Trading up would be mistake

[jetstream23]

5 hours ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

St. Louis traded 1/2/2/3/3 to go from 15 to 1 and then Philadelphia traded 1/2/3/4 to go from 8 to 2 for second choice. We are nowhere near the top of this market. The price to move up is actually less than it should be.

If this is the kind of cost we're looking at then I have no issue with something like our 1st, 2nd and maybe a 2019 2nd rounder to move up to #3 ASSUMING a QB the Jets love is sitting there.  It's never fun parting with Draft picks but sitting around and "value hunting" for guys like Petty and Hack only to watch them incubate for 2-3 years with no results is much less fun.  If they like Rosen or Mayfield or whoever and he's sitting there at #3 then go get him.

[BigO]

8 hours ago, Jets723 said:

Williams and adams were awesome picks. Passing on them would have been ****in stupid

Williams and Adams vs. Gurley and Watson. Now that’s some stupid sh*t right there.

[jgb]

7 hours ago, Patriot Killa said:

There’s like an unspoken rule here that we really don’t down vote unless the post is just utterly stupid, board-wide. Differing opinions don’t deserve negative rep .. rather just intelligent responses.

 

Sorry couldn't resist

[Patriot Killa]

@jgb ay brah..you don’t want no smoke brah.

[jack48]

Frankly believe none of the top 4 are there at 6.  Elway is not wasting his time during Free Agency to go to Mayfield's Pro Day, unless...  He will pick him at 5.  Only way in is a trade.  Unless we just do not love these guys.

[JoeWillieWhiteShoesHOF]

8 hours ago, Sully80 said:

I really really like Mahomes, but the QB to take there was Watson. It wasn't close, guy is an incredible, hungry human being and an absolute gamer. He's Baker Mayfield, but instead of a douche, he's actually a really nice kid. Adams is a great locker room presence too and I expect him to play well this season but in retrospect Watson was the pick and pre-draft Watson was the pick. Everyone got cute with saying Trubisky and Mahomes are better.

I’m not going to argue with you.  I was wrong about Watson, I didn’t want him drafted, now of course I wish he was, but then again that’s not my job, I don’t have an army of scouts that work for me like Maccagnan does.  A quality GM would have traded down with the 6th pick and grabbed Watson or Mahomes.  Bottom line, and it’s obvious now, Maccagnan is too frightened to take a QB in the 1st, because of course anytime a GM makes that move he’s gambling with his job.  Bowles won’t play one for the same reason.  If not for the weakest owners in the NFL the guy along with the inept coach would have been bounced long ago.

Sad thing is is that if I personally drafted for the the Jets they would have been a much better team...for decades now.  I wish that a bunch of Fantasy Football whiz kids could take over for Maccagnan tomorrow....the guy is an idiot.  Probably the worst GM the Jets have ever had, and you know how bad most of them have been.

4th Year....not 1 single damn Playmaker on this Roster.  And he just paid 2 backup QBs that could add up to close to what Cousins is getting paid this year haha.

If McCown starts this year, that will be 4 years of Fitzpatrick/McCown as starting QBs for the NY Jets.  How many years have both guys been in the league combined?  About 35?  So in 35 years NEITHER of them have been to 1 single playoff game.  Are you kidding me?

As another poster asserted recently.  The Jet organization is NOT about Winning, it’s only about being a business and making money, and the incompetents that overwhelmingly work for the organization, and I’ll include their marketing department.  It’s pervasive, from top to bottom in this organization, are only concerned about staying employed and having excuses to keep their jobs.

Its all very obvious at this point, and sad.  And as a fan, how many times are you going to let them fool you?

The funniest thing will be on Draft day when Maccagnan either gets out gunned with teams swooping in ahead of the Jets to grab all 4 QBs or to watch him get massively fleeced and then pick the wrong QB.

