ESPN Grades the Offseason

[Integrity28]

17 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

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.

lol, you brought up the comp picks - picks we don't have - as being a "cost". 

you're making a hypothetical argument, but treating it as an absolute... you sure you want to bring up logic?

i think you've been bickering with the derps too long... you're starting to assemble arguments the same way they do.

 

[win4ever]

Lol

What went right?  They didn't meet Fitz's demands. 

What went wrong?  They didn't pull a QB out from a hat.  

Suggestion?  Give into Fitz's demands.   

I expect a lot of "experts" to show tough love to the Jets because picking on Geno and Hackenberg sells clicks.  The Jets face a tough schedule, so the odds are they aren't going to improve on last year's record, therefore they will have "proof" of their bad grade in the off-season being validated by regression.  

There were NO QBs available that would have solved the QB issue.  They tried to pay up for Goff, but got outbidded by another team.  Lynch was too risky, and wouldn't have solved anything for this year.  Wilkerson is more useful as a player than dealing him away for a second round pick.   Fitz is a journeyman QB that over-estimated his worth.

I don't mind grade articles, but I would like the correct actions as well to accompany them.  If they don't have a QB, provide viable examples of what was a better option.  If they didn't trade Wilkerson, provide info on what was available.  It's the same thing with draft grade, if these writers don't like picks, provide alternative picks so in the future there can be some comparison.  

[SenorGato]

ESPN does realize there is a whole summer to go, right?

[Sperm Edwards]

37 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

lol, you brought up the comp picks - picks we don't have - as being a "cost". 

you're making a hypothetical argument, but treating it as an absolute... you sure you want to bring up logic?

i think you've been bickering with the derps too long... you're starting to assemble arguments the same way they do.

 

It is a cost.

We lost 3 UFAs, which would have been 4 if Powell was not re-signed. We signed 4 UFAs (3 newcomers + Powell). The net is zero. If we didn't sign 2 of them, the net would be 2.

The Jets would have had extra draft picks if they didn't sign UFAs to offset the ones they lost. This isn't even controversial and can't see how you are arguing it, unless you believe the number of compensatory picks awarded is purely arbitrary.

If the Jets didn't sign 2 more UFAs how many more draft picks would they have next year? The answer is 2. Your answer, inexplicably, is zero.

[Sperm Edwards]

6 minutes ago, cant wait said:

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 

If you remove the true franchise backs like AP or McCoy, then they become proportionally even more expensive.

I don't think it was bad to sign Forte or Powell. I like the idea of bringing in sure-thing good receivers+blockers when we are trying to break in a young QB.

[Integrity28]

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It is a cost.

We lost 3 UFAs, which would have been 4 if Powell was not re-signed. We signed 4 UFAs (3 newcomers + Powell). The net is zero. If we didn't sign 2 of them, the net would be 2.

The Jets would have had extra draft picks if they didn't sign UFAs to offset the ones they lost. This isn't even controversial and can't see how you are arguing it, unless you believe the number of compensatory picks awarded is purely arbitrary.

If the Jets didn't sign 2 more UFAs how many more draft picks would they have next year? The answer is 2. Your answer, inexplicably, is zero.

Now you're arguing the semantics of a hypothetical.

They are only a cost, IF we didn't sign other positions instead of RB. A team that wants to draft best player available is always going to address needs in FA. So, the reality is, we were going to spend some of our cap space on FA signings.Your scenario in which we get that many comp picks is completely reliant upon not signing any FAs... or, a situation that wasn't going to transpire.

Therefore, we didn't really "lose" comp picks - because we were always going to use what cap space we had to address needs. Since this is the reality, not a hypothetical argument based on an unrealistic condition, it brings me back to my point that you get more RB talent for your buck, than you do premium position players.

All done now?

[Big Blocker]

1 hour ago, greenwichjetfan said:

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. 

I was referring to the last sentence in your previous post.

