Jamal Adams has an interesting quote

[Larz]

15 hours ago, NoBowles said:

How is the 3 cone drill time for all the players?

Can I take Trip to the future to make sure I don't make a mistake? 

[NoBowles]

13 minutes ago, Larz said:

Can I take Trip to the future to make sure I don't make a mistake? 

Sure, why not

[jetgreen13]

being about it > taking about it

[Philc1]

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 3:55 PM, BigO said:

Haven't you heard he's reinventing the position. He won't be playing safety. He'll be playing Danger Will Robinson Danger position. 

[Philc1]

Jamal Adams has been a JAG so far.  He has given up 3 TD's the last 2 games alone. 

[Sperm Edwards]

On 10/20/2017 at 12:40 PM, Matt39 said:

“I’m going to change the position,” Adams said. “When you go out there on the field, you don’t try to stay the same. You try to make something happen. You try to do something different. When Odell made the one-handed catch, he changed the culture, right? He changed what receivers do now. Everybody’s catching with one hand, right? Because of him. Even though people were making one-handed catches, he did something that people had never seen before. So just give it time, brother. That’s all.”

 

 

Years ago Eric Green also had one of those impossible type catches for us before the end of his career. I mean, it was preseason, but we’re the Jets and it’s better than nothing (which is what he produced for us after that meaningless catch), so we should be thankful. Of course there’s no evidence, since it’s been wiped from the interwebz, but IIRC it was jaw-dropping. Unless @nyjunc has it in his Jetsnerd VHS library, it’s lost forever. Think OBJ was 6 years old at the time lol.

[dbatesman]

5 hours ago, RESNewYork said:

Watson was such a slam dunk that he was 3rd QB taken in this draft. 

Browns - need a QB

Bears - trade up for Trubisky

49ers - need a QB

Jags - need a QB

Titans - have Mariotta

Chargers - Rivers but need a future QB

Panthers - Newton

Bengals - Dalton

Chiefs trade up with Bills - Bills need a QB but trade down. Chiefs take Mahomes

Saints - Brees but need a future QB

Texans trade up with Browns - Browns now had two chances to draft Watson

Do you see a trend. Did you see a trend with so many QBs in the history of the draft. How players like Prescott and Wilson happen all the time. As you can see many QB needy teams past on Watson. I wish the Jets had more foresight but this proves that even paid professionals and experts have a difficult time scouting the QB position 

I will never understand how "our GM is just as dumb as other dumb GMs" is an argument for Maccagnan.

[Philc1]

Just now, dbatesman said:

I will never understand how "our GM is just as dumb as other dumb GMs" is an argument for Maccagnan.

Or that Deshaun Watson was the only other option at 6. 

[Sperm Edwards]

16 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

Hindsight = 20/20

AND Watson would have not played as well for us, given he doesn't have one the best O-Lines, One of the best WR's in the game, and a solid running game.

A QB like Watson makes the line appear better because he buys himself more time. Bad QBs just stand there and wait to get hit, followed by fans baselessly claiming nobody could have avoided a sack or gotten a pass off on any of those plays. 

Good QBs make it look easy, and are the lesser-heralded examples of making his teammates look better because the OLmen aren’t catching passes and scoring TDs. But it’s another part of what makes special QBs special. 

Don’t know yet if Watson’s career will be special, but so far - less than 2 months into his rookie season - he looks better than any QB we’ve had in a long time.

And as far as this solid running game Houston has? Their 2-back RBBC is averaging 3.9 ypc. Our 3-back (really, an alternating 2-back) RBBC is averaging 4.4 ypc. And their OL? Tom Savage dropped back 20x behind that Houston OL and got sacked 7x before he got yanked. Savage sucks, but they weren’t all on him. Watson is clearly hiding lots of the OL’s warts.

Unless you want to use extreme examples (e.g. starting the likes of Stephen Hill and David Nelson at WR), the wepponz argument is meh. 

20/20 hindsight my hairy ass. There were plenty of us who - without even being college football spectators or draft rank nerds - hated taking a safety there, no matter how many supposed draft gurus foolishly said he was the best overall prospect in the whole draft. Meanwhile a mere month or so earlier there was serious debate as to whether he was even the best safety prospect in the draft (a draft loaded with safeties at that). The guy neck & neck with him? Nobody touched him until the middle of the round, after the top QBs are off the board, where a high-ranked safety should be going. Because when you take a safety at #6, if he isn’t incredible, you screwed up the pick. 

