Jump to content

Yes we should have kept Darnold


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, jgb said:

Yeah well he has the worst QB in the league throwing to him. DJ Moore’s numbers also fell of the cliff. Did he get a secret contract extension we didn’t know about and also went lazy? Sam is an awful, awful player. Dot. Period. It’s settled.

Will bet any amount on any reasonable proposal to test this hypothesis.

Robbie dissapeared down the stretch last year without Darnold.  When he's asked to be a big time WR who teams focus on he looks like he's been swimming naked in 20 degree water.  Lots of shrinkage.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 639
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Zach Wilson is a bust and a half     Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

Moving on from Darnold was 100% the correct decision. Time will tell if Zach was the correct replacement, but moving on was the right idea for the Jets and for Darnold.

I don't know about keeping darnold but the Jets 100% should have gone out and got a starter calibre vet like a Dalton or Mariota or such , they had the cap space they should not have done the often re

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Biggs said:

Robbie dissapeared down the stretch last year without Darnold.  When he's asked to be a big time WR who teams focus on he looks like he's been swimming naked in 20 degree water.  Lots of shrinkage.  

Not saying Robby is a great player. Only that he's better than Darnold who never disappeared because he never appeared in the first place.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2021 at 3:05 PM, Pac said:

This is shocking..  if only anyone could have foreseen this.

 

On 9/24/2021 at 9:46 AM, ZachEY said:

toosoon-junior.gif

Oddly enough, PAC was a visionary.

Who could have foreseen THIS?

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Robby's stats tanked under Darnold here too.

He's been poor himself and it's possible the contract is also a factor but I don't really blame him for being alienated by the move. He was the one who really knew what was coming, probably felt like they were taking the piss out of him bringing him in. 

The most hilarious thing about all of this is that Darnold is being paid $18,858,000 next season. Absolute sabotage from Carolina to invest in this trash. 

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

Robby's stats tanked under Darnold here too.

He's been poor himself and it's possible the contract is also a factor but I don't really blame him for being alienated by the move. He was the one who really knew what was coming, probably felt like they were taking the piss out of him bringing him in. 

The most hilarious thing about all of this is that Darnold is being paid $18,858,000 next season. Absolute sabotage from Carolina to invest in this trash. 

WTF?  I had no idea it was that number.  Criminal.  Although props to Darnold's agent who robbed those dopes blind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, munchmemory said:

WTF?  I had no idea it was that number.  Criminal.  Although props to Darnold's agent who robbed those dopes blind.

Wasn’t the agent.  That’s the option year number.  Carolina inexplicably paid it, and with the only upside being that if he were great, it would have saved them like 7M on the franchise tag.  Enormous blunder.

  • Upvote 3
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ZachEY said:

Wasn’t the agent.  That’s the option year number.  Carolina inexplicably paid it, and with the only upside being that if he were great, it would have saved them like 7M on the franchise tag.  Enormous blunder.

Thanks for clarifying my misperception, EY.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jgb said:

Should've done both. 

Why? Nothing is gained by trying to run a Mitch Trubisky rehabilitation alongside a rookie and I say that as someone who likes Trubisky. If we kept Darnold maybe I’d understand bringing in a guy to push him but for a rookie I’m good with letting him sink or swim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kdels62 said:

Why? Nothing is gained by trying to run a Mitch Trubisky rehabilitation alongside a rookie and I say that as someone who likes Trubisky. If we kept Darnold maybe I’d understand bringing in a guy to push him but for a rookie I’m good with letting him sink or swim.

Better question is “why not?” I prefer taking multiple shots at QB rather then risking a consecutive chain of failures that paralyze an organization until the decision is made (always at least a year too late) to cut bait and try again. Wilson could still sink or swim with a dude like Trubisky or Minshew on the chart. Don’t get why Zach fans think those guys are stiffs but also fear they represent an existential threat to Zach. Doesn’t jive.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, jgb said:

Better question is “why not?” I prefer taking multiple shots at QB rather then risking a consecutive chain of failures that paralyze an organization until the decision is made (always at least a year too late) to cut bait and try again. Wilson could still sink or swim with a dude like Trubisky or Minshew on the chart. Don’t get why Zach fans think those guys are stiffs but also fear they represent an extensional threat to Zach. Doesn’t jive.

