Re: Leon traded to Seattle...
Demetrios
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:43:26 -0400, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> >...together with our 7th pick, for a 5th today.
>
> >Now I understand McKnight, but....
>
> Leon's wife's reaction to trade:
> @charityluvs Good Luck paying the 20 people due contracts @ the end of the season. Lol.
> Thank You Jesus for getting us out of here.
It made sense from a business standpoint. You don't know how well he
recovered from the injury, and regardless of what happens you would
need to re-sign him at the end of the season, with a bunch of other
guys. And he was asking to be paid like Sproules.
Now we have a punt returner (Kyle Wilson) and a change of pace RB (Joe
McKnight), who we don't have to pay big money to for a few years. It
makes sense.
As I told my father when he broke the news to me (I was at lunch with
the in-laws), I seem to recall another fourth round pick who was a
dynamic change of pace RB and kick returner for us, who we parted ways
with, and went on to run back one more kickoff for a TD, but otherwise
do absolutely nothing. He was also named Leon, as it happens.
I wish Leon the best (although his wife's tweets dampen my
enthusiasm), but that's the risk you take when you pass up a contract
extension to test the market.
D.
MZ
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:43:26 -0400, buRford <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>
>> ...together with our 7th pick, for a 5th today.
>>
>> Now I understand McKnight, but....
>
>
> Starting to think that Tanny sometimes trades, just for the sake of it.
> Leon must be pretty far from being ready to play... maybe ever?
No, I think it was just a stupid trade.
Didn't think it would be possible, but draft day comes and the Jets
actually got worse. Amazing.
Harlan Lachman
buRford <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:43:26 -0400, buRford <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>
> >...together with our 7th pick, for a 5th today.
> >
> >Now I understand McKnight, but....
>
> and we picked Kentucky FB John Conner, with the 5th.
>
> Starting to think that Tanny sometimes trades, just for the sake of it.
> Leon must be pretty far from being ready to play... maybe ever?
No, I think Demetrious summed it up. It is all about the money. Tanny
got a back up for TR and time to train him and got a replacement for
Leon and next year avoids letting Leon walk for nothing if there is a
CBA.
$$$
MZ
He didn't take any risk. He won't be crying over this. This was the
only way he was going to get his payday.
MZ
If there's a CBA and Leon walked, they probably would have gotten a 5th
round compensatory pick in '12.
Harlan Lachman
MZ <ma...@nospam.void> wrote:
A pick for a player they want today is worth more than a pick in the
same round in two years from now, plus he goes to the west coast in a
different conference.
h
MZ
Still way lower than what any of us had been talking about previously.
I was even hesitant to see him go for a 2nd in '10, let alone a 5th in
'11 (and minus a 7th). I think they really screwed the pooch here.
What did they trade for Cromartie for a one year rental? A conditional
2nd/3rd in '11? See what I mean?
news.optonline.net
"buRford" <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote in message
news:j286t5pvb1pk7oc2t...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:43:26 -0400, buRford <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>
>>...together with our 7th pick, for a 5th today.
>>
>>Now I understand McKnight, but....
>
> and we picked Kentucky FB John Conner, with the 5th.
>
> Starting to think that Tanny sometimes trades, just for the sake of it.
> Leon must be pretty far from being ready to play... maybe ever?
I assume that - since if he's healthy, and they're gunning to the Super Bowl
THIS SEASON, you want him here. This, the Thomas Jones move, and the
Faneca move makes no sense to me.
Matt C
Harlan Lachman
MZ <ma...@nospam.void> wrote:
Mark, it remains to be seen which fourth round pick, either after the
Jets started or ended picking, would have made a difference on the OL or
DL. Maybe lots. Maybe none.
But, they clearly were not impressed with any and chose McNight. While
they would have wanted more before the draft, the lack of interest in
the wounded warrior until the fifth round and having his replacement
made the move logical. They might have gotten nothing holding on to him,
other than folks picking sides as to who should go and stay.
h
MZ
I think they should have kept him and let him play out his contract. In
my view, he was the best player on the offense. Aside from Mangold, but
centers don't count.
