I completely disagree here. Your bolded part was all the reason the team needed to support the perception that at the most important position on the team, the 3rd year Qb was not getting it done, and was trending downward. Nobody had been pushing Sanchez up until that point - how was that working out when he was getting worse? And once again I do not mean to defend Bradway, but the OP's point is that he did have Wilson on the radar, so I don't see how your second bolded statement is applicable here. Add in that the Jets entering the off season after 11 DID seem to think they needed a different approach. First they signed Stanton, which in hindsight they should have stuck with, but ruined that situation by trading for Tebow, followed by the ridiculous contract extension for Sanchez. What a travesty. Perhaps one can argue that the Stanton signing, if it stuck, would have argued against going Qb in the draft, even with a third rounder. And they did have McElroy, too. I don't know what Bradway's position was on Stanton. Of course at this point I would think 99% of Jet fans, whether pro or anti Sanchez, recognize that the Jet FO took the worst position possible in the post 11 off season - Tebow was not the answer and most astute fans knew it at the time. But they had to do something after 11, since Sanchez sucked that year. Either Stanton or Wilson would have been an improvement over riding with Sanchez and Tebow.
Right but this situation is that Bradway wanted Wilson in the 2nd instead of Hill. No team apparently had Wilson graded that high. Sure, Bradway may have been right but we need to discuss what was being looked at at the time not hindsight.
Problem with your position is that every team has bad years but the reasonable response isn't to start replacing everyone and especially a young QB who had shown promise.
You have to look at reality though. Mike Tannenbaum wasn't likely to survive a Mark Sanchez blowout by 2012. The roster was trending steadily downwards, the drafts had been iffy since 2007, the cap was beginning to become a problem, etc. Keeping Sanchez and hoping that he'd be ok with a bit more seasoning was the only play that made sense from Tanny's perspective. For better or worse his two defining picks as Jets GM were Darrelle Revis and Mark Sanchez and Revis was already headed out of town given the Jets cap situation and his demands. There really wasn't much else he could do unless Peyton Manning really wanted the Jets after 2011 and Manning didn't want anything to do with the Jets at that point.
I had severe doubts about Sanchez by then. I can't recall a Qb in the NFL who was relatively healthy but who regressed in his third year from a bottom third stat set in his first two years and who improved after his third year. And "replacing" is not the proper term here, since you would have been, at least in the short term, looking for a backup, not an outright replacement. You are misstating what the applicable standard should have been.
First of all Revis was on the Jets in 12, so put that aside. and Tanny DID sign Stanton. He was not all in on Sanchez, prepared to go another year with a player/coach like Brunell instead of a real player. The only problem is after they traded for Tebow, they had to let Stanton go. The perspective is off here, since the OP was focusing on Bradway. Mentioning Tanny does not provide the complete picture, since imo, once again, I blame Woody for the Tebow trade. Once Tebow was obtained, the Stanton approach went out the window, so I don't blame Tanny for that. I do blame him for the Sanchez contract extension, though - imo that was unnecesary, and burdened the team's cap situation going into 13. I have no doubt if Stanton and not Tebow was on the team in 12, that we would have seen him on the field, and perhaps have avoided that 6-10 travesty.
The value of picking a QB would only be as a replacement for Sanchez who you want to argue it should be obvious was in decline and serious consideration should have been given to replacing him otherwise the pick would be a waste for a bench player who never plays instead of a potential impact player that could help the team. That is certainly the applicable standard and why any fan is now arguing the obvious of wanting Wilson in hindsight over Hill - because he has proven to be a better starting QB. The team didn't need a back up for Sanchez in the sense of one that never plays, they needed to start filling in the holes in the skill positions, namely WR, which we were extremely deficient in.
You are contradicting your reply to me. If the back up in 2012 would have seen the field, and that back up would have been Wilson had we drafted him because it should have been obvious Sanchez was in decline, than Wilson would have been replacing Sanchez even in the short term. You can't have it both ways -- the claim that it was obvious Sanchez was declining but that a high round QB wouldn't have been taken to potentially replace him even though had we had a viable replacement Sanchez would have been replaced.
