Jump to content

Is Mac over his head? MMMaybe


Powpow

Recommended Posts

I don't get this part.  You don't like not having a back under contract because that will make you sign somebody you wouldn't necessarily sign?  **** that.  Let them show something or walk.  RB is the most plug and play position around nowadays.  As long as the bodies are in camp they will be ready for the opener.  It isn't like  a QB learning the O or a line taking time to gel.  Better to have no backs under contract and have to sign one than to have the wrong backs under contract and have to live with it.  I'm sure Ray Rice will be available for Joe Willy to start a thread

You really don't get it? I think you do.

It would be better if they had someone under contract for next year who is also worth carrying over (even if only a 3rd down back who could start if we don't get a "true" starter, or if the starter gets injured). They don't. Best of the bunch at RB (by a long way) is Ivory. You want to give an oft-injured RB, with his running style, his 3rd NFL contract and a raise? It might work out (he'll be 28, not 32), but history suggests that is less likely. I think there's a good chance he's signed to another 3-4 year deal with 2 years guaranteed. 

But that's the rub. By not having anyone under contract, it forces our hand. You have to either spend big on re-signing him or signing a comparable veteran replacement (and perhaps or likely overpay, out of desperation), or gamble on landing someone day-one ready in the draft. Except you have to have your backup plan on hand nearly 2 months prior to that draft. And who says someone is going to be available that's worth zeroing in on to start for us, either in FA or in the draft, just at the moment we need him? Further still, if there's one we really like, with great value, in round 2, are we still going to draft him with the ink still wet on Ivory's 4 year extension?

The time to draft another RB - assuming the draft is the way they want to go - was while Ivory was still very productive and entering the final year of his contract. Not right after signing 2 veterans to new contracts and crossing our fingers we'll get a suitable replacement in the draft, or force-feeding a pick because we're desperate, leading to over-drafting talent based on need.

Get what I'm saying now? Desperation makes you do things you otherwise wouldn't have done, and then those moves alter future things you also would or wouldn't have done. Domino effect and such. Having zero RBs under contract for next season puts us in such a desperate position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Don't disagree with some of the individual criticisms, as I shared a few when they happened. But some of them were worthwhile, and understandable, given the setting at the time.

New HC who we know isn't going to get handed a QB. All he can do is build up around him. This generally goes against my philosophy of spending like you're close when you are not. Older, mega-expensive CBs are not investments; they are missing pieces. And Cromartie was just stupid stupid stupid the day it was signed and I don't care how depleted the secondary was heading into March. We're not winning a superbowl with Fitzpatrick so why not find out what you've got, or find what you can, in players who have an actual future with the team. Especially with Cromartie being a Bowles request, you have to know he's not benching Cromartie unless he gets injured, if for no other reason then just to save face.

Didn't like the Harris re-signing (to say the least) at that crazy money for him, but I have to admit he's been better than expected, and looks faster than he has in years. Problem is at that money, he's an every down player and he really should be off the field more. It is maddening to see him drop into coverage on obvious passing downs.

Fitz was at least understandable. Years of starting experience, and he and the new OC were obviously familiar with each other. Maccagnan was familiar with him, too. The problem is that familiarity should have been a justification to not rely upon him. Not to mention he wasn't ready to go when it was time to choose a starter at the beginning of camp. But at that price, I can't argue with him as a backup. What I could argue with is that, with all that money to burn, they could have brought in more than one veteran QB to "compete" with Geno, who was handed a job without competition anyway. Hoyer is about the best name I can think of. He gets hurt easily, but then the team has both Fitz and Geno and whoever they can land in the draft. Drop the weakest link among the 3 veterans on final cutdown day. Geno was dirt cheap, but if you're going to throw around $15M per season on Harris and Cromartie you have no justification to split hairs on $2M at the most important position. Of course the real problem is the coaches actually liked him, or so they claimed. 

Gilchrist was not a dumb signing. $4M isn't a lot for a young starting safety, and as a converted CB he has coverage skills that Pryor sorely lacks. We haven't had a complete non-liability in pass coverage back there since Kerry Rhodes was dumped. IMO it further only makes the signing look better with the injury to Allen, who wasn't good enough in coverage to start at corner, but it should have been good enough - and the experience helpful, even - for a move back to FS. Then again, would Allen have been injured if Gilchrist wasn't signed? (It's unlikely he'd have been in the same place at the same time on the same play).

I hate the idea of using a crazy-high pick like that on a RB. Even the toughest guys at that position get injured too easily. I'd rather make the position bullet-proof by bolstering up the OL so even a Thomas Jones or Shonn Greene can look like badasses. Where I think Mac didn't deliver at the RB position is we don't have one under contract after the season's over. From first string to last string, I think they're all FAs in 2016. Situations like that often cause re-signings a GM wouldn't necessarily make if he wasn't in a desperate situation. Look what it did to Tannenbaum when 3 of his 4 WRs (Braylon, Holmes, B.Smith) became FAs in the same offseason. He made himself desperate, and gave Santonio Holmes $20M guaranteed as a direct result. Then that bad situation compounded itself by over-drafting Stephen Hill.

I'll let the draft comments go to others. I don't follow these guys in college so I couldn't say who was worthwhile or not, other than the easy/lazy benefit of hindsight. 

