Taking a break from the primary debates surrounding McFadden, the QBs, and trading down... I was wondering what other player or position you'd be satisfied with at #6? Assuming the Longs, Gholston and McFadden were not options, I keep thinking I wouldn't mind if the Jets took McKelvin at 6. That would give Revis a partner, nearly complete the secondary, and --if the rumors are accurate--take away a player the Patriots are poised to grab at 7. Who would you accept at 6?
I like Cromartie...for the same reasons as McKelvin.....but only if Gholston, the Longs, and McFadden are gone and that we also tried to "trade out".
nfl.com has a new mock that has this scenario playing out. I believe its a Carrucci mock draft that has Gholston going #1 overall. He has the Jets taking McKelvin at six. I would have posted a link but i cant yet... I personally dont mind the idea of having two young corners that are talented, but a lot of people on this site think there is no way that the jets will take a cb two years in a row in the first round. If it plays out like this and no one is willing to trade up with the jets they might have no other choice. I would love to see the jets take Mendenhall but i highly doubt that will happen. A defensive end wouldnt hurt either....
My favorite players to reach for if the top 3 are gone are Harvey or Mendenhall. I hate the idea of a CB at 6 and these guys fill needs and are just as good prospects as the CB. I'm still thinking that one of either Gholston or McFadden will be there at 6, most likely Gholston.
Don't mind taking either of the two cb's at all. If anyone thinks rb is needed that whole can be fillde in the later rounds imo. Thats if the Long's & company are gone.
Well, no. But TJ is turning 30 by the start of this upcoming season, with LW (not an every down back) and Jesse Chatman (1-year deal). I'm not opposed to taking a CB only if the Jets tried trading down first. If no one is interested, then I'd take McKelvin with the 6th pick. Seeing two young CB's causing havok in our Division for years to come can hopefully provide an answer to the Patriots Pass-first style of offense.
I would prefer DRC. However, I am not opposed to Mckelvin. If Mcfadded is gone, i dont think we have any reason to draft a running back until the later rounds or next year.
RB is not our most pressing need, especially after the chatman signing, but is something they may want to consider in a class that is fairly deep at that position. I do agree though it can be looked at in the later rounds.
The problem with two 1st Rd CBs is down the road. Especially if Revis and the rook pan out. They will be looking for a payday down the road and CB is one of the highest paid positions especially for above average/elite players. That is not even taking into acount the rookie contracts. Not saying I am opposed to it, but the long term ramifications have to be considered. Just not sure. If they have to reach, I would rather they reach for a RB, DE, OL, or something along those lines. Just to spread the money around a bit. I hope this doesn't happen, because this is the worst case scenerio.
Nope, the key to our def and look at the Giants last year is a ferocious pash rush. If Gholston and Long are gone you trade down. Consistent pressure on the QB means you can get away with an average to slightly above average No 2 CB such as Barrett, Poteat, J Miller....etc. Remember we have Revis to stop the opponents No 1 WR. Besides, both of those CB's mentioned are not worth #6, trade down to mid rounds and pick up another #2 and #3. Best case scenario would be Gholston though. I would also be happy with McFadden because eventually you will need a playmaker on Offense as well.
I would consider taking Harvey and seeing if he could be a OLB, if not bulk his ass up (has room for it) and put him at DE. If we have to go Corner I like DRC but he needs to hang out in the weightroom with Revis all summer long.
As stunning a revelation as this may be, there are more than 5 good prospects in this draft. If Gholston, Long, Long, McFadden, and Ryan are gone, theres still Harvey, Mcklevin, DRC, Mendenhall, Jenkins....whoever rises....
well many of us have speculated about this before... and are basically in agreement that a CB is the least reach for a need spot. If trading down is impossible, I say we do what Minnesota did a few years back, and "pass" by passing on our selection, we can toss in our pick whenever we want, so if we wanted to wait until say pick 9 to take the top remaining player on our board we could do so. I think at #9 Sweed (the top reciever available) is still a bit of a reach, but the Bills are expected to go WR at #11 so we would have to take our WR before then. but in reality, i still say if we move back Sweed would be our best option...
"Passing" on our selection spot would not be let go by the agents. They would negotiate for the money at No. 6 slot (between the 5th and 7th action selections). There's already been a discussion with agents on this subject, by Peter King I think. It wouldn't get us anything, and each team that selects before we do represents a value risk to the NYJ's choice.
McKelvin makes a ton of sense at 6. Not only would he give us a potentially dominant secondary, but he is a player New England would probably want at 7. In addition, he was considered the top return man in the country by many college people. Our special teams would be ridiculous with McKelvin on punt returns and Miller/Washington on kick returns. And contractually, I dont see any problems. We locked up Revis for 5 or 6 years and wed do the same with McKelvin.