[RESNewYork]

4 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

 

5 hours ago, RESNewYork said:

Watson was such a slam dunk that he was 3rd QB taken in this draft. 

Browns - need a QB

Bears - trade up for Trubisky

49ers - need a QB

Jags - need a QB

Titans - have Mariotta

Chargers - Rivers but need a future QB

Panthers - Newton

Bengals - Dalton

Chiefs trade up with Bills - Bills need a QB but trade down. Chiefs take Mahomes

Saints - Brees but need a future QB

Texans trade up with Browns - Browns now had two chances to draft Watson

Do you see a trend. Did you see a trend with so many QBs in the history of the draft. How players like Prescott and Wilson happen all the time. As you can see many QB needy teams past on Watson. I wish the Jets had more foresight but this proves that even paid professionals and experts have a difficult time scouting the QB position 

 

7 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

I will never understand how "our GM is just as dumb as other dumb GMs" is an argument for Maccagnan.

That's what you got from my post? I'm happy you and other fans knew how much of a "slam dunk" Watson was. 

Again what I am trying to say, I guess he wasn't a slam dunk to NFL QB evaluators. Except for "Andrew Luck" type prospects, it looks like there is a lot of luck when choosing a QB.

[CanadaSteve]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

A QB like Watson makes the line appear better because he buys himself more time. Bad QBs just stand there and wait to get hit, followed by fans baselessly claiming nobody could have avoided a sack or gotten a pass off on any of those plays. 

Good QBs make it look easy, and are the lesser-heralded examples of making his teammates look better because the OLmen aren’t catching passes and scoring TDs. But it’s another part of what makes special QBs special. 

Don’t know yet if Watson’s career will be special, but so far - less than 2 months into his rookie season - he looks better than any QB we’ve had in a long time.

And as far as this solid running game Houston has? Their 2-back RBBC is averaging 3.9 ypc. Our 3-back (really, an alternating 2-back) RBBC is averaging 4.4 ypc. And their OL? Tom Savage dropped back 20x behind that Houston OL and got sacked 7x before he got yanked. Savage sucks, but they weren’t all on him. Watson is clearly hiding lots of the OL’s warts.

Unless you want to use extreme examples (e.g. starting the likes of Stephen Hill and David Nelson at WR), the wepponz argument is meh. 

20/20 hindsight my hairy ass. There were plenty of us who - without even being college football spectators or draft rank nerds - hated taking a safety there, no matter how many supposed draft gurus foolishly said he was the best overall prospect in the whole draft. Meanwhile a mere month or so earlier there was serious debate as to whether he was even the best safety prospect in the draft (a draft loaded with safeties at that). The guy neck & neck with him? Nobody touched him until the middle of the round, after the top QBs are off the board, where a high-ranked safety should be going. Because when you take a safety at #6, if he isn’t incredible, you screwed up the pick. 

And there wasn't a draft expert worth their weight in gold who thought Deshaun Watson was worth the 6th pick overall.  The highest in any mock I read (anyone worth reading that is), had him going any higher than 12.  Imagine if we took him at 6 and he wasn't playing well?  Its easy for the armchair draft enthusiast to say they would have picked so-and-so with whatever pick, no matter how early it would have been.  But the reality is, these guys are doing a job that they want to keep.  Very few are going to pick a player like Watson that far ahead of where everyone predicts them to go.  More GM's have lost their jobs for taking risks like that, rather than gaining accolades and pay raises.

Its all great to sit here and talk about what could have been.  We all have done it, especially with the Jets history.  But its time for everyone to let it go.  We have Jamal Adams on the team, not Deshaun Watson.  Next year, I am sure we can about who is going to be better; Watson or whichever guy we draft next year by whichever GM does it.

[CanadaSteve]

7 hours ago, BigO said:

Doesnt matter. The kid has mad skills.  You’d think with the success Prescott had you’d roll the dice and take one of the top qb’s left on the board at 6.  Watson would’ve made an immediate impact and rejuvenated the fan base and been the foundation to build around.  Instead we still have no future at QB. SMH ??‍♂️ 

We were never picking a QB in this draft given this regime has already drafted 2.  Why is this so hard for everyone to accept?  I am not saying it is right, but to think we were going to take Watson at 6 is just silly.

[dbatesman]

1 minute ago, RESNewYork said:

That's what you got from my post? I'm happy you and other fans knew how much of a "slam dunk" Watson was. 

