Garrett Wilson talks about the differences between Joe Flacco and Zach Wilson:

[tommyduhamelshouse]

44 minutes ago, Mogglez said:

I, already, cannot wait for this season to be over, lol.

same

[Jet hustle]

9 hours ago, ZachEY said:

Zach Wilson's touch has been fine.  Accuracy and decision making and ability to see the field, not so much.  But, he's not been firing lasers at WRs all over the field.

Not according to garret wilson...  you did watch the video??   These receivers are catching balls from him daily. GW saying that openly is an indictment on Zack Wilson.

You  Tone def much?

[Cyberjet]

8 hours ago, jgb said:

This is just a difference of opinion. I believe physical talent — which, I believe you are overestimating IMHO — means something for the draft but very little after a year of game tape. Brain is 99% of what makes a QB… from what I’ve seen, he’s a slow processor and that generally doesn’t get fixed. Hope I am wrong but I have nothing against him as a human being and I also don’t care if he bangs MILFs, GILFs, or FILTFs to his heart’s content. Just play ball.

I don’t think you guys are disagreeing. You don’t think Wilson will figure it out where’s he’s optimistic he will and if so will be a top tier QB. That’s my hope BUT I too worry about his processing ON the field. In the classroom he has it all in his head, but down on the field it’s a different perspective and it’s paramount he makes quick decisions (the right ones). I worry that he doesn’t make the progressions quick enough in real time. Still he needs more time to show us what he can do or not do

[faba]

Well Wilson is going to have to stay on the field otherwise it will be all moot

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, Cyberjet said:

Still he needs more time to show us what he can do or not do

How much time.

For a team without a FQB, I believe this is the primary question.  How long do you wait and give a guy not producing to "get it".  How long to you expect fans to tolerate a QB learning on the job and sucking/being non-competative?

If there is a central disagreement amongst Jet Fans and JN, it is this, the debate over "how long".

Some of us think you know what a guy is after a relatively short period.  Definitely < 2 Full Seasons.

Some folks think that the team owes a guy three full seasons.  Or even four full season, before they can be "sure".

And we have some outliers who think they know after 2 games, or conversely, still think we "can't be sure" on Mark Sanchez, Geno Smith and Sam Darnold, lol.

So this really is the key question, for fans and our patience/understanding, and for the organization (who should be better at knowing what a guy is faster than we fans do, to be fair).

I say after two full seasons, you know exactly what a player is or isn't going to be within a few % points of total accuracy.  That includes if the guy in question is fragile, and not available enough.  I could see three seasons for a fringe case, a guy hovering around or just below the mid-tier of QB's in terms of production quality, but not quite making the leap yet to top 15 or better.  What I cannot understand is the waiting on a guy if that guy is basically the worst in the league a la Sam Darnold or Wilson year 1. 

The odds of a guy being the worst QB in the NFL in his first year or two becoming a FQB is basically nil.

[Biggs]

10 minutes ago, Warfish said:

How much time.

For a team without a FQB, I believe this is the primary question.  How long do you wait and give a guy not producing to "get it".  How long to you expect fans to tolerate a QB learning on the job and sucking/being non-competative?

If there is a central disagreement amongst Jet Fans and JN, it is this, the debate over "how long".

Some of us think you know what a guy is after a relatively short period.  Definitely < 2 Full Seasons.

Some folks think that the team owes a guy three full seasons.  Or even four full season, before they can be "sure".

And we have some outliers who think they know after 2 games, or conversely, still think we "can't be sure" on Mark Sanchez, Geno Smith and Sam Darnold, lol.

So this really is the key question, for fans and our patience/understanding, and for the organization (who should be better at knowing what a guy is faster than we fans do, to be fair).

