Josh Freeman

[Klecko73isGod]

I think generally speaking, they'll be a better measure then the old eyeball. Particularly ones like DVOA which try and level the playign field by taking quality of opponnent, down and distance and oter factors into play. ie, it's a lot harder (and more valuable) to complete an 11 yard pass against Pitts on third and 10 in a close game, then it is to complete an 11 yard pass on 3rd and 25 against houston in a blowout.

Is it? By attempting to contextualize the stats that way you've made them subjective. They are no longer objective measurments. Who decides to weigh what and how? Subjective reasoning still plays a major role. And you're still not measuring everything a QB does.

[CTM]

AFC East >>> NFC South

Not even close..

Car #7 pass defense

NO #10

Atlanta #12

Miami #15

NE #23

Buff #26

Not to mention passing on those Ds in Florida, two domes, and blustery North Carolina.

That's certainly fair, but again, our division has very poor pass defenses which definitely compensates

Freeman is still insanely better than I thought he'd be too. I'm not sure that means he's a lock for a smooth sailing great career. I still think Sanchez will be fine long term, as long as he doesn't get seriously injured (*knock on wood*). Freeman is throwing up 23/6 after 10/18 and he's completing 6% more of his passes...maybe he regresses next year? What are the QB trends?

I personally think Freeman goes backwards whereas Sanchex continues forward, but again, I was not a freeman fan and tend to have a hard time letting go intial immpressions. I'm still waiting for Cutler to become elite

[CTM]

Is it? By attempting to contextualize the stats that way you've made them subjective. They are no longer objective measurments. Who decides to weigh what and how? Subjective reasoning still plays a major role. And you're still not measuring everything a QB does.

By how much they correlate with winning, you have data (stats), you know the outcome,the rest is looking math and data mining

[SenorGato]

I personally think Freeman goes backwards whereas Sanchex continues forward, but again, I was not a freeman fan and tend to have a hard time letting go intil immpressions. I'm still waiting for Cutler to become elite

They could easily switch their 2nd year seasons next year. There's no real trend for either guy, but Sanchez was a more high percentage college passer...Freeman's a grass is greener on the other side type guy right now...

[SenorGato]

I personally think Freeman goes backwards whereas Sanchex continues forward, but again, I was not a freeman fan and tend to have a hard time letting go intil immpressions. I'm still waiting for Cutler to become elite

They could easily switch their 2nd year seasons next year. There's no real trend for either guy, but Sanchez was a more high percentage college passer...Freeman's a grass is greener on the other side type guy right now...

[#27TheDominator]

Exactly. And winning or losing is even more dependent on stuff other than the quarterback's individual performance. I'm not saying it's a great way of measuring Freeman's play against good teams, just a better one than only looking at Tampa's record in such games. Also, even if you assume that all of that stuff mitigates in Sanchez's favor, that probably doesn't even cumulatively count for as much as the fact that our number includes two return touchdowns to their one. I'd also point out that their offensive VOA adjustment is positive and ours negative but we all know that's going nowhere.

I have to be honest, I have never looked into exactly what the DVOA takes into account, but I'm sure if I did we would come up with some reason that it is flawed. Won-Loss is also flawed, but it does do one thing: it mitigates some bad statistics because teams with the lead play closer to the vest and defenses generally tighten up (yardage-wise in particular). Like I said, I'm not saying Sanchez is better, though I'm happy with him.

The ones they played. I'm not talking about common opponents.

What quality teams did they play besides the ones the Jets played (Ravens & Steelers)? The only other team they played that is even halfway decent is the Falcons. Well, they played the Saints too, but they scored 6 points.

[#27TheDominator]

By how much they correlate with winning, you have data (stats), you know the outcome,the rest is looking math and data mining

That's what I don't understand. If I wanted to look at math and data mine I would work. I want to play and watch football.

[Aten]

What quality teams did they play besides the ones the Jets played (Ravens & Steelers)? The only other team they played that is even halfway decent is the Falcons. Well, they played the Saints too, but they scored 6 points.

What quality teams did we play besides the ones Tampa played (Ravens & Steelers)? The only other team we played that is even halfway decent is the Patriots. Well, we played the Packers too, but we didn't score at all.

[Matt39]

What quality teams did we play besides the ones Tampa played (Ravens & Steelers)? The only other team we played that is even halfway decent is the Patriots. Well, we played the Packers too, but we didn't score at all.

I'd say the Pats, at 13-2, are a bit better than half way decent- no?

[Aten]

I want to play and watch football.

So you're here arguing about football, what, against your will?

[Aten]

I'd say the Pats, at 13-2, are a bit better than half way decent- no?

