FA QB's for 2018

[Rockice_8]

54 minutes ago, Bobby816 said:

When there jobs are at stake? Absolutely I think they wanted McCown to win the job. They have to play young guys in preseason. That’s not giving them a chance. That’s the same thing every team does. Macc and Bowles knew they had to win at least 3-4 games to keep their job. And McCown would give them the best chance to do that. If he wasn’t injured they’d still be playing him.

Why would they want a 38 year QB on a 1 year deal to win the job.  There's no logic in that statement at all.  They wanted Hack to win the job and become a franchise QB if you think they wanted something else I don't know what to tell you.

And you just made the point for me so thank you.  They played McCown because he was better simple as that and it wasn't close.  If it was close they would side with Hack but it wasn't so they had no choice but to go with McCown.

[GangGreen420]

Man that Hack pick was such an epic fail

[Bobby816]

2 hours ago, Rockice_8 said:

Why would they want a 38 year QB on a 1 year deal to win the job.  There's no logic in that statement at all.  They wanted Hack to win the job and become a franchise QB if you think they wanted something else I don't know what to tell you.

And you just made the point for me so thank you.  They played McCown because he was better simple as that and it wasn't close.  If it was close they would side with Hack but it wasn't so they had no choice but to go with McCown.

You’re missing my point. Both the GM and HC are on the hot seat. McCown was the safe play. Bc you knew what you’re getting with him. I’m let’s be real, we’re ecstatic we got 5 wins. That’s how bad we are. With Hack it was a risk to play him in real games. And they couldn’t afford that risk. So of course they sided with McCown, bc he was the safe play, not the better play. And they as a regime couldn’t afford the risk of Hack.

[Rockice_8]

40 minutes ago, Bobby816 said:

You’re missing my point. Both the GM and HC are on the hot seat. McCown was the safe play. Bc you knew what you’re getting with him. I’m let’s be real, we’re ecstatic we got 5 wins. That’s how bad we are. With Hack it was a risk to play him in real games. And they couldn’t afford that risk. So of course they sided with McCown, bc he was the safe play, not the better play. And they as a regime couldn’t afford the risk of Hack.

And this is where you miss the point.  

[Jag68Sid87]

In what world is a Pro Bowl caliber season out of the QB position from THIS team not the better play?

 

[rdelaney89]

53 minutes ago, Bobby816 said:

You’re missing my point. Both the GM and HC are on the hot seat. McCown was the safe play. Bc you knew what you’re getting with him. I’m let’s be real, we’re ecstatic we got 5 wins. That’s how bad we are. With Hack it was a risk to play him in real games. And they couldn’t afford that risk. So of course they sided with McCown, bc he was the safe play, not the better play. And they as a regime couldn’t afford the risk of Hack.

Please show me a team that plays their starting QB for 1 drive in the preseason coming to a new team or a team that signs their starting QB to only be paid when he is starting. I don't think you are looking at how badly Bowles and Macc wanted Hack to win the starting job. You don't sign a QB who is (2-20) in his last 3 seasons to be your starter, he's there to be a benchmark. We should probably also ignore the fact that Woody Johnson came out and said before the season that this season is about development, not W/L. 

 

We are all on board with wanting to see Hack play and play well, some of us think he has probably grown since preseason but there is no way I pass on a franchise QB in FA or the draft because of anything Hack shows me in the last 3 games. If Hack showed marginal play for 10 weeks I'd still say go after another QB. Hack is under contract for 2 years, if he plays well having 2 good QBs is not a bad thing.

[Bobby816]

1 hour ago, Jag68Sid87 said:

In what world is a Pro Bowl caliber season out of the QB position from THIS team not the better play?

 

Bc this exam was never a playoff team. It was to see what we have in the roster and develop. And we did nothing of that sort at the most important position in the game.

[jetfan8178]

Mac has said multiple times he will grab any and every qb he thinks is a good pick at that position regardless of the situation.

He hoards qb's

[Bobby816]

1 hour ago, rdelaney89 said:

Please show me a team that plays their starting QB for 1 drive in the preseason coming to a new team or a team that signs their starting QB to only be paid when he is starting. I don't think you are looking at how badly Bowles and Macc wanted Hack to win the starting job. You don't sign a QB who is (2-20) in his last 3 seasons to be your starter, he's there to be a benchmark. We should probably also ignore the fact that Woody Johnson came out and said before the season that this season is about development, not W/L. 

 

We are all on board with wanting to see Hack play and play well, some of us think he has probably grown since preseason but there is no way I pass on a franchise QB in FA or the draft because of anything Hack shows me in the last 3 games. If Hack showed marginal play for 10 weeks I'd still say go after another QB. Hack is under contract for 2 years, if he plays well having 2 good QBs is not a bad thing.

You say that but I think who you think is a franchise an and who is a franchise win tonsome of us is different.

[Bobby816]

Preseason reps with backups don’t count as getting a legit shot. Especially when it was 5 months ago as well.

[JetsandI]

When Bowles signed McCown, he was already penciled as a starter for week 1. So anything that suggests Petty and Hackenberg had shot to beat McCown in ST has no grounds to suggest Hackenberg being either a legit qb or not.  Jets held McCown out for almost whole preseason games.

 

As everyone should know that Jets will not open 2018 with Hackenberg as a starter. No argument here. Now, you people have talked about Jackson or Mayfield who could hypothetically save Bowles and Maccagnan's job after 2018. Is that for real?  You should know that Jackson, Mayfield and Allen will be picked as a grooming qb for long term. So is Hackenberg.  Why bother to use 1st round pick for the same reason as Hackenberg's plan. Additionally, new head coach or general manager or both may want their own qb for 2019 as Mayfield and Jackson are not exactly hot commodities in NFL coaching circle (not scouting part).

