A gamble with odds tremendously against your favor, on a team that was in NO position of throwing away a 2nd rounder. The kid is the worst QB in football. And we wonder why he suck like a stone in the draft? Maybe, just maybe, professionals looked at him and said he's not a franchise QB at all. But our genius front office knows better right? I was on record saying this pick (and draft) was an epic failure, the night of the draft. We didn't get value for Geno. We wasted a 2nd round pick on a non-starting level QB.
But that is completely based on hindsight. Any draft pick is a gamble, any one could turn into a hall of famer or be playing arena league before the end of the year. There were certainly indicators Geno wasn't in the hall of fame potential category but it's not like he was defacto going to just be a career backup as his ceiling, he had potential (still does, as a matter of fact, he's just a rookie not all of them are pro-bowlers in year one) and they felt that the gamble of a potential franchise QB for a 2nd round pick was worth it. I mean, if I told you right now we could give up a second round pick and would randomly be assigned one of the current 31 other starting QBs would you take that deal? I sure as hell would! We could get a Brees or Manning or *sigh* Brady...on the flip side we could get Chad Henne. It's the same idea and with a QB the potential reward is even higher than it is with say a DB so you are more prone to taking that gamble. For the record I didn't like the the Geno pick (see page 17 of this thread for my first posts on the matter...maybe a bit exaggerated in my anger but at least shows I'm not a Geno homer) but I disagree with your approach to a 2nd round pick backup QB being an epic fail.
I'm not defending the turnovers, I'm just speaking to one of the many differences between the 2009 and 2013 teams. The 2009 Jets D holds the Titans to 6 points combined off those turnovers, and I feel confident in typing that. Mark had that type of support on D. Geno does not. This doesn't excuse the mistakes, it just highlights the problems with comparing their rookie seasons. And both were bottom 3-5 NFL QBs their rookie years, so I don't even know what we are quibbling about.
Northern: What you aren't accounting for is evaluation, and team needs. This team has tremendous needs across the board. That means it is prudent to not take gambles with high round draft picks. Secondly, you say no one really knows. But in many cases, as with Geno, he was clearly (to me) not a franchise QB. I couldn't be 100% sure, no, but it's not like we are taking shots in the dark. There was a mountain of evidence that made the odds of him becoming a franchise QB minute. As such, multiple teams passed him by. This is an organization that has made the poorest draft choices over and over and over. We are in a position now where we still don't have a QB, and still have no weapons. But hey, we got value.
So you're that guy. Making up what you think/hope would have happened in retrospect. And because you are confident typing that, it's your gospel. Got it. By the way, I have not mentioned once he who should not be mentioned, I am not comparing the two positively or negatively. I'm not even comparing them. I'm talking about Geno Smith and only Geno Smith. Those turnovers in the Titan game did the defense no favors. Red zone, near redzone, 50 yard line and a buttfumble into the endzone. Again, not the shining example of good turnovers that you were looking for. His bombs that have gotten picked I'm fine with. _
You're missing my point, the turnovers were terrible, I don't dispute that. I was just arguing how different the 2009 and 2013 Jets were. In 2009, we gave up 7 passing TDs all season. We were the #1 pass D by a mile, even better than the 2013 Seahawks pass D (which has been dominant). The 2013 Jets have been torched all year long by opposing QBs, and not always good ones. We're #25 in the league against the pass. This isn't speculation, the 2009 Jets pass D would never have let a jag like Locker throw 3 first-half TDs, they were too sound and too good. If you could put a rookie QB on a team with the #1 pass D or the #25 pass D, which environment do you feel would be more conducive to his success? You seem to think both environments are equal, and that is where we strongly disagree.
It's a great point and apparently missed by most. Int's are the result of lots of different things going wrong but one of the main reasons is some teams need to take more risk because they aren't very good. They increase the risk in order to get rewarded against superior talent. The Jets O in 09 didn't need to take a lot of risk for 2 reasons. The best D in the league coupled with the Best running game in the league. This Jets team has neither of those attributes. It must take outside risks to win on both sides of the ball. We lose containment on D because of it and we get picked off more then we should because of it.
