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

[Cyberjet]

1 hour ago, section314 said:

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.

I really think if Wilson gets in the games this year the Jets will know by the halfway point or maybe slightly later. True tests come against teams like NewEngland and Buffalo- they disguise and force you to go through your progressions quickly. Also I think it was Tom Brady said 3/4 of the time he knows which receiver is getting the ball as he sets up at the line of scrimmage - so many times it’s not progression but recognition. That is why sometimes it looks like they are reading their progressions rapidly but in reality they already know the 3rd option is getting the ball

[Flea Flicking Frank]

2 minutes ago, Warfish said:

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.

Always appreciate the dialogue and very much appreciate the respectful difference of opinions, these are the things that make message boards fantastic.

To be clear, I am not really talking about practice, I am really talking about games and what is happening in games. I also generally agree that what they do in practice doesnt matter unless they are doing it in games. The only slight exception I will make is I think how a player goes about practice is important from the standpoint of, if a guy doesnt take practice serious enough, and use it to learn, they have very litle chance of ever succeeding at the QB position. But being great in practice does not translate to games, doesnt mean squat. In the same sense, throwing int's in practice or even pre season doesnt necessarily bother me, they are supposed to learn their limits, and their reads and learn from it.

What I find extremely complicated in todays NFL is the cap and rookie deals just don't give you enough time to really develop a QB that is improving but slowlly. They really need to get it by the end of year 2 or its a very tough sell to bring them in for year 3. This used to not be the case, and a guy like Eli Manning was about 6 games away in year 4 from being replaced and is now a HOF'er (arguably). 

I really believe that there needs to be a quantifiable way of measuring progress and learning for a young QB.

To be clear, every QB in the NFL makes mistakes, even all time greats make big mistakes. But they make fewer mistakes and more big plays. My argument is never to deflect from the QB, but to understand quantifiably if they are developing or not. In some ways we can see that, but we are fans who want to win, and don't want to deal with stupid mistakes. 

[Flea Flicking Frank]

12 minutes ago, Biggs said:

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.  

Well, yeah, and ultimately, a fish stinks from the head down, and Woody has been the sole common denominator of sh*ttiness for the last 25 or so years, and its for the reasons you state. Woody is a nightmare owner

[Warfish]

10 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

What I find extremely complicated in todays NFL is the cap and rookie deals just don't give you enough time to really develop a QB that is improving but slowlly. They really need to get it by the end of year 2 or its a very tough sell to bring them in for year 3. This used to not be the case, and a guy like Eli Manning was about 6 games away in year 4 from being replaced and is now a HOF'er (arguably). 

Two Quick Points:  

1. A QB Drafted #2 overall isn't a developmental prospect nor should he be.  He is expected to produce immediately.  If he can't, he shouldn't be the 2nd overall pick.

2. With that said, you absolutely CAN sit a drafted QB.  But Fans never want that, they scream for the kid and insta-hate the Vet in front of him, because too many fans take the asinine "It's not about winning games, it's about my dreamy young QB and his huge swollen potential!" viewpoint.  Mahomes sat.  It can be done, but it takes a sane fanbase and a strong GM/Head Coach and proper planning (i.e. a Veteran to play whose better than the kid at the start).  Starting year 2 doesn't ruin a 5-year contract kid in any way.

[FidelioJet]

On 8/16/2022 at 8:21 AM, jgb said:

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.

 

I'm all for bringing in a quality back up.  QB can't handle that type of pressure he's probably not the QB you want.

But there is a question of allocation of resources.  If you think Wilson is your guy this year - do you want to spend $10mm on a back up QB or would your rather a high quality swing tackle or Safety etc?

[Flea Flicking Frank]

6 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Two Quick Points:  

1. A QB Drafted #2 overall isn't a developmental prospect nor should he be.  He is expected to produce immediately.  If he can't, he shouldn't be the 2nd overall pick.

2. With that said, you absolutely CAN sit a drafted QB.  But Fans never want that, they scream for the kid and insta-hate the Vet in front of him, because too many fans take the asinine "It's not about winning games, it's about my dreamy young QB and his huge swollen potential!" viewpoint.  Mahomes sat.  It can be done, but it takes a sane fanbase and a strong GM/Head Coach and proper planning (i.e. a Veteran to play whose better than the kid at the start).  Starting year 2 doesn't ruin a 5-year contract kid in any way.

maybe I won't be quick, but will try not to write a book...

