I'd rather be sellers with a top pick. Load up offense in the next 2 drafts with a boat load of picks in the first 3 rounds if the right deal is out there. I'm thinking the 9ers are thinking the same thing
I think we all know what would happen if we signed Cousins. There'd be no drafting a QB next year. Hack would be the heir apparent. Mac would probably sign a FA CB, ILB, maybe an OLB, and a RB or WR, and then spend the first 3 picks on D, maybe draft an OL or two in the middle-lower rounds, and the rebuild would be over. We'd be right back to a competitive rebuild. If we could stick with the rebuild and youth movement it would be one thing, but Cousins isn't going to sign here to play with a youth movement, Woody's not gonna be patient, Bowles is gonna be trying to win as many games as he can to save his job, and Mac will cave or get caught up in the excitement, and we'd be right back where we were last year, except we'd have a better QB for a few years.
LOL last season irrelevant? How moronic of a statement is that? You are going off hypothetical scenarios that don't even fucking matter. "Blah blah blah, but NEXT YEAR!" Cousins has kept that team afloat and they didn't have a good rushing attack or a good defense. Cousins is a top 10 QB and is entering is prime. You build a line and get some weapons and this team improves exponentially. Gotta love the fact that you always start acting ignorant when you get beat, take that pointless banter elsewhere.
Right! I'm the one that's beat. You're clueless. Nice alternative reality you live in. Light up another doobie.
Cousins is just now entering his prime, maybe a year or two away. Imagine getting a load of picks like the Redskins in 2012? 3 first round picks and a 2nd rounder then using those picks to build the team? You can take that and get a lineman, pass-rusher, etc. Obviously fully hypothetical, but could do wonders.
Yup, the same alternative reality where Brees went to the Saints and won a SB a few years later. Brees left via FA, no one thought Brees was the guy he is now. He was just entering his prime.
Except for the fact the top 5 QBs in passing yards last year were average age of 33.5 years and the last 5 SB winning QBs were average age of 33.6. Hell, the last 3 SB winning QBs were 39, 39 and 37
Totally with you. But this also raises a question:When does the potential return in a draft day blockbuster trade down outweigh selecting Luck 2.0? I think there's a strong case to be made for trading down given the state of the roster.Given the hype for this class & the changing of the guard that seems to be happening we could very easily receive an extremely lucrative compensation package that could go a long way in bringing us back to respectability But franchise QB has to be a priority..so where do we draw the line?Do we gamble that the FQB is a sure thing & that Mac will use the draft picks he already has to fix this thing or do we gamble that we can find a QB at a different spot in the next 2 drafts..side stepping the elephant once again..?
Who were those winners? Brady won 2x, and Cousins ain't Brady. Manning was a shell of his former self and was carried by the D. Drew Brees was 31 when he won his. Flacco was 28 when he won. Russell Wilson was 24 when he won. Brady, Manning and Brees are exceptions, not the rule. Average age doesn't mean squat. One can use fake stats to try to prove anything. Your stats are skewed and your post disingenuous.
IMO you take the QB when you have the chance. If Mac (or whomever the GM is next year) trades down and uses the extra picks to help rebuild the roster and offense, then the Jets' record will be good enough that they won't be in prime position to get a FQB. Either Petty or Hack would have to prove that they're the answer at QB, or they Jets would have to get VERY lucky hitting on a QB in the middle or lower rounds, or be stuck with recycled jags.
These are the New York Jets. Trading out of #1 all but ensures that the QB they passed up at that spot will be transcendent.
I think me and you are down to a discussion on where we each stand on darnold and cousins. I think cousins is a good qb,fan, not a hold the fort, middling type. I think darnold is a good not luck type prospect . So from my pov, I'd take paying cousins over gambling on darnold.
the board is getting contenious and the losses haven't even started piling up yet........ going to be a fun year coming up on this board....... hell, aftre watching a replay of the giants preseason game, i was ready to fire the hc, dc, and the gm. i have been a jets fan since 1965, and my patience wore off around 1976.
39, 39, 37, 25, 28, 31 The above is the age of the last 6 SB winners when you just finished saying QBs hit their prime at 25-26. I see only one out of the last 6 that is in that age bracket. How are those older QBs the exception if the top QBs in the league are mostly older? If my stats are skewed then go ahead and pick your stat that you think is relevant and then give me the average age of the top 5. QB rating - average age 33.2 years, completion pct - average age 32.4 years, TDs - average age 33 years Do I really need to go on? By the way, Russell Wilson was 25 when he won, not 24. And only 2 out of the last 11 SB winning QBs were 25-26 years old, even if you add in 27 years old which you say is the latest, that is still only 4 out of the last 11. The majority were over 30.
A player's prime isn't just 1-2 years long. Get real. The average age means nothing. You have no clue what prime means. There is a difference between a player's prime and when he is at peak form.
Prime and peak mean the same think dimwit. Prime; a state or time of greatest strength, vigor, or success in a person's life. Peak: the point of highest activity, quality, or achievement. You are going on and on how 30 years old is too late for QBs to be hitting their prime but have posted ABSOLUTELY nothing to back up your claim. Once again I will ask you to pick a stat or anything somewhat current, last 5-8 years that can be used as a reference and then tell me the average age of the QBs. You saying the same thing over and over is not proof of anything except proof that you have nothing to back up what you claim.
Perhaps, but I don't think so. I have always heard that any athlete's prime years are roughly from 23-30 give or take a year or two. That's when he is his quickest, fastest, best coordination, vision, and strongest. After that it starts tailing off. They become more injury prone, it takes their bodies longer to recover, etc. His peak falls at some point during those prime years. Some players only are at their peak for a couple of years, with others it lasts longer.
