SoFlaJets Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 Teams May Sacrifice Wins To Develop Quarterbacks Football By MICHAEL DAVID SMITH August 20, 2007 When he was head coach of the Jets, Herman Edwards famously declared, "You play to win the game." That straightforward six-word sentence became the title of Edwards's 2004 book, and a rallying cry for players. It earned Edwards affection from some fans, who cheered him for it, and it earned him derision from other fans, who mocked him for it. But as seemingly obvious as Edwards's statement was, it wasn't completely true. Edwards now coaches the Kansas City Chiefs, one of a handful of NFL teams that are currently debating whether they'll truly play the 2007 NFL season to win as many games as they can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 Totally in agreement here. Sometimes in order to better your franchise you have to start the young guy, give him a year or two to learn the system and then when you return to being a playoff calibear team, you will be even better and have a much better shot at reaching the Super Bowl. I would not mind sitting through a 7-9 '07 and a 9-7 '08 to be around 11-5, 12-4 in '09 and going foward for a Super Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetCane Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 If the Jets have a disappointing start to the season and are out of the playoff race in December, coach Eric Mangini will have to consider the option of giving Clemens an opportunity to prove himself. No doubt. If the Jets were to be eliminated from playoff contention it will be Kellen time. But I dont think he is ready to start the first two games against the Pats and Ravens, unless there is a spectacular turn of events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoFlaJets Posted August 21, 2007 Author Share Posted August 21, 2007 Totally in agreement here. Sometimes in order to better your franchise you have to start the young guy, give him a year or two to learn the system and then when you return to being a playoff calibear team, you will be even better and have a much better shot at reaching the Super Bowl. I would not mind sitting through a 7-9 '07 and a 9-7 '08 to be around 11-5, 12-4 in '09 and going foward for a Super Bowl. if the unthinkable happens at least we'd have something to help make the games more watchable-the development of Clemens, Revis, Bender,Leon, Chansi, Wallace and whoever else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Here we are again... we need to find our young guy now... time goes by so quick... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gang_green03 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 This season was pretty much a waste and now we're right back in the same situation. Enough with the veterans. They need to just bite the bullet and get it over with. You can't just keep trying to put a band aid on every year. Eventually, we're gonna have to find a QB that'll be here for a while so we can have some consistancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoFlaJets Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 This season was pretty much a waste and now we're right back in the same situation. Enough with the veterans. They need to just bite the bullet and get it over with. You can't just keep trying to put a band aid on every year. Eventually, we're gonna have to find a QB that'll be here for a while so we can have some consistancy. I ouldn't call it a waste GG03....in fact that winning streak was the most fun I'd had being a Jets fan in a LONG time...the tanking at the end? Perhaps the worst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 This season was pretty much a waste and now we're right back in the same situation. Enough with the veterans. They need to just bite the bullet and get it over with. You can't just keep trying to put a band aid on every year. Eventually, we're gonna have to find a QB that'll be here for a while so we can have some consistancy. Blasphemy!!!!! You hit the nail right on the head. The Jets have been applying band-aids to a gushing wound for the last 5 years in an effort to stay in 2nd. That is why they have roller coaster seasons. They should have did something after 2005, but they stayed status quo and entering 2009, they still have no answers at QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barton Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I said it how many times....Mangini should have cut Chad the moment he became head coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoFlaJets Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 I said it how many times....Mangini should have cut Chad the moment he became head coach. well it's 4 years later Bart and what makes this Jets fan hopeful is the talk about our young QBs with Brett Ratliff's name always seeming to be be mentioned first.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelticwizard Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Isn't this a rather odd time to arrive at general agreement that old quarterbacks should sit if you feel you have a young QB who will develop? The 2006 draft was the Matt Leinart-Vince Young show, with endless speculation about who would be taken first. So what happens? Vince Young gets benched due to a combo of minor injury and ineffectiveness, and old, creaky Kerry Collins leads the team to a great season. Then Kurt Warner, the "stopgap" Leinart was drafted to replace, takes over for a stumbling Leinart and leads his team to the SuperBowl. Have you folks been paying attention this season???