NFL 2011 Season

[pilferk]

8

Brady was wearing 2 SB rings by the time he was at the stage of his career Sanchez is at today.
Jets underachieved as a team this year. It starts at the top. Gotta wonder about a team that names Holmes as it's captain.
A lot has to fall on the QBs shoulders, though. He's still young, but Sanchez was and is mediocre at best at this point in his career in my opinion.

Brady also spent his first two years (2000, 2001) basically on the bench, learning the system....after starting 2 years at Michigan.

He didn't play meaningful games until '02...his 3rd season.

His stats that year?

OTHER than his QBR being about 8 points higher and a better completion %...they were pretty similar to Sanchez' stats this year.

264/413 (63.9 completion %), 2843 yards, 6.88 average yards, 18 TDs, 12 INTs, 12 fumbles.  His QBR was 86.5

Sanchez, this year:

308/543 (56.7 completion %), 3474 yards, 6.40 average yards, 26 TDs, 18 INTs, 10 fumbles.

[pilferk]

I still think a big part of the problem is the team we put around him this year, it just wasn't very good. We gave we ditched Cotchery for two old receivers and a trouble maker. That surely isn't gonna help a young QB improve and the running game was total shit. You have to blame more than Sanchez for the mess we were on offense this year.

Your O-line, and your O-coordinator, were your biggest issues.

Your O-line allowed deep penetration into the pocket, and didn't open up lanes for the RB's like they did in 2010.

Your O-coordinator (who is not coming back, apparently) stunk, quite frankly.  He couldn't figure out what type of team to run (and, maybe, that was at least partially Ryan's fault).

The defense underachieved, a bit..but was still pretty good. 

Burress was actually not bad, late...which is really when you needed him to be good.  I wouldn't be surprised to see him back next year.

Holmes was definitely an issue in the locker room, and in the final drive.  I'm not sure you win the game with him IN, but you definitely lose with him pitching a hissy fit on the sideline, not only not playing but distracting everyone on the team.  The sad part?  He'll almost certainly be back next year...and he shouldn't be after that stunt.

Now everyone on that team needs to stop whining, grousing to the press (check out the Daily News article today), and acting like chickenshit little babies and start trying to get better so they can improve next year.

Because, no matter what Rex says, the G-men are still the "big brother" in NYC.

[sandman]

pilferk - stats tell alot in a sport like baseball, but they are far less valuable in football. that's part of the disconnect in this. they do not tell you the whole story. alot of people focus on the QB rating, yet that does not even include total turnovers. it only factors in INTs. and a huge part of of a QBs responsibilities is to protect the football. sanchez was awful in that regard.

the fact that McNabb has better stats than snchez says it all. there's a reason the NFL uses a higher standard to qualify for their stats. they know what they are doing. ESPN and all the fantasy sites are trying to keep all the fantasy nerds happy so they can evaluate what they might expect from a part time QB if they have to use them when their #1 QB is on a bye.

another example of how you cannot look at stats only is DeSean Jackson. there are some in philly who will look at his stats and say he's not a #1 WR. but what the stats do not tell you is that there is no one corner in the league that can cover him, and he takes 2 (sometimes 3) DBs attention on every play. and that opens up the field for all the other WRs. there's no stat that can show that, yet even Andy Reid has stated that that is by design on many plays.

so considering all the factors, i think it's reasonable to say that sanchez was slightly below average this year. factor in expecetations and it was a disappointing year for him, his coaches, and his fans.

[sandman]

Brady was wearing 2 SB rings by the time he was at the stage of his career Sanchez is at today.
Jets underachieved as a team this year. It starts at the top. Gotta wonder about a team that names Holmes as it's captain.
A lot has to fall on the QBs shoulders, though. He's still young, but Sanchez was and is mediocre at best at this point in his career in my opinion.

Brady also spent his first two years (2000, 2001) basically on the bench, learning the system....after starting 2 years at Michigan.

He didn't play meaningful games until '02...his 3rd season.

His stats that year?

OTHER than his QBR being about 8 points higher and a better completion %...they were pretty similar to Sanchez' stats this year.