I say after two full seasons, you know exactly what a player is or isn't going to be within a few % points of total accuracy.  That includes if the guy in question is fragile, and not available enough.  I could see three seasons for a fringe case, a guy hovering around or just below the mid-tier of QB's in terms of production quality, but not quite making the leap yet to top 15 or better.  What I cannot understand is the waiting on a guy if that guy is basically the worst in the league a la Sam Darnold or Wilson year 1. 

The odds of a guy being the worst QB in the NFL in his first year or two becoming a FQB is basically nil.

Don't know because we also have a coaching staff that might not be any good.   Plenty of QB's who sucked for years were really good later when they were surrounded by excellent coaching.  

The Jets HC is not a brilliant offensive coach.  Lefleur who might well develop was moved up very fast to OC.  There are plenty of guys who busted out on bad teams with crappy coaching who showed up later and where really good.  

[Warfish]

7 minutes ago, Biggs said:

Don't know because we also have a coaching staff that might not be any good.   Plenty of QB's who sucked for years were really good later when they were surrounded by excellent coaching.  

The Jets HC is not a brilliant offensive coach.  Lefleur who might well develop was moved up very fast to OC.  There are plenty of guys who busted out on bad teams with crappy coaching who showed up later and where really good.  

The trouble with this kind of chicken and egg view is that you end up in an endless cycle of change and failure.

Zach isn't good so Saleh isn't good because Zach isn't good because Saleh isn't good.....

So we change the Coach, and the next one Zach still isn;t good, so we change the QB, and the Coach still isn't good, so we change the Coach, and the new QB still isn't good, etc, etc, etc.

I think you have to be able to evaluate a QB, and a Coach, independently, for the things they specifically do and are responsible for.

I don't think you gave Zach Wilson 5 years, and two Coaching regimes, before making a decision on if he sucks or not.

[Biggs]

3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

The trouble with this kind of chicken and egg view is that you end up in an endless cycle of change and failure.

Zach isn't good so Saleh isn't good because Zach isn't good because Saleh isn't good.....

So we change the Coach, and the next one Zach still isn;t good, so we change the QB, and the Coach still isn't good, so we change the Coach, and the new QB still isn't good, etc, etc, etc.

I think you have to be able to evaluate a QB, and a Coach, independently, for the things they specifically do and are responsible for.

I don't think you gave Zach Wilson 5 years, and two Coaching regimes, before making a decision on if he sucks or not.

You don't have to.  If Zach sucks with Saleh you have to fire Saleh.  You bring in the best Offensive HC you can and he makes the decision with Douglas if Douglas survives.   The Giants are doing exactly that with Jones right now.    

[FidelioJet]

9 hours ago, Fantasy Island said:

Zach and MW had the same number of great games last year: 1

Zach: Tennessee

MW: Cincinnati 

So,  the real question is do we have potential FQB in either one?  Probably not because one gets all the reps and the other is 3rd string.  One just gets paid more and is younger.

Gardener Minschew would be good here and is young enough to build a consistency with the offense.  

Somebody has to eat crow and it won’t be JD.  

 

I would much rather see Srteveler play.  He had a great half of football and deserves the chance.  

 

[jgb]

41 minutes ago, Warfish said:

How much time.

For a team without a FQB, I believe this is the primary question.  How long do you wait and give a guy not producing to "get it".  How long to you expect fans to tolerate a QB learning on the job and sucking/being non-competative?

If there is a central disagreement amongst Jet Fans and JN, it is this, the debate over "how long".

Some of us think you know what a guy is after a relatively short period.  Definitely < 2 Full Seasons.

Some folks think that the team owes a guy three full seasons.  Or even four full season, before they can be "sure".

And we have some outliers who think they know after 2 games, or conversely, still think we "can't be sure" on Mark Sanchez, Geno Smith and Sam Darnold, lol.

So this really is the key question, for fans and our patience/understanding, and for the organization (who should be better at knowing what a guy is faster than we fans do, to be fair).