Tutor
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:43:26 -0400, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> >...together with our 7th pick, for a 5th today.
>
> >Now I understand McKnight, but....
>
> and we picked Kentucky FB John Conner, with the 5th.
>
> Starting to think that Tanny sometimes trades, just for the sake of it.
> Leon must be pretty far from being ready to play... maybe ever?
This one was financial. Mike T said that they wouldn't be able to pay
Leon what he wanted in 2011 and that Leon would not be ready to start
the season. Dollars and cents. I'm not fond of losing one of my
favorite players, but I understand it.
Faneca was also cut because he wouldn't take a pay cut. He was
getting way too much money to be the WORST pass blocking starting
guard in the NFL. Great run blocker, but a turnstile on the line. In
fact, many people here have blamed the sacks that blew past Faneca
incorrectly on Brick. Make no mistake about it... when it came to
protecting the franchise QB, Faneca was the weak link on this line.
And a ridiculously expensive one to boot. In this case, Michael is
absolutely right.
Tutor
> buRford wrote:
>
> >> ...together with our 7th pick, for a 5th today.
>
> >> Now I understand McKnight, but....
>
> > and we picked Kentucky FB John Conner, with the 5th.
>
> > Starting to think that Tanny sometimes trades, just for the sake of it.
> > Leon must be pretty far from being ready to play... maybe ever?
>
> No, I think it was just a stupid trade.
>
> Didn't think it would be possible, but draft day comes and the Jets
> actually got worse. Amazing.
nice spin. Partiularly from someone who harps on bringing out the
economics of certain player moves but not in this case for some
reason. Both the Leon and Faneca dumps were to set them in a better
position for 2011 contracts for Revis, Cromartie, Brick, Mangold etc.
Leon was not going to start the season and his carries were going to
be diminshed. Add to that the money he would demand for 2011, and I
sadly wish him success. One of my favorite Jets. But this is the
better move for the franchise.
Tutor
> Harlan Lachman wrote:
> > MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>
> >> Harlan Lachman wrote:
> >>> buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:43:26 -0400, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> ...together with our 7th pick, for a 5th today.
>
> >>>>> Now I understand McKnight, but....
> >>>> and we picked Kentucky FB John Conner, with the 5th.
>
> >>>> Starting to think that Tanny sometimes trades, just for the sake of it.
> >>>> Leon must be pretty far from being ready to play... maybe ever?
> >>> No, I think Demetrious summed it up. It is all about the money. Tanny
> >>> got a back up for TR and time to train him and got a replacement for
> >>> Leon and next year avoids letting Leon walk for nothing if there is a
> >>> CBA.
>
> >>> $$$
> >> If there's a CBA and Leon walked, they probably would have gotten a 5th
> >> round compensatory pick in '12.
>
> > A pick for a player they want today is worth more than a pick in the
> > same round in two years from now, plus he goes to the west coast in a
> > different conference.
>
> Still way lower than what any of us had been talking about previously.
> I was even hesitant to see him go for a 2nd in '10, let alone a 5th in
> '11 (and minus a 7th). I think they really screwed the pooch here.
>
> What did they trade for Cromartie for a one year rental? A conditional
>
> - Show quoted text -
Cromartie can pass his physical. Leon can't.
Michael
> ...together with our 7th pick, for a 5th today.
>
> Now I understand McKnight, but....
I liked Leon as much as anyone, but I think this was the smart play.
McKnight is a serios piece of manpower. The more highlights I see the
better I like him. He's a gamer. He'll do what Leon can do for less
money. Not to even mention the injury to Leon. There is a chance he
may not be ready to start the season and there is a chance he may
never return to form. McKnight gives the Jets a sure bang for a
smaller buck. This and the Faneca move is more proof that Tanny knows
what he's doing. The people pissing on the Faneca and Leon deals are
just being emotional. Now we've unloaded a costly Guard that cant
pass block, cant blast running holes and we've gotten value for Leon
in the form of a trade that gives us an exciting and eager replacement
in McKnight. Anyone not liking the Leon trade should go watch some
McKnight highlights. Anyone not liking parting company with Faneca
should go back and watch him get blown up for sacks. Then go look at
how well Matt Slauson played when he came in for Faneca. Slauson was
blasing out holes like the Husker guard that he is.
