If Mariota Slips to 6, Jets Should Take Him In NY Minute

[Jet Fan RI]

I've seen the Jets get some excellent players in the first round. Some recently. Big Mo, Richardson, Revis. Many more down the years. None of them has brought the Jets a Super Bowl.

I haven't seen them get an excellent QB in the first round since Namath. He got a Super Bowl.

It's not often the Jets get with in striking distance of a really good QB. When they do, they always seem to pass. No way is Mariota a sure fire franchise QB, but the kid has some of the ear marks of one. If he's there I really hope the Jets take him

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. With the overwhelming history of Heisman QB's being so bad, a Heisman QB is almost a guarantee of being an NFL bust. Just search your memory for all the really good NFL QB's you recall. Namath, Tarkenton, Bradshaw, Marino, Rodgers, Favre...The list goes on and on with just about zero Heisman QB's among them, with Staubach and Plunkett being the 2 exceptions. Manziel, Leineart, RGIII, etc, etc, are by far the typical Heisman QB performers in the NFL. And even our "own" Testasverde wasn't very good for his 1st 10 years or so in the league, and really never did very much anyway. Same thing with Plunkett, although he did at least win a Lombardi. At the end of his career. And with a different team than the one who drafted him.

The lesson is clear: The great QB's are pretty much all non-Heisman QB's.

 

[Jet Fan RI]

Disagree

I think Mariota will be an elite NFL QB for the team that drafts him. I hope he falls to 6 and he becomes that elite NFL QB for the Jets.

If he does, he will be going against the grain of a very long history of poor-performing NFL QB's who were Heisman winners.

 

[hobson54]

If he does, he will be going against the grain of a very long history of poor-performing NFL QB's who were Heisman winners.

you want to comment on my prior post on this topic? heisman winners are largely based on the field. i showed 4 stud QBs who were runner-ups (p manning, s young, elway, and luck) who in most years would have won the heisman. would you pass on them if they won the heisman?

 

[Superman55]

If he does, he will be going against the grain of a very long history of poor-performing NFL QB's who were Heisman winners.

Im not a huge Cam Newton fan, but he's doing alright and his team is on the rise. 82 passing TDs, 33 rushing TDs, and 54 picks with only a 59% career comp %...but he and his team appear on the rise. He isn't elite by a long shot, but he wins games.

 

[Jet Fan RI]

that heisman analysis is pretty silly. it's partially a reflection of the competition that year in college. in most year's peyton manning would have won a heisman his senior year, but didn't because of an unworldly year from my man - charles woodson. andrew luck finished 2nd twice - once behind cam newton and once behind RGIII. in other year's he probably would have won. john elway finished 2nd to herschel walker. steve young finished second to mike rozier (2,500 yards, 29 TDs). if luck, manning, elway or young faced a weak class like mariota did this year, they would have run away with the trophy. i surely hope you wouldn't pass on those guys because "they won the heisman"

Well it's true what I am saying is based only on the history of how Heisman QB's have actually performed in the NFL, and it's your right to consider that silly. But that history is so long I think it is too much to be ignored. And the problem with the Jets is that they have so many holes, even a potentially great QB may fail because of those other shortcomings. Much better, in my judgment, in a year with a weak crop of QB's, to take advantage of a high draft pick to trade down and fill as many holes as possible. That way, even if we wind up with a QB like McMahon of the '85 Bears or Dilfer of the 2010 Ravens we still may have a shot at a Lombardi at some point prior to the appearance of our next Namath.

 

[Jet Fan RI]

you want to comment on my prior post on this topic? heisman winners are largely based on the field. i showed 4 stud QBs who were runner-ups (p manning, s young, elway, and luck) who in most years would have won the heisman. would you pass on them if they won the heisman?

I would hope I would not pass up on those examples. But your case is a bit of a "if pigs had wings" point. The fact remains that none of those guys did in fact win a Heisman.

 

[Jet Fan RI]

Im not a huge Cam Newton fan, but he's doing alright and his team is on the rise. 82 passing TDs, 33 rushing TDs, and 54 picks with only a 59% career comp %...but he and his team appear on the rise. He isn't elite by a long shot, but he wins games.

Yes, Newton may be an exception. But it's still too early to tell. He might become the next Staubach. Or he might become the next RGIII. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[flgreen]

Well it's true what I am saying is based only on the history of how Heisman QB's have actually performed in the NFL, and it's your right to consider that silly. But that history is so long I think it is too much to be ignored. And the problem with the Jets is that they have so many holes, even a potentially great QB may fail because of those other shortcomings. Much better, in my judgment, in a year with a weak crop of QB's, to take advantage of a high draft pick to trade down and fill as many holes as possible. That way, even if we wind up with a QB like McMahon of the '85 Bears or Dilfer of the 2010 Ravens we still may have a shot at a Lombardi at some point prior to the appearance of our next Namath.

