The Mega-List 2017 Jets Starting QB Poll

[Flushing Roots]

On February 22, 2017 at 3:39 PM, gEYno said:

I'm going with Hackenberg.  I think he's going to be terrible.  So, either he crashes and burns and we get the #1 overall pick, or he proves me and others wrong and we have a QB for the future.

I don't think it makes sense to take a QB at 6, and unless your plan is to win the Super Bowl this year, Culter and Romo are a terrible idea.

My second choice would be Glennon, for potential upside, though I'm not overly optimistic.

+1 

Have to roll the dice with Hackenberg. 

Unless there is something about him that we all don't know.

Still can't understand why we didn't start him against the Bills in week 17 when we were 4-11 on January 1.

[#27TheDominator]

3 minutes ago, Flushing Roots said:

+1 

Have to roll the dice with Hackenberg. 

Unless there is something about him that we all don't know.

Still can't understand why we didn't start him against the Bills in week 17 when we were 4-11 on January 1.

Something beyond everything?

[PepPep]

22 hours ago, gEYno said:

 To me, he's either going to be the spectacular debacle we all expect, or he'll actually play to his physical potential and be above average.

I don't really understand the assumption that Hack will be awful. Where is that coming from. Don't count me in the 'WE ALL'. If Hack is 'above average' which is very vague, what exactly does that mean? lol. But anyway, if he plays 'above average' he is a lock to be the Jets QB in 2018 and moving forward. Above average for a kid playing QB in the NFL  his first season (albeit he was drafted last year) is very good. The assumption will be that he will continue to improve and he will, essentially, be the Jets 'franchise' QB. Just by default of them having drafted him and him playing 'above average' in his first season.

But what I predict, if he ends up being the starter in 2017, is that we will see flashes of brilliance and we will see rookie mistakes. He may have sat out a full season and learned a lot and improved a lot, but it would still be his first season actually playing QB in the NFL. He WILL make mistakes, throw some bad INTs, get a few strip sacks, etc. his fate will be determined by whether the team wins. Whether he can play well enough in his first season to actually put pints on the board and win games. I think Jets Brass will judge him via wins/losses and the old 'eye test', if you will. Does he command the offense? Can he put together a drive in critical moments? Can he rebound/settle down after making a mistake? Can he actually put pints on the board? Does him at the helm lead to wins?     

[PepPep]

11 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

i think the starter will be reflected in the guys they cut or don't cut.  the more guys they cut like mangold/revis/decker/marshall, etc., the more likely they are (finally) gearing up for a true rebuild and then it's more likely that they believe hack has improved enough to win the job (vs. whom, that's tbd).  if they keep enough of these pricy vets that signals to me they're still in this b.s. competitive rebuild purgatory and then we're more likely to see a glennon/taylor/alex smith stop gap again.

I dunno. I think that is simplifying things. I think the Jets need and will jettison high-priced vets that are not productive and have cheaper, younger fill-ins already on the roster. That does not mean they are committing to a massive rebuild and does not nec. impact the QB position. For example, they may move on from Mangold, but only b/c W.Johnson did a good job filling in and will be cheaper to re-sign. This will open up cap space that will allow them to go after a high priced FA CB, which will allow them to cut Revis and clear more cap. If they move on from Marshall or Decker, its feasible they believe that the younger WRs can take the next step. Maybe they bring in a cheaper (albeit less talented) FA WR because of that. Doesn't mean they want to do a major re-build. And these moves could free up enough cap to go after a pas rusher in FA, like i dunno, Chandler Jones?

And none of these things nec. indicate that they will go after Glennon or Taylor or A.Smith. They may still want Hack to get a shot, even if they bring in a cheap vet- just in case.

To me, the starting QB will be determined by where the Jets believe Hack is in his development. If they think he is still a ways away from winning the starting job or a complete bust (which I highly doubt), they may go after a legit FA QB- high priced and they may draft a QB (which I highly doubt). If they think he is 'ahead of schedule' or on the cusp, odds are they will only bring in a vet on a cheap, short term deal, who will expect to have to compete for a starting spot.  

[Augustiniak]

Just now, PepPep said:

I dunno. I think that is simplifying things. I think the Jets need and will jettison high-priced vets that are not productive and have cheaper, younger fill-ins already on the roster. That does not mean they are committing to a massive rebuild and does not nec. impact the QB position. For example, they may move on from Mangold, but only b/c W.Johnson did a good job filling in and will be cheaper to re-sign. This will open up cap space that will allow them to go after a high priced FA CB, which will allow them to cut Revis and clear more cap. If they move on from Marshall or Decker, its feasible they believe that the younger WRs can take the next step. Maybe they bring in a cheaper (albeit less talented) FA WR because of that. Doesn't mean they want to do a major re-build. And these moves could free up enough cap to go after a pas rusher in FA, like i dunno, Chandler Jones?

