Sanchez in his 'rari

[nyjunc]

37 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

I wrote to you, quoted you and you added Fitz into your mindless response, cant you ever just say "my bad?"

The quote was regarding FITZ

2 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

He was never that good when he had more talent. He had more talent in Philly so you blamed the defense. And I agree he did play ok in some of those playoff wins and I didn't mean to say he's a choker because he's not. But that was years ago and he was one of 53 that won those playoff games. Plus he regressed with the Jets but played a little better with Philly. He's a 4 mil a year player the only reason Elway traded for him,

The defense was atrocious in philly.  sure he could have done more but I don't know how much more you can ask a backup QB to take over a team and play for the first time in almost 2 years in his 3rd system in 3 years while leading the O to almost a TD more per game against the MUCH tougher portion of the sched- is that really fair to ask him to be better than he was?

1 minute ago, JetsFanatic said:

He sucked in Philly, he took over a talented team in 2014 and missed the playoffs. If he was any good he would still be in Philadelphia or with Chip in SF.

he was actually really good in 2014 w/ Philly but don't let facts get in the way of another discussion.  He started 8 games, 5 of them against teams that made AT LEAT the divisional rd of the playoffs yet the O averaged almost a TD MORE per game than w/ Foles.

[Rangers9]

The team was 6-2 under Foles and then 4-4 with Mark. Same defense. That's the fairest way to compare Qbs. 

[nyjunc]

13 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

The team was 6-2 under Foles and then 4-4 with Mark. Same defense. That's the fairest way to compare Qbs. 

you got me, clearly it was all Mark's fault but just for fun let's examine that 2014 season a little closer.

It is true they were 6-2 w/ Foles as the starter and 4-4 w/ Mark as the starter but Foles last game against Houston he left the game w/ an injury w/ the game tied 7-7 where he threw a pick 6.  mark then led the O to 24 pts in 3 trs for the win so while technically 6-2 vs. 4-4 is correct it's more like 5-2 vs. 5-4.  Still favors Foles but a little closer.

we'll consider Foles from game 1 to game 7, mark from Game 8 to game 16:

games against playoff bound teams:

Foles: 2, 29% of his games

Sanchez: 5, 56% of his games

record/win % of opponents

Foles: 49-63, 44%

Sanchez: 76-67-1, 53%

PPG led by each QB:

Foles: 22 PPG

Sanchez: 27.1 PPG

PPG allowed by D:

w/ Foles: 22.3

w/ Sanchez:24.6

 

to recap, facing MUCH tougher sched led his O to 5.1 MORE PPG, his D allowed 2.3 MORE PPG(this includes a shutout while Foles was at QB which skews the #s) but yeah this was all mark's fault why they didn't make the playoffs.

 

 

[The Crusher]

This will not end well because it will never end.

[nyjunc]

3 minutes ago, The Crusher said:

This will not end well because it will never end.

hopefully some day in the future we are all arguing over which Jets Super Bowl team we think was the best, that will be more fun.

[The Crusher]

10 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

hopefully some day in the future we are all arguing over which Jets Super Bowl team we think was the best, that will be more fun.

No. No we won't. 

[JetsFanatic]

2 hours ago, nyjunc said:

The quote was regarding FITZ

The defense was atrocious in philly.  sure he could have done more but I don't know how much more you can ask a backup QB to take over a team and play for the first time in almost 2 years in his 3rd system in 3 years while leading the O to almost a TD more per game against the MUCH tougher portion of the sched- is that really fair to ask him to be better than he was?

he was actually really good in 2014 w/ Philly but don't let facts get in the way of another discussion.  He started 8 games, 5 of them against teams that made AT LEAT the divisional rd of the playoffs yet the O averaged almost a TD MORE per game than w/ Foles.

What facts? He took over a playoff team and when the season ended they weren't in the playoffs. Had Foles not gotten hurt the Eagles would have been in the post season. Are you related to Sanchez?

[New York Mick]

3 hours ago, nyjunc said:

I disagree, mark has never had the talent around him(plus weak sched) that Fitz had last year and he still couldn't get the job done.  Fitz's 3 INts at dead Buffalo in week 17 equal the 3 Mark has thrown in 6 road playoff games.

