Week 1: So we're really doing this, huh?

[Rockice_8]

3 minutes ago, Rich51 said:

He signed Carpenter cheap because he was a bust in Seattle, but I agree it was a good pickup. When he took over we had 30 year old former pro bowlers at LT and C and we were wide open at both guard spots and RT. IMO he should have been looking at a Brick replacement in the draft, someone who could play RT and slip over to LT when Brick was finished. Centers are also good investments because most can play G. In 3 drafts he didn't touch those positions. Instead he signed two LTs coming off injury and two fifth round lineman who were never expected to play LT. We might have lucked out with Shell but it's still too early to tell.  All of this is naturally my opinion but I feel we spent too much for Winters. He's average at best. He also gave Ijalana over 4m a year after no one else wanted him as a 2016 free agenct and to top it off ijalana had a lousy 2016 playing at or close to the vet min.

I was just pointing out that he really didn't ignore it as much as you think.  RT's and OG's are found in the mid to late rounds every draft so I wouldn't call Shell luck.  He tried to get Tunsil too so it's clear he understands it is a priority.

I bet this year after we draft our QB he adds a LT with one of those 2nd rounders. 

[bzane]

3 hours ago, Jag68Sid87 said:

I am going to take away some positives from Week 1. First, if we lose every single week because of bad QB and RB play, then that is an encouraging sign (because our oldest players are at those positions, and they won't be here next year). If we can't run the ball and our QB makes bad mistakes, then if we have to lose I'd rather lose that way. I thought Kony Ealy looked pretty good, which is encouraging. Leonard Williams was a hair away from doing some damage to Taylor on a couple of occasions. He will continue to be beastly all season. Adams played very well. Burris played well. That is encouraging. I didn't think the linebackers were as bad as people are suggesting. And I like our new kicker, his leg is strong.

Now the bad. I hate to say this but I think people are right about Mo Wilkerson. He just doesn't seem to care anymore. McLendon, too. He seemed to be dogging it at times on Sunday. Also, the playcalling by Morton. WTF! Slow developing screens, ugly short-yardage tosses. I know it's one game but he did not impress. The OC needs to call plays to our team strengths. I didn't think he did that much in Week 1.

Another positive note is Will Tye. I think he is a serviceable player.

 

Overall, I thought we could have won the game if we had a QB. I don't think we can ask for more this season.

 

Manish Mehta, dynamic beat reporter who covers the Jets, sez by trading Sheldon Richardson the Jets were sending a shape-up-or-ship-out message to Mo Wilkerson:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/jets-delivered-message-mo-wilkerson-trading-sheldon-article-1.3478076

The Jets delivered a not-so-subtle message to Muhammad Wilkerson by trading away former Pro Bowler Sheldon Richardson last week: Get your act together or you’ll be gone, too.

Some people in the organization felt that Wilkerson used his ankle issue (stemming from off-season leg surgery) as a convenient crutch, a red herring by an underperforming player. He was plenty healthy, they insist. Those people were also fully aware that Wilkerson wasn’t exactly keeping himself in good shape in the months immediately after the season. (Opposing scouts told me in March that Wilkerson was a bit portly at Temple Pro Day).

[NYJets4716]

The Jets mistake was letting Harrison go and keeping Wilkerson. Harrison was more important, he hasn't folded since getting a big contract either. He still plays hungry for the Giants. But I said it then, we needed to keep our NT which is a hard position to fill. We had Richarsdon and Williams, we could have afford more to let Wilkerson go. 

Now we have a overpaid player who doesn't create a impact anymore.  Jets traded Richardson because they had no choice, it was never feasible to keep the 3 together. And Richardson's trade value has went to ****. We were lucky to get a 2nd round pick back at this point. Seahawks won that trade. 

[Rich51]

10 hours ago, NYJets4716 said:

The Jets mistake was letting Harrison go and keeping Wilkerson. Harrison was more important, he hasn't folded since getting a big contract either. He still plays hungry for the Giants. But I said it then, we needed to keep our NT which is a hard position to fill. We had Richarsdon and Williams, we could have afford more to let Wilkerson go. 

Now we have a overpaid player who doesn't create a impact anymore.  Jets traded Richardson because they had no choice, it was never feasible to keep the 3 together. And Richardson's trade value has went to ****. We were lucky to get a 2nd round pick back at this point. Seahawks won that trade. 

I agree that if there was a choice between Snacks and Mo we should have kept Snacks for the reason you mentioned, however I do not think we would have matched the Giant's offer. What upsets me is that the year before, when we had all that money, we gave Snacks a 2nd round tender instead of locking him up for 5 years. He was already one of the best NTs in the game but instead of investing in a young stud we wasted money on a bunch of old guys.

i don't know what happened to Mo but, although he had a good year with Poula at NT, I think his best years were when he played next to Snacks. Maybe it's just a coincidence or maybe he just was better when we had a strong nose tackle taking up space.

 

[rdelaney89]

Hindsight is always 20/20, no one wanted to lose Snacks but at the time we were given the option of Snacks or Mo. Mo had been dominant and the idea of having him, Leo, and Sheldon on the line together made our mouths water. Unfortunately for us Snacks was what made Mo so great. I don't fault the thought process but man I wish we had Snacks. Mo will be cut at the end of the year, I have no doubt about it.

