The long/intermediate-term vision of this team?

[Beerfish]

Lets see how <insert name here> finishes the year and how we compete next year.

A never enduing mantra for jets fans it seems.

[Adoni Beast]

People who have been giving Mac grief for his first free agency spending I think forget to realize that he had to spend that money. Who else was he supposed to spend it on that year? We're lucky he made team friendly short-term deals that didn't kill us like this organization used to. We were almost forced into a "competitve rebuild" because our roster was so bad we didn't have anybody on roster to spend that money on, besides Mo, which was/is debatable at his asking price. He had to spend it. Luckily, those guys can all be gone soon.

Now if you look at some of the best rosters in recent memory. It takes time to acquire, develop talent, and build a culture and chemistry

Jimmy Johnsons Cowboys: first two years  record of 1-15 and 7-9.

Pete Carrolls Seahawks: first two years 7-9 and 7-9.

Belicheck's Pats: 5-11 first year, next year started 0-2 (we all know what happened) but that team already had a lot of talent.

Bill Walshs Niners: First two years 2-14, 6-10.

None of those coaches or gm's looked like they'd last. But it takes a few years to really see what they got.

 

[Beerfish]

19 minutes ago, Adoni Beast said:

People who have been giving Mac grief for his first free agency spending I think forget to realize that he had to spend that money. Who else was he supposed to spend it on that year? We're lucky he made team friendly short-term deals that didn't kill us like this organization used to. We were almost forced into a "competitve rebuild" because our roster was so bad we didn't have anybody on roster to spend that money on, besides Mo, which was/is debatable at his asking price. He had to spend it. Luckily, those guys can all be gone soon.

Now if you look at some of the best rosters in recent memory. It takes time to acquire, develop talent, and build a culture and chemistry

Jimmy Johnsons Cowboys: first two years  record of 1-15 and 7-9.

Pete Carrolls Seahawks: first two years 7-9 and 7-9.

Belicheck's Pats: 5-11 first year, next year started 0-2 (we all know what happened) but that team already had a lot of talent.

Bill Walshs Niners: First two years 2-14, 6-10.

None of those coaches or gm's looked like they'd last. But it takes a few years to really see what they got.

 

He does not deserve any grief over his 1st year FA spending.  No one could really foresee that Revis would become a lazy dog player.

He does deserve grief for last years Fa spending.  The jets would have been in line for probably at least 3 comp picks.  We may not get any now.

[Sperm Edwards]

The long term vision of this team is badly blurred by our MacCataracts.

[bostonmajet]

On 10/18/2016 at 9:54 AM, sourceworx said:

Exactly. The rule changes have basically turned this league into Arena Football. All you need is a quarterback. From now on use every draft pick on one until you hit. Every single f*cking one.

Fill the other positions with bargain bin free agents.

The colts say hello...

[bostonmajet]

On 10/18/2016 at 7:38 PM, Sperm Edwards said:

He has been getting a monstrous amount of credit for some impossible luck. 

I wonder who he would have taken if Washington had taken Williams at #5. Do people still believe he would have nailed the pick? If so, based on what? The player we were most closely linked to was Kevin White. The very pick he made suggests he had no issue drafting a player at a position where we already had starters locked up for the next couple of seasons (or more, if desired). Plus he went to that position at the top of round 2 right after that. Would he have taken Beasley? Don't see him taking Gurley; he's shown no interest in drafting RBs in any round, let alone at the top of round 1. Maybe he would have whiffed on Ereck Flowers.

Point is we don't know. Crediting him with a woulda/successful pick in Williams's stead is baseless.

Plus while I absolutely like Williams, once he was drafted he had to move Mo or Sheldon right away. And if it was the latter, then he had to sign Mo right away. Instead he overestimated what he could get for Mo in trade for 2 offseasons. It's like watching Idzik II in this regard: his plan was good (trading Mo, in this case), but he failed in the execution.

Again, the Redskins say hello. 

[shawn306]

Leonard Williams basically fell into their laps. So unless you trade down you had to take him.

The Jets had a need to be quicker at LB. Pace and Davis were not able to cover anyone. Given time Lee should be that kind of guy. They have replenished the WR position for the future.

What they really need to start looking at now at is OL. They put a band aid on left tackle with Clady now they have to really start looking at a major overhaul of the entire O-Line.

QB ? Well duh of course...

