Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 57 of 57

Thread: Pats draft and the Jets draft (day 1)

  1. #41
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    2,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Lady Jet+Apr 27 2004, 01:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Lady Jet @ Apr 27 2004, 01:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--RichardSeymour[/i]@Apr 27 2004, 12:12 AM
    [b]

    But Bradway *did* overpay, and every dollar you overpay a player is a dollar you can&#39;t use somewhere else.


    [/b][/quote]
    Yes of course he did in Patsy world, ....and the Patsie&#39;s never do that ....right?

    (cough, Roosevelt Colvin....cough, cough)

    Geez, let the guy play a few games first.

    Like others have said, CBs were a hot market this year and the price was heavy to land one.

    Just look at the Super Duper Pats. Didn&#39;t the Pats wind up trading Ty Law for a first this year and a first next year or something like that. :P [/b][/quote]
    LadyJet,

    You&#39;re right. RichardSeymour likes to think he knows everything he&#39;s talking about, but actually it&#39;s more of the fact that he comes up with crappy, unintelligible facts that noone really cares about and then calls it logic. Like he invented the term.

    He just doesn&#39;t understand my simple point that if you&#39;re going to comment on something like the Jets overpaying Barrett.....one should probably wait and see how he plays. In the unlikely event that he becomes the next Deion Sanders then it would seem the Jets didn&#39;t overpay him. He doesn&#39;t want to wait for that though. He&#39;s fine spewing crap and attempting to pass it off as gospel. :rolleyes:

  2. #42
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    RS, sure Bradway over[b]paid[/b], ;) , but that&#39;s what the market called for. The market had a great demand for CB&#39;s and the supply couldn&#39;t nearly match it so as in ANY business when the demand out ways the supply; the consumer, or football team, is forced to pay more then the average price.

    That said his salary is still reasonable. Let&#39;s face it, we did not give the kid a Snyder contract by any means.

    I have a question, how come it always seems that every team has the same needs at the same time? Last year everyone NEEDED DT&#39;s and a record number were drafted in the first round. Everyone had a need for CB this year, this is a big reason I&#39;m shocked Strait dropped to us.

    Anyway does anyone else see this or am I just delusional?

  3. #43
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    2,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by RichardSeymour[/i]@Apr 27 2004, 12:09 AM
    [b] [quote][b]So basically RichardSeymour, you&#39;re taking the "guilty until proven innocent" approach. Very convenient to just change the rules when your trying to make a point.[/b][/quote]

    No, I&#39;m making an honest assessment of the contract. Note that I say Barton was signed to a good contract: I don&#39;t know how he&#39;ll play either, but based on his production it&#39;s a good contract.

    [quote][b]Reminds me of your "Chad doesn&#39;t win when his D allows 18" thing. Not a lot of water being held in that argument either. 18? Such a common score that everyone hits in a game. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]

    And when they hit it, Chad loses.

    [quote][b]I guess in your world everything makes sense. :lol:[/b][/quote]

    It&#39;s called logic. You should try it, rather than putting blinders on and refusing to look at Barrett critically just because he&#39;s a Jet.

    [quote][b]As a bystandard, I just don&#39;t see the problem with reserving judgement until he actually does play? :unsure:[/b][/quote]

    I am reserving judgment on how he&#39;ll perform in a Jets uniform, I&#39;m merely making a reasoned judgment that based on his production, history, and the reported level of interest in him around the league, Bradway overpayed [/b][/quote]
    "18 points?" That&#39;s your benchmark? Why not use a score that actually shows up in games on weekly basis? Like 17? I bet there&#39;s quite a difference and then maybe I&#39;ll lend some credit your way.

    Oh and by the way: (speaking of logic) how can I look at Barrett critically when he hasn&#39;t played a down for my team? I thought so. See the problem here is that you&#39;re hypocritical. You wanna preach logic, but you don&#39;t use it yourself. Instead, you said you use "production, history, and reported level of interest in him" to decide if they overpaid? (That&#39;s how you spell overpaid by the way). You know nothing of his performance and don&#39;t tell me you do. Using a reasoned judgement you say? You seem to still avoid the "play on the field" reasoning which is what it comes down to.

    My point is that it is way to early to "speculate" or pass judgment on something like that when you don&#39;t have all of the facts.

    Again, I reitterate, there is logic and there is RichardSeymour logic: Two completely different things. B)

  4. #44
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,359
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Bleedgreen[/i]@Apr 27 2004, 01:31 AM
    [b]
    LadyJet,

    You&#39;re right. RichardSeymour likes to think he knows everything he&#39;s talking about, but actually it&#39;s more of the fact that he comes up with crappy, unintelligible facts that noone really cares about and then calls it logic. Like he invented the term.