1) IMO, Yes and no, the QB position in college is so different now compared to the NFL than it used to be, hence the learning curve is very different too. I kind of think its more about upside than it is ability to produce right away. I think the majority of "experts" thought Mac Jones was the most ready to produce immediately of the top 5 QB's selected, but with a lot less upside, and was drafted what 4th of the 5?

2) I completely agree with this one! And if ever there was a guy who should have sat year 1 it was Wilson, coming from a small school offense with a very different style of offense, he was the guy. 49ers did it with Lance.

[Warfish]

8 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

maybe I won't be quick, but will try not to write a book...

1) IMO, Yes and no, the QB position in college is so different now compared to the NFL than it used to be, hence the learning curve is very different too. I kind of think its more about upside than it is ability to produce right away. I think the majority of "experts" thought Mac Jones was the most ready to produce immediately of the top 5 QB's selected, but with a lot less upside, and was drafted what 4th of the 5?

2) I completely agree with this one! And if ever there was a guy who should have sat year 1 it was Wilson, coming from a small school offense with a very different style of offense, he was the guy. 49ers did it with Lance.

Comes back to something I always say:  Rookie QB's need to compete, against someone legit (not a glass jaw JAG), and they must EARN their playing time.  Examples abound, especially here in NY, where that wasn't done, the draft pick was shoved in before they were really ready, and the results were predictably awful. 

But again, we'd have to free ourselves from the very loud, very demanding portion of the media and fanbase who thinks spending a single $ on anything other than their beloved dreamy rookie is akin to murdering the team with mismanagement, that competition is evil an unnecessary, that draft slot = merit to start, and likes to tell folks that any doubt that the rookie can start day 1, no matter how bad he is, is akin to traitorousness against the team.

Developing a Sam Darnold is quite a bit easier and when you have a Kirk Cousins holding down the fort for a few years at a legit pro level of performance, and you never have to be a 2-4 win team because of it.  And yes, as it turns out, we could in fact have afforded both.

[FidelioJet]

41 minutes ago, Warfish said:

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.

I have to ask because I'm not really sure I understand your point. 

Are you suggesting coaches should not be evaluating players? And what they see in practice should have no determination on who plays and how much?

I mean, I agree - ultimately whoever performs best on game days should play - but I suspect there's almost a direct correlation between the two.  Guys that practice well, then get shots in games, if they produce they play more. 

When dealing with QB's there are more variables as they eventually have to take their lumps in games - really only way to learn in todays NFL (with the CBA basically not allowing any real game simulations) But watching a QB day-in and day-out you should get a sense of that QB's skill-set.

I mean why not start Strevelar then? He showed he can win on game days - different league but he won championships?  Or is he lacking in some trait that coaches recognize is unlikely to translate to NFL success? 

Honestly, I'm asking sincerely as I just don't get the point.

[section314]

32 minutes ago, Cyberjet said:

I really think if Wilson gets in the games this year the Jets will know by the halfway point or maybe slightly later. True tests come against teams like NewEngland and Buffalo- they disguise and force you to go through your progressions quickly. Also I think it was Tom Brady said 3/4 of the time he knows which receiver is getting the ball as he sets up at the line of scrimmage - so many times it’s not progression but recognition. That is why sometimes it looks like they are reading their progressions rapidly but in reality they already know the 3rd option is getting the ball

Good post. Missing all this practice time, especially the joint practices and scrimmages will really hurt in the recognition learning curve. 

[Cyberjet]

43 minutes ago, section314 said:

Good post. Missing all this practice time, especially the joint practices and scrimmages will really hurt in the recognition learning curve. 

Totally agree. He has the smarts - need to know if it translates to the field and that can only develop with continued exposure and experience. Then you know. Sitting on the sidelines and studying film only gets you so far. 
 

 

[Warfish]

45 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

I have to ask because I'm not really sure I understand your point. 

Ok.

45 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

Are you suggesting coaches should not be evaluating players?

No, I am not.

45 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

And what they see in practice should have no determination on who plays and how much?

Nope.  

45 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

I mean, I agree - ultimately whoever performs best on game days should play - but I suspect there's almost a direct correlation between the two.

For most yes, for some, maybe not.

45 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

 Guys that practice well, then get shots in games, if they produce they play more.

Generally, yes.

45 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

When dealing with QB's there are more variables as they eventually have to take their lumps in games

Not until they've taken their lumps, and overcome them, in practice.  With competition.

