If I said that, it was maybe 2 months ago, so you're reaching. Even though I do still think mariota has a higher ceiling. And not sure how any of this has to do with Madden. In fact, I think I'm being one of the only realists here. Everyone else thinks the Jets are the Yankees and can just buy JJ Watt and Peyton Manning every off season.
I don't see how it makes no sense. Paying market value for a player means you're not getting value. Plain and simple. Value is how teams win. If you can get a solid replacement player at a fraction of the cost, it's worth it to fill other holes, I think more important holes. There is so much less draft risk now bc of the CBA.
No. We understand you can't have 22 All-Pros and pay them. We get that. We all agree on that. What we think you're crazy about is that you think we should get rid of a proven high value player for the potential of another. I, and others, think it's an asinine theory. Now, if we drafted, let's say, Mariota at 6, and he turns into Tom Brady, then I'd absolutely move a DE to create cap space for a big contract.
Apparently you all don't agree. Still have Richardson too. Gonna pay both? Picked up Revis, Cro, and Skrine at not too cheap of contracts. Resigned Harris to a pricey deal. Draft Leonard Williams then instead and get Wilks replacement for cheap. I'd like to keep Wilk, but I think everyone is foolish to write off the idea of trading him simply because we all over value our players. When you pay market value, you're not getting value is the point I'm trying to make.
I don't think you refuse to pay market value for Mo unless you know for a fact you have a replacement. What if Leonard Williams fails. Then we have money and no DE. If you find a replacement at a close level, I'm all for it. But I'm not selling for possibility.
1. The replacement 95% of the time is never as good as the player you had before if he was elite. 2. Taking a QB #6 who hasn't ran a pro style offense in his 3 years of college football, and is considered a project player is laughable. Would be a HUGE Waste of a pick when we can get a future premier pass rusher in Beasley or Fowler.
I'm not sure who considers mariota a project player, but it is a comical assessment in my opinion. I agree the replacement is usually not as good. But he'd make probably 20% of what Wilk will make.
"What I don't think the fans and media understand is that all these guys like Mariota, (Johnny) Manziel and (Bryce) Petty are all pure projection players. We can see certain characteristics on tape, but they don't play the same game that we play in the NFL so we can't see things we need to on tape. We have to make calculated guesses. I know this, I wouldn't bet against Mariota. He's a good football player." -- AFC QB coach
And we're reaching again. You guys need a dictionary. Project is a different word than projection. I'm done with this agenda shit. People are going to hate mariota no matter what. This isn't even about him. This is about whether you trade a player who is going to have a big payday soon. But regardless, every thread turns into why people don't like mariota. Whether he succeeds or not, he's not at all a project.
1. Jets had Wilkerson's service for the past few years in a very cheap deal - the good faith in the negotiation should be in the trust that the organization will compensate the player, should he prove himself to be a good one. No? So, after enlisting his service on the cheap end for the past few years, the team should ship him away when they have to compensate the player? Is that the kind of message Jets should broadcast to the NFL world? Shipping an emerging young player at the end of the rookie contract? Would YOU want to work for that kind of organization? This is a common ethics. 2. Your entire logic depends on whether the #2 pick turns into gold - and you should remember that Jets are trading their proven gold nugget away for that lottery ticket. On top of that, it's not even a sure thing. If Jets are giving up a mid-tier level talent for high pick [because some sucker just wants that player so badly] then I can understand that. Minimum top 5 3-4 DE in the league for a draft pick? So let's just say, for the time being, that newly drafted kid also matures into a very good player. What do you do? Trade him away again? And hope you can pull this shit off all over again? [Remember. This is the very best scenario possible. And it looks like total shit.] Given the importance of the defensive linemen [that you just can't seem to comprehend, mind you] I just don't understand how anyone can even bother contemplating this kind of bullshit.
Talk about an agenda. You're really going to say that anybody that thinks Mariota is a project player, which he clearly is, is just a "Mariota hater"? Then I'm glad you're done because it's a waste of time to debate with you about it.
The point of most people here is 1) the track record of early 1st rd picks for the JETS over the years (no matter who was calling the shots) 2) how many times has the swap for a player for picks worked out in their favor? The only I can think of is parlaying John Abe for Mangold.... Hugh Douglas? Coles? uggghh
The funny thing is I actually agree with you and have stated as such many times already. It's a delicate balance. I think you have to decide whether to keep Wilk or Richardson when push comes to shove. I can see both. But I just think it's foolish to rule out a trade for anything. If they think mariota is the answer at QB and it takes trading Wilk to make it happen, I'm not opposed. My point is, and has always been that you have to pick and choose where to spend your money. This FO has already decided to do that with the secondary apparently, which I am not crazy about, but it is what it is at this point. I'm playing devil's advocate. I think trading Wilk for a top 5 pick is completely reasonable. I think I would do it. It's not like he's not going to get paid anyway, which is how you're making it sound. I agree that the DL is important, but I'm worried we've dumped too much into the secondary, plus still have to take care of the rest of the DL. I think the DL is much more important than the secondary, which is why I'm a bit concerned. Hopefully the cap goes up enough and we can afford to pay Wilk and Richardson and Snacks. No agenda here. I like Mariota, but won't be upset if we don't draft him. I like Wilk, but won't be upset if we get good value in a deal for him either. I'm intrigued by the new regime, but I stand by my mantra that games are won and lost because of the QB, protecting the QB, and rushing the QB, so I devalue the secondary a lot more than our team apparently does. They obviously know better. I've overstated my stance a bit. I'm not saying we have to trade Wilk because market value is market value. I mean, I have basically said that, but I've definitely overstated my stance. I did agree with your point about good faith but the more I thought about it, the more I realized it really doesn't matter. You think Richardson is going to be upset if he gets paid and Wilk doesn't? I don't. And rookies get the deal they get, and FAs go to the highest bidder most of the time and get the contract they get. So it's not outlandish to do things more the Patriot way and cut bait if it's not financially reasonable. I'm willing to let the front office decide whether they think Wilk is worth it. He's not their player anyway, so I'm curious if they'll feel the same loyalty that the fans do.
And I'm doing this on my phone so I forgot about your last statements. No, I never said you do it every time. But people are concerned that we can't afford Wilk, then just say to pay him. Well, it doesn't just work like that. If there's legitimate concern over affordability, then you absolutely have to question it and it's frankly stupid not to. Absolutely no player to me is indispensable other than a genuine franchise QB. And you only need to trade him if there's concern over that affordability. Otherwise, yes, pay the man if it's not going to hamstring you.
It's an interesting topic and something that the organization needs to address at some point. Keep in mind any contract that gets done with Wilkerson WILL directly impact the future Richardson deal. These two guys are different players and their sucess so what depends on the others ability. As most Jet fans we would all love to see these two dominate for another 5-10 years. This is why the Wilkerson deal is so important. If he wants a deal like Quinn at 15-18M than we need to explore the trade rout. My ceiling for Wilk is 12-13M a year and right now it Dosent seem like that is an option (based on rumors). Let him play on his deal this year and see how it plays out. If we are blown away with a trade offer (for me a 2&3 or a 1) then that has to be strongly considered. Coples has a similar frame and length and could hold the fort down and we could add some rotational journeymen to take snaps and keep him fresh. Not the ideal option but an option none the less. I have confidence in this new front office to make good moves for some reason. It's a fun time to be a Jets fan!
