I disagree with the last bit because like you said, there's no chance we would've drafted Mond or Surratt. I want to say third round picks have around a 30% chance of becoming long term starters (it varies by position). With that in mind if you draft two guys in the third round there's a pretty good chance one of them will become a starter and a decent chance both do, in which case the value would lie hugely with keeping the picks. The "what if AVT=Nelson" thing is impossible to answer because there's a chance the guys taken in the third round could've become pro bowlers or all pro players too. The draft is largely a crapshoot, maximizing the number of swings you get at the plate is generally the best move. I'm not torn up about it because AVT was the consensus best guard in the class and we needed guard help badly but it's still probably a bad trade by JD.
My stance on it being an overpay isn't related to the fact that they picked a guard. Guards are pretty important. I think picking a guard was the right move. I just think there's a pretty good chance we could've solidified the left side of the line at 23 and then gotten an additional 1-2 starters in the third round. If you get even one starter in the third (which is statistically likely with 2 picks) then that's a better outcome than getting a slightly better guy at 14 as compared to 23. If you end up getting two starters in the third round (decent chance) then it's WAY better to have kept the picks.
not that history means anything but historically 50+% of 1st rounders are busts. and that number gets higher and higher each round down you go. 70% bust chance is probably pretty accurate for the 3rd round. the jets have their guy they feel will be a stud, would you give that up in exchange for a guy with a 30% success chance?
I would, because there's a pretty good chance we could've gotten a stud at 23 anyway and then an additional 1-2 starters with the third round picks. For all we know we could've solidified our RG spot in addition to LG. I would take an above average player at both LG and RG rather than an elite player at LG and a bum at RG. And again, that's if only one of the 3rd rounders ended up working out. If both became starters then there is FAR more value in getting 3 starters than 1 even if the 1 guy ends up being elite. Let me just say I don't think it was a terrible trade or anything. I understand why JD did it and there's some logic behind it that I can follow. If we're talking purely what would've been the most +EV move though then it would've been to keep the picks and sit pat at 23.
Could have a Top 3 Left Side if AVT pans out according to plan That’s a big swing in talent for blindside protection and run blocking in 2 years JD made me a believer in 2021 Unless somebody surprises in camp, would love to see a RG selected in 2022 or 2023 in 2nd-4th round just to provide some semblance of balance in talent on the right side — otherwise, teams are going to load up to stop the left-sided runs and focus the pass rush on that drastically weaker right side Becton & AVT... damn
Overpaid based on value charts that assess it strictly on round value trades does not remotely begin to address the importance of better protecting our rookie QB. Haven't we learned that in spades with our predecessor. We got the best, most athletic guard in the draft. If that gives us a better chance of keeping Wilson on his feet no matter how small of an edge, for us is a major steal. We are not taking any chances anymore with that position and its about time.You go after the player you spend six month evaluating and think is the best fit for your team. If he becomes the all pro many experts think it will be, then the trade is an absolute homerun. I want to sleep better at night, so the paper value of the trade does nothing to factor in the criticality of the specific position, the best player for that position and the unmeasurable component of keeping your number one investment better protected.
stats show less then 50% of a 1st round player not being a bust. even lower chance to be a pro bowler. if you feel that guy is gonna be a pro bowler why not take him over the 50% chance and 70% chance of 2 busts? I mean a case could be made either way. but typically getting that 1 stud is worth a large amount of picks IMO.
That is a legitimate argument. I wouldn't say AVT was "a slightly better guy" than the next best LG prospect for the Jets' system. *Unless the Jets' medical staff was okay with Trey Smith's blood clots in his lungs*, the best fit for this would likely have been Robert Hainsey out of Notre Dame, who would almost certainly have to be at RG.. To me that's a huge drop off.
and and I disagree. I normally don't like taking an OG in the 1st round, and under normal circumstances would certainly never even think about trading up for an OG, but JD had no choice. With the limitations in FA and the draft., JD's only realy choice to solidify the left side of the line was to trade up to take AVT. IMO there's no way that AVT would have been there at #23 and there was no chance we could have solidified the left side of the OL at #23. At least one GM picking between #14 and #23 has said that he would have taken AVT if the was there, and as many as 3 could have. We had a huge need at LG, and AVT was not only the best prospect to fill that hole and not risk Zach's health, but he was really the only real chance of filling that hole. If he had stayed put, missed on AVT and then Zach had gotten seriously injured because the converted OT that he reached for at #23 missed a block, he would have been killed in both the media and by Jets fans. I loved Jenkins, but he had always played on the right side. Some players have a very difficult time switching from one side of the line to the other. The only other OL that were rated anywhere near #23 and were scheme fits, were Jenkins, Humphrey, Leatherwood, then Mayfield and Davis. All except for Jenkins would have been a big reach at #23. Who was going to be there at #23 that could have played LG at a high level starting day one? What would have happened with those two 3rd rounders is irrelevant. The ONLY thing that mattered was doing everything JD could do to ensure that Zach is protected and taking AVT. Carter would have been one of those 3rd round picks, and we still got him. The other 3rd was basically a swap of a 3rd for a 4th, and we got a good prospect there.
