Jets QB Rumors: David Garrard & Brady Quinn

[CrazyCarl40]

Welcome to the dark side.

That's racist.

[unbanmadmike1]

Welcome to the dark side.

 

 

I think, like many here, you overestimate just how bad the Jets will be in 2013. 

 

 

Agree.  Just as long as they don't... bring in 10

 

You're just setting up a false choice. Garrard will make them better in 2013 and NOT hurt them long term at all or their ability to get a real QB in 2014, Thats what i'm looking for. 

[Darrellegivesmeaboner#24]

I don't know how I am overstating how bad they are going to be. Our schedule should be at least as difficult as this year, probably harder, and our roster is not going to be as good. Unless you are expecting huge contributions from a ton of rookies, probably unrealistic, I do not see how you can think this team will be more talented than last year. We do not have any receivers under contract that scare anyone, and Holmes may be gone. We have no safeties under contract that have proven anything at this level. We do not have any OLB under contract. We have no Guards under contract except Ducasse. We have no cap space to fill this holes. And that says nothing about our QB situation, which is unarguably one of the worst in the sport. The Pats will be good again, the Dolphins will be better than last year, and the Bills will be the Bills. We are not winning more than 6 games next year, and if that is the case we might as well win 3 or 4 and get our QB of the future. 

[#27TheDominator]

You're just setting up a false choice. Garrard will make them better in 2013 and NOT hurt them long term at all or their ability to get a real QB in 2014, Thats what i'm looking for. 

 

How the **** is that a false choice? When did I ever say they should do things that hurt them long term?  In case you didn't notice, I generally didn't want to do things that locked them up long term when they were on the cusp. 

 

I don't know how I am overstating how bad they are going to be. Our schedule should be at least as difficult as this year, probably harder, and our roster is not going to be as good. Unless you are expecting huge contributions from a ton of rookies, probably unrealistic, I do not see how you can think this team will be more talented than last year. We do not have any receivers under contract that scare anyone, and Holmes may be gone. We have no safeties under contract that have proven anything at this level. We do not have any OLB under contract. We have no Guards under contract except Ducasse. We have no cap space to fill this holes. And that says nothing about our QB situation, which is unarguably one of the worst in the sport. The Pats will be good again, the Dolphins will be better than last year, and the Bills will be the Bills. We are not winning more than 6 games next year, and if that is the case we might as well win 3 or 4 and get our QB of the future. 

 

Okay.  Out of all your complaints the only things different than last year at this time are the Gs and Pace. This time last year they had no safeties under contract and Thomas was cut and resigned during the season. The WR situation is the same because Holmes may be gone, but he was gone last year and they had tons of injuries at WR last year.  The QB situation is actually better because we will not be doubling down on a losing horse in Sanchez.  The Revis situation should be a help either way because the team either has a great CB or should have some compensation. The Bills and Dolphins can blow me.  I will believe they are better when I see it.  I didn't exactly see it in 2012.  You never know if the schedule will be tough. I'm sure some teams thought they had a tough schedule because they were going to play the Saints and Lions in 2012. Oops. 

 

They tried to use Sparano and it was a disaster. I am hopeful that Mornhinweg will be a major improvement.  Will any of this  translate into wins?  Who knows?  I sure don't, but I don't see it as a lost season where we are guaranteed to be in the #1 draft pick sweepstakes and even if they were, Teddy Bridgewater is not yet Andrew Luck in my eyes.  All the potential in the world, but not "can't miss."  The Jets are not the hands down worst team in the league, but they do have a ton of uncertain. I look forward to seeing what happens. 

[pedro55]

How the **** is that a false choice? When did I ever say they should do things that hurt them long term?  In case you didn't notice, I generally didn't want to do things that locked them up long term when they were on the cusp. 

 

 

Okay.  Out of all your complaints the only things different than last year at this time are the Gs and Pace. This time last year they had no safeties under contract and Thomas was cut and resigned during the season. The WR situation is the same because Holmes may be gone, but he was gone last year and they had tons of injuries at WR last year.  The QB situation is actually better because we will not be doubling down on a losing horse in Sanchez.  The Revis situation should be a help either way because the team either has a great CB or should have some compensation. The Bills and Dolphins can blow me.  I will believe they are better when I see it.  I didn't exactly see it in 2012.  You never know if the schedule will be tough. I'm sure some teams thought they had a tough schedule because they were going to play the Saints and Lions in 2012. Oops. 

