How Jets GM Joe Douglas changed direction of franchise in one year

[NYJ1]

On 6/9/2020 at 9:52 AM, More Cowbell said:

JD is getting praise right IMO for addressing the obvious,  the OL and WR positions. Both spots were dry as sand on the roster. I hope like Hell Mims is a legit #1 but a lot of teams looked elsewhere when it came to addressing pass catchers before he was selected, especially  in the second round. That has me worried. Becton i also have concerns with but he was the obvious pick if you were not going to take one of the top 3 WR's. I just worry about him staying in shape and healthy. 

Basically what I see in JD though is a guy that goes in with a strategy  and sticks to it no matter what the other teams are doing. That is refreshing but as mentioned,  we need to see Mims turn into a legit WR, Becton to be a cornerstone LT, his FA additions make an impact and for the team to move forward. It will probably  be 2 years before any of that is realized but it does look good on paper. 

Actually, what we need is 3 decent players to come out of this draft. I've thought about this long and hard and at the end of the day any successful organization relies on rounds 1-3 becoming starters or very important backups. The Jets haven't done that since about 2006. It's no wonder why this team can't compete. If they start doing that and use FA strategically to fill some other holes, their fortunes will change dramatically.

[NYJ1]

On 6/9/2020 at 10:03 AM, peebag said:

Why?  What have you heard in this regard?

Well, I'm not sure if I'm adding to Cowbells point or not, but one thing that I'm concerned about is his shear size. Men that quick and athletic are NOT meant to weigh 365 pounds. Now maybe I'm being a little overly concerned but I worry about Bectons joints? I also wonder about how well he gets out and runs? He'll be asked to toss sweep quite often in his career. I never saw that once in his highlight reel. I never saw him do that at Louisville? I saw him run in a straight line at the combine with sweats on. But I've never seen him do the things the NYJ I ask their linemen to do.

[Philc1]

Douglas did nothing to distinguish himself last year although it was admittedly a very short offseason for him and Gase was probably calling the shots with moves like Vedvik and Kalil

 

I LOVE this draft

[nico002]

15 minutes ago, Philc1 said:

Douglas did nothing to distinguish himself last year although it was admittedly a very short offseason for him and Gase was probably calling the shots with moves like Vedvik and Kalil

 

I LOVE this draft

Gtfo

vevebik and kalil had Douglas trying to make a mark after joining late written all over it

[Philc1]

11 minutes ago, nico002 said:

Gtfo

vevebik and kalil had Douglas trying to make a mark after joining late written all over it

Douglas had been here for a grand total of less than 30 days.  Those moves were Gase and Gase crying to the Johnsons about not having a Center or Kicker was the nail in the coffin for Mac

[slats]

20 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Understood but I think there's less not more separation early when going pure BAP. They're all very highly rated that high up, so unless you're going overboard to push need (e.g. taking the 27th ranked prospect at #11 because it's the team's biggest need) then I'm less concerned because of the high success rate overall that early.

Yeah, I definitely see it differently. I think there's that cream of the crop at the top. Every year we talk about these five or seven guys that are going at the top of the draft, and there's usually some consensus about those guys. Then there's the next tier considered first round talent, and that tier may not last to the end of the first round, but sometimes it makes it to the second. Then there's the guys who could go in round two or three, three to five, etc. I really think once you get out of the top of the draft, the talent is much closer. That there's a peak, then a series of plateaus. 

Again, positional value is part of BAP analysis for me, so the safeties, ILBs, TEs, RBs, G/C's all get rated down a bit on a curve favoring the QB, Edge, WR, CB, OT. So for me to pass on a player from the second group to take one in the first, their evaluations would have to be significantly separated. But if there's a 6'5" 260lb TE who was productive and tests like a big WR, that separation could certainly be there. 

