jamesr Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 err, not true, as paraphrasing Mac (thx DaBallhawk) http://forums.theganggreen.com/threads/maccs-season-ticket-holders-presser.86221/ RE: Cap room for '16Focus last year was to put the most competitive team we can out there. The thought process was to add these veterans to help the younger players to grow, mentioned guys like Revis, Skrine, Cro and Gilchrist. Great veteran presence. Long term success comes from developing young players, drafting good players so that's why we added those veterans. It wasn't because of a closing window or that we have to win now, the goal all along was to get veterans to carry this team for 1-3 years and help develop the young guys to take over for them at some point and play at a very high level. I'm assuming he's referring to guys like Marcus Williams. I'd say Mo fits into both these categories - young and good. I'm sure they'll make every effort to resign him at the expense of older players (looking at you Cro!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 good teams almost always keep the star player for the 2nd contract good teams almost always walk away form the star player for the 3rd contract (QB's excluded so no googling) lets be a good team this one time if he becomes available, I would think 25 teams would call his agent. On good teams the star player is the QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatsFanTX Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 On good teams the star player is the QB. Good point. Just look at the remaining 8 teams in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 On good teams the star player is the QB. yeah that's been the problem for what, 40 years now ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Ok hows this Brady makes 15 million in the 2016 season do you think Mo is as important to the Jets as Brady is to the Pats?? I'm all for a reasonable deal for Mo, problem is Mo and his agent don't agree.. Who knows maybe with a broken leg added to his nagging turf toe he may reassess his position on thinking he's JJ Watt lite.. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/new-england-patriots/tom-brady/ um, what ? what does this have to do with the jones analogy being pretty weak ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyCarl40 Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Uhm, Jets have the cap space to sign everyone they want with proper maneuvering. This is 2016 not 2006. That cap has exploded since then. It will be over $150 million this year. No. No they don't. Look at the numbers. They literally cannot afford everyone they want. Either Mo or Snacks will be gone. There is already a replacement on the roster for Wilk. There isn't for Snacks and he'll likely be 10 million dollars cheaper. That's 2-4 players. This isn't difficult math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Lonelyhearts Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 There is already a replacement on the roster for Wilk. This is a lousy way to make decisions. You don't keep or move on from Muhammad Wilkerson because of Damon Harrison or Sheldon Richardson or Leonard Williams. They're not as good as he is. It really isn't even all that close. Keep Mo or don't and then figure it out what to do with everybody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyCarl40 Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 This is a lousy way to make decisions. You don't keep or move on from Muhammad Wilkerson because of Damon Harrison or Sheldon Richardson or Leonard Williams. They're not as good as he is. It really isn't even all that close. Keep Mo or don't and then figure it out what to do with everybody else. It's the way every team makes decisions. You move on from an aging veteran or troubled player or a player who wants far too much money for production or an underperforming player all the time when you have capable players behind that player. It happens every game, every week, every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Lonelyhearts Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 It's the way every team makes decisions. Yes, Crazy Carl. Letting your best pass rusher walk when you're 21st in adjusted sack rate to begin with is exactly how every team makes decisions. Do tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyCarl40 Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Yes, Crazy Carl. Letting your best pass rusher walk when you're 21st in adjusted sack rate to begin with is exactly how every team makes decisions. Do tell. Take his money and give it to a pass rusher or two then. I think Mo is a solid player overrated massively by this board. He's not worth the money he is asking. Hamstringing your budget for one guy who is a solid player is not good business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage69 Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 lets not. all you have to do is show me how many times the other players voted him into the top 100, and how well he plays the run That;s Brady's base not counting Bonus money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage69 Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Brady's salary in 2016 is $9MM, not $15MM. http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/09/30/tom-brady-contract-nfl-patriots-salary-cap You forgot to add the bonus money but 9 is his base that's true.. Haven't you heard Mo is worth much more then Brady and may be the best player of all time.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage69 Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Yes, Crazy Carl. Letting your best pass rusher walk when you're 21st in adjusted sack rate to begin with is exactly how every team makes decisions. Do tell. We traded Abe who was the best pass rusher since the Klecko Gastineau days.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Lonelyhearts Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 We traded Abe who was the best pass rusher since the Klecko Gastineau days.. Yeah. That was pretty stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Yeah. That was pretty stupid. You're not allowed to say that because we got a good center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 You're not allowed to say that because we got a good center. Back to back AFC losses. Glory Days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Signing Wilk long term means Snacks is gone, Cro is cut, Breno is cut, Ivory is gone, Powell maybe, and they may not have the money for Fitz. Also, they won't be able to plug other holes at RB, LB, OL except with rookies. Not all of those listed are bad things, but having two players on defense take up 32 million of your cap is not smart. The Jets probably can't afford him. He's a really good player, but he isn't the reason the Jets would ever win a Super Bowl. I disagree. The salary has been increasing for years and will once again. Cutting certain players like Cro, Kerley, and Cumberland will save us some money to sign some of our players. Although Wilk will never be the reason we win the super bowl, he will definitely have a pivotal role. Getting 12 sacks as a 3-4 DE is amazing. He really reminds me of a more athletic Richard Seymour and he played an essential role for the Pats* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Lonelyhearts Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 You're not allowed to say that because we got a good center. And that's a corner case. It sounds stupid but all decisions on players like Revis or Abraham or Wilkerson are basically made in a vacuum. There's no rationalizing them based on external stuff up to and including what you get in a direct trade because even that is always just plain not enough. We saw last year why Revis had to get traded in the first place, which is basically the same reason Abraham got traded, which is basically the same reason any player of this caliber moves, which is basically the same question that is going to decide what we do with Wilkerson. Revis can't be trusted. Abraham couldn't be trusted, at least not by us. Wilkerson doesn't seem to be that kind of guy, and it doesn't tend to be much of a secret when they are. Pay him. If the cost of that is we scoop a comp pick for a two-down fat guy, I guess I'm just going to have to learn to live with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Can we go back in time and not give Revis that contract? Did he make a play all season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayJoe12 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Can we go back in time and not give Revis that contract? Did he make a play all season? Didn't he have something like five picks a few more fumble recoveries and a dozen or so PBUs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage69 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 I disagree. The salary has been increasing for years and will once again. Cutting certain players like Cro, Kerley, and Cumberland will save us some money to sign some of our players. Although Wilk will never be the reason we win the super bowl, he will definitely have a pivotal role. Getting 12 sacks as a 3-4 DE is amazing. He really reminds me of a more athletic Richard Seymour and he played an essential role for the Pats* Who the Pats traded to Oakland for a 1st rd pick.. I think most everyone would say sign Mo in the 11-12 range but no higher, IMO Shaun Ellis was a better player In the 3-4 as a rookie he had 8 1/2 sacks..Mo had less sacks then Coples did his first 2 years then in 2013 Sheldon was added and boom Mo played better.. You think if they get rid of Snacks and Sheldon Mo will be the same player? I have a nice Bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in buying.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.