Reality Check JETS fans....

[nyjunc]

can i give you a tip? stop with the whole "you dont know anything about football because you dont agree with me" bs. what qualifies you to know more than the average fan about quarterback mechanics and psycology? do you scout players professionally? do you teach a quarterback camp? please give us some insight into how much more distinguised your football resume is to everybody else. you must know way more than anyone else, because only an genius (or an idiot)would think sanchez is a good qb based on this years performance.

you were wrong about your team. at this point there is nothing you can do to gloat about moving forward. your coach lost the locker room (like i told you months ago only to have you minimize my comments). moving forward you have money tied up in a qb alot of people think wont make it. as of right now i would rather be a dolphins fan, which is the first time i have said that in last 2 years. enjoy this offseason, its going to be alot of fun watching you spin out of this crap. rex ryans tears taste like candy to me.

I didn't say Sanchez was good based on this year, he had a rough year but anyone who actually watched the Jets this year understands he took a beating, had poor OL play, poor run game for half the year(it was good the 2nd half), his WRs weren't very good. Does that take him off the hook? absolutely not, he stunk the last few weeks and helped send us home w/o a postseason but he's done too much for us to even think about going in a different direction. You don't get rid of a young QB b/c he took a step back for the first time.

I was wrong about my team, it happens. They didn't play up to my expectations(or their expectations). what is your point? I didn't expect title game runs the last 2 years either, if I knew exactly what they were going to do I'd place bets. At the very least they did compete for a playoff spot.

There's nothging to spin, we have more talent, we have a young QB, we have more young talent, we have more talent that has big game experience. This team will be back amongst the elite sooner than later, enjoy the meltdown this year and enjoy your battles w/ Buf for 3rd place.

d

- Sad part is you'll never stop typing this. You'll do this next year too when the Jets finish 8-8 or worse next season.

- You were more then "a few mis" from being in the SB a year ago. Actually, THIS SEASON proves it isn't better. Are you saying Holmes is better then Marshall now too? It's a damn team game. Stop thinking and saying playoffs when it comes to discussing a player.

- He didn't say anything about throwing anyone away, what I was saying about him is he was saying some things that were said to you on these boards earlier in the year and you dismissed it claiming they "didn't know football".

Again, I know you love to argue and have the nerve to tell people they don't know about football if they don't agree with you but you continue to be a troll with what you discuss on these boards and you don't bring anything of relevance. You have an opinion and spin things in your favor no matter what is discussed and will continue to go in circles.

Save it for next season. You believe your "a few tweaks" away from being elite. When reality hits you in the face, AGAIN, don't forget how you continued to make yourself look like a fool on these boards. I'm sure you'll spin it then too.

It's a big deal to reach the title game, you would think you would know this considering your team hasn't been to one in 20 years and hasn't won a playoff game in over a decade.

if our D makes a stop on the last drive our O gets a chance to win the title game.

what points did I dismiss? please tell me or send me a link.

It's not people that don't agree w/ me, it's people that don't understand the game. There are plenty of great posters who I disagree w/ but I know they know their stuff.


If I looked like a fool b/c my team was 8-8(I think I predicted them to win 10 games) how big of a fool do you look like for telling me how bad my team was the previous 2 years when we made title game runs?

 

[MD]

Junc, Sanchez has never taken a step forward so he can't go back. The difference this year is that he didn't have a run game or defense to bail him out.

You can paint pictures of butterflies and daffodils but the Jets have a lot of issues to address this off season and the QB spot may very well be one.

 

[jared81]

I didn't say Sanchez was good based on this year, he had a rough year but anyone who actually watched the Jets this year understands he took a beating, had poor OL play, poor run game for half the year(it was good the 2nd half), his WRs weren't very good. Does that take him off the hook? absolutely not, he stunk the last few weeks and helped send us home w/o a postseason but he's done too much for us to even think about going in a different direction. You don't get rid of a young QB b/c he took a step back for the first time.

I was wrong about my team, it happens. They didn't play up to my expectations(or their expectations). what is your point? I didn't expect title game runs the last 2 years either, if I knew exactly what they were going to do I'd place bets. At the very least they did compete for a playoff spot.

There's nothging to spin, we have more talent, we have a young QB, we have more young talent, we have more talent that has big game experience. This team will be back amongst the elite sooner than later, enjoy the meltdown this year and enjoy your battles w/ Buf for 3rd place.

what talent? please name a position (besides db) where the jets are head and shoulders better than the dolphins.