MZ
> On Apr 24, 3:03 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> buRford wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:43:26 -0400, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>>>> ...together with our 7th pick, for a 5th today.
>>>> Now I understand McKnight, but....
>>> and we picked Kentucky FB John Conner, with the 5th.
>>> Starting to think that Tanny sometimes trades, just for the sake of it.
>>> Leon must be pretty far from being ready to play... maybe ever?
>> No, I think it was just a stupid trade.
>>
>> Didn't think it would be possible, but draft day comes and the Jets
>> actually got worse. Amazing.
>
> nice spin. Partiularly from someone who harps on bringing out the
> economics of certain player moves but not in this case for some
> reason.
Some reason = uncapped year.
MZ
> He'll do what Leon can do for less
> money.
Didn't you just tell me yesterday that we can't count on guys that are
drafted? You've already elevated a 4th rounder into top-tier RB status?
>Then go look at
> how well Matt Slauson played when he came in for Faneca. Slauson was
> blasing out holes like the Husker guard that he is.
If Slauson is better than Faneca, why didn't they start him instead when
they had the chance?
Tutor
2011 will likely be capped if it happens at all. THese moves are to
free them up to get Revis, Brick, Mangolds and hopefully Cromartiue as
well as some others whose contracts are up at the end of 2010. (actually
Revis' contract not up - 6 yr deal but the terms of 5th and 6th yrs not
good for Jets. Needs to be redone) but you get the point. That 2010
is uncapped is not relevant to the possibility of capped 2011 and beyond.
Michael
> Michael wrote:
> > He'll do what Leon can do for less
> > money.
>
> Didn't you just tell me yesterday that we can't count on guys that are
> drafted? You've already elevated a 4th rounder into top-tier RB status?
Who can you count on more... A ball carrier that can play or a ball
carrier that cant ???
> >Then go look at
> > how well Matt Slauson played when he came in for Faneca. Slauson was
> > blasing out holes like the Husker guard that he is.
>
> If Slauson is better than Faneca, why didn't they start him instead when
> they had the chance?
My guess here is that they felt Faneca was better prepaired. Slauson
did come in for him last season and he did an excellent job. Like I
was saying before, I think the felt they could kiss Fancea off because
Slauson was proving himself a viable replacement. I loved the Slauson
pick last year. Yet one more indication that they do quality
evaluation. Tanny and his crew are slick dudes that know quality.
MZ
Does cutting him now instead of next offseason save them '11 cap space?
Tutor
Tannenbaum said he wouldn't start the season. And they wouldn't be able
to pay him the $$ he would command for a new contract following the
season due to all the other contracts that will be higher priority.
You have to admit, getting a 5th for a player who may never be able to
cut with the same speed and precision again isn't a bad deal. Leon's
whole game depends on his lightening cuts. Shave off a split second and
he changes from explosive to pedestrian. Again, he has been my favorite
player for several years. This hurts. But it is the smart move and I
understand it. Sadly.
Tutor
Michael. If you and I agree 100%, which is uncommon, then it has to be
right.
McKnight has some injury history at USC.
MZ
> On Apr 24, 5:53 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> He'll do what Leon can do for less
>>> money.
>> Didn't you just tell me yesterday that we can't count on guys that are
>> drafted? You've already elevated a 4th rounder into top-tier RB status?
>
> Who can you count on more... A ball carrier that can play or a ball
> carrier that cant ???
Leon can't play? Cite please.
>>> Then go look at
>>> how well Matt Slauson played when he came in for Faneca. Slauson was
>>> blasing out holes like the Husker guard that he is.
