Quote:I don't see Matthews being thrilled to take a back seat to Joekel again. He has been waiting to play the premier position of LT for a while. I don't think he will want to go back to playing RT. In that case, we would not be able to retain both long term (>5 years).
I disagree that we won't be able to keep both, (should it come to that). The cap is going up 5-10 MIL every year for at least the next 4 years. As long as we dont go crazy in FA, which I doubt we will, we'll have no issues retaining both and others.
Quote:I know, but should we draft him if he is going to want to play LT in the future?
You're assuming that its a huge issue for him. I'd bet as long as he gets paid, he don't care which side of the line he plays on. He's shown he can play both at a very high level.
Quote:I disagree that we won't be able to keep both, (should it come to that). The cap is going up 5-10 MIL every year for at least the next 4 years. As long as we dont go crazy in FA, which I doubt we will, we'll have no issues retaining both and others.
Ok, Im not worried about cap. I could just see him wanting out in four years.... obviously that is contingent upon Joekel being the LT we hoped for.
I think it is all a moot point. They aren't taking Matthews.
They are likely just doing their due diligence. Probably also trying to get StL to think twice about trading down.
Also consider this. Maybe he ends up in Buffalo or Tennessee. You can pick his brain knowing he could be on the other sideline at some point this year, or in future years.
Quote:I think it is all a moot point. They aren't taking Matthews....
LOL, thats just YOU not wanting Matthews because you want Watkins....like a small child sticking his fingers in his ears not listening, hoping he still gets his way,
Quote:The more I think about it, the more sense it makes to take Matthews at 3. I have been reading some commentators lately about how Mack may not fit our scheme.
So IF Mack does not fit our scheme (and I'm not saying he doesn't, but just for the sake of argument let's say he doesn't) and if Clowney and Watkins are off the board, and we cannot trade down, who is the safest pick at that point? If we take Matthews and kick Paztor to guard, that leaves us with only a hole at center. So, first round pick is Matthews, second round pick is QB or C, and third round pick is C or QB. Alternatively, second round pick is a WR, third round pick is a C or QB. That would be a solid draft that filled some needs.
I could really see this. Especially since watching a great offensive line is so much fun.
I know that you have set up a hypothetical with your statement, but I can remember an interview at the Owner's Meeting with Bradley where he had a specific position for Mack and stated that he would fit in rather nicely into the Defense.
Quote:Ok, Im not worried about cap. I could just see him wanting out in four years.... obviously that is contingent upon Joekel being the LT we hoped for.
That's a problem you deal with 4 years from now.
Quote:That's a problem you deal with 4 years from now.
Yeah, you don't not draft someone based on fear of signing him 4 years later. The NFL is a fragile game, and the average career is like 4 years. Theres no guarantee Joeckel doesn't have a career ending injury next year....at that point you'd be thanking your lucky stars you drafted Matthews.
Quote:LOL, thats just YOU not wanting Matthews because you want Watkins....like a small child sticking his fingers in his ears not listening, hoping he still gets his way,
What are you even talking about? A grown man uses language like that?
I am saying this because they aren't taking Matthews. In 8 days, we can see when Goodell goes to the podium and does not say Jake Matthews.
I get it. You're tying yourself to a player the Jaguars won't draft. I get it, alot of other people get it.
It's what you do every year.
Quote:That's a problem you deal with 4 years from now.
I know, but it should be taken into consideration when comparing him to these other options(Mack, Watkins, ect).
Do we get Mack and plan on him being a premier LB for us for the next 8-10 years, or do we take a LT, move him back to RT behind his former teammate, and hope he doesn't want to play LT for another team soon?
Quote:What are you even talking about? A grown man uses language like that?
I am saying this because they aren't taking Matthews. In 8 days, we can see when Goodell goes to the podium and does not say Jake Matthews.
I get it. You're tying yourself to a player the Jaguars won't draft. I get it, alot of other people get it.
It's what you do every year.
Then I've tied myself to 4 players the Jags won't draft, Clowney, Mattlews/ Bridgewater/ Manziel.
I'd be fine with any of them at 3. (If we cannot find a trade down).
Quote:What are you even talking about? A grown man uses language like that?
I am saying this because they aren't taking Matthews. In 8 days, we can see when Goodell goes to the podium and does not say Jake Matthews.
I get it. You're tying yourself to a player the Jaguars won't draft. I get it, alot of other people get it.
It's what you do every year.
Why do you say they are not taking Matthews? You're making a statement; I'd like to read your reason. Thanks in advance.
Quote:I know, but it should be taken into consideration when comparing him to these other options(Mack, Watkins, ect).
Do we get Mack and plan on him being a premier LB for us for the next 8-10 years, or do we take a LT, move him back to RT behind his former teammate, and hope he doesn't want to play LT for another team soon?
I'm not saying they're taking Matthews. I can see them looking at him as an option if their intention is to trade out of #3.
I think Matthews is a real possibility. I would not hate the pick. I just wonder how Matthews would deal with that situation. He may handle it like a gentleman and not mind. idk
Quote:I think Matthews is a real possibility. I would not hate the pick. I just wonder how Matthews would deal with that situation. He may handle it like a gentleman and not mind. idk
He is a real possibility, but I think if there's an option to get a guy like Mack or Clowney, Matthews is not going to be the choice. If the Jags get an offer to trade out of 3, moving down 4-7 spots, Matthews is definitely an option.
Quote:I'm not saying they're taking Matthews. I can see them looking at him as an option if their intention is to trade out of #3.
And I can see them taking him third overall if they can't trade out. He's a safe pick who upgrades two positions, RT, and RG when they kick Frenchie over to RG.
Quote:And I can see them taking him third overall if they can't trade out. He's a safe pick who upgrades two positions, RT, and RG when they
kick Frenchie over to RG.
If you remember last year, people kept saying "you don't take a RT in the first round." We did but didn't at the same time.
Quote:And I can see them taking him third overall if they can't trade out. He's a safe pick who upgrades two positions, RT, and RG when they kick Frenchie over to RG.
I don't know. I think there are better options. He might be the safe pick, but I don't think Caldwell is going to look for safe. He's going to look for impact with the 3rd pick.