Leaderboard

I could accept trading down as long as we pickup Josh Jones or Ezra Cleveland. An extra 2nd round pick too.

What GATA thinks she's doing: What GATA is actually doing:

Just kidding, but I do think OL is a much higher priority. But thanks for pulling that stuff together.

Max, do us all a favor and ban the book writer. I can read a Dictionary without internet access.

GreenBean is back with his Mock Draft version 2.0. Joe Douglas will soon be on the clock as he works on improving the NY Jets roster. The post GreenBean’s Mock Draft 2.0 appeared first on JetNation.com (NY Jets Blog & Forum). Click here to read the full story...

It’s really too bad Mangini is blackballed. He’d be a good front office hire for some team.

Me and Barry anytime the other makes any post

The draft is still 10 days away. From now until Thursday night we will “hear” that almost everyone with a first or second round grade could sneak into the top 10. It’s the cover your a$$ time for these draftniks, so they can point to that one tweet out of the thousands they make and say “see I told you so”.

Drums, AJ gut - jville

Censorship -- the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society -- has been a hallmark of dictatorships throughout history. In the 20th Century, censorship was achieved through the examination of books, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other forms of communication for the purpose of altering or suppressing ideas found to be objectionable or offensive. The rationales for censorship have varied, with some censors targeting material deemed to be indecent or obscene; heretical or blasphemous; or seditious or treasonous. Thus, ideas have been suppressed under the guise of protecting three basic social institutions: the family, the church, and the state. Not all censorship is equal, nor does all arise from government or external force. People self-censor all the time; such restraint can be part of the price of rational dialogue. The artist Ben Shahn's poster illustration reads: "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." Silence can indicate a forced assent, or conversely, it can be contemplative, a necessary part of dialogue that rises above the din of quotidian life. To understand censorship, and the impulse to censor, it is necessary to strip away the shock epithet value that is attached to the word at first utterance. One must recognize that censorship and the ideology supporting it go back to ancient times, and that every society has had customs, taboos, or laws by which speech, dress, religious observance, and sexual expression were regulated. In Athens, where democracy first emerged, censorship was well known as a means of enforcing the prevailing orthodoxy. Indeed, Plato was the first recorded thinker to formulate a rationale for intellectual, religious, and artistic censorship. In his ideal state outlined in The Republic, official censors would prohibit mothers and nurses from relating tales deemed bad or evil. Plato also proposed that unorthodox notions about God or the hereafter be treated as crimes and that formal procedures be established to suppress heresy. Freedom of speech in Ancient Rome was reserved for those in positions of authority. The poets Ovid and Juvenal were both banished, and authors of seditious writings were punished severely. The emperor Nero deported his critics and burned their books. The organized church soon joined the state as an active censor. The Biblical injunction, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain" is clearly an early attempt to set limits on what would be acceptable theological discourse. Likewise, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" is an attempt to set limits on how the Divine may or may not be represented. (And no one, in any land, should think this is anachronistic. Across the world today, appeals to divinity are common reasons for banning the dissemination of a broad range of materials). Censorship is no more acceptable for being practiced in the name of religion than for national security (which is certainly an acceptable secular substitute for religious rationales in the 20th Century). It only indicates that confronting censorship must always involve confronting some part of ourselves and our common history that is both painful and deep-seated. Unique historical considerations can also spawn censorship. Perhaps the best example is the "Haßsprache" (hate speech) law in Germany. It is illegal, under German law, to depict any kind of glorification of the Nazis or even to display the emblem of the swastika. The law is enforced to the point where even historical battle simulations may not use the actual emblems that were used during World War II (by the Waffen SS, for instance). Significantly, almost all of Germany's close neighbors and allies have similar laws. The questions in Germany and elsewhere in the European Union (EU) form a particularly hard case because of the historical background and because the situation in the EU is fast-moving. That is why this series of snapshots of conditions in various countries and regions will first deal with other areas and levels of censorship and access problems, and then return to the situation in the EU. In a global context, governments have used a powerful array of techniques and arguments to marshal support for their censorship efforts. One of the earliest, as noted, is the religious argument. Certain things are deemed to be offensive in the eyes of the Deity. These things vary from country to country, religion to religion, even sect to sect. They are mostly, though not always, sexual in nature. The commentaries on the nature of the impulse to be censorious towards sexual expression are too numerous even for a wide ranging project like this. The curious reader is urged to read far and wide in the classic texts to see that the problem of governments and citizens reacting in this way is not a new one. What is new are the potential global consequences. National security and defense runs a very close second to the religious impulse as a rationale for suppression. While nowhere near as old as the religious impulse to censor, in its more modern form it has been even more pervasive. And while the influence of religion on secular affairs is muted in certain parts of the world, the influence of governments usually is not. It is difficult to think of any government that would forego the power, in perceived extreme circumstances, to censor all media, not simply those that appear online. The question, asked in a real world scenario, is what could be considered extreme enough circumstances to justify such action? There are also forms of censorship that are