What was/is Sanchez's problem ???
Michael
than QB. IMHO, it looked like Sanchez's poor play cost them about 17
points.
With the adjusted Jets defense, they have some sort of a chance
against NE now ONLY if Sanchez plays a lot better. Is this
possible ??? What is Sanchez's problem ???
1. Rusty from not throwing for two weeks ??? (this can be fixed)
2. Was overly concerned about throwing a pic ???(this can be fixed)
3. Was just too jacked-up and adrenalized ??? (this can be fixed)
4. His arm was hurting so he over-compensated ??? (this may not be a
solvable problem)
5. He took a pain shot and that effected his "feel" for the ball ???
(again... if he is that bad off physically, this may not be solvable)
So... What is it ??? Mental or physical ???
Also... If he looks that bad early on next week, perhaps put in old
man Brunell before the game is out of control ???
Michael
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > So... What is it ??? Mental or physical ???
>
>
>
>
> > Also... If he looks that bad early on next week, perhaps put in old
> > man Brunell before the game is out of control ???
>
What about Clemmens aka...
JKConey
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:e2e9471a-b59f-40ef...@y31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
> The Jets were the better team vs.. the Colts in every aspect other
> than QB. IMHO, it looked like Sanchez's poor play cost them about 17
> points.
>
As I said, they win in spite of him most of the time. He just plain
stinks right now, and the OC continues to give him too many hard throws.
When he hits a tough throw late in games the fans seem to think he's great
in the clutch. Get real... he's not very good right now.
--
eric
> The Jets were the better team vs.. the Colts in every aspect other
> than QB. IMHO, it looked like Sanchez's poor play cost them about 17
> points.
The Colts are a beat-up team with 18 players on IR. I wouldn't read
much into the Jets being able to beat them on a last second FG.
> With the adjusted Jets defense, they have some sort of a chance
> against NE now ONLY if Sanchez plays a lot better. Is this
> possible ??? What is Sanchez's problem ???
Anything is possible. Heck the Saints could lose to the Seahawks.
> So... What is it ??? Mental or physical ???
Lack of aptitude and experience combined with poor coaching.
Johnny Morongo
His arm is still hurting. Try throwing a pass with a bum shoulder and
you'd feel the pain in the final piece of your arm motion. To
compensate, you'd stop the full motion a split second before release,
thus leaving the ball higher than the intended arc. I don't think
you'll hear this from all the alpha males though.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
i agree... looks the same way to me...
Michael
> Maybe, it has something to do with the 1st-half offense, being rushed as he was. Not to
> mention a sore shouolder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
most of the interceptions he threw over the past two years, especially
last season were bad decisions and not so much bad balls. i was
thinking since he was throwing nothing but bad balls yesterday it was
his shoulder. it looked like he was pushing off and torqueing a lot
more. perhaps because it was painful to throw with his arm and
shoulder. even the big pass to edwards on the final drive was high
papa.carl44
"JKConey" <jkc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:igfb0b$87p$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
His mechanics on Sat were not very clean at all...UNLESS...he was in play
action, then they were better. On all the drops he was really overstriding
and looked like he was trying way to hard to put something on the ball. I
hadn't thought of Michael's suggestion about the pain shot causing an
issue...but if it was the first time he used it...it could be....either way,
somebody needs to calm him down and correct a couple of things he was not
doing before...OR...someone is working with him and creating more
problems...that could be where all the overdoing things came from.
papa.carl44
"Johnny Morongo" <j.mir...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote in message
news:41197b1a-eb6d-4941...@j19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
You mean all the alpha males who only ever threw a wiffle ball?
papa.carl44
"John C TX" <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:52b51b0c-8608-424e...@y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
X-No-Archive: Yes
> His arm is still hurting. Try throwing a pass with a bum shoulder and
> you'd feel the pain in the final piece of your arm motion. To
> compensate, you'd stop the full motion a split second before release,
> thus leaving the ball higher than the intended arc. I don't think
> you'll hear this from all the alpha males though.
It certainly may be part of the problem but he has struggled at times
this year. I don't thinks he is as inaccurate, as say Grinch, largely
due to the fact that one or more of his receivers decided to drop
balls most Sundays -- remember when you & your coven of witches wanted
to cook Schott alive and discounted the dropped balls?. Anyway I feel
that he is a good thrower because most int's were mental & not
physical breakdowns.
