Chris Carter on Mike and Mike this morning - Sanchez

[intelligentjetsfan]

I have serious concerns that Sanchez will be the type of franchise QB he was drafted to be. I believe the Jets have not done a great job of grooming him to get to that level. But Sanchez may not have it in him to be consistent. Its quite possible that the Jets overvalued him based on factors that had nothing to do with his skill set (In other words, Woody saw $$$).

[patman]

2 for 16 is bad on the face of it, but was the qb on a timer? Was he told to throw to a spot. Were there drops? Was he playing behind the 2nd team oline?
Was it a three step drop and throw? The drill might just have been to get him in a rhythm and he was supposed to throw on timing.

Were any poster's present at the drill? what did they say?

[Dunnie]

Originally Posted by fidelioion

I wouldn't worry about what Chris Carter has to say.

By most accounts Sanchez is having a quality camp so far. If he had a bad day, it happens. We also don't know if the Jets were trying something new...Camp is when it's okay to make mistakes.

Did Chris Carter say that good QB's don't have bad practice days in the first week of camp? That's ridiculous! If they're as good in the first week of camp as they are when they play games why do they practice?

Clearly you have not been watching the Pats or Broncos practice videos.

[patman]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

I have serious concerns that Sanchez will be the type of franchise QB he was drafted to be. I believe the Jets have not done a great job of grooming him to get to that level. But Sanchez may not have it in him to be consistent. Its quite possible that the Jets overvalued him based on factors that had nothing to do with his skill set (In other words, Woody saw $$$).

I blame Woody for a lot of things, Farve, Tebow, the Manning quest, PSls, But I don't blame him for Sanchez. Sanchez was well thought of in most circles, but he was not thought of in the Stafford, Bradford, Luck, RG3 as a qb that would energize a fan base.

I think after three years with what we have seen, that he is not going to be a Brady, Manning, Rogers, Brees, type of qb and that he is a complementary qb.

The jets have had some success with him as the qb and can certainly expect to do so again in the future. They just have to build a team around him on offense. He regressed last year and the team did nothing to improve his weapons for the coming year ( Hill is talented but WR normally take time to develop especially from a option system.)

This conflicts with Rex's "need" to have the best defense in the league, such as signing Cro to that huge contract the year after drafting Wilson, Scott's contract, and going for Couples this year. He is adding pieces to the 5th ranked D, at the expense of Sanchez and the O. And the The D is a lot further along than the O as a complete unit.

[OCCH]

Originally Posted by patman

I blame Woody for a lot of things, Farve, Tebow, the Manning quest, PSls, But I don't blame him for Sanchez. Sanchez was well thought of in most circles, but he was not thought of in the Stafford, Bradford, Luck, RG3 as a qb that would energize a fan base.

I think after three years with what we have seen, that he is not going to be a Brady, Manning, Rogers, Brees, type of qb and that he is a complementary qb.

The jets have had some success with him as the qb and can certainly expect to do so again in the future. They just have to build a team around him on offense. He regressed last year and the team did nothing to improve his weapons for the coming year ( Hill is talented but WR normally take time to develop especially from a option system.)

This conflicts with Rex's "need" to have the best defense in the league, such as signing Cro to that huge contract the year after drafting Wilson, Scott's contract, and going for Couples this year. He is adding pieces to the 5th ranked D, at the expense of Sanchez and the O. And the The D is a lot further along than the O as a complete unit.

It's the question of which is better -- being "good" on both sides of the ball, or DOMINANT on one and adequate on the other.

I'm one of those fans who wasn't as impressed with our defensive #s the past few years. Sure, it looked like we were dominating, but there were holes for those who chose to look (no pass rush, holes over the middle, etc).

But with the moves we've made I'm starting to feel like we really may be a monster on one side of the ball, and if that's true I'm willing to let the offense make do with what they have (since we have no guarantee that more weapons = better production). Plus, I'm hoping the coaching change helps better utilize the talent we already have.

