To QB or not QB

[Paradis]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

 Speculating they will is like speculating they won't.  Just speculation.

Everything speculation at this point. Why even discuss the draft ahead of time if we're not gonna speculate. I'm speculating that picks #1 or #2, owned by two QB - needy teams, are not going to draft a QB. That's significant.  

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

Is Watson better than the 4th best prospect next year?  Because that might be the best one we can draft next year.  Getting a #1 overall pick isn't easy, no matter what the Colts did in the Luck Draft.  Footballs bounce funny that way.  

No, he isn't. This is the part where I've distastefully inserted "learning disability" remark into my posts in the past. I've clearly outlined to you where things could sit next year. We don't need the #1 pick, so please drop that baseless remark. Unless we tumble out of the 1st round by cheating, or win the superbowl -- we'll have a shot at someone next year. That 4th someone is better than the 1st no one this year IMO

 

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

 What some of us want to see is more than one legitimate prospect now, not in some unspecified might-never-happen future. 

If Mike M wants to keep his job, you're not going to see a prospect now. I hope you can recognize that reality. 

 

 

 

[markdean61]

maccagnan might draft a quarterback to save his job, his job relies on finding one. he didnt rule out drafting one in his interview, it depends who falls to 6 for jets or if they like someone much more.

[Gas2No99]

 

8 minutes ago, markdean61 said:

maccagnan might draft a quarterback to save his job, his job relies on finding one. he didnt rule out drafting one in his interview, it depends who falls to 6 for jets or if they like someone much more.

Welcome Dean Cain.

Drafting a QB @ #6 in a $hit QB class where consensus indicates NO ROOKIE QB is worth a 1st rounder, ESPECIALLY when a QB was drafted in the 2nd round last year, would THEN RESULT in MacCagnan having to "save his job."

 

Jets would be fine to draft a QB (especially Watson or Mitchy) AFTER the 2nd round b/c THAT"S where those players PROVIDE GOOD VALUE. Drafting them at #6 overall and I would then FINALLY believe Mac would have to be Fired for REACHING at #6 for Crap Developmental QBs over IMMEDIATE team contributors this year and indirectly ADMITTING COMPLETE FAILURE on evaluating and drafting Hack in the 2nd Last year. 

[markdean61]

2 minutes ago, Gas2No99 said:

Kevin Hogan 

Welcome Dean Cain.

Drafting a QB @ #6 in a $hit QB class where consensus indicates NO ROOKIE QB is worth a 1st rounder, ESPECIALLY when a QB was drafted in the 2nd round last year, would THEN RESULT in MacCagnan having to "save his job."

 

Jets would be fine to draft a QB (especially Watson or Mitchy) AFTER the 2nd round b/c THAT"S where those players PROVIDE GOOD VALUE. Drafting them at #6 overall and I would then FINALLY believe Mac would have to go for REACHING this year and ADMITTING COMPLETE FAILURE on Hack in the 2nd Last year. 

mac said him drafting a quarterback would not be a failure on hack but would create more competition and finding one,  some people having bears and niners taking quarterback and they will be gone by first round, i personally want fournette but it would be interesting if maccagnan took watson or trubisky if on board.

[HighPitch]

8 minutes ago, Gas2No99 said:

 

Drafting a QB @ #6 in a $hit QB class where consensus indicates NO ROOKIE QB is worth a 1st 

Who is the concencus? What do they know? 

Im not a huve college guy but watson made lots and lots of buzz during the year. I  the biggest game of his life he torched the best defense to come back for a win in one  of the best games in collegw history. 

So whats ths problem with snaggimg watson if we can. You wanna see hack develop? So do i. We cN have Ve both

[Gas2No99]

1 minute ago, markdean61 said:

mac said him drafting a quarterback would not be a failure on hack but would create more competition and finding one, 

It's not a failure on Hack, but it IS a perceived FAILURE on Mac b/c his "Scouting" background failed him and, even ardent defender that is I, would join the crowd of Mac skeptics for what would imply, not by his own admission, a FARCICAL reach and waste of a 2nd round pick. I would be more lenient on Tannenbaum The Accountant for selecting Hack in the 2nd than I am for MacCagnan the Long-Time Player Talent Scout. 

