Jets Shopping Sheldon...Again

[T0mShane]

2 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

Amazing isn't it?  Some fans are so hell bent on destroying what little we have left on this team in the way of professional football players worthy of being on an NFL roster. 

Joewilly12, it is, indeed, amazing.

[dbatesman]

16 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

A little pumped up to watch people write volumes of words explaining how trading Sheldon for a four is #actually a masterstroke 

The Cowboys offering a two is fake news, Oakland's fourth is the best we could of gotten #TraderMaccc

[Bleedin Green]

8 minutes ago, HessStation said:

Short sighted, he's been playing Out of position The last two years.

The long list of excuses for Sheldon is evidence enough that it's a horrible idea.  Especially considering that excuse doesn't hold up for last season.

Bottom line, Sheldon has a worse track record than Mo, so unless you're admittedly basing your argument on nothing but pure hindsight, the argument contradicts itself.

[T0mShane]

8 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

The Cowboys offering a two is fake news, Oakland's fourth is the best we could of gotten #TraderMaccc

shelDUMB is practically ISIS. We're lucky to get a bag of balls for him

[joewilly12]

7 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

shelDUMB is practically ISIS. We're lucky to get a bag of balls for him

Come on T0mShane you're just jealous it wasn't you in the car smoking weed with him doing 112 mph. 

[T0mShane]

7 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

Come on T0mShane you're just jealous it wasn't you in the car smoking weed with him doing 112 mph. 

It was the "with a twelve year old in the backseat" part that had me saying aw damn.

[Mogglez]

4 hours ago, BCJet said:

How about for AJ McCarron?  Jeff Driskell  has played decently enough for the Bengals to back up dalton, and it fills a need for both teams.

We're about to full blown suck and get a top pick in the upcoming draft class that features 4-5 legitimate first round QBs.  Why in the world would we trade for AJ McCarron?

[joewilly12]

8 minutes ago, Mogglez said:

We're about to full blown suck and get a top pick in the upcoming draft class that features 4-5 legitimate first round QBs.  Why in the world would we trade for AJ McCarron?

Because some are so mired in suckage they cant see things any other way. 

[Mogglez]

5 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

Because some are so mired in suckage they cant see things any other way. 

It's just not good value.  On top of it, there's no shot that he's going to come here and be able to be plug and play.  He's spent the whole off-season/pre-season in a totally different offense with different players.  It'd be a total mess.  

[Dunnie]

We're about to full blown suck and get a top pick in the upcoming draft class that features 4-5 legitimate first round QBs.  Why in the world would we trade for AJ McCarron?

You know what Kirk Lazarus says...


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[Dunnie]

No one is willing to give us dick for a guy that is a c hair away from being suspended for the season on top of being a 'it's all about me guy'


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[joewilly12]

6 minutes ago, Mogglez said:

It's just not good value.  On top of it, there's no shot that he's going to come here and be able to be plug and play.  He's spent the whole off-season/pre-season in a totally different offense with different players.  It'd be a total mess.  

I agree I don't want him. 

[ZachEY]

2 hours ago, Lon chaney said:

If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong, there was one fleeting comment from Mike Petine about Wilk  taking some plays off at Temple.  Not the guy with the best track record when it comes to evaluating talent  

Every college DLineman motors it down during some plays.  The college came is an absolute animal. Some defenses are on the field for double the amount of snaps as NFL teams.

It was a focal point of their concern about him.  Wilk himself even acknowledged in the interview that he took plays off.

[ZachEY]

1 hour ago, Obrien2Toon said:

But he never was for us, except the one year coming back from a broken leg

He definitely disappeared at times, and it got worse post-contract, which was post-leg, but still, effort has been lacking.  Look, I was a fan of resigning him - but the reality is, he's never been JJ Watt in effort, let alone talent, and it looks like it could be worse now that he got paid.

[Barkus]

5 hours ago, jetscrazey said:

Why, so we can get a mid-round pick that Maccagnan will waste on a guy that will be out of the league in 3 years?

Or trade that pick for a fringe safety or another long snapper!

[Beerfish]

We have some decent depth on  the dline some really good young guys behind our big 3 imo

[jgb]

1 hour ago, gEYno said:

It was a focal point of their concern about him.  Wilk himself even acknowledged in the interview that he took plays off.