[NYJets4716]

8 hours ago, rdelaney89 said:

Hindsight is always 20/20, no one wanted to lose Snacks but at the time we were given the option of Snacks or Mo. Mo had been dominant and the idea of having him, Leo, and Sheldon on the line together made our mouths water. Unfortunately for us Snacks was what made Mo so great. I don't fault the thought process but man I wish we had Snacks. Mo will be cut at the end of the year, I have no doubt about it.

It didn't make mine, because they all played the same position. I miss Snacks, he was such a dominant force at NT for us. Hes the type of player you don't let hit FA. 

[rdelaney89]

11 hours ago, NYJets4716 said:

It didn't make mine, because they all played the same position. I miss Snacks, he was such a dominant force at NT for us. Hes the type of player you don't let hit FA. 

We weren't going to let a 12 sack player walk.

[Dr.O]

Snacks was a fantastic player and will alway be one of my favorites but he's a NT that to a team that runs a 34 and in an age in the NFL where teams play more and more Nickle and Dime it didn't make sense. Also lets not forget how good Mo used to be.

[NYJets4716]

6 hours ago, Dr.O said:

Snacks was a fantastic player and will alway be one of my favorites but he's a NT that to a team that runs a 34 and in an age in the NFL where teams play more and more Nickle and Dime it didn't make sense. Also lets not forget how good Mo used to be.

Snacks has shown  that hes more than that. The Giants run a 4-3 and hes the anchor in that middle for them. Fact is Snacks is the most dominant run defender in the league, hes a load for any OL to handle, he frees up LBs and other DL because he demands attention.

[Dr.O]

27 minutes ago, NYJets4716 said:

Snacks has shown  that hes more than that. The Giants run a 4-3 and hes the anchor in that middle for them. Fact is Snacks is the most dominant run defender in the league, hes a load for any OL to handle, he frees up LBs and other DL because he demands attention.

They run a different scheme and a DT is more important in that scheme compared to ours

[doumeyer]

2 hours ago, Dr.O said:

They run a different scheme and a DT is more important in that scheme compared to ours

 

2 hours ago, Dr.O said:

They run a different scheme and a DT is more important in that scheme compared to ours

Every team in the NFL has a different scheme  than us. Most of us on the board have no idea who our defensive coordinator is. Getting a third round pick for Snacks was a joke, than giving the pick away for nothing should of gotten our loser of a GM fired. And we Didn't, even get a thank you from the Giants for giving them a FIRST TEAM ALL PRO DT.

[ekill08x]

13 minutes ago, doumeyer said:

 

Every team in the NFL has a different scheme  than us. Most of us on the board have no idea who our defensive coordinator is. Getting a third round pick for Snacks was a joke, than giving the pick away for nothing should of gotten our loser of a GM fired. And we Didn't, even get a thank you from the Giants for giving them a FIRST TEAM ALL PRO DT.

no disagreement there. his draft day trades were pitiful. letting snacks go sucked too even though at the time he would have been crucified not tagging Mo and we knew we all wanted Fitz back. we gave the money to the wrong guys and it came back to bite us. mac will get more time though. bowles will not. and if we can persuade Harbaugh to come here (wishful thinking) and the Jags are stupid enough to let Marrone go...Doug Marrone is our guy. Guy is no nonsense and his teams play hard. Hes a Bronx guy too. Its the type of coach we need here. 

[Dr.O]

53 minutes ago, doumeyer said:

 

Every team in the NFL has a different scheme  than us. Most of us on the board have no idea who our defensive coordinator is. Getting a third round pick for Snacks was a joke, than giving the pick away for nothing should of gotten our loser of a GM fired. And we Didn't, even get a thank you from the Giants for giving them a FIRST TEAM ALL PRO DT.

Cool I'm not paying a 3-4 NT Over a 3-4 DE especially when both were playing at elite levels

[ekill08x]

58 minutes ago, Dr.O said:

Cool I'm not paying a 3-4 NT Over a 3-4 DE especially when both were playing at elite levels

snacks got 9 mil and clearly isnt just a 3-4 NT. Considering we had 3 DEs and 2 spots...it turned out to be a monumental mistake. We needed to trade mo and it just never happened. Losing snacks was a huge crutch to that DL. People forget how long it took to get a good NT and how much it meant to our defense so I am paying the NT every single time. At this point it doesnt matter its just another hole we need to fill moving forward. List is getting long

[rdelaney89]

1 hour ago, ekill08x said:

snacks got 9 mil and clearly isnt just a 3-4 NT. Considering we had 3 DEs and 2 spots...it turned out to be a monumental mistake. We needed to trade mo and it just never happened. Losing snacks was a huge crutch to that DL. People forget how long it took to get a good NT and how much it meant to our defense so I am paying the NT every single time. At this point it doesnt matter its just another hole we need to fill moving forward. List is getting long

I can't fault Macc for not trading Mo, we tried to sign him or trade him for at least 2 years but couldn't get equal return. If Macc let Mo go for a 2nd the fans would have gone bananas, unfortunately we would have loved that move now.