WSJ, worth a read - going against conventional thinking in the draft

[Gangrene]

Four ways teams can defy conventional thinking and leave next week’s draft a better team

 

 

 

California's Jared Goff poses for photos after being selected by the Los Angeles Rams as the first pick in the first round of the 2016 NFL football draft. PHOTO: CHARLES REX ARBOGAST/ASSOCIATED PRESS

By 

Andrew Beaton and 

 

Michael Salfino

April 21, 2017 12:01 p.m. ET

NFL teams know almost everything about the best college football players. Scouts spend countless hours dissecting game film minutia. Evaluators sweat hundredths-of-a-second differences in timed drills. Front offices sleuth for every potential red flag in prospects’ off-field histories.

Before next week’s NFL Draft, teams will know enough to buy perfectly tailored suits for their players—and to answer their security questions to reset their email passwords.

But the one thing teams aren’t capable of assessing turns out to be pretty important: Which ones will become good NFL players? Just a year ago the Rams decided quarterback Jared Goff was worth the No. 1 pick. The early returns—he went 0-7 as a starter, throwing more interceptions than touchdowns—gave fans little more hope for a future Super Bowl than when Los Angeles didn’t even have an NFL team.

The NFL Draft can be a crapshoot and there’s no foolproof formula for acing it. Or if there is, nobody has shared it with the Cleveland Browns or New York Jets. Still, recent trends and research have illuminated a handful of simple tips that teams should consider for the best possible chance at not torpedoing the franchise with this once-per-year opportunity.

The “Best Player Available” Myth 

One of the most ubiquitous expressions on draft day is “take the player best available.” There’s reason to think this decades-old advice is utterly wrong. 

The philosophy is based on the fallacy that teams actually know who the best player available is. But one 2012 study, for example, found in the first round a player has just a 53% chance at being better than the next player drafted at the same position. Essentially, teams who insist on drafting the player they consider best have similar odds to the roulette player convinced the ball will land on black.

On the other hand, teams have far more certainty about their needs. And freed from the delusion that teams can actually decipher the best players, they may as well take ones at the positions where they could use help the most.

An author of that study, Wharton professor Cade Massey who researches judgment under uncertainty, says that NFL teams make the common mistake of focusing on one factor—who the best player is—and can ignore something that’s mundane and practical: team need may be the biggest factor of all. 

Prioritize Positions by Their Value in Free Agency

Two safeties, LSU’s Jamal Adams and Ohio State’s Malik Hooker, could go in the top five of next week’s draft. Whoever takes them will have essentially wasted a premium pick by taking a player at a position that teams place relatively little value on.

 

LSU safety Jamal Adams #33 is projected to be one of the first picks in next week’s draft. PHOTO: MICHAEL CHANG/GETTY IMAGES

Adams and Hooker immediately would become among the highest paid safeties in the entire league—without any guarantee they’re actually worth it—because highly drafted players automatically receive fairly lucrative salaries while safeties are among the most inexpensive positions to fill in free agency. And this is a common mistake league-wide as nearly half (8 of 17) defensive backs selected with top eight overall picks since 2000 were safeties. This is despite the fact that the best cornerbacks are 40% more expensive when it comes to their second contracts.

The easiest way to think about this is in terms of kickers and punters. They’re the cheapest players, or in other words, they’re the least important and easiest to replace. That’s why only one team thought it was a good idea to take a kicker or punter in the first round in the last two decades. And that team was the Raiders.

While safety is the lowest-valued position on defense according to this year’s Franchise Tags—an average of the top five salaries at a given position—that distinction on offense belongs to tight end. So then why is Alabama’s O.J. Howard viewed as a consensus top 10 pick?

Instead of Howard, teams needing receiving help can generate more potential value by selecting Clemson’s Mike Williams, given the franchise tag for wideouts is a whopping $15.7 million for one year versus just $9.8 million for the top veteran tight ends. 

Good Hands are Big Hands

In recent years, people have paid increasing attention to a quarterback’s hand size for predicting their success in the league. Among other factors, big hands are better for avoiding fumbles and gripping the ball in inclement weather. Many people, except the Rams, saw a big red flag when Goff’s hands measured at nine inches last year—well below the average for quarterbacks. 

 

Jarvis Landry of the Miami Dolphins makes a catch last November. PHOTO: DONALD MIRALLE/GETTY IMAGES

But it’s possible teams should pay even more attention to this measurement for the players catching the ball. The reasoning is simple: big hands make it easier to catch a football.