 

4 minutes ago, markdean61 said:

 some people having bears and niners taking quarterback and they will be gone by first round, 

PLEASE GOD!!!!! I would LOVE for those two crap cities to overreach and select those QBs at #2 & #3. That means a blue-chip defensive players such as J. Adams, S.Thomas, J.Allen, M.Hooker, and ANY STUD Offensive playmaker is at our choosing to select at #6.

 

8 minutes ago, markdean61 said:

 i personally want fournette but it would be interesting if maccagnan took watson or trubisky if on board.

 Fournette wouldn't be the BEST value, but I'd take him for the identity he can provide the Jets offense while ALSO alleviating pressure off the Young QBs who we are trying to develop; whether it's Petty, Hack, or QB drafted AFTER the 3rd round this year. 

[Gas2No99]

Just now, HighPitch said:

Who is the concencus? What do they know? 

Im not a huve college guy but watson made lots and lots of buzz during the year. I  the biggest game of his life he torched the best defense to come back for a win in one  of the best games in collegw history. 

If you're NOT a huge college guy and Don't follow the actual NFL-rated prospects (as opposed to College Stars who ALWAYS translate to the NFL like Ty Detmer, Andre Ware, Rick Mirer, Ron Powlus, Johnny Manziel, Gino Toretta, etc.)  then WHY talk out of your a$s and bang the table for Watson?

I'm ALL FOR WATSON, just NOT at #6 overall or UNTIL the 3rd Round for that matter. 

He CAN'T read NFL defenses AT ALL, so that'll take a year or 2 to develop. He has ACCURACY issues from the pocket. Natural instinct to RUN when the pocket breaks which WILL GET HIM KILLED in the Pros. He's a DAMN good Sandlot player, but too much of a project that needs to be polished for him to VALIDATE being #6 overall. He's not Pro Ready and a 1st round draft pick SHOULD be Pro Ready to Plug N' Play IMMEDIATELY. It's simply My opinion. 

 

5 minutes ago, HighPitch said:

So whats ths problem with snaggimg watson if we can. You wanna see hack develop? So do i. We cN have Ve both

If we snag Watson after the middle of the 3rd, I'm ALL FOR IT! Watson and Hack is a GOOD problem to have, but we can add OFFENSIVE WEAPONS at #6 which would help WHOEVER the QB is and make the Jets, its offense, and the young QB BETTER THIS YEAR and going forward. 

[Warfish]

18 minutes ago, Paradis said:

Everything speculation at this point. Why even discuss the draft ahead of time if we're not gonna speculate. I'm speculating that picks #1 or #2, owned by two QB - needy teams, are not going to draft a QB. That's significant.  

Well, at least you've come round to admit your speculating.  Till now you've been rather aggressive in the "you're all dumb retards, and I am right" vein.  

We're making progress.  Well....we were, for a moment.

18 minutes ago, Paradis said:

That 4th someone is better than the 1st no one this year IMO

You'll forgive me if I redact all the usual childish fluff and get right to the meat of the debate.

I think that skipping an opportunity for a winner like Watson, for some as-yet-unknown 4th option in the 2018 class is a mistake.  

The smarter play, as I see it, is to take now, presuming we have an opportunity, and give us SOME legit prospect insurance behind Hack.  Because right now we don't have a single real, legit, NFL Starting QB prospect on our roster.  We have Hack, a vastly over-drafted developmental project pick that was more suited to a 4th or 5th round selection, and Petty, a late-rounder of no great shakes and established fragility.  

i.e we ain't got sh*t.

If 2017 plays out perfectly as you and other think it might, we lose 15 games (fun!), the worst thing you end up with via my preference is having both Watson and Darnold at QB.  What a shame that would be, right?   Who would want to be in that situation, eh?

We go your route, and win a few games more than you think (with McCown on the roster, a real possibility) we could be looking at a looming 2018 season with a failed or still-never-started Hack and the 4th best prospect in a draft class that (like so many before) may not be all it's hyped up to be a year+ in advance.