And what did Bowles do? Not a thing. Bowles is a wet noodle.

[jgb]

Nothing like desperation to drive up the price

[pointman]

Sheldon > Mo. 

[Ken Schroy]

Wipe them out. All of them.

[sciond]

maybe we can trade him for a safety....

[detectivekimble]

5 hours ago, Lon chaney said:

If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong, there was one fleeting comment from Mike Petine about Wilk  taking some plays off at Temple.  Not the guy with the best track record when it comes to evaluating talent  

Every college DLineman motors it down during some plays.  The college came is an absolute animal. Some defenses are on the field for double the amount of snaps as NFL teams.

What does taking plays off have to do with evaluating talent?  Do you need to be a talent evaluator to see that a guy takes plays off?  An NFL defensive coordinator watched the guy's tape and noted that he takes a lot of plays off.  And guess what?  It's translated to the pros.

[Raideraholic]

5 hours ago, dbatesman said:

The Cowboys offering a two is fake news, Oakland's fourth is the best we could of gotten #TraderMaccc

Raider fans would probably be willing to offer their third rounder for Sheldon Richardson .   Raiders GM Reggie Mckenize would never give up a fourth rounder for Him,  and pay him over 8 million for one year rental. ( loves his draft picks, and the young tackles they have)

Raiders defense is garbage not because of the personnel , but because Jack Delrio won't give up running the defense .   Ken Norton Jr is the Raider defensive coordinator in name only( glorified cheerleader whose Delrio puppet) .    Raider fan like to kill Ken , but the real culprit is Jack Delrio.

Denver defense was good with Jack Delrio as DC ( conservative bend both don't break philosophy)  , but became elite with Wade Phillips attacking defense. That still bothers Jack Delrio today, and until he swallows his ego and relinquishes  control of the defense to John Pagano( Chargers ex DC, and Wade Phillips disciple) .   Raiders brought Pagano in as assistant head coach this offseason  .     Until he starts pulling the strings on defense, it isn't going to matter one way or the other.( Sheldon Richardson or anyone else isn't going to change their fortunes on defense).

[Jetdawgg]

8 hours ago, HessStation said:

Bottom line when they picked Williams they had three high profile players for two spots.  They kept the worst one out of the 3 and in turn lost the best NT in football and now have to give away one of their very few all pro talents for next to nothing. 

NYJ Logic.....I just do not see how Macc can be retained. His rosters are so unbalanced; over paid FA's, log jams at positions, putrid offense, no Speedy PR, NO QB even with a ton of cap space. His plan is hard to follow and this team is a complete disaster. He is over matched at his position

[Hael]

We'd likely get a 4th for Richardson, or say a late 3rd but then we'd have to figure out a way to help teams with Sheldons salary.

no one is giving up much draft assets for a player that will be a free agent in a year, that has way too large a salary relative to his production and that didn't play well last year, and on top of that is an inch away from suspension.  Giving up draft stock for that sort of baggage is a fireable offense.  Don't see it.

[HessStation]

12 hours ago, Bleedin Green said:

The long list of excuses for Sheldon is evidence enough that it's a horrible idea.  Especially considering that excuse doesn't hold up for last season.

Bottom line, Sheldon has a worse track record than Mo, so unless you're admittedly basing your argument on nothing but pure hindsight, the argument contradicts itself.

Your argument is he sucks. He's been playing out of position in this scheme. That includes last year. Sticking a 290 lb DT outside the offensive tackle isn't an excuse it's stupidity and  an actual Jets reality

[Super Bowl before I die]

Get rid of him before his next suspension , which is inevitable .

[Bleedin Green]

1 hour ago, HessStation said:

Your argument is he sucks. He's been playing out of position in this scheme. That includes last year. Sticking a 290 lb DT outside the offensive tackle isn't an excuse it's stupidity and  an actual Jets reality

No, my argument is he hasn't been anywhere as good as he's credited with being for more than half of his career, and is the single least trustworthy player on the entire team to give a contract to, given an endless list of issues on the field, off the field, and in the locker room, which are all endlessly blamed on everyone but him, which is outright pathetic.  A guy like that would be sh*t-canned from a real life job within a blink of an eye.  He might be able to get away with it more in the NFL, but Richardson is still the model of the player you don't want to be the ones to give his second contract to.  It's an idiotic gamble that, given the position the Jets are in, they have absolutely no reason to make.

