Learn From History

[Stark]

22 hours ago, slats said:

This. 

I'd love for them to take their time with the kid, but the franchise needs to have a very good idea about him before next year's draft. Really, they have to be 100% sure about him if they're even thinking about passing on a QB next year. 

I can't UPVOTE this enough! this is exactly why having McCown do anything other than hold a clipboard is ridiculous. 

[FTL Jet Fan]

21 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

A few problems with this "history" lesson:  

1. I am not in favor of waiting until a player's rookie contract expires to determine if he is serviceable at his position.

2.  If we go by history, history has all kinds of rules that plot against Hackenberg.  He isn't exactly ticking off all the Parcells mandates - think he only got one (3-year starter).  Completion percentage?  Thick skin?  This is a kid we didn't play because he was "shell-shocked" in college.  Small hands?  It bothered NoBowles, and I don't know how statistically relevant it is, but the success stories were Geno, Tannehill and Kaepernick.  Ouch.

ESPN researched that since 2008 there had been 39 quarterbacks who had been measured with a hand size of 9 1/4 or smaller; less than one-fifth of them had even gone on to start half a season in the NFL and none had made a Pro Bowl.

The fact that he looked okay Saturday is a sign of how low we have placed the bar.  He needs to look better, and he might.  We can't keep the training wheels on him forever.  This doesn't mean that I advocate having him air it out from here on out, but if by the end of this season people are still looking at it as Hackenberg will finally get his chance soon?  That is a total failure. His chance is now.  Seize it or get the **** out. 

Couldn't agree more about the QB's hand size especially playing in s*itty weather. Tannehill is lucky because he plays in Miami but he has his flaws as we know.  I do think the game plan for Hack was perfect especially with the lack of a run game. The CS staff needs to bring this kid along the right way. Hack needs confidence in his ability to run the system and lead his team, once he has that he will start to progress in real time. Then we will see exactly where he is at with his footwork, accuracy, etc. Just my opinion.

[Stark]

15 hours ago, Jetscode1 said:

Completely disagree with your point.  McCown buys time for the younger QBs to learn while not getting overwhelmed and not re-enforcing bad habits.  Hack or Petty should start when they earn the job.

lol, FML. this is dumb. McCown will show how to make improper reads, throws and how to lose. That is all he has done in his entire career. under 60% completion percentage and 18 wins vs 42 loses. Yeah this is exactly the type of person I want teaching my young Qb's how to LOSE. WTF is wrong with you people. You wouldn't hire a career under achiever to train an employee in your business. 

[Stark]

14 hours ago, Jetscode1 said:

...and if the Jets are as bad as many say...McCown takes the lumps...that's the reason he's on the roster...throwing Hack or Petty to the wolves when/if they are unprepared does not a QB make.

Putting a bad Qb on the field does nothing but hinder the entire team.

[jpoppy717]

13 hours ago, Pcola said:

Right now, he is heads and shoulders above everyone else in the draft class.  Rosen and Josh Allen are projected as first rounders not because of anything they have done but on athletisicism and potential.  Compare the three of them, it's not even close.  Allen, in fact has accuracy issues similar to what we are trying to fix right now with Hackenberg.  Mason is statistically the second best pro prospect right now.  The difference between Darnold and everyone else is similar to the team with the #1 pick getting Winston or Mariota and the team getting the second pick getting a QB with a ceiling around current day Ryan Tannehill.

Scouts have stated that Darnold is a better pro prospect at this stage of his career than Luck, Winston, and Stafford.  

 Darnold took over an 0-3 team and ran the table.  Not sure if you watched the USC/PSU bowl game, but his play in that game is how legends are made.  Sure anything can happen, like Darnold could get injured, could get lazy, etc.  But as of now, there will be one team n xt year that is going to solve their QB problem for the foreseeable future.  As usual, it probably won't be the Jets because having 5-6 win seasons is really important to our owner and fan base.

Let's see how Darnold and the other QBs play this year.  We have all of 10 starts for Darnold.  366 pass attempts.  Too early to make any judgments.  

