Jump to content

Potential WR Emmanuel Sanders Contract


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is in response to the article on the home page.   Sanders is 5' 11" he's not a #1 WR if he signs along with Nicks or if we draft Benjamin but this guy alone is not fixing the WR issue here.

Nicks,Maclin or Boldin #1 WRs.   We have Kerley for the slot we don't need another slot receiver we need a WR who can stretch the field and be that go to guy.

Geno Smith WR corps last season was a scrap heap of players with the exception of Kerley who missed a few games due to injury and you expected more from a rookie QB with that group?    Sanders is a

Decker

Tate

Maclin

 

In that order.

 

Decker 1st because he has the best combination of youth, productivity, motor and health out of all of the guys on the market. I'm not going to let speculation that he will be "overpaid" overshadow that. There's a difference between recognizing which of these guys are better and being willing to "overpay" them and by how much. Tate 2nd because he's got skills, he's a team player and quite young. Maclin 3rd only because of the injury concerns, he's easily as talented as the other 2.

 

BTW if we do "overpay" at any position, I would be happy for that position to be WR. If you get any of these 3, I would probably be happy. Aren't you all sick of fooling around with this position, signing has-beens and may-never-be's, injury risks, unmotivated headcases, etc.? Skimp on the other positions this offseason, Fine. But not this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Decker

Tate

Maclin

 

In that order.

 

Decker 1st because he has the best combination of youth, productivity, motor and health out of all of the guys on the market. I'm not going to let speculation that he will be "overpaid" overshadow that. There's a difference between recognizing which of these guys are better and being willing to "overpay" them and by how much. Tate 2nd because he's got skills, he's a team player and quite young. Maclin 3rd only because of the injury concerns, he's easily as talented as the other 2.

 

BTW if we do "overpay" at any position, I would be happy for that position to be WR. If you get any of these 3, I would probably be happy. Aren't you all sick of fooling around with this position, signing has-beens and may-never-be's, injury risks, unmotivated headcases, etc.? Skimp on the other positions this offseason, Fine. But not this one.

Yes but Decker isn't a Fitzgerald,Johnson,type WR.

  • Upvote 1
  • Thumb Down 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Decker

Tate

Maclin

 

In that order.

 

Decker 1st because he has the best combination of youth, productivity, motor and health out of all of the guys on the market. I'm not going to let speculation that he will be "overpaid" overshadow that. There's a difference between recognizing which of these guys are better and being willing to "overpay" them and by how much. Tate 2nd because he's got skills, he's a team player and quite young. Maclin 3rd only because of the injury concerns, he's easily as talented as the other 2.

 

BTW if we do "overpay" at any position, I would be happy for that position to be WR. If you get any of these 3, I would probably be happy. Aren't you all sick of fooling around with this position, signing has-beens and may-never-be's, injury risks, unmotivated headcases, etc.? Skimp on the other positions this offseason, Fine. But not this one.

 

Pay for Eric Decker. I've warmed up to this idea. He's the closest thing to a number one in free agency and will keep your passing offense viable until the rookies start to come around. Fantastic athlete, great size. No he wasn't the number one with Thomas, Welker, Thomas, getting passes. They were like Voltron this year. I think he can stand on his own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest priority this offseason facing the New York Jets is to upgrade their offensive skill positions. Acquiring free agents is certainly a way the team may choose to help bring in some talent but an unrestricted player can be bid on by multiple teams making them costly to obtain.

It is difficult to judge just how much it will take to bring in a top free agent player when they reach the open market. Wide receiver Emmanuel Sanders will be sort after when he hits free agency on March 11 and has been rumored to be coveted by the Jets, but what type of contract gets him on the team?

Below is a mock contract offer which Sanders could receive from the Jets, a five-year deal worth $38.13 million, $13.63 million in guaranteed money (Bold), with a $7 million signing bonus (Prorated):

 

[see above post]

 

The dead money column represents the cap charge the Jets would have for Sanders if he were released. In year three (2016) of the deal a $4.2 million dead money cap hit is manageable if Sanders was not performing, so they would realistically need to get at least two seasons from him.

On the other hand if Sanders was performing well the Jets could look to restructure his contract heading into year three since he’ll have a high cap number. Restructuring Sanders does not mean he is taking a pay reduction but the manner in which he is paid and how the salary is accounted for is changed.

