General Draft/Prospect news

[derp]

3 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

Him as well.  The fact of the matter is if a qb prospect has no warts he us andrew luck

Post I quoted said Allen and Herbert were the last two, Lance was the last one.

[win4ever]

12 hours ago, Chrebetfan80 said:

I hear what youre saying, I just have a hard time believing they're going to go in on another QB this season.  I think they give this combo another year with a real OC and then go from there.  Plus next year fixes to be a much better QB draft.  

Speaking of WR.  Ive been talking to some guys in the college market during my clinic time and a name that was mentioned a few times to me as a later round guy to be interested in was Grant DuBose.  He was at the senior bowl, did alright, and nothing really will pop out to you in terms of his physical specs but he fits what we want to do pretty perfectly.  6'2 200, 4.5 speed, and GREAT at getting open on inbreaking routes.  I dove into the film the last few weeks. Slants, Digs, Posts the dude just knows how to use his body to shield defenders and make a competitive catch.  The parts of his game were the parts I loved about Rashee Rice' game.  I think this is a lower round guy that can really add something to the back end of the WR roster and then eventually develop into a very nice player.  He's going to be a tough, physical, wr who knows how to set up defenders, get open, make tough catches and will be an asset in the Redzone.  

As of now, if we are going to go a guy in the later rounds to round out the offense, I think he's a nice nice fit. 

Yeah, they are a bit of a mystery to me, and their drafting is weird.  They could go about 6 different ways, and I could see it being a decent direction.  In terms of roster talent, that's one of the lower ones in the league but Belichek is ridiculous at getting his defenses to perform well.  

I haven't really looked at him, have no tape.  His highlights look good though, physical guy, seems to attack the ball.  Have you heard anything or looked into Cedric Tillman?  I was starting to look into him before we signed Lazard, because I really liked his ability to use his size on slants and in breaking routes.  Almost like a TE out there, that still offered upside as a WR.  I had him as a Rd. 4 target, but with Lazard on board, it might be too rich.  

I think the draft kinda depends on OBJ or another FA addition.  I'm assuming Corey Davis is gone in the Rodgers deal.  If Davis is gone, and we don't add a guy, then I think the second round pick is in play for WR.  If we add OBJ or someone else, I think it's late round flyers.  

[football guy]

22 hours ago, C Mart said:

 

They’ve been doing this with a ton of “tackles”… Skoronski and Mauch are two of the higher profile guys

[football guy]

21 hours ago, SickJetFan said:

Ur prob right because he will be gone by the time Jets pick...  I would also wager you said the same thing about Breece last year.

I said I didn’t think they would but couldn’t rule it out. In this scenario I’m emphatically stating it won’t happen at 13. If he’s there and their targets are not, they will work out a trade with the Giants

[football guy]

19 hours ago, Barton said:

Why? WR not a consideration at 13? 

They’re wholeheartedly committed to investing in the OL. Only way I see them pivoting off of one is if a top player on their board falls into their lap (idk how they feel about Carter but he’s an example, as would be Tyree Wilson) or because they decided to trade down. People with the Giants have spoken to the Jets to get an idea how much it would cost to move up. They’re looking at CBs and WRs

[derp]

1 minute ago, football guy said:

I said I didn’t think they would but couldn’t rule it out. In this scenario I’m emphatically stating it won’t happen at 13. If he’s there and their targets are not, they will work out a trade with the Giants

From your perspective how do they balance short term, long term, and positional value at 13 from the standpoint that acquiring Rodgers would mean a small window to chase a title?

To me it’s fair to question whether any of the tackles are better than Brown/Becton day one so while depth is a concern, it’s possible a tackle at 13 gets no snaps if he’s a little slow getting ready and other guys stay healthy - big if, but possible. Do we think there’s a degree of comfort with potentially making a depth/long term pick at 13 despite being in a title window?

I’d think DL is the cleanest spot to get immediate impact and fill a need given the way they rotate there, but has a little capped long term upside given the rotation. On topic of the DL, with not much at DT and some nice edge depth built up could we see JFM inside more?

[SickJetFan]

15 minutes ago, football guy said:

I said I didn’t think they would but couldn’t rule it out. In this scenario I’m emphatically stating it won’t happen at 13. If he’s there and their targets are not, they will work out a trade with the Giants

couldnt rule it out is another way just to hedge what you say to never be wrong....but is ok cause I dont really care but if they pass on Njigba to draft another T while having 4 viable starters under contract I will be ******* pissed

 

 

[SickJetFan]

10 minutes ago, derp said:

From your perspective how do they balance short term, long term, and positional value at 13 from the standpoint that acquiring Rodgers would mean a small window to chase a title?

To me it’s fair to question whether any of the tackles are better than Brown/Becton day one so while depth is a concern, it’s possible a tackle at 13 gets no snaps if he’s a little slow getting ready and other guys stay healthy - big if, but possible. Do we think there’s a degree of comfort with potentially making a depth/long term pick at 13 despite being in a title window?

I’d think DL is the cleanest spot to get immediate impact and fill a need given the way they rotate there, but has a little capped long term upside given the rotation. On topic of the DL, with not much at DT and some nice edge depth built up could we see JFM inside more?

what DL would you pick at 13....Im not seeing one.

[derp]

24 minutes ago, SickJetFan said:

what DL would you pick at 13....Im not seeing one.

I suppose the point is more about questioning whether a tackle at 13 makes a guaranteed impact for this roster and what that means if the goal is to contribute to winning now. But there are several big long edge players who could kick JFM inside more rated in the same range as the tackles and Kancey is a beauty is in the eye of the beholder type.

[SickJetFan]

20 minutes ago, derp said:

I suppose the point is more about questioning whether a tackle at 13 makes a guaranteed impact for this roster and what that means if the goal is to contribute to winning now. But there are several big long edge players who could kick JFM inside more rated in the same range as the tackles and Kancey is a beauty is in the eye of the beholder type.

I like Kancey and think he could be a fit in wide 9 but 13th is way too risky for my blood for him.  I agree though he is best of the bunch (DL) and I agree an OT probably doesnt see the field

Saleh will play Brown at LT and he already said AVT will be RG, and I dont see them not playing Becton at RT..then you have Max as swing.

If Brown gets hurt I do not see them playing rookie over Becton and AVT would probably kick out to RT

Lots will say dont count on Becton but to me that is foolish.  It is contract year for him and he will probably play lights out.

 

I do think they will definitely bring in another T and should - just not seeing the value using 13th unless of course T is BPA then sure, I would too.

But if there is a choice for a WR that is BPA over T - then you take the WR.

