The Instigator
comoncents
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
studentathletechristian8
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Mark Sanchez (#5pick) will have a more productive 2009/2010 season then #1 pick Matthew Stafford

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
comoncents
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2009 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,690 times Debate No: 9470
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

comoncents

Pro

Mark Sanchez will have a more productive 2009/2010 season in the National Football League then the #1 overall pick Matthew Stafford.
studentathletechristian8

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate and the readers for the opportunity.

I shall negate the resolution, "Mark Sanchez (#5pick) will have a more productive 2009/2010 season then #1 pick Matthew Stafford."

==============

Burden of Proof: As Instigator and Pro, my opponent has the Burden of Proof to affirm the resolution and prove that Sanchez will have a more productive season than Stafford.

==============

There is no way for my opponent to prove that Sanchez will have a more productive season that Stafford. For instance: Sanchez may get severely injured in Week 3 play and have to stay out for the entire season, while Stafford may get a hot streak and win every single game he plays. Sanchez would be forced to stay off the field and could not have a more productive season than Stafford. The point is, due to the general unexpected events of the future, my opponent cannot possibly prove that Sanchez will have a better season that Stafford. There are just too many possibilities that can go against Sanchez and can benefit Stafford, like the situation I just mentioned.

I thank my opponent for this debate and the readers for another opportunity.
Debate Round No. 1
comoncents

Pro

I thank my opponent for debating this topic with me.

In the NFL there is no guarantee of completing the season healthy, and cons angle seems to be a good one, but the same statement can be made of Stafford.
I understand that the NFL has an air of uncertainty, but that is never the intention of the player. My goal is to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, if both players go through the season playing all 16 games, Sanchez will have a more productive season.
(Players do not play to get hurt, so one must assume that they will play all 16 games)

Stafford vs. preseason

30-of-55 (55 percent) passing, 399 yards, 1 TD, 4 INTs 3 sacks
And two int came when he was playing against first team offences.
http://blog.mlive.com...

Sanchez vs. preseason

Sanchez 24/37 347 yards 3 tds 1 int 1 sack
Took over as starter in week 3 and did not throw an int.
http://www.nfl.com...

Stafford vs. Detroit's offensive line

The Detroit offensive line is better then expected, but Sanchez has a stronger offensive line, as evidence of the number of sacks issued in the preseason as well as more notable pro bowlers and years of experience
http://www.freep.com...
http://sports.espn.go.com...

Sanchez vs. wr.

Yes the case can be made that Sanchez does not have an established #1 wide receiver, but as stated above in the source, he will have a better supporting cast.
http://sports.espn.go.com...

Coach Rex Ryan vs. coach Jim Schwartz

Rex Ryan was an intricate part in the starting of rookie Joe flacco. Rex Ryan has the experience edge by witnessing how a rookie qb needs to be brought along. He prepared his defense week in and week out, on rookie Joe flacco, knowing what he needs to do to make Sanchez productive.
Jim Schwartz was the titan's def. coor.
Jim Schwartz won the first game vs. the ravens last year, when Joe flacco was just getting started.
After getting the supporting cast worked out, the titans lost there post season game vs. the rookie quarterback and supporting cast.
Argo, Jim Schwartz's only experience is not only inconsistent but proves he has no experience in the field of starting a rookie qb.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com...

Conclusion-
Matthew Stafford is going to be a good quarterback, he might even be the better of the two when it is all said and done, but evidence is piled against him for the 2009/2010 seasons.
Mark Sanchez has the better offensive line, defense, and coach with more experience.
This year he will be more productive.

I have provided enough facts to allow a clear favorite between the two.
Voters

Vote pro
studentathletechristian8

Con

I thank my opponent for his response and the readers for another opportunity.

My opponent quotes:

"In the NFL there is no guarantee of completing the season healthy, and cons angle seems to be a good one, but the same statement can be made of Stafford."
It does not matter that the same statement can be made of Stafford. As my opponent has chosen to affirm the resolution, he must prove that no matter what happens, Sanchez will have a more productive season than Stafford.
I have provided an instance when Stafford would be more productive than Sanchez, thus the resolution has already been negated. My opponent's absolute statement in the resolution has given him a heavy Burden of Proof that he has not reached.

