General Draft/Prospect news

[derp]

32 minutes ago, football guy said:

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

 

1 minute ago, maury77 said:

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. 

Yeah so I mistyped there but corrected it later. It’s that there is a legitimate chance a tackle would see no snaps, which is reasonably unique to the OL, not that a tackle wouldn’t have a legitimate opportunity to see snaps. Order of the ideas/words mattered there.

And yeah, I think it’s a mix of this class, Brown/Becton, and there being a learning curve at the position. The class is a big piece. Think one of the top three tackles is polished and he might need to kick inside due to length. Tackle I feel best about is Darnell Wright but he’s a right side guy.

As an example, in theory I’d take Andrew Thomas or Ekwonu knowing their career arcs. But given the tackles already on the team and that there isn’t a walk in starting slot, a player who comes in like that shouldn’t play for the Jets this year barring an injury to someone else - and even if there is that injury a Thomas level player isn’t helping and Ekwonu is causing some issues early in the season.

[#27TheDominator]

34 minutes ago, football guy said:

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 

 

Even if that player is a backup?  Your backup T is hopefully playing less snaps than Yeboah.  I was pointing out that drafting Kincaid would be akin to drafting a good T prospect.  Therefore, your TE is notoriously tough to play as a rookie is kind of irrelevant since you ignore that for T.  I agree that DL is more of the need spot, but there are also places where they can and may plan to make cuts to save money which may become needs (Lawson, Davis, Whitehead). 

I am mostly just a guy that reads draft profiles, but I'm not sure why you don't think they could just as easily fall in love with a guy like Bresee.  There are enough blue chip CB prospects that it makes as much sense as anything.  Sure they have good starters, but they just as easily slip MC2 to S and  move Reed to slot corner.  Wouldn't that fit your get the best players on the field to improve the team theory the same as a T starting over Brown?

[T0mShane]

1 hour 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.

You just have to look at the Giants with the way both Andrew Thomas and Evan Neal both looked like dogsh*t as rookies.  Could be a tough spot for Broderick Jones to step in and learn the ropes in front of Rodgers, even if the ceiling is super high on him. The three former scouts who do draft stuff for Tannenbaum’s 33rd Team site have Jones as their 1.1 ranked player, but based on future projections. 

[football guy]

6 minutes ago, derp said:

Yeah so I mistyped there but corrected it later. It’s that there is a legitimate chance a tackle would see no snaps, which is reasonably unique to the OL, not that a tackle wouldn’t have a legitimate opportunity to see snaps. Order of the ideas/words mattered there.

And yeah, I think it’s a mix of this class, Brown/Becton, and there being a learning curve at the position. The class is a big piece. Think one of the top three tackles is polished and he might need to kick inside due to length. Tackle I feel best about is Darnell Wright but he’s a right side guy.

As an example, in theory I’d take Andrew Thomas or Ekwonu knowing their career arcs. But given the tackles already on the team and that there isn’t a walk in starting slot, a player who comes in like that shouldn’t play for the Jets this year barring an injury to someone else - and even if there is that injury a Thomas level player isn’t helping and Ekwonu is causing some issues early in the season.

I understand what you're arguing but it just seems like you're refusing to see any perspective that involves OT in round 1. In your mind, you believe a player who plays snaps - even if it's a small percentage of them - is more valuable to a team who is looking to win now than a player who may not play. I couldn't disagree more. That's like saying a reserve safety is more important than a backup QB. 

The next part that you seem to keep ignoring: every position has a pretty deep learning curve, some more than others. There were people on message boards who suggested that selecting Quinnen over Allen or Beasley was a disaster because Q wasn't immediately uber successful (idk what it was like on here but there was a very real majority of people who felt that way on FF). Every player develops differently. 

If what your saying is in line with what @maury77 is suggesting and they just reach on a guy because they play tackle that's one thing, but the arguments seem ticky tacky. Skoronski can't be considered a tackle because of his 32.25" arms yet we're supposed to expect that a DT who is 281 lbs. with 30.625" arms is going to thrive at LDT (basically our 5-tech)? We know they won't have QBs and CBs on their board so what's next? A WR isn't playing- maybe a total of 5 snaps a game. DL there's a legit argument for so I'm in agreement there, but if everything else is equal you're sprinting to the podium for the OL. Whether that player starts or not, you cannot ignore the fact that your penciled in starters come with significant questions. What makes Wright a right-side only guy? He's played both sides and while he played better at RT this year, there are plenty of collegian RTs who became good-to-great LTs in the NFL fairly quickly: Trent Williams, Tyron Smith, Jedrick Wills, Taylor Decker to name a few... 

We're clearly not going to agree on this and that's fine. I'm not picking on your perspective but you seem to keep insinuating that Andrew Thomas and Ickey Ekwonu career arcs are the standard for potentially elite tackles. They're not. There are several elite OTs who thrived as rookies and are still thriving today. There are some that struggled who are now thriving. There are some who played well early who saw their play tail off. Whether or not we agree how to rate each one of them is one thing, but what is clear is that there's no correlation. For every Andrew Thomas and Ickey Ekwonu there's a Tyler Smith and Rashawn Slater.  

[football guy]

27 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Even if that player is a backup?  Your backup T is hopefully playing less snaps than Yeboah.  I was pointing out that drafting Kincaid would be akin to drafting a good T prospect.  Therefore, your TE is notoriously tough to play as a rookie is kind of irrelevant since you ignore that for T.  I agree that DL is more of the need spot, but there are also places where they can and may plan to make cuts to save money which may become needs (Lawson, Davis, Whitehead). 

I am mostly just a guy that reads draft profiles, but I'm not sure why you don't think they could just as easily fall in love with a guy like Bresee.  There are enough blue chip CB prospects that it makes as much sense as anything.  Sure they have good starters, but they just as easily slip MC2 to S and  move Reed to slot corner.  Wouldn't that fit your get the best players on the field to improve the team theory the same as a T starting over Brown?

I see what you're saying but the point is that the Jets are not going to draft a player and declare them a starter again. Saleh made that clear this year and Douglas expanded on their shift in philosophy a few weeks ago. Sauce was a "backup" to start camp. Garrett Wilson and Breece Hall were backups to begin the season. Jermaine was a rotational guy all year. They're going to make anyone they select earn their spot. 

