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

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, Big Blocker said:

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.

Great post. Agree on everything, and no matter how much I looked at this or that option, the way things are, I keep coming back to the same two possibilities I started with (other than Petty sucking badly or supplanting Fitz before January, or obviously, an injury): Jets stay away from drafting a QB in 2017, or Jets carry 4 QBs in 2017.

It's this no-man's land of drafting projects with picks high enough that they can't be stashed on taxi squads, must be kept on the roster, but are just a roster-size handicap as rookies (and possibly into year 2). The cycle continues until one of them shows up. I suppose that could be the price paid, that until we find our guy we just keep 4 QBs. But that seems a bit of a handicap for a playoff (or near-playoff) team that is already at least somewhat handicapped at the most important position (in that he's not going to carry the whole team). But I'd rather do that than bet on your most recent pick just because a 2nd rounder was spent. We did that with Geno and passed on multiple QBs (at least one of which, Garoppolo, that wouldn't have even cost a 1st round pick). It hurts all that much more with that pick being spent on the just-cut Amaro.

[Paradis]

1 hour ago, PepPep said:

Hack can be 'the guy' and he hasn't shown anything to think otherwise. 

Trading up for a QB with Hack still developing and showing promise does not make sense b/c it will cost a ton. 

 

[Freemanm]

Haven't we been asking this question every season for the past 5 seasons (since we found out that Sanchez sucked)? Win now, we have the tools

[Big Blocker]

2 hours 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. 

Agreed on the Smith being on the roster now doesn't make sense point, other than perhaps he's just there until Petty is healthy enough to suit up. Which may still happen.  But if not, and you are right about the impact that has on the situation with Petty and the rest, then it is precisely that situation that makes a 4 Qb situation more likely in 17.  The reason being that the Jets will enter the next draft with insufficient info on Petty and Hack to know that either will be cut or conversely set to the starting or even backup position.  So they draft another Qb if available in a higher round. That person once drafted will make the team in the same manner Hack did. 

As for who the starter will be in 17, at this point I think it likely the Jets will either go with Fitz another year, or another vet Qb being at least on the roster, probably signed through FA.   That is mostly because they will enter the next off season without having seen enough of Petty to think he could/even might be the starter. (this of course is a large part of why they wanted to sign Fitz to a multi-year deal.)

Now move forward to camp.  They are not going to cut the newest guy drafted unless he sucks even more than Hack did. I would say way more.  So you already have the vet Qb Fitz or Fitz alternative as one spot, and the new guy as two.  That leaves Petty and Hackenberg.  Unless neither develops at all past some indeterminate point, the Jets will again carry four Qb's, or end up cutting one despite their having developed. 

How can they avoid that?  Well, let's say Petty shows up and plays better than Fitz or the Fitz alternative vet.  I suppose they could cut someone they just signed to an FA contract.  That is unlikely, isn't it?

Again as I said before the issue becomes easy if Hack shows up and has shown no improvement.  But that would mean as I also said that the FA that drafted him at #2 would cut him before his second season and without his having played a single down in a real game.  Says here no FO is going to want to do that unless they feel compelled to.  ANd I mean really compelled to.

THey have already shown a willingness to carry four qb's.  Says here as well they will find that easier to do again than to cut Hack in camp next year.

[Big Blocker]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Great post. Agree on everything, and no matter how much I looked at this or that option, the way things are, I keep coming back to the same two possibilities I started with (other than Petty sucking badly or supplanting Fitz before January, or obviously, an injury): Jets stay away from drafting a QB in 2017, or Jets carry 4 QBs in 2017.

It's this no-man's land of drafting projects with picks high enough that they can't be stashed on taxi squads, must be kept on the roster, but are just a roster-size handicap as rookies (and possibly into year 2). The cycle continues until one of them shows up. I suppose that could be the price paid, that until we find our guy we just keep 4 QBs. But that seems a bit of a handicap for a playoff (or near-playoff) team that is already at least somewhat handicapped at the most important position (in that he's not going to carry the whole team). But I'd rather do that than bet on your most recent pick just because a 2nd rounder was spent. We did that with Geno and passed on multiple QBs (at least one of which, Garoppolo, that wouldn't have even cost a 1st round pick). It hurts all that much more with that pick being spent on the just-cut Amaro.

No man's land indeed.  There are some things the FO could have done that would have avoided this situation, and I know one of them - trading for Bradford - is something you thought was a bad idea.  Taking Bradford himself out of the equation, I suppose the Jets could avoid all this by trading for a quality Qb next off season who is young enough to be more than the hold the fort caretaker guy Fitz is.

Or they could luck out even though not having a high first round pick and get a Qb in the draft who is so good he can start next year.  We both know what the chances are of that happening.

