Why is it a rebuild? If you are getting rid of Rodgers then the replacement should raise the ceiling. The Jets have to win next year. It's not a rebuild.
It's not a rebuild, the team is loaded with talent that has had no coaching staff. If it's a "rebuild" then Glenn is already a failure at head coach. Any competent head coach can win 10-12 games with these players.
Some of us, including myself, bought into the hype. I'll admit that I'm terrible at seeing the Jet's poor moves when they happen. I only see them after the fact. That's why I shouldn't waste my time following the team's player moves.
I think Rodger's trip was a small part of a larger problem. That problem was that they semi-built the team around Rodgers. Examples: Hackett, Lazard and other players they brought in from Green Bay, who were horrible. This was in addition to terrible head coaching and other dumb moves by JD. Bringing in Rodgers was a good idea, but also adding his baggage was NOT a good idea.
What I'm curious about is how this meeting with Rodgers went down. It seems like it would be a dick move, even for Woody, to have Rodgers fly to New Jersey just to tell him he's fired. I wonder if the meeting was designed to tell Rodgers the new ground rules and to see if he could live with them. By new ground rules, I mean the principles that (1) Glenn is in charge; (2) Rodgers would have to run the new OC's offense; and (3) the team would no longer cater to Rodgers. If that's correct, it must mean that Rodgers refused to play under the new ground rules.
I have been a fan of Rodgers throughout his career and was very happy when we got him. I wish JD didn't get raped in the compensation he paid for him, but as far a QB of the Jets I felt it was a good move. And Rodgers in his second year did a lot better than Zach. Even though we won fewer games, I feel this is not all on him. Majority of these 6-7 games we lost when we were leading in the 4th this year, we probably win with 2023 defense and 2023 Greg Z. I also don't mind about his off the field stuff. I commend him for embracing the Jets and at least trying as hard as he could to change the narrative. Even when he got badly hurt, he tried to do everything he could to help. But ultimately he could not pull it off, because it is not the same Rodgers that we remember. Which brings me to the point. My main concern with Rodgers is his decline. He has dropped off dramatically and lost his mobility. Even the opposing teams' players were joking about it. It's very tough to survive in today's NFL without it. And Rodgers did a decent job of it, he was hurt, he played through pain, and he should be commended for it. But he will not get hurt any less in the future, but more. He is getting older, and father time is undefeated. He will decline some more next year, that's just inevitable. And this year he was extremely inconsistent. Overall he finished as a below average QB. Next year realistically if he plays he is is expected to be even worse than that as we have to factor in the decline. He is realistically expected to get hurt more too. Now, a below average QB is still the best we've had in years, so Rodgers is not the worst option we can have, far from it. But it is not something we should STRIVE to have. I know we haven't seen it, but I do want to give an opportunity to the new regime to find a longer term solution at QB, just like Philly ultimately found Hurts. Now that doesn't mean I want to tank next year. But I do want to have a younger option which has potential to be a longer term solution. It's basically the same thing Minny did when they moved on from Kirk. They got a young QB in FA AND drafted one, hoping one of two hits. That dual approach IMPROVES the probability of success. Similarly, we can get Fields (who btw is a former teammate of GW and was spoken very highly of by GW) AND next year in a better QB class we can draft a QB. And if Fields sucks (btw Rodgers can suck too next year) we get a better pick. If Rodgers is good, which I am honestly not sure he will be, he is gone anyway. This difference is if Fields is good, then we have something there. So to me, Fields is just a superior option to Rodgers for 2025 from a long term perspective and comparable from the short term. And I know we may not get him, but at least we need to strive to maximize our chances to solve the QB, and Rodgers, while can still play, he is not amazing anymore, and doesn't do that.
Man, I feel like you are in for a looooong year. New GM, new coach, new staff, new QB. On what planet is that not a full rebuild?
I wouldn't call it a rebuild because I do think we can win next year. We just have to do it with the future QB in mind. For example, I know Travis is more likely to get cut than be a starter next year, but I do want to see what he can bring to the table maybe to just rule it out or who knows. There are also other options in draft or FA, which have a non zero probability of a longer term solution. According to QBR Fields is already better than Rodgers today due to his mobility. Even when you look at PFF, which rates Rodgers #18 with 77.8 score, Fields is actually at 71, which is already comparable, and we should be expecting Rodgers to decline too. So, moving on from Rodgers is not a rebuild by itself. Depends on what the new regime does we might get a similar production short term from a younger player, but the one that improves the probability of finding a longer term solution. Replacing Rodgers doesn't have to mean we will win 2 games. I still think we can compete for the play-offs and have a higher longer term QB probability - IF the new regime plays its cards right, which I want to give them at least an opportunity to do.
Yes, this. Didn't see this before I responded. And the premise of "we have tons of talent" only works if that talent stays. I can easily see GW not being a Jet this season. And with the way yesterday went down, a Q trade request doesn't seem too unlikely. Our WR room is horrendous without Adams, we don't have a competent TE, we have to retain Sherwood, we have to find a DJ Reed replacement. And this is looking solely at the roster, not even factoring in the GM, HC, staff and QB.
I hope not. This would be pretty stupid by the FO. We have him under contract for two more years, and we need to give him extension, not trade him. Getting rid of 41 year old Rodgers is not the same as trading away a 24 year old GW. We need to have an eye on the future. Rodgers is not a part of it. GW is. There is a giant difference how these two situations need to be handled.
When Campbell and Glenn took over the Lions one of their first moves was to trade away Matthew Stafford, the diva veteran QB. People were pissed, players were pissed, the Lions were mocked. And they were TERRIBLE year 1. They dont regret that decision now though do they? --- you can't rebuild with a 41 year old diva at QB. And the Jets weren't winning with Rodgers anyway. Such a good decision to move on
We understand that, the front office understands that, the reality is star players end up getting their way more often than not. If GW ends up here through his contract he can easily walk when he's a FA if we're still dogshit. Which it looks like we will be.
It's not a rebuild. The team has talent. A rebuild is when your team has nothing. The Giants are a rebuild. The Jets are not. If you think it's a rebuild then Glenn already sucks and we should fire him.
I am actually not sure this trade is what propelled them to turn things around. They may have been better off keeping Matt. I think this is different though. Matt was turning 33 years old at the time. Rodgers is turning 42 this year. Matt was of on top of his game. Rodgers greatly declined is still declining. Yes, AG's teams got rid of both, but there are a lot more differences than similarities.
Agreed it is not a rebuild, but there are QB options out there which are not much worse (if any) where Rodgers is expected to be this year, while giving better probability for a longer term QB.
