Extra Points
News and commentary from around the Web

NYJ Trades S J.Adams to SEA for the World

Pete Carroll and John Schneider finally found a replacement for Kam Chancellor, but my goodness they gave up a lot to get him.

Jamal Adams was the sixth overall pick in 2017. The Jets had already picked up the fifth-year option on his rookie deal, which expires in 2021, for a total of $13.5 million over the next two seasons. However, he has made it clear he wants to sign an extension as soon as possible, and his sky-high salary demands are part of the reason he was available in the first place.

Earlier this week, we noted that Adams was among the league leaders in defeats at his position. That includes 6.0 sacks, two more than anyone in Seattle had in 2019. Maybe they're going to play him at edge rusher.

Comments

83 comments, Last at 29 Jul 2020, 10:33pm

1 Uh, that's more than the…

Uh, that's more than the Bears traded for Khalil Mack. That deal has not aged well, even with Mack basically fulfilling every on-field expectation.

Adams now has near-infinite leverage to become the highest-paid safety in the game, and while that will amount to a lot less money than what the Bears paid Mack as an edge rusher, the cap is about to go down. Seahawks are all-in on 2020. Hope the season happens...

 

35 Ageing just fine.

I don't see how the Mack trade isn't ageing well. The Bears have a great player, one that is most likely much better than anyone they would have picked with the traded draft capital. 

43 It's not aging well in my…

It's not aging well in my opinion because the Bears don't seem poised for long-term success. It doesn't matter that Mack's playing well: he's basically ensuring the team goes from "below-average" to "average" at this point.

I think there's a better chance of this deal aging well for Seattle in the short-term, but not a huge chance - Adams is still just a safety, after all. There are ways of managing that risk on offense.

45 Following that logic, every…

Following that logic, every bad team with a great player on it should in theory trade them away for 2 first rounders. Think about the implications.

The 49ers with Patrick Willis should have traded him away during the 2008 season since they were a team going nowhere. 

The Cardinals should have traded Patrick Peterson years ago because they too were going nowhere.

The Dolphins should have traded Cameron Wake back when he was in his prime since all of those years were clearly wasted

The Browns should have traded Joe Thomas after his second season

The Bengals should have gotten rid of Aj Green two years ago.

 

 

 

46 You're trying to reverse the…

You're trying to reverse the logic, and I don't think it's linear. If you imagine over a 4-year period having "1, 1, 1, 1" first round draft picks, having "2, 2, 2, 2" is not as much of an advantage as "0, 0, 0, 0" is a disadvantage. It's still an *advantage*, obviously, but having multiple draft picks in a year doesn't let you know how the team is going to turn out, and with finite roster sizes, accelerating the draft process probably only works if you're a *really* bad team.

That being said... I get the feeling that you're suggesting that the options you listed would've been all bad decisions, and I'm having problems finding *one* that I'd disagree with.

48 Replying to you both, those…

Replying to you both, those statements about they should have traded them earlier are only valid with the benefit of hindsight. 

 

The Patrick Willis example is really germane because it only took a couple years before they were going somewhere. 

Imagine if Sam darnold were to make a big leap in year 3. I know everybody doesn't think it's going to happen and it's the Jets who are always cursed and blah blah blah but the point remains, if they are good then trading Jamal Adams suddenly looks like a bad decision. 

 

Another example in the other direction would be Chandler Jones. It's clear now that New England sold way too low on Chandler Jones. I know people can say they won two superbowls anyway, but they nearly lost both of them and did lose the third in a ridiculous high scoring game. I don't think it's a stretch to wonder if they had Chandler Jones they might win that third super bowl and might win the other two without needing them to go nip and tuck.

50 I don't think it's that much…

I don't think it's that much hindsight. After 2008 it took 3 more seasons for the 49ers to be on the significant upswing, and really Willis only had a handful of years at that point. NFL careers are short: a great player is *likely* to decline quickly. If you hold onto a guy thinking "hey we don't want to get rid of him, he could be great for the next decade"... you're almost certain to be wrong.

I mean, trade Green after 2017? Yeah, sure. The team's offense was cratering at that point and it's pretty clear that the line needed to rebuilt and they were never going to be an offensive powerhouse with Dalton. Not crazy.

Wake and the Dolphins? Sure. Tannehill was young, looked pretty good. Would've made sense to push on offense to see how much of a strength that could be. Miami's defense wasn't exactly killing it with Wake anyway. Once you know where your strengths are, makes sense to push them.

