Something to ponder before we start drinking again

[section314]

I have no problem with any of the players we have drafted so far. Like  any draft, you have to see them play on the NFL stage before you can make an honest assessment of good/bad pick. Like most of us, I was puzzled by the trading back scenarios, not the actual intent, but the compensation involved. On the surface, it seems like we didn't get fair value for our assets. Then this thought occurred to me....maybe Macc has a trade in place to be announced early today to to move either Sheldon, Pyror, or both. It would be for picks in the 4th round, and might explain getting the extra 5th and 6th picks last night. Definitely thinking outside the box here. Anybody need another bloody?

[Warfish]

I have doubts and concerns about the positions we drafted and where in the draft.

We'll simply have to wait and see how it all plays out of course.

Six more picks today, lets hope we find a few diamonds in the rough.

 

[section314]

3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I have doubts and concerns about the positions we drafted and where in the draft.

We'll simply have to wait and see how it all plays out of course.

Six more picks today, lets hope we find a few diamonds in the rough.

 

What do think think of the idea that we have a trade in place? Possible or nuts?

[Matt39]

We took back to back safeties who struggle in coverage. The Florida kid sounds like a glorified linebacker. But other than that, great.

[bealeb319]

I think maybe we overvalue players in the first three rounds...we always want the jets to trade down in the first round to acquire players in the second and third rounds...if you think about it we traded our 3rd for a third and a fifth or something kind of the same concept of moving down in the first and getting a first and a third. We get upset when good players are drafted before and after where we were when we moved down but if we moved down in the first or second it would have been the same thing. Any time you trade down you will miss out on better prospects and get a higher quantity of lower graded prospects. We have alot of holes to fill right now.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, bealeb319 said:

I think maybe we overvalue players in the first three rounds...we always want the jets to trade down in the first round to acquire players in the second and third rounds...if you think about it we traded our 3rd for a third and a fifth or something kind of the same concept of moving down in the first and getting a first and a third. We get upset when good players are drafted before and after where we were when we moved down but if we moved down in the first or second it would have been the same thing. Any time you trade down you will miss out on better prospects and get a higher quantity of lower graded prospects. We have alot of holes to fill right now.

The thing is if we moved down in the first we'd have taken one of 20-something other safeties teams drafted in the first 2 days. A downgrade in prospect rank, of course, but not a downgrade that isn't adequately counterbalanced by the sizable compensation a team gets when trading down from that high in the first place.

Moving down in round 3 is nothing at all like moving down from the top of round 1. 

[Jet_Engine1]

I wish. I'm on the back end of a 48 and was sober for yesterday's insanity.

[Scott Dierking]

3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

The thing is if we moved down in the first we'd have taken one of 20-something other safeties teams drafted in the first 2 days. A downgrade in prospect rank, of course, but not a downgrade that isn't adequately counterbalanced by the sizable compensation a team gets when trading down from that high in the first place.

Moving down in round 3 is nothing at all like moving down from the top of round 1. 

What were the offers were on the table for the 1st round move down? I have not read many articles, and am wondering what Macc turned down?

[section314]

4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

The thing is if we moved down in the first we'd have taken one of 20-something other safeties teams drafted in the first 2 days. A downgrade in prospect rank, of course, but not a downgrade that isn't adequately counterbalanced by the sizable compensation a team gets when trading down from that high in the first place.

Moving down in round 3 is nothing at all like moving down from the top of round 1. 

Absolutely agree with everything you said. But what do you think of the idea that we may have a trade in place? That is really my main point here...that might make sense of some of this stuff. If not, I may get off the Macc bandwagon very shortly myself.

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, Scott Dierking said:

What were the offers were on the table for the 1st round move down? I have not read many articles, and am wondering what Macc turned down?

Am I supposed to answer this like I've bugged his cellphone? Teams that want to move are able to move, especially with a blue-chip prospect on the board.

Another year of hearing how it's because nobody wants to compensate us for our pick but they do want to for picks near ours. At some point does one not look at the common denominator? 

[Scott Dierking]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

 At some point does one not look at the common denominator? 

A common denominator requires that you know what the factor is. 

Oh, are we saying that we didn't know what the factors were? Thanks for clearing that up for me. I thought there were some leaks, based on what some are so strongly saying.

 

[BurnleyJet]

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Am I supposed to answer this like I've bugged his cellphone? Teams that want to move are able to move, especially with a blue-chip prospect on the board.

