How much criticism should Macc be getting for whiffing on Watson?

[bla bla bla]

32 minutes ago, Jetscode1 said:

I think Watson's injury illustrates the difficulty each GM has to find a franchise QB.

In other words, Macc looks justified in passing on him.

Agreed, he may never be the same QB again based on his play style but there has to be an incomplete grade for Watson right now. If he can stay healthy then we can criticize, even though we have the benefit of hindsight where Macc didn't have that.

[The Crusher]

1 hour ago, The Crusher said:

McCown is a pretty decent back up QB. 

 

1 hour ago, Philc1 said:

McCown is not a starting qb in this league.  29 out of 32 teams he wouldn’t even sniff the starter job here he’s a 16 game starter because Hack and Petty are putrid

Did my statement confuse you? 

[The Crusher]

37 minutes ago, Jetscode1 said:

I think Watson's injury illustrates the difficulty each GM has to find a franchise QB.

In other words, Macc looks justified in passing on him.

Hackenburgh has the safetest knee ligaments of any NFL QB-ish thing 

[Sperm Edwards]

17 hours ago, Jetscode1 said:

I think Watson's injury illustrates the difficulty each GM has to find a franchise QB.

In other words, Macc looks justified in passing on him.

Except he doesn't look justified, unless you want to make the ridiculous argument that the same exact injury would have happened in the same way to the same player on the exact same time of the exact same day, despite being in a different location, on a different team, in different conditions, playing/practicing against a different opponent, etc. It's not even like he got injured on some play he was recklessly running with the ball.

I'm curious what you think would be the result if we offered our entire 2017 draft class for Deshaun Watson right now (with his lengthy, grueling rehab not even underway yet). To sweeten the pot, throw in Hackenberg (note the O'Brien connection). You really think they'd take it? You think anyone would take it? Lol.

But perhaps you're right...

GMs should stick to rostering QBs who have not shown a propensity for getting injured. Bryce Petty, Ryan Fitzpatrick, and Josh McCown instantly come to mind.

[NoBowles]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Except he doesn't look justified, unless you want to make the ridiculous argument that the same exact injury would have happened in the same way to the same player on the exact same time of the exact same day, despite being in a different location, on a different team, in different conditions, playing/practicing against a different opponent, etc. It's not even like he got injured on some play he was recklessly running with the ball.

I'm curious what you think would be the result if we offered our entire 2017 draft class for Deshaun Watson right now (with his lengthy, grueling rehab not even underway yet). To sweeten the pot, throw in Hackenberg (note the O'Brien connection). You really think they'd take it? You think anyone would take it? Lol.

But perhaps you're right...

GMs should stick to rostering QBs who have not shown a propensity for getting injured. Bryce Petty, Ryan Fitzpatrick, and Josh McCown instantly come to mind.

Why does it have to be the exact same injury, and why is It ridiculous??

i loved Watson in college but my biggest concern was injury risk with his style or play in the NFL. 

When a Qb built like him runs as much as he does, he is a high injury risk, and it has to play into your decision making , particular at 6.

 

[UnitedWhofans]

I personally think Macc is neither justified nor should be blamed at this point.

It is simply too early to judge. Would like to see how and if Watson comes back next year. 

However, it is the Jets fans wont to jump immediately and make a proclamation. 

Its why people were shocked they lost to Tampa Bay. Because they got excited after beating Buffalo. 

They have to wait. 

[jetrider]

On November 22, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Apache 51 said:

Watson type quarterbacks are the wave of IR.

Fixed.

Watson is nothing but $13.85M in the toilet at this point.

Macc dodged a bullet by listening to Bowles and taking a safety.

[Ex-Rex]

On 10/31/2017 at 10:58 AM, Augustiniak said:

i say not much b/c bowles would still have mccown as the starter.  the head coach has to be on board with starting a rookie qb, he has to have confidence he'll be around for the entire process and bowles clearly does not have those attributes.  he will play the oldest qb on the roster until that guy gets hurt, bowles is probably the only coach who did not bench his qb after he threw 5 INTS in a game.  if mccags wants his drafted qbs to start he can't keep signing guys like fitz and mccown.  

mccags has one more draft to find a qb, and bowles has at most one more season to play this qb, or they're both gone.

Agreed. Bowles is ALL ABOUT veterans at the QB position and that is detrimental to developing one. Petty has earned a shot at getting the reins back and if the Jets lose to Carolina and KC to fall to 4-8 there is NO earthly reason to stick with McCown in hopes of going 6-10. If Bowles does stick with McCown his last check of the season should come with a pink slip. 

