munchmemory Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 1 hour ago, JETSfaninNE said: Yup exactly. Pretty obvious Macc has no creativity or idea what he is doing, trading a future 4th rd pick for a 5th rd pick and being able to grab a starting T a year ahead of schedule and then knowingly get at least a 4th or even better a 3rd back in compensatory pick the following year. I think you got it right when you stated you don't get paid millions of dollars to make these decisions, since you can't even give our own guy credit when he makes one. If you don't like the position that was taken fine, gripe about it. But its obvious we have many positions of need and the backend of the secondary was just as high as any need on offense. We just locked up a 10 yr starter and we still have 3 more picks in the top 3 rounds. Lets see if Macc can still get creative. Time to be creative was last night. Trade down and get as many picks as possible. But instead, like the last fukkin' nine years (last three on his watch), we go defensive and draft a luxury position, safety. Remember when we "locked up 10 year starters" in Wilk, Sheldon, Pryor, and a ton of others? Look, I think the kid will be good. I just don't think he helps us. I also think Mcc should have done better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighPitch Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Surely he was either NOT aggressive for a trade OR he was asking too much. Either way, fail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETSfaninNE Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Just now, munchmemory said: Time to be creative was last night. Trade down and get as many picks as possible. But instead, like the last fukkin' nine years (last three on his watch), we go defensive and draft a luxury position, safety. Remember when we "locked up 10 year starters" in Wilk, Sheldon, Pryor, and a ton of others? Look, I think the kid will be good. I just don't think he helps us. I also think Mcc should have done better. Thats fine, we all want and should desire better, nobody is perfect but lets look at this another way. Every GM was trying to trade down in at least the top 6. Only one team successfully pulled that off. You can get as creative as you want but if being creative means you end up losing out then there is no point in being creative. Every good negotiator knows you don't leave with less then you came to the table with. If the value wasn't there, the value wasn't there. What you should be happy with is he had the conviction to stay firm and take the safest player in the draft and somebody that make an immediate impact this year. It also gives them leverage to just move Pryor for an extra pick now as well as hopefully move Sheldon as well. I don't remember ever saying we locked up a 10 year starter in regards to sheldon, pryor or any picks from teh Idzick era honestly. I can at least say and say with league consensus that the Jets under Macc have locked up 2 out of 3 sure bets so far. If the Jets are wrong here then the entire league is wrong and I can't feel terrible about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoBowles Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 4 minutes ago, phill1c said: Like you have a bridge...you probably live under a bridge. "libtard"? Wow, it's like I stepped into a time capsule and wound up in 1988. Im so sick of everyone feeling the need to bring their politics into every other thread. This is a sports message board, not a political message board. Nobody gives a crap what your political views are, get over yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lupz27 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Agree with it, or not the Jets probably had a list of players on their board that they were going to take at 6 if they were there no matter what, that list might have only been Garrett, Adams, but that might have been the case here. Just an educated guess thou. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSteve Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 1 hour ago, ASH1962 said: Houston traded up to #13 and gave up this years 1, next years 1, a 2 and a 3 I think (or whatever the actual trade was, I do not remember but you get the point). Would we not have been ecstatic to get this for the #6 pick? Are we to believe Hou would not have given up this lot for the #6, but gave it up for #13? I love the Adams pick, hope he will be a great player, but we listened to all of the BS about trading down, all of the nonsense about the phones ringing off of the wall, and yet again, picked a defensive player while we have zero offense and zero speed on offense and ST's. Not sure if Adams can return punts or kicks. It struck me as really strange last night that Houston gave up so much for #13 but we could not get that same lot for #6. Am I crazy? The problem is this: We will never know what actually happened in the war room. We see these trades and think "WOW, why didn't WE trade for that?" There are too many mitigating factors that we cannot possibly know about. What if the GM's or teams do not like each other? What if they asking price is too much, or not enough? If Mac makes that exact trade with Houston to get up to 6, people would be saying it was not enough to jump that many spaces. If he makes the trade and gets a reasonable load of picks, but then we move down and the pick Mac does make doesn't excite, then people are bitching about making the trade and NOT getting the buy we SHOULD have taken by staying put. Too many factors. Nothing wrong with staying put and taking your guy. Fact is, if you do it that way, you have to hit on a higher percentage of picks. I would have loved to move down and taken Derek Barnett. Didn't happen, but I am in no way disappointed that we got the best S in the draft, and possibly one of the top 5 players coming out