Put Your Name to the Watson/Darnold/Draft Qb Dilemna!

[rangerous]

just thinking, how many teams have gotten to the show with a mercenary qb?  i'm thinking there aren't that many.  plunkett won two, morton went to one with the broncos, brees started out on the chargers, kerry collins went with the giaints, earl morral went with the dolts, brad johnson won with the bucs, rich gannon went with the raiders.  i can't think of many more.  the point is, by and large, the superbowl qbs all went with the teams that drafted them. also peyton manning, doug williams, steve young, and kurt warner.

[Dinamite]

15 minutes ago, 32EBoozer said:

The argument then becomes "Just because rookie QB would be better than Sam, it still does not guarantee a level of play required to make a SB run" With Watson, I think you can make a strong argument that this is possible if we bring in some veteran FA on offense. Do we have to wait until year 4 of the rookies contract to answer this question?

I kept Watson out of the equation just to keep it to sam vs rookie.  But sure, Watson would be great (although not at any price).

[Jets Voice of Reason]

52 minutes ago, Paradis said:

Kyle Pitts >> Watson. 

If they were all available, would you take Pitts or one of the receivers? 

[rangerous]

to answer the poll, i think i'd be inclined to draft the qb and keep darnold if there are no takers for him.  let him start (or battle to start with the rookie and morgan, and use the remaining draft picks on building the team.  if darnold succeeds or comes around then excercise the fifth year option.  even at 25 million, adding that to the rookie qb contract plus whatever morgan gets still only costs 32-35 million for the position.  pretty high but then they have darnold with the hare apparent.  and then there's always the possibility that the rookie will show enough to displace darnold at some point during the season. 

[JoJoTownsell1]

I chose the Watson option but I don't think there is a really bad choice. They are all worse than taking trevor lawrence at 1 but since that is awful the table it's still great to see the we have many solid paths to success. 

[SayNoToDMC]

Watson if that's the entire package. We still got a first this year and next along with all our second rounders 

[SayNoToDMC]

41 minutes ago, rangerous said:

just thinking, how many teams have gotten to the show with a mercenary qb?  i'm thinking there aren't that many.  plunkett won two, morton went to one with the broncos, brees started out on the chargers, kerry collins went with the giaints, earl morral went with the dolts, brad johnson won with the bucs, rich gannon went with the raiders.  i can't think of many more.  the point is, by and large, the superbowl qbs all went with the teams that drafted them. also peyton manning, doug williams, steve young, and kurt warner.

How often has a top 5 QB been available like this in his prime? 25 year old QB. One who if the breakup is inevitable has a no trade clause so we don't have to bid against the rest of the league if this is his desired destination. I'm not buying into any of this or getting excited till it happens since good things don't happen to the Jets....... but there's no real comparable situation to this I can think of.

[Sonny Werblin]

First AND third option. They are not mutually exclusive.

[Philc1]

18 hours ago, Spoot-Face said:

Me reading all the people who don't want to trade for Watson:

There’s a difference between wanting to trade for him and wanting to trade 5 first round picks plus more for him

[FidelioJet]

54 minutes ago, rangerous said:

just thinking, how many teams have gotten to the show with a mercenary qb?  i'm thinking there aren't that many.  plunkett won two, morton went to one with the broncos, brees started out on the chargers, kerry collins went with the giaints, earl morral went with the dolts, brad johnson won with the bucs, rich gannon went with the raiders.  i can't think of many more.  the point is, by and large, the superbowl qbs all went with the teams that drafted them. also peyton manning, doug williams, steve young, and kurt warner.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.  

Is it that 12 QB's have gone to the Super Bowl that didn't start on their original teams and shows it's not all that difficult to do. 

Or

Only 12 QB's have done it, therefor it would be crazy to make this trade.

Which one?

[Paradis]

30 minutes ago, Jets Voice of Reason said:

If they were all available, would you take Pitts or one of the receivers? 

Savage question. 

I’ve been smitten with D Smith for some time, and while I wouldn’t say he’s a generational talent like Calvin Johnson, he’s the cleanest prospect with the best hands I’ve seen since Hopkins came out of Clemson. 

On the other hand, Pitts is flirting with the whole “best TE prospect in a decade” title IMO. As good as or better than when Jimmy Graham came out. 

the gap between Smith and the next 5 WRs is something you have to consider. It’s not like an ocean or anything. Pitts however is on another continent compared to the other TEs. Changes the entire offense. 

Short answer: Pitts. 

[Spoot-Face]

12 minutes ago, Philc1 said:

There’s a difference between wanting to trade for him and wanting to trade 5 first round picks plus more for him

I haven't seen anyone suggest trading 5 1st round picks and more for him.

[Jetsfan80]

1 hour ago, Paradis said:

But seriously. 

But no, not at all.  Kyle Pitts could end up the unquestioned GOAT Tight End (which he just might end up being, I admit, he's that good of a prospect) and he wouldn't be better or more valuable than Deshaun Watson.

[Jetsfan80]

1 hour ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

I've posted before on that, I'll summarize quickly:

• Flacco's stats are inflated by that Patriots game - he had one good game, and rest was pedestrian
• That Patriot game was shady... back when we were the #1 overall pick team and it seemed like the Belichick was pulling a 'Blue Chips' and trying hard to throw that game

Granted, that second point is definitely a conspiracy theory. But even if that's just my Patriot Paranoia, what's indisputable is that game was the outlier for Flacco this season. 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FlacJo00.htm

 

"Inflated".  lol.  Sam Darnold sh*ts his pants against the Pats, every time, and you're going to throw aside the Flacco NE performance as an outlier.  Just look at how Darnold did against the Pats in the rematch and get back to me on that.

Meanwhile, Flacco's numbers against the Chargers were better than the career average Darnold performance.  Over 200 yards, 2 TDs/1 INT is a great day for the DarnoldBros.

[Jetsfan80]

20 minutes ago, Spoot-Face said:

I haven't seen anyone suggest trading 5 1st round picks and more for him.

I still would though.  

[doitny]

2 hours ago, football guy said:

I would be team acquire Deshaun Watson if it were realistic (3 1st round picks as outlined). I don't think it's happening.

Firstly, I don't think 3 1st round picks will be enough, and I'm not trading any more than 3.

Thank you. finally someone who is looking at this from the other team and not green colored glasses.

there are many teams with WIN NOW, rosters than will offer more. and that's what's best for Watson. 

and that's what everyone forgets. he has a no trade clause with us. he can dictate where he goes. 

does anybody here if they quit there job because there boss lied to them or whatever, would you care what happens to that company after you leave?

Watson doesn't give a rats ass as to if Houston gets the #2 pick in the draft. 

[Paradis]

5 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

But no, not at all.  Kyle Pitts could end up the unquestioned GOAT Tight End (which he just might end up being, I admit, he's that good of a prospect) and he wouldn't be better or more valuable than Deshaun Watson.

Lol I wasn’t that serious. 

[Jetsfan80]

3 minutes ago, doitny said:

Thank you. finally someone who is looking at this from the other team and not green colored glasses.

there are many teams with WIN NOW, rosters than will offer more. and that's what's best for Watson. 

and that's what everyone forgets. he has a no trade clause with us. he can dictate where he goes. 

does anybody here if they quit there job because there boss lied to them or whatever, would you care what happens to that company after you leave?

Watson doesn't give a rats ass as to if Houston gets the #2 pick in the draft. 

 

Yes but Houston cares.  They're not just going to give him up for a 2nd round pick to Watson's first choice of destinations.  A trade will happen if Watson demands one, but it will be to a team that can afford his contract and can offer multiple firsts.  We check both boxes there.

Even in the NBA, where players' demands are appeased way more than the NFL, the Rockets got a LOT back for James Harden, after all.  Some even argue they got the far better end of the deal, even when Harden was in many ways holding the team hostage.

[Spoot-Face]

2 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

I still would though.  

Trading 5 1st round picks + may be where I start to get nervous. That's a lot of eggs to put in one basket, even if that basket is a top-of-the-line Gucci lined with $1million in cash.

Not saying I wouldn't do it, just that it increases the pressure on JD to hit on those middle and low-end draft picks.

[Jetsfan80]

4 minutes ago, Paradis said:

Lol I wasn’t that serious. 

Yeah but you were

[Jetsfan80]

1 minute ago, Spoot-Face said:

Trading 5 1st round picks + may be where I start to get nervous. That's a lot of eggs to put in one basket, even if that basket is a top-of-the-line Gucci lined with $1million in cash.

Not saying I wouldn't do it, just that it increases the pressure on JD to hit on those middle and low-end draft picks.

Not saying it would end up happening.  Only saying I would do it.  I wouldn't be a good GM. 

Then again, if it had been up to me, we'd have drafted Watson in 2017 in the first place anyways.  I was on record at the time saying he was my top choice at 6 overall.  So maybe I'd be a great GM.

[ChuckkieB]

My preference is to draft a QB at #2 and build the team out and address the many other needs with the rest of the picks, 

Truth be told, as long as Darnold isn't the starter in 2021, I'll be ok with whatever else happens. 

[Spoot-Face]

11 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Not saying it would end up happening.  Only saying I would do it.  I wouldn't be a good GM. 

Then again, if it had been up to me, we'd have drafted Watson in 2017 in the first place anyways.  I was on record at the time saying he was my top choice at 6 overall.  So maybe I'd be a great GM.

No doubt you'd be patient, at least.

[Jets Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, Paradis said:

Savage question. 

I’ve been smitten with D Smith for some time, and while I wouldn’t say he’s a generational talent like Calvin Johnson, he’s the cleanest prospect with the best hands I’ve seen since Hopkins came out of Clemson. 

On the other hand, Pitts is flirting with the whole “best TE prospect in a decade” title IMO. As good as or better than when Jimmy Graham came out. 

the gap between Smith and the next 5 WRs is something you have to consider. It’s not like an ocean or anything. Pitts however is on another continent compared to the other TEs. Changes the entire offense. 

Short answer: Pitts. 

I personally don't love Freiermuth and think the dropoff is quite large. I think receiver actually looks pretty stacked again this year and our offensive scheme would obviously benefit from having a TE receiving threat. I'd go Pitts too.

[Jets Voice of Reason]

43 minutes ago, Spoot-Face said:

No doubt you'd be patient, at least.

I mean, he'd trade back for future picks every year. Delayed gratification and all.

[rangerous]

1 hour ago, FidelioJet said:

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.  

Is it that 12 QB's have gone to the Super Bowl that didn't start on their original teams and shows it's not all that difficult to do. 

Or

Only 12 QB's have done it, therefor it would be crazy to make this trade.

Which one?

i didn't count how many i listed.  there may be a couple more.  ignoring the repeats, there are 104 qbs that have been to the show.  i'm too lazy at the moment to see how many different qbs have made it.  maybe i'm talking myself out of this line of reasoning.  but if it was 104 different qbs and 12 mercenaries then the doesn't it stand to reason are that much less?  i'd have to think about it more.

[redlichtie]

18 hours ago, Seibelt said:

Watson is a game changer, meaning HE CHANGES THE GAME.

He instantly locks down the position, the most valuable position on the field. If we can get him with the resources we have without  depleting our resources completely, how do you not entertain it?

Premium player, premium position, requires premium compensation.

It just feels good knowing that we have plenty of resources to be considered in the running.

Whatever happens, this is the most exciting offseason I can remember. A hell of a lot better than watching the Jets in 2020 unfortunaltley.

 

Talk us through all those games he changed last year...go on....talk us through all 4 of them 

[Jetsfan80]

5 minutes ago, redlichtie said:

Talk us through all those games he changed last year...go on....talk us through all 4 of them 

7 times last season, the Watson-led Texans offense scored 27 points or more.  Does that count?

[redlichtie]

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

7 times last season, the Watson-led Texans offense scored 27 points or more.  Does that count?

No, it doesn’t 

[Newjetsfan]

19 hours ago, More Cowbell said:

Watson won 4 games on a team that is that is much more talented than anything the Jets will put on the field after the Texans have all our high draft picks. 

Trade down.

Agree.

Give Darnold a chance with better players for next year and if it doesn't  work, we have a better foundation for 2022 QB crop.

[Jetsfan80]

1 minute ago, redlichtie said:

No, it doesn’t 

How about this:  In 3 of the Texans' losses, they put up over 30 points (38, 36, 31).  The defense allowed 41, 42, and 37 points in those games, respectively.  Guess that was all Deshaun's fault though.  Shame on him for not being a game changer there!

[redlichtie]

2 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

How about this:  In 3 of the Texans' losses, they put up over 30 points (38, 36, 31).  The defense allowed 41, 42, and 37 points in those games, respectively.  Guess that was all Deshaun's fault though.  Shame on him for not being a game changer there!

4-12....you are what your record says you are

unless your point is that it’s a team game, and that no matter how good 1 player is, even at QB, it’s not the answer on it’s own...in which case I agree

[Jetsfan80]

7 minutes ago, redlichtie said:

4-12....you are what your record says you are

unless your point is that it’s a team game, and that no matter how good 1 player is, even at QB, it’s not the answer on it’s own...in which case I agree

My point is that saying Watson isn't a "game changer" based on the 2020 Texans' W-L record is incredibly stupid.  

You're willfully ignoring both the W-L record of the 2018 and 2019 Texans as part of your extremely flawed analysis, as well as the contributions Watson made in the losing effort in 2020.

If you "are what your record says you are", then in addition to the 4-12 2020 season, you must also acknowledge his 10-6 and 11-5 records in the prior two seasons, his 2 division titles, and his playoff victory.

[Augustiniak]

7 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

My point is that saying Watson isn't a "game changer" based on the 2020 Texans' W-L record is incredibly stupid.  

You're willfully ignoring both the W-L record of the 2018 and 2019 Texans as part of your extremely flawed analysis, as well as the contributions Watson made in the losing effort in 2020.

If you "are what your record says you are", then you must acknowledge his 10-6 and 11-5 records in the prior seasons, with a playoff victory.

but, it's telling that even with watson playing at a very high level this year, they wound up as the team next worst to the jets.  so having a team around even a good qb is essential to win.  if the jets traded many good draft picks to acquire watson they'd screw up the whole rebuild.  truth there's no way douglas would do this.  so the question becomes, darnold or zach wilson, b/c that's what the jets will be deciding between.  ultimately, i do think they trade darnold to indy or pittsburgh, though i could also see a team like atlanta or carolina trading for him if they didn't want to trade up to get a qb.  all this darnold is great talk is just to inflate his trade value, nothing more.

[Jetsfan80]

Just now, Augustiniak said:

but, it's telling that even with watson playing at a very high level this year, they wound up as the team next worst to the jets.  so having a team around even a good qb is essential to win. 

No disagreement there.  But people who are against trading for Watson are focused entirely on what the Jets will be able to do in the short-term to build around Watson.  It's as if they put up blinders when you point out that Watson is 25 and could very well be playing at an elite level all the way through 2030.  There's plenty of time and resources available to create a Super Bowl window around Watson, even if the Jets were to give up a lot to get him.  

Trade for Watson, even with 3 or even 4 first rounders headed Houston's way, and this team is a perennial contender starting in 2022.