Yes, the Patriots and Falcons are both better than halfway decent, as are the Saints. And?

[JustInFudge]

Well, he was in a sleeveless T.

sleeveless T? Just wait till the end of the video...1:15.

Hence, Southern Cali Mexi Model Homo.

[Matt39]

Yes, the Patriots and Falcons are both better than halfway decent, as are the Saints. And?

You called the Patriots half way decent.

[Aten]

You called the Patriots half way decent.

Nope, sure didn't.

[#27TheDominator]

So you're here arguing about football, what, against your will?

I forgot! Playing, watching and arguing about football!

Yes, the Patriots and Falcons are both better than halfway decent, as are the Saints. And?

Decent teams they played: Falcons, Ravens, Steelers, and Saints. Decent teams the Jets have played Pats, Ravens, Steelers, Bears (and Packers?) I guess I'll keep the Packers and Pats in there since the Jets barely scored and it's only fair, though the Pats D wasn't so hot. That's 6 games for the Jets and 96 points for an average of 16 and 74 points in 5 games for the Bucs for an average of 15. Sanchez is outscoring Freeman against "good" teams. Freeman beat up on Carolina, Seattle and Arizona.

EDIT: We agreed this isn't a good basis for comparing Qbs so I'm not going back to figure out which games the returns were in, but I guess the Jets lose 7 for Bears which would leave them about tied.

[#27TheDominator]

What quality teams did we play besides the ones Tampa played (Ravens & Steelers)? The only other team we played that is even halfway decent is the Patriots. Well, we played the Packers too, but we didn't score at all.

Bears > Packers. Better than every team the Bucs played except Atlanta.

[Aten]

Sanchez is outscoring Freeman against "good" teams.

Yeah, the number I had isn't current through Bears or obviously Tampa/Saints this week. I don't think that really undermines the general point that we have a couple quality wins to their none largely for reasons other than Sanchez/Freeman. For one thing, and again this is just the first five quality games for each and the gap is likely to close some when the Bears and Saints games are figured in, their defense was giving up 9.2 P/G more than ours against winning opponents.

EDIT: We agreed this isn't a good basis for comparing Qbs so I'm not going back to figure out which games the returns were in, but I guess the Jets lose 7 for Bears which would leave them about tied.

We had that one and Smith's against Pittsburgh, and Spurlock returned one in one of theirs.

[dbatesman]

You're overrating a stat.

The statistical evidence overwhelmingly suggests Sanchez was a risky pick who won't ever pan out. The anecdotal evidence underwhelmingly suggests that Sanchez will be fine because USC had a really nice gym. I hope you'll forgive me if I confess a chess-checkers crack is the first thing that comes to mind.

What should the Jets do at QB then?

I wouldn't have drafted Sanchez in the first place, so I'm not sure why pointing out statistical fact 20 months later somehow compels me to conjure an alternative. But off the top of my head, barring the construction of a time machine: Remove whatever part of Rex's brain that makes him think he knows dick about QBs and whatever part of Tannenbaum's brain that makes him agree. Sign a veteran who can actually play, spend a 2nd-day pick on a QB with upside, maybe bail Erik Ainge out of Betty Ford. Hold a legitimate competition. How's that sound?

[HessStation]

If I had my pick of the three at this very moment...for the Jets...playing in the Meadowlands...I'll...take...Freeman's rocket arm. Sorry.

[#27TheDominator]

We had that one and Smith's against Pittsburgh, and Spurlock returned one in one of theirs.

Yeah. I actually was going back to check even though it's irrelevant. Both teams have 4 return TDs. We have two from Smith and two from Lowery. Lowery against the Bears (and Vikings) and Smith against the Steelers (and Cincy). They had Spurlock's return against the Falcons and three INT returns against sh*t teams (Arizona and Cincy). So for purposes of this discussion the Sanchez benefited by 7 points.

[Klecko73isGod]

Yeah, the number I had isn't current through Bears or obviously Tampa/Saints this week. I don't think that really undermines the general point that we have a couple quality wins to their none largely for reasons other than Sanchez/Freeman. For one thing, and again this is just the first five quality games for each and the gap is likely to close some when the Bears and Saints games are figured in, their defense was giving up 9.2 P/G more than ours against winning opponents.

We had that one and Smith's against Pittsburgh, and Spurlock returned one in one of theirs.

Are you actually suggesting that Sanchez had little to do with the Jets' wins over the Pats and Settlers?

If so, go and get your eyes checked.

[Aten]

Are you actually suggesting that Sanchez had little to do with the Jets' wins over the Pats and Settlers?

No.

