Sperm Edwards Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I've seen our cap situation as us being anywhere from $20-28M under the $109M cap for 2007. No outsider knows the # exactly, but I believe the figure is closer to $30M than $20M. Either way, that's not all. We're clearly going to make at least some roster changes. So who gets cut & how much (if anything) do we save? This isn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoFlaJets Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 think we can trade Justin McCairens and Kimo to Herm? Chiefs | Team in need of receiver help Fri, 9 Feb 2007 08:13:23 -0800 Adam Teicher, of the Kansas City Star, reports the wide receiver position is one of the Kansas City Chiefs' biggest needs in the offseason Chiefs | Team likely to target a defensive tackle in offseason Fri, 9 Feb 2007 07:40:57 -0800 Bob Gretz, of KCChiefs.com, reports the defensive tackle position is likely the Kansas City Chiefs' top positional need this offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nj meadowlands Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I've seen our cap situation as us being anywhere from $20-28M under the $109M cap for 2007. No outsider knows the # exactly, but I believe the figure is closer to $30M than $20M. Either way, that's not all. We're clearly going to make at least some roster changes. So who gets cut & how much (if anything) do we save? This isn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4HCrew Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 We have to keep in mind that when teams know that you are going to cut a player they are not going to offer much if anything in terms of a trade. I do not see cutting Barton as an option as he was one of the Jets best LB last year and would create a void on defense. In addition I would see if Barrett would restructure and would keep Houston around as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4HCrew Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Sperm any idea how much Teague makes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billo83 Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 We have to keep in mind that when teams know that you are going to cut a player they are not going to offer much if anything in terms of a trade. I do not see cutting Barton as an option as he was one of the Jets best LB last year and would create a void on defense. In addition I would see if Barrett would restructure and would keep Houston around as well. Agree with you here. I would want to keep Barrett even if he doesn't restructure, for depth. I would add BJ Askew to the cut list. I'm not sure how much cap that would save, but he's as useful as Herm is with clock management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Agree with you here. I would want to keep Barrett even if he doesn't restructure, for depth. I would add BJ Askew to the cut list. I'm not sure how much cap that would save, but he's as useful as Herm is with clock management. I don't think they can cut Askew. I think he's a FA. I'd like to keep Barrett and I think they will, but he'd probably have to restructure. That number is just too big for his production. I can't see letting Houston or Barton go, their #s don't seem too scary. I'd like to keep Barlow. He didn't perform much this year, but it's a pretty soft spot in our lineup and if we don't go get somebody we'll need him for the RBBC. He's probably the one with the best chance of being a feature back for '07. I'd probably pay to dump Blaylock because if I read it right it'll cost $1.3 to dump him in '08. I'd keep JMac for $1M, but for as much as he's used it probably doesn't matter. I'm probably the #1 member of the KVO sucks club, but he'll probably stick around to "mentor" though I can't see keeping KVO and Bobby Hamilton. 4H, site I checked has Teague at $720K with no signing bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rizzock Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 If mccariens and barton are cut i hope my raiders sign them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4HCrew Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 thanks for the info #27 I was wondering the money saved if he went but that is not much at all especially with the cap space the jets have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNorth09 Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Keep: Barton, Houston, McCareins... cut the rest Houston and McCariens blow. Barton is still a good LB even though he's more of a 4-3 player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4HCrew Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 I think the same could be said for Vilma but Barton is bigger and stronger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetCane Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 No way would I cut Barton. I'd also give Dwight a shot, assuming he is healthy at the mini-camp. He may still have something left in his tank. Same with Barrett, Barlow and McC. If they look good in minicamp, keep them to see what they do in tc. If they dont measure up in April- give 'em their walking papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Sperm, Incredible work as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Sperm, Incredible work as usual. Do you say that when you finish everytime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chad2colesin06=--- Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 no chance they cut barton, they