June 1 2016 - Jets town hall summary (Bowles, Maccagnan Q&A with fans)

[NYs Stepchild]

57 minutes ago, 32EBoozer said:

Agreed .... an ILB over a possible Franchise QB because he might not start for 1 yr. is beyond foolish.

The fact that they passed on Lynch would probably mean that they did like Hack better.

Again it's not whether he starts or not but if he's able to start. I.E. not a project that has yet to learn the basics of NFL QBing and may never do so. 

[32EBoozer]

8 minutes ago, NYs Stepchild said:

Again it's not whether he starts or not but if he's able to start. I.E. not a project that has yet to learn the basics of NFL QBing and may never do so. 

Time will tell between Lynch and Hack.

I hope we come out a winner on this one.

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, NYs Stepchild said:

Rodgers was a much better prospect. Bowles doesn't mean a 1st round pick has to be able to start on every team. 

Obviously the Packers had him high on their board and when he dropped they traded up to nab him. If rookie Rodgers was on the Jets right now he would start. He would have thrown a ton of picks but he would not have to sit and learn the basics of the game the way Lynch will. 

You're now going to tell me what he means, when your only knowledge of what he said is second-hand from me? He was quite clear that they don't want to use a 1st round pick on a player who they think needs to sit as a rookie. They both think first round picks need to produce on the field as rookies. Second round and later it's not such a big deal if they sit for the whole rookie year (I take for granted no HC/GM wants that to happen any more than they want to draft a bust). 

Rodgers needed a good amount of work, which is one of the reasons he fell. Other reasons included his height and that he was supposedly a "system" QB; that coming from Tedford's team he's going to need to learn a lot more than the rigid delivery/system he was coached to perform in. There was concern he'd be another Kyle Boller but with not quite as strong an arm. Hell, for all his wonderful stats Alex Smith wasn't even a great prospect and he went #1. I remember well how badly San Fran tried trading out of the slot but couldn't find anyone willing to trade up. It was a different time back then, under the old CBA. A top 1st rounder got paid like a veteran all-pro in his prime, so if you drafted a bust it was like drafting a bust and picking up another bust FA or two, when you count the guaranteed cap room it ate up. Rodgers was one of those prospects that could have gone #1 overall and could have gone #41 overall. If GB didn't grab him, since most teams at that point in the draft weren't looking for QBs, he may have dropped another 5-10 slots or more. We'll never know. Just like if someone had drafted Geno in the top 3-5 in 2013, not only would it have been unsurprising, but it would have further been considered crazy to imagine him falling to round 2. Don't forget even Lynch was projected as high as #8 (which may have been higher if not for 2 other QBs being worthy of #1-2), and others had him as a 2nd rounder. It happens.

The Jets were in no more or less of a QB-needy team than the Packers, and we opted to trade out of the first round altogether instead of drafting Rodgers.  But what's upsetting is if they viewed Rodgers as requiring a year of clipboard-holding these two would have stayed away from him as well. 

The way they made it sound - both Maccagnan and Bowles - they didn't think Lynch wasn't a first round prospect. They just liked Lee a lot and clearly felt Lynch needed to sit and that made Lee a no-brainer pick for them. 

Look, hopefully Lynch is a bust, Lee is awesome, and Hackenberg starts tearing the league a new one in 2017 or 2018, so all this will just be academic chatter. 'Cause that's who we've got.

[Sperm Edwards]

16 minutes ago, 32EBoozer said:

Time will tell between Lynch and Hack.

I hope we come out a winner on this one.

Despite the lobbed pitch of an opportunity, at no time did either of them even hint that they liked Hackenberg better than Lynch. Easiest thing to say would be they liked Lee better and they felt a round later they could get a QB they liked even better. Nothing even close to that was suggested; just the first part (Lee).

All they said about Hackenberg was the same thing every online scouting report said. Noted his physical characteristics (tall, big kid, very strong arm), as well as his picking up - and doing well in - O'Brien's offense right out of high school; that he's smart; that he's a good character guy. And like anyone who liked Hackenberg as a prospect, they kind of rationalized and brushed aside his post-O'Brien seasons. 

Hey, like you say, hopefully they're right and we got a cannon-armed QB and a jackrabbit-quick ILB we couldn't have found in round 2. I just don't like rigid "rules" like this. Had GB employed this rule, Rodgers wouldn't have ever been considered no matter how much they liked him. 

