pure ignorance of the history of the NFL draft. you don't need high round picks to reload with talent. if you want to reload with talent you need a lot of picks. it is quantity of picks you need, not where you draft because great players get drafted in almost every round. beyond that, if the team bombs this season it means the talent they have is absolutely terrible and they need a lot more players to be successful than a team with middle of the road success which may only need a few players to make a difference. why the hell would you want the players on the team this season to not develop to be good players? just fucking stupid. if sucking and getting high picks was the solution, every team that sucked 5 or 6 years ago would be Super Bowl contenders? are they? fuck no. you need to build a team, sometimes slowly and steadily. the NFL isn't the NBA where you suck, jettison salaries, then put all your eggs in one basket for a player or two that have a significant impact.
because it would show this team isn't that far away and may only need a few more players. the question to you is why the hell would you not want the Jets to be closer to being great and only need a few players, and prefer them to suck and need many players? isn't the point to be good? you have to be good before you can be great. why the hell would you want to suck just to have to build up to good, and then take the next step to great, when you may already be good to begin with? sucking for draft picks has nothing to do with you wanting to have a good team, you just want to be excited for the draft.
Ignorance of the HISTORY of the draft eh? Actually I'm a professor of history.... And one of my best friends and colleague wrote a history of the NFL. Now, the only other point I am going to reply to your rebuttal of what you allude to as my "fucking stupid" message is this: if teams do not needs quality draft picks to either become or stay good then why are good teams virtually impossible to maintain? If you are aware of your HISTORY then you would know that this is particularly valid before the era of the free agent and salary cap era. Just accummulate a couple dozen low round picks and you'll be the 49ers from the '80s, right? Except EVERY one of these mega teams--the '60s Packers, Cowboys, '70s Vikes, Buffalo Bills--they all required at least modest building periods followed by REBUILDING once their initial team began retiring. And without free agents to fill the gaps they needed to trade and develop. Today you can fill with free agency, but you lose as well, so it is a wash; it is the salary cap that keeps any one team from really dominating. So then how can a team try to get around this to become good for an extended period? Develop from within. And this requires picks.... And these picks had better be good to help build the core of the team. Low picks are fantastic for finding hidden jewels, but if you are trying to build a team around those hidden jewels then you are very foolish indeed. Look up the statistics on NFL success by draft round and before lecturing me or anyone else on draft history.... EDIT: BTW your very point is self-defeating. If you believe that this from office is capable of finding talent in low round picks then there is nothing more valuable than, say, a high round first rounder to trade down and accumulate more of said picks. If you do not believe the FO can turn water into wine then they need quality picks just like everyone else. Either way your argument is wrong-headed.
//Aewhistory>> I'd say that 1. You need as many picks as possible WITHIN THE FIRST THREE ROUNDS. (That's top 100.) Some extend the boundary to four, but that's their taste. 2. If you can agree with #1 above, you will then easily see why I am on board with your pessimism. During the past 6 drafts, Jets drafted 16, out of possible 24. (That's after counting 4th rounders in the mix.) Cro ate up two, and the likes of Kris Jenkins (aging vets) ate up some more. (So did Braylon.) That means 8 quality bodies on the roster we are talking about. All of a sudden you can easily see why this team is so talent-depleted. 3. For the umpteenth time: building the team through free agency has EPIC FAIL written all over it. Trust me. It will surely fail in due time. 4. #3 places heavy premium on a. draft picks and b. coaching staff. Jets suck at scouting department so Jets fail at both ends. No wonder this team is mired in mediocrity for years. 5. Lastly: getting playoffs will not mean jack squat. The Jets squad this year cannot go toe to toe against the big boys. Jets won't beat the big boys come playoff time. They must consistently show they can hang tight and beat them - which Jets did not do during the past few seasons.
Zach, I absolutely agree. It is explicitly to get picks in the earlier rounds that I'd prefer to see this season sacrificed. For the sake if argument, if we had, say, the number 3 pick, we could turn that into a few good picks in the first three rounds. If we had number 20 we couldn't do that. Instead we would end up with a collection of 7th rounders. We have had plenty of these low round picks in recent years and they have yielded virtually nothing. (I say "virtually" nothing because I might be overlooking someone, but I think these picks actually have yielded zip! I need to double check.) This brings up another point on which you and I agree: this front office must go. Obviously there is no point sacrificing this season only to hand over magnificent picks to the dingbat in charge. What the responder above fails to understand, and perhaps he is not alone, is that even the Patriots--the poster children for collecting draft picks to maintain quality--said this year that they believe their recent inability to win the Super Bowl has been because they have chosen quantity over quality in regard to the draft. As a consequence, they traded away quantity this year and traded up hoping to land quality. So it isn't that accumulating draft picks is a bad strategy per se, but to argue that collecting a bunch of low round picks will be fine to build a team around is utter nonsense. The most successful team in the past decade AND the most successful team to EVER employ that strategy has even acknowledged this flaw. What we need, and you've hit the nail n the head Zach, is -quality- picks. And if we could have a quantity of quality picks all the better, but quality first. As an aside, you make an interesting point about Cro and other vets being brought in in place of picks. Some folks argue that they should count as our 'picks' in those circumstances. It seems like you disagree. I've been on the fence about that for ages myself.