45 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

- really only way to learn in todays NFL (with the CBA basically not allowing any real game simulations) But watching a QB day-in and day-out you should get a sense of that QB's skill-set.

I do not agree. 

I think people say that in order to rationalize/defend their overly aggressive rush to play the exciting kid early, and to dump any competition against him, since many (most) fans hate veterans or anything they see as not a "future elite, special, dreamy, studly godlike generational star!".

Again, the Jets cap could have afforded both Kirk Cousins and Sam Darnold for several years.

45 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

I mean why not start Strevelar then? He showed he can win on game days - different league but he won championships?

The "different league" is quite a material issue.

45 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

 Or is he lacking in some trait that coaches recognize is unlikely to translate to NFL success?

You tell me, you're the one who sees all the "traits" Zach possesses that warranted immediate starting with no legitimate backups or competition permitted, and resulted in the worst QB production in the NFL last year.

45 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

Honestly, I'm asking sincerely as I just don't get the point.

The point is to win games.

Not "let a guy take lumps" so maybe he might potentially win games in a theoretical future, maybe.

If your guy needs to take those lumps, he can do it behind someone who is already producing at an NFL level.

For example, last year Zach Wilson was not ready at all to play at the NFL level.  His career path would have been improved sitting behind a Minshew, Garrapolo, Cousins, Trubisky, name your preferred 2nd tier Vet. 

Maybe he'd be ready now.  Maybe not.  But we would be better as a team, and win more games.

And winning games is the only purpose of sports.  Not 4-dimensions chess future planning.

[JoeNamathsFurCoat]

Quote

Also I think it was Tom Brady said 3/4 of the time he knows which receiver is getting the ball as he sets up at the line of scrimmage - so many times it’s not progression but recognition.

These are the 2 basic ways to teach it.

#1

The intelligent, elite QBs like Peyton, A-Rod, and Brady rely mainly on pre-snap recognition, which gives them a good idea where they are going to go with the ball, which mismatch to attack, etc. based on what look the defense is showing, down and distance context, defensive personnel strengths and weaknesses, DC playcalling tendencies, etc.

#2

For rookies and QBs like Darnold who have no clue what they are looking at, they teach more of the "paint by numbers" approach. 

For any given play, there is a fixed read progression of primary, secondary, etc.  The QB doesn't need to count players in the box, worry about audibling out of a bad play, try to diagnose the defensive look, or anything like that, which would be too overwhelming for a young / inexperienced / mentally challenged QB.

In practice, for real QBs, it's a combination of both, but with most of the real work done in terms of pre-snap recognition.  They still need to be able to read and adjust post-snap in real time obviously, as their pre-snap ideas may be wrong, a WR might slip on a route, the defense might bust a coverage, or whatever, etc.

From hearing Saleh and LaFleur talk (and by watching Wilson's play on the field), they have clearly been trying to train him in method #2.

[Adoni Beast]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

Two Quick Points:  

1. A QB Drafted #2 overall isn't a developmental prospect nor should he be.  He is expected to produce immediately.  If he can't, he shouldn't be the 2nd overall pick.

2. With that said, you absolutely CAN sit a drafted QB.  But Fans never want that, they scream for the kid and insta-hate the Vet in front of him, because too many fans take the asinine "It's not about winning games, it's about my dreamy young QB and his huge swollen potential!" viewpoint.  Mahomes sat.  It can be done, but it takes a sane fanbase and a strong GM/Head Coach and proper planning (i.e. a Veteran to play whose better than the kid at the start).  Starting year 2 doesn't ruin a 5-year contract kid in any way.

Both points are spot on.

With a year under his belt + a full NFL offseason and training camp I think it’s fair to say by season’s end this organization will know if Zack is the guy or time to look for an upgrade.

[Cyberjet]

The only way to know if Wilson is an NFL QB is to play him this year - win lose or draw. Get a full body of work - no excuses. 

[Adoni Beast]

7 minutes ago, Warfish said:

The point is to win games.

Not "let a guy take lumps" so maybe he might potentially win games in a theoretical future, maybe.

If your guy needs to take those lumps, he can do it behind someone who is already producing at an NFL level.

For example, last year Zach Wilson was not ready at all to play at the NFL level.  His career path would have been improved sitting behind a Minshew, Garrapolo, Cousins, Trubisky, name your preferred 2nd tier Vet. 

Maybe he'd be ready now.  Maybe not.  But we would be better as a team, and win more games.

And winning games is the only purpose of sports.  Not 4-dimensions chess future planning.