If you draft a non-QB at 13, you quietly expect that player to win a starting job. If they don't, you hope the only reason is because Becton looked phenomenal in camp and you feel more comfortable trotting out Brown with Rodgers. If the player had a good in camp and simply doesn't win a starting job that's not the end of the world. I keep pointing out Tyler Smith because the Cowboys intended on having him as the top backup at T/G until everyone got hurt, next thing you know he made it into the lineup and thrived. I could see the Jets taking the same optimistic approach. Hell the Jets were going to do it last year with Ekwonu if Houston took Sauce, so what I've been trying to stress is that the Jets want to invest in the OL first, figure it out later. For example, there's a scenario exists where they select Peter Skoronski and at the post-selection press conference say "we view him as a T but he's going to compete at all 5 spots... we'll ultimately play the best 5 guys and if he's one of them he'll play" and actually mean it. 

[maury77]

7 minutes ago, football guy said:

I see what you're saying but the point is that the Jets are not going to draft a player and declare them a starter again. Saleh made that clear this year and Douglas expanded on their shift in philosophy a few weeks ago. Sauce was a "backup" to start camp. Garrett Wilson and Breece Hall were backups to begin the season. Jermaine was a rotational guy all year. They're going to make anyone they select earn their spot. 

If you draft a non-QB at 13, you quietly expect that player to win a starting job. If they don't, you hope the only reason is because Becton looked phenomenal in camp and you feel more comfortable trotting out Brown with Rodgers. If the player had a good in camp and simply doesn't win a starting job that's not the end of the world. I keep pointing out Tyler Smith because the Cowboys intended on having him as the top backup at T/G until everyone got hurt, next thing you know he made it into the lineup and thrived. I could see the Jets taking the same optimistic approach. Hell the Jets were going to do it last year with Ekwonu if Houston took Sauce, so what I've been trying to stress is that the Jets want to invest in the OL first, figure it out later. For example, there's a scenario exists where they select Peter Skoronski and at the post-selection press conference say "we view him as a T but he's going to compete at all 5 spots... we'll ultimately play the best 5 guys and if he's one of them he'll play" and actually mean it. 

I can legitimately see Skoronski being an all pro center (in fact I think he was the number one center in the country coming out of HS). His versatility is appealing but the combo of short arms and being put on skates frequently in the passing game makes me uncomfortable with him at tackle.

[football guy]

17 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

You just have to look at the Giants with the way both Andrew Thomas and Evan Neal both looked like dogsh*t as rookies.  Could be a tough spot for Broderick Jones to step in and learn the ropes in front of Rodgers, even if the ceiling is super high on him. The three former scouts who do draft stuff for Tannenbaum’s 33rd Team site have Jones as their 1.1 ranked player, but based on future projections. 

I just don't think it's so cut and dry. I do agree that I think Broderick Jones has the highest upside and if it were my pick that's who I'd take understanding that there's a real possibility he may need to spend time on the bench, but everyone develops at their own pace and each team's scheme is different which plays a part in how easy/difficult the transition is so it's unfair to immediately assume anything one way or another.

No one would've looked at Andrew Thomas or Evan Neal as guys who would come in and struggle pre-draft. If anything, Thomas was the guy who seemed like he was pro-ready but had the lower ceiling than Wills/Becton/Wirfs. Neal started 41 games at Alabama (albeit there were some questions where he'd best fit after playing RG, then RT, then LT). Then you have guys that everyone claimed to be raw who had really promising rookie years in both those draft classes (Cross and Smith last year + Wills/Becton/Wirfs in 2020). 

End of the day you draft a player and hope they are ready to be elite from day 1, but shouldn't expect it. If they don't develop as quickly as you hope, your insurance policy is having other guys with starting experience to rely on. If they do go out and win it outright then you simply demote a guy you expected to be a starter. 

[derp]

34 minutes ago, football guy said:

I understand what you're arguing but it just seems like you're refusing to see any perspective that involves OT in round 1. In your mind, you believe a player who plays snaps - even if it's a small percentage of them - is more valuable to a team who is looking to win now than a player who may not play. I couldn't disagree more. That's like saying a reserve safety is more important than a backup QB. 

The next part that you seem to keep ignoring: every position has a pretty deep learning curve, some more than others. There were people on message boards who suggested that selecting Quinnen over Allen or Beasley was a disaster because Q wasn't immediately uber successful (idk what it was like on here but there was a very real majority of people who felt that way on FF). Every player develops differently. 

If what your saying is in line with what @maury77 is suggesting and they just reach on a guy because they play tackle that's one thing, but the arguments seem ticky tacky. Skoronski can't be considered a tackle because of his 32.25" arms yet we're supposed to expect that a DT who is 281 lbs. with 30.625" arms is going to thrive at LDT (basically our 5-tech)? We know they won't have QBs and CBs on their board so what's next? A WR isn't playing- maybe a total of 5 snaps a game. DL there's a legit argument for so I'm in agreement there, but if everything else is equal you're sprinting to the podium for the OL. Whether that player starts or not, you cannot ignore the fact that your penciled in starters come with significant questions. What makes Wright a right-side only guy? He's played both sides and while he played better at RT this year, there are plenty of collegian RTs who became good-to-great LTs in the NFL fairly quickly: Trent Williams, Tyron Smith, Jedrick Wills, Taylor Decker to name a few... 

We're clearly not going to agree on this and that's fine. I'm not picking on your perspective but you seem to keep insinuating that Andrew Thomas and Ickey Ekwonu career arcs are the standard for potentially elite tackles. They're not. There are several elite OTs who thrived as rookies and are still thriving today. There are some that struggled who are now thriving. There are some who played well early who saw their play tail off. Whether or not we agree how to rate each one of them is one thing, but what is clear is that there's no correlation. For every Andrew Thomas and Ickey Ekwonu there's a Tyler Smith and Rashawn Slater.  

Without getting into too much detail, I think it’s hard to bounce in between discussing individual possibilities in a range of outcomes while also considering the range of outcomes itself, and you’re viewing individual examples as my complete perspective when they’re just individual examples. I think the examples themselves are important, but they’re just possible scenarios.

I think a DL or WR who plays roughly 50% of the snaps is more valuable than a backup swing tackle. Your extreme example of the most important position and a non premium position doesn’t really shift my perspective.

