This is a waste of resources though. Is anybody else going to take Shea McLellin before the early 20's at the outside? If not then the Jets need to work a trade to take McLellin not just blow value by spending the 16 on him, leaving another pick out there that they could have gotten otherwise. Even if this wasn't true in general, which it is, it certainly is true for a franchise that has traded up as much as the Jets have. Trade-ups are not free value. They have major costs associated with them and the Jets are entangled by those costs at this point after a decade of trading up.
The problem is no GM or scout wants to see a raft of media reports rating their draft as an F due to getting por value which I think leads to them playing it safe and going with consensus picks a lot of the time.
I was just giving an example of Walsh's philosphy. Not saying draft Shea M. I'm the big on value and never reach. Trading picks isn't as easy as people think, especially when you're OTC.
No disrespect to you UK, I doubt the Jet's front office gives a Rat's Ass about what others think. I agree SM is a reach at #16, I was just naming a player that could fit in Walsh's philosophy.
This is absolutely true. That's why you need to lay the groundwork for potential moves before the draft based on scenarios that might occur. If you know that a team is looking to move up and you suspect they're interested in something other than what you're looking for then you have a natural call to make while the team before you is on the clock. The draft day trades are basically all going to be pick for pick(s) so you can have a pretty good idea of what the trade is going into the negotiation. Time is precious and nobody is going to dick around much with the trade value chart. Players aren't going to get traded unless they're players who have just been drafted. That removes the need for physicals before a trade goes through - which would be an impossibility given the time constraints. The team should have their own draft board to know how they rank players and then they should have a board that is basically the equivalent of BPA that lets them know when a player that they don't want is slipping and likely to give them a chance at a trade with another team that does want them. This draft has several people who could slide to the 16 and be more valuable to the Jets as a trade down than as a take. Michael Floyd, Reilly Reiff (LT not RT, although somebody may take him as a RT), Quinton Couples (4-3 DE), Ryan Tannehill (slips out of top 10 and Cleveland wants him with 22+), etc.
I dont know WW85, whilst I am sure the "FO" as an entity doesnt care, I strongly suspect that the individual employees within it do care - the NFL offers very little job security compared to most careers and if you were sat down and had two players that you felt were going to perform to a similar standard but one was a bit better than the other but had a consensus 2nd round grade and another was seen by "them" as having a clear 1st round grade then I would not be at all surprised if the person putting forward a name would err on the side of caution and go with the 1st round player because if he doesnt pan out its harder to be criticised than if you gamble on the other player. Obviously you want people to have the courage of their convictions and to take chances, date to be great etc etc but well know that there are a lot more sheep than sherperds in this world
Just to chime in on some of the comments that were made on the 1st page regarding QBs... Most teams with elite or upper echelon QBs have the luxury of always taking BPA and/or trading down (and even whiffing on picks) because those QBs primarily carry the team deep into the Playoffs, as well as mask deficiencies. I know Brady/Manning aren't the best examples because of great their greatness which might be more of an outlier, but if you look at their teams' weaknesses and their teams' draft selections, they don't hit home runs every year, yet those teams still contend due to the QB. The Steelers always draft well, mainly because they take BPA, and they can afford to do that because Ben can carry them on his back. The Packers don't have a great running attack - no 5-star RB - and instead of reaching for one, they know they can wait on picks to fall to them because Rodgers will carry them. The Giants almost always select BPA (which often tends to be a WR or DL), mainly because of their of their overwhelmingly talented pass-rush. And Eli. As a counterexample, the Ravens don't necessarily have an elite QB in Flacco, but they always draft well, usually choosing BPA, and I would attribute that to a very solid and smart Front Office, especially Ozzie Newsome. My point is, it's easy for us to clamor for BPA (or trade down to maximize value on the selection) because we've seen that it's the successful teams' philosophy; but it's also important to remember that those successful teams usually can do that because of their elite QBs.