not so obtrusive, and that have to be examined very carefully to define. "Censorship through intimidation" can be anything from threats against individuals to a government proposing to monitor all activities online (as in one proposal current at the time of this writing in Russia). If citizens feel their activities online will be screened by governmental agencies in their country, their inclination to engage in expression will be much less than if their government stays away -- the classic "chilling effect." "Censorship through consensus" is also a real possibility. There are countries where the adherence to a shared social, though not religious, code is a fact of life. Understanding that entails discerning where the boundaries of expression are, and where they might be interfered with in a consensus situation. Economic censorship is more difficult to define. The Roman essayist Cicero used the immortal phrase "Cui bono?" (Who Profits? -- the ancient version of our "Follow the money."). But numbers may tell only part of the story. In a situation where there is economic censorship, is it isolated or undertaken in conjunction with some type of political censorship? Is there a monopoly within a certain country that is threatened by competition, or a class of oligarchs that is threatened by the emergence of real economic opportunity for smaller firms? Is the economy in a locale more prone to monopolistic arrangements than to genuine competition and innovation? On a different level, the actions and reactions of large corporations to the Internet has to be factored into any discussion of economic censorship. Some firms have paid search engine companies for preferential placement in particular subject categories when a user submits an online search inquiry. Is the information tainted because someone has paid for it to be "found," or should the standard be that so long as all responsive information is displayed to the user, placement is irrelevant? Because so many nations of the world are now considering the filtering system known as PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selections) as an answer to their concerns, the question of parental controls also must be addressed. In many countries, the state justifies censorship with the claim that it is acting in loco parentis. Such claims, whether interpreted as "state as parent" or "state as Big Brother," are responsible for many of the restrictions on information distribution found today across the world. Parental claims certainly have a place in the dialogue, but they can cut across meaningful lines of discourse as well. Despite the presence of a widespread and deadly worldwide epidemic (AIDS), there are parents who object to the teaching of safe sex models in public schools. Such objections pose an obvious problem: do their rights as the parents of their own children supercede the rights of all children in a classroom (or library, or online community) to have access to information that could save their lives? The legal precedents, which usually provide clear guidelines in such matters, are mixed here. Courts have ordered operations and vaccinations in the public health interest, but courts have also ruled that religious beliefs are a compelling answer to public concerns. The question is not whether there are legitimate parental claims, but rather at what point is there a public interest that overrides them? Is it only in matters of imminent and life-threatening danger or does it extend beyond that clearly delineated realm? That question is usually most clearly seen in the restriction on so-called "obscene" or "pornographic" material online. This is probably the most pervasive type of censorship around the world, even though the behavior it seeks to limit is, almost by definition, private and personal in the most fundamental way. "I know it when I see it," a U.S. Supreme Court Justice once said of obscene material. The judge spoke more truth than he realized: different nations across the world have different thresholds for what they consider pornographic material. In some locales, it is a bare male torso that crosses the line, while in others, any depiction of pubic hair, whereas still others permit any activity between consenting adults. That last formulation might seem, at first glance to be the most reasonable, but it excludes the biggest current issue in terms of pornographic material: child pornography. People trafficking in such material, even in the United States, have little or no recourse to free speech or free expression claims. Yet even in the United States, there is no uniform age of consent. Those limits are set by the states and they can vary by as much as six years. The same is true for the member states of the European Union; what is legal behavior in one state may be a violation of law in another. Balancing compelling national interests with compelling individual interests (as well as competing national interests) in the online world is going to be the work of generations. In the past, nations were able to legislatively proscribe certain types of behavior. Those who were affluent enough (or desperate enough) to be in a place where different laws or customs were in effect became refugees or expatriates. But the Internet pushes against national, or even, supranational borders in a way that no medium before it has ever done. The potential for expansion, or opening economic and political opportunities where there had been none before, is vast on a scale beyond imagination. So, too, is the potential for calamitous misuse, both by governments and by corporations. These essays and reports from the cyberfronts show that freedom from censorship is the exception in the world. The rule historically has been, and continues to be, repression and suppression of disfavored ideas. The one redeeming fact is that, in most parts of the world, the ideal of liberty is embraced at least theoretically, and no state openly claims a commitment to religious, intellectual, artistic, or political censorship. The universal philosophical embrace of free expression is reflected in the many covenants and declarations that have been passed in support of freedom and human rights; these include the UN Charter (1945), the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the UN Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966), the European Convention on Human Rights (1953), the Helsinki Final Act (1975), and the American (Western Hemisphere) Convention on Human Rights (1978). These documents form the basis of the hope that the Internet might yet succeed in realizing its promise of providing a free and unencumbered flow of information throughout the world. stay safe TN

