Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Drafttek’s mock updated 4/8/21 has the following:

Zach Wilson QB

Wyatt Davis G

Greg Newsome CB

Javonte Williams RB

Josh Meyers C

Brevin Jordan TE

Tutu Atwell WR

Keith Taylor CB

Victor Dimukeje Edge

Landon Young T

I would have like 1 more WR weapon in there but I’d otherwise sign up for this now. What you guys think?

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty underwhelming. A few months ago Davis and Meyers would've seemed great, but just not sure they're athletic enough. I'd prefer the earlier pick to have RT upside as it's a more premium position. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, IntoTheGreen said:

It's pretty underwhelming. A few months ago Davis and Meyers would've seemed great, but just not sure they're athletic enough. I'd prefer the earlier pick to have RT upside as it's a more premium position

I don't know why some think this. Maybe it's just because of Lane Johnson's contract, but it isn't true. It may be the case on an isolated team because of a particular player they have, but generically as a position? No.

Judging by what GMs are paying out, and where they typically get drafted (keeping in mind so many college RTs are drafted to play inside), RT is not a more premium position than G. At best it's on par, but if you look at how GMs across the league value them, at least on paper guards are valued more. A large number of drafted RTs are prospects they take with the hope they'll eventually take over the LT duties when they're ready, not specifically to stay at RT for their careers.

Then look at the veteran contracts to see who's valued more. In a time where half the teams have LT starters on veteran contracts making $11-23MM/year,

  • In the ≥$10MM/year range there are 5 RTs and 12 Gs (Vaitai plays RG). 
  • Even some more recent extensions among better RTs like Daryl Williams, Mitch Schwartz, they still fall/fell significantly short of that $10MM+ range. Only a few RTs who don't also project to LT make that kind of money. They're the exception, not the rule. 
  • Even these numbers are lopsided, seeing how LT is like in its own category on the line as a top 5 premium position. Beyond that, a team needs one RT but two guards, and with their wallets they still generally aren't prioritizing RT more than G.

Oakland recently tried placing LT value on a RT with Trent Brown. They quickly discovered what a massive misappropriation of resources it is to value a RT like a "1-B" tackle.

George Fant's $9.2MM/year makes him the 7th highest-paid RT in the NFL, and everyone knows the only reason he got even that much is because Douglas had no starting LT or RT at the time and Fant could've played LT if a rookie wasn't ready (or if all 4 tackles were off the board by pick 10). In other words, his contract really paid him to be a lower-level LT not an upper-level RT, as that's where he was penciled in to play as the team headed into the draft. Same with Vaitai: he got paid more for his multi-position (including LT) versatility, not for being a premiere, top 5 RT. 

There are certainly unique circumstances where it can pay off for a team to overvalue RT in FA or the draft - almost always when it's one of the last puzzle pieces to assembling a serious SB contender, and at least 3/5 of its OL is already rock-solid - but those are uncommon exceptions that certainly don't apply to the 2021 Jets. 

RT is not a more premium position than guard.

  • Post of the Week 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I don't know why some think this. Maybe it's just because of Lane Johnson's contract, but it isn't true. It may be the case on an isolated team because of a particular player they have, but generically as a position? No.

Judging by what GMs are paying out, and where they typically get drafted (keeping in mind so many college RTs are drafted to play inside), RT is not a more premium position than G. At best it's on par, but if you look at how GMs across the league value them, at least on paper guards are valued more. A large number of drafted RTs are prospects they take with the hope they'll eventually take over the LT duties when they're ready, not specifically to stay at RT for their careers.

Then look at the veteran contracts to see who's valued more. In a time where half the teams have LT starters on veteran contracts making $11-23MM/year,

  • In the ≥$10MM/year range there are 5 RTs and 12 Gs (Vaitai plays RG). 
  • Even some more recent extensions among better RTs like Daryl Williams, Mitch Schwartz, they still fall/fell significantly short of that $10MM+ range. Only a few RTs who don't also project to LT make that kind of money. They're the exception, not the rule. 
  • Even these numbers are lopsided, seeing how LT is like in its own category on the line as a top 5 premium position. Beyond that, a team needs one RT but two guards, and with their wallets they still generally aren't prioritizing RT more than G.

