Jets the dark horse to move up for the #1 overall pick

[T0mShane]

1. 12 hours ago, Integrity28 said:

   The Jets aren't moving up to #1 overall.

   They need a left tackle, a quarterback, and #2 corner, they should be looking for a replacement for their #1 corner, a right tackle, at least two linebackers and a ******* punter. No team with this many starting needs, and such a deficit of depth in talent, is trading away an entire draft for one pick. Just ain't happening... especially not for these QBs. These QBs have more manufactured buzz than I've seen in a long time. No true studs in the group.

    

   Counter argument: They can trade up for the QB this year and use the massive amounts of cap space they have next year to fill the previously described holes.

[Rangers9]

4 hours ago, BurnleyJet said:

Honestly in Chan Gailey's system, it's about quick release getting the ball out. We do not need to move up to one to draft a LT. I still think Mo gets traded for a first, it's about plugging gaps, we have more holes then a Swiss cheese.

Only reason to move up is a franchise QB, first there isn't a Luck in this draft, second if there was would you trade the pick?

I actually like Decker and Sprigg's, Kevin Hogans my sleeper QB, we need more ammo not less.

 

I like Kevin Hogan but if you ask me the Jets sleeper Qb is Bryce Petty. My favorite Qb in the draft is Adams from Ore.

[T0mShane]

7 hours ago, New York Mick said:

I'm a huge ND fan but there's zero chance I'd give up that much for Stanley. 

Isn't he also chronically lazy? 

[FTL Jet Fan]

So we move up to the #1 spot give up multiple firsts and a top defensive player to take a QB after we just lost our starting LT. Hopefully they don't plan on starting him day one or he will end up with David Carr syndrome. I can see the jets moving up to 11 or some where in that range giving up MO. Whether It be for a LT or maybe Lynch. 

[Rangers9]

Look we only have six draft picks in this coming draft. So to select a developing Qb instead of a player we have a need for (and could be useful on the field this year) I wouldn't do it so fast. Again we already have two Qbs in this category and one has started a lot of games. Also in training camp a team usually carries only 4 Qbs. And there aren't that many reps to share or games to get experience in with 4 guys. The number 4 guy rarely makes a team and doesn't play much in pre-season games. 

[shuler82]

6 minutes ago, FTL Jet Fan said:

So we move up to the #1 spot give up multiple firsts and a top defensive player to take a QB after we just lost our starting LT. Hopefully they don't plan on starting him day one or he will end up with David Carr syndrome. I can see the jets moving up to 11 or some where in that range giving up MO. Whether It be for a LT or maybe Lynch. 

It's weird. As Jets fans we've been all crying for a real NFL QB since 2008. But when it comes down to it, a part of the fan base is reluctant to do what it takes to potentially get one.

If Mac and Bowles think Wentz or Goff is the guy, I hope they do whatever it takes to get in position to get him. We all know what a good QB can do for the rest of the roster. It starts and ends with that position.

As Shane mentioned above, you go get the QB and you build the roster with the 2017 cap space. As for 2016? Maybe you end up resigning Fitz or let Geno play the first half of the year as we groom the rookie.  

I don't claim to know a thing about these QB prospects, but I do know the Jets need a long term solution at QB. And unless you're blowing up 2016 and going 2-14 in hopes of getting a top pick in 2017, this team's best bet is to attempt to use Mo as leverage to move up and get their guy. If it costs 2 #1s and Mo, and we end up with our QB for the next 12 years.. who's complaining? It's a risk this franchise is going to have to take at some point. 

 

 

[UnitedWhofans]

14 minutes ago, shuler82 said:

It's weird. As Jets fans we've been all crying for a real NFL QB since 2008. But when it comes down to it, a part of the fan base is reluctant to do what it takes to potentially get one.

If Mac and Bowles think Wentz or Goff is the guy, I hope they do whatever it takes to get in position to get him. We all know what a good QB can do for the rest of the roster. It starts and ends with that position.

As Shane mentioned above, you go get the QB and you build the roster with the 2017 cap space. As for 2016? Maybe you end up resigning Fitz or let Geno play the first half of the year as we groom the rookie.  

