How many rookies do you envision Saleh starting?

[Sperm Edwards]

Not cumulative, but on each side of the ball. 

Nobody desires a meh offense. I'm sympathetic to furthering the goal of a dominant offense, which we all want. Going all-in on one side, with this many picks, would presumably lead to a lot of drafted rookies watching from the sideline.

Say the Jets took 5 players on offense in the first 6 picks, like many desire. How likely is it really to see Saleh/LaFleur start 4 rookies on offense this year (let alone 5 or more)? Even 3 - including a QB - is a lot to see on any team, and would most likely be 1 from each of 3 different position groups.

Put aside what you'd prefer Douglas did differently (I've got my own list); whether in FA, last year's draft, with Darnold, or whatever. Based on where the Jets are now, or say you just got hired as the GM right after the #2 pick was handed in (and Woody forbids you from trading him lol). 

With those picks, create your starting lineup on offense, from QB on down, including the guys/positions you want addressed early & throughout. 

11 starters. Which ones are realistically starting as rookies, and which ones are just more supportive roles (with the knowledge you might want to draft that position with an early/earlier pick next year)?

[Irish Jet]

I would expect at least two and as many as five but it obviously depends on what positions we target. We could get a good WR who doesn’t start and an average TE who does.People do tend to assume they’ll get more than they will. It’s mostly going to be depth but there are certain positions that are wide open for anyone. 

Wilson obviously. A lock. 

A guard that we draft with one of the next two picks would be expected to start. 

Whether a corner we take starts or not may depend on FA moves. If it’s at 23 it would be expected if not then it’s likely depth. 

Edge likely only starting if we get one at 23.

A linebacker we take in the top 3 rounds would be in contention to start. 

If we end up with Tommy Tremble or Pat Freiermuth then I could see either starting immediately. 

A kicker would be a cert to start too and we could end up with one. 

Don’t see us picking up a starter at any other position. 

[NYJ1]

As many as it takes to maximize his chances at winning ball games. What an obvious answer.

[Beerfish]

The more the better. we have low talent jags all over the place.  If our drafted guys cant beat out some of the guys on this team that is the worry.

 

[New York Mick]

Hopefully not more then 2

[JohnnyLV]

[Leftylarry]

Depends who we draft, some need a season, some are plug & play.

We know he’s starting a rookie at QB, if #23 and #34 can’t start, at least by game 5-6 , something went wrong.

[UntouchableCrew]

2-3 on offense.

1-2 on defense.

[bitonti]

[Big_Slick]

Every one of them that beats out the incumbent stater in a fair competition. With the Jets roster that shouldn't be that difficult.

[SomebodytoAnybody47]

The first 3 picks easily. 

[Embrace the Suck]

Good year to get the young guys experience. I could see as few as 2 or as many as 5 easily.

[derp]

I mean, it depends entirely. If a day three fullback plays half the snaps, is he a starter?

I do think fans will be disappointed with how many start. Day three stuff like fullback and the first linebacker off the field in nickel I think will result in starters. Maybe a kicker too.

Probably one offensive lineman days 1-2. Two is less likely but possible. There’s a decent chance they draft a corner who starts. I guess also possible for tight end but that seems less likely just because less guys in this class could do it. Running back could happen anywhere in this draft. And the quarterback, though I do think no matter who they draft they should wait to start the guy until the situations more stable.

[Larz]

Can we have mini camp first?

[Maynard13]

I say 2 on offense 2 on defense. With 2 picks in round 1, those are premium picks that should be plug and play- OL and WR/edge/CB. Then you have a high round 2 pick and two #3. Should get 4 starters out of those picks. It’s not like the roster is elite to begin with. 

[BigRy56]

If Joe D keeps delivering, 4 maybe 5 immediate impact starters 

[derp]

Oh man this is if I’m the GM.

Two scenarios.

If Kyle Pitts makes it to say, seven, I’m giving up hefty draft capital to go get him. And then I’m drafting a fullback and a linebacker who start on day three and signing a veteran QB who’s going to start this year. Think one of the OL I draft starts this year and another next year. Maybe my late round RB or a corner breaks into the lineup. So 2.5 on offense (Pitts, OL, FB) and .5 (LB) on defense with chance for more.

If it’s not Pitts with those picks I’m probably pushing up the direct OL I draft and still spending a serious pick on a second and expecting one of them to start, drafting a guy who’s going to get time at TE, picking an edge who projects to start next year with a semi-premium pick. And trading down at 23 or 34 to pick up an extra 3 to draft a corner. Less in these scenario I guess but more potential guys to break into roles.