[Sperm Edwards]

14 hours ago, Lupz27 said:

Do you waste a pick on a non can't miss prospect thou say if the Jets win 4 games, get 4th pick, and the top 2-3 QB's are gone, and the others are borderline 1st rounders?  Because IMO the most likely scenario is that only 2 of these QB's next year will be considered top 1st round talent, and if your not picking 1, or 2 your not getting 1.  Sorry I am not reaching for Josh Rosen at 4 IF all the reports of him being a douche locker room cancer scumbag with great physical abilities, or Baker Mayfield who will need a redshirt year, or Lamar Jackson who might be the most dynamic athletic QB since Vick, but won't be able to complete more then 50% of his passes, or play from within the pocket for 3+ years, hell I still don't get the whole hub bub about Josh Allen who IMO is a 3" larger version of Mahomes, but without the IT factor that Mahomes will bring, Allen is said to have special arm talent like Mahomes, but because he plays in a more convertible pro system where he only completed like 55% of his passes last year guys are drooling over him.  The only guy who should get drooled over is Darnold, while he isn't the most physically gifted of the QB's coming out next season he is the one that has every box checked in what you need to succeed at the next level, while all the others have at least 1 question mark instead of a check in those boxes, I also think the 2017 QB draft class was severely underrated because of this media frenzy over the 2018 draft class, and the Jets are gonna look foolish while Mahomes, Watson, and even maybe another QB choosen later becomes a franchise QB because we need a great team leader at Safety, don't get me wrong I love Adams, but if I am gonna choose between Earl Thomas, and Russell Wilson I am taking Wilson every time.

The top 2-3 picks may be QBs but they may not all go to the teams that earned those top 2-3 picks. Just like in 2016 QBs went 1-2 but not to the teams that naturally finished with the top 2 picks.

If we pick 4th, and the last "worthy" QB in that range is at #2 or #3, we would be in the catbird seat to move up; more so than a team trying to move up from #8 or #15, and costing us far less than it would cost them. Personally I don't worry about losing an extra #1 pick if it means getting our man 1-2 slots earlier, since that is supposed to mean the position is filled for the next 10-15 years. Taking a lower-ranked one (theoretically) means we're more likely to need to invest another future 1st rounder or more in the QB position anyway. May as well get it over with now. I think teams make this calculation when they pay these nutty ransoms of 2 or 3 #1 picks for a QB: he should still be in his prime in 7-10 years and the 2 lost #1 picks are a distant memory (with the benefit of hindsight that shows half the 1st rounders were meh players or busts anyway).

I wouldn't advocate taking just any QB in round 1 just because he's a QB, but I also don't know what the rest of the class looks like after the BAP QB, and frankly don't know about these kids beyond what's thrown around here at this point. They still have a whole season ahead of them before we say this or that guy is going #2 or #3 overall. This time in 2008 I'm not sure if Flacco was even a 3rd round prospect, let alone a mid-1st rounder.

Basically, too early to call. Depends on the individual prospects themselves at that time. I know it seems like a copout answer but it's the truth.

[Beerfish]

The famous 'redshirt' year did a lot for Hack.  the new oc calls him a rookie which he essentially is.

I still cannot for the life of me fathom the people that are big Hack fans that were also 100% okay with the way he was handled last year as of the whole redshirt year was a good thing when the team did nothing to try to improve him at all all season.  If I happened to be a Hack fan or supporter i would have been enraged at hoe he was handled last year but his biggest supporters were happy as clams.

[#27TheDominator]

15 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

The top 2-3 picks may be QBs but they may not all go to the teams that earned those top 2-3 picks. Just like in 2016 QBs went 1-2 but not to the teams that naturally finished with the top 2 picks.

If we pick 4th, and the last "worthy" QB in that range is at #2 or #3, we would be in the catbird seat to move up; more so than a team trying to move up from #8 or #15, and costing us far less than it would cost them. Personally I don't worry about losing an extra #1 pick if it means getting our man 1-2 slots earlier, since that is supposed to mean the position is filled for the next 10-15 years. Taking a lower-ranked one (theoretically) means we're more likely to need to invest another future 1st rounder or more in the QB position anyway. May as well get it over with now. I think teams make this calculation when they pay these nutty ransoms of 2 or 3 #1 picks for a QB: he should still be in his prime in 7-10 years and the 2 lost #1 picks are a distant memory (with the benefit of hindsight that shows half the 1st rounders were meh players or busts anyway).

I wouldn't advocate taking just any QB in round 1 just because he's a QB, but I also don't know what the rest of the class looks like after the BAP QB, and frankly don't know about these kids beyond what's thrown around here at this point. They still have a whole season ahead of them before we say this or that guy is going #2 or #3 overall. This time in 2008 I'm not sure if Flacco was even a 3rd round prospect, let alone a mid-1st rounder.

