Starting to Warm up to keeping Sam, Trading to 4 and taking Pitts (plus other draft assets)

[Peace Frog]

If Pitts was just an old-time in-line blocking stone handed TE then I'd agree with some of you.  4 is too high for that.  

But he's not--he's a combo TE/WR/Slot Receiver/red zone matchup nightmare--something we haven't had in like forever.

If I could get a George Kittle or Jimmy Graham or Tony Gonzalez or Travis Kelce with the 4th pick, I'd do it.  He's different than some of those guys but his production could be off the charts.  Think Chase Claypool's production (he wasn't a TE but a big-bodied playmaking WR) only taller, bigger, more physical.    If he runs anything under 4.6 I think it's a slam dunk.

You're not getting a Pitts type in Rounds 2-3 but you can still get some REALLY good WRs in Rounds 2-3.

He'd be our best WR the day he steps on the field.  I mean, TE.  

[Joe W. Namath]

Joe D and Robert Saleh have their reputations at stake.  They have families to feed.  They arent banking their careers on Darnold.  Wake up people!  Give your Darnold pajamas to the Goodwill.  Take the Darnold bobblehead off your nightstand and place it in the trash receptacle.  There is 0 scenario where darnold returns.

 

 

[Gangrene]

Sewell, or trade down a few spots again if you can for Slater but Pitts looks like the real deal.

[JohnnyLV]

1 hour ago, Beerfish said:

You simply do not have to commit to Darnold long term this year. 

Most people on here feel he is totally shot but you would know for sure next year if the gase factor is real or not.

You can still trade darnold this year if you wish and still trade down.  There are placeholder QBs out there,

I'd rather have one of the top end Wr's than Pitts.

People feel you MUST get Watson or you MUST draft a QB at #2.  You do not have to do either and you can punt Darnold if you wish as well.

Have a good draft, add draft assets for next year, build the team and then add the final piece that being the QB.

You make good points but you also SHOULD draft a QB at #2 if you think he will become a FQB...previous history, Sam, Trubisky, Geno, Hackenburg all of those past events are not a valid reason to not take QB at #2 due to fear of failure. A FQB on a rookie contract is the best path (not the only) to a Super Bowl in today's NFL

 

[Jethead]

1 hour ago, King P said:

I've already warmed up to that. 

I'd rather have Chase than Pitts, but I'll take either at this point 

I've seen a lot of Waddle and Smith and would be thrilled if either becomes a Jet. Haven't seen as much of Chase or Pitts but must admit that the case for Pitts is compelling. 

JD take your favorite of those 4 with the Jets first pick, the best OL available with the 23rd pick, sign Linsley and Schuster, and somewhere along the way draft a stud RB (Najee). Do Not be distracted by the shiny object!

[Beerfish]

1 minute ago, johnnysd said:

You make good points but you also SHOULD draft a QB at #2 if you think he will become a FQB...previous history, Sam, Trubisky, Geno, Hackenburg all of those past events are not a valid reason to not take QB at #2 due to fear of failure. A FQB on a rookie contract is the best path (not the only) to a Super Bowl in today's NFL

 

No argument at all, if they love wilson or fields or whoever they should draft that guy now.  For me those QBs have some very nice features but also some question marks and I do not want to make the classic mistake of over-drafting a Qb due to need.

[CTJetsFan]

13 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

No argument at all, if they love wilson or fields or whoever they should draft that guy now.  For me those QBs have some very nice features but also some question marks and I do not want to make the classic mistake of over-drafting a Qb due to need.

Just out of curiosity Beer, but what was your take on Watson & Mahomes when they came out?

I remember reading a lot of negatives on both (not talking about you) leading up to that draft. Mahomes had the knock of being a system QB in a conf that played no D. I was more in favor of Watson because he had at least performed on a bigger stage, but there were knocks on him too.

 

[UntouchableCrew]

29 minutes ago, CTJetsFan said:

Wow....I must have been writing my question/post at the same time you posted this.

Ha, yeah. Obviously the CJ comparison is lofty (he's not that level of athlete) but he is closer to a massive WR that nobody can cover one on one than to a traditional TE.

[T0mShane]

<emerging from a Soviet cryo-sleep chamber after fifty years wearing a Willis Reed jersey and bell bottoms>
 

”Good morning, you Jets hippies. What we should do for now is catch some chill vibes and just pick up another franchise quarterback next year, man.”

