Jump to content

Mel Kipers Full Mock Draft 1.0


LAD_Brooklyn
 Share

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I just lumped the 3 positions to make a point that they're not viewed as highly. While TE is usually about the same for a merely-acceptable starter, unlike with centers there's a huge difference for the very top guys where they can dramatically change the whole offense (and in turn the whole team). A truly elite TE is like having another WR on the field: the luxury of having 4-WR sets without having to tip one's hand that you're clearly passing.

The difference between a merely good center and a great one isn't lifting an offense nearly as much as the difference between a merely good TE and a great one. A great Kittle/Kelce over a really good Hooper/Goedert is a dramatic difference. That's why Atlanta took Pitts #4. I still question that draft value, but if he turns into Shannon Sharpe II his selection up there was well worth it. Conversely, if Linderbaum turns into Kevin Mawae II it's still a stupid pick at #4. That's unless you also know in hindsight the guy drafted instead was a bust (which one could say about the value of any 2 prospects in hindsight). 

Regardless, even though it's such a trigger-event for Jets fans after the Adams pick (maddeningly followed by Maye a round later), a safety up there is a far better value pick than center. I'd rather they don't take a safety that high either, but hell yes I'd do that over a ****ing center, even more so given what this team has and needs. Too much obsession about "we'll have our [name position] locked in for the next 10 years" as though it truly matters. Don't get me wrong -- it's nice, but ultimately it's not that important.

I agree with you that the Jets should not take Linderbaum with the 4th pick.  However, if the Jets end up staying at 4 and 10, and they draft a defender at 4 (probably edge), I would hope they consider Linderbaum at 10 if he's there.  This would be if his combine and post season stuff checks out that he is as good as hyped.  Supposedly he's the best C prospect in many a year. If they don't feel he's that good, then pass, but don't pass just because he's a C rather than an OT.

It is not just a matter of drafting a C to replace the current one.  The idea here is to improve two spots on the line at once as well as depth.  McGovern slides over the RG and also serves as the backup C.  The Jets would have a potentially elite IOL.  Let's also remember that McGovern hurt his knee and missed the last two games last year. Hopefully he's fine next year, but knees can be dicey things, of course.  And I'm not sold on LDT in his short time here.  Sure, he was better than Van Roten, but almost anybody would have been.

I also just don't think there are any elite playmaker prospects in this draft to take at 10.  The two second round picks seem like good spots to get value at WR and/or TE.  JD needs to hit his picks, whoever they are, not reach for positions better taken later.

FWIW, I don't think the Jets will take Linderbaum if he's there at 10.  I think JD will take an OT at either 4 or 10.  What I really want is JD to be able to trade back from 4 if the top three talents are all off the board.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, LAD_Brooklyn said:

4. Kyle Hamilton, S, Notre Dame

The Jets had big defensive issues in Robert Saleh’s first season as coach, from the front seven to the secondary. They didn’t get after quarterbacks, and they couldn’t cover pass-catchers, which is a recipe for another top-five draft pick. Hamilton would fill a void at safety, especially if Marcus Maye leaves in free agency. Six-foot-4, 220-pound Hamilton has rare traits for his size, and he can play in the box or as a center fielder (he had eight career interceptions for the Fighting Irish). He was one of the most versatile defenders in college football for the past three seasons. Hamilton played in only seven games in 2021 because of a knee injury, but I’m told he’ll be ready to work out at the NFL combine in March.


10. (via SEA) Drake London, WR, USC

Quarterback Zach Wilson had a rough rookie season, as the Jets finished near the bottom in most offensive statistics. So if I’m giving them defensive help with the No. 4 pick, let’s give Wilson a target here, because his best pass-catchers in 2021 are all better out of the slot. Elijah Moore, Jamison Crowder and Braxton Berrios are good players, but they’re never going to be down-the-field aerial threats. London -- who is 6-foot-5 and also played on the USC basketball team -- has a chance to be a special outside receiver. He caught 88 passes for 1,084 yards and seven touchdowns in eight games this season. His record-breaking year ended in late October because of a fractured right ankle, but he is expected to be ready for the 2022 season. He can be Wilson’s top target, giving the Jets a huge red zone threat.