I don’t care anymore.  What I really want to see is him draft another non playmaker (who will of course be billed as a playmaker by consensus)...and watch all Jet fans go apesh*t haha.  That’s the ONLY way this team has a chance to turn anything around is by getting rid of Maccagnan/Bowles and hiring a real GM and a real Head Coach.  Look at the Giants, 1 bad year and they don’t play around.  They fired McAdoo and he even got them to a playoff game.  Now they have a real GM and a real coach.  Jets haven’t had a real Head Coach since Parcells, think about that.  What an awful organization.  So how could the team ever be any good?  Very difficult.

[Philc1]

13 hours ago, johnnysd said:

Avoiding the risk of failing in an effort to get a QB and making safer choices is a sure fire way to be MEDIOCRE. I would rather strive for the SB and be 2-14 than accept 6 to 9 wins each year which is what your philosophy does

Were we mediocre passing on qb Matt Leinart for an offensive lineman?

[Philc1]

14 hours ago, New York Mick said:

There’s no reason to trade up this year with the number (5) of potential QBs studs in this draft. Stay put draft a QB at 6 most likely the 3rd one off the board then use the rest of the draft to fill other need and next years top 5 pick to draft a playmaker. 

The only reason they should trade up is if they think one QB is that much better then the other guys. I’ve never seen “experts” so all over the place on who’s the best. Normally there’s one guy that is considered the best or the first pick. This year know one has any idea. 

The most troubling thing about all these “Big 4” qbs is they were all anointed top 10 picks before last season and then didn’t play well.  Mayfield statistically played very well but he was facing almost all bad defenses

[Philc1]

14 hours ago, Jetsplayer21 said:

Ya wentz turned out to be a very good qb. The eagles did not have a million holes everywhere.  how many top 10 qbs bust ? Compared to Stud Online-man coming out ? Not even close. Nick Foles played just as well as Carson wentz. Many say better. In the big games he was clutch. Maybe wentz would have too, we don’t know.

Wentz also played in a pro style offense at North Dakota and played reasonably well at the senior bowl and played extremely well at ND

 

Darnold sort of had a pro style offense at USC.  Allen had a pro style offense at Wyoming but did not play well at all last season though he had a good senior bowl

 

I liked Wentz a lot two years ago and rated him over both Goff and Lynch and started a thread about him. Last year on record I said Watson would be better than any qb in this year’s best not named Darnold or allen.  This year I can say Darnold is the only sure thing qb, Allen I would rate second, Rosen’s injury history scares me and I think Mayfield will be a bust

[FTL Jet Fan]

15 hours ago, Grandy said:

Dolphins are out, just restructured Tannehill Deal.

Didn't know that, thank you. I can see them taking someone in the second or if someone falls to them. Tannehill' s knee I am sure is a concern. 

[long suffering jets fan]

16 hours ago, johnnysd said:

It is 100% worth it, if the guy becomes a franchise guy. Do you think Philly regrets trading for Wentz?

First, that's a big IF.  My question is who do you think is worth trading up for?  Do you think that any of the top 4 are head and shoulders above the others, or any less risky?  If the top 4 go before us that leaves us either Chubb, Barkley, or Nelson  BTW.  All would be lower risk and would contribute right away to this team.  Nelson and Barkley would make our offense significantly better on day one and put whatever QB we put in there in the best position to succeed.  From my perspective, stay put keep your picks and upgrade as many positions as possible with young talent.  If #6 is a QB then I'm fine with that, but don't give up those picks. 

[Philc1]

2 minutes ago, long suffering jets fan said:

First, that's a big IF.  My question is who do you think is worth trading up for?  Do you think that any of the top 4 are head and shoulders above the others, or any less risky?  If the top 4 go before us that leaves us either Chubb, Barkley, or Nelson  BTW.  All would be lower risk and would contribute right away to this team.  Nelson and Barkley would make our offense significantly better on day one and put whatever QB we put in there in the best position to succeed.  From my perspective, stay put keep your picks and upgrade as many positions as possible with young talent.  If #6 is a QB then I'm fine with that, but don't give up those picks. 