TE: Also a must 

The next 2 years should be spent on getting this offense up to speed. Build your Oline, find a QB, TE and a RB.

[Sperm Edwards]

45 minutes ago, bostonmajet said:

Again, the Redskins say hello. 

I don't get it. 

[bostonmajet]

18 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I don't get it. 

Not sure if that is sarcasm, but assuming it isn't - yeah it was a no brainer to pick L. Williams at 6, but 3 other teams passed over him to draft a non-qb. So, to say we got lucky is all fine and good, but Redskins were just a lucky to see him at #5 and passed don him for an OG I think. So, although he shouldn't get credit for getting lucky, he should get credit for sticking to his guns and drafting BPA instead of reaching for a position - like the Redskins did.

[Sperm Edwards]

2 minutes ago, bostonmajet said:

Not sure if that is sarcasm, but assuming it isn't - yeah it was a no brainer to pick L. Williams at 6, but 3 other teams passed over him to draft a non-qb. So, to say we got lucky is all fine and good, but Redskins were just a lucky to see him at #5 and passed don him for an OG I think. So, although he shouldn't get credit for getting lucky, he should get credit for sticking to his guns and drafting BPA instead of reaching for a position - like the Redskins did.

Oh. It wasn't sarcasm. The only team that made an obvious blunder was Washington. So I'm supposed to give him credit for not making another blunder of a pick right after they did? Color me unimpressed. Problem is after this pick fell into his lap he didn't even know how to accept the gift, and for the next 2 years so far he's kept all 3 of them. Defeats the purpose and benefit of drafting BPA. It should have netted us another #1 pick (if he traded him back then), plus some $17M/year in cap space for Mo. He kept them all instead. And we suck, so it's clear it was handled poorly.

[bostonmajet]

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Oh. It wasn't sarcasm. The only team that made an obvious blunder was Washington. So I'm supposed to give him credit for not making another blunder of a pick right after they did? Color me unimpressed. Problem is after this pick fell into his lap he didn't even know how to accept the gift, and for the next 2 years so far he's kept all 3 of them. Defeats the purpose and benefit of drafting BPA. It should have netted us another #1 pick (if he traded him back then), plus some $17M/year in cap space for Mo. He kept them all instead. And we suck, so it's clear it was handled poorly.

Not saying you should be impressed. Just give him credit. At the time it appeared that he tried to trade down as it took a long time to make the selection. BPA says take the best player even if you don't need him. This was the case. You don't have to like Mac or the pick, I am just saying it isn't fair to say 'well he got lucky' - in theory, 3 teams before us got lucky and opted not to pick him. Pretty sure if they had to do it again, Washington picks Williams. Also, there is a certain amount of luck in any draft - it takes a 'wise man' to recognize it and act on it.

[MaxAF]

Punt.

[Sperm Edwards]

8 minutes ago, bostonmajet said:

Not saying you should be impressed. Just give him credit. At the time it appeared that he tried to trade down as it took a long time to make the selection. BPA says take the best player even if you don't need him. This was the case. You don't have to like Mac or the pick, I am just saying it isn't fair to say 'well he got lucky' - in theory, 3 teams before us got lucky and opted not to pick him. Pretty sure if they had to do it again, Washington picks Williams. Also, there is a certain amount of luck in any draft - it takes a 'wise man' to recognize it and act on it.

It didn't appear like he tried to trade down. He did try to trade down. As usual, unless someone is offering him something for nothing, he comes up short in negotiations.

Also crediting him with BPA there is also that much less impressive since it's arguably the last time he went BPA again until the 7th round of the following year's draft.

He is not a BPA guy. With that one exception is a pure draft-for-need GM, plain and simple. The value was simply too high, you are glossing over how high Scherff's stock had risen now in hindsight, and are also forgetting the next-highest rated player (Kevin White) was similarly at a not-needed position. Next pick after that was Vic Beasley. I could make a decent argument that we'd be better off with him at OLB - with Mo and Sheldon at ends - than with Leonard Williams at end and Sheldon Richardson floating all over the place to forcefeed him onto the field even if it means playing him badly out of position.

I don't think anyone else would have been a serious consideration at #6 overall. So it came down to 2 picks, since White was unrealistic to us then. He appears to have made the safe pick more than anything else.

Too much credit for no big deal.

[Sperm Edwards]

Look at it another way. Had he moved Mo at that time - when he could have likely had a #1 pick the following year (equiv of a 2nd rounder that year), then perhaps that is the ammunition needed to move up for Wentz this year.

