Jump to content

If we hit on a QB this yr and if Darnold is the real deal...


Pointdexter

Recommended Posts

i like how Jets fans are so optimistic 

"What if they hit on a franchise QB two years in a row?! Wouldn't that be a great problem to have?" 

dudes we haven't had a FQB since Namath let's not "worry" about what happens when they get 2 in 2 years 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Skeptable said:

Watson will be a bust... Mark it... He will go down as a great leader and college QB... He has trouble reading Defenses, and his arm strength is a big issue.

Which is exactly why you don't draft him at 6.

I like him alot if I decided to pick at 6 and not trade down though he would not be the pick.

This team needs help everywhere. OL, LB. Secondary, WR, TE, etc. They need to make this pick count in the worst way and drafting a QB with that pick in a weak QB class just makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Maxman said:

Thread over.

Except that it's not. Simple reading of above posts reveal that 2 hall of famers in the modern era went 1-15 and 3-13, respectively, in their first year (aikman, manning). I'm sure I can find more examples. 

Bottom line is a rookie qb is winning about 3 games with this roster. What you hope to see is flashes of potential. 

Tampa Bay didn't light it up in Jameis' first yr (with a better roster than Jets) but it was plain to see by anyone who was watching that he was a franchise QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, j4jets said:

Yeah, except its not false. Manning won 3 games his first season. We're talking about a FHoF QB. With our roster, a rookie Dan Marino isnt winning more than 5. Keyword: Rookie. 

The Giants won 6 games in 2004. They did not get the 1st pick overall the following year.

Keywords: invalid argument.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

The Giants won 6 games in 2004. They did not get the 1st pick overall the following year.

Keywords: invalid argument.

 

Keywords: I just made it a valid argument and showed you how you were wrong calling out the op.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Beerfish said:

Such quality player evals.

Never take a USC QB

Always take Penn state Linebackers

Never take Penn state running backs

Always take Boston College olineman

Never take Wisconsin running backs

Always take Wisconsin lineman

Always take Florida or FSU DBS

Sometimes take Cal QBs

Always take Missouri pass rushers

Never take Texas tech QBs

Always take USB RB's

Never take Oregon QBs

Take a player from Pitt every 4th year

Never take Bama DBS

Take OSU olineman but avoid all other positions.

 

 

All kidding aside. If you really take history into account. If you were to follow this, you would be doing alright. lol 

You can add in always Purdue LB/DE hybrids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pointdexter said:

Except that it's not. Simple reading of above posts reveal that 2 hall of famers in the modern era went 1-15 and 3-13, respectively, in their first year (aikman, manning). I'm sure I can find more examples. 

Bottom line is a rookie qb is winning about 3 games with this roster. What you hope to see is flashes of potential. 

Tampa Bay didn't light it up in Jameis' first yr (with a better roster than Jets) but it was plain to see by anyone who was watching that he was a franchise QB.

Take a look at Derek Carr as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...