He is guaranteed to make 1.6 million more than Hunter would have got this year. He is due a boat load next year.
He isn't starting. He is going to fill the role Hunter would have as 6th OL. Probably provide better depth than Hunter would have. Also has everyone been ignoring the grading that has Hunter worse than Smith?
We all know that after Mario Williams has his way with Austin Howard week one everybody will be calling for Smith to be put in.
As down as jets fans are on hunter nobody expected him to get owned by backups as bad as he did the giants and bengals starters
1. PFF disagrees. (WFH is right there at rock bottom. Smith was slightly below average.) 2. WFH is quintessentially worst OT ever to start a full season. Consider that. Only kicked and crumpled trashcan is objectively worse than WFH at blocking - that's saying something. 3. But then Smith comes from St. Louis - I called their line WFHx5 for a reason. LOL. I pity Bradford. P.S. On a side note, I heard Alex Barron is available too. (He was the only serviceable OL from Bulger's swansong days - again, from St. Louis.)
Maybe the Jets felt like Hunter was mentally destroyed, it's gonna get worse being in NY, and found him a new start? And while doing so, provided another player the same opportunity. That has to be a good thing. If nothing else, Smith has a clean(er) slate with a new team. How good does that feel? Effin great. Maybe that's all he needed, and it clicks.
Sadly, I agree with you. The way Smiths contract is structured, he'll be cut in 2013 (11 mil roster bonus). But he's getting $4.5 mil this year where as WFH is getting $3mil. This is a bad trade (IDC what this board thinks of WFH). Jason Smith is no upgrade, plus we pay an extra 1.5 mil that could have carried over to 2013. No matter how good Jason Smith plays in 2012, he'll be cut in 2013.
1. If Jason Smith doesn't play more than 31% of the snap, that 10+M roster bonus goes out in a puff too. (Check the clauses carefully.) With that elephant off the hook, Smith's cap number is manageable 750k. (You can't be expecting Jason Smith to be playing 30 snaps a game all season long. I'll leave it at that.) 2. WFH is a terrible RT that is over 30. Jason Smith is a terrible OT that is still young. Two very different ballpark. (Just why is it so hard to understand this?)
The Three Stooges: Rams Edition Brian Schottenheimer as Moe Wayne Hunter as Larry Vernon Gholston as Curly Sam Bradford: Gee golly I'm finally getting some help here. Its about time! Kellen Clemens: Uhh yeah about that Sam.................uhh nevermind.
It's a bonus that we got something more than a hot bag of shit for him...seriously hard to be unhappy with this. Hunter is just so incredibly terrible
1. I did not know about the 31% clause and can't seem to find anything solid besides several forums talking about. From what I understand, if he plays in less than 31% snaps, his 2013 contract year is voided. Couldn't find anything suggesting only his roster bonus is voided. Can you provide a link? 2. Gholston is still young. Does it mean we should pick him up too? Maybe Jason Smith plays at a below average level (which is about 6 levels above WFH), maybe he doesn't. Until I know how his 2013 contract is structured, Im leaning towards not liking this trade at all just for cap issues. We are paying $1.5 mil extra. Should have just released WFH and took on the cap hit and be done with it. An undrafted journeyman outplayed him.
We might have gotten marginally better at RT. But we also picked up an additional $1.5 mil of cap hit we could have used in 2013.
regarding his contract, one would have to assume he will be restructured. and i can't possibly see how jason would not be willing to do so..he has virtually no leverage.
