Quote:The problem is you can turn that sentiment on its head.
Draft picks are valuable, but elite QBs are the most valuable of all things in the NFL. Much more valuable than top 10 draft picks. Look at what the Redskins gave up for RG3.
And I'll turn that argument right back on its head. Unless something like a career-ending injury or very long prison sentence happens, any GM who admits defeat on a top-ten QB one year and drafts another--and that is the exact message that drafting a second top-ten QB sends--has placed a very firm, very swift expiration date on their tenure. Trading multiple first-round picks to move up and get a QB? That's completely different from drafting a top-ten QB when you have one from the year before. If that'd happened, I'd be willing to bet that the Jaguars would've ended up giving Roethlisberger away for a two (or Leftwich for less) in training camp. That's not how you build for success. If a second-year GM is so sure that his top-ten QB from the previous year is a bust that he drafts another top-ten QB the following year, it's a good sign to the owner that his GM from the previous year is a bust, and he might want to consider hiring a new GM in the near future.
Quote:And I'll turn that argument right back on its head. Unless something like a career-ending injury or very long prison sentence happens, any GM who admits defeat on a top-ten QB one year and drafts another--and that is the exact message that drafting a second top-ten QB sends--has placed a very firm, very swift expiration date on their tenure. Trading multiple first-round picks to move up and get a QB? That's completely different from drafting a top-ten QB when you have one from the year before. If that'd happened, I'd be willing to bet that the Jaguars would've ended up giving Roethlisberger away for a two (or Leftwich for less) in training camp. That's not how you build for success. If a second-year GM is so sure that his top-ten QB from the previous year is a bust that he drafts another top-ten QB the following year, it's a good sign to the owner that his GM from the previous year is a bust, and he might want to consider hiring a new GM in the near future.
The corollary to your point is "drafting elite QBs is not how you build for success".
How absurd does that sound?
Now if your point is that Shack doesn't know how to evaluate QB talent then I'll believe it. After all he passed on two likely future hall of famers.
Quote:Excuses.
There were plenty of road games Seattle won that year under adverse conditions, and there were other games they won at home where the conditions were not favorable to the visiting teams. The Jaguars smoked Seattle...end of story.
Regarding the rest of the schedule...
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/te...x/2005.htm
......Ah.... the 23-17 game was the Pitt game....yeah, I vaguely remember that now...
As said that Pitt win was the only win on the entire 2005 schedule (not counting Seattle) that was vs. a good team.
Quote:......Ah.... the 23-17 game was the Pitt game....yeah, I vaguely remember that now...
As said that Pitt win was the only win on the entire 2005 schedule (not counting Seattle) that was vs. a good team.
The irony here is how you completely sweep under the rug one of the worst games of the season where Garrard nearly single handedly gave away a home game to SF, who was one of the worst (if not the worst) team in the league at the time. Easily one of our easiest games of the year, at home no less, where at least two (if not more) pick sixes were dropped by SF.
The team carried Garrard at the end and certainly not the other way around. You can't rewrite history to fit your agenda, but then that's never stopped you from trying before...
Nice highjack, BTW. Even for your standards.
Quote:I disagree, by 2005 it became obvious that Byron wasn't going to be able to cut it, (the last straw for me was the 2005 Patriots playoff game), but there most certainly were enough signs pointing to that conclusion well before that game. Byron wasn't doing all that great in 2005, (good yes, great? no) - IMO it was an EXTREMELY easy schedule that year if you don't remember....think 2013 weeks 9 through 16 but longer. The Jags won 12 games that year largely because of that. Byron only looked like a decent NFL starter that year because of that.
A HUGE red flag for me about Leftwich was in 2004 when we were GOOSE-EGGED at home by a BAD Texans team when we had a playoff berth on the line. I don't fault Leftwich for losing that game, but I do fault him for presiding over such an anemicly ineffective offense. It was something that plagued him all too much over his Jags career, and with Freddy T and Jimmy Smith there, there was zero excuse for that.
actually he was off to great start in 2005. he had 15 tds and 5 pics. 2 pics came off oh back to back hsil marys before halftime against denver. a third came off a receiver's hands when we were up against the rams in the fourth qtr. fred had like 160+ on the ground. it was over shadowed by steven jackson who subsequently broke a big run shortly following the pic to have 177 and take the lead. byron's season was cut short when we played az and he was high-lowed. going into that game we were 7-3 and byron had just finished a 3td 0 pic performance the week before.
regarding the 2004 game against Houston. i believe it was dec 26 and i was at that game. i was bitterly cold. if memory serves me correctly, Gerard Warren got in a vicious helmet to helmet on Byron early in the game.
iirc they later thought he might have given him a concussion; explaining our poor outing on offense that day
Quote:regarding the 2004 game against Houston. i believe it was dec 26 and i was at that game. i was bitterly cold. if memory serves me correctly, Gerard Warren got in a vicious helmet to helmet on Byron early in the game.
iirc they later thought he might have given him a concussion; explaining our poor outing on offense that day
why the excuses bro?
