PDA

View Full Version : Jets Drop from #3 to #6


Scott Wright
01-03-2008, 12:13 AM
In case you didn't realize it the Jets dropped from the #3 overall pick to #6 by beating Kansas City in their meaningless Week 17 game.

If you are interested in how I feel about the situation check out my latest blog entry, where I kind of went off on a rant:

http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/blog/wrightstuff.html

furiousgod
01-03-2008, 12:18 AM
good entry another thing to note that you didnt touch upon is that KC/OAK/ATL all need DTs and im not talking dorsey/ellis(doubt they have interest) im talking possibly losing a shot at Dre Moore or okam in the second.

Scott Wright
01-03-2008, 12:19 AM
good entry another thing to note that you didnt touch upon is that KC/OAK/ATL all need DTs and im not talking dorsey/ellis(doubt they have interest) im talking possibly losing a shot at Dre Moore or okam in the second.

Lots of man-crushes (prospect-crushes?) on Dre Moore around these parts... :)

F.Y.I. Mr. Moore is going to be at the Senior Bowl.

furiousgod
01-03-2008, 12:23 AM
Lots of man-crushes (prospect-crushes?) on Dre Moore around these parts... :)

F.Y.I. Mr. Moore is going to be at the Senior Bowl.

haha your right, i probably have one of the biggest man crushes here on Dre Moore =)
Didnt know he was going to the senior bowl, cant wait to see more of him.

diabsoule
01-03-2008, 12:25 AM
Pretty strong words but I agree with every single one.

I'm going toss my hat in the man-crush ring. Mine is Jonathan Goff.

PossumBoy9
01-03-2008, 12:26 AM
I was officially rooting for Rams losses after their 0-8 start, though I was really thinking losses were for the best after Week 3. I saw where the Rams season was heading.

I'd much rather be 3-13 than 4-12.

I'm pleased the Rams are the only 3-13 team, so they'll keep the second pick in every round.

IBleedGreen18
01-03-2008, 12:27 AM
The second a coach tells their players not play they lose any and all credibility.

As a jets fan I am actually glad we won that game. Even though we are out of the running for DMac there will still be quality players left at 6 and ending the season on a high note was worth the drop of 3 spots in the draft. I would never root for my team to lose, especially a young team coming up like the jets.


The unspoken advantage to winning - The contract of the player they choose at #6 will be far less than that of the player chosen at #3. Less guaranteed money to a player who has never done anything in the NFL can definitely be a good thing.

Halsey
01-03-2008, 12:50 AM
I think you're way wrong on this one. I can understand why a team would want to tank, but what if it was considered acceptable and you had games like say the Jets vs the Chiefs in which both teams were trying to lose? How unprofessional and lame would that be? No thanks. Teams should just try to win every game and not think about the draft during the season. If a team is run right they will find a way to get good players. Losers will find a way to lose no matter how high they pick.

Im_a_Romosexual
01-03-2008, 12:52 AM
Jets, Jets, Jets... :sigh:

but, "YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!"

Young Legend
01-03-2008, 12:53 AM
sure is gonna be fun to see who oakland picks if they get that 3rd pick..

Lane is always on sirius radio and a couple weeks ago they asked him what he wanted for christmas and he said that running back from arkansas..

but i want Oakland to get Dre Moore in the second..he is what the raiders need at that DT position..

Halsey
01-03-2008, 01:04 AM
btw, when you say the Jets need Jake Long, which side of the line do the Jets need him? Would they most likely put him at right tackle to replace Clement or put him at LT and move Ferguson? How has Ferguson done with the Jets. I've heard little about him since he was drafted. I seem to remember hearing somewhere they he hasn't been the franchise LT he was supposed to be, but I have no idea if that's true.

derza222
01-03-2008, 01:06 AM
I'm actually not all that unhappy with our drop down to the 6th selection. Granted, we aren't definitely going to get a player like we would have at 3, but it really doesn't put us in very bad shape.

For one, although I don't believe there is any quarterback in the draft worth a top 5 pick I do believe somebody will end up going top 5, simply because of the franchise QB rule and for financial reasons as well.

Assuming that is the case and Vernon Gholston leaves early, we're in pretty good shape. The three players you mentioned in your blog all would be appealing. Chris Long probably makes the most sense, McFadden is obviously talented but wouldn't fill a major need especially given how terrible our offensive line is (I believe the game is won and lost in the trenches and though our backs aren't great they're good enough to get the job done behind a decent line, and it's not all that hard to find a gem at RB in later rounds as you have argued with Atlanta fans), and Jake Long is great it's tough to give a right tackle top 5 money. Glenn Dorsey is also a very talented player and if he doesn't end up going in one of the first 5 picks (which would really surprise me) there could be some team looking to trade up and grab him. And if not I wouldn't be all that disappointed with drafting him even if the scheme fit isn't great because he is extremely talented.

