Jump to content

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


Pointdexter

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 547
  • Created
  • Last Reply
58 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

Why are we STILL going on about this?

There was NO expert (and when I say expert, I mean REAL experts, not the ones that sit on team websites and say I KNEW HE WOULD BE GREAT) that had him picked higher than right around where he went.  Mac was not picking a QB at 6.  IF he could have brokered a deal to move down, then maybe.

Now, if Mac whiffs on a QB next year.....the doors will be WIDE open for his departure.

Yeah, it always makes sense to not draft a QB five spots too high and take a safety instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gastineau Lives said:

Yeah, it always makes sense to not draft a QB five spots too high and take a safety instead.

Yes a safety that was valued in the top 5 by experts.

I keep coming back to this, if QBs and edge rushers are more valuable, then why aren't they ranked higher by draftniks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, NoBowles said:

This is a very tricky question....

First off, how much credit does he get for not taking Paxton Lynch? Does he get credit yet for Paxton Lynch? Does he get credit at all for it since supposedly it was Bowles who did not want him? Or does Bowles get the credit? Or is it too early to write off Lynch? ( I think so)

Had they taken Lynch with their 1st rounder last year, would it have been realistic to take a high 1st round QB after taking a 1st round QB the year before who was considered a dev project?

Many Jets fans were pounding the table for Lynch...

If Bowles gets credit for not taking Lynch, was he also behind not taking Watson? 

Its really hard to look at these things in a vacuum like many want to do.

I take a QB every year til we get one that can play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fantasy Island said:

I take a QB every year til we get one that can play.

That is a fair statement. The question is when? After spending a second round pick on a QB the year before, do you gamble with a first? Only if you really believe that he is the guy.

I would rather kind of do what Washington did. Draft 2 QBs in the same draft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

That is a fair statement. The question is when? After spending a second round pick on a QB the year before, do you gamble with a first? Only if you really believe that he is the guy.

Yes in the first.  Somehow there is a belief that you can bring QB's along slowly.  Not true, it is a win now league.  The new CBA doesn't break the bank anymore for misses in the first round and yet the mindset still remains that it does.  The days of a JaMarcus Russell are gone.  Keep buying the lottery tickets until one hits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fantasy Island said:

Yes in the first.  Somehow there is a belief that you can bring QB's along slowly.  Not true, it is a win now league.  The new CBA doesn't break the bank anymore for misses in the first round and yet the mindset still remains that it does.  The days of a JaMarcus Russell are gone.  Keep buying the lottery tickets until one hits.

I think that the fear is if you keep wasting firsts on a QB until you hit one, you will end up being the Colts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, gEYno said:

This is correct.  So, basically, we should probably get rid of the two guys who are responsible for, after 3 seasons, Josh McCown being the best QB on the roster by far, and bring in 2 other guys who may actually value the position correctly.

This is exactly my feeling. Pointing all the blame at Mac, or Bowles is a fun exercise, but there is more than enough evidence that they both have their hands in the current mess. I don't think you can fire one without the other personally, it doesn't make sense. I would not give them another year to try to find their QB, but if you do, I think you keep both and have their fates tied together. The mess with Tanyy/Rex/Idzik was not something that makes sense and moves orgs in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

that's just it, mccags won't find a watson b/c he's too afraid of taking a lynch.  that's why we end up with petty/hack/mccown/fitzpatrick.  i'd rather have tanny make the picks, at least we have a SHOT of getting a good qb.

Well, if you believe Schefter, it was Bowles who did not want Lynch, not Maccagnan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CanadaSteve said:

Yeah, it is....if you mean the constant bitching about Watson.  It is beyond idiotic to think that a 3rd year GM, after taking a QB in the 2nd round the previous year, would take a QB that some had ranked right about where he went, and others had him pegged more as a 2-3 round guy.  There were great concerns about his arm strength, a REAL issue in the Meadowlands, INT'S, ready through progressions. 

It is SIMPLE to sit on a website and say "I would have..." BS you would, not when your neck is on the line, and there were as many concerns about him as a prospect.  He starts this season for us and we are 3-5, or worse?  The next set of billboards would have been up calling for his termination.

The big thing to be pissed at, in my opinion, is why Josh McCown keeps getting trotted out to play.  It is unbelievable that Petty and Hack are not 1 and 2 for this whole season so you can see what you have, so you can go into the draft knowing you need starter-QB, a project, and what type of back-up you need.  If you wanna be pissed about anything, that would be the best thing, because it is ridiculous.

