After all the moves, I think the Jets must take a tackle in round 1.

[extmenace]

1 hour ago, Augustiniak said:

i think a more reasonable plan would be to take a guy in the 3rd round and groom him, rather than take a guy at 10 and then sit him initially. if the logic is that you're planning for the future, well you also need a qb so why not draft a qb and sit him?  that's more important.

everything points to a weapon in round 1 and a tackle in round 3.

Line has been rebuilt but is fragile. We have two guys that are more likely to miss games than they are to not. Saying that the first line OL will not be used is saying we won’t have an injury at o line this year. JD should know better than any that the chances of that happening are almost zero. We’ve seen this staff ease in defensive rookie linemen, I don’t know why that same logic can’t be applied to a first round offensive linemen. 
 

if this were a madden game, we’d be in great shape and could afford to be light on offensive line depth…but it’s not and we’ve been snake bitten so many times along the line that doing something like drafting an OL would almost certainly come in handy this season.

[derp]

17 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

I mean, they're de minimis to the point of being largely irrelevant. None of those deals will prevent us from doing anything.

I'm just talking about what he's doing this offseason. I.e., he's not signing another Laken Tomlinson type contract.

The charges for this year were intended to push back on the idea that Douglas keeping cap flexibility for the future is “pretty much what he’s always done”.

You can argue that keeping guys on short term deals is neutral but when they’ve got long term payouts I don’t think an argument that they’re forward looking deals is reasonable. If you’re focused on the future you pay guys this year what you can afford this year.

Anything else is an effort to put together a stronger roster this season. Which is reasonable based on the state of the roster but let’s call a spade a spade.

[Jetsplayer21]

4 hours ago, Darnold Schwarzenegger said:

IMO jets should go WR in rd 1. doesn’t make sense to draft a backup olineman in rd 1 who may or may not even see the field. Draft your backup olineman in rd 3. Also not super high on some of these 1st rd tackle prospects

Mike Williams is on a 1 year deal and has his own injury history. if he goes down it’s Garret Wilson and nobody.  
 

 

See will McDonald last yr ha. OL is much more valuable, and I’m sure with these guys injures will happen on OL once again 

[Augustiniak]

3 minutes ago, extmenace said:

Line has been rebuilt but is fragile. We have two guys that are more likely to miss games than they are to not. Saying that the first line OL will not be used is saying we won’t have an injury at o line this year. JD should know better than any that the chances of that happening are almost zero. We’ve seen this staff ease in defensive rookie linemen, I don’t know why that same logic can’t be applied to a first round offensive linemen. 
 

if this were a madden game, we’d be in great shape and could afford to be light on offensive line depth…but it’s not and we’ve been snake bitten so many times along the line that doing something like drafting an OL would almost certainly come in handy this season.

If the only way to ‘fix’ the OL is to keep drafting tackles in the first round, then that’s really pathetic.  Other teams figure out how to get guys to play RT who aren’t top 10 picks. 

[Plen T]

Not mad at it as the top WRs will be gone

a trade back to take BT and get a 2nd round pick would be ideal

[UntouchableCrew]

6 minutes ago, derp said:

The charges for this year were intended to push back on the idea that Douglas keeping cap flexibility for the future is “pretty much what he’s always done”.

You can argue that keeping guys on short term deals is neutral but when they’ve got long term payouts I don’t think an argument that they’re forward looking deals is reasonable. If you’re focused on the future you pay guys this year what you can afford this year.

Anything else is an effort to put together a stronger roster this season. Which is reasonable based on the state of the roster but let’s call a spade a spade.

Okay, you got me on the "what he's always done" comment because even though he's done that at times (particularly early in his tenure) he certainly hasn't always done it. He's signed some bad contracts, obviously the Rodgers deal was the worst from a cap standpoint.

But I totally stand by the idea that this off-season he hasn't made desperation moves that indicate he's unconcerned with the future and only cares about 24 which is what I was pushing back on.

Like, trading next years first round pick for Davante Adams would be such a move. Or signing some FA to a top of the market contract with huge cap hits in future years -- we haven't seen anything like that. Sensible short term deals that keep us flexible and have a chance to work out in 24... It's been a much better outcome than I was anticipating, frankly.

