ShareThis Page
At No. 3, the Jets’ problem is a good one to have | TribLIVE.com
Steelers/NFL

At No. 3, the Jets’ problem is a good one to have

Jerry DiPaola
1060034_web1_gtr-QuinnenWilliams042219
Alabama defensive lineman Quinnen Williams runs a drill during the NFL football scouting combine, Sunday, March 3, 2019, in Indianapolis. (AP Photo/Darron Cummings)

With the third pick in the NFL Draft, the New York Jets have a difficult decision to make.

Assuming Oklahoma quarterback Kyler Murray and Ohio State defensive end Nick Bosa go 1-2 to the Arizona Cardinals and San Francisco 49ers (and that’s no lock), the Jets and new coach Adam Gase can choose from among three of the top defensive players in college football last season — Alabama defensive tackle Quinnen Williams, Kentucky linebacker Josh Allen or Houston defensive end Ed Oliver.

The two the Jets don’ t take surely will be gone within the top 10, if not the top five, picks.

New York Daily News writer Menish Meta’s insightful piece suggests the Hall of Fame may be in Oliver’s future; or, at least, he could have a career similar to that of Aaron Donald.

Whoever the team selects, the Pittsburgh Steelers will get a look at the how this draft will affect the Jets when the teams meet Dec. 22 at Metlife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. It’s a potential reunion with running back Le’Veon Bell, who was only a second-round pick, by the way.

Then, there’s Sunday Night Football analyst Cris Collinsworth’s pick for the Jets. Better yet, look at the family tie he projects for the Steelers’ selection at No. 20. If he’s right, the Steelers will be passing up a huge need on defense, at least in the first round.

Jerry DiPaola is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Jerry by email at [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Sports | Steelers
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.