3 Reasons the Jets Must Keep Darnold

[prime21]

22 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

So now we're going with NBA examples to defend Darnold?  lol.

And I mean, its not like Randle was a stiff prior to Thibs.  Look at his numbers in New Orleans the year before and last season:

• 2018-19 (NO):  21.4 ppg, 8.7 rpg
• 2019-20 (NYK):  19.5 ppg, 9.7 rpg

Compare that to his numbers so far this season:  23.2 ppg, 10.9 rpg.  Yes, his 3-pt % has gotten much better (.407 this season) but 2 years ago he shot .344.  Not bad.  Clearly he's been working to develop that part of his game and take more 3's.

There was upward progression prior to this season that suggested a big year might be coming.  

Coincidentally I just recently started looking at his history and saw his numbers weren't too far off.  Besides the improvement, he is also seen as the guy who is carrying the Knicks to to a near .500 record.  That shows how bad these Knicks have been that .500 is widely celebrated by the fans and media (and me too).

Darnold can improve and the Jets can win more than 2 games but the answer will still be the same.  Is Sam the man?  The answer is mostly likely not.    Lets go get ourselves a new QB!

[undertow]

1 hour ago, UnknownJetFan said:

That would be a good plan in order to not put all your eggs in one basket with Darnold.

Even if you stick with Darnold you are not putting all your eggs in the Darnold basket it's a one year trial...you will have plenty of draft capital to draft or trade for a QB next year.  Drafting Wilson is putting all your eggs in one basket.

[68JET11]

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Yes, we need help everywhere.  Hence why I want that 2nd round pick (maybe even a 1st, if some rumors are true) for Darnold rather than getting nothing but a 2023 comp pick out of him.  If resource allocation is so important in this discussion, then keeping a failed QB who has just 1 year left on his deal makes zero sense.  Like you say, it's going to be a while.  The team isn't going to be ready to contend next season, so why build around Darnold for 1 year?  

This makes the most sense you've had in a while on the Darnold argument and I for one could get behind that. Here's where you lose me though, and it's the same thing we've been debating over and over. I'd rather if JD doesn't see that much difference between Field/Wilson/Lance to trade down instead of trade away for Watson. I get Watson is proven, but if you're going to restart, then restart with a drafted QB, and not trade away precious picks. I'd be good with trading Darnold as well for an extra pick, even if it's a 2nd. I'm willing to go in with JD and Saleh for the next 2 years of decisions, until I see that they are no better than the previous guys. Somehow though I don't think that's going to be the case. So let's get a VET in here to hold the fort, trade out of 2, while staying above 10, trade Darnold, and let's get either a #1 WR, or QB with that first pick. Then get some good OL, and go from there. I'd like to see JD move up and down the board this year to get the players he and the coaching staff have targeted...

[RedBeardedSavage]

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

If that were really true, then Mark Sanchez wouldn't have been a terrible QB even with a loaded roster.  Yet he was.  He was terrible in 2009-10 and also terrible in 2011-12.  The situation around him changed drastically, but he did not.  He also didn't go on to success elsewhere, despite numerous chances with good teams post-Jets.

There's a massive pile of evidence that suggests good QB's make the team around them better more than the other way around.  Look at a guy like even, say, Matthew Stafford.  Not a great QB, not a terrible one.  Just a good one or a pretty good one.  He has very rarely had a good team or coaches around him, yet he produces.  Every single season.  

Joe Burrow walked into a lousy situation in Cincy last season as a rookie.  Didn't stop him from a tremendous rookie season prior to his unfortunate injury.  Are we really going to say Tee Higgins is the reason why Burrow looks like such a good QB?

Meanwhile, Jared Goff has been given tremendous coaching and a terrific roster around him since his 2nd season in the league.  He was just unceremoniously dumped by the team that drafted him.  Even though his productivity was MUCH better than Sam Darnold's.  

Kirk Cousins was set up with a great roster in Minnesota.  He hasn't won d**k.  Probably because he's only good enough to beat up on bad teams but folds against defenses in the top half of the league.

On and on it goes.

Josh Allen went from bad to good once the pieces around him improved. 

Drew Brees was lackluster with a good supporting cast his first few seasons in the NFL.

