The Jets have a good track record with trades (for T0mShane)

[Integrity28]

• March 2007: Acquired Thomas Jones & 2nd-round pick from Bears for 2nd-round pick (TJ was a good veteran. If this was swapping 3rd rounders and getting 3 yards and a cloud of dust it would have been better.)
  
• February 2008: Acquired Kris Jenkins from Panthers for 3rd & 5th-round picks (Wasted 2 picks on a guy that couldn't stay on the field. FAIL.)
  
• August 2008: Acquired Brett Favre & 7th-round pick from Packers for 3rd-round pick (Ended Pennington era, but only got one year out of him. FAIL.)
  
• February 2009: Acquired Lito Sheppard & 5th-round pick from Eagles for 5th-round pick and 2010 4th-round pick (This was the equivalent of throwing away picks for a journeyman, not with the team anymore and we are STILL addressing the position every year since the trade. FAIL.)
  
• October 2009: Acquired Braylon Edwards from Browns for Chansi Stuckey, Jason Trusnik & 3rd and 5th-round picks (Two seasons of decent production, for scrubs I get - but why throw in 2 picks? FAIL.)
  
• March 2010: Acquired Antonio Cromartie from Chargers for 2nd-round pick (He's a dope, but the trade is not horrible.)
  
• April 2010: Acquired Santonio Holmes from Steelers for 5th-round pick (He's an a$$, but the trade is not horrible.)
  
• March 2012: Acquired Tim Tebow & 7th-round pick from Broncos for 4th & 6th-round picks (Like I said at the time, 10 plays per game with an average of 4 yards per play is worth a 4th rounder. I see Tebow as being a 3rd down / goal line mauler. Not bad value for a 4th round pick, who can also back up Sanchez, and we got a 7th back in return.)
  

The latter trades are better, the early ones were abysmal. IMO

Long story short, we see 12 draft picks (plus roleplayers) get traded away for what is now 2 starters (Cro and Holmes), and a backup QB (Tebow). Nobody else still on the roster, and we got back 4 of those 12 picks as later-round picks (2nd, 7th, 5th and 7th rounders). No idea who those picks were used on. It's like that only the 2nd rounder we got back with the TJ trade was used for a starter, the others are probably depth or cuts.

IMO, there just isn't enough ROI in how these draft picks have been used.

[Integrity28]

How the f--- is it a good idea to give away VITAL draft picks for a backup QB, especially when we just grabbed one, that has started in the NFL before? How is that at all conducive to building a team? How can anyone not see clearly that was move not motivated by football? It has nothing to do with their uncertainty about Sanchez because Drew Stanton is a better QB than Tebow. Tebow is the worst QB in the league, period, end of discussion. So, that alone tells you what this dude (and franchise) is worth. I dont know how the discussion goes any further than Woody sold us out on this one and he sent the fat spin doctor out there to tell us some BS about the wildcat. Who the f---- would have been on board with a 4th and 6th rounder for a late 7th and and a backup QB who can only run the option? Nobody. I mean, come on. There's no rule saying we HAVE to debate everything. This is unanimous. We got f----ed.

This thread isn't about Tebow.

Frankly, the Tebow trade isn't that bad. A 4th round pick for a situational RB, who is going to help on 3rd down and goal line. Who also happens to take the roster spot of backup QB, enabling us to carry extra CB, or extra RB or extra WR on gameday. If Tebow is involved in 10 plays per game, and averages about 40 yards, and most importantly 2-3 first downs - he is well worth a 4th round pick. Oh, and if Sanchez ends up thriving while the attention is on Tebow, never giving anyone the chance to suggest he be benched for the Holy Waterboy... then win.

It is the OTHER callous trades over the years by Tanny that illustrate a lack of discipline and philosophy in how to build a pro football team that can sustain success. See my earlier post, 12 draft picks, in return for 2 starters and a Tebow.

[RutgersJetFan]

Just don't buy they've been drafting as poorly as maybe some ha e come to believe from...whatever it is.

