Re: Faneca upset, but classy...
Johnny Morongo
> I suspect when he wouldn't restructure his contract, he figured the Jets would never eat
> $5+ mil. So, he's upset how things turned out. I heard he wanted to retire here.
>
> From Cimini:
> Commenting for the first time since his release, Faneca expressed mixed emotions about
> his departure, but he did say he was "upset" with the Jets’ decision to let a couple of
> unproven players battle for his former job.
>
> "I'm not sure what I am," Faneca said Sunday afternoon in an e-mail to ESPNNewYork.com.
> "I'm not necessarily angry, but I did not want things to end the way they did. I’m upset
> with their decision. I think they made the decision that they felt was for the future of
> the team.
>
> "That's fine, this is a business, but everyone wants to leave on their own terms. I'll
> move on and find another opportunity to play. My family and I had a great time being part
> of the Jets and the community and will always look at our time here and the friends we
> made as a great time in our lives."
>
> ************
>
> In a world filled with loud, egotistical morons, Faneca is all class. One of the reasons,
> I think management made a mistake, especially, with some of the questionable characters
> we've recently brought onboard.
Stop cryin' over spilled milk. If he were really classy he would have
said that he understood that the team went in a different direction
because he no longer could protect his QB with anything like
consistency. That's why Pit let him walk too. And as to his dissing
Clauson, can you say: sour grapes. If we go to a more balanced run/
pass game this year, which they should with Sanchez's rookie learning
curve year behind him, they just can't afford to let him get
slaughtered back there. And a 7+ million dollar tutor is too
expensive to carry, cap or no.
Michael
> I suspect when he wouldn't restructure his contract, he figured the Jets would never eat
> $5+ mil. So, he's upset how things turned out. I heard he wanted to retire here.
>
> From Cimini:
> Commenting for the first time since his release, Faneca expressed mixed emotions about
> his departure, but he did say he was "upset" with the Jets’ decision to let a couple of
> unproven players battle for his former job.
>
> "I'm not sure what I am," Faneca said Sunday afternoon in an e-mail to ESPNNewYork.com.
> "I'm not necessarily angry, but I did not want things to end the way they did. I’m upset
> with their decision. I think they made the decision that they felt was for the future of
> the team.
>
> "That's fine, this is a business, but everyone wants to leave on their own terms. I'll
> move on and find another opportunity to play. My family and I had a great time being part
> of the Jets and the community and will always look at our time here and the friends we
> made as a great time in our lives."
>
> ************
>
> In a world filled with loud, egotistical morons, Faneca is all class. One of the reasons,
> I think management made a mistake, especially, with some of the questionable characters
> we've recently brought onboard.
If Faneca was such a classy team guy, he would have agreed to
restructure. He above all knows he had a bad year. He gave up sacks
like candy and was resorting to going low on his blocks. He also had
a hard time moving the pile.
Rex was interviewed and said that if they did not think Slauson and
Vlad could take over, they would not have let Faneca walk.
Like I been saying. Faneca's pass blocking has been so bad, any
decent prospect can come in and do a better job and for less money.
Glenn Greenstein
There he goes with the money again.
Glenn Greenstein
Another one.
It isn't 7 mill J, now it's just 5. Oh, and we are paying him that 5
probably to play on another team this coming season. Great financial
analysis there. What we are saving if you can even call it a savings
because there is no cap to apply the said savings on is 2 million.
You think Faneca cold have been a back for depth? You think he could
have acted as a policeman in the lockeroom to make sure guys like
Holmes, Crom, and Edwards stay in line? you think Vlad could have
learned a few things from a 9 time pro bowl player?
For a lousy 2 million dollars more he could have done all that.
Now Woody can go out and buy a new guest house for his home.
Tutor
>
> - Show quoted text -
+1 Johnny. You are spot on. Faneca was going to get Sanchize killed
out there. We are all over rating what he was going to contribute in
2010 and beyond. THis is why the Steelers parted ways with him a
couple of years ago. His skill is declining each year. However awful
he was at times or great at times was going to get worse this year. I
have no regrets about the decision at all.
Tutor
>
> - Show quoted text -
Id like to know if retaining Faneca for 2010 was going to have any
dead money impact on 2011 and the possible return of the cap. Anyway,
I'm not sure about Faneca being a saint in the lockerroom. For all
you know, he could be another Mawae in there if he were unhappy. I
reallybelieve there is more to this than $2 million for the Jets.
Finally, the Jets will owe Faneca $5.25 million minus whatever any
other team decides to pay him in 2010. Probably vet minimum, but
whatever it is comes off the Jets obligation.
Tutor
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think you, MZ and some others are being naive about the money.
THere's more to this than $2 million. We'll eventually find out.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text
And the first round draft pick and future of the team Mark Sanchez
cold get his head stoved in behind Faeca's disasterous pass blocking.
And dont worry about not having Faneca around to keep the animals in
line. You got a coach for that.
