Pennington Doubters

These threads are so ridiculous. Yes, Pennington had a good game today, and yes, I was happy to see it. That doesn't change the fact that he was mediocre-to-horrible in the previous 8 games, which weren't all against New England and Chicago. It is amazing to me how some people refuse to acknowledge that, and then insult people who actually do.

I'm already on record saying what Ji04 said - that if and when the Jets lose their seventh, Clemens should come in. Why? Because the Jets need to find out if Clemens is for real, since it seems unlikely to me that Pennington can take them to the Super Bowl. If you want to know why I feel that way, look at his career performances since 2002 against good teams - it's not pretty (in 2002 he was great; the point is that he hasn't been that great again, and that was four years and three serious injuries ago). You ride Pennington until the playoff possibility is over, and then you look to the future. Why is that so difficult to understand?

 

Our offense is only like that because it is limited. Watching Santana Moss with Pennington all those years, you'd think the guy could only take dumpoffs too. With another QB, not even a good one, Moss became a Pro Bowler. Levaranues Coles is also capable of more, he too went to the Pro Bowl without Chad, and he's one of the fastest WRs in the game. Coles will never say it since he is loyal to Chad, but he is severely limited by him. Frankly I like that about Coles, I think it's worthy of respect, but since I don't play on the team I can say it.

While good defenses confuse QBs, they don't shut them out all the time, and force them to usually have bad games. The Bears have allowed points this year, you wouldn't know it watching Chad. If a good defense plays a good QB several times, you expect the good QB to have a few good games. Even against the best defenses, you don't expect absolute clunkers all the time, or even really at all. You accept one clunker every once in awhile, but with pennington it's like 6 clunkers, 1 mediocre game, and one bad game but not a clunker. That is really bad no matter how good the opposing defense is. The NFL is geared towards offense, especially in the regular season.

It would take a few more pieces, yes, however, a better QB gives us a better chance, and at least we'd be in more games. I like to have the chance to score points in a game, rather than have to hope for the defense to score for us, or on special teams, or a great play by a WR. This team right now is good enough that we should be able to have a chance at beating those teams. Our defense and pass blocking has improved tremendously. We have a good pair of WRs. As the Colts and many other teams have shown, if you have a good pass attack running becomes easier. If we were to trade Chad straight up for Tom Brady, we'd probably be a legit SB contender, with a bit of luck. With Chad, we really don't have that chance. Of course, asking for Tom Brady is a bit much. Frankly, I'd be happy with a Bulger level talent, and I don't even think he is all that good. If you're going to need a Pro Bowler at every position for Chad to be a realistic SB QB, then why do you need Chad? Almost any QB can win a SB with a HoF TE, a great RB, a great O-line and a great defense. But building those teams is next to impossible, and you'll never be able to maintain them. The Ravens gave up on repeating that way, and went out and got themselves a solid QB, and it is paying dividends.

 

how much does everyone love chad getting the crowd amped when he is walking off the field? the guy plays with passion, and you can tell he truly loves the fans and the jets organization

 

Mediocre to horrible?

LOL

Buffalo he was good.
Indianapolis he was very good.
Jacksonville he was horrible.
Miami he was decent.
Detroit he was good.
Cleveland he was horrible.
New England he was solid.
Chicago he was bad.

I forgot though that some of you guys just look at passing yards to see if they had a good game.

 

The Bears were able to confuse Brady today and limit his effectiveness. The Pats only scored 17 points and Brady was picked off twice. However, Brady was still able to push the ball down the field. Brady's receivers aren't as good as ours either. I know that Chad isn't Brady and I don't expect him to be, but it seems when Chad faces a good defense he abandons the vertical passing game and everything turns into swing routes and check downs. Sure, he'll throw the occasional bomb, but that's really more of a coaching decision to keep the defense honest so they can continue to throw short and laterally (and it rarely works). I would like to see Chad have more confidence against good teams and maybe even force the issue against these good defenses. Sure it may lead to turnovers, but I'm confident that it will have more success than the dinking and/or dunking.

Pennington has proven that he is not inaccurate throwing in the 15-20 yard range. His accuracy should balance out the lack of zip and allow him to have at least some effectiveness.

 

Um....yea.

Moss had his best year last year in Washington, but how's he doing this year? How'd he do in 2003 with the Jets? Pretty damn good. Not as good as 2005, but pretty close.

Coles stats in 2002 and 2003 were virtually identical, so I don't see how he's shown he's capable of more. And he wasn't anything special in 2004, you could make a case it was his worst year since being a starter.

Me, and many others have given multiple examples of good defenses he's played well against/beaten many times in the past, and you cotinue to choose to ignore them. Won't bother doing it again.

What? We've had one game this year we didn't have a chance to win. Wow.

