Of all of the 2nd/3rd round wide receivers who qualify in this case, almost a quarter of them come from the last 2 draft classes alone. That is a much higher rate than normal, and indicates a trend. At least I think so.
I can hear it now. "Ja'Marr Chase is a luxury for the Jets, why did Douglas take him instead of an edge rusher??!!"
Spot on. People will want Douglas to trade down an take an OG or C or ILB over Chase. They'll say that we can get a perfectly good WR in the 4th or 5th round.
I’m using ratios and percentages. Two rounds will not increase the percentage, especially considering I’m using 15 years worth of data. I think the data is legitimate, but your takeaway can be different that’s mine and that’s fine. I used 500 yards as a qualifier because I didn’t want to include a bunch of guys in each round who never did anything, and averaging 500 yards over a career will generally keep you in the league for a good number of years. Yes, guys develop at different rates, but there were hardly any players who played 5 or more years who averaged less than that besides return specialists, so it’s a fair cutoff I think. What’s more interesting to me is the number of these qualifying players who have been in and won Super Bowls. The percentages are pretty different to me. My interpretation of that is that the higher investment of receiver increase the overall probability to get you a better receiver, that is something that I can see in the data. However, based on another bit of research I had done, only 2 Super Bowl winning teams out of the last 10 had drafted a WR in the 1st round in the five drafts leading up to their win, while 6 had taken OT’s in the same time frame, with 7 OL total. To me this indicates there is greater chance of getting a high impact WR in the 1st round, but it represents an opportunity cost for other positions of high importance. The draft rate for OT, Edge, DT and CB were drafted more frequently by quite a bit by these Super Bowl winners. To summarize my long winded diatribe: In a vacuum, a 1st round WR has a better probability to be great than a 2nd/3rd round WR. However, your team has a better chance to be successful long term and in the playoffs with a combination of the OT, DT, Edge, CB, or QB position in the first round, followed by a WR in the second round. It’s an argument that parallels one to be made for RB, though less obvious on the surface.
This is the crux of the argument IMO, and encapsulates the logic behind taking Becton over Jeudy, Lamb, or another top WR with the 1st pick. In essence, it's like several of us argued in the lead up, and than afterwards: it's harder to get a top flight OT after the 1st round than it is to get a top flight WR, but if you take the WR, thereby increasing your odds of getting a great one, there is the "cost" of not getting a top level OT. I know Kurt and some others still disagree with that assessment, but I haven't seen anything yet to change my mind. I was disappointed that Douglas traded back and possibly lost the opportunity to consider taking another WR besides Mims, but maybe that's who he wanted all along. Moreover, if Mims reaches his potential, it will work out that he got a topflight OT AND a topflight WR. And I'm still hoping JD tries to upgrade the receiving corps with the Supp. Draft, FA, and/or trades.
It's very hard to field a talented offense without drafting well. The lone exceptions are OL & often RB's. Nearly every year we see acouple solid starting level OL hit FA.Same is true at most defensive positions. There's at least non draft options to try to upgrade the talent level & specific positions. The exception is offensive skill. Qb's,WR's & TE's. They don't hit FA unless they are bad. They either get re-upped or traded before their contract expires. You have to draft offensive skill & you have to get it right. WR's are an enigma. A very difficult evaluation, alot of moving parts but yet increasingly impactful & crucial to success in the modern era. It just seems like bad optics to me to speak in absolutes & eliminate an entire portion of a 7 round draft when the avenues for acquisition are already extremely scarce. When you factor in the draft failure & the lack of resources the Jets have had at WR...I just think it's reckless & borderline self defeating to get caught up in metrics that's conclusion is up for interpretation. OL maybe a higher priority linked to team success. But given a choice between an elite A+ OT & An elite A+ WR...I take the WR everytime. At the end of the day the best OT can ever do is guarantee a skill player an optimal opportunity to put up points,, the elite WR guarantees points in a game. Guaranteed points is a metric I think we all can rally around. Instant offense has no substitute.
