20/20 Hindsight Poll: Darnold at 3 or Rosen at 6?

[SoCalFan]

I mentioned in my initial post here that my son is one of Sam’s roommates and teammates.  He also played against Josh in high school and they know each other socially.  I think Rosen is immensely talented, but Sam is the better teammate.  There won’t be any controversies or distractions....it will be all about football.  Great draft pick.

[New York Mick]

36 minutes ago, Xtina said:

GM’s don’t have this luxury 

Obviously 

[will]

Rosen had at least two concussions in college. For me its a significant red flag.

[Philc1]

Still thought we had a good draft.  Would I prefer to stay at 6? Perhaps but Macc would have blown the 2nds anyway 

[Doggin94it]

I think that if you could have guaranteed Mac in advance that Rosen would be there, we don't make the deal.  And if you could guarantee it to me, I would take Rosen and the picks over Darnold.

But there's no way to guarantee it, and had we stayed at 6 until draft night,  we probably would have paid a higher price to move up to 3 (with Darnold on the board) or 4 for Rosen (with Mayfield and Darnold gone and Denver waiting at 5).

So even with 20/20 hindsight, it's a great deal

[King P]

If we're talking in hindsight, definitely Rosen and the picks

[Charlie Brown]

If the Jets don't move up then Rosen might not be available at 6; simple as that...

This franchise has played that game for the last 40 years, enough is enough....

The real issue was it a better choice to draft Mahomes last year, and have ALL YOUR PICKS this year???

[bealeb319]

If you could go back in time to before we traded up with Indy, what would you instruct Macc to do?  Stay at 3 to grab Darnold, or remain at 6 to take Rosen?
We're assuming here that Darnold would have gone somewhere in the top 5 had we not snagged him, likely via trade-up. 

Stay at 3 and grab darnold no guarantee we land Rosen at 6 or even allen

Sent from my [device_name] using http://JetNation.com mobile app

[Sperm Edwards]

33 minutes ago, Charlie Brown said:

If the Jets don't move up then Rosen might not be available at 6; simple as that...

This franchise has played that game for the last 40 years, enough is enough....

The real issue was it a better choice to draft Mahomes last year, and have ALL YOUR PICKS this year???

For most teams, yes. For us it means we just would've drafted a ****ing guard because he has the highest predicted floor. 

[Jetsfan80]

33 minutes ago, Charlie Brown said:

If the Jets don't move up then Rosen might not be available at 6; simple as that...

This franchise has played that game for the last 40 years, enough is enough....

The real issue was it a better choice to draft Mahomes last year, and have ALL YOUR PICKS this year???

 

DeShaun Watson > Sam Darnold > Pat Mahomes/Josh Rosen > Rest of this year's QB crop.

So to answer your specific question, no, I would not have taken Mahomes over Darnold and the 2's.  Watson would be the only QB I'd fully support as being "our guy" over Darnold. 

[NoBowles]

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

DeShaun Watson > Sam Darnold > Pat Mahomes/Josh Rosen > Rest of this year's QB crop.

So to answer your specific question, no, I would not have taken Mahomes over Darnold and the 2's.  Watson would be the only QB I'd fully support as being "our guy" over Darnold. 

This is easy to say in hindsight, but the reality is that Darnold was a better draft prospect than Watson, in their respective drafts, according to the majority of people. 

In addition, lets see how this plays out in a few years. If Watson is a top 10 QB, and Darnold is a top 3, I think we made the right choice. If Watson is the best QB in football, we obviously messed it up.

[Jetsfan80]

2 minutes ago, NoBowles said:

This is easy to say in hindsight, but the reality is that Darnold was a better draft prospect than Watson, in their respective drafts, according to the majority of people. 

In addition, lets see how this plays out in a few years. If Watson is a top 10 QB, and Darnold is a top 3, I think we made the right choice. If Watson is the best QB in football, we obviously messed it up.

I'm thrilled with Darnold.  It's really only a slight edge for Watson, for me.  And for the record, I wanted Watson in the draft last year.  I don't care who the experts think is the better prospect. 

[Augustiniak]

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

For most teams, yes. For us it means we just would've drafted a ****ing guard because he has the highest predicted floor. 

but that means we would have addressed offensive line and that's not how we roll now.

[NoBowles]

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

I'm thrilled with Darnold.  It's really only a slight edge for Watson, for me.  And for the record, I wanted Watson in the draft last year.  I don't care who the experts think is the better prospect. 

My point is that Darnold was considered a better prospect. Watson went 12 in what was considered a weak QB draft. Darnold went 3 in a very strong QB draft.

I was afraid of Watson being an injury risk due to his propensity to run the football, and I still hold that fear. I loved him and would have loved having him, but have always had that fear. I also worried about his arm strength in the North East in December/January. 