The Steelers drafted well long before Ben Roethlisberger was on the roster. In fact they won the first Super Bowl his second season mainly due to how well stocked the roster was. Same for the 15-1 his rookie year. On Eli and the Giants: when was Michael Strahan drafted? When was Osi Umeniyora drafted? Those guys were the Giants great pass rush when Eli was still spitting his bib going into his 4th season. Seriously, the reason the Steelers have been to 4 Super Bowls in the last 16 years is because they are a smart organization. The reason the Giants have been to 3 in 12 years is they are a smart organization. You can impute the SB wins to the QB's but you can't claim the QB's are why the groundwork for them was laid. That was very smart organizational work over a long period of time.
I can't argue against your comments on the Steelers and Giants -- I definitely recognize the intelligence and accurate scouting assessments, along with Draft philosophy, of both organizations. I'm contending that it's 'easy' for teams with elite (or even, say, top 7 QBs) to either: a) take BPA b) trade down and wait for a player to fall to them (maximize value) c) choose a player with tremendous upside and give that player time to develop d) choose a player with tremendous upside who might be risky for whatever reason (e.g. Pierre Paul) e) in some cases, completely whiff on a player Look at the Pats this past season -- who did they draft that vastly improved their Defense? What was their Defense ranked throughout the year? Where did the Pats ultimately finish, and more importantly, what/who was the main reason they got to where they finished? (I doubt the answer to this is their Draft or college scouting dept). Teams that possess an elite QB have less pressure to reach for needs or fill glaring holes immediately; they have a lot more flexibility. And if they don't meet their needs, usually it's not detrimental to their season.
The thing that the Steelers and the Giants do that most other teams do not is to emphasize the pass rush as an organic part of the team that is independent of any single player. The two organizations differ greatly in their defensive philosophy, with the Steelers in a LB-oriented 3-4 and the Giants in a DL-oriented 4-3. However they both make sure that the core group on the defense is constantly well-stocked with a good mix of vets, rotational players and young guys coming up. That core group is the group that provides the pass rush necessary in the NFL today. The Steelers actually have the superior overall philosophy with their 3-4 and LB orientation, because the 3-4 is a natural run stopper. Adding heavy pressure on the QB from the LB's is what makes the Steelers a generational defensive power. Their LB's are also at the heart of the run defense and so they invest year after year in that group and by keeping it strong they maintain a top 10 defense over time that consistently peaks as a top 3 defense every few seasons. The Giants philosophy is the next best thing, which is to invest on the defensive line in an organic way to maintain pressure on the QB's. Their run defense is not as good as the Steelers because they can't invest in just 5 positions (NT, 4 LB's) and keep both the pass pressure and the run defense strong. They prioritize pass rush given that reality. Since 2002 the Giants have invested 3 1st round picks in defensive linemen. They have invested 3 2nd round picks in defensive linemen. The defensive line is 4 out of 22 starters on offense and defense but it is 30% of the Giants high draft picks. The Steelers have a slightly different profile in how they've stocked the LB's mainly because they signed a high-quality free agent at 27 in James Farrior and they found a starting OLB as a UDFA in James Harrison. Both opportunities were extremely rare. A pro bowl caliber linebacker is rarely let go by his team at 27. The Jets were switching schemes to a 4-3 and they missed the fact that Farrior was miscast as an OLB. The Steelers cut Harrison twice before he caught on and turned into one of the most feared LB's in the NFL. Still the Steelers have spent a 1st, 2 2nds, a 3rd, a 4th, a 5th and a 6th on LB's over the last 5 years and they did this despite starting out with Farrior, Harrison, Joey Porter, Clark Haggans and Larry Foote already on the roster. They treat LB like an organic part of the team that must always be very strong if they are to succeed.
I could not agree with you more if someone was paying me to agree with you. That's the frustration I always have with the NFL which is that the game is so much easier when you have a top QB and there is almost no way in which you can just go out and get a top QB you just have to pray that the Gods are smiling on you in the draft (or have a horrendous season and pick #1). I was really hoping we were going to get into that category with Sanchez but its not looking good (though I am not yet prepared to abandon all hope).
The point about the Jets is that they basically have it bass-ackwards. Yeah, they don't have an elite QB and the prospects of having one moving forward are still dim. But they reach for people all the time at positions of need and they compound the error by often trading up to do so. They make fewer draft picks than just about any other team in the NFL and so their depth is weak, and for all the upside in a few of the trade-ups they never find stars in the middle or late rounds because they exercise so few picks. The thing that has made the situation grim is that they're no longer finding particularly good players with the trade-ups and reaches for need. The organization is basically pursuing a strategy that minimizes the upside in the draft while simultaneously depressing the depth. That's why the cyclical collapses keep happening. And make no mistake the 8-8 last year was a collapse. The Jets had a huge amount of fresh contracts they'd invested in over the previous two seasons and yet all that money turned into a mediocre season. For the record: 2009 - Sanchez 2010 - Revis, Mangold, Ferguson, Harris 2011 - Holmes, Cromartie That's 7 enormous contracts that played into that loud thud at the end of last season. I'm not sure any team in the NFL spent that kind of money from 2009-2011 for worse results.
There's definitely a strong correlation between successful teams and their total number of picks in each draft. The following list is comprised of the most consistently successful teams that typically draft well, along with their total draft picks dating back to the year they found their current, elite/franchise QB: Steelers 2011: 7 2010: 10 2009: 9 2008: 7 2007: 8 2006: 9 2005: 8 Giants 2011: 8 2010: 6 2009: 9 2008: 7 2007: 8 2006: 7 2005: 4 Ravens 2011: 8 2010: 7 2009: 6 Eagles 2011: 11 2010: 13 2009: 8 2008: 10 2007: 8 2006: 8 2005: 11 *McNabb was drafted many seasons earlier, so I decided to keep this to recent history* Packers 2011: 10 2010: 7 2009: 8 2008: 9 2007: 11 2006: 12 Patriots 2011: 9 2010: 12 2009: 13 2008: 7 2007: 9 2006: 10 2005: 7 *regarding Brady, see McNabb comment under the Eagles draft history* ------------------------------------------------- Like Br4dw4y5ux said, the Steelers drafted well before Ben's arrival. But, in my opinion, it's no coincidence that the aforementioned teams all have top tier QBs, which allows them to be patient and draft well While the Patriots habitually trade down and stockpile picks (in 1 of those Drafts, they didn't even have a 1st Round selection; I didn't check on it, but I'll venture to guess they traded out of Round 1), they also miss on a lot of their picks, and yet, they've been a consistent powerhouse in the NFL for as long as Brady has been there. If/when they draft a bust or fail to fill a need, it doesn't affect them too negatively -- they can afford this because Brady carries them every year. In this 2012 Draft, the Saints have a total of 5 picks, the first of which begins in Round 3. While this probably will come back to bite them in future years, I'm willing to bet that they still remain consistent legit contenders as long as they have Brees.
I dont know, look at a shit team like the browns and they have had as many picks as the Giants since 2005, and would have had more save for trading up to get Quinn (not that that turned out well). All that list really tells me is that life is a lot easier in the NFL if you have a top tier QB which saves you from having to trade up so much and hides all your mistakes to a considerable degree. Damn but it must be nice to have a true franchise QB (something I havent seen in my 25+ years of Jets fandom).
This is what I've been getting at. I think successful draft philosophy and a team having an elite QB work synergistically -- that is, even if a team drafts well WITHOUT an elite QB (e.g. Steelers prior to Ben), that team can draft just as successfully and less urgently WITH an elite QB.
I absolutely agree - I guess other than to say they can probably draft even MORE effectively with a good QB as there is much less pressure to trade up and its a lot easier to trade down.
