Jump to content

Snacks Harrison to the Lions


sec101row23

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply
11 minutes ago, Lith said:

He has averaged 7.5 scks over the last 4 seasons.   He has not had double digit sacks since 2013.  Not sure I want to give up a pick, plus pay him $36MM over the next 2 1/2 yearsfor a 7 sack a year guy.

Well, 7 sacks would be a dream come true from the LB'er position on the Jets but I dont think it's all about sacks with Vernon.  He doses more than just rush the passer.   

That said, I agree, I didnt realize he was making that much.  Rather try to find one of our own,, hahahaha, find our own.  I crack myself up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, drsamuel84 said:

Already brought up in this thread but the Giants are doing what the Jets should've done two years ago.  The fact that we let Decker, Marshall, Forte, etc...walk and got nothing back was criminal.  The whole idea of trying to salvage the 2015 season and basically bring that whole team back was just a huge mistake.  With that being said, the Giants are now trying to clean up the fact that they made a huge mistake not drafting a QB and ultimately we'll see how this pans out for them.  Too bad the Giants would never trade with us, I'd love to poach a couple of guys off that roster like Sterling Sheppard.

do you really think decker, marshall or forte had any trade value when the jets released them?  they were all done.  decker may have had a season or two left but as we saw, he didn't do much with the titans and ultimately left the patsies.

as for the moves made in 2015, imo the real issue was not getting rid of the cancers like pryor and geno prior to the 2016 and getting fitz into training camp earlier.  i think fitz coming in late gave geno a chance to drive a wedge into the team and that's part of what caused the breakdown.  not that fitz is a good qb but he at least gave them a chance whereas geno gave them no chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JiF said:

Ewww...that's a lot.  He's pretty freaking good though.  Not sure it's worth it though, especially with a deep draft class at pass rusher.

One which Macc will ignore in order to draft a non-premium position player in the 1st, because he was the "best available" and we were "surprised he fell to us."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jetsplayer21 said:

Giants are making sure they secure that first overall pick without even having to trade up. They are the new Cleveland Browns with all these tops picks every yr 

Giants will win a few meaningless games over the course of the season to move down the draft board a bit.  And the Raiders will use their stockpile of picks to move up to # 1. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NoBowles said:

Too bad the jets are never smart enough to do things like this and try to eek out meaningless wins in lost seasons year after year.

Nope. We hand out extensions to Jeremy Kerley, trade for Percy Harvin so Idzik can hide his draft bust WRs that year, trot out Fitzpatrick into December in 2016, and trade away nobody to accumulate picks ourselves even when the end is obvious to everyone. But hey, then the coaches and GMs could point to how they got ~5 wins instead of only 2-3 like "worse" teams got. 

At 1-5 in 2016 we could have traded away pre-meltdown Marshall, Harris, Pryor, and Richardson (Seattle foolishly rescuing us, from out of nowhere and from our own stupidity almost a year later notwithstanding; last minute unexpected, dumb luck is not a plan). Plus a proper tank instead of a half-assed one would have negated the need to trade up 3 slots in the first place so spare me the Darnold ammo. If you're going to tank for Darnold a year later, then trot out Hackenberg/Petty and tank; Sperm Sr. used to say if you're doing something only 80% then you're totally ****ing it up. Sperm Sr. was right.

A year later forget the 3-5 record at the deadline; the plan for 2017 was to tank for a QB in the following year's draft, as they'd already (appropriately) given up on Hackenberg; not to delude themselves into thinking they were actually playoff/superbowl contenders because they beat Cleveland, Miami, and upset Jax by the skin of their teeth. Some on the roster obviously had more value than others, and we weren't getting a high pick for any of them, but we had players of value that weren't clearly in our long term plans. 2017 season trade deadline candidates were any of: Carpenter (28 yr old veteran G with a low salary); ASJ (who was a FA after the season anyway); Demario Davis; Claiborne; Skrine; Kearse; Ealy; Hackenberg; and frankly, McCown (e.g. Arizona just lost Palmer week 7 and had a week 8 bye; perfect timing and perfect trade partner). Instead we kept them one and all so we could win 2 of our last 8 games instead of worrying about winning only 0 or 1, which was the goal in the first place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott Dierking said:

What is the flag carrying example of a team that sells off pieces as a tank job that results in a SB? 

What does that have to do with anything?  The NFL has instituted rules over the last decade+  (beginning with greater enforcement of illegal contact, thus making the league more QB-driven than it ever has been) that makes tanking the only thing you CAN do when you're not a contender. 