 

I don't care about his struggle in preseason game when he played with a bunch of subpar talented players. You think Mayfield would excel behind those players? That is all right if you think so but I don't buy it.  Mayfield has played air raid offense in all of his NCAA career. That air raid offense, even though it is a variant of Mike Leach's philosophy, usually runs into a trouble when facing strong man coverage team. Mayfield fared fairly all right against Ohio State, defense featured by Marshon Lattimore and Gareon Conley, last year. He performed brilliantly enough to plant the flag in Ohio Stadium as Denzel Ward being Buckeye's only top CB on the field.  Because of that, his performance in playoff would tell us what kind of qb he will be during rookie season. Carrying clipboard? Inactive all the way?  Week 10 starter?

 

Firing Bowles is only way to get a new quarterback. Even, it is for Mayfield or Jackson(gagging and vomiting). Bringing Bowles back and us fighting over which one is right qb for Jets sound uselessly divisible. Why don't we create a petition for firing Todd Bowles after this season? lol.

 

[Bobby816]

I just feel as long as we have a GM and HC on the hot seat (like they are now and will be this offseason if still here) we wont go in a young direction for a starter next year. I think they know that a vet gives them more stability and not a better chance to win but a better chance of not failing. Keenum was better than Goff last year, yet the Rams still played Goff the last 7 games of the season. And yes where a QB is drafted does dictate how long the string is with them and the patience. But we did invest a good pick in Hack and he does have obvious talent. This regime is just too scared to play him bc of their job security. They wouldn't even be playing Petty this week if McCown was healthy. Something has to change. Someone higher than GM needs to make a direct order to play Hack or these guys need to go. Even if Hack fails that's good for the franchise bc it answers the question on if he's good enough or ready. But not playing him dictates nothing at all. For those who say he had a chance to win the job in pre season (which I don't agree with, I think they were just giving him reps and he was gonna have to play out of his mind to win the job)... if was close enough to be in the mix to start after just starting year 2 and barely knowing the playbook, then why not give him a chance now? Playing with starters, an additional 5 months of learning the NFL speed, learning the system and playbook?

 

For the guys wanting Mayfield or Jackson these are not guys that are gonna start Week 1 more than likely of 2018. They are gonna have to do the same as we are doing with Hack under this regime. Sit on the bench and learn. So they don't answer an immediate QB issue. Hack will get a chance to play more than likely before any QB we'd draft in the upcoming draft.

[doumeyer]

11 hours ago, Bobby816 said:

I just feel as long as we have a GM and HC on the hot seat (like they are now and will be this offseason if still here) we wont go in a young direction for a starter next year. I think they know that a vet gives them more stability and not a better chance to win but a better chance of not failing. Keenum was better than Goff last year, yet the Rams still played Goff the last 7 games of the season. And yes where a QB is drafted does dictate how long the string is with them and the patience. But we did invest a good pick in Hack and he does have obvious talent. This regime is just too scared to play him bc of their job security. They wouldn't even be playing Petty this week if McCown was healthy. Something has to change. Someone higher than GM needs to make a direct order to play Hack or these guys need to go. Even if Hack fails that's good for the franchise bc it answers the question on if he's good enough or ready. But not playing him dictates nothing at all. For those who say he had a chance to win the job in pre season (which I don't agree with, I think they were just giving him reps and he was gonna have to play out of his mind to win the job)... if was close enough to be in the mix to start after just starting year 2 and barely knowing the playbook, then why not give him a chance now? Playing with starters, an additional 5 months of learning the NFL speed, learning the system and playbook?

 

For the guys wanting Mayfield or Jackson these are not guys that are gonna start Week 1 more than likely of 2018. They are gonna have to do the same as we are doing with Hack under this regime. Sit on the bench and learn. So they don't answer an immediate QB issue. Hack will get a chance to play more than likely before any QB we'd draft in the upcoming draft.

I wouldn't count on that, you know Bowles, we will come with the same line ( so & so gives us the best chance to win ).

[jetfan8178]

The only way this works is if there are no other options.

Go into next season with 3 young guys and the job has to go to one of them. That's how you get a real competition.

Neither Hack nor Petty had a real chance to win the job. They got less than 25% of the first team reps between the two of them throughout training camp and preseason, and even with that Robby Anderson broke out as a stud so don't tell me they needed Mccown to "develop" guys like that.

We will never know what we have unless we give them a real chance to show us. Practicing with 2nd and 3rd string all week then getting thrown in there with first stringers does a player no justice, you may as well throw them on a different team.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

On 15/12/2017 at 4:34 PM, Bobby816 said:

Bc this exam was never a playoff team. It was to see what we have in the roster and develop. And we did nothing of that sort at the most important position in the game.

But having McCown at QB helped develop the offensive coordinator, the playbook, the wide receiver corps, the young No. 3 running back, the tight end, the offensive line, the defensive secondary, the kicker etc. etc. etc.

You seem to believe that this season has been a failure because McCown was at QB instead of Hackenberg. I am of the belief we have developed quite a lot this season DESPITE having a 38-year-old QB. 

Plus, Rockice said it best. They saw McCown for what, ONE series in ONE preseason game and realized that HE was the man for the job?  

That sorta, kinda tells you all you need to know about both Hackenberg and Petty. Petty showed some signs of life but makes too many mistakes (and looks more like the type of QB we have become accustomed to around here, mistake-prone QB's like Sanchez and Smith), while Hackenberg showed absolutely nothing.