March 9, 201214 yr Matt Moore is 2 years older than Sanchez. Matt Moor's career QB rating before last season was around 67. And the 2007 and 2009 Carolina Panthers teams won 7 and 9 games respectively, so only the 2010 edition was terrible. Sanchez is younger than Matt Moore when Moore finished his time with Carolina, yet has a much better track record. ANd Moore averaged far fewer pass attempts per game this year, while having a much more effective running game. Obviously other variables go into all that, but that's what the end result stats are. Wait... so we get to discount stats where the team was good? A much better track record? I'm sorry but despite the small sample size, Matt Moore did in fact post a 98.1 QBR in 7 games (5 starts). I've yet to see Sanchez come any bit close to that. And then this year, again, Moore posted, as a full time starter, posted an 87.1 QBR. Nobody cares that Sanchez is younger. They have the same amount of experience. In fact, Sanchez has more experience. A QB's job isn't just to pass the ball. It's to anchor an offense. Again, nobody cares who had much less pass attempts. They both were starters for the whole season (13 games is enough for a whole season to me...). Of course the surrounding team plays into the analysis plays into the analysis of the QBs play, which we agree on. I was saying you can't explain away Moore's pre-2011 stats by saying that the teams surrounding him sucked. Look at Sanchez's playoff performances if you want to see strong stretches of games. I'm not saying he's necessarily clutch, just that he played well there. And, conversely to Javy Vazquez, he happened to do it in big spots. /forum crossover reference. How can a QBs age not be important? I'm discussing both performance and potential/upside here, so I don't see how no one cares. And most Dolfans, including those here, seem to care a ton that Sanchez had very few pass attempts his first few years, claiming that he was coddled by a strong run game and fewer pass attempts. And it's definitely a relevant factor, which should discount both Sanchez's performances in 2009-2010 and Matt Moore in 2011.
March 9, 201214 yr Using QBR+ (the same thing as things like ERA+ and OPS+, placing the number on a scale where 100 is average), Sanchez has gone from being 75% of the league's average to 90 to 92. He was barely better in his third season than his second. He barely improved. While I'm aware of the stat, I'm not familiar with its intricacies. But does 92% of league average an "awful" quarterback make? It wouldn't seem so on its face. Given that that 92 was 23rd in the league, yes that's awful. Yes. Come on. That reasoning is completely circular. You compared it to ERA+ and OPS+, and a 92 would be below-average, even maybe solidly below-average, but not awful. Ricky Nolasco finished with a 92 ERA+ in 2010. He finished 80th out of 103 pitchers who threw at least 150 innings. You wouldn't say being in the bottom 20% is awful? Mark Sanchez finished in the bottom 31% of starting NFL quarterbacks last season in QB rating. If that's not 'awful', it's still really, really bad. If you want to quibble with the word choice, that kind of says it all. By any measure, he has been, at best, a very bad NFL quarterback. He has shown marginal improvement, but hasn't really ever even been average. You're hanging your hat on him being among the bottom third of NFL quarterbacks. That's your improvement. That's awful. The MLB stat should be properly discounted by the fact that worse pitchers don't make it to 150 innings typically. If he were anywhere near the 80th overall starter with 32 teams, he's definitely below average, but not awful. Read the post above this one. You're creating a straw man. I'm not claiming he is or ever has been average, and I've never claimed that. But it's an exaggeration to say he's awful, and it's unfair to say he doesn't even have the upside to become an average QB, considering his improvement (while his supporting cast worsened) and his age.
March 9, 201214 yr The MLB stat should be properly discounted by the fact that worse pitchers don't make it to 150 innings typically. If he were anywhere near the 80th overall starter with 32 teams, he's definitely below average, but not awful. Lower the standard to 100 innings and he ranks 101 out of 147. So bottom third. Lower it 60 innings, he ranks 185th out of 262. Still bottom third. He was among the worst third of pitchers in baseball by every inning count. You might not want to say it's "awful", but it's really terrible. Read the post above this one. You're creating a straw man. I'm not claiming he is or ever has been average, and I've never claimed that. But it's an exaggeration to say he's awful, and it's unfair to say he doesn't even have the upside to become an average QB, considering his improvement (while his supporting cast worsened) and his age. I don't really think it's an exaggeration to say he has been awful. He has ranked in the bottom 20% of NFL quarterbacks in QB rating for his first two seasons and then moved all the way up to the bottom 30%. That's still really bad. If you want to say "NOT AWFUL" then you're arguing semantics, which is silly. But he's been objectively a very bad NFL starting quarterback for his entire career. If he wasn't a first round pick, with the pedigree that comes with that, he would've been benched long ago.
March 9, 201214 yr Mark Sanchez does not go out with Kate Upton. That cannot be true. Why not? That video is hilarious, regardless. Ellen is pretty damn funny.
