The Jets' roster isn't going to get fixed in one year even if JD did trade down twice in the 1st round this year. QB is the hardest position to get right and the hardest position to fill because they are always at a premium and the best prospects go early. The more talent that JD adds, the lower the Jets will be drafting (Unless he misses on a bunch of the draft picks, and if he misses on a bunch of the draft picks, he isn't the right answer at GM anyway. Also, which is worse, missing on one draft pick at #2, or trading down and missing on a bunch of draft picks?), the less likely they will be in position to draft a topnotch QB prospect, and the harder it will be and the more it will cost to trade up to get a QB, and then one has to be lucky enough or sell the ranch in order to be able to trade up. Those are facts. We could possibly still get Lance after a trade down, but probably not after two, and that's just too risky when you need a new QB, and the Jets need a new QB. A great QB can cover flaws in a roster and make players around him better. A QB and his receivers and OL take time to get their timing down and develop chemistry. That's why it is so important to get the QB this year. In that way, they'll have this year to begin doing that even if he sits, and if starts, then they'll have that worked out. Then if JD adds more quality players in FA and the draft next year, the Jets could quite possibly make the playoffs. Conversely, if JD trades down twice this year, adds a bunch of players but no QB, then next year, the Jets could be drafting at #17 and have zero shot at getting a topnotch QB, and either have to sign some career JAG, or draft someone who isn't that good and doesn't have that much potential. Then they're likely to stay at 7-9, 8-8, or 9-7 for the next 5-10 years, and have little or no chance of ever getting to a SB.
Good lord. If we can't get a high-ish draft pick for Sam, then it makes perfect sense to keep him as the stopgap, draft a quarterback and sit them for a year while Sam takes some more lumps or turns it around and makes himself into a good player. That way the new roster can gel and be ready for the draft pick to jump right in after a year of soaking in the offense and NFL life. Trading Sam for peanuts and signing Breathard doesn't make much sense at this point and I imagine they can still find a stopgap closer to the draft if they so choose.
Do the majority of Jets fans like Sam Darnold? I feel like they should, but I don't get the feeling they do. The #3 overall pick should have a strong connection with the fan base, but I am not sure that Sam ever did. I have some Bears fan friends who are truly disappointed and sad that Mitchell Trubisky did not work out for them. They like him a lot and are happy he landed in Buffalo. I have a similar feeling with Sam, but at least on this board, I feel like I am in the minority. Seems like most fans are cool just kicking him to the curb and have no connection to him. Could it be due to the fact that he is quiet and doesn't have a big personality? Maybe all of the losing the Jets have done with him? Did his horrible play in 2020 just turn the majority of the fan base off? I am truly interested in reading some of your thoughts on this. Browns fans loved Baker instantly. Bills fans loved Allen. Ravens fans loved Jackson. Did the Jets fans ever love Sam?
Darnold seems like a good enough guy, I don't have anything against him personally and I hope he finds success elsewhere. In general fans are going to have more of an affinity for guys that play well for them, though, and Darnold certainly hasn't done that. Did he get a raw deal with the Jets? Sure, but good QB's (the kind you expect to get with the #3 pick) elevate the play of those around them. Darnold never did that. Regardless, I think we have plenty of fans who seemingly still love Darnold and jump at any chance to defend him even from reasonable criticism.
I "Liked" your post, not so much that I agree with what you want to do, but because it IS a viable alternative, just not one I want them to do. The difference between what each of us wants is rooted in the belief by you that Darnold is good enough for now, so that if JD trades back and isn't able to get a QB he likes, no big deal. OTOH, I think this would be a terrible outcome, even though I don't think Darnold is trash like some here do, I also think the odds are against him becoming a FQB- i.e. good enough to take them to, and win, a SB. Note: I'm not saying that this is impossible, but it's very unlikely. Therefore, the Jets need to find his replacement, and this year, with the #2 pick and the choice of all the QBs except one (probably Lawrence, but who knows, maybe the Jags take Wilson after all the hype?), this is the best chance they'll get for maybe a decade or two (the last time they had a pick this high was in 1997) to have this much choice. Passing up this chance for a future possibility is a very bad bet for reasons I and others have laid out already. As to trading back, I would consider doing it, but only if I thought one of the "lesser" QBs like Lance, Jones, Monde would be a good fit. Even then, that approach is very risky, especially if only one of those guys is who you want. You might well lose him before your pick, and then you're faced with probably having to use all the draft capital you just got next year or the year after to trade up to get your QB. My preference is to keep Darnold as insurance, unless they get a great offer for him, like sending him to SF along with the #23 pick to get the #12 pick (and maybe Jimmy G's contract). And then draft his replacement at #2, my preference is Wilson.
