How should the Jets handle any QBs they draft moving forward?

[chillybott]

I have read quite a few posts looking to catch lightning in a bottle and hoping to have the poster's preference of Mariota or Winston or some other lower round pick come in and compete for the starting QB job right away.

 

I don't want that. 

 

I want to see how two to three years holding a clipboard will help whatever kids we draft.  The last time we had that happen was Pennington.  For all of the negatives he had, and I will not compare him to any all time greats, the guy won 10 games or more both years that he actually started 16.  What I am trying to say here is that Pennington learned what he was supposed to do as an NFL quarterback during those 2 years on the bench, as did Rodgers (2 yrs), Brees (1 yr), and Brady (1 yr).

 

I'd like to see what the thoughts are about how a team should handle a newly drafted QB. 

 

I think we should aim to sit a kid for two years.  If during his first season every available QB we have access to gets hurt, we re-sign Vernon Gholston and let HIM take the ******* snaps.  If in his second year everyone gets hurt, we put him in if we have to.

 

Except for rare cases, sticking a college kid in as a starting QB is the dumbest trend I have seen to catch on in the NFL.

[chillybott]

I should qualify the idea of "emergency" and expand my use of injury...

 

If the starter gets hurt, is a moron, is named Geno Smith, bets against himself in Vegas, gets suspended under the Ray Rice Rule, is kidnapped by aliens, turns out to be Rex Ryan's long-lost child....

 

any one, combination of, or similar event to those things would constitute emergency or fall into the "injury" category...

[T0mShane]

Draft Mariota.

Install the full-house option

Profit

[Jetscode1]

Draft the GOAT.

[Patriot Killa]

The spread may be great for Geno (and/or) Mariota. Mariota still needs a year or two to learn,I agree.

[slats]

It really depends on what veteran they can get, and what QB they're looking at drafting. If they land Winston in the first round, he's a guy who could probably start as a rookie. Mariota, you might want to sit behind Geno. I'd like to see a QB drafted in the first four rounds (if they even have a fourth round pick), but that might not happen. And again, how they handle the rookie will have a lot to do with where that QB was taken. If they get a guy in the second, he may see the field a lot sooner than a guy taken later.

If they trade for a vet, they could avoid the position in the draft altogether.

It's obviously the critical question surrounding the team, and there -unfortunately- are no obvious answers.

[Ex-Rex]

I have read quite a few posts looking to catch lightning in a bottle and hoping to have the poster's preference of Mariota or Winston or some other lower round pick come in and compete for the starting QB job right away.

 

I don't want that. 

 

I want to see how two to three years holding a clipboard will help whatever kids we draft.  The last time we had that happen was Pennington.  For all of the negatives he had, and I will not compare him to any all time greats, the guy won 10 games or more both years that he actually started 16.  What I am trying to say here is that Pennington learned what he was supposed to do as an NFL quarterback during those 2 years on the bench, as did Rodgers (2 yrs), Brees (1 yr), and Brady (1 yr).

 

I'd like to see what the thoughts are about how a team should handle a newly drafted QB. 

 

I think we should aim to sit a kid for two years.  If during his first season every available QB we have access to gets hurt, we re-sign Vernon Gholston and let HIM take the ******* snaps.  If in his second year everyone gets hurt, we put him in if we have to.

 

Except for rare cases, sticking a college kid in as a starting QB is the dumbest trend I have seen to catch on in the NFL.

To me it depends on the player. If a newly drafted college QB shows he is ready, let him play. If not get him ready ASAP. What else is there to say? There are NO sure fire FA QB's available so I wouldn't waste time or money on any of them. Keep Vick as a fallback starter and have Geno Smith battle it out with Bryce Petty (my choice) for the actual starting job. Play the guy who is MOST ready.

[Ex-Rex]

Draft Mariota.

Install the full-house option

Profit

The only way the Jets are getting Mariota is to trade up for him. I wouldn't do that. I am not sold on Mariota as a pocket passer and will need a year or two to learn. If somehow he falls to six I think you HAVE to take him and develop him ASAP. Otherwise draft OL in round one and hope a good college QB is available in second round. I am sure there will be.

[Gastineau Lives]

I have read quite a few posts looking to catch lightning in a bottle and hoping to have the poster's preference of Mariota or Winston or some other lower round pick come in and compete for the starting QB job right away.

 

I don't want that. 

 

I want to see how two to three years holding a clipboard will help whatever kids we draft.  The last time we had that happen was Pennington.  For all of the negatives he had, and I will not compare him to any all time greats, the guy won 10 games or more both years that he actually started 16.  What I am trying to say here is that Pennington learned what he was supposed to do as an NFL quarterback during those 2 years on the bench, as did Rodgers (2 yrs), Brees (1 yr), and Brady (1 yr).