Oakland recently tried placing LT value on a RT with Trent Brown. They quickly discovered what a massive misappropriation of resources it is to value a RT like a "1-B" tackle.

George Fant's $9.2MM/year makes him the 7th highest-paid RT in the NFL, and everyone knows the only reason he got even that much is because Douglas had no starting LT or RT at the time and Fant could've played LT if a rookie wasn't ready (or if all 4 tackles were off the board by pick 10). In other words, his contract really paid him to be a lower-level LT not an upper-level RT, as that's where he was penciled in to play as the team headed into the draft. Same with Vaitai: he got paid more for his multi-position (including LT) versatility, not for being a premiere, top 5 RT. 

There are certainly unique circumstances where it can pay off for a team to overvalue RT in FA or the draft - almost always when it's one of the last puzzle pieces to assembling a serious SB contender, and at least 3/5 of its OL is already rock-solid - but those are uncommon exceptions that certainly don't apply to the 2021 Jets. 

RT is not a more premium position than guard.

This is really solid analysis. To play devils advocate doesn’t the “team only needs one RT but two guards” work in both directions? If there are 12 G’s but twice as many starters it starts to get a little closer in terms of 

Also the guards who are drafted and work out stick at guard, but the tackles who are drafted and work out can flip to left tackle over the course of that rookie deal and you’re losing them in that pool of how highly paid guys are. You can have a cheap younger guy covering a more important position than guard and then allow him to transition to the even more important position sometime before he gets paid and pops into the new pool. That won’t happen at guard. I imagine this includes some prospects, not all, but when that sample size gets small with 32 starting RT’s...

Scheme is a factor, too. Outside zone requires athleticism. Guards who go early tend to be the big bullies who are also freaks. The smaller great athletes who also fit the zone well go later. Athleticism is valued at tackle and those guys go earlier. The bigger guys go later.

That all said I would agree that some folks here, myself included, are probably guilty of overstating the importance of RT. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think both of you have really solid analysis. @derp this is more of what I was thinking when I mention positional premium - versatility. I'd rather take a shot someone who can play OG right away, but be able to kick outside due to injuries or development. Guard ONLY prospects have to be HOF level trajectory if they are picked that high. I don't necessarily believe Davis is that nor do I believe he is athletic enough for outside zone. Give me Cosmi or Jenkins any day over Davis at 23. Smaller and/or athletic IOL only can be found in the mid rounds and there are a bunch I would consider in the 3-4 rounds. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, derp said:

This is really solid analysis. To play devils advocate doesn’t the “team only needs one RT but two guards” work in both directions? If there are 12 G’s but twice as many starters it starts to get a little closer in terms of 

Also the guards who are drafted and work out stick at guard, but the tackles who are drafted and work out can flip to left tackle over the course of that rookie deal and you’re losing them in that pool of how highly paid guys are. You can have a cheap younger guy covering a more important position than guard and then allow him to transition to the even more important position sometime before he gets paid and pops into the new pool. That won’t happen at guard. I imagine this includes some prospects, not all, but when that sample size gets small with 32 starting RT’s...

Scheme is a factor, too. Outside zone requires athleticism. Guards who go early tend to be the big bullies who are also freaks. The smaller great athletes who also fit the zone well go later. Athleticism is valued at tackle and those guys go earlier. The bigger guys go later.

That all said I would agree that some folks here, myself included, are probably guilty of overstating the importance of RT. 

It could, yes, but if a team valued RTs more then they wouldn't waste as much (in the draft or in dollars) over-boosting up just one guard when they also need to pay yet another.

Overall I think they're valued approximately the same; maybe a slight nod to the better guards, but it isn't by much.

Some teams may pay one over the other because of the individual, but most guards get paid highly because they're good/great guards (as you point out, few guards also are the next guys up at center or RT, let alone at LT).