And none of these things nec. indicate that they will go after Glennon or Taylor or A.Smith. They may still want Hack to get a shot, even if they bring in a cheap vet- just in case.

To me, the starting QB will be determined by where the Jets believe Hack is in his development. If they think he is still a ways away from winning the starting job or a complete bust (which I highly doubt), they may go after a legit FA QB- high priced and they may draft a QB (which I highly doubt). If they think he is 'ahead of schedule' or on the cusp, odds are they will only bring in a vet on a cheap, short term deal, who will expect to have to compete for a starting spot.  

i also wonder about how the new OC and the west coast offense may influence the draft.  i can see certain scouts and coaches wanting a guy like trubisky for better or worse, he seems like a good fit in that type of offense.  

[Big Blocker]

2 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

Trouble with Foles is how much he might cost.  He is due something like $6.5M from this year - other sources had it at $10+M.  The Chiefs probably can't afford either and are probably only holding on to shop him.  If we trade for him we have him for one reasonable year and then his age won't matter much because he will be back on the market.  If he is good he will cost, if he sucks who cares how old he is? 

Again my position is based on the perception that the FO has already determined it is unlikely either Petty or Hackenberg will be serviceable in the #1 Qb slot.  So I would if Foles could be had for a reasonable number redo his contract into a two year deal, with maybe an option for the Jets in year three.  That would give the Jets two to three years to draft and groom an eventual replacement. 

$10+mil of course sounds high for Foles, but given the realities of the market, less than $10mil would be reasonable.

[PepPep]

On 2/23/2017 at 9:52 AM, Big Blocker said:

Hoyer.  A cheap alternative who I think the Jets brass would fear being seen as exactly that by the fanbase.  Not a Jets move for good or ill.

I don't think the Jets are putting as much stock in what the fans think when deciding who they sign in FA - especially at QB- as you make it seem. What makes Hoyer a good option is 1. He will be cheap. 2. He will probably be willing to sign a short term deal. 3. He will not expect to start- he will have to compete for the starting spot. These three things set up Hack for success (or at least a legit shot). And they don't tie the team to a long term deal or heavy financial burden.  

It just makes too much sense to go with Petty, Hack and a vet QB like Hoyer than anything else. Regardless of how Jet fans feel about it. 

Unless Jets feel that Hack is hopeless or still far away from even consideration as a starter (which I highly doubt). Cutler, Taylor, Glennon, or any other high priced FA that will want a long term deal (and all of them will. Taylor and Cutler are under contract but have a long term, high priced deals already) simply do not make sense. It will choke the Jets financially from improving the team in other areas and it will unnecessarily commit them to a QB who has not proven he can be 'the guy'- otherwise why would his team want to get rid of him.    

[ZachEY]

1 hour ago, PepPep said:

I don't really understand the assumption that Hack will be awful. Where is that coming from.

His college career?

His training camp?

His preseason?

His regular season?

The fact that he came in 4th in QB competition that included himself, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Geno Smith, and Bryce Petty?

His practice reports?

The leaks around the team?

Penn State's improvement with his departure making the "it was the coaches fault" excuse seem silly?

What else do you need?

[Tinstar]

Zero percent for Kizer, so I guess I know who the Jets are going to take in the draft ./

[T0mShane]

2 minutes ago, Tinstar said:

Zero percent for Kizer, so I guess I know who the Jets are going to take in the draft ./

Notre Dame is garbage.

[PepPep]

41 minutes ago, gEYno said:

His college career?

His training camp?

His preseason?

His regular season?

The fact that he came in 4th in QB competition that included himself, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Geno Smith, and Bryce Petty?

His practice reports?

The leaks around the team?

Penn State's improvement with his departure making the "it was the coaches fault" excuse seem silly?

What else do you need?

A lot of this is unsubstantiated to a degree. 

-Hack has a big asterisk on his college career numbers. And you know this. The coaching change clearly made a negative impact. The Sandusky scandal and sanctions did as well. You simply cannot completely discount either of those things. Along with the success he had as a freshman.

-Training camp is training camp. Whats your point? He was a rookie 'developmental' QB. What was so awful from his training camp, lol. How much can you possibly take away from that???