 

 

Mel Kiper: NFL Mock Draft 1.0

1) Jacksonville Jaguars — DE Aidan Hutchinson, Michigan

2) Detroit Lions — DE Kayvon Thibodeaux, Oregon

3) Houston Texans — OT Evan Neal, Alabama

4) New York Jets — S Kyle Hamilton, Notre Dame

5) New York Giants — OT Ikem Ekwonu, NC State

6) Carolina Panthers — OT Charles Cross, Mississippi State

7) New York Giants (via CHI) — OLB David Ojabo, Michigan

😎 Atlanta Falcons — CB Derek Stingley Jr., LSU

9) Denver Broncos — ILB Nakobe Dean, Georgia

10) New York Jets (via SEA) — WR Drake London, USC

11) Washington Football Team — QB Malik Willis, Liberty

12) Minnesota Vikings — CB Ahmad “Sauce” Gardner, Cincinnati

13) Cleveland Browns — WR Garrett Wilson, Ohio State

14) Baltimore Ravens — C Tyler Linderbaum, Iowa

15) Philadelphia Eagles (via MIA) — ILB Devin Lloyd, Utah

16) Philadelphia Eagles (via IND) — DE Arnold Ebiketie, Penn State

17) Los Angeles Chargers — DT Jordan Davis, Georgia

18) New Orleans Saints — QB Kenny Pickett, Pittsburgh

19) Philadelphia Eagles — WR Chris Olave, Ohio State

20) Pittsburgh Steelers — QB Matt Corral, Ole Miss

21) New England Patriots — WR Jameson Williams, Alabama

22) Las Vegas Raiders — CB Andrew Booth Jr., Clemson

23) Arizona Cardinals — DE George Karlaftis, Purude

24) Dallas Cowboys — DE Travon Walker, Georgia

25) Cincinnati Bengals — OT Trevor Penning, Northern Iowa

26) Miami Dolphins (via SF) — WR Jahan Dotson, Penn State

27) Buffalo Bulls — CB Trent McDuffie, Washington

28) Detroit Lions (via LAR) — QB Sam Howell, North Carolina

29) Kansas City Chiefs — DE Cameron Thomas, San Diego State

30) Tampa Bay Buccaneers — DL DeMarvin Leal, Texas A&M

31) Tennessee Titans — CB Kyler Gordon, Washington

32) Green Bay Packers — TE Trey McBride, Colorado State

If I was the GM

At 4.  Ikem Ekwonu

At 10. Ahmad “Sauce” Gardner, Cincinnati (even if Stingley is on the board)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JetsFanatic said:

I’m warming up to Hamilton. At 4 he may very well be our best option. We still have 3 other first and seconded round picks. Hamilton would be a huge upgrade on our defense

I'd rather reach for Dean.  Would also be a huge upgrade for our defense at a position that really matters.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

I'd rather reach for Dean.  Would also be a huge upgrade for our defense at a position that really matters.  

I don’t like reaching at 4. Can’t draft by position unless the talent level is close. Hamilton is a very talented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JetsFanatic said:

I don’t like reaching at 4. Can’t draft by position unless the talent level is close. Hamilton is a very talented.

How is a stud player at 9 a "reach" at 4.  This isn't a math equation with exact numerical positions assigned--all of these guys 4-12 are pretty much the same.  It's not like I'm suggesting taking a guy projected to go 25.  

I'd posit that Dean is a better, more talented player than Hamilton and at a position that really matters.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Maxman said:

I hope they trade down rather than go this route.

If the draft board is at all like this - who is going to want to trade up??  Maybe the best hope is if the 2nd best OT is rated a lot higher than the next one, and someone wants to get in front of the Giants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JetsFanatic said:

You called him a reach

That's just a colloquialism as it relates to Kiper's.  Taking a guy at 4 that he has at 9 is not really a reach.

Btw, there are Mocks that have Hamilton going anywhere from 4 to 10, so Dean really isn't a "reach".

They are generally in the same stratosphere.  I'm not taking a Safety.

I'd rather the LB.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, derp said:

So as to your first two paragraphs - why are they not paid proportionally to the impact and why are they drafted that high if they’re not paid that high?

Positions that get paid are clearly and overwhelmingly QB, LT, WR, DL, and CB. I think if you look at it exclusively from the pay context any other position would be a mistake - it’s just differing degrees of mistake. And the Jets have themselves in a bit of a bind with two top ten picks in this particular draft context.

Splitting hairs with that mistake just ends up digging into different ways teams have made draft and contract mistakes over the years. And that’s before you get into stuff like how crazily WR’s are overpaid and over drafted.

TEs are not typically drafted that high. It's uncommon in the top 5-6, and too often when it's done in the few picks after that it's regretted (e.g. Hockenstein, done by the same team that also drafted a center top 20 the year before, and then has the audacity to wonder why they suck). Sewell was fine value in a vacuum, but he's their 5th OL pick in round 1 from 2015-2021 (and Ebron the second top 10 pick TE). 

The thing is TEs - and far more so centers - are terrible value up there unless they become top 3 players at their respective positions. Compare that with a LT-needy team finding a solid but not great one up there. It's not ideal value, but it's still more or less mission accomplished because they don't need to trade 1st rounders for a veteran who needs a $20-25MM/yr extension. 

Since the turn of the century, the record for drafting TEs even into the 20s overall is more than spotty. Considering their low contract cost anything less than omg-awesome makes them doubly poor picks. Even if you count Pitts as a great pick panning out as hoped, after just 1 season, history says it's a terrible gamble.

  • Top 5 = Pitts
  • 6-10 = V.Davis, Winslow II, Hockenson, Ebron
  • 14-19 = Franks, Shockey, OJHoward
  • 20-24 = Pettigrew, D.Graham, Eifert, D.Clark
  • 25-29 = Hurst, Becht, J.Stevens, M.Lewis, Njoku
  • Oddly enough the picks were better at the very bottom of the round (#30-32), but they were also already mostly TE-heavy playoff/superbowl level: H.Miller, Keller, Heap, Olsen, Watson

Agree on the 5 $$$ positions you outlined, as I've outlined before (but it's pretty obvious). 

WRs may be a bit overpaid and overdrafted, but you can't stand on ceremony and say, "Well we'll be the team that doesn't pay for WRs and doesn't draft them until much later." Perceived injustice of it all aside, the fact is they cost what they cost, and as things are TEs cost way less than WRs. One can get around being relatively WR-needy if a team has the rarest of QB in his prime and a lot more going for it, and I'd say we're not quite there yet on any of those fronts.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheClashFan said:

I agree with you that the Jets should not take Linderbaum with the 4th pick.  However, if the Jets end up staying at 4 and 10, and they draft a defender at 4 (probably edge), I would hope they consider Linderbaum at 10 if he's there.  This would be if his combine and post season stuff checks out that he is as good as hyped.  Supposedly he's the best C prospect in many a year. If they don't feel he's that good, then pass, but don't pass just because he's a C rather than an OT.

It is not just a matter of drafting a C to replace the current one.  The idea here is to improve two spots on the line at once as well as depth.  McGovern slides over the RG and also serves as the backup C.  The Jets would have a potentially elite IOL.  Let's also remember that McGovern hurt his knee and missed the last two games last year. Hopefully he's fine next year, but knees can be dicey things, of course.  And I'm not sold on LDT in his short time here.  Sure, he was better than Van Roten, but almost anybody would have been.

I also just don't think there are any elite playmaker prospects in this draft to take at 10.  The two second round picks seem like good spots to get value at WR and/or TE.  JD needs to hit his picks, whoever they are, not reach for positions better taken later.

FWIW, I don't think the Jets will take Linderbaum if he's there at 10.  I think JD will take an OT at either 4 or 10.  What I really want is JD to be able to trade back from 4 if the top three talents are all off the board.

 

I hope not.

And he absolutely will still be there. Bleacher Report isn't making the picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

TEs are not typically drafted that high. It's uncommon in the top 5-6, and too often when it's done in the few picks after that it's regretted (e.g. Hockenstein, done by the same team that also drafted a center top 20 the year before, and then has the audacity to wonder why they suck). Sewell was fine value in a vacuum, but he's their 5th OL pick in round 1 from 2015-2021 (and Ebron the second top 10 pick TE). 

The thing is TEs - and far more so centers - are terrible value up there unless they become top 3 players at their respective positions. Compare that with a LT-needy team finding a solid but not great one up there. It's not ideal value, but it's still more or less mission accomplished because they don't need to trade 1st rounders for a veteran who needs a $20-25MM/yr extension. 

Since the turn of the century, the record for drafting TEs even into the 20s overall is more than spotty. Considering their low contract cost anything less than omg-awesome makes them doubly poor picks. Even if you count Pitts as a great pick panning out as hoped, after just 1 season, history says it's a terrible gamble.

  • Top 5 = Pitts
  • 6-10 = V.Davis, Winslow II, Hockenson, Ebron
  • 14-19 = Franks, Shockey, OJHoward
  • 20-24 = Pettigrew, D.Graham, Eifert, D.Clark
  • 25-29 = Hurst, Becht, J.Stevens, M.Lewis, Njoku
  • Oddly enough the picks were better at the very bottom of the round (#30-32), but they were also already mostly TE-heavy playoff/superbowl level: H.Miller, Keller, Heap, Olsen, Watson

Agree on the 5 $$$ positions you outlined, as I've outlined before (but it's pretty obvious). 

WRs may be a bit overpaid and overdrafted, but you can't stand on ceremony and say, "Well we'll be the team that doesn't pay for WRs and doesn't draft them until much later." Perceived injustice of it all aside, the fact is they cost what they cost, and as things are TEs cost way less than WRs. One can get around being relatively WR-needy if a team has the rarest of QB in his prime and a lot more going for it, and I'd say we're not quite there yet on any of those fronts.

