Reliving Dec. 30th, 2007 -- Kansas City Chiefs at New York Jets

[SAR I]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

 

Nobody serious believes that the driver of the team's success was Mark Sanchez. 

 

No one said he drove our success.  That's silly.

What was said is that following the original Rex Ryan blueprint he was the right guy, a complimentary young QB easy on the cap who excelled in 4th quarter crunch time and playoff pressure.

And while that may not make him Tom Brady, it did make him what we needed at that time for a team without a Tom Brady.

SAR I

[Warfish]

27 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

you made the false claim not me.  I provided the evidence.  good luck finding all those would be INTs.

we had a HOFer w/ easier sched and no Brady a year earlier- we couldn't even make the playoffs.

When one has to consciously and knowingly ignore that that HOF'er was injured for more than half the season, you know one's argument is flawed.

Quote

he outplayed Palmer, Rivers and Brady(and probably Peyton the 2nd time) in 2 postseasons.

We're not debating the postseasons, where I freely admit he played ok.  Also, thanks for reminding us all how dominant our defense was by how it limited opposing QB's in the post, making it all the easier for Sanchez to win those game.

The reality is he was a liability in every regular season in which he played here.  And that fact has informed the entire post-Jets portion of his career.

At the end of the day, if you wish to think him some jets legend, have at it.  He was a bad QB, and a bust here, and that's why he isn't here now.  And he's barely holding on to being in the NFL at all now.

Quote

tell me all the games he held us back and cost us those first 2 years?

Would you be less butthurt if I just posted hot sweaty Mark Sanchez pics for you?

[Warfish]

4 minutes ago, SAR I said:

They doubled-down on a great QB prospect who had proven himself more than any 1st or 2nd year quarterback since Namath.

What they forgot to do was give him any weapons.

Chaz Schillenz, Clyde Gates, fat Shone Green, really?

SAR I

Fail, no mention of "fair chances".

[Jetster]

So what everyone is saying is that the NY Jets ruined Mark Sánchez and though other franchises gave it their best shot the damage had already been done. Is that what's being said here? Because right now he's the 3rd string QB in Dallas. He failed in Philly, John Elway didn't think he was starting material and went with Trevor Simian out of Northwestern,lol. Its not like Sánchez is an old man or something.

So after getting dumped by the Jets, Sánchez has been passed along like a hot potato but everyones got it wrong, he could have been a champion?

[BurnleyJet]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

yawn. He benefitted from a sh*t-ton of luck as well. I believe in his first 3 starts our opponents dropped a good half-dozen picks thrown right at them. These teams dropping them doesn't make his passes any better. It means he (we) got lucky despite his ineptitude.

That reminds me of this report:-

 

In 12.5 charted games through Week 14, Mark Sanchez has 13 dropped interceptions. That's five ahead of any other quarterback. Derek Anderson has eight, while Peyton Manning and Carson Palmer (who Bill Simmons always highlights as a dropped-pick machine) each have seven.
Obviously, when only one player is in the teens, we're talking small sample size here. And this is the kind of thing, with one player much different from the others, where after the season we would generally go back and review the 13 dropped picks to check over the work of the volunteer charters. Still, even if one of the charters mis-marked one or two, Sanchez still leads the league. Sanchez may have only 13 picks, but his total of actual and dropped interceptions is 26, which ties Sanchez with actual interception leader Eli Manning for the league lead. (Manning has been registered with only two dropped interceptions.)

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/extra-points/2010/fo-mailbag-dropped-interceptions

only time Mark will lead the league.

 

[nyjunc]

19 minutes ago, Warfish said:

When one has to consciously and knowingly ignore that that HOF'er was injured for more than half the season, you know one's argument is flawed.

We're not debating the postseasons, where I freely admit he played ok.  Also, thanks for reminding us all how dominant our defense was by how it limited opposing QB's in the post, making it all the easier for Sanchez to win those game.

The reality is he was a liability in every regular season in which he played here.  And that fact has informed the entire post-Jets portion of his career.

At the end of the day, if you wish to think him some jets legend, have at it.  He was a bad QB, and a bust here, and that's why he isn't here now.  And he's barely holding on to being in the NFL at all now.

