Jump to content

OG Adrien Clarke


Untouchable
 Share

Recommended Posts

We can point out plenty of 5th, 6th, and 7th round picks that have come into this league as rookies and played exceptionally well. That's fine. But that doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do, especially when you have an above average starter already at the position.

If Adrien Clarke were to come into camp in an open competition against Pete Kendall and win the starting job, then Kudos to him. Please, go ahead and protect my franchise quarterback. You EARNED it.

But this most certainly won't be the case. Pete's in the doghouse, and we all know how that story goes. He's currently practicing with the second team and as any intelligent fan knows, he isn't second-team material on an average-at-best Jets offensive line.

If my quarterback were Brett Favre, I wouldn't be so concerned about starting a kid with 4 games of Pro experience. But we have a China Doll playing quarterback who's out for the year of one stupid mistake is made from a kid with 4 games experience.

Call me insane, but who's more likely to misread his assignment and miss a block that could cost our quarterback his career? A twelve year starter in Pete Kendall or Adrien Clarke with 4 games experience?

Mangini's M.O. has been that he's prefers smart players over meat-heads who can't tell their ass from their elbow. Kendall's a smart player who rarely makes a mistake.

Good post. I guess i never thought of Clarke as a meat-head. I hope he isn't all meat and no brains, i don't care that he was a late round pick, it would have been a waste.

I am still all set to resent Revis if he doesn't pan out. We could have had Blalock with that early second pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can point out plenty of 5th, 6th, and 7th round picks that have come into this league as rookies and played exceptionally well. That's fine. But that doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do, especially when you have an above average starter already at the position.

If Adrien Clarke were to come into camp in an open competition against Pete Kendall and win the starting job, then Kudos to him. Please, go ahead and protect my franchise quarterback. You EARNED it.

But this most certainly won't be the case. Pete's in the doghouse, and we all know how that story goes. He's currently practicing with the second team and as any intelligent fan knows, he isn't second-team material on an average-at-best Jets offensive line.

If my quarterback were Brett Favre, I wouldn't be so concerned about starting a kid with 4 games of Pro experience. But we have a China Doll playing quarterback who's out for the year of one stupid mistake is made from a kid with 4 games experience.

Call me insane, but who's more likely to misread his assignment and miss a block that could cost our quarterback his career? A twelve year starter in Pete Kendall or Adrien Clarke with 4 games experience?

Mangini's M.O. has been that he's prefers smart players over meat-heads who can't tell their ass from their elbow. Kendall's a smart player who rarely makes a mistake.

An OG missing a block (???), thats news to me. Maybe while run-blocking; but that's an area of strength (or better, an upgrade) in Clarke's game. I think you're forgetting what Thomas Jones and Barnes bring to the table. Their presence should assist in the protection of Chad. Including them in the discussion, every play can have up to seven pass-blockers, before the backs release onto their dump-off routes.

We need help in run-blocking, once again, an area of liability for Kendall, but one of strength for the younger, bigger, quicker Clarke.

Yes Mangini has stated that he'd prefer to start a heady player over one that was more athletic.... From the article I recall, this pertained to Coleman and Smith (EriK and EriC), where he stated that he'd prefer to start a player who didn't make mental mistakes over a player with better athleticism. When playing safety a missed assignment can turn into a TD. When dealing with a Guard: that was unsuccessfully traded for a meager fourth-round pick, who is declining in talent, hurts the left-side of the line, and challenges the foundation of the locker-room... I'd say taking a flier on a younger talent is inevitable, and far less risky at the LG position than any other position on the team. This board wouldn't object to starting Ben Grubbs, or Justin Blalock in Kendall's place, would they?

There's a reason we're dumping Kendall, and it has nothing to do with $1 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw we cut kendall, start clark and if clark ends pennyboy's career with a missed black, so be it. At least we'll get to see what kelly clemens has.

...and when Clemens shoulder gets seperated?

