Case for Teddy?

[CanadaSteve]

3 hours ago, johnnysd said:

 don't like the Rodgers comparison, you don't like the 48 percent failure rate of QB's selected with the top three picks, which would be well over fifty percent if we were to use top 10 picks, you don't like the lack of a developmental league and how it could improve overall quality of the game, you don't like the suggestion of starting Bridgewater to try and raise his trade value, and you don't like every other comment pointed out

 

None of these things are actual relevant to WHY you think Darnold sitting for a year is the right move. What does 50% failure rate have to do with anything? Do you think it somehow becomes higher than 50% if he starts? EVERYONE thinks there should be a developmental league but there really isnt and Darnold wouldnt really be the best candidate anyway. How does playing BW for trade value make Darnold better. I dont get it

Yup, as I said to Slats, this has gotten old. The horse is dead.  Move on.

[j4jets]

20 hours ago, Jetsplayer21 said:

Well I hope darnold will put together seasons than the 1 McCown had last yr. Better than dome teddy had with 2 good knees and a competent offense.

  So you admit jet beat writers have sucked up to jets gms and don’t buy the teddy stroke jobs to please mac ? ? kinda of contradicting yourself there buddy boy. If teddy gets traded, you mannish will remind Mac about his great teddy b articles as playing a part. 

No, I said “when was the last Jets beat writers sucked up to Jets GM?”  That’s far from agreeing with you. It’s funny you claim the theory to be so true, yet you feel one of the other 31 NFL teams will fall for it. It’s not like they have million of dollars budgeted for scouting, do they? Yeah, I’m sure they follow Manish and are like “dayyum son, Manish likes this kid. Let’s go roll out the red carpet cuz Manish has spoken!”.

Like I said, you can stick to the ‘Dome TB sucks’ theory while he “opens a few eyes”. 

[slats]

7 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

Yup....okay Slats.  Whatever you need

This flogging of this horse has gotten old. 

Flogging a dead horse generally requires going over the same thing over and over again. This is sort of the opposite, where you haven't explained even one time why you feel it would be beneficial for Sam Darnold to sit the entire season. I don't understand why that's your position, it would be helpful if you shared your rationale once. 

[#27TheDominator]

30 minutes ago, slats said:

Flogging a dead horse generally requires going over the same thing over and over again. This is sort of the opposite, where you haven't explained even one time why you feel it would be beneficial for Sam Darnold to sit the entire season. I don't understand why that's your position, it would be helpful if you shared your rationale once. 

He said Aaron Rodgers.  That is his rationale. 

How many quality starters sat a year?  Rivers sat 2 because he held out and Brees went off.  Rodgers sat behind Favre, Cousins behind RGIII.  I guess that Brees had sat behind Flutie and Brady behind Bledsoe.  See a trend?  Except Couins, these were all from 100 years ago, before the change in practice rules and they were not top 10 picks.  I guess that Mahomes is the only top 10 pick that sat a year and they were confident enough to cut Smith loose for his sophomore season.

Guys that sat were not generally considered the top QB on the roster and were projects.  Brady was not physically ready for the NFL, Rodgers supposedly needed to adjust his mechanics.  Darnold is a top 3 pick and is obviously the future of this franchise.  At worst I can see a Goff like trajectory where he sits half a season.

[CanadaSteve]

1 hour ago, slats said:

Flogging a dead horse generally requires going over the same thing over and over again. This is sort of the opposite, where you haven't explained even one time why you feel it would be beneficial for Sam Darnold to sit the entire season. I don't understand why that's your position, it would be helpful if you shared your rationale once. 

READ.....Give it a try.  I went over it three times.

I even listed it for one guy.  What is the point Slats?  Seriously, what is the point.  You see it one way, I see it another.  It doesn't matter.  They will play Darnold when they play him no matter what we think.  BTW, if the guy is ready to start by week six, then you start him.

What was lost here the whole time, was me stating that BRIDGEWATER should start over McCOWN IF that is the way it goes down, to see what he is and raise his trade value.  But letting a rookie at the most important position sit for a bit, for all the reasons I listed, is not so bad.  But again, whatever.  We don't agree.

[Warfish]

11 hours ago, Jetsplayer21 said:

When you play for the browns and jets lol. If he played on the pats, or a good team. I’m not going to judge darnold either of he only wins 33% of the games he starts if he too doesn’t get much help on O. Next Off season hopefully we can. 

