Not to digress here, but you think letting Slauson go was a good move??? I don't think you would be right about that.
Yeah, I think letting Slauson go was the right move. He's an ok guard but not much more than that. He was a significant part of the Jets unsettled line situation in 2011 and 2012. There were people on other sites tracking him more closely than I did and some of the evidence they came up with was pretty convincing. Somebody did a collage of what went wrong with Shonn Greene in 2012 and the number that was often in the picture with Greene was 68. You shouldn't be looking for players that are just above replacement level the way Slauson was when he was on the Jets. You live with those guys for a year if you have too but you have to be looking for better than that all the time. Too often the Jets appeared to be willing to live with the guy just above JAG until he was no longer able to hold up his end. That's not winning football. At this point, at least partly because they let go of Slauson the Jets have a crowd of guys around the guard position trying to get on the field. The odds are good they get a better player out of that crowd than they had in Slauson. There's even a chance they find a star. Slauson's chances of being a really good player are there but they're much lower than they were a few years ago and odds are in a few years he will be retired.
Slauson had a very good year with Chicago. Perhaps you are not aware of that. Brad, I know you are quite capable of being critical of the people who run the Jets, so I am very reluctant to accuse you of a knee jerk defense of Idzik. But keeping Ducasse was a better move than keeping Slauson??? You can think it a good result that Winters eventually replaced Ducasse, and at some point in the future will play better than Slauson. But Slauson seems to me just the kind of player you would otherwise like. Going into his fifth year, now a solid starter, doesn't demand big money. I am not aware of any locker room issues or off the field problems. He even helped the Jets out once by taking a pay cut. You thought it was better to retain Ducasse than him?
Brad, It occurs to me, let's try your analysis on Kyle Wilson. I recall you saying you see him as a solid plus as nickel back, which imo is the most important bench position on D, second most overall after third wideout. Virtually a starter. Should the Jets retain him when his contract expires, or let a competition among all these corners on the squad occur to replace him?
The Jets are virtually certain to let Wilson go at the end of this deal, barring a big season on his part. He's one of the guys you can get a comp pick out of down the road. Same for Bilal Powell. Maybe same for Jeremy Kerley depending on his season. Good season and he's re-signed, injury season and it probably depends on the type of deal you can sign him too, average season and he may well be on the move also. None of those guys match up one for one on a comp pick, depending on the deal they are signed to elsewhere, but as a group they fit well in the formula, which rewards teams that lose players coming off of multi-year deals who are then signed to multi-year deals by their new team.
I don't know if it's a virtual certainty, but here I tend to agree with you. So why did the Jets sign Pace, and not have a competition there?
We did't draft Saunders to start, ever. We drafted him to contribute as a slot receiver when Kerley departs in FA, and as a punt returner.
My guess is that they had bigger needs to fill. OLBs have never been a huge part of Rex's pass rush. It's more about the Dline pressure and shutdown corners that create additional blitzers. That might be a little bit different this year but I trust Rex will find those matchups. I don't agree about what Bradway said about Wilson either. He's turned out to be quite solid in the slot (one of the better slot CBs in the league actually). He doesn't put up flashy numbers which is kind of expected in that position. He won't break the bank to resign, so my money's on him returning unless one of the other guys does better immediately, but I just don't see it.
Considering the fact that Pace put up 10 sacks last year and had a lot of good run stops, he played his position about as well as anyone aside from what you would call a star player. Also take into account the price it cost to sign him, he is probably the best value on the team at the moment. If Pace retired, we'd probably see much more of a competition at his position.
Again i understand Barcs's view of Wilson, and he may be right despite my tendency here to agree with Brad that he will likely be gone. But on Pace, I merely wondered how Brad's notion that older vets should be pushed out to make room for (largely unproven) younger players. It doesn't fit, obviously, in his case. I thought that bringing back Pace was a good idea.
Well drafting a back up slot guy when you have such a dearth at the position in a receiver-heavy draft, makes no sense. Additionally, how many receivers in the nfl play at 165?? The guy is super frail. I totally get it for special teams, but as a receiver, no way.
