Does Bryce Petty suck?

[Augustiniak]

1 minute ago, Paradis said:

I've become increasingly less patient with Mike MacCagnan's method to addressing the QB situation. We're going into year 2 of his operation - and we're staffed with Ryan Fitzpatrick (career backup with a loser record), Geno Smith (got punched out by his own team mates for being a douche), Bryce Petty (dime a dozen Cinderella project) and Hackenberg (worst QB prospect since Tebow). 

That's a fcking grill cheese sandwich no one ordered. 

who should we have instead?

[Paradis]

who should we have instead?

Seriously dude?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Augustiniak]

4 minutes ago, Paradis said:

Seriously dude?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

no, you seriously dude.  they couldn't get winston or mariotta last year.  they've drafted 2 qbs and traded for 1 - and the guy set a jet record for td passes.  if you're criticizing the gm, it follows you believe there were better alternatives.  who else should mccags have brought in?

[Paradis]

39 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

no, you seriously dude.  they couldn't get winston or mariotta last year.  they've drafted 2 qbs and traded for 1 - and the guy set a jet record for td passes.  if you're criticizing the gm, it follows you believe there were better alternatives.  who else should mccags have brought in?

We've seen each other on the block for a number of years; i know you're not a fool. You're a level-headed guy in my books... which is why I know you don't totally believe this. You and I both know there is a 1,00000000000000000000000000 different ways the situation could have been addressed. It's about priorities, and agendas. 

Some of the obvious;

1. Paxton Lynch. Huge fcking obvious
2. Traded up for Mariota last year. 
3. Sign Brock Osweiler (not saying I would have, but it's statement move)
4. Traded for Sam Bradford to compete with, or start. 
5. Tyrod Taylor in 2015
6. Signed RG3 and ditched Geno/Petty
7. That fool Mike Glennon

 

People jump mindlessly to the defense of GMs until the volcano erupts and then everyone's reaching for pitchforks. Hackenberg is a hail mary to become even serviceable, let alone a leader. Petty is a dime a dozen best served as a #3, and Fitz is Fitz -- he can save your bacon once, but asked him to do it a second time?.... His "record TDs" last year says way more about the history of QBs on this team (and Gailey's offense) than it does about Fitz. 

I'm not impressed with the way our GM has handled addressing the QB position since Jan of 2015, and it's a legitimate concern. He had a whole year of scouting, and scheming - and his answer was to draft the PENN ST massacre in the second round?  I like what he's done in other areas, but he's shown questionable decision making with our QB situation.

[Augustiniak]

14 minutes ago, Paradis said:

We've seen each other on the block for a number of years; i know you're not a fool. You're a level-headed guy in my books... which is why I know you don't totally believe this. You and I both know there is a 1,00000000000000000000000000 different ways the situation could have been addressed. It's about priorities, and agendas. 

Some of the obvious;

1. Paxton Lynch. Huge fcking obvious
2. Traded up for Mariota last year. 
3. Sign Brock Osweiler (not saying I would have, but it's statement move)
4. Traded for Sam Bradford to compete with, or start. 
5. Tyrod Taylor in 2015
6. Signed RG3 and ditched Geno/Petty
7. That fool Mike Glennon

 

People jump mindlessly to the defense of GMs until the volcano erupts and then everyone's reaching for pitchforks. Hackenberg is a hail mary to become even serviceable, let alone a leader. Petty is a dime a dozen best served as a #3, and Fitz is Fitz -- he can save your bacon once, but asked him to do it a second time?.... His "record TDs" last year says way more about the history of QBs on this team (and Gailey's offense) than it does about Fitz. 

I'm not impressed with the way our GM has handled addressing the QB position since Jan of 2015, and it's a legitimate concern. He had a whole year of scouting, and scheming - and his answer was to draft the PENN ST massacre in the second round?  I like what he's done in other areas, but he's shown questionable decision making with our QB situation.

the only one i agree with is lynch.  not a fan of bradford or rg3. don't want glennon, he's too flat footed.  osweiler too expensive.  no way they were getting mariotta.

thanks for the kudos.  right back atcha.

