We should never draft a QB just in case the staff gets fired because, you know, nothing is stopping Woody from doing that.
IMO it doesn't matter how long Gailey will be with the team if the Jets get Mariota. I think the kid is smart enough, talented enough, and works hard enough that he could learn any system. I think the important thing for the Jets is how long Bowles and Mac will be here. If the Jets take Mariota, I think that will insure some longevity for those two, and probably for Gailey unless he just gets tired and wants to retire. To suggest that Mariota won't have shown any promise after two years is just plain nuts imo. QB is THE most important position. 100x more important than center or even left tackle. It's much easier to find good players for those two positions than it is QB. If Mac has a chance to take Mariota, passes, and Mariota becomes a star elsewhere (I think he will pretty much be a star wherever he winds up), then Mac won't be here long anyway. Most GMs have a 3-5 year window to find a QB. If the Jets sign Fitzpatrick and he plays anywhere like he has the last 2 years, that will buy Mac a little time, but he needs to find their QB of the future. IMO aside from Teddy Bridgewater last year, Mariota is the best QB prospect the Jets have had a realistic chance of drafting in a long, LONG time. If Mac passes on him, he will regret it the rest of his career (and it may wind up being very short).
there's no way they are settled on who they are drafting on march 9th. Brandt trying to get twitter followers or something?
I will just be very happy if Mariota is available for us to take. If he is there when we are on the clock we get so much leverage over the eagles and possibly other teams. What I would be happiest doing is either take Mariota for our selves or compleatly rob another team of draft picks and players. I dont know enough about the players in the draft worth that pick but I do not want to go D-line or OLB and if the Jets fail again to get any corners in FA I really dont want them to reach and take a corner with the 6 because i know there arent supposed to be any worth that
"With the 1st pick in the 2015 NFL draft, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers select, Jameis Winston, quarterback, Florida State." ................................................ "With the 2nd pick in the 2015 NFL draft, the Tennessee Titans select......" ^^^ THAT's what I'm worried about. http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork
Nope. Nobody has their draft board set up this early, not before free agency plays out a little and pro days and private workouts and visits and interviews. _
Doesn't Collision Low Crossing tell a different story? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression teams have their boards set very early in the process, and that the events that occur from the end of the season to the draft serve as validation and some adjustments?
In the book they had the bare bones draft board, and players they were targeting very early in the process, but there was discussion and internal debates all the way up to the draft (and in the later rounds up to the very second) on who they would take. Remember Tannenbaum talking about how much he valued interviews, etc. I'm sure not every team is the same and I'm sure the Eagles have a draft board right now, but there's just no way they have decided who they will take at #20 at this point, with so many variables yet to come.
The funny part about that book is that the Jets were so arrogant after that 2010 season that they were sure 2011 would be amazing and let a fan come in and document their implosion step by step. What a clusterfuck.
The context of the discussion was about drafting a QB prospect. My position is that unless the prospect is like Andrew Luck, you build a decent team first then draft a QB. JStokes disagreed and said take a good prospect like Mariota whenever you can. I'm not minimizing anything. I provided evidence and valid arguments showing that none of the QBs you mentioned magically turned bad teams into good ones. The teams were either "good" to start with and the addition of the QB made them great, or other people came to the team at the same time, which helped. The NFL isn't NCAA basketball where you can stick a guy like Carmelo Anthony on a team with 4 nobodies and win an NCAA title. Putting Tom Brady, Big Ben, Drew Brees or Kurt Warner on shitty teams won't magically make them great teams or playoff contenders. They will still be bad teams that happen to have good QBs. Tell us how good the 0-16 2008 Detroit Lions would have been had they had any of the above listed QBs.
I totally disagree. Both Manning and Luck took bad Colts teams to the playoffs on their shoulders. Other QBs have done it as well. QB is THE most important position and the hardest to fill. If you don't have a quality starting QB every effort should be made to find one. If there's not one in the draft and one can't trade up or trade for one (unlikely), then you might as well go ahead and try to build up the rest of the team and hope that you can get the QB the following season. OTOH, turning down the opportunity to take a potential franchise QB in the name of building up the rest of the team first, THEN finding the QB is insane imo. It's putting the cart before the horse. Any team that passes on a potential franchise QB to take any other player at any other position, deserves to finish 0-16 for 10 straight seasons.
I think it matters HOW the team is bad. But, to be sure, Andrew Luck took a playoff-ready team to the playoffs. The Colts were "bad" the year before because, and ONLY because, Peyton Manning was injured. And, it took a couple of years for Manning to turn the Colts around, which also coincided with them getting the talent to surround him with. For example, you put a good QB on a team where there are no good receivers or decent OL, how is he possibly going to get that team to be better? He can't get open for the receivers. He can't get the OL to block better if they physically don't have the talent. Really, the notion is hero worship, nothing more. [or scapegoating at the other end...]
Those teams weren't good. They were all teams who had won 3-5 games the year before the QB started. The lone exception being the Steelers who won 6; I guess that makes them a great team at 6-10 if 3-13 is good. How is 3-5 wins indicative of a good team? My argument was never dependent on the idea that every bad team would become winning teams with a good QB; more irrelevance and illogical arguments on your part.
Really ? Peyton Manning came in and took a bad Colts team to the playoffs ? I could have sworn that the Colts went 3-13 his first year as a starter, and that was with Marshall Faulk and Mavin Harrison. Don't read the wrong thing into what I am saying. Of course, the QB position is extremely important. That said, you MUST have other pieces in place.
