Gil Brandt States the Obvious: Jets Should go OT

[Bruce Harper]

https://nypost.com/2020/04/15/hall-of-famer-gil-brandt-jets-should-get-a-tackle-in-nfl-draft-2020/?utm_campaign=iphone_nyp&utm_source=pasteboard_app

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[jgb]

No, BAP! If BAP happens to be a run stuffing DL with a 5.1 40 time, so be it!

[AFJF]

Been saying this for months now.  It's not fantasy football where you just load up on WR's and score the most points.  No reason they can't get plenty of quality WR's after taking a tackle in round 1.

Absolute best case is Joe D. trades down, ends up with 10 or more picks, getting no worse than Josh Jones in round 1.

 

[NYJ1]

Where would we be without Gil Brandt's very valuable advice? Any educated Jets fan already knew this. Now there are plenty of ding songs on this site that think WR is the way to go at 11. I find that ludicrous unless all else fails in JD's efforts to get us one of the top 4 OT's.

[Bowles Movement]

2 hours ago, Bruce Harper said:

 

https://nypost.com/2020/04/15/hall-of-famer-gil-brandt-jets-should-get-a-tackle-in-nfl-draft-2020/?utm_campaign=iphone_nyp&utm_source=pasteboard_app

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

 

Same guy that recommended Maccagnan.  I’ve had enough of his “advice”.

[AFJF]

37 minutes ago, Bowles Movement said:

Same guy that recommended Maccagnan.  I’ve had enough of his “advice”.

Incorrect.  That was Casserly and Ron Wolf.  And even if he had recommended Mac, it wouldn't mean he's wrong about finding a LT to protect Darnold.  

Those hoping for WR at 11 had better be prepared for the pick to be an OT.

 

[Bowles Movement]

24 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Incorrect.  That was Casserly and Ron Wolf.  And even if he had recommended Mac, it wouldn't mean he's wrong about finding a LT to protect Darnold.  

Those hoping for WR at 11 had better be prepared for the pick to be an OT.

 

I’m flexible with who they pick.  We have to be able to trust a Douglas to make the right decision.    If Thomas is there at 11 I’d run the selection up.  If all the top 4 tackles are gone I wouldn’t reach for a lesser O lineman but take the best player at another position of need (WR).

[Bowles Movement]

30 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Incorrect.  That was Casserly and Ron Wolf.  And even if he had recommended Mac, it wouldn't mean he's wrong about finding a LT to protect Darnold.  

Those hoping for WR at 11 had better be prepared for the pick to be an OT.

 

And you’re correct.   My bad.

[AFJF]

Just now, Bowles Movement said:

I’m flexible with who they pick.  We have to be able to trust a Douglas to make the right decision.    If Thomas is there at 11 I’d run the selection up.  If all the top 4 tackles are gone I wouldn’t reach for a lesser O lineman but take the best player at another position of need (WR).

Right, but we have no idea how the Jets have these guys ranked or how far away their 4th guy is from their fifth guy.  We all fall in the trap (myself included) of believing the "experts" know who these teams like, but if the Jets have Josh Jones rated just a notch or two below the top four (if he's not in their top four), then there's no reason why they shouldn't take him.

I have zero issues with the Jets taking a four-year starter at a program that throws the ball a million times a game to step in and be their left tackle.

If the Jets believe Josh Jones is a guy who can start at LT for the next ten seasons, taking  him at 11 makes just as much sense as taking him at 15, 16, 17, etc.

 

[prime21]

Comparisons I’ve read on the WR’s available in the draft.

Lamb - Hopkins
Jeudy - Cooper
Ruggs - T.Hill

Obviously no one knows how they will eventually turn out to be like but I wouldn’t want to select my 5th lineman on my draft board over one of those Wr’s.


Sent from my iPad using JetNation.com mobile app

[Gastineau Lives]

Yes, all the tackles are going to be awesome AND all the second round wide receivers.

[JustInFudge]

What they should do is take Chase Young, oh wait, he might not be available?  Jeez, never thought of that.  

Joe D doesnt need to do anything other than stick to his guns.  If he's got Jeudy/Lamb ranked higher than the "top 4" OT, than you take them and dont think twice.  

Taking an OT at #11 doesnt guarantee you anything.  Acting like it's the end all be all is silly.  Is it preferred, absolutely.  Do you go against your better judgement to fit the square peg in the round hole?  No.  This team is desperate for talent and a stud WR would be just as helpful as a stud LT.  Besides, just like WR, there is depth at OT in this draft.

