How exactly are the Pats at drafting, because they constant trade down method has paid off in exactly one of the last 5 drafts for them. Thier defense is a complete mess and are being held togehter by one of the all time great NFL QB's. The pats make big free agnet moves every couple of years and do not hesitate to ship vets out for draft picks. They also traded a 2nd for thier best wide out, a 4th for Randy moss, a 5th for branch. They still have yet to replace Seymour on thier D line and it shows. They often trade out of the first and move later round picks for vets. The Steelers? They almost always let thier guys walk in FA and draft well. They rarely every make a big signing and have one of the worst O-lines in the NFL. They make thier name on hard hitting defense whos best pass rusher was an undrafted FA. The Ravens? Great D led by 2 or 3 future hall of famers and a average at best offense. Only 5 of thier current starters on defense were drafted by the Ravens. How exactly are they built? it was not through the draft. Whats different? Not a whole lot on paper. All three teams use differnet methods for aquiring talent. The Pats are most similar to us in that the tend to draft heavily along the lines and fill in skill positions by trading picks for proven players. The Steelers are a mostly a build through the draft type of team. Few and far between free agent signings and the often are drafting a year or two away from a need. A rare and true BPA team. The Ravens have drafted decently, found some real GEMs through undrafted FA, and filled in a lot of depth through signing NFL free agents. That said thier Core is much, much older than ours on the defensive side of the ball with no one in the wings behind an aging Ray lewis and Ed Reed. We have filled holes much like the pats in trading vets, but what Mike T does different is idenitify a talent and go after it. More often than not he nails it whne he moves up, and has less success when staying put. Revis, Harris, Greene, Sanchez and Keller he moved up for. Who amonts them do you not want on the current roster to have a better back up center?
Are you suggesting here that Tannenbaum is unable to identify the best player available on the Jet's available picks and pull the trigger on those people? That he must trade up to get effective value out of picks? Because if that's what you're suggesting I would submit that Mike Tannenbaum is not good enough to build a championship team. He's better than Terry Bradway but he's also a lot luckier. His QB is not an egg back there.
This is a solid write up. I think that our only real problem with the philosophy with the front office is that they not only do they trade up, but they also go after the high end free agents. For the most part Mike T's philosophy has paid off. I really think with a solid to really good offseason, this team can be a dominant force again. If we fill holes like Safety, TE and depth through FA and then OLB WR and OL through the draft, I truly think we are back in the mix as an elite team.
Br4dway is mostly right. The Jets consolidated at every spot to go for stars at certain positions. It has worked pretty well, as the Jets have had postseason success, but you're seeing some cracks this year, and that's without many injuries, too. The key is to make smart decisions now, particularly in the draft. The draft is where you build teams because you get cost-controlled players. You then supplement it with FAs. The Jets did that, but they're overdue to start building depth in the draft. They addressed the defensive line this year, which is good, but we still need youth and talent at WR, TE, OT, OG, ILB, OLB, and S. And that assumes we are good at QB and RB, which might not be true. We are long overdue for a full, 7+ player draft where we address issues across the board. Put it this way: don't you wish you had a young safety to try and see if he can replace Smith? Or a promising young OLB to replace Thomas? Or a RT? Or how about a C other than Baxter or a TE other than Mulligan? We haven't addressed those spots in the draft in years.
Would I like a full draft? Of Course! Would I change the way things have worked out for us in moving up and trading for the vets we have aquired? For the most part no. I really feel that some people over value the players taken in the 5th, 6th and 7th rounds. Sometimes they hit, but more often than not they are a very short lived special teams bodies. Both the Steelers and Ravens have a pass rushing ace that was a UDFA. I'm not saying Westerman could be that guy, but that thinking "if we only had more 5th rounders" is not necessarily going to fix our depth problems. In fact, in a cap driven league, I belive you will always have some kind of depth problem. We need to hit on a few late roun d guys for sure, but also continue to mine the UDFA boards for players like Westerman, DeVito, or Moore who can fill vital roles. There is no one completely correct way to build an NFL team.
