This from the latest MMQB column...
Quote:
<b>No. 3, Jacksonville.</b> A peer of GM David Caldwell said Sunday he knows a big Jag priority will be to play it safe with this pick. Sammy Watkins or Jake Matthews … quite safe.
http://mmqb.si.com/2014/05/05/nfl-draft-...alil-mack/
I think if this is true, as players, I wouldn't have a problem with either pick. I think both will be good pro players. On a lot of levels, those two picks make a ton of sense for this team.
I'd certainly rather have one of those guys than Manziel.
But I'd be kinda disappointed on some level.
From a certain perspective, both would represent drafting on a treadmill, so to speak.
Both players would be drafted to replace a guy we recently drafted high. Watkins would be the obvious replacement for Blackmon, and you will certainly hear more of the arguments that we should have kept Monroe instead of trading him below value, only to replace him the very next year by Matthews. For the record, I think a Joeckel-Matthews combo is superior to a Monroe-Joeckel combo.
Neither would represent my initial choices of Clowney or Bridgewater.
Neither would represent the potential windfall of a trade down.
Besides, let's face it, that "playing it safe" talk sounds an awful lot like a "base hit" strategy.
I'd get over it quickly and cheer either one wildly if they became Jaguars.
Just pre draft anxiety...I guess.
In 2012, a study by Harvard Sports Analysis, authored by Robert Bedetti, looked at the success by position of first round picks ('safest').
It concluded that TE, OL, and then DL were the safest picks in round 1. QB, RB, and then LB, WR, and DB were huddled closely as the riskiest picks in the round.
Quote:In 2012, a study by Harvard Sports Analysis, authored by Robert Bedetti, looked at the success by position of first round picks ('safest').
It concluded that TE, OL, and then DL were the safest picks in round 1. QB, RB, and then LB, WR, and DB were huddled closely as the riskiest picks in the round.
I remember reading about that not too long ago.
One other mild source of disappointment regarding these two picks.
To an extent, their selections would represent a betrayal of value. Not that those guys aren't worthy of top 5 picks based upon their abilities.
With Watkins, you could make the argument that because the draft is so deep at WR, you could get a starting caliber WR later.
With Matthews, if he's selected by the Jaguars, he'd likely play RT for us. That would be a high pick for a RT. Yes, he'd have the ability to play LT in a pinch, but taking a RT 3rd overall isn't maximizing value.
But I think either player would be an asset for the team. Just those are some of the sources of mild disappointment I would have after the pick.
But both are excellent players.
Of course all of this might easily be for nothing.
Quote:
Of course all of this might easily be for nothing.
How so?
Matthews would be such a meh pick. Still guessing we trade back.
I'd be fine with either pick honestly. If I had to pick one over the other I'd pick Matthews over Watkins.
I'd be really disappointing if we went OT 2 years in a row with a top 3 pick.
I watched a couple of episodes of "Caught in the Draft," the ESPN documentary about past drafts, last night. It really brought home how inexact the science of drafting is. GMs in "war rooms" and TV pundits were arguing and agonizing about the picks, and half the first rounders wound up being busts, and guys who went undrafted (ex: Kurt Warner) are probably going to the Hall of Fame when their careers are over.
We analyze, we think, we over-think, we act like we can really rank these guys, we argue like we are so sure of what we know. But if you watch that show, you will come to the conclusion that no matter whom we draft, there is a 50-50 chance he will have a very disappointing career.
Then Trent Dilfer came on and said if he didn't work for a network, he wouldn't watch the draft at all, and he couldn't believe how the draft is sold to the public with the fans eating it up. Kudos to him for being honest.
We're all like, oh my God, if we take Sammy Watkins instead of Khalil Mack, we are sunk. It's ridiculous. It's a total crapshoot. No matter whom we pick, someone will get picked in the 4th or 5th round by some team (hopefully us) who will wind in the Hall of Fame, and two out of the top five picks will be busts. I can practically guarantee it. And the busts will be random. We have no clue who will be great and who will be busts. Past experience tells us that.
Quote:Matthews would be such a meh pick. Still guessing we trade back.
Matthews is a meh pick to me too, until I look at the big picture, take last year's team, add in the free agents we've signed so far, then add Matthews and 10 other picks. Looking at the big picture, we should have a much better team in 2014, and that does excite me a lot.
The team needs both really, but Sammy Watkins is more of a need and would be an exciting pick.
Matthews would be a better RT than Paztor, and Paztor would be a better RG than whomever we have there now, which is nobody. So Matthews improves two positions with one pick.
Quote:Matthews is a meh pick to me too, until I look at the big picture, take last year's team, add in the free agents we've signed so far, then add Matthews and 10 other picks. Looking at the big picture, we should have a much better team in 2014, and that does excite me a lot.
I'm looking at the big picture too. I don't think we need a too 5 RT to be successful. We do need a playmaker on the outside and a young pass rusher.
