Dan Marino, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, Bob Griese, Jim Kelly, Joe Montana, Joe Namath, Fran Tarkenton, Johny Unitas. That's just a cursory glance at hall of fame QB's that came in and performed at a very high level in their first or second seasons. There are more of course, I just did a rough scan of the career passing categories, nearly missing Joe Namath in the process. Anybody who thinks that players usually struggle for a few seasons at any position in the NFL before finding themselves just does not understand how talent sorts at a high level. Are there players who struggle and then turn into stars? Sure. But most of the guys who are going to be really good show that in their first couple of seasons. Just as an addendum, Peyton Manning was selected an all-pro in his second season. So anybody who thinks he "struggled" early on just wasn't watching the games he was in very closely.
No, Chad was one reason we sucked and a big one at that. he had no NFL arm. None. Is spirit he was a warrior and i will always see him as a man that gave his all. In the end his body would not do what his heart wanted to. Keep holding on to that past while the rest of us look to the future.
Peyton after 1st 3 years(48 games): 85 TDs, 58 INTs, 12,287 yds Eli after 1st 3+ years(50 games): 68 TDs, 55 INTs, 9869 yds The only thing peyton and Eli had in comon after 3 years was that neither could win a playoff game.
Favre had 5 more INts than TDs in each of his first 2 seasons. Kelly had USFL experience. Namath had 8 mroe INts than TDs in year 2. Tarkenton had 3 more INts than TDs in year 2. Did most, if not all, of these players improve? yeah but to say they all played at a high level their 1st or 2nd season is incorrect.
Wrong on Favre. He had 5 more TD's than INT's in 1992 and 5 more INT's than TD's in 1993. He went to the Pro Bowl both years. That's not struggling. Joe Namath went to the Pro Bowl his rookie and third seasons. That's not struggling. Ok, so Jim Kelly had some USFL experience. I'll guarantee you he did not struggle there in his first two seasons. As a rookie Fran Tarkenton was a first year starter (fulltime) for an expansion team. He passed for 18 TD's and threw 17 INT's and averaged 7.1 yards per pass attempt. That is absolutely not struggling. Years two and three were very similar to that and by year 4 he was an established Pro Bowler. He did all of this in the context of a miserable expansion team that went 3-11 his rookie year and 2-11-1 his second year while allowing 827 points in 28 games. I'll go as far as to say that what Tarkenton did in Minnesota in 1961 and 1962 was one of the top 5 all time first two year performances out of an NFL QB given the context.
Anderson sat for a few years. Aikman had a rough start to his career. Kelly was in the USFL for a few years before going to Buffalo. Marino was drafted by the reigning AFC Champions. Of course there are exceptions like Big Ben - but even he took over a team that was primarily a running team with a monster defense and Brady. But usually it takes time for the QB to really 'get it'
It is not a matter that they were struggling horribly, but that they were about average to slightly above average for the first few years when compared to other QBs. They didn't become "great" until a few years down the road. I think that the improvement in the team surrounding them is a legitimate argument though.
All I was saying was that Fassel is a tool if he believes (as he apparently does) that greatness is not immediately apparent in many of the great NFL QB's that wind up in the hall of fame. There's a reason that Favre and Namath and Roethlisberger and Peyton and Brady and company got to the pro bowl so early in their careers even when the stats did not necessarily scream superstar. There's a reason that Jeff George did not, even with rookie stats that might have surpassed some of the above. I'll go the exact opposite extreme to what Fassel said. I think it's the rare QB who sucks for awhile or doesn't get a chance to play who winds up at the top of the heap. It does happen from time to time, but generally speaking if you have greatness on your hands it is apparent very early on and does not take time to show itself. I was talking to my brother-in-law last night about the QB's around the league. He's a big Steelers fan and I was trying to get him to really watch Clemens during the game so I could get his opinion of how Clemens stacks up against the good young Qb's in the NFL. What he said basically, from a long experience of watching Steeler QB's who were successful but not great come and go, was that if a guy is great and has that magic touch you see it right away and know that barring injury he'll be great. He thinks Roethlisberger is the first great QB the Steelers have had since Terry Bradshaw. He thinks we'll know if Clemens is the real deal by the end of the year, because he'll either perform well even with a sad set of losers around him or he won't. I think I agree with him. So far I like what I've seen out of Clemens and I'm hoping the Jets will do what they can to protect him from the worst pitfalls of playing on a 1 to 3 win team as they go down the stretch.