Conversely, like I noted, some RTs only get paid more because of their versatility not because of their particularly outstanding skill at any one position. Fant and Vatai were just two that came to mind, because neither is a top 10 RT even though both are paid like they are, though they're not the only ones. In terms of draft slot, I think a LOT of RTs on their rookie contracts are just there temporarily, or anyway that was the plan. Sometimes they end up staying there longer term, even if that wasn't the intent at the time they were drafted. e.g. McGlinchey, Lane Johnson, and others.

And yes the scheme can be a huge factor, too. I didn't see a pattern of guys getting paid more in one scheme than another. In fairness, I wasn't looking for it, but nothing jumped out as a generality (like zone blocking LTs getting paid more or less). Another factor can be if a team's loaded on lower-priced talent in a group, they may overbid in FA on others, with the idea that the whole position group pricetag is still a more than acceptable allocation of the team's spending. It's why I was in favor of overpaying for Conklin as a FA, even when I thought he was going go cost a good amount more than he got. They were going to have a cheap LT for the upcoming 4 years, so as a pair the wouldn't cost more than a top-3-money LT plus a cheap veteran RT. 

Where I think a lot of understating importance is in an outside (or inside) zone scheme, which we should expect to see on some 3/4 of Jets snaps this year, is familiarity with scheme and with each other. It's a lot more of a group effort on the line than the mostly individual man blocking we saw from the last top-rated Jets line from a decade ago. You bring in a rookie who's an individual skill upgrade, and - assuming he's not a bust - there's a high probability he's going to make a huge impact right away if he's manning up on a DT or end. Zone snaps? It's not as clear-cut imo. Now what about adding two of them at the same time? Even less clear-cut of an upgrade, as skilled as the two prospects may be.

You're not going to get me to go bragging how awesome our OL starters are individually, but they clearly played better after that first month or so, and it wasn't because they upgraded their personnel after those initial weeks. I think the idea that any new 1st rounder is an upgrade - particularly when talking about adding two rookie starters - gets overblown. What the line will gain in skill it'll lose in even more unfamiliarity (the newness to consistently facing veteran NFL talent on defense, plus newness to the players on each side of them, and more of these rookies at once isn't an automatic advantage). Long run, yeah it's likely to yield a superior line, but going OL-OL at 23/34 is being proposed as though it's sure to net some immediate upgrade. In practice I don't even think it's a given that the line will be even as good (right away), let alone that it's some given it'll be instantly much better. 

Last, if anything with Douglas he seems to be a long-term planner. It's a lot easier to future-plan if those additions to each position group are tiered. Remember the cluster**** when Tannenbaum had 3 of the Jets' 4 WRs all hitting FA at the same time?  So I think it's attractive to him to plan on adding one new rookie starter to the OL each year. If a second one hits, in the form of a mid or late round pick, so be it but then he's playing with house money. What I don't expect to see is him burning high picks in the same position group in the same draft class. Could it happen? Of course, but I think that'd be a function of who's there & who's gone when we're on the clock rather than by design. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It could, yes, but if a team valued RTs more then they wouldn't waste as much (in the draft or in dollars) over-boosting up just one guard when they also need to pay yet another.

Overall I think they're valued approximately the same; maybe a slight nod to the better guards, but it isn't by much.

Some teams may pay one over the other because of the individual, but most guards get paid highly because they're good/great guards (as you point out, few guards also are the next guys up at center or RT, let alone at LT).

Conversely, like I noted, some RTs only get paid more because of their versatility not because of their particularly outstanding skill at any one position. Fant and Vatai were just two that came to mind, because neither is a top 10 RT even though both are paid like they are, though they're not the only ones. In terms of draft slot, I think a LOT of RTs on their rookie contracts are just there temporarily, or anyway that was the plan. Sometimes they end up staying there longer term, even if that wasn't the intent at the time they were drafted. e.g. McGlinchey, Lane Johnson, and others.

And yes the scheme can be a huge factor, too. I didn't see a pattern of guys getting paid more in one scheme than another. In fairness, I wasn't looking for it, but nothing jumped out as a generality (like zone blocking LTs getting paid more or less). Another factor can be if a team's loaded on lower-priced talent in a group, they may overbid in FA on others, with the idea that the whole position group pricetag is still a more than acceptable allocation of the team's spending. It's why I was in favor of overpaying for Conklin as a FA, even when I thought he was going go cost a good amount more than he got. They were going to have a cheap LT for the upcoming 4 years, so as a pair the wouldn't cost more than a top-3-money LT plus a cheap veteran RT. 

