Jump to content

Sperm Edwards

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Sperm Edwards

  1. While it'll be a lot for a safety, we weren't likely to just let him walk into free agency in 2022, plus presume we weren't going to get a blockbuster offer now that'd turn his $15MM+/year extension into a high-end FA (even if it's a safety) plus 2 additional cheap starters from the draft. If that happens, somehow, he still has to take it. At least Douglas is not making things worse by waiting another year, then the 5th year option, then franchise tagging him to start the 2022 offseason, and then extending him anyway some weeks/months later (like you know who). This way Adams gets paid more now, but the Jets get him extended with 2 fewer years of cap inflation, plus the ability to spread his signing bonus over additional years (though that's probably hampered a bit by the CBA expiring). It's definitely an anti-Maccagnan move; in 5 offseasons I can't recall one time he extended a player until after the final game under his prior contract. Remember when JJ Watt got that huge deal? It was a $16MM/year extension but his cap number never reached $16MM even as the league's cap rose steadily. Now imagine how much he'd have been if Houston waited 2 more years - 2 more probowls, 2 more 1st team all-pro votes, 2 more AP DPOTY awards, and 38 more sacks - by tagging and extending him the same way Macc did with Mo (who got a contract extension at even more per year than Watt).
  2. Still see what the top offer is, if Douglas is able to do so under the radar, but I expect it'll fall short of what people were holding their noses at. The cap room he'll eat up isn't the greatest resource allocation, but he's a top player. Ultimately what it means is every year Douglas can have one less mid-level FA screw-up (or 1-2 more starter hits in the draft than we were banking on). He does that in these upcoming 2 drafts, then we wouldn't even feel him making $10MM more than he currently does. I still thought it was asinine use of the #6 overall pick for a team so desperate for a QB, only made even worse in hindsight by seeing how Watson and especially Mahomes have panned out, but that's not the situation Douglas is in today.
  3. Assumptions: They don't move Adams - it was always a pipe dream that another team was going to fork over a 1st and a 3rd (let alone more than this), never mind in March/April, to a player who wants a contract extension right now -- all of which makes it hilarious that some here were scoffing at unrealistic trades no GM will offer us in the first place. We get a taker for Bell (we'll have to kick in some cash, like with Leo). I think it's 50/50, but they'll certainly try. Enunwa isn't playing (definitely isn't reporting until after the season starts unless his brain also got damaged in September) They cut T.Johnson, Winters, Roberts to clear cap room. Neither Harrison nor Edoga are being handed starting jobs. Then depending on FA, of course, our starter needs list entering this season: LT RT C LG RG WR1 WR2 RB1 EDGE/OLB1 EDGE/OLB2 CB1 CB3/NB Also presumes they're banking on a combination/competition among Austin/Hairston/Canady at one starter slot. If not, add CB2 to the list. Plus these aren't the "biggest" needs but they are needs so we may as well note: QB2 RB2 K WR4 So glad we spent all those recent seasons "rebuilding" so we could seriously compete for a superbowl in 2019 and 2020.
  4. Forrest Gump walked like that in the early part of the movie.
  5. This, 100%. One can probably bank on a 1st rounder (or even a 2nd rounder) and still be wrong a healthy chunk of the time, but it's at least a legit guess for the former. WR -- we're almost assuredly going to end up starting 1 rookie WR this year, but 2 of them? How many teams have ever planned - from/through March - on starting 2 rookie WRs, including one found in rounds 3 or 4, as a couple people are proposing as though they're serious plans? If anyone's done it has anyone done it successfully? If you can even find one team that did this, how many also had a question mark at TE and a slot receiver with the dropsies? Closest I remember is kinda Cincinnati in 2000, but even that wasn't their plan, since they still had starters Pickens and Scott on the roster on draft day (and were armed with the #4 overall pick in a draft with 3 WR prospects with top 10 grades). Wishes aside, even they weren't planning on Dugans or any 3rd rounder being the #2 as a rookie, with another rookie as the #1. The way the draft fell in hindsight, plus Scott breaking his leg after they cut Pickens, was the only reason it played out that way. I will say it was always great in hindsight that they took the top 2 rated FSU wideouts, who were both busts, and we took the FSU leftover after both of them - Coles - who was probably the best WR in that draft outright (13th WR off the board). Ultra-rare WR draft win for the Jets, but it's worth noting here that Coles - a very successful 3rd round pick, with