Eagles fans/media worried about Sanchez

[nyjunc]

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...

I don't have to be right, I present unbiased info.  you can decide to agree w/ me or not.  I see the game differently than most, I don't just look at black and white #s, I am more concerned w/ how #s were accumulated than actual accumulations.

[ZachEY]

I don't have to be right, I present unbiased info.  you can decide to agree w/ me or not.  I see the game differently than most, I don't just look at black and white #s, I am more concerned w/ how #s were accumulated than actual accumulations.

At this point, I'm not sure I can even give you credit for knowing what "unbiased" means.

[nyjunc]

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.

Pete Carroll said he wasn't ready b/c Pete Carroll had a Nat'l Championship team if mark came back.  Obviously he was ready if he was good enough to QB us to a title game as a rookie.

the 2008 jets had a similar team, weaker sched, no Brady and a HOF QB yet we couldn't even make the playoffs.  No, we weren't bad but he didn't walk into a guaranteed winning situation.

Carroll has one of the best young QBs in the game, why would he be interested in Mark? and how do you know?  mark had plenty of interest after we let him go then last year Philly didn't let him get to FA.

[nyjunc]

At this point, I'm not sure I can even give you credit for knowing what "unbiased" means.

I deal in reality.  You guys think b/c I defend him that I must be saying he is great, that's not the case.  He is an average QB that can elevate in bigger moments.  You guys say he sucked when the reality is he had ONE bad season and in that bad season no QB would have succeeded.  you can be like everyone else and post stats w/o context or you can dig deeper.  the choice is yours.

[ZachEY]

I deal in reality.  You guys think b/c I defend him that I must be saying he is great, that's not the case.  He is an average QB that can elevate in bigger moments.  You guys say he sucked when the reality is he had ONE bad season and in that bad season no QB would have succeeded.  you can be like everyone else and post stats w/o context or you can dig deeper.  the choice is yours.

At this point, I'm not sure I can even give you credit for knowing what "reality" means.

[Rangers9]

So who wanted to sign Mark other than Chip. And Seattle was looking for a backup Qb. As for Pete Carroll saying Mark wasn't ready was he lying because he wanted Mark to return or did he mean it. I think Bill Parcells would agree with Carroll: he didn't have enough college starts. (Russell Wilson did). As I recall Mark's father also felt he should have stayed at USC for another season. Mark had talent in 2009 but he was erratic and on a simplified offense. He had something to do with those playoff Ws but he wasn't a key factor. 

[jetrider]

Fitz had a much better year than anything Mark had all things considered.

If individual stats are your goal, yes. If chasing the SB as a team is your goal, no.

 

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

That doesn't apply because they're apples and tomatoes. 

You have to compare Rex to another Bears QB to create an argument parallel to this one.

 

Then you can argue Grossman did better in Chicago than __________ did in Chicago.  

 

But see? This is where myopia exists. None of you anti-Markites are processing the words properly.

 

This is very very advanced stuff. Esoteric concepts such as these are not for beginners.

 

That's why Nutz and Nozzlez had such a rough time navigating the other night, they stormed off in tears.

 

Sanchez "had better success," yes, if that's how you define it.  But, who was the better QB?  Those aren't the same thing.  There's no arguing your point because it is completely binary, Sanchez went further, so he had more success.  However, the better QB doesn't always have the most success.  But, having the better QB generally increases your likelihood of success.  In other words, while I'd not be thrilled with either, for 2017, I'd take Fitzpatrick over Sanchez, because I think he increases the likelihood of success more than Sanchez does.  The stats generally back this up.

Stats? Fitz showed he's good for individual stats before hitting March FA. Sanchez had better team stats if you define success as reaching and winning the playoffs.

Frankly, I'm more interested in seeing what Fitz can do for us next year than what Mark does. I hope he shows up and ends his playoff virginity in year twelve (lol).

Mark was given a chance here though a pretty crappy one after BSchott left. Sparano, Tebow, Martyweg ... what garbage.