Where I think a lot of understating importance is in an outside (or inside) zone scheme, which we should expect to see on some 3/4 of Jets snaps this year, is familiarity with scheme and with each other. It's a lot more of a group effort on the line than the mostly individual man blocking we saw from the last top-rated Jets line from a decade ago. You bring in a rookie who's an individual skill upgrade, and - assuming he's not a bust - there's a high probability he's going to make a huge impact right away if he's manning up on a DT or end. Zone snaps? It's not as clear-cut imo. Now what about adding two of them at the same time? Even less clear-cut of an upgrade, as skilled as the two prospects may be.

You're not going to get me to go bragging how awesome our OL starters are individually, but they clearly played better after that first month or so, and it wasn't because they upgraded their personnel after those initial weeks. I think the idea that any new 1st rounder is an upgrade - particularly when talking about adding two rookie starters - gets overblown. What the line will gain in skill it'll lose in even more unfamiliarity (the newness to consistently facing veteran NFL talent on defense, plus newness to the players on each side of them, and more of these rookies at once isn't an automatic advantage). Long run, yeah it's likely to yield a superior line, but going OL-OL at 23/34 is being proposed as though it's sure to net some immediate upgrade. In practice I don't even think it's a given that the line will be even as good (right away), let alone that it's some given it'll be instantly much better. 

Last, if anything with Douglas he seems to be a long-term planner. It's a lot easier to future-plan if those additions to each position group are tiered. Remember the cluster**** when Tannenbaum had 3 of the Jets' 4 WRs all hitting FA at the same time?  So I think it's attractive to him to plan on adding one new rookie starter to the OL each year. If a second one hits, in the form of a mid or late round pick, so be it but then he's playing with house money. What I don't expect to see is him burning high picks in the same position group in the same draft class. Could it happen? Of course, but I think that'd be a function of who's there & who's gone when we're on the clock rather than by design. 

Couple quick-ish (if we’re lucky) thoughts. I was getting at scheme more regarding draft capital than contracts. Similar to the guys who get drafted and start at RT but move - you can put draft capital into a RT with versatility (which I agree with).

Was also getting at the idea that a tackle with ZBS traits is valued on draft day regardless of scheme because at tackle athleticism is paramount. Whereas a guard with ZBS traits will go later because the guys who’s get valued are freakishly athletic people moversZ

Also, if Douglas wants to stagger and say he doesn’t want to spend first round capital on a lineman after this year, wouldn’t 23/34 work? I guess 34 knocks into Becton’s option year but 23 and 34 wouldn’t be the same expiration. Possible he takes the whole year off but I think next years OL would be a cluster or he’d have to draft replacements for 4 guys next year and the following which I also don’t expect.

Totally agree OL at 23/34 isn’t a short term upgrade. Hopefully long term if they do it. My favorite move with those picks is going and getting Pitts but I’d be surprised if he does that.

I do think two of the better who fit the traits + leadership criteria he valued last year and are in there range happen to be OL - Cosmi and Humphrey. There’s an edge (Paye) in there too. He didn’t value the leadership element as much early in the draft last year though.

I also genuinely believe that taking a QB at two is extremely risky and he needs to hit a couple doubles in the 23/34 range rather than making a swing for the fences. And first round OL happen to have a lower bust rate (which I’m conveniently extending to 34).

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sammybighead said:

Drafttek’s mock updated 4/8/21 has the following:

Zach Wilson QB

Wyatt Davis G

Greg Newsome CB

Javonte Williams RB

Josh Meyers C

Brevin Jordan TE

Tutu Atwell WR

Keith Taylor CB

Victor Dimukeje Edge

Landon Young T

I would have like 1 more WR weapon in there but I’d otherwise sign up for this now. What you guys think?

