Addressing Some of the Criticism And Confusion on the Dustin Keller Pick

I really think if we use Keller correctly, he will be very explosive and will exploit teams for big YAC.

 

Yes, but the Jets abuse that kind of move every other draft at this point. They've traded up 2001, 2003, 2007 and 2008. You cannot keep doing that. And the Patriots have far more often traded down and stockpiled picks than traded up.

The Patriots have had one draft in the last decade (2002) where they had fewer than 7 draft picks and they had 6 that year.

The Jets have had 4 drafts in the last 7 years where they had fewer than 7 picks including only 5 picks in 2002 and 4 in 2007.

Over the last 8 years the Patriots have drafted 67 players to the Jets 56. That like having a draft and a half's advantage over that period of time and we wonder why the Jets have a weaker, less talented and thinner roster than the Patriots. Hmmm, I wonder why...

 

1. The Pats have the luxury of trading down every year if they want. It's not like they've done it every year ever.

2. WTF does the 2001 and 2003 draft have to do with our current regime?

3. I probably shouldn't have bothered with #2 because you can't seem to separate past, present, and future.

4. Who the fuck cares WHAT they're doing if THEY'RE GETTING GOOD PLAYERS?

5. Why bother with #4 when our guys suck because 2007 sucked and they have 0 Pro Bowls during their 1 year careers.

 

Not to sound like champ, but go back and read my post. In a 3-year span, our FO has definitely drafted 6 of 7 quality starters in the first two rounds, potentially 7 0f 7 depending on how KC turns out. And these starters have all played above average at their respective experience levels. Any further evaluation will have to wait until the ends of their careers, but their current production points to 3 years of drafting close to spectacular.

 

Nice one!

...and the Revis shit was hillarious...so how exactly does a better pass rush make a CB worse?

 

If he doesn't turn into a ballhawk with a strong passrush the odds are he's not a great CB. We'll see how he does this year. He was not a ballhawk last year.

 

Wha?

So the only thing that makes a CB great is interceptions? If that's the case why dont we bring back Aaron Beasely? He was good for a pick every couple of games.

 

Yes, the Patriots prefer to trade down and stockpile picks. I'm just reporting that they don't always do it.

What about this trade from March 3, 2005?

to New England: Duane Starks and Arizona's 5th round pick in the 2005 draft
to Arizona: New England's 3rd and 5th round picks in the 2005 draft


New England then traded their newly acquired 5th round pick to Detroit on 4-24-05.

to New England: Detroit's 4th round draft choice in the 2006 draft
to Detroit: New England's 5th (thru ARI) and 6th round draft choices in the 2005 draft


Results-
New England gained a veteran and one draft choice.
New England gave up four draft choices.

 

Yes, he was. You obviously don't remember just how many dropped interceptions he had. The kid has bad hands but he is still a ball hawk.

 

Football, like all sports, is about playing the percentages. I'll take a CB who can truly shut down a receiver over Ty (I get paid a million/int.) Law every day of the week. I'll take the Defense that makes stops and gives the offense good field position rather than the flashy interception defense that may or may not give up the big play because they were trying to force a turnover.

To back this up, I refer you to Fantasy Football. Every year, the highest scoring (fantasy) defenses are the ones that make the "big plays"<-this is what you appear to be most concerned about. And in all my years of playing, the top 5 fantasy scoring teams are never the top 5 defenses in the NFL. That's because, just like you, fantasy puts more weight into turnovers and defensive scoring, than it does into yards given up and points given up.<--this is what I'm most concerned about.

You seem to think that the mark of a great CB is stats, when in reality, the sign on a truly elite CB is the one to whose man opposing offenses refuse to throw the ball. That's the guy I want Revis to be.

 

The mark of a great CB, actually a great DB of any persuasion, is interceptions. Turnovers are such a huge part of success and lead to game-winning swings that otherwise would not occur.

You won't find modern CB's that are considered great unless they either produce turnovers or nobody throws their direction at all. In the truly modern game of the last decade there are no pure shutdown corners, everybody gets thrown at to some degree and interceptions are what distinguish the good corners from the great ones and the average from the good.

 

This is why William Bartee (2nd round pick in 2000) was not considered a good player.
87 games, 31 starts for Kansas City from 2000-05.
Zero interceptions.

 

Great cornerbacks in whose eyes? Your argument seems counter-intuitive. If a CB is totally shutting down a WR and the QB isn't throwing to his side of the field, how does he pile up his interception rate? Does that make him a "not-so-good" CB?

There's really no perfect stat to indicate the competency of a CB. Interceptions can't give you the whole picture. A better indicator would probably be some combination of "reception against" and "yardage-after-the-catch" but even this approach would be flawed.

 

Whole different era...totally different rules...and it's not like Sanders never got burned in his career.

I agree that INTs are a big deal, but being able to blanket a guy and shut down a passing game is the basic goal real.

And lets face it...Revis might fall off but if he had a career all similar to his '07 he'd get alot of praise...and more than likely he's going to improve.

 

Well, go find that indicator then and persuade the Hall of Fame and Pro Bowl voters that it's real. For now the interceptors are on top.

 

Not 100% sure what point you're making here, however I'll guarantee you that Kansas City was always looking for somebody better to play CB for them.

 

I can't believe you just invoked the pro bowl voting as a valid proof of anything. :lol:

You like flash...I want consistent pass protection. The best D's are the ones that consistently make stops, not turnovers. Let me ask you a question: If Kris Jenkins doesn't get any sacks this year, would you consider him a flop?

 

That would depend totally on how the defense performed as a whole. If he gets no sacks and the Jets defense looks like it has the last couple of years I'll consider him a flop. If the defensive backs are getting burned consistently and he gets no sacks I'l consider him a flop.

If we have a corner start all year and get very few int's while the defense is performing poorly I'll consider him a flop, even if his name is Revis and we all think he walks on water now.