Speculation: Jets can't keep both Holmes & Edwards-NY Post

Damn, the title of the thread made me think they were keeping both definitely, lol. hoping for the best.. I'm on the fence on who id rather have stay. Braylon had a great year keeping drops to a minimum.

 

This sounds like pure speculation especially with no CBA in place yet. My personal preference is if we had to only sign one to sign Edwards. Him and Sanchez seem to have a better connection but then again that could be because he had an extra year with Braylon. I also think it's tough to find a guy with size like that who can be tough to bring down and is not afraid to take a big hit. I think your more likely to find a speedy guy with good hands in the Holmes mold. I mean look how easily Pitt replaced him. Another thing to consider is that if we have to go with one of these guys and cotchery as our 1-2 next season I think Edwards and Cotch compliment themselves a little better than Holmes and Cotch. It will definitely be interesting to see where this goes. I'm sure Sanchez will be solicited for his opinion as well if it comes down to one or the other.

 

yeah uhhhh you should rename the thread, because it's 100% opposite of what everybody will think.

anyway here is the article.

Agents: Jets can't keep both Edwards and Holmes
Jets Blog

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/jets...both_wrs_ctzIPkkHUZaaXObyXEgsHM#ixzz1CFGMYOx1

 

Bringing BOTH back would be my priority. I think the Jets are making a mistake.

 

Aside from the misleading title with the wrong newspaper and not posting the article (link only), you did a great job with this thread. /smartass

You never know what could happen. If they both honestly want to stay w/the jets and keep playing together we could get a discount. I'm sure we'll see 500 more articles about this throughout the long offseason. Without a CBA all of them will be nothing but speculation.

 

I'd take a good safety over either one of them, honestly.

 

well that doesnt sound too good now does it?

i love how the clown who wrote this article thinks a WR like Randy Moss, or T.O. will be able to replace Braylon. We all know Moss won't block for anybody, and T.O. is a prick, and 38.

 

This. David Harris being re-signed is a non-issue...its not even a question.

If I'm given an option between 2 of Cromartie, Edwards, and Holmes I'd choose to keep the Flight Boys together b/c:

1. We just drafted a Cornerback with a first rounder who will be relegated to the nickel for the foreseeable future if we sign AC long-term.

2. The most important thing right now is to continue our young franchise QB's progression and give him two great WRs is tantamount.

 

Exactly...the less change and more continuity for MS, the better. That includes Schotty.

 

I would much rather keep both and let Cromartie walk. We drafted a corner #1 last year, he should be ready for an increased role in year 2.

 

Hate to be a darksider but there is always the new contract reason for his playing this season.

 

He didn't have as many drops as people think in 2009 and he had a good year considering he came over after 4 games and was playing w/ a rookie QB on a run happy team.

 

We better not get rid of Braylon.

 

Well if we can't sign everybody, at least we'll walk away with compensatory picks for next year.

 

I agree with u on this. Some players play extra hard and focused on contract years, then pump the brakes after a big pay day. I just hope that's not the case if they decide to go with Braylon.

 

Pure speculation. I'm convinced that the Jets will sign both.

 

aye i would rather let cromartie walk, and let Kyle Wilson step up. Wtf did we draft Kyle for? Not to give him a shot? Atleast Kyle is more physical, and a better tackler.. we can give him the edge in that department for now.

Our offense should be ALOT better next year. The defense can take a hit. Revis with a full training camp will be a monster, and I expect Wilson to be a good player.

 

"Agents don't think Jets can't keep both Edwards and Holmes"

can't really give much credence to an article with a double negative in the title that actually means the opposite of what the article is claiming. if agents don't think they can't keep both, it means the agents think they can keep both. if a newspaper doesn't grasp that basic fact of language structure, it pretty much invalidates anything they say.

the only thing that could have given it less credibility is if they would have replaced every use of "have" with "of" like every other idiot nowadays.