ESPN Grades the Offseason

[Integrity28]

38 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

In a couple years?  In a couple years marshall is gone, decker maybe, revis probably, mangold for sure.  And there we we sit having let a couple more picks each year waft away becasue we figured we were closer than we were.

A massive issue with this team right now is QB.  If they really felt they were close they would have pulled the strings to for sure sign Fitzpatrick or if not that gone hard after a Qb that could maybe win.  We are making some moves as if we are close to winning and then not making the most important move in that regard.

Jesus, in a couple years after we've augmented the roster via drafting, we may not need to use FA the way we do now.

This sh*t is basic.

[Integrity28]

1 hour ago, Mainejet said:

Everyone should have known that although Mac made some noble efforts to replace the losses of Snacks and Brick, the success/failure of the 2016 NYJ was riding on the draft. It all boiled down to the draft. Mac selected a part time little midget linebacker and a whole bunch of role players. ZERO starters and he completely ignored the offense. No one should wonder why this season is going to be so hard for Jets fans. We have an incompetent GM and HC that does not know what he's doing.

If you have to start rookies, your team probably sucks. The goal is that they start eventually.

lol, awful

[Sperm Edwards]

34 minutes ago, Big Blocker said:

Yeah like if you are going to talk about the secondary, how not to mention Gilchrist?  Last I heard he's still starting.  But mentioning him makes it a bit longer. 

I do try to edit down to remove the unnecessary, even if to some it does not appear that way. 

If anything it should have been longer. Take it from me lol.

[Big Blocker]

16 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

If anything it should have been longer. Take it from me lol.

I'll remember that next time.

[Mainejet]

41 minutes ago, Big Blocker said:

That's a bit harsh.  I do sometimes wonder if the Jets will ever again go O in the first round.  But the two best skill players on O neither are draft picks, they did bring in Clady, and the relation of the draft to the O from this draft will depend entirely on Hackenberg's progress.  From last year I think most here are concerned D Smith could turn out to be a bust, and Amaro from Idzik's last year has so far underwhelmed. 

It's just a bit much to say with the Hackenberg pick that Macc ignored O in the draft.

Big Blocker, there's NO way Hackenberg has any sort of benefit this season. The kid needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. His mechanics, his processes, his confidence, there's pretty much of tis kid that was not shaken coming out of Penn State. He literally got the sh*t beat out of him and that's no exaggeration. He will have ZERO benefit for the NYJ in 2016. MAYBE 2017? Maybe? But this season the NYJ are all about either Geno or Fitz (assuming he resigns) starting.

OK, so maybe he didn't completely ignore the offense in this draft, but this draft has ZERO benefit for the offense in 2016.

[Big Blocker]

3 minutes ago, Mainejet said:

Big Blocker, there's NO way Hackenberg has any sort of benefit this season. The kid needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. His mechanics, his processes, his confidence, there's pretty much of tis kid that was not shaken coming out of Penn State. He literally got the sh*t beat out of him and that's no exaggeration. He will have ZERO benefit for the NYJ in 2016. MAYBE 2017? Maybe? But this season the NYJ are all about either Geno or Fitz (assuming he resigns) starting.

OK, so maybe he didn't completely ignore the offense in this draft, but this draft has ZERO benefit for the offense in 2016.

Be that as it may I was responding to your statement that Macc completely ignored the O.  If you felt you sufficiently implied that Macc did nothing (in the draft) about starters on O, I suppose that is likely true.  I just did not understand that to be what you were saying.

[PatsFanTX]

No one should wonder why this season is going to be so hard for Jets fans. We have an incompetent GM and HC that does not know what he's doing.

Come on Maine, the season won't be that bad.

Jets should still win 5-7 games.

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, Mainejet said:

Big Blocker, there's NO way Hackenberg has any sort of benefit this season. The kid needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. His mechanics, his processes, his confidence, there's pretty much of tis kid that was not shaken coming out of Penn State. He literally got the sh*t beat out of him and that's no exaggeration. He will have ZERO benefit for the NYJ in 2016. MAYBE 2017? Maybe? But this season the NYJ are all about either Geno or Fitz (assuming he resigns) starting.

OK, so maybe he didn't completely ignore the offense in this draft, but this draft has ZERO benefit for the offense in 2016.

