Jump to content

Hard to Find Flaws in Jets Climbing up to Third Pick


JetNation

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, UntouchableCrew said:

No, if we draft a guy who is a bust the trade was a failure. That's indisputable. I still think it was worth the risk, as I highlighted in my post. But saying the trade was a success regardless of outcome is obviously silly.

Both are true.  If our guy busts, it will be a failure but the price is so low that it'll be like the Sanchez miss and not the RGIII disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply
13 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

I have no idea what the guy who drafted Christian Hackenberg thinks of this class.  I know what the metrics that have proven reliable in the past suggest.  Maybe Mac thinks Brandon Silvers is the #1 prospect, still doesn't mean that there is 'no flaws' in the trade.

Exactly, you have no idea what his thinking is.

It is fine to speculate and all, but you would be just wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

The point is, if the trade works out for us it will be because:

1) The Giants and/or Browns don't take a QB

2) The Giants and Browns do take a QB but their one or both of their scouting fails and they take the wrong one

3) The Giants and/or Browns don't trade out to one of the many teams rumored to be interested

4) Three QBs in this draft turn out to be good

As @Warfish states, it's luck.  There's no situation in which the Jets identify their top QB and ensure that they get him, yet, at least.

It all very well may work out, I'm not saying it won't, in fact.  But, I do strongly disagree with this overarching point of this Baghdad Bob/Sarah Sanders fluff piece.

It's just conjecture that the trade working out will be luck. We don't know what Mac knows or thinks, same for the other actors. It's entirely possible that A) he believes a QB likely to be there at 3 is actually the best 2) he views three of the QBs on relatively equal standing or C) he has reason to believe that one of the projected top 2 aren't actually going top 2.

It could be luck but you're operating under the assumption that everybody views these QBs and this situation the same way you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dcJet said:

Both are true.  If our guy busts, it will be a failure but the price is so low that it'll be like the Sanchez miss and not the RGIII disaster.

I'm just saying that trading three picks to move up and take a guy who is bad is inherently a failed trade. I don't even see how anyone could argue otherwise. Doesn't mean it was dumb or bad at the time but if the end result is a failure the trade was a failure. I don't even see how we can debate this. Once we have hindsight we know for a fact if the trade was good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Exactly, you have no idea what his thinking is.

It is fine to speculate and all, but you would be just wrong.

What exactly is your point then?  That the trade, is in fact, flawless, as the article suggests?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

It's just conjecture that the trade working out will be luck. We don't know what Mac knows or thinks, same for the other actors. It's entirely possible that A) he believes a QB likely to be there at 3 is actually the best 2) he views three of the QBs on relatively equal standing or C) he has reason to believe that one of the projected top 2 aren't actually going top 2.

It could be luck but you're operating under the assumption that everybody views these QBs and this situation the same way you do.

False.  It's not conjecture.  Unless Mac knows for certain what is going to happen in front of him, which we'd assume he doesn't, unless you think the Browns and Giants have told him, and told him truthfully.

Too your point:

A) he believes a QB likely to be there at 3 is actually the best - This is conjecture.  Mac "believes" the QB at 3 is the best.  Well, he needs to be at 1 to be sure he gets that QB.  If he "believes" that Allen is best and Allen will be available, that does not mean the Browns or Giants won't take Allen or trade Allen to someone who will.  Again, if he was at #1, he's know, otherwise, he's hoping and 'believing"

2) he views three of the QBs on relatively equal standing - This is the most reasonable point.  Perhaps he views them as the same.  I very much doubt this to be true, but it's the only way being at 3 is "flawless."

C) he has reason to believe that one of the projected top 2 aren't actually going top 2. - See argument above.  "believe" is again conjecture.  The fact that he "believes" they'll be available doesn't mean they will.  He still needs to rely on what two other teams do.