19 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Ultimately my main reason for more BAP in the middle rounds is that as the draft goes on there are fewer and fewer players who'll ever be starter-worthy (let alone above average/star players) and it's hard enough to nail which those will be without handicapping oneself by limiting the selection to one of just a few positions based on need. I'm not saying never reach for the gold, but if it's me I wait until the draft has exhausted itself of legit 2nd round prospects slipping before I start taking chances on raw meat with elite combine numbers in rounds 3-4.

I guess it comes down to the level of "need" here. I'd rather not enter the draft having to find a starter. This year, the Jets had to find starters at WR and OT and did that, but that was a gamble at #11 (and why JD had a contingency trade up [yuck!] in place). 

I'm of the feeling that you should be able to get contributors and potential starters in the 3rd-5th rounds with some consistency. A lot of starting RBs, TEs, interior OL/LBs, safeties, CBs, all come out of this range of the draft. Some of these positions where you're carrying 5 or 6 guys, you wind up finding starters in these rounds almost by accident just filling out your depth. So I'd be BAP'ing here still, but where there wasn't an obvious BAP, I'd grab the best player that fits one of my team's needs. 

18 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

As far as BAP/need at a position like ILB/SS, I don't know that I'm ever drafting one in the top 10. Only time I'd consider it is if this was the final 1-2 pieces of the puzzle, meaning the team is a serious contender even without this upgrade, and this should be the thing that hopefully pushes us over the top.

We agree here. I could make a case for taking a RB in the top 3, but that would center around the rest of my team being pretty set and now I'm just putting a cherry on top of it. 

18 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I'm not advocating reaching 15 slots in round 1 because dammit I want the best WR I can draft. It's that if dammit I want the BAP WR (and not the general BAP) because of an extreme need + confidence that the BAP WR is a good one and not just the least stinky turd, then I'm moving down at least 8-10 slots or more to pick the same player and net another day 2 pick - or the best pick I can get - in the process. And sometimes that means getting below chart value, but accepting it's still the right move because you'll end up with the same player plus another free one (or more). But I'm not taking a DT when I've already got 2-3 recent 1st round DT (or DT-DE) players on the friggin' roster. 

I'm always in favor of trading down, and thought JD did a nice job of it in his inaugural draft. The scenario you're describing is one I'd really rather not be in, though; needing to fill a position that isn't well-represented in the draft. In this case, I'd tend to agree that I'd be looking to trade down and maybe take less to do so, but I wouldn't be happy! If the trade value really wasn't there, I might just have to take the BAP that best fit my needs and move on - probably take a couple WRs from rounds 2-4. But that's splitting hairs, we're in basic agreement. 

[CrazyCarl40]

I feel like this article has been written after every GMs first year in the history of forever. While I am generally encouraged by what Douglas has done this offseason, I won’t really be able to judge him until I see how he handles Gase and who he brings in to replace him eventually. 

[slats]

1 hour ago, NYJ1 said:

Well, I'm not sure if I'm adding to Cowbells point or not, but one thing that I'm concerned about is his shear size. Men that quick and athletic are NOT meant to weigh 365 pounds. Now maybe I'm being a little overly concerned but I worry about Bectons joints? I also wonder about how well he gets out and runs? He'll be asked to toss sweep quite often in his career. I never saw that once in his highlight reel. I never saw him do that at Louisville? I saw him run in a straight line at the combine with sweats on. But I've never seen him do the things the NYJ I ask their linemen to do.

This is definitely the concern with Becton. How long can a man that size hold up? What are his knees made of carrying all that weight? I liked the pick because I thought it showed significant balls. Wirfs was the safe pick there and no one would've questioned it. Wirfs' floor is probably all star guard. Becton's floor is the IR. His ceiling, though, is HoF. 

It's true that he's a very young prospect who wasn't asked to do a lot of things in school. This is why I'd lean towards starting him at RT in his rookie season as long as I believed Fant could handle the left. Let him learn the pro game mauling defenders in the running game without the added stress of guarding Darnold's blind side. 

