ESPN Grades the Offseason

[Rangers9]

32 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Its not bad contracts.

Stop already, the team went from 4 wins to 10.  When the excitement of a playoff push and winning streak was going on the contracts were great and getting results.  Now a year later when the excitement of a year ago is gone the internet GMs come out complaining about contracts.  

The Revis contract has tied this team's hands. And he didn't live up to even close to that contract last year. Now we are in cap hell after being in cap heaven. The hated Fitz only made 3.25 last season. No wonder he wants a better deal and not double like the Jets probably offered him because it's not market for a starting Qb off of a good year. 

[nyjunc]

5 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

The Revis contract has tied this team's hands. And he didn't live up to even close to that contract last year. Now we are in cap hell after being in cap heaven. The hated Fitz only made 3.25 last season. No wonder he wants a better deal and not double like the Jets probably offered him because it's not market for a starting Qb off of a good year. 

we are not in cap hell, not even close.  Fitz deserves a raise but not as much as he thinks he does(though he has the right to ask for any amount he wants), revis was more important to the 10 wins than Fitz was.

[Mainejet]

1 hour ago, JiF said:

That's fair though I think banking on Smith and Amaro are stretches.  If Deck or Marsh goes down, who's up?  They got rid or Kerley.  I think the loss of Snacks is big.  I think the loss of Brick is big because I have zero confidence in Clady even making it to the regular season.  Cro is addition by subtraction but it does leave some depth concerns IMO.

This year was all about the draft which is impossible to predict at this point.  If they hit, all is good.  If they miss (which this draft as a huge potential for) it's very bad for the future of this team.  It's nice to have new young LB'ers but to say they're adequate replacements is purely hope driven.

No QB in May hurts too.

Where they're going to get lift is, hopefully some of last years draft steps up and maybe they actually have a few starters out of this draft but it doesnt look like it right away.  We shall see. 

 

You are absolutely correct. That much was obvious from the outset. Based on the Jets being cash strapped, this offseason was ultimately going to come down to the draft. It was a hard situation that was only compounded by the unexpected Fitz hold out.

However, looking at the draft, you need to look at what as not confronted/remedied:

1) Mac did not select a TE. This is huge and I don't care what anyone says. TE is a instrumental part of any good offense. Mac completely ignored that part of the offense and that will come to haunt this offense during the regular season.

2) ZERO attention paid to the OL. It's one thing to get a depth guy in the 5th round, but confronting the starting 5 is something entirely different. Colon is long in the tooth and the right side is marginal at best. Clady is certainly no guarantee. This has the potential to shut down everything good on offense.

All in all this team did NOT get better on offense. The fact is, they got worse merely by losing a very reliable player and the entire unit getting a year older.

Although this could be debated, I do not believe the defense got any better. They added a small fry linebacker that will needs lots of time to beef up and he be a situational player at best in the future. They added a linebacker that will help with depth. And they added a CB when personally, especially after the return of Cro, I don't quite frankly think they needed.

That all adds up to a losing season. Like I posted already I figure about 6 wins, even with Fitz, is all this fan base can hope for. And as it should be, the fan base will be questioning Mac's competence/ability to do the job going forward. Mac's job is not merely replace lost players. His job is to build a SB winner and they are clearly off track of that goal as of May 2016.

[Rangers9]

8 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

we are not in cap hell, not even close.  Fitz deserves a raise but not as much as he thinks he does(though he has the right to ask for any amount he wants), revis was more important to the 10 wins than Fitz was.

I'm a Revis fan but this comment is laughable. Revis was obviously not the player he used to be and his contract was way way over market. Our current cap situation isn't good and a lot is due to that deal. I don't know what Fitz is asking for. I doubt 16 mil. He's not that stupid,

[Mainejet]

1 minute ago, Rangers9 said:

I'm a Revis fan but this comment is laughable. Revis was obviously not the player he used to be and his contract was way way over market. Our current cap situation isn't good and a lot is due to that deal. I don't know what Fitz is asking for. I doubt 16 mil. He's not that stupid,

The article I read said he's looking for 15 million per season and the Jets are offering 7 million per. That's a huge indicator that both parties are in completely different ballparks altogether. NYJunc is right, Fitz is deserving of a raise from two seasons ago, but 15 million is way overboard. Quite frankly, I think the 7 million Mac offered is quite fair. But Fitz does not like it and isn't biting.