 

[CTJetsFan]

Just now, UntouchableCrew said:

Ha, yeah. Obviously the CJ comparison is lofty (he's not that level of athlete) but he is closer to a massive WR that nobody can cover one on one than to a traditional TE.

Exactly. I should have been clear....I wasn't saying he's the same level of athlete that CJ was.

[oatmeal]

29 minutes ago, Joe W. Namath said:

Joe D and Robert Saleh have their reputations at stake.  They have families to feed.  They arent banking their careers on Darnold.  Wake up people!  Give your Darnold pajamas to the Goodwill.  Take the Darnold bobblehead off your nightstand and place it in the trash receptacle.  There is 0 scenario where darnold returns.

 

 

Apparently we have the best offense ever created, best offensive staff ever ensembled and a 1% unicorn who’s prime to have a break season.

^^^ 

This and every shortcoming Sam has faced in the NFL up until this point, is Adam Gase’s fault. And even though Sams contract is expiring, more turnover prone, injury prone, less accurate, has a weaker arm and less athletic than Zach Wilson, Justin Fields and Trey Lance we should build around Sam. 
 

anything else is just silly thinking ?

[68JET11]

Glad to see most of you are coming around the correct way of thinking lol... Seriously though I don't think we'll be trading with ATL, imo, I believe if we trade back it will be to Cincy or Carolina. Cincy can't have Miami possibly take Sewell, and Carolina wants a QB, so I feel those 2 are our best chances at trading down. I'd say there are other, however I don't want to be our of the top 8. At least we'll have our chances at Chase, Pitts, Waddle, etc...

[nycdan]

2 minutes ago, 68JET11 said:

Glad to see most of you are coming around the correct way of thinking lol... Seriously though I don't think we'll be trading with ATL, imo, I believe if we trade back it will be to Cincy or Carolina. Cincy can't have Miami possibly take Sewell, and Carolina wants a QB, so I feel those 2 are our best chances at trading down. I'd say there are other, however I don't want to be our of the top 8. At least we'll have our chances at Chase, Pitts, Waddle, etc...

If, worst case, the draft went (in any order) Trevor, Fields, Wilson, Sewell, Chase, Pitts, Waddle - would you take Smith at 8 and would you be happy with that?

[Joe W. Namath]

21 minutes ago, oatmeal said:

Apparently we have the best offense ever created, best offensive staff ever ensembled and a 1% unicorn who’s prime to have a break season.

^^^ 

This and every shortcoming Sam has faced in the NFL up until this point, is Adam Gase’s fault. And even though Sams contract is expiring, more turnover prone, injury prone, less accurate, has a weaker arm and less athletic than Zach Wilson, Justin Fields and Trey Lance we should build around Sam. 
 

anything else is just silly thinking ?

Its truly remarkable that anyone who has watched him play for us the past 3 years would want him back.  Pajamas and bobbleheads are all I can come up with.  There is no other logical reason.  He is so bad.

 

Good thing we have smart people running this team now in Douglas and Saleh.  They wont be caught dead with this turd at qb.

[Savage69]

1 hour ago, Peace Frog said:

If Pitts was just an old-time in-line blocking stone handed TE then I'd agree with some of you.  4 is too high for that.  

But he's not--he's a combo TE/WR/Slot Receiver/red zone matchup nightmare--something we haven't had in like forever.

If I could get a George Kittle or Jimmy Graham or Tony Gonzalez or Travis Kelce with the 4th pick, I'd do it.  He's different than some of those guys but his production could be off the charts.  Think Chase Claypool's production (he wasn't a TE but a big-bodied playmaking WR) only taller, bigger, more physical.    If he runs anything under 4.6 I think it's a slam dunk.

You're not getting a Pitts type in Rounds 2-3 but you can still get some REALLY good WRs in Rounds 2-3.

He'd be our best WR the day he steps on the field.  I mean, TE.  

He ran a 4.7 when he was younger so now it's possible I guess..

[Flea Flicking Frank]

[Sperm Edwards]

20 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

There have been two TE's drafted top 10 in the last decade, and both were by the Lions.

No TE has ever been drafted top 5.

This seems unlikely.

