1st round edge was the right move

[Doggin94it]

3 hours ago, Beerfish said:

 A huge endorsement of edge in this draft is at the same time a total indictment of trading up for jermaine johnson and drafting clemons last year, also in putting a 2nd rounder tender on huff and resigning him.

Other than the trade for JJ this is a completely ridiculous comment. Drafting a pass rusher high is an indictment of spending a 4th round pick on Clemons, a guy who is not expected to be an elite pass rusher? Of resigning Huff for a year? Are you somehow under the impression that teams can only have one pass rusher on the field at a time, or that $4.3M/year is an overpay for the production Huff gives the team? That would be enormously ill-informed.

Quote

Drafting a passing downs rotational only edge at 15 when no WRs and no TEs had been taken is flat out stupid.  Especially when speed rushers who are rotational guys were loaded in this draft.  In round 4 and 5 like 4 or 5 of these type of players went off the board.

That kind of depends on who said WRs and TEs are, Beer, and the fact that none of them were taken until the 20s says the league didn't love these guys. Of course, Jefferson also went in the 20s in his draft, so of course on of the 5 WR/TE who went in the 20s could boom, too - but he was the 5th WR taken in a class that was loaded with WR talent, so it's not quite the same. And the "I won't say which guy, but someone!" play is a nice touch; they could only pick one. You don't get to take "the field" in a conversation like this, because the aggregate odds that someone picked after No. 15 will turn into a very good weapon are way way higher than the odds that any particular one of those guys will be, and risk is absolutely something that has to be factored in when deciding who to take.

Quote

I feel the Jets panicked when the last OT went off the board (they should have been totally prepared for this), Douglas was on the phone probably trying feverishly to trade down up to half way or more through our pick time.  Then he deferred to Wormtongue Saleh whispering in his ear as to what to do.

By the end of next year we will be wondering how we could have just passed on the new offensive rookie of the year for rotational 6-7 sack guy who is getting 30% of the D snaps.

There is exactly zero chance that anyone picked after McDonald ends up as the OROY. Not with 3 QBs and 2 RBs all being taken ahead of him, and the WRs and TEs picked later going to teams where they have no chance of being the first option. (JSN will be Seattle's third WR, Johnson will be SD's No. 3, Flowers will be Baltimore's No. 3 target behind Beckham and Anderson, Addison could be Minnesota's No. 2 target and Kincaid could be Buffalo's No. 2). Stop.

54 minutes ago, 32EBoozer said:

Is DA better than GW based upon his many years with AR? He didn't look like nearly the same WR without him. I watched the video someone posted showing all of AR touchdowns. I couldn't have handed the ball to these WR better than AR dropped it in their lap from 40 yards away and with a DL in his face and the WR having two DB draped on him.

Adams' ability to make those contested catches is pretty important. But also yes, Adams is better than Wilson right now, and saying he looked like a different WR without Rodgers is a mistake. Hell, he had a 5-game stretch last year for the Raiders where he put up 41 catches for 664 yards and 7 TDs - more than half of Wilson's total production for the year (and more TDs). For the season, Adams put up 1500 yards (400 more than Wilson) and 14 TDs (10 more than Wilson) on just 17 more catches.

That's no slight to Wilson; Adams is a top-3 WR in the NFL 

[BornJetsFan1983]

13 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Yes but a 3rd variable is involved there:  They have a QB who gets them leads, leading to a defense facing a more one dimensional offense, and thus racking up more sacks.  

Good thing we have a really good QB now. 

yeah that is a part of it no doubt. Rodgers or a good qb helps the whole team not just on offense. Joe and Saleh said as much, and it is true. We do not want to build the old team Rogers just came from. We need a Def that can stop the otehr guys from scoring over 21 while rogers does his thing with Wilson and breece hall.

[jgb]

3 hours ago, Warfish said:

Alot of folks did.

Not what those folks said last year.

 

[#27TheDominator]

19 minutes ago, jgb said:

 

Clemons 3 cone wasn't that good.  It was like 7.2 which is the cut-off point for pass rushers.  I think that time is basically average for a DE and slightly good for a DT.  The only successful sack guy I remember having a higher number is Demarcus Lawrence.  

