zero foresight

I know it blows my mind that Marrone's stupid decision to punt is not the big story here. That cost them the game! I know some coaches are so pathetically conservative so I am usually not surprised but in that scenario, when I saw them lining up to punt on sunday, I was shocked. Punting is the scenario that is ADVERSE to winning the game.

JAX reminds me of Carolina a few years ago. Lots of talent but losing games they shouldn't. Rivera in Carolina was making game management calls like this too much and after punting in a similar scenario and blowing the game in a game against Buffalo, Rivera switched his line of thinking and Carolina started playing more aggressively and wouldn't you know - started winning.

Doug Moron, I mean Marrone, is a lot more set in his ways though than Rivera. JAX might have to make a coaching change before they see a turnaround. Likely though, they'll just waste their talent for a few years

 

I'm sorry that you and other fans thought processes are so limited and your logic so flawed. For at least the hundredth, if not one thousandth time, It's not just about getting the #1 pick in the draft. It's about getting the first pick in EVERY SINGLE ROUND of the draft. Of course scouting, identifying the correct player, and the rest of the items you list are important, but they are meaningless if the players that you identify as being correct and that fit your systems are gone by the time you pick.

You couldn't be more wrong about picking first in each round means very little in the equation.

 

So my thought process is limited Because I believe there is so much more to the draft than position?

Ok. So Hill must be better than Jeffrey and Pryor better than Clinton-Dix? And Andrew Luck must've won a Super Bowl before Russell Wilson right?

So what you're saying is that there will be can't miss studs at 33 and 65 but if the Jets are picking 38 and 70 they are screwed.

Obviously having a higher pick is beneficial in the process. What I'm saying is that it's just a small piece to a much larger, complex puzzle.

Maybe the simple, marrow minded thinking of higher pick=success is the "flawed thought process"

 

You're proving my point. You stated it as if the only factor was picking #1 in the draft. Now, you can't even understand what I said, or are trying to twist my words. I didn't say that there wasn't more to the draft than position. In fact, I agreed that the other things you mentioned were important. The thing you fail to understand is that those things are meaningless for the players that the Jets really could have used, but haven't gotten a chance to draft because other teams were drafting ahead of them and took them.

I didn't say anything about the Jets being definitely screwed if they are picking at 38 and 70 instead of 33 and 65, but they could be. There are only so many topflight edge rushing prospects in the draft. The same goes for the topflight WRs. Occasionally teams can find these players lower, but usually they go early. That takes a lot of luck, something the Jets don't have. Their odds of getting the players they want are much higher if they're picking at the top of the round instead of 4-6 picks later.

Following is a list of players that the Jets just missed out on in the draft since 2008. Of course, some drafts are better/deeper than others, but in almost any one of those drafts, if the Jets had been drafting #1 or #2 instead of where they were, the team would be a whole lot better off than with the players that they actually wound up taking. For a more in-depth look, go look at draft history and look at every round of the draft and at all the players the Jets missed out on because of where they were drafting. That doesn't mean that Tanny or Idzik would have taken those players, but at least we'd have had a chance to take some of them.

2008
1st round - the Jets took Vernon Gholston at #6 - if they had been drafting #1, they could have taken Matt Ryan; they didn't have a 2nd or 3rd round pick, but if they had, in the 2nd round they could have taken Jordy Nelson; in the 3rd round they could have had Kendall Langford;

2009
In the first round, the Jets could have had Matt Stafford instead of Mark Sanchez; in the 2nd round they could have taken Patrick Chung or James Laurinitis;

2010
The Jets drafted 29th in the 1st round and took Kyle Wilson. Drafting 5 places higher, they could have taken Dez Bryant instead; in the 2nd round the Jets took Vlad Ducasse. Picking 5 spots higher, they could have taken Golden Tate, WR, or Sean Lee, LB;

