I've already made my feelings known about wide receivers so my choice is to get those picks but what would you like to see?
Edit-Stinking auto correct. Can a mod pluralize Jaguars please?
Quote: Can a mod pluralize Jaguars please?
![[Image: 1396880061403.png]](https://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/vp/image/1396/88/1396880061403.png)
And if you can find a sucker big enough you always take the picks.
Depends how far down the order, and how big the sucker. Have to be a pretty big sucker to pry Watkins away, though.
Why do I feel like this question has been asked on this board by at least a million times?
Can draft day hurry up and get here already?
If Clowney and Mack are gone, then we're likely to go Watkins, Robinson or Matthews if there's no trade out.
Quote:Why do I feel like this question has been asked on this board by at least a million times?
Can draft day hurry up and get here already?
Yup. All the topics have already been discussed even if some love beating the dead horse. It's makes for short, terse, and sometimes chippy conversations caused by the endless recycle of worn out questions.
Quote:Why do I feel like this question has been asked on this board by at least a million times?
Can draft day hurry up and get here already?
It has... This is probably the main reason I'm mad about the draft being pushed back. We should be arguing out picks and not the "what if" game.
Quote:If Clowney and Mack are gone, then we're likely to go Watkins, Robinson or Matthews if there's no trade out.
No way in hell Robinson or Matthews are even considered at #3....
At least I hope not.
Id go Watkins. I have to change pants imagining shorts and Watkins outside with Blackmon/Ace in the slot.
Jaguars voted likeliest Manziel landing spot on NFL.com.
It's about to go down.
Quote:No way in hell Robinson or Matthews are even considered at #3....
At least I hope not.
Glad you're not GM.
They could be the highest rated players on the board at the most likely to hit position.
If Clowney and Mack are gone, It would be difficult to imagine two players other than those two alongside Watkins at the top of the board.
Quote:Glad you're not GM.
They could be the highest rated players on the board at the most likely to hit position.
If Clowney and Mack are gone, It would be difficult to imagine two players other than those two alongside Watkins at the top of the board.
i dont see us looking at Robinson, Matthews i can see
Quote:Glad you're not GM.
They could be the highest rated players on the board at the most likely to hit position.
If Clowney and Mack are gone, It would be difficult to imagine two players other than those two alongside Watkins at the top of the board.
Tackles are overrated. Drafting them in the top 5 is stupid IMO. They make very little impact.
Defenses can generate pressure in a million different ways.
I'd rather have 5 decent O-lineman than 2 "bookend" tackles drafted in the top 5 and have one major weakness on the inside. The Offensive line is as strong as it's weakest link. Rather use multiple middle round picks and put out the best 5 guys that work best together than reach for a tackle that high.
Just my opinion though. It's how Jimmy Johnson thought and I tend to agree with him.
Quote:i dont see us looking at Robinson, Matthews i can see
Then you're saying Watkins would be the pick.
I'm not disagreeing with that, it's probably my pick too.
But I certainly wouldn't be upset with either of the other two if that's where they choose to go in that scenario. Again, I wouldn't put any other candidates in their place alongside Watkins.
Quote:Then you're saying Watkins would be the pick.
I'm not disagreeing with that, it's probably my pick too.
But I certainly wouldn't be upset with either of the other two if that's where they choose to go in that scenario. Again, I wouldn't put any other candidates in their place alongside Watkins.
If we could trade back a few and get an extra 2nd I would be more than happy with a Matthews pick. In a year or 2 probably the best tackle combo in the league.
Teddy or Johnny. Flip a coin