you don't have to state explicitly that the team would restock in a single draft, but it is the only thing you could mean when you say you want them to suck this season so they can restock in the draft. what, are you talking about sucking this season and restocking in the draft two or three years from now? no, you are clearly correlating sucking this season to the talent that they could draft based on that poor season immediately. and that doesn't even account for the ridiculous notion that you have to have a high pick in the draft to restock talent anyways. drafting wisely leads to a team obtaining talent, regardless of where you pick, and can be done anywhere in the draft. that is why great players are drafted in the later 1st round, 2nd round, 3rd round, 4th round, and to the great exceptions like Brady, Emmitt Smith and Arian Foster, the 6th, 5th or undrafted. having a high round pick only adds to the excitement of the draft, but doesn't correlate to getting a better player, so it is simply unnecessary. Let's just look at the 4 teams I mentioned, excluding your example of the Rams which simply isn't applicable. there is a huge difference between a good team having a single bad season and "restocking" which is what you are talking about with the Jets and what these four teams may have done (but didn't), and a team like the Rams that were bad over multiple seasons and drafted well over those seasons which culminated in a great team. or are you advocating you want the Jets not to be bad just this year but for several years, thus making the Rams the relevant example? that certainly isn't what you said, though you seem to be having trouble understanding your own argument to begin with. The Giants got Eli Manning after their bad season, who was clearly only available because of the draft placement, and then Chris Snee in the second round. for the sake of argument I will give you Snee as well because a high second round choice is not only good drafting but opportunity as well. so the Giants got two players in the draft that have had significant impacts on the two subsequent Super Bowls due to their poor season. that is hardly indicative of a team "restocking" because of the bad season. beyond that, equally good and some better best players were drafted at positions in the draft where good teams had an opportunity to get them. Steven Jackson was drafted 24th, Michael Turner 154th, Vince Wilfork 21st (what, the Patriots didn't have to suck the year before to get a great player in the draft?!? lunacy!), Karlos Dansby 33rd, Bob Sanders 44th. see, you didn't need to suck to get a great player in the draft. so, the Giants eventually Super Bowl win had less to do with sucking and more to do with the availability of a franchise QB in a draft that they fortunately had a high draft pick in. After their 4 win season, the Packers got AJ Hawk with the 4th pick, but didn't get Greg Jennings until 52 (meaning 86% of the teams in the league passed on him TWICE). The Packers could have gotten him had they won 10 games. But the best player in the draft? Maurice Jones Drew -- 60th. Other great players drafted outside of the top 10 -- Tamba Hali (20th), Elvis Dummervil (126th), Antonio Comartie (19th), Antoine Bethea (207th). again, you don't need to have a bad season and draft high in the first round to get not just one great player but multiple great players -- if you drafted well. so sucking for a high pick is irrelevant to the ability to "restock." that means if you don't have to suck to restock, having a bad season becomes irrelevant. what you want is for the Jets to be bad this year for zero tangible reasons. outside of a great QB to draft in the top 5, there is simply no need to draft in the top 5 to "restock." so far we have two of the four teams that only drafted 2 players each in their draft directly related to their previous poor season that would become significant players. and one of them was available to 86% of the teams TWICE, so the Packers only got him because most of the league passed on him two times. adding two meaningful players hardly equates to "restocking." that isn't helping your cause. how about the Saints? in 2006 they drafted Reggie Bush, who wasn't even the best RB in the draft. They didn't have another pick until the 4th when they picked Jahri Evans, who would become a Pro Bowler. but they didn't have to suck to get him, they just needed every other team to pass on him for three rounds. the last of their impact draft choices is Marques Colston -- in the 7th round. so, again, there is no correlation to their having a 3 win season and a "restocking" of talent that then led to the Super Bowl. only one of their draft choices was drafted in a position primarily dependent on the high selection. last but not least, the Raven, which I have already discussed. but they, too, are more similar to the Rams -- a bad team for several seasons that accrued talent over multiple years, so they don't fit the scenario of the Jets that you are advocating and are irrelevant to the dynamics of the discussion. so, we have three out of 5 teams, and only 4 picks total that are directly attributable to having a high draft choice based on a poor season. 4 picks. yeah, that sounds like those teams "restocked" talent due to their sucking.