    He just doesn&#39;t understand my simple point that if you&#39;re going to comment on something like the Jets overpaying Barrett.....one should probably wait and see how he plays. In the unlikely event that he becomes the next Deion Sanders then it would seem the Jets didn&#39;t overpay him. He doesn&#39;t want to wait for that though. He&#39;s fine spewing crap and attempting to pass it off as gospel. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
    [quote][b]You&#39;re right. RichardSeymour likes to think he knows everything he&#39;s talking about, but actually it&#39;s more of the fact that he comes up with crappy, unintelligible facts that noone really cares about and then calls it logic. Like he invented the term.[/b][/quote]

    No, I like to offer my opinion, I like it to be well supported which is why I tend to actually be moderate in most of my statements (if you&#39;ve been paying attention, and evidently you havn&#39;t).

    [quote][b]He just doesn&#39;t understand my simple point that if you&#39;re going to comment on something like the Jets overpaying Barrett.....one should probably wait and see how he plays. In the unlikely event that he becomes the next Deion Sanders then it would seem the Jets didn&#39;t overpay him. He doesn&#39;t want to wait for that though. He&#39;s fine spewing crap and attempting to pass it off as gospel. :rolleyes:[/b][/quote]

    So it is impossible to judge the merit of any contract ever given until it has run out completely?

    Well, in one sense, yeah.

    In another sense no.

    I say that Barrett&#39;s contract is a bad one, knowing full well that it could end up being an incredible bargain for the Jets. Likewise I say Bartons contract is a good one knowing full well it could end up being a stupid, worthless waste of money.

    Here and now, Barrett&#39;s contract is a bad one by most reasonable, neutral, considered standards, just as Bartons is a good one. I say that based on production, availability, etc.

    Neither I nor anyone else knows for sure how those contracts will be regarded years from now: but here and now, Bradway overpayed for what SEEMS to be a mediocre talent.

  5. #45
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,359
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Bleedgreen+Apr 27 2004, 01:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Bleedgreen @ Apr 27 2004, 01:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--RichardSeymour[/i]@Apr 27 2004, 12:09 AM
    [b] [quote][b]So basically RichardSeymour, you&#39;re taking the "guilty until proven innocent" approach. Very convenient to just change the rules when your trying to make a point.[/b][/quote]

    No, I&#39;m making an honest assessment of the contract. Note that I say Barton was signed to a good contract: I don&#39;t know how he&#39;ll play either, but based on his production it&#39;s a good contract.

    [quote][b]Reminds me of your "Chad doesn&#39;t win when his D allows 18" thing. Not a lot of water being held in that argument either. 18? Such a common score that everyone hits in a game. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]

    And when they hit it, Chad loses.

    [quote][b]I guess in your world everything makes sense. :lol:[/b][/quote]

    It&#39;s called logic. You should try it, rather than putting blinders on and refusing to look at Barrett critically just because he&#39;s a Jet.

    [quote][b]As a bystandard, I just don&#39;t see the problem with reserving judgement until he actually does play? :unsure:[/b][/quote]

    I am reserving judgment on how he&#39;ll perform in a Jets uniform, I&#39;m merely making a reasoned judgment that based on his production, history, and the reported level of interest in him around the league, Bradway overpayed [/b][/quote]
    "18 points?" That&#39;s your benchmark? Why not use a score that actually shows up in games on weekly basis? Like 17? I bet there&#39;s quite a difference and then maybe I&#39;ll lend some credit your way.

    Oh and by the way: (speaking of logic) how can I look at Barrett critically when he hasn&#39;t played a down for my team? I thought so. See the problem here is that you&#39;re hypocritical. You wanna preach logic, but you don&#39;t use it yourself. Instead, you said you use "production, history, and reported level of interest in him" to decide if they overpaid? (That&#39;s how you spell overpaid by the way). You know nothing of his performance and don&#39;t tell me you do. Using a reasoned judgement you say? You seem to still avoid the "play on the field" reasoning which is what it comes down to.

    My point is that it is way to early to "speculate" or pass judgment on something like that when you don&#39;t have all of the facts.

    Again, I reitterate, there is logic and there is RichardSeymour logic: Two completely different things. B) [/b][/quote]
    Oh jesus.... now I have to explain this again....

