Need an ESPN Insider... Divergent Paths for Greene, Sanchez

[Bruce Banner]

I'm not sold on Sanchez but I won't judge him until he gets a real offensive coordinator to work with. His INT in the last game was yet another one of those plays where Schotty sends multiple receivers into the same area where they get outnumbered by the defensive backs.

[Scott Dierking]

I'm not sold on Sanchez but I won't judge him until he gets a real offensive coordinator to work with. His INT in the last game was yet another one of those plays where Schotty sends multiple receivers into the same area where they get outnumbered by the defensive backs.

You do realize that sending WR's to the same spot is something that all teams do, and do for good reason, at times.

Sometimes it is in the manner of a crossing route where you are trying to confuse the zone, or have the man defense cross itself.

Sometimes it is done to help clear out a spot within a zone.

Sometimes it is done to create a "pick or a rub" within the defense.

This simplified approach of "the Jets sometimes have multiple WR's in the same spot=dumb", is simplistic thinking at its worst.

We do not have the benefit of knowing the play call, the play latitude, or what the routes were supposed to be. Therefore, it is near impossible to know whose responsibility lies where.

[CTM]

Wishing you all a Happy AFC Championship week.

Geez, some of you guys can't drop an agenda and just focus on a game.

Most active thread of the day.. Talking about how awesome we are isn't as interesting as debating the details.. Max loves us atleast

[Aten]

Therefore, it is near impossible to know whose responsibility lies where.

You don't need to know how it came to be that there were two receivers and three defenders in a small area to know that it was Sanchez's responsibility to throw it someplace else.

[Scott Dierking]

Most active thread of the day.. Talking about how awesome we are isn't as interesting as debating the details.. Max loves us atleast

To me, the details does not include where Mark Sanchez will be as a QB in 2 years.

Awesome or bust, I am not confident in the collective knowledge on this site (myself included) to give me an accurate projection, even with all the chest thumping that goes on here.

Sometimes, some people get so wrapped up in their own protection of face as it relates to football acumen, that they lose sight of what is happening in front of them..

Just sayin'.

[Scott Dierking]

You don't need to know how it came to be that there were two receivers and three defenders in a small area to know that it was Sanchez's responsibility to throw it someplace else.

When they only give him certain options to throw to, his choices are limited.

It is how rookies learn, too.

[JustInFudge]

Except of course that it's been reinforced time after time after time..

If Sanchez was on the lions, he'd have made Russel look like a all-pro. Where sanchez is unique is that he plays on a team thats good enough to win despite him, which should improve his long term prospects as he doesn't get brow-beaten for losing

Come'on, I know you love this stuff with your nerdy brain, but that article is beyond ridiculous.

The 2 things they're not taking into account are win and losses and the fact that Sanchez threw most of his interceptions in 4 games where as Russell is typically good for 1 or 2 game. Meaning the "sciene" might be right, but its going on raw data and not objectivity.

The truth is, when Sanchez plays well, he looks fine. When Sanchez play terrible, he looks worse than Russell.

[CTM]

To me, the details does not include where Mark Sanchez will be as a QB in 2 years.

Awesome or bust, I am not confident in the collective knowledge on this site (myself included) to give me an accurate projection, even with all the chest thumping that goes on here.

Sometimes, some people get so wrapped up in their own protection of face as it relates to football acumen, that they lose sight of what is happening in front of them..

Just sayin'.

I don't have clue what you are talking about, which I assume puts us on a level playing field.

Either you are misunderstanding what I'm saying, or drawing incorrect conclusions, either way, i don't see the point in defending my intentions..

[serphnx]

Awful comparison.

If Sanchez has displayed anything it has been a great work ethic. His passion for the game is pretty obvious and from all accounts he works as hard as anyone.

Russell arrived, got paid and was satisfied.

Russell reminds me a lot of Herm. It's funny when it's happening to somebody else, and I can't even totally blame these guys. I'd have to admit that if someone give me the choice of earning millions of dollars while being incompetent and not trying against working really hard and getting a much smaller payscale with barely any recognition, I'd take the Herm and Russell way every time.

Russell, Herm and Chad Pennington all knew they'd make more money in football than doing anything else in life. So these 3 men with questionable talents, abilities and frankly work ethic especially with Russell went about manipulating the media to get them what they wanted. Russell convinced the media that he was a #1 draft pick and franchise QB, then continued to mess with the Raiders by holding out for more money. Pennington somehow made it to the NFL in the first place. And god knows how Herm got not one HC job but two.

