Jump to content

jetblue95

Members
  • Content Count

    288
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jetblue95

  1. 10 hours ago, football guy said:

    I will be really upset with a RB in round 1, and I'm getting nervous with the amount of insiders who are linking us to Etienne at 23. Does having a good RB help a young QB tremendously? Yes. And I get that teams see Etienne as a Kamara clone, but I'd much rather see the team go committee approach and grab a guy on day 2 while utilizing those top 50 resources on more significant positions. I do realize it's a poor RB class, but Michael Carter is a really good player who should be there in the 3rd. 

    if the lineman they are targeting are gone, as are paye and the top CBs, i'd rather them take a RB at 23 and address the o-line at 34 then them take a WR at 23.  the need for an elite RB is more dire than another WR.  so if they are seeking to get zach weapons and the linemen they want are gone (and they don't want to reach for the next tier), then grab an elite play-maker.

    i too like carter a lot.  don't think he makes it to the 3rd.  maybe they could trade into 2nd to grab him.

  2. 2 hours ago, FidelioJet said:

     

    I'll say it again, if JD takes defense at 23 or 34 he has proven to me, with out a doubt in my mind, that he is incompetent.  

    Even with great QB play he will be incapable of putting together a Super Bowl winning roster...and we will languish in mediocrity for a decade 

     

    out of curiousity, how many super bowl winning teams have you been a part of?

    douglas has been part of 3.  he learned from one of the best all-time in "how to put together a roster" and he helped philly get a title.

    so your chirping on the interwebz about how you are absolutely, positively sure that douglas doesn't know how to assemble a SB roster is cute.  when you can show me your 3 rings, i may give you a little more credence than just being some message board, know-it-all, arm-chair GM

    • Upvote 2
  3. 1 minute ago, FidelioJet said:

    None of those teams were the worst offense in the league and one that ranked in the top 10 worst of all times.  The Jets literally had the least talented offensive roster I've ever seen...As of right now they've added a #2 WR to that team.  That's it.  The worst OL in the league hasn't been upgraded.  

    Again, you have to think outside your little of box of what people told you to think.  Circumstances matter.

    It's almost like you didn't watch this team play last year.

     

    again, you are offering your opinion.  that is fine, and i too share a desire to see the offense upgraded.  i think there have been more improvements than you just describe as adding a #2 WR (in addition to adding davis, a healthy, full-year mims, cole is vastly underrated, coleman is a solid RB platoon addition, and most importantly the new shannahan-inspired offensive system instead of gase feeding frank gore the ball 20 times a game offense).  but nevertheless, i want to see the jets help wilson out by improving the line and adding more weapons.

    but you cannot claim you have been proven right when you cannot point to any such example as PROOF.  i've given a bunch of examples of winning teams being built around a young QB along with a mix of offensive and defensive picks.  grabbing one of the top CBs or edge rushers  with one of the day 1/2 picks isn't malpractice.  it's not the same as taking a box safety over a QB.  they are premium positions, as well as positions of need for the team.  it may not be my preference, but i certainly would understand going with one of those positions relatively early if that is how the board falls.

  4. 21 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

    I continue to be proven correct.  I have clear, logical view points - they don't require a lot fluff as they're quite straight forward.

    In this case:

    If JD takes defense at either 23 or 34 he will be a failure.  I have little doubt about that.

     

    you have NOT been proven correct.   you continue to assert your opinion and claim it is correct.  saying something over and over does not equal proof.

    the chiefs did not build a SB team by drafting only offense after getting mahomes.  the texans did not follow up drafting watson with only offensive draft picks.  the bucs did not just win the super bowl by loading up on offensive draft picks.  

    let's do another one.  the bills, after drafting josh allen, made 4 consecutive defensive picks that year.  the following year, they picked a DT with their first pick, and in 2020, their first pick was a DE.

    proof would be showing a real world example.  can you do such, where a team follows up taking a QB high in the draft with 3 or 4 consecutive offensive players in the same draft?

     

    • Upvote 2
  5. 19 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

    Sure, they did.  They absolutely focused more resources on offense.

    And if it wasn't for Watson being a creepy dude - they would be in contention for 15 years - and will be again when/if they get him back - you'll note in 2020 they did, in fact, begin to focus more on defense....

    They had the right concept just not the right people in place. Draft your franchise QB - support him with everything you can for 2 to 3 years - then he should be capable of doing more with less - at which point you can focus on building a more rounded team.

