No matter what, teams are often enamored by raw talent; there's almost no doubt that he'll have another job next year, probably not starting, but he'll at least be a 2nd stringer somewhere. There are lots of coaches who would love to have the legacy of turning a bust into a Hall of Famer. Not saying that's necessarily going to happen with Wilson, but I can see a coaching wanting to try.
All of these coaches have massive egos. There will be at least one that thinks that he can be fixed if only he were in the presence of their genius. I also wouldn't be surprised if he were back with the Jets next year. I mean, we're where we are because Joe Douglas can't admit to making a mistake in drafting him. Why are we all so sure that it's a foregone conclusion that he will suddenly admit to that mistake once Week 18 comes to an end?
It looks like we actually agree on the rats part and what really needs to be done about it, which is to clean house. Now, as far a "lying" part of it, which is the source of disagreement I believe is related to the timeline. In fact initially the report made sense to me when I thought the incident occurred on Monday Dec 4th. Boyle and Siemian both played on Sunday Dec 3d and looked significantly worse than Zach, though I wanted to see more of Siemian (actually more for Boyle to ensure the tank), but that's OK. It would then make sense to come to Zach and say if he was ready to go in there next week, and him possibly saying he would be reluctant. However, that's not what was reported. I actually took time to listen to the details of the person reporting (Russini), not hypotheticals you are talking about. From the horse's mouth. Watch this interview with her which took place Wed the 6th, crux of the report starting at about 2:15 for a min or so. At about 3:00 she says Jets told Rodgers to speak with Zach last Wednesday, making it the 29th of Nov. She also mentions earlier in the interview that this whole thing happened for a week now, which puts it again that that same timeframe. Recall now that Boyle started on Black Friday the 24th and was named a starter for the following week on Saturday 25th. Now, Saleh did say if Zach were reluctant to play he would not be here. Not only is he here, but he is starting today. Rodgers denied where he was told to talk to Zach. Zach denied. Sure, we can say these 3 people with 1st hand info all lied and these anonymous sources are accurate. But if you look at the timeline, ever since Zach's last start until Boyle and Siemian sucked last Sunday, Boyle was named the starter right away. So, to suggest that Jets came to Zach last week, then had Aaron talk to him to convince him to start is the illogical, and hence "lying" part. And that's the crux of the while report. So, look at it with open mind, the facts of the timeline are there, and consider them honestly before the conclusion. And I do believe the logical conclusion is that it simply does not make sense for the Jets to approach Zach to start at the time when Boyle was already named a starter. Which is why it is more likely that this report, at least in the way it was presented, is not from horse's mouth, but from the horse's ass.
Realistically, he's going to be a camp invite and while no one will give him any type of opportunity to start, there's no doubt someone will kick the tires on him and see what they can do. The chances of us getting anything for him, though - including a 7th rounder - are slim considering how much money is due to him next year. Jets are gonna have to cut him, take the cap hit, and then there will be interest from a few teams.
We don't agree at all on the rat's part. First, I would never call a person I never met a "lying rat" unless I had proof, that they were either; even then I'd hope I could find more tolerant language. I especially cannot make a claim that anyone is lying at all based simply on the word of Aaron Rodgers, an admitted liar himself. I'm not even sure who it is that you believe is the "lying rat," are you directing that comment at the reporters, their sources, or both? Is a party a rat for honestly answering questions; are they lying when what they have to say is corroborated by others, or is the entire episode a figment of some dishonest rodent? I'm not suggesting at all when Wilson allegedly said he didn't want to take the field, only that it was prior to December fourth; I don't even know why the exact date has any bearing on what he said and why the exact date makes a difference. As I said early in the conversation and have repeated since the biggest problem is that a key player appears to have said he doesn't want to play. The focus on what party or parties may have spoken out about it is immaterial to me. Wilson's taking two days to respond to such serious claims was certainly not a good look. And now, everything is different, right? The guy had his best game as a pro. Only in Jetsland.
My calling the anonymous sources (not reporters) lying rats here on a fan message board has no bearing on their life. Also they are anonymous, in case you forgot, so even if Woody somehow reads this post and fully agrees, they are still fine. However, them leaking information to reporters, which I believe not to be accurate first hand info, ie lying, to assassinate Zach's character has actual implications on his life. I already explained why I think they are lying. You choose to ignore critical facts. The fact they claimed the Jets asked Zach to be the starter when Boyle was just named a starter is a critical point, because it makes no sense. This is a huge credibility issue. Does anyone actually believe the Jets would come to Zach to start after Boyle was just named a starter? Do you? That sounds illogical, but people are willing to ignore facts when it better fits their narrative. You can choose to believe anonymous sources saying they asked Zach to start while Boyle was named as a starter over Saleh, Rodgers, and Zach. Ignoring critical facts doesn't make the story true though. Zach denying this 2 days later at the first opportunity is what's immaterial - I mean he actually addressed this saying he only cares about what the teammates think. The report suggesting something absurd like the Jets asking Zach to start when Boyle was just named a starter is important, but you can believe the report by ignoring the inconvenient facts.
and here we are now in hindsight where zach legit looked great (was a top 10 QB for the week easily) and led the offense to 30 points in a half and dobbs was benched and got his star WR destroyed. the issue is most fans don't watch enough of other QBs to see how bad they are. dobbs had been bad for weeks in arizona before the traded him. he had a decent game or 2 with minn and has been bad since. but because it's a feel good story sand the memes people thought he was better then he actually was. If zach could play like he did sunday in 2-3 games a year as a backup, thats a top tier backup. most backups lack talent. they don't have the physical tools to run an NFL offense. zach does and with an OC who understands his faults they can scheme an efficient offense around him. The reason I didn't want him benched was the potential. boyle doesn't have it. at his best he's still as bad as zach with no upside. that 3rd and long completion to wilson was redicilous. boyle is sacked there easily. both becton and mitchell instantly lost and allowed pressure and zach got out of it, rolled to his left and threw a dart across his body between 3 defenders for a 1st. not many QBs in the NFL are doing that and probably not a single other backup.
