I have a two-part question about the continuing development of Mark Sanchez as both a team leader and a quarterback. Seen game by game and season by season, how do his performances compare to the development of established quarterbacks like Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Ben Roethlisberger, Joe Flacco, etc., and is it relevant to compare his development to theirs? Is it relevant to compare him to other younger quarterbacks like Matthew Stafford?
Also, how does one gauge whether Sanchez is the team leader that many in the news media want him to be, let alone what the Jets’ management wants him to be? Is he that leader? Is he becoming that leader?Rocky Bleier, Brooklyn
These are all imperfect comparisons, but you can eliminate a few of these guys because Sanchez started immediately as a rookie on a team built to run and play defense.
Manning, Rivers, Brees and Rodgers did not start immediately as rookies. Eli Manning started later in his rookie season. Stafford has been hurt often so we haven’t had enough complete seasons to look. Flacco and Roethlisberger started right away on teams that were built to look the way the Jets want to look: great defense, powerful running games. Roethlisberger has become one of the best quarterbacks in the league on a team that now relies heavily on the pass (see its victory over New England). Flacco is still uneven, although he is surrounded by better receivers than he was for a few years.
Would I stack Sanchez up against Roethlisberger? Absolutely not. Is he more comparable to Flacco? Yes, and Sanchez gets extra credit because he has performed well in playoff games. But Boomer Esiason said something interesting to my colleague Ben Shpigel for an article he did about Sanchez’s third year: it’s time for Sanchez to be the reason the Jets win games, rather than the reason they don’t lose. That’s a substantial difference — is there any doubt Rodgers or Brees is the reason his team wins so much? But Sanchez seems to be trapped in the role of game manager. And the fact that the Jets, after their recent losses, have shifted back to the ground-and-pound offensive style suggests they still don’t think he can hoist the team on his back and lead the way.
As for whether he’s a team leader, that’s a process that usually takes place out of sight of reporters and fans. Can he take control of the locker room if need be? I’m not sure about that. In the recent losing streak there was plenty of sniping from Santonio Holmes aimed at Sanchez. In the end, leadership comes from winning, though. That’s the conundrum the Broncos face with Tim Tebow — people talk about his great leadership ability, but in the N.F.L. you cannot be a great leader if you don’t deliver on the field. Sanchez has to deliver — really win games when it’s all in his hands — to be considered a great leader.
Say the Colts end up with the No. 1 overall pick in the 2012 draft. Will they take Andrew Luck, or trade for multiple picks, draft another quarterback (to sit behind Peyton Manning for a couple of seasons) and a couple of other players to shore up the team for next year?
Justin, Quad Cities
You are asking what is going to be the question of the off-season, assuming the Colts continue in their nosedive (which I think they will). If they have the first pick, I think they will draft Luck. I don’t see how they can pass on him, or trade the pick. Most scouts and personnel executives believe he is the best prospect at least since Manning, and perhaps since John Elway. If you happen to be one of those people, you cannot pass on him. On top of that, Manning’s health remains in question — and it’s unclear at what point his health will be clarified. The Colts have to pay a huge bonus to him in March, so they will have to know with some certainty then what his future will be. But even the best situation for him is that he’s a 35-year-old quarterback coming off three neck surgeries in less than two years. That’s not good. So to me, the first question is do they pay Manning that bonus in March? If they do, the month leading up to the draft will be fascinating. Will Manning be willing to tutor Luck? Will teams offer the farm to get that first pick from the Colts? Would there be a temptation by the Colts to make a trade to load up to try to win a few more Super Bowls while Manning is still playing?
And don’t forget the unasked question: who is making these decisions? The first thing that has to happen in Indianapolis is that the owner Jim Irsay has to decide whether to retain Coach Jim Caldwell and Bill and Chris Polian. Nothing is guaranteed after a season like this.
Halfway through Mark Sanchez’s third season it’s time to ask: Do the Jets have a legitimate franchise quarterback in him? Also, how do you like the Jets’ chances against the Patriots this weekend?
Jacob, North Shore, Mass.
I probably mostly answered your Sanchez question above. The phrase “franchise quarterback” suggests to me someone who can consistently carry the team, and I don’t think Sanchez is there yet. He is being paid and certainly is being marketed as the franchise quarterback, and his draft position means he has to be that. Here’s an indicator: the obvious thing to do against the Patriots’ poor pass defense would be to put the game in Sanchez’s hands — the way the Steelers did with Roethlisberger. Will they do it? And will they be successful? If they insist on running, they are not attacking the weakest part of the Patriots. Now is as good a time as any for the Jets to get their franchise quarterback a signature victory.
I do like the Jets’ chances. The Patriots have not lost three in a row since 2002, but their defense is a major problem — if, as noted above, the Jets can exploit the pass defense — and that forces Tom Brady to be practically perfect to win. He has not been perfect several times this year, and in the first half last week he looked as inaccurate as he has in a long time.
Peter King of Sports Illustrated wrote that the Packers should be worried about their defense. They’ve made it this far, he acknowledges, but whether they can repeat as Super Bowl champions at the rate their defense is playing is problematic. The Packers insist they have only a few corrections to make. Is King right? How worried should the Packers and their fans be?
