Good Teams Don't Allow Stud young Players to Reach FA (Harrison/ Wilkerson)

[SenorGato]

8 minutes ago, BroadwayJets said:

How much of a drop off do you believe there is between Sheldon and Mo? Just last season we were all saying that Shel has a higher ceiling than Mo, IMO it still pertains. 

As a long term investment? A massive one considering Richardson is one goof away from getting suspended for a season. The guy's talented, but standards should be higher for the kind of people you want in the organization. If there was a QB on the roster, go ahead and run with the 10 cent head on his rookie deal, but there isn't and Richardson's perceived ceiling isn't so much better. Hell, considering Wilkerson is only a year older it's not even all that likely Richardson ever hits his perceived ceiling. That ceiling is what Wilkerson already is - the best non-Watt DE/DT in the game on a track record built over the past half decade.

[BroadwayJets]

Just now, SenorGato said:

As a long term investment? A massive one considering Richardson is one goof away from getting suspended for a season. The guy's talented, but standards should be higher for the kind of people you want in the organization. If there was a QB on the roster, go ahead and run with the 10 cent head on his rookie deal, but there isn't and Richardson's perceived ceiling isn't so much better. Hell, considering Wilkerson is only a year older it's not even all that likely Richardson ever hits his perceived ceiling.

I meant talent wise. And yeah, but if he doesn't f*** up again there's a chance he doesn't get any games at all. Wilkerson being a year older, and Sheldon being relatively cheap for two more seasons before we can start talking about his future. I believe we saw the best possible Mo this season, though I believe his season was a tad inflated by his sack total. Take out the three-sack game against a god awful offensive line and we're not talking about him being irreplaceable. Throw in the fact we have a promising rookie who we control for cheap for 4 more seasons, and I personally don't give a sh*t if Shel gets suspended for 6 games this year. I'd still do a tag and trade in a heart beat if possible. Let's say we do sign Mo for his (give or take) $14 million. That's $21 million give or take on defensive linemen this season! - and we still can't rush the passer! I'd use Mo's money on another position even if we let him walk. If he leaves, somebody else's tackle count will increase. Behind the DL we have Harris whose a downhill run stopper, and Pryor who is improving greatly in both facets. We can lose some of Mo's run stoppage to go spend on somebody who can rush the passer. 

 

As for Richardson's ceiling, we have not seen it, we were hoping to this year, but then he got suspended, hurt, then played OLB. So, long story short, if he stays out of trouble and stays healthy, we'll see his ceiling. For the record, I think Bowles' presence and the success we had this year changes his attitude. He's not just a rich guy playing for mental victories anymore. They are all hungry in that locker room. I don't think we'll see him in trouble again. 

[SenorGato]

Talent wise, Richardson doesn't have enough of an edge to override his character concerns and the very real shot he never hits his perceived ceiling. Ceiling isn't enough of a thing when you have one marginally older prime aged player who has performed to a high level for as long as Wilkerson has.

Also:

- Eliminating information to take out games for no particular reason is a worthless exercise that won't open my eyes to anything but a bias.

- While you don't give a sh*t that Richardson is suspended, no hair off your head, it matters to the Jets and the reality of fielding a winning football team.

- Giving up your best and most productive pass rusher and pass defender on hopes, prayers, and perception is not a way to improve the pass rusher.

- A linebacker and a safety aren't replacing Wilkerson either, and that's just conceding the Jets will lose ground in yet another area without Wilkerson. 

 

 

[BroadwayJets]

Just now, SenorGato said:

Talent wise, Richardson doesn't have enough of an edge to override his character concerns and the very real shot he never hits his perceived ceiling. Ceiling isn't enough of a thing when you have one marginally older prime aged player who has performed to a high level for as long as Wilkerson has.

Also:

- Eliminating information to take out games for no particular reason is a worthless exercise that won't open my eyes to anything but a bias.

- While you don't give a sh*t that Richardson is suspended, no hair off your head, it matters to the Jets and the reality of fielding a winning football team.

- Giving up your best and most productive pass rusher and pass defender on hopes, prayers, and perception is not a way to improve the pass rusher.

- A linebacker and a safety aren't replacing Wilkerson either, and that's just conceding the Jets will lose ground in yet another area without Wilkerson. 

He absolutely does, because that perceived ceiling you're claiming he doesn't hit is the same exact thing as saying he'll get in trouble again and we can't rely on him in the future. Not to mention you're not only relying on Sheldon. 

 

- I also chose to eliminate the 4-5 or so sacks that came after simply chasing down the QB, but I digress on those specific points to point out that he isn't exactly elite and irreplaceable in pass rushing. The best part of his game is run stoppage, that's a fact. It's also a fact that with all else constant, we would likely not be missing a beat in run stoppage without him. So, if I'm Mac, I'm not paying $1.2 million dollars per sack on a contract year when we have capable backups.

- The cost of keeping Mo outweighs the benefits, however you want to spin it. If we sign Mo, we can't fill other holes (assuming we also sign Fitz) unless we nail the draft. Spend that money elsewhere.

-  Taking out Mo and adding a pass rusher for probably substantially less $ would probably improve the sack totals. Also iirc, if Leonard Williams wasn't first in QB hits this season, he was a close second. 

- You're right, a linebacker and a safety does not replace Mo; Leo and Sheldon do. I don't understand how much ground you assume we'd lose in run stoppage is what I'm getting at. Sheldon has proved he's capable, and Leo looks damn promising.

If you want to argue that Sheldon can't be relied on because of character issues, that's completely different than saying we cannot replace Mo with the players we have. Depending on the DT we bring in, I guarantee we'd be almost as solid as we are in the run game without Mo. 

 

[ljr]

Thx for posting the contract info SW! I would be curious if there was any support to the Mo turning down around 12mil per year comment ... I do seem to recall hearing something about that way back when ... But have no recollection if it was legit or Mani$h*tbag type info

[SenorGato]

- He really doesn't, but that perception is to the Jets' advantage when shopping him.

- He doesn't have to get in trouble to not hit his ceiling. He just has to stagnate, entirely possible for a 26 year old player entering his 4th season.

Quote

- I also chose to eliminate the 4-5 or so sacks that came after simply chasing down the QB, but I digress on those specific points

That's not making a point, that's dismissing information on flimsy ground to satisfy a whim and a bias. Sooo yeah - basically it's worthless and a waste of time.

The fact that team's best pass rusher last year is also a beast against the run is not a knock. Trying to spin it as one is possibly the worst argument to not keep Wilkerson made in a thread filled with them.