"I understand that the NFL has an air of uncertainty, but that is never the intention of the player. My goal is to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, if both players go through the season playing all 16 games, Sanchez will have a more productive season."
If my opponent wanted to prove that Sanchez would have a better season if both players played a full season, then he should have stated that in his first round argument. Since my opponent failed to do so, I stuck to the resolution and proved that Sanchez will not necessarily have a better season than Stafford. It is both unfair and ridiculous to post a new restriction when my opponent did not bring up anything close to it at the beginning of the debate. My opponent's statement holds no water; therefore, we stick to the resolution and discuss the future possibilities in the season, without being a specific 16 games for each player.

"(Players do not play to get hurt, so one must assume that they will play all 16 games)"
One cannot assume that Sanchez and Stafford will play all 16 games this season. They both have chances of getting injured. It does not matter if players do not play to get hurt; there is still a chance for them to be injured during the season.

============

My opponent then goes on to list facts regarding Stafford, Sanchez, their teams, and several coaches. However, as these do not apply at all as to who will have a more productive season, they should be disregarded. In professional football, quarterbacks have tendencies to be hot for a many games or cold for many games. If Sanchez is cold the whole season while Stafford is not, then Sanchez will not have a more productive season than Stafford. Although Sanchez may have more impressive statistics regarding the preseason, we must take into account that it is only the preseason. Statistics in the preseason mean nothing to what happens in the regular season, which is the emphasis of this debate. My opponent cannot possibly prove that Sanchez will have a more productive season than Stafford, for Sanchez could get a season-injury or confront a cold streak that lasts for the rest of the season. The risks involved with regular season games (injuries or even negative media) may hinder Sanchez from performing, but may not have any effect on Stafford. Conclusively, my opponent cannot possibly uphold his Burden of Proof.

==========

Conclusion: My opponent states, "Matthew Stafford is going to be a good quarterback, he might even be the better of the two when it is all said and done, but evidence is piled against him for the 2009/2010 seasons." My opponent even admits that Stafford MIGHT be more productive than Sanchez, which contradicts his position and essentially leads my opponent to forfeit the debate. With my opponent voicing that Stafford might be more productive than Sanchez goes against the resolution. The word "will" in the resolution means that it will definitely happen without any chance of something else occurring otherwise. My opponent states that Stafford has a chance to become more productive than Sanchez, which gives way for possible opportunities and chances that are against the resolution.
Once again, the statistics cannot be applied to the regular season, because there are too many factors that can happen to either one of them that can make those statistics insignificant.

I thank my opponent and the audience for the debate. Clearly, my opponent has contradicted his stance on the debate and cannot affirm the resolution. I heavily urge a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 2
comoncents

Pro

I want to apologize to voters for having to deal with semantics that are irrelevant to this debate.

Semantics, semantics, semantics

The statement was posed, "Mark Sanchez will have a more productive 2009/2010 season in the National Football League then the #1 overall pick Matthew Stafford." The debate is formatted with my position being that Sanchez will have a better year than Stafford. Who ever takes the debate need to know that taking the position of con needs to prove that Stafford would have a more productive year then Sanchez.
My opponent is trying to dazzle you with semantics, but lets bring facts into an equation that calls for it.
My opponent does not have any facts surrounding his statement,
"I have provided an instance when Stafford would be more productive than Sanchez".
The position of "if" Sanchez gets hurt, is not a sufficient ground to stand on. This does not provide facts to his underlining know debate stance.
(Stafford will have a more productive season then Sanchez)

To claim that I should have stated a known debate understanding is nonsense. If this were true I should have stated an extremely large lists of "what if's"

Example being…
Mark Sanchez will have a more productive 2009/2010 season in the National Football League then the #1 overall pick Matthew Stafford if he does not get hit by a bus.
Mark Sanchez will have a more productive 2009/2010 season in the National Football League then the #1 overall pick Matthew Stafford if his mother does not get injured and feels he should be by her side.
Mark Sanchez will have a more productive 2009/2010 season in the National Football League then the #1 overall pick Matthew Stafford if the team is not involved in a plane accident to which Sanchez is ok… but his team is not.

