Jump to content

bostonmajet

Members
  • Posts

    4,532
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by bostonmajet

  1. 1 hour ago, Integrity28 said:

    Isn't the rule of thumb usually a 2nd rounder this year is = a 1st rounder next year?

    I think so, so a 3rd this year, would need to be a 2nd next year, and a 1st the following year; so, using that approach, a 3rd 3 years from now is only worth a 5th this year (4th next year). So, holding Mo this year (for 15.7M) for a conditional 2018 is like getting a 5th this year. So, if we get a 2nd or 3rd this year, or (after the draft) a 2nd next year, it is way better than a 3rd 2 years from now.

    Another way to look at it, is that pulling the tag would give us a 3rd next year (so it is better) from purely a draft pick - not suggesting we pull the pick, just paying MO 15.7 to get a 3rd 2 years down the line doesn't make sense from purely a draft pick situation.

  2. The fallacy of this article is equating a 2nd round pick this year to a 3rd (2 years from now if we keep Mo this year). In reality a 2018 bottom of 3rd is really worth like a 5th this year; not to mention the 15.7 million that we could spend on extending and signing other players.

  3. 16 minutes ago, Pcola said:

    So letting Mo play for $16M this year or rescinding the tag are good options?  We let him play out and next years tag is going to close to $20M.

    I don't think that they are good options, but there are only three options IMO; pulling the tag and freeing up space (if there are real players that can help long term we can sign) or trading for anything better than the end of the 3rd next year are better IMO than paying the 16M and letting him walk the following year.

    A lot of times the best choice is the lessor of the 3 bad choices.  That is why we don't have a lot of leverage; everyone knows that we are not likely to pay him this year and let him walk next year; no incentive for a big deal; but anything is better than nothing.

    • Upvote 1
  4. 43 minutes ago, nycdan said:

    You might see Hack or Cook next round.  Not the same as Lynch but at least another prospect you can be hopeful about.  Also, no guarantee even Lynch is a future starting QB. 

    Yeah; Lynch may not be that good or not right for the Jets, I was hoping that he would be our future - fans can hope, I am glad the FO goes by more than that :-)

  5. I really think for this FO, it is about BPA; last year Williams fell in our lap, this year we apparently tried to trade up to get an OT; the luck (or unluck) of the draw - this year deep with defense and picking #20 means defense at BPA; if Macc was here instead of Idzik the previous year, I would imagine Calvin Pryor would not have been picked, but likely a WR.  Still sucks, though - I wish they like Lynch more, it would have been nice to have a future starting QB, but what can you do?

    • Upvote 1
  6. 10 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

    A 2nd rounder for Mo would be great..Not gonna happen though...this type of trade takes time as teams need to negotiate a deal with Mo first.

    Mo will eventually be let go or resigned...no one is trading for him.

     

     

     

    Likely to only get picks for next year (or players) after the draft, but agree, it is a long shot at this point.

  7. 11 minutes ago, Pcola said:

    So they don't want to pay him yet he has a one year offer of $15.7M.  I think Macc over estimated the interest of other teams giving up their top picks for the right to pay Wilk.  No ones interested because Macc himself into a corner and can't do anything until the Wilk situation is resolved.   Rescind the tag and he'll be signed within 24 hours.

    Then they save the 16M and get a 3rd (likely) next year. Do we think that Mo will make enough of a difference this year to win it all? If not, we should use the money to sign players for the future.

  8. 6 hours ago, Powpow said:

    Hey lets trade our best player for a 2nd round pick since I cant pay him what he rightfully deserves since I screwed the budget up with overpriced talent, draft a smurf with our first round pick, and pray a journeyman QB comes back down to earth.  Party time.      

    The problem is that they don't value him for the $ he wants. At this point the either

    1. trade him and get what they can

    2. take back the franchise tag (and hopefully get a 3rd in next year's compensatory pick)

    3. hold him a year and waste 15 million (it is not like the jets are the broncos just needed von miller for one year to win the SB).

    At this point, the choices aren't great. It seems that a 2nd (and maybe something else) would be better than the other 2 choices.

    • Upvote 2
  9. Much ado about nothing IMO; we are talking about moving 2.49 million into the next two years on a young guy who has played very well for us. Right now we are looking at 30+ million not counting likely cuts plus an increase in the Cap over the 2 years. This isn't like the Sanchez extension which strapped this team.

    As far as cutting/signing players for a great impact, we can still do that. And if the 2.49 million is not necessary, much of that can be pushed into next year; so we really haven't lost anything if the CAP relief turns out to be unnecessary.

    Remember, we signed a few guys and needed the space.

    • Upvote 2
  10. No need to panic; I assume that the jets have some cuts/restructuring plans in their pocket; not point pulling the trigger until it is needed. Miami in worse shape than us, and they were able to make some moves. My guess, is depending on who they sign, the cut/restructure is different. So, they are going to cut/restructure along the way. Why push money into next year or release a player until it is needed.