[Sperm Edwards]

8 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

Now you're arguing the semantics of a hypothetical.

They are only a cost, IF we didn't sign other positions instead of RB. A team that wants to draft best player available is always going to address needs in FA. So, the reality is, we were going to spend some of our cap space on FA signings.Your scenario in which we get that many comp picks is completely reliant upon not signing any FAs... or, a situation that wasn't going to transpire.

Therefore, we didn't really "lose" comp picks - because we were always going to use what cap space we had to address needs. Since this is the reality, not a hypothetical argument based on an unrealistic condition, it brings me back to my point that you get more RB talent for your buck, than you do premium position players.

All done now?

No, you can sign players who do not count towards the formula. There is no requirement to sign two UFA RBs and a UFA DE-DT who will be 4th on our depth chart. All of them on shorter, 2 or 3 year contracts (if they even fully play out those contracts).

You ARE in effect trading draft picks away. You can rationalize that you think they were worth it anyhow, but that is not the same thing as saying they did not cary this additional cost. They cost 2 draft picks. We lost 3 UFAs and would have lost 4 if Powell was not re-signed. If we only signed one RB and a NT then we'd have 2 additional draft picks.

To ignore this is to ignore the additional cost in signing/re-signing FAs. If this was a year we didn't lose UFAs, or only lost 1 UFA, then it wouldn't matter. 

[Integrity28]

3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No, you can sign players who do not count towards the formula. There is no requirement to sign two UFA RBs and a UFA DE-DT who will be 4th on our depth chart. All of them on shorter, 2 or 3 year contracts (if they even fully play out those contracts).

You ARE in effect trading draft picks away. You can rationalize that you think they were worth it anyhow, but that is not the same thing. They cost 2 draft picks. We lost 3 UFAs and would have lost 4 if Powell was not re-signed. If we only signed one RB and a NT then we'd have 2 additional draft picks.

To ignore this is to ignore the additional cost in signing/re-signing FAs. If this was a year we didn't lose UFAs then it wouldn't matter. 

So, another condition to your hypothetical argument is that our GM do less than what he thinks he needs to do to make us competitive.

In other words, sign lesser players, be less competitive, in order to collect comp picks.

Boy, you can shovel it.

[Beerfish]

6 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

So, another condition to your hypothetical argument is that our GM do less than what he thinks he needs to do to make us competitive.

In other words, sign lesser players, be less competitive, in order to collect comp picks.

Boy, you can shovel it.

If you are in rebuild mode that is a rational way to approach things.  If you are going to face a tough sched and trot out Fitz or much worse alternatives, plug he holes but if these guys are not going to really make an impact.  No gm is going to come right out and say they are fine with getting lesser players but around this time next eyar we will be deciding whether it was better to have 2 or 3 more comp picks perhaps as high as a 3rd rounder or having jarvis jenkins or mclendon etc around.

 

There can be debate on which way a management team can go in this regard but some really successful teams over time always have a boat load of picks and resist the temptation to sign too many medium or lesser guys

[Sperm Edwards]

7 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

So, another condition to your hypothetical argument is that our GM do less than what he thinks he needs to do to make us competitive.

In other words, sign lesser players, be less competitive, in order to collect comp picks.

Boy, you can shovel it.

No, you are shoveling it by making up what I'm saying. Your position is akin to saying the Jets were required to sign every UFA they signed, which is absurd.

I'm saying there was no NFL requirement for the Jets to bring in two UFA RBs, nor yet another DE-DT. Therefore their cost in draft picks lost is part of their calculated cost in a year the Jets would otherwise qualify for multiple compensatory draft picks. Why is this difficult to accept? 

Were the Jets required to bring in Forte and re-sign Powell? Of course not. 