Not to mention, who is starting opposite Decker? It's either Hill or Shaq Evans IMO. Neither option is promising, and that's coming from someone who liked the Shaq pick. I just would have preferred a room with more polish like Lee or Lattimer who Denver is already saying may start from Day 1.
How do you breed competition when you are drafting guys to never start for you? Seems counterintuitive.
For one thing, he's already up to 175. We'll see if he can maintain that weight. Kerley is only under contract until the end of the season, and who constitutes the "dearth?" Better to have a young, promising guy with a year in the system to step in as the primary slot receiver than to wait until next year and hope a rookie is our primary slot receiver.
"Starting" is an overrated term. The slot receiver position is very important in the West Coast Offense, but it is not considered a starter. We drafted Saunders to be our #1 slot weapon and #1 punt returner in 2015, or at least to compete for those roles. The fact that they liked his talent enough to draft him in the 4th makes me think he probably is more likely to win those positions. His potential to become productive in both the slot position and the punt returner position made him a priority player in the top of the 4th round. Shaq Evans was drafted to compete for the #4 receiver position in 2014 and the #2 receiver position in 2015. Right now, Eric Decker is the top WR on the team. Stephen Hill is the second best WR on the team. A 4th round rookie is highly highly unlikely to de-seat him in that role. For better or for worse, Stephen Hill is the 2nd most skilled outside receiver on our roster for the 2014 year. If he does not make significant improvements this year, there is a reasonable chance that Shaq Evans steals that role as the second best receiver come 2015. Sure, if Evans shows more than Hill in training camp he will win the job, but the chances of him actually outperforming him are slim to none. The good news is that our second best receiver is not responsible for a high percentage of our offensive production. We have two very solid RB's, a very solid WR, and two very solid receiving TE's. Seattle's starting WR's last year were Doug Baldwin a 5'10" 190 pound undrafted free agent, and Golden Tate a 5'10" 200 pound 2nd round pick. Because their offense is centered around a dominant running game, these two "undersized" but tough receivers were able to be effective. We have better receivers than Seattle had last year, so I don't know what all this fuss is about.
Actually I would not be surprised if Nelson started, at least some games. He started 6 games last year in 12 opportunities. I am not saying I feel great about that, but when naming names, I wouldn't leave him out.
The Jets had no young OLB's to promote. If they'd spent draft picks outside in the last year or two (2013/2012) they probably would have cut ties with Pace. As it was they didn't have anybody in the chute ready to compete and there was no point in letting Pace go after he demonstrated last year that he had at worst plateaued after stepping down some the previous year. I don't think bringing back your vets to compete is a bad idea when you have nobody else ready to go. I don't think it is a bad idea to bring them back when the ranks are thin and the competition is unlikely to produce a positive result from just the unproven players. Obviously the ranks aren't thin at CB at this point. The talent level is not clear but there are a horde of CB's waiting to get a chance to compete this off-season.
The thread was doomed from the start. And most of it's relevant because we drafted a CB in the 3rd, when we could have gone WR, or used that 3rd to trade up for a higher 2nd round pick and get Lee. It's all interconnected People are asking who will start next to Decker. It won't just be one guy. The Jets will most likely keep at least 5 WRs on the roster. That means 5 spots, 2 of which are probably filled with Decker and Kerley. That leaves 3 open spots with a ton of rookies, Hill and Nelson to compete for. You can't not like that.
LOL...You speak in such absolutes about why we drafted these players and for what year as though you are part of the FO. Based on your analysis above we essentially have the same WR depth chart for 2014 with Holmes swapped out for Decker. Forgive me for not doing cartwheels about that. Considering we had 30+ million dollars of cap space and one of the deepest WR drafts in history, I expected the top of the WR depth chart to be significantly different. I certainly wasn't expecting to go into yet another year depending on Stephen Hill to hopefully realizing his potential. I know that Idzik came from there but all these SEA comparisons really need to stop. Seems like the defense to every questionable move done by the FO will begin with ""Look at SEA...". They have a completely different scouting department, FO, coaching staff, roster, defense, QB, ST, homefield advantage, in a different conference, division...etc., you name it. Even with all that said, I'm not quite sure what makes Balwin and Tate so inferior than Decker and Hill. Is it their size, draft position?
