Eagles fans/media worried about Sanchez

[nyjunc]

N

Mark was adequate in 2014 he wasn't terrible. His TD to pick ratio was a fair 14-11. And you can't say he didn't have good weapons or coaching. Fitz was a lot better than that in 2015. Yeah, he did have two very good receivers in Marshall and Decker but only 2. The other skill position players were ok including Ivory who was good not great. Mark had McCoy. Plus he had good receivers too in Maclin, Matthews and Celek, etc. They had more good skill positions players than the Jets did last season. 

Ivory was outstanding and so was Powell later in the year.  the WRs behind the big 2 were good too.  They did not have more good skill guys and McCoy wasn't the McCoy from 2013.  he was very good but not best RB in football good like 2013.  Both QBs failed late in the season, mark while leading his O to 27 and 24 pts late in 2014 and Fitz while leading his O to 17 pts in 2015.

[ZachEY]

There is no way I'm reading this whole thing... But it looks like people are trying to debate Fitzpatrick vs. Sanchez.

This is absurd.  Further, that this debate is even occurring is proof that Sanchez is a bust.  You are comparing a guy who was picked 5th overall and should be in the prime of his career to a journeyman who's in the tail end of his career, playing on his 5th or so team.  And, the journeyman started last year, and the recent 5th overall pick didn't.  The journeyman will likely start again next year, and the 5th overall pick won't.  So, in general, the league has spoken, and it gives Fitz the edge.  And yet, even if you think Sanchez is better, he's obviously not better enough than a 33-year-old journeyman QB.

[nyjunc]

There is no way I'm reading this whole thing... But it looks like people are trying to debate Fitzpatrick vs. Sanchez.

This is absurd.  Further, that this debate is even occurring is proof that Sanchez is a bust.  You are comparing a guy who was picked 5th overall and should be in the prime of his career to a journeyman who's in the tail end of his career, playing on his 5th or so team.  And, the journeyman started last year, and the recent 5th overall pick didn't.  The journeyman will likely start again next year, and the 5th overall pick won't.  So, in general, the league has spoken, and it gives Fitz the edge.  And yet, even if you think Sanchez is better, he's obviously not better enough than a 33-year-old journeyman QB.

the journeyman was picked up by a team loaded w/ offensive talent and his old OC so he knew the system yet the result was the same when he didn't show for our biggest game.

[Rangers9]

Ivory was outstanding and so was Powell later in the year.  the WRs behind the big 2 were good too.  They did not have more good skill guys and McCoy wasn't the McCoy from 2013.  he was very good but not best RB in football good like 2013.  Both QBs failed late in the season, mark while leading his O to 27 and 24 pts late in 2014 and Fitz while leading his O to 17 pts in 2015.

Look Ivory wasn't outstanding and he will never be as good as McCoy. And the Jets didn't use the tight end and the Eagles had Celek and Ertz. Overall the 2014 Eagles had more talent on O than the 2015 Jets. But let's see what happens with Mark in 2016. Does Chip try to acquire him for the 49ers who don't have a good starting Qb. There are starting Qb job openings and the reason Mark reportedly re-signed with Philly was because he wanted to play in Chip's system. Which has now departed. I think the Eagles will hold onto Mark because if Bradford leaves they don't have a Qb on the roster with starting experience. Maybe he'll get a chance at the job. I'm sure the Eagles fans would just love that. 

[jetrider]

There is no way I'm reading this whole thing... But it looks like people are trying to debate Fitzpatrick vs. Sanchez.

It's really about which QB did better as a NYJ.

But according to two angry simpletons, if you say anything positive about Sanchez at any point in time that means you think he's the greatest QB in the game.

And, the journeyman started last year, and the recent 5th overall pick didn't.  The journeyman will likely start again next year, and the 5th overall pick won't.  So, in general, the league has spoken, and it gives Fitz the edge.  And yet, even if you think Sanchez is better, he's obviously not better enough than a 33-year-old journeyman QB.

Didn't the one team also have a #1 overall pick? Didn't Fitz attain the starting role in NY the same way Mark lost it?