The difference between what tomdeb and you I are willing to do is based on the belief by tomdeb that Darnold is "good enough" and it wouldn't be a big deal if Douglas missed out or decided to not draft a QB this year. Obviously you and I are completely the opposite in this belief.
Yeah, sorry, my bad. Boomer was only named the NFL most valuable player in 1988 and about 30 seconds away from winning the super bowl, but those guys are a dime a dozen, right?
I can't speak for others, but I feel no connection with him. He was never the QB I wanted anyway. When he became a Jet, I rooted for him, but he never developed nor fixed his issues. He couldn't stay healthy. Personally, I'm just sick of lousy QB play, and I'm not going to get emotional or misty-eyed over a player just because the Jets drafted him. I rooted for him, he didn't work out, and it's time to move on. There's no emotion in it, just rational thought/logic. I wish him well with his new team, and I'm sorry that the Jets didn't help him or give him the best opportunity to succeed here, but his failure is partly his fault (I'd say 60-40 Jets' fault to his fault). I just want the Jets to get as good a pick for him as they can, especially since it cost so much to get him. I don't want to see him in a Jets uniform or on the field again as a Jet. I'm certain that you're generalizing. I'm sure that there are a lot of Browns fans who didn't want Baker, and are not thrilled with him. I'm equally sure that not all Bills' fans loved Allen. They may all have grown to love him during this past season, but I'm sure that wasn't the case 3 years ago. Sam's failure to fix his footwork and accuracy and inability to make good decisions did destroy any sympathy I had for him. Seeing him standing there in the pocket holding the ball when receivers were open and he was too scared to throw the ball was frustrating, as were all the bad throws and bad decisions. I just lost all faith and trust in him and belief in his talent. I'm at the point where I don't think he is smart enough or mentally tough enough to play QB in the NFL
I liked Sam okay, and had a lot of hope after his strong finish to his rookie season. He regressed both seasons under Gase, but a lot of that was due to a terrible supporting cast. Yet its hard to like a guy who is playing below average. I don't know if I ever loved the idea that Sam was our QB after the ghosts game - because that game ruined him. But I don't blame him for all our struggles as much as many of the posters here do.
I certainly don't dislike Sam, and am not in the "trash Sam" gang, but that doesn't mean I think it's likely that he can be the Jets FQB, or even a FQB for any team. Maybe he can, but probably he can't. And I place 75% of the blame for that on the Jets, because of the CS they hired, and the lack of talent they assembled around him. But at least 25% of the blame lies with Darnold, because he either couldn't, or wouldn't, improve in the areas he needed to improve in. I'm up for keeping him and letting him compete with the rookie, and maybe allowing the rookie to sit for a while until he comes up to speed, but unless he has a miraculous resurrection, it's time to move on from the Darnold Experiment.
Not true. I have never said Sam is just "good enough." I have said we don't fully know yet because Sam has had nothing to work with in terms of coaching, an OL, running backs, and WRs. You pair Tom Brady with Adam Gase, a Mike MacCagnan OL, Frank Gore and Vyncent and Jeff Smith and see how many super bowls you win. Nor have I said do NOT draft a QB this year. I am all for giving Sam a chance, but by trading down the jets could get many more picks and still get a guy like Lance or Jones, IF you really want a QB. Use the other picks to build the roster. I am just not as infatuated as you, NC or Chris Simms with Wilson, who like Mark Sanchez has had only one good college season playing a creampuff schedule during a pandemic. You get much more VALUE by moving down. If the jets take him, I hope to heck he works out and will support the pick.
