I'm really high on Metcalf and I think in a vacuum he's definitely worth #10 overall. The big problem with that is that because he wasn't taken in the 1st round there's no 5th year option, so he's going to get really expensive after next season. Is Garrett Wilson, Treylon Burks, or Drake London at $5 million per year better than DK Metcalf at $15-$20 million per year? Probably.
I just feel like Metcalf is the type of receiver who relies on athletic traits, and I’ve never been as high on him as a lot of people. I like him well enough but I truly don’t feel he is worthy of a top 10 pick. He’s going to cost like $20 million minimum and I wouldn’t want to lock into that
We've done some updating at saftey the last few days with Joyner, parks and Riley too. That's - Joyner Riley Parks Davis Pinnock All now under contract. We know that the S position isn't valued as much by the GM and maybe CS, but there's a need for 1 more in there to be the sure fire starter. Be interesting to see where they go in FA. Sent from my M2007J20CG using Tapatalk
It's actually much more likely that they're not. There are too many things that need to go perfectly. First, the one we like needs to be available. Then, the one that we pick needs to be the right one and able to produce right away to support our rookie QB. Then you have to hope they're not just good, but top 10-15 WR level. We know what Metcalf is and he could contribute right away. Just because we take one in the first doesn't mean they'll be good. There isn't a WR in this draft who is a surefire WR1. There's a reason teams like the Rams throw those firsts away every year. They're almost always overvalued. I'm sure the Bills have absolutely 0 regrets in trading for Diggs.
I think if you go off the film, Garrett Wilson and Drake London are #1 level guys. I’m curious how they interviewed though, it will be a big part of it.
Yeah those specifically, and I feel like he’s a linear receiver with a limited route tree who could see an early decline like Dez Bryant did.
Metcalf is definitely better than any of them are likely to be but 4X better? Because he's going to be 4X more expensive after next year. The Rams throw firsts away every year because they have one of the top few coaches in the NFL and a highly talented roster already that means they're likely to compete for a Super Bowl every year. It makes sense for them to trade picks for guys who may put them over the top to actually win a championship. We aren't a DK Metcalf away from a Super Bowl or even from making the playoffs. We'd be happy with that move for 1 year before realizing his ensuing pay would be hampering us in subsequent years.
Metcalf is 24. If you trade one of your top ten picks, you are trading it for a guaranteed top tier player at a position you’ve desperately needed one for a decade (outside of 2015… when we traded for one). If you asked me to choose between having a chance at a 21 year old top receiver or guaranteeing a 24-year-old top receiver I know which one I’m taking every day of the week.
lol the game was probably over with nothing the D could do about it before the opening kickoff (see NY Jets Defense!). But I digress. Yes, Zack's long TD run is exactly what you state....a QB heads for the sidelines, DBs back off, then the QB changes course and keeps running. I didn't give ZW credit for that run for exactly that reason. Not once, but twice on the same run. He heads for the SL, the DB backs off, he 'changes his mind' and turns it back upfield. The next time he gets DRILLED while 'running out of bounds' he'll have no one but himself to blame.
It's not just about skill level though, it's about cost of the asset relative to skill. It's not Metcalf vs. Wilson/London/Burks. It's Metcalf vs. Wilson/London/Burks and $15 million of extra cap space. Trey Hendrickson makes $15 million per year. He had 14 sacks last year. The top safeties in the league make around $15 million. The top RT's in the league make less than $15 million. George Kittle makes $15 million. You can do a lot with $15 million. Would you rather have Metcalf or Wilson/London/Burks and George Kittle?
This is all based on the notion that we will land a star receiver and star TE (or any position). My point is you pay the money next year to ensure yourself a top tier player while also being able to fit in a bunch of good players this year.