I say after two full seasons, you know exactly what a player is or isn't going to be within a few % points of total accuracy.  That includes if the guy in question is fragile, and not available enough.  I could see three seasons for a fringe case, a guy hovering around or just below the mid-tier of QB's in terms of production quality, but not quite making the leap yet to top 15 or better.  What I cannot understand is the waiting on a guy if that guy is basically the worst in the league a la Sam Darnold or Wilson year 1. 

The odds of a guy being the worst QB in the NFL in his first year or two becoming a FQB is basically nil.

And for those who want to wait, why do they react so violently to the mere suggestion of bringing in some legitimate backup plan? No reason jets shouldn’t have started to hedge their bets after seeing last season by at least attempting to bring in a Trubisky or Minshew.

 

[Dunnie]

And for those who want to wait, why do they react so violently to the mere suggestion of bringing in some legitimate backup plan? No reason jets shouldn’t have started to hedge their bets after seeing last season by at least attempting to bring in a Trubisky or Minshew.
 

There is absolutely zero sense to ruffling feathers over adding backup talent ... even highly skilled backup talent.

I am always for drafting young talented QBs ... it simply affects the game more than any other position.

If Zach turns into an elite passer ... hes not going to care who you bring in. If he is developing and your dealt a stud that leap frogs him... that is a great problem to have.

Even if Zach is playing well ... now you have assets worth a lot to either keep at a low cost or trade.

It's good business and smart for the team.

I'm never for blocking the improvement of a position.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[Cyberjet]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

How much time.

For a team without a FQB, I believe this is the primary question.  How long do you wait and give a guy not producing to "get it".  How long to you expect fans to tolerate a QB learning on the job and sucking/being non-competative?

If there is a central disagreement amongst Jet Fans and JN, it is this, the debate over "how long".

Some of us think you know what a guy is after a relatively short period.  Definitely < 2 Full Seasons.

Some folks think that the team owes a guy three full seasons.  Or even four full season, before they can be "sure".

And we have some outliers who think they know after 2 games, or conversely, still think we "can't be sure" on Mark Sanchez, Geno Smith and Sam Darnold, lol.

So this really is the key question, for fans and our patience/understanding, and for the organization (who should be better at knowing what a guy is faster than we fans do, to be fair).

I say after two full seasons, you know exactly what a player is or isn't going to be within a few % points of total accuracy.  That includes if the guy in question is fragile, and not available enough.  I could see three seasons for a fringe case, a guy hovering around or just below the mid-tier of QB's in terms of production quality, but not quite making the leap yet to top 15 or better.  What I cannot understand is the waiting on a guy if that guy is basically the worst in the league a la Sam Darnold or Wilson year 1. 

The odds of a guy being the worst QB in the NFL in his first year or two becoming a FQB is basically nil.

This is the year. If you see inconsistency no ability to read progressions then you know. Mac Jones can do his progressions fairly well. That is a given but he’s limited talent wise. 
 

so we shall see

[Warfish]

4 hours ago, Biggs said:

You don't have to.  If Zach sucks with Saleh you have to fire Saleh.  You bring in the best Offensive HC you can and he makes the decision with Douglas if Douglas survives.   The Giants are doing exactly that with Jones right now.    

If Saleh goes, Wilson also goes.

[Facts]

 

[jeremy2020]

There was already a thread on this. Good luck.

 

[Hal N of Provo]

You don’t say?   Thanks for this brand new information! 

[Facts]

Just now, Hal N of Provo said:

You don’t say?   Thanks for this brand new information! 

I seem to always be a day or two behind.

[Drums]

7 minutes ago, Facts said:

I seem to always be a day or two behind.

#facts

[Dunnie]

Seriously ... wtf .... old news taken out of context ... a rookie supporting the guy that will be throwing him the ball has nothing to do with Zach Wilson ... there was no comparative.

[Fantasy Island]

Please don't post anything that might disparage our number 2 overall draft pick.