The Jets could convert $6 million of Sanders 2016 base (season) salary into signing bonus saving $4 million on the 2016 salary cap. Sanders gets $6 million upon signing the restructure and $2.5 million during the season while $2 million is added to the Jets 2017 and 2018 caps which is the $4 million saved in 2016.

There is always an unknown with just how much is too much to pay for top free agents given the resources they require. Jets general manager John Idzik has the cap space to be aggressive in acquiring players but understands the risk involved with big contracts. It will be interesting to see how Idzik approaches this offseason and the potential signing of free agents.

View the full article

 

Dennis, you think the Jets would backload his contract like that given our current cap situation? Seems to me we'd be better-off just making that up-front bonus as a RB rather than a SB.  We don't need the extra space this year and since I doubt we max-out our cap space with newly-added, annual salaries this year (since we won't have this level of space every year), there will be some space that gets pushed to 2015.  So if we're going to do that anyway, why make it so he'd only count $2M this year and then $7.5M to $10.5M thereafter?

 

I think teams structure new deals that way when they don't want to cut their own balls off in the current FA period in case there's someone else they want to add.  We're in no danger of that happening, with space in excess of $40M likely, so I'd be more in favor of having a zero-dead-space penalty if he's cut prior to year 3 if he's not working out (as opposed to $4M+).  

 

In some ways it doesn't matter.  The cap is somewhat fluid and not so strict in any 1 year, and we could theoretically have a $4M higher ceiling in 2016 by making his 2014 number so low (which therefore pushes extra space to 2015 and then again to 2016).  But psychologically it may affect whether he's kept or cut after those first 2 years are in the past.  Even if our ceiling is $4M higher, no one likes seeing a $4M donut hole in the spreadsheet for a guy who isn't going to be on the team.  Or even if we don't want to cut him, to have Sanders count nearly $11M in any 1 season, as though he was a Brandon Marshall type, may make it seem like we'd be better off cutting bait.  It could cloud the judgment of how valuable he truly is at that time.

 

What takes me 30 sentences to get across is that when we're so flush with space it seems we'd be better off front-loading his deal or at least make it more even from year to year.  

 

Speaking of Brandon Marshall, he's a UFA in 2015 and will still only be 30.  Others may appear as well.  I'd rather not break the bank on Sanders (and then draft another one high) if it means we're out of the sweepstakes for a veteran who's great rather than merely good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dennis, you think the Jets would backload his contract like that given our current cap situation? Seems to me we'd be better-off just making that up-front bonus as a RB rather than a SB.  We don't need the extra space this year and since I doubt we max-out our cap space with newly-added, annual salaries this year (since we won't have this level of space every year), there will be some space that gets pushed to 2015.  So if we're going to do that anyway, why make it so he'd only count $2M this year and then $7.5M to $10.5M thereafter?

 

I think teams structure new deals that way when they don't want to cut their own balls off in the current FA period in case there's someone else they want to add.  We're in no danger of that happening, with space in excess of $40M likely, so I'd be more in favor of having a zero-dead-space penalty if he's cut prior to year 3 if he's not working out (as opposed to $4M+).  

 

What takes me 30 sentences to get across is that when we're so flush with space it seems we'd be better off front-loading his deal or at least make it more even from year to year.  

 

Speaking of Brandon Marshall, he's a UFA in 2015 and will still only be 30.  Others may appear as well.  I'd rather not break the bank on Sanders (and then draft another one high) if it means we're out of the sweepstakes for a veteran who's great rather than merely good.

 

I'm not sure what type of FAs Idzik will go after, but one would have to imagine front-loading all the contracts with the glut of cap-space that we have will be the best option.  You'd have to assume that they won't pull a Revis and forget all the signing bonus and holdout, but that seems less likely.  I don't particularly see Sanders garnering an $8 million per year contract either, but the market has yet to show us what his value will be, so I guess it could be. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

An NFL team is gonna have to get creative w Benjamin. Move him around to create mismatches and he will come in handy in the red zone. But lining him up on the outside as a 1 or 2 against NFL CBs, I don't see it.

 

I think that's more the case with Evans. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's more the case with Evans. 

