Tackle or Receiver in round 1?

[JKlecko]

On 4/15/2024 at 1:52 AM, JoeNamathsFurCoat said:

More I think about it, unless one of big-3 WRs is there, and provided no sensible trade back is available, they have to go OL.

AVT tore his Achilles midseason.

Is he even a lock to be ready for camp?

Even if he’s medically cleared, that’s an injury that has to be monitored and maintained and where it might take 2 years for the player to return to form.

Any WR they draft isn’t going to get many targets in year 1.

Aaron will pepper GW with 150+ targets like he did with Davante Adams, plus you’ve got MW and Breece catching at least 50 balls out of the backfield.

I’d be content with Fashanu, Latham, Fautanu, Fuaga, and having the OT / OG versatility is a bonus.

If Tyron goes down, you can always kick out AVT to LT if you have to.

The Jets have said that AVT is staying at RG, and that's exactly where he should play. He's gotten hurt every year when he has played OT.  His arms are too short.

[Maynard13]

4 minutes ago, JKlecko said:

I disagree that it's a 2-3 year plan.  Most likely the Jets are going to lose several starters and key depth in FA next season. This is going to be a one and done, and next year could be disastrous if the Jets don't get a starting-caliber LT and quality WR out of this draft.

I mean its a 2-3 goal/plan as long as Aaron stays on board.

[JKlecko]

On 4/15/2024 at 3:52 PM, Sperm Edwards said:

nahhhhh no QB!!!!

 

The guys advocating for a QB in the 1st round are nuts!  They obviously don't remember how GB drafted Love a few years ago rather than drafting a WR or defensive help in the 1st round and pissed Rodgers off.  Do they really think the Jets should or would turn around and do the same thing?

[JKlecko]

15 minutes ago, Maynard13 said:

I mean its a 2-3 goal/plan as long as Aaron stays on board.

I think that was their hoped plan, but I don't believe that it's going to play out in reality, both due to Rodgers' age, their cap in 2025, and the fact that if the Jets don't make the playoffs this season, chances are that JD, Saleh and CS will be fired, and the Jets will be starting over in 2025.  Take a look at all the Jets FAs for next season, Rodgers' cap hit, the fact that they may be picking up AVT's 5th year option, and they have to extent Sauce, G. Wilson, Breece and JJ.  Money is going to be tight and they aren't going to be able to replace a lot of the players they lose in FA.  More than likely the Jets will take a big step backwards in 2025, and if JD and Saleh aren't fired following this season, then they will be following 2025.  https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2025/all/new-york-jets/

[Sperm Edwards]

6 hours ago, JKlecko said:

The guys advocating for a QB in the 1st round are nuts!  They obviously don't remember how GB drafted Love a few years ago rather than drafting a WR or defensive help in the 1st round and pissed Rodgers off.  Do they really think the Jets should or would turn around and do the same thing?

Pissing off an all-in veteran QB in an all-in season is pretty dumb, I agree. Or anyway, for the GM it flies in the face of acquiring him in the first place — those advocating for drafting a QB are unlikely to have been the same advocating for acquiring him in the first place. Their starting point is now; not so for a GM that swung the trade in the first place (let alone if the owner was all in on it, too, which it would appear he was).

Moreover, as much as it may seem smart to get in 3 years early on Love, that’s being viewed in a vacuum, ignoring 3 years of not giving those Rodgers teams another starter weapon in two MVP seasons. They easily had the ammo to move up for Jefferson (never mind Aiyuk) and might’ve blown Brady’s Tampa out of the water for 40 points in the championship game, instead of two bench players in Love and then AJ Dillon; or fill a LB hole with Patrick Queen instead of starting an undrafted rookie; or move down and end up robbing Tampa of a key all pro safety while adding him for themselves, or a serious TE instead of the day-2 bust they drafted after Dillon; or Trevon Diggs couldn’t possibly have been abused more than Kevin King in that championship game against Tampa. All this is hindsight, but so is the idea of drafting for the future 3 years early — in ahat was also a win-now team that ended up hindsight deciding to do without a much-needed first round starter (and/or what the pick could be parlayed into) for those next 3 seasons in favor of long term planning, and doing so may have cost themselves another championship (maybe two, for all we know).