    Also, with only 2.5 million and moves that need to be made, they can fly under the radar. Teams/reporters won't be considering the Jets as a threat. Now they can tell Fitz; sure we can give you 8 million, but we are going to have to cut your LT. It is all posturing. 

  11. You have to give him a multi-year deal as a back-up; He played well enough to get some stability and you want to be able to give him a good-enough signing bonus to both make him happy and to be able to shift much of this years salary to the next few years for cap relief this year (at least until after we free up some space by either trading mo, redoing brick, or releasing either T based on the draft.

    Give him a start salary with incentive bonus if he starts x% of snaps; another bonus if we go to playoffs, and a big bonus if he wins us a Super Bowl.

    This way if he ends up being the best QB we have, he gets paid like it; if we make it to the playoffs and he is our starter he gets paid like it; and if a miracle occurs - let him cash in on it. So, we push a little to the next 2 years for him to play; if he plays well, we have to find more money this year (good risk); I am not sure, but a super bowl bonus may come out of next year's cap (but someone can probably tells us for sure).

  12. Too early to tell, but Mac has lined things up pretty well.  He signed some players to 1 year deals, some to 3 year deals (Revis and Harris) and most of the rest to 2 year deals; I read that in 2017 most of the players can be released without significant cap implications.  This is exactly what you want when building a young team.  Fill it with enough veterans to make the team competitive and slowly replace them with younger players from the draft, and UDFAs.

    • Upvote 2
  13. Fitz isn't/wasn't our future, but he was a good stop gap guy until we find/grow him.  I would have liked a 2-3 year deal that payed him like a backup, but with starter(ish) money bonuses (to somewhere under 10) if he started x% of games.  If Fitz isn't finding a lot of money elsewhere he can hopefully be signed here at a reasonable price.  It could be they are waiting to either trade Mo or restructure/release other guys.

    Macc is playing the waiting game well; no point overpaying for him in a rush to sign him

    • Upvote 2
  14. 22 minutes ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

    He's 4 million dollars against the cap (but not really cuttable). I doubt he has his 5th year option picked up either. Training camp fodder? Yes. Cheap? No.

    Reports have already come out that the 5th year option will likely not be picked up as he is always hurt and his pay for 5th year is like 7 million. Training camp fodder? Yes, Cheap? well - it is no cheaper to cut him; if he is healthy and sucks you cut him; hurt you PUP or IR him - to save the roster spot.

    He is likely gone for 2017 - maybe even out of the league.

  15. 1 hour ago, jetrider said:

    It's hard to trade a player when the only film they have on him is x-rays and MRIs.

    LOL - my point is that if he was healthy enough and played reasonably well; other teams always want DBs, could get a 7th (or conditional) so the team would be taking a shot at a cheap DB; no picks if he doesn't play - either way it would free up 2+ million in cape. Of course if he sucks, you cut him; if he is hurt again, IR. Right now there is no point in cutting him.

     

  16. 24 minutes ago, Joe Jets fan said:

    I wish you would just stop, makes the board hard to read.

     

    Milliner cap hit is 4 mil if he is on team or if he gets cut.    What in the world do the Jets gain by cutting him now?  if he gets hurt they can IR him and still use the roster spot.  If he plays well they have a CB.   It costs NOTHING to take him to camp and see if he can stay healthy and play better.

    Agreed; if he is terrible you can always cut him before the season starts and you haven't lost any money; if he plays well enough, but can't pass the others on the list, you could possibly trade him (granted not for much) and cut his CAP in half (or there about).

  17. 1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

    1. Cro didn't merely get beat on one play. I was using one play to illustrate a crucial game and situation where he knew exactly what the receiver was going to do and he couldn't stop it. There were plenty of times he got beat, and too often it came on those 3rd downs we seemed to allow to convert too often.

    2. The team was strong on defense with Brodney Pool starting also. A year later they fielded a top 5 pass defense while starting Eric Smith. Doesn't mean we would have been smart to pay either one $8M.

    3. Everyone is not worse than Cromartie, and unlike Cromartie they get better with time. Inserting them cold here or there, after getting rare/limited snaps with the starters, is not an equal playing field on which one is to judge. This logic is how we end up sticking with Calvin Pace as a starter: fear that someone else might not be as bad as his now substandard play. But hey, the coach "knows" him.

    4. They overpaid by more than a bit and I think you are way overrating how difficult it is to learn one scheme over another. Cro is not a smart person. If he can pick it up, so can lots of people. We'd have been better off, in 2015 and beyond, without reacquiring him in the first place.

    5. You said it was hindsight. It wasn't hindsight. Disliking a move from the get go, and being proven right, doesn't make me biased or only correct in hindsight. It makes me correct period. Just like many others who felt the same way.