Rob Turner was our center 'other than Baxter'. Most teams aren't three deep at positions with only one starter. (Though obviously the Pats have succeeded with four centers so far this year.)
What I do not understand is this, everyone talks about noddle arm Chad and that he never throught the ball down field, well thats exactly what Mark does with a piss poor comp %. At what point is it Schotty or is it Mark, people are all gonna say that the O Line sucks this year and yes, it does at times. But Mark checks it down all the time for one reason or another. As been mentioned we need a dominate O line and new new philosphy to and extent, a blend of the ground and pound with Green Bay or the Saints in the air. If Mark can not manage to mesaure up next year than in my opinion he needs to go with Schotty. You can not keep Mark around year after year if he isnt getting better either. Look at what Dalton has done in Cincy, look at Cam(granted they still dont win but that team sucks)...rookie Qb's seem to either suck ie.... Gabbert or do well, the system and players around them dictate there success.
@Harpua 5th, 6th and 7th's is a straw man for the overall problem with Tannenbaum's scheme. The Jets have exercised exactly 2 3rd round picks in the last 5 drafts. They've only made 2 2nd round picks over that span. They've made 3 4th round picks. The cannibalism in this case is not about giving up late round picks, although the Jets do that also, it's about completely disrespecting the draft and putting the team in a position where it has to sign free agents and trade for vets just to fill holes in the main lineup, let alone have suitable depth. This just does not work. George Allen probably got more out of this type of scheme than anybody else has during the 70's and he got to a Super Bowl doing it but he didn't win one. If you want to win Super Bowls you accumulate large amounts of talent and then you overwhelm the opponents with that talent. You can't do that in free agency and you really can't do it with trades. The free talent in the NFL comes from the draft. That's where you build great teams.
Is building a team through the draft mathematically possible? With 7 pics per year, can you replace players as they age and maintain a 53 man roster? Lets see. Start with the O-Line. The shelf life for an offensive line man is 10 years. That means a team must use .1 of a pick, on average, each year for that one line man. Times 5 line man gives .5 pick per year for the O-Line, or about one line man every other year. Sounds about right. RB's last 4-5 yrs on avg, taking .25 pics per year, or about 1 RB every 4 years. Again, sounds about right. So far we've used up .75 pics per year on the O-Line and RB. QB: Ten years, using up .1 draft pic per year. TE: Ten years, using up .1 draft pic per year. FB: Ten years, using up .1 draft pic per year. Receivers: Ten years, using up .1 draft pic per year times 3 receivers = .3 pics / yr. So a typical Offense will use up .5(OL) + .25(RB) + .1(QB) + .1(TE) + .1(FB) + .3(R) = 1.35 draft pics per year. Assume something similar for the defense (do the math if you wanna), teams need on avg 2.7 draft pics per year for O and D. Through in a .3 draft pic per year for special teams (kickers, etc) and we sit at 3.0 draft pics per year needed to maintain a 53 man roster. Summary: All Tanny or any other GM has to do is be right 3 out of 7 times per year on avg and presto, you got yourself an NFL team.
