Sperm Edwards

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

336,390 JN Hall Of Fame

About Sperm Edwards

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/21/1968

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

21,081 profile views
  1. Texans lucky they didn't get flagged for a personal foul on the Edelman catch.
  2. Actually as they went to the sideline after their last 2 drives ended, I was thinking Osweiller has the same sulk-face as Sanchez.
  3. Watch NE score (or go 3 & out) on this drive anyway, and then Houston needs a challenge with 2:30 left in the game.
  4. Did he say Texans might want to challenge? Use a challenge to get the start of their drive moved back 3 yards? Idiot. Edit: Ok it's 8 yards. Looked like less initially. Still questionable use of a challenge. Doesn't alter possession change or score change.
  5. He says he wants to stay on the field longer, and to accomplish this goal he wants to pick up the tempo.
  6. Petty shouldn't have even been on the field that last game. If the purpose was to seal a competition for the #2 job between him and Geno then both of them should have been in there. No, they'd decided Geno was #2 and Petty was #3 before that game, which is why they didn't let Geno play. Petty's injury had nothing to do with his spot in the pecking order, as it happened after that had already been set. Petty's a young backup. As long as running the huddle or staring down a pass rush sans red jersey doesn't make him panic and/or piss himself, that's enough to promote him to #2. At some point, bringing along slowly can cross over to coddling. There's another possibility, that Petty looked much worse than we realize in practice between fan-viewable appearances, but I think the team would have leaked that in light of Geno's unpopularity and the unpopular decision (at least among fans) to keep him as the #2 ahead of Petty. It's also possible that they're ok with Petty taking over as the #2 guy, but in the event of a Fitz injury, they don't want him blamed for ruining the season so he'll get bumped ahead of Geno if Fitz makes it through the first 5-6 games unscathed. I still think they'd roster Geno for the final 1-2 months, just because they'll be due a conditional draft pick when someone else signs him. His next contract won't be for much, but it'll be above the league minimum. That's reaching, but I'm trying to give these guys the benefit of the doubt that they're thinking that far ahead, as they should be doing.
  7. If Petty pans out this year (which would require a Fitz or team meltdown or Fitz injury), then they'd have to still hang onto Hackenberg until they can display to the public that he might be something beyond a shot in the dark prospect. Yes, then in that case, they could trade him (or trade Petty, I suppose, but I'd hope they take the guy they think is better, not the guy who necessarily was drafted earlier).
  8. Most teams would take a QB if the value presented itself for them, even if they have a starter. There was no controversy with who the QB is in NE for some time, and they still would draft the likes of Kevin O'Connell in the 3rd round. They mistakenly felt he provided value there. Green Bay didn't need a QB when they used a 1st round pick on Rodgers. He was 4 years into a 10 year contract, and still playing at a high level. They correctly felt Rodgers provided value to them there. Those are just some extreme examples, but there are plenty more where it's less eyebrow raising because of the late rounds in which a new QB was drafted. The whole point of this system such as this is precisely to be a slave to it. The idea is that you cannot wait 2 years between the last one brought in when planning for the future. Otherwise all you're doing is drafting for value if value is there. Well duh, that's what every team does every year at positions all over the field. This is not like BPA, though -- this is: take (or otherwise bring in) a QB every single year until you find one. Not take one, then don't take one, then take one if there's value, but maybe not, etc. Teams have always done that, so there would be no significance to such a "system" if you're not adhering to it. In other words, as I was inferring, that's not anything teams haven't already been doing for decades. The whole point of there being a difference is doing it every year come hell or high water. Early, late, whatever. You bring in a new QB every single year if you don't have your QB of the future (beyond just the present season) on the roster.
  9. Great post. Agree on everything, and no matter how much I looked at this or that option, the way things are, I keep coming back to the same two possibilities I started with (other than Petty sucking badly or supplanting Fitz before January, or obviously, an injury): Jets stay away from drafting a QB in 2017, or Jets carry 4 QBs in 2017. It's this no-man's land of drafting projects with picks high enough that they can't be stashed on taxi squads, must be kept on the roster, but are just a roster-size handicap as rookies (and possibly into year 2). The cycle continues until one of them shows up. I suppose that could be the price paid, that until we find our guy we just keep 4 QBs. But that seems a bit of a handicap for a playoff (or near-playoff) team that is already at least somewhat handicapped at the most important position (in that he's not going to carry the whole team). But I'd rather do that than bet on your most recent pick just because a 2nd rounder was spent. We did that with Geno and passed on multiple QBs (at least one of which, Garoppolo, that wouldn't have even cost a 1st round pick). It hurts all that much more with that pick being spent on the just-cut Amaro.
  10. Not really the same for us as for them. NE is still Brady's team, and GB was even more so Rodgers's team (since he was so much younger when they traded Flynn). Also I'd add NE with Cassel. In their eyes, they're giving up their #2 QB not their starter, and one they're going to lose shortly thereafter anyway, so it's found money. For the Jets, we have no clear QB of the future beyond the present season or two max, so we'll be more reluctant to surrender Petty or Hackenberg should one show promise. Quite the contrary; we'd want him for ourself. Not having a Brady or Rodgers or younger franchise-QB type kind of kills their trade values, since the "Oh he's great we just don't need him for the next 3-4 years because we have Ryan Fitzpatrick and we'd lose him in FA anyway." Not going to fly. Even in the absence of someone great, say we drafted Sanchez when Clemens had 2 years left on his rookie deal. Had Clemens had 1 or 2 lights out games, we could have unloaded him for at least the 2nd rounder we spent to draft him. He looked good, but it's obvious the team was committed to Sanchez. Like the way Washington could have gotten at least a 2nd rounder (maybe more) for Kirk Cousins while they were still RGIII's team (before his breakout 2015 season). Or Tampa with Glennon this past offseason (and IMO they really should have traded him). That's how that works.
