### Jets \ Lions -- Preseason Week Two, Game Thread ###

[56mehl56]

3 minutes ago, JetFaninMI said:

Again massive bunch of bullspit. Yes its a rebuild but so far Macc has made all the WRONG moves. He is not to be trusted with that high draft pick they will almost assuredly have and all that cap space based on his moves so far in this process. All of his draft picks except for the no-brainers have dismally failed. The only good part of his FA signings are the way the contracts were structured. Performance wise they were sorely lacking. Stop the bullspit and OPEN YOUR EYES. I am all for the rebuild but Macc is not the guy to be the one to do it. This is based on his track record so far and not a case of someone saying they could do it better.

Serious question, how long do you give a draft pick before you claim they dismally failed. Because IMO last year's draft yielded up to 6 starters which will be 7 if Hack eventually claims the starter role.

This year it's looking like 3 or 4 of the picks may start ( Adams, Maye, Stewart, Leggett) . From 2015 you have Williams, Mauldin, and Simon is a contributor , while Petty is still on the roster.

The concept that his drafts suck is flawed , its just that Jets fans believe every draft pick should be a superstar. No team and I mean no team hits on all of its picks. 

[thadude]

52 minutes ago, Mogglez said:

History likely won't be kind to you with that evaluation of Adams and Maye.  Maybe for once you should be patient and not overreact.  You sound like the guys who were upset over Leo being drafted at 6 instead of Kevin White during his rookie year.  Those guys probably feel pretty stupid right about now.  My only problem with those selections is that I would have gone Jamal Adams and Dalvin Cook.  Not Marcus Maye.  Both safeties will probably be good players.  Maybe even great.  I still wanted a weapon like DC to bolster the offense.

I regards to last year's class, Lee has looked improved, Jordan Jenkins has come on nicely, Burris has played well, Shell has played well, Lachlan Edwards had a great game last night, if Charone Peake never improves beyond what he is now (decent rotational depth WR) than he was a 7th well spent.  Robby Anderson was a very good UDFA signing.  There is a decent amount of hope for last years draft class/UDFAs.

I'm not even going to entertain the idea of finalizing the careers of guys we drafted this year.  That is beyond stupid.  Even you should know that.

I don't know what to think of Macc anymore.  I'm indifferent to letting him go after this year at this point because I'm tired of arguing about it.  If you like him you won't change your mind.  If you've hated him from day one, you won't change your mind.  It is what it is.  Personally speaking, I don't love every single thing he has done but there are some good things there underneath the sh*t were dealing with now.  Right now, gun to my head?  Give him one more chance, let him pick his own head coach (he didn't select or hire Bowles) draft a 1st round QB like Darnold/Rosen/Rudolph/Allen, and let him spend money in FA to bolster the roster while he continues to build a team through the draft.  Reggie McKenzie was looking like a total failure in Oakland before he got Carr.  Now he is considered one of the best GMs in the league.  That is how much finding a QB can change things.

Adams looked like a scrub last night. Sorry

[thadude]

6 minutes ago, 56mehl56 said:

Serious question, how long do you give a draft pick before you claim they dismally failed. Because IMO last year's draft yielded up to 6 starters which will be 7 if Hack eventually claims the starter role.

This year it's looking like 3 or 4 of the picks may start ( Adams, Maye, Stewart, Leggett) . From 2015 you have Williams, Mauldin, and Simon is a contributor , while Petty is still on the roster.

The concept that his drafts suck is flawed , its just that Jets fans believe every draft pick should be a superstar. No team and I mean no team hits on all of its picks. 

Just because a pick starts doesn't make it a successful pick.  Ryan Leaf started his rookie year

[56mehl56]

1 minute ago, thadude said:

Just because a pick starts doesn't make it a successful pick.  Ryan Leaf started his rookie year

And just because you don't like the pick doesn't make it a bust. 

[Stark]

17 hours ago, Dunnie said:

next year


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

Hopefully after watching this 

[T0mShane]

I'm prepared to watch the Jets suck. I'm prepared to watch Maccagnan and Bowles self-immolate. I'm prepared to listen to the national media make jokes about the franchise. However, I am not prepared for Pat Mahomes to be good.

