Alot of people have seemed frustrated and confused by the what the Jets did at the bottom of round one, which has led to many people criticizing this pick because it is difficult to see the rationale, and because it doesn't fit the traditional mold or expectation. But that very fact of its mystification, and its going against the grain of normalcy is exactly why this pick is different than the type of TE in the first disaster that the Jets Fan is accustomed to. Before I try to dispel some of the frustration, it has to be said that just because a thing is not understood, or appears to go against the grain, does not translate into it being bad. Just because we don't understand this phenomenon doesn't mean there is s/t wrong with the phenomenon. It is our lack of understanding of the thing that is the problem. But we can't cut corners. If we want to understand it, we have to unravel it and detect its cues. A national journalist that faces a deadline and has to give a draft grade, the whole lot of them, let them make heuristic judgments based on incomplete information; let them create the consensus that what is not understood is bad -- and that is exactly what happens BTW. Those that can't see through the fog of a pick like this, immediately question the pick and not their own lack of understanding or inability to grasp it in its fullness. But we should try to crack this riddle. He's our player, and we need to understand why our team traded up for him. With the good-to-very-good track record our FO and scouting dept has, lets give them the benefit of he doubt. First listen to the rationales that were given for the action, and then to connect them with the self-scout (the assessment of where the team stood at the end of the season, which should be clear to everybody that it stunk and needed an infusion of play-makers). We heard Tangini state unequivocally that their method of planning for the draft includes the creation of models or simulations of potential outcomes and the scripts to follow if certain players were to fall into a certain range. Those actions are taken, to trade up, at about 4 picks before the place the team is expecting to trade up. In other words, when the team saw Keller fall, they started the motion to move up at @ pick 26. But then, why was it this player that targeted so aggressively by our FO? And perhaps, what is it about their method that differs from the way we have grown accustomed to seeing thing play out, even though we have seen the FO trade up and down for two or so years now over and over on the first day? The answer to the first question IMO has to do with the team's evaluation of its own needs, the quality of the draft, and the expected outcome of the draft -- who the team wants to get out of it. The Jets did a vigorous self-scout and found that we really had a vacuum of talent on the roster at the skill positions, or rather, we don't have big play-makers that are matchup nightmares for defenses. We heard that the team really coveted Darren McFadden, and wanted him to fall. He didn't. He would have been the matchup nightmare we were looking for. The offensive play-maker that DC's have to gameplan for. But who else in the draft would be such a player? There was no WR and no RB outside of DMC that fits that bill. Yes, talented players, some great talents, but none as versatile as Keller. So that's a key. Our FO --who BTW are not traditionalists by any means that bring in Australian rules players and Andrew Woolfolk types -- had a non-traditional way of constructing their board this year. Gholston at the top was a no brainer when it occurred. But what to do after the massive drop off? At this point, BPA becomes convoluted and begins to merge with need. If you analyze the draft, there were a lot of non-BPA picks if you follow a BPA model. Our FO threw BPA out the window! In fact it can be argued that for this pick, and for other picks that the FO has nade this year and previously, they have pursued an Aggressive and Proactive Model not of just awaiting the Best Player Available when the pick comes, but of re-defining "availability" itself. They weren't interested in waiting passively to take a BPA. They were interested in addressing a deliberate needs analysis; a certain type of player; and a specific player for which they actually scripted out actions for if he fell to a certain spot. That player was Keller. Does that seem like the FO dropped the ball? They had specifically targeted this player because he fits what this team is trying to do and getting this particular player on the roster, even though he goes by the TE position (and there are important cost-saving economic reasons for this pick (TE) as well), even though the pick left the "traditional" expectations hanging and the national media scrambling to figure