The Athletic reports the obvious

[JoJoTownsell1]

2 hours ago, Dcat said:

Crowder is 27 and could easily be signed to a longer contract if JD wanted it.  It was "superfluous" in the literal sense in that we had more dire needs than an inside-WR.  At first the failure to trade down in rd 2 drove me crazy.  Took 24-48 hrs to see that Moore can be a very special pick and was worth it despite bigger needs elsewhere.

Just because Moore is small doesn't mean he can't play outside. Many feel his route running and toughness could easily allow him to be effective as an outside WR.

[choon328]

2 hours ago, Doggin94it said:

I think it's crazy for this piece to suggest that Crowder being on the roster would make the Moore pick "seem superfluous" when Crowder is in the last year of his deal

And that, besides being short on stature, they couldn't be more polar opposite athletically. 

[choon328]

2 hours ago, Augustiniak said:

Mccagnan is just another failed gm who couldn’t understand that when he became a gm he was no longer a true scout, that he had to make decisions that would help the entire team.  Mccagnan’s mindset appears to have been to draft players in round 1 who had a low bust potential and sign expensive FAs to appease the media and fan base.  He had no concept of how to assemble talent to improve chances of winning.  

What we all need to realize is that the Jets bringing in Macc was like the Texans bringing in Culley. It was done bc there were no other viable options. This team was a dumpster fire and remained so for years. Hopefully, JD has them on the right track. 

[jetstream23]

2 hours ago, sec101row23 said:

The contrast between what JD has done when drafting a QB in the top 3 and what Maccagnan did is night and day.   I’m not sure a GM in this league had a worse 5 year run than Maccagnan did, it truly was an embarrassment.  

Two Top 6 Defensive Tackles, two Safeties (in the same Draft), two of biggest and most ridiculous free agent contracts to defenders (T. Johnson, CJ Mosley).  Then.... he drafts a QB at #3 to "fix the offense."

It will become more and more clear as time goes by just how much negligence took place, bordering on malfeasance in that front office.  Maccagnan threw Darnold out of an airplane with no parachute and said, "stick the landing."  ****ing ridiculous.

[FidelioJet]

42 minutes ago, jgb said:

I see it as the opposite. Once you get super deep in the draft where the variance of outcomes approaches randomness, drafting for pure talent is viable because if you are depending on 6th and 7th rounders to fill needs, you're in deep doo doo. These are lotto tickets and athletically-talented guys tend to be able to contribute on specials which is how many of these late rounders can hang onto a team.

And by the way, no one is saying "draft need over talent." I'm just saying I completely renounce BAP which is 100% talent-focused and 0% need. We can debate the ideal relative weighting of each but once you insert even the aroma of need into the recipe, it ain't BAP no more. BAP is pure. BAP is unadulterated. BAP asks for no quarter and curries no favor.

I agree with this.

I think when people say BAP - what they really mean "stick to your board".  When you create your draft board,  skills, positional value and need are all built in.

i.e - If you have a DT ranked as the second best player in the draft...but he's not a need and it's a low positional value - so maybe you have him on your board at 20....

In that caee, If you're picking at 21 - and he drops then you take him - as you're already previously determined the value of this player to you...

[Augustiniak]

2 minutes ago, jetstream23 said:

Two Top 5 Defensive Tackles, two Safeties (in the same Draft), two of biggest and most ridiculous free agent contracts to defenders (T. Johnson, CJ Mosley).  Then.... he drafts a QB at #3 to "fix the offense."

It will become more and more clear as time goes by just how much negligence took place, bordering on malfeasance in that front office.  Maccagnan threw Darnold out of an airplane with no parachute and said, "stick the landing."  ****ing ridiculous.

In hindsight, it’s as if mccagnan reluctantly traded up for a qb to appease fans and the media, just to shut them up, and then resumed stacking up on defense and poor contracts.  Kind of like ‘ok you got your quarterback, now leave me alone, I’m scouting’.

[jetstream23]

2 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

In hindsight, it’s as if mccagnan reluctantly traded up for a qb to appease fans and the media, just to shut them up, and then resumed stacking up on defense and poor contracts.  Kind of like ‘ok you got your quarterback, now leave me alone, I’m scouting’.

