JD Declined Trade Down w/Rams From 10

[JKlecko]

On 6/14/2024 at 2:45 PM, rangerous said:

i'm thinking they would still need to address oline with the 19 pick.  there were some good oline players left but maybe not as good as the jets think olu is.  and then what of the 52 pick?  it sounds like corley is a good choice at 72 but would he still be the choice at 52.  maybe they double tap the oline with 19 and 52.  or they could trade back from 52 a few spots.  i wonder if there was any offer to get picks in next years draft instead of the 52 pick?

If JD had accepted the trade back, I definitely think that Corley would have been the pick at #52.  They tried for much of the 2nd round to trade up and were sweating losing Corley.  IMO there's no way that they wouldn't have taken him at #52.

[JKlecko]

On 6/14/2024 at 3:07 PM, GKnight83 said:

I would have taken the Rams offer.
Guyton would have been my pick at 19
At 52 I would have gone with best available WR or DT LB.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

No offense, but I'm glad that you aren't the GM.  Just a low 2nd round pick for trading out of the top 10 and down 9 picks?  Jets fans and the media would have killed JD if he had accepted that deal. 

I think Guyton is a great prospect, and if the Jets had traded won, that's probably whom I would have wanted them to take, but he probably wouldn't have been able to step in and play at a high level this year.  He probably needs a year, maybe two before he can start and play at a high level in the NFL.  He's very raw, but has a ton of talent.

Also, the fact that you wold have taken a DT or LB at #52 is bad imo.  This draft needed to be all about the offense with the early picks.

[JKlecko]

On 6/14/2024 at 10:49 PM, FootballLove said:

I'd have taken it.

Draft is just tooooo much of a crap shoot. Giving up 3 nice picks to hold on to your one slightly higher pick makes no sense (to me). It's irresponsible to have 'that much faith' in a single player. Any tackle taken at 19 could easily end up being just as good or even better than the object of Douglas' obsession.

The NFL trajectory of any player is just too uncertain to put all our eggs in one basket.

While there's some validity to your comments about the draft being a crap shoot, and having that much faith in one player, in the case of LTs, Fashanu was the only other one besides Alt that likely could start day one and play at a high level.  I really liked Tyler Guyton as a prospect, but he probably needs a year or more before he's ready to start and play at a high level (if then).

Getting only a low 2nd round pick for moving down 9 spots and out of the top 10 is not nearly enough.  That would have been a horrible trade down and totally a move made out of desperation.  There's no way he should have accepted that trade.

[JKlecko]

On 6/15/2024 at 5:45 PM, Barry McCockinner said:

A contender with a starting LT who has a brutal recent injury history. Yes, it's a backup player and I get what you're saying but keeping the 40 year old QB healthy is priority #1 and having a solid backup plan at LT was pretty important for this team. When you have a strong roster it's also more difficult to draft a pure starter.

Exactly, and the Jets couldn't forget the future.  With Becton flopping, the Jets would have not had one young quality OT on the roster next year and would have had to try to draft two startiing caliber OTs in the draft.  That's just not doable and not wise or even realistic to think that could happen.

Smith is almost guaranteed to miss 1/4 of the season.  The Jets need an OT who could step in, start, play at a high level, and keep Rodgers healthy and upright when Smith goes down.  That's why I got so pissed when I heard that JD had tried to trade up for Odunze.  That would have meant he'd have been trying to get an OT at #72, and imo only an idiot would do that.

[JKlecko]

On 6/14/2024 at 6:49 PM, TuscanyTile2 said:

Well, we don't really know that as of right now.  lol

But I think what you're saying is that if JD loved Olu then it wasn't worth it to get a couple of extra picks but have it cost us the LT we coveted.