I think the easy places for guys to break in are LB and FB. Corner, RB, and TE are weak but I’m not truly sure I expect a rookie drafted anywhere to come in and take a job. It’s possible but a lot of pressure on the rookie at spots that do have some legitimate pros. Think RB is the most likely due to the nature of the position and the scheme. The iOL is similar to those spots but I think it’s easier for a rookie to break in because it’s but financial savings unlike the other two position. No feel for safety, a rookie starter wouldn’t shock me but I’m not sure they need to draft one. Edge and WR a rookie is going to be a rotational piece at best, not a starter. Ditto iDL. Don’t expect a rookie to start at tackle barring injury.

[DoubleDown]

It depends entirely on what positions are drafted early, but I think the number of starters is going to be lower than some people expect. Joe Douglas is drafting to fill pipelines.

They can draft a wide receiver high, but he likely won't start this season over Davis, Mims, and Crowder. The goal is to develop a wide receiver that can grow with the rookie quarterback and make a big impact starting next year. Davis and Mims are the only wide receivers under contract in 2022.

They can draft a pass rusher high, but he likely won't start over Lawson and Curry. The goal is to develop him so he can hit the ground running next year after Curry's hold the fort year.

They can draft an offensive tackle high, but he likely won't start over Becton and Fant. The goal is to develop him as Fant's replacement next season when he can be a cap casualty.

So on and so forth.

Just because a player is not a starter does not mean he can't contribute this season as a rookie. Injuries to vets will also play a big role.

Some positions drafted early that can start right off the bat would be QB, RB, CB, and OG. Besides for QB, none of these positions are guaranteed to be drafted early. Most other positions will be penciled in with vets as starters at least in Week 1. We'll see how the draft plays out.

[Asymmetrical]

Seems like at minimum:

QB

G

CB (maybe not starting but certainly getting a lot of playing time)

LB (see above)

and potentially a ton of playing time at FB/TE/RB/DE/RT. There's going to be a lot of opportunity for immediate impact from this class, mostly because the roster is dog poo.

 

 

 

 

[HighPitch]

I dont buy this “ you cant start x amount of rookies, nobody does” argument.

zach is a lock

if a rookie OL earns the job why sit the more talented player? Thats 2.

Eitinne or bateman ? Why not if they earned it?

So I dont think 3 per side is outrageous.

On D I see newsome earning the spot. I dont think we need more that that except a situational pass rusher.

We got lotsa holes to fill .......that implies available jobs

[Jet2020]

Say about 11 on offense and 11 on defense. 

[The Crusher]

How many you got?

[Untouchable]

2 on offense if it’s Wilson and a 1st round OL

1 on defense if we take a CB within the first two rounds. Maybe two if we find a decent WLB on Day 2 or 3.

[southtown24th]

wtf kind of question is this?

[Sperm Edwards]

My question was more about just one side of the ball: offense only.

Putting aside the fantasy of an armchair fan dismissively saying "who cares, there's no limit" -- you really think a new, first time HC and OC, installing a new system, are going to start 4+ rookies at the same time? 

I find it hard to imagine these guys, after finally getting their shots to show they weren't mistake hires, having this same "Pfft whatever, who cares?" attitude in year one, and treat their jobs (as well as the jobs of everyone else on the team) as nothing but a season-long tryout session for a handful of offensive rookies. 

Barring injuries this summer, I'm thinking the maximum they'd like is 3 (and at 3 different position groups).

1. QB
2. one OL
3. either a RB or maybe a round 3-4 TE (but unlikely both).

Where we sit today I think it's less likely at WR unless Mims really doesn't impress them in camp. Crowder would've been easy to make a cap casualty, saying he's overpaid, but by not cutting him I think it says they want experienced WRs with a rookie QB so I'd be surprised if Crowder takes a backseat just yet (and certainly Davis is starting). I could see a rookie slot receiver seeing more action in the second half of the season (or whenever it is Crowder gets injured again).

Unless it's a RB they deem so special, getting taken by pick 34, I doubt is going to be a starter getting 200+ carries and trusted to pick up blitzes (though it's hardly far fetched). Absent that, unlike QB/OL the position lends itself well to getting one on & off the field, so there'd still be some action even if a rookie's not truly starting.

The main issue with a starting rookie TE is just that this is supposed to be a pretty weak class (outside of Pitts, of course). Herndon started as a 4th round rookie, with a lot of disappointment since, so he hasn't earned a free pass. Plus he's a UFA after the season so I think they'd love it if a rookie overtook him this year. Also I half expect to see him injured anyway.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, southtown24th said:

wtf kind of question is this?

The question was because so many want us to draft nothing but offense, to discuss the likely result of that strategy. 