Browns and Joe Thomas is an absolute no-brainer and was being called for by sooo many people. Of course, the base problem with the Browns is they couldn't evaluate talent, so nothing would've fixed that.

"Another example in the other direction would be Chandler Jones. It's clear now that New England sold way too low on Chandler Jones."

Except New England went 12-4 in 2015! A solid, very good team burning resources to keep/acquire talent isn't the same as a below-average team doing the same. The Patriots tend to be weird because they don't burn future resources, but they had the benefit of having the "great for the next decade" player.

51 "I don't think it's that…

"I don't think it's that much hindsight. After 2008 it took 3 more seasons for the 49ers to be on the significant upswing, and really Willis only had a handful of years at that point. NFL careers are short: a great player is *likely* to decline quickly. If you hold onto a guy thinking "hey we don't want to get rid of him, he could be great for the next decade"... you're almost certain to be wrong."

So if the 49ers had won the sb, would you still be in favor of trading him in 2008? You seem to be suggesting that short of a superbowl, it was all a waste. 

And my question about Thomas was... should they have traded him in year 2 or 3? I mean, you act like the Browns were predisposed to go through a 12 year period of terribleness. 

Again, I see all of this as entirely with hindsight. Let's say the 49ers never get back to the sb, that means they should have traded Kittle a year ago right? To me that's what your saying when you say the 49ers should have traded Patrick Willis or the Browns should have traded Thomas(year 3). 

52 It's actually more recent…

It's actually more recent than I remembered, but here is a reference to my piece from one year ago arguing that the Cardinals should trade Peterson. This is not hindsight. 

https://www.revengeofthebirds.com/2019/3/1/18245768/football-outsiders-arizona-cardinals-should-trade-patrick-peterson-as-their-bold-move-this-offseason

56 Well now I am arguing with…

Well now I am arguing with hindsight, at least partially, but no, not then. The 2016 Cardinals went 7-8-1, so more mediocre than horrible. That was David Johnson's 2,000-YFS year, and the defense was third in DVOA. Carson Palmer was mediocre at age 37, but if he could have bounced back the next season, you could have expected Arizona to be a playoff team.

Instead Palmer missed nine games in 2017, and then he retired. That's when the Cardinals rebuild began, and I do think that any point since then trading Peterson would have made sense. It still might, by the way, but he just turned 30 and he's a free agent after the year, so there's probably not much of a market for him. 

57 I don't mean to imply that…

I don't mean to imply that there is a hard and fast rule to these things. Just the idea that you have a young terrific player entering his prime but your team in the present is garbage therefore you should trade him...

This line of thinking is false because it doesn't take more than a year to from bad to really good. The 49ers just did it. Who knows, the Cardinals themselves might do it and Peterson is suddenly an asset again, not just a wasted good player.

Jamal Adams needed to be traded because the situation was so toxic. That's what happened with Ramsay. I think if Houston hadn't blown the Dolphins away with such an amazing offer, the Dolphins should have hung on to Tunsil. Ditto for Fitzpatrick(though that was also beginning to look like a toxic situation). My general point is, just because you are bad doesn't mean those great players are useless. It just means their value isn't going to show up unless you are good, which can happen faster than people seem to realize. Its why I like the NFL so much. 

 

62 "I don't mean to imply that…

"I don't mean to imply that there is a hard and fast rule to these things. Just the idea that you have a young terrific player entering his prime but your team in the present is garbage therefore you should trade him ..."

The challenge there, I think, is the GM recognizing that the team in the present is garbage.  A new GM coming in may take a more objective view, but the current GM is unlikely to want to trade away one of his "wins", and is more likely to see potential in his current roster, and feel like he's only a piece or two away from being competitive.

It probably doesn't help that the current GM needs a turnaround faster than a new GM, in order to save his job/pride.  Trading your best young player for future assets may have greater potential to make the next GM look good, rather than yourself.

60 "So if the 49ers had won the…

"So if the 49ers had won the sb, would you still be in favor of trading him in 2008? You seem to be suggesting that short of a superbowl, it was all a waste."

No, I'm suggesting that with the resources they could've acquired for Willis, they likely would've been able to replace his production, or a good fraction of it, and still had more success afterwards. I don't think them not having Willis would've changed much about their Super Bowl run.

"And my question about Thomas was... should they have traded him in year 2 or 3? I mean, you act like the Browns were predisposed to go through a 12 year period of terribleness."

End of rookie contract or maybe end of second contract. Year 2 or 3 is way too early, you're not going to get enough return for it. But when you're looking at offering a guy a 4+-year contract worth near the top of the league at that position, you need to ask if it's worth it to retain that value when you don't even know what type of team you're going to be when you can contend again.

