Jump to content
Want to remove all ads? ×

Looking back on Maccagnan's decision to retain Mo and let Snacks walk

jetscrazey

By jetscrazey
in NY Jets Forum

Recommended Posts

BurnleyJet

BurnleyJet

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, PepPep said:

B******T

Macc wanted to retain Snacks. They were trying to hammer out a deal and it fell through b/c Snacks wanted a big pay off. That's fine. The Giants invested in him. He's having a great season and thats great. We have yet to see if the investment will fully pay off, but so far its looking good. Good for them.

How convenient that you ignore the fact that Macc brought in McLendon on a considerably cheaper deal, who played great before he got hurt. He, along with L.Williams was one of the bright spots on that D-line this year. And McLendon wasn't a household name, even more so than Snacks, who was coming off a great season. Macc took a chance on this one and it worked out (until the injury of course, which nobody can predict).

Charcter was overlooked? WTF??? This was not about character. Wilk was and is the better player, despite his bad season. You will not convince any team (other than the Giants maybe-lol), even AFTER his bad season, that Snacks is the better player. Any team would rather have a player like Wilk than a player like Snacks. Barring maybe some team where the ONLY missing piece on defense is a NT.

F***K hindsight. Wilk was signed to a long term deal. He will be around for a while. I am 100% SURE that he will have a bounce back season next year and be a force for the Jets in the next 2-3-4 years. Wilk was NEVER a character concern. He is still not a character concern. I find it ridiculous how quick fans are to label players. Guy get hurt, he;s injury prone, guy has bad season after a broken leg, having singed an extension- he's a loafer, he's no good. It's SO ridiculous. Wilk has shown throughout his career that he is a good leader, good locker room guy, hard worker and productive player. ONE season after a bad injury cannot erase that. You will either change your tune or eat crow next season, this I guarantee.     

I love how you say character was ignored b/c they resigned Wilk (who has never been a character concern), suggesting that they should have let Wilk go, holding on to Snacks, Richardson and L.Williams. Yet you make no mention of Richardson- a true character concern. If you're going to paint the scenario this way, you need to be clear that the Jets needed to get rid of Richardson and keep both Wilk and Snacks. But that doesn't fit your narrative, does it.

This is B******T, go sit in the corner and think about what you have done. lol.

Merry Christmas, I apologize for all the profanity.    

I'm giving him a pass this year because of the leg. If he does not deliver 10 plus sack next year then I'm having a problem. He's being payed that money because that's pass rusher money, not run stuffer money. Mans been paid off the back of a career year. I expect Sacks in 2017.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ScarletKnight89

ScarletKnight89

Posted
Posted

Mo's gonna have a big rebound next year. I'd be stunned if he doesn't.

You always take the top tier DE over the top tier NT. Snacks plays half the amount of snaps a guy like Mo plays. It really wasn't debatable who you would pay big money to given where both of them were at in their careers when the Jets made that decision.

In a perfect world you'd have liked to be able to re-sign both and trade Sheldon. But thats hindsight like the OP said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PepPep

PepPep

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, BurnleyJet said:

I'm giving him a pass this year because of the leg. If he does not deliver 10 plus sack next year then I'm having a problem. He's being payed that money because that's pass rusher money, not run stuffer money. Mans been paid off the back of a career year. I expect Sacks in 2017.

Fair enough.

But with a player like Wilk, its not nec. about how many sacks he gets. A 10+ sack pre-requisite is silly. Mo has been a critical piece of this Jets D-line because of his balance. He's a DT/3-4 DE. He's not a pure pass rusher. He is a guy that can stuff the run and collapse the pocket. He's not an edge rusher who's primary responsibility is to get put pressure on the QB and get sacks. This is in part why he is valuable and got 'pass rusher' money. He's the guy that solidifies your line and can play every down. If he gets 6 sacks next year but the Jets D is ranked top 5 in run D and top 5 in sacks I'll be more than happy. He SHOULD be able to make other guys get more sacks. His value is not really measured in sacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drdetroit

drdetroit

Posted
Posted

This idea that Mo Wilkerson was the better value is totally flawed:

1. Wilk's contract was for $90 mil.  Snacks deal from the Giants was $45 mil.

2. Yes Wilk had sacks but alot of that was because Snacks was eating up blockers right next to him.

3.  Anytime our defense didn't have Wilk over the years and someone like Coples started in his place there was basically no difference.

 

 

And this is a bad situation that is going to get worse.  Mo's problem isn't physical it's that he was never that great to begin with and he has no motivation now that he has the payday.  Bowles will be back next season so enjoy the continued sh_tshow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snell41

Snell41

Posted
Posted
No matter what they did with Wilkerson, resigning Snacks would have been a bad move. Wilkerson's probably going to be fine next year, He missed too much offseason with the injury.

Signing any DT to a 2nd contract is generally bad business. Hopefully we've learned our lesson for when Williams is up.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snell41

Snell41

Posted
Posted
This is true only if you believe that a 2nd contract to any non-QB is bad business. DTs do fine in their mid and late 20s even into the early 30s. 


Sure a DT can last into their 30's, but rarely with consistency at the level of a monster multiyear contract. It's just not a position with that big of an impact.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sperm Edwards

Sperm Edwards

Posted
Posted

This whole narrative excuses our GM as being a victim of being painted into a corner. Except he painted himself into that corner. He could have easily extended Snacks a year earlier. Instead he chose to keep him only on the RFA tag and let him play out the season on a 1 yr deal.

He gambled and lost. Since he'd get the praise for gambling and winning (e.g. Snacks showed he wasn't worthy of more than a cheap 1 yr deal in 2015, or someone unrealistically ponied up the 2nd rounder with which he was tagged), he also gets the blame for gambling and losing.

