true. but picking a QB #2 does not make him good. He's good because he's good. Query: what those Jets or Jags teams would've looked like had they not reached for those QBs it will come down to whether the QB is truly worth that slot or are we just fooling ourselves and having the pablum of "at least we tried" by picking a QB at 2. one other thing to consider, and could be totally off on this, but it seems like a lot of #2 QBs, if they don't success, they royally bust as in complete misread. Obviously we all want a superstar with #2 but we also should be thinking of downside risk on some of these picks, meaning if you're wrong how low is this going
GB would be another example. Not only did Aaron sit (as Jordan Love is now) but his job was (reportedly) to go their QB school for like 6 hours a day! Not only do I agree re last piece, but just because you draft him doesn't mean he should start on day 1. Yet, with the Jets, we know there will be enormous pressure to start a #2 QB and hope he saves the franchise
Yeah, it is both. I don't think the red flags were missed, they were there, many of us assumed they could be fixed with proper coaching at the NFL level. Instead, Sam was given terrible coaching, never fixed the red flags he had, and actually created new problems that he did not even have in college. So it has been a mess. I am just saying those thoughts can go into the equation for Joe Douglas. We don't think about it because at (2-14), none of us would consider the Jets close, because they are not. That is the ultimate goal though. This was kind of pointing to if Justin Fields can lead his team to a National Championship tonight too. Yeah, exactly right! Good post. That is why I don't think it is a sure thing the Jets will go QB with the #2 pick. Or maybe not QB at all if Douglas feels Darnold is better than the rest of the class besides Lawrence. However, if the evaluation is that he will be a franchise caliber QB, I think you take him. Then move on from Sam.
history: in the last 20 years, the only #1s to win SB were Peyton and ELi. now if we open up the ancient scrolls, there was a time when the opposite was true: ELway, Aikman, Young. Their run however was stopped by Warner (undrafterd), Dilfer (1/6), Brady (6/199), Brad Johnson ( 9/227) Now if you take a look at SB winners, the thing that jumps off more than QB is the teams were stacked, creating synergistic effects from breadth and depth of talent. That is the winning formula.
Almost every team that won this weekend won because they dominated up front on both sides of the ball.
That is a good point too! Very noticeable in the Ravens-Titans game. There are no quick fixes. Especially for a mess like the Jets and the path that Joe Douglas seems to be taking. Which is good, because the Jets have usually had the opposite approach in the past. They luckily have cap space and plenty of draft picks, so if they do go QB with the #2 pick, they will be walking into a better situation than Sam did in 2018. @ouchy is making a great argument to NOT pick a QB at #2 and to continue to build a team around Sam. It makes sense.
Look at the Seahawks game. Wilson can cover up weakness' as well as any QB but once their line got banged up he quickly fell out of the MVP conversation and the playoffs.
Yep. It's true. Another great point! Or the Clemson-Ohio State game. We talk about Lawrence so much, but his o-line was manhandled and he looked terrible. It is not a coincidence. That is how football works.
Those were actually pretty good teams. Walt Michaels was a very underrated HC. Todd blew it though. I will never forget that Schula left the tarp off of that field in Miami and probably also told them to put the sprinkler system on too. Anything to slow McNeil down. Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
I hope what we learned is that we need both a good QB AND surround him with talent. We improved OL last year, and added Mims. WRs actually looked decent with Flacco. We have 9 draft picks this year, and maybe 10 if we trade Sam. With the QB rich draft class, a smart thing to do is to get potential FQB with top pick AND keep giving him weapons with remaining 9 picks as well as leveraging CAP room we have. At least that's what I hoped we learned, though based on some of the posts here, some learned that good QB is not important as long as you have a decent OL, which I don't think is the right conclusion.
The worst thing a team can do is to pick a mediocre QB with a high pick. When you take a bust it becomes apparent almost immediately and the problem works itself out - setting you back a few years in the process. When you take a mediocre QB with a high pick the combination of value invested plus QB failing to become very good can set you back half a decade or more. The Jets are really good at this type of pick with Richard Todd, Mark Sanchez and Sam Darnold all falling into the category.