RB- bush>Green
OL push
DL dolphins
LB push
ST jets
WR push

the difference between you and most dolphins fans is that know we need to improve our team. you are a freakin joke man.

 

[Locke]

You can't keep defending Sanchez with excuses like poor OL play and no run game. Moore had horrendous OL play and out-performed Sanchez the second half of the season. The Patriots and Packers have weak running games, but those QBs still run this league. All good QBs overcome whatever barriers, real or imaginary, there are and just perform. In Sanchez's most important game of the season, he throws 3 picks, 2 to the same DL in pure retard decision-making and one to a LB off of the worst drink pass I've ever seen. This was his 4th season. You can't use the "he's still learning" excuse anymore, especially not with rookie QBs like Dalton and Newton playing head-and-shoulders better. Fact of the matter is, good QBs perform, no excuses. Sanchez is nothing but excuses. Even your own front office is admitting he might not be the answer, it's time for you to do the same...

 

[nyjunc]

Junc, Sanchez has never taken a step forward so he can't go back. The difference this year is that he didn't have a run game or defense to bail him out.

You can paint pictures of butterflies and daffodils but the Jets have a lot of issues to address this off season and the QB spot may very well be one.

He was very good in year 2, he took a major step forward before taking a step back this year.

Last year our D and run game were both very inconsustent, the pass game bailed them out many times.

what talent? please name a position (besides db) where the jets are head and shoulders better than the dolphins.

RB- bush>Green
OL push
DL dolphins
LB push
ST jets
WR push

the difference between you and most dolphins fans is that know we need to improve our team. you are a freakin joke man.

Bush is not better than Greene, don't be fooled b/c he put up some meaingless #s on a team out of the race.

OL- Jets(even w/ the RT problems)
LB- even
WR- Jets
TE- Jets
QB- Jets
DL- Miami
DBs- Jets
STs- Jets

I know we need to improve, where did yous ee that I said otherwise? I love when people make things up.

You can't keep defending Sanchez with excuses like poor OL play and no run game. Moore had horrendous OL play and out-performed Sanchez the second half of the season. The Patriots and Packers have weak running games, but those QBs still run this league. All good QBs overcome whatever barriers, real or imaginary, there are and just perform. In Sanchez's most important game of the season, he throws 3 picks, 2 to the same DL in pure retard decision-making and one to a LB off of the worst drink pass I've ever seen. This was his 4th season. You can't use the "he's still learning" excuse anymore, especially not with rookie QBs like Dalton and Newton playing head-and-shoulders better. Fact of the matter is, good QBs perform, no excuses. Sanchez is nothing but excuses. Even your own front office is admitting he might not be the answer, it's time for you to do the same...

Moore had zero presssure to win, just like 2 years ago in carolina when he was "great" for a bad team then he stunk starting week 1 in 2010.

Sanchez stunk late in the year and wasn't good overall, it's a step back but he's not done and he has shown he can win back something Moore has never shown.

Dalton & Newton had great rookie years while young older QB sstruggled like Sanchez, Flacco, Freeman, even vets like Rivers struggled. It happens.

This was his THIRD season not his 4th/

when did the FO admit he might not be the answer? again, I love when people make things up.

 

[Locke]

Moore had zero presssure to win, just like 2 years ago in carolina when he was "great" for a bad team then he stunk starting week 1 in 2010.

Sanchez stunk late in the year and wasn't good overall, it's a step back but he's not done and he has shown he can win back something Moore has never shown.

Dalton & Newton had great rookie years while young older QB sstruggled like Sanchez, Flacco, Freeman, even vets like Rivers struggled. It happens.

This was his THIRD season not his 4th/

when did the FO admit he might not be the answer? again, I love when people make things up.

You really should do a little research before accusing someone of making something up. Seriously.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/25/jets-have-a-decision-to-make-on-sanchez/

A league source tells PFT that the Jets are beginning to realize that Sanchez may not be the answer at the position. That said, the Jets will not publicly acknowledge even the possibility that Sanchez is falling out of favor.


How could they acknowledge it? Coach Rex Ryan already has declared that Sanchez will be the quarterback for as long as Ryan is the coach, a proclamation that could eventually turn out to be as reliable as pretty much every other guarantee Rex has made.

Your own team is starting to realize the kid is joke, and you still won't admit it. It's good to be loyal, but this blind loyalty thing you've got going on is dangerous.

