MMQB: The Jets' Long Road To Sam Darnold

[JerseyBills]

On 5/18/2018 at 8:10 AM, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Interesting......

On 5/18/2018 at 6:55 AM, TheTruthHurts said:

When the Jets traded to 3 our GM said he has only spent 15 minutes with each QB, still evaluating. 

 

Beane will look like a genius if Edmunds and Allen are hits. If any other QB besides Mayfield hits and Allen doesn't, then we'll, you know what happens. 

 

If both hit , it instantly puts us as an elite AFC team for years to come, and with 100 mil next FA period, Brady on his last leg , it could really catapult Buffalo into legit contenders to come out of the AFC , exciting times.

McBeane totally erased the stench of Rex/Whaley from this franchise in less than 1 years time. We hit the jackpot with those two imo

Edited May 20, 2018 by JerseyBills

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

It does vindicate the Bills FO too from the point of all these people who were screaming for the Bills to make a trade too back in March, they gave up less and still likely got who they wanted.   If they had say traded up to #2, would they have taken Darnold, or still taken Allen?   Cleveland did help them out by not taking Chubb allowing them to trade up lower.

[Klaista2k]

The Jets scouted Allen heavily all season.

 

The fact they weren't even considering him honestly can't be a good sign IMO.

 

This Allen pick has me nervous.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Klaista2k

[Thurman#1]

On 5/18/2018 at 7:42 PM, Buddo said:

Good, well written article.

 

The one thing it does confirm, that I suspected, is that the Jest knew they had 3 QB prospects they were happy with, before they made the trade up. While it almost certainly isn't something that will ordinarily be the case, they appear to have been well ahead with their QB evaluations for this class, and that meant they wee able to make their move early.

 

The fact they got the guy they preferred out of the 3, was simply gravy, and a reward for being ready sooner than others were.

 

 

Yup, this should've been the headline for Bills fans. 

 

When asked about the Jets trade, Beane said the Bills hadn't come close to finishing their work on the QBs. The Jets suspected they might get a discount by getting a jump, and they were right. The article says, "Mccagnan had a scout live at just about every USC, UCLA, Oklahoma and Wyoming game - the feeling is they're ahead of others in assessing the class. The hope is that readiness to pull the trigger before the market is fully developed could lead to a reasonable deal."

 

Smart. They outmaneuvered us. Hopefully it'll turn out fine for us anyway. There's a decent chance of that. But that trade turned out to be the difference between getting our second choice and our third choice. It's possible that Allen might have been our second choice anyway. I personally doubt it.

 

McBeane haven't revealed anything about how they'd ranked the Big Four, with the obvious exception that we know for sure they ranked Allen over Rosen.

 

 

On 5/18/2018 at 7:54 PM, GETTOTHE50 said:

 

I thought this too, but I dont think they were any more ahead then the Bills or anyone else for that matter.

 

Teams are scouting at the same time of year, obviously. 

 

I bet they send in their reports at the same time too. The whole NFL is on the same timeline.  

 

I think that they had an general idea of what they wanted, panicked, and overpaid to get to #3 to ensure they got someone they wanted.  

 

 

No, did you read the article? 

 

The Jets did a great job getting ahead simply by personally scouting just about every single game the big 4 played. They didn't have to wait for game tapes. They spent extra money and resources on getting all their info early,  and it got them a major time advantage. Most teams, the Bills included, don't rush. They go to some games and get the tapes for the rest and prioritize the schedule on everyone pretty much the same. That's why everyone tends to be on the same schedule. The Jets cleverly shortcut that arrangement, which allowed them to make that trade with great forethought.

 

Doesn't mean they made the right decision, or that Allen won't be great. But it was smart and it gave the Jets a competitive advantage.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

2 hours ago, Klaista2k said:

The Jets scouted Allen heavily all season.

 

The fact they weren't even considering him honestly can't be a good sign IMO.

 

This Allen pick has me nervous.

 

 

It wasn't that they hadn't even considered Allen. The article says, "When the Jets dealt up to the No. 3 spot in the draft in March, they'd identified three quarterbacks - Darnold, Mayfield, and UCLA's Josh Rosen - they were good with." They might well have considered Allen. What the article says there is that they'd decided he wouldn't have been in the mix at pick #3.