264/413 (63.9 completion %), 2843 yards, 6.88 average yards, 18 TDs, 12 INTs, 9 fumbles.  His QBR was 86.5

Sanchez, this year:

308/543 (56.7 completion %), 3474 yards, 6.40 average yards, 26 TDs, 18 INTs, 4 fumbles.

sanchez actually had 10 fumbles this year, 8 of which were lost. he lead the league in lost fumbles.

[pilferk]

sanchez actually had 10 fumbles this year, 8 of which were lost. he lead the league in lost fumbles.

Yup..typo.  I'll fix it.

Muffed up brady's, too...should have been 12.

[pilferk]

pilferk - stats tell alot in a sport like baseball, but they are far less valuable in football. that's part of the disconnect in this. they do not tell you the whole story. alot of people focus on the QB rating, yet that does not even include total turnovers. it only factors in INTs. and a huge part of of a QBs responsibilities is to protect the football. sanchez was awful in that regard.

So...you aren't your record?  Sorry, you'll have a hard time swaying me that stats don't tell the full story.  That's one of those things that people say when trying to qualify subjective when it counters objective.  It's not going to work for me.......and that disconnect isn't going to go away.

Again, awful compared to who?

The rest of the league?

Historically, when looking at 3rd year QB's?

Vs the rest of the league?  Yeah, maybe so.  He was also sacked more often than just about any other QB, and for the first time in his career was actually hit hard....something that he hadn't had to deal with at USC or his first two years as a Jet.  If we're going to "qualify" stats...we have to do it all the way through.  I agree...he needs to work on turnovers and completion %.  That's what's going to define his progress, going forward.

Vs historic 3rd year QB's?  I don't know, in sum total...but they look comparable to Brady's in his 3rd year.  I'll look around and check against some other active QB's.

the fact that McNabb has better stats than snchez says it all. there's a reason the NFL uses a higher standard to qualify for their stats. they know what they are doing. ESPN and all the fantasy sites are trying to keep all the fantasy nerds happy so they can evaluate what they might expect from a part time QB if they have to use them when their #1 QB is on a bye.

I disagree.  The fact they continue to rely on an aggregate passer rating stat, rather than a risk adjusted stat like QBR says different.  The league stats (at least the ones on the site) are far from exhaustive.  ESPN's stats are better, but still not great.

The league keeps their stats simplified because they don't want to appear to be overtly supporting the odds makers....even though they DO.  They just don't want it to be too obvious.

another example of how you cannot look at stats only is DeSean Jackson. there are some in philly who will look at his stats and say he's not a #1 WR. but what the stats do not tell you is that there is no one corner in the league that can cover him, and he takes 2 (sometimes 3) DBs attention on every play. and that opens up the field for all the other WRs. there's no stat that can show that, yet even Andy Reid has stated that that is by design on many plays.

Qualifed by his position in the offensive scheme.

Yet Sanchez, who is in an offensive scheme which was supposed to largely skew toward the run, doesn't get the same qualification?

Again, subjective vs objective.

so considering all the factors, i think it's reasonable to say that sanchez was slightly below average this year. factor in expecetations and it was a disappointing year for him, his coaches, and his fans.

Statistically and nuermically....looks almost dead on average.  Which, were he my QB, would be fine given where he is in his career progression.

Disappointing is a different discussion.  Disappointment doesn't have to have anything to do with reality, or with rankings or stats.

His fans?  Probably...because their expectations are unreasonably high. ESPECIALLY after two visits to the AFC championship game.

His coaches?  I haven't heard any of them say that.

For him?  Maybe...but his expectations SHOULD be higher than reasonable.

[sandman]

26 turnovers is terrible for a QB. in any year, under any reasoning, compared to whatever you want. that stat is one of the most important for a QB. and he was horrible in that regard. so i can easily say he was below average based solely on that stat.

are you honeslty saying that stats tell 100% of the story? and there is no regard for situations, decoys, blocking? if professional coaches say that stats do not tell the whole story, who are we to disagree. they clearly know more than us.

[pilferk]

26 turnovers is terrible for a QB. in any year, under any reasoning, compared to whatever you want. that stat is one of the most important for a QB. and he was horrible in that regard. so i can easily say he was below average based solely on that stat.

As was Brady in his 3rd year.

