Jump to content

An inside look at the Jets' decision to pass on Deshaun Watson


Gas2No99

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Bugg said:

By every account Watson was arguably the best attitude of any player in the draft. There are no bad stories about the kid, everything is lemon yellow sunshine and lollipops. And by contrast Hackenberg in his year was hated by everyone at PSU and a dick in predraft interviews. Again, indicates Macaganan is a scout that thinks he's playing "I got a secret" and looks for reasons not to do the obvious-which was 1. DON'T PICK HACKENNEBERG IN 2016 AT ALL AND 2. GRAB WATSON LIKE COLD ICY DEATH IN 2017. And in 2016 probably had a coach that said "We just signed our QB in McCown and I want a safety to play MY defense".   

First week in January, fired them both. 

I think in the end the Johnsons realize that for so long as they want to be the center of power of the team and keep the structure the same, what they have now with MaccBowles will be difficult to improve upon.  They would only be replaced with other first timers paralyzed by the system.

They need to be managed by a Team President/CEO who reports to the Johnson/Chairman.  They would agree to a team plan and vision and then execute.  I think that is what happened in 2015, and then in 2016 MaccBowles was told to keep the dream alive.  in 2017, with 2 years left on 4 year contracts (effectively the contract year) and Woody away, the ship has gone adrift.

That was the point of my Extend or Fire thread months ago.  The Johnsons needed to either reboot MacBowles with clear direction, or fire them.  Limbo was never going to work, and that is what we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply

To put some of this in context...if, and ONLY IF, we do land one of the top names in the first round this year, and he pans out to be at least a quality starter by his second year, this will all be moot and we'll be hailing Macc as a genius.  If they don't either sign Cousins or draft a QB high in the 1st round, I think the hue and cry to have them fired will be heard all the way over in London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, nycdan said:

To put some of this in context...if, and ONLY IF, we do land one of the top names in the first round this year, and he pans out to be at least a quality starter by his second year, this will all be moot and we'll be hailing Macc as a genius.  If they don't either sign Cousins or draft a QB high in the 1st round, I think the hue and cry to have them fired will be heard all the way over in London.

i expect mccags to pursue cousins very aggressively, since that would 'buy him time' and allow him to continue to draft inferior qb prospects and run them thru his 'qb development factory' while never letting them see the field.  if mac goes this route, to me it's basically admitting that he's not confident developing qbs while the rest of the league is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

i expect mccags to pursue cousins very aggressively, since that would 'buy him time' and allow him to continue to draft inferior qb prospects and run them thru his 'qb development factory' while never letting them see the field.  if mac goes this route, to me it's basically admitting that he's not confident developing qbs while the rest of the league is.

Who is confident about developing QBs?  What team developed a QB slowly and now has him starting?  Maybe the Pats and Packers? The rest pretty much got surefire picks or free agents and ride them, or they are looking.  Some are riding high picks and still may be looking.  The teams that are looking don't seem confident.

I am more concerned about them developing DBs. That should be the coaches forte, yet they had to start over at S despite the high pick and some UDFA that seem pretty capable.  At CB they keep taking mid-late picks Burris, Clark and Jones, and now Robinson and so far none have really seen the field.  The Seahawks draft to body type and train them mechanically.  The Jets seem to be going after random types and I'm not sure where they are headed. If they can't succeed with DBs, how are they going to succeed at QB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, peebag said:

No, most likely Watson (or any young qb for that matter) would most likely struggle.  BUT most Jet fans were prepared for that this year.  We wanted to see growth from the position. I didn't want to see a moldy old qb struggle to get 3-6 wins then go into next year in the same situation as this year at the position, with whole lot of questions about our young qbs.

Thank you!!

People saying that Watson playing here wouldn’t get the same exact results, well of course he would t!!

What getting a QB in here would facilitate building a round him so that you can begin to produce winning offensive NFL football.  If you have two QBs on the team that can’t see the field absent a catastrophic injury to a journeyman QB then you have the wrong two developmental QBs on your team.  

Petty and Hack didn’t arrive here by pixie dust. I love Adams as a player but you can’t put getting any other player over the acquisition of a potentially Franchise level QB in today’s NFL.  

It would be like a law firm getting all good secretaries and staff but having suckie attorneys.  Under such a circumstance you will not have a competent law firm.  

This would be common sense for running a McDonalds; but the Jets have often acted like they are in possession of the nuclear launch codes rather than doing want common sense would dictate.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

i expect mccags to pursue cousins very aggressively, since that would 'buy him time' and allow him to continue to draft inferior qb prospects and run them thru his 'qb development factory' while never letting them see the field.  if mac goes this route, to me it's basically admitting that he's not confident developing qbs while the rest of the league is.