could prob get a 5th for j mac, i love how people say our lb's dont fit the system when nobody really knows the qualifications of being a 4-3 or 3-4 lb, dont bother saying vilma doesnt fit in the 3-4 cuz ray lewis won a defenseive mvp as a mlb in the 3-4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 no chance they cut barton, they could prob get a 5th for j mac, i love how people say our lb's dont fit the system when nobody really knows the qualifications of being a 4-3 or 3-4 lb, dont bother saying vilma doesnt fit in the 3-4 cuz ray lewis won a defenseive mvp as a mlb in the 3-4 When exactly did Vilma become Ray Lewis? Ray Lewis has 20 lbs on Vilma. Just because they both went to Miami does not make them the same player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flgreen Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 think we can trade Justin McCairens and Kimo to Herm? Chiefs | Team in need of receiver help Fri, 9 Feb 2007 08:13:23 -0800 Adam Teicher, of the Kansas City Star, reports the wide receiver position is one of the Kansas City Chiefs' biggest needs in the offseason Chiefs | Team likely to target a defensive tackle in offseason Fri, 9 Feb 2007 07:40:57 -0800 Bob Gretz, of KCChiefs.com, reports the defensive tackle position is likely the Kansas City Chiefs' top positional need this offseason. I don't think Kimo has any value right now. If the Jets are willing to take the cap hit IMO Robertson is a good fit for KC, and Herm might be willing to shed a 1st Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 10, 2007 Author Share Posted February 10, 2007 DRob won't get cut. He was our starting NT in a 3-4 defense. Even if we acquired or drafted his replacement, it would make more sense to keep him as a BACKUP than cut/trade him since he wouldn't command a high enough pick in return to warrant cutting him loose & creating a $6M cap hole. Cut him prior to 6/1: costs an additional $1.5-2M on the '07 cap. Total dead cap space for DRob in '07 would be $6M. Cut/trade him after 6/1 (wouldn't happen b/c it's after the draft): saves ~$2.5M on the '07 cap ($2M dead cap space in '07) and creates $4M dead cap space for '08. 3-5x pro-bowlers like Culpepper & T.O. & Abe only fetched a very late 1st-rounder or a mid-2nd-rounder. What do you really think we'd get for a zero-time pro-bowler with salaries in '08-09 of $7M and $4.5M, and who has no knee cartilage? We'd probably be able to get around a 3rd-rounder for him. Outside chance at a 2nd-rounder if a team is really desperate for a 3-technique DT (like KC). IMO that's not enough to cut ties with a DL starter whose starting job is not in jeopardy & was pretty good (particularly in the 2nd half) last year, AND then absorb $6M in dead cap space for said player. Essentially, that 2nd/3rd rounder (if we could get that) would have a $6-7M cap figure over the next 2 years. Not happening for '07 - I'd be shocked. NEXT year I think it's a real possibility, if not likely - particularly if we sign or draft his replacement) - b/c DRob's not worth a $9M cap number unless he suddenly realizes the superstar status he was drafted to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoFlaJets Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 I don't think Kimo has any value right now. If the Jets are willing to take the cap hit IMO Robertson is a good fit for KC, and Herm might be willing to shed a 1st Dwayne Robertson isn't going anywhere IMO-I know he has a lot of detractors around but it was no coincidence how our team started to play better the games HE was most effective in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsis Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 I find it funny how people want us to get rid of everyone? I remember reading how someone said we should get someone to replace Rhodes. Trade Vilma and D-rob, cut penny and shoot clemens in the back of the head. I'd like to know who you people want to start if we get rid of all of these people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireSatherclapclap Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 I don't want to see McCareins go. Guy makes some tough grabs in the clutch decent third reciever. Houston Blaylock Kessell Barrett to list some guys i'd like to see gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoFlaJets Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 I don't want to see McCareins go. Guy makes some tough grabs in the clutch decent third reciever. Houston Blaylock Kessell Barrett to list some guys i'd like to see gone. he does seem to be a late season type of guy-I mean his first year here go back and look at his stats in November and December and January-once he got used to Chad he was very reliable-I wouldn't mind seeing him one more year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVM Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 I find it funny how people want us to get rid of everyone? I remember reading how someone said we should get someone to replace Rhodes. Trade Vilma and D-rob, cut penny and shoot clemens in the back of the head. I'd like to know who you people want to start if we get rid of all of these people? Heh...sounds like good ol' peter north....he just doesnt like the vertically challenged While i want to keep all of the above, i can understand why some want to change course. D-rob, for the most part, has been a huge disappointment, w/ a huge cap # to boot. Chad has his flaws, as everyone knows, and some people see Clemens' inability