Coincidence that these are also 2 of 3 teams with longest current playoff drought?

Consensus top ten player that will go top 16 also let me pat myself on the back for keeping this player whom I have no information about because of the pandemic in my top twenty because I am a scouting savant from my home in Missouri and also “scouting calls” is what I call looking at Twitter for a half hour to see what other non-affiliated draft bloggers think about things of which they maintain no applicable knowledge. </TWEET> —Matt Miller

As of today Edge Rusher is our number one weakness. At OT and WR we have a collection of talent that has a lot to be desired, however we at least have projected starters with a handful being on long term deals (Crowder, Fant, Edoga). Most should understand we aren't going Edge Rusher at 11th base on the talent pool which leans us to OT, WR at the 11th spot. With our lone OLB (Jordan Jenkins) being on a 1 year deal and barely being brought back, we definitely need to add some day two talent on to the team as it's definitely not coming via FA or trade unless we're willing to pay a premium. The 2020 Draft is incredibly deep with day two prospects. Yes, even deeper then WR and OT. Even some 1st round prospects can slip into the 2nd round to make it even deeper. We should definitely focus all our attention on drafting not one but probably two of these guys. Even if some project to be situational pass rushers. So in round 1, I have no problem being dismissive to an edge rusher but no excuses in the 2nd and 3rd round. Lets take a look at some of the prospects: Terrell Lewis, Alabama, Overall Rank (49) Jabari Zuniga, Florida (59) Josh Uche, Michigan Curtis Weaver, Boise State (71) Julian Okwara, Notre Dame (82) Alton Robinson, Syracuse (96) Darrell Taylor, Tennessee (100) Anfernee Jennings, Alabama (104) Jonathan Greenard, Florida (110) Bradlee Anae, Utah (112)

Bought a Jordan Jenkins Jersey (to Replace my Kris Jenkins). Got the gray because it looks classy (unlike the trash Black), and is more understated and "wearable" than the bright green or white imo. Why JJ, you ask? Any Jet that Yells GO ARMY!! after a win is alright in my book!

Or maybe he actually likes Darnold as a player? Crazy thought, eh?

Ban. ^^^^^^^^^^

The GATA-bot was state of the art when it first came out. Truly impressive stuff. We were clouded by this when she first started playing with us, and ignored some of the malfunctions and logic errors at first. Now, with self-driving cars, the WATSON technology and other highly intelligent forms of A.I. (sex robots?), GATA-bot has just lost her shine.

I’m not a fan of these “hybrid” or “slash” type guys, especially in the 3rd round. That’s crazy IMO, I would take a chance in the 6th, but no way in hell in the 3rd. Not with this WR class.

This is the life we have chosen.

This is why you don’t draft non premium positions in the 1st. Even when you find a premium player, you miss.

Darnold would likely be the first overall pick in this draft and he would have been the first overall last year easily. I get that Darnold has had his struggles, but he’s not a mush.

61 tackles on defense is almost equivalent to gaining 2,000 yards from scrimmage on offense.