These 3 have been the most overrated and overpriced people in the NFL for the past decade. Hats off to them.

[Scott Dierking]

Russell reminds me a lot of Herm. It's funny when it's happening to somebody else, and I can't even totally blame these guys. I'd have to admit that if someone give me the choice of earning millions of dollars while being incompetent and not trying against working really hard and getting a much smaller payscale with barely any recognition, I'd take the Herm and Russell way every time.

Russell, Herm and Chad Pennington all knew they'd make more money in football than doing anything else in life. So these 3 men with questionable talents, abilities and frankly work ethic especially with Russell went about manipulating the media to get them what they wanted. Russell convinced the media that he was a #1 draft pick and franchise QB, then continued to mess with the Raiders by holding out for more money. Pennington somehow made it to the NFL in the first place. And god knows how Herm got not one HC job but two.

These 3 have been the most overrated and overpriced people in the NFL for the past decade. Hats off to them.

All I can say is wow.

[CTM]

Come'on, I know you love this stuff with your nerdy brain, but that article is beyond ridiculous.

The 2 things they're not taking into account are win and losses and the fact that Sanchez threw most of his interceptions in 4 games where as Russell is typically good for 1 or 2 game. Meaning the "sciene" might be right, but its going on raw data and not objectivity.

The truth is, when Sanchez plays well, he looks fine. When Sanchez play terrible, he looks worse than Russell.

So consistently bad is better then sometimes ok and sometimes awful, even if both average out to bad. OK.

Either way, this idea that FO folks don't watch football or that their statistics are meaningless just because we don't like them is my only gripe here. The fact that to argue that point made me bring up sanchez couinterpoints and cause mass butt hurt is only pleasant byproduct i guess

[Aten]

The 2 things they're not taking into account are win and losses and the fact that Sanchez threw most of his interceptions in 4 games where as Russell is typically good for 1 or 2 game. Meaning the "sciene" might be right, but its going on raw data and not objectivity.

Two things? There are hundreds of things they're not taking into account. So what? Just look at it at a macro level. Sanchez has put up some numbers that are sort of similar to some numbers that Russell put up at a sort of similar stage of his development. I don't know about you, but as a Jets fan I'd prefer that my starting quarterback not be similar to JaMarcus Russell in any way whatsoever, so the implications of the sparse data they've provided are generally negative. Why does there have to be more to it than that? Why does it have to be, I demand that this statistic produce specific meaningful output in absence of context or else I'm gonna go Klecko and start throwing rocks at nerds? The worth of a stat or any other piece of information is in what you think about it, not in what it tells you (or purports to tell you, or what you want it to tell you, etc.) without your having to think about it.

[CTM]

Russell reminds me a lot of Herm. It's funny when it's happening to somebody else, and I can't even totally blame these guys. I'd have to admit that if someone give me the choice of earning millions of dollars while being incompetent and not trying against working really hard and getting a much smaller payscale with barely any recognition, I'd take the Herm and Russell way every time.

Russell, Herm and Chad Pennington all knew they'd make more money in football than doing anything else in life. So these 3 men with questionable talents, abilities and frankly work ethic especially with Russell went about manipulating the media to get them what they wanted. Russell convinced the media that he was a #1 draft pick and franchise QB, then continued to mess with the Raiders by holding out for more money. Pennington somehow made it to the NFL in the first place. And god knows how Herm got not one HC job but two.

These 3 have been the most overrated and overpriced people in the NFL for the past decade. Hats off to them.

repped

[JustInFudge]

So consistently bad is better then sometimes ok and sometimes awful, even if both average out to bad. OK.

Either way, this idea that FO folks don't watch football or that their statistics are meaningless just because we don't like them is my only gripe here. The fact that to argue that point made me bring up sanchez couinterpoints and cause mass butt hurt is only pleasant byproduct i guess

No, I think consistently bad is worse then the later. But the fact remains, Sanchez was a rookie and he had a couple of really bad games that stastically would put him the category of Russell. Reality is, he had a 4 really bad games that scewed his stats to be compared to Russell.

Honestly, I could give a **** what some dbags that think they know football by running numbers thinks about Sanchez's future. I can watch both play and clearly see one is much better than the other.

[Matt39]

Why isnt anyone discussing that Russell has gotten significantly worse since his rookie season?

Considering Sanchez's work ethic and Russell's lack thereof, how can we even draw a comparision?

