If jets draft cutler should he start?

[johnny green balls]

ok, the only way to resolve the dispute running on the "BOLLYTIME" thread is to pose the question to the masses. if the jets draft cutler at #4 should they let him play this year while the jets are rebuilding anyway to get valuable experience or bench him behind (giggle) brooks bollinger to "develop" as a surprising number of others have advocated.

[JetsFanNick]

if pennington is gone then yes, if he is still here judge it on the preseason, but I think you should start him.

[124]

No Pennington? = Yes.

Pennington on the roster AND HE'S READY TO COME BACK BECAUSE HE IS 100&? = No.

But, if we are keeping Chad I don't see us drafting Cutler, so yeah.

[AVM]

we would have to pray our o-line didnt turn him into david carr....but yeah, he'd have to start.

[ThunderbirdJet]

Didn't like the poll, so I didn't vote. In general, I think all rookie QB's benefit greatly from some clipboard carrying. Then, depending on how the O line is playing, and how well a rookie QB has grasped the playbook and honed his abilty to read pro defenses, it's reasonable to potentially start him in the second half, or if he isn't ready, wait until 2007.

Even good QB's can get rattled if they are thrown to the wolves too soon. In fact, I think that is exactly what happened to Carr. Now, he's shell shocked.

[johnny green balls]

Didn't like the poll, so I didn't vote. In general, I think all rookie QB's benefit greatly from some clipboard carrying. Then, depending on how the O line is playing, and how well a rookie QB has grasped the playbook and honed his abilty to read pro defenses, it's reasonable to potentially start him in the second half, or if he isn't ready, wait until 2007.

Even good QB's can get rattled if they are thrown to the wolves too soon. In fact, I think that is exactly what happened to Carr. Now, he's shell shocked.

if someone can't recover from the "shock" of his first couple nfl games why the hell do we want him? why the hell do you want a football player who is such a prima donna that he can't recover from a miserable experience or two even if it starts his career? this argument is beyond ludicrous. "don't start him because he could be damaged goods forever." that could only be true for a complete pussy or someone who lacked the skills to be there in the first place. jesus people, some of you REALLY THINK bollinger should start over cutler. ok, what if we somehow got leinart? or what if the colts had bollinger when they drafted manning should manning have watched the baby-faced midget running around trying to avoid getting the ball smacked down his throat? you're emotionally attached to a subpar player for some nonsensical reason. bollinger is nothing more than a footnote to jets history and the less he sees of the field the better, imho.

[deadringer]

so who gets to vote in these polls anyway?...i'm so confused...

[StillerPaul]

I dunno guys, Big Ben got forced into the fire his rookie season and he sure as hell struggled his first year in the playoffs. Maybe one of these youngsters could do a better job handling the pressure.

[deadringer]

wait a second...the central premise of this poll is that bollinger will be the number one or two quarterback of this team next year...well thats just plain wrong...

[ThunderbirdJet]

if someone can't recover from the "shock" of his first couple nfl games why the hell do we want him? why the hell do you want a football player who is such a prima donna that he can't recover from a miserable experience or two even if it starts his career? this argument is beyond ludicrous. "don't start him because he could be damaged goods forever." that could only be true for a complete pussy or someone who lacked the skills to be there in the first place. jesus people, some of you REALLY THINK bollinger should start over cutler. ok, what if we somehow got leinart? or what if the colts had bollinger when they drafted manning should manning have watched the baby-faced midget running around trying to avoid getting the ball smacked down his throat? you're emotionally attached to a subpar player for some nonsensical reason. bollinger is nothing more than a footnote to jets history and the less he sees of the field the better, imho.

Why does it make sense to start a rookie behind an O line who's makeup could include 3 rookies in the starting rotation? Bollinger proved he's at least a tough nut, and has enough escapability to avoid the rush.

Just because a rookie QB may not be able to use more than half of the playbook in week one hardly makes him a "pussy", and that, was a really ludicrous thing to say. I don't care WHAT QB gets drafted.... I still say they would benefit from clipboard time. INCLUDING Leinart.