Coples had 1.5 sacks today. God Tanny sucks at drafting! Let's tank the season now that we're finally starting to click.
Except with the possible exception of 3-3 New England there are no big boys in the AFC. We showed we can play with Houston and Baltimore just lost two huge defensive pieces for the year.
Not if I beat her to him! He is one sweet hunk of manliness! Sorry, I can't even write that without chuckling a little. Sometimes I actually feel bad for him.... And then I remember 4-28. But seriously, my wife is pretty sympathetic to Jets fans. She is from Atlanta and while she has adopted the Jets as her team, she still has a fondness for the Falcons. There aren't many teams that rival the Jets for frustration, but Atlanta tries hard. Of course, they seem to have put that behind them at the moment. Owell, she's a Jet fan now.... She is stuck with us!
Geez. After 50 years of watching football, and seeing all sorts of crazy things happen across many seasons, you wanted the team to tank and start a complete rebuild because you thought its situation was hopeless after a 2-3 start? I find that mind boggling.
If Cro had good 4-5 year rookie deal when he was acquired through the trade, then I would have no problem with that. Even when you extend a player, you just do not give him the "fair market value" per se - that's a modus operandi destined to fail. (I have explained extensively why building a roster out of free agency is destined to fail long time ago - you should look it up if you want to know the logic behind it.) But at least Cro is still here, contributing (he did mightily past few weeks.) How about Kris Jenkins? (3rd/5th, but count his 3rd for now.) How about Braylon Edwards? (Again, 3rd and 5th, along with Stucky, who was developing nicely as a slot receiver - that's two picks from the get-go.) Picks used on these vets have completely evaporated, with almost no compensation. (Don't give me that bullshit compensatory pick crap. It does not work that way anyway.) Hence the talent depletion. Their vacant spot meant Jets had to address that need in the draft later anyway. (Kenrick Ellis/Stephen Hill - both out of quality picks, 3rd and 2nd respectively.) So I question, why blow a pick when you will end up spending another quality pick on the very same spot years later? It is not even like Jenkins pick survived 5 years. Good DLs remain on the roster much longer than just 5 years. Jets got one good year out of Kris Jenkins, then it was all downhill from there. Smart investment? My fucking ass. Jets shelled huge cash on Pace and Scott, and spent good chunk on Bryan Thomas (before this season.) I still don't think Jets got their money's worth out of that LB corp. And David Harris is highly overpaid. No wonder Jets defense at second level is pathetic. And don't even get me started on the safeties. That's good 5 starter quality bodies. Jets could surely use some of the draft picks they eventually lost in there, don't you think? So are you suggesting a superbowl played by AFC teams only? That could certainly work, no doubt.
I'm going to go ahead and put the Patriots game as a must win... just to shut these negative trolls up. It's really sickening how on this site after a loss it's the end of the world and after a win it's only because the other team sucks. How the fuck can people have such bad attitudes? I don't get it.
That's exactly how it is in NY media, so you should easily guess where those people take their lead. Or perhaps where those people work?
These threads are the weakest. If we go 8-8 it means we are not that bad of a team, and that problems are fixable, which they are. If you give Rex just enough talent he can go deep with it. Who the hell wants to watch a 2-14 season? I'm doing my best refraining from personal attacks right now, because the thought of wanting things to go worse than they actually should is totally fucking idiotic. Your worried about this team not addressing major issues just because they don't go 3-13? If these guys are truly professionals they will reason that even if they go 9-7 that there are major issues to address, I would hope. Tannenbaum slipped up this season, but I don't expect him to to do so again next offseason regardless of our record. Or we can fire everybody because that has worked out for us so many times in the past! No continuity whatsoever.