What if Tampa had taken bench player Love instead of rookie sensation Wirfs to block for Brady? Replace McDuffie with an emergency backup player and insert a scrub in his place and, for all Mahomes’s greatness, maybe KC doesn’t win either of the past two Super Bowls. Just saying that long term planning doesn’t exist in a vacuum while a GM’s got a championship-caliber team right now.

They’re not drafting a QB early, and it’s foolish to even imagine they might while their #1 goal is to have Rodgers start at least the two upcoming seasons. Day 3? Sure, depending who’s there, but unless it’s a 6th-7th rounder know it also means burning a roster spot all season long on a QB3, because higher than that won’t make it to the practice squad (or they wouldn’t want to risk it, anyway).

[Rich Thornburgh]

7 hours ago, JKlecko said:

The guys advocating for a QB in the 1st round are nuts!  They obviously don't remember how GB drafted Love a few years ago rather than drafting a WR or defensive help in the 1st round and pissed Rodgers off.  Do they really think the Jets should or would turn around and do the same thing?

Yeah drafting Love really backfired for GB😅

[Rich Thornburgh]

7 hours ago, Maynard13 said:

I mean its a 2-3 goal/plan as long as Aaron stays on board.

You really think Aaron Rodgers is playing until he’s 43?

[SomebodytoAnybody47]

Aright here's where I'm at on draft week: 

What do we lack currently? It's dynamic playmakers outside of G Wilson, to beat their man one on one. They struggled to get open last year, to catch the ball, to extend a drive past one series, etc etc. Nobody to threaten a defense. 

Thus - WR or Bowers. Simple.

 

 

[Sperm Edwards]

22 minutes ago, Rich Thornburgh said:

Yeah drafting Love really backfired for GB😅

This is just nonsensical logic that presumes everything else - other than drafting a QB for 4+ years later - would remain unchanged. 

Despite coming very close, Green Bay sure didn't win a championship those first three years, with Love doing nothing but hold a clipboard while the eventual champions instead drafted starters in round 1.

This rationale suggests the 49ers were wise to trade all those picks for Trey Lance, given how close they came without him, and were a player or two short each year since. 

[Maynard13]

1 hour ago, Rich Thornburgh said:

You really think Aaron Rodgers is playing until he’s 43?

Yes. He was on the bench for what his first 3 years.  And last year didnt play. Each year takes a toll on therse guys. Yea he was ijured BUT didnt play so the wear and tear on his overall body is 4 years LESS than if he played since coming out of college. Brady played until what 43? Rodgers is actually a lot more mobile than Brady as well and equally well conditioned.  So yea. He wants to win another Super Bowl.

[Maynard13]

9 hours ago, JKlecko said:

I think that was their hoped plan, but I don't believe that it's going to play out in reality, both due to Rodgers' age, their cap in 2025, and the fact that if the Jets don't make the playoffs this season, chances are that JD, Saleh and CS will be fired, and the Jets will be starting over in 2025.  Take a look at all the Jets FAs for next season, Rodgers' cap hit, the fact that they may be picking up AVT's 5th year option, and they have to extent Sauce, G. Wilson, Breece and JJ.  Money is going to be tight and they aren't going to be able to replace a lot of the players they lose in FA.  More than likely the Jets will take a big step backwards in 2025, and if JD and Saleh aren't fired following this season, then they will be following 2025.  https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2025/all/new-york-jets/

Nah. Even if they dont make playoff, which I doubt if he stays healthy, they will have very good core of players to move forward and Aaron knows this defense is very good.  Its just a matter of tinkering to get a complete team on the field. Where is he going to go? He wants to win a Super bowl and he sees this as a vaible shot. 

[Maynard13]

On 4/17/2024 at 12:17 PM, Integrity28 said:

I’m aware. I’m saying JJ has the slide written all over him. I understand it’s unlikely given all of the buzz and teams he’s been attached to, but that’s sorta what I said is giving me that feeling.

With that ammo, Vikings could trade up high enough to be in play for Maye and Jayden, too.

