Are the Jets better off sucking this year and drafting a QB in the first?

[Beerfish]

14 minutes ago, NYs Stepchild said:

Good thing most of the top 10 QBs are guys drafted outside of the top half of round 1 and they don't break the bank. 

Give me your top 5. I'll bet only 1 was a number 1 pick, 2 of them were later rounds, and 2 were in the bottom half of round one. 

The best rookie so far this year is not a first rounder, and I think Carr will be better than Winston. 

I'm not arguing about any of that.  Not at all.  Your chances to get a franchise guy are higher if you go after the top guys, that's pretty well proven, even if it is a mid 1st rounder.  I'm saying that we won;t be going that route no matter what because we drafted Hackenburg in the 2nd and he has 'not been given his shot'  We will see what the Jets do next year but I bet if we were sitting there in a postion to take a 1st round Qb that we will ignore that guy or trade down.

[UnitedWhofans]

1 minute ago, Beerfish said:

I'm not arguing about any of that.  Not at all.  Your chances to get a franchise guy are higher if you go after the top guys, that's pretty well proven, even if it is a mid 1st rounder.  I'm saying that we won;t be going that route no matter what because we drafted Hackenburg in the 2nd and he has 'not been given his shot'  We will see what the Jets do next year but I bet if we were sitting there in a postion to take a 1st round Qb that we will ignore that guy or trade down.

But that brings me back to the depth at the QB position this year. Will there be a guy who could be a starter there to take in the first place.

In the years we drafted Sanchez and Geno, there was very little QB depth.

[Beerfish]

2 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Because we aren't a bad enough team to earn a top pick.  It's not happening, was never happening.  Whining that we could be in a position to take the top QB but won't because of the last two drafts is moot.  We're not picking in the top of he draft because the team is better than you realize.  

In case you haven't noticed, all the past picks that you've hated along with the players signed have made this team pretty damn good. 

Like who? Please name all the players.  Liked the Wilkerson pick, i called the richardson pick in a mock, loved the williams pick, liked the david harris pick.  From this year, like the jenkins, burris, peake picks and liked our UDFA crop. 

Hated the Hackenburg and Lee picks.  Lee's made some nice plays but has made some big errors as well, Hackenburg is a non entity.

[LIJetsFan]

11 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

Wrong fish dude.    Warfish is the one that said this should be ignored.  I guess all Fish look the same to you, you racist!

lol, game, set, and match!

[Big Blocker]

2 hours ago, Integrity28 said:

No. Play to win. If you think your "guy" is there before your pick, give up what you must to get him. 

It's never worth tanking in NFL. Nothing about top of draft is guaranteed the way it normally is in NBA.

I agree.  You lose too much by doing so in terms of having a winning tradition and attitude, all for a marginal improvement in the team's draft status which may or may not translate into a marginally better, and single, player.  It simply does not add up.

[Pcola]

First, the precedent has been set.  The elite QBs are going at the top of the draft. So if you think the Jets will finish 2-14 or 3-13, it still going to cost the equivalent of three #1s.  Not sure about Kizen, but the Clemson kid is a very flawed passer.  Who ever is going to take him is going to struggle for a very long time.  

We're better hope having an elite team with the off chance that our starting QB gets hot at the right time.

[PatsFanTX]

Wrong season to tank.  We actually have a shot at the super bowl

 

Now that is hilarious.

Sub .500 teams do not make the playoffs or play in the Super Bowl.

Those are the only teams Fitz can beat.

[Rangers9]

1 minute ago, PatsFanTX said:

 

 

Now that is hilarious.

 

Sub .500 teams do not make the playoffs or play in the Super Bowl.

 

Those are the only teams Fitz can beat.

Chalk Fitz down for 2 Ws against you. He can totally beat that defense. He won't be confused by any of the crap that they will try to throw his way. He's seen it before. As for last year. Say whatever you want but they did beat your best players incl.Brady and Gronk. And we had players out too. It was December. Everyone has injuries.  And you're the ones who screwed up in OT. So accept that L and stop making excuses for it. You lost. 

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, Beerfish said:

Like who? Please name all the players.  Liked the Wilkerson pick, i called the richardson pick in a mock, loved the williams pick, liked the david harris pick.  From this year, like the jenkins, burris, peake picks and liked our UDFA crop. 