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJ Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I said it how many times....Mangini should have cut Chad the moment he became head coach. What are you talking about? Look at what he did for the guppies this year. That was all Chad - he carried that team on his back like the gladiator he is and almost brought them to the promised land. Nevermind the fact that they had to play real football teams then - he's a hero - a hero I tell you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoFlaJets Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 What are you talking about? Look at what he did for the guppies this year. That was all Chad - he carried that team on his back like the gladiator he is and almost brought them to the promised land. Nevermind the fact that they had to play real football teams then - he's a hero - a hero I tell you! LOL nommed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudicus Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Every coach when they start wants a QB, they want their guy and that coach will always be tied to that QB and can seal his fate good or bad. BB will always have Brady, Holmgren and Favre, Coughlin and Manning, Cowher and Big Ben, all these guys brought in their QB said QB won and they were succesful as coaches, had Holmgren stayed in GB he might have won another SB but he chased money and power, Cowher could have stayed in Pitt for another decade but he wanted time off so it bring it to the next. A coach who gets hired and has the next big thing on staff. Tomlin has it with Ben, Dungy got it with Manning, sometime you get lucky and the guy is already there. Herm's guy was Chad who is a good QB but flawed, a solid starter who is not going to single handedly win you a game but as part of a solid balanced team can do good things. We'll never know what this team would be like had Herm not bolted for KC or if we hadn't gone after Favre this year but Chad is not the QB here anymore. When he went to KC he tried to get his guy but like everything Herm is involved with it turned out flawed (although he should know qb's drafted in the 2nd and 3rd round never ever ever work.) Mangini tried to get his guy (a second rounder...) didn't work so like everytime that happens you fall on a vet bandaid to bail you out...he got fired. So now we have a new Coach, a bunch of young guys on roster, a few options out there in in the trade market, and plenty of band aids to give Ryan a year to bring his guy along. Should be interesting to see what he does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Blasphemy!!!!! You hit the nail right on the head. The Jets have been applying band-aids to a gushing wound for the last 5 years in an effort to stay in 2nd. That is why they have roller coaster seasons. They should have did something after 2005, but they stayed status quo and entering 2009, they still have no answers at QB. Pretty much. At least we are forced to address it now rather then relying on mister unreliable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 What are you talking about? Look at what he did for the guppies this year. That was all Chad - he carried that team on his back like the gladiator he is and almost brought them to the promised land. Nevermind the fact that they had to play real football teams then - he's a hero - a hero I tell you! A shed one solitary tear. That was beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason423 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Blasphemy!!!!! You hit the nail right on the head. The Jets have been applying band-aids to a gushing wound for the last 5 years in an effort to stay in 2nd. That is why they have roller coaster seasons. They should have did something after 2005, but they stayed status quo and entering 2009, they still have no answers at QB. Its a trap that the Jets and many other teams get caught in too often. Other than the Chad choice in 2000(and that was only done because the Jets have 4 1st round selections) the Jets have not been willing to risk the QB draft choice since the Ken O'Brien selection 25 years ago. It is very rare that the stopgap veteran works, but its very tempting to go with that option when you think the team has talent and that is what the Jets have done since 1993. Its why Kerry Collins will likely start in Tennessee next season and why the Jets will likely pursue someone like Byron Leftwich. In hindsight the Jets really missed by passing on Jay Cutler. The next time the Jets have a 4 win season my guess is they make a big push to get the QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 whoa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelticwizard Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 This is unbelievable. The SuperBowl features an ancient QB who was supposed to be replaced by a high draft choice, and in Tennessee another celebrated high draft choice gets benched and replaced by yet another vet who leads the team to a great season. In the midst of all this, somebody revives an old thread about how necessary it is to sit the veteran to let the young guy play and learn. Like this whole season didn't happen. And what is it all you guys can talk about? Chad!