Paxton Lynch starting for the Broncos

[drdetroit]

3 minutes ago, PatsFanTX said:

 

Nobody will be leaving.
 

 

JI doesn't exist anymore where else would you go to brag about how smart you are because your a fair weather pats fan

[munchmemory]

18 hours ago, Beerfish said:

Our depth chart:

Ryan Fitzpatrick

Bryce Petty

Geno Smith

.

.

.

.

Hackenburg.

 

The less you play the better you are, we all know this.  Fug, Cody Kessler has been competent with the Browns, Prescott a revelation with Dallas.

Our boy is so bad he can't beat out any of the triumvirate of evil.

[Beerfish]

6 minutes ago, drdetroit said:

I didn't even want Hackenburg but to bash this guy is so unfair.  

 

 

You realize Lynch was 3rd on Denver's depth chart until they made a rash decision to cut Sanchez?  If Siemian gets injured again Denvers season is over

Sanchez is like a rash, keeps coming back when he should be out of the league.  I'm bashing our front office for picking hack, i am sure hack is a very nice boy.

[drdetroit]

1 minute ago, Beerfish said:

Sanchez is like a rash, keeps coming back when he should be out of the league.  I'm bashing our front office for picking hack, i am sure hack is a very nice boy.

And if we drafted Lynch in the first we'd be 0-5 now and you'd be bashing him as a bust

[PepPep]

On 10/9/2016 at 9:00 AM, FTL Jet Fan said:

Well, I guess we will get a glimpse of what we passed on today. This is not a I hate the Lee pick thread, because I am happy with his play and he is a Jet and Lynch is not.. I am just curious to see how Lynch does against Atlanta. I will reserve judgment on Hack until CS staff feels he is ready. Holding out hope for Petty and Hack. 

 

 

 

There's three ways to look at this, IMO. I tend to focus on #2 and I think you have to compare Lynch to Hack b/c Macc made a conscious decision to pass on Lynch because he saw something in Hack. Hindsight is 20/20 but as a GM you have to take the brunt of the criticism from poor drafting, just like you should get credit for good drafting. 

1. How good will Lee become compared to Lynch. If both end up being Pro-Bowlers but neither win a SB, its probably a push. I know QB is a more important position, but if you don't win, does it really matter? 

2. How good will Lynch be compared to Hack. Obviously, the Jets were looking closely at QBs. Obviously, they really liked Hack. Obviously they had a chance to draft Lynch and chose not to. Regardless of how well Lynch does this season, you have to give Hack a chance to show what he can do before you can truly judge the Jets passing on Lynch and taking Lee. B/C even if Lee is a bust, what matters is whether or not they hit on Hack- the QB they really wanted, the QB that made them want to pass on Lynch (presumably).

3. It really doesn't matter, you cannot judge players in a vacuum. Hack may have turned out to be a star on a different team, Lynch may have turned out to be a bust on a different team and vice versa.  

[UnitedWhofans]

Just now, PepPep said:

There's three ways to look at this, IMO. I tend to focus on #2 and I think you have to compare Lynch to Hack b/c Macc made a conscious decision to pass on Lynch because he saw something in Hack. Hindsight is 20/20 but as a GM you have to take the brunt of the criticism from poor drafting, just like you should get credit for good drafting. 

1. How good will Lee become compared to Lynch. If both end up being Pro-Bowlers but neither win a SB, its probably a push. I know QB is a more important position, but if you don't win, does it really matter? 

2. How good will Lynch be compared to Hack. Obviously, the Jets were looking closely at QBs. Obviously, they really liked Hack. Obviously they had a chance to draft Lynch and chose not to. Regardless of how well Lynch does this season, you have to give Hack a chance to show what he can do before you can truly judge the Jets passing on Lynch and taking Lee. B/C even if Lee is a bust, what matters is whether or not they hit on Hack- the QB they really wanted, the QB that made them want to pass on Lynch (presumably).

3. It really doesn't matter, you cannot judge players in a vacuum. Hack may have turned out to be a star on a different team, Lynch may have turned out to be a bust on a different team and vice versa.  

There's no evidence to support that. Now if Lynch were available when Hackenberg was picked, THEN you can say that.