[nyjunc]

3 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

I'm a Revis fan but this comment is laughable. Revis was obviously not the player he used to be and his contract was way way over market. Our current cap situation isn't good and a lot is due to that deal. I don't know what Fitz is asking for. I doubt 16 mil. He's not that stupid,

No, he wasn't revis 2009 or as great as he was 2nd half of 2010 but he was still a top 5 corner most of the year despite playing hurt and he brought some credibility back to our franchise.  

Our current cap situation is fine, don't believe everything you read.  the biggest problem right now is being hampered by the Mo situation.

[nyjunc]

7 minutes ago, Mainejet said:

You are absolutely correct. That much was obvious from the outset. Based on the Jets being cash strapped, this offseason was ultimately going to come down to the draft. It was a hard situation that was only compounded by the unexpected Fitz hold out.

However, looking at the draft, you need to look at what as not confronted/remedied:

1) Mac did not select a TE. This is huge and I don't care what anyone says. TE is a instrumental part of any good offense. Mac completely ignored that part of the offense and that will come to haunt this offense during the regular season.

2) ZERO attention paid to the OL. It's one thing to get a depth guy in the 5th round, but confronting the starting 5 is something entirely different. Colon is long in the tooth and the right side is marginal at best. Clady is certainly no guarantee. This has the potential to shut down everything good on offense.

All in all this team did NOT get better on offense. The fact is, they got worse merely by losing a very reliable player and the entire unit getting a year older.

Although this could be debated, I do not believe the defense got any better. They added a small fry linebacker that will needs lots of time to beef up and he be a situational player at best in the future. They added a linebacker that will help with depth. And they added a CB when personally, especially after the return of Cro, I don't quite frankly think they needed.

That all adds up to a losing season. Like I posted already I figure about 6 wins, even with Fitz, is all this fan base can hope for. And as it should be, the fan base will be questioning Mac's competence/ability to do the job going forward. Mac's job is not merely replace lost players. His job is to build a SB winner and they are clearly off track of that goal as of May 2016.

good organizations to reach for needs.  it still remains to be seen how good Macc is but I am glad he doesn't reach for needs.

[Mainejet]

5 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

I'm a Revis fan but this comment is laughable. Revis was obviously not the player he used to be and his contract was way way over market. Our current cap situation isn't good and a lot is due to that deal. I don't know what Fitz is asking for. I doubt 16 mil. He's not that stupid,

And the Revis contract has very little to do with the current status of the team. Mac was counting on trading Mo so he could free up almost 16 million in cap space this offseason. Now that he was unable to trade Mo, the team suffered in the way of draft picks and a slight salary cap pickle for this season and this season only.

[Mainejet]

4 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

good organizations to reach for needs.  it still remains to be seen how good Macc is but I am glad he doesn't reach for needs.

Who said anything about reaching for need?

[Jet Nut]

27 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

The Revis contract has tied this team's hands. And he didn't live up to even close to that contract last year. Now we are in cap hell after being in cap heaven. The hated Fitz only made 3.25 last season. No wonder he wants a better deal and not double like the Jets probably offered him because it's not market for a starting Qb off of a good year. 

The Revis contract allowed the coaches to free up the D.  We're not in cap hell.  Stop crying about the cap.  The hated Fitz is hated because he's a 4 mil per QB who off a season where he shlt the bed to cost us a playoff spot he wants a rediculous new deal.  If Macc were stupid enough to pay a 11 year loser the 18 mil he wants we really would be in cap hell. 

I just can't get over the whining over cap hell because we paid Revis, one of the leagues best ever what he's worth but think Fitz, an 11 year loser is worth more.

 

[Rangers9]

7 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

No, he wasn't revis 2009 or as great as he was 2nd half of 2010 but he was still a top 5 corner most of the year despite playing hurt and he brought some credibility back to our franchise.  

Our current cap situation is fine, don't believe everything you read.  the biggest problem right now is being hampered by the Mo situation.

Revis got 39 guaranteed and is making 33 of that his first 2 years. That's the killer! It doesn't put us in a situation where we can pay players like Wilk. Since they don't want to lose him they signed him to the tag. But rumors were they were trying to trade him and not for that much. To move up a few slots in the draft for a player like him is not getting value.

