Double Dipping at QB in the 2023 Draft

[Warfish]

We have the debate every year (not having a franchise QB often leads to out of the box questions), and yet again here we are going into the 2023 Draft.

The question:  With what we have (Wilson) under contract, and no certainty to be able to sign veterans from elsewhere, or even resign Mike White (half of the fanbase doesn't want him), is there any argument to be made for double dipping in the 2023 draft at QB.

QB's reasonable available (as of now) where we pick:

13:  small chance Anthony Richardson (Florida), much higher chance for Will Levis (Kentucky)

43: Hendon Hooker (Tenn)

Later Rounds:  Several guys already being mentioned here at JN by folks, like Duggan (TCU) or McKee (Stanford) etc. 

Of course things can change and these guys move up due to workouts/combine/etc.  And this class is meh (so we hear) compared to the 2024 class.

We all keep saying "you don't have a QB, you're not going to compete, so we keep drafting them till we find one", so why not draft 2 if we can and the prospects have enough upside?

And while I personally favor the Veteran QB route right now, it's possible (albeit we fans will hate it) that Woody actually IS in for the long haul with JD/Saleh, and THEY know it/have been told it, so they can feel comfortable NOT chasing a Veteran to win now, but can stick with building via the draft for the next few years, which would bolster a Wilson is kept, but other QB's are drafted/more shots taken.

Again, not advocating for any specific thing here.  Just asking the question:  Should a team without a FQB REALLY do everything possible trying to find one (picking two), or only part of what they could do (picking one).

Food for debate is all.

[RedBeardedSavage]

5 minutes ago, Warfish said:

We all keep saying "you don't have a QB, you're not going to compete, so we keep drafting them till we find one", so why not draft 2 if we can and the prospects have enough upside?

Again, not advocating for any specific thing here.  Just asking the question:  Should a team without a FQB REALLY do everything possible trying to find one (picking two), or only part of what they could do (picking one).

Food for debate is all.

Can't speak on any of the prospects, but as far as strategy or theory goes, I'm beginning to prefer building the team first before drafting QBs.

Give me a journeyman/solid vet and at least two .500  or better seasons with continuity on the coaching staff, a scheme identity and a working offense I can develop a prospect in as opposed to counting on a savior in the draft.

So no, I do not want to draft two quarterbacks this year. 

[LockeJET]

Take one in every round

[Darnold's Forehead]

I understand SF is a completely different situation, but Brock Purdy was Mr. Irrelevant.  SF has a great roster and good coaching; you don’t need a 1st round QB to succeed.

The roster still needs to be flushed out and I don’t think we can afford spending 2 picks on QBs who won’t contribute during a playoff mandate year.  I would draft one somewhere within rounds 2-4 so he can compete with Zach for #2 & watch whoever we bring in in FA.

First thing’s first, this OL NEEDS to be fixed.  Carr or Jimmy G or whoever will be a waste of money if they have to play behind a similar line next year.

[THE BARON]

25 minutes ago, Warfish said:

We have the debate every year (not having a franchise QB often leads to out of the box questions), and yet again here we are going into the 2023 Draft.

The question:  With what we have (Wilson) under contract, and no certainty to be able to sign veterans from elsewhere, or even resign Mike White (half of the fanbase doesn't want him), is there any argument to be made for double dipping in the 2023 draft at QB.

QB's reasonable available (as of now) where we pick:

13:  small chance Anthony Richardson (Florida), much higher chance for Will Levis (Kentucky)

43: Hendon Hooker (Tenn)

Later Rounds:  Several guys already being mentioned here at JN by folks, like Duggan (TCU) or McKee (Stanford) etc. 

Of course things can change and these guys move up due to workouts/combine/etc.  And this class is meh (so we hear) compared to the 2024 class.

We all keep saying "you don't have a QB, you're not going to compete, so we keep drafting them till we find one", so why not draft 2 if we can and the prospects have enough upside?

And while I personally favor the Veteran QB route right now, it's possible (albeit we fans will hate it) that Woody actually IS in for the long haul with JD/Saleh, and THEY know it/have been told it, so they can feel comfortable NOT chasing a Veteran to win now, but can stick with building via the draft for the next few years, which would bolster a Wilson is kept, but other QB's are drafted/more shots taken.

