draft strategy, where's the value at 23?

[CSNY]

43 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I disagree with the premise that guards (guards, plural) must be only found in round 1, or even that this is the norm among playoff teams, and naught but tragedy is guaranteed to ensue if there's deviation from that strategy. FFS half the probowl guards were taken after round 2; it's totally unlike LTs where it's really hard to get the same once you're into the mid-rounds, because they just get scooped up earlier in the draft because everybody wants some, but the Jets don't need a LT. 

It's not as simple as a cookbook recipe where: draft guard early, then profit. This team needs a lot more than that, and it's too overly-simplistic to suggest that the defense doesn't have a major influence on the offense and how predictable the playcalling then becomes.

I keep using this example, but it's a good one. Go look at the Chiefs' starting OL from week 6 onward (they lost Osemele in week 5, and then Schwartz got knocked out just after the week 6 game got underway) through the AFCCG. With their remaining healthy starters in, they didn't lose another game from from week 6 until the SB. Over that span, they had one offensive lineman who was even average, never mind above-average. One. They beat Tampa with that OL in late November. Once Fisher went down & they were now down to two backup tackles and a backup + two below-average iOL starters, then that became too much (especially up against a defense that good that was firing on all cylinders).

If the Jets' second pick wasn't until round 3, like after they drafted Darnold, I'd probably feel differently. That isn't the case - by a long shot - so I don't think at 23 they're required to be so pigeonholed at guard no matter how the draft unfolds. If the value's there, as there's a run on edge/cb before OL, then by all means take an OL at 23. If a unique opportunity presents itself, even move up for an OL pick.

So I don't at all object to taking an OL prospect at 23. Just that it isn't 100% automatic the best move for the team to make no matter what. See who's on the board first.

Teams that consider themselves so desperate for a single position address perceived holes in FA; they don't force their hands in the draft a month before they even know who'll be there. 

Sperm I think you are basically agreeing with me given the KC reference. You saw what happened in the Super Bowl with a crap o line even with Mahomes at QB. Did not say o line men have to be taken in the first round to be good as there are many that have been taken in later rounds or even switched sides of the ball but all things being equal on this team and seeing that Zach will be our new rookie QB if you have a corner and guard rated equally in the upcoming draft I feel that you take the linemen. Don’t want the same thing happening to Wilson that happened to Darnold

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, Beerfish said:

And yet the Jets did NOTHING for oline or CB in FA this past year.

Where they did add significant Free agents was at pass rusher, LB, WR

The Jets (once again as always) spent more Fa resources on the defense than the offense and struck out on any oline FA's

To 'balance' this team build wise we need to draft oline and CB's if you want balance.

Also if you goal is to treat the oline like the jets have done the past 15 years then you use the ho hum we can get good oline later.  The oline has not only been grossly neglected by this team over the last 15 years, it has been a big part of the offense and QBs failing as well.

If I am going to take a chance on using a high pick on a position group then at this point in  time for the NY Jets I will err going oline rather than any other position group.

I've already chimed in as to why I think that is. What it paints a picture of being is he seems to think he's now more or less set with a starting OL heading into the draft. The only OL he added was Feeney, who's arguably more like expensive C/G depth than a penciled-in starter. 

By holding off on Sherman thus far - which is an obvious fit and the player seems to be amenable to following Saleh here - what it looks like he's doing is going CB no later than 34. If the value isn't there (if he's missed out on a prior CB run) and the value's rather at OL + EDGE for example, then there's a good chance he's going to sign Sherman; but see what the draft opportunity is first).

Without knowing who'll be there & who won't, my guess is the top 2 picks after Wilson are CB and OL, but I think CB is a safer lock at one of those two slots based on what he's done & what he hasn't done in FA. The only thing that'd baffle me is if he didn't go OL at all by the end of day 2. However it would be mildly surprising, but not particularly shocking, if he held off on OL until round 3.

And what do you mean my goal? None of the above suggests I'd have done the same thing as Douglas; I'm certainly not his personal advocate, and think his 2019-2020 FA moves & non-moves have been a collective train wreck. A combination of hedges & attempts at showing he's smarter than everyone else. 

If it were me? In the first place I wouldn't have signed Fant - a backup swing tackle who couldn't beat out a guy who had to settle for a league-minimum contract as a UFA - at a preposterous $9MM per season. I'd have made a strong play for Conklin and re-signed Beachum for even $2-2.5MM (double what Arizona paid him), and would have still taken a tackle over a WR at 11, right or wrong. I'd for sure do that before paying an annual rate of some $20MM for the Fant-Lewis-GVR trio as he did. Once that opportunity from 2020 had passed, then this FA period assuming Thuney wasn't ever choosing the Jets over KC then I'd probably have made a play for Zeitler (who wouldn't cost any more than Lewis + Feeney (or Lewis + GVR), whose cap hit this year is about the same as Feeney's. It's a Fant-like pussy move from someone who seems more worried about versatility and depth than assembling the best set of starters he can put on the field.

So there's certainly no goal of desiring a poor OL.