[cant wait]

27 minutes ago, Paradis said:

We've seen each other on the block for a number of years; i know you're not a fool. You're a level-headed guy in my books... which is why I know you don't totally believe this. You and I both know there is a 1,00000000000000000000000000 different ways the situation could have been addressed. It's about priorities, and agendas. 

Some of the obvious;

1. Paxton Lynch. Huge fcking obvious
2. Traded up for Mariota last year. 
3. Sign Brock Osweiler (not saying I would have, but it's statement move)
4. Traded for Sam Bradford to compete with, or start. 
5. Tyrod Taylor in 2015
6. Signed RG3 and ditched Geno/Petty
7. That fool Mike Glennon

 

People jump mindlessly to the defense of GMs until the volcano erupts and then everyone's reaching for pitchforks. Hackenberg is a hail mary to become even serviceable, let alone a leader. Petty is a dime a dozen best served as a #3, and Fitz is Fitz -- he can save your bacon once, but asked him to do it a second time?.... His "record TDs" last year says way more about the history of QBs on this team (and Gailey's offense) than it does about Fitz. 

I'm not impressed with the way our GM has handled addressing the QB position since Jan of 2015, and it's a legitimate concern. He had a whole year of scouting, and scheming - and his answer was to draft the PENN ST massacre in the second round?  I like what he's done in other areas, but he's shown questionable decision making with our QB situation.

Hack needs a year before any kind of reasonable judgment can be made about what he can do, he's still 21 and as raw as they get. I wanted lynch too but Denver doesn't think he's ready to play right now either so I can't fault them for passing. The trade/FA market sounds better next year too, osweiler was a pretty risky signing but cousins/bradford will have another full year to prove themselves and could be worth pursuing then

[Paradis]

4 minutes ago, cant wait said:

Hack needs a year before any kind of reasonable judgment can be made about what he can do, he's still 21 and as raw as they get. I wanted lynch too but Denver doesn't think he's ready to play right now either so I can't fault them for passing. The trade/FA market sounds better next year too, osweiler was a pretty risky signing but cousins/bradford will have another full year to prove themselves and could be worth pursuing then

I don't see how (at all) not thrusting Paxton into starting week 1 somehow justifies Macc passing on a legitimate franchise QB... especially considering his contingency plan was a reclamation project that we have to redshirt. that's bush. 

I didn't list those options to say I would have supported them all, cause I don't. But there were opportunities to do something. Many of them. If you (us, we) take off the homer googles for a second and look at our overall QB roster - it's not good. And it's without a pronounced future. I expected more out of Macc. The justification to remaining idle all this time was to draft the future, and we passed on it. I can't swallow that. Not right now. 

[cant wait]

8 minutes ago, Paradis said:

I don't see how (at all) not thrusting Paxton into starting week 1 somehow justifies Macc passing on a legitimate franchise QB... especially considering his contingency plan was a reclamation project that we have to redshirt. that's bush. 

I didn't list those options to say I would have supported them all, cause I don't. But there were opportunities to do something. Many of them. If you (us, we) take off the homer googles for a second and look at our overall QB roster - it's not good. And it's without a pronounced future. I expected more out of Macc. The justification to remaining idle all this time was to draft the future, and we passed on it. I can't swallow that. Not right now. 

Lynch still has a long way to go before he really should be considered a legitimate franchise QB. Nice looking prospect, definitely above hackenberg, but by no means a sure thing. In the end the guy wasn't there for the price they wanted to pay, and the team is taking the route of patience over impulse. I'm just hoping by this time next year they know exactly what they have in petty/hack and respond accordingly because the honeymoon will be over very soon

[Paradis]

9 minutes ago, cant wait said:

Lynch still has a long way to go before he really should be considered a legitimate franchise QB. Nice looking prospect, definitely above hackenberg, but by no means a sure thing. In the end the guy wasn't there for the price they wanted to pay, and the team is taking the route of patience over impulse. I'm just hoping by this time next year they know exactly what they have in petty/hack and respond accordingly because the honeymoon will be over very soon

that sounds a lot more like justifying than approving. Unless your name's Andrew Luck, you're going to have some work to do. Lynch is a franchise QB. Until he proves he's not capable of being that guy, he will be regarded as such. Same as Winston, Mariota, Goff, etc. When you're drafted in the first, its a message to the team and the public. This is our guy. We fcking blew it. Until something happens to prove otherwise, that's the position I'm taking. Certainly doesn't help that Lynch clearly out played Goff already. And Hack looks like a toasted BLT. 