Another year of hearing how it's because nobody wants to compensate us for our pick but they do want to for picks near ours. At some point does one not look at the common denominator? 

Boom!

[Jetdawgg]

25 minutes ago, bealeb319 said:

I think maybe we overvalue players in the first three rounds...we always want the jets to trade down in the first round to acquire players in the second and third rounds...if you think about it we traded our 3rd for a third and a fifth or something kind of the same concept of moving down in the first and getting a first and a third. We get upset when good players are drafted before and after where we were when we moved down but if we moved down in the first or second it would have been the same thing. Any time you trade down you will miss out on better prospects and get a higher quantity of lower graded prospects. We have alot of holes to fill right now.

The Jets need players. The pre draft roster was ugly. Most positions were low quality. Not even good enough to play two hand touch

[Sperm Edwards]

6 minutes ago, section314 said:

Absolutely agree with everything you said. But what do you think of the idea that we may have a trade in place? That is really my main point here...that might make sense of some of this stuff. If not, I may get off the Macc bandwagon very shortly myself.

I think it's of course possible, but unlikely. Maccagnan has not shown to be much of a dealmaker. He's more the type that turns down an offer because he wants more, and then when he's left holding his dick in his hands he then panics and overpays (whether it's paying a veteran player, or by not getting adequate trade compensation later).

[Anthony Jet]

Maybe, blind faith here, Mac valued the guys that fell to him really really high and wanted more than he was getting offered because of the guys that fell, and on the trade backs maybe he had all the guys available rated a lot lower than were he was. Again all speculation as is most of the stuff on this board the past two days but the guy is a scout by trade, gonna be patient and see what happens the next year or so. 

 

On on a side a note, I think this draft shows he trust his own  ability (still not sure if that's a good thing) by not caving to public pressure and picking a qb, basically seems he is sticking with hack as his future QB for now 

[thadude]

34 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

We took back to back safeties who struggle in coverage. The Florida kid sounds like a glorified linebacker. But other than that, great.

Adams is good in coverage but not great.  Maye is a hitter let's hope he's not another Eric Smiths or Pryor

[Scott Dierking]

4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I think it's of course possible, but unlikely. 

Clears things up, but leaves wiggle room

[thshadow]

19 minutes ago, section314 said:

Absolutely agree with everything you said. But what do you think of the idea that we may have a trade in place? That is really my main point here...that might make sense of some of this stuff. If not, I may get off the Macc bandwagon very shortly myself.

Every time I've hoped that there's some method to his madness, it's turned out to be just madness...

[section314]

21 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I think it's of course possible, but unlikely. Maccagnan has not shown to be much of a dealmaker. He's more the type that turns down an offer because he wants more, and then when he's left holding his dick in his hands he then panics and overpays (whether it's paying a veteran player, or by not getting adequate trade compensation later).

It appears that way. I'm really starting to grasp at straws here.

[Sperm Edwards]

20 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Clears things up, but leaves wiggle room

One could say that about anything that has a low-level chance of occurrence, like a pitcher getting a base hit on a given at-bat. It's of course possible, but it's unlikely.

Do detail your own opinion of the cumulative job Mike Maccagnan has done, since you come to his rescue far more than agree, when he's critiqued. Your typical critique is of those who critique him. Bold.

Or do you fail to make a firm stance on how you feel about his performance just in case the outcome goes the other way? You know, to leave yourself wiggle room.  

[Freemanm]

1 hour ago, section314 said:

I have no problem with any of the players we have drafted so far. Like  any draft, you have to see them play on the NFL stage before you can make an honest assessment of good/bad pick. Like most of us, I was puzzled by the trading back scenarios, not the actual intent, but the compensation involved. On the surface, it seems like we didn't get fair value for our assets. Then this thought occurred to me....maybe Macc has a trade in place to be announced early today to to move either Sheldon, Pyror, or both. It would be for picks in the 4th round, and might explain getting the extra 5th and 6th picks last night. Definitely thinking outside the box here. Anybody need another bloody?

I know you're trying to be optimistic here and I appreciate that, but let's have an honest assessment here. After releasing many talented vets this off season and not really doing much in free agency, Macc needed to really score in this draft (his job depends on it). Instead, he fumbled badly. He chose two safeties in a row when his team has so many other holes to fill. He made an idiotic trade down in the third round and thus passed on a guy like Elflein when we badly need a new C/OT, and instead chose a scrub WR (who only runs a 4.5) whose ceiling is basically special teams. 

