Draft Deshaun Watson

[Jets Daily Dosage.]

I know we could better use the pick on a more needed position. But everything revolves around the QB position. I say keep drafting a QB every year til you hit on one. And damn did he look good last night

[bgivs21]

Idk, I missed the 4th quarter and can say that in the first half & 3rd quarter he did not look very good 

[FTL Jet Fan]

He will be gone before we pick. This is a QB driven league and a team in the top 5 will take him. It depends on free agency, but somebody will take him high. I don't trust one year wonders like the rest of the top projected QB's. I prefer a tall pocket passer but I wouldn't be upset if we took him.  

[KRL]

Definitely intriguing, but with Watson like so many other college QB's it's not about
the stats.  He's playing in a "gimmick" college offense, so you don't know a lot about
him:

- Can he take a snap from under center?

- What's his footwork like on 3, 5 and 7 step drops?

- Can he call a play in the huddle?

- Does he read defenses or is he looking for his first read and that's it?

Watson has the same questions about him that Geno Smith & Bryce Petty had.  But I will
give him credit, in the last two championship games he's come up HUGE against a "pro"
defense.  I'm going to re-watch the game tonight to get more info about him
 

[Mike135]

If we had played Petty and Hack this year to see if they were the future, then sure, reach for a QB if needed.  Jets didn't do that though.  Petty played a bit and Hack never saw the field.  

Unless Macc is writing off both Petty and Hack already, why get another young QB with questions while the two we have still haven't been given a shot?

Of course, if there's a top notch QB available, go for it.  But from what many here are saying, there aren't any QBs worthy of a top 10 pick.  Even though some mock drafts now have 3 QBs going in the top 6.

[FTL Jet Fan]

2 minutes ago, KRL said:

Definitely intriguing, but with Watson like so many other college QB's it's not about
the stats.  He's playing in a "gimmick" college offense, so you don't know a lot about
him:

- Can he take a snap from under center?

- What's his footwork like on 3, 5 and 7 step drops?

- Can he call a play in the huddle?

- Does he read defenses or is he looking for his first read and that's it?

Watson has the same questions about him that Geno Smith & Bryce Petty had.  But I will
give him credit, in the last two championship games he's come up HUGE against a "pro"
defense.  I'm going to re-watch the game tonight to get more info about him
 

Excellent points. I think a lot would have to do with who the teams OC is also. He does goes through his progressions but at times he locks on to his first read. I think teams will be willing to work with him as he is a hard worker,  dosent get rattled easily by the spotlight and has comeback to win games. He appears to have a calm demeanor and not the deer in the headlights look. His turnovers are definitely a concern. 

[KRL]

It's not going to shock me if both Watson & Trubisky get "over valued" and they
end up being taken in the top 3.  The positive about that scenario is someone
should drop to us at #6 similar to Leonard Williams in 2015

[Integrity28]

32 minutes ago, Jets Daily Dosage. said:

I know we could better use the pick on a more needed position. But everything revolves around the QB position. I say keep drafting a QB every year til you hit on one. And damn did he look good last night

There is no more needed position on the Jets, other than QB. 

Unless we traded for Aaron Rodgers and nobody told me.

[BrickTamland]

In a nutshell...

Pros:

-arm strength

-leadership

-mobility

-coachability

-experience

-movement in pocket

-excels in big games

Cons:

-drop back footwork?

-calling plays in huddle?

-6'2"

-can he read defenses?

-read options and spread concepts

 

This reminds me so much of Mariota regarding system, calling plays and footwork behind center. But with Watson I haven't watched a ton of his games so I don't know the answers at all.

Finally, What is his accuracy like? He placed a few really gorgeous balls yesterday and beat an insanely good defense.

If the draft was today and he's there at 6, I'm taking him. Thankfully there are months til the draft and I hope the jets do their homework so they can make an informed decision.

[Scoop24]

lol I said this 2 months ago .. should be interesting too see where he lands after the tear down during the draft process 

[Jet Nut]

9 minutes ago, BrickTamland said:

In a nutshell...

Pros:

-arm strength

-leadership

-mobility

-coachability

-experience

-movement in pocket

-excels in big games

Cons:

-drop back footwork?

-calling plays in huddle?