Oh, sure.  McCown is just unlucky.  If he played for a legit contender, he'd totally be a starter and win 34% of his starts, easy. 

How have all the contenders missed on him, I'll never know...

It's really our fault he's a loser, lets be honest.

[JohnnyLV]

39 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

READ.....Give it a try.  I went over it three times.

I even listed it for one guy.  What is the point Slats?  Seriously, what is the point.  You see it one way, I see it another.  It doesn't matter.  They will play Darnold when they play him no matter what we think.  BTW, if the guy is ready to start by week six, then you start him.

What was lost here the whole time, was me stating that BRIDGEWATER should start over McCOWN IF that is the way it goes down, to see what he is and raise his trade value.  But letting a rookie at the most important position sit for a bit, for all the reasons I listed, is not so bad.  But again, whatever.  We don't agree.

Holy hell, the ONLY point you have made is you want to start BW for increased trade value, but never ever once even in your list have you given even the slightest explanation of why you think sitting is good for Darnold other than just throwing Rodgers out there. I have to believe at this point you are just being obtuse and do not actually want to share any cogent dialogue.

[Jetsplayer21]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

Oh, sure.  McCown is just unlucky.  If he played for a legit contender, he'd totally be a starter and win 34% of his starts, easy. 

How have all the contenders missed on him, I'll never know...

It's really our fault he's a loser, lets be honest.

A 95 Qbr, on pace for 4K passing yards, threw twice as many tds as picks, all on the jets mind you with 2nd to worst line, little weapons and Todd Bowles trying to control the O lol. Really throws out our whole weak argument. 

   See my biggest worry is your flawed thinking is how Mac and Bowles will too think. Now that we have a stud qb, he is all of a sudden going to be tom Brady without any help. Team Mac/Bowles can go back to just focusing using all FA $ and premium draft picks on D. “ Sam will take the entire O on his shoulders without any star help.” ?

[Jetsplayer21]

8 hours ago, j4jets said:

No, I said “when was the last Jets beat writers sucked up to Jets GM?”  That’s far from agreeing with you. It’s funny you claim the theory to be so true, yet you feel one of the other 31 NFL teams will fall for it. It’s not like they have million of dollars budgeted for scouting, do they? Yeah, I’m sure they follow Manish and are like “dayyum son, Manish likes this kid. Let’s go roll out the red carpet cuz Manish has spoken!”.

Like I said, you can stick to the ‘Dome TB sucks’ theory while he “opens a few eyes”. 

Ohh what I thought you were being sarcastic. You are saying jet beat writers like mannish too not kiss up to Mac for insider info ??

[Jetsplayer21]

1 hour ago, johnnysd said:

Holy hell, the ONLY point you have made is you want to start BW for increased trade value, but never ever once even in your list have you given even the slightest explanation of why you think sitting is good for Darnold other than just throwing Rodgers out there. I have to believe at this point you are just being obtuse and do not actually want to share any cogent dialogue.

Some posters think the brass will decide to start darnold based on fans opinions on here lol. We all were screaming for them to put in hackenberg at end of the season, even start for 1 last game after a sh*tt season.  Did they give 1 day to throw fans a bone for our support for another horrible season ?Bryce Petty was just too good to sit ?

[CanadaSteve]

1 hour ago, johnnysd said:

Holy hell, the ONLY point you have made is you want to start BW for increased trade value, but never ever once even in your list have you given even the slightest explanation of why you think sitting is good for Darnold other than just throwing Rodgers out there. I have to believe at this point you are just being obtuse and do not actually want to share any cogent dialogue.

HOly sh*t....the two of you.  I am trying to follow Maxman's rule about not insulting other posters, but you guys are making it VERY difficult.

50 percent failure rate with young QB's

No minor league system to develop young players like MLB, NHL

Previous history with QB's of the Jets

Let Bridgewater START over McCown to see what he is, either provide insurance for Darnold OR increase his trade value.

Learning curve playing in shorts compared to when the fire is on

He JUST turned 21.

Take your friggin pick which explanation.  And I am not the only one thinking it.  Use Google and do a search; you will see many articles that feel this way.  There is no reason to trot him out there week one.  This is a LONG-term plan. 

Now, is THAT plain enough for you, or do I have to use bigger font?

[Joe W. Namath]

"Let Bridgewater START over McCown to see what he is"

You know what Bridgewater is.  He is a crappy and now injured qb.  He makes Josh McCown look like Bret Favre.

