Combine Rumor: Jets to make big push for Glennon

[thadude]

2 hours ago, DJF71 said:

All the things Jet fans want, Glennon has already done.  He played in real games and he has sat and learned.  Glennon is my choice that we should target.

Career stats-

 

Petty: 3tds 7ints

Glennon: 30tds 16ints

Hack: looks so awful in practice and preseason Mac and Bowles hide him

 

Sorry guys it's a no brainer

 

 

[rangerous]

interesting point on glennon.  he's already been pushed aside for a no. 1 draft pick in jameis winston so it's not likely he's going to let the team fold for darnold.  of course that assumes his salary and guarantee isn't so large that he would be just as happy sitting.  but if the jets did poorly and get one of the top picks would they choose darnold or rosen? i'd say yes. the 49ers sat steve young for 4 seasons after acquiring him. mac signs glennon to a cap friendly deal with an easy out after 2 or 3 seasons and it could be a really good deal.

[ScarletKnight89]

I don't hate Glennon. He seems like a guy whose looked solid in limited activity. Has had a chance to sit on the bench and watch the game. I'm not against this signing if this is where the Jets choose to go.

But he's one of those QB's with limited experience who you're going to have to overpay. But I guess most QB's with any talent usually are.

[JetFaninMI]

14 hours ago, Joejet said:

You managed to restate your point again but you didn't answer my question. ?

Okay. I have a proven guy who is in the top 10 QB's in the league do I draft a guy who projects to be A TOP 3 qb? First of all projecting someone to be a top 3 QB in this league before they have even thrown a pass in the NFL is just speculation. I could name countless examples of guys who were projected to be franchise QB's and horribly flamed out. Ryan Leaf comes to mind. Rick Mirer. I could go on. If the guy I have is leading my team and is successful why undermine him with the team? Why create a problem where none exists? So no I don't draft him to replace the guy I have if the guy is doing the job after being in the league only a couple of seasons. That's not what happened with Glennon though. The coaching staff of the Bucs had concerns about Wintston's conditioning and his ability to execute the pro style offense but they still named him the starter over Glennon. Its all in the article I posted earlier in the thread concerning their doubts over Winston.  Why would they name Winston the QB outright if Glennon was as good as some think he is or want him to be? Its all there in black and white INCLUDING PICS. If the guy is doing the job why create a QB controversy? It only hurts the team. In this case there really wasn't a controversy. They named Winston the starter outright even though they had concerns with Winston as noted in the article I posted. So once again with all their reservations about Winston they still named him the starter over Glennon. I guess they felt  with all Winston's shortcomings he was still a better alternative than Glennon. So I ask you why would you want a guy who was  the starter of another team and was actually demoted by an incoming HC for a guy who even though you had serious concerns about his ability coming in you still went with that guy over the incumbent?

[SickJetFan]

I think signing Glennon would be huge mistake because of the money they would have to pay to get him and would almost force them to play him no matter how good\bad he is and set them back a few years much like Geno did.

As much as I hate to say it I would rather they resign Geno

He would be cheap and there is no doubt that Petty\Hack would eventually beat him out anyway.

[JetFaninMI]

11 hours ago, Maxman said:

Calling him a career backup is a little rough.

• The guy was drafted in the 3rd round (# 73 overall) in 2013
• He played in 13 games his rookie year and put up decent #s
• He got benched in year two because of a coaching change and the coach was soon fired
• He sat the last two years behind the # 1 pick in the draft who has thrown for over 4,000 yards in his first two seasons

Let's call this what it is. Risky? Possibly. Depends on the contract if they sign him. But the Jets need a franchise QB. This guy has franchise size and a franchise arm. The knock on him was inconsistency. So sitting for a few years might do him good.

Not sure what choice the Jets have but to gamble on the QB position. Nothing else matters until you get that right.

I just wouldn't call a 27 year old who started for a season and a half, who then sat behind the # 1 overall pick, a career backup.

 I disagree. If Glennon was getting it done there is no need to draft Winston no matter where he was picked. That is a serious indictment of Glennons ability to get it done . They went with Winston even though they had reservations over his conditioning and ability to run the pro style offense. Its all in the article I posted to support another thought in a previous post.