Basically, too early to call. Depends on the individual prospects themselves at that time. I know it seems like a copout answer but it's the truth.

The key is, QBs are more pass/fail, while with other positions, you decide how much more a great player is than a good one.  I tend to look at it more like Bill Walsh, you look at the player and what you think you can get out of him rather than just comparing numbers or bodies.  At that point, the #1 QB might be worth a couple or three #1s.  I assume that is what they did with Hackenberg, though the fact he was so far away makes it pretty speculative and the fact that they completely changed offenses makes that theory suspect.

[BCJet]

2 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

The famous 'redshirt' year did a lot for Hack.  the new oc calls him a rookie which he essentially is.

I still cannot for the life of me fathom the people that are big Hack fans that were also 100% okay with the way he was handled last year as of the whole redshirt year was a good thing when the team did nothing to try to improve him at all all season.  If I happened to be a Hack fan or supporter i would have been enraged at hoe he was handled last year but his biggest supporters were happy as clams.

I was not a fan of the Hack pick, but I do see why it was made and Im rooting for him because its the best thing for the team.

That being said, your point is actually 2 separate things.  I was and still am 100% in favor of giving him the redshirt season, there was no reason to run him out there in the last game or 2 to get killed behind a team that had given up weeks earlier.  Confidence is extremely important and it was smart to not play him.

However, it is atrocious how little time Gailey spent developing him.  Should he have gotten practice reps with the 1s or 2s during game weeks, definitely no, but Gailey admitting that they couldn't work with him is insane to me.  I dont know how an NFL team works, but would it be completely crazy to simply hire an additional QB coach to work on footwork etc with him in-season?  

Keeping his confidence in tact was an important step in his development given his college career, but we could have done A LOT more with him last year had we had guys like morton/bates here.  Really a travesty that more wasn't done.

[jpoppy717]

Aside from Pennington, drafted in 2000, Rivers in 2004, and Rodgers, drafted in 2005, are there any examples in the last 17 years of highly drafted QBs who sat more than one year, and ended up being good QBs? I don't think so.  Most highly drafted QBs who have ended up being good started right away or at least in rookie season.  Of course some start right away and flop.  But the lesson from history seems to me to be that it is very rare that a highly drafted QB sits and ends up being a good QB.  

Only examples I can think of are at least 12 years ago. Maybe I'm forgetting some.  Maybe Garroppolo ends up as one, maybe not.  

[Beerfish]

A guy does not get better just by sitting out for a year.  He only gets better if he sits out for a year and works on many things.  Another bowles epic fail and yes i hold the head coach accountable for the whole team and the actions of the oc

[BCJet]

8 minutes ago, jpoppy717 said:

Aside from Pennington, drafted in 2000, Rivers in 2004, and Rodgers, drafted in 2005, are there any examples in the last 17 years of highly drafted QBs who sat more than one year, and ended up being good QBs? I don't think so.  Most highly drafted QBs who have ended up being good started right away or at least in rookie season.  Of course some start right away and flop.  But the lesson from history seems to me to be that it is very rare that a highly drafted QB sits and ends up being a good QB.  

Only examples I can think of are at least 12 years ago. Maybe I'm forgetting some.  Maybe Garroppolo ends up as one, maybe not.  

Matt Hassleback - and he is also the only QB who was bad in college who improved after joining the NFL.

[#27TheDominator]

I think everybody is blowing Gailey's quote way out of proportion.  They didn't refuse to work with him.  He said that they could not completely change his mechanics/footwork during camp and that it would have to wait for the offseason.  Think of all the times you read about coaches burning the midnight oil plotting gameplans and watching film.  Are they supposed to do that while teaching a kid where to point his foot?  It is basic stuff, Hackenberg could have worked on it himself with his own trainers and other coaches.  I assume that he did. 

[#27TheDominator]

3 minutes ago, BCJet said:

Matt Hassleback - and he is also the only QB who was bad in college who improved after joining the NFL.

He sat, but he doesn't fit the criteria offered - he was not a high pick, he was a 6th and 19 years ago.

[Jetscode1]

2 hours ago, Stark said:

lol, FML. this is dumb. McCown will show how to make improper reads, throws and how to lose. That is all he has done in his entire career. under 60% completion percentage and 18 wins vs 42 loses. Yeah this is exactly the type of person I want teaching my young Qb's how to LOSE. WTF is wrong with you people. You wouldn't hire a career under achiever to train an employee in your business. 

