Ryan Clady a Jet [MERGED]

[BroadwayJets]

Just now, Matt39 said:

Wouldn't Mo qualify as someone worth resigning? 

He would. But I meant consistently. 

[Dcat]

24 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

We're going to build through the draft, except for when we don't, but someday we totally will.

A team must fill holes thru free agency and occasional trades because you can't do it all via the draft.  If you try to do it all thru the draft, you end up reaching way too often for positions of need.  Can you imagine reaching in round 1 for a guy like Conklin or Decker, both of whom are at best 2nd round talent?  Now we don't have to and Mac can use our 1st round for 1st round value.  That's how you build wisely via the draft.  Not reaching for need. 

[Savage69]

8 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Wouldn't Mo qualify as someone worth resigning? 

At a reasonable price absolutely but not when your stacked at that position which we are.. The Pats traded Jones and they weren't stacked at that position.. 

[Dcat]

10 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

-Mike Tannnebaum

Tannenbaum traded away draft picks far too often in his acquisitions, leaving us high and dry in many of his drafts.

Mac, on the other hand, has swapped 5th round picks for 7th rounders in his acquisition of Brandon Marshall and Ryan Clady, both pro bowlers.  These are not Tannenbaum-esque moves. Bad analogy dude. 

[faba]

The chances of a fith rounder or 7th round draft choice making the team are slim to begin with. To flip the picks and get Clady was a move that can turn out real well and we are only locked in for a year really so works for me

[Integrity28]

35 minutes ago, faba said:

Jets got Clady for this year- if he does not pan out we walk away- good job Mac

And if he does work out, I'd imagine we tear-up next year and extend him. So that our 5th rounder nets us more than 2 year's of LT play. 

[ChuckkieB]

This was as good risk/reward move.  You can't build a whole team through the draft.  This addressed a need and now allows the Jets to stick to whatever draft strategy they have regrading their first round pick instead of have to grab a first round tackle.

[Jetsfan80]

31 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

-Mike Tannnebaum

Nope. 

[Doggin94it]

-Mike Tannnebaum

You're like a divorcee who won't date guys with blonde hair because her ex was blonde. The problem with Tannenbaum was 2 fold - 1) he undervalued quantity, giving away too many picks for veterans and weakening the back end of the roster (he made a total of 41 picks in 7 years - only 6 a year. 10 of those were in 2006, and another 8 in 2012, leaving only 23 for the five drafts from 2007-2011); and 2) he made bad picks worth the few non-premium picks he kept.

The combination was the killer. His bust rate in rds 3-7 wasn't outrageous - can call it 13 hits to 15 misses - but when you combine that with the sheer number of picks given away (8+ against the raw 7/draft number, but the more critical number is 12+ in those killer years between 2007 & 11), the end result is a denuded roster.

Thus far, Mac isn't repeating that mistake. We had 6 picks last year and have 6 this year, and are clearly planning on adding more by dealing Mo. We should also have meaningful comp picks next year.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

[Jetsfan80]

Funny how people say its all about the QB.  Then when we trade late rounders for Brandon Marshall and Ryan Clady, they complain.

Yes, because surrounding our future franchise QB with Kenbrell Thompkins as his WR2 and Ben Ijalana as his LT sounds great.

Not to mention, failing to bring in Clady might have meant we don't draft a QB early anyways, because we're too busy forcing an OT pick in the first.

[dbatesman]

35 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

You take this way too far. The lost opportunity cost of trading down from late 5th to 235, both long and short term, doesn't outweigh the benefit of adding a potentially premium LT, even if only short term, especially given the not insignificant possibility that Petty or a rookie QB will get meaningful playing time this season.

For the...fifth? Tenth? Hundredth? time in this thread, the trade in a vacuum is fine, although I hate acquiring injury-prone players. The problem is that it didn't happen in a vacuum; it happened in the context of the last thirteen months, when we've loaded the roster with veteran players.

