I'd like to speculate here. What if I am a GM that believed that after any given NFL draft, I could identify a group of 100 undrafted players that would have the same chances of success as final 100 drafted players (roughly rounds 3.5-7). Wouldn't that give me great freedom to wield draft picks like so many poker chips? I just hear so much noise all the time about the Jets wanting to trade up, I wonder if this isn't in Tanny's brain.
Its an interesting idea, but I think the trade up also factors in Tanny believes he can get a better player at a certain higher spot than he could get from 2/3 picks at the lower level. Combine that with thinking you can identify UDFA better than the rest, and yes imo this is possible. I do want to see what the draft experts here say though
Not a bad thought at all but what current Jets were UDFA? Off the top of my head all I can think of is Devito.
This is what Tanny does; he's said in the past he doesn't see much difference in guys drafted in rounds 5-7 and most UDFAs, which is why in the past he's been so willing to abandon those picks in order to move up for higher-quality talent.
You'd like to think the picks from rounds 5-7 are on average better prospects than the UDFA'S..but recent history says that certain teams(including the Jets) have been very successful developing Undrafted guys & other teams young cast offs. So in Tanny's world, the early rounds become about adding true impact players & later round picks are more about ammo.
The idea that the first 100 UDFA's are as good as the last 100 drafted players makes no sense though. It discounts the notion that people as a group are able to sort through the chaff and find the better values when given the chance. One team making that last 100 picks might somehow not find better players than the 100 they left unchosen but 32 teams? There's no way that the UDFA's are as good as the 100 people they take.
You don't need 100 UDFAs to be better than the last 100 picks. You just need to get a couple guys that can contribute to the team. And I don't think there's that much of a drop-off. That's what Tannenbaum has always believed in. I think it's a good theory, though I'd like to keep our 1-4 round picks if possible, because I do think there's a clear dropoff after that.
Moore, Scott, Mauga and Tevaseu are the first that come to mind. I know there are some backup OLs, DBs and WRs on the current roster, but they probably are just camp fodder.
If UDFA's are that good why is the Jets depth so bad at key positions? It's not like you can't go sign UDFA's and develop them but the only positions the Jets are not shallow at are the ones where they have spent their draft picks and signed pro free agents. I call bullshit on Tannenbaum's theory. If it was not bullshit we wouldn't have watched an unschooled UDFA at center last year when Mangold went down. We wouldn't have watched the spectacle of Wayne Hunter at RT all year when it was clear he couldn't handle the job. We wouldn't have watched Slauson play half the season with a badly mangled arm and shoulder, causing more problems. We wouldn't have watched our safeties get torn to shreds by opposing tight ends all year. It sounds really good but once the theory hits the field it isn't. Are you listening Mike Tannenbaum and learning from your mistakes or are we going to go through more shit like this year after year until Woody has to fire you?
OK, that's three guys over the last 8 years. I'll bet we could name 3 udfa over the past 8 years from most positions. The way Don talks, it sounds like we should be able to rip off the names of several receivers from each draft class.
Well, the issue is you can plug holes with UDFAs for a while, but eventually you need more. That time has come where we need more talent. The reason our depth sucks is because of our 2-4 round picks not being up to par/not existing. 2008: Dwight Lowery in round 4 - Was good depth for a while then we traded him. No other picks in rounds 2-4. For argument's sake, you can include Dustin Keller here because we used our high picks to move up for him in late round 1, and he's been fine, but that's it. 2009: Shonn Greene in round 3 - Solid back, but he's the only guy we got in those rounds. We used the other picks to move up for Sanchez. 2010: Vladimir Ducasse and Joe McKnight - I haven't given up on Ducasse entirely, but until now, he's been useless. McKnight is a solid slash player, but he's not a guy you trust to be a starter. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about Trent Richardson. 2011: Kenrick Ellis and Bilal Powell - The jury's completely out on Ellis. Personally, I liked that pick, but he's a project and wasn't ready to contribute much last season. Powell showed absolutely nothing last year. So in 4 years, in 12 rounds, we ended up with: Solid starters: Dustin Keller* and Shonn Greene Decent depth: Joe McKnight and Dwight Lowery Jury's still out: Vlad Ducasse, Kenrick Ellis and Bilal Powell In 4 years in the middle rounds, we got 2 guys who are NFL starters, and both of whom we're looking half-heartedly to replace. That's why we don't have depth. In rounds 5-7, the only players we've had that have been remotely useful in the last 10 years have been: 2011: Kerley (5) 2010: Connor (5) 2007: Stuckey (7, wasn't very useful for us, but we got some value for him) 2006: Drew Coleman (6) 2005: Joel Dreessen (6, and not for us) 2004: Erik Coleman (5) and Derrick Ward (7, and not for us) 2002: Jonathan Goodwin (5) Sad part is from 1998-2001, we had a lot more late picks and we had NO ONE useful with those picks. And in the last 10 years, we got Decent NFL starters: Drew Coleman and Goodwin (and not for us), maybe Connor, too, but that's a FB Depth: Everyone else To me, finding guys in rounds 6 and 7 especially is not much different than the UDFA pool at that point. There are a few diamonds in the rough, but for every Wes Welker, there are 20 Scotty McKnights.
When I said Tevaseu, I was thinking about Pitoitua. Forgot about Bellore and Dixon. For some reason I thought Dallas drafted Dixon. When I checked, he was an Undrafted FA also. Good pickups.