Colts are in the bottom half of the league in most of the rushing stats, so I don't see how you've come to that conclusion. It helps, but you still need good running backs and good run blocking to have a good running game.

 

1. This is only his first year under the new offensive system, and Chad is leading his team to 6-5. If you ask me, that's one hell of a job - this team was supposed to go 4-12 and become the bottom feeder, no? Don't just look at this year's stats or records, but look into the future. With infusion of some more young talents and a full year's experience in this system under the belt, who knows how Chad will perform in seasons to come? I am not going to guarantee he will post up HoF caliber numbers, but he will get better, I can assure you.

2. Under no circumstance should Clemens start this year. In a league where nurturing the talent is much more important than getting better prospect, I believe Clemens is better off with clipboard this year. Don't just take my words for it; among the active QBs, Peyton Manning, Ben Roethlisberger and Donovan McNabb are the only success stories from rookie QBs thrown into the fire in their rookie season. Ok. Vince Young is making his case, so I am willing to give you that much, but in all other cases, the record tells me that rookies starting from the first year has very low success rate. On the other hand, rookie QBs given chance to sit on the sideline and adapt for a year or two have good chance to succeed. Tom Brady certainly fits the bill, and in this year, Tony Romo fits the bill as well. Hell, Chad Pennington fits the description as a matter of fact. If you don't believe me, look into the history of QBs, and see how many were successful by starting the position in their rookie campaign. You won't find many, I can tell you.

3. All in all, the situation tells me that the Jets are better off with Chad at QB for at least this season to say the very least. *I am hoping he improves and gets at least 3 more seasons here.*

 

I wouldn't bench Pennington either under any circumsances unless he becomes completely ineffectibe. Since he's coming off the injury I think he deserves the full season. Because of his past Pennington is still not a completely known quantity, so having a full season to evaluate will help in making a decision next year.

Starting Clemens for a few games won't really do much anyway. He's likely to be awful at the start and there probably won't be enough time in the season for him to turn it around. In these few games we're unlikely to find out about anything relating to whether Clemens is the QB of the future or not. Let him sit and watch, and if the time comes for him to start next season, I don't think him sitting for a few games will make him any less prepared.

 

Most QBs that have sat for a year or two have never gone on to have great NFL careers. Most QBs whether they start right away or sit don't have great careers, so by asking how many started right away you're already biasing the question unfairly. It's better to look at successful QBs now and see whether they start or not. Now the definition of success has to come in play here. If it's only the top 7 QBs, well, Pennington isn't a top 7 QB himself, so starting him isn't justification in that regard over not starting someone else. If it's the top 20, now we have a few more choices to choose from, and obviously top 7 QBs still should be weighted higher.

Now I don't claim to have an accurate all-inclusive list. I'm not even going to try. The QBs I know of right now that start in the NFL that played significant time their rookie campaigns (ignoring this years rookies, for not having enough data on them, and because the idea is how they perform the year after their rookie seasons) are Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb, Ben Roethlisberger, Eli Manning and Marc Bulger. That covers 5 QBs in the NFL. I think Vick might be another example, although I don't remember. Next year the number would grow larger with Vince Young and Matt Leinart, and probably a rookie or two out of the draft. This may be an indication that the modern trend is to start rookies, and that they do well. It might not be. We probably need more numbers.

I think it's moot, because I think Pennington should finish the season out at this point. But if someone wants to do the research, maybe they should.

 

1. Most QBs that have sat for a year or two have never gone on to have great NFL careers

Just what the HELL are you talking about????

Exhibit 1.

Tom Brady: He sat out his first year.

2000 New England Patriots 1 0 3 1 33.3 6 2.00 6 0 0 0/0 0 0 42.4
2001 New England Patriots 15 14 413 264 63.9 2843 6.88 91 18 12 41/216 32 6 86.5
2002 New England Patriots 16 16 601 373 62.1 3764 6.26 49 28 14 31/190 37 3 85.7
2003 New England Patriots 16 16 527 317 60.2 3620 6.87 82 23 12 32/219 44 8 85.9
2004 New England Patriots 16 16 474 288 60.8 3692 7.79 50 28 14 26/162 52 10 92.6
2005 New England Patriots 16 16 530 334 63.0 4110 7.75 71 26 14 26/188 59 9 92.3
2006 New England Patriots 10 10 334 199 59.6 2296 6.87 54 19 9 17/118 28 3 88.1