to surpass Chad(regardless they the kid was a rookie) as a sign that Clemens is also not the future. As far as Vilma goes, he struggled in what was a totally different role from what he's used to. Thats basically their belief behind all them, just replace them with youth and see where it gets you i guess, but i'd like to see all of them with one more year in the system, Chad especially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 11, 2007 Author Share Posted February 11, 2007 Heh...sounds like good ol' peter north....he just doesnt like the vertically challenged While i want to keep all of the above, i can understand why some want to change course. D-rob, for the most part, has been a huge disappointment, w/ a huge cap # to boot. Chad has his flaws, as everyone knows, and some people see Clemens' inability to surpass Chad(regardless they the kid was a rookie) as a sign that Clemens is also not the future. As far as Vilma goes, he struggled in what was a totally different role from what he's used to. Thats basically their belief behind all them, just replace them with youth and see where it gets you i guess, but i'd like to see all of them with one more year in the system, Chad especially. Some of it's a knee-jerk reaction (or in my case, full brain & body jerk). You see a position that's lacking & you want improvement. If it's a promising rookie whose game needs to improve (D'Brick, etc), you can tolerate it. If it's a veteran who was at least "good enough" then that's ok. But when you see someone sucking mightily, you want change at that position. Any good fan would want improvement from one year to the next. And Chad sucks. A 17-16 TD-INT ratio for a guy who doesn't challenge defenses deep AND with that cupcake schedule AND one of the better WR tandems in the NFL? He will make an outstanding backup, but we're winning nothing with him as starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJ Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 And Chad sucks. A 17-16 TD-INT ratio for a guy who doesn't challenge defenses deep AND with that cupcake schedule AND one of the better WR tandems in the NFL? He will make an outstanding backup, but we're winning nothing with him as starter. Bump. You take him on for awhile - I'm tired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 12, 2007 Author Share Posted February 12, 2007 Bump. You take him on for awhile - I'm tired. I'm still trying to get past the insinuation that because Clemens couldn't beat out an experienced QB as a rookie, in an offense requiring so many audibles, that it means Chad should indefinitely get the benefit of the doubt & Clemens shouldn't see the field. Brees couldn't beat out Doug Flutie as a rookie. Favre couldn't move ahead of Billie Joe Tolliver as a rookie. Carson Palmer was behind Jon Kitna as a rookie. Tom Brady couldn't beat out Drew Bledsoe (or John Friesz or Michael Bishop) as a rookie. McNabb couldn't beat out Doug Pederson as a rookie. Delhomme couldn't beat out either Billy Joe (Tolliver or Hobert) as a rookie. Rivers couldn't beat out Brees OR Doug Flutie as a rookie. Losman couldn't beat out Bledsoe as a rookie or Kelly Holcomb in his 2nd year Trent Green was an 8th-round pick. His 1st completed pass was 4 yrs later. And Chad couldn't beat out Vinnie as a rookie (or entering his 2nd or 3rd seasons). I bet I'm missing more (and this is just counting current starters) but if Chadophiles ran these other teams with their fear-of-worse syndrome, these QB's would never take a meaningful NFL snap because they hadn't proven anything yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flgreen Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I'm still trying to get past the insinuation that because Clemens couldn't beat out an experienced QB as a rookie, in an offense requiring so many audibles, that it means Chad should indefinitely get the benefit of the doubt & Clemens shouldn't see the field. Brees couldn't beat out Doug Flutie as a rookie. Favre couldn't move ahead of Billie Joe Tolliver as a rookie. Carson Palmer was behind Jon Kitna as a rookie. Tom Brady couldn't beat out Drew Bledsoe (or John Friesz or Michael Bishop) as a rookie. McNabb couldn't beat out Doug Pederson as a rookie. Delhomme couldn't beat out either Billy Joe (Tolliver or Hobert) as a rookie. Rivers couldn't beat out Brees OR Doug Flutie as a rookie. Losman couldn't beat out Bledsoe as a rookie or Kelly Holcomb in his 2nd year Trent Green was an 8th-round pick. His 1st completed pass was 4 yrs later. And Chad couldn't beat out Vinnie as a rookie (or entering his 2nd or 3rd seasons). I bet I'm missing more (and this is just counting current starters) but if Chadophiles ran these other teams with their fear-of-worse syndrome, these QB's would never take a meaningful NFL snap because they hadn't proven anything yet. Excellent points, and I agree. I like Clemens, but what bothers me isn't that he couldn't beat out Chad, it's that he didn't beat out Ramsey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baamf Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I'm still trying to get past the insinuation that because Clemens couldn't beat out an experienced QB as a rookie, in an offense requiring so many audibles, that it means Chad should indefinitely get the benefit of the doubt & Clemens shouldn't see the field. Brees couldn't beat out Doug Flutie as a rookie. Favre couldn't move ahead of Billie Joe Tolliver as a rookie. Carson Palmer was behind Jon Kitna as a rookie. Tom Brady