 

[j4jets]

1 hour ago, Jetsplayer21 said:

Ohh what I thought you were being sarcastic. You are saying jet beat writers like mannish too not kiss up to Mac for insider info ??

No, I’m saying your theory sucks almost as much as McCown. 

[JohnnyLV]

1 hour ago, CanadaSteve said:

HOly sh*t....the two of you.  I am trying to follow Maxman's rule about not insulting other posters, but you guys are making it VERY difficult.

50 percent failure rate with young QB's

No minor league system to develop young players like MLB, NHL

Previous history with QB's of the Jets

Let Bridgewater START over McCown to see what he is, either provide insurance for Darnold OR increase his trade value.

Learning curve playing in shorts compared to when the fire is on

He JUST turned 21.

Take your friggin pick which explanation.  And I am not the only one thinking it.  Use Google and do a search; you will see many articles that feel this way.  There is no reason to trot him out there week one.  This is a LONG-term plan. 

Now, is THAT plain enough for you, or do I have to use bigger font?

I give up. I asked you why you think sitting Darnold is beneficial for Darnold's development. You never addressed that, you just have a list of excuses not to start him. And you are the one being hostile not me, I was curious at your reasoning but you seem to think that your emails on clear on the point, but I see no point just excuses.

And yes there are a number of articles advocating sitting him, with the main reasons being "Rodgers did" and he needs to change his throwing motion. Rodgers path is from a different era and situation that Darnolds and not even remotely similar. If we had a HOF QB at the helm, I would advocate that Darnold sits too. We dont. 

Second on his throwing motion, the Jets are NOT changing it and shouldnt. It looks elongated but his release is actually one of the quickest in the NFL AND he is deadly accurate with that motion even from unbalanced positions and on the move. It is a strength not a weakness and actually pretty similar to Favre.

It comes down to this: In todays NFL I see no argument that can adequately explain why a QB watching from the sideline will be in a better position to succeed, than taking 800 live snaps in NFL games. It is exactly like saying, a young PGA tour player would be more successful by caddying for a pro. Would you learn something? Undoubetdly. Would you learn more than actually you know teeing it up? Not a chance.

 

 

 

[j4jets]

59 minutes ago, Joe W. Namath said:

"Let Bridgewater START over McCown to see what he is"

You know what Bridgewater is.  He is a crappy and now injured qb.  He makes Josh McCown look like Bret Favre.

 

Brett Favre of 2010, sure. 

[Jetsplayer21]

10 minutes ago, j4jets said:

No, I’m saying your theory sucks almost as much as McCown. 

You don’t have much cred here. You haven’t shown 1 intelligent post to discredit it. Maybe you are not much into sports, but NY mets have used their media writers in the past in same situations. Articles pumping up a player about to turn the corner, just before they trade him. I’m not saying it works. But mets and jets both have used desperate methods before. They both chase the backpage, ect. 

[#27TheDominator]

2 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

HOly sh*t....the two of you.  I am trying to follow Maxman's rule about not insulting other posters, but you guys are making it VERY difficult.

50 percent failure rate with young QB's

<

Now, is THAT plain enough for you, or do I have to use bigger font?

We have asked, but you failed to explain...

How is the failure rate of young QBs remotely relevant? 

Do you have some data that shows that sitting a QB makes him have a better than 50% failure rate?  You act like this is a factor in support of sitting Darnold.  I don't see it.  Some Qbs play from the start (say David Carr), and suck.  Some play from the start and turn out great, (Wentz, Wilson, Roethlisberger, Manning, Manning, Wilson, etc).  Some sit and suck (Clemens, Petty, Hackenberg, etc, etc, etc).

The only way I see that as a reason to start Bridgewater would be if you think that Darnold will never pan out.  Even if that is the case, it is better to find out sooner rather than later.  No reason to help "develop" Bridgewater or show he can do it over a full season because he will be playing somewhere else in 2019.  

[jgb]

2 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

HOly sh*t....the two of you.  I am trying to follow Maxman's rule about not insulting other posters, but you guys are making it VERY difficult.

50 percent failure rate with young QB's

No minor league system to develop young players like MLB, NHL

Previous history with QB's of the Jets

Let Bridgewater START over McCown to see what he is, either provide insurance for Darnold OR increase his trade value.

Learning curve playing in shorts compared to when the fire is on

He JUST turned 21.

