Skip to main content

I called it right when the New York Jets signed Michael Vick...

I saw this coming right when the New York Jets signed veteran quarterback Michael Vick. After the Jets' 13-10 victory over the Indianapolis Colts on Thursday night in their first preseason game, where Vick was the only quarterback to lead the team to a touchdown, sports commentators are already asking the question, "Who will start for the New York Jets at the start of the season? Will Vick win the job?"

As I said before, right when the Jets signed Vick, I thought it had quarterback controversy written all over it. First off, Geno Smith struggled mightily last year as a rookie. He completed 55.8% of his passes, averaged 6.9 yards per attempt, threw just 12 touchdowns passes in comparison to 21 interceptions, was sacked 43 times, and had a quarterback rating of 66.5. He also ran 72 times for 366 yards, 6 touchdowns, and 3 fumbles. Next, the Jets offense has struggled in recent years - so much so, that the team has failed to make the playoffs the past couple of season. Not only that, but former Philadelphia Eagles offensive coordinator Marty Mornhinweg is now the Jets coordinator. Yes, he worked with Vick while in Philadelphia. The Jets' story is that they felt Vick could push Geno Smith to become a better starting quarterback. That may be true. However, so long as he's healthy, Vick feels he can start in this league. He's familiar with Mornhinweg's system, and just from a numbers standpoint, he's a much better quarterback than Smith. Vick, while in Philadelphia, completed 59.5% of his passes (3.7% higher than Smith), averaged 7.6 yards per attempt (+0.7 higher than Smith), and threw 57 touchdown passes in comparison to 33 interceptions (much better ratio than Smith). His quarterback rating while in Philadelphia was 87.7 (21.2 points higher than Smith). He also ran the ball 298 times for 1,998 yards, and 15 touchdowns.

So, the question really isn't, "Who's the better quarterback?" Most honest people would say it's Michael Vick. No, the question is, "Is it more important for the Jets to win now or later?" If the Jets want to give themselves the best chance of winning this year, of making the playoffs, and of trying to make a run, they should start Michael Vick. Given his injury history (especially the past couple of years), there's a good chance Geno Smith could find his way back as a starter at some point during the season. However, if the Jets are more focused on winning later, then chances are they'll stick with Smith, unless he's so dreadful, they're almost forced to go to Vick.

I see potential pros and cons to both strategies. The Jets' offense has struggled mightily and there is increasing pressure on the team to make the playoffs. Given that, I could understand why they'd go with Vick to start the season. However, if they're truly sold on Geno Smith being their quarterback of the future (and I'm honestly not sure that's the case), then I could also understand going with him as well. If they're still hopeful that Smith will be their quarterback of the future but don't feel he's 100% ready yet, then it could also make sense for Vick to open the season as starter and to potentially switch to Smith if and when the team felt he was ready. In any case, as always, things should be mighty interesting in the world of the New York Jets leading up to the regular season.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/15864/geno-smith

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/2549/michael-vick

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"