So we are a coven of witches...and you all are the Schott up the Wazoo Cult?
:-)
The reality is that he has had games where he had difficulties
completing passes. The 1st half was one of them. He ended it by
costing the Jets 3-7 points.
Yes...but his difficulty Sat was from over throwing and pushing the ball, a
result of what Johnny said, plus he was really overstriding it all.
papa.carl44
And IMHO...your observations would be correct.
Michael
wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
i just hope if he is not capable of playing well that the coaches will
have the stones to put in old man brunell or clemmens. i give the
jets small chance to win with a good sanchez and zero chance with a
bad sanchez
JetsLife
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 06:59:04 -0800 (PST), Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Maybe, it has something to do with the 1st-half offense, being rushed as he was. Not to
> mention a sore shouolder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good insights. He was under pressure much of the 1st half. That can
really mess up a QB's game.
Johnny Morongo
wrote:
> "Johnny Morongo" <j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote in message
Hey, I resemble that remark!
papa.carl44
Get tough ! Suck it up ! It's never too late...yada, yada, yada....I know
a bunch of arm chair heros who listen to the "gunnie sargent" and then
switch over to football...even I can kick their butts and I don't even have
all my parts :-)
Michael
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
>
>
>
> > > His arm is still hurting. Try throwing a pass with a bum shoulder and
> > > you'd feel the pain in the final piece of your arm motion. To
> > > compensate, you'd stop the full motion a split second before release,
> > > thus leaving the ball higher than the intended arc. I don't think
> > > you'll hear this from all the alpha males though.
>
> > It certainly may be part of the problem but he has struggled at times
> > this year. I don't thinks he is as inaccurate, as say Grinch, largely
> > due to the fact that one or more of his receivers decided to drop
> > balls most Sundays -- remember when you & your coven of witches wanted
> > to cook Schott alive and discounted the dropped balls?. Anyway I feel
> > that he is a good thrower because most int's were mental & not
> > physical breakdowns.
>
> > So we are a coven of witches...and you all are the Schott up the Wazoo Cult?
> > :-)
>
>
> :)
>
> Johnny always wanted a role in Shakespeare. Act 1, scene 1 of Macbeth
> would work.
>
> > The reality is that he has had games where he had difficulties
> > completing passes. The 1st half was one of them. He ended it by
> > costing the Jets 3-7 points.
>
> > Yes...but his difficulty Sat was from over throwing and pushing the ball, a
> > result of what Johnny said, plus he was really overstriding it all.
>
>
> I did agree with your point about rolling out. I was half hoping on
> the two 3rd & 5's they would do just that. In fact I was hoping they
> would put Smith in & roll out to keep the clock going.
>
> Any news on Smiith?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
speaking of smith... if the jets run the option this sunday, i'd say
it will amount to a wasted down. the pats will probably be well
prepped for it. i'd also bet they are expecting the jets to spring
one on them and throw out of the option for once. as far as smith
goes, i'm wondering how much the jets will be willing to shell out for
a utility guy when contract talk starts. he a valuable and fun
player, but would they spend a lot on him ?
papa.carl44
And again you would be correct. The problem with what they do is how they
run it and the play selection...it is WAY too predictable, and a totally
wasted down...as is putting in Smith in a regular set to run a
draw....whoever designs and calls these plays grossly underestimates his
opponent.
Harlan Lachman
<2eb85743-7bb6-4be7...@s9g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
Michael <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote:
I won't debate your assessment (nor concede your point). But Brunell or
Clemens playing ensures a loss.
Better to put in Brad Smith and go Wildcat and sprint out passes the
entire game.
h
papa.carl44
"Harlan Lachman" <har...@eeivt.com> wrote in message
news:harlan-4CE9B6....@news60.forteinc.com...
Yes...go heavy line...motion and tons of power wildcat sweeps and sprints
with some counters, in a super hurry up offense.
papa.carl44
"buRford" <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote in message
news:96loi6d2vctlse4g6...@4ax.com...
> Every time they do wildcat, the O tends to go into slow motion.
