http://www.espn.com/blog/new-york-j...-see-more-josh-allen-schedule-private-workout He''s scheduled a private workout with Josh Allen. Could it be due dilligence or a smokescreen. But if he wants to trade further giving up more valuable draft pieces, why didn't he just go for it all and went for Clevelands #1. Now it looks like he did just enough to lose out on whomever he targeted.
Heres what I don't get,,,now again is it true or not ? -----> but it says he did not contact the G men about the # 2 pick ? I would have at least made the call and asked what they wanted, heck I would have called the Browns too---just to say what they would want for the pick ? its only a call
The general rule of thumb for pre-draft news is that if someone says they are considering something, they almost certainly are not. You can file this, along with the news that the Browns might take Josh Allen with the #1 pick, under “bullshit”.
He tried to get Cleveland's #1 and he also tried to get the Giant's #2 and both were too expensive at the time.
The article doesn't suggest a trade is imminent. It's also right, this IS smoke screen season. Every action sends a signal that will be interpreted fifteen different ways. Jets action is to give Allen a private workout. One person thinks they are drafting him for sure, another thinks smoke screen for sure, another thinks another trade is in the works, another thinks this is a clear indication they are drafting Lamar Jackson. All part of the game.
It's par for the course, most teams in the top are bringing in these guys for private workouts. Its due diligence. It's not like they met secretly in a diner somewhere and had breakfast like they did with Hackenberg.
Mac said he did not he did not talk with the Giants but he also said in the same statement that the Jets inquired with the Giants about their pick. When you see some people post that the Jets did try to get the Giants pick it is true. When others say Mac did not speak with the Giants GM about the pick that is also true. More often that not GMs use very precise language. It pays to actually read the language as on its face a statement might be misleading or appear to be in conflict with other statements without looking at the precise language used.
"Talk" and "contact" are very different words. I believe "contact" encompasses all forms of communication. "John Mara, asked if the Jets ever contacted the Giants about trading up to get to No. 2 in this draft: "They did not.''" Now, if you are playing semantics, it is not clear if the Giants contacted the Jets about swapping picks.
None of this suggests to me Mac is dimwitted. It's probably just a smokescreen. Reports are he reached out to the Browns for number one, maybe he's going to check back in with them closer to draft time. I dont think I would mind a guaranteed shot at Darnold. But again, probably just posturing.
I believe that article also said that they contacted Cleveland about the #1 pick but it would have required next years #1 and they thought that was too much to give up.
My mistake, I listened to the pundits and we all know how accurate they are, I do think if we don't get the #2 somebody else will, probably Buffalo and maybe Denver.
My apologies I just re-read the Newsday statements by Mac and they are in conflict. At one point he said the Jets never contacted the Giants then later he said "we inquired, and you just do your due diligence when you try to go up higher. " His statements are in conflict with each other. Rather than using precise language as I suggested he is doing the opposite and appears to be quite lazy in his response. I thought I read and it might be a different article where he said he specifically did not talk with the Giants. If I indeed do remember correctly than the problem for the confusion would be with the writers being lazy and in their quotes. But what it does is leave people arguing opposite points of view on whether the Jets contacted the Giants both supported by beat writer quotes. The point of my previous post was not to call you out for being wrong, I don't like to play that game. Although it is quite popular here. Rather I wanted to point out that there are differing points of view in conflict both supported by legitimate sources. So when one calls out someone else maybe they should consider the issue is not clearly black and white but rather a bit grey.
He said he is not locked in at 3. That means he could still move either way. Not sure why it has to be moving up only.
feel like we're just going to say anything to keep the Bills from jumping ahead of us still. Mac shouldn't and I hope wouldn't have traded up to 3 if he wasn't content getting at LEAST his 3rd option on draft day.
