GG Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 While you will get killed for being so negative. It's the truth. Defense went from a luxury to a need in one year. Thanks to our genius head coach. What's the probability that Mario & Bradham are on this team in 2016 even if Rex wasn't here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 A trade down would get me more excited than anyone they will likely have a choice of at 19. This team needs an influx of new players, the more the merrier. I agree here....a trade down in this particular draft would be AWESOME! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 What's the probability that Mario & Bradham are on this team in 2016 even if Rex wasn't here? Mario almost certainly gone. They could have kept Bradham. Also note that Kyle and Dareus will be playing out of position this year.....again. We'll need reinforcements there too. Preston Brown does not know astrophysics so he is out. Aaron Williams injury needs to be accounted for as well....this is not Rex's doing...there is no blame for that one but it is still a need. We have as many defensive holes as we have picks. We had better hope Whaley can work some OL magic later in the draft and UDFA, if only for depth, and that the skill guys stay healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 Mario almost certainly gone. They could have kept Bradham. Also note that Kyle and Dareus will be playing out of position this year.....again. We'll need reinforcements there too. Preston Brown does not know astrophysics so he is out. Aaron Williams injury needs to be accounted for as well....this is not Rex's doing...there is no blame for that one but it is still a need. We have as many defensive holes as we have picks. We had better hope Whaley can work some OL magic later in the draft and UDFA, if only for depth, and that the skill guys stay healthy. Out of all of these, only Kyle is truly playing out of position. There's an argument that Marcel will be more effective as a DE under Rex than a DT under Schwartz. Bradham is a better than average JAG and Brown is probably on par with him. So to recap, if we didn't have Rex, we'd still need to replace Mario, look to draft Kyle's eventual replacement and still be missing that big body LB in the middle. But yeah, the D wouldn't have been a priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 Yes, but, we're about to become fully pregnant. Getting there is 99.9% of the fun. Somehow, this doesn't feel fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 What's the probability that Mario & Bradham are on this team in 2016 even if Rex wasn't here? Bradham, probbaly pretty good. Mario? Who is to say? Maybe after another career year, he's inclined to rework his deal a bit to stay in a system he's productive in. Out of all of these, only Kyle is truly playing out of position. There's an argument that Marcel will be more effective as a DE under Rex than a DT under Schwartz. Bradham is a better than average JAG and Brown is probably on par with him. So to recap, if we didn't have Rex, we'd still need to replace Mario, look to draft Kyle's eventual replacement and still be missing that big body LB in the middle. But yeah, the D wouldn't have been a priority. More is a stretch, IMO. It's as good, at best to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 Out of all of these, only Kyle is truly playing out of position. There's an argument that Marcel will be more effective as a DE under Rex than a DT under Schwartz. Bradham is a better than average JAG and Brown is probably on par with him. So to recap, if we didn't have Rex, we'd still need to replace Mario, look to draft Kyle's eventual replacement and still be missing that big body LB in the middle. But yeah, the D wouldn't have been a priority. Well done, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 Out of all of these, only Kyle is truly playing out of position. There's an argument that Marcel will be more effective as a DE under Rex than a DT under Schwartz. Bradham is a better than average JAG and Brown is probably on par with him. So to recap, if we didn't have Rex, we'd still need to replace Mario, look to draft Kyle's eventual replacement and still be missing that big body LB in the middle. But yeah, the D wouldn't have been a priority. Awaiting retort that includes a ridiculously long defensive play call in 1...2...3... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 (edited) A trade-down will be a bit of a letdown the moment it happens, but it could prove very fruitful in this year's draft. Shoot I'm rooting for a trade down. There are so many players that are fits that should be available at 19 it only makes sense to trade down, get their guy, and gather an extra pick. I will actually be kind of disappointed if they DON'T trade down unless someone like Lawson slides unexpectedly. Out of all of these, only Kyle is truly playing out of position. There's an argument that Marcel will be more effective as a DE under Rex than a DT under Schwartz. Bradham is a better than average JAG and Brown is probably on par with him. So to recap, if we didn't have Rex, we'd still need to replace Mario, look to draft Kyle's eventual replacement and still be missing that big body LB in the middle. But yeah, the D wouldn't have been a priority. Get 'em! I was ready to fire replies but you hit the nail on the head here! Bradham, probbaly pretty good. Mario? Who is to say? Maybe after another career year, he's inclined to rework his deal a bit to stay in a system he's productive in. More is a stretch, IMO. It's as good, at best to me. The guy who has proven to be about money, who stated early in the year that he wouldn't take a pay cut or restructure? That is the guy who, after a productive year, would renegotiate to give money back? That is a much bigger stretch that your next line. Why wouldn't he have taken less money to go to the Eagles as he has proven he was productive in that system? Why would he float the first team to offer 10 million gets me? Edited April 27, 2016 by section122 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 Shoot I'm rooting for a trade down. There are so many players that are fits that should be available at 19 it only makes sense to trade down, get their guy, and gather an extra pick. I