Right!!!! and last year when we went 10-6 with no running game..he gave us the chance not to lose..or last week when the entire team failed and he was the best player out there...this is unreal how many people can watch these games and not realize is beyond me...anyways hopefully kellen is capable of having a better showing than the mop up duty last week....we are rooting for him as fans...and yes chad gives us the best chance to week this week!!!!
The one thing that gets noticed, but rarely mentioned around here is that Chad has a lot of intangibles that you can't coach. He plays with heart, he plays through pain, and he is clearly able to lead. Looking solely at his arm strength or his brain, I think, is short sighted. He is a guy that both the offense and defense are able to respect, and that means a lot to the team and the franchise. Personally, I go back and forth on this issue. I really have always enjoyed watching Chad play. When he plays well, it looks effortless. When he does not play well, it looks painful. I think Chad is able to win a Super Bowl, I don't think (at this point) the Jets are able to, particularly without being able to stretch the field, which is obviously Chad's biggest drawback. Unfortunately, time is ticking for Chad and the Jets might not have the talent to get there before he's gone. It just might be in the best of interest of the team and franchise to take their lumps with Kellen Clemens now, rather than when the team, as a whole, is ready to take the next step.
I think this is it. Chad is a very good QB. He doesn't have it all, but he is very good. He still starts because the Jets can't find a better QB. (because he is GOOD) A better arm doesn't make a better QB by itself. Chad is Manning without the arm. He is on his level with everything else.
I like the original post of this thread and I like that this debate about Chad isn't necessarily turning into the usual "spaghetti arm" crap that we usually see. Anyways, I'm a big Chad supporter and here's why. In the original post, johnnysd talks about the difference between a game manager QB who does what he has to not to jeopardize the team's victory without adding very much to the offense himself and what I guess you could call the ballsy QB who isn't afraid to air it out and take a few risks. Well, there are ballsy QBs in the NFL right now. Brett Favre comes to mind. Jake Delhomme. JP Losman. Rex Grossman. These are guys who are not afraid to take risks or to throw the ball way downfield. Sometimes these guys can look amazing - even Losman and Grossman. Sometimes they can look downright terrible - even Favre and Delhomme. Then there are game manager QBs like Chad. When you look at the great QBs of NFL history, they are ballsy QBs, not game managers. What we want, in the end, is John Elway or Dan Marino or Joe Montana (or Peyton or Brady). It's no fun being an elite team without an elite QB. But the thing about all those QBs is that they were in very special situations. They had (or have) amazing teams around them to support them. Chad does not have that right now. And anyone who thinks Clemens is the second coming of Joe Montana is deluding themselves. He could be very good but there's no way he gives the Jets a better chance to win out of the gate. He's been on the field, he's had his garbage time, and he hasn't done a damn thing. So, right now, Chad gives the Jets the best chance to win. And, if you want to call that the best chance not to lose, that's fine wth me. The point is, I'll take consistent mediocrity over those games when your ballsy QB is terrible.
I think we (and the coaching staff) would need more than one game against arguably the best defense in the league to judge whether or not he KC can hack it in this league.
I don't know why in the hell you would include the "33 year old running back" as a negeative....it's not like he lead the NFL in rushing our anything.....
I think the game last week was pretty indicative of why he's divisive and why people can always argue both sides and be right. I mean, the reason I always question him is just like everyone else's.. the weak arm and inability to stretch the field and keep a defense on it's toes. And he showed some of that against the Pats. no deep balls, a few ducks, no taking advantage of 8 in the box... but at the same time he did play well, completed a high % of passes, threw no picks and 2 TD's and it could be argues that take away the KO return it might have been a game........if that was the case it would have all been because Chad played well. I do think he has the ability to win games, or gives the team "the best chance to win"...he just cant do it when the d plays like crap and the ST gives a return....but he can overcome the lack of running game.
Gotta disagree There are so many factors that calculate into a Super Bowm Championship Team that it's not possible to go over them in a single reply. Here's my thoughts on the Chad matter ... 1) Chad could win the Super Bowl with a good team around him, I do not doubt it for a second. I have seen him play with a good healthy team and even not at 100% his team will win if he's in. 2) Chad needs a very good line. He was never billed as a scrambler and when he has time, hurt or not, he is VERY effective. 3) Don't sell the character issue short. To work every day with someone like Chad is inspirational to everyone around him and if any organization needs a Chad its the Jets. 4) Chad has obvious weaknesses, some of his passes are painful to watch and against the raiders a few years ago (2002?) he faced two really tough corners that frustrated the hell out of him. He has had a few bad injuries that are certain to effect his career. 5) My frustration does not begin with Chad, I like the picks of Revis and Harris and of course Mangold and Washington have been great suprises but the Front Office really screwed the pooch with both of the lines and that my friends is where it all begins and ends. I dont give a crap who was QB last week, they were gonna look bad. There were some glaring weaknesses on the D-line and the O line is a mess. 6) This notion of Chad "wont lose" vs "will win" is completely rediculous I watched them come and go around here and this guy is a rarety in Jetland, FIVE SOLID OFFENSIVE LINEMEN and GUARNATEED this thread does not exist. 7)Not related but I am very concerned with Dbrick pick. I was not against it but I had some doubts based on the concerns that he was a little light and not real aggressive. Obviously this is not helped by the disaster at LG.
