Trading down is not a option in the NFL Draft. Accepting a offer from someone who wants to trade up is. Trading down would be nice, but most people here understand, that the chance is very small to trade down from #6. And it wasn?t even the point of this thread. When you say we should trade down, you should make a point which team would want to trade up for which player. We came to a point, where everyone, who still only posts "Trade down, we need more picks, this draft ist deep, but thin of top player, bla bla bal" just seems kind of stupid.
That's pretty much what I've figured. I think our lack of early picks has created an overall fear of picking any player that high in the first round. Because if he flops it could pretty much make the entire draft look bad. In 2006 everyone was fine with picking 4th because we also had the 29th pick. But this year we have a first and a second, and then we'll have to wait until the 4th round to pick another player. Not to mention sitting out the 5th round. So some would rather see us stockpile a few earlier picks, and move down in the first to take the weight off of that first pick. That's fine, but I think in the process people are starting to fool themselves into thinking that these highly projected players are not worthy of our pick, which is a joke. I would be thrilled with Gholston or McFadden on this team and if we had more draft picks I'm sure a larger percentage of the board would be as well.
Your first sentence does not make any sense. Whether you make an offer to a team with a lower pick than you that is accepted by them or if you accept their offer you are in fact trading down. This is a viable option that many teams have taken in the past. While you and Don seem to think otherwise the suggestion that the Jets would do well to trade down is perfectly sensible. Trading down is not that hard at all. The trick is getting even or better terms in the trade. There are 31 other teams that would like to have the sixth overall pick in the draft but the Jets aren't just going to give it away so the value the Jets have placed on the pick will most likely be higher than most of those teams are willing to pay. We do not have a third round pick because of the Jenkins trade so the arguement that we need more picks could hardly be considered stupid. One of the reasons that the Jets might trade down would be to recoup that missing draft pick. The point of the thread was to choose between Gholsten and DMC as though those are the two best options. Many or the respondents on this thread feel strongly that we have better options. In my original post I stated that we should take DRC or trade down. As I listed an alternative to trading down the possibility that a trade can't be negotiated was addressed. I also believe that in my original post I named some of the players that teams would be willing to trade up to # 6 to obtain. If you can't be bothered to read the thread from the start you shouldn't be so quick to make assumptions as to what I said in my earlier posts.
see, we found our discrepance, right now, i don?t see any team that would be willing to give up anything even close to the value chart for the #6. You think it?s easy, OK. I don?t share that opinion but if you have it, fine. I think Gholston is a only slightly better prospect than Groves, so i would love to trade down and take Groves, but unfortunatly i just don?t see it happening. I?m just anoyed by all the Clowns who?s only opinion on what the Jets should do in the Draft is "Trade Down", without thinking about it, and they are never lazy to post that stuff in 90% of the threads these days.
Bo Jackson #1 - 1986 Earl Campbell #1 - 1978 OJ Simpson #1 - 1969 Marshall Faulk #2 -1994 Eric Dickerson #2 - 1983 Tony Dorsett #2 - 1977 That's why you take RBs that high. See a pattern with those guys? I didn't even bother looking for who was drafted in the #3-#6 spots. Ok, I went back and found some more. Tomlinson #5 - 2001 Jamal Lewis #5 - 2000 Edgerrin James #4 - 1999 Barry Sanders #3 - 1989 Obviously, there have been as many busts taken in the first 6 picks too but they were never considered the best player in the draft as McFadden and those 6 guys at the top of this post are and were. If McFadden were the only one left on the board when we pick and they either passed on him or traded the pick I would seriously have to think about a new team to root for after more than 40 years. I would rather they pick him and have him become a bust than pick some CB or other worthless position player that is guaranteed to keep us mired in mediocrity for another 10 years.
They'll be no choice because one of them or possibly both of them will not be there..I think if your drafting in the first 10 spots you rank the players based from a consensus of your scout and player personal staff the best 10 players in order in the draft..The highest ranking guy you have on your board is the one you take when its your pick.
I say MAC all the way. We are set at OLB also either would be more of an overkill kind of thing and Gholston doesn't look explosive enough at the college level to make an impact at the next level he has serious bust potential workout warrior type with good measurables and winds up a career ST'er. What im saying is you look at his highlites and compare them to D.Harvey or Q.Groves' highlites and his seem very boring and very amature. I would much rather have another elite coner who runs well supports the run and can catch the ball at the highest point. If that corner is in rd 2 at 36 Take the MAC he'd be a bonus this year and can take over for Jones we need a stable of backs do to the lack of talent at WR.
Blindly saying "trade down" seems to be exactly the same as blindly saying "we can't trade down." I can see Baltimore willing to trade up to get Ryan, or Dallas being willing to trade up to get McFadden at 6 and pay him less money than if they traded with Miami or the Rams. That said, I like the "Trade Down" idea to pay less and get Leodis McKelvin. Hell, even with no offers to trade down, I'd still be tempted to reach for McKelvin at 6. I just don't see McFadden worth the pic, and Gholston, who is awesome, doesn't make as much sense because we'd be paying him and Pace a ton of money for the same position.
Why would Baltimore trade up to get Ryan unless you think we would take him? Certainly NE wouldn't. Dallas is on record at least two dozen times as saying they won't trade up to get McFadden in the top 6. That won't change.
Right, and saying things on the record guarantees that things wont change. Sigh. And to hook Baltimore all we would have to say is we'll take him unless you trade into our spot.
i voted for gholston, w/t.jones, l.washington and chatman we r set at rb, tj got 3 solid years left in him, meanwhile we have no true pass rusher, therefore if both r available at #6 its gotta be gholston, the far more impressive need