[derp]

11 minutes ago, SickJetFan said:

I like Kancey and think he could be a fit in wide 9 but 13th is way too risky for my blood for him.  I agree though he is best of the bunch (DL) and I agree an OT probably doesnt see the field

Saleh will play Brown at LT and he already said AVT will be RG, and I dont see them not playing Becton at RT..then you have Max as swing.

If Brown gets hurt I do not see them playing rookie over Becton and AVT would probably kick out to RT

Lots will say dont count on Becton but to me that is foolish.  It is contract year for him and he will probably play lights out.

 

I do think they will definitely bring in another T and should - just not seeing the value using 13th unless of course T is BPA then sure, I would too.

But if there is a choice for a WR that is BPA over T - then you take the WR.

Yeah I think a WR could see the field - but with Wilson-Lazard-Hardman, the option to get multiple TE’s on the field, and pending use of a fullback…you do start to run out of snaps. I think it’s doable but DL is cleaner to find a guy snaps.

[SickJetFan]

3 minutes ago, derp said:

Yeah I think a WR could see the field - but with Wilson-Lazard-Hardman, the option to get multiple TE’s on the field, and pending use of a fullback…you do start to run out of snaps. I think it’s doable but DL is cleaner to find a guy snaps.

sure but finding that DL at 13 is the issue and I am only really talking about 1st round.  I think it would be awesome if they traded back up into the 1st like they did last year with JJ and grab a guy like Kancey.

also I think that WR pecking order would quickly change with a guy like Njigba

Wilson-Lazard-Njigba.......

[derp]

8 minutes ago, SickJetFan said:

sure but finding that DL at 13 is the issue and I am only really talking about 1st round.  I think it would be awesome if they traded back up into the 1st like they did last year with JJ and grab a guy like Kancey.

also I think that WR pecking order would quickly change with a guy like Njigba

Wilson-Lazard-Njigba.......

I think JSN is a very good prospect but you like him more than consensus kind of like I like Kancey more than consensus. He’s at best comparable to guys like Wilson and Van Ness as a prospect. High floor, not a crazy ceiling.

And yeah the pecking order would change at WR, but I don’t think in a way that fills a need as much as a DL would. 

I’d be excited about them taking JSN, don’t get me wrong, but I don’t think it’s in the cards.

[SickJetFan]

3 minutes ago, derp said:

I think JSN is a very good prospect but you like him more than consensus kind of like I like Kancey more than consensus. He’s at best comparable to guys like Wilson and Van Ness as a prospect. High floor, not a crazy ceiling.

And yeah the pecking order would change at WR, but I don’t think in a way that fills a need as much as a DL would. 

I’d be excited about them taking JSN, don’t get me wrong, but I don’t think it’s in the cards.

I dont think in cards either actually...I think the guy who out played GW at OS will be gone by 13

[football guy]

1 hour ago, SickJetFan said:

couldnt rule it out is another way just to hedge what you say to never be wrong....but is ok cause I dont really care but if they pass on Njigba to draft another T while having 4 viable starters under contract I will be ******* pissed

 

 

It's not a hedge lol. It's me stating what I think. What I know vs. what I think are entirely different

[football guy]

2 hours ago, derp said:

From your perspective how do they balance short term, long term, and positional value at 13 from the standpoint that acquiring Rodgers would mean a small window to chase a title?

To me it’s fair to question whether any of the tackles are better than Brown/Becton day one so while depth is a concern, it’s possible a tackle at 13 gets no snaps if he’s a little slow getting ready and other guys stay healthy - big if, but possible. Do we think there’s a degree of comfort with potentially making a depth/long term pick at 13 despite being in a title window?

I’d think DL is the cleanest spot to get immediate impact and fill a need given the way they rotate there, but has a little capped long term upside given the rotation. On topic of the DL, with not much at DT and some nice edge depth built up could we see JFM inside more?

Investing in the OL is both a short-term and long-term play whether that rookie lands a starting job or not. We had SEVEN tackles spend time on IR last year. That doesn't include AVT, who made 4 starts at T last season (1 at LT, 3 at RT). 

Do the Jets expect all these injuries to happen again? Of course not, but they would be ignorant if they simply accepted going into the season as-is. Duane Brown will be 38 years old when the season begins and is coming off an injury. Mekhi Becton has dealt with several injuries in his 3-year career (shoulder/pec, foot, knee x2) and has played in 1 game in 2-years. Max Mitchell's blood clots were a freak occurrence but he too missed time with a knee injury. Drafting a T gives you a high-upside insurance policy no matter who wins the starting 5 spots, while also potentially developing into a cornerstone player at one of the most important positions in the game. 

I get the sense that finding a starting DL would appear to be more important on paper, but there are a lot of contingency plans. They're going to sign a couple of veterans. They are comfortable with JFM playing more inside to free up some snaps for Johnson, Clemons, and Huff (and possibly another draft pick). They like Solomon Thomas as a situational player. Oh and not to mention, they have one of the best defenders in the game at RDT. End of the day they will take a DL if the value is there in round 1 or round 2, but they're prioritizing the OL more. 

[bla bla bla]

13 - Broderick Jones

42 - John Michael Schmitz

43 - Jack Campbell/Antonio Johnson/Mazi Smith

[Barton]

2 hours ago, football guy said:

They’re wholeheartedly committed to investing in the OL. Only way I see them pivoting off of one is if a top player on their board falls into their lap (idk how they feel about Carter but he’s an example, as would be Tyree Wilson) or because they decided to trade down. People with the Giants have spoken to the Jets to get an idea how much it would cost to move up. They’re looking at CBs and WRs

Good input. I get that feeling as well. I wonder if Orlando brown had taken the jets offer, would they consider WR or TE in the 1st rd. 

[derp]

31 minutes ago, football guy said:

Investing in the OL is both a short-term and long-term play whether that rookie lands a starting job or not. We had SEVEN tackles spend time on IR last year. That doesn't include AVT, who made 4 starts at T last season (1 at LT, 3 at RT). 

Do the Jets expect all these injuries to happen again? Of course not, but they would be ignorant if they simply accepted going into the season as-is. Duane Brown will be 38 years old when the season begins and is coming off an injury. Mekhi Becton has dealt with several injuries in his 3-year career (shoulder/pec, foot, knee x2) and has played in 1 game in 2-years. Max Mitchell's blood clots were a freak occurrence but he too missed time with a knee injury. Drafting a T gives you a high-upside insurance policy no matter who wins the starting 5 spots, while also potentially developing into a cornerstone player at one of the most important positions in the game. 

