Again if there is one tradeup that nets 10-11 picks and if there are 2 tradeups (far less likely) that would still be 8-9 picks. If there are no tradeups several of those late round picks will never make the team anyway, so there is very little to lose by cutting out a couple of the least appealing low picks.
I believe, speculating about trading up is a waste of time, especially with Idzik now as GM, it's almost guaranteed it's not going to happen in Rd 1. If you enjoy thinking about trades, I guess that's your right. IMO, current efforts should be focused on the players that might be available with the current Jet's picks, there are just too many unknown variables speculating about trades. It's hard enough to try to find players to fit the Jet's system and current needs at their estimated draft slot, predicting trades is an all different realm.
Not once have I said to trade up in round 1, that would obviously be the height of stupidity in this situation. The opportunity is trading up the 2nd round pick or a 3rd round pick to get back into the 2nd round again. Working from those paramaters it really isn't that complicated; you're either targeting a WR, ASJ, or maybe an OLB like Van Noy if he starts to slide. It's probably a strategic mistake to not walk away with two 1st round talents or three players in the first 2 rounds in a lot of situations with 12 draft picks. It would take a lot more precise execution in later rounds to outperform that strategy, much more complexity also. Maybe Idzik being a Seattle guy will sway him against making a move, but that's probably not a good thing when you have 12 picks and a draft class that's stocked at the top with the biggest need on the team, WR. Frankly, there's no indication from Idzik's first draft that he has the capability to deliver on that reality. He was unwilling to move up a few spots to grab Warford and instead wound up with a nobody in Brian Winters and a converted dlineman in Campbell who will probably never take a snap in the NFL, an egregious error. Bird in hand is often better than two in the bush, yet you'd never know it on here despite numerous trade ups in every draft.
Very impressive numbers and highlights but at #18 I'll pass. I'd like him in a trade down but I can't see us moving back if there's an Evans/Lee/Amaro on the board. There's a lot of depth at WR this year so maybe Matthews falls but I could see the 49ers/Panthers/maybe even Pats grabbing him at the end of the first. Jordan Matthews or Allen Robinson would be awesome round 2 picks if we don't get our WR rd.1 but we need to go after the elite WR prospects first
The assumption though on a trade up is that you're somehow smarter than the average bear and that the pic-a-nic basket you're stealing by trading up is worth more than the one you'll wander across if you just bide your time. Looking at the NFL draft over the decades that just doesn't seem to be the correct strategy to make. This is primarily because people get hurt but it's also because even good picks don't always work out. If you look at the Jets specifically and at the players they have traded up to acquire since 2001 this is what you get: 2001 - Santana Moss (1st round) 2002 - Jonathan Goodwin (5th round) 2003 - DeWayne Robertson (1st round), Brooks Bollinger (6th round) 2004 - None 2005 - Kerry Rhodes (4th round) 2006 - Kellen Clemens (2nd round) 2007- Darrelle Revis (1st round), David Harris (2nd round) 2008 - Dustin Keller (1st round) 2009 - Mark Sanchez (1st round), Shonn Greene (3rd round) 2010 - Joe McKnight (4th round) 2011 - Jeremy Kerley (5th round) 2012 - Stephen Hill (2nd round) The Jets spent 33 draft picks counting the trade ups to get the guys above. How can that be a good strategy? From 2001 to 2012 the Jets were entitled to 84 draft picks and they spent 33 of them getting the guys above. Now look at the roster and ask yourself why it is short talent at the moment.
It's funny how people complain about certain picks. One year of Brian Winters and you're writing him off calling him a "nobody". Winters did struggle but showed improvement toward the very end of the season, for God's sake he's a rookie. Larry Warford won rookie of the year, good for him. Nobody knows who is going to be a better player in the long term Winters or Warford. One thing I can tell you Winters played Tackle in the MAC and converted to Guard in the NFL, Warford was a Guard and has played the postiion. You're also worried about a player drafted in Rd 6 and that is a project and call it a "egregious error", give me a break. A 6th round pick an egregious error? Why don't you write off Dee Milliner with the season he had??
As of now, expect the "3 elite" WRs to be gone at #18, Watkins & Evans for sure and possibly Lee. I would go with the TE (Ebron or Amaro) in Rd 1 and address the many choices at WR in Rd 2, just don't expect Matthews to be available. I'm not as big a Robinson fan as most on this site. If Lee falls to the Jets he should be the pick.
The point is that 6th round pick could've been tacked onto the Winters pick to yield Warford. Warford is a year one plus player and probable future pro bowler, I'd lay 5-1 that Winters ever turns into a real plus player. And what was the compensation for that difference? A converted dlineman hail mary who will be lucky to turn into a depth player within a couple years. That isn't value, it's a wasted roster spot. Analysis can change, crazier things have certainly happened, but to not even acknowledge what a big mistake not making a move for Warford appears to be just shows how biased you are about trading up, so why bother?
Trading up for an OG would be the height of stupidity and would merit his being fired immediately following that move and not being allowed to finish the draft. I swear the ideas that some of you guys come up with. Trading up for an OG bwahahahaha
The main problem is obviously a few of the names on that list being who they are. If Stephen Hill was Alshon Jeffrey, if Mark Sanchez was somebody besides Mark Sanchez, Dewayne Robertson was Terrell Suggs everybody would be saying sign me up! Also two and a half picks per trade up is too many, a more sustainable average would be 1.5-2.0 I think. Most of the time you want to make the scheduled pick when you're approaching the next selection, but occasionally that isn't the best decision. It's entirely fallacious to think the only viable alternative is to trade back, if that were true nobody would ever trade up with you to consummate a deal and the league might as well eliminate trading picks for picks. Obviously that's not the case. It would be a massive undertaking to figure out how trading up has worked out during that time period as a league average, I suspect it would revert to the mean like everything else but the analysis would be subjective anyway. Still it's easy to see that the results would look a lot different for the Jets if there were just a few different names on that list. Tannenbaum certainly overdid it leaving himself with 4-5 picks for a draft but again, 12 picks to start is a totally different beast. Right, moving up 7 spots in the 3rd round for a top G is really really stupid. Way stupider than picking 3 shitty Gs instead, as if it's ok to trade up in the 3rd round for any position but G. Go lie down.
