That seems a bit ridiculous as criteria. 20 years ago was 1997. How many teams have developed more than one Franchise QB from a rookie? Bills- None Dolphins- Probably none--maybe Tannehill Patriots- 1--Brady Jets- 1--Penny Ravens- 1--Flacco Bengals- 1--Dalton Browns- None Steelers- 1-Rothleisburger Texans- None Colts- 2!--Manning, Luck Jaguars- None Titans- None (Mariota pending) Broncos- None Raiders- 1--Carr Chiefs- None Chargers- 2--Rivers, Brees Cowboys- 1--Romo, (Prescott pending) Giants- 1--Eli Eagles- 1--McNabb Redskins- None (Cousins pending) Bears- None Lions- 1--Stafford Packers- 1--Rogers Vikings- None (Bridgewater pending) Falcons- 1-Ryan Panthers- 1-Newton Saints- None Buccaneers- None (Winston pending) Cardinals- None Rams- None (Kurt Warner wasn't a rookie) 49ers- None Seahawks- 1--Wilson
No..... We just suck at evaluating talent.... Not just qb's, everywhere..... Isn't that obvious? Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
Thanks for making this list! It's very interesting. You can make the argument that to win a championship - or more - you don't actually need a top QB. What you DO need is an above average QB, and great pieces around him. The Jets actually almost succeeded with that formula with Sanchez, but then allowed the surrounding cast to disappear. That said, if you DO find a FQB, you can be a SB contender for years, which is why that seems the preferable path to follow. And it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to draft your FQB - the Broncos signed P. Manning and won - but it's highly unlikely that you get that option.
Thus my undying support for the Steelers' method of building a team: Build a consistently solid front 7 and safeties on defense, and a run-oriented offensive line. Draft and rotate, but never overpay power backs, big possession receivers and blocking TEs, and physical CBs--let these guys walk in FA or trade them away for picks--never fall in love with them. This will give you a competitive team that is good enough to always beat a bad team, and force a good team to play disciplined football to beat you. Keep taking shots at the QB position. Once you hit on one, you will immediately be in competition for the Super Bowl. As the QB gets better, and his salary increases, you start letting those veteran D players and receivers go, and you start surrounding him with a pass blocking line and younger, faster, cheaper skill position players. The QB is the key to sustained success in this league. In the absence of a QB, you need a well rounded team--but a conservative one. The solid running game and big possession receivers are the key to building that QB up in his early years. A team built as described gives the young QB room to grow and puts all the pressure on the other team. Once the QB is up to speed, cap space needs to be allocated in a completely different manner, one that takes advantage of, rather than insulates, the QB.
Obrien never gets the love he should I'll say this .. IF Sam Darnold has a similar season AND declares for the draft, the number 1 spot in next years draft will be one of the most valuable in history. Hopefully our QB is already on the roster, so if we end up with the first pick, selling that 1 would greatly help us load up on talent. Now say, we don't like our QB situation and also do not end up with the first pick, prepare yourselves for what could be one of the biggest farm sellings of all time, and it smells Jet Like. For what a team not holding the 1st overall pick is going to give up next year to acquire Darnold, he better be nothing short than can't miss! Hope Hackenberg is the guy and or we end up with the 1st overall!!!
I can't argue with this blueprint - the Steelers' success is proof. I'm not sure I understand your point about "big possession receivers" - at the top you say to not overpay them, but later you imply they're so valuable that overpaying them is okay. What am I missing? BTW: Don't the Pats follow this blueprint more or less?
The Steelers just overpaid Antonio Brown in a big way. It was a break from their tradition and it will be interesting to see if it works out or blows up in their faces. Obviously they think Big Ben is close to the end and they wanted one or two more shots at a ring before he goes. The right move is to get a lot of value out of underpaid stars early in their careers and then keep them on team friendly deals if possible, like the Steelers did with Brown initially. It's almost never right to then "make up the difference" by giving them a huge deal at the end to compensate. Less dollars for more value. Not more dollars for less guilt.