What about the like 5 or 6 other games including the Patriots playoff game where Leftwich presided over an offence that only managed single digits.
Leftwich was an injury case because he was slow and lethargic moving in everything he did. In a league that is about quickness and speed, Leftwich was a sitting duck, and had almost no chance to succeed long term. The Jags scouts and GM should have been able to project this. Or, maybe they did and Shack drafted him anyway....
Quote:why the excuses bro?
What about the like 5 or 6 other games including the Patriots playoff game where Leftwich presided over an offence that only managed single digits.
Leftwich was an injury case because he was slow and lethargic moving in everything he did. In a league that is about quickness and speed, Leftwich was a sitting duck, and had almost no chance to succeed long term. The Jags scouts and GM should have been able to project this. Or, maybe they did and Shack drafted him anyway....
More rewriting of history...
http://www.csnbaltimore.com/blog/ravens-...came-raven
The Ravens were all in for Leftwich, but couldn't make the trade in time. I know, I know... Ozzie Newsome, one of the best GMs in the league, "should have been able to project this..." LOL, asinine.
You're simply clueless. Blinded by empty agenda. The truth always comes biting you in the rear. Every. Single. Time.
Talk about excuses... I can't wait to hear what comes next...
Quote:More rewriting of history...
http://www.csnbaltimore.com/blog/ravens-...came-raven
The Ravens were all in for Leftwich, but couldn't make the trade in time. I know, I know... Ozzie Newsome, one of the best GMs in the league, "should have been able to project this..." LOL, asinine.
You're simply clueless. Blinded by empty agenda. The truth always comes biting you in the rear. Every. Single. Time.
Talk about excuses... I can't wait to hear what comes next...
Oh yes....the Baltimore Ravens,... they can't make mistakes on QB, right??? cough cough
Kyle Boller....
So what if the Ravens wanted Leftwich too. Doesn't make the Jags brass any less wrong for the mistake.
So, theres your "truth" for you.
Quote:Oh yes....the Baltimore Ravens,... they can't make mistakes on QB, right??? cough cough Kyle Boller....
So what if the Ravens wanted Leftwich too. Doesn't make the Jags brass any less wrong for the mistake.
So, theres your "truth" for you.
Done with the hijack? Or need to get beaten down any more like a rented mule about being wrong again, again?
Quote:In 2005 Leftwich had a 89.3 QB rating, which put him in the top 10 in the NFL at the time he was injured. Moreover, his play was improving at the time. In only two of those games (2nd and 4th) were the Jags held to single digits. In the six game from weeks 5-10 the Jags scored at least 21 points each game and were 5-1, the only loss coming in St.L. when the defense couldn't stop Steven Jackson. He faced defenses ranked 2, 3, 4, 7, and 10, not exactly the cake-walk schedule you make it out to be.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/pl...elog/2005/
Go back and watch that playoff game. Maurice Williams had the worst day at RT that I have ever seen, Guy Whimper was never that bad. Garrard, the not 'slow and lethargic' QB, was sacked more per dropback that game than Leftwich, who was still recovering from a broken ankle.
All this was AFTER the 2005 draft. Leftwich progressed each year until his injury in 2005. While I thought the Jags should have drafted Roethlisberger, it was not to replace Leftwich, who looked good as a rookie in 2003, but to force a favorable trade.
I haven't denied that Leftwich showed progress over time back then.
I still maintain that you simply cannot ultimately win with a QB that slow because you will get those games where you OL is atrocious (such as your example above), ...its the NFL. The QB has to be able to make something out of broken plays and extend plays. Leftwich simply had a hard time doing that because of his physical limitations. It also made him more susceptible to injury. Thats simply the hard facts.
To be fair, similar criticism can be thrown Gabbert's way as well. While he wasn't quite as slow as Leftwich - he too - had trouble extending plays and making something out of broken plays. It was almost as if he'd find a QB sack where we didn't realize one existed, lol.
In the upcoming draft I hope that the Jags finally get a QB that has some of the attributes that a guy like Brunell had pre-injury.
Quote:I haven't denied that Leftwich showed progress over time back then.
I still maintain that you simply cannot ultimately win with a QB that slow because you will get those games where you OL is atrocious (such as your example above), ...its the NFL. The QB has to be able to make something out of broken plays and extend plays. Leftwich simply had a hard time doing that because of his physical limitations.