this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phill1c Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, NoBowles said: Im so sick of everyone feeling the need to bring their politics into every other thread. This is a sports message board, not a political message board. Nobody gives a crap what your political views are, get over yourself. If you don't give a crap then the appropriate behavior would be to ignore it. I'm sorry you don't have the mental discipline to ignore things that upset you. Get over yourself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoBowles Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 4 minutes ago, phill1c said: If you don't give a crap then the appropriate behavior would be to ignore it. I'm sorry you don't have the mental discipline to ignore things that upset you. Get over yourself! With all due respect sir, Im not overly concerned with what you consider to be appropriate behavior, or good mental discipline. Your the one who took a post that had nothing to do with politics, on a message board that has nothing to do with politics, and felt the need to interject your political views in them, not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phill1c Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Just now, NoBowles said: With all due respect sir, Im not overly concerned with what you consider to be appropriate behavior, or good mental discipline. Your the one who took a post that had nothing to do with politics, on a message board that has nothing to do with politics, and felt the need to interject your political views in them, not me. And you 'sir', escalated it into name calling...and dishonestly claimed not to care about it. Now go change your panties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoBowles Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 1 minute ago, phill1c said: And you 'sir', escalated it into name calling...and dishonestly claimed not to care about it. Now go change your panties. ok, thanks, Ill do that. You got me good there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesr Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 17 minutes ago, Lupz27 said: Agree with it, or not the Jets probably had a list of players on their board that they were going to take at 6 if they were there no matter what, that list might have only been Garrett, Adams, but that might have been the case here. Just an educated guess thou. The Jets valuation of their pick would certainly have increased based on who was available when they were actually on the clock. All comes down to how highly they graded Adams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cant wait Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 1 hour ago, phill1c said: And, of course, my take is that we could have drafted Troy Palumalo and guys would be crying because we didn't end up selecting Mike Glennon or trading down for Dorian Boose and Anthony Becht. but troy polamalu isn't preeeemium enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerfish Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Dorian Boose died earlier this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phill1c Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Just now, cant wait said: but troy polamalu isn't preeeemium enough to be fair, I was thinking that the Jets needed a [free] safety way before this draft happened. So, I'm feeling validated. It's been so long since they've had one, nobody seems to understand what the cascading effect on a defense a prime free safety can have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phill1c Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 1 minute ago, Beerfish said: Dorian Boose died earlier this year. My reference was probably too soon to be in good taste. I'll fix it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cant wait Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Just now, phill1c said: to be fair, I was thinking that the Jets needed a [free] safety way before this draft happened. So, I'm feeling validated. It's been so long since they've had one, nobody seems to understand what the cascading effect on a defense a prime free safety can have. I think the league is moving towards higher valuations for safeties and secondary in general- tony jefferson turned down $10M a year from cleveland this offseason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phill1c Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 1 minute ago, cant wait said: I think the league is moving towards higher valuations for safeties and secondary in general- tony jefferson turned down $10M a year from cleveland this offseason I think having a good tandem of safeties allows greater flexibility in the coverages you can deploy. And allows a DC to disguise the coverages better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bealeb319 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Houston traded up to #13 and gave up this years 1, next years 1, a 2 and a 3 I think (or whatever the actual trade was, I do not remember but you get the point). Would we not have been ecstatic to get this for the #6 pick? Are we to believe Hou would not have given up this lot for the #6, but gave it up for #13? I love the Adams pick, hope he will be a great player, but we listened to all of the BS about trading down, all of the nonsense about the phones ringing off of the wall, and yet again, picked a defensive player while we have zero offense and zero speed on offense and ST's. Not sure if Adams can return punts or kicks. It struck me as really strange last night that Houston gave up so much for #13 but we could not get that same lot for #6. Am I crazy? Huston may have paniced when mahomes got drafted and decided they didn't want to take a chance it is a possibility they were willing to move up but who really knowsSent from my LGUS991 using JetNation.com mobile app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.