5. Bring in Tebow 6. Keep running him out there long after he was clearly toast. It was mismanagement. You should be crediting the Seahawks for not doubling and tripling and quadrupling down on their mistakes. Pretty sure Pete Carroll isn't walking around with a Matt Flynn jersey tattoo these days. Seattle got draft picks for Flynn. No one was offering us draft picks for Sanchez or Tebow (since no one was willing to take on their contracts. In the case of Tebow, no one wanted him at any money unless he was willing to just play TE and special teams, which he wasn't). The Sparano hire is defenseless. Sanchez was granted the starting job because he had no competition. That is on the GM. You feel otherwise; we just differ on this opinion. Rex would make a lousy GM so his input should be minimal. They kept Sanchez out there because there was nobody else. The OC's prior 2 QBs worked with before coming to the Jets were Brees and Rivers (as the QBC for both of them). It's not like he'd never seen good/talented QB play before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 If their GM blew the #6 pick on Vernon Gholston and followed that up with trading our #1 and #2 (and more) to move up to #5 to draft Mark Sanchez, I'd say that's a pretty big handicap. Also hard to produce mid-round picks when the GM trades so many of them away. #3 and #5 for Jenkins (who then needed a new contract). #3 and #5 for Braylon (who then needed a new contract). #3 or something for 1 season of Favre. #2 for Cromartie (who then needed a new contract). #1 and #2 for Revis (good as he turned out). #4 to move up a handful of slots for Dustin Keller (Jordy Nelson drafted in our orig slot). #3 and a #5 to move up for David Harris (think that's what it was). #5 for Holmes (who then needed a new contract). Equivalent of a #3 for Thomas Jones. #4 and #7 to move up for Shonn Greene. #4 and #5 (think that's what it was) for Lito Sheppard. #6 to move up for Joe McKnight. #4 and #6 for Tim Tebow. I'd say the chances of developing mid-round draft picks was sharply reduced by the lack of picks actually used on draftees. I've been banging the attrition gong for years with Tannenbaum. There was always going to be a price to pay that he thought could be circumvented by supplementing with rental free agents. It was a bad formula and he got burned. But I'm sure that part of this formulation was based on the belief that the coaching staff would at the very least coach up the first and second round picks. But they haven't. So you get what you got. A nice defensive line that was disproportionately invested in, a couple of OL from the prior coach, and some tchotchke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 I've been banging the attrition gong for years with Tannenbaum. There was always going to be a price to pay that he thought could be circumvented by supplementing with rental free agents. It was a bad formula and he got burned. But I'm sure that part of this formulation was based on the belief that the coaching staff would at the very least coach up the first and second round picks. But they haven't. So you get what you got. A nice defensive line that was disproportionately invested in, a couple of OL from the prior coach, and some tchotchke. Stephen Hill -- The single least efficient wide receiver in football, Hill ranked 102nd of 105 qualifiers in Pro Football Focus' 2012 "catch rate" (45.7%) metric, and 100th (47.1%) in 2013. In addition to ongoing knee problems, Hill plays without physicality and is all too often boxed out by defensive backs in contested situations. He's a straight-line speedster who doesn't go get the ball. Hill's remaining glimmers of hope are his age (23 in April), jets (4.28), and height-weight (6'4/215). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Dont disagree with you- but the Jets two playoff runs weren't doomed because of Sanchez imo- he wasn't the only reason they lost. Over the course of the season Wilson is a million times better than Sanchez ever was....but like T0M has pointed out, Rex did get adequate QB play during both runs. The team just fell short in other areas. The difference between the Jets and Seahawks were way more than the QB. I don't think he got as good QB play as you say. I think his numbers suggest he was above average even in games he sucked, like Pittsburgh. I think he sucked in SD but Rivers threw a pass right at Revis and that was the difference. I think he was good (certainly good enough) in NE but his numbers would suggest he was on fire/great all game, which he wasn't. Indy he was as bad in the 2nd half as the secondary was and is as culpable for the loss. Before he put up those respectable final numbers in Pittsburgh, he'd already sealed the loss with his fumble. In order to win, he needed to be 100% flawless after that and wasn't (plus the refs handing Pittsburgh an extra possession on that 100% BS roughing the punter call didn't help our cause). I've said, and still say, Sanchez's best playoff game was against the Bengals. People feel otherwise because he didn't have multiple TDs or gobs of yards. Meanwhile it's just about his only complete good game from start to finish. Conversely, Wilson's numbers suffer because he hasn't had collapses around him (opposite of Sanchez, other than that Cincy game). I can't penalize