Page 12 of 21 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 402

Thread: For the same fans who have given up on Sanchez, would you take Bradford?

  1. #221
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    25,870
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Beerfish;4382127]The problem with this line of thinking is that you have to go both ways with it.

    Sanchez got us to two afc title games thus he's good.

    The team sucked last year and missed the playoffs but it was because of our lousy o-line and oc.

    Our OC got us to 2 straight AFC title games and 4 wins on the road, he must be pretty good.[/QUOTE]

    But they kept the QB?

  2. #222
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,244
    Post Thanks / Like
    How about this for a truce:

    Neither one has shown enough in comparison to the QB's that have won every Super Bowl since Tampa Bay's in 2002 to win a Super bowl.

    Guys, the rules have changed and the league is easier than ever to predict.

    Sanchez and Bradford at least have the "they could get better" tag on them, unlike the poor Bears or Bills who are basically stuck with guys who will never broach the dominance of recent Super Bowl winning QB's.

    If you look beyond that then I don't think your perspective is that great.

    You either have a QB that carries your entire offense and is clutch and doesn't destroy your team with untimely turnovers or you don't.

    If you don't, like most of the NFL, then you are really an also-ran.

    Hopefully Sanchez turns into that, but sadly one of the only guys who's opinion I value on this particular question, Rich Gannon, does not think that Sanchez will ever turn into more than a game manager. When Rich was asked by that very same caller if it's possible to win a Super Bowl with a "game manager," his answer was that the odds are not.

    If you break it down:

    1) Most drafted QB's bust.
    2) QB's are even more important now, especially over the past 5 years than they have ever been.
    3) History shows that even when "subpar" performing QB's like Eli in 2007 or Rookie Big Ben do win Super Bowls, the point has been nullified simply due to the fact they are both in the top 5-8 QB's in the league.

    More recently:

    The top 8 passer-rated QB's were all in the playoffs last year. Two two who weren't, Yates and Tebow were eventual fodder.

    The days of Stan Humphries and Jeff Hostetler winning Super Bowls are over. You either have a great QB or you don't.

    And the impact is to such magnitude that pulling a Ditka if a guy like Drew Brees can be pried away (not to say it would happen) and trading your entire draft for such a powerful established commodity would be indicative of a great GM vs. some pleeb.
    Last edited by PMarsico9; 03-02-2012 at 04:03 PM.

  3. #223
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    25,870
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yates and Tebow both won their first round games.

    Brady was not good on the Pats' AFCCG win, rather Cundit and Evans were the Pats' MVPs.

    The Niner defense held Manning as well. Thanks to 2 key fumbles, Giants win.

    Rodgers, the league MVP lost his first playoff game.

    I get your point, I'm just sitting here bored and chiming in.

  4. #224
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,244
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=John_0515;4382151]Yates and Tebow both won their first round games.

    Brady was not good on the Pats' AFCCG win, rather Cundit and Evans were the Pats' MVPs.

    The Niner defense held Manning as well. Thanks to 2 key fumbles, Giants win.

    Rodgers, the league MVP lost his first playoff game.

    I get your point, I'm just sitting here bored and chiming in.[/QUOTE]

    Regardless, Tebow and Yates were playoff fodder. I thought Flacco was too, but he got a bye. I'll fix my post though, thanks.

    Brady may not have been good, but they won. Same for Eli vs. the Niners. Rodgers got knocked out by a team with an elite QB.

    No position has the impact on any pro sport that QB has.

    But moreover, the question I really have is why they keep adding importance to this position via rule changes when it was already imbalanced to begin in regards to the impact it has on outcomes.

    As somebody who casually bets, I looked at my picks from this past year and nearly every single one of them had one of the top 10 rated QB's in it.

    I ended up amassing more winnings this year by using this philosophy than I ever had before. Which makes me wonder how this can be so obvious to me and why GM's steadfastly stick with guys like Flacco and Alex Smith........Guys that have finished their rookie contracts and obviously aren't big guns..........

    I mean is the GM bad or does some of the league honestly believe that defense and running games can win championships...........?
    Last edited by PMarsico9; 03-02-2012 at 04:05 PM.

