"Mike Maccagnan reports the phone is ringing off the hook for the #6 pick"

[section314]

14 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Teams that want to trade down did so, and got good compensation. The Jets don't trade down and, to those who hero worship a failure of a GM, it must mean there were no offers. What has he ever done to make you believe he is capable of making any trade prior to round 5, where his risk of getting second-guessed is so low he doesn't worry about it? I said before the draft I wouldn't even kill him for getting less than chart value because it's in the team's interest to acquire more assets.

Adams is a freaking safety. Even if he's top-5 someday, in the end he's still just a freaking safety. We have huge long-term needs at the bulk of the most expensive, most difficult positions to fill adequately: (in no particular order) QB, WR, OPR, CB, LT. If none are there that present value, then you trade down since the team has so many needs that won't be filled by putting all his eggs in one basket with a safety. A child would know this. This pea-brain decides the ways to fill those most-expensive, hardest-to-draft positions, is to find them in FA or use low-percentage picks to fill them. He has it 180-degrees backwards.

Gruden's assessment was based upon his own board and who represented the best value irrespective of the team that drafted him. If the Jets were a team with a kick-ass offense, and far fewer key holes to fill, then the selection of Adams becomes a much better pick. A team without so many necessary building blocks doesn't use such a high pick on a freaking safety. 

You always have all the answers. So enlighten us all, genius, what was the "great" trade that we could have pulled off that would have been better for us? Give us all the answer, or please, for the sake of God, shut the hell up.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, SickJetFan said:

so now your putting words into Gruden mouth too

give me a break

I am not hero worship anyone - i think what is happening here is just the opposite from you...you have probably done this with every GM and head coach since beginning of time "sperm Edwards" tells it all

 

No, Gruden asked what was the best pick. This suggests who was the best value pick, not necessarily who would turn into best pick for the team that drafted him, which further suggests who will have the best positive impact on the team that made the pick. The best pick is frequently assessed at who got the best value relative to their pre-draft guesses at where the player would/could/should have gone.

But since you're using this as a rationalization in any way you see fit, let me see if I have this correct:

1. If the Jets' pick is deemed or graded a poor one right after it's made, one can't assess it today because it takes 3 years to judge.

2. If the Jets' pick is deemed or graded a good one right after it's made, then one can assess it today, and it's totally valid to judge immediately.

Pretty convenient position to take. Same rationale as heads I win, tails you lose.

[SickJetFan]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No, Gruden asked what was the best pick. This suggests who was the best value pick, not necessarily who would turn into best pick for the team that drafted him, which further suggests who will have the best positive impact on the team that made the pick. The best pick is frequently assessed at who got the best value relative to their pre-draft guesses at where the player would/could/should have gone.

But since you're using this as a rationalization in any way you see fit, let me see if I have this correct:

1. If the Jets' pick is deemed or graded a poor one right after it's made, one can't assess it today because it takes 3 years to judge.

2. If the Jets' pick is deemed or graded a good one right after it's made, then one can assess it today, and it's totally valid to judge immediately.

Pretty convenient position to take. Same rationale as heads I win, tails you lose.

suggests, suggests, blah, blah, blah suggests

again that is you putting words in his mouth -you may have gotten a different take on the conversation but I watched it last night and i was actually surprised myself he said it as I always thought him to be a Jet hater like yourself

as far as part 2 of your diatribe  - have no clue wtf you are talking about.  I have no idea whether the pick will turn out good or not but I dont disagree with it is all and apparently many others feel same way.

[Sperm Edwards]

20 minutes ago, section314 said:

You always have all the answers. So enlighten us all, genius, what was the "great" trade that we could have pulled off that would have been better for us? Give us all the answer, or please, for the sake of God, shut the hell up.

For starters, the Bills trade was better than taking a safety at #6 in the country. A safety is not worth two 1st rounders and a 3rd rounder. We picked 4 slots earlier, with the Adams still on the board, so we should have been able to do even better than that.

But what is it you're asking me to do beyond that -- correctly guess what offers others called in with, which Maccagnan turned away? Lol.

Also you can disagree with my or any others' opinions all you want, but you will be civil towards people here. Your last comment is totally out of line. 

[Sperm Edwards]

On 4/28/2017 at 9:25 AM, SickJetFan said:

suggests, suggests, blah, blah, blah suggests

again that is you putting words in his mouth -you may have gotten a different take on the conversation but I watched it last night and i was actually surprised myself he said it as I always thought him to be a Jet hater like yourself

as far as part 2 of your diatribe  - have no clue wtf you are talking about.  I have no idea whether the pick will turn out good or not but I dont disagree with it is all and apparently many others feel same way.

