I don't see anyone out there available - FA or trade - who could be considered a FQB. And isn't that the goal, to get a FQB? So anything the Jets do to impede achieving that goal should be a non-starter. They need to remove from consideration anyone who will cost a lot, in cap space and/or draft picks; they need to remove anyone who would block the development of Petty/Hack/Promising Rookie - this would be guys like Taylor or Glennon who would make the Jets just good enough to screw them out of high draft picks, but never good enough to get to the SB. And now we're starting to hear more realistic assessment of the "Bonanza" QB Class of 2018, that maybe they aren't as good as everyone thought. So maybe grabbing Watson or Mahomes NOW, makes more sense. And sign a cheap stopgap as insurance. Start with 4 QBs and let them compete and keep the three best. If it doesn't work out, try again in 2018, and then 2019, etc.
trading romo is actually what would cause the $19.6 mill dead money hit ... they could cut him with a june 1st designation and the cap hit would drop to $10.7 mill romo is going to push to be released and jerry loves him so much that he will oblige ... paying him $14 million to be a backup doesnt make sense for either party http://overthecap.com/calculator/dallas-cowboys/
That still doesn't make him a good fit for the Jets. Are they going to the SB with him as QB in the next two years? If not, he doesn't make any sense at all, even overlooking the likelihood of him suffering a career-ending injury. a big NO! to Romo!
i agree ... i want mack to show some conviction in his picks and roll with hack and petty competition
I'm with you on that, but I don't think either one is the answer so that's why I'm banging the drum for Watson or Mahomes being added to the mix, and the hell with any "stop gaps".
First of all, I know that you have acknowledged in a number of posts that Mac probably won't take a QB high in this draft and that you can understand why he wouldn't. I'm going to attempt to explain below why I think he can't or shouldn't. Unless Mac is absolutely convinced that neither Petty nor Hack are the answer at QB or there's a "can't miss" FQB sitting there at the #6 pick, he shouldn't (and I believe won't), draft another QB high this year. One, he would be ridiculed (and rightfully so) by everyone (the NFL, the media, and the fan base) if he drafted another QB high this year. It would call his ability to evaluate QBs into question, and would loudly proclaim that he was second-guessing himself, didn't trust his own judgment in picking Hack and Petty, and that he was already giving up on them. If he takes another QB high, then that QB, fairly or not, will get most of the new OC's and QB Coach's attention. If nothing else, it would divide their attention, so neither Petty nor Hack would progress as he should/could Two, Hack didn't even get a chance to fix his fundamentals and hasn't seen the field. The previous OC and QB Coach obviously didn't do a good job working with Petty, and Petty lost a lot of time to the injury he suffered in preseason. Even so, he showed a lot of improvement and some potential. Mac has to give his new OC and QB Coach a chance to coach Petty and Hack up, and he has to give them a chance to show what they can do. Three, the Jets have a ton of other holes that need fixing. If he takes another QB high and doesn't address some of those other holes, it will call into question his ability to put together a football team. Mac's previous drafts have been a mixed bag, and not many players have started immediately and made an immediate impact on the team's play. Taking another QB high would lose the opportunity to improve the team by addressing some of those holes. It would be a luxury and insurance policy the team cannot afford. The Jets aren't going to be lucky or good enough to hit on two of the QBs they've drafted, much less all three, so we can't claim that he could trade the loser(s) in the 3-way QB competition. Mac has to try to get something out of the picks he has already used on QB so that they weren't wasted. He needs to take players in this draft who can start day one and help the team immediately. QB may be the most important position and need they have, but it isn't the only need they have. He needs to hit a triple, if not a home run in this draft, or his job may be in jeopardy. He won't do it by drafting a QB who is a project and who needs to sit for a year or two. Four, if Petty or Hack develop, they need solid teams around them, not yet another QB sitting on the bench. And having four QBs even during OTAs and TC is a bad idea. It would cut down on the number of reps and hinder the development of Hack and Petty during the critical time when they need it the most. Five, you yourself have stated many times (and rightfully so) how the offense has been ignored for too many drafts. There are great TE & RB prospects in this draft. There are also some good WR prospects. Mac could help Petty or Hack out immensely by adding a topnotch TE and RB to the offense. While adding another QB prospect would be addressing the offense, he has already added two QBs that he thought could be their QB of the future, and he hasn't given them a chance yet to prove whether or not they can do the job. He needs to give them that opportunity, and help them by adding pieces around them in the offense to help them succeed. Adding another QB would hinder them, rather than help. Six, Bowles is an equal in Woody's eyes, and he could rightfully go to Woody and say that Mac wasn't helping him succeed/build a winner. He could point out how much his D needs a #1 CB and that this is a great draft in which to find that #1 CB. He could point out how much the team needs a legit pass rusher, and that this is a very good draft to add that pass rusher. He could make a very strong case as to why the first two picks should be a pass rushing OLB and a CB. He could also make a strong case that we need a replacement for Harris at ILB, and at MLB when they play 4 man fronts. He could point out what a great prospect Foster is and how he could immensely help make the front 7 and D a lot better. In support of his new OC and QB Coach, Bowles could also say that the new QB Coach deserves a chance to work with Petty and Hack and that Morton needs some more help on the offensive side of the ball. He could point out the big question marks at both OT positions. He could make a very strong point for trading down, gaining addtional picks and addressing multiple needs to make the team better. IMO the only way the Jets could or should take a QB high in this draft would be if he were a slam dunk, consensus can't miss FQB who fell because the 5 teams picking in front of the Jets were either too stupid to take him or they already had FQBs and didn't need him. That isn't the case.
