Chance jets have to face Brady/Tannehill/Trubisky 6 times a yea

[flgreen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOxW_xLxRaQ

[BigRy56]

2 hours ago, SouthernJet said:

1 will suprise like Russ Wilson and tanny will keep growing as supporting cast get sbetter. HOFer, no, but solid. Better than what we have , thats for sure.

How many years are we going to say 'Tanny will keep growing' until we realize that he's not growing?

[BurnleyJet]

Only Draft him at 6 if you believe he's a real franchise QB. Don't  throw pick away, on a guy who may be an 8-8 QB. Just because he's better then the sh*t we have now.

Draft an impact player, and don't look back, or trade out for a favourable deal, in a very deep draft. If I'm the GM I have to be all in at 6 for a QB, because that's my job on the line.

[SouthernJet]

4 minutes ago, BigRy56 said:

How many years are we going to say 'Tanny will keep growing' until we realize that he's not growing?

He is better than anything we have, that was my point.

[SouthernJet]

I actually think we draft the CB from OSU or TE from Alabama

[Warfish]

7 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

Ryan Tannehill sucks. We should all be thrilled he's the Dolphins QB of the foreseeable future.

As a reminder, "sucky Tannehill" beat us and our "elite" defense twice last year.

And he's batting .500 against us in his career so far overall.

As perfectly average as Tanny is, WE would be lucky to have even that level of quality at QB.

 

 

 

[Skeptable]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

Mock if you like, both are 100x better than any prospect WE have at current.

We are, today, one of the bottom two or three teams at the QB position, and in overall offensive skill talent.  That's the facts my friend.

We may lol at Tannehill, but he's Montana compared to what we have right now.

I'm not saying we must draft Trubisky, or that we must draft QB at #6, but we're in no position to mock anyone else at the QB position.

Tannehill is a bottom 5 QB... Maybe better then Hack (who knows) But McCown is better then Tannehill

[Komba]

1 minute ago, BurnleyJet said:

Only Draft him at 6 if you believe he's a real franchise QB. Don't  throw pick away, on a guy who may be an 8-8 QB. Just because he's better then the sh*t we have now.

Draft an impact player, and don't look back, or trade out for a favourable deal, in a very deep draft. If I'm the GM I have to be all in at 6 for a QB, because that's my job on the line.

Exactly.  Just being better than what we have now is not good enough.  A solid QB in this league isn't good enough.  You can't sustain winning in this league without a top 10 QB so that is BY FAR the most important need for this team.

Personally believe Trubisky has a good shot at being a top 10 QB in this league.  The only other QB I see that possibly happening with is Watson.  So by that definition, I'm good with both being picked at 6 because no team is winning in the NFL without a QB.

[Komba]

1 minute ago, Warfish said:

As a reminder, "sucky Tannehill" beat us and our "elite" defense twice last year.

And he's batting .500 against us in his career so far overall.

As perfectly average as Tanny is, WE would be lucky to have even that level of quality at QB.

 

 

 

No we wouldn't be lucky... Tannehill is the worst QB to get.  Some people around here lost the idea of this whole thing.  Being better than we are now doesn't mean anything unless we can win a super bowl.  Tannehill can't win a super bowl but is good enough where you'll waste a decade trying to get there with him.

[Warfish]

Just now, Skeptable said:

Tannehill is a bottom 5 QB... Maybe better then Hack (who knows) But McCown is better then Tannehill

"Maybe"?  Talk about being detached from reality.

How about Hack take a snap in an NFL game before we proclaim him better than a lifetime 5 year NFL starter, 77 game starter with an 106/66 TD/INT Ratio and whose been at or very near 4,000 in three out of five years.

Be assured, I would sign us up for that level of "suck" in a second, because OUR level of suck the past five years has been materially, meaningfully, worse.  Far worse.

[Warfish]

2 minutes ago, Komba said:

No we wouldn't be lucky... Tannehill is the worst QB to get.  Some people around here lost the idea of this whole thing.  Being better than we are now doesn't mean anything unless we can win a super bowl.  Tannehill can't win a super bowl but is good enough where you'll waste a decade trying to get there with him.

No, the worst QB to get would be, in order:

1. Fitz

2. Geno

3. Sanchez

4. Hack

5. Petty

Not one of those guys can hold Tannehills jockstrap so far in their careers.

I think it's folks like yourself who have it twisted.  When all you have is a steaming wet pile of poop in your hand, you don't have alot of room to make fun of average.

[Skeptable]

Just now, Warfish said:

No, the worst QB to get would be, in order:

1. Fitz

2. Geno

3. Sanchez

4. Hack

5. Petty

Not one of those guys can hold Tannehills jockstrap so far in their careers.

