Eagles fans/media worried about Sanchez

[ZachEY]

the better QB was mark, one that helped us win more games including playoff games.

Rex Grossman has been to a Super Bowl.  Rex Grossman > Mark Sanchez.  Being myopic opens up all kinds of absurd arguments.

[Mogglez]

the better QB was mark, one that helped us win more games including playoff games.

 

Rex Grossman has been to a Super Bowl.  Rex Grossman > Mark Sanchez.  Being myopic opens up all kinds of absurd arguments.

Lmao, you just have to laugh.  Save yourself the headache EY. Trust me, it isn't worth it.

[ZachEY]

 

 

Lmao, you just have to laugh.  Save yourself the headache EY. Trust me, it isn't worth it.

There's no headache.  Slow day at work (finally...) and I am laughing.  How seriously can you take an argument based on the principle of "this is my subjective opinion which cannot be backed up with objective data but it is correct because I say it is."

[Mogglez]

There's no headache.  Slow day at work (finally...) and I am laughing.  How seriously can you take an argument based on the principle of "this is my subjective opinion which cannot be backed up with objective data but it is correct because I say it is."

That argument is what turned this thread into a 13 pager. I guess I took it a little too serious lol. It's some serious delusion to say the least. 

[nyjunc]

Denver: Jets scored 10 points until the 4th Quarter.

Det: Makes my point exactly.  Also, are we celebrating a player for needing to come from behind and win in OT vs. a 6-10 team?

Browns: Are we celebrating a player for needing to come from behind and win in OT vs. a 5-11 team?

Houston: Pretty good game by Sanchez.  No argument here.

Indy Wildcard: We don't celebrate 1st half no-shows.  That game was won by an amazing defensive performance for 60 minutes.  Not, a decent QB performance for 30.

He wasn't "really, really good that year" because the stats don't back it up.  The Jets were the 22nd ranked passing offense and the #4 ranked rushing offense and tied for 13th in PPG.  He also had a 54% completion percentage and a rating of 75.3.  These are facts and ones that do not equate to "really, really good."  

didn't we have to come back from 10 down against the Giants this year? didn't we have to come back against a 4th string QB led Cowboy team this year?

you just look at blind stats, he was really, really good.  remember, he had 2 bogus INTs credited to him vs. GB or his #s look much better, had that easy TD to Holmes dropped that cist us the Miami game.  he brought us back when we needed it including on the road in the playoffs.

The main reason those stats happen is because Jets history is complete sh*t.  There is not a single objective measure that supports that he "mostly did a good job."

so what? not his fault our franchise hasn't been very good but he did a good job for us.

you need stats, the reality is he was good for a rookie in 2009.  his #s look bad b/c he had 3-4 awful games which skewed #s but the other 11 he played well and then stepped up in postseason. In 2010 he was top 10 good, in 2011 his #s peaked but he wasn't as good as 2010.  he was more middle of the pack.  2012 was the ONLY bad season he had for us and he had no chance to succeed w/ the awful talent and OC he had.

Rex Grossman has been to a Super Bowl.  Rex Grossman > Mark Sanchez.  Being myopic opens up all kinds of absurd arguments.

The NFC was pathetic that year, Rex won 2 HOME playoff games in a conf where the 2 seed was a 10 win team.  did he ever get back to the playoffs? did he ever win another playoff game?  4 ROAD playoff games, 2 title game apps.  that doesn't happen by accident.

[nyjunc]

 

 

Lmao, you just have to laugh.  Save yourself the headache EY. Trust me, it isn't worth it.

the clueless ones always laugh, you made a complete fool of yourself trying to debate me yesterday and if you want more bring it on.

[ZachEY]

didn't we have to come back from 10 down against the Giants this year? didn't we have to come back against a 4th string QB led Cowboy team this year?

you just look at blind stats, he was really, really good.  remember, he had 2 bogus INTs credited to him vs. GB or his #s look much better, had that easy TD to Holmes dropped that cist us the Miami game.  he brought us back when we needed it including on the road in the playoffs.

so what? not his fault our franchise hasn't been very good but he did a good job for us.

you need stats, the reality is he was good for a rookie in 2009.  his #s look bad b/c he had 3-4 awful games which skewed #s but the other 11 he played well and then stepped up in postseason. In 2010 he was top 10 good, in 2011 his #s peaked but he wasn't as good as 2010.  he was more middle of the pack.  2012 was the ONLY bad season he had for us and he had no chance to succeed w/ the awful talent and OC he had.