[NYJ1]

1 hour ago, slats said:

This is definitely the concern with Becton. How long can a man that size hold up? What are his knees made of carrying all that weight? I liked the pick because I thought it showed significant balls. Wirfs was the safe pick there and no one would've questioned it. Wirfs' floor is probably all star guard. Becton's floor is the IR. His ceiling, though, is HoF. 

It's true that he's a very young prospect who wasn't asked to do a lot of things in school. This is why I'd lean towards starting him at RT in his rookie season as long as I believed Fant could handle the left. Let him learn the pro game mauling defenders in the running game without the added stress of guarding Darnold's blind side. 

Although I think that would probably be a conservative and wise approach, that still doesn't solve my concerns (and probably many others, truth be told?) about Becton's knees? I guess my point is, and to your point, he's a higher gamble and therefore only time will tell if Joe Douglas has started his Jets career the right way. That pick really does have feast or famine written all over it. Like it or not, Douglas' success/failure will hinge on how well Mechi Becton plays.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, slats said:

Yeah, I definitely see it differently. I think there's that cream of the crop at the top. Every year we talk about these five or seven guys that are going at the top of the draft, and there's usually some consensus about those guys. Then there's the next tier considered first round talent, and that tier may not last to the end of the first round, but sometimes it makes it to the second. Then there's the guys who could go in round two or three, three to five, etc. I really think once you get out of the top of the draft, the talent is much closer. That there's a peak, then a series of plateaus. 

Again, positional value is part of BAP analysis for me, so the safeties, ILBs, TEs, RBs, G/C's all get rated down a bit on a curve favoring the QB, Edge, WR, CB, OT. So for me to pass on a player from the second group to take one in the first, their evaluations would have to be significantly separated. But if there's a 6'5" 260lb TE who was productive and tests like a big WR, that separation could certainly be there. 

I just noticed if I double-hit the enter key in the middle of your quote, it stops the quote to reply to that section, so it's not such a chore to channel our inner @Warfish in replies.  

In fairness my initial post did say "pure BAP" (i.e. regardless of position, so long as that position isn't FB or a kicker/punter) not BAP with positional value factored in.

Even still I'd be hard-pressed to draft a SS in/around the top 5 overall. IMO it's still better value to trade down for what you can - and if he's truly one of that draft's blue chip prospects, then surely someone else will believe so and give up value to your slot to draft this great prospect. I don't see why we're so special we'd have to value him more than everyone else does. 

With a pick that high even if you are barely getting even 75% of chart value it's still enough to trade down, double up picks in every round, and still retain a late 1st rounder for a damn solid prospect. In such a scenario one could draft 4 SS prospects (including with the lower 1st round pick if so desired), and still have full whole draft's worth of a pipeline for the future at 5+ other positions. That wouldn't happen exactly that way because no one actually trades that much, but it's to illustrate how high the value is of such a high pick (particularly when there are QB/EDGE/LT/etc position prospects on the board). 

I just don't envision some positions (like SS) as ever being worth such a high pick in a sport with so many starter positions. Not even with the benefit of hindsight because there'll always be a better move or pick instead. e.g. Adams was a great pick in isolation given his production. Except when factoring in what Mahomes and Watson have become already (further factoring in the team didn't have a QB at the time), it was a tragic+disastrous pick and one of the worst in franchise history. If we win a SB with Adams, and only if we do that, can it be considered otherwise.  

1 hour ago, slats said:

I guess it comes down to the level of "need" here. I'd rather not enter the draft having to find a starter. This year, the Jets had to find starters at WR and OT and did that, but that was a gamble at #11 (and why JD had a contingency trade up [yuck!] in place). 

I don't think it's very often that any GM heads into the draft with an outright hole unless you have 100% certainty of filling that position (like if you have the #1 or #2 pick). But swap out having to find a starter with a position like SS having a starter who's a clear weak link (or one of the last 2 weak positions). Then I could argue its positional value goes up for an obvious (not pie in the sky) contender.