Overall, it does not matter how he or anyone else "views" the situation.  Ultimately, for Macc to get what he wants, he needs two other teams ahead of him to do something that is entirely out of his control.  So, right now, Macc has guaranteed himself nothing except 3rd choice of QB.  Maybe it'll work out, but acting like it is a "flawless" masterstroke is just deluded homerism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

I'm just saying that trading three picks to move up and take a guy who is bad is inherently a failed trade. I don't even see how anyone could argue otherwise. Doesn't mean it was dumb or bad at the time but if the end result is a failure the trade was a failure. I don't even see how we can debate this. Once we have hindsight we know for a fact if the trade was good.

so youre saying you won't know until after a rookie plays in the NFL for a season or two if he is good or not? well dang thanks for the heads up on that. Who would have thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

I'm just saying that trading three picks to move up and take a guy who is bad is inherently a failed trade. I don't even see how anyone could argue otherwise. Doesn't mean it was dumb or bad at the time but if the end result is a failure the trade was a failure. I don't even see how we can debate this. Once we have hindsight we know for a fact if the trade was good.

But there are degrees of failure.  This will be small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

so youre saying you won't know until after a rookie plays in the NFL for a season or two if he is good or not? well dang thanks for the heads up on that. Who would have thought.

I thought I was stating the obvious but there are people legitimately debating me that it's a "good trade" even if the player we select busts... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

False.  It's not conjecture.  Unless Mac knows for certain what is going to happen in front of him, which we'd assume he doesn't, unless you think the Browns and Giants have told him, and told him truthfully.

Too your point:

A) he believes a QB likely to be there at 3 is actually the best - This is conjecture.  Mac "believes" the QB at 3 is the best.  Well, he needs to be at 1 to be sure he gets that QB.  If he "believes" that Allen is best and Allen will be available, that does not mean the Browns or Giants won't take Allen or trade Allen to someone who will.  Again, if he was at #1, he's know, otherwise, he's hoping and 'believing"

2) he views three of the QBs on relatively equal standing - This is the most reasonable point.  Perhaps he views them as the same.  I very much doubt this to be true, but it's the only way being at 3 is "flawless."

C) he has reason to believe that one of the projected top 2 aren't actually going top 2. - See argument above.  "believe" is again conjecture.  The fact that he "believes" they'll be available doesn't mean they will.  He still needs to rely on what two other teams do.

Overall, it does not matter how he or anyone else "views" the situation.  Ultimately, for Macc to get what he wants, he needs two other teams ahead of him to do something that is entirely out of his control.  So, right now, Macc has guaranteed himself nothing except 3rd choice of QB.  Maybe it'll work out, but acting like it is a "flawless" masterstroke is just deluded homerism.

To be clear, I'm not agreeing with the article and arguing this is some flawless move. It obviously has potential flaws and is extremely flawed if he's moving up to 3 with his eye on one specific prospect.

I'm just disagreeing with the premise that it's blind luck if the move works out. Obviously there is an element of risk involved because the outcome depends on the actions of other actors which is your main point. But the actions of those actors are not pure chance. It's a calculated move based on available information and his own evaluations of the talent themselves. It can still be a smart risk and not total luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

To be clear, I'm not agreeing with the article and arguing this is some flawless move. It obviously has potential flaws and is extremely flawed if he's moving up to 3 with his eye on one specific prospect.

I'm just disagreeing with the premise that it's blind luck if the move works out. Obviously there is an element of risk involved because the outcome depends on the actions of other actors which is your main point. But the actions of those actors are not pure chance. It's a calculated move based on available information and his own evaluations of the talent themselves. It can still be a smart risk and not total luck.

Luck =/= Blind Luck.  Macc put the Jets in a better position, of this, there is little doubt.  But, he did not put the Jets in a position to control their destiny, and there is still a lot of things that can go wrong for the Jets here (not to say that the guy they chose couldn't bust at 1, but we're talking about increasing our odds, not guaranteeing anything, because that's all we can do).  So, ultimately, we're in agreement that the article is overstating that this is a flawless move.  Sweet!  High Five!  Bro Hug!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

The problem is that there are 2 prospects that project much higher than the 3rd and 4th, and we're not there.