The Problem with Clemens is Mangini waited too long to pull the Plug on Chad. If he would have let him start the Philly game he would have had a chance to get his feet wet against the lesser teams on the Jets Schedule. In his infinite wisdom he came to the Conclusion that Clemens should be named the starter against the Redskins with one of the best secondaries in the league. He then has to follow that up with Pittsburgh then Dallas at home on Thanksgiving. I do not think Mangini is making a wise choice regarding Putting Kellen in when he has the best chance to succeed and get his feet wet. Hopefully Kellen can perform well in the next few games where the deck is severely stacked against him.
Kellen can throw a ten yard out, scramble and stretch the defense. He will get axed for the inability to execute basic Qb 101 plays.
Chad got axed because his positive contributions on offense got out-weighed by the negatives that he was producing. For a 5 year starter this was unacceptable and so he lost his job. Clemens is a first year starter and definitely is not going to be held to the same standards that Chad was. If Clemens gives us the same performance that Chad was giving us adjusted for the much tougher defenses he has faced and will face then it wil be disappointing. Not disappointing enough for him to lose his job though. He'd have to objectively suck to lose his job outright in the second half of the season. So far his performance has been quite good given the oposition.
ok... ok SO if kellen doesn't put up good to great numbers in these next 7 games THEN we draft a qb in the first round. THEN next season when chad isn't here we start the NEW qb and leave kellen on the bench right? like thats what we do if he doesn't show flashes of hall of fame play right?
No, if Clemens doesn't show that he can move the team effectively and maintain discipline on the field then we think about drafting a QB next season. So far he has shown that he can move the team when he needs too and their discipline (as measured by penalties and the ability to function on third down) is intact. All he needs to do is to look like a decent QB down the stretch and the Jets can safely pass on drafting a QB next season. He hasn't shown anything so far that suggests he's going to the hall of fame though, which is what the argument above was sort of about. You don't need a hall of fame QB to compete in the NFL at a high level so that really should not be a factor in the Jets decision-making process in the offseason unless he stops looking like a good QB prospect in the interim. Or gets hurt.
You can't pin that on Mangini. Chad is the most successful QB the Jets have had since #12. There is no arguing otherwise. He is also a guy that was an exceptionally promising talent early on, who lost that promise on the field, even playing through a shoulder injury during a playoff run, that could have shortened his career. Other Players RESPECT that. A one year HC, Had better be damn sure a guy like that is definitely shot, before he makes that move. And in what everyone considered an 8-8 season at best before the first Coin was tossed, it's hard to argue against a player like Chad to shoot for a chance at mediocrity.
With the current state of Quarterback play in the NFL, you need only be better than average....And, sadly not frail.
i guess... at this point i'd be happy if kellen doesn't take to many sacks and throws to many picks like young qbs tend to do. he seems to have the tools to be a "good" nfl qb. i would just like to let the guy get a training camp in as the starting qb before i judge him as a bust and draft his replacement. i'd rather gamble on not drafting a qb and have kellen play out all next season then wasting a high draft pick on another qb when we have SOOO many other needs.
Ken O'Brien was just as good as Chad. He lead a much better scoring Jet's offense for the majority of his career and the down seasons were largely caused by key injuries to other players instead of key injuries to himself (as in Chad's case.) Vinny you can argue both ways. No Jet's QB since 1969 has had as good a season as Vinny had in 1998. Similarly no Jets QB has won more games than the Jets won with Vinny at the helm that season. I'd have taken the 1998 Vinny over any season that Chad put up. In 2000 and 2001 Vinny kind of lived where Chad has his entire career except for 2002: he didn't help a lot and he didn't hurt ya much.
