jgb Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 I don't mind the player, I mind where we pick him. Picking a guard at 6 is absolutely ridiculous. We cannot pass up on Kevin White for a guard at 6. Would make some heads explode around here if a G was BAP at that spot. Funny but the proponents of "pure BAP" that deride comments regarding need have so many exceptions to it that it really isn't BAP at all. One man's "pure BAP with a litany of exceptions" is another's "draft best player that fills a need." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 very interesting take on 'new NFL and guards vs tackles' It's an opinion piece, that probably didn't need to be copy and pasted a second time. It's also one that the NFL doesn't seem to agree with. In the last decade, 3 guards have been taken in the top ten. In that same time span, 13 tackles went top ten, 9 of those in the top 5 (again, you'd have to go back 40 years to find a guard taken in the top 5), and two of those were taken #1 overall. Pretty clear that the league continues to value the tackle position significantly higher than the guard position. Also funny is that article citing Logan Mankins as the Pats' best offensive lineman. All they had to do was trade hm away to win the Super Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Would make some heads explode around here if a G was BAP at that spot. Funny but the proponents of "pure BAP" that deride comments regarding need have so many exceptions to it that it really isn't BAP at all. One man's "pure BAP with a litany of exceptions" is another's "draft best player that fills a need." There's not a scenario where a guard would be the BAP or the team's biggest need filler at #6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Name me this--how many teams that finished last place in their division have done the same? No, you're attempting to deflect by answering a question with a different question. You've taken the stance that guards are so all-important in building a superbowl winner, that the position is worthy of the #6 pick in the country. That it's a good way of building a winner. So back up this reasoning, which should be easy. Name all the superbowl winning teams that have built that winner by doing so. I said the past quarter century because the game is not the same as it was so long ago, but go back as far as you like in history. But that guard better be instrumental to the team being the winner (like irreplaceable type of instrumental) and not that he was merely starting there, like Eric Smith being a starting safety on the NFL's #1 defense. That's if one such example even exists, and I'm not sure one does. Personally, I'm fine with drafting a guard in the low teens or later if he's that great of a prospect. I'm not fine with drafting one comfortably inside the top 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chirorob Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 and will have longer career (Off Lineman) than probably most in draft I don't like a guard at 6, however.. Our line is average. Our 2 best linemen are on the wrong side of 30. The line needs to be addressed in a big way. But, a guard at 6... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 The only OL you'd take that high is La'el Collins anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 It's an opinion piece, that probably didn't need to be copy and pasted a second time. It's also one that the NFL doesn't seem to agree with. In the last decade, 3 guards have been taken in the top ten. In that same time span, 13 tackles went top ten, 9 of those in the top 5 (again, you'd have to go back 40 years to find a guard taken in the top 5), and two of those were taken #1 overall. Pretty clear that the league continues to value the tackle position significantly higher than the guard position. Also funny is that article citing Logan Mankins as the Pats' best offensive lineman. All they had to do was trade hm away to win the Super Bowl. Like I said NFL Network had a piece recently citing same opinion,, Guard equal to more important in last 5 years NFL. Not my opinion, theirs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 The only OL you'd take that high is La'el Collins anyway. There goes his draft stock dropping LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Like I said NFL Network had a piece recently citing same opinion,, Guard equal to more important in last 5 years NFL. Not my opinion, theirs Like I said, the league seems to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 No, you're attempting to deflect by answering a question with a different question. You've taken the stance that guards are so all-important in building a superbowl winner, that the position is worthy of the #6 pick in the country. That it's a good way of building a winner. So back up this reasoning, which should be easy. Name all the superbowl winning teams that have built that winner by doing so. I said the past quarter century because the game is not the same as it was so long ago, but go back as far as you like in history. But that guard better be instrumental to the team being the winner (like irreplaceable type of instrumental) and not that he was merely starting there, like Eric Smith being a starting safety on the NFL's #1 defense. That's if one such example even exists, and I'm not sure one does. Personally, I'm fine with drafting a guard in the low teens or later if he's that great of a prospect. I'm not fine with drafting one comfortably inside the top 10. I am saying it's an absurd question and that the answer has no correlation to the result which you are (weakly) trying to attribute a cause-and-effect relationship to. It's like the famous anecdote where a man visits his friend who fires a gun into the air every morning. The man asks why he does this. He tells the man that he does it to keep the elephants out of his garden. The man says "but there are no elephants around these parts." The friend says, "precisely." Until you can prove that drafting a guard early makes a team more likely to finish last, it is a fool's errand to try to "prove" that doing