Thanks for the interesting discussion! For whatever it's worth, I agree with your 500 yard qualifier, and I think it's indeed a fair cutoff. When I commented on some players being late bloomers, I was basically referring to some players not peaking until they were in the NFL and getting professional coaching, vs peaking in college, although, even then some players take longer for the light to go on in the NFL than most. In terms of the bolded, it seems to me that you were looking at those things in a vacuum and not looking at cause and effect. Is it not possible that the SB teams who drafted OL already had very good WRs and they had glaring needs at OL rather than WR? I certainly agree that the chances of getting a high impact WR are better in the 1st round than the 2nd or 3rd, and imo in today's NFL, that is what is needed with most QBs. Some QBs can make their WRs better, but not every QB can do that. I think you are right that 1st round WRs have a better probability of being great than a 2nd or 3rd rounder, but I think your conclusion that a team has a better chance to be long term successful and in the playoffs with a combination of OT, DT, EDGE, CB or QB in the 1st round is flawed. If nothing else, the fact that the Jets have drafted a LOT of DTs in the 1st round, and it has gotten us nowhere should tell you that your conclusion is flawed. You're adding A + B and getting D rather than C. I certainly could be wrong, but I think it has more to do with team needs rather than drafting a particular position that affects their ability to get to and win a SB, and their ability to draft well.
Silly me for thinking the WR OL debate would die down after the draft... I get all sides of the argument, and ppl might not want to hear this, but JD couldn't fix every hole this year
Well I would imagine 4 WR’s in round 1 is as unhelpful as 4 DT’s in round 1, it’s not really my point. As far as the teams already having good WR’s, yes, they did, primarily not selected in round 1 though. 2010 Packers -Greg Jennings (2nd) -James Jones (3rd) -Jordy Nelson (2nd) 2011 Giants -Hakeem Nicks (1st) -Mario Manningham (3rd) -Victor Cruz (UDFA) 2012 Ravens -Anquan Boldin (2nd) -Jacoby Jones (3rd) -Torrey Smith (2nd) 2013 Seahawks -Golden Tate (2nd) -Doug Baldwin (UDFA) -Jermaine Kearse (UDFA) 2014 Patriots -Julian Edelman (7th) -Brandon LaFell (2nd) -Danny Amendola (UDFA) 2015 Broncos -Demaryius Thomas (1st) -Emmanuel Sanders (2nd) -Andre Caldwell (3rd) 2016 Patriots -Julian Edelman (7th) -Malcolm Mitchell (4th) -Chris Hogan (UDFA) 2017 Eagles -Alshon Jeffrey (2nd) -Nelson Agholor (1st) -Torrey Smith (2nd) 2018 Patriots -Julian Edelman (7th) The only WR who did anything for the Patriots in that Super Bowl. All RB’s and TE’s except Edelman. 2019 Chiefs -Tyreek Hill (5th) -Sammy Watkins (1st) -Mecole Hardman (2nd) Of the 4 1st round selections listed here, only 2 were drafted by the team they won with and within 5 years of the Super Bowl win. The majority of these teams did not invest 1st round picks in WR’s, and even those that did won far more because of their QB than their 1st round WR. Do you still feel that these teams didn’t take 1st round WR’s only because the already had good WR’s?