Derek Carr showed some promise, then had some bad seasons and has ultimately rebounded.

There's a narrative for nearly every opinion. 

Ridiculously elite quarterbacks are extremely rare and supporting casts/coaching counts for a lot.

Since I believe those two things, and considering we missed out on Trevor Lawrence, I think the wisest move in the long term is to improve upon a terrible offensive roster in both free agency and the draft, and give our 23 year old quarterback one more shot. 

And that's because of the situation we're in. Now if Washington wants to give us the 19 overall for Darnold? Well, lets deal him. If the Jaguars pass on Trevor Lawrence, lets deal Darnold. If we can swing a trade for Deshaun Watson? Lets move on from the Great Ginger Redemption Project. 

From where I'm standing, your view is far too dogmatic and rigid. You're saying 'f*** it, trade Darnold for a 3rd rounder if you have to' and roll with The Red Rifle and Captain Morgan. 

I just don't see any good reason for doing that. Why not sign the Dalton, keep Darnold, Morgan and let the three compete? 

[joewilly12]

2 minutes ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

From where I'm standing, your view is far too dogmatic and rigid. You're saying 'f*** it, trade Darnold for a 3rd rounder if you have to' and roll with The Red Rifle and Captain Morgan. 

Who is mentioning signing Andy Dalton? 

[RedBeardedSavage]

2 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

Who is mentioning signing Andy Dalton? 

Dude said 'veteran option + James Morgan' in a previous post.  

I chose a veteran option that was a ginger. Because redbeard. 

[joewilly12]

Just now, RedBeardedSavage said:

Dude said 'veteran option + James Morgan'. 

I chose a veteran option that was a ginger. Because redbeard. 

Dude/dudette the "red rifle" is Andy Dalton. 

Keep him far away from this team.

Let's not go from bad to worse. 

[RedBeardedSavage]

Just now, joewilly12 said:

Dude/dudette the "red rifle" is Andy Dalton. 

I know... Are we assuming he won't be a free agent 'veteran option'?

What's the problem here?

[joewilly12]

1 minute ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

I know... Are we assuming he won't be a free agent 'veteran option'?

What's the problem here?

He sucks. 

Id rather go with Nick Mullens or trade for Marcus Mariota.

[Jet Nut]

5 hours ago, joewilly12 said:

A QB with a record of 13-25 record that is being outplayed by many rookie no nameQB's  who is showing no improvements. YES 

And your right, has nothing to do with the team and coaching.  

 

[Jet Nut]

4 hours ago, heymangold said:

So wtf is the point?  Constantly punting years for draft position?  At some point I’d like to cheer for a winner.

hell let’s run it back.  Sam at QB, Gore at RB and maybe next draft we’ll have the 1st pick and 120M in cap space.

Actually thats what I'm thinking , waste a top 5 draft pick to win one extra game.

[Jet Nut]

4 hours ago, Biggs said:

Blame?  There’s plenty of blame to go around.  Just because there’s plenty of blame to go around doesn’t make Darnold blameless.  Zach Wilson and Fields will be cheap for 4 years and they come onto a team with hopefully a good foundation of coaches.  Darnold is cheap next year and either craps out or becomes very expensive very fast.  
 

We also don’t need to draft either one of them and can trade Darnold.  
 

Im not opposed to turning over almost the entire roster if we could get value for it.  Rather than take it as sarcasm, I think it’s a good idea.  75% of this roster could be turned over and we could still improve the team.  

I'm not getting why you think I dont get the point that there isnt any blame on Darnold or that the other two will be on rookie deals.  I dont want cheap I want whoever the better player is.  If they believe Wilson or Fields are better, go for it.  The bonus is they will be on rookie deals.  

. 

 

[joewilly12]

52 minutes ago, undertow said:

Even if you stick with Darnold you are not putting all your eggs in the Darnold basket it's a one year trial...you will have plenty of draft capital to draft or trade for a QB next year.  Drafting Wilson is putting all your eggs in one basket.

I mentioned this before IF we are keeping Sam Darnold we better sign a damn good backup QB like Nick Mullens so once SD fails we sit him immediately. 

No more Flacco's,Brunell's,Fiedler's,Mirer's,Brister's,Falk's. 