As was Eli Manning, in his 3rd year (18 INTs, 9 fumbles)

Brees was slightly better in his 3rd year ( 15 INTs, 5 fumbles)

Peyton Manning also slightly better (15 INTs, 5 fumbles)

Vick, in '04 (technically his 4th season) had 12 INT's and 16 fumbles.

Below average in ONE or TWO stats doesn't make him below average in sum total...that's like saying Angelina Jolie has spindly legs and man hands...so she's ugly.  It means he has things to work on....which I agree with.
 

are you honeslty saying that stats tell 100% of the story? and there is no regard for situations, decoys, blocking? if professional coaches say that stats do not tell the whole story, who are we to disagree. they clearly know more than us.

Stats won't tell you the whole story about what a player is capable of.  You can't form game plans based solely on stats....which is why coaches say what they do. I don't disagree with that.

Stats DO tell you what has actually HAPPENED.  They are an objective (rather than subjective) picture of history.

[GeorgeSteele]

The problems with stats, in any sport, is that each stat, on its own, is useless without looking at the big picture -- and stats like QBR and Passer Rating (that try to account for the big picture) are subjective because they arbitrarily choose which isolated stats to factor into the overall rating.   

Of all sports/positions, though, I think that QB is by far the most difficult to measure by stats.  There would be too much nuance to factor in to get a good picture of overall performance.  For example, interceptions -- how many ricocheted off the receivers hands (Eli M had about 20 of those last year)?  How many occurred because the receiver ran the wrong route?  On the flip side, how many interceptions was the QB lucky enough to have dropped by the defender?  How to measure when the QB calls the right (or wrong) audible? 

Even completion percentage is deceiving.  Nothing would frustrate me more than the 'Chad Pennington Special" of throwing a 3-yard checkdown on 3rd and 12.   

For me, a good, simple measure of a QB is whether the offense is consistently putting points on the board.  If that's happening, I figure the QB is doing a good job.  Some go by wins, but I feel that a QB who's always losing 45-42 is probably better than the guy who tends to always win 10-6 games.  Another is longevity.  If a guy has been playing for a long time, he's doing something right. 

[pilferk]

The "stats vs "watch every play/down" argument is a LONG standing one...and it's not one I think we'll make any progress on, here.

I will unabashedly (and unashamedly) admit I fall on the side of stats.  I'm sure part of that is that my first love, in sports, is baseball...and it's carried through.  But I'm certainly not unique in that.

To me, if we're talking about history, we're talking about stats.  And I doubt I can be swayed from that opinion.  Just as I'm sure I can't sway many of you from your more "subjective" interpretations.

Fair enough.

By the By (according to teamrankings.com): Jets were 13th (of 32 teams) in points scored per game.

They were 17th in total passing offense, 16th in rushing offense.

Right around the middle.

[pilferk]

Also...I will not pretend to have watched every Jets snap this season.  They're the "alternate" AFC team in CT...so they're on network ONLY when they don't play in the same time slot as the Pats.   Even though I have Sunday Ticket with DirectTV....I didn't go out of my way to find the Jets if there was a better AFC game on when they were on at the same time as the Pats.

And I DID watch every snap of every Giants game (so, obviously, if they were playing at the same time the Jets were...I wasn't watching).

I DID watch them a lot, though....within those parameters.  If they were the network game, and the Giants weren't playing, I was watching them.

[GeorgeSteele]

Pilferk, though we get there differently, I'd agree with you that Sanchez has been average (both stats and observation seem to indicate that).  But my observation tells me that he'll never be anything more than that.  He doesn't come across to me as one of those guys who shows flashes of brilliance that will become great after putting it all together (whatever 'it' is).  Neither stats nor observation can tell the future, so we'll just have to wait and see, but my money's on him being Richard Todd Part Deux.  I'd give him only one more year to show some major improvement.  

That all said, I think his development as a QB may have been irreparably harmed by starting right out of the gate after only 1 year starting in college.  

Also, he needs to stop dating teenagers.  Maybe a 48-year old dominatrix can toughen him up and help him get his head straight.  

By the way, I don't dislike stats, just think they can be better.  QBR is actually not that bad, but still has some major flaws.

