A lot of teams will be looking at the shiny new quarterbacks, the turbo charged pass rushers, or the flashy running backs. It is entirely possible that one of the three safeties will be there at # 18. Assuming for a moment that we know one of them will be there how much do we lose if we get the third safety off the board instead the second best at # 6?
Too many teams are looking for that free safety that has amazing range. It's a huge talent gap between the first 2 safeties and the next guy. Peppers won't be a safety at the next level; or he won't be a good one. If they aren't interested in one of the safeties, I don't mind the trade-down, but getting an Ed Reed like safety is something I can't see the Jets passing up on. Adams, he can do it all, he's extremely special too. They play so much faster on film. It's a dangerous thing to do in this draft.
I don't think you can hold to any "scientific" formula like that. I agree that you need to take the BPA, BUT it also depends on the relative impact that player will have for you. Taking another Williams-like DL even if he's the BPA doesn't give you more value than taking a somewhat lesser BPA who does fill a pressing need. And like it or not, not all positions are created equally - getting the best BPA who happens to be a CB doesn't give you more impact than a somewhat lesser BPA edge rusher, or even FS, let alone talking about QB, RB, or TE (on this particular team). Like any formula, if you hold slavishly to it, it will backfire. If sports was only about statistics and formulas we wouldn't have the surprises and upset we love, but there is a significant element of "hunch" that has to be considered, and the ones who possess an ability to have good hunches and follow them win championships.
A lot depends on where that pick is at for a team like the Jets that need help in many areas. At #6 they are in enviable position to grab a player that will be a day 1 starter. You can do your DD to determine where the strengths are in this years draft, but to get a sure bet first day starter? You don't pass that up. To draft a player for need that may be a project in the making at #6 is ludicrous.
It's just something that I have come up with, it's not scientific, I think it's more-so common sense. You don't just draft the BPA, you have to somewhat consider some need in the equation, a small percentage. That's why Hooker is top 3 in the draft board and a player like Allen isn't. Jets don't need anymore interior lineman so selecting an interior lineman doesn't fit this philosophy. Hooker is top 3 on the draft board, there's nothing that can be done to change that cause if you look at the tape, he's easily one of the BPAs that fit a need.
Same applies to a Jamal Adams. Calvin Pryor's contract is soon to expire and he hasn't shown the ability to hold down the position. I would trade Pryor in 5 seconds if it meant having Adams play SS. He fills a need (small % at the time as Pryor is on the team) and is BPA.
It's a mystery to me why Pryor took a step back in his progress from 2015. I think he deserves at least a shot with the new coach Wilson. Big disapointment, for sure
He looked a step slower on the field, I think maybe he gained some weight? Also, they had him playing farther away from the box / middle of the field and that limits his effectiveness. Pryor has to be closer to the ball, if he's playing single high safety it's a recipe for disaster. That's why I want Hooker on the Jets because that will allow Pryor to do what he does best. There's no other safety in this draft that has that level of range Hooker has.
I see a lot of good points and posts in this thread by 101GangGreen, ColoradoContrails, and James Hasty. I don't think your posts are mutually exclusive of each other in every case. Trading down and getting an extra pick can be great. Sometimes adding two very good players rather than one great one, can help your team more. At other times, adding that one great one helps more. I think it depends upon the players, the positions they play, and your team needs (not only position-wise, but in terms of leadership on the field, and play making ability). Ramczyk isn't an impact player, but he can quite possibly negate other team's play-making pass rusher and keep our QB upright and healthy. Would trading down, getting Ramczyk and say Taco Charlton or Raekwon McMillian help the team more than adding Garret, Foster, Hooker, Adams or Fournette? I don't know. On the surface it seems that it might, as it would address two weaknesses on the team and would improve the level of the play at those two positions, but how high would it raise that level of play? Would it be just average, slightly above average, pretty good, or perhaps approach greatness? I think with any of those elite, impact players, we pretty much know and will expect that greatness will be the answer. On defense I can see Garrett, Hooker, Adams, Foster and maybe Barnett being real difference makers for the Jets. I think not only would they help by improving play at and solidifying weaker positions on the team, but would help with the overall scheming of the D. We all know what a difference a big sack in a crucial part of the game can make in a team. How it can boost their confidence and make the rest of the team play harder. We also know how a big interception, a big hit, and guys who are fiery players who not only lead with their play but with their voices as well can turn things around in a game and make the other players around them better. On offense, I can see Fournette, Watson (if he is the real deal), and maybe Howard and/or Williams who have similar potential. Howard and Williams less so, because I don't think they would have as big an impact as often as Fournette could in firing up the team. Watson, I see more as a steadying influence who doesn't get down and give up. He stays calm and confident and helps keep his teammates focused. The problem I have with Watson right now, as I still don't see him as a true FQB. He possibly could develop into one, but I don't see his going in the top 10, and maybe not the top 20 right now. I don't think Kizer or Trubisky even belong in the QB conversation. I'll be pissed if the Jets take either (especially Kizer). I think Mahomes belongs more in the QB conversation than either Kizer or Trubisky. If Fournette can stay healthy and can play like he did in 2015, there's no question that he would make the offense much more potent and powerful. My problem is that is more "iffy" than the impact that Garrett, Hooker, Adams and Foster would make. I'm certain of the impact they would make on the D and team. I could be wrong. As much as we need to address the offense in the first round, I'm just not sure this is the right draft to go offense in the first round. Colorado has a point that the top offensive talent will go earlier, but the Jets could still get a quality TE and a very good RB somewhere in the 2nd-4th rounds that would make the offense a lot better, add a FA on offense or two, and it be better (assuming that Morton will be at least competent at his job).