alleged 4.2 speed at the time - didn't start as a rookie either, and not because we were gushing with #1 type WRs. A 3rd/4th round rookie starter? Of course it can happen - and does happen at a variety of positions every year - but no competent GM has a serious offseason plan that requires a 3rd round rookie performing adequately at starter level, at a position with a current hole, and as a basis for bypassing starters in free agency a month earlier. Particularly at WR or T or C (as you mention), where it's not unheard of to find eventual starters in those rounds, but it's unusual to find worthwhile rookie starters in those rounds (if there even are any in this particular draft). Still less when, as some have proposed, we also find another starter in that position group from another rookie pick in rounds 1 or 2. The OL? Left tackle - just 10 of 32 starting LTs were found outside round 1 (and the top 10 picks of of round 2): Dion Dawkins (started 11 games as a late 2nd round rookie in 2017); Taylor Moton (started 0 games as a late 2nd round rookie in 2017); Julie'n Davenport (started 4 games as a 4th round rookie in 2017); Charles Leno (started 1 game as a 7th round rookie in 2014); Alejandro Villanueva (started 0 games as an UDFA rookie in 2014); Terron Armstead (started 2 games as a 3rd round rookie in 2013); David Bakhtiari (started all 16 games as a 4th round rookie in 2013); Beachum (started 5 games as 7th round rookie in 2012) Donald Penn (started 12 games as an UDFA rookie way back in 2007); Jason Peters (started 1 game as an UDFA rookie even further back in 2004); Bakhtiari only started as a rookie because Bulaga tore his ACL in the preseason; he was never the team's plan to start at age 21 (let alone the plan from a LT-less team at the start of free agency). Also note, aside from just how many games they started, and how many were actually OL assets as rookies? Like Davenport -- as if no one remembers Houston's OL giving up 50-60 sacks per season? After his first 2 years of experience he was a throw-in on the Tunsil trade. And this list is out of how many tackle prospects that were drafted since Penn's rookie year -- 200? How many when you also count all the UDFAs (since 3 of these 10 weren't even drafted)? To say you need some luck to nail this with a mid-round rookie is a gross understatement (has to fall exactly to our 3rd/4th round slot, if there is even such a player present in this draft). Center isn't much better, other than they tend to get drafted later anyway. No fool of a GM is burning a top 10-15 pick on a friggin' center; there have literally been 2 since the AFL-NFL merger and, quite justifiably, neither was taken top 10. Ryan Jensen (2013 rd 6) started 0 games as a rookie, and was a G/T prospect to boot; Paradis (2014 rd 6) also 0 rookie starts BTW pausing this far, in these drafts' round 6, Idzik took Campbell and Dixon. Yeah I know round 6 but still, Corey Linsley (2014 rd 5) started 16 games as a rookie center (we took Jeremiah George); Jason Kelce (2011 rd 6) started 16 games as a rookie; Glasgow (2016 rd 3) started 11 as a rookie at 3 positions, suggesting he was starter via injury; Trey Hopkins (UDFA 2014) started 0 games as a rookie; Ben Jones (2012 rd 4) started 10 games as a rookie (at RG -- also he was terrible for years); Spencer Long (2014 rd 3) started 0 games as a rookie; Kilgore (2011 rd 5) started 0 games as a rookie; Pat Elflein (2017 rd 3) started 14 games as a rookie, but was pretty bad as a rookie, especially in pass protection, and they've moved him to guard... where he's still pretty bad in pass protection; David Andrews (UDFA in 2015) started 11 games, but is a bad example because NE OLmen are permitted to hold, and shank DTs in the balls; Spencer Pulley (2016 UDFA) started 0 games as a rookie; J.Harrison (UDFA in 2014) started 10 games as a rookie for Indy, out of desperation just like with the Jets; Austin Reiter (2015 rd 7) started 0 games as a rookie and was waived 4x. So that's 6 of them league-wide over the last 9 drafts (maybe more; I didn't go back further). 2 of them were UDFAs, and at least 2 were pretty bad or worse. Plus how many only started due to the actual starter getting injured (i.e. not the offseason plan starting in early March)? Well unless you're comfortable with Harrison starting at least 14 games, saving the center position for the mid/late rounds of the draft is again relying upon luck. Not just luck that we hit on the pick, but further luck that at this point in the draft that there's any WR/LT/C prospect at these positions worth starting as rookies in the first place, even with the benefit of hindsight that we won't have. Luck is neither a reliable nor prudent plan. They're going to have to pay for some veterans. Some of it will be mere temporary overpayment (e.g. someone like Anderson), and some of it will be throwing money at bad (e.g. Kalil this past year). They're right to be looking hard at Conklin. Hopefully he pans out if we end up with him.
