Trade Back at #10?

[Sperm Edwards]

3 hours ago, PLO said:

There have been rumours the Jets are shopping the pick, if true it probably tells you something about what they feel about the quality of player that might be there when the pick rolls around on draft night. The only teams that would want to trade into the pick will want a QB, so we're looking at very few contenders for it, crippled even further by the fact this QB draft class is historically bad. 

Combination of quality of player, plus the knowledge that they’ve got another 1st rounder (and two high 2nd rounders) so all their eggs aren’t in the basket for that one pick.

As @derp was pointing out, unless in April it’s clear as day which guy available to us up there is going to be a superstar, the overall team is better off if they can drop however-many slots, to still stay in round 1 but also pick up yet another round 1 pick for 2023. Maybe even lather-rinse-repeat the process from 2023-2024, too, depending what one or both of those pick slots become. 

If the chance of really nailing the pick is about 50-50 (and less than that after round 1), which I think is more or less correct, then - theoretical ceiling aside - 2 picks are better than 1. That’s all relative, of course, rather than a rule; it depends on the draft, the slot(s) involved, and the historical hit/miss % of the positions you’re looking to draft.

Would we benefit from drafting the next Khalil Mack up top instead of Marcus Smith in the 20s, or will it be staying up there to draft the next Sammy Watkins at 4 instead of merely “settling” for Brandon Cooks at 20 (plus an extra 1st rounder in ‘23)? Derp’s right: WR and TE both are high bust/letdown-rate positions, even - or particularly - early in round 1. Watkins wasn’t a bust, but Buffalo would’ve loved to have that one back (gave up their next year’s 1st & 4th to move up from 9 to 4 for Watkins). We won’t get that for just a 5-slot slide this year, but yeah I’d do it for a 10-slot slide that also opens up the freedom of more players at more positions than just the consensus top 4-6 prospects, and a relative letdown pick is tolerated a lot less at #4 than 10 slots later.

With so many top-40 2022 picks already, I suspect Douglas wants to move down for a future 1st in 2023 more than add an extra 2nd in 2022, unless that’s step 1 to further that same goal (i.e. he feels that 2nd rounder #3 affords him the luxury of parlaying one of his current higher 2nds into a 2023 1st). The one thing this draft supposedly isn’t, from what I’m gathering, is very top-heavy where scarce elite or blue-chip talent steeply drops off a cliff after the first handful of picks.

[jamesr]

23 hours ago, The Crusher said:

We will need likely 3 tight ends. I imagine one early as you say, one later  and a FA. Other than a #1 wide receiver this is the most important thing in Saleh’s promise to Zach to lift him up. 

Definitely need to add two guys and potentially keep whoever from this year (Kroft / Griffin) as #3 / depth. Griffin did OK for us, so could have a backup role in 2022.

I'm hoping for one good FA (not just a Kroft type "warm body" signing) and a draft pick in Rd 1 or 2. You need a guy that you know will be able to perform at a high level straight away, so not relying 100% on rookies would be good. A rookie can get plenty reps in 2 TE sets or give them a few series here and there to get them acclimated, but having a Schulz or similar from day one would be huge.

[derp]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I was just reading that myself, even before I posted it.

Hard to know if that means he’s willing to take a major pay cut to stay, or if that’s just because he wants to still be well-regarded after he turns down the Browns’ lowball or non-offer. That could mean well-regarded by fans, by close friends he’s made in his years there, or by close friends on the team. Maybe he met his wife (or fiancee or serious GF) there, and her whole family lives in Cleveland. It’s hardly uncommon to not want to upend one’s family - he does have a daughter - and some go with the flow on that more easily than others. NFL careers are based on perishable skills, and when weighed against the amounts involved and not having a post-NFL career lined up, prudence suggests they be flexible on this during this time, so they can have all life choices that much more open after age 35 (or 40, for some).

What I didn’t realize, until looking it up now, is originally he’s from Cedar Grove, NJ (like 20-30 min from Florham Park; I had to look that up, too, lol). Born there, and lived/played there through HS, before choosing The U. It’s a long time ago, so I don’t know if his parents still live there, but there’s definitely a personal tie to the Jets’ area, too. Quite possible he grew up a Jets fan.