Lost in this discussion is, absent your top pick being the result of a prior season's trade, or that your team had a unique setback due to the QB and a couple key starters missing 75-100% of the season, how many teams who are rock solid at 20+ starting positions - including all the key ones you can't do without - actually start their seasons with a top 3-6 draft pick in the first place?

1 hour ago, slats said:

I'm of the feeling that you should be able to get contributors and potential starters in the 3rd-5th rounds with some consistency. A lot of starting RBs, TEs, interior OL/LBs, safeties, CBs, all come out of this range of the draft. Some of these positions where you're carrying 5 or 6 guys, you wind up finding starters in these rounds almost by accident just filling out your depth. So I'd be BAP'ing here still, but where there wasn't an obvious BAP, I'd grab the best player that fits one of my team's needs. 

Exactly my point why I'm not touching a SS or TE that high (nor center, as crazy as some are willing to do). It's incredibly rare to find a prospect who'll require such a high pick to draft, who can have such a game changer impact on that whole side of the ball, and the fact is every SB winner can make do without such an investment in these positions.

There are a couple TEs that are arguably worth it, but they're so rare no one knows which they'll be until after they've established themselves. The last one with a top 10 grade who was worth it was probably Vernon Davis, and even he didn't show top value until his 4th season. Yeah some of that's on their QB situation but that only illustrates the point of how he'd have to be a last piece of a puzzle not a building block. 

Kittle is worth it. Gronk was worth it. Kelce is worth it. Except none weren't even 1st round picks outright, let alone had top 10 pick grades. Who had a top 10 pick grade recently? Ebron, Howard, and Hockenson. Sorry but as welcomed as a dynamic TE is for an offense, it's in no way a prerequisite worth the risk of using such a high pick. 

1 hour ago, slats said:

We agree here. I could make a case for taking a RB in the top 3, but that would center around the rest of my team being pretty set and now I'm just putting a cherry on top of it. 

RB is one of those iffy positions, but I'd place it ahead of SS if it was a final position in need of big upgrade, because a dynamic one can make everyone else better. He makes a passable OL look very good, and keeps the D from playing back or they'll get gashed for 5+ yards a pop at will. 

The problem with such positions is if that RB is touted as being an "it" prospect and then he's anything other than OMG, you've moved a serious asset pick that could have totally helped reshape the franchise with a different position up top or by moving down from a 2000 "point" draft pick that has more paper value than the next 2 full drafts from each playoff team. Barkley and McCaffrey are OMG type RBs taken that high, and neither has been part of a top 10 offense. The last one was Elliot, because that team has a reliable+productive QB plus a beast of an OL. Take them both away (like on most top-5 pick teams), and undeniably talented as he is Elliot's not nearly as productive. His value is clear, but is he really top-5 pick better than Joe Mixon, Nick Chubb, or others you can get later? I don't know; they're not on nearly equal teams.

1 hour ago, slats said:

I'm always in favor of trading down, and thought JD did a nice job of it in his inaugural draft. The scenario you're describing is one I'd really rather not be in, though; needing to fill a position that isn't well-represented in the draft. In this case, I'd tend to agree that I'd be looking to trade down and maybe take less to do so, but I wouldn't be happy! If the trade value really wasn't there, I might just have to take the BAP that best fit my needs and move on - probably take a couple WRs from rounds 2-4. But that's splitting hairs, we're in basic agreement. 

No doubt, but I don't think any GM - even a bad one like Maccagnan - would leave any outright hole to fill without some type of certainty of filling it in the draft (if not certainty of a specific player or choice of 2-3 players, all of whom are deemed acceptable and ready to insert week 1 as rookies). At worst they sign some stopgap so they're not specifically pigeonholed with a high pick in case someone unexpected and far more valuable somehow fell to your lap.