All his actions - and inactions, such as nervously hanging onto all 3 DEs like the amateur he is - don't exist in a vacuum. For example, they may have led to carrying 3 DEs for 2-3 seasons instead of just 2, plus a merely good but ultimately limited ILB, and a 2nd round QB who couldn't even crack the top 3 on our roster until one got injured midseason, instead of Wentz. Plus don't forget then caving in to Ryan Fitzpatrick, which was also a natural result, and the other likelihood of grabbing at least one more veteran and/or higher draft pick QB again this year.

Bad decisions begets bad results, even if they aren't fully realized and apparent on the day those decisions were made.

[Powpow]

On 10/18/2016 at 9:39 AM, Kleckineau said:

This team does not improve as long as Mac (Idzik in sheeps clothing) is the GM.

Just examine a few of his decisions.

Forte ? Really ? If you run replays of him you dont need the slo mo button.

Fitz? 12M OMFG 12M??

Hackenberg? I honestly think this guy might have been undrafted but Jets take him in the 2nd?

Darron Lee? HA this guy is gonna get killed out there.

Devin Smith?  another 2nd wasted.

Lets not even get into the without a clue head coach.

 

Baaaaaaaahhhhh Baaaaaaahhhhhh

[bostonmajet]

9 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Look at it another way. Had he moved Mo at that time - when he could have likely had a #1 pick the following year (equiv of a 2nd rounder that year), then perhaps that is the ammunition needed to move up for Wentz this year.

All his actions - and inactions, such as nervously hanging onto all 3 DEs like the amateur he is - don't exist in a vacuum. For example, they may have led to carrying 3 DEs for 2-3 seasons instead of just 2, plus a merely good but ultimately limited ILB, and a 2nd round QB who couldn't even crack the top 3 on our roster until one got injured midseason, instead of Wentz. Plus don't forget then caving in to Ryan Fitzpatrick, which was also a natural result, and the other likelihood of grabbing at least one more veteran and/or higher draft pick QB again this year.

Bad decisions begets bad results, even if they aren't fully realized and apparent on the day those decisions were made.

Mo was a player on IR playing on the franchise tag - he was never getting moved. Also, no way #1s was going to get us Wentz. Apparently he tried to trade up to get him. You can't make a team trade with you. All you can do is overpay. You think he is not doing a great job fine. But judging him on the impossible isn't very fair. Why not ding him because he couldn't trade Geno and a cup of magic beans to GB for Rodgers?

[Sperm Edwards]

5 minutes ago, bostonmajet said:

Mo was a player on IR playing on the franchise tag - he was never getting moved. Also, no way #1s was going to get us Wentz. Apparently he tried to trade up to get him. You can't make a team trade with you. All you can do is overpay. You think he is not doing a great job fine. But judging him on the impossible isn't very fair. Why not ding him because he couldn't trade Geno and a cup of magic beans to GB for Rodgers?

I'm talking about moving Mo a year earlier, for a #1 pick a year later, when there was more interest (he was playing under the cheap 5th year option not the franchise tag amount). Back then Maccagnan outwardly said he wanted a pair of #1 picks (with one of them being in 2015). Then after Mo had no contract and was coming off an injury, he then sought a #1 pick alone (which no one was willing to give up, of course). He's delusional.

Two #1s (one from Mo and the other we used on Lee) and a #2 used on Hackenberg - all 3 in this year's draft - plus whatever pick they're going to use on a QB next year? Yeah I think there's a good chance that gets it done and we might not even have to tap into moving a 2017 draft pick. 

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

13 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I'm talking about moving Mo a year earlier, for a #1 pick a year later, when there was more interest (he was playing under the cheap 5th year option not the franchise tag amount). Back then Maccagnan outwardly said he wanted a pair of #1 picks (with one of them being in 2015). Then after Mo had no contract and was coming off an injury, he then sought a #1 pick alone (which no one was willing to give up, of course). He's delusional.

Two #1s (one from Mo and the other we used on Lee) and a #2 used on Hackenberg - all 3 in this year's draft - plus whatever pick they're going to use on a QB next year? Yeah I think there's a good chance that gets it done and we might not even have to tap into moving a 2017 draft pick. 