[jetspenguin]

On 8/15/2022 at 12:29 PM, 92ShaunEllis92 said:

That commentary by G. Wilson only validates the concern that some have voiced here regarding Zachary:

He needs to sit and learn so as to see how to properly operate the offense and NOT feel that he has to be Superman at QB, while a veteran QB can help develop the young playmakers : G Wilson, E. Moore, Conky, Berrios, B Hall, M Carter, Ruckert, etc. - who don’t have to adjust to a neophyte forcing things and stunting the growth and cohesion of the offense. 
 

You don’t need fastballs all the time, a change-up can be just as efficient as long as it gets to the receiver at the proper spot. 

 

[jetspenguin]

I dont think I've seen anyone mention this but maybe he is throwing those balls so hard because he is recognizing things a split second later than Flacco and therefore has to put more zip on the ball to get it there. Flacco having better recognition and understanding what the defense is trying to do isnt making decisions at the last possible second and therefore doesnt have to push the ball down the field as hard as Zack does. 

[Flea Flicking Frank]

On 8/16/2022 at 7:37 AM, Warfish said:

How much time.

For a team without a FQB, I believe this is the primary question.  How long do you wait and give a guy not producing to "get it".  How long to you expect fans to tolerate a QB learning on the job and sucking/being non-competative?

If there is a central disagreement amongst Jet Fans and JN, it is this, the debate over "how long".

Some of us think you know what a guy is after a relatively short period.  Definitely < 2 Full Seasons.

Some folks think that the team owes a guy three full seasons.  Or even four full season, before they can be "sure".

And we have some outliers who think they know after 2 games, or conversely, still think we "can't be sure" on Mark Sanchez, Geno Smith and Sam Darnold, lol.

So this really is the key question, for fans and our patience/understanding, and for the organization (who should be better at knowing what a guy is faster than we fans do, to be fair).

I say after two full seasons, you know exactly what a player is or isn't going to be within a few % points of total accuracy.  That includes if the guy in question is fragile, and not available enough.  I could see three seasons for a fringe case, a guy hovering around or just below the mid-tier of QB's in terms of production quality, but not quite making the leap yet to top 15 or better.  What I cannot understand is the waiting on a guy if that guy is basically the worst in the league a la Sam Darnold or Wilson year 1. 

The odds of a guy being the worst QB in the NFL in his first year or two becoming a FQB is basically nil.

This is a great question.

I don't think there is a universal answer for how long, and I don't think we the fans can answer that question. Its easy for us to sit back frustrated and say we want good QB play, we do, and we get frustrated when we don't get it. For example, on a given play, what are the QB's instructions and responsibilities, and what % of the time are they doing that, and is that number improving or not. We can look at a play and say QB sucks, and they may, but there could be 3 other things wrong on that given play that broke down that arent clear to us. This is why the coaching staff is so critical. They are the only ones who can make this assessment, not us. They have the intimate details we don't have. They can observe whether a guy is improving or not. If a guy is not improving, you probably have to cut your losses quicker than a guy who is improving. Rate of improvement matters a lot too.

BUT, there is so much we don't see and so much we don't take into consideration.

I am of the opinion that until you have a FQB, you should always be looking out to get one. At the same time, they don't grow on trees and they are not easy to come by. Drafting another QB high or anywhere is not a high probability to get you one, so likely change for change sake doesn't solve anything only appeases angry fans temporarily until the next guy sucks.

It may make everyone happy who hates Wilson and didnt want him drafted in the first place to give up on him and move on, but that is not necessaril;y what is in the best interest of the franchise. 

The HC and the coaching staff matters a lot here. I don't even want to debate systems, talent, teaching, those all matter a lot, but at the end of the day if a QB is not producing to the point you want them to, can you trust your staff to make this evaluation. If you can't, you have a major problem. They are the ones with the detail and the data. If you have a staff you can trust, you trust them to give the QB as much time as they feel they need to make the observation, as I would with a Reid type guy. If you don't trust them and think you the fan knows better, your problem is likely bigger than just the QB and it is at the HC level.

