I think our difference on view on the last part of your statement comes from differing perspectives on where the team is at and how to move forward. I would rather have a very young O-line that learns and grows together. But yes you do need a veteran presence on the O-line, hence absolutely no talk of replacing Mangold and frankly I can't think of a better veteran to lead and mold a group of young offensive linemen. I want an offensive line that 'grows' up together and stays together for hopefully a very long time and the ideal time to start young guards is when you can put them between an experienced tackle and an experienced and exceptional center. I view this year as a rebuilding year, last year should have been a rebuilding year but Idzik completely blew the draft outside of rounds 1 and 2. (you could argue that round 1 could have been used differently considering the WR's that were on the board at the time but Pryor was in discussion as BPA so you can't really knock the decision either). But rounds 3-7 were filled mostly with reaches (except IMHO Dozier). Speaking of O-line I never understood why they let Slauson go, he was better than anything they had at the time and wasn't a bank breaker, but that's another story of how the Jets wound up where they are. As I mentioned previously the Jets are a team that's been in decline post 2010 and they fell off the table fast because of the way they were built to 'win now' despite mostly being an average team in that 'win now' window. The worst thing that happened to the Jets was the mirage season of 2012 where they basically tripped in to an 8-8 record making the team look better than it actually was talent wise. I don't see this team as a one year turnaround project, I don't see the team being a .500 team talent wise regardless of how well they draft this year. They may make .500 but if they do it will be due to the softer portion of the schedule and they'll get pounded by the average to good teams. I may be wrong, I may be right, only time will tell. But at this juncture in time it's how I see the team, a team that for the past 3 seasons have been a .300 winning percentage team talent wise.[/QUOTE] Since you see the team as rebuilding, how in the world do you justify overpaying two OLBs to the tune of $95 million? Sorry, but that's just insane. Any GM that did that should be fired on the spot. Makes zero sense for a rebuilding team.
A) the Team HAS to spend a large portion of it's salary cap this season in order to meet the 91% rule. The team is well under that mark on the 3 or 4 year average (I forget which). And yes I'm spending 95 million on two players and it's over a 4 year period for those two players in a position that bolsters run defense, pass defense and pass rush. It's also spent on two players who are versaitle, Worilds can play either OLB or ILB posistions and McPhee can do the same plus has experience with his hand down in the dirt so he can shift in to a 4-3 alignment as well on some plays. Granted he's not an every down 4-3 alignment player. And the other factor you're forgetting in that 95 million...either player can be cut at the end of their 2nd season of their contract if there is a younger rookie available to take their place or if they aren't preforming up to value and the only cost for the last 2 years of their contracts are the remains of the prorated signing bonus (probably about 2.5M per year assuming a 10M signing bonus) Remember football contracts are almost never fully guaranteed and somewhat rarely have guaranteed money past the 1/2 way point in their contract. And if the guys play well at the end of their contract and a new rookie isn't available to fill that position then they can be extended for a couple more years and if they aren't resigned both players are young enough to get one more payday contract, assuming they play well of course., with another team.
So another words when your hypothesis proves incorrect your end game is to say 'you need to get over yourself'. got it. end of conversation.
My hypothesis didn't prove incorrect. My goal was not to show absolutely correct figures. It was to show a rough example of what was possible and what wasn't possible. You know that. You're just being a condescending, arrogant ass, and you know what you can do with yourself.
So when you call me foolish, bad GM, wrong, etc you're not being a condescending arrogant ass? got it. You called it a realistic look and then nothing was close....got it.
Learn to read...I had a question mark in the subject, which CLEARLY indicates that it was not a definitive statement, but rather one inviting discussion and input. You took offense from my first response. That much was clear and obvious. I tried to show you that it was not personal and rather about your ideas, but your ego couldn't stand that, and you got increasingly snarky and condescending, that's why I started replying in the manner in which I did. There's obviously no reaching a middle ground with you, so indeed, we need to just say that we agree to disagree and move on. Peace.
Oh there is a middle ground, but when you keep throwing around 95M on two linebackers as if that's the amount that would actually be spent you lose some credibility. When you call an idea stupid you're not aiming for middle ground. I showed that the idea could be executed within the cap this year and leave room in the cap in future years, and I showed it could be done with flexibility. You approached the subject as though the 95M was spent. Hint, good players cost money. Now you can argue whether or not the players are good players or not and that's a valid argument. But to call an idea stupid is not the argument of someone aiming for middle ground.
I know that good players cost money, and I know that unless there were bonuses that would be spread over the life of the contracts or guaranteed money in future years, that all $95 million wouldn't necessarily be spent. Again, you missed much of the point of my post, and that was to point out that I think it would be foolish to spend half of what the Jets can spend in FA on 2 players when we have so many needs. I'm sorry, but that's what I think. We all can have foolish ideas at times. It doesn't mean that you're stupid or foolish, just had a bad idea. We can agree to disagree on that point. Maybe you have point with your last sentence, but whenever we disagree with another poster's opinion or idea, especially if we strongly disagree, aren't we all tacitly saying that we think the other poster's idea is stupid or wrong? At any rate, I apologize if I offended you. That was NOT my intent. I just strongly disagree with the plan you had and also a number of other posts I've seen where posters want to sign Revis, Iupati and Worilds, or DT plus 1-2 of those players. I was trying to bring some rationality to the board and discussion of Free agency. I appreciate the points that you made and the areas you filled in with contract and cap numbers that I didn't know. As I stated initially, both with my ? in the subject line and I think in one of my first two sentences, I didn't and don't see myself as a cap guru or contracts expert. In fact, quite the opposite. I was just attempting to get some discussion going . My example wasn't even so much those specific players, but just a facsimile to show that we could address a number of different positions if we sign second tier and under the radar type FAs rather than the big name, high $ FAs. Peace.