 

https://www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/2017/8/19/16174686/pat-mahomes-chiefs-bengals-preseason

[dbatesman]

47 minutes ago, Mogglez said:

It's good discussion, but I don't think either one of us are going to change the others mind.  I just don't have a problem with paying for players...as long as it's the right players at the right price.

Not sure why this is quoting weird, but I'll try to keep track of things:

1. There's nothing to disgree on. Faneca and Woody were both great, as was that offensive line. At no point was it the best line in football, let alone for 5+ years.

2. That's a feature, not a bug. Having expensive, talented veterans clogs up the pipeline. Teams don't generally spend high draft picks on positions already filled by guys on eight-figure deals. 

3. Agreed that the draft comes first, and that free agency only makes sense if you're in a position to win a title (which is to say it only makes sense if you have a QB). That said, the teams you listed make no sense. The Packers, Steelers, and Seahawks never spend in FA, and the Giants and Raiders spend a lot and don't get much out of it:

4. I'm not sure what you mean by the right players at the right price. To me, that means drafting the majority of your starters and using FA to build depth and fill holes at low-cost, low-leverage positions (i.e., the ones Maccagnan spends first-round picks on). You've got people out here talking about rebuilding the roster through FA, but the units that need the most help (QB, OL, WR, EDGE, CB) are the very units that cost the most money for the least return, all while keeping us from drafting 22-year-olds who can do 80% of the same thing for 20% of the cost. It's folly.

[Mogglez]

Just now, thadude said:

Adams looked like a scrub last night. Sorry

And in his first game he debuted to rave reviews via PFF. He's a rookie. 

See, this is the dumb stuff you post that gets you laughed at, deservedly so.  I broke down just about every pick from the last three years, was hoping to have a reasonable football discussion with you, and you cherry pick a rookie in his 2nd pre-season game because you're not capable of processing a single intelligent thought when it comes to the sport of football.  It's laughable that you think you have the right to call anyone else on this forum an idiot like you did earlier.  

He's a f*cking rookie.  He's not going to look like a superstar every single game.  Only an over-reactionary moron would think that a rookies career is defined by his 2nd pre-season game.

By the way, the guy you were crying for in FA; Glennon?  How'd he look last night?  Last week you were kicking, screaming, and crying that it was because he was playing the big bad Broncos that he had a 0.0 QB rating.  He sucked last night too.  What's the excuse for this week?

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, thadude said:

Hack didn't even look good week 1 of preseason.  It was all scripted checkdown throw the RB BS facing a bad defense that wasn't even trying and he still turned the ball over and scored no points

Hey, use your perceptive powers to explain how checkdown throws are scriptive.  

That you didn't see the good in his play goes a long way to explain how you can't go beyond repeating he sucks over and over again.  

[Mogglez]

41 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

Not sure why this is quoting weird, but I'll try to keep track of things:

1. There's nothing to disgree on. Faneca and Woody were both great, as was that offensive line. At no point was it the best line in football, let alone for 5+ years.

2. That's a feature, not a bug. Having expensive, talented veterans clogs up the pipeline. Teams don't generally spend high draft picks on positions already filled by guys on eight-figure deals. 

3. Agreed that the draft comes first, and that free agency only makes sense if you're in a position to win a title (which is to say it only makes sense if you have a QB). That said, the teams you listed make no sense. The Packers, Steelers, and Seahawks never spend in FA, and the Giants and Raiders spend a lot and don't get much out of it:

4. I'm not sure what you mean by the right players at the right price. To me, that means drafting the majority of your starters and using FA to build depth and fill holes at low-cost, low-leverage positions (i.e., the ones Maccagnan spends first-round picks on). You've got people out here talking about rebuilding the roster through FA, but the units that need the most help (QB, OL, WR, EDGE, CB) are the very units that cost the most money for the least return, all while keeping us from drafting 22-year-olds who can do 80% of the same thing for 20% of the cost. It's folly.