And I wouldn't be happy either, if I failed to get chart value in a trade down. But at the same time if my own BAP - aided by positional value and my team's immediate+upcoming need - is much higher than what I believe are the next group of consensus picks, I still have to trade down. The rationale is getting less than you want in trade, or getting zero of what you want in trade, and still ending up with the same drafted player in either scenario. 

[rangerous]

14 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I just noticed if I double-hit the enter key in the middle of your quote, it stops the quote to reply to that section, so it's not such a chore to channel our inner @Warfish in replies.  

In fairness my initial post did say "pure BAP" (i.e. regardless of position, so long as that position isn't FB or a kicker/punter) not BAP with positional value factored in.

Even still I'd be hard-pressed to draft a SS in/around the top 5 overall. IMO it's still better value to trade down for what you can - and if he's truly one of that draft's blue chip prospects, then surely someone else will believe so and give up value to your slot to draft this great prospect. I don't see why we're so special we'd have to value him more than everyone else does. 

With a pick that high even if you are barely getting even 75% of chart value it's still enough to trade down, double up picks in every round, and still retain a late 1st rounder for a damn solid prospect. In such a scenario one could draft 4 SS prospects (including with the lower 1st round pick if so desired), and still have full whole draft's worth of a pipeline for the future at 5+ other positions. That wouldn't happen exactly that way because no one actually trades that much, but it's to illustrate how high the value is of such a high pick (particularly when there are QB/EDGE/LT/etc position prospects on the board). 

I just don't envision some positions (like SS) as ever being worth such a high pick in a sport with so many starter positions. Not even with the benefit of hindsight because there'll always be a better move or pick instead. e.g. Adams was a great pick in isolation given his production. Except when factoring in what Mahomes and Watson have become already (further factoring in the team didn't have a QB at the time), it was a tragic+disastrous pick and one of the worst in franchise history. If we win a SB with Adams, and only if we do that, can it be considered otherwise.  

I don't think it's very often that any GM heads into the draft with an outright hole unless you have 100% certainty of filling that position (like if you have the #1 or #2 pick). But swap out having to find a starter with a position like SS having a starter who's a clear weak link (or one of the last 2 weak positions). Then I could argue its positional value goes up for an obvious (not pie in the sky) contender.

Lost in this discussion is, absent your top pick being the result of a prior season's trade, or that your team had a unique setback due to the QB and a couple key starters missing 75-100% of the season, how many teams who are rock solid at 20+ starting positions - including all the key ones you can't do without - actually start their seasons with a top 3-6 draft pick in the first place?

Exactly my point why I'm not touching a SS or TE that high (nor center, as crazy as some are willing to do). It's incredibly rare to find a prospect who'll require such a high pick to draft, who can have such a game changer impact on that whole side of the ball, and the fact is every SB winner can make do without such an investment in these positions.

There are a couple TEs that are arguably worth it, but they're so rare no one knows which they'll be until after they've established themselves. The last one with a top 10 grade who was worth it was probably Vernon Davis, and even he didn't show top value until his 4th season. Yeah some of that's on their QB situation but that only illustrates the point of how he'd have to be a last piece of a puzzle not a building block. 

Kittle is worth it. Gronk was worth it. Kelce is worth it. Except none weren't even 1st round picks outright, let alone had top 10 pick grades. Who had a top 10 pick grade recently? Ebron, Howard, and Hockenson. Sorry but as welcomed as a dynamic TE is for an offense, it's in no way a prerequisite worth the risk of using such a high pick. 

RB is one of those iffy positions, but I'd place it ahead of SS if it was a final position in need of big upgrade, because a dynamic one can make everyone else better. He makes a passable OL look very good, and keeps the D from playing back or they'll get gashed for 5+ yards a pop at will. 