You wouldn't hire a recent college grad to lead a business or a military unit.  You keep the sh*tty old-timer until the new hires are capable.

2 hours ago, Stark said:

Putting a bad Qb on the field does nothing but hinder the entire team.

Best players play.  Hack/Petty need to show Bowles they are better than McCown.  You hoping Hack/Petty play better with more playing time does not change the strategy.

[Dunnie]

On 8/15/2017 at 9:48 AM, BallinPB said:

I think the air it our mentality in this case comes from the fact that there are 3 potential franchise QBs in next years draft ripe for the taking.  I personally think that developing a QB nowadays over a period of 3 years is outdated.  These QBs coming out of college are more prepared than ever for the NFL.  

I disagree completely ... the spread offenses in college have created a dearth of QBs that understand the Pro game.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, #27TheDominator said:

The key is, QBs are more pass/fail, while with other positions, you decide how much more a great player is than a good one.  I tend to look at it more like Bill Walsh, you look at the player and what you think you can get out of him rather than just comparing numbers or bodies.  At that point, the #1 QB might be worth a couple or three #1s.  I assume that is what they did with Hackenberg, though the fact he was so far away makes it pretty speculative and the fact that they completely changed offenses makes that theory suspect.

Kind of what I said at the end, however long it takes for me to get to that point, lol. If it's the right QB, sure he's worth 3 #1 picks to a team with such a need. If it's a shot in the dark, the QB-poor just got that much poorer, unless they get lucky and hit on a later round pick (like Washington with RGIII/Cousins). 

And yes it's different for most other positions. QB and OL play 100% of offensive snaps; there aren't any healthy players at these positions that are in on 30% or 70% of snaps. It's all pass/fail, all-or-none. Not like certain types of defenders, RBs/receivers, etc. A RB can be merely half of a RBBC duo, and be a valuable asset to his team, even if he wasn't worth the initial draft capital it took to get him. A QB that cost 2-3 (or just 1) #1 picks and is just a backup? Yeah, there's no way to sugarcoat that.

[#27TheDominator]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

And yes it's different for most other positions. QB and OL play 100% of offensive snaps; there aren't any healthy players at these positions that are in on 30% or 70% of snaps. It's all pass/fail, all-or-none. Not like certain types of defenders, RBs/receivers, etc. A RB can be merely half of a RBBC duo, and be a valuable asset to his team, even if he wasn't worth the initial draft capital it took to get him. A QB that cost 2-3 (or just 1) #1 picks and is just a backup? Yeah, there's no way to sugarcoat that.

This is a good, but different point.  You aren't going to give up two #1's for a RT when you have one that is 70% as good, even if that RT is on the field every snap.  You would do that in a second for a QB that much better than what you have.  

Your point about platoons is another reason why you jump at QB first. There are skill position players that have a specific skill you can exploit, like Harvin at RB.  He can have 5 explosive carries a game, but if you used him every down he would probably be exposed/injured/beaten down.  Same with crazy speed guys like Tyreek Hill.  QB is exposed on every day. 

[Pcola]

2 hours ago, jpoppy717 said:

Let's see how Darnold and the other QBs play this year.  We have all of 10 starts for Darnold.  366 pass attempts.  Too early to make any judgments.  

You're right but those ten games as a freshman are light years better than anything Hack has been able to put together.  To be honest, Darnold would have to be pretty bad this year to take himself out of the conversation for the top QB next April.

[jgb]

Bringing a guy long slowly is not a luxury the Jets have. When it comes to finding the next franchise QB, the Jets need to adopt a 'fail quickly" mentality. 

[Pcola]

5 hours ago, BCJet said:

If 2 QBs go before us, that also means that 2 positional players will be available.  This draft has edge rushers, 2 LT prospects and an excellent RB.

On top of that, guys like Luke Falk will be available with our second pick, or if we trade back into the first round, so we have the option of taking a pass rusher (Arden Key/Harold Landry), or Barkley and then a QB.

Then we improve the team, while having Falk and Hack continue to develop - increasing our chances of finding a QB while also building a strong team around that QB.

That's a good point but this league is all about the QB.  And what a difference between 2-14 and 4-12 would make.  One, we solve the QB issue for a decade, probably longer.  Two extra meaningless wins and we use another first round pick on D and still have the worst offense in the league for the foreseeable future.