  5. #225
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,760
    Post Thanks / Like
    that's why if you have even an average qb, and can't protect him, you really are at a disadvantage. with teams passing more and teams blitzing more, you can't start guys like wayne hunter anymore.

  6. #226
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,244
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=augustiniak;4382158]that's why if you have even an average qb, and can't protect him, you really are at a disadvantage. with teams passing more and teams blitzing more, you can't start guys like wayne hunter anymore.[/QUOTE]

    Yeah but I'd go even further:

    While RT needs upgraded, if Sanchez doesn't turn into a stud this year and continues with the maddening inconsistency, our GM fails and we're still the same old Jets........And by stud I mean what Stafford did last year at the LOW END.

  7. #227
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,760
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PMarsico9;4382160]Yeah but I'd go even further:

    While RT needs upgraded, if Sanchez doesn't turn into a stud this year and continues with the maddening inconsistency, our GM fails and we're still the same old Jets........And by stud I mean what Stafford did last year.[/QUOTE]

    it's easy to say the GM fails. but given how difficult it is to get a good starting qb, trading up and giving up only a 2nd rounder and a few scrubs was well worth the risk. the jets didn't trade future #1s or mortgage an entire draft.

    it's very hard to get a good qb in the nfl. the patriots really lucked out, but other than them, even first rounders have varied success.

    i would be much quicker to criticize tanny for the gholston and ducasse picks than the sanchez decision.

  8. #228
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Madison, NJ
    Posts
    2,183
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Ray Ray19;4380274]I think it's pathetic so many have given up on Sanchez, one year, a year he statistically improved, but the team had a regressive year, all due to a myriad of issues that have been well documented and discussed, my own opinion as well, in a nutshell, chemistry, locker room problems, and players not being on same page as staff, especially on offense, contributed to the issues, not any single player or coach. Injuries, key changes on offense at TE and FB, as well as the OL that hurt.

    Anyway, for the fans jumping off the Sanchez bandwagon, most of which I think is preposterous, would you same fans, if opportunity was there, would you want Sam Bradford?

    What about the chance to draft RGIII?

    Why?[/QUOTE]

    Yeah because Bradford is the real deal.

  9. #229
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,244
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=augustiniak;4382164]it's easy to say the GM fails. but given how difficult it is to get a good starting qb, trading up and giving up only a 2nd rounder and a few scrubs was well worth the risk. the jets didn't trade future #1s or mortgage an entire draft.

    it's very hard to get a good qb in the nfl. the patriots really lucked out, but other than them, even first rounders have varied success.

    i would be much quicker to criticize tanny for the gholston and ducasse picks than the sanchez decision.[/QUOTE]

    Yeah but if you are extending QB's like Flacco, you aren't looking for a younger kid who at least has the possibility of improvement.

    You are saying "I think I can win with a non-elite QB, even though it's most likely I'm capped at a conference championship game."

    At least the Niners have Kapernick.

  10. #230
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,760
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PMarsico9;4382181]Yeah but if you are extending QB's like Flacco, you aren't looking for a younger kid who at least has the possibility of improvement.

    You are saying "I think I can win with a non-elite QB, even though it's most likely I'm capped at a conference championship game."

    At least the Niners have Kapernick.[/QUOTE]

    hence the problem with drafting someone with only 1 year of college starting experience. whatever sanchez is to become, having him start from day 1 in the nfl didn't really shorten his curve to reach his potential. and that's what nobody saw, and that's what's happening.

  11. #231
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,244
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=augustiniak;4382184]hence the problem with drafting someone with only 1 year of college starting experience. whatever sanchez is to become, having him start from day 1 in the nfl didn't really shorten his curve to reach his potential. and that's what nobody saw, and that's what's happening.[/QUOTE]

    I agree, but my point is that it's less about his development time than it is about his ceiling.

    I mean there's not many out there who will say that Sanchez is going to turn into what Stafford has.

  12. #232
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,760
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PMarsico9;4382186]I agree, but my point is that it's less about his development time than it is about his ceiling.

    I mean there's not many out there who will say that Sanchez is going to turn into what Stafford has.[/QUOTE]

    probably not. but if you put sanchez in a dome and gave him cj, his stats would be better too. but again, stafford was a 3 year or so starter in college who was the undisputed number one pick of the draft. sanchez doesn't need to have that high of a ceiling to be good.

