Agree and which makes me wonder just how bad their o-line depth is. This team sounds to me like a potential catastrophe in the making which would make me giggle uncontrollably for several reasons.
Jennings, Jones and Nelson all on or very close to the magic number of 27. That is my only logical argument.
There's a lot of truth to this. It's why teams need to be skeptical about 2nd contracts, and have a lot of red flags with thirds. It seems like after that peak, the injuries become more frequent. Time, and the hits out there, really do take their toll.
I agree 100%. IMO it also goes both ways.
I agree. Imo if Breece gets back healthy by mid season the Jets possess arguably one of the best 1-2 RB punches leaguewide. Hall was on pace for 1000+ rushing and 500+ receiving and 10 TD’s and that’s Cook “prime” type numbers. He would’ve been a Top 10 RB last season. So in effect you could possibly have 2 of the leagues top 10 RB’s playing side by side later this season and we all know how important that is in NY in January. Not to mention if 1 goes down the Running game is still potent.
Yeah. Imo as long as the Jets make the postseason and Rodgers plays average or better he stays. He took a substantial pay cut as a good Faith olive branch to increase his value. His contract just enabled the Jets to grab Cook with funds to spare. Also Rodgers had a nasty cap hit coming next season that would’ve had to be pushed across 2025-2027. The future suddenly looks $27 million brighter even after the Cook signing. That has to be an enormous relief and things like this go a long ways in loyalty.
Listen. I fully get not wanting the Jets to succeed and I’m obviously not a Jets fan.
I thought the '27 rule' had something to do with rock stars dying.
Fact: The Packers cannot trade Bakh. If they did trade him, they'd have to add another $20 mill plus to this year's payroll. How can you do that when you don't have that much room on the cap left? Not only that, you would have to add the salary of the other player you brought in. You can't do that either, because you're already so far over the cap you need to find tens of millions of dollars to do it, that don't exist.
You're right to a point. It's over $2 mill we'd create in savings this year. We'd lose the roughly $19 mill next year. But we also have to pay him the $19 mill this year. That doesn't disappear.
You're right to a point. It's over $2 mill we'd create in savings this year. We'd lose the roughly $19 mill next year. But we also have to pay him the $19 mill this year. That doesn't disappear.
Now, what kind of quality replacement can you find for roughly $2 mill to take his place, even if he only played part time?
Reality is, you don't trade him this year. If you can, during the upcoming offseason, fine. At least you might get a cup of coffee for him. Now? You won't get anything. He's damaged property. He needs to heal enough and play enough, to at least make him trade bait.
You don't trade him this year. It makes absolutely no sense, and those "writers" who purport to be experts advocating it are insane.
But, that's just my opinion. Who am I to rain on anyone's Alice in Wonderland Parade.
Yeah, that too. It seems they hit their peak alcohol and drug consumption levels at that time as well.
First of all, I did not throw "sarcasm" out here. But, while we're at it, why would I want to bring in a safety who failed in GB, and every other place over the last six years, in lieu of a LT who might at least be able to give me several decent quarters of football this year, when I'm going to end up eating the salary anyhow? Your idea is absurd, bordering on idiocy.
