T0mShane Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 The only true way to keep having a competitive team is to build a roster through smart draft picks. Si Is this a throwdown between Sperm and Tom Shane- this could be interesting. Nyet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faba Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 On the whole picture we have done a good job of drafting the last number of years. Last year picks Decasse and Wilson and Mcnight need to progress and show they were worthy picks. Jury is out on all three of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Hi. I'm not knocking the Revis or Harris trade-ups specifically. I love those players to great, obsessive lengths and I am super-thrilled that they're on my team. My major complaint is with Tannenbaum's apparent philosophy of treating draft picks like pocket change, burning multiple picks to get one player. I don't believe that's the path to a Super Bowl. For instance (and here's where I did research), over the last three years the Jets have made a total of 13 picks, obviously landing some very good players. Over the same period of time, the Steelers made 26 picks and the Packers made 24 picks. Obviously not all of those picks made those rosters, but volume drafting added quantity and depth and increased their margins of error on those picks and padding their rosters with young, cheap talent. Instead of dealing around to land big-money free agents like the Jim Leonhards and Bart Scotts of the world to fill holes, (or traded for pricey now-FA's like Cro, Edwards and Holmes) these teams invested their time and money on drafting and development and made it work. Now, if Tannenbaum and the Jets win a Super Bowl with their formula then kudos to them, and I'll end up with a dumb-sh*t tattoo on my body because of it. I'll be interested to see how the CBA nonsense works out and if it allows the Jets to retain Holmes and Braylon, etc. If not, the lack of draft picks over the last three years becomes an issue immediately. IMO, Tannenbaum needs to put together more drafts like his '06 one, where they hauled in ten guys, many of whom contributed and are still contributing (Brick, Mangold, Brad Smith, Eric Smith, etc.). That's all I was saying. I think. You were using trade-up's for Revis and Harris as examples of Tannenbaum's lack of awareness as to the value of what he traded to acquire them. I'd rather have a couple of them than an abundance of Schlegels and Pociasks. Of course this is within reason. But with Sanchez we needed a QB - badly - and Drew Brees wasn't on the FA market this year. With the other 2 they were great value in a draft weak in depth. In 2006 the draft was deep so we traded down (mostly) to acquire bodies. You tailor strategy based on need, prospect availability at your slot (value), and who's left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nycdan Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 The only true way to keep having a competitive team is to build a roster through smart draft picks. Well now that the league closed the videotaping loophole, yes it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 You were using trade-up's for Revis and Harris as examples of Tannenbaum's lack of awareness as to the value of what he traded to acquire them. I'd rather have a couple of them than an abundance of Schlegels and Pociasks. Of course this is within reason. But with Sanchez we needed a QB - badly - and Drew Brees wasn't on the FA market this year. With the other 2 they were great value in a draft weak in depth. In 2006 the draft was deep so we traded down (mostly) to acquire bodies. You tailor strategy based on need, prospect availability at your slot (value), and who's left. I don't believe that you can say there is one stand pat way to build a winner. The Jets obviously believe enough in their talent evaluators that when they identify a player, and that player has the qualities that they seek, that they will go out and get that guy. And at costs in order to do that. Their rate of success in those move up deals seems pretty good. What they would have done in the spots if they "stood pat" is an impossible argument to have deduction from. Personally, I would love to be able to move back, acquire picks and have abundant quantity. But not the sake of getting mediocre talent. All we can look at is what they have done-which in the short term has worked. Whether that works in the long term, remains to be seen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I don't believe that you can say there is one stand pat way to build a winner. The Jets obviously believe enough in their talent evaluators that when they identify a player, and that player has the qualities that they seek, that they will go out and get that guy. And at costs in order to do that. Their rate of success in those move up deals seems pretty good. What they would have done in the spots if they "stood pat" is an impossible argument to have deduction from. Personally, I would love to be able to move back, acquire picks and have abundant quantity. But not the sake of getting mediocre talent. All we can look at is what they have done-which in the short term has worked. Whether that works in the long term, remains to be seen I didn't say there was. If you backtrack in this thread I said they did the right thing with trading up for Revis & Harris. That draft was thought to have had some first round type talent plus a little, and a lot of trash after that. Gholston's draft was not so top-heavy, and certainly not some cliff from which there was a dropoff outside the top 10. That would have been a good draft to trade down in, and in particular since there were some teams willing to pay to move up.. I've liked a lot of things the Jets have done under Tannenbaum. Drafting a DE to play OLB, in the same draft where he shot up to his slot due to combine results more than on-field play, wasn't something I loved. It only makes it worse that Gholston was not only a bust, but a monumental one at that. I don't have issues with trading up. But the thing is you always have to look at not trading down in the same light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I didn't say there was. If you backtrack in this thread I said they did the right thing with trading up for Revis & Harris. That draft was thought to have had some first round type talent plus a little, and a lot of trash after that. Gholston's draft was not so top-heavy, and certainly not some cliff from which there was a dropoff outside the top 10. That would have been a good draft to trade down in, and in particular since there were some teams willing to pay to move up.. I've liked a lot of things the Jets have done under Tannenbaum. Drafting a DE to play OLB, in the same draft where he shot up to his slot due to combine results more than on-field play, wasn't something I loved. It only makes it worse that Gholston was not only a bust, but a monumental one at that. I don't have issues with trading up. But the thing is you always have to look at not trading down in the same light. When I said "you" I did not mean you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 When I said "you" I did not mean you. Prick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Prick. I would also like to disavow all of my pronouns as well. Thx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.