What would be your alternative solution?  Stay the course and keep the draft picks you have, while rostering useless players with bloated contracts? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jetsfan80 said:

Giants will win a few meaningless games over the course of the season.  And the Raiders will use their stockpile of picks to move up to # 1. 

it's looking like either the raiders or cardinals will get the top pick.  and if the cardinals get it and a good qb comes out i would take him and trade rosen who looks like a dinker, never liked him as a prospect.  i can see the giants winning a few games with eli to make it respectable, but the raiders may legitimately get the top pick without having to trade anyway.  no mack, no cooper, no lynch, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

What does that have to do with anything?  The NFL has instituted rules over the last decade+  (beginning with greater enforcement of illegal contact, thus making the league more QB-driven than it ever has been) that makes tanking the only thing you CAN do when you're not a contender. 

What would be your alternative solution?  Stay the course and keep the draft picks you have, while rostering useless players with bloated contracts? 

I can show you plenty of examples of teams that "stun" without tanking, that then built a SB team. That is all.

And, if "tanking" becomes a thing in the NFL, I think that the league may do something about it (such as a draft lottere), as the NFL is a sport which suffers greatly from great imbalances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

One which Macc will ignore in order to draft a non-premium position player in the 1st, because he was the "best available" and we were "surprised he fell to us."

The one saving grace is that next year features a ton of top end pass rushers, a stud LT and a couple of maybe next level shut down corners, so....he might actually be forced to draft a premium position for once.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People wondering why the Jets didn’t do this before have to think about what team had done this type of sell off before.

I think they would have been ripped for doing this a few years ago. Selling off an tanking is now accepted in all sports. Seen it in baseball and basketball and now football

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

I can show you plenty of examples of teams that "stun" without tanking, that then built a SB team. That is all.

And, if "tanking" becomes a thing in the NFL, I think that the league may do something about it (such as a draft lottere), as the NFL is a sport which suffers greatly from great imbalances.

What do you mean by "stun"?

I'm kind of confused how this is different than say what the Jets did at the end of 2016.  They had a fire sale but in the offseason and got nothing in return.  As we've seen (Decker), it looks like it's almost getting harder to work a trade during the offseason vs. during the season.  Would you say this approach is more beneficial to a team looking to rebuild since they're getting compensation for these players as opposed to getting nothing and just releasing everyone after the season? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, UnitedWhofans said:

No what you said is Macc doesn’t draft premium positions ever.

Actually, I said for once.  I should have said for twice.  That said, I dont think taking a QB in a year where it was find a QB or lose your job is some great achievement.  Outside of being forced to take a QB, Mac has shown that he has zero awareness around positional value. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JiF said:

Actually, I said for once.  I should have said for twice.  That said, I dont think taking a QB in a year where it was find a QB or lose your job is some great achievement.  Outside of being forced to take a QB, Mac has shown that he has zero awareness around positional value. 

Well this year the goal for Macc is to surround Darnold with talent. So he will be forced to draft an OL, WR etc. 

If he finds a good player there, I don't care if he has awareness around positional value. The Giants seem perfectly comfortable with drafting a RB #2. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nico002 said:

Yes the Giants are geniuses now. I’m sure those 4th and 5th round picks will be game changers.

Stop. Just stop. The Giants are doing exactly what we should have done 2-3 years ago. You're certainly not the guy I'd want smuggly evaluating the draft picks, UFAs and cap space management of any NFL team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott Dierking said:

What is the flag carrying example of a team that sells off pieces as a tank job that results in a SB? 

Perhaps it would help to look at a scenario in reverse, to see how the value plays out:

You're GM of the 1-5 Raiders. Say you have an extra 1st round pick next year, but pretend you don't already have Amari Cooper. You've got a lot of holes (yes, including WR). You'd trade a 1st round pick away right now, before the trade deadline, for an underachieving 4th year Amari Cooper, who's only under contract for one additional season at $14m, in the hopes he turns things around suddenly in the remaining 2018 games plus 2019, to the point you'll want to offer him a $15m+/year extension?

When has such a decision resulted in a SB? ;) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

Well this year the goal for Macc is to surround Darnold with talent. So he will be forced to draft an OL, WR etc. 

If he finds a good player there, I don't care if he has awareness around positional value. The Giants seem perfectly comfortable with drafting a RB #2. 

Forced?  Sure hope you're right but I'm not sure why you're giving him any benefit of the doubt here.  He knew he was taking a QB this year and he legitimately didnt make a single move to help Darnold.  All he did was sign a terrible injury riddled Center in Spencer Long who if anything is stunting his growth and 2 absolute lazy turds in Crow and Pryor.  Otherwise, he stayed put, status quo on offense and now look at it...it's a mess.

The Giants seemed perfectly comfortable taking a RB at #2 and they're currently the worst team in Football and in the midst of an inseason fire sale.  Great example.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 14 in Green said:

Stop. Just stop. The Giants are doing exactly what we should've done 2-3 years ago. You're certainly not the guy I'd want smuggly evaluating the draft picks, UFAs and cap space management of any NFL team.

How is this even a debate?