I guess where I get lost a little is the idea baked into this that dollars are spent appropriately by NFL teams. What we’ve seen with the Jets a lot lately very good but shy of elite level play at premium positions - and I honestly don’t know how helpful it is. When you don’t have Aaron Donald and you’re stuck paying $20M for Leonard or Quinnen Williams, by the “I earned the right to pay a guy a lot of money” metric that’s a win - but is it actually beneficial for the franchise?

I think if you get to the where does a non-elite player make a significant impact on a team discussion…it’s what, quarterback, edge rusher, maybe left tackle? And then ultimately if certain positions end up paid more across the board then that rising tide kind of lifts the very good not difference making players into an area where they eat up salary cap without being difference makers.

You could certainly say we’ll draft wide receivers in the second round repeatedly and then let them walk unless we have reason to believe they’ll live up to their deal. That’s basically what the Packers and Steelers do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, derp said:

I guess where I get lost a little is the idea baked into this that dollars are spent appropriately by NFL teams. What we’ve seen with the Jets a lot lately very good but shy of elite level play at premium positions - and I honestly don’t know how helpful it is. When you don’t have Aaron Donald and you’re stuck paying $20M for Leonard or Quinnen Williams, by the “I earned the right to pay a guy a lot of money” metric that’s a win - but is it actually beneficial for the franchise?

I think if you get to the where does a non-elite player make a significant impact on a team discussion…it’s what, quarterback, edge rusher, maybe left tackle? And then ultimately if certain positions end up paid more across the board then that rising tide kind of lifts the very good not difference making players into an area where they eat up salary cap without being difference makers.

You could certainly say we’ll draft wide receivers in the second round repeatedly and then let them walk unless we have reason to believe they’ll live up to their deal. That’s basically what the Packers and Steelers do.

The Packers and Steelers do and they don't. They often do extend their young WRs; they just don't usually extend them twice (Antonio Brown being a recent exception). Then again Hines Ward also played his whole career there. Part of the reason they let a lot go is they've hit on more than most, and there are only so many a team can retain. Packers did extend Jennings and Nelson and Cobb. What they've been very good at is extending them early, and identifying which ones are worth extending early and which ones they can let go of. It's impressive, really.

That's also one of the rationalizations for not seeking a new, high-pick, rookie OL starter this year, unless they've secretly given up on Becton already, or they're baking into the cake that at least one of the 3 is a rookie-contract rental only. I'm fine with replacing starters after a few years or so, even on the OL, but not if they're taken that early in the draft. Putting another year of distance between these guys will help keep more of them together for more years, especially with a QB contract also in the mix, should Wilson develop as hoped. 

In the end, a team has a decision to make: pay the going rate or start over. They all are faced with these decisions because they can't keep everybody, and they'd rather overpay a bit for 2 guaranteed seasons than throw a top 10 pick on a player who won't sniff at those good to great veteran WR/LT/QB/DL/CB dollars. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

TEs are not typically drafted that high. It's uncommon in the top 5-6, and too often when it's done in the few picks after that it's regretted (e.g. Hockenstein, done by the same team that also drafted a center top 20 the year before, and then has the audacity to wonder why they suck). Sewell was fine value in a vacuum, but he's their 5th OL pick in round 1 from 2015-2021 (and Ebron the second top 10 pick TE). 

The thing is TEs - and far more so centers - are terrible value up there unless they become top 3 players at their respective positions. Compare that with a LT-needy team finding a solid but not great one up there. It's not ideal value, but it's still more or less mission accomplished because they don't need to trade 1st rounders for a veteran who needs a $20-25MM/yr extension. 

Since the turn of the century, the record for drafting TEs even into the 20s overall is more than spotty. Considering their low contract cost anything less than omg-awesome makes them doubly poor picks. Even if you count Pitts as a great pick panning out as hoped, after just 1 season, history says it's a terrible gamble.

  • Top 5 = Pitts
  • 6-10 = V.Davis, Winslow II, Hockenson, Ebron
  • 14-19 = Franks, Shockey, OJHoward
  • 20-24 = Pettigrew, D.Graham, Eifert, D.Clark
  • 25-29 = Hurst, Becht, J.Stevens, M.Lewis, Njoku
  • Oddly enough the picks were better at the very bottom of the round (#30-32), but they were also already mostly TE-heavy playoff/superbowl level: H.Miller, Keller, Heap, Olsen, Watson

Agree on the 5 $$$ positions you outlined, as I've outlined before (but it's pretty obvious). 

