I whole heartedly disagree,,,The O line did not play one single preseason game in tact and together. Even if they had it would take them time to gel and get cohesive , I think it would take a minimum of 4 games if not a few more . I have read your posts and I have seen that you have little or no problem with this O line and again I disagree but in the end I think the kid could have gotten plenty of reps behind the line once we saw what we had in them and they got their timing down ,,,starting him now is a recipe for disaster .
I initially thought the same as you, but have changed my mind. I disagree with some posters who say the OL will be the same at the end of the season as they are now assuming they all stay healthy. I think that once they get more experience playing together and in this new blocking scheme that they will get better and the OL will gel. IMO that's a good reason for sitting him, but as a couple of posters pointed out that right now the OL starters are all healthy. In a week or two, that may not be the case. Of course, they could continue playing McCown in that case, but then Sam wouldn't be getting any experience. You don't want to start Sam against one of the tougher teams, so these initial 3 games will be a good introduction for him. If the OL is horrible and he's having to run for his life on every play or if he struggles badly, they can always sit him. If he's capable of playing, you don't want to risk wasting his rookie season sitting on the bench, but it's tough risking him on the field behind a suspect OL too. I understand your reluctance, but in the end, we have to trust Mac, Dennison and the players. As several posters have pointed out, you can't; coach and play scared. Life is a risk. That said, I'm glad that you decided to post and will post more. What's the fun of sitting on the sidelines?
He played the preseason against defensive starters the last two games despite missing 40 percent of his starting o line. He didn’t get punished and only had one or two sacks. Should be even better with the starters back The line only has one new guy who hadn’t played together with the rest of the line and he is a vet. I’m not saying it’s a top tier o line, might even be middle to bottom third. But if we wait for them to put together Dallas or Pitts o line, he might be on his second contract. Where do you get your time estimates for how long it takes a line to “gel”? 4/5 current guys played together last year- didn’t they “gel” then? Do they have to “ re-gel”?
I never said what you wrote about waiting years or any of that but you or anyone else can debate all you want how long it takes a line to get their act together I base those numbers off of numerous players and coaches that I have seen interviewed over the years. If you think Darnold was ok and fine during meaningless preseason games and are ready to start him here and now ,,,,well you put the youngest QB to ever play the game since the merger out their behind this O line and I say its a recipe for disaster.Hopefully for all our sakes Im wrong
I saying we have who we have for this year. At least they are relatively healthy to start the season. They may not be healthy later this year at game 6 when you think we should start Darnold. If so, do you keep him on the shelf then? As far as “gelling”, which players and coaches are you “ quoting”? Were the teams and circumstances exactly the same? Were there rookie starters? Id hope that we at least agree that there is no specific time frame and that the longer healthy players play together the better they will play as a team. But when does the weekly incremental improvement become small enough that it doesn’t pay to wait any longer? I’d say that’s a coaches decision
If players have not played together regardless of position their timing will be off and takes playing time together to develop it, and that goes for WR playing With QB's and especially for O lines where the entire thing starts. I don't hold our line in high regard even when entirely healthy,,,,,I hate the fact the Beachem has no one to play LT behind him and that he might not be such a good player even without a bad foot that supposedly is healed now. You or anyone else can disagree with me about that but starting Monday it all gets real
Last season ranking are the reason we criticize the line to the degree we do as fans. But that the OL without our guards and the leagues worst C. Even as a bottom of the league OL our QBs, with Petty not having the ability to read and react to a blitz or to make the proper line calls they were hit less often than 13 other NFL teams. Add in this QBs strength is mobility and the ability to sense the DL closing in on him. He'll be fine and even if theyre as bad as a year ago and they allow Darnold to be hit the 14th most time, he will be fine. If he cant handle that low number hes not what we think he is. We're not talking a Carr like number, getting hit and hit harder back then compared to todays rules, over 75 times. And you havent addressed a real concern over what happens if the CS agrees with you and wants the OL to have 4 games to gel and in week three someone goes down? Put Darnolds debut off until he comes back? What if its season ending? You want to delay Darnolds development by weeks to a year to baby him by playing him in a bubble? Lots of rookie QBs get hit and develop, most do, most get drafted high by lousy teams, not by loaded, talented teams So yes, I have little to no problem with him lining up behind the OL we have today
Take the mouse with the points. I have it on inside information that the Lions are having a pre-game meal.