I disagree.  I think we do know that it was the right thing to do.  It might not work out, but it was the right move to make to protect Rodgers and keep the season alive when Smith goes down, and having a potential elite 10-year starter at LT.  Trading down with the Rams, even if he had been able to get a lot more out of them, he still probably wouldn't have been able to get an LT prospect who would be ready to start and play at a high level this season at #19.  It may turn out that one or more of the OTs taken after that point do that, but there's no way that could have been foreseen.  Fashanu was the smart pick and the right pick.  The only thing that wasn't right about JD's handling of the draft was trying to trade up for Odunze.  Then he would have not only been taking a lesser OT prospect who would probably have no chance of playing at a high level when Smith goes down, and he'd have been without needed draft picks either this year or next that he burned to move up.

[JKlecko]

On 6/15/2024 at 9:34 PM, BroadwayRay said:

One of the reasons JD is not a good GM is that he “covets” players. That’s why he trades up all the time. But good GMs do not covet players. They realize all these guys are gambles and picks are lottery tickets. 
A good GM would have taken that second offer. 

No, he wouldn't.  A low 2nd round pick was not nearly enough for trading out of the top 10 and down 9 spots in the 1st round.  Only an idiotic GM would have taken that trade.

[JKlecko]

On 6/15/2024 at 11:31 PM, LIJetsFan said:

Considering the Jets would have taken Corley earlier than they did had the trade gone thru, LT at 11 wins hands down.

At the time of the phone call not trading out of #11 was nuts though.  If the WR was there at 10 they take him so JD chose to stand pat at 11 for a runner up.  Makes little sense to me but as I said the way the rest of the board fell it worked out for us, so enough said.

To perform well as a GM you need both skill and luck.             

And JD (and we) were lucky that he wasn't successful in trading up for Odunze.  That would have been an all-time moronic move.  It would have meant that the Jets would have had no quality backup for Smith this season, and would have been without 2-3 additional draft picks that they needed this year or next.

[Rich Thornburgh]

I didn’t know JD was posting here

[GKnight83]

5 hours ago, JKlecko said:

No offense, but I'm glad that you aren't the GM.  Just a low 2nd round pick for trading out of the top 10 and down 9 picks?  Jets fans and the media would have killed JD if he had accepted that deal. 

I think Guyton is a great prospect, and if the Jets had traded won, that's probably whom I would have wanted them to take, but he probably wouldn't have been able to step in and play at a high level this year.  He probably needs a year, maybe two before he can start and play at a high level in the NFL.  He's very raw, but has a ton of talent.

Also, the fact that you wold have taken a DT or LB at #52 is bad imo.  This draft needed to be all about the offense with the early picks.

I respect your opinion.  Just remember my DT and LB suggestion when the jets are unable to stop the run and CJ is getting burned this next year.

[Rich Thornburgh]

On 6/17/2024 at 8:27 PM, JoeNamathsFurCoat said:

Taking Travis over Rattler was stupid 

 

This franchise never freaking learns 

[Rich Thornburgh]

5 hours ago, JKlecko said:

And JD (and we) were lucky that he wasn't successful in trading up for Odunze.  That would have been an all-time moronic move.  It would have meant that the Jets would have had no quality backup for Smith this season, and would have been without 2-3 additional draft picks that they needed this year or next.

No we would have just signed Bakhtiari or gone with Carter Warren which we are going to end up doing by the middle of the season anyway

 

I’d be jizzing myself if we got Odunze.  GW with Odunze is a lethal combo at WR

[JKlecko]

2 hours ago, GKnight83 said:

I respect your opinion.  Just remember my DT and LB suggestion when the jets are unable to stop the run and CJ is getting burned this next year.

I respect yours as well.  I understand your considering DT and LB there, but imo the need for offense was more important than the D needs.  The D is already a top 3 D unit.  If the offense scores more points this season, they'll have more leads, and opposing offenses will have to throw the ball more, thus the perceived weakness at DT beside Q is ameliorated.  As for LB, Mosely's the captain, he is taking less salary to help the team.  There's no way the Jets were replacing him with a rookie.  They have Surratt who is good in coverage and Zaire Barnes showed promise last season, so they already have options at LB they weren't using that much.

Contrast that with offense.  The offense has been mostly ignored over the last 5-10 years, and it was the next-to-last worst offense in the NFL in 2023.  They had no future starter at LT, At OG AVT may not be ready to start the season and Simpson is a bit of a question mark, and they had little depth, and no depth at C except for Xavier Newman (Schweitzer had problems snapping the ball and isn't very good at C).  At WR they had G. Wilson, Mike Williams, who may not be ready to start the season, and even if he is, he's liable to be adversely affected by the ACL tear and surgery, Lazard, who was awful last year, Gipson, Brownlee, Malik Taylor, and Irving Charles.  WR was a HUGE need.  They needed another RB, and the point could be made that they could have and perhaps should have taken another TE in the draft.  Thus, imo DT and LB should not really have been a serious consideration.  If they were going to protect and get the full benefit of having Rodgers at QB, then they needed to seriously upgrade the talent around him.

[BroadwayRay]

On 6/21/2024 at 3:09 AM, JKlecko said:

No, he wouldn't.  A low 2nd round pick was not nearly enough for trading out of the top 10 and down 9 spots in the 1st round.  Only an idiotic GM would have taken that trade.

You need to read more carefully. I said the "second offer," which included a third-round pick in return and a total value that exceeded what the Jets would have given up. 

[Integrity28]

On 6/16/2024 at 8:54 PM, Doggin94it said:

The key is they needed a LT they'd be comfortable starting 6 games

lol do you guys even hear yourselves… the #11 overall pick as a “just in case you need him six games”

[32EBoozer]

2 hours ago, Integrity28 said:

lol do you guys even hear yourselves… the #11 overall pick as a “just in case you need him six games”

So, you’re saying they should have taken Brock B. so he could start over Conklin and get 17 games out of him.

[32EBoozer]

2 hours ago, BroadwayRay said:

You need to read more carefully. I said the "second offer," which included a third-round pick in return and a total value that exceeded what the Jets would have given up. 

“IF” you hit on the 3 picks with future starters… then yes, in hindsight 1 year from now, when Smith is gone,  “IF” you hit on a starting LT and Corley who would have been picked at 50.
 

ALSO, if Smith gets injured game 3,6,9 and Fuagua is not ready and Rodgers is getting killed because Carter Warren is in at LT, then the Rodgers experiment has ended before it ever began. 

Take the sure thing and don’t over complicate a decision!

Occam’s Razor: 

a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.

[JKlecko]

3 hours ago, BroadwayRay said:

You need to read more carefully. I said the "second offer," which included a third-round pick in return and a total value that exceeded what the Jets would have given up. 

Sorry if I misread your post, but I still wouldn't have made the trade down even with an additional 3rd round pick added.  The Jets needed a LT capable of stepping in and playing at a high level when Smith goes down with injury.  I don't think any of the OTs taken after Fashanu would have been capable of doing that.  If the Jets had an OT who was a capable backup, then of course I would have taken the trade down.  With a 2nd round pick and an additional 3rd round pick, they could have futher upgraded the team, adding another WR, or a DT, or S, and still taken an OT for the future at #19.

That said, even if JD had been willing to discuss and negotiate, we don't know that the Rams would have kicked in that 3rd round pick.  They may have only been willing to kick in a couple of lower round picks or a 2025 picks.  I'm happy with how things turned out.

[Integrity28]

1 hour ago, 32EBoozer said:

So, you’re saying they should have taken Brock B. so he could start over Conklin and get 17 games out of him.

No. I’m saying that if the strategy was to draft a developmental LT that can take over in the future and be “insurance” for Tyron, we should have traded back and done it.

I like our guy plenty. I think can like the player and hate the strategy. 

[32EBoozer]

2 hours ago, Integrity28 said:

No. I’m saying that if the strategy was to draft a developmental LT that can take over in the future and be “insurance” for Tyron, we should have traded back and done it.

I like our guy plenty. I think can like the player and hate the strategy. 

What you’re missing is that this year is the key factor… not next year or the year after. We have a 1-2 year window and though Rodgers injury crippled a chance at a PO run last year, the OL is what destroyed any chance as we were still in it until week 14. The same mistake was not going to be made again! MAX protection and depth along OL. Rodgers is our lottery ticket 

[Integrity28]

16 hours ago, 32EBoozer said:

What you’re missing is that this year is the key factor… not next year or the year after. We have a 1-2 year window and though Rodgers injury crippled a chance at a PO run last year, the OL is what destroyed any chance as we were still in it until week 14. The same mistake was not going to be made again! MAX protection and depth along OL. Rodgers is our lottery ticket 

No, I’m not missing anything. They spent the #10 pick in a future starter and current backup - they could have traded back and done the same thing. That this doesn’t make sense in a 1-2 year window is literally my point

[hmhertz]

Take the picks and hopefully we have a  smarter guy using them next year

[32EBoozer]

10 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

No, I’m not missing anything. They spent the #10 pick in a future starter and current backup - they could have traded back and done the same thing. That this doesn’t make sense in a 1-2 year window is literally my point

Based on what JD decided to do… you have.

You’re assuming that the top 5 ranked OLmen are all equally talented and all slotted in as a true LT. I don’t think that’s the case. You also make the assumption that all can be “coached up” and be ready to protect the blind side this season, or next or the year after. 
Wheter you agree, or not, obviously it wasn’t worthwhile to JD to risk missing on the higher rated player on his board.

[slats]

32 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

No, I’m not missing anything. They spent the #10 pick in a future starter and current backup - they could have traded back and done the same thing. That this doesn’t make sense in a 1-2 year window is literally my point

Let me say, first, that I probably would’ve leaned towards taking the trade, too. That said, I can understand him not taking it if he saw Fashanu as the last blue chip OT. It’s not like you draft a guy in the second round and he’ll automatically be as good as a top 10 prospect after developing him for a year. He wasn’t just looking for a backup, he was still looking for his cornerstone. I think with that first rounder, he wanted a top shelf replacement for Mike Williams (first) and if not, then Tyron. If Fashanu can live up to his Brick comps, I won’t be too upset about the non-trade. 

[32EBoozer]

1 hour ago, slats said:

Let me say, first, that I probably would’ve leaned towards taking the trade, too.

Slats, it was either you or @Sperm Edwards who noted that if the trade went through, Corley still would have been the pick at 50… therefore you’re trading your #1 graded OL pick to pick up the lesser player for pick #100(?)

Hindsight is always foolproof, but JD on the clock stuck to his board. With the value he got trading down to #11, the cost/benefit is even less.

[Integrity28]

4 hours ago, slats said:

Let me say, first, that I probably would’ve leaned towards taking the trade, too. That said, I can understand him not taking it if he saw Fashanu as the last blue chip OT. It’s not like you draft a guy in the second round and he’ll automatically be as good as a top 10 prospect after developing him for a year. He wasn’t just looking for a backup, he was still looking for his cornerstone. I think with that first rounder, he wanted a top shelf replacement for Mike Williams (first) and if not, then Tyron. If Fashanu can live up to his Brick comps, I won’t be too upset about the non-trade. 

Same. I’m not criticizing the player, just the illogical arguments I’m seeing here.

[32EBoozer]

5 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

Same. I’m not criticizing the player, just the illogical arguments I’m seeing here.

Everyone’s basically been saying the same thing. Slats gave you an off ramp… glad you took it. 

[Doggin94it]

On 6/22/2024 at 3:57 PM, Integrity28 said:

lol do you guys even hear yourselves… the #11 overall pick as a “just in case you need him six games”

No. #11 overall pick to fill a major need beyond just this year with a premium player - who, for this year, they have a reasonable chance of needing to have on the field for a part of the year.