Interesting take...if Hackenberg emerges, then it strengthens our position regarding the pick. I agree with your valuation of the pick if D'Arnold has a great season. Here's the rub...for Hackenberg to show promise, he will have to win some games. If we win any more than 4, we will be at a disadvantage for the number one pick. Here's hoping that we lose our first 13(!) then Hack gets it together and we win the last 3, including maybe knocking off a play-off contender. 3-13 may not get us the number one pick, but our 3-13 pick plus a promising (hopefully) player like Hack, plus some lower round picks might get it done. If it works out like that, you can say you heard it hear first! LOL
1. Sorry if I wasn't clear-- the idea is to start a QB off with big-bodied possession receivers (i.e. Keyshawn, Plaxico types) who are big targets rather than speed/YAC guys early, make it easy for the QB to make completions. Later, it will usually (depending on the QB and the offense) make more sense to replace these guys with faster, more dynamic guys, even if they're smaller, or even with true #1's for big money, to make the most out of your mature QB. Ideally you don't want to overpay for anybody ever, but situations vary. If your QB is amazing, you can be like the Pats and just not pay any of them, and just throw any old bodies out there. Still Brady was at his best with Moss, Manning had Harrison or Wayne for basically his whole career, etc. What's that worth? Ask your GM/Coach. 2. Yes, the Pats followed this pretty well. In 2001, Brady was surrounded by a great team. In the middle of their run they let the D fall off but paid big money for skill position guys on offense (Dillon, Moss, etc.). These days they are able to manage basically with just Brady--how much fall of is there when Gronk is out, or when they trade away one of their best defensive players? The biggest reason the Pats don't make a good example is that they went straight from Bledsoe to Brady. Other than a year with Cassel and a few games with other fill-ins, we don't really know if it works. The Steelers on the other hand were one of the better teams in the league behind guys like Kordell Stewart and Tommy Maddox, so we know what they were doing works. The Ravens, also, appear to have this model, but they still rely too much on their defense--possibly because Flacco just isn't that good. IMHO, they would do well to let some of their D players walk and spend that money on guys who can get down field and let Flacco showcase his arm strength.
The bottom line is that consistently great teams all have a blueprint they operate from. The Jets don't, and haven't since the Sixties.
Honestly, I don't think it's a lack of vision. I think it has to do with the fact they share the largest market with another team, who has seen more success. They are constantly fighting for fan presence, and wrestling the Giants for sales and revenue. This leads to a scenario where the team is constantly trying to compete whenever the cap allows, and never allowing for a true build. And it leads to the cycle we've seen. It's just a business reality for the Jets. But I think one they've erroneously measured. Right now they are rebuilding FINALLY, and it's what needs to be done to sustain success and win the battle they are seeking to win from a business perspective.
Yes. The crux of my posts is that there is a way to build a team that will allow a young QB to come in be successful and have room to grow, and there's another way to build a team that takes advantage of a great QB. The Jets primary issue is that they continually try to shortcut the process by trading up in the draft, bringing in big name FAs, and cyclically blowing all their cap space. The boom years are fun, but the bust years suck, and there's never anything left worth building around.
If Hack shows a ton of promise, why would we trade him for a guy who could possibly be a bust in the NFL? I also disagree with your notion that for Hack to show promise the Jets would have to win some games. He could play well, showing greatly improved accuracy, reading Ds, making the right decisions, and lead the team down the field and score points, but the D could surrender more points, and the Jets only win a game or two. Also receivers could drop passes, and RBs and receivers drop passes in the red zone and the Jets have to settle for FGs that cost them games.
Haven't you been on this board long enough to know that if you gave TGG posters the option of winning the VLT every year or having the #1 pick in the draft every year, 4 out of 5 would rather have the the #1 pick?
Well, the odds of getting either are about the same - they've won one SB and had one #1 draft pick in their history. They can't win enough and they can't lose enough. The Jets are the definition of purgatory.
