<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: NFL.com City By City Mock Draft</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thejetsblog.com/2008/03/28/3770/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thejetsblog.com/2008/03/28/3770/</link>
	<description>Ranting and Raving about the Gang Green</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:30:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: SackDance99</title>
		<link>http://www.thejetsblog.com/2008/03/28/3770/#comment-75965</link>
		<dc:creator>SackDance99</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:33:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thejetsblog.com/?p=3770#comment-75965</guid>
		<description>seanmac, starts are predictive, unless your name is cade mcnown, whose stats were pretty close to cutler&#039;s.  but, cade is only only 6-1...okay, I won&#039;t go there again!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>seanmac, starts are predictive, unless your name is cade mcnown, whose stats were pretty close to cutler&#8217;s.  but, cade is only only 6-1&#8230;okay, I won&#8217;t go there again!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: seanmac</title>
		<link>http://www.thejetsblog.com/2008/03/28/3770/#comment-75928</link>
		<dc:creator>seanmac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2008 01:01:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thejetsblog.com/?p=3770#comment-75928</guid>
		<description>But yes, we can all agree that the experts are wrong about Gholston.  Unless they aren&#039;t.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But yes, we can all agree that the experts are wrong about Gholston.  Unless they aren&#8217;t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: seanmac</title>
		<link>http://www.thejetsblog.com/2008/03/28/3770/#comment-75919</link>
		<dc:creator>seanmac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:49:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thejetsblog.com/?p=3770#comment-75919</guid>
		<description>Sack,

You only think Ryan&#039;s stats are better because you fail to note that the single biggest predictor for guys in the top half of the first is career starts.  Cutler started 45 games- that&#039;s elite territory, up there with Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb and Carson Palmer.  Matt Ryan started 32 games.  That&#039;s a full season&#039;s worth of starts that Cutler had over Ryan.  So the only area where Cutler has a big advantage happens to be in the single most predictive area.  I&#039;d also note that Cutler went 11th overall, which was a reasonable place for him to go- any higher and you would have to be concerned about the completion percentage.  11th overall is too high for Ryan, but it would be a significant improvement on sixth overall.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sack,</p>
<p>You only think Ryan&#8217;s stats are better because you fail to note that the single biggest predictor for guys in the top half of the first is career starts.  Cutler started 45 games- that&#8217;s elite territory, up there with Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb and Carson Palmer.  Matt Ryan started 32 games.  That&#8217;s a full season&#8217;s worth of starts that Cutler had over Ryan.  So the only area where Cutler has a big advantage happens to be in the single most predictive area.  I&#8217;d also note that Cutler went 11th overall, which was a reasonable place for him to go- any higher and you would have to be concerned about the completion percentage.  11th overall is too high for Ryan, but it would be a significant improvement on sixth overall.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joe</title>
		<link>http://www.thejetsblog.com/2008/03/28/3770/#comment-75909</link>
		<dc:creator>joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:53:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thejetsblog.com/?p=3770#comment-75909</guid>
		<description>More than either regression analysis or the quality of his college team, Ryan&#039;s success will be determined by the currently unknowable ability of his team to show progress (assuming he is picked by a losing team), during the currently unknowable period that it will take for Ryan to get used to the speed and complexity of the NFL. If Ryan is picked by the Ravens, and the defense implodes, then Harbaugh could be gone within the normal window of QB development. The identity of the next Ravens coach is similarly unknowable,and hence the job security of Cam Cameron is unknowable. And there we reach a fact that we generally acknowledge, QBs do better when they stay in the same system. Please tell me with confidence that Ryan will be playing in the same offensive system in year 3 as he will his rookie season. Link under my name is to the top 40 95-2006 QB&#039;s. Talent does not always rise to the top in the NFL, just ask Chris Chandler.