Jets added 3rd most talent according to Gil Brandt

[Augustiniak]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000805888/article/2017-nfl-draft-teams-that-added-most-talent-18

[Beerfish]

If Lattimore turns out and doesn't flop the Saints had an epically good draft imo,.

[Gas2No99]

2017 NFL Draft: Teams that added most talent (1-8)

Which teams did the best job of adding talent in the 2017 NFL Draft?

We set out to answer that question using NFL.com senior analyst Gil Brandt's Hot 150 prospect rankings as the unit of measurement.

Points were assigned to each draftee based on where he ranked in Brandt's Hot 150. The No. 1-rated prospect received 150 points, the No. 2 prospect received 149 points, etc.

Here's how the teams stacked up, using Brandt's rankings as the guide.

 

3. New York Jets 

 

Score: 453 points (5 players) 
The skinny: 
The players (points): The Jets' investment in its secondary and pass-catching corps paid off handsomely. 
No. 5: Jamal Adams (146) 
No. 44: Marcus Maye (107) 
No. 71: ArDarius Stewart (80) 
No. 74: Jordan Leggett (77) 
No. 108: Chad Hansen (43)

 

 

[Sarge4Tide]

Fingers crossed!

[section314]

10 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

If Lattimore turns out and doesn't flop the Saints had an epically good draft imo,.

Both he and Anzalone spend lots of time with the trainers.

[varjet]

28 minutes ago, section314 said:

Both he and Anzalone spend lots of time with the trainers.

I really think being injury prone is genetic, perhaps with a combination of diet, lifestyle, etc.

As a general matter, I don't think players go from being injury prone to being generally healthy. 

[section314]

4 minutes ago, varjet said:

I really think being injury prone is genetic, perhaps with a combination of diet, lifestyle, etc.

As a general matter, I don't think players go from being injury prone to being generally healthy. 

I would tend to agree.

[sciond]

every time I look somewhere it seems to validate this draft

[UnitedWhofans]

The worst grade I have seen from an expert for his draft is a C.

And, I put this in the review thread, part of the criticism was not drafting a QB, when they weren't going to draft one in the first place

[Gas2No99]

1 minute ago, sciond said:

every time I look somewhere it seems to validate this draft

If one tunes out the typical Jets fan reaction, and remains completely objective, the Jets tended well to their garden in this draft given the circumstances presented to them at the time (except perhaps Dalvin Cook, still pains me)

[sourceworx]

I don't think anyone is disputing that they added talented players. They just spent their first two picks on talented players at a low-impact position. 

[Augustiniak]

1 minute ago, sourceworx said:

I don't think anyone is disputing that they added talented players. They just spent their first two picks on talented players at a low-impact position. 

yet, the terrible play by safeties last year was a big reason they had maybe the worst pass defense in the nfl.  so maybe it's low impact if they don't suck.

[sourceworx]

Just now, Augustiniak said:

yet, the terrible play by safeties last year was a big reason they had maybe the worst pass defense in the nfl.  so maybe it's low impact if they don't suck.

Well then maybe should have picked a free safety instead of two strong safeties.

Adding two safeties means we'll lose games by a slightly lower margin. But we'll still lose.

[Augustiniak]

Just now, sourceworx said:

Well then maybe should have picked a free safety instead of two strong safeties.

Adding two safeties means we'll lose games by a slightly lower margin. But we'll still lose.

we're gonna lose b/c they have no qb.  they didn't have one last year either.  

[JohnnyLV]

From a talent and value standpoint Adams and Maye are excellent picks. They could both be pro bowl level players. But both skew more towards SS more than FS and are not ball hawks. Even at at Pro Bowl level they are not going to have a huge impact. Our defense will certainly be better, but I will say this:

Let's say instead that the Jets drafter OJ Howard and then Dalvin Cook.

I would state that not only would those picks improve the offense significantly and provide additional security for Hack, but the increase in offense would actually keep the defense off the field enough that those two picks would actually improve defensive performance as much as the two players we selected.

It is why I still think the first 2 selections are an F.

 

 

 

[SickJetFan]

5 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

From a talent and value standpoint Adams and Maye are excellent picks. They could both be pro bowl level players. But both skew more towards SS more than FS and are not ball hawks. Even at at Pro Bowl level they are not going to have a huge impact. Our defense will certainly be better, but I will say this:

Let's say instead that the Jets drafter OJ Howard and then Dalvin Cook.

I would state that not only would those picks improve the offense significantly and provide additional security for Hack, but the increase in offense would actually keep the defense off the field enough that those two picks would actually improve defensive performance as much as the two players we selected.

It is why I still think the first 2 selections are an F.

 

 

 

Poor Leggett and McGuire...no respect...guess we see how they play in PS

 

and Cook a gangsta with bad injury history in his shoulders of all places and has had fumble issues...so there is that

oh and how long before Cook gets caught driving 100MPH with and oozie in car....?

[C Mart]

32 minutes ago, sciond said:

every time I look somewhere it seems to validate this draft

Then don't look on here..