End of the day, no amount of 1st round Safeties or Tight Ends will make this team a legit contender.  Only a QB will do that.  A team as sh*t as ours at the QB position does not have the luxury of passing on legit prospects, no matter how good some future draft class supposedly might be.

18 minutes ago, Paradis said:

If Mike M wants to keep his job, you're not going to see a prospect now. I hope you can recognize that reality. 

We can agree to disagree.  

If Mike M wants to keep his job, he better do something at the QB position to show he's not a fool whose only attempt to fix our most fatal and glaring weakness is to vastly overdraft Hack, or to sign nobodies like Fitz and McCown.  

You don't get unlimited time in the NFL to ignore the QB position, and thus far, Macc has either missed widely or ignored the need there.  

[Warfish]

28 minutes ago, Gas2No99 said:

 

Welcome Dean Cain.

Drafting a QB @ #6 in a $hit QB class where consensus indicates NO ROOKIE QB is worth a 1st rounder, ESPECIALLY when a QB was drafted in the 2nd round last year, would THEN RESULT in MacCagnan having to "save his job."

 

Jets would be fine to draft a QB (especially Watson or Mitchy) AFTER the 2nd round b/c THAT"S where those players PROVIDE GOOD VALUE. Drafting them at #6 overall and I would then FINALLY believe Mac would have to be Fired for REACHING at #6 for Crap Developmental QBs over IMMEDIATE team contributors this year and indirectly ADMITTING COMPLETE FAILURE on evaluating and drafting Hack in the 2nd Last year. 

Where would Hack have "provided good value".  6th round, or 7th?

Better to see failure for what it is and fix it, than stubbornly refuse reality and keep plugging in McCowns and Fitzs to hide your mistake.

[Gas2No99]

8 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Where would Hack have "provided good value".  6th round, or 7th?

Better to see failure for what it is and fix it, than stubbornly refuse reality and keep plugging in McCowns and Fitzs to hide your mistake.

I agree. I want to see Hack as well. We differ in that I believe Petty is the starter after TC & McCown is a #3 insurance or a "soft-open" starter eventually giving way to Hack since Petty proved in TC to be back-up at best and blew his opportunity.

[Paradis]

7 minutes ago, Warfish said:

If Mike M wants to keep his job, he better do something at the QB position

You don't get unlimited time

Nor do you get unlimited swings at the plate. It's 3 strikes and you're out, if I'm not mistaken? He already has 2... well, lets just presume with Hack for now. 

Anyone (including you) is gonna be real careful about who that 3rd swing is associated with if your job's on the line. You like Watson? Nice. Me too. But I can't like him into being something he's not. The man has areas of his game that are a concern, and have sunk many a QB, NCAA champion or not. 

 

7 minutes ago, Warfish said:

The smarter play, as I see it, is to take now, presuming we have an opportunity, widely or ignored the need there.  

Right back to the start (you could at least honor the point I'm making).... As you see it. But you're not one who's job is on the line. If Watson doesn't work out, you get to hang around for the next chapter. It's kind of selfish, but I get it. Mac on the other hand?

If he drafts Watson: 

1. He has to start Hack first or its admitting a major mistake. Admitting that mistake will mean a short leash on Watson. 
2. You can't start Watson then go to Hack. 
3. If Hack sucks and Watson struggles -- he'll lose all confidence/backing from humans in general. Rightfully so
4. He can't redshirt #6 pick if Hack struggles, that sh*t won't fly a 2nd year in row. Hack would have to be GOOD. in which case, why the fck did we draft Watson?
5. Nothing says I don't know what the fck i'm doing like chewing through McCown, Hackenberg, and Watson in 1 year on your way to draft loaded with QBs. 

 

Sorry dude. YOU want the problem at QB solved. We ALL do..,. but you're thinking with your baseball cap, and not your GM hat. 

 

[Gas2No99]

9 minutes ago, Paradis said:

Nor do you get unlimited swings at the plate. It's 3 strikes and you're out, if I'm not mistaken? He already has 2... well, lets just presume with Hack for now. 

Anyone (including you) is gonna be real careful about who that 3rd swing is associated with if your job's on the line. You like Watson? Nice. Me too. But I can't like him into being something he's not. The man has areas of his game that are a concern, and have sunk many a QB, NCAA champion or not. 