WRs may be a bit overpaid and overdrafted, but you can't stand on ceremony and say, "Well we'll be the team that doesn't pay for WRs and doesn't draft them until much later." Perceived injustice of it all aside, the fact is they cost what they cost, and as things are TEs cost way less than WRs. One can get around being relatively WR-needy if a team has the rarest of QB in his prime and a lot more going for it, and I'd say we're not quite there yet on any of those fronts.

what? no kyle brady?  my bad, your list is from the turn of the century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Peace Frog said:

Interesting the WR and TEs still on the board heading into Rd 2.

Burks and Bell.

Wydemeyer, Kolar and Ruckert.

If we pass on, say a London in Rd 1,  can we double dip in round 2 for a WR and a TE? 

 

Keep in mind its Kiper . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

The Packers and Steelers do and they don't. They often do extend their young WRs; they just don't usually extend them twice (Antonio Brown being a recent exception). Then again Hines Ward also played his whole career there. Part of the reason they let a lot go is they've hit on more than most, and there are only so many a team can retain. Packers did extend Jennings and Nelson and Cobb. What they've been very good at is extending them early, and identifying which ones are worth extending early and which ones they can let go of. It's impressive, really.

That's also one of the rationalizations for not seeking a new, high-pick, rookie OL starter this year, unless they've secretly given up on Becton already, or they're baking into the cake that at least one of the 3 is a rookie-contract rental only. I'm fine with replacing starters after a few years or so, even on the OL, but not if they're taken that early in the draft. Putting another year of distance between these guys will help keep more of them together for more years, especially with a QB contract also in the mix, should Wilson develop as hoped. 

In the end, a team has a decision to make: pay the going rate or start over. They all are faced with these decisions because they can't keep everybody, and they'd rather overpay a bit for 2 guaranteed seasons than throw a top 10 pick on a player who won't sniff at those good to great veteran WR/LT/QB/DL/CB dollars. 

Yeah, your first paragraph kind of restates what I said about identifying who’s worth another contract. Some stay, some walk. No first round WR’s by either team in quite some time either - I think the Packers took a Florida State WR whose name escapes me in the first round 15 years or so ago.

The second gets at a question - what’s prudent use of two top ten picks for this team this year? I’d argue they’re forced to do something not prudent - which maybe means they’ll move off a pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, derp said:

Yeah, your first paragraph kind of restates what I said about identifying who’s worth another contract. Some stay, some walk. No first round WR’s by either team in quite some time either - I think the Packers took a Florida State WR whose name escapes me in the first round 15 years or so ago.

The second gets at a question - what’s prudent use of two top ten picks for this team this year? I’d argue they’re forced to do something not prudent - which maybe means they’ll move off a pick.

On one hand it's too early, since the expected draft order in January is rarely what actually happens in April. It's also difficult to answer because I'm not in on what all options - including trading down, and who's on & off the board - will be.

I'd take a lesser-perceived value in a trade down than way over-draft to take a center that high, especially when the team doesn't need a center in the first place. If we're going to even consider less-than-tier1 positions, then at least make it a position of extreme need, where the difference between what we have and what might be is so massive. 

e.g. the Jets need LB help. Would Devin White be a waste of a pick? The position wouldn't be my first choice, but adding him instead of one of our lowly LB starters would change the team (for the better) far more than a moderate upgrade at center. Ditto if there was a corner who becomes the next Jalen Ramsey. 

The other problem I have is I really don't know the prospects; I'm just basing it on the position they play. If it's a position that can be competently filled with (in 2021-22 dollars) under a $15MM/yr contract, it's a reach that high unless you're literally talking about filling one of the last 1-2 remaining holes on a playoff team. Taking a center that high doesn't qualify on any front, and imo is foolishness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it won't happen, it never does, but a trade down from 4 would be great if both of the top pass rushers are gone. I just don't know outside of Hutchinson or Thiboduex if there is a guy that really sticks out for this team with the 4th pick. There are just so many holes to fill. Maybe one of these QB's can make a run up the draft boards and be worth it for one of these teams to trade up. Maybe we can swing a trade with Atlanta or Denver at 8 or 9, pick up another first + second and keep on trying to get as many talented prospects on this roster as we can. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

On one hand it's too early, since the expected draft order in January is rarely what actually happens in April. It's also difficult to answer because I'm not in on what all options - including trading down, and who's on & off the board - will be.

I'd take a lesser-perceived value in a trade down than way over-draft to take a center that high, especially when the team doesn't need a center in the first place. If we're going to even consider less-than-tier1 positions, then at least make it a position of extreme need, where the difference between what we have and what might be is so massive. 

e.g. the Jets need LB help. Would Devin White be a waste of a pick? The position wouldn't be my first choice, but adding him instead of one of our lowly LB starters would change the team (for the better) far more than a moderate upgrade at center. Ditto if there was a corner who becomes the next Jalen Ramsey. 