To all the Jets fans that think want the first overall pick this year, FORGET ABOUT IT!!! The Chiefs are getting Geno Smith!
Geez, you've got worse reading comprehension than my students. Look at what I highlighted. Now what I wrote is that this would HELP them restock. AGAIN, this means two completely different things. So, AGAIN, you are putting words in my mouth and arguing against something I didn't even say. So, let me explain how this works. Saying I want to HELP you do a job means I will do PART of the job but I expect you or others will do more of it. Saying I will do a job implies I will do the entire job. How does this apply? Saying that a poor season will HELP the Jets restock means that it will be PART of a process and is inherently NOT a complete process; in fact, it rules it out as being a single season affair. What YOU said is, fundamentally, the I claimed a single poor season will allow the Jets to restock. This implies the complete process. In other words, YOU are changing what I am saying and misunderstanding it as well. Now, question for you: your analysis, does it take into account things like traded/accumulated picks? For instance, I believe that a poor showing by the Jets would allow, in theory, for the Jets to have their pick of the litter OR the chance to accumulate picks. You complete ignore that below. So if Team A scores a #2 pick, trades down to #6 and drafts a bust you declare the draft as irrelevant to restocking. Perhaps. How did the accumulated picks do? They wouldn't have had them without trading down and you forget this completely. Same for the Jets. While you lust after picks in, say, the 20s, the simple truth is that there is simply no way to trade down from 20+ and accumulate much. OTOH, it is possible, given the circumstances, to accumulate a few top round picks with something in the top 5-10. You've ignored this again and again as well. Why? Because it completely undermines your argument. Instead you'd like to watch this team scrape by to a mediocre season, have a mediocre pick, probably miss the playoffs not be able to accumulate picks with a mid-round selection, and the season is nearly a complete waste. If we are going to suck put in our youth, give them experience, find out who has 'it' and who doesn't and let the damn team lose like a team full of newbies always does. Afterward, collect a bunch of sweet picks, accumulate more, and build around youth from the inside of the franchise. For some reason YOU seem to think this is a bad idea and that successful franchises don't do this. . Just off the top of my head I'll give you one example: The Colts. They done this twice now. First building around Peyton Manning and now Luck. Both times they turned the team over to youth, let the team suck it up, took the picks and ran..... And it is amazing that they didn't win more, but are you really going to argue with their results?
I don't enjoy watching my favorite team lose. If that makes me stupid, fine, but I am a loyal fan and I cherish every game. There have been many instances where mediocre teams have made it to a Super Bowl and, in some instances, won. There are many other instances where shitty teams have had high draft choices and continued to lose. You never know. That's the beauty of sports.
Addendum to my above message: Read my messages #37 and 38. You say above that I am arguing that this is a good team that should tank the season yadda yadda..... I actually have said this is a mediocre to poor team (I think it is a poor team to be brutally honest, but I am open to being proven wrong). I think this team is scraping by by beating other mediocrities. This will snatch us a mediocre record and lead to nothing except mediocre draft picks. Again, you are the one arguing against something I am not saying. Rex lost this team last year and we have a VERY brittle psyche. So I am arguing, essentially, that we should scrap the season and start a solid, patient rebuilding process. Where the hell did I say we would go back to winning in a year? That is why teams like the Rams are relevant.... Listen, I keep saying the same thing again and again and you keep ignoring me. You are simply arguing against things that I am not saying.... You're sort or talking to yourself in a way. It isn't that your points aren't valid, they just don't apply (for the most part) here.
