This is what happens in the other team's war room as soon as they pick up Macc's call....

[Copernicus]

45 minutes ago, southparkcpa said:

COP....  I personally know 1 GM (at my golf club) and an assistant GM (client).  They start as young kids in the organization and get promoted up.  

They arent always as smart as you would think.   There is a bell curve.  There are a lot of bad ones. Good ones too of course.  I was watching a special talking about how scouts and coaches look at a guy in the combine and get all wet inside.  Yet that player has no great film.  BUT..they believe he is worthy to develop. Vlad and Hill come to mind.  

Very little the Jets, Browns etc.. have done tells me our GM's are that smart.

 

Yet the same teams keep drafting smart, developing and winning and they NEVER have our better spot.

Pats, Steelers, Giants, Ravens come to mind.

 

2015: Williams (pro bowler) , Devon Smith bust thus far because of injuries not ability. Maudlin starts and has improved from year 1 to year 2. Petty developing and started a few games. Simon developmenting nicely. Harris a bust 

2016: Lee, Burris, Jenkins, Shell and a punter in the 7th round. All made the team and played significant minutes. All look to start and be better in 2017. Havkenburg is a question mark/ high risk pick with a huge reward "if" it works.

In 3 rounds this draft we took 2 starters, 1 is considered the best player in the draft and could possibly change the culture of our team.

Sorry, I don't see the high level of negativity towards Mac. 

 

 

[Marco]

That's exactly how I feel.

it is not about each pick as much as the body of work over 3 years.

when I take a step back, it seems he is lost with no comprehensive plan.

[NYs Stepchild]

6 hours ago, Fantasy Island said:

There was also people who liked the Gholston, Milliner, Pryor, Lee picks as well.  I'll wait.........................

There were many people that loved the Gholston pick, and he was universally rated by the "experts" to be the pick there. If we had taken Jordy Nelson all the peasants would have thrown tantrums just the way they are today.  The fact is in hindsight we should have traded back for an extra 2nd and taken Flacco, Nelson, and Martellus Bennett, instead of Gholston, and Keller but we would have been laughed out of the building, and the Lemmings would have put up billboards.

Let's wait and see how this pans out. I'm happy that we got good value even if I'm not happy about the position, and would have preferred trading back. This is nowhere near the ineptitude of Idzik which was not as bad as the late 80s, early 90s. Rodger Vick, Lagerman, and Cadigan among others so I am not going to lose any sleep over a draft like this. 

[Augustiniak]

28 minutes ago, Copernicus said:

2015: Williams (pro bowler) , Devon Smith bust thus far because of injuries not ability. Maudlin starts and has improved from year 1 to year 2. Petty developing and started a few games. Simon developmenting nicely. Harris a bust 

2016: Lee, Burris, Jenkins, Shell and a punter in the 7th round. All made the team and played significant minutes. All look to start and be better in 2017. Havkenburg is a question mark/ high risk pick with a huge reward "if" it works.

In 3 rounds this draft we took 2 starters, 1 is considered the best player in the draft and could possibly change the culture of our team.

Sorry, I don't see the high level of negativity towards Mac. 

 

 

i agree.  nobody is saying they took bad players or reached.  all 3 could conceivably start on opening day.  the only real sticking point is 2 safeties.  if we took a cb in round 2 everyone here would be happy, and when you look at it like this it's very irrational, especially since they got 2 extra picks today.  

[NYs Stepchild]

19 minutes ago, Marco said:

That's exactly how I feel.

it is not about each pick as much as the body of work over 3 years.

when I take a step back, it seems he is lost with no comprehensive plan.

If you look at this as a long term plan then it might make more sense. I make a conscious decision to believe that may be the case. We'd better hit on one of the remain TEs and I'll be sated here. I do not want to look back on this draft knowing we missed out on the best TE class of all time like Idzik did WRs.

I really wish he had traded back in the first and taken next year's picks to do so. I would love to have Hooker, or Howard plus a 1st and a 4th next year. It doesn't seem to occur to many GMs to trade for next year's picks which is always the smartest move...unless you'll be fired by then. It's long been my philosophy that GMs should trade away as many picks as they can for futures one round higher as the value chart dictates. Bite the bullet for one year then have extra high round picks each year thereafter.  

That said almost no GMs think this way so as long as these players turn into play makers, we grab a good TE/CB in the next couple rounds, and we find a way to get our franchise QB and a LT next year I'll be satisfied. 