[nyjunc]

Look Ivory wasn't outstanding and he will never be as good as McCoy. And the Jets didn't use the tight end and the Eagles had Celek and Ertz. Overall the 2014 Eagles had more talent on O than the 2015 Jets. But let's see what happens with Mark in 2016. Does Chip try to acquire him for the 49ers who don't have a good starting Qb. There are starting Qb job openings and the reason Mark reportedly re-signed with Philly was because he wanted to play in Chip's system. Which has now departed. I think the Eagles will hold onto Mark because if Bradford leaves they don't have a Qb on the roster with starting experience. Maybe he'll get a chance at the job. I'm sure the Eagles fans would just love that. 

he's not as good as McCoy but he was outstanding this season.  In 2014 McCoy averaged 4.2 YPC, in 2015 Ivory averaged 4.3.  In 2014 McCoy caught 28 for 155 yds and 0 TDs, in 2015 Powell caught 47-388 and 2 TDs.

 

Philly had MUCH better TEs but Gailey doesn't use TEs so that is meaningless.  as good as Maclin is he's not Brandon Marshall and maybe not even as good as Decker.

I think Chip would love Mark as a hold the fort guy while trying to develop a younger QB but I would be shocked if he traded for him, he signed a 2 year deal this offseason.

did Eagle fans love what Bradford did this year? what Foles did in 2014?

[Beerfish]

I think many here are buying into Fitz prematurely much like they bought into Sanchez five years ago. 

 

 

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

[AFJF]

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

Not everyone wants to consider all things.  It's as simple as QB vs QB.  Only circumstances that validate opinions should be considered...and considered heavily.

[nyjunc]

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

all things considered he did not have a better year.  Fitz had the MUCH better talent around him, he had the MUCH weaker sched, he played in a QB passing friendly offense w/ a coach that coached him for many years and he knew the system inside and out and yet despite all that he fell flat in the biggest game where he threw 3 INts against a mediocre D.  In 6 playoff games mark threw 3 INTs total.

[Rangers9]

I'm not going to shoot Mark down but he gets way too much credit for those 4 playoff Ws but he deserves some credit. But that was a long time ago and if you've watched him play as a Jets fan you rooted for him to succeed and he regressed.And that's why he's not here. I'll take the 2014 Eagles skill position players over Marshall and Decker and Ivory. And Chip over Gailey. To say that Fitz had an advantage being with Gailey is correct but Mark had the experience (a lot of starts) and in 2014 he lost to teams like the Redskins that Foles had beaten.  IMO Mark is with Philly because he has another year in his deal. But I'd be surprised if Pedersen wants to go in that direction and start Sanchez. They might cut Bradford for money reasons (Chip would have probably too), but they will be looking for a starting Qb as a FA. Maybe even Fitz. 

[nyjunc]

I'm not going to shoot Mark down but he gets way too much credit for those 4 playoff Ws but he deserves some credit. But that was a long time ago and if you've watched him play as a Jets fan you rooted for him to succeed and he regressed.And that's why he's not here. I'll take the 2014 Eagles skill position players over Marshall and Decker and Ivory. And Chip over Gailey. To say that Fitz had an advantage being with Gailey is correct but Mark had the experience (a lot of starts) and in 2014 he lost to teams like the Redskins that Foles had beaten.  IMO Mark is with Philly because he has another year in his deal. But I'd be surprised if Pedersen wants to go in that direction. They might cut Bradford for money reasons (Chip would have probably too), but they will be looking for a starting Qb as a FA. Maybe even Fitz.

he doesn't get any credit, that is why I am always defending him b/c that's ridiculous.  Obviously we were led by our defense but mark was still vital to both runs and fans should appreciate that.

Mark was in his 4th system in 4 years in 2014 ANd was coming off a major injury that cost him all of 2013 and most of the offseason.

against Washington mark led O to 24 pts and K missed 2 chip shots, against Washington Foles led O to 30 pts.  w/ the 2 made chip shots it's also 30 w/ Mark and they win.  sometimes there are circumstances beyond your control.

Bradford is a FA.  Fitz is not dumb enough to go to Philly, that would be a disaster w/ much less talent and having to learn a new system.