You're right. Blowing 2 top-6 picks in back to back seasons is definitely a subjective matter. And using over 50% of your mid-rounders the past 2 years on running backs is the stuff that builds iron-clad depth.

[RutgersJetFan]

I don't know that I'd mind much if Tannenbaum traded our 5th, 6th and 7th (non-compensatory) picks to move up into the late-4th if there was someone we were targetting. That would net us 8 players. If we stay put with 10 picks, we run the risk of as many as 6 of them just being fodder type players when we need future starters out there.

Bah. Those 7th rounders are trash and the 6th rounders might as well be too. At that point you're lucky if those guys make the team. I only say it's a good thing because I have no clue how he'd try to package all 4 of those together. Maybe for another fullback or something.

[T0mShane]

^ I freaking love this whole thread.

This

[SenorGato]

You're right. Blowing 2 top-6 picks in back to back seasons is definitely a subjective matter. And using over 50% of your mid-rounders the past 2 years on running backs is the stuff that builds iron-clad depth.

There's a huge gap between Gholston and Sanchez, and I don't consider Sanchez to be officially a bust yet.

[RutgersJetFan]

There's a huge gap between Gholston and Sanchez, and I don't consider Sanchez to be officially a bust yet.

[jason423]

Bah. Those 7th rounders are trash and the 6th rounders might as well be too. At that point you're lucky if those guys make the team. I only say it's a good thing because I have no clue how he'd try to package all 4 of those together. Maybe for another fullback or something.

Im actually slowly working on something scoring draft picks and finding average values per round. Whether it sees the light of day or not who knows, but in what my scoring matrix said was a top 10 player the percentage of top 10 players in a draft that were 4th rounders is about 5.5% (from the 1997 thru 2007 drafts). Im sure I could go further by position and find some of those are kickers or something like that, but thats probably not significant. The 5th-7th rounds were 4.5%, 2.7%, and 1.8%. So if your goal is that you are finding that hidden gem that is going to tear it up its basically not even worth the trade unless you are trading a 6 and 7 for another 4. Any other combination is going to make it less likely of finding the star.

All of those rounds produce on average below par players. I guess you could look at the Jones trade to see if it was worth it. The average player in the 2006 draft has played 40.3 games, gone to 0.13 pro bowls, and started for 1.25 seasons. Jones played 48 games, started for 3 years, and was elected to 1 Pro Bowl. That would make Jones 7.95 times as productive as the average player in the draft. The average 2nd rounder was 4.34 times as productive. The average 2nd rounder costs about 800K. Jones cost the Jets 5.7 million. Is that added production really worth it at that cost? Probably not. Now the Jets also kept a pick which mitigates the risk though there is a big difference in the top half and bottom half of the 2nd round as well. But when you look at money vs performance I think more often than not it is probably not a good move unless you need an immediate impact which the Jets did not in 2007.

[RutgersJetFan]

Im actually slowly working on something scoring draft picks and finding average values per round. Whether it sees the light of day or not who knows, but in what my scoring matrix said was a top 10 player the percentage of top 10 players in a draft that were 4th rounders is about 5.5% (from the 1997 thru 2007 drafts). Im sure I could go further by position and find some of those are kickers or something like that, but thats probably not significant. The 5th-7th rounds were 4.5%, 2.7%, and 1.8%. So if your goal is that you are finding that hidden gem that is going to tear it up its basically not even worth the trade unless you are trading a 6 and 7 for another 4. Any other combination is going to make it less likely of finding the star.

Not bad. Is that really even that useful for interpreting 6th and 7th rounders though? The percentages being that low could probably be hypothesized with little disagreement. Empirically that's a solid study of the draft but I think that's a lot more telling for 1st through 3rd or 4th rounders. . I think a better measure might be counting something like what percentage of 6th and 7th rounders are even in the league after X years, then measuring if they were even with the team that drafted them when they eventually became a 2nd stringer or backup. Guys like Garner are a dime a dozen across the league. If you quantified it I'm sure it would be as close to a crapshoot with deciding whether or not to keep them after a year as it is when originally deciding to draft them.