Actually I'd go about 2.5 times your numbers for the following reasons: 1. About half of all draft picks work out long term. The rest are in the NFL for a very short period of time, from 1 to 3 training camps before they wash out or become permanent members of the practice squad. 2. The injury factor is intense and unpredictable. Modern orthopedics have helped some in this regard but players still have careers ended by injury at a heavy rate. 3. Free agency and the salary cap eventually force teams to lose players they would prefer to keep all other things being equal. As examples the Jets lost Randy Thomas just as he had established himself as a very good guard. They lost him because somebody else made the error of paying him like a star player. This kind of thing happens fairly often. Your point by point analysis of how to use picks is very good but it is a little optimistic on the numbers. I would think that you need to draft an offensive lineman/tightend or a defensive trench player in the first two rounds every season. You also need to draft one of each later on each season. So three heavy guys minimum every year. Then you need to draft a safety every other year. You need to spend value at the position because it is one of the most key positions to actually winning a Super Bowl. The pro bowl QB's in the NFL right now tend to be 1st rounders and top of the 2nd round although Tom Brady skews that some. The pro bowl safeties are all high picks, mostly in the 1st and 2nd round. It is a priority to acquire a great safety if you're serious about winning Super Bowls, nearly as much so as acquiring a great QB. So we have half a standard draft accounted for just from the trenches and safety. Now you're looking at the most turnover prone position in the NFL in runningbacks. Realistically you probably need to take a runningback every year to stay even and keep up with the injuries and the fact that runningbacks generally have shorter careers than any other position even if they stay healthy. That's 4.5 picks to basically stay even. QB's are a special case because you cannot stop drafting them until you have one that is worth playing. You also need to have a developmental QB at all times, somebody who holds the clipboard but won't be laughed off the field if the main guy goes down. Some teams spend too much value on their clipboard holders. The Patriots have squandered a lot of their draft wealth spending 2nd to 4th round picks on the QB position, even with Tom Brady on board. The one guy who actually played for them in Brady's absence was another late rounder in Matt Cassell. You should never draft a QB in the 1st to 4th rounds if you already have your guy. There are not enough picks available to make that a value move. You do need to keep drafting guys after that though to keep your options open. Say a pick every third year or until you have 3 guys in the system you are comfortable with. So we're at 4.83 picks. WR and CB are paired positions. The difference between them is that a high pick at WR often has a huge influence on championships, whereas a high pick at CB usually does not. WR and CB also play a disproportionate role on special teams where they and the safeties form the edge units that actually make plays down the field on coverage. It's probably accurate to say that you should draft WR's early until you have the ones you want to start on offense and you should draft corners in the midrounds until you are covered there also. you probably want to spend 2 picks a year between the two positions. That gets us to 6.83 picks and just a little ways away from a full draft complement. The other thing that is important and obvious is that you should never use a draft pick on a kicker of any sort. The market for NFL kickers is wide open every year and it's not hard to find a competent one fairly cheaply. The Raiders spent a 1st round pick on Sebastian Janikowski and a 5th on Shane Lechler in 2000 and got two of the best kickers in history in the process. They also paid for their lack of vision on this key issue by being one of the worst teams in the NFL for nearly a decade. Great kickers are about as valuable as great cornerbacks. They look flashy and they make great long plays for the team and ultimately somebody else could have done 90% of their job for a tenth of the value.
^^^ yup I totally agree with everything you responded. My first post was just to see if it's mathematically possible to keep 53 men on the field with only 7 pics per year, based n 'average' shelf life of different positions. Turns out if a team can draft 3 starters per year, on avg, that will keep a 53 man roster going. Your post points out that not all draft pics are equal, and to win the ring you gotta get the right player at the right time. True True. On a side note, my analysis also says the NFL as a whole looses about 3x32=96 players a year that must be replaced by new starters.
Ok, I went over the number a bit more. Since 2006 The Jets have drafted 17 players that are still on thier roster and 10 that are starting. This was done in a total of 27 picks. The Pats have drafted 18 players that are still on thier roster 9 of which are currently starting (includes thier kicker and punter). This was done with 60 Picks! Results? The Pats then the thorw as much crap against the wall and see what sticks. Grabbing a starter with roughly 1/6th of thier selections and many of thier picks are either on other teams or no long in the NFL. The Jets on the other hand identify thier players and trade picks away to get them. Resulting in one less player on the roster and one more starter over the same time span. They get a starter with just over 1/3rd of thier picks taken. So which is the right way? Number suggest that it does not matter if your hitting on your picks. If you truely belive its noting more than a crap shoot you wnat more picks. If you belive you scouts can identify they type of player and person it takes to succeed in the NFL, you can build a team with less picks and better drafting just as equaly. A high number of early round picks does not equal successful drafting. Nor does it assure greater depth.
The flaw in your reasoning though is that the Patriots have Bill Belichik drafting for them and he clearly is not a good evaluator of college talent. That Tom Brady has allowed them to stay strong masks the fact that the Patriots are a 6-10 team in his absence. What the Jets need to do is use 7 picks correctly, not 12 picks poorly or 4 picks well.
