I always appreciate your take! One more quick note: I do agree with you on position value as well. For example, I would NOT take Derrick Brown or Javon Kinlaw if they dropped. Interior dlineman can truly be had later in the draft. I still remember when we made that Mike Nugent pick haha. Position values and premiums are huge. My biggest fear in this draft, which you might share, is the DT's are the ones to drop instead of one of the better Olineman. At the end of the day, were both hoping for the best Left Tackle prospect.
This is consistent with my entirely unscientific suspicions of OL being a safer pick Not in their methodology but something to consider. When you miss on an OT it is often a "disappointment". Guy can play but not the dominant force you hoped for. Perhaps a recency bias but it seems when people miss on WRs, you're talking busts -- shouldn't be in the NFL at all I'll add too that the OL will likely have a longer career of quality contribution; there are certainly plenty of examples of WRs with a long career, but honestly how long do people think RUggs or own prior RA can run 4.2 40s?
Lots of good WR's come out of the second and third rounds. I'm really not concerned about the drop off from the top two to the next dozen in this draft. There's a drop off but it's unlikely that all the talent is in the top 4 or 5 receivers. There's no Larry Fitzgerald or Julio Jones in this draft. There are several good all-around receivers, a few really good deep threats and a freak or two to keep everyone honest. You can make a good argument the Jets would profit from adding any of those guys.
Very good take, but a lot depends on the quality of the person calling the shots. Bills went all in on Sammy Watkins who at least IMO was a massive disappointment for them (not saying bust); they thought he was that guy!! Fast forward a few years, they trade away a pick to KC that turns in Mahomes. They thought he wasn't their guy (they too needed a QB like us)! But the point is well taken, whether luck or smarts there are offensive candidates who can impact the game way more than an OL (and frankly i tend to think that OLs are good as their weakest link)
that's also true. bust WRs often do nothing for the team. meanwhile a bust LT can often contribute as an OG. Even erik flowers has kind of revived his career now as an OG and he was a rare huge bust
I can't say that I strongly disagree with anyone here, except for anybody who thinks we should take any defense at all in the first 2 rounds. I think what it is going to come down to is a combination of two factors. First, a bit of BPA. If it comes down to our #4 OT and our #1 WR, we are going to take the WR, of course. So yes BPA will be a factor to an extent, but it also depends on the late-round depth at each position. In hindsight the real title of this thread should be "Dropoff of WR talent compared to dropoff of OT talent from Rounds 1 to 2." We all know the WR depth is much stronger in this draft, so I think unless Joe Douglas sees all his top OT's fall off the board, we are going OT round 1. The real unknown is what Joe Douglas thinks of these OT's, there could be only one of them that he really likes. Or he could like 3 our of 4, or all of them. We don't know and obviously Joe D is not going to show his hand. At this point the only thing I am opposed to is first and foremost, taking anybody except a OT or WR at 11. That would be unforgivable. I am also against trading down. Picking at 11 has us in just a good enough spot to get a really good talent on offense either way. Trading down even just a couple spots could take us out of the running for any of those big impact players and put us into a no-mans land , because from what I am hearing, this middle of this 1st round is where you would want to trade out of, not the 11th pick.
there are at least 4 OTs worthy of the 11th overall pick. no way we don't take the best OT available at 11. The WR class is so deep we can land 2 starting WRs in the 3rd round. you have to play the draft how it lies. every year is different. we shouldn't take a WR either. it should be OT and nothing else at ll for us.
I would've "liked" your post except I don't completely agree with the opposition to trading back. I would be hesitant to do so, but there are a couple of situations where I would: 1. JD gets "an offer he can't refuse" to slip a few spots - no more than 4-5 max. 2. The OT and WR he covets are both gone and he would be okay with somebody he could likely get those few spots later. Other than that, I fully agree with no "D" for the first two picks.
I agree, but the trade down has to be a really good deal. I see a lot of scenarios where we are moving down to 16 or 15 (Falcons and Broncos respectively I believe) and we are only getting back a third. To me the drop off of 4 or 5 picks in this particular draft is not worth it for a 3rd rounder. Like you said it needs to be an offer he can't refuse, and that has to be more than a 3rd rounder in my opinion.
At least a 2nd or no deal. We're probably better off staying at 11 and having a better shot at getting a difference maker.
Exactly my thoughts. We can almost certaintly get a difference maker at 11, no doubt. At 16, not so much. I would need a 2nd rounder for sure to move down 5 spots.