Hated the Hackenburg and Lee picks.  Lee's made some nice plays but has made some big errors as well, Hackenburg is a non entity.

So then what are you always whining for?  Everyone loves all the picks that worked out, but you kill every draft.  But more to the point, why would you even think that we might be in a position to draft a top of the draft QB,next year? While liking the players brought in? 

Name all the big errors Lee has made because he's undersized and not because he's got two games on his resume.   Name all the errors that he's made that others taken in he lower 3rd of 1st shouldn't make.  Give the kid a break already.  He leads the team in tackles and did a good job shadowing and hitting Taylor Thursday night

Any QB would have been a non entity.  Unless we moved up for a Wentz or Goff, still not sure even in that case, we weren't starting a rookie QB.  

[bealeb319]

Never worth bombing a season to take one player. Quite a few very decent to elite qbs have been found in the bottom of the first or later. Rodgers, Wilson, Bridgewater, Carr to name a few. We can find our franchise QB without bombing a season.

[The Walrus]

Having the right front office and coaching available to a drafted QB is more important IMO than whichever QB you draft (within reason).

As an example, I think Petty is a much better QB right now with the Jets than he would have been if he had been drafted by say the Browns or Colts. All because I believe we have a far better coaching staff at maturing our QB's. Just IMO.

[drdetroit]

1 hour ago, PatsFanTX said:

 

 

Now that is hilarious.

 

Sub .500 teams do not make the playoffs or play in the Super Bowl.

 

Those are the only teams Fitz can beat.

Good point

 

so do you still think Mac is an idiot  for not "upgrading" with Kirk Cousins ?

[T0mShane]

5 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Evidently the OP thinks its a bad idea.  To those who don't, sure, let's tell Nick Mangold, Brandon Marshall, Eric Decker, Matt Forte, and Ryan Fitzpatrick all to suck so the franchise can get rid of all of them and start from scratch.

 

1. **** those guys. Decker is the only one of those likely to be here in two years. 

2. They're drafting CBS and tackles next year, anyway.

[j4jets]

5 hours ago, bostonmajet said:

Out of the 33 QBs drafter over the 12 years, 9 are already out of the NFL, 16 are still starters (15 if you don’t count Bridgewater), but 2 of those are on their 2nd or 3rd team (Alex Smith and Sam Bradford). If you discount the 4 current starters from 2014 and 2015 (as they are very new), that leaves 12 starters (10 on the teams that drafted them).

Maybe 8 of drafted QBs are considered above average while only 6 are considered top 15; additionally, only 4 have received rings.

More importantly, for the teams that drafted them, only 4 have rings; the more surprising team is the Titans with 3 first round QB selections (Young, Locker, Mariota) and the team still stinks.

In fact Carolina (with superman) is the most recent team to find any real success (if you don’t count the colts getting close with luck - but getting blown out of the championship game) with there #1 pick.

In summary, drafting a QB in the 1st is a total crap shoot; It normally (and recently) takes 4 to 5 years for the team to be successful, and it sometimes take 6-8 years for the QB to mature and often doesn’t find success until his second team.

For those who want the Jets to give up the store to move up (or suck enough) and select a QB in 1st, you are likely looking at many years of unhappiness. Of course, you can go the way of the Broncos and GB and draft in the 20s, sit him and hope for the best.

FYI, teams seemed to have as much success recently drafting in the second (Dalton, Kapernick, Osweller, Geno Garappalo, Carr) all 6 started (for a variety of reasons) with 3 current starters - 2 of which are considered quality QBs and the 3rd is still young.

Yeah, its always a great idea to suck when you just spend millions in cap from future years. 

[j4jets]

1 hour ago, PatsFanTX said:

Now that is hilarious.

Sub .500 teams do not make the playoffs or play in the Super Bowl.

Those are the only teams Fitz can beat.

Im not a Fitz lover but didn't he beat ya'll last year? Were you a sub .500 team? Jets won 10 games. Thats not sub .500. Now your IQ...thats a different story. 

[The Crusher]

Im waiting for a tall skinny anemic looking kid we draft in the 7th.