[sandman]

The problems with stats, in any sport, is that each stat, on its own, is useless without looking at the big picture -- and stats like QBR and Passer Rating (that try to account for the big picture) are subjective because they arbitrarily choose which isolated stats to factor into the overall rating.   

Of all sports/positions, though, I think that QB is by far the most difficult to measure by stats.  There would be too much nuance to factor in to get a good picture of overall performance.  For example, interceptions -- how many ricocheted off the receivers hands (Eli M had about 20 of those last year)?  How many occurred because the receiver ran the wrong route?  On the flip side, how many interceptions was the QB lucky enough to have dropped by the defender?  How to measure when the QB calls the right (or wrong) audible? 

Even completion percentage is deceiving.  Nothing would frustrate me more than the 'Chad Pennington Special" of throwing a 3-yard checkdown on 3rd and 12.   

For me, a good, simple measure of a QB is whether the offense is consistently putting points on the board.  If that's happening, I figure the QB is doing a good job.  Some go by wins, but I feel that a QB who's always losing 45-42 is probably better than the guy who tends to always win 10-6 games.  Another is longevity.  If a guy has been playing for a long time, he's doing something right. 

well said. in short, stats tell you PART of what happened. but do NOT tell you EVERYTHING that happened.

[pilferk]

Pilferk, though we get there differently, I'd agree with you that Sanchez has been average (both stats and observation seem to indicate that).  But my observation tells me that he'll never be anything more than that.  He doesn't come across to me as one of those guys who shows flashes of brilliance that will become great after putting it all together (whatever 'it' is).  Neither stats nor observation can tell the future, so we'll just have to wait and see, but my money's on him being Richard Todd Part Deux.  I'd give him only one more year to show some major improvement.  

We mostly agree....the only point I would marginally disagree on is that I'm not EXACTLY sure what he'll become.   He could become a stop gap place holder QB (decent, but not great).  He could become Eli Manning.  He's not ever going to be (IMHO) Brady or Brees...but so long as Ryan is there, he shouldn't need to be.  If they ever institute that type of offensive scheme...I'd have a coronary in surprise.  Ryan wants an ultra conservative, ground and pound offense (witness that Tony Spurrano is likely going to get the O-coordinator job).

I think next year is the metric.  Either he becomes your franchise QB, mostly, or you realize he's limited and start looking elsewhere.

That all said, I think his development as a QB may have been irreparably harmed by starting right out of the gate after only 1 year starting in college.  

Also, he needs to stop dating teenagers.  Maybe a 48-year old dominatrix can toughen him up and help him get his head straight.  

By the way, I don't dislike stats, just think they can be better.  QBR is actually not that bad, but still has some major flaws.

I don't know if it's been harmed...but it has been stunted, I think.  Being thrown out of the frying pan into the fire probably didn't do him any favors.  It would have been nice if he could have come in, rode the pine for a season or two, and learned from a journeyman QB.  

I don't care who he dates (just like I don't care who A-rod dates).  And, if we're being honest...I don't much care how he performs, either.  He's interesting.....but I root against him far more than I root for him.  The only time I think I root for them is when then they're playing an NFC east team..or the Pats.

[Bodhi]

While you guys were having that Sanchez debate, it looks like some  Jets players and personnel have turned on him.


Jets players rip Sanchez as lazy, entitled and want Manning


By Nate Davis, USA TODAY


The venom continues to spew out of what seems to be a fractured New York Jets locker room with several players making off-the-record comments to the (New York) Daily News which served to crush QB Mark Sanchez while expressing hope that GM Mike Tannenbaum finds a way to acquire Colts QB Peyton Manning.

First, the ire directed at Sanchez, who helped take the team to two AFC Championship Games his first two years before the team finished a disappointing 8-8 in 2011.

Said one unidentified Jet of Sanchez:

    "We have to bring in another quarterback that will make him work at practice. ... He's lazy and content because he knows he's not going to be benched."

Sanchez has been backed up by journeyman Kellen Clemens and over-the-hill Mark Brunell during his career.

This was a Jet response regarding Sanchez's ability to win the Super Bowl:

    "How can we when he's not improving at all? He thinks he is, but he's not. He has shown us what he's capable of."