If AVT ends up being elite, there is no way we overpaid. It's unrealistic to expect BOTH 3d round picks to be the starters in addition to #23. Also, we didn't just give up two 3d rounders, we got a pick back for it. That guy might be a hit too. We already have Clark, Van Rotten, and Lewis at the other G spot. If we had an extra 3d rounder to address the RG, would he be a lot better than the other three I mentioned? Maybe or maybe not. But if AVT is elite, no one will care. If we don't make this trade, we probably still draft Moore earlier, and most likely Jenkins at #34. One of these 3d rounders is likely used for RB Carter, who slid to us. Then the other is perhaps a right guard who will compete with Clark, Van Rotten, and Lewis. I just don't see this as a great value to pass on AVT, particularly given that we still ended up with Moore and Carter, whom it looks like we wanted to pick up earlier. The only way JD overpaid is if AVT does not become a pro bowl type of player, and Teven Jenkins turns out to be a similar level of talent. If AVT is elite and clearly ahead of Jenkins, we win. I like the 3d round pick and 3d for 4th swap as much as the next guy, but it is not worth the difference in talent between a Pro Bowler and some regular filler.
Well said. And all this discussion, quibbling about what the "value" of picks are, falls into the same trap that all arguments based purely on stats eventually land: disconnected from actual performance. For me, traits that AVT possess outweigh the other stuff. Read this article and then say Douglas "overpaid": Clay Helton compares Jets' Alijah Vera-Tucker to All-Pro (nypost.com) Frankly I'm glad to see that Douglas isn't "married" to the "rules" - i.e. "Don't draft OGs in the1st round"; Don't trade up when you have lots of holes to fill"; etc. Rules are made to be broken. When you have an opportunity to significantly upgrade your team with a "can't miss" prospect, you do it.
These are both fair arguments. I do agree it seems that AVT was the clear #1 prospect at guard and that affects the expected value of picking him relative to keeping our original picks. I do think there's a counter argument that Wilson would've been even better served by taking a different OL at 23 and then two more OL's in the third round. If you're taking 3 OL's in the first 3 rounds there's a very high chance that at least one of them will turn out to be good, and there's a pretty good chance that you'd get 2-3 good OL out of them.
Even Jenkins is probably a big reach there. If you listened to Saleh and JD, they were picking Moore at 23. Now, they would still likely end with Jenkins at #34 if they stayed put, but clearly they preferred Moore over him since they had both there at 34 and picked Moore. I just don't think Jenkins was as high on their list and nowhere near AVT. I really want to see what happens with him vs AVT next year. If JD is right and AVT is pro bowl type and Jenkins just an OK starter/rotational player, we made out like bandits with this trade.
Regarding the bold - it is, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if you take an OL at 23 and then two more OL in the third round it's realistic to expect that at the very least one of them would be good, it's likely that two would be good and you have an outside chance of all three being good. If either the 2/3 or 3/3 scenarios hit then you'd end up being a hell of a lot better off than just having the first rounder hit, even if he hits hugely.
I disagree. Hainsey wasn't a fit in any way, shape or form, and he's not that good. The drop off would have been HUGE. Trey Smith wasn't a fit, either.
I think Jenkins will be good...at RT, and maybe pretty good at RG for a year or two. At LG, not so much, and certainly not day one. I think the chances of a 3rd round pick being very good day one, year one, were slim and none. He might have been good by day one of year two, but that could be too late for Wilson.
If it's just an OK starter/rotational, you can get these in FA for a decent price too, like Lewis, Van Rotten, etc. To get a Pro Bowl LG is not easy. KC just paid 80 mil for one. When was the last time we had one? If we can get one in the draft, it's a good deal, particularly with rookie QB. Also, we didn't trade 3 picks for one, we traded 3 for 2, so we still have a chance to get a hit on the second one we got back also.
By doing it this way Douglas got an almost certain stud LG (and potential backup LT if Becton keeps getting hurt). plus he added some very promising weapons, altogether vastly making things easier for Zach. I don't see how anyone can complain about that.
If someone had come to you before Secretariat won the Belmont and offered you a share in him, OR you could have a bigger share in three lesser horses, what would you do? This is the equivalent scenario: AVT is almost guaranteed to be a very good LG, and potentially a great LG. These other "unknowns" you suggest as alternatives may turn out pretty good, but it's not likely any of them will be as good as AVT, especially as far as fit for the scheme we're going to run, and also as insurance for LT if Becton goes down. If you place your bet on these three being better than what AVT will deliver, the odds are that you lose.
This is how I'm looking at it: Statistically there's very little difference in expected value picking a guy at 14 vs. 23. There's a ton of additional expected value in picking 2 third round OL vs. 0 third round OL. I think we have to be careful anointing AVT as a stud already. He'll probably be good, but that's about the same we'd be able to say for a guy taken at 23. There's still a pretty good chance AVT busts. There's very little chance 3 OL taken in the first 3 rounds would've all busted. So there's a higher floor and higher ceiling with keeping the picks. Again, it's close though. I don't view our trade as bad even. I just don't think it was the most optimal thing to do.