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More than either regression analysis or the quality of his college team, Ryan&#8217;s success will be determined by the currently unknowable ability of his team to show progress (assuming he is picked by a losing team), during the currently unknowable period that it will take for Ryan to get used to the speed and complexity of the NFL. If Ryan is picked by the Ravens, and the defense implodes, then Harbaugh could be gone within the normal window of QB development. The identity of the next Ravens coach is similarly unknowable,and hence the job security of Cam Cameron is unknowable. And there we reach a fact that we generally acknowledge, QBs do better when they stay in the same system. Please tell me with confidence that Ryan will be playing in the same offensive system in year 3 as he will his rookie season. Link under my name is to the top 40 95-2006 QB&#8217;s. Talent does not always rise to the top in the NFL, just ask Chris Chandler.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SackDance99</title>
		<link>http://www.thejetsblog.com/2008/03/28/3770/#comment-75901</link>
		<dc:creator>SackDance99</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:33:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thejetsblog.com/?p=3770#comment-75901</guid>
		<description>Bent, I should&#039;ve just said running game, which was my point.  For all of FO&#039;s great regression analysis, I was pointing out that there is a subjective component to FO&#039;s allegedly objective statistical analysis.  That&#039;s why Cutler, despite his good, but by no means great, stats (which are generally inferior to Ryan&#039;s) had a high first round ranking.  Ryan deserves the same subjective tweaking because his OL was poor, his running game was poor, he was the focal point of the offense (and every team knew it), he was in a new system, and he had an 11-3 record, keeping an otherwise mediocre team in BCS contention.  Schatz&#039;s article also has relevance.  Given BC&#039;s poor OL, it&#039;s amazing that Ryan averaged a sack for over every 31 attempts...I saw it, Ryan would throw the ball away rather than be sacked.  Good for his team, but bad for his completion pct., which is another FO pet peeve.  Also, and I know everyone thinks that I&#039;m wrong about this, but he deserves a + for being 6-5, with good footwork--like Big Ben (and Lewin, the FO regression analysis guru, did admit that he thought Ryan was a lot like Big Ben), whose stats were better, but he did play in the MAC.

So, seanmac, when Ryan ends up in the Pro Bowl, it won&#039;t be the failure of FO&#039;s regression analysis, it will be the failure to account for the challenges he faced that his competition did not face.  We just think the other is wrong about Ryan and let&#039;s leave it at that.  But, returning to this thread, I agree that Gholston is not top 10 talent and taking him would be a drafting error.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bent, I should&#8217;ve just said running game, which was my point.  For all of FO&#8217;s great regression analysis, I was pointing out that there is a subjective component to FO&#8217;s allegedly objective statistical analysis.  That&#8217;s why Cutler, despite his good, but by no means great, stats (which are generally inferior to Ryan&#8217;s) had a high first round ranking.  Ryan deserves the same subjective tweaking because his OL was poor, his running game was poor, he was the focal point of the offense (and every team knew it), he was in a new system, and he had an 11-3 record, keeping an otherwise mediocre team in BCS contention.  Schatz&#8217;s article also has relevance.  Given BC&#8217;s poor OL, it&#8217;s amazing that Ryan averaged a sack for over every 31 attempts&#8230;I saw it, Ryan would throw the ball away rather than be sacked.  Good for his team, but bad for his completion pct., which is another FO pet peeve.  Also, and I know everyone thinks that I&#8217;m wrong about this, but he deserves a + for being 6-5, with good footwork&#8211;like Big Ben (and Lewin, the FO regression analysis guru, did admit that he thought Ryan was a lot like Big Ben), whose stats were better, but he did play in the MAC.</p>
<p>So, seanmac, when Ryan ends up in the Pro Bowl, it won&#8217;t be the failure of FO&#8217;s regression analysis, it will be the failure to account for the challenges he faced that his competition did not face.  We just think the other is wrong about Ryan and let&#8217;s leave it at that.  But, returning to this thread, I agree that Gholston is not top 10 talent and taking him would be a drafting error.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bent</title>
		<link>http://www.thejetsblog.com/2008/03/28/3770/#comment-75879</link>
		<dc:creator>Bent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:39:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thejetsblog.com/?p=3770#comment-75879</guid>
		<description>&quot;Brohm had Michael Bush and a terrific running game his statistically better sophomore and junior years&quot;

I don&#039;t think it makes a great deal of difference to the argument, but Michael Bush played less than 2 quarters of football in 2006 before suffering a broken leg!  Their running game was still good, though.