[Rangers9]

Fitz actually did a pretty good job in Houston and he had to learn a new system. But I was joking about that. I doubt they'd want Fitz but if the price were right and they made him an offer I'm sure he'd take it if a better deal than Mac offers him. Mark is due about 5.5 for 2016 (including signing bonus). Which isn't bad money for a backup. If he were to win the starting job I guess they'd adjust it upwards,.It'll be interesting to see what Chip does for a Qb in SF and if he keeps Kap. I think if the 9ers cut Kap before April 1 they are only responsible for 7.4 mil and not the entire deal which was huge. I could see Chip drafting the Oregon Qb (who is underrated) and making a deal for Sanchez (to be his starter) with Gabbert as no. 2 in 2016. The thing is: this kid Adams could beat out both of them. 

[jetrider]

Not everyone wants to consider all things.  It's as simple as QB vs QB.  Only circumstances that validate opinions should be considered...and considered heavily.

You're no doubt a master of that technique.

[nyjunc]

Fitz actually did a pretty good job in Houston and he had to learn a new system. But I was joking about that. I doubt they'd want Fitz but if the price were right and they made him an offer I'm sure he'd take it if a better deal than Mac offers him. Mark is due about 5.5 for 2016 (including signing bonus). Which isn't bad money for a backup. If he were to win the starting job I guess they'd adjust it upwards,.It'll be interesting to see what Chip does for a Qb in SF and if he keeps Kap. I think if the 9ers cut Kap before April 1 they are only responsible for 7.4 mil and not the entire deal which was huge. I could see Chip drafting the Oregon Qb (who is underrated) and making a deal for Sanchez (to be his starter) with Gabbert as no. 2 in 2016. The thing is: this kid Adams could beat out both of them. 

Fitz's #s were bloated b/c of one big game.  the reality is Houston was 6-6 with him and 3-1 w/o him including their only win over a playoff bound team that season.

[ZachEY]

the journeyman was picked up by a team loaded w/ offensive talent and his old OC so he knew the system yet the result was the same when he didn't show for our biggest game.

I think you missed the point.  That you have to engage in an argument to support Sanchez > Fitzpatrick should tell you all you need to know about Sanchez.

[nyjunc]

I think you missed the point.  That you have to engage in an argument to support Sanchez > Fitzpatrick should tell you all you need to know about Sanchez.

I defend what I believe is right and I do it well. 

[ZachEY]

It's really about which QB did better as a NYJ.

But according to two angry simpletons, if you say anything positive about Sanchez at any point in time that means you think he's the greatest QB in the game.

Didn't the one team also have a #1 overall pick? Didn't Fitz attain the starting role in NY the same way Mark lost it?

Depends how you define "better."  Statistically, Fitzpatrick was much better than Sanchez.  However, Sanchez's teams went further.  That said, in Sanchez's first year with the Jets, his team had a worse record than Fitz's, so that's a bit of an unfair comparison as luck plays a role in a 9-7 team making the playoffs while a 10-6 team does not.  To me, Fitz is better because his offense was more effective and he did a significantly better job (last quarter not-withstanding) of protecting the football.  Every expert and former player says QBs get too much credit and too much blame.  Looking at W/L alone is doing just that.

I don't know how Bradford helps your argument, as Mark Sanchez was already on the roster as a back-up QB, and the team still elected to go out and get a QB to start ahead of him.  As for how they got the job, we can only make assumptions.  Some assume Fitz would have won the job eventually, some assume he got it because of Geno.  Some assume Sanchez was going to start over Geno, some assume Geno was going to start over Sanchez.  Lets deal in facts, rather than maybes.  The facts indicate that Fitzpatrick (shockingly and probably historically disappointingly) had one of the best statistical years by a NYJ QB, so it's hard to argue that Sanchez was better.

[nyjunc]

Depends how you define "better."  Statistically, Fitzpatrick was much better than Sanchez.  However, Sanchez's teams went further.  That said, in Sanchez's first year with the Jets, his team had a worse record than Fitz's, so that's a bit of an unfair comparison as luck plays a role in a 9-7 team making the playoffs while a 10-6 team does not.  To me, Fitz is better because his offense was more effective and he did a significantly better job (last quarter not-withstanding) of protecting the football.  Every expert and former player says QBs get too much credit and too much blame.  Looking at W/L alone is doing just that.