This is what cracks me up about everyone who has Wilson dead and buried and wants to move on. They spend oodels of time bitching about Wilson, yet zero time complaining about the staff that is giving him the time.

 

[Warfish]

3 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

BUT, there is so much we don't see and so much we don't take into consideration.

I want to drill down on this comment, specifically.  Because I see it alot as a defense of poor performing players.

Let me be very clear:  I do not care.  I do not care one little whiff for "what I don't see".

Because "what I don't see" does not matter.

Zach could a HOF'er behind the scenes in fans-barred hidden practice....but it's what he does in games that matters and ONLY what he does in games that matter.

We fans see everything that counts:  The Games.  The actual, meaningful, record-kept results of actual meaningful play on the field.

And ultimately, all the endless hot air I, and everyone here, spews about it, NFL players either do, or do not, produce.  Everyone everywhere can find an excuse why they don't, it does not matter.  You must produce.

If they do, they get paid and can stay.  If they do not, they're gone, and no amount of excuse making and/or rational reasoning for why they failed in games that count will save them.

So I don't agree that this point has any real-world validity.

We see what counts, and what counts is all that matters.

[Flea Flicking Frank]

4 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I want to drill down on this comment, specifically.  Because I see it alot as a defense of poor performing players.

Let me be very clear:  I do not care.  I do not care one little whiff for "what I don't see".

Because "what I don't see" does not matter.

Zach could a HOF'er behind the scenes in fans-barred hidden practice....but it's what he does in games that matters and ONLY what he does in games that matter.

We fans see everything that counts:  The Games.  The actual, meaningful, record-kept results of actual meaningful play on the field.

And ultimately, all the endless hot air I, and everyone here, spews about it, NFL players either do, or do not, produce.  Everyone everywhere can find an excuse why they don't, it does not matter.  You must produce.

If they do, they get paid and can stay.  If they do not, they're gone, and no amount of excuse making and/or rational reasoning for why they failed in games that count will save them.

So I don't agree that this point has any real-world validity.

We see what counts, and what counts is all that matters.

Your entitled to not care, as most fans don't care, but to be honest, its a very uneducated from a football perspective, perspective. An NFL offense to function properly has to be like a well oiled machine with 11 pieces all doing their job. If a few of those pieces are not doing their job, on any given play, its a problem. its very easy to blame the QB, they get all the credit when things are going well and all the blame when things arent going well, but if a WR is supposed to make a read and doesnt make that read, or is supposed to run a very specific timing route, and doesnt, it will reflect badly on the QB when it may not be the QB's fault at all.

I want to be crystal clear, I am not excusing anyone, my personal feeling is Wilson doesnt see the field very well, and cannot read the defense very well, and makes a lot of mistakes.

There is no doubt in my mind that ZW is making a lot of mistakes, but I was specifically answering the question how long do they get to prove they have something.

Lets say for argument sake that a rookie QB is making a mistake on 60% of his plays, in the form of bad read, or bad throw. Lets say a FQB makes a mistake on 35% of his plays, and an elite QB is making a mistake on only 25% of those plays.

From a data point, how is my rookie QB trending is probably the most important thing in figure out if they can be the guy. 

If they go from 60% to 50% in year 1, and from 50 to 45 in year 2, that is still not a FQB, but its showing learning and progress, vs. a guy who goes from 60 to 50 and then reverts from 50 to 55.

So while you don't care, and you don't have to, the evaluators do have to care and damn better well understand that. None of us have a damn clue on any of this, and this is the stuff that really matters.

 

[FidelioJet]

On 8/16/2022 at 6:34 AM, Cyberjet said:

I don’t think you guys are disagreeing. You don’t think Wilson will figure it out where’s he’s optimistic he will and if so will be a top tier QB. That’s my hope BUT I too worry about his processing ON the field. In the classroom he has it all in his head, but down on the field it’s a different perspective and it’s paramount he makes quick decisions (the right ones). I worry that he doesn’t make the progressions quick enough in real time. Still he needs more time to show us what he can do or not do

I think this is a very fair take.