Who even cares if you do, really. It doesn't take binoculars to see where this market is headed. Four first rounders is going to happen, and soon, and not only does it not seem ridiculous, it seems strange that it ever did. We took Milliner, Pryor, Williams, and Lee, hit on one pick and we're ****ed. Make the trade for a quarterback, hit on the same number, and we're sailing. We've already reached the point where you either take a quarterback with a top 1/2/3 pick in a given year or wait for the third day, if not UDFA, to take a flier or you're doing it completely wrong.

[Beerfish]

8 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

Who even cares if you do, really. It doesn't take binoculars to see where this market is headed. Four first rounders is going to happen, and soon, and not only does it not seem ridiculous, it seems strange that it ever did. We took Milliner, Pryor, Williams, and Lee, hit on one pick and we're ****ed. Make the trade for a quarterback, hit on the same number, and we're sailing. We've already reached the point where you either take a quarterback with a top 1/2/3 pick in a given year or wait for the third day, if not UDFA, to take a flier or you're doing it completely wrong.

I totally agree with this.  That is why the Hackenburg pick is so idiotic.  Taking a long term, big developmental Qb in the 2nd round because they were afraid someone would take him in the 3rd or whatever.  You don't chase 2nd or 3rd tier prospect QBs.  At least Idzik let Geno Smith drop to him before taking him and he was a far better looking prospect than Hackenburg.

[Smashmouth]

On ‎10‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 9:03 AM, gEYno said:

Not to defend Macc, but honestly, I don't think he really had a choice with Fitz.  What would the fanbase/media be saying if we did not sign him and were 1-5?

this is exactly how it had to go down and Macc didn't have a choice.

I think this is a very poorly coached football team and TBH I think the Vets on this team can see that. That has to be a huge beat down for a 3rd contract vet and we have a bunch of them in key positions.

My plan for this team going forward is build up draft picks and get Todd Bowles and his staff the hell out of here. I wish we could land a proven Winner Like Hargaugh but that's probably a pipe dream.... So what's available in a smart HC that can take these upcoming young players in the right direction ?

What HC can we sign that will not keep playing guys out of position ? We dealt with that crap with Rex and we are dealing with it again.

Richardson, Skrine, Lee, are all being used out of position on the defense. Forte and Powell are being used wrong on Offense. The lack of a fullback or decent blacking TE's on what needed to be a running ball control football team is laughable

A good HC who knows WTF he's doing makes a ton of difference in this league and we have not had once since Parcells and before that the only HC worth a crap was Walt Micheals. So just like this team has been in a drought for 40 Years with the QB position we are in the same drought with the HC.

So to answer your question I say we start with a HC and move on from there Macc will be fine IMO

[BroadwayJets]

On 10/18/2016 at 10:03 AM, gEYno said:

Not to defend Macc, but honestly, I don't think he really had a choice with Fitz.  What would the fanbase/media be saying if we did not sign him and were 1-5?

Mac's mentor Charlie Casserley's quote; "If you listen to the fans, you'll end up sitting with them."

Unfortunately, Woody can't be fired.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

4 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

this is exactly how it had to go down and Macc didn't have a choice.

He didn't have a choice on Fitzpatrick but it's not a matter of politics. The quarterback position is a special case in that you absolutely have to maintain a minimum level of competence at all times to avoid getting quagmired in a perpetual cluster****. I can understand the attractiveness of the 'we know x isn't the answer so we have to see what we have in y' notion to a fanbase that's just been totally waterboarded with sandbags of blind dumb hope but empirically it simply ain't so. The Browns have flung thirty turds at the wall in the last fifteen years and not a one of them has stuck for more than a couple of weeks. This is literally the big leagues. Everybody can play. It is entirely possible to keep trying everything you can think of and fail every time.

[Sperm Edwards]

37 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

Who even cares if you do, really. It doesn't take binoculars to see where this market is headed. Four first rounders is going to happen, and soon, and not only does it not seem ridiculous, it seems strange that it ever did. We took Milliner, Pryor, Williams, and Lee, hit on one pick and we're ****ed. Make the trade for a quarterback, hit on the same number, and we're sailing. We've already reached the point where you either take a quarterback with a top 1/2/3 pick in a given year or wait for the third day, if not UDFA, to take a flier or you're doing it completely wrong.

Unless it's just value that falls to you (i.e. Garoppolo), if you're taking a QB as early as round 2 it probably means you could use a new starter right now. If you need one right now what's the point of "saving" the 1st rd pick so we can add an ILB that would barely cost $6M/yr in free agency anyway?

