Building a Defense

[dbatesman]

They are going to get more pressure in a 4-3? Why? Don't play Coples as an OLB? Why? You want pressure put your best pass rushers on the field and let them rush the passer. Who give a **** if they call him an OLB, DE or DT?

Why not call him a safety? Or a wideout? Or a kicker?

[Smashmouth]

Why not call him a safety? Or a wideout? Or a kicker?

 

how bout a WEAPON

[#27TheDominator]

Why not call him a safety? Or a wideout? Or a kicker?

 

I don't care if they call him quality control coach if he gets to the QB.

[JoeKlecko]

I agree on the QB, but that's it. If you pass on a better prospect at tackle, DT, etc., for a more of a project at pass rusher or WR, you'll probably live to regret it.

And FS? How did that make your list? There are a couple great ones out there, and it would be nice to have one, but it's hardly a high value position.

 

No one said anything about drafting for a "project" or reaching for a player.  That is your word, NOT mine. 

 

At some point, only so many DTs can see the field at one time.  It doesn't matter if you have 4 Pro Bowl Caliber DTs, if only 2 can see the field at the time, and you don't have even one NFL topflight starting caliber OLBs or WRs on your team, AND OLB is THE most important position in your base D alignment.  One doesn't always have to stay put and take BPA.  One can trade down still get excellent value and get a great prospect, plus add another prospect(s) with the additional pick or picks you garner from trading down.  Following your logic, if Idzik always took the BPA, then it could happen that the BPA available at the Jets first round pick for 10 successive years could be a DT.  Are you advocating that the Jets should in that case take a DT with their first pick for 10 straight years? I certainly hope not. That would be insane.  Another thing that could happen is that the BPA in 10 straight years could never be a position of vital importance like OLB or WR.  Are you going to keep trotting out over the hill and/or second-rate players at those positions and expect to win a Lombardi Trophy?  No.  Following any philosophy blindly or slavishly will inevitably bite you in the ass.  Very few philosophies work in every situation or circumstance.  There's also the matter of predictability.  If other GMs know or have a very strong idea of who Idzik will pick in the draft every year, they can work that against him, just as the Rams did this year when they traded up ahead of the Jets and took Tavon Austin.

 

What great, young WRs and/or OLBs have been on the FA market?  Mario Williams is the only one I can think of and isn't he the highest paid defensive player in the NFL?  Do you want to have to pay that IF one becomes available?  Just like QBs, one just doesn't get those either unless you draft them.

 

Who are the great FSs "out there" in FA?  Ed Reed?  His best days are behind him, and he still commands big money, thus proving my point.    Look at what Reed did for the Ravens.  Having a playmaking centerfielder at FS can be huge, especially in the modern pass happy NFL. Often CBs have to worry about not letting the receiver he is covering get behind him. Free Safeties may be free to roam, cut off routes and go for the interceptions, or if they're backing up the play, can allow the CBs to gamble and go for the interception.  This can be even more true when your front 7 is able to pressure the QB and force him to hurry his throws and thus create TO opportunities.  It's even more important when you play the Pats 2x a year and they have big, mobile TEs who are excellent receivers and you've had no one who could cover them.

[Smashmouth]

No one said anything about drafting for a "project" or reaching for a player.  That is your word, NOT mine. 

 

At some point, only so many DTs can see the field at one time.  It doesn't matter if you have 4 Pro Bowl Caliber DTs, if only 2 can see the field at the time, and you don't have even one NFL topflight starting caliber OLBs or WRs on your team, AND OLB is THE most important position in your base D alignment.  One doesn't always have to stay put and take BPA.  One can trade down still get excellent value and get a great prospect, plus add another prospect(s) with the additional pick or picks you garner from trading down.  Following your logic, if Idzik always took the BPA, then it could happen that the BPA available at the Jets first round pick for 10 successive years could be a DT.  Are you advocating that the Jets should in that case take a DT with their first pick for 10 straight years? I certainly hope not. That would be insane.  Another thing that could happen is that the BPA in 10 straight years could never be a position of vital importance like OLB or WR.  Are you going to keep trotting out over the hill and/or second-rate players at those positions and expect to win a Lombardi Trophy?  No.  Following any philosophy blindly or slavishly will inevitably bite you in the ass.  Very few philosophies work in every situation or circumstance.  There's also the matter of predictability.  If other GMs know or have a very strong idea of who Idzik will pick in the draft every year, they can work that against him, just as the Rams did this year when they traded up ahead of the Jets and took Tavon Austin.