[Stark]

1 hour ago, Jetscode1 said:

You wouldn't hire a recent college grad to lead a business or a military unit.  You keep the sh*tty old-timer until the new hires are capable.

Best players play.  Hack/Petty need to show Bowles they are better than McCown.  You hoping Hack/Petty play better with more playing time does not change the strategy.

lol, right. I wouldn't hire a college grad to lead a business or military unit. I also wouldn't put them in a position to learn from a person who barely can keep their job. I fire the "sh*tty" old timer if he does not produce to a level I expect, or a level commensurate to experience and do not keep him around just because, you can replace the sh*tty old timer with someone who can produce or has the ability to properly train/instruct the younger prospect.

Am I hoping Hack/Petty are better than McCown, absolutely. Do I think that it is more likely than not that 1 of the 2 of them would be as good or better, YES.

[Jetscode1]

2 minutes ago, Stark said:

lol, right. I wouldn't hire a college grad to lead a business or military unit. I also wouldn't put them in a position to learn from a person who barely can keep their job. I fire the "sh*tty" old timer if he does not produce to a level I expect, or a level commensurate to experience and do not keep him around just because, you can replace the sh*tty old timer with someone who can produce or has the ability to properly train/instruct the younger prospect.

Am I hoping Hack/Petty are better than McCown, absolutely. Do I think that it is more likely than not that 1 of the 2 of them would be as good or better, YES.

Only so many NFL QBs.  Don't think you've ever run an NFL team nor would anyone hire you so I guess we never find out how you would do it differently than Macc.  Maybe your kind like Cimini or Costello with opinions.  That's OK.  Pretty sure we can get by with a rookie beat writer just doesn't work when you're hiring a leadership position in any type of organization.

[Stark]

33 minutes ago, Jetscode1 said:

Only so many NFL QBs.  Don't think you've ever run an NFL team nor would anyone hire you so I guess we never find out how you would do it differently than Macc.  Maybe your kind like Cimini or Costello with opinions.  That's OK.  Pretty sure we can get by with a rookie beat writer just doesn't work when you're hiring a leadership position in any type of organization.

Only so many NFL QB's yes, and McCown has proven he is not a starter. I have not run an NFL team, neither have you. Like you, we are stating our opinions with no professional NFL experience to back them up. You too would be like a beat writer with opinions, Manish Mehta more likely. Enjoy your boy McCown screwing up the team/delaying the inevitable. 

 

 

[Jetscode1]

Just now, Stark said:

Only so many NFL QB's yes, and McCown has proven he is not a starter. I have not run an NFL team, neither have you. Like you, we are stating our opinions with no professional NFL experience to back them up. You too would be like a beat writer with opinions, Manish Mehta more likely. Enjoy your boy McCown screwing up the team/delaying the inevitable. 

 

 

You're missing the point.  McCown is not "my boy".  I root for whoever is QBing the Jets.  I just want Hack/Petty to actually earn the position not just get it handed it to them and if they cannot beat out a washed up Josh McCown they need to grab a clipboard and watch.  My commentary really had more to due with how organizations hire and develop leaders than any one particular player. 

[Stark]

2 minutes ago, Jetscode1 said:

You're missing the point.  McCown is not "my boy".  I root for whoever is QBing the Jets.  I just want Hack/Petty to actually earn the position not just get it handed it to them and if they cannot beat out a washed up Josh McCown they need to grab a clipboard and watch.  My commentary really had more to due with how organizations hire and develop leaders than any one particular player. 

I am not missing any point you are trying to make. Yes, I will root for whoever is the QB as I have every year. Organizations do not put poor performers in a position to develop any new prospects or young hires. McCown is just that. Hack should be starting if he is even close in performance which is how the reports sound. There is no upside with McCown. Play the kid, if he fails, play Petty, if he fails then trot out McCown and we have our answer. 

[Jetscode1]

5 minutes ago, Stark said:

I am not missing any point you are trying to make. Yes, I will root for whoever is the QB as I have every year. Organizations do not put poor performers in a position to develop any new prospects or young hires. McCown is just that. Hack should be starting if he is even close in performance which is how the reports sound. There is no upside with McCown. Play the kid, if he fails, play Petty, if he fails then trot out McCown and we have our answer. 

