PFF stat on Jets O-line

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, bitonti said:

It's not really about the money it's about what the money can do in terms of changing the outcome of games. 

for example most of Brick's money now goes to Clady, who they had to trade a 4th round pick for. He's doing about as good a job as Brick. Not perfect in pass but better than most LTs. Last year's team won 10 games, this year's team will be lucky to break .500 and are currently 2-5. Was Brick's contract really killing the team?  

Cap space is useless if there's no one good to use it on in free agency. Where are they getting this awesome talent?  

In theory, they could have used Fitz 12 Mil and Brick-Clady's 5 Mil and paid Osweiler 17 mil. But where does that get you? 

The point I've been trying to make in these discussions isn't about Bricks' value it's about going to the grocery store with a sack of money and finding no groceries on the shelf.  Free agency is a shell game.  Even if Brick was just a name at the end, names are better than no-names. HE was a leader in the locker room by the way and a homegrown New Yorker.

The real question is why have you hated Brick for years? did he cross you in some personal way? 

Oh please. Nobody hates Brick. 

He was a terrific player once. But I thought he was a poor LT the past few seasons, and still getting paid like a stud in his prime - disproportionate its his production - hurt the team. 

I don't get wowed by active players' names like you do just because of what they once were or where they were once drafted.

[Larz]

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

Oh please. Nobody hates Brick. 

He was a terrific player once. But I thought he was a poor LT the past few seasons, and still getting paid like a stud in his prime - disproportionate its his production - hurt the team. 

I don't get wowed by active players' names like you do just because of what they once were or where they were once drafted.

ok woody

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, Larz said:

ok woody

Lol

It's spelled Scrooge. 

[SenorGato]

8 minutes ago, bitonti said:

to keep this topic somewhat relevant... 

 

Brandon Shell got some good action this weekend 

 

 

I liked Shell. Hopefully he, and I still hold out hope for Project Dozier, develops as he might. There's plenty of physical tools to work with.

[Larz]

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

Lol

It's spelled Scrooge. 

lol

I try not to begrudge these guys their money too much, the team agreed to the deal and they have such short careers and usually limp away from the game

the players union will allow deals to be reworked, as long as they retain their value but actual pay cuts are rare from what I see so its like shaking your fist at the rain...

[Sperm Edwards]

14 hours ago, Larz said:

lol

I try not to begrudge these guys their money too much, the team agreed to the deal and they have such short careers and usually limp away from the game

the players union will allow deals to be reworked, as long as they retain their value but actual pay cuts are rare from what I see so its like shaking your fist at the rain...

I don't give a crap how much they make personally. I only care in the regard that it is money not available to use on other players. In the end, the same is spent. What matters is how wisely it's spent given the finite limits. This isn't baseball where, while all teams are permitted to spend the same, we all know some simply have more money to spend because they're more profitable than others. In football it's a level playing field, so you can't just pay guys because you like them or they're good kids or homegrown talents or whatever personal reasons. Get the best team you can assemble onto the field, and having Ferguson count $11M or more on a cap that was $20-40M lower than it is today put a dent in this ability. Also he sucked the last 2 seasons. 

[bitonti]

"I only care in the regard that it is money not available to use on other players" 

 

You still haven't addressed my point which is that having money available and having players to spend it on are two very different things. That was the problem when they traded REvis. The Jets can't take Revis' contract and use it on a franchise QB. Even if they want to.  The key players they are able to pay are basically the ones they drafted. Yes if Geno Smith was a FQB and they needed to resign him, maybe Brick's contract is a problem. But clearing cap space just for cap space's sake isn't a winning strategy. Right now they took Bricks' space and gave most of it to Clady. How is the 2-5 team better off than the 10-6 team?  

[Sperm Edwards]

27 minutes ago, bitonti said:

"I only care in the regard that it is money not available to use on other players" 

 

You still haven't addressed my point which is that having money available and having players to spend it on are two very different things. That was the problem when they traded REvis. The Jets can't take Revis' contract and use it on a franchise QB. Even if they want to.  The key players they are able to pay are basically the ones they drafted. Yes if Geno Smith was a FQB and they needed to resign him, maybe Brick's contract is a problem. But clearing cap space just for cap space's sake isn't a winning strategy. Right now they took Bricks' space and gave most of it to Clady. How is the 2-5 team better off than the 10-6 team?  

You have no point. You have individual favorite Jets and you want to see the Jets pay them any gargantuan amount until that player decides to retire. You also treat each season as though it exists in a vacuum, with no thought given to future planning. Same as always.

I'm not going to give you a math lesson as to why spending more on something leaves you with less after that. It should be self-evident.

[jack48]

On 10/22/2016 at 8:09 AM, Sperm Edwards said:

Looking at more than one downfield target takes longer. Sacks are inevitable.

There's just Brandon. Brandon and Fitz. Fitz and Brandon........Sigh!

[bitonti]

29 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You have no point. You have individual favorite Jets and you want to see the Jets pay them any gargantuan amount until that player decides to retire. You also treat each season as though it exists in a vacuum, with no thought given to future planning. Same as always.

I'm not going to give you a math lesson as to why spending more on something leaves you with less after that. It should be self-evident.