[jgb]

2 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Clemons 3 cone wasn't that good.  It was like 7.2 which is the cut-off point for pass rushers.  I think that time is basically average for a DE and slightly good for a DT.  The only successful sack guy I remember having a higher number is Demarcus Lawrence.  

I go by playerprofiler agility percentile rank which is a composite of shuttle and 3-cone that is then normalized. But that’s a mouthful so I usually get lazy and shorthand it.

 

[Bowles Movement]

1 hour ago, slats said:

So more like the 60th rated receiver while the edge should be near 30th? In a rotation with Lawson, Huff, JFM, Johnson, and Clemons? Okay. 
 
I think Davis is here because he’s under contract. It’s still a pretty big contract, and the Jets have Mims, Irv Charles, and a couple new UDFAs also competing for a roster spot. He’s no lock. 

People slam Davis like he is worthless but he was a high number one pick for a reason and he did have a 1000 yd season before we signed him.   He’s experienced, big and fast and  could enjoy  a renaissance with Rodgers throwing him the ball.  I would not write him off .  And his contract isn’t crazy for a WR 2.

[Tooooon]

This thread has 450+ page potential.

[#27TheDominator]

3 minutes ago, jgb said:

I go by playerprofiler agility percentile rank which is a composite of shuttle and 3-cone that is then normalized. But that’s a mouthful so I usually get lazy and shorthand it.

 

I don't get it.  Did they "normalize" it based on weight?  He was 263, but that is towards the light side.  According to what I read his numbers were good, but far from earth shattering.  I don't see how he lands in the 93rd percentile with a good 3 cone and a fairly pedestrian shuttle.  Are they grading him against DTs?  Nania did a piece on him that was complimentary, but the numbers were nothing like that.  He is much worse than McDonald in pretty much everything except the scale and the bench.

NY Jets EDGE Micheal Clemons has surprisingly great pass-rush numbers

Quote

Here are Clemons’ athletic testing numbers and their respective Relative Athletic Score (RAS) ratings on a scale of 0-to-10 (0.0 being the worst ever for an edge rusher prospect, 10.0 being the best, and 5.0 being the 50th percentile):

• Bench press: 24 reps (7.12)
• Vertical jump: 35″ (8.41)
• Broad jump: 116″ (6.74)
• 40 yard dash: 4.85s (5.93)
• 10 yard split: 1.65s (7.88)
• 20-yard shuttle: 4.45s (5.81)
• 3-cone: 7.20s (7.20)

 

 

[jgb]

Just now, #27TheDominator said:

I don't get it.  Did they "normalize" it based on weight?  He was 263, but that is towards the light side.  According to what I read his numbers were good, but far from earth shattering.  I don't see how he lands in the 93rd percentile with a good 3 cone and a fairly pedestrian shuttle.  Are they grading him against DTs?  Nania did a piece on him that was complimentary, but the numbers were nothing like that.  He is much worse than McDonald in pretty much everything except the scale and the bench.

NY Jets EDGE Micheal Clemons has surprisingly great pass-rush numbers

 

Playerprofiler explains their metrics. A good read. And yes definitely measured within position group.

[jgb]

7 minutes ago, Bowles Movement said:

People slam Davis like he is worthless but he was a high number one pick for a reason and he did have a 1000 yd season before we signed him.   He’s experienced, big and fast and  could enjoy  a renaissance with Rodgers throwing him the ball.  I would not write him off .  And his contract isn’t crazy for a WR 2.

You’re either perfect or trash. Welcome to the Internet. 

[CanadienJetsFan]

Until we’re top dog, keep drafting sack getters.

 

[rangerous]

6 hours ago, Warfish said:

I say it over and over, the NFL is an offense-dominated league.  You do not win if you do not score.

Our Offense has been ranked 28th, 29th, 28th, 11th (Fitzy), 30th, 24th, 23rd, 31st, 32nd, 28th and 29th since 2012.

No wonder we're the leader by far in years without a playoff appearance.  

Closest we came, yup, 2015 with Fitz and the 11th ranked scoring Offense.

And yet, we as a team invest far heavier in Defense with our top picks than we do with offense.  Despite the regime, we seem to consistently try and build the 1985 Bears or the elite D era Ravens, rather than try to compete with the top Offenses.

Since 2007 we have picked Defense with our top #1 pick 13 times out of 17 years.  

Of the remaining 4 top #1 picks, three were QB's!  Sanchez, Darnold and Wilson.