***

Regarding TE3, it’s hard to imagine a roster spot I’m less concerned about.

• If Griffin can be retained at the vet minimum, with a $1MM cap charge discount ~$250K lower than his actual pay, that’s fine by me. Low ceiling, but in case of injury or slow rookie development, he at least knows what he’s doing.
• Otherwise? One of our (other, non-Griffin) stiffs from 2021; or even a second rookie - a blocking TE/OL type or a TE/FB hybrid - they pick up as an UDFA; or just some UDFA camp fodder who gets replaced over the summer by an available but nonetheless sleep-inducing veteran like Griffin. In my mind the TE3 can be a pure blocking TE anyway; it could be McDermott, so long as he’s not there also as even the 4th tackle. As a combo OT5/TE3? Yeah, fine.

The only strong opinion I have on the matter is to not pay $3MM in new money to the team’s TE3 — the very player who was the main inspiration for acquiring a new (read: better) TE1 and TE2 in the first place.

Tons of possible reasons Njoku would want to stay in Cleveland. The punchline of my Njoku thought that I forgot to post was it’d be great if the Jets had guys who just wanted to stay like Njoku wants to stay in Cleveland. Kind of like the Jets tend to need to overpay to attract free agents, I don’t think they have an easy time re-signing guys either.

Anyways, I agree $3M for a TE3 is ridiculous. I think the perk to drafting multiple would be you don’t really know how a rookie is going to shake out - kind of a twist on the beginning of my post quoting Warfish - and frankly a free agent like Njoku is an established player but new scheme, etc. Multiple drafted tight ends gets cheaper depth with the later guy who’s picked - but there’s also a nontrivial chance he ends up better than the earlier draft pick, or even the free agent. It’s not the most likely scenario and in a weak tight end class it’d be something not worth overdoing but this class is pretty good.

I don’t believe in the “we need a tight end let’s draft 5 and hope there’s a good one” philosophy you see on here sometimes but in this case it actually makes roster sense. Pretending the Jets had two good tight ends and Griffin making $3M, I don’t think anybody would bat an eye if they spent a fifth round pick on a third tight end. I more or less look at potentially open roster spots post FA when I think about what the team might target day three.

And eventually the Jets’ GM is going to take two bites at the apple when the draft is deep at a position of need (edge this year, also).

[Bungaman]

23 hours ago, kevinc855 said:

Saw a mock where we waited to the 3rd to take a tight end 

this kid 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/player/_/id/4241374/grant-calcaterra

I hope not. The kid retired at one point in his college career because of multiple concussions. That's an injury history that does not bode well for the future. I'd rather draft a guy who had knee surgery. Head and back injuries - no thank you.

[slats]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

With so many top-40 2022 picks already, I suspect Douglas wants to move down for a future 1st in 2023 more than add an extra 2nd in 2022, unless that’s step 1 to further that same goal (i.e. he feels that 2nd rounder #3 affords him the luxury of parlaying one of his current higher 2nds into a 2023 1st). The one thing this draft supposedly isn’t, from what I’m gathering, is very top-heavy where scarce elite or blue-chip talent steeply drops off a cliff after the first handful of picks.

This is exactly what I think. If he trades down, it will have little to do with who’s on the board or who they’re targeting, and much more about adding another first round pick in 2023. If Zach doesn’t take a significant step forward next season, they could very much want to have a couple extra high picks available to help them acquire another QB. The fans are already restless. I’m not sure Zach gets a third unchallenged year as the starter. Another bad season, and these guys could be looking at replacing the QB or being replaced themselves. Trading back and adding that extra first next year helps to hedge their Zach bet. 

[Warfish]

7 hours ago, derp said:

What if the bold ("So if there is a higher chance of an elite talent at #4 or #10" - Warfish) isn’t the case?

Or it is but to a significantly less degree than usual?

Then you still stand pat and pick the best chance at elite you have.

I don't see the benefit of trading down to get lower picks to draft lower prospects in bulk at this point in the Jets rebuild.

We're not at the "just get lots of bodies" stage of the rebuild.  We have all the young JAG's we can roster. 

We need impact players, player who can maybe make a difference.  Your chances are still better higher than they are later to get that.