Geez who is this guy....off with his head.  Love the post Sperm. Well thought out.  The CB signings were just too much for my blood with the exception of Skrine, who, could have manned one corner, with Williams manning the other.  All that money could have been spent on better areas like signing Mo long term and filling in other holes with younger cost effective players.  Harris, ok, so he's doing 'ok' but his contract is for how many years?  Lets see how all of you feel next year, the year after and the year after that.  He constantly gets burned in coverage. Its sad and will start looking like Urlacher's last days soon.  He should be off the field in passing downs.  Too many missing pieces on this team to spend most of the cash on 3 players in Revis, Harris and Cro.  Plus, not doing anything about the QB situation was just sickening.  Fitz is basically another Trent Dilfer.  You could win a Super Bowl with him BUT you'd need a Hall of Fame defense which were nowhere near being.  With Geno as 'your starter', it was just a matter of time before Fitz took over...for good. I knew he would be the starter from day one.  How could you not.  Really, most of my inner rant is with even having Geno on this team and being considered as a viable option at QB. If I was Mac, I would have cut his azz before the ink dried when I signed the contract.  Just think how different this offence would look with Glennon and Gurley.  I'm sure we could have pulled Glennon away with a decent offer and yes Gurely would have been somewhat risky but no risk no glory. Besides he got a clean bill of health before the draft.  How's he doing?  Just sayin.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez who is this guy....off with his head.  Love the post Sperm. Well thought out.  The CB signings were just too much for my blood with the exception of Skrine, who, could have manned one corner, with Williams manning the other.  All that money could have been spent on better areas like signing Mo long term and filling in other holes with younger cost effective players.  Harris, ok, so he's doing 'ok' but his contract is for how many years?  Lets see how all of you feel next year, the year after and the year after that.  He constantly gets burned in coverage. Its sad and will start looking like Urlacher's last days soon.  He should be off the field in passing downs.  Too many missing pieces on this team to spend most of the cash on 3 players in Revis, Harris and Cro.  Plus, not doing anything about the QB situation was just sickening.  Fitz is basically another Trent Dilfer.  You could win a Super Bowl with him BUT you'd need a Hall of Fame defense which were nowhere near being.  With Geno as 'your starter', it was just a matter of time before Fitz took over...for good. I knew he would be the starter from day one.  How could you not.  Really, most of my inner rant is with even having Geno on this team and being considered as a viable option at QB. If I was Mac, I would have cut his azz before the ink dried when I signed the contract.  Just think how different this offence would look with Glennon and Gurley.  I'm sure we could have pulled Glennon away with a decent offer and yes Gurely would have been somewhat risky but no risk no glory. Besides he got a clean bill of health before the draft.  How's he doing?  Just sayin.    

First, I'm not the one to argue about with that Harris contract. Just because he's better than I thought he would be doesn't mean I'd hand him $15M guaranteed over the next 2 seasons. His prior contract was awful, and we were finally out from under it, and then we go and make it terrible again. If the big thing the incoming Bowles wanted to preach was speed, how in the hell does David Harris fit into that picture? Answer = in run support, and take him off the field on passing downs. But his contract dictates that he stays in there all the time.

Glennon I think would have been a tough one after he was Tampa's only other option. Ironically, if Glennon was desired that badly, a good option for the Jets would have been to flip Fitzpatrick to them as soon as we picked him up. Redo his contract a little so we pay him another million or two in bonus money, then flip him to Tampa for Glennon and the 4th rounder we used on Petty. Frankly, Fitz would have provided more - and better - veteran leadership and guidance for Winston than Glennon anyway. And our current QB woes notwithstanding, Glennon is hardly a sure thing himself.

Fitz was not a bad pickup at all, and I really really dislike him as our starter. Probably more so than you do. 

The part of your "rant" that you left out are all the new holes for next year. Sure, some of those expensive new acquisitions are only 1-2 year deals in terms of guarantees, but there's a whole lot more holes that open up with current players who are due to be FAs in March (like Mo, who you mentioned). That doesn't even account for the unknown # of games Richardson is going to miss in 2016, or the under-contract players who either aren't pulling their weight outright, or aren't worth the money they're signed for next year. Worst culprit is Ferguson, who's due over $10M in new money next year, on top of his nearly $4M in amortized bonus already paid to him. Cutting him saves $9M or $10M (depending on when it's done), but then we also need to find a starting left tackle ready to step in right away. Neither situation is desirable as we enter March 2016. Sign someone else, and you then must pass on a stud young LT prospect in the early parts of the draft. Don't sign someone else, and you're going to risk over-drafting out of desperate need. Sometimes it works out (drafting Mangold a month after dumping Mawae) but it's quite a gamble after failing to fill such a hole through 2 months of free agency. 

Go make a list of positions where we need upgrades now. Then add to that list positions we have filled now with older players getting worse not better, where we'll need to draft young depth to groom and take over for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much of your rant is about Harris who, while almost certainly overpaid, has hardly done NOTHING! Once again he leads the team in tackles (as he does every year), and he's a high character guy who's a leader on the field and a role model off of it. 

Revis is still one of the best CBs in the game, if not the best anymore (he's still in the discussion). Did Woody want to make a splash there? Maybe. But I'd have to think Maccagnan and Bowles were both looking for a centerpiece for a secondary that desperately needed to be completely overhauled. He was never taking $10M/year (lol!), and would've gotten a similar contract to what the Jets paid him somewhere else. It's what he does. For the Jets part, the last of his guaranteed money is $6M in his third year. So once we get past next year, the team has room to renegotiate/reduce his salary if he's not performing. 

Cro played well last year for Bowles. He's not playing well this year. I disagree with your complaints about even if just a year. It was a worthwhile signing that didn't pan out, and doesn't hurt them when signing free agents next year. The problem now is that Bowles keeps playing him. This move is all Bowles, and very little Mac. Mac was wise to give him no pro-rated signing bonus and no guaranteed money beyond this year. One & done is pretty painless. 