Wilson for others not faltering, especially when the threat of Russell Wilson dropping back to pass (or run with it) is part of the reason for their success. Running QBs - good ones who can actually pass - can help their RBs, and their own cause in passing, tremendously. If they stay upright, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Peyton went nuts against our secondary, in part, because we couldn't stay on the field on offense once Greene got hurt. That is my recollection. It is also my recollection that we didn't score any points in the 2nd half on offense. Teams can win games even when the defense isn't having a great (or good) game. obv.. Matt doesn't understand that what happens on one side of the ball effects the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 obv.. Matt doesn't understand that what happens on one side of the ball effects the other. Lito Sheppard sucking was clearly the offenses fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I don't think he got as good QB play as you say. I think his numbers suggest he was above average even in games he sucked, like Pittsburgh. I think he sucked in SD but Rivers threw a pass right at Revis and that was the difference. I think he was good (certainly good enough) in NE but his numbers would suggest he was on fire/great all game, which he wasn't. Indy he was as bad in the 2nd half as the secondary was and is as culpable for the loss. Before he put up those respectable final numbers in Pittsburgh, he'd already sealed the loss with his fumble. In order to win, he needed to be 100% flawless after that and wasn't (plus the refs handing Pittsburgh an extra possession on that 100% BS roughing the punter call didn't help our cause). I've said, and still say, Sanchez's best playoff game was against the Bengals. People feel otherwise because he didn't have multiple TDs or gobs of yards. Meanwhile it's just about his only complete good game from start to finish. Conversely, Wilson's numbers suffer because he hasn't had collapses around him (opposite of Sanchez, other than that Cincy game). I can't penalize Wilson for others not faltering, especially when the threat of Russell Wilson dropping back to pass (or run with it) is part of the reason for their success. Running QBs - good ones who can actually pass - can help their RBs, and their own cause in passing, tremendously. If they stay upright, that is. oye.. not to mention that Russel Wilson played like a top quartile QB all season long, resulting in a division win and home field throughout the playoffs whereas Sanchez played like the worst QB in football leaving us 3 road games from the SB.. It's amazing to me how adamantly some people argue shallow analysis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 oye.. not to mention that Russel Wilson played like a top quartile QB all season long, resulting in a division win and home field throughout the playoffs whereas Sanchez played like the worst QB in football leaving us 3 road games from the SB.. It's amazing to me how adamantly some people argue shallow analysis Team won 11 games in 2010- they wouldn't have won 15 with anyone else(which would have been the number for home field) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Team won 11 games in 2010- they wouldn't have won 15 with anyone else(which would have been the number for home field) Really... cause in 4 of our losses we totaled 18 pts... a 4.5 Ppg avg akso, in 4 of our losses the point differential was 18 pts .. a 4.5 Ppg avg Do you really think that moving from the 28th (sanchez 2010) ranked QB by DVOA to the 8th ranked (Wilson this year) wouldn't have tipped the scales in these close games where we barely scored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 Really... cause in 4 of our losses we totaled 18 pts... a 4.5 Ppg avg akso, in 4 of our losses the point differential was 18 pts .. a 4.5 Ppg avg Do you really think that moving from the 28th (sanchez 2010) ranked QB by DVOA to the 8th ranked (Wilson this year) wouldn't have tipped the scales in these close games where we barely scored? I don't think the 2010 Jets win 15 games with Russell Wilson, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I've been banging the attrition gong for years with Tannenbaum. There was always going to be a price to pay that he thought could be circumvented by supplementing with rental free agents. It was a bad formula and he got burned. But I'm sure that part of this formulation was based on the belief that the coaching staff would at the very least coach up the first and second round picks. But they haven't. So you get what you got. A nice defensive line that was disproportionately invested in, a couple of OL from the prior coach, and some tchotchke. Everyone misses on some early picks or some expensive FAs brought in. Just this year for Seattle, Christine Michael is 3rd string (disgusting for a 2nd round RB). Jordan Hill hardly played. They traded their 1st round pick for a WR who hardly saw the field (and handed him an $11M/year contract to boot). If this was the Jets' draft, you'd be howling nonstop about what a retard Rex was for being involved in these moves. 