 I agree that the Jets need to think outside the box with their pursuit of finding the franchise QB that has eluded them for so long. Do I think giving Glennon 60 mil when he was passed over by his existing team for an untested rookie is the answer? No I don't. I would rather see what Hack and/or Petty can do and save the cap space than give it to Glennon and watch yet another guy flame out because of the thought that he can be the answer. Why not draft at the positions that are deep in this draft and keep your options open? You never know what is going to happen in the NFL and did anyone think the Packers would trade Favre ever?  The smart executive doesn't paint himself into a corner and retaining flexibility within the cap is extremely important when rebuilding. Signing Glennon negates that flexibility IMHO and restricts opportunities that may present themselves whether they come through the trade, draft, or FA markets.

[Adoni Beast]

I dont want Glennon for 14 mil per year plus and big guarenteed $. If Chicago wants to outbid us, let them. We should drive up the price too out of spite with no intent on spending over 12 mil. 

[KRL]

Glennon is an unknown who played regularly three years ago.  He's better than anything we have on our
roster right now so I don't have a problem if we go after him.  But the structure of the contract must
be intelligent, not like Osweiler's.  A four year deal at $52 million with $13 million guaranteed wouldn't
be bad if it's structured as follows:

2017 - $1 million salary with a signing bonus of $12 million.  The signing bonus would be spread out
over the contract so his cap number would be $4 million in the first year

2018 - $13 million salary, which would become guaranteed a day or two into the new cap year

2019 - $13 million salary

2020 - $13 million salary

If the contract is structured like that we could get out after one year if Glennon stinks ($9 million dead money from the bonus)

[Joejet]

42 minutes ago, JetFaninMI said:

Okay. I have a proven guy who is in the top 10 QB's in the league do I draft a guy who projects to be A TOP 3 qb? First of all projecting someone to be a top 3 QB in this league before they have even thrown a pass in the NFL is just speculation. I could name countless examples of guys who were projected to be franchise QB's and horribly flamed out. Ryan Leaf comes to mind. Rick Mirer. I could go on. If the guy I have is leading my team and is successful why undermine him with the team? Why create a problem where none exists? So no I don't draft him to replace the guy I have if the guy is doing the job after being in the league only a couple of seasons. That's not what happened with Glennon though. The coaching staff of the Bucs had concerns about Wintston's conditioning and his ability to execute the pro style offense but they still named him the starter over Glennon. Its all in the article I posted earlier in the thread concerning their doubts over Winston.  Why would they name Winston the QB outright if Glennon was as good as some think he is or want him to be? Its all there in black and white INCLUDING PICS. If the guy is doing the job why create a QB controversy? It only hurts the team. In this case there really wasn't a controversy. They named Winston the starter outright even though they had concerns with Winston as noted in the article I posted. So once again with all their reservations about Winston they still named him the starter over Glennon. I guess they felt  with all Winston's shortcomings he was still a better alternative than Glennon. So I ask you why would you want a guy who was  the starter of another team and was actually demoted by an incoming HC for a guy who even though you had serious concerns about his ability coming in you still went with that guy over the incumbent?

Good question, I'm not sure that you do invest Aton of money on a QB in your scenario.  If Glennon can be had for a reasonable contract, length and $, I think he would be a good pickup to battle the two qb's we have under contract.  If not I think you sign a Hoyer or McCown as a bridge or second stringer to the youngsters.  If you have doubts about Petty and or Hack I think you draft a QB as well.  I'm not sold on any of the qb's at 6 but would be interested in Peterman in either the 2nd or 3rd.

The whole point to my original post was to state that I didn't think the original poster said Glennon was great, and to ask you a hypothetical question.  I clearly stated that I didn't think Glennon was an 8-10 QB.

[JustInFudge]

23 hours ago, thadude said:

Why bother watching the games? Just read JiF's posts he knows everything!

I've been wrong once or twice before but if you've paid any attention to the NFL over the last 20-30 years, this type of move is extremely predictable.  Glennon is not the answer and you dont go handing someone else's back up a ridiculous contract in FA.  

How many times has this strategy actually worked in the NFL? 

[JustInFudge]

26 minutes ago, KRL said:

Glennon is an unknown who played regularly three years ago.  He's better than anything we have on our
roster right now so I don't have a problem if we go after him.  But the structure of the contract must
be intelligent, not like Osweiler's.  A four year deal at $52 million with $13 million guaranteed wouldn't
be bad if it's structured as follows:

2017 - $1 million salary with a signing bonus of $12 million.  The signing bonus would be spread out
over the contract so his cap number would be $4 million in the first year

2018 - $13 million salary, which would become guaranteed a day or two into the new cap year

2019 - $13 million salary

2020 - $13 million salary

If the contract is structured like that we could get out after one year if Glennon stinks ($9 million dead money from the bonus)

Glennon is an unknown but you know he's better than anyone on the roster, who are also, unknowns?  