Hasty I don't know all of the players you list here, but am familiar with most of their names. I have some quibbles with your rankings. IMO Trubisky doesn't belong anywhere near the top tier. Hooker, Fournette, Adams and Foster ALL belong in the top tier. Howard may as well, or at least in tier 2A. By virtue of his play, the importance of the position and by Jets need, Barnett probably belongs in tier 2A. Peppers might belong in tier 2B based on sheer athleticism and return ability, but not based on positional play. Some of the players you list play positions we don't need or are better suited to a 4-3 D alignment imo, so that would rule out several of them. Njoku might be a great receiving TE prospect, be I believe he's undersized and not a blocker, so is not a player the Jets should even seriously consider imo. They need 2-way TEs, not just receiving TEs. If he's there and the overwhelming BPA at the Jets pick in the 2nd round, then they need to trade down. As I'm sure you know, the rankings of your players could, and probably will change considerably by draft time.
I think this is the crux of the problem. It's harder to assess - and guarantee - that a skill position player will succeed than a defender, and so everyone wants that "guarantee" and so they push to draft "D". But you really have to ask yourself: "Who will make the biggest impact?" Many who have championed Hooker as the likely BPA at #6, are quick to dismiss his serious injury, and yet they are also quick to point out that Fournette was injured, although his injury doesn't sound as serious. But you don't want to take a chance on Fournette, but you will roll the dice on Hooker? Step back though and answer the question: Who would make the biggest impact on the current Jets team? Assuming both are healthy, you have to say an elite RB makes the bigger impact on the TEAM, not just the "O".
This is only true in the short term window you are thinking in. If we are completely realistic we are going to be in the bottom portion of the league in terms of who is most capable of making it to the big dance this upcoming season. You have to look at things from a talent standpoint first, then you look at it from a long term perspective, followed closely by the short term perspective for this football team. Like I've mentioned before. Without the Leo pick, we don't have such a luxury option in dealing SR to another team. He becomes a much bigger concern because of his fuckfard antics off the field and we wouldn't have much of an upgrade at the position otherwise. Instead, we do have options, he has no leverage and we have arguably a better positional player in Leo to replace his ass. We not only have lacked quality talent on this team for awhile now, we've also been very poor with depth as well. After this past season and all the injuries we endured, I would think this fan base would identify the importance of having solid depth players. That's why the consistent teams are so consistent, it's because of their solid drafting and depth at key positions. That's why the Patriots routinely have the ability to trade away players that most teams wouldn't dare trade away. Drafting for need is never a good idea when you could draft a blue chip player instead. Regardless of position and the strength or weakness it may be for this roster. You go with the guy who gives you the best chance to be an impact player for this, on a consistent basis, and for the long haul. You don't just draft a guy because the short term outlook at that position looks poor, that's when you get stuck with mediocre talent and cap space that could've been used towards someone that can make a significant contribution to the team.
The problem as I see it, Colorado, is that aside from his present injuries for which he needs surgery, I'm not aware of any injury history with Hooker (but I may be mistaken). Fournette OTOH, has missed a lot of games, and been pretty silent in some big games in which he has played. The reality is that RBs can take a beating. If they're the type that seeks to avoid taking hard hits, ala CuMar, they can stay pretty healthy and last longer. If their style of running not only doesn't always seek to avoid contact, but instead often seeks to initiate it, or at least doesn't shy away from it, they are more likely to stay banged up, suffer more serious injuries, and have shorter careers. IMO when you take a player at #6 in the draft, you want him with your team for at least 8, if not 10 years. Few RBs last that long. Fournette could, but with his style of play, I think he is more likely to miss more games and be limited in others due to injuries. I believe this past season he suffered with a high ankle sprain. Those can be debilitating. I just read on sportsmd.com that if one tries to come back too early that joint instability and osteoarthritis can result. This is a concern for Fournette. I know you really love the player, and so do I, but the reality is, the Jets might be better off taking a great D player that can play for 8-10 years with them, and then using at least three of the 2nd-5th round picks on an OT, TE, & RB, than taking Fournette, and then taking a couple of D players in the next rounds. http://www.sportsmd.comfoot-ankle-injuries/high-ankle-sprain-syndesmotic-sprain/#
I'm not a Fournette fan for the very reason you pointed out. Watched alot of LSU games and he was out beginning the game or soon after. Now saying that watch him be a beast in the pro's.
You've made the case for getting a QB at #6. Both short term and long term it fits the Jets needs. We have extreme mediocre talent at QB and until we fix that position it will be a problem.
When you put it like that its clear Fournette should be our pick at 6. I wouldn't be happy but it would be a need and we have neglected the offense for almost a decade. Both Forte and Powell are injury prone so you will need a stable of runningbacks just to field a team on Sunday. We have 1st round talent all over the defense with minimal results let's try something different.
Now that I've sold you on Fournette, I'm going to cross you up and say that Cook might be the better fit for this team, mainly because of his pass catching ability. But it's not just that...he too is a game-breaking runner, and so his presence presents two different threats that the defense has to deal with, along with whatever else the QB might do. Add a 2-way TE to the picture (If you take Cook at #6 you won't get Howard with the 2nd round pick, but you could find someone well above average and that would be a major improvement over what they have), and now you have an offense that can threaten the other team, and keep our "D" off the field, thus also improving the defense. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Look at tonight's game: Atlanta's defense played great for much of the game, but it was NE's offense that beat them in the end. When Atlanta's offense had to make a play they failed, and let their defense down. If the Jets are to ever get to the SB, they're going to need a great offense, and it's long past time they addressed that.
