Tanny on Sanchez

[Gibby]

Originally Posted by SAR I

Oh, it makes sense, Mike.

That's what happens when you hire a defensive coordinator run-amok and dump every offensive playmaker you ever had and replace them with cheap imitations so you can take your money and throw it on the other side of the gridiron. Your two safeties can ball, but they're one-season-carpetbaggers and didn't score 14 points per game.

SAR I

This response shocks everyone here.

[jetsman51]

no matter how you spin it, the extension is a head-scratcher. I, unlike a lot of people here, thought Sanchez still showed signs of progression in year 3. 32 total scores was something I bought into, but clearly Tanny bought in a bit too much.

I really didn't see this year coming though, I hoenstly thought Mark was going to be good (not just competent, but good) under a different coordinator.

[56mehl56]

Originally Posted by jetsman51

no matter how you spin it, the extension is a head-scratcher. I, unlike a lot of people here, thought Sanchez still showed signs of progression in year 3. 32 total scores was something I bought into, but clearly Tanny bought in a bit too much.

I really didn't see this year coming though, I hoenstly thought Mark was going to be good (not just competent, but good) under a different coordinator.

Unfortunately, that coordinator turned out to be a puppet for Rex and his G&P dream.

[w0mbat]

Originally Posted by Franko097

It makes a ton of sense if you actually evaluate the film and just the numbers he gave that are devoid of all nuance.

But what's done is done.

Pretty much. Fun fact, Mark Sanchez had a worse QB rating his first year starting than JaMarcus Russell.

Sanchez didn't 'regress' he was always bad which made it such a moronic extension by Tannenbaum. By any statistical metric Sanchez has been awful all four seasons and it didn't recently just happen.

[SlickBri481]

Originally Posted by Scoop24

Blinded by the hate I see. Sanchez has never been as bad as he was last year he wasn't even making the routine throws . Which he made fine for 2 1/2 years. last year you could see his confidence was completely shot. and played some of the worst football I ever seen. That's not say he was a star or something before but he did the job. Honestly I still think his best year was his rookie yr regardless of stats . He had decent pocket awareness that year and still had a gun slinger mentality and still scrambled when in trouble . Maybe that was the Brunnell effect or even past coaching of Pete Carroll . After that its been down hill and I think alot of that fall on our coaching staff . The stupid pump fake before every pass. The red -green card stuff . And he wasn't taking no where near the chances downfield anymore. The only pass on 3rd downs after failing with run the 1st 2 downs .. The switching of the receiving core every year .

Now I'm not sure if Sanchez can be salvaged as many players and coaches think. But if he can be I don't think he can Do it here in the NY Market.

His rookie year he was worse, he was so terrible that year, you have to be kidding me. That team could have won 13-14 games with that D and running game. He was disgraceful especially when you consider how well other recent rookie QBs have done in their rookie seasons.

2010 and 2011 were generally poor play belied by one favorable stat (low INTs in 2010 and good TD total in 2011). You cannot confuse team success with QB greatness, the two do not always go hand in hand

[rmeyer52]

Sanchez is only as good as the offensive coaching staff that can lead and mentor him. Instead he has been surrounded by average offensive talent at best and the media expects him to carry the team. They don't realize that a player like Brady comes along once in a long long time. Sanchez is not and will never be a player like Brady, Rodger of Flaco. That is the failure of Tanny to understand that

[SlickBri481]

Originally Posted by jetsman51

no matter how you spin it, the extension is a head-scratcher. I, unlike a lot of people here, thought Sanchez still showed signs of progression in year 3. 32 total scores was something I bought into, but clearly Tanny bought in a bit too much.

I really didn't see this year coming though, I hoenstly thought Mark was going to be good (not just competent, but good) under a different coordinator.

The 32 TDs is misleading though and a result of play selection on goal to go situations. I don't care that Sanchez ran for 6 TDs, he is no threat as a runner. When RG3 gets a rushing TD, it means something becuase his rushing and mobility are such a large part of his game. When Sanchez gets one, it's because we were at the 2 yard line and chose not to give it to the RB.