[Creepy Lurker]

3 hours ago, The Troll said:

It's all well and good to say we must take a tackle, but my concern is the guy picking the tackle. It's the same guy that picked Becton over Tristan Wirfs. It's the same guy that passed on Penei Sewell to draft the worst QB I've ever ******* seen.

Joe Douglas' track record of evaluating offensive line is piss poor.  A guy like Bowers is a pick he can't screw up.

I just agree with the JD being garbage part but don’t want a TE at 10 EVER. 

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, Augustiniak said:

If they’re still hell bent on going OT in round 1, then yes, trade back and get an extra pick.  There’s enough tackles around. 

The extra problem jd has is that last year his #1 pick barely played.  Not sure if that’s b/c he wasn’t ready, saleh was benching him on purpose or something else, but it was a problem.  Now, if they take a tackle and tell the world he’s starting next season at LT, then it pisses off smith who may think he’s here again if things go well.  And, the tackle they took at 10 doesn’t have a starting spot so he’s on the bench to start the season.  All in all i don’t see a tackle in round 1.  I see a skill position player, wr or bowers.  I’m not a fan of TE in round 1 esp. at 10, but i do think bowers will be good.  If the jets took bowers, for example, they could throw him tons of passes and that will look much better for jd’s resume and that also plays into it.  He can’t have fashanu sit there while smith plays most of the season, not when rodgers has a season or two left. 

I think you're overthinking the reasoning.

He's a pure BAP guy (with an emphasis on positional importance). He's not a draft-for-need GM the way every mock draft works, and what most want out of a first rounder (outside of QB after so many on-field rookie flops).

McDonald wasn't because of an immediate need. I mean, he already had JFM and JJ for multiple more years; he had Huff tagged; then he drafted McDonald; then after that, instead of cutting Lawson and his $15MM, he re-upped him with a $6MM pay cut in exchange for a guaranteed $9MM. That's not a Saleh playing time thing; that's on Douglas to have or not have Lawson rostered in the first place. 

And if he wasn't there, then he was potentially going to take a TE at 15. He had Conklin & Uzomah on fully-guaranteed starter-money contracts, and had taken another TE on day 2 just the prior season, and was still heavily considering a 1st round TE.

He doesn't seem to purely draft round 1 for immediate need -- not unless he knows, when FA starts, what position he's drafting with his 1st pick.

• Zach was drafted because of an immediate need he created, but if he had the 10th pick instead of 2nd overall (with absolute certainty of who's going to be there) it's likely he doesn't make that Darnold trade and just drafts BAP from his board.
• With Becton before him, while it wasn't a 100% certainty one of the 4 tackles would be there, I'm sure he was reasonably certain, but picked a veteran tackle who could project to either side.

He seems to draft with y2 in mind. Or anyway, he does what most do: at least have a placeholder there for every position where, worst case, you could get by with him for 1 more season. It leaves you with the luxury of trading up, back, and drafting the highest guy on his board instead of pushing someone ahead due to need.

When he took Sauce, the prevailing rumor is Woody forced him to take Sauce over Ekwonu. Tackle wasn't an absolute need: Becton had only missed 1 season at that point with a freak-incident injury (he hadn't missed his 2nd season nor failed any physicals nor reinjured himself or anything like that yet), and Fant was coming off a stellar season. Ekwonu would've been a pick for the long term more than filling an immediate hole. Even last year, Tippmann wasn't an absolute immediate need, as he'd already re-signed McGovern before the draft specifically so he wouldn't be pigeonholed into forcing himself into drafting a center even if the value of the next-best guy was dozens of slots later.

The maddening, sorry-ass thing is he's still missed on so many prospects without handicapping himself by force-feeding a need selection over a pool of need + non-need. I'm hoping for better. 

[derp]

41 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

Okay, you got me on the "what he's always done" comment because even though he's done that at times (particularly early in his tenure) he certainly hasn't always done it. He's signed some bad contracts, obviously the Rodgers deal was the worst from a cap standpoint.

But I totally stand by the idea that this off-season he hasn't made desperation moves that indicate he's unconcerned with the future and only cares about 24 which is what I was pushing back on.

Like, trading next years first round pick for Davante Adams would be such a move. Or signing some FA to a top of the market contract with huge cap hits in future years -- we haven't seen anything like that. Sensible short term deals that keep us flexible and have a chance to work out in 24... It's been a much better outcome than I was anticipating, frankly.