Damian, I personally think we can do a lot better than Barton inside.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Brohm had Michael Bush and a terrific running game his statistically better sophomore and junior years&#8221;</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think it makes a great deal of difference to the argument, but Michael Bush played less than 2 quarters of football in 2006 before suffering a broken leg!  Their running game was still good, though.</p>
<p>Damian, I personally think we can do a lot better than Barton inside.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: seanmac</title>
		<link>http://www.thejetsblog.com/2008/03/28/3770/#comment-75872</link>
		<dc:creator>seanmac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2008 06:29:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thejetsblog.com/?p=3770#comment-75872</guid>
		<description>Sack,

Mayock is a BC alum and a close friend of the Ryan family, a fact that he was rather slow to admit when he was putting Ryan on top of his draft board.  It doesn&#039;t mean his opinion should be ignored, but it&#039;s worth mentioning.  Anyway, it&#039;s easy to point out the authority of draft experts when they&#039;re saying something that you happen to agree with, as Mayock does when he puts Ryan #1 overall.  But then you promptly ignore that authority when Mayock puts Vernon Gholston #2 overall.  Kind of problematic.  If you value the traditional scouting method for grading quarterbacks, then you are essentially saying that, as Brian Billick insisted, drafting quarterbacks is a crapshoot.  After all, the analysts who are pimping Ryan now are the same ones who carried water for Alex Smith and for David Carr and Joey Harrington and Ryan Leaf and Tim Couch and every other highly drafted quarterback bust.  Their record of distinguishing good quarterbacks from bad ones is not very good.  (I mean, Mel Kiper made his reputation by banging his shoe on the table for someone to hurry up and draft Trent Dilfer.)  But drafting a quarterback doesn&#039;t have to be a crapshoot.  You can manage the risk by looking at predictive factors, and those factors suggest very strongly that Matt Ryan is not another Peyton Manning, but that he&#039;s a fairly pedestrian prospect.  Is it possible that Ryan proves he&#039;s actually an elite player?  Yes.  But the odds are not very good, and they&#039;re certainly not good enough to make me want to throw the sixth pick of the draft away to find out.  Somebody else was posting about how you don&#039;t get the sixth pick in the draft very often.  That&#039;s actually not true.  When you pick high, the odds are good that you are going to keep picking high, because every time you miss on a top player, it&#039;s going to sink your franchise and it becomes a downward cycle where even when you hit on a player, you&#039;ve spent such a large proportion on your cap on the misses-costs that upper tier teams simply don&#039;t have-that you are constantly swimming upstream.  Look at Detroit- they haven&#039;t been universally awful at picking guys in the first round.  When it comes to expending picks on receivers, they&#039;ve done a better job than Jacksonville- Charles Rogers and Mike Williams were busts, but Roy Williams and Calvin Johnson are studs.  That&#039;s batting .500, but the costs of the misses are enormous.  Jacksonville whiffed consecutively on Reggie Williams and Matt Jones, and they followed it up by whiffing on their tight end Marcedes Lewis for good measure, but the picks have been low enough that their misses haven&#039;t had the same kind of devastating impact on their cap.  The most important thing to do with these top picks is not screw them up.  And nothing is a bigger screw up than whiffing on a quarterback.  When you pick one, you better have very sound reasons to think the guy won&#039;t bust.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sack,</p>