 

[bealeb319]

He meant Dt

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using JetNation.com mobile app

[pdxgreen]

"Draft a tackle." 

(Ten picks go buy and every projected first rounder goes.)

Okay.  Drats... couldn't follow Brandt's sage advice.  We have to settle for a wide receiver!  And now Cowherd is gunna rip me us one.  The Jets bad luck never ends!

[CanadaSteve]

That's all fine and dandy for Gil Brandt to say that, but what happens when the top four OT's are gone by 11?  Do you reach EXTREMELY for Josh Jones at 11?  Or do you go out and get the best WR there is in the draft?

Ideally, if the top 4 OT's are gone, we could trade down, but....

[Bruce Harper]

Same guy that recommended Maccagnan.  I’ve had enough of his “advice”.

That was Casserly.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[Obrien2Toon]

10 of his top 50 this year are WRs

[AFJF]

53 minutes ago, pdxgreen said:

"Draft a tackle." 

(Ten picks go buy and every projected first rounder goes.)

Okay.  Drats... couldn't follow Brandt's sage advice.  We have to settle for a wide receiver!  And now Cowherd is gunna rip me us one.  The Jets bad luck never ends!

Zero chance of six OT's going in top 10.  

[Jet Nut]

2 hours ago, Bowles Movement said:

Same guy that recommended Maccagnan.  I’ve had enough of his “advice”.

He did?

Think you're blaming the wrong guy

[Thai Jet]

2 hours ago, Bowles Movement said:

Same guy that recommended Maccagnan.  I’ve had enough of his “advice”.

Are you confusing him with Charley Casserly ?

[slats]

1 hour ago, AFJF said:

Right, but we have no idea how the Jets have these guys ranked or how far away their 4th guy is from their fifth guy.  We all fall in the trap (myself included) of believing the "experts" know who these teams like, but if the Jets have Josh Jones rated just a notch or two below the top four (if he's not in their top four), then there's no reason why they shouldn't take him.

I have zero issues with the Jets taking a four-year starter at a program that throws the ball a million times a game to step in and be their left tackle.

If the Jets believe Josh Jones is a guy who can start at LT for the next ten seasons, taking  him at 11 makes just as much sense as taking him at 15, 16, 17, etc.

 

I expect the Jets to go OT at #11. I'm also out of this "top four OT" mindset that seems to've captured the board. Not only do I think it's possible that Joe Douglas doesn't have them ranked the way the so-called experts do, I think it's highly probable that he doesn't. 

I'd love the WR pick. It's as big a need as OT, IMHO, and maybe bigger. But I think when Joe Douglas is making his first round selection, he'll be doing it thinking about what's going to be available for him in the second round. Will the drop-off from his top OT left at #11 to the top OT he might expect to be there at #48 be significantly greater than the drop-off from the top WR at #11 vs. the top WR at #48? I think the answer there is: most likely. I think for him to take the WR at #11, the separation between that WR and whatever OT he'd consider there would have to be pretty damn wide.

This is also why I'm a huge proponent of a trade down in the first, then trading up in the second, and still being able to make four (or more) selections in the first three rounds. Big gap between the Jets first and second round picks as it stands. 

[Augustiniak]

6 minutes ago, slats said:

I expect the Jets to go OT at #11. I'm also out of this "top four OT" mindset that seems to've captured the board. Not only do I think it's possible that Joe Douglas doesn't have them ranked the way the so-called experts do, I think it's highly probable he doesn't. 

I'd love the WR pick. It's as big a need as OT, IMHO, and maybe bigger. But I think when Joe Douglas is making his first round selection, he'll be doing it thinking about what's going to be available for him in the second round. Will the drop-off from his top OT left at #11 to the top OT he might expect to be there at #48 be significantly greater than the drop-off from the top WR at #11 vs. the top WR at #48? I think the answer there is: most likely. I think for him to take the WR at #11, the separation between that WR and whatever OT he'd consider there would have to be pretty damn wide.

This is also why I'm a huge proponent of a trade down in the first, then trading up in the second, and still being able to make four (or more) selections in the first three rounds. Big gap between the Jets first and second round picks as it stands. 

Agree on the trade down scenario and that his tackle rankings may not be consensus, and that certain OTs like jones and jackson may be ranked closer to at least 1 of the top 4 than most realize.  But if douglas trades back, the reality is that the jets first round pick could well be jones or jackson and not one of the ‘top 4’ tackles or ‘top 3’ wrs, unless he has someone like Jefferson ranked high and trades back into the high teens and takes him there.  

