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

[Rangers9]

Just to throw my two cents in on the original premise. I haven't read all of the replies so I'm not commenting on any of the side arguments. But I don't believe in tanking. Top draft picks are not sure things. Guys like Watts were drafted around 11 and they are better than overall ones like Clowney. Goff so far does not look like he's going to be elite although I'm not condemning the kid yet he's got years to prove his value. But finally this is a year we can be competitive. Our team stacks up with anyone and so far no major injuries. I've always felt we could compete this season. If the entire reason for getting a franchise Qb is to win why break up an already good team. And imo a good Qb on a good team can win it all. The franchise Qb is overrated in terms of winning games and rings. They are important but not essential. It's not worth losing for 10 years until you find one. Not a winning prescription. 

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, Big Blocker said:

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.

I agree. Because if we have a Fitz injury situation (while Petty is healthy) it is a prime opportunity to see Petty in control of the huddle with all the starters. That opportunity will be lost unless both Fitz and Geno are injured, or until Geno has enough additional poor outings to the point where he gets benched. Problem with that is the 2-4 (or more) starts deprived to Petty. 

[bostonmajet]

1 hour ago, The Crusher said:

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.  

Yeah, I gave it a crappy title and couldn't figure out how to change it; also, I had a frustrating day at work and have been a little cranky...

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour 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. 

Actually the approach does mean you draft or otherwise bring in a new a QB every year until one of them is both the present and long term starter. That's the whole point. Otherwise it's a different philosophy of: draft a QB if you see value and/or if you feel you've only got two sure-roster QBs heading into the draft. Every team already does that, more or less. 

To your first sentence, it means let go of (cut/trade/don't being back) one of Fitz, Petty, Hackenberg; or it means we go with 4 QBs again, swapping Geno with a 2017 rookie.

[Bruce Harper]

7-9 would be a bad year for this team.  Draft pick would not be high enough to get a good QB, unless some good fortune is involved.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, Bruce Harper said:

7-9 would be a bad year for this team.  Draft pick would not be high enough to get a good QB, unless some good fortune is involved.

7-9 would be bad because we're using significant future resources for this year. When one engages in that it's building for now more than for the future. Totally fine to do that, but not totally fine if the results are 7-9 or 8-8. 

[Powpow]

21 hours ago, bostonmajet said:

 

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.

Geno and success? Yea as the team's punching bag. 

[Jet_Engine1]

Yeah. Dashone Kizer or that Kaaya kid will fix everything.....

[JustInFudge]

12 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Actually the approach does mean you draft or otherwise bring in a new a QB every year until one of them is both the present and long term starter. That's the whole point. Otherwise it's a different philosophy of: draft a QB if you see value and/or if you feel you've only got two sure-roster QBs heading into the draft. Every team already does that, more or less. 

To your first sentence, it means let go of (cut/trade/don't being back) one of Fitz, Petty, Hackenberg; or it means we go with 4 QBs again, swapping Geno with a 2017 rookie.

If I were a betting man, Fitz is this regimes guy.  So you'll see Fitz>Hack and whoever for the next 3 years, assuming Bowles is here that long.  He's going to be just good enough to never give the kids a chance and never give the Jets a chance at an elite QB without some type of major trade up scenario.  

And then there's this; the Jets are loaded and are more than likely not making the postseason again...so how many years does Bowles get coming up short? You think he's going to risk his job by starting an inexperienced kid?  No way.  Not a chance.

 

 

[The Crusher]

17 minutes ago, bostonmajet said:

Yeah, I gave it a crappy title and couldn't figure out how to change it; also, I had a frustrating day at work and have been a little cranky...

I feel you there.  If I miss one of my 3 breakfast 4 lunches or 3 dinners I get little cranky as well. Post the title you want and I will change it for you.  

[Powpow]

18 hours 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.

If a top OT or CB is there in round 1 when we pick, that has to be the route. We are long in the tooth and deficient in both these areas. Of course free agency can supplant these concerns but premium young talent is desperately needed at OL and corner. 

[bostonmajet]

10 minutes ago, Powpow said:

Geno and success? Yea as the team's punching bag. 

