Go play Madden. You may learn something. I guess you will be the idiot who BOO's on draft day when our QB doesn't fall and we take Barkley? Bridgewater and McCown will be your QB's next season. You might as well get use to it.
I think this is the first time we've disagreed (not that it matters), but I respectfully disagree. I think Mac was getting a QB this year regardless. McCown doesn't count. Neither does Teddy. If he is healthy and starts, it's a bonus. Mac said from the beginning that Plan A was to draft a QB. He had tried to trade up for either Goff or Wentz and failed. When Cousins became a FA, he became Plan A, and drafting a QB was put on the backburner. Then when Cousins opted to sign with Minny, it was a fait accompli that Mac was going to take a QB in the draft. I think he was gonna try to trade up again this year, and if he failed, was going to take a QB at 6 if one was there that he liked, or if there was one they liked lower, he possibly would have traded down and taken that one. I think he knew that if he didn't get a FQB prospect in this draft, his career as a GM could be over.
Everything you say is true, except one key thing you're omitting: it's not like each year a team can say, "Okay NFL, now we're ready for our FQB! Give him to us." If the Jets follow your prescription, they will no doubt greatly improve, but with that improvement comes worse draft position, which all but keeps you out of the "FQB Race". And that's of course assuming you can count on at least one FQB coming out that year - sometimes that's iffy. And given the increasing demand by other teams for a FQB, there is more competition for that very limited resource, and less desire for teams to trade away those premium picks, assuming you could put together a package to trade up - again, not always possible. The bottom line is that when you have that rare shot at getting a FQB-caliber QB you MUST take it and then build around him.
Saying that it doesn't deal with reality simply isn't true. You're speaking solely from opinion or your perspective of reality, but imo, it's a flawed perspective. You could be right that the Jets blew last year's draft, but I doubt it. I don't think Watson would have been all that here, and the jury is still out on both Watson and Mahomes. I think it more likely that Mac and the scouts may not have liked Mahomes, Watson or any of the QBs that much, so they may have decided to wait until this year. To say that the Jets mismanaged the 2017 draft is purely speculation/opinion. A generational RB means squat. A solid, quality starting QB who can give stability to the Jets for the next 10-15 years is worth 2 generational RBs, maybe 3. A nice running back by committee core and put up the same numbers as a "generational" RB. IMO you think wrong. A cursory look shows that the Patriots, Seahawks, Packers, Saints, Eagles, Steelers, Niners, Cowboys, Broncos, and Giants, all won because of their QB, and there could be more. I just didn't look all that closely. Teams wouldn't get to the SB without at least solid QB play, if not spectacular. In the early days of the SB, teams got to the SB because of D, rushing attack and solid, but unspectacular QB play. Think Bart Starr, Joe Kapp, Bob Griese, and others. Then the days of Terry Bradshaw, Joe Montana, Steve Young, Troy Aikman, took over. Since that time, there have only been a couple of game manager-type QBs who have gotten to and won a SB (Trent Dilfer 2001, Mark Rypien 1992, and maybe 1-2 others). Talking about the Niners rushing attack is nothing short of silly and forgetful of the facts. The Niners won all those SBs because of Joe Montana and Steve Young. Yes, Roger Craig was an important part of that, but no more than Montana, Young, Jerry Rice, and John Taylor. Of course you're correct about the coaches. Most of the great ones in the "modern" era have won a SB.
The examples you cite, are not the fault of taking a QB. It was either taking the wrong QB, the QB not staying healthy, or not doing a good job of building the OL to protect the QB, building the team around him, and not giving him weapons to deal with.
He got his and your FQB a couple years ago, remember? They are giving Hack your ultimate plan at grooming a QB. Maybe you should go back and read some of the crap you posted about QB's, their development, and what needs to be done to have a FQB. Why have you given up on Hack when you were his #1 advocate? if you only knew as much about QB's as you believe......hahaha. By the way you never did answer my question about the amount of actual experience you have had developing QB's. You want us all to believe you are the QB Guru, so show us all please. Surely with your QB teaching skills, Hack can atleast be a decent scout team QB this year. It's obvious you have helped him with his clipboard holding skills. He is real good at that. How many other QB's have you helped in that case? Teddy doesn't count? Why do you think that? He is recovered from his injury, had a decent season in his first year as a NFL QB. Your draw back must be he isn't a #3 pick in this year's draft. Saying Mac's career is over if he doesn't select a QB in this year's draft is stupid. It's year 2 of the rebuild. Johnson is giving Mac time. He will be here next year, unless he drafts Mayfield and he utterly flops. Mac will avoid a QB in this draft unless Darnold or Rosen fall to 3, or if Rudolph or some other QB falls to them somewhere else, or some other kind of trade is made to put them in position. Teddy or McCown teamed with Pryor, Enunwa, Kearse, and Barkley/Crowell will instantly make our brand new offense good, and if Teddy doesn't work out, whom ever our QB of the future is, he will be surrounded by talented playmakers. The johnson's may be on to something in this manner. Using another 1st or 2nd round draft pick on yet another question mark at QB is stupid. Especially when the team has so many question marks from the coaches down. Hack is still developing, just the way you wanted, and claim is so necessary to have a FQB. Are you saying that everything you said about Hack when we wasted a 2nd round pick, was and is total stupidity, and you have no idea what it takes to be or develope a FQB? You are totally clueless, and your posts prove it over and over again. I can't wait to see what levels of QB development you have been involved in. This should be real funny. Hahaha
Awwwww it's going to be okay when we take Allen/Rosen/Mayfield and Barkley gets picked at 4, I promise. <3 Don't cry too much for your butt buddy, Barkley.