Exhibit 2: Joe Montana - clearly he sat in his first year.
Att. Comp. Yds. Pct. TD Int. Rat.
1979 49ers 23 13 96 56.5 1 0 81.1
1980 49ers 273 176 1795 64.5 15 9 87.8
1981 49ers 488 311 3565 63.7 19 12 88.4
1982 49ers 346 213 2613 61.6 17 11 88.0
1983 49ers 515 332 3910 64.5 26 12 94.6
1984 49ers 432 279 3630 64.6 28 10 102.9
1985 49ers 494 303 3653 61.3 27 13 91.3
1986 49ers 307 191 2236 62.2 8 9 80.7
1987 49ers 398 266 3054 66.8 31 13 102.1
1988 49ers 397 238 2981 59.9 18 10 87.9
1989 49ers 386 271 3521 70.2 26 8 112.4
1990 49ers 520 321 3944 61.7 26 16 89.0
1992 49ers 21 15 126 71.4 2 0 118.4
1993 Chiefs 298 181 2144 60.7 13 7 87.4
1994 Chiefs 493 299 3283 60.6 16 9 83.6

Or Tony Romo:

2003 Dallas Cowboys 0 0 0 0 --- 0 --- 0 0 0 0/0 0 0 ---
2004 Dallas Cowboys 6 0 0 0 --- 0 --- 0 0 0 0/0 0 0 ---
2005 Dallas Cowboys 16 0 0 0 --- 0 --- 0 0 0 0/0 0 0 ---
2006 Dallas Cowboys 11 5 180 125 69.4 1656 9.20 53 13 5 8/46 27 4 110.8

So Joe Montana never had great NFL career? *Yeah, right. Ha!*
Brady won 3 rings, yet that's not even great, eh? Fantastic. I don't know what it takes to be great then. Maybe 10 SB rings with 10 MVPs? Maybe that's not enough for you I guess.

All right - here's the few counter-example I can show you; Troy Aikman and John Elway, who won a few rings and got to HoF despite starting in his rookie campaign. *I'd say it's more of an anomaly.* Or you could make your case with Terry Bradshaw, but remember that he didn't look like anything successful till 1975 season.

If my memory serves me correct, just about every starting QBs from the past till this day have sat out in their respective rookie season; for instance, Drew Brees, Phillip Rivers, Marc Bulger, etc etc - the list goes on and on, and that's just for this season.

2. If you want to make some contention, at least get your fact straight. Bulger was given the starting job in the middle of his SECOND season, not first. He started the season as the Rams starting QB in his third season. What did he do in his rookie season? He stayed on the sideline, and played ZERO games. No snap whatsoever. *Again, he is MY case, not yours.*

3. Time after time, it is proven *in the world of NFL* that nurturing the talent for a few years *maybe 2 or 3* is more important than grabbing that top pick. For instance, steelers consistently do that with their team - and this is why they can have such a high personnel turn-over year after year yet perform at the level they perform. All right - they are having an off-year, but remember they were perennial playoff contenders.

4. All right - let's see. Kyle Boller was thrown into the fire in his rookie season. He is not even a backup QB now. Eli? You call him successful? I call him bust. How about Tim Couch? Oh, we've got a juicy one here in Ryan Leaf. Again, the list goes on and on - starting a rookie QB is a formula for a disaster, as history tells us.

 

I know what you mean...he hasn't worn his confidence on his sleeve in a while. That spark was the start of something good. I think he's gonna really hone some of his skills in this last run of the season.

 

Dude, are you retarded? Most QBs that don't start right away in the NFL will never start, period. Most QBs end up failing, period. You listed 3 QBs, that's all, throughout the history of the NFL, that you think somehow prove that failed QBs don't exist. MOST QBs FAIL period! That's why you don't know MOST QBs names! I swear, arguing on the internet really stuns me sometimes. How do you prove the non-existence of something by proving the existence of something else? If someone argues cigarettes usually cause cancer, you don't say marijuana doesn't cause cancer and I know people that smoke weed. There's just no logical connection with that whatsoever. Are you really trying to argue that most QBs that sit a year turn into Joe Montana? Really? I just....can't believe someone would really argue that. I could do the same thing and list a whole bunch of QBs that sat and either never started in their careers, became career backups, or started and failed miserably when they did get a chance. I'm not going to because basic common sense and NFL knowledge tells you that's the case, and I'd have to do research for the no-names that nobody knows. Fact is, history tells us most QBs fail, period, so if you want to go by numbers, nobody should ever start a new QB period. That's just a stupid idea though.

I just know that if I had Peyton Manning, Ben Roethlisberger or Troy Aikman, I'd have felt pretty good about my QB. I think the talent of the QB is way more important than when you start the guy. These guys were going to be good no matter what, since they were allowed to make mistakes and learn from them after their first years. If you're going to fail as a QB, you're going to fail anyway.

As for Bulger, I realized you are right. When I looked at his profile before, it started his career in 2002. I assumed it would list his entire career, and just put 0s across the board for when he didn't start, but I looked closer and it says he was drafted in 2000.