March 9, 201214 yr Mark Sanchez does not go out with Kate Upton. That cannot be true. Why not? That video is hilarious, regardless. Ellen is pretty damn funny. I was joking. He's the luckiest man alive. And yea, she's my favorite host. She always has me laughing.
March 9, 201214 yr The MLB stat should be properly discounted by the fact that worse pitchers don't make it to 150 innings typically. If he were anywhere near the 80th overall starter with 32 teams, he's definitely below average, but not awful. Lower the standard to 100 innings and he ranks 101 out of 147. So bottom third. Lower it 60 innings, he ranks 185th out of 262. Still bottom third. He was among the worst third of pitchers in baseball by every inning count. You might not want to say it's "awful", but it's really terrible. Read the post above this one. You're creating a straw man. I'm not claiming he is or ever has been average, and I've never claimed that. But it's an exaggeration to say he's awful, and it's unfair to say he doesn't even have the upside to become an average QB, considering his improvement (while his supporting cast worsened) and his age. I don't really think it's an exaggeration to say he has been awful. He has ranked in the bottom 20% of NFL quarterbacks in QB rating for his first two seasons and then moved all the way up to the bottom 30%. That's still really bad. If you want to say "NOT AWFUL" then you're arguing semantics, which is silly. But he's been objectively a very bad NFL starting quarterback for his entire career. If he wasn't a first round pick, with the pedigree that comes with that, he would've been benched long ago. He's been a 22-25 year old QB who has shown just enough flashes to keep his job, especially on a team with no other good options. But those circumstances are unrelated to how good he is or isn't. My arguing semantics isn't any less silly than your arguing semantics. This is fun, but rather tiring. This would have been a good debate topic, since it's a pretty close call. That's why it's fun, especially as one lone person arguing your side against 3 worthy adversaries. I'll respond to anything else thought-provoking, but I doubt there's much more in that regard here. Just about everything has been said.
March 9, 201214 yr Mark Sanchez does not go out with Kate Upton. That cannot be true. Why not? That video is hilarious, regardless. Ellen is pretty damn funny. I was joking. He's the luckiest man alive. And yea, she's my favorite host. She always has me laughing. I don't know if they really are, but Upton's hotness is keyboard mash worthy. KateUptoniu5bgrkeljhbgkljwhbo34uo308-j[gbvuisyaeutolhb 2kqwuv9a80pihg____f038y4t034utg-03_*T^*()O UE
March 9, 201214 yr Mark Sanchez does not go out with Kate Upton. That cannot be true. Why not? That video is hilarious, regardless. Ellen is pretty damn funny. I was joking. He's the luckiest man alive. And yea, she's my favorite host. She always has me laughing. I don't know if they really are, but Upton's hotness is keyboard mash worthy. KateUptoniu5bgrkeljhbgkljwhbo34uo308-j[gbvuisyaeutolhb 2kqwuv9a80pihg____f038y4t034utg-03_*T^*()O UE And she's only 19, apparently. That's so hard to believe.
March 9, 201214 yr How can a QBs age not be important? I'm discussing both performance and potential/upside here, so I don't see how no one cares. Because you're picking at straws there. Both have the same amount of experience in the NFL. It's not like Matt Moore is ancient. And most Dolfans, including those here, seem to care a ton that Sanchez had very few pass attempts his first few years, claiming that he was coddled by a strong run game and fewer pass attempts. And it's definitely a relevant factor, which should discount both Sanchez's performances in 2009-2010 and Matt Moore in 2011. There you go again trying to get your point across to me by grouping me with others. I never said that, so why even go there when quoting me? Like I said, a QB's job is to anchor an offense. No performances should be discounted, period. But the most important performance is the most recent performance, because that represents the current stance of the player. Judging their past, it's even (although Matt Moore has been deviant/polar and Sanchez has been averaged/consistent). But from the past season, there's really no reason to say that Sanchez is better than or equal to Matt Moore. Will he ever be? Maybe? I don't know. Can he get his sh*t together and stop serving up crap on a platter? Maybe? I don't know. Judging the way he's played in the NFL, I've yet to see any promising play out of him except for that one playoff run. Other than that, it's been mostly repetitive and utter sh*t.