 

They tried to use Sparano and it was a disaster. I am hopeful that Mornhinweg will be a major improvement.  Will any of this  translate into wins?  Who knows?  I sure don't, but I don't see it as a lost season where we are guaranteed to be in the #1 draft pick sweepstakes and even if they were, Teddy Bridgewater is not yet Andrew Luck in my eyes.  All the potential in the world, but not "can't miss."  The Jets are not the hands down worst team in the league, but they do have a ton of uncertain. I look forward to seeing what happens. 

 

 

  I agree.  There are no guarantees that you'll wind up with the top pick in the draft. Or even the top 10 pick.  They went 6-10 and are at #9.  They could go 4-12 and wind up #5.  Or they could go 7-9 and wind up at 12.

 

 As far as David Garrard, he's far worse than Pennington when it comes to staying healthy.  He's had what, 2 seasons where he started 16 games.  The rest of his career was filled with injuries or not beating out Bryan Leftwitch.    He had about 3 years as a true starter in a 11 year career.  

 

  David Garrard's careers is  86 Games Played  with   89 TDs  54 Interceptions and 29 Fumbles.

  Mark Sanchez career is 62 Games Played    with     68 TDs  69 INTs,  26 Fumbles

 

  Garrard had one season(2007) where he was really good for 12 games.   Other than that, he's been a QB who turned the ball over just as much as Sanchez and he's been a guy who never stayed healthy.  And that was when he was young.

 

 

     I see it as more of a replacement for Tebow, cheaper,  and a challenge for Sanchez.   Don't be surprised if Sanchez is the starting QB next season with Garrard competing with him in preseason.   Like everybody said,  it's been 3 years since the guy started a game. 

[Greenseed4]

The last game Garrard played, was in 2010.  His arm is still winding up waiting to release. 

[unbanmadmike1]

  I agree.  There are no guarantees that you'll wind up with the top pick in the draft. Or even the top 10 pick.  They went 6-10 and are at #9.  They could go 4-12 and wind up #5.  Or they could go 7-9 and wind up at 12.

 

 As far as David Garrard, he's far worse than Pennington when it comes to staying healthy.  He's had what, 2 seasons where he started 16 games.  The rest of his career was filled with injuries or not beating out Bryan Leftwitch.    He had about 3 years as a true starter in a 11 year career.  

 

  David Garrard's careers is  86 Games Played  with   89 TDs  54 Interceptions and 29 Fumbles.

  Mark Sanchez career is 62 Games Played    with     68 TDs  69 INTs,  26 Fumbles

 

  Garrard had one season(2007) where he was really good for 12 games.   Other than that, he's been a QB who turned the ball over just as much as Sanchez and he's been a guy who never stayed healthy.  And that was when he was young.

 

 

     I see it as more of a replacement for Tebow, cheaper,  and a challenge for Sanchez.   Don't be surprised if Sanchez is the starting QB next season with Garrard competing with him in preseason.   Like everybody said,  it's been 3 years since the guy started a game. 

If Garrard is healthy, he's the starter. 

[The Crusher]

bring in 10 and pray you find 2

 

 

Lot of truth to that.

[Bugg]

The one guy tht plausibly fits the Gannon/Testaverde/Warner/Plunkett  late career blooming is Matt Moore. Know he would cost more, but so what? Either bring him in  or trade Nacho for Flynn, who Idzik must know pretty well. The  rest of the FA QB crop is crap.

[AVM]

  I agree.  There are no guarantees that you'll wind up with the top pick in the draft. Or even the top 10 pick.  They went 6-10 and are at #9.  They could go 4-12 and wind up #5.  Or they could go 7-9 and wind up at 12.

 

 As far as David Garrard, he's far worse than Pennington when it comes to staying healthy.  He's had what, 2 seasons where he started 16 games.  The rest of his career was filled with injuries or not beating out Bryan Leftwitch.    He had about 3 years as a true starter in a 11 year career.  

 

  David Garrard's careers is  86 Games Played  with   89 TDs  54 Interceptions and 29 Fumbles.

