There ARE game changers at WR (Chase and Waddle), TE (Pitts), and LB (Parsons). I have seen both Parsons and Chase ranked as top 5 picks and listed as blue chip impact players in the draft. None of them listed in the top 5 would be a reach or over drafted at #2. I think one of the players ranked in the top 5 is a DT, but I forget who. Him we don't need. I think Chase, Waddle, Pitts, and Parsons all could have just as much impact as Sewell and be every bit as good as Sewell. My preferences would be as follows: 1. If JD likes either Wilson or Fields, take him at #2, if not trade down and either take one of Lance and Trask if he likes one of them or if not, stay put and take Chase, or trade down and take Waddle or Pitts. 2. If JD doesn't like Wilson or Fields, and doesn't get a reasonable/fair trade down offer, stay put and take Chase or Parsons. As much as I think the focus in this draft should be on offense, and want all of the first 4 picks spent on offense, I'd take Parsons over Sewell every single time. The only way I'd take Sewell or want him drafted is if If Douglas doesn't like any of the QBs, doesn't get good/fair value on a trade down offer, and he doesn't like Parsons or Chase, then and only then would I draft Sewell. The only similarity to 1997 is that we missed being able to draft Peyton and we may be unable to draft Lawrence. Any similarity ends after that. Jumbo Elliott had been a solid LT but was at or near the very end of his career, and I may be mistaken, but don't think he was HOF caliber. Becton is HOF caliber imo. Also, if we trade down, we won't be drafting just one average player. Depending how far down we trade, we should get multiple picks in return, and I doubt that we'd trade down far enough to just wind up with an "average" player anyway. We should still get a very good player (starter), and depending upon the other picks, we could get another very good player (starter), and maybe two solid starters. With all the holes the Jets have, adding two solid starters and two very good starters trumps adding one RT where there would be a minimal upgrade. Even if all 3 or 4 of the picks that we got for trading down didn't pan out, odds are, that the overall impact on the team's play would be greater with the players that JD takes with those picks than with just Sewell alone. The other thing to remember is that Sewell took the last year off. What kind of effect is that going to have on his play? How much rust will he have? Will he be out of shape? Will he perhaps be more injury prone? (EDIT - that will also be a factor for both Chase and Parsons, but I didn't initially mention it since you and others weren't so hyped about drafting them). It's just something else to think about.
There are some very solid reasons for not taking Sewell, but this one feels like reaching for straws, especially when you suggest Chase and Parsons, who also took the year off.
If Becton moves to RT, he may also be dealing with slower pass-rushers. That guy from Oakland (Ferrell ?) gave him trouble, he's a smaller, faster rusher. Worst case scenario is you worry about signing BOTH in 3-5 years. You can always franchise tag one of them. I think it's possible to have 2 All-Pros on the OL under the salary cap. I'm not sure about 3.
It's a negative for all three players, not just for Sewell. The other reason for not taking Sewell are enough imo. I was just pointing out that he might be very rusty and not nearly as good as his fans here are claiming. It could take him a while to get back to where he was with being at a higher level with tougher competition. I didn't mention it with the others, because nobody is really raving about Chase or Parsons the way they are about Sewell, but they are every bit as talented and as impactful as Sewell imo, and either would have a greater impact on improving the Jets overall play.
I didn't think about making less $$$ as a RT vs. LT....wow....great point. Of course, you can always pay him what a LT makes. And if you franchise tag him, tackles are one position, there's not LT vs. RT.
NCJ, you'd take a WR or LB at #2 ? Wouldn't trade down a few picks and try and get a #3 this year or next ?
Sewell is supposed to be a Pace/Munoz type of talent. He'll likely be better than Becton at LT, which is crazy. Keep in mind, Becton has given up 6 sacks this season. Becton can be the best RT in the game while Sewell mans the LT position. Point is, Sewell can very well be the pick at #2. It's also insurance for Becton, because he did have injury concerns this season.
I think the only reason Becton struggled with Ferrell is that he had missed some time with injuries, and the Jets have no one that fast for Becton to practice against. His technique is also still a work in progress. It also could have just been a bad day. You could be right that the Jets could fit 2 All-Pro OL under the salary cap if they didn't have any other players that good, but what if Mims turns into a star? If they keep Sam, they're going to have to pay him. There will be other players they have due for new contracts as well. You don't want to be in a situation where you may have to let 3-4 other good starters walk because you're spending too much of your cap on one position.
