Jump to content

Jets more likely to trade up from #35 for WR, than to take one at #10


Recommended Posts

Talking tea leaves here with my boi @OtherwiseHappyinLife --

While a trade back could mix things up, the jets had private meetings/workouts with virtually all the WRs; Williams, Burks, Olave, Wilson etc.... Which tells you--

  1.  You don't meet with this many guys unless you know you need one and you don't know who's gonna be there
  2.  If you were dead set on taking one at 10, you wouldn't be turning rocks over. You love 1, maybe 2. Meet them and settle on order. 
  3. They are also planning for the possibility of trading out of #10/#4 and want to be sure they've done their homework.

Notable is the lack of Drake London -- possibly a reflection their assessment of him. Eitherway, i don't want this to get too dense. The Jets didn't labor over working out ALL of the QBs last year. Nor ALL of the CBs this year etc etc. I think plan A is likely to expect Sauce Gardner at #4, and then edge at #10 - Thibodeaux being the wildcard. Maybe for the London lovers, if Thibs is the guy at #4, maybe London is a gimme a #10 - no need to work him out. 

Cup-black-tea-top-leaves.jpg?q=60

  • Upvote 1
  • Sympathy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been saying this for weeks. The Jets are willing to move the 2nds and a third for the right WR. That tells me they are willing to give up some package of picks to get a rookie WR.

I fully expect us to have at least 3 firsts this year with an outside shot at 4 firsts.

 

4 - Sauce

10 - Johnson II

35 - Pickens

38 - Brisker

69 - Muma

111 - Cook

  • Upvote 1
  • Sympathy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Paradis said:

Talking tea leaves here with my boi @OtherwiseHappyinLife --

While there's no certainty that a trade back doesn't mix things up, the jets had private meetings/workouts with virtually all the WRs; Williams, Burks, Olave, Wilson etc.... Which tells you--

  1.  You don't meet with this many guys unless you know you need one and you don't know who's gonna be there
  2.  If you were dead set on taking one at 10, you wouldn't be turning rocks over. You love 1, maybe 2. Meet them and settle on order. 
  3. They are also planning for the possibility of trading out of #10/#4 and want to be sure they've done their homework.

Notable is the lack of Drake London -- possibly a reflection their assessment of him or maybe they don't think he'll be there later. Eitherway, i don't want this to get too dense. The Jets didn't labor over working out ALL of the QBs last year. Nor ALL of the CBs this year etc etc. I think plan A is likely to expect Sauce Gardner at #4, and then edge at #10 - Thibodeaux being the wildcard. Maybe for the London lovers, if Thibs is the guy at #4, maybe London is a gimme a #10 - no need to work him out. 

Cup-black-tea-top-leaves.jpg?q=60

I don't know if that's true. Do you have a link to an article that states your case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bla bla bla said:

I've been saying this for weeks. The Jets are willing to move the 2nds and a third for the right WR. That tells me they are willing to give up some package of picks to get a rookie WR.

I fully expect us to have at least 3 firsts this year with an outside shot at 4 firsts.

 

4 - Sauce

10 - Johnson II

35 - Pickens

38 - Brisker

69 - Muma

111 - Cook

I want a WR  at 10, don't wait.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, DoomProphet said:

I don't know if that's true. Do you have a link to an article that states your case?

Article? You're looking at it. 

What kind of slap dick scouting department are you/GM running that you NEED to bring in 5 WRs for a private work out for pick #10? You're going to have your pick of the litter at #10. You don't need to work out Olave. Or Burks. Or even Jameson ACL... Its not how it works. You whittle it down and bring the 1-2 you love

This was done so when pick 25 (or whatever) rolls around, and 2 of them are still on the board, they know what they're working with... the fact that they had to meet 5 WRs tells you how murky the pecking order is. No one knows what to make of the group, including GMs. Otherwise, you'd know who will be gone... but i don't think anyone knows for sure.

33 minutes ago, DoomProphet said:

I want a WR  at 10, don't wait.

it's clear you don't want it to be true, but it probably is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, HighPitch said:

I really dont want to trade up and lose bodies

no matter what, were getting a good wr, edge and something else plus another early second.

whats the rush here?

This exactly. The WRs being considered in the first round are not all that(with Williams being the exception) There are two WRs Doctson and Watson I believe will be available in the second round who are going to as good or better as the names being mentioned in the first round. No need to trade back into first to grab what I believe are mediocre talents that aren’t worthy of a first round grade 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, HighPitch said:

I really dont want to trade up and lose bodies

no matter what, were getting a good wr, edge and something else plus another early second.

whats the rush here?

This.

