With the 6th pick

[thadude]

2 hours ago, Paradis said:

They don't need to be game changing, they just need to be the best player on the board.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And Reggie Bush was considered BPA by the saints with the 2 pick in 2006

[Paradis]

And Reggie Bush was considered BPA by the saints with the 2 pick in 2006

Last time I checked he's still playing in the NFL in 2016. That's better than 85% of the draft class. And helped NOS win a super bowl. And so what?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tfine]

We have no QB and a lousy OL. By all means let's draft the position that's not only the cheapest on offense or defense, but the one that also typically has the shortest career and highest incidence of injury.
I'd like anyone to remind me of the last time an NFL team - sans OL and QB, and with a bad defense, at the time - drafted a RB this early and then successfully built a SB champion team around him.

You always take BPA. If there's a stud there at 6 you take him. We are not winning the Super Bowl after this draft. It will take multiple drafts. I don't know why people think we have to fill every hole this year. Regardless of which route we go we are going to get a good player.






Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[tfine]

And Reggie Bush was considered BPA by the saints with the 2 pick in 2006

 

The draft is a crap shoot. teams miss on picks every year. Even the patriots miss on picks. Nobody predicted RB would be a bust and No team hits 100 percent. Can't really blame the saints for picking him. He was labeled the next LT at the time.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[Pointdexter]

Where Paradis' logic is flawed is his definitive assumption that this year's QBs are turds. That's totally flawed and backed by history.

Go back every year and you will find at least one franchise QB in each draft. Unless this yr is a complete anomaly, there is at least one stud (probably 2) among the group.

We may very well have our pick at any QB in this 2017 draft. It would be criminal to not take the opportunity. Let's at least swing the bat.

The talking heads influence ppl so much on these boards. If someone is giving me my choice btw Sam Darnold and Deshaun Watson right now, I'm taking Watson all day. And certainly Watson over Rosen and Faulk and whoever else ppl think is somehow better than this yrs guys. Just wait til next year, after the analysts start picking apart next yrs QBs, I can guarantee you that Darnold and whoever else won't be the can't miss product you think they are now.

[Jetster]

52 minutes ago, tfine said:

 

You always take BPA. If there's a stud there at 6 you take him. We are not winning the Super Bowl after this draft. It will take multiple drafts. I don't know why people think we have to fill every hole this year. Regardless of which route we go we are going to get a good player.






Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

 

I agree with you. When I read this board I get the feeling fans think we can rebuild this team with 1 draft? While I believe Fournette will be a great back, I do believe trading back if possible is the best scenario for this team. The way the NFL game is played in 2017, McCaffery would be the better option for an offense. Versatility is the name of the game today.

So while fans want a huge amount of pick (how did that work out in 2014?), I subscribe to trading back & then targeting someone else & moving up to get him using the ammunition you traded for. That way you might trade back & get OJ Howard. Then if a McCaffrey slips a bit you might be able to move up & snag him. 

The NY Jets have GOT to start bringing in exciting offensive players for a change. Even 2015 was still that chain moving, run, run, pass crap, and uneven play. Time to start getting some explosion plays. You give Hackenberg or Petty talent across the board.

Decker, Enunwa, Anderson, Patton, Peake, Smith? And add Howard-McCaffery (I absolutely believe with his catching ability will be a STAR in this league!). McCaffrey could play WR in the slot if he had too. He's gonna be like a YOUNG Matt Forte.

Thats a lot of offense! Decker, Enunwa & Howard are very good blockers too, you get McCaffrey in space on some slip screens with those guys blocking in space! All I've heard is this draft is CRAZY DEEP in secondary help. Trade Richardson for a 3rd & take all defense with those 3 thirds. Please give me an offense that makes me want to watch a young team grow up together! I want to see Howard straight arming CB, Anderson catching bombs, Decker abusing guys in the slot, Enunwa wrecking guys on running plays, McCaffrey emulating a young Roger Craig. 

