I'm not going to defend the pick. Nevertheless, if one looks at the stats of most DE's selected in Round 1, they are not out of line with what McDonald produced, with the understanding that he hardly played his first year. So, I think the jury is still out on him and hopefully he'll continue to improve.
Yeah, but we could have had one for dirt cheap by extending Huff then and invest a top pick in a top WR. No matter how you slice this one, JD fucked up.
We were going to extend Huff for dirt cheap? I think this is romanticizing a bit. Because it would have been before he got the big Eagles deal doesn't mean it would have been dirt cheap. Negotiations work both ways and more often than not a player knows their worth on the open market before they hit it. Then on top of it you're assuming we'd have gone WR at 16. How can you assume the guy you (and all of us) think stunk would do the right thing no matter what? I was pretty unhappy when Huff walked, I'd have paid him what he got from the Eagles, but that was very far from "dirt cheap".
That is why you extend a year early. It would be for dirt cheap then and we could have had a top WR on a rookie deal on top of it and maybe JD wouldn't feel he has to trade JFM. Which he didn't either way, but of course fucked up again.
But you're still assuming the price tag you wanted Huff at is the one he was going to sign the dotted line for just because it was a year early. Put yourself in Huff's shoes... you're exploding on to the scene and you are about to hit the open market in a year. Why would you settle for "dirt cheap"? And this is the romanticizing part. Reality and what we think are usually two separate things when it comes to money and negotiations.
Because he was not proven yet. After a 10 sack season he signed for $17.5. Do you really think he would cost anywhere near that much BEFORE that season when he is coming off 3 sacks? I am really not sure what point you are making here. If you are offended by words "dirt cheap", OK I will rephrase to significantly less money. AND on top of that we could have had a great WR on a rookie deal. If you are trying to make some point here I am yet to hear it.
You're not seeing the point. YOU think that Huff could have been had for significantly less money. Why would the player who was about to hit the open market take significantly less money than he could get in a few months if he kept up the season he was having? That's romanticizing. It's the old "everyone wants to play in the Garden, they'll take a discount to sign with the Knicks". There's no way for us to EVER know the answer to this question of what Huff would have cost which is why I'm not pretending like I have it. Operating as if your read on the situation is the only correct one (with 0 knowledge of anything outside of quotes to the public) doesn't feel productive. Base level question: what gives you the indication that Bryce Huff was willing to sign for less than the market value of a 10 sack guy when he was on his way to being one?
What season was he having, when we drafted McD, that was off-season?! He was coming off 3 sacks season when we drafted McD and could have drafted a top WR instead and extended him then when he was under our control. His value was significantly less than a year later when he has 10 sacks. This should be very obvious, but if it not, let's agree to disagree.
Updated my post late probably after you started responding: Base level question: what gives you the indication that Bryce Huff was willing to sign for less than the market value of a 10 sack guy when he was on his way to being one?
Because he didn't have a time machine? At the time he was a 3 sack guy under tag contract with us for another year 2023 for 4 mil. Again, if you think at that time his value was the same as a year later when he proved himself, we are now in fantasy territory.
One of us is absolutely in fantasy territory. We should have offered a multi-year extension to a guy who played three years and had 7.5 total sacks? On what planet do teams lock up guys like that? They don't. Those are rotational players. This entire scenario you've concocted is the absolute perfect scenario which is never ever reality. And then if you fast forward to the very end of the 2023 season there were reports that Huff wanted to make around $20 mil a year... ended up with $17.5 mil a year. You think mid-year when he was still eligible for an extension as he's clearly on the rise and about to hit the open market, he'd have said "sure, give me 10 a year and we'll call it even"? Come on...
Just so that we are clear, the fantasy was your suggestion that in April 2023 Huff, who was due to play for 4 mil on a tender, would travel in time one year ahead 2024, saw that he was going to get 10 sacks and 17.5 mil per year then, return back to 2023 and refuse to sign extension for less than 17.5 in 2023 if offered when he was worth 4 mil. So, now you changed your argument to something a bit more realistic. Meaning you are saying we should not have extended Huff at the time since he was not great. But some of us actually liked him at the time - his price was around 4 mil, he was young, promising, and it was smart to have extended him then a year before he became a free agent, and would cost around that 5 mil or so then, certainly not 17.5. Unfortunately our GM at the time was not very smart.
If your goal is to say so many words that I can't follow and I just give up trying to explain to you that no teams sign 7 sack guys to multi year extensions in their 3rd year, it worked. I give up. You want to pretend that situation was available to us based on nothing, I don't, and I don't see the value in pretending it was real. If you can find me an instance where a team forewent a tender in year 3 and offered an extension instead, I'll play along but until then it's all baseless and pointless.
Hey it's the Borat and BroadwayQB show. Different day, same shit. Another smashing lesson about semantics.
the Bills did that with TE Dawson Knox but they came to regret it. They gave him a $53 million extension, making him, at the time, one of the most expensive TEs in the game. He's a part time player with 3 touchdowns total the last 2 seasons. I agree with you. (I think - its been hard to follow). That extending Huff would've been a bad or even impossible move. I had no problem letting him walk. Drafting McDonald is another story though
What's the problem, why are you getting personal? I just said JD should not have drafted McD and instead could have gotten a top WR and just extended Huff, which was not expensive at the time. Broadway then came in and disagreed, so we argued a bit. I mean this is a message board, there is no need to be insulting and condescending. We are all fans here. You don't have to read it if you don't like.
It's a very specific request, but sure here is one recent example from last year: https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/player/_/id/47815/jauan-jennings We could have done something similar. Clearly JD liked Huff enough to give 2nd round tender. But what should have been done later is getting something like 3 year 15 mil deal with 10 guaranteed. Get ahead of it for a player you like instead of wasting a 1st round pick on his replacement. We then pick up a WR in the draft. Could and should have been done but wasn't. And again this is not some new concept, it was brought up at the time: https://jetswire.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/jets/2023/03/13/new-york-jets-bryce-huff/79613676007/ "Chances are, Huff will at least take the tender and the Jets can always work to extend Huff."