Our roster is loaded with very replaceable players. More darts to throw, more turnover of those players is a good thing.

In general, you trade up when you’re a few pieces away from contender. There are exceptions, but not many.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Integrity28 said:

This.

Our roster is loaded with very replaceable players. More darts to throw, more turnover of those players is a good thing.

In general, you trade up when you’re a few pieces away from contender. There are exceptions, but not many.

FTR, not saying I myself want to... just looking what they've done. using that many of your top 30 visits on the upper crust of the WRs suggests they want to know who to pick later on if they (for example) stuck with Olave and Burks as #35 draws nearer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paradis said:

Talking tea leaves here with my boi @OtherwiseHappyinLife --

While there's no certainty that a trade back doesn't mix things up, the jets had private meetings/workouts with virtually all the WRs; Williams, Burks, Olave, Wilson etc.... Which tells you--

  1.  You don't meet with this many guys unless you know you need one and you don't know who's gonna be there
  2.  If you were dead set on taking one at 10, you wouldn't be turning rocks over. You love 1, maybe 2. Meet them and settle on order. 
  3. They are also planning for the possibility of trading out of #10/#4 and want to be sure they've done their homework.

Notable is the lack of Drake London -- possibly a reflection their assessment of him or maybe they don't think he'll be there later. Eitherway, i don't want this to get too dense. The Jets didn't labor over working out ALL of the QBs last year. Nor ALL of the CBs this year etc etc. I think plan A is likely to expect Sauce Gardner at #4, and then edge at #10 - Thibodeaux being the wildcard. Maybe for the London lovers, if Thibs is the guy at #4, maybe London is a gimme a #10 - no need to work him out. 

Cup-black-tea-top-leaves.jpg?q=60

I think the Jets have to prepare to take a WR later because they don't know  how the draft will fall. They may like Wilson at 10 but not London and are not prepared to take another receiver at 10. If Wilson is off the board at 10, they may pivot and grab another player at another position and then go WR in round 2 or trade up into late round 1 to grab a WR.  There are so many variables that JD has to be prepared to go in a different direction with each pick depending  on who is on the board. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Sympathy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not see a Saleh coached team drafting a CB in the first round, let alone with the 4th pick.  I would be both shocked and disappointed if they do that. I think the pick at 4 will be edge or OT.  The pick at 10 depends on who is there.  The picks early in the 2nd depend on who they picked at 4 and 10 and who is on the board.  Saleh wants to emphasize getting the QB over coverage (rightfully so in today's NFL).  I see them picking edge before a DB with each of the first 4 picks.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Paradis said:

FTR, not saying I myself want to... just looking what they've done. using that many of your top 30 visits on the upper crust of the WRs suggests they want to know who to pick later on if they (for example) stuck with Olave and Burks as #35 draws nearer

Yea, I get it.

It may also signal a move back. Is Burks + picks >>> Drake London? That’s how I’d view it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

Yea, I get it.

It may also signal a move back. Is Burks + picks >>> Drake London? That’s how I’d view it.

I think it's a win-win there -- if you move back to pick 16-20, you know what you're working with.. Conversely, if you love someone and don't want to risk the run late in the first (GB, KC, etc) - you could leapfrog that run

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, of course they might.  They've been willing to part ways with numerous picks for a WR, so if they're in love with someone and afraid he's not making it to 35, I could see it.  Depends on how it falls, obviously.  We've seen some serious talent go 2nd round past few years, many of which people are mentioning in trades. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Paradis said:

I think it's a win-win there -- if you move back to pick 16-20, you know what you're working with.. Conversely, if you love someone and don't want to risk the run late in the first (GB, KC, etc) - you could leapfrog that run

I’m just in the business of always bagging an extra first rounder if you pick early. This or next year.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

I really don't know what this means - Are you angry I disagree with you?

Or is this a joke of some sort?

I would invite you to a discourse. But it requires you read and reflect on the points I made, and show up with more than “No..”

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paradis said:

I would invite you to a discourse. But it requires you read and reflect on there points I made, and show up with more than “No..”

 Honestly, I apologize for not being more detailed, it wasn't meant as an affront to you...just something I feel strongly about and made a quick comment.  You are right with your response.

With that said, here you go.  

1) I don't believe doing diligence on WR's doesn't show, in any way, that you don't want your top choice.  In fact, in my opinion, it shows the opposite.

2) They didn't do this much diligence on QB's because they were taking one at 2 and knew it was going to be one of two guys.  Moreover there really were only 5 potential candidates and they did spend time with all of them.