 

I see Evans being used pretty much exactly how Norleans uses Marques Colston: line him up in the X and Z and then run him out of the slot a ton.  Jimmy Graham basically took over Colston's role this year and you saw him dominate pretty much primarily out of the slot.  I had hesitations on Evans' short-area quickness, but I think he's going to be a great player.  Benjamin I honeslty haven't seen as much as Evans so I have no idea, but his size is intriguing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Evans being used pretty much exactly how Norleans uses Marques Colston: line him up in the X and Z and then run him out of the slot a ton.  Jimmy Graham basically took over Colston's role this year and you saw him dominate pretty much primarily out of the slot.  I had hesitations on Evans' short-area quickness, but I think he's going to be a great player.  Benjamin I honeslty haven't seen as much as Evans so I have no idea, but his size is intriguing. 

 

I'd say the one thing Evans has on Benjamin is his hands. Benjamin's the better route runner and slightly more fluid athlete imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the one thing Evans has on Benjamin is his hands. Benjamin's the better route runner and slightly more fluid athlete imo.

 

I was thoroughly impressed with everything that Evans did on Sunday, he looked good. Benjamin on the other hand, looked absolutely lost in every aspect, until he got onto the field and you see he's just a good football player.  Ultimately those distinctions, greater production and hands will get Evans drafted top 15 and could push Benjamin down to the second, which wouldn't be that surprising considering the glut of good WRs there are this year.  Jordan Matthews has all the makings to be a very good receiver and he's not getting any attention in the first round it seems: so someone is going to get a Matthews or Robinson in the 2nd who would usually be a to 25 pick it seems.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thoroughly impressed with everything that Evans did on Sunday, he looked good. Benjamin on the other hand, looked absolutely lost in every aspect, until he got onto the field and you see he's just a good football player.  Ultimately those distinctions, greater production and hands will get Evans drafted top 15 and could push Benjamin down to the second, which wouldn't be that surprising considering the glut of good WRs there are this year.  Jordan Matthews has all the makings to be a very good receiver and he's not getting any attention in the first round it seems: so someone is going to get a Matthews or Robinson in the 2nd who would usually be a to 25 pick it seems.  

 

fwiw

 

 

Dion Caputi @nfldraftupdate

FSU WR Kelvin Benjamin has pretty solid fluidity + change of direction in routes for a 6'5" 240-pounder. A little smoother than Mike Evans.

 

Dan Shonka said the same thing. We'll see I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's more the case with Evans.

Could be for both, although I'm more inclined to say Evans has the goods. Broadway's next post is really well said, basically the offenseive system they're drafted to will also be a major factor.

I dunno, I think Benji is almost too big. He looks like Mike Williams maybe wout the known alcoholism to go w it. He doesn't really separate on film and his 40, although great for his size isn't gonna scare any starting corner. I feel like his ceiling is the occasional mismatches in 3-4 WR sets. He doesn't appear to be the brilliant eye hand body control guy like a Brandon Marshall. His jumps were pretty weak too so not overly explosive. I dunno, j/s

Evans is more on par with the Marshall's Jackson's Dez Bryant types to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the one thing Evans has on Benjamin is his hands. Benjamin's the better route runner and slightly more fluid athlete imo.

Yeah that's the thing, they both migt struggle w separation. I know it's easy to shot on David Nelson but I think he's proven a solid, dependable NFL WR when healthy. And he's on the roster. Not sure why the Jets would two of those types of guys. I really like the thought of Lee, Beckham, Cooks, Paul Richardson types. Jets need more of those explosive esque weapons who u can always count on to be open.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that's the thing, they both migt struggle w separation. I know it's easy to shot on David Nelson but I think he's proven a solid, dependable NFL WR when healthy. And he's on the roster. Not sure why the Jets would two of those types of guys. I really like the thought of Lee, Beckham, Cooks, Paul Richardson types. Jets need more of those explosive esque weapons who u can always count on to be open.

 

I'm still riding the Nicks, Sanders, Kerley & Lee/Beckham/Cooks train until it doesn't happen.  Again, not accounting for BPA, but I wouldn't be upset if we somehow walked away with either Beckham/Lee/Cooks and Matthews in the second if we only land a Sanders or Maclin in FA.

 

 

Edit: Essentially, I just want to walk away from the first round with Lee, Beckham or Cooks.  So basically my list hasn't changed since last year, except that I've added Cooks to it the more I got to see him play.   While I wouldn't be upset with Evans by any means, I just prefer Lee and Beckham.

