The fact of the matter is that for the most part when Pennington has played the Jets have won. The winning overshadowed all his negatives, because that is what we all care about. When the Jets are losing, the negatives are highlighted and there is really isn't too much to like about Chad as the QB. If you are talking about completion percentage, don't you think if Peyton/Brady or a number of other QBs threw 80% of their passes in the 0 - 7yard range they'd also have a high completion percentage? The reason why Chad Pennington is a bad passer (although a good QB) is the same reason the option doesn't work in the pros. Defenders are too fast. So fast that they close down swing passes after three yards. So fast that the extra fractions of second Chad's passes take to reach WRs does make a difference in a defender getting to a pass, receivers ability to gain YAC and hopefully not get crushed. Chad's accruacy is terrific. It has to be. His lack of zip makes his margin of error smaller. Winning cures everything, but the Jets aren't winning and the brand of football that they play with Chad under center is boring. Sure, i'll choose winning and boring over losing and exciting, but at least give me one!
The Elway comparison is completely unfair. He was playing for a midmarket team in an era without a salary cap for his first 3 Superbowls. The NFC had all of the big money teams during that era. There's a reason why the NFC dominated Superbowls through the 80s and 90s. That's where the big money teams were. The NFL is a league which definitely reflects the talent gap at the highest level. Once the gap was narrowed, Elway won. As far as the Chad argument goes, it's nice to see people coming around to the reasons why we haven't seen Kellen start yet. If the coaching staff had crafted a gameplan around him for the possibility that he started during this season, we would have seen very different playcalling in the first 3 quarters in Baltimore. He's getting reps with the first team, and I can only hope that they're incorporating more of Schottenheimer's overall playbook in practice so that Kellen is given as much of a chance for success as Chad has been given when it's time for him to come in.
The QB will always take onus of any loss as the ball was in his hands every offensive play and he made more decisions that directly lead to the outcome of the game than any other player on the field.
If we keep losing, yes, certainly I'm all for whatever change is going to help us win. But 1-3 with 12 games to go is not the time to push the panic button, not when your QB has proven over the long haul to be a winner. Not when the other guy has played one good quarter. I'm not ready at 1-3 to go into the experimental phase and take it on the chin to evaluate one guy. I'm confident enough from what I've seen of this coaching staff that they will put the correct personnel on the field to win the game this week, whatever week it happens to be.
Green Bay was a small market team. There's a reason why they had difficulty winning before the cap was imposed. The 80's saw a huge jump in team salaries for the richest teams. Amazingly, teams like Green Bay, Denver, Cleveland/Baltimore, and New England were all able to win Superbowls after the cap was put in place in 94. It's no coincidence, either, that the AFC has seen more success in the post-cap era. AFC teams learned to be successful by building franchises and supporting young talent, while the top NFC teams bought their talent.
I hate to disagree with you, but Clemens had 5+ pass plays of 20+ yards against Baltimore. One start. (and the TD that McCraphands dropped would have been +20 for a score.) In three starts Chad has 4.
That's true. I'm all for Chad starting this week, but you have to admit that certain aspects of his play this week gave cause for concern. If he rights the ship, great. If not, the finger at least starts toward the panic button.
If I'm not mistaken, free agency and the salary cap came around at about the same time. So while you could spend more in the 80s, guys weren't readily available to spend on as they are now.
Certain aspects of his game always cause concern, but the goal at the end of the day is to win the game. People discount our record with and without Chad in there, but with apologies to Herm Edwards, "you play to win the game". People loyal to Chad are loyal because he has won here. Anyone who has been a Jet fan for any length of time (pre-Vinny) knows that is not a given. If we start losing with him--which has never happened yet--then we're open to change. But when we win and people still want to criticize his every move it gets old.
