Hey if it's Mcfadden verse Any position that's not Noise Tackle, I'd take him Hands down. His too talented.
This should be a public pole...line in the sand kinda deal. That way we know where everyone stands until the draft. And remember, this is a message board...you're not allowed to change your mind at any point, regardless of what happens between now and draft day.
No one said he wouldn't improve the Jets if we drafted him, man! Where do you get that bogus argument from? Come on, at least be honest here. Sure he'd improve the Jets, but expand your horizons.... "improve" at the expense of what? Think about it before you post!
I almost typed up that answer, but it's become painfully obvious that anyone who doesn't agree that McFadden is the only choice is a moron, so why bother? I keep forgetting, football isn't a team sport. One superstar player can win a Super Bowl on his shoulders. I mean, look at guys like: Peyton Manning...oh wait Tom Brady...er Dan Marino? Barry Sanders? LaDanian Tomlinson? Damn. Maybe one player isn't enough, after all. It's amazing how uncommon common sense is these days.
This looks like a pretty clear declaration that McFadden would not improve the Jets. Please don't try to paint me as an idiot for calling Alio out for this ridiculous remark. If you read my earlier post in this same thread I have clearly stated that McFadden should be our choice if we can't get a good package of picks to trade down. But I am not in the camp that we should trade down no matter what. If there isn't someone chomping at the bit to ensure that we get full value for our pick I would have no problem with standing pat and taking a a fantastic prospect in McFadden. If we can't get anyone to bite on our pick I don't want our FO to take a reach pick either. To me, at this point in the process, there isn't another player out there in the top 5 as talented as McFadden that fits a need for us. If there was a top 5 pass rusher or NT then fine. But since there isn't we have to do what we can to get the most value out a pick at the top of the draft which I don't expect to see again for a long time as this team improves next season and beyond. Maybe the both of you(Alio and Section) are a little frustrated from arguing with some of the idiots who post here - please don't confuse me with the emotional fanatics that post here.
i still have yet to hear what the problem is if this scenario unfolds: 1. BEFORE the draft, we sign one or two OL in FA who can start and improve the OL 2. we sign a Defensive starter. 3. we are unable to trade down. i've gone through just about every pro and con and i know the reasons of why to take him and why not to take him. but if all three of these happen, and McFadden is available when we're on the clock, then what? (by the way, i'm on the fence regarding McFadden, but i'd like to hear the naysayers' opinions of this circumstance.)
i say we take him if the first thing is done. jones will not be here forever. niether will mangini. give the next coach a horse to run with!!! mcfadden is pretty darn good!
No we don't. We have more salient concerns like NT, DE, and LB and WR. The NY Times stated that RBs are not high draft picks anymore and that most teams pick the lines first and QBs and WRs. You can usually get a great back lower down the draft. In the Jets case Coles is starting to break down and Cotch although he has great hands does not have the speed to get seperation on deep passes. This was highlighted when Coles was out and you saw the little impact Cotch had. We also need a true nose tackle that can swallow up the run. What about pass rush? and another solid linebacker. The bottom line we have alot of holes (o i forgot OL also). So to spend it on Mcfadden wouldn't be wise decision in light of all the other areas of need.
Wha??? LOL You know what, Mcfadden will win the Jets a super bowl. We don't need anymore cap space or picks, DMC is all we need. I'm pretty sure that is what most of the people who want Mcfadden think!!!!!!:breakdance:
Fair enough on the callout man. Reading what I wrote, it is a fair assumption that I said he doesn't make us any better, but that wasn't my point (though from what you wrote, it seems you do understand that, which is fair enough.) He doesn't fix us. We're a seriously flawed team overall, and that was my point. He doesn't help the defense. He doesn't help the pass protection. Both of those are critical shortcomings for us at this point. IF the situation falls into the range of 1) we have signed significant bodies to play on both lines (unlikely) 2) he's on the board when we pick (also unlikely) and 3) there are no fair offers for the pick (doubtful), then sure, we might as well grab him. Of course he doesn't make the team worse. The point I've been arguing, and what I'm pretty sure 227 has been saying as well, is that McFadden is an unnecessary luxury that a 3 win team, with much bigger problems, and a capable tandem at the position, can ill afford to take. If everything falls into place, where all of the above conditions prove true, then I'd have no problem with taking McFadden. If any of the conditions don't work though, I want to either trade the pick, or use it elsewhere. BPAs don't get us to the Super Bowl, and that's the only thing I'm concerned with. There are more than enough guys on the team who I can cheer for. I don't need a single guy to cheer for. I want to cheer for the defense to stop Tom Brady on 4th and 1 in the playoffs, not a running back to break a personal record.