[PepPep]

10 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

There's no evidence to support that. Now if Lynch were available when Hackenberg was picked, THEN you can say that.

Of course there's evidence to support that. I mean, you can argue that Macc did not have Lynch OR Hack in the first round on his board. But the fact is he looked closely at both QBs, drafting a QB was critical for the Jets in this draft- there was no secret about it, and Macc had a chance to draft Lynch and passed. It's obvious he preferred Hack and felt he could have him in the 2nd round (in fact many said he reached or him in the 2nd). I mean, Macc would know for sure, but I doubt it was a situation where Mac would have taken Lynch in the second round over Hack had both been there. I just don't buy that. Macc HAD to have known Lynch was not going to slip out of the first. Nobody thought he would, while MANY believed Hack would drop, possibly into the 3rd or 4th round. If Macc liked Lynch, and didn't like Hack, he would have taken him instead of Lee. Or at the very least secure another draft pick in the 1st to take both.   

[UnitedWhofans]

Just now, PepPep said:

Of course there's evidence to support that. I mean, you can argue that Macc did not have Lynch OR Hack in the first round on his board. But the fact is he looked closely at both QBs, drafting a QB was critical for the Jets in this draft- there was no secret about it, and Macc had a chance to draft Lynch and passed. It's obvious he preferred Hack and felt he could have him in the 2nd round (in fact many said he reached or him in the 2nd). I mean, Macc would know for sure, but I doubt it was a situation where Mac would have taken Lynch in the second round over Hack had both been there. I just don't buy that. Macc HAD to have known Lynch was not going to slip out of the first. Nobody thought he would, while MANY believed Hack would drop, possibly into the 3rd or 4th round. If Macc liked Lynch, and didn't like Hack, he would have taken him instead of Lee. Or at the very least secure another draft pick in the 1st to take both.   

1. That's speculation. There was thought that he would draft another, but nothing set in stone.

2. Did he? Macc could have easily thought Lynch would go higher.

3. Not sure about that either. If he liked Lee more than Lynch, he would take Lee. Macc believes in BPA, regardless of position. 

[Beerfish]

1 hour ago, drdetroit said:

And if we drafted Lynch in the first we'd be 0-5 now and you'd be bashing him as a bust

He wouldn't be playing but he'd at least not be a tiny dot at the end of the bench who they might work  to fix next year.

[Mogglez]

4 hours ago, Big Blocker said:

I get you are in love with your POV on Lynch, but just stop.  He had poise without any prep against TB and was effective.

I don't give a  sh!t whether you are tired about Denver.  They are the defending SB champs.  That counts for something with me even if it doesn't with you.  But just keep patting yourself on the back for your POV.  Which I don't follow, and don't know why I should.

1. No he didn't.  I'm not calling him a bust but the early returns from both of those games show that he still is very far from ready.  Btw, even if he DID look good in TB, looking good against a bad team who didn't build their gameplan around you is exactly how Matt Flynn got all his money and opportunities.  I'm more concerned with how he looks against a decent team who has film on him and prepped for him.  That was Atlanta and they blew him off the face of the Earth.

2. My real point of view on Lynch is that it's too early to judge either way, he's clearlt far from ready, and that the other post was more of a jab at posters who sh*t all over our GM for disagreeing with them, then the second they look like morons they go into hiding. If you actually read the posts instead of jumping the gun you'd know that.  Hell, I gave you the opportunity to do just that and you just assumed my stance without actually reading it.

3. You can disagree with what I said about Denver all you want, it doesn't make it any less of a fact.  Elway drafted Osweiler and wanted to give him 16 million a year.  He's really lucky that Brock is a stubborn butthurt child and chose Houston instead because it saved him from looking like an idiot during his first "big boy" decision as a GM.  If you really look at his career in Denver, he has done nothing impressive but sign FA's using Manning as bait.  9/10 operating that doesn't result in a championship (i.e. Mike Tannenbaum), so kudos to him.  I can't take that away from hom, but I can sure as hell critique his other work.  Sooner or later those contracts are going to be up and he's going to need to have viable replacements.  With no Peyton Manning to draw guys in at discount prices, he better draft well.