Obviously this hinges a lot on the quarterback going top 5 and Gholston coming out, and I think Gholston coming out is the bigger question but both happening is pretty realistic, and I think if that does happen between the three you mentioned, Gholston, and Dorsey we'll have some nice options sitting at 6. I'm pretty sure you've said you like Gholston and I know you think the Falcons should go QB so if Gholston comes out this isn't all that much of a stretch IMO I'll admit I was unhappy that we won the game at the time and it does seem rather illogical, but I think it's possible that we end up in a decent situation. It's certainly possible, if not probable, that this idea gets messed up somehow (especially because it is the Jets) but all may not be lost.

DiG
01-03-2008, 01:14 AM
im sorry but i think its ridiculous to even consider throwing a game to get a higher draft pick. theres 11 guys on the field that honestly could give two craps whether they get the 3rd or 6th pick. These guys train their @## off every day to play on Sundays and even if it is week 17 and your team has a terrible record that doesnt mean that your drive to win a football game is gone. That drive is what got most of these players into the NFL and I am a firm believer in the theory that players get used to losing. Going out on a win, even if it is only your 4th gives you an extra bit of confidence going into the offseason. An NFL team is made up of 53 players not 1. I'd rather have guys on my team that go out to win every Sunday then ones that are willing to lay down just to move up in the draft.

WCH
01-03-2008, 01:33 AM
I had initially made a post debating the merits of tanking, but really there is only one important flaw in this whole idea:

The day a bottom-feeder franchise blatantly tanks a game with the intention of improving their draft position is the day that the NFL introduces a draft lottery format to discourage such behavior.

SuperMcGee
01-03-2008, 01:37 AM
What about the Chiefs side of this?

Had they won the game, they would've dropped from possibly picking at #4 to definitely picking at #8.

Somebody just about had to win this game and hurt themselves in the draft, and from your perspective the Jets got the bad end of it

I also disagree with you in the first place. You don't play to lose, especially at home, and you don't starve a team from wins when they've been hard to come by.

OzTitan
01-03-2008, 03:34 AM
I think it's silly to worry about draft order like this. Even when we're just talking the 1st round you could still get who you wanted most and it could end up working in your favor as a team ahead of you takes a future bust of your board, and lets not forget the draft is in fact 7 rounds long. The further you get in the draft the less important a few placements can matter as you could still very well draft who you wanted and the same 'bust off the board' thing applies.

swagger
01-03-2008, 03:36 AM
And thanks in part to the Patriots' Godliness (16-0)...

EdReedUnstoppable
01-03-2008, 07:03 AM
The Ravens further ruined an already pathetic season by winning a meaningless game also.

eazyb81
01-03-2008, 08:44 AM
It might make sense to you since you're a draftnik, but professional teams aren't going to tank any game. There are guys on both teams that are not only auditioning for spots on next year's roster but also on any NFL roster. These are real people playing, it's not just a video game. Grown men supporting families aren't going to tank the last game of the season just so their team will have a chance to draft Chris Long instead of Vernon Gholston.

Iamcanadian
01-03-2008, 08:54 AM
I'm actually not all that unhappy with our drop down to the 6th selection. Granted, we aren't definitely going to get a player like we would have at 3, but it really doesn't put us in very bad shape.

For one, although I don't believe there is any quarterback in the draft worth a top 5 pick I do believe somebody will end up going top 5, simply because of the franchise QB rule and for financial reasons as well.

Assuming that is the case and Vernon Gholston leaves early, we're in pretty good shape. The three players you mentioned in your blog all would be appealing. Chris Long probably makes the most sense, McFadden is obviously talented but wouldn't fill a major need especially given how terrible our offensive line is (I believe the game is won and lost in the trenches and though our backs aren't great they're good enough to get the job done behind a decent line, and it's not all that hard to find a gem at RB in later rounds as you have argued with Atlanta fans), and Jake Long is great it's tough to give a right tackle top 5 money. Glenn Dorsey is also a very talented player and if he doesn't end up going in one of the first 5 picks (which would really surprise me) there could be some team looking to trade up and grab him. And if not I wouldn't be all that disappointed with drafting him even if the scheme fit isn't great because he is extremely talented.

