Fallacy Of The Good Veteran QB in Free Agency

[jgb]

Viewing a bunch of threads across numerous Jets sites today, a lot of people were advocating for a veteran QB to take over the team, but every team needs QBs, so they rarely hit the streets.  Vick, by most measures was the best QB available in free agency this year, and we see where that has led us, so it's not like there are good ones just waiting in the wings to be plucked.  The only ones that become available are major risks (when Brees had major issues) or take a boatload of picks to trade for (Cutler, Palmer).   Our choices in free agency next year are these studs (Carson Palmer possibly, Jake Locker likely, Christian Ponder definitely, and possibly Hoyer).  Not exactly anyone that is going to lead us to the playoffs by themselves.  

 

Our best bet is to just scout the draft and hope we land someone good, because I really don't believe there is a veteran QB coming down the pike to take us to the promised land next year.  Hopefully, we can scout Mariotta, Winston, Cook, and others.    

 

cutler, palmer, orton, alex smith. all recent available QBs that would be light years ahead of what we got. don't think anyone is saying go get andrew luck, but get someone who can hold it down while we continue hunting the great white buffalo

[flgreen]

How about Philly's back up

[win4ever]

2 most successful QBs in last 20 years--vinny and favre. not homegrown talent, but mercenaries brought in to do a job. vinny got us to AFC champs and favre certainly would've had us in playoffs and maybe deep in if he didn't tear his old ass arm off. my point is, both vinny and favre were thought of as turnover machines/busts (vinny) or old as dirt and lacking the passion for the game anymore (favre). no one thought of them as "QB OF THE FUTURE" Types.

 

and yeah a 8-8 or 9-7 team that squeaks into playoffs or barely misses is a million times better than this season's shipwreck. not to mention, you get a serviceable vet in here, the skill positions can develop until the ever-elusive "QB of the future" is found. you think any of our young players are learning a damn thing from geno? except to set their watch on road games?

 

Vinny was a gem find for us, but his past record wasn't exactly shining.  I think he had a combined 12 wins in the past three years before he joined us, and again with a team that was pretty loaded.  We don't have a loaded team right now, we're a team that needs a long term QB to help bring up the play of the other pieces on offense and defense.  Farve was only here because he couldn't go to the Vikings, and about as unique a case as I've seen in football with how a legend moved on.    

 

And the bigger point, we didn't win with Favre, we had a shot, but we didn't.  Infact, we came closer with a loser in Sanchez than we did with Favre.  

 

I understand that it helps for the season, but in the long run, we need someone that can get us there consistently.  I'm tired of having one season of good football, followed by 4 seasons of mediocre to crap.  To win in the league now, especially now as opposed to even ten years ago, we need a long term QB that is actually good, because everything is set up for the QB.  

 

The Chiefs have never been able to develop a QB of their own, much like us.  I'm not saying I'd give up 2 high draft picks for an Alex Smith, but as long as you don't quit trying to find QB's via the draft, there's nothing wrong with overpaying a little for a guy LIKE that when the opportunity arises.

 

The Chiefs paid a high price for Smith though, he wasn't a free agent.  By trading for Smith, they were out of the running for a high draft pick at QB, so it's harder to not quit looking for a QB because of their investment in Smith.    I don't think teams have a problem with developing QBs, I think the coaching staff determines it, and the talent that is available.  The Colts were horrible at developing QBs until Manning came along.  So were the Pats, Bledsoe was the can't miss guy, and even he plateaued.  A change in coaching philosophy should change the inability to develop QBs.   

 

 

The alternative for the Browns would have been to throw Manziel right in there, which would have been a mistake IMO.  A veteran allows you to bridge the gap for your young QB.  

 

And yes, while I don't think average is good enough, it's a starting point.  I think Browns fans are more than OK with "average" right now, given their history....

 

 

 

But there are plenty of names of that list that we can consider safe guys they got via free agency, like Garcia, Dilfer, Delhomme, and Campbell.  Guys that were going to be a steady presence, and hold the fort until the next stud came along.

 

the Giants drafted Eli and made him sit behind a vet

 

I think it should be looked into, that we draft a guy and develop him before throwing him out there.  But even then, it's hard these days with all the media attention, so the moment someone looks good, everyone proclaims him as the next great one and want to see him play.  

