I agree and I think our team is case example of why you don't got go BPA for a position you are already young and extremely talented in. I've heard some argue that you get the best player anyway and then figure it out later. Well in our case, no one wanted Mo for what he was worth and we had to keep him. The NFL isn't like baseball where you stockpile talent and trade a lot.You don't see blockbuster trades often. I'd say BPA offense OR secondary
I totally agree. I think that blindly adhering to any one draft philosophy or "rules" is stupid. The Jets are a perfect example of this. It's caused Bowles to take the D away from what it does best. They do not have the right talent for a 4-3 D imo. Sheldon should not be playing OLB. That's just like that dumbass Rex having the DL from UNC playing OLB (I've blocked his name I despised him so). If Mac felt like he had to take Williams because Williams was that much of a better talent than Mo or Richardson, then he should have taken him then traded Mo or Richardson that season, gotten what he could for him, and let Williams play and develop. Richardson was suspended for 4 games, so they probably wouldn't have found a taker, or if they did, wouldn't have gotten anywhere near value for him, but still think they should have traded him, or traded Mo at that point, who still had time on his rookie deal. Better still, he should have traded down. I'm sure that some team coveted Williams, and the Jets could have gotten a player, a pick or picks to move down and then gotten the BPA at that point in the draft, who then hopefully would have been at a position of need. IMO the wisest course in the draft is that there must be balance between BPA and need. That's a guiding principle, not a hard and fast rule. Hard and fast rules will always wind up biting you in the butt at some point if you follow them blindly. Another guiding principle is not to fall in love with a player. Again that shouldn't be followed blindly, because there could be a situation where one falls in love with a player, he fits your situation perfectly and fills a need. Another guiding principle (IMO) is to rarely, if ever draft OGs in the 1st round. The only time I would do that is if you have a glaring hole at OG and otherwise you feel you are a SB contender. Even then imo, you'd have to believe that that OG would be a perennial All Pro if not a future HOFer. The only other guiding principle I can think of at the momement is regarding trading up. The only 3 positions I believe that it is worth trading up for in the 1st round are QB, pass rusher (OLB or DE depending upon whether you run a 3-4 or 4-3 D), and LT, and then only if you have needs at those positions. Again, this is just a principle, not a hard and fast rule. An example of an exception to this would be the year in which Revis was drafted. They thought that Revis was a sure thing and didn't think most of the other players slated to go in the 1st round were worth 1st round picks. They also had a need for CB. I think that's a kind of rare situation, but one has to be flexible to do it when the occasion comes along. I do think that when one does trade up, that generally, one needs to follow that up in the next draft or two by trading down in the 1st round when possible or practical, to recoup the pick(s) you lost in trading up.
im with you, 6-4 jets host 7-3 Patriots Pats lose to Pitt and Seattle. It really all depends on this game monday night if we win this and ravens game we got a shot
Saw some old timer with a NY Jets sweatshirt doing maintenance at my office here in DE When I asked about the Season all he said was "its early yet, plenty of games to go" Turns out he is originally from NJ So i am thinking maybe thats a lucky sign
Chris Lopresti @CLoprestiWFAN Sep 24 #Jets have won only 2 games west of Nashville since 10/17/10 (2-10) and they were both vs. NFC teams (DAL in '15 and STL in '12). #NYJ
Ryan Shitzpatrick 0-25 on the road vs .500 or better teams in his storied career...lucky Cards are under .500
No it isn't unless you truly believe context is irrelevant. But let's play along with your position. What do you mean by "special?" Are you drawing any conclusion about the coach by such a conclusion? Or are you simply judging it for what it is but not drawing a conclusion about Bowles either way?