    The expectation that the defense was going to get worse should be there - but the expectation that you'll have a franchise QB after three years should also be there.

     

     

    no, the first pick they made after trading up for watson was a LB.  the following year, while they had no picks in rounds 1 or 2 (watson trade and osweiller salary dump trade), their first pick was a S.  hopkins and fuller were in place before they got watkins (as were watt and clowney on the defense), so they started at a better point than the jets are today.  but they did not seek to load up the offense at the expense of the defense.  

    and as i showed up, while their offensive production has remained relatively consistent, their defense fell off a cliff.  granted they have been a horribly run team - o'brien really messed up what could have been a good thing between the tunsil and hopkins trades.  now they are a complete mess, and that's not even including the whole watson-massage fiasco.

    again, i want an offensive-focused draft.  but that doesn't mean it is malpractice to also help the defense, especially if the value of a defensive pick (at an area of need) outweighs the value of forcing an offensive pick for the sake of making an offensive pick.

    • Upvote 2
  6. 1 hour ago, FidelioJet said:

     

    They developed Watson into a top 5 QB by doing what they did. Had Watson not turned out to be, well whatever he is - they would have had another 15 years of him producing at a high level with a chance to win a Super Bowl EVERY YEAR.  If they continued to focus on defense in his early years - he may or may not have developed.  That's the point.

    Having a franchise QB is the single most important thing in all of sports.  There isn't a close second. 

     

     

     

    except if you look at houston's draft history, there is nothing to support your argument.  they did not continue to stock up on players to surround watson at the exclusion of the defense.  although truth is the really have been poor drafters on both sides of the ball.

    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/htx/draft.htm

     

    and if you look further, they won more with watson when they played good defense.

    in 2020, they scored 384 pts and let up 464 (4-12)

    in 2019, they scored 378 pts and let up 385 (10-6 - benefit from crappy division i guess) 

    in 2018, they scored 402 pts and let up 316 (11-5)

    the offense remained relatively consistent in producing points.  the defense got much, much worse

    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/htx/index.htm

     

    • Upvote 1
  7. 3 hours ago, FidelioJet said:

    Yes. 

    Well, not that he doesn’t know anything about football, but does lack the basic fundamentals necessary to build a modern NFL roster. Much like Mac and Idzik before him. 

    Therefore his failure is inevitable so we should move on sooner than later.  

     

    this is idiotic.

    you need to win on both sides of the ball.  sure, you need a good offense as it's less like to win with a purely dominating defense and a crap offense these days.  but the converse is true that a great offense can get shut down in the playoffs and if the defense stinks, you also aren't winning.

    look at the bucs draft history.  heck, even look at the chiefs draft history.  sure it helps to have an all-world QB, but the chiefs only became elite when they started playing defense.  NE traditionally focuses on the defense in the draft.

    i too want a draft with an emphasis on offense (edited from originally saying defense).  but calling for the GM to be fired on the spot if they pick a defensive player before day 3 is just plain moronic.

    • Upvote 1
  8. 40 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

    Oh, we were, until you apparently needed to understand what being a prospect meant.  Now that we've covered it and want to get back to the draft,  I guess we can play make believe and pretend like the Justin Fields wasnt thought of as the better prospect until the hype machine  was turned up to epic levels in Jan 2021 like we've never seen before and suddenly a player that nobody knew existed 6 months earlier leap frogged the 2 prospects who had been 1a and 1b for a decade.

    You must really like Mitch Trubisky, Daniel Jones, Dwayne Haskins, Sam Darnold, Mark Sanchez, Cadarle Jones, and guys like Paxton Lynch, Jordan Love, Jamarcus Russell all the other 1 year wonder bust draft riser PROSPECTS.

     

    seems your reading comprehension is as lacking as your understanding of the word fact.

    i have not made any conclusions.  i have not even offered an opinion of who the jets should take.  i readily admit i am in no position to evaluate them, having seen wilson play a handful of snaps and seeing fields play in parts of a few games.  

    but what i do know is that how someone was viewed as a PROSPECT coming out of high school is utterly and completely meaningless in evaluating the nfl draft.  i will trust the professionals to make the decision.  doesn't mean they will always make the right choice.  but they sure have more information and more experience in making these judgments than some internet blowhard who seems to think that being a higher ranked QB coming out of high school means diddly squat to being prepared to succeed in the nfl.