the riddle out. Jets fans of course also, didn't understand this. How could Keller -- a TE for crying out loud -- be a BPA at 30? IN what distorted Jets fans recurring nightmare does this occur in? The advantage is that you put this player on the field an flex him out and he has an immense matchup problem for the defense. The defense has to cover him with a Safety or a CB or a LB. Each one of these he has a specific advantage over. This player was specifically targeted to have an immediate impact on our offense -- to create havoc for, put pressure on defensive secondaries and pressure run defenses. There is no WR or QB or any other skill position at 30 that could do this. In fact, I'd argue there was only one player in the draft besides Keller that had the performance and measureables that might predict such a state, and that player was the 4th pick. So in my mind, the Jets draft board used variables that drastically differed from the standard ones that are used by other FOs, the media and fandom alike. It was regressive in that it addressed a need. But it was progressive in how it accomplished that. The Jets don't need a TE. The have Baker and just signed Franks. Need a TE? I don't think so. And therefore it would be incorrect to say that the Jets drafted a TE. They did so only in name and economics. What they set out to do was come out of this draft with some offensive firepower. That was essential to the team, and they created scripts for accomplishing that. One of those scripts was to draft McFadden. That didn't happen. The second script was to get Keller. The Jets didn't draft for the traditional understanding of need: a certain position, like we say, "The Jets need a WR, or a NT." They didn't draft a positional need. They drafted a certain type of player -- an explosive offensive playmaker that will cause matchup problems immediately and will have an impact on the defense's orientation to the offense. Drafting a traditional WR - even the best would not do this for the Jets. They'd just put their CB on him which is probably an advantage for the defense. And the jets went further than the law of BPA requires. They aggressively followed a proactive script in targeting a specific player, Dustin Keller, because they wanted him, and his skill set on the Jets offense. He was the best playmaker on the board, a WR in a TE's body, and that needs analysis the team did in the offseason dictated that this player -- specifically -- was clearly worth what was given up for him to have him on the team. We'll see. But I understand the rationale. The Jets threw the generic NFL FO handbook in the trash. Many out there are still scratching their heads. They don't understand. It doesn't fit their way of thinking. The Jets don't care. The are building a team out of specifically targeted players, obviating the need to wait and be delivered a set in which the team will choose a BPA. They define availability, and simply pluck their guys off the tree in exchange for what they see as great value. There should be a new name for what they do in these cases because it isn't BPA strategy and it isn't drafting for positional need. It is a type of Proactive Modeling based on non-traditional aggressive targeting of specific players or types of players per needs analysis, with extensive use of scripting, the scripts of which advise exchanging value for moving around in a draft in order to accomplish the goals. Watch what Keller will be able to do to defense over the nest few years. He's been compared to Dallas Clark. You'd draft him at 30, right?
So the Jets drafted Dustin Keller because they really wanted him and think he will be good. It doesn't seem that complicated.
The Jets wanted Flacco at the bottom of the first round and failed in that attempt if you can believe what you read. Keller was a second(?) choice. So while your theory is sound it doesn't appear to have worked.
Dear "Darth Vader," Thanks for your essay. Your points are well taken. I agree with you that the NYJs throttled defenses by forcing them to deal with an WR who is too big for the secondary and too fast for the LBs. I also agree with you that the NYJs acquired a blue chip offensive player (with the WR's actual value) for the cost of a Department Store sale (at the TE's market value). Creative, out-of-the-box thinking is an advantage in such a competitive, evenly matched market as the NFL Draft. I also don't think much of the "expertise" of the proliferating gang of Professional Draft Pundits. Favorable comparisons between Pundit Predictions and their actual performance versus Actual Drafts and their real performance are scarce. For me, it is much more interesting to try to understand what the NYJ FO had in mind with their actions in the Draft, and then track these 'plays' to see how they pan out.