[drdetroit]

I don't get the logic of using Hackenburg to deflect from the fact that Lynch absolutely stinks

 

Even if hack sucks he was a 2nd rd pick Lynch was a 1st

[Beerfish]

5 minutes ago, drdetroit said:

I don't get the logic of using Hackenburg to deflect from the fact that Lynch absolutely stinks

 

Even if hack sucks he was a 2nd rd pick Lynch was a 1st

Except he doesn't stink and hackenburg is so far below just about any other QB drafted this past year it is laughable.  Other than those details there is nothing wrong with your spot.

[drdetroit]

1 hour ago, Beerfish said:

Except he doesn't stink and hackenburg is so far below just about any other QB drafted this past year it is laughable.  Other than those details there is nothing wrong with your spot.

Did you see Lynch play last Sunday?

 

Wake up

 

[Sperm Edwards]

On 10/10/2016 at 5:37 PM, win4ever said:

Lynch to me isn't ready, which was why I didn't want to pick him in the first round.  He definitely has some potential, but I didn't like some of the things I saw on tape.  I would love to see how he transitions from fastball all the time to some touch throws with accuracy.  His potential is through the roof, but it's going to take him atleast a year to look comfortable, which was why I wanted to pass on him in the first.

....Unfortunately, this was also why I wanted to pass on Hackenberg in the second.....so....umm

I hate this rationale. If we're realistic Superbowl contenders this year - and only if we're Superbowl contenders this year - that can be rationalized.

We were not realistic contenders just because we beat the weak and infirmed last year. Plus we need a long term solution at QB. 

If he simply didn't want Lynch at all, fine. However, if he liked Lynch and basically passed on him so we could get 1 additional starter year out of Darron Lee in 2016, I think that's pretty shortsighted.

[Jet Nut]

On 10/11/2016 at 4:25 PM, Big Blocker said:

You're a big fan of red herrings, I see. 

I watched Lynch his first game, and he looked good.  This was after the Denver FO traded up for him, and after the Jets took Hack who played for the most part like sh!t in camp.  And then the Jets FO stashed him for a whole season when the other Qb's are mediocre (Fitz) to awful (Smith) to unproven (Petty).  But I didn't see anyone say this alone means Hack is destined to fail.  No one DISMISSED Hack.  At most some did, and still have reason to, question how the way the Jets are handling him and how he as performed so far relates to whether it is reasonable to have confidence in him. 

Do YOU have confidence in Hackenberg?  If not, it's time to stuff your red herring.

No one dismissed Hack? 

Lol, sure. 

[Jet Nut]

9 hours ago, Beerfish said:

Except he doesn't stink and hackenburg is so far below just about any other QB drafted this past year it is laughable.  Other than those details there is nothing wrong with your spot.

You're a piece of work.  Lynch looks bad and you're defending his lousy play.

Hack hasn't play but you trash him.

Laughable?  

[UnitedWhofans]

Simean starting tonight. Lynch goes back to the bench

[Beerfish]

14 hours ago, drdetroit said:

Did you see Lynch play last Sunday?

 

Wake up

 

66% comp rate, 1 td, 1 int, 223 yards.

First start ever as a rookie, played well in relief the week before.

[Beerfish]

6 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

You're a piece of work.  Lynch looks bad and you're defending his lousy play.

Hack hasn't play but you trash him.

Laughable?  

HAHAHAHAH  this is your point?  Hack isn't playing because he stinks, he is so far from the realm of being a starter it's a joke.  The less guys play the better they are theory always a sound one when you look so bad you can't beat out Ryan Fitzpatirck, Bryce Petty or Geno Smith.

[Jet Nut]

24 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

HAHAHAHAH  this is your point?  Hack isn't playing because he stinks, he is so far from the realm of being a starter it's a joke.  The less guys play the better they are theory always a sound one when you look so bad you can't beat out Ryan Fitzpatirck, Bryce Petty or Geno Smith.

You say he stinks.  You didn't like the pick.  You don't like Lee.  You whine about draft picks, sight unseen. It's what you do.  You have no clue how far he is from starting.  But you'll keep saying he's far from starting because he isn't.   

[drdetroit]

7 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

You're a piece of work.  Lynch looks bad and you're defending his lousy play.