I don't claim to know a thing about these QB prospects, but I do know the Jets need a long term solution at QB. And unless you're blowing up 2016 and going 2-14 in hopes of getting a top pick in 2017, this team's best bet is to attempt to use Mo as leverage to move up and get their guy. If it costs 2 #1s and Mo, and we end up with our QB for the next 12 years.. who's complaining? It's a risk this franchise is going to have to take at some point. 

 

 

The problem is that the successes of Aaron Rodgers, ( low 1st round) Russell Wilson (3rd Round), Tom Brady, (6th round), Derek Carr ( Late 1st round), have shown that you dont need to jump up to get the guy

[Ohio State NY Jets fan]

9 minutes ago, shuler82 said:

It's weird. As Jets fans we've been all crying for a real NFL QB since 2008. But when it comes down to it, a part of the fan base is reluctant to do what it takes to potentially get one.

If Mac and Bowles think Wentz or Goff is the guy, I hope they do whatever it takes to get in position to get him. We all know what a good QB can do for the rest of the roster. It starts and ends with that position.

As Shane mentioned above, you go get the QB and you build the roster with the 2017 cap space. As for 2016? Maybe you end up resigning Fitz or let Geno play the first half of the year as we groom the rookie.  

I don't claim to know a thing about these QB prospects, but I do know the Jets need a long term solution at QB. And unless you're blowing up 2016 and going 2-14 in hopes of getting a top pick in 2017, this team's best bet is to attempt to use Mo as leverage to move up and get their guy. If it costs 2 #1s and Mo, and we end up with our QB for the next 12 years.. who's complaining? It's a risk this franchise is going to have to take at some point. 

Good post I was just about to say that any hope of trading up for Wentz ended yesterday with Bricks retirement but you make a great point that as long as the #1 pick is not forced to start behind some make shift line then the Jets have to make that move if that's the future franchise QB that Mac believes in

I do think the 2016 season just took a swift kick in the nuts since the Jets will have to depend on a rookie LT or injury prone LT staying healthy all year...  not good news 

 

 

[FTL Jet Fan]

14 minutes ago, shuler82 said:

It's weird. As Jets fans we've been all crying for a real NFL QB since 2008. But when it comes down to it, a part of the fan base is reluctant to do what it takes to potentially get one.

If Mac and Bowles think Wentz or Goff is the guy, I hope they do whatever it takes to get in position to get him. We all know what a good QB can do for the rest of the roster. It starts and ends with that position.

As Shane mentioned above, you go get the QB and you build the roster with the 2017 cap space. As for 2016? Maybe you end up resigning Fitz or let Geno play the first half of the year as we groom the rookie.  

I don't claim to know a thing about these QB prospects, but I do know the Jets need a long term solution at QB. And unless you're blowing up 2016 and going 2-14 in hopes of getting a top pick in 2017, this team's best bet is to attempt to use Mo as leverage to move up and get their guy. If it costs 2 #1s and Mo, and we end up with our QB for the next 12 years.. who's complaining? It's a risk this franchise is going to have to take at some point. 

 

 

I agree. That problem is we are at 20. If Mac pulls the trigger and we end up getting who they believe is franchise guy, I will fully support are new QB as I believe you can build around him as you and Shane have stated. My concern is no LT in place and if we move up to the #1 more than likely he is our day 1 starter. I will reserve all judgment until after the draft.

[Augustiniak]

Just now, FTL Jet Fan said:

I agree. That problem is we are at 20. If Mac pulls the trigger and we end up getting who they believe is franchise guy, I will fully support are new QB as I believe you can build around him as you and Shane have stated. My concern is no LT in place and if we move up to the #1 more than likely he is our day 1 starter. I will reserve all judgment until after the draft.

this year is interesting, because there are several glaring needs for this team, and they're not ideally positioned to address them where they pick.  the theme of this draft will be moving up/down to address needs without sacrificing value.  throw in they want to trade mo and you have a situation that while challenging, the jets finally seem to have the type of gm who may actually make it work.  with tanny or idzik running this draft i'd be pessimistic but i'm actually excited to see what mccags comes up with.  i doubt they stay at 20, unless they deal mo for a better 1st rounder, and i fully (and finally) expect them to draft offense early and often.

