Jets Announce The Addition Of 17 Undrafted Rookies

Discussion in 'New York Jets' started by jcjet, May 1, 2009.

  1. hammernnails

    hammernnails New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    3 TEs??? I think Dustin Keller is an emerging star!! I would have rather used that cash on the D-line or LB to try to find a diamond in the rough... but if the jets find another solid TE that can only help Sanchez...
     
  2. k311

    k311 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    0
    my comment was made in mind that many of the guys on our roster just aren't quality enough. Our WR corps basically need total rebuilding. Why not sign a couple of UDFA's and cut them if they're not worth it? Doesn't make sense to me is all...
     
  3. theBidet

    theBidet Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,244
    Likes Received:
    0
    "3 TEs??? I think Dustin Keller is an emerging star!! I would have rather used that cash on the D-line or LB to try to find a diamond in the rough... but if the jets find another solid TE that can only help Sanchez..."

    yeah, my post was really in reference to those that didn't like the moves we did in the draft bc we didn't fulfill our needs at WR/TE/DE. lets hope one of the three that went undrafted are of the blocking variety.
     
  4. JackBower

    JackBower Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    Messages:
    7,534
    Likes Received:
    6,507
    In a simple world I guess you could put it that way.

    The fact is that a lot of UDFAs do have several teams interested in them, not all of the UDFA WR are looking to jump on the NYJ... usually guys will try out/sign with teams close to their college or where they grew up if possible.

    You can just sign a UDFA and release him if they are no good, but I don't think Woody goes to Tanny or Rex and says "OK go spend a lot of money on a large group of UDFA receivers that probably won't pan out." The UDFAs that are picked up are picked up because they see something in them, not solely because they play a certain position.

    They thought the 1 WR they brought in was the only one worth signing, and I'm willing to go with their moves... Depth at WR is not exactly what we need, it's a competent WR who can play the 1 or 2 position. That is not something your going to find in an UDFA WR.
     
    #24 JackBower, May 1, 2009
    Last edited: May 1, 2009
  5. k311

    k311 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    0
    i suppose. I'm also probably still frustrated that we traded away all of our draft picks for sanchez and greene (who i like, but you need to address your needs too!). Hopefully they'll make some sort of trade for someone before the season
     
  6. Mambo9

    Mambo9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Messages:
    8,906
    Likes Received:
    41
    Really? Cotchery is good, Stuckey is ok as a slot, Clowney is ok as a speedy-deep reciever if he stays healthy, B. Smith has the physical tools to succeed an M. Henry is a rookie so you can't really evaluate him yet (but if we drafted him there must be a reason). That's 5 WR who are serviceable at least. We just need a true #1 reciever and you are not getting one in the UDFA market...
    I would like the team to bring Toomer in for a year... if our current WRs play good he sits on the bench, if they fail he plays for a year and then in net year draft we get a legit #1.
    But in the UDFA I'm happy they are looking mostly at 34DE, TE and OL.

    I hope/think Potter DE, Cook S, Southerland FB, Conley P, Toal ILB, Westerman OLB at least make the practice squad. And I don't know the TE they brought in but we sure need some so I hope at least one pans out...
     

Share This Page