Exactly.  "Checked that box!  Now I can go back to defense."

Did he really think putting a 20/21 year old rookie under Center behind a bad OLine and with no weapons besides Robby Anderson (a WR 2/3) would work?

[chirorob]

3 hours ago, Lith said:

The difference is there for all to see:

• First three picks after selecting QB in 2018: Nathan Shepherd, Chris Herndon & Parry Nickerson
• Compared with what we did last week: Alijah Vera-Tucker, Elijah Moore and MIchael Carter

Don't know yet how htese players will work out, but the approach makes so much more sense now.

You really won't know what you have player wise for 2 years, but at least they are spending assets on improving the offense.  What Macc did made no sense.

I am still very much in favor of keeping Crowder, as he will be the only veteran in the receiver room, and you can't really count on rookies to produce at a high level.

[Augustiniak]

3 minutes ago, chirorob said:

You really won't know what you have player wise for 2 years, but at least they are spending assets on improving the offense.  What Macc did made no sense.

I am still very much in favor of keeping Crowder, as he will be the only veteran in the receiver room, and you can't really count on rookies to produce at a high level.

Plus someone is bound to get hurt.  Don’t skimp on weapons this year.

[Sperm Edwards]

57 minutes ago, jgb said:

I see it as the opposite. Once you get super deep in the draft where the variance of outcomes approaches randomness, drafting for pure talent is viable because if you are depending on 6th and 7th rounders to fill needs, you're in deep doo doo. These are lotto tickets and athletically-talented guys tend to be able to contribute on specials which is how many of these late rounders can hang onto a team.

And by the way, no one is saying "draft need over talent." I'm just saying I completely renounce BAP which is 100% talent-focused and 0% need. We can debate the ideal relative weighting of each but once you insert even the aroma of need into the recipe, it ain't BAP no more. BAP is pure. BAP is unadulterated. BAP asks for no quarter and curries no favor.

I don't know that this is true. Catchy title aside, I don't think there is such a thing as pure BAP regardless of position, even to the concept's most fervent followers. The BAP regardless of position might be a kicker or a fullback, but even the strictest BAP adherents wouldn't do that with a top pick. Lots of things just have catchy names/titles because they're catchy, not because they're fully defining the concepts' details. 

Positional importance is always factored in.

• That positional importance may be because of positional value that influences what makes this guy the best player available. 
• That positional importance may be because of positional need/non-need (e.g. even if the highest-rated player on the board is a QB, the Chiefs aren't drafting him); or put another way, the best available player for our team. If it's so lopsided in that regard, with such consensus, then there should be little trouble profiting by trading down and taking that same BAP for that team at that time.
• That positional importance may be because of how likely one is to fill the position satisfactorily if you pass on the next-best one, and how much really separates the highest-rated prospect from the second-highest rated prospect. Often it's insignificant.

 

[jgb]

3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I don't know that this is true. Catchy title aside, I don't think there is such a thing as pure BAP regardless of position, even to the concept's most fervent followers. The BAP regardless of position might be a kicker or a fullback, but even the strictest BAP adherents wouldn't do that with a top pick. Lots of things just have catchy names/titles because they're catchy, not because they're fully defining the concepts' details. 

Positional importance is always factored in.

• That positional importance may be because of positional value that influences what makes this guy the best player available. 
• That positional importance may be because of positional need/non-need (e.g. even if the highest-rated player on the board is a QB, the Chiefs aren't drafting him); or put another way, the best available player for our team. If it's so lopsided in that regard, with such consensus, then there should be little trouble profiting by trading down and taking that same BAP for that team at that time.
• That positional importance may be because of how likely one is to fill the position satisfactorily if you pass on the next-best one, and how much really separates the highest-rated prospect from the second-highest rated prospect. Often it's insignificant.

 

First sentence is "I don't know that this is true." I got up, made a drink and started reading. Every sentence afterward seemed to completely align with what I am saying ?

