Jump to content

We cant start Geno with this group of WR's...


Matt39

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 225
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Let me ask you a question.  Wherever you work, you must bring on new people from time to time.  How long do they apprentice before they are given the reigns to do the job?  Depending on the field, it may range from a month of training to maybe 6 months and even when they are training, they are doing the job.  If this idea that someone learns best by sitting and watching had any merit, why isn't it used in any other sport or any other profession?  Heck, David Carr has been sitting behind a Super Bowl QB for years and is no better or does the "sitting theory" only work at career inception?  How come in basketball a guy needs court time to develop as a player and learn the speed of the game, but in football a QB learns best by holding a clip board. Once the QB learns the plays inside and out and runs through them in practice with the first team, what else is there to learn that isn't better learned by actually experiencing it?  Take a step back and ask yourself what these guys are learning that they can't learn and learn faster while playing.  Oh and if your QB has mechanics issues that require him to sit for 4 years to correct then maybe you got a lemon.  Aaron Rodgers sat because Favre was in front of him.  He could have played much earlier and still been the Rodgers he is today.  Let's take Brady for example, he may have sat another year or two if not for Mo Lewis.  Did Belicheck just miscalculate the maturity date of this great sitting the bench maturation thing?  It is actually quite foolish if you think about it.

 

Your response indicated even more clearly how little you understand about this.  Each sport is different.  I shouldn't have to tell you that.  But since you brought it up, let's compare football and baseball.  Baseball has its minor leagues.  A lot of players spend at least a half season, if not a full season in the minors before they are called up.  Some labor for years honing their craft before they're called up.  When even a veteran player gets injured or goes in a hitting slump, they may bench him and have the coaches work on his fundamentals, may send him back to the minors or to their minor league complex for more work, then call him back up, or they may use the pitcher  as a reliever or hitter as a pinch hitter or runner.  They can give him spot play to try to keep his confidence up and keep him contributing.  Football teams don't have that option.  Either someone sits or plays.  NFL teams don't rotate their QBs.  The starter starts and plays until he gets injured or sucks so badly the HC is forced to bring in the backup.  In the situation of a starting QB sucking so badly that he gets benched, he usually doesn't get the opportunity to start again for that team.  

 

And sports and the business world are very different.  While there are some similarities, there's no real comparison.  It's Apples and oranges.

 

You're lumping all aspects of learning together, and that just isn't accurate.  There are certain things that really cannot be learned on the playing field. Footwork for example, is something that needs to be focused and worked on separately until it becomes automatic.  One cannot play QB and be out there trying to focus on his footwork while trying to read a D or escape from the pass rush.  Proper footwork is a fundamental of all QB play, but especially so in the WCO.  It is something that allows the QB to have a chance to succeed.  Shoddy footwork or any fundamental always gets in the way and will undermine a player's confidence and his ability to perform to his best.  The same is true with any other basic physical technique where training the mind and programming into muscle memory is key. Not only is NOT playing the best approach, but it is the only sensible approach when trying to work on those kinds of things.

 

For the other aspects of QB play, reading the D, developing better leadership and communication, developing better timing with his receivers, etc., then playing is the best way a QB can develop and grow.  The two things are separate, however.  Apples and oranges.

 

As for David Carr, you're wrong.  He started his rookie season, when he had basic fundamental things he needed to work on and didn't have a solid OL in front of him.  I don't know what quality (or lack thereof) he may or may not have received.  He made mistakes playing early that he probably wouldn't have if he had had the time to focus on those fundamentals and develop more slowly and not have to start immediately.  He took a physical beating.  I'm sure his confidence took a big hit.  Listen, a lot of players get very little quality instruction in high school or college.  They do well because they're bigger, stronger, faster or better than others their age, but by the time they get to the NFL where everyone is bigger, faster, more athletic, more talented, etc., they're in trouble.  We see all the time QBs who have hitches in their deliveries or poor fundamentals.  Those things should have been corrected long before they ever made it to the NFL, but because not every coach is really qualified to be doing his job, is a good teacher, or because coaches are greedy and care more about winning at the moment than they do developing right fundamentals in their players, players arrive in the NFL every year with shoddy fundamentals.  Who knows if Carr would have ever lived up to his hype when coming out of college, but I am sure that he would have been a lot better if he had been handled differently early on, allowed time to correct his flaws, and the Texans had built a solid OL before having him step on the field his rookie season.  He has shown improvement.

