Jump to content

Report: Raiders Interested in Wilkerson


JetNation

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Either way, those are not sacks we would miss next year. "Spin" is presuming that his career year of 12 sacks (only 8 of them of any real use to the team) is the new benchmark for the duration of his future career. This was an outlier year for him.

I don't understand why you can't accept that everyone here likes Mo. Everyone would love to have him back for the rest of his career. It's just that everyone doesn't think he's worth  occupying the JJ Watt level of cap space when we have some damn good, talented, young 3-4 ends on the team without him. You're making it sound as though absent Wilkerson the team will be facing Vernon Gholston production. 

- Yes, they would not miss the 2015 Titans sacks in 2016. That =/= being fine without Wilkerson, somehow better, or that they're getting better.

- Uuuum, he's two season removed from 10.5 2013. Another thing just totally made up, last year wasn't an outlier. It's doing what he's always done - be the Jets best front 7 player against the pass. 

- I don't understand why you think this comes down to something as dumb and simple as sacks - held to the same standard as 250 pound edge rushers for reasons and science and stuff - and "liking" him. 

- Imaginary demands are imaginary, still. 

- I'm actually making it sound like you want to drop the best player on the team because a lazy "analysis" says he didn't time his sacks right like....all the zero other other guys' sack totals you broke down and edited. That you imagine demands, and that what you imagine happens when trading him isn't enough to actually drop the best player and defender against the pass on the team. Not one of those is a reason to move on from and not pay Wilkerson, or even particularly close, no matter the spin. I know you just say that we disagree - duh - but what I'm saying is that we disagree because you want to drop Mo for a total of zero good, solid reasons and irregular standards. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 545
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I didn't say they were worthless because they came against the Titans. I'm saying they were worthless because they came against the Titans after we were already up by 3 TDs.

Either way, those are not sacks we would miss next year. "Spin" is presuming that his career year of 12 sacks (only 8 of them of any real use to the team) is the new benchmark for the duration of his future career. This was an outlier year for him.

I don't understand why you can't accept that everyone here likes Mo. Everyone would love to have him back for the rest of his career. It's just that everyone doesn't think he's worth  occupying the JJ Watt level of cap space when we have some damn good, talented, young 3-4 ends on the team without him. You're making it sound as though absent Wilkerson the team will be facing Vernon Gholston production. 

why didn't those damn good ends produce anything in the sack department this year ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Larz said:

why didn't those damn good ends produce anything in the sack department this year ? 

Off the top of my head?

  1. One of them (Williams) lines up against what's traditionally and typically the opponents' best pass blockers. Also he was a 21 year old rookie.

  2. The other missed a good amount of playing time and then was moved around and settled in out of his natural positions because his skill set translated to OLB better than either of the other two. Bowles decided that was the best way to get all 3 of them on the field at the same time.

  3. Most QBs are right-handed (and I think all the QBs we faced this year were righties). When they roll out, they tend to roll out to their throwing side because it's easier to throw on the move that way. In other words, they will tend to roll out towards Mo and away from Williams.

 

Again, it isn't as though everyone here doesn't like Mo a lot. But a one time accomplishment of 12 sacks - the most of his career, and it cannot be stated enough how at least 1/3 of them were 100% useless - is being painted as though he is some irreplaceable pass rusher when he clearly is not. Were Richardson to take his place as starter in 2016, full time all season long, I'm sure he'd have racked up more than the 3 sacks he got in far less playing time, even if it doesn't end up totaling the illustrious dozen. 

They're all top-notch in run support, so what's the argument? That the differential in their sack totals, from a guess of around 8-ish for Richardson's in Mo's place, to Mo's 12 (wildly and baselessly assuming he'll always repeat his single best season total from here on in) is worth $15M? Those extra 4 sacks in 16 games (the same # of completely useless ones Mo ended up with) are worth an extra $15M/year that shouldn't be used elsewhere on the roster? I just disagree with that idea, as much as I'd like Mo to return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Again, it isn't as though everyone here doesn't like Mo a lot. But a one time accomplishment of 12 sacks - the most of his career, and it cannot be stated enough how at least 1/3 of them were 100% useless - is being painted as though he is some irreplaceable pass rusher when he clearly is not. Were Richardson to take his place as starter in 2016, full time all season long, I'm sure he'd have racked up more than the 3 sacks he got in far less playing time, even if it doesn't end up totaling the illustrious dozen. 