Again, not advocating for any specific thing here.  Just asking the question:  Should a team without a FQB REALLY do everything possible trying to find one (picking two), or only part of what they could do (picking one).

Food for debate is all.

No secret around here that I like Tanner McKee.  He wont make it past the second round.  I'd like to see the Jets trade down and take McKee. 

[JetPotato]

13 minutes ago, LockeJET said:

Take one in every round

O-linemen, yes.

Drafting a QB with this staff in place is obviously a waste of time. They didn't have a plan in place for the #2 overall pick. I don't think a Brock Purdy type would do anything here anyway until competent offensive coaches are brought in.

[Warfish]

6 minutes ago, THE BARON said:

No secret around here that I like Tanner McKee.  He wont make it past the second round.  I'd like to see the Jets trade down and take McKee. 

Indeed, we had this exchange when you mentioned him before.  While alot can change, he's listed in most places right now as a 5th rounder.

It'll be a heck of a jump if he's a 2nd rounder when all is said and done.

I presume if he's available in the 5th, you'd be happy getting him at that price too, right?

[bostonmajet]

I have no problem picking up a QB in some of the later rounds, but no way I go get a first round QB until this team can prove it can draft and develop a young QB. We picked a QB at the top of the draft in 2018 and 2021 - how did that work out for us? We have drafted like 5 since 2009 and, except for Sanchez, we didn't get anywhere with them.

Fix the coaching and fix the OL then, if necessary, draft a QB in round 1.

Edit: We did okay with Pennington too...

[Barry McCockinner]

I have to think we're going T in R1.

[JiF]

I think the roster is too sh*tty and thin to double dip at QB but I would be totally cool w/ AR in the 1st and a veteran bridge gap that can lead you to .500 or better for 2 years before AR is ready to take over.  In the meantime, figure out the F'ing OL for god sake and go get some pieces to build around Garret Wilson.

 

 

[THE BARON]

6 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Indeed, we had this exchange when you mentioned him before.  While alot can change, he's listed in most places right now as a 5th rounder.

It'll be a heck of a jump if he's a 2nd rounder when all is said and done.

I presume if he's available in the 5th, you'd be happy getting him at that price too, right?

hell yes.  id love to get him in the 5th.  as things play out and the pundits and parrots have their say, i think McKee will wind up being a second rounder.  

[Sammybighead]

I've made this point in several threads.

Any qb you draft you MUST carry on the 53 for at least the first year. If you draft 2 QBs, you'll need to carry 4 qbs all year (which means you have to significantlycut from another position group or 2):

2x rookies

Zach

Someone cheap yet competent (i.e. Mike white, brisset, baker, minshew, insert bum here)

If this regime goes into next year with 2 rookies and zach as the only qb options week 1 on the roster, they all deserve to be fired.

[section314]

The fact that we will probably have to draft another LT high and possibly another  QB after using first round picks on both positions within the last 3 years is just absolutely disgraceful. You couldn’t have tried to do worse.

[section314]

5 minutes ago, JiFields said:

I think the roster is too sh*tty and thin to double dip at QB but I would be totally cool w/ AR in the 1st and a veteran bridge gap that can lead you to .500 or better for 2 years before AR is ready to take over.  In the meantime, figure out the F'ing OL for god sake and go get some pieces to build around Garret Wilson.

 

 

Really be interested to see the WR from TCU(Johnson) tonight.

[Warfish]

1 minute ago, Sammybighead said:

I've made this point in several threads.

Any qb you draft you MUST carry on the 53 for at least the first year. If you draft 2 QBs, you'll need to carry 4 qbs all year (which means you have to significantlycut from another position group or 2):

2x rookies

Zach

Someone cheap yet competent (i.e. Mike white, brisset, baker, minshew, insert bum here)

If this regime goes into next year with 2 rookies and zach as the only qb options week 1 on the roster, they all deserve to be fired.

Zach is not a requirement.  He could be traded or cut (yes there is a cost, cap wise).

Say JD convinces someone to take a 5th round flier on Zach in trade (doubtful, but so was that Darnold trade).

Not so hard then.

Veteran Signed QB.  Draft Pick.  Maybe late round Draft Pick too.  3 QB's, one inactive.

[Sammybighead]

1 minute ago, Warfish said:

Zach is not a requirement.  He could be traded or cut (yes there is a cost, cap wise).