It could work out that way, or Becton could get pissed about being replaced and moved to RT and ask to be traded. Even if he stayed, if both are playing an All-Pro level, they're going to have to be paid, and that will tie up too much of the cap at one position, and could result in the Jets not being able to pay other players and wind up having to let 3-4 good starters walk in FA. The greater point is that the upgrade from Fant at RT is not going to be that great, RT is not a premium position, and either Becton or Sewell would be drafted too high to play RT. That's not good value, and the overall impact would be greater upgrading the WR position with Chase or Edge position with Parsons. In order to have a great OL one doesn't have to have the two best OTs in the game. That's overkill and a luxury. Becton was a rookie, and he struggled with some injuries, if he really did give up 6 sacks. I only remember the two to Ferrell. With having taken a year off, Sewell could be so rusty that he gives up more than 6 sacks next year.
I was surprised also, but he has given up 6 sacks this season (along with 5 penalties). If you don't end up paying both, then one could always be traded. A premium tackle will always go for a good amount. In the meantime, you could have them both for at least a few years along with signing a guard like Thuney. Talk about a revamped o-line for a QB. For me, I'd have no issue taking Sewell, but I can understand the other side of the argument. I think if the Jets stay at #2 and don't trade out and don't take a QB, then I think Sewell or Parsons would be the pick. Sewell or Parsons would be Joe Douglas type picks.
I said it before and I’ll say it again. It would be stupid to stay at 2 at this point. we either try and push to trade up with the Jags or trade down with Someone who likes Fields/Sewel. It’s really that simple. At this point I think we move on from Sam as well and trade for a vet QB like Matt Ryan or Matt Stafford and draft a development QB like Lance or Wilson for him to learn under his wing for a few years.
Trying to trade UP with the Jags would be like trying to solicit $$$ from Donald Trump to contribute to the Joe Biden Inauguration festivities.
Yes, one could be traded, but the timing would be difficult as in 5 years (if everything goes to plan) the Jets should be a serious contender for the SB, or at least a favorite to make the playoffs, and that would disrupt the timing of the OL. I see the positives in taking Sewell. He is a great prospect. If we didn't have Becton, he would absolutely be a slam dunk, no-brainer pick. I still believe that Douglas will like and take one of the QBs, but if not, it wouldn't totally surprise me to see Sewell as the pick. Since he would be on the offensive side of the ball, I wouldn't hate the pick, but would be concerned about Becton's reaction or Sewell's reaction to the decision about where Becton/Sewell will play, and would hope that it didn't cause serious cap issues 4-6 years down the road.
I wonder if BPA comes into play ? What if JoeD is convinced that 1 of the QB's is a definite Top 10 candidate...he loves the guy....thinks he's worthy of the #2 overall pick....but thinks that Sewell is like Lawrence, a guy who comes along every decade or less ? Should BPA come into play if you already have a great tackle ? I remember the NY Giants taking Carl Banks when they were already super-deep at LB simply because he was the BPA at that slot.
I'm sure Douglas would talk to Becton to see how he'd feel about moving to RT, and the same with Sewell while interviewing him before possibly entertaining drafting him. I don't see foresee it being an issue. Odds are, at least would be fine with it lol.
I agree that JD would do that or at least should to head off any potential problems. I can't imagine one agreeing to make $5 million a year less than the other, however. JD will have to pay them the same.
No. QB is the #1 most important position for a reason. Being a top 10 pick at QB, when your own QB has been worse than mediocre, trumps a generational player at another position, even LT or Edge. Then when one factors in that one took a great OT last year in the top 5, it becomes clear that you take the QB. I don't remember but think that's when Parcells was HC and George Young was the GM. Parcells hated QBs and was all about defense, so that would have been typical for Parcells and Young. Ignoring the QB position and need and just going with straight BPA is stupid imo. That's what Mac did, and look where it got us. This is a different game than when Carl Banks was drafted.
I mean, keep in mind, there is precedence for JD seeing something like that back with the Eagles when they paid both Jason Peters and Lane Johnson. Two great tackles.
