Jump to content

Leonard Fournette- Brett Kollman Scouting Report Video


win4ever

Recommended Posts

Just now, dbatesman said:

Is this a serious question?

Yes. You know I dislike disagreeing with you philosophically, but I don't think philosophy is playing into this year's offseason anyway. This is a fire drill for everyone in the building because neither of these guys will ever sniff a GM or HC gig again if they get run out of here in eleven months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

The only player that can be drafted at 6 that can save any jobs is a franchise QB. Macc and Bowles are on their way out whether they realize it or not. A running back isn't saving any job. 

deshone-kizer-4487aec9d0388d11.jpg

The guy we need, but not the one we want :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, T0mShane said:

I don't know. Maccagnan has painted him and Bowles into a corner with the way he's handled Fitzpatrick, Hackenberg, and his draft picks. If you were him and you saw what was going to be there at six, what would you do? Draft the injured free safety, the injured tackle, the QB with accuracy issues to compete with last year's high pick QB with accuracy issues, or a corner to replace the $17 million dollar corner that blew up in your face?

So you take the injured running back who is a two down player behind a below average offensive line? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, T0mShane said:

Yes. You know I dislike disagreeing with you philosophically, but I don't think philosophy is playing into this year's offseason anyway. This is a fire drill for everyone in the building because neither of these guys will ever sniff a GM or HC gig again if they get run out of here in eleven months.

But I actually think taking a QB holds under the fire drill theory, too--maybe more so. This fanbase and press corps is so desperate to talk themselves into any hope at all that taking a QB at 6 buys this group another year at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, T0mShane said:

Other than Garrett, Fournette is the only guy at 6 who can save jobs over there in Florham Park.

Drafting a RB saves jobs?  In what world?  

The only thing saving anyone's job is QB.  Not a 2 down RB who can only fit 1 system and has a bum ankle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, T0mShane said:

I don't know. Maccagnan has painted him and Bowles into a corner with the way he's handled Fitzpatrick, Hackenberg, and his draft picks. If you were him and you saw what was going to be there at six, what would you do? Draft the injured free safety, the injured tackle, the QB with accuracy issues to compete with last year's high pick QB with accuracy issues, or a corner to replace the $17 million dollar corner that blew up in your face?

If Watson were the pick and he can generate TD's  that saves jobs. Even if it's fluky like RG3's rookie year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

But I actually think taking a QB holds under the fire drill theory, too--maybe more so. This fanbase and press corps is so desperate to talk themselves into any hope at all that taking a QB at 6 buys this group another year at least.

Agreed.  I think if Mac had the balls to take Watson at #6 that he would actually be commended for not hoping Hack turns out and instead taking an actual franchise prospect with a high draft pick.  I think it definitely gives him and Bowles another year.  Otherwise, they take Fournette who has an underwhelming rookie campaign because he's facing 10 in the box behind an average OL and a sh*tty QB.  He's then often injured and no where near as good as he was billed and the Jets win 3 games.  

I'm confused on how this gives the regime legs in any way shape or form. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, JiF said:

Agreed.  I think if Mac had the balls to take Watson at #6 that he would actually be commended for not hoping Hack turns out and instead taking an actual franchise prospect with a high draft pick.  I think it definitely gives him and Bowles another year.  Otherwise, they take Fournette who has an underwhelming rookie campaign because he's facing 10 in the box behind an average OL and a sh*tty QB.  He's then often injured and no where near as good as he was billed and the Jets win 3 games.  

I'm confused on how this gives the regime legs in any way shape or form. 

i think this regime, and mccags in particular, needs to demonstrate that he can add players to the offense who can score.  it sounds so obvious and simple yet the jets never do it.  this team has had trouble scoring ever since farve left and he was barely here.  in the past decade and perhaps longer, nearly all the jets offensive weapons have been imported.  heck, last year most of the starting offense on opening day were not jet draft picks.  i think the only offensive starters last year vs. cincy were winters, mangold, whoever the FB was and enunwa.  that's pathetic.  

as the game becomes more and more about scoring, the jets need a gm who is willing to invest high draft picks on skill positions or else the fate of this team will continue to be the defense being gassed b/c the offense can't move the ball.  i think the jets should devote FA $$ to fix the offensive line, and then draft a real rb to pair with powell, whether it's cook or fournette or someone else.  let's draft a real TE too.  let's give the qb a chance to succeed without him having to do it all himself.  they can't keep investing 1st and 3rd round picks on defensive players and then stick hackenberg and petty in there with mostly 2nd rate players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

i think this regime, and mccags in particular, needs to demonstrate that he can add players to the offense who can score.  it sounds so obvious and simple yet the jets never do it.  this team has had trouble scoring ever since farve left and he was barely here.  in the past decade and perhaps longer, nearly all the jets offensive weapons have been imported.  heck, last year most of the starting offense on opening day were not jet draft picks.  i think the only offensive starters last year vs. cincy were winters, mangold, whoever the FB was and enunwa.  that's pathetic.  