Would you be less butthurt if I just posted hot sweaty Mark Sanchez pics for you?

the HOFer who made his carer playing through pain? the same guy that played his only good stretch of football that year while hurt?

 

show me the games he cost us, where he was the primary reason we lost from 2009 and 2010.

 

 

[nyjunc]

9 minutes ago, BurnleyJet said:

That reminds me of this report:-

 

In 12.5 charted games through Week 14, Mark Sanchez has 13 dropped interceptions. That's five ahead of any other quarterback. Derek Anderson has eight, while Peyton Manning and Carson Palmer (who Bill Simmons always highlights as a dropped-pick machine) each have seven.
Obviously, when only one player is in the teens, we're talking small sample size here. And this is the kind of thing, with one player much different from the others, where after the season we would generally go back and review the 13 dropped picks to check over the work of the volunteer charters. Still, even if one of the charters mis-marked one or two, Sanchez still leads the league. Sanchez may have only 13 picks, but his total of actual and dropped interceptions is 26, which ties Sanchez with actual interception leader Eli Manning for the league lead. (Manning has been registered with only two dropped interceptions.)

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/extra-points/2010/fo-mailbag-dropped-interceptions

only time Mark will lead the league.

 

that was a bogus report, they counted balls that defender had to dive to touch and had no chance to catch.  they also didn't mention how he was credited w/ 2 INTs against GB where, if anything, they were fumbles but they shouldn't have been a TO at all and how about dropped passes, dropped TDs? I recall one that cost is the Miami game.

 

 

[SMC]

Oh man, I always hated the dropped INT fake stat.  Nothing was more preposterous.  It accounts for something that didn't happen.  If CBs had good hands they'd be WRs.  

That's like penalizing a goalie for pucks that hit the post.

[ZachEY]

5 minutes ago, SMC said:

Oh man, I always hated the dropped INT fake stat.  Nothing was more preposterous.  It accounts for something that didn't happen.  If CBs had good hands they'd be WRs.  

That's like penalizing a goalie for pucks that hit the post.

But, QBs should benefit evenly from the fact that CBs don't have the hands of WRs.  Over enough passes that DBs could or should make a play on, we should expect a certain percentage of those to be dropped, regardless of who the QB is.  So, dropped INTs is giving us a sense of the number of bad passes, and serves as a predictor for future performance.  Unless you can make an argument that something about Sanchez's off target passes are harder to catch than others QBs, then we have to attribute his higher number of DB Drops to an annomoly, and expect that those numbers will correct.  And guess what?  They did.  Sanchez kept throwing interceptable balls, and he's consistently been in the top of the league in INT%.  This isn't a coincidence.

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, nyjunc said:

show me the games he cost us, where he was the primary reason we lost from 2009 and 2010.

Why?  Have the Jets shown interest in bringing Sanchez back to NY?

No?  They why bother dissecting Sanchez's regular season suck on a play by play basis?

I'm happy just to point out he was a bad regular season QB, a bust pick here in NY, and a third string scrub now in Dallas

If you want to "prove" something, feel free to do so yourself. 

[SMC]

1 hour ago, gEYno said:

But, QBs should benefit evenly from the fact that CBs don't have the hands of WRs.  Over enough passes that DBs could or should make a play on, we should expect a certain percentage of those to be dropped, regardless of who the QB is.  So, dropped INTs is giving us a sense of the number of bad passes, and serves as a predictor for future performance.  Unless you can make an argument that something about Sanchez's off target passes are harder to catch than others QBs, then we have to attribute his higher number of DB Drops to an annomoly, and expect that those numbers will correct.  And guess what?  They did.  Sanchez kept throwing interceptable balls, and he's consistently been in the top of the league in INT%.  This isn't a coincidence.

There were enough metrics to show that Sanchez sucked that they didn't have to resort to made up BS like a "dropped INT".

And it's really not a predictor of anything with respect to Sanchez because his INT rate remained steady (he threw a lot).  There was no spike because, "Oh, look, DBs are no longer dropping 'interceptable' balls."