 

Perfect example would be Bortles this year.  They went out of their way to say he would most likely sit this year, but when their incumbent QB started to suck, everyone clamored for Bortles and now he's sucking as well.  To another extent, Bridgewater, and soon enough Manziel.  

 

I was never certain about Locker. But UW has a record of producing NFL QBS. Sarkisian 's signal collars are terrible. Oregon's have been worse. Akili Smith, Joey Harrington, AJ Feely, Kellen Clemens. Shall I go on? This will all work against Mariota on draft day.

 

Locker is not the answer, maybe as a backup with a bit of upside.  Mariotta has a shot, because he's actually talented and I believe he was basically the same as Manziel coming into college in terms of talent.  If I'm not mistaken, they both committed to Oregon at first, and then Manziel left, but people there preferred Mariotta over him.  He's a risk though, because that system is extremely good at creating mismatches.  

 

Which begs the question, why can't we try to implement some of that "system"?

[jgb]

Vinny was a gem find for us, but his past record wasn't exactly shining. I think he had a combined 12 wins in the past three years before he joined us, and again with a team that was pretty loaded. We don't have a loaded team right now, we're a team that needs a long term QB to help bring up the play of the other pieces on offense and defense. Farve was only here because he couldn't go to the Vikings, and about as unique a case as I've seen in football with how a legend moved on.

And the bigger point, we didn't win with Favre, we had a shot, but we didn't. Infact, we came closer with a loser in Sanchez than we did with Favre.

I understand that it helps for the season, but in the long run, we need someone that can get us there consistently. I'm tired of having one season of good football, followed by 4 seasons of mediocre to crap. To win in the league now, especially now as opposed to even ten years ago, we need a long term QB that is actually good, because everything is set up for the QB.

The Chiefs paid a high price for Smith though, he wasn't a free agent. By trading for Smith, they were out of the running for a high draft pick at QB, so it's harder to not quit looking for a QB because of their investment in Smith. I don't think teams have a problem with developing QBs, I think the coaching staff determines it, and the talent that is available. The Colts were horrible at developing QBs until Manning came along. So were the Pats, Bledsoe was the can't miss guy, and even he plateaued. A change in coaching philosophy should change the inability to develop QBs.

But there are plenty of names of that list that we can consider safe guys they got via free agency, like Garcia, Dilfer, Delhomme, and Campbell. Guys that were going to be a steady presence, and hold the fort until the next stud came along.

I think it should be looked into, that we draft a guy and develop him before throwing him out there. But even then, it's hard these days with all the media attention, so the moment someone looks good, everyone proclaims him as the next great one and want to see him play.

Perfect example would be Bortles this year. They went out of their way to say he would most likely sit this year, but when their incumbent QB started to suck, everyone clamored for Bortles and now he's sucking as well. To another extent, Bridgewater, and soon enough Manziel.

Locker is not the answer, maybe as a backup with a bit of upside. Mariotta has a shot, because he's actually talented and I believe he was basically the same as Manziel coming into college in terms of talent. If I'm not mistaken, they both committed to Oregon at first, and then Manziel left, but people there preferred Mariotta over him. He's a risk though, because that system is extremely good at creating mismatches.

Which begs the question, why can't we try to implement some of that "system"?

When you are sitting at zero half measures are an improvement of infinity percent

[Jetsfan80]

But there are plenty of names of that list that we can consider safe guys they got via free agency, like Garcia, Dilfer, Delhomme, and Campbell.  Guys that were going to be a steady presence, and hold the fort until the next stud came along.

 

Obviously the Browns suck at drafting QB's but that isn't a good reason NOT to try the veteran route.  Especially if you don't like the crop of QB's coming out that year.

[win4ever]

cutler, palmer, orton, alex smith. all recent available QBs that would be light years ahead of what we got. don't think anyone is saying go get andrew luck, but get someone who can hold it down while we continue hunting the great white buffalo

 

Cutler costs I believe two first round picks.  Denver used the second of those first round picks to move around and draft both Demarius Thomas and Eric Decker.  

 

Palmer was traded from the Bengals to the Raiders, and did absolutely nothing there, cost them first and second, which turned to Dre Kirpatrick and Gio Bernard.  