I'm having some issues with the quoting too.  That's why my first response was formatted the way it was.  I'll try my best to keep up here too so apologies if it gets a little twisted.

1.  I probably shouldn't have said THE best. "One of" would have fit better. 5+ years with those two was hyperbolic too. That's on me.  The point I was really trying to make was more along the lines of we had a solid O-Line with FAs and draft picks for a while.  Definitely one that was more than serviceable.

2. I agree there, and trying to build the way was where Tannenbaum went wrong, IMHO.  

3 & 4. I think we actually agree here more than you think we do.  The teams I listed, in my opinion spend the right money on the right players.  I'm not calling them big spenders or anything.  Whether it's a lot  of cash or not much at all doesn't mean anything to mean to me.  As long as the market value is ok and the player will play up to the value of the contract and isn't old/teetering on the age cliff (Revis, Darrelle; Cromartie, Antonio) then paying for someone like, I don't know, Allen Robinson (if he shakes free) to give Darnold or whoever we draft a target to grow with isn't a horrendous idea.  The Packers paid for Julius Peppers and got a good return on that.  I think Martellus Bennett will do well with them too.  The Steelers plug little areas here and there with solid FAs.  The Giants spend more than the other two and have seen less of a return, yes.  However, in 2011 they paid for Antrelle Rolle and he was a pretty big reason their defense was able to help them get to the Super Bowl.  

I am in no way advocating to spend like we did in 2015.  I'm talking about finding a couple of players that are young, talented, and can be added to strengthen certain areas without breaking the bank.  That's what I mean by right players, right price.  Draft your core (including QB), bolster it with a couple of FAs.  That's what I want.

I don't honestly know if I illustrated my point as clear as could have but I hope you get what I'm saying a little bit better now.

[dbatesman]

31 minutes ago, Mogglez said:

I'm having some issues with the quoting too.  That's why my first response was formatted the way it was.  I'll try my best to keep up here too so apologies if it gets a little twisted.

1.  I probably shouldn't have said THE best. "One of" would have fit better. 5+ years with those two was hyperbolic too. That's on me.  The point I was really trying to make was more along the lines of we had a solid O-Line with FAs and draft picks for a while.  Definitely one that was more than serviceable.

2. I agree there, and trying to build the way was where Tannenbaum went wrong, IMHO.  

3 & 4. I think we actually agree here more than you think we do.  The teams I listed, in my opinion spend the right money on the right players.  I'm not calling them big spenders or anything.  Whether it's a lot  of cash or not much at all doesn't mean anything to mean to me.  As long as the market value is ok and the player will play up to the value of the contract and isn't old/teetering on the age cliff (Revis, Darrelle; Cromartie, Antonio) then paying for someone like, I don't know, Allen Robinson (if he shakes free) to give Darnold or whoever we draft a target to grow with isn't a horrendous idea.  The Packers paid for Julius Peppers and got a good return on that.  I think Martellus Bennett will do well with them too.  The Steelers plug little areas here and there with solid FAs.  The Giants spend more than the other two and have seen less of a return, yes.  However, in 2011 they paid for Antrelle Rolle and he was a pretty big reason their defense was able to help them get to the Super Bowl.  

I am in no way advocating to spend like we did in 2015.  I'm talking about finding a couple of players that are young, talented, and can be added to strengthen certain areas without breaking the bank.  That's what I mean by right players, right price.  Draft your core (including QB), bolster it with a couple of FAs.  That's what I want.

I don't honestly know if I illustrated my point as clear as could have but I hope you get what I'm saying a little bit better now.