I get the sense that finding a starting DL would appear to be more important on paper, but there are a lot of contingency plans. They're going to sign a couple of veterans. They are comfortable with JFM playing more inside to free up some snaps for Johnson, Clemons, and Huff (and possibly another draft pick). They like Solomon Thomas as a situational player. Oh and not to mention, they have one of the best defenders in the game at RDT. End of the day they will take a DL if the value is there in round 1 or round 2, but they're prioritizing the OL more. 

I understand the injuries and lack of depth at tackle quite well. So sure, it could have a short term impact if somebody gets hurt. Given tackle is a position that guys struggle at early in their career and isn’t a position that players rotate at, I’d argue it’s one of the more likely positions not to have a short term impact if they draft somebody there. We saw how much Ekwonu struggled early in the year, for example. Took a little for Andrew Thomas. Brick as well. Think it’s a hard position to adjust to at the pro level.

Feel like this front office is more reactive than proactive. They’ll have the best tackle depth in the league a year after they needed it.

Don’t think it’s even that drafting a starting defensive lineman fills out the depth chart more nicely. It’s that you if a defensive lineman is drafted early you know he’s going to get snaps and therefore impact the team, and again that’s just not the case on the offensive line.

Again, understand the need for depth and absolutely understand the long term importance of addressing tackle. And I’m not necessarily against taking a longer term view. Just don’t think teams with a 1-2 year Super Bowl window often draft guys in the top half of the first who’d potentially need an injury to get on the field at all.

Also think this tackle class is flawed at the top which plays into it a little. Think I feel the best about Darnell Wright day one. But if the goal is depth this year and long term development an athlete like Blake Freeland with a pick in the 40’s is potentially better need-value than someone at 13.

[SickJetFan]

51 minutes ago, derp said:

I understand the injuries and lack of depth at tackle quite well. So sure, it could have a short term impact if somebody gets hurt. Given tackle is a position that guys struggle at early in their career and isn’t a position that players rotate at, I’d argue it’s one of the more likely positions not to have a short term impact if they draft somebody there. We saw how much Ekwonu struggled early in the year, for example. Took a little for Andrew Thomas. Brick as well. Think it’s a hard position to adjust to at the pro level.

Feel like this front office is more reactive than proactive. They’ll have the best tackle depth in the league a year after they needed it.

Don’t think it’s even that drafting a starting defensive lineman fills out the depth chart more nicely. It’s that you if a defensive lineman is drafted early you know he’s going to get snaps and therefore impact the team, and again that’s just not the case on the offensive line.

Again, understand the need for depth and absolutely understand the long term importance of addressing tackle. And I’m not necessarily against taking a longer term view. Just don’t think teams with a 1-2 year Super Bowl window often draft guys in the top half of the first who’d potentially need an injury to get on the field at all.

Also think this tackle class is flawed at the top which plays into it a little. Think I feel the best about Darnell Wright day one. But if the goal is depth this year and long term development an athlete like Blake Freeland with a pick in the 40’s is potentially better need-value than someone at 13.

agreed.  seems like a tackle at 13 a waste of resources as we are now in win now mode whatever their lip service.  If jsn aint there i would hope they trade back, pick up some more depth picks that go towards need which may end up being another T later in draft as well as DL, LB, S, WR

[football guy]

39 minutes ago, derp said:

I understand the injuries and lack of depth at tackle quite well. So sure, it could have a short term impact if somebody gets hurt. Given tackle is a position that guys struggle at early in their career and isn’t a position that players rotate at, I’d argue it’s one of the more likely positions not to have a short term impact if they draft somebody there. We saw how much Ekwonu struggled early in the year, for example. Took a little for Andrew Thomas. Brick as well. Think it’s a hard position to adjust to at the pro level.

Feel like this front office is more reactive than proactive. They’ll have the best tackle depth in the league a year after they needed it.

Don’t think it’s even that drafting a starting defensive lineman fills out the depth chart more nicely. It’s that you if a defensive lineman is drafted early you know he’s going to get snaps and therefore impact the team, and again that’s just not the case on the offensive line.

Again, understand the need for depth and absolutely understand the long term importance of addressing tackle. And I’m not necessarily against taking a longer term view. Just don’t think teams with a 1-2 year Super Bowl window often draft guys in the top half of the first who’d potentially need an injury to get on the field at all.

Also think this tackle class is flawed at the top which plays into it a little. Think I feel the best about Darnell Wright day one. But if the goal is depth this year and long term development an athlete like Blake Freeland with a pick in the 40’s is potentially better need-value than someone at 13.

You're not wrong in the sense that some tackles take longer than others to make an impact, but I would argue the same is the case with every position. Thomas struggled his rookie year, yet Becton/Wirfs thrived and Wills was average. Thomas has proven to be the best of the group despite those early struggles but point being I don't think it's fair to assume that all tackles take a while to adjust at the pro level.

Additionally, I want to address the point in bold. The Eagles have drafted 1 player since the 2017 draft who they determined would be a day 1 starter: DeVonta Smith. That's 1 of 42 selections. Everyone else was drafted and deliberately sat/played reserve roles because their philosophy is for the players to develop as backups/rotational players before eventually being promoted into the starting lineup to replace departing veterans... They've been to 2 Super Bowls since. Douglas has mentioned several times that in an ideal world, he envisions the Jets doing the same because that's how he learned to build teams in Baltimore and in Philadelphia- it just so happens that the team was so void of talent in recent years that his picks found a way to become starters anyway. 

[Barton]

16 minutes ago, football guy said:

You're not wrong in the sense that some tackles take longer than others to make an impact, but I would argue the same is the case with every position. Thomas struggled his rookie year, yet Becton/Wirfs thrived and Wills was average. Thomas has proven to be the best of the group despite those early struggles but point being I don't think it's fair to assume that all tackles take a while to adjust at the pro level.

Additionally, I want to address the point in bold. The Eagles have drafted 1 player since the 2017 draft who they determined would be a day 1 starter: DeVonta Smith. That's 1 of 42 selections. Everyone else was drafted and deliberately sat/played reserve roles because their philosophy is for the players to develop as backups/rotational players before eventually being promoted into the starting lineup to replace departing veterans... They've been to 2 Super Bowls since. Douglas has mentioned several times that in an ideal world, he envisions the Jets doing the same because that's how he learned to build teams in Baltimore and in Philadelphia- it just so happens that the team was so void of talent in recent years that his picks found a way to become starters anyway. 