I went into both my perspective on OL transition from college to pros and concerns with this tackle class in another post and won’t reiterate them.

Skoronski might stick at tackle. Might not. That would be totally fine if they had a need at guard, they do not. So him being worth that pick requires him to be an exception. Know he came into college as a center, 13 I think would be the highest a center has ever been picked and seems risky to put him back there as a rookie. Kancey’ arm length is certainly a risk too. A WR could easily beat out Hardman. They’re in theory still kicking the tires on adding there (Beckham). Wright is certainly not absolutely a right sided guy only, but given he improved there I think it leans that way. He’s probably my favorite of the tackles as a day one option despite that - or maybe in part because I think he’d be steady at RT from the jump.

And I’m not insinuating those are standard career arcs. As I said at the outset of this post, think you’re taking examples as broad strokes views and they’re not. Simply an example of good players who probably wouldn’t play on this team if guys stay healthy because of the nature of OL being a more all or nothing position and the presence of two experienced veterans.

Put very differently, I have a quantitative background though it’s not what I do any more. When you’re looking at something like what you expect to get out of something, extremes matter because they weigh heavily on the result. The extremes are a little more prevalent at a position like tackle and I think with this class and this roster they lean a little more towards the negative end than the positive end.

Ultimately where all of this started was me asking if you think they’d be okay if they drafted a tackle and he didn’t play, you’ve certainly answered, and I appreciate that. The rest of it is is getting caught in semantics of each others’ posts and probably not super productive.

[football guy]

5 minutes ago, maury77 said:

I can legitimately see Skoronski being an all pro center (in fact I think he was the number one center in the country coming out of HS). His versatility is appealing but the combo of short arms and being put on skates frequently in the passing game makes me uncomfortable with him at tackle.

Yup. When I had heard one of the Jets top scouts compared him to Elgton Jenkins it seemed obvious to me that they believe he could be an all-pro interior player too. I personally agree that Skoronski won't be a long-term tackle, but I think he's like AVT in the sense that he can play it, and it wouldn't be surprising to me if the Jets were to give him the chance. Most likely he'd end up an elite LG which I don't see anything wrong with, but would naturally rather have a tackle. 

[T0mShane]

6 minutes ago, football guy said:

I just don't think it's so cut and dry. I do agree that I think Broderick Jones has the highest upside and if it were my pick that's who I'd take understanding that there's a real possibility he may need to spend time on the bench, but everyone develops at their own pace and each team's scheme is different which plays a part in how easy/difficult the transition is so it's unfair to immediately assume anything one way or another.

No one would've looked at Andrew Thomas or Evan Neal as guys who would come in and struggle pre-draft. If anything, Thomas was the guy who seemed like he was pro-ready but had the lower ceiling than Wills/Becton/Wirfs. Neal started 41 games at Alabama (albeit there were some questions where he'd best fit after playing RG, then RT, then LT). Then you have guys that everyone claimed to be raw who had really promising rookie years in both those draft classes (Cross and Smith last year + Wills/Becton/Wirfs in 2020). 

End of the day you draft a player and hope they are ready to be elite from day 1, but shouldn't expect it. If they don't develop as quickly as you hope, your insurance policy is having other guys with starting experience to rely on. If they do go out and win it outright then you simply demote a guy you expected to be a starter. 

I’m already sold on an OT at 13, even if it seems they’re in good enough shape if the one they take isn’t ready on day one, like you said. Brown is on borrowed time, Becton is less than a coin flip to be available by the time week one rolls around, and who knows where Mitchell will be health-wise. Adding the plus-plus prospect at tackle is a no-lose deal.   Also seems to get pretty thin after the top three or four guys go. 

[T0mShane]

Isn’t the Skoronski arm-length stuff a bit if a red herring? They used the same knock on Rashawn Slater (33” arms) and he’s been elite from day one. 

[Bleedin Green]

1 hour ago, #27TheDominator said:

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

I mean that was at least in line with a respectable opening paragraph, so not a bad start.

[football guy]

4 minutes ago, derp said:

Without getting into too much detail, I think it’s hard to bounce in between discussing individual possibilities in a range of outcomes while also considering the range of outcomes itself, and you’re viewing individual examples as my complete perspective when they’re just individual examples. I think the examples themselves are important, but they’re just possible scenarios.

I think a DL or WR who plays roughly 50% of the snaps is more valuable than a backup swing tackle. Your extreme example of the most important position and a non premium position doesn’t really shift my perspective.

I went into both my perspective on OL transition from college to pros and concerns with this tackle class in another post and won’t reiterate them.

Skoronski might stick at tackle. Might not. That would be totally fine if they had a need at guard, they do not. So him being worth that pick requires him to be an exception. Kancey’ arm length is certainly a risk too. A WR could easily beat out Hardman. They’re in theory still kicking the tires on adding there (Beckham). Wright is certainly not absolutely a right sided guy only, but given he improved there I think it leans that way. He’s probably my favorite of the tackles as a day one option despite that - or maybe in part because I think he’d be steady at RT from the jump.

And I’m not insinuating those are standard career arcs. As I said at the outset of this post, think you’re taking examples as broad strokes views and they’re not. Simply an example of good players who probably wouldn’t play on this team if guys stay healthy because of the nature of OL being a more all or nothing position and the presence of two experienced veterans.

Put very differently, I have a quantitative background though it’s not what I do any more. When you’re looking at something like what you expect to get out of something, extremes matter because they weigh heavily on the result. The extremes are a little more prevalent at a position like tackle and I think with this class and this roster they lean a little more towards the negative end than the positive end.

Ultimately where all of this started was me asking if you think they’d be okay if they drafted a tackle and he didn’t play, you’ve certainly answered, and I appreciate that. The rest of it is is getting caught in semantics of each others’ posts and probably not super productive.

It's all in fruitful discussion as we wait for the important day to come. It's not that I don't see what you're saying just sharing my disagreement with the narrative that a backup tackle can't be more important than a backup at another position simply because that player gets some chance at playing time. You've clarified that here with 50%, but I think we can both agree that given their plans, a rookie WR playing 50% of the snaps would mean something horribly went wrong because (1) of the guys we have/will have; and (2) Aaron's very vocal advocacy for working with more experienced receivers.