I think the post that I quoted you disagreeing with that started this exchange was someone saying that he has not showed an eye for behind this year.

I don’t think not mortgaging the future and not having an eye beyond this year are necessarily mutually exclusive.

He hasn’t gotten reckless but he really can’t - he’s got to be hoping to continue as GM here and get another shot/job if he doesn’t.

He’s had limited cap space and mostly used it on two top of the market veterans at premium positions who are intended to help the team compete this year.

[varjet]

10 and the 3rd round pick should be bpa OT and WR, in any order.  We will need depth in 2024 and a starter in 2025.  
 

my guess is that the order of players that could be available at 10 like Odunze, Fautanu, BTJ, Fantanu, Fuaga.   There will be OT and WR available in the 3rd round who are better than guys on our roster now.  
 

I would look at a QB in rd 4 and below. 
 

 

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, derp said:

The wide receiver is on the field in three wide sets. If there’s an injury to Williams or (hopefully not) Wilson, he steps into as large a role as the tackle would.

Ultimately this draft has three WR’s who’d likely have been considered the best WR in the draft any of the last ten years with the exception of 2021. That the third of those guys is probably going no higher than 7th presents a really unique opportunity to be in striking distance for an elite player at a premium position who’s usually not going to be available that late.

Similarly, there’s a huge clump of tackle prospects who will likely go in the 10-30 range, and a couple of other good ones who will go after that. Guys will go in the 20’s who’d usually go in the teens.

To me you try to get one of those WR’s for this year and the long term and then start dangling the 2025 first round pick to move back up and get someone in that second tier of tackles. It’s aggressive and I usually don’t like trading future capital but I think given the strength of this class at both position groups it’s actually the most prudent use of available assets.

Hopefully get long term answers at two premium positions, they’re well situated to develop both position groups, and they need high quality depth at both.

All of our collective displeasure with Lazard aside, as of right now he's the WR3 and it's not a hole on the team. A WR3 would play about half the snaps, and while a rookie WR3 may see a bunch of snaps he's not going to see a lot of balls thrown his way. 

Further, the part with "If there’s an injury to Williams or (hopefully not) Wilson" applies to "if there's an injury to Smith or Moses" as well. Except in the latter case he won't step into a larger role but rather he'd be stepping into a 100% of offensive snaps role.

Don't confuse me with someone who's against taking a WR with our 10th pick, because I'm not. 

I'm saying it's very likely the pick is now OT with the Williams signing. The whole premise with the many-tiered incentive structure with Smith is they fully expect him to miss at least 4 games (plus parts of however-many more where he may leave early). Moses had several such games himself last year. 

Throw in the likelihood that a rookie WR3 is unlikely to have a huge impact with Rodgers at QB and I think it's more likely they go OT with their first pick. Doesn't make me right; it's just my hunch.

[y2k8]

5 hours ago, Untouchable said:

Why do fans think we need to sink a Top 10 pick into an insurance policy?

If Smith getting hurt and the prospect of Warren starting a few games terrifies you, then go sign someone like Josh Jones or Bakhtiari.

Because it isn't an insurance policy. It's needed depth.

Insurance covers unforeseen events. Every offensive line on every team suffers injuries every year. Ours especially. Depth on the OL is not a luxury. 

Also, you will be very happy going into 2025 with three talented young OLs on rookie deals. 

Taking OL in the first round this year is a no brainer.

[derp]

32 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

All of our collective displeasure with Lazard aside, as of right now he's the WR3 and it's not a hole on the team. A WR3 would play about half the snaps, and while a rookie WR3 may see a bunch of snaps he's not going to see a lot of balls thrown his way. 

Further, the part with "If there’s an injury to Williams or (hopefully not) Wilson" applies to "if there's an injury to Smith or Moses" as well. Except in the latter case he won't step into a larger role but rather he'd be stepping into a 100% of offensive snaps role.

Don't confuse me with someone who's against taking a WR with our 10th pick, because I'm not. 

I'm saying it's very likely the pick is now OT with the Williams signing. The whole premise with the many-tiered incentive structure with Smith is they fully expect him to miss at least 4 games (plus parts of however-many more where he may leave early). Moses had several such games himself last year. 