7 hours ago, derp said:

 Prevailing opinion is it’s possible no prospect in this class would’ve gone in the top ten last year. 

Last year was a very strong draft class, with 3 QB's as well (none are top-10 worthy this year, a big part of that "none would be top 10 last year" claim).

Doesn't change anything.  You draft the pool you are offered, and you take the best chance at elite that is available.  There will be elite difference makers that come out of this draft class, it's JD's job to identify them, not to punt on it and prolong the "rebuild" because he is either afraid to make a pick, or inept at evaluating talent.

7 hours ago, derp said:

Plus, data shows teams with more picks are more successful. Teams aren’t actually that good at drafting to the point that they actually identify the guys who should be picked earlier. Would be a very different conversation if they were. 

We already have "more picks" with 2 1's and 2 2's, that 4 picks in the top 40.  

Also, the part everyone forgets in their annual "MUST TRADE DOWN" fantasies, there must be a partner who wants to trade up for it to work.  Your own argument argues against that, as why would another team want to trade up, giving up multiple picks, and against all your claims of "more picks better", in a weak draft class?

Any idea that requires us to be smarter than average, and everyone else to be dumb, is usually fantasy.

7 hours ago, derp said:

That’s especially true at two of the three positions you mentioned - WR and TE. 

So draft a WR at #10 and then again in the 3rd-5th.  

No need at this point for the JD special of turning a few mid-rounder picks into a hundred 6th's and 7th's at this point.

Again, we need impact players, as we almost completely lack them.  We do not need more 7th round converted safeties learning to play TE or whatever.

[derp]

13 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Then you still stand pat and pick the best chance at elite you have.

I don't see the benefit of trading down to get lower picks to draft lower prospects in bulk at this point in the Jets rebuild.

We're not at the "just get lots of bodies" stage of the rebuild.  We have all the young JAG's we can roster. 

We need impact players, player who can maybe make a difference.  Your chances are still better higher than they are later to get that.

Last year was a very strong draft class, with 3 QB's as well (none are top-10 worthy this year, a big part of that "none would be top 10 last year" claim).

Doesn't change anything.  You draft the pool you are offered, and you take the best chance at elite that is available.  There will be elite difference makers that come out of this draft class, it's JD's job to identify them, not to punt on it and prolong the "rebuild" because he is either afraid to make a pick, or inept at evaluating talent.

We already have "more picks" with 2 1's and 2 2's, that 4 picks in the top 40.  

Also, the part everyone forgets in their annual "MUST TRADE DOWN" fantasies, there must be a partner who wants to trade up for it to work.  Your own argument argues against that, as why would another team want to trade up, giving up multiple picks, and against all your claims of "more picks better", in a weak draft class?

Any idea that requires us to be smarter than average, and everyone else to be dumb, is usually fantasy.

So draft a WR at #10 and then again in the 3rd-5th.  

No need at this point for the JD special of turning a few mid-rounder picks into a hundred 6th's and 7th's at this point.

Again, we need impact players, as we almost completely lack them.  We do not need more 7th round converted safeties learning to play TE or whatever.

Bold - you said you didn't want to trade down. The assumption baked into that is that there's an option to trade down. Obviously, if there's no option to trade down, then there's no option to trade down. My own argument claims that it's irrational to trade up...every year. Teams trade up...every year. Teams are irrational. Welcome to the NFL.

The just draft your pool idea...is what the Jets have done for years. Not what the better teams do. Douglas has traded down a little but if anything the Jets trade up more than they trade down.

Nobody's talking about acquiring a hundred sixth and seventh round picks. Holy hyperbole. And nobody's talking about just adding bodies.

Your argument is that there's a higher probability of an impact player at say, #10 than #20. Let's assume that's true. The point is that the difference in probability of acquiring an impact player at #10 vs. #20 is less than the probability of acquiring an impact player at say, #50. And so you're increasing your odds of adding impact player by adding picks. This is what better franchises do.

Again, you talked about wide receiver, tight end, and impact players. Rolling through the NFL receiving yardage leaders  - five of the top 20 players in receiving yardage were drafted inside the first round. Two of those five were drafted inside the top ten. Those two fall at 4 (Chase) and 12 (Mike Williams), the outside the top ten were actually outside the top half of the first round and fall at 2 (Jefferson), 11 (DJ Moore), and 16 (Lamb) - very much in play after a trade down.