I see Pats fired Dave DeGuglielmo, Sanchez's OL coach in 2012. Denver's pass rush made Brady look like an ordinary QB and it wasn't tolerable.

Sanchez lived with sucky pass protection for 4 years.

[nyjunc]

gEYno: keep deflecting, it works better than your weak arguments.

[nyjunc]

So who wanted to sign Mark other than Chip. And Seattle was looking for a backup Qb. As for Pete Carroll saying Mark wasn't ready was he lying because he wanted Mark to return or did he mean it. I think Bill Parcells would agree with Carroll: he didn't have enough college starts. (Russell Wilson did). As I recall Mark's father also felt he should have stayed at USC for another season. Mark had talent in 2009 but he was erratic and on a simplified offense. He had something to do with those playoff Ws but he wasn't a key factor. 

Many teams, I don't recall.  it was 2 years ago but there were a bunch interested in him.

he was playing for the right to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl as a rookie.  he was ready.  we didn't have the '85 Bears around him, you aren't going on that run w/ any QB. 

[ZachEY]

gEYno: keep deflecting, it works better than your weak arguments.

No one has stronger arguments than you, because you say no one has stronger arguments than you.

Here in reality, you're getting the floor mopped with you as you can't back up a single thing you say, but you're not even bright enough to see that.  So, again, you win.  Because you say you win.

[Rangers9]

Many teams, I don't recall.  it was 2 years ago but there were a bunch interested in him.

he was playing for the right to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl as a rookie.  he was ready.  we didn't have the '85 Bears around him, you aren't going on that run w/ any QB. 

I've pretty much said all I want to about Sanchez. I think he's had more opportunity than just about any other mediocre player I can remember. 60 plus starts is a lot of chances. Again those playoff Ws are a long time ago. And at least one year they backed into the playoffs when the Colts took out their starters including Peyton in a game they were leading. But I admire your loyalty but disagree.

[ZachEY]

If individual stats are your goal, yes. If chasing the SB as a team is your goal, no.

 

That doesn't apply because they're apples and tomatoes. 

You have to compare Rex to another Bears QB to create an argument parallel to this one.

 

Then you can argue Grossman did better in Chicago than __________ did in Chicago.  

 

But see? This is where myopia exists. None of you anti-Markites are processing the words properly.

 

This is very very advanced stuff. Esoteric concepts such as these are not for beginners.

 

That's why Nutz and Nozzlez had such a rough time navigating the other night, they stormed off in tears.

 

Stats? Fitz showed he's good for individual stats before hitting March FA. Sanchez had better team stats if you define success as reaching and winning the playoffs.

Frankly, I'm more interested in seeing what Fitz can do for us next year than what Mark does. I hope he shows up and ends his playoff virginity in year twelve (lol).

Mark was given a chance here though a pretty crappy one after BSchott left. Sparano, Tebow, Martyweg ... what garbage.

I see Pats fired Dave DeGuglielmo, Sanchez's OL coach in 2012. Denver's pass rush made Brady look like an ordinary QB and it wasn't tolerable.

Sanchez lived with sucky pass protection for 4 years.

If you want to define your argument so narrowly that Sanchez > Fitz because Sanchez's team went further than Fitz's, then I've already conceded that.  It's binary, and of little interest to me.  And if different teams makes for a different conversation, than so should different seasons.  So, really, your argument is nothing.  Also, you are now literally just using big words for the sake of using them.

Poor Sanchez, tho

[nyjunc]

No one has stronger arguments than you, because you say no one has stronger arguments than you.

Here in reality, you're getting the floor mopped with you as you can't back up a single thing you say, but you're not even bright enough to see that.  So, again, you win.  Because you say you win.

I have backed up everything, you choose to ignore it and just post blind stats w/o context.  Congrats!

