Sperm Edwards

Maybe it's because of Truman

After decades since my last one, and psyching myself into the novelty, I went in for one about 3 years ago. It was disgusting.

HEY, THIS HATER IS AGAINST GASE RIGHTS!!!

Yep, but apparently the potential all this leads to falls short of how much of an upgrade Adams is over his replacement strong safety. Lost in all this is that for all we know we'll find a more than adequate replacement from next year's 4th-7th round pick, or even in an UDFA or some other reasonably-priced FA. It's not as though team after team is worried to the tune of, "omg omg omg how on earth will we find a strong safety? A decent one comes out of college like almost never, and when they do they're gone after the first handful of draft picks so you have to time your sucky season just right! After that they never hit free agency. Why bother competing?"

We would have also accepted, "He can huff and puff, but at the end of the day our house is made of bricks."

There was no pattern for Mosley either. Nor any number of others. It happens when it happens; you don't always get warnings first. Agree otherwise.

Oh I definitely want a bigger package - hey now! - but I'm not walking away from an expected mid-1st + a 3rd. If it's a likely top 5-10-ish pick (never mind whatever actually happens; it's an educated guess) I'm not going to nitpick about not also getting a 3rd rounder, since that's recouped so easily by an insignificant trade-down of ~2 slots. Never mind starting up that high can be turned into a pair of 1s (or the value of a pair of 1s) if you trade down enough. Go down from one of our recent #6 slots to that #17 pick Dallas just had, and theoretically there should be enough change leftover for another pick at #25 or so (though it may come in the form of lower picks we pool to move back up to #25; same difference). If there are multiple QBs projected near that acquired slot, the payoff will be substantially more.

True, but not as much as you think. Or not always, anyway. Consider everything doesn't always play out in the same situation: If you're in onside kick mode, the clock is your enemy as much the scoreboard, which is why you're attempting it in the first place. If you're pinned, worst case the other team gets a quick score and now you get another chance -- that's why if a RB breaks through for a 1st down, the trailing team often lets him score because the alternative is the clock runs out; a low chance is better than no chance. However the winning team will now be easier to defend on a short field, and they can't then keep moving the chains as many times because they're already so close to a final "___ & goal" set of downs. The only saving grace is the trailing team that converts it still has a long way to go, as opposed to recovering an onside kick when they'd have a short field. If there are <30 seconds left and you're down by 1-3 points, even if you convert that 4th & 15 it's unlikely to save you. But recover an onside kick, and now you've got a very good chance of getting into FG range to tie it up or outright win. Basically the dynamics of this rule change dramatically whether that trailing team is down by 1-3 or whether they're down 4+ points.

I didn't say (nor do I think) it's an unfair stance. I just don't think the difference between Adams and a replacement safety - with a DC who's supposed to be this great mind - is worth $17MM+ per year plus the cheap, high draft picks we're further turning down. Truth is his is just an easier position to adequately fill. Would I take just a first alone? Probably, but then it also depends what slot number is expected. Is it the Redskins' or Bengals' 1st round pick or the Ravens' 1st rounder? One of the former can be parlayed into 3 picks with the value of the Ravens' expected 1st rounder. Late in that round, if we had two 1st rounders and no Adams, I don't think I'd be up in arms over drafting a safety (accompanying jokes aside), so at that point it'd just be about the money. Passing up on a (likely) mid- or higher-1st rounder plus another day 1 pick (even if they're 2021 picks not 2020)? No way I'm keeping a freaking run-stopping & blitzing safety instead of one outstanding prospect, another very good prospect, plus another established 8-figure/year veteran. No way. If Douglas can't go at least 1-for-3 hitting paydirt then the truth is we were not winning anything anyway. If he hits on 2 of 3 we're ahead; hitting on all 3 would make keeping Adams look submoronic in comparison. But to each his own.

We did when we drafted him lol

And that's a valid position. I don't think he's as valuable as you do - valuable enough to effectively trade away a 1st and more (by turning down any such trade offers) to keep and extend him past his rookie deal at some $16-20MM/year - but rational people can disagree on things. What's not valid is to suggest, if the Jets keep and extend Adams, the team's only draft investment in him was in the past.

Also there is a 0.0% chance the Chiefs ultimately refuse to pay anything Mahomes asks for. The Jets, meanwhile, already entertained offers for Adams before his 3rd season was over. Not a subtle point, any more than it's subtle that Mahomes is the best player at what's by far the most important position. Oh yeah, and he's a champion already.

I think my reply didn't get posted, or somehow I don't see it. But here's the gist: The answer is you're counting all the cost one side of an equation but not the other; on the Jets' side you're counting two high draft investments only once. The Jets invested a high draft pick to get him in 2017. I'm with you there, but this is a sunk cost. Another team would have to invest a high pick or more to get him in 2020. Also true. The Jets would be RE-investing high draft pick(s) in Adams by turning down another team's offer. Whoops! You've conveniently left that last part #3 out of your analysis. Meanwhile it's literally the single biggest reason for Douglas moving him (if he even does). Of secondary value is the contract he's already seeking; sarcasm/trolling aside, no one is seriously advocating the Jets just let him go for nothing by cutting him (nor trading him for some late round pick just so they don't pay to get rid of him). Put another way, the Jets forking over similar dollars for another FA safety to replace him - even one not quite as good - isn't the same as "well why didn't they just extend Adams??" The obvious reason is the difference between Adams and some other $14MM+/year veteran FA safety - if they even choose to fill a SS hole that way - isn't worth spending (by turning down) yet another 1st rounder plus whatever else they might get for him.

nah one of the rumors - for what they're worth - was that he would have considered only one QB in that draft: Trubisky. As in, if Trubisky slid to #6 (or maybe if he'd slid to #5) then Mac may have pounced on the opportunity. The Jets already knew Hackenberg was not the man. Whatever they hoped he might become someday, it's one thing to make a bad pick and yet another to compound the mistake by doubling-down on it. He didn't show 1/10 the promise that freaking Smith showed. 4th string. 4th, sitting behind a journeyman and two busts, for all the extra brownie-points he'd have gotten just for not being Petty or Smith.

I like the way I said it better