LOL

C'mon RI. Read Hobson's post #14 above

 

[hobson54]

Well it's true what I am saying is based only on the history of how Heisman QB's have actually performed in the NFL, and it's your right to consider that silly. But that history is so long I think it is too much to be ignored. And the problem with the Jets is that they have so many holes, even a potentially great QB may fail because of those other shortcomings. Much better, in my judgment, in a year with a weak crop of QB's, to take advantage of a high draft pick to trade down and fill as many holes as possible. That way, even if we wind up with a QB like McMahon of the '85 Bears or Dilfer of the 2010 Ravens we still may have a shot at a Lombardi at some point prior to the appearance of our next Namath.

saying we should trade down and actually being able to find a team will to trade up and give us enough to move down are two different things. i'm always open to trading down, but it takes two to tango.

as to the QB, it seems to me the best route to success is to find a franchise QB. sure, there are examples of great teams winning with mediocre QBs. but those are usually the exception. now i don't know if mariota is a franchise QB. i completely understand the skepticism that he will be able to translate from a college spread QB to a pro QB. to me, that, more than some so-called heisman curse, is a very valid concern.

i've always said it will come down to scouting. if macc and staff think he can be a franchise QB (however that is defined), then you take him. i wouldn't take him under the theory that if you draft enough QBs, one of them is bound to stick (the throwing spaghetti against the wall model). i won't pretend to be knowledgeable enough to make that call. but if they think he can be a top 10 QB in the league over time, then they should take him - heisman trophy or not. the quickest route to being a top team remains having a top QB.

 

[Jet Fan RI]

LOL

C'mon RI. Read Hobson's post #14 above

I did read it.

 

[hobson54]

I would hope I would not pass up on those examples. But your case is a bit of a "if pigs had wings" point. The fact remains that none of those guys did in fact win a Heisman.

well using this logic, we should just draft devin gardner with the #199 pick. because every time a michigan QB is drafted at #199 , they become first ballot hall of fame QBs...

if mariota had the year he did in the year's the manning, elway, young and luck (x2) had in their runner-up years, mariota would not have won the heisman. it seems you are giving credit to runner-ups when they face great competition for the trophy and penalizing winners when they face weaker comp.

 

[Jet Fan RI]

saying we should trade down and actually being able to find a team will to trade up and give us enough to move down are two different things. i'm always open to trading down, but it takes two to tango.

as to the QB, it seems to me the best route to success is to find a franchise QB. sure, there are examples of great teams winning with mediocre QBs. but those are usually the exception. now i don't know if mariota is a franchise QB. i completely understand the skepticism that he will be able to translate from a college spread QB to a pro QB. to me, that, more than some so-called heisman curse, is a very valid concern.

i've always said it will come down to scouting. if macc and staff think he can be a franchise QB (however that is defined), then you take him. i wouldn't take him under the theory that if you draft enough QBs, one of them is bound to stick (the throwing spaghetti against the wall model). i won't pretend to be knowledgeable enough to make that call. but if they think he can be a top 10 QB in the league over time, then they should take him - heisman trophy or not. the quickest route to being a top team remains having a top QB.

We are actually in agreement on this one. But I would add a caveat: If it is possible to overlook the fact that he won a Heisman, and not to be smitten by that fact as so many teams (and fans) seem to be, and to nonetheless objectively judge his talents and conclude he has a good chance of becoming a top 10 QB then, yes, you draft him. But that would be despite the Heisman, not because of it.

 

[Jet Fan RI]

well using this logic, we should just draft devin gardner with the #199 pick. because every time a michigan QB is drafted at #199 , they become first ballot hall of fame QBs...

if mariota had the year he did in the year's the manning, elway, young and luck (x2) had in their runner-up years, mariota would not have won the heisman. it seems you are giving credit to runner-ups when they face great competition for the trophy and penalizing winners when they face weaker comp.

Actually, in the case of Mariota I am also considering his performance in the championship game. I suspect that may be more indicative of his NFL potential, where almost every team is composed of college all-stars.

 

[hobson54]

winning a heisman means nothing to me. i would never use it as a gauge of future pro success. he should be evaluated for what he did on the field and how the scouts project him as a pro QB, not on what trophies he picked up in december.

 

[Jet Fan RI]

winning a heisman means nothing to me. i would never use it as a gauge of future pro success. he should be evaluated for what he did on the field and how the scouts project him as a pro QB, not on what trophies he picked up in december.

Me neither. But considering how fast Heisman winners are drafted, it appears almost all teams are smitten by that award. Let's hope the Jets' guys aren't.