Throw in the likelihood that a rookie WR3 is unlikely to have a huge impact with Rodgers at QB and I think it's more likely they go OT with their first pick. Doesn't make me right; it's just my hunch.

Lazard was a straight up health scratch late in the season last year and is on the trade block, right? If they played a game today I don’t think we have much reason to believe he’s WR3 aside from the potential Rodgers connection and a hope for a rebound. I’d guess it’s Gipson.

Yes, the Williams injury applies to Smith and Moses. Folks have been talking about it with Smith and Moses, but not with Williams. I’d add that I think Warren is closer to replacement level than Gipson.

The Rodgers and young WR thing is overstated IMO. If the guy can play he can play. They gave him young receivers in Green Bay, he’s got expectations but he’ll have them for a veteran too.

I think ultimately difference in opinion here comes from differing perspectives on current personnel and also from my perspective on the draft board. They’ll ultimately address both positions because it’s a great draft to address both - just a question of when they do it.

I’m not against tackle either, they need to address both. It’s an oversimplification but to me, understanding an injury is likely at both spots, a wide receiver gets on the field and improves depth in case of injury whereas a tackle only does the latter. 

More importantly there’s a chance they can land an unusually good WR at 10 and the meat of the quality tackle depth is in the late teens to 20’s.

[RedBeardedSavage]

34 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Don't confuse me with someone who's against taking a WR with our 10th pick, because I'm not. 

 

3 minutes ago, derp said:

I think ultimately difference in opinion here comes from differing perspectives on current personnel and also from my perspective on the draft board. They’ll ultimately address both positions because it’s a great draft to address both - just a question of when they do it.

The issue here seems to be how to rank-order the prospects;

Is it safe to assume?

• MHjr > Nabers > Alt > Odunze

It gets dicey after those 4?

Seems like the real question is where to collectively rank Fuaga, Fashanu, Fautanu, Brian Thomas Jr (and maybe, Guyton)?

Curious for anyone's input on those guys -

• seems like post-combine *some* draft folks have mentioned Fashanu's historically small hand size
• some now see Brian Thomas Jr as closer to the top 3 than originally considered
• and Fautanu confirmed he's got the length for a tackle + moved well in drills

[T0mShane]

1 hour ago, extmenace said:

Line has been rebuilt but is fragile. We have two guys that are more likely to miss games than they are to not. Saying that the first line OL will not be used is saying we won’t have an injury at o line this year. JD should know better than any that the chances of that happening are almost zero. We’ve seen this staff ease in defensive rookie linemen, I don’t know why that same logic can’t be applied to a first round offensive linemen. 
 

if this were a madden game, we’d be in great shape and could afford to be light on offensive line depth…but it’s not and we’ve been snake bitten so many times along the line that doing something like drafting an OL would almost certainly come in handy this season.

I wonder if having starting tackles opens up Douglas to drafting Amarius Mims, who is a mutant, but probably needs a little more time in the hopper before he’s ready to start. Granted, he’s got injury flags and his body type probably isn’t conducive toward staying healthy, but gambling a little bit on that ceiling could be interesting. 

[Alka]

4 hours ago, JohnnyLV said:

Don't agree. Take BPA. Building the OL with first round picks is not the way to go anymore.

Try to tell that to the Dallas Cowboys!  Their offensive line is and has been among the absolute best in the NFL.

Let's take a look, shall we?

2022 Draft-  OT Tyler Smith-  Pick 24

2014 Draft-  OG Zack Martin - Pick 16

2013 NFL Draft- C Travis Frederick- Pick 31

2011 Draft- OT Tyron Smith- Pick 9

These are 4 offensive linemen that the Dallas Cowboys have all picked in the first round of the draft, and all have been playing lights out.

Perhaps you should do some checking before you declare that building the OL with first round picks are not the way to go anymore.

[T0mShane]

8 minutes ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

 

The issue here seems to be how to rank-order the prospects;

Is it safe to assume?

• MHjr > Nabers > Alt > Odunze

It gets dicey after those 4?

Seems like the real question is where to collectively rank Fuaga, Fashanu, Fautanu, Brian Thomas Jr (and maybe, Guyton)?