 

[JetFaninMI]

7 minutes ago, Joejet said:

Good question, I'm not sure that you do invest Aton of money on a QB in your scenario.  If Glennon can be had for a reasonable contract, length and $, I think he would be a good pickup to battle the two qb's we have under contract.  If not I think you sign a Hoyer or McCown as a bridge or second stringer to the youngsters.  If you have doubts about Petty and or Hack I think you draft a QB as well.  I'm not sold on any of the qb's at 6 but would be interested in Peterman in either the 2nd or 3rd.

The whole point to my original post was to state that I didn't think the original poster said Glennon was great, and to ask you a hypothetical question.  I clearly stated that I didn't think Glennon was an 8-10 QB.

 I agree with this statement to a certain extent. The only reason I don't agree with Petermen is I don't know much about him to tell you the truth. I will do my due dilligence on him as we get closer to the draft.

 I understood your point and question I just wanted to relate it to Glennon and the current situation. I just felt equating it to the whole Glennon scenario was valid.

[joewilly12]

29 minutes ago, KRL said:

Glennon is an unknown who played regularly three years ago.  He's better than anything we have on our
roster right now so I don't have a problem if we go after him.  But the structure of the contract must
be intelligent, not like Osweiler's.  A four year deal at $52 million with $13 million guaranteed wouldn't
be bad if it's structured as follows:

2017 - $1 million salary with a signing bonus of $12 million.  The signing bonus would be spread out
over the contract so his cap number would be $4 million in the first year

2018 - $13 million salary, which would become guaranteed a day or two into the new cap year

2019 - $13 million salary

2020 - $13 million salary

If the contract is structured like that we could get out after one year if Glennon stinks ($9 million dead money from the bonus)

So are you saying we should commit to Glennon for 4 years? 

 

[KRL]

3 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

So are you saying we should commit to Glennon for 4 years? 

 

No, if the contract is structured the way I laid it out we would only be committed for one year 

[joewilly12]

Just now, KRL said:

No, if the contract is structured the way I laid it out we would only be committed for one year 

Ok got it. 

[dbatesman]

1 minute ago, KRL said:

No, if the contract is structured the way I laid it out we would only be committed for one year 

Definitely sounds like the kind of contract a QB at the center of a bidding war would sign.

[Villain The Foe]

45 minutes ago, KRL said:

Glennon is an unknown who played regularly three years ago.  He's better than anything we have on our
roster right now so I don't have a problem if we go after him.  But the structure of the contract must
be intelligent, not like Osweiler's.  A four year deal at $52 million with $13 million guaranteed wouldn't
be bad if it's structured as follows:

2017 - $1 million salary with a signing bonus of $12 million.  The signing bonus would be spread out
over the contract so his cap number would be $4 million in the first year

2018 - $13 million salary, which would become guaranteed a day or two into the new cap year

2019 - $13 million salary

2020 - $13 million salary

If the contract is structured like that we could get out after one year if Glennon stinks ($9 million dead money from the bonus)

If you're looking to sign a free agent qb to a sizable contract but also have an "out" after one season then why even waste your or his time? You're basically signing him while saying "we don't believe in you". Having an out in just 1 season says that, but more importantly it's says alot about the qb who would actually sign that. 

Some Jets fans are scared. Others concern themselves so much about what the Bucs organization did but won't take the time to look at what Glennon can/can't do. Why? Because it's easier to say "if he was good then why did the Bucs draft Winston" than it is taking the time to watch his games and draw a conclusion on the actual qb. 

Or, you have Jets fans that are so shook that the same guy that they wanted off this team so bad they'd rather resign because he will come "cheap" over giving Glennon money. What type of logic is that? They're not saying to sign Geno because they still believe he has something, but they'd rather have an "out" as well as someone to point the finger to as soon as they can instead of investing time/money into someone and doing everything to make it work. 

This is arguably the saddest fanbase in the NFL. No balls at all. Fanbase rather criticize than analyze. Afraid to go out on a limb and face being wrong but are so quick to tell those who do so when they're wrong.

To hell with what the Bucs front office did. They drafted two SB championship QB's that won them for OTHER TEAMS. To hell with bringing Geno back because when we had him fans were too busy loving Fitz and IK. This fanbase deserves exactly what it's received. Such a negative, pessimistic, passive, afraid, no balls having fanbase. 

