Sheldon Richardson return?

[Jetster]

While cutting Mo Wilkerson is a no brainer, we do have to replace him. I'd have no problem seeing him again in a Jet uniform. I don't see much in free agency to fill the void & I want our draft picks to be used to bolster our offensive line & offensive skill positions. 

The only defensive player I want to see the Jets draft at 6 would be Bradley Chubb & that's only if they signed Cousins and fixed the Oline in free agency. If fact, the Jets should be keeping an eye on Seattle when they start shedding defenders to fix their cap. 

[prime21]

I didn’t follow him in Seattle. How was his overall performance? Did he mostly play on the line or was he dropping back into coverage like they had him doing here?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

 

[Ohio State NY Jets fan]

I don't think they need to replace Mo or Sheldon, the idea of a super unit was fun (Sack Exchange) but did not materialize and never helped the Jets win games -

Williams is ready to take over

Mclendon seems to be interchangeable 

Resign Ealy and draft an edge rusher and they should be good

plus they still have Pelon, Pennel, Cooper, Stinson  and Simon - throw in a competition from practice squad, UDFA, low round drafts pick and that dline will not be the problem next year

[Untouchable]

He’s probably going to cost $14+ million a year and he’s one failed piss test away from a 10 game suspension.

No thanks

Use the bulk of the available cash to bring in Cousins, a CB like Butler, a center like Jensen/Richburg and re-sign some of our own like Claiborne, ASJ and Davis.

[bla bla bla]

I would absolutely bring Richardson back but not for Wilkerson type money. $12-14M per year, yea that would probably be fine with me if we can't land Cousins.

[bla bla bla]

2 minutes ago, Untouchable said:

He’s probably going to cost $14+ million a year and he’s one failed piss test away from a 10 game suspension.

No thanks

Use the bulk of the available cash to bring in Cousins, a CB like Butler, a center like Jensen/Richburg and re-sign some of our own like Claiborne, ASJ and Davis.

He's not in the drug program anymore, that's why we got the 2nd round pick. If he has another drug related offense it looks terrible but he starts back at square 1 as far as suspensions go.

[Ken Schroy]

Hes another problem child. Pass.

[KRL]

Don't waste cap space on Richardson, look for a developmental DE in the 4th-6th round 

[Bruce Harper]

His rep has fallen substantially.  Would we really need to pay in that range?

[The Crusher]

10 minutes ago, KRL said:

Don't waste cap space on Richardson, look for a developmental DE in the 4th-6th round 

Yes. CB and an edge rusher would be better investments for sure. 

[nycdan]

36 minutes ago, Untouchable said:

He’s probably going to cost $14+ million a year and he’s one failed piss test away from a 10 game suspension.

No thanks

Use the bulk of the available cash to bring in Cousins, a CB like Butler, a center like Jensen/Richburg and re-sign some of our own like Claiborne, ASJ and Davis.

I like the list but I would add an OG like Norwell specifically so we remove any temptation to draft a Guard at #6, no matter how good he is.  

[Gangrene]

CONTRACTS, FREE AGENCY

BEST MOVE ON SHELDON MAY BE TRANSITION TAG

FEBRUARY 13, 2018 CHAWKTALK 2 COMMENTS

In December, we suggested the concept of Seattle using the franchise tag on Sheldon Richardson in order to then possibly trade him. John Clayton and Joel Corry recently talked about the move as an option, too.

But, the more we think about it, the more the transition tag seems like the better option for John Schneider and the Seahawks.

Yeah, we know, the last time the Seahawks used the transition tag, it was a disaster. But there are no more poison pills. And Schneider obviously would be fine with losing Richardson if he did use the transition tender.

Here’s why it might be better:

 

The transition tag is cheaper, as it goes off the top 10 NFL players per position rather than the top five. While the franchise tag for defensive tackles is projected at $14.5 million this year, the transition tag is forecast at $11.7 million — nearly $3 million less.

Unlike the more prohibitive franchise tag, the transition tag offers no compensation to the original team if the player leaves. That means teams are much more amenable to courting transition players. As a transition player, Richardson would get a chance to shop himself and find his market value.

If Richardson were to sign an offer sheet, Schneider would have the option to match. Schneider probably doesn’t want to pay more than $10 million per year on a long-term deal — although, if he used the transition tender, he obviously would be willing to go to $12 million.