Only once in the past 17 years has our top #1 pick been a non-QB Offensive player, and that was Becton. 

And what do we have to show for this incredible investment of draft capital to the Defense and the constant hiring of Defense minded Head Coaches?

The longest streak of uncompetitive football in the NFL.

So in desperation, due to our ongoing failure to find or identify a QB, we got Aaron Rodgers.  That is awesome if he still has it (and I think he does).  But he isn't Jesus Christ, he doesn't walk on water, and he won't turn water into wine.  He's 40 ffs. Our supporting cast is thin, subpar at many spots and unreliable health-wise (O-line) and our skill position players have only two elite talents, one of whom is coming back off a horrible injury and is 100% TBD if he'll be the same guy.

All this said, I just think the route to change is CHANGE, to try and win by building elite talent on offense.  Not doing the same old defense, defense, defense thing we've always done, especially with a pick like this one that is almost all athleticism/RAS score based, who at most will only be a rotational guy while we have Rodgers.  especially the year after we invested a #1 in a supposedly elite edge rusher (a narrative that's now changed when this pick got made, lol).

We paid alot to get Rodgers, I would have gotten him another weapon.  But clearly, mot of the forum does not agree and loves bendy gumby, lol.

The other part of the offense argument in only 4 of those seasons was there an offensive coordinator with good experience. Gase was for two seasons and gailey for two. The rest were all scrubs or first timers. And I know people will get on gases case. I am okay with the explanation saleh and douglas made for choosing Macdonald. They want pressure and that means they want to throw fresh bodies at the qb. They now have Johnson, huff, Lawson and Macdonald coming off the edge. Should make for some pretty interesting passing downs.

[#27TheDominator]

14 minutes ago, jgb said:

Playerprofiler explains their metrics. A good read. And yes definitely measured within position group.

I know.  My point was that if they graded him as an EDGE he couldn't be that high.  A bunch of 70s and 80s doesn't get you into the 90s.

[Charlie Brown]

7 hours ago, kdels62 said:

I really find it hard to believe that people think there are many better allocations of assets in the NFL than first round edge rusher. 

Thank you!

Let me get this straight the Jets had one of the worst defenses in years, then we draft and procure talent at the edge rusher position and the Jets had a Championship level defense last year and now many are saying that is bad thing!

Cause those making this critique know next to nothing about creating or running an NFL defense when compared to Robert Saleh... so this is insane!

[jgb]

18 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

I know.  My point was that if they graded him as an EDGE he couldn't be that high.  A bunch of 70s and 80s doesn't get you into the 90s.

Listed as an EDGE. It’s possible they made I mistake, I suppose?

[#27TheDominator]

10 minutes ago, jgb said:

Listed as an EDGE. It’s possible they made I mistake, I suppose?

Might be versus players eligible for the draft vs. NFL players etc.  Bunch of ways they try to compare.  

[football guy]

McDonald was the 8th overall player on the vertical board, which was higher than Jones.

They don’t strictly adhere to the vertical board (usually deferring to the horizontal one), but if they’re to be taken at their word, they were taking WMD even if Jones was there

[Larz]

2 minutes ago, football guy said:

McDonald was the 8th overall player on the vertical board, which was higher than Jones.

They don’t strictly adhere to the vertical board (usually deferring to the horizontal one), but if they’re to be taken at their word, they were taking WMD even if Jones was there

Vertical is like BPA and horizontal is need ? 

[SickJetFan]

4 minutes ago, football guy said:

McDonald was the 8th overall player on the vertical board, which was higher than Jones.

They don’t strictly adhere to the vertical board (usually deferring to the horizontal one), but if they’re to be taken at their word, they were taking WMD even if Jones was there

weapons of mass destruction?

[SomebodytoAnybody47]

3 minutes ago, football guy said:

McDonald was the 8th overall player on the vertical board, which was higher than Jones.

They don’t strictly adhere to the vertical board (usually deferring to the horizontal one), but if they’re to be taken at their word, they were taking WMD even if Jones was there

8th huh…
Will Anderson, Bryce Young, Skronski, Paris, Witherspoon, Bijan, And Carter? 

[Warfish]

10 minutes ago, football guy said:

McDonald was the 8th overall player on the vertical board, which was higher than Jones.