Absolutely right. Add the fact that this FO + CS can’t afford to have Zack suck AND lose games.

If Zack sucks and they start Flacco/White and actually end up around .500 both groups have a shot at staying another year +.

[Cyberjet]

2 minutes ago, JoeNamathsFurCoat said:

These are the 2 basic ways to teach it.

#1

The intelligent, elite QBs like Peyton, A-Rod, and Brady rely mainly on pre-snap recognition, which gives them a good idea where they are going to go with the ball, which mismatch to attack, etc. based on what look the defense is showing, down and distance context, defensive personnel strengths and weaknesses, etc.

#2

For rookies and QBs like Darnold who have no clue what they are looking at, they teach more of the "paint by numbers" approach. 

For any given play, there is a fixed read progression of primary, secondary, etc.  The QB doesn't need to count players in the box, try to diagnose the defensive look, or anything like that, which would be too overwhelming for a young / inexperienced / mentally challenged QB.

In practice, for real QBs, it's a combination of both, but with most of the real work done in terms of pre-snap recognition.  They still need to be able to read a defense and adjust in real time obviously, as their pre-snap ideas may be wrong, a WR might slip on a route, the defense might bust a coverage, or whatever, etc.

From hearing Saleh and LaFleur talk (and by watching Wilson's play on the field), they have clearly been trying to train him in method #2.

Nice post. Hopefully if #2 is successful they incorporate #1 intellect into their game. #2 is very difficult to be consistent for the reasons you give

[Cyberjet]

In my opinion the nfl defenses are too fast and too strategic to rely on #2. Recognition is the key

[FidelioJet]

20 minutes ago, Warfish said:

The point is to win games.

Not "let a guy take lumps" so maybe he might potentially win games in a theoretical future, maybe.

If your guy needs to take those lumps, he can do it behind someone who is already producing at an NFL level.

For example, last year Zach Wilson was not ready at all to play at the NFL level.  His career path would have been improved sitting behind a Minshew, Garrapolo, Cousins, Trubisky, name your preferred 2nd tier Vet. 

Maybe he'd be ready now.  Maybe not.  But we would be better as a team, and win more games.

And winning games is the only purpose of sports.  Not 4-dimensions chess future planning.

This is nice but mostly naive.  

The Jets weren't winning games with team last year - I don't care who the QB was.  With all the love for the back-ups (and there's been a lot of it around here) they went 1-3 - same pace as Wilson - 1 win for every 4 games he played.

Additionally, circumstances matter.  The Jets are no longer rebuilding...

I.e. - for arguments sake - Zach fails miserably or gets a terrible injury.  And then assume they go QB in the first round. I have NO DOUBT they would go out and do everything they can to get the best vet possible in house and let the rookie sit.

Not because they learned a lesson.- but because this team is built to win now - the rebuild is over. Circumstances matter.

[Cyberjet]

Agree. Whoever mans this team has no excuses ( unless the defense craps the bed)

[DonCorleone]

On 8/15/2022 at 3:00 PM, Bronx said:

I respect your opinion. However, for Garrett to come out publicly with this statement says a lot. 

It also says that he is a rookie that is airing out things that perhaps should only be talked about internally.

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, FidelioJet said:

This is nice but mostly naive.  

The Jets weren't winning games with team last year - I don't care who the QB was.

Neither you nor I know that.  We have no idea what that team would have looked like with a legit veteran QB in place and starting.

1 hour ago, FidelioJet said:

 With all the love for the back-ups (and there's been a lot of it around here) they went 1-3 - same pace as Wilson - 1 win for every 4 games he played.

Because, as noted, there was no QB in place to compete against Zach.  Flacco is a joke.  White and Johnson were journeyman JAG's.

I'd have loved to see that team with a Trubisky or Minshew at QB.  Same as I would now, with Zach down and out yet again.

1 hour ago, FidelioJet said:

I.e. - for arguments sake - Zach fails miserably or gets a terrible injury.  And then assume they go QB in the first round. I have NO DOUBT they would go out and do everything they can to get the best vet possible in house and let the rookie sit.

As they should after failing at drafting a QB several times in a row.

1 hour ago, FidelioJet said:

Not because they learned a lesson.- but because this team is built to win now - the rebuild is over. Circumstances matter.

"Rebuild" is a fans word.  A way of excusing failure and mismanagement.

[FidelioJet]

21 minutes ago, Warfish said:

"Rebuild" is a fans word.  A way of excusing failure and mismanagement.

