ylekram Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 1 minute ago, Larz said: that's a better argument, the day they drafted Leo seemed like the day Mo's Jets career ended to about everybody but Mac I wasn't upset that they let Harrison go to the giants. I was upset that they let Harrison go to the giants just to sign mo to 18m. with Richardson and Williams already on the cheap. lost- draft compensation for mo lost- all pro nose tackle lost- Richardson playing WAY out of position. yea I know every time Richardson opens his mouth, his value goes down. couple that with playing out of position, and his value becomes nada lost-18m a year loss- leadership. Harrison is 10x the leader that mo is gain- mo's 40 odd tackles and 4 sacks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurnleyJet Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 6 minutes ago, Larz said: Actually, reports were they made him promise to stop missing meetings while negotiating his deal, he has never been considered a leader Making excuses for this poor work ethic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 6 minutes ago, Larz said: Actually, reports were they made him promise to stop missing meetings while negotiating his deal, he has never been considered a leader that's my point and why he shouldn't have been considered for 18m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurnleyJet Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 4 minutes ago, ylekram said: I wasn't upset that they let Harrison go to the giants. I was upset that they let Harrison go to the giants just to sign mo to 18m. with Richardson and Williams already on the cheap. lost- draft compensation for mo lost- all pro nose tackle lost- Richardson playing WAY out of position. yea I know every time Richardson opens his mouth, his value goes down. couple that with playing out of position, and his value becomes nada lost-18m a year loss- leadership. Harrison is 10x the leader that mo is gain- mo's 40 odd tackles and 4 sacks This guy gets it, Mo is not worth the 86 mill he does not rush the QB. I could have had an All World NT do what Mo has, for half the money and twice the productivity. Plus a 3rd round comp pick for the mugs that signed him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 9 minutes ago, BurnleyJet said: This guy gets it, Mo is not worth the 86 mill he does not rush the QB. I could have had an All World NT do what Mo has, for half the money and twice the productivity. Plus a 3rd round comp pick for the mugs that signed him. most likely a 2nd. mac could have traded mo but got stuck on a 1st rounder only Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnitedWhofans Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Again I don't think people are giving Wilkerson the respect as a player that he should get. Dude had 11 sacks last year and has for the most part been productive. And if it's true that he had missed meetings in the past, then it certainly didn't hurt his production then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage69 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 14 minutes ago, ylekram said: most likely a 2nd. mac could have traded mo but got stuck on a 1st rounder only Nobody knows that do you have a link where Mac said it?? The Pats traded Chandler Jones that had the same number of sacks that Mo had and he played 1 year less then Mo..The Pats got a 2nd for him and a bust player that's no longer on the team.. I like Mo and hope he does better in 2017 but in my opinion he's way over paid.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 13 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said: Again I don't think people are giving Wilkerson the respect as a player that he should get. Dude had 11 sacks last year and has for the most part been productive. And if it's true that he had missed meetings in the past, then it certainly didn't hurt his production then. I wouldn't give mo 18m worth of respect considering his replacement was already on the roster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage69 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 1 minute ago, ylekram said: I wouldn't give mo 18m worth of respect considering his replacement was already on the roster Actually that respect cost 22 million this past season.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnitedWhofans Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 50 minutes ago, ylekram said: I wouldn't give mo 18m worth of respect considering his replacement was already on the roster Why is he a replacement for Mo? You can arguably say he is a replacement for Sheldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 50 minutes ago, Savage69 said: Nobody knows that do you have a link where Mac said it?? The Pats traded Chandler Jones that had the same number of sacks that Mo had and he played 1 year less then Mo..The Pats got a 2nd for him and a bust player that's no longer on the team.. I like Mo and hope he does better in 2017 but in my opinion he's way over paid.. obviously, that's just speculation on my part. in hindsight, it was the wrong move. some of us had the foresight to see it. I will mac did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Just now, UnitedWhofans said: Why is he a replacement? when you have 3 capable defensive ends and only 2 positions and you get rid of one, one has to be a replacement,no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnitedWhofans Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Just now, ylekram said: when you have 3 capable defensive ends and only 2 positions and you get rid of one, one has to be a replacement,no? I always thought Sheldon because of his off the field issues would be the odd one out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 6 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said: I always thought Sheldon because of his off the field issues would be the odd one out. they both should have been the odd one out. mo should have been out when they drafted Williams or even the year after. followed by Sheldon come contract time. that would have given the jets 4 years to find another defensive end, all the while collecting compensation for both players, saving a boatload of money, and not having to play players out of position. regardless if they wanted to keep snacks or not. it was a simple numbers game and mac failed in that respect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage69 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Just now, ylekram said: they both should have been the odd one out. mo should have been out when they drafted Williams or even the year after. followed by Sheldon come contract time. that would have given the jets 4 years to find another defensive end, all the while collecting compensation for both players, saving a boatload of money, and not having to play players out of position. regardless if they wanted to keep snacks or not. Hmmm That's NE Patriot way.