[Ex-Rex]

22 hours ago, The Crusher said:

I think Macc passing on Watson is a hang nail compared to the right arm amputation at the shoulder drafting Christian Hackenburgh in the second round was. In theory after taken Hackenburgh he should have been removed fromany discussion of taking and any QB anyplace a any time until he breathes his last breathe. Just finished new season of GOT! So awesome 

Passing on Watson shows that Mac doesn't have a clue in recognizing how a QB will develop from college to pro. I am really, really concerned that he will take someone like Hackenberg - though that would be a hard thing to duplicate - and pass on a good one.

[Bugg]

21 hours ago, Jetscode1 said:

I think Watson's injury illustrates the difficulty each GM has to find a franchise QB.

In other words, Macc looks justified in passing on him.

Disagree. A non-contact knee injury,  in practice no less, could happen to any QB, or really any player. Players who have long careers miss chunks of seasons all the time. You could not predict the exact injury would have happened if the Jets had picked him. If you could have, your talents are wasted here; come on by and we'll hit the gas station to buy lottery tickets on the way to Aqueduct.  This injury is simply a bump in the road.The decision to not pick Watson was atrocious and disasterously stupid. But entirely typical. 

[Jetscode1]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Except he doesn't look justified, unless you want to make the ridiculous argument that the same exact injury would have happened in the same way to the same player on the exact same time of the exact same day, despite being in a different location, on a different team, in different conditions, playing/practicing against a different opponent, etc. It's not even like he got injured on some play he was recklessly running with the ball.

I'm curious what you think would be the result if we offered our entire 2017 draft class for Deshaun Watson right now (with his lengthy, grueling rehab not even underway yet). To sweeten the pot, throw in Hackenberg (note the O'Brien connection). You really think they'd take it? You think anyone would take it? Lol.

But perhaps you're right...

GMs should stick to rostering QBs who have not shown a propensity for getting injured. Bryce Petty, Ryan Fitzpatrick, and Josh McCown instantly come to mind.

The bold is a nice strawman you proposed.  I'll pass on that argument. 

The draft is a crapshoot especially at the QB position.  GMs routinely remove a player from the draft board for medicals or style of play.  I personally like Watson's intangibles coming out but for whatever reason Macc chose to pass on him at #6.  Maybe he felt Adams was just a better player long term.  Maybe he thought he needed to prop his coach up with players to fit his defensive scheme.  The Parcells "shop for groceries" theory.  Hell for all know maybe he thought the team was not a good match for Watson.  Maybe Macc realizes Bowles is not up to the task of developing a QB (ala Jeff Fischer with Goff).  Do you really want to argue that Watson would have had the same level of success here under Bowles as he did under Bill O'Brien?

As for your trade scenario...I would pass as most teams due to the injury risk.  Have different view?  Think the QB position is so important you risk anything to get a starter.  How about Jamal Adams for Teddy Bridgewater?  You make that trade?  Same argument.  Young, promising QB with upside coming off a terrible injury.  Do you risk trading a young, promising, healthy safety for a chance a QB can mend himself and produce at the same level he did prior to injury?

I'll concede your last point.  I'm tired of Jets GMs trotting out retreaded QBs who give us little chance for glory but I'm still not convinced Macc deserves criticism for not taking Watson when there are other factors to consider.  Outcome does not dictate strategy but at this point Macc looks to have a better player long term at pick #6 and looks justified in passing on Watson.  

     

[Bugg]

3 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Except he doesn't look justified, unless you want to make the ridiculous argument that the same exact injury would have happened in the same way to the same player on the exact same time of the exact same day, despite being in a different location, on a different team, in different conditions, playing/practicing against a different opponent, etc. It's not even like he got injured on some play he was recklessly running with the ball.

I'm curious what you think would be the result if we offered our entire 2017 draft class for Deshaun Watson right now (with his lengthy, grueling rehab not even underway yet). To sweeten the pot, throw in Hackenberg (note the O'Brien connection). You really think they'd take it? You think anyone would take it? Lol.

But perhaps you're right...

GMs should stick to rostering QBs who have not shown a propensity for getting injured. Bryce Petty, Ryan Fitzpatrick, and Josh McCown instantly come to mind.

If you offered Lee, Adams and 2018's #1, they hang up the phone, laughing. 