> The hurry up aint an option, with how slow they are in getting the thing
> set up ;)
They did it right against Buffalo a few times, and then changed it and
screwed it up, they were even able to change personell against Buffalo and
get plays off etc. So, it can be done. I just think it is something that
needs to be done in spurts and for a series, not as a one play thing which
does take too long for some reason....anyway, let's hope Sanchez has the
game of his life and they don't need to do it.
papa.carl44
X-No-Archive: Yes
> And again you would be correct. The problem with what they do is how they
> run it and the play selection...it is WAY too predictable, and a totally
> wasted down...as is putting in Smith in a regular set to run a
> draw....whoever designs and calls these plays grossly underestimates his
> opponent.
and again you are assuming there is only one way of doing things.
Smith with a bad wheel ran the ball twice for 11 yards. I am not sure
how many times he lined up at QB maybe 4. For the year he averaged
7.9 yards per carry.
papa you may not like the look & it didn't get back on track until
later in the year but it was effective.
Any news on his injury?
___________________________________________________________________
I didn't hear anything more about his injury. Can anybody explain to me why
when something really works they abandon it? That is my point with their
use of the formation. The most recent example was the Buffalo game. It
worked, really well and could not be stopped....so they stopped running it
to the outside. It looks to me like most of the time those reads are
somewhat predetermined as to him keeping the ball and not pitching it...and
when it was working well to the outside they should beat the devil out of
it...till it gets stopped, and in doing so the D will do two things...get
tired and reveal some other weakness.
papa.carl44
> they could do it
> right. Unfortunately, in real games Schott can't think on the fly.
Someone I know and respect, a serious football person...told me they should
put the headphones on Brunell and let him do all the talking to
Sanchez...and call the plays.
Michael
wrote:
> "buRford" <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote in message
>
> news:k0npi6hqcvfg7b5t6...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:51:19 -0500, "papa.carl44"
>
> >>"buRford" <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote in message
> >>news:96loi6d2vctlse4g6...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 23:37:32 -0500, "papa.carl44"
> >>> <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>"Harlan Lachman" <har...@eeivt.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:harlan-4CE9B6....@news60.forteinc.com...
> >>>>> In article
>
> - Show quoted text -
nick mangold also tried to get schotty to give him the freedom to
change the play and he was rebuffed by shotty. i know this is getting
to be a bore to a lot of people when i say it, but schotty is a poor
play caller. i've been thinking that schotty has been getting some
*advice* since the miami loss. i really hope they get him out of
there for next season.
Harlan Lachman
buRford <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:39:58 -0500, "papa.carl44"
> That makes very good sense... seriously.
> I've thought for a while that Sanchez has some issues with Schott... more
> in-game than
> off-field.
> Did you hear that that last pass to Braylon, on Saturday, was Sanchez' call?
> According to Rex, Sanchez told Schott that Braylon was open, and he wanted to
> pass it...
> and Schott said something like, *go do what you want.* It would be really
> interesting to
> find out what really took place ;) But Schott seems to have such a lack of
> feel for the
> flow of the game.
OTOH, Chris Collingsworth said at the time, I would not be surprised to
see them go long to Braylon, having pointed out that he was wide open on
the pass before (right after the running play).
Maybe it was the obvious call.
h
papa.carl44
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:39:58 -0500, "papa.carl44"
> I've thought for a while that Sanchez has some issues with Schott... more
> in-game than
> off-field.
> Did you hear that that last pass to Braylon, on Saturday, was Sanchez'
> call?
> According to Rex, Sanchez told Schott that Braylon was open, and he wanted
> to pass it...
> and Schott said something like, *go do what you want.* It would be really
> interesting to
> find out what really took place ;) But Schott seems to have such a lack
> of feel for the
> flow of the game.
Brunell has the "calm" to talk to the kid, keep his head straight...just an
observation....the guy has seen what the kid is seeing.
papa.carl44
I think Sanchez and Collingsworth saw the same thing....the OC didn't.
Harlan Lachman
"papa.carl44" <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
And as Burf points out in his excellent observation, how rare is that :-(
harlan
Grinch
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:39:58 -0500, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>
> >"buRford" <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote in message
> >news:k0npi6hqcvfg7b5t6...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:51:19 -0500, "papa.carl44"
>
> >>>"buRford" <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:96loi6d2vctlse4g6...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 23:37:32 -0500, "papa.carl44"
> >>>> <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>"Harlan Lachman" <har...@eeivt.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:harlan-4CE9B6....@news60.forteinc.com...
> >>>>>> In article
> I've thought for a while that Sanchez has some issues with Schott... more in-game than
> off-field.
> Did you hear that that last pass to Braylon, on Saturday, was Sanchez' call?