The problem with such positions is if that RB is touted as being an "it" prospect and then he's anything other than OMG, you've moved a serious asset pick that could have totally helped reshape the franchise with a different position up top or by moving down from a 2000 "point" draft pick that has more paper value than the next 2 full drafts from each playoff team. Barkley and McCaffrey are OMG type RBs taken that high, and neither has been part of a top 10 offense. The last one was Elliot, because that team has a reliable+productive QB plus a beast of an OL. Take them both away (like on most top-5 pick teams), and undeniably talented as he is Elliot's not nearly as productive. His value is clear, but is he really top-5 pick better than Joe Mixon, Nick Chubb, or others you can get later? I don't know; they're not on nearly equal teams.

No doubt, but I don't think any GM - even a bad one like Maccagnan - would leave any outright hole to fill without some type of certainty of filling it in the draft (if not certainty of a specific player or choice of 2-3 players, all of whom are deemed acceptable and ready to insert week 1 as rookies). At worst they sign some stopgap so they're not specifically pigeonholed with a high pick in case someone unexpected and far more valuable somehow fell to your lap.

And I wouldn't be happy either, if I failed to get chart value in a trade down. But at the same time if my own BAP - aided by positional value and my team's immediate+upcoming need - is much higher than what I believe are the next group of consensus picks, I still have to trade down. The rationale is getting less than you want in trade, or getting zero of what you want in trade, and still ending up with the same drafted player in either scenario. 

good points.  the draft is so valuable.  there are no "throwaway" picks.  the best thing, besides getting the opportunity to draft a top player is being able to control the guy's contract for 4 or so seasons.

[Philc1]

Interesting how Mangini gets all the credit for the 2006-2008 drafts but you can’t even imply Gase had something to do with the Vedvik and Kalil moves

[pdxgreen]

3 hours ago, nico002 said:

Gtfo

vevebik and kalil had Douglas trying to make a mark after joining late written all over it

The only mark he was making was desperately trying to improve a crap roster with late offseason moves.

[Warfish]

26 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I just noticed if I double-hit the enter key in the middle of your quote, it stops the quote to reply to that section, so it's not such a chore to channel our inner @Warfish in replies.  

Sometimes a point-by-point reply is best.  

[BurnleyJet]

6 hours ago, More Cowbell said:

I didn't say where he was picked had me worried, it was the amount of WR taken before him in the same round 

A lot of teams make bad decisions, just look at our drafting for example.
 

I dont know if he can be a #1 or not, but his position doesn’t worry me in a deep receiver draft.

I the year JuJu Smith-Schuster or Michael Thomas was Drafted it wasn’t I great receiver draft like this year, but they dropped. Like I say it’s not a concern I have.

[AL047]

GM Joe Douglas did a good job with his first draft!!!!

Is he done? The answer is NO!!!!!

Its only one draft and a lot to do still to convert this team into a playoff team!!! He still has to work on the offensive line, just drafting one player doesn't put them over or signing a bunch of free agents. Remember signing a bunch of free agent oline men doesn't correct the problem. Most of those players are signed to two or three years after that sign a bunch more? That doesn't resolve the problem because the problem will be there again within two or three years again. They need to draft more olinemen not in the first round every year but perhaps in the later rounds. By drafting they can have a whole new core at the oline!!!! It gives Darnold a longer life span!!!!

The next thing to address is the offensive weapons!!!! Darnold needs to weapons to use at his disposal to win games and get this team to the Super Bowl. He needs a #1 WR still to step up and take the pressure off of his other WR's and TE's. In addition they still need a RB that can run and eventually catch a pass. 

The defense still needs work, the need for a edge rusher is a major need and something that hasn't been addressed at all by the previous GM's. They also need to work on the DB's 

Yes, Douglas has a lot of work to do!!! But everyone must remember that one draft or offseason won't put them over to the playoffs. This team has a lot of needs and Darnold has to prove he is healthy and he stop making boneheaded mistakes. Everyone on this board keeps thinking and insisting Darnold is good, well he has to prove it and one or two seasons doesn't cut it at all!!!!

This team is not a finished product and won't be in the playoffs this season!!!