no, it is pure ignorance. show me which of the lat 15 Super Bowl winners were the result of a team completely bombing a season and then simply restocking in that single draft. of the last 15 champions, only 4 won less than 5 games within the 5 years prior to winning -- the Giants, Saints, Packers and Ravens, and only the Ravens 1996 draft can be considered a restocking of talent that directly led to the Super Bowl with Ray Lewis and Ogden. Super Bowls are not won because you restock via the draft in direct combination with having a terrible season (and getting high draft picks) because great players that are difference makers can be found throughout the first few rounds no matter where you draft, and even in later rounds if you get lucky. what you want is for the talent the Jets have to be so bad that they aren't worth keeping, and then replacing them with draft picks from one draft. that's ridiculous. please show me multiple examples of a Super Bowl team that was built this way (I can only think of the 90's Cowboys, and one example is an exception, not a rule). every other team has certainly had a bad season, but the ascent to championship cannot be connected to a "restocking" of talent in one single draft. how you win a Super Bowl is by hitting on draft choices, regardless of where they are drafted, that add to the talent on the team. the key factor being having talent on the team. just because the Jets may not be great so far this season doesn't mean the talent on the team cannot get better and carry over to next season, and then the Jets can add to that growing talent with good draft picks. what you want is for the players to be so bad that they aren't worth having, and then hoping you will hit on every draft pick and be better. the history of the draft shows that to not be realistic. I would rather the Jets have talent now, even if they haven't reached their full potential, and win games on that ascending talent, and then adding even more good players to the existing talent which will take the team to the next level. why would you not want the current Jets players to be good enough to win games and be a base to build upon? because you have some fantasy idea about the draft that is ridiculous.
U are out of your mind Woody has to change his whole staff??? 2 out of 3 seasons we almost went to the Superbowl we had one bad season,the Giants missed the playoffs for two years then won the Superbowl, they stuck with there coach there players and there staff and look at them now. This team lost to 3 of the best teams in the league, and we have only gotten better since the 49ers loss. If we make the playoffs and go on a run id love to see what dumb thread you make then you flipfloppinng fool
Tell you what, I will answer your post once you do this: show me where I said that I thought this team would restock in a single draft. This should be easy as I only have a few dozen posts. Or perhaps what you will find is that I said a good, high draft pick draft will HELP us restock the team. Such a big difference, eh? In fact, what I am proposing is a slow rebuild, using multiple drafts over a number of years, but for some reason you've failed to grasp this. Instead you label my posts as ignorance when, in fact, you agree with parts.... and then attack other parts by either twisting what I have said or simply creating points out of thin air and ascribing them to me. Btw, I'll help your search: in posts 37 and 38 I wrote that I would wait patiently for this team to rebuild (you've indicated that I want a quick rebuild numerous times) and that this concept for a draft of high picks would HELP us restock (implying it would supply either some new, young talent or in a best case scenario a small new core around which we could rebuild the team). Nowhere did I say one draft and we are done. I do believe that a strong draft of high quality core players, properly developed and supplemented over time, is the best way to develop this team. And if you think that is the wrong way to develop a team then you, my friend, are the ignorant fan here..... NOTE: 'only' 4 out of 15 teams amounts to 27%. In other words, just over one in four of the last Super Bowl winners have done, or gone through, the exact process that I am proposing as defined by you. Do you really think that is a stat that supports your point? If anything it is a strong indication that this is the correct path for the Jets to move from decent to dominant.
how the hell do you wish that on your team? that would be a solid reason why we havnt won shit in 40 years
I'll add something to my above post before I head out to teach today: the Rams won in 1999. The prior year they were 4-12 and the two years before that were hardly spectacular at 6-10 ('96) and 5-11 ('97). The last two of those three years were under Vermeil and he (IMO) built a very good team largely with his own drafts (two) and by finding excellent talent (eg- a certain overlooked QB). IMHO, had the Rams not 'pushed' him to 'retire' in favor of Martz the Rams would have been a dynasty instead of winner just one Lombardi. So that would be a fifth team of the past fifteen that have won four or less games in the years leading up to their SB wins. That is a cool one third. Thanks for the lead on this stat JB. I need to do a more critical analysis of these teams, but these are strong indicators that stocking up via the draft with quality young guns prior to a Super Bowl run is one of the predominant successful strategies to taking home a Lombardi nowadays.
The Rams traded for Marshall Faulk and found Kurt Warner under a rock for 1999. You cannot use them as an example of anything else that would work for anybody else because the opportunity to trade for one of the 5 best running backs of all time at the age of 26 is unique. Nobody else has ever had the opportunity to do that before or since.