> According to Rex, Sanchez told Schott that Braylon was open, and he wanted to pass it...
> and Schott said something like, *go do what you want.*
So what's the argument here?
That Schott *doesn't* listen to the kid, when on arguably the key play
of the entire season so far he tells the kid to run the play he wants?
Schott shouldn't have taken the kid's input? Listening to his players
like that is supposed to be a failing now? :-)
Rex clearly didn't tell the story as any criticism of Schott, so what
do you know about the exchange that Rex doesn't understand?
Or maybe you're thinking it was a fight-with-the-wife kind of do what
you want ... "I'm sick and tired of calling plays for you, call your
own plays, go do what you want!". Nah, I don't think that's
likely. :-)
I swear, some of you are so addicted to bashing Schott you can't help
yourselves whatever he does.
Big game ... critical play ... huge success! ... Sanchez said what he
wanted to do, Schott took his input and said, Go do it, kid! ... Wins
Game!!
God damn Schott screwed up again, how can he be so hapless??. :-)
> It would be really interesting to
> find out what really took place ;) But Schott seems to have such a lack of feel for the
> flow of the game.- Hide quoted text -
papa.carl44
"Grinch" <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:290df47e-00cd-4955...@f30g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Grinch...you are WAY smarter than this. You can read inference and actually
it takes some work to go the legnths to interpret it all the way you just
did. Clearly, the reference was to the fact that at a critical time not
only did the QB see what needed to be done, but the guy on TV did and then
the Head Coach seemed to say how cool it was that the kid made the decision.
When....a play earlier the OC wanted to go a very different
direction...apparently...ALL of this is guessing and conjecture. My
thoughts are only that when the QB gets a shot at some of the things he is
most comfortable with he seems to do so much better. And on top of that,
other players have voiced concerns about the OC not listening to
them...Mangold for example. No big deal..no blaming Schott...just an
observation that the QB, who routinely gets hammered for poor decisions
apparently made a very good one in this instance and saw some things others
did not.
Grinch
> The Jets were the better team vs.. the Colts in every aspect other
> than QB. IMHO, it looked like Sanchez's poor play cost them about 17
> points.
Yup. He plays an even mediocre first half (instead of passer rating
30) and they have a 10+pt lead going into the second half and are set
up to totally control things.
> With the adjusted Jets defense, they have some sort of a chance
> against NE now ONLY if Sanchez plays a lot better. Is this
> possible ??? What is Sanchez's problem ???
>
> 1. Rusty from not throwing for two weeks ??? (this can be fixed)
> 2. Was overly concerned about throwing a pic ???(this can be fixed)
> 3. Was just too jacked-up and adrenalized ??? (this can be fixed)
> 4. His arm was hurting so he over-compensated ??? (this may not be a
> solvable problem)
> 5. He took a pain shot and that effected his "feel" for the ball ???
> (again... if he is that bad off physically, this may not be solvable)
>
> So... What is it ??? Mental or physical ???
Neither. What makes you think there is anything wrong with Sanchez?
He's just being himself. This year he was third-from bottom in the
NFL competion pct, 54.8% ahead of only Derek Anderson and Clausen,
neither of whom could keep a starting job for the full year. That was
compared to last year's 53.8%.
Completion % is the definition of accuracy in passing. He's the least
accurate QB in the league who played a full season, two years in a
row.
So when the least accurate QB in the league for two years is
inaccurate in a game, you ask "What's wrong with him?"
People can trot out, "dropped passes", "bad weather", "sore arm",
"rusty", "fear of picks", whatever. For one game, two, three, four.
But for two years?
As if no other QB in the league has had dropped passes, bad weather,
physical problems, fear of picks to deal with. Hey, they almost all
have -- yet still have had six completion for every five of his --
that's 20% more. Think of what 20% more pass completions for the
other side means when you are competing to sustain drives, etc.
He is who he is. That's what you saw last week.
Will he get a lot better in the future? Maybe. The notable thing
about him is that he's still had fewer starts both college and pro
than many top QBs get in college alone, He's got some physical
ability and seems smart enough and to have a good attitude. If he
learns with experience he could get a lot better in the future,
maybe. We'll see.
But that future ain't now, yet.
> Also... If he looks that bad early on next week, perhaps put in old
> man Brunell before the game is out of control ???
You won't see Brunell unless the game is already out of control.
They've put all their chips on Sanchez. It's Sanchez or bust.
