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

[Sperm Edwards]

13 minutes ago, derp said:

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.

I'm not getting into an argument about something not arguable -- namely, that Lazard was horrible last year and was benched as a healthy scratch despite the team having just 1 other NFL-caliber WR on the roster. My point is more that you brought up leaks about  his trade availability. The leak was allegedly someone inquiring about his availability -- so if someone inquired about Lazard, why wasn't he traded?

I didn't see Berrios had already re-signed. But like him (or MVS or whomever they sign to be this year's Hardman), I think they're more likely to sign someone who knows and accepts his limited role. Otherwise they have a whole other problem on their hands by cutting off Williams's balls right after getting him to sign a contract that relies on incentives to get him up to $15MM, on top of him counting on a good statistical season - read: lots of targets - so he can get a better contract after this season. These guys have their own personal goals in addition to the team's goals, and they're not all going to be selfless for the greater good with the limited number of earning years they have. I can easily see them going with a round-robin of Lazard+MVS/other+Brownlee/Gipson, plus whomever else they draft (I can't see them going the whole draft without taking any WRs this year, with Williams only signed for this season). 

Also I don't think the Packers only drafted mediocre WRs; just that they weren't taken literally in round 1, but they took a number of 2nd round picks who panned out great. Davante Adams became just about the best receiver in football; he wasn't a bad prospect because he merely went around 50th in a deep WR class. (Of course in that round we took Jace Amaro at 49 over Adams 52, Robinson 61, and Landry 63; jfc, this team). Randall Cobb (another 2nd rounder) became one of his favorite receivers for years, and he saw a lowly 31 targets as a rookie. Jordy Nelson was 36th overall & his targets didn't take off until his 4th season. Watson 34th overall & was ignored the first half of the season with no obvious WR1 or WR2 on the roster (Lazard & Cobb were the only veteran WRs there). These aren't the leftover crumbs of WR prospects. The one who saw the most rookie targets from Rodgers is probably MVS, and relative to the snap counts in his starts it wasn't much.

Regardless, there's little history to infer Rodgers is going to really target a rookie WR in a major way on a team already starting Garrett Wilson, Mike Williams, a veteran receiving TE in Conklin, and an elite receiving back in Hall. I would always love another elite WR on this roster, but don't think Douglas will see it as such a necessary piece. Moreover, not drafting one isn't the season-sinking development like if Smith misses half the season and all they have is Warren (or again shuffling multiple pieces to move AVT out there again).

Now watch they'll trade up for a WR just to make me look stupid after snobbishly pontificating about this for a zillion paragraphs.

[Augustiniak]

3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I'm not getting into an argument about something not arguable -- namely, that Lazard was horrible last year and was benched as a healthy scratch despite the team having just 1 other NFL-caliber WR on the roster. My point is more that you brought up leaks about  his trade availability. The leak was allegedly someone inquiring about his availability -- so if someone inquired about Lazard, why wasn't he traded?

I didn't see Berrios had already re-signed. But like him (or MVS or whomever they sign to be this year's Hardman), I think they're more likely to sign someone who knows and accepts his limited role. Otherwise they have a whole other problem on their hands by cutting off Williams's balls right after getting him to sign a contract that relies on incentives to get him up to $15MM, on top of him counting on a good statistical season - read: lots of targets - so he can get a better contract after this season. These guys have their own personal goals in addition to the team's goals, and they're not all going to be selfless for the greater good with the limited number of earning years they have. I can easily see them going with a round-robin of Lazard+MVS/other+Brownlee/Gipson, plus whomever else they draft (I can't see them going the whole draft without taking any WRs this year, with Williams only signed for this season). 

Also I don't think the Packers only drafted mediocre WRs; just that they weren't taken literally in round 1, but they took a number of 2nd round picks who panned out great. Davante Adams became just about the best receiver in football; he wasn't a bad prospect because he merely went around 50th in a deep WR class. (Of course in that round we took Jace Amaro at 49 over Adams 52, Robinson 61, and Landry 63; jfc, this team). Randall Cobb (another 2nd rounder) became one of his favorite receivers for years, and he saw a lowly 31 targets as a rookie. Jordy Nelson was 36th overall & his targets didn't take off until his 4th season. Watson 34th overall & was ignored the first half of the season with no obvious WR1 or WR2 on the roster (Lazard & Cobb were the only veteran WRs there). These aren't the leftover crumbs of WR prospects. The one who saw the most rookie targets from Rodgers is probably MVS, and relative to the snap counts in his starts it wasn't much.

Regardless, there's little history to infer Rodgers is going to really target a rookie WR in a major way on a team already starting Garrett Wilson, Mike Williams, a veteran receiving TE in Conklin, and an elite receiving back in Hall. I would always love another elite WR on this roster, but don't think Douglas will see it as such a necessary piece. Moreover, not drafting one isn't the season-sinking development like if Smith misses half the season and all they have is Warren (or again shuffling multiple pieces to move AVT out there again).

Now watch they'll trade up for a WR just to make me look stupid after snobbishly pontificating about this for a zillion paragraphs.

If a rookie tackle may not see the field for a while and a rookie wr won’t get targets, then who do you take if you want to maximize this season?  The flaw in this logic is signing both smith and williams, b/c then you’ve put guys in places where you’re drafting and the rookie (like mcdonald) is destined to be deemphasized until there’s an injury.  

