I mean I don't know what the proposal is though? We shouldn't try to draft centers and receivers anymore because the only chance of drafting a good one is hope? The wheelhouse for receivers is really the second and third rounds. The best ones in the league come from there. Same thing with centers although you can get a center later but the chance of getting a day one starter decreases. We rebuilt the team in 2005-2006 by trading Abraham and stringing a great draft together thereafter. It's what needs to be done.
I'm saying you can get centers in round 2-5 that can be just as good or better than ones in round 1. On the receiver I havr been an advocate for taking one high, first 3 rounds. But I wouldn't give up a top talent for it.
I think it's easier to replace safety production than you think. We've honestly had pretty good safety play for the past 15 years without many superstars. And he doesn't affect the game the way the best free safeties do (Byard, Earl Thomas, etc.) He affects it in different ways, but I think the value he would net to fill holes that help our franchise quarterback outweighs what he does for the defense. In terms of long term sustainability, the best way to consistently win is to do everything in your power to protect the franchise quarterback and make him successful before you have to pay him. We fucked that up the first two years so it's a scramble drill to make it happen now.
If a team were willing to trade talent for talent it would be a good deal. Give up a top talent for 2 possible busts makes no sense. If Dallas wants him it will have to be one of the already sure thing o lineman or a ton of picks. No way I do it for a first and second. Like Douglas said the price is a 1st and 2 2nd or higher.
I totally agree regarding Gase's use of Bell. It certainly seems like Gase has never done that, however. If Gase is as stubborn as some claim and truly doesn't want bell, then he probably never will. In that case, there's no sense in keeping Bell because Bell will become disgruntled (perhaps more disgruntled), it will make the Jets look worse in the eyes of fans and the NFL to keep misusing Bell, and Bell will likely continue to have limited success/contributions on the field. What's the sense of keeping Bell then, when we could draft a RB that Gase wanted, that would fit his scheme better, and would likely have more success on the field? Also, there's at least the possibility that there is a rift between Bell and Gase. If so, Bell has handled it professionally this year at least perhaps up until the bowling incident. If there is a rift, it could get a lot uglier next season. Yes, the compensation would probably be limited, and not what he's worth, but if Bell winds up having another season like this one with such limited production, it would be better to get at least something for him, and be able to replace him with a player who can produce at a higher level. A number of posters have said that Bell looks slower this year. If so, perhaps that was due to injury or hesitance caused by the OL's inability to open a hole, but what if it's age and inactivity for two years that have dulled his talent? Yes, the Jets would almost certainly have to eat a portion of his salary, but if his level of production doesn't increase next year, then paying a portion would be better than paying the whole amount. Freeing up some cap space would give us more room to sign a FA at a position of need, and a RB with a different running style could quite possibly give us better production. Even if we only got a 4th round pick for Bell, we could save $3.5 million on the cap. That could get us a key backup, or perhaps even a decent starting OG as several starting OGs were making that or less in the NFL this season. The 4th round pick could possibly get us AJ Dillon who could perhaps be a more effective RB for us in Gase's offense. If Bell is happy on the Jets and Gase will use him as he should be used next season, then I would rather keep Bell not only for his production, but his leadership as well. I have no reason to believe that will happen. Hopefully, I'm wrong. Hopefully, it was our awful OL that kept Gase from using Bell effectively and he will be much more productive next season.
Get over your "long term sustainability" fantasy. You sound like frickin' Idzik talking about long term success before actually having any success. HAVE SOME SUCCESS FIRST THEN WORRY ABOUT HOW TO SUSTAIN IT. The Patriots are the exception NOT the rule. The league system is NOT designed for long term sustainability it's designed to break apart teams after a few years.
I disagree. Pittsburgh has been pretty consistent, So has New Orleans. Seattle since acquiring Wilson. The packers have been a consistent playoff team. Its about building a consistent base and winning culture. Its more than a few years...