[NYs Stepchild]

15 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

i agree.  nobody is saying they took bad players or reached.  all 3 could conceivably start on opening day.  the only real sticking point is 2 safeties.  if we took a cb in round 2 everyone here would be happy, and when you look at it like this it's very irrational, especially since they got 2 extra picks today.  

CB, and TE are deep in this draft. There are still a few value picks left there. As long as we get them I'll be okay with this draft. I think the WR is going to surprise people. May be the steal of the draft. 

[Augustiniak]

Just now, NYs Stepchild said:

CB, and TE are deep in this draft. There are still a few value picks left there. As long as we get them I'll be okay with this draft. I think the WR is going to surprise people. May be the steal of the draft. 

i love the stewart pick, he'll be in the slot on opening day and is perfect for the WCO they will run.  great runner.  

they picked 3 guys who will contribute immediately.  and we won't ever have to watch pryor screw up again, at least on the jets.

i'm encouraged that they added talent, and additional picks.  getting one of the remaining TEs today would make me feel even better about the offense.  

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, greenwave81 said:

I could care less about trading down from #107 to #119 to pick up pick #204...now trading out of #6 for extra 1sts, 2nds and 3rds some this year some next?  Thats the play when the board hands you a SS at 6 and you have a roster like ours needing players at more critical positions than SS.  Not saying we don't need a SS, just that I think taking shots at filling multiple more critical positions with round 1-3 talent is the smarter way to go.

Absolutely.

The "Hey, you wanted him to trade down and when he does you still complain" is a silly response. The trade-downs we wanted were from #6 (and potentially again, if it worked out that way) to yield a windfall like others have gotten.

Getting another mid-5th or mid-6th (to make matters worse, poor returns for both trade-downs at that) isn't nearly in the same universe as picking up extra 1st/2nd round pick(s).

Not to mention, if the strength of the draft is at safety throughout the first 3-4 rounds, why put so many eggs in your basket at #6 overall to take one (no matter how talented he is). To compound that with taking another SS in round 2 makes it that much worse.

[Augustiniak]

3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Absolutely.

The "Hey, you wanted him to trade down and when he does you still complain" is a silly response. The trade-downs we wanted were from #6 (and potentially again, if it worked out that way) to yield a windfall like others have gotten.

Getting another mid-5th or mid-6th (to make matters worse, poor returns for both trade-downs at that) isn't nearly in the same universe as picking up extra 1st/2nd round pick(s).

Not to mention, if the strength of the draft is at safety throughout the first 3-4 rounds, why put so many eggs in your basket at #6 overall to take one (no matter how talented he is). To compound that with taking another SS in round 2 makes it that much worse.

gilchrist is injured and pryor flat out sucks.  so they went into the offseason with the notion they needed 2 new day 1 starters at safety.  they got two good players there, presumably.  

[Gen X Jet]

2 hours ago, southparkcpa said:

COP....  I personally know 1 GM (at my golf club) and an assistant GM (client).  They start as young kids in the organization and get promoted up.  

They arent always as smart as you would think.   There is a bell curve.  There are a lot of bad ones. Good ones too of course.  I was watching a special talking about how scouts and coaches look at a guy in the combine and get all wet inside.  Yet that player has no great film.  BUT..they believe he is worthy to develop. Vlad and Hill come to mind.  

Very little the Jets, Browns etc.. have done tells me our GM's are that smart.

 

Yet the same teams keep drafting smart, developing and winning and they NEVER have our better spot.

Pats, Steelers, Giants, Ravens come to mind.

 

Smart doesn't always translate to good. Idzik  was a Dartmouth grad...

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, Augustiniak said:

gilchrist is injured and pryor flat out sucks.  so they went into the offseason with the notion they needed 2 new day 1 starters at safety.  they got two good players there, presumably.  

Who gives a crap? You don't use both of the first 2 rounds of a draft (both high picks: the 6th overall and 39th overall) to fill 2nd-3rd tier importance positional needs, in an obvious throwaway season (no matter what anyone says). Especially not when the position is so deep in the current draft there are like two dozen of them taken in the first 3 rounds.

You can argue we wouldn't get a safety as good, and I'd agree, but that doesn't exist in a vacuum. You could - and should - say the same about more important/cornerstone positions we're going to instead address in rounds 5-7 instead of rounds 1-2.

[Matt39]

2 hours ago, southparkcpa said:

COP....  I personally know 1 GM (at my golf club) and an assistant GM (client).  They start as young kids in the organization and get promoted up.  

They arent always as smart as you would think.   There is a bell curve.  There are a lot of bad ones. Good ones too of course.  I was watching a special talking about how scouts and coaches look at a guy in the combine and get all wet inside.  Yet that player has no great film.  BUT..they believe he is worthy to develop. Vlad and Hill come to mind.  

