Jets looking to trade DT Quinnen WIlliams

[Bobby816]

1 hour ago, jetfuel34 said:

I have read reports that they are not moving Q unless they get a packed deal like Adams. This will cots them 2 first round picks plus. I hope we don't trade him. He is a good building block along with Becton. I do see us doing a few more trades before the deadline. Don't be surprised if we move a draft pick for a young player that has talent but needs a change of scenery. Guys you look at would be WR John Ross from Cinn, Sonny Michel, Thuney, and Harry from the Pats, Even Emgram from the Giants to name a few. I think the Pats and Jets will start too trade more with each other. They are both hurting and will do anything to bump their team up a few levels. 

And that’s “kinda” my thoughts. We shouldn’t give him away. It should be a steep price. But he’s certainly not this cornerstone piece either “yet” (I don’t think very many DTs are cornerstone pieces).

We should have a very high price for him and not budge from that. As I stated... his impact on the field isn’t worthy of being not tradable. He certainly isn’t moving the needle much to help us win games.

[Rockice_8]

39 minutes ago, Bobby816 said:

And that’s “kinda” my thoughts. We shouldn’t give him away. It should be a steep price. But he’s certainly not this cornerstone piece either “yet” (I don’t think very many DTs are cornerstone pieces).

We should have a very high price for him and not budge from that. As I stated... his impact on the field isn’t worthy of being not tradable. He certainly isn’t moving the needle much to help us win games.

The goal posts can't continue to move for the kid.  We can say well he's not helping us win so we should move him.  Put Donald in his spot and we are in the same spot.  What more can he do he's one of the best DTs in football according to the analytics.

Before you try and use Adams as an example saying he carried our D last year, Sea was dead last in the NFL in defense before he got hurt and we only started to win after playing a joke of a schedule down the stretch.  It's not the sport where one non QB can make all the difference.  If we had just a little better cover corners maybe he does have 5-6 sacks and not 3.  

Kid can't do it on his own when your offense can't score a TD.  

Your previous post said you'd move him for a 1st now you are saying a 1st plus.  Which is it?

If you don't value DTs you should be fine with a late first or high 2.  If you think 1st plus then you clearly value good DTs.

[Bobby816]

2 hours ago, Rockice_8 said:

The goal posts can't continue to move for the kid.  We can say well he's not helping us win so we should move him.  Put Donald in his spot and we are in the same spot.  What more can he do he's one of the best DTs in football according to the analytics.

Before you try and use Adams as an example saying he carried our D last year, Sea was dead last in the NFL in defense before he got hurt and we only started to win after playing a joke of a schedule down the stretch.  It's not the sport where one non QB can make all the difference.  If we had just a little better cover corners maybe he does have 5-6 sacks and not 3.  

Kid can't do it on his own when your offense can't score a TD.  

Your previous post said you'd move him for a 1st now you are saying a 1st plus.  Which is it?

If you don't value DTs you should be fine with a late first or high 2.  If you think 1st plus then you clearly value good DTs.

I don’t value DT. But other people do. Obviously who is giving the 1st rounder depends on if I think he’s worth just a 1st. If it’s extremely late in the 1st... than I’d want more than that for him.

[Rockice_8]

6 minutes ago, Bobby816 said:

I don’t value DT. But other people do. Obviously who is giving the 1st rounder depends on if I think he’s worth just a 1st. If it’s extremely late in the 1st... than I’d want more than that for him.

Sounds like you do value DTs if you are holding out for more than a late 1st.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Rockice_8

[Bobby816]

1 hour ago, Rockice_8 said:

Sounds like you do value DTs if you are holding out for more than a late 1st.

No it’s that I value where we drafted him. It’s be 100% idiotic to trade a 3rd pick in his 2nd year who hasn’t been a bust, but hasn’t exactly been a pro bowler either.

Id rather see what he can do under his rookie contract than give him away for nothing. It’s about value.

I don’t value DT, but I value a player we drafted 3rd overall in his 2nd year. So he’s not not tradable bc his ply doesn’t seem that. And if a team will give up value for him I’d move him. If he was at a more premium position for me. I 100% wouldn’t trade him.

[JetsFan15]

8 hours ago, Bobby816 said:

I dont value DTs

You should.  Game is still won in the trenches.  Don't think so ... SF D-line investment is one of the reasons they have improved.  Q is untouchable, along with Bechton and Sam (until we secure 1st overall pick).  