    6. You missed this one and need lessons in counting ;) 

    7. Revis being out and Cro being out are two separate animals. Revis is a top-notch CB and Cromartie isn't even a top-32 CB. He was once, but not anymore.

    Cro's "value" in this regard was also a bad one because of the message it sent. Namely, it served to show other players that if the coach likes you or knows you, then you'll get preferable treatment and a lock on the starting job even if you suck. No one else will be given a legitimate chance until/unless the teacher's pet is so injured he can't suit up. It's bad for morale for a coach to stick his fingers in his ears and find excuses for and to absolve nearly everything his favorite players do poorly, while calling out and/or benching those who aren't his preferred ones and personal favorites.

    Clearly abstract concepts escape you and you can't see the forest from the trees in any of my arguments. So, no point in me responding on where you didn't get my line of reasoning. As for a counting lesson, I simply quoted and copied your mistake and moved on - the difference is that I chose to take the high road and skipped the condescending comment about it. If you want a counting lesson, however, I suggest you go back a look at your comments in this thread and the comments from both myself and other posters opposing your view and count the reputation/likes to see where the board's opinion lies.

    • Upvote 1
  18. 1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

    1. Cro did not have a pretty good year. He had a couple of good half games here and there. So did others. Even when healthy and even when he knew all week long he had to watch out for double moves from his assignment, he still got juked on that very type of move. When healthy. In a crucial game and situation.

    2. If the defense played well with him getting beat then he was unnecessary, which was my point. He was unnecessary.

    3. I don't know what this means. Petty was a 4th round rookie project. It bears no relation to the 3 CBs the Jets had.

    4. $8M for a good CB is not ridiculous but Cromartie is not a good CB therefore it was ridiculous. If that's what he wanted and that was his line in the sand then let someone else be the foolish one to sign him at that dopey rate.

    5. It's not hindsight if you hated it the minute it was announced for the same reasons that you're referring to as hindsight.

    7. Why the hell would we be 1-6 with "only" $30M committed to the secondary instead of $38M? You think Bowles is that bad of a coach?

    Cro was more than just too expensive to keep; he was too expensive to sign in the first place. Even if I can afford $50 for a pack of gum it's still too expensive for a pack of gum. $8M was and is too expensive for Cromartie. 

    The analogy to Ryan's defense is a poor one. With all his faults, Ryan's defense didn't fully fall apart until the entire secondary was depleted, not because he "only" had a secondary with the likes of Revis, Skrine, Gilchrist, Pryor, Williams, Milliner, and McDougle. It's a poor suggestion that a secondary like that is suspect but would be a force to be reckoned with if they had all that plus a noticeably past his prime Cromartie.

    JMO. Actually not. It was a lot of fans' opinions back in March when he was re-signed.

    1. Every CB gets beat; getting beat doesn't make him terrrible/bad; towards the end of the season he played well enough

    2. He played well enough for the team to be strong on defense; look how bad it looked without Revis - if Cro was as bad as you say, teams would have scored more against us

    3. You stated that Bowles should have played the younger guys; this is an extreme example about a player who has shown flashes isn't necessarily ready to start. It also show that the a coach can 'coach up' a player, but it can take time; IOW at the start of the season, even when cro was hurt, he was likely better than the other players - it took a while for the coach to 'coach them up'.

    4. They may have overpaid a bit, but Cro knows the defense and the scheme - see below; he is better than more than you think

    5. It may not be hindsight for you, but if you hated the move, then you likely aren't very objective. You hated the move; fine

    7. Look how bad we looked when Revis was out; Cro did okay, but the other CBs got burned; we had close games early on, if Cro wasn't there, maybe we still win, maybe we don't. My point is that even when the Jets won, people talked about how Kerley was too good to sit on bench, but you wanted Cro benched for others..

    The analogy was to Ryan's defense at Buffalo; without the veterans who knew the scheme and bought into Ryan to back him (like he had at the Jets), he had trouble getting buy in - Cros value was more than just being a good CB.

    Good night.

  19. 10 minutes ago, BowlesMovement said:

    While I understand your points, McDougle and Millner were serious question marks coming into the season last year, and for good reason, Mac and Bowles were right. At the end of the day, either Mac can identify talent, and Bowles can develop it, or not. This signing in the grand scheme of things will have very little to no bearing on the future of the team. If any of the young guys were any good, and Bowles/Mac were not able to identify them, we have a bigger problem than the wasted cap space from this deal, which I do believe was not as big as you are making it out to be, because they would have signed someone. I did not like the signing, but I also understand that Bowles, like most other coaches, like to bring in guys who have played in their system in the past, and Cro for better or worse, fit that bill, and in hindsight, I don't know who else was available that filled a need. 

    Thanks. You said it so much better than I could. Well played.

×
×
  • Create New...