Draft By Draft Analysis of Mike Tannenbaum - Pt. 1 2006

Yes, it’s easy in hindsight to say he could have done this or done that, but you can’t dispute the fact that other moves could have made. You can’t dispute the fact that the draft could have possibly been even better. With just one or two different moves in each draft and in FA the Jets could be a much better team and without all the holes. This first post doesn’t prove anything. I hope by the time I have finished reviewing all the draft and FA moves, to have shown how much better the team could have been and there would be few, if any holes. There were lots of good players the Jets lost out on over the years with all those trade ups. I have a pretty darned impressive list of players especially that were drafted in rounds 5-7, picks that Tanny routinely throws away, either by trading them or not making good choices.

I don’t expect to convince everyone. Heck, I may not convince anyone, but there’s plenty of evidence if one wants to see it.

but with brick you could have had Vernon Davis or Haloti Ngata . now there hasn’t been many guys to come out since , at that level in those spots whereas there has been a few guys in the later drafts who would be equal or better than brick especially after his performances this year .
Vernon Davis and Haloti Ngata are the top players in their position in the league whereas brick still has a bit to go b4 he would be at that level

Say what you want about the picks and outcomes, but one thing I can tell you is that free agency and the draft have become much more EXCITING as a fan under Tanny. Everyone wants to win the S.B. but I also like the other 51 weeks of the year, I like the offseason personnel moves, the trades, the underdog players during camp, the backups play during the preseason, and the hope that each NFL season brings.

Couple that with a few AFCC appearances and a 9-3 start under Brett Favre’s 2008 Jets and we’ve had a lot of good storylines. I think the front office and coaches are still learning and trying to extract value where it be had, but all in all, I have to give Tanny high marks because only 1 team gets to win the S.B. but the other 31 teams and their fans need to try to at least find positives to enjoy the season, and for the most part, the past few (offseasons, preseasons, regular seasons and post seasons) have been enjoyable as a fan of a “bottom 31” team.

Oh, BTW, let’s see if the OP details the handcuffs the final 4 rules presented Tanny, which is really why we had to trade away a lot of lower picks to pick up the so-called missing pieces for the 2010 run and the 2011 run-that-never-was.

lol i was gonna write that in there too

I don’t think you can say “hindsight” to cover for a really bad Draft, but I do think it’s a bit much to get on Mike T for missing on a pick or two in a Draft like 2006 which was a fantastic one by any measure.

the Whitner not getting signed part, i was all for us going after him but no dice…as far as Braylon was concerned, Bray wanted a ‘Holmes-type’ deal and wouldnt sign for the 3 million Tanny offered him, i do hope Bray comes back to us next year tho

Windows of opportunity for teams don’t last long. So it’s ok to waste Revis’ youth and Rex’s coaching tenure with a mediocre GM who may or may not do a good enough job to get us over the top instead of seeking out someone who could quite possibly do a better job and get the team over the top. Taking the “safe” route will never get you to greatness, but only mediocrity or at best good. I’m not willing to settle for good. I want greatness. I want a winner. Being good, competitive, and making the playoffs a few years in a row isn’t enough for me to remove the agita from 40+ years of awfulness.

For us fans, it is hindsight. But it is the only way we have of analyzing the moves of the GM. One has to wait at least 2-3 years to see how things pan out with draft picks. Analyzing draft picks immediately after the draft means little or nothing.

For the GM and Scouting Dept. it isn’t hindsight. Their job is to find the best talent in the draft, and to envision how those players might develop, and who would be the best fits. The draft is a bit of a crapshoot, but that’s their job. They don’t go to all those games, spend countless hours watching films, working players out, talking to their teammates and every coach they’ve ever had, plus interviewing many of them for nothing. It’s an inexact science, but it’s still a science and more than mere guesswork.

No there is no way to know for certain, but it gives some useful information and at least some idea of what kind of a job the GM is doing.

If you don’t do things like this, you have no real way of analyzing/determining what kind of job the GM has done with regard to the draft, to his philosophy of team building, to his hiring of the CS and their abilities to teach/develop talent.