Obviously this hinges a lot on the quarterback going top 5 and Gholston coming out, and I think Gholston coming out is the bigger question but both happening is pretty realistic, and I think if that does happen between the three you mentioned, Gholston, and Dorsey we'll have some nice options sitting at 6. I'm pretty sure you've said you like Gholston and I know you think the Falcons should go QB so if Gholston comes out this isn't all that much of a stretch IMO I'll admit I was unhappy that we won the game at the time and it does seem rather illogical, but I think it's possible that we end up in a decent situation. It's certainly possible, if not probable, that this idea gets messed up somehow (especially because it is the Jets) but all may not be lost.

IMO, if Gholston declares, he could go as high as #1 in the draft to Miami and will go no lower than #3. Dorsey, McFadden and Gholston are the top 3 for me. then Chris Long. #5 and #6 are still questionable. Possibly a QB and Jake Long but I'm not sure they both don't get passed by juniors declaring.

Iamcanadian
01-03-2008, 09:02 AM
HC's don't tell their teams to tank games in their last game but they can try to tank a game by who they play. Just like teams that tank games because they rest their starters for the playoffs, a HC on a losing team can try to tank the game by saying he wanted you see what he has for next season and rest his starters just like say Indy did.
A HC can also effect his team's chances by the plays he calls or the defense that is used but he is never going actually tell his players to tank a game or he would face a lifetime ban from the NFL. Players switch teams and there is absolutely no way you could hid the fact that a HC told his players to lose.

TimD
01-03-2008, 09:12 AM
On a related note, do not be surprised if the Jets have 2 first rounders. Vilma could be traded for a late 1st rounder.

Sportsfan486
01-03-2008, 09:14 AM
The thing is.. these guys are getting paid mucho money to go out and play the game of football. That's their job. Losing on purpose, for whatever reason, is an immoral and unprofessional thing to do imo.

They may have dropped three spots in the draft but they rose from being the 3rd worst team in the league to the sixth worst team and yes, that does mean something. The point of the game is to win and I'm not sure how you can hold that against them.

Besides, if you want them to tank then you wanted the Chiefs to tank that game and suddenly you've got a game with two teams trying to lose. The day that happens I will change the channel and never go back to football again.

Smokey Joe
01-03-2008, 09:50 AM
moment is an underrated factor... however, I guess it doesn't make a difference if you suck like the Jets.

drowe
01-03-2008, 10:03 AM
time for a counter rant here....anybody that has ever played a sport, whether it's professional football or high school water polo will tell you that you play to compete and you play to win. you don't bust your ass all week to go out an lay an egg on the day you trained for. no matter how bad your team is, you cannot tell a group of trained athletes that losing and having a better shot at some 21 year-old punk that hasn't even played the game at the same level as you is more important than going out and playing your ass off one last time. it's a ridiculous thought for several more reason than what i just mentioned:

-the game was played in december...the draft is held in april. who knows how the board is gonna fall? last year at this time, brady quinn was the consensus top pick, and a lot of mock drafts had Adrian Peterson in the top 3. so, ya think a team is supposed to NOT give 100% because the guy that could help their team (who by the way, hasn't even declared for the draft yet) might get picked before your slot? c'mon.

-also, great message to send to the team..."you guys worked hard, but it's just more important that we have a better chance of replacing one of you, so we're gonna take our foot off the gas for a week and just have you guys go through the motions." i'm sure that team will be REALLY motivated to play for that coach next year.

-the draft isn't exactly the end all of improving your team...remember 2 years ago when mock drafts had Matt Leinart going #2 to the Saints written in stone? stuff can happen...trades, free agency...and hell...if there's a player they really want at #3, they can always trade up for him. might get pricey, but still a better idea than not going all out to win a game.

end rant.

drowe
01-03-2008, 10:54 AM
so... can one of those people who's like, totally against this, explain to me why there aren't massive rants about indy doing the same exact thing that scott suggested the jets do?

i'm not for losing, ever. but at the same time, the logic seems mildly backwards when you don't complain at all about the colts resting starters and essentially throwing away a game and getting this up in arms when it's simply suggested that the jets could've done the same thing.

everything in my post was draft position specific. everyone on the field for Indy gave 100%. they almost beat the Titans in what was a virtual playoff game for them.

having nothing to prove and nothing to play for are completely different things.

The Colt's players earned a rest. they were able to sit comfortably with the knowledge that they are too important to their team to risk not having in the playoffs.