[Rangers9]

14 minutes ago, Mainejet said:

The article I read said he's looking for 15 million per season and the Jets are offering 7 million per. That's a huge indicator that both parties are in completely different ballparks altogether. NYJunc is right, Fitz is deserving of a raise from two seasons ago, but 15 million is way overboard. Quite frankly, I think the 7 million Mac offered is quite fair. But Fitz does not like it and isn't biting.

There's many articles and rumors but nothing concrete on what Fitz is asking for. You can believe what you want to, I don't but if true it's way over his value. 

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, Integrity28 said:

Good post.

I also love that they rebuilt the entire RB corps on the cheap through FA. Smart economics there, the RB position is cheap. Pay them, draft the positions that command huge contracts.

Not as cheap as you think, though. The duo counts $10M on next year's cap and cost us a pair of 2017 draft picks.

 

[Integrity28]

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

Not as cheap as you think, though. The duo counts $10M on next year's cap and cost us a pair of 2017 draft picks.

 

They didn't cost us picks, assuming you're talking about comp picks. You cannot lose something you didn't have. The league is driven by FA, players were going to be signed - if not at RB, then other positions. Our drafting for the past 10 years has been too terrible to avoid that. So, no, they didn't "cost" us draft picks.

$10 on next years cap for players that should be good to go for both this year and next is a drop in the bucket. 2 players, $5 each, both proven, both veterans... 2 players together will be cheaper than 1 player at a premium cost position would have been. Like a CB. Just look at what mediocre CBs got paid per season in FA. 

So, let's imagine you have a $10m budget to spend... you can use it on 2 RBs that will have an immediate impact on the offense and locker room. Or you can use your $10m to pay a portion of what it would have cost to get Janoris Jenkins to come in and not play up to his contract.

Economics dude.

[nyjunc]

22 minutes ago, Mainejet said:

Who said anything about reaching for need?

you were complaining about not getting a TE and no OL early.

15 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

Revis got 39 guaranteed and is making 33 of that his first 2 years. That's the killer! It doesn't put us in a situation where we can pay players like Wilk. Since they don't want to lose him they signed him to the tag. But rumors were they were trying to trade him and not for that much. To move up a few slots in the draft for a player like him is not getting value.

that was done intentionally so that guaranteed money is off the books and they could move on if his play slips.  They are building for the long term not for 2016 alone.  we were never paying Wilk and Richardson- the team likes Richardson better so wilk is on the way out eventually(unless something changes).

[Rangers9]

3 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

you were complaining about not getting a TE and no OL early.

that was done intentionally so that guaranteed money is off the books and they could move on if his play slips.  They are building for the long term not for 2016 alone.  we were never paying Wilk and Richardson- the team likes Richardson better so wilk is on the way out eventually(unless something changes).

This kills us in 2016. And is a key factor more than Wilk in having cap space this coming season. Because of that deal they might have to get rid of Mo. 

[nyjunc]

Just now, Rangers9 said:

This kills us in 2016. And is a key factor more than Wilk in having cap space this coming season. Because of that deal they might have to get rid of Mo. 

the Mo deal has nothing to do w/ our cap right now, it has to do w/ not spending an insane amount of money on one position group.  There was no way we'd re-sign Mo and Richardson especially after drafting Williams who we get "cheap" for a few years.

[Rangers9]

10 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

the Mo deal has nothing to do w/ our cap right now, it has to do w/ not spending an insane amount of money on one position group.  There was no way we'd re-sign Mo and Richardson especially after drafting Williams who we get "cheap" for a few years.

Well that 15.8 counts against our cap this year. And that's what we're talking about: 2016.

[Savage69]

4 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

the Mo deal has nothing to do w/ our cap right now, it has to do w/ not spending an insane amount of money on one position group.  There was no way we'd re-sign Mo and Richardson especially after drafting Williams who we get "cheap" for a few years.

The Mo problem never should have happened except that from the beginning Mo had his sights set on a Watt type deal.. The problem is he's on a team that is loaded on the D-line and no team wanted to give him what he wants plus give the Jets compensation.. I really don't see why the Jets still have him tagged unless it's worth it until the trading deadline in Nov when maybe a good team loses a D-lineman and they get desperate..Other then that I think he walks free in 2017 or signs something both Mac and him can agree to but I highly doubt that happens.. Of course there is always the chance that Shelton joins ISIS and drives his Bentley 145 mph into the Pentagon..