Good input but the pipeline strategy essentially goes out the window when you pick up a 40 yr old hall of fame QB. Even if OBJ is signed, his health history says he can’t be counted on. Jaxson smith could be outstanding in the slot and really open things up for the offense IMO. Our tight ends are not stretching the middle of the field but this kid would. We need to give Rodgers offensive help via playmakers. Another stud receiver would help Rodgers more than an Olineman. But yes oline needs to be addressed. Maybe a good vet via mid round pick trade or rounds 2and 4. I’ll be irate if they take a defensive player in the 1st 2 rounds. 

[derp]

12 minutes ago, football guy said:

You're not wrong in the sense that some tackles take longer than others to make an impact, but I would argue the same is the case with every position. Thomas struggled his rookie year, yet Becton/Wirfs thrived and Wills was average. Thomas has proven to be the best of the group despite those early struggles but point being I don't think it's fair to assume that all tackles take a while to adjust at the pro level.

Additionally, I want to address the point in bold. The Eagles have drafted 1 player since the 2017 draft who they determined would be a day 1 starter: DeVonta Smith. That's 1 of 42 selections. Everyone else was drafted and deliberately sat/played reserve roles because their philosophy is for the players to develop as backups/rotational players before eventually being promoted into the starting lineup to replace departing veterans... They've been to 2 Super Bowls since. Douglas has mentioned several times that in an ideal world, he envisions the Jets doing the same because that's how he learned to build teams in Baltimore and in Philadelphia- it just so happens that the team was so void of talent in recent years that his picks found a way to become starters anyway. 

To both of your points, again, the distinction is that tackle isn't a position guys rotate.

More specifically to the first point, I'm not making an assumption that the player they draft is going to struggle. Merely pointing out it is one of the more difficult positions to adjust to play at the NFL level, so the guy picked at 13 not outplaying two established pros from the jump is a reasonable possibility and one they should prepare for. Layering onto that problem, this isn't a class with a lot of polished players. So it strikes me as reasonable to prepare for the chance that a tackle taken at 13 might not be ready from the jump. Exceptions would be Skoronski *if* he can play tackle at this level (which we won't know until he's playing against NFL players - if not he's an iOL and I presume it'd be easiest for him to play guard but both guard spots are filled) and Wright on the right side. If a tackle isn't ready he's not on the field...unless there's an injury...in which case you've got a tackle you didn't want on the field because you didn't think he was ready thrust onto the field. Or you put him on the field anyway for development reasons and it holds back the team early in the season at best and all season at worst.

To the second point, a few things. Again, there is a distinction between starting and playing. Barnett played over 40% of the edge snaps in a four man edge rotation that didn't have anyone exceeding 65% of the snaps. Reagor was third on the team in WR snaps at over 45% despite missing five games - given that depth chart and loaded WR class I think they had pretty high expectations for him, he just busted. Davis played light snaps - 20%, not unexpected given what he did at Georgia - but had pretty strong on/off splits. Those guys played because they played positions where they could get on the field. The exception was Andre Dillard who was drafted in the 20's, is now off the team, and frankly was a swing and a miss.

Don't think we should conflate impact with being atop the depth chart. It's about being able to earn snaps. I guess tackle has a high ceiling and a low floor there, but I worry there'd be pressure to get a guy on the field rather than bench him.

[C Mart]

Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter

Clemson DE Myles Murphy, a projected first-round pick who has recovered from his minor hamstring injury, is having his Pro Day workout for all teams Tuesday at Clemson at 10 am ET.

[football guy]

23 hours ago, Barton said:

Good input but the pipeline strategy essentially goes out the window when you pick up a 40 yr old hall of fame QB. Even if OBJ is signed, his health history says he can’t be counted on. Jaxson smith could be outstanding in the slot and really open things up for the offense IMO. Our tight ends are not stretching the middle of the field but this kid would. We need to give Rodgers offensive help via playmakers. Another stud receiver would help Rodgers more than an Olineman. But yes oline needs to be addressed. Maybe a good vet via mid round pick trade or rounds 2and 4. I’ll be irate if they take a defensive player in the 1st 2 rounds. 

I don’t see things the exact same way. I think the Jets look at free agency to add guys who fill present day needs, with the draft solving your long-term needs. Saleh has spoken at length about his dissatisfaction with playing rookies too much as well but admitted that a combination of the state of the roster and the overall skill level available has forced his hand the past 2 years.

I know the vibe the Jets are giving off is “win now at all costs” but I really think JD and Saleh valued Rodgers so highly because it allows them to win now with the roster they’ve assembled while also buying them time to see through what they’re trying to build long-term. Their top goal is to build a sustainable winner, and I don’t think they want to simply put all their eggs in this year’s basket only to come out of the post-Rodgers era empty handed. 

23 hours ago, derp said:

To both of your points, again, the distinction is that tackle isn't a position guys rotate.

More specifically to the first point, I'm not making an assumption that the player they draft is going to struggle. Merely pointing out it is one of the more difficult positions to adjust to play at the NFL level, so the guy picked at 13 not outplaying two established pros from the jump is a reasonable possibility and one they should prepare for. Layering onto that problem, this isn't a class with a lot of polished players. So it strikes me as reasonable to prepare for the chance that a tackle taken at 13 might not be ready from the jump. Exceptions would be Skoronski *if* he can play tackle at this level (which we won't know until he's playing against NFL players - if not he's an iOL and I presume it'd be easiest for him to play guard but both guard spots are filled) and Wright on the right side. If a tackle isn't ready he's not on the field...unless there's an injury...in which case you've got a tackle you didn't want on the field because you didn't think he was ready thrust onto the field. Or you put him on the field anyway for development reasons and it holds back the team early in the season at best and all season at worst.

To the second point, a few things. Again, there is a distinction between starting and playing. Barnett played over 40% of the edge snaps in a four man edge rotation that didn't have anyone exceeding 65% of the snaps. Reagor was third on the team in WR snaps at over 45% despite missing five games - given that depth chart and loaded WR class I think they had pretty high expectations for him, he just busted. Davis played light snaps - 20%, not unexpected given what he did at Georgia - but had pretty strong on/off splits. Those guys played because they played positions where they could get on the field. The exception was Andre Dillard who was drafted in the 20's, is now off the team, and frankly was a swing and a miss.

Don't think we should conflate impact with being atop the depth chart. It's about being able to earn snaps. I guess tackle has a high ceiling and a low floor there, but I worry there'd be pressure to get a guy on the field rather than bench him.

