Santonio Holmes: Why Jets Won't Make Postseason Without Star WR
For the New York Jets, what started as a dream season has quickly turned into a nightmare.
Since an impressive 48-28 win over the Buffalo Bills in their season opener, the Jets have looked mediocre at times, but were downright dysfunctional during their Week 4 shellacking at the hands of the San Francisco 49ers.
Now, with star wide receiver Santonio Holmes out for the year, the 2012 season is suddenly appearing to be a lost cause for Jets fans.
And for good reason.
That's because without Holmes, the Jets don't really have a viable No. 1 or No. 2 receiver on the roster, which won't exactly strike fear in the eyes of opposing defenses.
Since his exceptional day against Buffalo, Mark Sanchez hasn't been up to par, as evidenced by his line of two touchdowns and three interceptions in three games, and losing his most talented target isn't going to help his confidence by any means.
In fact, since Week 1, the Jets' only win came in Week 3 against Miami, and who was the offensive catalyst there?
Holmes, who reeled in nine catches for 147 yards.
In order to fill the void created by Holmes, the Jets signed free agent Jason Hill. Although he's been a decent complementary piece in the past with San Francisco, he won't even begin to make up for the loss of a former Super Bowl MVP.
Prior to losing Holmes, the calls for Tim Tebow to replace Sanchez had already begun.
Talk about a tough week for the once-annointed quarterback of the future.
At this point, the Jets have to be hoping their run game improves, because with no receivers with more than 11 catches on the year on the roster, they won't be intimidating anybody with their passing game.
Sanchez still might become a serviceable franchise quarterback for the Jets, but without a decent receiving corps, this won't be the year to make that determination.
That's indicative of how far the Jets have fallen since Week 1, and things got that much worse when they lost their most dangerous offensive weapon for the season.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?