35 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

Mortgaging the future for a short term upgrade in a year where you are highly unlikely to win the super bowl is GM malpractice. Trading down from the fifth to the seventh doesn't do that, and other than generic bloviating about the need to build through the draft, I still haven't seen a real world argument from you about the actual, practical impact of trading down 2 rounds late in the draft

Veterans are old and expensive and block younger players from playing, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to acquire them unless you're ready to make a run. For a team that's mediocre (or bad, or doing some sort of half-assed rebuild, whatever) like us, it makes no sense. People harp constantly about how we need a young QB, but we also need a young left tackle, and we just kicked the can down the road at least another season, and gave up a pick and a chunk of money to boot. The wide receiver group is an even better example. Who do we have in the pipeline to step up in 2 years when Marshall and Decker are too expensive or injured or ineffective to keep? Devin Smith? Quincy Enunwa? This isn't even getting into questions of marginal value (i.e., Clady is clearly better than Qvale, but is he $6 million + a 5th rounder-better?). 

Pick whatever smart team you want, and the way they stay good is by constantly replenishing talent through the draft and keeping costs down so they can maximize flexibility when it's time to make a run (this is precisely what the Seahawks did, btw). Sometimes--and this will absolutely mortify everyone here, I'm sure--that talent sucks. When that happens, the smart teams you trot it out anyway and work around it as best they can and then just draft someone else. The Jets have a sh*t hemorrhage and throw a second contract at the first warm body they find. It's staggering to me the logical loops Jets fans will leap through to deny this fact every single time we feel like handing an eight-figure contract to some bum. This really isn't that complicated.

[dbatesman]

5 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

You're like a divorcee who won't date guys with blonde hair because her ex was blonde. The problem with Tannenbaum was 2 fold - 1) he undervalued quantity, giving away too many picks for veterans and weakening the back end of the roster (he made a total of 41 picks in 7 years - only 6 a year. 10 of those were in 2006, and another 8 in 2012, leaving only 23 for the five drafts from 2007-2011)

Number of Jets draft picks in 2015: 6

Number of Jets draft picks in 2016: 6

 

[Jetsfan80]

9 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

contract at the first warm body they find. It's staggering to me the logical loops Jets fans will leap through to deny this fact every single time we feel like handing an eight-figure contract to some bum. This really isn't that complicated.

 

*7 figures

Clady is making $6M this year and only counts $3M against the cap. 

And he's not "some bum".  He was a former 1st round pick, and this is what the Broncos team reporter had to say about Clady:
 

Quote

 

"At his best Clady was an elite athlete at the position, a player whose initial quickness off the ball won him the majority of the snaps he played. He was a quick fit in the team's scheme as soon as they selected him in the first round of the 2008 draft.

 

"At times early in his career he played with too narrow of a base, but he learned quickly and adjusted. His movements skills kept him from being out of position and at times, when knocked off his base, usually with a bull rush, he had the athleticism to recover and counter.

He's a former team captain who is smart, adjusts well in game, and if healthy, will still be one of the better athletes at the position in the league. It's a matter of how his body has recovered from the injuries."

 

 

So we're getting a player whose upside is "elite".  That's not "some bum".  He's 29 and very capable of well outperforming what we gave up to get him, not just for next season, but beyond.

These aren't "logical leaps" people are taking.  You're acting like you're the smartest person in the room, and no one else can see what you see.  This is a fairly low risk move. 

I get that you want to build through the draft, but adding Clady does not block a young player from becoming a starter.  In today's NFL, LT's take a lot longer to develop than they used to because of all the spread offenses, and many of them end up busts.  Just look at Luke Joeckel  Do you really want to send some rookie out there to protect, potentially, a rookie QB?

The most likely end result is that we will still draft an OT early, and he'll compete with Breno for the RT position.  Eventually, he may compete with Clady for the LT spot.  But at least we'll have options rather than forcing a young guy onto the field.