Curious for anyone's input on those guys -

• seems like post-combine *some* draft folks have mentioned Fashanu's historically small hand size
• some now see Brian Thomas Jr as closer to the top 3 than originally considered
• and Fautanu confirmed he's got the length for a tackle + moved well in drills

FWIW, Fuaga was Jeremiah’s #1 OT at one point, though I’m not sure if he’s changed it. The PFF guys love Fashanu (have him tied with Alt for OT1) but the suggestion from other draft dudes seems to be that he’s maybe a little soft. Fautanu, according to Jeremiah, might eventually end up at center, but he has legitimate five-position versatility on the OL. If I’m Douglas, my calculation would be: 

1. If Odunze is on the board—or gettable in a trade-up—he needs to absolutely do that. 
 

2. Presuming Odunze is gone and no good trade-down scenario crops up, it should be 1. Fashanu, 2. Fuaga, 3. Fautanu, 4. Take the suboptimal trade down deal, 5. Bowers. 6. Mims

[slats]

10 minutes ago, Alka said:

Try to tell that to the Dallas Cowboys!  Their offensive line is and has been among the absolute best in the NFL.

Let's take a look, shall we?

2022 Draft-  OT Tyler Smith-  Pick 24

2014 Draft-  OG Zack Martin - Pick 16

2013 NFL Draft- C Travis Frederick- Pick 31

2011 Draft- OT Tyron Smith- Pick 9

These are 4 offensive linemen that the Dallas Cowboys have all picked in the first round of the draft, and all have been playing lights out.

Perhaps you should do some checking before you declare that building the OL with first round picks are not the way to go anymore.

Now tell me about all the Cowboys’ playoff successes. 

[RedBeardedSavage]

Just now, T0mShane said:

FWIW, Fuaga was Jeremiah’s #1 OT at one point, though I’m not sure if he’s changed it. The PFF guys love Fashanu (have him tied with Alt for OT1) but the suggestion from other draft dudes seems to be that he’s maybe a little soft. Fautanu, according to Jeremiah, might eventually end up at center, but he has legitimate five-position versatility on the OL. If I’m Douglas, my calculation would be: 

1. If Odunze is on the board—or gettable in a trade-up—he needs to absolutely do that. 
 

2. Presuming Odunze is gone and no good trade-down scenario crops up, it should be 1. Fashanu, 2. Fuaga, 3. Fautanu, 4. Take the suboptimal trade down deal, 5. Bowers

I remember you posted something about Brian Thomas jr's off-field issue? Any elaboration on that?

I too prefer an offensive lineman, but BT jr had a ridiculous year + combine - a fair argument could seemingly be made that he's got the highest upside of all the tier 2 options (Fuaga, Fautanu, Fashanu & BT jr)?

Heard Mike Renner (formerly of PFF) on his post-combine winners/losers video and he spoke about Fashanu's hand size as being an issue in the run game, and maybe explains his wildly different run/pass grades (not good run blocking, excellent pass blocking).

The PFF guys are hit/miss, but I thought it was interesting. Renner said he had the smallest hands ever recorded for an offensive tackle at the combine.

[faba]

18 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

I wonder if having starting tackles opens up Douglas to drafting Amarius Mims, who is a mutant, but probably needs a little more time in the hopper before he’s ready to start. Granted, he’s got injury flags and his body type probably isn’t conducive toward staying healthy, but gambling a little bit on that ceiling could be interesting. 

Douglas can not afford to gamble his job is on the line he has to take the higher prospect either tackle or WR

[dbatesman]

13 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

1. Fashanu, 2. Fuaga, 3. Fautanu

Humbly requesting that we refer to these three particular guys by their first names from now on, because there is zero ******* chance I will be able to keep them all straight for another six weeks.

[UntouchableCrew]

1 hour ago, derp said:

He’s had limited cap space and mostly used it on two top of the market veterans at premium positions who are intended to help the team compete this year.

Top of the market veterans don't sign one year deals a week into FA.

The post I quoted was "all he cared about was 2024" and I don't agree that any move he's made strongly indicates that. To suggest that all he cares about is 24 you'd need to show me moves he's made that indicate he doesn't care about anything beyond 24.

It's semantics, really but I've been pleasantly surprised with what he's done so far. The offseason championship is meaningless and I want to see these guys all stay healthy and actually win some games but I think Douglas has done a good job of addressing key needs without sacrificing the future.

