JD Needs an OL Upgrade in the Draft, after that he can BAP it the rest of the way

[derp]

12 minutes ago, jetstream23 said:

Good post.  The one thing I cringed at was your saying that continuity is important on the OLine.  It is, but only once you have good OLinemen.  If JD thought the continuity was most important he wouldn't have plugged three new FA starters into the line last offseason (McGovern, GVR, Fant).  This was the 29th ranked offensive line in the NFL last year.  We don't want that kind of continuity.  There's a new coaching staff coming in as well so the scheme and plays will be new for practically everyone on that OLine be it a veteran or a rookie.  No better time than now to get a young guy in there to benefit from Day 1 of this new regime.

We need at least one bonafide OL upgrade (either at 23 or 34).  A guy who can immediately compete to start at either OG or RT would be perfect.  If it's a Guard who can push out to RT next year, great.  With such a deep OL draft class I'd look to get the second OLinemen later in the 2nd round, maybe by trading up from #66 which will be less expensive than trading up from 23 or 34.  How about an Alijah Vera-Tucker or Tevin Jenkins at 23 and then move up into the 50's or 40's for a solid RT prospect like Eichenberg or Radunz?  There are also lots of rumors that the Jets like guys such as Walker Little, Spencer Brown, etc.  We're not taking those guys at 23 or 34.  I think we'll see QB, OL, WR/Edge, OL in terms of the first 4 picks.

 

 

I agree that the line needs to be helped but a few quick thoughts on the continuity thing. One, there is good statistical evidence that lines with continuity do play better. Two, I think that was demonstrated last year as they got better over the course of the year. And three, I don’t think it was a coincidence that pass protection was better with a less athletic Joe Flacco back there - I like Darnold and did him well but he didn’t do the line any favors.

I think taking guys at 23/34 makes the line better long term but I do think the short term impact of it versus running the guys back is significantly overstated. 

 

[derp]

14 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Yeah maybe. I don’t think he’s seeing the OL as the need the fans are. He’s got his starters and has depth. They all have multiple years starting experience except Becton. That’s the opposite of the CB position group.

Plus I think he’s trying to play Moneyball, and a rookie corner/edge is way bigger proportional savings for a high end starter than it is for guards. It’s also a lot easier to hit on a guard later than it is for a corner, and bet he knows it.

Further the position group is deeper and literally and individual OL prospects can play guard. Not so in the secondary, where only corners play corner, and slot guys don’t fit/play outside.

I don’t think his actions are those of someone who’s going OL as early. I won’t be at all shocked to see it, but only if it’s a value pick he couldn’t get at another position. I’d only be shocked at something like if he took the 5th rated OLman over the 2nd rated CB.

 

I guess where I’m going is I think he slapped on his band aids but he’s slowly going to need to find long term answers there. He might have those answers at corner.

And I know lots of folks think guard is the need and it certainly is short term but like I said before I still only think it’d be a center to kick McGovern to guard or a tackle at 23/34. I think he can moneyball with the current corners rather than spending first round money there.

I think we have the same general outlook but coming at it from two different but (I think) reasonable perspectives. I won’t be floored if they take a corner and I will have been wrong if they do. But my guess at what he’s doing is there they’ll see what they have and revisit in 2022. He can’t really do that with the OL.

Also to a great point you made in another thread, I don’t think he’s going to want to remake an entire position group in one offseason. He’s got two more years of four of these guys and all of them can be cut next year. I think he’s got to do something if he wants to gradually build the line this year. Doesn’t have to be at 23/34.

And the last thing is that I think a lot of corners bust, much like top of the first round QB’s, but OL has a high hit rate. I think he needs some safe picks if he’s going to roll the dice at two. Then again I wouldn’t have rolled the dice at two in the first place.

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, derp said:

I guess where I’m going is I think he slapped on his band aids but he’s slowly going to need to find long term answers there. He might have those answers at corner.

And I know lots of folks think guard is the need and it certainly is short term but like I said before I still only think it’d be a center to kick McGovern to guard or a tackle at 23/34. I think he can moneyball with the current corners rather than spending first round money there.