2011
In the 2011 draft alone, if the Jets had the #1 pick they could have had Vonn Miller, Marcel Dareus, AJ Green, Patrick Peterson, Julio Jones or Aldon Smith in the 1st round; Andy Dalton in the 2nd round; Justin Houston in the 3rd round; In the 4th round, they could have taken Clint Boling; Marcus Cannon in the 5th round; Charles Clay in the 6th round

2012
In the 1st round, the Jets could have taken Andrew Luck, Luke Kuechly, or Dontari Poe; in the 2nd round they could have taken Coby Fleener or Derek Wolfe,; in the 3rd round, they could have taken Russell Wilson or Olivier Vernon; in the 4th round they could have taken Kirk Cousins or Lamar Miller; 5th round Malik Jackson; 6th round Alfred Morris

2013
In the 1st round the Jets could have taken Lane Johnson, Luke Joeckel or Eric Fisher; in the 2nd Zac Ertz or Giovani Bernard; 3rd round Travis Kelce, Larry Warford, or Tyrann Mathieu; 4th round Alex Okafor or David Bakhtiari; 5th round Kenny Stills

2014
1st round - Jadaveon Clowney, Khalil Mack, Jake Matthews, Odell Beckham, or Aaron Donald; 2nd round Derek Carr or Demarcus Lawrence;3rd round CJ Fiedorowicz; 4th round Devonta Freeman

2015
1st round - Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota, Amari Cooper; 2nd round - Landon Collins, Donovan Smith, TJ Yeldon; 3rd round - AJ Cann, Tyler Lockett

2016
Carson Wentz, Joey Bosa, Ezekiel Elliott, Ronnie Stanley; 2nd round - Jaylon Smith, Myles Jack, Derrick Henry; 3rd round - Yannick Ngakoue;

2017
1st round - Myles Garrett, Leonard Fournette; 2nd round - Kevin King, Forrest Lamp, Cam Robinson, Zay Jones; 3rd round - Alvin Kamara, Ahkello Witherspoon, Cooper Kupp, Pat Elflein;

 

I understand. But you keep saying "could have" drafted these guys, but "would they have" is the real question. In any draft, no matter of position, teams are going to miss out on players because their scouts either a) are not very good at their jobs or b) fall in love with the wrong players for the wrong reasons or c) bad luck.

In 2008 the Jets still "could have" drafted Nelson but instead picked Dustin Keller.
In 2009 they "could have" had Clay Matthews and Lesean McCoy if they didn't trade their picks.
In 2010 - Gronk

Your case for 2011 doesn't really hold water because the team made the AFC championship the year before.

But anyway, we could play this game literally with every team and every draft and I really don't want to. I want a franchise qb just like every other fan out there. My point is that drafting #1 does not ensure that nor does drafting #33, #65 ...... ensure getting a quality player.

 

Would the Jets have drafted those players is a fair question, and one that we'll probably never know the answer to. I also agree with your statement about teams missing out on players in drafts and the reasons why. It now looks like our disagreement was more one of semantics, and that we were talking past each other.

Yes, I know that the Jets made the 2010 AFC Championship game and so couldn't have drafted 1st, but used it because it was almost the perfect draft and the best one over the last 10 years to show what picking first in every round could mean. Some of the drafts were much weaker/shallower, so in the lower rounds it didn't really matter so much who the Jets would have drafted or where they were picking.

No, there are no guarantees or insurance that the Jets will get the best players regardless of where they pick. My whole point was to show that their chances of getting the best players were much better picking first than picking 5th or lower, and at a point like this where we desperately need a FQB and infusion of talent, I think the team would be better served by getting the top pick, than by winning a few games, drafting 5th, 6th or lower and missing out on players that they covet who would have been great fits for the Jets. I totally agree that the scouts still have to do their jobs well, Mac has to make the right decisions for the types of players he wants for the team, who fit the Jets systems, who have the character he wants, the work ethic, to desire to be the best they can, and who will put the team first. The thing is, that even if they don't do their jobs all that well, they won't be as successful, but could still be able to land a lot of talent, at potentially at a key position or two they need like QB, LT, #1 WR and Edge Rusher simply because of Mac's BPA philosophy, luck, and by virtue of where they're picking if they're picking high enough. If they're drafting lower and don't do a good job, then the team is screwed. IMO that's what has happened most years with the Jets during their history. Their GM and scouting depts. have not been good enough, have not done a good job, but because they won enough games to be drafting in the middle of the pack they were never able to luck into getting the top end talent they needed to improve.