I would only consider trading away Jamal Adams for Patrick Mahommes. That's it. Anything less or anyone else no. The guy is Ray Lewis in a safeties body. You don't trade away a player like that. If he plays his entire career here or the vast majority of it here he'll go down as one of the top three best players in franchise history. JMO
The teams that have developed a franchise quarterback have a punchers chance each and every single year. You don't seem to have been paying attention to the past 20 years of football. The Steelers, Saints, Patriots, Packers and now Seahawks could all confidently go into the season thinking "we have a chance." You can also add the Chargers and Falcons to a lesser extent even though the playoff results haven't been there. The franchise quarterback gives you an opportunity to win each and every game because they level the talent playing field of talent at every other position and can improve everything around them including making up for a sub par defense. The teams don't always win unless their roster rounded itself out in certain years but they always had a shot. How many years have we gone into (obviously without the franchise guy) thinking 'wow 9-7 and a wild card exit would be a great year?'
Not just that. Baltimote was consistently a contender for years because of Ed Reed and Ray Lewis. They built defenses that would dominate. But they did is consistently and had an offense that didn't totally kill them. I don't think Flaco was great at all but he was good enough to not kill the defense.
Baltimore is kind of an anomaly though. They're the only franchise that has ever really survived with a defense first mentality over a long period of time. At least since the Steel Curtain of the 70's. The Buccaneers got their SB and crashed and burned within due time, while the Bears went to one and didn't have enough offense to overcome shitty quarterback play. It really does speak to how good Ray Lewis was. Urlacher was a hair or two below him and had his running mates in Lance Briggs and Charles Tillman and only went to the playoffs 5 times in 12 years.
Not just Ray Lewis.. Newsome is probably one of the best GMs of his time. He consistently put good players together. Bart Scott, Marshal Yanda, many good o line, Mosley. Reed. It was about consistently hitting in FA and Draft. But I agree Lewis is probably one of the best to ever play.
Pittsburgh is the standard IMO. I wouldn't say that about New Orleans. Seattle has been a round for a bit now but Pete Caroll is like 1,000 years old now what happens to them when he leaves? The Packers are the Packers still even they had a season bad enough to get McCarthy fired last season. A few teams have seemingly figured out how to have success over a period of time that doesn't prove what I'm saying isn't true. The NFL system is NOT designed to keep top teams together it is designed to break them apart. Team building with the ultimate goal of "long term sustainability" isn't smart IMO. I think the NFL is more of a year-to-year league now the top organizations understand this and operate smoothly in it.
Those Ravens teams were loaded on defense it wasn't just Lewis but Lewis was the alpha of the pack. As Jamal Adams is here. It's not about a 'position' that's a simplistic way of looking a things. His presence along with his talent and all his intangibles you don't trade away a player like Jamal Adams ever. Jerry Jones thinks the Jets are suckers that's why he made the call to begin with.
Seattle has missed the playoffs 1 time since 2012.. Russel Wilson has put that team on his back an carried them for 2 years. And yes it does prove what you are saying is wrong.. there are consistent teams. It doesn't last 2 years. Good teams are consistent for a decade. Because the build , coach, and play consistent. They aqcuire talent consistently.
Jamal isn't Ray Lewis. He disrupts the game but he isn't a game changer lile Lewis. Huge difference. I like Jamal but Lewis could be the GOAT at his position.
Supposedly we got that guy last year so what's the problem? Why do I now need to see my team trade away my all-world defender so that the 'franchise qb' can do his job? Such nonsense, no imagination, no vision. To me if Adams gets traded away it's all about the money nothing else. I don't fall for BS. So they'll pay Leonard Williams, Bell, Mosley, Enunwa AAAAALLL these bums they've paid big money to but they won't pay Jamal Adams. Same OLD Jets.
They didn't pay Leonard Williams. He's a giant. Mosley and Bell were both supposedly top 5 at their position, JUST like Adams. Enunwa I'll give you but those were all the previous GM.. not Douglas.