  6. I don't know what his health situation is, but sure. Put it this way, I think we do better to draft a LT and sign a FA guard than the other way around. The starter-worthy FA LTs available are typically... coming off an injured or sub-meh season and guaranteeing starter money to cross your fingers hoping for a bounce-back (e.g. Beachum '15 then Beachum '16) meh, yet still at high premium pricetag (Solder in '16, possibly DJ Humphries this year, and while he won't get $16MM+ per, Beachum won't be near $8MM again either); guaranteeing still-significant money in or into their mid-late 30s like Penn and Whitworth, and this year J.Peters and again Whitworth at 38 or T.Williams who got hurt every year in his late 20s and will also cost a draft pick), where you don't know which season will be the last good one, and that may very well have already been is last good one prior to signing him. Sometimes, though less common, a team just lets go of a good + young one because they feel they'll be fine without spending so much on the veteran LT (T.Brown/New England); or they already have an even better LT on the roster, and can't keep them both at recent, premium, veteran LT rates (Conklin/Tennessee). In these uncommon cases - made even less common by a number of recent LT-starved draft classes - the UFA LT still comes with a very high price, exceeding any NFL guard by millions per year, but at least the position is filled and there are no upcoming concerns related to age. It's hard to say, because I'm not enough of a draft nut to evaluate what LT prospect we are likely to get at #11. I'd go after Scherff (if he's 100% healthy; I'm more wary than I used to be after the Osemele mess) OR Conklin. Yeah it'd be even better + transformational to the line to have both, in the same way Woody/Faneca changed things immediately; but it's unrealistic, and anyway lots of teams in need of OL help and/or with lots more cap space than we've got will be putting in bids for each; so getting just one of them is no slam dunk. But yeah with the line in this state, assuming they're both tip-top healthy, I don't see how we can stay away from bidding on one or both of them. FA is not my preferred way to start building an OL (I'll start believing Edoga is a serious part of an OL rebuild when he stops sucking). But it's unrealistic - not to mention counterproductive - at this point to defiantly stand by on principle because "Wah, I wanted to build the right way, through the draft, and then use FA to fill in the last holes." Great strategy if you've truly started that draft rebuild while the prior veterans were still on the roster, like in '06, but we didn't do that. Even if we try to find our future LT through the draft, we'll still need to sign a stopgap who's a legitimate starter just in case the draft's top 10 goes LT-LT-LT earlier than we thought it would, or if the WR value there is over the top better than the last remaining LT theoretically worthy of a #11 pick. Someone like Peters - yes at 38 - would fit that mold, and we won't be invested in him for a lengthy time, of course. Never mind he won't be big money at his age either, and Douglas has some longstanding and fairly recent familiarity with the player. In truth I know little of his demands and playing desires and no one yet knows what'll be the interest from other teams.
  7. I don't know that there is such a rule. The better reason is because they're way past their prime, not because they're retired. Some guys retire just because they want to skip camp or get away from their prior team(s). e.g. Favre, twice. While he didn't have a long career left in front of him, nor the arm he once had, it was because of age not because of prior retirement. Others have their own reasons for retiring e.g. Ricky Williams, who returned, then got suspended, then returned again in his 30s. What's more, that was at a far younger-man's position than center or QB. He was a better 34 year-old RB than Kalil was as a 34 year-old center (or Bell as a 27 year-old RB, for that matter). Lynch also returned at that very young man's position. Same theme: he wasn't the player he once was, but that's because he was a RB in his 30s, not because he was retired for a year or more. In comparison, Kalil was retired for a negligible amount of time. In effect, he was retired for like a month or so, since he wasn't playing football between the end of the 2018 season and the start of the 2019 season anyway. Showing up to camp a little earlier is about it, but he's been an NFL center since 2007. He was way worse than anyone could have imagined, even if a further dropoff from 2018 was expected. As @JiF noted, he ended up being a downgrade from Spencer Long.
  8. It's still crazy how much worse he got. Easy to say we should have known, and whether some were touting him as though he was still a pro bowler or had reservations about him, I can't imagine anyone really believed he would be this bad. Maybe an injury because he wasn't properly in shape or something - like how much people already harp on those holding out of camp and then getting hurt - but it's crazy how he looked like a totally different player than he ever was, while totally healthy. Of course the exact same thing could be said for Bell. Even those totally opposed to picking him up with that pricetag weren't expecting 3.2ypc. Nor that Mosley would miss the whole season after being a model of health. Nor that Williamson would also miss the season while the older D.Davis, whom we got rid of instead of holding for too long, was a first team all pro without missing a game (after playing 100% of the D snaps the year before in a breakout year for us). Nor that even if QW wasn't a beast as a rookie, that he would have lost any healthy playing time to some rookie UDFA. Nor that Leo W didn't have the big career awakening so many predicted, by playing for smart hardass Gregg Williams instead of stewpid pushover Bowles & his lackey. Despite the contract year adding more motivation, he got worse. Nor that Osemele was already damaged goods before we gave up a pick for him and paid him plenty, in the process potentially making our name mud in the eyes of many FAs. Nor that, even if he wasn't the "first round grade" player he was once touted to be, and despite our desperation at the position, that a day 2 draft pick edge rusher wouldn't have even made the final roster or get IR-stashed as a rookie. Starting to again think Costanza's "opposite" methodology would have provided a better basis for judgment. J!