 

Right back to the start (you could at least honor the point I'm making).... As you see it. But you're not one who's job is on the line. If Watson doesn't work out, you get to hang around for the next chapter. It's kind of selfish, but I get it. Mac on the other hand?

If he drafts Watson: 

1. He has to start Hack first or its admitting a major mistake. Admitting that mistake will mean a short leash on Watson. 
2. You can't start Watson then go to Hack. 
3. If Hack sucks and Watson struggles -- he'll lose all confidence/backing from humans in general. Rightfully so
4. He can't redshirt #6 pick if Hack struggles, that sh*t won't fly a 2nd year in row. Hack would have to be GOOD. in which case, why the fck did we draft Watson?
5. Nothing says I don't know what the fck i'm doing like chewing through McCown, Hackenberg, and Watson in 1 year on your way to draft loaded with QBs. 

 

Sorry dude. YOU want the problem at QB solved. We ALL do..,. but you're thinking with your baseball cap, and not your GM hat. 

 

Correct Sir, you KNOCKED IT OUT!!!!

[markdean61]

1 hour ago, Gas2No99 said:

 

Welcome Dean Cain.

Drafting a QB @ #6 in a $hit QB class where consensus indicates NO ROOKIE QB is worth a 1st rounder, ESPECIALLY when a QB was drafted in the 2nd round last year, would THEN RESULT in MacCagnan having to "save his job."

 

Jets would be fine to draft a QB (especially Watson or Mitchy) AFTER the 2nd round b/c THAT"S where those players PROVIDE GOOD VALUE. Drafting them at #6 overall and I would then FINALLY believe Mac would have to be Fired for REACHING at #6 for Crap Developmental QBs over IMMEDIATE team contributors this year and indirectly ADMITTING COMPLETE FAILURE on evaluating and drafting Hack in the 2nd Last year. 

 

 

 

 

if jets dont draft quarterback at 6, wait until next year instead of wasting another late pick on a even worse quarterback prospect.

[Gas2No99]

Clearly the answer to the titles of the thread is . . . . . It's SUBJECTIVE. 

[19andOhWait]

best player available vs best quarterback available it seems like this will turn into 

A if the strategy is swing at the pinata until a competent good QB comes out by all means Watson or Trubisky at 6

B or snatch Mike Williams / Corey Davis / OJ Howard / Jamal Adams / Lattimore / Fournette??

to me option B is preferable in this scenario and give me Davis Webb / Mahomes / Peterman in 2nd/3rd! 

but I understand option A and JIF's and others argument for it 

Tough call for Mac/Bowles in the end no matter what I suppose

[HessStation]

1 hour ago, Paradis said:

Nor do you get unlimited swings at the plate. It's 3 strikes and you're out, if I'm not mistaken? He already has 2... well, lets just presume with Hack for now. 

Anyone (including you) is gonna be real careful about who that 3rd swing is associated with if your job's on the line. You like Watson? Nice. Me too. But I can't like him into being something he's not. The man has areas of his game that are a concern, and have sunk many a QB, NCAA champion or not. 

 

Right back to the start (you could at least honor the point I'm making).... As you see it. But you're not one who's job is on the line. If Watson doesn't work out, you get to hang around for the next chapter. It's kind of selfish, but I get it. Mac on the other hand?

If he drafts Watson: 

1. He has to start Hack first or its admitting a major mistake. Admitting that mistake will mean a short leash on Watson. 
2. You can't start Watson then go to Hack. 
3. If Hack sucks and Watson struggles -- he'll lose all confidence/backing from humans in general. Rightfully so
4. He can't redshirt #6 pick if Hack struggles, that sh*t won't fly a 2nd year in row. Hack would have to be GOOD. in which case, why the fck did we draft Watson?
5. Nothing says I don't know what the fck i'm doing like chewing through McCown, Hackenberg, and Watson in 1 year on your way to draft loaded with QBs. 

 

Sorry dude. YOU want the problem at QB solved. We ALL do..,. but you're thinking with your baseball cap, and not your GM hat. 