You jump to a ton of irrational conclusions here, and I see much more emotional attachment in your post than there was in mine, which was zero. You may recall..... Elway wasn't ready.... he got benched his first year. Given more time, he went back in as a starter later in his rookie year. Even a HoF QB like Elway needed some time to learn. But, I guess he was a "pussy" too, since he wasn't ready, right?

[Lady Jet]

wait a second...the central premise of this poll is that bollinger will be the number one or two quarterback of this team next year...well thats just plain wrong...

Honestly. I would hope that a free agent vet is in the plans if the Jets go QB in the first round.

[johnny green balls]

Why does it make sense to start a rookie behind an O line who's makeup could include 3 rookies in the starting rotation? Bollinger proved he's at least a tough nut, and has enough escapability to avoid the rush.

Just because a rookie QB may not be able to use more than half of the playbook in week one hardly makes him a "pussy", and that, was a really ludicrous thing to say. I don't care WHAT QB gets drafted.... I still say they would benefit from clipboard time. INCLUDING Leinart.

You jump to a ton of irrational conclusions here, and I see much more emotional attachment in your post than there was in mine, which was zero. You may recall..... Elway wasn't ready.... he got benched his first year. Given more time, he went back in as a starter later in his rookie year. Even a HoF QB like Elway needed some time to learn. But, I guess he was a "pussy" too, since he wasn't ready, right?

you cling to the sad misconception that the jets record matters next year. will "clipboard time" benefit a QB? sure, maybe he'll be better in his first game than he would otherwise but in the long haul, experience is what improves a quarterback, not watching some piece of **** like bollinger throw balls into the stomachs of opposing d-lines.

[ThunderbirdJet]

you cling to the sad misconception that the jets record matters next year. will "clipboard time" benefit a QB? sure, maybe he'll be better in his first game than he would otherwise but in the long haul, experience is what improves a quarterback, not watching some piece of **** like bollinger throw balls into the stomachs of opposing d-lines.

You cling to delusional fantasies. Where did I say that the Jets record means anything next year? There is a right way and a wrong way to develop players. Again, you are not just jumping to conclusions, you are inventing things to agrue about that don't exist. Where did i say I didn't think the Jets could use another FA second tier QB to come in as a caretaker? It doesn't have to be Bollinger.

The Giants did the right thing last year with Manning lite. They gave him some time to learn before the baptism of fire. That was the right thing to do. It's not just about throwing a top draft pick out there to get killed, as you want to. Let's find out if the 2006 version of the O line can prevent even a guy like Cutler who can run from getting wasted like Chad and Fiedler, before we trot him out there to get killed, eh?

[johnny green balls]

You cling to delusional fantasies. Where did I say that the Jets record means anything next year? There is a right way and a wrong way to develop players. Again, you are not just jumping to conclusions, you are inventing things to agrue about that don't exist. Where did i say I didn't think the Jets could use another FA second tier QB to come in as a caretaker? It doesn't have to be Bollinger.

The Giants did the right thing last year with Manning lite. They gave him some time to learn before the baptism of fire. That was the right thing to do. It's not just about throwing a top draft pick out there to get killed, as you want to. Let's find out if the 2006 version of the O line can prevent even a guy like Cutler who can run from getting wasted like Chad and Fiedler, before we trot him out there to get killed, eh?

better yet, let's never take him out of the wrapper and then he'll never be at risk. we can put him on the front of the program and media packs without risking his photogenic appeal. chuck his ass in there-- welcome to the NFL baby!

[azjet]

if someone can't recover from the "shock" of his first couple nfl games why the hell do we want him? why the hell do you want a football player who is such a prima donna that he can't recover from a miserable experience or two even if it starts his career? this argument is beyond ludicrous. "don't start him because he could be damaged goods forever." that could only be true for a complete pussy or someone who lacked the skills to be there in the first place. jesus people, some of you REALLY THINK bollinger should start over cutler. ok, what if we somehow got leinart? or what if the colts had bollinger when they drafted manning should manning have watched the baby-faced midget running around trying to avoid getting the ball smacked down his throat? you're emotionally attached to a subpar player for some nonsensical reason. bollinger is nothing more than a footnote to jets history and the less he sees of the field the better, imho.

You answer your own question. Using your train of thought what happens if Cutler goes 0-15 like Bradshaw? 0-11 like S. Young? IF he's drafted, IF he beats out CP and Bollinger in camp, and IF the O-line can protect him and IF the Jets can find a RB like Bettis and go 15-1, then and only then you can compare him to B. Rothlisberger. Cutlers mobility in college= 1255 yds. rushing, Bollinger 1860 yds. in a way tougher conference. Dumb luck? (giggle) Bollinger 30-12 as a starter and Cutler was what? (giggle) College doesn't mean anthing cuz this is the pros? What else do you go by with Cutler? A crystal ball? A ouigi board? Like it or not Bollinger will get a shot because he impressed the one group that counts, the coaches. He doesn't ever have to impress you.

[The Troll]

I would start someone else to open the season, giving Cutler sporadic playing time in blowouts. Then, around game 8, I would insert him into the starting lineup for (hopefully) the next 10+ years.

[The Gun Of Bavaria]

[Sharrow]

If he's good it won't hurt to keep him on the bench. It depends on the person whether or not it would hurt to start him from the beginning rather than let him get comfortable before he starts. Doesn't really matter what any of us think the depth chart should be. Mangini already said that everyone will be able to compete for the position and the best will get it. Start of the season there will be no depth chart.

[StillerPaul]

Hey, i finally can see the voting option, so i voted! I say if he's the pick at #4, they might as well throw him in and let him start developing. Ya can only learn so much by sitting on a bench or holding a clipboard. If he's the future, let him start learning his leadership ASAP. I don't buy into that "Ya can't ruin his confidence by starting him too soon" stuff. Let him take his lumps and learn from em'.

[Sperm Edwards]

I would start someone else to open the season, giving Cutler sporadic playing time in blowouts. Then, around game 8, I would insert him into the starting lineup for (hopefully) the next 10+ years.

This is EXACTLY what I would do. Only exception would be if we're somehow in a playoff hunt (in part due to good play from the season's starting #1 QB).

But JGB, what you are assuming is that the "clipboard holders" would have been equally successful had they been thrown right into the fire, but with no basis for this assumption beyond your own belief. What's your opinion of the way Cincy handled Carson Palmer as a rookie? Did they screw up? Did it screw up Favre's career to hold a clipboard his first year? How about Dan Marino not starting from game 1? McNabb? McNair? Montana? Brady certainly didn't start as a rookie. The list is endless.

It's a short list of QB's who opened their rookie season as the #1 QB (or got the job VERY early-on), kept the starting job, and went on to successful careers. You are suggesting that not only must we draft someone who has the goods, but also someone who can withstand a rookie pummeling, not have it affect his career, and still deliver the goods for years to come. How many have there been like that? Bledsoe; P.Manning; Rothlisburger; Bradshaw was mentioned; Tarkenton; I can't think of many others.

You're saying we should press a rookie not just to be the talent he's billed as, but to be a 1-2x a decade phenom who can get thrown to the wolves right away & never looked back. That's a tall order to expect from anyone.

[SouthernJet]

start him,, its not like he just started playin football,,

plus we might get the top pick next year to boot,,

i have to feel he is just as vulnerable than anyone else considerin any Qb we have will be learnin a new system,,

[johnny green balls]

You answer your own question. Using your train of thought what happens if Cutler goes 0-15 like Bradshaw? 0-11 like S. Young? IF he's drafted, IF he beats out CP and Bollinger in camp, and IF the O-line can protect him and IF the Jets can find a RB like Bettis and go 15-1, then and only then you can compare him to B. Rothlisberger. Cutlers mobility in college= 1255 yds. rushing, Bollinger 1860 yds. in a way tougher conference. Dumb luck? (giggle) Bollinger 30-12 as a starter and Cutler was what? (giggle) College doesn't mean anthing cuz this is the pros? What else do you go by with Cutler? A crystal ball? A ouigi board? Like it or not Bollinger will get a shot because he impressed the one group that counts, the coaches. He doesn't ever have to impress you.

brooks is starting over trent green?

[DHJF]

Oops, sorry. Just reread the topic.

Yes, he should be #2.