 

I don't hate it.  They nailed the positions to a large degree, but I'd rather a different OLineman than Davis at 23.  I'd take a Vera-Tucker (ideally) or a Teven Jenkins.  Getting a Greg Newsome at 34 would be fantastic IMO and I'd have no problem going Defense at #34 if we already hit OLine.  Williams, Brevin Jordan and Atwell would be a really nice haul of offensive playmakers given that it's a Draft addressing QB, OL, and CB right out of the gates!

Love the double-dip at CB and a triple-dip at OL.... but I'd honestly rather have some different OLinemen.  Instead of Davis early and Meyers in the late 3rd how about C Humphrey earlier and one of those OTs like Spencer Brown or Walker Little a bit later?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Sammybighead said:

Drafttek’s mock updated 4/8/21 has the following:

Zach Wilson QB

Wyatt Davis G

Greg Newsome CB

Javonte Williams RB

Josh Meyers C

Brevin Jordan TE

Tutu Atwell WR

Keith Taylor CB

Victor Dimukeje Edge

Landon Young T

I would have like 1 more WR weapon in there but I’d otherwise sign up for this now. What you guys think?

 

This mock is fine. Its definitely not that exciting and it doesn't seem to be very predictive, but I'm fine with it. I'd definitely feel better about our secondary. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, IntoTheGreen said:

It's pretty underwhelming. A few months ago Davis and Meyers would've seemed great, but just not sure they're athletic enough. I'd prefer the earlier pick to have RT upside as it's a more premium position. 

For me, it comes down to the zone scheme - and I won’t lie, I have no idea how to project OL prospects as fits. I do know the scheme has a history of being successful without first-round OL across the board.

I even wonder if guys like McGovern and Van Roten will show better this year.

I think we have to consider WR earlier, and bank in our OL GM to do his job in mid-later rounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/10/2021 at 8:49 AM, Sammybighead said:

Drafttek’s mock updated 4/8/21 has the following:

Zach Wilson QB

Wyatt Davis G

Greg Newsome CB

Javonte Williams RB

Josh Meyers C

Brevin Jordan TE

Tutu Atwell WR

Keith Taylor CB

Victor Dimukeje Edge

Landon Young T

I would have like 1 more WR weapon in there but I’d otherwise sign up for this now. What you guys think?

 

I'm not drafting a running back in the third and I would prefer Dwayne Eskeridge at Wide Out.    In fact I would rather take him in the third.  We could land a quality running back in the fourth instead of Atwell.  If not, I am comfortable with our current group of running backs, especially if we improve the offensive line.  AVT over Davis at 23.  I like the Newsome, Meyers and Jordan picks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2021 at 12:06 PM, Sperm Edwards said:

I don't know why some think this. Maybe it's just because of Lane Johnson's contract, but it isn't true. It may be the case on an isolated team because of a particular player they have, but generically as a position? No.

Judging by what GMs are paying out, and where they typically get drafted (keeping in mind so many college RTs are drafted to play inside), RT is not a more premium position than G. At best it's on par, but if you look at how GMs across the league value them, at least on paper guards are valued more. A large number of drafted RTs are prospects they take with the hope they'll eventually take over the LT duties when they're ready, not specifically to stay at RT for their careers.

Then look at the veteran contracts to see who's valued more. In a time where half the teams have LT starters on veteran contracts making $11-23MM/year,

  • In the ≥$10MM/year range there are 5 RTs and 12 Gs (Vaitai plays RG). 
  • Even some more recent extensions among better RTs like Daryl Williams, Mitch Schwartz, they still fall/fell significantly short of that $10MM+ range. Only a few RTs who don't also project to LT make that kind of money. They're the exception, not the rule. 
  • Even these numbers are lopsided, seeing how LT is like in its own category on the line as a top 5 premium position. Beyond that, a team needs one RT but two guards, and with their wallets they still generally aren't prioritizing RT more than G.

Oakland recently tried placing LT value on a RT with Trent Brown. They quickly discovered what a massive misappropriation of resources it is to value a RT like a "1-B" tackle.

George Fant's $9.2MM/year makes him the 7th highest-paid RT in the NFL, and everyone knows the only reason he got even that much is because Douglas had no starting LT or RT at the time and Fant could've played LT if a rookie wasn't ready (or if all 4 tackles were off the board by pick 10). In other words, his contract really paid him to be a lower-level LT not an upper-level RT, as that's where he was penciled in to play as the team headed into the draft. Same with Vaitai: he got paid more for his multi-position (including LT) versatility, not for being a premiere, top 5 RT. 

