the same Conner Cook who will be available in the second round? probably third round? yeah, let's waste a first round pick on players you can get elsewhere and skip players you will never see again if you don't draft them.
Fair point but is there a hidden or under appreciated value in trading down for more players even when you are not getting the compensation one would expect? Could quantity be better than quality in this instance if you really not that in love with the BPA? I feel like both the Titans and Jets picked a player that was a consolation prize to not being able to trade down. IMO the bust potential is greater when an organization is not completely enamored and on board with the pick. Ideally, you'd want them to be running to hand the card in because that is the guy they wanted all along.
I don't even understand this post but the Connor Cook comment was sarcasm. I thought that was pretty obvious since he was not in this draft.
Boy you are dense. They were close so I said it was not at the realm of realty that the Jets had Pryor ahead of Ha Ha even though you and I had the reverse. So if Pryor is ahead there is no need for a tie breaker if you follow a strict BPA philosophy.
Yeah man I don't think he's going to be taken in the 2nd round either. 3rd is a tough call but seeing that he didn't declare I'm going to have to say that's probably not going to happen either. Maybe the 5th though.
It's prolly not so much the player than the circumstances. Don't see how that projects him into bust material. You play the hand you're given.
In theory nothing is to stop them from picking the same position over and over again. However, the mathematical odds of a DL being the ONLY player in a specific tier, or at a certain amount of grading points above everyone else in the draft at the Jets 1st round pick for years on end are so low as to be irrelevant. I think our roster can actually look good in snapshot form, but back to the whole crazy rate of attrition in the NFL, I think you almost have to have a constant feeder system into ALL positions in order to truly have continuity in your team's roster health. I think anytime an NFL GM is dismissive of legitimate talent based solely on the notion that they "have enough at that position", they're inviting big time trouble. Because of this, I think anytime you have the opportunity to draft legitimately elite talent, you have to take it. And by legitimately elite, I mean a noticeably higher chance of being/becoming elite than the other players you're considering. You simply cannot get a pick wrong if it ends up being an elite player, no matter who else you have on your roster, and if the Jets proprietary scouting reports had Williams as a clearly better chance at being elite over White/Beasley/whomever (which all public scouting reports showed), then I love that they are pursuing that. The key though (in my book) is his ascension to elite status, or more simply its likelihood. In 18 months if Williams is regarded as one of the best young DL in the NFL, nobody is going to care who we passed over for him (with the one exception being a franchise QB, which is obviously not the case here). I always think about the 2007 NFL draft - the Vikings had the league's 9th leading rusher coming off a 1,200 yard season in Chester Taylor, and glaring holes on the DLine. Peterson fell to them at the 7th pick, they pounced, and just a season later nobody could give a sh*t that DL were taken with 5 of the next 10 picks after they selected Peterson because he had already shown he was a legitimately elite talent. Granted they effed up a whole lot in subsequent years, but getting the elite talent onto the roster at the expense of a glaring hole did not hurt them in itself. Tomorrow I'm going to try and go through scouting grades on DEs for the last decade or so and see what I find to perhaps give some indication of just how much distance the Jets may have seen between Williams and the field. Should be interesting (hopefully).
Guess we'll never know. Believe a report said he was 3rd on the board or top 3 on the board either way I would've loved to have seen that meltdown.
I don't know; I'm thinking an organization is less likely to be fully invested in the development of a reluctant draft pick than let's say one they traded up for. For example, if the reports are true the Eagles were about to trade half their team for Mariota. I think they would be more invested than the Titans who really was not that keen in drafting him. I think it's human nature. It's just a theory; I could be way off base.
You're talking like you sit in war rooms and know how successful draft picks go down every day, spare me, guy. The Jets had a guy who was a consensus top player of the draft drop into their laps and if they had a plan, which I believe they did, they tried to get teams who coveted a player of that caliber to give them best value. He's a player that plays the general position of two of their best players, so it made sense that they would try to get value. I'm guessing the teams they talked to tried to call their bluff and see if the Jets would pass on his so they could jump on him later, but the Jets didn't. We are both spitballing on scenarios but I'm pretty sure mine sounds a lot better than the idealistic stuff you want me to believe.
This is where most people are going off the rails. Wilkerson is signed this year. We can franchise him in 2016 if we want to. That means we aren't forced to deal with any of them for at least 3 years! In 3 years this is a whole different team. Marshall, Mangold, D'brick, Revis, Ivory, and god knows who else will most likely be gone. Getting rid of Mo, a great player and the heart and soul of our defense, because you are worried about what might happen in 3 years is absolute madness. Lets enjoy our fantastic defense for the next 2 years and work on getting a decent, reliable QB and some offensive tools instead of breaking it up for no good reason.
I'm not gonna worry about that. This is a great kid that they're gonna fully invest in. I don't see them short changing anything here. The guy plays any where on the line too. Maybe Snacks is odd man out next year
Aww, no the insults of 'dense'. No, if the players are rated equal then need is a tie breaker, if they're very close then need is a tie breaker, if it's not close then need should never even enter in to the equation.
The 2007 Viking example is actually a perfect test case for the question I'm raising. Is drafting a HOF RB count as a better pick than one that would yield more team success? Ditka thought Ricky Williams, who arguable was one of the best collegiate RBs to enter the draft, was going duplicate his success and production in the pros. So much so he famously traded his entire draft for the pick to draft him. Lets say Williams did pan out, would that have made it a good trade? What's the measure of a successful pick and/or personnel move the individuals' performance or the impact on the team?
That may almost be true, and I really doubt it, but now Chip Kelly is stuck with 4 players he wanted to ditch for a rookie QB and he has also dismantled the half of the team he didn't try to trade. Are you really telling me that Chip Fucking Kelly is ahead of the curve as far as idealism is concerned? He'll be coaching in NCAA a year from now.
I don't have an issue with the pick. In fact, I posted a week ago that I would draft Williams if the board fell exactly how it did and we could not trade down. I specifically said the value would be too good to pass. I was just spitballing, like you said, if sometimes taking a slightly undervalue trade down that still gives you additional picks would better than taking the "value". If I was sitting in war rooms, I would NOT pose rhetorical questions rather declarative statements. Since you asked, you are spared. As you were.
I think the problem was everything they did afterwards. That Peterson pick was an undeniable homerun. Anytime you can get elite production from ANY draft pick you've done your job...with that pick. If you don't stay consistent in the way you add players/talent going forward it means nothing and you're likely one and done on successes. I can't get the bold italics of my phone now. Oh well, going to bed then. See you guys tomorrow.
Thank you for sparing me, although I'm guessing that you will carry on with this narrative for weeks if not years while you watch your player of choice longingly on another team in our conference and find future ways to spitball about how the team you follow isn't doing things ideally.