I understand where you're coming from and that's a valid perspective. That said, Quinnen Williams is the only player we have to pay next year. It'll be a couple of more years before we have to pay Becton and then start paying others. McGovern's contract could be gone. Of course any FAs we sign will add more to the cap, but I think we could afford capwise to trade for Metcalf. We need to give Zach a reliable target, not an iffy draft pick, who might take a while to adjust to the NFL. Maximus D could be right about Metcalf declining, but I'll trust JD on that. Even if we trade for Metcalf and he declines in 3 years, we'll have gotten our money's worth out of him if Zach has developed and we have made the playoffs a time or two in that span, and I'm sure that whatever contract JD gives to players, he's always going to leave the team an out without hampering it. He has shown that so far. If Burks had shown better athleticism at the Combine, I would be find just sticking with him, but he didn't, and that's a concern. I really don't like Wilson or London at all. Wilson looks very awkward to me the way he splays his legs out when he jumps. It looks uncoordinated and unsafe. I think it will lead to his getting injured quite a bit. London is tall, but looks slow to me, and I don't trust his hands. If we sign AROB, fine. I'd even be fine with DJ Chark, but if we don't get either one of those, I would like to see them trade for Metcalf or Cooks.
That other player doesn't matter if Zach doesn't develop. In fact, that player would just mean it would be harder to get the next QB. I think Metcalf would definitely help Zach develop. No amount of extra cap space is worth it if Zach doesn't develop. The one thing that the Jets need to do completely, and not half-assed this offseason is go all in on surrounding Zach with talent to give him the best chance of developing and succeeding.
Why mortgage the future for just this next season? Metcalf alone isn't going to be the difference between us competing or not next year. I think Zach's development would be helped more by a tier 1 TE or RT and a drafted WR than by just Metcalf. I don't think we should sell the farm to go all in on next year. Next year is very important for Zach, yes, but ultimately his performance is going to come down to him. If he fails next year because he has our current WR's+Wilson/London/Burks instead of our current WR's+Metcalf then he was probably going to fail anyway, and we'd be significantly worse off in the ensuing 2-3 years with the Metcalf option because of his price tag.
How are you mortgaging your future if you are locking in a franchise cornerstone? Smart teams make these moves when they’re hopeful franchise quarterback is on their rookie deal. Acquire the talent and figure out the rest later. Ask the Bills.
When you say next year, are you talking about the upcoming season or 2023? It's not clear. There aren't any tier 1 TEs available in FA, so the Jets will have to make the best of the situation. Fortunately, it's a good, deep TE draft class, and there are some solid vets out there in FA that will be an upgrade. Sign a TE or two, and then draft one or two so that we wind up with 3 new TEs and Yeboah, and we should have a good TE corps that will help Zach. Adding a top WR, an upgrade at RG and another RB to go with MC, and Zach should have what he needs to develop assuming we aren't stricken with an injury plague again this year and MLF has finally figured it out. With regards to selling the farm, I don't think trading for Metcalf would be doing that, nor do I think that JD is the type to sell the farm unless Zach were to fail and then he had to get another QB in the draft. I'm not worried about Zach failing. I think he would succeed with the same WR corps from last year, better OL play, better play calling and game planning from MLF, and an improved TE corps. Adding a Metcalf, Chark, or Cooks only improves the odds, and perhaps speeds up his development and helps the team start winning sooner.
Let's hope he earns a pay rise, was expecting a lot more from him last season tbh, in the end he was on a par with season 2, which in fairness we all thought was decent but we were looking for him to explode last year and he didn't, was surprised to see his stats were nearly identical as season 2 tbh
Because after next season Metcalf is going to cost $20 million per year to retain. In a hypothetical where we take a WR at #10 instead of trading the pick for Metcalf we'd have that WR earning $5 million per year and the $15 million in extra cap space from not having to pay Metcalf. The only thing trading #10 for Metcalf would accomplish is giving Zach a better chance to succeed only next year, because that's the only year Metcalf is going to be cheap for the rest of his career. His $20 million per year salary would hamper our ability to be a good team after that. QB isn't the only position where it's beneficial to have a guy on a rookie deal. By next year I mean this upcoming season. Metcalf would help Zach, absolutely, but we'll be able to tell if Zach is worth starting in his third year whether we have Metcalf or not. The issue is that if Zach does play well enough to start in his third year, having to pay Metcalf $20 million per year from that year onward is going to hurt our ability to build a good team otherwise. I'm not saying Wilson/London/Burks will be as good as Metcalf, they probably won't. But Wilson/London/Burks+$15 million of extra cap space probably does more for our roster than Metcalf alone.
