Jump to content

Do Jets fear buyer's remorse with potential Mo Wilkerson deal?


Gas2No99
 Share

Recommended Posts

Do Jets fear buyer's remorse with potential Mo Wilkerson deal?

Dick Scpit-miniESPN Staff Writer

During his contract dispute, which stretches back a couple of years, Muhammad Wilkerson has watched similarly talented defensive linemen score big deals with their respective teams. We've reported the names and the contract numbers, connecting them to Wilkerson's situation. There's another interesting angle -- a look at how those players fared after reaping enormous riches.

For the most part, they regressed in terms of production, showing that bang for the buck isn't always a given -- at least not in Year One of the contract. You can bet the New York Jets are aware of the trend. This isn't to suggest they're concerned about Wilkerson falling into that trap; it just confirms there's a buyer-beware element to every major investment.

Let's take a look at the biggest deals from 2014 and 2015 (based on guaranteed money):

2015

Marcell DareusBuffalo Bills (six-year, $108 million extension, $60 million guaranteed): He was a dominant force in 2014, racking up 10 sacks and making the All-Pro team, but he fell off a cliff last season after signing his mega-deal. He managed only two sacks, a career low. Teammate Jerry Hughes ($22 million guaranteed) fell into the same category, going from 10 sacks to five. You think the Bills wish they could take a mulligan on these deals?

Ndamukong SuhMiami Dolphins (six years, $114 million, $60 million guaranteed): Suh, one of the top free agents in recent years, was supposed to lift the Miami defense on his giant shoulders and carry it to dominance. Let's just say his overall performance fell short of expectations. He finished with only six sacks, down from 8.5 in the previous year with the Detroit Lions. He didn't even make the Pro Bowl, one year after an All-Pro season.

Cameron JordanNew Orleans Saints (five-year, $60 million extension, $33.5 million guaranteed): Jordan bucked the trend, going from 7.5 sacks to 10 and making his first Pro Bowl. Overall, he was a more disruptive presence than in 2014, allowing the Saints to feel good about their investment.

Corey LiugetSan Diego Chargers (five-year, $51.3 million extension, $30.5 million guaranteed): He missed the last four games with a foot injury and battled a knee problem that required minor offseason surgery. He finished with only three sacks, down from 4.5.

2014

Robert Quinn, St. Louis Rams (six years, $65.6 million, $41.2 million guaranteed): Talk about a disappearing act. He was coming off a 19-sack season when he signed the contract, but he hasn't come anywhere close to that over the last two years. He managed 10.5 sacks in 2014, but slipped to five last season after missing eight games with a back issue. His epic performance in '13 turned out to be an aberration, but Quinn parlayed it into big bucks.

J.J. WattHouston Texans (six-year, $100 million extension, $51.9 million guaranteed): The true exception to the rule, Watt got better -- a lot better -- after signing his new contract. He essentially doubled his sack production, going from 10.5 to 20.5 sacks. You could make the argument that Watt has outperformed his contract, considering the money thrown at lesser defensive linemen in recent months.

It'll be interesting to see how the Philadelphia EaglesFletcher Cox ($63 million guaranteed), New York GiantsOlivier Vernon ($52.5 million) and Jacksonville JaguarsMalik Jackson ($42 million) perform after signing the biggest defensive-line contracts of the 2016 offseason. Technically, Wilkerson still could wind up in that group, but it's highly unlikely.

By rule, the Jets have until July 15 to sign him to a long-term contract or else he will play on a one-year contract for the amount of his franchise-tag tender ($15.7 million), which seems to suit the Jets. They're in no rush to lock up one of their best players, which certainly clouds his future.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the money he is asking for? I would think so. But at the end of the day, everyone knows Mo is a great player and you will most definitely get return from him, it's just a matter of how much. Mac should really be worried about Darron Lee though. Based on his size, this is a very risky draft pick. The odds of that pick working out are stacked against him.

  • Thumb Down 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Il Mostro said:

"One Trick Donkey Award" winner.  Give it a friggin' break.

Amen.  

Now..... Back to Jets' potential buyers remorse for signing/not signing Mo.   No need to let trolls derail the thread.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

I really don't think it's a buyers remorse issue...it's a - we're already stacked at the position with people we don't have to pay yet - issue.  We simply don't need three all-pro's for two starting spots.

