Panicking? There's no panic. We have the worst QB in the NFL. It's the most important position in the game. That's it. What part of strategy says to indefinitely ignore the biggest possible weakness you can have as a football team?
Okay, I did do some math. In the 52 SBs played, there have been only 8 won by the #1 or first-taken QB (when they were with the team that drafted them). So that's 15%. The bold actually supports my point: from what Douglas has seen, trading up and/or using high draft picks to get a QB does not ensure winning the SB. Again, this is NOT my preferred way of thinking, I'm just pointing out that JD may very well not take a QB at #2.
I wonder what this looks like for the past 10 or 20 years. Importance of QB has definitely gone way up.
Maybe we should get the Mannings to help us with the QB situation. Surely they know excellence when they see it.
Where all this "panic" talk is coming from is crazy. You have what most say is a very strong group of QB prospects at the top of the draft where we pick. We have literally the worst statistical QB in the league going into his 4th year where we have to decide to pay him, we have all sorts of assets in the next couple years to properly rebuild the team. And picking a QB is "panicking?"
it's not great at #1 either My plan is you get a team identity and style of play and you draft and develop players for that. the great aaron rodgers sat for 2 years before getting any playing time. Almost every good team in the country has developed players who were not sexy #1 or #2 picks Teams that have picked QB first have failed miserably, see Lions, Texans, Raiders Tampa etc. Lots of high picks have not worked out It could be the case that the team actually wants more of a game manager who can run and chuck it down field only opportunistically, or to throw only after a dominant running game. if they think Fields is worth #2 and if it fits their vision of the team they should draft him. They should NOT draft him simply under the logic of who knows when we'll be number 2 again.
Kind of gets distorted by Brady winning 6 or whatever it was, how many other multiple winners, the commentator that was the QB for the Steelers?
So, that's 4 SBs out of 20 won by #1 picks. Brady won 6, there there are only 10 left. They are: #6 Pick: 1 (Dilfer) #227 Pick: 1 (Johnson) #11 Pick: 2 (Big Ben) #32 Pick: 1 (Brees) #24 Pick: 1 (Rogers) #18 Pick: 1 (Flacco) #75 Pick: 1 (Wilson) #88 Pick 1 (Foles) #10 Pick: 1 (Mahomes) It looks like #1 picks have done quite well on that list with 4 SB wins, and top 11 picks account for 8 out of 20 SBs. You got three in 18-32 range. The GOAT screws up the stats a bit with 6 wins being selected late in the draft, but I think you can see a pattern where more guys are winning from top 11.
There are about 100 quarterbacks on NFL rosters; Darnold is number 31 according to a chart posted yesterday. That does not make him "the worst QB in the NFL" by any stretch of the law of mathematics.
I thought it was obvious I meant worst starter, I guess not. He was objectively the worst starter when you look at an average of the important QB metrics. Even if he was the 2nd worst starter would that change anything about my point?
Your point ignores the fact that each team needs more than one quarterback. Keeping Darnold here does not mandate he must be the number one.
Just as many teams that picked their QB later failed miserably. The NFL is changing, the philosophy among younger coaches is to design/build your system around the players you have, which is much smarter than trying to shove square pegs into round holes, and should help prevent so many players from busting. If coaches are looking at what the players they draft do well and don't do well, they should be able to find productive niches for most of them.
The part that says you have jack shit to surround them with as a rookie and you are immediately putting them in position to fail.
If you are saying Sam is basically a back-up now, who needs to wait for next opportunity, then I think we agree. The only problem is that we have Morgan on the second year also, who is young, and we need a starter. I feel the best way to get that starter is by drafting a young QB, like Fields. Then we have 3 young players and no vet QB on the roster. I guess it is possible, but trading Sam for a pick and retaining someone like Flacco, who can teach Fields a thing or two is probably a better idea.
Don't the Jets have to pick up or decline Sam's 5th year option before the season starts? Is the plan to pay Sam a starter's salary to be a backup?
They have a couple of days after the draft to make the decision. Option day is May 3rd this year I think.
Haven't people addressed this point enough already? The Jets have a ton of early picks and cap space. The team is going to look significantly different on offense and defense next year. If you wait until the perfect situation to draft a QB you will never get one. It's an extreme rarity to be picking as high as we are this year.
It looks like you're operating on the premise that Flacco will be a better quarterback in September than Darnold will be. The Jets need to get a proper quarterbacks coach for all the QBs on the roster, something they have failed to do for many years, not rely on also-ran players to do that job.
