They lost with Ryan Lindley though and that to me was a fire-able offense by their GM (and maybe the head coach). As soon as he was put in after the injury to Stanton the losing began. They should have had a better option. Matt Simms for example is a lot better than that guy.
I would rather see us get it together, play competitively, win 9+ games, maybe make play-offs with solid veteran QB play than relive the Sanchez situation with Mariota ( deeming a player a franchise QB when he may not be). Getting a franchise QB is about luck (no pun intended) and actively manipulating the draft. Then you've got to be right. The Sanchez hurt us in the past 4 years. Ask the Redskins how they feel about the RGII trade now. I would rather see the Jets build all aspects of the team, and then be aggressive when the truly right situation presents itself.
I should've clarified. this is what every coach without a good QB says ......except Rex Ryan. Rex would make the claim that Geno Smith is a great QB and they expect playoffs because they have a great QB. then he'd pound a beer, jump in his massive team embroidered truck and get another tattoo of his wife. so there's that option. The other option that no coaches take would be the honest approach where you say you can't win without a good QB and right now the Jets have shit for QBs.
Good plan but it's backwards. The "right situation" presents itself when you're drafting first and Luck or Manning comes out. The "right situation" presents itself when you go 4-12 and have the opportunity to get a guy at 6 who is potentially a franchise QB and not a reach like a Ponder or Manuel or a Locker or the like. The wrong situation is building a superlative team around a flawed QB and going 8-8 or 9-7 or 7-9 every year to be drafting 16th or 18th or 20th with no shot at a franchise type player or nor chance to trade up to get one. And franchise QBs are uniquely rare in being available as FAs or in trades. _
I agree. If anything, his Cardinals teams proved you DO need a QB to win. They were dead in the water without one, despite a great D. Now, Geno, Fitz, etc are better than what the Cardinals went into the playoffs with last year, but still.
I disagree. I think they are in love with Mariota, and playing the game to make people think they aren't
Of course you don't want them to show their hand and the more deception the better. As bad as Geno was last season Arizona would probably have made the playoffs with him.
Except that I was referring to the reality of present situation, where we've already spent a ton of money on free agents and are gearing up to be competitive next season. I will take the 9-7 next year rather than another 4-12. The Jets can't afford to go 4-12 (or worse) next year. As I stated, you get a franchise QB through luck (Colts sucking just in time to pick Luck) or active manipulation of the draft(see Redskins & RGIII, Giants & Eli, Broncos & Elway, et)
Or having one fall to at 6 when you had a crap season. Btw, I want nothing to do with 4-12 next year because there are no QBs that will warrant a high pick next year. 2-14 would have been nice this year. _
Yes, with the kind of team we have now, and the coaching staff we have in place, we don't need a franchise QB to win a super bowl, or two. Maybe to win the division consistently for a decade or so, to be a true dynasty, we would need a franchise QB. But we're the Jets, just one SB will be a huge improvement for us! If you go back and look at history, at all of the super bowls that have been played, I think you will be surprised to find that a large number of them were won with average QB's, not franchise guys. ..... (of course there's one poster on here who will just dismiss all that as "talking points", preferring instead to just make up stuff as he goes along, "original thoughts" devoid of any objective facts or evidence).
I am hoping that both are gone by the time we draft. I just don't see franchise QB in Mariota or Winston.
Bowles also said something reminiscent of Parcells. He said he wants his QB to not lose games. (I am paraphrasing). Turnovers lose games. If you take care of the ball you are in the game most of the time, a few plays away from winning. Minimize mistakes. Seems obvious, but Parcells was a big proponent of the "not losing philosophy." A good philosophy when you do not have the kind of QB who just takes over games.
thats a flawed thought to me. so don't try to build a team around a QB that doesn't have Luck potential. do barely anything to improve the team till you find a franchise QB. that sounds cart before horse to me, really counter productive seeing as how any QB, specially the young ones, would need support to operate to pique efficiency. we cant just try our best to lose in order to draft a put on a pedestal product that's supposed to do well without great support. if i can get game breaking weapons, a stout Oline or whatever I'm not going to hold back because my QB is questionable. because at best I've optimized my teams chances with that questionable QB or at worse I've given that QB's replacement an optimal staring position to grow as well.
Bowles learned a lot from Parcells. Good thing Bowles isn't the GM [As we know Parcells passed on guaranteeing Peyton to be drafted in 97] - Mac will find this team a QB to win w/ [or so I hope]
I'm pretty sure you didn't understand what I was saying. Of course you don't do barely anything to improve a team or try to lose year in and year out till you luck into that guy, but when you have the shot at one you need to take it rather than build around a flawed player or a JAG. Building the perfect team in the hopes that someday "that guy" falls in your lap is not a sound strategy. Hope is not a plan. It all starts with the QB, everything else is secondary. _