Of course, that may be why I'm not a GM of a NFL team . . .

[Funaz]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

I have serious concerns that Sanchez will be the type of franchise QB he was drafted to be. I believe the Jets have not done a great job of grooming him to get to that level. But Sanchez may not have it in him to be consistent. Its quite possible that the Jets overvalued him based on factors that had nothing to do with his skill set (In other words, Woody saw $$$).

See I disagree, I think Sanchez has every physical and mental tool needed to be a great QB. I think the way the Jets went about grooming him was horrible and not conducive to a franchise QB.

The problem wasn't that they coddled him, or babied him, it was that they handcuffed him. He was never given his chance to grow, and never given stability. They never surrounded him with consistent offensive talent and constantly changing his WRs for the worse while increasing their expectations.

[patman]

Originally Posted by OCCH

It's the question of which is better -- being "good" on both sides of the ball, or DOMINANT on one and adequate on the other.

I'm one of those fans who wasn't as impressed with our defensive #s the past few years. Sure, it looked like we were dominating, but there were holes for those who chose to look (no pass rush, holes over the middle, etc).

But with the moves we've made I'm starting to feel like we really may be a monster on one side of the ball, and if that's true I'm willing to let the offense make do with what they have (since we have no guarantee that more weapons = better production). Plus, I'm hoping the coaching change helps better utilize the talent we already have.

Of course, that may be why I'm not a GM of a NFL team . . .

The jets on D were not flashy, but they were good. I think Rex thinks of himself as a D coordinator more than he does as a head coach. Even to the extent that he compares himself as a def guy and not as a HC.

I don't now what your mean by a dominant D, if your thinking 76 steelers, 2000 ravens or 85 bears, the jets are no where near that level nor do i think the potential to reach that level is there.

I was just thinking bang for the buck. But like you say that is why we type and pay them and not the other way around.

[NY's stepchild]

Sounds a lot like Carter didn't watch the practice at all. When we got the reports from the practice I didn't here any one saying Mark looked bad. Seemed there were a few drops, and good defensive play. The criticism came later from people looking at the numbers.

Of course we're all concerned about Mark, but there is also reason to be optimistic. They are all learning a new system, and our defense is set, and arguably the best in the NFL. So far I've heard nothing but good things about Sanchez from people that actually watched him. Jaws explained that he rated him 23rd because he saw plays down field where he either didn't trust his receiver to be there or didn't trust himself to make the throw. Now that may be because his shoulder was injured, or because the play calling was too complicated that he and the receivers never could build that trust/timing. He said on 1050 yesterday that mark looks a lot stronger this year, and is going through his progressions better from what he's seen so far in camp. Looking more confident as well. Could move way up on the list. Also said that he likes seeing the Jets practice throwing on first and second down. That's when the offense is in their base defense. Kind of curious that Shotty couldn't figure that out.

[OCCH]

Originally Posted by patman

The jets on D were not flashy, but they were good. I think Rex thinks of himself as a D coordinator more than he does as a head coach. Even to the extent that he compares himself as a def guy and not as a HC.

I don't now what your mean by a dominant D, if your thinking 76 steelers, 2000 ravens or 85 bears, the jets are no where near that level nor do i think the potential to reach that level is there.

I was just thinking bang for the buck. But like you say that is why we type and pay them and not the other way around.

Dominant does not have to equal "greatest of all time". It is a testament to Rex that he was able to construct the defense he did without a pass rush, complete safety, etc. But by definition, the defense would be that much better if he DID have those pieces. A legitimately great defense doesn't give up games like this defense has in the past (Denver comes to mind, but there are many other examples). I've always felt "the sum was better than the parts" for us on D -- I like improving the parts in the hopes it improves the sum as well . . .

And regarding "bang for the buck", I'd agree with you if I had more faith in the offense. There was NO doubt Rex could do more with talent than Schotty could, and I assume the same holds true for Sporano. So looking at it that way, the best bang for the buck is putting your talent where the best coaching is, no?