Jump to content

If Wilson develops into prime Joe Flacco as a passer, are you satisfied?


HawkeyeJet
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

your entitled to your opinion, however, having played sports my entire life and coached football at reasonably high levels, I don't think you understand at all how complicated the position is, and what goes into a successful QB in terms of initial skill set, learning, confidence, coheseviness with teammates, playcalling, etc. These guys are not robots, and your argument is basically that you either pick a good robot or a bad robot, your entitled, but I think you are sorely mistaken. 

You’re dramatically oversimplifying my position, which is ironic since you spend the first half of your post admonishing me for failing to acknowledge complexity. 

No need for me to retort with my “athletic qualifications,” since my argument is math-based and the data is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, HawkeyeJet said:

I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately.  Some will say it’s a dumb comparison because Zach is much more mobile, but strictly as a passer I think there are tons of similarities between Wilson and Flacco in his prime.  Huge arm, inconsistent accuracy at times.  Occasional “wtf” decisions. When he gets hot, can look all world.  But overall Flacco was a “good” starting QB for nearly a decade.  Never great though.
 

 Flacco's average 17 game season over his 10 years as Baltimore was 3950 yards 22 TDs and 14 Ints.  He was pretty consistently that type of state line for a decade.

Is that successful in your mind?

the question alone makes me want to cry.  But yes...   because anything to get him off the bust train.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jgb said:

You’re dramatically oversimplifying my position, which is ironic since you spend the first half of your post admonishing me for failing to acknowledge complexity. 

No need for me to retort with my “athletic qualifications,” since my argument is math-based and the data is what it is.

math-based, data based, lol, meet credibility theory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

math-based, data based, lol, meet credibility theory

Lots of us sure would be interested if you could support your contention in any way beyond “I coached football before.” Not knocking you, but is there anything you can back up your position with? Love a good fact-based discussion. There’s just no point to debate against someone who says “I just know because X, Y, Z.” I mean maybe you do but there is just nothing there to even discuss.

If you have the secret sauce to increase the odds of identifying which poorly-performing QBs are worth paying the opportunity cost to wait for and which just stink, that would be extremely interesting to me and Matt Rhule :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We talk about Flacco's numbers not cutting it in the modern era...we need more.

Is 'one and done' in the SB race good enough anymore? Eagles won one a bit ago and we haven't heard from the since. No one looks at the Eagles as a powerhouse to be feared and respected. Sure, their fans loved that one big day, but ever since they have been miserable.

I don't want to win one SB then be miserable for the next 10 years. 

I want a well built team with a GM who can keep writing good team friendly deals to keep the team well stocked that other teams never want to play, especially come PO time. I want a team that's in the thick of it every year.

I want an entire decade of proudly wearing my Jets cap in public. 3 SBs minimum!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jgb said:

Lots of us sure would be interested if you could support your contention in any way beyond “I coached football before.” Not knocking you, but is there anything you can back up your position with? Love a good fact-based discussion. There’s just no point to debate against someone who says “I just know because X, Y, Z.” I mean maybe you do but there is just nothing there to even discuss.

If you have the secret sauce to increase the odds of identifying which poorly-performing QBs are worth paying the opportunity cost to wait for and which just stink, that would be extremely interesting to me and Matt Rhule :) 

I think I have been pretty clear on my position, there are NFL guys who are better than others at identifying, selecting and developing QB's than others. That doesn't mean that someone who has done it is 100% to do it again, and that someone who hasn't done it is 0%, but I firmly believe Andy Reid has a much higher probability of success than Saleh or Rex Ryan.

I don't think there is a physical formula for QB success. Tom Brady physically was a joke, Russell was a God. I think there are minimum physical traits that need to be there, and beyond that I think.

I think if the minimum physical traits are there, the rest comes above the shoulders. There is no clear path to above the shoulders that is proven. Many historical greats would have been out of the league after 3 years today. Some guys started out as incredible and turned out to suck. A good offense is a well oiled machine where 11 guys are on the same page. The QB is the most important 1 of 11, but they are 1 of 11. These guys are not robots, and they can and do learn, and learning is not always linear in anything in life. Saying math and data based when the denominator is like 50 is really not realistic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy, here we go.  HS coaches claiming they know better when it comes to Pro QB's.

