Official NFL Draft Rumors and News Thread

[Claymation]

1 hour ago, Wit said:

Can we just call Bowers a WR? That would make me feel better. TE's take time to learn to properly block. If they are going to use him as the slot number three, I guess I can live with that. 

Are you suggesting he can't play inline? Because he can.

[slats]

1 hour ago, Wit said:

Can we just call Bowers a WR? That would make me feel better. TE's take time to learn to properly block. If they are going to use him as the slot number three, I guess I can live with that. 

I wasn’t interested in a slot receiver in the first round last year, and find myself even less interested in a 240lb slot receiver this year. 

[DoubleDown]

3 hours ago, SomebodytoAnybody47 said:

 

Would you trade down to 12 or 13 with Bowers still on the board?

If Alt, Nabers, or Odunze are still on the board, I stay put and happily draft one of them.  If not, I trade back, pick up a 2nd rounder, and target Thomas or best available OL.

[nycdan]

9 minutes ago, Untouchable said:

Great

And Nabers is likely a Top 6-7 pick. You probably aren’t getting him without giving up #72 and more.

Bowers has a very real, even likely, chance of being on the board at #10.

I haven’t heard hardly anyone say they would take Bowers over a guy like Alt or one of the Top 3 wideouts.

But assuming those guys are gone, Bowers is bound to be a finalist at #10 and is a legit bluechip pass catcher.

Just a random viewpoint.  There were many, many years when this board was adamant that you do NOT take a DT with a high first-round pick.  Then came Quinnen and you don't hear that as much anymore.

[Augustiniak]

1 minute ago, nycdan said:

Just a random viewpoint.  There were many, many years when this board was adamant that you do NOT take a DT with a high first-round pick.  Then came Quinnen and you don't hear that as much anymore.

Well we were all a bit jaded by failed DL like ghoston, coples and Leonard williams.  Not that these guys were DTs, but more that they just kept taking them in the first round.  

[JohnnyLV]

22 minutes ago, JoeNamathsFurCoat said:

If you're going to think of Bowers a WR, Nabers is a better WR prospect.

That's my main point.

Not sure anyone would argue that but he won't be there at 10 and Bowers might be better than the 4th WR

[DoubleDown]

8 minutes ago, nycdan said:

Just a random viewpoint.  There were many, many years when this board was adamant that you do NOT take a DT with a high first-round pick.  Then came Quinnen and you don't hear that as much anymore.

Personally, I wanted Josh Allen over Quinnen that year.  Allen plays the more premium position, just notched a 17.5 sack season for the Jags, and has 45 sacks over the course of his career.

Quinnen is a great player, he does alot of things that don't show up on the stat sheet, but if I had to choose today, I am still going Allen over Q.  The bottom line is DT is simply an easier, more rotational position to fill on the field compared to a premium pass rusher.

Long story short, positional value does matter.  Bowers can go on to have a great NFL career and still be the wrong pick at #10.

[Untouchable]

13 minutes ago, nycdan said:

Just a random viewpoint.  There were many, many years when this board was adamant that you do NOT take a DT with a high first-round pick.  Then came Quinnen and you don't hear that as much anymore.

Hell, look at guards.

Always labeled a “non-premium” position. Now you have “solid” ones like Kevin Dotson and Jonah Jackson making $16+ million a year.

It can’t be understated how much of an impact guys like Kelce, Kittle, etc have on their teams.

It’s not even like we’re talking about taking Bowers at #4 like the Falcons did with Pitts. We’re talking about taking a potential game breaker at #10 when 7 months ago we didn’t even expect to have a 1st round pick.

[Gastineau Lives]

1 hour ago, slats said:

I wasn’t interested in a slot receiver in the first round last year, and find myself even less interested in a 240lb slot receiver this year. 

Well I have great news then

[Jetkwondo]

 

This article by Nania  of a possible draft day trade up to #8 when Malik Nabers falls due to Odunze being picked at 6 in Pete Schragers mock top ten presents an interesting situation.