You are bragging about "Gruden said" because you like it. If Gruden said something to the contrary - as many did after drafting Hackenberg - then in come the chimes of "you can't judge a pick for 3 years" so it's fair. That is totally "heads I win, tails you lose" logic, since there's no way to negatively assess any pick.

My feeling before the draft - and I said it plenty of times - was I didn't want to see a safety get drafted at #6. I said if they didn't see the value in a high value position (i.e. QB in particular, but also OPR, CB, LT) then trade down even in the absence of getting full chart value in return. This isn't some new stance I conjured up just to find fault with it just because it was Maccagnan's pick. Since Adams was the only defensive player taken between #4 and #10, it would seem his leverage in a trade-down was excellent.

Don't get frustrated and lash out again, just because you don't agree. Why not instead make a counter-argument that a safety was better than a later 1st round pick plus another 1st round pick next year (when we're going to be looking QB all the way) plus another 2nd-3rd round pick. Because that's what Buffalo got 4 slots later when Adams, the supposed #2 player in the draft, was long gone.

[Jet Nut]

36 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Teams that want to trade down did so, and got good compensation. The Jets don't trade down and, to those who hero worship a failure of a GM, it must mean there were no offers. What has he ever done to make you believe he is capable of making any trade prior to round 5, where his risk of getting second-guessed is so low he doesn't worry about it? I said before the draft I wouldn't even kill him for getting less than chart value because it's in the team's interest to acquire more assets.

Adams is a freaking safety. Even if he's top-5 someday, in the end he's still just a freaking safety. We have huge long-term needs at the bulk of the most expensive, most difficult positions to fill adequately: (in no particular order) QB, WR, OPR, CB, LT. If none are there that present value, then you trade down since the team has so many needs that won't be filled by putting all his eggs in one basket with a safety. A child would know this. This pea-brain decides the ways to fill those most-expensive, hardest-to-draft positions, is to find them in FA or use low-percentage picks to fill them. He has it 180-degrees backwards.

Gruden's assessment was based upon his own board and who represented the best value irrespective of the team that drafted him. If the Jets were a team with a kick-ass offense, and far fewer key holes to fill, then the selection of Adams becomes a much better pick. A team without so many necessary building blocks doesn't use such a high pick on a freaking safety. 

This is so wrong on so many levels.  There isn't one thing here that's true. 

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, Jet Nut said:

This is so wrong on so many levels.  

A well thought-out response.  

[SickJetFan]

3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You are bragging about "Gruden said" because you like it. If Gruden said something to the contrary - as many did after drafting Hackenberg - then in come the chimes of "you can't judge a pick for 3 years" so it's a fair. That is totally "heads I win, tails you lose" logic, since there's no way to negatively assess any pick.

My feeling before the draft - and I said it plenty of times - was I didn't want to see a safety get drafted at #6. I said if they didn't see the value in a high value position (i.e. QB in particular, but also OPR, CB, LT) then trade down even in the absence of getting full chart value in return. This isn't some new stance I conjured up just to find fault with it just because it was Maccagnan's pick. Since Adams was the only defensive player taken between #4 and #10, it would seem his leverage in a trade-down was excellent.

Don't get frustrated and lash out again, just because you don't agree. Why not instead make a counter-argument that a safety was better than a later 1st round pick plus another 1st round pick next year (when we're going to be looking QB all the way) plus another 2nd-3rd round pick. Because that's what Buffalo got 4 slots later when Adams, the supposed #2 player in the draft, was long gone.

well obviously I and many other do not agree with you about not picking a S as I have said in many posts on this forum to the contrary.  And where did I lash out? the sperm comment or the jet hater? lol sorry you took it that way.  all in good fun.

[section314]

11 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

For starters, the Bills trade was better than taking a safety at #6 in the country. A safety is not worth two 1st rounders and a 3rd rounder. We picked 4 slots earlier, so we should have been able to do even better than that.

But what is it you're asking me to do beyond that -- correctly guess what offers others called in with, which Maccagnan turned away? Lol.

Also you can disagree with my or any others' opinions all you want, but you will be civil towards people here. Your last comment is totally out of line. 