Quote

- The cost of keeping Mo outweighs the benefits, however you want to spin it.

The benefits to keeping Mo far outweighs the cost, as the roster is today anyway, however you try to spin it.

Quote

- You're right, a linebacker and a safety does not replace Mo; Leo and Sheldon do. I don't understand how much ground you assume we'd lose in run stoppage is what I'm getting at. Sheldon has proved he's capable, and Leo looks damn promising.

Wilkerson, extended, and Williams >>>>> Richardson and Williams

Quote

-  Taking out Mo and adding a pass rusher for probably substantially less $ would probably improve the sack totals. Also iirc, if Leonard Williams wasn't first in QB hits this season, he was a close second. 

Please feel free to present this unnamed pass rusher you have in mind that will both cost less and single-handedly improve the pass rush. You know who Williams would be second to? Wilkerson....round and round....

Quote

If you want to argue that Sheldon can't be relied on because of character issues,

Uuuuum....

Quote

  Depending on the DT we bring in, I guarantee we'd be almost as solid as we are in the run game without Mo. 

You understand that Richardson's strength is in the run game too, right? And that Wilkerson has been the more productive pass rusher? By Richardson's age, Wilkerson had already posted two double digit sack seasons. But hey - if you get rid of those seasons because he was simply chasing down the QB, then Richardson is slightly better! Richardson doesn't even need to chase down the QB to get his sacks - they come to him through sheer will!

 

 

 

 

[Shockwave]

8 hours ago, drdetroit said:

if Cox gets anything close to $100 mil from the Eagles say bye bye to Wilk

100%. 

Cox is going to set the market. Wilkerson surely deserves more then whatever he gets and if its over 100m theres no way this FO is giving him. He would be a goner. 

[Shockwave]

47 minutes ago, ljr said:

Thx for posting the contract info SW! I would be curious if there was any support to the Mo turning down around 12mil per year comment ... I do seem to recall hearing something about that way back when ... But have no recollection if it was legit or Mani$h*tbag type info

Np. I googled it and couldn't find any article regarding Mo turning down 12m. Googling "Mo" and "Contract" brings up a ton of articles so its certainly possible to be out there. 

Fwiw, Jason is the best out there in regards to the Cap and He predicted 13m which may make sense on all fronts as we have zero leverage and Mo's locked into 16m a year on the Franchise tag. 

Heres Jason's article overthecap.com 

Quote

Examining Muhammad Wilkerson’s Contract Situation With the Jets

Posted on May 22, 2015 by Jason Fitzgerald

Time to put on the Jets hat for the day and look at the situation between Muhammad Wilkerson and the New York Jets. Wilkerson is currently not attending offseason activities in part to show his unhappiness with his lack of a contract extension. Wilkerson is reportedly asking for a big contract in excess of $14 million a year which may be too much for the Jets to consider. So let’s explore the market (or lack therof) for 34 defensive ends and focus on Wilkerson’s place with the Jets….

I think one of the difficulties in currently placing a value on a 34 defensive end is that the concept of the position seems to be evolving. In general the typical 34 defensive end was rewarded for doing the dirty work on the field that rarely showed up on a stat sheet. Their responsibility was keeping blockers at bay and opening up lanes for the linebackers to clog and receive most of the glory following the game.  Finding players who would often get noticed was rare.

I think a player like Justin Smith, who recently retired, was arguably the best 34DE in recent memory. He was a solid all around player that was always praised by his peers and rewarded with 5 Pro Bowl selections and one All Pro nod, despite never reaching double digit sacks in his career. He was a difference maker for the 49ers. Smith also never earned more than $7.5 million per year in his career playing with the 49ers, a far cry from what his 43 counterparts were making.

The first player to really break the salary system was Haloti Ngata of the Ravens in 2011. Ngata was considered one of the most versatile players in the league, being able to seamlessly transition from a 34 defensive end, to a 34 defensive tackle, or a 43 defensive tackle. Ngata was considered a unique, one of a kind talent that would be named to 5 Pro Bowls and two All Pro teams. The Ravens paid him $12.2 million a year, right on par with the best pass rushers at the time, despite the fact that Ngata best year saw him record just 5.5 sacks.

Towards the end of his contract, however, he seemed to be considered a financial liability (he was traded to Detroit in 2015) as the position was evolving and there were more players than ever capable of providing what was once a uniqueness to the position. What seemed to once be Smith, Ngata, and the Cardinals’ Calais Campbell is now a plethora of names that show the ability to fill a stat sheet and bring more and more versatile play at the position.

The Jets themselves has two of those players in Wilkerson and Sheldon Richardson and they anticipated adding a third when they drafted Leonard Williams. Around the NFL is Jurrell Casey in Tennessee, Cameron Heyward in Pittsburgh, Fletcher Cox in Philadelphia, and of course the great JJ Watt in Houston.

It is an expanding position but still one incredibly difficult to value, because of the lack of truly big veteran contracts at the position. At the top of the market is Watt, at $16.67 million, and he has no peer. Any player using Watt as a comparable will likely be told that it’s not valid because he transcends the position similar to an Aaron Rodgers playing the QB position. From Watt there it is a massive drop to Campbell at $11 million and then Casey at $9 million. The drop is steep from there to Jason Hatcher at just under $6.9 million. You could slide a few other players into the argument such as Kyle Williams of the Bills ($10M) who will likely again be asked to play 34DE this season.

This market uncertainty is why Wilkerson is rumored to be looking at the contract of 43 defensive end Robert Quinn as a baseline. Quinn earns just over $14.25 million per season and is a recent contract. It may seem easier to work down from him than up from an older contract like Campbell’s. Quinn, however, produces a monstrous amount of sacks and I can’t really see that working for him or any of these other players. I would think that for Wilkerson or any of the younger players at the position that the best approach is to work within the parameters of the Campbell contract and argue the merits of the increase in salary cap (about 19%) since he signed his deal being a reasonable raise.  That would put the contract in the $13 million range.