[UnitedWhofans]

2 minutes ago, Bugg said:

If you offered Lee, Adams and 2018's #1, they hang up the phone, laughing. 

Maybe a couple of years ago they would, but we've seen QBs start fast and then flame out. RGIII, even Dak Prescott to an extent. Is 7 games enough?  I'm not saying they would take it, but I think they would think about it.

The real error is asking this question after the man has only played 7 games. Way too early

[Jetscode1]

7 minutes ago, Bugg said:

Disagree. A non-contact knee injury,  in practice no less, could happen to any QB, or really any player. Players who have long careers miss chunks of seasons all the time. You could not predict the exact injury would have happened if the Jets had picked him. If you could have, your talents are wasted here; come on by and we'll hit the gas station to buy lottery tickets on the way to Aqueduct.  This injury is simply a bump in the road.The decision to not pick Watson was atrocious and disasterously stupid. But entirely typical. 

Very difficult to predict the future.  

[Apache 51]

42 minutes ago, jetrider said:

Fixed.

Watson is nothing but $13.85M in the toilet at this point.

Macc dodged a bullet by listening to Bowles and taking a safety.

Thats true too. 

[Bugg]

Just now, Jetscode1 said:

The bold is a nice strawman you proposed.  I'll pass on that argument. 

The draft is a crapshoot especially at the QB position.  GMs routinely remove a player from the draft board for medicals or style of play.  I personally like Watson's intangibles coming out but for whatever reason Macc chose to pass on him at #6.  Maybe he felt Adams was just a better player long term.  Maybe he thought he needed to prop his coach up with players to fit his defensive scheme.  The Parcells "shop for groceries" theory.  Hell for all know maybe he thought the team was not a good match for Watson.  Maybe Macc realizes Bowles is not up to the task of developing a QB (ala Jeff Fischer with Goff).  Do you really want to argue that Watson would have had the same level of success here under Bowles as he did under Bill O'Brien?

As for your trade scenario...I would pass as most teams due to the injury risk.  Have different view?  Think the QB position is so important you risk anything to get a starter.  How about Jamal Adams for Teddy Bridgewater?  You make that trade?  Same argument.  Young, promising QB with upside coming off a terrible injury.  Do you risk trading a young, promising, healthy safety for a chance a QB can mend himself and produce at the same level he did prior to injury?

I'll concede your last point.  I'm tired of Jets GMs trotting out retreaded QBs who give us little chance for glory but I'm still not convinced Macc deserves criticism for not taking Watson when there are other factors to consider.  Outcome does not dictate strategy but at this point Macc looks to have a better player long term at pick #6 and looks justified in passing on Watson.  

     

It's not a crapshoot, i.e., completely random. In fact, a crapshoot, despite each roll of the dice being by itself a random event, has very specific odds for the outcome of each roll that over time are very predictable, but I digress (and hope to roll 6s and 8s next time I get to a green felt table with the bones in my hand). It involves scouting of talent, but also game playing how other team will draft, along with understanding the relative value of positions.

Increasingly the QB position has less talented offering, and the position itself is now more given to mobile QBs. The talent evaluation has to take that scarcity into account. You will find safeties later in the draft (like Maye, for example!) who are almost as good, but you do not typically find starting QBs. And simply by picking Adams at a position that does not have scarcity over Watson reflects a  ridiculous inability to see the relative value of positions. 

 Maccagnan took the high floor low ceiling pick. it's a lot like how Bowles coaches-scared, risk averse, pussified; no sense of what is really important. Watson has as high a floor and a high ceiling at a position of scarcity. In short, Mac is an a-hole who will never will a damn thing.

[Bugg]

6 minutes ago, Jetscode1 said:

Very difficult to predict the future.  

It's a very standard rehab that players do all the time. it's hard work, but it gets done every year by lots of players. 

[UnitedWhofans]

Just now, Bugg said:

.  Maccagnan took the high floor low ceiling pick. it's a lot like how Bowles coaches-scared, risk averse, pussified; no sense of what is really important. Watson has as high a floor and a high ceiling at a position of scarcity. In short, Mac is an a-hole who will never will a damn thing.

That's a bit insulting, isnt it?

 

[Bugg]

Just now, UnitedWhofans said:

That's a bit insulting, isnt it?

 

Unless he wakes up, which doesn't look like it's gonna happen, it's probably the truth.