Again what I am trying to say, I guess he wasn't a slam dunk to NFL QB evaluators. Except for "Andrew Luck" type prospects, it looks like there is a lot of luck when choosing a QB.

What do you mean by "luck"? The Texans didn't stumble into drafting Watson any more than we passed on him because of a voodoo curse. Both were considered choices. In the early going, one looks smart and one doesn't. There was plenty of evidence beforehand to suggest which would be which. Maccagnan, like every single Jets GM of our lifetime, chose to ignore it.

[RESNewYork]

1 minute ago, dbatesman said:

What do you mean by "luck"? The Texans didn't stumble into drafting Watson any more than we passed on him because of a voodoo curse. Both were considered choices. In the early going, one looks smart and one doesn't. There was plenty of evidence beforehand to suggest which would be which. Maccagnan, like every single Jets GM of our lifetime, chose to ignore it.

So do I say it again. Luck in a sense that after 6 weeks, the Texans picked the best QB prospect when other teams passed on Watson who also needed a QB. Maybe that will change later in the season or in the seasons to follow. But after 6 games, I guess many teams made a mistake, including the Jets. It's great you saw the greatness of Watson. Cleveland passed on him twice.

[Sperm Edwards]

6 hours ago, RESNewYork said:

Watson was such a slam dunk that he was 3rd QB taken in this draft. 

Browns - need a QB

Bears - trade up for Trubisky

49ers - need a QB

Jags - need a QB

Titans - have Mariotta

Chargers - Rivers but need a future QB

Panthers - Newton

Bengals - Dalton

Chiefs trade up with Bills - Bills need a QB but trade down. Chiefs take Mahomes

Saints - Brees but need a future QB

Texans trade up with Browns - Browns now had two chances to draft Watson

Do you see a trend. Did you see a trend with so many QBs in the history of the draft. How players like Prescott and Wilson happen all the time. As you can see many QB needy teams past on Watson. I wish the Jets had more foresight but this proves that even paid professionals and experts have a difficult time scouting the QB position 

You can’t get on a team for not using their 1st round pick for a benchwarmer QB while they are still (or believe themselves to be) SB contenders. 

That list is really:

• Browns
• 49ers

All the others have starting (if not franchise) QBs. Or in Chicago’s case, they already took a QB. Not Watson, but they took another. It’s not in the same universe as a team that doesn’t take a QB at all (let alone a QB-less, edge-rusher-less, CB-needy, WR-needy team - like the Jets - taking a freaking safety at #6 overall). Plus misguided as they were with Glennon’s signing and that unnecessary trade-up, at least they’re trying because they realize how important the position is; that if you don’t have one you’re not a serious contender anyway.

What’s the problem, we couldn’t have found 2 of the other 20 safeties in that draft class after the first round? If Adams was so valuable, as the only defender to come off the board between picks 3 and 11, how come nobody wanted to trade up to our slot to “steal” him for themselves?.

Geez, you even list the names of the starting QBs these other teams have, which are the reasons why they didn’t need to take a QB in the 1st round (or at all). Those teams can wait until the next year’s draft class to address their future QB. We needed one now, not in 2 or 3 seasons maybe.

[RESNewYork]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You can’t get on a team for not using their 1st round pick for a benchwarmer QB while they are still (or believe themselves to be) SB contenders. 

That list is really:

• Browns
• 49ers

All the others have starting (if not franchise) QBs. Or in Chicago’s case, they already took a QB. Not Watson, but they took another. It’s not in the same universe as a team that doesn’t take a QB at all (let alone a QB-less, edge-rusher-less, CB-needy, WR-needy team ek the Jets taking a freaking safety at #6 overall). Plus misguided as they were with Glennon’s signing and that unnecessary trade-up, at least they’re trying because they realize how important the position is; that if you don’t have one you’re not a serious contender anyway.

What’s the problem, we couldn’t have found 2 of the other 20 safeties in that draft class after the first round? If Adams was so valuable, as the only defender to come off the board between picks 3 and 11, how come nobody wanted to trade up to our slot to “steal” him for themselves?.

Geez, you even list the names of the starting QBs these other teams have, which are the reasons why they didn’t need to take a QB in the 1st round (or at all). Those teams can wait until the next year’s draft class to address their future QB. We needed one now, not in 2 or 3 seasons maybe.

Good point but I listed the names to show why they passed and they did not need Watson. But yes there were other QB needy teams who passed on him. 