54 Browns and Joe Thomas is an…

Browns and Joe Thomas is an absolute no-brainer and was being called for by sooo many people. Of course, the base problem with the Browns is they couldn't evaluate talent, so nothing would've fixed that.

The difficulty with saying bad teams should trade away their assets is that these teams are in part bad because they cannot manage drafting/trades/contracts. They tend to return pennies on their dollar.

53 Jones

"Another example in the other direction would be Chandler Jones. It's clear now that New England sold way too low on Chandler Jones."...

I don't think the analysis here is sufficient to support the conclusion. The Pats teams 2016-2019 ex of Jones were all at/very near the cap. If they had kept Jones they would have $15M/year less to build their roster. It's not clear that Jones would have been more valuable to the Pats than the cap space created by getting rid of him + the cost controlled talent they acquired in the process. It's very unclear to me that on a WAR/cap space basis Joe Thuney (acquired in the trade) at $750k/year cap space isn't a much more valuable asset then Jones (let alone the other assets they got).This is the biggest problem with "loading up" - the damage at the mid-bottom end of the roster is significant and impact the team.

I think the better argument is that the Pats sold too early on Jones because the trade market for pass rushers got much stronger afterwards - but I think how well Jones played in Arizona was a causal factor in that change so it's not obvious to me that if the Pats held on to him for a year it would have been any better.

 

64 You're right to consider cap…

In reply to by sbond101

You're right to consider cap implications in the value matrix.  The Patriots had Jones, Hightower, and Wilfork all needing a new contract.  The Patriots prioritized Wilfork (a no-brainer, IMO), and still had enough cap room to get Hightower on a hometown discount.  The Patriots would not have been a better team with Jones and without Wilfork, let alone Hightower as well.  And we haven't started talking about compensation yet -- a highly regarded guard on his rookie deal, who never panned out, and a high 2nd rounder (34?).

It seems most GMs simply don't value cap space properly when considering roster building.  Of course, if said GM doesn't know what to do with cap space, then there's not much point.

65 I think it's a mistake to…

I think it's a mistake to assume signing Chandler Jones means exercising other valuable players in his place. I've seen a lot of cap gymnastics played by savvy GM's who renegotiate salaries and move around money to smooth out the cap hit. And while Joe Thuny is a good player, it's naive to assume bilichek would have replaced him with some replaceable player instead. Bb is able to curb together competence out of that position

 

I don't think belichick's thought he was giving away as talented a player as he was for a second round pick. Instead he had gone 0-3 subsequent super bowls, he might be getting ripped for this move.

66 Cap Hits

"I've seen a lot of cap gymnastics played by savvy GM's who renegotiate salaries and move around money to smooth out the cap hit..."

This is right for teams that compete for a short period of time; but the cap hit always comes due (especially when the cap is escalating more slowly on a relative basis like it did in the period in question). You can criticize the moves BB made that put him in the cap position he was in, but then were in to evaluating the overall record of a GM and I think BB comes out very well in that analysis. The point is that maximizing value that is in excess of cap hit is the essential skill in doing well in FA, it would be really neat to analize this metric if a sport like baseball with more clear cut value propositions had a cap - football is harder - but at a basic level the Pats have believed forever that highly paid "stars" are typically a drag on a teams performance due to their price tag and how it impacts the available cap room for bit-players. I think the results of that approach over the last two decades speak for themselves (though others will argue their bit players are no better and BB is just great at coaching them).

67 I somewhat lean into that…

In reply to by sbond101

I somewhat lean into that the latter category to be honest with you. I didn't start that way but when I saw free agent after free-agent flounder outside of New England except for Chandler Jones, that was enough evidence to turn me in that direction.

58 Imagine if Sam darnold were…

Imagine if Sam darnold were to make a big leap in year 3. I know everybody doesn't think it's going to happen and it's the Jets who are always cursed and blah blah blah but the point remains, if they are good then trading Jamal Adams suddenly looks like a bad decision. 

Yes and no on this.  If Darnold makes a huge leap but the Jets don't get to the playoffs or blow it in the playoffs due to issues with the secondary, specifically the safeties, yeah, then you are right.  Otherwise, trading Jamal allows them to pay Darnold early if they need to, while still having cap room and those extra picks.  I'm really doubting we are talking about how the Jets made a mistake trading Adams until we know what those picks amount to, and we won't for two years at least.

61 Why would it matter what…

Why would it matter what happens with Darnold and the Jets this year?