Again, nice thought but Naive.

It's not a fans word - it's a reality of the way management and ownership look at things.  You might not like it, I can even understand why you don't like, but it is the reality of the league.

There's a reason Jets ownership still love JD even though he's won 11 games in 3 years.

[Warfish]

37 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

Again, nice thought but Naive.

Demanding, not naive.

Unlike you, I do not respect failure, or cheer losing, or get all worked up over "potential".

In this world, results are all that really matter.  You either produce, or you don't.

37 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

It's not a fans word - it's a reality of the way management and ownership look at things.  You might not like it, I can even understand why you don't like, but it is the reality of the league.

It's a way of poorly run franchises. 

Well run franchises never enter  these so-called "rebuilds".

They certainly don't take four years "rebuilding".

What's funny to me is many of our forum bros don't even care if we win in 2022.  Seems many of you enjoy writing off seasons before they ever start, based on the last decade or so.  

Some of you would have loved Stalin, he was a big fan of Five-Year-Plans too.

37 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

There's a reason Jets ownership still love JD even though he's won 11 games in 3 years.

There's a reason the Jets have been a moribund franchise for most of the last two decades.

In my world, JD needs to produce this year too.  His players and drafts need to move the needle on this franchise now.  Not in 2027.

But again, some of you simply love waiting and sucking and waiting and sucking and long as you have a cute milf-banging QB to fantasize about.

[JoeNamathsFurCoat]

45 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

Again, nice thought but Naive.

It's not a fans word - it's a reality of the way management and ownership look at things.  You might not like it, I can even understand why you don't like, but it is the reality of the league.

There's a reason Jets ownership still love JD even though he's won 11 games in 3 years.

The successful franchises in this league never "rebuild" in the sense of gutting the roster and accepting (a priori) pathetic 1-15 or 3-13 type seasons as some kind of necessary pain.

Belichick went 7-9 with a brokedown Cam after Brady left, followed by 10-7 last year.

Mike Tomlin has never had a losing season.

The Jets have been spinning their wheels "rebuilding" since 2016.

[jgb]

5 hours ago, FidelioJet said:

I'm all for bringing in a quality back up.  QB can't handle that type of pressure he's probably not the QB you want.

But there is a question of allocation of resources.  If you think Wilson is your guy this year - do you want to spend $10mm on a back up QB or would your rather a high quality swing tackle or Safety etc?

Where are you getting the $10mm from? No backup has a $10M/year contract except situations where a starter has -- or is in the process of losing -- their starting job like Sam Darnold and Jimmy Garrapolo. A semi-exception is Teddy Bridgwater's contract is worth up to $10M in 2022 with a ton of performance incentives. It's $6.5M guaranteed.

[FidelioJet]

58 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Demanding, not naive.

Unlike you, I do not respect failure, or cheer losing, or get all worked up over "potential".

In this world, results are all that really matter.  You either produce, or you don't.

I recognize realities and believe sometimes you need to take a step backward to take two forward.  This team was a mess and needed to start over.  

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

There's a reason the Jets have been a moribund franchise for most of the last two decades.

In my world, JD needs to produce this year too.  His players and drafts need to move the needle on this franchise now.  Not in 2027.

But again, some of you simply love waiting and sucking and waiting and sucking and long as you have a cute milf-banging QB to fantasize about.

If you're argument is Woody Johnson is a bad owner - I couldn't agree more.   It does seem as though he's handed over control to Joe Douglas - who has proven to be far more competent.

I agree, the Jets need to win games this year.  I believed in the plan from JD and knew two years was necessary to clean up the mess he was left.  This year should require wins.  

With that said I have no interest in losing football, but at the same time I think too many folks around here are quite happy to win between 7 and 10 games each year - make the playoffs twice a decade and lose in the first round.  The way the Jets were going was just that. 

I would MUCH rather take the JD approach and shoot for greatness than settle for consistent mediocrity.

Those touchy mediocrities who sit trembling lest someone's work prove greater than their own - they have no inkling of the loneliness that comes when you reach the top. The loneliness for an equal - for a mind to respect and an achievement to admire.” 
― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

 

[ChewyandtheJets]

On 8/16/2022 at 7:51 AM, 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.  

Name some?

[Shelbyblue]

Young QBs will throw harder to try to make up for the lack of speed getting through reads, when he gets through his reads quicker it will allow for more touch and accuracy. It’s the eyes and the processing of what the defense is doing. Flacco already knows where he’s going before the snap.