- He had ups and down in pre-season. And he barely got to play. For the most part, he actually looked pretty good. Showed that he can go through is progressions, showed that he can make 'every throw', showed that he had command of the offense and could read the defense, call audibles, showed that he had no shell shock and could step in and make the throw, etc. Yes, he threw a couple of INTs. He got sacked a couple of times. But its not like he looked awful. He looked like a rookie playing with 3rd and 4th stringers. He looked like he had nice potential and was probably mentally ahead of the curve but had a lot to work on and was not ready to start in the NFL- which was not news to anyone.

-Regular season? Did he play in the regular season?   

-He was red-shirted. Clearly stated by Macc that he would not play and take the year off to develop. Are you suggesting that there was a legitimate QB competition??? When the Jets finally signed Fitz- he was the satrting QB. Before that,. it was between Geno and Petty- but they were trying to bring back Fitz all along. Hack was never even in consideration for the starting spot. He was not part of the competition. What are you talking about?? You cat like he somehow performed so poorly that the was beat out by Geno, Petty and Fitz. That was not the case. AT ALL. 

-His practice reports???? C'mon man. really? His rookie practice reports. Nice. 

-Team leaks??? It's sad that you would even reach this far for a reason.

-I think a counter argument can be made. I.E. The fact that Penn State improved once they got over the sanctions and brought in a QB that actually fit the coaches system proves the point that Hack was not properly used and was hurt by the Sandusky scandal. Depends on how you look at it.

-I need more, you've given very little. Mainly b/c he has yet to play any legit NFL games. So you will never be able to convince me until we actually see him play some meaningful games with starters in the NFL.   

[PepPep]

52 minutes ago, Tinstar said:

Zero percent for Kizer, so I guess I know who the Jets are going to take in the draft ./

I agree. I'm a big believer that the Jets simply will not draft a QB this year. 

But I do believe Kizer will most likely be the first QB off the board. I really do. I think once all is said and done, he will be the guy with the most upside. He will measure out best at the combine. He will be a gamble, but with this lot, still the first guy off the board. I would not be surprised if SF or CHI take him ahead of any other QB. 

[thadude]

Glennon Please

[thadude]

1 hour ago, T0mShane said:

Notre Dame is garbage.

Is that supposedly better than Penn State garbage?

 

22 people actually voted for a scrub who wore pajamas on the sidelines because he couldn't look functional facing practice squad guys

[thadude]

27 minutes ago, PepPep said:

I agree. I'm a big believer that the Jets simply will not draft a QB this year. 

But I do believe Kizer will most likely be the first QB off the board. I really do. I think once all is said and done, he will be the guy with the most upside. He will measure out best at the combine. He will be a gamble, but with this lot, still the first guy off the board. I would not be surprised if SF or CHI take him ahead of any other QB. 

I would actually love Kizer at 39 if we don't sign Glennon or Taylor

[thadude]

1 hour ago, gEYno said:

His college career?

His training camp?

His preseason?

His regular season?

The fact that he came in 4th in QB competition that included himself, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Geno Smith, and Bryce Petty?

His practice reports?

The leaks around the team?

Penn State's improvement with his departure making the "it was the coaches fault" excuse seem silly?

What else do you need?

I'll never figure out why some jets fans think Hackenberg is anything but a really, really bad player

 

Ditto for Bryce "I learned to read defenses by playing Madden" Petty

[ZachEY]

34 minutes ago, PepPep said:

A lot of this is unsubstantiated to a degree. 

-Hack has a big asterisk on his college career numbers. And you know this. The coaching change clearly made a negative impact. The Sandusky scandal and sanctions did as well. You simply cannot completely discount either of those things. Along with the success he had as a freshman.

-Training camp is training camp. Whats your point? He was a rookie 'developmental' QB. What was so awful from his training camp, lol. How much can you possibly take away from that???

- He had ups and down in pre-season. And he barely got to play. For the most part, he actually looked pretty good. Showed that he can go through is progressions, showed that he can make 'every throw', showed that he had command of the offense and could read the defense, call audibles, showed that he had no shell shock and could step in and make the throw, etc. Yes, he threw a couple of INTs. He got sacked a couple of times. But its not like he looked awful. He looked like a rookie playing with 3rd and 4th stringers. He looked like he had nice potential and was probably mentally ahead of the curve but had a lot to work on and was not ready to start in the NFL- which was not news to anyone.

-Regular season? Did he play in the regular season?   