That was a career year. Out of 14 seasons in the NFL he only had 4 seasons with a QB rating of over 90. In 1988 he had his second highest QB rating of 97.4 a 2-1 TD to interception ratio (28-14), and the second highest number of passing yards (3,572) of his career, but only completed 57.47% of his passes. That shows how different the NFL was then and now.
LOL! Curious as to what YOU think the jets should do. You dance all around this and act like a movie critic who only critiques others but never commits/proposes anything. At least NC Jets fan, Colorado Contrails, Revision, Ouchy, myself and several others have the balls to articulate what they think should be done, not this "If I am JD and I do not think..." nonsense. What DO you want the jets to do with the #2 pick? If it is a QB, which one? If a QB, what do you think they should do with Sam? Just curious.
I think the bold is debatable in this situation. In general I agree, I usually support trading down. The single most valuable thing in the NFL though is a good rookie QB on a rookie contract. It gives you 4-5 years of a good, cheap player at the most important and most expensive position in the game. With that in mind I think you must maximize the chance you get a good one if you want a QB at all. Having the #2 pick in a strong QB draft gives you a great chance to maximize the chances you hit on a QB. I may think differently if we were deprived of draft picks otherwise but we have plenty of picks to build the team even without trading down.
I know you didn't use that exact assessment, but by virtue of being willing to risk that you don't wind up with a QB - one that you like and believe will be better than Darnold - that's what I assumed your stance is. If you are okay with waiting to see what Sam can do with a competent CS and better talent, that's fine, but by waiting you might very well miss the chance to improve the position if he doesn't rise up as you think he might. And yes, I know you didn't specifically say you wouldn't draft a QB this year, again, by trading back multiple times you might not be able to draft one you like better, which for all intents and purposes is saying you're ok with not drafting a QB. And VALUE isn't all it's cracked up to be. A Chevy can be said to have much better "value" than a Mercedes, but which one would you rather have, and which one is likely to last longer?
Following is the link to a very interesting article that gives some credence to what you want, @tomdeb since you're not opposed to drafting a QB as I thought you were, but it also points out @major33 and others, why it would be a mistake to trade up for Pitts, or to pass on a QB this year and have to trade up next year or in 2023 to get one, or why it would be a mistake to draft Sewell instead of trading down and taking Rashawn Slater. That said, there are times the authors are wrong. The rewards of drafting a star player are great, and one star player can contribute more than 2-3 other players, especially if that player is a QB. Trading up for Patrick Mahomes was absolutely the right thing to do. Obviously, not taking RG III and taking Tannehill instead would have been a better move. It just depends upon the situation. That's why one has to look at each situation individually. One cannot always lump them in together and calculate some odds and that be a hard and fast rule. That's why the NFL draft is as much art as it is a science. The same goes for the practice of medicine and many other fields. In spite of the Patriots "wisdom" in trading down, they have drafted pretty wretchedly for the most part. https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...74c904-675c-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html Sports Perspective Smart NFL teams trade down at the draft. Most NFL teams aren’t smart. By Sally Jenkins Columnist April 26, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. EDT At some point in every NFL draft, executives, scouts and coaches abandon quantifiable data and become irrationally human. Armed with the most sophisticated fact-gathering, they will go directly against science and economics because they stare upward with eternal hope at the first-rounder they believe will rip out of his suit like a superhero for them. For some years now, economic studies have shown NFL execs exactly what they should do to control the uncertainties of the draft: trade down. Trade down? Why not eat cold porridge. One of the few teams who have shown the will to trade down with any consistency are the New England Patriots. But who wants their dull, unromantic existence. It’s so difficult, in the clammy, gripping environment of the draft-day war room, to leave that stud built like a Zeus statue on the board, and swap downward for multiple picks. Yet that is what Cade Massey of the Wharton School of Business and Nobel Prize winner Richard H. Thaler of the University of Chicago advise, based on years of research