Do it Macc! You've got next years draft & free agency to plug a defensive holes.

 

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, tfine said:

 

You always take BPA. If there's a stud there at 6 you take him. We are not winning the Super Bowl after this draft. It will take multiple drafts. I don't know why people think we have to fill every hole this year. Regardless of which route we go we are going to get a good player.






Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

 

No, you don't. It's a cute cliche but a wrong one for a team like ours with the needs we have. You take the most valuable position you can get your hands on if it's an approximate BPA match. If that isn't a match trade down and let other teams draft safeties and guards and ILBs in the top 10. Or if it would be a match if only we had a higher pick, then trade up.

Blind BPA is foolishness on a team with no QB, a questionable-at-best OL, serious long-term questions/problems at corner, and no reliable outside pass rusher. If this was so easy to fill in 1-2 seasons, why are we still sitting here with these holes in year 3? It's because those positions are hard to fill at-will, which is why you take them - and not a 220-lb ILB, who's more of a niche/role player than a cornerstone - when you have the chance.  

[dbatesman]

ME (stupid, suffering from effects of mercury poisoning): we need to maximize our value by taking athletic players at high-leverage positions

YOU (sober, wise, knows how football works): all positions are the same

[Sperm Edwards]

5 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

ME (stupid, suffering from effects of mercury poisoning): we need to maximize our value by taking athletic players at high-leverage positions

YOU (sober, wise, knows how football works): all positions are the same

Duh. Don't you know only teams with premiere TEs on the field could possibly hoist up a Lombardi Trophy? That's why Atlanta lost: because they don't have a premiere TE while NE had Gron--

Wait. Never mind.

[UnitedWhofans]

The problem is what high leverage players are going to be there at 6?

[dbatesman]

11 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

The problem is what high leverage players are going to be there at 6?

I said high-leverage position, not high-leverage player, but assuming you're seriously asking and not just setting up another game of pin the tail on the fallacy, at least one and probably two of the following: Thomas, Lattimore, Watson/Trubisky.

[UnitedWhofans]

Just now, dbatesman said:

I said high-leverage position, not high-leverage player, but assuming you're seriously asking and not just setting up another game of pin the tail on the fallacy, at least one and probably two of the following: Thomas, Lattimore, Watson/Trubisky.

No I'm not. I'm just looking and analyzing.

Interesting you mention Thomas, because I think a few months ago, we would have gone "Not another DL!" In fact, I remember that reaction here. So I wonder if his workouts have changed this notion.

Lattimore of course has the injury history.

And then there are the QBs.

 

[dbatesman]

2 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

No I'm not. I'm just looking and analyzing.

Interesting you mention Thomas, because I think a few months ago, we would have gone "Not another DL!" In fact, I remember that reaction here. So I wonder if his workouts have changed this notion.

Lattimore of course has the injury history.

And then there are the QBs.

 

My assumption is that Thomas would be an edge guy for us, not a DL.

[UnitedWhofans]

1 minute ago, dbatesman said:

My assumption is that Thomas would be an edge guy for us, not a DL.

Yes but that would mean he would be a DL/OLB hybrid in our defense. Is Thomas more athletic than Sheldon Richardson?

[dbatesman]

1 minute ago, UnitedWhofans said:

Yes but that would mean he would be a DL/OLB hybrid in our defense. Is Thomas more athletic than Sheldon Richardson?

What does Richardson have to do with anything?

[UnitedWhofans]

Just now, dbatesman said:

What does Richardson have to do with anything?

Well because Bowles tried to put Richardson in that same spot last year to much derision and lack of success. If he tries the same with Solomon Thomas, he better be more able to do it than Richardson was.