An OG missing a block (???), thats news to me. Maybe while run-blocking; but that's an area of strength (or better, an upgrade) in Clarke's game. I think you're forgetting what Thomas Jones and Barnes bring to the table. Their presence should assist in the protection of Chad. Including them in the discussion, every play can have up to seven pass-blockers, before the backs release onto their dump-off routes.

We need help in run-blocking, once again, an area of liability for Kendall, but one of strength for the younger, bigger, quicker Clarke.

Yes Mangini has stated that he'd prefer to start a heady player over one that was more athletic.... From the article I recall, this pertained to Coleman and Smith (EriK and EriC), where he stated that he'd prefer to start a player who didn't make mental mistakes over a player with better athleticism. When playing safety a missed assignment can turn into a TD. When dealing with a Guard: that was unsuccessfully traded for a meager fourth-round pick, who is declining in talent, hurts the left-side of the line, and challenges the foundation of the locker-room... I'd say taking a flier on a younger talent is inevitable, and far less risky at the LG position than any other position on the team. This board wouldn't object to starting Ben Grubbs, or Justin Blalock in Kendall's place, would they?

There's a reason we're dumping Kendall, and it has nothing to do with $1 million.

NEWSFLASH: We haven't "dumped" Kendall and if we do it will only be because of money. Clarke may be good, but we have very little reason to count on him. Where do you get "quicker" from? If everybody lived up to their mini-camp articles every team would have eighty pro-bowlers. I'm all for giving him every opportunity to beat Kendall out, but saving a few bucks (that we can't even use on another player) and starting a guard who is probably worse is not my idea of a good offseason. They should have seen this coming. AFAIK, Clarke is not Grubbs or Blalock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and when Clemens shoulder gets seperated?

NEWSFLASH: We haven't "dumped" Kendall and if we do it will only be because of money. Clarke may be good, but we have very little reason to count on him. Where do you get "quicker" from? If everybody lived up to their mini-camp articles every team would have eighty pro-bowlers. I'm all for giving him every opportunity to beat Kendall out, but saving a few bucks (that we can't even use on another player) and starting a guard who is probably worse is not my idea of a good offseason. They should have seen this coming. AFAIK, Clarke is not Grubbs or Blalock.

Oh, shut your face. I would imagine Kendall's mutinous attendence habits, his whining to the press, and his tattling of "FO back-stabbing" would sooner find his release than a better paycheck...

Do you seriously think we can't afford to keep him if we wanted to? His ineviteble release has less to do with salary, and more to do with pride and performance.

All of this behavior is probably sprouted from Mangini inspired trade-inquiries. You don't see coincidence in his draft-day trade-block stature and sudden salary demands? EM has been wanting to rid the team of Kendall since his (Mangini's) arrival. Kendall took a cut to stay with the team. He mentored some rookies; and he still underperformed his OL duties.... Did he have many false-starts? No. Moore did and he wasn't trade-bait.... What does that tell you?

Kendall knows it's time to move on, and he's forcing the motion. It's less embarassing to change teams under the notion of salary discrepencies than it is to admit being down-sized. Jmac had a difficult time with it at first, too.

Maybe someone's better. Bigger, quicker, (definitely younger and cheaper). Like I said before, Mangini comes from a place where OG's are plucked off of wrestling-mats and decathalon fields.... They do not require the big bucks. Players who think otherwise can be offered up for fourth-round picks... and players who cannot solicit such offers, well, they just end up making fools of themselves. :box:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and NEWSFLASH.... Kendall is so intent on leaving the team that he distanced himself from teammates on the sideline when playing with the second team.

Doesn't sound like keeping him aboard will be for any reason other than to extract more trade value (worth) out of him, or to piss him off...

Consider him dumped like a whiny high school girlfriend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not following your logic or lack thereof. The Jets don't want to give Kendall a raise. Kendall is starting trouble to get a raise. THAT IS BECAUSE OF MONEY. Why did Deion Branch leave the Pats last year? Was it because of money or because they didn't like his haircut?

You seem to think that the Jets should cut or bench Kendall out of spite and that Mangini has been looking to dump Kendall since he arrived. If that is the case why did ol' Pete start all those games? Spite?