They're all top-notch in run support, so what's the argument? That the differential in their sack totals, from a guess of around 8-ish for Richardson's in Mo's place, to Mo's 12 (wildly and baselessly assuming he'll always repeat his single best season total from here on in) is worth $15M? Those extra 4 sacks in 16 games (the same # of completely useless ones Mo ended up with) are worth an extra $15M/year that shouldn't be used elsewhere on the roster? I just disagree with that idea, as much as I'd like Mo to return.

Again, nobody is accusing anyone of not liking Wilkerson. Again, picking and choosing what performance counts for you isn't a thing, especially one as half assed as one player in one season based totally on one stat.

Nice strawman on the impeccable pass rusher. There is no such thing. They all "disappear," they all get garbage sacks that pretend don't count, they all have games without sacks, and every single one of the generic knocks you're throwing at Wilkerson. Wilkerson's version of disappearing is being a top notch run stuffer, generating 5 pressures or hurries a game last year, eating multiple blockers, and still being the biggest threat to knock down a pass at the LOS among the non-Watt 300 pounder club. The argument isn't just about sacks, they're one of many possible outcome for a defense on a passing play. Overall, Wilkerson's the Jets' best front 7 defender against the pass -  with a solid gap -, CURRENTLY their best pass rusher with an eye on adding outside and more edge rushers, and the team's defensive MVP for 4 years running now. Basically you're arguing a strawman - relying on the mystique of sacks to fight things no one is saying. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

It's times like this when I find solace in recalling the career of future Hall of Famer Jeffery David Lageman.

OMGERd a past JETS player reference based on things and stuff! My eyes saw that guy and have a feel for what your gut intends here. Hard hitting and damning analysis. What if I told you all 47 of Lageman's career sacks came in the most important moments of games the Jets won? That's gotta be like racking up 1,000 sacks or mor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, SenorGato said:

Again, nobody is accusing anyone of not liking Wilkerson. Again, picking and choosing what performance counts for you isn't a thing, especially one as half assed as one player in one season based totally on one stat.

Nice strawman on the impeccable pass rusher. There is no such thing. They all "disappear," they all get garbage sacks that pretend don't count, they all have games without sacks, and every single one of the generic knocks you're throwing at Wilkerson. Wilkerson's version of disappearing is being a top notch run stuffer, generating 5 pressures or hurries a game last year, eating multiple blockers, and still being the biggest threat to knock down a pass at the LOS among the non-Watt 300 pounder club. The argument isn't just about sacks, they're one of many possible outcome for a defense on a passing play. Overall, Wilkerson's the Jets' best front 7 defender against the pass -  with a solid gap -, CURRENTLY their best pass rusher with an eye on adding outside and more edge rushers, and the team's defensive MVP for 4 years running now. Basically you're arguing a strawman - relying on the mystique of sacks to fight things no one is saying. 

 

It is not a straw man argument. It was suggested that we will miss Mo's 12 sacks. It was asked why others didn't rack up as many sacks. If you don't like the answer, maybe you should first look at the question. Among the reasons we will not miss Mo's 12 sacks:

1. We will miss maybe 8 sacks, not 12, because 4 of them were useless. That's IF he repeats his career year every year from now on.

2. It is far less likely that 12 sacks (8 useful ones) is Mo's new benchmark, when it is obviously his best season total to date. Quite the contrary, without one of the game's 2 premiere NTs next to him (if Mo stays, Harrison hits FA) it is far more likely that blocking help will frequently shift from an extra man on the (future/lesser) NT over to Mo. There is no basis to assume Mo will reach double digit sacks routinely in the future for the Jets, and truthfully he may never reach it again.

3. Mo's spot on the line will not be replaced by a corpse or a mannequin. He will be replaced by someone pretty talented - possibly more talented - to go up against opponents' worst pass blockers as Mo usually gets to do. The leftover $15M/year will surely help shore up other positions more than the incremental difference Mo makes over Richardson.

I noticed you glossed over the first half of my post as though it wasn't there.