[stoicsentry]

Im actually slowly working on something scoring draft picks and finding average values per round. Whether it sees the light of day or not who knows, but in what my scoring matrix said was a top 10 player the percentage of top 10 players in a draft that were 4th rounders is about 5.5% (from the 1997 thru 2007 drafts). Im sure I could go further by position and find some of those are kickers or something like that, but thats probably not significant. The 5th-7th rounds were 4.5%, 2.7%, and 1.8%. So if your goal is that you are finding that hidden gem that is going to tear it up its basically not even worth the trade unless you are trading a 6 and 7 for another 4. Any other combination is going to make it less likely of finding the star.

Maybe I'm missing the obvious here, but that doesn't seem like a good way to measure it out. Not trying to diss your work, but even if we leave aside the problems with trying to calculate who is/isn't a top ten player, we still have this problem: top ten is just an arbitrary number. Why couldn't it be 20, 50... 100?

Yeah ideally you're looking for that top 10'er, but if seems to ignore the fact that there's still a difference between a top 50 and a top 100, and so on.

Apologies if I misunderstood...

[sirlancemehlot]

Tannebaum has a plan. If we knew more than him, we'd be GM's. Lets just wait and see how this plays out.

[T0mShane]

Tannebaum has a plan. If we knew more than him, we'd be GM's. Lets just wait and see how this plays out.

Dick Steinberg has a plan. If we knew more than him, we'd be GM's. Lets just wait and see how this plays out.

[T0mShane]

Tannebaum has a plan. If we knew more than him, we'd be GM's. Lets just wait and see how this plays out.

Terry Bradway has a plan. If we knew more than him, we'd be GM's. Lets just wait and see how this plays out.

[sirlancemehlot]

Terry Bradway has a plan. If we knew more than him, we'd be GM's. Lets just wait and see how this plays out.

Now you're getting it. At least I think you're getting it. Of course, if I knew more than Tom Shane, Jif, JonE and several others would attack me at every turn. Let's just see how this plays out.

(I got an A in reverse psychology 101 at Bergen Community College. If I were you, I'd get on board. Sirlance has a plan. If you knew more than him, you'd be cool enough to speak in the third person. Can't wait to see how this plays out.)

[jason423]

Not bad. Is that really even that useful for interpreting 6th and 7th rounders though? The percentages being that low could probably be hypothesized with little disagreement. Empirically that's a solid study of the draft but I think that's a lot more telling for 1st through 3rd or 4th rounders. . I think a better measure might be counting something like what percentage of 6th and 7th rounders are even in the league after X years, then measuring if they were even with the team that drafted them when they eventually became a 2nd stringer or backup. Guys like Garner are a dime a dozen across the league. If you quantified it I'm sure it would be as close to a crapshoot with deciding whether or not to keep them after a year as it is when originally deciding to draft them.

My intention at first with it was to simply see if the old draft value charts still hold up, but the values are based on full career so thats factored in with the 6th and 7th rounders. My 3 criteria were total games played, total seasons started, and total pro bowls. Each draft was scored individually to take into account the differences in possible games and seasons. I gave each category equal weight but obviously if you are a pro bowler you get mega scores, though I think that holds up since those are really the players we value. In Jones' case I only used his years with the Jets because I think if you trade for a player you only measure your finite time you get with him while for a draft pick you measure his total career value even if he goes on and plays elsewhere (though Id imagine most of those 2007 guys are still on their original teams).

Looking just at games played you find that rounds 5-7 are all pretty much of about equal value. The round 6 players play about 1.3 times more games and the round 5 guys about 1.6. Once you take into account the variance it probably comes out to be pretty equivalent. Its only rounds 1 and 2 that are bringing in above average talent while round 3 is producing just below average on the whole. The 3rd round is probably the last round any team should consider trading up into and even then its iffy depending on the cost. Likewise trading down out of the first half of the 2nd round into the 2nd half so you can pick up a 5 or a 6 is probably a bad idea as well.