[New York Mick]

This stupid ******* question every year. 

[De-Jet-Erate/Duane]

44 minutes ago, New York Mick said:

This stupid ******* question every year. 

I hear ya. It doesn't usually start till about half way through the season, this year we are blessed with this crap in week 3.

[Larz]

browns have dibs

[bostonmajet]

1 hour ago, New York Mick said:

This stupid ******* question every year. 

After reading the quote about Wentz being in the list of 5 QBs (including Leaf, Sanchez, ..) wining their first 2 games, I decided to do some research about how effective 1st round picks have been and how long they took to pay off. Granted the title was a bad choice, I thought the discussion was worthwhile. And, it clearly wasn't the standard 'suck for luck' discussion. I have to wonder if you even read the discussion (that I put quite a bit of effort into), but next time I will check you list of valid topics.

I would imagine that your insights are so amazing... can't wait for your next thread. 

[Ohio State NY Jets fan]

1 hour ago, Larz said:

browns have dibs

Agreed, Jets would not have a chance, I thought the Colts made it too obvious, the Browns are writing a new chapter, Rookie first-round pick Corey Coleman broke his hand during practice today...

 

[Larz]

29 minutes ago, bostonmajet said:

After reading the quote about Wentz being in the list of 5 QBs (including Leaf, Sanchez, ..) wining their first 2 games, I decided to do some research about how effective 1st round picks have been and how long they took to pay off. Granted the title was a bad choice, I thought the discussion was worthwhile. And, it clearly wasn't the standard 'suck for luck' discussion. I have to wonder if you even read the discussion (that I put quite a bit of effort into), but next time I will check you list of valid topics.

I would imagine that your insights are so amazing... can't wait for your next thread. 

yeah but...you can't plan on doing it.  you can't bench healthy star players or punt on 3rd down.  you can't ask players to throw a game.  it either happens or it doesn't, so its really not worth discussing it as a conscious plan, which is why these threads get panned

[New York Mick]

1 hour ago, bostonmajet said:

After reading the quote about Wentz being in the list of 5 QBs (including Leaf, Sanchez, ..) wining their first 2 games, I decided to do some research about how effective 1st round picks have been and how long they took to pay off. Granted the title was a bad choice, I thought the discussion was worthwhile. And, it clearly wasn't the standard 'suck for luck' discussion. I have to wonder if you even read the discussion (that I put quite a bit of effort into), but next time I will check you list of valid topics.

I would imagine that your insights are so amazing... can't wait for your next thread. 

It's a dumbass topic that comes up every year. 

[bostonmajet]

2 hours ago, Larz said:

yeah but...you can't plan on doing it.  you can't bench healthy star players or punt on 3rd down.  you can't ask players to throw a game.  it either happens or it doesn't, so its really not worth discussing it as a conscious plan, which is why these threads get panned

I was not suggesting anything of the sort. The point was to show that drafting QBs in the first is a crap shoot; you still need to build a quality team around the QB and even if you draft correctly it can take 5+ years for it to pay off. Basically, I am saying drafting a QB in the 1st would guarantee another 5 years of misery, unless you do what the team is doing now - wining while they can and trying to grow a QB from 2nd and 4th round picks. And, maybe, not expect the guy to be good in his 2nd preseason game.

[bostonmajet]

1 hour ago, New York Mick said:

It's a dumbass topic that comes up every year. 

So is Fitz is hot garbage, geno sucks, geno hasn't gotten a chance, fire Mac, .... in fact there are no unique perspectives on the whole site - maybe you should go elsewhere as you clearly didn't get my point or care. In fact, show us the way and start a great unique topic.... we are all waiting...

[New York Mick]

6 hours ago, bostonmajet said:

So is Fitz is hot garbage, geno sucks, geno hasn't gotten a chance, fire Mac, .... in fact there are no unique perspectives on the whole site - maybe you should go elsewhere as you clearly didn't get my point or care. In fact, show us the way and start a great unique topic.... we are all waiting...

Opinions about players and staff is a normal conversation. Suggesting the team  loses to get a better draft pick (QB) is ******* stupid and comes up every year even when we make the playoffs. If you posted here longer you'd know this. 