And to your other point, of Mo being our best front-7 pass defender, this is kind of the point: if Wilkerson continues to be the Jets' best front-7 defender against the pass then we will continue to be susceptible to the pass against better QBs, and often against some of the crappy ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It is not a straw man argument. It was suggested that we will miss Mo's 12 sacks. My point was that will not. Among the reasons:

1. We will miss maybe 8 sacks, not 12, because 4 of them were useless.

2. It is far less likely that 12 sacks (8 useful ones) is Mo's new benchmark, when it is obviously his best season to date. Quite the contrary, without one of the game's 2 premiere NTs next to him it is far more likely that blocking help will frequently shift from an extra man on the (future/lesser) NT over to Mo. There is no basis to assume Mo will reach double digit sacks routinely in the future for the Jets, and truthfully he may never reach it again.

3. Mo's spot on the line will not be replaced by a corpse or a mannequin. He will be replaced by someone pretty talented - possibly more talented - to go up against opponents' worst pass blockers as Mo usually gets to do.

And to your other point, if Wilkerson continues to be the Jets' best front-7 defender against the pass then we will continue to be susceptible to the pass against better QBs, and often against some of the crappy ones.

Yeah, still your point is wrong. Here's why:

1 - Your breakdown and editing of one player's sacks in one season still isn't a thing. Insist otherwise, it couldn't possibly be less valid or make less sense as actual analysis.

2 - While 12 sacks is on the high end for any 300 pound DE/DT/interior rusher, he's averaged 9.5 sacks over the past three seasons as an interior rusher with multiple skills against the pass - including plenty of pressures, hurries, hits, and PDs that are second only to Watt among players at his position this decade. There is no basis to assume that Wilkerson's skills against the pass should be reduced to sacks, it's never been the standard for guys who play his role and averaging nearly double digits from 24-26 in that role is well above above to go with everything else he brings.

3 - He will be replaced by someone less talented and less productive, not to mention less consistent and more of a character risk. That player hits FA after just 2017, and is already talking Suh money. You still have to beat the worst pass blocker btw, nobody takes credit away from Von Miller's SB performance because he beat up on the likes of Michael Oher and Mike Remmers. Why, you might wonder? It's a nonsense way to look at things - similar to the arbitrary editing of stats for one player in one season. There are lots of sh*tty players in the NFL and lots of great players are given the best possible matchups. That's what good coaches are supposed to do. If it was so easy to do what Wilkerson does for the Jets - play 90% of the snaps at a high level against both the run and the pass - this wouldn't be the biggest Jets topic of the offseason. 

This is not a player who will be upgraded after getting rid of him. The downgrade is both immediate and significant, no matter who it is and in many facets. Any replacement is less durable right off the bat, which means that we can't count on the same rate of production as their workload goes up role expands. There's diminished versatility and mor redundance in roles - neither Richardson nor Williams can play the NT positions in the even and odd fronts like Wilkerson, and - unlike Wilkerson - would see a diminished pass rush if put into that role on passing downs. I could go on and on, but you should be getting the point by now.

The goal should be to get more pass rushers - not eliminate the best and most impactful player on the team right now yet again. It hasn't worked the last two times they did it, and it's not going to work again. Hence, they'll be extending him one way or another with the tag or with a more backloaded version of McCoy's deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, SenorGato said:

OMGERd a past JETS player reference based on things and stuff! My eyes saw that guy and have a feel for what your gut intends here. Hard hitting and damning analysis. What if I told you all 47 of Lageman's career sacks came in the most important moments of games the Jets won? That's gotta be like racking up 1,000 sacks or mor.

Next big statistical measurement tool.

 

Weighted Sacks

 

[insert Johnny Dangerously GIF]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

 

It makes my point quite aptly: you have become unhinged, bro.

I've always been this way, I thought it was kinda my thing. What's actually happened is that you've reached the point where this is the best you've got. I hope this means you are at least considering  your choice to edit Wilkerson's sacks and no one else to be a wackity wack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SenorGato said:

I've always been this way, I thought it was kinda my thing. What's actually happened is that you've reached the point where this is the best you've got. I hope this means you are at least considering  your choice to edit Wilkerson's sacks and no one else to be a wackity wack.

No, I still feel the same way. He still did not give the team 12 useful sacks, and it was a one-time thing for him that will not repeat without Harrison next to him or someone so talented on the opposite side. He further benefits from playing on the (comparatively) easier side for a pass rusher.