They don’t strictly adhere to the vertical board (usually deferring to the horizontal one), but if they’re to be taken at their word, they were taking WMD even if Jones was there

Does nay team ever come out and say "yeah, he was like 50th on our Board, but we took him anyway"?

Of course they'll claim he was higher on their board than several obviously higher prospects taken earlier, lol.

[Larz]

3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Does nay team ever come out and say "yeah, he was like 50th on our Board, but we took him anyway"?

Of course they'll claim he was higher on their board than several obviously higher prospects taken earlier, lol.

Your board was the best board. Can you please publish it next year?

[FidelioJet]

24 minutes ago, football guy said:

McDonald was the 8th overall player on the vertical board, which was higher than Jones.

They don’t strictly adhere to the vertical board (usually deferring to the horizontal one), but if they’re to be taken at their word, they were taking WMD even if Jones was there

When looking at the first round how do they not have an initial order and just stick to that?

That has to be able to be pre-planned.  Honestly, what am I missing if it's not?

It's not like you've already taken a player and then it adjusts based on that player taken?

[Cyberjet]

8 hours ago, Warfish said:

I say it over and over, the NFL is an offense-dominated league.  You do not win if you do not score.

Our Offense has been ranked 28th, 29th, 28th, 11th (Fitzy), 30th, 24th, 23rd, 31st, 32nd, 28th and 29th since 2012.

No wonder we're the leader by far in years without a playoff appearance.  

Closest we came, yup, 2015 with Fitz and the 11th ranked scoring Offense.

And yet, we as a team invest far heavier in Defense with our top picks than we do with offense.  Despite the regime, we seem to consistently try and build the 1985 Bears or the elite D era Ravens, rather than try to compete with the top Offenses.

Since 2007 we have picked Defense with our top #1 pick 13 times out of 17 years.  

Of the remaining 4 top #1 picks, three were QB's!  Sanchez, Darnold and Wilson.

Only once in the past 17 years has our top #1 pick been a non-QB Offensive player, and that was Becton. 

And what do we have to show for this incredible investment of draft capital to the Defense and the constant hiring of Defense minded Head Coaches?

The longest streak of uncompetitive football in the NFL.

So in desperation, due to our ongoing failure to find or identify a QB, we got Aaron Rodgers.  That is awesome if he still has it (and I think he does).  But he isn't Jesus Christ, he doesn't walk on water, and he won't turn water into wine.  He's 40 ffs. Our supporting cast is thin, subpar at many spots and unreliable health-wise (O-line) and our skill position players have only two elite talents, one of whom is coming back off a horrible injury and is 100% TBD if he'll be the same guy.

All this said, I just think the route to change is CHANGE, to try and win by building elite talent on offense.  Not doing the same old defense, defense, defense thing we've always done, especially with a pick like this one that is almost all athleticism/RAS score based, who at most will only be a rotational guy while we have Rodgers.  especially the year after we invested a #1 in a supposedly elite edge rusher (a narrative that's now changed when this pick got made, lol).

We paid alot to get Rodgers, I would have gotten him another weapon.  But clearly, mot of the forum does not agree and loves bendy gumby, lol.

Getting Rogers elevates the games of all the receivers. We are judging last years offense and the OL/WRs/TEs based on poor QB play. The offensive line is automatically better because of Rodgers experience/ getting rid of the ball more quickly/ more accurate passer and better decisions.

This offense does not need another WR. The McDonald pick was excellent 

[32EBoozer]

29 minutes ago, football guy said:

McDonald was the 8th overall player on the vertical board, which was higher than Jones.

They don’t strictly adhere to the vertical board (usually deferring to the horizontal one), but if they’re to be taken at their word, they were taking WMD even if Jones was there

Excuse my ignorance here, but the vertical lists the best ranked player and the horizontal is similarly talented players who could be considered for selection if original ranked player is off the board?

[Larz]

26 minutes ago, 32EBoozer said:

Excuse my ignorance here, but the vertical lists the best ranked player and the horizontal is similarly talented players who could be considered for selection if original ranked player is off the board?

I googled it and what I found was vertical is by position, horizontal is with position value factored which is what they draft from. I think lol 

 

After teams set their VERTICAL draft board (positions), they prepare their HORIZONTAL draft board (best players regardless of position) with each team establishing a Top 150 overall board based on grades, which means the “150” board can range anywhere from 120-200 players depending on how the grades fall in each of the 32 draft rooms.

