New York Jets Discussion - Page 249

thetedginnshow · 03-26-2010, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmess15

I agree that the value of the players on their board dictates what they will do but trading down for extra picks can and is a strategy that a lot of teams have used. Eventually lack of depth will come back and haunt us (remember Adrien Clarke?) so I think it is something that should be strongly considered.

Can you cite some examples of teams trading down solely for depth purposes? I just can't think of any off the top of my head. The only thing that comes to mind is when the Pats did it like two or so years ago and that failed. I mean, yeah, they got some "depth", but virtually all those players are bad. And then we'll see how their draft this year goes.

derza222 · 03-27-2010, 12:12 AM

The purpose of the draft is obviously to get as many quality players as you can. I think that this regime doesn't feel you can exclusively get good players at the top, but has a good sense of where you will get good players. If they think that there are solid players who will be around in certain areas of the draft I think whether it's the first round or the third round they will try to get as many picks as they can there, moving up or moving down. More picks can mean more good players because if there's good value in a spot and you hit then it's great, but more picks doesn't guarantee it by any stretch. I think they'll grab picks where they believe there's good value wherever that may be and regardless of where that is I'm pretty much on board with it.

josh07039 · 03-27-2010, 02:55 PM

When looking at mock drafts and player rankings on various websites. I have realized that there are a lot of players who many, including myself, would consider to be later first round talent that will fall into the second. With that said, unlike other years when there didn't appear to be a lot of depth, this year should be perfect for a trade down. If the Jets can trade down, maybe with a team picking in the early second that wants to get back into the late first for tebow or some other guy, the jets can still get a good guy with their first pick which would be a high second, while picking up another pick.

thetedginnshow · 03-27-2010, 03:06 PM

I guess Sanchez wished Brandon Marshall a happy birthday. Cool that they're at least that close.

Crickett · 03-27-2010, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thetedginnshow

Can you cite some examples of teams trading down solely for depth purposes? I just can't think of any off the top of my head. The only thing that comes to mind is when the Pats did it like two or so years ago and that failed. I mean, yeah, they got some "depth", but virtually all those players are bad. And then we'll see how their draft this year goes.

The Patriots also did that in 2003 and worked out pretty well for them getting Dan Koppen and Tully Banta-Cain the fifth and seventh rounds. They had about 150,000 trades (exaggerating) that year trading down and trading for future picks.

thetedginnshow · 03-27-2010, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crickett

The Patriots also did that in 2003 and worked out pretty well for them getting Dan Koppen and Tully Banta-Cain the fifth and seventh rounds. They had about 150,000 trades (exaggerating) that year trading down and trading for future picks.

That's a good call. They got like six good players out of that draft. Of course, looking at their drafts for this decade, they've had an inordinate amount of picks about seven times, and that was the only time it worked out for them (last year's draft still needs some time, though). So maybe it's just something they like doing. I mean, of course by giving yourself more picks you just have more of a chance of getting good players, but I don't know if trading down is necessarily as easy for everyone else as it is them. I mean, not every team trades down that much and acquires more picks that often. In the case of the Browns last year, they just let themselves get ripped off several times just to acquire a lot of picks, and I don't know if that's something our FO is really interested in doing, which is why I don't think we see us trading down a little more than we have. That's just speculation though. I just wouldn't be expecting multiple trade downs, but I certainly wouldn't mind one with our first or second pick.

jmess15 · 03-27-2010, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thetedginnshow

Can you cite some examples of teams trading down solely for depth purposes? I just can't think of any off the top of my head. The only thing that comes to mind is when the Pats did it like two or so years ago and that failed. I mean, yeah, they got some "depth", but virtually all those players are bad. And then we'll see how their draft this year goes.

Soley for depth purposes is tough to define...Jimmy Johnson's Cowboys did it all the time (he loved depth, felt it was the way to win int the 4th quarter), the Pats do it a lot and even Parcell's first year with the Jets he traded down for extra picks because the 'cupboard was bare'.

thetedginnshow · 03-28-2010, 02:34 AM

I guess I just don't want people to be too disappointed if it doesn't happen, because in a draft like this, it's actually harder to trade down. Everyone knows there's great depth to the draft, so people will be more reluctant to give up multiple picks. We'd have to just be in the right situation where no one of value is on our board, while some prospect that another team holds in real high regard is still sitting there.