-He was red-shirted. Clearly stated by Macc that he would not play and take the year off to develop. Are you suggesting that there was a legitimate QB competition??? When the Jets finally signed Fitz- he was the satrting QB. Before that,. it was between Geno and Petty- but they were trying to bring back Fitz all along. Hack was never even in consideration for the starting spot. He was not part of the competition. What are you talking about?? You cat like he somehow performed so poorly that the was beat out by Geno, Petty and Fitz. That was not the case. AT ALL. 

-His practice reports???? C'mon man. really? His rookie practice reports. Nice. 

-Team leaks??? It's sad that you would even reach this far for a reason.

-I think a counter argument can be made. I.E. The fact that Penn State improved once they got over the sanctions and brought in a QB that actually fit the coaches system proves the point that Hack was not properly used and was hurt by the Sandusky scandal. Depends on how you look at it.

-I need more, you've given very little. Mainly b/c he has yet to play any legit NFL games. So you will never be able to convince me until we actually see him play some meaningful games with starters in the NFL.   

This is a lot of excuses.

The has been little positive re: him since high school.  That's enough for the majority of people here, seemingly.

[ZachEY]

2 minutes ago, thadude said:

I'll never figure out why some jets fans think Hackenberg is anything but a really, really bad player

 

Ditto for Bryce "I learned to read defenses by playing Madden" Petty

Because, there's very little lengths Jets fans will not go to to delude themselves into not acknowledging the obvious, if the obvious is bad.

[UntouchableCrew]

Voted for Watson. I don't care what people say, I think that guy is going to be a star and it's worth the risk.

[PepPep]

1 hour ago, thadude said:

I'll never figure out why some jets fans think Hackenberg is anything but a really, really bad player

 

Ditto for Bryce "I learned to read defenses by playing Madden" Petty

I can understand that about Petty. And I don't think anybody is suggesting that Petty is more than what he has shown he is so far. But we have LITERALLY not seen Hack play any meaningful NFL games. 

I'll never figure out why some jet fans think Hackenberg is a really, really, bad player when he has yet to play a single meaningful NFL game.  

[Sperm Edwards]

4 minutes ago, PepPep said:

-He was red-shirted. Clearly stated by Macc that he would not play and take the year off to develop.

Except this idea - that he was redshirted the day he was drafted - is a made-up myth. Maccagnan didn't really say anything indicating this until after the season was over & the full season results on Hackenberg's rookie failure to instill confidence were in. After the fact it's easy to argue Macc used it as a hindsight cover-up excuse for his 2nd round pick being but a 4th stringer all year long had Geno & Petty not been injured. At best he indicated, right after the draft, that it wouldn't be a good idea to throw an unready QB into the fire too early; but that's hardly saying anything unique about Hackenberg specifically. Any GM would say that about any player (who can't be rotated on & off the field, like a DB).

The fact is right after the draft Maccagnan said he would not rule out playing - or even starting - Christian Hackenberg in 2016. That decision didn't come until after they got to see him up close day after day in team camps (in other words, as a result of his play not a result of a preordained redshirt season). What Macc actually said - in early May - is Hackenberg's playing time, or lack thereof, would depend upon what he shows them in camp/practice: 

"I know there’s always a desire and feel to have them go out there and play right away. The reality of it is, though, it’s going to be determined by how he does. And I think my personal opinion is we’ll see where he’s at and how he is in terms of assimilating to our offense and our system."

But a GM would say that about anybody who was then the 3rd (and soon to be 4th) best QB on the roster, since there is little else to say or do with regard to such a player, other than cutting him outright. If you can find where Maccagnan ever said the word "redshirt" or said there was never a chance they were going to play him, I would be interested in reading it.

Look, I hope Hackenberg makes everybody doubter eat their words. I really do, because the expectation this spring is for Maccagnan to make some splashy job/face-saving attempt this spring -- a serious investment in a veteran QB with a low percentage chance of being the QB he hoped Hackenberg would be. The best balance for that potential failure is if the cheap-contract Hackenberg ceases to be one himself.

[#27TheDominator]

8 minutes ago, PepPep said:

I can understand that about Petty. And I don't think anybody is suggesting that Petty is more than what he has shown he is so far. But we have LITERALLY not seen Hack play any meaningful NFL games. 

I'll never figure out why some jet fans think Hackenberg is a really, really, bad player when he has yet to play a single meaningful NFL game.  