as the game becomes more and more about scoring, the jets need a gm who is willing to invest high draft picks on skill positions or else the fate of this team will continue to be the defense being gassed b/c the offense can't move the ball.  i think the jets should devote FA $$ to fix the offensive line, and then draft a real rb to pair with powell, whether it's cook or fournette or someone else.  let's draft a real TE too.  let's give the qb a chance to succeed without him having to do it all himself.  they can't keep investing 1st and 3rd round picks on defensive players and then stick hackenberg and petty in there with mostly 2nd rate players.

Well, this regime had a top 10 scoring offense in their first season when they had decent QB play.  This season, they had terrible QB play.  So to me that says, this roster can score with a QB playing at a mediocre level.  Teams dont get better, they get better QB play.  

Throwing high picks at the offense doesnt equate to instant success.  The best RB's in the league, were not taken in the 1st round, let alone #6 overall.  It's terrible use of a draft pick to take a 2 down RB that high who is completely system dependent and has a chronic ankle injury.  Positional value is important, especially for a team void of talent like the Jets.  Taking a RB that high is just poor allocation of resources. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JiF said:

Well, this regime had a top 10 scoring offense in their first season when they had decent QB play.  This season, they had terrible QB play.  So to me that says, this roster can score with a QB playing at a mediocre level.  Teams dont get better, they get better QB play.  

Throwing high picks at the offense doesnt equate to instant success.  The best RB's in the league, were not taken in the 1st round, let alone #6 overall.  It's terrible use of a draft pick to take a 2 down RB that high who is completely system dependent and has a chronic ankle injury.  Positional value is important, especially for a team void of talent like the Jets.  Taking a RB that high is just poor allocation of resources. 

 

fitz scored against the worst teams, and failed against good teams.  and while 'throwing high picks at the offense doesn't equate to instant success' necessarily, the flip side is that the teams with good offenses generally do invest top picks on qbs and wrs.  the last time the jets took a wr in the first round was santana moss in 2001.  the last time they drafted a rb in the first two rounds was lamont jordan, if i'm not mistaken.  the last time they took an offensive lineman in the first round was brick/mangold.  this team has not invested premium picks on these positions in years, and that's why they're continually importing wrs (braylon edwards/decker/marshall), rbs (thomas jones/curtis martin/ivory/forte), it's why they haven't had a TE in years.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

fitz scored against the worst teams, and failed against good teams.  and while 'throwing high picks at the offense doesn't equate to instant success' necessarily, the flip side is that the teams with good offenses generally do invest top picks on qbs and wrs.  the last time the jets took a wr in the first round was santana moss in 2001.  the last time they drafted a rb in the first two rounds was lamont jordan, if i'm not mistaken.  the last time they took an offensive lineman in the first round was brick/mangold.  this team has not invested premium picks on these positions in years, and that's why they're continually importing wrs (braylon edwards/decker/marshall), rbs (thomas jones/curtis martin/ivory/forte), it's why they haven't had a TE in years.  

Cool.  Then take an offensive position that isnt the easiest to fill on the entire roster. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JiF said:

Agreed.  I think if Mac had the balls to take Watson at #6 that he would actually be commended for not hoping Hack turns out and instead taking an actual franchise prospect with a high draft pick.  I think it definitely gives him and Bowles another year.  Otherwise, they take Fournette who has an underwhelming rookie campaign because he's facing 10 in the box behind an average OL and a sh*tty QB.  He's then often injured and no where near as good as he was billed and the Jets win 3 games.  

I'm confused on how this gives the regime legs in any way shape or form. 

