#1, stop w/ the cursing. it makes you look even worse than usual. #2, I understand what the thread is about but the majority on this board are always bashing Bradway as if this season is his fault. He was bashed when he was GM, bashed now but yet through all the success has never gotten any credit. That sums up the mind of the average fan and I'm sick of these nitwits.
No I didn't compare them, I applied the dynamic you brought up as a logical practice. If it was logical it would be equally as applicable to the Packers as the Jets regardless of the quarterback. We are only done here if you are taking about your Strawman which was not what I said or are admitting your position is illogical and dependent on narrow application. More likely you are trying to bail out of the discussion because I pointed out the flaw in your suggestion and are trying to save face by distracting with the Strawman of comparing Rogers and Sanchez which I did not do. I applied your argument to the Packers. If the argument doesn't work with them then the argument is flawed.
Not at all. I think you have made a series of baseless assumptions and have attempted but failed to indicate how come the Jets should have not considered drafting a Qb as Sanchez entered his fourth season. (To be clear I do acknowledge teh Jets might have felt such move was redundant in light of the temporary move to bring in Stanton, but that was not your argument.) In so doing you also have said baseless things like Sanchez was at the time generally viewed as "promising", that the Jets had more pressing needs than at backup Qb and grooming a possible replacement for him, that backup Qb's do not see the field and hence are unimportant, that it would be equally logical for the Packers to consider using a high pick now as it was for hte Jets to do so following the 11 season, and otherwise are being obstinate and doing nothing more than repackaging your same tired arguments. So I got bored with you, feeling you are not going to concede the obvious. Sure, you are entitled to your opinion, as I don't need to tell you. the most you have in that regard is that you believe that Sanchez at that point was not someone who the Jets should have been worried about, wither short or medium term. But that was not a universally held view at the time, and over time it is clear it was the wrong view. Anyway, keep to your opinions. But I am here entitled to declare victory and move on. Have a nice day.
No, I stated the basis for not drafting a QB -- because drafting other positions was more valuable. I stated it on several occasions. Your boredom would appear to be a result of your own comprehension disabilities and not a weakness of my position. And there is nothing baseless about my position that the organization considered Sanchez promising at that point considering they extended his contract and continued to start him. Your attempt to dispute that would be baseless. Whether the Jets were wrong is irrelevant it only matters whether their actions support the claim. I didn't repackage any argument in regards to your "hedge your bet" argument. I simply showed how it isn't common practice and therefore not something the Jets could reasonably be criticized for, but then you haven't shown a propensity for reason in this exchange. Nobody is distracted from your weak arguments by your hollow declaration of victory.
You have not established error in a single point I have made. But that doesn't count for anything in your world. Go ahead with personal insults. Those are really winning arguments. So let's try a different tack: Yes, you're right. You win. Obstinate Poster of the Day. Congratulations.
Why does anyone bother to argue with Pud Knocker? He's proven over a period of a decade to know nothing about football. All he cares about is improving his "debating" skills, and he has improved about as much as the level of Arizona water tables. Not worth the effort.
There were no personal attacks but claiming so provides you a convenient excuse not to address that I dispute each of your claims.
Jet, I reread all your posts. Nope, didn't find a single one where you countered any of my arguments. And of course a number of other posters disagreed with your basic point that the Jets would have been stupid to look beyond "promising" Mark Sanchez. At it's core, however, this discussion is really a simple discussion of drafting philosophy when it comes to the Qb position, where we take different positions. The sides are clear, and apparently you are not willing to reconsider your position. You want to count that as a win, and what I may think will not change that. Others here have also weighed in. It is what it is. It's not the only subject worth talking about here.
Then other posters who disagreed are equally as wrong because my position is supported by the philosophies that are actually practiced in the NFL. Whether history has proven that the Jets were wrong to being committed to Sanchez as the franchise QB is irrelevant to the fact that they were committed to Sanchez as the franchise QB after his third year which resulted in 2 AFCCG appearances. Those are simply the facts that I have stated. Additionally, I have stated you don't draft a backup QB in the second round with a young franchise QB you are committed to because you use those high picks to build the team around him. Actual NFL practices support this very assertion. Please name all the teams who have a 1st round franchise QB they are committed to that also drafted a QB to back him up in the 2nd round within his first three years. It is such an obvious and common practice that the list should be huge. Because that is what we are talking about -- drafting a back up QB in the second round with a third year franchise 1st round QB the team is committed to. Whether the Jets should have been ready to give up on Sanchez after year three is irrelevant. The discussion is based on the fact that they weren't ready to give up on him and drafted accordingly to that.