 

[Gas2No99]

21 minutes ago, 19andOhWait said:

best player available vs best quarterback available it seems like this will turn into 

A if the strategy is swing at the pinata until a competent good QB comes out by all means Watson or Trubisky at 6

B or snatch Mike Williams / Corey Davis / OJ Howard / Jamal Adams / Lattimore / Fournette??

to me option B is preferable in this scenario and give me Davis Webb / Mahomes / Peterman in 2nd/3rd! 

but I understand option A and JIF's and others argument for it 

Tough call for Mac/Bowles in the end no matter what I suppose

You do also recognize, from the incumbent GM's POV, that Option A WILL BE INTERPRETED that you COMPLETELY FAILED in assessing and selecting the player you JUST chose the year prior with the same CAVEAT, like Wats-rubisky, that he had to sit. Option A is a BLATANT admission you are NOT qualified for your job. It's not even a good QB class, that's what's SO confounding about those advocating a QB @ #6 in 2017. 

 

It's career suicide and IF Mac DOES select Wats-rubisky@ #6 then this regime is RUINED before the season even starts. I would finally acquiesce and throw in the towel on this current regime FINALLY JOINING the others who would be proven smarter than I as I trudge along to join them:

[greenwave81]

14 minutes ago, Gas2No99 said:

You do also recognize, from the incumbent GM's POV, that Option A WILL BE INTERPRETED that you COMPLETELY FAILED in assessing and selecting the player you JUST chose the year prior with the same CAVEAT, like Wats-rubisky, that he had to sit. Option A is a BLATANT admission you are NOT qualified for your job. It's not even a good QB class, that's what's SO confounding about those advocating a QB @ #6 in 2017. 

 

 

Sorry man, you're off base here.

Option A was always option A, nothing more, nothing less.  When they went INTO last season they knew they'd have no answer as to what Hack might/would eventually become after the season. So, what's changed?

Nothing.  No one, least not me, is demanding a QB at 6 this year....BUT, since he may have the pick of the whole, Macc would be a fool to not at least look and evaluate.

And it says nothing about Hack.

[Gas2No99]

19 minutes ago, greenwave81 said:

Sorry man, you're off base here.

Option A was always option A, nothing more, nothing less.  When they went INTO last season they knew they'd have no answer as to what Hack might/would eventually become after the season. So, what's changed?

Nothing.  No one, least not me, is demanding a QB at 6 this year....BUT, since he may have the pick of the whole, Macc would be a fool to not at least look and evaluate.

And it says nothing about Hack.

I disagree. 

The GM decided to go with a Project QB in the 2nd round KNOWING and Admitting the guy would NEVER touch the field his rookie year. That's what they espoused when Hack was selected AT #51. Perhaps I put more emphasis, and thus am more critical, on Mac's SCOUTING prowess and "supposed" EYE for NFL talent. IMO, his MAIN qualification was that he could correctly gage talent and improve the Jets through the draft. In taking Hack with a 2nd rounder, when consensus here decries that he was a 5th rounder AT BEST, Mac was making a statement - THAT I INTERPRETED AS - he BELIEVED this kid had the tools to be a FQB and thus, critics be damned, he will be groomed and NOT rushed.  

Option A DOES say something about Hack. It implies that Mac is SIMPLY throwing JWilly12's tall tales () against the wall and seeing what sticks when it comes to picking QB. @Paradis said it CORRECTLY, a GM has ONLY SO MANY QB selections and permitted WHIFFS. Selecting a Wats-rubisky @ #6 is ADMITTING HACK was a whiff and Mac's last leg to stand on as a GM to find a FQB would be 2nd round-talent QBs who have to sit and learn (AGAIN) which can't look good to your boss.

And as MANY have stated before, the CS and FO HAVE SEEN Hack and whatever progression he's made since May'16. It's a different position, but we SAW how OT Brandon Shell improved from August to December. As they noticed Petty's exponential improvement from year 1 to 2. We don't know and PLENTY has changed for all we know. 

 

[Warfish]

12 hours ago, Gas2No99 said:

I disagree. 