[UntouchableCrew]

3 hours ago, Lith said:

The difference is there for all to see:

• First three picks after selecting QB in 2018: Nathan Shepherd, Chris Herndon & Parry Nickerson
• Compared with what we did last week: Alijah Vera-Tucker, Elijah Moore and MIchael Carter

Don't know yet how htese players will work out, but the approach makes so much more sense now.

Just imagine trading three 2nd round picks to move up for your QB, and without a 2nd, with your very next pick in the third round you take... A 26 year old project DT.

It's indefensible.

[Sperm Edwards]

@jgb While I disagree with your too-literal BAP definition, where I agree with you is in the later rounds.

My feeling is it's hard enough to hit when you get way down there, without further handicapping that success rate by removing certain positions from the options. Day 3 is where I like going BAP. Again, it's a general term, exclusive of obvious/extreme redundancy where there's simply no room on the roster (e.g. no drafting the BAP if it's a punter, a month we extended ours with guarantees, etc.), and if there are a few prospects so closely rated, then a subjective numerical ranking is a mindless/robotic method even this far down in the draft.

I think it ends up becoming more need-based in effect because, this far down, there's typically much less separating the next-best prospects. Rather than one prospect head & shoulders BAP above the rest, a GM is more likely left with a batch of 5 or a dozen with equal ratings, and from there he lets other reasons influence the pick (and appropriately so). 

Likewise I think that, so long as the pick isn't some obvious poor-value reach, way up top in the draft (top 20 or so) I like drafting for need rather than more or less throwing need out the window. The success rate is high up there to begin with. The caveat being every now & then I'd miss out on someone all-time special, but that also assumes this special person was the highest remaining player on my board in the first place. So yeah, if I was GM of Minnesota in 1997, with two probowl WRs and coming off a 9-7 season, admittedly it's doubtful I'd have drafted Randy Moss. But I'd also miss out on the Jets repeatedly drafting a 3rd or 4th DT because they were the highest-rated prospects (at premium positions) left on my board. Plus the odds of any becoming Randy Moss are so slim anyway, no matter how many glowing HOFer comparisons dozens of these guys get every year.

In between (bottom of round 1 through the top 100)? It depends. It's one thing for a player to be the highest-rated prospect available; it's quite another for him to be perceived as 15-20 slots higher than the next-highest rated prospect. In such a scenario, BAP should probably trump need. If the next two are still in the same 1-2 sequence but are minimally separated by overall rank, then positional need should prevail. Even more so if the team has many more picks and the draft is much deeper at one position than the other.

There needs to be balance, and I don't think there has to be a strict rule of how much of rating and how much of positional value and how much of team need goes into the mix like a formula set in stone. Things like the draft's strengths, when's my next pick, and how many picks I've got left aggregately -- these all should (and for most good GMs surely do) play a factor.

[Sperm Edwards]

12 minutes ago, jgb said:

First sentence is "I don't know that this is true." I got up, made a drink and started reading. Every sentence afterward seemed to completely align with what I am saying ?

That was my polite/civil way of saying, "What you're saying is untrue."  

[slats]

54 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

I agree with this.

I think when people say BAP - what they really mean "stick to your board".  When you create your draft board,  skills, positional value and need are all built in.

i.e - If you have a DT ranked as the second best player in the draft...but he's not a need and it's a low positional value - so maybe you have him on your board at 20....

In that caee, If you're picking at 21 - and he drops then you take him - as you're already previously determined the value of this player to you...

This is semantics. Sticking to your board is taking your highest valued player, your BAP. Drafting for need would be to pass on that higher valued  DT because another lower rated position was a bigger need. 
 
I wanted Thuney in free agency as much as any of the Church of OL guys here, primarily to take that need off the table. If they landed Thuney, their draft probably looks very similar, but with a couple more quality guys taken in the third round. But they didn’t land the guard in FA, the OL was a huge need, and they did what they had to to fill it. As good as this draft looks like it may have been, it would’ve been better without having to draft that one glaring need early. Could’ve had a couple more pure value (read: BAP) picks like Moore. 

