we had 2 games where they were good when the line was Becton, Tomlinson, CMG, Tippman, AVT o-lines also need to "gel" and get better with experience playing with each other. we have to shuffle every week due to injuries which only makes it tougher
What are we talking about here? JD's failure or success with the OL, right? We have multiple seasons of bad OL play. I'm supposed to put more weight into 2 games of performance than 45+? And I'm not even sure I agree that they were good those 2 games. I'm so sick of this "time to gel" nonsense. It's something you only hear from Jets fans. We've been waiting for our OL to "gel" for a decade at this point. Good players play well. It's that simple. JD has a long history of whiffing on OL moves, but I'm expected to believe he actually hit on them and they just haven't had enough time together? This is a guy who drafted Becton over an immediate all-pro. Come on.
were talking about how we've been really unlucky with injuries. the 1 year SF was hit this hard with injuries they went 6-10. we seem to get hit this hard every year and there is really no explanation why except maybe the field (which was replaced this past offseason with a new surface) and it's not like our injuries get spread out either. it's not like 1 lineman, 1 WR, 1 Lber, 1 CB, 1 RB. it's like 8 interior OL and the QB.
No. Once you are named the starter, that's what you are. There were starting caliber QBs available, they chose Zach. That narrative is ridiculous.
Yeah but my point was that the OL wasn't even good before the injuries. It's not like we had an amazing OL and just happened to lose all of our studs. The weakness of the OL has been a constant talking point for this team for years.
Every team deals with injuries. Going into this past weekend only 3 of the 32 teams had started the same oline combination for every game. Depth matters - we have Billy Turner who shouldn't be on an NFL roster. The guy under center calling the protections matters - we have Zach who can't read a defense.
who? people are clamoring over dobbs but forget he was 1-7 as the cards starter and they were happy to trade him away for nothing and run with the 3rd string. the giants are trotting out UDFA devito who has been awful. raiders benched jimmy G to prevent injury and run with AOC. bears have been trotting out UDFA bagent. People wanted winston here and the saints benched carr and winston threw an INT his 1st throw and they went right back to carr.
So a lot of people say JD has given the coaches the goods Wentz or Foles are upgrades over ZW. There career stats prove they are an upgrade over him. Not great but shows you how terrible he is. Zach shouldn't be on a roster.
it was solid in those 2 games and likely would have gotten better over the season if they played together more. those were also zachs best games. it's not a coincidence. I know the o-line has been an issue. it's a widespread issue across the NFL currently. If we weren't so injured though it would be different. Brown, CMG, AVT, schwietzer, are all currently out. thats 3 starters and a back-up. Tippman also missed a game
This is again missing the forest for the trees. Yes, the Cardinals were 1-7, but Dobbs was absolutely outplaying Wilson. There is zero question about that. He is having a better season than Wilson in essentially every relevant metric, and he could've been had basically for free. It's a whiff from JD. By your logic, any time a team trades anyone away it'd be dumb to acquire them because the other team didn't want them. That's not how this works. Different teams have different needs.
Alright, well now you're making up hypotheticals to support your point. For what it's worth, we have much more evidence/reason to think the OL would've continued to be subpar than to think they would've played well. If you'll recall, there was a point during this season where we had 3 of the 5 worst OL in the league, before the injuries started to pile up.
Wentz, Foles, Ryan. The Jets reached out to none of them and named Zach the starter. Brissett was reportedly available before the deadline. You know all this; you just choose to ignore it. Shall we go back further? Virtually no one thought naming Zach the backup was a good idea when there were plenty of options available in the offseason, yet here we are.
he really wasn't though. people watched some highlights and thought he was. he's made some good plays for sure, but overall he was not playing well. You think a team would trade a good young QB for a 6th rounder? he couldn't even make the steelers roster over pickett, trubisky, and rudolph. the guys been in the NFL for 6 years and most people didn't know his name until this year. the jags traded a 5th for him to be a backup and cut him a year later. he was a 4th rounder who's been on 9 teams in 6 years. people tend to overrate other players becuase the negative view of their own players compiled with "highlights only" from other players. Dobbs isn't going to magically make lazard stop dropping balls, or make ruckert line up correctly, or make GW not fumble, or make breece keep his eye on the ball. the offense needs to stop killing itself. we aren't good enough to overcome preventable mistakes. and thats the same with any available QB
they also had 0 time together as a unit. a couple didn't practice all off season. brown came back too early from his injury. the whole situation just sucks
people said the same about darnold but he's backing up purdy right now. even peterman is still in the NFL. as is boyle. there are way worse QBs in the NFL then zach right now. your take on this is just awful
wentz is a head case and a cancer. JD would never bring him in. thats why the colts jettisoned him after 1 season despite the draft capital they gave up and money they had to eat. ryan doens't have interest and looked washed anyway which is why the colts jettisoned him after 1 season to get wentz. foles has been washed for quite sometime. if he wasn't he'd be on an NFL roster somewhere. he's not even a 3rd string currently. Brisset being available is just rumor, and even then what has he done? is it worth the draft capital and money to bring in a guy who would look about the same as zach. even if lets give you the benefit he's slight better. losing 13-20+ really make a difference? Gms have to plan years ahead. JD is looking at 2024 right now and loading up for 1 more run with rodgers under center and this Defense still being under contract. won't be long before the cap makes us shed talent. we want all the assets we can get for this offseason. rodgers going down killed any SB chances.
Please tell me, oh weird mormon cult member, which QBs are statistically worse than Zach over the last 3 seasons. He is unquestionably the worst QB in the NFL. He was a second overall pick and can’t play the position at all. He is dumb, scared, small, inaccurate, meek, and acts like a child (and is treated like one). Anybody who wants this guy to play another snap for us is clearly not a Jets fan.
I don't care about how bad he was his 1st 2 years. it would be like shitting on geno for his 1st 8 years when he's been good the past 1.5 years. cook statistically over the past 3 seasons is a top 5 RB. but this season he is ass. peyton manning statistically and realistically was a top 3 QB for 15 years. but he sucked his final season due to his neck injury.
So your stance is that Dobbs is having a worse season than Wilson? Alright. My argument isn't that Dobbs has been especially good, just that he's been better than Wilson. Dobbs: 23rd in QB rating 18th in QBR 26th in ANY/A Wilson: 30th in QB rating 31st in QBR 30th in ANY/A That's possibly the difference between missing and making the playoffs this year. You're citing individual bad plays from one game. No one is saying that our WRs or OL or TEs had especially good games, just that if you take the larger sample size, AKA this entire season or Zach's entire career, he's been shit. All these little things even out across a sample size that large. Believe it or not, other players on other teams also drop passes and commit dumb penalties. This is a recurring thing where a tiny sample size is taken as proof of a point while ignoring that the much larger sample size says the opposite. This is statistical malpractice.