Take your friggin pick which explanation.  And I am not the only one thinking it.  Use Google and do a search; you will see many articles that feel this way.  There is no reason to trot him out there week one.  This is a LONG-term plan. 

Now, is THAT plain enough for you, or do I have to use bigger font?

The best argument is to give our trash OL a few weeks to prove it can protect the most important rookie the jets have had since I don’t even know 

[j4jets]

51 minutes ago, Jetsplayer21 said:

You don’t have much cred here. You haven’t shown 1 intelligent post to discredit it. Maybe you are not much into sports, but NY mets have used their media writers in the past in same situations. Articles pumping up a player about to turn the corner, just before they trade him. I’m not saying it works. But mets and jets both have used desperate methods before. They both chase the backpage, ect. 

My credibility? It’s not about me, JP. You’re claiming your theory with great conviction, while implying the 31 other GMs wouldn’t have a clue is the issue. You can discredit me, that’s fine. But you’re also discrediting the credibility of 31 other NFL GMs. NFL GM, not forum super heroes like yourself. 

Quick question and I want a yes or no answer:

If a GM gave up or offered a 3rd for TB, do you think that GM read Manish’s article and sent a 3rd over without scouting TB?

Cuz let’s face it, it’s not like Manish gets to see the non-public practices. He has access to the same practices other media outlets do. Unless you think Mac has a few pics of Manish he wouldn’t want the world to see? That theory might hold some credibility, not your non-sense. 

[Jetsplayer21]

17 minutes ago, j4jets said:

My credibility? It’s not about me, JP. You’re claiming your theory with great conviction, while implying the 31 other GMs wouldn’t have a clue is the issue. You can discredit me, that’s fine. But you’re also discrediting the credibility of 31 other NFL GMs. NFL GM, not forum super heroes like yourself. 

Quick question and I want a yes or no answer:

If a GM gave up or offered a 3rd for TB, do you think that GM read Manish’s article and sent a 3rd over without scouting TB?

Cuz let’s face it, it’s not like Manish gets to see the non-public practices. He has access to the same practices other media outlets do. Unless you think Mac has a few pics of Manish he wouldn’t want the world to see? That theory might hold some credibility, not your non-sense. 

Lol you make me laugh. Again I’m not saying it actually would work. But trying to create  “ a buzz “ in camp on a player certainly doesn’t hurt or cost anything at all. Do you agree teams are more inclined to want a player they think the other team doesn’t want to trade ? They would pay less for a player if that team was actively looking to trade him. Why pay top dollar if you have to ?

Tell me if all of this is too far over your head.

If Jets create the buzz teddy is for real, and may actually be the starter that will certainly “ could” help the jets  cause in a trade . The problem is gms and we as fans should know it’s very hard to tell in playing in shorts with zero contact if a player is ok back from a major injury. Nobody knows what TB can do until the real preseason games. 

Did you not find it quite amusing Todd Bowles said the jets were considering 6-7 players for the draft “after “ getting the 3rd pick ? Answer that question yes or no. Did you not take that as complete bs ? But Did the jet reporters just report take him at his word and report it, without totally blasting him And calling Todd Bowles a funny comedian.  

[slats]

2 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

Take your friggin pick which explanation.  And I am not the only one thinking it.  Use Google and do a search; you will see many articles that feel this way.  There is no reason to trot him out there week one.  This is a LONG-term plan. 

 

I've suggested in many posts that the Jets should sit Darnold until week four or five because of the schedule and new offense/blocking scheme. But not trotting him out week one is a far cry from sitting him the entire season, which you've said you'd be fine with. I wouldn't be. 

I asked you straight up which Darnold would be the better QB in 2019. The one who started 10+ games in 2018, or the one who sat the whole year? That's the question you continue to dodge.

If you honestly believe that Darnold would be better off sitting the entire year, I just want to understand why you think that - because I don't get it. 

[UntouchableCrew]

53 minutes ago, jgb said:

The best argument is to give our trash OL a few weeks to prove it can protect the most important rookie the jets have had since I don’t even know 

I've been saying all along a lack of confidence in the o-line is the only reason not to start him. If they stink so bad you're worried about him getting injured/rattled, trot the vets out there. If not he needs the reps/experience.