MZ
I think you're UNDER-rating him. To insist that he's released now
because "he's gonna get Sanchez killed" implies that you think Faneca's
not as good as Robert Turner, and whatever undrafted free agents they
bring in to compete for the position.
I don't think anyone in here is insisting that Faneca start over Slauson
and Ducasse if they perform better than he does. People are just saying
that a rookie and a 2nd year player should have some competition from an
above average (yep, I said it) veteran G who knows the system better
than they do. Worst case scenario, the Jets have the best backup
interior lineman in football.
And I also think that if Faneca loses the job to Slauson, they could
still make use of his skills by inserting him into the lineup in
Hunter/Turner's role on the outside, or as a short yardage FB, etc.
Creative coordinators can find a use for his unique skill set (ie. big
guy with fast feet).
MZ
We're not being any more naive than you are. I don't think either of us
knows the rule. I already said that if this saves them appreciable cap
space in '11 then I'll agree that it's a good move. If it DOESN'T save
them cap space in '11, will you agree that it's a bad move?
Glenn Greenstein
the same state it was before the CBA expired wold be minimal. I don't
have all the details but there was an article on the net where they
examined if he had played out his contract and what the cap
implications were if he was cut in subsequent seasons.
I will say you brought up a good point with the Mawae angle, I would
guess the Jets don't want any locker room lawyers influencing the new
guys so that is about the only real reason I can see for them to do
this.
Also as far as I know, Faneca was never a problem to the Jets.
Glenn Greenstein
Every coach needs a player or two to police others.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
yeah... i agree... still... the jets did not get rid of the whole
team. they got other locker room leaders... bart scott, mangold,
revis... besides... faneca was never a jet. he abandoned his real
team the steelers who did not want to pay him so much any loger given
his diminishing skills... so he cashed in BIG TIME as a soldier of
fortune wearing the green and white. he was not born to those colors.
Johnctx
They are paying him $5.5 of that anyway. It is why I think Ryan just
wanted someone to move the pile.
I would have kept him for the $2MM.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
john... what about if Tanny said they wanted him but respectfully
asked him to take less money based on his poor performance and what
was good for HIS team... and then Faneca said "fuck you pay me... all
of it"
Johnctx
Michael, how do I respectfully say that is one of your more idiotic emails.
No one gives back guaranteed money nor should they. So here is where
some knowledge of basic microeconomic concepts pop up. The Jets are
still on the hook for $5.25 MM so they made a $2.25 MM decision LESS
the cost of Turner ($1.3 MM))or some stiff making rookie min or vet minimum.
Faneca, with a worse case scenario, will get a vet minimum of $860K plus
the Jets money so the spread for him was $1.39 MM. His agent was smart
in that this bomb went off when he is still young enough to sign a 2
year deal & probably make $1.8-8 MM in addition to what the jets paid
over the next two years.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
john... i would not expect you to show any respect to anyone that has
proven you wrong on any occasion. once again, it is your neurotic
certainty that you are a born authority figure.
there has never been a single instance where a player did not get all
of their "guaranteed" money after post contract agreement
negotiation ???
we didn't just have Gholston drop the guaranteed portion of his
contract down to $1.5m did we ???
and btw... his agent wasn't smart... in his case, the jets were
stupid... real stupid.
Glenn Greenstein
BTW Dave, I think your wrong about the last part or at least Boomer
Esiason disagrees. He said if Faneca calls the Jets today and says
give me my 5 mill+, they have to write the check.
Johnctx
> proven you wrong on any occasion. once again, it is your neurotic
> certainty that you are a born authority figure.
Go back to psych class and try some work on your reading comprehension.
tell me where I am "wrong." My point about Faneca is you minimize what
he does well & embellish whee he is weak. Keeping him around would have
cost us nothing.
>
> there has never been a single instance where a player did not get all
> of their "guaranteed" money after post contract agreement
> negotiation ???
>
> we didn't just have Gholston drop the guaranteed portion of his
> contract down to $1.5m did we ???
So a player that has done nothing-- Gholston--marginally lowering his
salary an amount he can earn back is the same as asking a solid veteran
at the end of his career to give back guaranteed money. I don't see the
similarities as Faneca will make more money by getting released. He has
leverage Gholston has none.
Michael, I am sure fixed & variable costs are something you probably
want to learn about so read up & come back. It seems to have escaped you.
>
> and btw... his agent wasn't smart... in his case, the jets were
> stupid... real stupid.
It is called the market. We stayed out of the market when guys like
Dockery & Steinbach were getting overpaid. Faneca played well for us.
Michael
> > john... i would not expect you to show any respect to anyone that has
> > proven you wrong on any occasion. once again, it is your neurotic
> > certainty that you are a born authority figure.
>
> Go back to psych class and try some work on your reading comprehension.
> tell me where I am "wrong." My point about Faneca is you minimize what
> he does well & embellish whee he is weak. Keeping him around would have
> cost us nothing.