The other problem I have is I really don't know the prospects; I'm just basing it on the position they play. If it's a position that can be competently filled with (in 2021-22 dollars) under a $15MM/yr contract, it's a reach that high unless you're literally talking about filling one of the last 1-2 remaining holes on a playoff team. Taking a center that high doesn't qualify on any front, and imo is foolishness.

I honestly don’t know enough league wide about how draft picks have worked out - my best guess at it is PFF. White is graded pretty terribly - worse than CJ Mosley and Quincy Williams. Off ball linebackers in the first round over the last 5ish years have terrible PFF grades with two exceptions - Micah Parsons who has been beyond tremendous and Zaven Collins who hasn’t played. I kind of start to get behind the idea of the two top off ball linebackers and then look at that.

This draft class is extremely weak at the top. The prevailing opinion I’ve seen, and I actually think it’s reasonable, is that it’s possible no prospect this year would have gone in the top ten last year. So obviously picking at 4 is brutal, and then picking at 10 is arguably closer to picking at 20 most years. It’s why you see Linderbaum as or flirting with being a top ten prospect in this draft class - because he may actually, even considering position value, be one of the ten best players in this draft class.

I think our difference in opinion on taking positions largely amounts to a difference in opinion on the likelihood and the impact of missing versus hitting a solid player versus hitting a superstar. If I had more time it’d be interesting to develop a little value tree to it. I think the superstar is remarkably low probability.

And the bold. Are you saying peak value or going out and getting a free agent?

Put differently, I think the only fiscally prudent thing the Jets could do this draft shy of moving down from 10 is edge rusher-edge rusher. And in a trade down it’s either edge rusher-edge rusher or edge rusher-wide receiver. There’s maybe a tackle (offensive or defensive) scenario in there but they both require a little mind bending on my part. 

The other big factor is the best thing that can happen to this franchise is Zach Wilson succeeding - so how do the draft picks play into trying to make that happen, and if not have a situation the next guy can come be successful in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, derp said:

So as to your first two paragraphs - why are they not paid proportionally to the impact and why are they drafted that high if they’re not paid that high?

Positions that get paid are clearly and overwhelmingly QB, LT, WR, DL, and CB. I think if you look at it exclusively from the pay context any other position would be a mistake - it’s just differing degrees of mistake. And the Jets have themselves in a bit of a bind with two top ten picks in this particular draft context.

Splitting hairs with that mistake just ends up digging into different ways teams have made draft and contract mistakes over the years. And that’s before you get into stuff like how crazily WR’s are overpaid and over drafted.

It’s not about a need for the Jets to justify the why, but rather to recognize that it is.

There’s greater demand for those positions in the draft and FA. The elite ones are also in short supply.

Failure to recognize that means instead of finding them in the top of the draft, we’re instead looking lower in the draft (lower chance of success) or in FA (higher cost).

There’s been no historical evidence of the necessity (or wisdom) of drafting centers and TEs very early, whether in terms of getting the best ones or in resource allocation in team building.There’s much evidence to the contrary, though.

To defy the trend one is only left with a single rationalization: it’s better to draft a good player at a low demand position than a bust at a high demand one. But I’m addition to the lack of historical evidence for those positions having high floors early in the draft, they also typically have lower ceilings in terms of overall impact.

There are reasons for expressions like I don’t make the rules I just play by them. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Warfish said:

If the draft plays out this way, I would prefer OT Ikem Ekwonu, NC State at #4 and WR Garrett Wilson, Ohio State at #10, as of right now.

For reasons stated elsewhere (repeatedly) in re: Offense > Defense, building/supporting Zach Wilson, premium positions of maximum impact, etc.

If we went the way I prefer, I could see Defense with both picks in the 2nd and in the 3rd, as the unit does need alot of help.  That would mean no TE in the draft.

Caveat:  All depends on who and what we get in FA, of course.  

Wilson is more of a slot WR isn’t he?  I want a WR but I think that Burk or London might be a better fit given how much better Moore is out of the slot and if we resign Berrios.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Wilson is more of a slot WR isn’t he?  I want a WR but I think that Burk or London might be a better fit given how much better Moore is out of the slot and if we resign Berrios.

Fair point, Wilson is (I believe) pretty small (6'0", 192-ish).  A Wilson (1), Moore (2), Berrios (Slot) trio of starting WR's would definitely be a "Mighty Mini" group, no question.  Hellishly speedy and elusive, but no strong/height guys in that group.

