that is not the point of discussion. It was whether it would have been stupid to have drafted a rookie Qb in the off season following 11. Reread the thread, not just JB repeating himself.
LMAO! Trolling. Heh, you are taking this very personally. I did not say your posts meant the Jets had concluded Sanchez CAUSED them to go to the champ game. I pointed out you used the word "resulted" without explaining what that meant. And if instead of saying it meant resulted as in was a causal factor, the Jets did not necessarily think, coming out of 11, that they were committed to Sanchez so much so that it would have been stupid to draft a rookie Qb in the second round. Again, the situation at that time was not typical of your off the point metric of teams "focused" on their just completed third year starter. And it was not a terrible suggestion on Bradway's part, because Mr. Not So Smart Guy, obviously the Jets would have been better off if Bradway's suggestion had been followed. Then there's your off the point nonsense about Stanton, for example. The relevance of that signing was that they were moving on from a not real backup in Brunell. And rather than go into the draft to use a high round pick on a Qb, they first signed Stanton, then traded for Tebow and let Stanton go. They in fact would have been better off drafting Wilson than keeping Tebow, but also in keeping Stanton and not ever trading for Tebow. In other words, you are wrong to say the Jets made the right moves in that off season. All the rest of your "points" are too boring to address.
Oooh, so what's this all about then? You have some point to make, or just want to take part in the little circle jerk here? BB meter indeed.
Uh, I was responding to you bringing up the Jets cutting the "illusory backup Brunell" and acquiring Stanton and then Tebow, which you tried to use as proof the Jets were not as committed to Sanchez as JetBlue says. You can't even keep up with your own argument. Maybe you can reread the thread
Well yes, cutting Brunell, who was not a real backup, and getting Stanton WAS evidence that the Jets were not content with the status quo at Qb coming out of 11. But the main point concerns whether it would have been stupid to draft a Qb that off season. I don't think it would have been. I keep up with my argument all the time. Nobody here does it better.
How in the world does cutting a 40 year old man and getting another backup constitute as evidence of anything other than the fact that maybe they don't want a 40 year old washed up has been on the roster when they could grab a younger guy with upside in case the starter goes down? Oh yeah, that whopping 1 million dollar contract to Drew Stanton is really proof of your argument. By your logic I suppose them drafting Greg McElroy was more evidence that they were not content with the status quo. There are literally thousands of examples that your argument is terrible. Repeating it over and over again makes you stubborn, not enlightened. Teams with established backups release players and draft/sign different ones all the time. It doesn't mean shit other than it is an indictment on the player who was cut. Your entire argument in this thread is reaching based upon you wanting something to be one way when the facts show the complete opposite
You have lost sight of the original argument, which was whether it would have been stupid to draft Wilson in the 12 draft. Complete opposite? How does signing Stanton to replace Brunell show MORE confidence in Sanchez than if they had kept Brunell? talk about overreaching. In any event you miss the context in which Stanton entered the conversation. I raised Stanton at post 81, the meaning of which was that whatever the intent, doing so was an upgrade to Brunell, and this move did constitute a different approach to the Qb situation for the Jets. Post 81 also indicates that the choice of Stanton, later replaced by Tebow, in effect, was arguably a significant factor in NOT drafting a Qb that year. They'd already made the moves in FA and then a trade to upgrade the backup Qb position (not that Tebow was that, but I digress). The main point here is whether it would have made sense to draft Russell Wilson in the draft that year. I understand JB to say it would have been stupid to do so because at that time the Jets were committed to Sanchez. I disagreed, that instead it was partly that they thought they'd already improved the Qb's on the roster over depending on Brunell, and not because it would have been stupid to have otherwise drafted a Qb with a high pick. And of course there is that it would NOT have been stupid to have obtained Wilson instead of Hill. That's how Stanton entered the discussion.
The question isn't whether or not the Jets should have taken Wilson. The question is why the drafts have been so consistently mediocre for more than a decade?
You don't need to give me a summary. I have read the thread, so I get why Stanton entered the discussion What I don't get, for the 3rd time, is how you come to the conclusion that replacing a 40 year old Mark Brunell equates to the front office being less committed to Sanchez. Instead of answering that question you just keep stating that it does mean they had less commitment to Sanchez without saying why.
until recently we had drafted pretty well for a long time which was why we were one of the better AFC teams for a long time.
No, that's not what the thread is about, whether in hindsight we should have drafted a QB. The thread is about whether the Jets should have drafted a backup QB in the second round to back up their 3rd year starter, a practice no other NFL team does three years into the career of their 1st round draft pick QB. That's not a difficult distinction to grasp between the two.
Seeing as how you did not answer how signing Stanton showed MORE confidence in Sanchez than having Brunell, I am not sure why the ball is in my court here. Let me think about that one.
Never said anything about hindsight. Would it have been a good move if the Jets had drafted Wilson? If so, what good is your assessment of practice?
Of course it would have because he has turned about to be a good QB, but that act of applying what we know now to the evaluation of what we did then is the very definition of hindsight. The Jets were wrong in the outcome of the decision but that doesn't equate to them having the wrong strategy to not draft a QB in the 2nd when they were still committed to Sanchez only 3 years into his career which is what was being claimed. That strategy is the same strategy every NFL team follows -- build around your QB at that point not give up on him.
Which is exactly what the Giants did in 2006 after Eli's 3rd year when the Giants had vastly less to show for his two and a half years at the helm as compared to Sanchez full three seasons. They got two rings out of it. The Jets didn't have a choice with Sanchez after 2011. They couldn't give up on him after a 26 passing TD year and 32 TD's overall. That he then played the rest of his time with the team like the QB who fell apart in the final quarter of the season in 2011 was just extraordinarily unfortunate. Bad cap situation plus QB imploding is a really bad place to be.
Lmao. You are the one who made the argument that it showed less confidence, which I disputed. How does me disagreeing with that imply that the signing showed more confidence? I asked you a question, so why would the ball be in my court. But since I'm not afraid of backing up my opinion, I think releasing Brunell and replacing him was an indictment on 40 year old Brunell, not Sanchez, especially given the fact that he was not picked up by any other team, and retired. Is it really that hard to answer the question?
Insanity. After one down year the Jets should have known that team was done and blown everything up to start over. Why build when you can rebuild? One bad season obviously means you are done.
The difference being that Al actually accomplished what he bragged about. Bradway talks up what he wanted to do. Man, those naked pictures TB has of Woody must be vile. I mean, really vile...
LMAO indeed. You were the one who said it showed more confidence. As for Brunell, the Jets kept him in 11 after he did very little in 10. And in 11 he only attempted 3 passes. He was more a player/coach for Sanchez than a real backup. So, I think Sanchez's poor performance in 11 indicated that the Jets needed a real backup. And in the end they did bench Sanchez during 12, only it was McElroy who got in there, Stanton being long gone and Tebow totally a bad fit. The more significant factor was not Brunell's age, but Sanchez's awful performance in 11. Sanchez's contract in effect required the Jets to keep him for 12, but posters here were not the only ones who felt coming out of 11 that Sanchez was far from a sure thing to succeed. JB acts like anyone at the time who thought the Jets should go Qb in the draft at that point would have been crazy, despite the fact it would have been a great move. Feel free to answer, but I think we have covered this issue. You disagree for some reason, and even JB acknowledges that picking Wilson would have been a good move. Of coures it would have been.