My point is this. I state the fact that Faneca was a miserable pass
blocker. Along with that, he can not move the pile. That is the
truth. What escapes me now is why you are saying that I am
overstating his poor performance. I know it, Rex and Tanny know it
too, but you dont. I dont minimize that he runs down the field and
jacks-up db's once in a while. You need a guy that can get pass
rushers blocked and blast holes as a minimum.
> > there has never been a single instance where a player did not get all
> > of their "guaranteed" money after post contract agreement
> > negotiation ???
>
> > we didn't just have Gholston drop the guaranteed portion of his
> > contract down to $1.5m did we ???
>
> So a player that has done nothing-- Gholston--marginally lowering his
> salary an amount he can earn back is the same as asking a solid veteran
> at the end of his career to give back guaranteed money. I don't see the
> similarities as Faneca will make more money by getting released. He has
> leverage Gholston has none.
Did you not just say that I was an idiot for suggesting that Faneca
could have still been a Jet if he agreed to take less ??? That is what
is being said my good man. They told him they wanted him but for less
and he told Tanny to stuff it. You can write contracts and rewrite
them. That is why we have agents and legal professionals. Granted
Faneca is worth more that Gholston, BUT you are kidding yourself if
you think Faneca is worth 7 million to the Jets now. You are a bit
antatonistic here suggesting that there were no avenues available for
Faneca to stay for less than 7 million dollars.
What are you gonna do now ??? Tell me about your great grandpappy that
was a bare knuckle boxer in Dublin ???
> Michael, I am sure fixed & variable costs are something you probably
> want to learn about so read up & come back. It seems to have escaped you.
Now who's overstating things ???
> > and btw... his agent wasn't smart... in his case, the jets were
> > stupid... real stupid.
>
> It is called the market. We stayed out of the market when guys like
> Dockery & Steinbach were getting overpaid. Faneca played well for us.
Heck sake, John... A 30 year old left guard that was kissed off
because he's on the downturn ??? If you think it is market value to
pay him what the Jets did, then I think it is you that needs a little
remedial training in football and economics.
MZ
Michael, you keep harping about how "right" you are all the time. It's
obnoxious. I can't think of a single thing you've been proven right
about. You think that when Rex or Tanny say something that seemingly
agrees with your viewpoint, you're right. When they say something that
disagrees with your viewpoint, they're wrong.
Tutor
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think that is incorrect Glenn. SOmeone I know who is involved in
sports contracts (has 2 NFL players under his wing) mentioned that if
Team B signs Alan for one year at $1 million, then the Jets fork out
the remaining $4.25.
Tutor
>
> - Show quoted text -
If there is no impact to 2011, then perhaps. Hard to believe that this
is the case, because it just doesn't make that much sense. They asked
to take a pay cut weeks ago and they had been shopping him right up to
the draft with no takers. THere very well may be a non financial
part to this one. None of us know, therefore none of us can say this
is a great, good, weak or horrible move with any certainty. What is
certain is theat Faneca let up more sacks than all but 3 other
starting guards in the league. That sucks. Hopefully his replacement
can and will do better while not being a liability in the run game.
For all the people yelling abouot Faneca, very few are willing to
acknowledge just how awful he was in pass protection time and time
again. In fact I recall several here who quickly blamed the sacks he
let blow by him on Brick.
Johnctx
> On Apr 26, 12:46 pm, Johnctx <j...@spamtx.net> wrote:
>>> john... i would not expect you to show any respect to anyone that has
>>> proven you wrong on any occasion. once again, it is your neurotic
>>> certainty that you are a born authority figure.
>> Go back to psych class and try some work on your reading comprehension.
>> tell me where I am "wrong." My point about Faneca is you minimize what
>> he does well & embellish whee he is weak. Keeping him around would have
>> cost us nothing.
>
> My point is this. I state the fact that Faneca was a miserable pass
> blocker. Along with that, he can not move the pile. That is the
> truth. What escapes me now is why you are saying that I am
> overstating his poor performance. I know it, Rex and Tanny know it
> too, but you dont. I dont minimize that he runs down the field and
> jacks-up db's once in a while.
If that is all you saw him do then you are either lying about how you
don't drink at games or too busy "screaming show u your ____" at the
staircase.
>
You need a guy that can get pass
> rushers blocked and blast holes as a minimum.
>
>
>>> there has never been a single instance where a player did not get all
>>> of their "guaranteed" money after post contract agreement
>>> negotiation ???
>>> we didn't just have Gholston drop the guaranteed portion of his
>>> contract down to $1.5m did we ???
>> So a player that has done nothing-- Gholston--marginally lowering his
>> salary an amount he can earn back is the same as asking a solid veteran
>> at the end of his career to give back guaranteed money. I don't see the
>> similarities as Faneca will make more money by getting released. He has
>> leverage Gholston has none.
>
> Did you not just say that I was an idiot for suggesting that Faneca
> could have still been a Jet if he agreed to take less ??? That is what
> is being said my good man. They told him they wanted him but for less
> and he told Tanny to stuff it. You can write contracts and rewrite
> them.
& you were there so you know
>That is why we have agents and legal professionals. Granted
> Faneca is worth more that Gholston, BUT you are kidding yourself if
> you think Faneca is worth 7 million to the Jets now. You are a bit
> antatonistic here suggesting that there were no avenues available for
> Faneca to stay for less than 7 million dollars.
No moron, what I said was plays don't give up guaranteed money. they
restructure but that does not mean they get paid more. Outside of your
Gholston example prove me wrong.
>
> What are you gonna do now ??? Tell me about your great grandpappy that
> was a bare knuckle boxer in Dublin ???
I didn't know Tourette's carried over to the keyboard.
>
>> Michael, I am sure fixed & variable costs are something you probably
>> want to learn about so read up & come back. It seems to have escaped you.
>
> Now who's overstating things ???
I think I hit the nail on the hammerhead.
They jets made a decision based on worst case scenario of spending under
$2MM maybe as little as $1MM. They could have kept him and if what they
drafted works out then cut him in camp.
>
>>> and btw... his agent wasn't smart... in his case, the jets were
>>> stupid... real stupid.
>> It is called the market. We stayed out of the market when guys like
>> Dockery & Steinbach were getting overpaid. Faneca played well for us.
>
> Heck sake, John... A 30 year old left guard that was kissed off
> because he's on the downturn ??? If you think it is market value to
> pay him what the Jets did, then I think it is you that needs a little
> remedial training in football and economics.
Because a team that regularly lets their players go when they are UFA
chose not to pay a guard is hardly the market. The day of guards
getting paid peanuts ended when Hutchinson ended up a Viking. When you
sign a FA you are supposed to improve your team. When you sign a FA to
a big contract you should have a dramatic improvement over the previous
player but pay only what it takes to get him in town. The Jets may have
left $ on the table but it wasn't much and Faneca was a dramatic
improvement.
Tutor
>
> - Show quoted text -
correction... I was just informed by said person that he has to get a
contract worth at least 2 million to reduce the Jets obligation. IOW
his total compensation will not exceed the $7.25 million he would have
had with the Jets. Frankly, I doubt any other team out ther will give
him more than 2 million for this season. So yes, the jets will be
writing a $5.25 million check. So I am wondering what the real reason
is that he was cut. Its not for $2 million in an uncapped year. How
can we found out what the implications were for 2011 had Faneca played
for the Jets in 2010? Without that knowledfge this is all
speculation. I'm still scratching my head. Whatever the case, his
skills were not going to be improving over last year. He was only
going to get worse at his age.
Johnctx
Tutor, guaranteed salary of a cut player hits this year only dead cap
space hits in the first uncapped year. The logic of this is simple.
The players union didn't want all the Gholstons getting cut.
We know that no one understands the outcome or all the details all we
are saying it is was easier to keep him.
I can't remember anyone saying he was a stud when it comes to pass
blocking. What I have said is that what he does in space both out to
his right & left is very valuable.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
Obviously, you have me confused with another poster. I'm not the one
in here that thinks he's correct all the time. It is not so much that
I am never correct, Mark. More like you are compelled to piss on
every thing I say and back your points up with misdirection.
Tutor
>
> - Show quoted text -
Agreed John. He was a terrific pulling guard. That will be missed.
But I don't see his departure as such a gloom and doom scenario.
Unless they sign Adrien Clark to fill in, that is.
Johnctx
:)
Petula Clark would be preferable to Adrien.
Dave, part of it is our fatalistic side as Jet fans but to summarize:
Faneca
Cutting Faneca in camp seemed too simple to me. Unless of course
Tanebaum wants the culture of the jets to be among agents and players
that won't restrict your future or that there was another issue.
Washington
We had 2 good RB's last summer with a rookie. Now we have a good one in
the rookie, maybe a good one in LT, and ???????? A step backmaybe?
I am not saying Rex & Tannenbaum are wrong. I am just saying it worries me.
Michael
> Michael wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 12:46 pm, Johnctx <j...@spamtx.net> wrote:
> >>> john... i would not expect you to show any respect to anyone that has
> >>> proven you wrong on any occasion. once again, it is your neurotic
> >>> certainty that you are a born authority figure.
> >> Go back to psych class and try some work on your reading comprehension.
> >> tell me where I am "wrong." My point about Faneca is you minimize what
> >> he does well & embellish whee he is weak. Keeping him around would have
> >> cost us nothing.
>
> > My point is this. I state the fact that Faneca was a miserable pass
> > blocker. Along with that, he can not move the pile. That is the
> > truth. What escapes me now is why you are saying that I am
> > overstating his poor performance. I know it, Rex and Tanny know it
> > too, but you dont. I dont minimize that he runs down the field and
> > jacks-up db's once in a while.
>
> If that is all you saw him do then you are either lying about how you
> don't drink at games or too busy "screaming show u your ____" at the
> staircase.
Yes, John... I stand corrected. He didn't really give up more sacks
than any other LG in the NFL. The guy that compiled that stat was
drunk too. And so are all the commentators that are now reporting what
I have been saying all season. Faneca is done. The Jets will pass
more and they dont want a turnstyle in front of Sanchez and the Jets
can also save two million dollars.
I think may be you just like Faneca. If he's your guy my appologies.
I dont like it when my players get kissed off either.
I did prove you wrong once.. That was enough. You said NO ONE GIVES
UP GUARANTEED MONEY. I give you the most recent example and what do
you do ??? You avoid admitting you were incorrect. You know as well
as I do that contracts are reworked.
> improvement.- Hide quoted text -
Faneca joined the line the same time Woody did no ??? The Jets ran
behind Moore and Woody and Mangold most of the time. The Jets runnign
game was right handed for a reason. There are not too many guards
that would not have been a dramtic improvment over Adrian Clark. I
submit that Faneca made the team better, but many other less expensive
options would have also.
MZ
Really? Your posts since Saturday say otherwise.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since Saturday is not all the time. I think the Jets did the right
thing with Faneca and Leon. I think they did the wrong thing with
Feeley and Jones. I dont like Santonio, but he is a high reward low
risk deal and I guess he deserves more of a chance to grow up. As far
as Faneca, may be it would have been better to wait to kiss him off
until after camp, but I think Tanny was sure of two things and did not
have to wait. He was sure Faneca was done and he was sure Faneca
would not take less. They also saw enough of Slauson to trust him
with Faneca's spot. Why prolong it ??? You could consider that they
did it with consideration to Faneca. Give him time to work a new deal
and start eary with his new gig. Looks like Houston is the front
runner. He'll have a chance to knock down a few Jet db's this season
if he signs with them.
Johnctx
> UP GUARANTEED MONEY. I give you the most recent example and what do
> you do ??? You avoid admitting you were incorrect. You know as well
> as I do that contracts are reworked.
You are such a little boy and also incredibly thick at times.
Faneca has $5.2 MM of his $7.5 MM guaranteed. That was done so the $5.2
MM hit this year.
Was Gholston's salary guaranteed? I don't think so as he has seen all
that money. The only reason he isn't cut was due to cap problems in teh
future.
So go ahead & find someone who will give back guaranteed salary money
without getting something in return.
Michael
> > I did prove you wrong once.. That was enough. You said NO ONE GIVES
> > UP GUARANTEED MONEY. I give you the most recent example and what do
> > you do ??? You avoid admitting you were incorrect. You know as well
> > as I do that contracts are reworked.
>
> You are such a little boy and also incredibly thick at times.
and you are a "real man"
> Faneca has $5.2 MM of his $7.5 MM guaranteed. That was done so the $5.2
> MM hit this year.
>
> Was Gholston's salary guaranteed?
yes. part of it. unless I am reading incorrect information. part of
his deal was guaranteed. he agredd to cut that part down.
>I don't think so as he has seen all
> that money. The only reason he isn't cut was due to cap problems in teh
> future.
>
> So go ahead & find someone who will give back guaranteed salary money
> without getting something in return.
ok, john... they could have reworked his contract to limit the
guaranteed money and given him some performance and play time
incentives. dont give up twenty sacks and you get steak knives. play
like a 7 million dollar guard and we'll pay you 7 million total. play
like you did last year, and we'll give you two million.
Tutor
> I think it was simply, do we cut him now & save $2+ mil (and let him choose his team), or
> later a) before the season, and he'll have to go to whoever will take him... b) after the
> season, with possible ramifications in 2011, depending upon any CBA reached.
> Callahan probably said Slauson is up to it, and they chose to save the $2 mil, & free AF
> to find a deal for himself. Obviously, this is all conjecture ;)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
conjecture is all we can do at this point. That's a given. But
always be sure to mention it, before MZ reminds us.
Tutor
> It's more that if you're paying the $5+mil anyway, that $2+ is a trivial insurance
> investment... whether AF starts, or not. As it stands, Slauson/Vlad is a total unknown,
> even to management/coaching... and our depth is still questionable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
whichis exactly why I believe there is way more to it than anyof us
know. Faneca was telling people right here in town that he expected
to be cut or traded right after the draft... and that was 7 - 10 days
before the draft. And it leaked out a couple of days before the
draft. It was no secret and no surprise.
Harlan Lachman
MZ <ma...@nospam.void> wrote:
> Tutor wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 10:00 am, Glenn Greenstein <lexa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 26, 9:53 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Apr 25, 11:38 pm, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> >>>> I suspect when he wouldn't restructure his contract, he figured the Jets
> >>>> would never eat
> >>>> $5+ mil. So, he's upset how things turned out. I heard he wanted to
> >>>> retire here.
> >>>> From Cimini:
> >>>> Commenting for the first time since his release, Faneca expressed
> >>>> mixed emotions about
> >>>> his departure, but he did say he was "upset" with the Jetsı decision to
> >>>> let a couple of
> >>>> unproven players battle for his former job.
> >>>> "I'm not sure what I am," Faneca said Sunday afternoon in an e-mail to
> >>>> ESPNNewYork.com.
> >>>> "I'm not necessarily angry, but I did not want things to end the way
> >>>> they did. Iım upset
I won't. I assume the FO actually wanted to upgrade the position and
thought they were doing so.
If our OL does not produce as well as last year's OL, then I will agree
it was a horrific move.
Cap space cap shmace. As you point out, letting players go like Faneca
and Leon has no impact on next year's cap -- if there is one.
And if there is compensatory picks in the new CBA, we would not likely
have gotten any for Faneca in 2012. Maybe for Leon. For sure with
Braylon or Cromartie.
h
Harlan Lachman
buRford <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> I don't think anyone is doing gloom & doom, tut.
> It's more that if you're paying the $5+mil anyway, that $2+ is a trivial
> insurance
> investment... whether AF starts, or not. As it stands, Slauson/Vlad is a
> total unknown,
> even to management/coaching... and our depth is still questionable.
Burf, I am not sure they were not worried that Faneca sitting on the
bench while a rook or second year player was out there would not be more
problematic.
If the FO really thinks he was not effective on pass blocking or
straight power plays, letting him go where he wanted might be better for
team morale than sitting his ass and playing a newbie and thereby
avoiding players choosing up sides.
Not saying that is the reason, but it makes more sense than saving $2.3
mil.
h
A J
>
> Since Saturday is not all the time. I think the Jets did the right
> thing with Faneca and Leon. I think they did the wrong thing with
> Feeley and Jones. I dont like Santonio, but he is a high reward low
> risk deal and I guess he deserves more of a chance to grow up.
Michael,
With all due respect, we ALL have opinions in this group, that is the
point of this exercise, after all, isn't it?
It is my opinion that you accurately describe Faneca's diminishing
skills, however, you completely discount
the fact that a pro bowl caliber player, even with diminishing skills,
might still be superior to a rookie or 2nd year player.
The phrase, "I forgot more than he'll ever know" comes to mind.
I have also seen stats posted that indicate AF was a respectable run
blocker, albeit a suspect pass blocker.
What I find interesting with regard to the pass block rating is this,
it is not as if the difference between the best
and worst was huge. Not as if the best allowed 1 sack and the worst
allowed 50. The actual differential seems to be ~ .5 sack/game.
Granted, that is a significant delta, but in reality, it translates to
8 sacks / season which, quite honestly, is significantly lower
than the perceived number a reader of any of your posts might,
understandably, arrive at.
Finally, if we are still paying at least some of his $7m?, then the
only benefit I see is a roster spot.
We've been thin @ OL for a few years, and we continue to be.
Only now, we're thin without the benefit of a pro bowl player who, at
the very least, might be a mentor to the newly acquired, albeit thin,
depth.
I'm a pretty consistent reader of this group, but I only post when I
have a firm opinion.
One thing I've noticed,
It's my opinion that you need to understand the shades of gray because
this game is NEVER black and white.
Just My Opinion,
A J
Michael
All good points AJ. I may not agree with them, but as you say, that
is what a football forum us for. It is a guess on my part, but I
think Tanny offered Faneca his five million with two million of the
rest of the seven million being defered or cut out in one way or
another. Perhaps as a back loaded performance bonus. Dont give up so
many sacks and you get the rest of it. I think they made that sort
of an offer and he turned it down. I dont mind one bit if Tanny
decided to save two million under those circumstances. More of my
opinion, but to me, he looked like a shot player.
A J
Might I ask, Michael, what your guess is based on?
Just wondering if you are privy to inside info or are you, as are the
rest of us,
limited to the info available to all. You speak in " I think's and
Perhaps'".
I'm wondering if these are based in some sort of reality or if they
are, just guesses.
Should you be privy to unpublished info, your guess would need to be
weighted accordingly.
If your guess, however, is based on published info available to all,
regrettably,
Your guess is as good as mine.
I DO hope you answer this, because I, for one, am very curious.
A J
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
AJ... As far as my guess goes on what Faneca was offered. I just
pulled it out of my ass. It makes sense though. The word in previous
news reports was that they wanted Faneca but could not reach an
agreement. That can only mean money. Given that he is gonna get 5
million from the Jets no matter what, I assume the Jets offered him at
least that much. Given that the Jets did not want to pay him 7
million, I figure that extra two million was some how going to be cut
off or perhaps back loaded based on performance. Faneca did not agree
to that, as he can still get his five million from the Jets and then
go and sign another contract and get more money. Just a logical
guess. As far as my assessment of Faneca's performance. That is NO
guess at all. I saw the games. He cant move the pile and he was
exploited badly by pass rushers. I have never seen a guard go low on
his blocks so often since the Denver Bronco's offensive lines of the
1990's.
A J
Thank you for the honest response, Michael.