Is Wilkerson worth that much to the Jets or any other team in the NFL?  That may be debatable. Here are the relevant pass rush statistics from Pro Football Focus’ data for the position over the last two seasons for players with a minimum of 400 pass rush attempts combined over the last two years:

Rank	Player	Sack %	Hit/Hur %	Tot Pres %	Sack Rate	APY
1	J.J. Watt	2.8%	15.0%	17.7%	15.7%	$16,666,667
2	Cameron Jordan	2.7%	11.8%	14.5%	18.4%	$1,932,850
3	Kyle Williams	2.4%	10.5%	12.9%	18.8%	$10,000,000
4	Vinny Curry	2.7%	10.2%	12.9%	21.2%	$845,458
5	Mike Daniels	1.9%	9.8%	11.7%	16.3%	$600,146
6	Antonio Smith	1.9%	9.2%	11.2%	17.4%	$2,000,000
7	Frostee Rucker	1.3%	9.6%	10.9%	12.0%	$1,000,000
8	Jurrell Casey	1.0%	9.4%	10.5%	9.8%	$9,000,000
9	Justin Smith	1.4%	9.0%	10.4%	13.3%	$4,550,000
10	Calais Campbell	1.7%	8.6%	10.3%	16.1%	$11,000,000
11	Cameron Heyward	1.4%	8.6%	10.0%	13.9%	$1,676,257
12	Tommy Kelly	0.2%	9.4%	9.7%	2.4%	$955,000
13	Sheldon Richardson	1.4%	7.9%	9.3%	15.3%	$2,513,500
14	Fletcher Cox	0.6%	8.6%	9.2%	7.0%	$2,560,300
15	Arthur Jones	1.7%	7.3%	9.0%	18.4%	$6,600,000
16	Cory Redding	1.2%	7.7%	8.9%	13.2%	$3,000,000
17	Datone Jones	1.7%	7.1%	8.8%	18.9%	$1,929,150
18	Corey Liuget	1.3%	7.5%	8.7%	14.5%	$2,078,936
19	Ray McDonald	0.9%	7.7%	8.6%	10.3%	$1,050,000
20	Muhammad Wilkerson	1.7%	6.9%	8.5%	19.8%	$1,718,750
21	Brett Keisel	0.9%	7.4%	8.3%	10.6%	$1,500,000
22	Desmond Bryant	1.3%	7.0%	8.3%	15.6%	$6,800,000
23	Tony Jerod-Eddie	0.0%	8.0%	8.0%	0.0%	$585,000
24	Ricardo Mathews	0.7%	6.7%	7.4%	9.7%	$920,000
25	Darnell Dockett	0.9%	6.4%	7.3%	12.5%	$3,750,000
26	Kendall Reyes	0.8%	6.1%	6.9%	11.5%	$1,031,999
27	Jared Crick	1.0%	5.9%	6.9%	14.3%	$622,875
28	Billy Winn	0.7%	6.0%	6.7%	10.3%	$544,670
29	Allen Bailey	1.0%	5.5%	6.5%	15.6%	$5,000,000
30	Ricky Jean-Francois	1.0%	4.9%	6.0%	17.1%	$3,000,000
31	Chris Canty	0.6%	4.8%	5.4%	11.1%	$2,325,000
32	Vince Wilfork	0.2%	4.4%	4.7%	5.3%	$4,500,000
33	Cedric Thornton	0.3%	4.2%	4.5%	6.5%	$2,356,000
34	Jarvis Jenkins	0.7%	3.0%	3.7%	20.0%	$825,000

Wilkerson is above average in terms of generating sacks but slightly below average in total pressures. Is that because of the presence of Richardson taking away opportunities?  Is that because of the defense they run?  Did he just have a fluke run of plays that turned into sacks? Do the Jets face a ton of short passes that limits his ability to pressure? For the Jets many of those questions won’t matter since he is what he is in this system, which should be similar to what they ran last season despite the new coaching staff. But for other teams those are all very valid questions when they decide if he will be a better statistical rusher in their system than he seems to be in New York, where he will likely be considered second fiddle to Richardson.

Let’s look at the run performance with a similar 400 snap cutoff:

 

Player	Stop %	Tck %	APY
J.J. Watt	12.2%	14.1%	$16,666,667
Calais Campbell	10.5%	12.7%	$11,000,000
Cedric Thornton	9.6%	13.2%	$2,356,000
Fletcher Cox	9.0%	11.2%	$2,560,300
Muhammad Wilkerson	8.9%	10.5%	$1,718,750
Sheldon Richardson	8.7%	11.9%	$2,513,500
Mike Daniels	8.4%	10.0%	$600,146
Arthur Jones	8.4%	11.0%	$6,600,000
Ray McDonald	8.4%	11.8%	$1,050,000
Allen Bailey	7.9%	10.6%	$5,000,000
Justin Smith	7.2%	9.5%	$4,550,000
Corey Liuget	6.4%	8.9%	$2,078,936
Ricky Jean-Francois	6.4%	7.6%	$3,000,000
Cameron Heyward	6.2%	9.1%	$1,676,257
Cory Redding	5.7%	7.3%	$3,000,000
Jarvis Jenkins	5.6%	8.7%	$825,000
Desmond Bryant	5.3%	7.8%	$6,800,000
Jared Crick	5.0%	8.4%	$622,875
Kendall Reyes	3.5%	5.3%	$1,031,999

Wilkerson would certainly look to be one of the better run defenders at the position. Perhaps not the best player, but he would be in the conversation among all players not named Watt. While run defense is less valuable these days than pass rushing it is still valuable and will be helpful for Wilkerson.

One thing important to note is that just 20 names make the cutoff on this list. Though some of that is due to positional switches for some players between 2013 and 2014, these are the rarer subset of players who can play all three downs for a team which is a valuable trait. If you do not have a 3 down player clogging up $12 million a year in salary and have to add another $3 million player to cover for him on first down and run downs, you are essentially paying for JJ Watt at the position even though the sum of the two parts will leave the team way short of Watt’s performance.

The other thing we should notice in these charts is how low the salaries are, which just reinforces the point why these are difficult valuations. After this season when many of the young players who are the top performers are extended we will have a better idea of the NFL valuation, but who will be the first to blink is an interesting debate.

When the Jets discuss a fair number for both sides when discussing Wilkerson, my assumption from looking at the above charts and knowing that they have so much invested in their defensive line they likely view him as a lesser player at this point than Calais Campbell. That was probably not the case prior to the 2014 season, but Richardson continued to excel, Wilkerson did not produce at the same level he did in 13, and they invested a high draft pick in Williams. In addition the Jets spent heavily on the secondary making it difficult to spend highly on another unit.

I would imagine that the Jets will work up from the Casey contract when talking with Richardson. Though Casey did not make the run chart above, it was only because of the defensive change in Tennessee, where he played a more traditional defensive tackle spot in 2013. His stop rate was 10.1% in 2014. If that is the case that is a very large gap between the Jets and Wilkerson’s reported asking price.

