I just used Darrisaw as an example of a good player available later. There were many others in addition to him. Creed Humphrey was an immediate pro bowler and was taken in the 2nd round that draft. My main point is that 14 overall is less valuable than 23 overall, 66 overall, and 86 overall. That is especially true for a team with as many holes as we had (and continue to have because of the trade). Statistically, you are likely to get 2 starters and maybe 3 with the picks we traded if you're selecting OL, because they retain value later into drafts than other positions do. You can get a maximum of 1 starter from the pick we traded for. A good OL is mainly about having solid guys everywhere along the line, not a stud in one place and disasters at the others. Look at how many holes our OL still has - it's not an accident we're in this situation. We made poor use of draft capital and it's predictably coming back to haunt us. There is a reason that the teams that consistently draft best are ones who either sit pat or trade down often. This is legitimately one of the least up-for-debate philosophies in the NFL. Trading up will sometimes work out in your favor, but it usually doesn't, so you're generally dumb for ever doing so.
I don’t know…I’m not sure I agree that 3 later picks is always better than one significantly higher pick. Yes, great players tend to go early, and still some fall through to later rounds. Agreed…it happens. But third round picks can also become Ashtyn Daivis. Or for example the thinking in just drafting a mid round developmental QB instead of a high first round one…well more often than not, you’ll get a Clemens or a Morgan or a Petty and not a Dak. For every 4th round QB who becomes a real starter, there are probably dozens who just fail. So I’m not sure I agree 100% that you always take quantity over quality in picks. I think for us, sure we had a lot of holes and a boatload of picks like SF gave to move up to 3 and take Trey Lance would have been great, so it depends on your scouting and talent evaluation, and then on your team situation.
The jets gave up a lot of Revis. I guess they should have stayed at pick 17 and drafted Aaron Ross or something. Again, Conner McGovern was going into year 2 of a 3 year deal. They weren’t taking a Center look back, they NEEDED a GUARD, really bad
You got my vote. You were adamant that the jets should not take Zach Wilson and you were right and Douglas was wrong.
I'm talking specifically about OL, which hit in mid-later rounds at far higher rates than most positions. https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015...e-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round Let's look at one of our biggest areas to fix. Offensive line is typically one of the safest positions to draft because the success rate is greater than almost all the other positions. Of the 421 players drafted, 147 wound up as starters for at least half their career. The first round has an 83% success rate. The second round is almost as good with 70%. Even the third and fourth aren't too shabby in comparison to success rates of other positions in the same rounds. (3rd - 40%, 4th - 29%). This data is old, but it gives us a starting point. There is more recent data I can't find at the moment but it was similar. OL drafted in the 3rd round have a roughly 40% chance of becoming a long-term starter. If you use 2 picks, like we had, you're probably going to get a starter and you have a decent shot at getting 2 starters. A first rounder and 2 third rounders is higher upside and higher floor because 2 starters is probable and 3 is possible. It does not depend on scouting and talent evaluation. The vast majority of GMs are no better at selecting talent on a pick by pick basis than other GMs. The best drafting GMs are the ones who sit pat, trade down, and select high-impact positions.
Picking 1 example where trading up worked out changes nothing about my point. The point is that it usually doesn't work out in your favor, so you should basically never do it. If you had the chance to play 2 casino games with the same payout, but one hit at 40% and the other at 45%, you'd never be smart to play the 40% one, even though there would be times that it would hit when the other wouldn't.