actually, you are the one that has horrible reading comprehension. my position clearly is discussing all picks -- not just high picks that come with a bad finish. so if a team trades down and has multiple late round picks that is clearly what I am talking about. that being said, you still have to draft wisely and pick the right player. you can have multiple picks and miss on every one. what you continue to ignore is the fact that you don't need high picks to reload a team. you can reload after finishing 9-7 or 10-6 if you draft studs at the end of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounds, or if you miss on them hit in the 4th or 5th when many great players are still available. having more picks, which is what you are suggesting, merely allows you to make up if you miss on a pick. but the reality is teams only draft 1-3 impact players per draft, so having more draft picks may increase the odds of getting those 1-3 players, but the likelihood that you are drafting 4 or 5 impact players, and thus reloading during a draft in bulk, is fantasy land, regardless of how many picks you have. and you can certainly draft 3 impact players with middle round picks, so there is no need to suck just to get them. the ideal position is to have a good team with good talent, even you aren't a championship team yet, and only need 1-3 impact players to add to the existing talent that is then better next year, and take the next step from 9-7 or 10-6 to 12-4. finishing 9-7 does not equate to an inability to get better the following year. what you are suggesting is that you hope the Jets are so awful and the existing players not even good enough to get 9 wins, and not worth keeping, and thus not being just 1-3 impact players away, but 6 or 7 players away (hence the need to "reload" or "restock", because you have no talent to build on). why would you rather be farther from a championship and need a lot of players, which will require multiple draft to obtain, rather than being a few players away which can maybe be acquired in just one off season? I don't know how good the players on this team can be with a seasons worth of experience, but I hope they turn out to be great and can be built upon with just the 1 or 2 realistic draft hits you can expect per draft. you actually want these players to suck just to have an exciting draft, rather than the players we have be just as good as who we might draft to replace them.
You haven't read a word I have written. You simply decide what I am saying in your mind and argue against the little voices in your head... And then attribute those voices to me. You are chillingly obtuse. So here you go: I give, you are absolutely correct about the THINGS I DID NOT SAY. You have won a debate against nothing. Next time read the messages. EDIT: btw, in regard to accumulating picks, I also explicitly wrote that using a high first round pick would be a way--one of the few ways for the Jets currently--to pick up more HIGH round picks... not LOW round picks. I am well aware what you are arguing but qualitatively these two things are miles apart. Here is a for instance AGAIN-- 1. Your idea- we finish, say, 24th for the sake of argument. That gives us seven picks each at number 24 each round, plus potential FA compensation (almost surely negligible). This position would allow only modest trading. Every move down might next a low rounder, maybe two, but the only way you come up with another high round pick here is by sacrificing the first round pick and moving toe damn near the bottom of the first or top of the second. Even then you get maybe a low third? 2. My idea- we finish, say, 5th for the sake of argument. That means that every round we are picking damn near the top. If you're a glass if half full type you could even argue that our second round pick is essentially as good as a late first rounder and we could trade up into the twenties fairly easily if there was a stud that we felt was a sure thing. My main point, however, is that you could trade down your first and get more picks in the first, second, and/or third rounds. You CANNOT do this in your scenario. It would take a lot of planning, but if we were to target talent in the late first round we could trade down from 5th to say, 24th, and easily end up with another first and a second or third rounder (I would want more). There is much more that can be done here as well; it opens a world of flexibility. And if we hit on every pick like you seem to be assuming then wouldn't you want to hit one TWO firsts and TWO seconds instead of ONE each? Now look at the chart I have posted below. It is fan created but it gives some idea of draft success. The fact is that your approach is for a team that is MAINTAINING success and my approach is for BUILDING a successful team. You can think whatever you want, but you only think my position doesn't make sense because you haven't yet grasped that I do not think this is a good team. It has elements to build on, but if the Jets were a religion they would be quite Hole-ee.
For anyone interested, here is a link that discusses the likelihood of NFL success by draft position as well as playing position. It is an interesting little analysis. Not sure I agree with his approach entirely, but it is still telling. Here you all go: http://www.fieldgulls.com/2009/3/20/804891/success-by-position-and-ro
Anyone who responds positively to a JETS 2-14, 3-13,4-12, type season should just stop watching. How old are you. I've seen these seasons before. This is week 7 and you are hoping for a shit season for the next 10 weeks? You must be new to the JETS or maybe even to pro football but aside from 5-6 teams all fans deal with this. Grow a pair and commit to the team. Otherwise, go away.