Are you marks Ma?

[nyjunc]

1 minute ago, JetsFanatic said:

What facts? He took over a playoff team and when the season ended they weren't in the playoffs. Had Foles not gotten hurt the Eagles would have been in the post season. Are you related to Sanchez?

can you not read?  

[nyjunc]

Just now, New York Mick said:

Are you marks Ma?

aunt

[New York Mick]

Just now, nyjunc said:

aunt

Ok it all makes sense now 

[Lupz27]

I always thought Sanchez was perfect for Kubiak's offense, I've posted it on this board probably 50 times at least during his tenure here, I will find out if I'm right.

[JetsFanatic]

8 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

can you not read?  

Does not adequately respond to my post.

[nyjunc]

1 minute ago, JetsFanatic said:

Does not adequately respond to my post.

b/c you adequately responded to mine.  I stated an excellent case, how about someone try to counter what I wrote rather than deflect?

[JetsFanatic]

19 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

b/c you adequately responded to mine.  I stated an excellent case, how about someone try to counter what I wrote rather than deflect?

I'm not deflecting I'm stating a fact. The Eagles were playoff bound and Ssnchez did not play well enough to get them in. He played OK but he committed turnovers that ultimately eliminated the Eagles from the playoffs. Mark's biggest problem is he is turnover prone. The last game of the season against the Redskins was a microcosm of his career. He moved the team well but at the most critical  time turned the ball over.

[Rangers9]

1 hour ago, nyjunc said:

you got me, clearly it was all Mark's fault but just for fun let's examine that 2014 season a little closer.

It is true they were 6-2 w/ Foles as the starter and 4-4 w/ Mark as the starter but Foles last game against Houston he left the game w/ an injury w/ the game tied 7-7 where he threw a pick 6.  mark then led the O to 24 pts in 3 trs for the win so while technically 6-2 vs. 4-4 is correct it's more like 5-2 vs. 5-4.  Still favors Foles but a little closer.

we'll consider Foles from game 1 to game 7, mark from Game 8 to game 16:

games against playoff bound teams:

Foles: 2, 29% of his games

Sanchez: 5, 56% of his games

record/win % of opponents

Foles: 49-63, 44%

Sanchez: 76-67-1, 53%

PPG led by each QB:

Foles: 22 PPG

Sanchez: 27.1 PPG

PPG allowed by D:

w/ Foles: 22.3

w/ Sanchez:24.6

 

to recap, facing MUCH tougher sched led his O to 5.1 MORE PPG, his D allowed 2.3 MORE PPG(this includes a shutout while Foles was at QB which skews the #s) but yeah this was all mark's fault why they didn't make the playoffs.

 

 

Look, I can find (or make up) stats that prove I'm right. I'm sure like you just did we can find many circumstances that show the team played better under Foles than Mark. You can play this on either side of the coin. But let's just take the bottom line with no caveats. They won more games with Foles and were headed to the playoffs. After Mark took over they lost half of their games and didn't make it. So no more footnotes supporting Mark. He was ok and that's about it. 

[nyjunc]

2 minutes ago, JetsFanatic said:

I'm not deflecting I'm stating a fact. The Eagles were playoff bound and Ssnchez did not play well enough to get them in. He played OK but he committed turnovers that ultimately eliminated the Eagles from the playoffs. Mark's biggest problem is he is turnover prone. The last game of the season against the Redskins was a microcosm of his career. He moved the team well but at the most critical  time turned the ball over.

I will agree TOs are obviously an issue but while watching that redskin game(which ultimately wouldn't have made a difference whether they made it or not) I could have sworn I saw the K miss 2 chip shot FGs and I could have sworn I saw the D allow 27 pts in only 28 mins of TOP for wash but yeah it was all Mark's fault.  

Just to recap, mark leads O to 24 pts, K misses 2 chip shot FGs(34 yds and 46 yards back to back) and it's all Mark's fault b/c he threw 1 INT but Fitz leads us to 17 pts, throws 3 INTs, has one missed FG(40) and it's not Fitz's fault?  Just trying to understand the logic.

