Jump to content
Want to remove all ads? ×

Is this the most consequential/important Draft pick the Jets have made in your lifetime?

jetstream23

By jetstream23
in NY Jets Forum

Is this the most important/consequential Draft pick the Jets have had in your lifetime?  

38 members have voted

  1. 1. Is this the most important/consequential Draft pick the Jets have had in your lifetime?

    • Yes
      20
    • No
      18

Recommended Posts

jetstream23

jetstream23

Posted
Posted

There's a lot riding on this Draft pick, no doubt about it.  For a team that hasn't had a franchise QB since a brief successful run by Chad Pennington in the early 2000's this is a critical selection coming up in the history of this franchise, especially given the draft capital spent for the next two years to get to #3.

But, is it the most important pick the Jets have ever made?  In other words, what are the consequences if they screw this one up? Can they overcome a bad decision or would it set the franchise back several years?  How many times will the Jets have a chance to pick this high in a seemingly loaded QB draft?

I think the last time I felt that a single draft pick was this important to the Jets was 2006.  FLASHBACK - The year is 2006, the Jets had just hired Eric Mangini after an absolutely abysmal 2005 season, particularly on offense.  To put in context how bad the offense was the prior year in 2005 under Herm Edwards, the team scored 58 fewer points during the course of that season than our Jets did last year in 2017 (240 vs. 298).  Their 240 points is the lowest scoring Jets team in the past 23 years, since 1995 when Rich Kotite was HC.  The Jets leading passer in 2005 was Brooks Bollinger.  Herm was fired, Mangini came in and the Jets had the #4 and #29 picks in Round 1 of the upcoming draft.  They HAD to hit a homerun with an immediate starting offensive player and they did, selecting D'Brickashaw Ferguson, a franchise LT for the next decade.  (They double-dipped on the offensive line with Nick Mangold at #29).  That was a foundational draft that paid off for the Jets a few years later with a couple of AFC Championship runs lead by a strong running game and an adequate QB in Mark Sanchez who was given time to pass to some excellent WRs (Santonio Holmes, Braylon Edwards).  But it all started with that 2006 Draft.

I can't help but feel like this is the opportunity to make a franchise-altering selection.  And if they don't, mediocrity or worse will exist for several more years.  JMHO.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jgb

jgb

Posted
Posted
Just now, jetstream23 said:

So you're saying we'd essentially win in the long run by losing here in the Draft? :P 

Still better off finding the guy obviously. Just saying there is a silver lining that would ease the sting of yet another whiff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MDL_JET

MDL_JET

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, jgb said:

Obviously we need a hit here. But whiffing wouldn't be so disastrous. At least it would wipe out the Macc/Bowles mouth-breather combo.

I bet you they’ll still be here for at least 2 more years regardless who they pick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greenwave81

greenwave81

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Warfish said:

No more so than the O'Brian pick, the Pennington pick or the Sanchez pick was.  

Every first round pick of a QB is meaningful for at least 4-5 years.  Usually longer.

Not anymore, or at least to a much lesser degree.

Previous 1st rd DP QB's required a HUGE financial commitment, not required now with he slotted salary system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Warfish

Warfish

Posted
Posted
Just now, greenwave81 said:

Not anymore, or at least to a much lesser degree.

Previous 1st rd DP QB's required a HUGE financial commitment, not required now with he slotted salary system.

It's not the financial commitment that binds a team for that duration.

Teams simply are not in the spot nor have the will to draft QB's high in round #1 year after year (unless they're the Browns).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcJet

dcJet

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, jgb said:

Obviously we need a hit here. But whiffing wouldn't be so disastrous. At least it would wipe out the Macc/Bowles mouth-breather combo.

You just said "Good move by Macc." in the other thread.  I thought you were coming around.  :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetstream23

jetstream23

Posted
  • Author
Posted
8 minutes ago, Warfish said:

No more so than the O'Brian pick, the Pennington pick or the Sanchez pick was.  

Every first round pick of a QB is meaningful for at least 4-5 years.  Usually longer.

True, but those were somewhat opportunistic picks....except for Sanchez.  The Jets sat back and waited for Ken O'Brien, and they got Pennington at 8 I believe.  They traded up for Sanchez on Draft Day when they saw him available at #5.

This just feels different.  It wasn't as guaranteed those other years that the Jets were going QB.  But, they are ALL IN this season.  They are so in that they made a trade 6 weeks before the Draft to get up higher than they took the 3 QBs you mentioned.  We all know that they could have gotten a QB at 6 this year....at least some QB....Mayfield, Lamar Jackson, etc.  But this team has pushed all it's chips (and some 2019 chips) to the center of the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetstream23

jetstream23

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 minutes ago, Warfish said:

It's not the financial commitment that binds a team for that duration.

Teams simply are not in the spot nor have the will to draft QB's high in round #1 year after year (unless they're the Browns).

 

The thing is, whoever the Jets select at #3 will be the guy we ride for the next several years.  We'll be hitched to him.  Similarly to Sanchez, once you commit to a QB high in the Draft you're not moving off him for quite a while.  How many debates took place in 2012, 2013, 2014 about whether it was time to get rid of Sanchez?  The Jets started to be realistic when they drafted Geno Smith in Round 2 of the 2013 Draft.

Whether the guy we take next month is good, bad or ugly....he's going to be our QB for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jgb

jgb

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, dcJet said:

You just said "Good move by Macc." in the other thread.  I thought you were coming around.  :P

Yeah he made a nice move there. But he has to actually deliver on the #3 to save his job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
T0mShane

T0mShane

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, jgb said:

Obviously we need a hit here. But whiffing wouldn't be so disastrous. At least it would wipe out the Macc/Bowles mouth-breather combo.