Wide receivers with bigger hands are less likely to be busts than their small-handed brethren, and it also correlates significantly to improved performance, according to research done by NumberFire. And at this ultra-important position, this is potentially groundbreaking because other traditional measurements used to differentiate receivers have proven to be fruitless. According to the Harvard Sports Analysis Collective, no drill or measurement taken at the NFL Scouting Combine has been found to predict how wide receivers ultimately perform in the NFL.

Two of the best pairs of hands in the NFL are also among the biggest: Arizona’s Larry Fitzgerald has 10.5-inch mitts and Jarvis Landry’s are 10.25 inches, even though he is only 5-foot-11. These two receivers combined for just five drops last year and 201 catches, an eye-popping catch rate of 97.6%. 

Velocity Isn’t Just for Baseball

Clemson’s Deshaun Watson has almost every desirable quality in a quarterback. He’s fast, strong and tall. He even beat Alabama for the national championship. That’s why he could be the first quarterback off the board. But one of the most overlooked indicators of quarterback success says he won’t be able to sling it on Sundays.

 

Clemson's Deshaun Watson warming up before the NCAA college football playoff championship game. PHOTO: CHRIS O'MEARA/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Watson’s ball velocity at the NFL combine measured 49 miles per hour, while the average in recent years has been about 55 mph. That’s the equivalent of a MLB pitcher having an 82 mph heater. No quarterback prospect since 2008 has ever had lower recorded lower velocity and been drafted, according to Ourlads Scouting Services, which tracks the data. The other top-rated quarterbacks—Mitch Trubisky (55 mph), Pat Mahomes (60 mph) and DeShone Kizer (56 mph)—all rated average or better on the radar gun.

Of only six drafted quarterbacks in the period at 51 miles per hour or less, just one was selected in the first round: Christian Ponder in 2011 by the Minnesota Vikings. Ponder hasn’t thrown a pass in the NFL since 2014.

Former Super Bowl winning Ravens head coach Brian Billick, now a NFL Network analyst, says the style of today’s college games makes it hard to judge quarterbacks’ arm strength because “so many throws are pop passes and bubble screens.” That means velocity readings may tell teams more about how a quarterback can complete deeper NFL throws more than college game tape.

[The Crusher]

Very cool article. Thanks for sharing. 

[AFJF]

And there's the Watson velocity issue again.  Hard to dispute it when you look at the last five or six years of QB's who can't hit 55 or higher, unless you're one of those science haters.

[greenwave81]

I like it....thanks.

Maybe that's because it's aligns with my line of thinking though...if you've got a top 6 pick, you should use it on the best player at a position of the highest value, i.e., QB, LT, edge rusher and/or CB.  It's all a crap shoot anyway and if all you may get is an 'league average' player, I'd rather have a league average QB or edge rusher than a S for example.  Of course, if they don't think any player at a position of high value is worth the 6 pick, they could always look to trade down if there's a willing partner.

Guess we'll see how the Jets feel on Thursday.

[JohnnyLV]

5 minutes ago, greenwave81 said:

I like it....thanks.

Maybe that's because it's aligns with my line of thinking though...if you've got a top 6 pick, you should use it on the best player at a position of the highest value, i.e., QB, LT, edge rusher and/or CB.  It's all a crap shoot anyway and if all you may get is an 'league average' player, I'd rather have a league average QB or edge rusher than a S for example.  Of course, if they don't think any player at a position of high value is worth the 6 pick, they could always look to trade down if there's a willing partner.

Guess we'll see how the Jets feel on Thursday.

I would not include CB there at 6. DL is better value and so is WR than CB at 6. Too much risk and too little impact unless you draft Revis which happens once a decade.

[SickJetFan]

Omg 

It is not enough wsj ruined our economy now they want to ruin football

The accountants version of football 101 read it up boys and girls.

Think I have heard this story before...u see it starts with an accountant who becomes a gm and applies debits and credits to x and o and what you end up with is hee haw on icecapades.

 

[greenwave81]

6 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

I would not include CB there at 6. DL is better value and so is WR than CB at 6. Too much risk and too little impact unless you draft Revis which happens once a decade.

You are correct...I should have thrown WR in the mix also. 

[adb280z]

9 minutes ago, SickJetFan said:

Omg 

It is not enough wsj ruined our economy now they want to ruin football

The accountants version of football 101 read it up boys and girls.