Not sure what your beef is with Gilchrist. Not everyone's a superstar, but he's been solid and makes plays. His salary is low this season, and they have lots of room to negotiate him down (or cut him out right) next year. 

What team acquired an effective veteran starter this year? It's easy to identify the problem (the Jets don't have one!), but your offered solution (somehow thru a trade of draft picks, players, and cash) really isn't viable. I know VtF made Mike Glennon a household name around here, but he was never available for trade last offseason. The Bucs had previously dumped McCown, and Glennon was their cheap, experienced backup/insurance card to Winston for this season. No way to pry him out of there without severely overpaying - if at all. 

Doesn't say much that Harris leads with tackles.  I bet he also leads the NFL with TE's and backs making catches while he drops in coverage.  Great guy, big heart, no question but this is the NFL not the Big Brothers Big Sisters foundation. Contract was absurd, too many years, too much money. he's already worn out, see Urlacher. As far as Revis is concerned, I love the dude. IMO probably the greatest corner ever to play the game in his prime.  But he's no longer in his prime and is older and suffered a major injury.  He's not the same player. It was evident even last year.  No way do I overpay him 33 mill guaranteed for 2 years. 16.5 mill for a corner ....ridiculous. No one would have paid that...no one.  He took the Jets hostage again.  Cro...please don't even try to justify this.  We all saw what a waste he was while here.  And we're seeing it again.  Hey 7 mill its not your money right? As far as Glennon, I believe he could have been had.  If you look, you'll see we really don't have a legit QB.  Glennon had a really nice rookie year with a terrible OL and surrounding cast.  Kid has potential.  Cant believe it would have cost that much to lure him away from the Bucs who are all in with Jameis.  Why wouldn't they take a #2, cash, another player.  We don't have a QB. Petty wont be ready for another 2 years probably, if ever.  Worth a risk to go after and get Glennon who has the biggest upside of any 'available' QB in the league.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really don't get it? I think you do.

It would be better if they had someone under contract for next year who is also worth carrying over (even if only a 3rd down back who could start if we don't get a "true" starter, or if the starter gets injured). They don't. Best of the bunch at RB (by a long way) is Ivory. You want to give an oft-injured RB, with his running style, his 3rd NFL contract and a raise? It might work out (he'll be 28, not 32), but history suggests that is less likely. I think there's a good chance he's signed to another 3-4 year deal with 2 years guaranteed. 

But that's the rub. By not having anyone under contract, it forces our hand. You have to either spend big on re-signing him or signing a comparable veteran replacement (and perhaps or likely overpay, out of desperation), or gamble on landing someone day-one ready in the draft. Except you have to have your backup plan on hand nearly 2 months prior to that draft. And who says someone is going to be available that's worth zeroing in on to start for us, either in FA or in the draft, just at the moment we need him? Further still, if there's one we really like, with great value, in round 2, are we still going to draft him with the ink still wet on Ivory's 4 year extension?

The time to draft another RB - assuming the draft is the way they want to go - was while Ivory was still very productive and entering the final year of his contract. Not right after signing 2 veterans to new contracts and crossing our fingers we'll get a suitable replacement in the draft, or force-feeding a pick because we're desperate, leading to over-drafting talent based on need.

Get what I'm saying now? Desperation makes you do things you otherwise wouldn't have done, and then those moves alter future things you also would or wouldn't have done. Domino effect and such. Having zero RBs under contract for next season puts us in such a desperate position.

Eh.  Having Stacy or Ridley under contract for 2016 would look like a mistake.  Powell has been hurt and isn't likely to get much more than they give him now.  Ivory is the only one you would feel good about having under contract.  I get your general premise, but IMO if there is a position that you are going to go into the offseason with zero at RB is the place to roll the dice.  There will be backs floating around that we can sign. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exposed? Hahaha so funny. You guys are just relentless.  Give it break.  Have some egg nog Thursday.  I'm a fan. Excited as any fan would be with the hope we found someone to turn this mess around.  Drafts are up in the air for the most part. I wasn't thrilled with it but was fine with it at the time. Actually still am.  Would I have made a few changes to it, definitely.  As far as free agency is concerned, not so thrilled with his moves WHICH are equally important as the draft.  Not to mention relying on Geno to come through as your starter.           

You're in over your head

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Mangini gets a pass for 07?? BTW Hermie had to go with Brooks both Chad and Jay Fiedler were hurt within a few plays of each other I seem to remember..

Herm had no chance that year.  I don't like him as a coach, but when you lose 2 QBs and both starting tackles, what do you think will happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

skip the egg nog...go straight to the crack house.

But seriously, I love what he has done. He is balancing winning now and building for the future. It's not his fault that his depth is bad. He inherited a horrible roster. The fact that a lof of those contracts for older players are short term shows his genius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I'm not the one to argue about with that Harris contract. Just because he's better than I thought he would be doesn't mean I'd hand him $15M guaranteed over the next 2 seasons. His prior contract was awful, and we were finally out from under it, and then we go and make it terrible again. If the big thing the incoming Bowles wanted to preach was speed, how in the hell does David Harris fit into that picture? Answer = in run support, and take him off the field on passing downs. But his contract dictates that he stays in there all the time.

Glennon I think would have been a tough one after he was Tampa's only other option. Ironically, if Glennon was desired that badly, a good option for the Jets would have been to flip Fitzpatrick to them as soon as we picked him up. Redo his contract a little so we pay him another million or two in bonus money, then flip him to Tampa for Glennon and the 4th rounder we used on Petty. Frankly, Fitz would have provided more - and better - veteran leadership and guidance for Winston than Glennon anyway. And our current QB woes notwithstanding, Glennon is hardly a sure thing himself.