I think when you get into those later rounds teams really need to start drafting based on positional success rates. I had worked off a little bit of an older set of draft data for the last few years when I do my Jets draft career predictions, but trusting your "scouts" in these rounds is just not the best idea. You cant tell me that when almost every fullback drafted in the 5th round stinks and is gone within 3 years that it makes any sense for the Jets to draft John Conner. Sames goes for the developmental QBs who almost all go nowhere. People might point to a few FBs drafted in round 7 or Brady and Hasselbeck in round 6, but that doesnt address the issue as to why those players slipped. Most of these scouts grade the same way and the FB with a round 7 grade in 2000 still has a round 7 grade in 2010. The skillsets of the guys who all flop that were picked in round 5 and 6 are the same skillsets Conner has being graded out as a 5. There is so much history in the draft and its such a crapshoot, especially those later rounds, that you have to rely somewhat on the data to help guide your selections.

[jason423]

Maybe I'm missing the obvious here, but that doesn't seem like a good way to measure it out. Not trying to diss your work, but even if we leave aside the problems with trying to calculate who is/isn't a top ten player, we still have this problem: top ten is just an arbitrary number. Why couldn't it be 20, 50... 100?

Yeah ideally you're looking for that top 10'er, but if seems to ignore the fact that there's still a difference between a top 50 and a top 100, and so on.

Apologies if I misunderstood...

That was just one aspect of it (and the part I fooled around with the most). I actually have grades for every round and for the first round what would be the average expectation per draft slot (i.e. if you have the first pick in the draft you ideally should be choosing between the average of the 1,2, and 3 drafted players to give the number 1 pick a composite score and so on). I would only use the top 10 deal if your intention of trading up is the fact that you feel you are getting a bonafide steal in a late round or that you are a lock to get the best player in the draft. The days when the McShays come out and say wow they are getting top 35 potential by jumping to the mid round 3 to get raw talent. Odds are you are not getting one. the guys who give up the world for the number 1 pick---only two number 1s rank in the top 10 of their draft using this criteria (Peyton Manning and Orlando Pace) with Peyton being the only guy to get the best label. But if your goal is to maximize your chances of finding a competent player than trading up into round 3 or going for that number 1 pick does make plenty of sense.

[stoicsentry]

That was just one aspect of it (and the part I fooled around with the most). I actually have grades for every round and for the first round what would be the average expectation per draft slot (i.e. if you have the first pick in the draft you ideally should be choosing between the average of the 1,2, and 3 drafted players to give the number 1 pick a composite score and so on). I would only use the top 10 deal if your intention of trading up is the fact that you feel you are getting a bonafide steal in a late round or that you are a lock to get the best player in the draft. The days when the McShays come out and say wow they are getting top 35 potential by jumping to the mid round 3 to get raw talent. Odds are you are not getting one. the guys who give up the world for the number 1 pick---only two number 1s rank in the top 10 of their draft using this criteria (Peyton Manning and Orlando Pace) with Peyton being the only guy to get the best label. But if your goal is to maximize your chances of finding a competent player than trading up into round 3 or going for that number 1 pick does make plenty of sense.

OK thanks

[denden29]

Do you think this offseason is an effort to change directions, by (mostly) holding on to our picks and not opting to go heavily into free agency? Some capologists were under the impression that, had we wanted to, we could have freed up enough cap space to garner more than Landry and Chaz Schillens.

The problem isn’t creating space in 2012 to sign players the problem occurs in 2013. I tried to see if the Jets could afford Tyvon Branch, when he was still a FA. I put together a mock contract that he would likely receive using Eric Weddle’s contract as a model, although Branch is better than Weddle IMO. I had Branch making a bit more money and guarantees.

What happened was when you carry over the money into 2013 you lose so much flexibility that signing Branch would prevent signing a number of depth players you need. You would have to push more money into 2013 to make room for the first year’s salary to use up the guarantees by year three. It would be like signing Mario Williams his contract would prevent you from signing other players. The Jets need more bars of silver less bars of gold right now. They are very top heavy salary and roster wise.

