Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Given how much better our present defense is performing than our offense, why would you still want to go defense heavy in the draft?

 

Because you can never have enough disruptive defensive linemen, Chris Clemons isn't getting any younger either, the Jaguars need to find a young atheltic LEO. Randy Gregory would be perfect fit for this scheme, a potential 12-15 sack/year guy.

Quote:Because you can never have enough disruptive defensive linemen, Chris Clemons isn't getting any younger either, the Jaguars need to find a young atheltic LEO. Randy Gregory would be perfect fit for this scheme, a potential 12-15 sack/year guy.

Got to go get Randy Gregory because Clem has provided a good rush threat and I don't want to go back to 14 sack days because he got Clem got old. Lol I'm just throwing it out there

Quote:I disagree I think this DLine is the best Dline in Jags history..

How long have you been watching Jags football?  This statement is asinine.  Yes they come up with big plays, but still get gashed by the run and thru the air when they fail to pressure.  They lack consistency, but hit the occasional homerun.  The Jags have had completely dominant Dlines in the past that got the job done repeatedly.  This line seems more boom or bust.

Quote:Given how much better our present defense is performing than our offense, why would you still want to go defense heavy in the draft?

 

Good question.  I am inclined to go defense heavy next year's draft for a few reasons.

 

1.  All of the age is on the defensive side of the ball.  As good as the pass rush has been, soon, 30 something year old Chris Clemons will need to be replaced, as well as 30 something year old Red Bryant.  I like the way both have performed here, don't get me wrong, but they are at an age where their play can drop off dramatically.  I don't see Alualu as a viable replacement for Bryant, and while guys like Branch and Davis are good spot players, I'm not sure either are dominant pass rushers.  Ideally, we'd draft their (Clemons and Bryant) replacements and have them groom them for a year.

 

2.  Conversely, all of the youth is on the offensive side of the ball.  Yes, the offense has struggled this year, but that is as attributable to youth as much as anything.  There have been anywhere from 6-9 different rookies starting on the offensive side of the ball.  Robinson, Hurns, and Lee have all demonstrated big play ability to various degrees.  Bortles has shown potential.  Let them get more experience.  Adding more rookies to that side of the ball might not do anything much to help.  I think we can add a vet at TE to give Bortles a target over the middle, along with the additional year of experience with all the rookies, and I think you will see the offense improve. At most during the next draft, I would add a RB, LT, RT and maybe an interior OL for depth.

 

3.  Most of the longer term major liabilities on the team are on the defensive side of the ball.  Telvin Smith has been a find at LB, but we need two LBs in the draft.  Poz needs to be replaced, and J.T. Thomas, while he played well yesterday, to me is just a guy and not the long term answer there.   Our safety play has left a lot to be desired, too.  We could use a free safety with range and brains (not an indictment of the current free safeties, but let's face it, blown assignments in the secondary have KILLED this team this year).  Gratz has been up and down as well.

 

4.  Finally, there is something to be said for building on a strength.  I remember back in 1984.  The Giants already had one of the best 3-4 LB corps in football with a young LT, and another Hall of Famer Harry Carson.  At the top of that year's draft, they added stud OLB in Carl Banks, and together they formed the best OLB duo in football for years, and won two Super Bowls together.  Dallas won the Super Bowl in 1992 and 1993 with one of the best run blocking OLs in history.  But in 1994, they added Larry Allen in the second round, and he had a Hall of Fame career.  To add a more contemporary example, the Packers selected Aaron Rodgers when they had Brett Favre.  QB was not a need for them, even though Favre was in his 30s.  He was still an ultra productive passer when they took Rodgers.  But because they made that investment, they solidified the QB position for years, winning another Super Bowl.  Sometimes adding guys to an area of strength can be a great long term investment (and believe it or not this is an argument for BAP coming from me)

Quote:4.  Finally, there is something to be said for building on a strength.  I remember back in 1984.  The Giants already had one of the best 3-4 LB corps in football with a young LT, and another Hall of Famer Harry Carson.  At the top of that year's draft, they added stud OLB in Carl Banks, and together they formed the best OLB duo in football for years, and won two Super Bowls together.  Dallas won the Super Bowl in 1992 and 1993 with one of the best run blocking OLs in history.  But in 1994, they added Larry Allen in the second round, and he had a Hall of Fame career.