I think we’re saying the same things. The Jets would draft an OL without an expectation that the player would win a starting job, yes. I think they would be more than happy with that and I think they actually expect that a rookie would sit if everyone is healthy. I know they believe players can improve from being reserves, and I think the way they would get a rookie ready to start would be the same way they did with Max Mitchell last year: Brown and Becton’s reps are going to be managed in camp, giving a rookie plenty of reps to get better. They don’t care about stats and they believe every player on the team makes an impact whether they’re on the field or not. I think they’ve kind of taken to heart how starting Zach right away had a negative impact on his development and more importantly the development of the team, so coming out of that, I think they want all their young players to force their hand (see Gardner competing with Hall, Wilson/Johnson/Hall all beginning the year as backups) rather than just award starting roles to guys based on their draft pedigree. If a rookie comes in and steals the show great, but I think they would be totally fine if that player played 0 reps this year as well (assuming it was because everyone stayed healthy). End of the day they’re drafting for future need at premium positions over a present day need

[derp]

1 hour ago, football guy said:

I don’t see things the exact same way. I think the Jets look at free agency to add guys who fill present day needs, with the draft solving your long-term needs. Saleh has spoken at length about his dissatisfaction with playing rookies too much as well but admitted that a combination of the state of the roster and the overall skill level available has forced his hand the past 2 years.

I know the vibe the Jets are giving off is “win now at all costs” but I really think JD and Saleh valued Rodgers so highly because it allows them to win now with the roster they’ve assembled while also buying them time to see through what they’re trying to build long-term. Their top goal is to build a sustainable winner, and I don’t think they want to simply put all their eggs in this year’s basket only to come out of the post-Rodgers era empty handed. 

I think we’re saying the same things. The Jets would draft an OL without an expectation that the player would win a starting job, yes. I think they would be more than happy with that and I think they actually expect that a rookie would sit if everyone is healthy. I know they believe players can improve from being reserves, and I think the way they would get a rookie ready to start would be the same way they did with Max Mitchell last year: Brown and Becton’s reps are going to be managed in camp, giving a rookie plenty of reps to get better. They don’t care about stats and they believe every player on the team makes an impact whether they’re on the field or not. I think they’ve kind of taken to heart how starting Zach right away had a negative impact on his development and more importantly the development of the team, so coming out of that, I think they want all their young players to force their hand (see Gardner competing with Hall, Wilson/Johnson/Hall all beginning the year as backups) rather than just award starting roles to guys based on their draft pedigree. If a rookie comes in and steals the show great, but I think they would be totally fine if that player played 0 reps this year as well (assuming it was because everyone stayed healthy). End of the day they’re drafting for future need at premium positions over a present day need

Wilson was obviously in for too big of an adjustment from his situation at BYU to playing for any NFL team, much less a not talented one, to not struggle early in his career. And plays the toughest position to adjust to at the professional level. If his situation has framed the way they look at drafting players, that furthers my belief that this front office is reactive instead of proactive.

Four guys they drafted last year in the top 40 picks all played positions that they were able to earn time early - whether they started or not. Just strikes me as very different than being happy redshirting an OL when you're in go for it mode, Rodgers wise and cap wise. I suppose it'd be on brand. Just would rather they draft a backup at a position where the starter doesn't play 100% of the snaps when healthy.

[football guy]

16 minutes ago, derp said:

Wilson was obviously in for too big of an adjustment from his situation at BYU to playing for any NFL team, much less a not talented one, to not struggle early in his career. And plays the toughest position to adjust to at the professional level. If his situation has framed the way they look at drafting players, that furthers my belief that this front office is reactive instead of proactive.

Four guys they drafted last year in the top 40 picks all played positions that they were able to earn time early - whether they started or not. Just strikes me as very different than being happy redshirting an OL when you're in go for it mode, Rodgers wise and cap wise. I suppose it'd be on brand. Just would rather they draft a backup at a position where the starter doesn't play 100% of the snaps when healthy.

You keep going on and on in this circular argument, first stating how its more important to go for it by spending a premium draft pick on a guy who will fill a hole and contribute right away (I'm guessing a DT?) all because offensive lineman don't traditionally rotate. Then you can't go with a rookie OL because they sometimes struggle (i.e. every rookie in the NFL), but it would make sense if they begin behind Duane Brown and Mekhi Becton so they can be given the chance to develop unlike most rookie 1st round tackles are awarded, but no it doesn't make sense because we need a player who will contribute now with Rodgers... do I have it right?

I don't think of it being reactive. If there's a flaw in your philosophy and process, you need to reevaluate and correct your process to avoid the same mistakes. They challenged all their rookies last year - not awarding them anything rather forcing them to earn their snaps - and look how that turned out. If anything, it would be a proactive decision to select an OT; being reactive would to simply take the top contributor available at DL simply because you lost two guys to free agency and missed on both free agent targets. Redshirting isn't it either. If a guy outright wins a job then he'll get a starting spot and they'll figure it out. If he's a top reserve, he'll be a valued reserve until his name is called upon. Again, the Jets had 8 OL spend time on IR last season. Their top 2 tackles right now are compromised by age and injury. Worst case scenario would be you trade for Aaron but can't protect him if your starters go down because you're signing the Cedric Ogbuehi and Mike Remmers of the world off the street. 

Another point: the whole "rookie OL struggle" really doesn't carry much weight. It's not odd for rookies to struggle (and quite honestly a lot of these guys were forced into playing when their team's initial plans was to start them off on the bench), but if we're just going to single out how rookie 1st round tackles faired in their rookie seasons alone over the past 10 years ... 

• 2022 Ekwonu: struggled early, was a stud late (average)
• 2022 Neal: struggled all season
• 2022 Cross: above average 
• 2022 Penning: PUP/IR
• 2022 Smith: stud 
• 2021 Sewell: stud 
• 2021 Slater: stud 
• 2021 Vera-Tucker: converted to LG, stud
• 2021 Leatherwood: awful/no business in R1 
• 2021 Darrisaw: above average
• 2020 Thomas: struggled all season, now a stud
• 2020 Wills: above average 
• 2020 Becton: above average (arguably a stud) 
• 2020 Wirfs: stud
• 2020 Jackson: struggled
• 2020 Wilson: significant character issues/out of the league 
• 2019 Williams: PUP/IR 
• 2019 Dillard: backup
• 2019 Howard: average/injured
• 2019 McGary: struggled
• 2018 McGlinchey: above average
• 2018 Miller: struggled 
• 2018 Wynn: PUP/IR
• 2017 Bolles: above average 
• 2017 Ramczyk: stud
• 2016 Stanley: stud
• 2016 Conklin: stud
• 2016 Tunsil: above average at LG and T
• 2016 Decker: above average
• 2016 Ifedi: struggled
• 2015 Scherff: converted to RG, stud
• 2015 Flowers: struggled
• 2015 Peat: converted to LG, average
• 2015 Ogbuehi: PUP/IR
• 2015 Humphries: redshirted/doghouse
• 2014 Robinson: awful, all-time bust 
• 2014 Matthews: played LG, average
• 2014 Lewan: stud
• 2014 Martin: converted to RG, stud
• 2014 James: average
• 2013 Fisher: struggled
• 2013 Joeckel: struggled
• 2013 Johnson: stud
• 2013 Fluker: above average
• 2013 Pugh: converted to LG, above average