I couldn't agree more with this post. We need to build around Sam with our top few draft picks. He needs another T and a couple of WRs. I'm pretty sure JD has a plan and most likely doesn't like the 4 tackles everyone considers the top 4. If his 1or 2 guys are there at Tackle when we pick at 11, we probably grab him. It's more likely they will not be there so we either trade back a bit and grab the T he likes or stay and take Jeudy or Lamb. I think Ruggs is the type of guy you take if you already have a #1 on the team. One thing to also note - not all of the lineman are good in the zone blocking scheme. JD will not pick those players. He most likely has another tackle he loves for the system that he can choose in the 2nd round if we don't get his guy in the first round. You can't reach at 11. Going top WR is better value and impacts the team more if his T isn't there. An elite receiver can make other offensive players on the team better. I would like to see him go WR, OT, C, WR or OT, WR, WR, C. We've spend enough picks on the D - let's build around Sam so we can start to control this division.
an elite WR can't get open if his QB has no blocking. everything is connected. you can't make an argument like that. a crappy WR can't get open even with a lot of time. you need a well balanced team and all positions are for the most part equally important with the exception of QB
While QB is far and away THE most important player, there are degrees of importance separating the rest. In today's NFL, a heavily pass-oriented league, WR are more important than RB. Does that mean that you can have chopped liver at RB? No, but most teams aren't going to rely on the RB the way they did 20 years (or even 10) years ago. Does this mean that ALL teams follow this approach? No, but most teams do. Likewise a LT is more important than a RT or G or C. A C is more important than a G, and maybe more than a RT. Does this mean you can have shit at the other positions besides LT? Of course not. As you said, you need balance, which requires that all players be somewhat similar in ability, but also need to be able to play the same scheme. The proof of this is shown by how fast certain positions get snapped up in the draft, as well as the size of the contracts handed out.
You're correct when it comes to that argument. What I'd like to add is;that's where coaching and the front office need to be on the same page. I'm not sure our is... If our receivers run a lot of deep routs; plays that take a while to develop (5-6 step drops) pocket protection and the threat of the run is essential for that system to work. In that scenario, the premium would be on strengthening the line 1st. With that style of offense, the running game is an integral part (play action). Right now I don't think that's our offensive philosophy with Gase (Hybrid West Coast). I do however feel that's how Joe D wants to build HIS team (that way in Baltimore and Philly). Gases offense doesn't put a premium on running back play, outside of the ability to block and receive. He is more a 2-3 step drop and ball out quickly offense. Winning at the line of scrimmage is ultra important in his scheme. Guys like Ruggs and or Lamb can be the difference makers. This style the QB has to be in synch with line and receivers (Hots, pick-ups) as defenses usually implement press and cover zero (Monday night against NE). It sucks that our offensive philosophy likely isn't the philosophy of our GM. This is ownerships fault IMO; lame ducking JD and wasting some picks and a few years. Why wasnt Joe D hired first so he could pick "his guy"... who the fuck knows. thats on ownership and why the Jets havent been relevent in a long time back to the thread...I think Joe D. has more longevity than Gase. In that case, Pick any of the 4 tackles he likes or Judey or trade back to 15-17. Judey is the type of reciever who can play in either offense
well RB isn't a need for us regardless but i still disagree. RB usage has just shifted to different roles. the days of power run games are almost gone but even look at the titans who got carried to the playoffs on henrys legs and barely throwing the ball. but we are seeing more guys like mccaffrey and kamara and bell who are used in a receiving role out of the backfield creating mismatches. same thing happened with TEs. gone are the days of TEs being an extra lineman now they are an extra WR. The only position that nose dived value wise was FB as most teams don't even carry one. LT isn't as important as it was before either. they used to be the most important because they protected the "blind side" and were matched up against the other teams best rusher. nowadays many teams put their best rusher over the RT instead and have multiple pass rushers so it lowers the importance of LT. not to mention if you have a lefty QB then RT is the blind side. contracts arent always the best judge either. a lot depends on talent level, need, and market. markets don't really reset so older important positions are still ahead of the curve. if you went by contracts then DT would be the "most important" as donald is the highest paid defensive player in the NFL so don't put too much stock in that.
JD is doing a great job of filling in players that fit gase's scheme. the big issue is if gase isn't around after 2020 but I think that's 1 reason we are seeing a lot of the short term deals. look at the lineman he's signed. mostly versatile and athletic. they let robby walk too. gase likes to run a zone blocking and lots of shorter routers and get the ball out of the Qbs hands fast. so we don't need lineman who hold blocks long. we need lineman who can move well
None of what you said here refutes what I said, or supports your original claim that "all positions are for the most part equally important with the exception of QB". I actually said that some teams will rely on the RB more. That doesn't change the fact that MOST teams rely on their receivers - including TEs which I mistakenly assumed you would know I included as receivers, not blockers. And your attempt to dismiss my assertions that contractS - note plural, not singular and exceptions to the norm - by using Donald does not negate the point that if you look at the average money paid to each position you'd see there is a clear distinction between them based on perceived importance. Here's a link to an article that breaks down the money paid by position. You can see that it supports my contention: https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/
Chris Johnson apparently had to do a deep dive before realizing that Maccagnan was in over his head as GM. What was obvious to many here by the end of the 2018 season only became clear to Chris a few weeks after the draft. On the bright side, Douglas getting a 6 year contract is a sign that ownership will let Joe have time to clean up the mess left by his predecessors and build the team his way.