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelticwizard Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Okay, sorry for the rant above. But I do believe this interesting issue was getting a bit sidetracked. I really don't think there is any good answer to the question of whether to play the vet or take your lumps with the kid for awhile until he learns. Kurt Warner is a case in point. The Giants drafted Eli Manning very high, then got Warner to play for a year while Manning got ready. Warner started out strong, then faded a couple of games and was benched and Manning took over. Manning a couple of years later takes them to the Super Bowl. In retrospect, the Giants think they should have put Manning in from the first game and never bothered with Warner. Playing the young guy was the answer here. Now, several years later, that same Kurt Warner is the QB of a different team and was supposed to be replaced by a hgh draft choice, Matt Leinart. Leinart doesn't respond so they give the job back to Warner and now he has them in the Super Bowl. Obviously, playing the old guy was the right answer here. Same QB, same situation a few years apart, but the answer is completely different each time. There is no single right answer, it can go either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gang_green03 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Okay, sorry for the rant above. But I do believe this interesting issue was getting a bit sidetracked. I really don't think there is any good answer to the question of whether to play the vet or take your lumps with the kid for awhile until he learns. Kurt Warner is a case in point. The Giants drafted Eli Manning very high, then got Warner to play for a year while Manning got ready. Warner started out strong, then faded a couple of games and was benched and Manning took over. Manning a couple of years later takes them to the Super Bowl. In retrospect, the Giants think they should have put Manning in from the first game and never bothered with Warner. Playing the young guy was the answer here. Now, several years later, that same Kurt Warner is the QB of a different team and was supposed to be replaced by a hgh draft choice, Matt Leinart. Leinart doesn't respond so they give the job back to Warner and now he has them in the Super Bowl. Obviously, playing the old guy was the right answer here. Same QB, same situation a few years apart, but the answer is completely different each time. There is no single right answer, it can go either way. It can work either way in the right situation, like most things, but if you want to have a QB that you can consistantly rely on for years you have to draft one. Your example earlier about Warner in the superbowl and Collins leading the Titans is fine, but you didn't mention the Ravens, Falcons, Steelers, Giants, Eagles, Vikings (not the best example lol), Colts, and Chargers. The majority of the teams had their own QB, not a stop gap veteran. Also, in general, the top teams usually are the ones that drafted their own QB, not signed a veteran on the downside of his career. In the Jets situation, despite the nice feeling the mid-season winning streak gave us, we basically remained stagnent this year. Putting on band aids like that doesn't really work unless your team has almost no other weaknesses, other than the one you're filling with the veteran. Eventually you have to get a QB you can count on for a while so you don't have to constantly look to replace him in a year or two. If the Jets had went with Clemens/Ratliff the past season at least you'd know whether or not they were worth the time. Its not like we had a choice cause we were gonna have to see what we have in them at some point so what did we accomplish by putting it off? Like the saying, sometimes you have to take a step back to take a few steps forward. All we really did was step sideways. I just want some consistancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoicsentry Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 . Its not like we had a choice cause we were gonna have to see what we have in them at some point so what did we accomplish by putting it off? In retrospect, it's easy to ask that question. At the time what we gained was perhaps our best chance at the super bowl so far this decade. And don't deny that. At 8-3 after a road victory in Buffalo, a smashing of the Rams and back to back road victories against NE and TEN this team looked super bowl bound. Now? Yes, I agree... It's time to develop one of our own QBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piney Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Totally in agreement here. Sometimes in order to better your franchise you have to start the young guy, give him a year or two to learn the system and then when you return to being a playoff calibear team, you will be even better and have a much better shot at reaching the Super Bowl. I would not mind sitting through a 7-9 '07 and a 9-7 '08 to be around 11-5, 12-4 in '09 and going foward for a Super Bowl. I would love the Jets to develop a QB for the long haul....but with the team they have in place if it takes 2-3 years to get the results we want....well..won't the rest of the team be old farts? Wouldn't last off-season be a waste? Isn't this a rather odd time to arrive at general agreement that old quarterbacks should sit if you feel you have a young QB who will develop? The 2006 draft was the Matt Leinart-Vince Young show, with endless speculation about who would be taken first. So what happens? Vince Young gets benched due to a combo of minor injury and ineffectiveness, and old, creaky Kerry Collins leads the team to a great season. Then Kurt Warner, the "stopgap" Leinart was drafted to replace, takes over for a stumbling Leinart and leads his team to the SuperBowl. Have you folks been paying attention this season???? Excellent point!