March 9, 201214 yr How can a QBs age not be important? I'm discussing both performance and potential/upside here, so I don't see how no one cares. Because you're picking at straws there. Both have the same amount of experience in the NFL. It's not like Matt Moore is ancient. That's really nonsensical. So you would rate Aaron Rodgers' first full season on the same exact plane as Cam Newton's, even though the former was 3 years older and had 3 years to learn the game by watching and practicing with an NFL squad, just because they have the same amount of experience? Isn't there a reason Brandon Weeden isn't a very good prospect in the draft? He has the same amount of experience as some of the other QBs, but his accomplishments are judged differently based on his age. And it's not just because he'll have to retire soon; it's because players at different ages project differently. Just to be crystal clear, I'm not saying it somehow makes Sanchez's play last year better, or Matt Moore's worse, but rather it relates to their projections going forward. Age matters a ton in evaluating/projecting a QB. And most Dolfans, including those here, seem to care a ton that Sanchez had very few pass attempts his first few years, claiming that he was coddled by a strong run game and fewer pass attempts. And it's definitely a relevant factor, which should discount both Sanchez's performances in 2009-2010 and Matt Moore in 2011. There you go again trying to get your point across to me by grouping me with others. I never said that, so why even go there when quoting me? Like I said, a QB's job is to anchor an offense. No performances should be discounted, period. But the most important performance is the most recent performance, because that represents the current stance of the player. Judging their past, it's even (although Matt Moore has been deviant/polar and Sanchez has been averaged/consistent). But from the past season, there's really no reason to say that Sanchez is better than or equal to Matt Moore. Will he ever be? Maybe? I don't know. Can he get his sh*t together and stop serving up crap on a platter? Maybe? I don't know. Judging the way he's played in the NFL, I've yet to see any promising play out of him except for that one playoff run. Other than that, it's been mostly repetitive and utter sh*t. I can address your comment with part of the sentence when I make clear who the other part is referencing. I'm not going to make an entire other post just for that 1 point, and it fits in with the discussion, anyway, but it's too annoying to go search out the previous comments making that claim, although I know for certain they exist on the site somewhere. And you can disagree, but it's unreasonable to say that Moore deserves full(er) credit for his 2011 accomplishments without saying that Sanchez also deserves full(er) credit for his 2009 and 2010 accomplishments. I don't know exactly what you mean by "anchor an offense." Hopefully you give an honest answer, and not one that simply conforms to what Sanchez didn't do and Matt Moore did :lol As far as discounting performances is concerned, every performance should be evaluated in its context. Sometimes a QB deserves more credit than his numbers, sometimes he deserves less. For example, Sanchez (in terms of sheer performance quality) maybe deserved more credit than his numbers this year because of the struggling personnel, but deserved less credit the first 2 years (especially his rookie year) because of awesome personnel and a killer defense. I don't disagree with the last 2 paragraphs, except that I've seen more good performances, in my opinion, than you have in saying "it's been mostly...utter sh*t."
March 9, 201214 yr Anchor an offense? They're in charge of everything on the field. Peyton Manning is the best there is at anchoring an offense. More than just physical ability, but technical ability, QB vision, good decision making, play calling at the line, clock management, clean hand-offs, etc. It really doesn't matter if a QB isn't or is throwing the ball often. You judge them more on their ability to take the ball down the field. Of course that's very subjective and there is no fair measure for something like that. Y'know... if a team runs it every play and the RB has all the TDs, it's fair to say that the QB doesn't do much but hand the ball off. But in a functioning offense where everyone contributes, the QB is still in charge.
March 9, 201214 yr Anchor an offense? They're in charge of everything on the field. Peyton Manning is the best there is at anchoring an offense. More than just physical ability, but technical ability, QB vision, good decision making, play calling at the line, clock management, clean hand-offs, etc. It really doesn't matter if a QB isn't or is throwing the ball often. You judge them more on their ability to take the ball down the field. Of course that's very subjective and there is no fair measure for something like that. Y'know... if a team runs it every play and the RB has all the TDs, it's fair to say that the QB doesn't do much but hand the ball off. But in a functioning offense where everyone contributes, the QB is still in charge. I "feel" what you're saying, but it's so flexible that I could easily use that definition to say 2010 Mark Sanchez did a good job because he made the AFC Championship game and didn't get in the way, or that he couldn't lead the team but instead relied on a strong and frequent running game to lead a merely decent offense. Iono.
March 9, 201214 yr Author Think LoMo is ruining the Dolphins's chances of landing Peyton... Hey #PeytonManning let me know if @Peteypipes & i should start looking at 3 Bedroom condos in Miami #305Wolfpack https://twitter.com/...d#!/LoMoMarlins
March 10, 201214 yr According to Jay Glazer, the Redskins traded up to the number 2 overall pick. The Rams will swap first round picks with them this year, and will receive two first round picks in the future.
March 10, 201214 yr RT @AdamSchefter: Washington Redskins traded three first-round draft picks and a second-round pick to St. Louis for second overall pick …
March 10, 201214 yr I honestly wish Miami did that. I thought the trade was going to be something like three firsts, two seconds and a player.
March 10, 201214 yr I was just going to post that. Surprised Manning isn't going there. I really thought it was going to happen a few months ago.
March 10, 201214 yr The Redskins just traded with the Rams for the 2nd overall pick. Guess that puts them out of the Manning race. Three first round picks and a 2nd rounder...high price to pay. http://espn.go.com/n...k-st-louis-rams Edit: oops Repost...
March 10, 201214 yr 3 year, 54 million dollar extension for Sanchez. The Jets better hope he turns into Steve Young otherwise they are screwed.
March 10, 201214 yr Ehe Sanchez got an extension. Ehe. I just hope they got a cap-friendly deal, because the Jets have several holes.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.