 

Similarly, I don't know (but I doubt it) if Sanchez would have ever developed into an NFL starting QB worthy of being the #6 pick in the draft, but he almost surely would have been the disaster that he is if he had been able to sit and learn for a year or two, had quality coaching/instruction and had some talent to work with.  He has shown flashes, so he has or had talent.  His confidence may be so shot now, and his head so full of crap, that he might never be redeemed.

 

YOU are the one that said a QB needed to sit for 4 years, not me nor anyone else.  Rodgers did so because of Favre.  I think a half season or perhaps a year of holding the clipboard would have been fine for Rodgers since they have had quality QB coaches and OCs.  He probably wouldn't have started as well or strongly as he did the first year he played (2008?), but would have been good enough.

 

As for Brady, he sat his rookie season, only attempting 3 passes.  If he was so NFL ready, why didn't Belicheat start him his rookie season?  It's obvious...because he wasn't ready.  He needed to sit and learn and because Belicheat thought Bledsoe gave them the best chance to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So next yr when u have the 2nd pick and u don't know what u have what do u do cause if u pick geno and he isn't the guy. U better have ur resume ready!!

 

If after coaching and working with a guy in practice for a whole season, and then seeing him start 6 games or so at the end of his rookie season doens't tell you what you need to know about that player, then you have no business being a coach in the NFL anyway, and you'd better get your resume ready for employment in some other profession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are silly. Everybody knows that the way to develop a neurotic young quarterback is to let Rex Ryan and his OC-du-jour throw him out on the field with Stephen Hill and a rugby player. That's almost exactly the same process that made Russell Wilson a star.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your response indicated even more clearly how little you understand about this.  Each sport is different.  I shouldn't have to tell you that.  But since you brought it up, let's compare football and baseball.  Baseball has its minor leagues.  A lot of players spend at least a half season, if not a full season in the minors before they are called up.  Some labor for years honing their craft before they're called up.  When even a veteran player gets injured or goes in a hitting slump, they may bench him and have the coaches work on his fundamentals, may send him back to the minors or to their minor league complex for more work, then call him back up, or they may use the pitcher  as a reliever or hitter as a pinch hitter or runner.  They can give him spot play to try to keep his confidence up and keep him contributing.  Football teams don't have that option.  Either someone sits or plays.  NFL teams don't rotate their QBs.  The starter starts and plays until he gets injured or sucks so badly the HC is forced to bring in the backup.  In the situation of a starting QB sucking so badly that he gets benched, he usually doesn't get the opportunity to start again for that team.  

 

And sports and the business world are very different.  While there are some similarities, there's no real comparison.  It's Apples and oranges.

 

You're lumping all aspects of learning together, and that just isn't accurate.  There are certain things that really cannot be learned on the playing field. Footwork for example, is something that needs to be focused and worked on separately until it becomes automatic.  One cannot play QB and be out there trying to focus on his footwork while trying to read a D or escape from the pass rush.  Proper footwork is a fundamental of all QB play, but especially so in the WCO.  It is something that allows the QB to have a chance to succeed.  Shoddy footwork or any fundamental always gets in the way and will undermine a player's confidence and his ability to perform to his best.  The same is true with any other basic physical technique where training the mind and programming into muscle memory is key. Not only is NOT playing the best approach, but it is the only sensible approach when trying to work on those kinds of things.

 

For the other aspects of QB play, reading the D, developing better leadership and communication, developing better timing with his receivers, etc., then playing is the best way a QB can develop and grow.  The two things are separate, however.  Apples and oranges.

