Price for #1 pick

[rex-n-effect]

Our punter.

[Il Mostro]

3 hours ago, Embrace the Suck said:

Mo Wilkerson.

The draft is a crap shoot. Whereas, Mo Wilkerson is a well behaved sure thing all pro.

I'd throw in a pick outside the first round if I liked a guy enough. 

Why does everyone assume that Mo, for all his goodness, is automatic negotiable currency?  Some team where he actualy fits neatly into the defensive scheme must be agreeable to ponying up $$$ on a long term basis to make his acquisition worthwhile.  Not a gimmie.

[Powpow]

6 hours ago, Villain The Foe said:

We can keep our picks and draft Kevin Hogan late and pick up Mike Bercovici UDRFA

If we're giving picks away, use them to get Glennon. I'd jump at him now. He's young, somewhat battle tested, has put up good numbers, looks poised in pocket, is a big kid and could be a diamond in the rough.  

[Villain The Foe]

37 minutes ago, Powpow said:

If we're giving picks away, use them to get Glennon. I'd jump at him now. He's young, somewhat battle tested, has put up good numbers, looks poised in pocket, is a big kid and could be a diamond in the rough.  

I'd prefer to do that knowing that it would take just one pick and not necessarily a 2nd round pick. Moving up for a rookie will cost too much and we need to address our offensive line. 

 

I agree. 

[Powpow]

13 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

I'd prefer to do that knowing that it would take just one pick and not necessarily a 2nd round pick. Moving up for a rookie will cost too much and we need to address our offensive line. 

 

I agree. 

Kind of makes me sick Mac hasn't pulled the trigger to get Glennon. It's not like we have a franchise QB. The Pats drafted Brady with Bledsoe already entrenched as their franchise guy.  It's moves like that which are legendary.  Drafting Rodgers with Farve in place was another. I love what Fitz did but he's a journeyman and NOT the future of this team.  Mac stepped in a big pile of poop having Fitz turn into Cinderella.  He needs to get us a QB or off with his head LOL.  Even if Fitz is signed, I am really hopeful we grab another somewhere, somehow.  Glennon just seems to make to much sense.  

[Irish Jet]

If we truly believe in him we should give up whatever it takes. If we're not totally sure he's our guy then we have no business giving away vital draft picks in our current situation. 

If Lynch is still there when we're on the board I could definitely see us taking him, and I wouldn't be very happy about that. I don't tend to get too invested in college prospects but that slow release is a huge concern.

[rex-n-effect]

38 minutes ago, Powpow said:

Kind of makes me sick Mac hasn't pulled the trigger to get Glennon. It's not like we have a franchise QB. The Pats drafted Brady with Bledsoe already entrenched as their franchise guy.  It's moves like that which are legendary.  Drafting Rodgers with Farve in place was another. I love what Fitz did but he's a journeyman and NOT the future of this team.  Mac stepped in a big pile of poop having Fitz turn into Cinderella.  He needs to get us a QB or off with his head LOL.  Even if Fitz is signed, I am really hopeful we grab another somewhere, somehow.  Glennon just seems to make to much sense.  

It's "legendary" to throw a sixth round pick at a QB to pick up a likely backup? "[L]egendary" to pick up a QB in the first round as a replacement for your 36 year old QB? Come on. Rogers was intentionally drafted to be Favre's replacement and nobody thought Brady would be anything or he wouldn't have been there in the sixth round. At least try to make an argument make sense.

You could have just said you think Glennon would be a good QB for us and want Mac to pick him up. No need to cloud your point with all that garbage.

[Powpow]

No need to get huffy puffy with your rudeness. You misunderstood my point. We don't even have a franchise QB.  Pats and Pack get 2 of the all time greats when there even wasn't a need. Grabbing Garrafolo is another example who may blossom into a franchise QB. Belicheat took Brady in round 6 even with Bledsoe entrenched and it turned into a LEGENDARY decision. Belicheat never saw Brady as a back up- he really liked him early on. Picking Rodgers was not necessary for the Pack.  Many teams passed and he sat for years behind Farve so yea it turned out to be a legendary move also. It's called insurance. You draft QB's and after you've found one you mold another.  Glennon is a high reward low risk option.  Resign Fitz, get Glennon, dump Geno, Petty goes to 3rd string - maybe even draft Adams if he falls to 5th round and one goes to the practice squad. Just get viable options instead of keeping bums like Geno clogging up a roster spot. 

[Raideraholic]

11 hours ago, Embrace the Suck said:

Mo Wilkerson.

The draft is a crap shoot. Whereas, Mo Wilkerson is a well behaved sure thing all pro.

I'd throw in a pick outside the first round if I liked a guy enough. 