<p>Mayock is a BC alum and a close friend of the Ryan family, a fact that he was rather slow to admit when he was putting Ryan on top of his draft board.  It doesn&#8217;t mean his opinion should be ignored, but it&#8217;s worth mentioning.  Anyway, it&#8217;s easy to point out the authority of draft experts when they&#8217;re saying something that you happen to agree with, as Mayock does when he puts Ryan #1 overall.  But then you promptly ignore that authority when Mayock puts Vernon Gholston #2 overall.  Kind of problematic.  If you value the traditional scouting method for grading quarterbacks, then you are essentially saying that, as Brian Billick insisted, drafting quarterbacks is a crapshoot.  After all, the analysts who are pimping Ryan now are the same ones who carried water for Alex Smith and for David Carr and Joey Harrington and Ryan Leaf and Tim Couch and every other highly drafted quarterback bust.  Their record of distinguishing good quarterbacks from bad ones is not very good.  (I mean, Mel Kiper made his reputation by banging his shoe on the table for someone to hurry up and draft Trent Dilfer.)  But drafting a quarterback doesn&#8217;t have to be a crapshoot.  You can manage the risk by looking at predictive factors, and those factors suggest very strongly that Matt Ryan is not another Peyton Manning, but that he&#8217;s a fairly pedestrian prospect.  Is it possible that Ryan proves he&#8217;s actually an elite player?  Yes.  But the odds are not very good, and they&#8217;re certainly not good enough to make me want to throw the sixth pick of the draft away to find out.  Somebody else was posting about how you don&#8217;t get the sixth pick in the draft very often.  That&#8217;s actually not true.  When you pick high, the odds are good that you are going to keep picking high, because every time you miss on a top player, it&#8217;s going to sink your franchise and it becomes a downward cycle where even when you hit on a player, you&#8217;ve spent such a large proportion on your cap on the misses-costs that upper tier teams simply don&#8217;t have-that you are constantly swimming upstream.  Look at Detroit- they haven&#8217;t been universally awful at picking guys in the first round.  When it comes to expending picks on receivers, they&#8217;ve done a better job than Jacksonville- Charles Rogers and Mike Williams were busts, but Roy Williams and Calvin Johnson are studs.  That&#8217;s batting .500, but the costs of the misses are enormous.  Jacksonville whiffed consecutively on Reggie Williams and Matt Jones, and they followed it up by whiffing on their tight end Marcedes Lewis for good measure, but the picks have been low enough that their misses haven&#8217;t had the same kind of devastating impact on their cap.  The most important thing to do with these top picks is not screw them up.  And nothing is a bigger screw up than whiffing on a quarterback.  When you pick one, you better have very sound reasons to think the guy won&#8217;t bust.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jvsvn</title>
		<link>http://www.thejetsblog.com/2008/03/28/3770/#comment-75869</link>
		<dc:creator>jvsvn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2008 05:07:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thejetsblog.com/?p=3770#comment-75869</guid>
		<description>This whole thread suggests the wisdom of the Jets trading down if they can. I think it is quite possible that the Jets decide there is no can&#039;t miss prospect available who is worthy of #6 money.  So they trade down and fill other holes at CB, WR and DE or LB (with &quot;second tier&quot; prospects like Balmer or Campbell). Give KC he ball this year, for better or worse, and find out if he can be the franchise QB.  If he can&#039;t, then having filled other holes this year, they can use all of next year&#039;s choices to manuever into position to get one of the top QBs (whoever that is). This scenario is starting to make a lot of sense to me. I know people were very disappointed with KC last year.  But let&#039;s be fair, the guy has hardly been on the field and, when he was, the OL was terrible, the running game sucked, Coles was injured, and teams were totally teeing off on the guy. True, he didn&#039;t distinguish himself under those circumstances but who would have.  We&#039;ve invested two years in developing the guy. Give him a chance to succeed or fail and use this year&#039;s draft to fill other needs. Having done so, will be in a good position to draft a QB next year if we decide that is an absolute must. Let&#039;s face it, none of the this years QB prospects are coming out with the credentials of Peyton (or even Eli) Manning. They all have pluses and minuses. Maybe they&#039;ll br good, maybe not. But the same can be said of KC and he is already on the team. A year from now it might be a different story.