The problem with this fake stat is that there are too many variables and it's completely different than when a WR drops a pass.  A CB is not as good a receiver as a WR and doesn't know what the route is going to be so can't anticipate when the ball is coming.  He has to have a split section reaction to the ball in order to intercept it.  In other words, it's harder to intercept a ball than it is to get a reception for the most part.  So even in this difficult scenario, we're trying to say what the CB should've done?  That's far too subjective and stats are meant to not be subjective in what they account for.

[nyjunc]

6 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Why?  Have the Jets shown interest in bringing Sanchez back to NY?

No?  They why bother dissecting Sanchez's regular season suck on a play by play basis?

I'm happy just to point out he was a bad regular season QB, a bust pick here in NY, and a third string scrub now in Dallas

If you want to "prove" something, feel free to do so yourself. 

this is what we are discussing, if you don't want to participate then move along but if you are going to take shots I am asking what games you thought he was most responsible in making us lose. 

It's obvious you can't do it, all you had to say was that you have no idea and you just made up that statement w/ nothing to back it up.

[Warfish]

10 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

....if you don't want to participate then move along......

Oh, but I did want to participate, and I did.  I offered my opinion and continue to do so.  Just like you.

Quote

but if you are going to take shots I am asking what games you thought he was most responsible in making us lose.

And JN isn't a class at Uni, and you don;t get to assign me research projects to prove your unsupported claims wrong.

Don't like my opinion, so much so you're clearly butthurt about it despite the QB in question being long gone and teetering on out of the league.....you do something about it.

I'm under no such obligation.  And before you ask, no I won't "prove" that Ken O'Brian was better/worse than Richard Todd either.

Quote

It's obvious you can't do it, all you had to say was that you have no idea and you just made up that statement w/ nothing to back it up.

Here, let me give you a place to start:  http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SancMa00.htm

[nyjunc]

3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Oh, but I did want to participate, and I did.  I offered my opinion and continue to do so.  Just like you.

And JN isn't a class at Uni, and you don;t get to assign me research projects to prove your unsupported claims wrong.

Don't like my opinion, so much so you're clearly butthurt about it despite the QB in question being long gone and teetering on out of the league.....you do something about it.

I'm under no such obligation.  And before you ask, no I won't "prove" that Ken O'Brian was better/worse than Richard Todd either.

Here, let me give you a place to start:  http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SancMa00.htm

would take 2 minutes but please keep deflecting.

[Warfish]

2 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

would take 2 minutes but please keep deflecting.

Then it should be easy for you to support your argument and prove my opinion wrong, wouldn't it?

Of course, if supporting your argument were that easy, you would do it rather than wasting time with me.....wouldn't you?

[nyjunc]

16 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Then it should be easy for you to support your argument and prove my opinion wrong, wouldn't it?

Of course, if supporting your argument were that easy, you would do it rather than wasting time with me.....wouldn't you?

I can easily by memory tell you which games he was primarily responsible for in a loss:

2009:

at NO

vs. Buf

 

 

[ZachEY]

48 minutes ago, SMC said:

There were enough metrics to show that Sanchez sucked that they didn't have to resort to made up BS like a "dropped INT".

And it's really not a predictor of anything with respect to Sanchez because his INT rate remained steady (he threw a lot).  There was no spike because, "Oh, look, DBs are no longer dropping 'interceptable' balls."

The problem with this fake stat is that there are too many variables and it's completely different than when a WR drops a pass.  A CB is not as good a receiver as a WR and doesn't know what the route is going to be so can't anticipate when the ball is coming.  He has to have a split section reaction to the ball in order to intercept it.  In other words, it's harder to intercept a ball than it is to get a reception for the most part.  So even in this difficult scenario, we're trying to say what the CB should've done?  That's far too subjective and stats are meant to not be subjective in what they account for.

Are we sure it's not predictive???  The stat where Sanchez lead the league in dropped INTs was 2010.

Sanchez's INT%:

2009: 5.5

2010: 2.6

2011: 3.3

2012: 4.0

So, basically, the year in which he lead the league in dropped INTs was also fairly dramatically his best year in INT%.  Interestingly, the article also mentions Eli Manning having only two dropped INTs.  Eli's INT% goes from 2.6 in 2009 up to 4.6 in 2010 and back down to 2.7 in 2011.