Broadly speaking the problem remains that there is any consideration given to what rodgers wants for what may be his last nfl season.  The jets should draft the guy they think will be best for the team when rodgers is in a cast week 5.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, Augustiniak said:

If a rookie tackle may not see the field for a while and a rookie wr won’t get targets, then who do you take if you want to maximize this season?  The flaw in this logic is signing both smith and williams, b/c then you’ve put guys in places where you’re drafting and the rookie (like mcdonald) is destined to be deemphasized until there’s an injury.  

Broadly speaking the problem remains that there is any consideration given to what rodgers wants for what may be his last nfl season.  The jets should draft the guy they think will be best for the team when rodgers is in a cast week 5.

Well, Smith is destined to get injured, so...

[TuscanyTile2]

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

Well, Smith is destined to get injured, so...

I don't think JD is going to look at this draft the way most on here think he will (e.g. "let's grab the best of the available weapinzz at 1.10 or trade up for MHJ!").  I think he's strongly going to look to trade down because he knows he's got a bunch of 1 year contracts at key positions. 

[HighPitch]

10 hours ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

I don't think JD is going to look at this draft the way most on here think he will (e.g. "let's grab the best of the available weapinzz at 1.10 or trade up for MHJ!").  I think he's strongly going to look to trade down because he knows he's got a bunch of 1 year contracts at key positions. 

Im always good with that. The more the merrier the better the chance to hit gold.

but I dont think he sees that I think hes in win now mode with the old man as qb

[derp]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I'm not getting into an argument about something not arguable -- namely, that Lazard was horrible last year and was benched as a healthy scratch despite the team having just 1 other NFL-caliber WR on the roster. My point is more that you brought up leaks about  his trade availability. The leak was allegedly someone inquiring about his availability -- so if someone inquired about Lazard, why wasn't he traded?

I didn't see Berrios had already re-signed. But like him (or MVS or whomever they sign to be this year's Hardman), I think they're more likely to sign someone who knows and accepts his limited role. Otherwise they have a whole other problem on their hands by cutting off Williams's balls right after getting him to sign a contract that relies on incentives to get him up to $15MM, on top of him counting on a good statistical season - read: lots of targets - so he can get a better contract after this season. These guys have their own personal goals in addition to the team's goals, and they're not all going to be selfless for the greater good with the limited number of earning years they have. I can easily see them going with a round-robin of Lazard+MVS/other+Brownlee/Gipson, plus whomever else they draft (I can't see them going the whole draft without taking any WRs this year, with Williams only signed for this season). 

Also I don't think the Packers only drafted mediocre WRs; just that they weren't taken literally in round 1, but they took a number of 2nd round picks who panned out great. Davante Adams became just about the best receiver in football; he wasn't a bad prospect because he merely went around 50th in a deep WR class. (Of course in that round we took Jace Amaro at 49 over Adams 52, Robinson 61, and Landry 63; jfc, this team). Randall Cobb (another 2nd rounder) became one of his favorite receivers for years, and he saw a lowly 31 targets as a rookie. Jordy Nelson was 36th overall & his targets didn't take off until his 4th season. Watson 34th overall & was ignored the first half of the season with no obvious WR1 or WR2 on the roster (Lazard & Cobb were the only veteran WRs there). These aren't the leftover crumbs of WR prospects. The one who saw the most rookie targets from Rodgers is probably MVS, and relative to the snap counts in his starts it wasn't much.

Regardless, there's little history to infer Rodgers is going to really target a rookie WR in a major way on a team already starting Garrett Wilson, Mike Williams, a veteran receiving TE in Conklin, and an elite receiving back in Hall. I would always love another elite WR on this roster, but don't think Douglas will see it as such a necessary piece. Moreover, not drafting one isn't the season-sinking development like if Smith misses half the season and all they have is Warren (or again shuffling multiple pieces to move AVT out there again).

Now watch they'll trade up for a WR just to make me look stupid after snobbishly pontificating about this for a zillion paragraphs.

Regarding Lazard, sure I don’t think he’s getting traded. The point of commenting about his being benched and the trade rumor was that I don’t think they’re very happy with him or his presence on the roster has any impact on who they might draft. You got caught on the trade thing - fine, maybe he’s not on the block - I still don’t think he is part of the equation at wide receiver.

I don’t think a round 1-3 rookie WR neuters Williams. That was literally the situation on the team he played for last year with a first round pick. It’s normal team building.

The Jets don’t need Rodgers to majorly target a wide receiver - barring injury like you bring up in the case of Watson - for the wide receiver to have an opportunity to get on the field more as a rookie without injury than a tackle would without injury. That is the point. And like tackle, they’ll need a starter next year. This is a very good receiver class. That happens a lot, but it’s a good time to draft one. They should draft one. Doesn’t have to be in the first, and it’s very possible they sign someone which would change what I’m saying - but the veteran instead of drafting someone would be a long term roster building mistake in my opinion.

None of that means that they need to take a receiver over a tackle. If they stick and pick at ten, I think it’s more likely that a receiver is worth that pick rather than trading down than tackle is worth the pick - but we’ll see. There’s a group of like six tackles who are all pretty similar following the top prospect and if they go tackle at ten they’ll likely have to take the first guy in that tier which is just such bad drafting when they could drop down ten picks and get someone in the same tier plus have another bite at the apple later in the draft.

Point there being tackle at ten would be such a womp womp and even if they do I hope they’re drafting and developing a WR who’s good enough to push for snaps as WR3 this year with pick 72. It’s just the best player they could reasonably get at 10 is a WR.

[JohnnyLV]

5 hours 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.

Sure they are like the one example

But they were picked 10-12 years ago.