Gotta be honest I don't see any correlation/evidence supporting the position that "rookie OTs struggle"... seems more to be a case-by-case than anything else 

[#27TheDominator]

24 minutes ago, football guy said:

You keep going on and on in this circular argument, first stating how its more important to go for it by spending a premium draft pick on a guy who will fill a hole and contribute right away (I'm guessing a DT?) all because offensive lineman don't traditionally rotate. Then you can't go with a rookie OL because they sometimes struggle (i.e. every rookie in the NFL), but it would make sense if they begin behind Duane Brown and Mekhi Becton so they can be given the chance to develop unlike most rookie 1st round tackles are awarded, but no it doesn't make sense because we need a player who will contribute now with Rodgers... do I have it right?

I don't think of it being reactive. If there's a flaw in your philosophy and process, you need to reevaluate and correct your process to avoid the same mistakes. They challenged all their rookies last year - not awarding them anything rather forcing them to earn their snaps - and look how that turned out. If anything, it would be a proactive decision to select an OT; being reactive would to simply take the top contributor available at DL simply because you lost two guys to free agency and missed on both free agent targets. Redshirting isn't it either. If a guy outright wins a job then he'll get a starting spot and they'll figure it out. If he's a top reserve, he'll be a valued reserve until his name is called upon. Again, the Jets had 8 OL spend time on IR last season. Their top 2 tackles right now are compromised by age and injury. Worst case scenario would be you trade for Aaron but can't protect him if your starters go down because you're signing the Cedric Ogbuehi and Mike Remmers of the world off the street. 

Another point: the whole "rookie OL struggle" really doesn't carry much weight. It's not odd for rookies to struggle (and quite honestly a lot of these guys were forced into playing when their team's initial plans was to start them off on the bench), but if we're just going to single out how rookie 1st round tackles faired in their rookie seasons alone over the past 10 years ... 

• 2022 Ekwonu: struggled early, was a stud late (average)
• 2022 Neal: struggled all season
• 2022 Cross: above average 
• 2022 Penning: PUP/IR
• 2022 Smith: stud 
• 2021 Sewell: stud 
• 2021 Slater: stud 
• 2021 Vera-Tucker: converted to LG, stud
• 2021 Leatherwood: awful/no business in R1 
• 2021 Darrisaw: above average
• 2020 Thomas: struggled all season, now a stud
• 2020 Wills: above average 
• 2020 Becton: above average (arguably a stud) 
• 2020 Wirfs: stud
• 2020 Jackson: struggled
• 2020 Wilson: significant character issues/out of the league 
• 2019 Williams: PUP/IR 
• 2019 Dillard: backup
• 2019 Howard: average/injured
• 2019 McGary: struggled
• 2018 McGlinchey: above average
• 2018 Miller: struggled 
• 2018 Wynn: PUP/IR
• 2017 Bolles: above average 
• 2017 Ramczyk: stud
• 2016 Stanley: stud
• 2016 Conklin: stud
• 2016 Tunsil: above average at LG and T
• 2016 Decker: above average
• 2016 Ifedi: struggled
• 2015 Scherff: converted to RG, stud
• 2015 Flowers: struggled
• 2015 Peat: converted to LG, average
• 2015 Ogbuehi: PUP/IR
• 2015 Humphries: redshirted/doghouse
• 2014 Robinson: awful, all-time bust 
• 2014 Matthews: played LG, average
• 2014 Lewan: stud
• 2014 Martin: converted to RG, stud
• 2014 James: average
• 2013 Fisher: struggled
• 2013 Joeckel: struggled
• 2013 Johnson: stud
• 2013 Fluker: above average
• 2013 Pugh: converted to LG, above average

Gotta be honest I don't see any correlation/evidence supporting the position that "rookie OTs struggle"... seems more to be a case-by-case than anything else 

I don't see it as circular logic.  Learning behind Becton and Brown and not playing any snaps is not going to help the team as much as a player that can learn behind somebody else while still getting snaps and contributing.  It is the nature of QB and Oline that they generally look for cohesion.  If the player is a stud, it makes sense, but I am not super in love with the tackle class this year.  I don't think anybody of Wirfs caliber will be available at 13 this year, but I guess there is always the chance that they have their choice of them and I am not that up on the class. 

I get what he means by reactive too.  The Jets will sit around and think like the league that RB is something you can get late.  Then that doesn't work out and you are squirming around for bodies.  Or that you can fill G with late picks and mid-level FAs.  Then they have a year of Adrien Clarke or Greg Van Roten and they are dropping huge coin on Faneca or Tomlinson.  Sometimes the thinking is good, but the execution is bad.  See Idzik, John.  Doesn't mean you have to do the exact opposite.

[football guy]

19 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

I don't see it as circular logic.  Learning behind Becton and Brown and not playing any snaps is not going to help the team as much as a player that can learn behind somebody else while still getting snaps and contributing.  It is the nature of QB and Oline that they generally look for cohesion.  If the player is a stud, it makes sense, but I am not super in love with the tackle class this year.  I don't think anybody of Wirfs caliber will be available at 13 this year, but I guess there is always the chance that they have their choice of them and I am not that up on the class. 

I get what he means by reactive too.  The Jets will sit around and think like the league that RB is something you can get late.  Then that doesn't work out and you are squirming around for bodies.  Or that you can fill G with late picks and mid-level FAs.  Then they have a year of Adrien Clarke or Greg Van Roten and they are dropping huge coin on Faneca or Tomlinson.  Sometimes the thinking is good, but the execution is bad.  See Idzik, John.  Doesn't mean you have to do the exact opposite.

Which is my point. If the player comes in and beats out another projected starter - something that is entirely within the realm of possibilities when you consider Duane Brown is 38 years old and Becton has played in 1 game over 2 years - then how can it not be a good thing? The way I'm reading @derp (entirely possible I'm interpreting his perspective incorrectly), he seems to suggest that any scenario where a rookie starts doesn't make any sense because rookie OTs usually struggle. In his view, an ideal situation would be for a rookie OT to start on the bench, but given that we are "going for it" this year that scenario should not be awarded as we need all hands on deck contributing in effort to reach a championship. I get where he's coming from in the sense that some rookies experience growing pains (every position not just T), but there's nothing to suggest that it's a trend. A lot of the guys who were perceived as "raw" and had to compete for a job/come in to replace an injured starter absolutely crushed it (see Tyler Smith, 2023). 