so increases a team's chances of finishing first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jets Voice of Reason Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Good player, bad value, bad pick. "safer pick" for OL doesn't even make sense. It's more like you are just abstain from making a choice between the "risky" pass rushers and pay for it with the opportunity cost of not getting elite talent at positions that generally don't hit FA. This team needs blue-chip talent. It's not very often we're picking top ten and with our spending spree in place and our general talent on defense, there's a reasonable expectation that we at least finish middle of the pack the next couple years. i.e. not in prime positions for picking QBs or #1 WRs or stud pass rushers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Like I said, the league seems to disagree. Another exception to slats' "pure BAP"... if the "league seems to disagree" (whatever that means). And I thought following BAP was supposed to be simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckkieB Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 I would not be happy if we draft an offensive lineman at #6, especially with some high end WR's and pass rushers on the board. I think all of this is going to be moot because as I've said before, I have a gut feeling that the Jets are going to go all in on Mariotta and trade up to #2 to get him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Like I said, the league seems to disagree. I dont think so... not in last few years... speed of these interior DLineman crazy and also clogs run game up middle.. Building a line is now inside out compared to old days.. agree to disagree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mavericknyc1980 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 I would take Beasely at this spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-Rex Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 1. TB - J.Winston 2. Ten - M.Mariota 3. Jax - L.Williams 4. Oak - A.Cooper 5. Was - D.Fowler 6.JETS - BRANDON SCHERFF Analysis: If Mariota is here I think that's the direction the Jets go. And while I can certainly see this team moving up to No. 2, as I noted above, we know the price is going to be steep, and it might simply be too high a cost. I know this is a possible fit for a pass-rusher as well, but the Scherff pick also makes a lot of sense if you look at the improvements they've made on defense and the improvements they still need to make on offense. The Jets are going to have a good defense next season regardless of whom they take here. The new threats in the passing game are nice, but given the QB options on the roster, this team needs to be able to run the ball. Scherff is a possible starter immediately at right tackle, and is a clear upgrade at either guard spot. It might not be exciting for the fans, but for immediate impact this could be the best pick to make. This choice is picking up steam. I would trade down to get Scherff. At six, that is too high for him. Kevin White or a pass rusher would be more desirable at six, but Scherff seems to be a solid prospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Another exception to slats' "pure BAP"... if the "league seems to disagree" (whatever that means). And I thought following BAP was supposed to be simple. Bleh. You're searching for a gotcha moment, but you're just not getting there. BAP calculations include the value of the position the players play, and I've said this many times. A QB with a 90 grade will be taken ahead of a guard with a 100 rating ten out of ten times. QB, pass rusher, wide receiver all all premium positions in the NFL, and get paid a premium. The Jets will potentially be looking at top prospects at each of those positions when they're on the clock at #6, taking a guard there would be dumb. It would be neither the BAP, nor the player who fills the most glaring need - making your whole argument ridiculous. The top guards in free agency this year (and a couple very good guards were available) got $7-8M/year, the top WRs were franchised at $12.8M. The top pass rusher was franchised at $14.8M. The franchise tag number for a QB is over $18M. WRs, pass rushers, and QBs are valued higher than guards. That's all part of the equation. Your dad, meanwhile, is citing one article as a demonstration of a shift in positional values between guards and tackles in the NFL, and I showed him clearly that the league continues to draft tackles higher and much more often than guards. I dont think so... not in last few years... agree to disagree... Again, in the last ten years, 13 OTs were taken top ten, 9 in the top five, two number one overall. In the same ten years, three guards went top ten, and you'd have to go back to 1975 to find one taken in the top five. Tackle continues to be considered a premium position, guard is not. Not sure what last few years you're talking about. If there's any truth to that opinion piece, the trend I'd think you'd see is tackles just not being drafted as high any more, either, rather than guards being taken higher. As the emphasis becomes more about the QB getting rid of the ball in a hurry, every position on the OL will see itself being downgraded, much like RB in recent years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Meeeeeeh Passing on Dupree too...smh.