[Sperm Edwards]

2 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

If you are in rebuild mode that is a rational way to approach things.  If you are going to face a tough sched and trot out Fitz or much worse alternatives, plug he holes but if these guys are not going to really make an impact.  No gm is going to come right out and say they are fine with getting lesser players but around this time next eyar we will be deciding whether it was better to have 2 or 3 more comp picks perhaps as high as a 3rd rounder or having jarvis jenkins or mclendon etc around.

 

There can be debate on which way a management team can go in this regard but some really successful teams over time always have a boat load of picks and resist the temptation to sign too many medium or lesser guys

Thank you. 

And worst of all, I'm not even saying they were ill-conceived additions (though this is his new turnaround to suggest I am only advocating for undesirable FAs).

I'm merely saying - and have been - that the draft picks we otherwise would have been awarded are part of the calculated cost when signing these UFAs.

[win4ever]

12 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Thank you. 

And worst of all, I'm not even saying they were ill-conceived additions (though this is his new turnaround to suggest I am only advocating for undesirable FAs).

I'm merely saying - and have been - that the draft picks we otherwise would have been awarded are part of the calculated cost when signing these UFAs.

For all the crap he received, Idzik was actually good at this part of the game.  I guess it is a trade-off, because he couldn't do anything with those picks.  If Maccagnan got those picks, I would have much better faith, but he hasn't done well to acquire the comp picks.  The consistently good teams do it because they can balance both, but those guys are hard to find it seems.  

One thing I regret about Rex was that, Caldwell was willing to come here if he got to fire Rex, but he didn't want to be stuck with a coach, and picked the Jags.  He's done a great job of turning them around because it was reported that we wanted to hire him before Idzik.  I wish we had a mulligan on that.  

[Larz]

I think incomplete would be a better grade with the whole fitz and mo thing

[Sperm Edwards]

6 minutes ago, win4ever said:

For all the crap he received, Idzik was actually good at this part of the game.  I guess it is a trade-off, because he couldn't do anything with those picks.  If Maccagnan got those picks, I would have much better faith, but he hasn't done well to acquire the comp picks.  The consistently good teams do it because they can balance both, but those guys are hard to find it seems.  

One thing I regret about Rex was that, Caldwell was willing to come here if he got to fire Rex, but he didn't want to be stuck with a coach, and picked the Jags.  He's done a great job of turning them around because it was reported that we wanted to hire him before Idzik.  I wish we had a mulligan on that.  

Yeah that's one of the problems I'm having trouble reconciling. Maccagnan's strength is he has a scout's background. This is someone who I have faith in knowing what to do with a 4th, a 5th, and a pair of 6th rounders when it's our turn to pick, and expect him to use them for players not just to trade them away. 

We passed up on 4 draft picks so we could:

1. sign a backup DE-DT on a 2 year deal (he'll be a backup/rotational player on the Jets, not a starter)
2. re-sign a backup/3rd down RB from ages 28-30
3. sign a starting RB from ages 30-32
4. sign a 2-down NT from ages 30-32

I'm not saying we should sign no FAs except sh*tty ones. However, if we're going to bypass draft picks then I generally like it to be for players that have a longer-term future with the team. Someone the team wants to hang onto for more than 2-3 years.

Put it this way. If we had received news of these additions another way - that we had these picks in 2017, and traded them outright to add these 4 players - then people would like the moves a lot less. It didn't occur that way, of course, but in terms of end results it's a distinction without a difference. These are draft picks we would have had. 

[win4ever]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Yeah that's one of the problems I'm having trouble reconciling. Maccagnan's strength is he has a scout's background. This is someone who I have faith in knowing what to do with a 4th, a 5th, and a pair of 6th rounders when it's our turn to pick, and expect him to use them for players not just to trade them away. 

We passed up on 4 draft picks so we could:

1. sign a backup DE-DT on a 2 year deal (he'll be a backup/rotational player on the Jets, not a starter)
2. re-sign a backup/3rd down RB from ages 28-30
3. sign a starting RB from ages 30-32
4. sign a 2-down NT from ages 30-32

I'm not saying we should sign no FAs except sh*tty ones. However, if we're going to bypass draft picks then I generally like it to be for players that have a longer-term future with the team. Someone the team wants to hang onto for more than 2-3 years.