Who thinks Trubisky or Minshew are a threat to Wilson? You’ve created a false narrative where the issue is protecting Wilson. That isn’t it. Minshew and Trubisky are known entities. Mediocre QBs that can get you to 7ish wins and cannot carry teams. Why get stuck in the mud with their capped mediocrity? Bringing them in to compete with Darnold who’s upside is matching their production makes sense. Bringing them in to give Wilson a season to marinade slows the evaluation. Wilson is either bad or good, no competition changes that nor makes it more obvious. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

Who thinks Trubisky or Minshew are a threat to Wilson? You’ve created a false narrative where the issue is protecting Wilson. That isn’t it. Minshew and Trubisky are known entities. Mediocre QBs that can get you to 7ish wins and cannot carry teams. Why get stuck in the mud with their capped mediocrity? Bringing them in to compete with Darnold who’s upside is matching their production makes sense. Bringing them in to give Wilson a season to marinade slows the evaluation. Wilson is either bad or good, no competition changes that nor makes it more obvious. 

Trubisky was 11 and 3 in 14 starts his second year and he was 6 and 3 after they put him back in last year. Trubisky wins that game for the Bills yesterday by 2 TD's .  

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

Who thinks Trubisky or Minshew are a threat to Wilson? You’ve created a false narrative where the issue is protecting Wilson. That isn’t it. Minshew and Trubisky are known entities. Mediocre QBs that can get you to 7ish wins and cannot carry teams. Why get stuck in the mud with their capped mediocrity? Bringing them in to compete with Darnold who’s upside is matching their production makes sense. Bringing them in to give Wilson a season to marinade slows the evaluation. Wilson is either bad or good, no competition changes that nor makes it more obvious. 

Because (1) the cost to acquire them is low/zero; (2) They provide a baseline level of competent play to evaluate/develop the rest of the team should the new QB be unready/get hurt; (3) there is always the slight chance you hit paydirt ala Tannehill should they be called upon. You are creating a false narrative that having one of those dudes means you're not allowed to start Zach. Say what? They'd be a Plan B. Not A.

Risk/reward is an asymptote approaching infinity. Thank you for agreeing there would be no impact on Zach's development. So again: "WHY NOT?"

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kdels62 said:

Draft a QB every year… except that one if it’s that one then just sign mediocre backups!

Mediocre backups are better than the QB's the Jets have drafted the last 4 times.  It'd sure be nice if we had a front office with any ability to evaluate QB's once in a while.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, jgb said:

Because (1) the cost to acquire them is low/zero; (2) They provide a baseline level of competent play to evaluate/develop the rest of the team should the new QB be unready/get hurt; (3) there is always the slight chance you hit paydirt ala Tannehill should they be called upon. You are creating a false narrative that having one of those dudes means you're not allowed to start Zach. Say what? They'd be a Plan B. Not A.

Risk/reward is an asymptote approaching infinity. Thank you for agreeing there would be no impact on Zach's development. So again: "WHY NOT?"

Because mediocre starters hold back teams. Alex Smith, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Jimmy Garrapolo, Teddy Bridgewater and Mitch Trubisky make regular seasons digestible but the success is capped. 

You don’t bring them in because they’d start over Wilson, easily. They’d also start over any other rookie, they are good players. But the team that signs them gets performances just good enough to keep people employed but not good enough to win anything. If the Jets were 4-4 now with Mitch Trubisky playing and Zach on the bench would be any closer to solving the QB problem? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Mediocre backups are better than the QB's the Jets have drafted the last 4 times.  It'd sure be nice if we had a front office with any ability to evaluate QB's once in a while.

Which front office is great at evaluating QBs? 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

Which front office is great at evaluating QBs? 

You've been quite the annoyance lately.  I said "once in a while".  Clearly I didn't say "all the time".  Yes, we're all aware Ozzie Newsome once drafted Kyle Boller.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

Because mediocre starters hold back teams. Alex Smith, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Jimmy Garrapolo, Teddy Bridgewater and Mitch Trubisky make regular seasons digestible but the success is capped. 

You don’t bring them in because they’d start over Wilson, easily. They’d also start over any other rookie, they are good players. But the team that signs them gets performances just good enough to keep people employed but not good enough to win anything. If the Jets were 4-4 now with Mitch Trubisky playing and Zach on the bench would be any closer to solving the QB problem? 

KC, Miami, and SF all drafted QB's high despite the presence of those 3 guys. 