[bostonmajet]

1 hour ago, New York Mick said:

Opinions about players and staff is a normal conversation. Suggesting the team  loses to get a better draft pick (QB) is ******* stupid and comes up every year even when we make the playoffs. If you posted here longer you'd know this. 

For the last time, I am not suggesting it. Title may be bad, but before casting judgment you may want to actually read what I wrote.

[The Crusher]

15 hours ago, PatsFanTX said:

 

 

Now that is hilarious.

 

Sub .500 teams do not make the playoffs or play in the Super Bowl.

 

Those are the only teams Fitz can beat.

You are getting close.  Keep it up and you will be gone.  Book it.  

[UnitedWhofans]

15 hours ago, PatsFanTX said:

 

 

Now that is hilarious.

 

Sub .500 teams do not make the playoffs or play in the Super Bowl.

 

Those are the only teams Fitz can beat.

7-9 Seahawks. Won a playoff game

[Sperm Edwards]

We're about to find the flaw in the "draft a QB every year until you find one" idea when we have done it 2 years in a row so far, where more than one isn't ready or nearly-ready on draft day. Unless they give up on Petty or Hackenberg, they have trapped themselves by drafting 'raw with high potential' QBs in back to back drafts. What if Petty looks even better next year than this year, but MM and Bowles still aren't ready/willing to bet the season on him over a still-popular Fitzpatrick (or still feel Hackenberg isn't ready enough to be the #2 for the season)? Carry 4 QBs again?

What's the cutoff time to give to a raw project -- one that may take 3-4 years to develop (assuming he ever does)? You can draft someone like that, but after drafting 2 raw ones in a row, you almost have to stop drafting QBs because there aren't enough roster spots to stash them all for even the duration of their rookie contracts. Either that or you have to cut bait with one that still looks very promising, in whom you've invested 2-3 seasons bringing along slowly (the "right" way), but isn't quite ready yet (e.g. Petty), or cut bait with one you still like but isn't progressing quickly enough, even if you recently burned a high pick to get him in the first place (e.g. Hackenberg). Keep in mind, the GM has to make this evaluation before seeing them in any 2017 minicamp - let alone regular summer team camp in full pads - to make this draft-day decision. 

If one already looks like a bad/wasted pick, even in the eyes of those who drafted him, then the decision is easy: swallow your pride as a GM and admit you made a bad selection and cut one to make room for another. Well what if next year Petty looks like a #1 or #2 but, while Hackenberg is improved, he still looks like a #3 (you still don't yet trust him to go out there for weeks at a time should he be needed)? They'll still need a veteran (e.g. Fitz) to be the #1 or #2 in 2017, meaning the decision is to be willing to carry 4 again or stay away from QBs in the draft altogether. 

[The Crusher]

16 minutes ago, bostonmajet said:

For the last time, I am not suggesting it. Title may be bad, but before casting judgment you may want to actually read what I wrote.

Title makes you think you have the opposite view you do.  Appreciate the work you put in but it is a tad confusing.  Yes, it's obvious few people read the title and complained before they read a single word of your post.  

[NYs Stepchild]

29 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

We're about to find the flaw in the "draft a QB every year until you find one" idea when we have done it 2 years in a row so far, where more than one isn't ready or nearly-ready on draft day. Unless they give up on Petty or Hackenberg, they have trapped themselves by drafting 'raw with high potential' QBs in back to back drafts. What if Petty looks even better next year than this year, but MM and Bowles still aren't ready/willing to bet the season on him over a still-popular Fitzpatrick (or still feel Hackenberg isn't ready enough to be the #2 for the season)? Carry 4 QBs again?

What's the cutoff time to give to a raw project -- one that may take 3-4 years to develop (assuming he ever does)? You can draft someone like that, but after drafting 2 raw ones in a row, you almost have to stop drafting QBs because there aren't enough roster spots to stash them all for even the duration of their rookie contracts. Either that or you have to cut bait with one that still looks very promising, in whom you've invested 2-3 seasons bringing along slowly (the "right" way), but isn't quite ready yet (e.g. Petty), or cut bait with one you still like but isn't progressing quickly enough, even if you recently burned a high pick to get him in the first place (e.g. Hackenberg). Keep in mind, the GM has to make this evaluation before seeing them in any 2017 minicamp - let alone regular summer team camp in full pads - to make this draft-day decision. 

