I'm Still Not Sold On Zach Wilson

[Warfish]

23 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

You would also made up your mind about Lawrence through 22 games.

Have I?  That's news to me.

I certainly didn't think Lawrence was a "generational" prospect during that draft cycle, no.  

I don't recall making any broad definitive comments on Lawrence as a pro QB.  

23 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

 And the historic-level bust is funny, look at Elways numbers well past 22 games they’re worse.  His numbers are nowhere near historic 

Elway's first two years:  24 starts, 337 for 639 (52.7%), 4,261 passing yards, 25 TD, 29 INT, Team was 16-8 in games he started.

Wilson's first two years:  22 starts, 345 for 625 (55.2%), 4,022 passing yards, 15 TD, 18 INT, Team was 8-14 in games he started.

Patrick Ramsey's first 23 starts:  465 for 836 (55.6%), 5,370 passing yards, 33 TD, 28 INT, Team was 9-14 in games he started.

Elway's early production numbers certainly weren't great (even by the different era that was the mid-80's), same as Zach's, same as Patrick Ramsey's.   Unlike Wilson, Elway wasn't benched, and went on to a very solid (for the era) year in his third season as starter, with two Pro Bowl seasons in his 4th and 5th years. 

As noted in the post you quoted, anything is possible.  Could Wilson be the next Elway?  Sure, it's possible.

But I'd argue he is far closer to being the next Patrick Ramsey, whose starting QB career was effectively over after those 23 starts, same as Wilson as it stands today, than he is to Elway.  Wilson is unlikely to have a 16 start, great season in his third year, like Elway did, or to be a pro bowl starting QB in 2024, his fourth year, as Elway did.

But if you'd like to make an argument that Wilson is more like Elway than Ramsey, and that we should believe Wilson's future will be more like Elway's than Ramsey's, by all means, please do so.  Again, I have my opinions, but I don't begrudge those who hold different opinions, and I enjoy reading and reacting to those different viewpoint's takes.

[WeCantDraftGoodQBs]

13 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

Yeah, and I’m guessing someone who came up with your name wouldn’t have an anti ZW agenda.

Or did your wife come up with it?  😂

As I wrote my wife does not know anything about football, the draft, or who ZW is, except that I take his name in vain a lot when I watch him play (but she has heard of Aaron Rodgers). I came up with my name when I joined the Jet Nation after watching Zach’s rookie season.
 

Generally speaking it’s probably not a good idea to talk about other peoples wives (or mothers if your not married) in a football forum.

But you do have excellent deductions skills because you deduced that I am not a big ZW fan after seeing the name I choose is “We Can’t Draft Good QB’s”.

I’m sorry if I offended your boy Zach after all his stellar QB play since we drafted him with our top pick.

 

[Biggs]

13 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Have I?  That's news to me.

I certainly didn't think Lawrence was a "generational" prospect during that draft cycle, no.  

I don't recall making any broad definitive comments on Lawrence as a pro QB.  

Elway's first two years:  24 starts, 337 for 639 (52.7%), 4,261 passing yards, 25 TD, 29 INT, Team was 16-8 in games he started.

Wilson's first two years:  22 starts, 345 for 625 (55.2%), 4,022 passing yards, 15 TD, 18 INT, Team was 8-14 in games he started.

Patrick Ramsey's first 23 starts:  465 for 836 (55.6%), 5,370 passing yards, 33 TD, 28 INT, Team was 9-14 in games he started.

Elway's early production numbers certainly weren't great (even by the different era that was the mid-80's), same as Zach's, same as Patrick Ramsey's.   Unlike Wilson, Elway wasn't benched, and went on to a very solid (for the era) year in his third season as starter, with two Pro Bowl seasons in his 4th and 5th years. 

As noted in the post you quoted, anything is possible.  Could Wilson be the next Elway?  Sure, it's possible.

But I'd argue he is far closer to being the next Patrick Ramsey, whose starting QB career was effectively over after those 23 starts, same as Wilson as it stands today, than he is to Elway.  Wilson is unlikely to have a 16 start, great season in his third year, like Elway did, or to be a pro bowl starting QB in 2024, his fourth year, as Elway did.

But if you'd like to make an argument that Wilson is more like Elway than Ramsey, and that we should believe Wilson's future will be more like Elway's than Ramsey's, by all means, please do so.  Again, I have my opinions, but I don't begrudge those who hold different opinions, and I enjoy reading and reacting to those different viewpoint's takes.

Elway first year starting was year 2.  15th in yards, 11 in TD's and 17 in QBR.  Not remotely as bad as Zach on a comparative basis to the league.  Ramsey only started 11 games.  He was 17th in QBR.  19th in TD's and 23 in yards.  On a comparative basis blows Zach away.  