Put it this way. If we had received news of these additions another way - that we had these picks in 2017, and traded them outright to add these 4 players - then people would like the moves a lot less. It didn't occur that way, of course, but in terms of end results it's a distinction without a difference. These are draft picks we would have had. 

I think part of it is media pressure, and this constant rush to win every year.  Even now, look at the clamor for Fitzpatrick, pretty much every media outlet presenting the story as if we were declining Peyton Manning in his prime.  I think in places like Baltimore or NE, the management team has enough clout with the fan-base that they'll trust them more than some hack reporter with opinions.  There is less pressure, which allows you to be more bold and take risks on not signing free agents.  Idzik still gets heckled for letting Cromartie-Rodgers go to the Giants, even though their pass defense has been terrible the last two years.  

I think the DT signings were pretty much out of necessity after Snacks left because they had to operate as if Wilkerson would be gone, and didn't want to pigeonhole themselves in the draft.  

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, win4ever said:

I think part of it is media pressure, and this constant rush to win every year.  Even now, look at the clamor for Fitzpatrick, pretty much every media outlet presenting the story as if we were declining Peyton Manning in his prime.  I think in places like Baltimore or NE, the management team has enough clout with the fan-base that they'll trust them more than some hack reporter with opinions.  There is less pressure, which allows you to be more bold and take risks on not signing free agents.  Idzik still gets heckled for letting Cromartie-Rodgers go to the Giants, even though their pass defense has been terrible the last two years.  

I think the DT signings were pretty much out of necessity after Snacks left because they had to operate as if Wilkerson would be gone, and didn't want to pigeonhole themselves in the draft.  

I just don't think, as a backup, Jenkins is worth $1M/year plus a 4th round draft pick to have over someone like Douzable for a year or two.

If we wanted him to be a starter - a long-term starter at that - then that would be different.

[RutgersJetFan]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No, you can sign players who do not count towards the formula. There is no requirement to sign two UFA RBs and a UFA DE-DT who will be 4th on our depth chart. All of them on shorter, 2 or 3 year contracts (if they even fully play out those contracts).

You ARE in effect trading draft picks away. You can rationalize that you think they were worth it anyhow, but that is not the same thing as saying they did not cary this additional cost. They cost 2 draft picks. We lost 3 UFAs and would have lost 4 if Powell was not re-signed. If we only signed one RB and a NT then we'd have 2 additional draft picks.

To ignore this is to ignore the additional cost in signing/re-signing FAs. If this was a year we didn't lose UFAs, or only lost 1 UFA, then it wouldn't matter. 

Similar qualms on my end too. Just an unrealistic assessment of where this team stood for the year and not a ton of foresight for much. So far as I can tell this FO's selling point for 2016 is yeah but just wait until we have all this cap room in 2017! 

[Integrity28]

3 hours ago, Beerfish said:

If you are in rebuild mode that is a rational way to approach things.  If you are going to face a tough sched and trot out Fitz or much worse alternatives, plug he holes but if these guys are not going to really make an impact.  No gm is going to come right out and say they are fine with getting lesser players but around this time next eyar we will be deciding whether it was better to have 2 or 3 more comp picks perhaps as high as a 3rd rounder or having jarvis jenkins or mclendon etc around.

 

There can be debate on which way a management team can go in this regard but some really successful teams over time always have a boat load of picks and resist the temptation to sign too many medium or lesser guys

Brings us back to the history of bad drafting. We aren't a successful team, we don't have the luxury of becoming relevant while signing lesser players.

maybe in a couple years.

in the meantime, no.

[Integrity28]

3 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Thank you. 

And worst of all, I'm not even saying they were ill-conceived additions (though this is his new turnaround to suggest I am only advocating for undesirable FAs).

