No wonder Junc is creeping up to 20k posts here. Fuel, meet fire.
Ahhh, what the hell ... Matt Moore > Mark Sanchez
- Thread starter Penthos
- Start date
To me elite D's don't consistently blow late leads, our D has been good to very good but not great. Very rarly have they been great. They started out '09 playing great, they had some great moments such as SD '09 playoffs and NE '10 playoffs but they haven't played a a high level consistently.
hoops
Tua time!
you wanna help that pass pro...start by not leaving matt mulligan on an island with the oppositions top pass rusher repeatedly...thats just dumb scheme and personnel wise
If most of the board wouldn't have turned into sheep w/ the 0-7 start I might be at 20K by now
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2005
- Messages
- 15,549
- Reaction score
- 2,652
Also, not sure where the no deep threat excuse comes from. Holmes did just fine in that regard when Big Ben was throwing him the ball.
I would agree w/ you. An underrated loss was losing Ben Hartsock as our top blocking TE(not that Hartsock should be blocking a pass rusher one on one but he helped in the run game). Brick has been struggling lately, Hunter has really struggled after doing a decent job to end 2010. There are many problems which concern me, my hope is in their recent history. They have looked as bad, if not worse, and have been able to turn it around. I hope they can do it again.
he's more of the type that takes a short pass and turns it into a long gain, at least int he 2 years here. Sanchez consistently tried to get Braylon the ball deep while they are always trying to get Holmes on the shorter routes and let him make plays after the catch.
hoops
Tua time!
the jets try to use holmes a lot on the underneath quick routes cause he's such a threat with the ball in his hands and he may run the best quick slant in football...he's an elite inside breaking routes runner
but deep balls take time to develop down the field...time which barring play action sanchez has not been afforded this season...once again it all comes back to the running game and play action off it
but deep balls take time to develop down the field...time which barring play action sanchez has not been afforded this season...once again it all comes back to the running game and play action off it
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2005
- Messages
- 15,549
- Reaction score
- 2,652
All I know is when I watch the Jets, my eyes say they are a pretty damn good football team thats a QB short. They have a few other issues, but what team doesnt? A good QB can cover a lot of ills.
metalman32060
Misplaced PhinFan
Not so loud Ireland may hear you
The New Guy
Starter
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,932
- Reaction score
- 74
This makes absolutely no sense. You say the 2009 (13-3 record) Chargers (1 and done in the playoffs) were better than the 2002 (11-5) Raiders (AFC Champions), and then you say that the 04 Chargers (who were 12-4, and had won 9 of 10 games heading into the playoffs) are similar to the 2010 (10-6) Colts. What exactly makes a team better to you? Is it regular season wins, or is it how far they make it in the playoffs? Or is the tougher team always the one that Sanchez faced?
Whether you go by regular season records, or by how far the team made it in the post season, the Steelers get the nod on both. They were 15-1, and made it to the AFCC game, (Got beat by the Super Bowl Champs) while the 14-2 Pats got bounced from the playoffs in the first round, just like they did the year before.
The 06 Pats were good enough to be ranked 7th in points scored and 2nd in points allowed. They made it to the AFCC game while the 10 Pats were 1 and done. The 2010 Steelers were better than the 06 Pats.
Pennington is the QB that faced tougher competition.
Absolutely, the 2011 Chargers won 11 straight games entereing postseason, they were 13-3, the '02 Raiders lost 4 straight at one point and were just 11-5. Oak was an old team, the teams were very similar in that they scored a ton of points and allowed around the same amount but 11 straight wins entering postseaspn tips the scale for me.
In 2004 the Chargers were a surprise team, this was Brees' first playoff game. That's very different than facing the defending AFC Champs w/ Peyton manning in his prime. The jets had already beaten SD easily earlier in the season as well.
Everything isn't black and white w/ the records but 11-5 as a top seed is a pretty weak year.
The reason the '10 Pats didn't make the title game was b/c they faced the '10 Jets, the '10 Jets easily beat the '04 Steelers. The '10 Pats were MUCH better than the '04 Steelers.
The '06 pats had Jabar Gaffney and reche Caldwell as their main offensive weapons, that's really all we need to know.
Again, the '06 pats got to play the '06 Jets to advance. The '10 Jets easily win the AFC in 2006 or 2002. 2004 they would have made the title game and lost to NE.