-6'2"

-can he read defenses?

-read options and spread concepts

 

This reminds me so much of Mariota regarding system, calling plays and footwork behind center. But with Watson I haven't watched a ton of his games so I don't know the answers at all.

Finally, What is his accuracy like? He placed a few really gorgeous balls yesterday and beat an insanely good defense.

If the draft was today and he's there at 6, I'm taking him. Thankfully there are months til the draft and I hope the jets do their homework so they can make an informed decision.

Thing is these aren't cons, they're unknowns.  I agree, if he's there I'd take him.  His pros easily outweigh what he needs to prove at the next level 

[FTL Jet Fan]

I can see the Browns taking  him at 1. They picked up RG3 in FA so I wouldn't be suprised if they take Watson, especially after the Wentz debacle. They should take MG.

[ZachEY]

23 minutes ago, Mike135 said:

Of course, if there's a top notch QB available, go for it.  But from what many here are saying, there aren't any QBs worthy of a top 10 pick.  Even though some mock drafts now have 3 QBs going in the top 6.

Outside of the "can't miss" type QB prospects, isn't this the story of just about every off-season?

QB's rated highly early on... then they drop, then they rise again but are called reaches who are taken because everyone needs a QB, which is true.

[nycdan]

interesting that he struggled with accuracy during the season but comes up big both time against 'Bama.  I don't know what to make of that, but it certainly does help push him up into the conversation at #6.  What I don't know how to analyze though, is how would he have looked without Mike Williams, who is not a typical #1 college WR.  That guy might make a lot of QBs look really good.

And yes, it's hard to justify taking a QB when you have two young, untested QBs already on the roster, but as much as I like the potential Petty has flashed, I'm not letting a 4th round pick with flashes of potential stop me from spending a high-first round pick on a QB if I think he's got more chance to be 'the guy'.  I'd trade Petty or Hack for a 5th round pick in a heartbeat if I thought Watson, or either of the other two QB prospects, was the better roll of the dice.

[Mike135]

4 minutes ago, gEYno said:

Outside of the "can't miss" type QB prospects, isn't this the story of just about every off-season?

QB's rated highly early on... then they drop, then they rise again but are called reaches who are taken because everyone needs a QB, which is true.

I suppose.  Though some years like with Winston and Mariota, I remember people really wanting them as top tier talents.  

Doesn't seem that way this year and I have no clue since I don't watch college ball.

Adding yet another young QB with questions when we already have two doesn't seem to make much sense.  Only so many practice reps to go around.

[Stark]

47 minutes ago, KRL said:

Definitely intriguing, but with Watson like so many other college QB's it's not about
the stats.  He's playing in a "gimmick" college offense, so you don't know a lot about
him:

- Can he take a snap from under center?

- What's his footwork like on 3, 5 and 7 step drops?

- Can he call a play in the huddle?

- Does he read defenses or is he looking for his first read and that's it?

Watson has the same questions about him that Geno Smith & Bryce Petty had.  But I will
give him credit, in the last two championship games he's come up HUGE against a "pro"
defense.  I'm going to re-watch the game tonight to get more info about him
 

I am not arguing for JETS to Draft Watson, but... All these concerns are the same that people had for Marcus Mariota (definitely not proven, but looked much better this season-with no, zero WR's)

 

Watson vs Alabama 2 championship games... I don't have time to list full stats - Alabama has more NFL caliber players than Clemson and is the closest thing to an NFL Defense you can get.

over 60% completions, 800+ yards, 7TD to 1 INT, 1 Rush TD

[JoJoTownsell1]

31 minutes ago, KRL said:

It's not going to shock me if both Watson & Trubisky get "over valued" and they
end up being taken in the top 3.  The positive about that scenario is someone
should drop to us at #6 similar to Leonard Williams in 2015

Exactly. I am not in love with this QB class so if teams at the top want to take QBs and let some top 2 or 3 talent fall into our lap again. 

[20andOut]

49 minutes ago, KRL said:

 

Definitely intriguing, but with Watson like so many other college QB's it's not about
the stats.  He's playing in a "gimmick" college offense, so you don't know a lot about
him:

- Can he take a snap from under center?

- What's his footwork like on 3, 5 and 7 step drops?

- Can he call a play in the huddle?