If Darnold makes a big leap in year 3, the Jets are set for the next 6-7 years, if not more. In which case those picks are super freaking helpful. Maybe Adams would've helped Darnold out early in his career, but he's a quarterback. Once you know you have a quarterback, you start planning long term.

77 TBH, short of some Jerry…

TBH, short of some Jerry Jones/ Dan Snyder strings of free agent whiffs, I have never seen big contracts be prohibitive provided the player is good. You can usually move cap hits around to avoid any doomsday scenarios or renegotiate them. 

I always thought the Pats didn't overpay on principal, not because they used the savings to buttress the team. They could get away w such principles because they had Tom Brady and BB to cover the holes. Something the Chargers, Bears, and Browns do not have.

79 Well, as I understand this…

Well, as I understand this conversation, the Chargers are no threat to win the AFC West in the near future, so they would have been better off trading him.

Note that I don't buy that line of thinking.  You've got a well-regarded rookie quarterback.  You should be splurging elsewhere with the cap savings.

80 I am curious what offer…

I am curious what offer would make sense for the Chargers to make this move. Its not like they are the Jets where general pessimism about Darnold, Gase, and the organization squarely points there trajectory to being bad. The Chargers have an unknown at qb who could be really good so trading him if he does become good looks foolish.

Its an interesting question. 3 firsts would be a no brainer. 2 is probably too little though maybe I am being colored by the recent overpays. I guess 2 firsts plus a second and third would be enough for me; though it would hurt. 

82 There is a business side to…

There is a business side to this as well.  The Chargers theoretically might want to attract some fans to the team.  They just got rid of the long-time face of the franchise.  Joey Bosa seems like a good candidate to step in as the new face of the team.  Keeping him could help to build a fan base.  Actually, doing whatever they can to win as much as possible in the near future is probably a better business decision for them.

75 So teams shouldn't try to get better if they don't have a QB?

The only way to set your team up for long term success is to get an elite QB. An actual elite one, because close to elite doesn't get you there as Lions fans can attest. The Mack trade isn't what is holding the Bears back at all, so I don't see how Mitch Trubisky not being good is causing the Mack trade to age poorly. In the 2 years Mack has been on the team their record is 20-12, in the 2 previous seasons they were 8-24. That seems like the trade worked just fine.

78 "The Mack trade isn't what…

"The Mack trade isn't what is holding the Bears back at all, so I don't see how Mitch Trubisky not being good is causing the Mack trade to age poorly."

You're supposing that if they didn't have Mack, they'd be closer to 8-24 these past two years, right? In which case their draft position would be higher, and they'd still have those high draft picks. And this year they might've been able to actually draft a replacement rather than wishing and hoping that Nick Foles actually can be solid for an entire season outside of Philly.

If, instead, Foles is similarly up-and-down (as he's always been), they'll be a middling/borderline playoff team, probably hold onto Foles for another year, and end up with Mack on the wrong side of 30, all done with his guarantees, and likely angling for a new contract or a trade, all while wondering if you need a new quarterback.

The Mack trade is holding the Bears back because they should've been wary about their quarterback situation at the time they made the trade. There were *plenty* of concerns about Trubisky after his first year, and you don't go all in when you're holding a weak hand. Especially when it's a sport where you can't bluff.

Would I be saying the same thing if the Bears had drafted Mahomes? Of course not. But after a year, the Bears had seen a shaky year from Trubisky - enough so that they fired their head coach and brought in a new head coach that was supposed to get Trubisky to the next level. Which means the only evidence that they had was that Trubisky wasn't good enough to transcend a coach who'd been to two Super Bowls. Note that I'm not suggesting Fox is a great coach or anything, but he's certainly not a *terrible* one, and the idea that Trubisky would somehow magically become elite under Nagy was always a pipe dream, and certainly not only valid in hindsight.

37 That deal has not aged well,…

That deal has not aged well, even with Mack basically fulfilling every on-field expectation.

Well it's doubtful they would have found a better defensive player in the draft, and we are long-familiar that every Bears offensive draft pick turns into ashes in their mouth anyway, so...

71 Well when you put it like…

Well when you put it like that, they probably wouldn't have done anything productive with the extra cap space either, considering they decided to use the last of what they had this offseason to pay Jimmy Graham and squeeze in Nick Foles. Oh yeah, they traded a draft pick for Nick Foles, too!

2 Crazy that

Crazy that the Seahawks got Adams for Bradley McDougald and a third round pick!

3 I can't wait for Scramble to…

I can't wait for Scramble to get to the western divisions in our Over/Unders, because the NFC West is going to be ~crazy~.