If it was the Jets, the players would've been sitting for completely different reason...to get a better chance of drafting their replacement. They wouldn't have earned their rest for the game...but they deserve the chance to play for their jobs.

drowe
01-03-2008, 11:17 AM
that's not the point though. why shouldn't the head coach (or someone higher up) "suggest" that certain players take the week off, or play very little in the game? i mean, you could even do it under the auspices of "making sure your stars are healthy next year" (if you needed the PR break). i'm not advocating the players intentionally sucking. but i don't necessarily see anything wrong with a coach or GM (at least, if they know their job is safe [i'm looking at you mr. shanahan]) not playing all their best players all game in what basically amounts to an exhibition game anyways. i wouldn't love it as a season ticket holder, but let's face it. the broncos wait list (for instance) is something like 60 years. it's not like they can't easily sell out games.

i see your point....and i wouldn't have too much of a problem with a losing team treating week 17 like an exhibition game...make sure they keep their stars healthy and take a look at some young players and backups in an effort to take inventory.

BUT, the fact that this generally doesn't happen with losing teams emphasizes my point that the opportunity to compete in a game is not worth passing on for the purposes of the offseason.

PossumBoy9
01-03-2008, 11:38 AM
I had initially made a post debating the merits of tanking, but really there is only one important flaw in this whole idea:

The day a bottom-feeder franchise blatantly tanks a game with the intention of improving their draft position is the day that the NFL introduces a draft lottery format to discourage such behavior.

Do you think a lottery would be a bad thing?

marks01234
01-03-2008, 11:44 AM
In case you didn't realize it the Jets dropped from the #3 overall pick to #6 by beating Kansas City in their meaningless Week 17 game.

If you are interested in how I feel about the situation check out my latest blog entry, where I kind of went off on a rant:

http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/blog/wrightstuff.html

Actually disagree completely.

Look at the history. How many #3 picks are that much better than the #6 pick in the draft? Then look at the opposite. You'll find there isn't a whole lot of difference. In fact, in every draft in the last decade you can find a better player drafted after 6th in the first round, than the #3 pick (possible exception being Joe Thomas last year but Adrian Peterson is on a similar level). So just as the same with any pick, you have to depend on your scouting department. And this year, there isn't a clear top 3 prospects that you are suddenly missing out of. Finally you'll also be getting the player at a much more affordable price.

You always want to win the game! Do you think the 49ers regret winning two seasons ago and missing out on Reggie Bush?

PossumBoy9
01-03-2008, 11:46 AM
In fact, in every draft in the last decade you can find a better player drafted after 6th in the first round, than the #3 pick (possible exception being Joe Thomas last year but Adrian Peterson is on a similar level).

Of course, the team picking #3 overall had the choice of picking the "better player" you mention. The team that made the pick failed, not the #3 draft slot.

BeerBaron
01-03-2008, 02:38 PM
Think of all the money the jets are saving by falling just those few picks though....sure they might not end up with as talented of a player but when it comes to the draft, your just as likely to find a bust in the top 5 as anywhere else...

i know its sort of a secondary "look at the bright side" kind of thing, but you get my point

BeerBaron
01-03-2008, 02:40 PM
Actually disagree completely.

Look at the history. How many #3 picks are that much better than the #6 pick in the draft? Then look at the opposite. You'll find there isn't a whole lot of difference. In fact, in every draft in the last decade you can find a better player drafted after 6th in the first round, than the #3 pick (possible exception being Joe Thomas last year but Adrian Peterson is on a similar level). So just as the same with any pick, you have to depend on your scouting department. And this year, there isn't a clear top 3 prospects that you are suddenly missing out of. Finally you'll also be getting the player at a much more affordable price.

You always want to win the game! Do you think the 49ers regret winning two seasons ago and missing out on Reggie Bush?

vernon davis hasn't exactly been a superstar and reggie might look pretty good next to frank gore right about now...

WildDude
01-03-2008, 02:45 PM
sure i was upset when they won but i was just thinking back to all the drafts they've had, and you have to realize they've never been known for making good picks its just in their nature and in this case we might get stuck with Vernon Goldston whos a physical freak and could end up being the best player in the draft in terms of his measurables...

and notice who played a great game for the jets in that last game... the RBs, they really dont want McFadden there they're willing to step up their game, even McFadden would fail with us cause we have such a terrible line... AD benefited from playing behind such a great line in Minnesota and was on pace to break the 2000 yard barrier untill he got injured on a cheap shot, but if that draft was this year and he ended up with us he'd have just over 1000 like TJ

AlexDown
01-03-2008, 03:23 PM
The Jets were probably not going to draft McFadden or Long, so I really don't see what the main issue is.

Scott, you have this viewpoint about the draft being the end all be all for building a good team is way off. I'm guessing this bias comes from the nature of your job. But in the end, these are just prospects.

The Jets could not have had a much better draft then they did last year. You don't need a top 5 pick to have a great draft. It is all about your team being able to see the best talent available.

