Jump to content

Connor- Baldie the sleuth to take another Ot


hmhertz
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Maynard13 said:

OT Matt Waletzko - like what I hear about this kid. 

Matt Waletzko

OT North Dakota

Height: 6-7 | Weight: 312 | RAS: 9.95

Early on, Waletzko passes the eye test. At 6’7″, 310 pounds, the North Dakota OT has an outrageously long frame — measuring in with a 86-inch wingspan. His long, lumbering strides cover a lot of ground in space, and he’s a rangy blocker with a wide reach. With his length, Waletzko can generate good artificial power with his extensions. Even with his lighter frame, he has decent power capacity, and he can knock players off-base with heavy clubs.

On top of his length, Waletzko is also a good athlete. He’s surprisingly nimble in pass protection. He appears as a springy athlete with easy mobility around the arc. He’s light on his feet when matching defenders, and he keeps a wide, active base in the passing phase. As a run blocker, Waletzko is explosive off the snap. He has the mobility to get to the second level and enter space, and he can pop defenders with power, paving open lanes. The North Dakota OT can bully smaller defenders with his physical tools.

So as I've said many times, I freely admit I can't rank one college prospect or another. 

So if he's got all these good traits, and awesome size, why is he projected so low? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FidelioJet said:

I think for sure their preference is to trade for a WR.  
I would be highly disappointed with a Robby type move though.  Just not enough.   
I still think barring a trade prior, a WR at 10 is a lock.  Far too important to play around with at that point.  

This is my take, as well 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maynard13 said:

OT Matt Waletzko - like what I hear about this kid. 

Matt Waletzko

OT North Dakota

Height: 6-7 | Weight: 312 | RAS: 9.95

Early on, Waletzko passes the eye test. At 6’7″, 310 pounds, the North Dakota OT has an outrageously long frame — measuring in with a 86-inch wingspan. His long, lumbering strides cover a lot of ground in space, and he’s a rangy blocker with a wide reach. With his length, Waletzko can generate good artificial power with his extensions. Even with his lighter frame, he has decent power capacity, and he can knock players off-base with heavy clubs.

On top of his length, Waletzko is also a good athlete. He’s surprisingly nimble in pass protection. He appears as a springy athlete with easy mobility around the arc. He’s light on his feet when matching defenders, and he keeps a wide, active base in the passing phase. As a run blocker, Waletzko is explosive off the snap. He has the mobility to get to the second level and enter space, and he can pop defenders with power, paving open lanes. The North Dakota OT can bully smaller defenders with his physical tools.

Schitts Creek Comedy GIF by CBC

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

So as I've said many times, I freely admit I can't rank one college prospect or another. 

So if he's got all these good traits, and awesome size, why is he projected so low? 

Maybe he's a diva?

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

So as I've said many times, I freely admit I can't rank one college prospect or another. 

So if he's got all these good traits, and awesome size, why is he projected so low? 

He is damn good he has typewriter feet. I don't care for Penning, looks awkward

in his pass sets.  I fear his tenacious rep will lead to penalties. Ws feet remind

me of Fants active pumping up & Down. Chubby Becton's feet come to a stop

and he resorts to trying to shove the rusher away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, hmhertz said:

Simms, Douzable, Jeremiah, Cossell and his 3 cone #s say Thibs can't bend the edge

DK Metcalf's 3 cone once said he wasn't a first round pick. (If I remember right, it was slower than Tom Brady's - LOL)

Few prospects are perfect. If they like Jermaine Johnson more, then go for it. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I think it's just recency bias.

Becton missed the season. Before that he got beat a handful of times by Carl Lawson while the team was installing the new blocking (and while a few of them still looked meh or worse even through week 1 of the regular season, only one of them got to repeatedly line up on the team's only serious edge rusher).

Therefore replace this 23 year-old, whose last extended action had him as an above average starting LT in the league as a 21 year-old rookie. Or worse still, draft another for depth, which has to be even worse use of the #4 pick than dumping Becton after one above average season and one injury-missed season.

Ironically, if the wet dream is to have an elite OL, the odd man out should be the one-dimensional Fant, not Becton. Huge f***ing guy yet he's not even an average run blocker (and never has been). But he's good enough to start and, unless the reason for his non-extension thus far is he's demanding >$20MM/year, the biggest overall improvement will come from upgrading the team elsewhere.

Totally get this argument and my strong preference is for edge/WR at 4/10. Using #4 on OT is not ideal for a variety of reasons. 

But I am curious what your plan would be at #4 if 2 or 3 pass rushers come off the board between 1-3 and Jets don't LOVE an edge rusher at 4. A lot of people would bring up Sauce here, but IMO, this regime just isn't taking a CB with a top 10 pick. 

Who would you take if there isn't a pass rusher there at 4 you love? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

Obviously there will be a few but from an evaluation I sort of feel Gardner might be the only one with a really high chance.

I think he’s the closest there is as a prospect. Agree there will be guys, just not clear right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, slimjasi said:

Totally get this argument and my strong preference is for edge/WR at 4/10. Using #4 on OT is not ideal for a variety of reasons. 

But I am curious what your plan would be at #4 if 2 or 3 pass rushers come off the board between 1-3 and Jets don't LOVE an edge rusher at 4. A lot of people would bring up Sauce here, but IMO, this regime just isn't taking a CB with a top 10 pick. 

Who would you take if there isn't a pass rusher there at 4 you love? 

I don't have enough info to make that decision, like what else does the team know (that we don't) about Becton past & present, and with Fant present & future in terms of his demands.