Exactly. If we draft Watson and go 6-10, Maccagnan and Bowles can sell it as a young QB going through normal growing pains, and put together a highlight reel proving he's making progress. If we draft Fournette and go 6-10, everyone gets fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

Exactly. If we draft Watson and go 6-10, Maccagnan and Bowles can sell it as a young QB going through normal growing pains, and put together a highlight reel proving he's making progress. If we draft Fournette and go 6-10, everyone gets fired.

i disagree.  it all depends on how it occurs.  if they start hack and he shows potential but their tough schedule and a rookie qb leads to a 6-10 season they will be safe.  this isn't a rex either make the playoffs or get fired scenario.  this is a 'show me you can do something good with a young qb' and we'll keep you around scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to quickly reply to most of the above here; you guys are all assuming that 1. Watson gets the chance to start; 2. Beats out Hack; 3. Plays decently in year one despite not being particularly talented and coming from a program that's never produced an NFL QB; 4. Fournette's legs will implode upon touching Jersey soil; 5. Manish will forget all about Maccagnan drafting Hackenberg in Round Two only a year ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

Just to quickly reply to most of the above here; you guys are all assuming that 1. Watson gets the chance to start; 2. Beats out Hack; 3. Plays decently in year one despite not being particularly talented and coming from a program that's never produced an NFL QB; 4. Fournette's legs will implode upon touching Jersey soil; 5. Manish will forget all about Maccagnan drafting Hackenberg in Round Two only a year ago.

Never happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, T0mShane said:

Just to quickly reply to most of the above here; you guys are all assuming that 1. Watson gets the chance to start; 2. Beats out Hack; 3. Plays decently in year one despite not being particularly talented and coming from a program that's never produced an NFL QB; 4. Fournette's legs will implode upon touching Jersey soil; 5. Manish will forget all about Maccagnan drafting Hackenberg in Round Two only a year ago.

I already addressed this above. If the team is dogsh*t with Watson, you can sell it as a young QB growing up. If the team is dogsh*t with Fournette, everyone gets fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dbatesman said:

I already addressed this above. If the team is dogsh*t with Watson, you can sell it as a young QB growing up. If the team is dogsh*t with Fournette, everyone gets fired.

If the team is dogsh*t with Watson, they'll burn the stadium down for wasting multiple high draft picks on awful QBs in back to back years. This wouldn't be the case if they didn't draft Hack. But alas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

If the team is dogsh*t with Watson, they'll burn the stadium down for wasting multiple high draft picks on awful QBs in back to back years. This wouldn't be the case if they didn't draft Hack. But alas

I disagree that the fanbase currently handwaving Hackenberg's stats with "but James Franklin" gives QBs that short a leash, but if we agree for the sake of argument that STHs will raise hell if the team is bad no matter what, then they should take a QB, because spoiler alert; the team is going to be bad no matter what. Better to take a chance on the guy who has an outside chance at being a franchise changer than the guy who definitely won't be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dbatesman said:

I already addressed this above. If the team is dogsh*t with Watson, you can sell it as a young QB growing up. If the team is dogsh*t with Fournette, everyone gets fired.

 

2 hours ago, T0mShane said:

If the team is dogsh*t with Watson, they'll burn the stadium down for wasting multiple high draft picks on awful QBs in back to back years. This wouldn't be the case if they didn't draft Hack. But alas

Are either of these results bad?  Are they mutually exclusive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, dbatesman said:

I disagree that the fanbase currently handwaving Hackenberg's stats with "but James Franklin" gives QBs that short a leash, but if we agree for the sake of argument that STHs will raise hell if the team is bad no matter what, then they should take a QB, because spoiler alert; the team is going to be bad no matter what. Better to take a chance on the guy who has an outside chance at being a franchise changer than the guy who definitely won't be.

You'd feel the same way if the pick was Trubisky or Kizer? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, T0mShane said:

Just to quickly reply to most of the above here; you guys are all assuming that 1. Watson gets the chance to start; 2. Beats out Hack; 3. Plays decently in year one despite not being particularly talented and coming from a program that's never produced an NFL QB; 4. Fournette's legs will implode upon touching Jersey soil; 5. Manish will forget all about Maccagnan drafting Hackenberg in Round Two only a year ago.

Charlie Whitehurst is highly offended by this statement. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

What are the magic numbers for each?

I think Tom's right on 62%+, but 19 is way too low. Ideally, I'd prefer a 3-year starter, but guys who start 3+ years and actually have the physical and mental tools to play in the league are basically unicorns these days. Top of my head, I'd say 30 as a minimum for a guy at 6 overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

I think Tom's right on 62%+, but 19 is way too low. Ideally, I'd prefer a 3-year starter, but guys who start 3+ years and actually have the physical and mental tools to play in the league are basically unicorns these days. Top of my head, I'd say 30 as a minimum for a guy at 6 overall.

Kizer had 25 and I still think he should have went back for another year (though I don't blame him for not wanting to play under Kelly again). Most of these QBs could use another collegiate year or like a year in the minors, if there were such a thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

Kizer had 25 and I still think he should have went back for another year (though I don't blame him for not wanting to play under Kelly again). Most of these QBs could use another collegiate year or like a year in the minors, if there were such a thing. 

IMG_0452.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...