 

[hobson54]

Me neither. But considering how fast Heisman winners are drafted, it appears almost all teams are smitten by that award. Let's hope the Jets' guys aren't.

i don't think there is a one-size fits all case to be made on heisman trophy winners.

you have guys like danny weufel, eric crouch, charlie ward, jason white, geno torretta, chris weinke, and troy smith that were late round picks, if not undrafted players.

you have guys like RGIII, newton, bradford and assumedly winston and mariota that will go high and the jury is still out on them.

you have guys like tebow, manzeil, leinart which teams idiotically took in the 1st and who provide cautionary tales that back up your position.

you have guys like eddie george, barry sanders, marcus allen, herschel walker, tim brown, bo jackson, earl campbell, tony dorsett, charles woodson who were very high draft picks well worth their draft position.

 

[Jet Fan RI]

i don't think there is a one-size fits all case to be made on heisman trophy winners.

you have guys like danny weufel, eric crouch, charlie ward, jason white, geno torretta, chris weinke, and troy smith that were late round picks, if not undrafted players.

you have guys like RGIII, newton, bradford and assumedly winston and mariota that will go high and the jury is still out on them.

you have guys like tebow, manzeil, leinart which teams idiotically took in the 1st and who provide cautionary tales that back up your position.

you have guys like eddie george, barry sanders, marcus allen, herschel walker, tim brown, bo jackson, earl campbell, tony dorsett, charles woodson who were very high draft picks well worth their draft position.

Actually, I am limiting my criticism to drafting Heisman QB's who, as a lot, are almost always an NFL bust. I am very well aware of the great success of many Heisman winners at other positions, and have no objection to drafting, for example, the next Barry Sanders. (God please, let it happen for the Jets!)

 

[GratefulJet]

This thread reminds me of the argument people have made against Melvin Gordon, that he's overrated because Wisconsin RBs are always overrated. That's an example of a more general argument sometimes made against college players based on where they went to school. It's just sloppy logic and lazy thinking. If a player has certain scoutable talent, it doesn't matter where they went to school. You don't automatically eliminate a LB prospect just because he didn't go to LB U--Penn State, back in the day. Delaware isn't a QB factory, but that didn't prevent Joe Flacco from becoming one of the better QB's in the league.

While it's certainly valid to say a particular player is overrated because of the system they played in, the blanket statement is where people go badly wrong. Over-generalized arguments are easy to make, and even easier to disprove. They're a poor substitute for critical analysis.

 

[hobson54]

Actually, I am limiting my criticism to drafting Heisman QB's who, as a lot, are almost always an NFL bust. I am very well aware of the great success of many Heisman winners at other positions, and have no objection to drafting, for example, the next Barry Sanders. (God please, let it happen for the Jets!)

that's fair. but as i showed, there are plenty of heisman winning QBs that didn't even get drafted or were late round picks. so i don't think teams take QBs high BECAUSE they won the heisman. yes, i will grant tebow, leinart and manzeil all went high because of their collegiate excellence (which in turn leads to a heisman), so those 3 definitely provide cautionary tales. but guys like palmer, newton, bradford, and even RGIII were all widely praised and were consensus top picks. they were picked high because the teams thought they would succeed in the pros. if luck won the heisman over RGIII, do you think his career would have followed the downward trajectory that RGIII's had?

my contention is that these QBs are evaluated based on how the scouts think they will do in the pros. winning the heisman is not something that i think any competent scout even looks at. if melvin gordon beat out mariota this year, would you then be ok with taking the duck since he "didn't win the heisman"?

you scout the player and make an evaluation on how you think he turns out as a pro. i'm hoping macc and the scouting staff he is putting together are smart enough to not give any credit in the evaluation to winning the heisman.

 

[Jet Fan RI]

that's fair. but as i showed, there are plenty of heisman winning QBs that didn't even get drafted or were late round picks. so i don't think teams take QBs high BECAUSE they won the heisman. yes, i will grant tebow, leinart and manzeil all went high because of their collegiate excellence (which in turn leads to a heisman), so those 3 definitely provide cautionary tales. but guys like palmer, newton, bradford, and even RGIII were all widely praised and were consensus top picks. they were picked high because the teams thought they would succeed in the pros. if luck won the heisman over RGIII, do you think his career would have followed the downward trajectory that RGIII's had?

my contention is that these QBs are evaluated based on how the scouts think they will do in the pros. winning the heisman is not something that i think any competent scout even looks at. if melvin gordon beat out mariota this year, would you then be ok with taking the duck since he "didn't win the heisman"?

you scout the player and make an evaluation on how you think he turns out as a pro. i'm hoping macc and the scouting staff he is putting together are smart enough to not give any credit in the evaluation to winning the heisman.

Well, that's certainly the right thing to do. But I submit that is rarely done when it comes to Heisman QB's. And I think the very large number of Heisman QB busts is a good illustration that it is rarely done.

When was the last time there was a Heisman QB winner, with the playing qualities of a Tebow, who fell to a really late pick?