[j4jets]

19 minutes ago, Jetsplayer21 said:

Lol you make me laugh. Again I’m not saying it actually would work. But trying to create  “ a buzz “ in camp on a player certainly doesn’t hurt or cost anything at all. Do you agree teams are more inclined to want a player they think the other team doesn’t want to trade ? They would pay less for a player if that team was actively looking to trade him. Why pay top dollar if you have to ?

Again, how much emphasis do you think the GMs put in the beat writers’ words? You are exaggerating their influence. 

19 minutes ago, Jetsplayer21 said:

Tell me if all of this is too far over your head.

If Jets create the buzz teddy is for real, and may actually be the starter that will certainly “ could” help the jets  cause in a trade . The problem is gms and we as fans should know it’s very hard to tell in playing in shorts with zero contact if a player is ok back from a major injury. Nobody knows what TB can do until the real preseason games. 

True, except “the buzz” theory has to have legs to stand on and you yourself are saying TB is one legged. Contradicting much?

19 minutes ago, Jetsplayer21 said:

Did you not find it quite amusing Todd Bowles said the jets were considering 6-7 players for the draft “after “ getting the 3rd pick ? Answer that question yes or no. Did you not take that as complete bs ? But Did the jet reporters just report take him at his word and report it, without totally blasting him And calling Todd Bowles a funny comedian.  

Of course it was BS. Beat writers called it out. Everyone and their grandma knew we were going QB even if the first two picks were both QB. I’m not sure if you’re questioning me or telling me something with that last bolded sentence. 

[Warfish]

5 hours ago, Jetsplayer21 said:

A 95 Qbr

Quality Bowel Rating?  That an old folks home thing?

Quote

, on pace for 4K passing yards,

"On Pace", the new "Holy sh*t, Josh McCown ACTULLAY threw from 4,000 yards, whoooooo!!!!!!!!"

Quote

threw twice as many tds as picks, all on the jets mind you with 2nd to worst line, little weapons and Todd Bowles trying to control the O lol. Really throws out our whole weak argument.

Our argument?  

Quote

See my biggest worry is your flawed thinking is how Mac and Bowles will too think.

I wouldn't fear that, Bowles and Macc have yet to think (or act) as I do so far....

Quote

Now that we have a stud qb, he is all of a sudden going to be tom Brady without any help.

Of course not, only Josh McCown can turn the raw clay of Sam Darnold into the chiseled Adonis of greatness that will be "The Darnold".

Quote

Team Mac/Bowles can go back to just focusing using all FA $ and premium draft picks on D.

Unless you're brand new here, it's safe to say you know where I stand on the "all D" ethic of this regime.

Quote

“ Sam will take the entire O on his shoulders without any star help.” ?

Josh McCown, star.  Got it.

[Jetsplayer21]

14 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Quality Bowel Rating?  That an old folks home thing?

"On Pace", the new "Holy sh*t, Josh McCown ACTULLAY threw from 4,000 yards, whoooooo!!!!!!!!"

Our argument?  

I wouldn't fear that, Bowles and Macc have yet to think (or act) as I do so far....

Of course not, only Josh McCown can turn the raw clay of Sam Darnold into the chiseled Adonis of greatness that will be "The Darnold".

Unless you're brand new here, it's safe to say you know where I stand on the "all D" ethic of this regime.

Josh McCown, star.  Got it.

? you are flying off the handle bro ?? yes Josh McCown had a very good yr on a bad offensive team. I know it’s tough for you to swallow. 

I can’t wait for Sam to have even better years, but it may take some time.

[CanadaSteve]

5 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

We have asked, but you failed to explain...

How is the failure rate of young QBs remotely relevant? 

Do you have some data that shows that sitting a QB makes him have a better than 50% failure rate?  You act like this is a factor in support of sitting Darnold.  I don't see it.  Some Qbs play from the start (say David Carr), and suck.  Some play from the start and turn out great, (Wentz, Wilson, Roethlisberger, Manning, Manning, Wilson, etc).  Some sit and suck (Clemens, Petty, Hackenberg, etc, etc, etc).

The only way I see that as a reason to start Bridgewater would be if you think that Darnold will never pan out.  Even if that is the case, it is better to find out sooner rather than later.  No reason to help "develop" Bridgewater or show he can do it over a full season because he will be playing somewhere else in 2019.  

Yeah, the failure rate of 50 percent of all young QB's has nothing to do with it. 

Guys, just give it up.  Just pat yourself on the back and believe your own smug superiority. 