Very little the Jets, Browns etc.. have done tells me our GM's are that smart.

 

Yet the same teams keep drafting smart, developing and winning and they NEVER have our better spot.

Pats, Steelers, Giants, Ravens come to mind.

 

Which is exactly why you're going to see the Browns good for a long time. Depodesta is the real deal and it's more because the rest of the league is terrible. More picks=better odds.Todd Bowles has no business making personel decisions.

[Marco]

32 minutes ago, NYs Stepchild said:

If you look at this as a long term plan then it might make more sense. I make a conscious decision to believe that may be the case. We'd better hit on one of the remain TEs and I'll be sated here. I do not want to look back on this draft knowing we missed out on the best TE class of all time like Idzik did WRs.

I really wish he had traded back in the first and taken next year's picks to do so. I would love to have Hooker, or Howard plus a 1st and a 4th next year. It doesn't seem to occur to many GMs to trade for next year's picks which is always the smartest move...unless you'll be fired by then. It's long been my philosophy that GMs should trade away as many picks as they can for futures one round higher as the value chart dictates. Bite the bullet for one year then have extra high round picks each year thereafter.  

That said almost no GMs think this way so as long as these players turn into play makers, we grab a good TE/CB in the next couple rounds, and we find a way to get our franchise QB and a LT next year I'll be satisfied. 

I agree that most GMs don't think long term and hence why the same teams do well and the same teams don't during the draft. If ever their was a year for the jets to accumulate 1st rounders, it is next year. When the nfl averages approx 25% (from a cnnsi article I read before the draft) success rate on 1st rounders over the last decade, you want as many as you can get.

that is where aspects of the moneyball approach make sense.

It still amazes me that most teams use a version of the draft chart and that is as moneyball as you can get.

[whodeawhodat]

8 hours ago, Mike135 said:

Seems like a good thread for this...

Anyone get bored with the draft and switch over to the Yanks?

Awesome freakin' game to take 1st place!

 

oh didi is back, brightened up my morning

[Marco]

10 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Which is exactly why you're going to see the Browns good for a long time. Depodesta is the real deal and it's more because the rest of the league is terrible. More picks=better odds.Todd Bowles has no business making personel decisions.

I agree and just finished posting the same thing below. Aspects of moneyball or his approach make sense. Recently read the book and certain aspects translate to many business and the nfl is one of them. 

[Augustiniak]

9 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Who gives a crap? You don't use both of the first 2 rounds of a draft (both high picks: the 6th overall and 39th overall) to fill 2nd-3rd tier importance positional needs, in an obvious throwaway season (no matter what anyone says). Especially not when the position is so deep in the current draft there are like two dozen of them taken in the first 3 rounds.

You can argue we wouldn't get a safety as good, and I'd agree, but that doesn't exist in a vacuum. You could - and should - say the same about more important/cornerstone positions we're going to instead address in rounds 5-7 instead of rounds 1-2.

they're clearly blaming the safeties for a lot of the fail on d last season.  and i like stewart.  they got good players and didn't reach.  we are in full rebuild and have a lot of picks today.  and not taking a qb so far is at least a tepid nod to hack, if not more.  

[Sperm Edwards]

19 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

they're clearly blaming the safeties for a lot of the fail on d last season.  and i like stewart.  they got good players and didn't reach.  we are in full rebuild and have a lot of picks today.  and not taking a qb so far is at least a tepid nod to hack, if not more.  

At #6 I think the strong safety position in general is a reach for a team with 10 holes and needed upgrades. I'm sure he'll be an excellent player, as I'm sure we just used the draft capital equivalent of a cap-strapped, bad team paying $17m/year for a safety. Sure he'll be good, but he isn't worth $17m/year.

[Augustiniak]

3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

At #6 I think the safety position is a reach for a team with 10 holes and needed upgrades. I'm sure he'll be an excellent player, as I'm sure we just used the draft capital equivalent of a cap-strapped, bad team paying $17m/year for a safety. Sure he'll be good, but he isn't worth $17m/year.

if you're sure he'll be an excellent player, then the jets did well.  i would have loved if a team wanted to trade up for a qb with the jets, but it didn't happen.  

there's a lot of good so far.  the jets added 3 starters, and yes, stewart will start b/c decker is coming off 2 surgeries and devin smith is a big ? still.  they didn't reach for players, another plus.  also, they didn't take one of these crappy qbs, which on some level is a support of hackenberg.  they had many opportunities to take a qb and didn't.  i like this.  

i expect them to take a rb today, maybe a TE, and we'll see how the offense is upgraded in totality very soon.  stop the pessimism.  the jets drafted 3 good players.