My gut feeling is that Wilkerson would be able to earn a bigger contract outside of New York than in New York because of all the circumstances with the Jets. The team just spent over $16 million per year on Darrelle Revis to be the “quarterback” of the defense for the next three years. There is almost no way that the team can commit similar money to another defensive player over the same contract term. Richardson and Williams’ contracts won’t overlap with Revis high earning years the way Wilkerson’s would.  $30 million per year or even $28 million per year on the two players would be quite excessive and most likely the highest paid defensive tandem in the NFL over the next three years.

Looking at the Jets salary cap structure the next two years I am not sure they should take on another player at the position worth more than $10 million a season. An extension now at anything greater would probably lead to some excessive prorated charges to make it work which is something that the Jets have looked to avoid in their recent contracts. I am confident that Wilkerson would earn at least $12.5 million as a free agent even if his numbers might be lesser than some of the others he is competing with. The Jets will be a better team with Wilkerson this year since Williams is a complete unknown, so I doubt they would consider moving him during the summer since they know at some point he will be a member of the team.

For those you old enough to remember when John Abraham was a dominant pass rusher on the Jets, I see some similarity here. Abraham had questions about injuries and his commitment to the game that Wilkerson doesn’t have, but the general nature of the relationship was that Abraham would be taken care even though the sides were at an impasse and they wanted to see more from him as a franchise player. In that one season, though, the Jets head coach left the team and they re-assigned the general manager. Abraham was considered an afterthought after that but the Jets applied the franchise tag for a second time to hold his rights for a trade, which was eventually worked out with Atlanta for a late first round pick.

The question is would the Jets give up that trade option in the future to keep Wilkerson happy for the year?   The worst situation for him would be to see his role reduced this year and then have his list of potential teams limited by the Jets demanding trade compensation if you want to sign him. That might not be easy with the Jets cap, but it was not realistic for the Jets to hold Abraham in 2006 either, but they made it work because of the true value of a draft pick being worth the short term scramble for cap room. The Jets could negotiate a no franchise/transition designation for Wilkerson into his contract to let him know that if he plays well this year he is free to get a deal with the Jets or any other team he wants.

The situation with Wilkerson shows just how fast things change in the NFL. He and former Jets GM John Idzik were rumored to be close to an extension last year but tabled discussions. Idzik was fired and the new regime didn’t seem to focus as much on Wilkerson as the prior one. By March it seemed clear that the Jets priorities had dramatically changed and Wilkerson probably changed his asking price in light of some big defensive contracts signed around the NFL.  Now the player who seemed to be the most indispensable piece looks to be the odd man out.

 

[SenorGato]

6 minutes ago, Shockwave said:

100%. 

50%, he's either gone or he isn't. 

[BroadwayJets]

7 minutes ago, SenorGato said:

- He really doesn't, but that perception is to the Jets' advantage when shopping him.

- He doesn't have to get in trouble to not hit his ceiling. He just has to stagnate, entirely possible for a 26 year old player entering his 4th season.

That's not making a point, that's dismissing information on flimsy ground to satisfy a whim and a bias. Sooo yeah - basically it's worthless and a waste of time.

The fact that team's best pass rusher last year is also a beast against the run is not a knock. Trying to spin it as one is possibly the worst argument to not keep Wilkerson made in a thread filled with them.

The benefits to keeping Mo far outweighs the cost, as the roster is today anyway, however you try to spin it.

Wilkerson, extended, and Williams >>>>> Richardson and Williams

Please feel free to present this unnamed pass rusher you have in mind that will both cost less and single-handedly improve the pass rush. You know who Williams would be second to? Wilkerson....round and round....

Uuuuum....

You understand that Richardson's strength is in the run game too, right? And that Wilkerson has been the more productive pass rusher? By Richardson's age, Wilkerson had already posted two double digit sack seasons. But hey - if you get rid of those seasons because he was simply chasing down the QB, then Richardson is better! Richardson doesn't even need to chase down the QB to get his sacks - they come to him through sheer will!

 

 

 

 

Idk how to do that individual quote stuff without quoting you 11 times so bear with me. 

- If that 'perception is so real', who in the f*** would trade for him? 

- But not possible for a 27 year old entering his 6th season?

- Chasing outside of the pocket*, he's fast.

- You're right, it's not a knock, nobody is saying he's not a really f good player. We have two other guys that play the same exact position that aren't very far behind. That's what I'm getting at, and believe it or not, it's true.  I would have him stay if there wasn't a salary cap, this is why GMing is not easy. Luckily we were dealt a miracle last draft day when Leonard fell to us. It made Wilk incredibly expendable. If you would like to trade sheldon instead, like you've said, that's a different discussion - and I'd have it the other way around given the timing of the contracts. 

- Cost: Trade value (1-2 round draft pick) and 10% of the salary cap 

Benefit: Trade value (1-2 round draft pick), 10% cap savings, not regressing nearly as much as you'd think in that position. It's pretty much that simple. We're stacked in the DL position with or without Mo. 

I know I know, draft pick value is wishful thinking! If it means us potentially trading up and drafting a damn good QB for once, Mac better not hesitate to trade his ass for said draft pick. 

- You're saying  'ummm' because? I asked you talent wise and you brought up character issues. 

- Yes Sheldon is not elite at pass rushing either, and hey if Mo is a 10 at run stopping, Sheldon's a 9. He is not nearly as bad or nearly that many steps below as you're making him out to be. He had more sacks that Mo just a year ago, and has only played two full seasons.  You're selling Sheldon short, whether you think so or not. 

 

[SenorGato]

- I doubt even you believe you when you imply that no one would want Richardson because his ceiling is more hypothetical than real right now.

- Please point to the part where I said Wilkerson can and will get better. It's hard to get much than he's been for 5 seasons now without becoming the slam dunk HOFer that JJ Watt is already.

- Sounds like a big flaw in his game. A fast 300+ pounder who can line up anywhere, has posted to double digit sack seasons twice, is the team's best and most productive pass rusher....Boy, we're sure piling up the reasons to let WIlkerson go here.

Quote

It made Wilk incredibly expendable

No, it didn't. You don't make your best player expendable because of a second year player. If anything, it made Richardson more expendable.

Quote

not regressing nearly as much as you'd think in that position.

The same is true of getting rid of Richardson, more so actually, and the goal should be to not get worse at all.