[Villain The Foe]

1 minute ago, Paradis said:

that sounds a lot more like justifying than approving. Unless your name's Andrew Luck, you're going to have some work to do. Lynch is a franchise QB. Until he proves he's not capable of being that guy, he will be regarded as such. Same as Winston, Mariota, Goff, etc. When you're drafted in the first, its a message to the team and the public. This is our guy. We fcking blew it. Until something happens to prove otherwise, that's the position I'm taking. Certainly doesn't help that Lynch clearly out played Goff already. And Hack looks like a toasted BLT. 

Please dont disrespect a toasted BLT like that. 

[bostonmajet]

1 hour ago, Paradis said:

We've seen each other on the block for a number of years; i know you're not a fool. You're a level-headed guy in my books... which is why I know you don't totally believe this. You and I both know there is a 1,00000000000000000000000000 different ways the situation could have been addressed. It's about priorities, and agendas. 

Some of the obvious;

1. Paxton Lynch. Huge fcking obvious
2. Traded up for Mariota last year. 
3. Sign Brock Osweiler (not saying I would have, but it's statement move)
4. Traded for Sam Bradford to compete with, or start. 
5. Tyrod Taylor in 2015
6. Signed RG3 and ditched Geno/Petty
7. That fool Mike Glennon

 

People jump mindlessly to the defense of GMs until the volcano erupts and then everyone's reaching for pitchforks. Hackenberg is a hail mary to become even serviceable, let alone a leader. Petty is a dime a dozen best served as a #3, and Fitz is Fitz -- he can save your bacon once, but asked him to do it a second time?.... His "record TDs" last year says way more about the history of QBs on this team (and Gailey's offense) than it does about Fitz. 

I'm not impressed with the way our GM has handled addressing the QB position since Jan of 2015, and it's a legitimate concern. He had a whole year of scouting, and scheming - and his answer was to draft the PENN ST massacre in the second round?  I like what he's done in other areas, but he's shown questionable decision making with our QB situation.

When Mac took over the roster was bare. We all knew it would take 3 years, now in year 2 people are upset. We have made great progress. We still have a ways to go. Either way, if finding a franchise QB was so easy every team would have one. Not making excuses, just saying this takes time. As for the list.

1. I wanted the Jets to want him, but clearly they didn't; My guess is that he doesn't have the maturity/disposition to play in NYC (so even if he is successful doesn't mean he would have succeeded here.

2. It was my understanding that Mac tried to trade up/down both years. Can't make a team trade (especially the #1/#2 pick with a franchise potential QB there. Would people had been happy if he traded away 3 #1s to get him and then what, he would still need time and there would be no team around him to build/protect him with. Where would we get the eventual LT replacement? Just get him somehow and hope he doesn't get killed - also, what if he busts? you gave away the store for a bust?

3. So, we should have gotten into a bidding war to get a guy who was benched over a no-armed QB? Denver wasn't willing to sign him to that much; so we overpay and then we are in cap hell; again what if he busts?

4. Bradford, really? He hasn't lived up to the hype; he was just traded for a #1 and a #4; you want to pay that to get a guy that can't stay healthy?

6. Big roll of the dice; still may not pan out - so you want 4 QBs that have potential but are flawed on the team? Or ditch a 2nd year 4th round pick who has showed tremendous growth and at minimum will likely be a good backup next year?

7. Every year this comes up, and every year the team says they aren't trading him. He is the next great QB like all of our backups - hasn't proved much, but is just better than what we have. What was Mac supposed to do tamper? Over pay?