Thanks for going to the trouble of researching and listing the WRs on those teams, but imo that still doesn't prove anything. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. The bolded statement is always true. That's why the QB position is the most important on a football team. GB only won one SB. They easily should have won more. Ted Thompson was able to find WRs in various rounds and either their CS or Rodgers was able to make those WRs look better than they were. Perhaps if they had drafted a WR in the 1st round, they would have won more. Belicheat and the Pats don't count, because Belicheat tried drafting WRs and failed, so he signed FAs, maybe traded for some, and sought to win with TEs who were harder to cover. Aside from the Patriots, none of the other teams won a 2nd SB, and Seattle was the only one to get back to the SB the following year. Perhaps if they had drafted elite WRs in the 1st round, they would have. The 2015 Broncos won because of their Defense and because they had two 1,000 yard WRs in spite of Payton Manning being a shell of his former self. They certainly didn't win because of Peyton's arm. The Seahawks won in 2013 because of their D and beastmode, and in spite of their WRs. Only the Seahawks won with 2 UDFA WRs and a 2nd rounder. Most of the teams had at least one 2nd rounder, and several had 2 - 2nd round WRs. Meanwhile, the Jets have tried to win most of the last 20 years primarily with 4th round and low round WRs and UDFAs. One 1st round pick, 3 - 2nd round picks (2 of whom were busts), and 2- 3rd round picks in 20 years. Every one of the GMs responsible for that should be lined up on the 50 yard line the first game of every season and the fans given the opportunity to pelt them at close range with rotten fruit. Below is the pathetic list of WRs drafted by the Jets since 2000. 2020 - Denzel Mims (2nd round) 2017 - ArDarius Stewart (3rd round) & Chad Hansen (4th round) 2016 - Charone Peake (7th round) 2015 - Devin Smith (2nd round) 2014 - Jalen Saunders (4th round), Shaquelle Evans (4th round), & Quincy Enunwa (6th round) 2012 - Stephen Hill (2nd round) & Jordan White (7th round) 2011 - Jeremy Kerley (5th round) & Scotty McKnight (7th round) 2008 - Marcus Henry (6th round) 2007 - Chansi Stuckey (7th round) 2005 - Harry Williams (7th round) 2004 - Jerricho Cotchery (4th round) 2001 - Santana Moss (1st round) 2000 - Laveranues Coles (3rd round)
also consider longevity. An A grade OL is such for a longtime. It's a good investment An A grade WR being A grade for a long time is a real unicorn I'll also admit I'm confused about the emphasis on WR over RB. RB will touch the ball and potentially impact or control the game 2X as often as a WR
In my opinion the Jets should invest another 2nd round pick and a couple of 3rd round picks at WR. I believe Edge Rusher is more of a priority for a premier pick, considering the makeup of the team right now. We will know much better next year of course. Honestly it doesn’t matter to me the long list of poor receivers the Jets drafted. Most of them have nothing to do with the Jets as they stand and the roster they are trying to build now, they’re just disappointing memories.
Offensive efficiency is the main difference. RB’s are gaining what, 4 yards per touch? WR’s you’re looking at 10 yards plus per catch. As well as big play potential.
Not this coming draft ... looks to be top heavy but not a lot of depth. Chase right now is #1 on my Jets draft board if I were JD. Penei Sewell is also right there. But I would take Chase, I would even trade up.
I'd settle for Ross if Chase is taken before the Jets pick. I think of him as a rich man's Tee Higgins.
Yes but if you get let's say 3.5 yds/carry with low standard deviation!. in theory, the team can simply run the ball for a TD every time by moving the chains. Averages can be deceptive if they don't include the standard deviation (which is actually a geometric mean/carry as opposed to a simple arithmetic average). 10 yds/ reception sounds sexy but the math is more complex (and then you have to fold in whether stats get padded when teams play prevent, or a receiver get a decent gain but short of first down (i.e., defenders playing off but preventing 1st down), etc.) Simple illustration of how arithmetic averages can be deceptive (and how finance industry tends to deceive people by posting such). Assume i offer you two investments, one which has 25% return on average and another which has 1% on average. Which one is the better investment? the answer is "there is insufficient information" -- it's a trick question Investment 1, assume you start with $1. IN year one you get 100% return (wow); now you have $2. The next year you get a 50% decline. Your investment vehicle has averaged 25% (100 + (-50))/2 yet you're back to $1 0% actual return Investment 2 just pays 1% every single year.
Hey I understand the idea behind statistics but if you run the ball every time you will not achieve 3.5 yards per attempt. Teams will stack the box and you will get stuffed. That does not actually work in theory anymore. A standard deviation of say a half yard in rushing attempts is significant, while a standard deviation of four yards for receptions is less so because you are still gaining first downs. Larger deviation, less significant. Numerically speaking, WR’s also increase the variety of possibilities that a defense has to account for by a lot. Overall it decreases the probability that they will be prepared for what actually occurs.