Have more than 1 SB in that alternate universe. LOL

I like some of your suggestions a lot. Some less so. I still think looking at players both that the GM didn’t draft and those he did draft are good analytical tools. Did the players he drafted fit the system? Did they develop? On this point, the CS becomes actively involved, since it is their job to teach and develop players, but again the GM hires the CS, so ultimately, this is his responsibility too. Not all players will fit, so I don’t think counting excellent players who wouldn’t fit the team’s system should count, or perhaps players who play a position or positions where the team already has a solid starter(s). I definitely think that players who would fit your system and you play positions of need should be counted.

1. I don’t think Pro Bowls are really a valid criteria as they are popularity contests. LOTS of players have made the Pro Bowl year after year who didn’t deserve it when there were better players who stayed home.

2. I think this is a very good one. Using that criteria for the 2006 draft, only 2 out of 9 players remain on the team. That’s pretty awful. In 2007 only 2 of 4 remain on the team. That’s better, but still not even very good. Just average.

3. This is also a good means for analysis, but harder to track down. I’ll have to do some research on this one.

4. How does one find those averages? This also would be a good analysis tool.

5. This is not as good a tool imo, but still has some usefulness. Sure some 1st round players bust, but most develop into at least solid starters. It’s just that those who do bust often are more high profile players like QBs and/or WRs so they stand out more. It is good for 2nd and 3rd rounders. Smart GMs don’t draft raw developmental prospects, who played at a lower level of competition and who may be borderline retarded in the 2nd round. So there’s a huge glaring red flag with this tool with Tanny.

6. This is one of the best tools for analyzing a GMs and his Scouting Dept.’s ability to spot talent. The Jets have done very well in the 4th round, but abysmally poor in the 5th-7th rounds.

7. I’m not sure about this one’s validity. If one has a high percentage of UDFAs on your roster, then it says to me that one didn’t do a very good job during the draft of finding talent, but did do a good job of finding talent among the UDFAs. Some veteran teams have very few UDFAs. In general, I believe that better teams have fewer UDFAs, and the weaker teams have more. I have heard that in the past, but am not sure if that is always true or is true any more. I recently saw a stat that the Jets were #28 in the NFL in signing the “Higher-rated” UDFAs in one of the recent drafts. What does that say exactly? I’ll have to find that article to see which draft it was in.

8. While FA is one tool with which to build a roster, an over-reliance on it is bad. That means one hasn’t been doing a good job of drafting and developing one’s own talent. It also means that it’s not a value-based means of building the team, and one is more likely to run into constant cap issues. Tanny has gotten worse and worse about this, relying on FA more and more to cover for his deficiencies in the draft.

9. Unless I’m mistaken, the Jets have only made the playoffs 2 of the 6 years in which Tanny has been the GM. That’s not very good, even though they made the AFC Championship Game in both of those years.

10. Most GMs don’t make the SB, so this is not as good a tool. It is valid and a part of the analysis, but a lot of factors can affect whether a team makes a SB, injuries to key players, bad officiating that costs a playoff game or key game during the season.

Who hires the CS? The GM. So if he hires Rich Kotite and the team goes 4-12, that’s on the GM, not just the HC.

I don’t know yet what grade I’ll give Tanny, but know it won’t be as high as a B+. I think your standards are too low.

Jumping up once to grab 2 Pro Bowlers is or can be a good move. Trading up every year or almost every year is a recipe for disaster and lots of holes on one’s team. This is one of Tanny’s biggest flaws. He doesn’t seem to know how to find value by trading down, garnering an extra pick or picks to compensate for some of those he has given away, and still finding a productive player who is a good fit on the team.

In answer to your question as to whom would have played LT if the Jets had drafted Ngata or Vernon Davis, the Jets could have drafted Marcus McNeil or Andrew Whitworth. The following LTs were FAs in 2006:

Jeff Backus – Backus was solid and only 28
LJ Shelton – Shelton was the lesser of the two FA options, but would have probably been no worse than Ferguson was. Even if so, it would have only been for a year.

There could also have been some camp cuts. Then they could have looked to draft a LT in 2007. As I state in my next post in this series, the Jets could have nabbed Joe Staley in the 2007 draft and there were a number of LT FAs that year as well.