Geo
01-03-2008, 03:37 PM
so... can one of those people who's like, totally against this, explain to me why there aren't massive rants about indy doing the same exact thing that scott suggested the jets do?

i'm not for losing, ever. but at the same time, the logic seems mildly backwards when you don't complain at all about the colts resting starters and essentially throwing away a game and getting this up in arms when it's simply suggested that the jets could've done the same thing.
I'm not quite sure I see your point, njx. Why would Mangini rest his starters, including young quarterback Kellen Clemens who needs to make of the most of his experience this year? He's saving them for ... the offseason?

Bengals1690
01-03-2008, 03:39 PM
http://www.nflhs.com/images/CoachPics/HermEdwards2006-200.jpg

herm edwards is ashamed of you scott. YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.


period.

BamaFalcon59
01-03-2008, 04:28 PM
im sorry but i think its ridiculous to even consider throwing a game to get a higher draft pick. theres 11 guys on the field that honestly could give two craps whether they get the 3rd or 6th pick. These guys train their @## off every day to play on Sundays and even if it is week 17 and your team has a terrible record that doesnt mean that your drive to win a football game is gone. That drive is what got most of these players into the NFL and I am a firm believer in the theory that players get used to losing. Going out on a win, even if it is only your 4th gives you an extra bit of confidence going into the offseason. An NFL team is made up of 53 players not 1. I'd rather have guys on my team that go out to win every Sunday then ones that are willing to lay down just to move up in the draft.

I agree. You can not want to lose if you are playing the game.

I am a Falcons fan and last Sunday I was absolutely stoked about winning and putting up over 40 points.

Thrawn
01-03-2008, 04:36 PM
If you are interested in how I feel about the situation check out my latest blog entry, where I kind of went off on a rant:

http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/blog/wrightstuff.html

I have to say, at the top of the draft, I want to win, badly. I want out of those top 5 picks if at all possible. As a Rams fan, I'd have loved a "meaningless win" or two in order to get out of our current draft spot. The ammount of money paid to the top picks is ridiculous. If the Rams can't trade out of #2, they are going to be handing out the second biggest contract in the history of the francise to an unproven rookie, and I don't see anyone in this draft worth that kind of money.

Splat
01-03-2008, 04:44 PM
The O Rookie of the year was picked 7th so I don't think you have to pick top 3 to get a great player.

Paranoidmoonduck
01-03-2008, 05:01 PM
i'm not for losing, ever. but at the same time, the logic seems mildly backwards when you don't complain at all about the colts resting starters and essentially throwing away a game and getting this up in arms when it's simply suggested that the jets could've done the same thing.

Well, I'd argue attaching the title of "meaningless game" to some of these situations.

The Colts accomplished what they set out for this year. The game they threw wasn't their last game of the season. And they did what they did in the interest of the players on their roster and in the interest of winning in the playoffs.

A team that quite definitively hasn't accomplished their goals and is playing their last game of the is is a different situation all together. They're weighing the well being and momentum of 55 players, the majority of who will return next season against the quality of one player they will pick up in 4 months. I'm not even sure I believe that, in the long run, dropping from the 3rd pick to the 6th is all that detrimental to any team (3rd overall picks bust just as much as 6th overall picks).

Really, it's just measure of what is worthwhile cause to intentionally lose a game. Resting your players for the playoffs and a run at the Superbowl that season is obviously worthwhile. Resting your players so that they can leave with an even worse record on the season, all so you get to pick in the 1st round of the NFL draft an hour earlier and maybe slightly improve your team for next season doesn't seem remotely worth the kind of message that intentionally losing sends to the player actually on your team.

WildDude
01-03-2008, 09:58 PM
and I'm glad they beat Herm thats enough for me...

WCH
01-03-2008, 10:22 PM
First of all, Adrian Peterson wasn't injured on a cheap shot. He was injured on a clean tackle by a CB. Anyway...
Do you think a lottery would be a bad thing?
I think it would be bad only due to the unique salary structure of the NFL Draft. A lot of the time you actually don't want to have the first pick. Think the 49ers wouldn't love to have traded down a few spots and still been able to draft Aaron Rodgers, Braylon Edwards, or Shawn Merriman?

It's also much harder to evaluate and judge talent in the NFL as opposed to in other sports. Last year in the NBA draft any team would have jumped at the chance to move into the #2 spot and take Kevin Durant. Likewise, in the 2006 NFL draft any team would have jumped at the chance to move into the #2 spot and grab Reggie Bush. The move up via lottery to get Durant would look like a blessing right now, whereas most of the top 13 teams in the 2006 NFL draft would probably prefer -- with the huge benefit of hindsight -- to keep their pick rather than move into a higher salary slot and wind up selecting Bush.