Burks is 6'3"/225 and London is 6'5"/210.

I just really like the comps I hear about Wilson, which is the WFT #1 Terry McLaurin.

" Wilson has continued to show his game-breaking speed and electrifying playmaking ability this season. He runs smooth routes, showing suddenness in-and-out of his breaks to consistently generate separation. Along with being fast playmaker, Wilson has good body control to adjust to the ball and is phenomenal after the catch. A lot of scouts feel Wilson is smoother and more explosive than Chris Olave for the next level." - https://walterfootball.com/draft2022WR.php

Burks, I could see an argument there, he is the #1 overall WR prospect on some sites (like the link above, where Wilson is #2), and with a review like this:  

"Burks.....has been a phenomenal playmaker for the Razorbacks as a dangerous point producer, including a superb outing against Alabama (7-129-1). Burks is a big possessional receiver for the next level as he is tough, physical, and dangerous after the catch. On 50-50 and jump balls, Burks is phenomenal with his ability to use his strong frame to get good position and then out-jump defensive backs with excellent high-pointing skills. Burks also shows very reliable hands. If Burks runs fast times in workouts before the 2022 NFL Draft, it would really help him."

The underlined certainly sounds like something Zach Wilson would benefit from, no doubt.

Drake London is the 5th rated prospect per the link above, not sure we want to take the 5th prospect at pick #10, I feel like that would be a reach.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It’s not about a need for the Jets to justify the why, but rather to recognize that it is.

There’s greater demand for those positions in the draft and FA. The elite ones are also in short supply.

Failure to recognize that means instead of finding them in the top of the draft, we’re instead looking lower in the draft (lower chance of success) or in FA (higher cost).

There’s been no historical evidence of the necessity (or wisdom) of drafting centers and TEs very early, whether in terms of getting the best ones or in resource allocation in team building.There’s much evidence to the contrary, though.

To defy the trend one is only left with a single rationalization: it’s better to draft a good player at a low demand position than a bust at a high demand one. But I’m addition to the lack of historical evidence for those positions having high floors early in the draft, they also typically have lower ceilings in terms of overall impact.

There are reasons for expressions like I don’t make the rules I just play by them. 

Huh this is your second reply to an old post. So that’s weird, I already responded to your first reply to this post. But I’ll play along anyway.

You kind of got the TE-center comparison the first time around but it seems you’ve missed the purpose when circling back for whatever reason when you came back in cold.

Elite players are in short supply at every position. Free agency demand is a fool’s errand.

Is the third paragraph insinuating the Jets’ issues are because they haven’t prioritized premium positions? The Jets have hit demand positions pretty hard early in drafts. Tons of corners and defensive tackles mostly. Some odd Mike Maccagnan picks thrown in (Lee, Adams), Calvin Pryor, and AVT last year. Otherwise it’s DL, CB, QB, or Becton back to like Dustin Keller - and the early pick that draft was Gholston.

Every position has a lower chance of success as you get lower in the draft. Draft hit rate early is pretty low. What the Jets have done is draft premium positions and hit on good but not elite players which puts them in a crazy pay stratosphere for something not all that impressive. Or just outright busts. So they continue to spin their wheels.

There actually is evidence that offensive line picks have lower bust rates.

To accept the trend is to believe that NFL teams are good at what they do, I suppose. Jets have been following trends for years. Taking a QB with a top five pick because you need to get one early is another one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, derp said:

Huh this is your second reply to an old post. So that’s weird, I already responded to your first reply to this post. But I’ll play along anyway.

You kind of got the TE-center comparison the first time around but it seems you’ve missed the purpose when circling back for whatever reason when you came back in cold.

Elite players are in short supply at every position. Free agency demand is a fool’s errand.

Is the third paragraph insinuating the Jets’ issues are because they haven’t prioritized premium positions? The Jets have hit demand positions pretty hard early in drafts. Tons of corners and defensive tackles mostly. Some odd Mike Maccagnan picks thrown in (Lee, Adams), Calvin Pryor, and AVT last year. Otherwise it’s DL, CB, QB, or Becton back to like Dustin Keller - and the early pick that draft was Gholston.

Every position has a lower chance of success as you get lower in the draft. Draft hit rate early is pretty low. What the Jets have done is draft premium positions and hit on good but not elite players which puts them in a crazy pay stratosphere for something not all that impressive. Or just outright busts. So they continue to spin their wheels.

There actually is evidence that offensive line picks have lower bust rates.

To accept the trend is to believe that NFL teams are good at what they do, I suppose. Jets have been following trends for years. Taking a QB with a top five pick because you need to get one early is another one.