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, shuler82 said:

It's weird. As Jets fans we've been all crying for a real NFL QB since 2008. But when it comes down to it, a part of the fan base is reluctant to do what it takes to potentially get one.

See, the problem is that "potentially".

A whole lot of folks, many pro scouts included, don;t think any of the QB's in this class as likely Franchise QB's worth trading up for.

If this was a Luck/Manning type year, ok, we'd have a worthy argument.

But Wentz?  Really?  Lol, no.  May as well make Villians pee pee hard and trade a 2nd for Glennon frankly.

1 hour ago, shuler82 said:

If Mac and Bowles think Wentz or Goff is the guy, I hope they do whatever it takes to get in position to get him.

They don't, and they won't.

1 hour ago, shuler82 said:

We all know what a good QB can do for the rest of the roster. It starts and ends with that position.

Where are you seeing a good Pro QB here?  I see a host of down-year prospects of middling odds to be anything in the NFL, much less a Franchise guy,

1 hour ago, shuler82 said:

As Shane mentioned above, you go get the QB and you build the roster with the 2017 cap space. As for 2016? Maybe you end up resigning Fitz or let Geno play the first half of the year as we groom the rookie.  

So sacrifice 2016 before a single snap has been played.  Yep, SOJF logic rules supreme.  Maybe if we sacrifice 2017, 2018 and 2019 too, we'll have the BEST shot in 2020!  

1 hour ago, shuler82 said:

I don't claim to know a thing about these QB prospects, but I do know the Jets need a long term solution at QB.

On that we agree completely.

1 hour ago, shuler82 said:

And unless you're blowing up 2016 and going 2-14 in hopes of getting a top pick in 2017,

We're not.

1 hour ago, shuler82 said:

If it costs 2 #1s and Mo, and we end up with our QB for the next 12 years.. who's complaining?

And what about when we trade 2 #1's and get....Browning Nagle II?  And Macc is fired and Bowles is fired and we start all over in two years?

1 hour ago, shuler82 said:

It's a risk this franchise is going to have to take at some point. 

Calculated, logical, reasonable risk, best risk.

This isn't the year to take the "trade everything for a shot at a QB" risk.

[JohnnyLV]

52 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

The problem is that the successes of Aaron Rodgers, ( low 1st round) Russell Wilson (3rd Round), Tom Brady, (6th round), Derek Carr ( Late 1st round), have shown that you dont need to jump up to get the guy

Four exceptions to the rule, one the biggest outlier in the history of the NFL does not invalidate the fact that most franchise QBs are high picks. Nor the fact that to win in the NFL you must have one of them.

If the Jets FO and staff are 100% in alignment, meaning the scouting staff, Mac, Gailey and Patullo and all agree that the QB prospect is a franchise QB then no price is really too high. Mo, 20 and 2 first rounders would not be too much. Not all first rounders hit, and a franchise QB is worth SEVERAL first rounders. If it fails, so what? Try to be great don't accept being mediocre which the Jets seem to do often.

By the way I would get input from Bowles but no say in the final decision. He is a defensive focused head coach that clearly prefers playing veterans. Having the right franchise guy from a strategic standpoint is more important that the short term tactical outlook of the HC, especially a defensive one.

 

[32EBoozer]

1 hour ago, Rangers9 said:

Look we only have six draft picks in this coming draft. So to select a developing Qb instead of a player we have a need for (and could be useful on the field this year) I wouldn't do it so fast. Again we already have two Qbs in this category and one has started a lot of games. Also in training camp a team usually carries only 4 Qbs. And there aren't that many reps to share or games to get experience in with 4 guys. The number 4 guy rarely makes a team and doesn't play much in pre-season games. 

Remember, Glennon is a FA next year. We'll have large amount of Cap Space next yr. 

Let's stay put and get extra picks for Mo. Let Fitz start and get Petty/Glennon ready to compete for 2017 behind a solid line and a stiff defense.