Say JD convinces someone to take a 5th round flier on Zach in trade (doubtful, but so was that Darnold trade).

Not so hard then.

Veteran Signed QB.  Draft Pick.  Maybe late round Draft Pick too.  3 QB's, one inactive.

Agreed. Zach being traded opens the door. But everything they've said it seems like they're intent on having him here. And yes, I get words in January mean nothing but I'm not dealing in hypotheticals.

[JiF]

1 minute ago, Warfish said:

Zach is not a requirement.  He could be traded or cut (yes there is a cost, cap wise).

Say JD convinces someone to take a 5th round flier on Zach in trade (doubtful, but so was that Darnold trade).

Not so hard then.

Veteran Signed QB.  Draft Pick.  Maybe late round Draft Pick too.  3 QB's, one inactive.

I dont hate it since you're essentially throwing that late rounder for Zach you werent expecting in the first place for another development guy.  Though in my scenario and AR is your 1st rounder, that means he is active, which I wouldnt like, he really needs to not be forced into the game. 

What about signing a vet and bringing back Mike White?  Idk if you could make it a competition in camp, I guess that depends on who you sign but give White the opportunity to win it from whoever you sign and if he doesnt, he's a solid back up w/ AR waiting in the wings.

 

[playtowinthegame]

The philosophy always should be to draft one quarterback every year until you have a franchise quarterback. With that said, after watching Joe Douglas draft Joe Morgan and Zach Wilson, I don't want him drafting anymore quarterbacks. 

[OilfieldJet]

I think I could get behind the 2 QB strategy in 2024, maybe, but no way this draft. 

[peebag]

my best guess is no QB is drafted by the Jets.

[Warfish]

1 minute ago, JiFields said:

I dont hate it since you're essentially throwing that late rounder for Zach you werent expecting in the first place for another development guy.  Though in my scenario and AR is your 1st rounder, that means he is active, which I wouldnt like, he really needs to not be forced into the game. 

What about signing a vet and bringing back Mike White?  Idk if you could make it a competition in camp, I guess that depends on who you sign but give White the opportunity to win it from whoever you sign and if he doesnt, he's a solid back up w/ AR waiting in the wings.

 

They're an endless number of scenarios (which I guess makes it fun, right?).

Yours world work, certainly.  If White is willing to stay at low cost.

How about this, the ultimate "try-hard" QB room for 2023:

1. Trade Zach for a 5th

2. Sign Mike White, 2 years, $8M a year.

3. Sign Taylor Heiniecke, 2 years, $8M a year.

4. Draft a QB in Round 1 (whichever you like, Richardson, Levis, Hooker maybe)

5. Draft a 2nd QB in the 5th with the Zach Pick (Duggan maybe?  Pick your developmental long-shot)

Two immediate starters that can fight each other for who starts, with an equally solid (and similar playstyle) backup behind him for the next two years.

Two developmental draft picks, can inactivate both if you like, for after the two try-hards contracts expire and they are "ready".

So many fun theoretical ways to handle this, so few that are sure things to actually work.

Honestly, I'd rather have Heiniecke than White, purely due to durabillity.

[Warfish]

2 minutes ago, peebag said:

my best guess is no QB is drafted by the Jets.

I agree.  I could see a mid-rounder maybe, but that's about it.

What terrifies me is a White/Wilson/Some low-level FA or late Draft Pick QB room for 2023.

That they (the JEts FO) really DOES think Wilson just needs a quiet offseason of study, and he'll be great....

[Sammybighead]

20 minutes ago, Warfish said:

They're an endless number of scenarios (which I guess makes it fun, right?).

Yours world work, certainly.  If White is willing to stay at low cost.

How about this, the ultimate "try-hard" QB room for 2023:

1. Trade Zach for a 5th

2. Sign Mike White, 2 years, $8M a year.

3. Sign Taylor Heiniecke, 2 years, $8M a year.

4. Draft a QB in Round 1 (whichever you like, Richardson, Levis, Hooker maybe)

5. Draft a 2nd QB in the 5th with the Zach Pick (Duggan maybe?  Pick your developmental long-shot)

Two immediate starters that can fight each other for who starts, with an equally solid (and similar playstyle) backup behind him for the next two years.