 

Alex Smith traded to the Chiefs, and those picks helped them get Carradine, Borland, Hyde, and Stevie Johnson.   

 

Cutler was the highest regarded of the bunch, but he also cost them the most.  All three ended up costing the other team some very needed talented.  Now Palmer went to the Cards, and to an offense that has an all time great WR, a very good No. 2 that can emerge as a No. 1, a great defense, and now a good slot guy in Brown.  Not quite our situation either, for us, we'd be closer to the Raiders than the Cards situation.  

 

I agree that if we had a loaded team, putting in a veteran QB to not make mistakes is the way to go.  But that's extremely rare to have loaded teams that are a QB away from SuperBowl contention, and have the right guy come along. 

[jgb]

Cutler costs I believe two first round picks. Denver used the second of those first round picks to move around and draft both Demarius Thomas and Eric Decker.

Palmer was traded from the Bengals to the Raiders, and did absolutely nothing there, cost them first and second, which turned to Dre Kirpatrick and Gio Bernard.

Alex Smith traded to the Chiefs, and those picks helped them get Carradine, Borland, Hyde, and Stevie Johnson.

Cutler was the highest regarded of the bunch, but he also cost them the most. All three ended up costing the other team some very needed talented. Now Palmer went to the Cards, and to an offense that has an all time great WR, a very good No. 2 that can emerge as a No. 1, a great defense, and now a good slot guy in Brown. Not quite our situation either, for us, we'd be closer to the Raiders than the Cards situation.

I agree that if we had a loaded team, putting in a veteran QB to not make mistakes is the way to go. But that's extremely rare to have loaded teams that are a QB away from SuperBowl contention, and have the right guy come along.

I don't want to jump to Super Bowl contention next year. Contention in individual games would be a start

[win4ever]

When you are sitting at zero half measures are an improvement of infinity percent

 

Possible, not saying a veteran won't improve our team, I'm saying it just won't improve it to the point that we are contenders.  Almost all of these guys that become available have major question marks or problems, and cost a high investment in money as well. 

 

Obviously the Browns suck at drafting QB's but that isn't a good reason NOT to try the veteran route.  Especially if you don't like the crop of QB's coming out that year.

 

If there were good guys going to be available, I'd be all for it, but all the good QBs that are expendable like Smith was, cost high draft picks.  So in essence, it's like we're investing a high draft pick in a QB that has limited upside, and then have to commit to them financially as well.  

 

I think the better strategy would be to pick up high upside QBs every 2 years, and see if anyone of them clicks.  So since it's been two years since the Geno pick, pick one high this upcoming draft, and hope we can hit on that one.  And go on until we do so.  

[win4ever]

I don't want to jump to Super Bowl contention next year. Contention in individual games would be a start

 

We "contended" last year, falling what a game short of the playoffs?  It's not exactly helping us.  It's frustrating to lose badly, but I'd rather lose badly for three years, if it means that we can get a QB one of those years that can actually lead us for a decade of contention.  

[jgb]

Possible, not saying a veteran won't improve our team, I'm saying it just won't improve it to the point that we are contenders. Almost all of these guys that become available have major question marks or problems, and cost a high investment in money as well.

If there were good guys going to be available, I'd be all for it, but all the good QBs that are expendable like Smith was, cost high draft picks. So in essence, it's like we're investing a high draft pick in a QB that has limited upside, and then have to commit to them financially as well.

I think the better strategy would be to pick up high upside QBs every 2 years, and see if anyone of them clicks. So since it's been two years since the Geno pick, pick one high this upcoming draft, and hope we can hit on that one. And go on until we do so.

I guess I just find it shocking that there are jets fans who actually believe if it isn't a Super Bowl making Move it isn't worth doing. Incremental improvement is the only hope here. There is no savior. Rodgers wouldn't bring this team to a SB. So that means do nothing? No you take as many baby steps as you can and hope it all adds up to something

[jgb]

We "contended" last year, falling what a game short of the playoffs? It's not exactly helping us. It's frustrating to lose badly, but I'd rather lose badly for three years, if it means that we can get a QB one of those years that can actually lead us for a decade of contention.

I wonder what team you've been watching the last few decades. You make as many small improvements as you can and hope it adds up to a big improvement. You don't sit around for the perfect pitch holding out for a home run. Maybe you the fan prefer win it all or go 0-16 but it is these peoples jobs to win as many games as they can each year. What the fugg are they doing?