    [quote][b]"18 points?" That&#39;s your benchmark? Why not use a score that actually shows up in games on weekly basis? Like 17? I bet there&#39;s quite a difference and then maybe I&#39;ll lend some credit your way.[/b][/quote]

    [b]I chose 18 points for EXACTLY that reason.[/b] 17 is one of the most common scores appearing in boxes. 18 is a relatively rare score. That makes it a good "split point" to divide everything into two categories: 17 or below and 18 or above.

    I might point out that the average NFL score last year was ~21 pts, which means the 18 pts allowed benchmark I set is still below the average points scored per NFL game.

    I&#39;ve also examine about a dozen QBs record on that stat over the past few years.... Pennington&#39;s record is UNUSUALLY low. even the best QBs only have middling records in that situation (Brady is 7-12 IIRC, Favre headed the list, and his was 8-9 or something.) but CP&#39;s 1-10 is matched only by young QBs on abysmal teams, such as Harrington.

    [quote][b]Oh and by the way: (speaking of logic) how can I look at Barrett critically when he hasn&#39;t played a down for my team?[/b][/quote]

    By examining his history. You probably don&#39;t have a problem looking at Barrett&#39;s virtues, or looking at Barton&#39;s (very good) production in Oakland. You probably didn&#39;t have a problem looking at draftees critically even though they&#39;d never played a down for your team.

    [quote][b]Instead, you said you use "production, history, and reported level of interest in him" to decide if they overpaid? (That&#39;s how you spell overpaid by the way).[/b][/quote]

    You got me on the spelling. You genius you. I admit it, I confess, I make a whole bunch of language mechanics errors and spelling tic errors. My fault. My B. Sorry.

    [quote][b]You know nothing of his performance and don&#39;t tell me you do. [/b][/quote]

    I&#39;ve probably seen Barrett play but I sure as hell can&#39;t remember anything about him. So yes, I know nothing of his performance first hand. I just go by what I&#39;ve heard and read, and that all suggests he was overpaid.

    I do remember seeing Barton play, but I hardly remember a whole ton of it. Yet you have no problem when I say that Barton&#39;s contract is a pretty good one: maybe that&#39;s because you&#39;re being a homer. Or maybe not. Anyway, I could be just as wrong on that. Barton might turn out to be a horrible signing....

    Although I&#39;d note that if he does, it&#39;ll be a lot less painless to cut him than Barrett, IIRC.

    [quote][b]My point is that it is way to early to "speculate" or pass judgment on something like that when you don&#39;t have all of the facts.[/b][/quote]

    Stop the presses. We&#39;re not allowed to speculate on this years draft classes. At all. We&#39;re not allowed to speculate on FA signings. We&#39;re not allowed to speculate on the upcoming season....

    I mean, you do realize that you&#39;re being a defensive homer here, right?

  6. #46
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,359
    Post Thanks / Like
    One last Watson post for the road.... I know most of y&#39;all don&#39;t care, but that&#39;s why I&#39;m keeping it confined to this thread.

    According to USA today.....

    Roy Williams.... 4.48 40, 37.5 inch vertical
    Reggie Williams.... 4.62 40, 37.5 inch vertical
    Rashaun Woods.... 4.47 40, 39 inch vertical (why did he go so late?)
    [b]Ben Watson.... 4.44 40, 40 inch vertical [/b]

    Tommie Harris.... 470 lb bench, 600 lb squat (4.68 40 btw.... pretty nasty)
    Vince Wilfork.... 375 lb bench, 505 lb squat (weakish numbers for our guy)
    Vernon Carey.... 480 lb bench, 500 lb squat
    Robert Gallery.... 456 lb bench, 620 lb squat
    [b]Ben Watson.... 535 lb bench, 570 lb squat [/b]

    While this on the one hand is a lesson that combine numbers don&#39;t necessarily mean a whole heck of a lot, on the other hand it shows Watsons FREAK athleticism. He runs and jumps like the elite WRs, and is as strong as the elite linemen.

    Watson could be a bust because to date his on the field production sure hasn&#39;t matched those #s. Maybe he&#39;s Mike Mamula II.

    But the potential is in. sane.

    Also, I feel like those numbers CANNOT be right.

  7. #47
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,587
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by RichardSeymour[/i]@Apr 27 2004, 01:39 AM
    [b] One last Watson post for the road.... I know most of y&#39;all don&#39;t care, but that&#39;s why I&#39;m keeping it confined to this thread.

    According to USA today.....