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This whole thread suggests the wisdom of the Jets trading down if they can. I think it is quite possible that the Jets decide there is no can&#8217;t miss prospect available who is worthy of #6 money.  So they trade down and fill other holes at CB, WR and DE or LB (with &#8220;second tier&#8221; prospects like Balmer or Campbell). Give KC he ball this year, for better or worse, and find out if he can be the franchise QB.  If he can&#8217;t, then having filled other holes this year, they can use all of next year&#8217;s choices to manuever into position to get one of the top QBs (whoever that is). This scenario is starting to make a lot of sense to me. I know people were very disappointed with KC last year.  But let&#8217;s be fair, the guy has hardly been on the field and, when he was, the OL was terrible, the running game sucked, Coles was injured, and teams were totally teeing off on the guy. True, he didn&#8217;t distinguish himself under those circumstances but who would have.  We&#8217;ve invested two years in developing the guy. Give him a chance to succeed or fail and use this year&#8217;s draft to fill other needs. Having done so, will be in a good position to draft a QB next year if we decide that is an absolute must. Let&#8217;s face it, none of the this years QB prospects are coming out with the credentials of Peyton (or even Eli) Manning. They all have pluses and minuses. Maybe they&#8217;ll br good, maybe not. But the same can be said of KC and he is already on the team. A year from now it might be a different story.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Damian</title>
		<link>http://www.thejetsblog.com/2008/03/28/3770/#comment-75868</link>
		<dc:creator>Damian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2008 05:04:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thejetsblog.com/?p=3770#comment-75868</guid>
		<description>Mike, we can draft depth at the oline in the later rounds, but i wholeheartedly agree that DE is a priority and we are fine at ILB.  The addition of Jenkins will only help Harris and Barton, and we could draft a young ILB later on.  In the early rounds we need to find a pass rusher who can generate 14 sacks a year and a WR who can stretch the field.  Corner is deep in this draft, and we need one of those too.  But, if Clemens or Chad can figure out how to be successful next year, we can be a good team as long as we have a productive draft.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike, we can draft depth at the oline in the later rounds, but i wholeheartedly agree that DE is a priority and we are fine at ILB.  The addition of Jenkins will only help Harris and Barton, and we could draft a young ILB later on.  In the early rounds we need to find a pass rusher who can generate 14 sacks a year and a WR who can stretch the field.  Corner is deep in this draft, and we need one of those too.  But, if Clemens or Chad can figure out how to be successful next year, we can be a good team as long as we have a productive draft.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jetgenie</title>
		<link>http://www.thejetsblog.com/2008/03/28/3770/#comment-75865</link>
		<dc:creator>jetgenie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2008 03:25:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thejetsblog.com/?p=3770#comment-75865</guid>
		<description>I think they got our mock pick wrong, Kellen has to play the whole year with this (maybe) good offensive line, last year he had nothing exept Semour in his face. He needs a chance not Matt Ryan at QB. We should focus on either Mcfadden to replace Thomas Jones or Gholston to knock the QB&#039;s out a couple of times!!!!!!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think they got our mock pick wrong, Kellen has to play the whole year with this (maybe) good offensive line, last year he had nothing exept Semour in his face. He needs a chance not Matt Ryan at QB. We should focus on either Mcfadden to replace Thomas Jones or Gholston to knock the QB&#8217;s out a couple of times!!!!!!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 1/5 queries in 0.011 seconds using memcached
Object Caching 323/324 objects using memcached

Served from: www.thejetsblog.com @ 2012-02-12 00:36:08 -->
