Tiny Linebacker

[cant wait]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Perhaps. 

All I'm saying is that 20th in the country is pretty high if he only becomes a role player at ILB. It's one of the cheapest FA positions a team can fill even for a full time starter (and such a FA veteran wouldn't need to be eased in due to inexperience). 

All other things being equal, I'd rather use the first round on players who would be cost prohibitive as FAs, or the type who is too much of a team cornerstone to generally reach free agency in the first place. Then you get your role player without busting the cap, and still get to use a 1st rounder on a player that would have busted the cap (or that was unavailable in free agency). 

Obviously if he turns into Luke Keuchly II, or nearly Kuechly II, then it doesn't matter because then he would be such a premium-cost, irreplaceable, elite cornerstone of the team. But that's my point: it's plays against the draft value odds, by effectively betting that the player will only be worth such a high pick if he's top 3 at his position. Otherwise fill the role with cheaper resources and spend the pick on an every down player who'd otherwise be unaffordable/unavailable.

If I had any talent for brevity, I would have just put it this way: draft a $13-20M+/yr position player in round 1, not a $6-8M/yr position player. 

I get your point here, but unless you're drafting a blue chip prospect with the first round pick expecting a $13-20M player might be unrealistic. Upside and bust potential need to be factored in the investment as well as positional scarcity-- I think in this case they see lee as a safe bet to come in and produce, compared to some of the riskier but potentially higher value position players that were available at #20. Especially since the team took arguably the riskiest boom/bust player with their second rounder 

[slats]

5 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Perhaps. 

All I'm saying is that 20th in the country is pretty high if he only becomes a role player at ILB. It's one of the cheapest FA positions a team can fill even for a full time starter (and such a FA veteran wouldn't need to be eased in due to inexperience). 

All other things being equal, I'd rather use the first round on players who would be cost prohibitive as FAs, or the type who is too much of a team cornerstone to generally reach free agency in the first place. Then you get your role player without busting the cap, and still get to use a 1st rounder on a player that would have busted the cap (or that was unavailable in free agency). 

Obviously if he turns into Luke Keuchly II, or nearly Kuechly II, then it doesn't matter because then he would be such a premium-cost, irreplaceable, elite cornerstone of the team. But that's my point: it's plays against the draft value odds, by effectively betting that the player will only be worth such a high pick if he's top 3 at his position. Otherwise fill the role with cheaper resources and spend the pick on an every down player who'd otherwise be unaffordable/unavailable.

If I had any talent for brevity, I would have just put it this way: draft a $13-20M+/yr position player in round 1, not a $6-8M/yr position player. 

The Jets drafted him to be an impact player. Not a role player. If any first round pick is merely a role player, it's generally considered to be a bust (or something close to that). They took a swing on this guy because they believe he will be that impact player. 

The guard analogy doesn't work, because even an "impact" level guard has a hard, lower cap on his value. Not so with a ILB who reaches impact level. 

There may be more players paid in the $13-20M range at QB, LT, DE (probably have enough of those), WR, CB - but they, also, will only be worth that much if they are at least a top level starting talent. Borderline pro bowl level or better. If they're merely role players, they're not worth that money, and probably not worth the fifth year tender (see: Milliner, Dee). 

Basically, I believe they took the player available there who they felt had the best chance to be an impact player in Darron Lee. I have no problem with that, and I have no issue with the position he plays when we're talking about the 20th pick in the draft. If this kid lives up to their expectations, he'll be well worth that 5th year option and an extension beyond that. 

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

On Sunday, August 07, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Sperm Edwards said:

"He'll be worth the 20th pick when he fills the need and position they took him to fill."

Unless my eyes deceive me, this clearly suggests you believe they took him to fill a need and position, not necessarily because he was easily the best football player on their board regardless of position or value. 

The truth is, other than the obvious with Williams, all his draft picks have been need-based. That's fine & I have no objection if it works out, but I think it naturally makes it more difficult to draft the best football player he can get his hands on with each of his picks. 

Drafting the best football player you can get your hands on with each of your picks is not the goal. Value is always relative to replacement level, whether that's readily available talent or what you happen to have on your roster at a particular time. Rookie contracts are four years. A clear path to the starting lineup can trump a much bigger disparity in grade than we could possibly be talking about with Lee vs whoever here. Beyond that, given the position fluidity that exists now this notion of BPA and need as totally separate things is kind of obsolete for defensive players anyway. BPA is don't draft a kicker in the second round. You make it seem like some sort of religious precept or something.

[Sperm Edwards]

On 8/8/2016 at 0:06 PM, cant wait said:

I get your point here, but unless you're drafting a blue chip prospect with the first round pick expecting a $13-20M player might be unrealistic. Upside and bust potential need to be factored in the investment as well as positional scarcity-- I think in this case they see lee as a safe bet to come in and produce, compared to some of the riskier but potentially higher value position players that were available at #20. Especially since the team took arguably the riskiest boom/bust player with their second rounder 

When drafting an ILB, a $13-20M player isn't merely unrealistic; it's impossible. The single best ILB in the NFL - a perfect-scenario outcome for this draftee - doesn't make that much.