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 The entire Jets organization is a sh*tshow, fukfest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Nut Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 16 hours ago, thadude said: This fanbase overrated Mo like crazy And now they're doing it in what Snacks provided here and now missed he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnitedWhofans Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 3 hours ago, Savage69 said: Hmmm That's NE Patriot way.. It works when you are set at key positions and have talent already instilled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 This sh*thole organization always seems to pander to what the fans reactions will be, since they can't garner support with actual wins. Until they eventually luck out and land a franchise QB this will never, ever end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 While the Jets' defense would be better with Snacks, stopping the run wasn't a problem for this Jets team. believe it or not if the Jets QB was Eli, the defense would look better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurnleyJet Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 36 minutes ago, bitonti said: While the Jets' defense would be better with Snacks, stopping the run wasn't a problem for this Jets team. believe it or not if the Jets QB was Eli, the defense would look better Agreed it's very much interconnected, but the point is still valid. We over paid a 3-4 End after a career year. We should have let him go, now we are stuck. The only 3-4 End in the NFL worth that money is called JJ Watt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funaz Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Meh. Never liked snacks. Big run stuffing NTs not needed. He's good for the giants thoughSent from my Pixel using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 33 minutes ago, funaz said: Meh. Never liked snacks. Big run stuffing NTs not needed. He's good for the giants though Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk without a solid nose tackle, you have no 3-4. with 3 defensive tackles, you get the hybrid mess we had last year. the jets needed a top notch nose tackle more than they needed 3 defensive tackles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnitedWhofans Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Just now, ylekram said: without a solid nose tackle, you have no 3-4. with 3 defensive tackles, you get the hybrid mess we had last year. the jets needed a top notch nose tackle more than they needed 3 defensive tackles Apparently the Giants dont need a NG because they are playing a lot of 4-3 in this game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 1 minute ago, UnitedWhofans said: Apparently the Giants dont need a NG because they are playing a lot of 4-3 in this game huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnitedWhofans Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Just now, ylekram said: huh? Giants are playing a ton of 4-3 in this game against Green Bay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 1 minute ago, UnitedWhofans said: Giants are playing a ton of 4-3 in this game against Green Bay who cares what defense the giants are playing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnitedWhofans Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Just now, ylekram said: who cares what defense the giants are playing Not utilizing Snacks in his proper position. Interesting with such a valuable player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 15 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said: Not utilizing Snacks in his proper position. Interesting with such a valuable player I don't see a viable point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnitedWhofans Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Just now, ylekram said: I don't see a viable point There really isn't any. It's just an observation that the Giants paid Snacks a lot and seem to be not playing him as much in this big game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Just now, UnitedWhofans said: There really isn't any. It's just an observation that the Giants paid Snacks a lot and seem to be not playing him as much in this big game. sorry. thought you were going somewhere with this. observation noted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoJoTownsell1 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Is Snacks hurt. Haven't seen him all game.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 he may have had something to do with the packers game plan early, the cheaters passed it 80% of the time on us once, but once the pack started running it outside and went to a faster tempo, he was out of the game or totally gassed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBBound Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Larz said: he may have had something to do with the packers game plan early, the cheaters passed it 80% of the time on us once, but once the pack started running it outside and went to a faster tempo, he was out of the game or totally gassed Although I loved Snacks on the Jets (who wouldn't) but he is not a 9.5 million/year player. He is awesome at stopping the run up the middle but a two down player should not be given that much cash. I think Simon will be just fine for us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnitedWhofans Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 I said this yesterday, but this game showed why you can't pay Snacks that money. FIrst off it seemed to me that the Giants played a lot of 4-3 yesterday, which is a misuse for him. Second, as was noted, the Packers started to run to the outside more and while Snacks made a couple of tackles on those runs, it may have tired him out. And third, when going against a passing offense, he doesn't pass rush a lot. His effort is not the problem, it is the position that he is used that makes him expendable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.