Report: Four Teams Making Serious bid for Khalil Mack, Jets Included?

[Gastineau Lives]

2 hours ago, jack48 said:

I like number one picks, especially high ones.  what can I say?  Football trades do not work out a lot.  There is also a lot of money available next year.

Who you taking with that number one? They better than Mack? Fill a bigger need?

Not sure of your point about next years money.

[freestater]

Has anybody confirmed this, who isn't just parroting Manish? Not that I doubt the integrity of said reporter, but I doubt his integrity. 

[jack48]

7 minutes ago, Gastineau Lives said:

Who you taking with that number one? They better than Mack? Fill a bigger need?

Not sure of your point about next years money.

My real point is that FA money and top picks are more desirable.  We are bad.  Mack does not get us to a Super Bowl, even if he did win all those SBs in Oakland.  I also hate holdouts.  By the way, did you ever read a book called The Daughter of Time?

[freestater]

10 hours ago, Mogglez said:

Upping my "eat the fruit with the skin still on it and video tape it" bet.  I will now piss a pair of my own pants and video tape for you all to see if we land Mack.  That's how sure I am that this won't happen.

The asking price is pretty steep. I could be talked into a single 1st + a starter

[Bowles Movement]

11 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

They won 5 last year and had to play Petty the last 3 games.  They lost 6 games by one score of less.  Easily could have, should have won a few more games last year.  

I also dont believe with 6 wins they'd be the second worst team in the league

Winning 5 they drafted 6.  If they’d won 6 they’d have been in the 10 range.  Still a high draft pick

Whats your won loss prediction? Do they make the playoffs?  Where do you think they’ll draft next year?

[Dunnie]

We will draft 12-18

Winning 5 they drafted 6.  If they’d won 6 they’d have been in the 10 range.  Still a high draft pick
Whats your won loss prediction? Do they make the playoffs?  Where do you think they’ll draft next year?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Gastineau Lives]

52 minutes ago, jack48 said:

My real point is that FA money and top picks are more desirable.  We are bad.  Mack does not get us to a Super Bowl, even if he did win all those SBs in Oakland.  I also hate holdouts.  By the way, did you ever read a book called The Daughter of Time?

It's all capital. I'd rather use it on a known commodity. 

Not sure what your point is regarding Super Bowls is. Are you saying you are only interested is signing free agents defensive ends/linebackers that have led their teams to multiple sbs?

You make it sound as if signing Mack prohibits us from signing other players. 

You have, what you hope, is a franchise qb on the cheap for five years. You can spend a little green on the best defensive player in football who happens to fill your defenses biggest need. 

What's the book?

[kdels62]

Trade a First and a Third for Mack

Sign Mack to a 4 year $100 Million extension with $70 Million Guaranteed and paid out by year 3. 

Trade Bridgewater to an increasingly desperate Denver for a 2nd and 3rd round pick.

Extend Beachum and Shell

---NEXT YEAR---

Sign a Guard

Draft 2 o-linemen 

[#27TheDominator]

1 hour ago, Jet Nut said:

They won 5 last year and had to play Petty the last 3 games.  They lost 6 games by one score of less.  Easily could have, should have won a few more games last year.  

I also dont believe with 6 wins they'd be the second worst team in the league

Why is this a thing?  How many NFL games are won by more than a score?  They lost to Carolina by 8.  I can't wait for the 3 point conversion so we can pretend they would have won even more games!  They only won 2 games by more than a score. So, when you think about it they were really 2-5.  

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, Bowles Movement said:

Winning 5 they drafted 6.  If they’d won 6 they’d have been in the 10 range.  Still a high draft pick

Whats your won loss prediction? Do they make the playoffs?  Where do you think they’ll draft next year?

Im really not sure, just commenting on the comment that theyll be the 2nd worst team in the league, that I'm not buying.  I can see them at 8-8 or 9-7.  