So, 2010 was kind of an anomaly for both Eli and Sanchez, with Eli under-benefiting from DBs dropping the ball and Sanchez over-benefiting.

The last paragraph is kind of irrelevant, no?  Because ultimately, this goes for every QB, not just Sanchez and not just Eli, so if there is noise in the data because of other variables, that noise exists on every bad pass.  Sanchez is affected by that noise just as well as Rodgers, Brady, etc.

I don't think anyone is making this stat to be the end-all-be-all of QB performance, but being number one by a large margin matters, as pretty clearly demonstrated by INT%.

[Bleedin Green]

5 minutes ago, gEYno said:

Are we sure it's not predictive???  The stat where Sanchez lead the league in dropped INTs was 2010.

Sanchez's INT%:

2009: 5.5

2010: 2.6

2011: 3.3

2012: 4.0

So, basically, the year in which he lead the league in dropped INTs was also fairly dramatically his best year in INT%.  Interestingly, the article also mentions Eli Manning having only two dropped INTs.  Eli's INT% goes from 2.6 in 2009 up to 4.6 in 2010 and back down to 2.7 in 2011.

So, 2010 was kind of an anomaly for both Eli and Sanchez, with Eli under-benefiting from DBs dropping the ball and Sanchez over-benefiting.

The last paragraph is kind of irrelevant, no?  Because ultimately, this goes for every QB, not just Sanchez and not just Eli, so if there is noise in the data because of other variables, that noise exists on every bad pass.  Sanchez is affected by that noise just as well as Rodgers, Brady, etc.

I don't think anyone is making this stat to be the end-all-be-all of QB performance, but being number one by a large margin matters, as pretty clearly demonstrated by INT%.

If there is one trait that Pennington and Sanchez seem to have shared (outside, of you know, sucking), it is most certainly the repeated attempt of what are factually, from a purely statistical standpoint, complete outliers being solely used in an attempt to quantify their supposed abilities.

Everything other than those outliers are written off as irrelevant, or blamed on other people or events.

[nyjunc]

on Mark's 2011 season, he threw 20 TDs which obviously is a lot BUT 15 of them came in 4 games so they came in bunches.

3 at NO

5 vs. Buf

4 at NE

3 vs. Atl

 

so in his other 11 games he only threw 5 INTs which is pretty good.  the 2 higher INt %s were that rookie year and 2012 where Chaz Schilens and co. were his main weapons.

[ZachEY]

I totally agree that when you remove the worst four games, Sanchez looks better.

[nyjunc]

the point is he was good the majority of that season and then elevated his  play in postseason.  you guys will look at #s out of context and make proclamations. 

[Sperm Edwards]

30 minutes ago, gEYno said:

I totally agree that when you remove the worst four games, Sanchez looks better.

It's a cute game -- let's try it. He threw 12 TDs in 15 games that year, but 4 of them came in just 2 games. So in the remaining 13 games he threw 8 TD passes and 19 INTs. 

lol

[nyjunc]

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It's a cute game -- let's try it. He threw 12 TDs in 15 games that year, but 4 of them came in just 2 games. So in the remaining 13 games he threw 8 TD passes and 19 INTs. 

lol

he had 2 TDs and 15 INTs in those 4 games, the rest of the season he threw 10 and 5.  he was good the majority of that season

 

lolololololololololololololololololololol

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, nyjunc said:

he had 2 TDs and 15 INTs in those 4 games, the rest of the season he threw 10 and 5.  he was good the majority of that season

 

lolololololololololololololololololololol

My point is you can't do that. It took him throwing all of 5 of his INTs to lose an un-lose-able game vs Buffalo. A mere 3 or 4 wouldn't do it.

The guy sucked. Physically he could do anything required - so could lots of other busts - but his accuracy was horribly inconsistent and he just didn't have a head for the game in the end. 

[ZachEY]

32 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It's a cute game -- let's try it. He threw 12 TDs in 15 games that year, but 4 of them came in just 2 games. So in the remaining 13 games he threw 8 TD passes and 19 INTs. 

lol

Wow.  So, if you take away his best games, he looks worse and if you take away his worst games, he looks better.

Does this work for all Quarterbacks or just Sanchez?

