The problem w/ this philosophy..and normal I'd agree, is I dont see a defensive player who fits our 3-4 scheme. All of the potential elite defensive guys are better suited for cover 2 like schemes. That limits are selecting options.. As for the OL, i do not think it would be wise to have major money invested on a top 5 linemen who will not even be playing a franchise position that calls for a high salary(I.E. LT and Center).
I totally agree that if we are picking 5th, McFadden is still available, and we have no takers willing to give us a fair amount of value back for the pick, the only logical choice is McFadden. However, I highly doubt all of those conditions will be met. Hell, I don't even think McFadden will be on the board when we pick, even at 5, so this conversation is probably just all of us slinging mud for nothing. Again, I would not in any way condone picking a lineman on either side of the ball with our #5 pick. A blockbuster WR or CB, yes, but as far as I know, and I might be wrong, but I don't know of any in this draft.
I respect and enjoy all of your post as well Sec 227, I just dont believe it is as easy to trade down as some of you make it seem. I think we can all agree that it is probably in the Jets best interest to get a nice package for their top 5 pick to address more of their needs. If they can't get value for the pick, then what? well for me then it becomes a no brainer of a pick, you pick the BPA, who for the sake of thius argument is Darren McFadden. It is so early to be having this conversation, we all know how much can change between today and the draft. I don't even think we will have a shot at him where we draft anyway. The reality of the situation is we are not going to fix all the needs on this team in one offseason and as big of a need as fixing the lines are, getting playmakers and upgrading the overall talent on this team is just as big. I'm not suggesting we draft him at any cost, by all means explore the trade down option but if the clock strikes and the decision comes down to a game breaking talent or a defensive player that is going to have to either gain weight or lose weight to succeed in our D(Chris Long), I'm taking the gamebreaking talent.
It's looking like Mcfadden will be picked by Ne or Oakland before us. If he slips to us we have to take him because we will not get value in a trade. The problems will probably occur because there are no 3-4 players that are that worthy of a top five pick when we pick. There are also so many Qb's in the draft this year that no one has to come up to us for the pick as well. This pick could end up bad for us.
I agree that the best scenario would be to trade down but the problem is who do we trade down with. I have been asking people on the board for the past two weeks who could be our trade partner and nobody has come back with anything. Under normal circumstances you can get at least 5-10 scenarios. The problem is there is nobody to trade downn to that will give us equal value.
No, he's headed for 350 carries or so this season. That's a predictor of being less able to carry the load moving forward not more able. Bill Parcells has it absolutely right on this one: RB's have only so much tread on their tires before they go flat and if you burn rubber heavily in any season you accelerate their decline. McFadden has LESS carries for whoever drafts him because of his heavy load this season not more.
Early Doucet will probably go in round 1. I think he's a better WR than his two old teammates, Dwayne Bowe and Craig "Buster" Davis, who each went in the first round this past April. He's been banged up this season and I suppose it would affect how early he goes in round 1. Mike Jenkins from South Florida, Antoine Cason of Arizona, and Terrell Thomas of Southern California are probably the three best cornerbacks. Cason was almost going to enter the draft after last season. Back in January, I had rated him as the 2nd best CB behind Darrell Revis. Cason opted to stay in school. I am against the idea of the Jets drafting a WR on day 1. There will be some WRs to acquire through free agency and I don't want the Jets to spend a day 1 pick on a player who might take a couple years to develop. There are certainly some WRs who have had immediate success (Terry Glenn, Cris Collinsworth, etc.), but many take a few years to get with the program. Bernard Berrian will probably be re-signed by the Bears. D.J. Hackett, Bryant Johnson, Jabar Gaffney, Brandon Stokley, and Andre Davis are five guys I would like the Jets to consider. They are all unrestricted free agents. Devery Henderson will also be an unrestricted free agent. He's good if you like a wussified deep threat. Ernest Wilford, Samie Parker, Drew Carter, Keary Colbert, Jerry Porter, and Patrick Crayton will also be free agents. There is also Randy Moss, but you have to figure the Patriots would re-sign him unless he has a meltdown after the first Patriots loss this season.
He gets those carries back next season as a depth player behind TJ and Leon.... as has been said above, trading down is the best scenario for us, we can pick linemen at will, there are no standout receivers coming in, so we can get one later in the draft too. I just don't see a trade partner out there, Seattle and Atlanta may be in the market for an RB.....but can they give us a decent package in return?
