I may get flamed for writing this, but I thought the one gem the Jets drafted was Pennington. Before he started getting hurt every year he was a very good young QB. It really is sad his body couldn't hold up, because he had the mental makeup to be very good for a long time.
you wont by me. he had the mental makeup and the brilliant way to put the ball exactly where he wanted it. while everyone else was firing the ball everywhere he had the touch and the sense to know what he could do and what he couldnt do. i remember the night he broke his wrist like it was yesterday. it was the beginning of the end.
Made the playoffs after a terrible start in 2002 and beat the Colts in a slaughter. Then we lost Randy Thomas and Lavernues Coles to the Redskins and Chad broke his wrist in the 3rd pre-season game with some low talent filler in at RG. I don't think it was Brandon Moore because he was still in the conversion process from DT at the time. I think it was one of the vets the Jets signed to try to make the hole go away. Probably Brent Smith. That was when I switched my handle. It was when Chad broke his wrist.
Gannon an upper echelon QB? That's a stretch. Also, I did mention, if you read carefully, that: It's near impossible to land an upper echelon QB that wasn't the first QB taken, unless it was a deep year or a team screwed up badly (2005). It's also rare to land a long-term starter that wasn't one of the first 3 QBs drafted. 2004 and to a lesser extent 1987 and 2012 were anomalies. Perhaps one draft every 7 years produces real depth at the QB position. 1983 & 2004 are the notable ones that actually produced 3+ upper echelon QBs. If you exclude the anomaly (2004) and the idiocy (late change of mind for Smith over Rodgers), you're talking about 7 upper echelon QBs (even if I give you Gannon) that weren't the top QB taken in 30 years. That in the NFL is my definition of rare. If you're averaging 1 every 4+ years, a team could easily burn through a coaching regime between those type of drafts. My next point was that it's rare to find a long-term starter outside of the top 3 QBs taken. That further reduces your list to 5 QBs in 30 years. I'll give you that there are a few others, especially in the earlier years of your 30 year window, but you're still looking at finding a long-term starter that wasn't one of the top 3 QBs in his draft class as the exception rather than the rule. Ultimately, my point in this is that the relatively new rookie salary cap changed the game. It used to be that whiffing on a 1st round QB would destroy a team's cap and chances for years. That is no longer the case. Teams can now afford to be far more aggressive in drafting a QB, but you better get one of the top rated QBs in a draft class. The Rams were extremely unlikely to land one of the top 2 where they sat. They had to move up to get their QB. Once they did that, any other team looking for either Goff or Wentz was on notice. Sure there may be position players that are more highly rated, but if you want the 2nd QB in this draft, you can't afford to be passive & hope that the Browns don't draft him or that another QB needy team doesn't move up to get him. This urgency is magnified if the pundits are correct in stating that the next few draft classes will be even thinner at QB. I can't comment on that, as I'm not a college football expert.
2004 was a hell of a year for QBs. -- If Goff turns out to be good then the Rams trade is a genius one regardless of what they gave up. You can get away with a lot of weaknesses and dumb moves if you have yourself a good QB- its like a get out of jail free card. Look at the Colts. Since they've drafted Luck they haven't done a single thing right. The owner's a pill popping trainwreck, the GM steps on his own dick every offseason and the HC & Front Office HATE each other's guts to the point where the HC was rumored to be trying to get fired last fall. and yet they are in the top 5 in wins since Luck arrived with 3 playoff appearances and the GM/Coach both have extensions. Without Luck that organization is pure dysfunction, a league joke, worse than the Browns.
What was your handle prior to bradway sucks? That "Jetskins" offseason was one of the worst we've ever had and then Pennington snapping his wrist just capped it off. We had a real opportunity to go toe to toe with Brady & NE going forward but bradway fucked that up. Losing all those guys in FA hurt big time but that sometimes happens. But the trade for that fat shit Robertson killed. They could've stayed put with the 2 first rounders and loaded back up. Troy Polamalu was drafted in that range and safety was a need. I also remember I absolutely loved Anquan Boldin because he literally did everything at Florida State. A big, reliable possession WR like him would've been absolutely perfect for Pennington. He got picked 1 pick after us in the second round because Bradway figured we didn't need him because he signed Curtis Conway.
LOL, yeah, I read that, but it was nonsense. You wrote the qualifier so that you could include the phrase "near impossible" to make your point of view sound stronger. But, in reality, the "near imposible" tag doesn't apply because there HAVE been teams that screwed up badly and there HAVE been deep drafts and they happen more than people care to admit. That is the point. It's like writing "it's nearly impossible to die from an STD, unless you get HIV" and then making a big deal about it being "nearly impossible" to die from an STD. I have no problem with being aggressive in drafting a QB, but trading away a multitude of draft picks to participate in what is already a huge gamble (and, as illustrated above, a slightly proposition, on average) simply isn't statsitically justified.
