How did the Jets acquire their 4 1st round picks

[phenom]

That was my list.

Morris was pretty good his rookie year, but he blew out both his knees in consecutive years.

I'd take, in no particular order, Vinatieri, Vanderjagt, John Carney, Jason Elam, Jason Hanson, John Kasay, Ryan Longwell, Olindo Mare, Matt Stover, Jeff Wilkins all before blowing a first round pick on Janikowski.

 

706343[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Well that's a nice "big name list" with absolutely no basis behind it other than being they are known kickers. Especially since only 2 of them had better years than Janikowski had this year.

 

I sure wish the Raiders could have blown their draft pick on Morris though; either Rob or Sylvester. They would have been worthy returns on a 1st round pick.

 

 

If all you want to do is disparage the Raiders pick of a kicker in the 1st round so be it. You aren't going to understand, you really don't want to understand so there it is. As a Raider fan who watches all of their games I was happy and the end result was positive. They did go to 2 championships and a Super Bowl how

bad a pick could it have been.

 

 

But you could have had Trung Canidate you fool! He was there!!!! AVAILABLE! Dammmmmitttt whyyyyyyyyy waste a pick on a kicker. You could have had Chad Pennington. I know you had Rich Gannon and he had just went to the Pro Bowl and would be headed to 2 more consecutive Pro Bowls and a MVP year and he would have gladly sat behind him for another 4 years............

[The Vatican Hitsquad]

Move up in the first round to take a kicker?  Sounds like something only the stupid Raiders would do! 

 

Wow.  Janikowski has kicked in a Super Bowl.  How'd that turn out?  3 extra points.  Whoo Hooo!  I bet they wished they'd drafted someone to help out the offense or defense in the first round in 2000, instead of a kicker, as they were getting their heads handed to them by the Buccaneers.

 

706398[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Ahh, it must burn you up at night never having teh Colts make a Super Bowl, even if they were to lose it..

 

Imagine, if they ONLY picked up Tom Brady... or Janikowski...

[CaptainHook]

Well that's a nice "big name list" with absolutely no basis behind it other than being they are known kickers.  Especially since only 2 of them had better years than Janikowski had this year.

706411[/snapback]

 

 

 

THIS year. That's the key, isn't it?

 

I sure wish the Raiders could have blown their draft pick on Morris though

706411[/snapback]

 

 

 

But Rob Morris has been a 4 year starter. A solid, yet unspectacular player who helped the Colts to the Championship game and the playoffs. With your reasoning, that makes him a "great pick", since there were so many busts that year. Yet, I don't think it was the best pick, because of who they could have drafted. I'd say Rob Morris was a better pick than Janikowski was.

 

They did go to 2 championships and a Super Bowl how bad a pick could it have been. 

 

706411[/snapback]

 

 

 

Pretty bad considering that Shaun Alexander, Keith Bullock, Marcus Washington, Mike Brown, Ian Gold, Kenoy Kennedy, Mike Anderson, Chad Clifton, Chad Pennington, Anthony Becht, Lavernues Coles, Marvel Smith, Ahmed Plummer, and Darrel Jackson were still available. Maybe they win another AFC Championship game and possibly a Super Bowl if they hadn't gone with a kicker. . .

[CaptainHook]

Ahh, it must burn you up at night never having teh Colts make a Super Bowl, even if they were to lose it..

 

Imagine, if they ONLY picked up Tom Brady... or Janikowski...

 

706421[/snapback]

 

 

 

Honestly, I'd rather miss the Super Bowl than get to one and get slaughtered. . .

[Rovers]

No what I meant by there is no difference between a 1st round pick and 7th round pick is what that player can do for the team. 

 

Just because a player is a first round pick doesn't automatically mean that player is going to turn out to be some savior.  Just as if you are a 5th round pick doesn't mean he is probably going to get cut or just be assigned to the practice squad. That guy could turn out to be the foundation of your team and your first rounder might be an albatross.

 

Teams pay a lot of money to first round picks based on perceived potential.  However a 3rd or 4th round player can end up being the better pick after all. 

 

I don't know why but I think if we went back into history you will find just as many good players who weren't first round picks.  Perhaps they were hungrier or felt slighted but that's how it appears.

