Geno Smith vs Alex Smith - It's on.

[Hammock Parties]

It's on now. Geno Smith is probably going to be starting for the Jets this season.

Alex Smith will be the Chiefs QB for the forseeable future. If he's a success, we'll probably get five good years out of him.

So who's gonna win more NFL games over that time period?

Put your ten pounders on the table and make a vote

Alex: 11 wins
Geno: 8 wins

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by Mavericks Ace

They are going to be trailing. He is going to have to throw to keep the team in the game. Baptism by fire.....

I predict lots of garbage time for Geno and Axl this year.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by Mavericks Ace

They are going to be trailing. He is going to have to throw to keep the team in the game. Baptism by fire.....

The Jets have a fine defense. They'll hold the Bucs in check.

I foresee a late duel between Josh Freeman and Geno Smith. Two strong-armed swingin' dick golf-toof dawgs dukin' it out in the 4th.

We should have drafted both of them.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by gochiefs(exceptQB)

I'm not talking Hermesque. I'm just talking about limiting his throws.

The guy threw 30 passes in three quarters last time out. That's a lot.

I don't think exposing a rookie QB in his first start like that would be wise. I want to see Geno dropping back 25-30 times, no more.

He shouldn't be dropping back at all; he should be playing this game from shotgun and pistol, mixing in short throws with deep bombs.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

He shouldn't be dropping back at all; he should be playing this game from shotgun and pistol, mixing in short throws with deep bombs.

Agreed. I just don't want to see 30 throws in the first three quarters. That's too much.

[Mav]

Originally Posted by gochiefs(exceptQB)

The Jets have a fine defense. They'll hold the Bucs in check.

I foresee a late duel between Josh Freeman and Geno Smith. Two strong-armed swingin' dick golf-toof dawgs dukin' it out in the 4th.

We should have drafted both of them.

I agree on both.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Absolutely correct. The narrative that first-round QBs must start day one is a ridiculous one.

No, it is absolutely NOT ridiculous.

In today's NFL, the first round draft choice is counted on to start and contribute immediately. Not next year, not the year after, the year in which he was drafted.

If player isn't NFL ready and isn't ready to contribute immediately, the player should have been drafted in any other round other than the first round.

I dare you to find a GM or head coach in 2013 that's will to "sit" on a first rounder.

PS - It ain't gonna happen.

[Mav]

Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate

I predict lots of garbage time for Geno and Axl this year.

For different reasons.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

No, it is absolutely NOT ridiculous.

In today's NFL, the first round draft choice is counted on to start and contribute immediately. Not next year, not the year after, the year in which he was drafted.

If player isn't NFL ready and isn't ready to contribute immediately, the player should have been drafted in any other round other than the first round.

I dare you to find a GM or head coach in 2013 that's will to "sit" on a first rounder.

PS - It ain't gonna happen.

QB is a different animal. No reason why this player has to be starting day one; it's a long-term investment.

You're telling me that drafting a QB with enormous upside, yet sitting him for a year to try to ensure his long-term success is a worse plan than drafting a ****ing RT at 1/1 or a 5-tech?

We both know the answer to this. If NFL GMs are too narrow-minded to realize this, fine. Not my problem.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by Mavericks Ace

For different reasons.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

QB is a different animal. No reason why this player has to be starting day one; it's a long-term investment.

You're telling me that drafting a QB with enormous upside, yet sitting him for a year to try to ensure his long-term success is a worse plan than drafting a ****ing RT at 1/1 or a 5-tech?

We both know the answer to this. If NFL GMs are too narrow-minded to realize this, fine. Not my problem.

I hope whomever starts "Johnny Football" day one because I practically piss myself in anticipation of that gag-reel.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by gochiefs(exceptQB)

Agreed. I just don't want to see 30 throws in the first three quarters. That's too much.

It's not if it's done correctly. Rookies should avoid the intermediate middle like the plague. There is just too much going on in that part of the field for them to be able to process it. Deep square ins and 20 yard digs shouldn't even be in the playbook for rookies.

You keep the defense from cheating up on the underneath routes by slinging it deep, especially by using double moves. The majority of the routes a team should run are flares, drag routes, quick hitches, tunnel screens, and slants.

You keep the CBs from jumping those routes by running stop and gos and sluggos.

It's limited, but it's a far better alternative than facing 3rd and 7 every drive because the defense plays nine in the box on 1st and 2nd down.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Re: Rookie QBs. No team that has started a rookie QB has ever won a Super Bowl. As far as I know, none has ever even played in one. Several second year guys have, but no rookies. Thus, if you aren't going to win a SB with a rookie QB, what's the rush of getting him out there ASAP? Furthermore, rookie QBs are 1/3 as expensive as they were four years ago, so there's no financial imperative either.

[hometeam]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Re: Rookie QBs. No team that has started a rookie QB has ever won a Super Bowl. As far as I know, none has ever even played in one. Several second year guys have, but no rookies. Thus, if you aren't going to win a SB with a rookie QB, what's the rush of getting him out there ASAP? Furthermore, rookie QBs are 1/3 as expensive as they were four years ago, so there's no financial imperative either.

There have been some deep runs by rookies. But I do agree with your statement for the most part.

Some of it comes from the line of thinking that throwing them in there helps them learn at an accelerated rate. Only way to learn is game reps etc.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Re: Rookie QBs. No team that has started a rookie QB has ever won a Super Bowl. As far as I know, none has ever even played in one. Several second year guys have, but no rookies. Thus, if you aren't going to win a SB with a rookie QB, what's the rush of getting him out there ASAP? Furthermore, rookie QBs are 1/3 as expensive as they were four years ago, so there's no financial imperative either.

It's idiocy.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

QB is a different animal. No reason why this player has to be starting day one; it's a long-term investment.

Then draft him later. Not in the first round.

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

You're telling me that drafting a QB with enormous upside, yet sitting him for a year to try to ensure his long-term success is a worse plan than drafting a ****ing RT at 1/1 or a 5-tech?

No.

What I'm telling you is that in today's NFL, GM's and Head Coaches have four years or less to make it happen.

Period.

If you're a brand new head coach and GM, you're not going to draft a guy in the first round, let alone Top Ten, and "sit" him a year until he learns the game.

**** that.

Either you're NFL Ready or you're not. Regardless of position.

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

We both know the answer to this. If NFL GMs are too narrow-minded to realize this, fine. Not my problem.

They are absolutely NOT "narrow-minded".

NFL owners routinely invest $10 million per year into their GM and Head Coach (and that doesn't include assistant coaches, scouts, etc.). They're not paying paying these people for 10 or 15 years down the road (which quite frankly, is a pipe dream, 90% of the time), they're paying for immediate results.

Immediate results.