I'm merely saying - and have been - that the draft picks we otherwise would have been awarded are part of the calculated cost when signing these UFAs.

Repetition doesn't prove points.

either way, $10m for 2 RBs and perhaps comp picks, depending on other hypothetical cause and effect... Is still better than $10m paying a portion of a CB contract, and the comp pick he would cost us too.

so yeah, still better economics to buy a RB corps in FA and draft the big contract positions... My original point, before you channeled the derp and began stating hypotheticals as facts.

[Ohio State NY Jets fan]

D-line did not get better

O-line did not get better

QB did not get better

DB, WR, stayed the same, just a year older

RB could be the same or better or not ($10M invested?)

LB got better (strength of the drat)

ST got much better

based on what we know today the grade is not that bad

[cant wait]

7 minutes ago, Ohio State NY Jets fan said:

D-line did not get better

O-line did not get better

QB did not get better

DB, WR, stayed the same 

LB got better

ST got much better

based on what we know today the grade is not that bad

Leo should be better in year 2, and I think shell has a chance to be a steal... not to mention clady has a chance to be an upgrade from brick. The jets are a transitioning team, the roster needs to get younger or this team is going to be in trouble fast 

[Integrity28]

15 minutes ago, Ohio State NY Jets fan said:

D-line did not get better

O-line did not get better

QB did not get better

DB, WR, stayed the same, just a year older

RB could be the same or better or not ($10M invested?)

LB got better (strength of the drat)

ST got much better

based on what we know today the grade is not that bad

Haven't played a down. 

Stating this sh*t as fact. 

Our fans.

[AFJF]

11 hours ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

 

What went wrong

They still don't have a quarterback.

Wait...what?  Somebody's never heard of Geno Smith.

[Sperm Edwards]

21 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

Repetition doesn't prove points.

either way, $10m for 2 RBs and perhaps comp picks, depending on other hypothetical cause and effect... Is still better than $10m paying a portion of a CB contract, and the comp pick he would cost us too.

so yeah, still better economics to buy a RB corps in FA and draft the big contract positions... My original point, before you channeled the derp and began stating hypotheticals as facts.

False. All I did was say the picks we passed up on are part of the cost of signing them, and that  as a RB group they aren't cheap. 

You seem to think that arguing they're worth it means it ceases to be true. 

Why isn't Mo on another team? Because he's not worth a 1st rounder? He is. Because he isn't worth all that money? He is. It's the added cost of both together that no team feels he's worth. This is the same principle but with lower value players: they cost the money and the picks the team no longer has to use. 

Honestly I don't know why you're arguing this obvious reality. 

[Matt39]

Personally I'd like the Jets one year to have a boatload of picks and get younger at RB and WR. Will never happen though.

[BowlesMovement]

3 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Yeah that's one of the problems I'm having trouble reconciling. Maccagnan's strength is he has a scout's background. This is someone who I have faith in knowing what to do with a 4th, a 5th, and a pair of 6th rounders when it's our turn to pick, and expect him to use them for players not just to trade them away. 

We passed up on 4 draft picks so we could:

1. sign a backup DE-DT on a 2 year deal (he'll be a backup/rotational player on the Jets, not a starter)
2. re-sign a backup/3rd down RB from ages 28-30
3. sign a starting RB from ages 30-32
4. sign a 2-down NT from ages 30-32

I'm not saying we should sign no FAs except sh*tty ones. However, if we're going to bypass draft picks then I generally like it to be for players that have a longer-term future with the team. Someone the team wants to hang onto for more than 2-3 years.

Put it this way. If we had received news of these additions another way - that we had these picks in 2017, and traded them outright to add these 4 players - then people would like the moves a lot less. It didn't occur that way, of course, but in terms of end results it's a distinction without a difference. These are draft picks we would have had. 