I am civil, probably one of the most on this board. You, as a mod, know that. For starters, nobody in their right mind would have made the trade Buffalo did. Second, the only team high up that traded down was the 49rs, only because the Bears are fools.  You are so jaded in your hatred for Macc, and basically everything that has to do with the Jets, you can't see clearly anymore. That's my point. 

[ZachEY]

I think it's a fair argument to suggest that the Jets should have moved down almost regardless of the player they could have gotten.  Look at how the Browns have been handling these drafts.  Sure, kill them for passing on Wentz, but they are adding talent by the boatload.  So, a bad Browns team picked up 3 players already, and are positioned to get 2 high #1s next year.  Also, a bad Bills team goes into next year with 2 #1s, a bad 49ers team gets a bunch of picks to play with and still gets their guy.

Optimistically, the Jets will add 2-3 good players this year when they need 10.  And, if you want to Suck for Sam, you better hope the Jets get the #1 on their own, because other bad teams have way more ammo.

[SickJetFan]

1 minute ago, gEYno said:

I think it's a fair argument to suggest that the Jets should have moved down almost regardless of the player they could have gotten.  Look at how the Browns have been handling these drafts.  Sure, kill them for passing on Wentz, but they are adding talent by the boatload.  So, a bad Browns team picked up 3 players already, and are positioned to get 2 high #1s next year.  Also, a bad Bills team goes into next year with 2 #1s, a bad 49ers team gets a bunch of picks to play with and still gets their guy.

Optimistically, the Jets will add 2-3 good players this year when they need 10.  And, if you want to Suck for Sam, you better hope the Jets get the #1 on their own, because other bad teams have way more ammo.

well for reference the jets added 11 players from last year draft and UDFA

[sciond]

27 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

For starters, the Bills trade was better than taking a safety at #6 in the country. A safety is not worth two 1st rounders and a 3rd rounder. We picked 4 slots earlier, so we should have been able to do even better than that.

In order for your opinion to be fact there had to be a be a trade partner with a better package. Who do you think that was?

[ZachEY]

Just now, SickJetFan said:

well for reference the jets added 11 players from last year draft and UDFA

What's your point?  That the Jets can fill out the bottom of their roster?  We need the top of our roster filled out, because we currently have like 6 legitimate NFL players on this team.

[ZachEY]

Just now, sciond said:

In order for your opinion to be fact there had to be a be a trade partner with a better package. Who do you think that was?

The point is, he could have taken the same deal (which would have been a win) or done even better.

[sciond]

Just now, gEYno said:

The point is, he could have taken the same deal (which would have been a win) or done even better.

I don't think that was a great deal at all. Now what SF got was a good deal.

[Matt39]

1 minute ago, gEYno said:

The point is, he could have taken the same deal (which would have been a win) or done even better.

Totally my opinion here, but I get the sense Bowles has a lot of say in that draft room and is entirely narrow minded. This feels no different than Rex.

[SickJetFan]

2 minutes ago, gEYno said:

What's your point?  That the Jets can fill out the bottom of their roster?  We need the top of our roster filled out, because we currently have like 6 legitimate NFL players on this team.

bottom of their roster?

Anderson was UDFA and is not bottom, nor is Jenkins, Lee, Shell, and maybe now even Hack

[Sperm Edwards]

On 4/28/2017 at 8:27 AM, TampaJet said:

Adams is a great player and was the BPA for them, but I agree with most here.  A guy like Howard later in first round with 2-3 extra picks provides more value to the Jets right now than Adams. Even if Adams is great, they have too many holes in the roster, so how much impact can he really have in the next couple of years? Kind of like having the best CB in the NFL for years and still not winning (outside of 2009/10).  Just not a position that can change a game.  All we can do is hope an impact player on offense is there at #39 tonight.  Personally im hoping for Cook.....as an FSU fan, I have seen every game he played there, and I believe the guy will be a game changer. The media put out some of the off the field stuff that hurt his stock, but that was all early in college. The light seemed to have come on for him and he was model teammate/ player off the field his last 2 seasons.  

This is pretty much what I'm saying. With this many team needs, even if he's a great safety it isn't going to be what dramatically changes the team's fortunes. I'm sure Adams will be an excellent player as most say. It's still too much to surrender for a safety.

