Re-Evaluating Pennington

Good points. Manning (payton) is a perfect example of a guy that pretty much guarantees you playoffs. Give him a good line..good receivers..and almost any rb, he gets you to the playoffs...good defense or bad.

What he doesnt get you is the ring. Not yet at least. Its so damn rare that teams with great offenses and below average defenses win the big one...in fact..I cant even remember it happening (even the Kurt Warner Rams had a pretty good defense).

Completely dominating defenses and average qbs can win (The Bears, Bucs, Ravens) come to mind.

Still, I see your point..if the better qb is on your roster and not playing..and your team is not superbowl bound...you might want to find out. Not in preseason or a washup role..but in true games.

EM/MT have a small..and I emphasize small, problem on their hands. Generally speaking, new regimes are given 4 to 5 years. By going with Chad, they are pretty much using up their first two years. Even if they went with the kid next year or the end of this year..you have 1 year thats a wash...unless he is that rare player that just excels from the get go.

The only way around this problem is to continue to build the rest of the program during that time. The defense gets better every year. The Bears are a great example of that. All the pieces of the puzzle were there except hell at the qb position. Grossman couldnt stay healthy long enough to provide just average offense to go along with a great defense. Now he has...and you see the reward.

 

Keep in mind, at the time they drafted Clemens nobody knew if Chad could even play anymore, so he was brought in for an open competition for the job, not as an insurance policy. If Ramsey was the best veteran guy they could bring in, they were trying to up the competition pool any way they could, so a #2 pick isn't bad. He basically replaces Brooks Bollinger as a 3rd guy/future hopeful, since they saw in 2005 that Bollinger wasn't ever going to be the #1 guy. And they did draft Smith, who could end up there one day, who knows? But I still don't see a scenario where we need to get rid of Chad, I just don't see how that improves us in any way.

 

I think Chad's hurt again. I have to think that to wrap that 2nd half shitfest he threw up around my brain. If he is even a little hurt, play the rookie. If he's not, play the rookie to light a fire under Chad's ass. Chad has a lost look in his eyes. Where's the fire and heart. If he is indeed healthy, put him on the bench for a game and maybe he can find it. Granted, the last play he made was great! Avoiding the sack and placing it perfectly in the endzone. However, he played like a sucking chest wound for most of the 2nd half and needs to realize some punishment for that.

With that said, the Brad Smith lovers need to sit down. If you don't like watching Chad's ducks, you don't want Smith starting at QB. There's a REASON he wasn't drafted at QB.

 

The second part of this answers the first. If you win enough, everyone keeps their job, and that's where Chad comes into it. We're having this discussion on the heels of one of his worst games ever, and he still gave us a chance to win that the refs blew. If they pull him and the next guy sucks, then you've wasted a couple years and had a worse record, which imperils their standing as GM and HC even more. Especially if you're losing with a guy they picked to replace Chad, who has generally won here.

 

So if he can't light up two defenses that nobody else in the NFL can move the ball on either, he should sit? And he should have been pulled from a game when we're 4-3 with him at QB and won two straight? I just don't see how you can do that. He runs the whole offense from the line of scrimage and for the most part has done a good job. Again, even yesterday he throws the game tying TD, really, I don't see Clemens doing that.

You make a good point about Blake, but that's the way the league works sometimes. If Mo Lewis doesn't knock the hell out of Drew Bledsoe who knows if Tom Brady ever becomes Tom Brady? But that happens roughly once a decade, tops, I'm not benching Chad in a winable game to bank on that. Later in the year if we're out of it, yes, give him a shot. In Week 8 when you're in the thick of things, no.

 

The amazing thing with all this discussion is that it appears to be what for no better words I will call Chad lover instead looking out what will be best for the NYJ TEAM down the line

 

What's looking out for the team down the line is going with the QB who has proven he can win games for you. You guys got your wish last year--no Chad, forced to go with the young, unproven guy, how did that go? Give me the guy who can win games.

 

He has also proven that he can lose games for us. It appears that you are Chad lover & he is more important to your way of thinking then looking ahead to 07 & beyond. If Clemens was only drafted as 3rd mentioned as a "insurance" policy for us in case Chad went down again then shame on our FO. We have to get on with business of winning SBs not worrying about a single player but instead making the team SB timber which in the end I would hope would be your goal just like it is mine

 

I would have yanked Chad in the 4th as well, and I was wearing his jersey during the game. Sure, he shouldn't have been pulled on those 3rd and shorts, and we likely wouldn't have been losing if the OC doesn't make those silly calls, but Chad looked lost in the 2nd half and needed a timeout on the bench.

 

I would say later than that, just based on how the schedule falls. After the next two, even if we're 4-6 we could easily be back in contention in December if we stick with Chad and have some semblence of a running game. If we get to 4-8, then I'd say give Clemens the rest of the games.

 

My only concern about the single player is he gives us the best chance to get to a Super Bowl in the forseeable future. Unless you have a QB tree in your yard or something, Chad is the best chance we have for a while. I love people who pin all their hopes on a rookie that has never taken a snap, and as soon as he loses a game or two you're all clamoring for the next guy. You don't win that way.

 

I'm a Chad homer with the worst of them, but if we're heading in a new direction, we need to keep his value up so Herm will give us a draft pick for him. Green is done, and Huard, despite his play today, is not an NFL QB. Herm's the biggest Chad homer on earth, so imagine the trade value.

 

I just think the direction should be winning. Chad has made a remarkable comeback this year and we've done well with him, so he had a bad game. This thread is so New York, I want to laugh. A guy has a bad game, still pulls it out sans the bad call, and everyone wants to go a new direction and hand the keys over to an untested rookie, citing Tom Brady and Jeff Blake as precedent.

 

I agree with you most of the time, but it's not just one bad game. Sadly, my boy Chad has a history at this point. Maybe he's tired because of all the rehab. Maybe he folded again under consistant pressure. Whatever it is he looked like a high school for most of the 2nd half. Something needs to give.

 

Yes this year which is all you are looking at that is correct. However we MUST find out about Clemens abilities which is what 3rd is saying since if he does not have it then we have to go in another direction. The only way we will find out about Clemens is by allowing him to play in real time games. EVEN if by the unlikely chance we made the POs which is what you are only looking at what good would it do us with our present D? Right now I have us at least #8 of the 6 teams that will make the POs. After yesterdays D performance & Jax D performance you have to move them up & drop us down

 

If we're waiting for a QB who is never going to have bad games in the NFL we're going to be shit out of luck. I'm never willing to forfeit wins or a chance at the playoffs just to look at one guy. Who is now putting an individual ahead of the team? I think you put the program as a whole further ahead by establishing a winning environment and competing for the playoffs, even if you don't make them.