So in defense of the FO they kind of have to keep picking Qb's in the draft, and ones who have enough of a prospect that you can't risk sending them to the practice squad.  And that leads to the four Qb scenario.

[NYs Stepchild]

4 hours 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.

You can't be a slave to a system. Most teams would not take a QB even if they liked them if they had other projects already. I don't agree with that. I also don't agree with taking one if a value doesn't present itself. For two years we've taken QBs with untapped prototype potential. If there's not a guy like that available when we pick then you move on to next year. If there is someone like that available you take him and sort it out later. 

It's like BPA. You take the BPA within reason. If you see a superstar of course you have no choice no matter what position he is. If not then you don't overlook the fit in your scheme, and your needs.  

[CanadaSteve]

3 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

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. 

I was more meaning in the future Sperm.  Let's say Petty pans out, and is a clear number one.  That would not stop me from drafting a good prospect and developing them so when the time comes to showcase them, someone at some point would give a good pick for one.

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, NYs Stepchild said:

You can't be a slave to a system. Most teams would not take a QB even if they liked them if they had other projects already. I don't agree with that. I also don't agree with taking one if a value doesn't present itself. For two years we've taken QBs with untapped prototype potential. If there's not a guy like that available when we pick then you move on to next year. If there is someone like that available you take him and sort it out later. 

It's like BPA. You take the BPA within reason. If you see a superstar of course you have no choice no matter what position he is. If not then you don't overlook the fit in your scheme, and your needs.  

Most teams would take a QB if the value presented itself for them, even if they have a starter. There was no controversy with who the QB is in NE for some time, and they still would draft the likes of Kevin O'Connell in the 3rd round. They mistakenly felt he provided value there. Green Bay didn't need a QB when they used a 1st round pick on Rodgers. He was 4 years into a 10 year contract, and still playing at a high level. They correctly felt Rodgers provided value to them there. Those are just some extreme examples, but there are plenty more where it's less eyebrow raising because of the late rounds in which a new QB was drafted.

The whole point of this system such as this is precisely to be a slave to it. The idea is that you cannot wait 2 years between the last one brought in when planning for the future. Otherwise all you're doing is drafting for value if value is there. Well duh, that's what every team does every year at positions all over the field. This is not like BPA, though -- this is: take (or otherwise bring in) a QB every single year until you find one. Not take one, then don't take one, then take one if there's value, but maybe not, etc. Teams have always done that, so there would be no significance to such a "system" if you're not adhering to it. In other words, as I was inferring, that's not anything teams haven't already been doing for decades. The whole point of there being a difference is doing it every year come hell or high water.

Early, late, whatever. You bring in a new QB every single year if you don't have your QB of the future (beyond just the present season) on the roster. 

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

I was more meaning in the future Sperm.  Let's say Petty pans out, and is a clear number one.  That would not stop me from drafting a good prospect and developing them so when the time comes to showcase them, someone at some point would give a good pick for one.

If Petty pans out this year (which would require a Fitz or team meltdown or Fitz injury), then they'd have to still hang onto Hackenberg until they can display to the public that he might be something beyond a shot in the dark prospect. Yes, then in that case, they could trade him (or trade Petty, I suppose, but I'd hope they take the guy they think is better, not the guy who necessarily was drafted earlier). 

[Sperm Edwards]

5 hours 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.

Petty shouldn't have even been on the field that last game. If the purpose was to seal a competition for the #2 job between him and Geno then both of them should have been in there. No, they'd decided Geno was #2 and Petty was #3 before that game, which is why they didn't let Geno play. Petty's injury had nothing to do with his spot in the pecking order, as it happened after that had already been set.

Petty's a young backup. As long as running the huddle or staring down a pass rush sans red jersey doesn't make him panic and/or piss himself, that's enough to promote him to #2. At some point, bringing along slowly can cross over to coddling.

There's another possibility, that Petty looked much worse than we realize in practice between fan-viewable appearances, but I think the team would have leaked that in light of Geno's unpopularity and the unpopular decision (at least among fans) to keep him as the #2 ahead of Petty. It's also possible that they're ok with Petty taking over as the #2 guy, but in the event of a Fitz injury, they don't want him blamed for ruining the season so he'll get bumped ahead of Geno if Fitz makes it through the first 5-6 games unscathed. I still think they'd roster Geno for the final 1-2 months, just because they'll be due a conditional draft pick when someone else signs him. His next contract won't be for much, but it'll be above the league minimum. That's reaching, but I'm trying to give these guys the benefit of the doubt that they're thinking that far ahead, as they should be doing.

[SenorGato]

So is this DeShone Kizer guy from ND worth some hype? This is only his second year starting but it seems like he's got NFL potential on paper.