The GM decided to go with a Project QB in the 2nd round KNOWING and Admitting the guy would NEVER touch the field his rookie year. That's what they espoused when Hack was selected AT #51. Perhaps I put more emphasis, and thus am more critical, on Mac's SCOUTING prowess and "supposed" EYE for NFL talent. IMO, his MAIN qualification was that he could correctly gage talent and improve the Jets through the draft. In taking Hack with a 2nd rounder, when consensus here decries that he was a 5th rounder AT BEST, Mac was making a statement - THAT I INTERPRETED AS - he BELIEVED this kid had the tools to be a FQB and thus, critics be damned, he will be groomed and NOT rushed.  

Option A DOES say something about Hack. It implies that Mac is SIMPLY throwing JWilly12's tall tales () against the wall and seeing what sticks when it comes to picking QB. @Paradis said it CORRECTLY, a GM has ONLY SO MANY QB selections and permitted WHIFFS. Selecting a Wats-rubisky @ #6 is ADMITTING HACK was a whiff and Mac's last leg to stand on as a GM to find a FQB would be 2nd round-talent QBs who have to sit and learn (AGAIN) which can't look good to your boss.

And as MANY have stated before, the CS and FO HAVE SEEN Hack and whatever progression he's made since May'16. It's a different position, but we SAW how OT Brandon Shell improved from August to December. As they noticed Petty's exponential improvement from year 1 to 2. We don't know and PLENTY has changed for all we know. 

 

TLDR:  better to have a GM who doesn't admit a mistake and consciously mismanages the team to stay employed, than to have a GM who tries to correct his mistakes and fix his previous decisions.

Brilliant.

It doesn't matter if Hack is a whiff.  It only matters that pur GM pretend he definitely isn't a whiff, and avoids picking other QB's to ensure no one ever knows Hack isn't a whiff.  Because surely no one will notice, right?

 

[Gas2No99]

3 hours ago, Warfish said:

TLDR:  better to have a GM who doesn't admit a mistake and consciously mismanages the team to stay employed, than to have a GM who tries to correct his mistakes and fix his previous decisions.

Brilliant.

It doesn't matter if Hack is a whiff.  It only matters that pur GM pretend he definitely isn't a whiff, and avoids picking other QB's to ensure no one ever knows Hack isn't a whiff.  Because surely no one will notice, right?

 

For all who post TL:DR = YOU ARE ******* IDIOTs. TOO LAZY TO READ on an internet forum

 

 now my reply to a post that was a reply to my previous post which wasn't read by the replier.

 Ha you're a joke.  Be happy in your misery. We disagree and I'm not a going to stoop down to your level to see your perspective. You hate MacCags, & that's fine. I hold my judgement because the verdict is still out on him, IMO, but that's where we differ so why continue to go back and forth? May the best man be right  . .  . .

[Warfish]

1 minute ago, Gas2No99 said:

 Ha you're a joke.

 Be happy in your misery. We disagree and I'm not a going to stoop down to your level to see your perspective. You hate MacCags, & that's fine. I hold my judgement because the verdict is still out on him, IMO, but that's where we differ so why continue to go back and forth? May the best man be right  . .  . .

I'm neither miserable nor do I hate Macc.  

In point of fact I have no personal feelings of any kind towards Macc, same as I had no personal feelings towards Geno, or Fitz or the vast majority of New York Jets.  I root the laundry.  

I am certainly critical of some of Macc's work-to-date, but "hate" does not enter the picture.  I am also critical of opinions like your own, which appears to prioritize hiding a failure over fixing a failure, but I don't hate you either.  In point of fact I have no personal feelings towards you, you are literally a name on a screen and nothing more.  An entertaining pass-time.

I am confused though, if you were so uninterested in this ongoing back and forth, one might wonder why you keep replying.  And so passionately at that....you certainly seem more interested than you claim.

And a final minor point, being "right" about if/if not we should draft a QB, and/or if/if not Macc will, in fact, draft a QB at all in 2017, does not make one a better man.

 

[Sperm Edwards]

On 3/27/2017 at 0:14 PM, HessStation said:

If they Did start Hack or Petty and weren't in position for one of the big QBs next year, that just might mean they have something in one of these two young QBs which could be great.

You didn't follow the Jets way back in 2015, I see. Nor 2013, 2010, 2009...