The market for Snacks, in March-April of 2015, was nowhere near the $9m he eventually got as an UFA. It may not have even been more than half that at the time. But hey, we needed that extra $ to bring Antonio Cromartie back to the Jets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fibonacci

Fibonacci

Posted
Posted

When the season ended last year, I really wanted 2 things from Mac. He screwed up on both. 

1) He signed Fitz and tied big money to him for a 1 year rental and hindered our ability to assess Petty properly. 

2) He signed Mo to a long term deal after knowing he was missing team meetings last year on his contract year. 

I have 2 things from MAC this year and I hope he doesn't screw up again. 

1) Trade Sheldon at all cost .I don't care. Let this dumb ass go be somebody else's problem.

2) DON'T SIGN another vet QB so we start the season with Petty, Hack and a rookie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TuscanyTile2

TuscanyTile2

Posted
Posted
On 12/25/2016 at 0:07 PM, Fibonacci said:

When the season ended last year, I really wanted 2 things from Mac. He screwed up on both. 

1) He signed Fitz and tied big money to him for a 1 year rental and hindered our ability to assess Petty properly. 

2) He signed Mo to a long term deal after knowing he was missing team meetings last year on his contract year. 

I have 2 things from MAC this year and I hope he doesn't screw up again. 

1) Trade Sheldon at all cost .I don't care. Let this dumb ass go be somebody else's problem.

2) DON'T SIGN another vet QB so we start the season with Petty, Hack and a rookie. 

We'll probably finish with the worst record in football (unless Hack turns into the real deal - which I'm still hoping for)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rangers9

Rangers9

Posted
Posted

Mo has been injured this year. I never thought he was the kind of guy to jake it but if he's injured he's not going to be able to perform up to his ability. Mac did go out and get a capable replacement for Snacks with McClendon but he's been injured, too. We'll see in the future if Mo lives up to that contract. But they signed him late in camp and off of a broken leg. If me I wouldn't have given him a long term deal coming off of that injury. My only complaint about re-signing him. I would have waited to see how he performed coming off that injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JETSfaninNE

JETSfaninNE

Posted
Posted

I was really down on Mo too but I still can't fathom what we saw from him this year is the real Mo.  Its just so out of character that I'm hopeful the major drop in play was due to the leg injury not actually being 100% combined with a crap season he was playing it safe so not to have another meaningless injury late in the season screwing him over the following year.  I have to hang my hat on that, because the Mo or yesteryear and the Mo of this season are not the same people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
C Mart

C Mart

Posted
Posted
HAPRK7WS_normal.jpg Kimberley A. Martin (@KMart_LI)
Richardson: “I caused a few problems for myself in here. They might just be tired of me, who knows?” #jets newsday.com/sports/footbal…

Does Sheldon Richardson expect to be traded?

Though he wants to return to the team that drafted him 13th overall in 2013, Richardson fully expects to be dealt this offseason.

“Yeah,” he told Newsday as he left the locker room, possibly for the last time. “I mean, eventually it’s going to be happening, so why wait?”

The Jets unsuccessfully tried to trade him before the Nov. 1 deadline, but Richardson believes it’s only a matter of time before general manager Mike Maccagnan gets a deal done. “I think so,” said the 2013 defensive rookie of the year and 2014 Pro Bowler. “I caused a few problems for myself in here. They might just be tired of me, who knows?”

The 26-year-old said he wouldn’t have carried himself any differently this season, though, adding: “I don’t think I should handle anything different than the way I handled it. I don’t regret nothing, really. I’m just going to be me.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tinstar

Tinstar

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, C Mart said:
HAPRK7WS_normal.jpg Kimberley A. Martin (@KMart_LI)
Richardson: “I caused a few problems for myself in here. They might just be tired of me, who knows?” #jets newsday.com/sports/footbal…

Does Sheldon Richardson expect to be traded?

Though he wants to return to the team that drafted him 13th overall in 2013, Richardson fully expects to be dealt this offseason.

“Yeah,” he told Newsday as he left the locker room, possibly for the last time. “I mean, eventually it’s going to be happening, so why wait?”

The Jets unsuccessfully tried to trade him before the Nov. 1 deadline, but Richardson believes it’s only a matter of time before general manager Mike Maccagnan gets a deal done. “I think so,” said the 2013 defensive rookie of the year and 2014 Pro Bowler. “I caused a few problems for myself in here. They might just be tired of me, who knows?”

The 26-year-old said he wouldn’t have carried himself any differently this season, though, adding: “I don’t think I should handle anything different than the way I handled it. I don’t regret nothing, really. I’m just going to be me.”

Bye

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jack48

jack48

Posted
Posted

I was adamant about not signing Mo to a big deal but that involved getting something for him via trade.  So I suppose if we had done that, by process of elimination, Harrison would have been back.  Once we had not done that, I guess signing him made some kind of sense.  Turned out tobe a big mistake

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UnitedWhofans

UnitedWhofans

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, jack48 said:

I was adamant about not signing Mo to a big deal but that involved getting something for him via trade.  So I suppose if we had done that, by process of elimination, Harrison would have been back.  Once we had not done that, I guess signing him made some kind of sense.  Turned out tobe a big mistake

Pass rusher has greater value than a run stuffer. If the run stuffer is the only leader on defense, then the fault lies to the previous regime for not looking out for that. Not a mistake

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company

Site Sponsor

MetLife Stadium Tailgate

NY Jets Podcast

NY Jets Podcast

DMCA Page

  • -- DMCA Page
    • ×
    ×
    • Create New...