Edited by BroadwayJoe12
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Evans being used pretty much exactly how Norleans uses Marques Colston: line him up in the X and Z and then run him out of the slot a ton.  Jimmy Graham basically took over Colston's role this year and you saw him dominate pretty much primarily out of the slot.  I had hesitations on Evans' short-area quickness, but I think he's going to be a great player.  Benjamin I honeslty haven't seen as much as Evans so I have no idea, but his size is intriguing. 

 

 

Yeah that's the thing, they both migt struggle w separation. I know it's easy to shot on David Nelson but I think he's proven a solid, dependable NFL WR when healthy. And he's on the roster. Not sure why the Jets would two of those types of guys. I really like the thought of Lee, Beckham, Cooks, Paul Richardson types. Jets need more of those explosive esque weapons who u can always count on to be open.

 

That is what I was going to say. Reading Broadway's post.  Everybody here seems to hate Hill, but love Nelson.  The description Broadway gave for using Evans seems kind of like what they have to do for Nelson - I think that he was primarily a slot guy in Buffalo for that reason.  I don't think Nelson is a guy that should preempt making any moves, but others here sure seem like it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what I was going to say. Reading Broadway's post.  Everybody here seems to hate Hill, but love Nelson.  The description Broadway gave for using Evans seems kind of like what they have to do for Nelson - I think that he was primarily a slot guy in Buffalo for that reason.  I don't think Nelson is a guy that should preempt making any moves, but others here sure seem like it. 

 

Agreed. I'm pretty sure you and I are the only two here who still feel Hill can be a player if he puts together a completely healthy season.  I saw pretty drastic improvements in his game from year 1 to 2 and I thought he was putting them together up until the bad concussion and knee injuries, which is now an actual concern. ***Before anyone says he, he held onto that ball where he got clocked by Polamalu, not every receiver would have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. I'm pretty sure you and I are the only two here who still feel Hill can be a player if he puts together a completely healthy season. I saw pretty drastic improvements in his game from year 1 to 2 and I thought he was putting them together up until the bad concussion and knee injuries, which is now an actual concern. ***Before anyone says he, he held onto that ball where he got clocked by Polamalu, not every receiver would have.

You can add me to that group.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can add me to that group.

 

 

I just don't vocalize it much anymore, because it usually derails the thread into an argument that won't be answer until the end of next year. 

 

More than thinking Hill will amount to anything, I think he is still a better choice to start the season with than Salas or Nelson.  Holmes is gone.  That leaves us with Hill, Kerley, Nelson, Clyde Gates, Dwight Jones, Vidal Hazelton and Saalim Hakim.  I may be missing somebody, but I don't think it's anybody of consequence.  Michael Campbell?  Two of the top 4 are guys that this board has the ANYONE IS BETTER syndrome about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/5885/emmanuel-sanders

 

The Jets are even more likely to go after free agent Emmanuel Sanders now that Jeremy Maclin has re-signed with the Eagles.

Sanders and Maclin were reportedly the Jets' top-two targets to augment their hideous receiving corps of Jeremy Kerley, David Nelson and Stephen Hill. The New York Daily News also lists Hakeem Nicks and Golden Tate as options, but Sanders would be far cheaper. It would also keep him away from the rival Patriots, who signed Sanders to a restricted free agent offer sheet last offseason.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/5885/emmanuel-sanders

 

The Jets are even more likely to go after free agent Emmanuel Sanders now that Jeremy Maclin has re-signed with the Eagles.

Sanders and Maclin were reportedly the Jets' top-two targets to augment their hideous receiving corps of Jeremy Kerley, David Nelson and Stephen Hill. The New York Daily News also lists Hakeem Nicks and Golden Tate as options, but Sanders would be far cheaper. It would also keep him away from the rival Patriots, who signed Sanders to a restricted free agent offer sheet last offseason.

 

Ah, basing our FA strategy on who we can KEEP from the Pats. That has worked wonders for the Yankees lately keeping all that talent from the Red Sox.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dennis, you think the Jets would backload his contract like that given our current cap situation? Seems to me we'd be better-off just making that up-front bonus as a RB rather than a SB.  We don't need the extra space this year and since I doubt we max-out our cap space with newly-added, annual salaries this year (since we won't have this level of space every year), there will be some space that gets pushed to 2015.  So if we're going to do that anyway, why make it so he'd only count $2M this year and then $7.5M to $10.5M thereafter?

