You are certainly entitled to disagree. I certainly disagree with your suggestions. I'm not mad about it. Jenkins -- would have been a better fit in our old scheme, and almost certainly at RG. His hand technique looked great sometimes, awful sometimes. His footwork looked great sometimes, awful sometimes. Humphrey -- I only looked at him as a center, where he looked fine. I would have liked the Jets to have drafted him as well. Leatherwood-- awful hand technique. Would have been better in the Jets previous scheme where he would have more immediate help with speed rushers. Mayfield -- Not much film on a guy who only played 18 games at the college level, but he looked like a good pulling guard and just an okay pass blocker (and that was against sub-par pass rushers from the left end) Davis --Lateral movement sucked. Would not put him in a zone blocking scheme at all.
Sorry CC but this is a ridiculous analogy for many reasons. You're comparing by far the greatest racehorse ever with AVT. AVT was the best prospect at one position in one draft. Horse racing is also a solo endeavor. There are 11 starters on each side of a football team.
Note, I'm not comparing AVT directly to Secratariat, I'm comparing the statistical odds of success. In other words, what you're advocating is giving up the shot at virtual sure thing - that AVT will be an above average LG at a minimum(of course barring injury which no one can predict) - in favor of taking three chances that have a lower - perhaps much lower - chance of delivering that level of performance. If you're lucky, at least one of those three turns out at least as good as AVT; if you're really lucky in addition to that success, at least one of the other guys is a starter; if you're "I won the Mega Million Lottery" lucky, at least one becomes as good or better than AVT and the other two are starters. I'm not a statistician or odds-maker, but I think the odds of #2 and #3 scenario are prohibitive, so even if one of them become as good as AVT, you will have come out with less value for the other two OL you took than Douglas did with his picks. The old saying "A bird in hand is worth tow in the bush" has a lot of truth in it.
Gotcha, but I disagree with many of the points here. My stance is basically this: An OL is a unit, not a single player. You want to have the best total unit more than you want to have the best single player within that unit. Having a good OL has more to do with limiting weak spots than maximizing how good your good spots are. There's very little difference in the likelihood of an OL taken at 14 or 23 being good. The picks are close enough that you're usually getting similar value at both. One guy might turn out elite and one guy might turn out very good but the point is they'll likely be close in value. Now, there is a massive difference in expected value of your total OL unit when you compare taking two third round OL with zero third round OL. It's statistically likely that at least one of them would be good and there's a decent chance both would be good, in which case you've completely crushed the draft and are set at almost your entire OL. Getting 2 good players with 3 OL taken in the first three rounds is likely, not improbable as you're indicating.
Actually an OL is not a monolithic "unit", it's made up of 5 separate players, and while it is important that they're compatible, passing up the opportunity to add a significantly better player in favor of taking 2-3 "possible" starters doesn't guarantee that those 2-3 players will even succeed, and while it's possible that they will, it's very possible that they won't. And unless 2-3 of them become at least as good as AVT is projected, you haven't done anything that couldn't be accomplished by trading for a decent player or signing one in FA. When you have the chance to significantly upgrade a position, you should do it. Now, as to the "very little difference' between picks 23 and 14". In abstract this makes sense, but when we go to assess the actual players that were available this year, and combine that with the particular traits that Douglas, Saleh, and LaFleur were looking for, this is where the speculative nature of statistics and "values" become less accurate. If Saleh and Lafleur had been asked to design a LG for their scheme they couldn't have done better than the traits AVT possesses. Sure, there were other OL they could have had at #23, but none would have fit their design nearly as well, and based upon post-draft comments from other GMs, AVT wouldn't have lasted until #23. As to the "cost", JD gave up essentially a 3rd rounder and a half, or even less. The going rate for an above average OL is definitely higher than that, and there is good reason to believe that AVT will be much better than "above average", making the cost even more favorable.
Of course it's 5 separate players, but the success of the unit as a whole has more to do with limiting the number of weak spots than with maximizing the good spots. The probable outcome when drafting 3 OL in the first 3 rounds is that you'll end up with 2 starters. Not possible outcome, probable. So you have to compare the value of AVT vs. 2-3 starters at OL. I do agree with the bold. I was thinking about that after I submitted my last post.
I disagree with this assertion. It may be true that you can achieve a decent OL more quickly if you settle for less than the best at each position, but that almost assures mediocrity rather than excellence. And it's not like I'm saying "Add great players at one or two spots and settle for chopped liver at the others". As you add these great prospects, you also need to be looking to improve the other spots when possible, but always aiming for eventually having the very best players at all 5 spots. And what are the odds that the players you preferred drafting in the 3rd round would be better than what we already have? And even if one or more eventually exceed the current players, that will take a year or tow or even three, during which time even better prospects might well be available and drafted by Douglas. The bottom line is that by taking the approach you advocate, you aren't assured of even having a measurably better OL, and by using those picks on OL, you wouldn't be improving any other positions, notably WR. RB, as Douglas did.