 

As for David Carr, you're wrong.  He started his rookie season, when he had basic fundamental things he needed to work on and didn't have a solid OL in front of him.  I don't know what quality (or lack thereof) he may or may not have received.  He made mistakes playing early that he probably wouldn't have if he had had the time to focus on those fundamentals and develop more slowly and not have to start immediately.  He took a physical beating.  I'm sure his confidence took a big hit.  Listen, a lot of players get very little quality instruction in high school or college.  They do well because they're bigger, stronger, faster or better than others their age, but by the time they get to the NFL where everyone is bigger, faster, more athletic, more talented, etc., they're in trouble.  We see all the time QBs who have hitches in their deliveries or poor fundamentals.  Those things should have been corrected long before they ever made it to the NFL, but because not every coach is really qualified to be doing his job, is a good teacher, or because coaches are greedy and care more about winning at the moment than they do developing right fundamentals in their players, players arrive in the NFL every year with shoddy fundamentals.  Who knows if Carr would have ever lived up to his hype when coming out of college, but I am sure that he would have been a lot better if he had been handled differently early on, allowed time to correct his flaws, and the Texans had built a solid OL before having him step on the field his rookie season.  He has shown improvement.

 

Similarly, I don't know (but I doubt it) if Sanchez would have ever developed into an NFL starting QB worthy of being the #6 pick in the draft, but he almost surely would have been the disaster that he is if he had been able to sit and learn for a year or two, had quality coaching/instruction and had some talent to work with.  He has shown flashes, so he has or had talent.  His confidence may be so shot now, and his head so full of crap, that he might never be redeemed.

 

YOU are the one that said a QB needed to sit for 4 years, not me nor anyone else.  Rodgers did so because of Favre.  I think a half season or perhaps a year of holding the clipboard would have been fine for Rodgers since they have had quality QB coaches and OCs.  He probably wouldn't have started as well or strongly as he did the first year he played (2008?), but would have been good enough.

 

As for Brady, he sat his rookie season, only attempting 3 passes.  If he was so NFL ready, why didn't Belicheat start him his rookie season?  It's obvious...because he wasn't ready.  He needed to sit and learn and because Belicheat thought Bledsoe gave them the best chance to win.

 

So now that Carr is getting a chance to sit, when can we expect him to be ready to start?  Please give me an example of a sport where someone sits and gets better and don't give me baseball because they actually play in the minor leagues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are silly. Everybody knows that the way to develop a neurotic young quarterback is to let Rex Ryan and his OC-du-jour throw him out on the field with Stephen Hill and a rugby player. That's almost exactly the same process that made Russell Wilson a star.

 

So upgrading the OC and revamping the offensive line and running game means nothing.  I see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are silly. Everybody knows that the way to develop a neurotic young quarterback is to let Rex Ryan and his OC-du-jour throw him out on the field with Stephen Hill and a rugby player. That's almost exactly the same process that made Russell Wilson a star.

 

Haven't you seen the 5 articles this month that Hayden Smith is going to try and do better this year? A Rugby player no more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're all hopeful, but how do we know that Chris Ivory isn't Olandis Gary?

 

Because he didn't have Mike Shannahan as his coach?  Quit with the 20 questions.  Would you rather us roll with Bilal Powell and Joe McKnight?  I think we maximized the use of that 4th rounder.  A lot of Saints fans were pissed to see Ivory go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because he didn't have Mike Shannahan as his coach? Quit with the 20 questions. Would you rather us roll with Bilal Powell and Joe McKnight? I think we maximized the use of that 4th rounder. A lot of Saints fans were pissed to see Ivory go.

.......Saints fans are upset that they lost their fourth string running back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because he didn't have Mike Shannahan as his coach?  Quit with the 20 questions.  Would you rather us roll with Bilal Powell and Joe McKnight?  I think we maximized the use of that 4th rounder.  A lot of Saints fans were pissed to see Ivory go.

 

Ivory has the potential to be very good, however, that possibility also comes with the questions... can the guy carry the load and can he stay healthy ?  It would have certainly been nice if Goodson did not pull a Plaxico because I think the Jets were heading for a RB by committee, similar to what the Saints run, with Ivory Goodson and Powell. As it stands right now histroy tells us we could be very thin at the position in a heartbeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. Many of them would have preferred to dump Ingram.