Naming the cost doesn't explain anything, particularly when working with imaginary numbers and QBs. Does anyone ever take notice that the argument to get rid of the team's best player is built around things that aren't real? That they rely heavily on ridiculous assumptions and longshot scenarios? Or that you can trade Richardson, a lesser and more volatile player, for a first and still have that imagined shot at a QB? Before it was the imaginary cheap upgrade at pass rusher...now it's an imaginary QB that would pop up just by getting rid of Wilkerson...You'd think if it was so easy and obvious to see the benefits of giving up Wilkerson, there wouldn't be any need to resort to imaginary scenarios and salaries.

Quote

- You're saying  'ummm' because? I asked you talent wise and you brought up character issues. 

You asked me about talent after I answered with the character issues. Also, the "ummm" reply was to a part of your post that implied there was no mention of the char....I mean, come oooon....

- I'm not selling Richardson short at all. He's legitimately a lesser and higher risk player compared to Wilkerson. Wilkerson's game is more well rounded and consistent, he's less of an ass, and he's not so much older than Richardson that Richardson's imagined ceiling matters all that much to the Jets. Again by Richardson's age Wilkerson had two double digit sack seasons under his belt. You're selling Wilkerson short, cartoonishly short.

 

 

 

 

[Sperm Edwards]

9 hours ago, SenorGato said:

You can get high picks for Richardson, who isn't cheap forever and is far more volatile long term player. Wilkerson is most definitely worth that salary based on his combo of performance and youth, and even then imaginary salaries aren't really all that strong of an argument as to why to lose him.

Well then we still disagree. 

[drdetroit]

8 hours ago, Shockwave said:

100%. 

Cox is going to set the market. Wilkerson surely deserves more then whatever he gets and if its over 100m theres no way this FO is giving him. He would be a goner. 

Watch the Giants sign Muhammed Wilkerson as an FU to the Jets.  The Maras are insanely butt sore about losing to us.

[Savage69]

1 hour ago, drdetroit said:

Watch the Giants sign Muhammed Wilkerson as an FU to the Jets.  The Maras are insanely butt sore about losing to us.

They have Jason Pierre Paul who made All Pro in his 2nd year with 16.5 sacks and they don't want to pay him a huge contract so I doubt if they want Mo..

[CrazyCarl40]

@SenorGato - You keep saying that Wilkerson is an elite player. What does that make Snacks then? At his position he is one of, if not the best. Is he not elite too? It's my belief you'd have a much easier time finding a replacement for Wilk than you would for Snacks. His position is much more scarce as far as talent at it around the league.

[CanadaSteve]

Seriously dude, what the f**k is your problem?

I NEVER once said anything about not paying Wilkerson.

Let's go over this one last time.  I have no issue with Mo being paid.  NONE.  Let's repeat that one more time for you.  NONE.  What I DO have a problem with is giving him a contract that puts him in the range of being paid like JJ Watt.  He is clearly not as good as him.  If you want to be paid like the best defensive player in the league, then you have to play like the best defensive player in the league, which Mo clearly is not. 

That is all anyone has been saying.  We get you want to keep Mo at whatever cost that might be, but not all of us agree.

Can we now drop this thing? 

 

[Savage69]

3 minutes ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

@SenorGato - You keep saying that Wilkerson is an elite player. What does that make Snacks then? At his position he is one of, if not the best. Is he not elite too? It's my belief you'd have a much easier time finding a replacement for Wilk than you would for Snacks. His position is much more scarce as far as talent at it around the league.

You would be Crazy Carl to argue with Gato about Mo..In his opinion Mo is the best that ever was or will be..

[section314]

15 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

Seriously dude, what the f**k is your problem?

I NEVER once said anything about not paying Wilkerson.

Let's go over this one last time.  I have no issue with Mo being paid.  NONE.  Let's repeat that one more time for you.  NONE.  What I DO have a problem with is giving him a contract that puts him in the range of being paid like JJ Watt.  He is clearly not as good as him.  If you want to be paid like the best defensive player in the league, then you have to play like the best defensive player in the league, which Mo clearly is not. 

That is all anyone has been saying.  We get you want to keep Mo at whatever cost that might be, but not all of us agree.

Can you now drop this thing? 

 

Watt not best defensive player in the league, Keuchly is. But that's an argument for another day.

[SenorGato]

38 minutes ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

@SenorGato - You keep saying that Wilkerson is an elite player. What does that make Snacks then? At his position he is one of, if not the best. Is he not elite too? It's my belief you'd have a much easier time finding a replacement for Wilk than you would for Snacks. His position is much more scarce as far as talent at it around the league.

Not as good, not as versatile, not as accomplished, older, a throwback to an era of football the rules have left obsolete....While it's your belief that the Jets would have an easier time to replacing Wilkerson, it's much easier to replace your best two down run stuffer than it is to replace your best pass rusher, DL, and all around player in his prime. Pure run stuffers are not more scarce, they're just not in demand - that distinction matters and it's why there's no question of who the more valuable player will be in trade or on the open market. Nobody's talking about being able to franchise Harrison and trade him for a first. Take a guess as to why that is....

[SenorGato]

32 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

Seriously dude, what the f**k is your problem?

I NEVER once said anything about not paying Wilkerson.

Let's go over this one last time.  I have no issue with Mo being paid.  NONE.  Let's repeat that one more time for you.  NONE.  What I DO have a problem with is giving him a contract that puts him in the range of being paid like JJ Watt.  He is clearly not as good as him.  If you want to be paid like the best defensive player in the league, then you have to play like the best defensive player in the league, which Mo clearly is not. 

That is all anyone has been saying.  We get you want to keep Mo at whatever cost that might be, but not all of us agree.

Can we now drop this thing? 

You came in two days later to post this and then close by asking to drop the conversation? You've called me a dick and a couple other things  - but I'm the guy with the problem? Alrighty Steve...I guess you got there in the same way you got to defeating that big Wilkerson > Watt argument that invisible poster was making.

Anyway, imaginary contracts and contract demands aren't a thing and aren't a reason to pass on bringing Wilkerson back. I get that the gang needs to monger up some of that fear of spending, but the Jets need to be a big boy franchise and step up to keep their best player - plain and simple. 

[BroadwayJets]

10 hours ago, SenorGato said:

- I doubt even you believe you when you imply that no one would want Richardson because his ceiling is more hypothetical than real right now.

- Please point to the part where I said Wilkerson can and will get better. It's hard to get much than he's been for 5 seasons now without becoming the slam dunk HOFer that JJ Watt is already.

