Was that 140 million really well spent? We will have to trade up and let all three guys battle it out in camp. If you feel the 140 million spent last year is a Qb away from winning it all then it is worth it to trade up. After the Lions We should be able to get or trade up for the second best prospect in the draft or even take a risk on a flier like Tebow in the second or third. We have young Qbs that are not able to play because of our win now attitude with a team that is not win now good.
This is exactly why they got Favre. For the most part the $140 million was good, everyone crapped out at the end. At 8-3 I doubt anyone was saying we should rebuild, it's always more clear in hindsight.
I agree but a Chad led team needs more breaks than Peyton Manning, Phil Rivers, Big Ben and Tom Brady and that is just the Afc Qb's. Unfortunately he plays in a time where three weeks in a row of breaks to get to the sb is just unrealistic.
Vinny sucked in 2000 and 01. Chad was drafted in 2000 to sit for a year and take over. Hackett was brought in specifically to put in a WCO that would fit Chad that Vinny never could run properly and didn't. Vinny was taken out in 02 because he was done at that point and couldn't run the WCO and the team was going nowhere with him. Chad won his first game on October 20th well after Curtis was hurt and after the bye week. I loved Vinny but he was never the same after the injury and he wasn't suited to the type of O Hackett installed.
You're jumbling a few things together. Parcells drafted Chad in 2000 for the future, Hackett wasn't brought in until Herm came a year later. I agree he was a better fit for Chad than Vinny, but nobody hires a coaching staff because the OC is a better fit for the backup or #3 QB who has never played a down. That's crazy. Vinny was great for most of 2000, remember we were 6-1 and the NE and Miami home games were only won because of Vinny. At that point his record as a starter was 18-2, once you build up that line of credit you're not getting benched any time soon. He sucked at the end and killed us in the finale at Baltimore, but again he was the one who also got us the lead. That was Vinny, very much like Favre. In 2001 we won 10 games and didn't lose the Oakland playoff game because of Vinny. He kept putting up points and Oakland kept putting up more. Remember we let most of our secondary go after that game. By 2002 Chad had progressed to where they thought he was ready, then he came in. At the time I was pissed but Chad played well right off the bat, which is the point I was trying to make when we got into all of this. We lost the first couple games, but Chad didn't need years to figure it out, we started winning games not long after he came in. Of course you do it as a team, just as we lost as a team in 2007, but the point being a good QB usually shows you something pretty soon when he gets his chance.
Manning and Brady are going to the Hall of Fame, but they also have been on better teams. Good teams that get byes and home games need fewer breaks to get to the Super Bowl. Even though Miami was at home this time, they weren't the better team. Most of the other times when we had him we were going in as a #6 n the road. The other time we were home we beat Manning's team 41-0.
I'm not sure what I'm jumbeling? Al Groh drafted Chad to take over for Vinny and Henning was the OC. Groh left Herm was hired and Hackett was brought in to install the WCO for Chad. Vinny while going 6 and 1 in the first 7 games went 3 and 6 down the stretch including 3 straight losses and threw 21 TD and 25 INT's a year very much like Favre had this year. Chad should have gotten the ball in TC in 01 but Herm lacked the balls to do it and after making the playoffs and getting killed in the one playoff game after another below average year by Vinny he didn't have the balls to start Chad in 02 until Vinny played himself out of a job.
The seeding with chad does not matter. The limitations are still there even if he gets a bye and Home field advantage. Even if the Phins had gotten a bye the results still would have been the same this weekend. Does not matter what round he plays in the blueprint is still there to beat his team. Take away the rush and make him throw. When you get to the second rd and above the teams get even better and are even more prepared to take him out of his game. Manning, Brady and the rest of the Qb's do not need breaks they just have to come out and play their game.
Fourth, I usually find myself in agreement with you, but there seems to me to be something to this argument that Favre might benefit from a full off season of work and prepping with the team, were that to come to pass. As others have stated he didn't look like a loser at 8-3, or by taking GB to the Champ Game the year before. It's possible the tail off in the last five, of which he was not the only culprit, might have been substantially lessened were he to have had a better off season last year. Regarding the OP, again, I am frankly somewhat torn. I know it's the style here to express a firm opinion and stick with it, but part of the answer as I said before has to do with what Favre wants, and the other big piece is who will come in and be the HC, and what kind of CS will the Jets have? So back to the OP and assuming Favre does not come back, the Jets will still need to bring in a new coaching regime that would be given room and time to groom a young Qb. If for whatever reason that situation does not come together, a vet Qb of hopefully some quality is the better answer. And if they go the young Qb route, right now I would have to vote, reluctantly, for Clemens. I suppose you could have a situation where Clemens goes into camp #1 on the depth chart and, without an official Qb competition, Ratliff outplays him and gets the starting job. I could see that - I just think there's some real downside to an open competition, particularly since whoever gets the starting job would benefit from getting as many reps as possible, and even more than that have the playbook tailored to their good points and bad points. Of course the other possible downside of the young Qb approach with Clemens and Ratliff is, what happens if neither steps up?
Matt Ryan was competing with who exactly? Joe Flacco started because Boller had a season ending surgery and the other QB was Ill. Flacco was the last guy standing.
Actually, that is right and for all three of them to be successful..well it has never happend before in NFL history. Rookie QB just suck. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/28544292/ And the more I think about this the more I think that a healthy Favre is our best option for next year. The caveats being that he IS healthy and we are still in a win now at all cost mode (which I am pretty sure we will be no matter what they may say when a new coach is introduced). People can scream and yell and kck all they want but it would be hard to convince anybody that a rookie, any rookie, would do better.
Nice, well reasoned POV, big blocker -- as usual. You're stating what I have tried to, especially the point that "giving Ratliff a shot" is not the same as declaring him the #1 option for 2009. The difference is, if you decide he's the starter now (which can't help keep repeating, is mind boggling and pretty much 100% certain not to happen no matter how many people vote for it here), then if his "shot" doesn't work out, the team is "shot" (unless Clemens comes through). Regarding FAL's response to you: What does this have to do with Favre? This is true no matter who the QB is, if you have a new system. Actually, ironically Favre is probably the only current QB for which there is a chance that this may NOT be the case -- the reverse of what you are saying. For example, Jags (BC coach) was GB OC in 2006, so presumably Favre already has familiarity with his game planning ...
There was no option for 'QB competition in camp.' As for the new system thing. In theory if we were to get a hot new young QB (HNYQ) they could learn the system then stick with it as opposed to teaching it to Favre next year then to the HNYQ the following year. You cut a year out of that progression. This goes back to my 'win now' point. Every year you keep Favre around is another year there is pressure to 'win now' because he likely isn't going to be here the following year. Not sure exactly what the relevance is but it explains a mindset of avoiding the 'must win now' situation.
Fair enough. But if you believe (as almost half this board apparently does) that Ratliff is the QB of the future, then that's not true. If Favre is brought back Ratliff is still here too, and he learns at same time -- although granted, a little slower, since he's not starting. But even if you get me to concede that ratliff has a high probability of being the QB of the future, your still not going to convince me that Jets wouldn't be better off giving him another year to develop anyway. By my count of votes in this poll, only 20% of this board thinks the 2009 starter at quarterback is not already under contract with the Jets for next year.