Maybe this is a stepping stone.  Picks one and two were not available from pick six.  Maybe they are available from pick three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Beerfish said:

Well here is the Flaw.  There are two franchise QBs far ahead of the other prospects in he draft and we traded up to 3 at a high cost.

However that is just my opinion.  The jets obviously have at least one of Allen or Mayfield rated as high as the other two guys so in that sense the article heading is correct.

Well that didn't take long ! lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TeddEY said:

The point is, if the trade works out for us it will be because:

1) The Giants and/or Browns don't take a QB

2) The Giants and Browns do take a QB but their one or both of their scouting fails and they take the wrong one

3) The Giants and/or Browns don't trade out to one of the many teams rumored to be interested

4) Three QBs in this draft turn out to be good

As @Warfish states, it's luck.  There's no situation in which the Jets identify their top QB and ensure that they get him, yet, at least.

It all very well may work out, I'm not saying it won't, in fact.  But, I do strongly disagree with this overarching point of this Baghdad Bob/Sarah Sanders fluff piece.

 

What scenarios are in play had we stayed at 6? 

At least we've limited the variables a good bit by moving up. 

* Worst case scenario at 3:  Darnold and Rosen go 1-2, we take Josh Allen at 3. 

* Worst case scenario at 6:  Holy f*ck, we just took another defensive back. 

 

No, it's not flawless, but we have people posting here saying not only are there flaws, but are also arguing it was a bad move

What?  How can anyone possibly argue we're not in a better position today than we were last week?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

What scenarios are in play had we stayed at 6? 

At least we've limited the variables a good bit by moving up. 

* Worst case scenario at 3:  Darnold and Rosen go 1-2, we take Josh Allen at 3. 

* Worst case scenario at 6:  Holy f*ck, we just took another defensive back. 

 

No, it's not flawless, but we have people posting here saying not only are there flaws, but are also arguing it was a bad move

What?  How can anyone possibly argue we're not in a better position today than we were last week?

This guy gets it too.  QBs are always a premium investment and you essentially have to throw the chart value of any specific pick away when your dealing with a highly valued QB prospect.

These guys usually climb up the draft board, especially when there are multiple teams with the need and the ammo to move up.

What MACC has done is ensure that we get one of the top three QBs.  And sure, we may end up with the QB that MACC has valued 3rd.  But when you don't have a franchise QB and haven't had one for DECADES - you take the chance that the QB you have ranked 3rd is gonna hit and the value of that POSSIBILITY outweighs the value of taking a Chubb, a Barkley, a Nelson or your flavor of the month DB.

It's that simple.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

What scenarios are in play had we stayed at 6? 

At least we've limited the variables a good bit by moving up. 

* Worst case scenario at 3:  Darnold and Rosen go 1-2, we take Josh Allen at 3. 

* Worst case scenario at 6:  Holy f*ck, we just took another defensive back. 

 

No, it's not flawless, but we have people posting here saying not only are there flaws, but are also arguing it was a bad move

What?  How can anyone possibly argue we're not in a better position today than we were last week?

I mean, if we have the option between Allen at 3 and a top position player at 6 and 3 2s, I’ll take the top position player and the 2s.  Or, Mayfield and the 2s.  I’m much more comfortable with Allen making me look bad elsewhere than Allen making me look bad here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

What scenarios are in play had we stayed at 6? 

At least we've limited the variables a good bit by moving up. 

* Worst case scenario at 3:  Darnold and Rosen go 1-2, we take Josh Allen at 3. 

* Worst case scenario at 6:  Holy f*ck, we just took another defensive back. 

 

No, it's not flawless, but we have people posting here saying not only are there flaws, but are also arguing it was a bad move

What?  How can anyone possibly argue we're not in a better position today than we were last week?

trading 3 2's to draft Allen who will give Mac and Bowles the 2019 season to ruin is by far the worst case scenario

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CTM said:

trading 3 2's to draft Allen who will give Mac and Bowles the 2019 season to ruin is by far the worst case scenario

The 2019 season would be ruined if we took a defensive back, too.  

If we're going to fail, fail spectacularly.  Not like b*tches.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

The 2019 season would be ruined if we took a defensive back, too.  