[Jetsfan80]

1 hour ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

Josh Allen went from bad to good once the pieces around him improved. 

Drew Brees was lackluster with a good supporting cast his first few seasons in the NFL.

Derek Carr showed some promise, then had some bad seasons and has ultimately rebounded.

There's a narrative for nearly every opinion. 

Ridiculously elite quarterbacks are extremely rare and supporting casts/coaching counts for a lot.

Since I believe those two things, and considering we missed out on Trevor Lawrence, I think the wisest move in the long term is to improve upon a terrible offensive roster in both free agency and the draft, and give our 23 year old quarterback one more shot. 

And that's because of the situation we're in. Now if Washington wants to give us the 19 overall for Darnold? Well, lets deal him. If the Jaguars pass on Trevor Lawrence, lets deal Darnold. If we can swing a trade for Deshaun Watson? Lets move on from the Great Ginger Redemption Project. 

From where I'm standing, your view is far too dogmatic and rigid. You're saying 'f*** it, trade Darnold for a 3rd rounder if you have to' and roll with The Red Rifle and Captain Morgan. 

I just don't see any good reason for doing that. Why not sign the Dalton, keep Darnold, Morgan and let the three compete? 

 

Josh Allen is the only actual valid example you have above.  And at least in Allen's case, he had elite athleticism working for him.  

Drew Brees was a bit "lackluster" his first 2 seasons, yes.  But that's really just for his standards.  His first season as a starter, he threw for 3,284 yards and had more TD's than INT's.  Pretty damn good, especially in the pre-Ty Law rule era.  He then went to the Pro Bowl in his 3rd season as starter.  

Derek Carr has actually been pretty consistent throughout his career.  Decent/good, but not great.  Just look at his TD:INT ratio each year in the league:

• 2014:  21/12
• 2015:  32/13
• 2016:  28/6
• 2017:  22/13
• 2018:  19/10
• 2019:  21/8
• 2020:  27/9

I'm very certain its impossible to come away with that production and determine that Carr's productivity was tied heavily to the personnel around him.  

It's Josh Allen and maybe 1-2 other examples against just about every other QB in the history of the NFL.  Bad QB's aren't fixed by their surroundings, and good QB's aren't held back that much by below average or bad surroundings.  If that were really true, we'd see enormous fluctuation year-to-year in QB productivity.  We don't, because its not true.  Good QB's consistently put up good numbers just about every year.  Bad QB's consistently put up bad numbers just about every year.  

Using the argument that surrounding talent creates the QB and not the other way around is a dangerous one, and was the exact excuse that kept Mark Sanchez around for too long here.  And it's the same argument that may well keep Darnold here a year too long when the team ought to be devoting its resources towards finding a real QB.  

[Jetsfan80]

1 hour ago, 68JET11 said:

This makes the most sense you've had in a while on the Darnold argument and I for one could get behind that. Here's where you lose me though, and it's the same thing we've been debating over and over. I'd rather if JD doesn't see that much difference between Field/Wilson/Lance to trade down instead of trade away for Watson. I get Watson is proven, but if you're going to restart, then restart with a drafted QB, and not trade away precious picks. I'd be good with trading Darnold as well for an extra pick, even if it's a 2nd. I'm willing to go in with JD and Saleh for the next 2 years of decisions, until I see that they are no better than the previous guys. Somehow though I don't think that's going to be the case. So let's get a VET in here to hold the fort, trade out of 2, while staying above 10, trade Darnold, and let's get either a #1 WR, or QB with that first pick. Then get some good OL, and go from there. I'd like to see JD move up and down the board this year to get the players he and the coaching staff have targeted...

 

I can get behind this.  I'm fine with trading down and going the vet option route at QB, assuming we can't get Watson AND Douglas doesn't seem to like the QB's in this class.  That vet option simply needs to be someone other than Darnold, because we'd be sacrificing a high pick to make that happen.  

Put it this way:  If Darnold had the career he has had to date elsewhere, even with similar circumstances as he had with the Jets, would you be OK with giving up a 2nd round pick to acquire him?  I would hope your answer is "hell no".  

[genot]

1 hour ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

Josh Allen went from bad to good once the pieces around him improved. 

