Tanny on Sanchez

[isired]

Originally Posted by SlickBri481

What Tanny doesn't realize and what makes him a massive fool is that the QB does not singlehandedly win a football game. His only defense of Sanchez is to cite team statistics: wins. Pathetic. Thank god this loser was canned.

God forbid we had a GM who thought "outside the box" and evaluated the QB's individual performance rather than the team result. I mean, talk about revolutionary, to analyze the QB by actually looking only at the way the QB played. I guess Tanny's analysis of Sanchez went something like this: SCOREBOARD

Unfortunately, the games hie did win were in the playoffs. But I think to blow that up is a fan's mentality, when you have the right guys in your FO, they shouldn't see things this way. 'Football guys' don't see things this way.

[Kentucky Jet]

Originally Posted by SlickBri481

Did he play worse? I've seen the same Sanchez in all 4 years pretty much. 2010 he cut down the turnovers, although apparently that was in large part to a league high (by a mile) number of dropped INTs by the other team. The fact that Tannenbaum thought Mark's 2012 season was vastly different from his previous seasons shows how insanely clueless he was.

agreed, agreed , agreed!

[Kentucky Jet]

Originally Posted by 56mehl56

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

But neither the OC nor the HC threw easy interceptions. They did not fumble the ball like Mark did. We can make excuses all day long but we wll all saw the poor play of Sanchez. His inaccuracy and lack of pocket awareness is what does him in!

[56mehl56]

Originally Posted by Kentucky Jet

But neither the OC nor the HC threw easy interceptions. They did not fumble the ball like Mark did. We can make excuses all day long but we wll all saw the poor play of Sanchez. His inaccuracy and lack of pocket awareness is what does him in!

His fumble problem was an issue but still somewhat associated with the lack of options at the skill positions and Oline protection. The inaccuracy and Int's were a direct correlation to the offensive ineptitude , he forced throws out of necessity and made throws to spots where his receivers should have been.
Would he have still had int's with a better cast - sure all QB's do, look at the vaunted Eli manning only 3 less ints than Sanchez.

[ASG0531]

Originally Posted by 56mehl56

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.

No, I think there are more factors involved in that. "Directly attributable" means Sanchez was doing great and all of his failures are 100% attributable to other people. What other QB in this league has zero accountability?

And this new mantra, "no QB could succeed on the Jets in 2012" is pure speculation. Maybe Peyton could have taken this rag-tag group of WRs into the playoffs. There's no way of proving or disproving it, so I think it's a stupid argumentative device.

[SlickBri481]

Originally Posted by ASG0531

No, I think there are more factors involved in that. "Directly attributable" means Sanchez was doing great and all of his failures are 100% attributable to other people. What other QB in this league has zero accountability?

And this new mantra, "no QB could succeed on the Jets in 2012" is pure speculation. Maybe Peyton could have taken this rag-tag group of WRs into the playoffs. There's no way of proving or disproving it, so I think it's a stupid argumentative device.

I'd be willing to bet that 25+ starting QBs would have enjoyed more success this past season with the Jets offense than Sanchez did. The reason: I have eyes and I watch a lot of football. The guy stinks. Why even sugarcoat it by making intelligent posts giving him some benefit of the doubt? I know a bad QB when I see one.

[56mehl56]

Originally Posted by SlickBri481

I'd be willing to bet that 25+ starting QBs would have enjoyed more success this past season with the Jets offense than Sanchez did. The reason: I have eyes and I watch a lot of football. The guy stinks. Why even sugarcoat it by making intelligent posts giving him some benefit of the doubt? I know a bad QB when I see one.

And by the same token I know a poor offensive design when I see one. Its the classic chicken/egg type question. Is Sanchez bad because of the offense and lack of creativity and playmakers. Or is the offense bad because Sanchez is truly a pitiful QB.

[SlickBri481]

Originally Posted by 56mehl56

And by the same token I know a poor offensive design when I see one. Its the classic chicken/egg type question. Is Sanchez bad because of the offense and lack of creativity and playmakers. Or is the offense bad because Sanchez is truly a pitiful QB.

Sanchez is bad because he is inaccurate, indecisive, lacks pocket presence, and makes panic decisions on a regular basis. He also has never had at any point in his life elite tools with respect to the QB position, be it height, arm, athleticism, etc.

Sure seems like a nice guy though and has a knack with the ladies.

[Beerfish]

Originally Posted by 56mehl56

And by the same token I know a poor offensive design when I see one. Its the classic chicken/egg type question. Is Sanchez bad because of the offense and lack of creativity and playmakers. Or is the offense bad because Sanchez is truly a pitiful QB.

My rebuttal to this argument is the same each time.

Take a large sampling of plays, doesn't matter if it was Shotty or Sparano. Look at the plays were a good call was made, the blocking was good, the Receiver or back ran a good route and the play was there for the making and all too many times Sanchez either threw a terrible ball, was late to recognize the open man or got happy feet and panicked. That's the reason why his comp % numbers have always been bad, missing the easy or obvious plays.

[56mehl56]

Originally Posted by Beerfish

My rebuttal to this argument is the same each time.

Take a large sampling of plays, doesn't matter if it was Shotty or Sparano. Look at the plays were a good call was made, the blocking was good, the Receiver or back ran a good route and the play was there for the making and all too many times Sanchez either threw a terrible ball, was late to recognize the open man or got happy feet and panicked. That's the reason why his comp % numbers have always been bad, missing the easy or obvious plays.

Be honest how many times did those conditions really exist. Without access to pure gamefilm or knowing what the play was designed to do its pretty hard to speculate where the fault lies. Its easy to watch a game on TV and say look a guy was wide open , but if the play wasn't designed to go there it doesn't make it necessary a bad play when the QB doesn't throw it there.

I contend his completion % has been bad because of the horrible offensive scheme , playmakers, Oline and being put into difficult passing situations.

[RMJK]

Originally Posted by chesapeakejet

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

Yes, I think you hit the nail on the head. It's a total spin job.

[LeonM]

Originally Posted by rmeyer52

"We thought we had a young player who loved football, who had won four road playoff games, and although he didn't have a perfect year in 2011 we thought he was doing this," Tannenbaum said, angling his arm to suggest an upward plane. "Based on how he played in 2012, that contract doesn't look very good. "The interesting thing about Mark is, he comes in and is one of only five quarterbacks to win 30 or more games in his first three years. And then he plays worse. It really doesn't make sense."

From todays WSJ

There's no way around it. Tannenbaum knows he made a mistake giving Mark Sanchez his contract extension. Sanchez progressed from year one to year two and showed great promise in the playoffs in the 2010 season. The Jets weren't carrying him in Indy,New England and Pittsburgh. Sanchez made big throws and had excellent numbers in all 3 games.

It appeared that a young QB who only had 16 college starts was progressing and going to take the next step in year three. Sanchez had career high numbers in 2011 in passing yardage and td's but his completion percentage didn't go up and he turned the ball over way too much. Mark gets the extension and his 2012 made his 2011 season look tremendous by comparison.

It was for a lot of different reasons and Mike Tannenbaum had a hand in not giving Sanchez a better supporting cast but there's no doubt that Sanchez showed no confidence, pocket presence or awareness. He regressed badly and now the Jets are stuck with him for one more season.

The last two years were managed poorly by Mike Tannenbaum and it cost him his job.

[Gastineau99]

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

Only reason he won any games his first 3 years was because of the defense and running game. He isn't good. Film doesn't lie.

[LeonM]

Originally Posted by Gastineau99

Only reason he won any games his first 3 years was because of the defense and running game. He isn't good. Film doesn't lie.

Mark Sanchez 2009 Playoff Stats
60 percent completion percentage, 539 yards 4 touchdowns 2 interceptions

Mark Sanchez 2010 Playoff Stats
60 percent completion percentage, 616 yards 5 touchdowns 1 interception

I agree that Mark Sanchez is not a good NFL quarterback but it's not like he didn't show signs that he was going to progress and become a good NFL quarterback. Heading into the 2011 season, The playoff run in 2010 made it appear as if Sanchez was going to take the next step. Unfortunately, He regressed badly. He's like a guy who got to the 11th grade in high school and then got left back twice.

[ASG0531]

Originally Posted by LeonM

Mark Sanchez 2009 Playoff Stats
60 percent completion percentage, 539 yards 4 touchdowns 2 interceptions

Mark Sanchez 2010 Playoff Stats
60 percent completion percentage, 616 yards 5 touchdowns 1 interception

I agree that Mark Sanchez is not a good NFL quarterback but it's not like he didn't show signs that he was going to progress and become a good NFL quarterback. Heading into the 2011 season, The playoff run in 2010 made it appear as if Sanchez was going to take the next step. Unfortunately, He regressed badly. He's like a guy who got to the 11th grade in high school and then got left back twice.

He's like a guy who got to the 11th grade in high school and then got left back twice.

LOL, it's OK, you can learn world history and general chem 3 times over, you just need a better teacher!

[jetster]

Originally Posted by LeonM

Mark Sanchez 2009 Playoff Stats
60 percent completion percentage, 539 yards 4 touchdowns 2 interceptions

Mark Sanchez 2010 Playoff Stats
60 percent completion percentage, 616 yards 5 touchdowns 1 interception

I agree that Mark Sanchez is not a good NFL quarterback but it's not like he didn't show signs that he was going to progress and become a good NFL quarterback. Heading into the 2011 season, The playoff run in 2010 made it appear as if Sanchez was going to take the next step. Unfortunately, He regressed badly. He's like a guy who got to the 11th grade in high school and then got left back twice.

Here's where Tanny made his mistake.
How a QB performs is relative to the opposition, the Pats & Colts defenses were 2 of the worst in the league!
It's no different than how well Pennington would play until a good defense would take away those short throws he loves.

If I'm a GM & I'm trying to figure out what I have in Sanchez, I'm looking at his accuracy as a major factor in thinking of extending him & he fails miserably in this most important facet of a QBs game.
Mark is the reason that we always lead the league in 3 & outs, most of Marks comebacks were actually only Mark having to make up for all his mistakes & ineptitude in the 1st quarter of games.

The most telling game of Marks career was the 2009 game vs Buffalo. The Jets ran for over 300 yards & lost the game due to Marks 5 interceptions. The NY Jets are the only team in NFL history to lose a game rushing for over 300 yards.

Try to remember a game, when the opposing team was running the ball down our throats & a QB played as Badly as that. You can't because even a journeyman QB would be hard pressed to lose a game with that type of running game support.
Mark is a below average decision maker. He just is not smart enough for the Pro game.
With this new OC we need to figure out a way to acquire Matt Flynn & move the chains , keep the D off the field & use field position to be competitive next year.
If Mark Sanchezis the starting QB for the Jets next year I will refuse to watch the games.