"I'd ignore my scouting too if one year removed from back to back championship games when we were invested in Sanchez he was advocating drafting another QB." The foregoing quote is from your first post on this thread, at post 4. This is the post you made that drew comments from others, and later posts of yours following up on it drew my initial response. The bolded parts above indicate you are assuming the Jets, following the 11 season, were in effect saying disregard Sanchez's shit performance in 11 because, after all, he "resulted" in two Champ game appearances. Very interesting choice of word, there. Resulted. Does that mean caused, as I believe you implied? Or just that the overall roster, on which he belonged, made it to CHamp games? If the reading of the organization at the time, after the 11 season, was not only that the 11 season performance was in effect irrelevant, but that Sanchez CAUSED the Jets to go to two champ games, that would be a highly dubious assessment. I was not the only one who did not credit Sanchez for any such accomplishment. As far as commitment goes in any practical sense, the Jets were committed to Sanchez as they came out of 11 only in the sense that he had one year remaining on his contract that was guaranteed. THis meant that he was somewhat more unlikely to get cut than if he had no guaranteed years left, but that's the only real commitment they had to him. Your second bolded quote is therefore irrelevant, since the Jets SHOULD NOT have been committed to Sanchez in the manner you mean, and of course you ignore that the Jets got rid of the illusory backup of Brunell, first signed Stanton, and then traded for Tebow, with the Tebow trade intended to show the Jets were not as committed to Sanchez as you contend. In fact the Jet FO was so concerned that Sanchez would, reasonably, view the Tebow trade as a threat to his status on the team, that they extended his contract. Sure, that extension was an extension of their commitment to Sanchez, but two things need to be said about it. It would not have been made but for the Tebow trade, and also it was the single worst move Tanny made other than trading up for and drafting Sanchez in the first place. So, looking for other NFL teams who were "committed" to their Qb is a false attempt at analogy. The Jets were not committed to him in the manner you suggest, and should not have been in any event. In short we are talking about two different things. You are trying to describe a team "committed" to a Qb who just completed his third year, with that third year performance having been properly disregarded, and instead the assessment of him being based on the notion that he CAUSED the Jets to go to two champ games. I am talking about a Qb who sucked in 11 and was only on a team that had gone to the champ games despite his play, not because of it, who decided they needed a real backup instead of Brunell. The Jets entered the off season after 11 deciding they would NOT leave the backup Qb situation as it was. Yes, they attempted to address the situatoin other than by drafting a rookie Qb. But that was a mere choice of approach. There was nothing about the situation that required they not go Qb in the draft that year.
Wasn't Brunell 40? lol. I mean cutting a 40 yr old and acquiring a backup doesn't mean you aren't committed to the starter.
Are you trolling or purposefully and dishonestly misquoting me? You can't take my quote that the seasons resulted in the championship game appearances, which he was certainly a part of and partially responsible for, and attempt to claim I said "he" resulted in those games as if I was attributing the season success solely or majorly to him. Not what I said and it can't reasonably interpreted as such. Address what I said and I'll discuss it with you. Don't create bullshit straw mans. My statement was extremely specific and did not remotely intimate Sanchez was the primary reason for that success and he didn't need to be for the organization to remain committed to him. Nothing interesting at all in the use of resulting how I used it and no interpretation needed to understand what I said unless you are stretching to defend a weak argument against it. We are not talking about your opinion we are talking about what was the Jets direction and opinion was. And since in no way did I claim Sanchez caused the Jets in any more than being successful enough to get them there as a young and learning QB all you are doing is debating your own Strawman not my argument. Again, let me know when you want to discuss what I said not argue with yourself. The technical commitment from the contractual situation is again irrelevant, especially considering the Jets subsequent actions that clearly indicate the commitment they had to him, completely negating this argument and rendering your following argument bullshit as well. You can't just pick out a specific time frame and think that negates subsequent acts the contradict your argument which is based solely on that specific and narrow timeframe. Since the above is already negated there is nothing to address other than what your opinion of what the back up signings they made must have reflected on their opinion of Sanchez. But you would be making this argument no matter what back up they brought it and would try to exaggerate that to mean it reflected a lack if commitment to Sanchez. The Jets needed a backup after releasing Brunell and signing one, especially Stanton, was not indicative of a lack if commitment to Sanchez. It was indicative of their need for a backup. And trading for Tebow resulted in releasing Stanton not Sanchez which reflects a lack of commitment to Stanton not Sanchez. To claim it reflected on their commitment to Sanchez is, as you like to say, baseless. How convenient. Not having a longer contract, according to you, meant they weren't committed to Sanchez, and when they give him the longer contract it means they weren't committed to him either. You're a joke. Except we were committed to him and you haven't disputed that with a logical argument just contradictory opinions. It's not even an analogy on my part. I showed that the practice that was being claimed to be reasonable isn't practiced by any other team so anyone calling for it is talking about something no other team does, even successful teams. That's not an analogy it's evidence in support of my argument. Your same nonsensical Strawman. And they approached the back up situation in the same manner every other team does. Sure they could have drafted a QB in the 2nd round, nothing I stated even remotely intimates they couldn't. But no team in the NFL does draft a QB in the 2nd round to back up a 1st round drafted QB they are still focused on being their starter within 3 years of the draft so it was a terrible suggestion on Bradway's part in context of the current situation at that time. The evidence supports my claim which, when supported by evidence, clearly gives it more merit than your baseless opinion only conveniently justified by your own contradictions about commitment.
Nah, he still has to classify JB (FO Homer, Homer of a certain player, being an ally of another poster). The BB meter hasn't reached max capacity yet.