Many of these above approaches smacks of desperation. I am not happy with the current QB state, but Mac appears to be taking a calm planned approach to this problem; hopefully it pans out next year. But, in year 2 he has done well. Can't make a team make a fair trade, and unless we are going to suck (2 wins or less) for a few years, hitting on a can't miss prospect (if there are any) isn't likely to happen.

[Paradis]

6 minutes ago, bostonmajet said:

When Mac took over the roster was bare. We all knew it would take 3 years, now in year 2 people are upset. We have made great progress. We still have a ways to go. Either way, if finding a franchise QB was so easy every team would have one. Not making excuses, just saying this takes time. As for the list.

1. I wanted the Jets to want him, but clearly they didn't; My guess is that he doesn't have the maturity/disposition to play in NYC (so even if he is successful doesn't mean he would have succeeded here.

2. It was my understanding that Mac tried to trade up/down both years. Can't make a team trade (especially the #1/#2 pick with a franchise potential QB there. Would people had been happy if he traded away 3 #1s to get him and then what, he would still need time and there would be no team around him to build/protect him with. Where would we get the eventual LT replacement? Just get him somehow and hope he doesn't get killed - also, what if he busts? you gave away the store for a bust?

3. So, we should have gotten into a bidding war to get a guy who was benched over a no-armed QB? Denver wasn't willing to sign him to that much; so we overpay and then we are in cap hell; again what if he busts?

4. Bradford, really? He hasn't lived up to the hype; he was just traded for a #1 and a #4; you want to pay that to get a guy that can't stay healthy?

6. Big roll of the dice; still may not pan out - so you want 4 QBs that have potential but are flawed on the team? Or ditch a 2nd year 4th round pick who has showed tremendous growth and at minimum will likely be a good backup next year?

7. Every year this comes up, and every year the team says they aren't trading him. He is the next great QB like all of our backups - hasn't proved much, but is just better than what we have. What was Mac supposed to do tamper? Over pay?

Many of these above approaches smacks of desperation. I am not happy with the current QB state, but Mac appears to be taking a calm planned approach to this problem; hopefully it pans out next year. But, in year 2 he has done well. Can't make a team make a fair trade, and unless we are going to suck (2 wins or less) for a few years, hitting on a can't miss prospect (if there are any) isn't likely to happen.

Macc can be good to great in a few areas, and lack a bit of conviction in others. No one is amazing at everything. He hasn't done well by me in this department. Petty/Hack as our "future" is pathetic. Maybe you don't watch College, but I do. Neither is a prudent investment. That's the truth. Am I willing to wait and see?... not really. Not when the early returns suggest a waste of time. There's a difference between waiting for mariota to come around, and waiting for hack. Surely you see this. You could spend an eternity waiting for 4th round QBs to develop.

Nothing you said up there does anything to dispel what I said - which was that there were opportunities to give this team some options. I don't necessarily like most of them either. But we haven't gone after a legitimate starter in FA in forever, and we haven't drafted a franchise QB to replace the mistake that was Mark. It's why were watching teams in the superbowl vs playing in them. Thems is the breaks. 

[bostonmajet]

2 minutes ago, Paradis said:

Macc can be good to great in a few areas, and lack a bit of conviction in others. No one is amazing at everything. He hasn't done well by me in this department. Petty/Hack as our "future" is pathetic. Maybe you don't watch College, but I do. Neither is a prudent investment. That's the truth. Am I willing to wait and see?... not really. Not when the early returns suggest a waste of time. There's a difference between waiting for mariota to come around, and waiting for hack. Surely you see this. You could spend an eternity waiting for 4th round QBs to develop.

Nothing you said up there does anything to dispel what I said - which was that there were opportunities to give this team some options. I don't necessarily like most of them either. But we haven't gone after a legitimate starter in FA in forever, and we haven't drafted a franchise QB to replace the mistake that was Mark. It's why were watching teams in the superbowl vs playing in them. Thems is the breaks. 