 

[Sperm Edwards]

On 3/27/2017 at 1:11 PM, JiF said:

Would you mind posting all of Jameis Winston's 18 picks he threw his sophomore year?  Or Matt Ryan's 19 from his senior year?

Because they're not "Franchise quarterbacks" or anything like that. 

Whoa, Matt Ryan had elite physical skills. He had the strongest arm anyone had seen in years, and ran a 4.49 at the combine (4.41 at his pro day). Also he never threw picks or fumbled, and he had a high completion percentage way above 60%. Fool.

[JustInFudge]

8 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Whoa, Matt Ryan had elite physical skills. He had the strongest arm anyone had seen in years, and ran a 4.49 at the combine (4.41 at his pro day). Also he never threw picks or fumbled, and he had a high completion percentage way above 60%. Fool.

Is it opposite day?  

[JustInFudge]

7 minutes ago, JiF said:

Is it opposite day?  

When I ever I say this I think of:

[Adoni Beast]

They over-drafted Hackenberg knowing he'd be a 2-3 year project. 

If they love Trubisky at 6, they'll take him. Carolina isn't kicking themselves cause they drafted Cam Newton a year after they drafted Clausen in Round 2.

[Gas2No99]

28 minutes ago, Adoni Beast said:

They over-drafted Hackenberg knowing he'd be a 2-3 year project. 

If they love Trubisky at 6, they'll take him. Carolina isn't kicking themselves cause they drafted Cam Newton a year after they drafted Clausen in Round 2.

That is the most obvious example, EXCEPT that Clausen DID play his rookie year and showed WHY he fell to the 2nd round. Cam Newton had JUST WON the college National Championship (like Watson) BUT is a HUGE Physical specimen for a QB. If we had seen Hack play and got SOME idea of what he was, then I feel more fans (that have NOT already decided that Hack sucks) would be open to a QB at #6 in a weak QB draft class. 

[Gas2No99]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

And a final minor point, being "right" about if/if not we should draft a QB, and/or if/if not Macc will, in fact, draft a QB at all in 2017, does not make one a better man.

In the realms of the Internet universe . . . . being correct! on a frivolous fan website is the ONLY makings of a MAN 

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

I am confused though, if you were so uninterested in this ongoing back and forth, one might wonder why you keep replying.  And so passionately at that....you certainly seem more interested than you claim.

Great way to kill time when waiting on HOLD on the phone. Might as well pass the time and debate/play devil's advocate/enhance my typing speed

 

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

I'm neither miserable nor do I hate Macc.  

In point of fact I have no personal feelings of any kind towards Macc, same as I had no personal feelings towards Geno, or Fitz or the vast majority of New York Jets.  I root the laundry.  

I am certainly critical of some of Macc's work-to-date, but "hate" does not enter the picture.  I am also critical of opinions like your own, which appears to prioritize hiding a failure over fixing a failure, but I don't hate you either.  In point of fact I have no personal feelings towards you, you are literally a name on a screen and nothing more.  An entertaining pass-time.

 

It's good that you don't take it to the extreme as other youngins' do 'round here. I don't as well, but apparently using different fonts, bolds, and cap letters is interpreted as "emotional" which I find hilarious. It's merely having fun with the FORMAT options available to me as I type. 

You do seem to come across as a curmudgeon that HATES every move by Mac. Glad to know it's not actual and affecting your health like it does others here, but I guess it's a matter of perspective and preference. I'm still holding out judgement on the guy, but I feel that this draft, will either MAKE or BREAK Mac for me. 

[thadude]

9 hours ago, Gas2No99 said:

That is the most obvious example, EXCEPT that Clausen DID play his rookie year and showed WHY he fell to the 2nd round. Cam Newton had JUST WON the college National Championship (like Watson) BUT is a HUGE Physical specimen for a QB. If we had seen Hack play and got SOME idea of what he was, then I feel more fans (that have NOT already decided that Hack sucks) would be open to a QB at #6 in a weak QB draft class. 