I think it's folks like yourself who have it twisted.  When all you have is a steaming wet pile of poop in your hand, you don't have alot of room to make fun of average.

Seriously, Tannehill is bottom 5 QB that has a starting job... sure you can list 45 back-ups that are worse... but that proves nothing

[Komba]

Just now, Warfish said:

No, the worst QB to get would be, in order:

1. Fitz

2. Geno

3. Sanchez

4. Hack

5. Petty

Not one of those guys can hold Tannehills jockstrap so far in their careers.

I think it's folks like yourself who have it twisted.  When all you have is a steaming wet pile of poop in your hand, you don't have alot of room to make fun of average.

Wait, is your goal being better than we are or actually winning a super bowl?  Because for me, the goal is pretty freaking clear.  Better than we are means nothing to me. Actually contending for a super bowl is everything.

The great thing about those QB's you listed is that they don't fool you into wasting several years TRYING to win a super bowl with them.

If you can't win a super bowl with a guy, then it's just a huge waste of time.  Tannehill is a waste of time, and even bigger waste of time because he's just good enough where you keep trying.

You MUST, MUST, MUST get a top level guy and Tannehill just isn't that.

[Skeptable]

2 minutes ago, Warfish said:

"Maybe"?  Talk about being detached from reality.

How about Hack take a snap in an NFL game before we proclaim him better than a lifetime 5 year NFL starter, 77 game starter with an 106/66 TD/INT Ratio and whose been at or very near 4,000 in three out of five years.

Be assured, I would sign us up for that level of "suck" in a second, because OUR level of suck the past five years has been materially, meaningfully, worse.  Far worse.

 Yeah, Maybe... until Hack takes the field you can't prove one way or another. We can argue back and forth on the merits of not playing his freshman year but we will not see eye to eye on it... so until Hack takes the field I reserve my right to say Hack is worse then Tannehill.  Tannehill is a garbage QB that only has a job because Tannebaum did another Mark Sanchez extension in Florida. 

[Skeptable]

3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

No, the worst QB to get would be, in order:

1. Fitz

2. Geno

3. Sanchez

4. Hack

5. Petty

Not one of those guys can hold Tannehills jockstrap so far in their careers.

I think it's folks like yourself who have it twisted.  When all you have is a steaming wet pile of poop in your hand, you don't have alot of room to make fun of average.

Still in this list (Which I did not create), they are all back-ups at the moment.  I said Tannehill is worse then McCown, the starter (for now) for the Jets... McCown is terrible but still better then the flaming pile of sh*t that is Tannehill

[Warfish]

13 minutes ago, Komba said:

Wait, is your goal being better than we are or actually winning a super bowl?  Because for me, the goal is pretty freaking clear.  Better than we are means nothing to me. Actually contending for a super bowl is everything.

The great thing about those QB's you listed is that they don't fool you into wasting several years TRYING to win a super bowl with them.

If you can't win a super bowl with a guy, then it's just a huge waste of time.  Tannehill is a waste of time, and even bigger waste of time because he's just good enough where you keep trying.

You MUST, MUST, MUST get a top level guy and Tannehill just isn't that.

My goal is winning a Super Bowl.  To win a Super Bowl (or contend for one) we must get materially better at the QB Position.

But with that said, fans who talk sh*t about players vastly better than their own players look and sound like ignorant, poorly informed idiots when they do so.

And again, what could OUR team these past five years have been with a 4,000 yard, 21 TD to 13 INT type "bottom 5" QB?  

The answer is "much better than we were".

But sure, lets say Hack is "better", because outside the Jets Fan echo chamber THAT claim makes alot of sense. 

[slats]

3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

My goal is winning a Super Bowl.  To win a Super Bowl (or contend for one) we must get materially better at the QB Position.

But with that said, fans who talk sh*t about players vastly better than their own players look and sound like ignorant, poorly informed idiots when they do so.

And again, what could OUR team these past five years have been with a 4,000 yard, 21 TD to 13 INT type "bottom 5" QB?  

The answer is "much better than we were".

But sure, lets say Hack is "better", because outside the Jets Fan echo chamber THAT claim makes alot of sense. 

 

The fish sunk a high pick and a ton of money into an average -on a good day- QB. Is he better than anything I've seen on the Jets? Absolutely. But that's inconsequential. The fish are no better off than the Jets, and maybe even worse off, caught in some borderline playoff contender status but never getting over the hump. At least the Jets don't have much money or high picks tied into the position, giving them the freedom to keep looking for a championship level guy. The fish are in a holding pattern for as long as they stick with Tanny. 