 

What great, young WRs and/or OLBs have been on the FA market?  Mario Williams is the only one I can think of and isn't he the highest paid defensive player in the NFL?  Do you want to have to pay that IF one becomes available?  Just like QBs, one just doesn't get those either unless you draft them.

 

Who are the great FSs "out there" in FA?  Ed Reed?  His best days are behind him, and he still commands big money, thus proving my point.    Look at what Reed did for the Ravens.  Having a playmaking centerfielder at FS can be huge, especially in the modern pass happy NFL. Often CBs have to worry about not letting the receiver he is covering get behind him. Free Safeties may be free to roam, cut off routes and go for the interceptions, or if they're backing up the play, can allow the CBs to gamble and go for the interception.  This can be even more true when your front 7 is able to pressure the QB and force him to hurry his throws and thus create TO opportunities.  It's even more important when you play the Pats 2x a year and they have big, mobile TEs who are excellent receivers and you've had no one who could cover them.

 

Damn Right.nice post... Navarro Bowman anyone 91st pick  ? sure its hindsight but hes certainly a damn good LB making less money than David Harris if you can believe that and he just signed his second contract 5 years 45 mil.

 

Regardless of the arguement on examples given usually a 4-3 team stocks up on defensive lineman and 3-4 teams stock up on LB's

 

Certainly if DT is available as BPA next year we wont draft yet another. I was honestly shocked at the Richardson pick .... Could it be Rex might be a little sour on Coples ? Who knows.

 

FWIW I would love to see the Jets play a lot more 4-3 have David Harris shed a few pounds and play around 240 to gain back some of that speed that made him a terror his rookie year Demario can play outside and Im sure harris can as well. When Harris was lighter and faster he was actully our best passrusher.

[slats]

No one said anything about drafting for a "project" or reaching for a player.  That is your word, NOT mine. 

If you're passing on your BAP for a position of need you are, by definition, reaching for a player and taking more of a project.

 

At some point, only so many DTs can see the field at one time.  It doesn't matter if you have 4 Pro Bowl Caliber DTs, if only 2 can see the field at the time, and you don't have even one NFL topflight starting caliber OLBs or WRs on your team, AND OLB is THE most important position in your base D alignment.  One doesn't always have to stay put and take BPA.  One can trade down still get excellent value and get a great prospect, plus add another prospect(s) with the additional pick or picks you garner from trading down.  Following your logic, if Idzik always took the BPA, then it could happen that the BPA available at the Jets first round pick for 10 successive years could be a DT.  Are you advocating that the Jets should in that case take a DT with their first pick for 10 straight years? I certainly hope not. That would be insane.

I imagine this is pretty unlikely. For instance, this year the top player on their board was a CB.

I'm also a fan of trading down. I never said anything about staying put with every pick, but when you slide down, you need to take the BAP who's there. I like the idea of trading this year's picks for next year's if the opportunity arises. I'm also okay with targeting needs as you get to the lower rounds - but with your top picks, you need to take the best players, period.

Another thing that could happen is that the BPA in 10 straight years could never be a position of vital importance like OLB or WR.  Are you going to keep trotting out over the hill and/or second-rate players at those positions and expect to win a Lombardi Trophy?  No.  Following any philosophy blindly or slavishly will inevitably bite you in the ass.  Very few philosophies work in every situation or circumstance.  There's also the matter of predictability.  If other GMs know or have a very strong idea of who Idzik will pick in the draft every year, they can work that against him, just as the Rams did this year when they traded up ahead of the Jets and took Tavon Austin.

The Jets could've used a WR this year, and probably would've taken Austin, but after that any WR selection in the first round would've been a reach. So if they're in a similar position again next year, they'd be reaching again. Would you have advocated taking DeAndre Hopkins or Cordarrelle Patterson over Richardson?

And I think GMs generally have a pretty good idea of who's targeting the players they like. I don't see that as a factor.

 

What great, young WRs and/or OLBs have been on the FA market?  Mario Williams is the only one I can think of and isn't he the highest paid defensive player in the NFL?  Do you want to have to pay that IF one becomes available?  Just like QBs, one just doesn't get those either unless you draft them.

 

Who are the great FSs "out there" in FA?  Ed Reed?  His best days are behind him, and he still commands big money, thus proving my point.    Look at what Reed did for the Ravens.  Having a playmaking centerfielder at FS can be huge, especially in the modern pass happy NFL. Often CBs have to worry about not letting the receiver he is covering get behind him. Free Safeties may be free to roam, cut off routes and go for the interceptions, or if they're backing up the play, can allow the CBs to gamble and go for the interception.  This can be even more true when your front 7 is able to pressure the QB and force him to hurry his throws and thus create TO opportunities.  It's even more important when you play the Pats 2x a year and they have big, mobile TEs who are excellent receivers and you've had no one who could cover them.