 

I think the best way to put it is, "you'll never regret taking a great player."

Quote:I think the best way to put it is, "you'll never regret taking a great player."

This...with one caveat-if you have a 30 something year old QB, and you take a great player at at non QB position instead of a great QB, you can regret taking a great player.

 

Otherwise...this.

Quote:This...with one caveat-if you have a 30 something year old QB, and you take a great player at at non QB position instead of a great QB, you can regret taking a great player.

 

Otherwise...this.

Any time a great QB prospect is available at below his believed value, take him, doesn't matter if you just took Leftwich. Take him.

 

Be the Packers, not the Jaguars.

Quote:Any time a great QB prospect is available at below his believed value, take him, doesn't matter if you just took Leftwich. Take him.

 

Be the Packers, not the Jaguars.

Eh...In some instances maybe.  Really depends on a lot of factors.  The Favre/Rodgers thing was rather unique and they didn't just grab Favre a year or two before either.

Don't look now…..  but….. everyone's favorite Gene Smith first rounder had 2 hurries and a sack on Sunday.  

 

To the OP, you are finally seeing glimpses of that famed Seattle D being executed right here in Duval. Grab your popcorn, it only gets better!

Thinking about this more, and looking at the remaining schedule, I am even more inclined to draft two tackles this draft-or at minimum draft a tackle and sign a free agent.

 

As it stands now, the Jaguars QBs have been sacked 50 times.

 

We face J.J. Watt and the Texans twice, go to Baltimore, and have a home game against Tennessee, a team that registered five (5) sacks against us when we last played.

 

It is not inconceivable the Jaguars could surrender in excess of SEVENTY (70) sacks this year. 

 

For comparison's sake, David Carr-the Houston Texans' QB who was a bust, according to many, because of the pounding he took- was sacked 76 times his rookie year. 

 

We cannot allow a similar fate to befall Bortles.  Yet once again, it is being demonstrated in front of our very eyes that QB mobility does not prevent excessive QB beatings.

 

Now hopefully the OL and the offense generally plays above what it has played this year, surrenders no more sacks and wins out.

 

But that isn't likely to happen.

 

Bortles is banged up.  Aside from the wrist issue he had a few weeks ago, now he has a banged up shoulder and ankle.  Undoubtedly that is a direct result of the pounding he has taken behind a porous offensive line.

 

There was a play in the Giants game where Bortles, in an understandable act of self preservation, went into the fetal position in taking a sack.

 

We can't allow Bortles to be pummeled into skittishness.  Even though not all of the sacks fall on the offensive line, they are responsible for enough of them to warrant bolstering it with additional personnel.  Though in my mind there is a compelling argument to be made for having a predominantly defensive heavy draft, I think Caldwell would be remiss getting out of the next off season without addressing the tackle positions twice.

Quote:Given how much better our present defense is performing than our offense, why would you still want to go defense heavy in the draft?

Because the offense just got a lot of youth added to it.

And the defense desperately needs that.

Most of our really good D players are aging vets.

And the young guys behind them have shown sparks, but nothing that would convince me they are primed for star roles.


I wouldn't ignore the offense altogether, but if we have 7 picks, we should use 5 on D. Especially with certain pieces in the secondary being question marks of even being starter material.

Free agency to supplement the offense while young picks continue to grow.

Quote:This defense still doesn't come close to the JDR/Might getcha defense with Stroud and Henderson, but one thing it does better than that team is rush the passer and force fumbles.

 

I'm still inclined to have a defense heavy draft though, with the caveat I am now open to taking a LT with the first pick.

 

I think this DL is as good as that one although that defense was a little more stout against the run.  What this D is missing is a Darius style enforcer.  Thought Cyp might become that at some point.  On the other hand, when he matures Colvin might be better than any of the corners those teams had.  In the draft I think we need to get another pass rusher (Clemons is no youngster).

Quote:Thinking about this more, and looking at the remaining schedule, I am even more inclined to draft two tackles this draft-or at minimum draft a tackle and sign a free agent.


As it stands now, the Jaguars QBs have been sacked 50 times.