[slats]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Despite the lobbed pitch of an opportunity, at no time did either of them even hint that they liked Hackenberg better than Lynch. Easiest thing to say would be they liked Lee better and they felt a round later they could get a QB they liked even better. Nothing even close to that was suggested; just the first part (Lee).

All they said about Hackenberg was the same thing every online scouting report said. Noted his physical characteristics (tall, big kid, very strong arm), as well as his picking up - and doing well in - O'Brien's offense right out of high school; that he's smart; that he's a good character guy. And like anyone who liked Hackenberg as a prospect, they kind of rationalized and brushed aside his post-O'Brien seasons. 

Hey, like you say, hopefully they're right and we got a cannon-armed QB and a jackrabbit-quick ILB we couldn't have found in round 2. I just don't like rigid "rules" like this. Had GB employed this rule, Rodgers wouldn't have ever been considered no matter how much they liked him. 

I think they're covering their asses by not comparing Hack to Lynch, but that it's obvious that they preferred Hack. At the very least, they preferred Hack in the 2nd to Lynch in the 1st. But the stories were leaking before the draft that they were smitten with Hackenberg. 

And yeah, seems like the Jets have tried to be smarter than everyone else forever with disasterous results. Be very cool if they finally got one right. 

[Maxman]

18 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Let someone else draft Aaron Rodgers -- what we need is an instant starter at kicker!

Think about it, if you only have 9 starters on the field you are at a 2 man advantage.

Starters are important.

[Kleckineau]

4 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

An all-time great was required to be the starter ahead of him? My understanding is that Favre didn't help one bit, and was a total douche to Rodgers.

Why is it assumed that because things happened the way they did, that this was the only path that would have led to the same heights? Maybe Rodgers would have led the team to another SB win (or more) if he wasn't parked behind chuck & duck. Here's an example: let's say Russell Wilson was drafted behind Brett Favre, then came on 3-4 years after he was drafted, and was a good/great QB. Your comment presumes that was the only path to Wilson's success, when in fact he would have been great out of the gate. 

Rodgers wasn't likely going to be great as a rookie, as he admittedly needed some work off the field, but that doesn't therefore mean a completely not-helpful starter ahead of him was required. Quite the contrary; I think it's likely he'd have matured faster were he parked behind a smart, nice-guy, but a just-ok QB like Fitzpatrick. 

And since you mention the "all time great" ahead of Rodgers, would it have been a worthwhile pick for someone to draft Favre in the bottom half of round 1? Or would it have been a bad pick because he couldn't start right away, and draft a presumed start-now LB or DB instead?

I don't think it's a terrible idea for most positions, but QB - especially in today's game - is not one of them.

What I come away with when I boil down what you have said here to it simplest terms is that Bowles and Mac are dopes for thinking this about first rounders and again, as usual, the Jets are screwed by another in a long line of doofus regimes.

Thanks ☺

[Sperm Edwards]

13 hours ago, slats said:

I think they're covering their asses by not comparing Hack to Lynch, but that it's obvious that they preferred Hack. At the very least, they preferred Hack in the 2nd to Lynch in the 1st. But the stories were leaking before the draft that they were smitten with Hackenberg. 

And yeah, seems like the Jets have tried to be smarter than everyone else forever with disasterous results. Be very cool if they finally got one right. 

I don't know about the bolded part. The sentence after that is clearly true. The only way one could confirm the bolded part is if they took Hackenberg with Lynch still on the board.

[Sperm Edwards]

11 hours ago, Kleckineau said:

What I come away with when I boil down what you have said here to it simplest terms is that Bowles and Mac are dopes for thinking this about first rounders and again, as usual, the Jets are screwed by another in a long line of doofus regimes.

Thanks ☺

Boiling it down to the "simplest terms" in calling them "dopes" distorts the view, though.

I think having a rigid rule like this - if one exists, as they (Bowles) suggested - is less than genius. The idea that a player is unworthy of a first round pick unless he can significantly contribute as a rookie...like I said earlier in the thread, it was a hard thing to hear right out of his mouth. All other things being equal, yeah duh it's better if you get the guy who contributes earlier than later. But in the absence of an obvious franchise QB, an ILB who can contribute right away < a franchise QB.