couldn't beat out Drew Bledsoe (or John Friesz or Michael Bishop) as a rookie. McNabb couldn't beat out Doug Pederson as a rookie. Delhomme couldn't beat out either Billy Joe (Tolliver or Hobert) as a rookie. Rivers couldn't beat out Brees OR Doug Flutie as a rookie. Losman couldn't beat out Bledsoe as a rookie or Kelly Holcomb in his 2nd year Trent Green was an 8th-round pick. His 1st completed pass was 4 yrs later. And Chad couldn't beat out Vinnie as a rookie (or entering his 2nd or 3rd seasons). I bet I'm missing more (and this is just counting current starters) but if Chadophiles ran these other teams with their fear-of-worse syndrome, these QB's would never take a meaningful NFL snap because they hadn't proven anything yet. Seeing you are discussing Chad in your salary cap thread, I'd thought I would add a little blurb from profootballtalk on how Chad's performance last year will affect our salary cap.... CAVEAT ON CAP NUMBERS A league source has contacted us regarding the accuracy of the cap numbers that we posted earlier today. Although those numbers currently are accurate, it turns out that the numbers are incomplete. Per the source, the current numbers do not reflect several key pieces of information that will reduce the cap room available as of March 1. First, the "official" numbers have not yet been adjusted by the league to reflect so-called "not likely to be earned" incentives that players achieved in 2006. By definition, these payments do not count against a team's 2006 cap number. They hit the cap in 2007. A prime example in this regard is Jets quarterback Chad Pennington. With doubts swirling last year at this time regarding his ability to return to form, he slashed his salary for 2006 but remained in position to earn most if not all of it back through incentive payments. And he did. Those extra payments to Pennington will thus eat into the $20 million in cap room available to the Jets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mangenious420 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I'm still trying to get past the insinuation that because Clemens couldn't beat out an experienced QB as a rookie, in an offense requiring so many audibles, that it means Chad should indefinitely get the benefit of the doubt & Clemens shouldn't see the field. Brees couldn't beat out Doug Flutie as a rookie. Favre couldn't move ahead of Billie Joe Tolliver as a rookie. Carson Palmer was behind Jon Kitna as a rookie. Tom Brady couldn't beat out Drew Bledsoe (or John Friesz or Michael Bishop) as a rookie. McNabb couldn't beat out Doug Pederson as a rookie. Delhomme couldn't beat out either Billy Joe (Tolliver or Hobert) as a rookie. Rivers couldn't beat out Brees OR Doug Flutie as a rookie. Losman couldn't beat out Bledsoe as a rookie or Kelly Holcomb in his 2nd year Trent Green was an 8th-round pick. His 1st completed pass was 4 yrs later. And Chad couldn't beat out Vinnie as a rookie (or entering his 2nd or 3rd seasons). I bet I'm missing more (and this is just counting current starters) but if Chadophiles ran these other teams with their fear-of-worse syndrome, these QB's would never take a meaningful NFL snap because they hadn't proven anything yet. Very good post Sperman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drago Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Brees couldn't beat out Doug Flutie as a rookie. Favre couldn't move ahead of Billie Joe Tolliver as a rookie. Carson Palmer was behind Jon Kitna as a rookie. Tom Brady couldn't beat out Drew Bledsoe (or John Friesz or Michael Bishop) as a rookie. McNabb couldn't beat out Doug Pederson as a rookie. Delhomme couldn't beat out either Billy Joe (Tolliver or Hobert) as a rookie. Rivers couldn't beat out Brees OR Doug Flutie as a rookie. Losman couldn't beat out Bledsoe as a rookie or Kelly Holcomb in his 2nd year Trent Green was an 8th-round pick. His 1st completed pass was 4 yrs later. And Chad couldn't beat out Vinnie as a rookie (or entering his 2nd or 3rd seasons). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJ Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I'm still trying to get past the insinuation that because Clemens couldn't beat out an experienced QB as a rookie, in an offense requiring so many audibles, that it means Chad should indefinitely get the benefit of the doubt & Clemens shouldn't see the field. Brees couldn't beat out Doug Flutie as a rookie. Favre couldn't move ahead of Billie Joe Tolliver as a rookie. Carson Palmer was behind Jon Kitna as a rookie. Tom Brady couldn't beat out Drew Bledsoe (or John Friesz or Michael Bishop) as a rookie. McNabb couldn't beat out Doug Pederson as a rookie. Delhomme couldn't beat out either Billy Joe (Tolliver or Hobert) as a rookie. Rivers couldn't beat out Brees OR Doug Flutie as a rookie. Losman couldn't beat out Bledsoe as a rookie or Kelly Holcomb in his 2nd year Trent Green was an 8th-round pick. His 1st completed pass was 4 yrs later. And Chad couldn't beat out Vinnie as a rookie (or entering his 2nd or 3rd seasons). I bet I'm missing more (and this is just counting current starters) but if Chadophiles ran these other teams with their fear-of-worse syndrome, these QB's would never take a meaningful NFL snap because they hadn't proven anything yet. Seeing you are discussing Chad in your salary cap thread, I'd thought I would add a little blurb from profootballtalk on how Chad's performance last year will affect our salary cap.... CAVEAT ON CAP NUMBERS A prime example in this regard is