Fitz was not a bad pickup at all, and I really really dislike him as our starter. Probably more so than you do. 

The part of your "rant" that you left out are all the new holes for next year. Sure, some of those expensive new acquisitions are only 1-2 year deals in terms of guarantees, but there's a whole lot more holes that open up with current players who are due to be FAs in March (like Mo, who you mentioned). That doesn't even account for the unknown # of games Richardson is going to miss in 2016, or the under-contract players who either aren't pulling their weight outright, or aren't worth the money they're signed for next year. Worst culprit is Ferguson, who's due over $10M in new money next year, on top of his nearly $4M in amortized bonus already paid to him. Cutting him saves $9M or $10M (depending on when it's done), but then we also need to find a starting left tackle ready to step in right away. Neither situation is desirable as we enter March 2016. Sign someone else, and you then must pass on a stud young LT prospect in the early parts of the draft. Don't sign someone else, and you're going to risk over-drafting out of desperate need. Sometimes it works out (drafting Mangold a month after dumping Mawae) but it's quite a gamble after failing to fill such a hole through 2 months of free agency. 

Go make a list of positions where we need upgrades now. Then add to that list positions we have filled now with older players getting worse not better, where we'll need to draft young depth to groom and take over for them. 

Slats can you ban Sperm, he's just making to much sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slats can you ban Sperm, he's just making to much sense.

What he says is true. And I have trust in Mac because of his background and the solid job he did in our first draft. This is going to be a 2-3 year process to turn over the roster. Of course, if they get lucky and hit upon a good QB, then who knows.

I alos liked Idzik's process. His execution though was horrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as you have a very good QB, then those are the only teams that will have a chance of consistently being able to make the make the playoffs.   Every other team just hopes that they can make the right moves and compete for a spot. Often theat one team that surprises you and makes it is no where near the playoffs the next year.   It starts at the QB position.  Until we get one then every year is just a hope of being good enough to make it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I'm not the one to argue about with that Harris contract. Just because he's better than I thought he would be doesn't mean I'd hand him $15M guaranteed over the next 2 seasons. His prior contract was awful, and we were finally out from under it, and then we go and make it terrible again. If the big thing the incoming Bowles wanted to preach was speed, how in the hell does David Harris fit into that picture? Answer = in run support, and take him off the field on passing downs. But his contract dictates that he stays in there all the time.

Glennon I think would have been a tough one after he was Tampa's only other option. Ironically, if Glennon was desired that badly, a good option for the Jets would have been to flip Fitzpatrick to them as soon as we picked him up. Redo his contract a little so we pay him another million or two in bonus money, then flip him to Tampa for Glennon and the 4th rounder we used on Petty. Frankly, Fitz would have provided more - and better - veteran leadership and guidance for Winston than Glennon anyway. And our current QB woes notwithstanding, Glennon is hardly a sure thing himself.

Fitz was not a bad pickup at all, and I really really dislike him as our starter. Probably more so than you do. 

The part of your "rant" that you left out are all the new holes for next year. Sure, some of those expensive new acquisitions are only 1-2 year deals in terms of guarantees, but there's a whole lot more holes that open up with current players who are due to be FAs in March (like Mo, who you mentioned). That doesn't even account for the unknown # of games Richardson is going to miss in 2016, or the under-contract players who either aren't pulling their weight outright, or aren't worth the money they're signed for next year. Worst culprit is Ferguson, who's due over $10M in new money next year, on top of his nearly $4M in amortized bonus already paid to him. Cutting him saves $9M or $10M (depending on when it's done), but then we also need to find a starting left tackle ready to step in right away. Neither situation is desirable as we enter March 2016. Sign someone else, and you then must pass on a stud young LT prospect in the early parts of the draft. Don't sign someone else, and you're going to risk over-drafting out of desperate need. Sometimes it works out (drafting Mangold a month after dumping Mawae) but it's quite a gamble after failing to fill such a hole through 2 months of free agency. 

Go make a list of positions where we need upgrades now. Then add to that list positions we have filled now with older players getting worse not better, where we'll need to draft young depth to groom and take over for them. 

So long story short we're like every other team in the NFL sans the few that have franchise QB's?  Got it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh.  Having Stacy or Ridley under contract for 2016 would look like a mistake.  Powell has been hurt and isn't likely to get much more than they give him now.  Ivory is the only one you would feel good about having under contract.  I get your general premise, but IMO if there is a position that you are going to go into the offseason with zero at RB is the place to roll the dice.  There will be backs floating around that we can sign. 

The difference is, if they were under contract, it wouldn't be guaranteed. To re-sign them (or someone who ends up similar) requires a new contract with new signing bonus.

I'd just rather seek out a new starting RB in the draft while we're winding down the contract on our existing one. Or as second-best, that we have someone under contract that we could get by with at least in a RBBC capacity. Now we're in a position where we must sign (or re-sign, if it's Ivory) a new veteran starter to a new contract. This significantly decreases the likelihood we'd touch a RB earlier even if value dictates the wisdom of doing so.

There are always RBs floating around. But we are left with 2 choices because we have none under contract:

1) Sign a veteran - a good one - to a new contract with multiple guaranteed years and signing bonuses and the whole package. This means we're almost assuredly passing on a younger (and much cheaper) one in the draft.