Edited October 28, 2020 by JetsFan15

[Bobby816]

1 hour ago, JetsFan15 said:

You should.  Game is still won in the trenches.  Don't think so ... SF D-line investment is one of the reasons they have improved.  Q is untouchable, along with Bechton and Sam (until we secure 1st overall pick).  

I disagree. But to each their own. I see it as Bosa and Ford as to why there DLine creates havoc. Even Armstead lines up as an Edge a lot. Hence why I value edge rushers and not DL. We’ve had a great interior line for over a decade. And what has that done for us?

[JetsFan15]

12 minutes ago, Bobby816 said:

I disagree. But to each their own. I see it as Bosa and Ford as to why there DLine creates havoc. Even Armstead lines up as an Edge a lot. Hence why I value edge rushers and not DL. We’ve had a great interior line for over a decade. And what has that done for us?

I said Dline not DT.  Good/great DT are a key to a great Dline. as are DE/Edges - they work as a group just like OL does.  100% agree on the edge arguement and that we have needed that since trading Big John.  But the foundation of the Dline has to start somewhere and we have a very nice, young and talented pieced in Q.  Forget what position he was drafted at as that clearly clouds your judgement here.  That is over ... we passed on Allen and took Q - let's not compound that mistake by trading Q on his rookie deal and upward trending. 

Edited October 29, 2020 by JetsFan15

[KingOfNewYork]

2 hours ago, JetsFan15 said:

You should.  Game is still won in the trenches.  Don't think so ... SF D-line investment is one of the reasons they have improved.  Q is untouchable, along with Bechton and Sam (until we secure 1st overall pick).  

I don’t think the problem is Q himself but we here wanted players at more valuable positions(Josh Allen) or if you wanted to go boom or bust then go after Metcalf. We picked 5 DTs in the first round in 9 years(Mo, Sheldon, Coples, Leo and Q) and our best Defensive Tackles during that time frame have been UDFA Snacks and Fatukasi. Q has taken a step this year I’ll give him that. 

[Bobby816]

9 hours ago, JetsFan15 said:

I said Dline not DT.  Good/great DT are a key to a great Dline. as are DE/Edges - they work as a group just like OL does.  100% agree on the edge arguement and that we have needed that since trading Big John.  But the foundation of the Dline has to start somewhere and we have a very nice, young and talented pieced in Q.  Forget what position he was drafted at as that clearly clouds your judgement here.  That is over ... we passed on Allen and took Q - let's not compound that mistake by trading Q on his rookie deal and upward trending. 

Foley, JFK and Philips are still a good group if we did trade Q. As I stated, I'd only trade him if the return was great. But it's not like he's our only good player on the interior of our DL.

[xrade]

13 hours ago, Bobby816 said:

We’ve had a great interior line for over a decade

We have not had a great iDL, we have players we thought would make a great iDL.  On paper they were supposed to be good.  It never materialized.

[Dr.O]

9 minutes ago, xrade said:

We have not had a great iDL, we have players we thought would make a great iDL.  On paper they were supposed to be good.  It never materialized.

I mean the Mo-Snacks-Richardson trio was pretty good for a stretch

[Bobby816]

23 minutes ago, xrade said:

We have not had a great iDL, we have players we thought would make a great iDL.  On paper they were supposed to be good.  It never materialized.

Leo had flashes at around this stage of his career as well and now we have only ended up with a 4th rounder for him bc we turned the page on him. So if we can get a good 1 for Q or a late 1 and more... I'm making the move and get a premium position with the pick. 

[xrade]

4 hours ago, Dr.O said:

I mean the Mo-Snacks-Richardson trio was pretty good for a stretch

Ahh, the "Sons of Anarchy".  They were not a terrible group, but they certainly did not live up to their moniker. I think they may have had a year possibly two where we could say they were a great group.  Sadly, Mo decided to stop trying and Sheldon had too many distractions.  Snacks was awesome for the role he was assigned; take up blockers and stuff the run.  I guess it all depends on what one defines as a good iDL.

[Tetsujin]

How many good starters on the OL do you have going into 2021 aside from Becton?

I'd liquidate Q, Darnold, and probably another good defensive player to build up the OL FAST for the QotF. That's what Miami did, and it looks like it's paying off. Although hitting on 3 OLmen in 1 draft is a bit of good fortune.