A decade ago I was a heavy proponent of picking first round OL. It was arguably the easiest evaluation and one of the safest picks you could make in the draft especially interior guys. We did great with Brick and Mangold.

But college football has changed dramatically in 10 years. OL are not prepared for the NFL. Pretty much all OL are developmental players and the bust ration is very high.

It is now one of the riskiest picks in the draft. Tyron Smith was the 9th pick but also the first OL off the board in an era when it was easy to evaluate,

Now you are staunchly adamant we take the 2nd, 3rd or 4th prospect at 10 when it is very risky.

I just do not think that is a good use of our resources. WR is now one of the safer picks in the 1st round. And we need WR as much as OL. That would be a far better way to go IMO. Or possible even Bowers. We should take a QB but probably won't. But OL at 10 is a bad idea. Just my opinion.

[Sperm Edwards]

8 hours ago, derp said:

Regarding Lazard, sure I don’t think he’s getting traded. The point of commenting about his being benched and the trade rumor was that I don’t think they’re very happy with him or his presence on the roster has any impact on who they might draft. You got caught on the trade thing - fine, maybe he’s not on the block - I still don’t think he is part of the equation at wide receiver.

I don’t think a round 1-3 rookie WR neuters Williams. That was literally the situation on the team he played for last year with a first round pick. It’s normal team building.

The Jets don’t need Rodgers to majorly target a wide receiver - barring injury like you bring up in the case of Watson - for the wide receiver to have an opportunity to get on the field more as a rookie without injury than a tackle would without injury. That is the point. And like tackle, they’ll need a starter next year. This is a very good receiver class. That happens a lot, but it’s a good time to draft one. They should draft one. Doesn’t have to be in the first, and it’s very possible they sign someone which would change what I’m saying - but the veteran instead of drafting someone would be a long term roster building mistake in my opinion.

None of that means that they need to take a receiver over a tackle. If they stick and pick at ten, I think it’s more likely that a receiver is worth that pick rather than trading down than tackle is worth the pick - but we’ll see. There’s a group of like six tackles who are all pretty similar following the top prospect and if they go tackle at ten they’ll likely have to take the first guy in that tier which is just such bad drafting when they could drop down ten picks and get someone in the same tier plus have another bite at the apple later in the draft.

Point there being tackle at ten would be such a womp womp and even if they do I hope they’re drafting and developing a WR who’s good enough to push for snaps as WR3 this year with pick 72. It’s just the best player they could reasonably get at 10 is a WR.

Williams' pay last year wasn't contingent upon hitting incentives. It was all guaranteed before the draft, and was further before he tore his knee, so that's not really the same thing.

I'm absolutely good with them taking an elite WR prospect.

I just think OL is more likely to happen with two of two starting tackles on one year contracts, the far better of the two misses a dozen or more games every other season (and merely suits up for 13 in his ironman years), and questionable at best depth behind them both.

They could sign another veteran tackle after the draft, too, but he'll be in the same spot again in a year (with his incumbent mid-30s tackles another year older), with a lot of FAs passing on signing here, and having to resort to trading a draft pick just to rent an older RT for one season. They were supposedly surprised Smith signed with them, expecting him to choose elsewhere like all their other top FA targets.

[rangerous]

Hard to see where the jets will go with the ten pick since it looks like the starters have already been penciled in.  But it’s important to remember that some of the name players are on one year deals and any future contracts can be derailed by things like injuries or even non- performance.  So drafting a tackle makes sense even if he sits for the season because next season could/should be free and clear for him to step in. I think that’s where Douglas will be able to balance the teams current needs without messing up the future too much.

[derp]

24 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Williams' pay last year wasn't contingent upon hitting incentives. It was all guaranteed before the draft, and was further before he tore his knee, so that's not really the same thing.

I'm absolutely good with them taking an elite WR prospect.

I just think OL is more likely to happen with two of two starting tackles on one year contracts, the far better of the two misses a dozen or more games every other season (and merely suits up for 13 in his ironman years), and questionable at best depth behind them both.

They could sign another veteran tackle after the draft, too, but he'll be in the same spot again in a year (with his incumbent mid-30s tackles another year older), with a lot of FAs passing on signing here, and having to resort to trading a draft pick just to rent an older RT for one season. They were supposedly surprised Smith signed with them, expecting him to choose elsewhere like all their other top FA targets.

It’s not the same thing but you’re really splitting hairs. Making decisions with how to utilize a top ten pick based on the incentive structure of a #2 receiver on a one year deal is not a prudent way to make roster decisions. That aside, a rookie shouldn’t really intrude on Williams’ role, which is stretching the field and making plays down the field.

I think OL is likely to happen, I just don’t think it should happen at 10 based on how this draft class is set up. Maybe if they can trade down. My expectation is they like Warren enough to tentatively pencil him in to start in 2025 and be a backup this year and they’ll draft someone in the first three rounds to try to develop to be the other starter.

Again, I think a big part of the difference in perspective here is a) the team is still down a starter at WR where they are not at OT so it’s easier for a rookie to get snaps at WR - acknowledging that snaps are likely going to be available at OT due to injury, but that injury needs to happen (and speaking of incentives, Smith is heavily incentivized to play) b) signing another WR is TBD and you lean yes where I lean no and c) I think the OL depth is better whereas you think the WR depth is better - realistically it needs to improve at both spots which is why they’ll be drafting guys at both spots.

They're going to run out of roster room on the OL too so I doubt they sign somebody. Maybe they whiff in the draft. But Douglas needs to bring in rookies so he doesn’t have to continually bring in veterans on big deals - assuming he’s still here in a year.

[Bobby816]

I'm totally ok going OT at 10 assuming we don't sign a guy like Bak in FA still. Bc then even if we draft a OT at 10. They still aren't next man up. I'd rather get see us get a guy that will actually play in the top 10. Odunze and Bowers for example will play as rookies no matter what. We're a win now team. Get guys that will play and help.

[Sperm Edwards]

9 minutes ago, derp said:

It’s not the same thing but you’re really splitting hairs. Making decisions with how to utilize a top ten pick based on the incentive structure of a #2 receiver on a one year deal is not a prudent way to make roster decisions. That aside, a rookie shouldn’t really intrude on Williams’ role, which is stretching the field and making plays down the field.

I think OL is likely to happen, I just don’t think it should happen at 10 based on how this draft class is set up. Maybe if they can trade down. My expectation is they like Warren enough to tentatively pencil him in to start in 2025 and be a backup this year and they’ll draft someone in the first three rounds to try to develop to be the other starter.

Again, I think a big part of the difference in perspective here is a) the team is still down a starter at WR where they are not at OT so it’s easier for a rookie to get snaps at WR - acknowledging that snaps are likely going to be available at OT due to injury, but that injury needs to happen (and speaking of incentives, Smith is heavily incentivized to play) b) signing another WR is TBD and you lean yes where I lean no and c) I think the OL depth is better whereas you think the WR depth is better - realistically it needs to improve at both spots which is why they’ll be drafting guys at both spots.

They're going to run out of roster room on the OL too so I doubt they sign somebody. Maybe they whiff in the draft. But Douglas needs to bring in rookies so he doesn’t have to continually bring in veterans on big deals - assuming he’s still here in a year.

Rodgers just doesn't utilize rookies and anyway he tends to hyper focus on his main guy. I think a rookie WR will be criminally underutilized until next year, even if he nominally starts.  A rookie tackle will absolutely start at some point, could even start week 1 if they get a top guy (supplanting Moses as the RT starter), and just think the position is more likely to save Douglas's all-in, job on the line season than a rookie who'll probably be 5th of 5 in receiving targets.

I'll let others rank the players individually. I don't know one from the next, tbh.

[SAM SAM HE'S OUR MAN]

21 hours ago, Alka said:

In an injury free world, the Jets would be stupid not to take a wide receiver or Brock Bowers with the #10 pick.

Unfortunately, that is a fantasy world, and not one that we live in.  We live in a world where injuries absolutely will occur, and if we are targeting the NY Jets, will probably occur more likely than not.

Think about it for a moment.  We got an All-Pro left tackle, that is projected to not play more than 13 games, at the most.  In fact, he doesn't even practice much, according to reports.  Why were we even able to get him?  Have you thought about that for a second?  It's due to his injury history that we were able to snag Tyron.

We have a right guard in AVT, who missed the majority of games the past 2 years, due to injuries.  We have Morgan Moses, who is getting up there in age, at 33 years old, and showing signs of wear and tear.  We have Tippman, who did deal with an injury last year, though did not miss much time.  Warren, as our main tackle backup, fought with injuries last year.

The Jets must keep Aaron Rodgers upright, and we can't wait until the 3rd or 4th round to take a tackle, and expect that the Jets will just insert that player if one of our main guys go down, especially at left tackle.

Drafting a tackle at #10 is the responsible and common sense move to make, and one that JD needs to be committed to.  Drafting a wide receiver and hoping that our O line stays healthy is playing with fire, and when you play with fire, you get burned.

All you need to do is look at how our offensive line transgressed over the past several years to know that this is what will happen, and we need to be prepared for it.

[JetsFlyer]

If you want a good insurance policy for the OL then fauntanu checks all the boxes. A bit undersized or he would be #1 can play any position and most polished to insert 

Of course 10 is a bit too high. 

[slats]

15 hours 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.

I don’t what’s going on with Lazard allegedly on the trade block, but there’s little doubt that he was a huge disappointment last year who found himself behind a couple UDFAs to end the season. I couldn’t pencil him in right now at WR #3. At best, I’d say he might in in a situational platoon with Gipson in the slot, with no guarantees that he’d get on the field in a four WR set ahead of Brownlee.
 
That’s the whole WR room, though: Wilson, a recovering Williams, and those three. At OT, at least there are a couple former fourth round picks with starting experience behind the starters. I do think Rodgers not throwing to rookies may be a little overblown (as you said, the Packers never took a first rounder at the position), and I think one of the primary reasons he wanted to come to the Jets was because of Garrett Wilson’s rookie season. I’m actually more concerned about Simpson starting at guard than I am the new OTs, and if they drafted a tackle to win that guard spot this year, and slide outside next year (or sooner, if need be), that would be a solid move. A lot better than a pure tackle who’ll begin his career as a clear backup. 
 
Personally, I think WR is clearly the bigger need for this year and into next, and the only way to get them is to draft them or spend ridiculously in a trade or free agency. Good starting tackles come from the middle rounds every year. I’m hoping WR is the pick in the first round, with that G/T maybe coming in the third. 

[Adams Street]

Moses revelaed during his press conference that he is recovering from a torn pec, but will still be ready for week 1. I guess it depends on how they feel about Warren and Mitchell and if they can be capable backups, but I think OT will be the pick. They're probably won't be a WR available worth the 10th pick unless they fall in love with someone like Thomas. And as much as this is an all-in year, Douglas still wants to be employed in 2025 and not having to draft an OT next year is something he will think about

And people won't want to hear this but Lazard is going to be WR2. He's guaranteed 10 million next year. We just have to hope that he was dogging it once Rogers got hurt and he realized how terrible Wilson was. They'll draft a WR in the 3rd round, maybe trade up to end of the 2nd if there is someone they really like.

Maybe they double dip at WR with one of the 4th rounders, but the rest of the picks will probably be mostly defense. Although I would like to see a big power RB brought in for short yardage

[Sperm Edwards]

27 minutes ago, slats said:

I don’t what’s going on with Lazard allegedly on the trade block, but there’s little doubt that he was a huge disappointment last year who found himself behind a couple UDFAs to end the season. I couldn’t pencil him in right now at WR #3. At best, I’d say he might in in a situational platoon with Gipson in the slot, with no guarantees that he’d get on the field in a four WR set ahead of Brownlee.
 
That’s the whole WR room, though: Wilson, a recovering Williams, and those three. At OT, at least there are a couple former fourth round picks with starting experience behind the starters. I do think Rodgers not throwing to rookies may be a little overblown (as you said, the Packers never took a first rounder at the position), and I think one of the primary reasons he wanted to come to the Jets was because of Garrett Wilson’s rookie season. I’m actually more concerned about Simpson starting at guard than I am the new OTs, and if they drafted a tackle to win that guard spot this year, and slide outside next year (or sooner, if need be), that would be a solid move. A lot better than a pure tackle who’ll begin his career as a clear backup. 
 
Personally, I think WR is clearly the bigger need for this year and into next, and the only way to get them is to draft them or spend ridiculously in a trade or free agency. Good starting tackles come from the middle rounds every year. I’m hoping WR is the pick in the first round, with that G/T maybe coming in the third. 

What if they take a tackle at 10 and he takes the job away from Moses? I'll wait to see it before I believe this CS would enter the season with a demotion to a starting veteran in favor of a rookie, but the odds of that go up with a top 10 pick, and imo it'd be a solid move, too. The last time they signed Moses - as a cheaper FA - he did it eyes open that he probably was starting the season as the 2nd string RT. Because of how bad and unreliable the tackles have been since his departure, there's more fuzzy memory nostalgia about Moses than people have of hit 80s sitcoms & movies which are almost all unwatchable. He suited up every game no drama about it, but he was just ok - a lot of rushers got past him - and that was when he was 3 years younger.

I don't think much of their tackle depth just yet. Warren didn't wow me at all, and Mitchell has looked terrible since those surprise first few rookie starts with Flacco dropping back 50-60x/week. He may end up being more guard depth - arguably behind Hanson at that - and ultra-emergency tackle depth, if Mitchell even makes the roster.

I'm not making any case that Lazard was anything but a total embarrassment last year, and they'd surely dump him if he wasn't guaranteed so much money this year. I do think they may have some hope his play fixes enough to play him when he doesn't have the following year fully guaranteed anymore (he wouldn't be the first), plus Rodgers surely commands more out of him than f'ing useless Wilson, Wilson's useless backups, and a beta mush of an OC. Or it could just be I expect at least some type of bounce back from him just because he wouldn't be any worse than last year; ffs getting IR'd on the 3rd play of the season would still be an improvement.

[Tranquilo]

1 hour ago, JetsFlyer said:

If you want a good insurance policy for the OL then fauntanu checks all the boxes. A bit undersized or he would be #1 can play any position and most polished to insert 

Of course 10 is a bit too high. 

Wait so do you want him or not

[Adoni Beast]

Take the best player available between LT and pass catcher. 

All things considered equal take the LT.

[Augustiniak]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Rodgers just doesn't utilize rookies and anyway he tends to hyper focus on his main guy. I think a rookie WR will be criminally underutilized until next year, even if he nominally starts.  A rookie tackle will absolutely start at some point, could even start week 1 if they get a top guy (supplanting Moses as the RT starter), and just think the position is more likely to save Douglas's all-in, job on the line season than a rookie who'll probably be 5th of 5 in receiving targets.

I'll let others rank the players individually. I don't know one from the next, tbh.

Again i think the question that needs to be answered is, are you drafting for rodgers and his 1-2 yrs here, or are you drafting to get the best player at a key position?  Based on the moves jd has made, everything points to a 1 year audition.  All the OL spots are filled.  The starting 2 wr spots are filled.  You can make a strong argument that there are no starting spots available right now.  So what are you drafting for?  The future, which could be in a reality w/o jd, saleh and rodgers?  Do you draft a tackle and say you’re the future LT, but you may play guard or center or whatever b/c our OL keeps getting injured and you’re essentially on call this year?  

Truth, if you draft a tackle at 10 you’re telling the team that you’re ready to draft a qb in 2025 and put him behind a good OL. 

[derp]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Rodgers just doesn't utilize rookies and anyway he tends to hyper focus on his main guy. I think a rookie WR will be criminally underutilized until next year, even if he nominally starts.  A rookie tackle will absolutely start at some point, could even start week 1 if they get a top guy (supplanting Moses as the RT starter), and just think the position is more likely to save Douglas's all-in, job on the line season than a rookie who'll probably be 5th of 5 in receiving targets.

I'll let others rank the players individually. I don't know one from the next, tbh.

You’re making leaps based on what you expect to happen, which is fine. But until an injury happens, a fifth of five offensive skill player impacts the team more than a sixth of five offensive lineman. A rookie isn’t supplanting Moses. 

If you’re concerned about this season impact, aside from the getting on the field thing, wide receivers are much more prepared for the NFL game coming out of college right now than offensive linemen on. That’s important, too.