My perspective is you want as many good players on the field as possible, and ideally you're investing your premium picks in premium positions with the hope of landing 8+ year starters. It wouldn't be ideal for the near-term if you draft an OT to be a starter and that player winds up on the bench - I get that - but you rationalize it by understanding you have high-end insurance and a long-term asset. I'm also not suggesting the Jets reach on an OL just to take one- but it's absolutely a logical play to invest in the OL if the board does fall the way they want it to. Not only does that help the team this year (directly or indirectly), but it could solve a potential issue next year. Imagine if Becton doesn't regain form/leaves in FA and Duane Brown retires? Whose blocking for Aaron then? 

[#27TheDominator]

6 minutes ago, football guy said:

Which is my point. If the player comes in and beats out another projected starter - something that is entirely within the realm of possibilities when you consider Duane Brown is 38 years old and Becton has played in 1 game over 2 years - then how can it not be a good thing? The way I'm reading @derp (entirely possible I'm interpreting his perspective incorrectly), he seems to suggest that any scenario where a rookie starts doesn't make any sense because rookie OTs usually struggle. In his view, an ideal situation would be for a rookie OT to start on the bench, but given that we are "going for it" this year that scenario should not be awarded as we need all hands on deck contributing in effort to reach a championship. I get where he's coming from in the sense that some rookies experience growing pains (every position not just T), but there's nothing to suggest that it's a trend. A lot of the guys who were perceived as "raw" and had to compete for a job/come in to replace an injured starter absolutely crushed it (see Tyler Smith, 2023). 

My perspective is you want as many good players on the field as possible, and ideally you're investing your premium picks in premium positions with the hope of landing 8+ year starters. It wouldn't be ideal for the near-term if you draft an OT to be a starter and that player winds up on the bench - I get that - but you rationalize it by understanding you have high-end insurance and a long-term asset. I'm also not suggesting the Jets reach on an OL just to take one- but it's absolutely a logical play to invest in the OL if the board does fall the way they want it to. 

It might be a logical play, but I don't think it is necessarily THE logical play.  I am big on taking the player, not the position.  If a T is going to beat out Brown, then he certainly helps the team, but it is just likely that happens than a D lineman getting significant snaps.  That is the same logic as was described to me for taking Kincaid.  IMO they are full up at TE, but if Kincaid is truly that good a receiver he can certainly help.

[derp]

13 minutes ago, football guy said:

You keep going on and on in this circular argument, first stating how its more important to go for it by spending a premium draft pick on a guy who will fill a hole and contribute right away (I'm guessing a DT?) all because offensive lineman don't traditionally rotate. Then you can't go with a rookie OL because they sometimes struggle (i.e. every rookie in the NFL), but it would make sense if they begin behind Duane Brown and Mekhi Becton so they can be given the chance to develop unlike most rookie 1st round tackles are awarded, but no it doesn't make sense because we need a player who will contribute now with Rodgers... do I have it right?

I don't think of it being reactive. If there's a flaw in your philosophy and process, you need to reevaluate and correct your process to avoid the same mistakes. They challenged all their rookies last year - not awarding them anything rather forcing them to earn their snaps - and look how that turned out. If anything, it would be a proactive decision to select an OT; being reactive would to simply take the top contributor available at DL simply because you lost two guys to free agency and missed on both free agent targets. Redshirting isn't it either. If a guy outright wins a job then he'll get a starting spot and they'll figure it out. If he's a top reserve, he'll be a valued reserve until his name is called upon. Again, the Jets had 8 OL spend time on IR last season. Their top 2 tackles right now are compromised by age and injury. Worst case scenario would be you trade for Aaron but can't protect him if your starters go down because you're signing the Cedric Ogbuehi and Mike Remmers of the world off the street. 

Another point: the whole "rookie OL struggle" really doesn't carry much weight. It's not odd for rookies to struggle (and quite honestly a lot of these guys were forced into playing when their team's initial plans was to start them off on the bench), but if we're just going to single out how rookie 1st round tackles faired in their rookie seasons alone over the past 10 years ... 

• 2022 Ekwonu: struggled early, was a stud late (average)
• 2022 Neal: struggled all season
• 2022 Cross: above average 
• 2022 Penning: PUP/IR
• 2022 Smith: stud 
• 2021 Sewell: stud 
• 2021 Slater: stud 
• 2021 Vera-Tucker: converted to LG, stud
• 2021 Leatherwood: awful/no business in R1 
• 2021 Darrisaw: above average
• 2020 Thomas: struggled all season, now a stud
• 2020 Wills: above average 
• 2020 Becton: above average (arguably a stud) 
• 2020 Wirfs: stud
• 2020 Jackson: struggled
• 2020 Wilson: significant character issues/out of the league 
• 2019 Williams: PUP/IR 
• 2019 Dillard: backup
• 2019 Howard: average/injured
• 2019 McGary: struggled
• 2018 McGlinchey: above average
• 2018 Miller: struggled 
• 2018 Wynn: PUP/IR
• 2017 Bolles: above average 
• 2017 Ramczyk: stud
• 2016 Stanley: stud
• 2016 Conklin: stud
• 2016 Tunsil: above average at LG and T
• 2016 Decker: above average
• 2016 Ifedi: struggled
• 2015 Scherff: converted to RG, stud
• 2015 Flowers: struggled
• 2015 Peat: converted to LG, average
• 2015 Ogbuehi: PUP/IR
• 2015 Humphries: redshirted/doghouse
• 2014 Robinson: awful, all-time bust 
• 2014 Matthews: played LG, average
• 2014 Lewan: stud
• 2014 Martin: converted to RG, stud
• 2014 James: average
• 2013 Fisher: struggled
• 2013 Joeckel: struggled
• 2013 Johnson: stud
• 2013 Fluker: above average
• 2013 Pugh: converted to LG, above average

Gotta be honest I don't see any correlation/evidence supporting the position that "rookie OTs struggle"... seems more to be a case-by-case than anything else 

You created a circular argument by adding things I didn’t say - presumably filling with some of your own thoughts in the middle?

If the Jets are going for it, then it potentially makes sense to take a player who has a legitimate opportunity to see snaps. I think we disagree here.