Actually what you mean to say is he got the sh*t beat out of him figuratively speaking. What you said - literally - is an exaggeration. That just drives me crazy. Figuratively speaking, that is.

Beyond that...if the defense gets off the field more, instead of allowing the opponent to convert as many 3rd downs, and keeps the opponents' score lower, that benefits the offense (albeit indirectly).

Just curious - and I know I'll regret this - but who did you want to get that would have had this obvious benefit to the offense, playing as a rookie in 2016?

[Arsis]

D sounds about right for this sh*tty offseason. We're a 6 win team if we play up.

[Mainejet]

19 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Actually what you mean to say is he got the sh*t beat out of him figuratively speaking. What you said - literally - is an exaggeration. That just drives me crazy. Figuratively speaking, that is.

Beyond that...if the defense gets off the field more, instead of allowing the opponent to convert as many 3rd downs, and keeps the opponents' score lower, that benefits the offense (albeit indirectly).

Just curious - and I know I'll regret this - but who did you want to get that would have had this obvious benefit to the offense, playing as a rookie in 2016?

So I guess getting sacked 101 times at Penn St. does NOT constitute getting the sh*t beat out of you? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard to say getting sacked 101 times isn't getting the sh*t beat out of you and it's exaggeration. Go back to bed.

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, Mainejet said:

So I guess getting sacked 101 times at Penn St. does NOT constitute getting the sh*t beat out of you? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard to say getting sacked 101 times isn't getting the sh*t beat out of you and it's exaggeration. Go back to bed.

Do you know the difference between the words literally and figuratively? Because from your usage it appears you don't know what the words mean. Perhaps you should go back to school. 

Also you didn't answer the question.

[ZachEY]

On 5/11/2016 at 0:00 PM, Integrity28 said:

If you have to start rookies, your team probably sucks. The goal is that they start eventually.

lol, awful

There's a fantasy that last years team was just a few tiny pieces away from Super Bowl contender, as opposed to the benefactor of the leagues easiest schedule.  We were much worse than our record indicated last year.  This season will probably be a truer test of where this team stacks up.

[slats]

On May 10, 2016 at 1:58 PM, kmnj said:

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

In that he's not very bright and will never win a Super Bowl? You could be right. 

[Integrity28]

48 minutes ago, gEYno said:

There's a fantasy that last years team was just a few tiny pieces away from Super Bowl contender, as opposed to the benefactor of the leagues easiest schedule.  We were much worse than our record indicated last year.  This season will probably be a truer test of where this team stacks up.

I agree.

[nyjunc]

51 minutes ago, gEYno said:

There's a fantasy that last years team was just a few tiny pieces away from Super Bowl contender, as opposed to the benefactor of the leagues easiest schedule.  We were much worse than our record indicated last year.  This season will probably be a truer test of where this team stacks up.

we had a cake sched no doubt but if we got into the playoffs we could have done some damage.  The best teams don't always win in january anymore.

[kmnj]

On 5/11/2016 at 0:00 PM, Integrity28 said:

If you have to start rookies, your team probably sucks. The goal is that they start eventually.

lol, awful

Lynch will be starting for the superbowl champs game one-book it

[ZachEY]

52 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

we had a cake sched no doubt but if we got into the playoffs we could have done some damage.  The best teams don't always win in january anymore.

Football playoffs are one and done, hence, "any given sunday."  So, of course we "could have done some damage" because "any given sunday."  But, the issue with "any given sunday" is that on "most sundays" the better team wins.

[Mainejet]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Do you know the difference between the words literally and figuratively? Because from your usage it appears you don't know what the words mean. Perhaps you should go back to school. 

Also you didn't answer the question.

And you know that I am only figuratively speaking how? Were you out on the field when he was getting knocked into oblivion? When he was so woozy he had to be helped over to the sideline? But yet you still know he was able to control his bodily functions? You're an amateur it seems when it comes to debate, so I'll let you think you won this debate of jibberish. You win.

[Mainejet]

On ‎5‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 1:31 PM, PatsFanTX said:

Come on Maine, the season won't be that bad.

Jets should still win 5-7 games.