Two developmental draft picks, can inactivate both if you like, for after the two try-hards contracts expire and they are "ready".

So many fun theoretical ways to handle this, so few that are sure things to actually work.

Honestly, I'd rather have Heiniecke than White, purely due to durabillity.

That works but it's not a game day active/inactive issue. It's carrying 4 on the roster and taking away a spot from another position group. We generally don't carry 4 on the roster. So if you're willing to put the lower round rookie on the practice squad, that's fine. You can protect practice squad players to an extent but I think some other team can eventually sign him to their active roster. 

It's a huge risk going into a make or break regime year with that lineup and also a huge risk practice squadding a qb you drafted in year 1. We're looking at this from a fan perspective, but you need to put on your JD goggles...

[Jet Blast]

We should pick a least one every year. Sooner or later we have to hit on one.

 

Don't we? LOL

[JetPotato]

29 minutes ago, Jet Blast said:

We should pick a least one every year. Sooner or later we have to hit on one.

 

Don't we? LOL

We'll never know, because even if we got a talent capable of being it, who is going to coach him to maximize it?

[August]

No way. If we draft a QB it should be in the mid round. Sign Jimmy G, resign Mike White, sign a Nick Mullins type (with familiarity with the system) to the practice squad, Zach will be our “developmental” QB for 2023. 

[Lith]

I just don't know how a staff could develop two rookies at the same time.  The transition from college to pros is so hard, and we have failed trying to develop a single rookie, I am just not sure how you would have the resource to develop two rookies at the same time.

I would prefer not going QB at all in the draft this season, but that could change after FA.  But I really want to see us build a winning roster around a veteran QB and then look to replace the vet with a draftee, but we don't have to pick that guy this year.

[FactsOnly]

1 hour ago, Darnold's Forehead said:

I understand SF is a completely different situation, but Brock Purdy was Mr. Irrelevant.  SF has a great roster and good coaching; you don’t need a 1st round QB to succeed.

The roster still needs to be flushed out and I don’t think we can afford spending 2 picks on QBs who won’t contribute during a playoff mandate year.  I would draft one somewhere within rounds 2-4 so he can compete with Zach for #2 & watch whoever we bring in in FA.

First thing’s first, this OL NEEDS to be fixed.  Carr or Jimmy G or whoever will be a waste of money if they have to play behind a similar line next year.

Yes you do

thats why they TRADED UP FOR LANCE RIGHT AFTER THEY MADE A SB AND CONF CHAMP

QB IS ALL THAT MATTERS

[rex-n-effect]

Drafting two QBs to openly compete with ZW might make some football sense but for Douglas it would be a sign of failure. It indicates a lack of commitment or confidence in both picks. After failing with a #2 pick at QB Douglas needs to shore up the position, not run high risk experiments. After all, if ZW still isn't great and neither 2023 picks are ready to play, what do you do with the position? Bring in a last minute vet like another Flacco year? You might have four QBs on the roster and none are ready to play in 2024. If you're Douglas, that's an unnecessary risk to a job that might be getting a little warm after this year. 

This reminds me of Washington in 2012 with RG3 and Cousins. They gave up RG3 after his injuries to stick with Cousins and then Cousins split after his rookie contract. They had one .500 year in that five year stretch and they're still looking for a QB who can win more than he loses. Neither QB has ever had warm words about the situation they were put in. The Jets really aren't that different from Washington as an organization. It would be so Jetsy to find a good QB in a mid-round and see him leave and go on to a long successful career elsewhere.

[The Crusher]

2 hours ago, Warfish said:

We have the debate every year (not having a franchise QB often leads to out of the box questions), and yet again here we are going into the 2023 Draft.

The question:  With what we have (Wilson) under contract, and no certainty to be able to sign veterans from elsewhere, or even resign Mike White (half of the fanbase doesn't want him), is there any argument to be made for double dipping in the 2023 draft at QB.

QB's reasonable available (as of now) where we pick:

13:  small chance Anthony Richardson (Florida), much higher chance for Will Levis (Kentucky)

43: Hendon Hooker (Tenn)

Later Rounds:  Several guys already being mentioned here at JN by folks, like Duggan (TCU) or McKee (Stanford) etc. 

Of course things can change and these guys move up due to workouts/combine/etc.  And this class is meh (so we hear) compared to the 2024 class.

