lets have another Sanchez argument

[JiFtheOracle]

Id be surprised if they swapped stats. Sanchez is far too erratic in an offense that turns the ball over too much to put up the kind of year Freeman did last year. I do think Freeman regresses a bit as he had the advantage of an easy schedule and will probably be allowed to open things up more which will lead to more turnovers.

Thast said in regular season games against good teams the difference between the two was in accuracy. Sanchez averaged 1 INT per game against 0.67 TDs. Freeman essentialy flipped that with a 1.16 TD vs 0.67 Int. Bothe were in the 190 ypg category and 57% completion percentage. If you factor in the playoff games Sanchez actually was more accurate (58% vs 57%) and brough the TD/Int ratio to 1:0.78.

The accuracy is the major issue. Against bad teams Sanchez fell to a 53.6%. He only averaged 0.78 picks per game but those are the games where all the dropped picks probably skew the stats a little bit. His yards shot up to over 230 per game. Freeman, on the other hand, jumped to 64% and only 0.2 IPG. HEs under 1% of his pass attempts being picked off while Sanchez was over 2%.

I find it interesting that everyone is expecting improvement from Sanchez when he is playing a harder schedule on paper than last season. And vice versa, Freeman's comp doesnt get much harder either, yet everyone is expecting regression (which is easy to predict considering the season he had). I expect very similar numbers/results from both players. Unfortunately, I think Sanchez has shown us all he has to offer. I know some think thats ridiculous, but IMO, its the truth.

He's a nice little player with some qualities that are not coachable. Unfortunately, he's never going to blow you away with numbers, he's just doesnt have that skill set. He's the quintessential game manager who can come up big in the clutch which is awesome and a huge bonus and is completely opposite of what we've had for decades. I'm just never expecting a 20 TD, single digit INT season from him because quite frankly, he's not good enough.

[Doggin94it]

Mark Sanchez threw 17 TD's. 13 of those came against teams with losing records.

Records matter less than defensive rankings

[Doggin94it]

I find it interesting that everyone is expecting improvement from Sanchez when he is playing a harder schedule on paper than last season. And vice versa, Freeman's comp doesnt get much harder either, yet everyone is expecting regression (which is easy to predict considering the season he had). I expect very similar numbers/results from both players. Unfortunately, I think Sanchez has shown us all he has to offer. I know some think thats ridiculous, but IMO, its the truth.

He's not playing against tougher defenses. I'll trade games against Baltimore, Pitt, and Cinci (Joseph and Hall are a terrific CB duo), plus Cleveland, for games against Oakland, San Diego, KC and Denver (which aren't exactly a murderers row of pass defenses). And playing the NFC East isn't much tougher than playing the NFC North; Philly and the Giants have good pass defenses, but not on the level of GB, Dallas is mediocre (about the level of Chi and Minnesota last year), and I'd take Detroit's defense over Washington's

[CTM]

Exactly, then throw in the fact the Sanchez plays on a far superior team with many more options to throw to than Freeman...and it really makes Sanchez look like the POS he is. I like the kid. He's won me over. I still think he pretty much sucks as a QB, but he's a gamer and can step up in the clutch which is very tough to find.

I whole heatedly believe that some people perform better in the clutch then others, but sites like FO have made compelling arguements against this idea.. with brady being the most recent example.

couple of links as well as an espn insider article from FO founder

http://footballstatblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/does-clutch-exist-in-quarterbacks.html

http://footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2010/guest-column-adjusted-comeback-efficiency

Patriots fans had no fear. Their team trailed Buffalo 24-13 with 5:32 left in the first Monday night game of 2009, but that was a minor obstacle to overcome. After all, Tom Brady was back behind center. And sure enough, Mr. Clutch led two touchdown drives down the stretch to win it 25-24, aided by an improbable kickoff fumble recovery. It was just the latest example of how Brady raises his game when it matters most.