This is the list that they draft from. Because each team’s board differs due to scheme and how they perceive players in the draft, all a team needs is 150 or so players on their own board to complete their 7 rounds of picks.

[jgb]

54 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Does nay team ever come out and say "yeah, he was like 50th on our Board, but we took him anyway"?

Of course they'll claim he was higher on their board than several obviously higher prospects taken earlier, lol.

Why would a team take a guy they have listed 50th at number 15? Panic? Computer crash? Miscommunication when calling in the pick? Intern wrote the wrong name down?

[Ron Rico]

Every year is a new chance to draft the players that you target--- sometimes the butterfly is elusive. Sometimes you reach and miss. You try again next year. 

Why is this difficult to grasp?

[slats]

46 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

When looking at the first round how do they not have an initial order and just stick to that?

That has to be able to be pre-planned.  Honestly, what am I missing if it's not?

It's not like you've already taken a player and then it adjusts based on that player taken?

Because they try to draft to fit their needs rather than going straight up BAP? 
 
You’d want the two boards so that you could decide -based on the BAP available- how far down you’re willing to reach for a need, or whether to try to trade out of the spot (which it seemed like he did). 

[FidelioJet]

11 minutes ago, slats said:

Because they try to draft to fit their needs rather than going straight up BAP? 
 
You’d want the two boards so that you could decide -based on the BAP available- how far down you’re willing to reach for a need, or whether to try to trade out of the spot (which it seemed like he did). 

Yeah, but when you're talking about the 15th pick.  Aren't you pretty much locked in on every scenario with a basic 1-15 list?

Honestly, maybe I'm missing something.  I just see.  1 (if he's there you take him ) 2 (if 1 is gone you take him) 3 (if 1 and 2 are gone you take him - but if either 1 or 2 are still there you take them - in that order) and so on....

I just don't see how that can possibly change.  I imagine in later rounds it does and you have be more nimble, but 1-15 it should be locked in.

Again, I sure I'm missing something - but not seeing what that is.

[RevisIsland610]

1 hour ago, Larz said:

Your board was the best board. Can you please publish it next year?

Or at least share it with JD so they don't make any mistakes next year. 

[Rich Thornburgh]

1 hour ago, Cyberjet said:

Getting Rogers elevates the games of all the receivers. We are judging last years offense and the OL/WRs/TEs based on poor QB play. The offensive line is automatically better because of Rodgers experience/ getting rid of the ball more quickly/ more accurate passer and better decisions.

This offense does not need another WR. The McDonald pick was excellent 

I wanted a WR only because I'm in love with Quentin Johnston an Jordan Addison but yes, you are right, EDGE is a much more dire need.  

[football guy]

1 hour ago, 32EBoozer said:

Excuse my ignorance here, but the vertical lists the best ranked player and the horizontal is similarly talented players who could be considered for selection if original ranked player is off the board?

The way the Jets use it is to pocket players who have close enough grades into tiers but separate by position to account for positional value. For instance, if the RB has a slightly better grade than the DE, they still will go DE due to positional value with JD having final say 

[football guy]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

Does nay team ever come out and say "yeah, he was like 50th on our Board, but we took him anyway"?

Of course they'll claim he was higher on their board than several obviously higher prospects taken earlier, lol.

Makeup of final boards are a fickle thing because there’s some element to bias team-to-team, purposefully stacking it in a way to bump players that they know they’re going to take (most commonly for QBs)

I do take their word he was 8th, which ironically was what Jermaine Johnson was last year as well. What I don’t believe is that they would’ve still taken him if Jones was still there, who was a top 13 player on their board. They’ll never come out and say it but it does happen

An example of a gross departure from the board? Christian Hackenberg. That was Maccagnan identifying a QB he wanted and ignoring the scouts’ grading to select him

[Rich Thornburgh]

8 hours ago, Maynard13 said:

Terrible move. Did not like it then, dont like it now. AVT excels at guard. You instantly water down the effectiveness of the OL moving him to a position hes not as good at and compromise the guard position as well. 

Not necessarily.  We dafted Tippman who will start at C an McGovern would move in at Guard.  JD probably prefers AVT at RT over Fant.  AVT is younger and better.  Regardless I think Mitchell starts at RT anyway