We’re ultimately splitting hairs on the needs, they’re close and both present. I am skeptical that a tackle has much of a positive impact this year. Which is fine, but to me that’s the one you’re mostly taking for 2025.

And it’s fine you don’t know the players, but the correct approach that high is to take the better player who fills a need. And it’s unlikely that will be a tackle in this particular class. Or if it is it’ll be early in a tier where they should drop down - which is fine.

[Alka]

11 hours ago, JohnnyLV said:

But they were picked 10-12 years ago.

First of all, they picked a O linemen with the 24th pick in the first round in 2022.  Second, it has been widely discussed that around 7 or 8 Offensive tackles will be picked up in the 1st round this year, so your idea that this strategy is in the past is 100% incorrect.  

[JetsYanks13]

Trade back from 10, recoup a pick or two. Take one of the 2nd tier receivers and grab a guard 2nd or 3rd rd. Guards are easier to draft than tackles, kick AVT over to tackle if there in a bind.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[slats]

2 minutes ago, JetsYanks13 said:

Trade back from 10, recoup a pick or two. Take one of the 2nd tier receivers and grab a guard 2nd or 3rd rd. Guards are easier to draft than tackles, kick AVT over to tackle if there in a bind.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

AVT has not demonstrated that he can play OT at the NFL level without having a season ending injury. I would be very focused on keeping him at guard except in the case of extreme emergency (or, I guess, a regular season around here). 

[LIJetsFan]

I think JD has arranged things so that taking offensive BPA at 10 would be correct.  You can't tell which guy we are counting on will get injured or markedly underperform.  Might as well go offensive BPA and be done with it.  Backups can he had in later rounds.  After all if there are no underperformers and no injuries we are good to go as is.      

[JohnnyLV]

28 minutes ago, slats said:

AVT has not demonstrated that he can play OT at the NFL level without having a season ending injury. I would be very focused on keeping him at guard except in the case of extreme emergency (or, I guess, a regular season around here). 

Not sure they are causal

[Greenseed4]

3 hours ago, slats said:

I’m actually more concerned about Simpson starting at guard than I am the new OTs, and if they drafted a tackle to win that guard spot this year, and slide outside next year (or sooner, if need be), that would be a solid move. A lot better than a pure tackle who’ll begin his career as a clear backup. 
 
Personally, I think WR is clearly the bigger need for this year and into next, and the only way to get them is to draft them or spend ridiculously in a trade or free agency.

Drafting Fautanu in the first, and getting a third-tier WR in the third that can play inside (Roman Wilson, Ricky Pearsall) accomplishes both, potentially yielding two on-field starters by end of year.

 

[Sperm Edwards]

53 minutes ago, derp said:

You’re making leaps based on what you expect to happen, which is fine. But until an injury happens, a fifth of five offensive skill player impacts the team more than a sixth of five offensive lineman. A rookie isn’t supplanting Moses. 

If you’re concerned about this season impact, aside from the getting on the field thing, wide receivers are much more prepared for the NFL game coming out of college right now than offensive linemen on. That’s important, too.

We’re ultimately splitting hairs on the needs, they’re close and both present. I am skeptical that a tackle has much of a positive impact this year. Which is fine, but to me that’s the one you’re mostly taking for 2025.

And it’s fine you don’t know the players, but the correct approach that high is to take the better player who fills a need. And it’s unlikely that will be a tackle in this particular class. Or if it is it’ll be early in a tier where they should drop down - which is fine.

A rookie should supplant Moses if they pick right. Like say it's the best tackle prospect in the draft (it won't be, because I can't see Tennessee passing on the opportunity, I guess unless they trade down below us). Is that Joe Alt? Moses shouldn't be starting over him unless the rookie is nothing like advertised. At his age, short contract length, and low contract amount, Moses shouldn't be getting automatic job placement over anybody except those clearly worse than he is.

Also if they're so worried about starting a rookie tackle, that will not go away because they delayed it by a year. 

At this point in the draft, in theory there shouldn't be much separating the players at two positions, in that they should yield an elite player at either position unless the GM douglases the pick again. 

Put another way, keeping Rodgers upright is what probably matters most to them. If you take it as a sure thing that Smith will miss games - and it's only a matter of how many - then all it takes is one game with Warren letting a dynamic edge rusher run right by him and the season's potentially over if that's an early occurrence. Taylor is a decent QB, but odds are he won't last long out there either (which is why he's available at least every other offseason).

I think what Rodgers is supposed to bring is that he can get by with one major WR and other mere supporting receiver types. e.g. if they lose Williams (or the unthinkable, Wilson) he's capable of finding a new favorite, and with a decent (if unexciting) receiving TE and a deadly receiving back and a WR he's got plenty of familiarity with, he will be ok. That's the idea behind getting him, right or wrong.

You put him back there for any extended period with Warren letting him get hit 4-5x per game, and...yecch. 

I guess a way of seeing it is - in the event of a WR1/WR2 or LT/RT starter injury - a top 10 pick tackle prevents a bigger team collapse, while acknowledging a top 10 pick receiver increases the upside more. 

Personally, again I'd be happy with either so long as the one drafted is actually the real deal and not another Becton or Moore (or worse, Mims). I'm admittedly not one to judge which WR is better or worse of a prospect than which OT, though.