 

Vatican has already pointed it out but that year there have been quite a few big busts from the 2000 draft:

 

Thomas Jones Arizona

 

Travis Taylor Baltimore

 

Ron Dayne NY Giants

 

Deltha O'Neal Denver

 

Stockar McDougle Detroit

 

Sylvester Morris Kansas City

 

RJ Soward  Jacksonville

 

Trung Canidate  St Louis

 

What makes any of these picks any better than Janikowski?  I'm just amazed that you are that against the pick just because it was a kicker.  Half of these other guys aren't even with their team anymore.  I don't even know if Sylvester Morris is still in the NFL (he's not he only played 1 year!).  What are Stockar McDougle and RJ Soward doing now?  And Janikowski is a terrible pick?  He's still playing and doing well, you say you could find 10 better kickers well I say show me.  He was 4th overall in FG % last year and tied for 5th in 2003.

 

He was also tied for 5th with 12 touchbacks.  Vanderjagt?  He had none and the Colts had to bring in someone to kickoff for him.  Plus what does your QB and coach think of him........

 

706335[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Of course there will always be later round picks that result in the aquisition of great players.... here is what I said...

 

By "hope it pans out", I mean there are no sure fire first round picks, some end up as pro bowlers, some don't, despite all the effort these clubs put into evaluating the talent coming out of college. Some can't miss picks do miss....badly. However, getting an impact player is still more likely in the first round than in any other.

 

The Jets took Becht in 2000. Even though he started right away, for a first rounder, he was a disappointment. The other three picks they had did what first round picks are supposed to do.... become dominant play makers on thier team.

 

 

Then you say....

 

I don't know why but I think if we went back into history you will find just as many good players who weren't first round picks. Perhaps they were hungrier or felt slighted but that's how it appears.

 

 

There are only 32 first round picks. Some of them will be busts. There are also 32 second round picks. Even MORE of them will be busts, and so on. So, your "guess" is that there are fewer "foundation" players gotten from the first 32 players drafted than from the next 192 that are selected in a given draft? OK, leat's ay you are right. Let's say the first round produces 10 "foundation" players. Rounds 2 through 7 produce 15. The chance of getting an impact player is around 30% in the first round, and drops to 8% for the next six rounds.

 

Using a first round pick on a kicker greatly reduces the chances of getting an impact player in the rest of the draft. By the time teams are picking in the fifth and sixth rounds, getting such a player is more dumb luck than anything else.

 

Kicking is often under rated as far as it's importance, but there are kickers available who can do the job, without costing a team it's first round draft pick. I think the Raiders just over reacted to thier own bad job of obtaining a kicker the previous year. I also think they could have traded down from 17 and still gotten SJ. So, on two counts I think the Raiders made a mistake. I also never said it was a bad pick, what I said was that it wasn't a good pick.

[CaptainHook]

Kicking is often under rated as far as it's importance, but there are kickers available who can do the job, without costing a team it's first round draft pick. I think the Raiders just over reacted to thier own bad job of obtaining a kicker the previous year. I also think they could have traded down from 17 and still gotten SJ. So, on two counts I think the Raiders made a mistake. I also never said it was a bad pick, what I said was that it wasn't a good pick.

 

706441[/snapback]

 

 

 

Very well put. Is Janikowski a terrible player? No. Do I think it was a horrible choice to take him at 1.17? Absolutely. It was a terrible choice at that point. I agree with Rovers that he would have been around much longer. If the Raiders thought he was going to be that dominant to take him in the first round, I bet they hoped he would be better than he has been. No Pro Bowls. He only had one great year for touchbacks, 2002, when he had 22. Since then he has had 7 touchbacks in 2003. 12 touchbacks in 2004. His rookie year he had 14 touchbacks. In 2001, 12 touchbacks. Less than one per game?

 

He is only 7-13 on 50+ yard FG's for his career. He is only 38-55 for 40-49 yarders. Not exactly spectacular.

Edited February 21, 2005 by CaptainHook

[phenom]

THIS year.  That's the key, isn't it?

 

 

706430[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Yes it is. And next year and the year after that. I like having my first round picks around. I'm not looking to get rid of them after 4 years which leads to.....

 

 

But Rob Morris has been a 4 year starter.  A solid, yet unspectacular player who helped the Colts to the Championship game and the playoffs.  With your reasoning, that makes him a "great pick",

 

706430[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

No I didn't say it was a great pick at all; you are assuming. The Colts only kept him around because he was a first round pick. Who wants to admit they f'd up on a high draft choice and release them? And for you to say he helped the Colts to the Championship game is funny, I don't recall anyone saying the defense is going to be the reason the Colts win anything. Seeing as how Rob Morris has 7 sacks in his career, 2 forced fumbles in his career, 1 interception in his career I don't think he lead the Colts D anywhere. Nice impact player pick there Cap.

