Jump to content

Why not let Sam and WIlson compete with a revamped supporting cast, and let the cream rise to the top?


Recommended Posts

The second you draft a QB 2nd overall he's your future, you're locked into him. His contract is fully guaranteed and a lot of it comes via bonus. Darnold's era ends as soon as that happens.

Pretending you can draft a first round QB and keep Darnold is ridiculous and shouldn't be treated as a realistic possibility.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oatmeal said:

By that logic why would you throw a 3 year scrub back in this into the cluster **** and expect different results? 
 

besides Zach Wilson or Justin Fields cannot be any worst than the literal worst starting QB in the league. The bengals backup QB is in more of a “cluster ****” and looks lightyears ahead of Darnold. I just don’t see the logic in keeping Darnit 🤷‍♂️

Because that '3rd year scrub' doesn't cost us any draft capital. I would've taken that risk for Trevor, the consensus generational quarterback. 

I'm not taking that risk for the one-year wonder with a repaired shoulder out of BYU or an inaccurate Ohio State quarterback on a loaded roster with Urban Meyer coaching him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

The second you draft a QB 2nd overall he's your future, you're locked into him. His contract is fully guaranteed and a lot of it comes via bonus. Darnold's era ends as soon as that happens.

Pretending you can draft a first round QB and keep Darnold is ridiculous and shouldn't be treated as a realistic possibility.

People don't like to hear this but it's 100% true

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

The second you draft a QB 2nd overall he's your future, you're locked into him. His contract is fully guaranteed and a lot of it comes via bonus. Darnold's era ends as soon as that happens.

Pretending you can draft a first round QB and keep Darnold is ridiculous and shouldn't be treated as a realistic possibility.

as it should.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

Because that '3rd year scrub' doesn't cost us any draft capital. I would've taken that risk for Trevor, the consensus generational quarterback. 

I'm not taking that risk for the one-year wonder with a repaired shoulder out of BYU or an inaccurate Ohio State quarterback on a loaded roster with Urban Meyer coaching him. 

So you rather waste 25 million in cap space on a 3 year QB scrub vs starting over with a cheap rookie with higher upside... 👍

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Morrissey said:

Name 1 QB who had the 3 years Sam just had and turned it around. Just 1.

He's smoked.. move on

The point is no prospect, outside of Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck or Trevor Lawrence, could turn around this roster as is.

It's not really about Sam at this point. Next year we're not going to be contenders regardless of whether we take a new quarterback or a non-quarterback position. The likelihood is that we'll be in a position to draft a quarterback next year anyway. 

Might as well improve the roster and get it ready for the next quarterback.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, oatmeal said:

So you rather waste 25 million in cap space on a 3 year QB scrub vs starting over with a cheap rookie with higher upside... 👍

Cap space isn't our problem. And it's at least 4 years we're tied to a new quarterback if we draft one. Darnold is 1-2 years max. We ride out the rebuild with Darnold and get the roster ready for the next guy. We're not in a short-term fix. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UntouchableCrew said:

The second you draft a QB 2nd overall he's your future, you're locked into him. His contract is fully guaranteed and a lot of it comes via bonus. Darnold's era ends as soon as that happens.

Pretending you can draft a first round QB and keep Darnold is ridiculous and shouldn't be treated as a realistic possibility.

Chargers and Brees/rivers say otherwise

i also love how Flores is handling tua and not just giving him the keys if he stinks it up 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Morrissey said:

Name 1 QB who had the 3 years Sam just had and turned it around. Just 1.

He's smoked.. move on

Drew Brees

Steve Young 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

Cap space isn't our problem. And it's at least 4 years we're tied to a new quarterback if we draft one. Darnold is 1-2 years max. We ride out the rebuild with Darnold and get the roster ready for the next guy. We're not in a short-term fix. 

If you plan on rebuilding the team cap space will be the issue, especially after next season depending on how much Joe Douglas spends this year(which is likely a lot) 

 

A more wise decision is not praying a guy is legit after 3 seasons and cut you’re loses and move on. Arizona had no problem doing this and it worked out fine. And nothings wrong with signing a vet and letting the rookie sit a season. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, QB1 said:

Chargers and Brees/rivers say otherwise

i also love how Flores is handling tua and not just giving him the keys if he stinks it up 

The second the Chargers drafted Rivers Brees’ days were over.

They kept him because he was a 2nd round pick and was cheap. 

Not at all analogous.

if we draft a QB in the first there is a 0.0% chance we don’t trade Darnold.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

The second the Chargers drafted Rivers Brees’ days were over.

They kept him because he was a 2nd round pick and was cheap. 

Not at all analogous.

if we draft a QB in the first there is a 0.0% chance we don’t trade Darnold.

 

Sam Darnold is cheap in 2021

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam is NOT the future of this team anymore.

Keeping him around serves no purpose but to hinder the growth of our rookie.

Bring in a vet for the $10mm you have to pay Sam..but it’s time to start over.

Keeping Sam here has NO value whatsoever.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually I'm good with this scenario.   It could happen if Douglas puts a draft pick price on Sam that no one meets.   



This

Depends on what offers we get fir him ( as well as what the nee coach wants)

If compensation for him is good enough ... and the new HC doesn’t care about him then send him away

It will be very difficult to rebuild him at this time

If we draft QB then all the focus should be on the new guy


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jetscrazey said:

If there's one thing NFL GMs like, it's flexibility.  If you're Joe Douglas, why lock yourself into one choice with so much uncertainty surrounding the franchise?  The draft is a crapshoot, and evaluating QBs under Adam Gase is also a bit of a crapshoot, as Ryan Tannehill has taught us, so the degree of confidence in evaluating both Sam and Wilson are low.

So why not draft  Zach Wilson, keep Sam Darnold with no 5th year option, revamp the offense in free agency with spending on WR & OL, and let the cream rise to the top?  This way, the players can make the choice for Douglas.  Either Wilson or Darnold will step up under the new regime and seize the job.

If it's WIlson, great we let Sam walk in free agency and take a comp pick. and we have a good QB under his rookie contract.

If it's Sam, we give him a franchise QB contract and go forward with him, and then we have a Jimmy Garropolo-like trade chip in WIlson for 2022 to get us some draft capital, or a good player in return.  Yeah we'll be paying Sam a lot more, but Joe Douglas won't mind paying a QB as long the QB is actually good.

(PS -Yeah, Yeah I know, the doomsday scenario is that neither QB is good.  And since its the Jets it's probably what will happen.)

Ah smart, draft him second overall and then trade him for a second rounder lol

this is a terrible optimization of resources. We are not in position to not use all our resources to get more concurrent contributors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

But he’d be finished here with one year left. Obviously he’d be traded.

Entertain the delusion this could happen, there’s no chance.

Come again? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Morrissey said:

Name 1 QB who had the 3 years Sam just had and turned it around. Just 1.

He's smoked.. move on

There are a couple (Brees and Eli immediately come to mind), but the list of guys who have sucked after three years and never figured it out is way larger. 

Rex Grossman, David Carr, Jamarcus Russell, Christian Ponder, Akili Smith, Matt Leinart, Joey Harrington, Johnny Manziel, Jake Locker, Brandon Weeden, Mark Sanchez, Geno Smith, Tim Couch, Patrick Ramsey, Kyle Boller, Blaine Gabbert, Blake Bortles come immediately to mind.  I am sure the list is a lot longer.

Time to move on.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jetscrazey said:

If there's one thing NFL GMs like, it's flexibility.  If you're Joe Douglas, why lock yourself into one choice with so much uncertainty surrounding the franchise?  The draft is a crapshoot, and evaluating QBs under Adam Gase is also a bit of a crapshoot, as Ryan Tannehill has taught us, so the degree of confidence in evaluating both Sam and Wilson are low.

So why not draft  Zach Wilson, keep Sam Darnold with no 5th year option, revamp the offense in free agency with spending on WR & OL, and let the cream rise to the top?  This way, the players can make the choice for Douglas.  Either Wilson or Darnold will step up under the new regime and seize the job.

If it's WIlson, great we let Sam walk in free agency and take a comp pick. and we have a good QB under his rookie contract.

If it's Sam, we give him a franchise QB contract and go forward with him, and then we have a Jimmy Garropolo-like trade chip in WIlson for 2022 to get us some draft capital, or a good player in return.  Yeah we'll be paying Sam a lot more, but Joe Douglas won't mind paying a QB as long the QB is actually good.

(PS -Yeah, Yeah I know, the doomsday scenario is that neither QB is good.  And since its the Jets it's probably what will happen.)

It's about time common sense prevailed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

There is absolutely zero chance whatsoever the Jets draft a QB 2nd overall and keep Sam Darnold.

ZERO. This isn’t complicated.

Why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Training camp has turned into glorified walk throughs. Preseason games are probably going away. Running any sort of legit competition is basically impossible these days.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, QB1 said:

Why?

For the reasons I've already outlined.

If you take a QB at 2 overall, he's your guy. His contract is fully guaranteed and a lot of that is paid up front in a signing bonus. 

Darnold is effectively on a one year deal -- as soon as you decided you're taking a QB at 2 Darnold will be traded for whatever you can get for him. Keeping him and letting him walk would be idiotic. And what's the other alterntaive? The idea that Darnold could play so well, you franchise him, and trade Fields or Wilson for pennies on the dollar is idiotic and a preposterous mismanagement of assets.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

For the reasons I've already outlined.

If you take a QB at 2 overall, he's your guy. His contract is fully guaranteed and a lot of that is paid up front in a signing bonus. 

Darnold is effectively on a one year deal -- as soon as you decided you're taking a QB at 2 Darnold will be traded for whatever you can get for him. Keeping him and letting him walk would be idiotic. And what's the other alterntaive? The idea that Darnold could play so well, you franchise him, and trade Fields or Wilson for pennies on the dollar is idiotic and a preposterous mismanagement of assets.

You still haven’t given a reason.

Darnold is under contract and is cheap.

Both QBs available at two have somewhat limited starting experience, having them sit out the first few games or even the entire season is a good idea. 

If Darnold has a huge turnaround you can trade him for more than what you would be able to now, or you could even decide to keep him for one more year with the option.

If Darnold sucks you throw in the rookie. At least you have the rookie some time to see the game before throwing him into the fire. Plus you can feel 100% confident that Darnold is a lost cause. 

It’s a fantastic problem to have. The packers Drafted a QB in the first that won’t start for at least two years. Mahomes sat his whole rookie year, Jackson for most of his.

There is no downside to keeping Darnold than annoying some dumb fans. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
why not forget QB, and focus on getting the best mileage out of your draft picks this year. Trade back maybe, stock the cupboards. 
I don't think forcing a QB at #2 is the way to go. If they love 'him, so be it. But it can't be the ONLY option, 

Couldn’t agree more. Nothing about Fields or Wilson tells me they are any better than your average top QB prospects. Trade down, acquire a 1st rounder in next year’s draft and we’ll have 3 shots at a QB with a much better stocked cupboard of players to surround that one with.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app
  • Post of the Week 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, QB1 said:

You still haven’t given a reason.

Darnold is under contract and is cheap.

Both QBs available at two have somewhat limited starting experience, having them sit out the first few games or even the entire season is a good idea. 

If Darnold has a huge turnaround you can trade him for more than what you would be able to now, or you could even decide to keep him for one more year with the option.
 

It’s a fantastic problem to have. The packers Drafted a QB in the first that won’t start for at least two years. Mahomes sat his whole rookie year, Jackson for most of his.

There is no downside to keeping Darnold than annoying some dumb fans. 

As much as I don't want Darnold back, this does make sense.   if all that is offfered is a 4th-5th, why not keep him for a year.  The idea that Wilson, Fields, or even Lance could benefit  from some bench time IMO is a valid one

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Morrissey said:

Name 1 QB who had the 3 years Sam just had and turned it around. Just 1.

He's smoked.. move on

Steve Young?

1st 2 years. Age 24-25

11td  21int.   3 W-16L

53% comp%

Was a back up for the next 4 years...

Rich Gannon

Pretty much suck for 12 years....@age 35 he was pretty good...peaking as Allpro@age 37 

 

I could name more like Terry Bradshaw who wasn't  that good for the first 5~6 years...

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, QB1 said:

You still haven’t given a reason.

I have, you're just ignoring or failing to understand the explanation.

43 minutes ago, QB1 said:

If Darnold has a huge turnaround you can trade him for more than what you would be able to now, or you could even decide to keep him for one more year with the option.

We need to decide to pick up Darnold's fifth year option before the season. So no, we can't decide to keep him with the option. Are you suggesting we trade him mid-season? Or that we franchise him? We won't have his rights in the event that we draft a QB 2nd overall. This is precisely why it makes no sense.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...