Disclaimer: I am not saying he should or shouldn't be the pick at 3, as a matter of fact I was on the DO NOT trade up bandwagon all together, for the fact that we gave up so much to not know what we traded up for. I am going to outline a few points that might help some of you see why Saquon at 3 isn't such an insane idea and could end up being a viable option, even if we consider the picks we gave up. All I'm asking is to keep an open mind when reviewing this and to let me know if it's something you would be ok with if the inevitable happened. -If I told you right now that we would give up 3 seconds for Barry Sanders/Walter Payton/LT/Curtis would you take it? I would argue you might--these players we're the identity of their respective teams and changed the way defenses had to play them. Saquon has the ability to, potentially, be one of the better on that list. -If I told you that this kid can be special as a receiver out of the backfield, could block out of backfield and do it all as a runner, can we just label him as "just another back"? I would argue no, he would transform the offense in a different way and hide possible deficiencies elsewhere. -If I told you that he could be a very good kickoff returner/punt returner and we don't have to use 1 or two extra roster spots, wouldn't that be something valuable? -Finally, if I told you that we would have a star player that actually LOVES playing on our team and can be a face of the franchise going forward, isn't that arguably one of the most important factors? The NY Jets we're always best when we ran the ball effectively. Best years had guys like Curtis Martin and LT around. Again, I'm not saying that he's my pick at 3, but I am saying that I wanted to post this in the off chance that pigs fly. JET UP!
Hold on a second… Aren’t you the guy who said if we got anybody other than Rosen or Darnold at three we were a failure?
100% correct, but at this point I'm literally trying to justify another pick. You can't reverse what we did, only make the absolute best of what we have. Darnold or Rosen are there, we know what we need to do.
We have 3 RBs and are bringing Rawls in for a visit. It's all so a deep RB draft but the fact we are piling up RBs doesn't bode well for Barkley.
This is a Qb driven league now. You have to have an above average Qb to obtain above average results on the field.(Jags being the outlier..) Back in the days of yore with Sanders, Martin, Smith, Payton and LT, you could get by with a dominant defense coupled with a mediocre passing game. (2000 Ravens). The rules are quite different now. The days of the GnP are over and they aren't coming back. Hell, they're even changing the rules on tackling to make it just that much harder on the defense. The league wants high scoring games now. More AFL than NFL. The Jets haven't had a true FQB since Namath. Time to change that now that we have the opportunity to do so. Qb at 3 or Macc should just move to Chicago after draft day.
As Cman said, there's no such thing as Sanders/Payton/LT/Curtis anymore. Now it's more like Gurley/Bell/Hunt/Zeke which doesn't sound nearly as good as a franchise QB.
You don’t really have to try that hard to justify picks we can make at 3. Barkley would need no justification whatsoever but that’s not happening. Mayfield would also need no justification. Allen would, but hopefully we just don’t have to worry about that.
I agree with this, but my thought process is what if we have a high risk QB prospect vs. a definite elite RB. I would argue that I would have to at least consider the RB, for the simple fact that I can still run an offense with an elite runner and a mediocre QB. On the contrary, I cannot run an offense with a flop at QB and no threat at the RB position. At least you give yourself a proven tool to utilize and can augment for the lack of talent at the other spot. I just don't want to be left holding the bag.... I understand your perspective though and agree with the logic behind it.
We probably agree more than we disagree. The only thing I would say is Baker is probably a bit of a risk at 3, just because of the system he comes from. The height thing is not even an issue.
Hell to the fucking no. We MUST finally address our long-term answer at QB and we traded up a great deal of assets to do so. We would have been much better of staying at 6 and drafting a great RB prospect in the 2nd round (this is a super deep RB draft class). There is zero, I repeat, ZERO logic to selecting Barkley at 3, and there is a 0% chance we are selecting a player other than a QB.
If Darnold and Rosen are gone Jets will either pick Mayfield or Allen. If one of Darnold or Rosen falls Jets are picking one of them instead of Mayfield/Allen. If something else happens I will ban myself one month. Jets are picking a QB no matter what.
There is a better chance we trade down for 3 because a team offered 3 1sts for the selection than taking Barkley. That's how illogical and unlikely it would occur.
The Jets aren't ready to take Barkley yet. They aren't primed for a playoff run and they won't be able to keep him whole for long with a questionable QB situation and OL. If the Jets did take Barkley and he was as good as he looks he'd probably wind up with 350-400 touches next year overall and that's how the tread comes off really fast, not to mention the possibility of a blowout. The trade the Jets made had to be for a QB. No other position is worth giving up 4 prime picks for, even if the guy is great. QB is the high impact position that maybe makes a huge trade-up worthwhile.
No such thing as a definite elite RB. See Trent Richardson. Mayock: "Richardson might be the best non-quarterback in the draft. He won't make it past 6. He's as close as I've seen to Adrian Peterson. He's a three-down guy. He pass-protects. He's a bear with the ball in his hands and he's an adequate pass-catcher.''
It IS an insane idea. There IS no justification for taking Barkley #3, period! The team that takes Barkley is not going to have him returning punts or KOs and risk him getting hurt. That's just stupid.
The case is simple, barkley is the best player in the draft, I don't think anyone is debating that. He'll likely be a pro-bowler in his first season. We've seen great success recently with high picked rookie RBs. fournette, gurley, zeke, and even some later picked one's like cook, hunt, and kamara. The thing is RB is one of those positions that's easy to find later in the draft, maybe not as good as barkely but still you can land a top 10 RB easily late. Bell was a 2nd round pick, johnson was a 3rd round pic and those are considered the top 2 RBs in the NFL. it's also a position with no shortage of talent that burns out around 30 years old. QB is the most important position overall on the field and the lack of the jets having a good FQB for over 40 years, means we really need to get one if the opportunity is there. In short, the best case for barkely would be if the jets don't feel any of the Qbs available at 3 are FQB players. but in that case, we shouldn't have given so much to move up there
to be fair though, he's the only early picked RB bust since the jets took blair thomas 2nd overall. the tarck record for taking a RB in the top 10 is better then any other position
The reason we moved up is BECAUSE we feel at least 3 QBs are worthy of the selection and were not likely to last to 6. I don't know why that's a concept that Barkley supporters refuse to accept.