I think we have the same general outlook but coming at it from two different but (I think) reasonable perspectives. I won’t be floored if they take a corner and I will have been wrong if they do. But my guess at what he’s doing is there they’ll see what they have and revisit in 2022. He can’t really do that with the OL.

Also to a great point you made in another thread, I don’t think he’s going to want to remake an entire position group in one offseason. He’s got two more years of four of these guys and all of them can be cut next year. I think he’s got to do something if he wants to gradually build the line this year. Doesn’t have to be at 23/34.

And the last thing is that I think a lot of corners bust, much like top of the first round QB’s, but OL has a high hit rate. I think he needs some safe picks if he’s going to roll the dice at two. Then again I wouldn’t have rolled the dice at two in the first place.

No doubt, and I don’t disagree with any of this. I think that - hyperbole about the OL aside - it’s much less of a dice roll than the starting corners. 
 

Also might depend on his goal, which again might not align with the wishes of many here. Namely, the best young team he can build vs. the best young OL he can build. At which position is the 11 slot drop off, from23 to 34,  the least significant? Won’t really know until the day is here and we see who’s gone and who’s still there. 

[Philc1]

Watch our best running plays of last season.  Literally all of them are rbs running on Becton

 

forget the pass protection (which isn’t good) nobody can run block other than Becton

[Sonny Werblin]

The draft should look something like this

 

[jetsons]

Teven Jenkins @ 23?       

                                      

[JetsFanShawn]

On 4/17/2021 at 4:48 PM, Peace Frog said:

Hard to blame us.

But I'm skeptically optimistic that these guys are going to scheme protection, wide open guys and running lanes.

I don't think I've been as excited about an offensive coaching staff in decades as I am now.

 

they need something cause help with line in the frist round then you get a QB

[jetstream23]

On 4/17/2021 at 6:59 AM, slats said:

JD Needs an OL Upgrade in the Draft, after that he can BAP it the rest of the way

 

 

#BAPit

 

[jetstream23]

On 4/18/2021 at 9:05 PM, Sonny Werblin said:

The draft should look something like this

 

 

No WR?

 

[Sonny Werblin]

1 hour ago, jetstream23 said:

 

No WR?

 

Not that time. The draft just didn't fall that way, but I normally don't spend a high pick on a WR because the O line and running game are more of an urgent need.

While I like the idea of taking a guy like Dazz Newsome in the later rounds because he is a return guy who had only 1 fair catch in 2 seasons (because I can not stand another season of watching Berrios fair catch 98% of the punts) or Trevon Grimes as a Red Zone target, I do not like the idea of drafting a WR with a high pick because a rookie QB needs veteran WRs to lean on rather than a rookie WR who is just as inexperienced as the rookie QB.

 

[UnknownJetFan]

On 4/17/2021 at 10:15 AM, Big_Slick said:

QB is the #2. OL guard who can start and kick out to OT after Fant's contract is over s/b the #23 (or a small trade up) and I'd love to take a center at #34 if one is there.

Otherwise I want to see BPA at WR, CB and lastly edge. I don't want to see a RB, LB or TE before day three.

From the link below, if the Jets do feel outside of the top 3 RBs there is a big dropoff, then they might take one of that top 3 with pick #23 or #34:

 

 

[jgb]

BAP is for GMs without cojones -- the ultimate shield against criticsm (b-b-b-but he was the highest guy on our board!). The term is meaningless anyway. Everyone has a different list of who is best.

You aren't drafting in a vacuum. Get guys who you think can help your team the most.

[slats]

5 minutes ago, jgb said:

BAP is for GMs without cojones -- the ultimate shield against criticsm (b-b-b-but he was the highest guy on our board!). The term is meaningless anyway. Everyone has a different list of who is best.

You aren't drafting in a vacuum. Get guys who you think can help your team the most.

The BAP concept is exactly that, not drafting in a vacuum but putting grades on all the players available based on their individual talents/skills/attributes, their position, and how they fit the football team. A consensus road grating guard may not even be on the board for a team running a zone blocking scheme, for example. 

Set your board as it relates to your vision of the team, and take the highest player from that board when it's your time to pick. Especially early, when the separation between the prospects is greater. As you get to the middle rounds, you can start shuffling it a little bit when the top player on your board is a position you've already taken, but this next player up better fits this need. But up top, taking that BAP is the way to build a winning roster. You don't pass on an elite Edge or CB because OL is more of an immediate need. There will be more picks to hit that need. 