[win4ever]

I guess I just find it shocking that there are jets fans who actually believe if it isn't a Super Bowl making Move it isn't worth doing. Incremental improvement is the only hope here. There is no savior. Rodgers wouldn't bring this team to a SB. So that means do nothing? No you take as many baby steps as you can and hope it all adds up to something

 

You put Aaron Rodgers on this team tomorrow, and I guarantee you, we're a SB contender.  But you aren't getting Aaron Rodgers.  Nor Peyton Manning.  Nor Tom Brady.   

 

Incremental improvements are great, but it's impossible to win a SB without the QB.  Look at all the SBs since Tampa won with that defense.  Only one of them had a QB that wasn't developed by the team that drafted them, and it was Brees, who was only available because of his injuries as I mentioned before.  Every other option were guys that were drafted high, and developed. 

 

I don't see the point of winning say 3 more games per year to finish at 7-9 instead of 4-12 by bringing in a veteran QB if it leads us nowhere.  It's the Dolphins, year after year, and I'm guessing their fans haven't been thrilled either.  

 

I wonder what team you've been watching the last few decades. You make as many small improvements as you can and hope it adds up to a big improvement. You don't sit around for the perfect pitch holding out for a home run. Maybe you the fan prefer win it all or go 0-16 but it is these peoples jobs to win as many games as they can each year. What the fugg are they doing?

 

Yeah, but sometimes you have to tank to actually get talent.  Unless a QB can put you over the edge to really contend, it's useless.  

 

Tell me this, do you feel better about last year knowing we had a better record than the Giants?  Did it really matter if the Bills were better?  In the end, every team that missed the playoffs were a loser.  I'd rather tank, and hope we get a transcendent star in the draft (because that's the only way we're getting a star QB) than play mediocre every year.  I'd rather lose for 4 years, and have a legit shot in 6 years of a decade, than be right around 5-9 wins every year and have no real shot.  

[jgb]

You put Aaron Rodgers on this team tomorrow, and I guarantee you, we're a SB contender. But you aren't getting Aaron Rodgers. Nor Peyton Manning. Nor Tom Brady.

Incremental improvements are great, but it's impossible to win a SB without the QB. Look at all the SBs since Tampa won with that defense. Only one of them had a QB that wasn't developed by the team that drafted them, and it was Brees, who was only available because of his injuries as I mentioned before. Every other option were guys that were drafted high, and developed.

I don't see the point of winning say 3 more games per year to finish at 7-9 instead of 4-12 by bringing in a veteran QB if it leads us nowhere. It's the Dolphins, year after year, and I'm guessing their fans haven't been thrilled either.

Yeah, but sometimes you have to tank to actually get talent. Unless a QB can put you over the edge to really contend, it's useless.

Tell me this, do you feel better about last year knowing we had a better record than the Giants? Did it really matter if the Bills were better? In the end, every team that missed the playoffs were a loser. I'd rather tank, and hope we get a transcendent star in the draft (because that's the only way we're getting a star QB) than play mediocre every year. I'd rather lose for 4 years, and have a legit shot in 6 years of a decade, than be right around 5-9 wins every year and have no real shot.

Well run teams win a SB every ten years or so and deliver playoff years or years when they are in contention for the playoffs 7 or 8 times during that span. Are they failures in the 90 percent of the years they don't win a championship? Of course not. Winning a SB isn't the barometer for a successful season--making the playoffs where anything can happen is. If we are in the hunt until the end it is an enjoyable season for me. So absolutely last year at 8-8 was a lot more enjoyable than this year.

[win4ever]

Yeah but how many of these well run teams have a steady QB, that they drafted and developed? Packers? Pats? Colts? Chargers?

All the ones that perennially contend developed their own QB. The ones that signed free agent ones (besides the major health risk ones such as Brees-manning) played ok at best for a couple of years and then fell off.

To me, an 8-8 season that doesn't progress is horrible as a 3-13 season because in the end we failed. Without a franchise QB, we're not going anywhere. It's the same thing I see from the Knicks. Every season of just missing the playoffs or barely getting in and quickly eliminated. I would've rather seen them lose for a couple of years, get a young star, and then use money to build around them.