[Jetscode1]

1 minute ago, Bugg said:

It's not a crapshoot, i.e., completely random. In fact, a crapshoot, despite each roll of the dice being by itself a random event, has very specific odds for the outcome of each roll that over time are very predictable, but I digress (and hope to roll 6s and 8s next time I get to a green felt table with the bones in my hand). It involves scouting of talent, but also game playing how other team will draft, along with understanding the relative value of positions.

Increasingly the QB position has less talented offering, and the position itself is now more given to mobile QBs. The talent evaluation has to take that scarcity into account. You will find safeties later in the draft (like Maye, for example!) who are almost as good, but you do not typically find starting QBs. And simply by picking Adams at a position that does not have scarcity over Watson reflects a  ridiculous inability to see the relative value of positions. 

 Maccagnan took the high floor low ceiling pick. it's a lot like how Bowles coaches-scared, risk averse, pussified; no sense of what is really important. Watson has as high a floor and a high ceiling at a position of scarcity. In short, Mac is an a-hole who will never will a damn thing.

An opinion piece.  I personally never met the man.  Maybe you should take your concerns directly to Woody.

[UnitedWhofans]

1 minute ago, Bugg said:

It's a very standard rehab that players do all the time. it's hard work, but it gets done every year by lots of players. 

I wouldnt call it very standard (like Tommy JOhn has become in baseball) but it can be done. 

Alos this is Watson's second rehab for this type of injury

[UnitedWhofans]

1 minute ago, Bugg said:

Unless he wakes up, which doesn't look like it's gonna happen, it's probably the truth.

SO you don't think he;s going to take the risk? I think he pretty much has to to save his job.

[NoBowles]

54 minutes ago, jetrider said:

Fixed.

Watson is nothing but $13.85M in the toilet at this point.

Macc dodged a bullet by listening to Bowles and taking a safety.

THIs is most likely the most accurate post in this thread in every way

[Sperm Edwards]

3 hours ago, Jetscode1 said:

The bold is a nice strawman you proposed.  I'll pass on that argument. 

The draft is a crapshoot especially at the QB position.  GMs routinely remove a player from the draft board for medicals or style of play.  I personally like Watson's intangibles coming out but for whatever reason Macc chose to pass on him at #6.  Maybe he felt Adams was just a better player long term.  Maybe he thought he needed to prop his coach up with players to fit his defensive scheme.  The Parcells "shop for groceries" theory.  Hell for all know maybe he thought the team was not a good match for Watson.  Maybe Macc realizes Bowles is not up to the task of developing a QB (ala Jeff Fischer with Goff).  Do you really want to argue that Watson would have had the same level of success here under Bowles as he did under Bill O'Brien?

As for your trade scenario...I would pass as most teams due to the injury risk.  Have different view?  Think the QB position is so important you risk anything to get a starter.  How about Jamal Adams for Teddy Bridgewater?  You make that trade?  Same argument.  Young, promising QB with upside coming off a terrible injury.  Do you risk trading a young, promising, healthy safety for a chance a QB can mend himself and produce at the same level he did prior to injury?

I'll concede your last point.  I'm tired of Jets GMs trotting out retreaded QBs who give us little chance for glory but I'm still not convinced Macc deserves criticism for not taking Watson when there are other factors to consider.  Outcome does not dictate strategy but at this point Macc looks to have a better player long term at pick #6 and looks justified in passing on Watson.  

     

It is not a crapshoot, despite the repeated metaphor. A crapshoot implies you have no say in the outcome by exercising judgment, and that it is totally, completely left to chance. This copout excuse is of course untrue.

There is no evidence that Maccagnan removed Watson from his board, so why bring it up? He just valued a safety higher. A safety. Just like the year before when he valued an injured, overpriced, and frankly not-needed Mo Wilkerson, plus the chance to draft Christian Hackenberg, over moving up for Wentz.

And then of course comes the next, obligatory excuse, that Houston was such a great scenario for any QB - why, just look at all the other QBs that blossomed there of late - that all a QB had to do was throw the ball up in the air and TDs come automatically. Therefore because there is this great presumption that Watson wouldn't have done as well here, so let's just stay away from QBs.

Not to mention, if this is such a bad place for a young QB, because the personnel isn't good enough, that blame lies squarely on the GM.

Bridgewater isn't anywhere near the same galaxy of an argument because his injury was far, far more serious, and Bridgewater wasn't nearly off the unique, jaw-dropping, record-breaking start as Watson. Watson is expected to make a full recovery and be the same QB again, and is absolutely expected to be Houston's QB week 1 next season. Nothing of the sort with Bridgewater.

