You need to win 1 game...

[jgb]

1 minute ago, Beerfish said:

Put mark sanchez on the teams darnold and geno had to play with and he would be as bad if not worse.

The jets had a super bowl ready team when markie parachuted onto those teams.

This is the kind of response that this thread needed lol

[freestater]

Richard Todd.

So I can yell "PUT IN ROBINSON!!!" all game.

[Grandy]

Seeing as Sanchez is the only one to go into the playoffs, won 4 games in 2 years in those playoffs, and is the only one to consistently win clutch games I'd definitely go with him.

Darnold is the most talented of the bunch, but he was as clutch as the Titanic.

Geno was Geno.

 

[Bleedin Green]

It seems like a lot of folks just want to ignore what "all else being equal" actually means.  Pointing to one of the QBs being painfully dragged kicking and screaming against his will to be merely present at the time of a more successful team 100% completely in spite of his own performance, due to an infinitely more talented roster, does not exactly meet that criteria.

As a quick reminder, with the sole exception of the Pats game, Sanchez's lauded postseason performances ranged from laughably awful to the team doing everything in its power to minimize his involvement in the game.

In the end, the single most consistent thing over the course of the past decade+ of this team is how much all of them completely sucked.  It's like asking which pool of diarrhea would be the least offensive to bath yourself in.

[Skeet Ulrich]

47 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

Put mark sanchez on the teams darnold and geno had to play with and he would be as bad if not worse.

The jets had a super bowl ready team when markie parachuted onto those teams.

Darnold nor Geno is going into Foxboro and winning that divisional game in 2010. Not if you give them 100 chances. Sanchez sucked but give him his due. He played a spectacular game that night.

[jgb]

28 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

In the end, the single most consistent thing over the course of the past decade+ of this team is how much all of them completely sucked.  It's like asking which pool of diarrhea would be the least offensive to bath yourself in.

 

 

[PS17]

1 hour ago, Patriot Killa said:

Mark was a stone cold killer against Houston in 2010,  against Browns in OT to Holmes & later that year in the playoffs vs NE.

Sanchez was a real QB in the playoffs

I can think of 7 or 8 great Sanchez performances in big games off the top of my head. I can’t think of one for Darnold or Geno. Also Darnold and Geno never played in big games because they were atrocious as was the entire team around them. 

[Jetsfan80]

6 hours ago, Bleedin Green said:

It seems like a lot of folks just want to ignore what "all else being equal" actually means.  Pointing to one of the QBs being painfully dragged kicking and screaming against his will to be merely present at the time of a more successful team 100% completely in spite of his own performance, due to an infinitely more talented roster, does not exactly meet that criteria.

As a quick reminder, with the sole exception of the Pats game, Sanchez's lauded postseason performances ranged from laughably awful to the team doing everything in its power to minimize his involvement in the game.

In the end, the single most consistent thing over the course of the past decade+ of this team is how much all of them completely sucked.  It's like asking which pool of diarrhea would be the least offensive to bath yourself in.

 

So....which one did you pick?  lol.

[Jetsfan80]

5 hours ago, PS17 said:

I can think of 7 or 8 great Sanchez performances in big games off the top of my head. I can’t think of one for Darnold or Geno. Also Darnold and Geno never played in big games because they were atrocious as was the entire team around them. 

You're throwing the word "great" around far too easily here.

[T0mShane]

6 hours ago, Beerfish said:

Put mark sanchez on the teams darnold and geno had to play with and he would be as bad if not worse.

The jets had a super bowl ready team when markie parachuted onto those teams.

????????

[slimjasi]

7 hours ago, Beerfish said:

Put mark sanchez on the teams darnold and geno had to play with and he would be as bad if not worse.

The jets had a super bowl ready team when markie parachuted onto those teams.

Absolutely. 
 

and yet, I would still take him over either Sam or Geno in a big game. Go figure 

[shuler82]

What a sh*t poor executed premise of a thread. Sanchez was the winning QB in four playoff games -4-2 overall -against two guys who’ve never won more than 7 games in a season? 

And sure Sanchez sucks but he showed up when it mattered. He had just as much a part of those  playoff wins as the rest of the team. Unlike Geno and Sam who never showed up at all  

[nickfoshizal]

8 hours ago, Beerfish said:

Put mark sanchez on the teams darnold and geno had to play with and he would be as bad if not worse.