6 NYJ was going to get…

NYJ was going to get something like: 2 years of Adams for $13.5M and then a 2023 3rd rd compensatory pick. Instead they get something like: lateish 1st round picks in 2021 & 2022, plus 1 year of Bradley McDougald for $4.1M, plus a mid-round pick swap which is worth about as much as that compensatory pick. Big win.

SEA gives up a bit more than 2 first round picks for 2 years of Adams for $13.5M, plus the opportunity to sign him to a big money contract extension.

5 Moves the Seahawks up the list of Super Bowl favorites

He instantly improves their entire defense, even the pass rush improves due to the lock down secondary.  Could be seeing the next great secondary.

Also, the price isn't actually that high.  Seattle always picks in the mid 20's on up.  You can't trade two mid 20 picks for a 6th round pick, which is what Adams was.  And a 6th round pick is a crap shoot anyways. Adams is a verified weapon.   Great deal for both teams.

7 It's a bold move and I agree…

It's a bold move and I agree that they could be very, very good on defense - especially if they can convince Clowney to return on a 1 or 2 year deal.

The price here is insane, though. Two firsts and a third (minus the 4th they get back), plus they are going to have to pay Adams a top-of-the-market deal. True that Seattle can be reasonably confident that they'll "only" pick in the 20s, but those picks are still extremely valuable for building your roster - and only moreso when your QB is going to count $32/37/39 million against the cap the next 3 seasons. It's like they're tripling down on the mistakes they made with Percy Harvin and Jimmy Graham, but I guess I at least like how this looks on the field a lot more.

8 There are so many unexplored…

There are so many unexplored angles here beyond the one's you mentioned that makes this a decidedly awful move. My first thought is - Schneider should not be in charge of trades. Ever. Not a single one of his first rounders for player X has worked in the way they hoped. 

The first points you made are spot on. He's going to cost a lot and you pair that with Wilson and it puts a premium on low cost, high performing talent. We can debate how likely it is to nab a talented player with late first round picks, but they are worth something and even late first rounders have tremendous upside potential.

There's also tremendous downside risk to having a top heavy roster - namely - injuries start to become absolutely devastating. Adams may in fact be a game wrecker, but losing him to a thin roster has deep implications. 

I would also like to question the assumption about how much intrinsic value Adams will bring. We are nowhere close to isolating all of the ripple effects safeties bring. Its fun and nice to draw up all of the interesting blitz and coverage concepts you can do with a player like that, but that requires a solid defensive foundation in the first place. You don't run fancy blitz schemes when the rest of your secondary is awful and or your defensive line is not competent enough to get even moderate pass rush(see the RAP article).

And then there's the fact that he may not even work out to be the player he was in NY. This is something people seem to be taking for granted - that he will just be the same guy anywhere. Um...that's not a certainty. I wouldn't be surprised in fact if he's not the same effective player he was in NY. See all of the other trades Seattle made.

Bottom line - Adams is a fantastic player but the return is simply too much and the downside risk too severe to make it worth it. 

 

9 And while there's still a…

And while there's still a lot of uncertainty, we now know that the cap may go down by $23 million next season! If everything doesn't come together just right, they are really, really going to miss those two first round picks...

10 lol

I saw your name and knew your post was going to be exactly what it turned out to be.

 

Quandre Diggs

Jamal Adams

Shaquill Griffen

Quenton Dunbar

Not a better secondary in the NFL.  This is a team that had the ref correctly called DPI, would have swept SF for the division title and probably gone on to the Super Bowl.  They were that close.

Now they're over the top.

11 First, I don't understand…

In reply to by Pen

First, I don't understand why you think I am some Seahawks hater; considering I don't root for any NFC team.

And to your point about SEA winning the division - if the 49ers make the FG in OT(on a poorly spotted ball on 3rd down); Seattle's week 17 game doesn't matter.

I also find your comment about likely going to the SB strange. A victory would not have earned them a first round bye - that would have gone to NO and GB. And since Seattle already lost to the Packers on the road, why would we assume they would win had they gone as a division winner?

In any case, I was already leaning Seattle for the division win next year and this makes them the favorite in my eyes. My issues that I listed above remain even if I think they are the NFC West favorite. 

 

Also also, its not clear to me that the current Seahawks defensive backfield is better than the Ravens. 