Or does he? Patriots Nation might be surprised to learn that in 2007, Brady's passer rating was 8.3 points lower in the clutch (when the score was within seven points in the fourth quarter, or in overtime) than it was overall. In 2006 it was 21.8 points lower. In 2004 it was 27.4 points lower. This is not to say Brady is a choke artist; his passer rating was higher in the clutch in 2002, 2003 and 2005. It's just to say that over the long haul, Brady in the clutch is pretty much the same quarterback he is the rest of the time: really darn good.

Baseball analysts have generally dispelled the idea of the clutch hitter, a player who routinely raises his game in late and close situations. Now it's time to retire the myth of the clutch quarterback. We looked both at conventional NFL passer rating and our advanced metrics, and there was no year-to-year correlation in the difference between a quarterback's overall performance and his performance when the game was on the line. It apparently matters not that clutch situations in the NFL feature an element that baseball players don't have to worry about: clock management. Bad QBs overall, such as Kyle Orton, are bad in the clutch. Good QBs overall, such as Ben Roethlisberger, are good in the clutch. Same goes for backs and receivers.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, and in the NFL that exception is Manning. No, not Peyton -- Eli. He's the only active QB whose passer rating has been higher in the clutch for five straight seasons. The difference is very small in most of those seasons, although Manning was insanely good in the clutch last year (132.6 rating vs. 86.4 overall). But Manning aside, clutch QBs don't exist for the same reason clutch hitters don't: If a player could truly elevate his game at will, why wouldn't he play that way all the time?

[Klecko73isGod]

I find it interesting that everyone is expecting improvement from Sanchez when he is playing a harder schedule on paper than last season. And vice versa, Freeman's comp doesnt get much harder either, yet everyone is expecting regression (which is easy to predict considering the season he had). I expect very similar numbers/results from both players. Unfortunately, I think Sanchez has shown us all he has to offer. I know some think thats ridiculous, but IMO, its the truth.

He's a nice little player with some qualities that are not coachable. Unfortunately, he's never going to blow you away with numbers, he's just doesnt have that skill set. He's the quintessential game manager who can come up big in the clutch which is awesome and a huge bonus and is completely opposite of what we've had for decades. I'm just never expecting a 20 TD, single digit INT season from him because quite frankly, he's not good enough.

That's oxymoronic. Game managers don't pull off last second heroics like Sanchez did against Houston.

Sanchez needs to improve... a lot. But we've seen more than just flashes of great play from him which lead anyone with eyes to come to the conclusion he will get better and more consistent.

If the Sanchez who played in the postseason can play 16 games for us next year, I think there will be universal love for him from Jets fans, even you and Tom Shane will have to change your tunes.

[JiFtheOracle]

That's oxymoronic. Game managers don't pull off last second heroics like Sanchez did against Houston.

Sanchez needs to improve... a lot. But we've seen more than just flashes of great play from him which lead anyone with eyes to come to the conclusion he will get better and more consistent.

If the Sanchez who played in the postseason can play 16 games for us next year, I think there will be universal love for him from Jets fans, even you and Tom Shane will have to change your tunes.

Its not really that oxymoronic. Think about it, if he wasnt managing the game until that point, would we even have needed late game heroics?

I like the kid, you know this...but I dont think he'll ever be a top 10 QB in the league or someone who puts up good numbers...he just doesnt have it.

[jason423]

I whole heatedly believe that some people perform better in the clutch then others, but sites like FO have made compelling arguements against this idea.. with brady being the most recent example.

couple of links as well as an espn insider article from FO founder

http://footballstatblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/does-clutch-exist-in-quarterbacks.html

http://footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2010/guest-column-adjusted-comeback-efficiency

I think the problem with the analysis you posted is that they are defining clutch as a passer rating (not sure if they mean their QB rating or the FO DVOA, regradless both are more or less measures of efficiency), whereas you and I probably look at clutch as either leading a team to the tying/go ahead score late in a game or picking up the performance in a game you were miserable in when the team really needs you.