The jets had a super bowl ready team when markie parachuted onto those teams.

Gonna show my kids the first half of the afc championship vs Pittsburgh and tell them “THIS is a real playoff quarterback right here boys.”

[JoJoTownsell1]

3 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

You're throwing the word "great" around far too easily here.

Agreed.  People are confusing great performances with great moments.  Sure Sanchez had some great moments in some big games but there were never really games where he put on a great overall  performance. 

[Vader]

Sanchize all the way

[jgb]

11 hours ago, shuler82 said:

What a sh*t poor executed premise of a thread. Sanchez was the winning QB in four playoff games -4-2 overall -against two guys who’ve never won more than 7 games in a season? 

And sure Sanchez sucks but he showed up when it mattered. He had just as much a part of those  playoff wins as the rest of the team. Unlike Geno and Sam who never showed up at all  

Teach me, Obi Wan

 

[section314]

Sanchez, not even close. 

[More Cowbell]

I have seen some stupid poles but this is by far the one with the least thought put into it. A QB can't  win on his own otherwise Mahomes would have won his second SB no matter how badly his OL protected him last season.

[EM31]

10 minutes ago, More Cowbell said:

I have seen some stupid poles but this is by far the one with the least thought put into it. A QB can't  win on his own otherwise Mahomes would have won his second SB no matter how badly his OL protected him last season.

<chuckles>.... Sorry bud but the typo just tickled my funny bone right there

[slimjasi]

47 minutes ago, More Cowbell said:

I have seen some stupid poles but this is by far the one with the least thought put into it. A QB can't  win on his own otherwise Mahomes would have won his second SB no matter how badly his OL protected him last season.

The poll does not suggest or imply that a QB wins the game by himself. The poll is just asking which QB you would prefer for a game you had to win, all things being equal. 

[More Cowbell]

1 hour ago, EM31 said:

<chuckles>.... Sorry bud but the typo just tickled my funny bone right there

Voice to text 

[More Cowbell]

57 minutes ago, slimjasi said:

The poll does not suggest or imply that a QB wins the game by himself. The poll is just asking which QB you would prefer for a game you had to win, all things being equal. 

If it said all things being equal, the stupidity  quotient would be reduced but it doesn't.  Ask Archie Manning about QB's winning on their own. 

[jgb]

1 hour ago, More Cowbell said:

I have seen some stupid poles but this is by far the one with the least thought put into it. A QB can't  win on his own otherwise Mahomes would have won his second SB no matter how badly his OL protected him last season.

Why you gotta get all racial about it?

[jgb]

2 hours ago, slimjasi said:

The poll does not suggest or imply that a QB wins the game by himself. The poll is just asking which QB you would prefer for a game you had to win, all things being equal. 

To some, QBs are merely a product of their environment. Like RBs. Of course this kind of circular logic leads to a cosmological paradox. If every position is a product of the environment, what creates the environment in the first place?

[Uncle Nicco]

Sanchez had the clutch gene, you can’t deny that. Stage was never too big. 

[y2k8]

 

I've never seriously considered quitting this team for good until I saw this poll.

FTR, the correct answer is:

D. Jump off "The Vessel" at Hudson Yards

[slimjasi]

1 hour ago, More Cowbell said:

If it said all things being equal, the stupidity  quotient would be reduced but it doesn't.  Ask Archie Manning about QB's winning on their own. 

Hmmm - this is the original post that came with the poll. 

 

23 hours ago, jgb said:

Which gives best shot to win all else being equal?

[slimjasi]

1 hour ago, jgb said:

To some, QBs are merely a product of their environment. Like RBs. Of course this kind of circular logic leads to a cosmological paradox. If every position is a product of another, what creates the environment in the first place?

Right - the obvious answer is that some positions are a lot more important than others and tend to have a bigger role in determining the "environment." 

You can be a contending team with only average play at certain positions, but it's extremely difficult to be a winning team with below average QB play. 

[Jetsfan80]

1 hour ago, Pichula said:

Sanchez had the clutch gene, you can’t deny that. Stage was never too big. 

People are going way too far with their whimsical takes on Sanchez here.  It's as if they forgot about what happened in the Steeler game.  The stage was 100 % too big for him that day. 