I think we mostly agree. The players you mentioned in particular are pretty much dead-on in terms of a smart use of FA. I think FA works in the following circumstances:

a.) Cheap depth with upside (Corey Lemonier)

b.) Guys who come relatively cheap because they're old or injured or play a low-leverage position, or some combination thereof, but represent a clear upgrade over whatever you have on the roster (Rolle fits here; for the Jets, Steve McLendon is a good example)

c.) Talented, relatively young guys who play an important position but are undervalued for some reason and can be had for reasonable money (hopefully Robinson next year; Decker, who remains the one unequivocally good thing Idzik accomplished here, is another example, as is Golden Tate)

d.) Elite players at important positions who are worth paying a ton for because they so rarely become available (Peppers, Revis)

Personally, until we have a QB, I don't see any reason to go past b.), but the real problem is that the vast majority of FA money--from everyone, not just the Jets--gets paid out in the form of e.) huge contracts to half-decent players at low-leverage positions. These are the James Carpenters and Buster Skrines and Marcus Gilchrists of the world, and they can absolutely cripple a roster. When I see people shrugging at the OL collectively sh*tting its pants last night and pointing to all our cap space, my left eyelid twitches involuntarily. Every time a Jets front office has thought that way, it's been an unmitigated disaster.

[Warfish]

2 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

One more stupid post where you call Geno my guy.  That's your answer to the incredible bad job you did by pimping Fitz.  Keep the imaginary idea that he was my guy.  One that you can't find a single post where I said that.  Now let's fast forward to your posts.  The countless posts proclaiming Fitz your guy.  The countless posts where you ridiculed anyone who challenged that idea. That's your fallback.  That's one hell of a losers take.  At least you're consistent.  You've never been close to right by anyone you wanted at QB.  All you're left with is trying to bring everyone else down to your level.  Yes, you now want a medal for admitting the obvious, Fitz sucked.  After you picked him as your guy though.  But people like me who wanted an open competition, who made no predictions of how good Geno would be, just that he deserved a chance are the clueless.  All you've done for the last year is try and defend putting your faith in a failure.  And pat yourself on the back for admitting he did suck.  But ignoring those of us who predicted he would suck.  And coming to the illogical conclusion that predicting he would suck means we loved Geno.  There's logic at its finest, but you come back for more, bringing up the talk.  

All the logic in the world is tiresome to your excuse making ass.  I should fight with someone else?  You answered me, I never post to you, you rarely if ever make any sense.  SAR, Geno, Sanchez, complaints over the lack of weapons one season, whoever or whatever else you can dream up to cloud the waters and lesson how totally off base you were.  Keep,attacking the idea that Geno should have gotten a chance.  You sound so smart turning that into loving some Geno.  You can't seem to accept that it's another pointless conclusion in a series of pointless posts.  

Wow thats alot of hot air.  You really should stop contributing to global warming, mate.  Like I said, argue Geno v. Fitz with someone one, you bore me.  

[Paradis]

1 hour ago, dbatesman said:

Not sure why this is quoting weird, but I'll try to keep track of things:

3. Agreed that the draft comes first, and that free agency only makes sense if you're in a position to win a title (which is to say it only makes sense if you have a QB). That said, the teams you listed make no sense. The Packers, Steelers, and Seahawks never spend in FA, and the Giants and Raiders spend a lot and don't get much out of it:

 

Fascinating stuff... however if this is what you believe (proverbial you), then we will struggle to win under Macc. Without someone hired to assist in scouting and player evaluation, we're not going anywhere. 3 drafts and we've added zero depth/talent/pillars to the offense. 

[Apache 51]

18 hours ago, jeremy2020 said:

What happened to all of that optimism when they beat the mighty titans in the preseason?

They couldn't beat Remember the Titans.

[Apache 51]

1 hour ago, Mogglez said:

I'm having some issues with the quoting too.  That's why my first response was formatted the way it was.  I'll try my best to keep up here too so apologies if it gets a little twisted.

1.  I probably shouldn't have said THE best. "One of" would have fit better. 5+ years with those two was hyperbolic too. That's on me.  The point I was really trying to make was more along the lines of we had a solid O-Line with FAs and draft picks for a while.  Definitely one that was more than serviceable.