Good thought you had, though. I mean, plenty have suggested going QB early until we find one but the reasoning is even more compelling looked at this way. If we're only going to hit big on half (or less) of our #1 picks anyway, or even if they hit they're at such insignificant positions like S and ILB that won't stop you from going 4-12, we might as well just use all of them on QBs until we hit. At least when we finally do hit then it's worthwhile to fill in the rest and we can stop throwing away even more after that for a long time. By the time he really hits his stride, we'll be back to having all our picks again. Otherwise it's all just jerking ourselves off on which insignificant position player was a good or bad pick; we're still going to be champions of nothing anyway.

Safeties and ILBers in the first round, and if he was there we'd have taken a guard over the last bust CB we took, or playing it safe by taking a DE when we already have 2 similar-body 1st round picks on the roster (actually 3, since we still had Coples). Meanwhile we have major issues at QB that go unresolved unless we hit on a shot in the dark nobody else wanted to burn a top 100 pick to get (Petty) or a 2nd rounder that had good reasons for dropping. We use a top 50-ish pick on a QB this year, and he's 4th string behind 3 nobodies because we still have to teach him how to throw, walk, etc.

So Jets.

[Flushing Roots]

I was 10 when the Jets won their last SB.

I am going to bet they win another one by the time I collect Social Security.

[Smashmouth]

32 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

He didn't have a choice on Fitzpatrick but it's not a matter of politics. The quarterback position is a special case in that you absolutely have to maintain a minimum level of competence at all times to avoid getting quagmired in a perpetual cluster****. I can understand the attractiveness of the 'we know x isn't the answer so we have to see what we have in y' notion to a fanbase that's just been totally waterboarded with sandbags of blind dumb hope but empirically it simply ain't so. The Browns have flung thirty turds at the wall in the last fifteen years and not a one of them has stuck for more than a couple of weeks. This is literally the big leagues. Everybody can play. It is entirely possible to keep trying everything you can think of and fail every time.

This may also come down to coaching. Look at what Harbaugh did with Alex Smith a guy who struggled in 6 different offenses his first 6 years then march in Harbaugh and boom hes playing lights out. So Harbaugh says well maybe Alex Smith is not the guy I need due to his limitations so he takes Kaepernick with no NFL snaps and he's in the SB. Now Keap basically sucks and Smith is doing ok in KC but with another good HC in Andy Reid. How many QB's in this league have sh*t the bed due to bad organizations and bad coaching ? 

How is it Guys like Andy Reid, Mike Holmgren, Bill Parcells, Jim Harbaugh (college and pros) Pete Carroll, Bill Walsh, can go to teams that have other wise floundered for years and turn them into instant winners ? Todays athletes are all pretty damn talented and I think if you take a guy like a Jim Harbaugh and bring him to the Jets or the Browns you have a complete turnaround.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

1 hour ago, Smashmouth said:

How many QB's in this league have sh*t the bed due to bad organizations and bad coaching ? 

Not as many as have sh*t the bed due to being bad players. This stuff might be hard but it's still simple. Here's how you pick quarterbacks. If FO's QBASE and Matt Waldman's RSP both love him you do whatever it takes to trade into the top couple of slots to take him. One or the other, third day, how high depending on how much and need. Neither, UDFA. Here's how you pick somebody to run a program. Anybody, as long as there's one guy. Some a&#036;&#036;hole. Maybe me. Probably not you. Here's how you draft. Make an aggregate of a lot of big boards on the internet. Like, a lot. Separate from the quarterbacks. Here's how you negotiate free agent contracts. Don't. This approach exactly with nothing more wins a super bowl before the Jets actually do. Now imagine it being implemented by somebody who actually knows something about stuff instead of a drunk watching baseball in 40 degree weather because god knows why. Again, it's simple. This faux complexity is for people who have time to think about things. Don't think. It'll only hurt the ball club.