Drew Brees was lackluster with a good supporting cast his first few seasons in the NFL.

Derek Carr showed some promise, then had some bad seasons and has ultimately rebounded.

There's a narrative for nearly every opinion. 

Ridiculously elite quarterbacks are extremely rare and supporting casts/coaching counts for a lot.

Since I believe those two things, and considering we missed out on Trevor Lawrence, I think the wisest move in the long term is to improve upon a terrible offensive roster in both free agency and the draft, and give our 23 year old quarterback one more shot. 

And that's because of the situation we're in. Now if Washington wants to give us the 19 overall for Darnold? Well, lets deal him. If the Jaguars pass on Trevor Lawrence, lets deal Darnold. If we can swing a trade for Deshaun Watson? Lets move on from the Great Ginger Redemption Project. 

From where I'm standing, your view is far too dogmatic and rigid. You're saying 'f*** it, trade Darnold for a 3rd rounder if you have to' and roll with The Red Rifle and Captain Morgan. 

I just don't see any good reason for doing that. Why not sign the Dalton, keep Darnold, Morgan and let the three compete? 

JetsFan80 knows more about football and quarterbacking then anybody. If he says its true. Then it's got to be true. If he can't change your view, then he stops talking to you. 

[Alka]

4 hours ago, UnknownJetFan said:

Only comment is that instead of 1 player at #2 that is OT Sewel or WR Smith, if we can trade down and get like 6 additional picks and players the odds favor 3-4 of them being more valuable then 1 player. I feel unless you go QB at #2 you should trade down.

Yes, you're 100% correct!  I just did a mock draft on Pro Football Network, and I traded down to #5, then traded down to #8, and picked up Kyle Pitts at #8, an extra second round pick, and extra 3rd round pick, and 2- additional first round picks next year from Cincinnati and Carolina.  

If we can get 1 or 2 additional first round picks for next year, and still be in the top 10 for this year, then it is a consideration that must be taken into account.  That #2 pick will absolutely net us at least an additional 1st round pick, as long as we are trading down beyond #3 or #4, I believe.

[C Mart]

21 hours ago, joewilly12 said:

3 years record as starting NY Jets QB. 13-25 

The other QBs 0-10

[STLuLu]

23 hours ago, rayzor said:

Do we want a QB that can barely take us to the playoffs at his best or one that can go all the way?  There's a reason why teams traded away their decent QB's recently.  They know you need to be better at that position to get them to the next level.  I don't think there will be any takers for Darnold so that will be an interesting decision at 2.

I agree that it is an interesting decision. But do you think that we can go all the way with Zack Wilson and lack of talent at key positions?

[joewilly12]

5 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

And your right, has nothing to do with the team and coaching.  

 

Dumb decisions INT's,taking sacks,fumbling,over-throwing and under-throwing WR's nothing to do with the team or coaching. 

Either you are an NFL QB or you aren't. 

[STLuLu]

On 2/18/2021 at 8:16 PM, Joe W. Namath said:

The guys w/ the darnold pajamas still with this crap ?????

i don't have an opinion about your feelings towards Dornald, Joe W. but I need to hear your opinion and not from people in the media's opinion on why Zack Wilson would be a better option than Sam? Keep in mind if we draft Wilson and not trade down we will have less  talent in other areas.

 

[STLuLu]

21 hours ago, Greenseed4 said:

Reasons 1 and 2 are the same reason. 

No. Reason 1 was about Wilson being much better than Dornald and reason 2 was about the odds. Please re-read.

[CanadienJetsFan]

20 hours ago, DoubleDown said:

The Jets should draft Wilson or Fields at #2 and keep Darnold to play out his 4th and final year.  This allows the Jets to ease the rookie into action and give him some development time instead of throwing him into the fire starting Week 1.  Darnold will get a chance to prove himself in a new system, and if he does relatively well, he increases his comp pick value when he leaves in free agency.

Darnold is an experienced quarterback at a reasonable price with potential upside.  He is ideal as a bridge quarterback if you put your emotions aside and look at the situation objectively.  Unless the Jets are blown away by a trade offer, they should absolutely keep him for the 2021 season.

Stop.