Trading up would be the dumbest thing to do not with all these holes on our roster

[JohnnyLV]

3 hours ago, long suffering jets fan said:

First, that's a big IF.  My question is who do you think is worth trading up for?  Do you think that any of the top 4 are head and shoulders above the others, or any less risky?  If the top 4 go before us that leaves us either Chubb, Barkley, or Nelson  BTW.  All would be lower risk and would contribute right away to this team.  Nelson and Barkley would make our offense significantly better on day one and put whatever QB we put in there in the best position to succeed.  From my perspective, stay put keep your picks and upgrade as many positions as possible with young talent.  If #6 is a QB then I'm fine with that, but don't give up those picks. 

I still say that is the way to continue mediocrity. Until we have a QB we have nothing. So yes you and all the others can bring up examples of failed QBs all you want - it is a riskier pick but you HAVE to find one for long term success, and so you pick one until you find him. 

Here is the way I look at it. It is like expectancy in poker (pots odds)

First lets rate the value of the positions:

QB 5

OT 1

Pass Rusher .95

DT/DE (penetrator) .7

WR .65

I actually think QB is MORE valuable to a team than that but lets go with 5.

For success with the pick, lets say that for the QB pick to be worth it, he needs to be a Top 10 QB. Per Football Outsiders its a 28% chance to hit a good QB in the first round, higher in the top 5 picks but lets go with 28%. ( https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2017/nfl-draft-round-round-qb-study-1994-2016) Now lets say you have a pass rusher that is a 60% chance to be a pro bowler (it is actually closer to a third) but for the sake of argument say 60%

So the expectancy or ROI on the QB is 1.4 and the expectancy on the Pass Rusher is .56

So the value of picking a QB even with that risk is almost 3 times that of the "safe" pass rusher. And NO pick is 60%. So at even 3 first rounders it is still worth the risk.

However from a Pro Bowl standpoint, QB is actually on slightly behind LB and WAY above DL for making the Pro Bowl

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2441018-which-positions-are-the-safest-riskiest-at-the-top-of-the-nfl-draft'

So the reality is that the expectancy of choosing a QB over a "safe" position is about 5 to 1. It is a no brainer to trade up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[long suffering jets fan]

1 hour ago, johnnysd said:

I still say that is the way to continue mediocrity. Until we have a QB we have nothing. So yes you and all the others can bring up examples of failed QBs all you want - it is a riskier pick but you HAVE to find one for long term success, and so you pick one until you find him. 

Here is the way I look at it. It is like expectancy in poker (pots odds)

First lets rate the value of the positions:

QB 5

OT 1

Pass Rusher .95

DT/DE (penetrator) .7

WR .65

I actually think QB is MORE valuable to a team than that but lets go with 5.

For success with the pick, lets say that for the QB pick to be worth it, he needs to be a Top 10 QB. Per Football Outsiders its a 28% chance to hit a good QB in the first round, higher in the top 5 picks but lets go with 28%. ( https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2017/nfl-draft-round-round-qb-study-1994-2016) Now lets say you have a pass rusher that is a 60% chance to be a pro bowler (it is actually closer to a third) but for the sake of argument say 60%

So the expectancy or ROI on the QB is 1.4 and the expectancy on the Pass Rusher is .56

So the value of picking a QB even with that risk is almost 3 times that of the "safe" pass rusher. And NO pick is 60%. So at even 3 first rounders it is still worth the risk.

However from a Pro Bowl standpoint, QB is actually on slightly behind LB and WAY above DL for making the Pro Bowl

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2441018-which-positions-are-the-safest-riskiest-at-the-top-of-the-nfl-draft'

So the reality is that the expectancy of choosing a QB over a "safe" position is about 5 to 1. It is a no brainer to trade up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good stuff!  Wondering who you would be targeting with a trade up? Or which do you deem acceptable?