While I agree that Petty/Hack are long shots, I don't agree that Mac has had the ability to sign a legitimate FA or draft a franchise QB; we are playing well enough to draft outside of the top 5 and it isn't like Aaron Rodgers is available in FA. There is only so much a GM can do in the first year or 2. We should set the bar at a reasonable expectations level. So, if you are not convinced Lynch is a franchise QB (and the same is true for RGIII and whomever), there hasn't been an opportunity to get one. 10-15 teams want a franchise QB; so if you aren't drafting in the top 1/2 you are likely going to have to be patient and/or finding other ways to get one.

Again, not happy with the QB situation. I wanted to cut ties with Geno (as I don't think he is good enough for us to win with if Fitz goes down). I don't think Fitz is a great alternative, so even if he wasn't 30+, I would not want him long term. I am, however, willing to give Mac the 3 years we originally thought it was going to take. Let's see how this plays out next year before we condemn him.

[Paradis]

11 minutes ago, bostonmajet said:

While I agree that Petty/Hack are long shots, I don't agree that Mac has had the ability to sign a legitimate FA or draft a franchise QB; we are playing well enough to draft outside of the top 5 and it isn't like Aaron Rodgers is available in FA. There is only so much a GM can do in the first year or 2. We should set the bar at a reasonable expectations level. So, if you are not convinced Lynch is a franchise QB (and the same is true for RGIII and whomever), there hasn't been an opportunity to get one. 10-15 teams want a franchise QB; so if you aren't drafting in the top 1/2 you are likely going to have to be patient and/or finding other ways to get one.

Again, not happy with the QB situation. I wanted to cut ties with Geno (as I don't think he is good enough for us to win with if Fitz goes down). I don't think Fitz is a great alternative, so even if he wasn't 30+, I would not want him long term. I am, however, willing to give Mac the 3 years we originally thought it was going to take. Let's see how this plays out next year before we condemn him.

fair enough to a degree - though we don't see eye to eye on Macc's decision making. 

Let me ask you this; Convince me why I should trust a guy who felt Lynch was too much of a project (and the SB champions clearly disagreed) and Hack was a better use of our resources. Convince me that I should trust that guy's judgment moving forward. He had a whole year of scouting and that's what he came up with. Convince me. 

[Augustiniak]

2 minutes ago, Paradis said:

fair enough to a degree - though we don't see eye to eye on Macc's decision making. 

Let me ask you this; Convince me why I should trust a guy who felt Lynch was too much of a project (and the SB champions clearly disagreed) and Hack was a better use of our resources. Convince me that I should trust that guy's judgment moving forward. He had a whole year of scouting and that's what he came up with. Convince me. 

different round.  if we had drafted lynch in the 1st you'd have to play him this year but that's not happening if fitz stays healthy.  

[JoJoTownsell1]

3 hours ago, Augustiniak said:

who should we have instead?

Aaron Rodgers. Fire Macc!!!

[Paradis]

different round.  if we had drafted lynch in the 1st you'd have to play him this year but that's not happening if fitz stays healthy.  

How is suggesting that we would be able to bring Lynch along behind Fitz convincing me? We'd be missing out on, what - Darron Lee's 13 snaps a game as situational backer??

Sorry. No dice.

It's not just passing on lynch, it's that 15 months of homework and scouting lead to Macc CHOOSING Hack that raises mucho concern.

Convince me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FidelioJet]

1 minute ago, Augustiniak said:

different round.  if we had drafted lynch in the 1st you'd have to play him this year but that's not happening if fitz stays healthy.  

No way..not when you're talking about QB's....he better have had Hack rated higher or equal to Lynch - if he didn't it was horrible to pass on him and he deserves to lose his job...You don't mess around with QB's when you're desperate for one.

[bostonmajet]

3 minutes ago, Paradis said:

fair enough to a degree - though we don't see eye to eye on Macc's decision making. 

Let me ask you this; Convince me why I should trust a guy who felt Lynch was too much of a project (and the SB champions clearly disagreed) and Hack was a better use of our resources. Convince me that I should trust that guy's judgment moving forward. He had a whole year of scouting and that's what he came up with. Convince me. 

