Derek Carr and Raiders on MNF

[SAR I]

1 hour ago, jamesr said:

6 RBs, 6 OL, 3 WRs - the highest of which being Stephen Hill

Ground and pound baby! Who needs a passing game!! Yes, we picked up Braylon and Holmes on the cheap at WR, but they were short term guys who we later replaced with Clyde Gates, David Nelson, Greg Salas and the like, because we had NO-ONE coming through to take over those roles.

15 years since we last took a WR in Round 1; 8 years since we took a TE there. 26 years since we took a RB in Round 1 - I guess Blair Thomas scarred this organisation for good!

Bingo.

The same people who cry over passing on Wilson and Carr are the same people who ran Mark Sanchez out of town because Brandon Moore's ass and inability to fight off a rusher embarrassed them on social media.  We had a fantastic quarterback prospect and we didn't even try to see what his potential was.  Cry over that.

SAR I

[OH THE PAIN]

2 hours ago, jamesr said:

Stephen Hill

 

[ZachEY]

1 minute ago, SAR I said:

Bingo.

The same people who cry over passing on Wilson and Carr are the same people who ran Mark Sanchez out of town because Brandon Moore's ass and inability to fight off a rusher embarrassed them on social media.  We had a fantastic quarterback prospect and we didn't even try to see what his potential was.  Cry over that.

SAR I

You always talk about fans making too big a deal out of the buttfumble.  In reality, it seems as if it's you who's making too much of it.  Was it embarrassing?  Yes.  Was it a terrible play?  Yes.  Was it the reason we wanted Sanchez gone?  Hardly.

He was disliked, because despite having some success as a team with him behind center, he was statistically one of the worst QBs in the league, considering both standard and advanced metrics.  He also and perhaps most importantly, is the league leader in turnovers per game since he entered the league.  You can disagree all you want, but to say that the fanbase turned on him because of one play, which, while absurd, didn't affect the outcome of the game at all, is revisionist if not disingenuous.

[maury77]

The point is, the Jets need to realize that this is a passing offense driven league and draft that way for the next 2-3 years. Load up on offense over the next couple of years. 

[Adoni Beast]

QB was always the most important position in the league, but over the last decade its extended its importance even further. Just get the quarterback. All else is moot, and spinning your wheels.

Even if we has faith in Geno before 2014, he wasn't a cemented franchise player. I was banging on my table as I'm sure most of you were to get Carr, for Garropollo, for Bridgewater. This is why Idzik was so stupid. Geno finished 2013 decent, so they had hopes. he also had historically putrid games .But so what?! Draft Carr let them duke it out and if Carr beats him out you have a trade chip young qb in geno who showed some potential that a team would maybe bite on, or he becomes your backup.

I'll give Mac this...he at least is trying to find a qb and isn't stopping until we find one. Petty was good value worth risk. Hackenberg, there were reports all last year before the season even ended that Mac loved Hack. Took balls to draft him.

This draft too if he's got a shot I hope Mac goes after another and another and another, until we have the guy.

Until then we'll be "rebuilding" ever year for a chance at a wild card.

[Adoni Beast]

Also until we have a franchise quarterback, our only options at a head coach will be coordinators, as first time head coaches. Any coach worth anything is going to want the job that has that position solidified or in the position to get their pick. The Jets are never bad enough to get first or second pick. 

Get the quarterback, or it wont matter who we have as coach or who we draft at other positions.

[phill1c]

Just now, Adoni Beast said:

Also until we have a franchise quarterback, our only options at a head coach will be coordinators, as first time head coaches. Any coach worth anything is going to want the job that has that position solidified or in the position to get their pick. The Jets are never bad enough to get first or second pick. 

Get the quarterback, or it wont matter who we have as coach or who we draft at other positions.

I have to disagree.

Look at Aaron Rodgers, Andrew Luck, for two examples. Both are considered "franchise" QB and for the last couple of years, what? Nothing special. Yes, the QB is an important position. And you surely can't have a loser like Fitzpatrick under center. But I think there are a number of non-"franchise" QBs that would do, like Cousins. Like Russell Wilson, who wasn't anything special until given the opportunity. Certainly doesn't have the "measurables".

It's the intangibles about a QB that make him special. And you can't know about those until you give a guy a chance. IT could be the No. 1 pick or a 6th rounder. You just have to give a guy a chance. And you certainly can't stick with a loser when you don't know if you have a winner already on your roster.

[Adoni Beast]

1 minute ago, phill1c said:

I have to disagree.