As I proceed here, please forgive me if the number values are not
exactly correct. I am not that well versed
in the realm of contracts, and I am only using values I have seen
posted here.
When you state that "they" wanted AF but couldn't come to an
agreement, I assume you refer to the Jets.
If my assumption is correct, then the Jets felt that it would be
beneficial to the team to pay $5m just to get rid of him.
If this is correct, then you may be absolutely correct, he sucked, or,
the FO saw this decision would have to be made for '11, and
decided to take advantage of the uncapped year and accept the dead
salary in '10, benefiting from the uncapped position
resulting from the expired cba.
On either front, I agree with the move, however, on both fronts, I
question the wisdom.
Setting contract negotiations and cba aside, I would personally prefer
to have AF here, if not playing, then mentoring.
The D for '10 looks to be very good, but the D last year was as well.
The O last year was inconsistent, and I fear major change to that
fragile group might backfire.
As bad as AF was, as you state, don't you find it at all interesting
that Mangold, and especially Brick, made major
strides forward as a result of his presence?
The bottom line here, once again, comes down to opinion.
You've made yours clear.
I disagree.
I'd prefer to have AF, since we're paying a significant amount for
him, and if we had to adjust protections,
hold a fb or a te in pass situations, so be it.
This team was 30 min from paradise last year, but too much change, too
much tinkering, well,
let's just say I think I may have seen this movie before,
In Washington D C.
I was ok until Faneca, and I would have been ok with Leon, but the
aggregate of it all
remains a concern of mine.
Michael
I dont think they felt it was beneficial to pay him 5 million to get
lost. It was a big fat money pill to swallow that was the lesser of
two evils. I think they felt they could get the job done with
Slauson and spend 2 million less. The ideal would have been to get
Faneca to take less and stay, but obviously, he did not. I dont know
if you were around two years ago when the Jets made the deal to bring
him in, but I thought in the end it would turn out to be a waste of
money. I stated that his career was winding down and the Steelers
knew it and there was no way he should have been given that over the
top contract. As it turns out, Faneca took the money and ran and in
the end it was even a bigger waste of money than I could have thought
to begin with. I also dont think Faneca made Mangold. Mangold was on
the way to being the best center in football with or without Faneca
running off with 5 million Jet dollars. Faneca's play was so bad last
year, I dont see why anyone would feel he lifted the Jets line to a
higher level. When Slauson came in for Faneca in the Tampa game last
year, the left side of the line started to move the pile. IMHO,
Slauson's performance in that game in comparison to Faneca's
performace in the games leading up to that game is what gave Tanny and
Rex the balls to be able to play hard ball with Faneca.
MZ
> As nice as that was, it was the result of some luck & the team taking advantage of it.
> Management wasn't lulled into a false comfort zone, by our run.
> They correctly saw the 9-7 they had, and made aggressive efforts to improve.
>
> Leon had nothing to do with it, as he was injured.
> TJ got us in that direction, but by the time we made the run, he was injured &
> exhausted... and played a minor role (most of his yards were on a few big runs, in the 2nd
> half of games). Most everything we did, was because the D held opponents in check.
> And other than Rhodes, and a few role players, the D is the same, with a couple of
> significant additions (Cromartie, Poole, Wilson, and to a lesser extent Taylor).
>
> The only player on O, that's gone that for the most part carried his weight during that
> run, was Faneca. He played relatively well during that period.
> So, while I question the wisdom of the Faneca release, the changes on O haven't really
> messed with a well-oiled offensive machine. Our O needed fixin'.
> The question marks we had last season, have just turned into new question marks ;)
The O needed fixing, but I'd have to side with carl here and remind you
that it wasn't the running game that was the problem. The problem was
the passing game. And although Faneca certainly wasn't helping matters
there, he wasn't why the passing game was ineffective. As john always
points out, Sanchez was hit the fewest times in the NFL. In my view,
the problems in the passing game came from a really crappy combination
of poor QB play and an offensive coordinator who couldn't effectively
scheme around it. The hope is that Sanchez improves his game and
Santonio adds a more (reliable) explosive element to the offense, but
that will be undone if the running game falters, IMO.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
during the season, the passing game is what cost them the most.
sanchez in particular gave four coast games away. in the playoffs, it
was a different story. the passing game was adequate and sanchez made
few mistakes. in the colts game, the lack of passing is not was kept
them from the superbowl. in the second half, the jets had fewer db's
than the colts had receivers. that is what cost them a trip to the
superbowl, IMHO. hence, the cromartie addition and the first round
draft choice of yet another cover corner. I dont see any reason not
to expect that sanchez wont be able to continue at the improved level
that he demonstrated in the last four games of the year. my big
worry... again... is schott. he's got edwards, keller, cotch, and now
santonio... in the backfield, he's got green and TJ and the two new
dudes. and i'm just betting that schott will get the least out of the
weapons he has with poor schemeing and his shoe box offense play
calling
MZ
Yeah, in that game there were depth issues. At CB, and to a lesser
extent at RB. But I don't think you can build the '10 team based solely
on the problems in that one game. In the totality of things, I think
the passing game needed the most attention even though it wasn't the
biggest problem that day. Although, it's worth noting that it ain't
like the passing game put up 30 points that day. I think "adequate" is
probably a good word.