The NFC was pathetic that year, Rex won 2 HOME playoff games in a conf where the 2 seed was a 10 win team.  did he ever get back to the playoffs? did he ever win another playoff game?  4 ROAD playoff games, 2 title game apps.  that doesn't happen by accident.

- Yes.  We did come back against those teams.  And you don't hear me saying Fitzpatrick was "really, really good," do you?

- "you just look at blind stats objective data"... Not exclusively, but I also don't completely ignore it as you do.  Sadly, the eye test doesn't really back up Mark Sanchez the QB either.  But, since all the data crushes him, there's no need to get into that.

- It is not his fault that our franchise history is not very good.  That may be your first good point.  You made the point that having favorable stats in comparison to the franchise is something to be celebrated.  I merely pointed out that being better than a lot of trash doesn't negate you from being trash.

- Everyone needs stats if they want to be unbiased.  Your argument is that he was very good essentially because you say so.  That's why, contrary to your belief, you're not very good at this.  You're more like the kid from Big Daddy who basically makes his own rules and declares "I WIN."  He was not a top 10 QB, because stats say he wasn't.  He was a top 10 QB because in your mind he was.

Anyway, this was fun.  You're fun.  Keep up the good work, as long as you dismiss facts and data, you can never be wrong!

[Mogglez]

the clueless ones always laugh, you made a complete fool of yourself trying to debate me yesterday and if you want more bring it on.

Yeah Junc. Everyone else is clueless except you. Every nfl coach, every GM, every fan who saw Mark for what he really was after it was clear that he had peaked at a low level of play, every rival fan who saw you as nothing more than a ridiculous homer because of how absurd your rants were; they are all clueless.  Two posters on a New York Jets fan forum clearly know better than all of them.  I made the fool of myself.  Not the two guys posting complete and utter stupidity to defend a garbage bust of a QB.

Keep living in Wonderland if it makes you feel better Alice.

[nyjunc]

- Yes.  We did come back against those teams.  And you don't hear me saying Fitzpatrick was "really, really good," do you?

- "you just look at blind stats objective data"... Not exclusively, but I also don't completely ignore it as you do.  Sadly, the eye test doesn't really back up Mark Sanchez the QB either.  But, since all the data crushes him, there's no need to get into that.

- It is not his fault that our franchise history is not very good.  That may be your first good point.  You made the point that having favorable stats in comparison to the franchise is something to be celebrated.  I merely pointed out that being better than a lot of trash doesn't negate you from being trash.

- Everyone needs stats if they want to be unbiased.  Your argument is that he was very good essentially because you say so.  That's why, contrary to your belief, you're not very good at this.  You're more like the kid from Big Daddy who basically makes his own rules and declares "I WIN."  He was not a top 10 QB, because stats say he wasn't.  He was a top 10 QB because in your mind he was.

Anyway, this was fun.  You're fun.  Keep up the good work, as long as you dismiss facts and data, you can never be wrong!

the eye test does back up Mark actually.  run game was mediocre most of the season, w/o Holmes 4 games, w/o Cotch multiple games, Braylon suspended a half.  D blew late leads as usual.

stats are very biased, how can we compare all the talent around Fitz and knowing that system to what mark had to work w/ coming out of college and very few starts?  that's not fair but ultimately mark was more successful b/c he came through in more big spots.

 

I see through just stats, fantasy #s don't impress me.  this is how fans think players like Philip Rivers are great simply b/c of out of context stats.

[nyjunc]

Yeah Junc. Everyone else is clueless except you. Every nfl coach, every GM, every fan who saw Mark for what he really was after it was clear that he had peaked at a low level of play, every rival fan who saw you as nothing more than a ridiculous homer because of how absurd your rants were; they are all clueless.  Two posters on a New York Jets fan forum clearly know better than all of them.  I made the fool of myself.  Not the two guys posting complete and utter stupidity to defend a garbage bust of a QB.

