We may never find out if he is or not, if Chad beats him out for the starting job in TC '08.... That is the WHOLE point of this whole argument.... Keeping Chad aboard is FINE if he KNOWS he's going to be the backup/mentor, no matter how well he plays in TC, but then you eliminate the element of competition.... Bringing in a mid (4-6) round rookie will be no threat to Kellen, but enough to make him "earn" his job the same was Chad has had to "earn" his job in years past... Just enough competition to keep the starter motivated, without the true possibility of replacing him without injury...
One thing to consider is that Pennington has a $6mm+ cap number next year. Way too much for a back-up. In that Chad still thinks he is a starter in the league and he has restructured in the past to save the Jets money, I doubt he would be willing to take a salary cut down to back-up level. So, I would be very surprised if both were in camp next season battling it out for a starting position.
If Chad beats Clemens out then he's not ready to be the starter, that's how you find out. If he's better than Chad as you guys all think he is, then he should have no problem beating him out in camp. That's why you have camp. We don't know enough from what we've seen of Clemens to just hand him the keys. I don't know what you think a rookie mid-rounder is going to do to help anything. The chances of gettting another Brady like that are slim and none, certainly nothing to build your plan around.
LIke I said earlier, wherever he goes he's going to have to win a job, it would be no different here. Whether or not he thinks he's a starter is irrelevent, it's up to whatever coach he's playing for. If I were him I'd think my chances of winning a job here are as good as anywhere else. Again, it's not like Clemens has sewn it up based on what he's done so far. Maybe by the end of next season we have a better idea of Clemens and make a move then, but I don't know that we have a good enough body of work for that kind of commitment right now. I don't see how you annoint anyone the starter after a 4-12 type season, or whatever this turns out to be. It has Classic Jets 4-12 written all over it, though.
That's not true.... First of all, most of us don't think he's already better than Chad, but that his potential is worth investing in instead of settling for mediocrity and injuries with Chad for the next few years... Second of all, a (then) 8 year veteran SHOULD be able to beat out a QB with 7 games as a starter under his belt.... Clemens never IS going to be better than Chad if he isn't given more than 7 starts to prove himself, and develop.... This perspective you're looking at it from is simply idiotic.... If teams waited for a young QB to be outright better than the incumbent before he could be the starter, only the few guys who perform right off the bat, like Marino, would EVER have become starters...
You're not making any sense. I really think we should play the guy who has gotten us there in the past. Vinny is still available. Let's go get him!
Unless we decide to draft a QB, it should be Clemens job next year. Out of all the QB's that will be available, I think Pennington is the best option, and he's not good enough.
That's not true at all. Most good starters are at least good enough to stay the starter once they get in there. Especially if you're hoping to build a Super Bowl team as you all keep saying, and just the playoffs aren't good enough. Because that's what I've been hearing all this time about why Chad needs to go. Super Bowl caliber QBs normally step right in and are able to at least keep their job. Especially if it's his third year in the same system with 9 games under his belt as starter, he should certainly be able to beat out an old, washed-up, can't-throw, injury-prone Pennington in camp. If not then you really think he's going to lead us to the Super Bowl? You're not given starts in the NFL, you earn them. According to Mangini that's how he got in there in the first palce. So if he's good enough he'll stay there, if he isn't he goes. That's how it works. Quarterback is an important position, if you're going to change it you better be upgrading it or you're going to have to change it again. I don't see what's so idiotic about leaving yourself an option and having the position open to competition. Seems a lot more sound than gambling the future of the franchise on an untested QB.
This is my last response in this thread, because your stubborn stupidity is beginning to frustrate me.... With 7 starts under their belts, only a select few QBs are at the point where they are clearly 'legitimate.' Once again, a QB with 8 years in the league, should, and almost always will, beat out such an inexperienced QB in open competition. That is why, when the switch is made, it is generally made for good... That is why teams like the Giants (Eli/Warner), Broncos (Cutler/Plummer), Patriots (Brady/Bledsoe), Steelers (Roethlisberger/Maddox), Cowboys (Romo/Bledsoe), Bengals (Palmer/Kitna), Chargers (Rivers/Brees), Redskins (Campbell/Brunell), etcetera, often release or trade their incumbent QBs once the young guy is instilled as the starter, regardless of whether or not the young QB has even come close to proving himself to be legitimate... There is no going back PERIOD... If you let the incumbent stick around and compete for the job, he is very likely to win it and stall any progress the younger QB had a chance to make.... Not to mention losing his job so early in his career could be completely destructive to a young QB's confidence... No good at all can come out of bringing back the incumbent veteran QB to try to win his job back.... Especially with a team that is not ready to contend yet... Bringing him back strictly as a backup/mentor is fine... But having him compete for the job is just plain stupid
Oh my god. If Grossman comes to The Jets I will barf, and not stop barfing. The barf will slowly rise and the acids within will begin to disintegrate all I hold dear. The barf will continue to accumulate and people will flee in horror, much like in the classic movie, "The Blob". Soon the barf will become such a bio-hazardous monstrosity, that religious leaders the world over will consider it an affront to God! Oh God!
