Is it unfair though? When is the last time you've seen a safety go for two first rounders? Especially one that has a skillset that really didn't fit into the defense we were running at the time? The price and pay critiques are well placed and legitimate. The trade was dubious from the very get go. Things get worse when you consider the fact that he wasn't exactly an outstanding teammate in NY.
Jamal Adams also lacked self-awareness, which is what made him so easy for fans to hate on when you consider the price we paid to bring him here. He ran his mouth at every opportunity, he had a bravado that he didn't back up. Any time a player talks like Jamal does and doesn't back it up, ultimately puts a target on their back.
As for John, you know what he did by making that statement? He tried to appease the fans. Giving himself a flogging on TV also would have been a mistake. This is a case where the best course of action was to just shut your mouth and go about your own business. The people that need to know the details already discussed the Adams trade in private, i.e Jody and Vulcan. They surely know the details to a much greater deal than we ever will behind the Adams trade. Trying to justify the decision to the fanbase was a losing proposition the moment he decided to open his mouth.
I surmise that John Schneider didn't like people talking badly about his friend, Pete. At the end of the day Pete is the most culpable party here. If this was Schneiders idea, Carroll had full power to veto it. Carroll also should've had a better idea coming in of how to integrate him into his system. After 2+ years admitting that you're still trying to figure out how to use him is not a vote of confidence. That is something that should have been addressed before the trigger was pulled.
Ultimately, at the end of the day that is the kicker with these failed trades. The guys we went after never really fit the identity of what we wanted to do, or in the case of Percy Harvin, fit the culture of the team. We had a habit of trading for big time players that were not a fit culturally or schematically. Yes, Schneider deserves some of the blame, but the guy in charge was Pete. He had complete control of the situation and had the power to block Schneider, Pete deserves most of the blame here.
I think calling the trade bad is fair. I mean, it was two first rounders for a safety and, shockingly, one of them ended up being what would've been our highest draft pick in 12 calendar years at the time. Sure, we did end up getting a top-10 in that draft anyway, but that's... hella capital.
I think one of the unfair parts is how Jamal's actual play, aside from injury, has been immediately written off as abysmal without further investigation by most parties. Reason being is that you really can't defend Jamal and never could after year 1 of his tenure here if you were in media or anything, because people would take it as also defending the process behind the trade and it'd be bad for your career.
Guys like Matty and Griff tell it like it largely was, and that's that he was pretty good on the field outside of when he was either out with injury or obviously playing injured. He had some silly moments because of his stone hands, but overall, he was one of the most explosive safeties in the league in the box and he COULD execute his coverage assignments decently well, just like he did in New York. They get hate for this because people view it as a defense of Adams conduct off the field and the trade, but it's just a mildly nuanced take that points out the good within the overall bad trade.
I think John is right to point out, however, that Jamal wasn't a bad player and was a tremendous talent. He did have truly incredible potential here to do it all. He just didn't hold up. He had injuries that are fairly extreme in nature, and I think the injuries were largely conflated with him just being outright bad.
I think it's also good of John to point out their rationale for making the trade. I think it's good that he's clarifying their position, the logic behind it, and I mean, I do think there was some defense for it given the context at the time of them knowing this was about to be it with Russell. They got really close to the NFCCG the previous year with a banged up roster and just needed something to bring that team to the next level. It was a misstep, but you know, I can really see what they were thinking with the upside.
At least this wasn't Percy Harvin. We did get some pretty good sustained play out of Jamal here and there at a minimum. But bottom line, while I do believe parts of the logic behind the trade were defensible at the time with Jamal being a legit coveted all-pro talent and us being a few pieces away from true championship contention the precious year, it is undeniably risky to give up two firsts and more for ANY player, and they got bit bad. Could've done quite a bit more with that capital. Gotten a Leonard Williams and more.
www.nbcsports.com
