I beleive that the way our current front office works is that every situation is different. While I am one of those people who believes more picks is better so that you reduce your risk and increase the chances of getting players that can contribute. When the trades were made I was not happy that we gave up all of those picks. As I looked at it more closely clearly there was a big dropoff in talent after the first 50 players or so. I don't see many players that were available with our 2nd and 3rd round picks that were rated highly. Notice how the Pats traded out of round 2 and round 3. I think this is just a case where our front office looked at the draft board and decided getting Revis and Harris was more valuable then the players they felt would be available pre trade. Can't say I love trading up but in this situation it makes sense.
The Pats had all the ammo in the world to go get David Harris and they had two aging inside linebackers in Bruschi and Vrabel. They don't blow that kind of situation very often. The fact that the Pats would not make a move to get Harris has me worried, given that the Jets paid a lot for him.
I'm just worried about the ashes in mouth effect that seems to follow the Jets in odd seasons. 1999 - Vinny goes down, 2001 - Belichik wins a ring in New England after ditching the Jets, 2003 - Chad's injury after he looked so good in 2002, 2005 - General collapse, 2007 - ???
So two decidely inferior linebackers is better than one very good one? Or maybe we should wait a year or two and used the saved money on a star. Last time I looked we were a playoff team and trying to stay that way. Stick the chart where the sun don't shine.
Ouch! "Intellectual elitism", I like it. I've seen the concept many times but could never nail it like that.
The same people complaining complained about picking 2nd tier talent in guys like Miller, Strait, and Hobson. We wouldn't have even had a chance at Ross (Strait part 2), so likely would have taken Houston (Miller part 2). If we stayed put, there was no value at all at the end of 2/beginning of 3. The guys we likely would have targetted, and many here wanted (beekman, soliai) went in round 4.
It's fun to talk back and forth about the different schools of thought when it comes to the draft, but it seems to me it always comes down to hindsight is 20/20. 5 years from now if Dwayne Jarrett turns out to be a top notch pro bowl player some will say how if only the Jets picked him how are offense would be amazing or whatever... but thats the whole thing--They didn't need a WR this year so if the Jets had 15 1st/2nd round picks this year they probably still wouldn't have taken Jarrett. That's why years later saying "look who was on the board when the Jets blew it and took Revis what a bunch of lamo's" doesn't make much sense to me because most of the guys that will turn out to be studs are guys they would never have drafted based on their needs that year. I don't know if what I just typed makes sense to anyone else but me. I just think it's funny when different buddies become draft experts 3 or 4 years after a draft... I knew Marcus Colston was going to be amazing I can't believe he wasn't a 1st rounder... Yeah right : ) that's why he went undrafted in my fantasy football league 25 round draft.
Teams that trade up in the draft have a very high failure rate at accomplishing what they are trying to do. That's using 20/20 hindsight in it's best form: as a predictor of the present and future.
This really is a stepping stone year. As long as we avoid catastrophic injuries at key, youthful positions, the most important thing is we continue to grow within the CS schemes, and our young players continue to develop. Any playoff appearance, or excessive winning, is certainly a bonus, but really our run is in the next 2 following seasons. W/ that said, I do believe by week 16 we will still at least be in contention for a wild card spot..
I would let that worry me if the Pats' draft history were a spotless goldmine of talent, but their scouting in the draft isn't something that's going to worry me about one of our drafted players. The amount that we gave up for him bothers me, to the point that I expect him to perform as a first rounder, but other than that, I will watch him objectively.
You know I was thinking Revis has Rhodes to emulate. Rhodes is a player. He gives 100% all the time and factored into some huge plays for us last year. If Revis tries to be like Rhodes, we have a winner.
i like how he uses Nate Kaeding in the rivers manning deal. like umm yeah not for nothing but that guy cant hit a clutch field goal to save his life! i'll give u shawne merriman, but kaeding didnt do that franchise any favors now.
charts may evaluate the past, but if you trust the guys doing the trading then screw the chart. they will be in the positive outcome of the percentages if they are good. if 80 per cent fail, trust that the FO is smart and will be in the 20 per cent
I am all for gettting lots of picks and not moving up but moving down for more. That being said this article is shit, complete shit. He says how the players turn out is irrelevant. That is complete horseshit. If that was the case why even have a draft? Then he mentions the Rivers/Manning trade as if that is even comparable to what Mangini/Tannenbaum did. That is folly. The Giants ruined two drafts with that trade. They went for broke on one player and he is not what they thought he would be. Last I checked even if Revis completely sucks and Harris has a bum knee, the Jets contained the damage to one draft on what they thought was 2 top tier players. Also, if you ruin 2 or more drafts on this trading up crap then there is a domino effect (getting desperate and making even worse moves). Again this did not happen here. In this article he mentions the last 5 CB's taken first. He says it is 50-50 about them being elite Pro-Bowlers. Well is that not a decidedly better percentage then the percent of later round LB's/CB's like Z. Thomas, Jeremiah Trotter or Rhonde Barber he mentioned as becoming elite. Another crappy argument. If you are going to use arguments against what the Jets did, use them in the proper context. The economic article strongly suggests that top picks like 1-10 based on history are not the most economical. The ones that are, are the late 1st to early 2nd. Their argument was purely economical. The Jets traded up to #15 right in the middle, I suppose this is the blind spot on the economists thesis. Anyway since they found top picks to be economically unjustifiable the top tier on the draft chart would be inefficient where as the lower the chart would be more efficient. The Jets stayed within the later boundries of the chart which would indicate that the value they got and gave was more efficient.............. bleh weak argument either way if you ask me. Anyway, I do not want to sound as a blind homer because in all actuality this draft was not what I expected nor wanted. I think the article is weak sauce. What I like about this draft is the following. The FO felt it was a weak draft and basically got what it felt was the strongest players possible. It was not a panic move or some hasty decision. They saw what they percieved as value and went for it. Where as we all know that the Robertson trade up was the result of Bradway getting annally gang raped by Washington in the off season. As I mentioned earlier this is the domino theory, 1 or 2 or 3 bad decisons beget even more bad decisions. I think this is an example of a flexible and smart upper management. What remains to be seen, were they too smart/egotistical for their own good? What I did not like about it was for a team that has decidedly more holes to fill, then just 2 , the FO did not fill anymore then that. The Jets still have glaring holes on the OL, DL, the most important places to winning in the NFL, in my eyes. If I was going to say I do not like this draft, then that is where I would lay the blame. I think Harris is more of a luxury pick then another lineman would be. (my opinion) Personally, the Jets are in year 2 of a rebuilding process that is going to take 3-4 years. I was a lot happier after the draft last year but I am not disapointed by any stretch, at least not yet.
I agreed with everything else you wrote prior, but lets address this. OL - Clearly they were happy to resign Clement, and with Bender, drafted a small school stud that can play 4 positions on the OL. DL - We signed Coleman and a slew of other DE's. Apparently they are happy with Robertson, and a returning Pouha to handle the NT position for this season. In their defense, there was pretty much jack in FA or the draft as far as true 3-4 NT's are concerned. So basically, we already have enough DE's and there were no NT's available. What could they have done? Even Soliai is no less a project than Pouha. ILB - We did not have a starting calibre prototype run stuffing 3-4 ILB on our roster. Harris should come right in and help against the run and keep blockers off Vilma. This was actually a need and not a luxury.
Yeah, it's better to trade down like Terry Dumbway did in 2005 and get Doug Jolley, Justin Miller, and Mike Nugent instead of #1 and #2 picks. I'll take the 2007 approach any day.