And, I mean, some people (not necessarily here) seem to be of the belief that we should just straight up trade down in the first to acquire more picks. But if there's a guy we like on the board at our pick, we shouldn't hesitate to take him. Of course you're going to want to trade down if your board isn't holding up well at the moment. And we have six picks. If by some miracle we could hit with all of those picks, that's far better than what most teams get out of the draft, and you can only have so many players on a team, so drafting ten or so guys with the expectation of all of them making the team isn't terribly realistic.

Crickett · 03-28-2010, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thetedginnshow

I guess I just don't want people to be too disappointed if it doesn't happen, because in a draft like this, it's actually harder to trade down. Everyone knows there's great depth to the draft, so people will be more reluctant to give up multiple picks. We'd have to just be in the right situation where no one of value is on our board, while some prospect that another team holds in real high regard is still sitting there.

And, I mean, some people (not necessarily here) seem to be of the belief that we should just straight up trade down in the first to acquire more picks. But if there's a guy we like on the board at our pick, we shouldn't hesitate to take him. Of course you're going to want to trade down if your board isn't holding up well at the moment. And we have six picks. If by some miracle we could hit with all of those picks, that's far better than what most teams get out of the draft, and you can only have so many players on a team, so drafting ten or so guys with the expectation of all of them making the team isn't terribly realistic.

As a general rule, I've wanted the Jets to trade much for years and years. Most drafts, there are a lot of people I want the Jets to trade down for, especially from 2003 to 2006. But after trading up as many times as they have the past few years, I've accepted that they're not going to.

jmess15 · 03-28-2010, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thetedginnshow

I guess I just don't want people to be too disappointed if it doesn't happen, because in a draft like this, it's actually harder to trade down. Everyone knows there's great depth to the draft, so people will be more reluctant to give up multiple picks. We'd have to just be in the right situation where no one of value is on our board, while some prospect that another team holds in real high regard is still sitting there.

And, I mean, some people (not necessarily here) seem to be of the belief that we should just straight up trade down in the first to acquire more picks. But if there's a guy we like on the board at our pick, we shouldn't hesitate to take him. Of course you're going to want to trade down if your board isn't holding up well at the moment. And we have six picks. If by some miracle we could hit with all of those picks, that's far better than what most teams get out of the draft, and you can only have so many players on a team, so drafting ten or so guys with the expectation of all of them making the team isn't terribly realistic.

just to clear up my thoughts here, we should only trade down if it makes sense not just to do it. If I came off as pro trading down at at all costs I am not, just thought in our situation it should be strongly considered.

'cuse-213 · 03-28-2010, 09:17 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckJiQ...layer_embedded

derza222 · 03-29-2010, 06:42 PM

Hey guys, 'Canes and I have been running the Forum Mock for the Jets. Thus far in the first 2 rounds we've taken Bay Bay and Norwood...what do you guys think of the picks (particularly based on who was there at the time, you can check it out in the draft selection thread)? Interested in getting everybody's thoughts.

thetedginnshow · 03-29-2010, 07:19 PM

I can't really decide if I like Gibson or Norwood more but but of those picks were more than solid.

timewaster · 04-02-2010, 10:48 AM

Feely to Arizona

http://www.thejetsblog.com/2010/04/0...rms-with-zona/

Meh. His not afraid to hit someone style will be missed by me.

LT talks :

Quote:

"It's going to be fun," he said. "The Patriots have always been one of them teams that, it's hard for me to swallow that pill of losing to them, so it's going to fun to play them twice a year. And, it's going to be one of my main goals to beat them twice."

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/n...ory?id=5048333

**** YEAH!

thetedginnshow · 04-02-2010, 01:17 PM

Nice. We can sign a FA!

Jersey/B · 04-03-2010, 11:36 PM

I'm still getting used to that rule. Wonder who we might target.

I was reading up on Shipley a little. With this slow 40 Mayock projected him in the 2nd-3rd (http://blogs.nfl.com/category/mike-mayock/) I think he would be great at 61. It's possible he falls that far, especially if there's a slide with Tate and D. Thomas.