Philly was 5-2 when mark took over, a nice record yes but they faced the weak part of their sched.  They would play 5 games in Nov/Dec against playoff bound teams and each team made AT LEAST the divisional round and despite this he leads the O to almost a TD more per game than they were averaging w/ Foles but yeah it was mark's fault.

[nyjunc]

3 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

Look, I can find (or make up) stats that prove I'm right. I'm sure like you just did we can find many circumstances that show the team played better under Foles than Mark. You can play this on either side of the coin you want. But let's just take the bottom line with no caveats. They won more games with Foles and were headed to the playoffs. After Mark took over they lost half of their games and didn't make it. So no more footnotes supporting Mark. He was ok and that's about it. 

Please find the evidence that they played better with foles under C than w/ Mark.  

It was easily explained why they lost more games w/ Mark.

7 full games w/ Foles they faced 2 playoff teams w/ only one of them making at least the div rd.  8 full games w/ Mark they played 5 games against playoff bound teams and those 5 teams each at least made the div rd.  despite the MUCH tougher sched the O under Mark scored almost a TD more per game.  Just for fun if we added the 5.1 PPG to our tam in losses last year then we would have beat Buffalo both times and won our division and had a 1st rd bye.  That's how big of a difference is was. 

[ChuckkieB]

OMG!!  I cannot believe there are still Sanchez defenders out there.  At what point does a QB own his wins and losses and his stats?  We can argue about the surrounding cast of players or strength of schedule all day, but at the end of the day, a GOOD QB is able to elevate the team around him and get them to play to the best of their potential, and ultimately, win games.  An average to bad QB cannot do this.  Mark Sanchez has a career QB rating of 74.3.  Mark Sanchez win/loss record is 37-35.  Mark Sanchez has a lifetime completion percentage of 56.7% Mark Sanchez is just not a good QB.

[Charlie Brown]

1 hour ago, Lupz27 said:

I always thought Sanchez was perfect for Kubiak's offense, I've posted it on this board probably 50 times at least during his tenure here, I will find out if I'm right.

If Denver starts Sanchez he may win comeback player of the year,  Kubiak's offense is essentially the same one that USC ran while Sanchez was there.

And at the end of the day Manning wasn't a very good QB last year and IMO Sanchez played far better than Manning when he was in there for the Eagles.

[bealeb319]

On 4/30/2016 at 8:21 PM, Rangers9 said:

Look his fans have been blaming everybody for his failures including all of his coaches. And if sucks in Denver they'll blame Elway and Kubiak, too. I still think Elway will end up with Kap because SF will finally pay the difference.

And who will the 49ers use for their starter this year?

[legler82]

6 minutes ago, Charlie Brown said:

If Denver starts Sanchez he may win comeback player of the year,  Kubiak's offense is essentially the same one that USC ran while Sanchez was there.

And at the end of the day Manning wasn't a very good QB last year and IMO Sanchez played far better than Manning when he was in there for the Eagles.

It's the same offense he ran as far back as high school.  All successful QBs are in systems they are very comfortable in and know to the point where it's muscle memory.  Fitz is an average, at best QB, but in Gailey's offense, which he knows like the back of his hand, he puts up career numbers.  The only time prior to this current opportunity he's had a chance run something close to this offense in the NFL was that short stint in the 2013 camp under Mornhingweg. Prior to the ill-advised pre-season 4th quarter substitution, he was looking like a competent QB completing 67% of his passes in that small pre-season sample size.  John Elway and Gary Kubiak are taking a calculated risk with Sanchez like Mac/Bowles/Gailey did for Fitz last year.

[Rangers9]

30 minutes ago, bealeb319 said:

And who will the 49ers use for their starter this year?

It sounds like they prefer Gabbert. And not impossible that Fitz could be in the mix for them but as a longshot. He on paper seems to be a good candidate to run Chip's offense. 

[Shadetree]

Sanchez' footwork and ball handling, coupled with kubiaks running game, will prove to be quite serviceable and the Broncos will be a playoff team with him (with Miller on board, of course).

i can't believe I'm typing that, but I believe it.

 

[brothermoose]

Honestly expected a picture of Sancho driving a Ferari...am disappoint