This is where I’m at, too. The pick isn’t consequential if it keeps Bowles and Maccagnan employed. It’s only consequential in that it becomes a selling feature for the next head coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patriot Killa

Patriot Killa

Posted
Posted
Just now, jetstream23 said:

The game that made me a Jets fan when I was 12 years old.  I think it was the 2nd NYJ game I had ever gone to with my father.

There are fans from across different fan bases that still bring that game up. I have a friend who likes the Bills that even said..man..that was one epic ass game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alka

Alka

Posted
Posted

Picking Ken O'Brien over Dan Marino was the worst mistake the Jets ever made.  Everyone believed that Marino fell right into the Jets lap, and they instead went for O'Brien.   That was the most consequential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greenwave81

greenwave81

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Warfish said:

It's not the financial commitment that binds a team for that duration.

Teams simply are not in the spot nor have the will to draft QB's high in round #1 year after year (unless they're the Browns).

 

Old rules, and shows a lack of understanding of the modern NFL.

Of course the financial commitment to Sanchez played a part in how long we let him play out.

Think Elway is 'wedded' to Lynch?  Is Kizer preventing the Browns from drafting a QB?

With the crapshoot of drafting a QB and finding a successful one, and the non-cap implications of drafting one 'high', I see future drafts being QB centric..they will be over-drafted.  And if the QB you drafted last year shows little promise after being under your watchful eye for a year, you'll be in the market again the following year.  If you want to be successful.

There are many on this board , and I am one, that crapped on Macc for drafting 2 S's in the first two rounds last year.  Maybe Macc has learned something..which is that until you have a stable QB, you'll always be in the market for one.  And when drafting QB's doesn't come with significant cap implications, you draft one til you find one.

JMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Warfish

Warfish

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, greenwave81 said:

Old rules, and shows a lack of understanding of the modern NFL.

Of course the financial commitment to Sanchez played a part in how long we let him play out.

Think Elway is 'wedded' to Lynch?  Is Kizer preventing the Browns from drafting a QB?

With the crapshoot of drafting a QB and finding a successful one, and the non-cap implications of drafting one 'high', I see future drafts being QB centric..they will be over-drafted.  And if the QB you drafted last year shows little promise after being under your watchful eye for a year, you'll be in the market again the following year.  If you want to be successful.

There are many on this board , and I am one, that crapped on Macc for drafting 2 S's in the first two rounds last year.  Maybe Macc has learned something..which is that until you have a stable QB, you'll always be in the market for one.  And when drafting QB's doesn't come with significant cap implications, you draft one til you find one.

JMO.

Then why didn't we draft Watson last year?  If it's such a no big deal thing to draft QB's in the 1st regularly?

You know, since QB is our single largest and move obvious failing as a franchise the past, say, 40 years.

I don't think it's bcause Macc learned anything.  Teams, generally speaking, still do not spend high draft picks year after year on QB's.  Cost or not, it's still a multi-year investment.

Hell, we drafted Hack (a 2nd) three years ago now.  Don't think Macc's hope for Hack didn;t play a part in why he skipped Watson btw.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jgb

jgb

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, jetstream23 said:

Thanks.  I thought long and hard about it (actually, it just popped into my head while taking a dump this morning).

 

So if I said "this thread stinks," it'd be literal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jgb

jgb

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Grandy said:

I believe it to be the most important. We've never been in line for a Franchise QB at this high of a pick since Namath went #1.

You mean since Parcells bungled the Peyton Manning deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rangerous

rangerous

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, jetstream23 said:

True, but those were somewhat opportunistic picks....except for Sanchez.  The Jets sat back and waited for Ken O'Brien, and they got Pennington at 8 I believe.  They traded up for Sanchez on Draft Day when they saw him available at #5.

This just feels different.  It wasn't as guaranteed those other years that the Jets were going QB.  But, they are ALL IN this season.  They are so in that they made a trade 6 weeks before the Draft to get up higher than they took the 3 QBs you mentioned.  We all know that they could have gotten a QB at 6 this year....at least some QB....Mayfield, Lamar Jackson, etc.  But this team has pushed all it's chips (and some 2019 chips) to the center of the table.

pennington was the 18th pick. he was the first qb taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sperm Edwards

Sperm Edwards

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, jgb said:

Obviously we need a hit here. But whiffing wouldn't be so disastrous. At least it would wipe out the Macc/Bowles mouth-breather combo.

Therefore we'll end up with a short-lived, semi-hit. Just good enough for the team to have hope in what he'll never actually become. A total hit or whiff is too good for us, and therefore too unrealistic.

I give you points for your optimistic, homer of a prediction, though. ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jamesr

jamesr

Posted
Posted

I voted No - although I'm thinking not of a single pick but the first round as a whole.

2001 we had an unprecedented FOUR first round picks, that should have allowed us to lay a foundation for 10+ years. We had some success with the guys we picked, but far away from what it should have been IMHO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sperm Edwards

Sperm Edwards

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, NYs Stepchild said:

I hope this is the most consequential pick of my lifetime but it isn't yet. It's only consequential if we pick a legitimate franchise QB. 

We'll find out in a couple years. If we miss it's just another lousy miss amongst a lot of other lousy misses.  

This

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company

Site Sponsor

MetLife Stadium Tailgate

NY Jets Podcast

NY Jets Podcast

DMCA Page

  • -- DMCA Page
    • ×
    ×
    • Create New...