No it would cost oo much. Way too much.  If McCarthy slides to 10, one of Denver, Vikes or Raiders will work out a trade with Jets for McCarthy but thats a fantasy. No way he slides to 10. So many teams SUCK and could get additional picks in a trade for McCarthy like the Giants, Cards, Vikings, Raiders, Broncos.

[JKlecko]

10 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Pissing off an all-in veteran QB in an all-in season is pretty dumb, I agree. Or anyway, for the GM it flies in the face of acquiring him in the first place — those advocating for drafting a QB are unlikely to have been the same advocating for acquiring him in the first place. Their starting point is now; not so for a GM that swung the trade in the first place (let alone if the owner was all in on it, too, which it would appear he was).

Moreover, as much as it may seem smart to get in 3 years early on Love, that’s being viewed in a vacuum, ignoring 3 years of not giving those Rodgers teams another starter weapon in two MVP seasons. They easily had the ammo to move up for Jefferson (never mind Aiyuk) and might’ve blown Brady’s Tampa out of the water for 40 points in the championship game, instead of two bench players in Love and then AJ Dillon; or fill a LB hole with Patrick Queen instead of starting an undrafted rookie; or move down and end up robbing Tampa of a key all pro safety while adding him for themselves, or a serious TE instead of the day-2 bust they drafted after Dillon; or Trevon Diggs couldn’t possibly have been abused more than Kevin King in that championship game against Tampa. All this is hindsight, but so is the idea of drafting for the future 3 years early — in ahat was also a win-now team that ended up hindsight deciding to do without a much-needed first round starter (and/or what the pick could be parlayed into) for those next 3 seasons in favor of long term planning, and doing so may have cost themselves another championship (maybe two, for all we know).

What if Tampa had taken bench player Love instead of rookie sensation Wirfs to block for Brady? Replace McDuffie with an emergency backup player and insert a scrub in his place and, for all Mahomes’s greatness, maybe KC doesn’t win either of the past two Super Bowls. Just saying that long term planning doesn’t exist in a vacuum while a GM’s got a championship-caliber team right now.

They’re not drafting a QB early, and it’s foolish to even imagine they might while their #1 goal is to have Rodgers start at least the two upcoming seasons. Day 3? Sure, depending who’s there, but unless it’s a 6th-7th rounder know it also means burning a roster spot all season long on a QB3, because higher than that won’t make it to the practice squad (or they wouldn’t want to risk it, anyway).

I do think that there's a very good chance that the Jets will look to draft a QB (either Pratt or Travis) which would mean they'd have to use a 4th or maybe even a 3rd to get Pratt.  I hope they don't use their 3rd.  One of their 4ths or a 6th is OK.

[hmhertz]

1 hour ago, JKlecko said:

I do think that there's a very good chance that the Jets will look to draft a QB (either Pratt or Travis) which would mean they'd have to use a 4th or maybe even a 3rd to get Pratt.  I hope they don't use their 3rd.  One of their 4ths or a 6th is OK.

Douglas record in picking QBs is poor as well as his decision selecting players

at other positions. His plan selecting a QB every year is solid, it would be better

he and Hackett had nothing to do with the choice

[Mr. Rogers]

On 4/20/2024 at 8:58 AM, Integrity28 said:

I wasn’t trying to debate. I simply pointed out the double-standard. You goofs tried to debate with me, and none of you could be bothered with acknowledging my actual point. 

And don’t be mistaken, I read your post. Not impressed.

 

Huh. So you SAID you stopped reading my initial reply, but you really "read my post". And you making a point and then responding to several folks' counter-points is "not trying to debate". Understood. I still don't agree that it's a double standard, but whatever. 

Anyway, since I missed it, what WAS your "actual point"? I read your post and apparently can't figure it out. And what QB is your choice at 10?

[ARodJetsFan]

On 4/20/2024 at 8:39 AM, Warfish said:

Personally, I won't cry if it's OL at #10, but I want a WR, a legit offensive weapon who impacts as a #3 immediately, eliminates the need to play Lazard, and can slip into the #2 WR role with Wilson in 2025.  I think WR is such an issue, I'd double dip again at WR later in the draft too, but I would also select OL in the 3rd if we go WR in the first.  JMO.