Keep living in Wonderland if it makes you feel better Alice.

the problem w/ folks who are clueless is they make things up.  Nowhere have I ever said he was great or that he should be starting somewhere.  I said he did a good job for us and that is 100% fact.  he was on his 4th system in 4 years coming off a major season ending injury in 2014 yet came in and elevated that offense but I guess he can't play, he just sucks b/c whiny know nothing fans need scapegoats.

[Mogglez]

the eye test does back up Mark actually.  run game was mediocre most of the season, w/o Holmes 4 games, w/o Cotch multiple games, Braylon suspended a half.  D blew late leads as usual.

stats are very biased, how can we compare all the talent around Fitz and knowing that system to what mark had to work w/ coming out of college and very few starts?  that's not fair but ultimately mark was more successful b/c he came through in more big spots.

 

I see through just stats, fantasy #s don't impress me.  this is how fans think players like Philip Rivers are great simply b/c of out of context stats.

If by some miracle you are ever allowed near NFL talent evaluators, I DARE you to tell them Mark Sanchez is a more impressive QB than Phillip Rivers.  

[nyjunc]

If by some miracle you are ever allowed near NFL talent evaluators, I DARE you to tell them Mark Sanchez is a more impressive QB than Phillip Rivers.  

at no point have I called Mark more impressive than Rivers.  here you go making stuff up again b/c you have nothing.  I DARE you to actually read what I post.

[Mogglez]

at no point have I called Mark more impressive than Rivers.  here you go making stuff up again b/c you have nothing.  I DARE you to actually read what I post.

You specifically attacked Phillip Rivers in your defense of Sanchez. It's right there in the post I quoted.  Do YOU even understand the bs you're spewing right now?  

You do realize that if Rex had Phillip Rivers in those first two seasons that we would probably be discussing how to get that third Super Bowl to establish our dynasty under Rex right now right?

[nyjunc]

You specifically attacked Phillip Rivers in your defense of Sanchez. It's right there in the post I quoted.  Do YOU even understand the bs you're spewing right now?  

You do realize that if Rex had Phillip Rivers in those first two seasons that we would probably be discussing how to get that third Super Bowl to establish our dynasty under Rex right now right?

2 separate arguments.  one is underrated and underappreciated, the other overrated.  doesn't mean the underrated guy is better than the overrated guy.  I know this is a difficult concept for an adult to comprehend, next time just ask.

No we probably lose in the WC rd if we had Rivers, Rivers played w/ much more talent around him than we had in 2009/2010 and only made 1 title game and that game he made as his backup led GW drive.

[ZachEY]

the eye test does back up Mark actually.  run game was mediocre most of the season, w/o Holmes 4 games, w/o Cotch multiple games, Braylon suspended a half.  D blew late leads as usual.

stats are very biased, how can we compare all the talent around Fitz and knowing that system to what mark had to work w/ coming out of college and very few starts?  that's not fair but ultimately mark was more successful b/c he came through in more big spots.

 

I see through just stats, fantasy #s don't impress me.  this is how fans think players like Philip Rivers are great simply b/c of out of context stats.

No need to continue.  You're right because you say you're right.  This is well established.  The #4 run game in the NFL was "mediocre" for most of the season.  Also, I've conceded that Mark was "more successful" than Fitz, just as Rex Grossman was "more successful" than Mark.  Who was the better QB is a different conversation, but one that I'm sure you're right about because you say you're right.

[ZachEY]

You specifically attacked Phillip Rivers in your defense of Sanchez. It's right there in the post I quoted.  Do YOU even understand the bs you're spewing right now?  

You do realize that if Rex had Phillip Rivers in those first two seasons that we would probably be discussing how to get that third Super Bowl to establish our dynasty under Rex right now right?

dude, you were dared in all caps.  Come correct or step the F off...

[ZachEY]

the problem w/ folks who are clueless is they make things up.  Nowhere have I ever said he was great or that he should be starting somewhere.  I said he did a good job for us and that is 100% fact.  he was on his 4th system in 4 years coming off a major season ending injury in 2014 yet came in and elevated that offense but I guess he can't play, he just sucks b/c whiny know nothing fans need scapegoats.

Out of curiosity, I am curious how you'd quantify (though, obviously you don't quantify things) the difference between "great" and "really, really good?"

