GangGreenDover Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Round 1: Amari Cooper Round 2: Conner Cook Seems possible right! how y'all think we should go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Two cb's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFJF Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Rd 1- QB Rd 2- CB Rd 3- CB Rd 4- QB Rd 5- OT Rd 6- OL Rd 7- OLB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New York Mick Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 How y'all think we should go??? Are you on the right message board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPBanBadPosters Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 1 - Marcus Mariota 2 - Jaelen Strong 3 - Ameer Abdullah A young, stud QB with some offensive weapons to grow and develop a rapport with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 1 - Marcus Mariota 2 - Jaelen Strong 3 - Ameer Abdullah A young, stud QB with some offensive weapons to grow and develop a rapport with. Nah safety, cb, OL first three rounds. Maybe one makes the roster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lith Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Round 1: Amari Cooper Round 2: Conner Cook Seems possible right! how y'all think we should go If we get Cooper and Cook, then I don't care what happens over the last 5 rounds, I will be a happy camper. Even if we need to package a couple of picks to move up into the back end of the first to grab Cook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadetree Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Hire Kubiak Guuuurley Quicker, athletic lineman via FA and draft Veteran QB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge o8 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 1st QB Mariota 2nd WR S. Coates 3rd OT C.Erving 4th OLB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GangGreenDover Posted October 28, 2014 Author Share Posted October 28, 2014 How y'all think we should go??? Are you on the right message board? nahh dummy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GangGreenDover Posted October 28, 2014 Author Share Posted October 28, 2014 1 - Marcus Mariota 2 - Jaelen Strong 3 - Ameer Abdullah A young, stud QB with some offensive weapons to grow and develop a rapport with. I wouldn't mind this at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Someone qualified should rank the entire draft from 1-250, and then they should take the top guy available from that list with every pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJet Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 If we get Cooper and Cook, then I don't care what happens over the last 5 rounds, I will be a happy camper. Even if we need to package a couple of picks to move up into the back end of the first to grab Cook. No way cook is not a first round pick next year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lith Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 No way cook is not a first round pick next year I agree. Thats why I am assuming we would need to trade up to get him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPBanBadPosters Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Someone qualified should rank the entire draft from 1-250, and then they should take the top guy available from that list with every pick. So, if each time our turn comes up the top player on our board is a DT, we should draft 7 DT's? You don't want to reach to fill a need, but a rigid, inflexible BPA isn't the answer either; there's gotta be a happy medium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 So, if each time our turn comes up the top player on our board is a DT, we should draft 7 DT's? You don't want to reach to fill a need, but a rigid, inflexible BPA isn't the answer either; there's gotta be a happy medium. Yes, because the law of averages says that's exactly what will happen. Soon the Jets will have the 53 best DTs in the NFL. I can't imagine a better outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 So, if each time our turn comes up the top player on our board is a DT, we should draft 7 DT's? You don't want to reach to fill a need, but a rigid, inflexible BPA isn't the answer either; there's gotta be a happy medium. Well then we shouldn't have those DTs ranked that highly on our board. If there's a DT with about #10 overall talent he still shouldn't be in our top 50, meaning that player would have to drop from #9 to round 3 for us to even consider a look at him. So if the board was properly ranked for this team, there should be no danger of that. Also there's always a person making the pick not a robot on auto-select. Say we go WR in round 1. Then when we pick again the next-highest player is a WR again. We have enough WRs, particularly if we take one with our top pick. They're ranked from 1-250 (or whatever), but just like taking the roster into consideration when making the list, you take into consideration who you've already taken when you get to your next pick(s) since the earlier pick is now on the roster. And I'm sure that's what he's saying, not have a computer submit the pick to Goodell via an auto-draft program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPBanBadPosters Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Yes, because the law of averages says that's exactly what will happen. Soon the Jets will have the 53 best DTs in the NFL. I can't imagine a better outcome. I'm not asking what the law of averages says, I'm asking if your BPA approach is so rigid that you'd support using every pick on a DT if each time our turn to pick came around, the highest rated player on our board is a DT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I think the Jets have a WPA strategy to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPBanBadPosters Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Well then we shouldn't have those DTs ranked that highly on our board. If there's a DT with about #10 overall talent he still shouldn't be in our top 50, meaning that player would have to drop from #9 to round 3 for us to even consider a look at him. So if the board was properly ranked for this team, there should be no danger of that. Also there's always a person making the pick not a robot on auto-select. Say we go WR in round 1. Then when we pick again the next-highest player is a WR again. We have enough WRs, particularly if we take one with our top pick. They're ranked from 1-250 (or whatever), but just like taking the roster into consideration when making the list, you take into consideration who you've already taken when you get to your next pick(s) since the earlier pick is now on the roster. And I'm sure that's what he's saying, not have a computer submit the pick to Goodell via an auto-draft program. My point was that while BPA as a general rule is fine, and that you don't want to reach to fill needs, you have to have some degree of flexibility so that if the difference between 2 prospects is extremely marginal, you take the guy who fills a need, even if you gave him a slightly lower grade (within reason - like I said, you don't want to reach). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 My point was that while BPA as a general rule is fine, and that you don't want to reach to fill needs, you have to have some degree of flexibility so that if the difference between 2 prospects is extremely marginal, you take the guy who fills a need, even if you gave him a slightly lower grade (within reason - like I said, you don't want to reach). That whole "extremely marginal" thing is about as likely as drafting 7 DTs with seven picks. As long as there's a tangible difference between players, a good GM will be disciplined enough to take the player with the higher grade. Especially early, when less sophisticated fans are screaming for a need to be filled. Drafting for need is a sure fire way to blow the draft and fall behind organizations who are capable of following their board. That said, of course you don't take more players at any one position than you're capable of carrying on the roster - given the current state of your roster. So early in the draft, the philosophy is very rigid. As the process goes on, the difference between prospects becomes less pronounced, and you move to the next guy on your board as circumstances dictate. It's the idea of taking a QB in the first, a CB in the second, and a WR in the third that is completely disastrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 My point was that while BPA as a general rule is fine, and that you don't want to reach to fill needs, you have to have some degree of flexibility so that if the difference between 2 prospects is extremely marginal, you take the guy who fills a need, even if you gave him a slightly lower grade (within reason - like I said, you don't want to reach). The draft board shouldn't be ranked based purely on player rank anyway. The example you gave is a good enough one. If we have a 1-100 scale and there's a DT ranked 93 and a QB ranked 90 the DT should be lower on our "top 250" list even though he technically has a higher ranking as an individual player. I'm sure this is what goes on even in organizations that claim to go best player available with every pick. There's best player available and best player available for this team. Not necessarily for this upcoming season, but for this team for the next few years. So while we're loaded with DTs, there shouldn't be a DT ranked anywhere in our top 75, ensuring it's impossible to take one prior to round 4 and even then it would only be if a top-notch beast slips to that spot, in which case there's probably a good reason and we should stay away anyhow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayNoToDMC Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Someone qualified should rank the entire draft from 1-250, and then they should take the top guy available from that list with every pick. There's nobody in that front office qualified. The brain trust behind this year's draft board considered McDougal and Saunders top 100 guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 That whole "extremely marginal" thing is about as likely as drafting 7 DTs with seven picks. As long as there's a tangible difference between players, a good GM will be disciplined enough to take the player with the higher grade. Especially early, when less sophisticated fans are screaming for a need to be filled. Drafting for need is a sure fire way to blow the draft and fall behind organizations who are capable of following their board. That said, of course you don't take more players at any one position than you're capable of carrying on the roster - given the current state of your roster. So early in the draft, the philosophy is very rigid. As the process goes on, the difference between prospects becomes less pronounced, and you move to the next guy on your board as circumstances dictate. It's the idea of taking a QB in the first, a CB in the second, and a WR in the third that is completely disastrous. Generally I agree, but I still wouldn't take a DT anyway. Not with the current roster makeup and the means to keep it intact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSJ Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 The draft board shouldn't be ranked based purely on player rank anyway. The example you gave is a good enough one. If we have a 1-100 scale and there's a DT ranked 93 and a QB ranked 90 the DT should be lower on our "top 250" list even though he technically has a higher ranking as an individual player.I'm sure this is what goes on even in organizations that claim to go best player available with every pick. There's best player available and best player available for this team. Not necessarily for this upcoming season, but for this team for the next few years. So while we're loaded with DTs, there shouldn't be a DT ranked anywhere in our top 75, ensuring it's impossible to take one prior to round 4 and even then it would only be if a top-notch beast slips to that spot, in which case there's probably a good reason and we should stay away anyhow. If you fill all your holes prior to the draft with guys who can at least start for you then you should be able to stick with BPA the whole draft without issue. It's when you have a million holes to still fill on draft day that you reach for players in every round. See: the Jets 2014 draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayNoToDMC Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Generally I agree, but I still wouldn't take a DT anyway. Not with the current roster makeup and the means to keep it intact. If Idzik is still GM and Mo's value continues going up, would you really be shocked to see us take another DT early? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
predator_05 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Give the first 3 picks away to San Fran in exchange for Harbaugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 If you fill all your holes prior to the draft with guys who can at least start for you then you should be able to stick with BPA the whole draft without issue. It's when you have a million holes to still fill on draft day that you reach for players in every round. See: the Jets 2014 draft. Or when you have a million holes then every position is a need position and it doesn't matter. The 2014 draft was a big surprise in team strategy. The year before (for better or worse with each pick) they seemed to be going straight BPA. Case in point, the last thing we needed was another guy who can play interior DL when we go 4 across or who can slide out to DE on a 3 man line. Fast forward to the 2014 draft and it was pure need-based draft down the line, right down to the need for a special teams punt returner or the need for a backup ILB so the team wouldn't be afraid to use Nick Bellore on the field in anything other than an emergency role (Ryan admitted to this, I think, after the draft). I'm