will actually be kind of disappointed if they DON'T trade down unless someone like Lawson slides unexpectedly. Get 'em! I was ready to fire replies but you hit the nail on the head here! The guy who has proven to be about money, who stated early in the year that he wouldn't take a pay cut or restructure? That is the guy who, after a productive year, would renegotiate to give money back? That is a much bigger stretch that your next line. Why wouldn't he have taken less money to go to the Eagles as he has proven he was productive in that system? Why would he float the first team to offer 10 million gets me? December 21st is early in the year? After the D proved to be garbage? He wouldn't even really be taking a paycut. We could have just extended him and lowered his cap hit. It was a discussed topic before the 2015 horror show. Someone will also need to explain to me how having two above average 4-3 LB's in Bradham and Brown is equal to have terrible 3-4 LB's who are basically camp bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 (edited) Awaiting retort that includes a ridiculously long defensive play call in 1...2...3... Like Don Juan-butterfly-clownshoe-stiletto-gap9-pitching wedge-Theoldmanandtheseapage441paragraph1sentence2word6-pedicure-alkalineasinbatterynotbaseballplayer ? That's Rex's defense, not mine. Are you saying our defense didn't look confused right before the snap half the time? Edited April 27, 2016 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndirish1978 Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 Even I have to agree Rex seems like a big mistake at this point. i would have rather hired Roman as HC and kept Schwartz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 (edited) He wouldn't even really be taking a paycut. We could have just extended him and lowered his cap hit. It was a discussed topic before the 2015 horror show. Someone will also need to explain to me how having two above average 4-3 LB's in Bradham and Brown is equal to have terrible 3-4 LB's who are basically camp bodies. And this is the unspoken downside of Schwartz's defense. They had three guys taking up $46 million of cap space and not one of them was a QB. Extending Mario's contract world have made matters worse in 2017 precisely when they need the cap room to sign Tyrod. Say what you want about Rexs defenses, but they're much more cap friendly. Edited April 27, 2016 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 Get 'em! I was ready to fire replies but you hit the nail on the head here! The guy who has proven to be about money, who stated early in the year that he wouldn't take a pay cut or restructure? That is the guy who, after a productive year, would renegotiate to give money back? That is a much bigger stretch that your next line. Why wouldn't he have taken less money to go to the Eagles as he has proven he was productive in that system? Why would he float the first team to offer 10 million gets me? The funniest stuff lately is the blaming of Mario which is clearly just crossing fingers and hoping that losing a perennial all pro will help us. It won't. But the poring of all our problems into that bucket go on and on and on. It also involves ignoring Rex's poor record over the last half decade and the fact that it is clear that our defense is now in step one of a multiple step process of being completely torn down. It sucks but it is what is going on. The start of this thread which states our first two picks will be defense confirms it. I wonder if they will both be Rex's kids buddies from Clemson too? He hired a brother and an ex-player with no experience this off season too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 (edited) And this is the unspoken downside of Schwartz's defense. They had three guys taking up $46 million of cap space and not one of them was a QB. Extending Mario's contract world have made matters worse in 2017 precisely when they need the cap room to sign Tyrod. Say what you want about Rexs defenses, but they're much more cap friendly. Right. Mo, Snacks and Sheldon didn't cost anything once off of rookie contracts. Still waiting for an answer here: Someone will also need to explain to me how having two above average 4-3 LB's in Bradham and Brown is equal to have terrible 3-4 LB's who are basically camp bodies. Edited April 27, 2016 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 Say what you want about Rexs defenses, but they're much more cap friendly. Crappy schemes need crappy players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 Right. Mo, Snacks and Sheldon didn't cost anything once off of rookie contracts. Still waiting for an answer here: Someone will also need to explain to me how having two above average 4-3 LB's in Bradham and Brown is equal to have terrible 3-4 LB's who are basically camp bodies. Perhaps you can enlighten me on whether each is on the second contract. Let's see if both are on Jets next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 December 21st is early in the year? After the D proved to be garbage? He wouldn't even really be taking a paycut. We could have just extended him and lowered his cap hit. It was a discussed topic before the 2015 horror show. Someone will also need to explain to me how having two above average 4-3 LB's in Bradham and Brown is equal to have terrible 3-4 LB's who are basically camp bodies. Oops my apologies. I thought it came out much earlier. I think the writing was on the wall that he was gone pretty much no matter what. That money was used on Glenn and Gilmore. Where would they have found the money to keep either Bradham or Mario? Those moves were going to be made regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 Crappy schemes need crappy players. Let's have this discussion after this season and without the locker room cancer on the squad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 Perhaps you can enlighten me on whether each is on the second contract. Let's see if both are on Jets next year. Richardson and Wilkerson, barring injury, will both be worth $100M deals. Dispute that if you dare. And how much did Snacks get? A cool $9M per? Unless RR's scheme invented UDFA and rookie wage scales, I don't see how it's the reason they were so cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts