Jump to content
jetskid007

2020 NFL Free Agency: Rumors and Reports

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, jetskid007 said:

Again, I will break it down for you in chunks. 

  1. It is of my opinion that the top tackles are better players than the top receivers by in large. That has always been my stance. If you disagree with that, fine, matter of preference. But to say one day you have a higher grade on a player, than the next change it simply because of need tells me you really aren't stacking you're "board" based on talent. You're basing it purely on need... so unless you go out and grade the players quantitatively and stick with that grade, I don't really put much credit into said "board", but again, it's just my opinion versus yours, which you're entitled to, but I'm just calling you out for flip flopping based on need. 
  2. Using Mayfield as a response is a direct correlation with your opinion, which you said, "And yes I think early in a players career if you don't give them weapons to work with it can make or break them." I responded with an example in Baker Mayfield. He was given Odell Beckham and Kareem Hunt in 2019 to add with existing "significantly invested in weapons" in Jarvis Landry, David Njoku, and Nick Chubb... yet he got worse. I'm not saying that your premise is incorrect, I'm saying that it's flawed. Getting a player "top notch talent" does not mean they will end up any better or any worse than they would've been without that top notch talent. Using Mark Sanchez as an example is also flawed. The coaches ruined him, not the lack of talent. He was rushed into the lineup before he was ready, and they literally made him play with training wheels on for a few years without truly challenging him to be a better player. He was bad with weapons and it only looked worse without top notch weapons. The Jets never failed him on a weapons standpoint- they simply never developed him. That's on the coaches, not the players.
  3. I recognize you view adding to the OL as important. I have no issue with people who want a WR at 11- it's your thought process getting there. Instead of trying to justify your decision to make it sound like you have a legitimate basis- just admit that you want a star receiver that you can adore as a flashy player. Don't try and manufacture some frankenstein of an answer to make it seem like you're making an informed response based on data, facts, or logical basis. Example: just admit that you want ice cream in the morning instead of multi-vitamin because it's more exciting and tastes better than multi-vitamin, even though every factual study shows that multi-vitamin is the more healthy and sustainable option in the morning. Another example: some people like banging escorts. Those people are entitled to like to do that or prefer to do that. It's exciting, it's thrilling, hell it can be amazing, but it's not smart. The smarter option by every single measure of logic? Find a long-term girlfriend/wife because it's more sustainable than the escort. 
  4. My issue with WR at 11 is not a matter of what happens at 48. I don't think that way. I think in terms of value. The greatest value for tackles is in round 1. The greatest value for WRs/RBs are between rounds 2-4 in this draft. The greatest value for TEs is in round 5-6. The greatest value for DEs is in round 2. The greatest value for CBs is in round 1-2. For me (as well as many who are in the industry) it's all about taking advantage of value. Chances are 48 is going to be a wasteland for tackles. In fact, if we go WR 11 I'm probably rooting for the Jets to take a EDGE or CB at 48 because the value will be there, whereas the value won't be there at tackle. Reaching for a player is a mistake- period. Why take that risk when you have 3-5 top 15 prospects available at tackle at 11 with very little talent at T in rounds 2-3, versus the deepest wide receiver class ever? It makes categorically no sense. The dropoff from WR1 to WR20 isn't even close to the drop off from OT1/2/3/4/5 to OT8. 

 

Here is my pitch: if you emotionally just want a WR that you can say is a 1st round pick (i.e. Drafting Metcalf at #3) that's fine! That's what you want because that's what you like and that's your preference and I can't argue with that. But to try and argue that it's logical without providing data, study, or evidence in the face of every single statistic that suggests the right move is taking a top tackle over a top wide receiver by every quantifiable measure is simply nonsensical. We all have the right not to make sense and to make poor decisions, but at least acknowledge it is my plea. 

This is just your opinion on my thoughts and quite frankly it’s not accurate at all. And is laughable at this point.

 

I all offseason have been saying we needed an OLineman at 11. We got 3 new starters (more than likely) and Edoga who should only have gotten better. I don’t think our OL is fixed. I in my mock offseason always had us upgrading at WR in FA in some way. For me, losing Robby and adding Perriman was a downgrade and obviously a position I thought we needed to address. And quite frankly have thought we needed to address since. Holmes, Edwards days (I loved the Marshall, Decker duo, but we only had that for a season). So yes I have screamed we need WRs every single season since we have had an awful group nearly every season. To think what my thoughts on the draft after FA changing is odd, is HILARIOUS to me. I’d be an idiot if my thoughts didn’t change. So for me WR has now become a bigger need than OL. I have ALWAYS ranked Jeudy and a lamb high in this draft class. I’ve had them below the 4 OLineman based on need. Just like now I have the WRs moves ahead of them post FA. We make a trade for a guy like Cooks and my board will swing more to OL. We make a trade for Williams and my board will stay with WRs at the top. I don’t think that’s weird at all. And for the elevendy billionth time... I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR OPINION OF HOW I CARE TO BUILD OUR FAV TEAM!!! I can’t say that enough. So any moves made at WR or OL will continue to change my board. 
 

And for the record I stated countless times last year I only wanted Metcalf if we addressed edge in FA. We didn’t, therefor I wanted Allen. Both are leaps and bounds better than Q already. I believe you were ok with Q, bc he was “BPA” Metcalf and Allen say what’s up to you and Q.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bobby816 said:

This is just your opinion on my thoughts and quite frankly it’s not accurate at all. And is laughable at this point.

 

I all offseason have been saying we needed an OLineman at 11. We got 3 new starters (more than likely) and Edoga who should only have gotten better. I don’t think our OL is fixed. I in my mock offseason always had us upgrading at WR in FA in some way. For me, losing Robby and adding Perriman was a downgrade and obviously a position I thought we needed to address. And quite frankly have thought we needed to address since. Holmes, Edwards days (I loved the Marshall, Decker duo, but we only had that for a season). So yes I have screamed we need WRs every single season since we have had an awful group nearly every season. To think what my thoughts on the draft after FA changing is odd, is HILARIOUS to me. I’d be an idiot if my thoughts didn’t change. So for me WR has now become a bigger need than OL. I have ALWAYS ranked Jeudy and a lamb high in this draft class. I’ve had them below the 4 OLineman based on need. Just like now I have the WRs moves ahead of them post FA. We make a trade for a guy like Cooks and my board will swing more to OL. We make a trade for Williams and my board will stay with WRs at the top. I don’t think that’s weird at all. And for the elevendy billionth time... I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR OPINION OF HOW I CARE TO BUILD OUR FAV TEAM!!! I can’t say that enough. So any moves made at WR or OL will continue to change my board. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jetskid007 said:

 

Absolutely. As long as the players talent is worthy of that spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bobby816 said:

Absolutely. As long as the players talent is worthy of that spot.

tenor.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, I’m all for JD drafting a WR at 11 just for the JetsKid007 meltdown and him talking himself into liking the approach. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DowNY said:

At this point, I’m all for JD drafting a WR at 11 just for the JetsKid007 meltdown and him talking himself into liking the approach. 

You would see no meltdown here, I would just say how I believed it wasn't the smart approach based on all the data and studies available. Logic points to drafting a top 15-level WR over an top 15-level OL as the inferior approach, and I'm not going to change that belief regardless who we draft. I also think when you talk about resource allocation - whether it be in football, assets, or even accumulation of goods, it's smart to spend your most valuable resources on the most scarce assets, and use less valuable resources where assets are more plentiful. 

That said, he's the GM, he's entitled to build the team in his image no matter what I think. I would support the player, hope the player performs well, and hope the player results in us winning more games- but I can still think it would be a foolish decision. 

Anyway, I'm pretty confident that won't be the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jetfuel34 said:

His wife is very easy on the eyes. 

Not my type personally but respects

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would a happy medium for the guys wanting OT and the guys wanting a WR be this...

Trade down to grab an extra 2nd..

Go OT in the first (Jackson, Jones etc) 

Then using both our 2nds on receivers (Aiuyk, Shenault, Hamler, Reagor etc) 

Everyone wins and we can all get along 🙌🏼

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bianconero said:

Random but I went to George Fant's IG and his bio says "JETS LT"

Interesting to note that Joe Douglas told him something about playing LT for us

https://www.instagram.com/george_fant44/

I read or watched a video where it’s clear Douglas sees him as an LT and not a RT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KingOfTheDot said:

I read or watched a video where it’s clear Douglas sees him as an LT and not a RT. 

Pretty much cements that our rookie OT will play RT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KingOfTheDot said:

Baker had weapons galore but no OL and struggled a ton. 

The year before he had a decent OL before losing zeitler.  They lost a good OG added and elite WR and he declined because of lack of pass protection.

I want Ruggs on this team but the smart play is any of the 5 OTs yes that includes Jones who is also a stud.

Most WRs can get open when they have another 2 seconds to work.  Just look at Sam's numbers with a clean pocket.  And that was without any good WRs.  It's time to give him time and let him work.

Aiyuk in round 2, BP, Crowder, Herndon and Bell is good enough if we can prove that he can execute a 5 step drop without 2 guys in his face.  

Let's be smart and protect our QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, xenajets said:

So would a happy medium for the guys wanting OT and the guys wanting a WR be this...

Trade down to grab an extra 2nd..

Go OT in the first (Jackson, Jones etc) 

Then using both our 2nds on receivers (Aiuyk, Shenault, Hamler, Reagor etc) 

Everyone wins and we can all get along 🙌🏼

Jackson, Aiyuk and Hamler all being Jets before we even make our 3rd round selection would be a dream come true. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...