[Sperm Edwards]

4 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

They didn't cost us picks, assuming you're talking about comp picks. You cannot lose something you didn't have. The league is driven by FA, players were going to be signed - if not at RB, then other positions. Our drafting for the past 10 years has been too terrible to avoid that. So, no, they didn't "cost" us draft picks.

$10 on next years cap for players that should be good to go for both this year and next is a drop in the bucket. 2 players, $5 each, both proven, both veterans... 2 players together will be cheaper than 1 player at a premium cost position would have been. Like a CB. Just look at what mediocre CBs got paid per season in FA. 

So, let's imagine you have a $10m budget to spend... you can use it on 2 RBs that will have an immediate impact on the offense and locker room. Or you can use your $10m to pay a portion of what it would have cost to get Janoris Jenkins to come in and not play up to his contract.

Economics dude.

That is just not true. They are draft picks we would have absolutely had if we didn't sign these UFAs ourselves. The imaginary-type compensatory picks you're thinking of are the ones people count in 2018 and beyond, since we don't know who we'll be in a position to lose and sign that far ahead. This year's FA period? They absolutely cost us draft picks in 2017, unless you believe both would still be free agents today or would have otherwise signed for the veteran minimum. 

Past Jets drafting is a meaningless thing to throw out there, and is of no more value than superstition unless it's the same people still doing the drafting (which it isn't). The whole idea of hiring Maccagnan was to undo that trend. Even through any criticism I have of Maccagnan I wouldn't insult him by suggesting he is no better at identifying college talent than Idzik or Tannenbaum, particularly in the later rounds where it becomes more difficult. 

Understand, I'm not against signing Forte or Powell. But the idea that they were so cheap is simply untrue. It's not an expensive position and $10-11M for next year's trio is among the more expensive groups in the NFL, so there's the economics dude. There is only one $10M/year RB in the NFL. Frankly there are only 2 (Peterson $14M & McCoy $8M) who are on contracts averaging over $7.3M/year. 

Not only will this be in the top 3-10 range of positional spending as a group in the next couple of years, and #13 in positional spending even here in year 1 of their pair of backloaded contracts, but we lose the cheap contracts next year that a pair of draft picks provides.

Economics dude.

[nyjunc]

9 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

Well that 15.8 counts against our cap this year. And that's what we're talking about: 2016.

sure but it didn't cost us Mo.  if anything Mo's franchise tag # is hurting our cap more.

6 minutes ago, Savage69 said:

The Mo problem never should have happened except that from the beginning Mo had his sights set on a Watt type deal.. The problem is he's on a team that is loaded on the D-line and no team wanted to give him what he wants plus give the Jets compensation.. I really don't see why the Jets still have him tagged unless it's worth it until the trading deadline in Nov when maybe a good team loses a D-lineman and they get desperate..Other then that I think he walks free in 2017 or signs something both Mac and him can agree to but I highly doubt that happens.. Of course there is always the chance that Shelton joins ISIS and drives his Bentley 145 mph into the Pentagon..

[PatsFanTX]

Of course there is always the chance that Shelton joins ISIS and drives his Bentley 145 mph into the Pentagon..

With or without a kid in the backseat?

[JiFtheOracle]

2 hours ago, Integrity28 said:

Are all 3 of them playing this year? 

From an economics standpoint, it still makes more sense to sign 3 established RBs and pay them collectively what they are getting for 1 year... than it does to pay one FA CB the inflated $14mil or whatever they commanded this year.

Even if you "rebuild" RB each year or two on short-term contracts for veterans, your money goes much, much further. It also leaves your draft picks to be spent on higher priced positions like CB, WR, etc.

You may not love the approach, but the economics of it are inarguable.

Sure.  Makes sense.  And I place literally zero value into RB's, so I'm fine with the approach.  But when I think "rebuilt"...I'm thinking of a position we dont need to address for 5 years.  Semantics I guess.

[Savage69]

4 minutes ago, PatsFanTX said:

With or without a kid in the backseat?