You can make an argument for a DL but who is it? You mention Kancey: is he really a better prospect than Skoronski? Is he a better prospect than Johnson? Wright? Jones? And to use your own analogy with Skoronski: Kancey might be able to play base LDT. He might not. He's never played it (played RDT/3T exclusively in college, which is what Q plays in this defense), and it's entirely possible (likely?) they determine that he's not strong enough to play in base downs given his struggles against the run, limiting him to a sub-package. They may also find that he hasn't learned how to make up for his lack of length to play him over the tackles early on, further limiting his role; comparatively speaking Rankins played 50.7% of his snaps over or outside the tackle last year, whereas Kancey played 6.4% of his snaps over or outside the tackle... I know the Jets like him, but the chances are he would play more of a Solomon Thomas role, which is essentially a sub-package interior pass rusher. To me, that's more of a luxury then a guy like Skoronski, who has plenty of tape and experience suggesting he could play tackle, even if its not his best position. 

 

I won't go on any further, but I will say that I think Darnell Wright will be high on their board. Won't surprise me if they have him right up there with Johnson. He's a late bloomer but fits the profile of player they're looking for from a mentality standpoint, clearly has the athletic traits, and is also versatile having played LT, RG, RT in college. An important note on him moving to RT: his HC approached him about it in the spring saying that while Wright was the team's best tackle, it would be a better unit if he locked down RT while the other 3 guys competed for the LT job because none of them ever played RT before. He immediately agreed and bought in without objection. That kind of stuff matters when splitting hairs and I truly do believe Wright will be one of the finalists at 13. He may even go ahead of our pick given what's being leaked about him in the scouting community

[football guy]

54 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

Isn’t the Skoronski arm-length stuff a bit if a red herring? They used the same knock on Rashawn Slater (33” arms) and he’s been elite from day one. 

I think it's both fair and unfair. On one hand he played every collegian snap at LT despite being a C in high school and for the most part thrived. On the other hand you do see glimpses on tape where the lack of length affected him. There's a lot of people out there who say "Skoronski would be best inside" - myself included - but then again you can probably say the same about Slater; if you're a strong guy with position versatility you should be better at it. You can also make an argument that lack of length in the outside zone is less of an issue because your ability to move and get to a spot is more important than your length (something that Skoronski is elite at by the way), but the Jets want to get more versatile with their OL schemes so how does that impact how they use their tackles? What your team asks of from your tackles both philosophically and schematically has a lot to do with it as well. 

At the end of the day I think there needs to be exceptions to the rule, which is why I think the Jets would at least give Skoronski an opportunity to play T before pigeonholing him inside. Joe historically values guys with size and length at tackle, but then again those teams didn't run wide zone base schemes. Furthermore, it shouldn't go unnoticed that Joe invested 14th overall in AVT who was a very similar - arguably inferior - prospect to Skoronski at the time. He was very deliberate to say that they felt he can play either T or G and wouldn't declare where they would wind up initially. If there was no Becton, Fant, or Moses I do think he would've been given a chance to compete there even if his best position is G; it just so happened that the bigger hole was at G. We also know that Douglas doesn't value one particular guard over another (wanted to sign Scherff, who is a RG; was happy to move AVT - their best OL - to RG from LG) so that also has me wondering if he would draft Skoronski and just "figure it out" with him in a similar way they did with AVT.

Lots of questions, no answers yet... ultimately I think it'll be a 3 horse race between Johnson, Wright, Skoronski. I personally like Broderick Jones the best but just doesn't seem like the kind of player JD would take in round 1 IMO

[derp]

7 hours ago, football guy said:

It's all in fruitful discussion as we wait for the important day to come. It's not that I don't see what you're saying just sharing my disagreement with the narrative that a backup tackle can't be more important than a backup at another position simply because that player gets some chance at playing time. You've clarified that here with 50%, but I think we can both agree that given their plans, a rookie WR playing 50% of the snaps would mean something horribly went wrong because (1) of the guys we have/will have; and (2) Aaron's very vocal advocacy for working with more experienced receivers.

You can make an argument for a DL but who is it? You mention Kancey: is he really a better prospect than Skoronski? Is he a better prospect than Johnson? Wright? Jones? And to use your own analogy with Skoronski: Kancey might be able to play base LDT. He might not. He's never played it (played RDT/3T exclusively in college, which is what Q plays in this defense), and it's entirely possible (likely?) they determine that he's not strong enough to play in base downs given his struggles against the run, limiting him to a sub-package. They may also find that he hasn't learned how to make up for his lack of length to play him over the tackles early on, further limiting his role; comparatively speaking Rankins played 50.7% of his snaps over or outside the tackle last year, whereas Kancey played 6.4% of his snaps over or outside the tackle... I know the Jets like him, but the chances are he would play more of a Solomon Thomas role, which is essentially a sub-package interior pass rusher. To me, that's more of a luxury then a guy like Skoronski, who has plenty of tape and experience suggesting he could play tackle, even if its not his best position. 

 

I won't go on any further, but I will say that I think Darnell Wright will be high on their board. Won't surprise me if they have him right up there with Johnson. He's a late bloomer but fits the profile of player they're looking for from a mentality standpoint, clearly has the athletic traits, and is also versatile having played LT, RG, RT in college. An important note on him moving to RT: his HC approached him about it in the spring saying that while Wright was the team's best tackle, it would be a better unit if he locked down RT while the other 3 guys competed for the LT job because none of them ever played RT before. He immediately agreed and bought in without objection. That kind of stuff matters when splitting hairs and I truly do believe Wright will be one of the finalists at 13. He may even go ahead of our pick given what's being leaked about him in the scouting community

Regarding receiver, I’m a little skeptical regarding Hardman’s prospect of of expanding the role he played in KC and I really like JSN’s prospects of being ready to play right away. So while it’s possible JSN wouldn’t play a lot, he’d at minimum play some and I think it’s possible he plays a big role.

I think there’s a good chance Kancey would be a sub package interior rusher early in his career. But that’s a really valuable skill in a passing oriented league and teams can always use more juice on the DL. So while a backup safety isn’t more valuable than a backup QB, I think a good pass rushing sub package DT is more valuable than a backup swing tackle. You do absolutely forgo long term upside there versus tackle. And I don’t genuinely believe he’d be in play at 13, but he’d be fun in a trade down. I think the big long arm edges bridge the long term and short term a little more nicely, and would make more sense at 13. We’ll see if Murphy picks up more buzz again after today.