You want to throw away the season because you think they have no chance at a SB. And that's fair for a fan, but as the GM of the jets, he's got the difficult job of keeping the worst fan base in sports somewhat happy and rebuilding at the same time. All of his moves have been a balancing act of the two, and I can't blame him with this fan base and this media, and the results are what your noting.

[Sperm Edwards]

3 hours ago, BowlesMovement said:

You want to throw away the season because you think they have no chance at a SB. And that's fair for a fan, but as the GM of the jets, he's got the difficult job of keeping the worst fan base in sports somewhat happy and rebuilding at the same time. All of his moves have been a balancing act of the two, and I can't blame him with this fan base and this media, and the results are what your noting.

Go back and read what I said. That is not a valid interpretation to make. Only a few times in this thread alone I said I like both of the RBs precisely because it's a great asset for a young QB. 

I do think the Jenkins signing was less than brilliant, though. 

I'm pointing out the added costs of these supposedly cheap players. But in general if there's one thing I want to see more of Macc doing it's using his scouting skills in drafting young players, not trading next year's picks away for older stopgaps and backups. 

If he's so gung ho on a SB run this year why is he accepting Geno Smith as his starting QB after dangling Mo Wilk for a draft pick? It's a bit of a contradiction, no?

[Integrity28]

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

False. All I did was say the picks we passed up on are part of the cost of signing them, and that  as a RB group they aren't cheap. 

You seem to think that arguing they're worth it means it ceases to be true. 

Why isn't Mo on another team? Because he's not worth a 1st rounder? He is. Because he isn't worth all that money? He is. It's the added cost of both together that no team feels he's worth. This is the same principle but with lower value players: they cost the money and the picks the team no longer has to use. 

Honestly I don't know why you're arguing this obvious reality. 

I know what you said. I also know that you're ignoring several realities in favor of a hypothetical "cost" argument. 

As I've already stated, the history of bad drafting has resulted in a dearth of talent on this roster. This is indisputable and fundamental to the discussion of a "acquire comp picks" strategy. Someone pointed out how Idzik was "very good" as this aspect of his job - but the reality is that he had to consciously throw away season in order to accumulate comp picks. This is horrific. This FO wants to be competitive, annually, and to draft BPA. This much we've come to know as true. As part of this strategy, they have used FA to address immediate needs at the front-end of the roster, where we are shallow, in hopes that the influx of good drafting they will (hopefully) do will slowly augment the back-end of the roster - and in time become the new front-end. 

In order to accomplish this, the FO has to spend their cap space on a certain caliber of player. Meaning, the likelihood of signing back-end talent in order to secure comp picks is fundamentally unrealistic. We use FA to add viable, impactful veterans. Not guys who can compete to be the backup to the backup. Since all evidence points to this being core to the "right now" strategy, we should be able to conclude (based on this evidence) that the FO was never going to make a transaction of the type that would earn them these illustrious comp picks you so long for.... therefore, we never had them... so we can't "lose" them. 

You can't count something as a cost, if there was never a realistic possibility of having them. The FO strategy of using FA to fill holes so we can be competitive right now is what "costs" us comp picks... it's conscious choice, by the FO, to not value them over being immediately competitive. 

Anyway, this FO has made it clear that they aren't on a win later schedule. If they hadn't signed these RBs, then they would have signed FAs at other need positions of a similar caliber - which means they wouldn't have gotten the comp picks. 

So, the point you are making is unrealistic. Yes, it could be hypothetically true, in a very specific scenario in which we ignore everything we know about the state of the team and the approach of the FO. I think it's foolish to do that.

And the reality still remains that rebuilding your RB corps by adding 2 veteran RBs for $10 and whatever forfeit of comp picks is still better economics than using your $10m toward a portion of a mediocre CB's contract, and ulimately the comp picks he would force us to forfeit too. 

So, even if I ignore the unrealistic nature of your argument, that we "lose" comp picks - it is still cheaper to spend on FA RB's than premium contract positions. It is better for the economics of the team to have a steady stream of players that typically get the big 2nd contracts coming from the draft. Seems pretty basic to me.

