WW or someone reported it somewhere but I think it deserves it's own thread... Bradway said: "Starting from this draft we make sure we have players' ratings ready for february... in which we rate them as FOOTBALL PLAYERS and not just athletes... 'cause we are not trying to win the olympics here. Then, when our final evaluation is complete (after the combine etc) we make sure our final JETS grades aren't too far off from our ratings BEFORE all the workouts." To me this is great news Sure, athletic potential should be taken into account but you have to remember you are playing football and not track & field. I hope this means goodbye Mays, Dunlap etc...
too bad they didn't adopt this philosophy before they drafted Gholston......but i guess hindsight is 20/20.
Meh... I guess the most important thing when you make a mistake is understand where you went wrong and fix it. Good for us the Jets are doing that.
It's interesting reading in various places that no one in the Jets front office will take credit for drafting Gholston. We have to assume that it was Mangini pushing for him. It's the only pick since Tannenbaum took over that was just a total disaster. If your scouts have any serious questions about a player they should never be touched in the first round much less in the top 6.
Brian Baldinger broke the story, which barely got any attention, about Mangini demanding Gholston when the rest of the FO wanted McKelvin. Mangini got his wish..... and then sometime during Gholston's rookie season, Mangini waived his combine numbers around, saying someone wasn't playing up to their combine numbers. Gholston is the anomaly, which tells me it wasn't the FO. It was the coach. Gholston was an additional reason to why Mangini got fired.
Ugh. The opportunity cost frequently gets neglected when looking at the Gholston trade. With McKelvin, we'd have had no need for Sheppard, so we'd have had our 5th rounder still last year, possibly meaning a depth signing on the line, and 2 4th rounders this year (minus Philly's 5th). We'd also still have the pick for next year's draft that we gave up for Cromartie, and would have one fewer player to worry about re-signing. Of course, that's ignoring the fact that McKelvin missed most of last season... I'm so freaking glad to have faith in our FO without Mangini around to screw it up.
McKelvin would have been great but it would have been crazy to have that much money allocated to one position if we took him at 6. Would have been nice to have traded down and taken someone like McKelvin or Clady for right tackle.
That's what we're looking at if we re-sign Cromartie anyway. It's also what would have happened if the Sheppard trade had worked out better. Gholston's real value on his contract was $6.5 million per season. If Sheppard had worked out, he'd be earning $5.5 million per season as an older CB. Clearly, we value corner play enough to make it worthwhile. Of course, I think we can both agree that it's preferable to Gholston getting the money.
I've always thought the FO was in tough spot with that pick. I liked Mckelvin but thought 6 was too high for him. We spent so much money that off-season that I think the FO tried to go for they thought was the BPA. When in doubt, draft a pass rusher as they rule is you can never gett too many of them. I'm sure they tried tried their hardest to trade out of the pick but could not find a partner. Because of Gholston, I'm starting to think that sometimes it's OK to trade down and not get as much compensation as the value chart would dictate. Every draft is different and every team's situation heading into the draft is different. There's other value that the chart does not capture like escaping from having to pay a player you are not comfortable with a ton of guaranteed money.
If we hadn't drafted Gholston, we might not have gotten Rex. They're not directly related, but who knows, the Ghoston pick could have been the straw that broke the camel's back in the decision to axe Mangini.
I still dont get it...so only one person in the FO wanted Gholston and it happened? That's such BS. The draft room has scouting, Mr.T, everyone, yet the ONE person gets his say? I wasn't a fan of Mangini, but there is NO WAY he was the only person who wanted Gholston.
I'm guessing that Gholston still had a high ranking if they were looking at the combine in a way that was different from how they claim to now. The more accurate story is that the scouts had McKelvin rated much higher than Gholston but the HC fell in love with Gholston and talked Tannenbaum into making the pick.
Pretty much this: Cromartie is probably going to cost more than McKelvin would have if he turns out to be as good as Rex wants him to be. Plus, you're looking at a lot of money tied up in a position that would incredibly effective vs. a lot of money tied up in one player who is a tangible fault in the CS and FO. As for the value argument, I have no idea how Tannenbaum views it but as a fan, I would much rather see the FO reach for a prospect that the CS can use and turn into a weapon rather than take the accepted value on a prospect I never wanted.
I disagree, if the scouts had him ranked higher, and Tanny thought he would have been the better player than he would have been the pick. You want to blame Mangini fine, but to not blame anyone else doesn't make sense. Tanny is the GM, he has the final say, he took Gholston, his fault.
Tannenbaum got talked into it. Then he realized how the system allowed for fuck ups like that and changed it. Are you really expecting someone to call out Clinkscales or Bradway and put the blame on them too? Mangini was the biggest Gholston booster in the draft room and he convinced Tannenbaum to to see the coach's point of view rather than his scouts'. That was his mistake. That is why we are even having this conversation in the first place. How is this that hard to grasp?
It's very possible that Mangini talked Tannenbaum into taking Gholston. It's also probably not difficult to dissuade a GM from taking a CB with their first pick two years in a row.