 

 

Pretty bad considering that Shaun Alexander, Keith Bullock, Marcus Washington, Mike Brown,  Ian Gold, Kenoy Kennedy, Mike Anderson, Chad Clifton, Chad Pennington, Anthony Becht, Lavernues Coles, Marvel Smith, Ahmed Plummer, and Darrel Jackson were still available.  Maybe they win another AFC Championship game and possibly a Super Bowl if they hadn't gone with a kicker. . .

 

706430[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

You know you're one of those I told you so types aren't you. I think you are the blueprint guy behind the Brett Favre "Monday Morning Quarterback" commercial. It must be nice to have such good hindsight. You're the only one who knew those picks were going to turn out to be impact players.

 

 

I salute you Capt Hook.............

[The Vatican Hitsquad]

Honestly, I'd rather miss the Super Bowl than get to one and get slaughtered. . .

 

706431[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Heh, so then youy don't mind losing to the Patriots every year and never finishing better than 2nd and 3rd best in the AFC?

 

That explains everything, you aim low.

[CaptainHook]

No I didn't say it was a great pick at all; you are assuming.  The Colts only kept him around because he was a first round pick.  Who wants to admit they f'd up on a high draft choice and release them?  And for you to say he helped the Colts to the Championship game is funny, I don't recall anyone saying the defense is going to be the reason the Colts win anything.  Seeing as how Rob Morris has 7 sacks in his career, 2 forced fumbles in his career, 1 interception in his career I don't think he lead the Colts D anywhere.  Nice impact player pick there Cap.

706460[/snapback]

 

 

 

I don't expect a lot of sacks or INT's from my middle linebacker. I expect tackles. Morris has been in the top 2 or three in tackles on the Colts every year he has been a starter. Do I wish he had done more? We've been over that. Several times. I don't recall anoyone saying that Sebastian Janikowski is going to be the reason the Raider win anything either. I guess I'm missing your point. Perhaps you don't have one, as usual.

 

Yeah, I have a tendancy to look back and see who was available when a team picked. It says a lot about the scouting a team does. Both Morris and Janikowski have been "starters". Although you can hardly call a kicker a starter. Janikowski was a bad pick at 1.17. Only Raider fans have swallowed the black Kool-Aid, and think it was great.

[CaptainHook]

Heh, so then youy don't mind losing to the Patriots every year and never finishing better than 2nd and 3rd best in the AFC?

 

That explains everything, you aim low.

 

706466[/snapback]

 

 

 

But the Raiders finished second in the AFC for two straight years? And then got the snot kicked out of them by the Buccaneers. A defensive team that put up 48 points?? Raiders were second, yet again, but it was a good second, only made possible by the greatness of Sebastian Janikowski.

[The Vatican Hitsquad]

I don't expect a lot of sacks or INT's from my middle linebacker.  I expect tackles.  Morris has been in the top 2 or three in tackles on the Colts every year he has been a starter.  Do I wish he had done more?  We've been over that.  Several times.  I don't recall anoyone saying that Sebastian Janikowski is going to be the reason the Raider win anything either.  I guess I'm missing your point.  Perhaps you don't have one, as usual. 

 

Yeah, I have a tendancy to look back and see who was available when a team picked.  It says a lot about the scouting a team does.  Both Morris and Janikowski have been "starters".  Although you can hardly call a kicker a starter.  Janikowski was a bad pick at 1.17.  Only Raider fans have swallowed the black Kool-Aid, and think it was great.

 

706479[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

And only you seem to be crying that it was a horrible pick. He's contributes to the team still and is not about to be let go. You just sound so bitter, do you just wish you didn't have a "liquored up idot kicker" as opposed to our liquored up roofie kicking kicker?

 

Is it this years loss to the Pats that's doing it to ya?

 

Come to Jesus... just put on the Silver and Black and all will be forgiven.

 

You know you want to.

[CaptainHook]

And only you seem to be crying that it was a horrible pick. He's contributes to the team still and is not about to be let go. You just sound so bitter, do you just wish you didn't have a "liquored up idot kicker" as opposed to our liquored up roofie kicking kicker?

 

706490[/snapback]

 

 

 

You act like this is being voted on by NFL fans. I've only seen one other person in here reading this, Rovers, and he said he didn't think it was a good pick. And the only two defending the pick are Raider fans.

 

Geez phenom, what takes you soooooooooooo long to type?

Edited February 21, 2005 by CaptainHook

[The Vatican Hitsquad]

You act like this is being voted on by NFL fans.  I've only seen one other person in here reading this, Rovers, and he said he didn't think it was a good pick.  And the only two defending the pick are Raider fans.

 

Geez phenom, what takes you soooooooooooo long to type?