There are certainly unique circumstances where it can pay off for a team to overvalue RT in FA or the draft - almost always when it's one of the last puzzle pieces to assembling a serious SB contender, and at least 3/5 of its OL is already rock-solid - but those are uncommon exceptions that certainly don't apply to the 2021 Jets. 

RT is not a more premium position than guard.

Couple things-

-this is that rare post that actually opens my eyes to some thing and convinces me, my compliments

- the George Fant explanation is really quite insightful and a revelation, I never could make sense of his salary until now

- would you rather have signed Jack Conklin last year for $14 mill? Even though he’s much better than fat did we dodge a misallocation  there as he has a lot of years and guarantees

- I’ve read that in the wide zone offense we will be running this year the guards are actually the least valuable position on the offense of line, does this change the calculus regarding the value of guards in this offense?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, David Harris said:

Couple things-

-this is that rare post that actually opens my eyes to some thing and convinces me, my compliments

- the George Fant explanation is really quite insightful and a revelation, I never could make sense of his salary until now

- would you rather have signed Jack Conklin last year for $14 mill? Even though he’s much better than fat did we dodge a misallocation  there as he has a lot of years and guarantees

- I’ve read that in the wide zone offense we will be running this year the guards are actually the least valuable position on the offense of line, does this change the calculus regarding the value of guards in this offense?

Yeah re: Fant, at the time he was signed the only one who'd seen the field - and not with the best of results - was Edoga. So heading into the draft his penciled-in starters were LT Fant / RT Edoga, without knowing who'd be there at #11 or how a ready a rookie would be even if we got our man.

But... I still would've gone with Conklin. He was more talented, younger, had vastly more starting experience, and never got beat out for a starting position by a veteran-minimum level player (let alone just the prior season). 

Yes, there'd be a theoretical downside of What if we didn't land a rookie ready to play LT right away? but that's not a compelling enough reason. Seeing how Beachum only got a veteran minimum offer to play RT in Arizona, I'm not seeing the great upside worthy of 10-fold more money for Fant. JD could've re-signed Beachum at $2-3MM (more than Arizona paid him) plus Conklin at $14MM and still drafted Becton at #11. In the meantime it's a better worst-case than Fant/Edoga; Beachum would still be lesser-priced depth than Feeney's going to be this year; and that worst-case scenario of Beachum starting the year would have also meant that much less OL turnover all at once (in the first half of 2020 we saw the downside of 5 guys who'd never played a game together before). 

As to the relative value of guards, it depends on the baseline. If you've got "good enough" then an upgrade - while still a positive - isn't going to have massive offense-changing results. However if that baseline is trash, which most believe we've got, then the difference is double: both improving above average production and eliminating the biggest point of weakness. See KC signing Thuney for that massive contract, and I think they run mostly outside zone themselves. 

Where I agree with you is I'm not dead-set on omg the first pick after Wilson must be a guard, because a prospect from slot #34 is nowhere near adequate enough. I think the disparity from a G prospect from 23 to 34 is far less than a CB (or another) prospect downgrade from 23 to 34. That doesn't make me right, as I fully admit I'm the opposite of an expert on any of these prospects individually. It's just a sense I have based on the relative draft depth of those positions. Further there's more to choose from: a CB prospect must have been be a great college CB, and there are only so many. However a rookie G could have been a G in college, but often just as well if he was a LT, RT, or C in college. I don't think G is less valuable than RT so much as it's easier to find an acceptable baseline performer, as some just don't have the wingspan or lateral quickness to handle a speedy outside rush when called upon. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Yeah re: Fant, at the time he was signed the only one who'd seen the field - and not with the best of results - was Edoga. So heading into the draft his penciled-in starters were LT Fant / RT Edoga, without knowing who'd be there at #11 or how a ready a rookie would be even if we got our man.

But... I still would've gone with Conklin. He was more talented, younger, had vastly more starting experience, and never got beat out for a starting position by a veteran-minimum level player (let alone just the prior season). 