The biggest problem with that take?  Elite QB's were all incredible in High School.  Men among boys.  Except Darnold, of course, because he was a boogie boarding Linebacker at the time.  No HS coach would have any doubt that a future NFL QB has what it takes to play the game at the highest level when watching them play at the HS level.

However, there are skills even elite QB's have to gain in HS and the collegiate level, or are gifted at due to DNA and a quick-processing brain, in order to succeed at the pro level.  If they don't have it by the time they reach the pros and display it within the first 2 years, odds are very strong they never will.

"Landing spot" is overrated in that sense.  It's a QB's makeup and development at the prior levels that far better determine his success rate.  Not the pro-level coaches and receivers he's paired with.  That's what makes the position unique and makes it so difficult to evaluate prospects at the position.

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

56 minutes ago, FootballLove said:

We talk about Flacco's numbers not cutting it in the modern era...we need more.

Is 'one and done' in the SB race good enough anymore? Eagles won one a bit ago and we haven't heard from the since. No one looks at the Eagles as a powerhouse to be feared and respected. Sure, their fans loved that one big day, but ever since they have been miserable.

I don't want to win one SB then be miserable for the next 10 years. 

I want a well built team with a GM who can keep writing good team friendly deals to keep the team well stocked that other teams never want to play, especially come PO time. I want a team that's in the thick of it every year.

I want an entire decade of proudly wearing my Jets cap in public. 3 SBs minimum!

 

I want 10 years of Jets super bowls, consecutive 

That's even more better! 

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, HawkeyeJet said:

Huge arm, inconsistent accuracy at times.  Occasional “wtf” decisions. When he gets hot, can look all world.  But overall Flacco was a “good” starting QB for nearly a decade.  Never great though.

Uhhhh you can’t spell elite without Flacco. DUH.

More seriously though, anybody would be a fool not to take Flacco’s prime and superimpose it on Zach for the Jets if given the chance. Last season, Zach was the worst starter in the NFL. If he wins a SB MVP for the Jets and makes countless other playoff runs for the next decade, I’m over the moon.

Obviously we all want the Peyton/Brady/Elways of the world, but there’s a reason they’re rare. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

I looked in last 5-6 years, it looks to me like somehwere around 75% of QB's drafted in 1st 2 rounds don't meet the very loose definition of serviceable I defined.  Of the 25% or so who do, I am not convinced they are overall positives to have as your QB as they tend to put you in purgatory, but that is a different end point which some people would prefer, even though I would not. 

just curious.  do you ever consider the minimum 21 other players on each of the teams.  Like if team x had a rb like curtis martin for example vs a team having some no name, or really any of the positions or groups as a whole being really good vs really bad.

I guess my question is would equally talented QBs have different outcomes on different teams one being very strong supporting cast (Sanchez) vs another very weak supporting cast (Darnold).  Could Darnold, Wilson, Mike White, or even Trubisky been successful on that 98 jets team or the Sanchez led team with Mangold as your center?  Or only Sanchez out of them could have brought us so close to that super bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, SickJetFan said:

just curious.  do you ever consider the minimum 21 other players on each of the teams.  Like if team x had a rb like curtis martin for example vs a team having some no name, or really any of the positions or groups as a whole being really good vs really bad.

I guess my question is would equally talented QBs have different outcomes on different teams one being very strong supporting cast (Sanchez) vs another very weak supporting cast (Darnold).  Could Darnold, Wilson, Mike White, or even Trubisky been successful on that 98 jets team or the Sanchez led team with Mangold as your center?  Or only Sanchez out of them could have brought us so close to that super bowl.

your preaching to the choir here, I am arguing with the people who think the QB is a robot and they are either good or not good and nothing around them matters, they can't develop, they can't get better, they are either a good robot or a bad robot. I think there are many, many factors that go into a QB being successful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

your preaching to the choir here, I am arguing with the people who think the QB is a robot and they are either good or not good and nothing around them matters, they can't develop, they can't get better, they are either a good robot or a bad robot. I think there are many, many factors that go into a QB being successful

yeah that is what I think too and I have no idea if Zach Wilson will be good or bad and for that matter have no idea about his supporting cast either.  On paper they headed in right direction but there is still the question of coaching in my mind - not just the players.

