Once they made the (questionable) decision to start Zach as a rookie the die was cast. Even so... we'd be fine if they had picked up a viable starter/placeholder. JD thought Joe Flacko was that guy. *News Flash*... He ain't.
I'm not so sure this ownership wouldn't go for the big FA QB or in trade. Historically, the FOs of this franchise haven't been original thinkers. They've always tried to emulate what has worked for other franchises, particularly NE. Hence our fruitless search for QB's in lower rounds. Now that we see franchises willing to pony up big bucks for top names like Brady and Wilson, they might be willing to do the same thing, if they decided to go that route. With the roster we have, the Jets can afford to give up a few years of top draft choices to get a top QB, which is the major deficit in this roster right now. I'm now at the point where we should stop thinking SB when evaluating QBs in the draft, roster or elsewhere. Before we can win a SB, we need to just win period. Let's do that first, and then we can see what's needed to go for the gold ring. However, that's after we've play out our hand with "zakypoo." We still have to see what he's got (or ain't got.)
Yeah if we can shell out the cash to sign Bell, then we can for a proven QB. But anyone remember the last time we did this with Neil O'donnell? That wasn't the solution. If we are close to being rebuilt then we can look in the draft. Just not top 5 if possible. The best QBs we've ever drafted were taken like 16, and 23. If we are close to being rebuilt, which this season should reveal, then maybe take a top 5 QB, if one looks tempting. This is only if Zach doesn't work out, which is way to soon to tell yet.
I'd like to think we have a far more knowledgeable FO now than we did back then. O'Donnell didn't work out, but Farve did, Vinny did, Fitz did too.
All those guys were temporary answers. - Favre was an answer for 11 games. I think the trade was a worthy gamble, but I can't say it worked out when the guy we dumped for Favre won the division that year (Pennington). - Vinny was an answer for a year (1998). He was hurt, so it's not totally fair, but he was average at best from 2000-01. - Fitz was an answer for a year, then he fell on his face. We're still looking for a multi-year answer.
Yes we are.. and until we find him, we might want to consider the temporary answers instead of the dead ends we've been dealing with. I'm good with a decent season or two vs. 10 years in the wilderness of the NFL backwater. The losing and eternal rebuild has gotten old. Very old. BTW, Farve had the Jets on a roll until he got hurt. We were... 8-3 once. Not sure when the last time we were that good.
The thing that has worked for the Jets when they were successful recently has been a good defense, a strong OL and a very good running game. That's been the basis for success of the NY Jets over time. The QB's have changed: Vinny to Chad to Sanchez to Fitzpatrick but the fundamentals have generally been to run the ball to win the game while passing to score. This current iteration of the Jets is likely to fail because it has none of the fundamental things that the Jets have to do to win consistently. The defense is mediocre to bad, the OL is mediocre at best and the running game is an ignored part of the offense.
And then he got hurt, and the guy we dumped to acquire Favre beat us in our building to win the division. I agree the losing and rebuild has gotten old. You have to hope that this is the group that turns things around. Even if Wilson busts, I think the rest of the roster is built up to the point where a veteran option could potentially work. But in general, I'd rather draft a guy than trade for a guy. And I don't want 1 decent season every 5 years. I want sustained success like we had from 1998-2011.
I believe you are wrong... not in your assessment of the team as it is right now... but in your prediction of failure to come. I think we are on the upswing... with stumbles along the way. We're at the start of year two.... gotta give it a chance.
This blueprint hasn't been the best one for NFL success since the late 90's. I don't know why we'd focus on what the Jets have been trying to do when we had been trying to fundamentally form the wrong type of team until 2 years ago. The way to consistently compete today is to accumulate playmakers on offense and good secondary players on defense and then hope you somehow find a QB to take you over the top. The last time we had success focusing on running+defense were the Ryan years. We had a top 5 running game and top 5 defense simultaneously and it still wasn't enough because we were so outmatched from a QB+firepower standpoint.
No, because the pressure is too much for most young QBs to turn around the Jets Franchise. You need an elite talent and strong personality. ZW is really just a prettier Darnold to be honest. So he’s a JAG IMO until he’s not and proves otherwise. I think the underdog type with chip on the shoulder, diamond in the rough is our answer to turn it around …..or a seasoned vet. I’m most likely wrong tho
They would all be great GM's if they could time warp back a few years after the draft and then pick. Real mensas. Cutting edge geniuses!
We lost to the Colts because Ryan's defensive plan was almost uniquely ill-equipped to deal with a spread offense with a great triggerman. Despite that we had a lead going into the second half but Darrelle Revis could only blanket one WR and Peyton was really good at identifying where the rush was coming from and finding his hot outlet. The Steelers beat us precisely because they had a strong run game and a great defense. Ben Roethlisberger went 10-19 for 133 yards with 0 TD's and 2 Int's. The Steelers rushed 43 times for 166 yards and 2 TD's. They did what you need to do to win better than we did it that day.