I remember people screaming for the Jets to draft these two super-high, with similar "but this one's the exception" reasoning:

• 2013 Eifert at #13 (fell to #21 even in a weak upper 1st round, and has been a major disappointment with all those injuries)
• 2017 OJ Howard at #6 (fell to #19; and at least Adams retained a lot of his trade value even if he was a terrible pick for us)

Hey Pitts is supposed to be awesome, and would seem to be a good scheme fit, but a TE at #4 is at least on par with a box safety at #6.

Vernon Davis went that high & had an awesome career, but there was a combine that year and he was one of the all-time athletic freaks to date, running a 4.39 at 254 lbs. 

[T0mShane]

1 hour ago, Peace Frog said:

You're not getting a Pitts type in Rounds 2-3 but you can still get some REALLY good WRs in Rounds 2-3.

Travis Kelce was a third rounder. Kittle was a fifth rounder. There are freak athletes who happen to play TE in the draft every year and the teams who jump on them in the first usually regret it.

[ZachEY]

3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I remember people screaming for the Jets to draft these two super-high, with similar "but this one's the exception" reasoning:

• 2013 Eifert at #13 (fell to #21 even in a weak upper 1st round, and has been a major disappointment with all those injuries)
• 2017 OJ Howard at #6 (fell to #19; and at least Adams retained a lot of his trade value even if he was a terrible pick for us)

Hey Pitts is supposed to be awesome, and would seem to be a good scheme fit, but a TE at #4 is at least on par with a box safety at #6.

Vernon Davis went that high & had an awesome career, but there was a combine that year and he was one of the all-time athletic freaks to date, running a 4.39 at 254 lbs. 

Yup.  And, even Vernon Davis probably didn't live up to his draft slot.  At least not over the span of his rookie deal.

[chad2coles]

The Jets would have to pick up Darnold's 5th year option by May 3rd this year right?

So to go with Darnold, either they pick up that up and it's only guaranteed if he gets injured during the '21 season, which would be a disaster, or they let him play out the 4th year.  Then he becomes a free agent.  So what would he have to do on the field to get a contract, and how much is it going to be for?  Sticking w Sam just seems like a bad poker move.  You've limped in with a low pair, flop comes out with 3 over cards and you call the bet for fun.  You might hit your trips on the turn, but it's just as likely someone already has a higher set even if you do. 

[HawkeyeJet]

If they trade to 4 and aren't taking a QB, I will be extremely disappointed if it's not Smith or Chase.  And if they don't want Smith or Chase, I'd rather they trade back farther than 4 and draft one of the CBs or Edge guys than Pitts.

[BroadwayJoe12]

I too, have warmed up to another year of bottom-tier quarterback play and middling outcomes. 

[T0mShane]

2 minutes ago, BroadwayJoe12 said:

I too, have warmed up to another year of bottom-tier quarterback play and middling outcomes. 

But what if you got bottom tier quarterback play and spent the #4 pick on 32 catches, 350 yards and two TDs.

[Peace Frog]

39 minutes ago, Savage69 said:

He ran a 4.7 when he was younger so now it's possible I guess..

Good point.  He's 20 now.  I was faster as a 21-26 year old than I was at 17-20.  I think most people are. If he trains properly he could run 4.55.  

[nycdan]

9 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

But what if you got bottom tier quarterback play and spent the #4 pick on 32 catches, 350 yards and two TDs.

Why are you bringing Henry Ruggs into this?

 

[Tranquilo]

1 hour ago, Peace Frog said:

If Pitts was just an old-time in-line blocking stone handed TE then I'd agree with some of you.  4 is too high for that.  

But he's not--he's a combo TE/WR/Slot Receiver/red zone matchup nightmare--something we haven't had in like forever.

If I could get a George Kittle or Jimmy Graham or Tony Gonzalez or Travis Kelce with the 4th pick, I'd do it.  He's different than some of those guys but his production could be off the charts.  Think Chase Claypool's production (he wasn't a TE but a big-bodied playmaking WR) only taller, bigger, more physical.    If he runs anything under 4.6 I think it's a slam dunk.

You're not getting a Pitts type in Rounds 2-3 but you can still get some REALLY good WRs in Rounds 2-3.

He'd be our best WR the day he steps on the field.  I mean, TE.  

Also, some teams have him slotted as a WR. Can’t go wrong with Pitts.

[Sperm Edwards]

25 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

Yup.  And, even Vernon Davis probably didn't live up to his draft slot.  At least not over the span of his rookie deal.