I don't want to turn this into a bash-Ivory thread. My point is that the team as currently constituted is a powder keg of shizz, with a HC and OC on Death Row, and with a receiving corps that's one Santonio Holmes bad mood away from being sub-SEC worthy. If we think the running game will develop, let's let it happen before subjecting Geno to what is shaping up to be a brutal first few weeks of the season on and off the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to turn this into a bash-Ivory thread. My point is that the team as currently constituted is a powder keg of shizz, with a HC and OC on Death Row, and with a receiving corps that's one Santonio Holmes bad mood away from being sub-SEC worthy. If we think the running game will develop, let's let it happen before subjecting Geno to what is shaping up to be a brutal first few weeks of the season on and off the field.

 

See, I don't think it's nearly as bad as you make it.  In fact, I think we're set up to be the surprise team in the NFL if Geno is anything close to being the goods.  If he's not, we take our 5-11 season and continue to build through the draft, probably taking another QB in the draft in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, I don't think it's nearly as bad as you make it.  In fact, I think we're set up to be the surprise team in the NFL if Geno is anything close to being the goods.  If he's not, we take our 5-11 season and continue to build through the draft, probably taking another QB in the draft in the process.

 

Maybe. But also, he could not see the field until like Week 10 and the season is lost anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe. But also, he could not see the field until like Week 10 and the season is lost anyway.

 

No chance it takes that long to get Geno on the field.  Rex has already gone public criticizing Sanchez for 3 picks on the FIRST DAY OF PRACTICE.  How long of a leash do you think the kid has when he just got Rex's boss, and nearly Rex himself, fired?  With Garrard gone, there is zero incentive to send Sanchez out there in front of the home crowd.

 

I'll put $1,000 on Geno Smith starting Week 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If only we had established weapons like Leonard Hankerson and Josh Morgan and Santana Moss and Aldrick Robinson and Darrel Young to pair up with never-healthy Fred Davis & never-healthy Pierre Garcon, then and only then would this be a place where a young QB - whether it's Sanchez or Geno - could thrive and be just about the league's top-rated passer. Or the stud-rich group out in Seattle, for that matter.

Weaponzzz my azzzz

If a guy's the goods he'll be the goods even with the sorry-ass bunch they trotted out in Washington & Seattle -- both with rookie QBs. I'm not saying anyone should expect that type of production out of Geno Smith but if he doesn't perform it won't be because of weapons. It would certainly make his job easier, and there will be some plays here & there where they'll make a great (positive) play on a throw that wasn't so great. But if he's going to be good it won't be hidden because of these receivers.

And everyone needs to truly realize how much less productive they all were with the offense-killing combo of Sanchez & Sparano.

Right. RG3 and Geno are equal prospects. All of those receivers you listed would start here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they wouldn't.  Who the f*** is Darrel Young?  And Santana Moss?  What is he, 40?  Are you f***ing kidding me with this?

 

Moss wouldnt start over Stephen Hill? 

 

lol

 

Stephen Hill cant even run an in route.

 

Garcon, Moss and Hankerson would all start here over Hill. Darell Young didnt play last year so no Ive never heard of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, I don't think it's nearly as bad as you make it. In fact, I think we're set up to be the surprise team in the NFL if Geno is anything close to being the goods. If he's not, we take our 5-11 season and continue to build through the draft, probably taking another QB in the draft in the process.

I think it's a bit much to say, "If Geno Smith can't elevate a horrible offensive group by himself starting from Day One that probably mean he sucks and we should burn a top-three pick on another QB next year." Luck, RGIII, and Wilson have skewed everybody's expectation of what a rookie QB is. You must chill. The Jets must chill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No chance it takes that long to get Geno on the field. Rex has already gone public criticizing Sanchez for 3 picks on the FIRST DAY OF PRACTICE. How long of a leash do you think the kid has when he just got Rex's boss, and nearly Rex himself, fired? With Garrard gone, there is zero incentive to send Sanchez out there in front of the home crowd.

I'll put $1,000 on Geno Smith starting Week 1.

It could take that long or longer if he isn't ready. This won't be a successful season as a team, so why throw a guy out there who isn't ready? To try and save the job of the head coach? That's not smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No chance it takes that long to get Geno on the field.  Rex has already gone public criticizing Sanchez for 3 picks on the FIRST DAY OF PRACTICE.  How long of a leash do you think the kid has when he just got Rex's boss, and nearly Rex himself, fired?  With Garrard gone, there is zero incentive to send Sanchez out there in front of the home crowd.