[CanadaSteve]

5 hours ago, slats said:

I've suggested in many posts that the Jets should sit Darnold until week four or five because of the schedule and new offense/blocking scheme. But not trotting him out week one is a far cry from sitting him the entire season, which you've said you'd be fine with. I wouldn't be. 

I asked you straight up which Darnold would be the better QB in 2019. The one who started 10+ games in 2018, or the one who sat the whole year? That's the question you continue to dodge.

If you honestly believe that Darnold would be better off sitting the entire year, I just want to understand why you think that - because I don't get it. 

I haven't dodged it at all dude....and I never said he should sit all year.

This is one of the reasons why I have stated, on MULTIPLE occasions, to read all the threads.  I have stated it. 

This thread was about starting BRIDGEWATER.  And I agree he should start over McCown.  That is all I have ever said, and said there is no reason to rush Darnold.  Start him half way through the season.  But start Bridgewater over McCown. 

A 50 percent failure rate of High drafted QB's and our own failure rate, GOD FORBID, is reason to be cautious and not rush things.

[slats]

19 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

I haven't dodged it at all dude....and I never said he should sit all year.

This is one of the reasons why I have stated, on MULTIPLE occasions, to read all the threads.  I have stated it. 

This thread was about starting BRIDGEWATER.  And I agree he should start over McCown.  That is all I have ever said, and said there is no reason to rush Darnold.  Start him half way through the season.  But start Bridgewater over McCown. 

A 50 percent failure rate of High drafted QB's and our own failure rate, GOD FORBID, is reason to be cautious and not rush things.

 

 

On 6/22/2018 at 9:38 AM, CanadaSteve said:

Well, I guess we disagree.  I would start Bridgewater for three or four games and hand the reins over to Sam...if he is ready and deserves it.  I also do not have a problem with sitting Darnold for a whole season.  Let Bridgewater and McCown take it the whole season.

I don't see any such reality, but if that is how you see it, so be it.  At least, if Bowles was an actual coach, he should be looking at ALL the possible scenarios, one that includes Bridgewater starting.

But hey, I think we have run this disagreement into the ground.  Some of you guys see it one way, some of us see it as another.  So be it.

 

 

On 6/22/2018 at 9:55 AM, CanadaSteve said:

All this other stuff aside; The trade deadline is October 30;  We have a TON of time before trading Bridgewater.  Who knows what could happen in the first month of the season.  Maybe Brady goes down, maybe another team with playoff aspirations loses their starter.  If Bridgewater is playing well, let him play.  Let him showcase what he can do.  It could even net us a 2nd rounder. 

I just disagree with this whole notion that Bridgewater should not start.  Makes no sense, especially if he is playing well.  Remember the concept of the best players play?  IF, and I cannot capitalize IF any larger; if it is Bridgewater, he should start. 

I think Darnold would better be served with clipboard in hand for a season.  NO reason to rush this along.  We have all waited almost 50 years; what's one more season to let the kid sit, watch, digest, build a better O-Line to keep him safe, and build that desire to get in there. 

 

 

 

On 6/22/2018 at 10:39 AM, CanadaSteve said:

Yup, you are right.  There has not been a top three QB an entire season without starting a game in the past 50 years.  It has nothing to do with me not being able to see something.  It is the fact I DISAGREE with it. 

Wanna see the list? Sure you do, since that is why you brought it up.

STILL OUT

Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariotta, Jared Goff, Carson Wentz, Mitch Trubinsky.  Still too early to tell, but lets put them ALL in the good section to save argument. 

GOOD

Andrew Luck, Cam Newton, Matt Stafford, Matt Ryan, Eli Manning, Carson Palmer, Michael Vick, Donovan McNabb, Peyton Manning, Steve McNair, Drew Bledsoe, Troy Aikman, Vinny Testeverde, John Elway, Steve Bartkowski, Bert Jones, Jim Plunkett, Archie Manning, Dan Pastorini, Terry Bradshaw.

I am being generous in including Carson Palmer, Michael Vick, Steve McNair, Vinny, Bartkowski, Jones, and Pastorini. 

Out of that list, 6 Super Bowls as the starting QB.  Wentz does not get that honor since he didn't play in the playoffs at all.

BAD

Robert Griffin, Sam Bradford, Jamarcus Russell, Vince Young, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Ryan Leaf, Heath Shuler, Rick Mirer, Jeff George, Jim Evertt, Jack Thompson, Mike Phipps, Steve Spurrier, Blake Bortles.