  11. Tebow and Manziel were special picks in their own right, though. Tebow, obviously, because (general athleticism aside) he has the windup of a high school girl. Manziel, because he has the maturity & wisdom of a spoiled elementary school girl. I think Manziel can do the job physically and Tebow mentally, but barring the singular desperation for filling the position neither should have been first round picks. The 5th year option is legitimate. If not for the hangup over the "first rounder" label it's a better deal than a high or mid 2nd rounder, especially if we're talking project prospects like Hackenberg or Lynch. We have to make a decision to commit to Hackenberg a year earlier than Denver with Lynch. Then in his 6th year, Lynch's cap number still won't be too high because it could be year 1 of a new contract. So he will be a bit higher in year 5 than Hackenberg on an extension, but Lynch won't have a true ballbuster cap number ($15M+ in today's cap dollars) until seasons 7 or even season 8 into his career. That's quite a long time before the piper needs to be paid, and as a GM it's what you want when drafting a prospect on the raw side. We get a 5th year option for Lee, but it hardly seems worthwhile. By that, I mean it won't save a whole lot with him the way it did save a whole lot with Mo (or will save Denver a whole lot with Lynch, should he really pan out).
  12. Unless the QB is a clear and obvious top 5 pick, I think the draft class quality more than the QB themselves dictates whether a QB is an upper 2nd or mid-lower 1st rounder. In the 2013 draft I doubt Carr or Garoppolo or others last as long. Likewise, had he come out a year later I have serious doubts EJ Manuel would sniff the 1st round (let alone the top half of the 1st round). Then there are just mindless + shocking 1st round picks like Tebow, which can just be dismissed outright. IMO QBs will always have some somewhat of a lower "pan out" result than most (if not all) other positions because of the desperation of teams without to find one. They just get special brownie points in prospect rating because of the position. It's just different, and it's totally understandable and obvious why. Also, this "pan out" success is measured differently as well. A meh LB, DB, DL, WR, RB who isn't a disaster, well you can put him on the field in situations that play to his strength. He can play 40-60% of the snaps and still be considered a non-bust (or even a decent pick). At QB? He's on the field as the starter every down or he isn't on the field. It's all or nothing in terms of calling the pick a success. If you're going to count a non-every-down player at another position as panning out, then you kind of have to count QBs like Sanchez among those as panning out as well.
  13. This is my biggest concern: that the non-selection of a QB in 2017 could (indirectly) come down to ego/pride. If Petty is either too close to being tryout-starter-worthy, or clearly showing he's capable of being the #2 (if far superior to Hackenberg), that would/should secure his roster spot. Then what? What if they bring back Fitzpatrick (a very good chance this happens)? Fitz locked in, Petty locked in, and then he just burned a 2nd rounder on a known long-term pick a year earlier. He'd look like an imbecile for cutting a project-type QB after only 1 season. Unfortunately I think we go out of our way to avoid the position, even if value/opportunity presents itself. Maybe a 6th-7th rounder, with the hopes of stashing him on the taxi squad, but that's about it. Either that or we carry 4 for a second straight season.
  14. Yeah. What I'm saying - and perhaps it's a bit off topic but certainly related - is while the strategy of "draft a QB every year until you find one" sounds good as a tagline on a message board, it has a lot of "ifs" & is only realistic: if we're willing to carry 4 QBs every year during this process (essentially, carry two #3 QBs every year); if we make damn sure a super raw rookie gets "injured" wink-wink so he can be IR'd if he's working on basic mechanics far more than preparing for opponents; if we draft more-ready (not so raw) QBs, or certainly limit ourselves to only one such so-raw prospect, so we won't need a minimum of 3 seasons to really evaluate each of 3 QBs simultaneously; if we're willing to cut a still-promising/"maybe" kid we still like after 2 seasons, or an absolute maximum of 3 seasons, because that becomes the line in the sand time limit to bring one along slowly; if we limit the really raw subsequent prospects to last 2-3 rounds or UDFAs, so he can be confidently stashed on a practice squad as a rookie; if the team isn't otherwise contender-worthy, so an almost-ready kid like a 2nd-3rd year Petty (or a similar type kid the team likes each year more than the previous one) can be put onto the field starting in week 1 or by mid season at the very latest, to begin on-field evaluating as a leader and performer earlier, without worries about second guesses of missed team opportunities by promoting him over a "proven" veteran. This touches on your point above; if the veteran starter gets injured for an extended period of time, so you get an on-field look at a kid a season earlier than planned. This would seem to disqualify rostering Geno this year. Conclusion: good chance of either carrying 4 QBs again next year or staying away from the position in the draft until 2018. That is, unless (on draft day) they are willing to cut ties with one of Fitz or Petty or Hackenberg (not retaining Geno being a given). I just think after taking the raw Petty, and spending so much future $ to make the team win-now with Fitz, the selection of Hackenberg screams of infatuation with Hackenberg the prospect more than careful team planning. I just hope that this infatuation isn't misguided, because beyond just the burned 2nd round pick, it further muddies the idea of selecting a QB in next year's draft.
  15. 7-9 would be bad because we're using significant future resources for this year. When one engages in that it's building for now more than for the future. Totally fine to do that, but not totally fine if the results are 7-9 or 8-8.