 

[carlito1171]

19 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

For the...fifth? Tenth? Hundredth? time in this thread, the trade in a vacuum is fine, although I hate acquiring injury-prone players. The problem is that it didn't happen in a vacuum; it happened in the context of the last thirteen months, when we've loaded the roster with veteran players.

Veterans are old and expensive and block younger players from playing, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to acquire them unless you're ready to make a run. For a team that's mediocre (or bad, or doing some sort of half-assed rebuild, whatever) like us, it makes no sense. People harp constantly about how we need a young QB, but we also need a young left tackle, and we just kicked the can down the road at least another season, and gave up a pick and a chunk of money to boot. The wide receiver group is an even better example. Who do we have in the pipeline to step up in 2 years when Marshall and Decker are too expensive or injured or ineffective to keep? Devin Smith? Quincy Enunwa? This isn't even getting into questions of marginal value (i.e., Clady is clearly better than Qvale, but is he $6 million + a 5th rounder-better?). 

Pick whatever smart team you want, and the way they stay good is by constantly replenishing talent through the draft and keeping costs down so they can maximize flexibility when it's time to make a run (this is precisely what the Seahawks did, btw). Sometimes--and this will absolutely mortify everyone here, I'm sure--that talent sucks. When that happens, the smart teams you trot it out anyway and work around it as best they can and then just draft someone else. The Jets have a sh*t hemorrhage and throw a second contract at the first warm body they find. It's staggering to me the logical loops Jets fans will leap through to deny this fact every single time we feel like handing an eight-figure contract to some bum. This really isn't that complicated.

What would you have done to acquire more picks in the draft or address LT? 

[Beerfish]

23 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

 

Veterans are old and expensive and block younger players from playing, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to acquire them unless you're ready to make a run. For a team that's mediocre (or bad, or doing some sort of half-assed rebuild, whatever) like us, it makes no sense. People harp constantly about how we need a young QB, but we also need a young left tackle, and we just kicked the can down the road at least another season, and gave up a pick and a chunk of money to boot. The wide receiver group is an even better example. Who do we have in the pipeline to step up in 2 years when Marshall and Decker are too expensive or injured or ineffective to keep? Devin Smith? Quincy Enunwa? This isn't even getting into questions of marginal value (i.e., Clady is clearly better than Qvale, but is he $6 million + a 5th rounder-better?). 

Pick whatever smart team you want, and the way they stay good is by constantly replenishing talent through the draft and keeping costs down so they can maximize flexibility when it's time to make a run (this is precisely what the Seahawks did, btw). Sometimes--and this will absolutely mortify everyone here, I'm sure--that talent sucks. When that happens, the smart teams you trot it out anyway and work around it as best they can and then just draft someone else. The Jets have a sh*t hemorrhage and throw a second contract at the first warm body they find. It's staggering to me the logical loops Jets fans will leap through to deny this fact every single time we feel like handing an eight-figure contract to some bum. This really isn't that complicated.

- We do not currently have a young left tackle to plug in at all.  So a smart front office plugs that hole so that you are not FORCED into drafting a LT at 20.   If we had decent LT prospect then the Clady deal would not have happened.  The contract restructure makes this move palatable even if a risk.

- This front office has had about 1 year to replenish talent, most of the talent is left over from the previous regime.

- Your Wr comments don't make a ton of sense becasue the Jets have drafted heavily in that area the last few years, the picks have sucked.  You don't start Shaq Evans over better players. 

- The cost of these vet moves have been reasonable.

Hey I agree about building through the draft but rule #1 for NFL Gm's is to plug major holes before the draft (see the Clady move) so that you can pick the best players on draft day and not have to ignore better players to get taylor decker or jack conklin.

[Warfish]

17 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Funny how people say its all about the QB.  Then when we trade late rounders for Brandon Marshall and Ryan Clady, they complain.

Yes, because surrounding our future franchise QB with Kenbrell Thompkins as his WR2 and Ben Ijalana as his LT sounds great.