  9. 18 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

    Seems to me you dont understand what a prospect means.  Let me explain it to you so you can understand.

    Justin Fields was a higher rated more desirable prospect then Zach Wilson.  He was #2 in the country at the QB position, #1 duel threat.  Therefore, since it was 100% fact that he was a better prospect, he received offers from every single major program in the country, while nobody gave a **** about Zach Wilson who ended up playing for an irrelevant program.  Make sense now?

    Now let me destroy your silly little post; 

    Big Ben was drafted behind 2 better prospects who played at Power 5 conference schools.   Eli Manning and Philip Rivers.

    Pat Mahomes was taken after Mitch Trubisky, who played at UNC.

    Josh Allen was drafted after Mayfied and Darnold, Oklahoma and USC.

    Matt Ryan was the first QB off the board.

    QB's for 30 years ago have zero correlation to this conversation.

    Justin Fields is the highest rated Ohio St. player to ever take the field, your stupid examples are irrelevant.

    Oh and Zach Wilson will be taken after a better prospect, named Trevor Lawrence who picked the power house that is Clemson.

    I own you.  Step up your game.

     

    i'm sorry.  here i was thinking we were discussing who to draft in the nfl, not who our favorite college programs are going to sign on signing day.

    when people on a jets board, in the lead up to the nfl draft where the jets own the 2nd pick and are assumed by pretty much everyone to be taking a QB, discuss who is a better prospect, one would assume they mean as a pro.  not 5 years ago coming out of high school.

    maybe you are still living in the past, where you think it's fun to act like a d-bag clown and pose as some faux tough guy.  but this is the real world sparky and the grown ups were discussing who the jets may take to be their QB as a pro. 

    but maybe you also thought the jets should have drafted ryan perilloux, mitch mustain, jimmy clausen, ryan mallet, dayne christ, terrelle pryor, ej manuel, matt barkley, aaron murray, jake fromm, max browne, and garrett gilbert, among other 5 star PROSPECTS.

    • Upvote 1
  10. 6 minutes ago, slats said:

    Uh, I was responding to someone who wants to start a rookie QB, RB, and two OL. That would be four rookies on top of the rookies at HC and OC. Jets added bets at RB and OL this year, too, so it’s not trotting out the same-same. 
     
    Installing a new offense is a huge job. Another huge job is preparing a rookie QB to start on opening day. In a more perfect world, I don’t do those two things in the same year. That being the situation the Jets are going to be in, I don’t want two rookie OL and a rookie RB on the field with him all learning the offense and the NFL at the same time, while my OC calls plays for the first time under a rookie head coach. One more rookie on the OL is plenty. They can find one starting guard from what’s already on the roster. Continuity being important on the OL. Becton, McGovern, Fant, Lewis/Van Roten, and a high-drafted rookie should be a decent or better OL in the zone scheme they’re implementing. 
     
    Want a third rookie starter? Grab an Edge/CB/LB to start on defense with one of those picks over the least valued position in the sport. 

     

    apologies on missing the full context of the prior conversation.

    in general, you make a good point.  given how i would expect saleh/lafleur to mimic the SF offense and rotate backs (unless one grabs the job and runs away with it), i don't have a problem with taking a RB high and playing him.  the QB will start (if not game 1, then pretty shortly thereafter). if they take an o-line with a day 1-2 pick, chances are he will start.  i get the hesitancy on playing 2 rookies on the line protecting a rookie QB, so can't dispute that one.  don't think adding a talented rookie RB (traditionally the "easiest" position for a rookie to come in and play) gives me extra pause. 

    the jets need talent on offense.  they need to surround wilson with good weapons.  there are a few backs in this draft who i think can really help the offense.  shouldn't pass on them for fear of playing too many youngsters.  

  11. 11 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

    And yes, it's 100% fact Fields has always been the better prospect.  That's why he played at Georgia and Ohio St. and not BYU. Nobody chooses to play at BYU.  lol.  You settle because you suck, 

     

    and ben roethlisberger sucks because he played at miami, ohio

    pat mahomes sucks because he played at texas tech and not one of the bigger school in the conference

    josh allen sucks because he played wyoming

    matt ryan sucks because be played at BC

    and dwayne haskins, cardale jones, terrelle pryor, troy smith were great nfl QBs?

    also, steve young says hi (as does jim mcmahon) - only 5 super bowl rings for BYU QBs.  

    this may be the worst take i've ever seen here.  amazing such a know it all clown would make such a preposterous claim.  i'm wondering what college you attended to come up with such crap (also, learn WTF the word FACT means)

    • Upvote 4
  12. 29 minutes ago, slats said:

     

    No. You have a rookie head coach, rookie OC, and rookie QB. Add maybe a rookie G, and that's already probably too many. This is why I didn't even want the rookie QB this year. Everyone from Saleh on down is learning on the job. The rookie QB alone is a huge job, you want to work three more rookies into the new offense? That's insanity. Seriously. No team starts that many rookies on one side of the ball. It will get your QB killed. 

