the two best QB's in the league are Brady and Rogers. where were they drafted again? they may be the exception, but for every Manning and Luck there are more Russell's and Leaf's and Sanchez's and Akili Smith's at the top of the draft. anyone who thinks you have to have the top pick in the draft to build a winner doesn't know shit about football.
Do the odds of getting better players by drafting higher go up or down or stay the same? Nobody is saying you can't hit on later picks. That's a straw man.
Incredible that anyone could argue that having a lower pick could be preferable to having a higher pick because some high picks have busted. Yeah, let's move down and draft an inferior talent for fear that the superior talent could bust. Look at one of the best QB drafts in recent history, 2004. Manning (1), Rivers(4), Rothlesberger (11). Then look at the shit afterward: Losman, Schaub, McCown, Krenzel, Hall, Harris, Sorgi, Smoker, Navare, Pickett, Braumlet, Mark, Symons, Van Pelt. 17 QBs taken, 3 potential HOFers in the top 15 picks and 14 absolute dregs. Yeah, let's get an inferior player at the most important position because...Akili Smith D'Oh! Better yet, let's pass on a potential franchise QB and get a "developmental QB" later in the draft because while drafting a QB at the top of the draft is a crapshoot, findings that gem later on to develop into a franchise QB is so more scientific because...Tom Brady D'Oh! Geezuz. _
Yep. It's as if some people here have no familiarity with logic. Sure, Tom Brady was picked late in the draft, so let's trade our higher picks for lower round ones, even up! And on the developmental bit, let's not even get into how some of hte "project" picks by the Jets have done. Ducasse, Hill. Yikes.
If we have a top 3 pick, it would have to be a QB. If I could get a Rams type haul for the pick I probably would, as I dont love either QB. But if the Jets love Mariota or Winston, I dont think you can justify not picking them. Mariota in the first/Gurley in the second/WR in the third.
Trading down is always smart. There is no can't miss prospect. Not sure there will be a market for that pick which right now is at 5. I'm assuming we'll win at least 2 more games maybe 3. Winston even without his baggage has only two years as a starting Qb. Doesn't that sound familiar.
Has nothing to do with the higher pick being preferable. The position in dispute is the whining that it is needed to have a higher pick and building a winning team is dependent on it, and mid round picks keep you at mediocrity, and thus the losing is better than the winning.
No, I didn't change his argument and dispute the change so it isn't a straw man. That's just a convenient way to avoid my actual position and yet still create the appearance of defeating it. Your accusation of a straw man is actually a straw man. You changed what the exchange was about and disputed your change. Well done on the hypocrisy. Try comprehending the statement I actually addressed. He didn't say the odds decreased, he made a strict assertion that it was impossible and thus we would stay in mediocrity if we did not have the highest possible pick.
Building a truly consistent competitive winner is based on one thing-having a franchise QB. Your odds of finding a franchise QB decrease the further down in the draft you go. Do high pics bust? Yup. Can you find exceptional players later in the draft? Yup. Can you find franchise QBs outside of the first round? Absolutely. But the best shot we have this year to change our franchise--a year when we'll have one of our best draft picks in years and may not see again for years more--is to roll the dice on whomever of the two top QBs are that the Jets deem worthier. Not worthy, worthier. We have to draft one of the top 2 QBs this year (my preference is for MM because I see a potential bust factor for Winston having nothing to do with football or laziness or lack of football IQ (the JaMarcus Russell comparisons which I find idiotic)) and trust that the one we pick can be developed, has the tools and the talent and the football IQ, to excell. Taking a tackle or WR or trading down for a massive haul will only serve to delay that change in the franchise and keep us mediocre for another decade. We had 12 picks last year and had a bad draft. Getting Idzik more picks this year isn't going to change the franchise. Only a QB will. Is Mariota a can't miss? Who knows? We're all guessing at this point. Roll the dice and let's find out- the worst that can happen is that we remain the same ole Jets for another 5 years. _
The argument was that you needed a top of the first round pick and excluded even mid or late first rounders who would mire us in "mediocrity." Who are generally considered the top 4 QBs in the league, in no particular order? Brady - 6th round Manning - 1st pick Rogers - late first round Brees - 2nd round Three of the four were late first or later picks. Those are just facts. The rest of the top 10? Luck - 1st pick Roethlisberger - 11th pick Russell - 3rd round Romo - undrafted Ryan - 3rd pick Rivers - 4th pick Of the top 10 QBs in the league, 5 were drafted out of the top 10 and later, and 3 outside the first round entirely. The argument that it is required to draft at the top of the first round to get your franchise QB is empirically false. It doesn't even weigh your odds in the favor which are split 50/50 if you are aiming for a top 10 QB.
I'm not for searching for a franchise Qb. We did that with Mark and it set back the organization when it didn't work out. And look at some of these guys like Sam Bradford. I'd rather build up our infrastructure like the lines and the secondary. You don't need a franchise Qb to win.
the straw man argument you made at the top of this page is that you don't have to have a top pick to get a good pick. That is a straw man since the real metric is HOW LIKELY ARE YOU TO GET A QUALITY PLAYER THE LOWER DOWN IN THE DRAFT YOU PICK? I was commenting on the illogic of your using such a metric. Try comprehending that. Yes, I would agree Stokes overstated his case to the extent he could be understood to say you cannot get a good player in the lower rounds, but I think he did not really mean to say that. As you should have understood. The odds of finding a better player go down the further down you are in teh draft. that is why teams want to have top picks. That is why teams on occasion trade up in the draft, sometimes with great success, and do not trade down unless they are in effect paid to do so with compensation.
I think your confusing history and the opportunity we have in front of us. We're in a position now to get one of the two clear potential franchise QBs (IMHO and recognizing we're all guessing). The Brady anomaly is such a red herring it defies discussion, yet there are people that will bring it up time and again as D'OH a sixth rounder he's the greatest QB of all time. 7 of the last 9 Super Bowl winners were first rounders and all but Rogers was a low pick with Flacco being the 18th after Matt Ryan was the only first rounder taken. Look at the franchises that have won consistently over the past decade--ALL led by true franchise QBs. Brady is the anomaly and Brees to a certain extent is also somewhat of an anomaly considering how great he has become after getting traded. Wilson was a complete flyer as they already spent heavily for their franchise QB. Not sure he's winning a SB becaue of him because he isn't Drew Brees. It's all about the QB however you get him. This year we have a shot at the top 2. Hoping Bryce Petty or Brett Hundley or Grayson or Mannion become Brees or Romo or Brady is fools gold. It's more likely they become Daulton or Clemens or Tannehill or Cutler or Hoyer or McCown. Look at the other winning QBs you listed Ryan and Rivers-- top top picks and if Mariota turns out as good as either one, we'll be set for a decade. If you HAVE a top pick, roll the dice on a top QB. Don't trade down to get Andy Daulton so that you can pick up an extra CB in round 2 or WR in round 3. _
That's not necessarily true. A lot of players rise up the draft boards not because they are the better player but because of the NFL combine. Every year tons of players' stocks increase during the draft when in reality the college tape was not all that impressive. And in regards to your bold, how many times has this backfired? Do you really think players like Blaine Gabbert, Blake Bortles, and Vernon Gholston were truly better players? I don't think so. Plenty of high risers in the draft that are in reality, not that good players according to the tape.
I never said you COULDN'T! I said it was less likely and considering where we are and how this draft only has TWO star QBs, you can't trade down this year in the hopes that you can miraculously strike it rich picking up a Romo as a free agent or a Brady in the sixth round. You're not even getting a Brees in the second round. It's a bullshit argument--the top QBs--the winning QBs--he listed were by and large first round picks and most very low first round picks. Take miracles and outliers out of the equation because they skew the real story. Peyton and Ben and Rivers and Eli and Luck and Ryan were all TOP TOP TOP picks. _
I didn't say teams trade up and always succeed. You are missing the point. Teams trade up because the likelihood of picking a better player go up the higher you pick. Related to that is the reality that the player you want might not be available if you wait for him to fall to your pick. That hs nothing to do with making the wrong pick. Teams that bundle a bunch of mid and low round picks are also quite capable of picking mostly bad players. See the Jets in the most recent draft, for example.
I should have said that better. I meant to the extent you take JB's angle on what you said it would be an overstatement. I think we both agree it's here all about relative odds of finding a better player the higher up in the draft you get to try and find one. I agree JB's is a bullshit argument.
That's not a straw man at all, it's a fact. The point of contention was that drafting in the middle of the first round relegated you to mediocrity. That's false. Great players have been drafted at all slots of the first round so your argument that it increases your chance of getting a lower quality pick is baseless. You can't bring up buzzwords like metrics and not provide any metrics that support your position. I've already supported mine in regards to QBs.
I'm sure somebody's spoken to this already, but another strong factor cutting in favor of pulling the trigger for a QB with a top pick at this point is the rookie salary scale now in place. If the pick busts out, it will be much easier to move on from than in years past. It won't set us back a decade.
No, they aren't by and large 1s round picks. 4 out if 10 were 2nd and later and the other first was late first. Facts dispute your position. And the argument I was disputing was that you needed a top first round pick which Rogers certainly isn't. My position that you responded to had nothing to do with trading down it had to do with fans wanting the team to lose to get a better pick because it was the only way to get a top QB and not be mediocre.