[Jet Nut]

8 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Why is this a thing?  How many NFL games are won by more than a score?  They lost to Carolina by 8.  I can't wait for the 3 point conversion so we can pretend they would have won even more games!  They only won 2 games by more than a score. So, when you think about it they were really 2-5.  

Its a thing because its always been a thing.  Because it means that it can be easier than some think to pick up a few more wins.  Nothing more, nothing too complicated.  We lost to Carolina by 8 and had a ASJ TD taken away.  Are you saying a 8 point loss isnt close?  No, they werent 2-5.  Anymore that those close losses make them 11-4.  Who cares that they only won 2 games by more than a score, the point is that they were in games and it isnt a major leap to pick up a few wins.  They lost six games by less that one score.  Whats to debate?

[#27TheDominator]

22 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Its a thing because its always been a thing.  Because it means that it can be easier than some think to pick up a few more wins.  Nothing more, nothing too complicated.  We lost to Carolina by 8 and had a ASJ TD taken away.  Are you saying a 8 point loss isnt close?  No, they werent 2-5.  Anymore that those close losses make them 11-4.  Who cares that they only won 2 games by more than a score, the point is that they were in games and it isnt a major leap to pick up a few wins.  They lost six games by less that one score.  Whats to debate?

You care how many games they lost by a score, but not how many games they won by a score?  A little hypocritical, no?  They beat the Browns by 3 points. The ******* Browns.  The 2017 Jets were not a good team, and they were not "close" to a good team.

[Stark]

2 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

You care how many games they lost by a score, but not how many games they won by a score?  A little hypocritical, no?  They beat the Browns by 3 points. The ******* Browns.  The 2017 Jets were not a good team, and they were not "close" to a good team.

McCown going to McCown

[Jet Nut]

19 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

You care how many games they lost by a score, but not how many games they won by a score?  A little hypocritical, no?  They beat the Browns by 3 points. The ******* Browns.  The 2017 Jets were not a good team, and they were not "close" to a good team.

I did say this doesnt mean they should have or could have won 11?  Where did I call them a good team?  How is it hypocritical.  

[#27TheDominator]

30 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Its a thing because its always been a thing.  Because it means that it can be easier than some think to pick up a few more wins.  Nothing more, nothing too complicated.  We lost to Carolina by 8 and had a ASJ TD taken away.  Are you saying a 8 point loss isnt close?  No, they werent 2-5.  Anymore that those close losses make them 11-4.  Who cares that they only won 2 games by more than a score, the point is that they were in games and it isnt a major leap to pick up a few wins.  They lost six games by less that one score.  Whats to debate?

 

7 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

I did say this doesnt mean they should have or could have won 11?  How is it hypocritical. Its not in any way

Holy sh*t.  I have to explain this?  You think that losing games by 8 points displays that "it isn't a major leap that they pick up a few more wins."  Doesn't it seem equally as likely that they would pick up a few more losses when they won games by only 3 points?  I think it would be obvious, but your response is "who cares?"  I would think they guy who cares how many close games they were in would care.

[Jet Nut]

5 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

 

Holy sh*t.  I have to explain this?  You think that losing games by 8 points displays that "it isn't a major leap that they pick up a few more wins."  Doesn't it seem equally as likely that they would pick up a few more losses when they won games by only 3 points?  I think it would be obvious, but your response is "who cares?"  I would think they guy who cares how many close games they were in would care.

Whos asking for you to explain anything?  6 games by less than a score.  Simple comment, no one asked for clarification.  Youre the totally confused one here, the one who is having a hard time understanding a pretty basic friggen point, one that is backed up by reality. Twist it into your we suck and it doesnt matter that we lost by close margins message.   I didnt call them good, I didnt bring up 8 points, I didnt bring up wins.  Youre the one who seems to care and just want to argue.  Go for it, on your own

[#27TheDominator]

40 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Its a thing because its always been a thing.  Because it means that it can be easier than some think to pick up a few more wins.  Nothing more, nothing too complicated.  We lost to Carolina by 8 and had a ASJ TD taken away.  Are you saying a 8 point loss isnt close?  No, they werent 2-5.  Anymore that those close losses make them 11-4.  Who cares that they only won 2 games by more than a score, the point is that they were in games and it isnt a major leap to pick up a few wins.  They lost six games by less that one score.  Whats to debate?