Another problem is Holmes and Cromartie’s contracts. My feeling is the Jets want to keep open the possibility of releasing them in 2014 so the team can’t use their 2012/13 salaries and prorate them like they did with D’Brickashaw. If they did this it would make them very hard to cut in 2014. Maybe they’ll change their minds in 2013 but for now it looks like they want to keep the 2014 option open.

The Jets will most likely release Hunter, Smith, Pace and Scott to save space in 2013 and they have FA like Slauson, Moore, Keller and DeVito just to name a few. All of these players will need to be replaced so even with the savings things will still get tight. The team will have a roster of 25 players after the cuts and a cap value of about $105 million so you have lots of roster spots to fill and the cap isn’t supposed to go up as much as originally thought.

Of course the incoming 2012 rookies who make the team will count in 2013 adding players to the roster and salary. I’m going to assume five of the ten 2012 draft picks make the team, #16, #47, #77, #154 and #187. Their salaries will use about $2 million to the cap in 2012 but about $4.65 million in 2013 because in 2012 they will replace a member of the roster knocking their salary out. Since you don’t have 51 players in 2013 their entire salary will count in 2013.

Basically the Jets are setting themselves up to be in better shape in 2013, if they signed many multi-year deals the 2013 salaries would hurt them to much with all the needs they will still have. They will continue to be frugal signing stop gaps and looking at 2013 finances to see if longer term FA deals can be made in that year and hopefully have a good 2012/13 draft to reduce salary putting them in better financial position to go after certain players.

This is the argument against the Tebow trade. The fact is Tebow cost more than Stanton and you traded pick #108. You have used financial and draft resources to obtain Tebow. Some feel he brings more to the team then the money or pick and other feel the Jets weren’t in the position to use money or picks given the tight finances and need for youth, depth and cheaper players. Only time will tell who is correct but I hope this helps people understand why the Jets have been so cautious in FA and sorry it’s so long.

[gangreenman]

It's the difference you see between a team like us and the Steelers. You get guys like Farrior getting older, but they have guys like Sylvester coming up right behind him. They can lose guys like Plax, Holmes, and Ward as the years go on because they're bringing up guys like Brown and Wallace. Trading 3 through 5th rounders for stars still on their previous deals for one year is great, but you really have to wonder what the long-term effects are. Particularly with this season where there was obviously some major changes needed and a good FA market, but the Jets really couldn't do anything. Also, those rounds tend to land you some really good developmental LB's and OL for several years on the cheap...two areas where I don't think it's a coincidence that we're lacking some real long-term replacements for the aging guys. Pace, Thomas, Moore, even Woody last season...there's just nobody to come in and fill those roles. The issue isn't if Braylon, Jenkins, Cro and Holmes are/were good, of course they are, it's that you give up 4 players for 6 and murder your financial flexibility in the long run. If you draft well, 3-4 of those 6 you draft won't present that huge of a disparity over the long term and you'll have some serious room to do what you want every year in the draft and in FA. Having Braylon for a year and a half was nice, but there's always a flipside and I'm not so sure it was worth it. Lito also has no business being listed as a success. He was terrible. In hindsight that we actually sacrificed a 4th for him makes me nauseous.

I stopped reading after the first sentence. The difference between the Jets and the Steelers is the difference between Sanchez and Roethlisberger. Begins and ends right there

[RutgersJetFan]

My intention at first with it was to simply see if the old draft value charts still hold up, but the values are based on full career so thats factored in with the 6th and 7th rounders. My 3 criteria were total games played, total seasons started, and total pro bowls. Each draft was scored individually to take into account the differences in possible games and seasons. I gave each category equal weight but obviously if you are a pro bowler you get mega scores, though I think that holds up since those are really the players we value. In Jones' case I only used his years with the Jets because I think if you trade for a player you only measure your finite time you get with him while for a draft pick you measure his total career value even if he goes on and plays elsewhere (though Id imagine most of those 2007 guys are still on their original teams).

