I mean didn't we all say that at the beginning of the year? it's not a new revolution. I mean the colts went over a decade without a real backup plan for peyton manning. outside of his rookie season, he never won less then 10 games and never missed the playoffs. 9 years in a row. then he went down for the season and they went 2-14 and had the 1st overall pick. that 1 player turned a 10+ win playoff berth guaranteed into the worst team in the NFL. the same happens when any team loses their top tier QB. you think the chiefs are winning if mahomes goes down? the bills if allen goes down? why do fans have a crazy standard for us that doesn't match the reality of all NFL teams?
If Kal El didn't blow out his ACL, we would have been in the same situation as the Colts. As it is though, a drop off from your starter to your backup is and should be expected. It shouldn't be the equivalent of going from the NFL to Pop Warner. Your backup QB should have some rudimentary skills or he shouldn't be on the roster at all. Your backup QB should be capable of winning the occasional game. Zach shows that perhaps once a year, then its back to the Asylum for him until next season. The GM and HC just cannot accept they fkcd up the 2nd overall pick in the draft. It doesn't matter how bad Zach plays, he will not be benched. The ONLY way we see another QB not named Rodgers taking snaps is if Zach gets injured. So much for meritocracy in Florham Pk, NJ.
zach has won 4 out of 8 games this year. the backup is supposed to keep the team competitive for a couple of games here and there. not expected to start 16 games (and play all but 4 snaps) on a season. it has nothing to do with admitting they fucked up. he has a fully guaranteed contract, we aren't floating in cap space and he's still better then the likes of boyle or siamian. realistically speaking zach was one of the top backups in the NFL to start the season. they did admit the mistake by trading for rodgers. that was the fix. if rodgers isn't hurt none of this conversation happens and nobody is complaining about the QB on this team. it's extremly rare for a top team to lose their starting QB game 1 and go on to win a SB or even make the playoffs. most of them finish with a losing record and usually a top 5 pick.
I believe that is a stat, which you have shamed people over and over again, saying those don't matter to you. Because people only use them when they benefit their argument, right? Stay consistent..
What a load of shit. Kay kept asking the question several times because Saleh never answered it. He had no answer. Now, if you want to take the position that the HC doesn't owe us, the fans, any explanation at this point, and he was just basically saying "I'm not going to answer that question, sorry", then fine. But don't frame it like he answered the question and all the hemming and hawing and pleading the 5th was taken out of context.
it was a specific instance in response to cman saying "your backup should be capable of winning the occasional game" which I pointed out he has. i'm not using it to say he's good or bad, i'm just saying that he has met the end result so i'm not sure what his argument is. some of you need some context lessons. If i had said something like "he's good because he's won 50% of his games this year" then you can point out how dumb that sounds because it is dumb. thats not what I aid at all though. it's like If i made a specific claim that zach hasn't thrown a pick all year and someone comes in and says he's thrown 5 INTs thats a normal use of stats. saying he's a great QB because he protects the ball because his INT% is lower then average is a useless use of stats because i doesn't account for the fact he's playing scared and not taking chances so opportunity cost of not making throws has to be applied to the low INT marker compared to QBs who are slinging it and taking more risks.
he did answer it in specific terms. he said flat out "the film says he didn't play too bad" and "zach gives us the best chance to win" what more do you want him to say. he's not going to say a player sucks. he's going to use "PR coach speak" him saying "zach gives us the best chance to win" is the same as saying "he's better then trevor" but in a nicer way
If Zach Wilson is just a backup then they should treat him like it. Backups who struggle are benched and cut without much deliberation
Did Zach REALLY win 4 games? He won the Giants game with only 3 passes. He "won" the Eagles game by not losing it. Fact is, Zach didn't "WIN" those games, the Defense "Won" those games. Zach was along for the ride. Zach is barely serviceable as a backup NFL QB. He's not, and probably won't be a FQB or even a serviceable starter. He does have a future as a backup. Many QBs made millions being exactly that. So, back to the original question, why is Saleh terrified of benching Zach? Nobody knows but the questions will continue to come as long as Zach plays like Zach.
no he didn't. he just didn't lose the game and we won on defense and hall's legs really. which is typically what good teams with backups QBs do. they rely on the better players and ask the QB to simply "not fuck it up" at some point though they need to let zach sink or swim and take off the kid gloves. this is the same thing rex did with sanchez though and it did get us to back to back AFC champ games
Honestly, I would love to see Zach elevate his game to the level Sanchez was back in the day. Nate Hackett is by nature a conservative OC so the possibility of them letting Zach play gunslinger is remote at best. Wouldn't have hurt to get a viable #2 instead of wasting $44M on a useless Rodgers pal. I'm starting to think the worst thing the Jets did this offseason was to chase Kal El and all his baggage. The RoI so far is frankly awful.
MK [not verbatim but close]: "Zach cannot play QB at an NFL level... he has shown he cannot do it. Why not give Simien a chance?" RS: "that's a fair question... hem.. haw... looking at the film, Zach didn't play that bad..." MK repeats question. RS: "... I gotta plead the 5th... Zach gives us the best chance to win.... " I mean, that's flat-out gaslighting. Or, it's "Zach may be the worst QB in the NFL, but trust me, Simien is even worse, don't make me explicitly say it." Which, again, how on Earth can they have allowed this to happen, 9 weeks into the season? Or, it's "I have no answer for you. I don't know." Which would be very very very weird. For the Head Coach to say.
he's not. he just doesn't have a better option. remember last year when people here was saying to just play streveler? that he looked good in pre-season and that he's better then wilson and all that. and we did play streveler and he was way worse then wilson and we went right back to wilson? remember this year when carr was struggling and the benched him for winston and winston came in and on 1 pass was intercepted and they put carr right back out there? it's because as fans people tend to think "x player can't be worse" but the coaches see these players in practice all the time and they know it can be worse. the simple answer is usually the correct one. we won't bench wilson because boyle and simian are worse.
IDK if hackett is conservative. he hasn't been in the past. even with bortles he was letting him rip and bortles threw for 4k yards and had 2 1000 yard WRs funny enough bortles was still trash, robinson was good but not as good as the numbers suggested and hurns was not good at all and his stats made him seem way better. I think it's saleh wanting the offense to play conservative and win with defense and FGs. usually OCs want to put up points. Rex was the same with sanchez. It's boring for us fans to see but for coaches grinding out a win is better then losing in a shootout. thats not even remotely what was in the video. clearly you didn't watch it. his answer about zach not looking too bad on film came way earlier, before he was even asked about trevor. the line of zach gives us the best chance to win came at the end of the interview. I don't remember the exact question asked that led to that answer off the top of my head.
Totally right--Douglas and Saleh will NOT admit Zach was a bad pick. So they will keep playing him hoping he gets better, and, hey it's ONLY been 2 1/2 years!
it's not speculation. we've all seen simian play for years. we all seen boyle play. they are both around 30 years old and been in the league several years. the CS seems them at practice all time. This isn't a case of a rookie QB and even then we all heard calls of hackenberg or morgan can't be worse and they were. we heard the calls of streveler can't be worse and he was. IDK how people can consistently say the same thing over and over and be wrong every time and still think "this time is different" how often in the NFL has a 6+ year career backup came in and outplayed a starter for a full season?