 

1 minute ago, Jet Nut said:

Whos asking for you to explain anything?  Youre the totally confused one here, the one who is having a hard time understanding a pretty basic friggen point, one that is backed up by reality. Twist it into youre we suck and it doesnt matter that we lost by close margins message.   I didnt call them good, I didnt bring up 8 points, I didnt bring up wins.  Youre the one who seems to care and just want to argue.  Go for it, on your own

 

[Jet Nut]

7 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

 

 

They were in games, are you kidding?  Want to argue that they werent, again, go for it.  I didnt say they would win those games, thats the point of bringing up games. Spin in circles tryng to make some goofy point in disputing a simple, undeniable fact.  

[#27TheDominator]

2 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

They won 5 last year and had to play Petty the last 3 games.  They lost 6 games by one score of less.  Easily could have, should have won a few more games last year.  

I also dont believe with 6 wins they'd be the second worst team in the league

 

4 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

They were in games, are you kidding?  Want to argue that they werent, again, go for it.  I didnt say they would win those games, thats the point of bringing up games. Spin in circles tryng to make some goofy point in disputing a simple, undeniable fact.  

 

[JoJoTownsell1]

Yahoo Sports' Charles Robinson reports holdout DE Khalil Mack is "likely" to miss regular-season games

[Philc1]

We’re not getting Mack.  Fuggedaboutit

[Creepy Lurker]

3 minutes ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

Yahoo Sports' Charles Robinson reports holdout DE Khalil Mack is "likely" to miss regular-season games

I enjoy this because Gruden is an overrated idiot and you don’t screw up having a homegrown STUD like Mack. I don’t expect the Jets to get him in a trade but will REALLY enjoy this ugly mess in Oakland/Vegas where ever the hell this mess is. 

[Jet Nut]

4 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

 

 

Could have in some, should have in others.  Confusing, I know.

Must be easy to see everything as a glass half full and just jump on anyone who sees anyting that may be a good sign.  Proud fan

[#27TheDominator]

2 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Could have in some, should have in others.  Confusing, I know.

Must be easy to see everything as a glass half full and just jump on anyone who sees anyting that may be a good sign.  Proud fan

Dude.  You are excited that they were in a bunch of games, that is nice. OTOH, the teams they beat were also in the games.  It is very simple, they had a chance to win some of the games they lost, and to lose some of the games they won.  You were the one that said "who cares?"  If your glass is so half full that you can't see that while they might have been able to hang on against the Dolphins in Miami, they could just as easily lost in OT to the Jags I can't help you.

Somebody on here was trying to explain to me how we actually weren't blown out in Oakland because we pulled within 4 with a few minutes left in the half.  I am starting to think it might have been you. 

[Jet Nut]

Just now, #27TheDominator said:

Dude.  You are excited that they were in a bunch of games, that is nice. OTOH, the teams they beat were also in the games.  It is very simple, they had a chance to win some of the games they lost, and to lose some of the games they won.  You were the one that said "who cares?"  If your glass is so half full that you can't see that while they might have been able to hang on against the Dolphins in Miami, they could just as easily lost in OT to the Jags I can't help you.

Somebody on here was trying to explain to me how we actually weren't blown out in Oakland because we pulled within 4 with a few minutes left in the half.  I am starting to think it might have been you. 

Oakland is your answer? Someone said it was a close game so thats why youre bent over a completely different post, different point?  Youre now comparing a blow out loss with games that were lost by less than a score? You keep bringing up games you want to turn into losses.  Whos the f'n hypocrite?  LOL, amazing part is you just keep coming back saying nothing.  