No team is  trading for Muhammad Wilkerson - not paying the price it will cost to sign him, and the picks they will have to give up.( that should be apparent to everyone now )

The Jets have two options - re-sign him to a long term contract( doesn't look that's there plan), or eventually remove the franchise tag from him - making him an UFa .( 15.7 million is too much on your books for one year rental) . 

The Jets let him go after this season, they might not get back anything in compensation . The reason the Jets should be much bigger players in Fa in 2017, that should offset the free agent loss of Wilkerson.

[Snell41]

No team is  trading for Muhammad Wilkerson - not paying the price it will cost to sign him, and the picks they will have to give up.( that should be apparent to everyone now )

The Jets have two options - re-sign him to a long term contract( doesn't look that's there plan), or eventually remove the franchise tag from him - making him an UFa .( 15.7 million is too much on your books for one year rental) . 

The Jets let him go after this season, they might not get back anything in compensation . The reason the Jets should be much bigger players in Fa in 2017, that should offset the free agent loss of Wilkerson.

Holy crap we're gonna get like 3 first rounders now!!!

[PCP63]

No player is a guarantee. Why give away the farm for one unproven guy?

I'm a fan of almost always trading out of the first. 

 

Give me two 2nds and 2 3rds, and I'll do more with that than a 1st rounder.

[TuscanyTile2]

13 hours ago, RoadFan said:

 

Absolutely.  Mariota played with either the worst or 2nd worst (Browns) group of offensive talent in the league.  He showed poise, leadership, accuracy, and the willingness to become a pocket passer on a really bad team with no running game and below average pass protection.  Tennessee is trying to surround him with some pieces.  You will see leaps and bounds better from him in years 2 and 3.

 

 

What about the fumbling though?  That seems like a real problem.  Having a turnover prone QB sounds like a bad recipe.

[slats]

18 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

"Too many holes" should never be a reason to trade down in a draft.  You don't draft for need.  Draft quality players, so you won't have those holes in the future.  Tannenbaum traded away picks like candy, then made awful selections with all of those picks in the post-Mangold/Brick year.  Idzik had 12 picks and blew it on nearly all of them. 

If Macc thinks we can stick and pick and end up with a QB we like, OR that there aren't any QB's in the first round worth taking, we should stick and pick.  IF he loves a QB we should move up to take him, though I can't possibly see us having the ammo to move up more than about 9 spots to do so.  But trading down makes little sense.  What player will be there at 20 that someone covets enough to move up?  A QB that we hate but someone else loves? 

You don't trade down strictly because you have a lot of holes, but it's certainly part of the equation. An older team like the Jets that needs to get younger and faster has to be looking at those opportunities. If there are one or two guys available at 20 that they love -who they don't think will be there later- they shouldn't make the move. But if they feel like the talent level plateaus around pick #20 into the middle of the second round, and they have an offer to move within that window, they should make the move down. 

It really all comes down to how they evaluate the talent in this year's class. 

[Jetsfan80]

7 minutes ago, slats said:

You don't trade down strictly because you have a lot of holes, but it's certainly part of the equation. An older team like the Jets that needs to get younger and faster has to be looking at those opportunities. If there are one or two guys available at 20 that they love -who they don't think will be there later- they shouldn't make the move. But if they feel like the talent level plateaus around pick #20 into the middle of the second round, and they have an offer to move within that window, they should make the move down. 

It really all comes down to how they evaluate the talent in this year's class. 

Also comes down to having a trade partner who covets a player at 20.  Trading down just to trade down never really happens.  Not only do we have to evaluate the talent on our end, we have to evaluate whether a team who covets said player at 20 is wrong about that player. 

[SR24]

If Goff falls to #7 I'd move up for him would still be costly but not as bad at moving up for #1

[slats]

12 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Also comes down to having a trade partner who covets a player at 20.  Trading down just to trade down never really happens.  Not only do we have to evaluate the talent on our end, we have to evaluate whether a team who covets said player at 20 is wrong about that player. 

Of course a trade partner is a prerequisite, that's why in the post you quoted I said they should "be looking at those opportunities," and make the trade if "they have an offer to move." So yes, I understood that from the beginning. Lol. 

But the only evaluation they should be making is their own. You don't start second guessing your scouting staff because another team really likes a specific guy at #20, but you've already determined that you can find a comparable prospect at the slot you'd be moving to. You trust in your crew and your own instincts and go by the board you've been setting up for the last year. 

[Embrace the Suck]

13 hours ago, Il Mostro said:

Why does everyone assume that Mo, for all his goodness, is automatic negotiable currency?  Some team where he actualy fits neatly into the defensive scheme must be agreeable to ponying up $$$ on a long term basis to make his acquisition worthwhile.  Not a gimmie.

The question was "What would you trade for the #1 pick?". Wilkerson is my answer. It's a hypothetical, not a mathematical proof. Also, people act like the NFL isn't handing out big contracts left and right when it is. 