Fact is, 2011 Sanchez led the league in turnovers, still couldn't complete 60% of his throws, and cost this team a playoff spot with an embarrassing finish to the season

[Redrew]

In one of his SB interviews, Tranny kept saying Sanchez was a QB that beat Brady and Manning, that Sanchez was a QB that took 2 teams to AFC Championship games.
Of course he never talked about the 55% completion rate every year....wonder why?

[SlickBri481]

Originally Posted by Redrew

In one of his SB interviews, Tranny kept saying Sanchez was a QB that beat Brady and Manning, that Sanchez was a QB that took 2 teams to AFC Championship games.
Of course he never talked about the 55% completion rate every year....wonder why?

Pretty sure the New York Jets beat the Pats and Colts in 2010, I wasn't aware that Sanchez battled Brady and Manning in a 1 on 1 competition. It just shows the level of Tanny's delusion to speak of it in that manner.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Originally Posted by Joe W. Namath

This tells me that Tanny and the Jets organization believes that Mark Sanchez does not love and is not putting his best foot forward. No?

You could infer the notion that Tanny thought he was too busy w/ Eva et al , absolutely - which wouldnt matter if he played well

[Beerfish]

The extension smacked of the same dumb extension the Phins gave Sparano after they tried to get Harbaugh and were stuck with Sparano. The Jets looked at Manning, were spurned quickly and shortly there after gave Sanchez the pat on the head extension.

[Ven0m]

Kind of ridiculous to hear QB Wins as the justification, considering anybody with a brain understands that football is a team game and most of those wins weren't because of Sanchez, they were in spite of Sanchez.

The Jets won "30 games in 3 years" with a strong running game and a strong defense that carried him. The Jets started to play worse when those things eroded around Sanchez. But the fact that after year 4, Sanchez still needs to be carried by his teammates is the biggest indictment on him.

[augustiniak]

Originally Posted by Ven0m

Kind of ridiculous to hear QB Wins as the justification, considering anybody with a brain understands that football is a team game and most of those wins weren't because of Sanchez, they were in spite of Sanchez.

The Jets won "30 games in 3 years" with a strong running game and a strong defense that carried him. The Jets started to play worse when those things eroded around Sanchez. But the fact that after year 4, Sanchez still needs to be carried by his teammates is the biggest indictment on him.

tanny can't come out and say the only reason they extended him was b/c they brought in tebow and pursued peyton. citing sanchez's wins as qb is the only stat he can use. every other stat sucks.

[fltflo]

Two things Mark never had, leadership skill and the organ between ears.

[32green]

Originally Posted by chesapeakejet

You think Tanny's gonna take all the blame? He wants another gig, so spin, spin, spin.

I dont expect him to take all the blame; I just hope he realizes his spin comes off as pathetic, self-serving and delusional. You would think we marched head long into a few AFC titles destroying all in our path by listening to him.

He's a polite Rex. Those in the know, smirk and move on.

[Ven0m]

Originally Posted by augustiniak

tanny can't come out and say the only reason they extended him was b/c they brought in tebow and pursued peyton. citing sanchez's wins as qb is the only stat he can use. every other stat sucks.

Still paints a troubling picture of the guy who was calling the shots, it's 2013, we should be beyond looking at Wins and Losses to evaluate QB play.

The Tebow thing was AFTER the extension, btw.

[sameoldjets]

then i guess you think sanchez will be the qb next season? while i would tend to agree that tannenbaum certainly didn't give sanchez the best receiver corp, he didn't exactly make them better either. and pairing plax with holmes was just a bad decision team chemistry wise because both of those guys are punks. so why did tanny chose holmes over edwards?

Originally Posted by SAR I

Oh, it makes sense, Mike.

That's what happens when you hire a defensive coordinator run-amok and dump every offensive playmaker you ever had and replace them with cheap imitations so you can take your money and throw it on the other side of the gridiron. Your two safeties can ball, but they're one-season-carpetbaggers and didn't score 14 points per game.