[Matt39]

7 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

Not as many as have sh*t the bed due to being bad players. This stuff might be hard but it's still simple. Here's how you pick quarterbacks. If FO's QBASE and Matt Waldman's RSP both love him you do whatever it takes to trade into the top couple of slots to take him. One or the other, third day, how high depending on how much and need. Neither, UDFA. Here's how you pick somebody to run a program. Anybody, as long as there's one guy. Some a&#036;&#036;hole. Maybe me. Probably not you. Here's how you draft. Make an aggregate of a lot of big boards on the internet. Like, a lot. Separate from the quarterbacks. Here's how you negotiate free agent contracts. Don't. This approach exactly with nothing more wins a super bowl before the Jets actually do. Now imagine it being implemented by somebody who actually knows something about stuff instead of a drunk watching baseball in 40 degree weather because god knows why. Again, it's simple. This faux complexity is for people who have time to think about things. Don't think. It'll only hurt the ball club.

Would you have taken Dak round 1?

[Mecca]

3 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Would you have taken Dak round 1?

It's not like Dak was some  random QB out of no where. This is what upsets.

I follow the draft closely, and Dak was a darling for those that like to scour for sleepers. The Jets actually met with Dak, too, which hurts even more.

But, prior to his DUI, I wouldn't have been surprised if he went round 2. He was a better prospect than Hackenberg. 

[Mecca]

On 10/19/2016 at 9:49 AM, MDL_JET said:

Next years roster will be completely different I think. No Fitz or Geno. Don't see many veterans being back or at least will be restructured. 

They need to ditch the "stay competitive" part and just go young and hope for the best. The only spots I would add veteran free agents is the oline to hold up the young QB that will be starting. Every other position you go young.  Pray you can get a late 1st for Richardson. 

I think we're fine at WR for right now. Aim for QB, OL, RB, and Pass rusher. 

They really need to start now and find out first what Petty can do and work from there. 

If we actually did this, Petty would've had the opportunity versus the Browns' cupcake defense.

 

[Matt39]

4 minutes ago, Mecca said:

It's not like Dak was some  random QB out of no where. This is what upsets.

I follow the draft closely, and Dak was a darling for those that like to scour for sleepers. The Jets actually met with Dak, too, which hurts even more.

But, prior to his DUI, I wouldn't have been surprised if he went round 2. He was a better prospect than Hackenberg. 

Fairly certain he hit the QB Base metric baseline or whatever.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

11 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Would you have taken Dak round 1?

 

1 minute ago, Matt39 said:

Fairly certain he hit the QB Base metric baseline or whatever.

No. I didn't even get the scouting portfolio this year but his Lewin numbers were not in that ballpark. I would have been on the phone all night after the second day to get him at the top of the fourth though. Which sounds convenient obviously but that's exactly what the basic parameters would have dictated. But then I'd already have shipped Hill to move up from Coples to take Russell Wilson. Waldman is a proxy for 'scouting,' broken down in a quantifiavle verifiable way. I'm all about process.

[Mecca]

9 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Fairly certain he hit the QB Base metric baseline or whatever.

He did. It wasn't like he was some unknown. I loved Dak, too. What really hurts is we took the worse prospect at a higher selection in Hack, whom I despised in the draft, and I have a history of working as a journalist in draft coverage. Hackenberg graded out poorly for me. 

[drdetroit]

This is a win-now roster that's 2-5.  Sad.

[bostonmajet]

5 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I'm talking about moving Mo a year earlier, for a #1 pick a year later, when there was more interest (he was playing under the cheap 5th year option not the franchise tag amount). Back then Maccagnan outwardly said he wanted a pair of #1 picks (with one of them being in 2015). Then after Mo had no contract and was coming off an injury, he then sought a #1 pick alone (which no one was willing to give up, of course). He's delusional.

Two #1s (one from Mo and the other we used on Lee) and a #2 used on Hackenberg - all 3 in this year's draft - plus whatever pick they're going to use on a QB next year? Yeah I think there's a good chance that gets it done and we might not even have to tap into moving a 2017 draft pick. 

This is like arguing with my wife or 7 year old. Every time I make a point, the debate changes to another subject - I'm out.

[Sperm Edwards]

10 hours ago, bostonmajet said:

This is like arguing with my wife or 7 year old. Every time I make a point, the debate changes to another subject - I'm out.

What are you talking about? Go read my posts from before you started trying to find some hole in it. The "subject" is unchanged.

I cant help it if you misinterpret things, and thought I was taking about 2016 when I said trade Mo immediately after drafting Leonard Williams in 2015. As in the year someone would have been willing to cough up a 1 for Mo; just not the pair of 1s he publicly sought.

We had Mo, Sheldon, Coples, and then drafts Williams. Who keeps all 4 instead of trading - and getting something in return - for at least one?