 

but back to reason I ask, if anyone is going to do that kind of analysis there is more than 1 or 2 variables to consider otherwise the analysis is meaningless.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Oh boy, here we go.  HS coaches claiming they know better when it comes to Pro QB's.

The biggest problem with that take?  Elite QB's were all incredible in High School.  Men among boys.  Except Darnold, of course, because he was a boogie boarding Linebacker at the time.  No HS coach would have any doubt that a future NFL QB has what it takes to play the game at the highest level when watching them play at the HS level.

However, there are skills even elite QB's have to gain in HS and the collegiate level, or are gifted at due to DNA and a quick-processing brain, in order to succeed at the pro level.  If they don't have it by the time they reach the pros and display it within the first 2 years, odds are very strong they never will.

"Landing spot" is overrated in that sense.  It's a QB's makeup and development at the prior levels that far better determine his success rate.  Not the pro-level coaches and receivers he's paired with.  That's what makes the position unique and makes it so difficult to evaluate prospects at the position.

Bruce Harwood Happy Cry GIF

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Oh boy, here we go.  HS coaches claiming they know better when it comes to Pro QB's.

The biggest problem with that take?  Elite QB's were all incredible in High School.  Men among boys.  Except Darnold, of course, because he was a boogie boarding Linebacker at the time.  No HS coach would have any doubt that a future NFL QB has what it takes to play the game at the highest level when watching them play at the HS level.

However, there are skills even elite QB's have to gain in HS and the collegiate level, or are gifted at due to DNA and a quick-processing brain, in order to succeed at the pro level.  If they don't have it by the time they reach the pros and display it within the first 2 years, odds are very strong they never will.

"Landing spot" is overrated in that sense.  It's a QB's makeup and development at the prior levels that far better determine his success rate.  Not the pro-level coaches and receivers he's paired with.  That's what makes the position unique and makes it so difficult to evaluate prospects at the position.

lol and a profession forum junkie preaching because he has done his quantum analysis...i have seen it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SickJetFan said:

just curious.  do you ever consider the minimum 21 other players on each of the teams.  Like if team x had a rb like curtis martin for example vs a team having some no name, or really any of the positions or groups as a whole being really good vs really bad.

I guess my question is would equally talented QBs have different outcomes on different teams one being very strong supporting cast (Sanchez) vs another very weak supporting cast (Darnold).  Could Darnold, Wilson, Mike White, or even Trubisky been successful on that 98 jets team or the Sanchez led team with Mangold as your center?  Or only Sanchez out of them could have brought us so close to that super bowl.

We all acknowledge Sanchez had about the cushiest landing spot possible but it was still obvious he wasn’t a FQB and never would be. A great supporting cast can cover some warts but it can not turn a pig into Cinderella.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jgb said:

We all acknowledge Sanchez had about the cushiest landing spot possible but it was still obvious he wasn’t a FQB and never would be. A great supporting cast can cover some warts but it can not turn a pig into Cinderella.

To be honest I did not read every post in this but I did see that there was use of  percentages and analysis using numbers and variables that dont consider any of that..which is cute and all but meaningless until all variables considered.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SickJetFan said:

To be honest I did not read every post in this but I did see that there was use of  percentages and analysis using numbers and variables that dont consider any of that..which is cute and all but meaningless until all variables considered.

 

We are all making educated assumptions, if you think we have erred by all means tell us how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SickJetFan said:

To be honest I did not read every post in this but I did see that there was use of  percentages and analysis using numbers and variables that dont consider any of that..which is cute and all but meaningless until all variables considered.