[Losmeister]

13 minutes ago, Philc1 said:

We’re not getting Mack.  Fuggedaboutit

8 pages of pure palaver

[#27TheDominator]

18 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Oakland is your answer? Someone said it was a close game so thats why youre bent over a completely different post, different point?  Youre now comparing a blow out loss with games that were lost by less than a score? You keep bringing up games you want to turn into losses.  Whos the f'n hypocrite?  LOL, amazing part is you just keep coming back saying nothing.  

The f'n hypocrite is the guy that says how many close games you lose means you could have won more games, but who cares how close your wins were.  That doesn't indicate anything for your opportunity to win or lose more games.  I'm not bent at all, I just struggle with the lack of logic around here.  Sometimes for way too long if I am procrastinating or waiting for a conference call. Like now.

I don't have to say anything.  Your hypocrisy is right there in bold in the quotes above.

[bgivs21]

3 hours ago, Gastineau Lives said:

Who you taking with that number one? They better than Mack? Fill a bigger need?

Not sure of your point about next years money.

Maybe we get the next D'Brickashaw Ferguson? 

I know Mack is a great player, but we need the picks to fill holes on the roster. 1 player like Mack is not going to put us over the edge right now. 

[Philc1]

1 hour ago, Losmeister said:

8 pages of pure palaver

8 pages of “yes we want Mack but if we trade multiple first round picks we might miss out on the next Darron Lee”

[Philc1]

22 minutes ago, bgivs21 said:

Maybe we get the next D'Brickashaw Ferguson? 

I know Mack is a great player, but we need the picks to fill holes on the roster. 1 player like Mack is not going to put us over the edge right now. 

Good offensive linemen are always available in free agency 

[BigRy56]

There's no bigger hole on this team than pass rusher. If Mack's available for a first round pick, it's a must do.

[jack48]

2 hours ago, Gastineau Lives said:

It's all capital. I'd rather use it on a known commodity. 

Not sure what your point is regarding Super Bowls is. Are you saying you are only interested is signing free agents defensive ends/linebackers that have led their teams to multiple sbs?

You make it sound as if signing Mack prohibits us from signing other players. 

You have, what you hope, is a franchise qb on the cheap for five years. You can spend a little green on the best defensive player in football who happens to fill your defenses biggest need. 

What's the book?

You said we were not going to a Super Bowl in your first comment. I just think the Jets always start with a plan, then do something to deviate from it.  I want them to stick to it.  I just remarked tht Mack had not really delivered Super Bowls in Oakland.  The book is a novel by Ruith Rendell, who  wrote mysteries and psychological novels.  In this novel, a character is making a case for Richard III, that he did not have his nephews murdered.  It was interesting.  Most historians think he was guilty, of course.

[Philc1]

5 minutes ago, BigRy56 said:

There's no bigger hole on this team than pass rusher. If Mack's available for a first round pick, it's a must do.

If it costs two first round picks plus change the jets should still make the trade

[Awesumtenor]

16 hours ago, 56mehl56 said:

 

Yeah but Bowles hasn't coached him "up" yet.

And Klecko made all-pro at 3 positions ( NT, DT, DE)

Not in the same year. Mack was all-pro at OLB and DE in the same season which has been done by a total of ZERO other players in NFL history. 

[Gastineau Lives]

1 hour ago, jack48 said:

You said we were not going to a Super Bowl in your first comment. I just think the Jets always start with a plan, then do something to deviate from it.  I want them to stick to it.  I just remarked tht Mack had not really delivered Super Bowls in Oakland.  The book is a novel by Ruith Rendell, who  wrote mysteries and psychological novels.  In this novel, a character is making a case for Richard III, that he did not have his nephews murdered.  It was interesting.  Most historians think he was guilty, of course.

Thanks! I'll check it out.