Grinch
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
>
> > The Jets were the better team vs.. the Colts in every aspect other
> > than QB. IMHO, it looked like Sanchez's poor play cost them about 17
> > points.
>
> stinks right now, and the OC continues to give him too many hard throws.
> When he hits a tough throw late in games the fans seem to think he's great
> in the clutch. Get real... he's not very good right now.
You got it all correct. He's the least accurate QB two years in a
row. When the opposition's QBs hit 6 passes for every 5 your's does
you are at a serious disadvantage, week in, week out.
Then when he occassionally hits a few in a row some people say "wow,
that's how good he *really* is, if he's not that good all the time it
must be somebody else's fault" (and we know who somebody else is).
Does he look sometimes like he *could* be good? Sure.
But I remember when Browning Nagle had Jets fans drooling over how
good he looked like he *could* be. And Clemens after his first
game against the Ravens had people saying "Hey, he really looks like
he *could* be good". The list of could-be-goods is endless.
But that's not being good now.
Trivia fact: Bust that he was, Browning Nagle in his first start for
the Jets threw for 366 yards. In two years of starting Sanchez hasn't
come close to that yet.
Grinch
wrote:
> "Grinch" <oldna...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
---
> Grinch...you are WAY smarter than this.
Aw, we were agreeing on so much for so long there, it had to end.
I 'm pretty sure I'm not smarter than that.
And Burf is on my side on this. :-)
> You can read inference and actually
> it takes some work to go the legnths to interpret it all the way you just
> did. Clearly, the reference was to the fact that at a critical time not
> only did the QB see what needed to be done, but the guy on TV did and then
> the Head Coach seemed to say how cool it was that the kid made the decision.
Good. I say that's cool too.
> When....a play earlier the OC wanted to go a very different
> direction...apparently...ALL of this is guessing and conjecture.
OK, on a different down the OC wanted something very different ...
apparently ... by guessing and conjecture.
Which means maybe not.
I thought somebody was drawing some conclusion from the above, maybe
about the OC, but I had to be wrong -- because who would judge the job
a person is doing on the basis of all guessing and conjecture maybe/
maybe not?
See how smart I'm not! I've got to apologize.
>My thoughts are only that when the QB gets a shot at some of the things he is
> most comfortable with he seems to do so much better.
We're agreeing again. Watch out...
> And on top of that,
> other players have voiced concerns about the OC not listening to
> them...Mangold for example.
Well, a lot of famous coaches have been known for imposing play
calling on their QBs that the QBs didn't like, thinking egotistically
that they, the coaches, actually knew best. Paul Brown, Tom Landry...
> No big deal..no blaming Schott...just an
> observation that the QB, who routinely gets hammered for poor decisions
> apparently made a very good one in this instance and saw some things others
> did not.
But as Schott listened to the kid and went with the play the kid
wanted -- and an aggressive play in a critical situation it was, too
-- we can safely say he is no Paul Brown or Tom Landry.
Whether that is good or bad I don't know, I'm confused now. You guys
will have to straighten that out for yourselves.
Grinch
> There is no argument, just a mere statement of fact.
> What you read into it, that's where your *stuff* comes in.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >That Schott *doesn't* listen to the kid, when on arguably the key play
> >of the entire season so far he tells the kid to run the play he wants?
>
> >Schott shouldn't have taken the kid's input? Listening to his players
> >like that is supposed to be a failing now? :-)
>
> >Rex clearly didn't tell the story as any criticism of Schott, so what
> >do you know about the exchange that Rex doesn't understand?
>
> >Or maybe you're thinking it was a fight-with-the-wife kind of do what
> >you want ... "I'm sick and tired of calling plays for you, call your
> >own plays, go do what you want!". Nah, I don't think that's
> >likely. :-)
>
> >I swear, some of you are so addicted to bashing Schott you can't help
> >yourselves whatever he does.
>
> chime in that you don't get it. That is correct... you don't get it. So, either make an
> effort to actually follow what people are saying, or just let it go... you'll never get
> it, if you haven't yet.
> It's like during the game the other day, I made statements about our offense in the first
> half - - what I thought they shoulda been doing. You go off with your stats, etc...
> arguing that everything was Sanchez fault. Not getting that if Sanchez was sucking, why
> did Schott continue to have Sanchez passing? That made sense to you?
Well geeze, Burf, it wasn't just *me*.