>> If Slauson is better than Faneca, why didn't they start him instead when
>> they had the chance?
>
> My guess here is that they felt Faneca was better prepaired. Slauson
> did come in for him last season and he did an excellent job. Like I
> was saying before, I think the felt they could kiss Fancea off because
> Slauson was proving himself a viable replacement. I loved the Slauson
> pick last year. Yet one more indication that they do quality
> evaluation. Tanny and his crew are slick dudes that know quality.
Let's let him actually play before we send him to Canton.
Using your logic, the Pats are going to cut Adalius Thomas, which must
mean that they think Shawn Crable is a beast on the outside.
Tutor
Ridiculous question from Mark. Slauson will have the chance to practice
throughout the summer with the first team. He did not last year. Huge
difference. Apples and oranges. I still think our 2nd rd pick is
destined to replace Woody at RT in 2011.
MZ
That's a huge conclusion you're drawing. That he won't cut ever again
because he might start the season on PUP?
Yes, if you're right that he'll never be able to play again, then it's a
good deal for the Jets. The Seahawks would therefore need to invest in
some team physicians so they don't get bamboozled like this ever again.
MZ
How come when I say things like "Patrick Chung will step in and be the
next Rodney", or "Darius Butler will make us forget about Asante
Samuel", or "Julian Edelman is a second Wes Welker" I get laughed at.
But when you all conclude that Slauson is a starting guard based SOLELY
on the fact that they cut Faneca, it's perfectly valid?
What you're doing is called begging the question. While the rest of us
are asking if Tannenbaum is making a good decision, the whole basis for
your argument is that Tannenbaum MUST be making a good decision, and
your conclusions are being drawn from that. Logic 101, Tut.
Tutor
Incorrect. I make no such assumption. But I do acknowledge the
economic basis for both the Faneca and Washington moves. WIthout
including that consideration, the debate is incomplete. Outside of
economic issues, i woould ery much like to keep Faneca around for
another year and Leon until we could find ouot if he can return to form.
I would not like either move at all but for the ability of the Jets to
retain its key players into 2011 and beyond. Sacrificing Faneca and
Leon now is the price for maintaining Brick, mangold, Revis, and others.
I wholeheartedly believe that's why Tanny is doing this now. But
few fans on this particular forum are embracing that as the reason. I
guerss you all think Tanbny is lying when he says that. LOL.
Tutor
forgive typos. arthritic right knuckles friends. I can't type worth a
lick.
MZ
But there's NO financial issue with Leon. In 2011, he's a free agent.
It doesn't impact their ability to extend any of those other guys one bit.
And, although I may be wrong on this point, the same appears to be true
with Faneca. Cutting him now instead of next offseason doesn't impact
their ability to extend those other guys either.
So, financials play zero part. Unless by "financials" we're talking
about how many Cadillacs Woody can afford to buy.
Michael
Huh ??? i dont get... Two different things. I cant comment on
Crable. You know what I think of AD. He's great so long as he has an
unobstructed lane to the qb. Who the hell knows... May be they like
Crable. I dont sit on on Jets or Pats coaching conversations. I'm
just betting the Jets like Slauson and they know as I do that Faneca
is done. Slauson's performance when he came in was excellent, so it
helps my case. Do you think Rex and Tanny are nutz ??? Would the
leave them without a guy who could step in at guard ??? I think not.
You'll see my man Slauson win the job and blast away.
MZ
My point was that sometimes coaches cut players even without a backup
plan. It's very possible that their rationale is that Slauson has shown
them in practice that he's ready to be a starter. But there are other
possibilities too. For example, maybe they envision Ducasse as the
likely starter. Or, maybe they cut Faneca because Woody is trying to
save some money.
Actually, the last possibility makes the most sense since it's an
uncapped year. At least until someone can explain to me how cutting him
now instead of next offseason will save them '11 cap dollars.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
Woody could care less about saving money. Look at the new digs he
built for the Jets. He wants his GM to be smart about using the cap,
but no way is Woody K pinching pennies. Here is why Faneca is gone.
He's come to the end of his career and the Jets can see it as clearly
as I can. That's why Faneca is gone. Leon is gone because they dont
believe in him post injury and they saw an inexpensive alternative
available in the draft. The last thing in the world that Woody
Johnson would do where the Jets are concerned is skimp on the cash.
MZ
Well obviously Woody cares about saving money to SOME extent, right?
Otherwise, he'd have kept Faneca and let him compete with Robert Turner
for a backup job. So savings IS a factor. The question is how much is
it a factor? Tutor told us earlier that Faneca was cut because he
refused a pay cut. If that's true, then savings is a bigger factor than
you give it credit for.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
holey fuk, mark... you got a talent for complicating the obvious
MZ
There's nothing complicated about it, Michael. Money's a factor. I
offered proof of that. I'd be pissed if my favorite team let the roster
get even a little bit worse in an uncapped year because of money.
I'll change my mind if someone can clarify the rule and explain to me
how either of these moves save them on the '11 cap. In Leon's case,
it's pretty clear that it doesn't. In Faneca's case, I'm wondering if
the league would allow teams to swallow amortized bonuses all this year.
I think John told me a couple months ago that they wouldn't. That
would be cool if they did, but then that begs the question -- why the F
don't they get out from under the Gholston contract??
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
mark... call it money if you want... i think that is bs... this is a
performance move in both the faneca and leon cases. money is the
icing on the cake. faneca is done and leon is way too big of a
question. it would be irresponsible of the tanny and co to go into
the season with a lg that cant block pee wee herman and a scat back
that might not scat...
MZ
Michael, you always seem to think that getting rid of players improves a
team. But you're wrong.. ADDING players improves a team. You can add
players without getting rid of others. I know you don't like Faneca,
but are you actually suggesting that Robert Turner is better than Faneca?
Even if the coaching staff agrees with you that Faneca's play has
declined, he would still add depth at the position and would be
insurance in case either of the unproven guys faltered. Unless you're
trying to cut costs.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark.. Again.... One more time from the top. Faneca is done. Might
as well pay the fucking equipment manager a few million to stay on for
"depth" at the guard spot. They know Slauson is gonna take over and
the got another guy in the draft for depth. Leon is not a player.
He's in injury rehab may be never to return
MZ
I don't think anyone can take your position seriously as long as you go
to such extremes.
MZ
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 14:34:19 -0700 (PDT), Tutor <dcat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 24, 12:47 pm, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:43:26 -0400, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>>>> ...together with our 7th pick, for a 5th today.
>>>> Now I understand McKnight, but....
>>> and we picked Kentucky FB John Conner, with the 5th.
>>>
>>> Starting to think that Tanny sometimes trades, just for the sake of it.
>>> Leon must be pretty far from being ready to play... maybe ever?
>> Leon what he wanted in 2011 and that Leon would not be ready to start
>> the season. Dollars and cents. I'm not fond of losing one of my
>> favorite players, but I understand it.
>>
>> Faneca was also cut because he wouldn't take a pay cut. He was
>> getting way too much money to be the WORST pass blocking starting
>> guard in the NFL. Great run blocker, but a turnstile on the line. In
>> fact, many people here have blamed the sacks that blew past Faneca
>> incorrectly on Brick. Make no mistake about it... when it came to
>> protecting the franchise QB, Faneca was the weak link on this line.
>> And a ridiculously expensive one to boot. In this case, Michael is
>> absolutely right.
>
> I understand all the financials on all the moves.
> But, it also is related to just plain football. If Leon was going to be ready for game 1,
> then this deal probably wouldn't have been made. Tanny pretty close to admitted that.
> I can live with Leon's departure, although it does bug me that we also threw in a 7th
> pick. The Faneca move, though, despite his weakness passblocking, is the one that
> troubles me. It weakened our OL, which still lacks depth. If we were saving his salary,
> it would be understandable, but since we're paying $5+ million, it makes no sense to
> weaken the running game, for that extra $2+ million. Of course, there is the possibility
> that his contract had some stipulation, that if he was released, what they owed would be
> prorated against how much he makes playing elewhere... or some such scenario.