In looking at any failure to trade down, one must consider whether one would really advocate trading up if we'd started out in the equal but opposite position. Say the Jets somehow could get no better than the Bills' trade despite owning a pick 4 slots higher. Start in the opposite position. The Jets:

• Have two 1st rounders next year from some prior fictitious trade.
• Aren't interested in the available QBs this year (or anyway, neither of the two available 1st round QBs)
• 2017 1st round pick this year is in the mid-late 20s, not at #6.
• Have long-term holes or desires for upgrades at QB, WR1, RB, TE, LT, C on offense. On defense: EDGE, ILB, CB1, FS, SS, and after this year maybe CB2 or NB (or both).

With all those needs, who would really advocate trading that 25-ish pick, plus our extra 1st rounder in 2018 (when you know we're going QB in round 1 next year), plus an extra 3rd rounder or more this year...just to fill the one hole at strong safety? Come the eff on.

[Sperm Edwards]

28 minutes ago, section314 said:

I am civil, probably one of the most on this board. You, as a mod, know that. For starters, nobody in their right mind would have made the trade Buffalo did. Second, the only team high up that traded down was the 49rs, only because the Bears are fools.  You are so jaded in your hatred for Macc, and basically everything that has to do with the Jets, you can't see clearly anymore. That's my point. 

Telling someone to shut the hell up is not being civil. 

I said prior to the draft I'd be unhappy with a selection of a safety at #6 (or a TE, or a RB). I did not know then we would take a safety.

If you feel a freaking safety is worth bypassing even the value the Bills got 4 picks later, with Adams and 3 others now off the board, you're welcome to your opinion. I disagree with it.

[section314]

4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Telling someone to shut the hell up is not being civil. 

I said prior to the draft I'd be unhappy with a selection of a safety at #6 (or a TE, or a RB). I did not know then we would take a safety.

If you feel a freaking safety is worth bypassing even the value the Bills got 4 picks later, with Adams and 3 others now off the board, you're welcome to your opinion. I disagree with it.

You still haven't said who you would have taken in that spot, same scenario, no trade. I would have taken Mike Williams, but I totally understand why Macc did what he did. You can't always be an armchair QB. Sometimes you have to put your $ where your mouth is. And lets not be ridiculous, what I said isn't even close to be being "not civil" compared to what goes on every day here.

[Bruce Harper]

2 hours ago, Pointdexter said:

Lol, awesome contribution. As stated above, Sal Pal reported this Live on ESPN as the Jets were on the clock. Also stated the info came directly from Macc. Not sure about the presser.

So do you want me to read the entire thread before I respond to your post?  Dude, if you quote something in your thread title, say where the quote came from in your post.  It's not rocket science.  And again, he said at the press conference that they weren't getting calls, but don't let that get in the way of your whining.

[Sperm Edwards]

2 minutes ago, section314 said:

You still haven't said who you would have taken in that spot, same scenario, no trade. I would have taken Mike Williams, but I totally understand why Macc did what he did. You can't always be an armchair QB. Sometimes you have to put your $ where your mouth is. And lets not be ridiculous, what I said isn't even close to be being "not civil" compared to what goes on every day here.

I don't have an answer as to individuals because I don't know these players. I don't claim such either, and all I'd be doing (like most do) is regurgitating others' opinions of the players.

I'm sure Adams will be a good player. That is beside the point. The point is the position itself is simply not as valuable as others.

Sure, a stud safety trumps a bust at another position (duh). But the strategy seems to be the team is gearing up for a major push for a QB next year. Fine by me. So since QB - unlike safety - is such a disproportionately important position, if you can pick up an extra 1st rounder next year you do it. Even more so since we'd still get to make a 1st round selection this year to boot. 

[Jet Nut]

Absolutely nothing about the Jets strategy points to them playing for a QB that may or may not be available next year.  

[56mehl56]

10 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I don't have an answer as to individuals because I don't know these players. I don't claim such either, and all I'd be doing (like most do) is regurgitating others' opinions of the players.

I'm sure Adams will be a good player. That is beside the point. The point is the position itself is simply not as valuable as others.

Sure, a stud safety trumps a bust at another position (duh). But the strategy seems to be the team is gearing up for a major push for a QB next year. Fine by me. So since QB - unlike safety - is such a disproportionately important position, if you can pick up an extra 1st rounder next year you do it. Even more so since we'd still get to make a 1st round selection this year to boot. 

If you don't know these players or what they can contribute then all your are doing is spouting analytics which has a place is sports but is an extremely inaccurate way to run or judge a draft.

[section314]

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I don't have an answer as to individuals because I don't know these players. I don't claim such either, and all I'd be doing (like most do) is regurgitating others' opinions of the players.