No, but he did start a bunch of games for us (more than some 1st round busts); Kapernick was a starter for a while and had good success (until his big contract and injury), Dalton and Carr are doing well, and Osweller was good enough to get himself a bit FA contract (and likely Denver a decent comp. pick).

Until this year, they were the last 6 QBs drafted in the second round. All have had a certain amount of success (not saying Hack will be the same), but it appears without being handing the #1, sitting and learning (since they are cheaper), and then competing for the job without unreasonable expectations has worked out pretty well.

[Beerfish]

3 minutes ago, Powpow said:

If a top OT or CB is there in round 1 when we pick, that has to be the route. We are long in the tooth and deficient in both these areas. Of course free agency can supplant these concerns but premium young talent is desperately needed at OL and corner. 

That was the case in the 2nd round last year.  We took a massive project QB.  And this surely will be the excuse not to pick a top end QB if the situation arises in which we could get one.

[Powpow]

1 minute ago, bostonmajet said:

No, but he did start a bunch of games for us (more than some 1st round busts); Kapernick was a starter for a while and had good success (until his big contract and injury), Dalton and Carr are doing well, and Osweller was good enough to get himself a bit FA contract (and likely Denver a decent comp. pick).

Until this year, they were the last 6 QBs drafted in the second round. All have had a certain amount of success (not saying Hack will be the same), but it appears without being handing the #1, sitting and learning (since they are cheaper), and then competing for the job without unreasonable expectations has worked out pretty well.

Geno starting a bunch of games doesn't translate into 'success'. It depicts desperation because they just didn't have anyone else or had the hindsight to secure a better option. Geno's claim to suck has resulted in being the worst rated QB in the 2 years he 'started a bunch of games'. 

[Rangers9]

1 hour ago, Big Blocker said:

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.

I think we should carry the 4 Qbs. The return for Geno would be minimal. And we need backups for Fitz. So if you assume Hack is out of the picture for 2016. He shouldn't be imo when other rookie Qbs who are pressed to play are doing ok. So if Fitz is injured next man up is Geno. With a very simple play book. For once let us deal with him for what he is: a basic game manager. tt would be up to Gailey to work a game plan out for him and try to make it as simple as possible. He is not on the level as Fitz in terms of running the complete offense. He is on a short leash. After that next man up to start would be Petty. And there is a very good chance he would play because I doubt Geno would light it up. We did hear good things about Geno in OTAs etc but based on how they didn't use him in exhibition games you have to think it was all spin. 

[Powpow]

2 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

That was the case in the 2nd round last year.  We took a massive project QB.  And this surely will be the excuse not to pick a top end QB if the situation arises in which we could get one.

Agreed. No way we go QB in any round next year. Fitz is playing well. I wouldn't be a bit surprised he returns for another fling and gives the kids more time to develop. Petty has shown a lot of promising progress. They are high on Hack and may have the luxury to bring him along slowly ala Rodgers. 

[bostonmajet]

4 minutes ago, Powpow said:

Geno starting a bunch of games doesn't translate into 'success'. It depicts desperation because they just didn't have anyone else or had the hindsight to secure a better option. Geno's claim to suck has resulted in being the worst rated QB in the 2 years he 'started a bunch of games'. 

True, but the other 5 look good; even if he sucks (and half the site would argue he didn't get a fair chance). There are first round picks like Brady Quinn, etc. how never got to suck that much.

Either way, it appears that about %30 of firsts 'pan' out; while recently more 2nds have. I just thought it was interesting....

[Sperm Edwards]

16 minutes ago, JiF said:

If I were a betting man, Fitz is this regimes guy.  So you'll see Fitz>Hack and whoever for the next 3 years, assuming Bowles is here that long.  He's going to be just good enough to never give the kids a chance and never give the Jets a chance at an elite QB without some type of major trade up scenario.  

And then there's this; the Jets are loaded and are more than likely not making the postseason again...so how many years does Bowles get coming up short? You think he's going to risk his job by starting an inexperienced kid?  No way.  Not a chance.

 

 

 

Yeah.  What I'm saying - and perhaps it's a bit off topic but certainly related - is while the strategy of "draft a QB every year until you find one" sounds good as a tagline on a message board, it has a lot of "ifs" & is only realistic:

• if we're willing to carry 4 QBs every year during this process (essentially, carry two #3 QBs every year);
• if we make damn sure a super raw rookie gets "injured" wink-wink so he can be IR'd if he's working on basic mechanics far more than preparing for opponents;
• if we draft more-ready (not so raw) QBs, or certainly limit ourselves to only one such so-raw prospect, so we won't need a minimum of 3 seasons to really evaluate each of 3 QBs simultaneously;
• if we're willing to cut a still-promising/"maybe" kid we still like after 2 seasons, or an absolute maximum of 3 seasons, because that becomes the line in the sand time limit to bring one along slowly;
• if we limit the really raw subsequent prospects to last 2-3 rounds or UDFAs, so he can be confidently stashed on a practice squad as a rookie;
• if the team isn't otherwise contender-worthy, so an almost-ready kid like a 2nd-3rd year Petty (or a similar type kid the team likes each year more than the previous one) can be put onto the field starting in week 1 or by mid season at the very latest, to begin on-field evaluating as a leader and performer earlier, without worries about second guesses of missed team opportunities by promoting him over a "proven" veteran. This touches on your point above;
• if the veteran starter gets injured for an extended period of time, so you get an on-field look at a kid a season earlier than planned. This would seem to disqualify rostering Geno this year.

Conclusion: good chance of either carrying 4 QBs again next year or staying away from the position in the draft until 2018. That is, unless (on draft day) they are willing to cut ties with one of Fitz or Petty or Hackenberg (not retaining Geno being a given). 

I just think after taking the raw Petty, and spending so much future $ to make the team win-now with Fitz, the selection of Hackenberg screams of infatuation with Hackenberg the prospect more than careful team planning. I just hope that this infatuation isn't misguided, because beyond just the burned 2nd round pick, it further muddies the idea of selecting a QB in next year's draft.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, Beerfish said:

That was the case in the 2nd round last year.  We took a massive project QB.  And this surely will be the excuse not to pick a top end QB if the situation arises in which we could get one.

This is my biggest concern: that the non-selection of a QB in 2017 could (indirectly) come down to ego/pride. If Petty is either too close to being tryout-starter-worthy, or clearly showing he's capable of being the #2 (if far superior to Hackenberg), that would/should secure his roster spot. Then what? What if they bring back Fitzpatrick (a very good chance this happens)? Fitz locked in, Petty locked in, and then he just burned a 2nd rounder on a known long-term pick a year earlier. He'd look like an imbecile for cutting a project-type QB after only 1 season.

Unfortunately I think we go out of our way to avoid the position, even if value/opportunity presents itself. Maybe a 6th-7th rounder, with the hopes of stashing him on the taxi squad, but that's about it. Either that or we carry 4 for a second straight season. 

[Sperm Edwards]

9 minutes ago, bostonmajet said:

True, but the other 5 look good; even if he sucks (and half the site would argue he didn't get a fair chance). There are first round picks like Brady Quinn, etc. how never got to suck that much.

Either way, it appears that about %30 of firsts 'pan' out; while recently more 2nds have. I just thought it was interesting....

Unless the QB is a clear and obvious top 5 pick, I think the draft class quality more than the QB themselves dictates whether a QB is an upper 2nd or mid-lower 1st rounder. In the 2013 draft I doubt Carr or Garoppolo or others last as long. Likewise, had he come out a year later I have serious doubts EJ Manuel would sniff the 1st round (let alone the top half of the 1st round). Then there are just mindless + shocking 1st round picks like Tebow, which can just be dismissed outright. 

IMO QBs will always have some somewhat of a lower "pan out" result than most (if not all) other positions because of the desperation of teams without to find one. They just get special brownie points in prospect rating because of the position. It's just different, and it's totally understandable and obvious why.