If Schneider chose not to match, Richardson would still count in the comp formula — which means Seattle likely would get a third-rounder in 2019. The result would be the same as if Schneider had not tagged Richardson.

Richardson seems very unlikely to want to strike a long-term deal with Seattle before free agency. He surely will want to see what offers he can attract.

So, if Schneider wants to keep Richardson for at least another year, he has to tag him (the window is Feb. 20-March 6). Unless he’s willing to pay $14.5 million for 2018 (unlikely), the only reason to use the franchise tag would be to solicit trade offers that would net at least a second-round pick — the same pick Schneider gave the Jets for the tackle in September.

Otherwise, it makes more sense to use the transition tag and see where it goes. Either Seattle keeps Richardson at $11.7 million for 2018 or watches him leave and gets a third-round pick in 2019. And, if he left after 2018, he likely would net a third-rounder in 2020.

Bottom line: The transition tag seems to make a lot of sense for Seattle this time.

 

 

 

[JetFaninMI]

Why? Been there done that. This is like the second thread on this and it has all been discussed already. Why go backwards? The guy is in the past. Leave him there. Especially for 14 mil per. No thanks. Another guy who is a second tier FA who has shot his load as a player. You should recognize that. The Jets have signed enough of them over the years.

[varjet]

It just seems like it makes less and less sense to draft DL high.  More often than not, it is not worth extending them.  

It is great that over the last 8 years or so they have spent 4 first round picks on DL, one on ILB, one failed CB and one S.  Just super.  

[rex-n-effect]

No thanks. Three reasons:

1. Richardson is set up to be Wilkerson 2.0 once he signs his next contract. He'll loaf through until the contract year and then play like it counts. Let's not dump one to get back another of the same player.

2. Even when Richardson played at his best the team didn't get that much out of the DL. There's no way the team gets back anywhere near the value of what he would want to come back. Not good spending even if the front office doesn't blow all the cash on a QB. I'd rather see money spent on the OL.

3. The relationship with Bowles doesn't look great. Remember his last year here he wasn't even playing on the DL much. He was the odd man out pretending to be an OLB. Even if you want to help him out and hypothesize that Bowles thought he was best equipped to help out at a position of need it still means Bowles thought he was the person the DL could afford to spare. 

[k-met57]

thanks but no thanks....last thing we need is underachieving DL'men with 2 strikes.

[LAD_Brooklyn]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zukmRxdvOyg

Seems like he was solid

[joewilly12]

Reunited and it feels so good

[Joe W. Namath]

The seahawks having no interest in keeping him less then a year after trading for him tells you all you need to know.

We moved on from him.  It was one of the smartest things mac has done.  Bringing him back would be an awful move.  

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, rex-n-effect said:

No thanks. Three reasons:

1. Richardson is set up to be Wilkerson 2.0 once he signs his next contract. He'll loaf through until the contract year and then play like it counts. Let's not dump one to get back another of the same player.

2. Even when Richardson played at his best the team didn't get that much out of the DL. There's no way the team gets back anywhere near the value of what he would want to come back. Not good spending even if the front office doesn't blow all the cash on a QB. I'd rather see money spent on the OL.

3. The relationship with Bowles doesn't look great. Remember his last year here he wasn't even playing on the DL much. He was the odd man out pretending to be an OLB. Even if you want to help him out and hypothesize that Bowles thought he was best equipped to help out at a position of need it still means Bowles thought he was the person the DL could afford to spare. 

#3 I took it to mean he was the only one of the 3 that could even remotely fake it at OLB. Ill-suited as he was at LB (never mind at ILB), the other 2 would have been even noticeably worse. His versatility and motor - even at his size - why he was out there, not because he was the most expendable on the line.

Agree with you more on the first 2 points, especially your last line in point 2 and I'd also much rather throw that $ on the OL. Leo + McLendon are good enough that a ~$14m Sheldon Richardson is far from a requirement. Every starting DLman doesn't need to be 300 lbs, more or less accepting in advance that we have to blitz to chase down a QB. 

[bla bla bla]

14 hours ago, Gangrene said:

CONTRACTS, FREE AGENCY

BEST MOVE ON SHELDON MAY BE TRANSITION TAG

FEBRUARY 13, 2018 CHAWKTALK 2 COMMENTS

In December, we suggested the concept of Seattle using the franchise tag on Sheldon Richardson in order to then possibly trade him. John Clayton and Joel Corry recently talked about the move as an option, too.