I agree %100. But I will add that its also something where you can't react after one great season. Obviously, players will want to cash in after a great season, but GMs need to look at the bigger picture b/c they are signing these players long term with a ton of guaranteed money and need to look at it in that way. 

Has the player been productive in past seasons, what is his injury history (and can he play hurt and be productive), does he make an impact when NOT putting up big numbers, is he surrounded by great talent that makes him look better than he actually is (inflates his numbers), can he do more than one thing defensively (i.e. is he versatile or a one trick pony), and finally- the attitude, what type of passion does the player have for the game (this is the toughest to determine)- is he playing for the $$$ or truly has a love of the game- is he willing to continue to improve, etc. etc. 

All of these things will come up throughout a players career. And if you are signing him long term, you really need to think about them- as a GM. 

Ironically, Wilk seems to check all of the above boxes. So (apart from the Jets having other young talent on the D-line), it seems like they should not have much concerns signing Wilk long term to a big contract. Some of the other guys (apart from JJ Watt) you can't really say the same thing about. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

I think two things are true here:

1. Paying Mo that much money is stupid and I don't think anyone will end up doing so, so Macc has nailed that part of it.

2. Not even being in position to sign Mo yet failing to trade Mo is textbook bungling.

I agree. But I will say 

1. Stupid or not, someone WILL end up paying him that much money. It just won't be the Jets. 

2. Yes, moving him before the draft, before FA even (although he was hurt so not sure how that would have impacted the him passing a physical) would have been ideal. But we really don't know what kind of offers Macc was getting. I think he's already shown that he is a wheeler and dealer (Fitz, Marshall, Clady, tried to move up for Tunsil, etc.) so you know he TRIED to move Mo. But if he was being low-balled (less than a 2nd rounder, or low 2nd rounder), which I would not be surprised under the circumstances, why would he trade Mo for peanuts when he can tag him this season, and possibly the next  (giving Macc ample time to evaluate Richardson and L.Williams- as well as the cap situation next year- as well as the QB position next year, etc.) and still get a 3rd rounder in compensation if Wilk walks. Just saying- trading Wilk would have been great, trading him for nothing would have made no sense (other than clearing cap).      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, T0mShane said:

I think two things are true here:

1. Paying Mo that much money is stupid and I don't think anyone will end up doing so, so Macc has nailed that part of it.

2. Not even being in position to sign Mo yet failing to trade Mo is textbook bungling.

agree on #2.

But as to #1, looking at what multiple lesser DLs in free agency have gotten, I think you be wrong.  There will be a team to pay him.  No doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, PepPep said:

I agree. But I will say 

1. Stupid or not, someone WILL end up paying him that much money. It just won't be the Jets. 

2. Yes, moving him before the draft, before FA even (although he was hurt so not sure how that would have impacted the him passing a physical) would have been ideal. But we really don't know what kind of offers Macc was getting. I think he's already shown that he is a wheeler and dealer (Fitz, Marshall, Clady, tried to move up for Tunsil, etc.) so you know he TRIED to move Mo. But if he was being low-balled (less than a 2nd rounder, or low 2nd rounder), which I would not be surprised under the circumstances, why would he trade Mo for peanuts when he can tag him this season, and possibly the next  (giving Macc ample time to evaluate Richardson and L.Williams- as well as the cap situation next year- as well as the QB position next year, etc.) and still get a 3rd rounder in compensation if Wilk walks. Just saying- trading Wilk would have been great, trading him for nothing would have made no sense (other than clearing cap).      

 

1 minute ago, Dcat said:

agree on #2.

But as to #1, looking at what multiple lesser DLs in free agency have gotten, I think you be wrong.  There will be a team to pay him.  No doubt.

I think if there was a team out there dying to pay Mo Wilk, they would have come and gotten him via trade and locked him up that way. Now they're going to wait until he hits the open market so they can compete for him? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, T0mShane said:

 

I think if there was a team out there dying to pay Mo Wilk, they would have come and gotten him via trade and locked him up that way. Now they're going to wait until he hits the open market so they can compete for him? 

yes.  It costs no precious draft picks that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dcat said:

yes.  It costs no precious draft picks that way.

