No. People were saying that the pats hadn't beat a good qb down the stretch. From thanksgiving until the playoffs, the patriots played the Jets 2x, rams, 49ers, dolphins, broncos and ravens. If you don't think the jets first 6 weeks were impossible, then I don't know what to tell you. Those games plus 2 against NE and you have a difficult schedule.
When you're going to battle with the Brady/Belichek braintrust they have a way of making opponents into tomato cans, when you go with Bowles/Fitz, well, you get the picture...
My argument against drafting a QB at 6 is simply that drafting a potential franchise QB then sticking him behind the Jets O-line as it is means that they waste the #6 on a guy who will sit on IR most of the year, or at the very least develop all the bad habits of a QB who spends his early days running for his life. Then they get to spend more picks replacing the guy. I'd rather they take the long road, trade down in the first (if they can find a partner) and spend two or three picks on quality O-line players. Without a QB (again) they'll be picking top 10 again next year and can get a QB then. That guy will be stepping into a much better situation than this years #6 would be, with an improved young O-line and a handful of talented young receivers hitting their primes.
the argument for taking a qb is we don't have one, so the minute you have the option to take what you think is a FQB you do it. you can't wait to see what shakes out next year.
Sounds like a recipe for doing the same thing over and over and over and over. Jets fans are used to that.
not sure i follow, last time the jets took a qb high in the 1st they had a great o line and that qb did not develop very well
Ironically, he was getting better until they replaced their RT, then he developed all those bad habits from running for his life, then spent some time on IR. Thanks for bringing that up.
so we should never take a qb because we never know when the line is going to crack? drafting out of fear is a good way to maintain mediocrity. not that the line is an excuse for mark being bad, he just wasn't a good qb.
It's true. He just wasn't a good qb. I'm not saying we should never take a QB. In fact, anyone who searches them will find several threads where I've proposed taking two or three QBs in the same draft. I just don't see any benefit in taking a QB over BPA when we don't have the means to help him succeed--that's the recipe that gave us Geno. I'm not saying everything needs to be perfect before we get a QB, that's complete BS. I do think the Offensive line needs to be solid before you throw a rookie out there. I'd rather build a line that the Jets can keep together for the next 8-10 years and take a chance on Petty, Hack, or next years best available than just throw a guy to the wolves with no plan other than "pick a QB and hope he turns the whole organization around on his own". If you're going to invest in a guy, invest in him. Don't treat him like a lottery ticket.
My argument is that the Jets OL isn't as bad as you and others think. Granted the OL can easily be made the scapegoat when the QB doesn't perform well and that's what we saw this season. If the OL is measured by number of sacks given up as you seem to think it is, then the OL's of Seattle, Atlanta and Green Bay must be horrible. Russell Wilson was sacked 41 times last season, Matt Ryan 37 and Aaron Rogers 35, Ryan Fitzpatrick 19. Or maybe measure by rushing yards. Seattle - 25th, Green Bay - 20th, Jets- 12th, Atlanta - 5th (but only by 120 yds over Jets.) Great QB's will produce no matter who's on the OL.
We had 2 QBs go on the IR last year playing behind this OL, and you are saying the line is not as bad as we think it is?
Has nothing to do with anything! Both Brady replacement QB's were injured in the first four games, Pat's OL terrible? Derek Carr went on IR after a 12-3 record, Oakland OL terrible? Dallas OL terrible because Romo got hurt?
You chose 3 of the top 5 OL in the NFL to point out that the jets OL is not bad? I know things happen and guys get hurt, that's football, but those olines did not contribute to bad football, the Jets poor OL contributed to a 5-11 team.
Seems to me some members of TGG feel that the draft is a sequential strategy and driven by position. So before you grab a top notch RB, or QB, you need to have a fully established top OL. Equally, you don't grab a top notch WR till you have a QB, so on and so forth. With that kind of strategy we will never, ever grab the critical center pieces of a winning organization. Talent of that calibre does not sit around the draft room waiting for us. Hell in the past even when a real difference maker found himself at our door steps we ineptly blew it. Either we over reached, or completely bypassed proven football players to chase after some project, or worst a work out warrior with zero football IQ. If there is one thing worst that over reaching is blowing a superior opportunity when is yours for the taking. Its hard enough to assess talent, so when you have a good aim at a type of player that can change this team you go for it. You grab your stars when they are available, and then build the team around it...not the other way around. We have a lot of holes to fill, starting at QB. Plenty of opportunities to improve this team. Go for the stand out, the top difference maker, and never look back. If Bowles can't adjust his schemes to fit the player then we need to fix that problem, because top coaches adapt to the personnel strengths. If the playbook is not designed to make our players better then fix the damned playbook, and don't ever miss an opportunity to grab a winner.
You make some excellent points, and I'm sure most guys agree with the BPA strategy, my personal caveat on a top 10 pick is that he has to be a day one starter. If he can't play day one then he should not be selected.
I completely agree. In fact, I think any player taken in the 1st round should be able to start Day 1, otherwise, why did you have to pick him?
What scares me is the Jets CS, I can see them selecting Cook and then hiding him behind Forte and Powell until he is ready. I honestly don't see TB starting either Watson or Mahomes if they selected either one. TB is loyal to his veterans and I see the same scenario playing out this year if the jets select a player with the 6th pick where there is some sort of depth with the team. The rookie would have to be exceptional to convince TB that he should see playing time. Otherwise we will have to hear from TB how, " it's not the right time".
Plus 100000 This is essentially my argument but NC and others think our OL is almost THe Seven Blocks of Granite...SMH Also no one thinks this draft has any quality OL men Well Mangold may be gone and Clady gone and BGiacominni a definite cut If SOMEHOW the FO does not address this NOW we are in trouble
I believe a first rounder by definition should be an immediate impact guy. He will see the field as a starter in most cases or as a rotational player with significant exposure. A selection within the top 5-10 spots implies to me a stud player and a difference maker from day one.