[JohnnyLV]

53 minutes ago, long suffering jets fan said:

Good stuff!  Wondering who you would be targeting with a trade up? Or which do you deem acceptable?

I like Mayfield, but I think the narrative has gotten upside down on these QBs. I think they all have a ton of positives and yet everyone is focusing on the negatives. Hopefully the Jets target the right one.

[long suffering jets fan]

14 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

I like Mayfield, but I think the narrative has gotten upside down on these QBs. I think they all have a ton of positives and yet everyone is focusing on the negatives. Hopefully the Jets target the right one.

I agree, negativity abounds.   I also hear a narrative that the Jets have to trade up, or else.  So I guess if we get Mayfield at 6 you'd be even happier since we preserve our remaining picks.  That would be my personal choice.  I really don't want to give up a bucket of picks, but do want a QB.

[Sperm Edwards]

On 3/14/2018 at 4:23 PM, Jetsplayer21 said:

We traded up for mark Sanchez. How did that work out ? It’s fun to draft a “ maybe he can be “ franchise qb. These days you can trade or sign for a quality “proven” qb. Keenum, Smith Collins, ect. Rather than give up valuable picks for a qb “who may be good.” Instead we should be like Philly. Do what is not as fun but more responsible, build line through draft. Olineman coming out are much less likely to be a bust then qbs. Instead of wasting hackenberg pick, we could have had a solid young Olineman.

Whether you realize it or not, this is a defense of going with Fitzpatrick 2016 and McCown 2018 types every year, hoping that eventually one magically becomes Case Keenum 2017. The Keenum stuff is some major hindsight, because career stiffs like Fitz and McCown were more "proven" than Case Keenum anyway.

I think by ignoring the failure rate you're underestimating just how rare it is to buy someone else's unwanted land and strike oil a la Steve Young, Warner '99, Hasselbeck, Delhomme, Keenum, Collins, etc. 

If you can't get an actual "proven" QB (Brees, P.Manning, and to a lesser extent Palmer, this year Cousins, etc.), then take your guy in the draft. Try him out for 2 years. If he sucks, try again with another one 2 years later. 

[Jetsplayer21]

16 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Whether you realize it or not, this is a defense of going with Fitzpatrick 2016 and McCown 2018 types every year, hoping that eventually one magically becomes Case Keenum 2017. The Keenum stuff is some major hindsight, because career stiffs like Fitz and McCown were more "proven" than Case Keenum anyway.

I think by ignoring the failure rate you're underestimating just how rare it is to buy someone else's unwanted land and strike oil a la Steve Young, Warner '99, Hasselbeck, Delhomme, Keenum, Collins, etc. 

If you can't get an actual "proven" QB (Brees, P.Manning, and to a lesser extent Palmer, this year Cousins, etc.), then take your guy in the draft. Try him out for 2 years. If he sucks, try again with another one 2 years later. 

If you haven’t noticed, nfl has evolved with the qbs for a number of reasons. Qbs are more protected than ever these days. Can’t even tap 1 on the head now without getting flagged. They are keeping themselves healthier, and have modern med to help them. Qbs are hanging around a lot longer than they were. Rookie qbs are put in to play a lot sooner than use to be. Translation, there is more available “NFL “ qbs than their use to be. I think that trend will continue to grow. Look how many quality arms were available ? Foles is still. There was not even a fight for Bridgewater. Yrs ago there probably would be.

    I know it’s a lot more fun to draft a young ” blue chip qb” and hope he eventually plays as well as many of the available vets. But they certainly are very unlikely to come in and do well unless they have a actually team around them. Even if they do have a Decent line, WR, TE, ect they still may suck.. Look at Sanchez, he had everything a young qb needs to have a shot to make it.  He still failed.

It’s much easier to build a strong line, get play makers, for offense.. Then grab a qb in FA, trade, or draft. This team has been in the pits because it only focusing on the D while taking a few jags at qb in draft. 

