Well it depends on how they measure. They could vary by as much as an inch, but as I said, if he's good enough to consider at 6' 3/8", he's goo enough at 5' 11".
I can't see this happening unless the Colts decide they're done with Luck. Otherwise, the Colts would be foolish to draft a QB with the #2 pick who probably wouldn't play for a long time. The latter choice seems more likely of the two, or draft someone who could help Luck, like Barkley. Post-edit - I meant #3 pick.
If Barkley is there at #3 for them I could see them taking him. Basically they're in a great spot, surpassed only by the Giants and Browns.
We'd be lucky to have a football player of this caliber on the Jets. Don't focus on the position, focus on the player. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
That's the kind of thinking that made Sebastian Janikowski a 1st round pick. Was he the best kicker available to NFL teams in a long time? Yes. Was he worth valuing as if he had extreme value? No. Kickers are kickers and guards are guards and neither should be acquired using something as valuable as a 1st round pick, which can be used to find a QB, LT, WR, CB, pass rusher, etc.
Kickers don't get teams to the playoffs. A high quality offensive line does. The talk of the Eagles this year was how amazing their offensive and defensive lines were and voila, Super Bowl! The Jets have been sadly negligent with their offensive line. While adding to the offensive line via free agency can certainly help, it is expensive and never gives you best in class talent. The Jets could use some of that. In fact, the last time the Jets made draft picks that had a significant long term impact was when they drafted D'Brickashaw Ferguson and Nick Mangold. While they didn't end up winning with those two, they could have had they continued to draft well, which they did not. Nelson isn't my first choice, but if we come away with him I'll still be thrilled. A Nelson-Price pairing would be exactly the sort of thing that can reboot our offensive line into the high quality standard.
Okay the interest of open-mindedness, I'm going to post a link to an article I came across in trying to see if anyone has done solid analysis to determine if trading up is worth it. I confess my assumption is, yes, it's worth it, so I wanted to prove it. I'm not ready to admit my assumption is wrong (god forbid!), but this article has given me pause to consider that trading down is actually the more consistently better way to go. https://www.vox.com/2014/5/7/568344...asic-economics-and-draft-players-irrationally After reading this and thinking about it, I will go this far: In MOST cases, with MOST teams, this article is probably right. But, if a team is really certain that a particular player (most likely QB) is a franchise-altering one, they should take a chance because if they hit they alter their franchise, and the overall, long term cost isn't really that great. (That's based on other articles I've posted here that statistically examined draft position value). Where teams can get in deep trouble is if they roll the dice on that "one guy" over and over, burning up draft picks and not getting anything in return. Anyway, I'm still going to think about this because frankly, what else is there to do when you're a Jets fan?
Interesting, and it has some validity (look at what happened to the Jets with all of Tanny's trade ups), but imo the article is flawed. The most important statistic seems to be the number of starts in 5 years. That's certainly important, but what about the quality of play in those starts? Teams can be very good with good, solid players at every position, but without stars, chances are they won't go very far in the playoffs or ever win a SB. In short, it's taking the "safe" route, and we know that taking the "safe" route will never get your team to greatness. There are risks involved in trading up for certain players, and putting "all one's eggs in the basket" of one player, but when that player becomes a transcendent star and perhaps HOF-caliber player, he makes a HUGE difference for his team. Yes, it definitely hurts when teams miss. Often times it hurts the most because the teams who traded up and missed don't follow up by trading down in subsequent drafts to try to recoup those picks. I think the issue is complex with a lot of things to consider, and it's not so cut and dried as the article makes it seem. The author doesn't really help support his case in the example of the Redskins saying that instead of trading up for Griffin, they could have taken Tanneyhill or waited a year and taken Manziel. LOL An interesting thing would be to look at how often the Pats have traded down, and they've certainly won a lot, but I don't think they've been particularly adept at drafting as they've missed on a lot of players. The thing that has helped the Pats more than anything is having a HOF-caliber QB and HC who is adept and identifying what role players can fit in his systems, and finding players who are hard workers and willing to sacrifice money and ego for the sake of the team.
You summed up my own beliefs about this. The reward of "catching lightning in a bottle" is definitely worth the risk of more often missing because if/when you do hit, it can carry your team for a decade at least, even if you miss on a lot of picks during that time. The key is to trade down the next year or two and "reload" if possible. You can't just have a "always trade up" mindset - that, more than simply missing is the real problem. And it is complex, because how does a GM know when to go "all in"? There's a lot of unknowns and intangibles that come into play, but it's not all luck either. Just like any successful professional poker, they study the odds and human nature, and other less-measurable things to enable themselves to get an edge. GMs actually have much more data and hard info to go on, and should be able to get consistently plus results if they're any good. But the really good - great - GMs seem to have a sixth sense they rely on. Somehow the Jets haven't had a guy like that since Sonny and Weeb, and I don't see any evidence that Macc fits this bill either. With Macc, I think the problem is that he/Woody don't have a clear idea of what they want the team to look like,,,a blueprint. In fact I think that's the biggest problem the Jets have had. To put in terms of the article's philosophy, if you have a blueprint, then you know what types of players - not just positions, and not just physical traits, but also their character and how well they can be molded into your blueprint, and therefore even if you aren't drafting at the highest point in each round, you can still find the players that best fit what you want, thereby "mining gold" that other teams are passing by. Following this recipe takes time, and as I said, a blueprint. The faster, but less dependable method, is to try to "catch lightening in a bottle", which is what most teams do. And when it works, it means you don't have to worry for the next 10-15 years. Given the Jets have no blueprint - at least none that's obvious - and almost no patience from fans after years of failure, they almost have to go with the "lightening in a bottle approach", and I hope Macc gets lucky.
We don't even need to go that far. Chance Warmack was supposed to be the best player in his draft class & arguably the best guard prospect ever. I'm not gonna say he's a horrible player but was he worth a top 10 pick? Sorry. he wasn't. Jonathan Cooper went 3 picks earlier cause he was more athletic..same thing not worth it. The guard position does not offer the kind of return necessary from a top 10 pick. The only way a guard is worth that price is if he's 2 way once in a lifetime type talent. In most cases those guys end up playing either Tackle or Center anyway.I don't have an issue with addressing the guard position. Both Carpenter & Winters can be upgraded. I'd prefer we trade down if that's our strategy however.Pick 20 or so is where you start getting the best return at that position
Had a dream last night that the top-5 picks, no QB's were taken. Darnold, Rosen & Mayfield were there for the Jets at 6. They went Baker.