[nyjunc]

34 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

My point is you can't do that. It took him throwing all of 5 of his INTs to lose an un-lose-able game vs Buffalo. A mere 3 or 4 wouldn't do it.

The guy sucked. Physically he could do anything required - so could lots of other busts - but his accuracy was horribly inconsistent and he just didn't have a head for the game in the end. 

the point is he played well in the majority of his games that year, he had 4 awful games that skewed #s but he was not as bad as his #s indicated.

you can't tell me the guy can't play w/ the way he played in big games.  he needed talent to throw to, he's not Brady that can win w/ you and I at WR.  when he had talent in Philly he played well, when he had talent here he played well.  when he had Chaz schilens as his #1 he was awful.

[#27TheDominator]

5 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

the point is he played well in the majority of his games that year, he had 4 awful games that skewed #s but he was not as bad as his #s indicated.

you can't tell me the guy can't play w/ the way he played in big games.  he needed talent to throw to, he's not Brady that can win w/ you and I at WR.  when he had talent in Philly he played well, when he had talent here he played well.  when he had Chaz schilens as his #1 he was awful.

Which 4?  Are we talking about 2010?  Pretty sure it was at least 5 horrors.  Maybe 6.  I think he was worse than his numbers indicated.  You admit four were awful and he didn't play in the last week.  That was Brunell that demolished the Bills in the Joe McKnight game. 

[nyjunc]

15 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

Which 4?  Are we talking about 2010?  Pretty sure it was at least 5 horrors.  Maybe 6.  I think he was worse than his numbers indicated.  You admit four were awful and he didn't play in the last week.  That was Brunell that demolished the Bills in the Joe McKnight game. 

we were talking about 2009, he had 15 of his INTs in 4 games. he played well the majority of that season.

In 2010 he had a couple of bad games but nothing like the 2009 disasters and he was huge in getting us to the playoffs w/ all those late game comebacks. The OL wasn't as good, the run game wasn't as good, the D wasn't as good but Mark was better and that was the difference btw 2009 and 2010.

[Bleedin Green]

23 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

we were talking about 2009, he had 15 of his INTs in 4 games. he played well the majority of that season.

In 2010 he had a couple of bad games but nothing like the 2009 disasters and he was huge in getting us to the playoffs w/ all those late game comebacks. The OL wasn't as good, the run game wasn't as good, the D wasn't as good but Mark was better and that was the difference btw 2009 and 2010.

You are seriously trying to dismiss 27% of a player's season and not so coincidentally, the worst 27%, when trying to make an argument about how good he supposedly was?

More ridiculous yet, this is coming from the same guy who has repeatedly harped about how a grand total of 3 games amongst Chad's sh*tty 2003 season proved him to have actually had a good season.  So what is it?  Is that 4 too small of a subset to prove anything, or 3 large enough to prove everything?  Because you can't seem to make up your mind on that one, and they're rather contradictory to each other.

Basically, your entire argument is, you predetermine an evaluation, everything that does not support that should be immediately thrown out simply because it does not suit your agenda and then, lo and behold, you convince yourself you've proven something.

[nyjunc]

7 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

You are seriously trying to dismiss 27% of a player's season and not so coincidentally, the worst 27%, when trying to make an argument about how good he supposedly was?

More ridiculous yet, this is coming from the same guy who has repeatedly harped about how a grand total of 3 games amongst Chad's sh*tty 2003 season proved him to have actually had a good season.  So what is it?  Is that 4 too small of a subset to prove anything, or 3 large enough to prove everything?  Because you can't seem to make up your mind on that one, and they're rather contradictory to each other.