If you think Petty is a really, really bad player, why would you think a guy who couldn't see the field behind him is any better?  Not playing a meaningful NFL game on a team with sh*t and injuries at QB is an indictment against him, not a get out of jail free card.  FWIW, I like what I have seen from Petty.  That doesn't mean I think he should start or that I feel particular good about his development, but I find him much more impressive than say, Kellen Clemens.  He has a nice arm and I would be okay with rolling with him as backup.

[section314]

7 minutes ago, PepPep said:

I can understand that about Petty. And I don't think anybody is suggesting that Petty is more than what he has shown he is so far. But we have LITERALLY not seen Hack play any meaningful NFL games. 

I'll never figure out why some jet fans think Hackenberg is a really, really, bad player when he has yet to play a single meaningful NFL game.  

Pretty easy, actually. They are the same idiots who are seriously arguing that the Jets should bring back Geno Smith, who in two years put up some of the worst numbers of any QB in modern history. Geno has proven what he is, which is horrible. Hackenberg has not yet played, but should be run out of town. You have to be careful when morons try to use logic....not only do they confuse each other, they start confusing the rest of us as well.

[slats]

I checked out on this team last year pretty much the moment they caved to Fitz and his stupid contract demands. Since that point in time, I've seen nothing from this current regime to make me think that was a bad idea.

I voted for Hackenberg because Hackenberg is the key for me to become engaged with this team again. Either he shuts up all his critics, plays great, and faith in Maccagnan (at least) is restored. Or he sucks and everybody gets fired, and I can get excited about the next potential geniuses who'll be taking over the team. Mediocrity with some overpriced scrub QB isn't going to cut it for me. Geno Smith is definitely not gonna cut it for me. I want to see them sink or swim with their second round pick. 

[Flushing Roots]

5 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

Something beyond everything?

Perhaps there's an intangible we don't know about.

Again, it's astonishing and mystifying as to why he didn't start on Jan. 1 against the Bills.

[#27TheDominator]

21 minutes ago, Flushing Roots said:

Perhaps there's an intangible we don't know about.

Again, it's astonishing and mystifying as to why he didn't start on Jan. 1 against the Bills.

There is one potential reason he didn't sart January 1st that is neither astonishing or mystifying.  In fact, it is quite likely.  Maybe he is just very bad.  I applaud the coaching staff for reigning in the "can't hit the ocean" comments, and making it seem like he may be a starter, but it is still way more likely that he truly sucks.

[Mogglez]

On 2/22/2017 at 3:19 PM, Stark said:

JETS luck we won't have a chance to draft him. 

 

On 2/22/2017 at 3:20 PM, The Crusher said:

I know. I know. But a fat man can dream?

Love Darnold, but I really think Rosen (who I also love) stays healthy and retakes the throne next year.  If we don't Super Suck then we'll, at least, possibly have a chance to trade up for him

[Flushing Roots]

49 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

There is one potential reason he didn't sart January 1st that is neither astonishing or mystifying.  In fact, it is quite likely.  Maybe he is just very bad.  I applaud the coaching staff for reigning in the "can't hit the ocean" comments, and making it seem like he may be a starter, but it is still way more likely that he truly sucks.

It's sad for us if he truly sucks.

It's also sad for Maccagnan if he blew a 2nd round pick on a QB that truly sucks. 

[Mogglez]

59 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

There is one potential reason he didn't sart January 1st that is neither astonishing or mystifying.  In fact, it is quite likely.  Maybe he is just very bad.  I applaud the coaching staff for reigning in the "can't hit the ocean" comments, and making it seem like he may be a starter, but it is still way more likely that he truly sucks.

I'll throw another bone out there for sake of discussion.

There was nothing really to gain by starting him.  Our plan was to sit him and we constantly said we were gonna stick by that plan.

1.  Let's say he was put out there and gets seriously hurt.  Now we're getting blasted for throwing him out there in a meaningless game and he has to spend an important developmental offseason rehabbing.  I can already picture the Cimini/Mehta articles now.

2.  He has no real connection with any of the young recievers we wanted to play and evaluate and a "meh" to "bad" performance means nobody gets a good look. 

3.  It was week 17 with two bad teams.  Geno Smith put a perfect QB rating 2 years ago in a similar scenario and it did nothing to help him long term.

If they wanted to move to Hack, they should have benched Fitzpatrick much earlier, given Petty some games, and then turned to Hackenberg.  With the way the team handled it (all wrong), starting him would have been pointless.  You could be right, I'm not disputing that.  Just adding some food for thought.