  9. BTW remember when Pittsburgh made that big trade for Minkah, 6 months after trading a 2nd and a 3rd rounder to move up 10 slots draft a MLB; both so soon after already burning a high pick on a safety? This year it's hard to say, as much expectedly rides on Roethlisberger's health, but unless Rudolph becomes more than a game manager type, in the coming years I think we're going to see Pittsburgh fade. Their OL is older and not just in upcoming need of new veteran contracts across the board (or will be cap casualties, like probably Foster will be this year), and they're not going to get their veteran LT to re-sign for $6MM/year again. Here are their OL draft picks going backwards in time: 2019 = rd 7 Derwin Gray (practice squad) 2018 = rd 3 Okorafor (started 1 game and didn't exactly impress) 2017 = (nobody) 2016 = rd 4 Jerald Hawkins (traded for a 7th round pick) + found RT Feiler as a street FA (stupid luck) 2015 = (nobody) 2014 = rd 5 Wesley Johnson + found LT Villanueva as UDFA (extreme stupid luck) 2013 = (nobody) Their last draft hit was taking DeCastro in round 1 back in 2012; before him was Pouncey in 2010. Despite knowing their OL is coming to an end, they've only minimally invested in the area while quadrupling-down on their secondary. They do tend to use a day 2 pick at WR almost every year. Feiler is an RFA this year, but they'll keep him for so little. Then after that, like I was saying above ... Villanueva's contract is up in 2021 when he turns 33, so is Foster's (if he's not cut now, but he's even older anyway), and Feiler is scheduled to be a 29 yr old UFA. In 2022 still more: Pouncey (turns 31), DeCastro (turns 32), and Okrafor (sucks so far; might be starting or may even be cut by then). While all those OL guys hit FA status, there's more. Both Dupree & Hargrave are scheduled to be UFAs in March. TJ Watt in 2021. DBs Minkah-Edmunds-Nelson-Hayden all 2021-2022. They have just one draft pick between rounds 1 thru 3 this year (#49 overall) until they get a very late 3rd rd comp pick for Bell when those get announced (calling that a late 3rd or high 4th is a difference in semantics/name only; it's after the 32nd pick in round 3). I'm just saying it's a lot of guys they won't be able to retain even at double their 2018-2020 compensation. And they did so while using & losing a LOT of recent high picks for 2 safeties and an ILB (2018 1st, 2019 1st, 2020 1st, 2019 2nd, 2020 3rd); plus myopically missing out on another 1st round pick (perhaps more) by tagging Bell with the exclusive tag. Despite this one-time time investment on my part, I'm concerned about the Jets not the Steelers. But since they're following a similar investment pattern the Jets did a few years back, it'll be interesting to see how this pans out when the dust settles.
  10. Why wouldn't a team just sign Anthony Harris, Jimmie Ward, Karl Joseph, etc. and save their high draft picks to fill 2-3 additional starting positions at bargain prices for the next 4 seasons? To get anywhere near this type of compensation we'd need there to be multiple teams desperate for a veteran SS. As in more teams desperately interested in Adams than there are available FA safeties. Basically, all the decent SSs would have to get extended by their current teams before the FA period begins. More likely Adams had (and if he's crushing it in 2020, will have) more trade value during the season, targeting a playoff team looking for that extra oomph to hopefully put them over the top; not during the offseason when teams have many other options in both free agency and the draft. Few teams have finished countless hours of scouting and assessing, and then a month before the draft go and trade their day 1 plus day 2 picks (never mind all their day 1 plus day 2 picks lol) for a safety who'll need a bank-breaking veteran contract so soon after that. I think it's a long shot that he's getting moved this spring, but that is because no one will likely offer up what so many here claim he's definitely worth. Then again all it takes is one team to make such a foolish move, and it happens every year, so what do I know lol...
  11. Yes really. See my unnecessarily long post above yours. Williams was coming off what was a down season for him. Forget his pro bowl honors in 2014. Faneca got that same honor in 2009, had over $5MM of his $7MM guaranteed for 2010, and we cut him anyway. Because he wasn’t even good in 2009, let alone great, despite getting voted to the pro bowl. This was their situation in 2015: Williams’ contract, on the day Scherff was drafted, only ran through that 2015 season. As a rookie early that summer, they tried to play Scherff at RT, not at guard, but that failed. Only then did they extend Williams, at the end of August. Had Scherff played well at RT, there’s every chance they’d have moved him to LT in year 2, at less than half per year that it cost to extend Williams. Probably would have been able to swing a tag & trade for Williams, too, rather than simply letting him go to free agency. Scherff was not drafted at #5 just to play guard. That was a worst case scenario & ended up that way.