A.B.G., Chicago
I agree with Peter — it’s time to get a tiny bit concerned, despite the Packers’ record. They have made it this far undefeated because Aaron Rodgers is playing out of his mind, certainly the best quarterback play in the league now and arguably the best we’ve seen in quite a few years. But when they say all the defensive problems are correctible — O.K., it’s time to make the corrections and stop letting teams score so many points. If Rodgers stays healthy, there isn’t much question they should be able to score in crazy bunches. But in the playoffs they will probably face a team like the Niners, who have a good defense, and the Saints, who can also score almost at will. For example, we’ve seen how vulnerable the Chargers have been against other teams, but they went toe to toe with the Packers on offense. Suppose Rodgers has a bad day — it’s conceivable, even Tom Brady has had them this year. Inevitably in the playoffs, games get tighter and despite the tilt of the league to passing, teams that have good defenses go further. So yeah, if you’re a Packers fan, you might start to be worried about the defense. Of course, last year at this time, it was hard to imagine the Packers would even get to the playoffs and the offense really started to take off in the playoffs, so there is still plenty of time. If they improve in the next few weeks, though, buy your tickets to Indianapolis.
I’ve followed Joe Flacco and the Ravens closely over the past three years. Do you share my impression that Flacco has grown into a prime (let’s forget about “elite”) quarterback now that he has high-quality receivers?Wilgar, Washington, D.C.
I think Flacco was always a prime quarterback (if we assume that there is a handful of “elite” quarterbacks like Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Roethlisberger, etc., and then a group behind that group, I’d put Flacco in the second group) and yes, he is obviously being helped by the fleet of receivers he has now. That has been a shortcoming of the Ravens for a few years — they have not been able to stretch the field because of it. Flacco has a strong arm and having a guy like Torrey Smith able to run past everyone takes advantage of that and also forces defenses to back off Ray Rice. What you want now is to see Flacco be more consistent week in and week out. No more of those weird flops against Jacksonville. And you certainly want to see a better completion percentage than the 54.7 percent he is at now (that would be a career low, more than 5 points below his rookie year). He’s on a pace for the first 4,000-yard season of his career, though.
Is there something about Michael Vick’s playing style or preparation that is responsible for his inconsistency from one game to the next? Or is it largely because of his teammates, the offensive scheme, and/or opposing defenses? Does his long absence from the game play a role, or has he always played this way?Matt, Palo Alto, Calif.
Vick has always played this way. Since he has been in Philadelphia, he has actually been more disciplined than he was in Atlanta. He stays in the pocket more, rather than taking off and running. He is a dynamic player and you don’t want to harness that too much or you take away what scares defenses: his ability to take off. The inconsistency of the Eagles this year has plenty of roots but here’s a big one: the offensive line has been a work in progress and no quarterback, not Aaron Rodgers and not Michael Vick, can look good if the offensive line looks bad. Worth noting though: Vick is completing 62 percent of his passes this season. Last year he was at 62.6. Those are the only two seasons of his career above 56.4 percent, which was his high water mark in Atlanta. The alarming thing about this season is that his interceptions are soaring. He has nine already, after just six last year, and he has never had more than 13.
How does the N.F.L. decide how to fine a player for what it determines to be an illegal hit? Does the N.F.L. explain each situation in detail so fans can understand the logic? Ryan Clark obviously disagrees with the $40,000 fine he just received. Clark and Coach Mike Tomlin have described the details of how Clark tackled the receiver and they are openly stating the hit was legal. Again, does the N.F.L. have an obligation to describe its rationale?Eric Conrad, Canton, Mich.
Several members of the league office, including Ray Anderson, who is in charge of all football operations, and Merton Hanks, who works for Anderson, look at the film of each play and each game. They are aware that some plays need special scrutiny. They have every camera angle imaginable available to them. Then they determine the fine. The severity of the fine is often based on past transgressions (think of James Harrison’s escalating fines last year). I don’t think the N.F.L. has a particular obligation to explain its thinking to fans. It does have an obligation to explain what it sees that is problematic to players because the whole point is to eliminate dangerous hits. If there is a genuine disagreement among Clark, Tomlin and the league office about what constitutes an acceptable hit, I suspect there will be communication among them at some point to explain what they want Clark to do differently.
If a pro football player signs a five-year contract but the team can cut him without pay two days, or weeks, later, why would he sign the contract?Evinkeefe, Larchmont. N.Y.
What other choice does he have? The contract usually comes with a signing bonus, which is the only guaranteed money available to players. But this is how the N.F.L. has always worked — no guaranteed contracts because of the high injury rate and relatively short careers. It certainly gives the team more power, but that is why you see players and their agents fighting so hard for the bonus money.
The uniforms increasingly drive me crazy, with pants looking more like bicycle shorts as they creep up the thigh. I thought the N.F.L. was notorious for protecting the uniform? I thought I read somewhere that knee pads would be mandatory. Was I dreaming?A. Greenberg, New York
The N.F.L. wants to make more pads mandatory (thigh pads, knee pads), but players have resisted. They think, correctly or not, that it slows them down. Additional padding was not mandated in the new collective bargaining agreement, so don’t hold your breath for players to don more armor voluntarily — even linemen prefer to wear smaller pads because they are lighter.
No comments:
Post a Comment