The kid will be holding the explosives and a huge joint..

[cant wait]

26 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

That is just not true. They are draft picks we would have absolutely had if we didn't sign these UFAs ourselves. The imaginary-type compensatory picks you're thinking of are the ones people count in 2018 and beyond, since we don't know who we'll be in a position to lose and sign that far ahead. This year's FA period? They absolutely cost us draft picks in 2017, unless you believe both would still be free agents today or would have otherwise signed for the veteran minimum. 

Past Jets drafting is a meaningless thing to throw out there, and is of no more value than superstition unless it's the same people still doing the drafting (which it isn't). The whole idea of hiring Maccagnan was to undo that trend. Even through any criticism I have of Maccagnan I wouldn't insult him by suggesting he is no better at identifying college talent than Idzik or Tannenbaum, particularly in the later rounds where it becomes more difficult. 

Understand, I'm not against signing Forte or Powell. But the idea that they were so cheap is simply untrue. It's not an expensive position and $10-11M for next year's trio is among the more expensive groups in the NFL, so there's the economics dude. There is only one $10M/year RB in the NFL. Frankly there are only 2 (Peterson $14M & McCoy $8M) who are on contracts averaging over $7.3M/year. 

Not only will this be in the top 3-10 range of positional spending as a group in the next couple of years, and #13 in positional spending even here in year 1 of their pair of backloaded contracts, but we lose the cheap contracts next year that a pair of draft picks provides.

Economics dude.

Considering ivory signed with jax for 5/32 I don't think signing the 3 players for $10-11 was really that bad considering the jets are not going to have a QB to pay in the next few years, and how much they are going to want to run the ball. Plus locking up 3 RB's like that before the draft lets the team fill holes they otherwise wouldn't have been able to do in FA

[greenwichjetfan]

Regardless of how you feel the Jets have done, if you were to look at the writer, and then read the patriots and jets portions, you'd understand why everyone hates Pats fans. 

Even on a national scale online publication, they are as biased as they are retarded.

Pats offseason: B. Why? Because they had their starting QB suspended for cheating, a first round draft pick taken away, and traded away a star player at possibly the second most premium position in football (after QB) when they should have kept him and tried winning as many SBs as possible in the closing window they have with their HoF cheating QB. 

Jets offseason: D. Why? Because they didn't sign Fitz, even though in his article, not signing him was the one and only thing they've done right all offseason.

[JiFtheOracle]

1 hour ago, Mainejet said:

You are absolutely correct. That much was obvious from the outset. Based on the Jets being cash strapped, this offseason was ultimately going to come down to the draft. It was a hard situation that was only compounded by the unexpected Fitz hold out.

However, looking at the draft, you need to look at what as not confronted/remedied:

1) Mac did not select a TE. This is huge and I don't care what anyone says. TE is a instrumental part of any good offense. Mac completely ignored that part of the offense and that will come to haunt this offense during the regular season.

2) ZERO attention paid to the OL. It's one thing to get a depth guy in the 5th round, but confronting the starting 5 is something entirely different. Colon is long in the tooth and the right side is marginal at best. Clady is certainly no guarantee. This has the potential to shut down everything good on offense.

All in all this team did NOT get better on offense. The fact is, they got worse merely by losing a very reliable player and the entire unit getting a year older.

Although this could be debated, I do not believe the defense got any better. They added a small fry linebacker that will needs lots of time to beef up and he be a situational player at best in the future. They added a linebacker that will help with depth. And they added a CB when personally, especially after the return of Cro, I don't quite frankly think they needed.

That all adds up to a losing season. Like I posted already I figure about 6 wins, even with Fitz, is all this fan base can hope for. And as it should be, the fan base will be questioning Mac's competence/ability to do the job going forward. Mac's job is not merely replace lost players. His job is to build a SB winner and they are clearly off track of that goal as of May 2016.

Cro returned?  

The draft was completely needs driven.  Which is fine if you hit.  

And I agree.  6-7 wins seems about right but I've been saying that for a while.  

That said, I expected to take a step back this year no matter what the team did this offseason outside of landing Aaron Rodgers.  And that's fine as long as the next move as an organization is you're taking 2 steps forward.  Which it could be, especially if a certain 2nd round pick doesnt suck as bad as he did in college.  Or, we could go 2 years with adding 1 player via the draft who literally fell in their lap based on pure luck and we're hiring for a new GM and HC in 2 years.  yay!