If the jets front office operates anywhere near how this fanbase generally thinks then any self-respecting quarterback needs to stay far away from this franchise and it's fans because they'll turn on you on a dime.

[The Crusher]

Some seem to be ignoring we are actively purging and tearing down our roster.  Even if we out pay everyone a coveted QB has to be nuts to come here right now We will be getting what is left over after the pseudo contenders and contenders get theirs. He will compete with those two we have on the roster and it will be tough to watch. If we do this next year we will be in a better place, if we don't then we will be repeating the  same circular pattern of crap we have been. It's just the place we are at right now. Nothing personal. 

[joewilly12]

7 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

If you're looking to sign a free agent qb to a sizable contract but also have an "out" after one season then why even waste your or his time? You're basically signing him while saying "we don't believe in you". Having an out in just 1 season says that, but more importantly it's says alot about the qb who would actually sign that. 

Some Jets fans are scared. Others concern themselves so much about what the Bucs organization did but won't take the time to look at what Glennon can/can't do. Why? Because it's easier to say "if he was good then why did the Bucs draft Winston" than it is taking the time to watch his games and draw a conclusion on the actual qb. 

Or, you have Jets fans that are so shook that the same guy that they wanted off this team so bad they'd rather resign because he will come "cheap" over giving Glennon money. What type of logic is that? They're not saying to sign Geno because they still believe he has something, but they'd rather have an "out" as well as someone to point the finger to as soon as they can instead of investing time/money into someone and doing everything to make it work. 

This is arguably the saddest fanbase in the NFL. No balls at all. Fanbase rather criticize than analyze. Afraid to go out on a limb and face being wrong but are so quick to tell those who do so when they're wrong.

To hell with what the Bucs front office did. They drafted two SB championship QB's that won them for OTHER TEAMS. To hell with bringing Geno back because when we had him fans were too busy loving Fitz and IK. This fanbase deserves exactly what it's received. Such a negative, pessimistic, passive, afraid, no balls having fanbase. 

If the jets front office operates anywhere near how this fanbase generally thinks then any self-respecting quarterback needs to stay far away from this franchise and it's fans. 

Jets fans have been so burned so many times with other teams QB's coming here and failing miserably. 

Its not a personal thing against Glennon. 

[UnitedWhofans]

Looks like it will be in the range of 14-15m. Bears are the favorite. Probably for the better

[sourceworx]

3 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

Looks like it will be in the range of 14-15m. Bears are the favorite. Probably for the better

Whoever represents Glennon is trying to drive up the price.

[Villain The Foe]

1 hour ago, joewilly12 said:

Jets fans have been so burned so many times with other teams QB's coming here and failing miserably. 

Its not a personal thing against Glennon. 

I agree. I don't think it's personal to Glennon, but if the qb isn't a known franchise qb or "cheap as hell" then all of a sudden he's obviously not the answer. Because after all we can only have a top 3 qb or a bridge. Never just a solid qb. 

To see so many people refer to Osweiler when it comes to Glennon, yet this time last year many of these same fans were all over Osweiler. This position is suspect, especially when it's the perceived amount of money Glennon could get in comparison to Osweiler that is the issue, rather than it being that Glennon is like Osweiler as a qb...which he isn't. Many who watched Osweilers games knew he wasn't worth that contract. Same with Glennon. Both guys body of work doesn't warrant such a contract. However, 12 million is the bar set by a scrub in Fitz. How about fans go look at Glennon and see if his ability is worth 12 million per. I remember people talking about how Fitz isn't over paid in relation to the other starters...so giving 12 million to someone who one may consider a "solid" qb isn't overpaying since it wasn't last year. 

People need to stop talking about what the Bucs did because the Bucs don't have a respectable history when it comes to the qb position.

Getting tired of these generic non in depth statements by people who couldn't give you one specific "on-field" example on why Glennon is either trash or atleast not good enough to pursue for upwards of 12 million. No one cares what the Bucs front office did. When have they ever been F'ing relevant regarding that position historically?

[KINGDIRK]

Glennon is Classic Jets move; has enough talent to win 7 games but is not the long term answer at QB. He's another band aid. 

People argue tanking vs non tanking. Semantics. You cant really tank in football but you can decide to NOT sign bridge/band aid QBs like this. Play Petty, play Hack and see what you have. If its a disaster you position yourself to potentially have a shot at a top QB next year in the draft. If it's a success than you could have a long term answer at QB. I believe the former is more likely but I am just sick of the thought of a bridge QB or a band aid. 

The GM drafted two QBs already. Play them! If you $hit the bed on both that's your fault. 

