Jump to content

OTA Updates. Wednesday June 1


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, KRL said:

What is up with this guy and these stupid terms?

Same dude who kept saying "out of bounce" instead of "out of bounds" last season.  First time I saw it I figured it was a typo.  By the sixth or seventh time he did it, I realized he doesn't know that the word is "bounds" and not "bounce".

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maury77 said:

I know I'm going toi get downvotes for this,  but why does Gardner "have to earn it" when Zach Wilson was handed the starting job last year right out the gate?

Id like to answer its because they learned from their mistakes but we know that's not it. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maury77 said:

1. QBs do not have to start as rookies.

2. Many QBs have sat as rookies and have had successful careers.

3. You risk the possibility of ruining a QB by running him out before he is ready. 

4. Wilson played better last year after having a chance to sit and watch when he was injured so it is reasonable to assume sitting and watching helped his development. 

5. You have stated that Wilson was the best QB prospect you have seen so you may not want to cast stones re "football knowledge"

Sitting a QB is a valid strategy. I don't particularly agree with it but can work for the reasons you stated. Make no mistake though that in Year 2 he will be far less advanced than if he started the previous year.

But you didn't say sit Zach you said have him compete for the starting spot which is completely different. A QB "competition" is the worst of both worlds for a QB.

1. First of all he is unlikely to beat out a veteran in a competition

2. The "competition" is at best a journeyman bottom of the league type starter anyway

3. A rookie QB learns, but if he competes he loses half or more of the reps

4. The veteran "competition" is going to suck, if you drafted a QB at #2 you didn't have good QB play to begin with and that won't change, so as he falters the pressure to play the #2 pick becomes too great and he starts anyway but less prepared than he would have been if you just "gave" him the job so his progress will be behind

6. If the competition is some mid-tier guy you brought in then maybe you should not have drafted the QB to begin with

Yes I said that Zach is the best college QB prospect I have seen. I stand by that. I know you do not like him and never have since early in the process. If we stay healthy we should have a very good idea of who is closer to being right about Zach by the end of the year. I am sure you think he will fail again, I think he will be at worst a Top 15 QB

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Post of the Week 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Same dude who kept saying "out of bounce" instead of "out of bounds" last season.  First time I saw it I figured it was a typo.  By the sixth or seventh time he did it, I realized he doesn't know that the word is "bounds" and not "bounce".

South Florida public education product?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

But you didn't say sit Zach you said have him compete for the starting spot which is completely different. A QB "competition" is the worst of both worlds for a QB.

1. First of all he is unlikely to beat out a veteran in a competition

Then he shouldn't start.  When he can beat out the Veteran, he should start.

14 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

2. The "competition" is at best a journeyman bottom of the league type starter anyway

Which makes it odd that an elite top draft pick QB isn't good enough to beat him out.

14 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

3. A rookie QB learns, but if he competes he loses half or more of the reps

Reps should be earned. 

It might help avoid cycles of repeated "rookie QB could be great, we must play him, meh, three years wasted, what a bust, but look at this new rookie!" management.

14 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

4. The veteran "competition" is going to suck, if you drafted a QB at #2 you didn't have good QB play to begin with and that won't change, so as he falters the pressure to play the #2 pick becomes too great and he starts anyway but less prepared than he would have been if you just "gave" him the job so his progress will be behind

Elite prospects blow old worthless Vets off the field.

The issue of a competition where the rookie fails is only an issue of the rookie isn't ready, in which case he should sit anyway,  or isn't very good, in which case he should be made to earn his job.

14 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

6. If the competition is some mid-tier guy you brought in then maybe you should not have drafted the QB to begin with

Hogwash, teams without a top QB should always be both drafting and signing QB's till they find one.

14 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

Yes I said that Zach is the best college QB prospect I have seen. I stand by that.

Wow.  Really?  Lol.

14 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

I think he will be at worst a Top 15 QB

Hope you're right.  He certainly has no excuses based on his supporting talent as of right now.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Be_a_Jet said:

Calabrese staying is huge because he is likely Lafluers successor when he gets his HC shot, which can come as soon as the end of this year depending on how Jets Offense does. 
 

 

We can always hire Matt Patricia and/or Joe Judge when they get canned halfway through the season!

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
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...