[kmnj]

Forte pick up was GREAT-I like the risk/reward on our new tackle

our QB pick -passing on Lynch will be like passing on Marino-sad but true

[Sperm Edwards]

58 minutes ago, cant wait said:

Considering ivory signed with jax for 5/32 I don't think signing the 3 players for $10-11 was really that bad considering the jets are not going to have a QB to pay in the next few years, and how much they are going to want to run the ball. Plus locking up 3 RB's like that before the draft lets the team fill holes they otherwise wouldn't have been able to do in FA

You are putting words in my mouth. I did not say it was bad. I said it wasn't "cheap" (compared to what other teams are spending on their RBs). 

Locking up 2 RBs like that (Khiry is on a 1 yr deal and was a RFA so he didn't cost a draft pick) may allow the team to not reach for a RB in the draft, but that is a double-edged sword. It also means we're probably staying away from a good RB we otherwise might have drafted. Ivory was signed for $6.4M per but that is atypical since there are only 2 RBs in the NFL making $1M/yr more than that.

Further, we did lose 1 draft pick for each of them signed. We lost 3 UFAs to other teams before May 12th, and would have lost 4 if we didn't re-sign Powell. So that's our starting point and from there you subtract 1 draft pick for each one of other teams' qualifying UFAs that we did sign (or in Powell's case, re-signing him): Forte, McLendon, Jenkins, Powell. 

[Big Blocker]

1 hour ago, greenwichjetfan said:

Regardless of how you feel the Jets have done, if you were to look at the writer, and then read the patriots and jets portions, you'd understand why everyone hates Pats fans. 

Even on a national scale online publication, they are as biased as they are retarded.

Pats offseason: B. Why? Because they had their starting QB suspended for cheating, a first round draft pick taken away, and traded away a star player at possibly the second most premium position in football (after QB) when they should have kept him and tried winning as many SBs as possible in the closing window they have with their HoF cheating QB. 

Jets offseason: D. Why? Because they didn't sign Fitz, even though in his article, not signing him was the one and only thing they've done right all offseason.

I am not a fan of the writer, but in fairness that is not accurate.  He said it was a plus the Jets have not given Fitzpatrick his asking number.  But yeah it is true that as of now they do not have a starting Qb on the roster, and also that perhaps while understandable the situation with Wilkerson is not good.  Both are correct.  Where there is room for debate is on the Hackenberg signing, so that was problematic to include in the D rating.

 

But if the Jets are not able to sign Fitzpatrick to a reasonable number and end up playing Smith, and adding in the situation with Wilkerson, I would also give a D subject to the scenario where Hackenberg turns out well, which of course would raise that grade.

[Integrity28]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

That is just not true. They are draft picks we would have absolutely had if we didn't sign these UFAs ourselves. The imaginary-type compensatory picks you're thinking of are the ones people count in 2018 and beyond, since we don't know who we'll be in a position to lose and sign that far ahead. This year's FA period? They absolutely cost us draft picks in 2017, unless you believe both would still be free agents today or would have otherwise signed for the veteran minimum. 

Past Jets drafting is a meaningless thing to throw out there, and is of no more value than superstition unless it's the same people still doing the drafting (which it isn't). The whole idea of hiring Maccagnan was to undo that trend. Even through any criticism I have of Maccagnan I wouldn't insult him by suggesting he is no better at identifying college talent than Idzik or Tannenbaum, particularly in the later rounds where it becomes more difficult. 

Understand, I'm not against signing Forte or Powell. But the idea that they were so cheap is simply untrue. It's not an expensive position and $10-11M for next year's trio is among the more expensive groups in the NFL, so there's the economics dude. There is only one $10M/year RB in the NFL. Frankly there are only 2 (Peterson $14M & McCoy $8M) who are on contracts averaging over $7.3M/year. 

Not only will this be in the top 3-10 range of positional spending as a group in the next couple of years, and #13 in positional spending even here in year 1 of their pair of backloaded contracts, but we lose the cheap contracts next year that a pair of draft picks provides.

Economics dude.

Horrible counterpoints - but I don't care enough to dance with you here.

