Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

31 Aug 2006

Doug Jolley Traded to Buccaneers

Last year, the Jets traded the 26th and 230th picks (combined value according to the Draft Pick Value Chart: 702.4 points ) in the draft to the Raiders for Doug Jolley and the 47th, 182nd, and 185th picks (combined value: 478 points). The difference, 224.4 points, is right about the value of pick #73, the ninth selection in the third round. Today, the Jets traded Jolley to Tampa Bay for an undisclosed draft pick. Let's just say that "undisclosed" doesn't normally mean something better than the ninth selection of the third round.

Posted by: Bill Barnwell on 31 Aug 2006

21 comments, Last at 31 Aug 2006, 9:50pm by Led

Comments

1
by Tighthead (not verified) :: Thu, 08/31/2006 - 4:34pm

He looked so good when he broke in with the Raiders. Maybe Gruden can help him be useful again.

2
by ToxikFetus (not verified) :: Thu, 08/31/2006 - 4:39pm

[insert Jolly Roger joke here]

3
by karl (not verified) :: Thu, 08/31/2006 - 4:50pm

J-E-T-S! JETS, JETS, JETS!!!

I love the Jets. They always make me happy.

4
by Mike B. (not verified) :: Thu, 08/31/2006 - 4:59pm

Well, crap! So much for Alex Smith in my fantasy league...

5
by Sean (not verified) :: Thu, 08/31/2006 - 5:02pm

I understood the thought process behind the Jolly trade when Bradway made it- Heath Miller had an injury red flag and the team was terrified of taking Fabian Washington- but it really looks bad now. Really, really bad. Joel Dreessen has the same skill set as Jolly, only he's cheaper, younger and a better blocker. So that's that.

6
by Larry (not verified) :: Thu, 08/31/2006 - 5:05pm

I'm getting a little tired of this, "Let's compare the value of the picks in a trade" thing. It always seems to neglect things like the Jets actually having Jolley on their roster last year, and the fact that in trades made now, the picks should be discounted due to the fact they don't turn into players in games until September 2007.

None of this means the Jets did well here, but I'd prefer to see people acknowledge these factors.

Note: I have no idea how well Jolley played last year and I don't care, it isn't relevant to my general point.

7
by Are-Tee (not verified) :: Thu, 08/31/2006 - 5:06pm

It seems the Bucs needed to fill their quota of ex-Jets now that the slot held by Fiedler was just vacated.

8
by Trogdor (not verified) :: Thu, 08/31/2006 - 5:24pm

Larry brings up a good point. Of course, it also happens makes this trade look worse. According to the "standard" chart, which may not be exact now but is probably a pretty good guideline, Jolley was worth an early 3rd rounder in 2005.

Nobody would trade a 3rd rounder now for a 3rd rounder next year straight up, except in the extreme case of being so cap-strapped that they can't afford another rookie now. As TMQ frequently points out, the market difference between a pick this year and next is generally one round - teams will trade an 07 1st to get an 06 2nd, an 07 3rd to get an 06 4th, etc. This is the premium you pay to get a player now rather than later - one round.

Apply this to the Jolley trade, and it doesn't look good. To get him at the 05 draft, they (essentially) gave up and early 3rd rounder. The equivalent value of that pick is an 06 2nd rounder. I won't push it the next step and say it's worth an 07 first rounder, but it's safe to say that the difference in trade value back in 05 is at least worth a 2nd-round pick this spring.

True, they got to have Jolley for a year. But the question is whether his production plus value of pick they just got is greater than opportunity cost of the trade imbalance in 05. We can't say for sure until we know what pick they got, but unless it was a 1st rounder, they probably lost big.

9
by Bobman (not verified) :: Thu, 08/31/2006 - 5:25pm

In unrelated news, who has heard that Vinatieri now has a broken (non-kicking) foot?

In a related story, Scott Pioli misplaced a bag of cash when he attended a birthday party at Jeff Gillooly's house last week....

Now FO regulars get to find out if they were right, if an inanimate carbon rod really IS worth more than Mike Vanderjagt.

As a Colts fan, all I can say "In Rod we trust."

10
by ZS (not verified) :: Thu, 08/31/2006 - 5:57pm

And I was just about to put Chris Simms on my Loser League team when I saw this. I'm still going to, because hey, it's Doug Jolley (not Antonio Gates), but now I'm having more second thoughts.

11
by Yaguar (not verified) :: Thu, 08/31/2006 - 5:58pm

I will be very, very surprised if the pick is higher than a sixth rounder.