 

I think teams structure new deals that way when they don't want to cut their own balls off in the current FA period in case there's someone else they want to add.  We're in no danger of that happening, with space in excess of $40M likely, so I'd be more in favor of having a zero-dead-space penalty if he's cut prior to year 3 if he's not working out (as opposed to $4M+).  

 

In some ways it doesn't matter.  The cap is somewhat fluid and not so strict in any 1 year, and we could theoretically have a $4M higher ceiling in 2016 by making his 2014 number so low (which therefore pushes extra space to 2015 and then again to 2016).  But psychologically it may affect whether he's kept or cut after those first 2 years are in the past.  Even if our ceiling is $4M higher, no one likes seeing a $4M donut hole in the spreadsheet for a guy who isn't going to be on the team.  Or even if we don't want to cut him, to have Sanders count nearly $11M in any 1 season, as though he was a Brandon Marshall type, may make it seem like we'd be better off cutting bait.  It could cloud the judgment of how valuable he truly is at that time.

 

What takes me 30 sentences to get across is that when we're so flush with space it seems we'd be better off front-loading his deal or at least make it more even from year to year.  

 

Speaking of Brandon Marshall, he's a UFA in 2015 and will still only be 30.  Others may appear as well.  I'd rather not break the bank on Sanders (and then draft another one high) if it means we're out of the sweepstakes for a veteran who's great rather than merely good.

 

Sperm, I definitely hear what you are saying and a pay-as-you go contract could work here but look at the Philadelphia Eagles just signed Jason Peters, Jason Kelce, Jeremy Maclin and Riley Cooper all with DeSean Jackson having a $12.75 million 2014 cap hit, the highest cap hit of his five year deal which takes place in year three just like the mock contract for Sanders.  Also the Eagles are rumored to be in play for Jairus Byrd.

 

They were able to do this by carrying over and that is what John Idzik wants to do. Similar to what Jeff Ireland did with the Dolphins last year, although I doubt Idzik is that aggressive.  Mike Wallace 2013 cap hit was $3.25 million while Brian Hartline was $2.115 million. This year Wallace jumps to $17.25 million and Hartline $6.21 million yet the Dolphins have about $30 million in cap space due to the carry over.  I've heard that the Dolphins could prorate $12 million of Wallace's $15 million guaranteed base salary, saving $9 million but bumping his 2015-17 cap hit up $3 million more.

 

Even is his short, limited signings, Idzik has used a combination of proration and pay-as-you-go.  The money saved in year one would be offset if the Jets had to cut him after year two.  No one wants $4 million in dead money but the Jets are into Cromartie for $5.5 million this year no matter what and somehow they have space.

 

You know all contracts especially sort after free agents, look Dennis Pitta got 5-year, $32 million $16 million guaranteed, (2013 - 20 receptions for 169 yards, 29 in June), always carry risk if you front load the money you save later if you cut the player with no dead money after a few years, prorate and possible pay later or at least increase the players cap hit moving forward but you saved in that first year. 

 

Idzik's goal is to have flexibility to in his adjusted cap in 2015 and 16, while who knows the market for Sanders the contract laid out is in line with what a #2 free agent receiver could make.  There is no reason why the Jets couldn't give Sanders this contract and acquire Marshall in 2015, the money saved in year one can be used for him and Idzik prorates another bonus keeping Marshalls cap hit down in 2015.  If they did sign Marshall and kept Sanders contract the same the team should still be able to be financially stable in 2016 then can get away from Sanders for $2.8 million in 2017 or just cut Sanders in 2016 and save $6.45 million.

 

The question as to whether one believes talent wise Sanders isn't worth a $6.5-$7.75 million per year is very debatable but you know some team will give him this type of money but I feel that no matter who the Jets sign a multi-year deal with they will look for the proration savings early and leave enough flexibility to move on later. This isn't an inescapable contract like Calvin Johnson's $20.55 million 2015 cap hit and $24 million 2016 cap hit.

  

Guess we'll see how much of this year's money Idzik will want to front load or could he choose to front load more deals moving forward in future years depending upon his cap space, it will be interesting to see. 

Edited by denden29
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is in response to the article on the home page.