Atlanta at #8  is most probably going DE so switching 2 spots they can still get who they want a 10

I would honestly prefer either of those 2 WR's in that trade over staying put at 10 for Bowers if it only means switching a 3rd for a 4th to make the trade value somewhat even. I hadn't even considered Nabers being available..

https://jetsxfactor.com/2024/04/16/ny-jets-scharger-mock-draft-opportunity/....

Steve Smith and  Chris Simms breaks down Nabers:

 

[peebag]

1 hour ago, DoubleDown said:

Personally, I wanted Josh Allen over Quinnen that year.  Allen plays the more premium position, just notched a 17.5 sack season for the Jags, and has 45 sacks over the course of his career.

Quinnen is a great player, he does alot of things that don't show up on the stat sheet, but if I had to choose today, I am still going Allen over Q.  The bottom line is DT is simply an easier, more rotational position to fill on the field compared to a premium pass rusher.

Long story short, positional value does matter.  Bowers can go on to have a great NFL career and still be the wrong pick at #10.

Uh - we picked Sam Darnold over Josh Allen  c'mon - get our mistakes correct!

[bla bla bla]

1 hour ago, nycdan said:

Just a random viewpoint.  There were many, many years when this board was adamant that you do NOT take a DT with a high first-round pick.  Then came Quinnen and you don't hear that as much anymore.

I think that had more to do with already having Leo.

Prime Leo + Josh Allen is probably a better use of resources than Quinnen + Jabari Zuniga + MC2 (I think that was the pick)

[83Kelly2Allen18]

2 hours ago, slats said:

I wasn’t interested in a slot receiver in the first round last year, and find myself even less interested in a 240lb slot receiver this year. 

Do you think Kelce is a slot wr? 

[Claymation]

 

[Claymation]

Moar Edge Rushers

[Claymation]

Good feeling gone

[Larz]

1 minute ago, Claymation said:

Good feeling gone

I like Latham. I think he can play both sides and can anchor and has good hands. He’s my third or fourth choice for oline , so he’s more in play in my mind if they trade back 

[Beerfish]

Latham is on my do not draft list so we will undoubtably take him just like darron lee and hackenburg were picked off that list.

[Neilos]

16 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

Latham is on my do not draft list so we will undoubtably take him just like darron lee and hackenburg were picked off that list.

Do us all a favour and add Nabers and Obunze on that list please. 👍

[Guilhermezmc]

If i'm the Jets im solely focused on Odunze or Nabers, but if both of them are not available at 10 or you're just to much of a wussie to go up and get one of them, I think we should get another weapon and Bowers just has every metric possible at his favor.

I don't know how much a GM take in consideration future contracts, but, making a case if we're going to make a case for Bowers, thats a good argument to pick him.

Soon enough the Jets will have to pay a lot of players, if Bowers is a great TE he will make way less than a mid WR (Christian Kirks of the world) so if he becomes that 800 to 1k yards guy that is a mismatch in the endzone, he's pretty much worth the pick and every dollar.

[Augustiniak]

59 minutes ago, Claymation said:

Good feeling gone

So this week they’re bringing in Latham, bowers and fautanu.  Does this mean they’ve finalized their boards and want a closer look at these guys, or are they just smokescreens and they have no intention of taking them?  I still say they’d take fuaga over these OL.  And if bowers is available when the jets pick this board is going to go insane. 

[83Kelly2Allen18]

3 hours ago, Claymation said:

Are you suggesting he can't play inline? Because he can.

I really think ppl are getting caught up in the traditional definition of a te, and thinking it's just a binary thing for whatever bias ppl have 

If he's a great receiving te then he can't block

If he's a solid blocker well he must only be an adequate intermediate reciever or worse.

 

Ppl also continue to think the te position is Kyle Brady or something similar when the position has not just evolved, but radically evolved. Not just in archetype but what's being asked of the position and how defenses deal with the conflict a guy like kelce or Gronk puts you in. 

 

The production argument only applies to a guy like hockenson or kittle earlier in his career.  And that is not a good argument for not taking a transcendent talent. 

 

Past outcomes to a position are not necessarily tied to future outcomes. That's a rigid way of scouting a prospect. Not saying nothing about past position value is considered, just saying it's not a comprehensive way of deciding who to pick.

 

As the saying goes, " scout the athlete, not the helmet or position". 

[Greenseed4]

2 hours ago, Jetkwondo said:

 

This article by Nania  of a possible draft day trade up to #8 when Malik Nabers falls due to Odunze being picked at 6 in Pete Schragers mock top ten presents an interesting situation.

Atlanta at #8  is most probably going DE so switching 2 spots they can still get who they want a 10

I would honestly prefer either of those 2 WR's in that trade over staying put at 10 for Bowers if it only means switching a 3rd for a 4th to make the trade value somewhat even. I hadn't even considered Nabers being available..

https://jetsxfactor.com/2024/04/16/ny-jets-scharger-mock-draft-opportunity/....

Steve Smith and  Chris Simms breaks down Nabers:

 

Clearly didn’t read my “Bold Predictions: Draft Edition” thread, I see. 
 

I predicted Nabers the likeliest of the top-3 to fall because Rome is a better fit for the Giants at 6, and a QB (Chargers trade down) or OL (Chargers stay put) is going at the 5 spot. 

 

 

[section314]

13 minutes ago, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

I really think ppl are getting caught up in the traditional definition of a te, and thinking it's just a binary thing for whatever bias ppl have 

If he's a great receiving te then he can't block

If he's a solid blocker well he must only be an adequate intermediate reciever or worse.

 

Ppl also continue to think the te position is Kyle Brady or something similar when the position has not just evolved, but radically evolved. Not just in archetype but what's being asked of the position and how defenses deal with the conflict a guy like kelce or Gronk puts you in. 

 

The production argument only applies to a guy like hockenson or kittle earlier in his career.  And that is not a good argument for not taking a transcendent talent. 

 

Past outcomes to a position are not necessarily tied to future outcomes. That's a rigid way of scouting a prospect. Not saying nothing about past position value is considered, just saying it's not a comprehensive way of deciding who to pick.

 

As the saying goes, " scout the athlete, not the helmet or position". 

As to your last point, agree100%. It does help to have a competent coaching staff if you follow this logic, which we are sorely lacking. It took our OC 6 games to realize Breece could catch. 

[Barton]

Trade up to #8 for the remaining receiver still available.

[Rich Thornburgh]

18 minutes ago, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

I really think ppl are getting caught up in the traditional definition of a te, and thinking it's just a binary thing for whatever bias ppl have 

If he's a great receiving te then he can't block

If he's a solid blocker well he must only be an adequate intermediate reciever or worse.

 

Ppl also continue to think the te position is Kyle Brady or something similar when the position has not just evolved, but radically evolved. Not just in archetype but what's being asked of the position and how defenses deal with the conflict a guy like kelce or Gronk puts you in. 

 

The production argument only applies to a guy like hockenson or kittle earlier in his career.  And that is not a good argument for not taking a transcendent talent. 

 

Past outcomes to a position are not necessarily tied to future outcomes. That's a rigid way of scouting a prospect. Not saying nothing about past position value is considered, just saying it's not a comprehensive way of deciding who to pick.

 

As the saying goes, " scout the athlete, not the helmet or position". 

Kelce and Gronk were traditional tight ends.  Yes they got incredible stats but they played the position of tight end

 

If Bowers is being drafted to be a combination of Brad Smith/Taysom Hill that’s a big mistake

[83Kelly2Allen18]

2 minutes ago, section314 said:

As to your last point, agree100%. It does help to have a competent coaching staff if you follow this logic, which we are sorely lacking. It took our OC 6 games to realize Breece could catch. 

This is true but Rodgers should solve that issue. I cant hold the staff accountable with Zach at QB. I just can't. It's like trying to box with a hangover 

[Rich Thornburgh]

1 minute ago, Barton said:

Trade up to #8 for the remaining receiver still available.