2) Don't sign a veteran: force our hand to reach for one in the draft because there aren't any good veterans left if we come away from the draft without a new one. And even if we did take one earlier, it still is no guarantee of anything other than the RB's age and salary. He might still be a bust.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are catching a titty attack over my views by 'digging up' something I wrote on May 2nd?  Is it that time of month for you?  What was so contradicting?  Things evolve and devolve. My main beef with Mac is more with spending millions on Revis, Cro, Harris, Gilchrist and not finding a better option at QB.  Where does it say in the post that I want him or Bowles fired, or that Williams was a 'bad' pick. Just said that I would have preferred to roll the dice on Gurely. Williams will be a star but he was a luxury we really didn't need. Gurely, who I preferred, would have reinvigorated this dead offense.  The Smith pick has been an albatross. Everyone, including myself, was excited. Ok so he got it wrong, me too. And so did numerous others on this board. Signing Fitz was smart BUT not as the starter. And yes he was signed as the back up BUT are you that stupid to believe Geno would have actually started.  I was hoping Mac would have done whatever he could to get a legit QB. All that money, trade picks do whatever you have to.  Another poster stated if Fitz starts next year, Mac should be fired.  I agree.  If you don't like what I wrote then tough titties.  Find a better argument next time you're bored.                 

It's easy to be a Monday Morning QB. Peter King makes a nice career out of it.

When I read your initial post, I read a guy ranting about how almost every move Mac has made has been a disaster. I debated responding, but then thought - what did this guy think about the moves in real time? Was he so negative then? And I found my answer. 

That's not evolving and devolving.. that's just being overly critical in hindsight. Will you be writing a glowing post about the draft picks if the Jets go 5-1 down the stretch and make the playoffs? My guess is that you will.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So long story short we're like every other team in the NFL sans the few that have franchise QB's?  Got it. 

No. My comments were beyond the QB position. Even with that checked off there are still a good # of problems with this roster. More than we should have after the spending spree this past March and the draft 1-2 months later. 

I just don't like building a team around no QB. Then if/when the team finally finds one, a good amount of flexibility has been wasted putting lipstick on a pig. Especially at skill positions where speed is of great importance. They don't get better with age when we sign them to expensive new contracts that begin in the players' late 20s and early 30s. The big exception to that rule would be expensive players at positions that don't (or shouldn't) seem to fall off a cliff.

Offensive line is a great place to do that. I don't like taking OL with top 5 (or nearly top 5) picks, or guards/centers inside the top 15, but it's sound usage of higher picks in general (if they pan out lol). And they last a long time, as opposed to RBs who typically fizzle out in less than half that time, if they're not relative or outright busts to begin with like Trent Richardson, Spiller, Knowshon Moreno, David Wilson, J.Best, Donald Brown, McFadden, and other first round (if not high first round) mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is, if they were under contract, it wouldn't be guaranteed. To re-sign them (or someone who ends up similar) requires a new contract with new signing bonus.

I'd just rather seek out a new starting RB in the draft while we're winding down the contract on our existing one. Or as second-best, that we have someone under contract that we could get by with at least in a RBBC capacity. Now we're in a position where we must sign (or re-sign, if it's Ivory) a new veteran starter to a new contract. This significantly decreases the likelihood we'd touch a RB earlier even if value dictates the wisdom of doing so.

There are always RBs floating around. But we are left with 2 choices because we have none under contract:

1) Sign a veteran - a good one - to a new contract with multiple guaranteed years and signing bonuses and the whole package. This means we're almost assuredly passing on a younger (and much cheaper) one in the draft.

2) Don't sign a veteran: force our hand to reach for one in the draft because there aren't any good veterans left if we come away from the draft without a new one. And even if we did take one earlier, it still is no guarantee of anything other than the RB's age and salary. He might still be a bust.

 

You left one out:

3) 2006

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, this mess falls squarely on Bowles and Mac, who I believe are both over their heads in their roles.             

This isn't a "mess".  Assuming we're headed for 8-8 or 7-9 this is a successful Year 1 of a rebuild by a rookie GM and a rookie HC who inherited a 4-12 mess that hasn't seen a playoff game in this decade.

If you want to be upset with anyone, use your time machine and be upset at people like Mike Tannenbaum, John Idzik, and Rex Ryan who didn't draft properly and used the free agent pool to compensate in the short term.  This team has no "core" of mid-life maturing players to build around.  We're either very old or very young, not much in the middle.  Maccagnan did what he could to shore up our secondary and he got the best QB available, jury's out on the draft for now.  Bowles is a rookie HC making rookie mistakes.  No different than Groh (ended first season on 3-6 slide) or Ryan (went on 1-6 slide in first season) or most any other NFL HC.

SAR I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We start 4-1 and many see Mac as the best thing since Pop Tarts.  We are now 5-5.  Is the truth surfacing? Is Mac (and Bowles) over their head?  Was it smart to spend zillions on an overaged, make shift secondary?  Was it smart to use a No.1 pick on another DLineman when DL was this team's strength?  Was it smart to not get a better option at QB other than Fitzy when you have the combustible Geno as your starter?  Was it smart to sign Revis to ALL that money knowing he is getting older fast and Cro having a history of being scorched? Was it smart to draft a wr in round 2 that showed nothing more than vertical speed in college and never ran another route in his life?  Was it smart signing Harris to a ALL that money?  The answer is a resounding NO.  I was totally against Revis and Harris signing for billions, bringing back Cro and giving Gilchrist all that money as well. Skrine I could see.  Relying on Smith to be your starting QB? Stupid. Signing Fitz as a back up plan wasn't exactly genius either.  Still, not much choice in the matter BUT he has to address this for 2016.  Petty is not even close to ready.  And the prior draft looks rather pedestrian.  I was hoping they would have taken Todd Gurrely. Risk aside, if it didn't pay off, so be it. But, if you hit on it, then you get the best RB the NFL has seen since AD (Peterson). Of course, Williams is a potential beast, but we needed offense.  Round 2 - Devin Smith - OMG this kid is nothing more than the reincarnation of Ted Ginn w/o the ability to return kicks or catch and occasional ball. What a waste.  Mauldin has been a nice find. Petty was worth the gamble.  Anyways, this mess falls squarely on Bowles and Mac, who I believe are both over their heads in their roles.             