Get compensation for players >>>>>> cutting them in the offseason.

I mean, I get it's fun to dump on the Giants right now because the Jets seem more competent for once but this 100% what a smart team would do that realizes they're done and winning 4 games does nothing for their future.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JiF said:

Forced?  Sure hope you're right but I'm not sure why you're giving him any benefit of the doubt here.  He knew he was taking a QB this year and he legitimately didn't make a single move to help Darnold.  All he did was sign a terrible injury riddled Center in Spencer Long who if anything is stunting his growth and 2 absolute lazy turds in Crow and Pryor.  Otherwise, he stayed put, status quo on offense and now look at it...it's a mess.

 

 

Has Darnold been stunted? I don't think so. Most people say that he has been further along in his schedule than people thought he would be. 

So I argue your premise fully

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JiF said:

How is this even a debate?

Get compensation for players >>>>>> cutting them in the offseason.

I mean, I get it's fun to dump on the Giants right now because the Jets seem more competent for once but this 100% what a smart team would do that realizes they're done and winning 4 games does nothing for their future.

I keep saying this not to this extent. IF there were more smart teams as you proclaim than the NFL trade deadline would be more prominent in our minds. Instead until recently, it's been an afterthought

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

If the Jets did this 3 years ago, they would have been shamed and ridiculed by experts and the like. The acceptance of tanking has gone through the roof in the last 2-3 years

They did this 3 years ago, except they waited for the offseason to cut everyone and receive no compensation for their losses.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JiF said:

They did this 3 years ago, except they waited for the offseason to cut everyone and receive no compensation for their losses.  

It was so stupid, even a 5th and some late round picks are better than letting guys walk.  Plus you carry over any money you save into next years cap.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

Has Darnold been stunted? I don't think so. Most people say that he has been further along in his schedule than people thought he would be. 

So I argue your premise fully

Sam is progressing because Sam is a star on his own.  But when your Center is ruining any chance of your 21 year old QB to develop a rhythm and literally killing drives because he cant accurately snap the ball, than yes, that impacts his ability to progress his game week to week, arguing otherwise is moronic. 

Did Sam improve on his performance from week 6 to 7, or did he go backwards?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JiF said:

They did this 3 years ago, except they waited for the offseason to cut everyone and receive no compensation for their losses.  

Exactly. Because up until recently that was the accepted way to do it. We have never seen multiple teams sell off multiple players at one deadline. We've seen singular players get traded off (Herschel Walker) but not major selloffs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JiF said:

Sam is progressing because Sam is a star on his own.  But when your Center is ruining any chance of your 21 year old QB to develop a rhythm and literally killing drives because he cant accurately snap the ball, than yes, that impacts his ability to progress his game week to week, arguing otherwise is moronic. 

Did Sam improve on his performance from week 6 to 7, or did he go backwards?  

 

You can't answer that because you have to bring external factors. The injuries, the weather, the fact that they are facing a good Vikings defense etc. 

I was talking to a friend of mine that said that he was worried that Darnold was going to be David Carr. So far he has not proven to be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's purely for the purpose of tanking midseason for a higher pick, so much as it's trading away pieces that you're not keeping yourself long-term, that can yield a pick/player that you would keep long term. 

Midseason trades that directly result in a SB is a bit much to say in terms of isolating whether or not a decision/act is smart. Not to mention it's a bit of circular logic, since teams on the cusp of being SB contenders aren't typically in fire sale mode midseason in the first place.

@Scott Dierking I do get what you're saying, and absolutely there is leadership and a locker room to factor in (unless you're cleaning house of everyone, including the GM and all the coaches in January). So that loss doesn't come up with on-paper, chess move trades like fantasy football or Madden transactions that ignores cohesion, relationships, and personalities. 

But throwing more money at bad, to temporarily keep older (perhaps underperforming) players, upcoming FAs, and tagged RFAs/FT players - players you won't have for much longer anyway - while you're sitting with 1 or 2 wins in late October; while you're not a serious contender to any other than the deluded; and while your team has both short and long-term needs at many key positions, doesn't provably further a team towards a SB either.

It also depends on whether a rebuild is underway or whether a rebuild seems about to commence or continue the following season(s), and certainly depends on what pieces are being traded. It also depends on the locker room, as as noted above; sometimes these older players are the only leaders on the roster.

With any of these, I always look at the trade in reverse and ask myself, in my team's current situation, if I'd make that trade the other way. Like if I'm the Giants I don't think I trade Snacks, and if I'm Oakland I don't trade Mack. These are players that do more than perform individually; they make others around them better and make scheming easier for the coordinators. I think it's shortsighted to look only at their individual performances or stats, while ignoring the domino effects of their losses, and think they're so easily replaced. The rest of those traded? I'm not seeing the great mistakes being made by the pick-acquiring team, unless I'm just forgetting one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...