Also, this "pan out" success is measured differently as well. A meh LB, DB, DL, WR, RB who isn't a disaster, well you can put him on the field in situations that play to his strength. He can play 40-60% of the snaps and still be considered a non-bust (or even a decent pick). At QB? He's on the field as the starter every down or he isn't on the field. It's all or nothing in terms of calling the pick a success. If you're going to count a non-every-down player at another position as panning out, then you kind of have to count QBs like Sanchez among those as panning out as well. 

[JoJoTownsell1]

Yeah, we need to suck and draft ourselves the next RG3, EJ Manuel, Tannehill, Locker, Gabbert etc...

 

You never want to suck for a QB because you never know if the QB is going to be the answer. If you happen to suck, fine, but you never want to suck. Drafting a QB is a crap shoot. Even Luck has looked pedestrian the last couple of years (likely because his team sucks, but still not impressive). 

[CanadaSteve]

Keep drafting QB's.  Imagine what New England could get for Garrapolo right now after showcasing him?  Look what People gave up for Matt Flynn.  If you draft smart QB's, let them develop, and then they get to showcase their talents, they will always net you something in return.

 

[bostonmajet]

25 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Unless the QB is a clear and obvious top 5 pick, I think the draft class quality more than the QB themselves dictates whether a QB is an upper 2nd or mid-lower 1st rounder. In the 2013 draft I doubt Carr or Garoppolo or others last as long. Likewise, had he come out a year later I have serious doubts EJ Manuel would sniff the 1st round (let alone the top half of the 1st round). Then there are just mindless + shocking 1st round picks like Tebow, which can just be dismissed outright. 

IMO QBs will always have some somewhat of a lower "pan out" result than most (if not all) other positions because of the desperation of teams without to find one. They just get special brownie points in prospect rating because of the position. It's just different, and it's totally understandable and obvious why.

Also, this "pan out" success is measured differently as well. A meh LB, DB, DL, WR, RB who isn't a disaster, well you can put him on the field in situations that play to his strength. He can play 40-60% of the snaps and still be considered a non-bust (or even a decent pick). At QB? He's on the field as the starter every down or he isn't on the field. It's all or nothing in terms of calling the pick a success. If you're going to count a non-every-down player at another position as panning out, then you kind of have to count QBs like Sanchez among those as panning out as well. 

I think this is more evident recently, not only QBs being selected in desperation, but also being drafted towards the end of the 1st. Looking back about 10 years ago, Rapesberger (11) and Aaron Rodgers (24) had a much higher success rate. Recently, the likes of Manzel and Tebow towards the back of the 1st round didn't. Not sure if it is a statistical anomaly, or with the new CBA people are jumping up into the first to get the 5th year option, but it hasn't panned out nearly as well.

[Sperm Edwards]

5 minutes ago, bostonmajet said:

I think this is more evident recently, not only QBs being selected in desperation, but also being drafted towards the end of the 1st. Looking back about 10 years ago, Rapesberger (11) and Aaron Rodgers (24) had a much higher success rate. Recently, the likes of Manzel and Tebow towards the back of the 1st round didn't. Not sure if it is a statistical anomaly, or with the new CBA people are jumping up into the first to get the 5th year option, but it hasn't panned out nearly as well.

Tebow and Manziel were special picks in their own right, though. Tebow, obviously, because (general athleticism aside) he has the windup of a high school girl. Manziel, because he has the maturity & wisdom of a spoiled elementary school girl. I think Manziel can do the job physically and Tebow mentally, but barring the singular desperation for filling the position neither should have been first round picks. 

The 5th year option is legitimate. If not for the hangup over the "first rounder" label it's a better deal than a high or mid 2nd rounder, especially if we're talking project prospects like Hackenberg or Lynch. We have to make a decision to commit to Hackenberg a year earlier than Denver with Lynch. Then in his 6th year, Lynch's cap number still won't be too high because it could be year 1 of a new contract. So he will be a bit higher in year 5 than Hackenberg on an extension, but Lynch won't have a true ballbuster cap number ($15M+ in today's cap dollars) until seasons 7 or even season 8 into his career. That's quite a long time before the piper needs to be paid, and as a GM it's what you want when drafting a prospect on the raw side.