If a pass rusher, WR, or -especially- a FS of the type you're talking about is available in the draft, they're all likely to be BAP type players as well. If they're not that level of quality, they won't be, and shouldn't be taken -IMHO- over prospects at other positions who they have rated higher. Once they have a Super Bowl roster put together, they can get a little fancier in the draft. Just hopefully not taking a kicker in the second round fancy. But right now, with so many holes, you need to go straight BAP.

Best available player shouldn't be confused with best available athlete, either. Players' grades are effected by the position they play. QBs and pass rushers get bumped over guards and TEs every year as a result. So maybe we don't disagree as much as you think.

WR, though, is always tough to draft. Big bust potential, and the position seems to be littered with assholes. It's one of the reasons I liked the Hill pick last year. I'm generally not a choir boy kinda guy, but I see Hill's off field persona as a huge positive.

[slats]

Regardless of the arguement on examples given usually a 4-3 team stocks up on defensive lineman and 3-4 teams stock up on LB's

 

Certainly if DT is available as BPA next year we wont draft yet another. I was honestly shocked at the Richardson pick .... Could it be Rex might be a little sour on Coples ? Who knows.

Disagree here, dude.

3-4 teams take DEs and convert them into OLBs, and LB in general seems to be a position that's been downgraded over the years. You get decent MLBs in the middle rounds.

And I think Rex loves Coples, and that's why he's pushing him in public. I think he sees him as a huge weapon, and a legit OLB convert for his defense.

[JoeKlecko]

If you're passing on your BAP for a position of need you are, by definition, reaching for a player and taking more of a project.

 

I disagree.  It seems we have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a "reach."  IMO A "reach" is when you draft a player solely out of need because you think he is the best player at a position of need on your team, even though he isn't rated as being worthy of the pick where you take him.  For example, your team has the 5th pick in the first round, the BPA on your board is a CB, but you have a glaring need at WR, and you take a WR who is rated as a mid or low-first round pick.  That's a reach.  Trading down and taking the highest rated player or a player you really like at your position of need is not a reach if you take him where he is projected/rated to go.  In the prior example, trading down to #18 and taking a WR (if that's the area where he is rated) would not be a reach.

 

I imagine this is pretty unlikely. For instance, this year the top player on their board was a CB. 

 

Sure it's unlikely to happen, but could if one adheres strictly to taking the BPA on one's board.  Much more likely is the second scenario, where over an extended period of time there is never a topflight player at your position of need.  Look at the Jets.  The top-rated pass rushing OLB prospects ALWAYS go early in the first round.  The only year over the last 10 or so years where the Jets had the opportunity to take a top-rated OLB prospect was the year they took Gholston.  Unfortunately, they missed.    They could have traded up for one in other years, but Tanny chose to trade up for players at positions of less value and need.  

 

I'm also a fan of trading down. I never said anything about staying put with every pick, but when you slide down, you need to take the BAP who's there. I like the idea of trading this year's picks for next year's if the opportunity arises. I'm also okay with targeting needs as you get to the lower rounds - but with your top picks, you need to take the best players, period.

 

What's the point of trading down so you can get a player you need about where he is slated to be drafted (value), then taking someone else?  You might as well stay put and take the original BPA.  BPA is a guiding principle, not something that should be adhered to slavishly or blindly.  Also, many times teams will have players rated equally or there may be a very small difference (only a few hundredths of a point) in their ranking.  IMO It would be stupid to take the higher-rated player that they didn't need or maybe even like and pass up a player of basically equal value at a position they really do need.  Here's where the semantics you mentioned may enter in.  If I understand you correctly, then you're saying that an OLB or WR who was rated more or less equally with an OG or TE, would receive a better grade/ranking by virtue of their position, and would thus be the BPA/BAP.  If so, I agree

 

The Jets could've used a WR this year, and probably would've taken Austin, but after that any WR selection in the first round would've been a reach. So if they're in a similar position again next year, they'd be reaching again. Would you have advocated taking DeAndre Hopkins or Cordarrelle Patterson over Richardson? 

And I think GMs generally have a pretty good idea of who's targeting the players they like. I don't see that as a factor.