Hope he really nails it with the rest of the draft - his job now absolutely depends on it.

[bealeb319]

I think it's of course possible, but unlikely. Maccagnan has not shown to be much of a dealmaker. He's more the type that turns down an offer because he wants more, and then when he's left holding his dick in his hands he then panics and overpays (whether it's paying a veteran player, or by not getting adequate trade compensation later).

I think he has shown that he is willing to make a deal if it is skewed in our favor..a fifth for marshall, a fifth for fitz who was supposed to be our backup but ended up starting and playing well his first year. He overpaid some vetrans which ended up being a mistake in hindsight but as far as trades go I don't think he has made any that were stupid in my opinion.

Sent from my LGUS991 using JetNation.com mobile app

[Ohio State NY Jets fan]

Mac has a decent record on day 3

Petty, Harrison, Simon 

Burris, Shell, Edwards, Peake

Some decent UDFA's as well Anderson, Marshall

[Scott Dierking]

12 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

One could say that about anything that has a low-level chance of occurrence, like a pitcher getting a base hit on a given at-bat. It's of course possible, but it's unlikely.

Do detail your own opinion of the cumulative job Mike Maccagnan has done, since you come to his rescue far more than agree, when he's critiqued. Your typical critique is of those who critique him. Bold.

Or do you fail to make a firm stance on how you feel about his performance just in case the outcome goes the other way? You know, to leave yourself wiggle room.  

The critique has to be based from on field performance. To me, that is the most important critique. Based on that, performance, as it presently stands is sub-acceptable.

But I do believe that there is an acumen there and that it deserves the chance of at least a 3 year evaluation period to see what that product looks like, and where it is trending. As such, it is currently an unbaked cake. His abilities need to be reflected on a trending upward trajectory after the 2017 season.

Everything as it pertains to the thought process of how he builds the team, what orders he has been given from the owner, or what is plan is conjecture. So, to see critiques that state "x and x team traded down, so that means Mac HAD to have the same opportunity to do so" are folly. And some (not naming names), appear to have the foresight of what was presented him (along with other criteria that they have no idea about) in analytics and critique.

Not fair in my opinion. Again opinion which I realize this is ALL about. But my opinion is that if Macc had got the hauls that the Chiefs and Texans gave up (significant downward movement in round one + a 1st next year (the basics of the deals), he would have been summarily criticized. 

And that is supposing that those teams were even looking to move to 6, which doubt. Cleveland was the crux point for those moves up. Mahomes was not a likely trade up scenario moving to 6. King, who was one who accurately projected the Texans moving up to take Watson, said in that projection that they would need to move into the "early teens"?

What proof do you have that the Jets had these offers?

[Sperm Edwards]

5 minutes ago, bealeb319 said:

I think he has shown that he is willing to make a deal if it is skewed in our favor..a fifth for marshall, a fifth for fitz who was supposed to be our backup but ended up starting and playing well his first year. He overpaid some vetrans which ended up being a mistake in hindsight but as far as trades go I don't think he has made any that were stupid in my opinion.

Sent from my LGUS991 using JetNation.com mobile app
 

The veterans I was referring to are Mo, Fitz, and most others. Glossing over the amounts he overpaid his veterans is like saying an 8000 sf mansion is merely a larger than average house. 

[Sperm Edwards]

4 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

The critique has to be based from on field performance. To me, that is the most important critique. Based on that, performance, as it presently stands is sub-acceptable.

But I do believe that there is an acumen there and that it deserves the chance of at least a 3 year evaluation period to see what that product looks like, and where it is trending. As such, it is currently an unbaked cake. His abilities need to be reflected on a trending upward trajectory after the 2017 season.

Everything as it pertains to the thought process of how he builds the team, what orders he has been given from the owner, or what is plan is conjecture. So, to see critiques that state "x and x team traded down, so that means Mac HAD to have the same opportunity to do so" are folly. And some (not naming names), appear to have the foresight of what was presented him (along with other criteria that they have no idea about) in analytics and critique.

Not fair in my opinion. Again opinion which I realize this is ALL about. But my opinion is that if Macc had got the hauls that the Chiefs and Texans gave up (significant downward movement in round one + a 1st next year (the basics of the deals), he would have been summarily criticized. 