I've pretty much said all I want to about Sanchez. I think he's had more opportunity than just about any other mediocre player I can remember. 60 plus starts is a lot of chances. Again those playoff Ws are a long time ago. And at least one year they backed into the playoffs when the Colts took out their starters including Peyton in a game they were leading. But I admire your loyalty but disagree.

more opportunity? what are you talking about?  60+ starts w/ more wins than losses and playoff apps in half of the full seasons he's started.  that's pretty good, right?

backed into the playoffs I love that, the team won 5 of 6 games but they "backed in".  I wish we could have backed in this year or backed in w/ favre.  Jet fans bashing our players and teams that have actually made the playoffs but then they defend stat guys that have not.  Unbelievable.

[Mogglez]

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.

Well if it wasn't obvious by now, Junc can blame em.

[nyjunc]

you know you are right when mogglez agrees with you

 

[Beerfish]

If individual stats are your goal, yes. If chasing the SB as a team is your goal, no.

 

Yes, not no, yes.  I would take Fitzpatrick 10 out of 10 times over the walking turnover.  We will simply have to disagree about Sanchez getting us to the heights of two afc tile games because he was so good.

[jetrider]

If you want to define your argument so narrowly that Sanchez > Fitz because Sanchez's team went further than Fitz's, then I've already conceded that.  It's binary, and of little interest to me.  And if different teams makes for a different conversation, than so should different seasons.  So, really, your argument is nothing.  Also, you are now literally just using big words for the sake of using them.

Poor Sanchez, tho

To you it's nothing because you lost and decided to spin off on irrelevant tangents for the sake of arguing.

[nyjunc]

Yes, not no, yes.  I would take Fitzpatrick 10 out of 10 times over the walking turnover.  We will simply have to disagree about Sanchez getting us to the heights of two afc tile games because he was so good.

so you'd take the guy who threw 3 INTs in the biggest game if of our season(and biggest game of his life) over the "the walking turnover" who has 3 INTs  total in 6 postseason games?

[jetrider]

Yes, not no, yes.  I would take Fitzpatrick 10 out of 10 times over the walking turnover.  We will simply have to disagree about Sanchez getting us to the heights of two afc tile games because he was so good.

For the killionth jillionth time, NOBODY said Sanchez carried the team to the AFCCs. 

We're just destroying (with relative ease) the absurdity that Sanchez didn't help us get there.

[Mogglez]

If you want to define your argument so narrowly that Sanchez > Fitz because Sanchez's team went further than Fitz's, then I've already conceded that.  It's binary, and of little interest to me.  And if different teams makes for a different conversation, than so should different seasons.  So, really, your argument is nothing.  Also, you are now literally just using big words for the sake of using them.

Poor Sanchez, tho

I have that moron on ignore. I'd suggest you do the same unless you want him to go through your entire post history and neg rep you out of anger. Sucks that I can still see his stupidity in quotes though.

Ran off in tears lol. 

you know you are right when mogglez agrees with you

 

You have 15 pages of people  (and a whole other forum) basically telling you that you are a delusional moron and homer, but now you have one other idiot too stupid to function agree with you and now you believe that it's actually everyone else who is dumb and delusional.  

LOL.

[nyjunc]

For the killionth jillionth time, NOBODY said Sanchez carried the team to the AFCCs. 

We're just destroying (with relative ease) the absurdity that Sanchez didn't help us get there.

that's the thing, if you support mark in any way these guys think you are calling him great or that he was THE reason we made those title games.  I have never seen anyone say that, it kills them to admit he played a role in helping us get there.

[nyjunc]

I have that moron on ignore. I'd suggest you do the same unless you want him to go through your entire post history and neg rep you out of anger. Sucks that I can still see his stupidity in quotes though.

Ran off in tears lol. 

You have 15 pages of people  (and a whole other forum) basically telling you that you are a delusional moron and homer, but now you have one other idiot too stupid to function agree with you and now you believe that it's actually everyone else who is dumb and delusional.  

LOL.

it could 100 pages, doesn't mean I am wrong but simple minded folks think that.

you calling someone dumb and delusional is priceless.