That's what sample size does for you.  The bigger the sample, the less those variables matter.  We're talking about hundreds of QBs here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Oh boy, here we go.  HS coaches claiming they know better when it comes to Pro QB's.

The biggest problem with that take?  Elite QB's were all incredible in High School.  Men among boys.  Except Darnold, of course, because he was a boogie boarding Linebacker at the time.  No HS coach would have any doubt that a future NFL QB has what it takes to play the game at the highest level when watching them play at the HS level.

However, there are skills even elite QB's have to gain in HS and the collegiate level, or are gifted at due to DNA and a quick-processing brain, in order to succeed at the pro level.  If they don't have it by the time they reach the pros and display it within the first 2 years, odds are very strong they never will.

"Landing spot" is overrated in that sense.  It's a QB's makeup and development at the prior levels that far better determine his success rate.  Not the pro-level coaches and receivers he's paired with.  That's what makes the position unique and makes it so difficult to evaluate prospects at the position.

First off, I did not coach HS, and second off, if you disagree with my opinion, fine, but I disagree with yours. You use math without understanding the basics of the math you are attempting to use. You preach like you have some secret knowledge on the QB position that you simply don't have. For example, there have been multiple studies about brain development that you probably have no comprehension on, and how some peoples brains are fully developed at 17 while others arent fully developed until at least 24. Same thing goes physically, there are some people who are grown men at 14 and stop growing, and there are others that grow up until they are 24 years old. You try to use math to prove out your theories. If this was so easy and so static as you claim, no NFL team would waste more than a season on a QB, their robot would either be good right away or be out the next year, but of course you know more than the NFL teams.

Are the odds better if a player is good right out of the gate, of course, but there are so few who actually do that, and usually the ones who do have a very good supporting cast and great coaches. These guys are not robots, and confidence plays a huge part of sports, which my guess is you never played sports. Its why a HOF hitter can go through great slumps, their confidence gets shot and it can take a long time to get it back. Put a young QB with sh*t talent around them, its very hard to build their confidence, they second guess what they see and do. These guys are not robots as much as you want to pretend that they are. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Sympathy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what sample size does for you.  The bigger the sample, the less those variables matter.  We're talking about hundreds of QBs here.  
It is not that simple ... statistics are great to help inform you ... but when it come to human beings they are not great as predictive tools ... only for hedging bets and determining probablistic distribution.

Humans simply are too complex in their devlopment to draw decisive conclusions from statistics regarding development.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dunnie said:

It is not that simple ... statistics are great to help inform you ... but when it come to human beings they are not great as predictive tools ... only for hedging bets and determining probablistic distribution.

Humans simply are too complex in their devlopment to draw decisive conclusions from statistics regarding development.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk
 


As you noted, we’re indeed determining probabilities, not “decisive conclusions”.

I’m open to suggestions for a better way to approach the puzzle.  QBase is the best I’ve seen when it comes to predictive tools that are readily available to the public.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

First off, I did not coach HS, and second off, if you disagree with my opinion, fine, but I disagree with yours. You use math without understanding the basics of the math you are attempting to use. You preach like you have some secret knowledge on the QB position that you simply don't have.

We do the exact opposite: there is no secret knowledge. The odds are there for all to see and we are playing them.

25 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

For example, there have been multiple studies about brain development that you probably have no comprehension on, and how some peoples brains are fully developed at 17 while others arent fully developed until at least 24.

So again, why are these developmental late bloomers not showing up in the data set? Where are these swaths of QBs who start poorly then click in later? 

25 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

Same thing goes physically, there are some people who are grown men at 14 and stop growing, and there are others that grow up until they are 24 years old. You try to use math to prove out your theories.

“Theory” is a proven hypothesis so thank you.

25 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

 

If this was so easy and so static as you claim, no NFL team would waste more than a season on a QB, their robot would either be good right away or be out the next year, but of course you know more than the NFL teams.

NFL teams are largely slow to change and risk take. People are also demonstrably bad at internalizing opportunity cost and are over-sensitive to losing a sunken cost. But when they go against the “we must wait X seasons on a QB” they are rewarded (Josh Rosen upgraded to Kyler Murray).