Actually, 7 win's is a bit too optimistic. I cannot see the Jets winning a single game until week 8 when they face the Brownies. A lot of people would contend they could beat Rex's Bills in week 2 or the Ravens in week 7, but I don't. Here's why:

1) The Jets got swept by a fringe playoff team in the Bills twice this season. Now, this season after the Bills added two day one starters to the Bills in Shaq Lawson and Reggie Ragland and the Jets did NOTHING to improve their offense, suddenly that equates to the Jets winning? DUMB. Just DUMB. But as you well know it is often an exercise in futility trying to get through to anyone of these homer dingbats around here.

2) On any normal day the Ravens are a MUCH better team than the Jets. Last season not so much due to one of the most epic injury bugs I have ever seen. But that won't be the case this season. They'll be facing a team that means business and the jets will not stand a chance in that game.

All of the other teams on the Jets schedule won at least 10 games in 2015. as I already mentioned the Jets do not beat winning teams on a regular basis. The fact is, they beat two teams with a winning record over the last two seasons. So I suppose they could upset one of those winning teams but it would only happen once. Therefore, they will likely be 0-7 going into their game against the Brownies, but it's possible (certainly not probable) that they could be 1-6. 

[nyjunc]

41 minutes ago, gEYno said:

Football playoffs are one and done, hence, "any given sunday."  So, of course we "could have done some damage" because "any given sunday."  But, the issue with "any given sunday" is that on "most sundays" the better team wins.

the only team that had a big edge on us was Denver w/ their D but Denver struggled to score, we could have won some games but unfortunately we couldn't win the one that mattered most to end the regular season.

[ZachEY]

5 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

the only team that had a big edge on us was Denver w/ their D but Denver struggled to score, we could have won some games but unfortunately we couldn't win the one that mattered most to end the regular season.

Even if we accept that Denver was the only team with a "big edge," it'd also be fair to say that all of the playoff teams were better teams than us.  Despite that we could possibly beat them.

[ZachEY]

34 minutes ago, Mainejet said:

And you know that I am only figuratively speaking how? Were you out on the field when he was getting knocked into oblivion? When he was so woozy he had to be helped over to the sideline? But yet you still know he was able to control his bodily functions? You're an amateur it seems when it comes to debate, so I'll let you think you won this debate of jibberish. You win.

Arguing nonsense to try and salvage an ill-formed argument and avoiding questions... I'd agree, of the two of you, you're definitely the Master Debater.

[RutgersJetFan]

Gonna have to go with Sperm on this one. If S did not come out of his B, then it's figurative.

[legler82]

On May 10, 2016 at 10:11 AM, 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.

History tell us the opposite.  You are better off addressing the RB position with mid to late picks as it's the easiest position to hit on.  The FA money could have been used to address other needs.

[legler82]

On May 10, 2016 at 10:12 AM, nyjunc said:

I wouldn't say we are banking on Smith or Amaro but anything we get out of them is a big positive.

if Decker or Marshall go down we cannot replace them- who could replace them? especially a guy like Marshall.

I am not worried about loss of Snacks even though he was an excellent, underrated player.  I am concerned about loss of Brick even though he was a declinging, overrated player at this stage of his career.

hopefully we hit on this draft, we'll see.

we didn't have Fitz last May either and I don't think he is the difference in making the playoffs or not, I don't think this is a playoff team either way but I hope I am wrong.

With regards to the bold, we had the chance to have a contingency plan in case one of our 30+ years old WRs went down with both Laquan Treadwell and Josh Doctson sitting there at 20.  We elected to go a different direction.  That was the FO's choice.  They felt having speedy ILB/MB was more important; we shall see if they were right. 

[nyjunc]

7 minutes ago, legler82 said:

With regards to the bold, we had the chance to have a contingency plan in case one of our 30+ years old WRs went down with both Laquan Treadwell and Josh Doctson sitting there at 20.  We elected to go a different direction.  That was the FO's choice.  They felt having speedy ILB/MB was more important; we shall see if they were right. 

it would be a lot to ask for any rookie to replace what marshall brings to us.  there aren't many guys like him.

[legler82]

On May 10, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Jet Nut said:

Let's face it the Jets whole offseason grade is going to be decided by the writers opinion of Hackenberg.  If you look at Hackenberg and overthink his completion percentage numbers, you'll hate him and therefore hate the Jets offseason.  

