No they aren't really all that similar other than they are both unconventional & likely require some sort of downfield spread attack to have success. My point was that the Jets are better suited for a straight up pro style game manager who can drive the ball down the seam. A guy like Lamar Jackson needs an innovative offensive coaching staff that will cater the game to his strengths & playing style..much like Geno did..but the comparisons end there no doubt
Clemson's defense is a tough customer, and he got no help from his WR's but weak showing for Jackson tonight on the big stage.
Food for thought about Jackson: https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/9/17/16320524/clemson-vs-louisville-2017-results "Three times in the first two drives, Jackson failed to connect with open receivers on plays that would have resulted in first downs or long gains. This struck me as important, because his offensive line protected him on these throws against a Clemson front that might be the best in the country. He did not get better when the game was in the balance. He started just 6-of-18 for 61 yards. When Jackson threw a pick-six to seal the game at 26-7 with 24 minutes left, he was 11-of-24 for just 113 yards. It was a bad game from Jackson, and it came at the worst possible time. For all the talk of Jackson being a better passer, he didn’t show it." I don't like QBs who have gotten a lot of their success by their feet. In college they can do this, but in the pros, not so much.
Clemson has a national champion type defense, in order for Louisville to stay in any game, Lamar Jackson has to play out of his mind. I don't think it's fair to throw the blame at him for losing that game the way they did. Louisville receivers dropped a lot of passes and I just now saw some of the highlights of that game. He definitely has shown major progression in terms of playing within the pocket. Gives his receivers chances to win and doesn't turn the ball over a lot. Lighting quick release too. I think I still have him in the top 3. Rosen, Darnold, Jackson.
Hes better then RG3. I've seen him take some big hits and get right back up, that's not RG3 and that Baylor offense. Jackson does more for his team.
All it takes is one head coach that likes him and a GM that is willing to put the weapons around him.
I respect your assessments, so I'll go along with this..up to a point. But I still think you need a certain kind of team around Jackson - he's not "plug & play" like Darnold or Rosen are. If team is willing to invest in giving him the right supporting cast, and they have coaching that can take advantage of his skillset, then he can be a FQB. But that requires a LOT of pieces to come together, and I don't see the Jets doing this.
I don't think it's hard to tailor an offense around his skill-set. All it takes is one head coach that likes him and a GM that is willing to put the weapons around him. Give him a good RB, speedy receivers. I know exactly what type of play-calls I would use for Jackson. I would try and stretch the field horizontally, to set them up vertically. It would be like the Seahawks model.
What exactly would you have to get Lamar that you wouldn't need for a more classic type qb? With the way this team is now, I think Lamar could do better early using his athleticism while he learns to play qb.
He could and may definitely succeed in this league. But it'll take the right coach to make him successful. I don't see us building an offense and system around him for sustained success past a year or two. We're just not the right organization for Jackson IMO. Bruce Arians has worked with more traditional pocket passers his whole career. But he's the type of coach I could see tailoring an offense around a guy like Jackson. Andy Reid is another one. Chip Kelly could run his system around Jackson. I guess it depends if we decide to move on from Bowles and whom that coach is. Any head coach or offensive coordinator that tries to run a pro-style offense with him, especially early on in his young career, is an idiot and nevermind should have selected him.
Well that's why I was on fire for Mahomes or Watson, but apparently that was a dumb idea. But, yeah, if we wound up with Jackson, I would hope we could take advantage of his great skills. I'm still hoping for Rosen, or maybe Darnold, but JAckson would be an okay "consolation prize".
It's not so much what players you get for Jackson, as the system you employ. I don't think the Jets have a system that would work for Jackson, but if they replaced Bowles they might install one.
thats a bullshit cop out response, bowles hired gailey and his spread offense right out of the gate, you don't think gailey, who made kordell stewart a star for a while, could taylor an offense to lamar jackson? fact is, any coach willing to simplify his offense,much like you would for any young qb, and live with him pulling it down every now, rolling him out and just let him be him while he learns can have success with him.
so your just going to ignore the first part of my post? lets not pretend bowles is as conservative as rex was trying to go back to '80s football.
I didn't ignore it. I answered it. I don't see any real difference - for the better between Bowels and Rex. I don't see where under Bowles a QB who likes to pull it down and run would be taken advantage of. What do you see in your crystal ball id Jackson were a Jet under Bowles?
