I understand where you're going here, but using 2006 as a comparison to 2007 or 2009 is a little unfair for a couple of reasons. If we're going to praise the the depth of picks in 2006 draft, it is only fair to mention that 3 of the picks (which turned out to be Mangold, Eric Smith and Leon) were not acquired through trading down. For Mangold we had to sacrifice a Pro-Bowl caliber pass rusher in Abraham. The deal worked out (like the trade up for Revis did), but is hardly something that is endorsed on a regular basis, especially when you can argue that 3 years later and Abraham still hasn't been adequately replaced. Leon was compensation for a coach and Smith was a pick that was granted based on free agent losses. Now there's no way to truly measure this, but I wonder if the "consolidation draft method" has positively impacted the way that the Jets have been able to manage the UDFA and practice squad in recent years. I'm sure a team that had fewer draft picks are more desirable to the top UDFA's and how big is the difference between the late 6th/7th rounders in most cases than the top UDFA's? That along with the politics that are sometimes involved with late-round picks making the roster over UDFA's (a common complaint during the Bradway/Herm era) and having fewer "long-term" contracts from picks, might make it easier to add UDFA's and players from other teams' practice squads. I have no idea if this is more or less than the league average, but I think of guys such as Elam, Ratliff, Clowney, Wallace Wright, Mike DeVito, etc. who were added this way and have been nice role players here. Is that a result of having more versatility with contracts or a case of insufficient depth due to a lack of picks? I couldn't tell you. I just wonder though. I'm not saying that a 3-4 player draft is the way to go on a consistent basis, but I wonder how much of a positive impact it has in terms of the UDFA market and other areas.