Think I have heard this story before...u see it starts with an accountant who becomes a gm and applies debits and credits to x and o and what you end up with is hee haw on icecapades.

 

How does anything in that article ruin football?

[SickJetFan]

2 minutes ago, adb280z said:

How does anything in that article ruin football?

In very 1st few paragraphs putting $ ahead of play.

[rangerous]

1 hour ago, Gangrene said:

Four ways teams can defy conventional thinking and leave next week’s draft a better team

 

 

 

California's Jared Goff poses for photos after being selected by the Los Angeles Rams as the first pick in the first round of the 2016 NFL football draft. PHOTO: CHARLES REX ARBOGAST/ASSOCIATED PRESS

By 

Andrew Beaton and 

 

Michael Salfino

April 21, 2017 12:01 p.m. ET

NFL teams know almost everything about the best college football players. Scouts spend countless hours dissecting game film minutia. Evaluators sweat hundredths-of-a-second differences in timed drills. Front offices sleuth for every potential red flag in prospects’ off-field histories.

Before next week’s NFL Draft, teams will know enough to buy perfectly tailored suits for their players—and to answer their security questions to reset their email passwords.

But the one thing teams aren’t capable of assessing turns out to be pretty important: Which ones will become good NFL players? Just a year ago the Rams decided quarterback Jared Goff was worth the No. 1 pick. The early returns—he went 0-7 as a starter, throwing more interceptions than touchdowns—gave fans little more hope for a future Super Bowl than when Los Angeles didn’t even have an NFL team.

The NFL Draft can be a crapshoot and there’s no foolproof formula for acing it. Or if there is, nobody has shared it with the Cleveland Browns or New York Jets. Still, recent trends and research have illuminated a handful of simple tips that teams should consider for the best possible chance at not torpedoing the franchise with this once-per-year opportunity.

The “Best Player Available” Myth 

One of the most ubiquitous expressions on draft day is “take the player best available.” There’s reason to think this decades-old advice is utterly wrong. 

The philosophy is based on the fallacy that teams actually know who the best player available is. But one 2012 study, for example, found in the first round a player has just a 53% chance at being better than the next player drafted at the same position. Essentially, teams who insist on drafting the player they consider best have similar odds to the roulette player convinced the ball will land on black.

On the other hand, teams have far more certainty about their needs. And freed from the delusion that teams can actually decipher the best players, they may as well take ones at the positions where they could use help the most.

An author of that study, Wharton professor Cade Massey who researches judgment under uncertainty, says that NFL teams make the common mistake of focusing on one factor—who the best player is—and can ignore something that’s mundane and practical: team need may be the biggest factor of all. 

Prioritize Positions by Their Value in Free Agency

Two safeties, LSU’s Jamal Adams and Ohio State’s Malik Hooker, could go in the top five of next week’s draft. Whoever takes them will have essentially wasted a premium pick by taking a player at a position that teams place relatively little value on.

 

LSU safety Jamal Adams #33 is projected to be one of the first picks in next week’s draft. PHOTO: MICHAEL CHANG/GETTY IMAGES

Adams and Hooker immediately would become among the highest paid safeties in the entire league—without any guarantee they’re actually worth it—because highly drafted players automatically receive fairly lucrative salaries while safeties are among the most inexpensive positions to fill in free agency. And this is a common mistake league-wide as nearly half (8 of 17) defensive backs selected with top eight overall picks since 2000 were safeties. This is despite the fact that the best cornerbacks are 40% more expensive when it comes to their second contracts.

The easiest way to think about this is in terms of kickers and punters. They’re the cheapest players, or in other words, they’re the least important and easiest to replace. That’s why only one team thought it was a good idea to take a kicker or punter in the first round in the last two decades. And that team was the Raiders.

While safety is the lowest-valued position on defense according to this year’s Franchise Tags—an average of the top five salaries at a given position—that distinction on offense belongs to tight end. So then why is Alabama’s O.J. Howard viewed as a consensus top 10 pick?

Instead of Howard, teams needing receiving help can generate more potential value by selecting Clemson’s Mike Williams, given the franchise tag for wideouts is a whopping $15.7 million for one year versus just $9.8 million for the top veteran tight ends. 

Good Hands are Big Hands

In recent years, people have paid increasing attention to a quarterback’s hand size for predicting their success in the league. Among other factors, big hands are better for avoiding fumbles and gripping the ball in inclement weather. Many people, except the Rams, saw a big red flag when Goff’s hands measured at nine inches last year—well below the average for quarterbacks. 