To be fair, similar criticism can be thrown Gabbert's way as well. While he wasn't quite as slow as Leftwich - he too - had trouble extending plays and making something out of broken plays. It was almost as if he'd find a QB sack where we didn't realize one existed, lol.
In the upcoming draft I hope that the Jags finally get a QB that has some of the attributes that a guy like Brunell had pre-injury.
i didn't bring that up as excuses, i was pointing out he was in ascension in 2005. they should have put him on ir, but i think they were hell bent on not missing the playoffs as they had the year before. against the pats he plagued with drops and poor line play. jdr had every reason to believe he would return to early season form, provided he was healed.
Quote:Exactly how do you state as a fact that "it's not all that difficult..."
How do you know? Are you saying that you're on the phone and can make that determination that an opportunity presents itself in each instance, and one in which the otherside is ripe to be taken (hence maximizing value, getting the better end of the deal?).
I honestly think the BAP cult believes this. It is all sooooo easy. However, not one GM is a member of this cult, so there is that.
And also, if Gene is falling in love with a player, do you think that may have something to do with evaluating him as the BAP( btw, I agree that he did fall in love with certain players. I also think that it was transparent.)
In the 2013 draft, 11 1st round picks (over 1/3) ended up in the hands of a different team. In 2012, 16 1st round picks
(HALF!) changed hands. There is NO WAY you can convince me that trading is all that difficult.
I agree that Gene probably though his man-crushes Alualu and Cox were the BAP. I read somewhere that he had Gabbert rated as the 2nd best player in 2011 (after Patrick Peterson). Of course his evaluation was a major problem. Even so, a GM has to have a good feel as to how long a player might last before he's picked, and be willing to take a risk. This is especially true if the player isn't that much better than the guy you can get 10 picks later. Do you want Alualu, or would you rather trade down and get Jared Odrick AND Sean Lee? Based on what other teams did, that trade down was available in 2010. Alualu might have even still been there instead of Odrick. Gene's failure was not about BAP vs. need, he just sucked as a GM.
The one moment I agree with pirkster. :yucky: :woot:
Quote:My argument to this is how many times have we watched the steelers pass over offensive line men with such a huge need for them?
Just wondering from both side of the spectrum?
Well, in recent times they have drafted heavy in the OL.
They took Pouncey a few years back, and DeCastro and Adams in 2012.
Quote:......Ah.... the 23-17 game was the Pitt game....yeah, I vaguely remember that now...
As said that Pitt win was the only win on the entire 2005 schedule (not counting Seattle) that was vs. a good team.
1. There is no sensible reason to exclude Super Bowl participant Seattle from the category of "good teams."
2. There is also no sensible reason to exclude Cincinnati from that same category that year.
Quote:No hindsight. It was evident at the time that there was a top tier of 8 players, and a big drop off after that. That draft, more so than any other I can recall, set up exactly that way. The only reason the Jags had a shot at one of the top 8 from the 9th slot is that Atlanta took DeAngelo Hall who was not one of the 8. (and yes, hindsight has shown that they weren't the best 8 after all, but that was a strong consensus at the time)
I also thought Reggie Williams was far from the next best non-QB too, but that has no bearing on the argument.
An example of what could have happened if the Jags took Roethlisberger is available in that very same draft. San Diego took Eli Manning knowing that they couldn't sign him, and were able to subsequently trade him for full value. San Diego ran their draft the way I believe it should be done. Of course it would have been a risk had the Jags drafted Roethlisberger when they already had a franchise QB. Chances are they could have worked out a trade like SD did. Besides Pittsburgh, Buffalo and SF both needed QBs. No guts, no glory.
For something to be evident, we need evidence. Saying its obvious he was a top 8 player because you, Mike Mayock, Mel Kiper and Gene Smith all though so doesnt mean he was top of our board. Same with Reggie Williams. That people thought he was a second rounder, doesn't mean Shack Harris in his infinite wisdom didn't think he was the 2nd coming of Jerry Rice. Maybe Big Ben was our #1 guy, but we don't know for sure and saying he was just to prove a point that doesn't exist is insane.
All we know for sure is we didn't take a QB who turned out to be very good in a year when we didn't need a QB. That doesn't mean he was BAP or that even if he was, BAP is infallible or even the most smart way to draft. No GM in the NFL would have taken Roethlisberger while Leftwich was still on the roster, with his fat contract, having shown promising signs in his rookie year, the Chargers situation was different because they had Eli by the balls just as much as he had them.
The only thing that works, getting the scouting right. If you pass on a better player, but still get a guy who helps you win, you've drafted well. We have passed on a lot of very good players in the last 10 years was it always because we didn't need that player or because we sucked at scouting?