You can't "lose" a comp pick if you never had it. If we didn't sign RBs, we would have signed other positions - because we need players. RBs are cheap relative to other premium positions, so you can get more out of a lesser spend on a RB. A long history of bad drafting was the precursor for everything that Mac is doing, to dismiss it is to dismiss context.

My points on this are pretty cut and dry... you'd actually have to go out of your way not to understand them.

Cheers.

[greenwichjetfan]

6 minutes ago, Big Blocker said:

I am not a fan of the writer, but in fairness that is not accurate.  He said it was a plus the Jets have not given Fitzpatrick his asking number.  But yeah it is true that as of now they do not have a starting Qb on the roster, and also that perhaps while understandable the situation with Wilkerson is not good.  Both are correct.  Where there is room for debate is on the Hackenberg signing, so that was problematic to include in the D rating.

 

But if the Jets are not able to sign Fitzpatrick to a reasonable number and end up playing Smith, and adding in the situation with Wilkerson, I would also give a D subject to the scenario where Hackenberg turns out well, which of course would raise that grade.

As my first sentence states, I wasn't commenting on just the Jets grade in a vacuum - but rather on the absurd relative grades of the Jets and Pats, as written by an admittedly biased pats fan, on a national online publication. 

My post had nothing to do with the merits of the Jets grade alone. 

[cant wait]

10 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You are putting words in my mouth. I did not say it was bad. I said it wasn't "cheap" (compared to what other teams are spending on their RBs). 

Locking up 2 RBs like that (Khiry is on a 1 yr deal and was a RFA so he didn't cost a draft pick) may allow the team to not reach for a RB in the draft, but that is a double-edged sword. It also means we're probably staying away from a good RB we otherwise might have drafted. Ivory was signed for $6.4M per but that is atypical since there are only 2 RBs in the NFL making $1M/yr more than that.

Further, we did lose 1 draft pick for each of them signed. We lost 3 UFAs to other teams before May 12th, and would have lost 4 if we didn't re-sign Powell. So that's our starting point and from there you subtract 1 draft pick for each one of other teams' qualifying UFAs that we did sign (or in Powell's case, re-signing him): Forte, McLendon, Jenkins, Powell. 

I didn't think you were saying it was bad, I just meant it wasn't a bad deal in terms of relative value. RB's in general are pretty cheap so dollar for dollar it's probably a net savings to sign in FA rather than draft assuming we're acquiring starters at higher value positions there. But the true franchise backs like an AP are so rare that's it's really hard to value them on the same scale. That said I'd be thrilled if the jets had a chance to draft chubb or fournette next season 

[Integrity28]

1 hour ago, JiF said:

Sure.  Makes sense.  And I place literally zero value into RB's, so I'm fine with the approach.  But when I think "rebuilt"...I'm thinking of a position we dont need to address for 5 years.  Semantics I guess.

Fair enough. 

Few things in the NFL last 5 years. Especially RBs.

[Sperm Edwards]

3 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

Horrible counterpoints - but I don't care enough to dance with you here.

You can't "lose" a comp pick if you never had it. If we didn't sign RBs, we would have signed other positions - because we need players. RBs are cheap relative to other premium positions, so you can get more out of a lesser spend on a RB. A long history of bad drafting was the precursor for everything that Mac is doing, to dismiss it is to dismiss context.

My points on this are pretty cut and dry... you'd actually have to go out of your way not to understand them.

Cheers.

You are arguing semantics. They are picks we would have had if we didn't specifically sign UFAs. A GM is supposed to take this into account when signing players. It's why they pay someone the veteran minimum and not $1 over it, so they won't lose a pick. It's why signing a cut player is often the move made instead of signing the true UFA.

If we did not sign pure UFAs then we would have more draft picks. It is as simple as that. When signing a qualifying UFA it deletes a draft pick we would have received. Every GM knows this. It is no accident that some teams, in the eyes of the blind, always seem to get compensatory picks like it's some scandal. 

The "long history of bad drafting" is just nonsensical, and frankly I'm surprised to see you make such an argument. So Maccagnan should pass up the opportunity to draft players, in favor of expensive, older FAs, because his recently-fired predecessors drafted a lot of busts? 

Talk about a horrible counterpoint. That is superstition not logic.