In many drafts, Mac and the scouts could do their jobs perfectly, but still not be able to make a big impact on the team because they weren't in a position to get that FQB, LT, #1 WR or Edge Rusher, and were unable to trade up or down to get them. Those key positions that the Jets lack are also the key positions that many teams lack, and there are few of those types in each draft. Being successful in any draft can depend a lot on luck and how the draft falls, what other teams need that year, and whether the team won a meaningless game or two that took them out of position to get one or a couple of those players.

 

Actually, I read a very interesting book years ago that countered that idea. It pointed out that the first pick is the only time you have a major advantage. You have the entire draft class to pick from. For every pick you make after that, despite the fact that you have the top pick in each round, you are picking AFTER every other team has made a selection. So that first pick is really the only one that really counts.

It all depends on how you think about it, but breaking the draft down into rounds is pretty artificial. It's really just a continuous stream of picks, and after that first one, you go to the back of the line, just like everyone does after every pick they make (trades and bonus picks excluded, obviously).

 

I think to many tea times have affected your thinking

 

I have neither agreed with, nor understood, 95% of the posts you make on this board. The 5% is actually the same post over and over. I understand that one. Post that a few more times and you'll boost your percentage.

 

Obviously, I disagree and think that author is full of poppycock. Regardless of whether the draft is thought of as one continuous stream of picks or is looked at round-by round, you get that first pick, other teams get a pick, and then you get the first pick again of the players that are left. After that 1st pick, depending upon whether every other team has a 1st round pick, roughly another 29-31 picks will go off the board, and during that time a team will miss out on a player or players that they really wanted and that they think would have fit their scheme perfectly. But then the team picking first gets the first shot at all of the rest of the players, so there is definitely an advantage.

That said, the draft is not just a continuous stream of picks. If nothing else, some players are considered 1st day picks, others 2nd day picks, and others as 3rd day picks and UDFAs. The top team gets to make the first pick each day from among the players that are left. Also, when players are evaluated/rated, the better players are usually thought of as going in a certain round. Some are considered 1st round picks, others 2nd rounders, others could go in the late 1st or early 2nd, some could go in the 3rd-4th round area, others are considered 7th round picks or UDFA, etc. Even within the 1st round there is a group of players whom are considered the creme-de-la creme. There may be only 3-5 players that fit that description. I've seen drafts where several GMs said that there were only 5-6 true 1st round talents in the draft and after that the talent level dropped off, then there were another 40-50 players at the next tier. There have been other drafts that were deeper and stronger, where there were maybe 40 or more players who could go in the 1st round.

So, do you mean to tell me that in a draft where there are only 5 players in the top tier, another 30-35 in the 2nd tier, 25-30 in the 3rd tier, and so on, that the team picking first in each round doesn't have a distinct advantage? In that scenario the top 5 teams have an advantage over the other 27, with the team drafting first having the biggest advantage. Unless there is a major surprise, that 1st team will get players from each of the 1st 3 tiers, while other teams only get players from the 2nd & 3rd tiers, while still others may only get players from the 2nd and 4th tier from the first 3 rounds. Picking early in the 4th round is almost always considered a big plus.

Of course how individual teams rate players, what their needs are, the types of systems they run, the character of the players, their game tape, their Combine workouts/speed/athletic ability/power/strength, their Wonderlic score, all have an effect on how players are rated and drafted, and that varies from team to team. There are usually also some trades because teams have fallen in love with a certain player or his abilities and scheme fit. Because of that, there are always some surprises in the draft. Some GMs have no qualms about "reaching" for a player out of need. Others draft more from a need perspective but won't make a big "reach", while others draft from a BPA perspective, while still other GMs try to balance need and BPA. Some GMs look for a specific type of player in terms of motor, work ethic, character, leadership, etc., while others are more flexible. Some GMs will try to fit square pegs into round holes. They'll take a player whose consensus evaluation is as a definite 4-3 DE and they'll try to make him fit as a 3-4 OLB.