I'll admit this has been pieced together from inspirations I received from other posters or Jets Youtube content creators. Namely @bla bla bla from this board. I thought it might be interesting to see what the board thought about a more extreme trade scenario. Let's see what people think on JN. And also if your answer is yes to this scenario, who would you use the picks on??? Jets have Picks 11,(1) 48(2), 68(3), and 79(3) currently. They trade Quinnen Williams to the Falcons, who are rumored to be seeking a DT in the first rd. The Jets would have to eat the $9 mil cap hit for trading Q but receive pick #16 overall and a 3rd next season. The Jets trade Jamal Adams to the Dallas Cowboys for #17 overall and #82(3) this year and a 3rd next year. Thats a bit of a blowing up the young core of the NY Jets, but that leaves us with the following picks. Picks 11, 16, and 17 in the first rd. Pick 48 in the second Picks 68, 79, 82 in the 3rd And two additional 3rds in 2021. I'll propose the following selections to give us an idea of what could happen with a scenario like that. 11-Jedrick Wills-RT 16-Josh Jones-LT 17-Justin Jefferson-WR 48- Cesar Ruiz-C 68- Michael Pittman- WR 79-Anfernee Jennings-Edge 82- Bryce Hall- CB I've gone on record as saying I am in favor of keeping Jamal Adams a Jet for the long term, but I have to say that if this were to be the strategy JD employed for the draft, I would be all for it. 100% without question!!! If we are going to do it, let's do it all the way! Thoughts?

Since when do you ride the coatails of someone else? Let alone Nol lol

My bad, I didn't realize game started. I'm still in

Anything is possible. I’ve mentioned before that I would be happy with OL or WR in Rd1. Yes I understand that WR is the deeper class but getting a big weapon for Sam on a rookie deal is very important too. I still think we can draft good OL at 48 and 68 if we went that route

Verb tried to vote nol but it wouldn't let him. I guess the thief moved on to me. I think he traded up personally.

You often get called out bc you're uninformed

Mangini did that. Post-Mangini, Tannenbaum was drafting Ducasse and giving big money to the likes of Austin Howard and Wayne Hunter.

We had to manufacture a lot of pressure last year and it worked against the bad QBs we faced. I think we need an edge guy but not at the expense of guys with great upside on offense.

I can speculate too, 😲, the Jets MAY find a trading partner to move back in the draft, most likely by a team picking after them at #11.

Leave it to JNers to give me crap for catching up properly instead of skimming. And then accusing me for skimming anyway. This game.... lmfao xD

CLICK ME

as promised... JN mod applications somehow got weirder while I was gone

You look at the weapons Sanchez had to play with in his time here. Braylon, Holmes, LT, Greene, Cotchery, Keller, burress, Kerley, and a stud line... got to get darnold some weapons and some protection, he has a much better skill set than Sanchez, got to give him a chance

Well yeah I would do that in a heartbeat and I love the draft but no way anyone gives us a 1st and a 3rd for Q

Is it okay to despise that i posted after you posted that?

How about we all take an intermission and feed Crush treats for some underwater tricks I taught him. It's pretty spiffy

I would flip the fulk out if we draft Shenault and pass on Higgins in the 2nd

I’m just not sure on the logic here, friends. WR is obviously a need, as is OT, but Douglas is going to prioritize WR because...why? In Douglas’ time with the Ravens, they drafted three WRs in the first round and each of them (Travis Taylor, Mark Clayton, Breshad Perriman) were monolithic busts. I’m not sure how to make the case that he’d want to use his first pick as a GM on Ruggs, who looks like a project, or Jeudy or Lamb who had questionable athletic traits. I saw a guy in free agency who was hyper conservative, who added a bunch of solid interior OL and Fant, and left a gaping hold at OT. IMO, it screams drafting tackle. WR is almost a left-field type pick there.

Per Pauline- Center Matt Hennessy drawing interest around the league The Jets, who own the Giants’ selection in the third round, also have a lot of interest in Hennessy. I am told if they select Hennessey, it would be to play center. Newly signed free agent Connor McGovern would then slide over to guard, the position many thought he played his best football at while in Denver. The Atlanta Falcons, Dallas Cowboys, and Pittsburgh Steelers all have significant interest in Hennessy. Of that group, Pittsburgh projects him to guard.

You're not going to catch scum by telling people to vote you. If you're town you're forcing a mislynch and anyone who voted you has the excuse that you were acting erratically and had to be removed. That is putting aside all the other stuff people are discussing even.

Good Unvote Vote Nol

How? Have you ever blacked out before? Hard not to pass out with that stash!!!

Who cares? The NFL is about allocating resources. You can't be paying $18-$20 million per year for a safety when you're going to be paying Darnold probably $35 million per in 2 years. It's just not business smart. Especially if you want to keep weapons around him and a solid offensive line. I like Jamal as a player but he is not untradeable. Tony Gonzalez Jerome Bettis Randy Moss Willie Brown Champ Bailey Marshawn Lynch Charles Haley Mike Haynes Marshall Faulk Paul Warfield All of these players were traded in their prime and were all the equivalent if not a better player than Adams is right now. Stop with your nonsense that he can't be traded. Better players have.