And yeah, I like Wright quite a bit as a prospect. He strikes me as the best combination of tools and polish.

[derp]

8 hours ago, T0mShane said:

Isn’t the Skoronski arm-length stuff a bit if a red herring? They used the same knock on Rashawn Slater (33” arms) and he’s been elite from day one. 

I think ideally teams want 34” but 33” is considered the low end of the threshold. Skoronski is 32 1/4”. So they’re short. Similar to AVT, 32 1/8”.

I don’t think the answer is that you can’t play tackle with arms that short, it’s that you just have to make up for it with technique and athleticism to a greater degree than guys who have the long arms.

Using AVT as an example, his physical tools limited him a little when he was out at tackle last year. So he was average which was huge, but if he was a high end tackle they would’ve kept him out there. Average tackle with Pro Bowl guard upside, better to have him at guard as valuable as tackle is.

So it’s we don’t definitively know he can’t, it’d be nice to have a guard spot he could play if tackle doesn’t work because you’re rolling the dice a little there and I think need to be prepared for the possibility his length is an issue out at tackle.

[derp]

On 4/3/2023 at 11:25 AM, C Mart said:

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.

Ran a 4.52 at 6'5 268 with good agility drills. No jumps.

[football guy]

6 hours ago, derp said:

Regarding receiver, I’m a little skeptical regarding Hardman’s prospect of of expanding the role he played in KC and I really like JSN’s prospects of being ready to play right away. So while it’s possible JSN wouldn’t play a lot, he’d at minimum play some and I think it’s possible he plays a big role.

I think there’s a good chance Kancey would be a sub package interior rusher early in his career. But that’s a really valuable skill in a passing oriented league and teams can always use more juice on the DL. So while a backup safety isn’t more valuable than a backup QB, I think a good pass rushing sub package DT is more valuable than a backup swing tackle. You do absolutely forgo long term upside there versus tackle. And I don’t genuinely believe he’d be in play at 13, but he’d be fun in a trade down. I think the big long arm edges bridge the long term and short term a little more nicely, and would make more sense at 13. We’ll see if Murphy picks up more buzz again after today.

And yeah, I like Wright quite a bit as a prospect. He strikes me as the best combination of tools and polish.

I just don't see a scenario where JSN would play a big role absent several injuries. The Jets handed Hardman $4 million guaranteed on a 1-year deal while promising him an expanded route tree. That means very little in the grand scheme of things but you know at the very least he's guaranteed a roster spot and a sub package role at minimum. Garrett Wilson and Allen Lazard are locked into base-package roles that come with 75% snap share at minimum. Odell Beckham is going to eat up 50-75% of the snaps. Just don't see how drafting a WR when you have at least 3 other WRs and 2 TEs who will play ahead of him can be looked at as more valuable than an OL who will compete for a starting job, but I digress. 

As far as Kancey: the Jets can sign a productive sub package interior rusher in free agency without missing a beat; there are plenty available and more will become available. At the EOD you're only drafting Kancey because of  what you think he can become, not what he's going to contribute on day 1. You keep suggesting OTs struggle as rookies, how about DTs? Jordan Davis was PHI's 5th DT after they signed Linval Joseph and Ndamukong Suh and made little impact. Devonte Wyatt was GB's 5th DT and made little impact. Derrick Brown and Javon Kinlaw struggled as rookies. Dexter Lawrence, Christian Wilkins, Jeffery Simmons, Vita Vea, Da'Ron Payne, Taven Bryan were all unspectacular and only got playing time because they were on pretty average teams. Honestly if you look at the last 10 years, the only 1st round interior defenders that came in and played at a great-to-above average level as starters/rotational DL were Sheldon Richardson, Aaron Donald, Quinnen Williams, and Ed Oliver. That's 4-of-26. Many of them went on to be great, and if you think Kancey can become a greater player than the OLs can become then that's who you take regardless of what his role is in year 1, not because you think he can contribute on 25% of snaps as a rookie over an OL who may not be a starter. 

And that's what keeps making this a fallacious argument... you keep suggesting that an OL would be a "backup" or a swing tackle is just dismissing the possibility that the player would start out of hand which doesn't make any sense... Becton and Mitchell have missed more career games than they've played and Brown will be 38 years old coming off injury. I don't even see the debate: a potential starting OL with a floor of being a top reserve on a team looking to add Aaron Rodgers and compete for a Super Bowl is far more valuable than a potential rotational DL who will play 60% of the snaps at the very most (if Quinnen Williams were to get injured god forbid). The only way you don't take the tackle is if (1) organizationally you view the OL group as sub-par; and (2) you view the DL group as stellar. Everything else created equal you take the OL and you figure it out. 

[derp]

2 minutes ago, football guy said:

I just don't see a scenario where JSN would play a big role absent several injuries. The Jets handed Hardman $4 million guaranteed on a 1-year deal while promising him an expanded route tree. That means very little in the grand scheme of things but you know at the very least he's guaranteed a roster spot and a sub package role at minimum. Garrett Wilson and Allen Lazard are locked into base-package roles that come with 75% snap share at minimum. Odell Beckham is going to eat up 50-75% of the snaps. Just don't see how drafting a WR when you have at least 3 other WRs and 2 TEs who will play ahead of him can be looked at as more valuable than an OL who will compete for a starting job, but I digress. 

As far as Kancey: the Jets can sign a productive sub package interior rusher in free agency without missing a beat; there are plenty available and more will become available. At the EOD you're only drafting Kancey because of  what you think he can become, not what he's going to contribute on day 1. You keep suggesting OTs struggle as rookies, how about DTs? Jordan Davis was PHI's 5th DT after they signed Linval Joseph and Ndamukong Suh and made little impact. Devonte Wyatt was GB's 5th DT and made little impact. Derrick Brown and Javon Kinlaw struggled as rookies. Dexter Lawrence, Christian Wilkins, Jeffery Simmons, Vita Vea, Da'Ron Payne, Taven Bryan were all unspectacular and only got playing time because they were on pretty average teams. Honestly if you look at the last 10 years, the only 1st round interior defenders that came in and played at a great-to-above average level as starters/rotational DL were Sheldon Richardson, Aaron Donald, Quinnen Williams, and Ed Oliver. That's 4-of-26. Many of them went on to be great, and if you think Kancey can become a greater player than the OLs can become then that's who you take regardless of what his role is in year 1, not because you think he can contribute on 25% of snaps as a rookie over an OL who may not be a starter. 

