Jump to content

The Problem with draft picks


NCJETSFAN

Recommended Posts

I am really losing track of all the rules. I'm sure I missed a few, but here I the ones I remember off the top of my head:

 

Don't draft a QB that doesn't have prototypical size and a cannon.

No RBs early or from Penn St.

No workout warriors (even if they had big division college production)

No trade ups-you are squandering our depth!

Don't draft too good of a player or you will have to pay them too much or trade them

No players from non-premium positions

No FAs.  The draft is they way to build a team and FAs are expensive

Now I learn that we shouldn't have draft picks because we don't know what to do with them.

 

How does this team manage to field a roster every year?

 

They never say the Y word in the war room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am really losing track of all the rules. I'm sure I missed a few, but here I the ones I remember off the top of my head:

 

Don't draft a QB that doesn't have prototypical size and a cannon.

No RBs early or from Penn St.

No workout warriors (even if they had big division college production)

No trade ups-you are squandering our depth!

Don't draft too good of a player or you will have to pay them too much or trade them

No players from non-premium positions

No FAs.  The draft is they way to build a team and FAs are expensive

Now I learn that we shouldn't have draft picks because we don't know what to do with them.

 

How does this team manage to field a roster every year?

 

UDFA baby!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gholston was a bust of epic proportion, but Sanchez wasn't terrible.

 

Remember, we barely gave up anything to trade-up forr Sanchez, and he did contribute to (not "lead us" to) a couple winning seasons. I think there are 2 types of busts, there are hard-busts like Gholston where they tie up a roster spot, salary and never contribute ANYTHING... and there are soft-busts like Sanchez where he's serviceable for a while, at least contributes something and stays in the league, but never justifies his draft position. 

 

Mark would have been best-served sitting out his first year. Period. If we do that, I think we have a completely different player on our hands now. QB requires a maturity and mental stature that most people the age of a rookie do not possess, it is a grown-ups position and mentality. The rookies who get it early are either bless athletically to the point of over-compensating for their immaturity, or mature beyond their years like Peyton was.

 

You know I'm not a fan of Sanchez, at all really. But I do think it's only fair to look at all variables that contributed to the failure by this franchise to help him matriculate successfully. At this point, he's ruined as a starter. Being benched, but kept, might help salvage him. He needs to stop blaming everyone around him too though, accept the situation for what it is.

 

I've said it before, some students can cram for a test all night and get a D... and that is their ceiling. Some can blow off studies and get an A. Hard work is admirable, but not the only ingredient for success, especially at QB.

Agree with most of what you said.   Didn't like  Sanchez.  Only thing going for the trade was that it was cheap.

 

IMO this is his last chance.  if it was any other city accept NY, Sanchez might pull it off under MM.  In NY, in front of Jets fans.  Small chance.

 

Probably going to win the job though, so I'll be hoping he can do it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our pass D was 2nd because we were always playing from behind, we played lousy teams, and when we didn't, we got lit up.

 

We gave up 3 touchdowns to New England without their offense even taking the field.

 

Too easy for Mike, who consoled Sanchez at the Knicks game on Sat.

 

What you're saying, makes sense. Sure, opponents lead us most of the time in games, which usually means a lot of running plays especially in the 4th quarter. They had no pass rush. They were ranked 25th in sacks. They were ranked 23rd in interceptions with just 11. They were also the 3rd least targeted team in the passing game. When you add all of this up, it gives you the sense that teams were generally very successful when they passed against the Jets and took early leads and then ran the clock off. That's a reasonable 'assumption'.

 

However, Its not that Jets gave up the 2nd least passing yards. With a terrible pass rush, and lack of turnovers in the secondary, Jets still gave up 7th best QB rating (or 7th lowest QB rating). Jets were 2nd best at completion percentage (2nd lowest % in the league). Teams simply couldn't complete many passes against the Jets. Yes, they had some bad games against some of the elite passing teams. They also played a lot of elite teams (Pats x 2, Steelers, 49ers, Texans, Seahawks, Colts). They stepped up against the low end teams like the Cards and Jags. Every team in the league faces some elite teams and some low end teams. Playing against lousy teams is not a reason to dismiss the entire season's play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you're saying, makes sense. Sure, opponents lead us most of the time in games, which usually means a lot of running plays especially in the 4th quarter. They had no pass rush. They were ranked 25th in sacks. They were ranked 23rd in interceptions with just 11. They were also the 3rd least targeted team in the passing game. When you add all of this up, it gives you the sense that teams were generally very successful when they passed against the Jets and took early leads and then ran the clock off. That's a reasonable 'assumption'.