[thadude]

16 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

they're clearly blaming the safeties for a lot of the fail on d last season.  and i like stewart.  they got good players and didn't reach.  we are in full rebuild and have a lot of picks today.  and not taking a qb so far is at least a tepid nod to hack, if not more.  

Our safeties sucked but the real reason our defense was horrible was we had 0.0 pass rush

 

 

[thadude]

9 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

At #6 I think the safety position is a reach for a team with 10 holes and needed upgrades. I'm sure he'll be an excellent player, as I'm sure we just used the draft capital equivalent of a cap-strapped, bad team paying $17m/year for a safety. Sure he'll be good, but he isn't worth $17m/year.

We reached on both the Adams and Maye picks.  Very deep draft for safeties we could have drafted a couple good safeties in rounds 3-7 and still gotten better, and yes I don't care, sexier players in rounds 1-2

[Gastineau Lives]

7 hours ago, RutgersJetFan said:

Oh but it is.

This should have been its own thread. Lazy.

[Marco]

38 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Who gives a crap? You don't use both of the first 2 rounds of a draft (both high picks: the 6th overall and 39th overall) to fill 2nd-3rd tier importance positional needs, in an obvious throwaway season (no matter what anyone says). Especially not when the position is so deep in the current draft there are like two dozen of them taken in the first 3 rounds.

You can argue we wouldn't get a safety as good, and I'd agree, but that doesn't exist in a vacuum. You could - and should - say the same about more important/cornerstone positions we're going to instead address in rounds 5-7 instead of rounds 1-2.

bang on.

Furthermore, if you can build the roster and get important need positions filled, it is alot easier for a rookie qb.

whomever it maybe. Prescott was successful in part bc of the quality of the Cowboys team. And with players like elfein we trade out for a late round pick. he could be a starting c for the next 7-8 years.

[thadude]

1 minute ago, Marco said:

bang on.

Furthermore, if you can build the roster and get important need positions filled, it is alot easier for a rookie qb.

whomever it maybe. Prescott was successful in part bc of the quality of the Cowboys team. And with players like elfein we trade out for a late round pick. he could be a starting c for the next 7-8 years.

Only a couple people wanted a QB in round 1 I definitely wasn't one of them

 

Yes we need good football players but there were better players at more important positions than safety

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, thadude said:

We reached on both the Adams and Maye picks.  Very deep draft for safeties we could have drafted a couple good safeties in rounds 3-7 and still gotten better, and yes I don't care, sexier players in rounds 1-2

Prospect rank I'll leave to others to say who's a reach and who isn't. Adams is supposed to be a top prospect and an excellent player.

Hey, It's no secret here I think Maccagnan is a terrible GM in way over his head, but I don't dislike the picks because it's him making them instead of someone else. I said numerous times here, before the draft, I wouldn't like the pick at #6 if it's a safety, a RB, or a TE. The positions, to me, don't merit the 6th overall selection. Or anyway, they don't merit such a high selection for a team like ours, with this many holes/needs at harder (or more expensive) to fill positions.

If he liked a QB, go for it. If he doesn't, it means he's going to look at it next year instead. In that case (IMO) they were better off moving down, even in the absence of full chart value, because the chart value up at #6 is so disproportionately high one can get a great return even without fully even point-exchanges.

[Augustiniak]

4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Prospect rank I'll leave to others to say who's a reach and who isn't. Adams is supposed to be a top prospect and an excellent player.

Hey, It's no secret here I think Maccagnan is a terrible GM in way over his head, but I don't dislike the picks because it's him making them instead of someone else. I said numerous times here, before the draft, I wouldn't like the pick at #6 if it's a safety, a RB, or a TE. The positions, to me, don't merit the 6th overall selection. Or anyway, they don't merit such a high selection for a team like ours, with this many holes/needs at harder (or more expensive) to fill positions.

If he liked a QB, go for it. If he doesn't, it means he's going to look at it next year instead. In that case (IMO) they were better off moving down, even in the absence of full chart value, because the chart value up at #6 is so disproportionately high one can get a great return even without fully even point-exchanges.

i will say this about the picks, it appears they didn't reach and got value.  you can argue about the positions, though all 3 of these guys will probably start.  that alone makes this a good draft so far.  when can you really say all 3 picks will start day 1?

[JoeC36]

4 hours ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Doesn't the forum self-correct that?  If people don't reply then the post drops down off the 1st page.  Why would you discourage people from posting (as long as it's done in "good faith")?