Well, I cannot clearly do that as I don't understand why they didn't like Lynch. As I said, I really wanted them to want him. Apparently, there was something they saw that they didn't like about him (especially as a 1st).

I also am not thrilled with the Lee pick; in my mind they could have gambled more on Lynch then on Lee; I know (or I think I do) that they at first tried to trade up to grab one of the top 2 QBs and then again to grab the OL guy Miami took. I hope they would have grabbed the other OL guy that was taken right before our pick too, but it didn't happen.

I also think that they probably could have waited a round or 2 to draft Hack. I wasn't happy about that. But, clearly, they saw something they liked. And, if he was their guy, no point risking someone from taking what you feel is your franchise QB over a few rounds. What they saw and why, I can't tell you.

All I know is that Mac has done a pretty good job in rebuilding this team via free agency and the draft. He seems to have done very well so far (as well as we can tell) in the later rounds with his new scouting department. So, I cannot convince you that he is going to make a great team or find a franchise QB by next year, I can tell you that he has done a pretty good job in the 2+ years that he has been here, and I have optimistic expectations that he and the team will get better.

[Paradis]

16 minutes ago, bostonmajet said:

All I know is that Mac has done a pretty good job in rebuilding this team via free agency and the draft.

Would you mind outlining which draft picks have "rebuilt" this team? I agree he's been a savy motherfcker in the FA game, but his drafts have yielded nothing, nothing in the rebuilding department outside of a couple 3rd round OLBs - that much has been positive.

Williams? We were rebuilding what there? Nothing. We have Richardson and Wilkerson - BOTH on rookie contracts at the time. ROOKIE CONTRACTS. Gurley would have been rebuilding. Williams was redundancy... very effective, ceiling as high as the heavens, but redundant nonetheless. Devin Smith? Yea he's roaring up the roster charts. And Hackenberg couldn't even put heat on a 4th round project out of Baylor. UDFA outplayed Hack. 

Anyway i'm done. you know how i feel. I understand Macc's decision to pass on Lynch as well as I understood Al Davis taking Heyward-Bey ahead of Crabtree in the top 10. Just because he believed it, doesn't mean it was a good decision. 

[Jet Nut]

2 minutes ago, Paradis said:

Would you mind outlining which draft picks have "rebuilt" this team? I agree he's been a savy motherfcker in the FA game, but his drafts have yielded nothing, nothing in the rebuilding department outside of a couple 3rd round OLBs - that much has been positive.

Williams? We were rebuilding what there? Nothing. We have Richardson and Wilkerson - BOTH on rookie contracts at the time. ROOKIE CONTRACTS. Gurley would have been rebuilding. Williams was redundancy... very effective, ceiling as high as the heavens, but redundant nonetheless. Devin Smith? Yea he's roaring up the roster charts. And Hackenberg couldn't even put heat on a 4th round project out of Baylor. UDFA outplayed Hack. 

Anyway i'm done. you know how i feel. I understand Macc's decision to pass on Lynch as well as I understood Al Davis taking Heyward-Bey ahead of Crabtree in the top 10. Just because he believed it, doesn't mean it was a good decision. 

You can have Gurley, I'll take Williams.  Williams will be a top player into his 30's, you hope Gurley gives you 5 years.  Teams dont win because they have the leagues top RB anymore.  You can be just as effective with RB by committee 

[Paradis]

You can have Gurley, I'll take Williams.  Williams will be a top player into his 30's, you hope Gurley gives you 5 years.  Teams dont win because they have the leagues top RB anymore.  You can be just as effective with RB by committee 

Wrong. Who cares what Williams does in his 30s. We're trying to win now.

Didn't take long for someone circling the conversation to swoop in at the mere mention of Williams. That topic usual attracts thread vultures. In the context of his comment about rebuilding, my remark has merit.

Now shoo!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jet Nut]

1 minute ago, Paradis said:

Wrong. Who cares what Williams does in his 30s. We're trying to win now.

Didn't take long for someone circling the conversation to swoop in at the mere mention of Williams. That topic usual attracts thread vultures. In the context of his comment about rebuilding, my remark has merit.