Look at Aaron Rodgers, Andrew Luck, for two examples. Both are considered "franchise" QB and for the last couple of years, what? Nothing special. Yes, the QB is an important position. And you surely can't have a loser like Fitzpatrick under center. But I think there are a number of non-"franchise" QBs that would do, like Cousins. Like Russell Wilson, who wasn't anything special until given the opportunity. Certainly doesn't have the "measurables".

It's the intangibles about a QB that make him special. And you can't know about those until you give a guy a chance. IT could be the No. 1 pick or a 6th rounder. You just have to give a guy a chance. And you certainly can't stick with a loser when you don't know if you have a winner already on your roster.

I agree with you. When I say "franchise quarterback" my definition would include eli and flacco. Not elite, but good. You make a great point about Luck, and I agree you have to fill out the rest of the roster. Thats what good gm's do. Unfortunately, for the colts their gm is awful.

The point I was making was until we find our qb, we can have an amazing roster but it wont win us a super bowl. Not with today's rules. We need the QB, then build around him. 

[phill1c]

3 minutes ago, Adoni Beast said:

The point I was making was until we find our qb, we can have an amazing roster but it wont win us a super bowl. Not with today's rules. We need the QB, then build around him. 

Then you really don't agree with me.

I think you have to improve the team ALL AROUND. If you have the team already built, THEN  you can go for a so-called Franchise QB. Only then. Because if you have a sh*tty offensive line, for example, no QB is going to survive being hit 10 times a game. if your receivers suck, NO QB can fit a ball into a well-covered receiver consistently enough to matter. and then there's the fact that with great offensive personnel, like the Cowboys have, virtually ANY QB can do well. Maybe not 9-1, but can do better than our guy.

I respect your comment though, it was very respectful response...

[Adoni Beast]

13 minutes ago, phill1c said:

Then you really don't agree with me.

I think you have to improve the team ALL AROUND. If you have the team already built, THEN  you can go for a so-called Franchise QB. Only then. Because if you have a sh*tty offensive line, for example, no QB is going to survive being hit 10 times a game. if your receivers suck, NO QB can fit a ball into a well-covered receiver consistently enough to matter. and then there's the fact that with great offensive personnel, like the Cowboys have, virtually ANY QB can do well. Maybe not 9-1, but can do better than our guy.

I respect your comment though, it was very respectful response...

Yea you make good points. If you have a swiss cheese oline you might David carr your qb. Ok lets meet in the middle. Stock up that oline and draft us a stud qb in 2018? Deal? Deal! (Chestbump)

[rangerous]

23 hours ago, August said:

The prior regime felt they had a young QB on their roster that they felt worthy enough to develop. Can't fault them for that. Hindsight is 20/20. 

that was okay until sanchez went down in the preseason forcing geno to start.  there is just no telling how geno could've played had he sat for a couple of seasons.  and even after sitting under bowles it's still hard to know.  he sort of looked okay in the ravens game.  but more telling is how many qb's have come and gone under idzik.  rex forced him to draft the kid from clemson but other than that did the rex/idzik regime put qb as a high priority?  it doesn't seem like it unless geno was their guy from day one.

[SAR I]

3 hours ago, gEYno said:

You always talk about fans making too big a deal out of the buttfumble.  In reality, it seems as if it's you who's making too much of it.  Was it embarrassing?  Yes.  Was it a terrible play?  Yes.  Was it the reason we wanted Sanchez gone?  Hardly.

He was disliked, because despite having some success as a team with him behind center, he was statistically one of the worst QBs in the league, considering both standard and advanced metrics.  He also and perhaps most importantly, is the league leader in turnovers per game since he entered the league.  You can disagree all you want, but to say that the fanbase turned on him because of one play, which, while absurd, didn't affect the outcome of the game at all, is revisionist if not disingenuous.

It seemed to me that prior to the Buttfumble the fans still believed that he had a chance to become the franchise guy we've been waiting for and that as the weeks went by in the offseason and the play was repeated ad nauseum on ESPN that momentum bulit against him.

Forgetting the fumble however, you still have the issue of us never seeing the guy with a set of WR's as good as he had in the Plaxico Burress, Braylon Edwards, Santonio Holmes, Ladanian Tomlinson '09-'10 era in the '11-'12 era and that's what bothers me and frankly should bother every Jets fan.  With the right weapons and a decent offensive coordinator he was effective, certainly worth investing in.

SAR I

[joewilly12]

1 minute ago, SAR I said:

It seemed to me that prior to the Buttfumble the fans still believed that he had a chance to become the franchise guy we've been waiting for and that as the weeks went by in the offseason and the play was repeated ad nauseum on ESPN that momentum bulit against him.