[derp]

38 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

A rookie should supplant Moses if they pick right. Like say it's the best tackle prospect in the draft (it won't be, because I can't see Tennessee passing on the opportunity, I guess unless they trade down below us). Is that Joe Alt? Moses shouldn't be starting over him unless the rookie is nothing like advertised. At his age, short contract length, and low contract amount, Moses shouldn't be getting automatic job placement over anybody except those clearly worse than he is.

Also if they're so worried about starting a rookie tackle, that will not go away because they delayed it by a year. 

At this point in the draft, in theory there shouldn't be much separating the players at two positions, in that they should yield an elite player at either position unless the GM douglases the pick again. 

Put another way, keeping Rodgers upright is what probably matters most to them. If you take it as a sure thing that Smith will miss games - and it's only a matter of how many - then all it takes is one game with Warren letting a dynamic edge rusher run right by him and the season's potentially over if that's an early occurrence. Taylor is a decent QB, but odds are he won't last long out there either (which is why he's available at least every other offseason).

I think what Rodgers is supposed to bring is that he can get by with one major WR and other mere supporting receiver types. e.g. if they lose Williams (or the unthinkable, Wilson) he's capable of finding a new favorite, and with a decent (if unexciting) receiving TE and a deadly receiving back and a WR he's got plenty of familiarity with, he will be ok. That's the idea behind getting him, right or wrong.

You put him back there for any extended period with Warren letting him get hit 4-5x per game, and...yecch. 

I guess a way of seeing it is - in the event of a WR1/WR2 or LT/RT starter injury - a top 10 pick tackle prevents a bigger team collapse, while acknowledging a top 10 pick receiver increases the upside more. 

Personally, again I'd be happy with either so long as the one drafted is actually the real deal and not another Becton or Moore (or worse, Mims). I'm admittedly not one to judge which WR is better or worse of a prospect than which OT, though.

Morgan Moses has been good lately. If a rookie picked at ten is better than Morgan Moses then he’s he should start. There’s almost no way a rookie picked at ten is going to be better than Morgan Moses. Have you followed how rookie tackles have played recently? If that’s your expectation I get thinking that way but shy of gifting the top ten pick a job the better player will almost certainly be Moses.

Nobody suggested drafting a tackle next year.

Rodgers getting hurt would be bad. They should draft depth. Saying they need to draft depth with the tenth overall pick is excessive. Those statements are not mutually exclusive. They can address depth without doing it there.

Again, I’m not so sure a tackle helps you this year. Play time aside, those guys are not adjusting to the pro level quickly right now. Barring an injury you’re not talking week one starter so they can draft someone a little later and work with him.

Regarding ceiling/floor, for a team with such a short term window I’d rather raise the ceiling than the floor.

There’s certainly a scenario the tackle is the better player it’s just firmly not best case for them in terms of the specific players in this draft. Again I’m not opposed and we’re really getting in the weeds here.

[#27TheDominator]

8 minutes ago, derp said:

Morgan Moses has been good lately. If a rookie picked at ten is better than Morgan Moses then he’s he should start. There’s almost no way a rookie picked at ten is going to be better than Morgan Moses. Have you followed how rookie tackles have played recently? If that’s your expectation I get thinking that way but shy of gifting the top ten pick a job the better player will almost certainly be Moses.

Nobody suggested drafting a tackle next year.

Rodgers getting hurt would be bad. They should draft depth. Saying they need to draft depth with the tenth overall pick is excessive. Those statements are not mutually exclusive. They can address depth without doing it there.

Again, I’m not so sure a tackle helps you this year. Play time aside, those guys are not adjusting to the pro level quickly right now. Barring an injury you’re not talking week one starter so they can draft someone a little later and work with him.

Regarding ceiling/floor, for a team with such a short term window I’d rather raise the ceiling than the floor.

There’s certainly a scenario the tackle is the better player it’s just firmly not best case for them in terms of the specific players in this draft. Again I’m not opposed and we’re really getting in the weeds here.

I agree with all this and it is reasonable.  I think we are all arguing different sides of the same coin.  The fact that a rookie OT won't likely beat out Moses for opening day does not discount the position though IMO.  There is the possibility that Moses doesn't heal that quickly, or that he falls off a cliff.  We have experience with this as recently as last year with Brown.   Kind of the year before with Fant.  They got him for the equivalent of a 5th with an expiring $5M contract that is not guaranteed.  If there are injuries a 1st rounder certainly should be better than Warren and can potentially step in at G too.  You pretty much know someone is getting hurt at some point. Finally, not being the best on opening day does not mean that they won't be worthy of starting by week 17.  

OTOH, based on how the roster is currently constructed a receiving option would likely be more valuable.  I'm not 100% sure how the roster will be constructed come opening day.

[derp]

Just now, #27TheDominator said:

I agree with all this and it is reasonable.  I think we are all arguing different sides of the same coin.  The fact that a rookie OT won't likely beat out Moses for opening day does not discount the position though IMO.  There is the possibility that Moses doesn't heal that quickly, or that he falls off a cliff.  We have experience with this as recently as last year with Brown.   Kind of the year before with Fant.  They got him for the equivalent of a 5th with an expiring $5M contract that is not guaranteed.  If there are injuries a 1st rounder certainly should be better than Warren and can potentially step in at G too.  You pretty much know someone is getting hurt at some point. Finally, not being the best on opening day does not mean that they won't be worthy of starting by week 17.  

OTOH, based on how the roster is currently constructed a receiving option would likely be more valuable.  I'm not 100% sure how the roster will be constructed come opening day.

Yeah you’re definitely coming in late. It’s ultimately nuanced. I was making the argument in your last paragraph.