Not to mention, failing to bring in Clady might have meant we don't draft a QB early anyways, because we're too busy forcing an OT pick in the first.

To be fair, my complaint isn't the trade or the amount surrendered.

It's the odds of counting on a guy who has played only 1 season the past three years, and is on the back-end, clearly, of the O-Lineman NFL lifespan.

The player has missed two full seasons out of the last three, and is coming off injury right now.  That's serious risk, and those downplaying it (IMO), his gae, the miles on his tires, etc. are not performing a proper analysis of this trade.

If he works out and plays average for 2-3 years, it's an acceptable trade.  If he gets hurt, or we dump him after one year, it's a bad trade.  

and if he's an all-pro the next three years, as some here seem to think is a sure-thing, it's a GREAT trade.

But we have no idea which of these he'll be, and 18 games played in the prior 48, the past three years, is concerning. 

[dbatesman]

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

*7 figures

Clady is making $6M this year and only counts $3M against the cap. 

And he's not "some bum".  He was a former 1st round pick, and this is what the Broncos team reporter had to say about Clady:
 

 

So we're getting a player whose upside is "elite".  That's not "some bum".  He's 29 and very capable of well outperforming what we gave up to get him, not just for next season, but beyond.

These aren't "logical leaps" people are taking.  You're acting like you're the smartest person in the room, and no one else can see what you see.  This is a fairly low risk move. 

I get that you want to build through the draft, but adding Clady does not block a young player from becoming a starter.  In today's NFL, LT's take a lot longer to develop than they used to because of all the spread offenses, and many of them end up busts.  Just look at Luke Joeckel  Do you really want to send some rookie out there to protect, potentially, a rookie QB?

 

I said eight figures because my issue is with the principle of building a team through veteran acquisitions, not with this single move, but I think I'm going to give up the ghost on that one because the brain trust around here clearly thinks there's no rejoinder that can't be parried with HARF HARF FIFTH ROUNDER HARF HARF. High-priced veterans are high-priced for a reason, so I don't really give a sh*t what Hondo Mountainman thinks about Clady's upside, especially given that his downside is literally never seeing the field ever. First-round OL are few true plug-and-play positions left, so I have no idea what you're on about with spread offenses. I would have absolutely no problem sending a rookie LT onto the field, whether we start a rookie QB or Fitzpatrick or anyone else. I don't think I'm the smartest person in the room. On the contrary, I feel like this is a really simple concept, and that anyone can see what I see if they're willing to cut the three wise monkeys bit and try a little basic reading comprehension.

[Jetsfan80]

Just now, Warfish said:

To be fair, my complaint isn't the trade or the amount surrendered.

It's the odds of counting on a guy who has played only 1 season the past three years, and is on the back-end, clearly, of the O-Lineman NFL lifespan.

The player has missed two full seasons out of the last three, and is coming off injury right now.  That's serious risk, and those downplaying it (IMO), his gae, the miles on his tires, etc. are not performing a proper analysis of this trade.

If he works out and plays average for 2-3 years, it's an acceptable trade.  If he gets hurt, or we dump him after one year, it's a bad trade.  

and if he's an all-pro the next three years, as some here seem to think is a sure-thing, it's a GREAT trade.

But we have no idea which of these he'll be, and 18 games played in the prior 48, the past three years, is concerning. 

 

We were outbid for Beachum, and the remaining options on the scrapheap are not good.  Clady was really the best OT we could acquire at this point in the game.  Sure, he's a heavy injury risk, but that's why we only gave up a 5th, not a 2nd or 3rd.  It was either Clady OR go into 2016 with Ijalana, Qvale or a rookie as our best option at LT. 

The roll of the dice was worth it.

[carlito1171]

Even if Mac doesn't pan out comparing him to Wheeling Dealing Mike Tannenbaum is such a lazy analysis its not even funny.....