[jgb]

6 minutes ago, slats said:

The BAP concept is exactly that, not drafting in a vacuum but putting grades on all the players available based on their individual talents/skills/attributes, their position, and how they fit the football team. A consensus road grating guard may not even be on the board for a team running a zone blocking scheme, for example. 

Set your board as it relates to your vision of the team, and take the highest player from that board when it's your time to pick. Especially early, when the separation between the prospects is greater. As you get to the middle rounds, you can start shuffling it a little bit when the top player on your board is a position you've already taken, but this next player up better fits this need. But up top, taking that BAP is the way to build a winning roster. You don't pass on an elite Edge or CB because OL is more of an immediate need. There will be more picks to hit that need. 

You're not even talking about BAP. There are only two drafting strategies:

1. Blind BAP with no consideration of position (this is BAP)

2. Drafting the best player considering fit/position (this is what smart teams do)

Is there some secret third draft strategy I am not aware of? Drafting the worst player at a position of need? lol

When you start talking about factors external to the player -- fit/team need/scheme/etc. It ain't BAP no mo.

[jgb]

double post

[Smashmouth]

On 4/17/2021 at 10:38 AM, Embrace the Suck said:

The moment this guy went down the line sucked...

So Humphrey at 34

 

[slats]

Just now, jgb said:

You're not even talking about BAP. There are only two drafting strategies:

1. Blind BAP with no consideration of position

2. Drafting the best player considering fit/position.

What else is there? Drafting the worst player at a position of need? lol

There's putting perceived need above the quality of the prospect. Passing on better players who would fit your team very well, but aren't as immediate of a need. That leads to a deterioration of the roster over time. 

There are more than two everything, but I get that some people only see black & white. 

[jgb]

7 minutes ago, slats said:

There's putting perceived need above the quality of the prospect. Passing on better players who would fit your team very well, but aren't as immediate of a need. That leads to a deterioration of the roster over time. 

There are more than two everything, but I get that some people only see black & white. 

I think this is a non-argument. Basically, you don't advocate BAP at all. You advocate considering team fit/need but not overvaluing it, which is of course unquantifiable and subjective. Well, yeah you shouldn't draft a horrendous player because you need a guy at that position. No one disagrees there. I think this is a semantic argument with both sides having the exact same position -- draft good players at positions that help the team -- and debating what to call that approach lol.

BAP by definition has no modifiers. It would be like being "pregnant with conditions" -- you're either taking the absolute highest rated guy on your board regardless of circumstances (BAP) or you're considering team need to some degree (literally every other strategy). The degree to weigh player rating against need is where the meat is. But once you're talking about what degree to weigh those factors, you're outside of BAP.

[Smashmouth]

4 minutes ago, jgb said:

You're not even talking about BAP. There are only two drafting strategies:

1. Blind BAP with no consideration of position (this is BAP)

2. Drafting the best player considering fit/position (this is what smart teams do)

IS there some secret third draft strategy I am not aware of? Drafting the worst player at a position of need? lol

When you start talking about factors external to the player -- fit/team need/scheme/etc. It ain't BAP no mo.

BAP only really comes into play in round 1 and early in round 1 to be exact. As you go into rounds 2 3 ... there are so many possibilities how can you justify who the BAP actually is and its a moot point since at that stage you need to be filling holes.

As an example if you are picking 4th over all and are in need of lets say WR do you pass on a Lawrence Taylor ? 

[jgb]

7 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

BAP only really comes into play in round 1 and early in round 1 to be exact. As you go into rounds 2 3 ... there are so many possibilities how can you justify who the BAP actually is and its a moot point since at that stage you need to be filling holes.

As an example if you are picking 4th over all and are in need of lets say WR do you pass on a Lawrence Taylor ? 

The cone of variance and error expands rapidly the deeper in the draft you go. You are 100% correct.

The biggest problem I have with debating BAP is that the proponents for it always point to players whose outcomes we already know to advocate for the strategy. Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan, George Rodgers over Lawrence Taylor... 

With a crystal ball, any draft strategy works!