These are excellent reasons why our priority should be WR, not RB. Believe me, if McFadden is available and we're on the clock, the phone will be ringing off the hook. If we need to be looking at any offensive toys in April, we need to be looking to trade into positions that bring us (1) a TO-type WR and (2) a Brandon Jacobs-sized fullback.
None of the above will be available with our pick. Mcfadden is the only sensible sane choice. Who is going to trade up with us to get McFadden? Look at this draft and find one logical choice to come up to us with multiple draft picks?
The Patriots will take him because we will have a better record than Sf and the Pats have their pick. We will lose out on a superstar once again!
On the one hand, you're pounding the table and referring to McFadden as the second coming of Christ. On the other hand, you're asking "Who is going to trade multiple picks to us to get him?" I swear, I haven't seen this kind of feeding frenzy over one guy ever... not ever... and that includes Reggie Bush. And we're 4 months out and not even sure we'll be in position anyway!
The reality of the situation is the best possible scenario for us would be to trade down and stockpile picks. The problem is this draft is Qb heavy and nobody will come up for a Qb because Guys like Colt Brennan will be in the second round this year. There is no way McFadden slips past the Raiders or Pats who will probably be picking ahead of us. I think teams have learned about trading away their futures with the Eli Manning Fiasco. Unfortunately we will have to use this pick and the problem is there is no defensive player that is worth taking that high in this draft that fits the 3-4 and do we really want to draft another Ot with a top ten pick. Unfortunately we are in the situation to have to take the best player available and McFadden is it.
Philosophically, I'd prefer to see us trade down, pick up more picks and use it to fill in any of the multiple holes we seem to have on the OL, DL and WR. If we can get a pass rushing DE-OLB hybrid, that'd be on the shopping list too. Backs that can gain a lot of yards without a decent OL are few and far between (Barry Sanders is the only one that comes to mind). That being said, this strategy would be predicated on: 1) Having an available trade partner who will give us something approximating fair value. 2) What holes we have left after Free Agency has started. I'd like to think that our coaching staff and our general manager can see the same things I've seen from our Jets. That is, we get blown off the line of scrimmage on offense and defense. If you can't solve that, it doesn't really matter what else you have going on. You'll be inconsistent at best and downright abysmal at worst. Just my two cents.
If the Pats pick before we do 'Mcfadden it isn't'. You can bet the farm that Mcfadden will be LONG gone before we pick.
??? You're all over the place man. There's no way McFadden slips past the Raiders or Pats who will probably pick ahead of us, but then when it's our turn to pick, we have to take the BPA, who would be McFadden? What am I missing here? Now you asked if "we" really want to take another OT with a top-10 pick. Well, "I" would, if he was the BPA, who also fills a need, which he would. It's doubtful that both conditions would be met though. However, there will be talent on the board at #5, and there will be trading partners available to us. Based on that whole point grade system for draft picks, we'll probably lose value in any deal. However, we set ourselves up to get extra opportunities to bring in massive bodies at cheaper cost to play our lines. Maybe we even have the opportunity to finally have a FB in our backfield again. We don't need McFadden. We do need offensive and defensive line help. This really isn't such a hard concept. I just hope this works out like the Reggie Bush fiasco did. Let McFadden be off the board when we pick, and we can just move on.