The truth is, he should have already been gone last year, but since they screwed that up, they have every reason to do it now.  Whether we like it or not, there's nothing that can be done about Mo for at least another year, but that isn't justification to double-down with an even more idiotic contract.

[HessStation]

10 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

No, my argument is he hasn't been anywhere as good as he's credited with being for more than half of his career, and is the single least trustworthy player on the entire team to give a contract to, given an endless list of issues on the field, off the field, and in the locker room, which are all endlessly blamed on everyone but him, which is outright pathetic.  A guy like that would be sh*t-canned from a real life job within a blink of an eye.  He might be able to get away with it more in the NFL, but Richardson is still the model of the player you don't want to be the ones to give his second contract to.  It's an idiotic gamble that, given the position the Jets are in, they have absolutely no reason to make.

The truth is, he should have already been gone last year, but since they screwed that up, they have every reason to do it now.  Whether we like it or not, there's nothing that can be done about Mo for at least another year, but that isn't justification to double-down with an even more idiotic contract.

There's been no on field issues with Richardson since he's been here other than being taken out of position. On the field he's played harder than Wilkerson. He's had one off field issue separate from Mo. Besides that all other Off field issues have been in inclusion WITH Mo, unless you want to be one of those fans overreacting to his media driven spout with Marshall or where all the bitches at tweet....which is much to do about nothing.  

And my original point is clear, that all on field issues started when they resigned Mo instead of SNacKs pushing the better athlete and player, Richardson to the outside so Mo could half ass it all year. I have yet to see Richardson dog it on the field.

Also, Richardson at his best is on a different level than Wilkerson at his best. 

[BCJet]

2 minutes ago, HessStation said:

There's been no on field issues with Richardson since he's been here other than being taken out of position. On the field he's played harder than Wilkerson. He's had one off field issue separate from Mo. Besides that all other Off field issues have been in inclusion WITH Mo, unless you want to be one of those fans overreacting to his media driven spout with Marshall or where all the bitches at tweet....which is much to do about nothing.  

And my original point is clear, that all on field issues started when they resigned Mo instead of SNacKs pushing the better athlete and player, Richardson to the outside so Mo could half ass it all year. 

Also, Richardson at his best is on a different level than Wilkerson at his best. 

Not to allow facts to get in the way, and yes I agree sheldon has occasionally played out of position, but Wilkerson has 40 career sacks, and 2 double-digit sack seasons (10 and 12.5).  Richardson has 18 careers sacks, with a high of 8.  How exactly is he a better player then Mo?

Secondly, there have been a lot of lockerroom issues with Sheldon.  Yes Mo missed a meeting, and has apparently not been ideal behind the scenes, but why would we not say sheldon has been equally disruptive off the field with his brandon marshall feud, etc?  Neither of them are choir boys, but I just dont see how we would take the risk of sheldon with the league suspensions over keeping Mo.

[HessStation]

12 minutes ago, BCJet said:

Not to allow facts to get in the way, and yes I agree sheldon has occasionally played out of position, but Wilkerson has 40 career sacks, and 2 double-digit sack seasons (10 and 12.5).  Richardson has 18 careers sacks, with a high of 8.  How exactly is he a better player then Mo?

Secondly, there have been a lot of lockerroom issues with Sheldon.  Yes Mo missed a meeting, and has apparently not been ideal behind the scenes, but why would we not say sheldon has been equally disruptive off the field with his brandon marshall feud, etc?  Neither of them are choir boys, but I just dont see how we would take the risk of sheldon with the league suspensions over keeping Mo.

My argument isn't to keep Richardson at this point, my argument is the origin of when this issue began, signing Mo over SNacKs, which now makes it impossible to keep Richardson...and Richardson/SNacKs>Wilkerson/your favorite Jets NT of choice.

I won't conclude Sacks for a 3-4 DL is the shining benchmark of evaluation and not to mention where he's played over the last two years plus time missed. It's obviously subjective  and if you think Mo is better more power to you. I'll disagree with you. 

Tell me I get to start an NFL today and I can take two players from each team I'm takings Williams and Richardson from the Jets, not Mo, Not even close.