Sanchez was also portrayed as lacking confidence, looking at pass rushers rather than receivers and reportedly had difficulty synthesizing the gameplans of OC Brian Schottenheimer, who informed the team Tuesday night that he would not be returning.

HC Rex Ryan has occasionally taken away practice snaps from Sanchez but never benched him during a game. The quarterback threw a career-best 26 TD passes in 2011 but also committed 26 turnovers (18 INTs, 8 lost fumbles). He's never completed more than 57% of his passes in a full season.

His 73.2 regular-season passer rating climbs to 94.3 in postseason, where he owns a 4-2 record. However one player said the defense and running game were largely responsible for the team's postseason runs in 2009 and 2010.

Said another:

    "They don't want to be truthful with him. They treat him like a baby instead of a man. He goes in a hole when someone tells him the truth."

An unidentified team source added:

    "They see the organization babying him. They see him with a sense of entitlement. He's been given all this and hasn't done anything. They call him 'San-chise.' They make him the face of the organization. They gave him the captain tag. He's not a captain. He should have never been a captain."

Ryan admitted following the season that he'd lost the pulse of the team and said he would no longer anoint team captains, though he did not specifically cite Sanchez or embattled WR Santonio Holmes as unworthy.

However Ryan has gushed about Manning in the past. And it's possible he could be available this offseason if his surgically repaired neck doesn't sufficiently heal for Indianapolis to keep him and/or the Colts draft Stanford QB Andrew Luck and opt for a divorce from their four-time MVP.

Should the Jets make a play for Manning?

"Come on. That's a no-brainer," a Jets source said. "If you have a chance to get a healthy 36-year-old Peyton Manning and you don't do it, then you're stupid. If I could get a healthy 36-year-old Peyton Manning, then, hell yeah, I would trade Sanchez."

Added a player:

"We already have his coach -- Tom Moore. Plus, he's a field general and will get everyone lined up. He will get his playmakers the ball. We can win a Super Bowl with Peyton."

However luring Manning -- and other coveted talents -- may have suddenly become much more difficult for Ryan and Tannenbaum.

"I don't think that (Manning will) come here," said an unidentified member within the Jets franchise. "We have to change the perception of our organization. We're not the organization that players said they wanted to play for a year or two ago. We're starting to come across a little flaky. We talk the talk. We don't back it up. We're out of control. There's no discipline. It's a mess right now."

[pilferk]

OK, time for a rant:

I read the article earlier today.  It's bullshit, IMHO.

Not in that they got some disgruntled Jets players to spout off.  That doesn't surprise me a bit (more on that in a sec).  But it's the Daily News (ie: tabloid), and they're portraying this like it's every player in the locker room (which I doubt). That, right there, should send off warning bells.

But, be that as it may, here's where my fundamental problem lies:

If you are a man, and you have a problem with your team mate...tell them.  Tell your coach.  And if you're going to talk to the press...let them use your name.  None of this "unnamed Jet" crap.  That's chickenshit...and far more deplorable than anything Sanchez has ever done on a football field.  Hiding behind a tabloid like the News, and spouting off about Sanchez, when not ONE of those guys performed all that well (and certainly not perfectly) is pure crap.  Man up, take responsibility for what YOU did wrong, and then (with your name attached) feel free to call out your team mates in kind.

In short: Show some fucking testicular fortitude, get your grannies panties off, and man the fuck up.  And then SHUT THE FUCK UP.  The more these guys talk (and this goes for pretty much any organization...though the Jets are epitomizing it, right now), the more they make themselves look like bush league assholes crying to their mommy.

Second, I find it very "odd" that this kind of stuff (since it seems, in the article, like the players commenting think this is a long standing issue) didn't see the light of day while Sanchez was contributing to their march to 2 AFC championship games.  And for the player that doesn't think he was a major contributor to that playoff success...I invite him to rewatch those games...and potentially get screened for having a severely faulty memory.  Waiting until the team hit a rough patch, and THEN spouting off, smells to me like people looking for a scapegoat, to deflect attention from either themselves (the O-line, for example) or their buddy (the newly "departed" O-coordinator).  I mean....doesn't anyone else find it interesting that the timing of the comments/article coincide with the the departure of the guy who ran a crappy offensive scheme?