[adamson29]

I want us to find our qb, but I don’t want to trade up due to the cost. I’d rather us keep the two second round picks to plug other holes and hold our future first rounders too.

We actually have a number of good options at 6:

1. Rosen
2. Darnold
3. Mayfield
4. Jackson - if we want a game changer at qb, he can be that guy. Develop him and let him sit at first. If need be, let him go in midway through the season like Watson had to. If we like I’m, don’t play games and try to trade back and then miss him.
5. Chubb - elite talent. Stout against the run. Great bend when pass rushing. I know we run 34 and he might be BEST suited at 43, but he would do well as an olb in a 34.
6. Barkley - doubtful he’s not taken in the top 5. In including just to demonstrate who were guaranteed to get without a trade up/mortgaging of the future

*Nelson - I’d also be open to Nelson if he was the clear cut top grades player on our board*

**Allen - could be convinced here too if we FO had a plan for him. It’s not like Macc doesn’t know if this next qb doesn’t work out that he’s fired. EVERYONE knows that and if he believes Bates and McCown and this offense can develop Allen and make him utilize all those natural skills he has, then ok.**



Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[adamson29]

I want us to find our qb, but I don’t want to trade up due to the cost. I’d rather us keep the two second round picks to plug other holes and hold our future first rounders too.

We actually have a number of good options at 6:

1. Rosen
2. Darnold
3. Mayfield
4. Jackson - if we want a game changer at qb, he can be that guy. Develop him and let him sit at first. If need be, let him go in midway through the season like Watson had to. If we like I’m, don’t play games and try to trade back and then miss him.
5. Chubb - elite talent. Stout against the run. Great bend when pass rushing. I know we run 34 and he might be BEST suited at 43, but he would do well as an olb in a 34.
6. Barkley - doubtful he’s not taken in the top 5. In including just to demonstrate who were guaranteed to get without a trade up/mortgaging of the future

*Nelson - I’d also be open to Nelson if he was the clear cut top grades player on our board*

**Allen - could be convinced here too if we FO had a plan for him. It’s not like Macc doesn’t know if this next qb doesn’t work out that he’s fired. EVERYONE knows that and if he believes Bates and McCown and this offense can develop Allen and make him utilize all those natural skills he has, then ok.**



Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[Dunnie]

I want us to find our qb, but I don’t want to trade up due to the cost. I’d rather us keep the two second round picks to plug other holes and hold our future first rounders too.

We actually have a number of good options at 6:

1. Rosen
2. Darnold
3. Mayfield
4. Jackson - if we want a game changer at qb, he can be that guy. Develop him and let him sit at first. If need be, let him go in midway through the season like Watson had to. If we like I’m, don’t play games and try to trade back and then miss him.
5. Chubb - elite talent. Stout against the run. Great bend when pass rushing. I know we run 34 and he might be BEST suited at 43, but he would do well as an olb in a 34.
6. Barkley - doubtful he’s not taken in the top 5. In including just to demonstrate who were guaranteed to get without a trade up/mortgaging of the future

*Nelson - I’d also be open to Nelson if he was the clear cut top grades player on our board*

**Allen - could be convinced here too if we FO had a plan for him. It’s not like Macc doesn’t know if this next qb doesn’t work out that he’s fired. EVERYONE knows that and if he believes Bates and McCown and this offense can develop Allen and make him utilize all those natural skills he has, then ok.**



Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

... do you think the eagles regret trading up last year ?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[FidelioJet]

I think there's a chance we can hold at 6 and get our guy.  But we have to be sure that if a trade happens it's with us.

Assuming Cleveland/Gianst take QB 1 and 2- if the Colts are going to trade down we have to make sure it's with us - we can't allow that to happen with anyone else..pretty much no matter what the cost.

