Sometimes I feel like that, but I just hope that if they do take a 2nd/3rd rounder that it doesn't factor in any decision the following years for an actual good franchise QB. I feel like it's almost better in the rebuilding process to have a place-holder in 2013, and grab your franchise QB the following year after tanking. I'm not sure If I'm making any sense, but this is the scenario that scares the hell out of me- -Jets draft a 2nd rounder, say Tyler Wilson for the hell of it -Go with Sanchez, Wilson and McElroy... in that order -They suck in 2013 with Sanchez taking the majority of the snaps. Wilson plays the last 3 games and doesn't look too bad at all. -Draft in the top 5 the following year but bypass the opportunity to draft a franchise changing signal caller because of the promise Wilson showed in that limited sample size. -Stuck with medicore QB play with Wilson for a long time.... ughhhhh
Here's how I see your scenario, assuming it comes to pass: - Jets draft a 2nd rounder, say Tyler Wilson. - Go with Sanchez, Wilson and McElroy... in that order - They suck in 2013 and in game 7 Wilson takes over because the fans can't hack any more of Sanchez with the Jets losing. This would be just like Chad and Clemens in 2007 except that Sanchez gets yanked earlier because unlike Chad he built no trust over the years. - Wilson plays the last 10 games and the Jets get a pretty good idea of what his upside is. They definitely lose a bunch of games though because he's a rookie QB and the offensive talent around him is pretty offensive. - With a top 4 pick in 2014 the Jets select the BPA, with a QB there only if two franchise guys are in the draft and if the Jets actually manage to get into the top 3. - In 2014 the Jets roll with Wilson out of training camp and see what he can do with either the BPA on his side or a franchise prospect looking over his shoulder. Note that I'm not endorsing Wilson as the guy just using your example. The Jets could do worse than take a QB high in the next two drafts. It would give them more certainty at the position and would provide a prime trade chip moving forward if it worked out too well.
How about all 3? We had 3 chances, the pass to Hill would of iced the game. Stop blaming the QB for every issue. It's a team game.
It is indeed a team game. With individuals at certain positions. Including some positions that greatly affect the outcome, much more than others. It's not nearly as generic position-wise as basketball or soccer. To deny that notion in order to make a point, is just being childish. If it was such a "team game", then it must be a fluke that Denver became a top team all of a sudden. Or a fluke that Purdum (our Long Snapper, for those who haven't even heard his name) hasn't had more of an impact winning games for us. Football is played with snaps, which means every play is a chain of events developing from a certain spot on the field. The vast majority of snaps starts with the ball going from the Center to the Quarterback. Every single move the player with the ball makes, has an impact on the following events. It's called quarterback. Sanchez is the one with his hands on the fucking football. In a team game.
Haha - all of a sudden, you joined my side?! Please move back to your corner again, I'm having way too much fun finding out your way of thinking here Since bringing up OC Tom Moore, means pointing to Manning's development and ability. As in... Tom Moore having an impact on one player. Which would contradict your previous standpoint, where the QB couldn't be blamed "because this is a team game". In your quote there, correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost sounded like you think Denver became a top team partially because of Manning's arrival. But that can't be right, since that would support the theory that some positions are more important than others. And one single guy can't make that much of a difference in a 50+ man team. Right?
OC has been my point since Pennington. You are ignoring two very important facts, so you are either dishonest or ignorant. I'll leave it to you to confess. Both Mannings were raised by a pretty good NFL QB, to be NFzl QBs. Peyton had the advantage of a FO, and an OC. Did I miss a pertinent fact? They were ready at Pop Warner... Just curious....how long did it take for the son of a legendary QB, with a great OC and fO , to find playoff success?
So you're argument then is after ten years of Tom Moore, and a lifetime under Archie Manning, Peyton is too stupid to be a difference maker ..l.:rofl2: Please fell me you are texting from the bare or joking,,,,,
This is hilarious shit. Your summary and conclusion skills should be studied by science people, to be honest. You start off by wanting us to point out when Sanchez was worse than McElroy, while stating McElroy was responsible for taking 11 sacks in one game. At the same time, you're sticking with Buttfumble because he at least makes decision, even if they are forced decisions that might cause turnovers, since you declared that forcing passes is better than taking a sack (which you claimed can be considered making no decision at all). Then cval correctly points out that the whole offense was a pile of dirt, and then you jump on that train, and adding that you really can't blame one player/Sanchez, since it's a team game. Then you turncoat your own statement on how you can't blame one guy, into claiming that Manning was nursed into being that good... again, right after saying you can't blame (and thus, also not credit) one single person on an unit. So, now you've exhausted both sides of your own arguements, and left with nothing that even makes sense anymore. All I've been doing, is turning your own logic on yourself - and now you're trying to pin this big bag of brain dung on me... You, sir - are a class act. This has amused me to no end. I clearly underestimated the means of those, who's so used to being in disagreement with people, when I actually thought you eventually would see your absense of logic once you ran dry. But you clearly don't. Still was an amusing ride.
You can probably cross Moore off also...I knew he wouldnt come cheap. Several Dolphins people, including Ryan Tannehill, have reached out to Matt Moore, hoping he will re-sign. Keep in mind that Cleveland offensive coordinator Norv Turner is a big fan of Moore, who will test free agency to see if there's a starting job available in a situation that's appealing to him. But he hasn't ruled out coming back to Miami. Kyle Orton earns - on average - $3.5 million per year to back up Tony Romo in Dallas, so quality backup quarterbacks like Moore aren't cheap.
Agreed. Earlier in this thread, someone call this situation - the lack of QB talent driving up the asking price. I can only imagine how much Smith will ask if T. Jack is getting a contract worth up to 4.5 million.
Per rotorworld: EDIT: this is not on their page anymore... they have taken it down. Not sure what that means.
He was given a 500K signing bonus which was omitted in the original numbers. In all, it’s a $2.25 million package with $2.25 million in available incentives. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...on-numbers-left-out-signing-bonus-incentives/
Whether Jackson got $1.5 million or $4.5 million it does not matter because either way he is no longer an option for the Jets. He'll be on Buffalo's roster at least until the end of August. With his signing on the dotted line with Buffalo it will make Matt Moore and possibly Matt Flynn that much harder to attain, making it likelier that Sanchez's competition will come in the forms of Greg McElroy and a rookie.
Sanchez made the play to win the game, all Hill has to do is catch the pass. Hill does not deserve a free-pass. Hate Sanchez or not, he brought us back in that game and we should of won. What about the defense blowing a load and letting Brady drive down the field? So many factors play a role here, not just the QB. Patriots game wasn't on Sanchez at all. If we won that game, I think our season would of been much different. It's so easy to blame the guy that you see the most on the TV.
