I can't really vote. If we signed Bell I would obviously not be mad. But if we didn't and spent the money elsewhere, I'd have to see where and how. So it's kind of hard to say. What I can say is I don't think we HAVE to.
Costello had a reality check in the New York Post either yesterday or this morning. Most likely, all of the top-tier pass rushers are going to be locked up before free agency even begins. At best one or two of them is going to be available. While this does suck because I’d love to be able to wine and dine as many of them as possible in hopes of signing them, it’s a little bit of a wake up call for the fanbase. The notion that spending a lot of money on Bell is going to hinder us elsewhere has always been crazy, but when you actually look at the situation on paper you really see how little of a problem that actually is. Lawrence is the big fish here and he’d command around $18-20 mil. He’ll also have multiple suitors. If Bell’s cap number is around $12 mil and Lawrence were to be around $12-15 mil then what’s the issue here? You have more than 75% of your available cap space remaining. And the odds of two big time pass rushers being available are low so we have to stop pretending we need to allot $40 mil to that one area. Basically, wavering on a contract offer for Bell because you’re worried about being able to sign multiple big name guys is irresponsible.
I don't think my wavering has anything to do with being able to sign other big name free agents. I don't think it will because (i) we're not the only team in the world with a lot of cap space and (ii) none of these players are Jet fans dying to play for us (or any other team) they are fans of themselves and therefore we're not loading up the top 6 free agents just because we're the Jets with a billion dollars to spend. My wavering is giving $18 million to a massive risk of possibly zero returns. Again, generational talent, one of the most exciting signings and players we've had in forever, would be a huge asset to Sam and as @FJF points out it's not my money. But you can't deny that there's a serious risk with this dude from suspension to mileage on his legs to a propensity to quit to the Wilk 2.0 factor to him being out a full year (could be good but could be very bad--we just don't know) to him generally being an asshole. I want him. I'm just ascared.
We are Jets fans. We are conditioned to be scared of literally everything our team does, and rightfully so. But I would much rather be scared about a generational talent being a bust at 27 years old than being scared about whether or not the two JAGs we signed at RB can do anything for our 21 year old franchise QB.
I dont believe Bell is a "generational talent." That gets tossed around too much. He is a great football player but he is not the best running back of this generation
He’s more unique to this generation of running backs than most other running back‘s. He is a fantastic runner and just as good of a pass catcher. He’s probably the best dual threat that we’ve seen since the league has taken a shift toward being predominately offensive.
The league has taken a shift towards being predominately offensive since the mid 2000s .If you want to lump him in that "era" he's certainly not better than guys like Adrian Peterson or Ladainian Tomlinson. If you just want to focus on the recent running back renaissance then you lump him in with guys like Ezekiel Elliott, Todd Gurley, Christian McCaffrey, Alvin Kamara and Saquon Barkley. I don't think he is better than any of them either. "generational" he is not
I don't think you need to be the best of a generation to be called a generational talent. There are IMHO 4-5 generational talented WRs right now in the league and all can't be the "best". Moss and Megatron played at the same time--was one not generational? If Bell isn't the best--he is certainly one of the most supremely talented RBs in the league over the past 5 years. That to me is a "generational" talent. But we're quibbling about semantics--he's been a top 1-2-3-4 RB in the league since he came into the league--up until he sat out.
that's fair, I guess it depends on your definition of generational. I think if you can list as many as 5 players as "generational" it defeats the purpose of the term. I think it should refer to only the very best and someone who stands out among his peers as the best of an entire generation. But that's my definition.
Look, I'm not pushing anyone that we desperately need to sign the guy but he's been in the league for 5 years and he was twice First Team All Pro and once Second Team All Pro. Not Pro Bowl--ALL PRO. Three years out of five. He didn't make All Pro as a rookie partially because he was injured and he didn't make All Pro his 3rd year because of suspension and then injury. So literally every full year he's played he's in he's been an All Pro. On that arc he's going to the Hall of Fame. THAT is a generational talent. It's the suspension factor and the mileage that scares me.
I think it has to do with guys at positions that year in and year out are the top 1-3 players at that position. Is Rogers not a generational talent because of Brady? Brady and Manning? Is one generational and one not? It's just semantics. Bell has been as good or better than all of the guys you listed. And I don't even like the guy.
I would say Tomlinson is the closest comparison for Bell (LT was better, I'm saying in terms of all-around talent). He's better than every other guy you listed or at least he was the last time played, and I LOVE Gurley, Zeke and Kamara.
Two totally different types of runners but their impact on the game is very similar. I think Kamara will get there and McCaffrey has a shot as well. Barkley I'm still TBD on.
Yeah Kamara is the funny one. And not ha-ha funny. Reports were that some in the FO really wanted to move up to get Kamara but McCag's decided against it and sat back and took that other generational talent Ardarius Stewart.