Who was available that was better than Fitzpatrick in free agency? Hoyer? Glennon? C'mon man, Mac did the best he could and you are using that 20/20 hindsight that everyone has to belittle his actions. I think Maccagnan is the best GM the Jets have had in a long time. Or would you rather still have John Idzik making the calls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who was available that was better than Fitzpatrick in free agency? Hoyer? Glennon? C'mon man, Mac did the best he could and you are using that 20/20 hindsight that everyone has to belittle his actions. I think Maccagnan is the best GM the Jets have had in a long time. Or would you rather still have John Idzik making the calls?

When you dont have any idea you need to blame a single person.  I was thinking the same thing, he needs to stop whining about who was brought in and give us someone he would have brought in to lead the team.  Real options, not someone like Glennon who wasnt going to be moved with a rookie QB as the only alternative on the roster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. My comments were beyond the QB position. Even with that checked off there are still a good # of problems with this roster. More than we should have after the spending spree this past March and the draft 1-2 months later. 

I just don't like building a team around no QB. Then if/when the team finally finds one, a good amount of flexibility has been wasted putting lipstick on a pig. Especially at skill positions where speed is of great importance. They don't get better with age when we sign them to expensive new contracts that begin in the players' late 20s and early 30s. The big exception to that rule would be expensive players at positions that don't (or shouldn't) seem to fall off a cliff.

Offensive line is a great place to do that. I don't like taking OL with top 5 (or nearly top 5) picks, or guards/centers inside the top 15, but it's sound usage of higher picks in general (if they pan out lol). And they last a long time, as opposed to RBs who typically fizzle out in less than half that time, if they're not relative or outright busts to begin with like Trent Richardson, Spiller, Knowshon Moreno, David Wilson, J.Best, Donald Brown, McFadden, and other first round (if not high first round) mistakes.

Aha!  There it is, you don't like building a team around no QB.  Let's look real closely at that statement.  Here we have the NFL, where there are right now at this moment 3 QB's playing at a truly elite level (Cam, Brady, Palmer).  When you drop Peyton Manning and Drew Brees from the discussion there are 2 that year in, year out play at an elite level (Brady and Rogers).  Outside of these QB's you have the likes of Rivers, Eli, Flacco, Wilson, Stafford, Dalton, Ryan.  These are the above average, not super great overall but consistent with flashes of greatness from time to time.  Underneath that level you will have the churn where rounding out the top 15 or so QB's are young guys that may be on the up and up, or are just as likely to bomb out of the league.  Guys like Bortles, Bradford, Cousins, etc...  Maybe they'll be good, maybe not.  Bottom line though you are looking at 15+ teams that have no QB or a questionable QB.  When you turn to the draft, if I'm being really generous we probably average 1 reasonable QB a year in the draft.  By reasonable I mean guys that legitimately make it to the top 15 in their career, if even for a short stretch.  So, back to the drawing board, 1 team out of 15 will end up with a QB that's truly worth building around.  The rest will either be building around a Fugaze QB or trying to build a winner by other means.  You see what I'm getting at?  Building AROUND a QB is a luxury.  A huge luxury in the NFL.  Most teams have to do it in other ways....defense and putting really good players around subpar QB's hoping they can elevate a guy enough to at least win by not making mistakes.  They have to do it.  Otherwise if you don't have a QB to build around then might as well just pack it all in.  I mean what's the point?  Until the league retracts to a 15 team league (obviously will never happen) this is the way of life.

Too many people underestimate the difficulty of the QB position in the NFL.  It is the single hardest thing to do in American sports.  To hell with hitting a baseball, a QB has to be able to recognize complex strategies on the D against him pre snap, then make a snap decision to throw a ball into a defense with superbly fast players, monster sized freaks coming to kill you, and deliver a ball with bullseye precision and velocity.  There are many people that can hit a major league fastball well, there are not 32 men on the planet that can play QB in the NFL well.  There's just not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aha!  There it is, you don't like building a team around no QB.  Let's look real closely at that statement.  Here we have the NFL, where there are right now at this moment 3 QB's playing at a truly elite level (Cam, Brady, Palmer).  When you drop Peyton Manning and Drew Brees from the discussion there are 2 that year in, year out play at an elite level (Brady and Rogers).  Outside of these QB's you have the likes of Rivers, Eli, Flacco, Wilson, Stafford, Dalton, Ryan.  These are the above average, not super great overall but consistent with flashes of greatness from time to time.  Underneath that level you will have the churn where rounding out the top 15 or so QB's are young guys that may be on the up and up, or are just as likely to bomb out of the league.  Guys like Bortles, Bradford, Cousins, etc...  Maybe they'll be good, maybe not.  Bottom line though you are looking at 15+ teams that have no QB or a questionable QB.  When you turn to the draft, if I'm being really generous we probably average 1 reasonable QB a year in the draft.  By reasonable I mean guys that legitimately make it to the top 15 in their career, if even for a short stretch.  So, back to the drawing board, 1 team out of 15 will end up with a QB that's truly worth building around.  The rest will either be building around a Fugaze QB or trying to build a winner by other means.  You see what I'm getting at?  Building AROUND a QB is a luxury.  A huge luxury in the NFL.  Most teams have to do it in other ways....defense and putting really good players around subpar QB's hoping they can elevate a guy enough to at least win by not making mistakes.  They have to do it.  Otherwise if you don't have a QB to build around then might as well just pack it all in.  I mean what's the point?  Until the league retracts to a 15 team league (obviously will never happen) this is the way of life.