Completing a few more passes, getting rid of the countless drops his shltty WRs contributed with, shoring up his OL, he goes from inaccurate to accurate. It's a pretty fine line but some keep rolling with he's inaccurate and that's that, why? 

I get its an unknown, but really there should be a way to hedge bets on the score if the Jets know more about QBs than an ESPN writer piling on with the Hackenberg criticism. 

Although he wasn't my first choice out of the class, I like Hackenberg.  That said, his inaccuracy is real and not a red herring.  I agree that better surrounding talent and scheme can bump up his CMP% but that still won't make him an accurate passer.  That's just not the type of QB he is.  Many QBs have found success in the league without being naturally accurate passers.  When you look at everything else he brings to the table, Hack is accurate enough to develop into successful NFL QB.

[legler82]

5 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

it would be a lot to ask for any rookie to replace what marshall brings to us.  there aren't many guys like him.

Having someone who can bring just a portion of the physicality, willingness to fight for contested balls and playmaking skills Marshall and Decker bring to the team is better than having nothing at all.  Not to mention both Marshall and Decker are getting relatively long in the tooth while taking up a good chunk of cap space.  Starting a succession plan as well as providing immediate depth would not have been a bad idea.  Again there's different ways to skin a cat.  In the end, this is a results business. If Mac's choices yields good returns, he's a genius.  If not, he's fired.

[nyjunc]

Just now, legler82 said:

Having someone who can bring just a portion of the physicality, willingness to fight for contested balls and playmaking skills Marshall and Decker bring to the team is better than having nothing at all.  Not to mention both Marshall and Decker are getting relatively long in the tooth while taking up a good chunk of cap space.  Starting a succession plan as well as providing immediate depth would not have been a bad idea.  Again there's different ways to skin a cat.  In the end, this is a results business. If Mac's choices yields good returns, he's a genius.  If not, he's fired.

marshall is starting to get "old", decker is in the middle of his prime.

 

I like taking best available regardless of position, I hope that is what he is doing but we'll see how it all shakes out in the coming years.

[legler82]

On May 10, 2016 at 11:11 AM, 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.

Your money would go even longer if you elected to address the RB position via a combination of the draft and FA rather than all FA.

[legler82]

On May 10, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Augustiniak said:

next offseason the focus will probably be OL and wr/te.  this assumes they're not in the market for a qb in the draft again.  hopefully next offseason will be the start of mccags' system working where the guys he brought in are producing so he doesn't have that many needs every year.

I think Mac's intention is to acquire OLs late in the draft and attempt to develop them.  So in theory OL is a focus every year.

[Ex-Rex]

On 5/10/2016 at 9:06 AM, Fibonacci said:

ESPN

What do they do right? Nothing.

Who do they employ? Idiots.

Any in depth sports analysis? No

Final Grade? F

 

Die ESPN die.

At least they are better than the "eye candy" the NFL Network trots out there. Erin Ciccarelli, I think her name is. They were closing a segment on Ryan Fitzpatrick when her final comment was "Will Ryan Fitzpatrick take a pay cut ?" Obviously she doesn't have a clue that Fitzpatrick made a little over 2-3 M last season and the Jets are offering to nearly triple his salary. 

[legler82]

On May 10, 2016 at 0:18 PM, 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.

1)  Gailey prefers multiple WR sets vs utilizing TEs in the passing game and Amaro will be back this year.

2)  I wrote before Mac prefers to draft OLs in the mid to late rounds and have them develop into starters.  You may not like that approach, but attention is being paid.

With regards to the "small fry linebacker", Bowles has already pretty much confirmed that Lee was drafted to play the MoneyBacker role is sub packages which we will probably run twice as much as our base.  Personally, I don't believe in drafting sub package players in the first round, but I know there is a method to the madness.

[legler82]

On May 10, 2016 at 0:27 PM, Mainejet said:

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.

You do realize that not being able to get a deal done is a strike on the GM right?  Some of these posts make it seem like everything that's happened that's been less than ideal since Mac has taken the helm has been out of his control.  The current cap space, QB situation, Mo…etc. all fall on him.  I know many are still in the honeymoon phase but no one will care about the nuances when we start losing games.  

[legler82]

On May 10, 2016 at 1:19 PM, 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.

Great post!