Looking just at games played you find that rounds 5-7 are all pretty much of about equal value. The round 6 players play about 1.3 times more games and the round 5 guys about 1.6. Once you take into account the variance it probably comes out to be pretty equivalent. Its only rounds 1 and 2 that are bringing in above average talent while round 3 is producing just below average on the whole. The 3rd round is probably the last round any team should consider trading up into and even then its iffy depending on the cost. Likewise trading down out of the first half of the 2nd round into the 2nd half so you can pick up a 5 or a 6 is probably a bad idea as well.

You should run logistical regressions on this. The interpretation comes off as jumbled and I'm not so sure that's a correct prediction on the variance based on the variables since you're not controlling them; especially with all the noise that something like fan voting creates. Also adding a temporal dimension to the rounds with some lag would work better due to the subjectivity at that point. i.e. 4-5 picks before and after each round. It's hard to believe that a late 4th/early 5th grade has odds that identical to a late 6th/early 7th. But again that's why I'd say go with logistics and if you can prove it stat sig then more power to you.

I think when you get into those later rounds teams really need to start drafting based on positional success rates. I had worked off a little bit of an older set of draft data for the last few years when I do my Jets draft career predictions, but trusting your "scouts" in these rounds is just not the best idea. You cant tell me that when almost every fullback drafted in the 5th round stinks and is gone within 3 years that it makes any sense for the Jets to draft John Conner. Sames goes for the developmental QBs who almost all go nowhere. People might point to a few FBs drafted in round 7 or Brady and Hasselbeck in round 6, but that doesnt address the issue as to why those players slipped. Most of these scouts grade the same way and the FB with a round 7 grade in 2000 still has a round 7 grade in 2010. The skillsets of the guys who all flop that were picked in round 5 and 6 are the same skillsets Conner has being graded out as a 5. There is so much history in the draft and its such a crapshoot, especially those later rounds, that you have to rely somewhat on the data to help guide your selections.

I completely agree. 10 times out of 10 you take the developmental interior lineman or LB over the starting FB. I don't think it's even a debate.

[Sperm Edwards]

1st round pick #17 overall

2nd round pick #52 overall

DE Kenyon Coleman, under contract and bonuses already paid to him

S Abram Elam, under contract after we matched Cleveland's RFA tender

Additional $8M-10M/year in cap space (consider the $4M dead space we were penalized for Coleman who wasn't here anymore). Another top-heavy roster contract, for a rookie, that can't be used on depth or veterans. Below average starter 3 consecutive years and counting. Questionable playing skills, questionable leadership skills. and overly sensitive & emotionally fragile player who is and has been a bottom-3 starter on our offense.

Great trade. GREAT trade.

Compound that with 3 picks used on Greene and we have:

1st round pick

2nd round pick

3rd round pick

4th round pick

7th round pick

Coleman

Elam

$10M/year in cap space lost

Quite a haul for Sanchez and Greene. What awesome value.

And we wonder why the team has cap issues.

[T0mShane]

This thread is quickly achieving "gives me a hard on" status.

[Sperm Edwards]

This thread is quickly achieving "gives me a hard on" status.

I'm about to send you over the edge:

[jason423]

You should run logistical regressions on this. The interpretation comes off as jumbled and I'm not so sure that's a correct prediction on the variance based on the variables since you're not controlling them; especially with all the noise that something like fan voting creates. Also adding a temporal dimension to the rounds with some lag would work better due to the subjectivity at that point. i.e. 4-5 picks before and after each round. It's hard to believe that a late 4th/early 5th grade has odds that identical to a late 6th/early 7th. But again that's why I'd say go with logistics and if you can prove it stat sig then more power to you.

I completely agree. 10 times out of 10 you take the developmental interior lineman or LB over the starting FB. I don't think it's even a debate.

Unless you are the Jets than 10 times out of 10 times you take guys like John Conner and Erik Ainge.

When and/if I finally work through everything I planned on doing something similar to what you are suggesting. Each pick would have a specific lag to it with the lag getting larger by round (i.e. the first pick overall is getting someone top 3 whereas round 4 probably has a +- 10). Id imagine that the late 4th round choice has more value than the late 6th if you are looking strictly at games played (meaning they at least contribute in some manner). I think its those 5th thru 7th areas where it gets closer and closer.