 

Jarvis Landry of the Miami Dolphins makes a catch last November. PHOTO: DONALD MIRALLE/GETTY IMAGES

But it’s possible teams should pay even more attention to this measurement for the players catching the ball. The reasoning is simple: big hands make it easier to catch a football.

Wide receivers with bigger hands are less likely to be busts than their small-handed brethren, and it also correlates significantly to improved performance, according to research done by NumberFire. And at this ultra-important position, this is potentially groundbreaking because other traditional measurements used to differentiate receivers have proven to be fruitless. According to the Harvard Sports Analysis Collective, no drill or measurement taken at the NFL Scouting Combine has been found to predict how wide receivers ultimately perform in the NFL.

Two of the best pairs of hands in the NFL are also among the biggest: Arizona’s Larry Fitzgerald has 10.5-inch mitts and Jarvis Landry’s are 10.25 inches, even though he is only 5-foot-11. These two receivers combined for just five drops last year and 201 catches, an eye-popping catch rate of 97.6%. 

Velocity Isn’t Just for Baseball

Clemson’s Deshaun Watson has almost every desirable quality in a quarterback. He’s fast, strong and tall. He even beat Alabama for the national championship. That’s why he could be the first quarterback off the board. But one of the most overlooked indicators of quarterback success says he won’t be able to sling it on Sundays.

 

Clemson's Deshaun Watson warming up before the NCAA college football playoff championship game. PHOTO: CHRIS O'MEARA/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Watson’s ball velocity at the NFL combine measured 49 miles per hour, while the average in recent years has been about 55 mph. That’s the equivalent of a MLB pitcher having an 82 mph heater. No quarterback prospect since 2008 has ever had lower recorded lower velocity and been drafted, according to Ourlads Scouting Services, which tracks the data. The other top-rated quarterbacks—Mitch Trubisky (55 mph), Pat Mahomes (60 mph) and DeShone Kizer (56 mph)—all rated average or better on the radar gun.

Of only six drafted quarterbacks in the period at 51 miles per hour or less, just one was selected in the first round: Christian Ponder in 2011 by the Minnesota Vikings. Ponder hasn’t thrown a pass in the NFL since 2014.

Former Super Bowl winning Ravens head coach Brian Billick, now a NFL Network analyst, says the style of today’s college games makes it hard to judge quarterbacks’ arm strength because “so many throws are pop passes and bubble screens.” That means velocity readings may tell teams more about how a quarterback can complete deeper NFL throws more than college game tape.

i was going to mention this too.  i guess my only comment is that what the article seems so basic that it's hard to believe teams aren't valuing the players correctly. it was interesting that he said player values should be based on the positional free agency contracts.  it makes sense.  the value (contract) of a player depends on the supply of players at the position as well as the importance of the position to the team.  there are probably lots of safeties in the pool because corners can learn to play safety.

[Lupz27]

So I am assuming the Cleveland Browns money ball front office helped co write this article?  You can't just draft based off of the positions cost in FA, yeah Safety might be the cheapest average salary, but you better believe when a Eric Berry, Earl Thomas type comes along is more valuable then taking Brandon Graham because pass rushers command more money as FA's after their rookie deals, but don't forget that player needs to be good enough for you to actually want to pay him, and the odds of that on project players at priority positions because they are huge reaches is very low, I will take the sure talent difference maker regardless of position with my draft picks.

[Gangrene]

It's easy to argue with the science of the article but the football community has such tunnel vision when it comes to what makes a good football prospect pre-draft, it's cool to read another perspective. The WSJ does have some good football articles from time to time...

The importance of hand size on a wide receiver makes so much sense, yet it's not talked about. I still think hand size for qb's is important but obviously way down the list after accuracy, ability to avoid the rush, interceptions versus touchdowns etc. 

Personally, I'm not sold on Watson but all he does is win.   Likewise best player available philosophy,  I don't think it should rule every time but more often than not. Not matter how talented a safety is, do you pick him top five ? A legitimate question I think.

I would like to see stats on injury (not missed playing time in college games) but surgeries. Are college players with extensive surgery histories likely to reinjure in the NFL, statistically ... or not at all ? Co-relation or not

[Lupz27]

19 minutes ago, Gangrene said:

It's easy to argue with the science of the article but the football community has such tunnel vision when it comes to what makes a good football prospect pre-draft, it's cool to read another perspective. The WSJ does have some good football articles from time to time...