[nyjunc]

No need to continue.  You're right because you say you're right.  This is well established.  The #4 run game in the NFL was "mediocre" for most of the season.  Also, I've conceded that Mark was "more successful" than Fitz, just as Rex Grossman was "more successful" than Mark.  Who was the better QB is a different conversation, but one that I'm sure you're right about because you say you're right.

There you go again w/ rankings and stats out of context.  4th in yards so we must have had a great run game!  Know who our primary RB was that year?  LT.

Games 1-5: 76 carries, 435 yds, , 5.7 YPC, 3 TDs

Games 6-15:  143-479, 3.4 YPC, 3 TDs

by the way Green game 6-15: 123-486, 3.96, 1 TD

but yeah we were #4! yeah!

some day you will stop posting rankings/out of context stats and you will watch football.

[nyjunc]

Out of curiosity, I am curious how you'd quantify (though, obviously you don't quantify things) the difference between "great" and "really, really good?"

I wouldn't use the great description on many, that is reserved for the Brady types.  Mark clearly wasn't great but he was a heck of a lot better than most realize in 2010.

[ZachEY]

There you go again w/ rankings and stats out of context.  4th in yards so we must have had a great run game!  Know who our primary RB was that year?  LT.

Games 1-5: 76 carries, 435 yds, , 5.7 YPC, 3 TDs

Games 6-15:  143-479, 3.4 YPC, 3 TDs

by the way Green game 6-15: 123-486, 3.96, 1 TD

but yeah we were #4! yeah!

some day you will stop posting rankings/out of context stats and you will watch football.

I assume, in order to provide context, you've examined this and compared it to every other NFL team, figured out a way to rank them, and the Jets fell solidly in the middle, hence solidifying your "mediocre" tag.  Also, another surely meaningless stat, the Jets were still in the top 1/3rd in YPC.  Which mathematically wouldn't be mediocre, but I'm sure that doesn't matter either.  Obviously you wouldn't just be overanalyzing the Jets without doing it for every other team... No chance of that...

[ZachEY]

I wouldn't use the great description on many, that is reserved for the Brady types.  Mark clearly wasn't great but he was a heck of a lot better than most realize in 2010.

Do you ever actually answer the question asked of you?

[nyjunc]

I assume, in order to provide context, you've examined this and compared it to every other NFL team, figured out a way to rank them, and the Jets fell solidly in the middle, hence solidifying your "mediocre" tag.  Also, another surely meaningless stat, the Jets were still in the top 1/3rd in YPC.  Which mathematically wouldn't be mediocre, but I'm sure that doesn't matter either.  Obviously you wouldn't just be overanalyzing the Jets without doing it for every other team... No chance of that...

our run game was mediocre, it also wasn't as good as the rankings suggest in 2009 either though it was better.  sorry you don't understand what you are watching?

Do you ever actually answer the question asked of you?

I thought I answered your dumb question?

[ZachEY]

our run game was mediocre, it also wasn't as good as the rankings suggest in 2009 either though it was better.  sorry you don't understand what you are watching?

I thought I answered your dumb question?

Of course it was, and of course it was mediocre in 2009 too.  After all, you say it is, and that's all the evidence anyone should need.

I'm sure you also thought you answered my question... But, that's because you subscribe to your own brand of logic.  You're right though, it was dumb of me to think you'd be capable of explaining/defending something using what most of us would call logic.  I have plenty of "evidence" to support you can't.  I guess I was ignoring it... You know, playing by your rules.

[nyjunc]

Of course it was, and of course it was mediocre in 2009 too.  After all, you say it is, and that's all the evidence anyone should need.

I'm sure you also thought you answered my question... But, that's because you subscribe to your own brand of logic.  You're right though, it was dumb of me to think you'd be capable of explaining/defending something using what most of us would call logic.  I have plenty of "evidence" to support you can't.  I guess I was ignoring it... You know, playing by your rules.

it was much better in 2009 but I will provide an example for those that just look at stats/rankings.

2009 season opener at Houston:

top RB Thomas Jones: 20 carries, 5.4 YPC, 107 yds, 2 TDs

what a day, right? w/ the game basically over he carried it 6 times for 91 yds.  the rest of the game in meaningful action? 14 carries, 16 yds

but on paper he was great.

we also had 2 games against Buf and one against oak where we put up ridiculous rush #s.  2 awful teams, awful run Ds.  those skew #s.  when we needed to run at Indy what happened? but rankings tell us we were great!