We'll never know what was offered and by whom, but it seems likely that if Wilkerson was viewed as an elite player around the league, forking over a draft pick wouldn't be too much of a deterrent. How many draft picks would teams hand over for Von Miller right now?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

We'll never know what was offered and by whom, but it seems likely that if Wilkerson was viewed as an elite player around the league, forking over a draft pick wouldn't be too much of a deterrent. How many draft picks would teams hand over for Von Miller right now?

the draft pick PLUS the huge salary is the kiss of death. Count how many tagged stars are ever traded while tagged.   That's why several teams like the Giants and Jaguars flocked to the free agents instead.  Why pay $100 million + a 2nd round pick for Mo when you can get a player just a hair below or equivalent talent as Mo for the same money and not give up a precious pick?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying that Wilk is a great player to me is premature. Plus the guy is coming off of a broken leg. So I think that tagging him not trading him this year is the right move. Because he could prove to be a great player. I wasn't crazy about all the rumors that Mac was trying to use him as a chip to trade up before the draft. I felt he had better value than that. I saw those stats on other highly paid D-linemen and they resonate. And the Fletcher Cox deal to me was way over the top. I heard a stat that since Chip left and Howie took control again they've outspent the Giants who to me made questionable signings for huge money: the Eagles have outspent the Giants by 2-1. We made our dumb signing last year but compared to these deals not as crazy.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gas2No99 said:

Marcell DareusBuffalo Bills (six-year, $108 million extension, $60 million guaranteed): He was a dominant force in 2014, racking up 10 sacks and making the All-Pro team, but he fell off a cliff last season after signing his mega-deal. He managed only two sacks, a career low. Teammate Jerry Hughes ($22 million guaranteed) fell into the same category, going from 10 sacks to five. You think the Bills wish they could take a mulligan on these deals?

If I'm not mistaken, both players saw a decline in their play, as well as several other Bills defenders and the defense collectively in the move from Jim Schwartz to Rex Ryan.

So, perhaps the circumstances surrounding the team, leadership, and scheme had more to do with this than the big payday.

If a writer is going to try and stir the pot with this type of speculatie horsesh*t, then the first bullet in the chamber of examples shouldn't be the ******* Bills under Rex. It invalidates most of the rest of the point he's making.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mainejet said:

Based on the money he is asking for? I would think so. But at the end of the day, everyone knows Mo is a great player and you will most definitely get return from him, it's just a matter of how much.

Is this how you greet your wife in the morning? Good morning honey...Mac should really be worried about Darron Lee though. Based on his size, this is a very risky draft pick. The odds of that pick working out are stacked against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

If I'm not mistaken, both players saw a decline in their play, as well as several other Bills defenders and the defense collectively in the move from Jim Schwartz to Rex Ryan.

So, perhaps the circumstances surrounding the team, leadership, and scheme had more to do with this than the big payday.

If a writer is going to try and stir the pot with this type of speculatie horsesh*t, then the first bullet in the chamber of examples shouldn't be the ******* Bills under Rex. It invalidates most of the rest of the point he's making.

You don't give a player 100 mil+ to have to scheme him. You pay him to beat double teams and free up others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, T0mShane said:

 

I think if there was a team out there dying to pay Mo Wilk, they would have come and gotten him via trade and locked him up that way. Now they're going to wait until he hits the open market so they can compete for him? 

Well, technically they can franchise him again next year.  And if one of the other two 'all-pro' linemen has a really bad year (or runs into some off the field bud issues) then they can work on the long term deal next year with Wilk under threat of Franchise.  Lot more room next year too (in other words, we can actually afford the enhanced franchise next year if we wanted to work on a long term deal for him while he's signed (until Jul 15th).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Edgy said:

Well, technically they can franchise him again next year.  And if one of the other two 'all-pro' linemen has a really bad year (or runs into some off the field bud issues) then they can work on the long term deal next year with Wilk under threat of Franchise.  Lot more room next year too (in other words, we can actually afford the enhanced franchise next year if we wanted to work on a long term deal for him while he's signed (until Jul 15th).

Mo doesn't seem to be in a negotiating mood. Not sure he'll want to talk a long term deal after this year. Wouldn't blame him one bit for that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mo doesn't seem to be in a negotiating mood. Not sure he'll want to talk a long term deal after this year. Wouldn't blame him one bit for that. 

And why would he?

He is guaranteed $15.7MM this year from the Jets.

He'll play lights-out this year and then leave to the highest bidder.

Mo ain't dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

Mo doesn't seem to be in a negotiating mood. Not sure he'll want to talk a long term deal after this year. Wouldn't blame him one bit for that. 

