When was the last time the Jets had an excellent team but a middling to poor QB? I'm trying to remember. Let me know and how it worked out. Did they win the division and get homes games in tbe playoffs? Did they make it to the super bowl? Win it? Enlighten me. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
this could also help the Jets. The Texans could be put off by the agent and value Wilson and #2 that much more than #3 from Miami.
I don't think there's any way I'd trade all three 1st rounders this year. I'd trade two of them this year and one next year. Tradiing away all three would be nuts.
If Houston called and asked and for three first rounders this year (assuming the Jets had them), you'd say no? I think that is nuts. I'd prefer spacing them out a bit as well, but beggars cant be choosers.
Why? Say we get #19 from WFT or #28 from New Orleans. We can give up 2, 19/28, and 23 for the 2nd best QB in the NFL. We'd still have 2 1sts next year + #34 this year (which will net us a first round talent).
I'm still leaning towards wanting Watson if the price is reasonable, but at the same time I can't shake this nagging thought about how often the Jets have "won" the off season and then just continued to suck. Logically I know that each transaction is different and not necessarily connected to what happened in the past, but if that's really true, why do these things happen over and over again with the Jets? Coincidence? Bad luck? The Curse of Joe Namath? I think it's a simpler explanation. I think it's because the Jets - the Johnsons - see making a splashy acquisition in the off season as a short cut to winning, and having then made that splash and "won" the off season P.R. battle, they don't do anything else to improve the team. This has been the consistent pattern of the Johnsons and explains why they can repeatedly get out hopes up, only to have them dashed after they do nothing else. My only hope in the face of this is Douglas. He's already made a big difference, not just in drafting pretty well, and making some good trades, but more importantly, in getting rid of Gase and also convincing the Johnsons to let him run the show. IDK what Douglas's plan is - does he even want to replace Darnold, and if so, does he prefer to draft a QB or sign/trade for a vet< and if he prefers drafting a QB, does he have one in particular, and also does he want to trade out of #2 to get more prime picks and then hope his QB is still there when he gets to pick? Personally I have my own preferences and I suspect I'm going to be disappointed by what Douglas winds up doing, but I do still believe that Douglas is smart and experienced and has a plan that he's based upon successful plans he's seen, so even if I'm disappointed hopefully things f.nally do turn around/
Three first rounders spread out over 2 or 3 drafts is one thing. Three in one draft is quite another. I'm certain that JD would never do that, either. If that's their price, I'd tell them to shove it and hang up, and I'd draft one of Wilson/Fields.
It hasn't been the Johnsons really making the decisions on FAs except if the rumors were true this pass offseason when JD was supposedly limited in what he could spend. It's been Mac, Idzik, Bradway and Tanny who made the decisions in FA, not the Johnsons..
I mean, the franchise made the playoffs in 6/10 years in the 2000's. The decade started with four first round picks and fifteen first round picks in ten years. Yes, only one division title and obviously no SB appearances. But it's not as if a stable of high picks can't result in success. Similarly it looks like the Browns have finally somewhat figured it out after having nine first round picks in the past five years.
Losing the super bowl is what I would consider "really close" not losing the AFC championship game. That team, especially the 2010 version, was great with the exception of the QB. And it's not like he killed us in the playoffs. It was his performance during the regular season that had us playing all road games (and one extra). You can assemble a great team but you need a QB to win it all. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
I just think that's too steep a price. I'd give #2, #23 and #34 this year or #2, #19 or #23 and our 1st next year, but I'm not giving them 3 #1s in the same year. For one thing, those dumb bastards don't deserve to get bailed out like that. For another we need 1st round talent. #34 may be at the top of the 2nd round, but it's still a 2nd round pick, if there's not that much difference, then THEY can take it in lieu of #19 or #23.
Not really. We may have made it to the SB, but I don't think there's any way that we would have won with Sanchez at QB.
Come on, man. Obviously it's great to have an excellent QB. Obviously that's a huge factor in a team's chances to win a ring. And -- just as obviously -- less than excellent QB's like Jim McMahon, Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, Jeff Hostetler, and Nick Foles have won Super Bowls. Everyone knows that a QB is the most important piece and at the same time less important than the sum of all the other pieces put together. How much less? What exact value can we put on the QB position? We don't know. No one knows. In 200 years, maybe the sample size will begin to give us a concrete answer. Until then, you do your best to build a winning team with the best pieces, the most important of which is the quarterback. The fact is, teams HAVE won without a great QB. Teams have NEVER won with ONLY a great QB.