 

 

 

[Integrity28]

15 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Go back and read what I said. That is not a valid interpretation to make. Only a few times in this thread alone I said I like the RBs precisely because it's a great asset for a young QB. 

I do think the Jenkins signing was less than brilliant, though. 

I'm pointing out the added costs of these supposedly cheap players. But in general if there's one thing I want to see more of Macc doing it's using his scouting skills in drafting young players, not trading next year's picks away for older stopgaps and backups. 

If he's so gung ho on a SB run this year why is he accepting Geno Smith as his starting QB after dangling Mo Wilk for a draft pick? It's a bit of a contradiction, no?

RBs are cheap compared to CBs. 

With or without the stupid comp picks argument. 

Basic sh*t. I hope you get paid by the word... otherwise, yeesh.

[ljr]

11 hours ago, JiF said:

I didnt expect much but if you're giving an objective grade than it's fair.  The team got worse, no? 

Depends on who is playing QB week 1

[NYs Stepchild]

3 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Yeah that's one of the problems I'm having trouble reconciling. Maccagnan's strength is he has a scout's background. This is someone who I have faith in knowing what to do with a 4th, a 5th, and a pair of 6th rounders when it's our turn to pick, and expect him to use them for players not just to trade them away. 

We passed up on 4 draft picks so we could:

1. sign a backup DE-DT on a 2 year deal (he'll be a backup/rotational player on the Jets, not a starter)
2. re-sign a backup/3rd down RB from ages 28-30
3. sign a starting RB from ages 30-32
4. sign a 2-down NT from ages 30-32

I'm not saying we should sign no FAs except sh*tty ones. However, if we're going to bypass draft picks then I generally like it to be for players that have a longer-term future with the team. Someone the team wants to hang onto for more than 2-3 years.

Put it this way. If we had received news of these additions another way - that we had these picks in 2017, and traded them outright to add these 4 players - then people would like the moves a lot less. It didn't occur that way, of course, but in terms of end results it's a distinction without a difference. These are draft picks we would have had. 

Robinson is going to be a lot better than people think. It's only a one year contract or I'd say he was going to be worth it. 

We really needed those tackles. I'm not sure who you would have preferred. 

[NYs Stepchild]

1 hour ago, Ohio State NY Jets fan said:

D-line did not get better

O-line did not get better

QB did not get better

DB, WR, stayed the same, just a year older

RB could be the same or better or not ($10M invested?)

LB got better (strength of the drat)

ST got much better

based on what we know today the grade is not that bad

Oline did get better. Maybe a lot better.

DBs should be quite a bit better. Cro is gone, and Pryor should really come on.

Wrs should be better with Enunwa, and Smith gaining experience. 

TE should be better with Amaro back.

 

[Jet Nut]

10 hours 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. 

He didn't live up to it according to you.  But you want a bottom third QB to get a raise.  If he wants a better deal why doesn't your boy go out and get one?  Hint because there is no better deal.  The jets offered to almost triple his pay.  No one else offered a penny.  Not 1 cent.  Explain to me what the market value is for a 11 vet who has one season with over 6 wins and ZERO trips to the playoffs?  Who has no one, not a single team outside of the jets even talking to him?  

Whats that worth?  14 mil?  And your even thinking about bitching about a all time greats contract? 

[CrazyCarl40]

32 minutes ago, NYs Stepchild said:

Oline did get better. Maybe a lot better.

DBs should be quite a bit better. Cro is gone, and Pryor should really come on.

Wrs should be better with Enunwa, and Smith gaining experience. 

TE should be better with Amaro back.

 

How did the OLine get better? Hoping and praying the Clady not only is healthy but returns to form while the right side continues to be below average?

How are the DBs better? They don't even have a clear cut #2 cornerback at this point and the depth at the position is a huge issue as well. Safety is fine, corner is a huge question mark.