[Jet Nut]

9 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Have I?  That's news to me.

I certainly didn't think Lawrence was a "generational" prospect during that draft cycle, no.  

I don't recall making any broad definitive comments on Lawrence as a pro QB.  

Said you would have because he didn’t turn his game around until the middle of last season.  I haven’t said anything other than that and only to say it can take more than 20 games to decide who is this mythical historic bust we talk about.  I get it.  He’s a Jet so it has to be historical, he can’t just be a bust.

Elway was benched in his first season, have no idea about year 2.  Have no idea why Ramsey was added in.  The point was Elways production sucked too.  To dispute ZW not being alone struggling to grasp the pro game.  

[Warfish]

4 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Have no idea why Ramsey was added in.

Yes you do.  You're a smart guy.

4 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

 The point was Elways production sucked too.

Not as bad as Zach.  I'll refer you to Biggs post above.

4 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

 To dispute ZW not being alone struggling to grasp the pro game.  

I've never said he was "alone" in struggling.

[Jet Nut]

16 minutes ago, WeCantDraftGoodQBs said:

As I wrote my wife does not know anything about football, the draft, or who ZW is, except that I take his name in vain a lot when I watch him play (but she has heard of Aaron Rodgers). I came up with my name when I joined the Jet Nation after watching Zach’s rookie season.
 

Generally speaking it’s probably not a good idea to talk about other peoples wives (or mothers if your not married) in a football forum.

But you do have excellent deductions skills because you deduced that I am not a big ZW fan after seeing the name I choose is “We Can’t Draft Good QB’s”.

I’m sorry if I offended your boy Zach after all his stellar QB play since we drafted him with our top pick.

 

If it’s not a good idea to talk about wives and mothers on a football forum I’d respond with it’s a better idea not to bring them up, quote them on a football forum.  Just like a sense of humor on a forum would help.

I'm offended by nothing fans say about ZW.  He’s far from being my boy.

[Jet Nut]

1 minute ago, Warfish said:

Yes you do.  You're a smart guy.

I’m tired of going there, we all miss on these things.  Not going to bust balls over PR. 😆 

3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Not as bad as Zach.

Come on he completed under 50% of his passes in year 1 and 56 in year 2.  At best they’re comparably mediocre. 
 

 

5 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I've never said he was "alone" in struggling.

I think we forget how many have historically

[Claymation]

1 minute ago, Warfish said:

An interesting comparison, as I've been a "wait and see" guy on Becton all along, albeit not overly optimistic he would return to his full potential.  

I've "made up my mind" in terms of evaluating what I've seen from Wilson to-date, absolutely.  So far, he's a historic-level bust, one of the worst producing top-picked QB's in NFL history.  He has exposed several serious mechanical flaws in his game, and a level of immaturity at times that is concerning for future growth.  For him to overcome these things after 2 seasons would be near-on unprecedented.  As much as folks like to compare, this isn't a Steve Young or Peyton Manning type of situation.  This is far closer to a Russel Wilson or Akili Smith situation, and the odds of Wilson becoming a FQB is about the same as it was for Russel Wilson and Akili Smith.  Even Geno is a bad example as a Wilson analogue, because it took Geno several teams and multiple years to find his spot in Seattle.  

Nothing is impossible.  To be clear.  But some things are alot more likely than not likely.  For Zach Wilson to 1. overcome a historic bust beginning to his career, 2. to then have a massive turnaround to FQB quality, and 3. to do that for the same team that drafted him, not some other team, is simply a very, very unlikely outcome.  Possible, absolutely.  Likely, I'd argue no.

As noted, he is here in 2023 primarily because the ramifications of cutting/trading him weren't worth it.  That, and I've argued that JD (may, possibly) still believe in "his guy, his pick" Wilson, and wants to give him every opportunity to (frankly) validate JD's selection of him.

But ultimately, a decision point is coming, and that is the end of the 2024 season when Zach will become a Free Agent.  Until then, he's our backup QB, and I hope we never see him, because I hope Rodgers plays every snap at QB this year and does so at a Super Bowl/League MVP level, which he's done in the past.  Wilson's future will work itself out in time, and we'll see who was right and who was wrong, dead horses, kicking, etc.

Depends on how you define "opportunity to succeed", as many Wilson advocates would say the FO give him no chance to succeed in his first two seasons here.

With that said, I agree with you.  He's being given a very rare opportunity here given his first two seasons, to still be here, to be the backup, and do so under a HOF'er who seems willing to help try and salvage his future.  

JD has tried to rectify his mistakes in the past, and has parted ways with players that failed to live up to his expectation of them. Mims and Moore come to mind. So, I don't think ego has anything to do with his decision to keep Zach. Financial ramifications has some say in why he is here, They could have shipped him out for a low round pick. I guess JD and the CS will decide if Zach will be around next year.