  12. The reason a LT is taken so early, where a G is rarely taken top 10 (and rarer still, without regret in hindsight) is beyond simple position cost. It’s because guards - even PB/AP ones - regularly reach free agency. Scherff looks to be only the latest example. That’s also part of the reason guards’ salaries rise faster, not purely due to team value: they get more bidding wars due to FA, where starting LTs in their primes get extended before their contracts have expired. A couple years ago the Giants signed a barely top 20 LT in Solder, at age 30, to $16MM/yr. A year later Trent Brown with one season under his belt at LT, got even more. He was also moved back to RT, so I‘m not sure Gruden would make that transaction again in hindsight. Not coincidentally, both were let go by NE who chose to go the draft route at LT (put off by a year followed by another half year due to Wynn’s injuries) instead of paying those veterans that much. Their OL has gotten away with a lot for years, and they know it, so it’s a luxury decision few contenders make in the same way. If Scherff’s young, multi pro bowl LT equivalent was a UFA he’d get millions more per year than the pro bowl guard, probably reaching ~$20MM/year now. See how much Staley will get from Baltimore, who’s due to extend him between now and September. Also people quickly and easily forget, somehow, that Scherff was not purely drafted to play guard, and a lot of the reason he was projected/rated that high was because many saw him as a LT prospect. Williams already had recent years with injuries and a bit but noticeable declined play due to them; along with mega expensive demands on extending his expiring contract. In August they already saw Scherff wasn’t well on his way to being a beast tackle that could fill Williams’ huge shoes, and extended TW at the end of the summer. If Scherff panned out even at RT as a rookie that summer - which was the announced intention in the late spring, before the plan soon failed that summer - I think they may have tagged+traded Williams for a bundle and moved Scherff to LT in 2016. Playing him at guard was the backup plan of “oh well, worst case we overdrafted a guard, but at least he should be great at that.” Plus who considers Washington a team building trend setter to be followed? $14MM may sound like LT money for a top guard, but people are matching that up with what top LTs used to get, not what they get now. Consider also that there are twice as many guards as LTs with big contract opportunities. It’s a mirage. Teams do not generally value guards or RTs or centers the same as LTs. A couple rare exception talents (e.g. Nelson drafted at #6, L.Johnson’s $18MM extension) don’t disprove the rule. Top LT prospects get taken early when there’s talent coming out to match. There just haven’t been many of late. Last time was 2016, and even then it took a cruel hoax to drop Tunsil way down to #13.
  13. I would note, though, that the 4 games he missed in 2016 was due to suspension not injury. Still missed the games, but one less year of injury concern. I guess. But this might be better: if they really have interest in Bell, how about we give them a lower pick (swap our 5th for their 7th or something), and they have to take Bell straight up so we can at least get the salary dump. Because I'm not looking to trade a one-more-year cap albatross for a new 2 year cap albatross on a reworked contract for Williams (that could turn into 3 due to injury guarantees kicking in). I'd want to buy something new with Bell's cap space; not something cranky, old, damaged, and no less expensive. Then in this way we're clearing the space towards a known-quantity starter in exchange for giving up a pick statistically most likely to have use on special teams (temporarily at that). I'd look at it as a package cleansing of Leo + Bell + #158 for #68 + #216 + 7.5MM, and they can keep Williams or sell his contract to someone else. Or just suck it up with Bell for one more season, hope he just needed to lose 10-15 lbs or something to return to form, then get out of it a year from now. I don't see why Washington would want to take on Bell's guaranteed $13.5MM anyway. That's what someone signs on to pay Bell before seeing his 2019 performance, not after. Washington drafted Guice in 2018 and he's healed from his 2018 ACL and 2019 meniscus tears by now. No, he's not reliable by any stretch, but if they want veteran insurance they still have a very cap-friendly $2.5MM team option on Peterson.
  14. Was he the one who made the backhanded compliment some weeks ago? Was something like, "Yeah, that's what he does & we're all aware of it. But he's a great player so we don't give him a hard time about it." But sounded like there's a lot of eye rolling, at least from some players. Sounds like there's more than one thinking hey, at least he's not a mediocre or even a terrible player running at the mouth all the time. 'Cause Jenkins (if that's the recent quote I'm thinking of) wouldn't have said even that much if he felt there'd be a world of backlash from the rest of the locker room. Annoying people is hardly the worst crime. Lucky for me.
  15. It's pretty simple. Coverage/"layup" numbers or not, since they all get them, 7 then 8 sacks for a starting OLB will get him over $10MM/year as a UFA. If the Jets extend him, it'll be at $12MM/year, and then his sack production will dip back down to the 3-sack range again If he signs elsewhere it'll be at $11MM/year, and after we're done high-5'ing each other and laughing at it all offseason, his sack numbers will jump to 12 on his new team, making his adjusted $ value in the $15MM+/year range So which do you choose?