Forgetting the fumble however, you still have the issue of us never seeing the guy with a set of WR's as good as he had in the Plaxico Burress, Braylon Edwards, Santonio Holmes, Ladanian Tomlinson '09-'10 era in the '11-'12 era and that's what bothers me and frankly should bother every Jets fan.  With the right weapons and a decent offensive coordinator he was effective, certainly worth investing in.

SAR I

Mark Sanchez was the best QB this team has had in a very long time..........

[ZachEY]

7 minutes ago, SAR I said:

It seemed to me that prior to the Buttfumble the fans still believed that he had a chance to become the franchise guy we've been waiting for and that as the weeks went by in the offseason and the play was repeated ad nauseum on ESPN that momentum bulit against him.

Forgetting the fumble however, you still have the issue of us never seeing the guy with a set of WR's as good as he had in the Plaxico Burress, Braylon Edwards, Santonio Holmes, Ladanian Tomlinson '09-'10 era in the '11-'12 era and that's what bothers me and frankly should bother every Jets fan.  With the right weapons and a decent offensive coordinator he was effective, certainly worth investing in.

SAR I

At least here on JN, and my IRL Jets friends, it seemed that general opinion was never really that optimistic outside of a few guys.  The hope was that he would eventually turn the corner, cut down on the mistakes, protect the football, and improve his accuracy.  None of that ever happened.  But, the general consensus seemed to be along the lines of maybe he could get better, but we're winning in spite of him.  The metrics support this.

Over time, certainly it was disappointing to lose the quality of weapons he had at his disposal... I don't think anyone would deny that.  But that was the bill coming due for Tannenbaum's spending spree that built the 09-10 teams.  The expectation was that in year 3, Mark Sanchez would take the step forward he needed to overcome the loss of weapons he was faced with.  He never took that step forward.  A lot of fans, I don't remember what the overall mood was, but many thought at that point that yes, the weapons got worse, but Sanchez was the exact same player he was in year 1 and 2, he just couldn't be protected/hidden anymore and we couldn't win while protecting/hiding a QB anymore.  His post-Jets career arch seems to support this explanation too.

[joewilly12]

1 minute ago, gEYno said:

At least here on JN, and my IRL Jets friends, it seemed that general opinion was never really that optimistic outside of a few guys.  The hope was that he would eventually turn the corner, cut down on the mistakes, protect the football, and improve his accuracy.  None of that ever happened.  But, the general consensus seemed to be along the lines of maybe he could get better, but we're winning in spite of him.  The metrics support this.

Over time, certainly it was disappointing to lose the quality of weapons he had at his disposal... I don't think anyone would deny that.  But that was the bill coming due for Tannenbaum's spending spree that built the 09-10 teams.  The expectation was that in year 3, Mark Sanchez would take the step forward he needed to overcome the loss of weapons he was faced with.  He never took that step forward.  A lot of fans, I don't remember what the overall mood was, but many thought at that point that yes, the weapons got worse, but Sanchez was the exact same player he was in year 1 and 2, he just couldn't be protected/hidden anymore and we couldn't win while protecting/hiding a QB anymore.  His post-Jets career arch seems to support this explanation too.

He or the Jets never took the step forward with out without Sanchez we still won nothing but 2 AFC Championship almost games. 

Ironically we havent had a QB who has taken us to the playoffs since Mark Sanchez. 

Hard pressed to blame him and knock his post Jets career when the team itself hasnt progressed in any way. 

[SAR I]

59 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

He or the Jets never took the step forward with out without Sanchez we still won nothing but 2 AFC Championship almost games. 

Ironically we havent had a QB who has taken us to the playoffs since Mark Sanchez. 

Hard pressed to blame him and knock his post Jets career when the team itself hasnt progressed in any way. 

Agreed.

He also showed enough in those two seasons to believe that Tony Sparano and terrible receivers were the problem in his development. We'll never know. 

SAR I

[joewilly12]

Just now, SAR I said:

Agreed.

He also showed enough in those two seasons to believe that Tony Sparano and terrible receivers were the problem in his development. We'll never know. 

SAR I

So true SAR I he's a free agent this year coming up and if the situation doesn't get any better here id be all for bringing him back. 

[NoBowles]

1 hour ago, joewilly12 said:

He or the Jets never took the step forward with out without Sanchez we still won nothing but 2 AFC Championship almost games. 

Ironically we havent had a QB who has taken us to the playoffs since Mark Sanchez. 

Hard pressed to blame him and knock his post Jets career when the team itself hasnt progressed in any way. 

Rex Ryan owes any success he had to Mark Sanchez and Eric Mangini. 

[joewilly12]

1 minute ago, NoBowles said:

Rex Ryan owes any success he had to Mark Sanchez and Eric Mangini. 