I get wanting to upgrade 5+ positions on offense. I'd like that myself. 5 rookies aren't starting together on the same side of the ball, though.

Looking back I should have reworded the title, since I really meant to hit on that one side of the ball, but I had to leave work and do parenting stuff.

[MichaelScott]

7 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Not cumulative, but on each side of the ball. 

Nobody desires a meh offense. I'm sympathetic to furthering the goal of a dominant offense, which we all want. Going all-in on one side, with this many picks, would presumably lead to a lot of drafted rookies watching from the sideline.

Say the Jets took 5 players on offense in the first 6 picks, like many desire. How likely is it really to see Saleh/LaFleur start 4 rookies on offense this year (let alone 5 or more)? Even 3 - including a QB - is a lot to see on any team, and would most likely be 1 from each of 3 different position groups.

Put aside what you'd prefer Douglas did differently (I've got my own list); whether in FA, last year's draft, with Darnold, or whatever. Based on where the Jets are now, or say you just got hired as the GM right after the #2 pick was handed in (and Woody forbids you from trading him lol). 

With those picks, create your starting lineup on offense, from QB on down, including the guys/positions you want addressed early & throughout. 

11 starters. Which ones are realistically starting as rookies, and which ones are just more supportive roles (with the knowledge you might want to draft that position with an early/earlier pick next year)?

I don't think the draft is going to end up being as offensive heavy as many around here would like to see. I think JD is probably extremely inflexible when it comes his big board and player rankings. He doesn't strike me as someone thats going to be willing to reach much in order to fill a perceived need and I really don't expect him to waiver much on drafting by value over need. 

Unless the board just ends up dropping offensive BPA in our laps, I think there is very likely going to be picks where he selects D based on his value of that player over a offensive position we are all screaming for. 

[Fantasy Island]

14 minutes ago, MichaelScott said:

I don't think the draft is going to end up being as offensive heavy as many around here would like to see. I think JD is probably extremely inflexible when it comes his big board and player rankings. He doesn't strike me as someone thats going to be willing to reach much in order to fill a perceived need and I really don't expect him to waiver much on drafting by value over need. 

Unless the board just ends up dropping offensive BPA in our laps, I think there is very likely going to be picks where he selects D based on his value of that player over a offensive position we are all screaming for. 

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, derp said:

Oh man this is if I’m the GM.

Two scenarios.

If Kyle Pitts makes it to say, seven, I’m giving up hefty draft capital to go get him. And then I’m drafting a fullback and a linebacker who start on day three and signing a veteran QB who’s going to start this year. Think one of the OL I draft starts this year and another next year. Maybe my late round RB or a corner breaks into the lineup. So 2.5 on offense (Pitts, OL, FB) and .5 (LB) on defense with chance for more.

If it’s not Pitts with those picks I’m probably pushing up the direct OL I draft and still spending a serious pick on a second and expecting one of them to start, drafting a guy who’s going to get time at TE, picking an edge who projects to start next year with a semi-premium pick. And trading down at 23 or 34 to pick up an extra 3 to draft a corner. Less in these scenario I guess but more potential guys to break into roles.

I think the easy places for guys to break in are LB and FB. Corner, RB, and TE are weak but I’m not truly sure I expect a rookie drafted anywhere to come in and take a job. It’s possible but a lot of pressure on the rookie at spots that do have some legitimate pros. Think RB is the most likely due to the nature of the position and the scheme. The iOL is similar to those spots but I think it’s easier for a rookie to break in because it’s but financial savings unlike the other two position. No feel for safety, a rookie starter wouldn’t shock me but I’m not sure they need to draft one. Edge and WR a rookie is going to be a rotational piece at best, not a starter. Ditto iDL. Don’t expect a rookie to start at tackle barring injury.

It'd be tempting. Moving up to ~#7 would probably cost #23 and a 1 next year - effectively both Adams picks - and it's still probably not enough. A 3rd next year may or may not be enough, but it'd be close. That's way a lot for a TE.

It's a lot easier if he slipped to 9 but that doesn't look likely. Depends if enough teams in that draft area say, I don't care how great he looks; he's a TE and we need OL (or WR or QB) help much more. Detroit isn't taking him at 7. The question is who's up there who isn't locked in on Pitts or a QB, who'd be ok moving all the way down to 23?

Usually I'm not in favor of giving up all that for a non-QB (especially not for a TE), but we'd still have so many high picks, I hear everyone saying he's such an unusual talent, and not only plays a position the Jets should be hoping for a good enough rookie starter anyway, but figures be featured in this offense.

[Maxman]

8 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Not cumulative, but on each side of the ball. 