 

Yeah, imagine if we’d reached for Watson at 6. Boy, would our faces be red

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Fantasy Island said:

I take a QB every year til we get one that can play.

This sounds great, and fans love to say things like this, but I just don't see it as reality. Not all QB's burst onto the scene and are legit on day 1. If the Giants did this, they may not have had Eli Manning to win 2 SB's. Even more so in this day and age where college offenses are so different than the NFL. Guys like Watson are the exception, not the norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NoBowles said:

This sounds great, and fans love to say things like this, but I just don't see it as reality. Not all QB's burst onto the scene and are legit on day 1. If the Giants did this, they may not have had Eli Manning to win 2 SB's. Even more so in this day and age where college offenses are so different than the NFL. Guys like Watson are the exception, not the norm.

I think this is correct, but there’s a big difference between trading up to take a guy first overall and taking a flier on a guy in the second. One of the most-cited reasons to take a QB in the second is that you’re not tied to the guy. And yet our last two GMs have spent a two on bum-ass QBs and then left vastly superior prospects on the board the very next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dbatesman said:

I think this is correct, but there’s a big difference between trading up to take a guy first overall and taking a flier on a guy in the second. One of the most-cited reasons to take a QB in the second is that you’re not tied to the guy. And yet our last two GMs have spent a two on bum-ass QBs and then left superior prospects on the board next year.

Absolutely agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UnitedWhofans said:

Yes and here it is again. Instead of looking at the positive of what we have, you jump to the negative.

IT goes back to the wives.

So, your take is that we should be happy that we got an average strong safety with limited upside, and ignore that we missed a potentially good QB.  You're conflating seeking out the negative with sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigRy56 said:

Watson was the third QB taken. He didn't whiff on him and if he would've taken Watson this place would have gone ballistic. He also would be on a team with significantly less talent. He's in a good situation in Houston - let's see if it lasts.

Watson has already made him look bad.  It's very possible Watson wouldn't look as good here.  But, we've seen that Watson can play at a reasonably high level.  We desperately need a QB.  We got a SS that we don't yet know if he can play at a reasonably high level.  QBs are about 10 fold more important than SSs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gEYno said:

Watson has already made him look bad.  It's very possible Watson wouldn't look as good here.  But, we've seen that Watson can play at a reasonably high level.  We desperately need a QB.  We got a SS that we don't yet know if he can play at a reasonably high level.  QBs are about 10 fold more important than SSs.

What if The Experts agree that the SS in question is the best player in the draft, smart guy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, NoBowles said:

This is exactly my feeling. Pointing all the blame at Mac, or Bowles is a fun exercise, but there is more than enough evidence that they both have their hands in the current mess. I don't think you can fire one without the other personally, it doesn't make sense. I would not give them another year to try to find their QB, but if you do, I think you keep both and have their fates tied together. The mess with Tanyy/Rex/Idzik was not something that makes sense and moves orgs in the right direction.

To be clear, I don't blame either for everything.  I blame each for the failures of their general job descriptions.  In game buffoonery goes to Bowles, and there's been plenty of that.  Quality of the roster goes to Mac, and the isn't much quality at all.

Ultimately, I take the position I do here, because I think Bowles deserves plenty of criticism, but the level to which people blame him for this sh*t-show is just completely out of control, and often times, completely illogical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

I think this is correct, but there’s a big difference between trading up to take a guy first overall and taking a flier on a guy in the second. One of the most-cited reasons to take a QB in the second is that you’re not tied to the guy. And yet our last two GMs have spent a two on bum-ass QBs and then left vastly superior prospects on the board the very next year.

 

40 minutes ago, NoBowles said:

Absolutely agree

Look at you two, getting along.  :smilies2_3some:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

I think this is correct, but there’s a big difference between trading up to take a guy first overall and taking a flier on a guy in the second. One of the most-cited reasons to take a QB in the second is that you’re not tied to the guy. And yet our last two GMs have spent a two on bum-ass QBs and then left vastly superior prospects on the board the very next year.

Taking Pryor in 2014 was one of the all time boners by the Jets, considering the roster and who was on the board. Hell, the Geno truthers probably could have been put to bed easily with Cooks or even Benjamin being on the roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...