I see the logic but...

keeping Darnold around creates the “QB controversy “ that no coach, gm, owner wants to deal with.

in the end, you can only have one #1. 

[BloodGreen]

I am fine with whatever happens. I truly think the main issue the Jets have had for a very long time was a lack of competent front office staff combined with competent coaching. It’s weird, but I feel like this group make actually be qualified to make the correct decisions. I actually can’t believe I just typed that...


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[kelly]

23 hours ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

At the point when he actually has a decent offensive line, skill position players and coach.

agreed !  ?..  imho,.. we NOW have a good head-coach and a good gm who knows how to build a talented NFL roster  ?

 

 

cheers ~ ~ 

 

[DoubleDown]

35 minutes ago, CanadienJetsFan said:

Stop.

I see the logic but...

keeping Darnold around creates the “QB controversy “ that no coach, gm, owner wants to deal with.

in the end, you can only have one #1. 

Darnold has always been a good soldier. I don't see him suddenly becoming a malcontent.

If the Jets do not pick up Darnold's 5th year option after the draft, he and everyone else will know it's his last year before he becomes a free agent. His role as bridge quarterback while a rookie is being groomed will be very obvious to all. No controversy.

[STLuLu]

9 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

I don't know, hence why I want to go after Watson aggressively.

Barring that, I'd take Fields at 2 and see what happens.  Drafting a QB at 2 and having it fail won't kill us as long as Douglas shows a willingness to keep drafting QB's until he finds one.  

That's how GMs get fired. What owner is gonna sit by and watch his GM waste draft picks year after year trying to find a dimond in the rough?

[68JET11]

5 hours ago, genot said:

JetsFan80 knows more about football and quarterbacking then anybody. If he says its true. Then it's got to be true. If he can't change your view, then he stops talking to you. 

Geez, he's got a big enough head already, did we need to inflate it even more lol...

[kelly]

9 hours ago, DoubleDown said:

Darnold has always been a good soldier. I don't see him suddenly becoming a malcontent.

If the Jets do not pick up Darnold's 5th year option after the draft, he and everyone else will know it's his last year before he becomes a free agent. His role as bridge quarterback while a rookie is being groomed will be very obvious to all. No controversy.

agreed ! ?.. imho,.. sam is an  " aw-shucks " kind of guy. he's pretty " easy-going ". i do NOT think we're gonna have any " drama " from him   

[rayzor]

1 hour ago, STLuLu said:

I agree that it is an interesting decision. But do you think that we can go all the way with Zack Wilson and lack of talent at key positions?

These are our upcoming draft picks:

Round 1: Second overall, 27th overall (from Seahawks/Jamal Adams trade)

Round 2: 34th overall

Round 3: 66th overall, 91st overall (from Seahawks/Jamal Adams trade)

Round 4: 98th overall

Round 5: 130th overall, 138th overall (from Giants/Leonard Williams trade)

Round 6: 162nd overall
 

Even if we use our 2 on Wilson, we still have more picks than most teams.  Plus we have one of the most Cap space to sign top free agents.  I would imagine a lot of you guys here don’t want Watson then because that will cost us a ton of picks.  

[STLuLu]

18 minutes ago, rayzor said:

These are our upcoming draft picks:

Round 1: Second overall, 27th overall (from Seahawks/Jamal Adams trade)

Round 2: 34th overall

Round 3: 66th overall, 91st overall (from Seahawks/Jamal Adams trade)

Round 4: 98th overall

Round 5: 130th overall, 138th overall (from Giants/Leonard Williams trade)

Round 6: 162nd overall
 

Even if we use our 2 on Wilson, we still have more picks than most teams.  Plus we have one of the most Cap space to sign top free agents.  I would imagine a lot of you guys here don’t want Watson then because that will cost us a ton of picks.  

The problem is that you're betting on Wilson being a stud and Douglas hitting on all those picks. The safiest bet to me is keeping Darnold and trading down for even more picks.

[RedBeardedSavage]

7 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

Josh Allen is the only actual valid example you have above.  And at least in Allen's case, he had elite athleticism working for him.  

Drew Brees was a bit "lackluster" his first 2 seasons, yes.  But that's really just for his standards.  His first season as a starter, he threw for 3,284 yards and had more TD's than INT's.  Pretty damn good, especially in the pre-Ty Law rule era.  He then went to the Pro Bowl in his 3rd season as starter.  