IMO not everything has multiple truths. That is just modern political correctness. There is quantifiable truth in many situations. All opinions aren't equal. I think that author is dead wrong.

 

Where did he say that? Asserting that having the first pick of the draft to pick a QB has statistically not correlated to SB victories in no way minimizes that having the first pick in the subsequent rounds isn't valuable.

Talk about Strawman. How could he be wrong about that when he didn't even say it?

 

Well, obviously I disagree, and your detailing of player rankings has no bearing whatsoever on the issue. Of course having the first pick is an advantage. Nobody is arguing that. You get first crack at the whole board. AFTER that, you are picking behind everybody else. The fact that at some point your are technically making the first pick of another round does not impact on that at all. Even the draft process makes this clear by highlighting the actual number of the pick in brackets.

The advantage of getting the first pick is huge (what you do with that advantage is up to you, but it is undeniably an advantage). After that, it's just a continuous stream of picks, artificially broken up. At the exact moment when you are making your pick, no matter what position or round, you have an advantage over everyone else in the draft because you have the choice of everyone who is left, but that was also true for the team picking before you, and the team picking before them. In fact, their advantage was slightly greater, because they had more players to choose from.

The only time this is not the case is with the very first pick of the draft. That is the difference maker.

 

Well then take each of the words of my post & translate to the King's English & then U will understand it. U may also have "trouble" understanding my post's because Your English & my American do not coincide

 

It most certainly does have a bearing and you are not picking after everyone else. That is ridiculous. There's no point in continuing the discussion, because we'll never agree.

 

You don't think the first pick of the second round comes after the last pick of the first round? And you don't want to discuss things? On a fan forum?

 

Yes, it comes after the last pick of the first round, but it's before every other team in the 2nd round. The only system where a team isn't going to have picks after another team is if the worst team got to take 7 players off the top, then the next worse team got to take 7 players etc.

I don't see the point. My opinion isn't going to change. I think the author's opinion is absurd. I don't want to get in a hassle over this. It's not worth it, and I don't have the time or energy to do so. Just because it's a discussion list doesn't mean I have to discuss every single post or thread. I've stated my opinion and read yours, and that's sufficient for me. If someone else posts something that evokes a response in me, then maybe I'll post again.

 

That flies in the face of logic.

EVERY pick that you are able to choose ahead of the rest of the teams is valuable. Of course the very first pick is the MOST valuable, but that doesn't change the fact that you have an advantage in every subsequent round of being able to take the best player before anyone else.

Now that advantage may be squandered because you aren't very good at identifying talent, and thus you pick someone who isn't the best available player. And OTH you may be very good at assessing talent, and especially what your team needs and so you pick someone who isn't the OVERALL BPA, but DOES fit your needs perfectly. But in any case you retain the advantage of having your choice among all the remaining options. How is that not an advantage?

If your assertion is true, then no team would ever trade up in any round, and yet they do all the time.

 

But after your first pick, EVERY pick you make comes after everybody else. And the fact that people trade up supports the argument, rather than refuting it. Teams trade up because the picks above them are more valuable. Stop thinking about the rounds, they skew thinking on the subject. The first pick in round 2 is actually the 33rd pick. The 31 other teams have all selected before you. Only that first pick is an advantage.

 

I understand what you're trying to say, but you cannot ignore the issue of "rounds". They limit the number of picks any team can have before teams pick again. There are exceptions in any given round due to teams acquiring multiple picks via trades, but the basic operating principle remains true. As NC said, a team doesn't get to make all of their picks at once - they get one pick, then have to wait until the other teams make their pick, but their next chance will come BEFORE these following teams get to make their next choice, thus retaining their advantage in the order.