Right now nobody knows for sure who are the elite prospects in this draft and how many elite prospects there are. It may well turn out that a QB is the No. 1 player on several draft boards and you might see a couple of LT ahead of McFadden and DL ahead of McFadden. We also don't really know where we will be drafting yet. I'm not even convinced McFadden will be considered an elite prospect that teams will covet come draft day. We may well have a QB tabed as our No. 1 prospect and might move both Chad and Clemens? It's way to early to conclude much at this point. The one thing that is obvious is running back is not a hard need position for us.
We could take the QB and put Clemens in the Brees seat with one season to show he is the leader of the team. Then we'd either have a great trade opportunity to begin 2009 or we'd have a QB if Clemens flamed out.
It's fairly conceivable, that we could win 3 of the next four, finish at 6-10, and this will be a moot discussion.
That's a possibility. However we could also easily go 0-4 and win up 3-13 with the 3 pick. The only game I have any confidence level about at this point is Kansas City, and I'm only about 66.7% confident of a win there. Cleveland hasn't lost back to back games all season and their offense is exactly the kind of offense that has caused problems for the Jets this season, with explosive striking power from the passing game and a productive running game. Tennessee basically depends on whether or not Haynesworth plays. If he plays we're just going to lose and probably badly, if he does not then we have a 50/50 shot at an upset. New England? Well, we'll all be wathcing primarily to see it it's a blowout or just a loss.
That would be a huge gamble but in my opinion a worth while one if we out right loved a QB who was available. Until we have a proven franchise QB it's going to be hard to properly rebuild the team.
Cleveland = Cincinnatti, not Philly, Clemens not = Bad Chad. 75% chance here. KC...We should beat. Tenn..50/50 NE...Not Unless we bring back Kimo to do a Palmer on Brady....
Likewise, and I look forward to seeing you again at many TCs in the future. If you're coming to NJ in '09, by all means let's have some lunch and "tour" the new facility together with as many guys from the board as we can get. Here's where we differ and we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've always looked at it in the opposite way. If you've got a bad team (and I agree we obviously are because "we are what our record says we are"), how can we afford to draft a position that we don't immediately have need for? "Grabbing elite talent REGARDLESS of position" is a luxury we cannot afford, not the other way around. In fact, when I look at a lousy team burning a #5 on BPA (and not something they need), I see a staff that, IMO, is squandering the pick because they have so many other needs and it'll be years before they'll be able to fill all those needs because they took that ultra-high pick. If I were a fan of that lousy team I'm be calling for their heads! In our case, it'd be like, "Great! Now we've got 3 excellent RBs all looking for big bucks." Meanwhile, let's go out and win some games with an offense that sorely needs a strong FB, more help on the O-line, a game-breaking WR (or even two, after we dump McCareins and realize Coles is headed for concussion-syndrome very shortly) and a defense that needs... well... how long a list do you want there? Hank Poteat is not going to cut it next year opposite Reavis and I'm not sold on Justin Miller being the answer. An excellent pass-rusher is in order and a legitimate NT is a huge priority, IMO. With all that need, the question really should be, "How can we justify taking a BPA with our #5 pick that doesn't fit our need?" The answer probably lies in wht that #5 is worth, and that's the crux of the argument across the board. Obviously, if we can't trade down for good multiple picks, then we have to take him and hey... I'd be the first to jump for joy probably... and emotionally it would make me feel wonderful to have that "elite game-breaker," but in the bottom of my stomach I'd then be looking at, "What the hell are we going to do now with the rest of these needs we have?" Hey... another way of looking at it is this.... and we all need to ask ourselves this question.... If McFadden is available at #5 and we're on the clock and we get offered say, this year's 1st Round #9 pick and NEXT YEAR'S #1 pick by some team... Reverse it. Ask yourself if those were our picks (I'm talking the NY Jets now)... ask yourself if you'd want McFadden badly enough this spring to trade OUR 1st Round #9 pick AND our 1st Round pick from '09 for McFadden. Interesting way to look at it, no?
You do realize we will probably have 7-10 picks depending on trades this year to fill needs. The problem is we have such a high pick and there is nobody available at the positions where we need help the most. There is also no team that is going to come up from the ninth pick to the 5th slot to get anybody and they are definitely not going to give up next years number one to do so. This is a BPA find a diamond in the rough Draft class on paper. The answer to your question is no one will make that trade so we will be picking at number five.
If we're on the clock and some team were to offer us, say, their 1st Round #9 pick this year and their 1st Round pick in the '09 draft, and we were to turn that offer down, this would be the equivalent of "McFadden at all cost." Just curious, do you agree or disagree?