[Alka]

6 minutes ago, slats said:

Now tell me about all the Cowboys’ playoff successes. 

You think I have all the answers?  If I did, I would apply for the GM job of the Jets!

[derp]

21 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

I wonder if having starting tackles opens up Douglas to drafting Amarius Mims, who is a mutant, but probably needs a little more time in the hopper before he’s ready to start. Granted, he’s got injury flags and his body type probably isn’t conducive toward staying healthy, but gambling a little bit on that ceiling could be interesting. 

Almost certainly. I think the body type is fine though FWIW. He’s lean and not Becton level weight. Tape is good. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he took him at ten. Fits the archetype he likes which is swings on upside at premium positions. Honestly Mims is one of the better gambles.

[Alka]

3 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

Humbly requesting that we refer to these three particular guys by their first names from now on

If we did, then I wouldn't have any clue who you are talking about.  They are the 3 "F's!   Fuaga, Fashanu and F something else!  lol

[derp]

3 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

Top of the market veterans don't sign one year deals a week into FA.

The post I quoted was "all he cared about was 2024" and I don't agree that any move he's made strongly indicates that. To suggest that all he cares about is 24 you'd need to show me moves he's made that indicate he doesn't care about anything beyond 24.

It's semantics, really but I've been pleasantly surprised with what he's done so far. The offseason championship is meaningless and I want to see these guys all stay healthy and actually win some games but I think Douglas has done a good job of addressing key needs without sacrificing the future.

How many players signed for more AAV than Smith and Williams at their respective positions?

The post was, to the word, “Problem is, JD is not looking beyond year 1.”

I agree we’re splitting hairs.

[T0mShane]

48 minutes ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

I remember you posted something about Brian Thomas jr's off-field issue? Any elaboration on that?

I too prefer an offensive lineman, but BT jr had a ridiculous year + combine - a fair argument could seemingly be made that he's got the highest upside of all the tier 2 options (Fuaga, Fautanu, Fashanu & BT jr)?

Heard Mike Renner (formerly of PFF) on his post-combine winners/losers video and he spoke about Fashanu's hand size as being an issue in the run game, and maybe explains his wildly different run/pass grades (not good run blocking, excellent pass blocking).

The PFF guys are hit/miss, but I thought it was interesting. Renner said he had the smallest hands ever recorded for an offensive tackle at the combine.

Pallazzolo threw Brian Thomas’ possible off-field issues in during a breakdown of him on their pod last week, but didn’t elaborate. They’re doing their WR rankings show, I think, tomorrow, so I’ll let you know if they expand upon it. RE: the small hands, it’s definitely strange, but I’m not entirely sure there’s correlation there. Lots of OL get by with 9” hands, for instance. Definitely an oddity, though. 

[extmenace]

2 hours ago, Augustiniak said:

If the only way to ‘fix’ the OL is to keep drafting tackles in the first round, then that’s really pathetic.  Other teams figure out how to get guys to play RT who aren’t top 10 picks. 

This circles back to being able to draft the best player available at 10 or wherever our first round pick winds up landing. I’m not saying we have to draft OL, I’m just saying that it can easily be justified for the simple reason that we’ll almost certainly need some high quality depth this year, and we’ll have holes to fill in 2025. The pick won’t go to waste in 2024.

[T0mShane]

36 minutes ago, derp said:

Almost certainly. I think the body type is fine though FWIW. He’s lean and not Becton level weight. Tape is good. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he took him at ten. Fits the archetype he likes which is swings on upside at premium positions. Honestly Mims is one of the better gambles.

I don’t think I’d be as averse to it now as I was when we first discussed Fautanu vs Mims, because if Mims’ somewhat troubling injury history and lack of tape. I think Mims just skipped Georgia’s Pro Day because of a hamstring. I don’t know, though. After the Becton debacle, I wonder if Douglas would flinch before drafting another high-ceiling freak with lower-leg issues. 

[Lith]

10 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

I don’t think I’d be as averse to it now as I was when we first discussed Fautanu vs Mims, because if Mims’ somewhat troubling injury history and lack of tape. I think Mims just skipped Georgia’s Pro Day because of a hamstring. I don’t know, though. After the Becton debacle, I wonder if Douglas would flinch before drafting another high-ceiling freak with lower-leg issues. 

