and let's not forget our offensive line should be much improved so that's a BIG factor in allowing Zach to take the snaps from game one.
With the exception of Favre all of them got one more payday with the team in question and then made way for the highly-touted rookie. Favre was a special case but if Rodgers had looked like the Rodgers of 2009 the Packers would have pushed Favre out. Same for Chad and Vinny with the Jets.
Did it ever occur to you that having a rookie QB was tough on the OL also? The Jets left side are young and learning on the job and they're doing that with a guy who has no NFL clock in his head yet.
With the exception of fitz, who just has a way of ending up paid, all of those qbs went onto have successful seasons with other teams and weren’t “just willing to take one more payday” There’s no Warner, Favre, a Smith out there for Jets to sign and justify keeping the 2nd overall pick in the bench.
Joe Burrow went 2-7-1 in his starts and then got hurt. Justin Herbert started 4 years in college. Kyler Murray is an unusual talent who nonethless was sacked 48 times in his rookie season. Josh Allen had a miserable first season and a so-so second season before finally developing last year. He held back a good Bills team for two seasons as he muddled through. Lamar Jackson wasn't the starter year one in Baltimore- Joe Flacco was. Baker Mayfield 4 year starter in college.
Alex Smith is out there. Nick Foles could have been had to start next season. There are likely others but those are two obvious answers to the problem.
Your reasoning is an epic fail. Your perception of things is so incredibly biased that it blinds you to truth. It's obvious that you haven't noticed that the Jets have a totally new regime with a differently organizational strategy than they've used over the last 12 years. They have the first competent GM they've had since Parcells, and the best CS they've had since Parcells. They also have the most talent they've had since 2009. So to speak of their "bad precepts" and "organization strategy" as if it's the same now as it has been the last 12 years is totally flawed and erroneous. Neither Sanchez nor Darnold had the talent and ability that Zach has for starters. Sanchez had one year starting experience. He didn't have the maturity that Zach has, the processing ability, the arm talent, the quick release, or the burning desire to learn and be great that Zach has. Darnold had awful foowork, poor accuracy, issues reading defenses, had only been playing QB a short time, and a problem with TOs coming into the NFL and his last year in college was his worst. Conversely, Zach has none of those issues, and his best year in college was his last. Zach has worked hard, studied tons of video, and has improved. Sam may have worked hard, but never fixed any of his issues, and didn't study video like Zach does. Sam isn't as smart as Zach either in general or in football IQ. Trying to compare those two stiffs with Zach and saying the same thing will happen is laughable. The situations are totally different with different CSs, systems, and team compositions. Sanchez went to a heavily veteran team where the rookie HC was predicting SB like an idiot, and who knew nothing about offense. That team had a great OL, good weapons and veteran leadership, but not young players on offense that Sanchez could grow with, an idiotic GM and HC dismantled that team, wrecking the chemistry and level of players around Sanchez. There was also immediate pressure to win. Darnold had to share snaps intially with a veteran QB, didn't have a good OL or quality weapons around him, and then had to suffer through two conservative, predictable, incompetent HCs, had no QB Coach, and had to learn 2 offensive systems in 2 years. Darnold should have sat and been given time to fix his flaws. Conversely, Zach is ready to play now. He is a perfect fit for this scheme. He is smart, can read Ds, processes quickly, gets the ball out quickly, is very accurate, knows how to play QB, is aggressive, and a leader. This is acknowledged as a rebuilding year, so there's no pressure to make the playoffs and win immediately. Zach should have a very good OL in front of him, an excellent rushing attack, and with the exception of the TE position, great weapons with which to work. In short, there is nothing even remotely similar about the 3 QBs, the CSs, the systems, or the teams/situations.
It was clear that Burrow was good before he got hurt, though. He was completing 65% of his passes with 13 TD's and 5 INT's, all with the worst OL in the entire NFL. The way colleges prepare QB's and the rules of the NFL itself have made it easier for rookie QB's to have success early. They aren't all world beaters right away, but a lot of them do have moderate success immediately upon entering the league. Sitting a guy for a year isn't the only way to welcome a new QB, as you were insinuating based on calling teams who don't do it idiots. The fact of the matter is that most of the good young QB's in the NFL started immediately. It's also a bit arbitrary to point out 4 year starters when Wilson started 3 years in college and about half of the good young QB's in the NFL started 3 years or less in college.
LOL I love the pic @ouchy lol something tells me you would be the Jets fan on the far left with his hands on his head a look of pessimistic horror on his face
Even your facts are flawed. Sam had McCown who was a vet who had showed with the Bears that he could win. McCown should have started and Sam been brought along slowly. That was a mistake, but that isn't this situation. I don't think that Chad needed Vinny, either. That was just Parcells hating starting rookies and being very traditional/conservative. Whom (which veteran QB) would you have wanted the Jets to sign to start this season? When you're starting over with a new offensive system for the team and have a rookie QB, it's best and smartest to start the rookie and build the system around him. If the Jets had brought in a veteran QB, chances are that they'd have had to design a very different offense around what that QB does well, and Wilson would have had to learn an offense that he wouldn't use when he did take over as the starter. That's neither efficient, nor smart. With a rebuilding team that's full of young players, a rookie HC and OC, a new offensive system, and lots of young offensive talent, this is the perfect time to start a rookie QB if he's ready to play. The problem isn't now. The problem was in the past. Neither Sanchez nor Darnold should have started day one due to where they were as QBs. Those mistakes were only compounded by the situtations they were thrust into. They were totally not ready or capable of handling those situations.
Again, flawed reasoning. Zach makes quick reads and decisions and gets the ball out quickly. Rarely will he cause the OL any problems. Besides, both Becton and AVT are guys who play to the whistle and frequently drive the defender they're blocking completely out of the play. Zach will have no negative affect upon them. By the time the season starts, Zach will have an NFL clock in his head.
I didn't occur. Nor should it. If there was a list of reasons not to start a rookie QB with talent, I'd place that one down several spots TBH.
Do you really believe in that setup with that HC that Mahomes would have actually failed in year one?
Before the draft and the adding of all that talent top support Zach, I was leaning towards the idea that it would be best to get a vet QB and let Wilson start out on the bench until he could come up to the speed of the NFL. But with the addition of AVT and the weapons, and then adding Morgan, and seeing how he did in the mini-camp and work with the rest of the team, it's clear that he's ready to start. Does that mean he'll be perfect and be an instant Mahomes-clone? Of course not, but he's the best QB we've had in decades, conceivably better than Namath if he stays healthy. I would feel better if they sign a vet backup as insurance, but not if he thinks he's going to compete for the starting job. It's likely going to be a roller coaster at first, but eventually things will smooth out as everyone gets used to each other.
Smith had played great the year before and was already on the roster. The Chiefs didn't have to waste cap space going out and signing a vet QB. They had the luxury of starting Smith and allowing Mahomes to sit. I firmly believe that Mahomes could have started his rookie season and played well. I'm sure that he would have had some ups and downs, but with Reid in charge, he would have had Mahomes ready
IMO the only reason to bring in a vet QB is if Morgan and White look to be totally over their head in TC and need a QB should the unthinkable happen and Zach get injured. With LaFleur, the QB Coach and Passing Game Coordinator (who was a long time successful QB Coach), there is no reason for both to be over their head. If so, then they never should have made it into the NFL anyway. I think there is very little that Zach could learn from some of the low-talent JAG QBs that have been out there.