I still don't understand the argument here though. The Jets have spent less picks in QB's over the last decade than the Baltimore Ravens, and yet the Ravens consistently have better talent on the field than the Jets and consistently win more games. The Jets have spent the same number of picks on QB's over the last decade as the New England Patriots, and yet the Patriots consistently have more talent on the field and win more games than the Jets. The Jets have spent one more pick than the Green Bay Packers on QB's over the last decade, and yet the Packers consistently have more talent on the field and win more games than the Jets. What's putting pressure on the Jets is not the number of picks they spend on trying to find a franchise QB. What's putting pressure on them is the number of picks they make overall. They don't make enough picks to build a high quality roster for more than the few years that their free agents give them before they age out. Then they're back under the gun again and making trades or signing free agents because they haven't made enough picks in the draft to maintain their talent base.
The argument is that those teams have top tier franchise QBs (unlike the Jets have or have had), so they can afford to sit back, acquire more picks by trading down, and not reach/trade up urgently to select positions at their glaring needs -- their needs are masked and compensated for by the elite play of their QBs. The Patriots definitely don't have more talent than the Jets have on Defense. If you look at the Patriots' selections in their recent drafts, those picks haven't done much for them because many (?most) of those players chosen haven't produced squat. What good is a boatload of picks if you never get anything out of them? And despite their poor selections, they still win every year. To what/whom do you attribute such constant success?
Explain the Ravens though. They have never had an elite QB since the franchise moved to Baltimore and yet they come up with top-tier talent almost every year. They've drafted 7 QB's in 10 years, which is more than the Jets, and yet they have a better overall roster than the Jets and not just by a bit. Where are the offensive and defensive playmakers for the Jets? Why no guy that other teams have to game plan around to stop? Why no big sacker? The Jets are like the vanilla team of all time lately. We're going to get you! Here, we're throwing our CB's at you does that hurt? I didn't say defense, I said overall. I'm as surprised as anybody that Belichik has let his defense slide the way he has. I'm grateful that he's done that though because it increases the chances that the Pats return to the pack when Brady retires. I am kind of wondering what that's all about though. The Pats were a dynasty when they had both sides of the ball working and then Belichik let one side go.
The argument, or rather the point, is that if you have a team that has a franchise QB like the Patriots, the Packers, the Steelers, the Giants then its a lot easier to look like masters of the draft because: - your QB masks a lot of flaws in your team - a top QB makes everyone look better than they really are - you have fewer "must haves" when you have a top QB and so you can more easily just take the top player available regardless of position - its easier to trade back and get more picks as there is usually no must have player as you already have the only true "must have" player There are always teams that are better at drafting than others and the Ravens have done a great job in the draft but they are only 1 team - you cannot look at the best drafting team in the league and say "the Jets havent drafted as well as these guys over the last 6 years therefore the Jets are terrible drafters" In any event if you look at both teams pre-camp rosters at the start of last season out of the 68 players listed on both teams "rosters" the Jets had drafted 38 of their players and the Ravens 44 and of those players drafted the Jets had drafted 14 slated as starters compared to 16 for the Ravens, so the Ravens had slightly more players but its hardly a vast difference (and it would be even slimmer save that while the Ravens had 2011 draft picks slated to start the Jets did not, so add in Wilkerson and its 15 against 16). The only thing that has hurt the Jets in terms of drafting is their inability to find an elite QB - if we had had even a "good" QB we would likely have won a SB in the last 3 years. I wont knock the Jets for making the move for Sanchez who in draft pick terms actually cost us very little, its just a shame it hasnt really worked out as yet but as many have said, Rodgers hadnt even stepped on the field in a meaningful way when he was Sanchez's age so there is still time. edit: interesting stat - Only 50 percent of second-round picks actually pan out in the NFL. In the later rounds, the odds are obviously even worse. Less than 20 percent of sixth-round picks stick in the NFL, while less than 10 percent of picks in the seventh round work out.