You definitely turned out to be right about AVT trade, and overall what you are saying makes sense, no doubt. But I still think sometimes trade up makes sense. For instance, Jalen Carter I thought was a blue chip player, who is a #1-3 overall level talent. Not unlike Q. Philly spent a 4th rounder to move up to get him at #9. It was their position of need and the guy is an absolute beast. already one of the best DTs in the NFL. The next DT (Kancey) went #19, and was rated by most as a late 1st round pick, no where near Carter level. So far he sucks ass. Another guy I thought slipped a lot was Dawand Jones. He was projected by most to be 2nd rounder. He slipped all the way to 4th, and I thought it would be worth to spend the extra 6th or so for JD to get him in the 4th. So far he played very well, 13 games starting, though now is hurt. Instead JD actually traded down and got significantly inferior prospect Carter Warren, who thus far was useless. Not much from later picks either. I guess the point here is that when someone has slid quite a bit vs consensus, it may be worth to spend some assets to get him, even though in general it is probably not a good idea to give up a lot on a trade up. I realize these are individual examples, but these are the two guys I was thinking about during the draft where great value was. When re-evaluating AVT trade, he was drafted 14th overall, which is on the higher side for a Guard to begin with. So, he could not have slid down a lot, he was probably at the spot he should have been or maybe even a little higher. In this case you are right it did not make sense to give up so much to move up or even give up anything. However, if someone slid down a lot vs the consensus and you can move up without giving up a lot, it may still be worth it.
I agree. My point was when your a complete team (which includes depth) trading up can be very good. The eagles could trade up because they were already built. Same with the niners when they took a shot at Lance. These are teams can afford to trade up for final pieces. Not a team at the beginning of a rebuild. Even when you hit on the trade up it can really drag a rebuild out. Talent evaluation does come into play though. For example, in the Zach draft we took 5 DBs in rounds five and six. The niners took one in the 5th (Hufanga), and he's a pro bowler. Same at QB. After losing on Lance they found one with the last pick of the draft. Finding low round starters in nearly every draft is a trait of a winning franchise.
I know GMing on the internet is a lot of wind - just like I am. But I'm restless in my retirement. I gotta say I've taken the time over the last few days to actually vet my draft strategy and its all right there for the taking. Its too big and to possible to ignore. There are multiple paths, some are better than others, and all are hard to see if you cant recognize the big picture - but the outcomes are all similar by degrees. There is a splinter, an invisible seam that is unique to this particular draft, and if someone exploits it they could win HUGE - even us in our current situation. I could lay the foundations of a dynasty, starting this draft. Literally create a new era of Jets. One that would be almost impossible to fail. And it doesn't involve parting with Q or Garrett, etc. Just a few simple and unexpected, yet perfect moves before the draft. They do require flexibility, secrecy, and blowing some things up. I almost wish I didn't discover it because its eating away at me. Destroying my peace. Its doable and hiding in plain sight.
You got my vote brother! "When" they DO hire you I put my hat in the ring for a West Coast scouting position!
Yeah, then they put his ass in zone and let Waddle wander around all day. This is the point. So you say they got Sauce to guard Hill. Welllll...how WELL does Sauce cover a guy who they simply rotate out of his zone? Your logic is flawed on this one. Maybe within a different system or a different coaching staff. But not this one.
Take your original analysis, send it to JD and say it is constructive criticism... then add you plan for building the team. I am positive that JD would flush you plan because he is an arrogrant prick and believes that because he is in the NFL GM he is more knowledge and better able to make decisions then some fan. In additon, I would sent it to NY Post beat writer Costello and with the same info and tell him to use it as a gague to measure JD success or failure... and then he could write about it.... And when JD fails, you'll have the satisfaction of knowing you sent it and he rejected it and when the fail...because their trajectory is downward slopping as you have pointed out... I have sent Woody a few letters that I am sure got there but end in the trash barrel. But at least I feel like I tried to make a difference,,,, I just turned 74 and like Hess, I am tired of losing....
Lots of Jets draft picks turn out bad - I've done posts in the past about how mind boggling bad our history has been in the second round - but the one that kills me is the ZW pick - you had the niners offering up a swap of first round picks and TWO more first round picks to move up to #3 to take Trey Lance so you could have got at least that at #2 - 2 extra first round picks on top of a pick in that round instead of taking a guy that had major red flags (not least playing at a low level in college and during covid when a ton of players didn't play)
you don't burn the #4 pick overall to bring in a player to on occasion cover 1 guy you are going to face at most twice a year
It's so easy to gameplan against Sauce. Only throw short comeback routes to his side so he has to tackle, and run the ball directly at him 60% of the game. You know where he will be.