> But I suspect that's not the case. I think Coles had something like that in his contract.
Burf, but why do you care about his salary? Are you in Woody's will? :)
As fans, or trolls in my case, we shouldn't give multibillionaire owners
free passes so that they can save a few bucks. Under a salary cap, yes,
financial considerations are important because it directly results in
who you can and can't sign. With no free agent talent to speak of left
on the market, this money is going directly into Woody's pocket. I'd be
pissed.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark... I could care less about people in this news group taking my
position or not. The important part is that the Jets are seeing it my
way. They are doing the right things. When I say Faneca was
expensive, it is less a matter of his current pay check and more a
matter of his over all deal vs. his VERY bad performance on the
field. He cant block. I've been saying it all season while the rest
of the world sent him to the probowl. Now, the media is catching up
to it and saying what I have been based on his performance. Remember,
it takes a few people who know what they are talking about to lay it
all out before the talk show hosts start parroting stuff. No matter
what his reputation and how much or how little he cost, he cant do it
on the field any longer. Obviously, his time with the Jets wont be
forever. Based on his performance they feel now is the time to cut him
lose. Leon was cut lose becuae currently, he's not a player and he
may never be again. Both are smart plays based on performance. If
money is saved, it is the icing on the cake.
MZ
I've noticed.
Tutor
> Tutor wrote:
> > MZ wrote:
>
> >> Harlan Lachman wrote:
>
> >>> MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>
> >>>> Harlan Lachman wrote:
>
> >>>>> MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Harlan Lachman wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You really need to read more carefully and stop distorting what others
say. You do this frequently Mark. I said: "getting a 5th for a
player who MAY never be able to
cut with the same speed and precision again isn't a bad deal". You
respond by saying that 's a huge conclusion I am drawing, that
he"won't ever cut again". Let me clarify for you. There is a risk
that Leon could lose a split second off of his once lightning quick,
precision cutting. RISK. If that were to become a reality, then the
very thing that Leon's game relies amlmost completely upon would be
compromised and Leon could become just another small pedestrian back
up RB. Because of the RISK, the trade makes sense. Factor in the
money that a new 2011/2012 contract for a fully restored Leon, and we
probably lose him anyway (but for more than a 5th rounder most
likely). This is a calculated risk by Jets FO in trading Leon. But I
understand and accept it. It is a sound logical move.
Tutor
> buRford wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'd like to know if relaeasing Faneca now somehow reduces dead money
that could have had an adverse impact on the 2011 cap (assuming there
will be a cap in 2011 at all.) I am just not that familiar withthe
terms of Faneca's contract other than I have read his 2011 and 2012
numbers were astronomical. Could cutting him now have some sort of
2011 positive impact?
Hammer
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think it's a stupid move. They got less than a 5th rounder (because
they also gave up a 7th). In doing so, they gave up the second of
their two starting RBs from last season. They gave up a guy who was
once one of the most explosive players on the offense. Why did they
supposedly do it? Because he MIGHT not be ready and they PROBABLY
wouldn't be able to sign him the following year.
Again, they gained nothing by trading him, unless he never recovers
from his injury and retires from the NFL, which I doubt. If they keep
him, they have his production for a year, maybe minus a couple of
games. After a year they maybe keep him and maybe lose him. If they
lose him they probably get a compensatory pick that may be better than
5th round.
On the other hand, by trading him, they got a 5th rounder minus a 7th
rounder. Oh yeah, don't forget the $1.75 million salary he was going
to make this year. Could that be part of the equation? Hmm...
Actually, the real reason I think he traded him, which is not
necessarily the worst reason either, is because he clearly did not
want to play for the Jets. He was a pain in the ass, his agent was a
pain in the ass, he didn't show up to play until the last minute, and
Rex probably decided that he doesn't want a guy like that on the team.
If that's the reason, then I respect it, but I still don't like the
move.