  16. I don't understand why anyone would consider the $16MM Transition Tag for Anderson. Worst of all is it sets a terrible baseline annual amount for an extension. Plus he won't command near that anyway as a FA, for all the early bluster, and if he does get such a crazy offer then someone else can have him. I don't see either happening. You ask why would he accept this? It's really in line with his closest comparison: Tyrell Williams. I mean, eerily similar yard/TD numbers for the 3 most recent seasons; very recent comparison for UFA money; both hitting true UFA status and not an extension with a year left on a prior/rookie deal; with both reaching free agency status for their age 27 seasons. Williams age 24-26 stats, the 3 years before hitting free agency in 2019: link Anderson age 24-26 stats, the 3 years before hitting free agency in 2020: link Williams got $11MM/year with 1 year guaranteed in 2019. Anderson shouldn't be so much more; maybe a bit higher just due to inflation that I added in, but that's about it. Williams had a bit lower prior floor, but also a higher prior ceiling and has more prototypical ("#1") size to be more than just a deep threat burner (as well as a higher catch rate plus a higher Y/R, making his Y/Tgt a solid 1.5 yards higher). One could even argue the only thing Anderson has on Williams numbers-wise is just more passes thrown his way because there's fewer competition for the ball on the Jets. There's no Keenan Allen + Mike Williams on the Jets' receiving corps, not to mention another 60 fewer pass attempts went to our RBs + TEs compared to SD. In Robby's favor, there's no Allen/M.Williams duo taking proportional coverage help away from him. Point is they're as similar as you're going to find for a good baseline contract comparison. On March 13, 2019 Williams got 4 years $44MM with $22MM guaranteed. BUT just over half of that guarantee is only if he got seriously injured; he gets it only if Oakland doesn't cut him prior to 3/20/2020, making the more realistic guarantee $10.1MM. That's what made Enunwa's extension so dumb in comparison; there was an obvious injury history that suggested a far higher probability he'd finish the season on IR, making him likely uncuttable after 1 season. Anderson (like Williams) is a comparatively low injury-guarantee risk, having only minor bumps & bruises every player gets, as he's missed just 2 games in 4 years. If the Jets are eliminated and clearly want to dump him after the 2020 season, I'd think (hope) Gase would just make him a healthy scratch for the last game or so; or just outright cut him early like Bowles/Macc did with Coples, rather than risk being locked into him for another year.
  17. There are some omissions better than a number of these guys. I can’t name 42 receivers better than AJ Green, even on a highly subjective list. 90s-00s guys like Rod Smith, Roddy White, Joe Horn, and more were better than a number of them. Jimmy Smith gets remembered almost like a compiler, but nobody compiles a 291 yd, 3 TD game against the 2000 Ravens. There are others whose careers were mostly wasted on bleh offenses/QBs. Derrick Alexander’s 20s were hardly maxed out by Testaverde and Martyball. Never mind freaking Walker for us, even with one eye, and I still can’t get how he did it. I started watching football in the late 70s myself, so not as early as some, but do think plenty 60s-80s guys actually get overrated. Not just by NFL Films nostalgia-highlights, but also just not seeing them as regularly before so many more nationally televised games and just 24/7 NFL coverage in general. Getting to see just one Jets + Giants game + MNF, for most of these guys we saw a highlight play every few weeks or so, and it seemed like it was every week years later in hindsight; not to mention big play highlights that often show the one wow play where a speedster dusted the coverage, but ignore that he was hardly a go-to target to keep from punting nor was he a far more regular dagger stabbing a defense with a reception on most drives. Like Mel Gray may have been a deadly burner in his prime but c’mon, for as much as the game’s changed since then, the guy caught 3 passes a game and had all of 1 season with >7 TDs (a league leading 11). He had a few excellent division games against Dallas over his career, but overwhelmingly most of his great games came against terrible, losing teams (the 70s Giants in particular, against whom he did most of his big damage, for all NYers to see). This is what I mean about older nostalgia; one could see him burning the Giants and Jets on TV every year, or a long TD catch against a random team now and then, while missing all of his many 1-2 catch games. I’m not arguing he wasn’t a star receiver for a bit, but 21st best anyone’s ever seen play the game? No, you’ve seen more than 20 better WRs. Top 21 Giants-killers? Sure. Any such subjective list is bound to get some equally subjective criticism, though. Especially from a hypercritical douche like yours truly.
  18. There is no chance he gets 3 guaranteed years. QBs and maybe like 5 other all pro players get that. Others seem to, but only if their 1st year salary is artificially low. Odds are he won’t get more than 1 year guaranteed. Or if more it’ll be guaranteed for injury only, or a fake y2 guarantee that only kicks in if we don’t cut him right after the 2020 season. With the CBA expiring they can’t have his 2020 cap hit artificially low with mostly signing bonus so his annual salary will need to be more even, which is good with a player we want year to year anyway. The very most I could see (with a good chance it comes in lower) is 4 years / $48MM. What he gets in a higher annual rate he’d have to give back in fully guaranteed money. So unless he gets seriously hurt in 2020, that $12MM per is an annual prove it or lose it: $4MM SB and $8MM 2020 salary are fully guaranteed 2021 $10MM salary (guarantees on 5th day of new season in March whenever the new CBA season starts) 2022 $12MM salary 2023 $14MM salary Fake guarantee reported = $22MM Actual guaranteed = 1 year $12MM Putting in more prove it or lose it bonus, in the form of performance escalators, is fine by me as well e.g. $3MM NLTBE bonus for 1200 yards, or something like that. There’s the $15MM per his agent was blistering about. Relax because it’s not happening, but if it does then he’s Darnold’s top receiving weapon and we’re not looking to get rid of him anyway. It goes without saying I’d prefer to sign him for less if we can, as well as finding a better veteran receiver instead for 2020. But with just dropsies Crowder and damaged goods Enunwa (who’s not even playing if he’s smart) at WR over a month before the draft, where it’s unknown whom we’ll take and how ready he/they will be immediately? Fantasies aside, we’re not starting 2 rookies nor a rookie plus cheap DT. It’s I’m not in love with this predicament in the first place, but considering the Jets Stupidity Tax for not doing this before the 2019 season, it’s just a one year tax at that.