But, the more we think about it, the more the transition tag seems like the better option for John Schneider and the Seahawks.

Yeah, we know, the last time the Seahawks used the transition tag, it was a disaster. But there are no more poison pills. And Schneider obviously would be fine with losing Richardson if he did use the transition tender.

Here’s why it might be better:

 

The transition tag is cheaper, as it goes off the top 10 NFL players per position rather than the top five. While the franchise tag for defensive tackles is projected at $14.5 million this year, the transition tag is forecast at $11.7 million — nearly $3 million less.

Unlike the more prohibitive franchise tag, the transition tag offers no compensation to the original team if the player leaves. That means teams are much more amenable to courting transition players. As a transition player, Richardson would get a chance to shop himself and find his market value.

If Richardson were to sign an offer sheet, Schneider would have the option to match. Schneider probably doesn’t want to pay more than $10 million per year on a long-term deal — although, if he used the transition tender, he obviously would be willing to go to $12 million.

If Schneider chose not to match, Richardson would still count in the comp formula — which means Seattle likely would get a third-rounder in 2019. The result would be the same as if Schneider had not tagged Richardson.

Richardson seems very unlikely to want to strike a long-term deal with Seattle before free agency. He surely will want to see what offers he can attract.

So, if Schneider wants to keep Richardson for at least another year, he has to tag him (the window is Feb. 20-March 6). Unless he’s willing to pay $14.5 million for 2018 (unlikely), the only reason to use the franchise tag would be to solicit trade offers that would net at least a second-round pick — the same pick Schneider gave the Jets for the tackle in September.

Otherwise, it makes more sense to use the transition tag and see where it goes. Either Seattle keeps Richardson at $11.7 million for 2018 or watches him leave and gets a third-round pick in 2019. And, if he left after 2018, he likely would net a third-rounder in 2020.

Bottom line: The transition tag seems to make a lot of sense for Seattle this time.

 

 

 

That's a great move by the Seahawks.

[Sperm Edwards]

26 minutes ago, bla bla bla said:

That's a great move by the Seahawks.

I think this is just an author's opinion on what he thinks they should do. Seattle hasn't tagged him so far as I'm aware. 

Honestly I think they'd less like transition tag him instead of (non-exclusive) franchise tag for not that much more. They can always take far less than the pair of 1s in trade if someone is willing to offer him something big (e.g. just recoup within a couple dozen picks of this year's #50 overall that they gave us to get him in the first place).

Depends what they really want. Do they only want to keep him if he's year-to-year because of the risk, or are they truly interested in locking him up with a couple years guaranteed?  

If the former, then they may as well franchise tag him so they don't potentially end up with nothing if someone else bids way high for him. He can still talk to other teams and they can still deal him. The main problem with the franchise tag is if they do want to negotiate a long term deal: it sets a higher baseline for each year by probably ~$2m. It doesn't have to, but history shows that's typically what happens.

On the other hand, a transition tag is a lower baseline upon which to base an annual amount on a longer deal. But then if someone else comes in with a crazy offer Seattle's not willing to match, they'll end up with nothing. Just a comp 3rd round pick next year if they don't offset that with UFA pickup(s) this year.

[Smashmouth]

7 hours ago, joewilly12 said:

Reunited and it feels so good

lets trade them the super smart Todd Bowles for Sheldon

[bla bla bla]

8 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I think this is just an author's opinion on what he thinks they should do. Seattle hasn't tagged him so far as I'm aware. 

Honestly I think they'd less like transition tag him instead of (non-exclusive) franchise tag for not that much more. They can always take far less than the pair of 1s in trade if someone is willing to offer him something big (e.g. just recoup within a couple dozen picks of this year's #50 overall that they gave us to get him in the first place).

Depends what they really want. Do they only want to keep him if he's year-to-year because of the risk, or are they truly interested in locking him up with a couple years guaranteed?  

If the former, then they may as well franchise tag him so they don't potentially end up with nothing if someone else bids way high for him. He can still talk to other teams and they can still deal him. The main problem with the franchise tag is if they do want to negotiate a long term deal: it sets a higher baseline for each year by probably ~$2m. It doesn't have to, but history shows that's typically what happens.