[32EBoozer]

10 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

So yeah, if I was GM of Minnesota in 1997, with two probowl WRs and coming off a 9-7 season, admittedly it's doubtful I'd have drafted Randy Moss

Excellent point

[jgb]

15 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

@jgb While I disagree with your too-literal BAP definition, where I agree with you is in the later rounds.

My feeling is it's hard enough to hit when you get way down there, without further handicapping that success rate by removing certain positions from the options. Day 3 is where I like going BAP. Again, it's a general term, exclusive of obvious/extreme redundancy where there's simply no room on the roster (e.g. no drafting the BAP if it's a punter, a month we extended ours with guarantees, etc.), and if there are a few prospects so closely rated, then a subjective numerical ranking is a mindless/robotic method even this far down in the draft.

I think it ends up becoming more need-based in effect because, this far down, there's typically much less separating the next-best prospects. Rather than one prospect head & shoulders BAP above the rest, a GM is more likely left with a batch of 5 or a dozen with equal ratings, and from there he lets other reasons influence the pick (and appropriately so). 

Likewise I think that, so long as the pick isn't some obvious poor-value reach, way up top in the draft (top 20 or so) I like drafting for need rather than more or less throwing need out the window. The success rate is high up there to begin with. The caveat being every now & then I'd miss out on someone all-time special, but that also assumes this special person was the highest remaining player on my board in the first place. So yeah, if I was GM of Minnesota in 1997, with two probowl WRs and coming off a 9-7 season, admittedly it's doubtful I'd have drafted Randy Moss. But I'd also miss out on the Jets repeatedly drafting a 3rd or 4th DT because they were the highest-rated prospects (at premium positions) left on my board. Plus the odds of any becoming Randy Moss are so slim anyway, no matter how many glowing HOFer comparisons dozens of these guys get every year.

In between (bottom of round 1 through the top 100)? It depends. It's one thing for a player to be the highest-rated prospect available; it's quite another for him to be perceived as 15-20 slots higher than the next-highest rated prospect. In such a scenario, BAP should probably trump need. If the next two are still in the same 1-2 sequence but are minimally separated by overall rank, then positional need should prevail. Even more so if the team has many more picks and the draft is much deeper at one position than the other.

There needs to be balance, and I don't think there has to be a strict rule of how much of rating and how much of positional value and how much of team need goes into the mix like a formula set in stone. Things like the draft's strengths, when's my next pick, and how many picks I've got left aggregately -- these all should (and for most good GMs surely do) play a factor.

Thanks. All I want to know is if we accept the broader definition of BAP -- where team needs are considered -- what other draft strategies are there? The broader definition would consume itself, as it could be applied to every draft strategy ever employed. Rendering the term absolutely meaningless. Which suits me fine, because I think it is just that.

[jgb]

17 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

That was my polite/civil way of saying, "What you're saying is untrue."  

Now if only I could figure out where those disagreement points are since what you're saying seems to be a better way to repeat what I am saying haha.

[jeremy2020]

2 hours ago, Irish Jet said:

Vera-Tucker may be able to play tackle down the line. It wouldn't surprise me if at some point he's moved there.

Not impossible, but it's much more rare for a guard to swing outside than for a tackle to swing inside. 

[choon328]

3 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said:

Not impossible, but it's much more rare for a guard to swing outside than for a tackle to swing inside. 

He was a Left Tackle in College. People are just projecting him to LG

[chirorob]

1 hour ago, Augustiniak said:

Plus someone is bound to get hurt.  Don’t skimp on weapons this year.

Someone ALWAYS gets hurt.

I have hope for Captain Hamstring (Mims), but I'm not writing his name down in sharpie for 17 starts this year.

[Sperm Edwards]

39 minutes ago, slats said:

This is semantics. Sticking to your board is taking your highest valued player, your BAP. Drafting for need would be to pass on that higher valued  DT because another lower rated position was a bigger need. 
 
I wanted Thuney in free agency as much as any of the Church of OL guys here, primarily to take that need off the table. If they landed Thuney, their draft probably looks very similar, but with a couple more quality guys taken in the third round. But they didn’t land the guard in FA, the OL was a huge need, and they did what they had to to fill it. As good as this draft looks like it may have been, it would’ve been better without having to draft that one glaring need early. Could’ve had a couple more pure value (read: BAP) picks like Moore. 