 

However, Its not that Jets gave up the 2nd least passing yards. With a terrible pass rush, and lack of turnovers in the secondary, Jets still gave up 7th best QB rating (or 7th lowest QB rating). Jets were 2nd best at completion percentage (2nd lowest % in the league). Teams simply couldn't complete many passes against the Jets. Yes, they had some bad games against some of the elite passing teams. They also played a lot of elite teams (Pats x 2, Steelers, 49ers, Texans, Seahawks, Colts). They stepped up against the low end teams like the Cards and Jags. Every team in the league faces some elite teams and some low end teams. Playing against lousy teams is not a reason to dismiss the entire season's play.

 

No, but it's a big reason why the #'s are what they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but it's a big reason why the #'s are what they were.

 

Care to explain? Or you just like to give a vague answer? I'd like to take off my green glasses, but I just don't see a reason why to, in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They stepped up against the low end teams like the Cards and Jags, my bad.

 

And the other 14 games?  For the record, Cards and Jags played more than 20 different teams. Jets weren't the only ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the other 14 games?  For the record, Cards and Jags played more than 20 different teams. Jets weren't the only ones.

 

I think the secondary played well, but the #'s are skewed IMO, because of the reasons already mentioned above.

 

I'm pretty sure the safeties are gone now too, if that helps with your glasses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the secondary played well, but the #'s are skewed IMO, because of the reasons already mentioned above.

 

I'm pretty sure the safeties are gone now too, if that helps with your glasses.

 

I liked Laron Landry. I also liked Bell. Neither one of them played at an all-pro level. But they complemented each other really well. But Bell was slow and nothing special. Landry was a force in the box, and decent in coverage. His brother should do an adequate job (fingers crossed).

 

However, I was pointing at the Revis trade stating he was not part of the D that was 2nd best in the league and that Jets played really good pass D in his absence. If he was there, maybe we'd be THE best pass D. Maybe not? But is it worth spending $16mil to be the best pass D as opposed to being a top 5 pass D? That $16 mil can be spent on LBs or DEs or even the offense to have a more balanced team all around instead of having one fourth of our cap tied down into two starting corners. Green glasses are still there...Im just a glass half full type of a guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked Laron Landry. I also liked Bell. Neither one of them played at an all-pro level. But they complemented each other really well. But Bell was slow and nothing special. Landry was a force in the box, and decent in coverage. His brother should do an adequate job (fingers crossed).

 

However, I was pointing at the Revis trade stating he was not part of the D that was 2nd best in the league and that Jets played really good pass D in his absence. If he was there, maybe we'd be THE best pass D. Maybe not? But is it worth spending $16mil to be the best pass D as opposed to being a top 5 pass D? That $16 mil can be spent on LBs or DEs or even the offense to have a more balanced team all around instead of having one fourth of our cap tied down into two starting corners. Green glasses are still there...Im just a glass half full type of a guy.

 

I totally agree, at the same time, I can see how last years circumstances, contributed to the pass D #'s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds incredibly generous. 

 

In those ten years, some of the Jets top picks have been the bowling ball with butcher knives, Mike Nugent, and a three year stretch of Vernon Gholston, Mark Sanchez, and Kyle Wilson. They had three years where they took four players or less, in total. 

 

Is the rest of the league that bad? 

Apparently so. Top teams are regular contenders (Pack, Steelers, Colts, Ravens, Pats, Giants) most of the worst teams are perennial doormats (Skins, Saints, Raiders, Lions,Browns)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is a lifetime football an who has been on the contract side ! He might have done a little in personal but that's it . Nothing against him but that's what he is ! And we never draft well!

 

 

he played AND coached football.  what part of that don't you understand ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our current GM is also an expert on contracts. He's not terrible on the personnel side but that's not his strength. The change in strategy, it seems, is rebuilding through the draft and compiling draft picks as opposed to targeting better prospects in draft and throwing away picks left and right.

 

 

y0ou have to build a solid core through the draft and then top it off with good free agent signings and the one or 2 big name guys. you cant build a team that is meant to compete long term by trading away picks and overpaying guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked Laron Landry. I also liked Bell. Neither one of them played at an all-pro level. But they complemented each other really well. But Bell was slow and nothing special. Landry was a force in the box, and decent in coverage. His brother should do an adequate job (fingers crossed).

 

However, I was pointing at the Revis trade stating he was not part of the D that was 2nd best in the league and that Jets played really good pass D in his absence. If he was there, maybe we'd be THE best pass D. Maybe not? But is it worth spending $16mil to be the best pass D as opposed to being a top 5 pass D? That $16 mil can be spent on LBs or DEs or even the offense to have a more balanced team all around instead of having one fourth of our cap tied down into two starting corners. Green glasses are still there...Im just a glass half full type of a guy.

You. Are. A. Smart. Poster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...