 

If no other receiver was rated as being worthy of a 1st round selection, then yes, that would be a reach to take another WR.  I may be mistaken, but I believe that both Hopkins and Patterson were rated as first round picks, they were just rated as mid-to-lower first round picks.  Trading down and taking one of them where they were slated to be drafted would not have been a reach in any way, shape or form.  The idea that trading down and taking one of them would be "reaching" is ludicrous.  You totally misunderstand the idea of what "reaching" is.

 

Go back and re-read my post. I never said anything about taking Hopkins or Patterson where Richardson was taken or reaching for players.  Please quit twisting my intent and claiming I said something that I never said.

 

It's one thing to have an idea of which other teams like the same players they like.  It's quite another to know with certainty who another team is planning on taking.  Let's say that team A really covets a player and there is one team (Team drafting ahead of them that might take that player.  Team A might decide to stay put and hope that the player falls to them, particularly if there other highly-rated players at postions of critical need for Team B .  OTOH, if Team A knows that Team B is going to take the BPA regardless of need, then they'd know that most likely Team B will take the player they covet, and if they really want that player, they will do everything they can to trade up ahead of Team B to get him.

 

 

If a pass rusher, WR, or -especially- a FS of the type you're talking about is available in the draft, they're all likely to be BAP type players as well. If they're not that level of quality, they won't be, and shouldn't be taken -IMHO- over prospects at other positions who they have rated higher. Once they have a Super Bowl roster put together, they can get a little fancier in the draft. Just hopefully not taking a kicker in the second round fancy. But right now, with so many holes, you need to go straight BAP. 

 

Not necessarily.  Whereas they would probably be very highly rated, they might not be rated as the BPA where the Jets pick.  To ignore taking them and to keep taking players at positions they don't need over a long period of time would be totally stupid.   Let's us this recent draft as an example.  I don't know how the Jets had Jarvis Jones rated.  I had mixed thoughts about him because of his lack of footspeed.  Perhaps for that reason, the Jets weren't very high on him, but for argument's sake, let's say that they had him rated as 8.8 out of 10 and Richardson rated 8.9.  Do you still think taking Richardson was the way to go?  IMO, when two players are that close in ranking, there's not much difference and the team should probably go with the player at the position of need.

 

In the short term, when there are so many holes on the team, then yes, BPA is the best approach as an overall guiding principle, but not one that should be blindly adhered to, when one has glaring needs at critical positions on the team, and when it's very hard to find topnotch players at those positions.  When you have the opportunity to significantly upgrade those positions of need, then you have to strongly consider it.

 

Once you have a Super Bowl roster put together?  Forget FS for a moment, since you don't think it's an important position, but with glaring needs at key positions like OLB and WR, you'll NEVER have a Super Bowl roster put together, because chances are you'll have no one to stretch the field and no consistent pressure on opposing QBs. If there's no WR to keep Ds honest, then they can continually stack 8-9 men in the box and your rushing game goes poof.  With no consistent pass rush, you aren't going far in the playoffs, because opposing QBs will pick you apart.  I think that you may have to deviate from the BPA/BAP principle sometimes in order to put together a Super Bowl roster.  Teams have won SBs without topflight WRs, but I don't think one has even gotten to, much less won a SB without a topflight pass rusher.

 

Best available player shouldn't be confused with best available athlete, either. Players' grades are effected by the position they play. QBs and pass rushers get bumped over guards and TEs every year as a result. So maybe we don't disagree as much as you think.

 

I agree with your points here.  If you truly think the bolded above, then you know that I'm not talking about reaching for players.  Certain positions are more important, and those players' grades are elevated.  One has to be very careful, however and not over value those positions or players when you have a critical need at those positions, otherwise one may reach out of need/desperation.  

 

WR, though, is always tough to draft. Big bust potential, and the position seems to be littered with assholes. It's one of the reasons I liked the Hill pick last year. I'm generally not a choir boy kinda guy, but I see Hill's off field persona as a huge positive.

 

We're in almost total agreement on this point.  I want only high character players on the team, no assholes.  There is a high bust potential with WRs, and they often can take a year or two to develop.  Where I disagree is that I wasn't high on the Hill pick.  I like his character, size and speed, but not his hands.  He made some circus catches at Ga Tech, but also dropped a LOT of passes, many very easy.  Sometimes hands can be a matter of focus/concentration, but at others, it's just a matter of their having stone hands. I'm not sure which is the case with Hill, but hope it's the former, not the latter.  