I wasn't and am not mad, either. I loved Jenkins and he definitely would have been a great fit on the right side. The left side I'm not so sure about. He definitely has some technique work to do. I like Humphrey quite a bit, but really didn't think JD would draft him unless he planned on moving him to OG permanently. I think JD really likes McGovern at C. Personally, I would have drafted him and played him at OG this season. I'd then re-evaluate. If McGovern was good all year at C and Humphrey was good at OG, then I'd probably start talking with McGovern's agent about extending him at C. If Humphrey struggled at OG and/or if McGovern struggled at C this year, then I'd switch them next season and see how they performed. If Humphrey was then rock solid at C, he'd stay at C. If McGovern was good at OG, I'd probably extend him. If not, I'd let him walk in FA. I was never that wild about Leatherwood. I could never pinpoint what it was. Great catch on the hand technique. I'll take your word for it. I think Mayfield will be a good OL in the NFL with a year or two of work, but I wouldn't have wanted him starting this season, particularly at LG. I'm not a good enough judge of OL to tell about Davis. I read some reports that said they thought he would be fine in our scheme, and others that said he was better suited to an inside zone scheme, and others said that he need a lot of work and didn't really talk about scheme fit.
The problem with the bold is that after AVT, there wasn't another OG rated anywhere near #23, and as I pointed out earlier, only Jenkins was close to being ranked that high. Leatherwood was ranked much lower, and was a HUGE reach imo. Darrisaw is only a LT and wouldn't have helped us at all. So your value perspective goes out the window. We needed an LG who could start day one and play at a high level. There wasn't anyone at #23 and probably not at #66 or #86, either, who could have started day one at LG and played at a high level. I liked both Christenson and Mayfield, but wouldn't have trusted either one to start and protect Wilson's blind side this year.
The key here, listeners, is that NC and I evaluated all these potential interior OL prospects on very different criteria, and while we disagree about who else might have been a good fit, we both concluded that AVT was quite a bit better than anybody either of us would have chosen as option #2. Is "much better than option #2, regardless of varying grading metrics" worthy of the perceived value difference that the Jets "overpaid" in the trade? I think the answer is "yes", but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. As others have pointed out, time will tell the ultimate truth of the matter.
This makes some sense, but what's strange is that with so many QBs being taken in the top 15, you would think that it would've pushed the Tier 1 talent down farther, making it more available after Pick #15. IDK why things fell the way they did, but I do think JD felt that AVT was a great fit for the team and was coveted by several teams that would've drafted ahead of the Jets 23rd pick.
It did push it down. according to this there was only 2.5 tier 1 players (chase, pitts, sewell) pitts was the top pick after the QBs and chase was 2nd. that only left sewell at 6 but miami opted for a T2 WR which is why detriot didn't trade down as they had a T1 player at 7 in a weak draft. after that with the T2s they were all gone by 13 with only AVT left. JD made the move up to get a T2 player over a 2nd round graded guy at 23. then still got their guy at 34 anyway they would have taken with 23 and got their guy they would have used a 3rd on in the 4th. things just worked out really well for us but JD did good moving up for AVT
I guess I was thinking that there was more Tier 1 talent than that, but apparently I was wrong. I too am glad that JD traded up, and even more glad to see that he isn't bound by other people's "rules" - i.e. "Always trade back to get more picks", etc. Last year he did trade back, this year he stayed put at #2 and then traded up, which shows me that he's flexible based on the talent available that fits his blueprint.
There usually is more Tier 1 talent than that, but not coming off of the COVID college football season. Between guys opting out, abbreviated seasons, canceled off/pre seasons, limited competition, cancelled games....it was awfully tough for scouts to evaluate even guys who looked great in 2019, much less guys who needed their talent to shine through in 2020 for the first time.
At the end of the day if comes down to players not picks. There is a limited pool of players so you have to trust your talent evaluation. If you do trading back or up is easy, if not you are throwing darts at your board. Sure, value is great but I would rather have a great player that I "Overpaid" than 2 average players that were great value.
This. When adding up the value chart, you have to include the 20 viscous hits Zack would have taken playing behind a sub-par Oline. Those hits, and the injuries associated with, go away with the trade up. In theory anyway.
I think we all were. seems scouts weren't very high on this class but all the opt outs and covid stuff could be a cause too
I think all the opt outs and players returning to school definitely affected how many Tier 1 prospects were in this draft. This clearly shows how wide the gulf is between what the media "experts" think and what the NFL GMs and scouts think when it comes to talent, player evaluations, and the draft.