So basically, I don't think that it's a curse to have be picking three spots lower due to salary cap reasons and issues with overconfidence in the evaluation of talent; and I also think that there are years (2005) where it's very obviously desirable to be selecting lower in the draft.

I think that if teams started tanking in order to get the next Peyton Manning then it would be the only option, but I think that the first time a team jumps from the 5th spot to the 1st spot in an Alex Smith draft we would all of a sudden see a lot of angry fans, scouts, and executives.

MidwayMonster31
01-04-2008, 12:50 AM
The NBA has a set rookie salary scale that pays depending on when the player is picked, and no position is valued over another. In the NFL, positions are valued differently, like quarterback, and they all pay differently, which is why hold-outs happen.
The Jets could've had McFadden, unless the Dolphins found a way to trade down, it's also possible that Chris Long can drop to them. Depending on their cap situation, having a high pick is a blessing and a curse because of how much they pay.

BroadwayJoe10
01-04-2008, 01:27 AM
i wasn't specifically thinking of the jets, but why risk your potential qb of the future on a meaningless game? i'd have been just as happy if shanny hadn't played cutler for all four quarters last week, especially with the way the line was playing. for the jets, why risk any decent vet player? why play (for example, i have no idea if these guys did play and it's not really relevant to the point i'm making) vilma? or coles? or thomas jones?

i see it as the same argument for not playing peyton, except the next game you're protecting them for is a few months off instead of two weeks. except in this case, it gives your scouts a better chance of making your team better.

I can see your point about cutler and some of the other QB's, but as far as the jets go we can't exactly rest our future qb because we don't know who it is. If we rested clemens it wouldn't really be saving our future QB, but delaying us finding out if he is our qb of the future 1 more game. Vilma has been out for 7ish weeks or so and coles was on IR, but thomas jones played. I'm happy he played because it showed that when he gets decent run support he can be a solid running back; it also showed that we do not need mcfadden at all. Yes, he would be nice but hes more of a luxury as of now.

As far as scotts point of view i'm a little bit surprised and upset that he is mad at the jets for winning a "meaningless" game. I personally, and im sure most of the nfl players and coaches feel the same way, there really aren't any meaningless games. I have never seen winning a game do anything bad for a team; it shows character, it gives you something a little positive to think about during the offseason and possibly build momentum. Now some people may not think there is momentum, but i would take a win in the last game of the season over a couple of spots in the draft any day of the week and twice on sundays.

Just something i found and posted in the jets forum a few weeks ago and found very informative especially for those people who think winning a "meaningless" game in week 17 is stupid.

"I researched all teams that finished 3-13 or 4-12 — one of the two records these Jets will finish with — since the 12-playoff-team era began in 1990 to see if a win in Game 16 was a better predictor of success the next season than a loss.

Apparently, it is. The 41 teams in that category that lost their last game produced a combined record of 275-394-1 the next season. That's a .411 winning percentage that is just a hair better than a 6-9-1 season. Further, only six of those 41 teams qualified for the next postseason, a 14.6 percent success rate.

Then there were 24 such teams that won their 16th games. Their combined record the next season was 189-195, a .492 winning percentage that's just a tick below 8-8. And 10 of those 24 made the playoffs, a 41.7 percent rate."


The idea is that maybe it isn't momentum, but it is certainly stastically more than a coincidence. Atleast in my eyes it is. Granted a lot of those teams had FA signings and other things, but the point im trying to make is that i will never be angry at a team for winning those "meaningless" games and i really don't see how anybody else could be either.

Year-----Team-----Record---Next RS------Next PO
1991 San Diego..........4-12......11-5...............1-1
1998 Indianapolis.......3-13......13-3...............0-1
1998 St. Louis............4-1........13-3..............3-0*
1999 New Orleans......3-13.......10-6..............1-1
2003 San Diego..........4-12.......12-4..............0-1
2005 New Orleans......3-13.......10-6..............1-1
2005 JETS.................4-12.......10-6..............0-1

AdropOFvenom
01-04-2008, 03:57 PM
Scott, I take several issues with this.

First off, is the idea that you're intentionally tanking. The Jets as a team played hard for the entire season despite having nothing to play for after about Week 8, and then you send the message that it's okay not to play hard as long as it's for a draft pick? Particuarly when they are grooming a Young QB and several other players who will hopefully be a part of the organization for a long time. They've been searching all season for the elusive W yet always managed to find a way to shoot themselves in the foot, and now you want to ask them to lay down and take a Loss when it wasn't okay the other 15 games. Or even worse is if you bench your starters who are going for personal goals and accomplishments to draft someone who likely could be replacing them. In some cases the Jets did bench players, such as Guard Adrian Clarke in order to give the people below him a tryout and see what they had to offer the club, but you don't bench Thomas Jones to lose and draft Darren McFadden to replace him. That's not a way to win over the veterans in the locker room.