Time will play this out.

[Charlie Brown]

25 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

DeShaun Watson > Sam Darnold > Pat Mahomes/Josh Rosen > Rest of this year's QB crop.

So to answer your specific question, no, I would not have taken Mahomes over Darnold and the 2's.  Watson would be the only QB I'd fully support as being "our guy" over Darnold. 

This is fair we get to see what happens in the future which is fun.

Also under your scenario we could have Watson (drafted 12th) then instead, right?

And if we could the fact that we procured Darnold now doesn't overlook that we could have gotten Watson in last year's draft IMO......

I would have been fine with Watson as well....

However I do believe that Mac has NOW learned from his mistakes!!

[CTM]

2 hours ago, dbatesman said:

I liked Rosen a lot, and still do, but the injuries are a real concern, and while I don’t have a problem with his mouth, I do think the media here would have had a field day with it. That said, people are being awfully glib about 2nd-round picks, which (particularly where we tend to be slotted) are the most valuable picks in the draft by some measures. I’m happy with Darnold and if he hits of course three 2s is a pittance, but let’s not act like it’s not going to cost us anything.

Pretty much agreed. 4 days ago I would've answered Rosen and the 2's but I'm drinking the Darnold kool-aid now. 

[Augustiniak]

1 minute ago, CTM said:

Pretty much agreed. 4 days ago I would've answered Rosen and the 2's but I'm drinking the Darnold kool-aid now. 

it's more than just the picks.  it's having to see, watch and listen to josh rosen everywhere for a decade.  it was miserable watching him on draft night alone.

[CTM]

1 minute ago, Augustiniak said:

it's more than just the picks.  it's having to see, watch and listen to josh rosen everywhere for a decade.  it was miserable watching him on draft night alone.

He's awkward and douchey but it wouldn't have bothered us if he's producing. He's the cleanest on the field, Darnold has a ways to go.

[joewilly12]

Sam Darnold best QB in the draft, 20 years old looking forward to great things and success from our franchise QB. 

[JohnnyLV]

48 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

DeShaun Watson > Sam Darnold > Pat Mahomes/Josh Rosen > Rest of this year's QB crop.

So to answer your specific question, no, I would not have taken Mahomes over Darnold and the 2's.  Watson would be the only QB I'd fully support as being "our guy" over Darnold. 

Here's the issue with Watson. First, he is far from proven at the NFL level. Yes he had ridiculous success in those first 4 games. However, it was with a modified college style offense that no one in the NFL had experience with defending. There have been a number of instances in situations like these where the NFL catches up and learns how to defend it. Second thing, he has definitely not proven that he can stay healthy in that style of play in the NFL which was a huge concern for him. I have a hard time not seeing Darnold have a more successful career long term than Watson.

[Augustiniak]

4 minutes ago, CTM said:

He's awkward and douchey but it wouldn't have bothered us if he's producing. He's the cleanest on the field, Darnold has a ways to go.

he has the best mechanics when the pocket is clean.  he struggles when he's got to move or improvise, whereas darnold and mayfield are better in these areas.  i think rosen is like a combo of ken o'brien and chad pennington, he can function in a clean pocket and read defenses, but is limited when things get choppy.  in 2 years darnold will be the better qb, and this is before you consider injury histories.

and then there are all those interviews...

[7561526667]

Put me down as a definite yes in moving up to 3.

Here is something I haven't seen mentioned: as the draft played out, Mikey Mac made a great decision in moving into the 3 spot a month prior to the draft.

If he didn't, and the Colts still had the #3 pick, with every QB still on the board at #3, what a bidding war they could've had!!

I have no doubt that by waiting, the Jets either would've been outbid for the #3, or they would have had to substitute the #2 pick next year for a #1.

 

[The Crusher]

Im still pretty happy we didn’t take defense. 

[CTJetsFan]

4 hours ago, MDL_JET said:

Honestly, I was a huge Rosen fan. Idk if it's because he's now a Jet or what, but I feel like we're in better hands with Darnold and i'd rather go this route. If we gave up future 1's then i'd probably change my tune. But missing the 2's? I can deal with that. 

+1 on this.

[Jetsfan80]

1 hour ago, Charlie Brown said:

This is fair we get to see what happens in the future which is fun.

Also under your scenario we could have Watson (drafted 12th) then instead, right?

And if we could the fact that we procured Darnold now doesn't overlook that we could have gotten Watson in last year's draft IMO......

I would have been fine with Watson as well....

However I do believe that Mac has NOW learned from his mistakes!!

 

Nah, he hasn't.  The rest of the draft is evident of that. 

I'm thankful we got a franchise QB almost in spite of Macc, however.  Sam Darnold will be here far longer than Mike Maccagnan will be. 

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, Augustiniak said:

but that means we would have addressed offensive line and that's not how we roll now.