- Does he read defenses or is he looking for his first read and that's it?

 

Isn't this true about just about all college programs and QBs these days? If a QB has the physical abilities and skills and a reasonable head on his shoulders the above issues should be readily teachable.  How invaluable is the experience of having been to two national championships and all the pressure that involves, both times hanging a load of points on the top defense in the NCAA.

[Sperm Edwards]

34 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

There is no more needed position on the Jets, other than QB. 

Unless we traded for Aaron Rodgers and nobody told me.

That stuck out for me as well. When did QB cease to become a need?

[Warfish]

Personally, I would much rather draft a QB who comes with three things:

1. Experience in a Pro-Style Pocket-Passer Offense that more easily translates to the NFL (i.e. no gimmick offenses, no run-first QB's) with an appropriate NFL-strength arm (doesn't need a cannon, does need an average-level NFL arm).

2. Has a proven resume of three-to-four years of success and production at the College level (i.e. shown over multiple years a 60%+ Comp rate and a 3-1 TD to INT rate minimum.)  No "workout hype warriors" with poor resumes, please.

3. Has exemplified maturity and responsibility and leadership in college.  No headcases.  No disciplinary cases.  No immaturity run rampant.

That's my preference.

With that said, I strongly prefer to DRAFT QB's rather than sign FA QB's.  I believe in building from the draft.  I believe in not overpaying for other teams castoffs, busts and second chancers.  I believe you build by drafting QB's, developing them, giving them a chance, and discarding them if they fail (Petty, we're almost looking at you on that fail part mate!).  

Drafted QB's are cheap, plentiful, and recyclable (i.e. you can cheaply acquire two a year every year if you like, giving you more chances to find someone special).

So, if there is a QB who meets my 3-item criteria above, draft them, as soon in the draft as is required to get them.  

Does Watson fulfill my critieria?  I don't watch or follow minor league football and only play catch up when the guides come out pre-Draft, so you'll have to tell me.

[Augustiniak]

3 minutes ago, 20andOut said:

Isn't this true about just about all college programs and QBs these days? If a QB has the physical abilities and skills and a reasonable head on his shoulders the above issues should be readily teachable.  How invaluable is the experience of having been to two national championships and all the pressure that involves, both times hanging a load of points on the top defense in the NCAA.

it's the whole vince young he's a winner thing all over again, although watson does not appear to have any of young's off the field issues.

he's kind of the opposite of hackenberg.  i don't know if they could develop these 2 qbs in the same system.

[Stark]

1 minute ago, Warfish said:

Personally, I would much rather draft a QB who comes with three things:

1. Experience in a Pro-Style Pocket-Passer Offense that more easily translates to the NFL (i.e. no gimmick offenses, no run-first QB's).

2. Has a proven resume of three-to-four years of success and production at the College level (i.e. shown over multiple years a 60%+ Comp rate and a 3-1 TD to INT rate minimum.)

3. Has exemplified maturity and responsibility and leadership in college.  No headcases.  No disciplinary cases.  No immaturity run rampant.

That's my preference.

With that said, I strongly prefer to DRAFT QB's rather than sign FA QB's.  I believe in building from the draft.  I believe in not overpaying for other teams castoffs, busts and second chancers.  I believe you build by drafting QB's, developing them, giving them a chance, and discarding them if they fail (Petty, we're almost looking at you on that fail part mate!).  

Drafted QB's are cheap, plentiful, and recyclable (i.e. you can cheaply acquire two a year every year if you like, giving you more chances to find someone special).

So, if there is a QB who meets my 3-item criteria above, draft them, as soon in the draft as is required to get them.  

Does Watson fulfill my critieria?  I don't watch or follow minor league football and only play catch up when the guides come out pre-Draft, so you'll have to tell me.

We agree on attributes we look for, but the 1st on the list is pretty hard to find. I am not an expert on Watson but I believe he has the number 2 and 3 and criteria.

Someone with more information on Watson can speak up if I am wrong about 2 and 3

[The Crusher]

1 hour ago, KRL said:

Definitely intriguing, but with Watson like so many other college QB's it's not about
the stats.  He's playing in a "gimmick" college offense, so you don't know a lot about
him:

- Can he take a snap from under center?