If it makes you feel better, even if Hackenberg is no better than his pessimistic observers say, there's certainly still no guarantee Lynch will be such a franchise QB himself. If that was the widespread opinion he wouldn't have gotten past SF at #8 (if he even fell that far).

A doofus is a guy like Lynch who gets 17 on his Wonderlic (20 is supposed to connote "average" i.e. an IQ of 100), when he knows such a test - despite its inherent weaknesses - will be scrutinized so heavily for a QB these days. It suggests he's a either doofus for blowing it off, or he's a doofus because he didn't blow it off and this idiot-level score is the improved result of tutoring and many practice tests. Neither speaks well of him from the neck up, when one could probably get at least a 12 by just answering "B" for every question (including non-multiple choice questions). 

[FidelioJet]

19 hours ago, NYs Stepchild said:

This is just another way of saying they won't draft a project in the 1st which is pretty universal. You don't waste firsts on unknowns. 

If someone is not ready to play then they are missing something from their game which they may or may not ever develop. 

Sounds smart to me. 

I do understand what you're saying and in any situation other than QB I would agree.  

But if you see a QB you love and pass on him in him because you think he needs a year to hone his skill at the professional level - but then go and take an even bigger project in the 2nd round. 

Just doesn't make sense. 

[Sperm Edwards]

3 hours ago, FidelioJet said:

I do understand what you're saying and in any situation other than QB I would agree.  

But if you see a QB you love and pass on him in him because you think he needs a year to hone his skill at the professional level - but then go and take an even bigger project in the 2nd round. 

Just doesn't make sense. 

All offseason I'm hearing how smart it is to sit a QB through his rookie year. The Jets let it slip out that they won't draft a 1st round QB if he needs to sit for a year, and this is also considered smart.

I have seen less twisting in a pretzel factory.

[slats]

4 hours ago, FidelioJet said:

I do understand what you're saying and in any situation other than QB I would agree.  

But if you see a QB you love and pass on him in him because you think he needs a year to hone his skill at the professional level - but then go and take an even bigger project in the 2nd round. 

Just doesn't make sense. 

I don't think the Jets loved Lynch at all. His low wonderlic, and reports that he was immature and "out there" mentally probably turned a lot of teams off. The second year project they went with got his highest marks where Lynch had his lowest. After Sanchez and (especially) Geno, I imagine their QB project's mental makeup was extremely high on their priority list. 

[Kleckineau]

7 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Boiling it down to the "simplest terms" in calling them "dopes" distorts the view, though.

I think having a rigid rule like this - if one exists, as they (Bowles) suggested - is less than genius. The idea that a player is unworthy of a first round pick unless he can significantly contribute as a rookie...like I said earlier in the thread, it was a hard thing to hear right out of his mouth. All other things being equal, yeah duh it's better if you get the guy who contributes earlier than later. But in the absence of an obvious franchise QB, an ILB who can contribute right away < a franchise QB.

If it makes you feel better, even if Hackenberg is no better than his pessimistic observers say, there's certainly still no guarantee Lynch will be such a franchise QB himself. If that was the widespread opinion he wouldn't have gotten past SF at #8 (if he even fell that far).

A doofus is a guy like Lynch who gets 17 on his Wonderlic (20 is supposed to connote "average" i.e. an IQ of 100), when he knows such a test - despite its inherent weaknesses - will be scrutinized so heavily for a QB these days. It suggests he's a either doofus for blowing it off, or he's a doofus because he didn't blow it off and this idiot-level score is the improved result of tutoring and many practice tests. Neither speaks well of him from the neck up, when one could probably get at least a 12 by just answering "B" for every question (including non-multiple choice questions). 

Of course its only from anecdotal observations but I dont put a lot of stock in the wonderlic results as a predictor of success.

A correlative study would be interesting and if I had to guess I would say inconclusive.

The phrase dumb jock didnt happen in a vacuum. 

Manziel scored a 32 and if he's not a doofus..............nobody is.

[Sperm Edwards]

10 hours ago, Kleckineau said:

Of course its only from anecdotal observations but I dont put a lot of stock in the wonderlic results as a predictor of success.

A correlative study would be interesting and if I had to guess I would say inconclusive.

The phrase dumb jock didnt happen in a vacuum. 

Manziel scored a 32 and if he's not a doofus..............nobody is.