We get a 5th year option for Lee, but it hardly seems worthwhile. By that, I mean it won't save a whole lot with him the way it did save a whole lot with Mo (or will save Denver a whole lot with Lynch, should he really pan out).

[Paradis]

[Sperm Edwards]

21 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

Keep drafting QB's.  Imagine what New England could get for Garrapolo right now after showcasing him?  Look what People gave up for Matt Flynn.  If you draft smart QB's, let them develop, and then they get to showcase their talents, they will always net you something in return.

 

Not really the same for us as for them. NE is still Brady's team, and GB was even more so Rodgers's team (since he was so much younger when they traded Flynn). Also I'd add NE with Cassel. In their eyes, they're giving up their #2 QB not their starter, and one they're going to lose shortly thereafter anyway, so it's found money.

For the Jets, we have no clear QB of the future beyond the present season or two max, so we'll be more reluctant to surrender Petty or Hackenberg should one show promise. Quite the contrary; we'd want him for ourself. Not having a Brady or Rodgers or younger franchise-QB type kind of kills their trade values, since the "Oh he's great we just don't need him for the next 3-4 years because we have Ryan Fitzpatrick and we'd lose him in FA anyway." Not going to fly.

Even in the absence of someone great, say we drafted Sanchez when Clemens had 2 years left on his rookie deal. Had Clemens had 1 or 2 lights out games, we could have unloaded him for at least the 2nd rounder we spent to draft him. He looked good, but it's obvious the team was committed to Sanchez. Like the way Washington could have gotten at least a 2nd rounder (maybe more) for Kirk Cousins while they were still RGIII's team (before his breakout 2015 season). Or Tampa with Glennon this past offseason (and IMO they really should have traded him). That's how that works. 

[Big Blocker]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

 

Yeah.  What I'm saying - and perhaps it's a bit off topic but certainly related - is while the strategy of "draft a QB every year until you find one" sounds good as a tagline on a message board, it has a lot of "ifs" & is only realistic:

• if we're willing to carry 4 QBs every year during this process (essentially, carry two #3 QBs every year);
• if we make damn sure a super raw rookie gets "injured" wink-wink so he can be IR'd if he's working on basic mechanics far more than preparing for opponents;
• if we draft more-ready (not so raw) QBs, or certainly limit ourselves to only one such so-raw prospect, so we won't need a minimum of 3 seasons to really evaluate each of 3 QBs simultaneously;
• if we're willing to cut a still-promising/"maybe" kid we still like after 2 seasons, or an absolute maximum of 3 seasons, because that becomes the line in the sand time limit to bring one along slowly;
• if we limit the really raw subsequent prospects to last 2-3 rounds or UDFAs, so he can be confidently stashed on a practice squad as a rookie;
• if the team isn't otherwise contender-worthy, so an almost-ready kid like a 2nd-3rd year Petty (or a similar type kid the team likes each year more than the previous one) can be put onto the field starting in week 1 or by mid season at the very latest, to begin on-field evaluating as a leader and performer earlier, without worries about second guesses of missed team opportunities by promoting him over a "proven" veteran. This touches on your point above;
• if the veteran starter gets injured for an extended period of time, so you get an on-field look at a kid a season earlier than planned. This would seem to disqualify rostering Geno this year.

Conclusion: good chance of either carrying 4 QBs again next year or staying away from the position in the draft until 2018. That is, unless (on draft day) they are willing to cut ties with one of Fitz or Petty or Hackenberg (not retaining Geno being a given). 

I just think after taking the raw Petty, and spending so much future $ to make the team win-now with Fitz, the selection of Hackenberg screams of infatuation with Hackenberg the prospect more than careful team planning. I just hope that this infatuation isn't misguided, because beyond just the burned 2nd round pick, it further muddies the idea of selecting a QB in next year's draft.

All good points, but at the very end the Hackenberg pick I think was likely made in part for a reason that supports your overall point, but you did not make.  And that is that the Jets drafted him BEFORE they could see in camp whether and how much progress Petty made since last season.  In other words the TIMING of the draft compared to opportunities to assess your developing Qb's in camp and pre-season makes the whole strategy even more problematic. 

