This would be an interesting strategy. But I think it would be smart for Mac to aim for a 1st rounder this year , but "settle" for a 1st rounder next year if he can also squeeze a mid 2nd or high 3rd rounder for Mo in this draft. Maybe a team like Tennessee or Cleveland would jump at the chance of grabbing a player like Mo for only their 3rd rounder this year , while still being able to keep their 1st , and then bank on the possibility that the 1st they give us next year is somewhere in the middle. Im sure our fanbase wouldn't be pleased because of the marginal instant return , but could work out in the long run. I think I would take the chance of one of those teams sucking again next season and cashing in on a likely top 10 pick.
If all we get is possibly a third rounder (and it looks likes that's probably the case) than I say keep him and take third next year. We will probably most likely have to cut Brick to free up money but what other option is there? Macc is going to have to hope Fitz REALLY wants to come back and sign some bargain free agents. Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
Brick isn't going to be serviceable for 2-3 more years. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but that is just a fantasy imo and has no bearing on reality. I know of no other way to put it. You don't put more money on the cap for players whose days are ending. You just don't do it. It's stupid. Brick's production has already dropped drastically. Mangold's is dropping and he can't stay healthy. At most Mangold has 2 more seasons (including the upcoming one). Brick should already be retired.
D'brick is only 32, as is Mangold. I know you may think they are ancient because they have been around for a while and they haven't been as effective as in the past but they are still quality starters and leaders. They have a few more years left in them. Yes, at their current cap figure it would be ridiculous to keep them, but if they take a pay cut and get paid like the mid-level starters they are it wouldn't be so bad. Don't forget if we get rid of them they have to be replaced. Which likely means overpaying in free agency which can lead to troubles as well.
If you think they have a few more years left in them, then there's no point in continuing our discussion. It's not a matter of just their chronological age. Some players can keep playing well into their mid and even late 30s, others cannot. They hit 30 and they're done. Brick is one of the latter. Watch the film on Brick, look at how many sacks, pressures, hits he's given up and how lowly he has been rated. He's done and you couldn't be more wrong. That's not opinion, but fact, unless your standards are incredibly low! Mangold may have 2 more seasons, but that's it, or that's all we should want. The idea isn't to allow players to hang on as long as they want regardless of how poorly they play and how much it hurts or limits the team, just so they can retire when they want to. The idea is to get as good a team as possible. When we could get younger, better players for a fraction of the price, we'd be stupid to keep them around.
By one metric, consecutive games played, Ferguson has held up better than almost anyone, including Mangold. But when you look at the quality of their play the last two years, other than when Mangold was hurt, Ferguson has been dropping off a lot faster. Comparing the arc of their "drops" if you will, Mangold seems like he's going to last at least a year longer than Ferguson. Maybe two if the Jets are lucky. I agree with the rest of your post. No way you restructure Ferguson.
Let me remind you that this offensive line gave up the second least sacks in the league last year. PFF as scientific as they may try to be is based on their opinions on a play by play basis. This offensive is effective and does a good job with what they are asked to do. I understand that adding more years to his contract sounds awful, but I'm not talking about a deal that will cripple the cap, or is guaranteed each year. I'm talking about a deal that pays them for their value maybe 7-8mill this year for Brick (which is only that high because of his dead cap hit this year of 5million, and we most likely will not find a better player for a measly 2-3 million )and goes down from there with little to no guaranteed money in the future. Allowing us to get out with no dead money, or cap hit. He will never see the last years of that contract unless he improves his play. What your suggesting is that we completely cut D'brick, but you have to look at it from a financial and team building aspect. When we cut him we have a 5 million dollar dead cap hit, we have to pay that no matter what. If you reduce his salary to 7 million we are paying 2 million in additional cost this year. So you think we can get a younger more efficient player for 2 million this year? I am skeptical, but if you have a player in mind I'd love to hear it. I don't know what you are suggesting as far as the future of this O-line or team, but you are rather just bashing the player with no solution. Not to mention breaking up the line continuity, and losing our starting left tackle with no alternative.
Sacks isn't the only metric by which an OL is judged. Fitz's escapability had a lot to do with that low number. If he was less mobile, the sack numbers would have been higher, perhaps considerably higher. Since you quoted PFF, have you looked at how many pressures/hurries/hits Brick gave up? He gave up 59 I believe, while Giacomini only gave up 54. In addition, I think PFF has Brick rated as the 3rd worst LT in the NFL last season. Think about that. Still think his play is so effective? It's not about bashing Brick. He's had a very good career with the Jets. While he wasn't the greatest LT, he was solid in pass protection, reliable to play almost every down and been a great citizen. The simple fact is that he's done. He should retire. I do like your latest idea much better. It wouldn't be ideal by any means, but if they could cut his salary to the $7 million figure you mention, then he could be serviceable this year. I just want no future dead money for him. Period. If he wants to hang on as a backup next season and the Jets have no better options, fine, they can pay him the vet minimum; otherwise, he needs to retire. I have looked at the situation from every angle and have indicated such in my posts. I've been calling for the Jets to draft Brick's eventual replacement for at least the last 2, and I think even 3 drafts. I've been calling for it again this year. If I was the Jets GM, the team would already have Brick's heir on the roster. You don't want a rookie starting at LT. Because neither Idzik nor Mac saw fit to secure Brick's replacement, we are in a tough spot. We're forced to pay and play him (least desirable option), forced to draft Spriggs or Conklin and start him (probably second least desireable option due to most likely having to trade up to get Conklin and possibly Spriggs, and having to rely on a rookie to protect your QB's blind side), get him to take a pay cut for the team and start him this season (more desirable than either of the previous two, but still undesirable), or cut Brick (a fan favorite and long time good Jet) and sign a stop gap for a season or two (probably the best option due to the needed cap space they'd gain and play on the field, but totally undesirable in how to treat a long time good Jet). Whether they let him play for his full contract value or induce him to take a pay cut for the team and he starts, it should be made clear to him that this is his last season as a starter with the Jets. They ought to promise him a farewell party to honor him and if he wants, keep him around in some capacity, but help him to see that it's not in his or the team's best interests for him to keep playing beyond this season. In terms of FAs, I think the team would be hard-pressed to find an OT who would play as poorly as Brick did last season. I don't know a lot of the other teams or their players. I know that Russell Okung has been pretty decent for the Seahawks. I also know that there's a young player named Tyler Polumbus who backed up both the LT and RT spots for Denver this past season. I love his flexibility, but don't know how good he is.