[JETSfaninNE]

On 2/23/2017 at 8:34 AM, gEYno said:

I'm surprised to see Cousins as #2

Just out of curiosity, why?  He is by far the best QB on that list.  Its not even close imo

[ZachEY]

1 hour ago, JETSfaninNE said:

Just out of curiosity, why?  He is by far the best QB on that list.  Its not even close imo

Generally just because of his overall lack of success.  We generally gravitate towards the hopeful unknown than the "solid" we've seen.

[JETSfaninNE]

1 hour ago, gEYno said:

Generally just because of his overall lack of success.  We generally gravitate towards the hopeful unknown than the "solid" we've seen.

Thanks.  I actually find that he is trending upward (he has only had 2 years as a full time starter) and both seasons he has been a 90+ rated QB that has thrown for an average 4500 yards over both seasons with a completion rate of around 68%.  He also ranks 2nd in 2016 for what I consider the most important stat (yards per pass attempt) at 7.8.  He was ranked 6th in 2015 with 7.3.  And he basically has a little better then a 2:1 TD/INT ratio.

I think he's actually already proving he is more "solid" then he is a hopeful unknown.  His floor is already better then anything the Jets have put under center in almost the last decade.  Washington also didn't provide Cousins a consistent run game this past year, leaving him carrying most of the success they have had.

I honestly think the Redskins are crazy if they let him go.  He is the only QB that I would build 10 yrs around as I think given the right coaching and team makeup he can honestly keep getting better and get us where we all want to be.

I also think there is a 99% chance that the Redskins keep him but I'm holding out hope on that 1%.

I watched a lot of Cousins this year b/c I had him as a fantasy QB for a large portion of my season in one of my leagues and outside of a few bad games, I was really impressed with him this past season.  Dude throws a fantastic deep ball as well.

extra credit: He also is a big dork, lover of Lord of the Rings and his trash talk game is pretty awesome.  I'm starting my offseason bromance with Kirk Cousins.  Its not even close if its Cousins vs Glennon in FA.

[The Crusher]

14 hours ago, Mogglez said:

 

Love Darnold, but I really think Rosen (who I also love) stays healthy and retakes the throne next year.  If we don't Super Suck then we'll, at least, possibly have a chance to trade up for him

Super Suck 4 Sam? Me likey and thank you. 

[Big Blocker]

On ‎2‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 0:26 PM, PepPep said:

I don't think the Jets are putting as much stock in what the fans think when deciding who they sign in FA - especially at QB- as you make it seem. What makes Hoyer a good option is 1. He will be cheap. 2. He will probably be willing to sign a short term deal. 3. He will not expect to start- he will have to compete for the starting spot. These three things set up Hack for success (or at least a legit shot). And they don't tie the team to a long term deal or heavy financial burden.  

It just makes too much sense to go with Petty, Hack and a vet QB like Hoyer than anything else. Regardless of how Jet fans feel about it. 

Unless Jets feel that Hack is hopeless or still far away from even consideration as a starter (which I highly doubt). Cutler, Taylor, Glennon, or any other high priced FA that will want a long term deal (and all of them will. Taylor and Cutler are under contract but have a long term, high priced deals already) simply do not make sense. It will choke the Jets financially from improving the team in other areas and it will unnecessarily commit them to a QB who has not proven he can be 'the guy'- otherwise why would his team want to get rid of him.    

To me the question is not whether the Jets organization should ignore the fans.  it is instead that they do not ignore the fans.  Or more precisely they do make moves based on what they think the fans think.

Johnson will not let them take a position that in effect says to fans and in particular season ticket holders that the coming season will be a rebuild season, and that the team is not going to try and make the playoffs.  Going with Hoyer as the sole addition to the Petty Hackenberg tandem would be, imo rightly, seen as a declaration that they will not be trying to make the playoffs.  (I also think the FO is much more skeptical about Petty and Hackenberg than your post implies they are, or should be.)

To be clear they may well end up with Hoyer if they try and fail to get some better player through FA or a trade.  But given their history I cannot conclude that as of the entry into the FA period their plan A is signing Hoyer and standing pat.

Finally I have posted before I do not expect the Bears to only trade Cutler if the other team takes over his contract in its current form, and provides additional significant compensation in the form of draft picks.  I think they will eat part of his contract, taking it down to about $10mil or so a season, and require no more than a 4th round pick.  If they insist on more than that, I would not take the deal.

[thadude]

Brian Hoyer is hot garbage 

 

please stop mentioning his scrub name