Interesting Proposition in Draft

by Ryan243 on Feb 10, 2011 2:36 PM EST

There are always guys who drop in the draft and guys who sky rocket on a team's draft board. Oftentimes this is due to a guy having an impressive combine and/or being a freak of nature (hello Vernon Gholston) but sometimes it is simply driven by positional need.

The Draft of 2011 is shaping up as a very loaded draft defensively in the first round with a handful of very intriguing DTs, DEs, CBs and LBs. I think that oftentimes in these situations, a great player can find himself falling just because he does not play the "hot" or "trendy" position that every team is clamoring over in the draft. The Jets obviously need help on the defensive side of the ball, and our offensive line is one of our biggest strengths. Offensive Line seems like the one position that we shouldn't address early in the draft.

We have a young core of the line with Brick and Mangold, Slauson appears to be a starter at LG for years to come and we drafted Big Vlad in the 2nd round last year (and considering how right Callahan was about taking Slauson the year before, I have faith that Vlad is going to be a fixture for us). And we still have Brandon Moore, Damien Woody and Robert Turner (who was very good this year and many think could and should be a starter next season).

However, one guy who could very well find himself falling on draft day due to his position is Mike Pouncey (G/F Florida) and the brother of Steelers All-Pro rookie Center Marquice Pouncey. Based on the success of his older brother this year and the style of football that these guys play - if he is sitting on the board at 30 do you take him?

It would allow you to start seriously considering parting ways with Woody and Moore and getting younger on the line (potentially resulting in cap savings). He seems like a guy who could step in right away and play - and become the RG of the future for this Jets team. If Vlad can play RT for the Jets (and he has the size to play Tackle...along with having been a T in college) the Jets would have a very very solid OL all very young.

I don't see Pouncey falling to us at 30.....but if he were on the board at 30......do you take him and solidfy your OL for the next 5-7 years?

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I have Pouncy as a late second round value

The Jets want to play Ground & Pound, a dominant offensive line is the foundation of their offense. A Center /Guard you cannot justify with the 30th pick, on the other hand IMO that Rob Turner C/OG is an important second tier free agent that needs to be signed.
I think the debate is interesting if Pouncy falls to the end of the third round or if OT Costanzo was availble at 30. Although at Tackle I would be looking for more of a roadgrader

by JetOrange on Feb 10, 2011 3:13 PM EST reply actions

If you go by mock drafts – both Pouncey and Costanzo are slated to go 15-25.

Just saying you have to at least consider landing a highly touted OL at this point in the first round. I disagree with your point that you can’t justify a Center/Guard with the 30th pick……that is where we took Mangold and not so sure anyone complaining about that pick since Day 1 of camp.

I think Vlad ultimately could play RT for us as that is where he played in college and ultimately our hole will be at RG. Not sure the cap situation, but maybe taking Pouncey to play RG allows us to cut both Moore and Woody (with Vlad at RT and Turner as the backup) and free up cash to spend on Defense in FA.

by Ryan243 on Feb 10, 2011 3:36 PM EST up reply actions

I wouldn’t be opposed to the pick, but I would rather sit him for a year before taking over. O-line is a lot about continuity, and revamping the whole right side in one fell swoop with two guys that have never had a start in the NFL probably isn’t a good idea. I’d rather keep Moore for a year and let Vlad take over at RT. Then transition Pouncey next year.

by Crackback on Feb 10, 2011 6:18 PM EST up reply actions

I can justify Nick Mangold perfectly fine.

It depends on the year and your teams needs. As long as we don’t pick a player due to their “athletic gifts” and “potential” I’ll be happy. They know what they’re doing. I’ll leave it up to them.

by Timmaht on Feb 10, 2011 11:36 PM EST up reply actions

If he's there I wouldn't be against it...

still depends a lot in FA (mainly who we get at OLB, and who we keep at WR). However I think it might be wise, there are no good players who project there at FS, we could address OLB with Kiwi via FA, and I still think DL is an over rated need for us and so deep in this draft could wait for later rounds.

by Judgegavel on Feb 10, 2011 4:18 PM EST reply actions

I would be against it because we need some playmakers on defense,

Not depth on the offensive side of the ball in round 1.

by JetKing55 on Feb 10, 2011 5:02 PM EST reply actions

its exactly the post I made

I believe our turnaround as a franchise started when Mr T, began a system of taking the best player at his position rather then the hot position. I think guys do shoot up if they play the position that seems to be hot that year, Perhaps teams all I the same player get locked into drafting a certain postion and pass on talent who play in different spots. IE- Harris, Revis, keller, Mangold for starters. This guy can step in and play from day one and be dominant .

by bringbacktodd on Feb 10, 2011 7:48 PM EST reply actions

I don't really think we've gone soley BPA

It has still been a combination of need and talent available, especially in the first two rounds. Sanchez was a need at the time, so was Revis, D’brick. Gholston not so much, but an argument can be made that Mangold was. I think the big difference is fans identify one or two needs for the next season, the GM is looking at the big picture that many fans just don’t see.

by Judgegavel on Feb 11, 2011 8:30 AM EST via mobile reply actions

A perfect example of this was the Wilson pick...

When you consider how we lost to Indy because of our DB play, Cro. Was going to be a FA this year, and the somewhat uncertain status of Revis’ contract, I thought CB was a huge need at the draft last year.

by Judgegavel on Feb 11, 2011 8:34 AM EST via mobile up reply actions

the way i see it don't draft offense at all in this draft

draft best available defensive player at each pick with the hope of hitting on at least 2-3 of the 6 picks.

by rick34125 on Feb 11, 2011 12:16 PM EST reply actions

but if you could set yourself up to solidfy the OL for the next 6 years or longer – you don’t do that?

Point being – defensive players are shooting up draft boards strictly on their position which makes a guy available at 30 that in a normal year would be gone in the mid to late teens.

by Ryan243 on Feb 11, 2011 1:24 PM EST up reply actions

I've seen this a couple times, we are not set on O by any means...

we have 3 WR that are FA, we will at least have to replace Smith for depth, if we don’t resign either Holmes or Edwards it becomes a top need. LT may retire, may be cut, or at best has a year left, we should consider depth at RB. We need to look at eventual replacements/depth for Woody and Moore. TE past Keller is awful, and also should be considered. So to just ignore one side of the ball would be irresponsible.

by Judgegavel on Feb 11, 2011 7:32 PM EST up reply actions

here's how i see it:

-Even if Mr. T doesn’t sign both edwards and holmes they will pick up a WR in FA, but i expect both of them to get signed.
-Ducasse will play RT, Slauson will be LG, Hunter and Turner will remain backups.
-LT is not retiring and we will go RB by committee with SG, LT and JM.
-Our TEs are better than fine, that includes hartsock and cumberland.

our offense is pretty young. LT is the oldest player at 31. RB can be addressed next year.

this year should be about retooling the defense and giving sanchez every opportunity to further develop.

by rick34125 on Feb 13, 2011 6:31 PM EST up reply actions