If one already looks like a bad/wasted pick, even in the eyes of those who drafted him, then the decision is easy: swallow your pride as a GM and admit you made a bad selection and cut one to make room for another. Well what if next year Petty looks like a #1 or #2 but, while Hackenberg is improved, he still looks like a #3 (you still don't yet trust him to go out there for weeks at a time should he be needed)? They'll still need a veteran (e.g. Fitz) to be the #1 or #2 in 2017, meaning the decision is to be willing to carry 4 again or stay away from QBs in the draft altogether. 

If there is a QB we like that drops to us next year then we will have to start Petty or trade/cut a QB. This approach does not mean you're locked in to drafting a QB every year. It only means that you're not going to pass on potential just because you already have a project. We're not going to use a spot on a QB that we don't believe in. 

Still have no problem carrying 4 QBs as long as they are young and improving. The last roster spots are always extra developmental players. Why not use them for QBs instead of developmental Oline or safeties if they are the most promising. 

Only if they are the most promising though. 

[Big Blocker]

12 hours ago, Larz said:

yeah but...you can't plan on doing it.  you can't bench healthy star players or punt on 3rd down.  you can't ask players to throw a game.  it either happens or it doesn't, so its really not worth discussing it as a conscious plan, which is why these threads get panned

Exactly.  This is a worthless thread.

[Big Blocker]

55 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

We're about to find the flaw in the "draft a QB every year until you find one" idea when we have done it 2 years in a row so far, where more than one isn't ready or nearly-ready on draft day. Unless they give up on Petty or Hackenberg, they have trapped themselves by drafting 'raw with high potential' QBs in back to back drafts. What if Petty looks even better next year than this year, but MM and Bowles still aren't ready/willing to bet the season on him over a still-popular Fitzpatrick (or still feel Hackenberg isn't ready enough to be the #2 for the season)? Carry 4 QBs again?

What's the cutoff time to give to a raw project -- one that may take 3-4 years to develop (assuming he ever does)? You can draft someone like that, but after drafting 2 raw ones in a row, you almost have to stop drafting QBs because there aren't enough roster spots to stash them all for even the duration of their rookie contracts. Either that or you have to cut bait with one that still looks very promising, in whom you've invested 2-3 seasons bringing along slowly (the "right" way), but isn't quite ready yet (e.g. Petty), or cut bait with one you still like but isn't progressing quickly enough, even if you recently burned a high pick to get him in the first place (e.g. Hackenberg). Keep in mind, the GM has to make this evaluation before seeing them in any 2017 minicamp - let alone regular summer team camp in full pads - to make this draft-day decision. 

If one already looks like a bad/wasted pick, even in the eyes of those who drafted him, then the decision is easy: swallow your pride as a GM and admit you made a bad selection and cut one to make room for another. Well what if next year Petty looks like a #1 or #2 but, while Hackenberg is improved, he still looks like a #3 (you still don't yet trust him to go out there for weeks at a time should he be needed)? They'll still need a veteran (e.g. Fitz) to be the #1 or #2 in 2017, meaning the decision is to be willing to carry 4 again or stay away from QBs in the draft altogether. 

This is a very fair point, and I will add it supports the get rid of Smith argument.  The bottom line is the Jets need to get more info on Petty BEFORE next off season, or the situation with Sperm's scenario here will be even worse than otherwise.

[Big Blocker]

20 minutes ago, NYs Stepchild said:

If there is a QB we like that drops to us next year then we will have to start Petty or trade/cut a QB. This approach does not mean you're locked in to drafting a QB every year. It only means that you're not going to pass on potential just because you already have a project. We're not going to use a spot on a QB that we don't believe in. 

Still have no problem carrying 4 QBs as long as they are young and improving. The last roster spots are always extra developmental players. Why not use them for QBs instead of developmental Oline or safeties if they are the most promising. 

Only if they are the most promising though. 

On your point it is fair as far as it goes, but it still amounts to locking the team into carrying four qb's not just for a season, or in this case hopefully only the early part of this season.  But carrying four as a year after year approach? That I think will eventually cost the team something.