Mediocre starters only hold back teams who let it happen, and don't have the balls to draft a QB.  Like the Panthers, who went all in on Darnold and didn't draft Fields or Mac Jones when they were sitting there for them.

  • Upvote 2
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

Because mediocre starters hold back teams. Alex Smith, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Jimmy Garrapolo, Teddy Bridgewater and Mitch Trubisky make regular seasons digestible but the success is capped. 

You don’t bring them in because they’d start over Wilson, easily. They’d also start over any other rookie, they are good players. But the team that signs them gets performances just good enough to keep people employed but not good enough to win anything. If the Jets were 4-4 now with Mitch Trubisky playing and Zach on the bench would be any closer to solving the QB problem? 

So the argument is purposefully sandbag QB2 because you are afraid of the effect on your first round QB. As I summarized your position before when you accused me of making a false narrative.

You want to bubble wrap highly drafted QBs and insulate him from psyche-destroying competition from a stud like Trubisky/Minshew.  Just own it. Lots of teams do it, maybe you are right. I just vehemently disagree with it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jgb said:

So the argument is purposefully sandbag QB2 because you are afraid of the effect on your first round QB. As I summarized your position before when you accused me of making a false narrative.

You want to bubble wrap highly drafted QBs and insulate him from psyche-destroying competition from a stud like Trubisky/Minshew.  Just own it. Lots of teams do it, maybe you are right. I just vehemently disagree with it.

If you make up a narrative then you’re right but I’m more interested in the team building. There is no gain from paying a serviceable starter. Look at Carolina last year, they paid Bridgewater and got results. Those results were good enough to get them a decent record but not good enough to make them contenders. Instead they end up out of contention for a top draftable QB (in their eyes) and now they’re back in the mire. 

I’d rather the Jets role with unknown Zach Wilson and unknown Mike White than to go with a known quantity when that quantity is just above average.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

If you make up a narrative then you’re right but I’m more interested in the team building. There is no gain from paying a serviceable starter. Look at Carolina last year, they paid Bridgewater and got results. Those results were good enough to get them a decent record but not good enough to make them contenders. Instead they end up out of contention for a top draftable QB (in their eyes) and now they’re back in the mire. 

I’d rather the Jets role with unknown Zach Wilson and unknown Mike White than to go with a known quantity when that quantity is just above average.

With a young team I'd argue that a serviceable starter is a pretty nice thing to have for talent eval should your highly-drafted rookie prove unready or miss games with injury. Also, again, the cost of Trubisky/Minshew was essentially zero so don't see the set back effect you seem worried about. We do have common ground though in that I did not want a known-quantity JAG like Foles (even if he was also free/cheap) for where this team is at. Rather, I wanted someone with at least theoretical upside like Trubisky/Minshew.

Appreciate the respectful back and forth. We can disagree without being disagreeable. :) 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

KC, Miami, and SF all drafted QB's high despite the presence of those 3 guys. 

Mediocre starters only hold back teams who let it happen, and don't have the balls to draft a QB.  Like the Panthers, who went all in on Darnold and didn't draft Fields or Mac Jones when they were sitting there for them.

Carolina’s mistake happened the year before when they signed Bridgewater to win meaningless games. San Fran gave up a first rounder next year for the privilege of sitting Trey Lance and Miami’s backup is the reason why they still don’t know if Tua is worth their time. KC is an exception since not many 12-4 teams have mediocre QBs that was just a great roster. 

Turning away for 7, 8 or 9 wins is hard for coaches and GMs, it can cost them their jobs. Temporarily placating a fanbase can be done with mediocre QBs, winning a title won’t happen.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

You've been quite the annoyance lately.  I said "once in a while".  Clearly I didn't say "all the time".  Yes, we're all aware Ozzie Newsome once drafted Kyle Boller.  

Nice straw man here. There is no front office that can evaluate a QB. Evaluating every other position and building a good roster is entirely separate from being good at finding QBs. No one is good at finding QBs, no one is good at knowing what makes a good QB. Signing and starting Bridgewater, Flacco, Fitz and all of those very serviceable QBs does nothing but cost cap space and draft position. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

Nice straw man here. There is no front office that can evaluate a QB. Evaluating every other position and building a good roster is entirely separate from being good at finding QBs. No one is good at finding QBs, no one is good at knowing what makes a good QB. Signing and starting Bridgewater, Flacco, Fitz and all of those very serviceable QBs does nothing but cost cap space and draft position. 