 

[FidelioJet]

13 minutes ago, slats said:

This is semantics. Sticking to your board is taking your highest valued player, your BAP. Drafting for need would be to pass on that higher valued  DT because another lower rated position was a bigger need. 
 
I wanted Thuney in free agency as much as any of the Church of OL guys here, primarily to take that need off the table. If they landed Thuney, their draft probably looks very similar, but with a couple more quality guys taken in the third round. But they didn’t land the guard in FA, the OL was a huge need, and they did what they had to to fill it. As good as this draft looks like it may have been, it would’ve been better without having to draft that one glaring need early. Could’ve had a couple more pure value (read: BAP) picks like Moore. 

Not really sure what your point is....

When you say you draft for need, I see that as saying...we're taking a Guard here no matter what.  That's drafting for need.

When you build your draft board properly, yes - at this point - you're going to have more guards ranked higher - more players that fit your need profile...but you'll also still have value picks as part of it.  If you have a player ranked as a great prospect - but in not a position of need - he's still on your board somewhere.   Need and positional value will determine how much further down.

In your scenario, If the Jets had signed Thuney then EVT would have been ranked lower on their board.   

From what I've heard they had EVT in the top 10 - he dropped to 14 so they saw value and went up and got him.   If they had Thuney he likely would have been much further down their board - say 25 - So if he were there at 23 then they probably pass but if he were there at 34 still - they likely would have...

Then re-adjust your board after each pick...

To be clear, I'm not saying this is what the Jets did - but it's a logical way to approach the draft and I find JD to think quite logically and deliberatly.

 

The point is you build your board - with talent, positional value and need built into each players assessment.

[slats]

16 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

The point is you build your board - with talent, positional value and need built into each players assessment.

My point is that, ideally, need would be way down the list of components involved in compiling one’s draft board. The closer you can get to pure best value drafting, particular in the early rounds, the better your overall roster will be. Without having to fill that OL hole between #23 and #34, as Douglas found himself this year, the better equipped he would’ve been to improve the entire roster. 
 
Later in the draft, when the prospects are clumped much more closely, drafting for need makes more sense. And that’s pretty much what JD did this year, so I’m good. The WR and RB were both BAP type picks, the fifth and sixth rounds were clearly, specifically trying to fill holes on the defense. Except for the freak DT, which I’m also quite cool with. 

[Dcat]

4 hours ago, C Mart said:

IIRC after he was fired it was reported Mcc wouldn’t let the position coaches give their input to scouts which makes no sense. 

Correction: Mccagnan didn’t want the HC input. Makes no sense. 
 

From that former DN reporter may 2019:
 

The dynamic between Maccagnan and Gase during the team’s pre-draft meetings was odd. Gase badly wanted to share his opinions on what types of players he was looking for in his system during these organizational discussions, but remained quiet, according to sources. Maccagnan didn’t ask the coach to share his evaluations during those sessions.

The reason? The general manager didn’t want Gase to adversely influence his scouts’ evaluations, according to sources.

It was a curious approach that understandably angered Gase, who simply wanted to provide more information and depth on player prototypes that made sense for his schemes so that he would be on the same page with the guys who had spent the past year or so studying college players.

“It pissed Adam off,” a team source said. “Mike didn’t want him to speak up too much. It’s a weird philosophy.”

Gase shared his thoughts on players to Maccagnan in smaller meetings, but the notion that scouts, by and large, were kept in the dark about how the head coach felt about draft prospects should have ticked him off.

Maccagnan, who had the same philosophy with Todd Bowles, was bent on not having the scouts swayed by the head coach. It was a counterproductive approach that only served to alienate Gase, who expressed his frustrations in myriad ways to many people in league circles.

I would think the GM would want his scouts to influence the coaches on what players to have interest in, not the other way around.  And why wouldn't a GM want his coaching staff explain their scheme thoroughly to the scouts who could seek out the best players for that scheme?  WTF?  Reading the info above is like a very bad episode of the Twilight Zone. 

