|
Post by jett on Mar 19, 2015 12:27:39 GMT -5
www.nj.com/jets/index.ssf/2015/03/jets_general_manager_mike_maccagnan_offers_funny_r.htmlThis article starts out talking about his response today to a particular question about his thoughts on Winston and Mariota. He offers a funny quote, but that wasn't what peaked my interest. Later in the article he talks a little bit about his approach and it confirms my thoughts on him in terms of the draft. This guy is the guy for us. Ok fine, I'll give him 2-3 years to really evaluate him, but everything he's said so far I love. "I would say, simply, that I think when it comes to the draft, to me, you tend to want to take the best player available, in theory," Maccagnan said. "In my mind, if the best player available were at that pick, I'm not going to say we're going to lock into a certain player or a certain position, but that's the approach you want to take. "We have a long evaluation process to go through, to get to that point. I would say, simply, I don't think any player is either on or off our board, in terms of what we would do, based on our current roster." This is exactly what I want to hear and how I would handle a draft. Now obviously the draft is a far away, and a lot can happen. Who knows he could royally screw it up and we can hate him. All I am saying is that right now, with everything he's said and his plan, it makes me very excited and (cautiously) optimistic that he can give us something we haven't had in a long long time, a good draft. Not just hitting on your first or second pick, but hitting on the mid rounds, the ones that build your team and have sustained success. The model to win. Look at the Giants 2007 run, the draft prior to that year they had almost every one of their picks contribute. That's what we need. Again, this is all fodder anyway because he's only been a GM for a short time and I am in no way anointing him the best yet by any means. He's a breath of fresh air so far, and that's good enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by Gunnails on Mar 19, 2015 13:07:03 GMT -5
I have always felt the BPA method of drafting to be wisest. And yet I also understand the need to sometimes reach, especially for QB needy teams.
|
|
|
Post by quantum on Mar 19, 2015 13:47:50 GMT -5
Never totally on board with BPA, unless you know another team that needs that BPA's position and they have someone you need/want.
You must take into account your own shopping needs.
|
|
|
Post by Gunnails on Mar 19, 2015 13:53:13 GMT -5
You must take into account your own shopping needs. ======================================================== As in Dee Milner but not Sheldon Richardson? Edit: I don't mean for this to come across as argumentative, just saying.
|
|
|
Post by quantum on Mar 19, 2015 13:58:21 GMT -5
You must take into account your own shopping needs. ======================================================== As in Dee Milner but not Sheldon Richardson? Edit: I don't mean for this to come across as argumentative, just saying. DM is prolly not a good example since his injury history should have been more of an influence on his draft position. can I just chalk that up to Izdik?
|
|
|
Post by Gunnails on Mar 19, 2015 14:12:09 GMT -5
======================================================== As in Dee Milner but not Sheldon Richardson? Edit: I don't mean for this to come across as argumentative, just saying. DM is prolly not a good example since his injury history should have been more of an influence on his draft position. can I just chalk that up to Izdik? Of course. My point of course is that Dee was the best available at a position of need but not BPA, where the reverse is true of Sheldon. Darelle was a need but not sure he was a consensus BPAS after moving up. Ghoulston was BPA. Sanchez wasn't, Interesting discussion as always.
|
|
|
Post by JetBidi on Mar 19, 2015 14:15:34 GMT -5
DM is prolly not a good example since his injury history should have been more of an influence on his draft position. can I just chalk that up to Izdik? Of course. My point of course is that Dee was the best available at a position of need but not BPA, where the reverse is true of Sheldon. Darelle was a need but not sure he was a consensus BPAS after moving up. Ghoulston was BPA. Sanchez wasn't, Interesting discussion as always. Which all comes back to one point really... The draft is a crap shoot.
|
|
kuntysoze
Full Member
Lexington Steele fucked my ass
69%
The mods can't see me
Posts: 407
|
Post by kuntysoze on Mar 19, 2015 14:31:29 GMT -5
It's a mix of both. BPA at a position of need. You don't just go BPA regardless of position, that's about as asinine as over-reaching for need at every spot. If it's between Mariota and Fowler at #6, I can see an argument for both sides, since they will likely impact the team to the same extent. A potential franchise QB can turn a team around overnight, whereas an elite pass rushing LB will turn this defense from top-five to arguably best in the league, just like that. However, if go LB in the first round, and it comes down to the best available OL or QB like Petty/Hundley in the 2nd, the QB is likely the higher value/BPA at that position of need. Value is not a fixed variable; it fluctuates based on the circumstances of the draft.
|
|
|
Post by MDL JET on Mar 19, 2015 15:29:09 GMT -5
Of course. My point of course is that Dee was the best available at a position of need but not BPA, where the reverse is true of Sheldon. Darelle was a need but not sure he was a consensus BPAS after moving up. Ghoulston was BPA. Sanchez wasn't, Interesting discussion as always. Which all comes back to one point really... The draft is a crap shoot. You take the BPA….unless you have a need….but if the BPA is a position you're already strong at, go 2nd BPA. In other words…..pray it works out.
|
|
|
Post by jcappy on Mar 19, 2015 15:37:51 GMT -5
We're primed perfectly to go BPA. As others have said, BPA doesn't necessarily mean straight up BPA, need does factor in to an extent. The front office has 'covered' most of our holes decently enough where even if we don't grab a star right off the bat at a certain position we still have guys who are at least capable of doing what they have to do. We most likely won't be going DL, CB or S at this point even if the consensus BPA plays one of those positions, but pretty much every other position is very much in play.
|
|
|
Post by rangerous on Mar 19, 2015 17:29:51 GMT -5
imo the draft just about always the bpa but that's tied to the team need so the two are pretty much inseparable. i mean how would a team view drafting either a qb like luck over a lb like lt? would you take the qb or the lb? either player is the best at his position but then you have to compare each player available. if a team has a qb they draft lt and if they don't they go for luck. the jets have at least positioned themselves so they're not locked into any one position in the draft whereas it could be argued they needed to go heavy on secondary. i do think they need to take mariots if he's available.
|
|
|
Post by jett on Mar 19, 2015 18:08:24 GMT -5
In my humble opinion, when there is a quarterback available, if he has a possibility of being a franchise quarterback, you take him. With Mariota, he's borderline to me, he has a lot of qualities that I absolutely want in my quarterback, smart, humble, the work ethic is outstanding... Those are what you want. He obviously has a lot of qualities that I don't like. I'm not sure if we should grab him, but usually I would always say take the quarterback. A franchise quarterback is better than a franchise left tackle.
|
|
|
Post by astoria on Mar 19, 2015 21:42:30 GMT -5
If BPA is weighted towards positional importance, yeah. A "4 star" QB like Mariota is a "better player available" than a "5 star" anything else.
|
|
|
Post by fullblast on Mar 21, 2015 18:29:45 GMT -5
That's the same thing Idzik said.
|
|
|
Post by Hotman on Mar 21, 2015 19:27:27 GMT -5
That's the same thing Idzik said. And then it became clear he had no fuckin clue what he was doing, unless he was intentionally sabotaging the Jets, which is entirely possible.
|
|