2. I agree there, and trying to build the way was where Tannenbaum went wrong, IMHO.  

3 & 4. I think we actually agree here more than you think we do.  The teams I listed, in my opinion spend the right money on the right players.  I'm not calling them big spenders or anything.  Whether it's a lot  of cash or not much at all doesn't mean anything to mean to me.  As long as the market value is ok and the player will play up to the value of the contract and isn't old/teetering on the age cliff (Revis, Darrelle; Cromartie, Antonio) then paying for someone like, I don't know, Allen Robinson (if he shakes free) to give Darnold or whoever we draft a target to grow with isn't a horrendous idea.  The Packers paid for Julius Peppers and got a good return on that.  I think Martellus Bennett will do well with them too.  The Steelers plug little areas here and there with solid FAs.  The Giants spend more than the other two and have seen less of a return, yes.  However, in 2011 they paid for Antrelle Rolle and he was a pretty big reason their defense was able to help them get to the Super Bowl.  

I am in no way advocating to spend like we did in 2015.  I'm talking about finding a couple of players that are young, talented, and can be added to strengthen certain areas without breaking the bank.  That's what I mean by right players, right price.  Draft your core (including QB), bolster it with a couple of FAs.  That's what I want.

I don't honestly know if I illustrated my point as clear as could have but I hope you get what I'm saying a little bit better now.

Charts and stats are BS, only thing that matters is the Lombardi.

[dbatesman]

27 minutes ago, Paradis said:

Fascinating stuff... however if this is what you believe (proverbial you), then we will struggle to win under Macc. Without someone hired to assist in scouting and player evaluation, we're not going anywhere. 3 drafts and we've added zero depth/talent/pillars to the offense. 

Pretty much. Jets FO drafts sh*tty players, papers things over with an FA splurge that doesn't work, gets fired. Next regime inherits a roster that's old and untalented and expensive and wastes its first two years clearing out dead weight. Meanwhile, it's drafting sh*tty players, necessitating an FA splurge to paper things over, etc. etc. etc.

[56mehl56]

3 hours ago, thadude said:

Outside of Leo Mac has not drafted a good player and I'm including 2017 and those two JAG safeties

If there's anything that's a JAG its your football IQ

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

Wow thats alot of hot air.  You really should stop contributing to global warming, mate.  Like I said, argue Geno v. Fitz with someone one, you bore me.  

Like I've come to expect you're to dense to just say you got it wrong.  It's why you suck as a poster.  Find a single post where I pimp Geno and do more than sat he should get a chance to compete.  But you'll continue to be the only one claiming otherwise.  For someone who is bored you can't seem to STFU and move on to something you actually stand a chance of being right about. 

[Mogglez]

On 8/20/2017 at 3:20 PM, dbatesman said:

I think we mostly agree. The players you mentioned in particular are pretty much dead-on in terms of a smart use of FA. I think FA works in the following circumstances:

a.) Cheap depth with upside (Corey Lemonier)

b.) Guys who come relatively cheap because they're old or injured or play a low-leverage position, or some combination thereof, but represent a clear upgrade over whatever you have on the roster (Rolle fits here; for the Jets, Steve McLendon is a good example)

c.) Talented, relatively young guys who play an important position but are undervalued for some reason and can be had for reasonable money (hopefully Robinson next year; Decker, who remains the one unequivocally good thing Idzik accomplished here, is another example, as is Golden Tate)

d.) Elite players at important positions who are worth paying a ton for because they so rarely become available (Peppers, Revis)

Personally, until we have a QB, I don't see any reason to go past b.), but the real problem is that the vast majority of FA money--from everyone, not just the Jets--gets paid out in the form of e.) huge contracts to half-decent players at low-leverage positions. These are the James Carpenters and Buster Skrines and Marcus Gilchrists of the world, and they can absolutely cripple a roster. When I see people shrugging at the OL collectively sh*tting its pants last night and pointing to all our cap space, my left eyelid twitches involuntarily. Every time a Jets front office has thought that way, it's been an unmitigated disaster.

Can't disagree with a single word written here.  Seems like we really do have common ground after all. 

[dbatesman]

2 hours ago, Mogglez said:

Can't disagree with a single word written here.  Seems like we really do have common ground after all.