[Bleedin Green]

16 minutes ago, HessStation said:

There's been no on field issues with Richardson since he's been here other than being taken out of position. On the field he's played harder than Wilkerson. He's had one off field issue separate from Mo. Besides that all other Off field issues have been in inclusion WITH Mo, unless you want to be one of those fans overreacting to his media driven spout with Marshall or where all the bitches at tweet....which is much to do about nothing.  

And my original point is clear, that all on field issues started when they resigned Mo instead of SNacKs pushing the better athlete and player, Richardson to the outside so Mo could half ass it all year. I have yet to see Richardson dog it on the field.

Also, Richardson at his best is on a different level than Wilkerson at his best. 

Snacks should have been kept over them both.  That has absolutely nothing to do with Richardson, they could not possibly be more different in every imaginable way.

The rest of this is, once again, excuses for why whatever Sheldon does wrong isn't Sheldon's fault.  Apparently the NFL is just out to get him with his multiple suspensions, because his problems are apparently all the media's fault.  And I guess when both him and Mo do stupid things together, it makes Mo the fire demon of the underworld, and Sheldon the poor innocent victim?

Bottom line, keeping him is a bad idea, and even him staying here and having a great season in his contract year wouldn't convince me otherwise.

[HessStation]

40 minutes ago, BCJet said:

Not to allow facts to get in the way, and yes I agree sheldon has occasionally played out of position, but Wilkerson has 40 career sacks, and 2 double-digit sack seasons (10 and 12.5).  Richardson has 18 careers sacks, with a high of 8.  How exactly is he a better player then Mo?

Secondly, there have been a lot of lockerroom issues with Sheldon.  Yes Mo missed a meeting, and has apparently not been ideal behind the scenes, but why would we not say sheldon has been equally disruptive off the field with his brandon marshall feud, etc?  Neither of them are choir boys, but I just dont see how we would take the risk of sheldon with the league suspensions over keeping Mo.

Player comparison via stats (Although a decent benchmark, obv only one piece of a serious evaluation) 

 

First 2 years (roughly same amount of playing time at same position)

Wilkerson: 8 sacks, 71 Tackles, 47 asst

Richardson: 11 1/2 sacks, 84 tackles, 59 asst

2015: 

Wilkerson: 12 sacks in 16 games

Richardson: 5 sacks in 10 games playing most out of position and off suspension

2016:

Both were horrible one coming off injury and one playing OLB full time

 

...so the closest comparison you can make is in their first two years prior to other variables at play, Richardson was the better player on paper. Mo has two more seasons on Sheldon, but really, the biggest issue is evaluation of Sheldon after 2014 when he was taken out of his natural position, when usually a players 3rd year will be their break out. 

 

To note, you can make an argument for either, I can see that, however you can't make one for Mo in terms of age and questionable motor at times. Something I'd give both the advantage to Sheldon.

 

But if you want to look at 13' and 15' and say that's something Richardson hasn't done, touche. I'll argue he's never had the chance after his first two seasons per scheme. Some of it self inflicted too with suspension but that's maturity and not like Mo has been a staple of security and leadership. 

[HessStation]

22 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

Snacks should have been kept over them both.  That has absolutely nothing to do with Richardson, they could not possibly be more different in every imaginable way.

The rest of this is, once again, excuses for why whatever Sheldon does wrong isn't Sheldon's fault.  Apparently the NFL is just out to get him with his multiple suspensions, because his problems are apparently all the media's fault.  And I guess when both him and Mo do stupid things together, it makes Mo the fire demon of the underworld, and Sheldon the poor innocent victim?

Bottom line, keeping him is a bad idea, and even him staying here and having a great season in his contract year wouldn't convince me otherwise.

Aside from the stawman arguements you're making, the "keeping Sheldon"... had they kept Snacks and not kept Mo argument, would be looking ALOT different right now.  

[Bleedin Green]

10 minutes ago, HessStation said:

Aside from the stawman arguements you're making, the "keeping Sheldon"... had they kept Snacks and not kept Mo argument, would be looking ALOT different right now.  

You making excuses for Sheldon is not a strawman simply because I refuse to accept them.

And no, that would have changed absolutely nothing.  They would still be stupid to trust that dumbass with a big contract, even if they hadn't done so with Mo.  You're the one blinded by making this entire argument about Mo and nothing else, but the connection you're making there is pointless.