into NFL drafts. They produced papers in 2005 and again in 2012 that showed teams profoundly overvalue first-round picks and simply don’t have the ability they think they do to discern between a great player and a good one. How often is a team right in picking a high-first-rounder? What will be the quantifiable difference between the top choice taken at a position in the 2019 draft in Nashville, and the next available player, or even the third or fourth, in terms of games started and potential Pro Bowl success? You’d think it would be a lot, given all that teams invest. In fact, they prove right only a “sobering” 52 percent of the time, according to Massey. “It’s a coin flip,” he says. As Massey and Thaler have written, “This simple observation suggests a discrepancy between the teams’ perceived and actual ability to discriminate between prospective players.” The difference in making wide receiver Marquise Brown a first-round pick — as the Ravens did Thursday, after, ironically, trading down three spots — as opposed to waiting patiently on second-round prospect Deebo Samuel, is negligible. Second-round picks, the economists found, make as many starts and Pro Bowl appearances, and at cheaper cost. The sensible approach is therefore to spread out your picks to enhance your chances of finding important contributors. “History suggests you do better by trading down from the top, using multiple lesser picks than one high pick,” says Massey, who consults with NFL teams. This is what the Patriots have done so well. As of 2018 Bill Belichick had traded down fully 21 times on draft day to acquire more picks. Over the past 15 years the Patriots have chosen 39 players in the second and third rounds, the highest number of any team in the AFC. And won Super Bowls with them. “If you recognize the uncertainty, rather than throwing up your hands, you say, ‘We want as many draws as possible in the lottery,’ ” says Massey. “ ‘We can’t influence one ticket, but we can get as many tickets as possible.’ ” The Patriots aren’t the only team with the discipline to use a trade-down strategy. The Seattle Seahawks are good practitioners of amassing picks as well. But what’s surprising is how uncommon it is, given how much hard data exists on its wisdom. “It takes a lot of willpower to trade out of that first-round pick, because there’s a lot of pressure. A lot of gravitas goes with that,” says Andrew Brandt, a former vice president of the Green Bay Packers who is now a sports business analyst. Watch how often teams do the dead opposite of what they should, give away fistfuls of picks to move up and grab a single star prospect. Overconfidence in their own judgment clouds their thinking, according to Massey. Or sometimes it’s just a simple case of seeing a player “you lust after,” says Brandt. That was the case with the Kansas City Chiefs trading up for Patrick Mahomes in 2017. They gave away two low first-rounders (including a future) and a third-rounder to seize him at No. 10, because, as Coach Andy Reid said, “Everybody just kind of fell in love with the kid.” Were the Chiefs right to give up so much? Mahomes is dazzling enough that he makes it all seem worthwhile. But the cost is steep. When a team packages too many picks to trade up for a single player, it hurts a team for years. “It has to turn out to be a home run, and even then, you’re still robbing your team of infrastructure,” Brandt says. For every Mahomes there is a Robert Griffin III. Let’s revisit the Washington Redskins’ fatal 2012 decision to trade three first-round picks and high-second-rounder to move up four spots and take Griffin at No. 2 overall. It’s not just that it was a bad deal because they gave up so much for a player who is no longer on the roster. It’s that statistically it was idiotic: Your chances of a finding a franchise-altering player with four high choices is much better than the odds that you will with just one. Think of it this way: What if they had followed the principles of Massey and Thaler — whom Redskins executives have used as consultants only to reject their advice — and simply waited on the next available quarterback? They’d have taken Ryan Tannehill and still had three other top picks to build with. It’s not the most go-for-broke or instantly gratifying strategy, and it runs the risk of leaving a superstar on the board for another team, with the attendant what-ifs. But with it comes the postponed joy of discovering buried gems in the middle rounds and the satisfaction of building a winner based on discipline and hard information rather than intuition and temptation. “This is exactly the challenge, to blend these things,” Massey says. “The quants are wrong to think you can quantify every single player. But you also can’t be right without the quantifications.”
I don't know that this is true. If it is true, I would think the Jets would have already traded Sam Darnold because they would have gotten a great offer.