- What's his footwork like on 3, 5 and 7 step drops?

- Can he call a play in the huddle?

- Does he read defenses or is he looking for his first read and that's it?

Watson has the same questions about him that Geno Smith & Bryce Petty had.  But I will
give him credit, in the last two championship games he's come up HUGE against a "pro"
defense.  I'm going to re-watch the game tonight to get more info about him
 

- Is his name Sam Darnold? 

[nycdan]

3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Personally, I would much rather draft a QB who comes with three things:

1. Experience in a Pro-Style Pocket-Passer Offense that more easily translates to the NFL (i.e. no gimmick offenses, no run-first QB's) with an appropriate NFL-strength arm (doesn't need a cannon, does need an average-level NFL arm).

2. Has a proven resume of three-to-four years of success and production at the College level (i.e. shown over multiple years a 60%+ Comp rate and a 3-1 TD to INT rate minimum.)  No "workout hype warriors" with poor resumes, please.

3. Has exemplified maturity and responsibility and leadership in college.  No headcases.  No disciplinary cases.  No immaturity run rampant.

That's my preference.

With that said, I strongly prefer to DRAFT QB's rather than sign FA QB's.  I believe in building from the draft.  I believe in not overpaying for other teams castoffs, busts and second chancers.  I believe you build by drafting QB's, developing them, giving them a chance, and discarding them if they fail (Petty, we're almost looking at you on that fail part mate!).  

Drafted QB's are cheap, plentiful, and recyclable (i.e. you can cheaply acquire two a year every year if you like, giving you more chances to find someone special).

So, if there is a QB who meets my 3-item criteria above, draft them, as soon in the draft as is required to get them.  

Does Watson fulfill my critieria?  I don't watch or follow minor league football and only play catch up when the guides come out pre-Draft, so you'll have to tell me.

 I agree but I'd be a little more flexible on point 3, but only because Marino still stings a bit.  And then there was Favre...Cam Newton....etc...

Maturity in college is a plus, but not an absolute qualifier of NFL success. 

 

[jetsfansince7]

I think what impressed me was that he can take a hit. He has the arm to make all the throws and didn't give up. Went through his progressions nicely. 

 

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, Augustiniak said:

it's the whole vince young he's a winner thing all over again, although watson does not appear to have any of young's off the field issues.

he's kind of the opposite of hackenberg.  i don't know if they could develop these 2 qbs in the same system.

In fairness to Watson, though, Vince Young also had the IQ of a cookie. Packers tried to keep him on as an experienced backup and he couldn't retain half the playbook. 

[nycdan]

There's one other qualifier that wasn't mentioned.  Who was he throwing to? 

How much does Mike Williams elevate Watson's performance?  How do you quantify that?

[nycdan]

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

In fairness to Watson, though, Vince Young also had the IQ of a cookie. Packers tried to keep him on as an experienced backup and he couldn't retain half the playbook. 

Clearly not a Peak Frean then.

[Jets Daily Dosage.]

43 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

There is no more needed position on the Jets, other than QB. 

Unless we traded for Aaron Rodgers and nobody told me.

You could really make an argument for o line or a corner. But I agree because everything really does revolve around the playcaller under center 

[JetPotato]

11 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Personally, I would much rather draft a QB who comes with three things:

1. Experience in a Pro-Style Pocket-Passer Offense that more easily translates to the NFL (i.e. no gimmick offenses, no run-first QB's) with an appropriate NFL-strength arm (doesn't need a cannon, does need an average-level NFL arm).

2. Has a proven resume of three-to-four years of success and production at the College level (i.e. shown over multiple years a 60%+ Comp rate and a 3-1 TD to INT rate minimum.)  No "workout hype warriors" with poor resumes, please.

3. Has exemplified maturity and responsibility and leadership in college.  No headcases.  No disciplinary cases.  No immaturity run rampant.

That's my preference.

With that said, I strongly prefer to DRAFT QB's rather than sign FA QB's.  I believe in building from the draft.  I believe in not overpaying for other teams castoffs, busts and second chancers.  I believe you build by drafting QB's, developing them, giving them a chance, and discarding them if they fail (Petty, we're almost looking at you on that fail part mate!).  