Too many people underestimate the difficulty of the QB position in the NFL.  It is the single hardest thing to do in American sports.  To hell with hitting a baseball, a QB has to be able to recognize complex strategies on the D against him pre snap, then make a snap decision to throw a ball into a defense with superbly fast players, monster sized freaks coming to kill you, and deliver a ball with bullseye precision and velocity.  There are many people that can hit a major league fastball well, there are not 32 men on the planet that can play QB in the NFL well.  There's just not. 

Uyuyuy. It's not a gotcha comment and you're reading too much into it. I don't believe in going all out over the top, maxing out the cap with veterans with a short shelf life with no QB. I'd rather hold back some and leave a good amount of that flexibility. We went from one extreme to the other in this regard.  I think picking up, re-signing, or building around a bunch of high priced 30-plus FAs & older veterans is a poor way to build a lasting success for the franchise. We spent like we were close enough to go all in despite the conspicuous absence of a QB worthy of it.  

Whatever the difficulties you want to romanticize about playing QB, Fitz sucks at it. Are there some - or many - who suck even worse? Yes. That doesn't make him good enough, and even worse he wasn't the QB they were building around this past March; it was Geno Smith. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aha!  There it is, you don't like building a team around no QB.  Let's look real closely at that statement.  Here we have the NFL, where there are right now at this moment 3 QB's playing at a truly elite level (Cam, Brady, Palmer).  When you drop Peyton Manning and Drew Brees from the discussion there are 2 that year in, year out play at an elite level (Brady and Rogers).  Outside of these QB's you have the likes of Rivers, Eli, Flacco, Wilson, Stafford, Dalton, Ryan.  These are the above average, not super great overall but consistent with flashes of greatness from time to time.  Underneath that level you will have the churn where rounding out the top 15 or so QB's are young guys that may be on the up and up, or are just as likely to bomb out of the league.  Guys like Bortles, Bradford, Cousins, etc...  Maybe they'll be good, maybe not.  Bottom line though you are looking at 15+ teams that have no QB or a questionable QB.  When you turn to the draft, if I'm being really generous we probably average 1 reasonable QB a year in the draft.  By reasonable I mean guys that legitimately make it to the top 15 in their career, if even for a short stretch.  So, back to the drawing board, 1 team out of 15 will end up with a QB that's truly worth building around.  Building AROUND a QB is a luxury.  A huge luxury in the NFL. he rest will either be building around a Fugaze QB or trying to build a winner by other means.  You see what I'm getting at?   Most teams have to do it in other ways....defense and putting really good players around subpar QB's hoping they can elevate a guy enough to at least win by not making mistakes.  They have to do it.  Otherwise if you don't have a QB to build around then might as well just pack it all in.  I mean what's the point?  Until the league retracts to a 15 team league (obviously will never happen) this is the way of life.

Too many people underestimate the difficulty of the QB position in the NFL.  It is the single hardest thing to do in American sports.  To hell with hitting a baseball, a QB has to be able to recognize complex strategies on the D against him pre snap, then make a snap decision to throw a ball into a defense with superbly fast players, monster sized freaks coming to kill you, and deliver a ball with bullseye precision and velocity.  There are many people that can hit a major league fastball well, there are not 32 men on the planet that can play QB in the NFL well.  There's just not. 

Of course if you don't have a QB, you still have to field a team. To spend vast millions on a few spare parts w/o a legit QB is just stupid.   What I cant stand, is making a scrub like Geno to be your guiding light.  Eli, Flacco, Wilson, Rivers are not above average QB's. They belong to the elite class in the NFL.  3 of those 4 have 5 SB wins and Rivers is a gamer.  QB is the most important position in the game. That's why you look under every rock until you find one.  You don't rely on the Geno Smith's of the world and cross your fingers and tippy toes and hope he pans out when the evidence is clear that he SUCKS. You move on, you trade for another, draft another, find another until you hit pay dirt.  They are out there, somewhere.....  but if you don't seek you shall not find.  If you settle for garbage you will be garbage.  I can see maybe 5 teams that won SB's with 'average QB's"....We've had 2 good QB's - Testerverde and Namath. Why? Because we keep settling for crap and try to justify these horrible decisions. Todd, O'Brien, O'Donnel, Pennington etc etc etc.  Rare teams like the Ravens, Redskins Giants and Bucs did it w/o an elite QB but were extremely balanced and well coached and had killer defenses.  That scenario is ever rarer than finding an elite QB,  Of course you can argue the opposing point ...Dan Marino, who to me was the greatest QB of all time, never won a SB, BUT I'll take a guy like that any time of day.  45 of the SB's were won by current (or will be) Hall of Fame QB's........Staubach, Starr, Bradshaw, Brady, Montana, Aikman, Farve, etc etc etc. That's no coincidence.  There's a Kurt Warner out there. We just have to find him and THEN build a team around him.                  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course if you don't have a QB, you still have to field a team. To spend vast millions on a few spare parts w/o a legit QB is just stupid.   What I cant stand, is making a scrub like Geno to be your guiding light.  Eli, Flacco, Wilson, Rivers are not above average QB's. They belong to the elite class in the NFL.  3 of those 4 have 5 SB wins and Rivers is a gamer.  QB is the most important position in the game. That's why you look under every rock until you find one.  You don't rely on the Geno Smith's of the world and cross your fingers and tippy toes and hope he pans out when the evidence is clear that he SUCKS. You move on, you trade for another, draft another, find another until you hit pay dirt.  They are out there, somewhere.....  but if you don't seek you shall not find.  If you settle for garbage you will be garbage.  I can see maybe 5 teams that won SB's with 'average QB's"....We've had 2 good QB's - Testerverde and Namath. Why? Because we keep settling for crap and try to justify these horrible decisions. Todd, O'Brien, O'Donnel, Pennington etc etc etc.  Rare teams like the Ravens, Redskins Giants and Bucs did it w/o an elite QB but were extremely balanced and well coached and had killer defenses.  That scenario is ever rarer than finding an elite QB,  Of course you can argue the opposing point ...Dan Marino, who to me was the greatest QB of all time, never won a SB, BUT I'll take a guy like that any time of day.  45 of the SB's were won by current (or will be) Hall of Fame QB's........Staubach, Starr, Bradshaw, Brady, Montana, Aikman, Farve, etc etc etc. That's no coincidence.  There's a Kurt Warner out there. We just have to find him and THEN build a team around him.                  