Tannenbaum on top of trading picks he gave these vets long term deals, AND restructured almost all of them to mortgage the future for short term cap relief....it's not sustainable and it eventually caught up with him(as it will in Miami as well)

Every "washed up vet" Mac has signed so far has contract structure that it's easy to get out of.  As a result we'll have plenty of cap for a reload next year. If Tannenbaum would have traded for Clady we wouldn't have gotten a 7th round pick back, and he would have stretched Clady's money into future years so we would have been stuck with him if he never gets healthy...

[MDL_JET]

11 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

For the...fifth? Tenth? Hundredth? time in this thread, the trade in a vacuum is fine, although I hate acquiring injury-prone players. The problem is that it didn't happen in a vacuum; it happened in the context of the last thirteen months, when we've loaded the roster with veteran players.

Veterans are old and expensive and block younger players from playing, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to acquire them unless you're ready to make a run. For a team that's mediocre (or bad, or doing some sort of half-assed rebuild, whatever) like us, it makes no sense. People harp constantly about how we need a young QB, but we also need a young left tackle, and we just kicked the can down the road at least another season, and gave up a pick and a chunk of money to boot. The wide receiver group is an even better example. Who do we have in the pipeline to step up in 2 years when Marshall and Decker are too expensive or injured or ineffective to keep? Devin Smith? Quincy Enunwa? This isn't even getting into questions of marginal value (i.e., Clady is clearly better than Qvale, but is he $6 million + a 5th rounder-better?). 

Pick whatever smart team you want, and the way they stay good is by constantly replenishing talent through the draft and keeping costs down so they can maximize flexibility when it's time to make a run (this is precisely what the Seahawks did, btw). Sometimes--and this will absolutely mortify everyone here, I'm sure--that talent sucks. When that happens, the smart teams you trot it out anyway and work around it as best they can and then just draft someone else. The Jets have a sh*t hemorrhage and throw a second contract at the first warm body they find. It's staggering to me the logical loops Jets fans will leap through to deny this fact every single time we feel like handing an eight-figure contract to some bum. This really isn't that complicated.

 

But what evidence has this new regime shown that they're doing that? It's only been one year but to me, it looks like they want a veteran foundation while grooming their young guys. 

This year you now have Mauldin stepping in, Henderson at ILB, Williams will take over for Wilk it seems. Trying to develop Petty and I'm sure will add another QB this draft. Devin Smith is unkown, as is Amaro. They've only had one year. 

[Jetsfan80]

3 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

I said eight figures because my issue is with the principle of building a team through veteran acquisitions, not with this single move, but I think I'm going to give up the ghost on that one because the brain trust around here clearly thinks there's no rejoinder that can't be parried with HARF HARF FIFTH ROUNDER HARF HARF. High-priced veterans are high-priced for a reason, so I don't really give a sh*t what Hondo Mountainman thinks about Clady's upside, especially given that his downside is literally never seeing the field ever. First-round OL are few true plug-and-play positions left, so I have no idea what you're on about with spread offenses. I would have absolutely no problem sending a rookie LT onto the field, whether we start a rookie QB or Fitzpatrick or anyone else. I don't think I'm the smartest person in the room. On the contrary, I feel like this is a really simple concept, and that anyone can see what I see if they're willing to cut the three wise monkeys bit and try a little basic reading comprehension.

But see, you're arguing a philosophical position that no one disagrees with.  Everyone agrees you shouldn't build your team with expensive veteran bums.  If you started a thread on that topic, you'd get full agreement.

But this particular thread is about Ryan Clady, a former elite LT (who may still be awesome if he can just stay healthy) who only cost a 5th rounder (that we can easily recoup with a trade down, like we did last year with the Mauldin deal, plus got us a 7th rounder back) and $3M in cap space on a short-term deal.  This particular move was a good one.  It doesn't really apply to what you are saying above. 