MZ
Yeah, that's what I'm wondering too. On the one hand, if the bonus is
accelerated and the dead money hit is all absorbed this year and doesn't
count towards future cap, then releasing Faneca *is* a smart move. But
when I brought up this possibility a few months ago regarding releasing
Gholston, I was told that wasn't the case. I was told that the
acceleration would hit the '11 cap. And if *that's* the case, then
releasing Faneca does nothing except line Woody's pockets.
Harlan Lachman
MZ <ma...@nospam.void> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > He'll do what Leon can do for less
> > money.
>
> Didn't you just tell me yesterday that we can't count on guys that are
> drafted? You've already elevated a 4th rounder into top-tier RB status?
>
>
> >Then go look at
> > how well Matt Slauson played when he came in for Faneca. Slauson was
> > blasing out holes like the Husker guard that he is.
>
> If Slauson is better than Faneca, why didn't they start him instead when
> they had the chance?
Mark, not only that, but if Carroll thought so highly about McNight, he
could have drafted him instead of trading for an injured Leon.
These are the worries that any reasonable Jet fan will have until proven
otherwise.
Harlan
Harlan Lachman
wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24, 5:53 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >
> >>Michael wrote:
> >>
> >>>He'll do what Leon can do for less
> >>>money.
> >>
> >>Didn't you just tell me yesterday that we can't count on guys that are
> >>drafted? You've already elevated a 4th rounder into top-tier RB status?
> >
> >
> > Who can you count on more... A ball carrier that can play or a ball
> > carrier that cant ???
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Then go look at
> >>>how well Matt Slauson played when he came in for Faneca. Slauson was
> >>>blasing out holes like the Husker guard that he is.
> >>
> >>If Slauson is better than Faneca, why didn't they start him instead when
> >>they had the chance?
> >
> >
> > My guess here is that they felt Faneca was better prepaired. Slauson
> > did come in for him last season and he did an excellent job. Like I
> > was saying before, I think the felt they could kiss Fancea off because
> > Slauson was proving himself a viable replacement. I loved the Slauson
> > pick last year. Yet one more indication that they do quality
> > evaluation. Tanny and his crew are slick dudes that know quality.
>
>
> Ridiculous question from Mark. Slauson will have the chance to practice
> throughout the summer with the first team. He did not last year. Huge
> difference. Apples and oranges. I still think our 2nd rd pick is
> destined to replace Woody at RT in 2011.
Not ridiculous. Adrien Clark had an entire off and preseason.
We cannot know until we see it how it works.
I am not as pessimistic as Mark nor as optimistic as you and Michael.
Cautiously hopeful.
harlan
Harlan Lachman
<9e249463-01e7-46b6...@i37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Hammer <stuart.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, the real reason I think he traded him, which is not
> necessarily the worst reason either, is because he clearly did not
> want to play for the Jets. He was a pain in the ass, his agent was a
> pain in the ass, he didn't show up to play until the last minute, and
> Rex probably decided that he doesn't want a guy like that on the team.
> If that's the reason, then I respect it, but I still don't like the
> move.
You left out his lovely, demure wife.
h
Hammer
> In article
> <9e249463-01e7-46b6-b679-e047aaf92...@i37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Hammer <stuart.feldha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually, the real reason I think he traded him, which is not
> > necessarily the worst reason either, is because he clearly did not
> > want to play for the Jets. He was a pain in the ass, his agent was a
> > pain in the ass, he didn't show up to play until the last minute, and
> > Rex probably decided that he doesn't want a guy like that on the team.
> > If that's the reason, then I respect it, but I still don't like the
> > move.
>
> You left out his lovely, demure wife.
>
> h
Yeah, good point. :)
Tutor
> In article <9uOdnaUOwfbB9U7WnZ2dnUVZ_jyqK...@giganews.com>,
I don't think that is correct harlan. 1st look at the sequence of
events: Jets took McKnight in Rd 4. When Carroll traded for Leon,
McKnight was already gone. Unless Carroll was willing to burn a 3rd
or a 4th on McKnight, another team (Jets) scooped him up before he
could get him in round 5 or below.
