I thought we got a conditional 4th if Richardson walks after this year. Is that pick contingent on spending this year or next year? I didn't know there was a limit. Personally, whether the Jets tank or not, I'd rather have Richardson traded.
It's my understanding that the Jets could get a conditional pick for Richardson in 2019 (if he stays here all season), but it is contingent upon how many FAs they sign and what level they are.
damn nice how eager the OP is to spend somebody else's money. Is the plan to give him 8M to go to NE or Miami? Brilliant.
And my post was more about everyone thinking their thoughts are groundbreaking when in fact numerous posters have had the same thoughts. Did you somehow think you were the first poster to think they should trade Richardson? Did you think your idea of the Jets eating a whole $2M of his salary is the big answer we have been waiting for? As far as them making a "mistake of guaranteeing his contract", it was that or let him hit free agency. Would it have been that hard to just click on this http://theganggreen.com/forums/threads/everyone-opinion-on-will-sheldon-richardson-be-traded.88428/ thread and add your thought there? I mean that was your thread so there doesn't seem anyway you didn't know it was there. Or you could have added it to one of the half dozen "Tank" threads. But I guess that's just my thinking.
Sheldon is one of the few players on the roster who has the talent to maybe be a plus player at his position and he's not that old at 26. Yes, he has character issues but that isn't necessarily going to stop his career and the Jets don't have the luxury of just cutting bait with someone who may have talent but has moderate off the field concerns. You can't get any valuable pick for him and his money is already guaranteed so you play him and see if he proves to be a long term part of the team which would actually help the rebuild if so and if not f*** it at least you gave it a whirl. Maybe he's not that good anyway but having been played out of position there's at least some chance that he's meaningfully good on the field. There's hardly anybody else on the roster you can say that about. They cut all the money from the old guys you can't cut the guys entering their prime or you push the rebuild even further out.
I was referring to whoever it was said the league would have a problem with the way we were tanking. The Browns basically cut/let everyone go last offseason too so it's not like we're doing anything unprecedented.
We should give him an $8M signing bonus so his 2017 salary is zero, then trade him anywhere for a 2nd round draft pic.
I don't believe that tanking exists in the NFL. - Let me first define the term Tank as I see it : Tanking is knowingly trying to lose games and not playing competitively. Purposefully calling plays that will attribute to losses. Player packages that are not optimum for no apparent reason. Pulling players in order to create less than ideal matchups. Asking players to play or do things that will help you lose, such as creating turnovers. At least not in the sense that a team premeditates and facilitates such a process before the season has even started. Yes, If a team is 2-12 and decides that instead of using their All-Pro RB to carry the ball 20+ times (which would give them the best chance to win, and him to get injured in a meaningless stretch) they instead split carries with a rookie RB in the last 2 games to get the rookie reps, save the vet, and if they lose and end up with better draft stock so be it. There are too many factors at play for "tanking" to ever be considered or a practical method, too much is at stake. Team chemistry, moral, physiological repercussions, confidence, undermining team leadership, etc. If a front office actually set out with a goal to tank it would completely fracture a team. Players would feel like they were being given up on, young players especially could be effected in such a detrimental way they aren't able to buy-in to the system, or have any trust in coaching to do right by them. Such an environment would be catastrophic moving forward in the years to come after a "tanked" season. Even if you do end up with the next Andrew Luck, the team that is going to surround him will be locker room of disgruntled, confidence-shattered, young guys that are giving up and have no drive to excel for an organization they feel has given up on them.
tanking exists in the NFL of course. Teams do it all the time. The Browns last season for sure. I think its a pretty good idea for our Jets to try it for once as this Darnold kid from USC is the real deal.
The Browns had the worst roster in the league and over $40 million in salary cap room and they decided "nah, were good"... of course they tanked last season. oh and there was the little thing where they were beating the Ravens at halftime in November with their rookie QB Kessler playing a very promising first half. Only to decide to bench him to start the second half in favor of Josh Mcclown so he could toss 3 INTs and lose..... that really happened but of course, I'm sure, that wasn't tanking. Come on man of course they were tanking
Agreed here. My take is it's also physically dangerous to "tank". You can't go out there a put forth 30% effort while your opponent is playing at 100%, people will get injured. I think "tanking" in the Jets context means the team is running extremely lean with talent and truly subscribing to the youth movement / building through draft. It's paramount at this time, the FO of the team ignores outside banter and continues with their plan. There's no turning back now, you cannot get derailed.
1. Blow up the roster. 2. Hope you're picking either 1st or 2nd in order to land a marquee QB without having to trade the farm to move up. 3. Hope the QB is good. If he is, it worked. If he isn't, you're screwed.
There's a fundamental difference between strategically maneuvering salary cap numbers, choosing not to sign free agents who's sole purpose is to benefit this years current roster, and "tanking". I defined what I consider "tanking" to be because I don't see this ^ as tanking at all. ‣ EXAMPLE: If Team-A is NOT spending a vast majority of their cap year to year, and NOT drafting players in positions of need but instead go BPA (future building). You consider this ^ tanking. This is putting a less than optimal team on the field for that season, and by the definition this is what you, and others consider "tanking". I do not see this as tanking at all. If you consider the Jets situation, what does it gain us by keeping Harris or Decker in the long or short term? You can point to leadership and development, both of which are genuine reasons but as with anything there are pros and cons. In this case I agree with management that the salary cap con outweighs the 1 year developmental help pro. Just because the Jets aren't rushing out to waste cap space on FA players when there might be a better option to the FA they would sign already on the roster, doesn't mean they're "tanking". It's a developmental process. I would much rather have the additional reps for Stewart, Peake, Hanson, Anderson, Cannon, now and through the season to know what we've really got in these guys than Decker who wouldn't even be on the roster next year either way. Likewise for Harris and the LB corp. Furthermore, as far as cap goes. I would much rather develop guys in our system and have cap space there to pay and retain them, a young player in their prime with continuity. Or, make a knee-jerk move to sign an older FA that will have to come in and learn the system, players, and coaches. Now 2 years later the FA we picked up is on the decline and there's not enough cap space to sign the young guy to a long term deal. Prime examples, Colon out then sign Winters who we made the right move on, and Enunwa who with the Decker departure should be the direct beneficiary of that cap space.
Here's a pretty good read on the Jets rebuild. Pretty much sums it all up. https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbss...hey-are-going-to-be-terrible-for-a-while/amp/
Thanks for posting this. Great read and spot on. It clearly shows that Woody was behind the huge contract for Revis and the team not beginning the rebuild then, as it should have. It doesn't clearly state it, but I think it implies that Woody was also behind the Fitz contract fiasco last season.
I thought it was a great article and hits on so many topics that we have all been debating about recently.
Hell the browns was beating our asses badly! there's no way they didn't give up on everything they were doing so we can come back that game lol. We had no answers for them.