I had a lot of posts I replied to. They're hard to keep track of sometimes; sorry if I replied to yours twice. 

In replying to this, I guess it's just that, even if one presumes the number of elite centers are in short supply, my response is who cares? There's no evidence that elite centers predominantly come from round 1, on top of a lack of evidence that this is the main difference-maker for a team (difference on top of an average, experienced veteran center; not in comparison to Spencer Long or Wesley Johnson).

Green Bay just lost a 1st team all pro center, replaced him with a struggling rookie, then that rookie got injured and he was replaced with his backup. They look like they're headed to the super bowl anyway. Granted it's an extreme example because there's only one Rodgers (throwing to Adams, no less) but going from an AP1 to a 2nd/3rd string level center is pretty extreme as well.

Anyway I don't think there's an automatic rule for everything -- e.g. QBs coming only from the top 5 vs. QBs (with at least some talent) going to ideal environments. 

It's more that it's harder to nail a combo of high ceiling measurables with demonstrated prior production with whatever else makes a prospect a higher round 1 guy vs. a mere round 2 (if not day 3 or undrafted) prospect. That doesn't guarantee success, but - to me, anyway - even a very high ceiling center doesn't offer so much team upgrade that he's worth one of the team's highest lottery picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, derp said:

 

There actually is evidence that offensive line picks have lower bust rates.

 

that may be true, but there is evidence that the more you pick in the 1st rd the less chance you have of winning and going to a SB.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I had a lot of posts I replied to. They're hard to keep track of sometimes; sorry if I replied to yours twice. 

In replying to this, I guess it's just that, even if one presumes the number of elite centers are in short supply, my response is who cares? There's no evidence that elite centers predominantly come from round 1, on top of a lack of evidence that this is the main difference-maker for a team (difference on top of an average, experienced veteran center; not in comparison to Spencer Long or Wesley Johnson).

Green Bay just lost a 1st team all pro center, replaced him with a struggling rookie, then that rookie got injured and he was replaced with his backup. They look like they're headed to the super bowl anyway. Granted it's an extreme example because there's only one Rodgers (throwing to Adams, no less) but going from an AP1 to a 2nd/3rd string level center is pretty extreme as well.

Anyway I don't think there's an automatic rule for everything -- e.g. QBs coming only from the top 5 vs. QBs (with at least some talent) going to ideal environments. 

It's more that it's harder to nail a combo of high ceiling measurables with demonstrated prior production with whatever else makes a prospect a higher round 1 guy vs. a mere round 2 (if not day 3 or undrafted) prospect. That doesn't guarantee success, but - to me, anyway - even a very high ceiling center doesn't offer so much team upgrade that he's worth one of the team's highest lottery picks.

You’ve gotten really stuck on the center thing when you go back and forth with me when I don’t think the Jets will or should take Linderbaum. You’ve just got a higher opinion of the alternatives than I do. 

In my post you didn’t reply to I said I think the only fiscally responsible thing they can do based on current team structure is edge-edge, which is messy for its own reasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, doitny said:

that may be true, but there is evidence that the more you pick in the 1st rd the less chance you have of winning and going to a SB.

We’ve done this before - there are massive sample size issues with what you put together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

Wilson is more of a slot WR isn’t he?  I want a WR but I think that Burk or London might be a better fit given how much better Moore is out of the slot and if we resign Berrios.

Wilson played like 80% of his snaps outside last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, derp said:

You’ve gotten really stuck on the center thing when you go back and forth with me when I don’t think the Jets will or should take Linderbaum. You’ve just got a higher opinion of the alternatives than I do. 

In my post you didn’t reply to I said I think the only fiscally responsible thing they can do based on current team structure is edge-edge, which is messy for its own reasons. 

Don't take it personally. I don't keep close track of which 75% of the website thinks we should draft a center #10 (if not #4). There are a lot of posters here.

Yeah I remember the edge thing, and a couple months back I didn't think he'd go for it (in the very next draft after forking over notable contracts for C.Lawson and then JFM), but now I'm thinking he might, if for no other reason than he sees JFM didn't have the stellar pass-rushing season he looked like he was about to have, and after 1 year the guarantees expire anyway.

Also yes edge-edge does have an inherent mess, in that we'd be burning twin top-10 picks that will necessarily mean at least one of them is on the bench instead of starting, and that's a bit much for any team - particularly one with as many needs as this one has - when it's already got two edges/ends under contract at $13-14MM apiece (whatever it is), even if both are cuttable a year later.

But there are other high-dollar positions that are available other than edge. Question is which is easier for a GM to swallow: reaching a few slots based on prospect ranking, or reaching in terms of prospect value? I think the former...unless he's a bust lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...