You are right.  He missed Pro Day with a hammy. 

His upside is great.  He is very sound for a guy who has only like 10 starts in his career, but Kirby went with a bizarre tackle rotation in 22, which worked, i guess.  The injury history concerns me -- we have had enough injury concerns along the OL -- there should be other options at 10, or later in R1 with a trade back to take a risk on Mims.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, derp said:

Lazard was a straight up health scratch late in the season last year and is on the trade block, right? If they played a game today I don’t think we have much reason to believe he’s WR3 aside from the potential Rodgers connection and a hope for a rebound. I’d guess it’s Gipson.

Yes, the Williams injury applies to Smith and Moses. Folks have been talking about it with Smith and Moses, but not with Williams. I’d add that I think Warren is closer to replacement level than Gipson.

The Rodgers and young WR thing is overstated IMO. If the guy can play he can play. They gave him young receivers in Green Bay, he’s got expectations but he’ll have them for a veteran too.

I think ultimately difference in opinion here comes from differing perspectives on current personnel and also from my perspective on the draft board. They’ll ultimately address both positions because it’s a great draft to address both - just a question of when they do it.

I’m not against tackle either, they need to address both. It’s an oversimplification but to me, understanding an injury is likely at both spots, a wide receiver gets on the field and improves depth in case of injury whereas a tackle only does the latter. 

More importantly there’s a chance they can land an unusually good WR at 10 and the meat of the quality tackle depth is in the late teens to 20’s.

Honestly that's not really right -- all that was alleged in an unverified leak was another team supposedly asked about his availability (presumably with the Jets eating a giant chunk of his salary).

With the exception of maybe a handful of untouchable players, a GM will listen to offers for any of the other 40-50 players on the roster. So for the Jets that'd mean (at best) Sauce, GWilson, Quinnen Williams; then Quincy maybe just because of his brother, maybe Breece Hall, and...nobody else is untouchable.

In theory, if they can get someone to eat his contract, I think they'd trade him for nothing (even maybe surrendering a 7th to get someone to eat it). At the same time, I expect Lazard to be on the field as the presumptive WR3 with Rodgers's return if someone really asked about his availability and then wasn't immediately traded on the spot for anything at all. 

I don't think the Rodgers + rookie WR thing is at all overstated. It's a long pattern with him. The only time he's thrown a major amount of passes to a young WR is when there's been no one else suiting up. He won't literally not throw any passes their way, but not enough to rationalize a #10 overall pick because of any expected rookie production alongside two serious veteran WR starters and a veteran TE. The best argument against is that GB never took a WR very high (they rarely picked very high anyway) the whole time Rodgers was the starter there. They basically drafted all defense in round 1, plus two offensive linemen (1 of whom busted) and then AR's successor. So in fairness, there's that.

Next: there are still several more veteran WRs out there, and could be a couple still more released to free agency after June 1st. The point is, the options are not this false binary choice between drafting a WR at #10 or being forced into starting Gipson all season long. 

Bad signings as they were, the fact is the Jets hadn't yet signed two of their veteran WR acquisitions by today last year (specifically, the awful Hardman & Cobb signings). I would be decidedly not-shocked if they signed at least one complementary veteran WR (someone who could spot-start in the slot & has either the size or speed to at least get by outside). My dark horse prediction for this role is re-signing Berrios, but allow the possibility of MVS or someone similarly uninspiring but who could fill in as a WR3 here & there if needed (would still be the 5th target after the other two WRs + Conklin + Hall). 

Only other thing I'd add is, while I've no predictions about a massive uptick in the on-field value (on offense) of Gipson or Brownlee - faik either or both may get cut in August - I don't think their respective ceilings were reached on the receiving end of the Jets' sorry-ass rotating trio of 2023 QBs. 

[Rich Thornburgh]

If Alt and Fashuanu are both gone there are no first round grade Tackles let alone top 10

reaching based on position is what stupid organizations like the jets do that’s how we got Zach

[derp]

45 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Honestly that's not really right -- all that was alleged in an unverified leak was another team supposedly asked about his availability (presumably with the Jets eating a giant chunk of his salary).

