I believe there would be a lot of drama, and I've seen some well written articles say there is no way the two could co-exist for varied reasons. Someone would have to come up with the worthy trade value to acquire the picks though. Ultimately that would be the best thing for the Colts. Peyton Manning has been the world's best smelling cologne covering up that the Colts haven't showered in several years. They need fresh talent badly.
Correct, it is and while you are probably right it would only cost the Jets 5 million against the cap if they cut him before March. Almost 15 million if they don't.
I do think the PSL stuff had something to do with it. In retrospect though, the coaching staff has to see the year Chad had with the Dolphins and realize they should have held onto him for another 2-3 seasons and draft a QB (ie Sanchez) instead of going for the Favre rental. Chad would have been a great backup to Sanchez if he accepted that role. I think Peyton could have another year or two left in him, like Montana and Favre (with the Vikings) did. Even if he does, it's probably not worth the price for us, and I don't think Sanchez is our main problem. Personally, I'd rather they just improve the OL and draft some more defense.
I'd say it would be fairly retarded, not hysterically retarded...and fairly retarded happens sometimes in the NFL. Apparently it was written about enough for some reporter to ask Rex. From Rotoworld: http://rotoworld.com/player/nfl/5192mark-sanchez Asked if the Jets would have interest should the Colts make Peyton Manning available, coach Rex Ryan replied, "We've got our quarterback." "Peyton's under contract, so if I say anything, it can be considered tampering," said Ryan. "I'll just say this: We've got our quarterback. That's it. [Sanchez] is our quarterback. There's no doubt about that." Asked if Sanchez is his quarterback moving into the future, Ryan responded, "Yeah, absolutely. Sanchez is not going anywhere, and that's it." Source: Newsday Dec 9 - 8:47 AM
I know that Chad Fans will take this as an attack on Chad, but I really don't mean it to be. Do you remember that game when both Chad and Fiedler went down? Well if there was any Qb in the league right then who was as fragile as Chad, it was Fiedler. I thought it was a huge mistake having your backup Qb be a fragile one. Cause look what happened - they end up with Bollinger, who in fairness to him had gotten almost no work with the team, and then suddenly is the starter. I think Chad could make a good or even great coach, but a backup Qb would be a terrible thing for him to have been. Of course Sanchez has proved to be durable, but the point of having a backup Qb is to really have one. I am not happy as it is with Brunell as the backup, and I say that recognizing he probably is doing a lot of good with what amount to coach-like duties. But I don't want to see him actually playing. He's too old. And Chad would have been too fragile. Miami lucked out getting the only complete season out of Chad where he was relatively healthy (2006 NOT being healthy), but then bam the next year, he's out. Not a good situation...
The odds of what happened to Pennington and then Fiedler had to be astronomical. Most of the time what you need in a backup QB is a guy to come in for a game or two. There are very few teams that have a backup that can step in and play a full season and still win. I don't think fragility would have been an issue, and really the distance between #2 in Chad and #3 in whomever (Clemens, McElroy) wouldn't have been all that great. The good thing about shipping Chad and having Brunell is that nobody ever wants to see the backup no matter how bad Sanchez gets. If Chad stayed Sanchez might not have started through his whole rookie season, never mind the year after. With how Fragile Mark's Ego is, that could have been a bad thing.
Having Fiedler as a backup wasn't necessarily a terrible idea. Having him as a backup for Chad was however about as awful a choice as you could make. When your starting QB goes out every other season like clockwork you really can't afford to have him backed up by a QB who goes out every other season like clockwork. To make the point: who here would want Chad as their backup QB?
@Bradway... You keep pointing to our moves creating a lack of depth. In a cap driven NFL no team has great depth and We are alot better off than most. The Turner / Mangold situation hurt as has Bryan Thomas, but we have battled through it. You keep pointing to the picks moved as a main cause. Most of these picks are of the later round version and only one pick in the 1st was moved to get higher up for Sanchez. We have traded away later round picks for proved vets. Seeing as the bust rate on first rounders is around 1/3 ( read up on it if you want http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftology408_1.php ) not only have we drafted well, but are moving picks that are much more likely to not pan out for proven players or players that we feel have higher upside. This has allowed us to pinpoit and draft players we like, but we have alost showed paitence to let players fall to us in the past couple of years. The trades up of the first 4 drafts showed a desire to quick reapair holes in the aging roster that was left by Parcells and your namesake. Tanny is responsible for two back to back AFC championship runs and has compiled a talented young core and continues to try to add peices and adjust to it. No NFL team is perfcet. Some teams cover of big gaps of talent by being special in another area, like the Pats offense making up for mostly a no name defense that gives up huge yards. Hell, the Colts look like they were a one man show the last few years with Manning out. We have had our ups and Downs but this is still a roster to belive in.
I am in agreement with this sentiment in general. Jets need immediate help on linebacking corps in general, and then they need an immediate starter on RT, along with a replacement for Moore. This while getting a starting quality material for both safeties, nonetheless. With current Jets cap situation, I don't think Jets can entice many top quality FAs either (going for FAs is a surefire way of mediocrity, if I have to enlighten you.) I never was a fan of trading up, especially for a fringe position player like a fullback. (I am not saying Conner is bad; Conner is not the lead blocker that Moose Johnstone is first of all, and then Jets don't even utilize fullbacks that often either. I would have liked an every-down player instead.) With all the positive results so far, I would have liked if Tannenbaum somehow learned how to stockpile the draft picks like Patriots always do.