I don't know how Bradford helps your argument, as Mark Sanchez was already on the roster as a back-up QB, and the team still elected to go out and get a QB to start ahead of him.  As for how they got the job, we can only make assumptions.  Some assume Fitz would have won the job eventually, some assume he got it because of Geno.  Some assume Sanchez was going to start over Geno, some assume Geno was going to start over Sanchez.  Lets deal in facts, rather than maybes.  The facts indicate that Fitzpatrick (shockingly and probably historically disappointingly) had one of the best statistical years by a NYJ QB, so it's hard to argue that Sanchez was better.

Stats only tell part of the story.  how many games did mark lead us to win late in 2010? how well did he play in postseason?  I like Fitz, I enjoyed watching him play but he had the most talent I have ever seen at WR for the Jets and a creampuff sched to work with yet he came up small in the biggest game.

I don't care about Mark or what he does elsewhere, I appreciate what he did here and I hope we can have similar success(and more) w/ Fitz or anyone else.

[ZachEY]

I defend what I believe is right and I do it well. 

As long as you say so!

[jetrider]

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

Mark stepped up under pressure in the big city lights.

Fitz didn't show with the table set and carpet in place. 

 

[jetrider]

Depends how you define "better."  Statistically, Fitzpatrick was much better than Sanchez.  However, Sanchez's teams went further.  That said, in Sanchez's first year with the Jets, his team had a worse record than Fitz's, so that's a bit of an unfair comparison as luck plays a role in a 9-7 team making the playoffs while a 10-6 team does not.  To me, Fitz is better because his offense was more effective and he did a significantly better job (last quarter not-withstanding) of protecting the football.  Every expert and former player says QBs get too much credit and too much blame.  Looking at W/L alone is doing just that.

I don't know how Bradford helps your argument, as Mark Sanchez was already on the roster as a back-up QB, and the team still elected to go out and get a QB to start ahead of him.  As for how they got the job, we can only make assumptions.  Some assume Fitz would have won the job eventually, some assume he got it because of Geno.  Some assume Sanchez was going to start over Geno, some assume Geno was going to start over Sanchez.  Lets deal in facts, rather than maybes.  The facts indicate that Fitzpatrick (shockingly and probably historically disappointingly) had one of the best statistical years by a NYJ QB, so it's hard to argue that Sanchez was better.

No, it's easy. What did those stats lead to? Results are what matter.

Using Bowles' boxing analogy, Fitz lost the fight in round 16. 

[bostonmajet]

You know you are in a depressing part of the season when a thread discussing that the fans of a team in another conference is concerned about the possibility of a QB who has started for the Jets for two years (where there have been 2 different starters) reaches 12 pages.

We won't see any real news for a month or so, but at least we don't have to hear about the Brady getting another ring this year

[ZachEY]

Stats only tell part of the story.  how many games did mark lead us to win late in 2010? how well did he play in postseason?  I like Fitz, I enjoyed watching him play but he had the most talent I have ever seen at WR for the Jets and a creampuff sched to work with yet he came up small in the biggest game.

I don't care about Mark or what he does elsewhere, I appreciate what he did here and I hope we can have similar success(and more) w/ Fitz or anyone else.

Stats tell a better story than "how many games did mark lead us to win late in 2010?"  Put another way, "how many games did Mark fail to show up in until the fourth quarter?" or "How many games did Sanchez's offense fall behind in?"  We wouldn't have needed come from behind victories against the mighty Lions or Browns if Sanchez and the offense showed up for 60 minutes.  While the 4th Quarter is important, there are 4 of them.  That's why stats tell the whole story.

How well he played in the postseason is also based on your subjectivity.  As, in reality, he was completely ineffective against the Steelers when the game was in reach, and only made some plays once the Steelers let up.  Against the Colts, while not a bad game, the Jets defense held the Colts offense to well below their season average in points and the Jets offense actually scored well below the average allowed by the Colts defense for the season.  So, if the Jets offense actually showed up that day, the game would and should have been out of reach.  As for the Pats, solid game, but statistically only okay again, but this one isn't worth debating.