He has the natural talent, has the work ethic and it sure does seem like he gets it in the film room...and so far what we see is someone whose in game reaction time is a split second behind where it needs to be.  Right now he's thinking too much instead of just reacting (which isn't an easy fix)

With that said, I believe reps solve that problem if the commitment is there.  Just like muscle memory, it will come - he just needs time to work it through.  

I also think last year, toward the end of the year he was much better at it - he simplified things for himself and it made a world of difference.  I'm confident that by the end of this year we'll know we have our QB.

[section314]

12 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I want to drill down on this comment, specifically.  Because I see it alot as a defense of poor performing players.

Let me be very clear:  I do not care.  I do not care one little whiff for "what I don't see".

Because "what I don't see" does not matter.

Zach could a HOF'er behind the scenes in fans-barred hidden practice....but it's what he does in games that matters and ONLY what he does in games that matter.

We fans see everything that counts:  The Games.  The actual, meaningful, record-kept results of actual meaningful play on the field.

And ultimately, all the endless hot air I, and everyone here, spews about it, NFL players either do, or do not, produce.  Everyone everywhere can find an excuse why they don't, it does not matter.  You must produce.

If they do, they get paid and can stay.  If they do not, they're gone, and no amount of excuse making and/or rational reasoning for why they failed in games that count will save them.

So I don't agree that this point has any real-world validity.

We see what counts, and what counts is all that matters.

I think we all agree on that point. What is always the sticking point is how much time does a guy get to produce? Many here have seen Zach play 13 games, and decided he has to go. Others, me included, believe you need 2-3 years, unless the evidence is overwhelming that he is not getting better. In any sport, you get better with more practice, and hopefully that shows with production in the games.  The fact he is missing significant practice time again may very well be his undoing here, and Saleh basically said that after the successful surgery. If you are not available, you might as well not be here.

[FidelioJet]

23 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

Your entitled to not care, as most fans don't care, but to be honest, its a very uneducated from a football perspective, perspective. An NFL offense to function properly has to be like a well oiled machine with 11 pieces all doing their job. If a few of those pieces are not doing their job, on any given play, its a problem. its very easy to blame the QB, they get all the credit when things are going well and all the blame when things arent going well, but if a WR is supposed to make a read and doesnt make that read, or is supposed to run a very specific timing route, and doesnt, it will reflect badly on the QB when it may not be the QB's fault at all.

I want to be crystal clear, I am not excusing anyone, my personal feeling is Wilson doesnt see the field very well, and cannot read the defense very well, and makes a lot of mistakes.

There is no doubt in my mind that ZW is making a lot of mistakes, but I was specifically answering the question how long do they get to prove they have something.

Lets say for argument sake that a rookie QB is making a mistake on 60% of his plays, in the form of bad read, or bad throw. Lets say a FQB makes a mistake on 35% of his plays, and an elite QB is making a mistake on only 25% of those plays.

From a data point, how is my rookie QB trending is probably the most important thing in figure out if they can be the guy. 

If they go from 60% to 50% in year 1, and from 50 to 45 in year 2, that is still not a FQB, but its showing learning and progress, vs. a guy who goes from 60 to 50 and then reverts from 50 to 55.

So while you don't care, and you don't have to, the evaluators do have to care and damn better well understand that. None of us have a damn clue on any of this, and this is the stuff that really matters.

 

Yes, it's a process.  And he MUST show growth and growth in the areas that matters.

So if you start at one level - you must continue to show steady progress toward the FQB level.

Each QB will start from a different point - which it's why it's hard to compare rookie QB vs. rookie QB's.  They'll all start from a different place.

What we need to see from Zach is steady growth - and enough growth to believe he's capable of becoming a FQB.

Last year we saw Zach evolve and solve the biggest concerns from earlier in the season.  That should be good news.  