Arguments could be made Bradford and Bortles are not 'bad,' but since I was generous above...

The average is about 57 percent good to bad.  So why not let the kid sit for a year.  Why not take a different strategy that nets just slightly better than half. 

It really is okay that I disagree with you guys.  Not like it matters anyway; You are not changing my mind and I am not changing your mind, and we are not making the decisions anyway.

 

 

On 6/22/2018 at 5:17 PM, CanadaSteve said:

That is a convenient way to look at the list, rather than just saying they were bad.  Perhaps some of them were bad because they were rushed in too quickly. 

Ryan Leaf was a consensus pick....so was Robert Griffin....so was many of them on that list.  The bust rate is just a little better than 50 percent. 

We differ in opinions on this.  Won't change.  I do not see the issue with letting him sit for up to a year.  You do not.  So there it is.

 

 

On 6/23/2018 at 10:17 AM, CanadaSteve said:

We are not going to agree.  I do not believing sitting someone stunts their growth.  Didn't hurt Aaron Rodgers.  NFL is one of the only major sports without a developmental system.  There just MIGHT be a reason why their draft failure rate is so high compared to other sports.  We disagree.  Easy as that.

 

Oh, my mistake. 

[Pac]

6 hours ago, slats said:

I've suggested in many posts that the Jets should sit Darnold until week four or five because of the schedule and new offense/blocking scheme.

and what happens if the Jets are 4-1 with McCown?  If they're 2-3 or worse I can definitely get behind beginning the Darnold Dynasty but if they're winning and looking good with Josh then I don't think Bowles is sitting him.

 

[Jetsplayer21]

1 hour ago, CanadaSteve said:

I haven't dodged it at all dude....and I never said he should sit all year.

This is one of the reasons why I have stated, on MULTIPLE occasions, to read all the threads.  I have stated it. 

This thread was about starting BRIDGEWATER.  And I agree he should start over McCown.  That is all I have ever said, and said there is no reason to rush Darnold.  Start him half way through the season.  But start Bridgewater over McCown. 

A 50 percent failure rate of High drafted QB's and our own failure rate, GOD FORBID, is reason to be cautious and not rush things.

What really gets me is some of these very impatient jet fans. Not too long ago, everyone sat qbs for yr or 2. It was thought by almost all sitting a qb allows them time to focus on all the little things that will make him great 1 day. Instead of rushing him where he may not have time to just worry about improving on all the little things anymore. Maybe they waiting too long in some instances, but were they all wrong those days ? I know college is more pro ready these days. But darnold started what 18 games ? 

My problem is fans are so impatient, they just want to see Sam Darnold play. I do too, but not at the price of stunting his development. Most fans have a extreme bias, they can’t wait any longer. They need to see a future franchise qb right now. We know Mac and Bowles will not let their impatient bias hurt the development of darnold. Let’s be thankfully the fans are not calling the shots. 

[slats]

3 minutes ago, Pac said:

and what happens if the Jets are 4-1 with McCown?  If they're 2-3 or worse I can definitely get behind beginning the Darnold Dynasty but if they're winning and looking good with Josh then I don't think Bowles is sitting him.

 

What I think they should do -and what I hope they'll do- is have a plan in place to develop Darnold this year that includes a timetable for getting him into the starting lineup. An organizational plan. And then sticking to that plan despite any external factors. I'm not a fan of Bowles, but I don't think he's an idiot. His best chance of sudddenly becoming a good coach is if Sam Darnold turns out to be the real deal. If he doesn't, or doesn't get on the field, Bowles will be looking for work within the next two years. I have to believe he understands that. 

[slats]

2 minutes ago, Jetsplayer21 said:

What really gets me is some of this very impatient jet fans. Not too long ago, everyone sat qbs for yr or 2. It was thought by almost all sitting a qb allows them time to focus on all the little things that will make him great 1 day. Instead of rushing him where he may not have time to just worry about improving on all the little things anymore. My problem is fans are so impatient, they just want to see Sam Darnold play. I do too, but not at the price of stunting his development. Most fans have a extreme bias, they can’t wait any longer. They need to see a future franchise qb right now. We know Mac and Bowles will not let their impatient bias hurt the development of darnold. Let’s be thankfully the fans are not calling the shots. 

 

This just isn't true. I looked back 50 years, and couldn't find a single top three QB who didn't start any games as a rookie. Joe Namath started his third game as a pro in 1965. 

