HessStation Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Since NO ONE is a guaranteed star, I'm almost never for trading up and almost always for trading down. Trade down and acquire more draft picks, don't trade up. The more draft picks you have, the higher the chance of landing impact players. You're forgetting the odds are higher of getting a star the higher the pick. Not advocating to trade up but just saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 So, just to be clear, the Texans are willing to deal the #1, the Rams are willing to trade out of the #2 spot, and the Jaguars will trade the #3 overall? and for some reason fans still take anything teams say at face value. The whole things a poker match. Who wouldn't be willing to listen, duh. *speaking general terms not at u. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizard King Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 We traded up for Revis and that worked out. And at the same time, we once also traded up for Dewayne Robertson. And then again for Mark Sanchez. So it's just as hit or miss as staying put or trading down. The Parcells/Belichick approach of always trading down isn't necessarily the right call in ALL situations. Those 2 just realized that their weakness was talent evaluation (of 21-22 year olds, at least), so they gave themselves as many darts as possible to throw at the dartboard and hoped they were correct on enough picks to build a good roster. No it's not, because when you are wrong trading up, it has cost you multiple picks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenseed4 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Sounds like a buyer's market for teams looking to move up. Could get interesting. There's never been a draft quite like this with so much potential volatility at the top. Especially since it's not like the old days where teams were unwilling to move up due to the amount of money you had to spend on a top 5 pick. That's isn't much of a factor anymore. On top of that, the depth this year is so great that these top-teams realize they can get a quality player in the 2nd and 3rd round with their compensation, in addition to (probably) next year's 1st round pick, in a draft which should yield more high caliber QB options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 No it's not, because when you are wrong trading up, it has cost you multiple picks True, if it's a miss it stings more. Still, your odds go up the higher the pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenseed4 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 http://www.gbnreport.com/picksbyteam.html I'll try to post this page, but I doubt the numbers will line up...they never do. It's a spreadsheet of picks by the team, which gives you a good idea of who has multiple picks in the middle rounds, and may consider moving up (or down) [spoiler alert: only 1 team has two picks in the second round (SF), and three teams have two picks, each, in the third round (CLE, MIN, SF)] 2014 DRAFT PICKS BY TEAM TEAM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total # picks ARIZONA 20 52 84 x x x 6 ATLANTA 6 37 68 x x x x 7 BALTIMORE 16/17 47/48 78/79 x 4 BUFFALO 9 41 73 x x x x 7 CAROLINA 28 60 92 x x x x 7 CHICAGO 14 51 82 x x x, x 7 CINCINNATI 24 55 88 x x x x 7 CLEVELAND 4, 26 35 71, 83 x, x x x x 10 DALLAS 16/17 47/48 78/79 x x x, x, x 8 DENVER 31 63 95 x x x x 7 DETROIT 10 45 76 x x x 6 GREEN BAY 21 53 85 x x x x 7 HOUSTON 1 33 65 x x x x 7 INDIANAPOLIS 59 90 x x x, x 6 JACKSONVILLE 3 39 70 x, x x, x, x x 9 KANSAS CITY 23 87 x x x, x 6 MIAMI 19 50 81 x x x x 7 MINNESOTA 8 40 72, 96 x x x x 8 NEW ENGLAND 29 62 93 x x, x x 7 NEW ORLEANS 27 58 91 x x x 6 NY GIANTS 12 43 74 x x x 6 NY JETS 18 49 80 x, x* x x x 8 OAKLAND 5 36 67 x x x, x 7 PHILADELPHIA 22 54 86 x x, x x 7 PITTSBURGH 15 46 x x x x 6 ST. LOUIS 2, 13 44 75 x x x x 8 SAN DIEGO 25 57 89 x x x x 7 SAN FRANCISCO 30 56, 61 77, 94 x x x x, x, x, x 12 SEATTLE 31 63 x x, x x x 7 TAMPA BAY 7 38 *69 x x 5 TENNESSEE 11 42 x x x x 6 WASHINGTON 34 66 x x x x 6 On edit: Shocker. Clicking the link above is a better way to observe this info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Mostro Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 to serve what purpose? the list I posted is nothing but warm doggie doo - we may or may not get to the playoffs next year but the Jets are in no way, shape or form a championship contender next season. So why bring in a sad sack vet? If Geno ain't the answer, go to the draft and bring in another qb - groom that one and the next one or next, etc, etc until one of them clicks. By all means, keep drafting QB's, but throwing an ill equipped rookie in as your starter isn't going to work either. Especially one who has not earned the job other than by default -- how's that worked out the past 5 years? With a solid defense, draft picks and plenty of cap space, this team does not need a whole lot of improvement at QB to at least contend for a playoff spot. Put someone in who, while unspectacular, at least does not set the team back like our last two starting QB's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 No it's not, because when you are wrong trading up, it has cost you multiple picks True, but trading down ALL the time doesn't give you a chance to get special talents. If you don't have a franchise QB, it's hard to justify moving down all the time. I don't think there's one right way to do the draft. A mix of trading up for guys (if you can) when you like someone on the board and moving down when you don't (if you can) are both smart decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizard King Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 True, but trading down ALL the time doesn't give you a chance to get special talents. If you don't have a franchise QB, it's hard to justify moving down all the time. I don't think there's one right way to do the draft. A mix of trading up for guys (if you can) when you like someone on the board and moving down when you don't (if you can) are both smart decisions. I think trading up is a strategy that a solid