sure they knew perfectly well that McDougle wasn't a mid-3rd round prospect in that draft class but they needed a CB. I half think they knew they wanted McDougle so badly, and knew they'd be able to get him without burning a top 50 pick, that it influenced the treatment of the position in free agency. But the point is pick after pick that was a need-based draft with the exception of Enunwa and that was just throwing more picks at a position of need in case of bust or injury to the earlier pick of Evans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Generally I agree, but I still wouldn't take a DT anyway. Not with the current roster makeup and the means to keep it intact. Most fans wouldn't've taken a DT when they took Sheldon Richardson, the team's best pick in the last three or six years. I get that it's not the ideal situation, but if you have that kind of grade on the guy, you pull the trigger. And cynically, it puts you in a position where you can either let Wilkerson walk or trade him replacing him on the cheap. Again, not ideal, but completely workable - provided your grade is right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 If Idzik is still GM and Mo's value continues going up, would you really be shocked to see us take another DT early? Being honest, yes I would be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Or when you have a million holes then every position is a need position and it doesn't matter.The 2014 draft was a big surprise in team strategy. The year before (for better or worse with each pick) they seemed to be going straight BPA. Case in point, the last thing we needed was another guy who can play interior DL when we go 4 across or who can slide out to DE on a 3 man line. Fast forward to the 2014 draft and it was pure need-based draft down the line, right down to the need for a special teams punt returner or the need for a backup ILB so the team wouldn't be afraid to use Nick Bellore on the field in anything other than an emergency role (Ryan admitted to this, I think, after the draft). I'm sure they knew perfectly well that McDougle wasn't a mid-3rd round prospect in that draft class but they needed a CB. I half think they knew they wanted McDougle so badly, and knew they'd be able to get him without burning a top 50 pick, that it influenced the treatment of the position in free agency. But the point is pick after pick that was a need-based draft with the exception of Enunwa and that was just throwing more picks at a position of need in case of bust or injury to the earlier pick of Evans. Agreed, and it was a crap draft with twelve picks in a deep class. Pretty much a tutorial on never drafting for need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSJ Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Or when you have a million holes then every position is a need position and it doesn't matter.The 2014 draft was a big surprise in team strategy. The year before (for better or worse with each pick) they seemed to be going straight BPA. Case in point, the last thing we needed was another guy who can play interior DL when we go 4 across or who can slide out to DE on a 3 man line.Fast forward to the 2014 draft and it was pure need-based draft down the line, right down to the need for a special teams punt returner or the need for a backup ILB so the team wouldn't be afraid to use Nick Bellore on the field in anything other than an emergency role (Ryan admitted to this, I think, after the draft). I'm sure they knew perfectly well that McDougle wasn't a mid-3rd round prospect in that draft class but they needed a CB. I half think they knew they wanted McDougle so badly, and knew they'd be able to get him without burning a top 50 pick, that it influenced the treatment of the position in free agency. But the point is pick after pick that was a need-based draft with the exception of Enunwa and that was just throwing more picks at a position of need in case of bust or injury to the earlier pick of Evans. You can certainly make the argument either way with the 2013 draft. D Milliner was both a need and value. Richardson was more value - but the rest of the draft was just more of the "throwing crap against a wall and see what sticks" philosophy. There were million holes on this team and there will be next year too. What I hope is that the next GM signs solid vets at as many positions of need as possible leading up to the draft and then let's the draft come to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Most fans wouldn't've taken a DT when they took Sheldon Richardson, the team's best pick in the last three or six years. I get that it's not the ideal situation, but if you have that kind of grade on the guy, you pull the trigger. And cynically, it puts you in a position where you can either let Wilkerson walk or trade him replacing him on the cheap. Again, not ideal, but completely workable - provided your grade is right! I was one of those fans you speak of. Though in my defense, I don't follow college ball at all, and didn't spend endless hours forming my own draft cheat sheet, so I'd barely heard of him when we drafted him. All I heard was DT. I figured he was a top talent no matter what, going that high, but still. Hey, I didn't know he was going to be the best pick since Revis. But I'm not a draft guru and don't pretend to be. Allows me to be deadly accurate in 20/20 hindsight by being non-committal every draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 You can certainly make the argument either way with the 2013 draft. D Milliner was both a need and value. Richardson was more value - but the rest of the draft was just more of the "throwing crap against a wall and see what sticks" philosophy. There were million holes on this team and there will be next year too. What I hope is that the next GM signs solid vets at as many positions of need as possible leading up to the draft and then let's the draft come to him. Milliner I heard was expected to go in the top 4 (or at #4 I can't remember now). That he ALSO filled a need just made the selection even easier. But I still think he was the top guy on their board. Or rather, he was the top guy on Idzik's board as the rumor goes. Rex wanted the other CB who went 3 picks later to Oakland. The kid who almost died. Hayden? That was one story, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSJ Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Milliner I heard was expected to go in the top 4 (or at #4 I can't remember now). That he ALSO filled a need just made the selection even easier. But I still think he was the top guy on their board.Or rather, he was the top guy on Idzik's board as the rumor goes. Rex wanted the other CB who went 3 picks later to Oakland. The kid who almost died. Hayden? That was one story, anyway. Yeah Milliner was definitely top 5 on every draft website I read. It's probably no coincidence that the only pure BPA pick is the only decent pick they have made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.