Trubisky might also be better than anything on the Jets roster, but his lack of college experience concerns me. Junior QBs traditionally struggle in the NFL, and Trubisky has a small body of work for a junior. Way too many Sanchez flashbacks for me. And if the Jets take any QB at #6, they're committing to him for an extended period of time, a la Sanchez. They would really have to be sure there. I don't like any QB in this draft that high. 

[Komba]

13 minutes ago, Warfish said:

My goal is winning a Super Bowl.  To win a Super Bowl (or contend for one) we must get materially better at the QB Position.

But with that said, fans who talk sh*t about players vastly better than their own players look and sound like ignorant, poorly informed idiots when they do so.

And again, what could OUR team these past five years have been with a 4,000 yard, 21 TD to 13 INT type "bottom 5" QB?  

The answer is "much better than we were".

But sure, lets say Hack is "better", because outside the Jets Fan echo chamber THAT claim makes alot of sense. 

I don't know how else to say it... Better than we are just doesn't matter one bit. It only comes down to being able to honestly win a super bowl. Tannehill can't. He's not garbage as some others around here suggest but he's not good enough.  And because of that, he's a waste of time.

[slats]

2 hours ago, SouthernJet said:

1 will suprise like Russ Wilson and tanny will keep growing as supporting cast get sbetter. HOFer, no, but solid. Better than what we have , thats for sure.

There's no comparison between Trubisky at #6 overall and Russell Wilson in the third round. Russell Wilson was an older, mature player who'd spent time in pro baseball before going back to school and playing college ball. The Trubisky comparison is Mark Sanchez, unfortunately. 

[Komba]

9 minutes ago, slats said:

There's no comparison between Trubisky at #6 overall and Russell Wilson in the third round. Russell Wilson was an older, mature player who'd spent time in pro baseball before going back to school and playing college ball. The Trubisky comparison is Mark Sanchez, unfortunately. 

Trubisky will not be Sanchez... Sanchez couldn't handle free runners or go through progressions like Trubisky. Also had the panic aspect to his game where he did incredibly dumb stuff far too often.  Trubisky threw 4 INT's in the regular season last year and 2 of those were in a hurricane.  And it's not like he played in the offense that didn't push it downfield either.  The only guy that resembles Sanchez at all is Kizer. Kizer makes big mistakes at odd moments and shows a bit of panic in his movements.  You just can't have that as a pro.

Sanchez sucked but it had nothing to do with lack of experience.  He was going to fail at the pro level even if he started multiple seasons.

[HessStation]

3 hours ago, SouthernJet said:

Russ Wilson fan a few years back? LOL Some see what others can't.

Like 4-5 yrs in and Tannehill can't even be called a franchise QB yet. Brady is going on 40 and Calling Trubisky anything is like playing pin the tail. 

[JiFtheOracle]

3 hours ago, SouthernJet said:

course not, meant that no one thought he would start Year 1. Some QBs surprise. How you been, hope all well, its been awhile

Hello!  Good to see you!  I'm confused though, are you saying Trubisky is Russell Wilson? 

[Pac]

2 hours ago, SouthernJet said:

That is inappropriatre especially for those on the Board w/family members in that category. Grow up.

oh please.

[JiFtheOracle]

4 hours ago, Warfish said:

Mock if you like, both are 100x better than any prospect WE have at current.

We are, today, one of the bottom two or three teams at the QB position, and in overall offensive skill talent.  That's the facts my friend.

We may lol at Tannehill, but he's Montana compared to what we have right now.

I'm not saying we must draft Trubisky, or that we must draft QB at #6, but we're in no position to mock anyone else at the QB position.

I will mock because this thread is hysterical.

First off, Trubisky isnt in the league and I would suspect if the Jets really really want him, they can have him.  I would hope that they see that in the history of the NFL, a underclassman with 1 year of starting experience has never worked and therefore, pass on Mitchell, but I digress.  The idea that he is instantly better than McCown, Petty or Hack for that matter, is mock worthy. 

And this thread, wasnt comparing the AFCE QB's.  This thread was created to strike fear into the hearts of Jets fans at the idea of having to face Mitchell Trubisky and Ryan Tannehill 4 out of the 16 games they play.  Forgive me for not shivering in fear from the idea of having to face these 2 amazingly unbeatable QB's.

And I would also like to point out that Southern Jet is an enormous UNC homer.

 

 

 

[JiFtheOracle]

2 hours ago, gEYno said:

Eric Ebron

any player in the history of UNC...