[rangerous]

3 hours ago, JetFaninMI said:

Okay. I have a proven guy who is in the top 10 QB's in the league do I draft a guy who projects to be A TOP 3 qb? First of all projecting someone to be a top 3 QB in this league before they have even thrown a pass in the NFL is just speculation. I could name countless examples of guys who were projected to be franchise QB's and horribly flamed out. Ryan Leaf comes to mind. Rick Mirer. I could go on. If the guy I have is leading my team and is successful why undermine him with the team? Why create a problem where none exists? So no I don't draft him to replace the guy I have if the guy is doing the job after being in the league only a couple of seasons. That's not what happened with Glennon though. The coaching staff of the Bucs had concerns about Wintston's conditioning and his ability to execute the pro style offense but they still named him the starter over Glennon. Its all in the article I posted earlier in the thread concerning their doubts over Winston.  Why would they name Winston the QB outright if Glennon was as good as some think he is or want him to be? Its all there in black and white INCLUDING PICS. If the guy is doing the job why create a QB controversy? It only hurts the team. In this case there really wasn't a controversy. They named Winston the starter outright even though they had concerns with Winston as noted in the article I posted. So once again with all their reservations about Winston they still named him the starter over Glennon. I guess they felt  with all Winston's shortcomings he was still a better alternative than Glennon. So I ask you why would you want a guy who was  the starter of another team and was actually demoted by an incoming HC for a guy who even though you had serious concerns about his ability coming in you still went with that guy over the incumbent?

you draft the guy if you have the chance.  first off, if a team is in the position to draft a top prospect then chances are the qb wasn't playing very well.  secondly, teams always need a good backup.  players are always getting injured.  third, it depends on the qb's contract status.  if he's getting near the end then of course you draft a top prospect simply to gain some leverage.

we can only speculate what went on down in tampa.  it's not like lovie smith is that great at developing qb's and winston was a pretty decent talent when he came out.  he and mariota were both near can't miss players and once they were drafted the team was left with little choice. the head scratcher is starting mccown over glennon.  mccown was going to take the team absolutely no where.  were they tanking on purpose?  maybe.

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, JetFaninMI said:

 I disagree. If Glennon was getting it done there is no need to draft Winston no matter where he was picked. That is a serious indictment of Glennons ability to get it done . They went with Winston even though they had reservations over his conditioning and ability to run the pro style offense. Its all in the article I posted to support another thought in a previous post.

 I agree that the Jets need to think outside the box with their pursuit of finding the franchise QB that has eluded them for so long. Do I think giving Glennon 60 mil when he was passed over by his existing team for an untested rookie is the answer? No I don't. I would rather see what Hack and/or Petty can do and save the cap space than give it to Glennon and watch yet another guy flame out because of the thought that he can be the answer. Why not draft at the positions that are deep in this draft and keep your options open? You never know what is going to happen in the NFL and did anyone think the Packers would trade Favre ever?  The smart executive doesn't paint himself into a corner and retaining flexibility within the cap is extremely important when rebuilding. Signing Glennon negates that flexibility IMHO and restricts opportunities that may present themselves whether they come through the trade, draft, or FA markets.

It could be. But when the team isn't doing well, and even if they thought Glennon was doing kinda ok and still growing, it's not like he was tearing the league a new one. There aren't too many GMs who would then pass up on Winston after earning the #1 pick. I'd be more sympathetic to the idea that they thought he was trash if they traded him for the upper 2nd-3rd pick (maybe more) that they could have gotten. No GM is going to turn that down to rent a backup QB for another season or two, just like nobody would trade such a pick for Glennon just to stash him as their own #2 QB.

In fairness to Maccagnan, he doesn't have the luxury of going into the upcoming season with just Petty/Hackenberg plus a low-round pick or UDFA. If your career was potentially on the line, neither would you or I. He's in the position he's in today (even if it was he who put him in this position), not the position he was in a year or two ago. 

I agree about overspending on certain individuals while rebuilding, if he won't automatically pass on taking a shot at a QB in the draft this year (or next year) then I'm ok with adding a Glennon or Taylor. Better that than his past method of rebuilding, by overpaying for players in their 30s or young shot-in-the-dark players at less important positions. If you want to take a shot in the dark in FA, fine. Do it at QB and still keep an open mind immediately after that. Kind of what Philadelphia did, even without knowing they could get back a #1 pick for Bradford. Gotta admit, that took serious balls picking up Daniel for $7m/yr minimum, then Bradford with a bunch of guaranteed money at $18m per, then barely a month later using multiple #1 picks and more to draft Wentz.