    Roy Williams.... 4.48 40, 37.5 inch vertical
    Reggie Williams.... 4.62 40, 37.5 inch vertical
    Rashaun Woods.... 4.47 40, 39 inch vertical (why did he go so late?)
    [b]Ben Watson.... 4.44 40, 40 inch vertical [/b]

    Tommie Harris.... 470 lb bench, 600 lb squat (4.68 40 btw.... pretty nasty)
    Vince Wilfork.... 375 lb bench, 505 lb squat (weakish numbers for our guy)
    Vernon Carey.... 480 lb bench, 500 lb squat
    Robert Gallery.... 456 lb bench, 620 lb squat
    [b]Ben Watson.... 535 lb bench, 570 lb squat [/b]

    While this on the one hand is a lesson that combine numbers don&#39;t necessarily mean a whole heck of a lot, on the other hand it shows Watsons FREAK athleticism. He runs and jumps like the elite WRs, and is as strong as the elite linemen.

    Watson could be a bust because to date his on the field production sure hasn&#39;t matched those #s. Maybe he&#39;s Mike Mamula II.

    But the potential is in. sane.

    Also, I feel like those numbers CANNOT be right. [/b][/quote]
    Check the Wilfork numbers again. I saw a site (ESPN??) that had him at 475 for the bench. Maybe there&#39;s a typo somewhere?

  8. #48
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,587
    Post Thanks / Like
    On epoint about Strait that everyone seems to be forgetting is that he played at Oak., which uses a Pro set on defense. They use the whole package like many NFL teams. I think that Starit has the smallest learning curve when it comes to making the transition to the Pro game.

  9. #49
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    2,464
    Post Thanks / Like
    RS- I&#39;m no draft guru...but based on what I saw in the LSU games I DID see...Hill looks to be a special defensive player....No particular play stands out in my mind, but sometimes you can tell by watching the player on the field....he just "looked" the part. Vilma was the same way.....I tuned in to Miami&#39;s bowl game to see DJ Williams because the Jets were rumored to be interested....but all I noticed was Vilma.

  10. #50
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,457
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Lady Jet[/i]@Apr 27 2004, 05:19 AM
    [b] Yes of course he did in Patsy world, ....and the Patsie&#39;s never do that ....right?

    (cough, Roosevelt Colvin....cough, cough)

    Geez, let the guy play a few games first.

    Like others have said, CBs were a hot market this year and the price was heavy to land one.

    Just look at the Super Duper Pats. Didn&#39;t the Pats wind up trading Ty Law for a first this year and a first next year or something like that. :P [/b][/quote]
    Colvin was actually a good deal.

    We signed a 25yo LB that had 10.5 sacks his previous two seasons for 6 years at 25.85 and 6 million bonus. His contract was under what the market was expected to bear.

    With hindsight and his freak injury, yeah the Patriots overpaid for last season.

    Barrett has been productive, but not on the level of Colvin and signed for 6 years - 21 million with 5 million bonus.

    Like RS said, if Barrett turns allpro, yeah that will be cheap.

  11. #51
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    2,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by RichardSeymour+Apr 27 2004, 02:02 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (RichardSeymour @ Apr 27 2004, 02:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by -Bleedgreen@Apr 27 2004, 01:42 AM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin--RichardSeymour[/i]@Apr 27 2004, 12:09 AM
    [b] [quote][b]So basically RichardSeymour, you&#39;re taking the "guilty until proven innocent" approach. Very convenient to just change the rules when your trying to make a point.[/b][/quote]

    No, I&#39;m making an honest assessment of the contract. Note that I say Barton was signed to a good contract: I don&#39;t know how he&#39;ll play either, but based on his production it&#39;s a good contract.

    [quote][b]Reminds me of your "Chad doesn&#39;t win when his D allows 18" thing. Not a lot of water being held in that argument either. 18? Such a common score that everyone hits in a game. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]

    And when they hit it, Chad loses.

    [quote][b]I guess in your world everything makes sense. :lol:[/b][/quote]

    It&#39;s called logic. You should try it, rather than putting blinders on and refusing to look at Barrett critically just because he&#39;s a Jet.

    [quote][b]As a bystandard, I just don&#39;t see the problem with reserving judgement until he actually does play? :unsure:[/b][/quote]

    I am reserving judgment on how he&#39;ll perform in a Jets uniform, I&#39;m merely making a reasoned judgment that based on his production, history, and the reported level of interest in him around the league, Bradway overpayed [/b][/quote]
    "18 points?" That&#39;s your benchmark? Why not use a score that actually shows up in games on weekly basis? Like 17? I bet there&#39;s quite a difference and then maybe I&#39;ll lend some credit your way.