Derek Carr has actually been pretty consistent throughout his career.  Decent/good, but not great.  Just look at his TD:INT ratio each year in the league:

• 2014:  21/12
• 2015:  32/13
• 2016:  28/6
• 2017:  22/13
• 2018:  19/10
• 2019:  21/8
• 2020:  27/9

I'm very certain its impossible to come away with that production and determine that Carr's productivity was tied heavily to the personnel around him.  

It's Josh Allen and maybe 1-2 other examples against just about every other QB in the history of the NFL.  Bad QB's aren't fixed by their surroundings, and good QB's aren't held back that much by below average or bad surroundings.  If that were really true, we'd see enormous fluctuation year-to-year in QB productivity.  We don't, because its not true.  Good QB's consistently put up good numbers just about every year.  Bad QB's consistently put up bad numbers just about every year.  

Using the argument that surrounding talent creates the QB and not the other way around is a dangerous one, and was the exact excuse that kept Mark Sanchez around for too long here.  And it's the same argument that may well keep Darnold here a year too long when the team ought to be devoting its resources towards finding a real QB.  

Just like the Josh Allen situation was an outlier. I believe this one is as well.

Not because of athleticism, but rather because of age and situation.

Darnold was one of the youngest if not the youngest to ever start in the NFL. And he's been thrust into a terrible situation from a supporting cast and coaching standpoint. 

We can also talk about Troy Aikman's first few years and the turnaround he saw, or we can simply acknowledge that we put the youngest to ever start into a terrible situation to develop. 

We can also say that one more year isn't going to make or break this franchise. Nobody is saying we need to give this kid Wentz or Goff money. 

Outside of a Watson trade, which I support (at 3 1's, including the 2 overall, + Darnold), I simply do not see a great solution here. Knowing that, and knowing that our team is bereft of talent offensively, I say we continue to build the roster first, and then we can address the quarterback next year in the likely scenario that Darnold is not the answer. 

If we get lucky, the unlikely scenario happens and Darnold has a redemption year and becomes the quarterback we hoped. But the far more likely scenario is that we move on from him next offseason, but we're in a far greater situation as a team and organization to develop the next guy. 

[Jet Life]

Darnold sucks. The faster we move on the better 

[Welp]

Brees also had a HOF RB and a HOF TE when he finally broke out. Darnold has practice squad players starting that he’s throwing to that won’t ever wear an NFL uniform ever again.

[Jetsfan80]

1 hour ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

Just like the Josh Allen situation was an outlier. I believe this one is as well.

Not because of athleticism, but rather because of age and situation.

Darnold was one of the youngest if not the youngest to ever start in the NFL. And he's been thrust into a terrible situation from a supporting cast and coaching standpoint. 

We can also talk about Troy Aikman's first few years and the turnaround he saw, or we can simply acknowledge that we put the youngest to ever start into a terrible situation to develop. 

We can also say that one more year isn't going to make or break this franchise. Nobody is saying we need to give this kid Wentz or Goff money. 

Outside of a Watson trade, which I support (at 3 1's, including the 2 overall, + Darnold), I simply do not see a great solution here. Knowing that, and knowing that our team is bereft of talent offensively, I say we continue to build the roster first, and then we can address the quarterback next year in the likely scenario that Darnold is not the answer. 

If we get lucky, the unlikely scenario happens and Darnold has a redemption year and becomes the quarterback we hoped. But the far more likely scenario is that we move on from him next offseason, but we're in a far greater situation as a team and organization to develop the next guy. 

 

Darnold's lack of experience playing QB prior to the pros was the # 1 contributor to him being the youngest starter.  The conclusion to that isn't that those QB's like that need more time to develop in the pros.  The conclusion that should be reached is you don't draft those players high in the first place.  He didn't play QB in High School and had less than 20 collegiate starts.  Those create enormous problems when you're getting ready to draft a QB.

The NFL isn't the place to be learning QB like a newbie that Darnold was.  Basic understanding of pre-snap reads, which Darnold lacks, has to start getting developed when you're much younger.  He should have stayed in school another year, for sure.