Kenny Britt in the 2nd...or dare to dream...the third would be excellent. I just don't see anyone counting on Clowney for anything just yet. I think his primary use this year will be in 4 wide sets, provided he makes the cut.
I'm all for it...4 wrs is what it takes anyway when was the last time a wr didnt get hurt for any team...
We need housh, edwards or someone who can play now. like I said in other threads we can run the ball all we want but if cotch is our #1 and stuckey or clowney our #2 get ready for a rough season. Cotch is not a #1 wr and if we do not have some one legit on the field with him he will suck, we will see teams stack the box and we will not move the chains. Our d no matter how much talent we have will wear down. Our qbs are unproven and need another weapon besides cotch.
With the way FA has played itself out thus far...in regards to the Jets. I'm officially on the draft a WR (or QB) bandwagon with our 1st rounder. Albeit, we still need depth players....we did indeed filled needs at ILB and CB. Therefore, I'm on the Hakeem Nicks train.....I believe this should be our guy at #17.
Yeah, I agree. In fact, the Jets should trade their first and second round choices for 3rd and 4th round picks. Then we can take a wide receiver in the mid rounds because even though we think the guys in the first round will be better, we know they won't be because receivers in the first round are a gamble, and better receivers have been chosen in the later rounds. In fact there are so many mistakes made at all positions in the first round the team should just get rid of their future first round picks because any players they like there simply won't be as good as someone in the later rounds because that's the way it is. :up:
Another absurd overstatement. Way to take his point and draw it out to illogical lengths. As I said above, I'm on board with a 1st round WR because it's our a position of serious need that we should be able to address in the mid-first round. However, it wouldn't be my choice if we had other needs to address. There was a study done (I'll try to find it), which showed that WR is one of the biggest risk positions in the first round. It may have been the first. He had a decent point which simply doesn't apply to this season. You take a bigger risk drafting a receiver in the 1st than another position. Does that mean you NEVER take that risk? Of course not. We should absolutely take a receiver this year if the right one is there. To carry his argument out to the extent you did was ridiculous. Of course, I've seen some of your other posts, so I'm not surprised.
Wait Megatron is in the draft? Please draft him. Who the hell can cover a 50 foot robot that transforms into a handgun?
Here's the study: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=kluck/wrapup/070425&sportCat=nfl Again, based on bust percentage and Pro Bowl numbers (MUCH more credence to the first stat), WR would be the 2nd or 3rd worst first round pick. This doesn't mean that 2nd day draft picks are somehow better than first day. The first day receivers simply carry a higher risk since the price tag is higher. As far as this year is concerned, I really don't see another position other than DE that we would want to address at our position in the first round. If Nicks is there, we should absolutely take him at #17.
I totally agree. Since WR is such a gamble I'd draft a linebacker instead. They seem like much safer picks. You have to trust in your coaches. I believe in Ryan. The Jets finally seem to have a coach who knows what he's doing. If he thinks wide reciever is the teams biggest need and he sees someone he likes he takes him. Any other choice is stupid. To pick one position over another because historically it's more of a risk is just dumb. But I've seen some of your posts so your comments don't surprise me.
Oh I so agree. Let's skip the wide receiver we like in round 1 and take one in round 2 that we don't like as much becuase these statistics show the receiver in round 1 is too much of a gamble. Let's just take a player we didn't like or need as much in round 1 because he's got a better chance to succeed. After all we know shit about how to evaluate talent, so we better go with these statistics instead. FYI, I'm a PhD level statistician and there is so much wrong with that study they couldn't pay me enough to fix it. Ever heard of the book "How to Lie with Statistics"?
good point, we should just trade all our picks for 4th rounders because we get our best value there anyways
Please learn to read. I said twice that I'm all in favor of taking a receiver in the first round this year. My top choice for the position we're in is a receiver. Our biggest area of need is a receiver. I qualified the statement by saying that JC's point simply didn't apply this year. I also said it's not a hard and fast rule. I was simply defending his primary point, which was that he'd prefer to address other needs in the first while developing receivers. He likes to avoid risk. Of course, you skipped over that and again oversimplified the argument. Are you that afraid of the insufficiency of your own point that you have to craft a straw man to attack? Oh, and thanks for stating that the study wasn't scientific. It's ESPN. And dropping credentials? Who are you, Bosko?
