vinnys025 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Jets | Team may resume efforts to sign Hopkins Sat, 25 Mar 2006 05:01:12 -0800 The New York Daily News reports the New York Jets may resume their efforts to sign free agent OT Brad Hopkins (Titans), now that they failed to sign OT Jon Runyan. Talks are ongoing with the Jets, according to Hopkins' agent, Mark Bartelstein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Ferraro Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Jets | Team may resume efforts to sign Hopkins Sat, 25 Mar 2006 05:01:12 -0800 The New York Daily News reports the New York Jets may resume their efforts to sign free agent OT Brad Hopkins (Titans), now that they failed to sign OT Jon Runyan. Talks are ongoing with the Jets, according to Hopkins' agent, Mark Bartelstein. It appears the Jets are hell-bent on adding an old, broken down OT. The Runyan thing turned out the best way it could have for the Jets: with him playing elsewhere. Both Runyan and Hopkins will cost way more than they're worth. They would be paying for past performance instead of future performance. The Jets interest in these guys indicates they are not thinking about Ferguson with the 4th pick. That's fine since there is good depth at tackle in this draft. However, they shouldn't overpay for guys like Runyan and Hopkins who are all but finished. Think about the Eagles and Titans running game last year. Yes, they're are four other guys on the line who have to block, but neither team scared anyone witht he run. The Eagles running game wasn't good even when they were winning. Runyan did the Jets a favor. Signing Hopkins to anything except the league minimum would be the Jets first misstep this off-season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirlancemehlot Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 It appears the Jets are hell-bent on adding an old, broken down OT. The Runyan thing turned out the best way it could have for the Jets: with him playing elsewhere. Both Runyan and Hopkins will cost way more than they're worth. They would be paying for past performance instead of future performance. The Jets interest in these guys indicates they are not thinking about Ferguson with the 4th pick. That's fine since there is good depth at tackle in this draft. However, they shouldn't overpay for guys like Runyan and Hopkins who are all but finished. Think about the Eagles and Titans running game last year. Yes, they're are four other guys on the line who have to block, but neither team scared anyone witht he run. The Eagles running game wasn't good even when they were winning. Runyan did the Jets a favor. Signing Hopkins to anything except the league minimum would be the Jets first misstep this off-season. I disagree about the Jets not considering D'brick at #4. The fact that they are targeting old tackles tells me just the opposite. No-one starts at OT and excels in their first couple of years. It's a tough position to learn mentally and technically, and takes hours of mentorship to grasp the nuances of individual defenders' tendencies. If I'm Mangini, I hire a former pro-bowler on the downside of his career and glue him to my new young gun. QB's and OT's are groomed for positions, not thrown into them haphazardly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faba Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I disagree about the Jets not considering D'brick at #4. The fact that they are targeting old tackles tells me just the opposite. No-one starts at OT and excels in their first couple of years. It's a tough position to learn mentally and technically, and takes hours of mentorship to grasp the nuances of individual defenders' tendencies. If I'm Mangini, I hire a former pro-bowler on the downside of his career and glue him to my new young gun. QB's and OT's are groomed for positions, not thrown into them haphazardly. Have to agree here I hope no one thinks a rookie OT is going to come into the league and be an all pro the first year. It is a learning process that you will have to be patient with whether we draft Brick or not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillerPaul Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I disagree about the Jets not considering D'brick at #4. The fact that they are targeting old tackles tells me just the opposite. No-one starts at OT and excels in their first couple of years. It's a tough position to learn mentally and technically, and takes hours of mentorship to grasp the nuances of individual defenders' tendencies. If I'm Mangini, I hire a former pro-bowler on the downside of his career and glue him to my new young gun. QB's and OT's are groomed for positions, not thrown into them haphazardly. Can a serious post like this be nominated for POTW? If so, there's my nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinnys025 Posted March 25, 2006 Author Share Posted March 25, 2006 I disagree about the Jets not considering D'brick at #4. The fact that they are targeting old tackles tells me just the opposite. No-one starts at OT and excels in their first couple of years. It's a tough position to learn mentally and technically, and takes hours of mentorship to grasp the nuances of individual defenders' tendencies. If I'm Mangini, I hire a former pro-bowler on the downside of his career and glue him to my new young gun. QB's and OT's are groomed for positions, not thrown into them haphazardly. So...did Tommy Maddux "mentor" Ben Rothlisburger?...or was he thrown into the mix? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirlancemehlot Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 So...did Tommy Maddux "mentor" Ben Rothlisburger?...or was he thrown into the mix? There's an exception to every rule, of course. And Nobody would argue that Ben has been surprising in the extreme. But, for every Ben,, there are ten other Qb's who failed miserably ala John Elway before being successful. Ask the Raiders about Gallery, the Jets about Jones (who was held out for a year and still struggled). these are positions that take time. A rb, wr, s, te, can be successeful more immediately, which is the reason there are an abundance of these positions compared to OT and QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSJ Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I disagree about the Jets not considering D'brick at #4. The fact that they are targeting old tackles tells me just the opposite. No-one starts at OT and excels in their first couple of years. It's a tough position to learn mentally and technically, and takes hours of mentorship to grasp the nuances of individual defenders' tendencies. If I'm Mangini, I hire a former pro-bowler on the downside of his career and glue him to my new young gun. QB's and OT's are groomed for positions, not thrown into them haphazardly. This is a great post. Mangini will pick BPA and sign vets to help rookies. Everyone is saying how the Jets will not draft a DE because of Kemo or OT if they sign a veteran. But then in the next sentence say they will draft a QB and forget about Ramsey. The Jets will sign and trade for solid vets and draft BPA. No reason to think with his athletic ability Brick couldn't spend a year at guard or just battle it out with Adrian Jones or be groomed at both spots. One thing IS certain - he will not some in and be an All Pro Left Tackle. No one does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenBeans Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Can a serious post like this be nominated for POTW? If so, there's my nomination. Absolutely. We're not just style, we have some substance, too. We do look damn good, though, I must admit..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage69 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I disagree about the Jets not considering D'brick at #4. The fact that they are targeting old tackles tells me just the opposite. No-one starts at OT and excels in their first couple of years. It's a tough position to learn mentally and technically, and takes hours of mentorship to grasp the nuances of individual defenders' tendencies. If I'm Mangini, I hire a former pro-bowler on the downside of his career and glue him to my new young gun. QB's and OT's are groomed for positions, not thrown into them haphazardly. Chris Hinton made All Pro as a rookie! But in General Top OT's like Boselli.Pace or Ogden make in year 2 or 3! Winston Hill made it in his 2nd year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Ferraro Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 You guys couldn't be more wrong on this. Offensive tackle is one of the positions where you expect a highly rated player to step right in and play. Ferguson will be exactly that. If the Jets take Ferguson at four, he is the immediate starter at OT. Take a look at the history of the first tackles selected since 1990. Along with RB, it is a position you expect immediate impact from your picks. All of these guys started immediately. Some busted, but all played right away, and many of them played or are playing at a Pro-Bowl level. OT has been one of the more predictable spots in the draft. QB has been on of the least. If Leinert is available, he's your man, but if not, there is no reason to gamble on a QB when you could have a solid OT to build around. 1990 - Miami, Richmond Webb #9 1991 - Tampa, Charles McRae #7, Phila - Antone Davis #8 1992 - Atlanta, Bob Whitfield #8 1993 - NO, Willie Roaf #8, Atlanta, Lincoln Kennedy #9 1994 - Phila, Bernard Williams #14 1995 - Jack., Tony Boselli #2 1996 - Balt., Jonathan Ogden, #4 1997 - St. Louis, Orlando Pace #1 1998 - NO, Kyle Turley #7 1999 - KC, John Tait #14 2000 - Wash., Chris Samuels #3 2001 - Ariz., Leonard Davis #2 2002 - Buf., Mike Williams #4 2003 - Car., Jordan Gross #8 2004 - Oak., Robert Gallery #2 2005 - NO, Jammal Brown #13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirlancemehlot Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 You guys couldn't be more wrong on this. Offensive tackle is one of the positions where you expect a highly rated player to step right in and play. Ferguson will be exactly that. If the Jets take Ferguson at four, he is the immediate starter at OT. Take a look at the history of the first tackles selected since 1990. Along with RB, it is a position you expect immediate impact from your picks. All of these guys started immediately. Some busted, but all played right away, and many of them played or are playing at a Pro-Bowl level. OT has been one of the more predictable spots in the draft. QB has been on of the least. If Leinert is available, he's your man, but if not, there is no reason to gamble on a QB when you could have a solid OT to build around. 