#27TheDominator Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Last thing I read was that he said he wanted to go somewhere that he's wanted. And "wanted" is the closest he can come to saying "starting" without being blunt. He does not want to be a #3 for another year & then get released with even lower value. He has some value right now (SOMEONE will give him a contract) but with another 25-reception season his days of making above the league minimum are over. And he knows it. One thing to consider is that if he hated Mangini like poison he wouldn't use coach speak, he'd be blunt. The fact that he says "wanted" means something. TO or Keyshawn would not have gone to the trouble to tone it down. I'm sure he wouldn't mind getting out of town, but at least he is being careful what he says in case he sticks around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancemehl Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 What team is gonna give him a starting job? He's under contract with the Jets and i think that at 2-3 million he's a pretty cheap 3rd WR on a good team and if Clemens ever becomes the QB he'd probably get better because he's a decent deep threat if he played with the right QB too. I'd say if our WR's aren't broke (and i don't think they are) why should we try to fix them? There are much better things to fix... I think McCareins DEFINITELY can land a starting job somewhere.It's only been one season since he was a starter and he was simply replaced by someone better.He had a couple big catches late in the season.He'll be OK.Sperm made a good point...haha..."sperm... sorry, yeah sperm made a good point,though,one more year of 20 catched will cost him big $.I would throw a few sound bytes out there myself if i was him.This is also a business,don't forget.These 53 guys who wear the uniform aren't fans like us.Most of them could give a s##t about the team,at least we wear the right color.lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormshadow19 Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 The ravens won a superbowl with Trent Dilfer. The Pats won a superbowl with Kevin Faulk/Smith. blahblah How about all the other teams that won superbowls? We dont have the luxury of playing it out with starting Leon Washington because we do not have Tom Brady at Qb, and there's a 2% chance we ever get to the level of the 2000 ravens defense. Not to mention, the pats defense was the real key to their "dynasty". Who did Tampa have on their team? Oh yeah... they had a great defense. The Pats? Tom Brady, and a great defense. The Ravens? A great defense. Pittsburgh? A great defense. Plus a good running game, spurrned by a two back system, one of which perdominantly ran in goal line situations, and the other was either a late round pick or a UDFA. The point is that you don't need "names" in your skill positions, just guys who can make plays. I agree with the fact that the Jets need an upgrade over the guard positions, the RT position, and the QB position... but there's a more glaring need on defense. Hello horrible run defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormshadow19 Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 I think SS has my train of thought. Running backs are very easy to replace, whether it's through free agency or via the draft. This draft is very deep, and players like Michael Bush, Adrian Peterson and Marshawn Lych will be available. I think some of the guys here know I also root for the Bears, and they have a logjam of backs. Thomas Jones will be entering the final year of his contract and could be available, especially with so much money and the #4 draft pick invested in Benson. Adrian Peterson is another backup who has really looked good and has played well, but could be expendable (I doubt it, especially if Jones is traded). This is just one team I'm talking about. I am sure that there are otehrs out there that face similar situations. All I'm saying is that there are options out there, good options. The season hasn't ended yet and we will have to let things shake out a bit. We might not have to invest a high pick on a back. San Fran was able to land Gore in round 3, and look at what he's done for them. With a #1, 2 #2's and a boatload of cash (20-30M in cap space), I am sure we'll land someone good. What worries me more is the gaping hole we have at DT. We definetly need to fill that hole. Pretty much. I mean, you can pretty much draft anyone and plug them in, and they'll run for some yards. Provided you have a quality offensive line. MJ and I are on the same page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Another guy to consider: Raiders DT / NT Terdell Sands. Sands is 6'7, 340lbs, you don't think that reads possible premier 3-4 NT all over? It does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Some of Sands' stats: -Will turn just 28 on Halloween 2007, so he's young -Over the last 3 seasons starting with Oakland he has recorded 73 tackles, 2 sacks and an INT in 40 games (15 in 04, 9 in 05, 16 in 06) -He's freakin' 6'7, 340 people and he has experience in the 3-4 at NT and he's a Rob Ryan player so I'm sure RR could give Mangenius plenty of insight on the guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Another guy to consider: Raiders DT / NT Terdell Sands. Sands is 6'7, 340lbs, you don't think that reads possible premier 3-4 NT all over? It does. Isnt 6'7" a little too tall?? I mean when you spread 340 over that tall of a guy he isnt going to have as good of leverage, and if its not a lot of muscle, its not very hard for a lot of OL to move around 340+ these days... they are getting stronger... Wouldnt you think that Drob at 6'1" 220 lbs has better leverage becuase he is half a foot lower to the ground...??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Doesnt exactly look like a big FAT run-stuffer to me... but what the hell do i know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Isnt 6'7" a little too tall?? I mean when you spread 340 over that tall of a guy he isnt going to have as good of leverage, and if its not a lot of muscle, its not very hard for a lot of OL to move around 340+ these days... they are getting stronger... Wouldnt you think that Drob at 6'1" 220 lbs has better leverage becuase he is half a foot lower to the ground...??? "ecurb, I'm going to eat you!" 6'7 isn't bad. If you can do it at 6'4, 6'5, 6'7 is not too tall. Trust me. Once he has the pads on (no pads on in that picture), he'd look a hell of a lot bigger to you. He can be a good run stuffer and he seemed to have his breakout season this year. Do you want Robertson whose under-sized or Sione Pouha whose 27 and hasn't played more than what? 30 NFL snaps? or do you want a guy whose a little taller than the norm, big and who can fit into a 3-4 NT spot a lot nice than Robertson can. Imagine Robertson at DE and Sands in the middle with Ellis at the other end? Shaun Ellis would look like a little midgit skinny kid in the back of the bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormshadow19 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Doesnt exactly look like a big FAT run-stuffer to me... but what the hell do i know... Why does he have to be fat? He's not exactly small, either. He takes up space... that's what we're looking for. And 6'7" can knock down passes alot easier than 6' 340. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cant Hackett Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Isnt 6'7" a little too tall?? I mean when you spread 340 over that tall of a guy he isnt going to have as good of leverage, and if its not a lot of muscle, its not very hard for a lot of OL to move around 340+ these days... they are getting stronger... Wouldnt you think that Drob at 6'1" 220 lbs has better leverage becuase he is half a foot lower to the ground...??? Ed "Too Tall" Jones height didn't hurt his career for the Cowboys at DE :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 here's the deal there's really no such thing as TALL NT Ted Washington is the tallest but he's 400 pounds - not tall so much as supersized the reason is that centers and guards will have the leverage to get under the pads of taller players the tall players match up better at end against the guys like DBrick who have long wingspans most NFL nose tackles are around 6'2 and around 320. Not the top ones mind you but most of em as a group are around that size. Jets fans will recall Jason Ferguson, he's actually smaller than Drob. Drob is not really undersized except if you compare him to the top giants at the nose tackle position. He'd be even more undersized compared to the prototypes at DE such as Seymour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barton Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Robertson is a better fit at NT than 34 end jmo. 6'1 is alittle short to play end imo. He played very good NT the 2nd half of the year, I actually dont have a problem with him, as long as he continues to improve and I think he will. Sands has talent, maybe he could be a 3-4 end, not sure if he's a nose tackle though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.