You're also trying to play both sides of the same coin, suggesting outcome doesn't dictate strategy, but then using the outcome of Watson's injury to rationalize strategy.

And you should prepare yourself for a retread QB. That's the path that seems most likely for 2018.

[UnitedWhofans]

4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

And you should prepare yourself for a retread QB. That's the path that seems most likely for 2018.

When you say retread QB, what specifically do you mean? If you mean a guy like Tyrod Taylor, it's borderline because of his age. If you mean McCown absolutely.

[Sperm Edwards]

3 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

When you say retread QB, what specifically do you mean? If you mean a guy like Tyrod Taylor, it's borderline because of his age. If you mean McCown absolutely.

Thank you. Your input is necessary and valued as much as ever.

[UnitedWhofans]

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

Thank you. Your input is necessary and valued as much as ever.

Why thank you. I appreciate that

[Fantasy Island]

2 hours ago, UnitedWhofans said:

That's a bit insulting, isnt it?

 

It is the truth as evidenced by his moves so far in the draft and FA.

[UnitedWhofans]

1 minute ago, Fantasy Island said:

It is the truth as evidenced by his moves so far in the draft and FA.

That he's a an a$$hole? I dont think, even if you say he sucks as a GM, you can say he's an a$$hole

[Fantasy Island]

2 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

That he's a an a$$hole? I dont think, even if you say he sucks as a GM, you can say he's an a$$hole

That is a kinder word than I would use to describe him.

[UnitedWhofans]

1 minute ago, Fantasy Island said:

That is a kinder word than I would use to describe him.

Unless you've personally encountered him, I don't think any adjective related to his behavior or temperament is fair. Intelligence, fine

[Fantasy Island]

1 minute ago, UnitedWhofans said:

Unless you've personally encountered him, I don't think any adjective related to his behavior or temperament is fair. Intelligence, fine

He allows a 38 yr old QB to start in a rebuilding year AND pays him a bonus to do so.  He is a stupid ^&*()(******!

[UnitedWhofans]

Just now, Fantasy Island said:

He allows a 38 yr old QB to start in a rebuilding year AND pays him a bonus to do so.  He is a stupid ^&*()(******!

Well since I think we would be in the same place with Petty, it really makes no difference to me.

And I keep going back to this. IF you want Macc to draft a QB, why do you think Petty should play?

[Jetscode1]

46 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It is not a crapshoot, despite the repeated metaphor. A crapshoot implies you have no say in the outcome, and that it is totally, completely left to chance. This copout excuse is of course untrue.

There is no evidence that Maccagnan removed Watson from his board, so why bring it up? He just valued a safety higher. A safety. Just like the year before when he valued an injured, overpriced, and frankly not-needed Mo Wilkerson, plus the chance to draft Christian Hackenberg, over moving up for Wentz.

And then of course comes the next, obligatory excuse, that Houston was such a great scenario for any QB - why, just look at all the other QBs that blossomed there of late - that all a QB had to do was throw the ball up in the air and TDs come automatically. Therefore because there is this great presumption that Watson wouldn't have done as well here, so let's just stay away from QBs.

Not to mention, if this is such a bad place for a young QB, because the personnel isn't good enough, that blame lies squarely on the GM.

Bridgewater isn't anywhere near the same galaxy of an argument because his injury was far, far more serious, and Bridgewater wasn't nearly off the unique, jaw-dropping, record-breaking start as Watson. Watson is expected to make a full recovery and be the same QB again, and is absolutely expected to be Houston's QB week 1 next season. Nothing of the sort with Bridgewater.

You're also trying to play both sides of the same coin, suggesting outcome doesn't dictate strategy, but then using the outcome of Watson's injury to dictate strategy.

And you should prepare yourself for a retread QB. That's the path that seems most likely for 2018.

I'm just making the point that we don't know the basis on which Macc made the decision to choose Adams over Watson.  Does he pick Adams to satiate Bowles or does he doubt Bowles has skills necessary to develop Watson.  Maybe he never valued Watson as a first-rounder at all.  Again, we do not know the logic behind his decision.  Houston was a far better landing spot for Watson just considering the makeup of the team.  More offensive firepower as well as a coach who cobbled together playoff appearances with a seriously flawed group of QBs.  Yes, I find Bill O'Brien is a better coach than Todd Bowles.  