 

Sanders is 5' 11" he's not a #1 WR if he signs along with Nicks or if we draft Benjamin but this guy alone is not fixing the WR issue here.

he is a successful receiver from a good program who gets good yardage after a catch.  So; he is 5'11''.  Stephen Hill is 8 feet tall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Guess we'll see how much of this year's money Idzik will want to front load or could he choose to front load more deals moving forward in future years depending upon his cap space, it will be interesting to see. 

 

the problem with this way of thinking is the league is raising the cap unexpectedly large chunks every year. the Jets can try to preserve all this cap space for 2015 and 2016 but guess what the cap could be 150 mil or more by then and everyone else will also have cap space. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem with this way of thinking is the league is raising the cap unexpectedly large chunks every year. the Jets can try to preserve all this cap space for 2015 and 2016 but guess what the cap could be 150 mil or more by then and everyone else will also have cap space. 

 

The actual salary cap number is quite meaningless given the fact that it is the same for every team. 

 

Example:

 

The cap goes from $90 million to $100 million.

 

Team A has $1 million in carry over they can has an adjusted cap of $101 million, the rest of the league probable has at least $100 million, unless they had a negative carryover due to earned incentives not counted on the last years cap.

 

Team B has $20 million in carry over they can spend $120 million. 

 

Team B has more flexibility to cut players and take on their dead money clearing out space moving forward, the money they prorated in the first place lowering that players year one cap hit and can offer more in free agency.

 

If you front load or pay as you go say $10 million guaranteed in year one of a five year deal, it's a $10 million cap hit.  $10 million prorated over five years is $2 million each year of the five years (Yes you'd need a minimum season salary but making it easy). 

 

If you cut player 1 ($10 mil) after year one no dead money, cut player 2 after year one $8 mil. dead money but you carried over $8 million so it equals out.  Also when you prorate the yearly cap hit goes up, the above proration causes a two million dollar cap hit increase over the pay as you go for the last four years, so that eventually evens out.

 

Teams like the Buccaneers used almost no proration in their deals. Guaranteed money was paid over two years season salaries but they restructured year two of Carl Nicks & Vincent Jackson's deal paying them almost all of their second year guaranteed salary in guaranteed roster bonus at the end of year one of their contract.  Since the roster bonus was fully guaranteed it got prorated like signing bonus over five years, so most teams use proration at some time. 

   

When the actual cap goes up it does give teams more resources but drives the price of free agents up as well so those with higher adjusted cap numbers have an advantage.

 

Last year saw a stagnant free agency period due to the slow growth in the cap but this year will be more competitive causing higher salaries which will still not allow certain teams to be competitive in FA even with the actual 2014 cap increase.   

Edited by denden29
Link to post
Share on other sites

Word on the street (aka Rotoworld) is that the Jets intend to make Sanders their highest priority now that Maclin has re-upped with the Eagles. 

 

I haven't lost hope on the rumor surrounding their "openness" to trade DeSean Jackson.  At his contract it would be silly for them to think they could get a first round pick.  So I'm guessing they're holding out hope for a second rounder.  I say we come at them with a third round selection AND Stephen Hill (since they still need bodies, on the cheap).  

 

A line-up of Jackson, Sanders, Kerley would increase our offensive speed and YAC, and allow our draft pick(s) to develop at their own pace. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Word on the street (aka Rotoworld) is that the Jets intend to make Sanders their highest priority now that Maclin has re-upped with the Eagles. 

 

I haven't lost hope on the rumor surrounding their "openness" to trade DeSean Jackson.  At his contract it would be silly for them to think they could get a first round pick.  So I'm guessing they're holding out hope for a second rounder.  I say we come at them with a third round selection AND Stephen Hill (since they still need bodies, on the cheap).  

 

A line-up of Jackson, Sanders, Kerley would increase our offensive speed and YAC, and allow our draft pick(s) to develop at their own pace. 

Yes and we can nickname them the  midgets. We need at least 1 WR 6' 3" or better and I don't consider Hill that guy.

  • Thumb Down 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and we can nickname them the  midgets. We need at least 1 WR 6' 3" or better and I don't consider Hill that guy.

 

Well, in my scenario he would be traded away.  So.....

 

David Nelson is 6'5

Cumberland is 6'4

and Sudfeld is 6'7

 

How many red-zone targets do we need if we never get there in the first place? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...