And that is supposing that those teams were even looking to move to 6, which doubt. Cleveland was the crux point for those moves up. Mahomes was not a likely trade up scenario moving to 6. King, who was one who accurately projected the Texans moving up to take Watson, said in that projection that they would need to move into the "early teens"?

What proof do you have that the Jets had these offers?

So in other words, 5 paragraphs of wiggle room lol. 

[section314]

7 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

The critique has to be based from on field performance. To me, that is the most important critique. Based on that, performance, as it presently stands is sub-acceptable.

But I do believe that there is an acumen there and that it deserves the chance of at least a 3 year evaluation period to see what that product looks like, and where it is trending. As such, it is currently an unbaked cake. His abilities need to be reflected on a trending upward trajectory after the 2017 season.

Everything as it pertains to the thought process of how he builds the team, what orders he has been given from the owner, or what is plan is conjecture. So, to see critiques that state "x and x team traded down, so that means Mac HAD to have the same opportunity to do so" are folly. And some (not naming names), appear to have the foresight of what was presented him (along with other criteria that they have no idea about) in analytics and critique.

Not fair in my opinion. Again opinion which I realize this is ALL about. But my opinion is that if Macc had got the hauls that the Chiefs and Texans gave up (significant downward movement in round one + a 1st next year (the basics of the deals), he would have been summarily criticized. 

And that is supposing that those teams were even looking to move to 6, which doubt. Cleveland was the crux point for those moves up. Mahomes was not a likely trade up scenario moving to 6. King, who was one who accurately projected the Texans moving up to take Watson, said in that projection that they would need to move into the "early teens"?

What proof do you have that the Jets had these offers?

Absolutley. When Trubisky went, that was dead. If Fournette was there, maybe somebody else.

[Pcola]

One thought on KC and Hou and their trades to move up for the QB.  I think we can all agree that it's going to take several years for these teams to realize what they have in Watson and Mahomes.  

But with the first round picks, they have to make a decision on the fifth year option prior to their 4th season.  What's the difference between this fifth year option for a QB taken at 6 and 10/12?  The difference is probably a few million more.

[Scott Dierking]

10 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

So in other words, 5 paragraphs of wiggle room lol. 

I am basing wiggle room on a body of work. Easier to do and more understandable based on a (relative) short time frame. Bigger picture ideal.

My critique of yours is on a specific statement (paraphrasing), of others moved down, why didn't Macc. You either need to know what he had, or what he didn't. Not much wiggle room there

[Scott Dierking]

5 minutes ago, section314 said:

Absolutley. When Trubisky went, that was dead. If Fournette was there, maybe somebody else.

The incredibly amazing thing that I read is that the Bears, although they picked him second and spent a boatload to do that, are most content in having Trubisky "watch" this year.

WTF is that?

[bealeb319]

9 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

The veterans I was referring to are Mo, Fitz, and most others. Glossing over the amounts he overpaid his veterans is like saying an 8000 sf mansion is merely a larger than average house. 

Popular or not without hindsight bringing fitz back was the correct move. You have a Qb that throws for what 32 touchdowns and let him walk? Wilk i agree probably got overpaid especially considering he was coming back from an injury hopefully he bounces back this season but i for one am certainly not ready to run macc out of town yet, maybe i am in the minority?

[section314]

4 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

The incredibly amazing thing that I read is that the Bears, although they picked him second and spent a boatload to do that, are most content in having Trubisky "watch" this year.

WTF is that?

Saving face for paying Glennon18mm?  The 49rs wanted Thomas....could never have taken the Cleveland deal(if offered) because no way could they have gotten him at 12. Only other team who could have possibly moved up to where they could still get Thomas was Jags. Bears got played, pure and simple. 

[joewilly12]

Who stopped drinking? 

[section314]

31 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

Who stopped drinking? 

LOL. I guess you just did for a few. Haven't heard from you in awhile.

[LIJetsFan]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I think it's of course possible, but unlikely. Maccagnan has not shown to be much of a dealmaker. He's more the type that turns down an offer because he wants more, and then when he's left holding his dick in his hands he then panics and overpays (whether it's paying a veteran player, or by not getting adequate trade compensation later).

 Sad but true, sad but true.  When the f* are we going to have a well run front office?