If the top 3 WR's are gone and one of the top 3 OT's is still there, the Jets have to go OT.

To do otherwise, under those circumstances, would be negligent, on a couple of different levels.

I do agree 2 WR's in this draft would be prudent, as would 2 quality O-Lineman.

Probably a developmental QB & a safety, in the later rounds.

[Integrity28]

1 hour ago, Mr. Rogers said:

Huh. So you SAID you stopped reading my initial reply, but you really "read my post". And you making a point and then responding to several folks' counter-points is "not trying to debate". Understood. I still don't agree that it's a double standard, but whatever. 

Anyway, since I missed it, what WAS your "actual point"? I read your post and apparently can't figure it out. And what QB is your choice at 10?

lol, have you never had your balls broken before? 

In all seriousness, I never made a counter point to their replies. It didn’t merit it. I did point out that the arguments they made weren’t specific to the point I made. I talked about a double-standard. They debated QB vs OL. In essence, I pointed out that they’re blockheads.

Unless you’re some kind of idiot, you’d see in this thread that I am in favor of selecting OT. I simply think the argument others are making for it is disingenuous, as I’ve illustrated.

I’m not sorry you guys fail to grasp anything beyond petty yes/no spats.

[Mr. Rogers]

7 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

lol, have you never had your balls broken before? 

In all seriousness, I never made a counter point to their replies. It didn’t merit it. I did point out that the arguments they made weren’t specific to the point I made. I talked about a double-standard. They debated QB vs OL. In essence, I pointed out that they’re blockheads.

Unless you’re some kind of idiot, you’d see in this thread that I am in favor of selecting OT. I simply think the argument others are making for it is disingenuous, as I’ve illustrated.

I’m not sorry you guys fail to grasp anything beyond petty yes/no spats.

Interesting. When I search this thread for your posts, I seem to find a number of them where you reply to people trying to further explain or defend your rationale. Seems a bit more nuanced than you make it sound, but then again, I guess I must be some kind of idiot for looking further into context rather than trying to justify sweeping generalizations. 

Your unwillingness to answer about what QB we should take at 10 underscores my point. Your "point" is based on a generalization that taking a backup QB and OT have the same value - but IN context, this simply isn't true. Anyway, I don't think we'll reach a satisfying conclusion on this debate that "isn't a debate", so I'm good to drop it unless you have more to add. I really just thought you might have some kind of further logic than "NUH UH WE NEED A QB JUST AS BAD AS A TACKLE TO WIN NOW YOU DOUBLE STANDARD FOOLS"

Also - in case you're some kind of idiot and never learned this - sarcasm and exaggeration don't come through very well in raw text format. We can only take you at face value when it's just words on a screen. Maybe try some exaggerated format next time or something

[Integrity28]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Rogers said:

Interesting. When I search this thread for your posts, I seem to find a number of them where you reply to people trying to further explain or defend your rationale. Seems a bit more nuanced than you make it sound, but then again, I guess I must be some kind of idiot for looking further into context rather than trying to justify sweeping generalizations. 

Your unwillingness to answer about what QB we should take at 10 underscores my point. Your "point" is based on a generalization that taking a backup QB and OT have the same value - but IN context, this simply isn't true. Anyway, I don't think we'll reach a satisfying conclusion on this debate that "isn't a debate", so I'm good to drop it unless you have more to add. I really just thought you might have some kind of further logic than "NUH UH WE NEED A QB JUST AS BAD AS A TACKLE TO WIN NOW YOU DOUBLE STANDARD FOOLS"

Also - in case you're some kind of idiot and never learned this - sarcasm and exaggeration don't come through very well in raw text format. We can only take you at face value when it's just words on a screen. Maybe try some exaggerated format next time or something

Clarification and asking people to be relevant is not defending. I don’t know why this is hard for you, lol

[JoeNamathsFurCoat]

On 4/21/2024 at 10:24 PM, JKlecko said:

The Jets have said that AVT is staying at RG, and that's exactly where he should play. He's gotten hurt every year when he has played OT.  His arms are too short.