Secondly, is the idea that the Jets won't get a Quality player at #6. Sure, if you ask most people, right now it is a 3-4 player draft on the Elite Tier, but how often have you seen drafts where a player you didn't expect has a really good workout and thrusts up the draft board, or that player who you thought was for sure was a Top 3 pick dropped in the draft. Nevermind that there are still very good players where the Jets will be drafting from, such as Vernon Gholston.

There are also several benefits to drafting 6th as opposed to 3rd, such as a significantly lower signing bonus (5-7 million) which is an issue when it comes to such unproven players and the near coin-flip bust rate the NFL Draft has today. And in this draft, you could argue that they aren't in a situation where they have to take a certain player (Short of Darren McFadden or Chris Long falling into their laps), but they can choose the player who will help the organization the most.

asmitty45
01-04-2008, 03:59 PM
So much for Chris Long.

AdropOFvenom
01-04-2008, 04:12 PM
btw, when you say the Jets need Jake Long, which side of the line do the Jets need him? Would they most likely put him at right tackle to replace Clement or put him at LT and move Ferguson? How has Ferguson done with the Jets. I've heard little about him since he was drafted. I seem to remember hearing somewhere they he hasn't been the franchise LT he was supposed to be, but I have no idea if that's true.

Long would be the one to move, no doubt about it.

As for Ferguson, the word to describe him so far is inconsistant. He has games where he flat out dominates his opponents (Such as his game against the Giants where he shut down anybody who lined up against him (Osi got his sack against Anthony Clement)), and then he has his games where he he's only average. One thing to keep in mind with Ferguson is that every week he goes up against a legit pass rusher, weather it's Jason Taylor, or Aaron Schobel, or the entire Patriots team. Brick really didn't have an easy week the entire season. In general, he tends to do very well against Speedy, run around you type pass rushers, but he occasionally struggles against the heavier bull rushers. Most speculate its because he's very light for a tackle. I see it as more of a technique problem.

BlindSite
01-04-2008, 05:41 PM
I wanted us to lose to Tampa, I mean if you're going to miss the playoffs, miss by a huge margin and get a great draft pick.

gangGREENinsider
01-04-2008, 05:48 PM
As a Jet fan, it does sting a bit to think we kissed goodbye out only shot at Chris Long or Darren McFadden but you always play to win the game. Coaches and players aren't paid to lose games.

Don Killuminati
01-04-2008, 08:25 PM
So next time someone tries to tell you that quarterbacks aren't that important and that you don't need to use premium draft picks on them simply point to the results that I have listed above because they do not lie.
Let's see. 5 of the 12 playoff teams have QBs who they drafted in Rd1, and 3 of those feature the most erratic passing offenses of the group. The other 7 were either later round picks, FA pickups, or trade acquisitions.

To me, that pretty much makes the case for just how overrated the idea of taking a 1st round QB really is.

Don Killuminati
01-04-2008, 08:31 PM
Oh. With regard to the idea that NFL teams should throw a game to boost their draft position, that's easily the most gutless thing a team could do. IMO, if a team were were caught blatantly trying to lose, they should be stripped of their 1st round pick, no questions asked.

villagewarrior
01-05-2008, 09:28 AM
Oh. With regard to the idea that NFL teams should throw a game to boost their draft position, that's easily the most gutless thing a team could do. IMO, if a team were were caught blatantly trying to lose, they should be stripped of their 1st round pick, no questions asked.

I agree. Focusing on the Chiefs-Jets game, what if the Jets had tried to lose, and the Chiefs had won? Then the Chiefs would be the team getting slammed for winning a meaningless game and receiving a worst draft slot as a result. I could understand a little bit if the Jets had been playing the Patriots for example, but when you have two 3 win teams playing each other, they have to play to win, or you get even worse football from two teams bad at playing football in the first place.

Finsfan79
01-05-2008, 04:59 PM
It does seem dumb for the jets and all but sometimes it is a blessing in disguise. Look at the NBA a few years ago where the heat beat the raptors last game of the year and because of that didnt get chris bosh, instead they got D wade, Riley has said many times he would of taken bosh (excellent player but not as good as wade most would agree) and they wouldnt of gotten a championship then.

But yes I agree it seems pretty sucky for the jets whom cant even lose right, sorta like the fins

gsorace
01-05-2008, 05:12 PM
I'm so happy the Jets won, now we don't have to hear people say what a perfect fit Chris Long is for the 3-4 even though he would be the smallest linemen on the Jets already undersized line, or how Darren McFadden is to talented to pass up, and they can just take Gholston, who is the best fit for the Jets anyway.

