Which of the following would you rather have? What would you trade a trade was needed? Would they start on opening day?
I fully believe our future starter is on our roster and I'm not going to decide between Brett or Kellen until camp and preseason starts.
Should be more of a multiple choice poll. I want to start someone we have, but if by some miracle Sanchez falls to us I would draft him in a heartbeat.
I figured I would get a community idea of what we would want for the team. Didn't think it would be a big deal guys. I'm all for Byron Leftwich, I think getting a vet QB would be a great idea.
Sorry for being a douche earlier but I've got serious Cutler fatigue...Personally I dont want to bring in a shit veteran. Go ahead with what we've got. See if any of these guys has what it takes...if nothing comes of it we'll handle it in 2010. Lets be honest...we're not making a run at a Superbowl this year anyway so lets just test the waters.
Oh i didn't mind the thread, just the structure a little. Don't let us assholes, myself very much included, get you down, we can be tough on people in the offeseason. :smile:
Stick with what we have, give the guys a opportunity, it's the cheapest option and could turn out to be the best option. All for staying in house on this one.
Garcia as a backup would be ideal. If we would have had him last year, we would be drafting a lot later than #17.
all you have to do is read the all the other threads JUST LIKE THIS ONE... if sanchez falls to 17.. you have to draft him.. and he will join competition for starting QB this season.. if not.. you go either Ratliff or Clemens.. simple as that.. we arent taking byron, garcia, or anyone else on the wire cause they're old.. we cant keep substituting QBs every year.. cause then we would be in the same predicament we are in now.. EVERY OFFSEASON.. if Ratliff and Clemens don't work out.. we def draft a QB next season..
I think Byron Leftwich is the best free agent option out there. He'd be given the opportunity to win the job here and it's probably his best chance at a starting job.
I do not understand this obsession with signing a "vet" QB. These guys are usually available because they've proven that they suck. If we go through all three of the QBs we have, and they are all terrible, then the season is already over and one of these JAGs is not going to save it. But if one of the QBs already on the roster lights it up, then the Jets are set at QB for a long while. Signing a player proven to be at best mediocre just because he's played for awhile is a complete waste of time.
It's common football sense. Every team wants a guy with a ton of experience for when the young stud goes down. You may lose some flash on offense, but it is better to have a proven game manager to mitigate some of the damage. Examples: -Testeverde on the Pats, Panthers, and 2nd Jets stint. -Johnson in Dallas/Minny -Harrington (I know) in Atlanta -Collins in Tennessee - just goes to show how well a vet backup can do -Leftwich in Pitt -Rosenfels in Houston/Minny The #2 QB is usually one of 3 guys: 1. a young guy being groomed for the starter role (think Eli behind Kurt) 2. a young guy that has already been relegated to backup duty behind a stud (Sorgi) 3. an old dude ready to "not lose" in case the stud (starter) goes down. We don't have a Kurt, or a Peyton, so that puts in boat #3. We need a vet game manager for if our youngins go down, or just plain suck.
If he's going to join the competition and there is potential for him not to start, why do we HAVE to draft him? You can do a lot of things with the number 17 pick, we still don't have a number one receiver. You say we can't keep substituting QB's every season, but you want to draft a quarterback to compete for the starting spot instead of using one of the two guys we have on our roster now who know the system and who have been working hard to prove doubters wrong? I'd rather draft a quarterback at number 17, when were in the position that we need a guy to come in and start right away, and have some kind of impact similar to matt ryan. But why take a guy at number 17 to be one of 3 quarterbacks competing for the job? Rex has already said he sees our potential start already on our roster, and the players respect ratliff and clemens.
i would take derek anderson for a late rounder... he's been to the pro bowl and is young... why not for a late rounder
Agreed! As Rex pointed out, for those people looking for a veteran QB, look no further than our new QB coach Matt Cavanaugh (http://www.newyorkjets.com/news/articles/show/2884--coach-cavanaugh-has-familiar-ring-to-it).
SO WE'RE NOT IN A POSITION TO DRAFT A QB RIGHT NOW?.. What have Clemens or Ratliff shown you to make you think we don't need a QB.. and of course our vet players are showing respect to the QBs there not going to publicly bash them.. The potential that Sanchez has .. he is a steal at 17.. yeah we need other positions like WR and a solid HB that can carry a huge load.. but we need a QB.. bottom line.. our division is stacked.. if we risk it with KC or BR.. and it doesn't work out.. look forward to a 4-12 record..
If that happens, which i don't think it will, we can also look forward to possibly a Sam Bradford, or a Jimmy Clausen in next years draft then :wink:
