Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 82

Thread: Faneca Apologists ...

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,607

    Faneca Apologists ...

    ARZ gave up 9 sacks yesterday and rushed for less than 50 yards against
    SD. Whereas Slauson gave up no sacks for the second straight game and
    committed no penalties in his fourth career start.

  2. #2
    [QUOTE=KRL;3764488]ARZ gave up 9 sacks yesterday and rushed for less than 50 yards against
    SD. Whereas Slauson gave up no sacks for the second straight game and
    committed no penalties in his fourth career start.[/QUOTE]

    SO THERE!

  3. #3
    Rex and Tanny, Their pretty F***in good.

  4. #4
    So even if Slausen would have beaten Faneca out in training camp (doubtful IMO), it still wasn't worth it to keep him around in case one of our offensive linemen get hurt? So we don't miss a step with continuity? Especially since we paid Faneca $5 million to release him anyway?

    I don't think many of us are apologists. We just don't get the logic behind releasing him.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,375
    [QUOTE=Borgoguy;3764513]So even if Slausen would have beaten Faneca out in training camp (doubtful IMO), it still wasn't worth it to keep him around in case one of our offensive linemen get hurt? So we don't miss a step with continuity? Especially since we paid Faneca $5 million to release him anyway?

    I don't think many of us are apologists. We just don't get the logic behind releasing him.[/QUOTE]

    I think the logic was to stop delaying the inevitable: it was time to move on, and they did the "throw him in, sink or swim" thing.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=Borgoguy;3764513]So even if Slausen would have beaten Faneca out in training camp (doubtful IMO), [B]it still wasn't worth it to keep him around in case one of our offensive linemen get hurt?[/B] So we don't miss a step with continuity? Especially since we paid Faneca $5 million to release him anyway?

    I don't think many of us are apologists. We just don't get the logic behind releasing him.[/QUOTE]

    Once the Jets FO and CS made the decision to move on without Faneca the Jets weren't going to keep a $6M backup OL on the roster, let alone a 8 time Pro Bowler (or how ever many) out of respect to Faneca.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=C Mart;3764517]Once the Jets FO and CS made the decision to move on without Faneca [B]the Jets weren't going to keep a $6M backup OL on the roster,[/B] let alone a 8 time Pro Bowler (or how ever many) out of respect to Faneca.[/QUOTE]

    As I said, I don't think Slausen beats him out. Make it a training camp competition. Guaranteed Faneca would have accepted those terms to be with a team he loved, and Super Bowl contender, rather than finding himself out in Arizona. Your "out of respect" comment is pure conjecture and, IMO, not the reason the Jets released Faneca. Only Mike T. can give you the real reason.

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,607
    The Jets saved at least $2 million by cutting Faneca and who wants to keep
    a $5 million backup lineman. You have to trust your coaches and Callahan
    believed in what Slauson could become. To me the Faneca debate is dead,
    his decline is continuing and Slauson is improving

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=quantum;3764515]I think the logic was to stop delaying the inevitable: it was time to move on, and they did the "throw him in, sink or swim" thing.[/QUOTE]

    So if an O lineman goes down this year, you're more comfortable with a scrub than Faneca? You're paying him $5 million anyway. What would have been the harm keeping him as insurance, especially in a year when we are front loaded for a Super Bowl run? We could have released the guy next year. It would have cost us next to nothing to have him around another year.

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=KRL;3764522]The Jets saved at least $2 million by cutting Faneca and who wants to keep
    a $5 million backup lineman. You have to trust your coaches and Callahan
    believed in what Slauson could become. To me the Faneca debate is dead,
    his decline is continuing and Slauson is improving[/QUOTE]

    Think about what you're saying. You're paying him $5 million to walk out the door. Give the guy another $2 million and you have a quality O lineman, who would still have been our starter over Slausen. Even if Slausen beats him out, Fanecan can step in if someone gets hurt, which in the NFL is almost unavoidable.