This "zero pressure to win" thing is yet ANOTHER excuse as to why other QBs out-perform Sanchez. Good QBs produce, period. It doesn't matter the situation. That's not me saying Moore is good, so don't bother bringing him up. I don't give a sh*t about the guy in context to this situation. Pressure or no pressure, good QBs produce. You can't keep using that subjective excuse to marginalize one QB's performance. You couldn't get 5 people to agree on what the definition of "pressure" is in context to the importance of a game, and you are here trying to pass it off as an empirical measurement of a QB's viability? Take that to anyone, ANYONE, in a scientific field and watch how quickly you get laughed out of the room. It's a cop-out, plain and simple. The funny thing is, you even KNOW it's a bullsh*t argument, but its all you have left after your previous argument of playing well in "big games" (another subjective term) was blown out of the water after Sanchez went full-retard on the Jets and threw 2 picks to the same defensive lineman. The guy sucks. He is a poor man's Trent Dilfer...

 

[jared81]

You really should do a little research before accusing someone of making something up. Seriously.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/25/jets-have-a-decision-to-make-on-sanchez/



Your own team is starting to realize the kid is joke, and you still won't admit it. It's good to be loyal, but this blind loyalty thing you've got going on is dangerous.

This "zero pressure to win" thing is yet ANOTHER excuse as to why other QBs out-perform Sanchez. Good QBs produce, period. It doesn't matter the situation. That's not me saying Moore is good, so don't bother bringing him up. I don't give a sh*t about the guy in context to this situation. Pressure or no pressure, good QBs produce. You can't keep using that subjective excuse to marginalize one QB's performance. You couldn't get 5 people to agree on what the definition of "pressure" is in context to the importance of a game, and you are here trying to pass it off as an empirical measurement of a QB's viability? Take that to anyone, ANYONE, in a scientific field and watch how quickly you get laughed out of the room. It's a cop-out, plain and simple. The funny thing is, you even KNOW it's a bullsh*t argument, but its all you have left after your previous argument of playing well in "big games" (another subjective term) was blown out of the water after Sanchez went full-retard on the Jets and threw 2 picks to the same defensive lineman. The guy sucks. He is a poor man's Trent Dilfer...

 

[nyjunc]

You really should do a little research before accusing someone of making something up. Seriously.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/25/jets-have-a-decision-to-make-on-sanchez/



Your own team is starting to realize the kid is joke, and you still won't admit it. It's good to be loyal, but this blind loyalty thing you've got going on is dangerous.

This "zero pressure to win" thing is yet ANOTHER excuse as to why other QBs out-perform Sanchez. Good QBs produce, period. It doesn't matter the situation. That's not me saying Moore is good, so don't bother bringing him up. I don't give a sh*t about the guy in context to this situation. Pressure or no pressure, good QBs produce. You can't keep using that subjective excuse to marginalize one QB's performance. You couldn't get 5 people to agree on what the definition of "pressure" is in context to the importance of a game, and you are here trying to pass it off as an empirical measurement of a QB's viability? Take that to anyone, ANYONE, in a scientific field and watch how quickly you get laughed out of the room. It's a cop-out, plain and simple. The funny thing is, you even KNOW it's a bullsh*t argument, but its all you have left after your previous argument of playing well in "big games" (another subjective term) was blown out of the water after Sanchez went full-retard on the Jets and threw 2 picks to the same defensive lineman. The guy sucks. He is a poor man's Trent Dilfer...

so you post from a rumor site w/ no facts. Again I ask- when did the FO admit he might not be the answer?

Sanchez did produce his first 2 years and through much of this year but he and the team collapsed late- it happens. You don't throw away all the good b/c of one bad ending.

I have been watching this league long enough to know when a QB doesn't have outside pressure to win his job is easier. Look at Matt Moore 2009 vs. 2010 vs. 2011, or Henne 2009 vs. 2010.

 

[Locke]

so you post from a rumor site w/ no facts. Again I ask- when did the FO admit he might not be the answer?

Sanchez did produce his first 2 years and through much of this year but he and the team collapsed late- it happens. You don't throw away all the good b/c of one bad ending.

I have been watching this league long enough to know when a QB doesn't have outside pressure to win his job is easier. Look at Matt Moore 2009 vs. 2010 vs. 2011, or Henne 2009 vs. 2010.