Like I said before, you don't seem capable of having a reasonable discussion about this. You've got it in your signature and your head that they should stick to Clemens and that's it. And you're calling me stubborn and stupid. The problem is it's not your job on the line if it doesn't work, so that isn't what's going to happen. If you think for a minute that Mangini is going to come out of this season and hand anyone the job, especially the way our offense has performed, you're insane. Neither guy has earned it this season, both have been given a chance. Just like when they came in here off of a 4-12 season, the coaching staff opened the job up and the better guy wins it. It's the pros. The examples you gave are all over the place: Giants (Eli/Warner): They traded up to the #1 overall for Eli, and you can make the case that Warner is still the better QB four years later. Broncos (Cutler/Plummer): Assinine move. They were 7-4 and would have made the playoffs with Plummer. Now they suck and they are losing to the Texans as I type this. Patriots (Brady/Bledsoe): Your worst argument yet. Brady established himself way quicker than 9 games. By the time Bledsoe got better it was already clear that Brady had taken the job, no questions asked. Which is amazing because Bledsoe was their guy, Brady created his own opportunity and never looked back. Steelers (Roethlisberger/Maddox): Maddox sucked and was a stop-gap guy. Rothlisberger went 15-1 as a rookie, of course on a better team, but again left no doubt as to whether or not he should be the starter. Cowboys (Romo/Bledsoe): Once again, Romo took the opportunity and made the most of it right away. It didn't take years for him to surpass Bledsoe. If Bledsoe was better he'd have kept the job, he wasn't so he didn't. Bengals (Palmer/Kitna): Another #1 overall vs a journeyman. And as in the Giants case, the hotshot has yet to win a playoff game four years later. Chargers (Rivers/Brees): They'd have been better off keeping Brees, their mistake. Redskins (Campbell/Brunell): Brunell was about done when he got to Washington. The fact that he did anything was startling. I don't know what you're afraid of. Guys have to compete for their jobs all the time in the pros, we should have competition after a season like this. Let the better guy win.
I didn't want to keep responding in this thread, but your extreme misinterpretation of what I said, and dismal excuse for a rebuttal, forced me into it... I'm done with this thread after this post... Feel free to try to get the last word... I'm not likely to read it, as I've read enough crap today... The point is that once you give the young guy the job, it is for good If the Pats had kept Bledsoe in town after 2001 and had an open competition in training camp, he very well MAY have won the job back... Despite the SB Championship, Brady, at the time, was 'managing the game.' After Bledsoe came in to lead them to the win in the playoffs vs Pittsburgh, a lot of Pats fans weren't sure who they wanted as their starter, and Bledsoe hadn't done anything to lose his job... It is possible that, had Belichick and Co. used your logic, Brady would have been benched the next season... Too bad you weren't running the ship in NE. A stretch? Maybe. But the point is, who knows? The reason I gave so many examples was not because I was trying to draw exact parallels, but the point was that each squad (all, to a point, successful as of late) made the move to the young QB, and made it his job while eliminating the competition shortly thereafter to make it clear that his job was not in jeopardy.... None of those moves were 'asinine' because, as a franchise, you're always looking for the QB of the future; the next great franchise QB... These teams realized that they weren't going to get much better with the incumbent, veteran QB, and decided it was time to move toward the future.... Just because it doesn't work out (as Kellen may or may not with us) doesn't mean it was a stupid move.... Unless all the pieces are in place, there is no point in playing an older, veteran QB who is much more likely to regress than progress at that stage in his career, when you have a young QB full of potential available.... You keep going back to the 'let the better guy win' standpoint, and that is just plain stupid.... At this point in their careers, Chad likely WOULD beat Clemens out for the starting job... As a soon-to-be 8 year vet, Chad, simply by virtue of experience, is a better QB than Kellen (despite his play this season)... But Chad has pretty much nowhere to go but down, while Kellen has nowhere to go but up... Just because Kellen may not be the better QB right now, it does not mean he may not be one day.... But, if after 7 starts, we put his job up for grabs, and he loses it, that's it.... Confidence likely shattered. Progression stalled. Next opportunity, uncertain. Why you seem so dead-set on making a scenario like that a distinct possibility, I just cannot comprehend... It makes zero sense...
I do not buy that. Chad would not beat out Clemens. I really think that they wanted to start Chad the whole year, but his play was so bad, and Kellen's improvement so obvious that they had to go with Kellen because he had passed Chad.
I would bow out of this thread if I were in your shoes. Italian Seafood is severely misinterpreting and distorting what you have written.
Re: Broncos They have major problems on defense. Besides Elvis Dumervil, the line has been awful. The outside linebackers have sucked all year. The cornerbacks have been burned more often than any football fan would have expected. Cutler is not the problem. Re: Chargers What you wrote there is true. However, it's not the point. You totally misinterpreted what Beamen wrote.
How am I misinterpreting what he wrote? He's saying that once you change QBs you have to stick with the guy, I don't agree. Yes, those teams did it that way, I'm pointing out that a lot of them made mistakes. The better guy has to play, the coach tells you that every week. If you put a guy in and he does great, like Brady or Romo, they stick with the guy. The teams that go with the young guy just because he's the young guy often don't end up well. I'm not sure how that's twisting his point around, I'm just disputing it. I'm not even saying to bench Clemens. If Chad can't throw the ball and the league has figured him out, then Clemens will play. That stuff gets decided on the field. I'm just saying let's decide it on the field. I want the better guy to play because I want us to win the next game.
That's the most ridiculous thing you've said yet. It was obvious by the time Bledsoe's ribs got better that he wasn't going to play there again. That's why he never did. When he came in the Pittsburgh game it was already known that was likely his last hurrah with New England. That's what I mean by taking the job while you're in there. Bellichick with Bledsoe was 5-13 in New England before Brady came in, that was an obvious move. The guy won the Super Bowl, that's really the whole point. Safe to say that is not what we have with Kellen Clemens. I'm rooting for him as hard as anybody, believe me, but let's calm down.
I won't address the rest of your post due to a time constraint. It's not important enough anyway. I just think you misinterpreted his point. I seriously doubt there will be a competition between Clemens and Pennington next training camp. Pennington will likely be on another NFL roster by that time.