A team with a promising 2nd year TE in Alex Smith and a good backup in Anthony Becht doesn't have any reason to give up a decent pick for someone like Jolley.

12
by Led (not verified) :: Thu, 08/31/2006 - 6:55pm

I'm just glad Bill didn't say the Jets traded a first rounder for Jolley (ignoring the other picks), as the idiots in the general sports media always say. I can guaranty that will be part of the lede in the NY Post and Daily News articles tomorrow.

Hopefully yhe pick they got from Tampa at least equals the pick they gave to Dallas for Ryan. I also hope Ryan can block. Any truth to the rumor that Tampa needed a new turnstyle at the entrance to Raymond James?

13
by Larry (not verified) :: Thu, 08/31/2006 - 8:04pm

Yes, the future discounting makes this trade worse from the Jets' perspective. The point is a trade in August is different than a draft day trade. With the HUGE increase in players being traded in August, writers and analysts need to start accounting for this. You can get a player now for a pick later (Makes me think of Popeye). Basically, the Jets gave Jolley away here, if the pick is the expected 6th or 7th rounder

I cannot remember this many players moving around by trade in training camp. Perhaps this is a function of the giant cap increase giving teams all kinds of flexibility this year they never had before? Any other theories?

14
by Stereochemistry (not verified) :: Thu, 08/31/2006 - 8:06pm

"Well, crap! So much for Alex Smith in my fantasy league… "

At the cost of showing how broken my sarcasm meter is, I don't think you have to worry about Jolley taking playing time from Smith.

The Bucs are probably convinced that they are going to have to play more 2 TE sets again with the O-line still unable to handle pass protection by itself. That being the case, they HAVE to have more TE depth, because after Smith and Becht, there's long snapper Dave Moore, and a bunch of late round or undrafted rookies.

The only FF implications here are for those who drafted Mark Anelli or Tim Massaquoi...but I think those folks may have more serious problems concerning their fantasy teams.

15
by Larry (not verified) :: Thu, 08/31/2006 - 8:08pm

Just because I have to, Jolley was below replacement last year as a receiver. DPAR = -1.3. He may have had other skills, not being the #1 TE target, but it would seem that a 3rd round pick for 1 replacement level season = not so good. Getting slightly more than nothing for cutting said replacement level player actually seems like a decent move, though.

Not having watch Mr. Jolley ply his trade I can't say if his blocking is worth having around.

16
by Adam H. (not verified) :: Thu, 08/31/2006 - 8:09pm

Hey Jets, I hear A.J. Feeley could be had for a two banger. I'm just saying.

17
by Bill Barnwell :: Thu, 08/31/2006 - 9:04pm

Larry, you wrote my comment in response to your original comment for me. The Jets would've been better off with a replacement-level TE. I've seen my fair share of Jet games, and Jolley's never been one to impress when it comes to blocking.

TMQ's round offset for each year rule isn't exactly fact or anything, just one of TMQ's beliefs. Of course, the draft pick value chart is also not a fact or anything, but it seems more widely adopted than the round offset thing.

18
by Mentos (not verified) :: Thu, 08/31/2006 - 9:17pm

Jolley was not good last year. He had a good game in Miami and that was it.

19
by Duff Soviet Union (not verified) :: Thu, 08/31/2006 - 9:26pm

Raiders fan here. I'm not really what happened to Jolley. He had an awesome rookie year (from the FO stats: 86% catch rate, 4th in DPAR amongst Tight Ends and 1st in DVOA by a mile). Since then, nothing. Was his rookie year just a small sample size fluke or is it something more sinister? Re #1, he never played for Gruden in Oakland. Although in 2002 they were still running Gruden's offense so you never know.

20
by Led (not verified) :: Thu, 08/31/2006 - 9:43pm

Let the record reflect that the Jolley mess was made by the prior regime in Hofstra. The current young lads just got a very young, athletic DT with upside AND a draft pick from the Vikes for Brooks Bollinger!

**crosses fingers that Mosley passes the physical**

21
by Led (not verified) :: Thu, 08/31/2006 - 9:50pm

"Not having watch Mr. Jolley ply his trade I can’t say if his blocking is worth having around."

Having watched Mr. Jolley I can say his bloccking was not worth having around....

I think he could still be an effective receiver in the right system, though. You can't really judge him as a receiver based on his FO stats in the Jets offense last year. With the QB and O-line injuries, it was an utter trainwreck.