the chart you posted only discusses the round of success, not where in the round they were drafted. according to it, a late first round pick is just as valuable as an early round pick, which is also my contention, so you don't need to suck to get a high pick. but that still doesn't dispute the facts I presented, which showed that even in the years that the eventual champion sucked, the high draft pick didn't correlate to an influx of talent any more than any other season that directly led to the championship. secondly, the winners of the last 16 Super Bowls averaged 8.2 wins per season over the 10 years leading up to the Super Bowls. they weren't maintaining championship success, they built championship teams drafting primarily in slots around 8 win seasons -- the middle of each round as just an average to good team -- making the need to finish poorly to get high round draft picks, regardless of whether they drafted in that position or traded down from it, irrelevant. you want as good a team as possible every year, and then add to that team with good picks. finishing poorly for a season has no statistical correlation to winning a Super Bowl or reloading talent anymore than a draft after an average season, and nothing you have shown disputes that. I understand exactly what you are saying and am arguing it precisely. just because your argument has no merit doesn't change that. Let's look at the teams specifically, for both 5 years and 10 years before the Super Bowl victory, to see if the teams had to finish at the bottom of the league to build their teams or if you can finish in the middle and ascend to championship level: 1996 Packers: avg wins 5 years before: 8.4; 10 years before: 7.1. for the Packers, the worst seasons they had were 8,9, and 10 years before their Super Bowl (4,5 and 4 wins), so it apparently took 7 years after their awful seasons to ascend to a Championship level. is that what you want, for the Jets to suck today in hopes that they win one 7 years from now? 1997 Bronco: avg wins 5 years before: 9; 10 years before: 9.2 This was a team maintaining average play for 5 years (13,8,7,9,8) and still built a Championship team. we can skip the '99 Broncos. 1999 Rams: avg wins 5 years before: 5.2; 10 years before: 6. but I have already addressed the Rams previously. 2000 Ravens: avg wins 5 years before: 5.8; 10 years before: 6.8. again, already discussed the Ravens. 2001 Patriots: avg wins 5 years before: 8.6; 10 years before: 5.8. like the Packers, their worst season were 8,9 and 10 years prior to winning the Super Bowl, showing that when a team sucks, it takes 7 years to get to a Champipnship level, if you do. only the Ravens and Rams are the modern exceptions. 2002 Buccaneers: avg wins 5 years before: 9.6; 10 years before: 5.8. again, they ascended to a Championship team with 5 years of average seasons, with their worse season 8,9 and 10 years before. it is a slow rise to a championship for teams that suck if that is where you want the Jets to be. and it is hard to correlate that sucking to winning when all of those teams had different coaches and players when they won than when they sucked. skip the '03 and '04 Patriots. 2005 Steelers: avg wins 5 years before: 10.6; 10 years before: 9. The poster boys for just a good team that eventually took the next step that didn't have to suck to win the Super Bowl. obviously they did suck and got Roethlesberger, and he undoubtedly is one of the main reasons they won, but that is more based on having the opportunity to draft a franchise QB than sucking and "reloading" talent, which does not occur and lead to championships, which is your argument. 2006 Colts: avg wins 5 years before: 10.4; 10 years before: 7.6. sure, sucking got them Manning, but overall the team's championship talent was built with mid round picks and not stock piling. 2007 Giants: avg wins 5 years before: 7.8; 10 years before: 8.8. the poster boy of an average team that built a roster of championship talent drafting in the middle of the rounds. 2008 Steelers: avg wins 5 years before: 10; 10 years before: 9. 2009 Saints: avg wins 5 years before: 7.2; 10 years before: 7.4. probably the most damning of all for you. most people think the Saints historically sucked, but they average 7 wins for a decade, and with mid round drafting still ascended to Super Bowl Champions. their worst seasons were 4 years and 10 years prior (3 each) and neither led to draft picks dependent on a high round selection that became significant for their championship. I already discussed this in detail of their picks. 2010 Packers: avg wins 5 years before: 8.4; 10 years before: 10.6. clearly not a championship that was the repercussion of maintaining championship level success. for five years prior they averaged 8.4 wins -- the definition of mediocrity, and still manages to build a Championship team. the argument isn't whether you have a greater chance of success with a first round pick than a 4th round pick, it is whether you have a greater chance of success picking at number 5 than number 20, and number 35 than number 50? the answer is no, because Championship teams are built with middle round picks, not high picks or teams that trade out of high picks to stockpile picks, so there is no need to suck to get the talent in the draft to win championships. you can be average, as most are, as long as you draft well.