[ASH1962]

18 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

From a talent and value standpoint Adams and Maye are excellent picks. They could both be pro bowl level players. But both skew more towards SS more than FS and are not ball hawks. Even at at Pro Bowl level they are not going to have a huge impact. Our defense will certainly be better, but I will say this:

Let's say instead that the Jets drafter OJ Howard and then Dalvin Cook.

I would state that not only would those picks improve the offense significantly and provide additional security for Hack, but the increase in offense would actually keep the defense off the field enough that those two picks would actually improve defensive performance as much as the two players we selected.

It is why I still think the first 2 selections are an F.

 

 

 

Great post, and I agree, but they only get an F from me because they drafted the exact same player in rounds 1 & 2 which made no sense. With Cook sitting there in round 2. I wanted to jump off of my balcony. All in all, like the Hackenberg issue, we have no idea if they are any good until they play. Remember, we still have the impedance of the HC to overcome so it may be really hard to tell who is any good until he is vacated.

[Barkus]

13 minutes ago, SickJetFan said:

Poor Leggett and McGuire...no respect...guess we see how they play in PS

 

and Cook a gangsta with bad injury history in his shoulders of all places and has had fumble issues...so there is that

oh and how long before Cook gets caught driving 100MPH with and oozie in car....?

Correct. The jets were not drafting cook, they are trying to clean up the lockerroom.  Cook has had multiple legal run ins and has an alcohol issue. I read somewhere that teams smelled etoh on his breath during combine interviews! 

[sourceworx]

3 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

we're gonna lose b/c they have no qb.  they didn't have one last year either.  

You proved my point and disproved your own with the bolded part. 

To me, the equalizer between taking a sure thing safety at #6, and reaching for Watson or Mahomes at that spot, is the fact that the QB has a substantially larger impact on how the team does. It's worth the risk to take a QB in that spot because the reward if you hit on one completely changes the makeup of the team. It speeds up the time it will take for the team to become successful.

But let's say they really like Hackenberg and want to give him his shot. Fine. But wouldn't it make more sense to give him a potential stud WR to throw to? Or better yet, how about improving the running game with a guy like Cook to take the focus off of Hack while he figures things out? Isn't that more valuable to your team than taking another safety in the second round?

Let's go further still. Let's say they wanted to fortify the defense in this draft. Fair enough. But our corners were worse than our safeties, and we had a non-existent pass rush. Addressing either or both of those spots with the first two picks would have a greater impact on the defense than two safeties will.

I understand why they like Adams so much. He seems like he can be a Brian Dawkins type of leader. But another safety in the second round after taking him in the first was an atrocious decision no matter how much they (and you) try to spin it. 

[Augustiniak]

Just now, sourceworx said:

You proved my point and disproved your own with the bolded part. 

To me, the equalizer between taking a sure thing safety at #6, and reaching for Watson or Mahomes at that spot, is the fact that the QB has a substantially larger impact on how the team does. It's worth the risk to take a QB in that spot because the reward if you hit on one completely changes the makeup of the team. It speeds up the time it will take for the team to become successful.

But let's say they really like Hackenberg and want to give him his shot. Fine. But wouldn't it make more sense to give him a potential stud WR to throw to? Or better yet, how about improving the running game with a guy like Cook to take the focus off of Hack while he figures things out? Isn't that more valuable to your team than taking another safety in the second round?

Let's go further still. Let's say they wanted to fortify the defense in this draft. Fair enough. But our corners were worse than our safeties, and we had a non-existent pass rush. Addressing either or both of those spots with the first two picks would have a greater impact on the defense than two safeties will.

I understand why they like Adams so much. He seems like he can be a Brian Dawkins type of leader. But another safety in the second round after taking him in the first was an atrocious decision no matter how much they (and you) try to spin it. 

you lost the board with the bolded word.  

[sourceworx]

Just now, Augustiniak said:

you lost the board with the bolded word.  

No I didn't. QBs are an exception to the rule.

[jeremy2020]

40 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

The worst grade I have seen from an expert for his draft is a C.

And, I put this in the review thread, part of the criticism was not drafting a QB, when they weren't going to draft one in the first place

because they don't give out anything lower than a C. The Bears got a C.

[Integrity28]

36 minutes ago, sourceworx said:

I don't think anyone is disputing that they added talented players. They just spent their first two picks on talented players at a low-impact position. 

 

34 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

yet, the terrible play by safeties last year was a big reason they had maybe the worst pass defense in the nfl.  so maybe it's low impact if they don't suck.

 

31 minutes ago, sourceworx said:

Well then maybe should have picked a free safety instead of two strong safeties.

Adding two safeties means we'll lose games by a slightly lower margin. But we'll still lose.

Safety isn't a "low impact" position. It's a position that doesn't command big salaries, at least not yet, but it's certainly not low impact. Honestly, you can make the argument that the only low impact positions on the team are the ones occupied by sh*t players. If you have a great player at S or QB or TE, they are going to have an high impact. Period.