Mo (and a replacement NT) is not a $12M upgrade over Sheldon Richardson (and a then-affordable Damon Harrison). He's not that level of an upgrade over Richardson even with the same NT in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No, I still feel the same way. He still did not give the team 12 useful sacks, and it was a one-time thing for him that will not repeat without Harrison next to him or someone so talented on the opposite side. He further benefits from playing on the (comparatively) easier side for a pass rusher.

Mo (and a replacement NT) is not a $12M upgrade over Sheldon Richardson (and a then-affordable Damon Harrison). He's not that level of an upgrade over Richardson even with the same NT in place.

Feel free to feel the same way, that also is not a reason your logic and your points are on point. $6+ million to a 2 down NT isn't happening either, sorry to break that one to you too.

He's absolutely that level of upgrade over Richardson if we factor in all available information - that includes Richardon being a mental midget - and the far better player to put some money into. Most definitely the best player to spend on between the three players mentioned in that post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

"Pressures" is one of those dumb non-stats that always makes me chuckle. QBs get pressured on approximately 98% of their dropbacks.

Sure, and finding the individuals who do it and do it most often isn't any less of a thing. That it happens often doesn't mean everyone can do it if they just believe in themselves and are handed the chance to shine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Off the top of my head?

  1. One of them (Williams) lines up against what's traditionally and typically the opponents' best pass blockers. Also he was a 21 year old rookie.

  2. The other missed a good amount of playing time and then was moved around and settled in out of his natural positions because his skill set translated to OLB better than either of the other two. Bowles decided that was the best way to get all 3 of them on the field at the same time.

  3. Most QBs are right-handed (and I think all the QBs we faced this year were righties). When they roll out, they tend to roll out to their throwing side because it's easier to throw on the move that way. In other words, they will tend to roll out towards Mo and away from Williams.

 

Again, it isn't as though everyone here doesn't like Mo a lot. But a one time accomplishment of 12 sacks - the most of his career, and it cannot be stated enough how at least 1/3 of them were 100% useless - is being painted as though he is some irreplaceable pass rusher when he clearly is not. Were Richardson to take his place as starter in 2016, full time all season long, I'm sure he'd have racked up more than the 3 sacks he got in far less playing time, even if it doesn't end up totaling the illustrious dozen. 

They're all top-notch in run support, so what's the argument? That the differential in their sack totals, from a guess of around 8-ish for Richardson's in Mo's place, to Mo's 12 (wildly and baselessly assuming he'll always repeat his single best season total from here on in) is worth $15M? Those extra 4 sacks in 16 games (the same # of completely useless ones Mo ended up with) are worth an extra $15M/year that shouldn't be used elsewhere on the roster? I just disagree with that idea, as much as I'd like Mo to return.

 

here is the argument, its obvious

even if you take away mo's 3 sacks vs the titans with some silly twisted logic and make a ton of excuses for williams and sheldumb, he still has more sacks than those 2 guys

combined

you say illustrious dozen, I say underwhelming 8

mo is special

spreading his money around to a bunch of jags doesn't make the team better

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Larz said:

 

here is the argument, its obvious

even if you take away mo's 3 sacks vs the titans with some silly twisted logic and make a ton of excuses for williams and sheldumb, he still has more sacks than those 2 guys

combined

you say illustrious dozen, I say underwhelming 8

mo is special

spreading his money around to a bunch of jags doesn't make the team better

 

It isn't some silly twist of logic to say that 4 of his 12 sacks came when we were already up by 3 TDs. It is a simple fact.

In the post you quoted, but didn't address, I told you why he has more. Simply ignoring all 3 reasons doesn't mean you've countered them. Swap Mo out to OLB does he get 12 sacks? Of course not. Put him on the other side with the LT blocking him. Does he get 12 sacks then? No. It took all the advantages he has at his position, plus the garbage we faced in 2015, to once amass a sack every other game plus 4 more that are only helpful to Mo in contract negotiations.

All that said, I agree, Mo is a special player. He just isn't special enough to be a $12M upgrade over Richardson or whoever else might fill in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It isn't some silly twist of logic to say that 4 of his 12 sacks came when we were already up by 3 TDs. It is a simple fact.