we need to keep our elite players we dont need to be big players in FA every year, that is not a recipe for success because bidding wars cause those players to come at a premium ... after cuts and restructures/extensions, we should have enough to keep fitz, bilal, and henderson, even with mo at the franchise number (and hopefully sign a few guys like arian foster) next year we have a ton of cap room and potentially a lot of picks ... we had to spend last year to meet the minimum, and this year its time to take our medicine
Well, I don't know what he's demanding, so it's hard to say whether it's a mistake or not. But how is Richardson's ceiling higher than Wilkerson's? Wilkerson is already pro bowl caliber, a class act and has improved every year on the team. We don't know that Richardson will even play next year and has immaturity issues. Replacing a 12 sack guy isn't easy. I'm not saying it's impossible, but at this point it's pure speculation to assume that Richardson could surpass Wilkerson.
To be fair I was responding to the guy that said: "What's more important saying we have Muhammad Wilkerson and that defense line, or we have a team that can win a championship." He created that false dilemma that insinuated keeping Wilkerson will keep the Jets out of contention, but getting rid of him will put us there. You'd need quite a bit to go right for that to happen. That's why I mentioned elite QB or OLB, because those 2 things are the only 2 upgrades I could see totally transforming the team into a contender. Those are the only acceptable replacements for Wilkerson's production, IMO. The Jets can still draft OLBs and oline players in this upcoming draft, so they can definitely still improve without getting rid of him.
I think perhaps that poster was using a bit of hyperbole. Either that, or he thinks the team is better than I (and perhaps you) do. Still, with that $15.7 in cap space, Mac could conceivably add 2-3 FAs, who along with the draft picks, could have us competing for the playoffs. Based on your response, I think we see the team about the same, but I think that some posters think the team is much better than we do, so for them, they could conceivably envision it helping us compete for a championship, but I think that is way too optimistic..
No, it's not speculation. That is the point when talking about a players ceiling, it's potential. Not production. Richardson is by far the better athlete, he has a higher motor, he has the potential and ceiling to be even more dominate than MO. We're not talking about character, we are talking about the player, what they bring to the table. If Richardson cleans up his act, he can be much more valuable to us than MO, all while improving the team in other positions in the meantime.
I told NC about this before. A lot of NFL players have high potential along with character concerns. Dedication and character issues can stop a player from being great. Potential can get you in trouble and can set a franchise back big time. It's a no brainer to sacrifice some potential for a sure thing. That's a BIG IF and that IF should not play a role in getting Mo signed.
I have wanted a developmental tackle for a while as well and was disappointed when we didn't select one last year. This year we should definitely grab one, but there is no way I'm trading up for Conklin, he's a RT and I question his value at 20 let alone above that. Same with Springs. The Jets claim they are high on Qvale, in fact high enough to have him start at LT or RT should we lose one or the other. If this is true we should cut D'brick outright. The stats you brought up are alarming, but you can't cut him without a plan in place. However to sign a free agent like Okung we would have to shell out some serious dough, on top of 5 mill cap hit, and we don't have that luxury. Plus he is always injured. Don't know much about Polumbus, maybe an option.
If we are talking about someone we are about to sign with these question marks, sure. We still have a couple years to see if Richardson cleans up his act and is worth that type of money. If not, DL talent can be found elsewhere. We aren't talking about a QB or something, from a now and future perspective, letting MO go has more benefits towards the present and future. IMO
The reports I've read have Conklin at LT, not RT, but like you I'm not interested in trading up for him. He is rated to go in the top 15, however, so I don't understand why you would question his value at #20. Spriggs is a great prospect imo. He may not be value at #20, but the Jets could potentially trade down a little, add a 4th or 3rd round pick and take him lower. I could be wrong, but I don't think he'll get $9 million. Even if he would take $7 million, we'd save $2 million on the cap and would most likely get better play than from Brick.
Conklin showed some athletic ability at the combine that I didn't know he had, and may have moved up some draft boards because of it. I believe he will start at right tackle with the possibility of moving to left tackle down the road. I like Spriggs potential at Left Tackle more than Conklin's but he may need a little seasoning. If you cut D'brick you still have to pay 5 million in dead cap money, so getting a tackle for 7 million is kind of like spending 12 million. So the question becomes do you want Okung for 12 million, or D'brick at a much lower cost (after taking a pay cut), who could mentor a player like Conklin or Spriggs or whoever we draft until they are ready? Personally, I'd take D'brick to bridge the gap as we develop talent.
I wouldn't say Snacks and Fitz. One or the other. We can still make enough cuts to bring one of them back (even if bringing Fitz back means we have to cut Brick) even though it won't necessarily be pretty.
"only 32" and "only in his 11th season" brick is no spring chicken, and we are unwise not to immedietly start looking into his replacment regardless of the cap
