They did go 3-13 his rookie season, but things quickly turned around. They had some offensive pieces, but their D was bad. I think our difference may be more semantics than anything. Of course, the QB can't be the only decent player on the team, but Manning made do with a subpar OL by getting rid of the ball quickly and his play covered a multitude of problems and holes on that team.
You're right, we really aren't that far apart. I said from the beginning that guys like Manning and Luck were exceptions, that if you don't already have a great QB, you grab them (Luck/Manning) no matter what. I just think that too many "good QB prospects" have their careers ruined by going to crappy teams and getting thrown into the fire too early. It doesn't help the young QB, and it sets the team back in the long run.
We're in total agreement on your latter point. Teams need to show patience with young QBs, and not rush them onto the field. When they do plan to play them, they need to make sure they have a solid pass-blocking OL, a decent RB and some good receivers. Until then, they need to play an old jag QB and let him take the beating.
He should change his name to "Gil Broke". Sound like just another member of the "Silver Tsunami" trying to cash in on his gray hair. Absolutely no clue what he's talking about. He's the kind of guy that you read about who goes out for a newspaper and a quart of milk and ends up three states away driving the wrong direction on a three lane interstate. But...thanks Gil, we appreciate your perspective.
Yep yep. Where we differ really is that I believe IF a team doesn't have a solid pass blocking OL, a decent running game and some good receivers, then they shouldn't even think about drafting a QB with a high draft pick, unless it's a once in a generation talent like Manning or Luck.
Why? Sorry, you seem like a good guy, but that makes no sense to me. All QBs aren't equal. There are very few Mannings and Lucks. For that matter, there are very few quality QBs period. So when one comes along who has all the qualities one looks for in a QB (aside from being a "sure thing") you'd be nuts to pass on him and take an OL, a RB or WR instead. You talk about building the team as if you can always find a QB in FA or the draft, and that just isn't reality. RBs are the easiest position to fill and many of them can start as rookies, so there's no need to rush and it makes zero sense to take a RB over a QB in today's NFL. You can get OL any time, either in the draft or FA. There are a lot of good OL in the NFL who were UDFAs or low-round picks. The same isn't true for QBs. You can get WRs in the draft and FA. The ONLY place you're getting a quality QB is in the draft, and most of them are found in the first round. Many QBs need to sit for a year, some for two. During the time that they're sitting, learning the offense, adjusting to life in the NFL, working on whatever fundamentals or "issues" on which they need to work, the team can be adding a RB, OL and some receivers. Then they're ready to go. Doing it your way, they may never be ready, because they may never be able to find the QB. They could waste the window of opportunity with all those players you assembled because your QB is mediocre or worse. Karma is a bitch. You pass up the opportunity to take a great QB prospect, and you may not get another chance any time soon.
You are right about not all QBs being equal. That is why I made the stipulation about guys like Manning or Luck. Both of those guys were basically NFL QBs even in college. When they made it to the NFL, all they really had to do was learn the specific playbook and catch up to the speed of the NFL. There was no real "learning curve". As for "quality QB prospects", there's one or more in almost every draft. Next year boards will be buzzing about the latest "Great QB prospect" that teams should trade up and get. Why pass right now ? Look at Geno and the Jets. He wasn't supposed to start. He was going to sit on the bench and learn behind a veteran. Whoops. Or how about Bortles this year in Jax? Or Manziel ? Or Bridgewater ? Or Carr ? Or the year before with Manuel or Glennon ? All of these guys were going to carry a clipboard for a year to try and learn how to be an NFL QB. If the Jets take Mariota this year and Geno (or a FA Vet) craps the bed early in the season, will Mariota get thrown into the starting job before he's ready ? That's the concern from where I sit.
He was a GM / pro personnel director of the Cowboys for like 30 years. He was a pioneer in the game, and is one of the most respected elder statesemen in the league.