For me, the hope is Cleveland and Indy both take a player and leave us whichever of the 6 fall to us (my guess is Rosen or Mayfield)

Or we add a 5th QB to list and take Jackson if the others are gone and keep all of our picks. - but I def. don't love that idea.

 

[Dunnie]

I think there's a chance we can hold at 6 and get our guy.  But we have to be sure that if a trade happens it's with us.
Assuming Cleveland/Gianst take QB 1 and 2- if the Colts are going to trade down we have to make sure it's with us - we can't allow that to happen with anyone else..pretty much no matter what the cost.
For me, the hope is Cleveland and Indy both take a player and leave us whichever of the 6 fall to us (my guess is Rosen or Mayfield)
Or we add a 5th QB to list and take Jackson if the others are gone and keep all of our picks. - but I def. don't love that idea.
 

If the big 4 are off the table .. I'll take chubb at 6 and Falk in Rd 2

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[FidelioJet]

On 3/14/2018 at 7:14 PM, Long Island Leprechaun said:

This is so wrong-headed, I don't know where to begin. The cost of moving to 3 is not exorbitant at all. You're not losing a 6th pick -- you're gaining a 3rd.  It would likely cost a second and a fourth and perhaps a mid-range pick in 2019 -- those are the losses. If the Jets believe they can get a potential franchise QB for that price, they should jump for joy. It's a no-brainer.

I think It'll take much more than that - the big wildcard this year is Buffalo - if it wasn't for them being stacked with picks I would agree.  

You have to put the book aside - the way I see it, ultimatley you'll have to offer something Indy/Cleveland beleive to be better than what Buffalo is offering.  And I'm certainly getting the sense Buffalo is all in on trading up.  And they have more picks to offer...

#6, both two's and next year's 1 and it still might not be good enough.  I could very easily see Buffalo offering both 1's, both 2's their 3 and next years 1...

What I hope is Buffalo likes Jackson and is setting up to make sure they get him.

[Dunnie]

I think It'll take much more than that - the big wildcard this year is Buffalo - if it wasn't for them being stacked with picks I would agree.  
You have to put the book aside - the way I see it, ultimatley you'll have to offer something Indy/Cleveland beleive to be better than what Buffalo is offering.  And I'm certainly getting the sense Buffalo is all in on trading up.  And they have more picks to offer...
#6, both two's and next year's 1 and it still might not be good enough.  I could very easily see Buffalo offering both 1's, both 2's their 3 and next years 1...
What I hope is Buffalo likes Jackson and is setting up to make sure they get him.

... 4 QBs in top 5 would be unprecedented ... Bucky Brooks has us taking the 2nd QB at 6 (Rosen)

Not saying that will happen ... Just sayin

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[FidelioJet]

5 minutes ago, Dunnie said:

... 4 QBs in top 5 would be unprecedented ... Bucky Brooks has us taking the 2nd QB at 6 (Rosen)

Not saying that will happen ... Just sayin

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

I get it but this year is completely different - 4 QB's will go in the top 6 for sure..likely top 5 even possible top 4.  

I would really like our chances to get one of the 4 relatively cheap if it wasn't for Buffalo.  

[Dcat]

On 3/14/2018 at 6:04 PM, The Crusher said:

Hi guys. Crushlove here. We don't allow personal attacks or throat cutting here. So knock it off please. Thank you.

I think the Crowell signing is giving the psychopathic lurkers here the motivation to emerge from their mothers' basements. 

[Bugg]

On 3/14/2018 at 4:49 PM, Philc1 said:

Yeah and then pass on a great pass rusher or the best Guard since Larry Allen for a flawed qb 

 

What did Nick Foles and Tom Brady have in common? Neither was a first round pick

Larry Allen was a tackle.

Taking a  guard over a QB in the first round is like ...taking a safety over a QB in the 1st round.

On 2 occasions GM Coffee Boy could've signed Foles for nothing more than US currency, and there is currently phone service between Florham Park and Philadelphia.Nothing stopping the Jets from offering a 2nd or 3rd rounder tight now. So your point is we should not draft a good QB with the 6th pick because 2 Super Bowl-winning QBs in the past were drafted later? 