- Sounds like a big flaw in his game. A fast 300+ pounder who can line up anywhere, has posted to double digit sack seasons twice, is the team's best and most productive pass rusher....Boy, we're sure piling up the reasons to let WIlkerson go here.

No, it didn't. You don't make your best player expendable because of a second year player. If anything, it made Richardson more expendable.

The same is true of getting rid of Richardson, more so actually, and the goal should be to not get worse at all.

Naming the cost doesn't explain anything, particularly when working with imaginary numbers and QBs. Does anyone ever take notice that the argument to get rid of the team's best player is built around things that aren't real? That they rely heavily on ridiculous assumptions and longshot scenarios? Or that you can trade Richardson, a lesser and more volatile player, for a first and still have that imagined shot at a QB? Before it was the imaginary cheap upgrade at pass rusher...now it's an imaginary QB that would pop up just by getting rid of Wilkerson...You'd think if it was so easy and obvious to see the benefits of giving up Wilkerson, there wouldn't be any need to resort to imaginary scenarios and salaries.

You asked me about talent after I answered with the character issues. Also, the "ummm" reply was to a part of your post that implied there was no mention of the char....I mean, come oooon....

- I'm not selling Richardson short at all. He's legitimately a lesser and higher risk player compared to Wilkerson. Wilkerson's game is more well rounded and consistent, he's less of an ass, and he's not so much older than Richardson that Richardson's imagined ceiling matters all that much to the Jets. Again by Richardson's age Wilkerson had two double digit sack seasons under his belt. You're selling Wilkerson short, cartoonishly short.

 

 

 

 

For your last point I'll refer to Klecko's quote from last year and say it still applies to when rushing the passer. Mo's always been a beast in a run game, no disputing that. Mo's always had tendencies to disappear when rushing the passer, especially in big games. <- No disputing that, either. 

 

For everything else, it's pretty obvious Sheldon isn't far behind Mo as a player. Apparently you can't see that. Also, that's not even true about Wilk having 2 double digit sack totals, Mo just had his second and Sheldon isn't as old as Mo. And we both know experience plays a part in that conversation. Sheldon having 5 sacks in 11 games has been what Mo has averaged his whole career. (The math there actually works out perfectly)

 

 

[SenorGato]

6 minutes ago, BroadwayJets said:

For your last point I'll refer to Klecko's quote from last year and say it still applies to when rushing the passer. Mo's always been a beast in a run game, no disputing that. Mo's always had tendencies to disappear when rushing the passer, especially in big games. <- No disputing that, either. 

For everything else, it's pretty obvious Sheldon isn't far behind Mo as a player. Apparently you can't see that. Also, that's not even true about Wilk having 2 double digit sack totals, Mo just had his second and Sheldon isn't as old as Mo. And we both know experience plays a part in that conversation. Sheldon having 5 sacks in 11 games has been what Mo has averaged his whole career. (The math there actually works out perfectly)

Are you serious? You just 100% made that up. Why is it so hard for any of this little crowd to come up with an argument that isn't so clearly and transparently based on things they made up (whether you actually believe it or not is irrelevant since it's baseless)?

It's obvious that Richardson is years behind Wilkerson as a player, and given their surprisingly small difference in age it's unlikely that gap ever truly closes. One player is on a HOF track in Wilkerson, the other is yet another talented but wayward player with character issues in this league. I can't see it because, like everything else, it's not true, you're just making it up, and saying it just to say it.

[BroadwayJets]

Just now, SenorGato said:

Are you serious? You just 100% made that up. Why is it so hard for any of this little crowd to come up with an argument that isn't so clearly and transparently based on things they made up (whether you actually believe it or not is irrelevant since it's baseless)?

It's obvious that Richardson is years behind Wilkerson as a player, and given their surprisingly small difference in age it's unlikely that gap ever truly closes for more than a temporary moment in time. I can't see it because, like everything else, you're just making it up and saying it just to say it.

No you just forget about what happened during the games when the season is over and you look back at the sack totals. Because you don't remember all the games where our  irreplaceable Mo struggled in pass rushing doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's there, all too often. And by the way, I'm not letting his numbers in an all-star season inflate what he's done the entirety of his career, unlike yourself. 

 

Wilkerson, coming off a 12 sack season averaged only SIX a season before that. Clearly Sheldon is only one season behind in that regard because he too is averaging 6 a season. 

Why do you assume that Sheldon will just stop developing? Because he played OLB this year and off the top of your head you can't remember how good of a player he was when he played his position? Which, by the way, he'll go back to playing this season after the Jets move on from Mo. 

 

 

[SenorGato]

7 minutes ago, BroadwayJets said:

No you just forget about what happened during the games when the season is over and you look back at the sack totals. Because you don't remember all the games where our  irreplaceable Mo struggled in pass rushing doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's there, all too often. And by the way, I'm not letting his numbers in an all-star season inflate what he's done the entirety of his career, unlike yourself. 

Wilkerson, coming off a 12 sack season averaged only SIX a season before that. Clearly Sheldon is only one season behind in that regard because he too is averaging 6 a season. 

Why do you assume that Sheldon will just stop developing? Because he played OLB this year and off the top of your head you can't remember how good of a player he was when he played his position? Which, by the way, he'll go back to playing this season after the Jets move on from Mo. 

- Yeah....No, like not even kinda sorta a little bit. Please stop making things up, it does nothing for the conversation.

- Please stop eliminating seasons and picking and choosing what matters. This does nothing for the conversation. Fascinating how much Wilkerson does doesn't really count for some bullsh*t, made up reason, but everything Richardson does counts a little more because he's got 2 years less experience despite being just a year younger.

- Richardson is a good player. Wilkerson is a better player. Not only is WIlkerson a better player, but he doesn't coast off the field and waste precious time getting in trouble with the law and the league. Hopefully Richardson can get his act a little more together next year for Seattle, but the Jets aren't picking him over Wilkerson (see look, I can make things up and state it as fact too!).

[BroadwayJets]

11 hours ago, Shockwave said:

Np. I googled it and couldn't find any article regarding Mo turning down 12m. Googling "Mo" and "Contract" brings up a ton of articles so its certainly possible to be out there. 

Fwiw, Jason is the best out there in regards to the Cap and He predicted 13m which may make sense on all fronts as we have zero leverage and Mo's locked into 16m a year on the Franchise tag. 