Basically, your entire argument is, you predetermine an evaluation, everything that does not support that should be immediately thrown out simply because it does not suit your agenda and then, lo and behold, you convince yourself you've proven something.

again, the point is he played well a majority of that season.  he had 15 starts, 11 were good.  that's 73% of his starts.  he had 4 awful starts but he really only cost us the game in 2 of them,  too many fans loo at #s out of context, this guy had 30 TDs he must be great, that guy had 20 INts he must suck.  you need to look at stats in context.  it's less about accumulation than it is how about how they were accumulated.  this is why fans think guys like Philip Rivers are great and why fans thought Peyton was better than Brady.  it's more than just raw #s. Mark was good as a rookie, really good as a 2nd year player, mid of the pack year 3 and bottom of the barrel year 4.  it's not a coincidence that our most talented team was 2010 followed by 2009 followed by 2011 then we had no talent in 2012.

the problem is you struggle w/ reading, nowhere did I say Chad was great in 2003.  I was responding to the false notion that DCs had figured him out after that Oakland game. you don

t get figured out in 2002 then have a stretch like he had in 2003 or lead us to the playoffs in 2004 and 2006 or lead Miami to a div title in 2008 but please continue on.

[#27TheDominator]

We have very different definitions of good.  Were his 60 yards against the Bengals good because he didn't throw any picks and we won? He sucked against Jacksonville too.  I get you don't want to penalize him cause we won, but c'mon.  "Fine" or "good enough" is not playing well.  Which were the 4 horrible games and which ones didn't he cost us the game?   I know that you don't want to blame him for the Pats loss, even though he spotted them 7, threw 2 picks in the first half and I don't think the O travelled more than 10 yards until the 3rd quarter, but which other one?  The 4 picks against Buffalo?  Cost us the game.  The 14 points he handed the Saints?  Cost us the game. The Falcons game that caused Rex to say we were out of the playoffs? That is on him.  

[nyjunc]

1 minute ago, #27TheDominator said:

We have very different definitions of good.  Were his 60 yards against the Bengals good because he didn't throw any picks and we won? He sucked against Jacksonville too.  I get you don't want to penalize him cause we won, but c'mon.  "Fine" or "good enough" is not playing well.  Which were the 4 horrible games and which ones didn't he cost us the game?   I know that you don't want to blame him for the Pats loss, even though he spotted them 7, threw 2 picks in the first half and I don't think the O travelled more than 10 yards until the 3rd quarter, but which other one?  The 4 picks against Buffalo?  Cost us the game.  The 14 points he handed the Saints?  Cost us the game. The Falcons game that caused Rex to say we were out of the playoffs? That is on him.  

that bengal game was over when it started. it was never in doubt, we didn't need much from him except to not not turn it over.

 

sucked against jax yet brought us back from 21-10 down in the 3rd and 21-13 down in the 4th to give us a late lead which, of course, our overrated Defense blew.

 

he cost us the NO game, he cost us the Buffalo game.

 

The NE game was a team loss.  he played poorly but they destroyed our D as well.

 

The Falcon game was a team one that, AGAIN, the D blew late.  you will say I am making excuses but it was a weather related game that kept both O's down.  Let'ts not forget our K missed a chip shot,we bobbled the snap on another chip shot and had another chip shot blocked.  that's 9 pts in a 3 pt game.  The blocked one would have put us up 10-3 late in the game so when the D blew another late lead it would have tied the game instead of losing it.  so no that game was not all on him, he was a big part of it but it was a team loss.

[#27TheDominator]

Yes, our overrated D, #1 in points, #1 in yardage.

Yes, he didn't have to do much against the Bengals, but you claimed he "played well."  He threw for 63 ******* yards.  He "brought us back from down 21-10 against the Jags?  Yes, he also helped put us in that hole.  He threw was 16 of 30 for 212 with1 TD/2INTs.  That is a game you count as "playing well?"  Our overrated D bailed his ass out when he threw a pick on a screen that was returned inside the 5. "Well." 

You are big on the team loss concept, but when you show no ability to move the ball and hand it to the other team, it can wear on a D.  Against the Pats, the Jets kicked off and held them to a 3 and out.  2nd drive they forced a fumble and Sanchez promptly throws a pick 6.  The rest of the half was nothing by 3 and outs with a cumulative 11 yards.  Those were the Welker Moss Pats.  A powerhouse offense that would let you move the ball. They scored because of Ellis' huge strip sack and the blocked punt.  The overrated D was actually only outscored by 10, despite the O doing absolutely nothing outside of the drive to start the 2nd half.  8-21 136 1 TD/4 INt, plus he spit up the fumble.  Team loss.  