 

706494[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Your still the only one crying about it...

 

Come to Jesus...

[CaptainHook]

Crying about what? I said earlier, on page 1, when commenting on the first round of 2000, that I didn't think Janikowski was a good pick at 1.17. You and phenom are the two who have defended this to the death, and yet YOU don't even make points anymore. You talk more about the Colts.

Edited February 21, 2005 by CaptainHook

[Fatman]

I still just can't raionalize taking a kicker in the first round. Yes, he filled a need in a position that the Raiders struggled with before. But there are so many positions that impact the game more than a kicker. Has he been good for the Raiders? Absolutely. Did they overreact to their kicking situation from the year(s) before? I think so. To me, Sebastian hasn't distinguished himself enough to warrant that high of a pick. Inherently, a team's first round pick should be a monster, a difference maker on the field. I just can't say that I think Janikowski is that.

[CaptainHook]

Well, now thats three nuetral, non-Raider fans who think it wasn't a great pick.

Edited February 21, 2005 by CaptainHook

[phenom]

I don't know why but I think if we went back into history you will find just as many good players who weren't first round picks. Perhaps they were hungrier or felt slighted but that's how it appears.

There are only 32 first round picks. Some of them will be busts. There are also 32 second round picks. Even MORE of them will be busts, and so on. So, your "guess" is that there are fewer "foundation" players gotten from the first 32 players drafted than from the next 192 that are selected in a given draft? OK, leat's ay you are right. Let's say the first round produces 10 "foundation" players. Rounds 2 through 7 produce 15. The chance of getting an impact player is around 30% in the first round, and drops to 8% for the next six rounds.

 

Using a first round pick on a kicker greatly reduces the chances of getting an impact player in the rest of the draft. By the time teams are picking in the fifth and sixth rounds, getting such a player is more dumb luck than anything else.

 

Kicking is often under rated as far as it's importance, but there are kickers available who can do the job, without costing a team it's first round draft pick. I think the Raiders just over reacted to thier own bad job of obtaining a kicker the previous year. I also think they could have traded down from 17 and still gotten SJ. So, on two counts I think the Raiders made a mistake. I also never said it was a bad pick, what I said was that it wasn't a good pick.

 

706441[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You're right as the rounds progress the level of God given talent decreases and your chance of getting an "impact" player decreases. However there are always those players that slip through that end up being steals of the draft. That's why I feel the draft is a gamble, you really don't know what you're getting until you put that player in your system. It's all speculation and then there is that other x factor of injuries. If a guy is injury prone that's just like wasting a draft pick.

 

 

Janikowski wasn't the conventional pick but for the Raiders at that time it was the most needed pick. He solidified a major hole on the team. I can see where other people don't like the pick and think the Raiders overreacted and reached for Janikowski. But that year I was overreacting. When I saw Janikowski kicking 50 yarders at Florida state and I watched the Raiders trot out these crappy kickers I wanted him.

 

I don't think you guys understand how bad those kickers were.

 

1997 Cole Ford 71% FG percentage

1998 Greg Davis had a 63% FG

1999 Michael Husted had 64.5% and Joe Nedney was 71%

 

Do you know how bad that sucks? Thats not kinda bad. That's not average. That's like worst in the NFL type sucking. And that's over a 3 year period. So maybe a little bit of an overreaction but when you have that sort of production you need to address it in a big way.............

[phenom]

Geez phenom, what takes you soooooooooooo long to type?

 

706494[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Hey man give me a break! I'm instant messaging my wife at the same time. She already thinks i'm talking to someone else because i take to long to reply to her............

[CaptainHook]

So maybe a little bit of an overreaction but when you have that sort of production you need to address it in a big way.............

 

706511[/snapback]

 

 

 

I'd say it was more than a "little bit of an overreaction". I understand that their kicking was bad. But at 1.17, it was just too early. Trade down. If you miss out on him, draft Edinger in the fifth round. He's only missed 8 fewer FG's in his career than Janikowski, and he was taken 5 rounds later.

[phenom]

I'd say it was more than a "little bit of an overreaction".  I understand that their kicking was bad.  But at 1.17, it was just too early.  Trade down.  If you miss out on him, draft Edinger in the fifth round.  He's only missed 8 fewer FG's in his career than Janikowski, and he was taken 5 rounds later.

 

706516[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah but the Bears weren't a kicker away from 2 championship games and a Super Bowl. Kicker wasn't a need for them at the time. It was for the Raiders........

[Fatman]

Yeah but the Bears weren't a kicker away from 2 championship games and a Super Bowl.  Kicker wasn't a need for them at the time.  It was for the Raiders........