    Oh and by the way: (speaking of logic) how can I look at Barrett critically when he hasn&#39;t played a down for my team? I thought so. See the problem here is that you&#39;re hypocritical. You wanna preach logic, but you don&#39;t use it yourself. Instead, you said you use "production, history, and reported level of interest in him" to decide if they overpaid? (That&#39;s how you spell overpaid by the way). You know nothing of his performance and don&#39;t tell me you do. Using a reasoned judgement you say? You seem to still avoid the "play on the field" reasoning which is what it comes down to.

    My point is that it is way to early to "speculate" or pass judgment on something like that when you don&#39;t have all of the facts.

    Again, I reitterate, there is logic and there is RichardSeymour logic: Two completely different things. B) [/b][/quote]
    Oh jesus.... now I have to explain this again....

    [quote][b]"18 points?" That&#39;s your benchmark? Why not use a score that actually shows up in games on weekly basis? Like 17? I bet there&#39;s quite a difference and then maybe I&#39;ll lend some credit your way.[/b][/quote]

    [b]I chose 18 points for EXACTLY that reason.[/b] 17 is one of the most common scores appearing in boxes. 18 is a relatively rare score. That makes it a good "split point" to divide everything into two categories: 17 or below and 18 or above.

    I might point out that the average NFL score last year was ~21 pts, which means the 18 pts allowed benchmark I set is still below the average points scored per NFL game.

    I&#39;ve also examine about a dozen QBs record on that stat over the past few years.... Pennington&#39;s record is UNUSUALLY low. even the best QBs only have middling records in that situation (Brady is 7-12 IIRC, Favre headed the list, and his was 8-9 or something.) but CP&#39;s 1-10 is matched only by young QBs on abysmal teams, such as Harrington.

    [quote][b]Oh and by the way: (speaking of logic) how can I look at Barrett critically when he hasn&#39;t played a down for my team?[/b][/quote]

    By examining his history. You probably don&#39;t have a problem looking at Barrett&#39;s virtues, or looking at Barton&#39;s (very good) production in Oakland. You probably didn&#39;t have a problem looking at draftees critically even though they&#39;d never played a down for your team.

    [quote][b]Instead, you said you use "production, history, and reported level of interest in him" to decide if they overpaid? (That&#39;s how you spell overpaid by the way).[/b][/quote]

    You got me on the spelling. You genius you. I admit it, I confess, I make a whole bunch of language mechanics errors and spelling tic errors. My fault. My B. Sorry.

    [quote][b]You know nothing of his performance and don&#39;t tell me you do. [/b][/quote]

    I&#39;ve probably seen Barrett play but I sure as hell can&#39;t remember anything about him. So yes, I know nothing of his performance first hand. I just go by what I&#39;ve heard and read, and that all suggests he was overpaid.

    I do remember seeing Barton play, but I hardly remember a whole ton of it. Yet you have no problem when I say that Barton&#39;s contract is a pretty good one: maybe that&#39;s because you&#39;re being a homer. Or maybe not. Anyway, I could be just as wrong on that. Barton might turn out to be a horrible signing....

    Although I&#39;d note that if he does, it&#39;ll be a lot less painless to cut him than Barrett, IIRC.

    [quote][b]My point is that it is way to early to "speculate" or pass judgment on something like that when you don&#39;t have all of the facts.[/b][/quote]

    Stop the presses. We&#39;re not allowed to speculate on this years draft classes. At all. We&#39;re not allowed to speculate on FA signings. We&#39;re not allowed to speculate on the upcoming season....

    I mean, you do realize that you&#39;re being a defensive homer here, right? [/b][/quote]
    That was weak. <_<

    Examine the length of your responses and how you manage to comment on every other sentence and again tell me who&#39;s the one who&#39;s being a defensive homer? Remember what I said about the hypocricy. ;)

  12. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,065
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by PFSIKH+Apr 27 2004, 10:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (PFSIKH @ Apr 27 2004, 10:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Lady Jet[/i]@Apr 27 2004, 05:19 AM
    [b] Yes of course he did in Patsy world, ....and the Patsie&#39;s never do that ....right?

    (cough, Roosevelt Colvin....cough, cough)

    Geez, let the guy play a few games first.

    Like others have said, CBs were a hot market this year and the price was heavy to land one.

    Just look at the Super Duper Pats. Didn&#39;t the Pats wind up trading Ty Law for a first this year and a first next year or something like that. :P [/b][/quote]
    Colvin was actually a good deal.