The importance of hand size on a wide receiver makes so much sense, yet it's not talked about. I still think hand size for qb's is important but obviously way down the list after accuracy, ability to avoid the rush, interceptions versus touchdowns etc. 

Personally, I'm not sold on Watson but all he does is win.   Likewise best player available philosophy,  I don't think it should rule every time but more often than not. Not matter how talented a safety is, do you pick him top five ? A legitimate question I think.

I would like to see stats on injury (not missed playing time in college games) but surgeries. Are college players with extensive surgery histories likely to reinjure in the NFL, statistically ... or not at all ? Co-relation or not

The last 2 safeties to go top 5 were Eric Berry, and Sean Taylor, just saying.

[Gangrene]

3 minutes ago, Lupz27 said:

The last 2 safeties to go top 5 were Eric Berry, and Sean Taylor, just saying.

Hey, if it is the second coming of Ed Reed (24th pick), I'm all in. 

[SickJetFan]

10 minutes ago, Gangrene said:

Hey, if it is the second coming of Ed Reed (24th pick), I'm all in. 

How would you be all in if he was dismissed before he became  Ed Reed because of some arbitrary $ rule?

[Villain The Foe]

3 hours ago, AFJF said:

And there's the Watson velocity issue again.  Hard to dispute it when you look at the last five or six years of QB's who can't hit 55 or higher, unless you're one of those science haters.

I got to disagree with this one. Not sure if having a speed gun record velocity should be considered a science. IMO it's nothing more than a recording. And im not here to make a case for Watson, I just feel like if Watson doesnt become a good QB it wont be primarily because of his velocity but his inability to make the right decisions on the field, which unfortunately science hasnt been able to tell us who's a franchise QB or not. 

We could look at the past 5 or 6 years of QB's who could hit 55 or higher and you wont see a bunch of franchise QB's across the board. What are their excuses? Lets just throw out some names of guys 55 or higher. 

Colt McCoy, Mark Sanchez, Logan Thomas, Zac Dysert, Brandon Weeden, Nick Foles, Ryan Mallet, Sean Mannion, Tom Savage, Chandler Harnish, Josh Freeman, Blake Bortles, Keith Wenning, Ryan Nassib, Levi Brown, Nate Davis, Geno Smith, Tyler Wilson, Rhett Bomar and Keivn O'Connell. 

 

Tyrod Talyor is a guy that many Jets fans wanted if the Bills released him, outside of his issue throwing the ball between the hashmarks we all know that Tyrod Taylor throws one of the most accurate footballs down field with plenty of air under the football. 

In 2011 Tyrod Taylor had a velocity of 50. Now either velocity is just a recording and not a science, or science most definitely has it wrong when it comes to Taylor because there's nothing wrong with his deep ball. Just ask Darrelle Revis. 

You can have a guy like Pat Mahomes register 62 miles an hour but his passes be all over the place. Check out this video of Mahomes vs David Carr. 

Mahomes clearly has the stronger arm, but Carr is clearly more accurate. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbXhUHIFRkg

[adb280z]

4 hours ago, SickJetFan said:

In very 1st few paragraphs putting $ ahead of play.

 

It doesn't really say that though.  

 

[adb280z]

1 hour ago, Villain The Foe said:

I got to disagree with this one. Not sure if having a speed gun record velocity should be considered a science. IMO it's nothing more than a recording. And im not here to make a case for Watson, I just feel like if Watson doesnt become a good QB it wont be primarily because of his velocity but his inability to make the right decisions on the field, which unfortunately science hasnt been able to tell us who's a franchise QB or not. 

We could look at the past 5 or 6 years of QB's who could hit 55 or higher and you wont see a bunch of franchise QB's across the board. What are their excuses? Lets just throw out some names of guys 55 or higher. 

Colt McCoy, Mark Sanchez, Logan Thomas, Zac Dysert, Brandon Weeden, Nick Foles, Ryan Mallet, Sean Mannion, Tom Savage, Chandler Harnish, Josh Freeman, Blake Bortles, Keith Wenning, Ryan Nassib, Levi Brown, Nate Davis, Geno Smith, Tyler Wilson, Rhett Bomar and Keivn O'Connell. 

 

Tyrod Talyor is a guy that many Jets fans wanted if the Bills released him, outside of his issue throwing the ball between the hashmarks we all know that Tyrod Taylor throws one of the most accurate footballs down field with plenty of air under the football. 