I believe a 1st time OC was a mistake to try develop a young QB given they have a defensive HC.

[Biggs]

12 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

I’m tired of going there, we all miss on these things.  Not going to bust balls over PR. 😆 

Come on he completed under 50% of his passes in year 1 and 56 in year 2.  At best they’re comparably mediocre. 
 

 

I think we forget how many have historically

There is no comparison between Elway year 2 and Zach year 2.  Elway was miles better.  You have to compare them to the league at the time.  Elway's 56.3 put him at 14 in the NFL.  Zach Wilson 54.5 put him 34th in 2022.  Zach would be sucking on a binky if he had to start a game in the 80's.

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, Jet Nut said:

I’m tired of going there, we all miss on these things.  Not going to bust balls over PR. 😆 

😁

1 hour ago, Jet Nut said:

Come on he completed under 50% of his passes in year 1 and 56 in year 2.  At best they’re comparably mediocre. 

Again, I'll refer back to Biggs post earlier than put the Era-specific comparative aspect out there, which I think was very informative.

1 hour ago, Jet Nut said:

I think we forget how many have historically

I don't think so.  

If you can name a starting QB was the ~32nd in the league overall in most metrics for his first two seasons as a full-time starter, , who then went on to be a FQB, and then make a logical case for why that QB, and Wilson, are similar in factual and specific ways, I'd listen to that comparison.

[JoeNamathsFurCoat]

ZW is still here because he’s a Rodgers sycophant, they’re buddies now, and Rodgers likes him

If Rodgers told Douglas he wanted ZW gone, he’d be dealt or cut ASAP

[The Crusher]

2 hours ago, PFSIKH said:

It would also take Zappe one season to get you Caleb Williams.  

Yikes!!! Stop it, your scaring me!!

[jgb]

2 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

I think we forget how many have historically

And I think you’ve forgotten how many of those guys never became good.

[jgb]

16 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

Yeah, and I’m guessing someone who came up with your name wouldn’t have an anti ZW agenda.

Or did your wife come up with it?  😂

Another word for “agenda” is “motive.” Humans have a motive for everything they consciously do. Otherwise, why do them?

[jgb]

3 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

You would also made up your mind about Lawrence through 22 games.  And the historic-level bust is funny, look at Elways numbers well past 22 games they’re worse.  His numbers are nowhere near historic 

See, you talk of certainties. We talk in probabilities. Lawrence’s odds to become a star declined his rookie  year, but not to zero. Handicapping something is not “making up one’s mind” about that thing.

I’m reminded once at work I told my boss there was a 30% chance of a good outcome of an audit and a 70% chance of a bad outcome. The good outcome happened. He said “See, you were wrong.”

[jgb]

3 hours ago, Warfish said:

We all want the same thing, a Jets Super Bowl title.

We simply may not all agree on the best route to get there/obtain that outcome.

I, for one, would never, ever tell say, a Denzel Mims fan, that they "were rooting for the Jets to fail" because they really liked a really crappy player.  I trust they were being honest, and truly thought (at the time) that Mims was going to become good, and be a real help. 

I don't go directly to "they must be out to sabotage the Jets because they are a non-fan troll!!! No one with half a brain could like a crappy player like Mims!".

And yet, that is exactly what many Wilson (and this isn't limited to Wilson, we heard the same about Darnold, Geno, Sanchez, even from a rare few, Hackenberg!) advocates say to those who do not share their view that Wilson is X, Y or Z.

It's all a bit silly, really.   

This place should be called Logicalfallacynation.com

[Jet Nut]

8 minutes ago, jgb said:

See, you talk of certainties. We talk in probabilities. Lawrence’s odds to become a star certainly his rookie  year, but not to zero. Handicapping something is not “making up one’s mind” about that thing.

I’m reminded once at work I told my boss there was a 30% chance of a good outcome of an audit and a 70% chance of a bad outcome. The good outcome happened. He said “See, you were wrong.”

I honestly don’t care about your probabilities.  Because I’ve never said a word indicating he will develop, have said until I’m blue in the face the odds are long. 

[jgb]

Just now, Jet Nut said:

I honestly don’t care about your probabilities.  Because I’ve never said a word indicating he will develop, have said until I’m blue in the face the odds are long. 

Then why are you agreeing so disagreeably?

[Jet Nut]

18 minutes ago, jgb said:

And I think you’ve forgotten how many of those guys never became good.

I think you’ve forgotten the endless conversations we’ve had on the subject.  

[jgb]

Just now, Jet Nut said:

I think you’ve forgotten the endless conversations we’ve had on the subject.  