[Augustiniak]

3 minutes ago, jgb said:

The cone of variance and error expands rapidly the deeper in the draft you go. You are 100% correct.

The biggest problem I have with debating BAP is that the proponents for it always point to players whose outcomes we already know to advocate for the strategy. Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan, George Rodgers over Lawrence Taylor... 

With a crystal ball, any draft strategy works!

The biggest problem with BAP is that it’s so entirely subjective.  It’s not a 40 time where you can objectively compare players.  So you can always justify/defend taking a guy based on BAP, because you never have to show anyone your draft board to prove it.  It’s just a black box, a shield to defend a pick that seemingly doesn’t make sense when a team’s needs are not addressed.

[slats]

11 minutes ago, jgb said:

I think this is a non-argument. Basically, you don't advocate BAP at all. You advocate considering team fit/need but not overvaluing it, which is of course unquantifiable and subjective. Well, yeah you shouldn't draft a horrendous player because you need a guy at that position. No one disagrees there. I think this is a semantic argument with both sides having the exact same position -- draft good players at positions that help the team -- and debating what to call that approach lol.

BAP by definition has no modifiers. It would be like being "pregnant with conditions" -- you're either taking the absolute highest rated guy on your board regardless of circumstances (BAP) or you're considering team need to some degree (literally every other strategy). The degree to weigh player rating against need is where the meat is. But once you're talking about what degree to weigh those factors, you're outside of BAP.

I'm not gonna play semantics with you. I don't care how you define BAP (and don't believe that anyone actually defines it in the cold black & white way in which you're trying to present it). A lot of people would put need first, and then draft a lesser prospect because their priority was to fill that need, not draft the best player for the team. We have a lot of that here, with people wanting the Jets to go QB-OL-RB-OL regardless of any big board. Doesn't matter if the Edge or CB is a better prospect, I want a star RB because this is 1975! 

[sourceworx]

42 minutes ago, jgb said:

BAP is for GMs without cojones -- the ultimate shield against criticsm (b-b-b-but he was the highest guy on our board!). The term is meaningless anyway. Everyone has a different list of who is best.

You aren't drafting in a vacuum. Get guys who you think can help your team the most.

Couldn't agree more. Mac always went BAP because he was worried about what Mel Kiper was going to say about his picks, and look where that got us.

What's encouraging about JD is that he gave Kiper the middle finger when he traded Darnold.

[Biggs]

There's a value aspect to the draft that has to be part of the equation.  BAP without taking into consideration the value of the position when you have a rookie pay scale changes the old axiom of BAP.  

When you look at the draft experts rating Pitts higher than Zach Wilson for example that's not a very good reason to take him if you have an elite QB tied up for potential 5 years at a very low salary vs. tying up a TE for 5 years at a comparatively high salary.  

When Mac drafted Adams he took the BAP on his board.  It was moronic.  He overpaid him and lost out on 2 elite QB's we could have had at a bargain.   Even if in hindsight they had turned out to be busts it still made sense to draft the QB.  

[Integrity28]

Need a dominant center, then move McGivern to OG where he’s better. He’s also better suited to zbs.

Need a true right tackle, or an OT/OG, then replace Fant at RT - or have the rookie start inside keeping VanRoten and Alex Lewis as reserves. Another scenario is to play rookie at RT and move Fant inside / I can’t remember if he’s played inside or not. He may just be suited to being a swing tackle.

Any other OL picks are bonus, but the two above are “must haves”.

Becton / McGovern / Rookie / Rookie / Fant

Or something like that.

[Biggs]

35 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

BAP only really comes into play in round 1 and early in round 1 to be exact. As you go into rounds 2 3 ... there are so many possibilities how can you justify who the BAP actually is and its a moot point since at that stage you need to be filling holes.

As an example if you are picking 4th over all and are in need of lets say WR do you pass on a Lawrence Taylor ? 

It doesn't come into play in round 1.  Value offsets BAP more in round 1 than in round 2, etc., etc., etc.   There is a rookie wage scale that locks up the round 1 pick more than the next rounds and it slides.  That means a high value positional player gets more weight in round 1 and round 2 than in round 3.  Trade value goes up for positions of value in today's NFL.  That offsets BAP.  