SAR I

[ASG0531]

Originally Posted by Ven0m

Kind of ridiculous to hear QB Wins as the justification, considering anybody with a brain understands that football is a team game and most of those wins weren't because of Sanchez, they were in spite of Sanchez.

The Jets won "30 games in 3 years" with a strong running game and a strong defense that carried him. The Jets started to play worse when those things eroded around Sanchez. But the fact that after year 4, Sanchez still needs to be carried by his teammates is the biggest indictment on him.

The problem is Sanchez doesn't play to the level of his supporting cast, he plays a rung below them. When the supporting cast was excellent-to-great in '09-'10, he played below-average to average. When his supporting cast regressed to bad, he played really bad in '11. When his supporting cast went to **** in '12, he was the worst starting QB in football.

The problem is it's almost impossible to maintain an excellent to above average supporting cast in today's NFL. The only way to ensure years of competitiveness is a QB who can perform a rung above his supporting cast. It's easier to maintain an average supporting cast with a great QB than it is a great supporting cast with an average QB.

Sanchez + his supporting cast in '09-'10 was a perfect storm of events that is unsustainable long-term. The Jets can improve plenty of areas of the team but they will never be long-term competitors unless Sanchez takes the "next step." When SAR asks for that Sanchez of '09-'10, he's also asking for that team around him. It's an unsustainable model in today's NFL.

[isired]

Originally Posted by crasherino

If he continued on the upward trajectory and established himself as the Jets QB of the next 5-10 years, it would have been a good deal. Unfortunately, there's a downside that he never considered or at least adequately considered.

And the bottom line was: It didn't NEED to be done. He still had 2 years remaining on his deal. After missing out on Peyton, you got the feeling that Tanny wanted to do SOMETHING, which ended up being a disaster.

You could say it 'needed' to be done because of the situation - a young QB coming off a terrible year, and an especially terrible finish, after a couple of good finishes and the hope that he would get back on track and continue to grow. So you worry about his confidence, you worry about his mental state in general. Then Peyton Manning becomes available, and you feel you have to pursue him. But you lose. Then Peyton to Denver makes Tim Tebow available, coming off of full blown Tebow-mania, and you can't resist. So if you were even a little concerned with your QB's mental state, you've now ****ed him twice. Only thing you can do to show confidence and try to not have him feeling a pick-six away from the exit is to throw money and years at him.

IMO, if you have half a brain for this sort of thing, and you were of a mind where you desperately wanted Manning, and then when you lost him you desperately wanted Tebow, you should re-evaluate how bad you really want your young QB and try to move him then, when there was still hope that the season was an aberration (before 2012 comes along and removes any doubt) and, probably more importantly, his contract was totally manageable.

So while I can see where they might have thought the situation made the contract extension a necessity, the situation was entirely their fault.

[56mehl56]

Originally Posted by ASG0531

The problem is Sanchez doesn't play to the level of his supporting cast, he plays a rung below them. When the supporting cast was excellent-to-great in '09-'10, he played below-average to average. When his supporting cast regressed to bad, he played really bad in '11. When his supporting cast went to **** in '12, he was the worst starting QB in football.

The problem is it's almost impossible to maintain an excellent to above average supporting cast in today's NFL. The only way to ensure years of competitiveness is a QB who can perform a rung above his supporting cast. It's easier to maintain an average supporting cast with a great QB than it is a great supporting cast with an average QB.

Sanchez + his supporting cast in '09-'10 was a perfect storm of events that is unsustainable long-term. The Jets can improve plenty of areas of the team but they will never be long-term competitors unless Sanchez takes the "next step." When SAR asks for that Sanchez of '09-'10, he's also asking for that team around him. It's an unsustainable model in today's NFL.

Your points are certainly valid , but ask yourself this question. Is it possible that the swing in Sanchez's play level is directly attributable to the offensive and I mean truly offensive scheme that our HC wanted and pined for. When the supporting cast was there it made his scheme look solid, however when the cast was degraded the scheme for all intents and purposes sucked. Our Hc and offensive coaching staff had no clue how to develop a Qb or utilize one outside of the cherished G&P. No QB would be a good fit in this system because in this system the QB was an afterthought.