Like I said, not a fan of the Geno pick in particular, I would have drafted a lot differently than they did although, admittedly, that includes not drafting Richardson who was a great pickup. Only saying that 1) it's only one year and Geno or any draft pick for that matter hasn't hit their ceiling (if that was the case and we're talking about bad draft picks we should be talking about Milliner well before Geno) and 2) that any draft pick is a gamble and that sometimes those gambles pay off and sometimes they don't. The QB is arguably the most important position in the sport (or any sport for that matter) so the payoff is bigger than a gamble on a DB or something so the risk is assessed a little differently. Just like if you could buy a lottery ticket with 1,000 to 1 odds of winning $500 or 100,000 to 1 odds of winning $1mil you might take the longer odds for the potential of a higher reward.
So in essence you are arguing that Geno is better than Sanchez. WOWZA that is AWESOME. 2009 has nothing to do with the discussion of Geno, what he hypothetically could have done in 2009 is (i) hyperbole, (ii) impossible to prove and (ii) irrelevant. He doesn't have that pass D, doesn't have super weapons. He can't make all those turnovers as if he hypothetically did. And that still doesn't excuse his staring down receivers, throwing into double and triple coverage or throwing to defenders with no receivers in the area. _
So you're saying Geno's turnovers are because we're taking MORE risks? The first pass of the game against the Titans is picked off because we were forced to take more risks? Mind you we're 2-1 at that point. The FIRST PASS? Quite frankly, this sounds like hogwash but if that's how you rationalize it, more power to you. We haven't taken any risks this year, we haven't tried to force anything. We retrenched and the turnovers are multiplying. _
I'm trying to keep this on track as a Geno thread but some trolls here (i) compulsively obsess over the guy and continue to shit on him in every post and (ii) childishly call folks names that might have a positive word to say about him. This is a Geno thread but the haters can't let the other guy go. Hey, can you imagine if Geno was on the 2009 team? 35 TDs, 5 INTS and the Super Bowl baby! He's not throwing into triple coverage with Chansi Stuckey out there! _
I mean obviously Geno didn't help things with how careless he has been at times. I just think comparing what Sanchez did in 2009 with what Geno did in 2013 doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and not a lot of conclusions can be drawn. It's safe to say we need better QB play than both gave us their rookie seasons. At least with Geno the struggles so far are limited to his rookie campaign. Sanchez gave us those same struggles in year 4. That's why we are moving on from him. I don't think Geno should be annointed opening-day starter in 2014, there should be legitimate veteran QB competition brought in. But putting another rookie out there in 2014 could also be problematic, especially if the pass D continues to struggle to that level (for the reasons you pointed out).
I think a lot of Geno's turnovers have come when he was forced to take risks because of meltdowns in other areas of the team. Recent example against Carolina last week. A complete meltdown on special teams (and then the D can't stiffen and prevent the TD), and now he's suddenly in a double digit 2nd half deficit against a good team on the road. Sound familiar? It should. His big mistakes in the Cincy came in the same type of situation (an even worse one, actually).
Ball shouldn't have been thrown, without a doubt. Instead of going to Holmes, he should have led whomever the bottom reciever was so that he'd have a chance to get the first.
The situation associated with a double digit 2nd half deficit against a good team on the road doesn't create a risk situation that your QB should be throwing into double coverage and not seeing the underneath defender. It just doesn't. You guys are creating excuses- he wasn't forced to take a risk there, he was asked to throw a simple pass. Just not into double coverage. We weren't down 21 with 5 minutes to play, you guys are making it sound like he's airing it out 45 times a game in catch up mode. _
Geez I don't get the "he was forced to take risks" excuses. He threw a bad pass, call it what it was. He wasn't taking risks, he threw a simple 12 yard pass. And it as picked off. No excuses needed. Geez. _