And I'd love to get a look at the list of ways (the entire myriad thereof) Gase expressed his frustrations to many people in the league.   Surely it had something to do with his eyes.

[varjet]

• I think JD runs modified BAP, and trades up for need.  Elijah Moore was clearly the top ranked player on their board, and he would replace at 1/4 of the cost a WR in his last year of contract (Crowder).   If the goal was to put the best team in the field in 2021, I think you stick with Crowder and draft another need, like CB.
• If the goal was to really compete in 2021, the Jets would have traded down/picked someone like JOK, Teven Jenkins for RG>RT, Javonte Williams, maybe a QB.  
• The way Mac built the Jets was just sad.  In 2016, Coming off a 10-6 season where they could't cover a RB out of the backfield, he extended Fitz (not a FQB) and drafted Darron Lee with Hack as QB of the future.   No OL.
• In 2017, with Hack on the roster, he drafted Jamal, Maye and Ardarious Stewart.  He passed on Mahomes and Watson. Still no OL.
• In 2018, Mac drafts Darnold but passes over Orlando Brown for Nathan Shepherd.
• Even in 2019 he drafts QW, Polite and Edoga (short T).  
• Only in 2020 does he start to build for a QB with Becton and Mims, but since the Jets did so poorly, it was too late for Darnold, and the JD had to reboot the QB.
• So for Wilson, JD has already been building for him with Becton, Mims, McGovern, Fant, Corey Davis, etc., plus the new draft picks.  ZW is in a much better spot, and Carolina not only had a better roster pre-draft, but they drafted offense heavy.
• Hopefully both Darnold and Wilson have good years.  

[FidelioJet]

1 hour ago, slats said:

My point is that, ideally, need would be way down the list of components involved in compiling one’s draft board. The closer you can get to pure best value drafting, particular in the early rounds, the better your overall roster will be. Without having to fill that OL hole between #23 and #34, as Douglas found himself this year, the better equipped he would’ve been to improve the entire roster. 
 
Later in the draft, when the prospects are clumped much more closely, drafting for need makes more sense. And that’s pretty much what JD did this year, so I’m good. The WR and RB were both BAP type picks, the fifth and sixth rounds were clearly, specifically trying to fill holes on the defense. Except for the freak DT, which I’m also quite cool with. 

Gotcha, Yeah, I most agree.  

As you stated, Ideally if you don't have glaring holes at premium positions, it gives you much more flexibility in the first round.  No doubt - taking the best potential player is a better situation in which to be.  But when you have glaring holes like the Jets did it was the right move...

I also agree that in mid rounds 2-4 positional value makes sense...

But I would add in rounds like 5-6 and UDFA - it is about, as someone mentioned, lotto tickets. Go for freak athletes or whatever metric you have to try and get lucky and hit a home run...

[slats]

2 hours ago, FidelioJet said:

But I would add in rounds like 5-6 and UDFA - it is about, as someone mentioned, lotto tickets. Go for freak athletes or whatever metric you have to try and get lucky and hit a home run...

This is why I like what the Jets did at the end of the draft. They combined need with the best athletes available in targeting the defense they ignored in the first four rounds. Worst case, you have guys who will compete for roster spots on specials. 

[slimjasi]

11 hours ago, sec101row23 said:

The contrast between what JD has done when drafting a QB in the top 3 and what Maccagnan did is night and day.   I’m not sure a GM in this league had a worse 5 year run than Maccagnan did, it truly was an embarrassment.  

 When you consider that Macc bought himself so much time here with his flash in the pan 10-6 year in 2015, it is remarkable how poorly he enacted his "plan."

[jetophile]

12 hours ago, sec101row23 said:

Agreed.  Maccagnan never had a plan as to how to build a roster and where to allocate his resources.   It was such a scattered approach that made little sense.  

It was a very scattered approach, that's a great way to put it. I was of the opinion straight out of the gate that Maccagnan would use landing Sam Darnold as leverage to save his job no matter what happened. It didn't work.

