Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Warfish

The Uninformed Fan: Warfish Mock Draft 2017

Recommended Posts

It's silly, surely poorly thought out, risky, and likely dumb (since I don;t follow College Football), so it's PERFECT for a NY Jets Draft.

1st Round (#6 Overall):  Mitchel Trubisky, QB, North Carolina
2nd Round (#38):  Fabian Moreau, CB, UCLA
3rd Round (#70): Bucky Hodges, TE, Virginia Tech
3rd Round (#107 Comp):  Rasul Douglas, CB, West Virginia
4th Round:  The New York Jets do not currently have a 4th Round Pick
5th Round (#134):  Conor McDermott, OT, UCLA
6th Round (#165):  T.J. Logan, RB, North Carolina
7th Round (#196):  Ryan Switzer, WR, North Carolina

While the individual players above are all clearly debatable, I would LOVE if we had a draft that generally looked (position wise) like this.

A QB prospect, a RB to pair with Powell in 2018, a flexable pass catching TE, two or more CB's, and at least one O-lineman project with big upside at low draft cost.

And yes, I'm totally going all in crazy on "if we draft Trubisky, blow a few late rounders on players he knows and is used to handing off/throwing to".  Because why the hell not?  6th and 7th rounders are rarely long term keepers, and giving your QB prospect a few faces their comfortable with simply cannot hurt his development.  At best, we get a #2 RB and #4 WR our future starting QB likes and knows, at worst, the wash out after thier first year or go on the P.S., same as a few million 6th and 7th round picks before them.

And yes, this draft does not address LB, Safety or much of the O-line.  For these spots, I either look young, cheap FA prospects, or wait, and collect players (UDFA or Draft Picks who get cut) from other teams, and keep my powder dry at those positions for 2018 Draft.

And no, IMO, drafting Trubisky at #6 does NOT mean we cannot or should not draft a QB at #1 in the 2018 draft.  I'll say it again, you keep drafting the best possible QB prospects you can till you find one.  And if you find two, great, trade one!  But FIND ONE!!!!  My faith in Hack and Petty is limited, so Trubisky gives us a more legitimate prospect than either, despite his limited resume.  And since we can play Hack and Petty all year in 2017, Trubisky can get at least one season to sit and learn, pressure free.....but he damn well better play the 4th quarters in preseason!!!

So there it is, the first go of the uninformed idiots Mock Draft for the NY Jets 2017.

Make it so!

make-it-so.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, prime21 said:

I would go with Watson over Mitch.  I think Watson has more leadership skills and a higher ceiling.

The higher ceiling is definitely Trubisky because of the arm strength but I do like Watson a bit more for what you describe.  Would be happy with either without a doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

Trubisky is not a first-round player. This belongs in the draft forum.

Trubisky is a 1st round player all day long... The only thing I'm not privy to is meetings and behind the scenes, but the kid is damn good. Most scouts on twitter clearly say that his tape is the best of the bunch.  

I happen to like how Watson's game will translate to the NFL but Trubisky is a good option as well.  Outside of injury, I think both of these kids will be good NFL QB's. Both top 10 potential and that's all you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, prime21 said:

I would go with Watson over Mitch.  I think Watson has more leadership skills and a higher ceiling.

Trubisky's not worth the 6

 

Moreau is waaayyyy to raw for a second round pick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Komba said:

Trubisky is a 1st round player all day long... The only thing I'm not privy to is meetings and behind the scenes, but the kid is damn good. Most scouts on twitter clearly say that his tape is the best of the bunch.  

I happen to like how Watson's game will translate to the NFL but Trubisky is a good option as well.  Outside of injury, I think both of these kids will be good NFL QB's. Both top 10 potential and that's all you want.

He started 13 games. I wouldn't touch him before day 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, thadude said:

We just went through this with Sanchez. Pass.

Sanchez wasn't awful for that reason... He stinks because he stinks.  Like most of these QB's who make the leap from college to the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Komba said:

Cam Newton started 14 games.  Trubisky isn't Cam but that rationale is stupid.

Cam's an outlier in every possible way. Games started + completion percentage is the simplest way to sort out good QB prospects from bad QB prospects in the first round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Komba said:

Sanchez wasn't awful for that reason... He stinks because he stinks.  Like most of these QB's who make the leap from college to the NFL.

So you want another qb who had only 12 or so college starts in round 1 with a top 6 pick?!?!

 

Trubisky's a good athlete but he's not off the charts like Cam Newton or Vick when they came out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

Cam's an outlier in every possible way. Games started + completion percentage is the simplest way to sort out good QB prospects from bad QB prospects in the first round.

Cam played JUCO before Auburn also

Edited by thadude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

Cam's an outlier in every possible way. Games started + completion percentage is the simplest way to sort out good QB prospects from bad QB prospects in the first round.

The point was just to disprove your post and I did that with barely any research.  if I actually took some time, there are others.

Hell, I'm sure Tannehill is around the same amount of games started and he's better than anything we've had at QB since Favre for the one season. Hell, Brady is another guy that likely didn't start many games at Michigan.  

If you are going to judge someone on games started, you're just doing it wrong.  Judge them by how good they are/aren't and move on from there. 13 games is plenty of tape to figure out if someone's game translates to the next level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, prime21 said:

I would go with Watson over Mitch.  I think Watson has more leadership skills and a higher ceiling.

not as good an arm.  Watson's mediocre arm is a major obstacle and the reason I don't want him (in addition to not being Pro ready based on Clemson's game... but most college QBs are in the same predicament). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, thadude said:

So you want another qb who had only 12 or so college starts in round 1 with a top 6 pick?!?!

 

Trubisky's a good athlete but he's not off the charts like Cam Newton or Vick when they came out

Again, Sanchez sucking has nothing to do with the amount of games he played.

And you are correct, Trubisky isn't what Cam and Vick are athletically.  But Trubisky has a very good skill set.

Everything is there.  Quick release, ability to throw a solid deep ball.  Not great talent around him. Comfortable in the pocket and knows how to step up.  Can deal with free rushers which you MUST be able to do in the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dcat said:

not as good an arm.  Watson's mediocre arm is a major obstacle and the reason I don't want him (in addition to not being Pro ready based on Clemson's game... but most college QBs are in the same predicament). 

I know the velocity numbers from the combine but Watson's arm is definitely good enough.  

And Clemson's game absolutely gives him enough plays to make decisions... Hated when people said that about Mariota because that was a myth as well. And sure enough, Mariota looked EXCELLENT before the injury last season. Unfortunately the injury he suffered may change his career trajectory though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

wow, hadn't thought of it that way, instead of using a simple statistical method with a large sample size and an established track record of predictive accuracy, I'll just judge guys by how good they are/aren't

Yeah, welcome to the scouting world. You factor in stats obviously, but tape is everything.

The trick with the QB position is to PROJECT how it will translate.  You look at the types of plays teams run, the momentum of games, and how a QB plays.

There are characteristics that every QB needs to succeed in the NFL.  You MUST have a quick release, even big guys like Ben have quick releases.  You MUST be comfortable in the pocket and even dealing with free runners.  WHether it's a subtle step to the side ala Brady, or whether it's running around the player ala Wilson, you have to do it.  You have to be able to throw a decent deep ball. Alex Smith has been marginally successful in the NFl but it's only because he can't throw a deep ball at all.  Gotta have adequate arm strength and a quick mind to deal with the coverages and rushes you're going to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  



×