[T0mShane]

Idzik has the luxury of going BAP right now because the roster is so terrible. As soon as next season, if Hill is a bust, he'll probably have to target a wideout, he'll definitely have to prioritize the drafting of a TE, and he'll likely need to find another corner when Cro is released. Going BAP sounds great in theory, but Idzik has three drafts left, max, to get the team into contention. He'll shift to drafting need soon enough.

[Sperm Edwards]

 Going BAP sounds great in theory...

 

Right, because Halle Berry has never looked better.

 

[Larz]

Rex wanted Coples bad, so he got him. Coaches get off on fixing headcases, especially if theyre talented. GMs hate headcases because they're career-killers if/when they implode.

As a tradeoff, Tannenbaum picked Stephen Hill in the second round. Rex is on record saying that he didn't want Hill. Hill is a GMs pick--great measurables, diamond in the rough-type that can make a GM look like a genius.

Rex, because he can, decided to start Hill right away to embarrass Tannenbaum and teach him a lesson about playing scout. We have proof-positive that Tannenbaum was screwing around with playing time (Vlad), so this was Rex's way of throwing Tanny over the pommel horse for ******* with his team.

But, Rex is paying extra attention to Coples because he wants to put that feather in his cap--that he took a player many had taken off their boards and turned him into an All-Pro. He'll bury Hill because Hill was Tannenbaum's thing, but he's going to nurture Coples like a baby lamb because that's his guy.

 

 

or

 

this team has so little talent, they both played

 

Occam baby

[SenorGato]

I don't care if they call him quality control coach if he gets to the QB.

 

How much quality has he controlled before? Sure he has the tools for it, but why even give him such an opportunity? Do this one thing. 

[Sperm Edwards]

Remember when we didn't draft Courtney Upshaw despite a gaping hole at rush LB?

 

Yeah, he's a 6'2" tall tub of blubber at 285 lbs now.

[SenorGato]

Remember when we didn't draft Courtney Upshaw despite a gaping hole at rush LB?

 

Yeah, he's a 6'2" tall tub of blubber at 285 lbs now.

 

Situation is different. He played LB in college. While he doesn't have the athleticism or reach or pass rushing abilities of Coples, he has the same position title he had in college. 

[dbatesman]

Moving Coples to OLB is among the derpier things Rex has done, which is really saying something.

[SenorGato]

Rex wanted Coples bad, so he got him. Coaches get off on fixing headcases, especially if theyre talented. GMs hate headcases because they're career-killers if/when they implode.

As a tradeoff, Tannenbaum picked Stephen Hill in the second round. Rex is on record saying that he didn't want Hill. Hill is a GMs pick--great measurables, diamond in the rough-type that can make a GM look like a genius.

Rex, because he can, decided to start Hill right away to embarrass Tannenbaum and teach him a lesson about playing scout. We have proof-positive that Tannenbaum was screwing around with playing time (Vlad), so this was Rex's way of throwing Tanny over the pommel horse for ******* with his team.

But, Rex is paying extra attention to Coples because he wants to put that feather in his cap--that he took a player many had taken off their boards and turned him into an All-Pro. He'll bury Hill because Hill was Tannenbaum's thing, but he's going to nurture Coples like a baby lamb because that's his guy.

 

My jaw dropped reading this. Tell us another one, pops! What a tale! Bravo! 

 

You...well, you're a genius yeah....so I am confident you do not actually buy this. 

[T0mShane]

My jaw dropped reading this. Tell us another one, pops! What a tale! Bravo!

You...well, you're a genius yeah....so I am confident you do not actually buy this.

It was a thought exercise to amuse myself. I like to pretend that sports figures are infinitely smarter and more conniving than they are.

[SenorGato]

It was a thought exercise to amuse myself. I like to pretend that sports figures are infinitely smarter and more conniving than they are.

 

There's no way you're not Manish Mehta or Cimini or some other Jets writer.

[Sperm Edwards]

Situation is different. He played LB in college. While he doesn't have the athleticism or reach or pass rushing abilities of Coples, he has the same position title he had in college. 

 

He was drafted to be a pass rusher.  He sucks at rushing the passer.  

 

And he doesn't really anymore since Baltimore's moving him inside on passing downs this year (like Rex is moving Coples this year) so someone else can get to the QB.

 

Do you need a list of stud 3-4 OLBers who played DL in college?

 

It'll either work out or it won't.  Coples is only noteworthy in his conversion because he's bigger than most of them.

[Apache 51]

As far as I'm concerned this Defense has been in the makings for a few years now. Rex is doing it right, building from the foundation up. Next draft we pray for good Safeties and OLBs. We will see flashes of a great defense this year. 

I'll buy this.