My personal take (for current/recent prospects; I don't think even the players took it seriously decades ago):

• Score high = certainly doesn't hurt, but it's no indication he'll be a good QB. 
• Score low = this may be a hindrance to success. It's more difficult for a dumb-IQ kid to be a good/smart QB.

Manziel is probably a poor example, since his failures have more to do with immaturity than IQ-stupidity. Honestly, same for Geno. Scored above average himself, and hasn't so far seemed like a smart player on the field or off it. Then on the other end you have Fitz, who isn't now & has never been, a smart QB on the field and he famously scored a 48. So did Greg McElroy, for all the good that did him.

A low score for a "brain" position can certainly be offset by someone with ridiculous comparative innate talent/ability. Lynch supposedly qualifies. Ditto Cam, Vick, and others. 

I think of it like 40 time for certain "skill" positions. Being fast doesn't mean one will be a great WR or CB for example. Being slow, however, kinda stacks the odds against someone being successful. There's a point, below which success is harder to come by, and a lower point, below which success is probably not possible.

[Kleckineau]

7 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

My personal take (for current/recent prospects; I don't think even the players took it seriously decades ago):

• Score high = certainly doesn't hurt, but it's no indication he'll be a good QB. 
• Score low = this may be a hindrance to success. It's more difficult for a dumb-IQ kid to be a good/smart QB.

Manziel is probably a poor example, since his failures have more to do with immaturity than IQ-stupidity. Honestly, same for Geno. Scored above average himself, and hasn't so far seemed like a smart player on the field or off it. Then on the other end you have Fitz, who isn't now & has never been, a smart QB on the field and he famously scored a 48. So did Greg McElroy, for all the good that did him.

A low score for a "brain" position can certainly be offset by someone with ridiculous comparative innate talent/ability. Lynch supposedly qualifies. Ditto Cam, Vick, and others. 

I think of it like 40 time for certain "skill" positions. Being fast doesn't mean one will be a great WR or CB for example. Being slow, however, kinda stacks the odds against someone being successful. There's a point, below which success is harder to come by, and a lower point, below which success is probably not possible.

Some low and lower scores of some good to high achievers (cherry picked of course ☺)

Of course it is possible they just didnt take the test seriously like alot of 21 year olds might not.

Plus on the list I saw there were plenty good to great qb's with very high scores to offset these. 

Average score is considered 28.5

Marino 15

Kelly 15

Bradshaw 15

Farvre 22

Rothlisberger 25

McNab 14

Garrard 14

Cunningham 15

Brunnell 22

Culpepper 18

Vick 20

Pennington 25

Dilfer 22

[Sperm Edwards]

24 minutes ago, Kleckineau said:

Some low and lower scores of some good to high achievers (cherry picked of course ☺)

Of course it is possible they just didnt take the test seriously like alot of 21 year olds might not.

Plus on the list I saw there were plenty good to great qb's with very high scores to offset these. 

Average score is considered 28.5

Marino 15

Kelly 15

Bradshaw 15

Farvre 22

Rothlisberger 25

McNab 14

Garrard 14

Cunningham 15

Brunnell 22

Culpepper 18

Vick 20

Pennington 25

Dilfer 22

When I was looking I tended to brush off ones from decades ago, like I was saying. I think there's just more scrutiny on it now compared to back then. More to avoid the lower scorers than boost the higher ones, but still. 

Average score is supposed to be 20, theoretically correlating with an IQ of 100. 

Maybe 28.5 is the avg QB's score, but is that the avg score or the avg NFL QB or the avg NFL starting QB?

Our QB's? Fitz 48, Petty 31, Geno and Hackenberg both scored 24. 

Frankly there are certain types of questions they should stress more of for the position and ones they should be removing. They need to be smart enough to learn all he plays and those plays' permutations, but once in a game the decision-making needs to be almost instant. Wonderlic is a timed test, but really there are some things a real player has as much time as he needs to absorb conceptually, but once he ball is snapped he doesn't have anywhere near 14-15 seconds per play that is allotted on the test. Further, just because a person reads a word problem faster doesn't mean he'd process a visual, moving picture (a QB's post-snap assessments) faster as well. 

Basically, it's a test to (again, theoretically) measure the intelligence of all people, not specifically the football intelligence of QBs -- a measurement that can and does get better over time for those who stay in the game. 

All at said, Lynch comes across like a dumbass. Doesn't mean he can't or won't be a smart QB, though. Just means it would seem a bit less likely than a high scorer.