Agree Rex inherited the team. 

[detectivekimble]

20 hours ago, Raideraholic said:

No Jon Gruden was a big Johnny Manziel fan( tried to convince the Raiders Brass to take him).    Mark Davis was always a big Derek Carr fan .( probably bummed they didn't take him at five- no way he wasn't their pick if he was on the board in the second).

No team has a handle on the Qb position.( a lot of luck involved).   For Teams to pass on Derek Carr because his brother didn't pan out was silly.     Connor Cook to not go higher because he wasn't voted team captain was another blunder teams will be kicking themselves for years.

Connor Cook is going to be a very good Qb in this league for a long time -just won't be in a Raider uniform.  ( very impressed with his whole game).

Things have been working out for the Raiders lately, but some of it was luck.  Mack is better than Clowney, but would the Raiders have taken Mack if Clowney and Mack were both sitting there?  Probably not.  Value met need where they picked Cooper.  Al Davis may have taken Kevin White.

Carr and Mariota are the next big things and the Raiders are here to stay.

[win4ever]

16 hours ago, SAR I said:

Great post. 

Please post the same level of detail for Mark Sanchez 2011 and 2012. 

The real tragedy here isn't who we passed over. It's who we threw away.  We had a prospect better than almost everyone on your recents list who had major success, gave him Tony Sparano and a cast of grocery baggers, and ran him out of town.  

SAR I

Sanchez started off well because he was surrounded by talent in a very good O-line, good RBs, and they got Santonio, Braylon, Crotchery already here, LT, Keller

The issue was that, they completely abandoned that idea, and went all in on defense after that and offense turned horrible.  

[Jet Nut]

15 hours ago, SAR I said:

Agreed.

He also showed enough in those two seasons to believe that Tony Sparano and terrible receivers were the problem in his development. We'll never know. 

SAR I

The problem with Mark Sanchezs development was Mark Sanchez.  He never took the step and developed.  It's too convenient and weak to blame others for his lack of development.  He had the NFLs best defense, best running game a top OL and decent to better WRs and was a 3100 yard QB with too many turnovers.  

No one game or season ended it for Sanchez, it was his inability to get better and in fact he regressed.  Butt fumble was just an unfortunate side note.

He pretty much never showed anything that made you think he could develop beyond what we saw from him

 

[SAR I]

11 hours ago, win4ever said:

Sanchez started off well because he was surrounded by talent in a very good O-line, good RBs, and they got Santonio, Braylon, Crotchery already here, LT, Keller

The issue was that, they completely abandoned that idea, and went all in on defense after that and offense turned horrible.  

Precisely.

This rationale that "Sanchez was only really good when surrounded by talent" isn't some excuse-  it was the Jets whole strategy.  Build a defense like the '85 Bears, build an all-weather Ground & Pound rushing attack, and find a game managing quarterback with some comeback ability who can step up and play big in big games.

We had that in Mark Sanchez. 

But when the D fell apart and Ladanian Tomlinson retired and Shonn Greene got fat we could no longer make big stops on D and we could no longer let the run open up the pass.  So Mark Sanchez was asked to be Dan Fouts throwing 40 times a game and Tony Sparano was not exactly capable of running Air Coryell.  The irony?  Mark Sanchez on last year's team with last year's schedule and last year's offense and D and WR's makes the playoffs.

SAR I

[SAR I]

5 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

The problem with Mark Sanchezs development was Mark Sanchez.  He never took the step and developed.  It's too convenient and weak to blame others for his lack of development.  He had the NFLs best defense, best running game a top OL and decent to better WRs and was a 3100 yard QB with too many turnovers.  

No one game or season ended it for Sanchez, it was his inability to get better and in fact he regressed.  Butt fumble was just an unfortunate side note.

He pretty much never showed anything that made you think he could develop beyond what we saw from him

While the D may have been good in spots, the receivers were among the league's worst in 2011 and 2012 and Tony Sporano was clueless, it wasn't set up for Mark to succeed, it was set up for him to fail. 

And what we saw from Mark Sanchez in the playoffs was more than enough to win the Super Bowl. He was probably the best player on the field in the two Championship games, played really well under pressure and in the fourth quarter, hallmarks of a potentially championship caliber quarterback. 

SAR I

[Xtina]

On 11/22/2016 at 2:02 PM, varjet said:

The Jets reached for Hack basically because the Vikings and Raiders "reached" for Bridgewater and Carr, and they got good starting QBs out of it.

The question is whether Hack was worth it.  We are not going to find out unless he plays.