[jetrider]

that's the thing, if you support mark in any way these guys think you are calling him great or that he was THE reason we made those title games.  I have never seen anyone say that, it kills them to admit he played a role in helping us get there.

They're all doorknobs. They're either blatant liars or they flunked third grade English. Or both.

[Mogglez]

it could 100 pages, doesn't mean I am wrong but simple minded folks think that.

you calling someone dumb and delusional is priceless.

Yeah Junc. Whatever helps you sleep at night. 

You're beyond dumb and delusional, and you are wrong.

[nyjunc]

Yeah Junc. Whatever helps you sleep at night. 

You're beyond dumb and delusional, and you are wrong.

Thank you.

[Rangers9]

 

 

I have backed up everything, you choose to ignore it and just post blind stats w/o context.  Congrats!

more opportunity? what are you talking about?  60+ starts w/ more wins than losses and playoff apps in half of the full seasons he's started.  that's pretty good, right?

backed into the playoffs I love that, the team won 5 of 6 games but they "backed in".  I wish we could have backed in this year or backed in w/ favre.  Jet fans bashing our players and teams that have actually made the playoffs but then they defend stat guys that have not.  Unbelievable.

If they didn't win that game with the Colts that Peyton and other starters were removed from (with the lead) the Jets wouldn't have made the playoffs. And that's a no-brainer. That's called backing in. Again six years ago. And btw Fitz put up a 10-6 and didn't make the playoffs and the Jets that year caught a lot of breaks esp the Colts taking out starters and putting in Curtis Painter and got in with a 9-7.

[Mogglez]

If they didn't win that game with the Colts that Peyton and other starters were removed from (with the lead) the Jets wouldn't have made the playoffs. And that's a no-brainer. That's called backing in. Again six years ago. 

Nah man, beating the Curtis Painter lead Colts backups is one of the most impressive wins in Jets history.

[nyjunc]

If they didn't win that game with the Colts that Peyton and other starters were removed from (with the lead) the Jets wouldn't have made the playoffs. And that's a no-brainer. That's called backing in. Again six years ago. 

that's not called backing in, backing in is a silly term used by whiny fans.  You either win the required games to make postseason in a particular season or you don't. whether you start out 10-1 and finish 10-6 like we did in 1986 or winning 5 of 6 like we did in 2009.

we have no idea how that game ends if they don't pull starters.  they were up 5 midway the 3rd qtr when they pulled starters.  SD in the playoffs was up 4 midway through the 3rd, hypothetically if that was week 16/17 and SD pulls starters then people like you would say we had no shot and the game was handed to us but they played the game and we won.  Also, do you remember 1993? we faced Oiler backups in week 18 needing a win to get to the playoffs- we lost 24-0.  In 2004 the Bills hosted Pitt who played backups and they lost.  you still have to win the games.  we earned our spot and once in the playoffs we proved we belonged.

[nyjunc]

Nah man, beating the Curtis Painter lead Colts backups is one of the most impressive wins in Jets history.

how many Bills backups did we face week 17 this year? did we win?

[SAR I]

that's the thing, if you support mark in any way these guys think you are calling him great or that he was THE reason we made those title games.  I have never seen anyone say that, it kills them to admit he played a role in helping us get there.

I'm a big fan of Mark's contributions years ago but time moves on and nothing is going to take us back to August 2011 when we thought we had the makings of a legitimate franchise quarterback.  Mark's damaged goods now, we've found Fitzpatrick and a competent GM, we're in good shape for the foreseeable future.

The only thing I'll say that rings true today is this:  There are some QB's who play their best in big high-pressure spots and there are some QB's who are consistent in the regular season and choke in the playoffs.  Mark Sanchez was, at the time, a clutch playoff QB, didn't fear the spotlight, if anything he embraced it, he elevated his game on the biggest stages, a rarity especially at that age.  He led us to an 11 win season, 5 wins in come-from-behind miracle fashion, he played very well in two win-and-in scenarios, in wildcard and divisional rounds, he was arguably the best Jet on the field in two Championship games.