And that's what keeps making this a fallacious argument... you keep suggesting that an OL would be a "backup" or a swing tackle is just dismissing the possibility that the player would start out of hand which doesn't make any sense... Becton and Mitchell have missed more career games than they've played and Brown will be 38 years old coming off injury. I don't even see the debate: a potential starting OL with a floor of being a top reserve on a team looking to add Aaron Rodgers and compete for a Super Bowl is far more valuable than a potential rotational DL who will play 60% of the snaps at the very most (if Quinnen Williams were to get injured god forbid). The only way you don't take the tackle is if (1) organizationally you view the OL group as sub-par; and (2) you view the DL group as stellar. Everything else created equal you take the OL and you figure it out. 

Beckham isn’t signed yet. Obviously that would change the depth chart.

You’re getting very deep into Kancey and ignoring me saying edge is the direction that’s interesting at 13. I think Kancey is technically developed and explosive enough to make an impact as a subpackage player, but I think he’d be far more likely in a trade down and isn’t a likely option at 13. The area I think is interesting at 13 is Murphy - Van Ness - Wilson. And Smith is intriguing though they’d need to have a plan.

You’re not reading my perspective correctly at all. At no point aside from the poorly typed sentence I acknowledged wasn’t what I actually meant have I suggested a tackle definitively would be a backup who doesn’t play. The entire time I have brought up that a tackle not playing at all is in the range of outcomes in a way that it isn’t at a position that rotates.

To the last point you made, I have also repeatedly said I don’t like the top three in tackle class at the top for immediate impact. Granted, I don’t have the time or expertise to scout these guys. But a technically sound guy with 32 1/4” arms and two guys who are widely acknowledged to need technique work all strike me as players where it’s non trivial that they would benefit from a position change or development time. 

So yes, if you think the tackle would be likely to displace Brown or Becton I think that would be the move. Given the class, I don’t think the tackle at 13 would be likely to displace Brown or Becton, so that absolutely shapes my perspective. I think the most likely guy to do that would be Wright, which is why I’ve said he’s the tackle I’m most comfortable with.

[football guy]

1 hour ago, derp said:

Beckham isn’t signed yet. Obviously that would change the depth chart.

You’re getting very deep into Kancey and ignoring me saying edge is the direction that’s interesting at 13. I think Kancey is technically developed and explosive enough to make an impact as a subpackage player, but I think he’d be far more likely in a trade down and isn’t a likely option at 13. The area I think is interesting at 13 is Murphy - Van Ness - Wilson. And Smith is intriguing though they’d need to have a plan.

You’re not reading my perspective correctly at all. At no point aside from the poorly typed sentence I acknowledged wasn’t what I actually meant have I suggested a tackle definitively would be a backup who doesn’t play. The entire time I have brought up that a tackle not playing at all is in the range of outcomes in a way that it isn’t at a position that rotates.

To the last point you made, I have also repeatedly said I don’t like the top three in tackle class at the top for immediate impact. Granted, I don’t have the time or expertise to scout these guys. But a technically sound guy with 32 1/4” arms and two guys who are widely acknowledged to need technique work all strike me as players where it’s non trivial that they would benefit from a position change or development time. 

So yes, if you think the tackle would be likely to displace Brown or Becton I think that would be the move. Given the class, I don’t think the tackle at 13 would be likely to displace Brown or Becton, so that absolutely shapes my perspective. I think the most likely guy to do that would be Wright, which is why I’ve said he’s the tackle I’m most comfortable with.

Davis is on the team. So swap out Davis for Beckham you still feel the same way?

EDGE, DT, DL, all interchangeable here. If you specifically want to isolate EDGE, again that player is likely in a rotational/sub package role. If anything there's less snaps available for an EDGE than there is a DT. You want to talk about flaws... Murphy's agility drills were not great and he refused to jump. His tape suggests he's not twitchy or explosive which is fine as guys who win with strength and technique are valuable in the NFL but what's his ceiling? Van Ness is a fabulous athlete with phenomenal traits but is raw and never started a game in college. What leads you to believe that he's more ready to play then one of the top OL? Then you mention Smith; not only are there size questions with him but there's use questions as you allude to... we traded away Jacob Martin mid-season because they couldn't find a way to have he and Bryce Huff co-exist, now we're going to spend a 1st rounder on a very similar player? Yes if Tyree Wilson falls I think you sprint to the podium, but still doesn't address how much the guy is playing when he has to compete with JFM, Lawson, Johnson, Huff, Clemons for snaps on the EDGE? 

Naturally I'm playing devil's advocate. EDGE is a premium position and I think it makes total sense to select an EDGE if they feel they can provide a short-term impact with an extremely high-end ceiling to go with it, but I just can't comprehend your stance that a potential long-term starting tackle that may be a short-term top reserve is less important than a rotational player who could be limited to a handful of snaps a game in a rotation. If the team rates the players similarly and believes the players have similar upside, you side with the OL. Why? Because they have a ton of resources already invested in the DL, there is plenty of depth, and while continuously investing in the DL is a winning proposition it's a luxury when you consider the state of the OL both short-term and long-term. Even if you draft an OL and the player loses out to Brown + Becton, how is that player not more valuable as a top backup at G/T than a rotational DL? Because on paper he's not playing as many snaps? This isn't a computer simulation or madden... The last time the Jets had a tackle play a full season was 2015 and we're supposed to feel good about Aaron Rodgers playing behind who exactly if Brown, Becton and/or AVT were to go down? Furthermore, what are you doing next season if Rodgers comes back, Brown retires, and Becton leaves?