Yeah.  I changed my mind.

They should draft Fashanu and your LT problem is solved for the next 10 years.

[Mr. Rogers]

5 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

Clarification and asking people to be relevant is not defending. I don’t know why this is hard for you, lol

It's hard to "be relevant" when the original point was irrelevant and contrarian 😂 the only clarification you should offer is that you were smoking something when you wrote the post 

[Integrity28]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Rogers said:

Interesting. When I search this thread for your posts, I seem to find a number of them where you reply to people trying to further explain or defend your rationale. Seems a bit more nuanced than you make it sound, but then again, I guess I must be some kind of idiot for looking further into context rather than trying to justify sweeping generalizations. 

Your unwillingness to answer about what QB we should take at 10 underscores my point. Your "point" is based on a generalization that taking a backup QB and OT have the same value - but IN context, this simply isn't true. Anyway, I don't think we'll reach a satisfying conclusion on this debate that "isn't a debate", so I'm good to drop it unless you have more to add. I really just thought you might have some kind of further logic than "NUH UH WE NEED A QB JUST AS BAD AS A TACKLE TO WIN NOW YOU DOUBLE STANDARD FOOLS"

Also - in case you're some kind of idiot and never learned this - sarcasm and exaggeration don't come through very well in raw text format. We can only take you at face value when it's just words on a screen. Maybe try some exaggerated format next time or something

You still don’t get the point.

I’ll spell it out… I think it is a double-standard to say “select an OT at 10 overall to give us insurance and an eventual starter because we have two old injury prone guys” and also say “don’t select a QB at 10 overall to give us insurance and an eventual starter because we have two old injury prone guys”.

This isn’t hard. It doesn’t require me explaining which QB I would take, because I’m not advocating we do.

I’m saying don’t make stupid arguments trying to rationalize your bias, and it’s been responded to with more stupid arguments. Yada yada yada…

[Integrity28]

1 minute ago, Mr. Rogers said:

It's hard to "be relevant" when the original point was irrelevant and contrarian 😂 the only clarification you should offer is that you were smoking something when you wrote the post 

I bet this makes a lot of sense to you and you feel like you got me. 🤣

[Mr. Rogers]

6 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

I bet this makes a lot of sense to you and you feel like you got me. 🤣

What, never had your balls busted before?

[#27TheDominator]

1 hour ago, ARodJetsFan said:

If the top 3 WR's are gone and one of the top 3 OT's is still there, the Jets have to go OT.

To do otherwise, under those circumstances, would be negligent, on a couple of different levels.

I do agree 2 WR's in this draft would be prudent, as would 2 quality O-Lineman.

Probably a developmental QB & a safety, in the later rounds.

Who are the top 3 OTs?   Pretty sure you will have a tougher time finding a consensus than at WR

[Mr. Rogers]

9 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

I’ll spell it out… I think it is a double-standard to say “select an OT at 10 overall to give us insurance and an eventual starter because we have two old injury prone guys” and also say “don’t select a QB at 10 overall to give us insurance and an eventual starter because we have two old injury prone guys”.

Yeah. And as I said in my original response to you, which you clearly still haven't read, I disagree because these two positions and the personnel available at them aren't equateable. At all.

Of course, you did say "finally someone makes a good point" when someone else re wrote what I said in less words (and without mentioning the fact that Rodgers injury history is much better than Tyron Smiths), so yes I've already taken it as a win. I'm just committed to bothering you about it at this point 

[#27TheDominator]

This is a pretty long drawn out argument for nobody to point out that the two old injury prone guys at tackle will be expected to be on the field every single down, while one of the two old injury prone QBs will be expected to carry a clipboard until the first one gets hurt.  They will, literally, have to cover twice as many snaps at T as QB.  You can make that argument again after they sign Bakhtiari.

[ARodJetsFan]

1 hour ago, #27TheDominator said:

Who are the top 3 OTs?   Pretty sure you will have a tougher time finding a consensus than at WR

@#27TheDominator

I'm not a draft fanatic like some here & I won't pretend to be one.