[Biggs]

8 hours ago, ChewyandtheJets said:

Name some?

Alex Smith, Bart Starr, Kerry Collins, Rich Gannon, Steve Young, Jeff Hostler, Lyn Dickey, Len Dawson, Jim Plunkett, Kurt Warner, Joe Theisman, Kirk Cousins, Sonny Jurgensen, Drew Brees.  Probably a dozen more but that's off the top of my head.  

[LIJetsFan]

18 hours ago, FidelioJet said:

I'm all for bringing in a quality back up.  QB can't handle that type of pressure he's probably not the QB you want.

But there is a question of allocation of resources.  If you think Wilson is your guy this year - do you want to spend $10mm on a back up QB or would your rather a high quality swing tackle or Safety etc?

QB is THE most important starter on the team.  Better to have 2 shots a having the right guy on the roster.  Damn the cap and get the quality guy.  For example, I would sign Jimmy G in a heartbeat if he somehow becomes available.

I think you only skimp on your backup guy when you KNOW you like your starter.  Unknown territory for this team for decades.       

[FidelioJet]

14 minutes ago, LIJetsFan said:

QB is THE most important starter on the team.  Better to have 2 shots a having the right guy on the roster.  Damn the cap and get the quality guy.  For example, I would sign Jimmy G in a heartbeat if he somehow becomes available.

I think you only skimp on your backup guy when you KNOW you like your starter.  Unknown territory for this team for decades.       

Right now Jimmy G is making $25mm a year.

I'm just curious who all these great #2 QB's you guys wanted the Jets to sign? Who is out there that's going to take this roster to a championship level?

[Biggs]

19 hours ago, Warfish said:

Two Quick Points:  

1. A QB Drafted #2 overall isn't a developmental prospect nor should he be.  He is expected to produce immediately.  If he can't, he shouldn't be the 2nd overall pick.

2. With that said, you absolutely CAN sit a drafted QB.  But Fans never want that, they scream for the kid and insta-hate the Vet in front of him, because too many fans take the asinine "It's not about winning games, it's about my dreamy young QB and his huge swollen potential!" viewpoint.  Mahomes sat.  It can be done, but it takes a sane fanbase and a strong GM/Head Coach and proper planning (i.e. a Veteran to play whose better than the kid at the start).  Starting year 2 doesn't ruin a 5-year contract kid in any way.

The fanbase has zero to do with QB sitting or playing.   The GM puts together the roster and the HC makes the decisions of who plays and when.  

I can assure you the KC fans who arrive at Arrow Head in Ford Trucks who drink bear and lick ribs are no more intelligent and nuanced than Jets fans who arrive at Met Life in leased BMW's  sipping chardonnay and eating caviar on crakers.

Would you mind passing me the Grey Poupon?  

[LIJetsFan]

18 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

Right now Jimmy G is making $25mm a year.

I'm just curious who all these great #2 QB's you guys wanted the Jets to sign? Who is out there that's going to take this roster to a championship level?

I think the Donald vs Mayfield type deal is the right way for us as well.  We do not have a guy we know is a FQB.  Bring in some legit youngish competition.  Let the cream rise to the top.  Rinse and repeat till we find our guy.  No More vet placeholders.

While IMHO Flacco is the better QB on the roster atm, I still do not want guys like Flacco or White who will never be the guy.  If we had a FQB ok skimp on the backup but till then spend spend spend.       

[Trotter]

17 hours ago, DonCorleone said:

It also says that he is a rookie that is airing out things that perhaps should only be talked about internally.

Similar to never tell anyone outside the family what you are thinking.

[FidelioJet]

8 minutes ago, LIJetsFan said:

I think the Donald vs Mayfield type deal is the right way for us as well.  We do not have a guy we know is a FQB.  Bring in some legit youngish competition.  Let the cream rise to the top.  Rinse and repeat till we find our guy.  No More vet placeholders.

While IMHO Flacco is the better QB on the roster atm, I still do not want guys like Flacco or White who will never be the guy.  If we had a FQB ok skimp on the backup but till then spend spend spend.       

And Darnold is making an $18mm base salary this year.  I just don't know who you would want to pay that kind of money to a back up QB.

The point I'm getting at is - who is this QB that's going to win a championship that you can get cheap as a back-up?

I hear you, and I would love to have a great back-up that won't seriously hinder the salary cap.  I'm all for it, I just don't know who that is.