You can try to minimize the report as much as you want. Fact is, it's there, and where there's smoke, there's fire. At this point, it may be a small fire, but it'll grow to an inferno if Sanchez goes into next year making the same mistakes he's been making his entire career.

No one is throwing away the good. We are acknowledging that the good was a product of a dominant running game and suffocating defense, same way Trent Dilfer won a championship. When Sanchez was asked to be a game manager, you guys got to the AFC championship game. This year, when asked to be a playmaker, he did just that.......for the other team.

Do you know what a confounding variable is? In a scientific study, it's a variable that can't be accounted for that could, and most likely will, have an effect on the outcome of an experiment. In this example, your independent variable would be this superfluous, subjective term "pressure", with the dependent variable being the level of his quarterback play. Assuming you could even empirically measure "pressure", which you can't because it can't be defined, how do you keep all the other confounding variables from effecting the dependent variable out? Simply put, how can you without a doubt say that the level of QB play was effected by pressure and only pressure? You can't, because that would be ignoring other things that can effect a QB's play like injuries, talent of his skill positions, difficulty of schedule, differences in offensive philosophy, etc. You are trying to point to a specific reason for something when you have no scientific ability to do so. My point is, you are trying to base the difference in successes of quarterbacks over different seasons on one thing specifically, and completely ignore the fact that there are dozens of other things that could have an effect on the level of QB play. Simply put, you are trying to apply a philosophical argument to a scientific problem. You can't do that...

 

[nyjunc]

You can try to minimize the report as much as you want. Fact is, it's there, and where there's smoke, there's fire. At this point, it may be a small fire, but it'll grow to an inferno if Sanchez goes into next year making the same mistakes he's been making his entire career.

No one is throwing away the good. We are acknowledging that the good was a product of a dominant running game and suffocating defense, same way Trent Dilfer won a championship. When Sanchez was asked to be a game manager, you guys got to the AFC championship game. This year, when asked to be a playmaker, he did just that.......for the other team.

Do you know what a confounding variable is? In a scientific study, it's a variable that can't be accounted for that could, and most likely will, have an effect on the outcome of an experiment. In this example, your independent variable would be this superfluous, subjective term "pressure", with the dependent variable being the level of his quarterback play. Assuming you could even empirically measure "pressure", which you can't because it can't be defined, how do you keep all the other confounding variables from effecting the dependent variable out? Simply put, how can you without a doubt say that the level of QB play was effected by pressure and only pressure? You can't, because that would be ignoring other things that can effect a QB's play like injuries, talent of his skill positions, difficulty of schedule, differences in offensive philosophy, etc. You are trying to point to a specific reason for something when you have no scientific ability to do so. My point is, you are trying to base the difference in successes of quarterbacks over different seasons on one thing specifically, and completely ignore the fact that there are dozens of other things that could have an effect on the level of QB play. Simply put, you are trying to apply a philosophical argument to a scientific problem. You can't do that...

Dilfer was a good QB, notice how many SBs those teams w/ those great D's reached aftre they didn't re-sign Dilfer?

He was asked to be a playmaker last year, he was more game manager as a rookie but still made big plays to help us get to the title game.

I can do that, simplify it by looking at the Matt Moore example. W/ no pressure to win he plays very well, w/ pressure to win he was terrible. Some guys are great when the spotlight isn't on(look at Josh Freeman w/ pressure to win for the first time this year or Ryan Fitpatrick) and some are at their best.

 

[Locke]

Dilfer was a good QB, notice how many SBs those teams w/ those great D's reached aftre they didn't re-sign Dilfer?

He was asked to be a playmaker last year, he was more game manager as a rookie but still made big plays to help us get to the title game.

I can do that, simplify it by looking at the Matt Moore example. W/ no pressure to win he plays very well, w/ pressure to win he was terrible. Some guys are great when the spotlight isn't on(look at Josh Freeman w/ pressure to win for the first time this year or Ryan Fitpatrick) and some are at their best.

Really. You're saying Josh Freeman's only problem this year was the pressure to win? No other factor came into play. Same with Fitzpatrick. The only thing that changed for him was the pressure to win, nothing else had an effect? I'm sorry bud, you'd be a terrible scientists. Absolutely horrible. Great politician though. Your ability to ignore most facts and find some great catch phrase to push is up there with Palin's "I can see russia from my porch" and Clinton's "I did not have intercourse with that woman". It's quite the talent you have there...