Cool plan.  I doubt it would work but I am pretty sure we will see each of the three QBs this year.  Hopefully, Hack is ready.

[Stark]

17 minutes ago, Jetscode1 said:

Cool plan.  I doubt it would work but I am pretty sure we will see each of the three QBs this year.  Hopefully, Hack is ready.

I agree we will probably see all 3.

[Sperm Edwards]

7 minutes ago, Dunnie said:

I disagree completely ... the spread offenses in college have created a dearth of QBs that understand the Pro game.

For some it is a steeper learning curve than others. Mariota and Wentz, for example, were each supposed to definitely require a minimum of 1 year holding a clipboard, with the only exception being if Mariota got drafted by Kelly (or that's what I read repeatedly).

[56mehl56]

On 8/16/2017 at 0:41 PM, Pcola said:

You're right but those ten games as a freshman are light years better than anything Hack has been able to put together.  To be honest, Darnold would have to be pretty bad this year to take himself out of the conversation for the top QB next April.

Comparing the USC squad to the depleted PSU teams makes the comparison of QB's moot. Darnold may be the top QB in the draft next year but its far from a given he will be.

[UntouchableCrew]

He's already redshirted an entire year. I don't think asking him to complete a throw 10 yards in the air is asking too much. Christ on a cross, look around the league at what other young QBs are doing.

[NYs Stepchild]

On 8/16/2017 at 1:08 PM, Stark said:

lol, right. I wouldn't hire a college grad to lead a business or military unit. I also wouldn't put them in a position to learn from a person who barely can keep their job. I fire the "sh*tty" old timer if he does not produce to a level I expect, or a level commensurate to experience and do not keep him around just because, you can replace the sh*tty old timer with someone who can produce or has the ability to properly train/instruct the younger prospect.

Am I hoping Hack/Petty are better than McCown, absolutely. Do I think that it is more likely than not that 1 of the 2 of them would be as good or better, YES.

Thankfully business leaders can work effectively more than 10 years, and they don't give out draft picks to businesses in the order of failure. They also still get paid for being average You need to have balls of steel and play to win in the NFL because there are no trophies for 2nd place. There is however a reward for last place, and next year that is going to be quite a substantial one. 

We have coaches to train/instruct, and lead prospects. They don't need to be on the field. This is where I agree with you and if Bowles continues to be that sh*tty old timer that can barely keep his job we need to replace him with someone that can make the hard choices. 

I dream for the day we have a coach with the instincts, and guts to make the bold choices at the right times. Rex had the balls on defense but not the awareness to see what the offense was doing to counter. At least not on the fly. The proof of that is that he could not translate his defensive schemes over to the offensive side.

If he truly was a mastermind he could reverse those same principals and use them to beat other's defenses. He stumbled into a defensive scheme that took quite a while to figure out but he didn't have a firm grasp of why it worked and how to adjust it when it was failing. He also needed the same colored wrist band he gave Sanchez so he could understand situational football.  

I'll give Bowles this one year to show he can be the man. He's only a 3rd year coach and can prove he can learn from mistakes this year, but I would not let him infect the next QB prospect if he continues to play scared. 

[Stark]

3 minutes ago, NYs Stepchild said:

Thankfully business leaders can work effectively more than 10 years, and they don't give out draft picks to businesses in the order of failure. They also still get paid for being average You need to have balls of steel and play to win in the NFL because there are no trophies for 2nd place. There is however a reward for last place, and next year that is going to be quite a substantial one. 

We have coaches to train/instruct, and lead prospects. They don't need to be on the field. This is where I agree with you and if Bowles continues to be that sh*tty old timer that can barely keep his job we need to replace him with someone that can make the hard choices. 

I dream for the day we have a coach with the instincts, and guts to make the bold choices at the right times. Rex had the balls on defense but not the awareness to see what the offense was doing to counter. At least not on the fly. The proof of that is that he could not translate his defensive schemes over to the offensive side.

If he truly was a mastermind he could reverse those same principals and use them to beat other's defenses. He stumbled into a defensive scheme that took quite a while to figure out but he didn't have a firm grasp of why it worked and how to adjust it when it was failing. He also needed the same colored wrist band he gave Sanchez so he could understand situational football.  

I'll give Bowles this one year to show he can be the man. He's only a 3rd year coach and can prove he can learn from mistakes this year, but I would not let him infect the next QB prospect if he continues to play scared. 

I agree with everything said here.