And save your job by getting a .500 team instead of 2 wins.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ZachEY said:

 

Oddly enough, PAC was a visionary.

Who could have foreseen THIS?

While it ain't over yet it does appear that my hit rate on predictions has slipped to 98% success rate with Sams regression.

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Skeet Ulrich said:

Darnold going for an MRI on his shoulder, I guess that gives Rhule carte blanche to bench him without totally embarrassing the kid.

Yeah... being embarrassed might make him such works.

1 hour ago, The Crusher said:

Wow, read the first two pages of this thread again and San Darnold should apologize to each and everyone of you. LOL

Next non-atrocious game Darnold has they'll fall right back in love again.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pac said:

While it ain't over yet it does appear that my hit rate on predictions has slipped to 98% success rate with Sams regression.

Hmmm... you should make sure you broadcast your hits as loudly as your misses, then. Darnold spun you in knots for years, man. It was sad to watch and very vitriolic.

 First you defended Sanchez against "losers" for years before finally turning:

On 8/4/2011 at 7:51 PM, Pac said:

 

Sanchez didn't develop jack sh-t. He sucked for a better part of the year. Good QB's play well regardless of who's playing WR. Rivers, Brees, Brady, Manning have all played lights out with a hell of a lot less talent than we have for WR's.

Then, after Darnold's first year you reversed your previous Sanchez indictment to defend Sam:

On 10/29/2019 at 12:23 AM, Pac said:

I'd be worried about Darnold being left with a VERY questionable group of receivers but you'd almost have to take that deal. 

Then, you gave him "no excuses" going into 2020:

On 9/12/2020 at 3:18 AM, Pac said:

wait a second..  for years you were the guy saying what Sanchez and Geno had for skill guys was good enough and it was on the QB to make them better.  

Perriman, Crowder, Hogan, Herndon, Griffin, Bell, and Gore are still better than anything Sanchez had the last year or 2 and Geno had both years.

Couple that with the improved O-line and Darnold has no excuses in year 3.  I expect he'll play well.

Then after last season you wanted him to stay for 2021 and uh made more excuses but this time for absolute real, no excuses, no take-backsies:

On 1/15/2021 at 6:57 PM, Pac said:

In reality what I said is the same as what I'm now saying about Darnold.  You can't completely judge a qb given such little to work with.  JD started last year with Becton and Mims..  between FA and the draft we are about to get an influx of talent to pair with competent offensive coaching. 

If Sam doesn't make a pretty significant leap next year then dump his ass and get a QB in 22' with what could very well be 3 1st rounders.

 

Then after he bombed yet again, more excuses and continued defense:

On 5/13/2021 at 5:05 PM, Pac said:

Other than jilted jet fans no one believes Darnold is the worst qb in the NFL despite your year long attempts to cram that mantra into all your posts.

He will rise like a Phoenix in Carolina and lay waste to his hater brigade.

Let's hope our lil guy from Utah is up to the task.

Doubling down:

On 8/25/2021 at 10:08 PM, Pac said:

Darnold was cursed with absolutely horrific coaching and by far the worst assortment of talent surrounding him that any qb had to deal with.  Through it all he never complained and handled everything with aplomb.

My guess is he'll look much better this year and the jaded haters on this board will attribute his success to McCaffrey and your OC.

Darnold will be just fine.

The ironic thing is you had the right idea after you learned your lesson with Sanchez (good QBs produce no matter who is at WR). But you completely let yourself fall in love again with Darnold and went right back to that bag of excuses again... and again... and again. Time after time of proclaiming "no excuses this year."

Sam is your Yoko Ono. We want our Pac back. Let him go, man. It is indeed over.

 

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jgb said:

Hmmm... you should make sure you broadcast your hits as loudly as your misses, then. Darnold spun you in knots for years, man. It was sad to watch and very vitriolic.

 First you defended Sanchez against "losers" for years before finally turning:

Then, after Darnold's first year you reversed your previous Sanchez indictment to defend Sam:

Then, you gave him "no excuses" going into 2020:

Then after last season you wanted him to stay for 2021, again proclaiming that for absolute real this time, no excuses, no take-backsies:

Then after he was long gone:

Doubling-down:

Darnold is your Yoko Ono. We want our Pac back. Let Sam go, man. It is indeed over.

 

 

Don't forget he was also calling Jamal Adams a lock HOFer up until about 2 months ago.  

  • Haha 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...