[dbatesman]

Just now, UnitedWhofans said:

Well because Bowles tried to put Richardson in that same spot last year to much derision and lack of success. If he tries the same with Solomon Thomas, he better be more able to do it than Richardson was.

yes, I am confident Solomon Thomas will be a better edge rusher than Sheldon Richardson

[UnitedWhofans]

Just now, dbatesman said:

yes, I am confident Solomon Thomas will be a better edge rusher than Sheldon Richardson

Ok. Good.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, dbatesman said:

My assumption is that Thomas would be an edge guy for us, not a DL.

If not filled via the draft one would need to fill these highest-cost picks via free agency. The salary cap simply isn't high enough to fill all of them via the latter method. Without respect to importance:

1) QB

2) LT

3) edge rusher

4) larger DL (4-3 DT / 3-4 DE). We have had this covered for years, carrying one too many for 2 years and counting.

5) CB1

We're taking a S who can't cover, tripling-up on #4 above (actually, quadrupling if you count Coples), an ILB, and now talk of yet another S or a TE because of some cliche about BPA regardless of position.

 

[PepPep]

8 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

If not filled via the draft one would need to fill these highest-cost picks via free agency. The salary cap simply isn't high enough to fill all of them via the latter method. Without respect to importance:

1) QB

2) LT

3) edge rusher

4) larger DL (4-3 DT / 3-4 DE). We have had this covered for years, carrying one too many for 2 years and counting.

5) CB1

We're taking a S who can't cover, tripling-up on #4 above (actually, quadrupling if you count Coples), an ILB, and now talk of yet another S or a TE because of some cliche about BPA regardless of position.

 

Fair enough. What player/s do YOU think the Jets should draft? 

[Matt39]

9 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

If not filled via the draft one would need to fill these highest-cost picks via free agency. The salary cap simply isn't high enough to fill all of them via the latter method. Without respect to importance:

1) QB

2) LT

3) edge rusher

4) larger DL (4-3 DT / 3-4 DE). We have had this covered for years, carrying one too many for 2 years and counting.

5) CB1

We're taking a S who can't cover, tripling-up on #4 above (actually, quadrupling if you count Coples), an ILB, and now talk of yet another S or a TE because of some cliche about BPA regardless of position.

 

I dont see the issue with taking Howard at 6. He can block and his more athletic than any of the WR's available there. Thomas looks like he wont make it to the Jets and there are LT's in every draft. This draft is also loaded at CB.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, Matt39 said:

I dont see the issue with taking Howard at 6. He can block and his more athletic than any of the WR's available there. Thomas looks like he wont make it to the Jets and there are LT's in every draft. This draft is also loaded at CB.

I thought we've totally revamped our WR corps. So what do we need a 5th target for, to the point of using the #6 overall pick?

Look, I have no objection to drafting a TE. I just view taking a TE or a S there like taking a guard there. 

My point isn't to take this or that other player instead at #6. Rather, if it isn't a QB, trade out of the slot and pick up another 2nd rounder (or more). 

[Matt39]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I thought we've totally revamped our WR corps. So what do we need a 5th target for, to the point of using the #6 overall pick?

Look, I have no objection to drafting a TE. I just view taking a TE or a S there like taking a guard there. 

My point isn't to take this or that other player instead at #6. Rather, if it isn't a QB, trade out of the slot and pick up another 2nd rounder (or more). 

Sure trading down is always optimal if you're not taking the QB. 

[Sperm Edwards]

8 hours ago, Matt39 said:

Sure trading down is always optimal if you're not taking the QB. 

I wouldn't even give him a hard time about not getting chart value (saying so before it happens now). That is, unless he trades down only to draft another freaking ILB in round 1 and rationalize it as being the Jets' BPA at #16 or so. If that's the case, then trade down again.

If, as so many say, this draft is so strong in the 2nd-3rd rounds, then acquire more of them. It's not like we have only 2 positions to fill and upgrade.

