Interesting, good to know. If that's the case then the Jets should make a play for Jackson as long as there's no damaging cap implications in the later years of the contract.
Yes I say pay the man,and I say it because we have lacked a guy like him for ever.When's the last time the Jets had a guy like him on offense?After a year we will find out if it was worth it and we have a ton of cap space.We need a full makeover on offense ,besides Sanchez and Holmes who have we spent money on on offense not counting lineman
That is what we did with Decker and is generally done with most contracts. Spreading out signing bonuses so that you pay more later. I would much rather spread it out evenly rather than pushing more dollars into future years caps. Especially when we are in a pretty solvent position with no need to spend to win now. Rather using our build a team over time philosphy that we are in it makes a lot more sense not to reach out and push money into future cap years. If we were one two players away it might make more sense. This pay later philosophy is what put us in such bad cap hell between 2002 and 2006 and was one of the main reasons that Belichick would not take the Jets job in 2001. Back when Parcells was buying the groceries he had his cap guy Tannenbaum spend all the money pushing it out into the future. Leaving us with some very lean years between 2002 and 2006 where we could not sign not only other teams FAs but we could not sign our own. All we could do was push money into the future. To Bradway's credit he did not follow this spending philosophy except for the TY Law deal in 2005 and eventually the new CBA cleared out Parcells cap crisis. Tannenbaum while not afraid to money was not near as reckless as Parcells pushing money out into the future but having a plan to at least clear it all out. Idzik seems to be much more conservative with Tanny in the middle and Parcells in the extreme.
I've watched this tons of times. It has both Vick, and DJax in it. It's not football related, but it's interesting watching it now knowing both could be Jets this off-season. Jackson just comes across as being such a tool, and an idiot. edit: Wow uploading videos finally works! I love this new site.
Just to add, Desean has removed "Eagles" from his Twitter bio and he followed Steinberg....more and more #Jets evidence
I'm relatively indifferent to the deal. I don't think DJax is worth it because I've seen enough Eagles games to know he disappears too often, and I don't think he was all that impressive in Marty's offense in Philly. I'm not of the mindset to spend money just because we can. I don't know all the cap ramifications, but I'm sure we could find better ways to spend it. Regardless, if they think it's a good fit, then fine. I just think it's funny that we would spend as much as we would on 2 WRs in FA in the deepest WR draft in a while. To me, that's the definition of same old Jets, and I'm a believer in Idzik's style (or so I thought).
That play against the Giants is why you have to consider making the trade for Jackson. We really haven't had a playmaker of that caliber since Leon Washington.
You are the voice of reason Sensei. I am torn when it comes to DJax. I know he is a big play maker that will bring a new dimension to Jets offense but on the other hand his character is a concern for me. After Holmes, I am sour against "diva" players. We shall see. I hope you are right though.
All big time playmaker wide receivers are divas to some extent. it's a flashy position. get used to it. we've never had one so maybe that's where all this backlash is coming from. I imagine all of you guys wouldn't have wanted Michael Irvin in his prime either.