 

I'll put $1,000 on Geno Smith starting Week 1.

 

I don't think he had a choice with that criticism. Hard to sugarcoat 3 picks on I think 11 attempts. One of which was to a 4th string lineman who'll be competing for a spot at Dicks sporting goods in a couple months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a bit much to say, "If Geno Smith can't elevate a horrible offensive group by himself starting from Day One that probably mean he sucks and we should burn a top-three pick on another QB next year." Luck, RGIII, and Wilson have skewed everybody's expectation of what a rookie QB is. You must chill. The Jets must chill.

 

I think this has really screwed up everyone's expectations. That was a once in a generation QB class, that just doesn't happen. I'm glad we have a potential future starter on the roster and I'd think after the Sanchez failure Jets fans would want to at least try and see our next QB be given a better chance to succeed. Mark blows but I don't think they could have done a worse job if they tried in his development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he had a choice with that criticism. Hard to sugarcoat 3 picks on I think 11 attempts. One of which was to a 4th string lineman who'll be competing for a spot at Dicks sporting goods in a couple months.

That's not true. Damon Harrison is going to be starting this year. Wait and see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true. Damon Harrison is going to be starting this year. Wait and see.

 

I was kidding in an attempt to put emphasis on Marks awfulness. I didn't even remember the lineman's name but it really doesn't matter if it was Julius Peppers. You shouldn't be throwing picks to lineman ever, let alone in OTA's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. RG3 and Geno are equal prospects. All of those receivers you listed would start here.

 

Whatever.  Like I was totally saying exactly that about Geno Smith, who may not even be able to beat out Mark Sanchez for all we know.

 

The production a team gets from its receivers are largely what the QB makes them to be.  Larry Fitzgerald had fewer yards than Jeremy Kerley; that doesn't make Kerley a better or even anywhere near equal receiver.  Those receivers on Seattle & Washington would be total dogsh*t with last year's Jets QB/OC combo, and we'd be crying about how "no one could succeed" with these guys instead of real weaponzzz.  Josh Morgan, lol.  Morgan played all 16 games, starting 15, and might actually have been a less effective receiver than rookie Stephen Hill, and Hill didn't have the slightest clue what he was supposed to do out there. 

 

All of those receivers would be total zeros with the offense-killing Sanchez/Sparano combination (which is only slightly worse than any other Sanchez/anyone combo).  You are using the production that players got with good passers as though that was the baseline type of receiver each of them is; namely, that they'd be good no matter who was throwing them the ball.  Ask Larry Fitzgerald if he feels that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever.  Like I was totally saying exactly that about Geno Smith, who may not even be able to beat out Mark Sanchez for all we know.

 

The production a team gets from its receivers are largely what the QB makes them to be.  Larry Fitzgerald had fewer yards than Jeremy Kerley; that doesn't make Kerley a better or even anywhere near equal receiver.  Those receivers on Seattle & Washington would be total dogsh*t with last year's Jets QB/OC combo, and we'd be crying about how "no one could succeed" with these guys instead of real weaponzzz.  Josh Morgan, lol.  Morgan played all 16 games, starting 15, and might actually have been a less effective receiver than rookie Stephen Hill, and Hill didn't have the slightest clue what he was supposed to do out there. 

 

All of those receivers would be total zeros with the offense-killing Sanchez/Sparano combination (which is only slightly worse than any other Sanchez/anyone combo).  You are using the production that players got with good passers as though that was the baseline type of receiver each of them is; namely, that they'd be good no matter who was throwing them the ball.  Ask Larry Fitzgerald if he feels that way.

 

I think he at least knew he was supposed to catch the ball

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he at least knew he was supposed to catch the ball

 

And even with that, and his years of experience, and having an RGIII/Shanahan combo instead of a Sanchez/Sparano combo, about 9 yards per game separated Morgan and rookie Hill.  And Morgan was starting over other people, that's how good those other clowns are.  Their receiving corps was garbage.  RGIII was friggin' great, their HC has overseen a successful offense or two, and that's why their receiving corps didn't look as lame as they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...