Nobody desires a meh offense. I'm sympathetic to furthering the goal of a dominant offense, which we all want. Going all-in on one side, with this many picks, would presumably lead to a lot of drafted rookies watching from the sideline.

Say the Jets took 5 players on offense in the first 6 picks, like many desire. How likely is it really to see Saleh/LaFleur start 4 rookies on offense this year (let alone 5 or more)? Even 3 - including a QB - is a lot to see on any team, and would most likely be 1 from each of 3 different position groups.

Put aside what you'd prefer Douglas did differently (I've got my own list); whether in FA, last year's draft, with Darnold, or whatever. Based on where the Jets are now, or say you just got hired as the GM right after the #2 pick was handed in (and Woody forbids you from trading him lol). 

With those picks, create your starting lineup on offense, from QB on down, including the guys/positions you want addressed early & throughout. 

11 starters. Which ones are realistically starting as rookies, and which ones are just more supportive roles (with the knowledge you might want to draft that position with an early/earlier pick next year)?

;tsdr

[redlichtie]

8 hours ago, DoubleDown said:

It depends entirely on what positions are drafted early, but I think the number of starters is going to be lower than some people expect. Joe Douglas is drafting to fill pipelines.

They can draft a wide receiver high, but he likely won't start this season over Davis, Mims, and Crowder. The goal is to develop a wide receiver that can grow with the rookie quarterback and make a big impact starting next year. Davis and Mims are the only wide receivers under contract in 2022.

They can draft a pass rusher high, but he likely won't start over Lawson and Curry. The goal is to develop him so he can hit the ground running next year after Curry's hold the fort year.

They can draft an offensive tackle high, but he likely won't start over Becton and Fant. The goal is to develop him as Fant's replacement next season when he can be a cap casualty.

So on and so forth.

Just because a player is not a starter does not mean he can't contribute this season as a rookie. Injuries to vets will also play a big role.

Some positions drafted early that can start right off the bat would be QB, RB, CB, and OG. Besides for QB, none of these positions are guaranteed to be drafted early. Most other positions will be penciled in with vets as starters at least in Week 1. We'll see how the draft plays out.

Was going to post something similar to this, it seems through free agency that the one thing Douglas does NOT want to do is HAVE to start rookies, or at least, he’ll be delighted if a rookie demands to be the starter from day 1 but he doesn’t want them to have the pressure of being thrown in and sinking or swimming straight away, which in my view is a smart way to attempt to build a winning culture. Whether or not he executes it properly remains to be seen. I would personally prefer to see us get a guy like Bridgewater and let the No2 overall pick sit at least for 5-8 games, maybe even the whole season if the veteran starter does well and has us competitive.

it’s hard to over-stress the importance of bringing in players in already established situations, Zach Wilson(or Justin Fields) will massively benefit from a Mahomes like situation where he’s been able to sit for a season and learn.

I think he would be thrilled if one or two perhaps this year are starting from day 1 but he;s stocked the roster with placeholders who a good talented rookie will have the opportunity to beat out either as year 1 progresses or in time for year 2. 
I can see us starting with at least 1 OG and perhaps a CB if he selects one at 23 or34...as the season progresses an edge or DE or a WR might merit promoting.

also we are in dire need of a PR/KR and Kicker so we might start a couple of rookies on ST’s

[LIJetsFan]

12 hours ago, Beerfish said:

The more the better. we have low talent jags all over the place.  If our drafted guys cant beat out some of the guys on this team that is the worry.

 

That is short sighted.  Rookies haven't have any NFL conditioning so are at a huge disadvantage.  So, 2, & 23 probably start.  The rest of the top 100 ought to be rotational at worst.  After that it's pure depth and diamond in the rough types.

I want to see how much our year 2 guy improve with said conditioning under their belts.  (not to mention actual coaching)       

[rangerous]

i think it all depends on how start is defined, a qb will be in for nearly all of the offensive snaps.  a guard or tackle will be in for most of them.  other players may only be in for half of the plays.  the defenses have a lot of rotations so maybe only 5 or 6 defensive players are in for more than 50% of the plays.

but how many will start for saleh?  i'd guess 3 or 4.  besides qb it could be guard, lb and cb.

[jgb]

Should be like 15. If a rookie can't crack this starting lineup, they don't belong in the league.

[BCJet]

There are only a few holes where a rookie can legitimately start:  Guard (both), QB, RB,  CB and OLB. 

Personally I dont see us starting arent a rookie CB simply because I dont see us drafting one until the middle rounds and as much as Id like a RB if Javonte is there at 34 (or in a trade down) im not sure it happens.

My ideal scenario would be Rookie QB, rookie G with pick 23, rookie RB with 34 and rookie OLB with one of our 3rds.  That would be 4 total.