Wait, you held the pats up as one of the cream of the crop building teams and now are saying, "well they suck at drafting"? How does that support your previous argument? The ravens traded away 3 picks for Boldin. This does not support your arguments. Only the steelers of the teams you mentioned are very light in the trade and FA market. With a bust average of around 50% for all picks, using 7 picks corectly nets about 3.5 players per year in your estimation. Some years we've faired better, some worse. In most cases we have aquired through the draft two starters a year. This is not counting picks moved to bring in starters. We have revamped a talent bare 2005 roster into a team that, despire not being led by Tom Brady, has gone to back to back AFC championship games. We are on the hunt for the playoffs again. All this despite, as you would say, using flawed reasoning in drafting. In 6 offseasons under Mike T, we have repalced all but 3 players on the roster. That is a turn over of around 8.3 players per year. This with the lack of picks and still being a playoff contender that has gone to back to back ACF championship games. If he is doing so poorly why so we seem to be so competitive? What exactly would you do differently? I'll give you the easy ones, the Farve trade and the Barlow trade. Outside of those list off soem of these awful moves that have hurt us and kept us from reaching this point with a very good young core that we have drafted.
The Pats built the trenches via the draft mostly before Scott Pioli left. On both sides things are starting to wear down at this point but they're being kept afloat by the fact that the offensive line is still solid and Tom Brady has a few great targets to throw too. That the Pats are beginning to decline and would collapse in the absence of Tom Brady doesn't change the fact that the way they were built was fundamentally sound and that's one of the big reasons they're still holding things together, albeit shakily at this point. My point on the Pats was more aimed at their 2001 to 2007 dominance than on the Brady Bunch. When the Pats were a dynasty they had 3 #1 picks on the defensive line. They had high draft picks at 3 of the 4 LB positions. They started with a high draft pick at SS and then went into free agency and got an even better safety after the first Super Bowl win. By 2004 they had their star free agent safety playing alongside another high draft pick at the other safety position. Because they were drafting QB's late they lucked into a franchise QB when their high pick QB got hurt. Their offensive line was a mix of high and midround picks alongside UDFA's and the occasional pro free agent when they had to fill a hole. From 1995 to 2000 they drafted at least one runningback by the 4th round every season. They got very unlucky with Curtis Martin leaving town and then Robert Edwards career going over on a freak injury, but the fact that they took a runningback every season over that period got them Kevin Faulk who was a key rotational back for them for more than a decade and a big piece of the dynasty. The Pats did very little wrong over the period from 1995 to 2005 and that's how they're still standing even though they've done very little right over the last 3 seasons in Scott Pioli's absence.
You have some valid points, but he is a wizard with the Cap. He is bringing in all these players, but he structures their contracts so he can manage the following years.
Sanchez will have to redo his contract this year. He is do to make 14+ million, and frankly he isn't worth that money.
I do agree with you that his going for broke is not in the best interest of the team all the time, however I think he could only draft based on what the philosophy of the team is going to be, when he had BS and Mangini and Sutton, he drafted according to what the coaching philosophy of the team was. Now he has a HC who has a different philosophy, so he must balance the needs of the team with the philosophy of current staff, what I wish the Jets would do is establish a philosophy as to what type of team they want to be, Running, Passing, Balanced, Offensive or Defensive.....and draft to fill the needs of the team to maintain that philosophy, don't give away any picks and sign few free agents. It has worked well for the Steelers for many years so it can be done.
He'll make more on the next contract unless the Jets make the playoffs and he blows it up and causes problems there. Just imagine the hell that would break loose in the NY media beast if the Jets let Sanchez go and then declined. That's an ownership change or Jets moving to LA level event given the PSL situation and the Jets heavy debt level. The Jets have made a commitment to Sanchez as their franchise QB. It's not an exaggeration to say that if they give up on him they're effectively giving up on the franchise for several years. BTW, one of the few things that made me nervous about the Sanchez pick was that he was exactly the kind of marquee player that a team moving to LA would want.