Offensive line is one of the more all or nothing position groups in terms of play time, especially among premium positions, because they don’t rotate. Given tackles can take time to adjust (you conveniently point some who got there later in their career out), the Jets theoretically have two starting caliber players, and the top three in this class all have questions (Skoronski potentially not having the length to hang at tackle at the next level - could certainly be an exception but might not be, Jones spending a lot of time on the ground and needing technique work, Johnson not being quite as good in true pass sets and only having one year of tackle tape) it’s a reasonable possibility, not a guarantee, that they might not be ready/able to contribute on game day as rookies. I know you disagree with the adjustment period, obviously can’t disagree with the nature of the position, not sure your perspective on the prospects. But I can reframe the adjustment in a couple of ways. One I already did in this post though it was implied previously - it’s certainly possible a guy doesn’t struggle. But even on that list, lots of guys who weren’t good year one got better. So I do think even for good players, the adjustment is harder. And I thought it was reasonably well documented that, while all players are asked to do different stuff than they were in college, that’s a little magnified on the OL and why pro teams have such a problem finding enough quality players at that spot.

This post is already too long but you completely misinterpreted what I meant by proactive versus reactive so I’m going to skip addressing that component of your post. Though I will say that they could add an athletic developmental tackle who can provide year one depth outside the first round.

And I don’t agree with your entire list, some are correct, I think I partially addressed the purpose of the list with acknowledging a rookie may play well. Though I will say that I don’t think guard conversions have a place in this discussion since it’s actually a different position and certainly not why the Jets would be drafting someone at 13. And coincidence or not, most of the guys you’ve got as studs year one started out on the right side - many still there.

This conversation has gotten far too long. I think whether or not a tackle at 13 earns a starting job, and therefore snaps, on this roster is up in the air. Might, might not. But it’s one of the few positions they could take where there’s any possibility the player doesn’t play at all as a rookie. Given they seem to be treating this like a Super Bowl window, potentially taking a non contributor would strike me as notably distinct from other decisions they’ve made this offseason. I wouldn’t be upset. I’d be upset if they took a linebacker at 13.

[football guy]

11 minutes ago, derp said:

If the Jets are going for it, then it potentially makes sense to take a player who has a legitimate opportunity to see snaps. I think we disagree here.

Stop right there. Why wouldn’t a tackle have a legitimate opportunity to see snaps? 

[#27TheDominator]

20 minutes ago, derp said:

You created a circular argument by adding things I didn’t say - presumably filling with some of your own thoughts in the middle?

If the Jets are going for it, then it potentially makes sense to take a player who has a legitimate opportunity to see snaps. I think we disagree here.

Offensive line is one of the more all or nothing position groups in terms of play time, especially among premium positions, because they don’t rotate. Given tackles can take time to adjust (you conveniently point some who got there later in their career out), the Jets theoretically have two starting caliber players, and the top three in this class all have questions (Skoronski potentially not having the length to hang at tackle at the next level - could certainly be an exception but might not be, Jones spending a lot of time on the ground and needing technique work, Johnson not being quite as good in true pass sets and only having one year of tackle tape) it’s a reasonable possibility, not a guarantee, that they might not be ready/able to contribute on game day as rookies. I know you disagree with the adjustment period, obviously can’t disagree with the nature of the position, not sure your perspective on the prospects. But I can reframe the adjustment in a couple of ways. One I already did in this post though it was implied previously - it’s certainly possible a guy doesn’t struggle. But even on that list, lots of guys who weren’t good year one got better. So I do think even for good players, the adjustment is harder. And I thought it was reasonably well documented that, while all players are asked to do different stuff than they were in college, that’s a little magnified on the OL and why pro teams have such a problem finding enough quality players at that spot.

This post is already too long but you completely misinterpreted what I meant by proactive versus reactive so I’m going to skip addressing that component of your post. Though I will say that they could add an athletic developmental tackle who can provide year one depth outside the first round.

And I don’t agree with your entire list, some are correct, I think I partially addressed the purpose of the list with acknowledging a rookie may play well. Though I will say that I don’t think guard conversions have a place in this discussion since it’s actually a different position and certainly not why the Jets would be drafting someone at 13. And coincidence or not, most of the guys you’ve got as studs year one started out on the right side - many still there.

This conversation has gotten far too long. I think whether or not a tackle at 13 earns a starting job, and therefore snaps, on this roster is up in the air. Might, might not. But it’s one of the few positions they could take where there’s any possibility the player doesn’t play at all as a rookie. Given they seem to be treating this like a Super Bowl window, potentially taking a non contributor would strike me as notably distinct from other decisions they’ve made this offseason. I wouldn’t be upset. I’d be upset if they took a linebacker at 13.

WTF?  Paging @Sperm Edwards and @Bleedin Green  You don't know what too long is!

[football guy]

13 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

It might be a logical play, but I don't think it is necessarily THE logical play.  I am big on taking the player, not the position.  If a T is going to beat out Brown, then he certainly helps the team, but it is just likely that happens than a D lineman getting significant snaps.  That is the same logic as was described to me for taking Kincaid.  IMO they are full up at TE, but if Kincaid is truly that good a receiver he can certainly help.

Yes but let’s go deeper on that. TE is proven to be the single position with the steepest “learning curves” in the NFL. For the sake of time and attention I’m not gonna go pull all the numbers but it’s fairly well publicized and the data is easy to find. It’s virtually guaranteed Kincaid wouldn’t start, and there’s a legit possibility he’d operate as the 4th TE. If the Jets value the guy as a blue chip prospect I’m all for it, but I would staunchly argue against the notion that it should be expected he would help in year 1… not only is it a crazy adjustment as mentioned, you’re QB is notorious for not getting rookie pass catchers involved. So I don’t see the argument that a rookie TE would have a more important role/impact than a rookie OT, even if that player is a backup. One player is a deep reserve likely spending most of his time on special teams, the other is one snap away from starting at the second most important position in the game

The only legit position to make an argument for is DL. The problem is the value. Sure if Wilson falls into your lap at 13 you’re sprinting to the podium, but are you really taking a raw player in LVN over one of the top OL? I personally love Nolan Smith but I can’t see that either. The one wildcard imo is Kancey. If they view him as a blue-chipper then your turning in that card and figuring out the OL on Day 2; I just don’t think they will view him as a blue-chip player 

 

[maury77]

32 minutes ago, football guy said:

Stop right there. Why wouldn’t a tackle have a legitimate opportunity to see snaps? 

I don't think his argument is that a very good tackle prospect wouldn't have a legitimate opportunity to see snaps, its that the quality of the tackle prospects likely to be available at 13 may not be good enough to see legitimate snaps as a rookie. 

FWIW (and this is strictly my opinion) the only rookies I can comfortably predict would be an upgrade as a starter at tackle would be Johnson and Wright.