The Keller Instinct Jets like TE's Keller instinct By RICH CIMINI DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER Saturday, May 3rd 2008, 8:31 PM Weissman for News Jets' draft pick Dustin Keller works during rookie minicamp. After his 68-catch, 881-yard senior year at Purdue, undersized tight end Dustin Keller was projected as a third-round draft pick. In an effort to improve his pro stock, he made an unusual - and risky - decision: He blew off the postseason all-star games. The Senior Bowl extended an invitation, but he declined. The East-West Shrine game wanted him. Sorry, no thank you. It certainly raised eyebrows in the scouting community. Instead of showcasing his talent before pro scouts, Keller decided to focus on training for the scouting combine in late February. He would've been used as a traditional, in-line tight end in the all-star games, he figured - a role he believes would've played to his weakness (blocking), not his strength (receiving). "It was a high-risk, high-reward kind of thing," Keller said yesterday at the Jets' rookie minicamp, which concludes Sunday at Hofstra. "It ended up being for the better." With everything riding on the combine, Keller (6-2, 248) dazzled the NFL brass, blazing the 40 in 4.52 seconds - a quick sprint that made him a millionaire. As a first-round pick (30th overall), he will make about $5 million in guarantees. A third-rounder will receive about $750,000. Obviously, Keller made a fantastic business decision, but it raised questions: Is he the type to duck a challenge? Does he have any interest in becoming a complete tight end? The Jets insist that Keller will improve as a blocker; Keller agrees. But some opposing scouts think otherwise, saying he's a tight end/wide receiver hybrid, a situational player. Of course, it won't be such a bad situation if he develops into a legitimate receiving threat. "He's faster than your average big guy," said Eric Mangini, already imagining the favorable matchups a fleet-footed H-Back will create. The Jets, disregarding their awful history with first-round tight ends, thought so much of Keller that they traded up six spots to pick him, sending second- and fourth-round picks to the Packers. The Jets actually laid the groundwork for the trade several days before the draft, a source said. They felt it was a good spot to take him because players of similar ilk were drafted in the same area in recent years - the Patriots' Ben Watson (No. 32 in 2004), the Colts' Dallas Clark (No. 24 in 2003) and the Ravens' Todd Heap (No. 31 in 2001). Ostensibly, Keller gives the Jets leverage against the disgruntled Chris Baker, who wants a new contract and is boycotting the voluntary offseason program. But in reality, they play two different positions. Even with the addition of former Packer Bubba Franks, Baker remains the Jets' best two-way tight end. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your dissertation is very well written and thought provoking, I have to agree with your assessment but dude you could have gotten to your point in 1/2 the time it took. Although I like a GOOD READ, lord knows I do, and this was an excellent read, all SOME of these guys needed to know is that we picked this kid because he is probably the 2nd best play maker and can and probably WILL cause game day mismatches for defenses. I'm sure you lost a lot of people 1/2 way through, but be that as it may you were spot on. Period. Good read:up:
What did they risk? By trading up and taking him in round 1 we blow a huge load on the cap now but get a lock down for 5 years instead of 4 which could pay back down the line? By trading up to take him we probably didn't get a better player than we would have standing pat which means we gave up some value. On the other hand by not going for value they made a decission that Keller fits into what we want to do better than any one else we had pegged who would be available at our original No. 2 spot if he didn't fall. They wanted Keller for his specific skill set and got him. What we see by Tannenbaum and Mangini is they are highly managing the team and maybe even over managing to build something they believe in. What it ultimately comes down to are Tannenbaum and Mangini qualified competitily against the league to manage the team. My gut tells me they are but after a 4 & 12 season, it's reasonable to be completely skepticle of their entire approach until we see real positive results over a couple of seasons. Are we building a team that can win against elite competition? Are we building a team that can win 11 to 14 games? Or are we putting together the kind of mediocre team that is anywhere from 6 & 10 to 10 & 6 and backing into a wild card spot on the last weekend of the season?
I agree WB. Only time will tell with this team, but It seems like Tannenbaum and Mangini, have scripted a plan for this team, let's just see how it all plays out, slowly but surely all the Herm/BADway people are being moved and they are bringing in THEIR own people to fit THEIR system.
everyone will jump on this during the season once we split keller out wide inside the 10 and he rips one down for 6
This was my point exactly. The FO threw BPA out the window. There were at least four other guys that would have been better prospects than Keller. If getting a TE for our young QB was deemed more important that BPA that would explain what the FO was thinking. I don't agree with their conclusion or the pick but I do agree with this explaination of the pick. I hope this kid is the real deal and I hope we make a big run at the SB in the next two years. If our SB run is further out or if Keller doesn't deliver we should have focused on BPA and gotten our TE later even if it meant starting over at QB.
You're not getting it though... 1. Who are/were the four guys we should have taken over him? 2. Keller is far from just a TE. 3. This anti-TE thing amongst Jets fans is borderline retarded because some of the best offenses of the past decade have thrived because of the pass catching TE. 4. Keller will basically play the same role Antonio Gates and KW2 in this offense. Hopefully he ends up a better blocker than those guys. 5. I'm seriously amazed at how people are so stuck on NFL and franchise traditions when our new regime is CLEARLY modernizing this franchise.
I think its the 40 years of losing- that will do it to you. Also, most fans love football, but do not care enough or find the time to study it like some of us do. To most its casual, but to someone like me its an art form that must be studied and identified and calculated and predicted an so on. I see what you are saying and agree.... 80% of fans will not get it, because the time isn't put into it. There is nothing wrong with that, to each their own. But, it does make it difficult for everyone to see a bigger picture.