But not sure why Chicago would get a pass. If we had the number 2 pick and took trubisky, what would the board be saying when we pass on watson.

[Sperm Edwards]

24 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

And there wasn't a draft expert worth their weight in gold who thought Deshaun Watson was worth the 6th pick overall.  The highest in any mock I read (anyone worth reading that is), had him going any higher than 12.  Imagine if we took him at 6 and he wasn't playing well?  Its easy for the armchair draft enthusiast to say they would have picked so-and-so with whatever pick, no matter how early it would have been.  But the reality is, these guys are doing a job that they want to keep.  Very few are going to pick a player like Watson that far ahead of where everyone predicts them to go.  More GM's have lost their jobs for taking risks like that, rather than gaining accolades and pay raises.

Its all great to sit here and talk about what could have been.  We all have done it, especially with the Jets history.  But its time for everyone to let it go.  We have Jamal Adams on the team, not Deshaun Watson.  Next year, I am sure we can about who is going to be better; Watson or whichever guy we draft next year by whichever GM does it.

Kiper had him mocked to the Chargers at #7. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2706113-mel-kiper-jr-2017-nfl-mock-draft-notable-picks-from-espn-gurus-final-mock (the ESPN link to his final mock is behind a pay wall)

But carry on with the lie that “nobody” had him going higher than #12. 

Those experts are so often so irrationally infatuated with physical measurables, and it’s because of experts like this that so many scoff at a height measurement, leading Russell Wilson to last to the middle of round 3.

Plus WTF are you talking about even? I mean, the best player in the draft was sitting right there at #6. Surely a team would have wanted to move up 2-4 slots to get the best player in the draft? We pick up an extra 2nd rounder or more, and take Watson at 9-10. 

Imagine if we took a QB at 6 and he wasn’t playing well? Are you serious? We took a SAFETY at 6 and he isn’t playing well. At least with a QB there’s an understanding the position often takes 1-3 years to develop. If you take a position like safety that high, you expect good results right away, and great results before long. What we get so far are excuses, braggadocio, and a clip of him being unaccounted-for by the offense on a safety blitz.

When you take a QB in the top half of round 1, it doesn’t matter if you took him at #6 or #12. That’s your franchise QB, and your GM is married to him either way. If that’s the crux of the argument, it’s a poor one. Years later nobody cares whether a top-10ish pick went about a few slots ahead of #10 or within a few slots after #10.

Lol don’t take a QB, because if he isn’t a success then the GM might get fired. Any puss GM with this mindset should be fired for ever thinking it.

[Sperm Edwards]

27 minutes ago, RESNewYork said:

Good point but I listed the names to show why they passed and they did not need Watson. But yes there were other QB needy teams who passed on him. 

But not sure why Chicago would get a pass. If we had the number 2 pick and took trubisky, what would the board be saying when we pass on watson.

Chicago gets a pass because they took a QB. They needed a QB and took a QB. They may prove correct in their ranking of Trubisky ahead of Watson, even if both end up as good QBs (or anyway, non-busts).

We don’t get a pass because we didn’t take a QB. Not at #6, not trading down to take one at #10 (give or take), not anywhere. And the two we’ve taken are behind a QB whose only other known job offer was to be the Browns’ QB coach. Last year both were firmly behind both Ryan Fitzpatrick and Geno Smith.

A team with such a QB situation doesn’t skip the position for an entire draft, when they’re at #6 and two consensus 1st round picks are sitting there when they’re on the clock...and they take a safety, in a safety-loaded draft.

Because you don’t like their current QB doesn’t mean they don’t. I mean you listed Cam Newton as a reason Carolina is a QB-needy team.

[Charlie Brown]

32 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You can’t get on a team for not using their 1st round pick for a benchwarmer QB while they are still (or believe themselves to be) SB contenders. 

That list is really:

• Browns
• 49ers

All the others have starting (if not franchise) QBs. Or in Chicago’s case, they already took a QB. Not Watson, but they took another. It’s not in the same universe as a team that doesn’t take a QB at all (let alone a QB-less, edge-rusher-less, CB-needy, WR-needy team ek the Jets taking a freaking safety at #6 overall). Plus misguided as they were with Glennon’s signing and that unnecessary trade-up, at least they’re trying because they realize how important the position is; that if you don’t have one you’re not a serious contender anyway.

What’s the problem, we couldn’t have found 2 of the other 20 safeties in that draft class after the first round? If Adams was so valuable, as the only defender to come off the board between picks 3 and 11, how come nobody wanted to trade up to our slot to “steal” him for themselves?.