 

2010 we had a great start running the ball, that quickly went away and the rest of the season was mediocre at best.

[ZachEY]

it was much better in 2009 but I will provide an example for those that just look at stats/rankings.

2009 season opener at Houston:

top RB Thomas Jones: 20 carries, 5.4 YPC, 107 yds, 2 TDs

what a day, right? w/ the game basically over he carried it 6 times for 91 yds.  the rest of the game in meaningful action? 14 carries, 16 yds

but on paper he was great.

we also had 2 games against Buf and one against oak where we put up ridiculous rush #s.  2 awful teams, awful run Ds.  those skew #s.  when we needed to run at Indy what happened? but rankings tell us we were great!

 

2010 we had a great start running the ball, that quickly went away and the rest of the season was mediocre at best.

Again, I'm certain you've explored every other game by every other team, in detail, play by play, to make these accurate comparisons.  I'm sure Thomas Jones, and the Jets, are the only team to have their stats inflated from time to time.  I'm certain that no other team has had lopsided rushing or passing or defensive stats either, only the Jets.

[Rangers9]

Look when a player has had as many starts (and opportunites) as Mark has you expect better production and fewer excuses. He had chances to bring his team to a higher level and failed including 2014 with the Eagles. He took over a 6-2 team and they didn't make the playoffs. Mark was totally spoiled and had no competition when he was with the Jets. There was no accountability with him at all. While Rex would sometimes take out or bench other players esp on D he never benched Mark until it was too late in 2012. And there was never any competition in training camp even though he was sometimes outplayed by other Qbs. Even Eric Ainge outplayed him one year.  It isn't just stats it's the way he played the game. He had the talent to move the ball at times: but we all saw that in important situations esp in the red zone he made poor decisions and created turnovers. He's driving a team down the field, a successful series and then he makes critical mistakes and no points. And gives the ball over to the opponent. 

[nyjunc]

Again, I'm certain you've explored every other game by every other team, in detail, play by play, to make these accurate comparisons.  I'm sure Thomas Jones, and the Jets, are the only team to have their stats inflated from time to time.  I'm certain that no other team has had lopsided rushing or passing or defensive stats either, only the Jets.

it doesn't matter to me what other teams do, I watch every snap of every game.  sometimes the #s reflect what happened and other times they do not.  we had an excellent Ol in 2009 and a very good run game but people act like we had the greatest run game in the history of the sport.  Jones was on fumes by the end of that season and while Greene had a few nice runs in the playoffs the consistency wasn't there.

 

[nyjunc]

Look when a player has had as many starts (and opportunites) as Mark has you expect better production and fewer excuses. He had chances to bring his team to a higher level and failed including 2014 with the Eagles. He took over a 6-2 team and they didn't make the playoffs. Mark was totally spoiled and had no competition when he was with the Jets. There was no accountability with him at all. While Rex would sometimes take out or bench other players esp on D he never benched Mark until it was too late in 2012. And there was never any competition in training camp even though he was sometimes outplayed by other Qbs. Even Eric Ainge outplayed him one year.  It isn't just stats it's the way he played the game. He had the talent to move the ball at times: but we all saw that in important situations esp in the red zone he made poor decisions and created turnovers. He's driving a team down the field, a successful series and then he makes critical mistakes and no points. And gives the ball over the the opponent. 

he elevated the Eagle offense so I'm not sure how he failed.

 

He has started basically 5 seasons and has a winning record, multiple playoff apps, 4 road playoff wins, 2 title game apps.  give me that type of failure any time.

[Rangers9]

he elevated the Eagle offense so I'm not sure how he failed.

 

He has started basically 5 seasons and has a winning record, multiple playoff apps, 4 road playoff wins, 2 title game apps.  give me that type of failure any time.

He made the playoffs his first two years. Since then nada. That's a long time ago.  It's obvious that if you take over a 6-2 team it's expected that you do better than 4-4. He did commit key turnovers in some of those games, too. He did not elevate the Eagles he played fairly. He isn't capable of taking a team and leading them to play above their talent level. My assessment of him is based on watching him play and start over 60 games. It's subjective yes but not based on wanting him to fail. I like most Jets fans wanted him to be a franchise Qb. If he had no Geno or any other nonsense. Sanchez would be our Qb for at least ten seasons. Thank god he's gone. Because he almost single handedly lost games with his mindless turnovers. 