  19. The purpose of the salary cap is not so a high market team like the Jets can retain its own players. The purpose - beyond obviously capping what a team has to spend - is to promote parity among the teams, so big market / high value teams can't simply doubly (or triply or quadruply) outspending lower market teams like MLB. The issue with keeping and extending Adams - to those furthering the idea of moving him - isn't purely money, as weaker arguments like this suggest. Unfortunately, by reducing it to nothing but a money discussion, in straw man fashion it misses the boat on a major part of the argument - if not the major part of the argument - in moving him. For the sake of argument, use the 1st and a 3rd compensation that gets discussed here a lot (whether it's realistic or not, some incredibly think it's still not enough), and presume an Adams extension is in the $15MM/year range. Just to show it isn't purely about dollars at the safety position that will lead to improving the team, say the Jets trade Adams and then immediately sign Anthony Harris in free agency at the same $15MM/year. This would be a net increase in SS spending since Adams is still entering year 4 of his rookie deal, and is still immensely smarter than extending Adams. They're making at worst a lateral move at safety (some would say it's an upgrade, some wouldn't, but it's subjective). But here's the thing: they also get a free $3MM/year 1st round pick plus a free $1MM/year 3rd round pick. Maybe neither pans out as expected, but maybe one or both turn into above average starters we couldn't even get in free agency, and even if we could the replacement add-on cost would be another $20-30MM/year depending on the positions they play and how good they are. If they both do pan out - if Douglas is as good as some say - then in this example Adams' extension cost is effectively about $35-40MM/year not $15MM/year. Whatever those prospects end up being, without even downgrading the SS position, you're talking about 2 free shots at 2 more starters on day 1 and day 2 respectively; both locked up for the next 4-5 years at rounding-error dollars. Maybe they'd even trade the 3rd rounder to move up from #11 to #8 to guarantee a LT or WR1; or up from round 3 to round 2; maybe they'd stay pat and now, again without even downgrading the SS position, we'd have 6 picks in the first 2 days of the draft, including 2 in round 1. Put more simply (which isn't my thing), those advocating trading Adams are advocating just that: trading him, not cutting him FFS. It's all the difference in the world. And if we somehow get an offer of a 1st and a 3rd (never mind more), and turn it down, then Douglas is dumb AF just like his predecessor.
  20. I'm not being even close to serious. I thought the rocket surgery line gave it away. The joke wasn't in bringing back any one of them; but rather in bringing back all 3 of them - who makes an effort to re-sign 3/5 of the league's worst OL - plus the unrealistic contract numbers I used, which I expect will be way off for each of these guys. We'll see the exact numbers in a month & a half (unless any get extended before then), but ballpark I'm thinking each will be ~50% more than the numbers I used, and maybe even more. Popularity of the move aside, the most likely to return IMO is Beachum, yes even at around $12MM, with a year guaranteed. That also depends on who's still available on the eve of free agency starting. Second most likely is Lewis, just because Douglas gets to re-up a guy he brought in, but it really depends on the bucks. If he is retained, it'd be a swap not an addition: they'll keep Lewis or Winters, but not both. The advantage to keeping Winters instead is he can be cut after the draft or over the summer with no cap penalty, should a rookie show more worthy of starting over him already. If they re-sign Lewis they're locked into him for the year, and probably don't save much (if anything at all) over the scheduled $7MM for Winters. Shell is IMO just a long shot to return, and just as much of a long shot to sign anywhere for $5MM (let alone less) which is the silly/unrealistic number I intended it to be. Gase benched him from starting at two separate times, while healthy, and those benchings coincidentally coincided with the offense scoring points for a change (though it's not that simple; Edoga was no breath of fresh air himself). The numbers I used were realistic if you're talking back in 2015-2016 with a ~$150MM cap. Not in 2020 with a $200MM cap and a new CBA on the way that'll continue to bump it up even more, and probably at a higher rate (though that's a separate discussion). Most teams have over $40MM in space before they cut a single player to make even more room.
  21. We still need to draft guys but obviously it'll take more than 1 season to create a line of guys 5-across on their rookie deals. But fear not. Douglas will take care of it with ease: We'll be able to re-sign 30 yr old Beachum at $8MM, 26 yr old Alex Lewis at $3MM, and 28 yr old Shell at $5MM. Duh. Then after we draft their replacements starting 1 month later, we can just cut them right away since none of them will get any guaranteed/bonus money. Or since they make so little we can just hang onto them as depth or trade them for even more draft picks! It's not rocket surgery, pee-pull.