Schrager’s mock has Nabers going 9 to colts.  I don’t think it’s impossible he falls to us at 10

[Rich Thornburgh]

Just now, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

This is true but Rodgers should solve that issue. I cant hold the staff accountable with Zach at QB. I just can't. It's like trying to box with a hangover 

Watching Zach start games next season will feel like a very bad hangover like having done 10 shots of Jack

[83Kelly2Allen18]

7 minutes ago, Rich Thornburgh said:

Kelce and Gronk were traditional tight ends.  Yes they got incredible stats but they played the position of tight end

 

If Bowers is being drafted to be a combination of Brad Smith/Taysom Hill that’s a big mistake

Kelce and Gronk are not traditional tes. A " traditional te" was a blocker first and would run a five yard out, catch the ball sometimes and fall down. 

Winslow, Newsome and Sharpe revolutionized the position and set the stage for guys like Gonzalez, Kelce and Gronk... Using two tes like pats did as your major receiving threats was a novelty ...

 

Bringing up brad smith and a gimmick QB is just not even worth responding too. 

Edited April 16 by 83Kelly2Allen18
Spelling

[Rich Thornburgh]

Just now, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

Kelce and Gronk are not traditional tes. A " traditional te" was a blocker first and would run a five yard out, catch the ball sometimes and fall down. 

Winslow, Newsome and Share revolutionized the position and set the stage for guys like Gonzalez, Kelce and Gronk... Using two tes like pats did as your major receiving threats was novel 

 

Bringing up brad smith and a gimmick QB is just not even worth responding too. 

What are you talking about?  Gronk was an amazing blocker.  Kelce regularly blocks in line

 

If we are drafting bowers to reinvent football this is not going to end well

[jetsons]

1 hour ago, Beerfish said:

Latham is on my do not draft list so we will undoubtably take him just like darron lee and hackenburg were picked off that list.

 

53 minutes ago, Neilos said:

Do us all a favour and add Nabers and Obunze on that list please. 👍

& bowers too. 

[83Kelly2Allen18]

Just now, Rich Thornburgh said:

What are you talking about?  Gronk was an amazing blocker.  Kelce regularly blocks in line

 

If we are drafting bowers to reinvent football this is not going to end well

So does Bowers. But being an amazing blocker does not mean Gronk was a "traditional te"

[Jetpain]

While Bowers is a really good prospect and would certainly bring another weapon to this offense, i cant stop thinking back to last year and our lack of talent/depth when an injury occurs.  If everyone were to remain healthy for the majority of the season, Bowers would seem like a great addition, but injuries are way to common, especially on this team.  This team would be crushed with a long term injury to the left tackle Smith or to Garrett Wilson.   We can succeed with Conklin at TE (and yes Bowers would be better) but  I dont think we can succeed without Smith or Wilson as this team is currently assembled.  So when i get done liking what the shiny toy in Bowers could bring us, reality brings me back to an offensive lineman or WR with that 1st pick.     

[Untouchable]

3 minutes ago, Jetpain said:

While Bowers is a really good prospect and would certainly bring another weapon to this offense, i cant stop thinking back to last year and our lack of talent/depth when an injury occurs.  If everyone were to remain healthy for the majority of the season, Bowers would seem like a great addition, but injuries are way to common, especially on this team.  This team would be crushed with a long term injury to the left tackle Smith or to Garrett Wilson.   We can succeed with Conklin at TE (and yes Bowers would be better) but  I dont think we can succeed without Smith or Wilson as this team is currently assembled.  So when i get done liking what the shiny toy in Bowers could bring us, reality brings me back to an offensive lineman or WR with that 1st pick.     

Just because injuries are common doesn’t mean that we have to invest a Top 10 pick on an insurance policy.

A lot of people seem to think that Tyron Smith is one and done here.

Why?

When he’s on the field, he’s still up there with Trent Williams as the best LT in football. If Smith starts 13 games during the regular season and is still playing at a high level, the Jets aren’t letting him walk. They’re either extending him on a hefty 2-3 year deal or slapping him with the franchise tag.

I’m not going to bitch and moan if the Jets draft an OT, but it’s going to suck if Bowers goes on to be Kelce 2.0 and we passed on him for a “solid” OL who is best equipped to play guard.