I kind of agree here, but the only thing that I get stuck on is the bolded above. I really wish we knew for sure if Bowles even has a "qb development anything". Because it sure as hell isn't a factory. lol

Mac is not responsible for developing the players, that is on Bowles. Based on what we have seen from Bowles he doesn't develop anyone or anything. He wants players that are basically developed that he can just try to plug and play. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Stark said:

I kind of agree here, but the only thing that I get stuck on is the bolded above. I really wish we knew for sure if Bowles even has a "qb development anything". Because it sure as hell isn't a factory. lol

Mac is not responsible for developing the players, that is on Bowles. Based on what we have seen from Bowles he doesn't develop anyone or anything. He wants players that are basically developed that he can just try to plug and play. 

 

the only reason we think this is b/c mccags keeps signing guys like this, presumably to mask the reality that his drafted qbs suck.  would mccags have to keep signing these guys if hack and/or petty actually looked good, after all, mccags has control over this element of the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

Knowing both Bowles and Macc's seemingly endless love for Veteran QB's, and complete impatience with young QB's, this above is one of my biggest fears.  Jets go all-in and blow the bank to get a "superstar" veteran in a year when all the available veterans are barely average talents at best.

I fear the draft will then ignore the QB position again (because Hack, of course) and go heavy on....wait for it.....Defense.

Same ol' Jets M.O. if so.  I hope they prove me wrong.

Honestly, with all the teams that potentially need a QB or an upgrade, our options probably won't even include those two guys. We'd be looking at Bradford or Keenum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

the only reason we think this is b/c mccags keeps signing guys like this, presumably to mask the reality that his drafted qbs suck.  would mccags have to keep signing these guys if hack and/or petty actually looked good, after all, mccags has control over this element of the team.

I agree here. However, it seems pretty clear that Bowles is scared to play younger guys, or it appears that way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Charlie Brown said:

Think one of the key points in this article is the fact that Bowles “loved” Watson.  Decipher here that he wanted to draft him!!!

But it was indeed Mac who wanted to justify the Hack who went in another direction. 

This is beyond insane!!!!

Anyway carry on......

I thought the reason Watson wasn't a Jet was because Bowles forced Mac to take Adams?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Stark said:

I agree here. However, it seems pretty clear that Bowles is scared to play younger guys, or it appears that way. 

Perhaps. Or it could be he doesn’t want to stake his career on Maccagnan’s sh***y QB prospects. There’s at least as strong of an argument for that.

Crazy thing is Maccagnan knew it a little bit himself, which is why he didn’t dare go into the season with his first 2 draft picks plus another. He gave McCown enough money - $7m so far, and counting - to be the team’s starter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Perhaps. Or it could be he doesn’t want to stake his career on Maccagnan’s sh***y QB prospects. There’s at least as strong of an argument for that.

Crazy thing is Maccagnan knew it a little bit himself, which is why he didn’t dare go into the season with his first 2 draft picks plus another. He gave McCown enough money - $7m so far, and counting - to be the team’s starter. 

Who else was willing to give McCown a starter's gig and pay that kind of moola?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused. Is this an opinion piece?

I see quotes from an unnamed source, Gruden, Esiason, and an opposing scout.

I mean the article could be true but where's the proof?

It reads like a writer visited jetnation, and wrote an article to flame the fans here.

Lastly if it is true, it sounds like Bowles loved Watson but had to be convinced the pick should be Adams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RESNewYork said:

I'm confused. Is this an opinion piece?

I see quotes from an unnamed source, Gruden, Esiason, and an opposing scout.

I mean the article could be true but where's the proof?

It reads like a writer visited jetnation, and wrote an article to flame the fans here.

Lastly if it is true, it sounds like Bowles loved Watson but had to be convinced the pick should be Adams. 

Well anyone inside the organization, who puts a name to this stuff, immediately loses a job and never gets another one in this league. 

The last line can’t be true. I have it on good authority from this board that Maccagnan takes his marching orders from Todd Bowles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

Well anyone inside the organization, who puts a name to this stuff, immediately loses a job and never gets another one in this league. 

The last line can’t be true. I have it on good authority from this board that Maccagnan takes his marching orders from Todd Bowles.

Sure the article could be true but you can understand if someone was skeptical. I mean it really does read like mostly opinion to rile up fans.

And as far as Bowles goes, believe me I know. A lot of hate was thrown my way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RESNewYork said:

Sure the article could be true but you can understand if someone was skeptical. I mean it really does read like mostly opinion to rile up fans.

And as far as Bowles goes, believe me I know. A lot of hate was thrown my way.

Well I don’t think Bowles is ever going to be a good HC either, but come on look at this QB trio alone. You’d stake your career on Bryce Petty or Christian Hackenberg? Why, just because the GM took a stab in the dark on them? Just because your friend jumps off the Brooklyn Bridge...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Well I don’t think Bowles is ever going to be a good HC either, but come on look at this QB trio alone. You’d stake your career on Bryce Petty or Christian Hackenberg? Why, just because the GM took a stab in the dark on them? Just because your friend jumps off the Brooklyn Bridge...

especially not since bowles does not report to mccagnan, he can go directly to his johnson and say those guys suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jimmy 2 Times said:

Is he bad?

Probably.