 

I'd like to see what the thoughts are about how a team should handle a newly drafted QB. 

 

I think we should aim to sit a kid for two years.  If during his first season every available QB we have access to gets hurt, we re-sign Vernon Gholston and let HIM take the ******* snaps.  If in his second year everyone gets hurt, we put him in if we have to.

 

Except for rare cases, sticking a college kid in as a starting QB is the dumbest trend I have seen to catch on in the NFL.

 

What do you think he's going to learn in year two of holding a clipboard (whatever the **** THAT means) that he will not have learned in year one plus two offseasons?

 

Can you name a QB that was on your three year plan that benefitted from this?

[chillybott]

What do you think he's going to learn in year two of holding a clipboard (whatever the **** THAT means) that he will not have learned in year one plus two offseasons?

 

Can you name a QB that was on your three year plan that benefitted from this?

I can't prove that Rodgers benefitted specifically from the second year, but he took 2 years.  Yes, he had Favre ahead of him, but it worked out. 

 

Your point is also why my statement was that in year one the guy doesn't play even if he's the last QB on earth and the plan is to let him stay through year 2.  If that second year plan has to change, then change it, but I think a 2 year initial plan insures a buffer that makes the first year untouchable.

 

I understand your point about what else could a guy possibly pick up in year two, and maybe I'm going to a reactionary extreme, but that's why I posted other options that aren't a full 2 years.

[Gastineau Lives]

I can't prove that Rodgers benefitted specifically from the second year, but he took 2 years.  Yes, he had Favre ahead of him, but it worked out. 

 

Your point is also why my statement was that in year one the guy doesn't play even if he's the last QB on earth and the plan is to let him stay through year 2.  If that second year plan has to change, then change it, but I think a 2 year initial plan insures a buffer that makes the first year untouchable.

 

I understand your point about what else could a guy possibly pick up in year two, and maybe I'm going to a reactionary extreme, but that's why I posted other options that aren't a full 2 years.

 

Well, this is what the three year plan looks like, ideally:

 

Year One - Getting to know the fellas, practicing with the fellas, free ticket and a sideline view of the games, so that's cool.

Year Two - All the fellas know my name, more practicing with the fellas, free ticket, etc., the games look like fun!

Year Three - I'm on the field! Playing! Still not great but better than I would have been if I started right away, but not good enough to get us very far

Year Four - I'm much better! We're good! I'm great! I'm a free agent! Who do I play for now?? Wahooooo!

Year Five - New contract! New team! I miss the fellas, but I have new fellas now! Hear that the Jets just drafted a rookie QB....

[House Jet]

So I have a question.

What does sitting for a year or two actually do? I'm not gonna argue that throwing a rookie to the wolves is smart because in many cases it obviously has failed. However, there is a hole in the logic that sitting a guy and letting him learn for a few years will make him a pretty good QB. If this is true why not start Matt Sims, he's been sitting and learning for what 3 years 4 years now. I'm not a blind Matt Sims supporter. Maybe he just doesn't have IT. I guess what I'm getting at is that waiting a year on the bench might only work if we get the right guy. Do you think Geno or Sanchez would have become something with a year on the bench or do guys like Tom Brady, Drew Brees, and Aaron Rodgers just have IT? Russell Wilson turned out fine no? I think we just need to pick the right guy as much as we don't want to admit it. Maybe we need to tailor the develop of our rookie QB based on the kids character and preparedness. I think its such a gray area that there's no wrong or right answer we just need the right guy. Hopefully Maccagnan and Bowles can deliver.

[T0mShane]

The only way the Jets are getting Mariota is to trade up for him. I wouldn't do that. I am not sold on Mariota as a pocket passer and will need a year or two to learn. If somehow he falls to six I think you HAVE to take him and develop him ASAP. Otherwise draft OL in round one and hope a good college QB is available in second round. I am sure there will be.

I think Mariota drops like a stone into the teens.

[afosomf]

I think Mariota drops like a stone into the teens.

You mean like Clemsoning.. yes I concur

[neckdemon]

draft whoever falls to 6th and then install a red light, yellow light, green light system

[chillybott]

So I have a question.

What does sitting for a year or two actually do? I'm not gonna argue that throwing a rookie to the wolves is smart because in many cases it obviously has failed. However, there is a hole in the logic that sitting a guy and letting him learn for a few years will make him a pretty good QB. If this is true why not start Matt Sims, he's been sitting and learning for what 3 years 4 years now. I'm not a blind Matt Sims supporter. Maybe he just doesn't have IT. I guess what I'm getting at is that waiting a year on the bench might only work if we get the right guy. Do you think Geno or Sanchez would have become something with a year on the bench or do guys like Tom Brady, Drew Brees, and Aaron Rodgers just have IT? Russell Wilson turned out fine no? I think we just need to pick the right guy as much as we don't want to admit it. Maybe we need to tailor the develop of our rookie QB based on the kids character and preparedness. I think its such a gray area that there's no wrong or right answer we just need the right guy. Hopefully Maccagnan and Bowles can deliver.