[Jetsplayer21]

1 minute ago, slats said:

This just isn't true. I looked back 50 years, and couldn't find a single top three QB who didn't start any games as a rookie. Joe Namath started his third game as a pro in 1965. 

Ah top 3 you only look at ? Lol. Well back in the day they didn’t always draft qbs as early as they should. Aaron Rodgers never should have been drafted so late in the 1st. I’d like to see how many qbs Who started so few games in college, started games in his rookie  yr. Darnold had only 2 seasons. A lot of guys use to sit who even had 4 seasons. Ok so they were drafted top 15 not top 3 lol. 

 Another thing you are overlooking is his 2nd yr. the 2017 season wasn’t the Heisman-worthy year many had pegged for Darnold in the preseason. He struggled behind a new offensive line and young WRs to go with his worsening turnover issues. His 22 total turnovers were as many as 101 FBS teams. 

He now has to do what? Start behind a weak new OL.  I know you are one of the impatient fans who can’t wait to see him out there and using all fire you can. I actually can’t either. When he comes in, he shouldn’t come out for next 15 years. I don’t want to see another mark Sanchez ( 6 overall ) put up some of the worst performances that he needed to be pulled because he just wasn’t ready. I don’t want to make the excuse Sanchez become a bust because he was rushed though. He just sucked and shouldn’t have been 6th overall.

[Pac]

33 minutes ago, slats said:

What I think they should do -and what I hope they'll do- is have a plan in place to develop Darnold this year that includes a timetable for getting him into the starting lineup. An organizational plan. And then sticking to that plan despite any external factors. I'm not a fan of Bowles, but I don't think he's an idiot. His best chance of sudddenly becoming a good coach is if Sam Darnold turns out to be the real deal. If he doesn't, or doesn't get on the field, Bowles will be looking for work within the next two years. I have to believe he understands that. 

I agree the plan is getting him into the lineup but not at the expense of undermining his team first mantra.  If the Jets start McCown and are winning then we can expect to see him until we're officially eliminated from playoff contention.

The only way around that is to hand Darnold the starting job week 1 but again..  unless Darnold shows he's up to the task Bowles' risks losing some respect in the locker room if he starts a clearly inferior QB.

[slats]

29 minutes ago, Jetsplayer21 said:

Ah top 3 you only look at ? Lol. Well back in the day they didn’t always draft qbs as early as they should. Aaron Rodgers never should have been drafted so late in the 1st. I’d like to see how many qbs Who started so few games in college, started games in his rookie  yr. Darnold had only 2 seasons. A lot of guys use to sit who even had 4 seasons. Ok so they were drafted top 15 not top 3 lol. 

 Another thing you are overlooking is his 2nd yr. the 2017 season wasn’t the Heisman-worthy year many had pegged for Darnold in the preseason. He struggled behind a new offensive line and young WRs to go with his worsening turnover issues. His 22 total turnovers were as many as 101 FBS teams. 

He now has to do what? Start behind a weak new OL.  I know you are one of the impatient fans who can’t wait to see him out there and using all fire you can. I actually can’t either. When he comes in, he shouldn’t come out for next 15 years. I don’t want to see another mark Sanchez ( 6 overall ) put up some of the worst performances that he needed to be pulled because he just wasn’t ready. I don’t want to make the excuse Sanchez become a bust because he was rushed though. He just sucked and shouldn’t have been 6th overall.

It's not impatience, it's about the best way to develop the player. He's only going to learn so much from sitting on the sidelines, and that can be learned over the course of three or four games, easily. The way they practice today compared to years past has also been discussed at length here. There just aren't the practice reps that there used to be, and once he's the backup QB in the regular season he'd only get a handful of reps every week. Or worse, he'd be running the scout team, running the opponents' offense instead of his own. That's a waste. 

The turnover on USC and Darnold's turnovers have also been discussed. Darnold started with nine interceptions in his first six games, then had just four over the next eight. Same thing with the fumbles, he had 12 total, but only three in his last six games. His coaches will tell you he doesn't make the same mistake twice while digesting the playbook as quickly as his veteran counterparts. 

Darnold and Sanchez went to the same school and that's pretty much where the comparisons end. Darnold is a significantly better prospect, the best QB prospect this franchise has had in over 50 years. He's a big, durable, mobile QB who's designed to survive behind a less-than-stellar OL. He'll be fine.