[jetrider]

 

You specifically attacked Phillip Rivers in your defense of Sanchez. It's right there in the post I quoted.  Do YOU even understand the bs you're spewing right now?  

You do realize that if Rex had Phillip Rivers in those first two seasons that we would probably be discussing how to get that third Super Bowl to establish our dynasty under Rex right now right?

 

For your selective memory video vault ...

 

 

[nyjunc]

He made the playoffs his first two years. Since then nada. That's a long time ago.  It's obvious that if you take over a 6-2 team it's expected that you do better than 4-4. He did commit key turnovers in some of those games, too. He did not elevate the Eagles he played fairly. He isn't capable of taking a team and leading them to play above their talent level. My assessment of him is based on watching him play and start over 60 games. It's subjective yes but not based on wanting him to fail. I like most Jets fans wanted him to be a franchise Qb. If he had no Geno or any other nonsense. Sanchez would be our Qb for at least ten seasons. Thank god he's gone. Because he almost single handedly lost games with his mindless turnovers. 

he's only been a full time starter for 4 seasons, in that time he made the playoffs half the time.  he took over a 5-2 team, they were 5-2 when he stepped on that field and again the 2nd half of the season they played 5 games against teams that would play in the div rd and beyond.  the sched got a lot tougher but he still elevated the offense by almost a TD per game.

outside of 2012 when it was a lost season(and his only bad season) please list all the games he "single handedly" lost for us?

[section314]

In all seriousness, can you blame any Eagles fan for being just a bit concerned that Sanchez may be your starting QB?   Didn't think so.

[nyjunc]

Last season, with Sanchez at the helm after Nick Foles was injured, the Eagles' offense averaged 2.9 points per drive, the best mark any quarterback has put up in head coach Chip Kelly's offense with the Eagles.

Sanchez went 4-4 in his eight games as a starter, but the schedule had plenty to do with that, as he faced three of the best teams in the NFC in the final month of the season. 

http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2015/11/can_mark_sanchez_be_spark_for_eagles_offense.html

 

[Rangers9]

he's only been a full time starter for 4 seasons, in that time he made the playoffs half the time.  he took over a 5-2 team, they were 5-2 when he stepped on that field and again the 2nd half of the season they played 5 games against teams that would play in the div rd and beyond.  the sched got a lot tougher but he still elevated the offense by almost a TD per game.

outside of 2012 when it was a lost season(and his only bad season) please list all the games he "single handedly" lost for us?

Again that was going on six years ago. And this is a league where they fire people after one or two bad years. Mark's fans serve up a lot of "what ifs." What if Mark had been drafted by another team, he didn't start his first season, different coaches and schemes, teammates, etc. They will always find reasons for his failings. At the time he came out his college head coach, Pete Carroll said he wasn't ready. Mark's fans want a perfect world for Sanchez. Everything has to be just right for him. And it doesn't work that way. There are limited opportunities and you have to play up to them. Most players don't get 60 starts if they're that mediocre. You can make cases for players drafted high who went to bad teams like David Carr and even Archie Manning. But the Jets in 2009 weren't in that category. What ifs don't work in real life. PS and funny Pete Carroll was never interested in signing Mark.

[ZachEY]

it doesn't matter to me what other teams do, I watch every snap of every game.  sometimes the #s reflect what happened and other times they do not.  we had an excellent Ol in 2009 and a very good run game but people act like we had the greatest run game in the history of the sport.  Jones was on fumes by the end of that season and while Greene had a few nice runs in the playoffs the consistency wasn't there.

 

Of course it doesn't matter to you what other teams do to you.  Because, you're right because you say your right.  But, to call something mediocre, most people who use the prevailing logic, would require some basis for comparison, because the term mediocre places things on a continuum between great and horrendous.  Without comparison, your term mediocre is completely meaningless to anyone but you, which is okay of course, because you're right because you say your right.  But, I just might not expect anyone to agree with you, because the majority of people don't subscribe to the "nyjunc is right because he says he's right" logic.  Most people actually want some kind of evidence, comparison, or way of quantifying things.  I guess we're just speaking a different language.  Carry on...