[Scott Dierking]

Why isnt anyone discussing that Russell has got significantly worse since his rookie season?

Considering Sanchez's work ethic and Russell's lack thereof, how can we even draw a comparision?

Agenda based bias.

[Irish Jet]

Come'on, I know you love this stuff with your nerdy brain, but that article is beyond ridiculous.

The 2 things they're not taking into account are win and losses and the fact that Sanchez threw most of his interceptions in 4 games where as Russell is typically good for 1 or 2 game. Meaning the "sciene" might be right, but its going on raw data and not objectivity.

The truth is, when Sanchez plays well, he looks fine. When Sanchez play terrible, he looks worse than Russell.

I think you're underestimating just how bad Russell looks when he's off.

[Vicious89x]

Agenda based bias.

Because there isn't a statistical process in which you can account for work ethic.

Now if there's no marked improvement next year, I'd be more concerned.

[Irish Jet]

Two things? There are hundreds of things they're not taking into account. So what? Just look at it at a macro level. Sanchez has put up some numbers that are sort of similar to some numbers that Russell put up at a sort of similar stage of his development. I don't know about you, but as a Jets fan I'd prefer that my starting quarterback not be similar to JaMarcus Russell in any way whatsoever, so the implications of the sparse data they've provided are generally negative. Why does there have to be more to it than that? Why does it have to be, I demand that this statistic produce specific meaningful output in absence of context or else I'm gonna go Klecko and start throwing rocks at nerds? The worth of a stat or any other piece of information is in what you think about it, not in what it tells you (or purports to tell you, or what you want it to tell you, etc.) without your having to think about it.

And regardless of what that article says - He is not

Sanchez done more in his first NFL game than Russell has his entire career. He's also produced in a playoff game. Something Russell will probably never even experience.

The guy was the worst starting QB this league has seen in a while. He couldn't hit the broad side of a ****ing barn, consistently! Any pass he throws over 3 yards is an adventure.

[Aten]

And regardless of what that article says - He is not

Sanchez done more in his first NFL game than Russell has his entire career. He's also produced in a playoff game. Something Russell will probably never even experience.

The guy was the worst starting QB this league has seen in a while. He couldn't hit the broad side of a ****ing barn, consistently! Any pass he throws over 3 yards is an adventure.

Whenever you see one of my posts go three lines plus, you can safely assume it's not for you and just move on.

[Irish Jet]

Whenever you see one of my posts go three lines plus, you can safely assume it's not for you and just move on.

Whenever you see one of my posts that prove you wrong, feel free to keep ignoring them and respond with irrelevant shots at my intelligence. Wouldn't fit into your pathetic agenda against Sanchez. I understand.

[Aten]

Whenever you see one of my posts that prove you wrong, feel free to keep ignoring them and respond with irrelevant shots at my intelligence. Wouldn't fit into your pathetic agenda against Sanchez. I understand.

To be honest with you, I really didn't even give you credit for having the intelligence to realize that that was a crack at your intelligence. The point remains that context is everything. In the context of projecting Sanchez's future performance, the fact that he put up the same completion percentage at the same age as JaMarcus Russell doesn't mean a whole lot. In the context of your contention that the two are not similar in any way whatsoever, the fact that they put up the same completion percentage at the same age is dispositive, and you're wrong.

[CTM]

Agenda based bias.

agenda against Sanchez.

you're insecurity about this (and Chad) has more to do about your interpretation of what's being said then my openly discussing his warts...

What agenda could I possibly have .. lol

[Mandarinia]

Crap artical, not even worth reading.

Stats can be manipulated to favor any side.

[Scott Dierking]

Because there isn't a statistical process in which you can account for work ethic.

Now if there's no marked improvement next year, I'd be more concerned.

If I had a dollar for everyone here (me included), who was dissapointed by Ferguson, and were prepared to call him a "bust", Id be a rich man.

People see a pimple, and want to call it a wart right away.They are enamored with blemishes, and seem unaware that some blemishes are just a maturing process, and can be solved,

Do all of them go away, in all players? Of course not. That is why it is an inexact science.

[RutgersJetFan]

To be honest with you, I really didn't even give you credit for having the intelligence to realize that that was a crack at your intelligence. The point remains that context is everything. In the context of projecting Sanchez's future performance, the fact that he put up the same completion percentage at the same age as JaMarcus Russell doesn't mean a whole lot. In the context of your contention that the two are not similar in any way whatsoever, the fact that they put up the same completion percentage at the same age is dispositive, and you're wrong.