Im sure Tony Romo is just as efficient late in the 4th in a close game in terms of picking up a few first downs and moving the ball 30-30, but I swear I never see him win those games. Going 6 for 10 for 45 yards and 3 first downs but coming up short on 4th and 6 is not clutch even though it probably matches his average performance. If a guy goes 4 for 10 but all his completions are big chain movers that win the game I consider that clutch even if it means he has the same crummy rating as he did leading up to that point.

A guy who has the ability within a game to go from playing poorly as Sanchez did against the Lions and Browns to winning the game late means something to me.

[124]

Freeman is by FAR the better Quarterback.

The Buccaneers won games because of Freeman. The Jets won games in spite of Sanchez. Freeman has about half the talent surrounding him that Mark has, and that's being generous to Mark.

Freeman is more accurate, can make plays with his feet, and has done wonderful with much less. Yes, Mark Sanchez was able to ride the coat-tails of the Jets defense for three of his four post-season wins, and against New England he was able to beat up one of the worst secondaries in the league, who started a rookie and an underachiever, against two stud veteran receivers.

Mark Sanchez is the bottom of Josh Freeman's cleat at this point. We can only hope he becomes more like Freeman and stops throwing the ball to the other team. Not only did he lead the league in dropped interceptions (which I guess the Sanchez homers can spin as a good thing) but his accuracy did not improve at all. Sanchez is mediocre at this point. Another Eli Manning. Sucky, average, and once in a while he can give you a great start. Freeman looks destined for greatness.

[Klecko73isGod]

Freeman is by FAR the better Quarterback.

The Buccaneers won games because of Freeman. The Jets won games in spite of Sanchez. Freeman has about half the talent surrounding him that Mark has, and that's being generous to Mark.

Freeman is more accurate, can make plays with his feet, and has done wonderful with much less. Yes, Mark Sanchez was able to ride the coat-tails of the Jets defense for three of his four post-season wins, and against New England he was able to beat up one of the worst secondaries in the league, who started a rookie and an underachiever, against two stud veteran receivers.

Mark Sanchez is the bottom of Josh Freeman's cleat at this point. We can only hope he becomes more like Freeman and stops throwing the ball to the other team. Not only did he lead the league in dropped interceptions (which I guess the Sanchez homers can spin as a good thing) but his accuracy did not improve at all. Sanchez is mediocre at this point. Another Eli Manning. Sucky, average, and once in a while he can give you a great start. Freeman looks destined for greatness.

Sanchez has a much better line. The disparity between the weapons both have isn't close to being as big as some make it out to be.

The Bucs have some damn good backs and receivers. The Jets' are more famous, but they ain't all that much better.

Go lick Tom Brady's balls on JI.

[124]

Sanchez has a much better line. The disparity between the weapons both have isn't close to being as big as some make it out to be.

The Bucs have some damn good backs and receivers. The Jets' are more famous, but they ain't all that much better.

Go lick Tom Brady's balls on JI.

Great to see you haven't changed, internet hero.

Yes, let me tell you how good Sammie Stroughter and Michael Spurlock are compared to Braylon Edwards and Jerricho Cotchery. EXACTLY on the same talent level.

I miss schooling you, maybe I should stay.

[Vudu]

Dropped interceptions? Oh noez!!

[Klecko73isGod]

Great to see you haven't changed, internet hero.

Yes, let me tell you how good Sammie Stroughter and Michael Spurlock are compared to Braylon Edwards and Jerricho Cotchery. EXACTLY on the same talent level.

I miss schooling you, maybe I should stay.

Mike Williams is the Bucs #1 receiver numbnuts and he had better numbers than any Jet wideout last year.

[CTM]

A guy who has the ability within a game to go from playing poorly as Sanchez did against the Lions and Browns to winning the game late means something to me.

I think the question is do it just mean random chance? or is it predictive?

[JiFtheOracle]

Mike Williams is the Bucs #1 receiver numbnuts and he had better numbers than any Jet wideout last year.

And he was a rookie drafted in the 4th round.

What Freeman has done with less, is very very impressive. What Mark Sanchez does with a ton more, is literally pathetic.