But that's not the real story anyway. Pete Carroll left USC to avoid
the scandal. One of the several USC players to allegedly have
received the fruits of USC's NCAA sins was McKnight. There is no way
in hell that Carroll would bring in one of the players at the center
of the very scandal that Caroll was trying to escape. I doubt Carroll
would pick any USC player to whom he allegedly gave benefits while at
USC.
Johnctx
> Harlan Lachman wrote:
>> MZ <ma...@nospam.void> wrote:
>>
>>> Harlan Lachman wrote:
>>>> MZ <ma...@nospam.void> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Harlan Lachman wrote:
>>>>>> buRford <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:43:26 -0400, buRford
>>>>>>> <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...together with our 7th pick, for a 5th today.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now I understand McKnight, but....
>>>>>>> and we picked Kentucky FB John Conner, with the 5th.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Starting to think that Tanny sometimes trades, just for the sake
>>>>>>> of it.
>>>>>>> Leon must be pretty far from being ready to play... maybe ever?
It makes no sense. You have Greene who played well in 3-4 games. LT
that may have something left nd a rookie.
The strength of our team wa sthe ability to run the ball. This, like the
Faneca release has high risk, low short term reward.
Johnctx
> On Apr 24, 12:47 pm, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:43:26 -0400, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>>> ...together with our 7th pick, for a 5th today.
>>> Now I understand McKnight, but....
>> and we picked Kentucky FB John Conner, with the 5th.
>>
>> Starting to think that Tanny sometimes trades, just for the sake of it.
>> Leon must be pretty far from being ready to play... maybe ever?
>
> Leon what he wanted in 2011 and that Leon would not be ready to start
> the season. Dollars and cents. I'm not fond of losing one of my
> favorite players, but I understand it.
>
> Faneca was also cut because he wouldn't take a pay cut. He was
> getting way too much money to be the WORST pass blocking starting
> guard in the NFL. Great run blocker, but a turnstile on the line. In
> fact, many people here have blamed the sacks that blew past Faneca
> incorrectly on Brick. Make no mistake about it... when it came to
> protecting the franchise QB, Faneca was the weak link on this line.
> And a ridiculously expensive one to boot. In this case, Michael is
> absolutely right.
Tutor, help me out here. We have to pay Faneca $5.25 MM anyway so why
not bring him into camp & see what the young guys can do. If they are
an improvement then cut him then?
I assume that Rex made this call because it makes no financial sense to me.
Johnctx
> Read what I said again... "If we were saving his salary..." I could UNDERSTAND the
> rationale saving $7+ mil. But, when you're willing to eat $5+ mil, that $2+ mil, to keep
> the OL intact, & have Faneca as an insurance policy... the move makes no sense.
> As it is, our whole running game is a question mark.
> Can Shonn stay healthy? Has LT anything left? Is McKnight durable & tough enough for the
> NFL? So, weakening an already thin OL is a gamble not worth the risk, to me.
>
>
>> As fans, or trolls in my case, we shouldn't give multibillionaire owners
>> free passes so that they can save a few bucks. Under a salary cap, yes,
>> financial considerations are important because it directly results in
>> who you can and can't sign. With no free agent talent to speak of left
>> on the market, this money is going directly into Woody's pocket. I'd be
>> pissed.
Both these moves have high risk, very low short term rewards. I hope
the FO is right.
Tutor
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not sure if keeping him into 2010 and cutting him after the season
would have any dead money cap implications for 2011. If so, then this
makes more sense. If not, then there must be other reasons why the
Jets wanted him out. Perhaps sort of a Mawae situation. I really
don't know. Or perhaps they don't want Sanchez's life on the line
evertime he drops back to pass while Faneca lets the defense fly by
him straight at the future of the franchise..
Harlan Lachman
<a503808c-b134-43b4...@r1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Tutor <dcat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Better point.
h