If your priority with your 1st round pick (premium assets meant to drive the long-term health of the team) is short term utility, you're doing the job wrong. Of course, short-term utility isn't meaningless (which is why they would've sprinted to the podium for Odunze if both he and Fashanu were on the board) but once the top 3 WRs were gone they didn't have anyone else rated in the tier of "can provide immediate help and also be an elite player for a long-term need at a premium position". And you don't give that up to trade back 9 spots and pick up volume when you're looking to make a SB run. The odds that a player you take at 52 (which would, btw, have been Corley) would make a sufficiently immediate impact to offset that short-term risk is low.

[Doggin94it]

Btw, this isn't a hindsight thing. Pre-draft my preferences were, in order: 1) Rome or Nabers at 10; 2) Fashanu or Alt at 10; 3) trade down. 

[Integrity28]

1 hour ago, 32EBoozer said:

Everyone’s basically been saying the same thing. Slats gave you an off ramp… glad you took it. 

I’ve consistently made the same comment on this for a few weeks. If everyone were saying the same thing, then they wouldn’t be arguing with me, would they?

Yeah.

[Integrity28]

1 hour ago, Doggin94it said:

No. #11 overall pick to fill a major need beyond just this year with a premium player - who, for this year, they have a reasonable chance of needing to have on the field for a part of the year.

If your priority with your 1st round pick (premium assets meant to drive the long-term health of the team) is short term utility, you're doing the job wrong. Of course, short-term utility isn't meaningless (which is why they would've sprinted to the podium for Odunze if both he and Fashanu were on the board) but once the top 3 WRs were gone they didn't have anyone else rated in the tier of "can provide immediate help and also be an elite player for a long-term need at a premium position". And you don't give that up to trade back 9 spots and pick up volume when you're looking to make a SB run. The odds that a player you take at 52 (which would, btw, have been Corley) would make a sufficiently immediate impact to offset that short-term risk is low.

Seems like a lot of rationalization. 

 

[Doggin94it]

7 hours ago, Integrity28 said:

Seems like a lot of rationalization. 

 

Weird:

9 hours ago, Doggin94it said:

Btw, this isn't a hindsight thing. Pre-draft my preferences were, in order: 1) Rome or Nabers at 10; 2) Fashanu or Alt at 10; 3) trade down. 

 

[32EBoozer]

14 hours ago, slats said:

If Fashanu can live up to his Brick comps, I won’t be too upset about the non-trade.

Olu judged vs. hypothetical results at #19, 52 & 99. That’s fair 🤦‍♂️

80 players to choose from between #19 & #99 to cherry pick from.  2 years later…. “If JD would only have taken _______ from ____ and ______  from _______ we would have… ”

Many complain JD sucks at drafting in 2nd and 3rd round so let’s get him more picks in 2nd & 3rd because the Jets highest rated player at #10 at a premium position (LT) can get us more lower ranked talent. 

[jamesr]

No. #11 overall pick to fill a major need beyond just this year with a premium player - who, for this year, they have a reasonable chance of needing to have on the field for a part of the year.
If your priority with your 1st round pick (premium assets meant to drive the long-term health of the team) is short term utility, you're doing the job wrong. Of course, short-term utility isn't meaningless (which is why they would've sprinted to the podium for Odunze if both he and Fashanu were on the board) but once the top 3 WRs were gone they didn't have anyone else rated in the tier of "can provide immediate help and also be an elite player for a long-term need at a premium position". And you don't give that up to trade back 9 spots and pick up volume when you're looking to make a SB run. The odds that a player you take at 52 (which would, btw, have been Corley) would make a sufficiently immediate impact to offset that short-term risk is low.

This 100%. Maybe more.

You draft to build the team for the long term. FA fills the short term holes. Smith = short term hap full. Olu = long term foundation piece.

I think we're just so not used to having very few actual holes where a day one starter is needed from the draft. I'm hoping this becomes a regular thing.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[Integrity28]

4 hours ago, Doggin94it said:

Weird:

 

Not really. 

[Doggin94it]

3 hours ago, Integrity28 said:

Not really. 

I mean, articulating those preferences ahead of the draft as a means of post-draft rationalizing what actually happened would be a pretty cool super power to have