That said, from what I've read it's Alt 1, Fuaga 2, with some debate over number 3, between Fautanu, Fashanu & Lathum.

I've seen some top 25 boards, that have Lathum rated ahead of Fautanu & Fashanu.

Not saying that I agree - but those assessments are out there.

If your asking my opinion, Alt, Fuaga & Fautanu would be what I'd consider the top 3, in that order.

[Dunnie]

On 4/22/2024 at 9:35 AM, Sperm Edwards said:

This is just nonsensical logic that presumes everything else - other than drafting a QB for 4+ years later - would remain unchanged. 

Despite coming very close, Green Bay sure didn't win a championship those first three years, with Love doing nothing but hold a clipboard while the eventual champions instead drafted starters in round 1.

This rationale suggests the 49ers were wise to trade all those picks for Trey Lance, given how close they came without him, and were a player or two short each year since. 

Its a problem of economics ... in nirvana you could sit a QB for 3 years ... the problem is then you only are getting a two year return on your investment before a massive pay raise is due.   Its a bit of a chicken egg thing.  I do think a year sitting is a good idea ... but beyond that ... you have to question the economics.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, Dunnie said:

Its a problem of economics ... in nirvana you could sit a QB for 3 years ... the problem is then you only are getting a two year return on your investment before a massive pay raise is due.   Its a bit of a chicken egg thing.  I do think a year sitting is a good idea ... but beyond that ... you have to question the economics.

It's not just a problem of economics. It's literally that, as a contender, the team is surrendering the acquisition - and therefore the use - of a cheap 1st round talent for 4 years.

The truth is, having the benefit of hindsight they likely wouldn't have drafted Love again, and instead would've taken a player who could've been the difference maker on those teams that only narrowly got bounced out of the playoffs. That was my point in the prior post.

The unexpected occurrence is they didn't imagine Rodgers was going to win the NFL MVP award in Love's first two seasons, making it impossible to move on from the best player the franchise has ever had, probably ever will have, still playing at the top of his game (and what fool of a team want to?). 

[JKlecko]

20 hours ago, hmhertz said:

Douglas record in picking QBs is poor as well as his decision selecting players

at other positions. His plan selecting a QB every year is solid, it would be better

he and Hackett had nothing to do with the choice

The same thing could be said about JD and about every other offensive position.  His record seems to be better with defensive players, however.

[Augustiniak]

1 minute ago, JKlecko said:

The same thing could be said about JD and about every other offensive position.  His record seems to be better with defensive players, however.

Breece, garrett, tippman and avt (when healthy).  4 legit starters.  And maybe ruckert if he ever gets a real chance.  Not great, not terrible.  

[Integrity28]

3 hours ago, Mr. Rogers said:

Yeah. And as I said in my original response to you, which you clearly still haven't read, I disagree because these two positions and the personnel available at them aren't equateable. At all.

Of course, you did say "finally someone makes a good point" when someone else re wrote what I said in less words (and without mentioning the fact that Rodgers injury history is much better than Tyron Smiths), so yes I've already taken it as a win. I'm just committed to bothering you about it at this point 

James is a good poster.

You are a guy who is bent out of shape because he was ignored on the internet.

Let that sink in.

[Mr. Rogers]

2 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

James is a good poster.

You are a guy who is bent out of shape because he was ignored on the internet.

Let that sink in.

I agree. James makes great points. 

Unfortunately, that makes only two of us. 

You're sure giving a lot of attention to someone you never bothered hearing the opinion of. Why don't you just DM James if you don't want to hear anyone else out? It'd really save you a lot of trouble on having to "clarify" your points to the rest of us (but not debate!)

[Integrity28]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Rogers said:

I agree. James makes great points. 

Unfortunately, that makes only two of us. 

You're sure giving a lot of attention to someone you never bothered hearing the opinion of. Why don't you just DM James if you don't want to hear anyone else out? It'd really save you a lot of trouble on having to "clarify" your points to the rest of us (but not debate!)

I prefer taking down to you and making you all bellyache about the mean ape who won’t listen to you.