Also, I was thinking if I would take Shipley at 49 over LW?

(For the record, I wouldn't, but it wouldn't be the worst either)

jmess15 · 04-05-2010, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timewaster

Feely to Arizona

http://www.thejetsblog.com/2010/04/0...rms-with-zona/

Meh. His not afraid to hit someone style will be missed by me.

LT talks :

**** YEAH!

makes no sense to me...i fear that this will cost us a big game

jmess15 · 04-07-2010, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmess15

makes no sense to me...i fear that this will cost us a big game

John Clayton reported n 1050 that the Jets are trying to sign Jason Taylor with Feeley's 1.5 million dollar slot. Signing him will be a tough pill to swallow, but sprinkle 12 sacks or so and it will go down smoother.

TimD · 04-07-2010, 10:43 AM

yeah i saw the jason taylor news today too. hate the guy but would love the sacks. especially if he puts henne on his ass a couple times

derza222 · 04-07-2010, 11:21 AM

Wonder what signing Taylor would mean for the draft. Typically signing an older guy to a one year contract wouldn't mean you would avoid drafting somebody at that position, but there would almost be too many bodies to add in a high draft pick without really messing up the depth chart. Between Pace, Thomas, Taylor, Gholston, and Westerman can you really add in another guy who's guaranteed to make the team? Granted Westerman can flip inside but still...if this happens I would guess it's a sign that they don't want to get locked into taking an OLB to help the pass rush and they've got question marks about lots of guys in this class. Could be a smokescreen if they don't sign him, but if they do I think you're causing the team to be thin elsewhere with so many linebackers on the roster.

jmess15 · 04-07-2010, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by derza222

Wonder what signing Taylor would mean for the draft. Typically signing an older guy to a one year contract wouldn't mean you would avoid drafting somebody at that position, but there would almost be too many bodies to add in a high draft pick without really messing up the depth chart. Between Pace, Thomas, Taylor, Gholston, and Westerman can you really add in another guy who's guaranteed to make the team? Granted Westerman can flip inside but still...if this happens I would guess it's a sign that they don't want to get locked into taking an OLB to help the pass rush and they've got question marks about lots of guys in this class. Could be a smokescreen if they don't sign him, but if they do I think you're causing the team to be thin elsewhere with so many linebackers on the roster.

i saw a report that thomas may be the odd man out. he reportedly only makes about 2.5 mill so he may even be tradeable for a pick (or a kicker..lol)

jmess15 · 04-07-2010, 01:31 PM

also read they are bringing in Brunell for a visit. He doesn't have much left but may be a good influence on Sanchez in the meeting room.

Crickett · 04-07-2010, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmess15

also read they are bringing in Brunell for a visit. He doesn't have much left but may be a good influence on Sanchez in the meeting room.

Based on what I saw last year, whatever Brunell has left in the tank would be an upgrade over Clemens.

msolimani · 04-07-2010, 03:27 PM

I would absolutely hate the signing of Jason Taylor. This is a guy that has in the past said he would "rather retire than play for the jets" and also that our fans are "classless". If he wasn't desperate and near the end of his career he would never consider this. The only way I would like this move is if we sign him just to release him before the season leaving him jobless, or if we just bury him on the depth chart behind Gholston to show him how far his career his fallen.

I'm usually pretty forgiving with players and there are only a few that I actually would never want to see put on a Jets uniform. Jason Taylor is pretty high up on that short list. I understand we need a pass rushing OLB, but I don't think it should come to this.

Hurricanes25 · 04-07-2010, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by msolimani

I would absolutely hate the signing of Jason Taylor. This is a guy that has in the past said he would "rather retire than play for the jets" and also that our fans are "classless". If he wasn't desperate and near the end of his career he would never consider this. The only way I would like this move is if we sign him just to release him before the season leaving him jobless, or if we just bury him on the depth chart behind Gholston to show him how far his career his fallen.

I'm usually pretty forgiving with players and there are only a few that I actually would never want to see put on a Jets uniform. Jason Taylor is pretty high up on that short list. I understand we need a pass rushing OLB, but I don't think it should come to this.

Agreee 100%. I don't want to go near him.