[CTM]

Are you actually suggesting that Sanchez had little to do with the Jets' wins over the Pats and Settlers?

If so, go and get your eyes checked.

The punter had more to do with the win against the steelers..

[DireJet38]

The punter had more to do with the win against the steelers..

LAWST.

[SenorGato]

The statistical evidence overwhelmingly suggests Sanchez was a risky pick who won't ever pan out. The anecdotal evidence underwhelmingly suggests that Sanchez will be fine because USC had a really nice gym. I hope you'll forgive me if I confess a chess-checkers crack is the first thing that comes to mind.

This would be alot easier if I knew the numbers and trends...as in I could see them. What do 2nd year QBs usually do? What do 2nd year QBs like Sanchez usually do? Historically, what does your average guy like Sanchez end up doing? Etc.

I wouldn't have drafted Sanchez in the first place, so I'm not sure why pointing out statistical fact 20 months later somehow compels me to conjure an alternative. But off the top of my head, barring the construction of a time machine: Remove whatever part of Rex's brain that makes him think he knows dick about QBs and whatever part of Tannenbaum's brain that makes him agree. Sign a veteran who can actually play, spend a 2nd-day pick on a QB with upside, maybe bail Erik Ainge out of Betty Ford. Hold a legitimate competition. How's that sound?

That would have been fine. Matt Cassel in '09 still got a pretty sweet deal...Warner and Favre were the other two options...

[Matt39]

The statistical evidence overwhelmingly suggests Sanchez was a risky pick who won't ever pan out. The anecdotal evidence underwhelmingly suggests that Sanchez will be fine because USC had a really nice gym. I hope you'll forgive me if I confess a chess-checkers crack is the first thing that comes to mind.

I wouldn't have drafted Sanchez in the first place, so I'm not sure why pointing out statistical fact 20 months later somehow compels me to conjure an alternative. But off the top of my head, barring the construction of a time machine: Remove whatever part of Rex's brain that makes him think he knows dick about QBs and whatever part of Tannenbaum's brain that makes him agree. Sign a veteran who can actually play, spend a 2nd-day pick on a QB with upside, maybe bail Erik Ainge out of Betty Ford. Hold a legitimate competition. How's that sound?

Like who? There are just so many of them.

The Jets took a chance on a QB. If he ends up sucking, he sucks. I dont need cute baseball stats to tell me when someone sucks.

But after that block of nothing you wrote, you really didn't have much of an alternative either. The Jets took a chance. They've made the playoffs two years in a row with Sanchez. They just happen to play in the same division as the best QB and coach of all time.

[dbatesman]

Like who? There are just so many of them.

The Jets took a chance on a QB. If he ends up sucking, he sucks. I dont need cute baseball stats to tell me when someone sucks.

But after that block of nothing you wrote, you really didn't have much of an alternative either. The Jets took a chance. They've made the playoffs two years in a row with Sanchez. They just happen to play in the same division as the best QB and coach of all time.

It's kind of tough to win when my burden of proof is "Shaun Hill" and yours is "sh*t happens."

[Matt39]

It's kind of tough to win when my burden of proof is "Shaun Hill" and yours is "sh*t happens."

Shaun Hill and Mark Sanchez are equals? Is that what you are saying?

[T0mShane]

FTR, on 1050 Joe Namath said that Sanchez reminds him of Drew Brees without the accuracy. So there you go.

[Matt39]

FTR, on 1050 Joe Namath said that Sanchez reminds him of Drew Brees without the accuracy. So there you go.

Namath + sabermetrics = Tony Banks

[T0mShane]

Namath + sabermetrics = Tony Banks

I think Sanchez is Jeff Garcia Redux. Not a bad thing, really.

[dbatesman]

Shaun Hill and Mark Sanchez are equals? Is that what you are saying?

[Matt39]

Cute. Sorta like the tranny from FO.

[DireJet38]

I wouldn't have drafted Sanchez in the first place, so I'm not sure why pointing out statistical fact 20 months later somehow compels me to conjure an alternative. But off the top of my head, barring the construction of a time machine: Remove whatever part of Rex's brain that makes him think he knows dick about QBs and whatever part of Tannenbaum's brain that makes him agree. Sign a veteran who can actually play, spend a 2nd-day pick on a QB with upside, maybe bail Erik Ainge out of Betty Ford. Hold a legitimate competition. How's that sound?

**** this crusty a$$ Parcells blueprint.

Do you want to turn us into the Dolphins?

How's it working out down there with Greaseface Killer?

[JustInFudge]

Bucs beat the Saints on the road. Freeman was 21-26, 255, 2 TD, Passer rating 133.2

Meanwhile, we have a QB controversy in NY.