Why do people constantly sh*t on Ken O'Brien? 2 passing titles and 2 Pro Bowls. He was a solid QB. He might be the best passer the Jets have ever had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe it. He may be the best pure passer the Jets have ever had. Namath threw more INTs than TDs. O'Brien didn't do that. Namath had a HOF WR. O'Brien didn't have that either

No. Not even close. And I'm old enough to have seen Namath in his prime live. You have to stop looking at stats across generations. It really doesn't work. Namath had a great arm. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to be a Monday Morning QB. Peter King makes a nice career out of it.

When I read your initial post, I read a guy ranting about how almost every move Mac has made has been a disaster. I debated responding, but then thought - what did this guy think about the moves in real time? Was he so negative then? And I found my answer. 

That's not evolving and devolving.. that's just being overly critical in hindsight. Will you be writing a glowing post about the draft picks if the Jets go 5-1 down the stretch and make the playoffs? My guess is that you will.

 

 

Well what you found was your ability to twist ideas around.  Well done.  I have supported many of Mac's moves, been ok with others and been downright disgusted with others.  Hardly crtitcal of 'amost every move'. Yet you devalue my rationale because you think its hindsight, being a Mon morn QB.  No sorry.  Just my 2 cents.  I would have went about matters differently, that's all.  If you don't agree, fine just don't be a douchebag about it.  And I actually believe we have a legit chance, and hope we make the playoffs. Face it, most of the NFL teams fighting for the wild card spots suck.  I think we can beat the Giants, Cowboys and Bills....we played NE tough and had em on the ropes. Miami we own and Tenn we should win.   4-2 could get us in, 9-7 overall. Even if we do get in, its short lived and most of the moves Mac made will hinder this team's overall future progress.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Not even close. And I'm old enough to have seen Namath in his prime live. You have to stop looking at stats across generations. It really doesn't work. Namath had a great arm. Period.

Good point but he didn't have a great arm. He had a golden arm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well what you found was your ability to twist ideas around.  Well done.  I have supported many of Mac's moves, been ok with others and been downright disgusted with others.  Hardly crtitcal of 'amost every move'. Yet you devalue my rationale because you think its hindsight, being a Mon morn QB.  No sorry.  Just my 2 cents.  I would have went about matters differently, that's all.  If you don't agree, fine just don't be a douchebag about it.  And I actually believe we have a legit chance, and hope we make the playoffs. Face it, most of the NFL teams fighting for the wild card spots suck.  I think we can beat the Giants, Cowboys and Bills....we played NE tough and had em on the ropes. Miami we own and Tenn we should win.   4-2 could get us in, 9-7 overall. Even if we do get in, its short lived and most of the moves Mac made will hinder this team's overall future progress.  

you made a thread asking 'is Mac over his head?' and proceeded to bash most of their FA moves and just about all of their draft picks in the first post of this thread.  And then you get your panties in a bunch when I quote a post from you back in May gushing over the draft and the draft day trades. 

 

So which is it? You liked the moves when they were made but now that we've lost 4 out of 5, you don't like them? If that's not considered monday morning qb-ing, what is?  Why not let the season play out, and give Mac's moves a chance to success/fail before starting a thread about whether Mac is competent enough for the job?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shuler 82 said:

you made a thread asking 'is Mac over his head?' and proceeded to bash most of their FA moves and just about all of their draft picks in the first post of this thread.  And then you get your panties in a bunch when I quote a post from you back in May gushing over the draft and the draft day trades.  So which is it? You liked the moves when they were made but now that we've lost 4 out of 5, you don't like them? If that's not considered monday morning qb-ing, what is?  Why not let the season play out, and give Mac's moves a chance to success/fail before starting a thread about whether Mac is competent enough for the job?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peace dude. I like Mac. He's an incredibly gifted speaker, an intellectual giant.  BUT I didn't like his free agency moves.  The draft, not bad....could be awesome if Petty pans out. Williams, hard to argue but I really liked Gurely who is a gifted back.  I really wanted him to find a better option than relying on Smith coming into the season.  And to spend all that cash on 3 older players (Revis, Cro, Harris) was just impulsive IMO.  Read Sperm's takes on it.  He was much better at spelling it out than I am. I get to emotional over all this stuff.  I have never called for his head or asked or suggested he be fired.  'Being in over your head' is just an emotional response to him acting to hasty and making a splash over Idzik' s failure to strengthen the secondary during his reign.  What better way to 'win' the fan base.  Those 3 mentioned cost 30 mill against this years payroll alone. Honestly, has it really paid off?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...