[jetrider]

Depends how you define "better."  Statistically, Fitzpatrick was much better than Sanchez.  However, Sanchez's teams went further.  That said, in Sanchez's first year with the Jets, his team had a worse record than Fitz's, so that's a bit of an unfair comparison as luck plays a role in a 9-7 team making the playoffs while a 10-6 team does not.  To me, Fitz is better because his offense was more effective and he did a significantly better job (last quarter not-withstanding) of protecting the football.  Every expert and former player says QBs get too much credit and too much blame.  Looking at W/L alone is doing just that.

I don't know how Bradford helps your argument, as Mark Sanchez was already on the roster as a back-up QB, and the team still elected to go out and get a QB to start ahead of him.  As for how they got the job, we can only make assumptions.  Some assume Fitz would have won the job eventually, some assume he got it because of Geno.  Some assume Sanchez was going to start over Geno, some assume Geno was going to start over Sanchez.  Lets deal in facts, rather than maybes.  The facts indicate that Fitzpatrick (shockingly and probably historically disappointingly) had one of the best statistical years by a NYJ QB, so it's hard to argue that Sanchez was better.

You knock #5 overall Sanchez for not starting over #1 overall Bradford. That was the point.

[ZachEY]

No, it's easy. What did those stats lead to? Results are what matter.

Using Bowles' boxing analogy, Fitz lost the fight in round 16. 

Ok.  So, just say that.  Your entire argument is simply based on W/L.  As such, Fitzpatrick > Luck, Bortles, Mariota, Carr, Rivers, E. Manning, Cutler, Stafford, Ryan, Brees, Winston, and more. 

[ZachEY]

You knock #5 overall Sanchez for not starting over #1 overall Bradford. That was the point.

No.  I knock the #5 overall pick for not having a starting job on 1 of 32 teams.  But, he wasn't starting over Foles either....

[jetrider]

Ok.  So, just say that.  Your entire argument is simply based on W/L.  As such, Fitzpatrick > Luck, Bortles, Mariota, Carr, Rivers, E. Manning, Cutler, Stafford, Ryan, Brees, Winston, and more. 

Wrong. It's not about W-L as a pretty record, it's about the end results - reaching the playoffs. Isn't that the purpose of winning reg season games?

Fitz pushed the boulder up the mountain and let it go right before the top. After all the chips fell in place. Every planet, moon, and star lined up at his back.

Fitz failed to show for an easy chauffeured shuttle to the playoffs. He choked to Tyrod f-k'n Taylor. 

Now tell me who had better success in NY.

[nyjunc]

Stats tell a better story than "how many games did mark lead us to win late in 2010?"  Put another way, "how many games did Mark fail to show up in until the fourth quarter?" or "How many games did Sanchez's offense fall behind in?"  We wouldn't have needed come from behind victories against the mighty Lions or Browns if Sanchez and the offense showed up for 60 minutes.  While the 4th Quarter is important, there are 4 of them.  That's why stats tell the whole story.

How well he played in the postseason is also based on your subjectivity.  As, in reality, he was completely ineffective against the Steelers when the game was in reach, and only made some plays once the Steelers let up.  Against the Colts, while not a bad game, the Jets defense held the Colts offense to well below their season average in points and the Jets offense actually scored well below the average allowed by the Colts defense for the season.  So, if the Jets offense actually showed up that day, the game would and should have been out of reach.  As for the Pats, solid game, but statistically only okay again, but this one isn't worth debating.

just b/c we won late doesn't mean he didn't show up until late.

2010:

at Denver: this was game 6 and threw his first INTs of the year but led us to 24 pts so it's hard to say he did nothing until late. 

at det: we trailed 20-10 late in the game, he didn't do enough earlier but led us to 10 pts in the final minutes and then won the game on the first drive of OT.

at Cle: Kicker missed THREE makeable FGs in a game that went to OT. we had a 10 min drive to open the 3rd abnd our K missed a 34 yd FG.  even w/ 2 misses in regulation he gave our supposed big time D a TD lead w/  2 1/2 to play against rookie Colt McCoy.  The D blew it.  In OT the K missed AGAIN.

vs. Houston: led us to 23-7 4th qtr lead, then we were trailing 27-23 w/ no timeouts needing a TD w/ 49 secs at our 28 and he led us to GW TD.

at Indy WC game: struggled in 1st half, was excellent in the 2nd half.  led GW drive, setting up a chip shot to win it on the road in the playoffs.