[Augustiniak]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

As a reminder, "sucky Tannehill" beat us and our "elite" defense twice last year.

And he's batting .500 against us in his career so far overall.

As perfectly average as Tanny is, WE would be lucky to have even that level of quality at QB.

 

 

 

seriously. last season he completed 67% of his passes for 19 tds and 12 picks.  

[Jet9]

This is one of the more ridiculous threads on JN, and that's saying something. 

[JiFtheOracle]

49 minutes ago, Warfish said:

My goal is winning a Super Bowl.  To win a Super Bowl (or contend for one) we must get materially better at the QB Position.

But with that said, fans who talk sh*t about players vastly better than their own players look and sound like ignorant, poorly informed idiots when they do so.

And again, what could OUR team these past five years have been with a 4,000 yard, 21 TD to 13 INT type "bottom 5" QB?  

The answer is "much better than we were".

But sure, lets say Hack is "better", because outside the Jets Fan echo chamber THAT claim makes alot of sense. 

This whole post is just all sorts of jacked up.

Ryan Tannehill and Mitchel Trubisky will never win a SB.  Ever.  Unless they're a back up somewhere.

So a fan base cant talk sh*t about a player if said player is supposedly better than the player they have playing the same position?  WTF?  Why? Who cares? 

Fitz threw for 4k, 31/15 and you just listed him as the worst QB in the NFL but those stats make Tannehill a good player?  Confusing contradiction, to say the least.

Who cares if they're better than what the Jets have?  They suck and should not be fear by any team, ever. 

The reality is, you dont know if Mitchel will be better than Hack.  At one point, Hack was considered the best NFL QB prospect in the Nation.  Trubisky is a nobody that was created in pre-draft hype.  A 3 star duel threat recruit who couldnt even win the starting job until another player graduated.  He's trying to accomplish something nobody has ever done before.  Hack was the #1 QB prospect in the nation and a 5 star recruit and if you go by just historical references, he technically has  a better shot of succeeding than Trubiksy.

 

 

 

 

[JiFtheOracle]

11 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

seriously. last season he completed 67% of his passes for 19 tds and 12 picks.  

Colin Kaepernick was 60%, 16 tds and 4 picks on a much sh*ttier team with no where near the weapons, do you want him? 

[Bleedin Green]

I will never understanding the strange complex some folks have with the Jets just sucking on their own not being enough.  No, no... everyone else has to be great too at the same time for some inexplicable reason, regardless of any and all evidence that suggests otherwise.  Because, you know... that proves something!

Seriously, the AFC East has the absolute worst QB situation of any division in the NFL.  The teams playing the division will not even be thinking twice about any team but the Pats.  The only teams with comparable and/or worse QB situations than the non-Pats AFCE teams are the Texans and Browns.

[UntouchableCrew]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

As a reminder, "sucky Tannehill" beat us and our "elite" defense twice last year.

And he's batting .500 against us in his career so far overall.

As perfectly average as Tanny is, WE would be lucky to have even that level of quality at QB.

 

 

 

I mean the Jets defense was not elite last year. It sucked... I assume you know this, but yeah, I have no problem saying Tannehill is total garbage. He's a below average starter who will never win a big game and the longer Miami hitches it's wagon to him the better. I'd expect Dolphins fans saying the same thing about us circa 2012 with Sanchez.

[ASH1962]

 

 

To the OP-Why "typical Jets"? I don't get that. They cannot control what someone takes above them in a draft unless they want to give up way too much to move up, which in this draft is out of the question altogether.

[Warfish]

22 minutes ago, JiF said:

So a fan base cant talk sh*t about a player if said player is supposedly better than the player they have playing the same position?  WTF?  Why? Who cares? 

You can do whatever you like.

It's within your freedom of expression to sound like an idiot, if that's your thing.

And the "supposedly" only reinforces the idiocy of this line of discussion.  

There is no supposedly, until Hack takes an NFL snap, he's not better than Tannehill. 

It's amazing to me we're even having this exchange.  What an embarrassing fanbase we are some days....

[thadude]

4 hours ago, JiF said:

Tannehill and Trubisky lol

The two greatest Qb's ever

[thadude]

37 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

I mean the Jets defense was not elite last year. It sucked... I assume you know this, but yeah, I have no problem saying Tannehill is total garbage. He's a below average starter who will never win a big game and the longer Miami hitches it's wagon to him the better. I'd expect Dolphins fans saying the same thing about us circa 2012 with Sanchez.

Agree totally about Tannehill.  I can easily see the Phins taking a big step back next year both them and the Vikings