1990 - Miami, Richmond Webb #9 1991 - Tampa, Charles McRae #7, Phila - Antone Davis #8 1992 - Atlanta, Bob Whitfield #8 1993 - NO, Willie Roaf #8, Atlanta, Lincoln Kennedy #9 1994 - Phila, Bernard Williams #14 1995 - Jack., Tony Boselli #2 1996 - Balt., Jonathan Ogden, #4 1997 - St. Louis, Orlando Pace #1 1998 - NO, Kyle Turley #7 1999 - KC, John Tait #14 2000 - Wash., Chris Samuels #3 2001 - Ariz., Leonard Davis #2 2002 - Buf., Mike Williams #4 2003 - Car., Jordan Gross #8 2004 - Oak., Robert Gallery #2 2005 - NO, Jammal Brown #13 Nice job on the stats, but honestly this post is a bit misleading. Did these guys play in their first seasons? Perhaps. But how did they actually do in their first seasons? I'd bet a nut most of them struggled mightily early on. Point is, because we're looking for a Vet OT, that doesn't mean we aren't looking to draft one. OT takes time. It's a position built on getting reps. O-lines themselves need to "gel", and this is why the best lines are ones that have remained mostly intact from season to season. Pace, Gallery, Williams all took, or are taking time to reach their potential. D'Brick may be the exception, but Mangini doesn't strike me as a gambler. If depth and mentorship can be had reasonably, then we'll sign a vet tackle regardless of who we take at 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faba Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 There is a big difference between stepping in and playing and actually being good. The chances of any player and or OT coming into the league and exceling is small Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinnys025 Posted March 25, 2006 Author Share Posted March 25, 2006 There's an exception to every rule, of course. And Nobody would argue that Ben has been surprising in the extreme. But, for every Ben,, there are ten other Qb's who failed miserably ala John Elway before being successful. Ask the Raiders about Gallery, the Jets about Jones (who was held out for a year and still struggled). these are positions that take time. A rb, wr, s, te, can be successeful more immediately, which is the reason there are an abundance of these positions compared to OT and QB. However, it is the most recent rule, they are the Superbowl champs after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirlancemehlot Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 And Eli Manning isn't recent? Anyway I'm not quite sure what our difference of opinion is. We all want D'Brick, that much I'm getting. But as for not wanting to sign a veteren tackle to backup or possibly start, I don't understand it. We can't afford to pay QB's that are sitting on IR. Take Hopkins, by all means IMO. Let the most game-ready player start in game one, and adjust as the season progresses if need be. It just makes sense and minimizes risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Ferraro Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 And Eli Manning isn't recent? Anyway I'm not quite sure what our difference of opinion is. We all want D'Brick, that much I'm getting. But as for not wanting to sign a veteren tackle to backup or possibly start, I don't understand it. We can't afford to pay QB's that are sitting on IR. Take Hopkins, by all means IMO. Let the most game-ready player start in game one, and adjust as the season progresses if need be. It just makes sense and minimizes risk. The assumption I am making is that if the Jets sign Hopkins, they don't go OT in the draft as well. That is usually the way teams play it. They don't generally sign a free agent and use their first pick overall on the same position. If the Jets get Hopkins, someone else gets D'brick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirlancemehlot Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 The assumption I am making is that if the Jets sign Hopkins, they don't go OT in the draft as well. That is usually the way teams play it. They don't generally sign a free agent and use their first pick overall on the same position. If the Jets get Hopkins, someone else gets D'brick. That's reasonable enough. But we just signed a FA QB, so by your process, we'd be looking to go with someone other than an OT or QB? Mario Williams might make sense, but then we signed Kimo. So who the heck would we draft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSJ Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I think that the whole idea of signing solid vets benfits the Jets two fold. 1) Do not get stuck in a position where you NEED to draft a certain position during the draft. This could lead to you needing to reach for a player perhaps. Rather than BPA all draft long. This will lead to you covering all positions with players that you got that had higher value than where you picked them. Atleast if there are no good Tackles on day one that fall to you a reach on day two is not toally necassary maybe sign a couple UDFA's and maybe grab a June 1st cut if need be. But atleast you did not reach for a Tackle in the 5th round when a safety with a 2nd or 3rd round grade is sitting there. 2) Provides leadership on the team. These Vets can help in the meeting rooms, and lead by example on and off the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeniorFlaJet Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 The assumption I am making is that if the Jets sign Hopkins, they don't go OT in the draft as well. That is usually the way teams play it. They don't generally sign a free agent and use their first pick overall on the same position. If the Jets get Hopkins, someone else gets D'brick. I don't know about thisNick. I think it depends on the situation the team is in. With OT position with the Jets, who do they really have? The only one with any real experience is AJ. The rest of the guys on the roster have hardly played. Now you can argue the potential and whether he will be a bust or not but DBRick could possibly be there for the next 10 years. But you need the vet presence on the line and thats why I think they are looking at guys like Hopkins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.