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Bleh. You're searching for a gotcha moment, but you're just not getting there. BAP calculations include the value of the position the players play, and I've said this many times. A QB with a 90 grade will be taken ahead of a guard with a 100 rating ten out of ten times. QB, pass rusher, wide receiver all all premium positions in the NFL, and get paid a premium. The Jets will potentially be looking at top prospects at each of those positions when they're on the clock at #6, taking a guard there would be dumb. It would be neither the BAP, nor the player who fills the most glaring need - making your whole argument ridiculous. The top guards in free agency this year (and a couple very good guards were available) got $7-8M/year, the top WRs were franchised at $12.8M. The top pass rusher was franchised at $14.8M. The franchise tag number for a QB is over $18M. WRs, pass rushers, and QBs are valued higher than guards. That's all part of the equation. Your dad, meanwhile, is citing one article as a demonstration of a shift in positional values between guards and tackles in the NFL, and I showed him clearly that the league continues to draft tackles higher and much more often than guards. Again, in the last ten years, 13 OTs were taken top ten, 9 in the top five, two number one overall. In the same ten years, three guards went top ten, and you'd have to go back to 1975 to find one taken in the top five. Tackle continues to be considered a premium position, guard is not. Not sure what last few years you're talking about. If there's any truth to that opinion piece, the trend I'd think you'd see is tackles just not being drafted as high any more, either, rather than guards being taken higher. As the emphasis becomes more about the QB getting rid of the ball in a hurry, every position on the OL will see itself being downgraded, much like RB in recent years. No need to re-cut/paste Slats, if you recall I said agree to disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 The only OL you'd take that high is La'el Collins anyway. Name all the superbowl winners who used a top 10 pick to draft an OL with an apostrophe in his first name. Next. I am saying it's an absurd question and that the answer has no correlation to the result which you are (weakly) trying to attribute a cause-and-effect relationship to. It's like the famous anecdote where a man visits his friend who fires a gun into the air every morning. The man asks why he does this. He tells the man that he does it to keep the elephants out of his garden. The man says "but there are no elephants around these parts." The friend says, "precisely." Until you can prove that drafting a guard early makes a team more likely to finish last, it is a fool's errand to try to "prove" that doing so increases a team's chances of finishing first. I don't think it's an absurd question when the premise is that this is somehow the path to the superbowl. The problem is, in fact, no team has taken that path to the superbowl. And if there was one it's as ancient history as drafting a RB #1 overall or a FB anywhere in the first round. Therefore the assessment that taking a guard this high is some type of proper path to the SB is pretty baseless IMO since no one's successfully implemented this course of action. If you want a premiere guard, then go outbid everyone for the top FA guard. But those players are available to every team every year. A rare playmaking talent that may require the #6 overall pick is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 the t!ts will trade out of #2, or take williams oh wait, that's next weeks mock, my bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Name all the superbowl winners who used a top 10 pick to draft an OL with an apostrophe in his first name. Next. I don't think it's an absurd question when the premise is that this is somehow the path to the superbowl. The problem is, in fact, no team has taken that path to the superbowl. And if there was one it's as ancient history as drafting a RB #1 overall or a FB anywhere in the first round. Therefore the assessment that taking a guard this high is some type of proper path to the SB is pretty baseless IMO since no one's successfully implemented this course of action. If you want a premiere guard, then go outbid everyone for the top FA guard. But those players are available to every team every year. A rare playmaking talent that may require the #6 overall pick is not. I can see a tradedown to get scherff.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Like I said NFL Network had a piece recently citing same opinion,, Guard equal to more important in last 5 years NFL. Not my opinion, theirs There was a bunch of chatter about that in 2013 before Cooper and Warmack got drafted so high. The NFL being a copycat league, the failure of those two may have put a damper on the super early guard draft picks. The fact that Iupati's contract wasn't so astronomical probably adds to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliforniaJet Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 With White still on the board this would be pure insanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 With White still on the board this would be pure insanity. Ya I assume Kipers thinking is marshall signing (which also means decker NOT get double coverage now) made other areas more urgent.. who knows........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afosomf Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Kiper is a moron, he is not an talent evaluator, he regurgitates scouts opinions. He got way to big for his britches, the dude will not even respond to a tweet mon. At least Mcshay played the game and can scout players. Drafting Scheriff would be a monumental error, i cannot see Mac making this pick. If he does it will be a typical Jet Failure move. No way a guard should go this high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurnleyJet Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 If he's number one on the Jets board if the Draft fell like that, the GM should be fired right after the 1st Pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faba Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 If you take a guy that high and you are going to change his position in the NFL- the GM is on shaky grounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Bleh. You're searching for a gotcha moment, but you're just not getting there. BAP calculations include the value of the position the players play, and I've said this many times. A QB with a 90 grade will be taken ahead of a guard with a 100 rating ten out of ten times. QB, pass rusher, wide receiver all all premium positions in the NFL, and get paid a premium. The Jets will potentially be looking at top prospects at each of those positions when they're on the clock at #6, taking a guard there would be dumb. It would be neither the BAP, nor the player who fills the most glaring need - making your whole argument ridiculous. The top guards in free agency this year (and a couple very good guards were available) got $7-8M/year, the top WRs were franchised at $12.8M. The top pass rusher was franchised at $14.8M. The franchise tag number for a QB is over $18M. WRs, pass rushers, and QBs are valued higher than guards. That's all part of the equation. Your dad, meanwhile, is citing one article as a demonstration of a shift in positional values between guards and tackles in the NFL, and I showed him clearly that the league continues to draft tackles higher and much more often than guards. Again, in the last ten years, 13 OTs were taken top ten, 9 in the top five, two number one overall. In the same ten years, three guards went top ten, and you'd have to go back to 1975 to find one taken in the top five. Tackle continues to be considered a premium position, guard is not. Not sure what last few years you're talking about. If there's any truth to that opinion piece, the trend I'd think you'd see is tackles just not being drafted as high any more, either, rather than guards being taken higher. As the emphasis becomes more about the QB getting rid of the ball in a hurry, every position on the OL will see itself being downgraded, much like RB in recent years. No gotcha moment just that your admonition against those who advocate anything other than "pure BAP" is ironic. Agree with SJ, this is just an agree to disagree situation. Although you kept the fight up even after he said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 I can see a tradedown to get scherff.. Perhaps, and if we were to trade down 10+ slots and take him that's another story altogether, since we'd be picking up a 2nd rounder and then some in the process. Scherff's name is absent from our visit list, though. Unless I just missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Name all the superbowl winners who used a top 10 pick to draft an OL with an apostrophe in his first name. Next. I don't think it's an absurd question when the premise is that this is somehow the path to the superbowl. The problem is, in fact, no team has taken that path to the superbowl. And if there was one it's as ancient history as drafting a RB #1 overall or a FB anywhere in the first round. Therefore the assessment that taking a guard this high is some type of proper path to the SB is pretty baseless IMO since no one's successfully implemented this course of action. If you want a premiere guard, then go outbid everyone for the top FA guard. But those players are available to every team every year. A rare playmaking talent that may require the #6 overall pick is not. I know nothing about the guy. Just that absolute statements in an inabsolute art such as talent identification, evaluation and the Draft are unsupportable. If you stand by the premise that a team should "never" take a guard in the Top 10, the burden is on you to support that premise, not on others to do a research project to debunk your unsupported statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Agree with SJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Kiper is a moron, he is not an talent evaluator, he regurgitates scouts opinions. He got way to big for his britches, the dude will not even respond to a tweet mon. At least Mcshay played the game and can scout players. Drafting Scheriff would be a monumental error, i cannot see Mac making this pick. If he does it will be a typical Jet Failure move. No way a guard should go this high. I don't think It is so much that he is a moron as he has to generate interest. Having the same top 10 for months at a time generates no interest. This also lets them say later - "Look, I was right!" Pretty typical of the talking head draftniks. I am not a fan of Scherff at 6, but it is not so crazy and it generates more interest and opportunity to discuss different motivations than bouncing between the top WRs or pass rushers. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 I know nothing about the guy. Just that absolute statements in an inabsolute art such as talent identification, evaluation and the Draft are unsupportable. If you stand by the premise that a team should "never" take a guard in the Top 10, the burden is on you to support that premise, not on others to do a research project to debunk your unsupported statement. I think you started with suggesting it was a smart move. I'm countering with it hasn't been done before (certainly not recently) and there's no evidence this would be a smart move. This is my supported statement. If you disagree, then I asked you to back up why you think a guard would be a smart move to draft at #6, and you are still dodging. We both know if you were able to show any evidence that this is smart you would have rubbed my nose in it by now, instead of endeavoring in the semantics of "you first" retorts, even though I did answer first. The fact is no one - or at least no one in recent memory - has built a winner by using a #6 (or #6-ish) pick to take a guard prospect. If you can show me otherwise, I'll stand corrected. Wouldn't be the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Perhaps, and if we were to trade down 10+ slots and take him that's another story altogether, since we'd be picking up a 2nd rounder and then some in the process. Scherff's name is absent from our visit list, though. Unless I just missed it. Ya I have no issue with trade down to get Scherff.. at #6 I would think we take pass rusher or WR or QB.. if we take OL at #6 I assume Jets see something they feel is HOF material and 'think' another team also is leaning that way.. They could be building him up so a tradedown is inviting,,,all games now.. but a great OL is never never bad , as long as u dont leave draft picks on table to get him.. To call anyone a 'idiot' usually involves a mirror and a VERY low self esteem of oneself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.bfeccbb418051302514639370fc6b9e3.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.