I love how all these Jets fans are so quick to write Barkley off. Maccagnan may only be interested in one QB, him meeting with all 4 is just showing due diligence. If his guy is gone, it could be Barkley. Or Chubb, Nelson, etc. People keep saying "you don't trade that much up for a RB" is both lazy and ignorant. What playmakers do we have on this team?
Utter nonsense. "A generational RB means squat" That's so stupid. Do you watch football? Have you ever played football? Ever coached football on any level? Consistent 100 yard rushers who can line up at any position and catch passes, can make even Mark Sanchez look like a QB. The only teams on your list of teams who won it all who didn't have a RB with a major role was the Saints. The best teams of the Patriots dynasty didn't have Tom Brady out there throwing it 50 times a game. Do you have a memory? The Steelers, Cowboys, and Broncos each had RB's that were a major factor to the offense. Emitt Smith was one of the major reasons they had a dynasty. Without him they don't do shit. Terrelle Davis won two championships despite Elway's withering game play. The steelers have always had a great RB in the years they won it. Saying Roger Craig had minimal effect on the 49ers championships is stupid. He rushed and caught many passes with the GOAT as his QB and was always a major problem for the defenses he faced. Saying a solid QB is better than having 2 Marshall Faulks, may be the most ignorant thing you have said since the time you said Hack was a good pick. A generational RB makes an average QB very formidable. Having the defense focus on someone other than the QB is very critical. RB by committee better than a generational RB? Get real. The Saints didn't show the NFL that every team can do this committee concept that you have dreamed up in your brain as so easy to accomplish. They did a very rare thing, it's not so easily done. You amaze me with all the short sighted, QB biased opinions, about the game of football. How about this one QB man..... Since Brady has became the focal point of NE's offense what is his SuperBowl record since then? He was 3-0 when the offense was balanced and had good running games. Since then he is 2-3, and should be 1-4 if Seattle doesn't play like you believe offense is played, and run the ball on 2nd down from the 1. To add, this 2-3 record has been aided by the NFL to get him in the position to be in those Super Bowls. So the whole concept of having a QB chuck the football 50 times a game being the only way to win consistently in the NFL is silly. You talk like you know football, but it's obvious with your posts that you don't.
It is neither "lazy" nor "ignorant." It is the only thing that makes any common sense. Whether we have 3 or no playmakers already on the team it doesn't matter one whit. You don't spend that kind of draft capital on a freaking RB. Period. That's even more true, when the draft class is loaded with excellent RB prospects and the Jets already have a couple of pretty good RBs. I'm sorry that those facts escape you.
I won't cry at all. But I'm sure that the JETS have a plan, and it wasn't moving up to 3 to pick the 3rd best QB in this draft full of questionable QB's. I'm glad you don't run this team. We would draft QB's every year, and not one of them would be the right guy. How does that make you Butt feel, buddy? Madden is calling you, shouldn't you go practice? I bet you skip playing the games, and concentrate on all the off season tasks so you can keep filling your pea brain with all this BS about building a dynasty. Go play the games, again you might learn something. Butt I doubt it.
Makes common sense? Whether we have 3 or no playmakers it doesn't matter? Who scores the TD's? A QB? You have a lot to learn dude. You don't spend that kind of draft capital on the 3rd QB on your board. Period. You take the best player available that helps the team become more formidable regardless, when your QB is gone. They didn't move up to 3 to take Mayfield or Allen that's common sense. It's not lazy or ignorant, it's both. It's also stupid to believe that the organization that is this deep into a rebuild is as infatuated with a FQB as you are, considering where we are into the rebuild. Show me a team that started a rebuild with QB first and had SuperBowl success. 2years ago we drafted your guy at QB. He is slowly progressing just like you would if you were a QB guru, so why isn't he the center of it all to you anymore? How quickly you change your tune. Desperate to be right for just once in your life on this message board? Tell us all. Mayfield is your guy at 3, or is it Allen?
Bingo!! Playmakers are just as important as QB's, but the wanna be QB's on the board think that's all this team needs is another high draft pick QB to solve all our problems. Do they really believe that a rookie QB will fix this team moving forward? I'm personally not a fan of Bridgewater, but he has NFL experience, and that means more to a rookie O-coordinator than a rookie stab in the dark at the QB position. For all we know the reason we moved up was to get the best playmaker in the draft knowing the QB we wanted wouldn't be available at 3. Atleast it makes Cleveland choose a QB or the best playmaker in the draft, rather than giving them the best QB at 1, and the best playmaker at 4. It atleast gives us the chance of getting one of the best 2 QB's, or we get Barkley as the consolation prize. They sure as hell didn't move up to take Mayfield or Allen. That would be stupid. More stupid than some on this board. Agree?