In 2011 Tyrod Taylor had a velocity of 50. Now either velocity is just a recording and not a science, or science most definitely has it wrong when it comes to Taylor because there's nothing wrong with his deep ball. Just ask Darrelle Revis. 

You can have a guy like Pat Mahomes register 62 miles an hour but his passes be all over the place. Check out this video of Mahomes vs David Carr. 

Mahomes clearly has the stronger arm, but Carr is clearly more accurate. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbXhUHIFRkg

How many weak armed QBs have become franchise QBs?  I don't consider Taylor a franchise QB.

[SickJetFan]

9 minutes ago, adb280z said:

 

It doesn't really say that though.  

 

No? Author didn't put into question the value if a safety versus CB in terms of FA $?

[Lil Woody]

5 hours ago, Gangrene said:

NFL teams know almost everything about the best college football players.

Good article. And yet I almost didn't get past the opening line.^^^

3 hours ago, Lupz27 said:

So I am assuming the Cleveland Browns money ball front office helped co write this article?  You can't just draft based off of the positions cost in FA, yeah Safety might be the cheapest average salary, but you better believe when a Eric Berry, Earl Thomas type comes along is more valuable then taking Brandon Graham because pass rushers command more money as FA's after their rookie deals, but don't forget that player needs to be good enough for you to actually want to pay him, and the odds of that on project players at priority positions because they are huge reaches is very low, I will take the sure talent difference maker regardless of position with my draft picks.

I think they are just providing perspective as it relates to opportunity cost and positional importance. They are right - in general terms. But yes, if the prospect in question is Earl Thomas, then it is justifiable and it would also be an outlier to their position. But that is the rub....if we are taking a safety at 6, he needs to be ELITE.  Is Adams an elite talent? Or is he a great leader who plays the position well, like a Landon Collins? Because if he's just that, that's a late 1st, but probably more like 2nd round value.

[Lupz27]

5 minutes ago, Lil Woody said:

Good article. And yet I almost didn't get past the opening line.^^^

I think they are just providing perspective as it relates to opportunity cost and positional importance. They are right - in general terms. But yes, if the prospect in question is Earl Thomas, then it is justifiable and it would also be an outlier to their position. But that is the rub....if we are taking a safety at 6, he needs to be ELITE.  Is Adams an elite talent? Or is he a great leader who plays the position well, like a Landon Collins? Because if he's just that, that's a late 1st, but probably more like 2nd round value.

What?  Landon Collins was All Pro 1st team last year where do I sign for the Jets pick at 6 this year be All Pro 1st team in his 2nd season?

[varjet]

That is my point.  Landon Collins may have been picked lower than 6, but most teams would pick him again at 6 or higher.  That is what the Jets are assuming.

With the NFL a passing league, S becomes more valuable.  Its the LBs and DL that don't rush the passer becoming less valuable.   

Where would teams draft Dak Prescott if they knew what he would do last year?

[adb280z]

19 minutes ago, SickJetFan said:

No? Author didn't put into question the value if a safety versus CB in terms of FA $?

Not in the very 1st paragraphs.  And their overall point when it comes to $ is why draft early what you can buy cheap?  You can't buy cheap good corners but you can get safeties.  It's also why it's a mistake to draft RBs early, you can get them late in the draft fairly easy.

[Lil Woody]

2 minutes ago, Lupz27 said:

What?  Landon Collins was All Pro 1st team last year where do I sign for the Jets pick at 6 this year be All Pro 1st team in his 2nd season?

 

1 minute ago, varjet said:

That is my point.  Landon Collins may have been picked lower than 6, but most teams would pick him again at 6 or higher.  That is what the Jets are assuming.

With the NFL a passing league, S becomes more valuable.  Its the LBs and DL that don't rush the passer becoming less valuable.   

Where would teams draft Dak Prescott if they knew what he would do last year?

Giants were like 25th vs pass or something. Collins had an amazing year, but let's be honest in the assessment. He was playing in the box and while he was MUCH better in coverage, that wasn't where his impact was felt most. He dominated vs run and became a sure tackler in space (less space does have a tendency to do that).  Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to short the guy.  I really like him. I'd be thrilled to have him (or Adams...hell ANYBODY good) on our team.  But 6 overall? For a box SS? No chance in hell.

I agree about the passing league issue with interior positions in the NFL like DT, ILB, (box ss?) are getting devalued.  FS does carry more value. If Hooker had another year under his belt and was more polished and not injury flagged....I'd probably be banging the drum for him. 