Now shoo!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wrong?

Yeah, youre the one whos wrong.  RBs dont win shlt anymore.  You're living in the wrong decade.  I'll take a Williams any and every time.  

Shoo?  Dickhead

[Paradis]

Just now, Jet Nut said:

Wrong?

Yeah, youre the one whos wrong.  RBs dont win shlt anymore.  You're living in the wrong decade.  I'll take a Williams any and every time.  

Shoo?  Dickhead

I'm sorry, did I break your pussy? Get on some blood pressure meds. 

You can have williams and the absent NYJ playoff appearance. I'll take Gurley and the likelyhood that we would have had at least another W with him on the team. Its called saturation. We can continue to add Willamses to the line -- doesn't necessarily mean we're going WIN more games.

That's my philosphy. Winning. Yours can be longevity if you want. 

[Big Blocker]

2 hours ago, cant wait said:

Hack needs a year before any kind of reasonable judgment can be made about what he can do, he's still 21 and as raw as they get. I wanted lynch too but Denver doesn't think he's ready to play right now either so I can't fault them for passing. The trade/FA market sounds better next year too, osweiler was a pretty risky signing but cousins/bradford will have another full year to prove themselves and could be worth pursuing then

To be clear, Bradford is under contract through 17.

[Jet Nut]

Just now, Paradis said:

I'm sorry, did I break your pussy? Get on some blood pressure meds. 

You can have williams and the absent NYJ playoff appearance. I'll take Gurley and the likelyhood that we would have had at least another W with him on the team. Its called saturation. We can continue to add Willamses to the line -- doesn't necessarily mean we're going WIN more games.

That's my philosphy. Winning. Yours can be longevity if you want. 

Youre the one apologizing.  I have no problem dealing with a douch who thinks in an open debate his opinion is the only one that can be considered.   

Wiliams and his absent NYJ playoff appearance?  DId I miss the Gurley playoff game?   

As I said, in a couple of years Gurley will be broken down and contributing nothing.  Williams will still contribute.  But the morons who collect stats will be thrilled that they got a single back with almost as many yards as someone elses combo.  

 

[jetstream23]

I believe that Petty is our future

Teach him well and let him lead the way

Show him all the beauty he possesses inside

Give him a sense of pride to make it easier

Let the offense's laughter remind us of how the Jets used to be....in 1998.

[Jet Nut]

1 minute ago, jetstream23 said:

I believe that Petty is our future

Teach him well and let him lead the way

Show him all the beauty he possesses inside

Give him a sense of pride to make it easier

Let the offense's laughter remind us of how the Jets used to be....in 1998.

Ah, the late 90's when we never really had to worry about the offense

[bostonmajet]

11 minutes ago, Paradis said:

Would you mind outlining which draft picks have "rebuilt" this team? I agree he's been a savy motherfcker in the FA game, but his drafts have yielded nothing, nothing in the rebuilding department outside of a couple 3rd round OLBs - that much has been positive.

Williams? We were rebuilding what there? Nothing. We have Richardson and Wilkerson - BOTH on rookie contracts at the time. ROOKIE CONTRACTS. Gurley would have been rebuilding. Williams was redundancy... very effective, ceiling as high as the heavens, but redundant nonetheless. Devin Smith? Yea he's roaring up the roster charts. And Hackenberg couldn't even put heat on a 4th round project out of Baylor. UDFA outplayed Hack. 

Anyway i'm done. you know how i feel. I understand Macc's decision to pass on Lynch as well as I understood Al Davis taking Heyward-Bey ahead of Crabtree in the top 10. Just because he believed it, doesn't mean it was a good decision. 

Okay, for 2015 you have two wins with Williams and Mauldin; sorry you don't pass up that kind of talent when it falls into your lap; passing on a guy like that based on need is how a team ends up reaching; Mauldin is a success as starting LB in the 3rd. You have two misses with Harrison and Smith; it is too early to call Smith a bust, but he is looking like he was not a great pick for 2nd round - but he can still turn it around. Not sure how to classify Simon; clearly not a stud, but when you draft a guy that makes the team (especially on DL) in the 7th, well, I am going to call it a win. And that leaves Petty as too soon to tell - if he becomes an effective backup, you would have to call it a win for a 4th.