[Rangers9]

18 minutes ago, 32EBoozer said:

Remember, Glennon is a FA next year. We'll have large amount of Cap Space next yr. 

Let's stay put and get extra picks for Mo. Let Fitz start and get Petty/Glennon ready to compete for 2017 behind a solid line and a stiff defense.

I don't really see all of the attraction to Glennon. He might end up being ok but I don't see us having room on the roster for him now. The thing with any of these talented Qbs and most of them are: you have to give them a chance to play and there is really only one slot devoted for that. Some guys never get a shot and who knows what they would have done if given starts.

[32EBoozer]

7 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

I don't really see all of the attraction to Glennon. He might end up being ok but I don't see us having room on the roster for him now. The thing with any of these talented Qbs and most of them are: you have to give them a chance to play and there is really only one slot devoted for that. Some guys never get a shot and who knows what they would have done if given starts.

Prepare for the "Villain" response to your open sacrilege concerning the savior of the Jets organization. 

[Rangers9]

Look most of these Qbs aren't going to get a whole lot of starts to fail the way Mark did. If you don't produce sooner than later there's always a new player who a franchise wants to take a shot at. It's kind of amazing how soon teams give up on players who were real good in college. You know guys like Leinart, etc. 

[New York Mick]

5 hours ago, T0mShane said:

Isn't he also chronically lazy? 

 I wouldn't say lazy but he doesn't love football. It's probably more of a way to get paid for him. And I don't think he's the best OT in the draft. 

[Mainejet]

On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 0:58 PM, PepPep said:

For L.Tunsil, yes. Go up and get him for Mo and the 20th overall pick.

For P.Lynch, I wouldn't move a muscle. 

 

We don't need Tunsil. There are plenty of excellent Tackles in this draft besides Tunsil. Stanley? Conklin? Decker? ALL are excellent choices. This is why trading up makes no sense to me? I could see trading up for Goff or Wentz, but even then do we really need to trade for the 1st overall? The Titans have their QB, they need Tunsil. We could trade into the 2nd, get the QB of our dreams and spend a lot less in the process.

[TuscanyTile2]

6 hours ago, Rangers9 said:

Look most of these Qbs aren't going to get a whole lot of starts to fail the way Mark did. If you don't produce sooner than later there's always a new player who a franchise wants to take a shot at. It's kind of amazing how soon teams give up on players who were real good in college. You know guys like Leinart, etc. 

This post is a head-scratcher to me.  Are you making the argument that Leinart was actually a good QB who was "given up on" too soon?  Is this Gary Myers?

[Rangers9]

19 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

This post is a head-scratcher to me.  Are you making the argument that Leinart was actually a good QB who was "given up on" too soon?  Is this Gary Myers?

Imo Leinart and many of the failed Qbs like Gabbert had the one thing that got them drafted very high: talent. Some players take longer to develop but there is very little patience among fans and orgs. Some of these guys with more time and maybe in a different situation might have developed.  The NFL is a unique kettle of fish in that it is so violent that not all players can adapt to the kind of toughness necessary to even survive. And not just Qbs but all positions. Some guys get the big contracts and just become gentle giants. I mean Vern Gholston was a beast but not a good NFL player. 

[TuscanyTile2]

1 minute ago, Rangers9 said:

Imo Leinart and many of the failed Qbs like Gabbert had the one thing that got them drafted very high: talent. Some players take longer to develop but their is very little patience among fans and orgs. Some of these guys with more time and maybe in a different situation might have develop. The NFL is a unique kettle of fish in that it is so violent that not all players can adapt to the kind of toughness necessary to even survive. And not just Qbs but all positions. Some guys get the big contracts and just become gentle giants. I mean Vern Gholston was a beast but not a good NFL player. 

But is your point that Leinart was actually a very good NFL QB but circumstances prevented that from happening?

[Rangers9]

Just now, TuscanyTile2 said:

But is your point that Leinart was actually a very good NFL QB but circumstances prevented that from happening?

No, but he had talent. But it's true that there's not a lot of patience in the NFL. Jamarcus Russell is a distant afterthought. Totally out of the picture. Carson Wentz is the hot item this year but a few years down the road he too could be out of the picture.