    We signed a 25yo LB that had 10.5 sacks his previous two seasons for 6 years at 25.85 and 6 million bonus. His contract was under what the market was expected to bear.

    With hindsight and his freak injury, yeah the Patriots overpaid for last season.

    Barrett has been productive, but not on the level of Colvin and signed for 6 years - 21 million with 5 million bonus.

    Like RS said, if Barrett turns allpro, yeah that will be cheap. [/b][/quote]
    Colvin turned down more money from other teams to come and play for the Pats. He was one of the highest rated Free Agents on the market last year. Those are facts.

    And no Ty didn&#39;t get traded, but I hear that if we package him with our next three first rounders we might get all-pro Lamont Jordan. :rolleyes:

  13. #53
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,359
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Bleedgreen[/i]@Apr 27 2004, 11:21 AM
    [b] That was weak. <_<

    Examine the length of your responses and how you manage to comment on every other sentence and again tell me who&#39;s the one who&#39;s being a defensive homer? Remember what I said about the hypocricy. ;) [/b][/quote]
    I manage to comment on every other sentence because your arguments aren&#39;t terribly strong ones. I&#39;m verbose. Sure me. A man who cares so much about spelling should be able to appreciate that.

    Defensive homer?

    Uh, I think I&#39;m pretty reasonable here: In this thread I&#39;ve pointed out that the Jets had a very good draft, that Barton was a very good signing at a more than reasonable rate, and that the Barrett contract is just about the only thing Bradway&#39;s done this offseason which looks like a mistake.

    I&#39;ve also admitted that it IS fully possible that Barrett will justify that contract.

    But again, you seem to have a major issue with the one critical thing I said about your team.

    And if PFSIKH&#39;s numbers on Colvin vs Barrett are right, I&#39;m confused as to how anyone can fail to admit that Bradway overpaid (oh god no, I did it again).

    I think it&#39;s fair to make judgments about contracts based on the present: you just have to admit that those judgments may change:

    Until proven otherwise, IMO, Barton&#39;s contract is a good one for the Jets.
    Until proven otherwise, IMO, Barrett&#39;s contract is a bad one for the Jets.

    I guess that&#39;s a crazy, unreasonable stance.

  14. #54
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,359
    Post Thanks / Like
    And again, to continue my total love affair with Ben Watson (no not that kind of love affair)....

    From today&#39;s Herald :

    ""Another GM liked the Wilfork pick but actually thought the Pats&#39; best move was getting Ben Watson, a fast, athletic, 6-foot-3, 253-pound tight end from Georgia with the 32nd overall selection. ``They hit the jackpot on that one,&#39;&#39; he said. ``He&#39;s a big kid who can run, catch and block. He&#39;s going to surprise people because I think he&#39;s going to be a great tight end in this league. Not good, great.&#39;&#39; So with that talent, how did he finish with only 23 catches last season and just 31 as a junior? [b]``I saw tapes of every game he played and you can&#39;t lay those numbers on him,&#39;&#39; the GM explained. ``He had that high-ankle sprain this past year, but more than that, Georgia just didn&#39;t throw the ball well."[/b]

  15. #55
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,457
    Post Thanks / Like
    RS - Watson also missed 5 games last year.

  16. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    6,242
    Post Thanks / Like
    This can&#39;t be a good thing for Graham. He had better reach his full potential this year because if he has another year of making one amazing catch for every 3 in the bread-basket drop, he&#39;ll be on his way out of town.

  17. #57
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,457
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by shasta[/i]@Apr 27 2004, 05:16 PM
    [b] This can&#39;t be a good thing for Graham. He had better reach his full potential this year because if he has another year of making one amazing catch for every 3 in the bread-basket drop, he&#39;ll be on his way out of town. [/b][/quote]
    It is definetly a sign for Fauria.

    Graham has shown some ability. It is his inconsistency in catching that is killing him. Let&#39;s not forget he out caught Fauria last year (38 catches 409 yards 4 TDs). Fauria is old and is not half the blocker Graham is. Graham is signed through 2006 and will see every second of that contract. He made strides in his second year (15 to 38 catches) and will develop even more.

    Belichick is not going to cut Graham yet. He has shown talent. It is not like we are trying to make him a pass catching threat were there was none before. He needs to consistency with his talent on the field, not showing some receving talent he does not have. Look at Brady, he was the 4th QB his rookie season, because he showed the Coaches and FO some talent.

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