  13. #233
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,244
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=augustiniak;4382189]probably not. but if you put sanchez in a dome and gave him cj, his stats would be better too. but again, stafford was a 3 year or so starter in college who was the undisputed number one pick of the draft. sanchez doesn't need to have that high of a ceiling to be good.[/QUOTE]

    That's my point though:

    That is what you should consider to be the bare-minimum statistical measuring sticks and barometer on whether your team is for real or frontin'.

  14. #234
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,760
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PMarsico9;4382190]That's my point though:

    That is what you should consider to be the bare-minimum statistical measuring sticks and barometer on whether your team is for real or frontin'.[/QUOTE]

    my point is, the jets drafted sanchez on potential, but also hoped he could be a good qb right away, with only 1 yr of college starting experience. they thought he'd mature quickly. but they drafted an immature kid with talent, who wasn't ready to start. you can't fast forward someone's devleopment just b/c you want to. throw in schotty and his absurd system too.

    sanchez was a perfect candidate to sit for 2 years and learn, but he didn't have that luxury. his college coach knew this. he may be bad, but the jets ignored the fact that sanchez needed more time than most other qbs to learn the pro game b/c he barely even learned the college game. in terms of physical ability, he's got it. nice arm, quick feet. his footwork has regressed as he's been flushed out and nailed too many times, but he can do it.

  15. #235
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,278
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=augustiniak;4382184]hence the problem with drafting someone with only 1 year of college starting experience. whatever sanchez is to become, having him start from day 1 in the nfl didn't really shorten his curve to reach his potential. and that's what nobody saw, and that's what's happening.[/QUOTE]

    I love the consistency in your posts concerning the Jets and their failure to properly develop Sanchez.

    For me the Sanchez pick and his improper handling all relate directly to the Jets not having a proper plan for this guy and it is disgraceful.

  16. #236
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,760
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Charlie Brown;4382222]I love the consistency in your posts concerning the Jets and their failure to properly develop Sanchez.

    For me the Sanchez pick and his improper handling all relate directly to the Jets not having a proper plan for this guy and it is disgraceful.[/QUOTE]

    i think the problem started, ironically, b/c the defense was good as was the offensive line. so the team was expected to contend right away. sanchez needed 4-5 years to be able to win games for them, given his relative inexperience. now the team is worse, but i believe with improvement on the o-line, he'll be better. the guy needed time. may never be a star, but he really was thrown into the fire in every way imaginable.

    the jets thought that by starting him right away, they could fast forward his learning curve. and it has, but that doesn't mean the game would slow down for him faster. he never even learned the college game.

    this is what happens when you have an accountant as a GM and a defensive coordinator as a head coach. sanchez's development was compromised. all he had was schotty.

  17. #237
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Electric Avenue
    Posts
    25,685
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PatsFanTX;4382092]If you asked that question to non-Jets fans, it would be 90/10 Bradford over Sanchez.[/QUOTE]
    I know. It's hilarious.

    If Bradford was the Jets QB, this board would be all over his sac.

  18. #238
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    52,055
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jordy;4382236]I know. It's hilarious.

    If Bradford was the Jets QB, this board would be all over his sac.[/QUOTE]

    Yep, it would be 2002 all over again with Jets fans claiming "Bradford is better than Brady".

  19. #239
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Electric Avenue
    Posts
    25,685
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PatsFanTX;4382251]Yep, it would be 2002 all over again with Jets fans claiming "Bradford is better than Brady".[/QUOTE]
    But then, there's people who want a former mega star QB whose neck is as healthy as Joe Namath's knees.

    Everyone who is criticizing Bradford are looking at stats and team results.

    No one has said, I've watched him and Sanchez is a better QB.
    Last edited by Jordy; 03-02-2012 at 05:24 PM.

  20. #240
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,451
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jordy;4382260]But then, there's people who want a former mega star QB whose neck is as healthy as Joe Namath's knees.[/QUOTE]

    I suggest you start updating your sources on that one. Looks like the "experts" have been doing 180s this past week or so.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us