[ScarletKnight89]

You have to have a good mix of size and speed. It's ok to have a smaller ILB, it's probably not ok if you're whole LB corps is undersized and relies soley on their speed. Luckily for us, the Jets aren't in this situation.

 

You need some guys who are quicker and can get to the QB fast. Lee also gives us the ability to matchup with some of the better tight ends in the league.

[Sperm Edwards]

On 8/9/2016 at 9:46 AM, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

Drafting the best football player you can get your hands on with each of your picks is not the goal. Value is always relative to replacement level, whether that's readily available talent or what you happen to have on your roster at a particular time. Rookie contracts are four years. A clear path to the starting lineup can trump a much bigger disparity in grade than we could possibly be talking about with Lee vs whoever here. Beyond that, given the position fluidity that exists now this notion of BPA and need as totally separate things is kind of obsolete for defensive players anyway. BPA is don't draft a kicker in the second round. You make it seem like some sort of religious precept or something.

Without going back now, I believe it was surmised that if Lee is just a situational/rotational player that it's poor use of a 1st round pick; then the disagreement was that it's not a bad pick because it was a position (role) of need. I disagree with the philosophy of the latter because that - like your even more extreme example of kicker - is bad value in round 1: it's too cheaply and too easily replaced without such an investment, not to mention passing up on the higher value position players that were otherwise there for the taking. 

As a matter of philosophy, in order for the draftee's value to match the investment (i.e. how highly he was picked) I think it requires a more perfect player outcome to justify the pick when you're taking lower-cost positions than higher ones. If Lee isn't an outright bust, but is merely ok, it's as bad as taking a kicker.

It need not be an extreme example of kicker, since only Al Davis would do something that ridiculous (and for people to look back upon the all-arm or all-speed bust of a prospect he likely would have otherwise taken, and to conclude in hindsight that it was a great pick). It's not four years for a 1st rounder; it's 5 years when one adds in the option year. Five years isn't something to wave off as more or less insignificant; for most draft picks, it's more than half their careers. If Lee is a rotational player, it would be 4 years because that role would be unworthy of the expense of his 5th year option amount.

Every pick, other than Leonard Williams, was a pigeonhole need for the team for the current season or the season after. A burner WR; an ILB to (ideally) groom for 1 year then start in place of Davis, (whose contract was expiring); staying away from any TEs perhaps because we already had Amaro and because our current OC doesn't specifically feature the position in his offenses; trading up for a QB one year, then (at least somewhat) reaching on another QB a year later; using one of next year's draft picks on a RT to either start now or groom for a year because we didn't find a longer-term solution at the position in FA or in earlier rounds; a NT to replace Snacks a year later because he, too, had an expiring contract; a speedy ILB for Bowles because all of his were slow; a Pace-type OLB to fill the vacancy left by the just-cut Pace; a CB now that Cromartie had been cut loose; and a punter for obvious need reasons, not because of BAP regardless of position. Then there were the failed attempts to move up for pure need, to draft a QB, or another QB, and a LT (who probably would have played RT as a rookie, before sliding over to LT in 2017 because Clady's salary skyrockets; clearly Maccagnan wants to replace Breno, and find either a cheaper or more reliable long term solution at LT, as well he should).

Mind you, I'm not questioning the wisdom of these moves as a whole; on the contrary, I think it's mostly sound planning. But I just repeatedly read how our GM allegedly drafts the best player available regardless of position (or nearly regardless of position) with some type of religious zeal, followed by nearly-uniform agreements with this baseless belief rather than questioning the belief's veracity. To me the one questionable move was Lee, not because I don't think he'll be a good player, but because it's an easier position/role to replace in FA without breaking the bank, or well after the 20th pick in the country.

[Sperm Edwards]

On 8/8/2016 at 11:03 AM, Jet Nut said:

Yeah, what they want in him.  One more time, someone said what he has to do to be successful.  I said he just has to fill what they want him to fill.  Speed and havoc.  Wasn't meant to say they picked a LB after targeting LB. Either way I explain this, clarified that I didn't mean it wasn't a BPA pick. Of you want to believe I not being honest, oh well.

i do think their drafts can be viewed as BPA.  Not seeing to much evidence that Macc has strayed from his philosophy of drafting BPA. I do think that when you get to lower rounds where the separation of talent levels starts to blur you can become more needs oriented 

Well now you're putting words in my mouth and arguing against such words. I didn't question your honesty. Just that I don't agree Maccagnan is a BPA guy, and likewise disagree with this repeated mantra by many others here that Maccagnan is "a BPA [BAP] guy" when only one pick demonstrates such: Leonard Williams. And here's the kicker on that one: even that pick could be viewed as a then-need, since that year - then again a year later - he was trying to trade Mo (which would have then created a hole at his position). Then on top of that, it's a good guess that Richardson won't be giving any discounts to re-sign after his rookie contract and option year is up (nor should he). If either one of these two was traded or not extended, it would have created a DL hole that Williams would aptly fill.