No Colonel Sanders, you're wrong.

[Larz]

I go by what I see, not an excel spreadsheet

starting with the first cincy game ( I think) I noticed mark making much better decisions and throwing the ball away when he had to

reminds me a little of eli and the giants run, he just stopped turning it over and they went on a roll, it was like a light when on in his head

[jakeG]

If we are going to compare just rookie years

sanchez > P Manning>Elway>Favre>Brady

[Irish Jet]

you're insecurity about this (and Chad) has more to do about your interpretation of what's being said then my openly discussing his warts...

What agenda could I possibly have .. lol

Speak when spoken to douche.

[CTM]

Speak when spoken to douche.

And let your whining go unchecked? Where's the fun in that

[JustInFudge]

Two things? There are hundreds of things they're not taking into account. So what? Just look at it at a macro level. Sanchez has put up some numbers that are sort of similar to some numbers that Russell put up at a sort of similar stage of his development. I don't know about you, but as a Jets fan I'd prefer that my starting quarterback not be similar to JaMarcus Russell in any way whatsoever, so the implications of the sparse data they've provided are generally negative. Why does there have to be more to it than that? Why does it have to be, I demand that this statistic produce specific meaningful output in absence of context or else I'm gonna go Klecko and start throwing rocks at nerds? The worth of a stat or any other piece of information is in what you think about it, not in what it tells you (or purports to tell you, or what you want it to tell you, etc.) without your having to think about it.

Maybe I should have clarified, the 2 things that they are ignoring that matter to me, are the ones I mentioned. Obviously it not taking in hundreds of factors.

In the context of projecting Sanchez's future performance, the fact that he put up the same completion percentage at the same age as JaMarcus Russell doesn't mean a whole lot. In the context of your contention that the two are not similar in any way whatsoever, the fact that they put up the same completion percentage at the same age is dispositive, and you're wrong.

And the article is comparing Sanchez's rookie season to Russell's 2nd year. Its not very valid. I'm not a stats guy, when I watch Sanchez and I watch Russell, Sanchez is much more appealing on so many levels.

And Peyton Manning had a similar completion rating...this stuff is just stoopid.

BTW - I started the Russell >>>>>>> Sanchez talk so

[Irish Jet]

And let your whining go unchecked? Where's the fun in that

Oh yeah, responding to a guy who hates Mark Sanchez with a passion is me whining? Right.

Pretty pissed right now because I had a long typed post which JN is after eating is response to Aten's last post.

To sum up, comparing Sanchez's first season to Russells second is an immediate indication of a **** up. Regardless of how cut short Russells rookie season was he had the opportunity to gain experience that Sanchez did not.

Secondly you can not take it out of the context of projecting Sanchez's future performance when that's what the whole ****ing thing is about anyways.

[Irish Jet]

And the article is comparing Sanchez's rookie season to Russell's 2nd year. Its not very valid. I'm not a stats guy, when I watch Sanchez and I watch Russell, Sanchez is much more appealing on so many levels.

I don't think this can be emphasised enough. Russell is so bad so consistently it's borderline disturbing. He's ****ing terrible on every level. I've seen enough from Sanchez to know that he's not a JaMarcus Russell. He makes throws Russell doesn't even when playing badly (See New England game). Now I accept Sanchez has been a very bad QB this season (Although not for a rookie) but to compare him to that useless sack of **** is just ridiculous.

[dbatesman]

Oh yeah, responding to a guy who hates Mark Sanchez with a passion is me whining? Right.

Pretty pissed right now because I had a long typed post which JN is after eating is response to Aten's last post.

To sum up, comparing Sanchez's first season to Russells second is an immediate indication of a **** up. Regardless of how cut short Russells rookie season was he had the opportunity to gain experience that Sanchez did not.

Secondly you can not take it out of the context of projecting Sanchez's future performance when that's what the whole ****ing thing is about anyways.

Dismissing the similarities between Sanchez's rookie season and Russell's second season because Russell got 66 pass attempts' worth of "opportunity" the year before is about as dumb as declaring Sanchez to be Russell v2.

[victorjets]

Comparing completion percentages is useless. You got to measure passing accuracy by the location of the football. Unlike Russell, Sanchez can put the ball in some tight spots. Last Sunday he complete a 3rd down pass that Russell can only dream of.

Of course, Sanchez needs to make better decisions. But mental mistakes are expected from rookies.