I could go on for a long time, but my opponent does not negate the fact that no football player plays to get hurt. None of these football players are hurt right now. And proves "(Players do not play to get hurt, so one must assume that they will play all 16 games)"
So I hope I buried the semantics.
(Knowing that he will harp on this semantic in mere hopes of smearing what this debate is really about, I suggest that the voters move to strike on this silly semantic)

"Statistics in the preseason mean nothing to what happens in the regular season, which is the emphasis of this debate."

Preseason is the only thing we have to go by with these two players.
"Preseason means nothing" is an uneducated stance. Jobs are determined between players in the preseason.
To these guys and the true fans of the NFL preseason means everything.
Sanchez had to compete to win the job.
This statement just shows your lack of knowledge in football and how the game is played.

"Cold streak"
Is negated by stating and proving who has a stronger supporting cast.
The jets will be able to give him more protection, and better shorter yard opportunities to shake of you "cold streak" allegation.

"May hinder Sanchez from performing, but May not have any effect on Stafford."
Statements like "may hinder" and "may not have any effect" proves that you have no foundation in this debate and that you are pinning your hopes of winning on a "maybe".

In conclusion

I have given you numbers that prove my claim.
This dance and pony show from my opponent needs to be stricken from the record, as he has not proven the true position of con.

Voters, I have given you proof.

I have the most credible sources.
I have the more convincing arguments, as I have not put my hopes of a win on a "maybe".
I have the better conduct based upon staying within the guidelines of debating, not getting heated when instigated, and not allowing myself to try to convince voters based on semantics, but by factual evidence.

There is only one way to go here… vote pro… I have given you the numbers to support my claim in round 1.
I ask that you refer to that, as I have had to straighten out a mess that someone is trying to start in this round

Vote pro

http://blog.mlive.com...
http://www.nfl.com...
http://www.freep.com...
http://sports.espn.go.com...
http://www.pro-football-reference.com...

Vote pro
studentathletechristian8

Con

studentathletechristian8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
Wow Mark is killing matt in this rookie comp.
Posted by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
never meant that way.

sorry, did not know.

wish i could take it back... i was just happy for the jets, really.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
I would like to mention that it is poor conduct to attempt to debate in the comments section.
Posted by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
Week 1 in the nfl... another way to prove my stance

Stafford faced the NO Saints
Sanchez faced the Houston Texans

this should just be another way to show... there is always next week, but so far my research finds to be accurate

................................Detroit Passing
..................C/ATT ..........YDS........TD.....INT
Stafford........16/37.......... 205........0.......3

.................................NY Jets Passing
...................C/ATT...........YDS.........TD.....INT
Sanchez.........18/31..........272.........1.......1
Posted by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
Week 1 in the nfl... another way to prove my stance

................................Detroit Passing
..................C/ATT ..........YDS........TD.....INT
Stafford........16/37.......... 205........0.......3

.................................NY Jets Passing
...................C/ATT...........YDS.........TD.....INT
Sanchez.........18/31..........272.........1.......1
Posted by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
week one... another way to prove my stance

Detroit Passing
C/ATT YDSTDINT
Stafford16/3720503

NY Jets Passing
C/ATT YDSTD INT
Sanchez18/3127211

Sanchez not only wins, but def. a better defence.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Well, you were the one who wrote the definition. Make it clearer next time.
Posted by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
b/c you are trying to bring an interpretative meaning of the original question.

Semantics - a trivial point or distinction that revolves around mere words rather than significant issues: "To argue whether the medication killed the patient or contributed to her death is to argue over semantics."

that is what you are doing... you may not see it that way, but you are.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
So why criticize my arguments by referring to them as "semantics?" I am simply arguing the resolution.
Posted by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
but come on my last round was pretty good, wouldn't you say.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by alwaz4dam 7 years ago
alwaz4dam
comoncentsstudentathletechristian8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
comoncentsstudentathletechristian8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60