Geno did nothing in 2013 to earn an unchallenged starting spot this year. not sucking the last 4 games is hardly enough to lock up a starting spot in the NFL.
That's one perspective, but I think given Idzik drafted him and he's on contract for four years vs Vick on a 1 year rental, better to know what we have in Geno since he was / is likely to be on the team longer. For the record, I said we would win more games with Vick than Geno before the season started. At least Idzik knows now what we have at the Qb position going into next year vs him thinking Geno could be a starter if we don't resign Vick. That's only point I am trying to make.
Some of us figured it out before the season started. We are glad you and Idzick are finally on board.
nonsense. If he's under contract for 4 years why do we NEED to start him in year 2? that's ridiculous. we only have a second round pick invested in him and the rookie cap makes these guys much more manageable in terms of the cap. QBs should be on the bench with a clipboard until they're good and ready or forced in by injury IMO. This rush to see what we have is counter productive for all parties. not being able to beat out a washed up mike vick would also tell us a lot about "what we have".
The Jets really need a FS. They won this game because JJ had a good game in that role and it turned the Cover 2 back on. They won at the end of last year because Ed Reed understood how to play centerfield even if his skills were diminished.
ahhhh ... the old "dropped INT" stat ... otherwise known as an "incompletion" in some parts. Geno is quite well versed in the art of "incompletion" btw.
No auditions for next season. Go with the best players and try to win games. Don't give a message to your players and fans that you don't care about winning. It's the wrong message even if you're just thinking about the future.
Let's not act like having Vick in all season would have drastically changed things. We lost quite a few games from bad o-line play, having one or no receivers, and a pathetic secondary. Bad QB play was just the icing on the cake but everyone wants to have an easy to pick excuse than admit our problems are a lot deeper than just one key player. What were his stats these two weeks? 10/18, 132 yards, 2 TDs today and 21/28, 196 yards, 1 TD. Those aren't the kinds of stats that would have changed much. We lost to Green Bay because the defense shit the bed in the second half. We lost to Chicago thanks to a poor rushing game and a backup TE not even attempting to contest a pass, letting the CB have it. SD crushed us because they were good. Geno sucked, Vick sucked. Denver just plain outplayed us. Shocker losing to Manning. Geno's pick came at a point where there was no reasonable expectation of actually coming back. NE - Tom Brady magic and a blocked FG. Buffalo - Geno sucked, two interceptions were clearly his fault. Vick played like ass too. Having Vick start any of those games probably wouldn't have changed a thing.
you have hated on vick from the second we signed him. I don't expect you to recognize the obvious improvement in qb play. you should open your eyes and move on from his past. it may help you see the truth.
The funny thing is when Geno threw that int to Woodson in week 1, many on this board were clamoring about how that was a great veteran move.
Those lack of turnovers today is basically what won the game for us. And no Vick turnovers in 2 weeks gives this team a chance to win in spite of an uninspiring offense. If it continues and the O improves more under Vick and there are more Ws would I be against bringing him back for '15. Too early to say, I know but we're going to hopefully be signing a veteran Qb, anyways.
Not turning the ball over in any of those games may have put us in the win colum. Creating turnovers, even half of what we did today, in those losses also puts us in the win colum. Vick playing in those losses instead of Geno, assuming he played turnover free, may turn those losses into wins as well. We are a few players at the right positions away from competing for a playoff spot.
The difference today was the defense more so than the QB. The Jets still scored only 20 points. They gave up 6 until garbage time and forced four turnovers. If the defense and the secondary play their normal game, the Jets lose again. It just amazes me how everyone puts the entire emphasis on one position. In another thread, three is a discussion that the Jets don't need to draft/ develop a QB and that all that is needed is bring in some veteran. Which is it? The QB means everything or very little?
A few players being a cornerback, an inside linebacker, a left tackle, a right guard, a quarterback, a safety.