Really depends on how much Glennon (or Taylor) actually get. If it's closer to Fitz money, sure to me that's worth a try if it doesn't then automatically stop them from drafting another QB with a very high pick. If picking up one means forgoing on drafting one high - this year and then again next year - I don't like it even if he's cheap. Fine to take a shot on him and other QBs. Not fine to bet the next 2 years on him.

[AFJF]

2 hours ago, JiF said:

Glennon is an unknown but you know he's better than anyone on the roster, who are also, unknowns?  

 

How good Glennon can be is unknown.  How good he is, is infinitely better than Hack and Petty.

[Beerfish]

The entire Glennon issue for me comes down to the contract.  I think he can be a fairly good QB but I don;t view him as a guy you commit to long term.  If we can get him eihter cheap or even expensive for a short term then fine but I'll be upset if we over pay or over term.

[joewilly12]

8 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

The entire Glennon issue for me comes down to the contract.  I think he can be a fairly good QB but I don;t view him as a guy you commit to long term.  If we can get him eihter cheap or even expensive for a short term then fine but I'll be upset if we over pay or over term.

So if we do acquire Glennon it would be safe to say Macc wasted 2 draft picks on Petty and Hackenberg. 

[Jet Nut]

7 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

So if we do acquire Glennon it would be safe to say Macc wasted 2 draft picks on Petty and Hackenberg. 

How would it be safe to say that?  Glennon wasn't available before, and a backup to whoever is the starter will develop.  Hardly a waste.

[Jet Blast]

13 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

So if we do acquire Glennon it would be safe to say Macc wasted 2 draft picks on Petty and Hackenberg. 

Acquiring Glennon has nothing to do with that. If you were a GM, would you put a team on the field with no experienced QB's? Glennon would be a "hold the fort" guy until we can get a long term QB. It's slim pickings this year and we will have better chance to solve the problem in a more long term fashion next year.

[joewilly12]

10 minutes ago, Jet Blast said:

Acquiring Glennon has nothing to do with that. If you were a GM, would you put a team on the field with no experienced QB's? Glennon would be a "hold the fort" guy until we can get a long term QB. It's slim pickings this year and we will have better chance to solve the problem in a more long term fashion next year.

We drafted 2 QB's and neither seems to be in any plans for the future if we sign a free agent like Mike Glennon who will come in and be the starter. 

So essentially we are holding the fort until Petty and Hack are 27 years old or we draft Sam Darnold if the opportunity even comes along. 

Sadly this thought process is why the Jets haven't been to successful in the NFL for the last 48 years. 

[KINGDIRK]

12 minutes ago, Jet Blast said:

Acquiring Glennon has nothing to do with that. If you were a GM, would you put a team on the field with no experienced QB's? Glennon would be a "hold the fort" guy until we can get a long term QB. It's slim pickings this year and we will have better chance to solve the problem in a more long term fashion next year.

If you are signing Glennon to be a "hold the fort" guy, I think it's a terrible move. We all need to accept the fact that this team is going to be bad next year. 

Any realistic fan can see that the current Jets roster is one of the worst in the league. Why add a hold the fort QB?

 

[joewilly12]

Just now, KINGDIRK said:

If you are signing Glennon to be a "hold the fort" guy, I think it's a terrible move. We all need to accept the fact that this team is going to be bad next year. 

Any realistic fan can see that the current Jets roster is one of the worst in the league. Why add a hold the fort QB?

 

Exactly go with what we have and draft and sign other glaring need positions. 

[section314]

14 minutes ago, Jet Blast said:

Acquiring Glennon has nothing to do with that. If you were a GM, would you put a team on the field with no experienced QB's? Glennon would be a "hold the fort" guy until we can get a long term QB. It's slim pickings this year and we will have better chance to solve the problem in a more long term fashion next year.

Glennon won't go to a team to be a "hold the fort guy." He wants to be "the guy."  If Macc needs a bridge to Hackenberg, it will be a McNown, Hoyer guy, somebody to take us to week 4-5 if Hack not ready to go opening day. 

[joewilly12]

Just now, section314 said:

Glennon won't go to a team to be a "hold the fort guy." He wants to be "the guy."  If Macc needs a bridge to Hackenberg, it will be a McNown, Hoyer guy, somebody to take us to week 4-5 if Hack not ready to go opening day. 

My God how much more time does Hackenberg need to be NFL ready?