I wish 

[Jet Nut]

1 minute ago, jgb said:

Then why are you agreeing so disagreeably?

I didn’t, you jumped in and decided to repeat yourself

[Warfish]

4 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

I honestly don’t care about your probabilities.  Because I’ve never said a word indicating he will develop, have said until I’m blue in the face the odds are long. 

So other than "anything is possible", what point have you been trying to make in all these many Zach-related-discussion threads/posts, almost all of which have been to disagree with "probabilities" people?

Because in truth, we might all be missing that point.

[Jet Nut]

Just now, jgb said:

I wish 

Then stop yourself from responding as if I need you assistance and are going to be swayed your posts that I don’t need 

[jgb]

1 minute ago, Jet Nut said:

I didn’t, you jumped in and decided to repeat yourself

And whenever I hear people talking about flat earth, I cite Eratosthenes who lived in 255 B.C.

[jgb]

Just now, Jet Nut said:

Then stop yourself from responding as if I need you assistance and are going to be swayed your posts that I don’t need 

I decline your request 

[jgb]

3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

So other than "anything is possible", what point have you been trying to make in all these many Zach-related-discussion threads/posts, almost all of which have been to disagree with "probabilities" people?

Because in truth, we might all be missing that point.

He thinks Zach has an 8% chance to be a franchise guy. We think 5%. Obviously we are haters.

[Jet Nut]

2 minutes ago, Warfish said:

So other than "anything is possible", what point have you been trying to make in all these many Zach-related-discussion threads/posts, almost all of which have been to disagree with "probabilities" people?

Because in truth, we might all be missing that point.

If you haven’t grasped the posts saying odds are long but long odds aren’t he sucks, will always suck or has no chance of improvement i don’t what to tell you 

[jgb]

Just now, Jet Nut said:

If you haven’t grasped the posts saying odds are long but long odds aren’t he sucks, will always suck or has no chance of improvement i don’t what to tell you 

You do know what odds, mean, right?

[Warfish]

6 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

If you haven’t grasped the posts saying odds are long but long odds aren’t he sucks, will always suck or has no chance of improvement i don’t what to tell you 

I guess "anything is possible" really is your only point on the subject.  Cool.

Although I think one can imply your view form the fact you have hundreds of posts denouncing the JGB/Jets80/Warfish "probabilities/stat analysis"-based doubters viewpoint, and not a single post (far as I can find or recall) denouncing anyone who takes the positive view and says Zach will (not may, will) still be a good/great QB in the league.

So while you may never have "said he will develop", your post history sure shows a clear and unquestionable alignment with the "he will still develop" side of the discussion.

But who knows.  Anything is possible.

[jgb]

Just now, Warfish said:

I guess "anything is possible" really is your only point on the subject.  Cool.

You can’t prove there isn’t a teapot orbiting the Sun beyond Jupiter therefore you concede it is as likely as not.

Hat tip, Bertrand Russell.

[Jet Nut]

16 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I guess "anything is possible" really is your only point on the subject.  Cool.

Although I think one can imply your view form the fact you have hundreds of posts denouncing the JGB/Jets80/Warfish "probabilities/stat analysis"-based doubters viewpoint, and not a single post (far as I can find or recall) denouncing anyone who takes the positive view and says Zach will (not may, will) still be a good/great QB in the league.

So while you may never have "said he will develop", your post history sure shows a clear and unquestionable alignment with the "he will still develop" side of the discussion.

But who knows.  Anything is possible.

You have lots of posts where I indicate the odds are he will become a FQB, where the odds aren’t against him?  And for some unknown reason I need to act like those of you who feel the need to denounce with anyone who takes a positive view, who says Zach will be a great QB

And that leads you to believe I think the odds aren’t against him?  I’m done

[jgb]

Just now, Jet Nut said:

You have lots of posts where I indicate the odds are he will become a FQB, where the odds aren’t against him?

More disagreeable agreement.

Just now, Jet Nut said:

And for some unknown reason I need to act like those of you who feel the need to denounce with anyone who takes a positive view, who says Zach will be a great QB

“Will become a great QB?” That would be as arrogant as saying it’s “impossible” that he becomes one. Although the latter is a lot more likely than the former.

Just now, Jet Nut said:

And that leads you to believe I think the odds aren’t against him?

Because you don’t like it when other people say the odds are against it.

[SoFlaJets]

All I know is thank God that Tim Boyle was brought back today

[Jet Nut]

15 minutes ago, jgb said:

Because you don’t like it when other people say the odds are against it

No, I don’t, i don’t like the idea that smash odds = 0 odds. 
And have said it, you’re just not listening 

 

[Pac]

I've ignored this thread but have to ask..  Why is there a 10 page thread on fooking Zippy?