Mike Maccagnan got fired snd The Boot got tooled and traded. By the by, I really wish I would stop being subjected to Mike Tannenbaum and his "expertise" on the radio. That idiot did nothing for me at the end of the day except take the bait and overpay repeatedly. 

 

[docdhc]

On 5/5/2021 at 6:20 AM, jgb said:

What other strategies are there beyond:

1. take the best player considering need; or 

2. take the best player without considering need.

Is there some third-way I'm not aware of? Taking the worst player at a position of not-need? If we agree these two categories capture the entire universe of draft strategies, then only one can be "BAP" -- #2. Everything else is... everything else. Once you start considering factors other than relative player grade, you're outside of BAP.

I think drafting important position groups like OL and edge earlier in draft and safeties and RBs later is important also. 

[jgb]

8 minutes ago, docdhc said:

I think drafting important position groups like OL and edge earlier in draft and safeties and RBs later is important also. 

Yep. Every team employs factors other than raw prospect grading. And they all draft the best one they think can most help their team whenever they are on the clock.

[rangerous]

much as i usually have green tinted glasses on i'm from missouri, show me.  the best thing about douglas so far is he's not mac and while saleh is a change from gase i'm not that ready to anoint him as the second coming of parcells or ewbank.  the point is we still need to see these guys perform on the field.  it's hard to see how they can be worse than the paltry 17 ppg the jets have managed over the past couple of seasons but jets fans are used to being disappointed.  and if we're suprised and the jets start looking like a team that belongs in the nfl then we'll have to see if douglas and saleh can keep the intensity up.  i don't think anyone wants to see a one or two season blip.

[whodeawhodat]

On 5/5/2021 at 11:01 AM, slats said:

Ideally, you'd want to get where talent always wins over need in the first couple rounds, at least. That's how you know that you not only have a solid roster now, but that it's only going to get better. Steadily drafting for need over value is steadily taking lesser prospects over time. It's a losing strategy. 

Is this a departure from your previous stance that positional value needs to be considered?  I figured that is why you didnt like us taking AVT.  

I just like that JD had AVT as a top 10 talent and had the ammo to go up and get him.  If JD has that high of an opinion of him, I will have to trust him, especially with the Oline.  I like what he is building and have been pounding the table for an all +300lb starting Oline for 10 years now.  We make the Oline the strength of our offense everyone elses job is easier.  We have been of the hope of drafting a QB to make the rest of our offenses job easier. It just isnt happening without a generational talent at QB. Dont get me wrong, I hope Zach is that and can lift the level of play of the offense around him, just dont want to put that on him.

[slats]

2 hours ago, whodeawhodat said:

Is this a departure from your previous stance that positional value needs to be considered?  I figured that is why you didnt like us taking AVT.  

I just like that JD had AVT as a top 10 talent and had the ammo to go up and get him.  If JD has that high of an opinion of him, I will have to trust him, especially with the Oline.  I like what he is building and have been pounding the table for an all +300lb starting Oline for 10 years now.  We make the Oline the strength of our offense everyone elses job is easier.  We have been of the hope of drafting a QB to make the rest of our offenses job easier. It just isnt happening without a generational talent at QB. Dont get me wrong, I hope Zach is that and can lift the level of play of the offense around him, just dont want to put that on him.

No, I still consider positional value to be very important when determining BAP, especially high. And yes, as a result of that, I don't love trading up for a guard at #14 overall, but I definitely understand it in this case. I posted a thread before the draft stating that Joe Douglas just had to draft an IOL, then he could BAP it down the line from there. I get it, and do not fault the pick. Just sucks to be in that position where your hand is forced, and it's now been two drafts in a row on the OL. I don't want them to be there again next year. 

I do think it's a pick that will be scrutinized down the road. If AVT is the player they believe him to be, it's going to be difficult to resign him a year after Becton comes due, in the same year that Zach Wilson comes due. But between now and then, he shores up the OL in a very real way. The future will work itself out. Looks like they got themselves a very solid guy at a position of need. It's the need I'd like to see taken out of the equation when drafting in the first round. Desires are fine, but you want to be free to take the top player on your board based on overall value, IMHO.