In the post you quoted, but didn't address, I told you why he has more. Simply ignoring all 3 reasons doesn't mean you've countered them. Swap Mo out to OLB does he get 12 sacks? Of course not. Put him on the other side with the LT blocking him. Does he get 12 sacks then? No. It took all the advantages he has at his position, plus the garbage we faced in 2015, to once amass a sack every other game plus 4 more that are only helpful to Mo in contract negotiations.

All that said, I agree, Mo is a special player. He just isn't special enough to be a $12M upgrade over Richardson or whoever else might fill in there.

Again, until you run through every player's sacks and run them through your little editing process, it's not the thing you hope it is. What is even the premise here? All leads are insurmountable 

Again - until you do these matchups for everyone - especially considering Wilkerson plays every spot on the DL - this is just as hard to buy as the Wilkerson exclusive stat editing process. Again, I don't see you quick to dismiss Von Miller dominating the likes of Oher and Remmers, neither anyone's idea of the ideal starting OT, so what exactly is the process here?

He most definitely is worth that money, especially over the likes of Richardson. All your situation sets up is a scenario where the Jets are set to go from three to one by within two years anyway. Richardson's gone after the 2017 season. He's already looking forward to demanding Suh money. Wilkerson's consistency - both game to game and year to year, his durability, his character, his long track record off performance, his long standing as the best player on the team - 4 years now, and his versatility all make him a more worthwhile investment for the Jets over Richardson, and worth paying over anyone currently on the roster. He is, indeed, special enough as a player to be that guy - selective stat counting and demerits for matchup advantages you don't give others just isn't the factor you think it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, drdetroit said:

The raiders and giants both have $50 million in cap room and desperately need a player like Wilk.  He's not coming back unless we franchise him or he takes a deep hometown discount 

It won't be a discount per se, folks will ooh and ahh at the announced deal, but it will be pretty backloaded - essentially a hometown discount with how NFL deals work. The Jets can make plenty of cap space - can even get to 35+ - and have plenty for next year and the year after that too. Certainly the Jets won't be ridiculous enough, I guess I can't really hold it past then THO, to let Wilkerson leave for the Giants or Raiders of all franchises. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, drdetroit said:

The raiders and giants both have $50 million in cap room and desperately need a player like Wilk.  He's not coming back unless we franchise him or he takes a deep hometown discount 

there's only so much cap money they can allocate to the defense.  besides brick (who may restructure) and mangold, is there anyone else on offense who takes up a lot of cap space?  and it's not like they have anyone on offense who is trending up who will clearly command cap space soon.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SenorGato said:

It won't be a discount per se, folks will ooh and ahh at the announced deal, but it will be pretty backloaded - essentially a hometown discount with how NFL deals work. The Jets can make plenty of cap space - can even get to 35+ - and have plenty for next year and the year after that too. Certainly the Jets won't be ridiculous enough, I guess I can't really hold it past then THO, to let Wilkerson leave for the Giants or Raiders of all franchises. 

If this is a smart front office they will make the tough decision now and take their medicine, pay him and get rid of other players or get rid of him rather than backloading. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

there's only so much cap money they can allocate to the defense.  besides brick (who may restructure) and mangold, is there anyone else on offense who takes up a lot of cap space?  and it's not like they have anyone on offense who is trending up who will clearly command cap space soon.  

Well Fitz depending on how much he is asking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

NFL's league leaders in "Useless Sacks", per Pro Football Focus:

1.  Muhammad Wilkerson:  4

2.  12 players tied with 1.

Pretty much meaningless.  Bad luck gets you to 1.  Next 4 seasons you can be nowhere near 1.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just like to add 8 sacks to Wilkerson for sticktuitiveness and gumption. Throw on 10 more for age relative to league the first three years. 

10 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

If this is a smart front office they will make the tough decision now and take their medicine, pay him and get rid of other players or get rid of him rather than backloading. 

This is the NFL, backloading is just another way of saying "he'll never actually get this, but it looks good to say he might." Maybe there's another word for it....Anyway, they can probably put the meat of it between 2017-2019 without much of an issue, then it's time for the usual NFL mid-contract breakup.

I think Fitzgerald gets $7-9million a year over a two or three year deal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...