Jump to content

Jets Cut Cromartie

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

He wasn't worth $8M for two years. We'd have been better off letting someone younger on the field all season long.

This awful signing was 100% on Bowles, who is loyal to "his" guys to a fault, and wouldn't remove him from the field unless he was injured, no matter how badly he played. Absent Bowles, there's no chance whatsoever that Maccagnan signs Cromartie. It seems the only way he could get Cromartie to agree to a deal that makes him cuttable after 1 season was to grossly overpay him for his worth for that one season, cross one's fingers and hope for the best.

Just a moronic signing and a horrible waste of cap space. Just remember if Wilkerson is $2M more than Maccagnan's line in the sand, this is where that $2M/year x 4 years went.  Ditto any player we woulda/coulda signed. A $5M RT player on the OL instead of a $7M player; making a hold-the-fort contract for Fitzpatrick easier to rationalize; you name it. All for 1 season of a has-been so we could keep 2-3 young CBs, in need of on-field experience, on the bench.

Just stewpid stewpid stewpid.

What? I thought Rex was the one the plays his guys to a fault; now Bowles - it is like a conspiracy; or maybe he was the second best outside CB we had.

As far as the 8M wasted; if not Cromartie, we likely would have signed another CB in the 3-5 million range, so there is only 3-5 left. Also, the cap is complicated so you have to spend so much over a certain period, and there are limits to how much you can carry over (I think).

But sure, Bowles sucks; Macc got burned :-)

Even if everything you said was true; we had some hits and misses; young guys got playing time (as there were injuries) and we had an okay season; build through the draft but try and win in the meantime - I was okay with that. Hopefully next year will be even better.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Both coaches did and do. And Cromartie was 100% on Bowles. Also there was no need to sign another FA CB with three young ones on the roster. Every CB doesn't need to be a multimillion dollar FA. Particularly (as was mentioned earlier in this thread) for a coach who's supposed to be able to coach up younger players instead of relying only on high priced FAs and high draft picks to make him good at his area of expertise.

I know plenty about the cap and this signing was completely unnecessary, gross overpayment, and purely done as a "let's let the coach pick one himself" like Tannenbaum/Idzik used to waste in giving Ryan 1 draft pick per year.  There's no great mystery to the salary cap and it is not really that complicated. If you concerned about, and want to get around "must spend" money, then one simple way is to renegotiate with someone already locked up who you know you want to keep longer, so you front-load his contract more now to clear up space in the future. There are other things to do, but however it's done, all $8M of that could have been pushed to the future. 

Plus it's easy to look "good" on balance when you're burning through some $50M in new FA salaries in one offseason. It's hard to look that good when you've got a fraction of that. That's when you know if you've got a top GM or just a high bidder with money to burn. 

Signing him was foolish. Hopefully Maccagnan learns from his worst first-year mistake(s) - and I'm very hopeful he will - now that he's seen the result. 

Agree to disagree; Williams didn't shine when he was a starter as much as when he went in as an extra DB; Shrine is best in the slot. Maybe with the extra experience we have a good replacement. But, rolling the dice on Cromartie for a first time HC, first time DB where CB play is critical is an easy call. Ether way, someone would have to take the slot, and unless it is a rookie even the minimum is some money. No coach/GM is going to be perfect and a one year deal didn't really hurt anyone and gave a first time coach a quality CB (who was clearly hurt in the beginning) who knew the scheme and supported the coach. Easy call.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

If you want to say agree to disagree, then you don't then go making an argument after saying so ;)

When a team has 3 young CBs on the roster, then you add the signing of a $16-17M per year CB in Revis and a $6M/year NB/CB in Skrine and a $5M/year CB/FS in Gilchrist, and pair them up with a high-talent 2nd year 1st round pick moving back to his proper place at SS, it means you don't need to sign another 31 year old CB at $8M unless you just can't coach up any of 3 young corners who aren't all totally devoid of talent themselves. If he needed - or felt he needed - Cromartie after being handed all those other guys first, it should be some cause for concern. If you need to sign Cromartie after all that, then it's tantamount to admitting the money you're throwing at the other 3 new pickups wasn't worth what you're getting. Or admitting the HC doesn't believe in his ability to coach up youngsters. It's not like he's truly coaching half the team all week long. They admitted themselves that he meets with his OC to start the week after the last game, then they go their separate ways as Bowles doesn't touch or have much input into the offense after that. So if he's so focused on the defense - and he does have a DC as well - then he shouldn't have felt he needed Cromartie with all that already in his secondary. 

