This is the most logical and best response I've seen all night. For that I thank you. I understand your viewpoint. Judging from our cap alone Mangold and Brick are towards the end while Mo and Richardson are ready to fill in. If the right people are running the show kindve like Seattle is doing now we should be fine with the cap. Mo doesn't look like he's getting paid this year and can be tagged next year. There are ways around it especially on a team without a QB. As for the Niners man that's just bad luck no team can expect something like that. If Mo and Sheldon were older I would understand this pick more but our O-Line is terrible, we don't have a QB, Marshall has 2-3 more years at WR, we haven't had a 3-4 OLB in forever, and we take the only position we are absolutely solid at. If we had less needs I could understand.
2 different type of safety prospects but they were very close in terms of overall grades. I would of had Ha-Ha higher on my board because of our needs but I don't think it's crazy to think that a team would have rated Pryor over Ha Ha. That's why BPA is a tricky thing. Let's say it wasn't close and Pryor was head and shoulders above Ha Ha, would he still be the better pick when you already had 3 guys on the roster with his skill set but desperately needed what Ha Ha brought to the table?
IMO that's being too short-sighted. More than likely Harrison and Coples will be gone next year ( Coples might even be moved this draft ) . Wilkerson is also a question mark. However, this year, the bigger issue would be if Bowles does not play to his personnel and their strengths. We should see a lot more of 4-down lineman.. Instead of drafting an EDGE OLB for a 'typical' 3-4 base, we now have the personnel to run 4-2-5 as our 'base'. We have the DL and DBs to make it work and give this pass-happy league a different look. Wilkerson - Harrison - Richardson - Williams for running downs. Wilkerson - Richardson - Williams - Coples/Babin for passing downs. I do not see how 5OL block those 4 consistently. Who do you double? Add in Bowles' blitzing... our Revis led secondary... I'm excited for this defense.
Key part of my statement was I didn't think that Pryor was even the best safety still on the board, implying that there were better players than safety on the board. at that point, for example Bridgewater.
Hmmm. By "won't work" I mean that the BPA system is defined entirely by grouping or separating players from each other, with a player being BPA because of an agreed upon "distance" (whether it be a full tier or certain amount of grading points) above the rest of the field. If you're wrong with the grade/tier you assign, the "distances" between players on your board are going to be inaccurate and lead to selections based on false data. In the scenario you outlined, I think the problem is that we never had a consistent application of a well-graded BPA system over our years as fans. Regimes were both stupid and constantly changing personnel/approach. If you are truly good at your job and grading the draft pool with a fairly high-degree of accuracy, Pryor wouldn't be the only pro-bowler on the roster - there would be quality depth all over the place after multiple drafts of getting positive results, so the idea of having a potentially quality player like AA on the bench and/or not developed becomes much less of an issue. I feel like with a roster as relatively spotty as the Jets, and with a pick as high as the #6, the goal should build that talent base first and foremost. They need assets - both on the field and on the phone (aka GMs chatting) - and they need to accumulate them over multiple years to get the roster to a much more healthy, stable, and sustainable place. I hoped Tanny was that guy, I hoped Idzik was that guy, and now I've put my fandom in Mac's hands to be that guy. Hopefully he is.
Even so, Bridgewater went 32nd so a lot of teams besides the Jets did not think he was BPA, wrongfully so or not. My point is even if Pryor was the consensus BPA, I'm not so sure it would have been the best pick considering his game, our roster at the time and our needs. Whether he was really the BPA IYO, is moot with regards to my question.
considering the poor scouting that seems evident from those two seasons I'd have a hard time going with that. In a pass first league a safety that can't cover in no way can be considered a better prospect than the one who can cover. And even let us suppose, for a moment that Haha and him were relatively even and were the BPA on the board at the time, the Jets didn't need a traditional strong safety to play in the box, they had that.
Let's pretend we have been correct with our grade and thus distances between players. Being that a team is forever at the mercy of the selections of teams picking above them-sans having the number 1 every year-what's to stop you from picking the same position over and over again if each time your "correct" board tells you it's BPA? I'd be inclined to agree with the assets theory during the Idzik years but our roster is pretty healthy at the moment except for a few spots, QB being most glaring.
Macc said some very revealing things in his presser. He said his philosophy is simple as far as what his job is: add talented players regardless of position. I disagree with him. His job is to intelligently construct a roster that can win and win big. Look at the GS Warriors (my favorite NBA team). Warriors have one of the most well-crafted rosters in the league. The players all fit the system, and even the bench / role players are pretty good and can contribute from Iguodala to David Lee and Mo Speights all the way down to big Festus. Warriors wouldn't invest another top-7 pick in a PG (or G for that matter, since they have Klay) since they already have Steph Curry. It wouldn't make sense because the guy would get at most 15-20 mins off the bench every night. Bowles just said they're still a 3-4 team which means you can't really maximize the use of the player unless you deal Mo or Sheldon (or just let Mo walk in FA for nothing). Now this is no knock against Williams at all. He looks amazing.
The bold is my exactly my point. I don't see how one can build a complete and comprehensive roster going exclusively BPA. An element of need and/or avoiding redundancy has to come into play at some point.
Incorrect, in BPA if you have two players graded essentially equally, as you stated they were close, then need is the tie breaker.
I would love to have seen us pass on Mariota for Williams becuase he was BPA. We got extremely lucky that Winston, Mariota, and Cooper were taken. Imagine one of them and Williams available and we still chose Williams because of "BPA." Would've been an awesome scene.
I was hoping that you'd make up some stupid nickname for Williams like "Coples 2.0" or something because it would make me feel better about him, but I am optimistic that you disagree with Macc, that makes me thinks he really has a good philosophy.
All that said I would have preferred a trade back if a suitable offer was there, but lacking a suitable offer I won't argue BPA.
Cooper was probably rated close enough to williams to go need as a tie breaker. QB is probably the one time you step away from BPA if a QB you believe in is on the board, but that's the exception and not the rule.
They waited until the last second to make the selection, I would have liked a trade back for some good value but there probably want any to be had. There have been a few trades but nothing aggressive so far. If the decision is a bad value trade or taking BPA you take the player I had convinced myself to like the idea of trading up for MM but what the Jets would have given up would have been ridiculous and probably not worth it no matter what his groupies may think
Another thing is this: salary cap Investing so heavily in one position hurts your ability to address holes at other positions. You can't afford to pay Mo and Sheldon and Leonard ultimately what they are each going to demand. Which means you're gonna basically be forced to deal one of them pretty soon. Williams will be on a rookie deal but at #6 overall it will be at a non-trivial number.
Tanny's, or according to some Mangini's 2009 and 2010 rosters were, short lived yes, but properly constructed and balanced. We didn't have a gluttony at any one position or a ton of Pro-Bowlers but not too many glaring weaknesses.