We all keep saying "you don't have a QB, you're not going to compete, so we keep drafting them till we find one", so why not draft 2 if we can and the prospects have enough upside?

And while I personally favor the Veteran QB route right now, it's possible (albeit we fans will hate it) that Woody actually IS in for the long haul with JD/Saleh, and THEY know it/have been told it, so they can feel comfortable NOT chasing a Veteran to win now, but can stick with building via the draft for the next few years, which would bolster a Wilson is kept, but other QB's are drafted/more shots taken.

Again, not advocating for any specific thing here.  Just asking the question:  Should a team without a FQB REALLY do everything possible trying to find one (picking two), or only part of what they could do (picking one).

Food for debate is all.

Cool thread, well thought out and done as usual from you. But, it's not really anything that can be seriously discussed, at least by me until we make a coaching change. We need a grown up OC who has young QB developing experience and the flexibility in his system to accommdate the QB as he grows. LaFleur has proved that's not him. Replace him and I'm 100% for a couple after round 1. 

[Warfish]

7 minutes ago, The Crusher said:

Cool thread, well thought out and done as usual from you. But, it's not really anything that can be seriously discussed, at least by me until we make a coaching change. We need a grown up OC who has young QB developing experience and the flexibility in his system to accommdate the QB as he grows. LaFleur has proved that's not him. Replace him and I'm 100% for a couple after round 1. 

I'm sorry my friend, but I don't honestly believe you're going to get the change you want for 2023.

I could always be wrong, but we'll just have to wait and see.  If it doesn't happen soon(ish), it isn't happening.

[Barry McCockinner]

I don't like to speak in absolutes but in this case I will. This won't happen.

[The Crusher]

1 minute ago, Warfish said:

I'm sorry my friend, but I don't honestly believe you're going to get the change you want for 2023.

I could always be wrong, but we'll just have to wait and see.  If it doesn't happen soon(ish), it isn't happening.

I'm well aware brother. I honestly don't see it turning out positive no matter the who, what were we get QB's for next year. I just don't think LaFleur is ready to groom a young QB, his system seems very rigid to what he wants to do as opposed to what his players are good at doing. It's like he learned one way to do it and would rather round peg into a square hole than adapt it.

Best case for LaFleur is we over pay for Jimmy G because he already knows the system and Lafleur can just call plays. If we get a new QB then the upside is we will likely have the second half of the season to do stuff with family next season just like this year. LaFleur is not the man for a new young QB. So you are correct in wanting a vet. 

[HighPitch]

1 hour ago, playtowinthegame said:

The philosophy always should be to draft one quarterback every year until you have a franchise quarterback. With that said, after watching Joe Douglas draft Joe Morgan and Zach Wilson, I don't want him drafting anymore quarterbacks. 

yes on morgan but that was a later round pick.

 

the thing about wilson: if the jets didnt snag him he would have been drafted top 10. thats a fact. so its not like the jets and jd took some unknown oddball with pick #2. It's not like when the giants drafted that qb. the whole league had zach as #2 or 3

[#27TheDominator]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

They're an endless number of scenarios (which I guess makes it fun, right?).

Yours world work, certainly.  If White is willing to stay at low cost.

How about this, the ultimate "try-hard" QB room for 2023:

1. Trade Zach for a 5th

2. Sign Mike White, 2 years, $8M a year.

3. Sign Taylor Heiniecke, 2 years, $8M a year.

4. Draft a QB in Round 1 (whichever you like, Richardson, Levis, Hooker maybe)

5. Draft a 2nd QB in the 5th with the Zach Pick (Duggan maybe?  Pick your developmental long-shot)

Two immediate starters that can fight each other for who starts, with an equally solid (and similar playstyle) backup behind him for the next two years.

Two developmental draft picks, can inactivate both if you like, for after the two try-hards contracts expire and they are "ready".

So many fun theoretical ways to handle this, so few that are sure things to actually work.

Honestly, I'd rather have Heiniecke than White, purely due to durabillity.

I don't think you carry 4 QBs.  One of those guys is on the practice squad.  That means if he looks like a solid developmental prospect, the 1st team with injuries will poach him.  I don't have a problem with the general idea, I just don't think this is the year.  I think they should try to bring White back and I think they are stuck with Wilson.  If you have too many guys to develop it is like having none.