We face J.J. Watt and the Texans twice, go to Baltimore, and have a home game against Tennessee, a team that registered five (5) sacks against us when we last played.


It is not inconceivable the Jaguars could surrender in excess of SEVENTY (70) sacks this year.


For comparison's sake, David Carr-the Houston Texans' QB who was a bust, according to many, because of the pounding he took- was sacked 76 times his rookie year.


We cannot allow a similar fate to befall Bortles. Yet once again, it is being demonstrated in front of our very eyes that QB mobility does not prevent excessive QB beatings.


Now hopefully the OL and the offense generally plays above what it has played this year, surrenders no more sacks and wins out.


But that isn't likely to happen.


Bortles is banged up. Aside from the wrist issue he had a few weeks ago, now he has a banged up shoulder and ankle. Undoubtedly that is a direct result of the pounding he has taken behind a porous offensive line.


There was a play in the Giants game where Bortles, in an understandable act of self preservation, went into the fetal position in taking a sack.


We can't allow Bortles to be pummeled into skittishness. Even though not all of the sacks fall on the offensive line, they are responsible for enough of them to warrant bolstering it with additional personnel. Though in my mind there is a compelling argument to be made for having a predominantly defensive heavy draft, I think Caldwell would be remiss getting out of the next off season without addressing the tackle positions twice.

Totally agree

Quote:Thinking about this more, and looking at the remaining schedule, I am even more inclined to draft two tackles this draft-or at minimum draft a tackle and sign a free agent.

 

As it stands now, the Jaguars QBs have been sacked 50 times.

 

We face J.J. Watt and the Texans twice, go to Baltimore, and have a home game against Tennessee, a team that registered five (5) sacks against us when we last played.

 

It is not inconceivable the Jaguars could surrender in excess of SEVENTY (70) sacks this year. 

 

For comparison's sake, David Carr-the Houston Texans' QB who was a bust, according to many, because of the pounding he took- was sacked 76 times his rookie year. 

 

We cannot allow a similar fate to befall Bortles.  Yet once again, it is being demonstrated in front of our very eyes that QB mobility does not prevent excessive QB beatings.

 

Now hopefully the OL and the offense generally plays above what it has played this year, surrenders no more sacks and wins out.

 

But that isn't likely to happen.

 

Bortles is banged up.  Aside from the wrist issue he had a few weeks ago, now he has a banged up shoulder and ankle.  Undoubtedly that is a direct result of the pounding he has taken behind a porous offensive line.

 

There was a play in the Giants game where Bortles, in an understandable act of self preservation, went into the fetal position in taking a sack.

 

We can't allow Bortles to be pummeled into skittishness.  Even though not all of the sacks fall on the offensive line, they are responsible for enough of them to warrant bolstering it with additional personnel.  Though in my mind there is a compelling argument to be made for having a predominantly defensive heavy draft, I think Caldwell would be remiss getting out of the next off season without addressing the tackle positions twice.

 

I'm more inclined to sign good veteran players that can serve as stop gap for next season or so. I like what I've seen from Bowanko, and I think he has real potential at C but I want a veteran to push him. Same with the RT position.

Wonder if Joeckel could make a decent guard in a ZB scheme...

Quote:Wonder if Joeckel could make a decent guard in a ZB scheme...

Perhaps he would.

 

But if we moved him to G, who do we displace?

 

Keep him on the left side and replace Beadles?

 

Move him to the right and replace Linder?

 

Neither is an attractive alternative.

 

Both alternatives represent a completely blown transaction one way or another.

I'd like to see us continue to sign quality depth on the d-line. To have consistent pressure on the QB, especially during the September and October Jax heat and humidity, the ability to rotate pass rushers is a real advantage.

Quote:Perhaps he would.

 

But if we moved him to G, who do we displace?

 

Keep him on the left side and replace Beadles?

 

Move him to the right and replace Linder?

 

Neither is an attractive alternative.

 

Both alternatives represent a completely blown transaction one way or another.

 

I think we just have to bite the bullet and keep Luke at LT unless we can find an elite one that would allow us to slide him to RT. With the landscape of the NFL though, finding an elite LT seems to be getting more and more difficult

Anyone have word on the LB shuffle for the week?

 

Jeremiah George is back.