If cousins needs all those things around him to succeed how is he a top 10 qb in Washington without any of those? The truth is , all qbs need something around him to go to the super bowl Be it a defense or a line or a running game to take the pressure off but the qb has to be good enough too. Cousins is good enough and with the cap space,core if receivers and 3 high draft picks this team could be ready in 1 year. Of course we could draft a qb that would still need all the things you claim cousins needs and hope to all that’s holy he is as good as cousins .
Sign Cousins draft Barkley (if he falls) draft OL and Rudolph in the second I said it before and I'll say it again if we could spend 20 mil on Wilk what's another 5 on a QB we have the space to do it at the end of the day what do we have to lose ...
Well you’d have quite a set of balls that I don’t think many other GMs in the league have. Adams was a consensus top 3 talent. He was available at 6. Maccagnan absolutely made the right call at the time.
This argument depends on your definition of success. I don't think Cousins has been fully successful in Washington because the Skins have been only a mediocre team with him at QB over the last 3 seasons. You can argue that they have not surrounded him with enough talent to be fully successful but then you're back to my argument that if the Jets don't build a strong team around him they won't be fully successful. In the absence of that strong roster the Jets just swap the 20-28 the last 3 years for the 24-23-1 the Redskins produced with Cousins at QB. It's an improvement, but it's not what we're looking for (or shouldn't be if Jets mgmt is actually looking for just a return to mere respectability instead of going for a ring.)
Maybe - I do have pretty big balls. But this is where I think Macc is wrong for seeming to rely on BPA, regardless of primary need. Yes, a Safety was a need, but not the BIGGEST need - QB was, especially if you consider what the Jets had on hand. In that case, it really wouldn't have been a reach. Great, SB-winning GMs take calculated risks, and know their teams strengths and weaknesses, and I don't think Macc falls into that category.
Well, you're partially right. According to this study done by Harvard: https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/drafting-an-nfl-qb/ Many assert that teams should stay away from first round QB because so many are busts; others argue that the first round is the best place to take a QB. Looking back on the last thirty years of the draft, it turns out that 39% of QBs taken in the first round became “elite” QBs (4,000 season passing yards, 60% completion percentage, a certain “put-the-team-on-my-back”-itude) while 39% become “busts”; the remaining 22% become middle-of-the-pack players. In fact, the first pick is the best time to take a QB: nine out of the fifteen QBs selected first overall in the past thirty years have become elite while only two have turned into busts. After the first round, the chances of selecting an elite quarterback plummet to 19% in the second, 6% in the third, and dwindle to 1% in the seventh round. Contrary to what many believe, the earlier you select a QB, the better the odds that he is actually good. Having an elite or bust QB has a significant effect on win percentage. Teams with an elite quarterback, on average, win 55% of the time while teams with a bust have a 35% win percentage. Since the average team wins 50% of the time, the benefit of having an elite QB is +5% on win percentage while a bust performs 15% below average – a huge effect for one player to have on 53-man roster. So, yes, 30+% are "busts", but adding the 39% who become elite to the 22% who became pretty good, gives you a 61% probability of succeeding to some degree. And the last paragraph I included shows you the significant benefit of having a great QB, so the risk - and there IS a risk - is worth it.
What calculated risks have the Steelers, Packers, Patriots, Seahawks taken? I guess starting Wilson over Flynn at the time was ballsy but I don’t think any of the recent champs have been risk takers. Broncos taking a shot on Peyton maybe?
But it doesn’t matter if it’s cousins or a drafted qb, unless they build a better roster they are not going to get better. You are using a generic argument that fits every qb not named Brady or Rodgers (and even they need some help) and making it a cousins only issue. The argument for cousins is he solves the qb question and let’s us use the picks to keep building around the qb.
You don't consider the Steelers taking Rothlesberger and playing him, the Packers taking Favre and playing him, the Seahawks choosing Wilson over Matt Flynn who they paid big bucks for, all risks? Playing 38 year old journeyman is NOT an example of taking a risk.
You had Mahomes as the pick at the time and didn't like the Adams pick when it went down? It has not proven out yet that Mahomes was the right pick btw.
Yes, I banged the table for Mahomes (and Watson) - both have proven to be good picks. I'm not saying Adams is a bust or saying that he isn't very good, and someday ALL Pro, but they needed a QB more than a Safety and didn't take one.
He started as a ROOKIE! And while that was because the original starter, Maddox, got hurt, it still took guts to go into the season with him as the #2 as a rookie. I'm not saying it was the biggest gamble ever taken, but it WAS a risk.
I'm sorry but how has Mahomes proven to be a good pick? He's played in one regular season game. By no means am I saying he will not be any good, but how many top ten picks only play in one regular season game during their rookie season?
Was just on Spotrac looking at the free agent QBs for 2018 and there is about 25 of them and as I looked down the list I started to notice a few names (in the order they appear): Josh McCown Ryan Fitzpatrick Mark Sanchez Geno Smith Kellen Clemens The fact that pretty much every Jets QB in recent times is available as a UFA pretty much says it all when it comes to this organisation and its ability to sort the QB spot. By the law of averages surely we have to get it right this time around?
Lots. It's the norm, not the exception. But answer this: Why would the Chiefs be rumored to letting Smith, their starting QB, leave unless they believed Mahomes was even better?
because he is due to count $20.6m against the cap and is a decent, not great, QB and this is the last year of his deal so either they keep him for 2018 and pay him a fortune and then he leaves at the end of 2018 or they move him on now and take a small cap hit.
But they wouldn't make that decision if they didn't believe Mahomes can be their FQB, which is proof that he IS as good as I thought he was, which is what Johnny was questioning.
Because it's the only sane, realistic choice if the Jets hope to escape the rut of mediocrity and build for sustainable success. Paying a ton of money to a 30 year-old QB who isn't elite is nothing short of idiotic. For the life of me, I can't figure out why any rational person would want to do that. Cousins is not good enough to get the Jets to, much less win, a SB. He will require a long-term contract. By the time his contract ended, a number of the good young players the Jets have developed will be nearing the end of their careers, and they'd be starting all over again with holes and still needing a QB. Kicking the can down the road for another 5-6 years is no answer. It's just delaying the inevitable. The team is undergoing a rebuild. THIS is the time to draft and develop a young qb. Is isn't the time to sign a 30 year-old FA QB.