Address the OL? Yes. 

Use the 6th pick in a QB-heavy top 10 on a single interior OLman? Holy crap, no. Therefore I think he'd have done it. 

[Augustiniak]

3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Address the OL? Yes. 

Use the 6th pick in a QB-heavy top 10 on a single interior OLman? Holy crap, no. Therefore I think he'd have done it. 

it's another hypothetical question about this jets draft we can debate.  but so far in mccagnan's tenure here as gm there are a few things he's made clear.  he does not value rbs highly, he does not value OL highly.  he has not taken a rb or OL in days 1 or two of 4 straight drafts.  and yet the rbs can be fine, esp. if flowers becomes a versatile fb.  

but no, i don't think mccags was taking nelson at 6, i don't think he liked allen, and he counted off darnold/rosen/mayfield/barkley/chubb and after this his draft was going to sh!t.  

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, Augustiniak said:

it's another hypothetical question about this jets draft we can debate.  but so far in mccagnan's tenure here as gm there are a few things he's made clear.  he does not value rbs highly, he does not value OL highly.  he has not taken a rb or OL in days 1 or two of 4 straight drafts.  and yet the rbs can be fine, esp. if flowers becomes a versatile fb.  

but no, i don't think mccags was taking nelson at 6, i don't think he liked allen, and he counted off darnold/rosen/mayfield/barkley/chubb and after this his draft was going to sh!t.  

I was under the impression this was a "what if" he landed Cousins. Then yes I think he'd go high floor over high ceiling and positional value.

[Augustiniak]

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

I was under the impression this was a "what if" he landed Cousins. Then yes I think he'd go high floor over high ceiling and positional value.

ah.  but i still don't think he was taking nelson.  but it speaks to my point of how there was a dropoff in talent, i doubt he was taking a guard and there may not have been a market to trade back.  some teams would take nelson and be happy but i don't think mccags is one of these guys.  even if they had cousins, at 6 there were no really good LT prospects, no good pass rushers, no tempting wrs and no lock down cbs.  besides the qbs and rbs this draft seemed weak.

[SayNoToDMC]

I would still take Darnold if you could have traded back to 10 for Rosen and added picks. Guy would have spent 80% of his career arguing and whining with the NY media

[Augustiniak]

5 minutes ago, SayNoToDMC said:

I would still take Darnold if you could have traded back to 10 for Rosen and added picks. Guy would have spent 80% of his career arguing and whining with the NY media

the more you see him, and not just read about him, it makes darnold to the jets seem that much better.  

[#27TheDominator]

5 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

it's another hypothetical question about this jets draft we can debate.  but so far in mccagnan's tenure here as gm there are a few things he's made clear.  he does not value rbs highly, he does not value OL highly.  he has not taken a rb or OL in days 1 or two of 4 straight drafts.  and yet the rbs can be fine, esp. if flowers becomes a versatile fb.  

but no, i don't think mccags was taking nelson at 6, i don't think he liked allen, and he counted off darnold/rosen/mayfield/barkley/chubb and after this his draft was going to sh!t.  

Why would he draft a RB in the top 2?  He's been paying good guaranteed money for vets.  When he arrived they had Ivory who was one of the only bright spots on the roster.  Now they have Powell and Crowell getting solid top half annual salaries at RB.  In the meantime, they paid Forte $5M per, which was a top 10 per year salary at RB.  They also went fairly hard after McKinnon who got a top 5 FA deal.  They have also brought in a ton of has-beens like Ridley, Rawls, Langford, Spiller, Bernard Pierce, Seastrunk, Knile Davis, Dri Archer, etc.  These were not big money moves, but most of the guys he has in have some NFL pedigree.  I think the take away is not that does not value RBs, it is that he values veteran RBs.

[LAD_Brooklyn]

I dislike this poll

[Augustiniak]

8 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Why would he draft a RB in the top 2?  He's been paying good guaranteed money for vets.  When he arrived they had Ivory who was one of the only bright spots on the roster.  Now they have Powell and Crowell getting solid top half annual salaries at RB.  In the meantime, they paid Forte $5M per, which was a top 10 per year salary at RB.  They also went fairly hard after McKinnon who got a top 5 FA deal.  They have also brought in a ton of has-beens like Ridley, Rawls, Langford, Spiller, Bernard Pierce, Seastrunk, Knile Davis, Dri Archer, etc.  These were not big money moves, but most of the guys he has in have some NFL pedigree.  I think the take away is not that does not value RBs, it is that he values veteran RBs.

he wouldn't take a rb in the top 2.  but with those 5 guys off the board, if the jets stayed at 6 mccags didn't like who he thought would be there.

[ylekram]

2nd rounders are like the pit of despair around here. I am glad they are gone. long live the darnold