I mentioned gannon being a tricky case in my second big post, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt because he did win a league MVP and was an aweseome quarterback (undoubtedly top 5) for a solid three year stretch (2000-2002) Of course, he didn't do anything for a long time in his career and his best years were cut short by injury. I agree, he's debatable.
Great post. It's cool to see all the QBs put in perspective like that. All in all it's a crapshoot. I personally almost never agree with the king's ransom trade ups for potentials that usually don't work out. You shouldn't give up your future until you know you are solid going forward. Giving up multiple firsts for an early first is silly. What I'd really like to see is the history of all the major trade ups for top 3 picks and how many of those have worked out. I bet it's far less than 40%. The RG3 deal was bonkers. I can't believe GMs are willing to do that on a gamble. Rams and Eagles are crazy, it's not like there's an Andrew Luck there this year, there is certainly potential, though.
I really don't remember at this point. I was unhappy when the Jets lost the 4 FA's to the Redskins, John Hall and Chad Morton being the other 2, and then I was aggravated when they traded up for D-Rob, who I thought was a mid 2nd round pick. When Chad went down I knew we were going to be capped by the GM and scouting department and I just flipped and changed the name. I hadn't really been posting here much under the old handle because things seemed to be going well with the Jets under the new regime and in those days I only posted when I got worried or pissed off. The funny thing is most of my posting activity here was about the Knicks at that point because I was pretty sure they were toast. Lost interest in them when the burn became obvious and I realized they were probably gone for good.
How is it nonsense? I pointed out 4 deep QB drafts: 1983, 1987, 2004 & 2012. Are you saying there's more? Or are you saying teams should continue to wait around for one of those deep drafts that occur about once every 7 years? Beyond that, if they're to mediocre to get one of the higher rated QBs in that deeper draft, they should just wait around for the next deep draft or until they're bad enough to draft at the top? As far as teams making an obviously bad mistake, how often does that happen? I pointed it out once in the 30 year sample size, and that was Smith over Rodgers. Rodgers was the consensus number one for a very long time, until very late in the game. The 49ers perplexed everybody. You're pointing to a handful of anomalies to claim statistical evidence.
I'm not trying to be offensive, but do you know what "impossible" means? Again, it is definitively possible (and no where close to being "near impossible"), since it happens with some historical regularity. As I already illustrated, over the past thirty years, it has happened to a team, on average, once every 3 years. That is VERY HIGH, considering that there are so few "upper echelon QBs" to begin with. That's what you're missing. Also, if we go back earlier than 30 years, the "once every three year" average becomes higher. I didn't bother calculating it, but I can promise you that it would make the overall average considerably higher. Therefore, your "unless it was a deep year or a team screwed up badly" qualifier is nonsense. There have been numerous deep years and numerous screw-ups. The "unless"/"except for" game is only justified in cases where the exception doesn't change the overall impact of your argument. John Elway never won a Superbowl, unless you count the last two years of his career. Right? Something that happens, on average, once every three years (and, if we assess the entire history of the NFL draft, undoubtedly more) should never be referred to as "near impossible" and certainly doesn't qualify for the "unless"/"except for" game you are trying to play. Wrong. In over half of the drafts since 1986 in which at least one QB was selected with a top 3 pick, there was at least one QB who ended up being as good or better than anyone selected in the top 3, available later in the draft. In well over half of the drafts since 1986, well over half of the quarterbacks selected with a top 3 pick ended up being worth no where near what the Rams and/or Eagles just traded away. Those aren't anomalies. The NFL draft is mostly luck. The statistical gaps between pre-draft conventional wisdom and post-draft reality are significant.
Are we comparing apples and oranges? You keep stating top 3 pick. I keep stating top 3 QB, as in one of the first 3 QBs taken in a draft, regardless of draft slot. If we're on the same page, show me that the 4th+ QB drafted every third year meets or exceeds the first one drafted. Additionally, draft history of 30+ years ago is not very relevant to today. There's different game rules (pass friendly), more teams, different CBA & contract structures. A large part of what used to push QBs down had to do with only really needing one (so fewer teams = less quantity needed), insane rookie contracts (teams couldn't afford to pay 1st round QB money for a guy that needed to be groomed)
Well, the thread started based solely on an analysis of whether or not it is worth it to make the trade the Rams and/or Eagles just made for a chance at drafting a quarterback in the top 3. Although, in my brief look at NFL draft history, I've been very unimpressed with the general order of QBs taken (With hindsight, of course). I'm planning on a few different statistical breakdowns in the coming weeks. As for the 'every third year' comment, that was specifically pertaining to a guy becoming an upper echelon QB, who wasn't the first QB taken in his respective draft. It had nothing to do with being one of the first three QBs taken. You commented about the "near impossibility" of finding an upper echelon QB who wasn't the first QB selected in his respective draft and my retort was exclusively in response to that comment. This is an interesting point. There certainly seems to be better outcomes at the top of the draft over the past 6 drafts or so. Time will tell if this is the beginning of a trend.