Jets quarterback Chad Pennington. With doubts swirling last year at this time regarding his ability to return to form, he slashed his salary for 2006 but remained in position to earn most if not all of it back through incentive payments. And he did. Those extra payments to Pennington will thus eat into the $20 million in cap room available to the Jets. Yeah - we didn't need that money anyway. Nice post Sperm. Let me throw on a few more from years gone by. There's a long list so I'll just include 1st ballot Hall of Fame guys. Joe Montana played behind zero time pro-bowler Steve Deberg for 2 years before he finally beat him out. Then Deberg went to Tampa Bay where Steve Young held the clip board for 2 years behind him till he went to the 49's to battle Montana. Another guy named Roger Staubach labored behind or splitting time with zero time pro-bowler Craig Morton for 4 years before he nailed down the starting job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 12, 2007 Author Share Posted February 12, 2007 Seeing you are discussing Chad in your salary cap thread, I'd thought I would add a little blurb from profootballtalk on how Chad's performance last year will affect our salary cap.... CAVEAT ON CAP NUMBERS A league source has contacted us regarding the accuracy of the cap numbers that we posted earlier today. Although those numbers currently are accurate, it turns out that the numbers are incomplete. Per the source, the current numbers do not reflect several key pieces of information that will reduce the cap room available as of March 1. First, the "official" numbers have not yet been adjusted by the league to reflect so-called "not likely to be earned" incentives that players achieved in 2006. By definition, these payments do not count against a team's 2006 cap number. They hit the cap in 2007. A prime example in this regard is Jets quarterback Chad Pennington. With doubts swirling last year at this time regarding his ability to return to form, he slashed his salary for 2006 but remained in position to earn most if not all of it back through incentive payments. And he did. Those extra payments to Pennington will thus eat into the $20 million in cap room available to the Jets. They have it wrong. There was an extra $6M or so that Chad earned in playing incentives. But those were LTBE (likely to be earned) incentives & counted against the 2006 cap, not 2007. If Chad did NOT reach any or all of those incentives, we would've had a cap CREDIT (MORE than a $109 cap limit) for 2007. Playing time is pretty much always LTBE as far as I know. Examples of NLTBE incentives are like a RB getting 1500 rushing yards or a WR catching 100 passes if they've never done it before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baamf Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 They have it wrong. There was an extra $6M or so that Chad earned in playing incentives. But those were LTBE (likely to be earned) incentives & counted against the 2006 cap, not 2007. If Chad did NOT reach any or all of those incentives, we would've had a cap CREDIT (MORE than a $109 cap limit) for 2007. Playing time is pretty much always LTBE as far as I know. Examples of NLTBE incentives are like a RB getting 1500 rushing yards or a WR catching 100 passes if they've never done it before. Interesting, and not the first time that site has posted incorrect information. Is it any wonder teams have to hire "cap gurus" to keep up with this stuff.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I bet I'm missing more (and this is just counting current starters) but if Chadophiles ran these other teams with their fear-of-worse syndrome, these QB's would never take a meaningful NFL snap because they hadn't proven anything yet. Count me as a Chadophile. I agree with you about Clemens. I don't see any shame in his not starting this year. Where I have a problem with your theory is this constant harping on "fear-of-worse syndrome." Some of us don't feel Chad was that bad. He was a mid-level qb. Personally, I think you overrate our receivers a little and thereby downgrade Pennington, but that's just me. I think Clemens could turn out to be good. I didn't expect him to be able to start in '06. A lot of people were calling for him because they suffer from "nothing could be worse syndrome." I guarantee you it could and would have been worse. If Clemens beats out Pennington or even plays substantially equal to him in camp and preseason then he should start in '07. I'm not holding my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drago Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Count me as a Chadophile. I agree with you about Clemens. I don't see any shame in his not starting this year. Where I have a problem with your theory is this constant harping on "fear-of-worse syndrome." Some of us don't feel Chad was that bad. He was a mid-level qb. Personally, I think you overrate our receivers a little and thereby downgrade Pennington, but that's just me. I think Clemens could turn out to be good. I didn't expect him to be able to start in '06. A lot of people were calling for him because they suffer from "nothing could be worse syndrome." I guarantee you it could and would have been worse. If Clemens beats out Pennington or even plays substantially equal to him in camp and preseason then he should start in '07. I'm not holding my breath. As long as the Jets keep getting W's, i don't care who the QB is. May the best man win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.