If we're going to fail, fail spectacularly.  Not like b*tches.  

imo, if they take a DB and win less than 9 games this year they'd get fired. The QB buys them an extra year, especially Allen who is most likely to tide the pine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The Giants have a dliemma.  I think the only way they save face is to put the number 2 pick up for bid.  They can use the extra picks to make a run this year.  They can basically build the OL with the Bills first 3 picks.  They can pick Sony Michel or Ronald Jones in the second round.
  • I don't think Mac is making this pick.  He would pick Allen.  That is why everyone is so scared.  If you owned a restaurant and your customers wanted pizza, would you serve sushi?   The Jet fan base is terrified of Josh Allen.  He has the same ah shucks look that Hack has.  The Johnsons see Mayfield running around the parking lot headbutting Jet fans and grabbing his crotch, and being able to start by mid-season next year. 
  • So I predict that the Giants or someone else pick Rosen and regret it.  The Jets take Mayfield, and he becomes the king of 9-7, which is virtually paradise to the Johnsons.  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TeddEY said:

Luck =/= Blind Luck.  Macc put the Jets in a better position, of this, there is little doubt.  But, he did not put the Jets in a position to control their destiny, and there is still a lot of things that can go wrong for the Jets here (not to say that the guy they chose couldn't bust at 1, but we're talking about increasing our odds, not guaranteeing anything, because that's all we can do).  So, ultimately, we're in agreement that the article is overstating that this is a flawless move.  Sweet!  High Five!  Bro Hug!

I imagine that the cost of moving up to #1 or 2 was cost prohibitive - if the Browns or Giants actually have a willingness to move their picks at all. The Jets moved from picking #6 in a four QB draft to moving to #3. Doing that for just three second round picks is, to me, pretty reasonable. Landing one of Allen/Mayfield is better than taking a guard in the first and a leftover QB in the second. I've seen plenty of mocks that have either Allen or Barkley going #1 and I think either scenario is certainly plausible. Plenty of the so-called experts have Allen as their #1 QB prospect. If it does go Darnold/Rosen to the Browns/Giants respectively, I think we'll have a pretty good idea that they were never going to trade out, anyway. And even in that case, the consolation prize is pretty nice: either the QB that JetNation seems to already want to build a statue for or the guy JN hates but gets a lot of love elsewhere. 

So yes, it's not a perfect plan but I like it a lot better than standing pat and hoping for the best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, slats said:

I imagine that the cost of moving up to #1 or 2 was cost prohibitive - if the Browns or Giants actually have a willingness to move their picks at all. The Jets moved from picking #6 in a four QB draft to moving to #3. Doing that for just three second round picks is, to me, pretty reasonable. Landing one of Allen/Mayfield is better than taking a guard in the first and a leftover QB in the second. I've seen plenty of mocks that have either Allen or Barkley going #1 and I think either scenario is certainly plausible. Plenty of the so-called experts have Allen as their #1 QB prospect. If it does go Darnold/Rosen to the Browns/Giants respectively, I think we'll have a pretty good idea that they were never going to trade out, anyway. And even in that case, the consolation prize is pretty nice: either the QB that JetNation seems to already want to build a statue for or the guy JN hates but gets a lot of love elsewhere. 

So yes, it's not a perfect plan but I like it a lot better than standing pat and hoping for the best. 

That’s the thing though, I’d give the two 1s+ to get my choice.  Right now that’s Rosen, but that’s fluid.  Getting this right is the most important thing there is.  If you do, cost is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TeddEY said:

That’s the thing though, I’d give the two 1s+ to get my choice.  Right now that’s Rosen, but that’s fluid.  Getting this right is the most important thing there is.  If you do, cost is irrelevant.

At what point does the cost become relevant? Do you hand over three year's worth of first round picks a la RG3 for Josh Rosen? 

And I don't know that the top two picks are available even that price. I guess we'll see, but if they're not traded and QBs go 1-2 I'd think it's safe to assume that they weren't available for trade. It's very possible that Mac got as high as he could. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...