 

It's invalid to ask if Geno or Mark would be good NFL quarterbacks if they had sat, because there's no way to prove it either way.  However, both of these guys were rookies upon whom the team couldn't depend!  Whether their development would have been better or not, I would assume the coaching staff (well, a coaching staff who gave a crap about the O) would have been able to make a decision to go with a guy eventually or to move on. 

 

What the "red shirting" of a rookie QB does is allows him to learn the pro offense without killing his team.  I hear often how "historically" this is how NFL teams had groomed QBs for years, and only recently has there been more of a push to start rookie QBs, but I have never seen stats on that.

 

That's why I started the poll - I was curious to know how other posters feel.  I won't claim that the scenario I prefer is the way to go....I'm not a football coach, just a fan.  I just think it's safer to quit experimenting on the field and to focus on player development.  I also think unless certain boundaries are set and clearly stated, that a "plan" can be a nice theory, but it's awfully easy to break from it when it feels like things are getting tight (losing season, injury, etc.)

[House Jet]

It's invalid to ask if Geno or Mark would be good NFL quarterbacks if they had sat, because there's no way to prove it either way.  However, both of these guys were rookies upon whom the team couldn't depend!  Whether their development would have been better or not, I would assume the coaching staff (well, a coaching staff who gave a crap about the O) would have been able to make a decision to go with a guy eventually or to move on. 

 

What the "red shirting" of a rookie QB does is allows him to learn the pro offense without killing his team.  I hear often how "historically" this is how NFL teams had groomed QBs for years, and only recently has there been more of a push to start rookie QBs, but I have never seen stats on that.

 

That's why I started the poll - I was curious to know how other posters feel.  I won't claim that the scenario I prefer is the way to go....I'm not a football coach, just a fan.  I just think it's safer to quit experimenting on the field and to focus on player development.  I also think unless certain boundaries are set and clearly stated, that a "plan" can be a nice theory, but it's awfully easy to break from it when it feels like things are getting tight (losing season, injury, etc.)

I see whatya mean, didn't mean to attack the reason for the thread just looking for a good answer and you delivered

its really tough on the fans, which is what this game is really all about

I for one am sick of developing rookies and losing seasons

[jack48]

It is difficult.  If they could get their hands on a Bradford, I would say he was good for a few years, but he is such a health risk.  If they bring in a Matt Moore type, I would want a drafted QB.  A guy like Cousins, I don't know.  He looked like Geno in the games i saw this year.  Maybe Gailey can make these guys better game managers.

[jack48]

So I have a question.

What does sitting for a year or two actually do? I'm not gonna argue that throwing a rookie to the wolves is smart because in many cases it obviously has failed. However, there is a hole in the logic that sitting a guy and letting him learn for a few years will make him a pretty good QB. If this is true why not start Matt Sims, he's been sitting and learning for what 3 years 4 years now. I'm not a blind Matt Sims supporter. Maybe he just doesn't have IT. I guess what I'm getting at is that waiting a year on the bench might only work if we get the right guy. Do you think Geno or Sanchez would have become something with a year on the bench or do guys like Tom Brady, Drew Brees, and Aaron Rodgers just have IT? Russell Wilson turned out fine no? I think we just need to pick the right guy as much as we don't want to admit it. Maybe we need to tailor the develop of our rookie QB based on the kids character and preparedness. I think its such a gray area that there's no wrong or right answer we just need the right guy. Hopefully Maccagnan and Bowles can deliver.

 

Brady sat, Rodgers sat a long time, and Brees was mediocre for several years.     Bradshaw was benched several times his first few years. David Carr played, and was sacked over 70 times.  David Carr became a zombie QB he was sacked so often.  EJ Manuel blew chunks. Some guys could sit and still not get it.  But playing QB is hard and it is loaded with pressure.  Dan Marinos are rare.  Peyton threw a sh*tload of INTs year one.  I suppose if you have a simple system guys can start.  But if you have a simple system you better have superior talent or today's defenses will eat it up.  Guys like Geno and Mark, maybe they will never get it.  Genopwets his pants back there and Mark tries to throw it through the eye of a needle. Vinnie T eventually did.  I don't think anybody knows for sure. I prefer a guy sit and watch a little.  Because the guys that start and succeed are so rare.