First, thanks for your thoughtful - if lengthy - reply. Second, if a guy has a chance to improve his team/company/department/whatever, and doesn't because it would make his previous decisions look bad, he needs to be fired immediately. Third, there is almost NEVER a "consensus" pick of ANY QB. Even as we speak, the previously "anointed" QB Class of '18 is already being re-evaluated back to reality, and several of those "cant miss" QBs are now being looked on as "not ready for prime time". If the Jets wait for someone to tell them "You can't miss with this guy!" they're even more hopeless than I think they are. Fourth, personally, I wouldn't look on Watson or Mahomes as "projects". If they took one of them, they need to let them compete for the starting job, and if they can't win it, and they don't show any real potential to win it - and that goes for Petty and Hack too - then they need to be cut. Fifth, again, I acknowledge that Macc and Bowles won't draft a QB that high, if at all. So yes, I agree that filling the "O" side skill positions and OL are the next highest priority. And again, let me say, that this doesn't mean that the "D"should be ignored, but on THIS team, as presently constituted, they need to fix the "O". So how would I do that? Ideally I would take Fournette or Cook at #6; then I would take the best OL available with the 2nd pick - unless Mahomes were still there; then I would look for the best pass rusher/CB/Safety available; then I would look for a two-way TE. I would be open to taking the pass rusher/CB/Safety with the 2nd pick if I though that guy was better than the OL I was considering, but then I would look for the OL in the 3rd pick. I wouldn't consider trading down from the #6 pick UNLESS I was certain I could snag Cook or Howard with my first pick, AND it gave me two low second round picks. And I'm not naive enough to think that the Jets wold be this bold.
I'd trade the #6 down without thinking about it too hard. This draft is rich in defensive players and poor on the offensive side. Trading down and picking up some more picks is still going to leave the Jets with good options on the defensive side, even with the top tier gone, and it will open up some choices on the offensive side as the value begins to become in line with the pick slot.
You're welcome. Your second response makes no sense imo. Mac has a lot of chances to improve his team in this draft that have nothing to do with the QB position, so it's not an either or situation. That's not the only way to improve the team. You also don't draft a player high and then give up on him after one year, especially when you knew he was going to be a little bit of a project anyway. THAT would be dumb and an immediately fireable offense imo. When you already have two young QBs, you don't take a third. In doing so, you're working against any of their chances of succeeding because you're having to split the reps. The practice in the NFL is also when one drafts a player high at a position where there is only one starter in one year, and then draft another at the same position the following year, that you're pretty much saying that you're not happy with the player you took the previous year and are pretty much giving up on him, unless one is just drafting strictly according to BPA. With regards to your third thing, perhaps I used a bit too much hyperbole. Consensus can't miss QBs aren't common by any means, but there are other QBs who are thought of as topflight prospects and top ten picks because they are that good, and not just because they're QBs. Jameis Winston, Cam Newton, and Mariota fell in that category, and there are others. It could change, but right now, a number of the "experts" don't see Mahomes or Watson as even 1st round picks. If they are correct and aren't worthy of being 1st round picks, then they most likely will be projects. If they were to take Watson or Mahomes, then I agree that they should be able to compete for the starting job, but to say that they should be cut because they didn't immediately win the starting job after having just been drafted a few months earlier is absolutely ridiculous. Talk about your fireable offense!