Not too mention, he got us B. Marshall. Sure it was a trade, but it was a trade of a draft pick and that goes towards the draft IMO. What a great value. So for 2015, you got 3 wins (including Marshall), a hit (with Simon) , a too early to tell and a miss. That is pretty damn good for a first draft. Plus he got us Fitz who turned out to be a starter for us (sadly) for chump change.

Way too early to tell about 2016, but the wins (picking guys who made that team that show promise) are Peak (a 7th), Edwards (7th), Burris (4th) and Jenkins (3rd); Hack and Lee made the team but are 'gambles' in my mind; if either turns out to be an effective starter this makes this draft pretty damn good - for now, just classifying them as gambles. Shell made the team too, but I am not convinced and it scares me that this guy is our backup RT, so I am going to call him not good.

So with not enough time to evaluate, you have 4 hits, 2 gambles and an apparent miss; Again that is pretty damn good. If Lee or Hack turn out it will be great.

I also consider UDFA right after the draft part of the draft process and Wow we got Anderson and Marshall as UDFAs - if you include them, you have another 2 hits (good finds tremendous values)

No GM, none hits 100%; but in two short years, Mac has drafted pretty well. Of course, it is waaay to early to evaluate the 2015 class let alone the 2016 class; any of these guys can turn out to be steals or busts. But, considering what we know now, pretty damn good.

[Paradis]

Youre the one apologizing.  I have no problem dealing with a douch who thinks in an open debate his opinion is the only one that can be considered.   

Wiliams and his absent NYJ playoff appearance?  DId I miss the Gurley playoff game?   

As I said, in a couple of years Gurley will be broken down and contributing nothing.  Williams will still contribute.  But the morons who collect stats will be thrilled that they got a single back with almost as many yards as someone elses combo.  

 

Really poor analysis on a player who's on the verge of becoming the best RB in the NFL, regardless of how you feel about him on the Jets.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jet Nut]

34 minutes ago, Paradis said:

 

 

Really poor analysis on a player who's on the verge of becoming the best RB in the NFL, regardless of how you feel about him on the Jets.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really?  Think its dead on.  

Did Gurley make the playoffs? 
Does his team or Williams team have a better chance of making the playoffs this season? 

Who, if you had to bet your life will be giving his team more 6, 7 whatever years from now, Gurley or Williams?  

If you cant get that there is a pretty decent chance that this is exactly how it plays out, cant even consider it, its on you.  

 

 

[cant wait]

2 hours ago, Big Blocker said:

To be clear, Bradford is under contract through 17.

That's what I thought but he could be tradeable in the offseason assuming bridgewater's recovery is going well. There's still a lot that can happen between now and then but I'm still keeping my eye on bradford/cousins as potential trade/FA targets

[cant wait]

2 hours ago, Paradis said:

 

 

Really poor analysis on a player who's on the verge of becoming the best RB in the NFL, regardless of how you feel about him on the Jets.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gurley was a fine pick at #10 but David Johnson going in the 3rd was really the value. It's so hard to project RB's a lot of the time... that said, fournette and chubbalicious both look like first round locks in what's shaping up to be a really great class for the position

[Paradis]

Gurley was a fine pick at #10 but David Johnson going in the 3rd was really the value. It's so hard to project RB's a lot of the time... that said, fournette and chubbalicious both look like first round locks in what's shaping up to be a really great class for the position

Chubb looked phenomenal on his return last Saturday. Be a great fit here. Think he lands in round 2 tho, with Fournette and Cook in rnd 1.

It is September tho.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cant wait]

11 minutes ago, Paradis said:

Chubb looked phenomenal on his return last Saturday. Be a great fit here. Think he lands in round 2 tho, with Fournette and Cook in rnd 1.

It is September tho.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the jets could land chubb in the 2nd I would be fully chubbed