[Doggin94it]

Number of Jets draft picks in 2015: 6

Number of Jets draft picks in 2016: 6

 

Number of total picks lost in trades made by Mac over 2 years (pending moving Mo): 1

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

[kmnj]

when you dont have tons of money or tons of draft picks you have to be creative and go with risk vs reward-the reward he can be great-I am fine with the move

 

the move I LOVE that some people dont love is the Forte signing -he will be a MONSTER for us especially catching balls -with decker and marshall outside the middle will be a gaping hole for him to catch and run through

[dbatesman]

6 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

But see, you're arguing a philosophical position that no one disagrees with.  Everyone agrees you shouldn't build your team with expensive veteran bums.  If you started a thread on that topic, you'd get full agreement.

But this particular thread is about Ryan Clady, a former elite LT (who may still be awesome if he can just stay healthy) who only cost a 5th rounder (that we can easily recoup with a trade down, like we did last year with the Mauldin deal, plus got us a 7th rounder back) and $3M in cap space on a short-term deal.  This particular move was a good one.  It doesn't really apply to what you are saying above. 

 

23 hours ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

This is you guys in a nutshell. You all say you want to do things the right way. Build through the draft. Add value through player development. Stay getting younger, stay getting cheaper. Then when it comes time to follow through you lose your minds and start renting airplanes. In general is just an aggregation of a whole bunch of specifically this times.

 

[Jetsfan80]

This move doesn't prevent us from building through the draft and developing players.  Clady's presence does not block us from drafting an OT or developing him. 

In fact, none of the moves Macc has made really do that.  All of the veterans we brought in were guys we can get rid of in 1-2 seasons while young players develop.

[dbatesman]

14 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

rule #1 for NFL Gm's is to plug major holes before the draft (see the Clady move) so that you can pick the best players on draft day and not have to ignore better players to get taylor decker or jack conklin.

Every team, even the good ones, goes into every draft with "major holes." The smart ones fill the holes with cheap young talent. The dumb ones hand $25 million to Buster Skrine. 

And btw, this is indisputably Mike Tannenbaum's philosophy of team building. People can bitch about the comparison all they want, but it is what it is.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

3 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

Number of total picks lost in trades made by Mac over 2 years (pending moving Mo): 1

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

I love how the people who keep saying a seventh is the same as the fifth are the same ones who love the idea of clogging the roster with stopgaps so we're not tempted to use a draft pick on a position of need when there's somebody with a marginally higher grade on the board.

[Jetsfan80]

Just now, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

I love how the people who keep saying a seventh is the same as the fifth are the same ones who love the idea of clogging the roster with stopgaps so we're not tempted to use a draft pick on a position of need when there's somebody with a marginally higher grade on the board.

We brought in Marshall yet Macc still drafted Devin Smith.  That is evidence that Macc is willing to draft a player even if there is a solid veteran starter in that spot.

[Jetsfan80]

There's definitely holes you can poke in Macc's resume as GM so far.  The Cromartie signing last year was questionable.  So was the amount we paid Harris.  And Skrine was very disappointing for what we paid him.

I just don't agree that this is one of those moves worthy of heavy criticism.

[Beerfish]

9 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

Every team, even the good ones, goes into every draft with "major holes." The smart ones fill the holes with cheap young talent. The dumb ones hand $25 million to Buster Skrine. 

And btw, this is indisputably Mike Tannenbaum's philosophy of team building. People can bitch about the comparison all they want, but it is what it is.

Hey I have no beef with not being happy with the skrine deal at all, I didn't like it either (especially when we had a guy in Williams that could have done that job).  This being the Clady thread however my comments were more in that direction.

Also not all 'holes' are created equally, LT is a premium position and having Ben Ijanala as your starter doesn't cut it.

 

[Dcat]

49 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

You're like a divorcee who won't date guys with blonde hair because her ex was blonde. The problem with Tannenbaum was 2 fold - 1) he undervalued quantity, giving away too many picks for veterans and weakening the back end of the roster (he made a total of 41 picks in 7 years - only 6 a year. 10 of those were in 2006, and another 8 in 2012, leaving only 23 for the five drafts from 2007-2011); and 2) he made bad picks worth the few non-premium picks he kept.