Also I don't know what trade down options are there -- there'll 100% be options to move down, but it's unknown what's being offered.

Absent problems on all those fronts, yes I'd take a CB there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I don't have enough info to make that decision, like what else does the team know (that we don't) about Becton past & present, and with Fant present & future in terms of his demands.

Also I don't know what trade down options are there -- there'll 100% be options to move down, but it's unknown what's being offered.

Absent problems on all those fronts, yes I'd take a CB there.

If they are really taking Ickey at 4, I have to think they don't believe in Becton and will look to trade him. 

I guess they could be looking to replace Fant with Ickey, but the number 4 overall pick seems like a very expensive way to replace Fant a year from now. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, slimjasi said:

If they are really taking Ickey at 4, I have to think they don't believe in Becton and will look to trade him. 

I guess they could be looking to replace Fant with Ickey, but the number 4 overall pick seems like a very expensive way to replace Fant a year from now. 

Don't get this take...at all?  Fant, as good as he has been in pass blocking, is not a top flight LT and was signed to a contract to be a 'backup' swing tackle at like $9 mill/yr...his best asset was his versatility to be an 'everyman'.  After next season, are the NY Jets willing to dole out to him a LT contract at twice that (minimum) at age 31?  On top of that, is anyone 'certain' about Becton?  I'm not...but he's still a potential option, even if it's at RT.

And how is using the #4 pick to take a LT to replace Fant an 'expensive' option?  I suppose in draft capital, but a franchise LT is a $20 mill/yr on the open market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, greenwave81 said:

Don't get this take...at all?  Fant, as good as he has been in pass blocking, is not a top flight LT and was signed to a contract to be a 'backup' swing tackle at like $9 mill/yr...his best asset was his versatility to be an 'everyman'.  After next season, are the NY Jets willing to dole out to him a LT contract at twice that (minimum) at age 31?  On top of that, is anyone 'certain' about Becton?  I'm not...but he's still a potential option, even if it's at RT.

And how is using the #4 pick to take a LT to replace Fant an 'expensive' option?  I suppose in draft capital, but a franchise LT is a $20 mill/yr on the open market.

Since becton was drafted to be the LT, if they take ekongwu you’re essentially saying there is a good chance that both fant and becton are not on the jets in 2023.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, slimjasi said:

If they are really taking Ickey at 4, I have to think they don't believe in Becton and will look to trade him. 

I guess they could be looking to replace Fant with Ickey, but the number 4 overall pick seems like a very expensive way to replace Fant a year from now. 

Which is why I think swapping him for neither is much of an improvement, absent knowing one of those things about Fant or Becton.

It could be Fant, too. If preliminary talks yielded demands of $20MM per from Fant’s camp I’d be thinking of plans for life after Fant, too. Still doesn’t therefore automatically point to pick #4 (nor #10) but maybe then I’d take one somewhere on day 2. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

Since becton was drafted to be the LT, if they take ekongwu you’re essentially saying there is a good chance that both fant and becton are not on the jets in 2023.  

Umm...maybe?

How many games did Connor McDermott and Chuma Edge play last year?  Screw 2023, I'm talking about 2022, not 2023.

Why can't Icky play RG next year (if he can't beat out Fant/Becton at OT) and then swap out to OT the following year (2023) if truly neither Fant or Becton are still around?

Feel better about next yrs OT's with Fant, Becton and say Icky than Fant, Becton, McDermott, Edoga et al.

This season is all about Zach Wilson...yeah or nay going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, greenwave81 said:

Don't get this take...at all?  Fant, as good as he has been in pass blocking, is not a top flight LT and was signed to a contract to be a 'backup' swing tackle at like $9 mill/yr...his best asset was his versatility to be an 'everyman'.  After next season, are the NY Jets willing to dole out to him a LT contract at twice that (minimum) at age 31?  On top of that, is anyone 'certain' about Becton?  I'm not...but he's still a potential option, even if it's at RT.

And how is using the #4 pick to take a LT to replace Fant an 'expensive' option?  I suppose in draft capital, but a franchise LT is a $20 mill/yr on the open market.

It's expensive because the #4 overall pick is an incredibly valuable asset. In this case, taking a LT at #4 overall two years after taking a LT in the first round is potentially questionable asset allocation. The OL was decent last year without Becton and the team has major holes at other premium positions (edge, WR), so having Becton simply get healthy/in shape and play well this year with Fant on the other side should be the plan. And in that scenario you obviously aren't using the #4 overall pick on a guy who isn't playing year 1. 

Basically, if they take Ickey, either Becton or Fant isn't starting at tackle next year. Which realistically means you are moving one of them. I would assume that would be Becton, but maybe that's wrong. 

Having said all of that, I like Ickey a lot and understand why the Jets would be tempted to take him. 

Edge or WR makes a lot more sense to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, greenwave81 said:

Umm...maybe?

How many games did Connor McDermott and Chuma Edge play last year?  Screw 2023, I'm talking about 2022, not 2023.

Why can't Icky play RG next year (if he can't beat out Fant/Becton at OT) and then swap out to OT the following year (2023) if truly neither Fant or Becton are still around?

Feel better about next yrs OT's with Fant, Becton and say Icky than Fant, Becton, McDermott, Edoga et al.

This season is all about Zach Wilson...yeah or nay going forward.

 

AVT is the RG and they just spent millions on Laken to play LG.  
 

Icky was a fit until they signed Tomlinson. 

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...