Why is this still a question. We want a GM with a plan, conviction in that plan, the cahones to make moves to execute the plan, the collaboration skills to align leadership on the plan, and the brain that ensures it's a good plan. We have it. It paid off in getting the stud OL we wanted. What are we debating?!?!?
That's not at all what I'm doing. I'm not making up a best case scenario at all. I'd be making up the best case scenario if I said the two third rounders became pro bowlers as well as the guy at 23 overall. What my analysis is based on is what happens most of the time over history at these picks in question.
That's not at all what I'm doing. The value of players taken in a given round has been quantified. We know very clearly how good the average player taken in the first, second or third round is. My analysis is based on what usually happens, not what happened to happen this time. You AVT supporters are using a good outcome as evidence of a good process. It doesn't work like that. Again, look at the 4th and 2 decision. It was the right decision to go for it but it didn't work out for us. That doesn't change the fact that going for it usually works out better than not going for it. The outcome and process are different things. AVT was the result of a suboptimal process that might just happen to result in a favorable outcome.
Why not? Is it a coincidence that teams who trade up usually lose those trades? Of course not. I'm not saying all the time, nothing is absolute. None of those teams make those trades thinking they're idiots, but that doesn't stop them from doing it and it doesn't change the fact that they're usually making a mistake by doing so.
What? AVT was the closest you will come to a sure thing. You go get the sure thing. You are drafting people not picks
The truth is it was a slight overpay by JD. This entire thread is based around the question of whether it was the best move though and it simply wasn't. The NFL is an extremely competitive league. Slight missteps add up very quickly. Even a lot of GM's who do everything optimally still fail because they are competing against other good GM's doing everything optimally who happen to get luckier than they do.
A guard taken 23rd overall is almost exactly as much of a sure thing as a guard taken 14th overall, all else equal. Then you throw in two third round picks and it's very clear which collection of picks has a higher overall value. Does anyone think we couldn't use two more OL right now given our issues with Becton? Is LDT our long term answer at RG? Is Moses our long term answer at RT?
Because the poker scenario is an absolute and drafting hypothetical players is not. We are talking apples and oranges. The odds of AA vs KAs are absolute. NFL drafting is not even close.
I think we would have not gotten half the player and still be in big trouble on the o-line.Again, you draft players not picks. You win with better players . We have tried your route with the last two GMs, how did that work out. There comes a time you throw the analytics out the window and go get a good player.
The % chance of draft picks from various rounds becoming long term starters is very well defined. As well defined as the odds of winning with AA or KK are. Getting a player at 23 who was half as good as one taken at 14 would be a very rare outcome. Also that doesn't consider the value of the third round picks which is quite high. Yeah, you win with good players. Is GVR a good player? At one point in this season he was responsible for half of our total pressures allowed. Is LDT our long term answer at RG? Is Moses at RT? It's not a coincidence we're considering OL for the third draft in a row after already dumping our last two first round picks into it.
It's TOTALLY what you're doing. You're trying to shoehorn something that is as much art or artifice as it is science and make it fit some mathematical process. Sorry, but life doesn't work that way and neither does the NFL draft. Both are messy. One has to go against the grain of what one would normally at times. It's a nice guideline, but it should never be a hard and fast rule. Those who follow hard and fast rules do so because they don't have intuition or the ability to think for themselves when a situation dictates that they do something differently. It's like always take BPA, even if you are already stacked at that position. One will never build a quality team that way unless one is very lucky and every round every year the BPA happens to be a player at a position of need. Every draft is unique, so no hard and fast rule will ever be successful 100% of the time. As a rule, I hate trading up, but there are times when it is not only the wisest and best thing to do, it's the right thing to do. One had better not miss when one does it, but if one gets the player one thought one was getting, then it was the right move. One topflight player at his position is better than two average ones. Could it have worked out better not to trade up? Possibly, but not very likely looking at our needs, the draft, and who would have been available.
When you say 'best' it looks like you mean 'optimal'--rephrasing thus: Was the trade and selection of AVT the optimal outcome given all other possibilities? You could never know--probably not since optimal rarely happens--was it good enough? Probably.
Anyone suggesting JD did the wrong thing by trading up for AVT wasn't around during the Alan Faneca years. Our run game became the best in the league and no one wanted to play us late in the season. Those days are right around the corner for us especially with Fant, Becton, Moses, and Miachael Carter on the team. AVT is our new Alan Faneca but unlike Faneca he isn't costing us top lineman money (not yet anyway). To think JD got him for just the front half of the Jamal Adams trade is beyond amazing.
What you can know is what usually happens with players taken in various rounds. Usually, a guard taken at 23 and two OL taken in the third round give your team more value than one guard taken at 14. Sure, the optimal thing rarely happens, but in this case the optimal outcome would've been the guy at 23 working out and both guys in the third round working out. We eliminated the possibility of that happening entirely by trading up.
So historically teams have a better OL when they pass on the highest rated guard and rely on their below average backups already on the roster and hope that their third rounders pan out? Come on man. Just admit this is purely based on asset management and not football. That's when you absolutely have a point.
Huh? Can we at least be honest about the assets in question? It's not passing on AVT in favor of two third round picks. It's passing on AVT in favor of an OL taken 9 picks later AND two OL taken in the third round. Doing that usually adds more value to a team overall than just taking the one guy at 14. Taking a guy at 23 and two guys in the third round usually results in two long term starters, with an outside chance at three long term starters. Does anyone think we couldn't use another young, long term starter at OL right now? We still have multiple question marks at OL and it's largely due to trading up for AVT.
Like I said, in terms of asset management sure there's a case to be made but that's not how you win football games. You win football games by putting the best players on the field. The outcome that we 100% know is that AVT played at a very high level and it's safe to assume that will continue, if not get better. The outcome that we are completely theorizing and for some reason using as the baseline argument for why we shouldn't have traded is based completely on "what if". You can wish in one hand and crap in the other, let me know which gets full first. Again, I have no idea why we are using one of the best case scenarios as the baseline for a hypothetical argument. And the bolded is just absurd.
It is? Ok I argue with enough people on this forum. If you want to die on that hill, God bless you. Just remember that a coin flip is a 50/50 proposition no matter how you want to paint it. Math is math.
Jets value. They needed a proven quality starter as opposed to a couple backup/developmental/ etc 3rd rd picks.