E.g., here's from FOers commentary on the game:
"Yay! Mark Sanchez ends their last drive of the first half with three
straight overthrows, each of which would have been a touchdown if it
had been on target, and the last of which was a pick."
So what you're telling me is that when an NFL QB -- a two-year
starter, not a naif any more -- who is *in the red zone* has three TD
passes set up for him, misses all three, and instead thows a pick on
the third try ... it's the OC's fault for not calling enough runs?
Hello??
And when I criticize that QB's above performance, you get angry at me
for not realizing it was really the OC who screwed up, because he
tried to call open TD passes in the red zone "while the QB was sucking
like that" as the QB indeed compiled a rating of 30?
Well, if my saying that peeved you this is going to cheese you off
outright:
When an O is in the other team's red zone, and its OC sees a TD pass
opportunity, he is *supposed* to call it. That is his job! This is
the pros.
And if it doesn't work because a player screws it up, but he sees
another one, he is supposed to call that too. And if that one
doesn't work because a player screws it up again, but he sees a third
one, he is supposed to call that one too! That is *good, good, good*
While if the player who screws up the one open short TD pass, then the
next open short TD pass, then the thrid open short TD pass by terrible
pick, is the QB, that is *bad, bad, bad*
Simple: OC calls three TD passes, that's good! good! good! "Good job
OC!!" QB on those three passes goes incomplete, incomplete,
interception, that's bad! bad! bad! "You sucked, QB! You didn't do
your job"
This is the NFL. Any kind of pro QB is supposed to complete at least
one of these three passes -- and *not* to the other team!
How many millions of dollars is Sanchez being paid?
Now if you are really saying that Schott screwed up because Sanchez is
*so bad* that Schott has to "protect him" in the red zone by ***not
calling open TD passes***, because Sanchez will only screw them up,
just like he did, compiling a rating of 30(!) for the half as he did,
if he doesn't rush instead ... if you are saying Sanchez is THAT
TERRIBLE....
Then hell, the Jets Bain Trust should do what Papa and I were talking
about, go right to the option full time. Tanny should put a call in
to Elway in Denver. He and Fox don't look like the kind who are
attracted to Tebow. Tanny could probably trade Sanchez to them for
Tebow straight up -- they don't have any other "regular" QB, they'd
probably jump at it.
Make lemonade out of the lemon!
Rex and Schott clearly both are open to the option ... Tebow is a
name who would get a lot of publicity for the team just as Woody
likes ... The running game sure would be improved ... Considering
Sanchez's 53% two-year completion rate, he's the one QB Tebow might be
able to out-pass straight up ... and if Sanchez is really as terrible
as you say, so the OC must protect him from attempting open TD passes
in the red zone, then the passing game would *have* to be improved!
Win-Win-Win-Win.
Let's really bring back the Single Wing!
> In the end, when the Jets started doing in the 2nd half, exactly what I had stated they
> should've done in the first half... voila, we scored, we controlled the clock... & we won.
>
> You see... like always, it had nothing to do with some Schott gremlins I have... it was
> all about disagreeing with what Schott was doing, which was ineffective & wrong, on so
> many levels. It was all about actually winning the game, as opposed to throwing another
> one away.
>
>
>
>
>
> >Big game ... critical play ... huge success! ... Sanchez said what he
> >wanted to do, Schott took his input and said, Go do it, kid! ... Wins
> >Game!!
>
> >God damn Schott screwed up again, how can he be so hapless??. :-)
>
> >> It would be really interesting to
> >> find out what really took place ;) But Schott seems to have such a lack of feel for the
> >> flow of the game.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
papa.carl44
---
Which means maybe not.
Hey...I was watching The NFL Channel the other night and they had the sound
bite from the game...at the point where Sanchez was with Schott on the
sideline making his case it was Schott who turned to Rex and asked if they
wanted to get into better field goal position...he asked if they should run
it...Rex answered "Yes...run it or pass it I don't care...." And the pasing
part seemed to be when he looked at Sanchez...I think what we see here is
Rex makes a lot of the decisions or Schott at least asks him what he wants
to do in a critical situation and Rex had enough faith in Sanchez to go with
that play. And...it was a damn big play, it was a great choice, and Braylon
made on Hell of a catch...that was very big time. I can't even really
criticize the high throw, because Braylon was the only one going to come
down with it there. We should not foget the quality of a play like that by
ALL involved.