Sanchez faced the tougher teams and it's not really close. Chad lost to ONE SB bound team, mark has lost to TWO. Against that SB bound team he led us to 10 pts going 21-47, 183 yds, 1 TD, 2 INTs while Mark led his O to an average of 17 PPG and threw 37 times for 63, 490 yds, 4 TDs, 1 INT.
Sanchez gets a huge postseason edge no matter what way you look at it.
The New Guy
Starter
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,932
- Reaction score
- 74
To me, it really doesn't matter what your regular season record is. The schedules are not the same for everyone. Who cares if the 09 Chargers were 13-3 and beat a bunch of bad teams. They were 1 and done in the playoffs. The 11-5 Raiders won 6 of 7 games going into the playoffs and went to the Super Bowl. In the regular season, they beat 6 teams with a record of 9-7 or better. The 09 Chargers only beat 3 teams with a winning record. Everything points to the 02' Raiders being better than the 09' Chargers.
The 2002 Colts and 09 Bengals were both bad teams. The 2004 (12-4) Chargers were clearly better than a banged up (10-6) Colts team in 10'. A 15-1 Steeler team that made it to the AFCC game is better than a 14-2 team that was one and done.
2002 Colts = 2009 Bengals
2002 Raiders (AFC Champs) > 2009 Chargers (1 and done)
2004 Chargers > 2010 Colts
2004 Steelers (15-1, AFCC game) > 2010 Patriots (14-2, 1 and done)
Both the 09' Colts and 10" Steelers were better teams, but the Jets lost and those teams were in the AFCC game. Pennington's Jets had to face the teams that made it to the AFCC game in earlier rounds.
I don't understand how you can say the 10' Jets easily beat the 04' Steelers. I know we are just dealing with opinions here, but the 10' Jets (11-5) lost to a team that lost the Super Bowl. The 04' Steelers (15-1) lost to a team that won the Super Bowl. You can say what you want, but the 04' Steelers lost to a better team.
The scheds were similar, 11-5 as a 1 seed is a bad year. We started 2-5 and made the playoffs that year. The AFC was medicore, all but 4 teams were at or above .500 as they picked each other off. There wasn't any seperation like the '09 Chargers which clearly were an elite team- the SB favorite heading into postseason(much like NE last year).
The 2004 Chargers hadn't played a playoff game before and they feasted on an easy sched. The 2010 Colts had injuries but still had talent better than the '04 Chargers.
The raiders made the SB b/c they played worse teams in the playoffs. Our '09 team would have beaten the '02 Raiders w/o a doubt but they played a less physical '02 Jets team.
The '09 Jets would have crushed the '04 Steelers, we scored THREE pts on offense and still had TWO chances for makeable kicks to win that game. ben was awful in his first EVER playoff game.
There is no doubt the last 2 years have been tougher roads than the '02, '04, '06 teams and regardless of that Chad had to play better. Mark Sanchez has been a MUCH, MUCH better postseason QB than Chad(and Chad is one of my all time favorites).
The New Guy
Starter
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,932
- Reaction score
- 74
09' Chargers Elite?
Yep, a team that only won 3 games against teams with a winning record and loses to a 9-7 Jets team in the playoffs is Elite. No wonder you think the Jets are elite as well. 
The 02' Raiders had a more difficult schedule and won 6 games against teams with winning records. You keep saying the 09' Chargers are better than the 02' Raiders, but have nothing to back it up with. I have shown you the facts that the 02' Raiders beat better competition, and made it to the Super Bowl.
It is really funny that you think the banged up 10' Colts team (A team that is now 0-10 without Manning), had more talent than the 04 Chargers with Brees, L.T (in his prime) and Gates. The 04 Chargers were 9-1 going into the playoffs, and had a 12-4 record. The 10' Colts 5-4 heading into the playoffs with a 10-6 record. You can have your own opinions, but the facts point to the 04' Charger being better than the banged up 10' Colts team.
I've already posted the #'s between the 2, and Sanchez #'s are slightly better and he had a better O-line and running game. Sanchez #'s are not MUCH, MUCH better. With 1 more playoff game as a Jet, Sanchez has less passing yards, 2 more TD passes, and 1 less Int than Pennington. Better #'s, but not by much. Put Pennington on the 09' or 10' Jets, and I bet they make the Super Bowl. I really hope the Jets can get a WC this year so you will be able to see what Sanchez can do without being carried by the running game and D.