25 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

Are the odds better if a player is good right out of the gate, of course, but there are so few who actually do that,

Big difference between “good right out of the gate” and dead ass last in the NFL.

25 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

and usually the ones who do have a very good supporting cast and great coaches. These guys are not robots, and confidence plays a huge part of sports, which my guess is you never played sports.

But did you play single A spring ball???

25 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

Its why a HOF hitter can go through great slumps, their confidence gets shot and it can take a long time to get it back.

Sample size is important which is why I’ve stated several times even though I have no faith in the QB I could be wrong and want him to start every game this season. But if there is a repeat of last year or anything short of a substantial improvement, I’m done with him.

25 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

Put a young QB with sh*t talent around them, its very hard to build their confidence, they second guess what they see and do. These guys are not robots as much as you want to pretend that they are. 

Not sure where this robot thing is coming from. If they were robots they’d be easy to reprogram. Sadly… human beings’ internal processors are not really upgradable. All highly drafted QBs have enough physical talent to play. The failures fail because of character deficiencies or slow processing. Both of these characteristics are relatively inelastic over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

First off, I did not coach HS, and second off, if you disagree with my opinion, fine, but I disagree with yours. You use math without understanding the basics of the math you are attempting to use. You preach like you have some secret knowledge on the QB position that you simply don't have. For example, there have been multiple studies about brain development that you probably have no comprehension on, and how some peoples brains are fully developed at 17 while others arent fully developed until at least 24. Same thing goes physically, there are some people who are grown men at 14 and stop growing, and there are others that grow up until they are 24 years old. You try to use math to prove out your theories. If this was so easy and so static as you claim, no NFL team would waste more than a season on a QB, their robot would either be good right away or be out the next year, but of course you know more than the NFL teams.

Are the odds better if a player is good right out of the gate, of course, but there are so few who actually do that, and usually the ones who do have a very good supporting cast and great coaches. These guys are not robots, and confidence plays a huge part of sports, which my guess is you never played sports. Its why a HOF hitter can go through great slumps, their confidence gets shot and it can take a long time to get it back. Put a young QB with sh*t talent around them, its very hard to build their confidence, they second guess what they see and do. These guys are not robots as much as you want to pretend that they are. 

Exactly that is why it is just as easy to ruin a prospect as it is to develop

IMO if Russel Wilson drafted by jets he would not be a house hold name

also if Stafford is drafted by say Dallas instead of DET we would probably be talking about another GOAT about now and if he doesn't get traded he becomes another in a long line of QB that never get to promise land nor chance at any gold jacket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure where this robot thing is coming from. If they were robots they’d be easy to reprogram. Sadly… human beings’ internal processors are not really upgradable. All highly drafted QBs have enough physical talent to play. The failures fail because of character deficiencies or slow processing. Both of these characteristics are relatively inelastic over time.
Regarding late bloomers... I listed maybe 20 of them ... many in the hall of fame.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure where this robot thing is coming from. If they were robots they’d be easy to reprogram. Sadly… human beings’ internal processors are not really upgradable. All highly drafted QBs have enough physical talent to play. The failures fail because of character deficiencies or slow processing. Both of these characteristics are relatively inelastic over time.
There is a difference between being put on the worst rostered team in the nfl and Buffalo Bills or Buccaneers

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk




Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dunnie said:

Regarding late bloomers... I listed maybe 20 of them ... many in the hall of fame.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk
 

All QBs who are not instant studs are not equal. Big variation between them — for example — was he “meh” or “worst in the NFL” his first/second year? The starting point is the post determinative data point to know the ending point.

Guys do improve, but I suggest horrendous to FQB is extraordinarily rare. Even so I want the QB to get another year so I can see if there is an upward trend with enough slope to extrapolate something positive going forward. But I am not optimistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, jgb said:

We do the exact opposite: there is no secret knowledge. The odds are there for all to see and we are playing them.

Playing Odds, and claiming you are the be all end all final say on QB's, and smashing every post into oblivion that does not want to burry Wilson is not the same thing.