 

But yeah, I share your nervousness. I'd have been nervous whichever guy we picked, though. I won't believe we have a franchise QB till we see it, personally. I'd have been less nervous with any of the other three. But I'm 100% sure that Beane knows more about scouting than I do. I hope he's right and I'm wrong.

[H2o]

On 5/18/2018 at 9:11 AM, Wayne Arnold said:

Darnold is such a laid-back dude. NYC could be quite the culture shock for him.

I honestly think that helps him. He doesn't seem like a guy who will be overwhelmed by the way the media can be. Seems pretty even kiel and will work hard. 

[BigDingus]

On 5/18/2018 at 7:05 AM, stuvian said:

they are the Jets. They can still screw this up

 

To be fair, they can say the same about us.

The Bills have been equally inept at drafting and developing QBs, and as a franchise have been in the dumps just as much overall.

Hell, both of our total win/loss records are neck & neck, with us barely edging them out.

Since 1960, the Bills have a .467% win percentage, going 409-467-8 overall.  (#23)

Since 1960, the Jets have a .454% win percentage, going 397-479-8 overall.  (#26)

Since the merger, the Bills have made the playoffs 15 times in their history. They are 12-15 in those games, with 4 Super Bowl losses.

The Jets have made the playoffs 14 times in their history. They are 12-13 in those games, with 1 Super Bowl victory.

We both have 1 HOF QB in our history, with our's being better and their's being more iconic. 

Other than that, we've had mountains of garbage and a few decent-above average players. If we were putting together a top 5 list of Jets & Bills QB's (without Kelly & Namath), it'd probably go:
 

1. Vinny Testaverde

2. Joe Ferguson

3. Ken O'Brien

4. Drew Bledsoe

5. Chad Pennington (or Doug Flutie, toss up)

Anyway, I was bored...just wanted to throw out how similar the two of our franchises are in terms of historical success & ability to develop QB's lol

Edited May 21, 2018 by BigDingus

[twoandfourteen]

On 5/18/2018 at 11:25 AM, auburnbillsbacker said:

And our regime started Nathan Peterman over Tyrod Taylor when Peterman clearly was not ready/talented enough.  If they didn't know what Peterman was after months of practice I think it is possible that they might not be the best at evaluating QBs.  I hope I'm wrong.    

 

How can anyone say this? The kid looked like he had a basic level of competence at the position in his limited preseason exposure and mop-up time after Tyrod threw up all over his shoes against the Saints. He was by no means "great", but there was enough there to say "let's see". 

 

To say "clearly" is absolutely incorrect. 

 

Tyrod's sub, sub-par performances this season forced McD to make a change. The odds that Peterman would be any worse than 56 yards passing in an NFL game were slim. Now, it unfortunately didn't work out that way. 

 

Also, let's not forget the kid did a very admirable job against the Colts in an epic blizzard.

[twoandfourteen]

On 5/18/2018 at 11:59 AM, John from Riverside said:

First thing I thought

 

I know Darnold has talent....but the last USC qb the jets took didnt exactly pan out

 

What do you mean? He had a winning record and led the Jets to the playoffs.

 

Around here, that qualifies a QB for the Hall of Fame for some people. 

[auburnbillsbacker]

23 minutes ago, twoandfourteen said:

 

How can anyone say this? The kid looked like he had a basic level of competence at the position in his limited preseason exposure and mop-up time after Tyrod threw up all over his shoes against the Saints. He was by no means "great", but there was enough there to say "let's see". 

 

To say "clearly" is absolutely incorrect. 

 

Tyrod's sub, sub-par performances this season forced McD to make a change. The odds that Peterman would be any worse than 56 yards passing in an NFL game were slim. Now, it unfortunately didn't work out that way. 

 

Also, let's not forget the kid did a very admirable job against the Colts in an epic blizzard.

How can anyone say this?  Tyrod Taylor led the Bills to a top 10 offense 2 of his 3 years in Buffalo and ended the drought.  Peterman showed that he was "clearly not ready" with his performance against San Diego.  Tyrod played well in relief.  

