No, it is quite unsafe to assume that. Of course I'd like to fix all of our problems via FA, and then draft McFadden. That's a dream come true scenario. But the NFL is not Madden '08. We cannot sign enough players to fill all of our holes, while still having money left to sign our draftees. Some of the holes must be filled via the draft. Besides, of any of the best players who will hit FA this offseason, how many are going to be willing to join the Jets for anything but boatloads of cash? It's not like we're going to get any rebates because a guy "wants to be a Jet". On the other hand, if the Pats offered the same guy less money (within reason), they'd win him. Such is the story for a team who is far from contending, and a perenial Super Bowl candidate. The point is, we can't just sign whoever we want. People are being wholly unrealistic with the expectation that we can solve our problems through the market. Not to mention, when was the last time the Jets spent money on the open market?
Its also wholly unrealistic to assume we won't be addressing our needs via Free Agency. This whole "draft to fill our needs" concept is out of date in the free agency era. I'm not suggesting nor have I that we'll be able to get anyone we want, but I am suggesting we can upgrade in Free Agency.
Sometimes posts on this board go around and around in circles, which is quite frustrating because it confuses legitimate arguments and makes for some very dysfunctional reading. This is the second or third post I've read within this one thread, for example, in which someone decides to refute a legitimate argument by projecting a completely opposite scenario and suggesting this is what the above writer has said. "Is it safe to assume you will not want us to improve the OL via Free Agency?" has to be a retort based on either some sort of neurological disconnect or lack of reading comprehension, or downright intellectual dishonesty, put forth for the express and intentional purpose of injecting confusion or doubt when all other logical argument fails. The holiday equilavent would be, "I don't believe in Santa Claus," followed by the argument, "Is it safe to assume then that you think the tooth fairy brings all these presents?"
^ That's great insight Sect 227 but I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uhmmm, some people out there in our nation don't have maps and uh, I believe that our, I, education like such as, uh, South Africa, and uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should, uhhh, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, should help South Africa, it should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future, for us
I didn't see where he mentioned that we should attempt to fix the OL or DL via Free Agency. Is it not safe to assume that? Quite frankly I have mentioned several times that we need to fix the OL/DL in Free Agency and draft McFadden if he is there because that is our best option in my opinion. Not jumping to draft a NT or a RT because that fills a need - which is a stupid way to draft players mind you ask SF- when you can get a player like McFadden. I'm not closed to the idea of trading the pick (and there would definitely be willing partners) but I think that would end up being a mistake. I wanted to know if Alio was opposed to the idea of trying to fix the OL/DL in free agency since he seems to be very aggressive in his ide that filling needs in the draft is the way to go. I asked a very fair question.
and just a little more on the point I do not believe we should trade up to get him. Thats not what I'm suggesting.
I haven't seen him play enough, so I have a stupid question. Is the guy even big enough to be an every down running back? If he's even remotely a tweener, even a Reggie Bush caliber tweener isn't worth it. Running back is the easiest 'skill' position to fill right off the street.
Wasn't McFadden a non-factor in at least three games this year? He was completely shut down multiple times. His performance this year has been ok. But FOURTHANDLONG makes this guy sound like the second coming of Walter Peyton. He most certainly is not.
You're going off the deep end bro. Seriously. I've never said we should not look to improve via the FA market. I simply said that we cannot fill all necessary needs through that route. We can grab a couple players through FA, but the meat of the upgrades must come through the draft. We have far too many holes to fill for it to happen solely through free agent signings. We need at least 2 each on both the oline and dline. We need a true fullback. We need a quality corner to play opposite Revis. We need at least one more linebacker truly suited to the 3-4. We need a safety. We arguably need a true #1 wide receiver. How many of those needs can be filled with free agents? You did not ask a "very fair question". You've simply twisted what I've said repeatedly to support the idea that there is no reason not to draft McFadden, and that anyone who thinks differently must clearly be wrong.
Quit trying to confuse the McFadden issue with straight-forward facts, sound reasoning and logical thought process, it'll get you nowhere.
McFadden.... sounds like the next McFad if you ask me. Trade the pick down to someone willing to give up multi picks so we can spread the love around the draft and possibly hit a couple of gems somewhere. One guy does not make a team. :up:
Oh no, you're quite wrong. We have to have this guy. He's a one-man team. In fact, with McFadden, all you need on the field is a Center to snap the ball and a QB to hand it off to him. He's so damned good he doesn't even need an O-line, and that's great, 'cause we don't have one anyway, nor do we need one. But that's the point, who cares about the lines? In fact, why even worry about them? And let's not worry about getting him at #5. If he's available at #3, all we have to give bundle up our 2nd Round pick and trade that and our 1st Round #5 to move up to #3, just so the Patriots don't take this guy, that's how stinkin' good he is and how bad we need to keep him away from NE.
for the record, i've argued both sides - for and against taking McFadden. regarding your holes: 1. two OL and DL - let's say we get two in FA (e.g. Starks, Floyd Womack, Jordan Gross) 2. FB - you don't have to spend a draft pick here; sign an undrafted rookie. 3. CB - can be drafted after Rd1 4. OLB - can be signed in FA or drafted after Rd1 5. S - can be drafted after Rd1 6. WR - can be drafted after Rd1 let's say hypothetically that McFadden is the selection with the above. that means, two picks need to be sent on the DL, one on CB, one on OLB, one on S, one on WR. that's a total of 7 picks. it's unrealistic for us to think that all 7 will contribute, let alone make the team. that means that taking McFadden will still leave us with holes after both FA and the draft. let's say we don't take McFadden, we still have don't have enough picks that address all the holes; we'd still have to hope that all of our picks pan out, which is also just as unrealistic. either way you slice it, we're not addressing all the holes this year. if that's the case, i'd like to start addressing them AND get McFadden rather than start addressing them and not get McFadden.
Well... I guess if WE don't have an OL, then he doesn't have to fight through those 6 people up front, or get tripped up on them. He can head straight through the defense. Maybe we'll score faster that way. Yeah, you know I wasn't thinking about New England in all of that. They are likely to be picking very close to us. We'd have to make sure we are trading McFadden to anyone outside of the division. Especiallly with our run defense.