I don't think Matt Patricia's Patriots defenses were anything special. Their last two Super Bowls have to be two of the worst defensive performances in the history of the big game and last year's game was against a backup QB. I don't know how this guy got HC job. This could be a nice soft spot for Darnold and co. I'm more worried about the Lions O vs our defense.
Any player at any position can get hurt and yes its all hypothetical about when that could happen but putting any QB behind a subpar or questionable line ( that is BTW learning a new blocking scheme ) while not having all its players intact and practicing / playing together ) IMO increases that probability . I have read what you have written, you like the line A LOT = I do not like the O line as yes they did upgrade one position ,a very important one but the player is oft injured and the other guys around him are the same guys from last year that I do not value nearly as much as you do. I will be happy to eat crow and say this line is way better than I thought a month or so from now should that be the case,,, I don't see that happening. Im also on record saying I detest our Linebackers but thats another story. We will find out if Darnold is ready or not real soon but IMO they rushed the youngest QB in the NFL to play behind a subpar line with no game changers or go to guys to help the Kid because whether anyone wants to hear it or not the Jets and Woody and company want to sell tickets ----> IMO the kid could have easily sat for a while I have zero problem agreeing to disagree with anyone and all who feel differently.
So you want to put an old vet with little mobility, a relatively slow release and a second rate arm in because the OL stinks? I think that's not just cruel it's all wrong. Darnold won the job because he has a great arm, mobility, a quick release and has shown an innate ability to make things happen under pressure. That's good for the OL and the entire team. When you put an inferior talent on the field it sends a message to the entire team. Everyone in the Jets locker room knows that Darnold can make something happen out of nothing. They have to maintain their blocks run their routes because the team hasn't mailed it in.
No Biggs I want to put ALL of our QBs no matter who they are behind an adequate or at least a decent line so they don't get hurt and be protected. The Jets chose to field this patch work line , not me.. Maybe Mccown is able to see things a little more clearly or read things quicker right now than the youngest QB to ever play and who has never taken an NFL snap yet ? Darnold won the job few a few reasons and one of them at least IMO is to help the Jets and Woody sell tickets . I hope and pray Darnold does not get iinjured behind this O line but the the coach and GM and Owner and franchise will open themselves up to a shitload of "I told you so, what did you expect " if that happens !
i see no reason not to start him from day 1. what for? best way to learn is on the job. this isnt the NFL from 20 or 30 or even 10 years ago. QBs are protected and coddled like never before. if a young guy cant handle failure early, then he isnt the type of guy i want anyway and id want to know that as soon as possible
Nobody wants to see anyone injured. Guys with great OL get hurt all the time in the NFL. Watson went down with a none contact injury last year. There is no way to protect your QB from injury in the NFL. It's a completely fake reason to not start him. Nobody wants anyone to get injured and if that's really your concern the Jets should forfeit their games because it would be criminal to start Mccown.
If I had to compare his mobility to a present starter it would probably be somewhere between Eli Manning and Dak Prescott. Idk, but is it enough at this earlier stage when he'll be facing real defenses? The Lions are a good test because he can ease in without facing too much pressure, we hope. Good thing it's not the Jaguars or Bears or Vikings. It would have been rough.
We do have a new OL coach and blocking scheme this year, as well as a new OC. Someone posted a video about GB's OL coach and how their OL had become adept at protecting Rodgers and not getting called for holding. How did that work out last night? There simply aren't enough reps and practices in TC for OL (or any players for that matter) to get really prepared for the season and in football shape. Anyone claiming that there will be no difference in the play of the OL week 1 vs. week 17 (assuming there are no major injuries and no one lost for the season) simply isn't dealing with reality. It normally takes 3-4 games for OL to gel when there have been changes in scheme and personnel.
I doubt it. One game doesn't mean squat, particularly against a team that looked as bad as the Lions tonight. If the OL plays this well the next 2-3 games, then I'll agree they've gelled.