    Parcells used to say figure one loss for every rookie starter. Four rookie starters could put the Jets into 1-win territory this year if that were to hold true. 

     

     

    well the rookie HC and OC aren't on the field.  not sure why they count as one of the 4 rookies on offense.

    but it seems your preference would be to go with hoyer (or fill-in-the-blank vet QB) and run back the same o-line and RB group as last year?  does that add to more than 3 wins?  

    i'd rather take lumps with rookies getting on-field experience than has-beens/never-has-beens stinking up the joint

  13. 32 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

    I'm basing this off the assumption these reports are accurate and I was responding to a specific post.  The post I responded to assumed all the opposite views, which are opinions as well.  Funny that you responded to my take and are seemingly offended that I'm simply giving a contrarian view but you were good with the other guy calling Justin Fields, Geno Smith.

     

     

     

    i didn't see anyone calling fields geno smith.

    i also didn't see anyone else posting as an infallible know-it-all, who called wilson a prepubescent teen, nor anyone else so definitive in their evaluation that fields is and always will be the better prospect.

    again, if you don't want to read my posts, put me on ignore

    • Upvote 1
  14. 13 minutes ago, Tranquilo said:

    As long as we get an OL with the other pick, I'm good with this

     

    this

    i think the need is more dire to add a RB than a WR.  so as long as the o-line is addressed with one of these picks, i'd be fine adding a RB with the other.  the draft is supposedly deep in slot WRs, so that can be addressed later.  you have davis and mims as young WRs already locked in for the future.  

    i'm not sold on the RB room, although i liked coleman as a veteran addition.  i understand RBs can be found anywhere in the draft, so i'm not pounding the table for them to take one early.  i'd prefer to take the OL in the 1st and RB in the 2nd, but good chance the top 2 RBs are off the board before the 2nd.

  15. 3 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

    The Jetsiest sh*t ever is to take a 1 year wonder draft riser prepubescent teen and saddling him with a rookie coaching staff on the worst roster in the NFL and asking him to fix the QB problem with the NY Jets.  So naturally, that is what is happening.

    If this is a reality, the non-Jetsy thing to do would be to ignore predraft hype machine and get a haul for Wilson and wait for the guy, who is and always has been a better prospect later in the draft. 

     

    and if you trade down and fields isn't there? 

    of course, "getting a haul for wilson" seems to imply that other professional talent evaluators also think wilson is the better prospect and are willing to give up said "haul" to move up and get him.

    your post assumes fields is the better prospect.  that is your opinion, and apparently, many other people's opinion.  on the flip side, many other people think wilson is the better prosepct.  we don't know.

    in the end, you trust the front office to get the right guy.  to do their diligence and evaluate the alternatives and pick the guy they think will be the best.  pontificating on message boards doesn't make one right...or wrong.  and being a GM doesn't make one right...or wrong.  but the GMs and scouts sure have a lot more information to work with than those of us on the interwebz, unless of course you have conducted multiple interviews with the players, their coaches, dissected game film, watched them throw in person standing next to them on the field, and so on.

    • Upvote 3
  16. 16 minutes ago, Pointdexter said:

    Ok, let's simplify the question. Forget about what the Jets are going to do, I'm more curious what fans would rather have:

    Fields AND Pitts

             Or

    Zach Wilson

     

    it isn't this simple.

    if the assumption is fields slides and is available at 23 (not very likely imo), then it would be 

    fields/pitts

    wilson/other pick #23

     

    since i would absolutely hate taking a TE with a top 10 pick, let alone a top 5, let alone #2, then i would prefer wilson/other.  i also prefer wilson to fields, but admit i have no clue which one will be better (i've seen a lot more of fields being a michigan alum, which admittedly clouds my view of him being a michigan alum lol)

×
×
  • Create New...