Heres Jason's article overthecap.com 

 

@SenorGato Look at this quote and tell me how much better a player Mo is than Sheldon. This is before the season. Clearly, you're inflating Mo's talents based on how well he did this season, and deflating Sheldon's talent using the outcome of this season.

Thanks shock for posting this.

And about the turning down the 12m, I'm about 90% positive that did happen. It could have been because of guarantees, you're right.

[SenorGato]

Just now, BroadwayJets said:

@SenorGato Look at this quote and tell me how much better a player Mo is than Sheldon. This is before the season. Clearly, you're inflating Mo's talents based on how well he did this season, and deflating Sheldon's talent using the outcome of this season.

Thanks shock for posting this.

And about the turning down the 12m, I'm about 90% positive that did happen. It could have been because of guarantees, you're right.

You're rambling. I looked at the quote and....What am I supposed to be getting out of this? That your imaginary contracts are even more bs than I am already thinking?

[BroadwayJets]

1 minute ago, SenorGato said:

- Yeah....No, like not even kinda sorta a little bit. Please stop making things up, it does nothing for the conversation.

- Please stop eliminating seasons and picking and choosing what matters. This does nothing for the conversation. Fascinating how much Wilkerson does doesn't really count for some bullsh*t, made up reason, but everything Richardson does counts a little more because he's got 2 years less experience despite being just a year younger.

- Richardson is a good player. Wilkerson is a better player. Not only is WIlkerson a better player, but he doesn't coast off the field and waste precious time getting in trouble with the law and the league. Hopefully Richardson can get his act a little more together next year for Seattle, but the Jets aren't picking him over Wilkerson.

See what I just tagged you in and you tell me whose leaving seasons out of their argument. They're not far apart at all. 

 

Also, it appears that PFF is doing a twitter ask question thing about who led the lead in hurries from 34DEs. Malik Jackson came in in 4th place with 60. Your elite pass rushing Mo had 48. Seems pretty irreplaceable to me. I wish PFF didn't sell out so we can see the total numbers.

I hate that you're making me do this because I love Mo, but I'm not going to overrate him. 

[SenorGato]

Just now, BroadwayJets said:

See what I just tagged you in and you tell me whose leaving seasons out of their argument. They're not far apart at all. 

Also, it appears that PFF is doing a twitter ask question thing about who led the lead in hurries from 34DEs. Malik Jackson came in in 4th place with 60. Your elite pass rushing Mo had 48. Seems pretty irreplaceable to me. I wish PFF didn't sell out so we can see the total numbers.

I hate that you're making me do this because I love Mo, but I'm not going to overrate him. 

- They're not far apart on the field, but Wilkerson is better. Throw in off the field stuff and it's not even kinda sorta a contest, insist otherwise until the cows come home.

- Link? Where's Richardson? Harrison? What about hits? Sacks? Stuffs?

- I hate that you're doing this too considering how little truth there is to anything you're saying and how incredibly biased it is. You understand that Woody doesn't pay you guys any of the money he saves by letting the team's best prime aged player go, right? Or that not extending Wilkerson means some other top FA will take less money to play for the Jets? I mean seriously....It's a little ridiculous how baseless so much of what you've said actually is.

[CanadaSteve]

46 minutes ago, SenorGato said:

You came in two days later to post this and then close by asking to drop the conversation?

You've called me a dick and a couple other things  - but I'm the guy with the problem? Alrighty Steve...I guess you got there in the same way you got to defeating that big Wilkerson > Watt argument that invisible poster was making.

 

Sorry, don't live on the board.  I run a business and can't come and check every day for your replies.  

All I did was disagree with you that letting Revis, Coles, and Abraham go were bad ideas, and that there isn't a player in the world that is not irreplaceable.  You then asked me why any of the comments about those guys had anything to do with resigning Mo.  My ONLY comment about Mo is that I disagree that he would be worth a JJ Watt type contact, because that has been discussed in multiple threads on this board.  I want Mo here.  I just don't want the contract to be a blank check.  That is MY opinion, just like you have your opinion.  We just don't happen to agree.  

I called you a dick because, well, you have been kinda dickish in your responses to me disagreeing with you.  I don't think I am alone on this one, considering there are about half a dozen guys that seem to be doing the same thing in trying to defend an opinion that doesn't line up with yours.

Sorry, just calling it like I see it. 

[BroadwayJets]

Just now, SenorGato said:

- They're not far apart on the field, but Wilkerson is better. Throw in off the field stuff and it's not even kinda sorta a contest, insist otherwise until the cows come home.

- Link? Where's Richardson? Harrison? What about hits? Sacks? Stuffs?

- I hate that you're doing this too considering how little truth there is to anything you're saying and how incredibly biased it is. You understand that Woody doesn't pay you guys any of the money he saves by letting the team's best prime aged player go, right? Or that not extending Wilkerson means some other top FA will take less money to play for the Jets? I mean seriously....It's a little ridiculous how baseless so much of what you've said actually is.

- So, when I told you I meant talent-wise in the beginning, what did you think I meant? I've never disputed Mo is the better player.

 

Like I said, I wish PFF didn't sell out so we can see the total numbers. They tweeted shortly after the season ended that he finished with 45***** hurries, 23 hits and 12 sacks. 

 

Oh the truth is there my friend. Especially since you back tracked and finally admitted that their not far apart 'on the field' which is exactly what I've been saying this entire time.  

 

I'm not interested in Woody's money, thanks though. SPEND THE MONEY ELSEWHERE, you think I just want it to sit out to dry and not use it? The DL is stacked with or without Mo and we have other positions to fill. Clearly, we're not missing a lot, if not any ground by letting him leave. This isn't 2014 where I defended Idzik about saving a lot of the cap to spend it in 2015 because the team itself wasn't ready yet in 2014 to make the jump. That's another story. We will spend the money this season that we save by not extending Mo. End of story. 

[SenorGato]

3 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

Sorry, don't live on the board.  I run a business and can't come and check every day for your replies.  

All I did was disagree with you that letting Revis, Coles, and Abraham go were bad ideas, and that there isn't a player in the world that is not irreplaceable.  You then asked me why any of the comments about those guys had anything to do with resigning Mo.  My ONLY comment about Mo is that I disagree that he would be worth a JJ Watt type contact, because that has been discussed in multiple threads on this board.  I want Mo here.  I just don't want the contract to be a blank check.  That is MY opinion, just like you have your opinion.  We just don't happen to agree.  

I called you a dick because, well, you have been kinda dickish in your responses to me disagreeing with you.  I don't think I am alone on this one, considering there are about half a dozen guys that seem to be doing the same thing in trying to defend an opinion that doesn't line up with yours.