Picking Hack would not have looked quite so bad even if his play was the very same as we have seen if one of two things happened.  Let's say Petty went on to show up at camp and sucked.  Got cut.  Then they would have been down to 3, most likely, and also down to developing only one Qb.  That additional roster spot would have gone to someone else.  Alternatively (and putting aside that I already think this occurred, but bear with me) Petty showed up and outplayed Smith to the extent that they cut Smith, and same result.  Down to 3, Petty as #2, Hack the developmental prospect, and the additional spot goes to someone else.

It's the middle ground where at least in the apparent eyes of the CS and FO where Petty developed "enough" to be retained and not risked going to the practice squad, but not enough to supplant Smith, that has led to the current situation.  And that is the situation where the Hack pick has become more problematic. 

So, next year what's to stop the TIMING of the draft still being such that we won't know enough about Hack vis a vis Petty to avoid both the perceived need to draft another Qb in a higher round, and end up with four Qb's again on the roster?  Unfortunately I can see that being a very plausible, even likely, scenario.  Here's how:

Fitz either plays the whole season, or if not the Jets play Smith.  Petty they see in practice, but even if he does well there, the Jets go into next off season's draft not knowing if he can get it done in real games. ANd knowing even less about Hack.  So Smith finally gets cut, but the Jets still do not know enough/have confidence enough to rely on Petty or Hack as the STARTER, even if say they do feel comfortable with Petty as the #2.  Given that situation, the most likely approach assuming Fitz does well enough is they bring Fitz back as the starter for another year.  But they STILL won't have confidence in who the starter will be in 18, so they draft another Qb in a higher round.

After the draft they eventually get to camp.  Petty confirms he's developed that much further that they feel comfortable with him as the #2, but unless by then they've NOT yet signed Fitz (not to digress but I think this is not going to happen; next year Fitz if he has a good year this year will be signed by the Jets again or someone else will - alternatively if he sucks/retires/gets badly hurt the Jets will have to go vet FA anyway unless they feel Petty is good enough to start - which they will NOT feel unless he's played real games this season), Petty has no practical shot at proving himself ready to take over #1.  Meanwhile (hopefully) Hack shows development, too.  But enough to pass Petty on the depth chart?  Or too little where they can risk sending him to the practice squad?  Meanwhile they added another Qb in the draft.  No way THAT person gets cut.

End result?  Four Qb's are retained on the roster for another year.

[Big Blocker]

The most likely way the Jets would avoid retaining 4 Qb's yet again next year is if Petty looks in camp next year very much like he'll be ready to be the starter in 18, and Hack remains behind him on the depth chart, and NOT looking like a candidate to challenge Petty before the 18 season.  But who wants that?  Even then the FO will face the choice of cutting Hack or retaining four yet again (because they've just picked another Qb in the draft and will not cut him).  That choice will be easy if Hack falls below some level of improvement from this year.  But no one wants him to do that, of course, and even if he's less than stellar, I think it unlikely he will be so much less that the choice becomes an easy one of cutting your second round pick from the prior year who as a practical matter by then will not have played a single down in a real game.  Says here no FO would want to make that decision.  So Hack would have to be really bad for it to be an easy choice.

[bostonmajet]

I find it hard to believe that the Jets will carry 4 next year.

Whether we do well or not, I can imagine these are the two scenarios:

Fitz is back, Petty is #2, Hack #3;

Fitz is not back (either the Jets didn't have a good year and Petty stepped in) or Fitz had a great year and we can't afford him...

We bring in someone to compete with Petty and they are #1 and #2, hack is #3.

 

If Petty cannot at a minimum take the #2 next year, he is gone (probably during TC/start of season)

If Hack hasn't shown enough to be either #2 or promising, he is gone.

Unless the Jets ultimate dream QB falls in their laps I don't see the Jets drafting a QB in the first 2 days of the draft. If they do draft a QB that they want to sit, either Petty or Hack are shown the door (if Petty cannot start) and they bring in someone else. I find it hard to believe they would bring back Fitz to start, draft another QB in the first 3 rounds, and keep both Petty and Hack.