12 It's Jamal Adams.  As a now…

In reply to by Pen

It's Jamal Adams.  As a now happy Jets fan, I still remember his correct name.  Hopefully you will too, because he probably will work out great for Seattle, as long as they use him correctly and he doesn't get hurt.  I'm still happy that Douglas got the overpay.  I'll be bummed in a year or two when the idiot who is embarrassing himself in Great Britain comes back and fires Douglas along with Gase just because he can.  No, I'll stop being a Jets fan, so I'm going to start rooting more for the Seahawks (I live in the Pacific Northwest) now, ahead of schedule.  But still, you shouldn't scold another poster with valid points when you can't even name your favorite team's great acquisition.

13 Oops, fixed. Thanks

I'm pretty stoked.  I've also been a Jets fan since the days of Namath.  Always hoping they unseat NE.  As for Slot, whether he realizes it or not, but going back years and years as long as I can remember he's always been negative about the Seahawks.

18 Do you have examples? As far…

Do you have examples? As far as I can tell the only one that comes to mind is my disagreement that Russell Wilson is as good as Patrick Mahomes or has ever put together a season to suggest he's some top 10 level all time QB.

22 I don't know about all time top ten..

That's an awfully tall ask.  I think Russell is a lock for the HoF though.  If he can get another ring, or perhaps get more credit in the MVP conversation. (Arguably finished 2nd three times)  I could see him rising to that level. As for comparing him to Patrick Mahomes, I think the huge rush by everyone to crown Patrick as the greatest ever need to take a reality check.  Exhibit A:  Andrew Luck.  Let's see him carry his team to success like Russell has despite a depleted roster.  Let's see him stay healthy and available for his team.  He has upside potential and I think he is great.  He has proven to be up to the challenge in tough positions.  I love to watch him play.  I just wonder how much is him and how much it is Reid, and surrounding roster.  Why don't we allow him to play a few more years and see how he stacks up with Russ?

23 At the risk of turning this…

At the risk of turning this into a Patrick Mahomes thread, there is no comparison between him and Luck. Luck was a precocious talent for sure, but Mahomes already has a league MVP title to his name and is the all time leader in yards per pass attempt in the modern era. Of course his career could be derailed before he has chance to rewrite the record books, but what we have witnessed to this point is unparalleled. 

(I'm also a huge Russell Wilson fan, and believe few QBs in history have done more with less.)

27 If I can defend luck, he…

If I can defend luck, he went to one of the worst coaching and talent situations while Patrick Mahomes went to the best. Separating cause and effect is an impossibility but that has to account for something. 

in some ways you can kind of see this with how much luck improved with Frank Reich. Under pagano he was an incredibly scattershot inconsistent very good quarterback. Reich really honed him down into being a much more efficient player. Perhaps irrationally I though there was a chance that Reich could have molded luck into the best quarterback in football. It's an all-time tragic what if

33 Absolutely agree with the…

Absolutely agree with the contrasting situations into which they were drafted. I'm fully on board with environment/coaching being a massive factor in the performance of players, and nowhere is it likely more extreme than with young QBs. That said, we won't ever know. 

Also, the fact that Mahomes has put up arguably the best two year stretch of QB numbers in NFL history is not a knock on Luck, who had a good career battling some shitty situations, and, as you say, was perhaps truly coming into his own at the time he decided to retire (but again, who knows?).

24 I agree with pretty much…

I agree with pretty much everything you said(though I am biased with Andrew Luck). I especially agree with your points about Mahomes, though right now there's talk of people claiming Mahomes is the best qb they've ever seen. I am like really????? Two seasons is enough to claim he's the best you've ever seen? Incidentally, 2011 Rodgers was probably the best physical season of any qb I've seen( Note I don't say better. It may not look as impressive, but hitting a first down receiver over and over so you don't need to duck 3 defenders to rifle  40 yard bomb is a valuable skill). 

15 I agree with all your points...

I also thought about it long and hard and decided I don't care.  As a Seahawks fan, I have watched us swing and miss on these type of splash trades over Carroll's term, but this one lands in his wheelhouse.  He works magic with the defensive backfield and gets more out of players there than most would anticipate.  Getting Jamal at this young of an age has me feeling like we may have the next Kenny Easley / Kam Chancellor, with the upside of being better than both.  Some may say that still isn't worth it, and they would have a point.  I'm at peace with it because it helps us now when it matters while Russ is hitting his prime.  The salary cap is dropping sure, but Jamal is still on his rookie deal and the Seahawks can make use of his 5th year option when structuring his new deal.  That will get them to a better place when the NFL returns to "normal" along with the ever increasing cap.

The value of those draft picks is also likely to be diminished when you consider what is happening in the NCAA this year.  You would still rather have them than not, but I can sleep well at night with a possible roster that Includes Russell, Bobby, Jamal, Clowney, Lockett, DK and  .......AB??