 

this doesn't include other games where he was either really good or stepped up in key spots like outdueling Brady week 2(then again in div rd), playing w/o Holmes first qtr of season which included that 1st NE game and the game at Miami where Braylon was suspended the 1st qtr and in that 1st qtr he led our O to 14 pts, protecting the ball in that monsoon vs. Minnesota. Then when our season appeared to be going south he stepped up big time at Pitt in December and helped us win our first EVER game in Pitt(1st ever in State of PA).

He was really, really good that year.  Fitz put up better #s in better system w/ more talent against weaker opponents but couldn't get it done at the end.  mark's season was better w/o a doubt.

[nyjunc]

No.  I knock the #5 overall pick for not having a starting job on 1 of 32 teams.  But, he wasn't starting over Foles either....

who cares? he started for us for 4 years and mostly did a good job.  he is one of only 3 starters in Jets history w/ a winning record(of QBs who started at least 3 seasons), he has 2nd highest win % in Jets history(behind Vinny), he has most playoff wins(by double), he has most road playoff wins, most title game apps.  That doesn't happen by accident.

[jetrider]

No.  I knock the #5 overall pick for not having a starting job on 1 of 32 teams.  But, he wasn't starting over Foles either....

No idea. My only focus in this thread has been on Mark the NYJ. His decline elsewhere is another topic. Maybe he's done, I dunno ...

Maybe he'll rebound elsewhere. Others have used that theory to explain super genius super talent Ryan Fizzmatic. We'll see.

[ZachEY]

Wrong. It's not about W-L as a pretty record, it's about the end results - reaching the playoffs. Isn't that the purpose of winning reg season games?

Fitz pushed the boulder up the mountain and let it go right before the top. After all the chips fell in place. Every planet, moon, and star lined up at his back.

Fitz failed to show for an easy chauffeured shuttle to the playoffs. He choked to Tyrod f-k'n Taylor. 

Now tell me who had better success in NY.

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.

[nyjunc]

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.

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

[Matt39]

holy crap

[ZachEY]

just b/c we won late doesn't mean he didn't show up until late.

2010:

at Denver: this was game 6 and threw his first INTs of the year but led us to 24 pts so it's hard to say he did nothing until late. 

at det: we trailed 20-10 late in the game, he didn't do enough earlier but led us to 10 pts in the final minutes and then won the game on the first drive of OT.

at Cle: Kicker missed THREE makeable FGs in a game that went to OT. we had a 10 min drive to open the 3rd abnd our K missed a 34 yd FG.  even w/ 2 misses in regulation he gave our supposed big time D a TD lead w/  2 1/2 to play against rookie Colt McCoy.  The D blew it.  In OT the K missed AGAIN.

vs. Houston: led us to 23-7 4th qtr lead, then we were trailing 27-23 w/ no timeouts needing a TD w/ 49 secs at our 28 and he led us to GW TD.

at Indy WC game: struggled in 1st half, was excellent in the 2nd half.  led GW drive, setting up a chip shot to win it on the road in the playoffs.

 

this doesn't include other games where he was either really good or stepped up in key spots like outdueling Brady week 2(then again in div rd), playing w/o Holmes first qtr of season which included that 1st NE game and the game at Miami where Braylon was suspended the 1st qtr and in that 1st qtr he led our O to 14 pts, protecting the ball in that monsoon vs. Minnesota. Then when our season appeared to be going south he stepped up big time at Pitt in December and helped us win our first EVER game in Pitt(1st ever in State of PA).

He was really, really good that year.  Fitz put up better #s in better system w/ more talent against weaker opponents but couldn't get it done at the end.  mark's season was better w/o a doubt.

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."  

[ZachEY]

who cares? he started for us for 4 years and mostly did a good job.  he is one of only 3 starters in Jets history w/ a winning record(of QBs who started at least 3 seasons), he has 2nd highest win % in Jets history(behind Vinny), he has most playoff wins(by double), he has most road playoff wins, most title game apps.  That doesn't happen by accident.

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."