Next, in the later rounds I think it's even better to go "pure" best player available than in early-mid rounds, because it's hard enough to find a roster-worthy player that late in the draft without the additional constraint of finding one good enough at a need-position. So, cool -- we disagree on that as well.  

I just like the idea of getting the best and hardest (or most expensive) to find/replace talent in the draft, then filling remaining holes through trades or in FA. (As a bonus, the need-based acquisition is also an instant fill as a veteran, rather than learning over the players' first couple of seasons). If that idea works out as planned (yes, big "if") then those need-based, instant-fix, veteran acquisitions should theoretically be at generally cheaper positions like ILB, S, TE, NT, NB, FB, situational 3rd down RB, situational short yardage RB, complementary-type (non "go-to") WR. The positions I'd target in the earlier parts of the draft (if it's not a reach pick for position): QB, ultra-gifted every-down RB, "#1" type WR, T, DE, every-down OLB, interior/gap-shooting DT, CB, and after the top 15-20 picks I'd then add interior OL in there if they're such good prospects. So I like the idea of BAP as a catchy phrase, but really I like the idea of BAP at those premium positions first.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

16 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

To me the one questionable move was Lee, not because I don't think he'll be a good player, but because it's an easier position/role to replace in FA without breaking the bank, or well after the 20th pick in the country.

I don't think this is really how it works. At least for most of the spectrum of defensive players in between the extreme of the two-down nose tackle on one end and cornerback on the other, position (if that's how you want to cast the BPA/need argument, which again is all this really is) is a fuzzy variable. The question is what a guy does well and how that skill set fits into the universe of your potential personnel groupings and not, you know, we need a linebacker and this is a linebacker. It's not about finding round pegs for the round holes. It's not about picking the right holes to fill. It's about getting the best peg you have space to make a hole for.

[Sperm Edwards]

On 8/8/2016 at 3:04 PM, slats said:

The Jets drafted him to be an impact player. Not a role player. If any first round pick is merely a role player, it's generally considered to be a bust (or something close to that). They took a swing on this guy because they believe he will be that impact player. 

The guard analogy doesn't work, because even an "impact" level guard has a hard, lower cap on his value. Not so with a ILB who reaches impact level. 

There may be more players paid in the $13-20M range at QB, LT, DE (probably have enough of those), WR, CB - but they, also, will only be worth that much if they are at least a top level starting talent. Borderline pro bowl level or better. If they're merely role players, they're not worth that money, and probably not worth the fifth year tender (see: Milliner, Dee). 

Basically, I believe they took the player available there who they felt had the best chance to be an impact player in Darron Lee. I have no problem with that, and I have no issue with the position he plays when we're talking about the 20th pick in the draft. If this kid lives up to their expectations, he'll be well worth that 5th year option and an extension beyond that. 

My point was in response to the suggestion that he was drafted to fill a role.

Obviously a good player at a non-premium position is better than a bust at a premium position. I don't know who would claim otherwise. My contention is that if comparing equal-level (e.g. "top-3" or "top-15") players at ILB or CB/DE/QB, I'd take my pick from one of the latter.  

[RutgersJetFan]

5 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Obviously a good player at a non-premium position is better than a bust at a premium position. I don't know who would claim otherwise.

The New York Jets?

[Beerfish]

At least he is a playmaker.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

I don't think this is really how it works. At least for most of the spectrum of defensive players in between the extreme of the two-down nose tackle on one end and cornerback on the other, position (if that's how you want to cast the BPA/need argument, which again is all this really is) is a fuzzy variable. The question is what a guy does well and how that skill set fits into the universe of your potential personnel groupings and not, you know, we need a linebacker and this is a linebacker. It's not about finding round pegs for the round holes. It's not about picking the right holes to fill. It's about getting the best peg you have space to make a hole for.

Perhaps. I think a better player-outcome is required when drafting an ILB than a CB. A so-so CB could still command an $8M salary (or another way of looking at that, it would cost $8M/year to acquire such a so-so veteran CB). For ILB, so-so is easy to find at half that or less in FA (Demario Davis, who was signed a $4M per, or EJ Henderson, who we picked up at $2M/year). 

It isn't that his position is wholly unworthy of the 20th overall selection; it's that he has to be proportionally better at his position than the CB/OLB/QB/DE/WR that may also have been available in that spot. If this player (at this position, or that fills this particular role) is that much better than could have been filled by other means. Hopefully he is.

Another way of looking at it. For the sake of a simplistic example, say you have a couple of (long term) starter holes to fill at CB and ILB. You have the 20th pick in the country and $7M in (non-rookie pool) cap space to fill both. There are equal-level prospects at both positions when your pick comes up in the draft. Do you draft the CB and find a $7M FA ILB, or draft the ILB at #20 and start a $7M FA CB? Again, this is really oversimplifying, since it doesn't typically work out just so (not to mention one can't perfectly predict either prospect's future career on draft day). But it's that line of thought. A $7M FA ILB is likely very good (top 5-10 at his position). A $7M FA CB is isn't even top 20, let alone top 10.

[Sperm Edwards]

12 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

The New York Jets?

I'm just going to keep lobbing these softball pitches over the fat part of the plate if you agree to keep swinging at them. Deal?