  11. #11
    I think the Jets also wanted to let Mangold and Brick assume leader ship responsibilities, and we also save 2 million $ at some point ( i think i heard that)

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=Borgoguy;3764520]As I said, I don't think Slausen beats him out. Make it a training camp competition. Guaranteed Faneca would have accepted those terms to be with a team he loved, and Super Bowl contender, rather than finding himself out in Arizona. Your "out of respect" comment is pure conjecture and, IMO, not the reason the Jets released Faneca. Only Mike T. can give you the real reason.[/QUOTE]

    No, it wasn't the real reason...The real reason, IMO, is the Jets felt Slauson can do a better overall job than Faneca at this point in Faneca's career....

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,375
    [QUOTE=Borgoguy;3764523]So if an O lineman goes down this year, you're more comfortable with a scrub than Faneca? You're paying him $5 million anyway. What would have been the harm keeping him as insurance, especially in a year when we are front loaded for a Super Bowl run? We could have released the guy next year. It would have cost us next to nothing to have him around another year.[/QUOTE]

    Well, by releasing him, we saved a 2-3million? I just read Coleman renegotiated his contract this past offseason to stay with the team, and all we saved was a few hundred thousand. I'm guessing its to save enough nickels and dimes to pay the bigger talent.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=Borgoguy;3764523]So if an O lineman goes down this year, you're more comfortable with a scrub than Faneca? You're paying him $5 million anyway. What would have been the harm keeping him as insurance, especially in a year when we are front loaded for a Super Bowl run? We could have released the guy next year. It would have cost us next to nothing to have him around another year.[/QUOTE]

    the Jets needed to re-sign several young players ('Core Four') and have to do the same again next offseason. cost-cutting moves were to be expected.

    this was a case of the Jets taking advantage of the uncapped season to get rid of a big contract/cap hold. they offered Faneca the opportunity to re-structure his deal, he didn't want to do it, he got cut. the Jets would rather absorb the cap hit during the uncapped year, that way they will have more cap room next year to sign Harris, Holmes/Edwards, Cro, etc.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=quantum;3764533]Well, by releasing him, [B]we saved a 2-3million[/B]? I just read Coleman renegotiated his contract this past offseason to stay with the team, and all we saved was a few hundred thousand. I'm guessing its to save enough nickels and dimes to pay the bigger talent.[/QUOTE]

    How do you save $2 million by paying him $5 million and then releasing him? In my book, that's a $5 million dollar loss. Plus, you get no value from the player. No one will convince me that having Faneca on the team--even just as an insurance policy--was not worth an additional $2 million.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    You don't make a guy of Faneca's stature compete with a guy who was a 5th rounder a year ago. We've had enough distractions so far this season. Forcing Faneca to compete for his job would have created another one (You seriously think he would have quietly sat on the bench?). The team needed to move on, and did. They ate his salary and allowed the younger player to take over the spot so he can be there long term.

    They made the only move they could without creating another problem.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=Dirtstar;3764536][B]the Jets needed to re-sign several young players ('Core Four') and have to do the same again next offseason. cost-cutting moves were to be expected.[/B]

    this was a case of the Jets taking advantage of the uncapped season to get rid of a big contract/cap hold. they offered Faneca the opportunity to re-structure his deal, he didn't want to do it, he got cut. the Jets would rather absorb the cap hit during the uncapped year, that way they will have more cap room next year to sign Harris, Holmes/Edwards, Cro, etc.[/QUOTE]

    So they "cut costs" by paying Faneca $5 million to walk out the door? And the $2 million they saved will be enough to fund those other contracts? If you just look at it logically, it makes no sense. I just wish Tanny would have come out and given the real reason Faneca is no longer on the team. I could have accepted that. But don't give me the "we're saving money" b.s. when we clearly threw away $5 million.

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    12,826
    We should never have cut Anthony Becht :nono:

  19. #19
    I really think the reason was an oppurtunity to transfer leadership to younger players.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=C Mart;3764530]No, it wasn't the real reason...The real reason, IMO, is the Jets felt Slauson can do a better overall job than Faneca at this point in Faneca's career....[/QUOTE]

    Or you mean Ducasse, because as we know it was a two person race between those two. I think at no time did the Jets automatically think. Slauson is so dang good we can dump Faneca.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us