I understand your not wanting to throw a rookie to the wolves and respect that but think about that for a minute. Would you really not want your team to draft a QB prospect they're high on simply because you're afraid that they might play him too early, i.e., throw him to the wolves? What sense does that make? Not all rookie QBs who get forced into action too soon are ruined. It doesn't seem as if Teddy Bridgewater suffered any irreparable damage last season. You take the kid and you sit him. You make a commitment that unless he shows that he's ready and able to play at an NFL level at some point in the season, he never sniffs the field that season regardless of what happens. You make a contingency plan that if your two first string QBs go down with injuries, you sign a street FA to come in an play. If I'm the GM heading into a season in that situation, I call up the best unsigned FA or street QB and make a deal with him that if one of my QBs goes down with an injury, he's my guy. If necessary, I do anything within the rules to lock someone up. Knowing I probably can't pay him directly, I hire his son as an intern, I loan him some money, or make a charitable contribution in his name, promise that if another team offers him a deal, I'll beat it and put him on the active roster, even if I have to carry 4 QBs, something to insure that he will be there. It's really up to the GM and CS to protect the kid and to see that he develops.
IF the Jets take Mariota in the 1st round with the 6th pick, and the Jet's starter craps the bed or gets hurt, do you honestly think the coaching staff could keep Mariota buried on the bench ? Again, that is what was supposed to happen with Geno, wasn't it ? WRT Carr and Teddy, yes, they had productive rookie seasons, but time will tell whether they develop and progress, or if tread water. I get where you and Stokes are coming from, I completely understand. I just disagree and would do things differently. Also, I'm sure I view Mariota differently than you both do. Sure, he has plenty of upside, high ceiling, what have you. That said, there will be a QB in the 2016 or 2017 draft that will have a high ceiling and plenty of upside as well.
Different CS, different regime. They could fall to temptation and play Mariota early. Mariota may be able to handle it just fine. I'm willing to take that risk. At least we'd have a QB with potential to get better and be very good, whereas now we don't. There may be a QB in the 2016 and/or 2017 draft who has a high ceiling and plenty of upside, but will it be as high as Mariota's? Will that player have anywhere near the college production that Mariota has had? Will he have the football IQ and character? Will the Jets be even remotely in position to try to trade up for him? What if the draft class in both of those years winds up being like 2013 and there are no 1st round QB prospects? What then? I'll tell you what...the team is screwed because they got greedy and traded down or took a position player instead of a great QB prospect. You're entitled to your opinion certainly, but I truly believe that doing things your way 9 times out 1o the team would fail and the GM wind up getting fired. I think that my way the team would succeed at least 7 times out of 10.
There is no QB in the 2016 draft that is anywhere near the prospect of Mariota or Winston and likely not 2017 either (recognizing in that case you're looking at having said player being a positive contributor at 2019 at the earliest). Hoping that (i) a better prospect will be there in a year or 2 and (ii) that'd we'd be in a position to draft said mythical franchise QB is fools gold. Hope is not a strategy. _
You do know that Geno's "college production" was on par with Mariota's, right ? Geno: Comp: 988 Att:1465 Comp%: 67.4 Passing Yards: 11662 TDs: 98 Int: 21 Mariota: Comp: 779 Att: 1167 Comp%: 66.8 Passing Yards: 10796 TDs: 105 Int: 14 As for the odds you quoted, what I've seen year after year is crappy teams drafting "good QB prospects" seemingly over and over and over again while they remain mired in mediocrity. I posed the question before (either in this thread or another one). Name the crappy teams that drafted a "good QB prospect" and were suddenly transformed into being a good team, let alone a playoff caliber one.
Comparing Geno's production to Mariota's production from a stat sheet rather than actually looking at their production during games is lazy. _
What do crappy teams have in common besides being "crappy"? I would assert that one of the reason they're crappy is that their FO, GM and/or Scouting Dept. are poor judges of talent or their CS is bad at developing young players. Crappy teams pick high every year so should have a great chance to find a good QB. Unless they've traded picks away, they have 7 picks every year. So they take a QB with their #1 pick in year one. They still have 6 other picks in that draft to try to build the team around the QB, 7 the next year and 7 the year after that. How is that one pick supposed to keep them crappy or prevent them from building the team around the QB? The answer is, that it isn't. If they remain crappy, it isn't because they took a QB in year 1 unless they took the wrong QB. It's because they failed to identify good talent and acquire it in the draft, tried to fit square pegs into round holes, or sucked at developing talent. Taking the QB isn't the problem. Again, you seem like a good guy, but your logic is an epic fail on this question.
Stokes, I'd wager that I saw more of Geno Smith and Mariota playing in college than you did. Geno had a hell of a productive college career.