Drafted QB's are cheap, plentiful, and recyclable (i.e. you can cheaply acquire two a year every year if you like, giving you more chances to find someone special).

So, if there is a QB who meets my 3-item criteria above, draft them, as soon in the draft as is required to get them.  

Does Watson fulfill my critieria?  I don't watch or follow minor league football and only play catch up when the guides come out pre-Draft, so you'll have to tell me.

Those Peyton Manning types are available every year, even at 6.

[Integrity28]

8 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

That stuck out for me as well. When did QB cease to become a need?

I dunno.

I was watching some of Trubisky, Mahomes and Watson highlights yesterday. I'm really not ready for this time of year yet... of the group, Trubisky concerned me most. So I watched game reels instead, and the concerns were still there. He delivers the ball late a lot. Dumps it off for YAC even more. I'm skeptical some of his game won't translate to the NFL.

I liked watching Mahomes, and I get that his offense is all gimmicks, but the amazing thing about this kid is that he can throw on the run, across his body, with a flick of his wrist and puts the ball on the mark. I saw him do it countless times in what I was watching. Crazy athletic. But athletic isn't really what makes a good QB. QB is predominantly between the ears.

It's going to be a long off-season. I'm hesitant to even get attached to any prospects... the guys I waned last year were Dak and Brissett, the guys I wanted before that were Garappolo and Savage. Every time I like a prospect, they end up nowhere close to the Jets roster.

[Augustiniak]

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

In fairness to Watson, though, Vince Young also had the IQ of a cookie. Packers tried to keep him on as an experienced backup and he couldn't retain half the playbook. 

i'm not comparing the mental aspects.  just the 'he's a winner, he'll be a winner in the nfl, he's got the arm, the legs, etc.'

that said, i really wouldn't mind watson since we're so desperate, but as many have written here, i don't know how good he looks without williams there to win the 50/50 balls every time.

[Integrity28]

5 minutes ago, Jets Daily Dosage. said:

You could really make an argument for o line or a corner. But I agree because everything really does revolve around the playcaller under center 

No. Based on what we know right now, we don't have a top-15 QB starter on the roster. So, no, there's no argument. QB is the first and only need.

It might not be the most sensible first pick, but it's absolutely the first and foremost need.

[JustInFudge]

13 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Personally, I would much rather draft a QB who comes with three things:

1. Experience in a Pro-Style Pocket-Passer Offense that more easily translates to the NFL (i.e. no gimmick offenses, no run-first QB's) with an appropriate NFL-strength arm (doesn't need a cannon, does need an average-level NFL arm).

2. Has a proven resume of three-to-four years of success and production at the College level (i.e. shown over multiple years a 60%+ Comp rate and a 3-1 TD to INT rate minimum.)  No "workout hype warriors" with poor resumes, please.

3. Has exemplified maturity and responsibility and leadership in college.  No headcases.  No disciplinary cases.  No immaturity run rampant.

That's my preference.

With that said, I strongly prefer to DRAFT QB's rather than sign FA QB's.  I believe in building from the draft.  I believe in not overpaying for other teams castoffs, busts and second chancers.  I believe you build by drafting QB's, developing them, giving them a chance, and discarding them if they fail (Petty, we're almost looking at you on that fail part mate!).  

Drafted QB's are cheap, plentiful, and recyclable (i.e. you can cheaply acquire two a year every year if you like, giving you more chances to find someone special).

So, if there is a QB who meets my 3-item criteria above, draft them, as soon in the draft as is required to get them.  

Does Watson fulfill my critieria?  I don't watch or follow minor league football and only play catch up when the guides come out pre-Draft, so you'll have to tell me.

Nobody fits your criteria anymore.  I mean, 3, I guess.  You can find a good dude.  But 1 and 2?  They just dont happen because nobody runs a pro-style offense (except FSU and Michigan) and very few QB's stays for 4 years and get 3-4 years of starting experience.  2 good years, you develop draft stock and you're gone because why would you stay? 

Watson is the perfect case in point.  Now, to Watson's credit.  Apparently this dude is animal in the class room after the season is over.  The kid just graduated if I'm not mistaken, in 3 years.  And from what I understand, the team loves him.  So he probably has 3 covered. 

 

[HessStation]

If Sean Payton is the head coach, then yes!!!