Santana Moss has obviously been the best of those moves, and even he has not been that great of a player. While with the Jets, he left a ton of yards on the field. This was an absolutely GREAT post! This should be pinned and made required reading for all those fans who continuously want the Jets to trade up for some player that they've personally fallen in love with. The draft is not the time to be in "hero worship" or "starry-eyed dreamer" mode. In most drafts there are good players to be found in every round. The key is having a topflight Scouting Dept. and GM who know how to spot talent. Question: How many of those 33 picks were given away to trade up since 2008?
No, it isn't. Trading up for Jeffrey would have just made the move more palatable and less brain dead. The end result would have been the same. There still would be depth issues and holes because of the lost picks. You can try to rationalize it in your mind, but it's still a dumb strategy for building a team.
I'm not biased about trading up in the right circumstances. I'm just convinced from past experience, trading up consistently like Tanny did so often, hurts your roster, it depletes it. When you make a mistake trading up for a player, you hurt the team...two times over...on the player you traded up for and the pick(s) you gave up. Also, nobody knows if the Jets didn't try to trade up, making a trade is easier said than done. The Jets also didn't have a 4th rd pick in the Ivory trade and maybe a Team wanted the 4th in part of the deal. Your comment about Idzik not willing to trade up is crazy, were you in the draft room? Do you know the conversations that went on??? Nobody knows for certain that Warford is going to be great player, he has shown, so far, to be very good player for Detroit. Again, I wouldn't be giving up on Winters this early in the game. It's 20/20 Hindsight now and Monday morning QBing. It's easier to say we should have drafted this player, instead of that one a year later.
No, I wouldn't. I didn't like trading up for anyone. I knew from the time Tanny started trading up that the Jets were in trouble. He had no clue how to identify talent and get it without overpaying. I'm not a fan of trade ups because I understand of the cost that a team pay for trading up. Obviously you just don't get it. You're too much a fan and fall in love with players. GMs can't afford to do that, but some do, and they ultimately pay for it. Your second bolded comment is just laughable. That's like a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan saying Well, if I'm only shot 1.5 or 2.0 times a year, it's much more acceptable/sustainable than 2.5." Rationalizing sustainable costs for idiotic moves in the draft. OMG what has this site come to. The bottom line is that he still would be getting shot, and one of those shots could be a fatal one. The same thing applies to the trading up in the draft. There's always a cost for trading up, and you never know when that cost could be a fatal cost. Even if one doesn't endure a "fatal" cost, one can die from a thousand cuts as the Jets have due to all the trade ups and now having a ton of holes and little or no depth. Then there's also the cap costs, because you're gonna have to pay those players more that you traded up for. The idea of trading up continuously is idiotic. I'm sorry that you can't see that clear and plain fact.
Sensible points now but the 3rd and 5th should've gotten the deal done pretty easily, adding on a 2014 7th for sure. There were no picks taken in between that the Jets would've even entertained so they knew for a fact around the 63rd-65th pick it was move up for Warford or live with Winters and a couple more Gs afterward. Hindsight is 20/20 but it's pretty clear a move should've been made especially when you look at how the draft wound up playing out, obviously just compensating for not pulling the trigger on the guy. Again, Tannenbaum certainly overdid it especially in hindsight when you factor in the busts. Now a couple years after there are too many picks as a result, it would be a good idea to balance it back in a lot of situations imo.
why do we have to operate under the premise of the deal being there and us passing up on it? just because we didn't make any moves doesn't mean we didn't try. it does take 2 teams to agree to a deal after all
If they're doing their due diligence you start trying a couple picks ahead of where the guy winds up going. At some point there's a chance nobody is going to bite for a fair offer so your choice is to offer a premium and force it through or move on. Maybe fair offers were made, maybe not I don't know but this definitely doesn't seem like teams refused to trade at a premium. Idzik thought hey I'll just grab three weak guards and hope one of them turns into something instead. This way I don't stick my neck out, or whatever rationale that probably included 'competition' and 'covering my ass.' But when you look at it there's no way teams would've refused the 3rd 5th and 6th pick to move up 7-9 spots. Can't imagine it would've even cost that much. He could've traded down to pick 10 guards in that draft and it wouldn't equal Warford, and that's case in point why you don't overlook the option of trading up in the right situations.
We can agree to disagree. I think the "bad routes" argument is extremely flawed & is easily pointed out while going back to watch film.Hill DOES get open.Now he has to work on becoming a lot more polished. Perhaps he's not the #1 or #2 he was drafted to be. But he STILL consistently takes the top off a defense, runs a very good go route & can make big plays. If he's healthy...I see no reason why he can't be a decent #4 or #5.
i am very happy he didnt give up the 3rd 5th and 6th picks to move up 7 spots in the 3rd round. regardless of what happens with the picks that is not a precedent you want to set.
Oh, just for fun before I put you on ignore. This might've been the best point you made in the discussion, Santana was definitely the best move on the list by far. Revis was what, sixth or seventh best from that group?