Nah, I seriously doubt that! As plenty people here can tell you, I can be a real bastard at times. Besides my being positive may be some kind of mental illness! LOL You just have to make up your mind to focus on the positive. With the Jets, you need an electron microscope sometimes to find it, but it can be done. Here's wishing you good luck!
QB has always been a premium position. The difference is that teams now take more risks and fail more often searching for them. This is because more QB's get taken earlier and the talent is less likely to sort itself out naturally over time. The lower round picks have less opportunity to compete because more organizations have tied themselves up in knots by taking a less than premium quality player with a premium quality pick. From 1970-1999 there were 60 QB's taken in the 1st round and 18 worked out for a 30% success rate. From 2000-2018 there were 53 QB's taken in the 1st round and 17 of them worked out for the team that took them for about a 30% success rate. The reason I use 2000 as the dividing line is that Peyton Manning was taken in 1998 and his pick sparked a delayed response as the NFL moved to more of an offense based meta and people began picking QB's higher in the draft. It took several years after he was taken for people to begin the "lets go find our Peyton Manning" drive. People often associate the 2004 draft with it's two probable Hall of Famers as the moment that the NFL decided to draft lots of QB's but there were 3 QB's taken in the 1st in 2002 and 4 taken in the 1st in 2003 - those picks just didn't do so well so people kind of flip to the first successful mass draft in the 1st round as the opener in this meta. All you are doing when you over-draft a QB is rolling your dice at a 30% success rate and setting your franchise back years in the process because you spent a 1st round pick, sometimes a high one, and the guy just wasn't that good.
I agree that choosing a mediocre QB with a high pick sets the team back several years but isn't that the game you have to play given how important QB is? Having a good QB is basically a prerequisite to consistently making the playoffs. Yes, they bust often, but if you don't have one then nothing else means much.
The game you should play at QB is like the game you should play at any other high impact position. Whether it is a QB or a LT or an Edge or a WR or a dominant 3T you should be more focused on getting a great player with a premium pick than on getting the best available guy from the positions I just listed. This is true even if you need one of these positions badly. It is more important to get a great player on the #2 than it is to get the 2nd best QB. If there is a great player there that you don't need then it is important to work the system as best as you can, looking for trade downs and possibly even trades of existing players before you reach for a player at a position of need - even a QB. From the perspective of the Jets, assuming they do not view any of the QB's after Lawrence as a likely great player, the priority I would set would be like this: 1. Do they view Penii Sewell as a great player? If so, try to trade down and pick up more picks (given a good offer - no trades down just to trade down at a value loss). Barring a trade down opportunity try to trade Mekhi Becton for a 1st round pick, possibly with additional picks if the pick is low in the round. Take Sewell with the #2 because they view him as a great player and Becton is good but so far he is injury-prone and it is not clear he is a great player yet. If they don't view Sewell as a great player trade the pick down (again given a good offer). 2. If forced to pick at the #2 then pick the player they view as the greatest value at that pick. I wouldn't force a QB pick under any circumstances at the #2. The guy is going to be high-profile and all his failures are going to be magnified. In this media market an over-drafted QB is toast almost as soon as he hits the field, particularly if the team around him is not very good yet.
I don't think you can play that game with a QB. The chances of getting an elite prospect at QB in the draft are too rare. If you wait until you're in a position to draft a Lawrence/Luck/Manning type then you'll never draft a QB, and the elite ones already in the NFL never hit the open market. Do you disagree that Fields would be the #1 QB taken in most drafts? I think he would be and he certainly would be this year if not for Lawrence.
I don't know if he would be the #1 taken in most drafts. He's a two year starter and a junior. Many teams will not draft a 2 year starter who is a junior coming out early with a premium pick. The value area that younger guys with less of a track record get taken in is not even in the 1st round, it is later than that.
I agree with this, and more importantly I think this is JD's philosophy. What it comes down to for me is whether Douglas believes any of the non-Lawrence QBs are FQB-level. I personally think Fields is, but am waiting to see confirmation of this tonight (although he is injured so IDK how good of a picture this will be). Wilson may be as well. But if it were me, and I saw a FQB-level prospect I'd take him at #2.