19 What would make this a win…

What would make this a win for Seattle is if they use Adams the way Gregg Williams did in the middle of last season: as an edge rusher.  Adams is capable of getting 8-10 sacks from the safety position.  But soon after he went on his mid-season rampage last year, Adams got banged up and missed one and a half games, so this strategy has some risk to it as well.

36 6th round pick

I can't believe nobody called you out on this major error:

Adams was THE SIXTH OVERALL PICK in his draft, not a 6th rounder. Now, you may be right that team X might not drop from 6th overall to 20 something, while picking up another first rounder in the next year, plus a pick swap later in a year after that. But, between the salary costs, plus giving up McDougal, your analysis of this trade is totally wrong. The Seahawks are swapping players (getting the better one, obviously) while also sending out two first round draft picks and allowing NYJ to move up from the ~10th pick of the 4th round to the ~20th pick of the 3rd--approximately a 20 spot jump. That is providing that both team's draft slots are then what they are now. If SEA had only sent NYJ one first-rounder, then this might be justifiable. But adding in the cost of his future extension, PLUS the fact that these picks deprive SEA of getting two more cost-controlled players, it's a ton.

14 I thought draft picks were…

I thought draft picks were super valuable since the intro of the rookie cap because it enables teams to get great players on the cheap.  So trading two 1st round picks for anyone outside of a future HoFer (e.g. Khalil Mack trade) is considered a bad move?  (See also Laremy Tunsil).  Trading a single 1st round pick for Brandon Cooks is ok.

Main question ... does the "1st round picks are valuable for getting greatness cheap" only applies to QBs and maybe OTs / edge rushers?

16 Right, all first round picks…

Right, all first round picks are valuable because they're your best shot at acquiring a starting-caliber talent for cheap for 4-5 seasons. QB, OT and edge rusher probably give you the biggest competitive advantage if you hit on those picks, because those are the positions you would have to pay most for to acquire a player in free agency (or to extend your own player in the future), but you still get a premium at any position.

The reason trading first round picks (even one, but especially two) for veterans is less-than-ideal for building your roster is not just because you're losing out on the opportunity to add to your roster with those picks, but also because you're planning to commit top-of-the-market money to the player you're trading for, which then makes it more difficult to add to the roster in free agency. Seattle will probably be more-or-less capped out once they extend Adams.

17 I don't know when the…

I don't know when the standard changed that established stars are now worth multiple first-round picks. When the Colts acquired DeForest Buckner for a first-rounder, that was already verging on a bit of an over pay but as a Colts fan I had to talk myself into liking it overall. As far as I can tell no one around here liked the Jeremy tunsil trade. 

When you zoom out, it's easy to talk yourself into thinking that late first-round picks have little value. After all they could easily turn into Alec ogletree or Deone Buchanan. They could also turn into much worse. But that paints a very incomplete picture. Not only are they assets you can use to trade up or down, but hitting on a good player or a great one becomes the second most valuable asset in the entire sport. 

21 Gase in a nutshell

Gase has a long history now of feuding with his potential star players and then shipping him out. It's hard to win without players, but I guess they have "future" players in play here. If Gase is still around to draft in those years is anyone's guess.

25 If I were in charge of the…

If I were in charge of the Jets, I'd have made Le'Veon Bell and Jamal Adams players/co-head coaches before I let Gase see the end of the month as Jets HC.

It's one thing for the fans to do so, but when the players don't respect the HC, either personally or professionally, it's going to be damned hard to win.

I'll never understand the hold Gase on some people in the NFL.  Yes, I get that he helped Peyton Manning study.  But I don't want to promote the kid Anthony Fauci used to play Operation with to Director of Infectious Diseases at the CDC.

26 Leave aside the Peyton…

Leave aside the Peyton Manning side of it, I thought he did a very good job with Jay Cutler the year he was there. I also don't think he was an absolute disaster in Miami, there just wasn't anything there to inspire much belief he was a good coach. The Jets were bad this year but somehow won 7 games;if nothing else he seems like a garden-variety bad coach on the field. However his personal stamp on the team smells of Josh McDaniels style management. IE a corrosive, toxic, festering sore of an environment.

30 I think Gase is a bad coach,…

I think Gase is a bad coach, but this has little to do with him.  It's about Adams (a) not wanting to be in NY and (b) not getting paid enough to make up for that.  It was only in the last few days, as a PR move, that Adams took issue with Gase.  But, in any event, the GM made the deal not Gase.  This is a Joe Douglas team going forward, for better or worse.  And it may or may not include Gase.   