Actually it was about 1/3 when you factor in the cuts that were made. I'll reiterate my viewpoint on this team and why I chose this path. I don't think the offense will turn around after one or even two seasons even with a new QB, there are too many missing pieces. Yes you can patchwork together a baseline offense unit, and that would make sense if the team had an established franchise QB, but it doesn't. One thing I might do differently is not trade Breno an use either him or Barksdale as Guard in the short term Assuming that none of the young guards on the roster step up. my philosophy for the next 2 seasons would be to have a defense strong enough to keep games within 10 points or so and hope the offense grows enough over the two years to win more of those games than they lose and then in the 3rd and 4th year begin transitioning to a more aggressive offense as the young drafted offensive players start to get footing and stepping up. Regardless of what approach is taken, something more akin to my concept or your concept the success of the team depends on good drafts and getting good players in the draft. Failure to draft well means the team sinks regardless of whose approach the team most closely follows.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. Focusing on the D and ignoring the offense is what the Jets did while Rex was here, under both Tanny and Idzik and we've already seen that it doesn't work. Yes, there are a lot of missing pieces on offense, but imo that's not justification for continuing to ignore the offense. How are you suppose to get those missing pieces and improve the offense if you keep making all the big moves on defense? I'm sorry, imo, that's just flawed logic on your part. The offense isn't going to grow if you don't invest some of those big FA $s on it. The offense and defense have to become more balanced imo, and I think most Jets fans would agree with me. We're in agreement on your last point. Mac had better draft well, or we'll still be in the same miserable shape and starting over yet again 2-4 years down the road.
Ignoring the offense? No, as I stated in the first post the building of the offense was going to be the draft process over the next couple of seasons. My philosophy is, and I'll repeat it, build the offense through the draft and bolster the defense through FA in the shorter term. The first 3 picks of my mock were all offensive players, Winston, Dorsett and Duke Johnson. The next two picks were defensive players (mostly because the value was too great). Two of the next 3 picks were then offensive players as well. so of those 8 picks 5 were offensive players and 3 of those were in the first 2 rounds. That's not ignoring the offense. but yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.
You don't have to repeat your approach. I get what you advocate, just disagree. When you have glaring needs on offense, particularly in terms of protecting the QB, and you have the ability to address it in FA and don't, imo you're ignoring the offense. You want to take 3 years to build the offense through the draft. I just don't think that's the best way to go. Winston would probably start from day one. He could very well get seriously injured in his rookie season because I don't believe that you do enough, quickly enough to upgrade the OL. I find that odd, because you think the OL needs to be upgraded, yet when the opportunity is there to do something to immediately upgrade the OL, which would help protect the QB and open up things for rushing attack, you eschew it in favor of the D. You have to understand, that under normal circumstances, with everything else even, I'd be delighted to fix both OLB spots in the way you did. I've been screaming that the OLB positions needed to be upgraded for years. The thing is, everything isn't even, and these aren't normal circumstances. The offense has been ignored and many of the few draft picks spent on the offense were botched. The D is already way ahead of the offense in spite of it having a few holes. The offense needs to catch up quickly imo.
Okay, the top 4 Guards in FA this year, only 1 of them is a plus pass blocker, Orlando Franklin. Iupati is great run blocker, pass blocking? Nope. Clint Boling? See Iupati. Carpenter? nope. Take a peak at how PFF ranks the FA guards this year, there's a huge drop off after Franklin and Iupati. Franklin is going to go for top dollar where ever he goes and he's unlikely to choose to leave a Possible Superbowl team, other other contender's offers, without overpaying him and you can bet with a fragile Peyton manning the Bronco's will do everything to keep Franklin. So now you're left with a crop of FA guards who by and large are over 30, and almost all poorly ranked by PFF and other rankings. So you're going to bring in guys who currently aren't much better than the young guards we have and stunt in growth they may have? Once you're past the first 3 guards there isn't much there in FA and two of the top 3 aren't good pass blockers. it's fine to argue that you don't want to ignore the offense, but signing free agents who aren't better than what you have or are on the downside of their careers and/or aren't pass blockers? I don't think that's a sound strategy.
To begin with, I could care less what PFF says. I don't put a lot of stock in those sites. Russell Wilson frequently had all kinds of time to find open receivers. Carpenter was a part of that. Either he or Boling would be an upgrade over whom the Jets presently have. That's what's important. It's not ideal, perhaps, but they need to protect the QB and help the rushing attack. Also, with OLs it's how they work together as a UNIT, not as individuals. With DT, Julius Thomas, Franklin, Rahim Moore, and several others as FAs, I see no way that Denver is going to be able to re-sign them all. I think they may have to let Franklin go, but even if they don't, as I said in an earlier post, if he's gonna make in the same range as Iupati, then it could be best to let him sign elsewhere and go after Boling or Carpenter. It's absolute BS to say that Boling and Carpenter aren't any better than what we presently have. Talk about losing credibility!!!!
Unless you've watched all the tapes on the guards, which I doubt, then you have to rely on outside sources or you're just guessing. So in other words you're going strictly by feel, no research, no watching tape, just taking a guess.