This extends beyond the 1-3 record. It is about Chad's penchant for winning games against bad teams, but not against good ones. It is about Chad's inability to bring the Jets back if they are two scores down. It is about the complete lack of confidence that most fans have that Chad could ever beat three or four good teams consecutively in the playoffs. People talk about Ryan Leaf and Jeff George having all the tools but head and heart, unfortunately Chad is the opposite. He gives his all and is better than a lot of QBs in the league and through Jets history, but like thousands of athletes in professional sports, he just isn't good enough. Is Clemmens, I don't know, but I think Iunfortunately) the jury is in on Chad Pennington. (I don't discount the personnel argument, but give Chad a great O-line, Thomas Jones and the Jet WRs and he isn't much more than a terrific game manager.)
I been a Jets fan through a lot of lean years. Winning was great in the late 1990s and early 2000s. However, the success of Tuna, Herm and Mangini last year (and, in part, the NE three titles) have raised expectations. The said thing is that while Chad was a huge part of raising expectations, he doesn't have what it takes to meet those expectations. That is why it is time to move on.
Lack of a free agency system helped the rich teams stockpile talent also. Right now a backup on a team who might have the potential to start hits free agency and is gone, but he goes to a new team and has to learn a new system in the process. Prior to the cap teams like San Francisco and Washington would keep their key backups happy with near starter salaries and get them to buy in to the existing system. Then 3 or 4 years down the road that player would be the equivalent of an all-pro sitting on the bench waiting for his break and knowing the system to a T. Sometimes a team would trade for somebody who they thought would become a big hit in their system someday and pay him through the nose to keep him happy while somebody started before him. Steve Young is the obvious example here but there are others. I'm not saying that being able to keep Priest Holmes around Baltimore while Jamal Lewis was running wild would have made the Ravens even a better team than they've been but you have to think it might have. As well as screwing KC out of a few good seasons.
Knowing that the guy has won in the past doesn't mean you have to have blinders on when he plays. Something isn't right with him right now. His mechanics are different and he seems to be changing his approach to compensate, resulting in poor decisions and poorer throws.
Free agency started in the late 80s, but teams still traded away top talent when they felt they wouldn't be able to pay salary demands that were driven up by the big money teams.
If that were the case he wouldn't be completing most of his throws and he would have thrown more picks, not just the two on Sunday. They were his first of the season. And by "the past" we need to go back only to last season.
Free Agency started in 1989, but teams were allowed to protect most of their players. It caused all kinds of problems for small market teams, whose players were often disgruntled by their inability to earn top dollar somewhere else. There was a lawsuit in 1992 and the system was changed to unlimited free agency. It affected teams since 1989. The cap was put in place in 1994 and small market teams started winning Super Bowls in the 96 season with Green Bay.
Holy crap, a football GEEEEEENIUS in Canada! As I live and breathe! Hey Jtuds, if you're going to question the football IQ of the board, you'd do well not to be posting stats-only arguments like I've seen you do all week, that's what amateurs and teenagers do.
I want him to start as well, but I want to see him throw it deep. Apparently Buffalo wanted to take away the deep passes on Sunday. Odd, because you're think teams would covers the medium passes and force him to try the deep passes. Either way, I want to see Chad throw it deeper, but not if there are 4 DBs covering deep. I will take short to medium if the receiver is open. I got excited watching Kellen in there against Baltimore, but I still can't comfortably say I want him to start now. If this defense can't pull it's socks up, we will keep losing and Chad will remain the starter unless he plays badly. If we are 4 - 8 later in the season, I am pretty sure we'll see more Kellen towards the end.
Did you see the throws he completed? Like I posted before, he completed throws based on timing patterns allowed by the coverage. On short throws, he was able to hit his spots, and his receivers were open. He had 3 straight completions to Leon Washington that were easier than pregame warmup tosses. He completed 10 passes to his backs, another 1 to Kowalewski that was 1 yard. Of the completions longer than 10 yards, most of the yards came after the catch. My problem, again, has to do with the following: Every time he threw more than 10 yards, the ball had significant wobble and hung more than usual. He used to have a solid arm up to 20. Yesterday, it topped off at 8 or 9. Every time a receiver's route was covered, he still threw to that receiver. This led to both of his INTs. He didn't seem to even see where he was throwing, just figured his timing would work out. That's decidedly un-Chadlike. QBs used to do that in high school. Not Chad Pennington.