[PepPep]

So, no, obviously the Jets are not tanking for a high 1st round pick to draft a QB- what nonsense. 

But also, for now, you simply cannot discount Hack or Petty as potential 'Franchise QBs'. Sorry, I don't care what you think about the pick, Hack can be 'the guy' and he hasn't shown anything to think otherwise. 

Having said that, odds are the Jets move away from Fitz next year. Odds are they let Geno walk. They will have an opportunity to draft another QB and roll with Petty or Hack as the starter OR sign another vet (who knows, might even be Fitz).

Regardless, I think Macc will continue drafting BPA in the first round. And often times, UNLESS YOU HAVE A TOP 5 PICK, that player is NOT going to be a QB. Trading up for a QB with Hack and Petty still developing and showing promise does not make sense b/c it will cost a ton. Too big of a gamble and too often ends up hurting your team.   

[slats]

Geno and Fitz' contracts both expire next year, with Fitz costing $5M against the 2017 cap. Maybe if Fitz is completely lights out, they can extend him during the season and lessen that cap charge, but I don't know. I don't think so. 

Once the Jets made the decision to bring Fitz back at his stupid contract, and Petty played adequately in the preseason, Geno should've been let go. Petty should be getting the #2 reps right now, and Hack should be running the scout team so they can better evaluate both of them. Having not done what I thought was the only logical thing to do, it makes it harder for me to predict what they'll do in the future. But I'll try...

Fitz comes back next year only if he finishes strong and the Jets make the playoffs. Or they really feel like Petty and Hack haven't improved nearly enough. If they think one or both of the kids is ready to compete for the starting job, they bring in another, less expensive, vet to compete. If they don't think that, they could give up on Petty and take another QB anywhere in the first four rounds. But again, this is why I think it's a mistake to have Geno on the roster right now. They should be forming their future QB decisions in practice today, with as much information as they can gather. 

Hate to see this four QB nonsense again. 

[New York Mick]

2 hours ago, bostonmajet said:

Yeah, I gave it a crappy title and couldn't figure out how to change it; also, I had a frustrating day at work and have been a little cranky...

I had cranberry juice helps. 

[Beerfish]

6 minutes ago, slats said:

Geno and Fitz' contracts both expire next year, with Fitz costing $5M against the 2017 cap. Maybe if Fitz is completely lights out, they can extend him during the season and lessen that cap charge, but I don't know. I don't think so. 

Once the Jets made the decision to bring Fitz back at his stupid contract, and Petty played adequately in the preseason, Geno should've been let go. Petty should be getting the #2 reps right now, and Hack should be running the scout team so they can better evaluate both of them. Having not done what I thought was the only logical thing to do, it makes it harder for me to predict what they'll do in the future. But I'll try...

Fitz comes back next year only if he finishes strong and the Jets make the playoffs. Or they really feel like Petty and Hack haven't improved nearly enough. If they think one or both of the kids is ready to compete for the starting job, they bring in another, less expensive, vet to compete. If they don't think that, they could give up on Petty and take another QB anywhere in the first four rounds. But again, this is why I think it's a mistake to have Geno on the roster right now. They should be forming their future QB decisions in practice today, with as much information as they can gather. 

Hate to see this four QB nonsense again. 

I agree with most of what you say.  One had to wonder what effect the Petty injury had.  They really could not punt Geno until they know that Petty is ready to go.  They may also be leery about removing a QB becasue of what has happened to other teams so early in the season.

[bostonmajet]

2 minutes ago, New York Mick said:

I had cranberry juice helps. 

You 'had' it - lol; not that kind of cranky... this is more of a beer/wings, scotch type of cranky.

[UnitedWhofans]

33 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

I agree with most of what you say.  One had to wonder what effect the Petty injury had.  They really could not punt Geno until they know that Petty is ready to go.  They may also be leery about removing a QB becasue of what has happened to other teams so early in the season.

And we have a trade chip to play with