[sourceworx]

5 hours ago, Gangrene said:

Two safeties, LSU’s Jamal Adams and Ohio State’s Malik Hooker, could go in the top five of next week’s draft. Whoever takes them will have essentially wasted a premium pick by taking a player at a position that teams place relatively little value on.

Someone FINALLY gets it. QB or nothing at #6. 

[Lupz27]

2 minutes ago, Lil Woody said:

 

Giants were like 25th vs pass or something. Collins had an amazing year, but let's be honest in the assessment. He was playing in the box and while he was MUCH better in coverage, that wasn't where his impact was felt most. He dominated vs run and became a sure tackler in space (less space does have a tendency to do that).  Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to short the guy.  I really like him. I'd be thrilled to have him (or Adams...hell ANYBODY good) on our team.  But 6 overall? For a box SS? No chance in hell.

I agree about the passing league issue with interior positions in the NFL like DT, ILB, (box ss?) are getting devalued.  FS does carry more value. If Hooker had another year under his belt and was more polished and not injury flagged....I'd probably be banging the drum for him. 

I prefer Hookers upside over Adams think his ceiling, and FS position is a better situation for the Jets, but Adams is a pretty damn safe prospect, and the reason Adams and Hooker are being suggested to go higher then A Safety normally would is because there is no great edge rush, OT, QB elite players at the top of the draft besides Garrett, if there was 2 OT's, and 2 edge rushers at the top of this draft like most years guys wouldn't be talking Adams and Hooker at 5ish, they would be talking them around 9-12.

[varjet]

7 minutes ago, sourceworx said:

Someone FINALLY gets it. QB or nothing at #6. 

How do you pick nothing?

Jamal Adams is a top 5 pick.   So was Sean Taylor.  People would take Ed Reed top 5 if they had to do it again.

There may not be a top 5 QB.  If looking at premium positions to draft, if Trubisky is gone you take Williams, Davis or Howard-yes Howard is a TE, but he is expected to have a Gronk type impact.  

[Lil Woody]

Just now, Lupz27 said:

I prefer Hookers upside over Adams think his ceiling, and FS position is a better situation for the Jets, but Adams is a pretty damn safe prospect, and the reason Adams and Hooker are being suggested to go higher then A Safety normally would is because there is no great edge rush, OT, QB elite players at the top of the draft besides Garrett, if there was 2 OT's, and 2 edge rushers at the top of this draft like most years guys wouldn't be talking Adams and Hooker at 5ish, they would be talking them around 9-12.

Great points. I disagree with your read on the edge rushers, but the lack of OT and QB talent is a big drain on the 1st round. It pretty much makes the talent level at 5-15 the same. That's why I don't care if we "reach" fior Williams or Davis. It's basically just preference at that point. Adams is a very safe play. He'll be good. But the problem I have with it is can I get a good, safe SS later or next year? Yeah I think so.  So I'd rather take the WR or Edge rusher or OJ Howard (as we rebuild on offense with young QBs hopefully...a talent like Howard is a HUGE security blanket who can also make big plays.) 

[sourceworx]

Just now, varjet said:

How do you pick nothing?

Jamal Adams is a top 5 pick.   So was Sean Taylor.  People would take Ed Reed top 5 if they had to do it again.

There may not be a top 5 QB.  If looking at premium positions to draft, if Trubisky is gone you take Williams, Davis or Howard-yes Howard is a TE, but he is expected to have a Gronk type impact.  

A TE is useless without having a QB to throw to him. 

[Lil Woody]

10 minutes ago, varjet said:

How do you pick nothing?

Jamal Adams is a top 5 pick.   So was Sean Taylor.  People would take Ed Reed top 5 if they had to do it again.

There may not be a top 5 QB.  If looking at premium positions to draft, if Trubisky is gone you take Williams, Davis or Howard-yes Howard is a TE, but he is expected to have a Gronk type impact.  

You would need Brady throwing for a Gronk like impact. But I like the direction you are taking it.

I can't say for sure Adams is on par with Sean Taylor or Ed Reed or Earl Thomas or Eric Berry.  You think he is obviously, so it's a justifiable position.  People keep comparing him to Dawkins and his closing speed is very questionable unless we buying the proday and ignoring the combine. I know there is a case to be made. But I go even before both of them looking at how he was valued as a range safety, there were scouts concerned with his ability to cover deep middle due to average speed based on his tape. That's the thing that sticks in my head. Leadership is in short supply on the Jets.  It may be worth it just to take that and forgive him for not being an elite (assuming he isn't).  But for us draft nerds, that goes against our DNA.