Barkley who the Giants took at 2 was proably BAP on every NFL board.  If someone was enamored with Josh Allen as potential elite NFL QB, they likely take him over Barkley.

[slats]

15 minutes ago, Biggs said:

There's a value aspect to the draft that has to be part of the equation.  BAP without taking into consideration the value of the position when you have a rookie pay scale changes the old axiom of BAP.  

When you look at the draft experts rating Pitts higher than Zach Wilson for example that's not a very good reason to take him if you have an elite QB tied up for potential 5 years at a very low salary vs. tying up a TE for 5 years at a comparatively high salary.  

When Mac drafted Adams he took the BAP on his board.  It was moronic.  He overpaid him and lost out on 2 elite QB's we could have had at a bargain.   Even if in hindsight they had turned out to be busts it still made sense to draft the QB.  

A GM needs to be able to put together a board that takes positional value into consideration. Yes, a safety that high was absolutely moronic. The even dumber thing is that he would've taken Fournette if he had been the LSU player to drop. Can't be using premium picks on non-premium positions, and that should be fundamental when it comes to putting together your big board. 

[Biggs]

20 minutes ago, slats said:

A GM needs to be able to put together a board that takes positional value into consideration. Yes, a safety that high was absolutely moronic. The even dumber thing is that he would've taken Fournette if he had been the LSU player to drop. Can't be using premium picks on non-premium positions, and that should be fundamental when it comes to putting together your big board. 

Last year George Kittle TE signed a deal that guarantees him 40 million and is 75 million for 5 years.  Dak Prescott QB signed a deal for 4 years 160 million with 120 million guaranteed.

Do you really want to sign Pitts for the same money as Zach Wilson even if you have him rated higher?

[slats]

13 minutes ago, Biggs said:

Last year George Kittle TE signed a deal that guarantees him 40 million and is 75 million for 5 years.  Dak Prescott QB signed a deal for 4 years 160 million with 120 million guaranteed.

Do you really want to sign Pitts for the same money as Zach Wilson even if you have him rated higher?

Pitts is the real story of this draft. If you're drafting a TE that high, you're expecting high-end WR-type production from that player. That's a huge gamble, and it seems to me that these bets that "this is no ordinary TE, RB, S... " generally fall a little flat. 

[Biggs]

5 minutes ago, slats said:

Pitts is the real story of this draft. If you're drafting a TE that high, you're expecting high-end WR-type production from that player. That's a huge gamble, and it seems to me that these bets that "this is no ordinary TE, RB, S... " generally fall a little flat. 

Which is why Atlanta should either take one of the QB's or trade back to a team that wants one of the QB's.

[jgb]

1 hour ago, slats said:

I'm not gonna play semantics with you. I don't care how you define BAP (and don't believe that anyone actually defines it in the cold black & white way in which you're trying to present it). A lot of people would put need first, and then draft a lesser prospect because their priority was to fill that need, not draft the best player for the team. We have a lot of that here, with people wanting the Jets to go QB-OL-RB-OL regardless of any big board. Doesn't matter if the Edge or CB is a better prospect, I want a star RB because this is 1975! 

[jgb]

1 hour ago, Augustiniak said:

The biggest problem with BAP is that it’s so entirely subjective.  It’s not a 40 time where you can objectively compare players.  So you can always justify/defend taking a guy based on BAP, because you never have to show anyone your draft board to prove it.  It’s just a black box, a shield to defend a pick that seemingly doesn’t make sense when a team’s needs are not addressed.

Bingo. BAP doesn't actually exist. Proponents just expand the definition to fit literally every draft strategy. Look at what BAP stands for "Best Available Player." There are no GMs that blindly pick on ranking without considering the team's situation just like there are none that ignore player quality and draft purely for need. If you consider factors -- any factors -- beyond the player himself, it is not BAP. The BAP people aren't even arguing for BAP and the counter-argument they pretend exists does not. Everyone agrees that these things need to be balanced. Some people just want to convince themselves there is a debate (and that they are right) and thus the strawman is constructed.