  22. #1 - It's happened, where teams win games when the defense surrenders far more than a net 15 points (17 minus the 2 they scored on the safety). I've heard they sometimes even win games when the D gives up 20-30 points. To still debate this, so soon after KC's offense turned a 24-0 deficit (7 of it on special teams) into a 20-point playoff victory, is the height of silliness. #2 - @#27TheDominator's point is hardly refutable: it is impossible to give up "17 straight points" without the offense repeatedly scoring zero. As far as the "4 min is enough to regroup" uh...the D got what should have been a momentum-shifting interception on the ensuing Steelers drive. In 2 minutes, the offense went backwards followed by Weatherford shanking his punt. #3 - The D looked like crap stopping Mendenhall early in the game, but by the end they'd held Pittsburgh's offense to 6 fewer points than they averaged (Steelers' average on offense was net 21ppg vs net 15 in the afccg). Their #1 defense surrendered an averaged a net 14 ppg; our offense scored a net 10 points (17 for, and gave back 7). Neither side played great, but a defense that gives up a net 15 points total is doing its job a hell of a lot more than an offense that scores a net 10 points. You'd think we lost that game 38-35 or something. #4 - Just by basic arithmetic, in the end we lost by 5 and the Jets offense surrendered 7 on Sanchez's fumble-6. #5 - None of the above has to do with Revis trash talking from his couch during a playoff game: He's not better than Sherman now and wasn't better at Sherman's age either. He was a great player once, but after the embarrassing way his age 31+ career recently went (e.g. 109.8 passer rating against him in 2016) he should be quiet here. He got deservedly cut in 2017 (even with $6MM guaranteed money still coming) so he should be taking shots at zero other 31 year-old corners. Even if he retired on top, which he certainly didn't, the classy thing would be to keep his mouth shut anyway unless he's trash talking a video game opponent.
  23. Why can't he play LT? He was a LT prospect in the first place, was he not? He's certainly built like one more than some 340-pound roadgrader RT. It's possible Ten took him way high because the team gave up 50+ sacks the year before, with the thought that he'd be the starting LT before long. Conklin just plays on the same line as Lewan, who's better and who also took a big leap forward after Conklin was drafted (as did Ferguson in year 3 and beyond for us). Doesn't mean Conlin is therefore just a RT forevermore. Once upon a time Damien Woody was a center, Fabini was a RT, and @T0mShane was a man. If Ten wouldn't move him to Mariota's blind side and they kept some schlub out there instead, then yeah you worry the team realizes he maybe just doesn't have the feet/talent for the position (admittedly I haven't been watching Conklin's feet every week of every season, lol). I have to think if we do pick him up it's to play LT, particularly if we pay through the nose to get him here. We'd let Beachum go and, since Conklin's got a longer career ahead of Beachum, now Douglas gets to be a little choosier in the draft than being dead-set on LT at #11 pick no matter what. Yeah he had an ACL injury in the past, but of course so did Beachum before he got here, and he looked like crap for Jax after returning to the field. He also missed games with a concussion the year after, and was questionable for the Chiefs game with a shoulder injury. Plus some of his spotty plays in the playoffs - which could have been in some part due to that injury - didn't do him any favors. But if there were any sure bet guarantees most of these guys would never reach free agency, and if he'd perfect ball this year through the playoffs then his pricetag's probably even higher. At just 25, with multiple good seasons under his belt, I have to think Rosenhaus will get Conklin a deal at least in the $17MM/year range (assuming he reaches free agency). We wouldn't be the only ones potentially eyeing him as more than just a RT. Even as such: Lane Johnson, who's a full contract older, just got an $18MM/yr extension for ages 30-33 without even testing the highest bidders in FA since he was already locked up in Philly through 2021.
  24. I'm sympathetic to that rationale and there were times I'd wished we lost games at the end, when the team was all but in official tank mode (and they may as well have been from the first game). But once we presumably have drafted our young FQB, and he's in his formative first years in the league, there are no quasi-tank final games unless maybe he's injured & for that reason is kept out of the lineup outright. I can cite many things over the last 2 seasons I wished this team had done better - from players they selected to the HC/GM they retained to the questionable HC they hired. Letting the team try to win while its young QB is accruing much-needed experience is not one of them, even if we'd have been better off drafting Bosa over QW. I certainly don't subscribe to the silly idea I've heard multiple times over the years, that winning the last game is something to build upon for the following season. If they actually lose and we get a better pick, fine. But the goal right now is to turn Darnold into the best QB he can be, and use every game as more live experience, so he's not still taking his lumps in an upcoming season when we should otherwise be actual contenders. Only decent rationale for closing 2018-2019 by not putting our best foot forward? Maybe be to get certain guys off the field because we don't want serious injuries, to key players with guaranteed contracts, sustained in a meaningless game. Playoff teams with their slot locked in do that every year. Then the chances of winning go down as a side effect, but I wouldn't pull them purely so we have a lesser chance of winning. Now, tanking the last game to lock us into the #1-3 pick for a FQB when we don't have one? Necessary evil on that one. But while Darnold has some questions to answer on the field, that's not the situation we were in to close out this year or last.

Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company
  • Create New...