I think this draft is a unique opportunity so strong at WR at the top at OT in the late first. I’d like them to be aggressive and come away with Odunze/Nabers/Harrison (likely Odunze) and one of the tackles in the Fashanu/Fuaga/Fautanu/Guyton/Mims/Layton/Suamataia/Morgan bucket. It’s a reach and almost assuredly would cost a #1 next year but one of those tackles is going to go in the 20’s, maybe even 30’s - and they’re legit first round prospects. I think guys going in the 20’s this year are comparable to Broderick Jones who everyone was disappointed they missed on.

Meanwhile I think those WR’s may all be top 5 WR prospects over the last decade. Maybe overly bullish, but I’m not sure. In a class where there’s a surplus at two short and long term need spots and they’re well positioned roster wise to let those guys develop but might need depth, go do it.

[Sperm Edwards]

16 minutes ago, derp said:

Morgan Moses has been good lately. If a rookie picked at ten is better than Morgan Moses then he’s he should start. There’s almost no way a rookie picked at ten is going to be better than Morgan Moses. Have you followed how rookie tackles have played recently? If that’s your expectation I get thinking that way but shy of gifting the top ten pick a job the better player will almost certainly be Moses.

Nobody suggested drafting a tackle next year.

Rodgers getting hurt would be bad. They should draft depth. Saying they need to draft depth with the tenth overall pick is excessive. Those statements are not mutually exclusive. They can address depth without doing it there.

Again, I’m not so sure a tackle helps you this year. Play time aside, those guys are not adjusting to the pro level quickly right now. Barring an injury you’re not talking week one starter so they can draft someone a little later and work with him.

Regarding ceiling/floor, for a team with such a short term window I’d rather raise the ceiling than the floor.

There’s certainly a scenario the tackle is the better player it’s just firmly not best case for them in terms of the specific players in this draft. Again I’m not opposed and we’re really getting in the weeds here.

I think if they don't land a starter-worthy tackle this year there's a high probability of drafting one next year. I'm suggesting it.  

I still think a tackle helps this year because I've pretty much zero confidence - with history by my side - that both tackles will play all 17 games. There's a high probability a minimum of 4 games (plus mop-up duty in a couple others) where at least one of their starting tackles will be out. Not even counting guard, which could be an option, too. Then there's the reality that Smith - for all his talent, even at his age - has missed almost the whole year twice in the last 4 seasons.

Because I think their WR1, WR2, TE, and RB provide enough options in the passing game, I don't think upgrading WR3 raises the ceiling as much as being stuck with the backup LT for an extended period sinks it. Losing one (as is likely for at least some of the season) could sink it by a lot more than a WR3 upgrade raises it. In either case I'd expect the draftee to start the following season.

For the most part, though, I don't disagree in that it's more important they nail the pick than which position. If they get an above average, reliable starter I wouldn't nitpick which position it was.

Also I have enjoyed this.

[Sperm Edwards]

19 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

I agree with all this and it is reasonable.  I think we are all arguing different sides of the same coin.  The fact that a rookie OT won't likely beat out Moses for opening day does not discount the position though IMO.  There is the possibility that Moses doesn't heal that quickly, or that he falls off a cliff.  We have experience with this as recently as last year with Brown.   Kind of the year before with Fant.  They got him for the equivalent of a 5th with an expiring $5M contract that is not guaranteed.  If there are injuries a 1st rounder certainly should be better than Warren and can potentially step in at G too.  You pretty much know someone is getting hurt at some point. Finally, not being the best on opening day does not mean that they won't be worthy of starting by week 17.  

OTOH, based on how the roster is currently constructed a receiving option would likely be more valuable.  I'm not 100% sure how the roster will be constructed come opening day.

The odds of this being the opening day WR depth chart are zero, even if they take a tackle at #10.

They have other draft picks and there are (and will be) other veteran WRs to add instead of planning on Brownlee/Gipson being the WR4 and WR5 (behind an obviously shaky current WR3). 

With both tackles, and both the WR2 and WR3 this year reaching FA status next year (I can't see them not cutting Lazard after this year; even if he bounces back with a 700-yard year, after his '23 season they aren't going to bet another $11MM on it happening again). So in terms of future planning, both are on the table. They could extend or re-sign Smith, Moses, and Williams for next year, too.

I'm just expecting OL injuries because that's the Jets' thing, and their new additions both missed time (one of whom isn't healthy yet in March, and the other who misses almost the whole season every other year, with ~4 missed games in between).

Preventing a repeat of Rodgers's 2023 season isn't just priority #1. It's priorities 1 through 90,000.

But with this top pick I just want them to nail it.

 

[T0mShane]

On 3/20/2024 at 5:31 PM, 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.

Update to the Brian Thomas talk: both PFF guys dislike Brian Thomas as a player, but Pallazzolo didn’t revisit the alleged off-field issues. They dislike him because he has a 10% drop rate, and despite Daniels throwing him an extremely high percentage of on-target passes, he didn’t produce nearly as much as he could have. Compared him to MVS and Demarcus Robertson

[SickJetFan]

1 minute ago, T0mShane said:

Update to the Brian Thomas talk: both PFF guys dislike Brian Thomas as a player, but Pallazzolo didn’t revisit the alleged off-field issues. They dislike him because he has a 10% drop rate, and despite Daniels throwing him an extremely high percentage of on-target passes, he didn’t produce nearly as much as he could have. Compared him to MVS and Demarcus Robertson

pff sucks donkey balls

he only really had one season starting right? raw no doubt - i want mhj/nabers but i think it lots closer on odunze/bt than peops be sayin.