Hack hasn't play but you trash him.

Laughable?  

He's not high enuff on da depth chart a der der

[drdetroit]

33 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

HAHAHAHAH  this is your point?  Hack isn't playing because he stinks, he is so far from the realm of being a starter it's a joke.  The less guys play the better they are theory always a sound one when you look so bad you can't beat out Ryan Fitzpatirck, Bryce Petty or Geno Smith.

You're actually trusting Todd Bowles' ability to evaluate qb's?

 

A real coach like Belichek benches Fitz after week 1

 

[UnitedWhofans]

47 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

66% comp rate, 1 td, 1 int, 223 yards.

First start ever as a rookie, played well in relief the week before.

And yet he is back on the bench.

[Beerfish]

17 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

You say he stinks.  You didn't like the pick.  You don't like Lee.  You whine about draft picks, sight unseen. It's what you do.  You have no clue how far he is from starting.  But you'll keep saying he's far from starting because he isn't.   

I whine about what I perceive as lousy draft picks, I give high praise for what I perceive as good draft picks.  Hack is not sight unseen, looked bad at the combine, couldn't get time in camp, other than one nice pass looked terrible in ex games, is not close to the other jag qbs on our roster while other teams later round picks are looking at least reasonable.

How far from starting?  He's behind Fitz, Geno and Petty I know that and our oc said we will fix his mechanics.....next year.

[Beerfish]

22 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

And yet he is back on the bench.

As he should be. 

[Jet Nut]

25 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

I whine about what I perceive as lousy draft picks, I give high praise for what I perceive as good draft picks.  Hack is not sight unseen, looked bad at the combine, couldn't get time in camp, other than one nice pass looked terrible in ex games, is not close to the other jag qbs on our roster while other teams later round picks are looking at least reasonable.

How far from starting?  He's behind Fitz, Geno and Petty I know that and our oc said we will fix his mechanics.....next year.

He's sight unseen.  He's never played a down of football with or against starting caliber NFL talent.  He couldn't get time in camp because that was the plan, not because he sucks as you deduce to fit your argument.  If we drafted Dak or any other QB you now praise, they would have sat too. 

How far from starting?  How do any of us know?  He looks good next camp when he's getting time, why can't he pass Petty or whoever?  You don't have any insight one way or another. 

[UnitedWhofans]

1 hour ago, UnitedWhofans said:

And yet he is back on the bench.

SO if you can accept Lynch on the bench, why not Hackenberg. Especially since Hackenberg probably needs it

[Skeet Ulrich]

9 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

SO if you can accept Lynch on the bench, why not Hackenberg. Especially since Hackenberg probably needs it

Different circumstances. The Broncos are competing for the SB, the Jets are competing for a top 10 draft pick. There's no point in starting Fitz anymore. Geno's not an option and Petty's still hurt. Hack should play.

 

[drdetroit]

4 hours ago, UnitedWhofans said:

And yet he is back on the bench.

Where he'll be unless Siemian gets hurt

 

Lynch blows

[ljr]

8 hours ago, drdetroit said:

 

 

A real coach like Belichek benches Fitz after week 1

 

Only if he has a better QB for the team on the roster ... And in that case the better QB would have started week 1

[win4ever]

On 10/13/2016 at 3:07 AM, Sperm Edwards said:

I hate this rationale. If we're realistic Superbowl contenders this year - and only if we're Superbowl contenders this year - that can be rationalized.

We were not realistic contenders just because we beat the weak and infirmed last year. Plus we need a long term solution at QB. 

If he simply didn't want Lynch at all, fine. However, if he liked Lynch and basically passed on him so we could get 1 additional starter year out of Darron Lee in 2016, I think that's pretty shortsighted.

I think it's more complicated though.

If say there is a can't miss player like Peyton, then you take the risk.  But otherwise I think it's a playing time issue.

I'm thinking in terms of stocks, because I think any high pick QB gets three years to prove himself.  If we take out the one year for sitting, we're losing 1/3rd of that cheap QB deal value, so we have to be extra sure that guy is going to be good in his 2nd and 3rd year.

