top dawg

Hard to say, but I'll play. It's a guess, but I'll be optimistic and say that Darnold's failures were mostly due to his environment. I can't state enough how much where they land plays a huge part in whether a QB succeeds or fails. Darnold is still oh so young. He has the physical tools necessary to succeed, and I'm gonna bet that he has the mental toughness to overcome all the foolishness of Adam Gase.

Damn skippy!

They'd have sucked! The situation these young guys get in is about as important as the traits they have, it's just that no one wants to talk about it. It's like a dirty little secret. We've already learned this lesson way back when with Jim Plunkett. We learned it more recently with Ryan Tannehill. We may learn it with Carson Wentz, and hopefully we'll learn it in first row seats with Sam Darnold.

LOL

Fitterer says that he wanted to go into the draft with options. You might not agree with his reasoning that Darnold gives us options, but in some respects, he does. I think it takes the pressure off to do something that we may have really regreted later. Now we're in a better position to let the draft come to us. And, with a little work, development and luck, Darnold turns out to be the answer, which will ultimately free us up more.

Question. For all you people talking sh¡t about Darnold, or sh¡t about Rhule and Fitterer--or even if you aren't a Negative Nancy--how do you feel about the 2021 Darnold deal versus the 2020 Bridgewater transaction? And don't be a copout and say, "They both suck!" Answer the question! I can say unequivocally that I can live with this deal intellectually, notwithstanding the 2022 2nd), but I absolutely hated the money and structure of the Bridgewater deal. At least now, we don't have that much invested in Darnold, even after picking up his option. His salary should be a small issue next offseason, even if he bombs this year. Moreover, you really don't know what his ceiling really is because of being in such a horrible situation, from coaching to development to weapons. With Teddy--as some keep reiterating--we knew exactly what he was (well almost, but for the ball {no}security)! Now, we know we have a big, strong, young QB that can make all the throws (with definite ball security issues), but also one that has been "broken" to a certain extent, but a coaching staff that may legitimately be able to "fix" him by putting him into situations that play to his strengths, and not forcing him to do things that play into his weaknesses, and can ultimately turn those weaknesses into strengths. For all the pontificating on Bridgewater, I think that it's fair to say that he wasn't some newb at his first rodeo show. He was in an offense that he was very much knowledgeable about, and he had enough weapons--and was in situations--where he really should have succeeded...at least beyond the appearance of failure. So, from where I'm sitting, things aren't perfect (and they wouldn't have been even with a rookie QB), but at least we haven't done anything jaw dropping in the Darnold deal--just maybe a little eyebrow-raising with the second--haven't compromised the future by selling the farm, and have a QB with a much higher ceiling this season than we did the last. On an off note, I wonder how/if Fitterer tempered Rhule (& possibly Tepper) on the compensation.

Well...the Jets have been hot garbage during Darnold's entire time there, so...when you're playing for an awful HC after playing for other bad HCs...and OCs and RBs and suspect WRs, the best of which they essentially sent shipping (where he had his best year), you're probably going to look like the garbage around you, especially when you're young and drafted into the garbage.

He's still on that Darnold fanwagon. We might as well hop on.

Well, they obviously feel that there are players in this year's draft at positions that may make more of an impact upon the team than next year's draft. They know what they're doing. Now me, looking on the outside in and considering the bigger picture, I kinda feel that a second is a second! There will be someone in next year's draft that we may like but won't get, unless we keep robbing Peter to pay Paul (so to speak) from year to year.

Sounds nice enough. I'm going to keep an open mind about Rhule (and obviously Darnold). His honeymoon period will likely end some time in 2022--2023 latest!

The one Fitterer is smoking?

I thought we'd have to give up a third at the most. If it was this year's, I wouldn't have had an issue with it. For them to give this much up for Sam Darnold and picking up his 5th year option, that means they must like him. And, they are basically saying that this is our starter for the next two seasons. From a fan's perspective, all I have to say is that they had better damn well be right. We can't have something akin to a Teddy rerun.

I don't have a problem giving Darnold a legit shot. I do have an issue with the second rounder. There was no reason to do that! That being said, it's not going to be some crippling move if Darnold busts yet again.

SMH! Can't help but feel, we got a little hosed...

Oh, I'm with you, I think. I wasn't too keen on trading multiple firsts either. I always said that we had to do a cost-value analysis and look at all the options. Go Darnold!

That's the only issue I have with this. But, we weren't privy to his market either. I don't like it, but I don't believe it will be particularly crippling either. It is what it is. Perhaps they've found a franchise QB. We'll see.

We need that electric take-it-to-the-house receiver in the slot. I'm all for O-line, but we've got to complete our WR corps at some point during the draft.

Shoot your shot and if the ball comes back to you, shoot it again! Makes sense to me.

Like the others don't do that. Gimme a break! You're just b-s-ing based upon conjecture!

We kinda already knew this! If the capital is right, whethet it's us or not, they'll deal. That being said, we must determine if it would even be worth it in light of other options. I would be loath to give up multiple firsts!

Well, he gets dinged on his processing speed. Lance seems to process the plays much faster, which kinda stands to reason because he read defenses and called his own protections, in a legit pro-style offense! I've seen both of them play. I don't think Fields is more athletic, and, perhaps more importantly, as explosive or as strong as Lance. Fields is certainly faster, but doesn't seem as smooth or as natural as Lance as a runner, or in the pocket, particularly as things begin to break down. Like I've said before, Lance played against "lesser competition", but he also had a lesser quality of weapons, so that kinda goes both ways. As I've heard many evaluators say before, it's about traits and projection. I don't think a small school gem is a compelling reason to desire any player, much less a QB. You must isolate those traits and envision how the person will do on the next level. And if you're a GM, coach or scout for a team, you must also consider whether or not the prospect in question would be a good fit for your system--what you're trying to do, because situations, theories, timelines and personalities do matter! The way that you develop a QB does matter! It matters a lot! All that being said, what the players did in college matters, but they're all beginning anew--in many respects--once they put that pro cap on. That's why traits, leadership, ability to listen and learn--teach-ability--matters! We're all just looking from the outside in, but the franchise has so much more to consider.

How is it that you can be sold on Wilson, but not Fields or Lance, especially Fields considering from a statistical perspective, he's really not that far off from the golden boy, and is the most accurate of the QBs by a wide margin?

Just an added bonus, also from my late mother-in-law: If you find a woman in the street, that's where you'll leave her.