4th round WR Chris Harper didn't make the team. (After that apparently it's customary to credit good picks and absolve all bad ones, so I'm not going to bother). Previous year's top pick? Bruce Irvin didn't start a game as a rookie. He got 8 sacks, which is nothing to sneeze at, but did little else. This year he started a dozen games and he got to the QB twice. None of it matters to me because they got Wilson in that draft. Previous year's top pick was Carpenter in round 1. Meh. 2nd round pick was John Moffit (already off the team and is out of the league). 4th round pick Kris Durham was cut after 1 forgetful rookie season (he now catches passes in Detroit on plays where Calvin Johnson gets quadruple-teamed). 5th round pick, of course, was Richard Sherman. Great pick. They've done very well in the draft, but still it's not like they hit and hit and hit and never miss. One of the best things they did in recent years was keep their picks (a strategy they curiously abandoned this season by trading their 1st round pick for an injured Percy Harvin). We'll see; he may yet end up the MVP of the superbowl for all I know. But there are 2 keys to drafting well. One is to draft the best players with your picks (duh). But the best teams always will whiff on some. So the other thing that's important is to have enough picks to overcome that, so don't trade away pick after pick after pick looking for a quick fix wherever is available. Unfortunately, abandoning the latter requirement meant mistakes made in the draft got magnified. Then, of course, are the actual mistakes made (which I'm in no mood to re-hash tonight). I just hope it gets better. We'll see how Idzik handles his first all-Idzik draft and offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 oye.. not to mention that Russel Wilson played like a top quartile QB all season long, resulting in a division win and home field throughout the playoffs whereas Sanchez played like the worst QB in football leaving us 3 road games from the SB.. It's amazing to me how adamantly some people argue shallow analysis Our then-healthy WRs of Edwards/Holmes didn't get 1200 yards apiece (nor 1000 yards from our receiving-only TE), therefore they all sucked. If they were any good it wouldn't matter if they consistently saw decent passes thrown their way they'd catch 100 passes and 10 TDs anyway. Just like Larry Fitzgerald really sucked in 2012. Just a terrible, overrated WR who wasn't a weaponz all year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 It's past my bedtime. You guys can last-word me at will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirlancemehlot Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 It's past my bedtime. You guys can last-word me at will. you're dumb! Nighty nite, Spermy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nj meadowlands Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 SE clowned Shane in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I've been banging the attrition gong for years with Tannenbaum. There was always going to be a price to pay that he thought could be circumvented by supplementing with rental free agents. It was a bad formula and he got burned. But I'm sure that part of this formulation was based on the belief that the coaching staff would at the very least coach up the first and second round picks. But they haven't. So you get what you got. A nice defensive line that was disproportionately invested in, a couple of OL from the prior coach, and some tchotchke. Lol @ the idea that you think Tannenbaum actually had a formulation. The year the Seahawks famously took Richard Sherman in the fifth round, they took OT James Carpenter in the first. Carpenter has seen his position change to OG, and was a healthy scratch in the NFCCG. Why didn't that genius staff coach up their own first rounder? I think the answer is that the narrative you've been pushing for a while now is complete bullsh*t. Talented players perform, players that aren't talented don't. Sometimes a coach can get more out of a player than anyone else can, the way Rex actually got production out of Aaron Maybin being an example, but a championship team is built on talent, not projects. The problem with the Jets for a long time now has been the lack of talent coming in. Whether it's trading away too many picks, making poor selections with the ones they've kept, or trading picks for bad players - it's the lack of talent the coaching staff has had to work with that's been the issue. I'm looking forward to seeing Idzik bring in some talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Lol @ the idea that you think Tannenbaum actually had a formulation. The year the Seahawks famously took Richard Sherman in the fifth round, they took OT James Carpenter in the first. Carpenter has seen his position change to OG, and was a healthy scratch in the NFCCG. Why didn't that genius staff coach up their own first rounder? I think the answer is that the narrative you've been pushing for a while now is complete bullsh*t. Talented players perform, players that aren't talented don't. Sometimes a coach can get more out of a player than anyone else can, the way Rex actually got production out of Aaron Maybin being an example, but a championship team is built on talent, not projects. The problem with the Jets for a long time now has been the lack of talent coming in. Whether it's trading away too many picks, making poor selections with the ones