I agree that things look positive as far as Sanchez improving goes.
What you want to see is a rookie getting better as the season wears on,
and although he had quite a midseason slump, it appeared he was coming
out of it at the end. But let's be realistic -- he has a LONG way to
go. As grinch has pointed out time and time again, he was among the
worst starting QBs statistically last season. I don't expect that to be
the case again this season, but I also don't expect that Manning, Brady,
and Brees will have to be looking over their shoulders either. Part of
the reason for that is also because I don't think Sanchez has the
weapons that those guys do. The Jets are still a defensive team. They
just have to be able to generate SOME offense...more than '09.
Michael
yeah.... agree... they need more production. i'm gonna get a big
argument from the shott fans, but i dont think schott is up to it as
far as running a top offense. people see some complicated plays from
schott and think he's a brain trust. i see questionable play calling
and doing things like calling plays that develop behind the LOS
against speedy defense like the colts. as for sanchez. it looks
optomistic. we'll see. i was glad he held together and kept his
composure for the most part during the disasterous mid season that he
had. he didnt do any "DONT TALK TO ME ALRIGHT !!!! KNOCK IT OFF !!! "
type stuff... lolz
Johnctx
> I think it was simply, do we cut him now & save $2+ mil (and let him choose his team), or
> later a) before the season, and he'll have to go to whoever will take him... b) after the
> season, with possible ramifications in 2011, depending upon any CBA reached.
> Callahan probably said Slauson is up to it, and they chose to save the $2 mil, & free AF
> to find a deal for himself. Obviously, this is all conjecture ;)
The $2MM is what has me scratching my head. If we replace him with a
rookie at minimum salary it is $450,000 if we sign a vet even at vet
minimum it could be $860,000.
I think dave is on to something that there must be something else. the
other reasons could be they flat out don't like him or $$$$$$$$
Johnctx
I like the first part.
:)
The second part, well, I hope you are all screwed up on your Schott
comments. You are 100% accurate about the importance of the running
game. If Greene is the real thing & LT has something left we will be
fine. I think the Jets showed they could move the ball when they had a QB.
The interesting choice of LT -- maybe Schott & Ryan don't feel they
can't keep three backs busy-- is that he can block. Leon was clueless
and that part about him makes me want to say, "don't steal anything as
you leave." If anyone thinks faneca's blocking was a worry to Sanchez
they obviously weren't paying attention to Leon. At times he would have
been better off running a route as he would often miss the defender
completely.
Johnctx
I didn't know you noticed. It must be the new workout.
>
>> Faneca has $5.2 MM of his $7.5 MM guaranteed. That was done so the $5.2
>> MM hit this year.
>>
>> Was Gholston's salary guaranteed?
>
> yes. part of it. unless I am reading incorrect information. part of
> his deal was guaranteed. he agredd to cut that part down.
I think you were confusing what his contract called for and guaranteed
contract. The Jets had little leverage as i thy cut him
>
>> I don't think so as he has seen all
>> that money. The only reason he isn't cut was due to cap problems in teh
>> future.
>>
>> So go ahead & find someone who will give back guaranteed salary money
>> without getting something in return.
>
> ok, john... they could have reworked his contract to limit the
> guaranteed money and given him some performance and play time
> incentives. dont give up twenty sacks and you get steak knives. play
> like a 7 million dollar guard and we'll pay you 7 million total. play
> like you did last year, and we'll give you two million.
7 sacks not 20 & as I have constantly mentioned it wasn't a $7MM
decision but probably $1.5MM decision.
Johnctx
>> yes. part of it. unless I am reading incorrect information. part of
>> his deal was guaranteed. he agredd to cut that part down.
>
> I think you were confusing what his contract called for and guaranteed
Michael
> during the season, the passing game is what cost them the most.
> sanchez in particular gave four coast games away. in the playoffs, it
> was a different story. the passing game was adequate and sanchez made
> few mistakes. in the colts game, the lack of passing is not was kept
> them from the superbowl. in the second half, the jets had fewer db's
> than the colts had receivers. that is what cost them a trip to the
> superbowl, IMHO. hence, the cromartie addition and the first round
> draft choice of yet another cover corner. I dont see any reason not
> to expect that sanchez wont be able to continue at the improved level
> that he demonstrated in the last four games of the year. my big
> worry... again... is schott. he's got edwards, keller, cotch, and now
> santonio... in the backfield, he's got green and TJ
i mean LT sorry....
Johnctx
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:25:04 -0500, Johnctx <j...@spamtx.net> wrote:
>
>> The Jets had little leverage as i thy cut him
>
>
No they cut my tongue out & I spell phonetically.