Keep in mind:  I find the whole Jets meltdown/sideshow somewhat amusing...in a horrific sort of spectacle kind of way, but they're a far cry from "my team".  I feel pretty much the same way (see above rant) in relation to sports in general. 

OK..rant off.  The whole "sanctity of the locker room" thing is something I'm sorta passionate about. Don't know if that came across.   I thought largely the same thing when the Red Sox clubhouse was melting down (a team I root against pretty hard) late last year.  In fact, this article reminds me, a bit, of a pretty ridiculous Boston Globe article about the SOX locker room.  My take was and is:  Don't air your dirty laundry to the press....especially when you're not willing to put your name on the tag.

[Bodhi]

+1,000 to that Pilferk.

Articles like this should never happen, and it is the players  fault for taking the reporters bait.  That is who the Jets are though, and those are the types of guys Rex Ryan brings in there.  A team is a reflection of their head coach, and it couldn't  be more evident here. 

Also like you said, if you are going to say something about a teammate have the guts to attach your name to it.


I have no idea if Sanchez's work ethic is good or bad.  I do think it is a good idea to get a competent back up in there that pushes the starter to work harder to keep their job.  Not just for the Jets, but for every team, although I know competent back ups who can challenge a starter is not always an easy thing to find.  With the Jets, we always knew there was NEVER any chance of Sanchez getting benched, no matter how poorly he played.

As a Jet hater, I am enjoying this circus right now, but when articles like this happen, it is never good for the league.

[tim_m]

I just saw that on espn.com. What a bunch of pussies. If they have an issue with Sanchez be man enough to be named. Looks like lots of offensive changes for the jets. They hired several new offensive coaches today.

[pilferk]

+1,000 to that Pilferk.

Articles like this should never happen, and it is the players  fault for taking the reporters bait.  That is who the Jets are though, and those are the types of guys Rex Ryan brings in there.  A team is a reflection of their head coach, and it couldn't  be more evident here. 

Also like you said, if you are going to say something about a teammate have the guts to attach your name to it.


I have no idea if Sanchez's work ethic is good or bad.  I do think it is a good idea to get a competent back up in there that pushes the starter to work harder to keep their job.  Not just for the Jets, but for every team, although I know competent back ups who can challenge a starter is not always an easy thing to find.  With the Jets, we always knew there was NEVER any chance of Sanchez getting benched, no matter how poorly he played.

As a Jet hater, I am enjoying this circus right now, but when articles like this happen, it is never good for the league.

The Jets Center (who's name I can't remember) tweeted, and then made the talk show rounds today.  I heard him on Michael Kay's show this afternoon.

He said he thinks Sanchez work ethic is fine.  He seemed pretty pissed off that someone in their locker room would take this stuff to the press, rather than handling it in house, and he SPECIFICALLY mentioned that the O-line did not do it's job this year...both protecting their QB and opening up the line for the run.

In short, he manned the fuck up.  I might not be fond of the Jets, but I have a LOT of respect for their Center, right now.

[faldor]

+1,000 to that Pilferk.

Articles like this should never happen, and it is the players  fault for taking the reporters bait.  That is who the Jets are though, and those are the types of guys Rex Ryan brings in there.  A team is a reflection of their head coach, and it couldn't  be more evident here. 

Also like you said, if you are going to say something about a teammate have the guts to attach your name to it.


I have no idea if Sanchez's work ethic is good or bad.  I do think it is a good idea to get a competent back up in there that pushes the starter to work harder to keep their job.  Not just for the Jets, but for every team, although I know competent back ups who can challenge a starter is not always an easy thing to find.  With the Jets, we always knew there was NEVER any chance of Sanchez getting benched, no matter how poorly he played.

As a Jet hater, I am enjoying this circus right now, but when articles like this happen, it is never good for the league.

The Jets are doing their best 2011 Boston Red Sox impression right now.  When does the chicken and beer story come out?

Seems some of the Jets players agree with me about Sanchez being, uh, not that good.  I'll take that.

I heard Shottenheimer wasn't coming back last night, by his own choice, but didn't hear anything more about it today.  Is that the case?