Truth, i expect douglas to field offers while on the clock but ultimately take the one remaining tackle, Thomas, recognizing both positional value and scarcity, two things mccagnan never understood.

[FlightBoyz]

One thing we know for sure. Whoever gets picked at 11 will make an immediate impact. Thomas or Jeudy, Wills or Lamb. Im fine with any of these guys. Starters from day 1.

[pdxgreen]

2 hours ago, AFJF said:

Zero chance of six OT's going in top 10.  

Zero chanfe you got that it was a joke.

[peebag]

I thought Gil was dead.

[PepPep]

7 hours ago, Bowles Movement said:

I’m flexible with who they pick.  We have to be able to trust a Douglas to make the right decision.    If Thomas is there at 11 I’d run the selection up.  If all the top 4 tackles are gone I wouldn’t reach for a lesser O lineman but take the best player at another position of need (WR).

Just to play devil's advocate. And Glenn Naughton has brought this up numerous times. 

When you are talking about a blind side LT who will potentially protect your Franchise QB for the next 8-10 years, what difference does it make if you take him at 11 or 16? 

My point is, a lot of people on here are saying, if the top 4 OTs are off the board, go WR or trade down. Ok. But that either leaves you taking an OT at 48 (or I guess trading up, which is never a guarantee and requires you to give up assets). OR you risk missing out on the next best LT who could very well end up being just as good as one of the top 4. 

In this case there is one specific player who I, who WE as Jet fans are all talking about in this case and thats Josh Jones. Why not just take Josh Jones at 11? I don't get it. honestly, anyone who feels like its ok to take Josh Jones at 16 or as the 5th OT after the 'top 4' but ONLY after trading down should be okay with taking him at 11. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. The drop off in talent between him and the top 4 is not MASSIVE. In fact, I think he will be gone if the Jets trade with the Falcons (for example) with the hopes of landing him at 16.  

[PepPep]

3 hours ago, peebag said:

I thought Gil was dead.

Zeds dead. 

[Bowles Movement]

7 hours ago, prime21 said:

Comparisons I’ve read on the WR’s available in the draft.

Lamb - Hopkins
Jeudy - Cooper
Ruggs - T.Hill

Obviously no one knows how they will eventually turn out to be like but I wouldn’t want to select my 5th lineman on my draft board over one of those Wr’s.


Sent from my iPad using JetNation.com mobile app

These receivers all suffer in these comparisons.    
This draft is deep but none of the top guys are Hopkins, Julio Jones or Hill.   They compare them for style but every comparison essentially says they are a poor mans version of that player.

[TNJet]

7 hours ago, prime21 said:

Comparisons I’ve read on the WR’s available in the draft.

Lamb - Hopkins
Jeudy - Cooper
Ruggs - T.Hill

Obviously no one knows how they will eventually turn out to be like but I wouldn’t want to select my 5th lineman on my draft board over one of those Wr’s.


Sent from my iPad using JetNation.com mobile app

More like:

Jeudy: Holmes 

Lamb: Maclin

Ruggs: Ginn Jr.

No thanks, I'll take the best T available at 11.

[Wonderboy]

6 hours ago, slats said:

I expect the Jets to go OT at #11. I'm also out of this "top four OT" mindset that seems to've captured the board. Not only do I think it's possible that Joe Douglas doesn't have them ranked the way the so-called experts do, I think it's highly probable that he doesn't. 

I'd love the WR pick. It's as big a need as OT, IMHO, and maybe bigger. But I think when Joe Douglas is making his first round selection, he'll be doing it thinking about what's going to be available for him in the second round. Will the drop-off from his top OT left at #11 to the top OT he might expect to be there at #48 be significantly greater than the drop-off from the top WR at #11 vs. the top WR at #48? I think the answer there is: most likely. I think for him to take the WR at #11, the separation between that WR and whatever OT he'd consider there would have to be pretty damn wide.

This is also why I'm a huge proponent of a trade down in the first, then trading up in the second, and still being able to make four (or more) selections in the first three rounds. Big gap between the Jets first and second round picks as it stands. 

Good strategy to trade back and then back up BUT that may  not be possible. So if we are stuck at 11, it'd be best to take the LT at 11 rather than the WR because the talent level for WR in round 2 is higher than the talent level for LT in round 2.  Trading back and up is risky. But if you could trade back and grab Josh Jones and not be able to trade back up and that would be ok anyways.  WR's are just all over this draft.