Will grant you if the QBs are gone, could live with Chubb. Edge guys are as rare a commodity as QBs. 

[Dunnie]

Larry Allen was a tackle. Taking a  guard over a QB in the first round is like ...taking a safety over a QB in the 1st round.

 

Unless the safety is the BP in the draft and the QBs that are left are not close. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

[Sperm Edwards]

On 3/15/2018 at 7:12 PM, Jetsplayer21 said:

If you haven’t noticed, nfl has evolved with the qbs for a number of reasons. Qbs are more protected than ever these days. Can’t even tap 1 on the head now without getting flagged. They are keeping themselves healthier, and have modern med to help them. Qbs are hanging around a lot longer than they were. Rookie qbs are put in to play a lot sooner than use to be. Translation, there is more available “NFL “ qbs than their use to be. I think that trend will continue to grow. Look how many quality arms were available ? Foles is still. There was not even a fight for Bridgewater. Yrs ago there probably would be.

    I know it’s a lot more fun to draft a young ” blue chip qb” and hope he eventually plays as well as many of the available vets. But they certainly are very unlikely to come in and do well unless they have a actually team around them. Even if they do have a Decent line, WR, TE, ect they still may suck.. Look at Sanchez, he had everything a young qb needs to have a shot to make it.  He still failed.

It’s much easier to build a strong line, get play makers, for offense.. Then grab a qb in FA, trade, or draft. This team has been in the pits because it only focusing on the D while taking a few jags at qb in draft. 

You can’t be serious.

So Sanchez sucked, but Keenum had an improbable career turnaround that fewer than 1 in 50 backups do, and that’s “proof” of why a team should go with someone else’s garbage and resist drafting a QB early? Lol. 

And how exactly does drafting a QB early preclude the team from building a solid OL?

Again, you are in fact advocating for more seasons with Fitz and McCown. Their 2015 and 2017 seasons are far more likely the veteran trade/FA upside than a Case Keenum 2017 season (which he’s unlikely to repeat anyway). I fail to see how he was an example of a “proven veteran” anyway. FFS Bridgewate is way more proven now than Keenum was this time last year.

Minnesota signed “proven” Keenum to be their 2017 backup (and possibly to be their 3rd stringer) for $2m on March 31st last year. That’s 1/3 the money and 2 weeks later than Bridgewater — i.e. there was wayyyy less “fight” to sign Keenum in 2017 than Teddy this past week.

Keenum was also demonstrably less in-demand this time last year than these "proven" veterans, who all were signed earlier and for more money: Glennon, Hoyer, McCown, Fitz, Schaub, Henne, Cassel, Landry Jones, and that doesn’t include 2016’s group of newly-signed veteran stiffs that were similarly worthless as starters (RGIII, Colt McCoy, Drew Stanton, Fitz with us, Derek Anderson, etc.).  

Its not about which is "more fun" as though drafting a high ranked QB prospect is based solely on some childish ideal that never actually pans out. It’s that this team isn’t realistically going to be a winner this year (so the SB opportunity lost with a different veteran is imaginary), nor will they be a consistent contender long term by repeatedly guessing which castoff veteran won’t suck every 1-2 years.

Even if you do get lucky that usually looks like Fitz-2015, which isn’t good enough no matter what players you put around him.

[jgb]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You can’t be serious.

So Sanchez sucked, but Keenum had an improbable career turnaround that fewer than 1 in 50 backups do, and that’s “proof” of why a team should go with someone else’s garbage and resist drafting a QB early? Lol. 

And how exactly does drafting a QB early preclude the team from building a solid OL?

Again, you are in fact advocating for more seasons with Fitz and McCown. Their 2015 and 2017 seasons are far more likely the veteran trade/FA upside than a Case Keenum 2017 season (which he’s unlikely to repeat anyway). I fail to see how he was an example of a “proven veteran” anyway. FFS Bridgewate is way more proven now than Keenum was this time last year.