 

[The Confessor]

Really. You're saying Josh Freeman's only problem this year was the pressure to win? No other factor came into play. Same with Fitzpatrick. The only thing that changed for him was the pressure to win, nothing else had an effect? I'm sorry bud, you'd be a terrible scientists. Absolutely horrible. Great politician though. Your ability to ignore most facts and find some great catch phrase to push is up there with Palin's "I can see russia from my porch" and Clinton's "I did not have intercourse with that woman". It's quite the talent you have there...

Interesting.

What you refer to as "Talent" is something we often referred to as "ignorance" in the small Scientific community I grew up in... :up:

It's right up there with ignoring that certain inmates don't get along with other inmates because they are snitches.... That never ever ends up good..... Just ask Bruce King

 

[Locke]

Interesting.

What you refer to as "Talent" is something we often referred to as "ignorance" in the small Scientific community I grew up in... :up:

It's right up there with ignoring that certain inmates don't get along with other inmates because they are snitches.... That never ever ends up good..... Just ask Bruce King

I was trying to sugar coat it. As a scientist by trade, his reasoning is giving me brain cancer. It literally goes against everything science teaches. He would have a great argument if this were philosophical, but it's not. Football is an extremely scientific sport. Everything about it can be broken down into stats, numbers, and correlations. You can't throw out ambiguous terms like "pressure" and make an argument based on that. It's ridiculous...

 

[MD]

He was very good in year 2, he took a major step forward before taking a step back this year.

Last year our D and run game were both very inconsustent, the pass game bailed them out many times.



Bush is not better than Greene, don't be fooled b/c he put up some meaingless #s on a team out of the race.

OL- Jets(even w/ the RT problems)
LB- even
WR- Jets
TE- Jets
QB- Jets
DL- Miami
DBs- Jets
STs- Jets

I know we need to improve, where did yous ee that I said otherwise? I love when people make things up.



Moore had zero presssure to win, just like 2 years ago in carolina when he was "great" for a bad team then he stunk starting week 1 in 2010.

Sanchez stunk late in the year and wasn't good overall, it's a step back but he's not done and he has shown he can win back something Moore has never shown.

Dalton & Newton had great rookie years while young older QB sstruggled like Sanchez, Flacco, Freeman, even vets like Rivers struggled. It happens.

This was his THIRD season not his 4th/

when did the FO admit he might not be the answer? again, I love when people make things up.

He showed marginal improvement in his 2nd year. His TD/Int ratio was better but the fundamental aspects were the same. As for people making up stuff about the Jets being unsure Of Sanchez you need to look no further then this article that was posted in www.ganggreen.com

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...dly-unsure-if-franchise-qb-is-on-their-roster

 

[nyjunc]

Really. You're saying Josh Freeman's only problem this year was the pressure to win? No other factor came into play. Same with Fitzpatrick. The only thing that changed for him was the pressure to win, nothing else had an effect? I'm sorry bud, you'd be a terrible scientists. Absolutely horrible. Great politician though. Your ability to ignore most facts and find some great catch phrase to push is up there with Palin's "I can see russia from my porch" and Clinton's "I did not have intercourse with that woman". It's quite the talent you have there...

There is never just one reason but yes a major reason why those guys failed was b/c they played w/ pressure to win for the first time. It's a different ballgame when you are expected to win.

This isn't about science and I'm not a scientist, it's about sports. Don't overthink this, there are no secret formulas.

I was trying to sugar coat it. As a scientist by trade, his reasoning is giving me brain cancer. It literally goes against everything science teaches. He would have a great argument if this were philosophical, but it's not. Football is an extremely scientific sport. Everything about it can be broken down into stats, numbers, and correlations. You can't throw out ambiguous terms like "pressure" and make an argument based on that. It's ridiculous...

Are we talking sports or science? you may be a talented scientist but that doesn't translate into sports discussions.

He showed marginal improvement in his 2nd year. His TD/Int ratio was better but the fundamental aspects were the same. As for people making up stuff about the Jets being unsure Of Sanchez you need to look no further then this article that was posted in www.ganggreen.com

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...dly-unsure-if-franchise-qb-is-on-their-roster

He showed a big improvement, it wasn't about #s. if it was people would be saying how much better he is for accoutning for 32 TDs this season and career highs in yards, TDs, comp %, etc...

The "reportedly" part is from the same PFT article. News spreads fast on the internet whether true or not so this doesn't validate the other "article".