Well, yeah.   I'm not sure a lot of folks ask for the franchise tag so that they can really start negotiating.  The bottom line is that the franchise tag this year and next year is probably less than you'd pay Mo for those two years on a long term deal.  Keeping him tagged gives the FO flexibility to decide what to do next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Larz said:

they blew it last season when they had boat loads of cap room

this is his last season as a jet, I will try to enjoy it

Sounds about right.  It really is disappointing.   The only legit excuse the front office could have would be that Mo's demands were just outrageous.  But we don't know that, do we?One would think there were at least some give and take in any negotiations.  Unfortunately, I doubt there was much of that from either side.  

I would love to know the numbers proposed by each side.  Unless we know that, it's just guess work and propaganda from hacks like Cimini and Mehta.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disappointing but par for the course for this second rate franchise that's already dumped their best player twice in the past decade. Oh, and they started that run not long after giving up all of McKenzie/Coles/Thomas in one offseason. It's the most Jets possible outcome, so lets come up with all the narratives (not great, no one really wants him lol) to make it OK in the safe place inside our heads. Plus, Woody gets to keep his money - which he will use One Day when The Future shows up in the form of a Franchise QB. He'll have so much saved up dinero money that this Franchise QB won't even die, let alone retire, and will play forever and ever. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, NYs Stepchild said:

Is this how you greet your wife in the morning? Good morning honey...Mac should really be worried about Darron Lee though. Based on his size, this is a very risky draft pick. The odds of that pick working out are stacked against him.

1st of all, I do not have a wife, I have been divorced now for about 7 years. I have as girlfriend though, she happens to be a PATSY fan. Go figure?????? But I **** that abstinence out of her on a regular basis.

But really, all I ask is that you look at what happened with John Vilma. Vilma was lightning quick, just like Darron Lee. Vilma failed miserably in Mangini's scheme. I see the same happening with Darron Lee. I hope I'm wrong, I really do..... But I do not think I am. I see this as a wasted pick, and ultimately a deciding factor about Mike MacCagnan.  

  • Thumb Down 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mainejet said:

Based on the money he is asking for? I would think so. But at the end of the day, everyone knows Mo is a great player and you will most definitely get return from him, it's just a matter of how much. Mac should really be worried about Darron Lee though. Based on his size, this is a very risky draft pick. The odds of that pick working out are stacked against him.

Wow. If we took a vote for the worst poster on the board, you'd be hands down champion. Unfortunately, that's about all the championships you'll ever win. Negativity alone, you derail topics. This thread had nothing to do with a rookie LB. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, T0mShane said:

I think two things are true here:

1. Paying Mo that much money is stupid and I don't think anyone will end up doing so, so Macc has nailed that part of it.

2. Not even being in position to sign Mo yet failing to trade Mo is textbook bungling.

1. I think recent contracts have proven there are plenty of teams that'll pay big bucks for lesser talent, so Mo does have a great market being the PB n 2nd team all-pro he is. 

2. "Textbook bungling" would be trading him away for a 4th rounder. Keeping him at the tag when offers aren't good enough is far from bungling. We'll hopefully get a 3rd in comp pick after next off season anyways. It only makes sense to trade him away for a low 1st or a very high 2nd. And that'll be hard to get since teams would have to pay him big bucks as well. We are not in a wn win situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Mainejet said:

1st of all, I do not have a wife, I have been divorced now for about 7 years. I have as girlfriend though, she happens to be a PATSY fan. Go figure?????? But I **** that abstinence out of her on a regular basis.

But really, all I ask is that you look at what happened with John Vilma. Vilma was lightning quick, just like Darron Lee. Vilma failed miserably in Mangini's scheme. I see the same happening with Darron Lee. I hope I'm wrong, I really do..... But I do not think I am. I see this as a wasted pick, and ultimately a deciding factor about Mike MacCagnan.  

3 time pro bowler n the rookie of the year. I'd sign up for such a waste of a draft pick any day. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, T0mShane said:

I think two things are true here:

1. Paying Mo that much money is stupid and I don't think anyone will end up doing so, so Macc has nailed that part of it.

2. Not even being in position to sign Mo yet failing to trade Mo is textbook bungling.

I agree 100% on both points.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, T0mShane said:

 

I think if there was a team out there dying to pay Mo Wilk, they would have come and gotten him via trade and locked him up that way. Now they're going to wait until he hits the open market so they can compete for him? 

this last draft had about 467 d-lineman, there was never a trade market for mo, that is a weak argument

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...