she deleted it. what do you not understand about that? she deleted a bunch of her tweets on the subject go back to the thread where we discussed it and we all seen it and all the links are dead now
why do you not understand basic stuff? broom said in the whole interview he said "if" the clip posted here had purposely edited out that word If to change the context
the salary cap is made to stop teams from stock piling talent and keep parity. it's the only major league with a hard cap
lol, I am happy Zach played well, the Jets needed a win. It's funny, when Zach plays poorly it's the offensive line and everyone around him. When he plays great, he is a top-tier QB who can overcome a poor offensive line and poor playcalling/lack of weapons. I agree as I've said multiple times, Zach is the best QB on the roster. That does not mean the offense didn't need a spark and why he ultimately got benched. He showed you a lot in the Giants, Raiders, and Bills games. Unfortunately, due to poor roster construction, his backup was Boyle. Not sure why you're fixated on Dobbs, as he is one example of many backups. Did I even mention Dobbs in this thread? I admittedly am not going to read back. Easton Stick (WHO) came into the game for a hurt Herbert and moved the ball better than Zach has at times. But of course, you will say the Chargers have so many weapons that the Jets don't have. My entire point is Zach should have not been the backup coming into the year- which I still believe. Whether this performance happened or not. Hopefully, Zach can string a couple of great games together(Which he's never done in his career) and the Jets get a 4th rounder and send him to a team with an offensive-minded coach that can develop him- which this staff has shown they are unable to do. I am rooting for him!
did you watch the game? the o-line was still a disaster. the playcalling looked better though and zach did a good job avoiding pressure and making plays. and i mention dobbs only because people here have been saying for months that we should have traded for him and he's so much better then zach without them every watching him play or acknowledging he wasn't even available week 2. i'm not sure if you mentioned him or not, it was just a general statement. I get your point, but i just don't agree. zach is a good backup QB. he just isn't a starting QB because he's very inconstant and has trouble reading defenses. but it doesn't change the fact that the o-line is in shambles due to injury, we have no run game, and not much at WR outside of GW.
Yes, the offensive line looked terrible. That does not mean an offense has to completely shut down which ours has up until yesterday because Zach made plays with his feet. I think there are others out there capable of making plays. We just disagree which is fine
and i get that but it's discounting a lot of other issues on the offense. it's not just the o-line. zach has had the 7th most dropped balls of any QB and he's played less games and thrown less passes then everyone in front of him. his drop passed rate when you factor that in is going to be either 1 or 2. our stars have had game breaking fumbles, we've had bad penalties to kill drives, no run game and the play calling is bad. imagine sitting on the sidelines for 15 minutes, coming in the game, handing off twice, then be asking to throw on 3rd and 12 over and over again. no QB can succeed like that. we know his limits, it's up to the CS to put him in positions to succeed. 3rd and long every play isn't it. in the 2nd half we started off a drive with 0 runs. all passes and zach was perfect on the drive and led to a TD throw. he was in rhythm and playing confident. the CS has done him 0 favors. we kept playing "not to lose" run run pass too much then at the end of games had to pass more but it's always in obvious pass downs which makes it easy on the D. stroud has been amazing as a rookie but with most of his WRs out, against a tough defense, with a ton of pressure, he looked like ass. zach is capable in a good situation which makes him a good backup. he's not an elite QB who can dominate in bad situations. there are like 3-4 of those types of players in the NFL
I just don't get it. Why would someone create a false scenario to "assassinate Zach's character" in the first place - what's in it for them? Then we must ask if this was a conspiracy because it has been claimed that there were a number of sources that corroborated the information. What's in it for all of them? You're entitled to dream up whatever scenario strikes your fantasy but it just doesn't pass the smell test for me. I also still don't see how you created the timeline regarding when the statements of Wilson were allegedly made; that seems like more like an awkward attempt to disregard what appears to be well known within the organization. Where are the facts you claim I/m ignoring? For what it's worth, I agree it would be foolish to name Boyle the starter and almost simultaneously tell Wilson they wanted him to start. I have no reason to believe that happened as you lay it out - a team can only have one starter, therefore no reason to believe it has any bearing on the comments attributed to Wilson. Again, your claim that Wilson had no opportunity to address the situation for two days cannot ring true unless he was incarcerated, hospitalized or otherwise under duress other than that of his own making. It would seem like a supposed team leader who truly cared about what his teammates thought would have made his comments in a much more timely manner.
I followed the story from the start - don't tell me what we all "seen," I think it was a little after one PM Monday afternoon. I saw the references to her and Rosenblatt's story by other reporters as well and reports on radio and television. No - I did not consult Reddit.
Why do you not understand what's basic at all? Are you willing to take anything at face value that suits your argument? I question everything I see and hear from all sources - I don't take anything for granted. There's no reason to believe that Broomulack is in a better position than you or I to determine the actual facts; I'm sure he meant well but that doesn't mean he was right - he did nothing to explain the reasoning he claimed or offer any proof. As I said, I believe there was confusion between the clip from the radio and the interview done at the Jets facility that used very similar language, with the exception of the word "if".