But how many Jets fans are forgiving for a player being overvalued by the scouting team and not playing up to their draft position?

[varjet]

10 minutes ago, Lil Woody said:

You would need Brady throwing for a Gronk like impact. But I like the direction you are taking it.

I can't say for sure Adams is on par with Sean Taylor or Ed Reed or Earl Thomas or Eric Berry.  You think he is obviously, so it's a justifiable position.  People keep comparing him to Dawkins and his closing speed is very questionable unless we buying the proday and ignoring the combine. I know there is a case to be made. But I go even before both of them looking at how he was valued as a range safety, there were scouts concerned with his ability to cover deep middle due to average speed based on his tape. That's the thing that sticks in my head. Leadership is in short supply on the Jets.  It may be worth it just to take that and forgive him for not being an elite (assuming he isn't).  But for us draft nerds, that goes against our DNA.

But how many Jets fans are forgiving for a player being overvalued by the scouting team and not playing up to their draft position?

The Gholston Problem was reaching for an elite athlete without focusing on whether they were actually an elite football player.  Then you have the Coples and Milliner problem, which are sub-species of the Gholston problem.  Of course there is the Richardson problem, which is really how immaturity and bad friend affect a player.  And the Pryor problem, which is not translating college highlights into pro performance.

This is a draft where 6 "stinks".  Normally you can get an OLB, QB, LT or WR, and everyone is happy.   This is harder.  If the Jets are picking at 6, I would (and I think Mac is there, based on Leo) pick a player you know if going to be good and worth the salary.   We and Macc cannot afford any busts.

[varjet]

15 minutes ago, Lil Woody said:

You would need Brady throwing for a Gronk like impact. But I like the direction you are taking it.

I can't say for sure Adams is on par with Sean Taylor or Ed Reed or Earl Thomas or Eric Berry.  You think he is obviously, so it's a justifiable position.  People keep comparing him to Dawkins and his closing speed is very questionable unless we buying the proday and ignoring the combine. I know there is a case to be made. But I go even before both of them looking at how he was valued as a range safety, there were scouts concerned with his ability to cover deep middle due to average speed based on his tape. That's the thing that sticks in my head. Leadership is in short supply on the Jets.  It may be worth it just to take that and forgive him for not being an elite (assuming he isn't).  But for us draft nerds, that goes against our DNA.

But how many Jets fans are forgiving for a player being overvalued by the scouting team and not playing up to their draft position?

Adams is more like Berry.  Hooker more like Taylor and Reed.   Taylor was the best.  Hooker needs to get healthy and learn how to tackle.

[Lil Woody]

2 minutes ago, varjet said:

We and Macc cannot afford any busts.

Agreed. I can get behind the playing it safe approach. But I'd also really like to set the table for us to not only draft a good QB next year, but also provide him with actual talent to help him succeed.  OJ is a very safe pick that does both.

[varjet]

1 minute ago, Lil Woody said:

Agreed. I can get behind the playing it safe approach. But I'd also really like to set the table for us to not only draft a good QB next year, but also provide him with actual talent to help him succeed.  OJ is a very safe pick that does both.

I think this is the Draft where the Draftniks are found to be fools.  The Top of the Draft could go differently than expected.  

I can see Trubisky, Howard, Fournette and Adams all going in the top 5.   Some sucker will take Garrett.  I am glad the Jets don't get stuck with that.

Macc is hosed.  Does he take Allen?  Thomas?  The fans will burn him at the stake. 

The call there is Williams-he can play his position.  He has no issue with experience, injury, or half of his job (tackling).

[Lil Woody]

3 minutes ago, varjet said:

I think this is the Draft where the Draftniks are found to be fools.  The Top of the Draft could go differently than expected.  

I can see Trubisky, Howard, Fournette and Adams all going in the top 5.   Some sucker will take Garrett.  I am glad the Jets don't get stuck with that.

Macc is hosed.  Does he take Allen?  Thomas?  The fans will burn him at the stake. 

The call there is Williams-he can play his position.  He has no issue with experience, injury, or half of his job (tackling).

If Thomas is there, that's a Leo scenario. Take the BPA and don't apologize for it. The next coach will thank him for it.

Williams? Mike? Or did you mean someone else. I really like the idea of taking Mike Willaims, but I don't get the reference to half his job bolded above.