 

It's like you are physically unable to read my point so I'll say it again. Having cap space isn't useful unless there's good players available to spend it on.  

Future planning is all well and good but if that future includes the Jets drafting Andrew Luck part II and paying him Bricks' money it's not really future planning so much as being overly hopeful. 

[Jack Straw]

37 minutes ago, bitonti said:

It's like you are physically unable to read my point so I'll say it again. Having cap space isn't useful unless there's good players available to spend it on.  

Future planning is all well and good but if that future includes the Jets drafting Andrew Luck part II and paying him Bricks' money it's not really future planning so much as being overly hopeful. 

Why do you pretend that free agency doesn't exist? The franchise money we were wasting on declining a LT could have been reallocated to a producing asset that we could have signed in free agency. Lamar Miller would have looked pretty good wearing Jets green. Or maybe Olivier Vernon. Or Janoris Jenkins.

On our end, we let the best run-stopping nose tackle in the world switch locker rooms at Met Life because guys like Brick were sucking up cap space. Was Snacks not a "good player" worthy of being re-signed?

Same goes for Mangold. He's a good player and hasn't declined like Brick, but he's not worth next year's $9 million cap hit. And when he's inevitably cut or traded, you'll be on here with the same dumb argument as always.

[Larz]

5 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I don't give a crap how much they make personally. I only care in the regard that it is money not available to use on other players. In the end, the same is spent. What matters is how wisely it's spent given the finite limits. This isn't baseball where, while all teams are permitted to spend the same, we all know some simply have more money to spend because they're more profitable than others. In football it's a level playing field, so you can't just pay guys because you like them or they're good kids or homegrown talents or whatever personal reasons. Get the best team you can assemble onto the field, and having Ferguson count $11M or more on a cap that was $20-40M lower than it is today put a dent in this ability. Also he sucked the last 2 seasons. 

I don't see anywhere in there were starters give money away because jets fans want them to

[Sperm Edwards]

2 minutes ago, Larz said:

I don't see anywhere in there were starters give money away because jets fans want them to

Anywhere in where? 

I'm suggesting that $ used on some players is $ that cannot be used on others, nothing more. If he was cheaper and less productive, it's less cause to be critical of his play since that $ is, or can be, used to shore up deficiencies elsewhere.

It doesn't just go in the garbage.

[Larz]

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

Anywhere in where? 

I'm suggesting that $ used on some players is $ that cannot be used on others, nothing more. 

the player has to agree to let you have it first, or you have to cut him and replace him with another expensive starter or take chance on a cheap guy or a rookie

here's how that works;

GM "hey veteran starter guy you are making too much, give me some back so I can give it to someone else"

veteran starter guy "pay me or cut me"

GM "just kidding, I'll call revis now

vetran starter guy "lol"

you are just shaking your fist at the rain bro.  

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, bitonti said:

It's like you are physically unable to read my point so I'll say it again. Having cap space isn't useful unless there's good players available to spend it on.  

Future planning is all well and good but if that future includes the Jets drafting Andrew Luck part II and paying him Bricks' money it's not really future planning so much as being overly hopeful. 

You can keep saying it but it is still wrong.

You are looking at it as having players to spend it on this year only. Your entire philosophy has always been to max out the cap every single year, even if it reduces our ability to sign someone the following season.

It is not good management to pay people for past production they're no longer capable of because you like them.

This goes back to the "How does getting rid of Dewayne Robertson make this team better?" philosophy. 

[Sperm Edwards]

8 minutes ago, Larz said:

the player has to agree to let you have it first, or you have to cut him and replace him with another expensive starter or take chance on a cheap guy or a rookie

here's how that works;

GM "hey veteran starter guy you are making too much, give me some back so I can give it to someone else"

veteran starter guy "pay me or cut me"

GM "just kidding, I'll call revis now

vetran starter guy "lol"

you are just shaking your fist at the rain bro.  

I don't disagree with your first line and you had me up until the GM "just kidding" part. The GM is never just kidding. He says "You're not worth $11M so if you don't take a pay cut we have to let you go." And if the player refuses, then cut him. There's no wishy-washy backtracking like you're imagining.

He wasn't worth what he was getting paid. Even if it was a bit late, Maccagnan finally realized it and put it just that way to him: "Take a pay cut of over 50% or we're cutting you." Brick didn't accept the pay cut, and retired rather than become a FA. Had he refused without retiring, he'd have been a FA. Why is this hard to follow?

[SAR I]

On 10/22/2016 at 3:32 AM, BigRy56 said:

The Jets offensive line is fine. We are definitely above average. A little long in the tooth? Yes, but nothing to complain about performance wise.

OMG.  You really just posted this?

We can't run against the elite teams we just faced, puts the D on the field too long, puts too much pressure on our journeyman quarterback in third and longs and three and outs.

SAR I

[SAR I]

On 10/22/2016 at 2:27 AM, Jetster said:

Then that's an even bigger indictment on Fitz poor play.

Yeah, our center and guards don't give up sacks because of Fitzpatrick's great pocket presence, rollouts, and scrambling ability and somehow it's an indictment of him.

This same center and guard combo doesn't allow Jet running backs to get 50 yards rushing a game against the elite teams we just faced, but let's not talk about that.

SAR I