Those are your impact pass catchers. Most of them were drafted outside the first round, 90% of them drafted outside the top ten. Teams that accumulate picks - particularly in that second, third round area - do better.

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, derp said:

Bold - you said you didn't want to trade down. The assumption baked into that is that there's an option to trade down. Obviously, if there's no option to trade down, then there's no option to trade down. My own argument claims that it's irrational to trade up...every year. Teams trade up...every year. Teams are irrational. Welcome to the NFL.

The just draft your pool idea...is what the Jets have done for years. Not what the better teams do. Douglas has traded down a little but if anything the Jets trade up more than they trade down.

Nobody's talking about acquiring a hundred sixth and seventh round picks. Holy hyperbole. And nobody's talking about just adding bodies.

Your argument is that there's a higher probability of an impact player at say, #10 than #20. Let's assume that's true. The point is that the difference in probability of acquiring an impact player at #10 vs. #20 is less than the probability of acquiring an impact player at say, #50. And so you're increasing your odds of adding impact player by adding picks. This is what better franchises do.

Again, you talked about wide receiver, tight end, and impact players. Rolling through the NFL receiving yardage leaders  - five of the top 20 players in receiving yardage were drafted inside the first round. Two of those five were drafted inside the top ten. Those two fall at 4 (Chase) and 12 (Mike Williams), the outside the top ten were actually outside the top half of the first round and fall at 2 (Jefferson), 11 (DJ Moore), and 16 (Lamb) - very much in play after a trade down.

Those are your impact pass catchers. Most of them were drafted outside the first round, 90% of them drafted outside the top ten. Teams that accumulate picks - particularly in that second, third round area - do better.

Rather than write competing novels, I'm happy to agree to disagree on this topic. 

Given the state of this team today (mostly JAG's), we need as many top-tier impact players as we can acquire, and I believe the best chance for those is the higher up you pick and the more of X that remain available when you pick.  I don't want more, but lesser or leftover, picks, I want the best possible, highest rated prospects, where we are.  I don't want whichever WR's might be left over at #20 or #25 in the hopes that the best WR is really the 5th rated WR, I want the top overall WR prospect that should still be available at #10, for example.

If you feel differently or value prospects/players differently, I can respect that.  

 

[derp]

24 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Rather than write competing novels, I'm happy to agree to disagree on this topic. 

Given the state of this team today (mostly JAG's), we need as many top-tier impact players as we can acquire, and I believe the best chance for those is the higher up you pick and the more of X that remain available when you pick.  I don't want more, but lesser or leftover, picks, I want the best possible, highest rated prospects, where we are.  I don't want whichever WR's might be left over at #20 or #25 in the hopes that the best WR is really the 5th rated WR, I want the top overall WR prospect that should still be available at #10, for example.

If you feel differently or value prospects/players differently, I can respect that.  

 

Fair enough. I think we agree on the goal but disagree on the best approach to accomplish it.

I think your position is logical. I feel strongly the other way because I think numbers point in the other direction in multiple ways, as do anecdotes like the receiving yardage info I posted, and I find that all particularly compelling because it's counterintuitive but consistent. Think it's a great edge for teams that embrace it.

Ultimately I largely believe NFL teams are worse at drafting than we give them credit for and it's the teams that understand how hard it is to identify good players via the draft - but know they're in there somewhere - that do the best.

[Warfish]

35 minutes ago, derp said:

Fair enough. I think we agree on the goal but disagree on the best approach to accomplish it.

I think your position is logical. I feel strongly the other way because I think numbers point in the other direction in multiple ways, as do anecdotes like the receiving yardage info I posted, and I find that all particularly compelling because it's counterintuitive but consistent. Think it's a great edge for teams that embrace it.

Ultimately I largely believe NFL teams are worse at drafting than we give them credit for and it's the teams that understand how hard it is to identify good players via the draft - but know they're in there somewhere - that do the best.

I freely admit, you could be 100% right.  I can see the logic in your argument as well, unquestionably.?

[bd71]

Alot of posts in this thread talk about drafting impact players.  Is McBride considered an impact player at TE?  If so, he needs to be a target.