Iamcanadian
01-05-2008, 06:19 PM
so were byron leftwich, troy williamson, ike hilliard and mike mamula.

meanwhile, some of the greatest qbs ever were taken first, in the 6th, first, 27th, in the 3rd, and in the 2nd.

so by similar logic, i should trade all of my picks for 6th rounders, because someone once got lucky that people passed on a guy for five rounds.

no one said you have to have a top 3 pick to get a great player. but it sure gives you a better chance of getting the player you THINK will be great.

Totally agree, the higher you pick the better shot you get for an impact player. The only exception to this rule is if the scouting department, scouts, and GM are cronic bad drafters, then it really doesn't matter where you draft. i.e. Detroit Lions

lod01
01-06-2008, 01:38 PM
I don't see the big deal. They don't have to pay thier pick as much as if they had pick #3 and they will still get a solid player if they make a good selection at #6.

Along with that....exactly how did you expect them to lose to the herminator? Just not come back out at halftime?????

Mr. Stiller
01-06-2008, 02:32 PM
Pretty strong words but I agree with every single one.

I'm going toss my hat in the man-crush ring. Mine is Jonathan Goff.

As am I.. I think he could develop into the pefecct replacement for james Farrior in Pittsburgh... Especially since he's looking to be able to be had in round 4-5.

JT Jag
01-06-2008, 02:40 PM
I agree. Focusing on the Chiefs-Jets game, what if the Jets had tried to lose, and the Chiefs had won? Then the Chiefs would be the team getting slammed for winning a meaningless game and receiving a worst draft slot as a result. I could understand a little bit if the Jets had been playing the Patriots for example, but when you have two 3 win teams playing each other, they have to play to win, or you get even worse football from two teams bad at playing football in the first place.Really, this was the perfect scenario for a tie.

SenorGato
01-06-2008, 02:50 PM
I'm so happy the Jets won, now we don't have to hear people say what a perfect fit Chris Long is for the 3-4 even though he would be the smallest linemen on the Jets already undersized line, or how Darren McFadden is to talented to pass up, and they can just take Gholston, who is the best fit for the Jets anyway.

QFT.

I've wanted Gholston for months, this just makes things easier.

And if we end up with Chris Long, it better be because he blew away LB drills at the combine.

PanteraMunKy
01-06-2008, 10:12 PM
Is the head coach supposed to go out there and tell his players to lose the game? Are you effin serious? That is about the most pathetic thing I have heard in a while.

If my coach told me to tank a game I might just jack slap that little pudd. Good luck trying to get anyone play for you next year.

Can anyone please tell me how you could possibly convince your players to tank a game? May be possible, but I couldn't imagine having that reputation among your players.

At least a win is a win. A couple draft slots MIGHT get you a better player (or more expensive bust).

I really hate your logic on this one

Young Nasty Man
01-07-2008, 11:09 AM
Scott I hate to disagree wtih you but I have to. You dont tell your players to tank it. Teams do it but you can't play wtih that mentality becuase if thats the truth then teams would tank if halfway through the season if they didn't feel that they would succeeed. Im sorry but the Jets did the right thing, they played to win the game. While in other games they played like crap, they played to win. I play football for my highschool and my team loses every game and we know that a head of time. But you still play with everything you have becuase every player whether in the pros or in college want to win. Im sorry but the Jets did the right thing..."YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!"

GET LOOSE
01-07-2008, 09:34 PM
being a jets fan i want a high pick but pride is more important. thank god we won

AdropOFvenom
01-08-2008, 12:25 AM
Let's see. 5 of the 12 playoff teams have QBs who they drafted in Rd1, and 3 of those feature the most erratic passing offenses of the group. The other 7 were either later round picks, FA pickups, or trade acquisitions.

To me, that pretty much makes the case for just how overrated the idea of taking a 1st round QB really is.

I looked this up the other day, 7 Percent of Quarterbacks drafted 1997-2006 3rd-7th rounds went on to become what we could classify as Above-Average Starters (Hasselbeck, Brady, Bulger, Schaub, Garrard, and Anderson out of 85 Quarterbacks). I would have went into the UDFA ranks as well, but I don't have a complete list of how many tried and failed, but I'm willing to guess it's about 7% or lower as well. Of course, Anderson was cut by the team who drafted him, and I was being quite generous with who I labeled as 'Above-Average' so you could argue the percentage is even lower then that.

So in other words, if you're drafting people that late rounds hoping to find a Franchise QB, Good Luck. Because it's about the draft's equivilant of hitting the lottery.

Addict
01-08-2008, 07:23 AM
I think they should have given the practice squad a go.