I'm sure Adams will be a good player. That is beside the point. The point is the position itself is simply not as valuable as others.

Sure, a stud safety trumps a bust at another position (duh). But the strategy seems to be the team is gearing up for a major push for a QB next year. Fine by me. So since QB - unlike safety - is such a disproportionately important position, if you can pick up an extra 1st rounder next year you do it. Even more so since we'd still get to make a 1st round selection this year to boot. 

Agree w/you on QB vs Safety importance. There was a story around that Colts really wanted McCaffrey, and wanted to get in front of Carolina. They had pick 15, I believe. If they had offered to swap firsts, a 4th this year and next years first, done! Good chance Colts may be pretty bad next year as well, so pick is more valuable than say what Bills got from Chiefs, since Chiefs probably will be good Also, picking 15th way better than 27. it's all in value from Macc's position. Also, Jets may truly believe Hack is "the guy" going forward, and were not ready to make the big bet on next years QB class. Buffalo and Cleveland may feel otherwise. Besides, if Jets are going to be as bad as many think this year, we may not need extra help to be high in the draft.

[Vader]

On 4/28/2017 at 10:09 AM, Sperm Edwards said:

This is pretty much what I'm saying. With this many team needs, even if he's a great safety it isn't going to be what dramatically changes the team's fortunes. I'm sure Adams will be an excellent player as most say. It's still too much to surrender for a safety.

In looking at any failure to trade down, one must consider whether one would really advocate trading up if we'd started out in the equal but opposite position. Say the Jets somehow could get no better than the Bills' trade despite owning a pick 4 slots higher. Start in the opposite position. The Jets:

• Have two 1st rounders next year from some prior fictitious trade.
• Aren't interested in the available QBs this year (or anyway, neither of the two available 1st round QBs)
• 2017 1st round pick this year is in the mid-late 20s, not at #6.
• Have long-term holes or desires for upgrades at QB, WR1, RB, TE, LT, C on offense. On defense: EDGE, ILB, CB1, FS, SS, and after this year maybe CB2 or NB (or both).

With all those needs, who would really advocate trading that 25-ish pick, plus our extra 1st rounder in 2018 (when you know we're going QB in round 1 next year), plus an extra 3rd rounder or more this year...just to fill the one hole at strong safety? Come the eff on.

After reading through the thread the big mistake you are making is assuming that "at least the same offer" that was offered the Bills, was offered to the Jets. 

There is no evidence that happened.

Moreover, it's an unlikely scenario because of + cost to move up the additional 4 spots, likely for a target that the trading team assessed could be acquired for less.

Additionally the countervailing pressure: Adams is a consensus elite prospect that fell into our laps, qualifying as bona fide steal territory, and ONLY BECAUSE of a kink in the machinery of draft determinism at picks 2-3. Adams didn't tumble because of character concerns or injury or lack of productivity, or a bad combine. 

Sometimes the optimal move is not to get cute and do too much. In this case Mac did the optimal thing.

Again, there is zero evidence that the Jets were offered the same trade down scenario as the bills. Just because we drafted higher, doesn't mean we would have received "at least" the same offer (which implies the bounty might have been even richer).

In fact, the contrary is true. The additional cost to move up higher would have been a mitigating factor to a deal offer, with the plus countervailing pressure of an elite prospect as the BATNA.

there is no question from negotiating theory the jets and bills scenarios are different and it's important to note that it is impossible to bake the conditions of the bills scenario into the jets scenario.

Hope this makes sense.

[j4jets]

4 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It could also be a CYA excuse after the fact so he wouldn't get blamed for (yet again) failing to complete a trade.

On the possibility that it is true, then a good argument could be made that teams just don't call the Jets with offers due to Maccagnan's past history of outrageous/ludicrous demands and unwaivering lines in the sand that clearly no one would offer. They'd rather deal with other teams' GMs than try to get a square deal out of our GM.

One cannot deal with such an individual. Best to stay away from him and deal with someone else. I believe that is a good amount of what's been going on.

I bet if we were picking 2nd and were offered what Chicago offered 49ers, we'd pass on it and still select Jamal Adams. Thats Mac. Has no idea how to rebuild a team if he doesn't have $60 mil in cap space available. He does, however, know how hand out multi year significant deals to players and then cut them after a year or two while receiving no comp picks. We lucked into the Snacks comp pick. Maybe Mac can use his brain next time and pick up 2-3 comp picks? Or trade down 2-3 spots in the first and pick up even better draft picks? 