The difference between talent on offense between the Jets and the Bucs, is laughable. Freeman makes chicken sh*t into chicken salad. Sanchez turns chicken salad into chicken sh*t. Thats not really a debate.

[Klecko73isGod]

And he was a rookie drafted in the 4th round.

What Freeman has done with less, is very very impressive. What Mark Sanchez does with a ton more, is literally pathetic.

The difference between talent on offense between the Jets and the Bucs, is laughable. Freeman makes chicken sh*t into chicken salad. Sanchez turns chicken salad into chicken sh*t. Thats not really a debate.

Yeah, playing your best football in the postseason, setting an all-time record for most postseason road wins in your first two years and leading your team to back-to-back conference title games is pathetic.

[dbatesman]

Last year the advanced stats had Freeman as a top 10 QB and Sanchez as a bottom 1/3 player, it's hard to completely ignore that.

LOLZ ADVANCD STAT R 4 FAGZ BRAH

[dbatesman]

Mike Williams is the Bucs #1 receiver numbnuts and he had better numbers than any Jet wideout last year.

I wonder why.

[JohnnyHector]

I wonder why.

Strength of schedule. Duh.

[#27TheDominator]

I don't agree with the analysis of Sanchez. He is a game manager because it is a defensive team. That is what they are asking of him. He is inconsistent and they are protecting him and the team by keeping the wraps on until necessary. I won't say he's better than Freeman, but from what I have seen I prefer his release and ttrust him more. Haven't seen enough of Freeman to make a valid determination, but coming out I would have stayed put and taken Freeman and I am still happy with Sanchez.

LOLZ ADVANCD STAT R 4 FAGZ BRAH

This is bad. I know you are being sarcastic, but I still agree.

[jason423]

I think the question is do it just mean random chance? or is it predictive?

I guess its one of those things that we can possibly learn with time. I think the hard part in seeing if its ever true is the nature of the position. The fact is if Sanchez was on a worse football team and played as poorly as he did in most of the games for the first 50 minutes the story would be if he was going to last the season as the starter or would he be benched. Even if he was a starter on those teams the late game miracles never come into play because they would be down by too many points for it to make a difference. If he does improve and becomes a really good 60 minute QB then much like the stats for Brady and Manning, etc.. show---he's pretty good early and late in games.

I think one of the reasons why Eli, Sanchez, and someone like Brady early on were considered "clutch" was because they were the perceived weak link on the field for their respective teams. Manning was basically a disaster on a 1st place team but in the 4th quarter somehow became a miracle worker. Now that he throws the ball better most of the game he doesnt seem like a miracle worker anymore. Brady, by 2004, was excellent and clearly the best on the team and 2nd best at the position in the league. How could he possibly be any better in the or 3 close games they played a year from 2004 thru 2011? He cant.

So I doubt many guys get a chance to prove it over a period of time. Sanchez, like Eli, will because he is on a good team. The late game stuff has bought him time that he would not have if he blew all those games and the Jets finished the year 9-7. I tend to think other QBs simply get the ax before they can prove that they can be effective late in games.

I think there is also the effect of perception on the rest of the team that cant be measured. I believe that when the Jets offense walks into a huddle late in a game they believe they will win because their QB gives them a chance. You get far better effort from guys like Holmes and Edwards, who in the past have been perceieved to be dogs at time, when they think that way. I have a hard time believing that after 2003 any player in the huddle for the Jets went into that huddle with any belief that they could win a game down 4 points with 3 minutes left when they saw Chad standing there.

[Klecko73isGod]

I wonder why.

You ever stop and think maybe the addition of Mike Williams did more to improve Freeman's numbers than the other way around?

Did I just blow your mind?

[dbatesman]

You ever stop and think maybe the addition of Mike Williams did more to improve Freeman's numbers than the other way around?

Did I just blow your mind?

Absolutely.

[T0mShane]

This sh*t is great. Carry on

[JiFtheOracle]

Yeah, playing your best football in the postseason, setting an all-time record for most postseason road wins in your first two years and leading your team to back-to-back conference title games is pathetic.

He only has 9 rushing yards in those 6 games.

