Darnold this year had a better offensive line than he did last year and he still regressed. Enough with the excuses. Sam sucks. We're wasting everyone's time here discussing anything that involves Sam as the Jets QB of the future.
With all due respect I can't accept your assessment of Darnold based on stats alone. First, he was night and day better than he has been in recognizing the defense and reacting, getting rid of the ball to right the right spots, and moving in and around the pocket. He did have a few mistakes - the one that sticks out for me is him running out of bounds to his left for a loss instead of just chucking it away. Aside from that there is the matter of the playcalling which is on Gase, and dialing up Gore running into the LOS 20+ times isn't going to produce an aerial circus. I get that you've completely written Darnold off, but that's premature IMO. I've seen enough to know that he isn't ever going to be a great QB, but I haven't seen enough to know whether he could be good enough on the Jets with a new CS and upgraded talent. These next two games might clarify that for me. And you way undervalue the importance of a good (if nor great) OL. Is your last name Maccagnan by any chance? Adding Sewell, perhaps Thuney, and another OL in the draft on top of what they have makes their OL above average right away, and potentially great in the near future. That elevates the entire offence - QB, RB, WR. OTH, if you don't improve the OL you'll struggle to get the most out of whoever you have at those skill positions.
I don't see how the Colts' mishandling of Luck has anything to do with how we'd treat Lawrence. If anything I think teams are hyper aware that you MUST build around a FQB because of how badly the Colts failed to do so with Luck.
I agree OL is important, I just think our entire fanbase has been bashed over the head with how important it is for so long that we likely now overrate how important it is. Just look at the teams that consistently compete for Super Bowls - they all have top QB's. There are literally almost no exceptions. I don't see the sense in shoving tons of capital into our OL before we have a QB worthy of doing so for. One of the main excuses for Sam was always "anyone would suck behind this OL!". Now that we improved the OL and he still sucks the excuse has shifted to "we just need to improve the OL more!". It's completely insane. Does Sam need to have 5 pro bowlers protecting him before we can accurately grade him?
Trevor's successor at Clemson is not exactly chopped liver. Maybe we can build up the team, use a stopgap QB or two in the interim, then go after him in 2023.
thats the way its meant to be done. Not draft a QB and then scramble to build OL while your QB gets killed
You act like taking Sewell means we don't sign any other FAs or draft any other good players. They can certainly substantially upgrade the skill positions AND take Sewell. I don't see what the problem is.
The OL, while improved, has only jelled to the level it's at now just recently. It's hardly the "Five Blocks of Granite". Against Seattle in fact they weren't much better if at all than last year's version. Yesterday they were much improved - although I think Darnold reading and reacting much more quickly made a big difference. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't get a better QB than Darnold if possible, but we also shouldn't reach and invest so much in that attempt that it sets us further back. Darnold is a case in point: Macc burned a 1st and three seconds to get him. Imagine if he had taken Mahomes or Watson in 2017 and been able to use those 4 premium picks on other spots. But who - aside from maybe Lawrence - would you bet the farm on this year? The odds of an OL succeeding are greater than the odds of a QB succeeding. If they can't get Lawrence, unless Douglas is certain that another QB is better than Darnold, then it makes more sense to take Sewell and also upgrade the skill positions than to reach for a QB.
what are you talking about " all in' on offensive line? We're talking about picking O line with the 2 pick. Who else if not a QB would you draft at 2?
Using back to back high first round picks on the same position probably qualifies as going all in. Especially when the maximum amount of people you can start at that position is 2.
the word is than....don't be dumb. You cannot miss with the 2. NO ONE other than Sewell is a lock to be a great player at 2
there is no such thing as a can't miss. even at LT. remember robert gallery? even the can't miss LT of last year has been the worst lineman of all the rookie 1st rounders
ok hoe about you go through the list of bust tackles and Ill go through the list of any other position you suggest. Deal? You go first.....so far youve said Gallery and Thomas who struggled earlier and is now on the rise.....
I think we knew what he meant by saying all in...nobody actually interprets it as literally using every available resource on one thing.
Not to be obtuse, but no, "all in" implies investing all resources on something, in this case you said OL. Using the #2 pick on a T, and then having the other picks for other positions isn't "all in", and still leaves a lot of flexibility.