Geez, you even list the names of the starting QBs these other teams have, which are the reasons why they didn’t need to take a QB in the 1st round (or at all). Those teams can wait until the next year’s draft class to address their future QB. We needed one now, not in 2 or 3 seasons maybe.

This 100%!!!!

IMO you don't take or acquire a QB via draft or trade if and only if you believe that Petty or Hack are the answer for the Jets.  If not, forgoing competent QBs in the draft absolutely makes no sense whatsoever..............................

 

[dbatesman]

55 minutes ago, RESNewYork said:

So do I say it again. Luck in a sense that after 6 weeks, the Texans picked the best QB prospect when other teams passed on Watson who also needed a QB. Maybe that will change later in the season or in the seasons to follow. But after 6 games, I guess many teams made a mistake, including the Jets. It's great you saw the greatness of Watson. Cleveland passed on him twice.

"Cleveland passed on him twice" should be on the cover of the season ticket brochure next season.

[NoBowles]

20 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

"Cleveland passed on him twice" should be on the cover of the season ticket brochure next season.

I’m still trying to figure out how Paul DePodestos math allowed the Browns to pass twice on the greatest QB to ever play NFL football??

[Larz]

What would it take to start a thread that doesn't turn into a QB thread? 

Is there any topic that could go 5 pages without becoming a QB thread? 

[NoBowles]

54 minutes ago, Charlie Brown said:

This 100%!!!!

IMO you don't take or acquire a QB via draft or trade if and only if you believe that Petty or Hack are the answer for the Jets.  If not, forgoing competent QBs in the draft absolutely makes no sense whatsoever..............................

 

Your leaving out another critical variable. Scouting. If you don’t like the QB a hell of a lot. You don’t take them with the 6th pick. Now, I have no clue if we can scout a QB or not, but if you don’t love him; you don’t take him. And it’s highly likely that not taking a QB had nothing to do with Hackenberg or Petty. And and, lets not forget that Mac seems to be under orders to get Bowles who he wants, it’s highly likely that Bowles would have rather had Adams than a QB, regardless of what Mac thought, of which I have no idea.

[jetgreen13]

54 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

"Cleveland passed on him twice" should be on the cover of the season ticket brochure next season.

 

1 hour ago, RESNewYork said:

So do I say it again. Luck in a sense that after 6 weeks, the Texans picked the best QB prospect when other teams passed on Watson who also needed a QB. Maybe that will change later in the season or in the seasons to follow. But after 6 games, I guess many teams made a mistake, including the Jets. It's great you saw the greatness of Watson. Cleveland passed on him twice.

not sure why that's supposed to make jet fans feel better about drafting a safety over a guy that looks like a franchise QB..

[dbatesman]

49 minutes ago, NoBowles said:

I’m still trying to figure out how Paul DePodestos math allowed the Browns to pass twice on the greatest QB to ever play NFL football??

You’re the applied mathematics Ph.D., so you tell me.

[NoBowles]

5 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

You’re the applied mathematics Ph.D., so you tell me.

Your the one whom decreed him as being a math guru. Not me. 

[dbatesman]

8 minutes ago, NoBowles said:

Your the one whom decreed him as being a math guru. Not me. 

There’s only one math guru round these parts

[NoBowles]

Just now, dbatesman said:

There’s only one math guru round these parts

Typical cop out ....

[dbatesman]

1 minute ago, NoBowles said:

Typical cop out ....

[NoBowles]

3 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

I don’t get it, but I’m sure Rutgers and Shane will pos rep you, good job

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

1 minute ago, NoBowles said:

I don’t get it, but I’m sure Rutgers and Shane will pos rep you, good job

It's mermaid Nicolas Cage. You really don't get it?

[NoBowles]

24 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

It's mermaid Nicolas Cage. You really don't get it?

No, apparently I’m not smart enough, or gay enough, or both.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

14 minutes ago, NoBowles said:

No, apparently I’m not smart enough, or gay enough, or both.

Mermaid. Nicolas. Cage. Con Air? The Rock?

[NoBowles]

10 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

Mermaid. Nicolas. Cage. Con Air? The Rock?

I know who he is, I still don’t get it....

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

Just now, NoBowles said:

I know who he is, I still don’t get it....

Nono. Nicolas CAGE. Coppola. Leaving Las Vegas. Mermaid. Come on, man.