Because people reply to everything.  We don't need multiple threads on how Mac is a bad GM, that can all be discussed in one thread instead of everyone having the same discussion in multiple threads and cluttering the board. 

Everyone here is free to post as much as they'd like. But we discourage starting new threads on the same topic just because you don't feel like you're getting heard and want attention. 

[JoeC36]

2 hours ago, OH THE PAIN said:

So , what is worthy of a thread " OH KEEPER OF THE THREADS " ?

Nothing you've ever posted

[Copernicus]

1 hour ago, NYs Stepchild said:

CB, and TE are deep in this draft. There are still a few value picks left there. As long as we get them I'll be okay with this draft. I think the WR is going to surprise people. May be the steal of the draft. 

 

[NoBowles]

12 hours ago, JoeC36 said:

We really don't ban people, so that's not going to happen. But there are a lot of threads here that you could have posted it in. It's easier for everyone to read if the main board isn't flooded with stream of consciousness threads. Please try and find a thread that your thought would fit in before starting a new one. If there's not go ahead and start a thread. In this case there are multiple. 

Thanks bud

Really? That's news to me

 

 

[greenwave81]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Who gives a crap? You don't use both of the first 2 rounds of a draft (both high picks: the 6th overall and 39th overall) to fill 2nd-3rd tier importance positional needs, in an obvious throwaway season (no matter what anyone says). Especially not when the position is so deep in the current draft there are like two dozen of them taken in the first 3 rounds.

You can argue we wouldn't get a safety as good, and I'd agree, but that doesn't exist in a vacuum. You could - and should - say the same about more important/cornerstone positions we're going to instead address in rounds 5-7 instead of rounds 1-2.

I'm amazed more people don't see the logic in this...If you told me beforehand that out of our 1st 4 picks we were gonna get a WR and 2 S's along with a trade down, I would have bet that the first rd pick would have been one of the WR that went at 5 and 7 (sandwiched our pick) or later in the first after a first round trade down with the S picks coming in the 2nd and 3rd or later...but to pick 2 S's with the 6 and 39 is just poor judgement IMO.

Not to mention that if both the S's pan out signing both past rookie deals will cost a fortune for a less critical position where salaries are typically lower than many other positions.

[Bugg]

9 hours ago, Mogglez said:

The Giants have not had a good or "smart" draft by any stretch of the imagination.  It's been a whole lotta "eh".

Their first round pick was a top of the 2nd round WR/TE hybrid.  

So-so on the 2nd round pick.  Tomlinson is alright. Could've done worse I guess.

Webb is a waste.

Steelers?  Love their picks.

I dunno. They have a quality QB, gave him some new shiny weapons and drafted a possible replacement. Haven't beefed up his OL, so that could be an issuel Not saying they're a lock for 12 wins, but I like their approach way better than what  ever this is. 

[Bugg]

1 hour ago, Augustiniak said:

i will say this about the picks, it appears they didn't reach and got value.  you can argue about the positions, though all 3 of these guys will probably start.  that alone makes this a good draft so far.  when can you really say all 3 picks will start day 1?

No,the whole point is safety (and guard as well) should  not be picked that high. You can get servicable safeties later in the draft. Corner would have bothered me, but would be acceptable; it's a premium position of need. Safeties are invariably guys who are too small to be LBs and to slow or bad in coverage to be corners, same way strictly guards aren't good enough to be tackles or don't  have the skill to be a center. 

[southparkcpa]

7 hours ago, Copernicus said:

2015: Williams (pro bowler) , Devon Smith bust thus far because of injuries not ability. Maudlin starts and has improved from year 1 to year 2. Petty developing and started a few games. Simon developmenting nicely. Harris a bust 

2016: Lee, Burris, Jenkins, Shell and a punter in the 7th round. All made the team and played significant minutes. All look to start and be better in 2017. Havkenburg is a question mark/ high risk pick with a huge reward "if" it works.

In 3 rounds this draft we took 2 starters, 1 is considered the best player in the draft and could possibly change the culture of our team.

Sorry, I don't see the high level of negativity towards Mac. 

 

 

I love MACS resume.... I want to see it on the field.   I have no issue with our draft this year so far.  

[southparkcpa]

5 hours ago, Matt39 said:

Which is exactly why you're going to see the Browns good for a long time. Depodesta is the real deal and it's more because the rest of the league is terrible. More picks=better odds.Todd Bowles has no business making personel decisions.

Agreed.... I'd like to see a computer make our picks.   I'm serious.