Rather, I'm pointing out where the team's greatest weakness is right now, and weighing that against how easy & how hard it is to improve at those positions outside of the top 35 picks. It's much harder to find a top-level CB starter in round 3 than a guard, seeing how like half of the probowl/all-pro guards are found in round 3 or later, but basically no PB/AP corners who were drafted in round 3 or later in the past decade).

It's not that guard isn't important; it is. It's that it's not imperative to take one so early, just for the sake of doing so, as opposed to merely the 2nd pick in round 2. If the Jets were without another high pick at #34 there's a good chance I'd feel differently, but they do have that pick. 

It's also just opinion based on this draft class (though I'm no expert on any of the individuals).

The strength of this OL class isn't nearly at 23 and higher, followed by some major drop-off before our next pick at 34. It seems a lot more like there are the top 2-3 tackles, all of whom will probably be long gone by pick 23, after which there are like 5-6 OL prospects where it's purely subjective which is the 4th-ranked OLman and which is 7th-ranked. e.g. some have Tucker in the late teens; others have him at 40. Some here want Humphrey at 23; most have him lasting to at least pick 50. There's no set "_____ is the obvious 4th best OL, then _____ is the 5th best, etc." That's my issue with rushing to pigeonhole the team into OL at 23 no matter who's there and who's gone. 

If there's a run on corners & edge rushers, leaving a top-3 OL there at 23 (or worth moving up a few slots to get), then  absolutely pounce on him. But if it pans out another way, I'd rather have this draft's 2nd corner and 6th OL prospects than its 5th corner and 5th OL prospects (or never mind it's entirely possible that the same person you'd want to draft at 23 is still there at 34 anyway; whereas if the #2 corner is still there somehow, he's got no chance of lasting all the way to 34). 

All I'm saying is it depends on how things unfold, not that they should be avoiding OL at 23 no matter what. Not even close. 

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, CSNY said:

Sperm I think you are basically agreeing with me given the KC reference. You saw what happened in the Super Bowl with a crap o line even with Mahomes at QB. Did not say o line men have to be taken in the first round to be good as there are many that have been taken in later rounds or even switched sides of the ball but all things being equal on this team and seeing that Zach will be our new rookie QB if you have a corner and guard rated equally in the upcoming draft I feel that you take the linemen. Don’t want the same thing happening to Wilson that happened to Darnold

Here's the thing, though: that's a whitewashing oversimplification of what happened to their line in the SB. What happened to the Chiefs is they were down to backups at 4 starting OL positions. Reiter, a bleh center, was their only projected offseason starter who was still in the lineup in the Super Bowl.

• Starters Fisher, Schwartz, and Osemele were all out. Their other starting G from 2019 (the French-Canadian doctor), meh that he was himself, also opted out of the season, too. Then throw in on top of that, the tackle they drafted in round 3 (Niang) - whom I'm sure they had hopes of winning a guard spot as a rookie, especially after Duvernay-Tardif opted out - went on IR in August. 

Show me any team that's down to 1 low-level starter and 4 backups that'd hold up against Tampa's defense while it was firing on all cylinders. Anyway that's what happened to their OL. But the truth is the only starters they had that weren't below average outright were Fisher & Schwartz. From guard to guard their iOL was meh, even in their winning SB season. Meanwhile they won 12 straight - including a late-Nov win over Tampa - with 1 excellent LT, 1 bleh center, and 3 backups. 

A good OL is of obvious importance, and we all want the Jets to field a good one (or at least a good-enough one). That doesn't therefore mean, before the draft starts, it's an automatic fact that there's some world of difference between the iOL pick we get at 23 vs 34, especially in this draft. Depends who's there; if someone's on the board we simply can't pass on, then I want the Jets to go OL at #23 (instead of waiting until #34 or round 3).

Look at it this way: TE is also ultra-important in this offense. Kittle is far more integral to SF's offense than any guard or center. Even still, I wouldn't touch the best available TE at 23 this year either. The dropoff to a TE we could get at 34 is surely less significant than for OL, and possibly CB, EDGE, and more.

So I'm in favor of taking an OL at 23, depending on who's gone & who's still available. I'm also in favor of not taking an OL at 23, depending on who's gone & who's still available. That's all I'm saying; not at all to avoid OL at 23 ffs. Far from it.

[addage]

The Jets, like all NFL teams, put together a draft board. The single biggest issue is how well they have done ranking players who fit the new offense and defense schemes that are being implemented. The Gholston bust wasn’t about drafting need vs value. It was the failure to recognize a turkey.

JDs first draft was mixed but he was working with Mac’s personnel team. Expectations are higher for this draft.

In a perfect world, selecting BPA over need gets you a better roster. But, as we all know, the Jets are far from a perfect world.

Having earned a reputation as a graveyard for young QBs, the Jets need to lean hard on selecting offense and OLs in particular.

But having said that, JD can’t be stupid either. And saying you’re going to take an OL at 23 no matter what isn’t very smart. But by the end of day 2, the OL has been addressed.

In my opinion trading down makes that more likely. 
 

[SAM SAM HE'S OUR MAN]

BAA - best available athlete