Chad used to be a gunslinger w/ an average downfield arm... However, Hackett's conservative coaching philosophy got into his head, combined the injuries to his throwing shoulder..and what you have is a cconservative minded QB w/ an extremely weak arm. The result is what we see week to week
Johnnysd, excellent first post. Very thoughtful and truthful. Winston, I think you're really onto something here. I found myself thinking the exact same thing... when Chad came back into the game, there is no way he should've been able to stand at that point, yet there he was... on the field, playing, and looking PISSED OFF. That may have been one of the best drives I have ever seen Chad lead. Some thought that maybe the Pats softened up on him because he was hurt, but knowing Belicheck, does anyone REALLY think the Patriots softened up on us? The fact is... Chad was pissed, and he played like it. Maybe this is what Mangini needs to do to get Chad really motivated. The nice guy stuff is... nice... but, not good for winning football games. We need a pissed off Chad, who is going to say it screw it and just attack with reckless abandon.
I think managing the game and running the offense is the most important thing for a QB, that's how you win and that's why Chad wins. Most teams can move between the 20s, a smart QB executes in the red zone where points are determined, and in the red zone you don't need to throw the ball 50 yards downfield. You need to make smart decisions, accurate throws and not turn the ball over. The difference between 7 points, 3 points and 0 points in those situations usually determines games in the NFL because the talent level overall is so balanced. Knowing how to manage the clock is important too, and also determines winning and losing a lot of the time. Chad covered a lot of Herm's flaws in that area, look at how badly games ended when we had guys like Vinny (who I loved) and Quincy in there.
Chad got hurt against the Bills in 2004 in game 8 halfway through the season. Up to that point he had lead the Jets to a 6-1 record, losing only to the Patriots. In three of those wins he lead the Jets offense to mediocre showings, scoring just a TD and FG against the 0-3 Dolphins, a TD and 3 FG's against the 0-3 Bills and 3 late rushing TD's against the 1-4 49ers whose defense was collapsing under continuous pounding from Curtis Martin. Not surprisingly after Chad got hurt Quincy Carter lead the Jets to two wins in 3 games, against similarly bad opposition and with similarly good support from his teammates. That's just where the Jets were in 2004. They had a top 5 defense and the NFL rushing leader. Most teams go 12-4 or better in that circumstance. Anybody who looks at 2004 as an example of Chad's effectiveness also needs to concede that he got to do something he does as well as anybody: beat up on bad teams without doing a lot more than managing the game against them.
We aren't all that good at getting to the red zone with Chad and scoring TDs. We get a lot of FGs and we never finish well in terms of points scored league ranking. Of course, Herm and Hackett probably played a factor. Last year we didn't really have the right personnel so it might be unfair to lay the blame on Chad for that. Still, you can't say he can do it by listing excuses, however legitimate they are. Instead we are left with a huge question mark.
Chad has only thrown 1 or 2 picks in the red zone in his entire career. Both were last season and at least one of them was on 4th and goal where you might as well force a pass because you're going to lose posession if you don't score a TD anyway. So while we haven't been a scoring machine, Chad hasn't wasted opportunities and left points on the field. Herm would just about always take the FG, so that skews things. As great as Curtis was, he wasn't really a guy who could slam it home from inside the 5, so that wasn't always an option either. If you want to look at a bad QB for a comparison, look at Brooks Bollinger. He could move us between the 20s and into the red zone, had a few games there to be won, but he couldn't execute when he had to in a tight area. That's often the difference between winning and losing.
another factor is our o-line has been very weak....if brady did not have hours to throw the ball im sure he would not be as accurate as he is....and as for arm strenght .. i know its weak but he made some spectacular deep ball throws in the post season recently against san diego and pittsburgh..although thAt ball was perfectly defended by the cb
And that's fine, you just clearly subsrcibe to the QB play not to lose philosophy mentioned above, and as expected you are a big Chad supporter.
Interesting, thought-provoking thread. I'd like to add that I've always thought Chad gave us "the best opportunity to win," but I've never felt confident in his ability to win. Make sense? Giving a team the "best opportunity" only means he's the best we have right now, it doesn't necessarily mean that he's a winner. There's a huge difference. I've always scoffed at that slogan anyway... I think it's a ridiculous statement that means essentially nothing. Every damned NFL team in the league can say the same about their QB... all 32 of them. OF COURSE you're going to play the guy who will "give you the best opporunity to win," even if that guy is Brooks Bollinger or Jay Feidler at the time. So even when I hear Mangini referring to this in a general, team way, it rankles me sometimes. He'll say, "Thomas Jones gives us in the best opportunity to run the ball." Well, no shit, Sherlock. I sure as hell wouldn't want you to play the guy who gives us the worst opportunity to run it. So, in other words, it really doesn't say much. Even Chad has perfected the Mangini-speak now. When asked about a particular defense, he'll say, "Hopefully I'm going to put our team in the best position to win." Well, thank you, but I wouldn't expect otherwise. Just one time I'd like to hear a little touch of some Joe Namath-like confidence from somebody, as in, "We're gonna go out and give the Ravens hell." I don't necessarily want a guy to tell me he's going to "put the team in the best position to win," I want him to just go out and win it.