A wasted deal like this one to Cromartie doesn't just live in the past because the accounting seems to work out that it doesn't affect 2016 or beyond. A bad deal this size always hurts because those $ resources were put to bad use instead of good use. Particularly for a team that got so close to the playoffs and who clearly could have used another player or 2 that would have made a bigger and better positive impact than Cromartie, who was terrible. It's not a one year wash-away; that $8M could have been pushed forward to this year. Just like Idzik didn't sign a lot of good young FAs but he threw over $20M at CJ0.7K, Michael Vick, Percy Harvin, and re-signing Kerley. The team would be infinitely better off today (or last year) with a bunch of extra $2-3M/player backups and depth who they could have afforded to have around for 3-4 seasons for the same spend from 2014, instead of a system of super high paid players and their league-minimum and low draft pick/UDFA type backups who now must pan out.

Further, Bowles then maybe (or likely) didn't give the needed attention and playing time to his youngsters. So now that we're supposedly contenders with higher expectations for 2016 than 2015, who is going to step in as starter? Is Williams the clear-cut starter? We know Bowles preferred a bad Cromartie to him. How many snaps did Milliner get on defense in 2015? Zero? What message does that send to these younger players, that no matter how badly the veteran starter is playing, he won't get benched if he's the coach's pet. Don't you think that affects how well they play and how much effort they put forth? I do. All of this is a cascade of events due to one bad signing at the behest of the HC who doesn't want to look bad by benching his hand-picked $8M CB.

1. Cro (especially when healthy) had a pretty good year

2. Even with Cro getting beat the defense played pretty well

3. Sure, he can coach up the young, but it takes more than 2 minutes (let's just play Petty - why even sign Fitz - what a waste - they should just coach him up)

4. 8 million for a good CB is not ridiculous - sure compare him to harvin if you want, but it is a stretch; he probably wanted the 8 million for a year rental deal

5. Hindsight is 20/20, but still not a bad plan considering the number of DBs that were hurt last year.

6. Yeah, just play the youngsters; then when the Jets are 1-6 whine that Bowles can't win; it takes a while to train up players; just imagine the outrage when the young secondary is getting beat with Cro on the bench - you thought the whining we had to deal with when Kerley didn't get to play. Too funny.

 Cro was too expensive to keep; I don't have a problem with that, but to go back and over analyze this one move is just silly. Look what happened to the Rex defense when he didn't have enough players from his system this year. There is a reason coaches take players (even past prime and not great - Scott, Leanard) when they go to a new team. Knowledge of the scheme and getting the locker room to buy in is just as important as play making skills. You can't always just plug a new guy in and everything works.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BowlesMovement said:

While I understand your points, McDougle and Millner were serious question marks coming into the season last year, and for good reason, Mac and Bowles were right. At the end of the day, either Mac can identify talent, and Bowles can develop it, or not. This signing in the grand scheme of things will have very little to no bearing on the future of the team. If any of the young guys were any good, and Bowles/Mac were not able to identify them, we have a bigger problem than the wasted cap space from this deal, which I do believe was not as big as you are making it out to be, because they would have signed someone. I did not like the signing, but I also understand that Bowles, like most other coaches, like to bring in guys who have played in their system in the past, and Cro for better or worse, fit that bill, and in hindsight, I don't know who else was available that filled a need. 

Thanks. You said it so much better than I could. Well played.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

1. Cro did not have a pretty good year. He had a couple of good half games here and there. So did others. Even when healthy and even when he knew all week long he had to watch out for double moves from his assignment, he still got juked on that very type of move. When healthy. In a crucial game and situation.

2. If the defense played well with him getting beat then he was unnecessary, which was my point. He was unnecessary.

3. I don't know what this means. Petty was a 4th round rookie project. It bears no relation to the 3 CBs the Jets had.

4. $8M for a good CB is not ridiculous but Cromartie is not a good CB therefore it was ridiculous. If that's what he wanted and that was his line in the sand then let someone else be the foolish one to sign him at that dopey rate.

5. It's not hindsight if you hated it the minute it was announced for the same reasons that you're referring to as hindsight.