I thought initially you were referring to an IMMEDIATE replacement of Sanchez. I was not. An EVENTUAL replacement would depend, I think it obvious, on who was the better Qb over time. And if the younger player eventually showed he deserved to start, well, imo that's the way it's supposed to work. It is also inappropriate for you to refer to the #2 Qb as someone who never plays. More teams than not have to play their #2, some even #3, Qb over the course of the season. When you go beyond one season the percentages go up even more. In short your post makes inappropriate assumptions.
You just don't stop drafting quarterbacks. Maybe take a year or two off if you have a very solid backup under contract for those years, but whether or not the team is set at the position, the smart teams will keep panning in the best river you can find gold, the QB position. Drafting a QB in the third round is not an indictment on the starter unless the starter is problematic.
You apparently have never heard of hedging one's bets. You referred to Sanchez as "promising" coming out of the 11 season. Heh. I did not think so, so obviously there was something of a difference of opinion about him going forward. So, hope for the best but prepare for something less than that. Get a more competent and useful backup than Brunell. Would it have been better to get Wilson than Stanton? That's a different question. But the Jet FO was not all in on Sanchez, is my point. And if everyone was in agreement that Sanchez, as of January, 2012, was going to play as badly as he did that year, they probably would have cut him and gone high pick in the draft at QB AND signed at least Stanton, and whoever else they could have. In other words, I acknowledge there was hope Sanchez would play better in 12 than in 11. I thought that was unrealistic at the time, but at the same time I was not prepared to say there was no chance he would be better. You gotta play the odds in this game.
I agree. At this point, I'd like to see the Jets draft one quarterback every year for the rest of my life in rounds 1-3 until they find the right guy.
Obviously things happen during the season that you have to be prepared for but that doesn't mean you plan for it as a priority. By that logic the Packers should seriously weigh drafting a QB in the early rounds just in case Rogers gets hurt rather than planning around the expectation that Rogers stays healthy and the team would be better served with adding to another position that is a weakness. Wilson replacing Sanchez his first year any time in 2012 would qualify as an immediate replacement of Sanchez.
Seriously though- I truly don't understand why teams DON'T do that... it's so frustrating to me. The QB position has value that is head and shoulders above the other positions.. Time and time we are reminded just what a great QB can do for teams. Even teams with a bunch of weaknesses - they win because of great QB play. Not only that - the position has serious currency. Have too many good QBs???? that is an overwhelming positive not a negative. You can trade one to a desperate team and demand the farm. Prior to the rookie pay scale the only real argument I could see against it was that it would be expensive to continue drafting the most expensive position. but that isn't even a problem anymore. 364 days a year teams show they value the QB position more than the others and treat it differently.. Yet they aren't showing that on draft day, the one day a year where they look at things like "draft value" and "best player available" and "need" at less important positions...
Here is how it works for the average Jet fan. 2001-2014: any bad pick or bad season it was all Terry Bradway's fault. any good pick or good seasons they did in spite of Bradway This is just another reason why our fanbase sucks.
will you shut the fuck up already? I'm so tired of you derailing every thread with your high and mighty nonsense. Bullshit unnecessary crap like this. It's particularly worse this year because the team is bad so every thread with criticism (@2-8.. god forbid) you have to chime in with your "fan base sucks" comments. Don't like the fan base - hit the fuckin road then. No one is forcing you to root for this team or even read this thread.
stop being a typical douchebag fan and you won't have to worry about it. Our fanbase sucks and people are actually blaming Terry Bradway, a man who has been involved in the greatest stretch of Jets winning in the history of the franchise. do you not see how asinine this is? when I see BS like you always post I will call it out, sorry that offends you. stop being a typical whiny fan and it won't.
You just compared Aaron Rodgers to Mark Sanchez, and the Mark Sanchez coming off the 11 season. Heh! I think we're done here.
Yep I agree. Keep trying and upgrading when the opportunity presents itself, as you've said off loading and OK/good QB can be valuable currency to what is the most difficult position to fill
at least fuckin pay attention when popping in your pathetic recycled nonsense. This isn't a bash Bradway thread if you actually read it. But no- you just want to chime in with that stupid stuff. that's why I am particularly telling you to fuck off in this instance - even though most of the time you post that stuff you look like a whiny idiot even if it's remotely relevant to the conversation.