3) When picking at 10 you really don't know what other teams think and need to be prepared for multiple scenarios.  Far more variables.  What if you're first 2 o3 choices are gone by then?  If you're picking at 10 and are taking a WR - you better damn sure have at least a list of your top 4 or 5..and in order to do that you must do detailed research on every majorl prospect which happens to be pretty deep this year.    

4) Now, you didn't reference this - but JD's pursuit of a top tier WR in the off-season and statements along the lines of the offense would be complete if they had Hill - he knows they need a number 1.  IMO, this offense is complete - no longer any holes - other than WR1 (and depth) but other than WR1 - there's legitimate talent at every position.  Just too key a piece to mess around with.

I can see where you're going with this and I get it.  I can absolutely follow your logic, I just see if differently.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Paradis said:

I would invite you to a discourse. But it requires you read and reflect on there points I made, and show up with more than “No..”

Lol what did he say? He just gave his opinion on what he thinks will happen like everyone else. Run out of meds? Call walgreens

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the argument, but I’d still just take the guy I like at 10 and keep all my assets. Then again, I suppose they might want an edge or someone else at 10. 

 

I was actually going to start a thread asking about whether the Jets were going to meet with London. Douglas has talked about the importance of speed at WR . . . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bla bla bla said:

I've been saying this for weeks. The Jets are willing to move the 2nds and a third for the right WR. That tells me they are willing to give up some package of picks to get a rookie WR.

I fully expect us to have at least 3 firsts this year with an outside shot at 4 firsts.

 

4 - Sauce

10 - Johnson II

35 - Pickens

38 - Brisker

69 - Muma

111 - Cook

Where do I sign!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Paradis said:

Talking tea leaves here with my boi @OtherwiseHappyinLife --

While a trade back could mix things up, the jets had private meetings/workouts with virtually all the WRs; Williams, Burks, Olave, Wilson etc.... Which tells you--

  1.  You don't meet with this many guys unless you know you need one and you don't know who's gonna be there
  2.  If you were dead set on taking one at 10, you wouldn't be turning rocks over. You love 1, maybe 2. Meet them and settle on order. 
  3. They are also planning for the possibility of trading out of #10/#4 and want to be sure they've done their homework.

Notable is the lack of Drake London -- possibly a reflection their assessment of him. Eitherway, i don't want this to get too dense. The Jets didn't labor over working out ALL of the QBs last year. Nor ALL of the CBs this year etc etc. I think plan A is likely to expect Sauce Gardner at #4, and then edge at #10 - Thibodeaux being the wildcard. Maybe for the London lovers, if Thibs is the guy at #4, maybe London is a gimme a #10 - no need to work him out. 

Cup-black-tea-top-leaves.jpg?q=60

Your conclusions are not necessarily correct. Drake London's exclusion could be the exact opposite and he could be the clear #1 WR on their board and decide not to have him in for a visit so other teams do not see the interest. Having all of the WRs could point to them taking 2 in the first 4 weeks (doubtful but possible).

You could also be correct but teams make moves at this point specifically to smoke screen other teams.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

Your conclusions are not necessarily correct. Drake London's exclusion could be the exact opposite and he could be the clear #1 WR on their board and decide not to have him in for a visit so other teams do not see the interest. Having all of the WRs could point to them taking 2 in the first 4 weeks (doubtful but possible).

You could also be correct but teams make moves at this point specifically to smoke screen other teams.

 

So in summary, I’m probably correct. 

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paradis said:

Talking tea leaves here with my boi @OtherwiseHappyinLife --

While a trade back could mix things up, the jets had private meetings/workouts with virtually all the WRs; Williams, Burks, Olave, Wilson etc.... Which tells you--

  1.  You don't meet with this many guys unless you know you need one and you don't know who's gonna be there
  2.  If you were dead set on taking one at 10, you wouldn't be turning rocks over. You love 1, maybe 2. Meet them and settle on order. 
  3. They are also planning for the possibility of trading out of #10/#4 and want to be sure they've done their homework.

Notable is the lack of Drake London -- possibly a reflection their assessment of him. Eitherway, i don't want this to get too dense. The Jets didn't labor over working out ALL of the QBs last year. Nor ALL of the CBs this year etc etc. I think plan A is likely to expect Sauce Gardner at #4, and then edge at #10 - Thibodeaux being the wildcard. Maybe for the London lovers, if Thibs is the guy at #4, maybe London is a gimme a #10 - no need to work him out. 

Cup-black-tea-top-leaves.jpg?q=60

Love the tea leaves ;).  What’s your take on Gardner and where are the Jets getting a LB?  I know you follow college closely so am genuinely interested.  Also, where (round) do we get a DT who can stop the run?

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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

×
×
  • Create New...