[Bleedin Green]

3 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

again, the point is he played well a majority of that season.  he had 15 starts, 11 were good.  that's 73% of his starts.  he had 4 awful starts but he really only cost us the game in 2 of them,  too many fans loo at #s out of context, this guy had 30 TDs he must be great, that guy had 20 INts he must suck.  you need to look at stats in context.  it's less about accumulation than it is how about how they were accumulated.  this is why fans think guys like Philip Rivers are great and why fans thought Peyton was better than Brady.  it's more than just raw #s. Mark was good as a rookie, really good as a 2nd year player, mid of the pack year 3 and bottom of the barrel year 4.  it's not a coincidence that our most talented team was 2010 followed by 2009 followed by 2011 then we had no talent in 2012.

the problem is you struggle w/ reading, nowhere did I say Chad was great in 2003.  I was responding to the false notion that DCs had figured him out after that Oakland game. you don

t get figured out in 2002 then have a stretch like he had in 2003 or lead us to the playoffs in 2004 and 2006 or lead Miami to a div title in 2008 but please continue on.

11 good games is completely inaccurate.  11 not completely awful games?  Perhaps.  When you are trying to qualify some games as "good" when he threw 0 TDs, others where his comp % was under 50, others still where he had as many, or more, INTs than TDs, it once again proves what complete nonsense that is.

As far as 2003, the point was quite simply that his play was on a decline after his 2002 season.  Never did anyone say that not one single game for the rest of his NFL career was ever any good, so no, trying to pull a subset of 3 games from a poor season does not prove anything positive at all.  If anything, if you used the same logic you are attempting to use to for Sanchez right here, it would suggest that Pennington's 2003 season was far more bad than good, and therefore ultimately proving correct the point you're trying to dispute.

All you do is cherry pick stats in a way with no legitimacy to it whatsoever, in order to justify a determination you made in advance.  Forget even a matter of subjective opinions, from a purely statistical manner, what you are saying has no validity.

[nyjunc]

4 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Yes, our overrated D, #1 in points, #1 in yardage.

Yes, he didn't have to do much against the Bengals, but you claimed he "played well."  He threw for 63 ******* yards.  He "brought us back from down 21-10 against the Jags?  Yes, he also helped put us in that hole.  He threw was 16 of 30 for 212 with1 TD/2INTs.  That is a game you count as "playing well?"  Our overrated D bailed his ass out when he threw a pick on a screen that was returned inside the 5. "Well." 

You are big on the team loss concept, but when you show no ability to move the ball and hand it to the other team, it can wear on a D.  Against the Pats, the Jets kicked off and held them to a 3 and out.  2nd drive they forced a fumble and Sanchez promptly throws a pick 6.  The rest of the half was nothing by 3 and outs with a cumulative 11 yards.  Those were the Welker Moss Pats.  A powerhouse offense that would let you move the ball. They scored because of Ellis' huge strip sack and the blocked punt.  The overrated D was actually only outscored by 10, despite the O doing absolutely nothing outside of the drive to start the 2nd half.  8-21 136 1 TD/4 INt, plus he spit up the fumble.  Team loss.  

how many late leads did they blow those 2 years?  they were the biggest reason we made it as far as we did but they blew a ton of leads and cost us both title games.  I don't care what the rankings say.

he did lose a TD in the stat sheet on a throw to Cotch that was ruled backward and therefore a rush.

 

vs. jax he had INt on first throw of game, led to TD for Jax.  2nd INT we got right back w/ fumble recovery to say he put us in that hole isn't really fair.  they had 70 and 86 yd TD drives to put us in that hole. yep they bailed him out then w/ the game on the line they allowed Jax to not only score the GW FG but to use up all the clock so we had no shot.  Jax had taken over at their 17 w/ 4:56 to play. 

 

oh so b/c D got one stop to start the game it means they should go in a shell after a pick 6? a big time D doesn't go into a shell.

 

"the rest of the half was nothing but 3 and outs"- they had ONE possession the rest of the half and they gained 8 yds not 11.

 

week 2 we held that powerhouse O to 9 pts.  I know welker didn't play but Edelman did and did everything welker would normally do.  bad excuse.

 

the overrated D allowed 24 more points, a big time D steps up.  it was a team loss.