team employs, trading down (in not great drafts) is a strategy that crappy teams employ, and the majority of teams should just sit tight. Personal opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFanInDenver Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 When you declare you are open to trading a pick you will rarely ever get fair value for trading that pick. But it doesnt make sense for the JETS to trade up. Infact depending on how the draft goes it might make sense to trade down and get another pick in the first few rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 1. None of this year's QBs are locks to be drafted top-10. Manziel is about to be put through a meat grinder in interviews and in his pro days, Bridgewater is supposedly going to interview like a meek librarian, and Bortles is the kind of guy that Draft Twitter jerks off over, only to find out that actual GMs think he's a fourth rounder (Ryan Nassib). Moving up to 3 could be a waste of resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 1. None of this year's QBs are locks to be drafted top-10. Manziel is about to be put through a meat grinder in interviews and in his pro days, Bridgewater is supposedly going to interview like a meek librarian, and Bortles is the kind of guy that Draft Twitter jerks off over, only to find out that actual GMs think he's a fourth rounder (Ryan Nassib). Moving up to 3 could be a waste of resources. How you think Clowney interviews? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New York Mick Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Sorry, It wont happen again. You'd make a great sex slave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 How you think Clowney interviews? He's a DE. He can walk into that room drunk, stoned, and in the act of raping a goat and he'd still go top three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 He's a DE. He can walk into that room drunk, stoned, and in the act of raping a goat and he'd still go top three. Damn right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro55 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Rome wasn't built in a day. And, they are more likely to get an immediate improvement at QB through a vet acquisition. Yeah like they did last year by drafting a QB in the second round and signing David Garrard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 1. None of this year's QBs are locks to be drafted top-10. Manziel is about to be put through a meat grinder in interviews and in his pro days, Bridgewater is supposedly going to interview like a meek librarian, and Bortles is the kind of guy that Draft Twitter jerks off over, only to find out that actual GMs think he's a fourth rounder (Ryan Nassib). Moving up to 3 could be a waste of resources. I'll agree that you only trade up for a QB but like you're saying that would be if one drops to like 10 or 11. The alJets aren't leapfrogging from 18 to top 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Mostro Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Yeah like they did last year by drafting a QB in the second round and signing David Garrard. Garrard wasn't a veteran QB -- he was already a veteran invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flgreen Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 You'd make a great sex slave. You say they like a possible future thing. Have you seen the pool party pics he posted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 hey didn't you hear, NFL champs are built on undrafted FA's now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehFalcon63 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I still think it comes down to scouting and player development. You can have more draft picks, but if you cannot scout and you cannot develop, you will probably have no talent either way. This is why scouting is so critical, certain players are worth trading up for, and some are not, you have to be able to identify them. Nobody is always right, but you need to be right enough. Maybe I'm just naive, but I believe that A LOT of potentially great players get drafted very low or not at all. Almost any player can succeed if put in the right situation at the right time. I'd rather trade down, have more chances to get a pick right, and have less of a financial investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Maybe I'm just naive, but I believe that A LOT of potentially great players get drafted very low or not at all. Almost any player can succeed if put in the right situation at the right time. I'd rather trade down, have more chances to get a pick right, and have less of a financial investment. First round draft picks aren't really financial burdens anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LionelRichie Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 1. None of this year's QBs are locks to be drafted top-10. Manziel is about to be put through a meat grinder in interviews and in his pro days, Bridgewater is supposedly going to interview like a meek librarian, and Bortles is the kind of guy that Draft Twitter jerks off over, only to find out that actual GMs think he's a fourth rounder (Ryan Nassib). Moving up to 3 could be a waste of resources. the counter to this is that you have franchises in desperate need for QBs in Houston, Jax, Cleveland, Oakland, and Minnesota. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetfanincanada Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Maybe I'm just naive, but I believe that A LOT of potentially great players get drafted very low or not at all. Almost any player can succeed if put in the right situation at the right time. I'd rather trade down, have more chances to get a pick right, and have less of a financial investment. I could be mistaken, but I remember reading an article at some point that broke down NFL starters by round, and there was a pretty clear correlation that the higher you are drafted the better your chances of being a better player. There is a reason why teams value draft picks the way they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro55 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Garrard wasn't a veteran QB -- he was already a veteran invalid. Kind of like Vick at this point. And guys like Cassel or Flynn or whomever else is out there might not be veteran invalids who should just retire, but they really aren't guys who you can say are better than Geno or Sanchez. And Geno and Sanchez stink. People just love to sign anybody elses scrubs because maybe they didn't see those guys play or they hope some magic will happen. Geno is already on the roster. Who knows what they are doing with Sanchez. If the guy restructures his contract and is far cheaper, is there any benefit in cutting him and signing Vick or Cassel or guys like that? I don't think so. Vick had some moments as an Eagle, but he was also a guy who turned the ball over all the time. It was a running joke in Philly. Plus he never stays healthy. Maybe it won't be Garrard and the retirement joke, but it'll be one of those, hey Vick makes 4 million a year and only played in 5 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neckdemon Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 They have or will have 12 picks. Under my scenario, they get a FRANCHISE QB, and still have 10,thats TEN picks. A franchise QB, and 10 picks to fill depth and needs? YES PLEASE. who is the guaranteed franchise qb we are getting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peebag Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 By all means, keep drafting QB's, but throwing an ill equipped rookie in as your starter isn't going to work either. Especially one who has not earned the job other than by default -- how's that worked out the past 5 years? With a solid defense, draft picks and plenty of cap space, this team does not need a whole lot of improvement at QB to at least contend for a playoff spot. Put someone in who, while unspectacular, at least does not set the team back like our last two starting QB's. pick a qb, any qb that's available...what good is it going to do...we have to get a qb for this team and none is available through FA....it's Geno and whoever we draft... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New York Mick Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 You say they like a possible future thing. Have you seen the pool party pics he posted? I was drunk as sh*t, my standards were even lower then normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I'll agree that you only trade up for a QB but like you're saying that would be if one drops to like 10 or 11. The alJets aren't leapfrogging from 18 to top 5. IMO, if you trade to the Rams #13 pick, you could probably nab one of the forecast Top Three QBs. I think there's a good chance that Derek Carr will get picked by the Jags when the time comes. Gus Bradley supposedly fell deeply in love with his arm and demeanor at the Senior Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Exactly. The last few years, we've gone into the season without a competent backup. This is the one thing we need to fix this year without question. A backup that is healthy enough to actually step in to play if needed. This geriatric mentor backup QB strategy is teh suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 the counter to this is that you have franchises in desperate need for QBs in Houston, Jax, Cleveland, Oakland, and Minnesota. . Houston, IMO, takes Clowney at one and choose between Mettenberger and/or McCarron later on. Cleveland just hired Kyle Shanahan at OC, and his first statement was how much he loved Manziel. Oakland, if they're smart (hahaha) waits a year and chooses between Jameis Winston and Mariota. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewillie78 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 who is the guaranteed franchise qb we are getting? The ONLY 2 that I would trade up for would be Manziel or Bridgewater. Both of these guys to me have Franchise QB stuff written all over them. I would not move to get Bortles, Carr, Mettenberger, McCarron, Garrapolo etc. If the Jets don't make a move for the top 2, then simply draft whichever they have the highest number on the 3rd or 4th round, and pray for a Montana/Brady/Wilson miracle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 not saying your opinion is invalid but i'm really sick of hearing the "we can't judge the qb until he has talent around him" thing. not trying to shoot the messanger but after 5 years i've lost my patience. How about a modification to "you shouldn't close the book on a QB who came from the spread offense, never took a snap under center, has only played one season, and had no talent around him, and who's play was significantly better when his only reliable target wasn't out with a concussion?" I think that's all the people who think Geno should start are really saying. That, and "don't sell the farm for another QB with a ton of ????s who will also then have no weapons." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 who is the guaranteed franchise qb we are getting? Exactly. If Geno doesn't improve, hopefully at least we've improved the team around him and we suck for 1 more year. As we're seeing with the Redskins, if we make the big trade up, if Manziel isn't a superstar, we likely suck for the next 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewillie78 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Exactly. If Geno doesn't improve, hopefully at least we've improved the team around him and we suck for 1 more year. As we're seeing with the Redskins, if we make the big trade up, if Manziel isn't a superstar, we likely suck for the next 4 years. Uh, Redskins made the playoffs in RGIII's first year, and then his injuries caught up with him the 2nd year. To imply that the Redskins will now suck "the next 4 years", because of a Franchise QB who already has proven himself, that when healthy is a great QB is quite perplexing. His ROOKIE QBR was like 105, unheard of numbers for a rookie, especially in Florham park. We should be so "unfortunate" to ever have a QB with the talent of RGIII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.