they've kept, or trading picks for bad players - it's the lack of talent the coaching staff has had to work with that's been the issue. I'm looking forward to seeing Idzik bring in some talent. What you're saying: the Jets, for five years, brought in talented DL, but nothing else. Makes sense. Lol @ Aaron Maybin, btw. I'll guarantee it took you a solid five minutes to produce that example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 What you're saying: the Jets, for five years, brought in talented DL, but nothing else. Makes sense. Lol @ Aaron Maybin, btw. I'll guarantee it took you a solid five minutes to produce that example. No, the Jets have brought in a few nice players, just too few, especially when it comes to people who throw or catch footballs - Kerley aside. It's not like there's some impressive list of former Rex-coached Jets who left the team and flourished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JiFtheOracle Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 If T0mShane wasnt the filth of the earth, I'd feel bad for him. He couldnt be more wrong about everything and has been getting absolutely destroyed around here lately for it. Deservedly so. It must have been demoralizing when his boo Idzik saw the great Head Coach Rex Ryan at work, developing players, superior game planning, master motivation, creating locker room unity all the things that Rex excels in and Tom claims he cant do. Must suck, would feel bad if it was anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizard King Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Whatever. We both had stingy defenses (despite ours being put into lots of bad positions by our bad QB). Style points don't count. Our D in '09 was sick. Hard to know what would have been (even with Sanchez) had Lito Sheppard not decided to stop playing football. But even still, to say the rest of the team looks no better when you have a stud QB replacing garbage at QB is not realistic IMO. Everything then becomes about what the defense did or did not do, and they're pretty much required to hold everyone to 15 points or less to win. You're not being objective. Their defense is better than our 2009 defense was in almost every way. First of all, this Seattle defense is the first D in a long time to lead the NFL in total defense, passing yards, and turnovers. In our 2009 defense we actually had 500 yard better defended in passing than these Seahawks (2500 for us, 3050 for them), But in takeaways, they had 39 this year compared to 31 for us. You can't underplay the difference in what 8 extra turnovers can make in the course of a team's season. Our backfield in 2009 was atrocious. I know you're far too smart to actually compare our stone legged linebackers Bart Scott and David Harris to Bruce Irvin/ Malcom Smith/Bobby Wagner. There's no way you're comparing Kerry Rhodes and Jim Leonhard to Kam Chancellor and Earl Thomas. Their DL is probably equal to ours back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 You're not being objective. Their defense is better than our 2009 defense was in almost every way. First of all, this Seattle defense is the first D in a long time to lead the NFL in total defense, passing yards, and turnovers. In our 2009 defense we actually had 500 yard better defended in passing than these Seahawks (2500 for us, 3050 for them), But in takeaways, they had 39 this year compared to 31 for us. You can't underplay the difference in what 8 extra turnovers can make in the course of a team's season. Our backfield in 2009 was atrocious. I know you're far too smart to actually compare our stone legged linebackers Bart Scott and David Harris to Bruce Irvin/ Malcom Smith/Bobby Wagner. There's no way you're comparing Kerry Rhodes and Jim Leonhard to Kam Chancellor and Earl Thomas. Their DL is probably equal to ours back then. You realize that when you say that the Seahawks defense is better "in almost every way", that in reality the only area that this really holds true is, as you had pointed out, turnovers. The 2009 Jets defense was superior in total defense, pass defense, and rush defense. That's of course not to say that the turnover numbers aren't extraordinarily important, but it's a bit different than what you're presenting. As far as describing Scott and Harris as "stone legged linebackers", that might have been the case in 2012, but it most certainly was not back in 2009. Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with anyone thinking this year's Seahawks defense is superior, but the attempts being made to diminish the quality of the 2009 Jets D in order to make that point are completely unfounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizard King Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 You realize that when you say that the Seahawks defense is better "in almost every way", that in reality the only area that this really holds true is, as you had pointed out, turnovers. The 2009 Jets defense was superior in total defense, pass defense, and rush defense. That's of course not to say that the turnover numbers aren't extraordinarily important, but it's a bit different than what you're presenting. As far as describing Scott and Harris as "stone legged linebackers", that might have been the case in 2012, but it most certainly was not back in 2009. Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with anyone thinking this year's Seahawks defense is superior, but the attempts being made to diminish the quality of the 2009 Jets D in order to make that point are completely unfounded. I'm not trying to diminsh the 2009 defense, as much as I am responding to a comparison that was made, in that the 2009 defense was at the same level of this year's Seattle defense. That is a resounding no from the point of athleticism. Turnovers are a direct result of athleticism- when you're in position to make plays they happen. The secondary on Seattle is a tremendous upgrade over where ours was then, and their linebackers are much more athletic now than ours were then. You cannot argue that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I'm not trying to diminsh the 2009 defense, as much as I am responding to a comparison that was made, in that the 2009 defense was at the same level of this year's Seattle defense. That is a resounding no from the point of athleticism. Turnovers are a direct result of athleticism- when you're in position to make plays they happen. The secondary on Seattle is a tremendous upgrade over where ours was then, and their linebackers are much more athletic now than ours were then. You cannot argue that point. The only real difference is that Seattle is in the Super Bowl because they had solid QB play and earned homefield advantage, while we missed out on the Super Bowl because of awful QB play, which handed us a Wild Card and an AFC Title game exit. Defense CAN win championships if it's paired with either a great QB or a very good one who can "get hot". I don't know if Wilson has that in him for this showdown with Peyton, but he's certainly miles better than Sanchez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizard King Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 The only real difference is that Seattle is in the Super Bowl because they had solid QB play and earned homefield advantage, while we missed out on the Super Bowl because of awful QB play, which handed us a Wild Card and an AFC Title game exit. Yes and that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizard King Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 The only real difference is that Seattle is in the Super Bowl because they had solid QB play and earned homefield advantage, while we missed out on the Super Bowl because of awful QB play, which handed us a Wild Card and an AFC Title game exit. Defense CAN win championships if it's paired with either a great QB or a very good one who can "get hot". I don't know if Wilson has that in him for this showdown with Peyton, but he's certainly miles better than Sanchez. I was thinking that this morning. If Seattle wins, it's because the defense kept a team that scored an average of 40 points a game this year, to a reasonable number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I was thinking that this morning. If Seattle wins, it's because the defense kept a team that scored an average of 40 points a game this year, to a reasonable number. Yep. Keep Denver around 23 pts and Seattle probably wins this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 If T0mShane wasnt the filth of the earth, I'd feel bad for him. He couldnt be more wrong about everything and has been getting absolutely destroyed around here lately for it. Deservedly so. It must have been demoralizing when his boo Idzik saw the great Head Coach Rex Ryan at work, developing players, superior game planning, master motivation, creating locker room unity all the things that Rex excels in and Tom claims he cant do. Must suck, would feel bad if it was anyone else. History and righteousness have always gotten my back, as it does now. True, I'm sad that Idzik kept Rex, but that's life as a Jets fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Lonelyhearts Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 History and righteousness have always gotten my back, as it does now. True, I'm sad that Idzik kept Rex, but that's life as a Jets fan. Way to evelate the discourse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Way to evelate the discourse. Evelate this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Dont disagree with you- but the Jets two playoff runs weren't doomed because of Sanchez imo- he wasn't the only reason they lost. Over the course of the season Wilson is a million times better than Sanchez ever was....but like T0M has pointed out, Rex did get adequate QB play during both runs. The team just fell short in other areas. The difference between the Jets and Seahawks were way more than the QB. Sanchez sucks and dragged this franchise down with him. There's nothing adequate about sh*tty QB play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 Sanchez sucks and dragged this franchise down with him. There's nothing adequate about sh*tty QB play. In the playoffs though, he was adequate. Regular season he stunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 In the playoffs though, he was adequate. Regular season he stunk. Adequate and playoffs sound like really sh*tty fits, especially when talking the QB position. Sanchez was a garbage QB here and it destroyed all optimism for Ryans early teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.