Look at the Steelers, Ravens and Packers and ask yourself how they were built. Look at the Patriots and ask yourself how they were built. Look at all of the teams that we consider to be the class of the NFL and ask yourself how they were built. Then look at the Jets and ask yourself what's different.
The Steelers continue to draft and develop well. As for the others, yep, if we pick up a HOF QB in the late rounds of the draft or manage to hang on to multiple HOF defensive players for over a decade we'll be doing pretty well too. That said, the Ravens have how many rings or AFCCG appearances in the last ten years? The schtick of constant negativity has to get old at some point, no?
I wish it were a schtick I could get rid of. The problem is that's a world view based on the facts. I'd happily be just as positive this year as I was in 2010 or 2009. The problem is that the Jets are worse in many ways than those teams and I see them as only marginally better off than they were at the point that Bradway's Frankenstein fell apart. As an example, if we lost either Mangold or D'Brick at this point the Jets would be lucky to win another game this season. And yes I understand that if you lose a pro bowl caliber player it's generally a major loss. However the team is not built to withstand personnel losses at this point. It's built only to function when when everybody is healthy and productive. This is the NFL and sooner or later shit happens, at which point the Jets will be in the outhouse in record time.
This is the free agency NFL. Depth is no longer an option as it once was, again unless your 6th round draft pick turns out to be a HOFer. That era ended when the Minister won his suit and went to be a Packer. It has been nearly 20 years, perhaps it is time to adjust.
That's just not true. Teams can build depth in by pursuing regular acquisitions in the draft in each of the vital areas that contribute to success or failure each season. Having a Vernon Gholston or Vladimir Ducasse fail is not as devastating if the team is drafting a player on the line early every other season and another trench player in the mid to late rounds on each side of the ball. Having a late-prime group of linebackers is fine. But you should be drafting a linebacker every season at that point until you know who are likely to be the replacements if a couple of guys get old or hurt or whatever at the same time. Going with 3 safeties including two guys who have been hurt or are notably injury prone while the third guy is clearly not capable of managing the coverage requirements in a 3-4 is just asking for trouble. The Jets should be drafting a safety every other year until they find the guy who backstops them for the next decade, a la Ed Reed or Troy Polamalu. They don't do these things because they never have the picks available. They just whistle by the graveyard and hope things don't happen to them and in the process they fail to become a dominant team because they're winking at too many truths. Why do the great cornerbacks rarely play in the Super Bowl but the great safeties seem to be there two years out of three? Why have the Jets not drafted a WR before round 4 in a decade? A decade? Really?
I'm sorry, Deion Sanders was never in a Super Bowl? Darrell Green never played in a Super Bowl? Seems to me they were in a fair few. Some teams fortunes swapped when Sanders changed teams it seems to me. The Jets were a salary cap mess from the Parcells days and had to recover from the results of that. They chose an alternate path to years of rebuilding and in the process have put a winning product on the field while reaching for the stars. Secondarily, the current head coach clearly believes in a run first approach and had to acquire a rookie QB. Does that seem like the best scenario to use high draft picks on WRs? Teams with injuries to their pro-bowl players will have difficulty in today's NFL. Teams with injuries to their pro-bowl player's and their backups will especially struggle. Am I as disappointed as most that no/limited moves have been made to acquire backups, sure? It is as mind boggling as the early '99 season. Oh, and it really is true that free agency changed team's ability to retain and develop depth.
Free agency or not, you cannot deny the defensive success (and to some extent, offensive success) Steelers are having year in and year out. They don't make huge splashes every season either for the defense - Farrior is Jet breed, but that's about it. I also agree that trench players should be drafted every year from the mid rounds. Jets are clearly not doing that, and they paid heavily last draft because of it. Yet Jets are not really trying to fix up the problem - instead Tannenbaum is selling the picks away. (Or drafting a project player that won't be useful immediately with 2nd round pick, of all picks.) Last, but not the least, we all know Rex's penchant for DBs - especially safeties. During Ryan's tenure of past three drafts, Jets have drafted exactly 0 safeties. I do admit that Tannenbaum had his share of successes with the draft, but it leaves a lot of room to be desired.
Deion Sanders was never in a Super Bowl on a team that had not gotten there without him a season or two before. You could look it up. Darrell Green went 11 years without a Super Bowl appearance at the end of his career. In fact, Darrell Green went 0-for-everybody but Joe Gibbs in that regard in his career. The fact is that cornerbacks are one of the least impactful players on a team's Super Bowl chances. You need decent corners, but the difference between a decent corner and a superstar means almost nothing in actually winning championships. The difference between a decent safety and a superstar on the other hand is fairly large. 15 of the last 20 Super Bowl winners have had a pro bowl safety in the lineup and there have been 17 pro bowl safeties on those teams. Cornerbacks? 6 out of the last 20 Super Bowl winners have had a pro bowl cornerback on the roster the year they won it. A total of 7 pro bowl cornerbacks have won a title in the last 20 years.