 

Jesus Christ. Don't tell me you don't have the eyes to separate the QBs drafted for the future from the QBs drafted to be backups. I didn't just give you 3 QBs. I gave you 3 ILLUSTRIOIUS ones, but then again, I gave you just about every other starting QBs in today's NFL as well. *You need to learn how to read others' postings.* Don't think this trend existed before? In this days of internet, you can basically look up anything - go to google, and look up the career stats of just about every QBs. Most of the starting QBs didn't play much in their respective rookie season. Like I said, don't just take my words for it, look it up when in doubt. For every Troy Aikman, you will find more than handful Tom Bradys. Let me lower the bar here to make my point. Look up the careers of the starting QBs. You will find that most of them would have sat in their respective rookie season.

Okay - let me spoon-feed you. You can find just about EVERY stat relevant to EVERY QB from this site:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/

I did my research on the QBs, and I can understand where you come from, but my point is correct: you will find that most of the QBs that featured a franchise at one time or the other, have sat out in their respective rookie season.

Also, for every Troy Aikmans, there are more of Ryan Leafs, remember. Do you think David Carr is a successful QB? How about Tim Couch? Or Aaron Brooks? Why don't you discuss these clowns as well?

 

If you're going to argue that QBs who don't start their rookie year fail more often than QBs that do, I want hard evidence to back it up

And the statement that "most QBs who don't start their rookie year don't add up to anything" is almost completely irrelevant sine the majority of those QBs were never viewed as "starter caliber" (late round picks, undrafted FAs). The only comparison to be made is between QBs who started their rookie year and starting-caliber QBs who sat out. Based on observation, I have no reason to believe that starting in your rookie year makes success more likely (and I don't believe it makes it less likely either). The whole idea of it being a factor makes very little sense; a QB is either fudamentally good or not good--whether he starts his rookie year isn't going to change that. Clemens is either the QB of the future or he's not--whether he starts this year or not doesn't change that.

 

Can you tell me what you thought of Tony Romo two years ago? He wasn't even drafted, so that speaks volumes about what scouts might have said about this guy. Brady? Scouts said he didn't have the arm to make it in the big league. Same was said of Montana. Etc etc. Okay - I am going on the limb here, but I hope I made my point. By nurturing the prospect you have, while you may not go to the big dance, you can still compete in this league.

And... there is an entire class of 1st-round QBs who started in their respective rookie season, and crashed and burned - from, say, Steve DeBerg to Kerry Collins, so to speak. *Ok - it is a bit unfair to Kerry, but then who cares.*

 

Again, I question the logical consistency of your arguments. How do guys like Brady prove sitting out a year makes for better QB play? You say earlier the comparison should be between people projected as first round talent, but a guy like Brady simply wasn't. There are more guys projected to fail that either never get a chance or DO fail. There are also many guys that are projected to succeed that fail. I don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore in terms of that. The guys who aren't projected as starters won't even be given that chance in the first place, they have to find some other way to prove their ability, and that takes time. Who is to say if they didn't start right away, they wouldn't have achieved the same results? Perhaps the reason why people that sit before they start, if it's indeed true, have more success, is because only those that sit before they start have to prove their ability before they start. If Ryan Leaf was a 6th round pick, do you really think he would ever have gotten a chance as a starting QB? If a lot of the first round picks that were handed a starting job were instead forced to show something before they got a chance, would they have been given a chance to even fail?

Remember, you are trying to argue your position that sitting out a year makes you a better QB. I don't see how you can possibly even begin to logically prove that assertion, as the only real way to test that is to have the same QB start in year one, have a career, then compare with that QB starting after year 1, and having a career. That is the only way you can control for the same situation and same talent. Just how many Joe Montanas do you think come through the league?

All you've managed to do is maybe show a few examples of correlation. Correlation is not causation, and you haven't even tried to rule out any explanations. You just throw things out there that I still don't understand how they can possibly form an argument. When I point anything out, you backpedal, add in new terms and conditions, and call me names, or just simply refuse to comperehend what I wrote. Again, what does showing first rounders that started their first year and failed have to do with sitting a year
making you more likely to be a better QB? What does showing a QB that sat and succeeded have to do with showing that the sitting made him better? How can you even begin to show a correlation without statistical data in the first place, that takes all instances into account, and within which common sense would dictate most QBs don't become successful, because success by definition is extremely limited?

 

Great job of reading comprehension. Here is the second sentence in my post:

Obviously I acknowledged that Pennington played well yesterday. Here is the third sentence in my post:

I was not "bashing a guy for have [sic] bad games against the best defense"; I was talking about the fact that in his previous 8 games he had 6 TDs and 10 INTs, which is poor play in anyone's book.

You certainly showed how "stupid" my points were by ignoring them.

 

whatever people stretch out debates but what it comes down to is.....do you see chad being a long term solution at qb?

do you see chad as being able to take this team to a SB in 2+ yrs?

hes inconsistent but hes the reason were competing. i think the split comes with whether we should make a full fledged attempt to find our long term solution at qb or whether hes the person already starting.