7. Why the hell would we be 1-6 with "only" $30M committed to the secondary instead of $38M? You think Bowles is that bad of a coach?

Cro was more than just too expensive to keep; he was too expensive to sign in the first place. Even if I can afford $50 for a pack of gum it's still too expensive for a pack of gum. $8M was and is too expensive for Cromartie. 

The analogy to Ryan's defense is a poor one. With all his faults, Ryan's defense didn't fully fall apart until the entire secondary was depleted, not because he "only" had a secondary with the likes of Revis, Skrine, Gilchrist, Pryor, Williams, Milliner, and McDougle. It's a poor suggestion that a secondary like that is suspect but would be a force to be reckoned with if they had all that plus a noticeably past his prime Cromartie.

JMO. Actually not. It was a lot of fans' opinions back in March when he was re-signed.

1. Every CB gets beat; getting beat doesn't make him terrrible/bad; towards the end of the season he played well enough

2. He played well enough for the team to be strong on defense; look how bad it looked without Revis - if Cro was as bad as you say, teams would have scored more against us

3. You stated that Bowles should have played the younger guys; this is an extreme example about a player who has shown flashes isn't necessarily ready to start. It also show that the a coach can 'coach up' a player, but it can take time; IOW at the start of the season, even when cro was hurt, he was likely better than the other players - it took a while for the coach to 'coach them up'.

4. They may have overpaid a bit, but Cro knows the defense and the scheme - see below; he is better than more than you think

5. It may not be hindsight for you, but if you hated the move, then you likely aren't very objective. You hated the move; fine

7. Look how bad we looked when Revis was out; Cro did okay, but the other CBs got burned; we had close games early on, if Cro wasn't there, maybe we still win, maybe we don't. My point is that even when the Jets won, people talked about how Kerley was too good to sit on bench, but you wanted Cro benched for others..

The analogy was to Ryan's defense at Buffalo; without the veterans who knew the scheme and bought into Ryan to back him (like he had at the Jets), he had trouble getting buy in - Cros value was more than just being a good CB.

Good night.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

1. Cro didn't merely get beat on one play. I was using one play to illustrate a crucial game and situation where he knew exactly what the receiver was going to do and he couldn't stop it. There were plenty of times he got beat, and too often it came on those 3rd downs we seemed to allow to convert too often.

2. The team was strong on defense with Brodney Pool starting also. A year later they fielded a top 5 pass defense while starting Eric Smith. Doesn't mean we would have been smart to pay either one $8M.

3. Everyone is not worse than Cromartie, and unlike Cromartie they get better with time. Inserting them cold here or there, after getting rare/limited snaps with the starters, is not an equal playing field on which one is to judge. This logic is how we end up sticking with Calvin Pace as a starter: fear that someone else might not be as bad as his now substandard play. But hey, the coach "knows" him.

4. They overpaid by more than a bit and I think you are way overrating how difficult it is to learn one scheme over another. Cro is not a smart person. If he can pick it up, so can lots of people. We'd have been better off, in 2015 and beyond, without reacquiring him in the first place.

5. You said it was hindsight. It wasn't hindsight. Disliking a move from the get go, and being proven right, doesn't make me biased or only correct in hindsight. It makes me correct period. Just like many others who felt the same way.

6. You missed this one and need lessons in counting ;) 

7. Revis being out and Cro being out are two separate animals. Revis is a top-notch CB and Cromartie isn't even a top-32 CB. He was once, but not anymore.

Cro's "value" in this regard was also a bad one because of the message it sent. Namely, it served to show other players that if the coach likes you or knows you, then you'll get preferable treatment and a lock on the starting job even if you suck. No one else will be given a legitimate chance until/unless the teacher's pet is so injured he can't suit up. It's bad for morale for a coach to stick his fingers in his ears and find excuses for and to absolve nearly everything his favorite players do poorly, while calling out and/or benching those who aren't his preferred ones and personal favorites.

Clearly abstract concepts escape you and you can't see the forest from the trees in any of my arguments. So, no point in me responding on where you didn't get my line of reasoning. As for a counting lesson, I simply quoted and copied your mistake and moved on - the difference is that I chose to take the high road and skipped the condescending comment about it. If you want a counting lesson, however, I suggest you go back a look at your comments in this thread and the comments from both myself and other posters opposing your view and count the reputation/likes to see where the board's opinion lies.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

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