The fact is no one knows.  Why not support the kid?  I realize that a lot of people didn't want him drafted, but he's here now.  Constantly destroying the kid before he's even played is ridiculous.

I'll give him 20 starts.

they have to play him to find out.  is he dilfer bad? bubby brister bad? grossman bad? joey harrington bad?  from what i can tell from the article, watson may have been a winner but the 17 ints means he took quite a few chances too.  he tore an acl today in practice.  just how much longer would he have lasted in the games anyway?  i know there's no real correlation but still at some pint these athletic types od qb's get clobbered.

and the article showed there was some method to mac's madness.  hindsight shows they may have overvalued hack.  but when the draft came they did have 3 qb's on the roster and only mccown was proven. so bringing in another draftee would have just complicated things.

we'll see what happens in this draft. and then we'll see if the draftee starts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Perhaps. Or it could be he doesn’t want to stake his career on Maccagnan’s sh***y QB prospects. There’s at least as strong of an argument for that.

Crazy thing is Maccagnan knew it a little bit himself, which is why he didn’t dare go into the season with his first 2 draft picks plus another. He gave McCown enough money - $7m so far, and counting - to be the team’s starter. 

do you think mac is that afraid for his job that he wouldn't ask bowles to start mccown?  i mean bowles is starting mccown to win games even thogh this team has near zero chance to make the playoffs.  they have a near zero chance to even win 6.  i'm of the opinion starting mccown for the early games might be good because it gets the offense settled.  then bring in hack or petty.  but part of me says they should just bite the bullet and bring in hack.  since bowles will not be judged entirely on wins, whats the difference? i have a hard time believing that woody or his brother don't realize what a mess at qb this team has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RESNewYork said:

I'm confused. Is this an opinion piece?

I see quotes from an unnamed source, Gruden, Esiason, and an opposing scout.

I mean the article could be true but where's the proof?

It reads like a writer visited jetnation, and wrote an article to flame the fans here.

Lastly if it is true, it sounds like Bowles loved Watson but had to be convinced the pick should be Adams. 

Where do you come up with this sh*t?  I get questioning the article, but if you read it you surely read this sentence:

Quote

Everyone, including Bowles, agreed Adams was the best choice.  They saw him as a player with no holes, someone who could help change the culture of the organization.  

Where do you pull this sh*t about him having to be convinced from?  If you are going to question the article, this is the first time I have heard about Bowles loving Watson and earlier in the week was the first time I heard they considered drafting him.  It sounds like they are leaking sh*t to sound smarter.  Tomorrow it will probably leak that they loved Watson, but they moved him down their draft board because they questioned his durability at the NFL level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Where do you come up with this sh*t?  I get questioning the article, but if you read it you surely read this sentence:

Where do you pull this sh*t about him having to be convinced from?  If you are going to question the article, this is the first time I have heard about Bowles loving Watson and earlier in the week was the first time I heard they considered drafting him.  It sounds like they are leaking sh*t to sound smarter.  Tomorrow it will probably leak that they loved Watson, but they moved him down their draft board because they questioned his durability at the NFL level.

They admired Watson's winning pedigree and coach Todd Bowles "loved him" as a prospect, a source said. 

I do question the validity of the article. Where do I come up with this sh*t? You see some of the bullsh*t fans want to spew about Bowles with so much less validity. So relax tough guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, RESNewYork said:

They admired Watson's winning pedigree and coach Todd Bowles "loved him" as a prospect, a source said. 

I do question the validity of the article. Where do I come up with this sh*t? You see some of the bullsh*t fans want to spew about Bowles with so much less validity. So relax tough guy.

Questioning the validity of the article is fine, but jumping from Bowles "loved him" to Bowles wanted him over Adams is a pretty big step.  Especially when the sentence I quoted from the same sources directly contradicts it. He loves lots of prospects, but not at 6. Which is the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Questioning the validity of the article is fine, but jumping from Bowles "loved him" to Bowles wanted him over Adams is a pretty big step.  Especially when the sentence I quoted from the same sources directly contradicts it. He loves lots of prospects, but not at 6. Which is the point.

Does it frustrate you I make that assumption? Like the other assumptions that are made about this coach with far less or non existent proof.

You know what? I can take those two quotes and say Bowles loved Watson at six but management said it should be Adams and Bowles had to swallow it. Is it true? It says Bowles loved Watson. What changed his mind? Who knows. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christian Hackenberg was the ultimate vanity pick for Maccagnan. He was a hot shot executive of the year coming into his second season and he wanted to show everyone that he could develop the QB that everyone passed on. It was a mistake when it was made and it continues to be a mistake. 

I'm not going to kill Maccagnan for passing on Watson for Adams. A lot of draft heads were saying that Watson wasn't a first rounder, he threw too many interceptions, the MPH issue, a low wonderlic. I wanted either Watson or Adams at 6, but its not as if Watson was being hyped up to be the next Andrew Luck (or even Marcus Mariotta). Additionally, some people felt that Adams was the best defensive player in the draft.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...