|
|
Post by choon328 on Feb 21, 2015 16:23:57 GMT -5
I'm not arguing at all. You originally posted the Jets have the "luxury of being deep at the position". You were talking about what's on the roster right now. I'll even give you Douzable even though he's an UFA at this point. I disagreed and asked you to tell me where all that depth is. You still haven't mentioned one name that is signed and on the roster. The defensive line is only a strength if Mo is on it. We only have 2 players on defense that are considered 2 of the better players in the league and yet we should get rid of one b/c of money when we have $50 million to spend? Who are you going to bring in? Some tool making $5 million/year who is half the player Mo is? The only strength on this roster is the defensive line and that's only b/c of Mo, Sheldon and Snacks, not b/c of the depth, and yet you want to break that up. Makes no sense at all. Why be cheap with that much money available? You made a comment, I responded. That's how message boards work. Just b/c you were obviously wrong doesn't mean you have to get cranky. I guess you could always prove me wrong by naming all of that depth the Jets have on the roster but we both know that's not happening. Get the stick out of your ass. You're right, I stand corrected, the jets DON'T have depth at DL. That is if you think Snacks, Richardson, Douz, Mo, Ellis, Barnes with Coples able to slide back onto the line doesn't represent good depth for a 3-4 defense, so be it. Repeating the same the same thing over and over again, isn't what message boards should be about. You said we had depth to cover Wilkerson leaving. The only guy you mentioned that could play for Wilkerson is Coples. Douzable is a FA, Ellis is a FA, Barnes and Snacks are NT's and do not play where Wilkerson plays. And Richardson is already starting. So even if they re-signed Douzable, which is not a guarantee with Rex in Buffalo, then he's your only depth behind Coples and Richardson. The rest play NT. At this point in time if you eliminated Wilkerson you have Coples and Richardson starting with maybe Douzable as their backup. That's weak. Talk about creating a weakness unnecessarily. Plus Richardson probably wouldn't be as effective without Wilkerson on the opposite side of him. And before this goes any further just let me say that I understand what you're concerns are about over paying for Wilkerson. I get it. But I think with the amount of money we have there is no reason to be concerned about it. Why let him go and create a huge void over a couple of million dollars a year when we can afford to do it? That's the point we disagree on the most. I don't like the idea of weakening the only part of our team that is a strength at this point over money when we have so much cap space this year and the next 4-5 years. |
|
|
|
Post by Jet Nut Sauce on Feb 22, 2015 10:09:08 GMT -5
You're right, I stand corrected, the jets DON'T have depth at DL. That is if you think Snacks, Richardson, Douz, Mo, Ellis, Barnes with Coples able to slide back onto the line doesn't represent good depth for a 3-4 defense, so be it. Repeating the same the same thing over and over again, isn't what message boards should be about. You said we had depth to cover Wilkerson leaving. The only guy you mentioned that could play for Wilkerson is Coples. Douzable is a FA, Ellis is a FA, Barnes and Snacks are NT's and do not play where Wilkerson plays. And Richardson is already starting. So even if they re-signed Douzable, which is not a guarantee with Rex in Buffalo, then he's your only depth behind Coples and Richardson. The rest play NT. At this point in time if you eliminated Wilkerson you have Coples and Richardson starting with maybe Douzable as their backup. That's weak. Talk about creating a weakness unnecessarily. Plus Richardson probably wouldn't be as effective without Wilkerson on the opposite side of him. And before this goes any further just let me say that I understand what you're concerns are about over paying for Wilkerson. I get it. But I think with the amount of money we have there is no reason to be concerned about it. Why let him go and create a huge void over a couple of million dollars a year when we can afford to do it? That's the point we disagree on the most. I don't like the idea of weakening the only part of our team that is a strength at this point over money when we have so much cap space this year and the next 4-5 years. Don't think this is what i want to see them do. I'm really of the mindset that you keep your star players. Think in the end you usually lose when you do. Just putting it out there, more as a case that has been discussed of signing a FA to replace Mo, say Suh, and then trade Mo for multiple picks. Love Mo but you'd improve the D and would walk away with picks to help somewhere else. The dollars would be similar, both players are getting big money deals. Would be creative |
|
|
|
Post by jdeacon on Feb 22, 2015 13:00:34 GMT -5
You said we had depth to cover Wilkerson leaving. The only guy you mentioned that could play for Wilkerson is Coples. Douzable is a FA, Ellis is a FA, Barnes and Snacks are NT's and do not play where Wilkerson plays. And Richardson is already starting. So even if they re-signed Douzable, which is not a guarantee with Rex in Buffalo, then he's your only depth behind Coples and Richardson. The rest play NT. At this point in time if you eliminated Wilkerson you have Coples and Richardson starting with maybe Douzable as their backup. That's weak. Talk about creating a weakness unnecessarily. Plus Richardson probably wouldn't be as effective without Wilkerson on the opposite side of him. And before this goes any further just let me say that I understand what you're concerns are about over paying for Wilkerson. I get it. But I think with the amount of money we have there is no reason to be concerned about it. Why let him go and create a huge void over a couple of million dollars a year when we can afford to do it? That's the point we disagree on the most. I don't like the idea of weakening the only part of our team that is a strength at this point over money when we have so much cap space this year and the next 4-5 years. Don't think this is what i want to see them do. I'm really of the mindset that you keep your star players. Think in the end you usually lose when you do. Just putting it out there, more as a case that has been discussed of signing a FA to replace Mo, say Suh, and then trade Mo for multiple picks. Love Mo but you'd improve the D and would walk away with picks to help somewhere else. The dollars would be similar, both players are getting big money deals. Would be creative Well this would happen, I bought a Wilkerson jersey this year only fitting we would trade him for a pot of fools gold and pick up one of the bigger douchebags in the nfl. We need to keep Mo and send a message to other players that if you excel here you will be paid and treated right on jets drive. |
|
