Sperm Edwards

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sperm Edwards last won the day on September 28 2016

Sperm Edwards had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

337,535 JN Hall Of Fame

About Sperm Edwards

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/21/1968

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

21,744 profile views
  1. Not to mention missing an XP. Also Pittsburgh was calling the bad plays that didn't work to punch it in on that last drive. They should have called the good plays that would have worked.
  2. Your post indicated that any criticism thrown his way (1) is unwarranted (2) is rooted in irrational, personal "hate" for the man, rather than critiquing his individual actions/inactions taken as has been done. Regardless, you are not the sole arbiter of what is "warranted" and "unwarranted" criticism. People are allowed to have opinions that differ from yours. I never insinuated you personally hated anyone here so I'm confused by that reply. I always presumed this was just online Jets players/coaches/etc discussion; nothing personal. I just object to the categorical, blanket dismissal of opinions that differ from yours as being essentially baseless despite everyone listing the actions themselves that sucked.
  3. I was making a self-deprecating joke and you missed it. Now we must point and laugh at you for the next 5-7 business days lol.
  4. I agree. Where do some of these people come up with their usernames? Some of us just have more class than others I guess.
  5. Honestly the orig post is fine. That said, I have little confidence that it won't be reduced to a lock-worthy thread. Let's see what happens lol
  6. While I won't respond in kind, it's kind of [well, choose your own adjective] to reduce others' legitimate and enumerated criticisms to baseless, blind personal hatred. Like anyone here knows the guy or gives a crap about him personally in any regard.
  7. If you're going to go this route, then include the 10+ draft picks traded away or turned away from 2015 & 2016, not just cherry-pick the one for Marshall.
  8. Yes you are. I was speaking of the difference between roster/signing bonus, not the difference between roster bonus and salary. There is no different advantage to the team in awarding him a roster bonus instead of a signing bonus. Mathematically it's the same (for a disciplined GM).
  9. Keep repeating the same no-backup propaganda enough and eventually people will believe it's true. Is this the tactic you're going for? Nobody knows Maccagnan enough to "hate" him. If you could read, you'd realize I'm finding fault with his actions and inactions, not him personally. I think he's a poor assessor of value, a poor future planner, a poor negotiator, and so far he isn't exactly stellar at drafting either. But feel free to continue making it personal if that's the extent of your insight.
  10. So the answer is in the end, because Maccagnan didn't strike a deal then that's proof that a deal couldn't be struck. Convenient position to take, except Maccagnan has earned no such benefit of the doubt thus far. Quite the contrary, if anything. What just happened is the exception rather than the rule. Winters is now only the 3rd starting guard in the NFL who remained with his team despite a failure to sign an extension prior to completion of his final season. Hey, good for Winters for cashing in. He played Maccagnan like a fiddle, which is something of a theme already. But had we let him go and someone else gave Winters this same contract, there is no doubt the same people applauding Maccagnan now would still be applauding him just as loudly for walking away from the same deal. Next, you speak of flexibility, but then ignore that it makes no mathematical difference whether a signing bonus or roster bonus is issued, for a team having (or that soon will have) plenty of cap space. It isn't a matter of opinion; it's just math. If anything, the lesser amount of flexibility - mathematically - is to offer a roster bonus instead of a signing bonus. That is, if the GM can be trusted to not spend just because it's there. If not for the lack of any benefit to cutting him, due to guarantee not just accelerated signing bonus, do you honestly believe the Jets would be looking to pay Wilkerson another guaranteed $15m just for this year (that's on top of a guaranteed minimum dead cap hit of $9m next year even if cut after this 1 year)? There isn't a team in the NFL that would sign up for that knowing what they know now, Jets included. He's only around because the cap hit is too high to cut him with all of it being guaranteed. Ditto Revis, who'll probably restructure with a slight salary reduction; there is a 0% chance the Jets - or anybody - would be thinking anything other than "cut him now" if not for Maccagnan guaranteeing him $6m this year. Not to mention the 10 or so draft picks he's already traded away in just his first 2 seasons. So I find it amusing when people try to claim how he's oh-so-different than Tannenbaum in this regard.
  11. No it isn't borrowing money from your future unless you use it. No GM that you know of? Well look up spending limits, and you'll see some teams have more than the league allocated amount. Each one of them, and example of a GM that has issued signing bonuses to players and left that extra flexibility unused. A child feels he has to spend money because just because he has it, even when better judgment dictates saving it for the future. Is Maccagnan a child?
  12. Thank you. This concept of "no dead cap space for cutting early" sounds great, and looks neater on a spreadsheet, but the net benefit is zero unless the GM is an undisciplined spender, for whom money burns a hole in his pocket. People are giving undue credit here, even in paying a greater amount for lesser players they'd have equally credited if we'd gone without, due to the cap scheduling of those amounts. There is nothing special about it deserving of such credit. If you have a player count less in the current year, it's only a problem if the GM is undisciplined enough to still continue to max out the current year's cap by pissing it away on temporary players that still won't get us over the hump (*cough* Fitzpatrick *cough*), instead of carrying that extra current space forward to the following year. All it [having it hit the current year more] does is save the GM from himself and there is no other mathematical benefit. If that's needed, to the point where doing so is heralded as saving the team from a GM overspending on more (on I guess more players they believe would be unneeded), then the GM himself is the problem. How that is not transparently clear is a head scratcher, unless it's just misplaced hero/idol worship.
  13. That all sounds great, but literally none of this is correct, unfortunately. There is no evidence that any player gets a higher amount per year if it's a shorter contract. These aren't car payments, where spreading it out lowers your annual nut. If anything the average amount would be the higher on a longer deal, because every agent/player knows there is cap inflation annually, and they don't want to lock themselves into a lower amount for longer. Restructuring mid-contract, for the players we have/had, has nothing to do with anything other than the same GM previously+currently spending above our means. For example, Carpenter was restructured for one reason only: to temporarily carry Wilkerson's higher franchise tag amount. In the end, Carpenter gets paid the same number of dollars and the net is zero. But what does it matter if the higher current cap charges belong to Wilkerson or Carpenter? None, of course. Then in September, Skrine was restructured to keep a rainy day fund for the upcoming season. If that money went unused, while he'd count a few million more in the future it also comes with a few million more in higher future cap ceilings by an equal amount dollar for dollar: the net benefit is zero. To your last points, Mo is an example of an overpriced vet, whom Maccagnan effectively restructured from his franchise tag amount, to create additional space today. On paper - particularly since he knew Mo's tendencies behind the scenes, in ways from which fans were shielded - he was better off continuing to tag Mo twice. Same money; lower (year to year) risk for the team; greater incentive for the player to keep producing every year instead of dogging it & acting like a tool in year 1 (which he did). What was he worried about, having to fork over a $22m/year contract to a 29 year old Mo in 2018? He wouldn't command that kind of contract, so for that reason and the other reasons I just listed, the extension was stupid and shortsighted. Two weeks later he did that and worse with Fitzpatrick, using $12m of 2017's spending ability on this overpriced veteran. $5m of it directly in the form of dead cap space, and $7m indirectly in others' restructures plus space that would have otherwise simply carried over. Very Tannenbaum-esque.
  14. The reason is to give the player money earlier in a lump sum instead of getting it later in weekly installments (salary). Players like that. I'd like that better and so would you. For team cap management, there's really no difference other than writing a larger check earlier. I didn't read anywhere that his roster bonus is paid in September for making the "final" roster, the way you're thinking of all roster bonuses. It can be - and typically is - as bonus for simply being on the Jets roster at whatever arbitrary time they've chosen. For example: March 9, when the 2017 league year officially begins.