Minnesota signed “proven” Keenum to be their 2017 backup (and possibly to be their 3rd stringer) for $2m on March 31st last year. That’s 1/3 the money and 2 weeks later than Bridgewater — i.e. there was wayyyy less “fight” to sign Keenum in 2017 than Teddy this past week.

Keenum was also demonstrably less in-demand this time last year than these "proven" veterans, who all were signed earlier and for more money: Glennon, Hoyer, McCown, Fitz, Schaub, Henne, Cassel, Landry Jones, and that doesn’t include 2016’s group of newly-signed veteran stiffs that were similarly worthless as starters (RGIII, Colt McCoy, Drew Stanton, Fitz with us, Derek Anderson, etc.).  

Its not about which is "more fun" as though drafting a high ranked QB prospect is based solely on some childish ideal that never actually pans out. It’s that this team isn’t realistically going to be a winner this year (so the SB opportunity lost with a different veteran is imaginary), nor will they be a consistent contender long term by repeatedly guessing which castoff veteran won’t suck every 1-2 years.

Even if you do get lucky that usually looks like Fitz-2015, which isn’t good enough no matter what players you put around him.

Honestly when people try to argue truth by citing to extreme outliers I just disengage. That's not a debate. It's a bias.

[adamson29]

... do you think the eagles regret trading up last year ?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I think the Redskins do (RG3). And if we had the oline that the Eagles have, maybe I’d feel differently.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[Sperm Edwards]

8 hours ago, jgb said:

Honestly when people try to argue truth by citing to extreme outliers I just disengage. That's not a debate. It's a bias.

I know, and I'm sympathetic despite the snotty tone I used, because I do understand there's a natural inclination to do the opposite of something that's seemingly failed for us and others.

Saying "Keenum" and "Sanchez" hardly makes for a controlled split test for veterans vs. top 5-ish draftees going forward, when this analysis conspicuously ignores the dozens of failed veterans from other teams and further ignores successes of highly drafted QBs. 

There are so many factors that go into a team's success vs. failure (or more commonly, ultimate success vs. falling short) that just using one of those factors - from what method they acquired their QB in the first place - as a factor that's supposedly repeatable despite unrelated scenarios, I agree is unconvincing. 

[TuscanyTile2]

10 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I know, and I'm sympathetic despite the snotty tone I used, because I do understand there's a natural inclination to do the opposite of something that's seemingly failed for us and others.

Saying "Keenum" and "Sanchez" hardly makes for a controlled split test for veterans vs. top 5-ish draftees going forward, when this analysis conspicuously ignores the dozens of failed veterans from other teams and further ignores successes of highly drafted QBs. 

There are so many factors that go into a team's success vs. failure (or more commonly, ultimate success vs. falling short) that just using one of those factors - from what method they acquired their QB in the first place - as a factor that's likely repeatable in unrelated scenarios, I agree is unconvincing. 

After this post, the forum has decided to give you a 2 year extension as Jets' GM.  Which poster from this forum are you going to hire as HC of the NYJ btw?

[jgb]

3 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I know, and I'm sympathetic despite the snotty tone I used, because I do understand there's a natural inclination to do the opposite of something that's seemingly failed for us and others.

Saying "Keenum" and "Sanchez" hardly makes for a controlled split test for veterans vs. top 5-ish draftees going forward, when this analysis conspicuously ignores the dozens of failed veterans from other teams and further ignores successes of highly drafted QBs. 

There are so many factors that go into a team's success vs. failure (or more commonly, ultimate success vs. falling short) that just using one of those factors - from what method they acquired their QB in the first place - as a factor that's supposedly repeatable despite unrelated scenarios, I agree is unconvincing. 

If outliers were probative spending your entire paycheck on lotto tickets would be wise.