[Sperm Edwards]

8 hours ago, Bowles Movement said:

I’m flexible with who they pick.  We have to be able to trust a Douglas to make the right decision.    If Thomas is there at 11 I’d run the selection up.  If all the top 4 tackles are gone I wouldn’t reach for a lesser O lineman but take the best player at another position of need (WR).

...position of need that isn't readily available in most FA periods. Or a position where the player doesn't have to be at PB/AP level for a number of seasons to justify such a high selection. A position where, if the player is merely an ok/average starter, it's still not a terrible pick (even if we of course hoped for better).

e.g. if the best player at another position of need is a C or ILB - or a tackle that projects solely to RT - then no at #11. The inherent value of the league's #16 starting LT >>>> the league's #16 starting C, RT, NT -- or (for positions with >1 starter) the #25-30ish ILB, G, S, DE, DT... if you end up with the latter "average" starter, it's still enormously poor return for the pick anyway. 

Not to mention it's just way easier to find a solid plug & play veteran - whether through FA or via trade - at those other positions than it is at LT or WR. 

But one would hope that's already accounted for on the Douglas Board. It sure wasn't for his predecessor. 

[Augustiniak]

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

...position of need that isn't readily available in most FA periods. Or a position where the player doesn't have to be at PB/AP level for a number of seasons to justify such a high selection. A position where, if the player is merely an ok/average starter, it's still not a terrible pick (even if we of course hoped for better).

e.g. if the best player at another position of need is a C or ILB - or a tackle that projects solely to RT - then no at #11. The inherent value of the league's #16 starting LT >>>> the league's #16 starting C, RT, NT -- or (for positions with >1 starter) the #25-30ish ILB, G, S, DE, DT... if you end up with the latter "average" starter, it's still enormously poor return for the pick anyway. 

Not to mention it's just way easier to find a solid plug & play veteran - whether through FA or via trade - at those other positions than it is at LT or WR. 

But one would hope that's already accounted for on the Douglas Board. It sure wasn't for his predecessor. 

Odds are at least one of the top 4 tackles will be there at 11, and i don’t think that douglas would take a wr over one of them.  But i also think he’s going to get calls from Denver and Atlanta when they’re on the clock.  The question i have is, would douglas value a 3rd and a 4th rounder from atlanta to move back to 16, knowing he’s not getting, say, Thomas, who is available at 11 but probably not at 16?  Would he take Austin jackson at 16, Justin Jefferson?  Truth i think Jefferson is nearly as good as lamb and jeudy, but still, is this a better outcome than simply taking Thomas at 11 even if you don’t think he’ll be a star.  

The scenario I’m thinking may have a lot of merit is trading back and taking jackson.  This would give them a young athletic LT who fits the athletic mold they’re looking for, and also give them extra picks on day 2.

[slats]

55 minutes ago, Wonderboy said:

Good strategy to trade back and then back up BUT that may  not be possible. So if we are stuck at 11, it'd be best to take the LT at 11 rather than the WR because the talent level for WR in round 2 is higher than the talent level for LT in round 2.  Trading back and up is risky. But if you could trade back and grab Josh Jones and not be able to trade back up and that would be ok anyways.  WR's are just all over this draft.

You’re basically echoing my post. I understand trades need a partner. All these GMs are in touch with each other, feeling each other out as to what any given trade might cost. JD will have a few teams on speed dial as his pick approaches. 

And, yeah, like I said: I expect the OT. And if the Jets go WR, it’ll be because they have that WR rated significantly higher than the top tackle on their board and they couldn’t work out a deal to trade down. 

[JohnnyLV]

12 hours ago, jgb said:

No, BAP! If BAP happens to be a run stuffing DL with a 5.1 40 time, so be in!

You laugh but there is a chance Brown and Okudah are there at 11,...

[Wonderboy]

2 hours ago, slats said:

You’re basically echoing my post. I understand trades need a partner. All these GMs are in touch with each other, feeling each other out as to what any given trade might cost. JD will have a few teams on speed dial as his pick approaches. 

And, yeah, like I said: I expect the OT. And if the Jets go WR, it’ll be because they have that WR rated significantly higher than the top tackle on their board and they couldn’t work out a deal to trade down. 

Don't know about echoing your post. I've been saying this same thing for weeks.