Some of that was he was a bit of an asshat when he was much younger; some of that was having QBs like Shaun Hill, JT O'Sullivan, and end-of-career Trent Dilfer. Once Smith started to resemble an NFL QB he probably lived up to it, but no it wasn't all during his rookie deal. 

But even rookie deals weren't such a great deal back then if the player was picked that high. 2006 was before there was a rookie wage scale. Under his first veteran contract extension (while very much in his prime & producing, kicking in after 5 more years of NFL inflation) was only $2MM/year more than his rookie deal. 

[Peace Frog]

26 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

Travis Kelce was a third rounder. Kittle was a fifth rounder. There are freak athletes who happen to play TE in the draft every year and the teams who jump on them in the first usually regret it.

Of course--there are always freaks that come out of the 250 odd picks in the draft.  And no one can guarantee that Pitts will be an All-pro or a bust.  But using past TE draft history as causality is illogical and because Kelce was a 3rd or Kittle a 5th deson't mean that you can find those guys.  Those finds are very rare. 

I get your point though.  I'd just prefer to grab the guy I think is going to be a star at 4--given his size, athleticsim, catch radius, hands, speed.  No guarantees on any of the WRs either and just as you point out, there are a ton of WRs that have come out of rounds 3-5 that are stars.  Too many to name.

[Jetlife33]

I’d take Chase over Pitts. Sign Juju and Linsley/Thuney. 
 

 Chase, Mims, Crowder, Juju. 
 

doubt it happens but that’s at least a formidable WR group. 

[Peace Frog]

2 minutes ago, Tranquilo said:

Also, some teams have him slotted as a WR. Can’t go wrong with Pitts.

I think he's going to be better than Chase Claypool and if you knew then what you know now, no way he's lasting to 48.

Is 4 early?  Sure.  But if he's that good?  I'd rather the big tall TE/WR hybrid than a 185 pound WR.  

[T0mShane]

5 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

Of course--there are always freaks that come out of the 250 odd picks in the draft.  And no one can guarantee that Pitts will be an All-pro or a bust.  But using past TE draft history as causality is illogical and because Kelce was a 3rd or Kittle a 5th deson't mean that you can find those guys.  Those finds are very rare. 

I get your point though.  I'd just prefer to grab the guy I think is going to be a star at 4--given his size, athleticsim, catch radius, hands, speed.  No guarantees on any of the WRs either and just as you point out, there are a ton of WRs that have come out of rounds 3-5 that are stars.  Too many to name.

IMO, if you stay at 4, you probably should just take a QB. 

[Jetlife33]

36 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

IMO, if you stay at 4, you probably should just take a QB. 

I think they should just stay at 2 if they want a QB. If they really like one, don’t leave it up to chance. 

[Peace Frog]

33 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

IMO, if you stay at 4, you probably should just take a QB. 

IMO, if you're going to take a QB, you don't f-around, you take the guy you want at 2.  

If you love Zach or Fields at 2, I'm assuming you don't love the other one so you have to take the one you love.  Direct contradiction to the CSN song. 

Would be a cluster if you like one of them, you move to 4, someone else moves up to 3 and takes your guy and you're stuck with a guy you don't love.

QB at 2 or trade back for as much as you can get anif it's 4 plus other pics, I'm not down on Pitts.

I don't hate Sam so I'm not down on the strategy.  However, I'd take Zach, trade Sam and use the picks to add offensive lineman and playmakers.  

[Peace Frog]

1 minute ago, Jetlife33 said:

I think they should just stay at 2 if they want a QB. If they really like one, don’t leave it up to chance. 

This.

[y2k8]

1 hour ago, Peace Frog said:

Of course--there are always freaks that come out of the 250 odd picks in the draft.  And no one can guarantee that Pitts will be an All-pro or a bust.  But using past TE draft history as causality is illogical and because Kelce was a 3rd or Kittle a 5th deson't mean that you can find those guys.  Those finds are very rare. 

I get your point though.  I'd just prefer to grab the guy I think is going to be a star at 4--given his size, athleticsim, catch radius, hands, speed.  No guarantees on any of the WRs either and just as you point out, there are a ton of WRs that have come out of rounds 3-5 that are stars.  Too many to name.

You take the guy that you believe is the best pass catcher / offensive weapon available and you don't worry if that guy is a TE.

I get the draft history issue at the position but it's also less relevant given how modern offenses are being run. The position is far more valuable than it was 10 years ago.