Sorry, just calling it like I see it. 

- Nobody cares Steve, everybody works.

- I too am calling it like I see it, and making up contract demands and treating them as reality is not a good way to go about making whatever point you were trying to make. Comparing Wilkerson to a player that *everybody* agrees he's not better than also doesn't make a point.

- Forgive me if somehow, after you called every single one of those very good (Coles) and elite (Abraham, Revis) both overpaid and replaceable that I somehow misinterpreted that as not wanting to pay for talent. It's impossible to figure out how I got there. It's nice to know that you want Wilkerson back. It's unfortunate that you have to make such clumsy arguments as to why the Jets should pass - very little of which had to deal with reality or what anyone was arguing. It's even more unfortunate that you're so sensitive about being disagreed with in a competent manner that you're calling people dicks and making passive aggressive comments about living on the board...Very immature and dare I say...dickish.

Can we be done with this now?

 

 

 

 

[CanadaSteve]

1 hour ago, SenorGato said:

12 minutes ago, SenorGato said:

- Nobody cares Steve, everybody works.

- I too am calling it like I see it, and making up contract demands and treating them as reality is not a good way to go about making whatever point you were trying to make. Comparing Wilkerson to a player that *everybody* agrees he's not better than also doesn't make a point.

- Forgive me if somehow, after you called every single one of those very good (Coles) and elite (Abraham, Revis) both overpaid and replaceable that I somehow misinterpreted that as not wanting to pay for talent. It's impossible to figure out how I got there. It's nice to know that you want Wilkerson back. It's unfortunate that you have to make such clumsy arguments as to why the Jets should pass - very little of which had to deal with reality or what anyone was arguing. It's even more unfortunate that you're so sensitive about being disagreed with in a competent manner that you're calling people dicks and making passive aggressive comments about living on the board...Very immature and dare I say...dickish.

Can we be done with this now?

 

 

 

 

You cared, because it was the first thing you mentioned, that I wasn't here for two days.    I couldn't reply for two days.  Sorry.

 Lets just say we were both dickish about it, and perhaps talk about it again, because I would actually like to know talk about it with you without it being 'dickish' from either of us.  

Can we be done with what was said before and talk about it again like two Jets fans who want what is best for their team? 

 

 

 

[SenorGato]

20 minutes ago, BroadwayJets said:

- So, when I told you I meant talent-wise in the beginning, what did you think I meant? I've never disputed Mo is the better player.

Like I said, I wish PFF didn't sell out so we can see the total numbers. They tweeted shortly after the season ended that he finished with 45***** hurries, 23 hits and 12 sacks. 

Oh the truth is there my friend. Especially since you back tracked and finally admitted that their not far apart 'on the field' which is exactly what I've been saying this entire time.  

I'm not interested in Woody's money, thanks though. SPEND THE MONEY ELSEWHERE, you think I just want it to sit out to dry and not use it? The DL is stacked with or without Mo and we have other positions to fill. Clearly, we're not missing a lot, if not any ground by letting him leave. This isn't 2014 where I defended Idzik about saving a lot of the cap to spend it in 2015 because the team itself wasn't ready yet in 2014 to make the jump. That's another story. We will spend the money this season that we save by not extending Mo. End of story. 

- Ummmm....You got the question answered both times. Interesting take - you've never disputed it, yet somehow everything you've said kind of aims the opposite, no?

- Could you at least, for the love of Jah, link the tweet? Why is this like pulling teeth?

- Like pretty much everything you've said, the backtracking is also all in your imagination.

- The DL isn't stacked without Wilkerson. They have a 2nd year player, a guy who got himself suspended last year before almost going to jail this year, and then little depth behind them. One of the biggest myths being sold on this board is that the Jets are so overwhelmingly loaded on the DL that they can afford to let their best player go - they're deep *because* they have Wilkerson, and that depth is gone the second he is.

- Ignoring that spending that money elsewhere wouldn't get you all that much, you immediately backed off when pressed about who (who as in who, not what) to spend that money on before. You're right that the Jets will spend this offseason - they will need to to keep their best player. I would suggest Richardson check out real estate in Bellevue, Washington. I hear it's very, very nice.

[SenorGato]

Quote

You cared, because it was the first thing you mentioned, that I wasn't here for two days.    I couldn't reply for two days.  Sorry.

 Lets just say we were both dickish about it, and perhaps talk about it again, because I would actually like to know talk about it with you without it being 'dickish' from either of us.  

Can we be done with what was said before and talk about it again like two Jets fans who want what is best for their team? 

 

I cared in the sense that I find it odd you were looking to beg out and asking me what my problem was in the same post. Personally, I thought you were legitimately done after the McCoy debacle.

I have been talking about as a Jets fan who wants what is best for the team. If you can deal with the reality, not imaginary demands or Watt < Wilkeson arguments, then by all means feel free to restart the dialogue.

[CanadaSteve]

Here are my thoughts about the whole D-Line:

1)  Harrison is an important part of the D-line against the run.  Problem is, he is probably going to get a HUGE contract.  This goes back to Idzik not signing him long term two years ago.  Barnes being poached by Ryan hurt because I thought he had been coached up enough to replace Harrison if Harrison priced himself out with his play.  Lets hope Deon Barnes can turn into something good.

2) The depth is not there, I agree, unless we sign it all again.  Douzable is a good player when he is asked to NOT do too much.  We have played him well the last few years, and I hope we resign him for depth.

3) This whole thing got botched, again, with Idzik.  He should have extended Mo beforehand.  Now the problem is the team will have to pay top dollar.  I know you don't like the comparison, but I think it is valid, and valid for Philadelphia as well.  If Cox is going to set the market, and he gets paid as if he is the best D-linman, than you should play as so (which the comparable is JJ Watt).  The front office now has to make the decision of is Mo worth that kind of money to the team, that they will sink $17-18 million a season into him.

4) IF they deem him expendable, then they must think Leonard Williams will be as good as him, and can get him at a fraction of the cost, which means more money can go to another position in the short-term.  If they went with Richardson and Williams on the ends in this scenario, maybe they pay Harrison.

In a perfect world, it would have been Richardson in this boat as our best player and making the bone-head moves he did.  Would make things easier.  But after picking Leonard Williams, I don't think they can have him, Wilkerson, Richardson, and Harrison.  They need to figure out the best combination of talent, at the best price, and then try and get assets for whatever they choose to get rid of.