Way too many better prospects than Watson or Trubisky available at 6 

 

The smart move is Kizer in round 2 or Mahones in round 3 or 4 or Evans in round 6 or 7 but Mac will screw it up

[Fantasy Island]

I would just like our GM, Scout team and coaches to agree on a top list of draftable players ranked from 1-32 in their grading system.  Then have them pick the 32nd player on their list with the 6th pick .  I would be happy with that because we don't have a clue on drafting. 

Change it up.

 

[Adoni Beast]

13 hours ago, Gas2No99 said:

That is the most obvious example, EXCEPT that Clausen DID play his rookie year and showed WHY he fell to the 2nd round. Cam Newton had JUST WON the college National Championship (like Watson) BUT is a HUGE Physical specimen for a QB. If we had seen Hack play and got SOME idea of what he was, then I feel more fans (that have NOT already decided that Hack sucks) would be open to a QB at #6 in a weak QB draft class. 

Im actually in the group that wants the Jets to skip QB this year, let Hack play (I actually wanted us to draft him last year, in the 3rd not 2nd), and go from there with 2018 draft class looking promising.

I'm just saying if the Jets think Trubisky is a franchise guy, they're not gonna skip drafting him cause Hack's in the building.

[Warfish]

18 hours ago, Gas2No99 said:

In the realms of the Internet universe . . . . being correct! on a frivolous fan website is the ONLY makings of a MAN 

Great way to kill time when waiting on HOLD on the phone. Might as well pass the time and debate/play devil's advocate/enhance my typing speed

It's good that you don't take it to the extreme as other youngins' do 'round here. I don't as well, but apparently using different fonts, bolds, and cap letters is interpreted as "emotional" which I find hilarious. It's merely having fun with the FORMAT options available to me as I type. 

I like to think you and I are getting along swimmingly so far Gas.  We appear be of a like mindset in many ways.

Quote

You do seem to come across as a curmudgeon that HATES every move by Mac. Glad to know it's not actual and affecting your health like it does others here, but I guess it's a matter of perspective and preference. I'm still holding out judgement on the guy, but I feel that this draft, will either MAKE or BREAK Mac for me. 

I like a number of moves Macc has made, and I think his drafts (with a few minor exceptions) have been fine.

I think his attempt to "win now" with an older, expensive roster in 2016 was fine, even if I do hold him accountable for botching the Fitz signing.  Fitz needed to be in camp from the start, and for the paltry sums being contested, it wasn't worth it to let it linger.....although in fairness, there is every possabillity that was on Fitz who may not have wanted to suffer through offseason workouts at his age too.

My criticism of Macc is generally based on not firing Bowles (which it seems he may not have the power to do) and for the Hack pick.  Not the player, but the where he was picked, and the refusal to let the kid take a snap last year.  

My concern is pretty well covered, in the NFL you do not and can not win without a QB, and an offense.  We don't have either right now.  I appreciate the doubts and fears over this years crop, and the hype/hope for next years crop, that argument has some logic behind it no doubt.  But I continue to believe that a GM should make decisions on whats best long term, not best for him, and what is best for us long term is QB development in depth.  Multiple prospects, as good as we can reasonably get each year till we find out guy.

I'm far from wedded to a QB at #6.  I trust Macc (although after Hack, perhaps I shouldn't) if he likes one of the middle tier guys this year as a value-for-pick guy.

For example, if we go say, Cornerback (an obvious need) at #6, and then draft Pat Mahommes at our pick in the 2nd (or even via a short trade up) I would be happy with that, the hype around Mahommes is that he is a Favre type guy who may be seriously legit after a year or two learning.  

What I cannot support is the "wait and hope" idea, as it simply relies (IMO) on too many things having to go right.....and how often does everything go right for us, eh?  With respect to Paradis, I think being stuck with the 4th or 5th QB of next year's crop is not good enough.   Right now we have Hack (unknown), Petty (trending badly IMO, thoroughly unimpressive to-date in live fire) and McCown (an old nobody JAG one-year rental).  

It's not that I don;t want to see hack start this year, I do.  It's that I want a guy behind him, pushing him (and Petty IMO isn't good enough and McCown is a waste of time), and an option to go to in 2018 OTHER than starting a draft pick day 1 if Hack falters (which I personally predict he will).