[Embrace the Suck]

4 hours ago, Raideraholic said:

No team is  trading for Muhammad Wilkerson - not paying the price it will cost to sign him, and the picks they will have to give up.( that should be apparent to everyone now )

The Jets have two options - re-sign him to a long term contract( doesn't look that's there plan), or eventually remove the franchise tag from him - making him an UFa .( 15.7 million is too much on your books for one year rental) . 

The Jets let him go after this season, they might not get back anything in compensation . The reason the Jets should be much bigger players in Fa in 2017, that should offset the free agent loss of Wilkerson.

The question was "What would you trade for the #1 pick?". Wilkerson is my answer. It's a hypothetical, not a mathematical proof. Also, people act like the NFL isn't handing out big contracts left and right when it is. 

[77DRAFT]

19 hours ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

That way we can take Geno, Petty, Hogan, Bercovici and hire a new team doctor, Dr. Frank N. Stein and have him build us a quarterback!

might as well put in Namath's or bob Griese's brain, those guys no the game better than anyone from QB standpoint,

so does Payton Manning.

[Il Mostro]

14 minutes ago, Embrace the Suck said:

The question was "What would you trade for the #1 pick?". Wilkerson is my answer. It's a hypothetical, not a mathematical proof. Also, people act like the NFL isn't handing out big contracts left and right when it is. 

Thanks for clarifying. This is well thought out and makes perfect sense -- in Bizarro World.

 

[bitonti]

15 hours ago, Joe Jets fan said:

You can't keep trying to find a franchise QB in the late rounds.    

Not unless he's involved in rampant cheating. That's the Jets problem they took the losers but didn't cheat enough. 

[Raideraholic]

1 hour ago, Embrace the Suck said:

The question was "What would you trade for the #1 pick?". Wilkerson is my answer. It's a hypothetical, not a mathematical proof. Also, people act like the NFL isn't handing out big contracts left and right when it is. 

There is a difference of just signing a player to a big big contract, and signing a player to that contract , and given upa draft choice in the process.  ( only thing Cimini was right- almost impossible to trade Muhammad Wilkerson now- what he was hearing from sources around the league.

If I was Muhammad Wilkerson agent I would sign that tender.   Take the Jets 15.7 million for this year, and have a good chance to be a UFA in 2017.   If the Jets ever pull that tender , he might not get 15.7 million for this year.

[Embrace the Suck]

3 hours ago, Il Mostro said:

Thanks for clarifying. This is well thought out and makes perfect sense -- in Bizarro World.

 

Keep it up... You're fighting the good fight...

[Embrace the Suck]

1 hour ago, Raideraholic said:

There is a difference of just signing a player to a big big contract, and signing a player to that contract , and given upa draft choice in the process.

Yeah, I'm quite aware of that. Wow, did I just apply for a job or something? I'm aware it isn't realistic. 

[joewilly12]

If the Jets organization feels theres a QB in this years draft that is the answer to the teams franchise QB then trade the entire draft for the #1 pick who cares. 

Draft day isn't always a great day in Jets history anyway. 

Roll the dice. 

[Sperm Edwards]

On 3/28/2016 at 6:38 PM, Joe Jets fan said:

Jets have picked one QB in the top 10 in the last 33 years.  One.   

Jets have not had a franchise QB in that entire time. 

You can't keep trying to find a franchise QB in the late rounds.    

Anything outside the top 10 picks = the late rounds? Lol.

• So in 2000 we should have traded up from #12 to #10 to take Pennington there instead of letting him fall to us at #22 while also landing Ellis and Abraham, just so it would satisfy your requirement of drafting a QB in the top 10.
• Or we should have drafted Geno #9 overall instead of a full round later, just so we could say we took a QB in the top 10.
• I'm sure you were the lone voice of reason advocating for trading up into the top 10 in 1986 to draft Chuck Long, when our '83 #1 pick QB O'Brien was the league's top rated passer and a (warranted) pro bowler in 1985.
• In 1997, after ruining things for Manning coming out, and trading down to #8, with O'Donnell in year 2 of a gigantor contract, I'll bet you were screaming for us to draft Jim Druckenmiller in the top 10.
• In 1995 we had the #1 overall pick (Keyshawn). Why, oh why, didn't we draft Tony Banks there instead?
• In 1998 we had no #1 pick (Curtis Martin). But we should have generated a #1 pick - and additional trade compensation - to move up to the #1 slot to draft Peyton Manning. I'm sure the Colts would have done that. Maybe we should have found a way to get to #2 to draft Ryan Leaf?

The only times to do that is if we are in (or on the cusp of) a top 10 pick in the first place and that coincides with there being a QB valued in/around that slot at the time. So you're putting your thumb on the scales with your 'only 1 in the last 33 years' since it infers we've had top 10 picks nearly 33x, were looking to draft a QB all 33x, or that there was a QB even worthy of a top 10 pick in all 33 drafts.