From a positional valuation standpoint, Safety isn't a smart pick to make early because they don't command high salaries. At least not the average ones. However, if you have the chance to add an exceptional one, you do it.

Adams is view by some "experts" as the best prospect in the draft. There's also data out there that supports his ability to play more than SS. 

Source, if you're going to beat a dead horse, do better buddy.

[Augustiniak]

1 minute ago, sourceworx said:

No I didn't. QBs are an exception to the rule.

not when a guy is sitting there who is practically a sure fire stud who can come in day 1 and be a leader on and off the field.  you don't gamble on the 6th pick of the draft, ala sanchez.  if you want to trade back, ok, it becomes less of a gamble.  but i don't see stud in any of the qbs in this draft.  maybe trubisky becomes a reliable starter, his upside is considered to be dalton.  guys like mahomes and lynch from last year, they need a lot of work before they can contribute.  watson, i know he was mega successful in college, but i don't see him becoming anything special in the nfl.  hackenberg has more potential in a real nfl system than all these qbs b/c he actually ran one successfully his freshman year of college.  i'd rather roll the dice on him this year and if the jets suck they will get a much better qb prospect than any of the 2017 qbs.

[C Mart]

8 minutes ago, Barkus said:

Correct. The jets were not drafting cook, they are trying to clean up the lockerroom.  Cook has had multiple legal run ins and has an alcohol issue. I read somewhere that teams smelled etoh on his breath during combine interviews! 

he also has injury history (shoulder/hammy issues) and fumble issues..

[Integrity28]

6 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

you lost the board with the bolded word.  

 

5 minutes ago, sourceworx said:

No I didn't. QBs are an exception to the rule.

Except last year, when we reached in the 2nd round for a QB, and the board flipped the **** out.

Check mate. 

[Integrity28]

10 minutes ago, Barkus said:

Correct. The jets were not drafting cook, they are trying to clean up the lockerroom.  Cook has had multiple legal run ins and has an alcohol issue. I read somewhere that teams smelled etoh on his breath during combine interviews! 

I've heard/read that several times. Crazy if true... and unfortunate.

[bitonti]

Here seems like a good place to point out that Gil Brandt's top 100 (based off his top 150) scored the lowest in this year's Huddle report grades

He got 77 out of 100 

http://www.thehuddlereport.com/thr/top100.scores.shtml

 

 

[Augustiniak]

1 minute ago, Integrity28 said:

 

Except last year, when we reached in the 2nd round for a QB, and the board flipped the **** out.

Check mate. 

but there's a big difference between reaching in the late 2nd round and with the 6th pick in the draft. 

[sourceworx]

Just now, jeremy2020 said:

because they don't give out anything lower than a C. The Bears got a C.

IMO, the only thing the Bears did wrong was the trade.

They doubled down on QBs, we doubled down on safeties.  Even if we hit on both, they only need to hit on one to be in considerably better shape.

[sourceworx]

4 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

 

Except last year, when we reached in the 2nd round for a QB, and the board flipped the **** out.

Check mate. 

I didn't. I had no problem with taking Hackenberg. He has a low floor, but he also has a very high ceiling. 

[Integrity28]

4 minutes ago, sourceworx said:

I didn't. I had no problem with taking Hackenberg. He has a low floor, but he also has a very high ceiling. 

Fair enough.

 

[sourceworx]

8 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

 

 

Safety isn't a "low impact" position. It's a position that doesn't command big salaries, at least not yet, but it's certainly not low impact. Honestly, you can make the argument that the only low impact positions on the team are the ones occupied by sh*t players. If you have a great player at S or QB or TE, they are going to have an high impact. Period.

From a positional valuation standpoint, Safety isn't a smart pick to make early because they don't command high salaries. At least not the average ones. However, if you have the chance to add an exceptional one, you do it.

Adams is view by some "experts" as the best prospect in the draft. There's also data out there that supports his ability to play more than SS. 

Source, if you're going to beat a dead horse, do better buddy.

Safety is a low impact position when you have no pass rush, and no corners on the outside. Those positions impact the defense much more than a good safety does.

The state of the offense makes taking safeties back-to-back an even worse decision.

I understand taking Adams based on his leadership qualities. This team certainly needs it. But then taking another safety right after is just plain inexcusable.

[dbatesman]

14 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

 

 

Safety isn't a "low impact" position. It's a position that doesn't command big salaries, at least not yet, but it's certainly not low impact. Honestly, you can make the argument that the only low impact positions on the team are the ones occupied by sh*t players. If you have a great player at S or QB or TE, they are going to have an high impact. Period.

From a positional valuation standpoint, Safety isn't a smart pick to make early because they don't command high salaries. At least not the average ones. However, if you have the chance to add an exceptional one, you do it.

Adams is view by some "experts" as the best prospect in the draft. There's also data out there that supports his ability to play more than SS. 

Source, if you're going to beat a dead horse, do better buddy.

Stephen Gostkowski is the ultimate high impact player