The Jets picked these 2 QBs but do not appear to have the coaching staff/resource/smarts to develop them.  It should not take years in this NFL to develop a decent QB-certainly one better than Fitz.   The entire coaching program needs to be rexamined.

Wonder how long before Mac has enough of it 

[Xtina]

On 11/23/2016 at 3:07 PM, NoBowles said:

Rex Ryan owes any success he had to Mark Sanchez and Eric Mangini. 

So? 

[NoBowles]

4 hours ago, Xtina said:

So? 

So what?

[Jet Nut]

9 hours ago, SAR I said:

While the D may have been good in spots, the receivers were among the league's worst in 2011 and 2012 and Tony Sporano was clueless, it wasn't set up for Mark to succeed, it was set up for him to fail. 

And what we saw from Mark Sanchez in the playoffs was more than enough to win the Super Bowl. He was probably the best player on the field in the two Championship games, played really well under pressure and in the fourth quarter, hallmarks of a potentially championship caliber quarterback. 

SAR I

Never did I watch Mark Sanchez and think i was watching a championship caliber QB.  And other than a game or two out of 6 playoff games I never looked at him as the best player on the field or anyone with a minimal hand in the outcome of the game

[Jet Nut]

11 hours ago, SAR I said:

Precisely.

This rationale that "Sanchez was only really good when surrounded by talent" isn't some excuse-  it was the Jets whole strategy.  Build a defense like the '85 Bears, build an all-weather Ground & Pound rushing attack, and find a game managing quarterback with some comeback ability who can step up and play big in big games.

We had that in Mark Sanchez. 

But when the D fell apart and Ladanian Tomlinson retired and Shonn Greene got fat we could no longer make big stops on D and we could no longer let the run open up the pass.  So Mark Sanchez was asked to be Dan Fouts throwing 40 times a game and Tony Sparano was not exactly capable of running Air Coryell.  The irony?  Mark Sanchez on last year's team with last year's schedule and last year's offense and D and WR's makes the playoffs.

SAR I

1. Sanchez was never really good. 

2. Stop blaming Sporano, Sanchez was a bust by the the time he was the OC. 

3. Sanchez was never asked to be Dan Fouts.  They tried to open things up and run a NFL offense in his 3rd season and he failed miserably.  

4. Sanchez is no guarantee to make the playoffs if he was here or anywhere last season.  He showed that he's incapable of not making a boatload of mistakes still with a really loaded Broncos team.

[NoBowles]

11 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

Never did I watch Mark Sanchez and think i was watching a championship caliber QB.  And other than a game or two out of 6 playoff games I never looked at him as the best player on the field or anyone with a minimal hand in the outcome of the game

Yeah, I guess you make a great point. When a guy who probably should have been in college for his senior year is not the best player on the field, and looking like a Championship QB, he just never will. 

[phill1c]

"And other than a game or two out of 6 playoff games..."

When he outplayed Brady and Brees and Rothlesberger...

Say what you want, the Jets ruined him by not surrounding him with talent. I'm not saying he was elite, but the Jets were so far from elite around him for his non-playoff seasons, we're STILL looking for OL, RB, TE talent 3 years later.

[NoBowles]

9 minutes ago, phill1c said:

"And other than a game or two out of 6 playoff games..."

When he outplayed Brady and Brees and Rothlesberger...

Say what you want, the Jets ruined him by not surrounding him with talent. I'm not saying he was elite, but the Jets were so far from elite around him for his non-playoff seasons, we're STILL looking for OL, RB, TE talent 3 years later.

Rex absolutely destroyed him. He put SB or bust on Sanchez, took away his favorite 2 targets, and replaced them with awful players who were out of football the next year, let his Oline go to crap and then put a defense out that was not even that great.

Then, he brought in Soprano as his OC! 

But hey, Rex would have been cool to tailgate with so lets put 100% of the blame on the young QB who was drafted too high and give the fat loudmouth man baby a full pass.

[Joe W. Namath]

Sanchez is, was and always will be a terrible nfl qb.  Are you guys seriously wasting time debating this?

[phill1c]

3 minutes ago, Joe W. Namath said:

Sanchez is, was and always will be a terrible nfl qb.  Are you guys seriously wasting time debating this?

It's a free country. Why are you posting if it's such a waste of time?

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, NoBowles said:

Yeah, I guess you make a great point. When a guy who probably should have been in college for his senior year is not the best player on the field, and looking like a Championship QB, he just never will. 

And your point is?  That The statements wrong, he became the best player on some other field later?  I was answer the statement that he was the best player on the field, which was total nonsense.  

He came out of college when he did.  Didn't listen to those, including his HC who said he should wait, not anyone's fault but his.