And you are right when a GM says "he was the highest guy on our board," it's a shield against criticism. Say what you will about John Dorsey and Gettlemen but those are GMs with cajones and the courage of their convictions. Everyone is saying Darnold? Screw the pundits, I like Mayfield/Barkley and I do not need to nor will I justify my choice to the media or anyone else. Come talk to me in 12 months.

[Sperm Edwards]

34 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

Need a dominant center, then move McGivern to OG where he’s better. He’s also better suited to zbs.

Need a true right tackle, or an OT/OG, then replace Fant at RT - or have the rookie start inside keeping VanRoten and Alex Lewis as reserves. Another scenario is to play rookie at RT and move Fant inside / I can’t remember if he’s played inside or not. He may just be suited to being a swing tackle.

Any other OL picks are bonus, but the two above are “must haves”.

Becton / McGovern / Rookie / Rookie / Fant

Or something like that.

Prepare to be more disappointed than a girl hooking up with a mid-teens Ape . 

If the goal is instant-upgrade, no rookie HC and his rookie OC are going to start two rookie iOLs, with at least one in a new position and likely in a new scheme and playing next to another rookie and both blocking for a rookie QB.

It might look like a nice plan on paper, but it's not happening on the field. Not on the Jets and not on any team. Not unless there are a couple injuries, anyway, and even in that case they'd probably keep McGovern at center so the rookies aren't next to each other. 

Also Lewis is probably going to be starting or he's getting cut. There are no $6MM backup guards, and with Feeney's contract guaranteed this year, even if they got Lewis to take a 50% pay cut they're not rostering three $3-4MM backup iOLmen.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, slats said:

Pitts is the real story of this draft. If you're drafting a TE that high, you're expecting high-end WR-type production from that player. That's a huge gamble, and it seems to me that these bets that "this is no ordinary TE, RB, S... " generally fall a little flat. 

Kind of how I feel. 99% of the time, all I'm reflexively seeing is a TE and I wouldn't take one in the top 10 (let alone effectively trade a 1st this year and next year, and probably a 3rd this year or a 2nd next year, to move up to take one). I'll miss out on a great one every once in a while, but I'll also miss out on the 2 of 3 that range from nowhere-near-as-good-as-advertised to outright bust. In 2017 the guy I heard we had to draft was an elite playmaker future all-pro named OJ Howard. Yeah, exactly. 

It's unusual, though, to have someone this heralded alone, and Pitts is getting more love than Howard got back then. Only one who was in this ballpark was probably Vernon Davis after he ran the 40 in 4.38. 

But then on top of his hype - which seems justified - add to it that

• the Jets' TE is on a 3-year run as a huge letdown, and is a UFA after the season anyway.
• Further add that the team already has its 3 WRs, with two of them still very young & locked up for at least 3 more seasons.
• Further beyond that, how much the TE position was featured in Saleh-LaFleur's last gig. 
• Then on top of all that, that the Jets would not only still have more than a regular arsenal of picks after round 1 this year, but all our picks next year, too. 

I was discussing with @derp and agree even if we were talking an identically-rated WR vs Pitts, on the Jets they'd probably realize a greater net gain with the TE, even though WR is an innately premium position and TE isn't.

So it's unusual. Given the unique talent, the need, and the wealth of picks the team would still have anyway, I could go for this despite his nominal position. 

[rangerous]

2 hours ago, slats said:

The BAP concept is exactly that, not drafting in a vacuum but putting grades on all the players available based on their individual talents/skills/attributes, their position, and how they fit the football team. A consensus road grating guard may not even be on the board for a team running a zone blocking scheme, for example. 

Set your board as it relates to your vision of the team, and take the highest player from that board when it's your time to pick. Especially early, when the separation between the prospects is greater. As you get to the middle rounds, you can start shuffling it a little bit when the top player on your board is a position you've already taken, but this next player up better fits this need. But up top, taking that BAP is the way to build a winning roster. You don't pass on an elite Edge or CB because OL is more of an immediate need. There will be more picks to hit that need. 

agree. the team's needs have to be considered but just as important is the relative grade of the player. and position.  get good players and the coaches will put them in the right place.  interesting that in saleh's press conference last week he wasn't so concerned about getting 3-4 or 4-3 dlinemen.  if they can play football they'll learn the position.  a know team is strictly one thing or another these days.