The combination was the killer. His bust rate in rds 3-7 wasn't outrageous - can call it 13 hits to 15 misses - but when you combine that with the sheer number of picks given away (8+ against the raw 7/draft number, but the more critical number is 12+ in those killer years between 2007 & 11), the end result is a denuded roster.

Thus far, Mac isn't repeating that mistake. We had 6 picks last year and have 6 this year, and are clearly planning on adding more by dealing Mo. We should also have meaningful comp picks next year.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

re: comp picks.  

right now, the Jets would be ineligible for any meaningful comp pick.  

Jets gained 3 "Qualified UFAs": Forte, McLendon and Jarvis Jenkins.  The Jets lost three "Qualified UFAs" (Snacks, Ivory and D. Davis).  The other UFAs the Jets lost won't qualify.  Per Jason at Over-the-Cap, Ridley, Antonio Allen and Darrin Walls received new contracts that are too low on annual salary ($840,000)  to make them "Qualified UFAs", so they don't count, at least for the moment. Of course the amount that qualifies an UFA might change (Jason thinks the number is at or near $1,000,000 APY), so Jason's forecast is that those 3 don't qualify.  That leaves us with no net loss on the number of Qualified UFAs gained/acquired.  A wash would give the Jets at best, a late 7th rounder to make up for the difference in salaries of those we lost vs those we gained.  But unless Fitzpatrick or Pace signs somewhere else for over $1,000,000, we ain't gettin much if anything at all.  If Fitz signs elsewhere, then we would likely qualify for a 3rd or 4th for Snacks or if Fitz's new contract elsewhwere cancels out Snacks, then we'd be getting a 4th or 5th for Ivory instead.  

http://overthecap.com/compensatory-draft-picks-cancellation-chart/

http://overthecap.com/the-basics-and-methodology-of-projecting-the-nfls-compensatory-draft-picks/

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

4 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

There's definitely holes you can poke in Macc's resume as GM so far.  The Cromartie signing last year was questionable.  So was the amount we paid Harris.  And Skrine was very disappointing for what we paid him.

I just don't agree that this is one of those moves worthy of heavy criticism.

They all take up roster spots and cap space and limit opportunity and flexibility. In exchange, they make us just good enough for you goofballs to play the 'poised to take the next step' card to justify doing more of the same. But, like, just this time, guys, because we're building through the draft and stuff.

[Beerfish]

11 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

I love how the people who keep saying a seventh is the same as the fifth are the same ones who love the idea of clogging the roster with stopgaps so we're not tempted to use a draft pick on a position of need when there's somebody with a marginally higher grade on the board.

7th's are not near the value of a 5th, much like 5ths are not near the value of the rounds before it.  All picks, even 7's have value becasue each year 300 or more UDFA's are signed after the draft, one 7th rounder puts you at the head of the class for those players.

I'd have a much different view of this deal if the contract was not reworked into something that looks pretty good for the Jets.  In this case trading a 5th for a 7th is a palatable cost to ensure we have some kind of starter ability at LT so that when we get to #20 later this month we don;t have to skip the RB, WR, QB, OLB we want to draft a LT prospect.

[Jetsfan80]

1 minute ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

They all take up roster spots and cap space and limit opportunity and flexibility. In exchange, they make us just good enough for you goofballs to play the 'poised to take the next step' card to justify doing more of the same. But, like, just this time, guys, because we're building through the draft and stuff.

You seem very concerned about our inability to develop Brent Qvale and Ben Ijalana.  I'm not.  When we have players worthy of being groomed, those veteran players will be gone forever.  All comes down to Macc nailing this draft. 

[dbatesman]

3 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

You seem very concerned about our inability to develop Brent Qvale and Ben Ijalana.  I'm not.  When we have players worthy of being groomed, those veteran players will be gone forever.  All comes down to Macc nailing this draft. 

How the hell will we know if he nails it or not? There are only 5 spots in the starting lineup that will even be open to competition.