Your argument started by suggesting a rotational player in year 1 is more valuable than a potential reserve OT because they are going for it with a 39-year-old QB. I said that's not the case because of the short-term insurance needed at OT (regardless whether the rookie is starter and Brown/Becton are insurance or vice a versa) and the long-term need for a tackle. Then you suggested its because you think that the OTs are not ready and should start on the bench, but then I countered suggesting there's a strong likelihood that any position may not be ready as a rookie, such as DL who tend to take longer to make an impact than OL. If the DL is graded much higher than the OL the team should take the DL, we agree on that. Where we disagree is that you think that player is more valuable not due to their long-term impact, but their short-term impact, because they are "going for it"... We clearly don't agree and that's fine. I'm not ignoring what your saying or purposefully "not reading" your perspective, I just don't agree with it on all levels... just think it counters actual roster building in favor of some sort of analytical/fantasy football perspective where you seem to believe a player is more valuable for the sole reason that the player plays more snaps than another, which doesn't make any sense to me

[derp]

3 minutes ago, football guy said:

Davis is on the team. So swap out Davis for Beckham you still feel the same way?

EDGE, DT, DL, all interchangeable here. If you specifically want to isolate EDGE, again that player is likely in a rotational/sub package role. If anything there's less snaps available for an EDGE than there is a DT. You want to talk about flaws... Murphy's agility drills were not great and he refused to jump. His tape suggests he's not twitchy or explosive which is fine as guys who win with strength and technique are valuable in the NFL but what's his ceiling? Van Ness is a fabulous athlete with phenomenal traits but is raw and never started a game in college. What leads you to believe that he's more ready to play then one of the top OL? Then you mention Smith; not only are there size questions with him but there's use questions as you allude to... we traded away Jacob Martin mid-season because they couldn't find a way to have he and Bryce Huff co-exist, now we're going to spend a 1st rounder on a very similar player? Yes if Tyree Wilson falls I think you sprint to the podium, but still doesn't address how much the guy is playing when he has to compete with JFM, Lawson, Johnson, Huff, Clemons for snaps on the EDGE? 

Naturally I'm playing devil's advocate. EDGE is a premium position and I think it makes total sense to select an EDGE if they feel they can provide a short-term impact with an extremely high-end ceiling to go with it, but I just can't comprehend your stance that a potential long-term starting tackle that may be a short-term top reserve is less important than a rotational player who could be limited to a handful of snaps a game in a rotation. If the team rates the players similarly and believes the players have similar upside, you side with the OL. Why? Because they have a ton of resources already invested in the DL, there is plenty of depth, and while continuously investing in the DL is a winning proposition it's a luxury when you consider the state of the OL both short-term and long-term. Even if you draft an OL and the player loses out to Brown + Becton, how is that player not more valuable as a top backup at G/T than a rotational DL? Because on paper he's not playing as many snaps? This isn't a computer simulation or madden... The last time the Jets had a tackle play a full season was 2015 and we're supposed to feel good about Aaron Rodgers playing behind who exactly if Brown, Becton and/or AVT were to go down? Furthermore, what are you doing next season if Rodgers comes back, Brown retires, and Becton leaves?

Your argument started by suggesting a rotational player in year 1 is more valuable than a potential reserve OT because they are going for it with a 39-year-old QB. I said that's not the case because of the short-term insurance needed at OT (regardless whether the rookie is starter and Brown/Becton are insurance or vice a versa) and the long-term need for a tackle. Then you suggested its because you think that the OTs are not ready and should start on the bench, but then I countered suggesting there's a strong likelihood that any position may not be ready as a rookie, such as DL who tend to take longer to make an impact than OL. If the DL is graded much higher than the OL the team should take the DL, we agree on that. Where we disagree is that you think that player is more valuable not due to their long-term impact, but their short-term impact, because they are "going for it"... We clearly don't agree and that's fine. I'm not ignoring what your saying or purposefully "not reading" your perspective, I just don't agree with it on all levels... just think it counters actual roster building in favor of some sort of analytical/fantasy football perspective where you seem to believe a player is more valuable for the sole reason that the player plays more snaps than another, which doesn't make any sense to me

I imagine Davis gets squeezed one way or any other, but yes he’d change things too. Not too fond of the idea of using 8 figures of space on him or Beckham.

You’re anchored in traditional roster building, which is fine. Generally speaking, I’m a fan of methodical roster construction. I haven’t been a fan of several of the more aggressive moves. At this point they’ve clearly got their foot on the gas, it’d just be a bit odd to take it off for the sake of long term roster construction at this stage of things - and I’m genuinely not sure how much it’d truly benefit them given where their roster building momentum is. I’m not entirely comfortable balancing what’s prudent when a team is in this stage because the Jets have rarely been here and slow is more in my wheelhouse.

Any player they take at 13 is going to be flawed. That’s the nature of drafting with the 13th pick. I have a bias towards wanting players to have the opportunity to grow and develop in games - potentially due to another sport I follow closely. You can do that in a limited way that suits a player’s current skill set when he plays a position he can rotate snaps at. On the offensive line he needs to be the best player, take his lumps, or not play.

I’d add that I don’t think I’m ignoring the long term impact. Both are premium positions and edge depth is going to start to wane quickly as well. I asked a question about what you thought the importance of short term impact was. We’ve gotten side-railed within that discussion. I appreciate the thoughts.

[C Mart]

Perhaps no Boise State athlete helped himself more on Monday than Matlock. The bruising interior presence for the Broncos’ defense hadn’t been getting much NFL buzz since he declared for the draft this winter.

He only posted six tackles for loss and 2.5 sacks as a redshirt senior last season. Speed, quickness and the ability to get the quarterback seemed to be a concern — so much of a concern that Matlock didn’t even get an invite to the NFL Combine.

“Obviously that combine invite didn’t come through — and that’s alright. I understand the politics behind it,” Matlock told reporters. “It just gave me more time to train for today and I thought I turned some heads.”

More than some. Matlock, who dropped over 10 pounds and weighed in Monday at 296, was spectacular, putting up 29 reps of 225 pounds on the bench and running a 4.81 40-yard dash.

In other words, if Matlock was invited to the combine and posted Monday’s numbers in Indianapolis, here’s where they would have ranked amongst defensive tackles: shuttle — No. 1, four-cone drill — No. 1, 40-yard dash — T-2, bench press — T-3, broad jump — T-3.

“I thought I’ve had a great couple months of training,” Matlock said. “There’s always going to be room for improvement in my mind but, overall, I think I’ve done a helluva job.”

[Paradis]

Quote

Torrence, Thursday, also confirmed formal meetings with at least 12 NFL organizations to date — Pittsburgh, Washington, Jacksonville, Baltimore, the New York Jets, Las Vegas, the Los Angeles Chargers, Tennessee, New Orleans, Atlanta and the Los Angeles Rams — with more of course scheduled over the coming weeks.