You seem to have the timeline all wrong, though I'm not sure anybody is 100% sure. The way I understand it: Kendall sat down with Tannenbaum and demanded a raise because he felt underpaid with all the crazy $$ guards are getting. Rather than pay him, the Jets tried to shop him during the draft and found no takers at their asking price (apparently a 4th). Kendall is pissed because he isn't getting traded and isn't getting cut so he is starting to cause trouble. According to all reports they were shopping him because of his contract demands, NOT vice versa. I have never seen one person suggest that Kendall asked for the money after the draft and trading a guy who started all last year at his low salary when you are under the cap would have been stupid to begin with.

You also seem to misunderstand my feelings on the subject. I don't necessarily think the Jets should pay Kendall. He's old and it sets a bad precedent. My problem with the situation is that they knew or should have known they had a problem with Kendall. OG is already a weak spot and they did nothing to address it during the off-season. Bender? He's a project and a T. Wade Smith? He couldn't crack the lineup last year and when he played most recently it was at T. Not in love with Dolphin rejects on the OLine anyway. Clarke? Maybe, but it seems they should have somebody more concrete, especially since they should have been bringing in competition for Moore also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27,

I like your response,

(For the record, Branch's haircut hasn't gone over very well in Seattle either. ;) )

Perhaps we aren't seeing each other on this one... Maybe we won't, but hear me out.

Sometimes a good debate will open avenues of thought. What's the point of a forum without speculation, right?

What if Kendall's soon-to-release has nothing to do with money? What if his release is strictly performance and/or age based? The other trifecta mentioned in trade-talks (Barton, Barrett, and McCareins) look to be recieving roughly $3 million (a piece) this season. From all accounts, Jmac has been impressing; he might stick. Barrett has been playing with the first team, and so has Barton... But come on, we know how they measure up. If money was truly an issue, one (if not all three) of these guys will be gone after July.

Mawae got cut the day EM stepped in New Jersey, Kendall wasn't far behind when the axe came out.

I think the ultimate decision came draft-day '06. While Kendall has "assisted" the progression of our rookies; that's the job of our coaches. D'Brick is having weight issues, and Kendall is an undersized guard. Connected, makes for a light left-side. That's a problem. Combined, the left-side of the line needs to add about 80 lbs of man....

When push comes to shove, who do you let go? The first-round pick from a season ago? or the aging locker-room lawyer with a Boston accent?

Mangini needs to be looking one-season ahead, at all times. I think our year is in '08, I think it's been '08 since EM showed up; and while last year was amazing, we shouldn't get too worked up until '08... In looking ahead, does anyone see Kendall being a part of our long-term plans? No. He's too old.

Money is money, we have plenty of it to throw around; if we wanted to post-pone this drama, sure, we could wait another season... But why? Lets allow a young talent to work the bugs out....

While the contract "talks" may have served as the media-driven catalyst for Kendall's movement; I doubt this organization will let valued players escape them. This is the team that scours college decathalon fields, Elk's clubs, hospital beds, and European soccer fields to find its players. This is the team that with only six draft-picks moved up twice to get players. When we find a player we like, we do everything in our power to get, and retain his services.

Do you really think that a measly million dollars (I say that like I'm a playboy) is going to get in the way of keeping desired players?

Kendall is aging. He doesn't fit our long-term plans, his little contractual fit is only forcing the hand. Make no mistake about it, if he was wanted, his salary would reflect that; his phone-calls would be returned, his back would be rubbed, and we'd cut his hair, to his liking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27,

I like your response,

(For the record, Branch's haircut hasn't gone over very well in Seattle either. ;) )

Perhaps we aren't seeing each other on this one... Maybe we won't, but hear me out.

Sometimes a good debate will open avenues of thought. What's the point of a forum without speculation, right?

What if Kendall's soon-to-release has nothing to do with money? What if his release is strictly performance and/or age based? The other trifecta mentioned in trade-talks (Barton, Barrett, and McCareins) look to be recieving roughly $3 million (a piece) this season. From all accounts, Jmac has been impressing; he might stick. Barrett has been playing with the first team, and so has Barton... But come on, we know how they measure up. If money was truly an issue, one (if not all three) of these guys will be gone after July.