Now, just not throwing INT's and throwing for 150 yards isn't enough this year.  He needs to play smart, not turn the ball over as much yet move the ball downfield and score TD's.  He doesn't need to be Rodgers this year - but needs to show enough for us to believe he's capable of getting near that level.

[Flea Flicking Frank]

4 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

Yes, it's a process.  And he MUST show growth and growth in the areas that matters.

So if you start at one level - you must continue to show steady progress toward the FQB level.

Each QB will start from a different point - which it's why it's hard to compare rookie QB vs. rookie QB's.  They'll all start from a different place.

What we need to see from Zach is steady growth - and enough growth to believe he's capable of becoming a FQB.

Last year we saw Zach evolve and solve the biggest concerns from earlier in the season.  That should be good news.  

Now, just not throwing INT's and throwing for 150 yards isn't enough this year.  He needs to play smart, not turn the ball over as much yet move the ball downfield and score TD's.  He doesn't need to be Rodgers this year - but needs to show enough for us to believe he's capable of getting near that level.

I really think the ones who show the most impatience are the ones who didnt want to draft him in the first place and wanted someone else, they want to be quick to be right and maintain their street cred. 

Its very frustrating developing a QB, and not only that, most of the time it doesnt work out, and this is why I think the real emphasis has to be on the coaching staff to know what they are dealing with and decide if a guy is worth giving time to or not. If the coaching staff messes that up, its more on them than the QB in my opinion and its even a lesser probability that they will somehow get it right with the next guy. 

[FidelioJet]

6 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

I really think the ones who show the most impatience are the ones who didnt want to draft him in the first place and wanted someone else, they want to be quick to be right and maintain their street cred. 

Its very frustrating developing a QB, and not only that, most of the time it doesnt work out, and this is why I think the real emphasis has to be on the coaching staff to know what they are dealing with and decide if a guy is worth giving time to or not. If the coaching staff messes that up, its more on them than the QB in my opinion and its even a lesser probability that they will somehow get it right with the next guy. 

Completely agree.  There are people here that didn't want him and it's the gloating and taking victory laps that I have the problem with.  The refusal to accept anything positive.  It just destroys any reasonable discourse.

With that said, I also agree developing a QB is very hard to do - Jets seem to be doing all the right things this year.  While as the same time, last year, considering how raw he was and the youth/talent they were putting on the field - Zach probably shouldn't have started week 1.

To your last point - I would love to see JD get an extension just so he doesn't feel tied to ZW and will move on quickly if he doesn't believe he's the guy.  But we'll also know if he's sticking with him it's not just to protect his job but because he believes he's capable of getting there.

[Biggs]

Did Wilson just confirm that our injury prone QB throws hospital balls?

[Flea Flicking Frank]

8 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

Completely agree.  There are people here that didn't want him and it's the gloating and taking victory laps that I have the problem with.  The refusal to accept anything positive.  It just destroys any reasonable discourse.

With that said, I also agree developing a QB is very hard to do - Jets seem to be doing all the right things this year.  While as the same time, last year, considering how raw he was and the youth/talent they were putting on the field - Zach probably shouldn't have started week 1.

To your last point - I would love to see JD get an extension just so he doesn't feel tied to ZW and will move on quickly if he doesn't believe he's the guy.  But we'll also know if he's sticking with him it's not just to protect his job but because he believes he's capable of getting there.

Personally I was on record wanting Fields over Wilson, not necessarily because I thought he was a better prospect, but because I see him as a dual threat and that leading to earlier success than Wilson who also can run but not nearly as effectively as Fields. To me, Fields should be the even bigger concern right now largely becuase even with that dual threat, he was only marginally better if any better than Wilson, and the dual threat keeps defenses more honest. But even with that, its so damn early and the QB position is so damn hard that I don't think any conclusions can be made on any of these guys yet.