We've seen 12 win Bengals teams lose 15 minutes into the playoffs because of a Carson Palmer or an Andy Dalton.  We've seen Richard Todd and Ken O'Brien and Neil O'Donnell and Chad Pennington and now Ryan Fitzpatrick shrivel when needed most.  There is no point in being a playoff team if you don't have a playoff quarterback.  At a point in time, we had that with Mark.  I can't say the same for any other NY Jet quarterback I've ever seen play since #12.

SAR I

 

[Mogglez]

how many Bills backups did we face week 17 this year? did we win?

Back-ups that were in because they were resting starters?  None actually.  I don't even think there were many back-ups for either team in the game.  The only back-ups brought in were to replace injured players. Nevermind the fact that they actually had their starting QB and star WR in.

That game is over from the first snap if EJ Manuel starts over Tyrod. 

[ZachEY]

To you it's nothing because you lost and decided to spin off on irrelevant tangents for the sake of arguing.

What exactly did I lose?  In order to lose in the debate you've constructed, I'd have to be arguing that Ryan Fitzpatrick's Jets went further in and into the playoffs than Mark Sanchez's Jets.  I am not doing that.  I did however continue your logic to other players and how far they went in the playoffs.  You dismissed it largely because it didn't fit with your narrative, and instead made this as narrow an argument as you could.  So, again, to play by your rules.  Mark Sanchez was more successful than Ryan Fitzpatrick when success is defined exclusively as how far a Jets team in recent history went.

[jetrider]

I'm a big fan of Mark's contributions years ago but time moves on and nothing is going to take us back to August 2011 when we thought we had the makings of a legitimate franchise quarterback.  Mark's damaged goods now, we've found Fitzpatrick and a competent GM, we're in good shape for the foreseeable future.

The only thing I'll say that rings true today is this:  There are some QB's who play their best in big high-pressure spots and there are some QB's who are consistent in the regular season and choke in the playoffs.  Mark Sanchez was, at the time, a clutch playoff QB, didn't fear the spotlight, if anything he embraced it, he elevated his game on the biggest stages, a rarity especially at that age.  He led us to an 11 win season, 5 wins in come-from-behind miracle fashion, he played very well in two win-and-in scenarios, in wildcard and divisional rounds, he was arguably the best Jet on the field in two Championship games.

We've seen 12 win Bengals teams lose 15 minutes into the playoffs because of a Carson Palmer or an Andy Dalton.  We've seen Richard Todd and Ken O'Brien and Neil O'Donnell and Chad Pennington and now Ryan Fitzpatrick shrivel when needed most.  There is no point in being a playoff team if you don't have a playoff quarterback.  At a point in time, we had that with Mark.  I can't say the same for any other NY Jet quarterback I've ever seen play since #12.

SAR I

 

These toolbuckets here only care about Fizz's individual stats. Mark would've showed up at Buffalo.

[ZachEY]

I have backed up everything, you choose to ignore it and just post blind stats w/o context.  Congrats!

You state "I don't care what anyone else has done" and yet I'm the one who ignores context.  You do realize that best, better, worse, worst, mediocre, and even terms like good, great, bad, and awful are all comparative terms.

You're ignoring context and comparison and basically the statements you're making are about performance vs. what you want performance to be.  In the running game issue, like it or not, the Jets had one of the leagues top running games that year.  Was it a top running game in league history?  No.  Was it amazing?  Probably not.  But, it was still one of the leagues best that year.  If you try to dismiss it with all the qualifiers you've added, you should do that to all teams.  Because, they weren't the only team to benefit from garbage time TDs, etc.

So, in sum, ranking stats are actually just about the definition of context, and literally nothing you've provided actually involves any context save for a comparison to what you think the performance should be.

[ZachEY]

These toolbuckets here only care about Fizz's individual stats. Mark would've showed up at Buffalo.

As he has a storied history of doing. :rollseyes: