Would you rather have Stafford, Darnold or a rookie QB?

[UntouchableCrew]

2 hours ago, Warfish said:

Keep in mind, I wasn't the OP.

And there is (IMO) a legitimate debate that an utterly QB-deficient, moribund franchise (like the Jets were when the OP was written) shouldn't be planning it's entire future around finding the golden draft pick ticket, but would be better off signing a solid average veteran and getting itself to "competent" level BEFORE it tries to win the lottery for the future.

We've been stuck in an interesting cycle for a while now.  Our QB sucks, so we blame all the other players on Offense for him sucking, then a few years later we dump him once it's clear the suck is really him, then we draft another and he sucks, and we blame all the other players around him for his sucking, rinse, repeat.

It might be nice to have a QB we know DOESN'T "suck", to see if the problem truly is "all the other players on offense", or if it fact it was poorly picked rookie deal QB's who were all hype and no hope.

It's a moot point, we're invested in Wilson for the next two years, minimum, so I've been (And will continue to) argue we need to support him with more skill players and O-line as possible, to give him the best chance to succeed.  But I, for one, would have loved to see a Jets season led by a Cousins, or a Stafford, or some other top 10 production QB, just to see how the team and roster could do in a situation where we know it's not the QB that was the problem. 

I don't disagree with any of this really, I just felt like a direct Stafford to Wilson statistical comparison wasn't super relevant. I even made the point early in the season when Wilson looked awful that it wasn't "sticking with Darnold" that was the alternative, as much as taking the 9ers trade and signing a quality veteran.

Cousins is really the sliding doors moment for the Jets -- had he chosen the Jets instead of the Vikings where would we be now? Really hard to know.

[Warfish]

3 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

I don't disagree with any of this really, I just felt like a direct Stafford to Wilson statistical comparison wasn't super relevant. I even made the point early in the season when Wilson looked awful that it wasn't "sticking with Darnold" that was the alternative, as much as taking the 9ers trade and signing a quality veteran.

i think it's more a reflection on how many folks really seem to have had trouble picking between Stafford and a rookie, or Stafford and Darnold (lol).  There was really no question on either, Stafford was head and shoulders better, and the only immediate term viable route to quality QB performance.  I would literally kill for a Jets QB capable of 41 TD's and 4,800 passing yards.  

3 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

Cousins is really the sliding doors moment for the Jets -- had he chosen the Jets instead of the Vikings where would we be now? Really hard to know.

Where would we be?  Alot better than were otherwise.  I'd wager we'd have been no worse than 7 wins in any season he would have played, and closer to 9-11 in most of those years.  Projection, as you say, we'll never know, but just that level of quality QB play alone would have elevated this team quite a bit.  People sleep on just how horrible our consistently 32nd ranked QB play has been, and how key that is to our poor records in recent years.

[TuscanyTile2]

2 hours ago, Warfish said:

Keep in mind, I wasn't the OP.

And there is (IMO) a legitimate debate that an utterly QB-deficient, moribund franchise (like the Jets were when the OP was written) shouldn't be planning it's entire future around finding the golden draft pick ticket, but would be better off signing a solid average veteran and getting itself to "competent" level BEFORE it tries to win the lottery for the future.

We've been stuck in an interesting cycle for a while now.  Our QB sucks, so we blame all the other players on Offense for him sucking, then a few years later we dump him once it's clear the suck is really him, then we draft another and he sucks, and we blame all the other players around him for his sucking, rinse, repeat.

It might be nice to have a QB we know DOESN'T "suck", to see if the problem truly is "all the other players on offense", or if it fact it was poorly picked rookie deal QB's who were all hype and no hope.

It's a moot point, we're invested in Wilson for the next two years, minimum, so I've been (And will continue to) argue we need to support him with more skill players and O-line as possible, to give him the best chance to succeed.  But I, for one, would have loved to see a Jets season led by a Cousins, or a Stafford, or some other top 10 production QB, just to see how the team and roster could do in a situation where we know it's not the QB that was the problem. 

The one thing I'd say to this is that, with the salary cap, it's a lot more difficult to keep all the surrounding pieces than to just get 1 great piece in a FQB.  But that's always going to be an issue anyway (especially when it comes to a QB's 2nd contract).

[fullblast]

If we had traded for Stafford we would be... the Detroit Lions.

[Warfish]

6 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

The one thing I'd say to this is that, with the salary cap, it's a lot more difficult to keep all the surrounding pieces than to just get 1 great piece in a FQB.  But that's always going to be an issue anyway (especially when it comes to a QB's 2nd contract).

I'd also add in that we've not spent to the cap in many years now, far as I can recall.  

Many Jets fans seem terrified of spending Woody's money, and angry when we do.  I've yet to see us cap-strapped during the recent horror show of losing seasons.  I'd rather we at least try by spending some cash, not always perennially "saving for next year" when next year never comes.

They don't give titles for lowest team salary, lol. 

[Joe Willie White Shoes]

This aged well for some of our resident self proclaimed QB experts./s

[Ben Had]

12 minutes ago, fullblast said:

If we had traded for Stafford we would be... the Detroit Lions.

Agree, He went to a team with a lot of quality players and a established coaching staff with a specific vision centered around who they have,

I have a feeling we will see more of this in the future...build a solid team and pick a veteran QB that fits that system. No different than Tampa...how do you think they will do without TB12? 

[slats]

33 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

I don't disagree with any of this really, I just felt like a direct Stafford to Wilson statistical comparison wasn't super relevant. I even made the point early in the season when Wilson looked awful that it wasn't "sticking with Darnold" that was the alternative, as much as taking the 9ers trade and signing a quality veteran.

Cousins is really the sliding doors moment for the Jets -- had he chosen the Jets instead of the Vikings where would we be now? Really hard to know.

Cousins chose Minnesota because they were ready to, “win now.” In fact, they were 13-3 the year before Cousins signed with Case Keenum at QB. Cousins and his fat contract arrives (which was actually less than what Mac was offering), and they’ve been 33-31-1 in the four years since, the last two being below .500. I know we’ve recently had a conversation about not pinning wins or losses on QBs, but Cousins simply isn’t a winner. He puts up pretty numbers and comes up short consistently. He’s the type of QB you always want to improve upon, not the type you pay $30M/year to. 

[Sammybighead]

Yeah, lets put an end to this now. Stafford went to a team filled with excellent veterans in win now mode. He wasn't good enough to carry that team by himself, he needed everyone's help. He would have flopped anywhere else.

[Warfish]

I'll just repeat, some of you sound just like some of my local DC Fans, who will loudly tell you that Jimmy G is worse than Heinicke, lol.

It seems like you've convinced yourselves that QB is either Mahomes or a rookie with "potential" or nothing.

Or that QB's only produce when surrounded by all-pros at every position, unless they are Mahomes.

It's all or nothing, when in reality there are huge spaces between a Stafford/Cousins type and a Darnold/Wilson type.  

But since you want it all (or nothing) you're content to suck year after year as long as you can have "hope" than a Geno, a Darnold, a Sanchez or a Wilson will one day be Mahomes.  Because Manning sucked as a rookie, so there is a chance, lol.

It's been so long since Jets fans saw a Jets QB provide competent QB play, I think you all have forgotten what it looks like and what a difference even being average (as opposed to 32nd) makes.

[Hex]

24 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Are you asking me my opinion?  I think he'd be pretty crappy, same as he was here. 

But I don't have the faith in Wilson's future many of you do.  

 

Yea, I get your reasoning. Chances are Wilson isn't going to be successful. But I realized that for me, it's better if I hope and be wrong than if I don't hope and be right. But your reasoning makes more sense.

[Ben Had]

57 minutes ago, slats said:

Cousins chose Minnesota because they were ready to, “win now.” In fact, they were 13-3 the year before Cousins signed with Case Keenum at QB. Cousins and his fat contract arrives (which was actually less than what Mac was offering), and they’ve been 33-31-1 in the four years since, the last two being below .500. I know we’ve recently had a conversation about not pinning wins or losses on QBs, but Cousins simply isn’t a winner. He puts up pretty numbers and comes up short consistently. He’s the type of QB you always want to improve upon, not the type you pay $30M/year to. 

He chose the Vikings for the money...nothing more nothing less.

[slats]

1 minute ago, Ben Had said:

He chose the Vikings for the money...nothing more nothing less.

Wrong, the Jets were offering more.