[BobbyC81]

On 5/18/2018 at 8:25 AM, auburnbillsbacker said:

And our regime started Nathan Peterman over Tyrod Taylor when Peterman clearly was not ready/talented enough.  If they didn't know what Peterman was after months of practice I think it is possible that they might not be the best at evaluating QBs.  I hope I'm wrong.    

 

Peterman had shown in garbage time of the previous blowout, and likely in practice, the ability to make quick decisions and get the ball out with confidence.

 

Starting him on the road vs the Chargers strong pass rush and secondary just didn’t work out.

[Lfod]

6 minutes ago, LittleJoeCartwright said:

 

Peterman had shown in garbage time of the previous blowout, and likely in practice, the ability to make quick decisions and get the ball out with confidence.

 

Starting him on the road vs the Chargers strong pass rush and secondary just didn’t work out.

I still would have benched Tyrod. People act like it was doom. People got to see Tyrod choke for entire playoff game. They didn't miss out on that little gem of a game. Your damned if you bench Tyrod your damned if you don't. 

 

Sorry this response was meant more for the people bringing it up then you. I probably shouldn't of quoted you. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by Lfod

[Captain Hindsight]

9 hours ago, twoandfourteen said:

 

How can anyone say this? The kid looked like he had a basic level of competence at the position in his limited preseason exposure and mop-up time after Tyrod threw up all over his shoes against the Saints. He was by no means "great", but there was enough there to say "let's see". 

 

To say "clearly" is absolutely incorrect. 

 

Tyrod's sub, sub-par performances this season forced McD to make a change. The odds that Peterman would be any worse than 56 yards passing in an NFL game were slim. Now, it unfortunately didn't work out that way. 

 

Also, let's not forget the kid did a very admirable job against the Colts in an epic blizzard.

How could you possibly tell that? He was bad in that game too.

 

His 50% completion percentage against backups in the preseason sure was incredible. And his weak ass arm sure scared corners on out routes

 

Everyone loves to leave out how badly he played against the Pats* a few weeks later 6-15 for 50 yards.

 

He sucked last year. Doesnt make him a bad person, just a bad NFL QB

[C.Biscuit97]

I thought SD got completely overrated after his first year, now I feel he is underrated.  I can see him being pretty good.  

 

Sometimes, we overrate INTs.  SD threw more INTs because he took chances other qbs won’t take (see Tyrod).  I like the qb who tries to win a game rather than the one who tries not to lose it.  That’s what a franchise qb should be.

[dave mcbride]

2 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

I thought SD got completely overrated after his first year, now I feel he is underrated.  I can see him being pretty good.  

 

Sometimes, we overrate INTs.  SD threw more INTs because he took chances other qbs won’t take (see Tyrod).  I like the qb who tries to win a game rather than the one who tries not to lose it.  That’s what a franchise qb should be.

Agree 100 percent.

[stuvian]

On 5/21/2018 at 6:44 AM, BigDingus said:

 

To be fair, they can say the same about us.

The Bills have been equally inept at drafting and developing QBs, and as a franchise have been in the dumps just as much overall.

Hell, both of our total win/loss records are neck & neck, with us barely edging them out.

Since 1960, the Bills have a .467% win percentage, going 409-467-8 overall.  (#23)

Since 1960, the Jets have a .454% win percentage, going 397-479-8 overall.  (#26)

Since the merger, the Bills have made the playoffs 15 times in their history. They are 12-15 in those games, with 4 Super Bowl losses.

The Jets have made the playoffs 14 times in their history. They are 12-13 in those games, with 1 Super Bowl victory.

We both have 1 HOF QB in our history, with our's being better and their's being more iconic. 

Other than that, we've had mountains of garbage and a few decent-above average players. If we were putting together a top 5 list of Jets & Bills QB's (without Kelly & Namath), it'd probably go:
 

1. Vinny Testaverde

2. Joe Ferguson

3. Ken O'Brien

4. Drew Bledsoe

5. Chad Pennington (or Doug Flutie, toss up)

Anyway, I was bored...just wanted to throw out how similar the two of our franchises are in terms of historical success & ability to develop QB's lol

 

I am painfully aware of our dismal history in this area and hope we have surrounded Allen with the support he needs.