Quote:I watched a couple of episodes of "Caught in the Draft," the ESPN documentary about past drafts, last night. It really brought home how inexact the science of drafting is. GMs in "war rooms" and TV pundits were arguing and agonizing about the picks, and half the first rounders wound up being busts, and guys who went undrafted (ex: Kurt Warner) are probably going to the Hall of Fame when their careers are over.
We analyze, we think, we over-think, we act like we can really rank these guys, we argue like we are so sure of what we know. But if you watch that show, you will come to the conclusion that no matter whom we draft, there is a 50-50 chance he will have a very disappointing career.
Then Trent Dilfer came on and said if he didn't work for a network, he wouldn't watch the draft at all, and he couldn't believe how the draft is sold to the public with the fans eating it up. Kudos to him for being honest.
We're all like, oh my God, if we take Sammy Watkins instead of Khalil Mack, we are sunk. It's ridiculous. It's a total crapshoot. No matter whom we pick, someone will get picked in the 4th or 5th round by some team (hopefully us) who will wind in the Hall of Fame, and two out of the top five picks will be busts. I can practically guarantee it. And the busts will be random. We have no clue who will be great and who will be busts. Past experience tells us that.
Excellent post.
Quote:Matthews would be a better RT than Paztor, and Paztor would be a better RG than whomever we have there now, which is nobody. So Matthews improves two positions with one pick.
Exactly.
That pick could potentially ripple throughout the draft for us.
Instead of using two picks on interior linemen (G-C), just one could be used.
Maybe the team waits a little later to take an interior OL.
A Matthews pick could make us a lot deeper along the OL.
We'd have 3 guys who could play LT in a pinch (Joeckel, Matthews, Bradfield), at least two guys who could play RT (Matthews, Pasztor), to say nothing of whatever interior linemen we draft this year later on.
I guarantee one thing a 100% that no matter what happens at #3 whether we trade down, up or take a guy...
a lot of people will be upset and posting on the board about it!
Quote:How so?
Beats me. Just a feeling. Nameless, faceless guys on message boards are so important to the working of the NFL and the world as a whole, all of reality would fall apart without our input!
Quote:I watched a couple of episodes of "Caught in the Draft," the ESPN documentary about past drafts, last night. It really brought home how inexact the science of drafting is. GMs in "war rooms" and TV pundits were arguing and agonizing about the picks, and half the first rounders wound up being busts, and guys who went undrafted (ex: Kurt Warner) are probably going to the Hall of Fame when their careers are over.
We analyze, we think, we over-think, we act like we can really rank these guys, we argue like we are so sure of what we know. But if you watch that show, you will come to the conclusion that no matter whom we draft, there is a 50-50 chance he will have a very disappointing career.
Then Trent Dilfer came on and said if he didn't work for a network, he wouldn't watch the draft at all, and he couldn't believe how the draft is sold to the public with the fans eating it up. Kudos to him for being honest.
We're all like, oh my God, if we take Sammy Watkins instead of Khalil Mack, we are sunk. It's ridiculous. It's a total crapshoot. No matter whom we pick, someone will get picked in the 4th or 5th round by some team (hopefully us) who will wind in the Hall of Fame, and two out of the top five picks will be busts. I can practically guarantee it. And the busts will be random. We have no clue who will be great and who will be busts. Past experience tells us that.
It is indeed a crap shoot. Nobody can know with any certainty if a player will pan out at the next level or not. There are all sorts of factors that can impact their success or failure.
Shocked that Dilfer would dare to say such things. Just because he qualified it doesn't mean it paints him in a better light. He's right, but still, you don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Quote:I guarantee one thing a 100% that no matter what happens at #3 whether we trade down, up or take a guy...
a lot of people will be upset and posting on the board about it!
I can't wait for the annual Krazy meltdown.
I get that Matthews ripple effect thing but does Matthews over Paztor at RT present a bigger upgrade then say a Mack to the Leo or Watkins to the WR corp?
Instead of using 2 picks for OL why can't we keep Paztor @ RT then use 3rd/4th rounder on a OG? Same effect because a 3rd round OG could be an upgrade to what Paztor was at RG.
We all thought Paztor did a solid job at RT didn't we?
Quote:I get that Matthews ripple effect thing but does Matthews over Paztor at RT present a bigger upgrade then say a Mack to the Leo or Watkins to the WR corp?
Instead of using 2 picks for OL why can't we keep Paztor @ RT then use 3rd/4th rounder on a OG? Same effect because a 3rd round OG could be an upgrade to what Paztor was at RG.
We all thought Paztor did a solid job at RT didn't we?
The team certainly felt like they had found their starter at RT in Pasztor. Taking a tackle at 3 this year would be a tremendous letdown after all the hype around the third pick. If they're going to go that route, trade out of the pick and get more value.