38 I agree with this take, and…

I agree with this take, and while Douglas' team includes Gase at the moment, Gase might have to go in order for the Jets to stay Douglas' team.  Right now, both Douglas and Gase report separately to Chris Johnson, but maybe the smarter Johnson will change that in the future, if Douglas keeps proving he's the right man for the job.

You're correct that this had little to do with Gase, since Adams' twitter ire started hitting Douglas and Woody Johnson (the allegations about racist and sexist comments) this past week.

29 I dont hate it.

I get it's a lot but I suppose when you have Russ in his age 32/33 season (not extremely young, not exactly old) you can go a bit all in. Actually lowers the cap by a few million I believe this year (now $1,333,334 dead + $825,000(!) for Jamal, as opposed for $3.6m base salary alone for Brad + his bonus).

Even if he commands top DB money (Slay) that pales in comparison to top front seven money. And as we've learned, DBs are more valuable (and he can play LB well too). 

And if worst comes to worst, Seattle is also one of the teams he said he wouldn't command an extension from (at first anyway). At the end of the day though, Jamal is better in, what, literally everything, than Brad? And he's 5 years younger. And all those picks are gonna likely be late round anyway. And they'll likely get an early 4th back. 

Besides, they can still get that 4th round prospect they've been selecting in the 1st for the past 8 years anyway. At least now they won't be made fun of for it. 

 

31 I might have thought the…

I might have thought the future picks might be more valuable this offseason, due to COVID.  If the season gets cancelled, or shortened, or tainted, then the Jets are getting more value out of this deal with the future picks.  Seahawks might be wasting a year of Adams career.  Not saying there's a huge chance of this happening, but just that I think it should be a factor in any deals featuring future picks.

34 On the flip side, though, I…

On the flip side, though, I thought first round picks this year would be devalued, because a lost NCAA season basically destroys a year's worth of scouting. Every drafted player is going to be a huge unknown, and who is even draft eligible may be a giant gray area.

To be eligible for the draft, players must have been out of high school for at least three years and must have used up their college eligibility before the start of the next college football season.

It's conceivable, if the NCAA waives the season and granted an additional year of eligibility to everyone, there may be no new draft eligible players next year. Round 1 consists of Round 8 guys and worse.

42 So if I'm Trevor Lawrence,…

So if I'm Trevor Lawrence, why am I sticking around Clemson one more year to possibly catch Covid and work for free?  What matters is what the NFL does, and not the NCAA here, and it is in the NFL's interest to have a 2021 draft.

72 I also really doubt that the…

I also really doubt that the NCAA or teams are going to try to stop kids from leaving - have to figure there will still be a full-sized incoming class, and even if the NCAA grants waivers on scholarship limits, programs aren't going to have infinite resources to keep everyone on scholarship. Especially not the way the dominoes are falling right now...

73 If a player still has…

If a player still has college eligibility they can enter the draft as long as they get the NFL's permission.  That's never been much of a problem in the past for most underclassmen who want to enter the draft after their junior or redshirt sophomore years.

32   So you have 2 first round…

 

So you have 2 first round picks now. So one of them busts and with the other one you draft the next best thing on [position] with the next one? What are you gonna do, Jets, play him for 3 years again and trade him? 

 

If you draft a player as good and versatile as Adams, you pay him. 

39 The Jets could have kept…

The Jets could have kept Adams for two or three more years (Franchise tag), but Adams wasn't resigning with them because he got mad they didn't give him another contract two years early during a pandemic-caused huge recession, with the implication that the salary cap was going to shrink.  Supposedly Douglas went to the owners to talk about a deal for Adams, and the Johnsons put a kibosh on any big contracts, not just for Adams.  Because of Covid-19.  In general your idea is correct, but these are interesting times, in the Chinese manner, and they weren't going to be able to keep him anyway.  He also liked the idea of getting traded to Dallas last year, and only threw a fit when he realized other teams were asking about him as well.

41 Also, I doubt they draft a…

Also, I doubt they draft a safety since they already have two decent ones on the roster, and a third guy they drafted this year.  At the very least I doubt Douglas takes a safety with a top ten pick, and instead uses it on a quarterback, offensive tackle (which he did this year), edge rusher, wide receiver or cornerback.  You know, positions that are harder to fill in free agency.

59 He is pretty good when…

He is pretty good when healthy.  Which is why I would hope the Jets extend him soon, but given that the Johnsons nixed a long term deal for Adams, I'm not that hopeful it happens.