Jump to content

Jets and Coles close (Merged)


LockeJET

Recommended Posts

Sign him then trade him. I, for one, am tired of his sorry act.

I never thought the day would come when I would say this, but I really want to get rid of Levraneus Coles and go ahead and get good draft pick(s)

WR-HARDY AT #36 OR FROM #6 TRADE DOWN!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laveranues Coles negotiating with Jets

The Jets and the representatives for unhappy wide receiver Laveranues Coles are close to hammering out a compromise in a contract stalemate that would result in the veteran reporting to the team's voluntary offseason workouts later this week or early next week, according to someone familiar with the ongoing negotiations. That person spoke on the condition of anonymity because he's not authorized to speak publicly for the team. It's unclear what type of agreement the Jets and Coles are nearing, but the person characterized it as a "win-win for both sides." Coles' agent, Roosevelt Barnes, was unavailable for comment. The Jets don't comment on contract talks per team policy. Coles, who is seeking a long-term deal, was a no-show yesterday for the first day of the Jets' offseason program. -- Newark Star-Ledger

Now hopeful he can stop whining once he gets a new deal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think LC has ever been a problem in terms of on-field motivation, never been lazy in that sense. We should reverse this on him, if he's talking such a big game then can we put performance based incentives in the contract? IE, if you perform like a #1 receiver, we'll pay you like it? Call his bluff, if he really thinks he's worth that let him show it. If he can actually go out and grab 15+ TDs and 1500+ yards, I don't see any harm in paying him the big bucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that LC has had a mouth as of late.. he's gotten older (still younger than Moss or TO) and has had some injuries... but I'm a tad bit confused when people say he's not a #1 receiver. Suppose you threw all existent WRs into a pool, and all NFL teams had to re-draft receivers in the same way they re-draft rookies. To me, a #1 would be somebody who gets pick in that top 32. Am I wrong? And there's no way he wouldn't get picked in that top 32, that first round.. no way in hell.

Sorry for the double post, I think I meant to post this on the other Coles thread. Not sure how that happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never thought the day would come when I would say this, but I really want to get rid of Levraneus Coles and go ahead and get good draft pick(s)

WR-HARDY AT #36 OR FROM #6 TRADE DOWN!!!!

Sadly I must agree. I'm getting tired of his act. Let's not forget that he left once before for more $$. Let's see how long he is happy with this new deal. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think LC has ever been a problem in terms of on-field motivation, never been lazy in that sense. We should reverse this on him, if he's talking such a big game then can we put performance based incentives in the contract? IE, if you perform like a #1 receiver, we'll pay you like it? Call his bluff, if he really thinks he's worth that let him show it. If he can actually go out and grab 15+ TDs and 1500+ yards, I don't see any harm in paying him the big bucks.

Those are, to the best of my knowledge, expressly prohibited in NFL contracts. You can not tie compensation to performance.

I understand that LC has had a mouth as of late.. he's gotten older (still younger than Moss or TO) and has had some injuries... but I'm a tad bit confused when people say he's not a #1 receiver. Suppose you threw all existent WRs into a pool, and all NFL teams had to re-draft receivers in the same way they re-draft rookies. To me, a #1 would be somebody who gets pick in that top 32. Am I wrong? And there's no way he wouldn't get picked in that top 32, that first round.. no way in hell.

Sorry for the double post, I think I meant to post this on the other Coles thread. Not sure how that happened.

That just means there aren't 32 #1 WRs in the NFL then. You don't just designate a guy #1 because he's the #1 WR on that team. It's more of a talent demarcation. For instance, in baseball, a pitcher is considered an "Ace." It doesn't mean if your #1 guy on a ****ty team is ****ty he's suddenly an Ace. It also doesn't make an Ace on a deeper rotation a non-Ace.

That's the thing about Coles. He is not #1 WR potential in talent. The NFL might not have even 20 of those types. 20 go-to guys. There are some TEs that fill that role on some teams too, just because there's a WR there doesn't make that change either.

Coles is a #2 type, maybe a bottom tier #1, which is hard to consider a #1 anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that LC has had a mouth as of late.. he's gotten older (still younger than Moss or TO) and has had some injuries... but I'm a tad bit confused when people say he's not a #1 receiver. Suppose you threw all existent WRs into a pool, and all NFL teams had to re-draft receivers in the same way they re-draft rookies. To me, a #1 would be somebody who gets pick in that top 32. Am I wrong? And there's no way he wouldn't get picked in that top 32, that first round.. no way in hell.

Sorry for the double post, I think I meant to post this on the other Coles thread. Not sure how that happened.

Never happen. You can tie smaller bonuses to making the pro bowl or leading the league in a category, but it wouldn't be much anyway. Not to mention, you can't have a receiver say "I refuse to run clear routes" because his compensation is tied to his own stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...