  Mark Sanchez career is 62 Games Played    with     68 TDs  69 INTs,  26 Fumbles

 

  Garrard had one season(2007) where he was really good for 12 games.   Other than that, he's been a QB who turned the ball over just as much as Sanchez and he's been a guy who never stayed healthy.  And that was when he was young.

 

 

     I see it as more of a replacement for Tebow, cheaper,  and a challenge for Sanchez.   Don't be surprised if Sanchez is the starting QB next season with Garrard competing with him in preseason.   Like everybody said,  it's been 3 years since the guy started a game. 

 

12 game stretch or not, in what world are 12 FEWER turnovers in 24 MORE games just as many turnovers as Sanchez?

 

Dislike Garrard all you want, but you're flat out wrong on that one.

[IPack]

No matter how it's spun, a team with Garrard, Sanchez, McElroy, or Quinn at quarterback will only go so far. Nine wins is about the best the Jets can do. If anything sucks worse than losing its being mediocre and knowing that you will never be better than that. Jets deserve what they are getting.

[unbanmadmike1]

No matter how it's spun, a team with Garrard, Sanchez, McElroy, or Quinn at quarterback will only go so far. Nine wins is about the best the Jets can do. If anything sucks worse than losing its being mediocre and knowing that you will never be better than that. Jets deserve what they are getting.

Whats the alternative for 2013?

[pedro55]

12 game stretch or not, in what world are 12 FEWER turnovers in 24 MORE games just as many turnovers as Sanchez?

 

Dislike Garrard all you want, but you're flat out wrong on that one.

 

  We know Sanchez sucks,  but a 35 year old Garrard isn't an improvement.    He's a QB who hasn't really played in 3 years.

If this were a 29 year old Garrard, then maybe the conversation makes sense.  But a 35 year old guy who hasn't ever been able to stay healthy in his career isn't an answer.  It's just another signing that means Sanchez will be the starter.   

[pedro55]

The one guy tht plausibly fits the Gannon/Testaverde/Warner/Plunkett  late career blooming is Matt Moore. Know he would cost more, but so what? Either bring him in  or trade Nacho for Flynn, who Idzik must know pretty well. The  rest of the FA QB crop is crap.

Moore couldn't beat out Garrard or Ryan T.

[unbanmadmike1]

  We know Sanchez sucks,  but a 35 year old Garrard isn't an improvement.    He's a QB who hasn't really played in 3 years.

If this were a 29 year old Garrard, then maybe the conversation makes sense.  But a 35 year old guy who hasn't ever been able to stay healthy in his career isn't an answer.  It's just another signing that means Sanchez will be the starter.   

A 35 year old is just as likely to have ONE good year as a 29 year old. Guys play great QB at 35 all over the league.It's not like Garrard is going to be here forever. 

[pedro55]

  I don't see the point in having a 35 year old guy who has never been healthy, was never that good, and hasn't played since 2010.  He wasn't healthy enough to be a 3rd string QB last season on the Dolphins.   Quinn?  How is he better than Sanchez?    As much as people hate Sanchez, and he sucks,   he's going to be in a Jets uniform.    Unless they find some guy in the draft to compete or get a Matt Flynn on the cheap, I dont see the point in signing a bunch of washed up never really were good QBs.    If Sanchez were cut or traded away and they had a QB of the future, maybe.   But I just don't get the desire to sign another scrub to do what?     Play just as bad or a little bit better than Sanchez?

 

   And if people are right and Rex is gone after next season,   I'd bet he'd rather start Sanchez than a 35 year old QB who hasn't played in 3 years.

[pedro55]

A 35 year old is just as likely to have ONE good year as a 29 year old. Guys play great QB at 35 all over the league.It's not like Garrard is going to be here forever. 

 

  He hasn't played since 2010 cause the guy can't stay healthy.  Yeah if he were a 35 year old who could stay healthy, makes sense.  But he's not.  He wasn't even healthy enough to be a 3rd string QB on the Dolphins last year.   

 

 It's almost like Jets fans love to assume "cause it's  not Sanchez, they must be great."

 

  The reality is with Sanchez or Garrard, the Jets will stink.   Going 6-10 with Sanchez or Garrard isn't that much of a difference.

Except after a few games Sanchez winds up starting cause Garrard gets injured.  Or Sanchez starts cause Garrard gets injured in preseason.