My second response was not an "either or" comment. What I said was that if the reason that Macc passed on drafting a QB was because he would be embarrassed by having missed on Hack then he should be fired. Not that if he passed on taking a QB he should be fired. Actually, right now, a lot of experts are reassessing their thoughts about the QBs and where they'll likely be drafted. Not to say that changing their likely draft round makes them any better or worse, but a lot of "experts" are saying that Watson, Kizer, Trubisky, Mahomes, are going in the 1st or 2nd rounds. A good part of that is because so many teams are desperate for a QB, but it also implies that a lot of these scouts think they'd be worth that high of a pick. And maybe they will be "projects", but here's my thought on that: A guy like Hack is a project because not only were his mechanics messed up, but he became absolutely horrible as a result. Contrast that with a guy like Mahomes whose mechanics are allegedly messed up, but who is accurate nonetheless. IMO a guy like that has a better chance of starting right away, and not be a "project" - obviously he would have a learning curve, but wouldn't be "dead wood" like a true project. As to cutting the "loser", what I said was: "...and they don't show any real potential to win it - and that goes for Petty and Hack too - then they need to be cut. " That is, if they show potential, then of course keep them, but the likelihood is that one of them will be clearly the loser and not worth spending more times, money, and roster spots on.
Here's the exact quote: IMO this says more than what you claim above that it does. It also makes it sound like that adding a QB is the only way to improve the team. Regardless of whether that's what you meant or not, NFL GMs almost never admit that they made a mistake in drafting a player after one year, especially QBs. If you fired Gms for not doing that, no GM would last more than a year or two with his team. The thing is that unless the guy is ready to start day one, you can't always tell after a year if a player has any "real potential" to win the starting job. Hack is a perfect example. How did Aaron Rodgers look after his first year? Should the Packers have cut him? How about Tom Brady? The GM obviously thought he had that potential or never would have drafted him in the first place, but some players take more than a year to develop. Besides, giving up on a player, especially a QB, and one drafted high after one year is dumb.
Came across a few articles about a QB should could be a diamond in the rough and possibly the next dak Prescott....Not perfect but very good. That would be Nathan Peterman. Even runs a pro style offense. Is this guy a complete waste of a pick? Yea he's probably a project but so is everyone in this draft.
I agree. Turn one asset into multiple assets Don't go by Dak, people. The O-line is the MVP of the team. Too many "experts" are fooling themselves on that.
They contributed that I do not deny but the O-line is the driving force. If you put Dak and Deke behind the Giants O-line, would they have the same season or being anywhere close to what they were?
IMO your post has it backward. The OL contributed but Dak and Zeke were more important. We know without them, the Cowboys were awful. Of course the 2016 Cowboys would have been worse with the Giants OL. But I don't think they would have gone 4-12.
I hear 2018 will be a QB rich draft. Sooooo.... For this upcoming season, let Petty-Hack punch it out in TC and go with the best (sure, we can bring in a used tire vet as QB assurance, but that doesn't change what I'm saying here). Go into the season with the best of Hack/Petty, and FIND OUT if either can be our QB of the future. It's pretty clear (to me) that Petty can't be 'that guy', so hopefully Hack beats him out in TC and goes on to have a Dak kind of season right here for our beloved NY Football Jets. BUT (there's always a 'but') BUT if the Hack/Petty experiment proves to be a total bust, and we finish the season 2-14 (ish), we will be in a great position to get one of the good QB coming out in 2018. Plus we can combine the pick we get for Richardson to move up another slot and get closer to #1. So, we either HAVE our QB on the team already, or we DRAFT him in the 2018 draft. No more 'red-shirt', developmental wasted year bullshit. Figure it out NOW!!!
I'm definitely in the 'Give Petty/Hack the season' camp. Unless we 100% behind a FA or draft prospect, we should give these guys the year. Ensure we have a team around them that can protect them and give them targets, so if they were to fail, then it's on them. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Obviously out of the QB's we have on the roster atm, the job is plainly Petty's right now and if we are going to go with him at number 1 then we have to design plays that play to his strengths and have a good running game. From what I seen he is struggling with mid throwing routes 8-15 yards distance, not spotting open receivers, still throwing into the designated receivers zone even if the throw is not on. His main strength is throwing long but you can't do that every throw, so he needs to be practicing hard on his awareness and chain moving ability in the off season.