Sucks.

[#27TheDominator]

You ever stop and think maybe the addition of Mike Williams did more to improve Freeman's numbers than the other way around?

Did I just blow your mind?

That wasn't his mind.

[Barcs]

You guys are forgetting one major factor. There is no Schotty on the Bucs. I think the guy has done well to develop Sanchez, but his play calling is abysmal at times, and doesn't put our players in positions to succeed. Our offense as a whole struggled a lot this year, because of Schotty holding back Sanchez at times, but I feel next year will be different. Sanchez knows the system pretty well now and this year will really determine his value as a QB on our team, so we shouldn't need to put a leash on him this year.

[JiFtheOracle]

You guys are forgetting one major factor. There is no Schotty on the Bucs. I think the guy has done well to develop Sanchez, but his play calling is abysmal at times, and doesn't put our players in positions to succeed. Our offense as a whole struggled a lot this year, because of Schotty holding back Sanchez at times, but I feel next year will be different. Sanchez knows the system pretty well now and this year will really determine his value as a QB on our team, so we shouldn't need to put a leash on him this year.

I keep seeing people blaming Schotty for Marks sucktitude. Really dont get it. I know he's everyones favorite scapegoat for the Jets offensive woes...but this is getting out of hand. How did he hold Mark back? He allowed him to throw 850 more attempts than his rookie season.

Further, Josh Freeman's offensive coordinate is Greg ******* Olsen. Who the F, is Greg ******* Olsen?

[SenorGato]

I actually agree, and made the same arguement when Pennington succeeded against crappy defenses in 2008. I expect Freeman's numbers to regress this year and have long made the arguement that for most teams SOS is the biggest determining factor of yoy performance.

That being said, the stats back up what my eyes saw, Sanchez had a very fortuitous season last year. Between the "dropped" ints and numerous late game miracle type plays, I don't think his end stats accuraletly portrayed the season he had. He has to get a lot better cause old lady luck isn't likely to favor him this year.

Last year the advanced stats had Freeman as a top 10 QB and Sanchez as a bottom 1/3 player, it's hard to completely ignore that.

It's hard to completely ignore but:

1 - Advanced stats are for fagz.

2 - I think it's hard to ignore context in football. Throwing a football in the Meadowlands in December is slightly more difficult than throwing a football in Florida during December.

3 - We see Sanchez's flaws far more often than we see Freeman's flaws, if he has any of course.

To me it just comes down to me trusting Sanchez's steady statistical growth last year over Freeman's huge boost in stats out of nowhere against crap competition. Like I said, he's certainly talented enough to hold up that performance but I'll believe he set a norm for him when he does it twice. Sure there's stats like "most dropped INTs" that hurt Sanchez, but what's the year to year significance on that stat? It might be as helpful as WR drops year to year, which is next to nothing. OTOH I'm not hardcore enough for FO, but from what I hear he really sucks there.

[Aten]

To me it just comes down to me trusting Sanchez's steady statistical growth last year over Freeman's huge boost

To me it comes down to me trusting numbers over Aesop's fables.

[SenorGato]

To me it comes down to me trusting numbers over Aesop's fables.

So there's nothing even slightly askew with a player getting THAT much better between year 2 and year 1?

[Gainzo]

Can I be the voice of reason? Sanchez isn't great in the regular season but he gets it done in the playoffs. Freeman? Would like to see what he does if the Bucs make the playoffs.

Sanchez>Freeman

[Aten]

So there's nothing even slightly askew with a player getting THAT much better between year 2 and year 1?

Having things go askew in your favor is a prerequisite in the NFL. Slow and steady don't win sh*t.

[SenorGato]

Having things go askew in your favor is a prerequisite in the NFL. Slow and steady don't win sh*t.

Apparently in Freeman's case, neither does blowing expectations out of the water.

Not that "winning" is a legit argument for why Sanchez is better, but I hardly call one really strong year from Freeman the differencemaker. Of course, that's insulting your argument because you've also harped on Sanchez's lack of experience going into his draft.