My concern with giving JD an extension is, he did hire Saleh and this staff with zero experience developing a QB. I really, really wanted a staff in here with some experience with the QB position if we were going to draft a rookie QB. I generally like JD's personnel moves, although they have yet to really turn into anything but I have liked his strategy as a whole. But I really questioned Saleh hire and still do

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

Your entitled to not care, as most fans don't care, but to be honest, its a very uneducated from a football perspective, perspective. An NFL offense to function properly has to be like a well oiled machine with 11 pieces all doing their job. If a few of those pieces are not doing their job, on any given play, its a problem. its very easy to blame the QB, they get all the credit when things are going well and all the blame when things arent going well, but if a WR is supposed to make a read and doesnt make that read, or is supposed to run a very specific timing route, and doesnt, it will reflect badly on the QB when it may not be the QB's fault at all.

I want to be crystal clear, I am not excusing anyone, my personal feeling is Wilson doesnt see the field very well, and cannot read the defense very well, and makes a lot of mistakes.

There is no doubt in my mind that ZW is making a lot of mistakes, but I was specifically answering the question how long do they get to prove they have something.

Lets say for argument sake that a rookie QB is making a mistake on 60% of his plays, in the form of bad read, or bad throw. Lets say a FQB makes a mistake on 35% of his plays, and an elite QB is making a mistake on only 25% of those plays.

From a data point, how is my rookie QB trending is probably the most important thing in figure out if they can be the guy. 

If they go from 60% to 50% in year 1, and from 50 to 45 in year 2, that is still not a FQB, but its showing learning and progress, vs. a guy who goes from 60 to 50 and then reverts from 50 to 55.

So while you don't care, and you don't have to, the evaluators do have to care and damn better well understand that. None of us have a damn clue on any of this, and this is the stuff that really matters.

 

But again, I'll come back to my core point:  What happens in practice is 100% irrelevant if it cannot be effectively replicated in games.  This is a general view, not in any way Zach specific.

So if the "Evaluators" are basing anything on practice, they're damn well doing it wrong!

There is this excuse-making argument that these "evaluators" are seeing tons more than us, because they see practice.  But ultimately, practice doesn't count, it exists only to prepare players for the Games that do count.  If a guy balls out in practice, and sucks in games, that guy sucks.  And the evaluators should A. try to figure out why and B. if they can't or it doesn't change, move on.

The entire basis of the middle argument you're making is theorizing that Player X is fine, but literally everyone around him is making mistakes.  Yes, evaluators should take that into consideration, but it's a bit of a fantasy hypothetical.  These are all NFL Pros.  Not the Bad News Bears.  If everyone around Player X does nothing but make mistakes making Player X look bad, then the GM who signed all those other players needs to be fired.  But again, it's fantasy, Player X is not blameless for his own errors just because some folks want to throw the entire team under the bus to protect him.

Great posts btw.  While I disagree, I very much respect your though processes here, great stuff.

[Biggs]

2 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

Personally I was on record wanting Fields over Wilson, not necessarily because I thought he was a better prospect, but because I see him as a dual threat and that leading to earlier success than Wilson who also can run but not nearly as effectively as Fields. To me, Fields should be the even bigger concern right now largely becuase even with that dual threat, he was only marginally better if any better than Wilson, and the dual threat keeps defenses more honest. But even with that, its so damn early and the QB position is so damn hard that I don't think any conclusions can be made on any of these guys yet.

My concern with giving JD an extension is, he did hire Saleh and this staff with zero experience developing a QB. I really, really wanted a staff in here with some experience with the QB position if we were going to draft a rookie QB. I generally like JD's personnel moves, although they have yet to really turn into anything but I have liked his strategy as a whole. But I really questioned Saleh hire and still do

Saleh was the hot candidate and we hired him immediately.   I wouldn't be so sure that Woody's fingerprints weren't all over that hire.  

[nycdan]

TLDR

Flacco isn't going to bang my mom's best friend in the tunnel during half-time.