Mawae got cut the day EM stepped in New Jersey, Kendall wasn't far behind when the axe came out.

I think the ultimate decision came draft-day '06. While Kendall has "assisted" the progression of our rookies; that's the job of our coaches. D'Brick is having weight issues, and Kendall is an undersized guard. Connected, makes for a light left-side. That's a problem. Combined, the left-side of the line needs to add about 80 lbs of man....

When push comes to shove, who do you let go? The first-round pick from a season ago? or the aging locker-room lawyer with a Boston accent?

Mangini needs to be looking one-season ahead, at all times. I think our year is in '08, I think it's been '08 since EM showed up; and while last year was amazing, we shouldn't get too worked up until '08... In looking ahead, does anyone see Kendall being a part of our long-term plans? No. He's too old.

Money is money, we have plenty of it to throw around; if we wanted to post-pone this drama, sure, we could wait another season... But why? Lets allow a young talent to work the bugs out....

While the contract "talks" may have served as the media-driven catalyst for Kendall's movement; I doubt this organization will let valued players escape them. This is the team that scours college decathalon fields, Elk's clubs, hospital beds, and European soccer fields to find its players. This is the team that with only six draft-picks moved up twice to get players. When we find a player we like, we do everything in our power to get, and retain his services.

Do you really think that a measly million dollars (I say that like I'm a playboy) is going to get in the way of keeping desired players?

Kendall is aging. He doesn't fit our long-term plans, his little contractual fit is only forcing the hand. Make no mistake about it, if he was wanted, his salary would reflect that; his phone-calls would be returned, his back would be rubbed, and we'd cut his hair, to his liking.

Yes, I do think a measly million dollars may keep us from keeping Kendall. Not because we don't have the cap room or money, but because we don't want to encourage future hold outs by caving on a guy who we are probably looking to replace anyway. If they were looking to cut Kendall because he couldn't play, why not just cut him? He'd be happy, he's said that outright. Kendall isn't in the long term plans. He's old and no superstar, so there is no reason to pay him and have every player that has a good season looking to renegotiate. Make no mistake though, if he showed up in camp ready to play at his current salary they'd be happy to have him. So the difference is money. They certainly didn't get a clear cut replacement - something they did for both Barrett and Barton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I do think a measly million dollars may keep us from keeping Kendall. Not because we don't have the cap room or money, but because we don't want to encourage future hold outs by caving on a guy who we are probably looking to replace anyway. If they were looking to cut Kendall because he couldn't play, why not just cut him? He'd be happy, he's said that outright. Kendall isn't in the long term plans. He's old and no superstar, so there is no reason to pay him and have every player that has a good season looking to renegotiate. Make no mistake though, if he showed up in camp ready to play at his current salary they'd be happy to have him. So the difference is money. They certainly didn't get a clear cut replacement - something they did for both Barrett and Barton.

I've posted this before, but trading up for revis really killed our draft. Revis has to be a border line All-Pro by year 3 or its a waste. We could have shored up this damn O-line for a decade had we kept that early second. Same goes for harris, i really hope these guys are good, but knowing we could have drafted Alan Branch, or Blalock, or Grubbs, it just kills me to think of what could have been.

On the other hand, and least Tangini had the stones to make moves they think will pay off. If they missed the boat on this, it will be an enormous mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah with the Pats adding Stallworth, Moss, Welker the Jets should have drafted a guard instead of Revis! :confused:

You have a point, to a degree. Say what you want about him, but Houston was available to us at 24, so we could have adressed the need and still grabbed a guard.

Even if we didn't take a CB, having a guad could help against the other teams offense by not going 3 and out every time we decide to run the ball twice in a series.

Guard, IMO, would be a better long term solution. (as i said, i really hope revis is the real deal, it just seems we bet the farm on this guy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I do think a measly million dollars may keep us from keeping Kendall. Not because we don't have the cap room or money, but because we don't want to encourage future hold outs by caving on a guy who we are probably looking to replace anyway. If they were looking to cut Kendall because he couldn't play, why not just cut him? He'd be happy, he's said that outright. Kendall isn't in the long term plans. He's old and no superstar, so there is no reason to pay him and have every player that has a good season looking to renegotiate. Make no mistake though, if he showed up in camp ready to play at his current salary they'd be happy to have him. So the difference is money. They certainly didn't get a clear cut replacement - something they did for both Barrett and Barton.

This is kinda the focus of my argument. Both Cotch and Thomas recieved contract extensions before things got sticky. Kendall, whose blasting-of-the-organization-interview includes multiple references to his attempts to fix all of this "under the radar". If he was a wanted player Tanny (the guru) could've figured out a way to pay the man. Mangini would've returned his phone-calls, and a completely different road would have been travelled.

I agree that at this point, ponying up the cash would encourage future hold-outs. If you give a screaming toddler some candy, he learns to scream when he wants candy.... We cannot encourage that sort of behavior.

But notice what I've underlined. First off, I agree that had "he [shown] up to camp ready to play" that we'd be happy to have him. Considering his demands aren't that hefty. He would've probably been in a competition role for a starting spot, and might have lost it gracefully this summer (like you said in your initial post)... But Kendall is a great player to have for depth. He might be the best back-up in the league.

I think I just figured out this tangle. For Kendall, yes, the difference is money. For Kendall it is all about the money. However, for this team, the difference is ability, longevity, and selflessness. Kendall has failed in those categories, and gives this team no good reason to keep him aboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is kinda the focus of my argument. Both Cotch and Thomas recieved contract extensions before things got sticky. Kendall, whose blasting-of-the-organization-interview includes multiple references to his attempts to fix all of this "under the radar". If he was a wanted player Tanny (the guru) could've figured out a way to pay the man. Mangini would've returned his phone-calls, and a completely different road would have been travelled.

I agree that at this point, ponying up the cash would encourage future hold-outs. If you give a screaming toddler some candy, he learns to scream when he wants candy.... We cannot encourage that sort of behavior.

But notice what I've underlined. First off, I agree that had "he [shown] up to camp ready to play" that we'd be happy to have him. Considering his demands aren't that hefty. He would've probably been in a competition role for a starting spot, and might have lost it gracefully this summer (like you said in your initial post)... But Kendall is a great player to have for depth. He might be the best back-up in the league.

I think I just figured out this tangle. For Kendall, yes, the difference is money. For Kendall it is all about the money. However, for this team, the difference is ability, longevity, and selflessness. Kendall has failed in those categories, and gives this team no good reason to keep him aboard.

I respectfully disagree. For the Jets it's about money. If Kendall, despite his yapping, missing OTAs and any questionable actvities this mini-camp, were to say **** it, I'll play for my current salary there is no question that Tannenbaum and Mangini would be very happy to keep him on the team. He'd also probably be a near lock to start opening day which is what worries me.

Also, they aren't not paying Kendall because as a screaming toddler he'd do it again, it's because the other screaming toddlers on the Jets would do the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respectfully disagree. For the Jets it's about money. If Kendall, despite his yapping, missing OTAs and any questionable actvities this mini-camp, were to say **** it, I'll play for my current salary there is no question that Tannenbaum and Mangini would be very happy to keep him on the team. He'd also probably be a near lock to start opening day which is what worries me.

Also, they aren't not paying Kendall because as a screaming toddler he'd do it again, it's because the other screaming toddlers on the Jets would do the same thing.

I dont know. We had the opportunity to make a play for multiple OL prospects both through the draft and FA, even with Kendalls paycheck concerns in the mix.

I can't say that he'd be a shoe-in starter.

It's possible, but something has to change on that line, and we know it isn't going to be Nick or Furgie. Clement just got resigned, so it's one of the other interior spots.

I think regarding Kendall, (our light lefty), his replacement is already on deck, and that its time for a changing of the guards (sorry for the ridiculously accurate pun).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...