Watson, Bridgewater or throw in RG III if you like they all had injuries and the jury is still out on future expectations for Watson.  Yes, I'm prepared for another retread QB in 2018.  It seems the Jets way since Woody bought the team.  We did spend a first on Pennington who promptly got injured, a first on the Sanchize and a couple of seconds on Clemens and Hack so yeah maybe the Jets are using the outcome determines strategy.  If you can't draft/develop a long term answer at QB, it's better to hope for better play from another team's sloppy seconds.  Jets not the only team to employ this strategy.  Just look at the Vikings under its current regime.  

FTR, I have seen some good moves from Macc and some head shakers.  Doesn't mean I'm giving him a pass on the state of the team just saying he was justified in not taking Watson.  I do not agree I'm playing both sides of the coin just acknowledging that other factors may have contributed to Macc's decision not to draft Watson.  You can read it however you like. 

[Sperm Edwards]

29 minutes ago, Jetscode1 said:

I'm just making the point that we don't know the basis on which Macc made the decision to choose Adams over Watson.  Does he pick Adams to satiate Bowles or does he doubt Bowles has skills necessary to develop Watson.  Maybe he never valued Watson as a first-rounder at all.  Again, we do not know the logic behind his decision.  Houston was a far better landing spot for Watson just considering the makeup of the team.  More offensive firepower as well as a coach who cobbled together playoff appearances with a seriously flawed group of QBs.  Yes, I find Bill O'Brien is a better coach than Todd Bowles.  

Watson, Bridgewater or throw in RG III if you like they all had injuries and the jury is still out on future expectations for Watson.  Yes, I'm prepared for another retread QB in 2018.  It seems the Jets way since Woody bought the team.  We did spend a first on Pennington who promptly got injured, a first on the Sanchize and a couple of seconds on Clemens and Hack so yeah maybe the Jets are using the outcome determines strategy.  If you can't draft/develop a long term answer at QB, it's better to hope for better play from another team's sloppy seconds.  Jets not the only team to employ this strategy.  Just look at the Vikings under its current regime.  

FTR, I have seen some good moves from Macc and some head shakers.  Doesn't mean I'm giving him a pass on the state of the team just saying he was justified in not taking Watson.  I do not agree I'm playing both sides of the coin just acknowledging that other factors may have contributed to Macc's decision not to draft Watson.  You can read it however you like. 

Woody shmuddy. He's a dope, and has that famously stupid power structure, but in terms of player personnel he lets the GM do what the GM wants (as past and present GMs have shown and acknowledged). He only sticks his unnecessary 2 cents in when it's time to hire a HC or GM.

Maccagnan is the GM. He doesn't answer to Bowles no matter what conspiracy theory some have conjured up in their heads. I'm quite sure Macc solicits input from everyone around him, like every GM, but ultimately the decision is his to make. Just like it was no secret Bowles didn't want the roster he went to battle with this year and it was clear he didn't want to cut certain players, yet Maccagnan did it anyway. 

Enough about the greatness of the situation in Houston. Houston sucks. Everyone overrates Houston's situation this year because of Watson's unexpected success: success others didn't have before him, and success that's absent after him. Their OL has 5 legitimately terrible blockers, none of whom do anything well except let blockers into the backfield. This bad joke of an OL, and the 2nd-team defense they've been fielding this year, has removed the ability to really rest and rely on the ground game to take pressure off a young QB. It's not a good situation for a veteran, let alone for a rookie, just because you heard 2 of their WRs' names called in your fantasy draft. This was a bottom-3 passing attack until Watson got there and it's resembling that again now that Watson's gone.

But again, if you want to call into question a comparatively substandard makeup of the Jets' team, that blame lies with the GM. You can't have it both ways by saying the team he put together is crap, so therefore you think he's justified in passing up on a QB to stick with his 2 busts and Josh McCown. 

The "Macc's done some good and some bad" sentiment is a ludicrous one because the way this binary outcome choice is laid out there suggests that he's right roughly as often as he's wrong. He's nowhere near batting .500 since coming here. In free agency I'm not sure that he's batting even .100 and it isn't all that much better in the draft (which "success" is itself inflated by taking safer, low ceiling players in round 1 because they supposedly had a higher floor.)

He's a novice in competition with professionals. An incompetent whose incompetence is only masked by the fact that other similar (and even a few worse) incompetents are employed by other teams. So at best he's the proverbial King of the Dipshits. That's not good enough to get us to a superbowl, though. Not ever.