[Dcat]

2 hours ago, Matt39 said:

Totally my opinion here, but I get the sense Bowles has a lot of say in that draft room and is entirely narrow minded. This feels no different than Rex.

EXACTLY

 

[SickJetFan]

2 hours ago, Vader said:

After reading through the thread the big mistake you are making is assuming that "at least the same offer" that was offered the Bills, was offered to the Jets. 

There is no evidence that happened.

Moreover, it's an unlikely scenario because of + cost to move up the additional 4 spots, likely for a target that the trading team assessed could be acquired for less.

Additionally the countervailing pressure: Adams is a consensus elite prospect that fell into our laps, qualifying as bona fide steal territory, and ONLY BECAUSE of a kink in the machinery of draft determinism at picks 2-3. Adams didn't tumble because of character concerns or injury or lack of productivity, or a bad combine. 

Sometimes the optimal move is not to get cute and do too much. In this case Mac did the optimal thing.

Again, there is zero evidence that the Jets were offered the same trade down scenario as the bills. Just because we drafted higher, doesn't mean we would have received "at least" the same offer (which implies the bounty might have been even richer).

In fact, the contrary is true. The additional cost to move up higher would have been a mitigating factor to a deal offer, with the plus countervailing pressure of an elite prospect as the BATNA.

there is no question from negotiating theory the jets and bills scenarios are different and it's important to note that it is impossible to bake the conditions of the bills scenario into the jets scenario.

Hope this makes sense.

yeah what he said

[prime21]

as someone mentioned in a prior post, there is also contract money involved with trading.  Trading down would have been ideal, especially since Howard went late but other teams may have not wanted to pay the price  and waited for the right time to move up.

Imagine the Jets "settling" on an offer for #6 that's under the point value point system.   And then watch as Houston or KC pay the big price like they did in their trades.  This place would go bananas of how stupid we are.   

Maybe they should have did a group text to all the GM's and say "make your best offer"  Hey you never know what comes from that.n 

[the Claw]

I bet if we were picking 2nd and were offered what Chicago offered 49ers, we'd pass on it and still select Jamal Adams. Thats Mac. Has no idea how to rebuild a team if he doesn't have $60 mil in cap space available. He does, however, know how hand out multi year significant deals to players and then cut them after a year or two while receiving no comp picks. We lucked into the Snacks comp pick. Maybe Mac can use his brain next time and pick up 2-3 comp picks? Or trade down 2-3 spots in the first and pick up even better draft picks? 

But they weren't at 2, they were at 6. By pick two the board was already what no one was expecting and it easily may have effected the offers that teams were willing to present. There was a blue chip prospect at a position of need sitting right there.

We (read: you) have no idea what calls or offers came in, so your words, logic, and opinion on this matter are baseless. You may think or bet you know something, but when you don't have any info to base that on, you just end up sounding silly. You will likely lose your bet because there's a lot more scenarios where you're wrong than right.

Adams is going to be a solid player. Just be happy we got a great player.

[Rangers9]

The bottom line is this guy was better than what they could have gotten with a trade down. Like maybe an extra 3rd round pick. If you get a chance at drafting elite you don't sneeze at it. Mac wasn't expecting this guy to be around same way two years ago he wasn't expecting Williams to be on the board. That wasn't such a bad move now, was it.

[jetrider]

My theory is both rumors are true.

Mac's phone was ringing off the hook and Bowles unplugged it so they could concentrate better on their work. After that no more calls came in.

[dcJet]

7 hours ago, Pointdexter said:

Sal Pal reported this Live as the Jets were on the clock. He stated this information came directly from Macc himself. Then Sal made the comment the Jets are "in the cat-bird's seat" with regard to a trade. 

Classic Macc probably demanded too much.

I call Bullsh*t.  There's no way Sal Pal is in the room while the Jets are making their pick to report on the phones ringing. 

And there's no way Mac stops answering phone calls, just so he can tell Sal that the phones are ringing off the hook.

This is complete BS.

 

[Pointdexter]

With the hard-on Carolina (and some other teams picking behind them) had for McCaffrey, I'm not sure why we couldn't have done what SF did and slid back 2 spots so Carolina would be assured of getting their man at 6. Meanwhile we STILL probably get Adams at 8 and a host of additional picks to go with it.

If I were Macc I would have been telling Carolina I had 3 teams asking to get to 6 to get McCaffrey. And, truthfully, he probably did.