20 minutes ago, jgb said:

So again, why are these developmental late bloomers not showing up in the data set? Where are these swaths of QBs who start poorly then click in later? 

Prior to the last 10-15 years, just about every valid starting QB were late bloomers because they did not start immediately and were often given several years to develop and learn. Terry Bradshaw was said to be too dumb to play QB, Warner was out of the NFL bagging groceries, and Eli Manning was about 6 games from being replaced. The data isnt there because there is no statistically valid data on developing QB's, and its been made worse in the last 10 years because colleges and NFL systems are so vastly different now compared to where they were before that.

20 minutes ago, jgb said:

“Theory” is a proven hypothesis so thank you.

don't hurt that rotator cuff on that self reach around bud, but do enjoy the tickle

20 minutes ago, jgb said:

NFL teams are largely slow to change and risk take. People are also demonstrably bad at internalizing opportunity cost and are over-sensitive to losing a sunken cost. But when they go against the “we must wait X seasons on a QB” they are rewarded (Josh Rosen upgraded to Kyler Murray).

When Murray wins a SB, we can talk about the Cardinals being rewarded. For now, they just gave a middle of the pack QB top of the NFL QB money.

20 minutes ago, jgb said:

Big difference between “good right out of the gate” and dead ass last in the NFL.

OK, so give us the magical cutoff that you have, this way we can all learn from your great knowledge and wisdom that you have, and we can all stop wasting our time and declare QB's a complete bust from day 1. 

20 minutes ago, jgb said:

But did you play single A spring ball???

Cute, again, enjoy the tickle

20 minutes ago, jgb said:

Sample size is important which is why I’ve stated several times even though I have no faith in the QB I could be wrong and want him to start every game this season. But if there is a repeat of last year or anything short of a substantial improvement, I’m done with him.

Oh, ok, thanks, so please proceed to pound every thread and poster into oblivion who hasn't yet buried Wilson.

20 minutes ago, jgb said:

Not sure where this robot thing is coming from. If they were robots they’d be easy to reprogram. Sadly… human beings’ internal processors are not really upgradable. All highly drafted QBs have enough physical talent to play. The failures fail because of character deficiencies or slow processing. Both of these characteristics are relatively inelastic over time.

HOF players who go into slumps did not forget how to play, they lose their confidence. A young QB doesn't have confidence, they need to get it, they also need a reason to get it.  Acting like human emotions and factors don't play into it is expecting a robot. If a QB has no faith in their O line, or their receivers to be in the right place, they will undoubtedly play worse than a QB who has that faith. Its why HOF hitters say when they are in a slump the baseball looks like a pea, but when they are on fire it looks like a beachball, their eye site does not change, their confidence does, again, they are not robots. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, SickJetFan said:

Exactly that is why it is just as easy to ruin a prospect as it is to develop

IMO if Russel Wilson drafted by jets he would not be a house hold name

also if Stafford is drafted by say Dallas instead of DET we would probably be talking about another GOAT about now and if he doesn't get traded he becomes another in a long line of QB that never get to promise land nor chance at any gold jacket.

I have no idea if Wilson will be any good or not, the odds are clearly against him, as in todays NFL the longest you are realistically going to get is 2-3 years to show something, and year 1 was against him. Throw in the fact that I don't have a lot of confidence in the coaching staff. That said, I am hopeful he will show something this year and give us hope, it is the best situation for the Jets. These other guys are so self righteous that they have zero humility to even listen to another perspective, and would rather be right than what is good for the Jets, then if Wilson ever were to be good, they would say well of course I am happy, this is good for the Jets, even though they have put such a huge statement out there that their street cred would be shot at this point.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 5:42 PM, FlightBoyz said:

Zach if he stays healthy will be a solid QB in this league. He's in year 2. Took Josh Allen 3 years to get to elite status. I know it's hard for this fan base to be patient but give the kid a chance. 

Two questions…

What has Zach done so far that makes you say he only needs to stay healthy to be a solid QB?

What does Josh Allen’s career have to do with Zach, other than they were both drafted to play QB in the NFL?

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...