Yes, there'd be a theoretical downside of What if we didn't land a rookie ready to play LT right away? but that's not a compelling enough reason. Seeing how Beachum only got a veteran minimum offer to play RT in Arizona, I'm not seeing the great upside worthy of 10-fold more money for Fant. JD could've re-signed Beachum at $2-3MM (more than Arizona paid him) plus Conklin at $14MM and still drafted Becton at #11. In the meantime it's a better worst-case than Fant/Edoga; Beachum would still be lesser-priced depth than Feeney's going to be this year; and that worst-case scenario of Beachum starting the year would have also meant that much less OL turnover all at once (in the first half of 2020 we saw the downside of 5 guys who'd never played a game together before). 

As to the relative value of guards, it depends on the baseline. If you've got "good enough" then an upgrade - while still a positive - isn't going to have massive offense-changing results. However if that baseline is trash, which most believe we've got, then the difference is double: both improving above average production and eliminating the biggest point of weakness. See KC signing Thuney for that massive contract, and I think they run mostly outside zone themselves. 

Where I agree with you is I'm not dead-set on omg the first pick after Wilson must be a guard, because a prospect from slot #34 is nowhere near adequate enough. I think the disparity from a G prospect from 23 to 34 is far less than a CB (or another) prospect downgrade from 23 to 34. That doesn't make me right, as I fully admit I'm the opposite of an expert on any of these prospects individually. It's just a sense I have based on the relative draft depth of those positions. Further there's more to choose from: a CB prospect must have been be a great college CB, and there are only so many. However a rookie G could have been a G in college, but often just as well if he was a LT, RT, or C in college. I don't think G is less valuable than RT so much as it's easier to find an acceptable baseline performer, as some just don't have the wingspan or lateral quickness to handle a speedy outside rush when called upon. 

I Heard a great tidbit about offensive line the other day that said your offensive line is only as strong as your weakest link cut the defense as will design to attack that weakest link over and over until you fix it. So yes our guards are trash and should be addressed but I also agree at 23 you shouldn’t pass on a higher positional value to fill a glaring need at guard, better in the long run to take a high upside CB or Edge if they are there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, David Harris said:

I Heard a great tidbit about offensive line the other day that said your offensive line is only as strong as your weakest link cut the defense as will design to attack that weakest link over and over until you fix it. So yes our guards are trash and should be addressed but I also agree at 23 you shouldn’t pass on a higher positional value to fill a glaring need at guard, better in the long run to take a high upside CB or Edge if they are there. 

I've got no issues whatsoever with taking a guard at 23. I just don't see it as the slam dunk massive improvement over the guard we'd get at 34; or anyway that the dropoff isn't nearly as great. 

Also why I think they may lean in that direction (corner, and possibly edge or another LB) because it's gotten out (allegedly, but believably so) that Saleh would like the team to sign Sherman but Douglas hasn't done it -- yet. I don't know what Douglas is thinking, but it'd be consistent with someone who wants to see who he can land in the draft before going in that direction. What he's not going to want to do is draft a corner early, and then also sign Sherman, relegating all his cheap young corners to nickel/dime backs or just flat-out roster depth. It's too early to take those opportunities away by bringing in 2 more must-start corners.

However if there's an early run on the top 2-3 corners by #23, then I'd expect OL or edge. If there's more of a run on OL by #23, then I'd expect a corner first, and come back to OL in round 2 (though don't be surprised if OL isn't addressed until round 3). If a corner isn't taken by #34 at the latest, I think they'll bang something out with Sherman. 

All of this still is further up in the air based upon what trade opportunities are on the table. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2021 at 5:49 AM, Sammybighead said:

Drafttek’s mock updated 4/8/21 has the following:

Zach Wilson QB

Wyatt Davis G

Greg Newsome CB

Javonte Williams RB

Josh Meyers C

Brevin Jordan TE

Tutu Atwell WR

Keith Taylor CB

Victor Dimukeje Edge

Landon Young T

I would have like 1 more WR weapon in there but I’d otherwise sign up for this now. What you guys think?

 

Too early for Davis IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...