Loaded with RB's that will all be gone by the time we pick again. And no, Crowell and Rawls aren't good.
I agree with you in a sense. But who is to say we can't find our guy outside of the top 5 picks in the draft. It isn't written in stone somewhere that we must use a top 5 pick in order to have that FQB. Once the team is on a plane of consistent upward movement we may get our guy. Getting better team wide is more important than gambling away our top picks on what may one day become our franchise QB. Montana a 3rd, Brady a 6th, I could go on and on. What matters is the state of the team. Not what draft pick you get in the top 5 each year. Kurt Warner was bagging groceries, and then became a FQB because of the state of the team before he got there. The team is more important than any one position. You should always try to better the team with every draft move regardless of pick position. Picking a FQB in the top 5 picks is as uncertain as finding one somewhere else outside of the top half of the first round. If we don't take a QB at 3, it's because the guy who would fit the team and the future wasn't there at 3. If we take one regardless of that at 3, just so we can say we tried to find a FQB, shows desperation and that the rebuild is an idea led by dumb asses. See where I'm going? It isn't a love affair for Barkley, it's more along the lines of what's best for the team moving toward the future. I really don't care who we pick as long as he contributes to winning somewhere in the future. Super Bowl wins. Do you really think we moved up to take the 3rd QB on our board at 3? If there was no Barkley, and our QB of choice was gone at 3, would you still take the 3rd QB or do something else? Let's face the truth, if we get the 3rd QB of our choice, he probably won't make it. I'm sure that the coaches and GM have their #1 for obvious reasons, and the #2 as a back up. But to say that all 3 of the QB's they showed interest in is good no matter who his name is just isn't reality. The top 4 QB's are completely different, and there is no way that said #3 will unseat McCown until he retires, and then Bridgewater isn't a slouch compared to the #3. I'm almost certain when this draft is finished we will either have the #2 QB on our board or a shiny new playmaker that can run and catch. I can be patient in finding a FQB, but either way we need lots of positions filled on this team regardless of what is available outside of QB. Moving up to take the 3rd best QB on the JETS draft board, is not a good plan for rebuilding. That wasn't the plan. We could have taken our 3rd best QB at 6, and addressed other areas in the 2nd this year and next. These QB gurus are gonna be shocked when logic hits on draft day. I guess the only area you and I disagree is that I believe we don't have to roll the dice to get our FQB now if he isn't there. We need one, but it isn't gonna make or break the next couple seasons if we don't take one this draft if our guy isn't there. The rebuild is way too young. The coaching staff and system isn't even ironed out.
Crowell and Rawls are back up RB's who have experience. Perfect fits for a brand new rookie playmaker. The other backs in this draft aren't as good as Barkley either. More stupid evaluation from the board QB Guru.
I respectfully disagree. Crowell is pretty good. He has a career 4.2 ypc avg. That was with the Browns for Pete's sake. He should be even better with the Jets, even with our OL. Rawls may not last, but that's ok. He's worth a shot. Powell is good and so is McGuire. The Jets aren't gonna be able to fix all the rest of their holes in this offseason. They have at least one more, if not 2 more offseasons, before all, or at least most, of their holes are gone. If they can get a good OL or two in the 3rd & 4th rounds, it should really help the offense, along with Winters being healthy, and if Long can stay healthy, the OL should perform at a higher level and with the OL coach of the last two years gone (where the OL has been meh), with a year of familiarity with the offense and McCown, and with the addition of Teddy and the rookie QB, the offense should be even better this year. Who knows Rashard Penny could still be there in the 3rd round and the Jets could take him. Chubb, the RB from UGA could still be there also. If the Jets don't take a RB in the draft this year, there are excellent RBs in the draft every year, and there will be again next year. They are still rebuilding. They're getting younger and better on offense.
That's right, the rebuild is young. Plenty of holes on this team. Exactly why they can wait on the FQB, rather than blow the pick on another shitty QB like what you would choose. Maybe we can find our FQB in the 3rd or 4th, along with those linemen you like in the later rounds. A great RB can function better than a Question mark filled QB behind an average line like the JETS have. By rookie QB you mean your guy Hack? He may see the field this year, who knows? If we draft Rosen or Darnold, maybe your original FQB will be cut. Mayfield won't be here, nor will Allen. Barkley is head and shoulders above the other backs in this draft, it's convenient how you try to push your agenda so subtly by down playing the separation. How much separation is there between the #1, 2, and 3 QB's in this class? Not much considering all the defects. But we can find any ole RB in any draft. Just like we can find any ole QB every year in the draft. In some years we can get our #3 Player outside of the top 5 picks. Don't respond to my questions pertaining to your supposed QB expertise all you want. It shows that you know even less than you believe you do. Just how would the offense be better with McCown, Teddy, and the ROOKIE QB? The rookie QB won't see the field, so why did you throw him into the mix of making the team better? Pushing your agenda again. Hahaha
I think it’s 99% it’s a QB. If it was for Saquan they would of moved to 2 because the Giants like him a lot