[kelly]

23 hours ago, HessStation said:

Look I know you're just some random guy that hangs out here but Curtis Martin is in the Hall of Fame dude.

hey Twisted-Sister !   

the question was.. " When was the last time the Jets had a game changing RB ? "

-  curtis martin is one of my ALL Time fav jets..  but a " game changing RB ? "... Not so much.

 

cheers ~ ~

[NYDreamer]

While I am hoping Fournette is there for us at 6.  I keep having this vision that the Jets are going to select Rueben Foster.  David Harris has one more year on contract.  The Jets attempted to bring in the Patriots MLB and Foster would set the tone in the middle of that defense. 

[UnitedWhofans]

1 minute ago, NYDreamer said:

While I am hoping Fournette is there for us at 6.  I keep having this vision that the Jets are going to select Rueben Foster.  David Harris has one more year on contract.  The Jets attempted to bring in the Patriots MLB and Foster would set the tone in the middle of that defense. 

Would have been a solid theory if he hadn't blown the Combine. I think that sent him spiraling down

[Paradis]

On 3/27/2017 at 8:35 AM, Sperm Edwards said:

1) QB

that problem isn't getting fixed this year. Chances aren't great anyway. Better to build around the position to increase % of success for the next guy

2) LT

Beachum (if 100% healthy) is more than capable to stand in. LTs are available annually. We need to scout better.

3) edge rusher

Difficult to fill this one. $$$$ in FA or hit in the draft. There's a couple of good looking ones this year

4) larger DL (4-3 DT / 3-4 DE). We have had this covered for years, carrying one too many for 2 years and counting.

non-issue

5) CB1

great draft class to take a couple kicks at the can. Clairborne + Burris could surprise. 

We need to make these picks count this year... so i hark back to the point about not reaching media-induced need. 

[C Mart]

On 3/23/2017 at 5:58 PM, goober36 said:

OJ Howard please. Best offensive player in the draft. TE isn't a sexy pick anymore, it's a necessity. Just as important as CBs, tackles and edge rushers


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

Agree  

Different positions, but he can be BMarshalls replacement. He's bigger, taller, and just as fast as Marshall. Matchup nightmare and by all accounts impressed at Sr Bowl at practices & w/his interviews

[goober36]

Agree  
Different positions, but he can be BMarshalls replacement. He's bigger, taller, and just as fast as Marshall. Matchup nightmare and by all accounts impressed at Sr Bowl at practices & w/his interviews

Yup. Picking a tight end that high isn't normal, but it's a different game. You got to accept the fact that you NEED a TE to be successful. Majority of high scoring offensive teams have a top TE they can rely on.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[C Mart]

8 minutes ago, goober36 said:

Yup. Picking a tight end that high isn't normal, but it's a different game. You got to accept the fact that you NEED a TE to be successful. Majority of high scoring offensive teams have a top TE they can rely on.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

Agree. I'm not even sure he'll be there at 6. I can see Jax or TN taking him. He's really a big WR so he's a top 10 pick in my book. 

[goober36]

Agree. I'm not even sure he'll be there at 6. I can see Jax or TN taking him. 

I can see jax taking him, but doesn't TN have a reliable TE already? Either way that would mean fournette would be available and I like him also. Our firsts pick has to be a safety net player for the qb.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[C Mart]

15 minutes ago, goober36 said:

I can see jax taking him, but doesn't TN have a reliable TE already? Either way that would mean fournette would be available and I like him also. Our firsts pick has to be a safety net player for the qb.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

Exactly! Howard or Fournette will really help whoever the QB is. 

[Adoni Beast]

OJ Howard's blocking ability coupled with his receiving ability and athleticism make him literally the perfect TE. People who scoff at a TE at #6, I get it. But, thus guy is a 3 down player who improves the running and passing game. We should be so lucky.

[Tinstar]

12 hours ago, C Mart said:

Exactly! Howard or Fournette will really help whoever the QB is. 

Don't want Either, so if this was the choice I think I would rather trade out . Forced to choose, I take Howard .