 

706524[/snapback]

 

 

 

To me, "filling a need" and "drastically overpaying" is the difference in this case.

[CaptainHook]

Yeah but the Bears weren't a kicker away from 2 championship games and a Super Bowl.  Kicker wasn't a need for them at the time.  It was for the Raiders........

 

706524[/snapback]

 

 

 

Can't you understand that paying for a GOOD veteran kicker or drafting Edinger later would have given them the ability to get a REALLY REALLY GOOD player with the seventeenth pick? That would have made them even better!

[CaptainHook]

Plus, now, 5 years later, you've got a kicker, but there are huge holes at RB, WR, QB, TE, LB, and DB?

[Rovers]

You're right as the rounds progress the level of God given talent decreases and your chance of getting an "impact" player decreases.  However there are always those players that slip through that end up being steals of the draft.  That's why I feel the draft is a gamble, you really don't know what you're getting until you put that player in your system.  It's all speculation and then there is that other x factor of injuries.  If a guy is injury prone that's just like wasting a draft pick.

Janikowski wasn't the conventional pick but for the Raiders at that time it was the most needed pick.  He solidified a major hole on the team.  I can see where other people don't like the pick and think the Raiders overreacted and reached for Janikowski.  But that year I was overreacting.  When I saw Janikowski kicking 50 yarders at Florida state and I watched the Raiders trot out these crappy kickers I wanted him.

 

I don't think you guys understand how bad those kickers were.

 

1997 Cole Ford 71% FG percentage

1998 Greg Davis had a 63% FG

1999 Michael Husted had 64.5% and Joe Nedney was 71%

 

Do you know how bad that sucks?  Thats not kinda bad.  That's not average.  That's like worst in the NFL type sucking.  And that's over a 3 year period.  So maybe a little bit of an overreaction but when you have that sort of production you need to address it in a big way.............

 

706511[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

phenom, I agree with what you said here. I'll say again, I don't think it was a bad pick, but to me, it doesnt qualify as a good one either. I can however, understand the Raiders management's frustration. Sometimes when I can't loosen a nut fastened to a bolt, I go get the hammer. Brute force the problem, and I think that is a fair analogy of what the Raiders did with this pick. They just did not want to deal with the problem anymore, not even to trade down for SJ, despite the fact that there were other ways to deal with the kicking problem, which had previously failed them.

 

Lets say the Raiders had not had so much trouble getting a kicker that was consistant in the preceeding 3 years. Lets say they had an OK kicker, but he had a season ending injury. Do they still take SJ there? I doubt it, it was a frustration pick. Husted and Nedney have proven to be OK, but not when they kicked for the Raiders, for whatever the reasons. In any case, it hasn't proven to be a bad pick, it solved a problem, but I do believe the problem could have been solved without burning a 17th overall pick, even if they just traded down.

 

That three year streak was very unusual, something most teams and fans don't have to endure...one year, maybe, not three. I understand the pick, and it solved a big problem, but I also think that a kicker taken in the first round should be a perrenial pro bowler. So, because it solved a problem that went on for 3 years, I won't call it a bad pick, but still can't call it a good one, either.

 

At this point, I bow out of the conversation! Have fun!

[Fatman]

phenom, I agree with what you said here. I'll say again, I don't think it was a bad pick, but to me, it doesnt qualify as a good one either. I can however, understand the  Raiders management's frustration. Sometimes when I can't loosen a nut fastened to a bolt, I go get the hammer. Brute force the problem, and I think that is a fair analogy of what the Raiders did with this pick. They just did not want to deal with the problem anymore, not even to trade down for SJ, despite the fact that there were other ways to deal with the kicking problem, which had previously failed them.

 

Lets say the Raiders had not had so much trouble getting a kicker that was consistant in the preceeding 3 years. Lets say they had an OK kicker, but he had a season ending injury.  Do they still take SJ there? I doubt it, it was a frustration pick. Husted and Nedney have proven to be OK, but not when they kicked for the Raiders, for whatever the reasons. In any case, it hasn't proven to be a bad pick, it solved a problem, but I do believe the problem could have been solved without burning a 17th overall pick, even if they just traded down.

 

That three year streak was very unusual, something most teams and fans don't have to endure...one year, maybe, not three. I understand the pick, and it solved a big problem, but I also think that a kicker taken in the first round should be a perrenial pro bowler. So, because it solved a problem that went on for 3 years, I won't call it a bad pick, but still can't call it a good one, either.

 

At this point, I bow out of the conversation! Have fun! 

 

706547[/snapback]