Nobody's gonna draft Cam Newton with the idea of starting him from Day 1 unless it's that old senile bastid Al Davis.
while i don't think it should even be a consideration. Is it not believeable that if Newton is a top 5 pick, he will be the best QB on that teams roster, and subsequently deserving of starting in this new NFL where teams with rookie QB's and HC are making the playoffs? If he goes to Az or cincy (assuming the removal of palmer) I can't see Newton not starting day 1.
a nice situation for newton would be the titans and learn from kerry collins for a little while...other than that, if he goes in the top ten, he'll probably start
When the kid has never had to read a D or taken a snap from under center??? While it wouldn't surprise that there would be some dumbass HC in the league that would do that, it would amount to flushing whatever chances Newton has to develop into a star down the drain. He'd either get seriously injured running the ball so frequently or would wind up losing confidence and have to be benched. The thing is, because of his lack of experience, having to work on drops and reading Ds, he wouldn't be the best QB on the roster of those team, I don't care who they had. He would be the best prospect and best athlete, but not the best QB, at least not from the get-go.
The team that drafts Newton probably does exactly what the Jets did with Sanchez, the Falcons did with Ryan, the Lions did with Stafford-start him his rookie year but put as little as possible on his plate.
I'd love for teams to sign both Cro and Holmes. Adding at least a 2nd and a 3rd, if not 2 - 2nds or a 1st and 2nd would be sweet in this draft. The Jets could fix their D in a big way.
There is zero chance of this and anyone who even thinks about it is proving that they are completely ignorant about football.
you misunderstand, I don't disagree, they should certainly sit Cam for at least a full season, he needs the Carson Palmer treatment. But I seriously, seriously doubt it actually happens. When owners are seeing this working suddenly all over the league, they are going to expect when they draft a top 5-10 QB, he should be starting straight away, and they should get results almost immediately. The only top 10 situations where newton gets drafted where I could see him not starting, is Buffalo and Tennesee. I also think there is no chance in hell the Bills draft a QB top 3, and then let Fitzpatrick start over him for very long. Newton may not start day 1, but by day 5 I expect him under center. His best bet to avoid starting right away is tennessee, but does anybody really think the team that just went through the failed Vince Young experiment is about to draft the guy who is constantly compared to Young? I don't.
Whoa, back up Jack!!!! Did you think I meant one team signing both? Maybe I wasn't clear, but I said teams (as in 2), not one team signing both. Of course no one team would sign both, but I think that was abundantly clear for anyone who has even a basic comprehension of English and any intelligence, but hey, maybe you had a rough day, are drinking while posting or doing some recreational drug that's clouding your comprehension.
I didn't actually think that you thought he should start, was just reacting to the thought that someone would actually try to start him immediately. Unfortunately, you're undoubtedly right...some moronic HC and or owner will insist upon it and more than likely ruin the kid. I don't know about Tennessee. I've heard from some that Bud Adams in more than a little senile, plus I don't know how much he interjects/interferes with his football people, so it's hard to say. I don't think there are any real comparisons between Young and Newton, so that shouldn't be a factor, but it could be. I hope for Newton's sake that he will go to a team with a veteran QB and has a smart GM, HC and owner in the NFC and they will let the kid sit for a year or two learn from the vet. It will be interesting to see where he's drafted. Mr E thinks he could go #1 or in the top 10. I'm not so sure about that. He's an exciting player, a dynamic talent, and certainly has the potential to be the best player in this draft, but he has a lot to learn and limited experience. For his sake, I think it would be better if he did drop to the middle or towards the bottom of the round so there wouldn't be that pressure to start him immediately.
The timing of that US district court judge overruling the NFL's right to the media money nest egg combined with the timing of all of these surprise RFA tenders yesterday is pretty curious. It almost looks like the teams have tipped the NFL's hand and your scenario about extending the current deal into 2012 in order to allow a full 2011 season is more likely, IMO. Tanny's pressers about wanting to go into this season with mostly the same players doesn't seem as ridiculous now.
No, I understood what you said. It's just a completely absurd hope. 1.) Your situation requires a new CBA before the draft. Probably not happening. 2.) Your situation requires a new CBA where Cro and Holmes are RFAs. Not happening. This would require the players to completely capitulate-letting teams control players for six years is horrible for players because most players are out of the league by six years. The reports are that they're talking about three or four years before free agency, not six. 3.) Your situation requires teams to say "I'm giving up high draft picks for Holmes and Edwards for one year only" or agree to resign them to big contracts and make the trade. Not happening for either of them. Would you give a first and a third (or some slightly lower agree to comp) for Holmes knowing you either have him for a year or have to give him a huge contract? Same question for Cromartie. If your plan requires other teams to make stupid moves then your plan is stupid; NFL teams are run by pretty bright guys.
I believe that when the new agreement is reached these tenders just given out by the Jets will stick. That pretty much assures that the Jets will keep Holmes and Cromartie and all the players that were tendered. No team is going to give up a 1 and a 3 for those players - no way. Also why would ownership agree to eliminate these tenders for future years. Maybe they will be changed but something will be in place so that teams have a good chance to retain their own players.
Why were Tanny's statements in that regard ridiculous in any sense? The Jets unlike the year previous were a more solid team through the roster with fewer obvious holes. Improving the front seven on D, strengthening the secondary bench and replacing RT seem the only significant needs. That would suggest what Tanny has been saying as not the least bit ridiculous. More to the point I am a bit surprised reading through this thread that there is no recognition generally sinking in, I would say finally, that the Jet FO is not looking to unload Cromartie. I understand the tender does not make his return a sure thing, but I have felt all along they wanted him back, and have been baffled by what I felt was the majority sentiment that he should go. Frankly, and I do mean frankly, I have wondered if at least some here were influenced by that rumor some ten days ago that they were NOT going to try and bring Cro back, but that never made sense to me. Count me as one who will be more surprised than even before if Cro is not the starting #2 cb for the Jets on opening day.
Meh - you know I'm with you on the Cromartie issue but I don't see how this report tells us the Jets FO's intentions with him one way or another. If these tags somehow hold, it's basically just a cheap way to retain all the guys they tagged without having to negotiate and deal with other teams bidding. If it came down to a bidding war who knows what their stance would be.
WSW, The Jets are not being obtuse. Earlier this week they released players, Cro not among them. Cro was listed instead among players they are tendering. As I said this does not mean in and of itself that Cro will definitely be back, but IT IS entirely consistent with the notion that they want him back and will pursue him. And that is not what some here have said they will do, or in some cases the argument (imo without asserting a plausible basis) is that they should not do that. Not only do I think they should, all signs seem to be that they will.
They released players whose salary or more specifically whose cap number no longer matches their value to the Jets. Those moves are to save cap money and trim fat. The Jets could not save money on any of the players they tagged because they are no longer under contract with the Jets in 2011. The tags are nothing more than a move to get those players on the cheap without having to negotiate within a free market (if the tags hold). So yea, the Jets are saying "we'd like to keep Cromartie", but it's obviously qualified with "if he's cheap". That's not to say they wouldn't want him for fair market value, but they haven't done anything publicly to indicate they would.