That "only once in 33 years" is further ridiculous since you'd be hard-pressed to find any team moving into the top 10 the next year or 2 after just taking one, even after taking an epic bust in the top 10 like the Bengals drafting Akili Smith at #3 in '99 and then being in a position to draft Palmer #1 overall in 2003. Incidentally, we traded our two #1 picks (and a 4th rounder) to move up to #4 that year. Clearly we should have taken Byron Leftwich with that pick.

You draft a QB in the top 10 when you need a QB or think you'll need one very shortly, and even that's IF you own a top 10 pick, can get into the top 10, and if there's some QB projected to be worthy of a top 10 pick. 

[Joe Jets fan]

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Anything outside the top 10 picks = the late rounds? Lol.

• So in 2000 we should have traded up from #12 to #10 to take Pennington there instead of letting him fall to us at #22 while also landing Ellis and Abraham, just so it would satisfy your requirement of drafting a QB in the top 10.
• Or we should have drafted Geno #9 overall instead of a full round later, just so we could say we took a QB in the top 10.
• I'm sure you were the lone voice of reason advocating for trading up into the top 10 in 1986 to draft Chuck Long, when our '83 #1 pick QB O'Brien was the league's top rated passer and a (warranted) pro bowler in 1985.
• In 1997, after ruining things for Manning coming out, and trading down to #8, with O'Donnell in year 2 of a gigantor contract, I'll bet you were screaming for us to draft Jim Druckenmiller in the top 10.
• In 1995 we had the #1 overall pick (Keyshawn). Why, oh why, didn't we draft Tony Banks there instead?
• In 1998 we had no #1 pick (Curtis Martin). But we should have generated a #1 pick - and additional trade compensation - to move up to the #1 slot to draft Peyton Manning. I'm sure the Colts would have done that. Maybe we should have found a way to get to #2 to draft Ryan Leaf?

The only times to do that is if we are in (or on the cusp of) a top 10 pick in the first place and that coincides with there being a QB valued in/around that slot at the time. So you're putting your thumb on the scales with your 'only 1 in the last 33 years' since it infers we've had top 10 picks nearly 33x, were looking to draft a QB all 33x, or that there was a QB even worthy of a top 10 pick in all 33 drafts.

That "only once in 33 years" is further ridiculous since you'd be hard-pressed to find any team moving into the top 10 the next year or 2 after just taking one, even after taking an epic bust in the top 10 like the Bengals drafting Akili Smith at #3 in '99 and then being in a position to draft Palmer #1 overall in 2003. Incidentally, we traded our two #1 picks (and a 4th rounder) to move up to #4 that year. Clearly we should have taken Byron Leftwich with that pick.

You draft a QB in the top 10 when you need a QB or think you'll need one very shortly, and even that's IF you own a top 10 pick, can get into the top 10, and if there's some QB projected to be worthy of a top 10 pick. 

hey dingus, the idea is the Jets have only taken one shot, just one.  Everything you list is crap.  Teams can over pay and get the QB they want.  Even PM and Luck could have been gotten if a team wanted to "over pay".  

My point was The NY Jets have only tried once to go get a franchise QB and that was for Sanchez. 

In 83 we sure as sh*t should have tried to move up for a number of QB's. 

as for drafting a QB in the top 10 only when you need a QB, Green Bay says hello. (and I know Rogers did not go top 10)

 

You have to take shots for a franchise QB and we have only done it once.  That's my point.

[Sperm Edwards]

3 hours ago, Joe Jets fan said:

hey dingus, the idea is the Jets have only taken one shot, just one.  Everything you list is crap.  Teams can over pay and get the QB they want.  Even PM and Luck could have been gotten if a team wanted to "over pay".  

My point was The NY Jets have only tried once to go get a franchise QB and that was for Sanchez. 

In 83 we sure as sh*t should have tried to move up for a number of QB's. 

as for drafting a QB in the top 10 only when you need a QB, Green Bay says hello. (and I know Rogers did not go top 10)

 

You have to take shots for a franchise QB and we have only done it once.  That's my point.

No, you equated not taking a QB in the top 10 with hoping for a franchise QB in the later rounds.

You said yourself that Rodgers doesn't count, since he wasn't in the top 10 (or even in the top 20, IIRC), plus they knew - or thought they knew - Favre's career was coming to a close.

You are faulting the team for doing things that were not doable (other than doing for the sake of doing, by sheer stupidity), like drafting a QB in the top 10 with a young franchise QB on the roster, or drafting a QB in the top 10 when there were no top 10 worthy prospects in those drafts.

[Scoop24]

I would go up maybe 3-4 spots to lock whichever of the 3 fall.. But I'm not paying the Kings random to jump 19 spots