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Okay, sorry for the rant above. But I do believe this interesting issue was getting a bit sidetracked. I really don't think there is any good answer to the question of whether to play the vet or take your lumps with the kid for awhile until he learns. Kurt Warner is a case in point. The Giants drafted Eli Manning very high, then got Warner to play for a year while Manning got ready. Warner started out strong, then faded a couple of games and was benched and Manning took over. Manning a couple of years later takes them to the Super Bowl. In retrospect, the Giants think they should have put Manning in from the first game and never bothered with Warner. Playing the young guy was the answer here. Now, several years later, that same Kurt Warner is the QB of a different team and was supposed to be replaced by a hgh draft choice, Matt Leinart. Leinart doesn't respond so they give the job back to Warner and now he has them in the Super Bowl. Obviously, playing the old guy was the right answer here. Same QB, same situation a few years apart, but the answer is completely different each time. There is no single right answer, it can go either way. Thats because :Leinart is a ***** and he sucks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I think people need to realize that the first four posts in this thread were from August 2007 It was bumped today for, well, I have no idea what reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I think people need to realize that the first four posts in this thread were from August 2007 It was bumped today for, well, I have no idea what reason. To show that we are back in the same boat years later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoFlaJets Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 I think people need to realize that the first four posts in this thread were from August 2007 It was bumped today for, well, I have no idea what reason. because Ec must be pissed at me for some reason 124 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 because Ec must be pissed at me for some reason 124 Not at all man... not at all... Im pissed at the JETS for making this same pattern over and over... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoFlaJets Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 Not at all man... not at all... Im pissed at the JETS for making this same pattern over and over... I have to admit though, I was excited about Brett Favre when we signed him for two reasons. 1-he ended the Chad Pennington era, which we KNEW had to end b/c he was never gonna win us a SB and 2-It put the Jets in the national spotlight, instead of where we had always been since Namath left...which is an afterthought. Now we KNOW that isn't good enough and we need to develop either Ratliff, Clemens, or Ainge the last good thing that BF did for us is he helped us be rid of a mediocre wannabe for a head coach-that, in the final analysis might be the best thing to come from the failed experiment-hey ya take the good with the bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gang_green03 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 In retrospect, it's easy to ask that question. At the time what we gained was perhaps our best chance at the super bowl so far this decade. And don't deny that. At 8-3 after a road victory in Buffalo, a smashing of the Rams and back to back road victories against NE and TEN this team looked super bowl bound. Now? Yes, I agree... It's time to develop one of our own QBs. Its easy to look back but the question was asked by myself and others when the trade happened as well. It was fairly obvious that we were gonna be in the same exact situation before the Favre trade once he was done regardless of the seasons outcome. And the fact that this gave us the best chance at a superbowl this decade is more of an indictment on the incompetence of the Jets than a justification for the trade, because it still was a fairly slim chance. There were too many other question marks besides Favre and that's why it was a waste. We sacraficed growing the team to take an unreasonable shot with Favre. When the trade happened almost everyone said we were a lock for the playoffs, but it stopped there. And that was the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJ Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 This is unbelievable. The SuperBowl features an ancient QB who was supposed to be replaced by a high draft choice, and in Tennessee another celebrated high draft choice gets benched and replaced by yet another vet who leads the team to a great season. In the midst of all this, somebody revives an old thread about how necessary it is to sit the veteran to let the young guy play and learn. Like this whole season didn't happen. And what is it all you guys can talk about? Chad!!! C'mon K-Wiz - it's been a few weeks since there has been any real opportunity to Chad Bash. Junkies need their fix - what can I say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancemehl Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 What are you talking about? Look at what he did for the guppies this year. That was all Chad - he carried that team on his back like the gladiator he is and almost brought them to the promised land. Nevermind the fact that they had to play real football teams then - he's a hero - a hero I tell you! Mangini wouldn't be coaching today if not for chad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJ Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Mangini wouldn't be coaching today if not for chad I'm sorry Lance. I often get confused with what you're trying to say in a lot your posts but this one has me completely lost. Can you break this out a little more? I guess the way I'm looking at it is, although 08 was a very disheartening season and year - it was the best one we've had in a long time because we got rid of both of the ass holes mentioned in your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 It's pretty logical for that. Down years would happen to anything when management changes. When you're overhauling personel it would get awkward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelticwizard Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 C'mon K-Wiz - it's been a few weeks since there has been any real opportunity to Chad Bash. Junkies need their fix - what can I say? LOL, my bad. Sorry for coming down so hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.