On the other hand, a transition tag is a lower baseline upon which to base an annual amount on a longer deal. But then if someone else comes in with a crazy offer Seattle's not willing to match, they'll end up with nothing. Just a comp 3rd round pick next year if they don't offset that with UFA pickup(s) this year.

I guess that depends if they think someone would trade for him. Teams may not be willing to give up a pick and pay the franchise amount. I think ideally they'd like to lock him up long term but want to do so on a deal that won't break the bank. That's just my opinion because I think a 2nd is a pretty expensive price to pay for a 1 year rental. I really think that Seattle team is going to look a lot different than it has the last few years.

[Philc1]

No, sign Ziggy Ansah instead and switch to 4-3 and hope Chubb or Davenport are there at 6

 

would be nice to finally have a pass rush instead of all these overrated interior Defensive Linemen 

[MaxAF]

Pass. Get some fresh blood.

[jack48]

On 2/21/2018 at 8:27 AM, The Crusher said:

Yes. CB and an edge rusher would be better investments for sure. 

This Richardson stuff is laughable.  The guy is eminently suspendable

[chirorob]

Why?  You think he'll be motivated coming back here after signing for big money?  Does he push the pocket, hit the QB 2-3 times a game?  

That would be pissing away money.

[Sperm Edwards]

8 hours ago, bla bla bla said:

I guess that depends if they think someone would trade for him. Teams may not be willing to give up a pick and pay the franchise amount. I think ideally they'd like to lock him up long term but want to do so on a deal that won't break the bank. That's just my opinion because I think a 2nd is a pretty expensive price to pay for a 1 year rental. I really think that Seattle team is going to look a lot different than it has the last few years.

Unlike the rumors re: Cousins, I don’t think they’d be tagging him for the goal of trading him. They’d be tagging him to keep him.

What I was saying in my post was that, if they are willing to bang out something longer, they might lean towards transition; if they want him just for the year, then franchise:

With transition, they may be willing to be the highest bidder, but don’t want to over-bid and Richardson wants to make sure he didn’t leave any money on the table (reasonable enough on both fronts). The way it’d work is someone would make their offer and then Seattle would match it. (Of course if it’s way too high, they end up with nothing except maybe a comp pick in 2019; that’s the risk).

On the other hand, if they want him for the year and don’t want to extend him with more than 1 year guaranteed, then franchise tag him. It’s a higher number, but it’s only 1 year, and then at least if someone else still makes an offer with >1 year guaranteed - which in this scenario they don’t want to match - then they’d get something in return (it won’t be a pair of 1s, though; they’d settle on something). But at the same time, as you say, few teams are going to be interested in ponying up a pick for him and paying him ~$14m/year with 2 years guaranteed. So they want him for 1 year and they’ll probably get what they want; the premium for this advantaged scenario is ~$2m higher than the transition tag.

[Thai Jet]

On 2/21/2018 at 7:19 AM, prime21 said:

I didn’t follow him in Seattle. How was his overall performance? Did he mostly play on the line or was he dropping back into coverage like they had him doing here?

I've read in the Seattle papers while he only had 1 sack he was a disruptive force on the line. They mentioned that they might tag him. We'll see. I wouldn't mind having him back. It would be like getting a 2nd AND Kearse for zip ! 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

 

 

[Thai Jet]

8 hours ago, Philc1 said:

No, sign Ziggy Ansah instead and switch to 4-3 and hope Chubb or Davenport are there at 6

 

would be nice to finally have a pass rush instead of all these overrated interior Defensive Linemen 

GREAT chance that Chubb or Davenport are there at 6 .

[K Clue]

Only way I'd be on board with this, is if the Jets brought him in on a one year vet minimum deal. Which most likely won't happen. I'd really just prefer if we drafted a defensive end in the later rounds.

[RutgersJetFan]

The last time we flipped an overpaid malcontent for picks and then paid him lots of money to come back, all while claiming we were geniuses for pulling off such a heist, it worked out ******* terrible.

Players get sent off for a reason. The Jets need to start accepting that.

[pointman]

On 2/21/2018 at 7:58 AM, bla bla bla said:

He's not in the drug program anymore, that's why we got the 2nd round pick. If he has another drug related offense it looks terrible but he starts back at square 1 as far as suspensions go.

I didn't know that there was an expiration on those offenses. Very interesting. Thank you.

[Philc1]

5 hours ago, Thai Jet said:

GREAT chance that Chubb or Davenport are there at 6 .

Jets need Ansah and draft one of those two