People love to blame the defense for that one but that L fell almost solely on Mark Sanchez and the negative 7 points he produced in that first half.  His doomed "comeback" in the 2nd half was predictable too.  That's how the NFL goes.  The team that dominates the 1st half plays a bit softer on defense and allows some points in the 2nd half.  

[Warfish]

12 hours ago, shuler82 said:

What a sh*t poor executed premise of a thread. Sanchez was the winning QB in four playoff games -4-2 overall -against two guys who’ve never won more than 7 games in a season? 

And sure Sanchez sucks but he showed up when it mattered. He had just as much a part of those  playoff wins as the rest of the team. Unlike Geno and Sam who never showed up at all  

Sanchez was bodily carried into those playoff years by a great roster.  Once there, he played pretty well, admittedly, still surrounded by a great roster.

When the roster wasn't so great, he never sniffed the postseason or winning clutch games.  he never elevated his supporting cast in any way.

Darnold, similarly, never had remotely as great a roster as Sanchez had, and also never sniffed the postseason.  We'll never know how he might have done surrounded by the great talent Sanchez enjoyed.

It's yet another time where Jets fans have to debate which turn smells the best, sadly, but I went with Darnold over Sanchez. 

I think he's the better QB of the two, and there is still some unknown to Sam (as he's still in the league while Sanchez no longer is).  Not by much, and with an admittedly weaker resume, especially in the post.  But frankly, they both suck, so it's a moot point IMO.  Two turds.

 

[More Cowbell]

8 minutes ago, slimjasi said:

Hmmm - this is the original post that came with the poll. 

 

Ok, I didn't  read the post under it. Kind of just saw the poll and rolled my eyes and flipped to the bottom

[Uncle Nicco]

43 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

People are going way too far with their whimsical takes on Sanchez here.  It's as if they forgot about what happened in the Steeler game.  The stage was 100 % too big for him that day. 

People love to blame the defense for that one but that L fell almost solely on Mark Sanchez and the negative 7 points he produced in that first half.  His doomed "comeback" in the 2nd half was predictable too.  That's how the NFL goes.  The team that dominates the 1st half plays a bit softer on defense and allows some points in the 2nd half.  

Eh… if the defense makes a stop at the end we have a chance. Comebacks happen all the time in the NFL. 

[Jetsfan80]

40 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Sanchez was bodily carried into those playoff years by a great roster.  Once there, he played pretty well, admittedly, still surrounded by a great roster.

When the roster wasn't so great, he never sniffed the postseason or winning clutch games.  he never elevated his supporting cast in any way.

Yep.  People keep wondering in this thread how Sanchez would do with the kind of roster Darnold and Geno were saddled with.  Well, we already saw that in 2012.  We went 6-10 and the offense averaged a paltry 17.6 points per game.  Sanchez completed just 54 % of his throws, threw 13 TDs to 18 INTs, and fumbled the ball 14 times.

[Jetsfan80]

3 minutes ago, Pichula said:

Eh… if the defense makes a stop at the end we have a chance. Comebacks happen all the time in the NFL. 

Right but perfect defense doesn't happen either, especially not in the modern NFL.  The defense was asked to do way too much all year long.  The one time the D fell short against a good Steeler team, on the road, people blamed them for the L.  From time to time you need your QB and offense to carry the day and Sanchez simply could not do it.  

I still picked Sanchez, because we actually saw him play decently in postseason games and the Jets were never good enough to play in "big games" with Darnold or Geno.  But it's not a runaway.

This thread is like asking people to pick the method of gouging out their eyes:  Knife, fork, or spoon.  I chose the spoon.  

[jgb]

22 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Right but perfect defense doesn't happen either, especially not in the modern NFL.  The defense was asked to do way too much all year long.  The one time the D fell short against a good Steeler team, on the road, people blamed them for the L.  From time to time you need your QB and offense to carry the day and Sanchez simply could not do it.  

I still picked Sanchez, because we actually saw him play decently in postseason games and the Jets were never good enough to play in "big games" with Darnold or Geno.  But it's not a runaway.

This thread is like asking people to pick the method of gouging out their eyes:  Knife, fork, or spoon.  I chose the spoon.  

There is no spoon @Hackenberg - Banned