Jump to content

AdropOFvenom

Members
  • Posts

    372
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AdropOFvenom

  1. Bodden might actually be a good fit for this Defense. He struggled in Detroit, but it was in their Cover 2 (Zone) system. He was pretty good in Cleveland though playing quite a bit of man coverage. Worth looking into, could be a nice addition on the cheap which is something this team needs with their cap situation.

  2. The Mets should do the right thing and try to work out a deal to get another partner for less money- it would be the right thing to do.

    The issue there is I'm sure the Mets are just as legally bound to the contract as Citigroup is, and would likely be subject to the same penalties should they break the contract.

  3. OK, so Citi isn't taking money from the Treasury and directly giving it to the Mets.

    That's like me saying that I didn't gamble away my son's birthday checks that I deposited in my checking account, because I used money that I had withdrawn from the ATM.

    Hence why I used the quotation marks, lol

  4. According to a report on CNBC, the Mets say Citigroup has contacted them and will continue to honor their current marketing and naming rights agreement, contrary to the Wall Street Journal report from below.

    (Metsblog.com)

    Also, various things pointed out in the WBJ article

    - TARP money is "not being used to fund the stadium deal."

    - The deal is 20 million annually over 20 years, not 400 million up front.

    - Citigroup is legally bound to this contract and would be subject to a penalty should they break it. (I'm speculating here, but the penalty is probably larger then the 20 million they would have to pay the Mets for next season anyways).

    - Forcing Citi out of his deal would harm their ability to make deals with 3rd parties in the future

    - Where exactly is the outrage for similar deals? Citi Field isn't Citi groups only naming rights deal, Bank of America (The largest member of the bailout) has naming rights for the Panthers stadium and is "close" to being the main sponsors in New Yankee Stadium

    - They quote a Bank of America Spokesman who notes that such deals are PROFITABLE for the company.

  5. Sooo, it's a bad thing when the defense holds teams to under 20 points and we win a game? Just think, we get another year of Parcells and Co. hand picking the most talented players for Miami through the draft (3 picks in the top 62) and free agency (30 mill under the cap)

    No, but it's a bad thing when that's the ONLY way you can win a game. Good teams are going to score more then 20 points, and you don't have the Offense that can keep up with them.

    Plus, haven't you figured out Parcells's mantra by now? Go into new location of pathetic team with plenty of cap space and nowhere to go but up, spend, spend, spend, then bail once the team is in cap hell and has nowhere to go but down.

  6. Not to nitpick, but "Increased the number" is wrong. It was always that high.

    The limits only occur when there were less then X amount of Type A and B Free Agents available, which there were not this year, and I can't remember the last year where that was the case.

    Still, Manny can do better then this offer I'm sure, the Dodgers need Manny and it shouldn't be too hard to get that 2 year offer back on the table, if not more.

  7. It's called advertising, a company needs to do so in order to be successful. I have no problem with Citi remaining the Mets ballpark's main sponsor. If they decide to break it off, that's their decision, but it seems like they're being pressured into doing so, which isn't right.

  8. I know why the Cubs are doing it, but it seems silly to me that they just let 2 pretty talented players in Pie and Hill go to the Orioles for seemingly little in return. I like this deal for the Orioles, Hill was a good #2-3 starter when he was on his game from 06-07. One bad year and he's thrown at the side despite quite a large amount of upside. I was hoping the Mets would take an Oliver Perez-like gamble on him.

  9. Jacobs is most definitely as good as any runningback in the league when he's healthy. The sheer athleticism of a runningback that size is simply impressive and unrivaled in this league.

    But, The key words though are "When he's healthy". Missing 8 games the last 2 seasons does not inspire much hope that he's going to be giving you a ton of 16-game seasons in the near-future.

  10. Not to delay the Yankee circle jerk too much, but I'm hopeful the Mets see him as their future clean-up hitter (Replacing Delgado), provided he has a good year in Oakland of course. Then you have Murphy slide over to 1st base, which is probably where he belongs anyways. All I'm saying is to expect some fierce competition.

    SS - Reyes

    1B - Murphy

    3B - Wright

    LF - Holliday

    CF - Beltran

    RF - Church / F-Mart

    2B - (Hopefully upgrade) Castillo?

    C - (Hopefully upgrade) Schneider?

  11. Favre might be due a lot of cap money, but through restructuring some contracts we shouldn't have a hard time finding our way under the salary cap should he return (Although it will likely limit our ability to spend in Free Agency). We won't be in a position where we HAVE to release him cap wise.

    And the idea of him going to Minnesota seems farfetched because first of all, I don't think he really wants to play next year regardless of team, and for a QB who notoriously hates learning new Offensive Systems why would he want to join another new team and have to learn another new Offense? It's just easier for him to stay with the Jets.

    Really, this "article" it's just speculation that will likely never happen....and that's even assuming Minnesota would still want him. Tavaris Jackson played well down the stretch, and Gus Frerotte had the role of "Past his Prime" Game Managing QB down, meanwhile John David Booty has a year in the system under his belt. I'd say it's far from a guarantee they're all that interested.

  12. How could anybody see what Ratliff did in preseason last year and say, "No, don't want him"

    Did he at least not spark interest? Do we at least not want to see him play against first stringers?

    Help me here.

    If a player shines in college, where he is clearly the best player on the field, we want to draft him first round, but if a player shines against other PROFESSIONALS who are equal in talent (all third stringers) we say, " ahhh, he only played against third stringers"

    Logic,please,someone, help, idiot i must be.

    I would rather see a guy who played like Joe Montana against Professional thirdstringers in a pre-season NFL game, than a guy who played like Joe Montana at Boise ST. Is it me?

    - Vanilla Defenses / Lack of a Gameplan against Ratliff

    Entering last preseason, Brett Ratliff was pretty much a complete unknown, nobody outside of the Jets really knew what he had to offer so teams couldn't scheme much against him. Nevermind that teams rarely do much scheming in preseason anyways, preseason games are generally just line up and play and let the best athletes win, especially when it comes to the backups.

    - Ridiculously Small Sample Size.

    College "Star" QBs generally have at least 2 years of experience under the belt, minimum (Unless their Mark Sanchez). That's something like 26 games of film to go off of. Around 39 games if they're a 3 year starter, around 52 games if they're a 4 year starter.

    Preseason "Star" QBs generally have about 6 Quarters worth of data to go off of.

    - 3rd Stringers isn't exactly the cream of the crop talent to face.

    One could make an argument that some of the more stocked NCAA teams like Florida or USC are a more talented opponent with many future 1st round picks on the roster. You don't face a Brandon Spikes or a Ray Maualuga against NFL 3rd Stringers.

    That's not to say Ratliff will be an awful QB or anything of the sort, but you have to put his preseason performance into perspective.

×
×
  • Create New...