With the exception of maybe a handful of untouchable players, a GM will listen to offers for any of the other 40-50 players on the roster. So for the Jets that'd mean (at best) Sauce, GWilson, Quinnen Williams; then Quincy maybe just because of his brother, maybe Breece Hall, and...nobody else is untouchable.

In theory, if they can get someone to eat his contract, I think they'd trade him for nothing (even maybe surrendering a 7th to get someone to eat it). At the same time, I expect Lazard to be on the field as the presumptive WR3 with Rodgers's return if someone really asked about his availability and then wasn't immediately traded on the spot for anything at all. 

I don't think the Rodgers + rookie WR thing is at all overstated. It's a long pattern with him. The only time he's thrown a major amount of passes to a young WR is when there's been no one else suiting up. He won't literally not throw any passes their way, but not enough to rationalize a #10 overall pick because of any expected rookie production alongside two serious veteran WR starters and a veteran TE. The best argument against is that GB never took a WR very high (they rarely picked very high anyway) the whole time Rodgers was the starter there. They basically drafted all defense in round 1, plus two offensive linemen (1 of whom busted) and then AR's successor. So in fairness, there's that.

Next: there are still several more veteran WRs out there, and could be a couple still more released to free agency after June 1st. The point is, the options are not this false binary choice between drafting a WR at #10 or being forced into starting Gipson all season long. 

Bad signings as they were, the fact is the Jets hadn't yet signed two of their veteran WR acquisitions by today last year (specifically, the awful Hardman & Cobb signings). I would be decidedly not-shocked if they signed at least one complementary veteran WR (someone who could spot-start in the slot & has either the size or speed to at least get by outside). My dark horse prediction for this role is re-signing Berrios, but allow the possibility of MVS or someone similarly uninspiring but who could fill in as a WR3 here & there if needed (would still be the 5th target after the other two WRs + Conklin + Hall). 

Only other thing I'd add is, while I've no predictions about a massive uptick in the on-field value (on offense) of Gipson or Brownlee - faik either or both may get cut in August - I don't think their respective ceilings were reached on the receiving end of the Jets' sorry-ass rotating trio of 2023 QBs. 

You got really caught up on the trade value when the important thing is the healthy scratches. Lazard was behind guys like Gipson and Brownlee late last season. Saleh said he’s here for another year when he had three years left on his deal. And he was awful last year.

I think he’s no better than WR4 right now and closer to a mercy post June 1 cut where he won’t cost anything extra against the cap than meaningful play time. Maybe Rodgers changes that, but we know how the coaching staff feels about him and we know how he played last year.

I think the argument that the Packers didn’t draft anyone high is an important one. He played with mediocre young players. If they draft a guy at 10 and he’s a top 3 receiver he’ll play and if he runs the right routes and catches the ball he’ll earn targets. If not it’ll be slow going but he won’t need an injury to see the field.

Berrios is back with Miami already. If they sign someone like MVS that certainly changes the calculus. I think given the quality of the WR class and the need they’ll draft one in the first four rounds, probably first three, same as tackle.

Again, they’re both premium positions that need a starter next year, it’s just WR has a bridge to seeing the field this year in three wide sets that OT doesn’t.

[derp]

1 hour ago, T0mShane said:

I don’t think I’d be as averse to it now as I was when we first discussed Fautanu vs Mims, because if Mims’ somewhat troubling injury history and lack of tape. I think Mims just skipped Georgia’s Pro Day because of a hamstring. I don’t know, though. After the Becton debacle, I wonder if Douglas would flinch before drafting another high-ceiling freak with lower-leg issues. 

It’s more comfortable as a redshirt for sure. Guyton too. I’m currently hoping they manage to land a top 3 WR at 10 or with a slight trade up and then mortgage future capital to get to the 20’s and take the left tackle of the future. Unique opportunities at both spots with the depth in this class and I think the back end of tier 1 at WR and tier 2 at tackle are the real sweet spots.

[Gastineau Lives]

9 hours ago, Untouchable said:

Why do fans think we need to sink a Top 10 pick into an insurance policy?

If Smith getting hurt and the prospect of Warren starting a few games terrifies you, then go sign someone like Josh Jones or Bakhtiari.

No bro that first round OT is gunna be awesome in his first few games of his career and save the day being da wall