I'm settling on Torrence being my preferred option barring someone being there that we're not expecting... I think the Edge and OTs will be burned through by #13, but here's hoping

[derp]

Just now, Paradis said:

I'm settling on Torrence being my preferred option barring someone being there that we're not expecting... I think the Edge and OTs will be burned through by #13, but here's hoping

Where do you envision him playing?

[Paradis]

35 minutes ago, derp said:

Where do you envision him playing?

interior... but if needed he could probably handle his own outside. 

[derp]

21 minutes ago, Paradis said:

interior... but if needed he could probably handle his own outside. 

Guard at 13 strikes me as a very rich, and with AVT and Tomlinson in place feels like a luxury pick. I don't love Tomlinson but he's here this year and thanks to Joe Douglas a fat dead cap hit if they cut him next year too.

[C Mart]

 

[Paradis]

1 hour ago, derp said:

Guard at 13 strikes me as a very rich, and with AVT and Tomlinson in place feels like a luxury pick. I don't love Tomlinson but he's here this year and thanks to Joe Douglas a fat dead cap hit if they cut him next year too.

I get that, but id rather take him and be stuck with a resource-management challenge - than some "need-driven" pick with undeserving player. Between AVT/Tomlinson/Torrence and our OT in flux situation, i can stomach peace of mind that we came away with huge +1 at OL. 

Short version, it's less about Torrence and more about lack of interest in other prospects

[derp]

14 minutes ago, Paradis said:

I get that, but id rather take him and be stuck with a resource-management challenge - than some "need-driven" pick with undeserving player. Between AVT/Tomlinson/Torrence and our OT in flux situation, i can stomach peace of mind that we came away with huge +1 at OL. 

Short version, it's less about Torrence and more about lack of interest in other prospects

Honestly would be a pretty rough beat to have presumably 3 QB’s, 4 EDGE (unless you only like 2-3 of those guys), 3 OT, and 1 DT off the board after 12 picks. And if that happens, hopefully somebody wants to come up for Levis or one of the top 2 guys at the top of what’s considered to be a pretty good corner class.

[Paradis]

24 minutes ago, derp said:

Honestly would be a pretty rough beat to have presumably 3 QB’s, 4 EDGE (unless you only like 2-3 of those guys), 3 OT, and 1 DT off the board after 12 picks. And if that happens, hopefully somebody wants to come up for Levis or one of the top 2 guys at the top of what’s considered to be a pretty good corner class.

I wouldn't take AR that high, but i get that it's going to happen... 3 OTs, easily given the competition... 3 Edge and Carter -- that's 10. We definitely don't need another DB... so i see it as a real possibility... if a couple DBs go and Robinson, then i guess we're in business for a OT?

I just see us being left the "3rd best" at those positions. Gross. 

[derp]

16 minutes ago, Paradis said:

I wouldn't take AR that high, but i get that it's going to happen... 3 OTs, easily given the competition... 3 Edge and Carter -- that's 10. We definitely don't need another DB... so i see it as a real possibility... if a couple DBs go and Robinson, then i guess we're in business for a OT?

I just see us being left the "3rd best" at those positions. Gross. 

Think it seems like a shot Gonzalez and/or Witherspoon go before the Jets. Brugler and Jeremiah are both pretty well connected, both have Witherspoon top 10 and then Brugler has Gonzalez at 4 and Jeremiah has Gonzalez at 11. Robinson going before them would obviously be a huge deal, though I kind of doubt it.

Just saw Jeremiah moved Wright up to OT2 on his board, 15 overall - Brugler still has him OT4 at 24. He gets up into the range with the top three and that helps a lot. Think where Jones goes is a potentially big deal too, I see OT1 stuff but most have him around 15.

Who've you got as the third edge? Smith is another one who could sneak up ahead. Then obviously a WR is another one that could happen. Many peg the Texans to do that.

Suspect if the Jets get stuck with corners and WR's on the board someone will move up. Already rumors about the Giants wanting to move up targeting both those spots.

[maury77]

I visited Walter Football's draft tracker and the player the Jets have shown the most interest in is John Michael Schmitz. They met with him at the combine, pro day and brought him in for a visit. Given how unaggressive the Jets have been at pursuing centers this offseason, are they really considering a center at 13?

[derp]

9 minutes ago, maury77 said:

I visited Walter Football's draft tracker and the player the Jets have shown the most interest in is John Michael Schmitz. They met with him at the combine, pro day and brought him in for a visit. Given how unaggressive the Jets have been at pursuing centers this offseason, are they really considering a center at 13?

I don’t think so. A center hasn’t gone in the top half of the first in the last 25+ years, don’t think Schmitz is such a great prospect that he should buck that trend, some think Joe Tippmann is better, and they have Ben Jones and McGovern on the table in free agency still.

Maybe they love Schmitz and they’ll move down in the first and try to take him. I think more likely - even if they move down from 13 - is they’d potentially target Schmitz/Tippmann at 42/43 and sign someone if both of those guys are gone.

And honestly, signing Jones or McGovern makes even more sense to me. They probably need to add a tackle at some point reasonably early. If they reserve 42/43 for a center (assuming they trade one for Rodgers) then that boxes them into needing a tackle or a trade down at 13 and I don’t think that’s a good spot to be in. Better to be tackle/DL/trade down pending who’s left (teams may want to move up for corners, JSN, Levis) with tackles you’d take at 42/43 if that doesn’t end up being viable at 13 for one reason or another.

[chirorob]

1 hour ago, maury77 said:

I visited Walter Football's draft tracker and the player the Jets have shown the most interest in is John Michael Schmitz. They met with him at the combine, pro day and brought him in for a visit. Given how unaggressive the Jets have been at pursuing centers this offseason, are they really considering a center at 13?

Trade back to the mid 20s, or hope he falls into the 2nd round

[kdels62]

4 hours ago, maury77 said:

I visited Walter Football's draft tracker and the player the Jets have shown the most interest in is John Michael Schmitz. They met with him at the combine, pro day and brought him in for a visit. Given how unaggressive the Jets have been at pursuing centers this offseason, are they really considering a center at 13?

I cannot believe taking JMS at 13 after passing on Linderbaum and Humphrey the last two years. JMS is good but he'd be a clear OC 3 if they all came out together.