In Lynch's case, he has potential but a lot of problems on tape as well.  For a second round pick, you can take the risk that he bombs, but for a first round pick, the risk is too much.  If a first round pick is getting the house, a second is betting the car, and I'm not convinced enough on the guy to bet the house.

If Lynch was guaranteed to be good in one year, then yes.  But he isn't and neither is Hackenberg.  

I thought someone like Cook or Brandon Allen were better values in later rounds.

[drdetroit]

10 minutes ago, win4ever said:

I think it's more complicated though.

If say there is a can't miss player like Peyton, then you take the risk.  But otherwise I think it's a playing time issue.

I'm thinking in terms of stocks, because I think any high pick QB gets three years to prove himself.  If we take out the one year for sitting, we're losing 1/3rd of that cheap QB deal value, so we have to be extra sure that guy is going to be good in his 2nd and 3rd year.

In Lynch's case, he has potential but a lot of problems on tape as well.  For a second round pick, you can take the risk that he bombs, but for a first round pick, the risk is too much.  If a first round pick is getting the house, a second is betting the car, and I'm not convinced enough on the guy to bet the house.

If Lynch was guaranteed to be good in one year, then yes.  But he isn't and neither is Hackenberg.  

I thought someone like Cook or Brandon Allen were better values in later rounds.

The tape I watched I'm surprised both lynch and Goff were rated as high as they were.  They were both one read spread formation qb's in college.  Lynch at least was athletic but so was Vince Young

 

Neither of them had any business being a first round pick.

[win4ever]

3 minutes ago, drdetroit said:

The tape I watched I'm surprised both lynch and Goff were rated as high as they were.  They were both one read spread formation qb's in college.  Lynch at least was athletic but so was Vince Young

 

Neither of them had any business being a first round pick.

I liked Goff better because he put touch on his passes.  I think the biggest problem for a guy like Lynch is that defenses are going to create angle problems where he has to throw a perfect fastball to complete it, instead of dropping the ball over the top.

[Sperm Edwards]

51 minutes ago, win4ever said:

I think it's more complicated though.

If say there is a can't miss player like Peyton, then you take the risk.  But otherwise I think it's a playing time issue.

I'm thinking in terms of stocks, because I think any high pick QB gets three years to prove himself.  If we take out the one year for sitting, we're losing 1/3rd of that cheap QB deal value, so we have to be extra sure that guy is going to be good in his 2nd and 3rd year.

In Lynch's case, he has potential but a lot of problems on tape as well.  For a second round pick, you can take the risk that he bombs, but for a first round pick, the risk is too much.  If a first round pick is getting the house, a second is betting the car, and I'm not convinced enough on the guy to bet the house.

If Lynch was guaranteed to be good in one year, then yes.  But he isn't and neither is Hackenberg.  

I thought someone like Cook or Brandon Allen were better values in later rounds.

I'm not going to pretend I followed these guys in college because I didn't. Thing is if Lynch does take 2-3 years, despite all the jeers and claims of "bust" and what a stupid pick it was, in the end it's the right move. There are few positions (if there are any) that will so dramatically reverse a team's fortunes like a QB. And Darron Lee, at his position, is super-unlikely to be such a person himself.

Who was "guaranteed to be good in year one"? Off the top of my head: Goff, Winston, Luck, maybe RGIII, maybe Ryan, Leinart, maybe Alex Smith, Eli. Now, how many of these actually were good in year 1? Kinda Winston, kinda Luck, RGIII was awesome, Ryan was good, and...that's it. Goff, Leinart, Alex Smith, Eli -- these guys were guaranteed good year 1 and simply weren't.

There are no QBs "guaranteed" to be good in year one. They don't exist, except in hindsight, which isn't the same thing. So if you like someone, and think he'll be good pretty soon (even if not in year 1) then go get him. 

My issue with Hackenberg isn't that he doesn't have the tools -- I think everyone who hated the pick acknowledges he has elite potential physically. It's not that he isn't good in year one. It's that he isn't good enough to be 3rd string in year 1. But like I said with Lynch, if he takes 3 years and then looks really good, no one will care if we reached for him 3 drafts earlier.

[T0mShane]

The closest Jets fans ever get to the feeling of having a good quarterback is by rooting for other teams to not have good quarterbacks.