Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:To your last paragraph:

That's a great point. But, wouldn't you want the number one pick and trade back, get your guy if he's still there and extra picks? Even though there may or may not be the next best QB in this draft you still need to build through the draft and the more picks the better. So looking at it like that, I'd still rather 2 wins than four wins. If hoping to get the best draft position or a lot of draft picks so we cam build through the draft makes me not a fan of the team, then I guess I'm not a fan. The whole "not a fan" thing is old. If we weren't all fans, we wouldn't even have this discussion.

Edit: latter half of the post not directed to you lmd.

 

I love the idea of trading back given the current state of the team. But there needs to be some context to it. Its a team-building philosophy thing and obviously different people will have different preferences. For me, I'd love to have a deep draft (sort of like this year or last year's) and be able to acquire some more high picks and get some great players to build a core nucleus around instead of just one great player. The issue is, that unlike last year where there really wasn't one particular guy who was seen to have the potential to push any team over the hump, this year's draft class has a bunch of QB's who look like they could be that guy. I think that if the Jags get the #1 pick, they can't afford to pass on a potential franchise-changer just to trade down and acquire more of lesser talents. If the Jags wind up at #7 or something and the game-changing QB's are all gone, I wouldn't mind trading down. Or if the Jags have the #3 or #4 pick or something and there's a string of teams behind the Jags who are all set at QB, meaning the Jags could probably still get their QB, I'd love to trade down.

 

I just don't think given this year's team and this year's draft class we can sit around cheering for the Jags to pick up the #1 pick and then trade it down and risk losing that franchise changer. If they don't get the #1 pick, there's other guys you can find, and I'm not going to be devastated over missing that guy because I think there will probably be another guy who comes along in the next 2 years minimum. But I don't think you can willingly remove yourself from a position to take a guy like that this year.

 

I feel like I kind of rambled a bit in this... Did that make any sense? (Feel free to say no. I'll try to clarify a bit if its unclear.)

 

I agree with the last bit of your post as well, in general. I think you're seeing a couple guys making comments like "joke franchise," "London Jaguars," and threatening to go watch another team and I'm hesitant to call them fans. But I definitely think there's a lot of merit to the concept of tanking to get a better pick to hopefully help the team long term. I won't call anyone who's arguing that point not a fan. (I know you said it wasn't directed towards me, but I wanted to show my agreement with you anyway, because like you said, the majority of us are here because we're fans. We should all be on the same page here. :thumbsup: )

 

 

Quote:I can certainly agree that you might still get your preferred guy. But it's now out of your control and you very well might not, with those odds degrading the lower you are. I'd rather have all of the options and it be up to us.


And despite what some (not saying you) want to imply, it's not about TB for me. I don't know if he's the guy. If he's not, I'd still rather Caldwell can choose his guy among all available options (including Clowney, or trading down, or whatever helps us most). The best possible situation is that we have all options to improve the team.


But what I didn't see in your response was the tangible gain you see from a win in a losing season like this. I don't see one. So even giving you the point that there is only a likely loss (rather than guaranteed) due to lower draft position, what do we gain?

 

Those are all very valid points. I don't disagree that I'd like to Caldwell to be able to get his guy instead of having him off the board by the time the Jags get on the clock.

 

The issue is, I don't know if I can give you a 100% tangible gain. I'd like to say that by not tanking, and instead trying to win, and then actually winning, you're installing the right kind of mentality and culture in the team. We saw it in, I believe it was 2008, when the team was kind of falling apart and Del Rio didn't really know what to do, so he flipped the switch and became an authoritarian like coach who was banning walkmen and ipods and stuff in the clubhouse. We saw it in Gene's first off-season when he dropped Porter and Florence almost immediately and basically said it was because they were more concerned about their money than the team and winning. It was something I was worried about after the '10 season where the team failed, for the 2nd year in a row, to make the playoffs when they were in control of their own destiny. I started getting worried that the mentality of the guys who were supposed to be the core nucleus for years wouldn't be strong enough to will the team to victory when things got tough in the future. I'm worried that telling a group of young guys to lie down and not care will set the wrong tone for the culture of this team. But, I'll admit, I can't tell you with 100% certainty that that will happen. I can't promise you that continuing to try hard, and win, will boost this team's competitive drive and/or confidence. I'd like to believe it does, but its tough to say because we don't really know what those guys are thinking. But, I will say, I'd rather err on the side of their confidence being boosted and their competitive nature being nurtured, than on the side of them getting complacent and accepting losses.

Quote:I don't agree with what he said either.

But, you do realize that the other side feels that "pro meaningless win" crowd's arguments are just as dumb. It goes both ways.

He is suggesting that coaches, players, management is intentionally losing games in order to secure a college player who may or may be a good player.


Dumb.


Especially when you consider the fact that management, coaches and many players will not be here next year if they keep losing.


What part of that had anything to do with the 'pro-meaningless win' crowd?


Nothing. It's just dumb. It's ridiculous that an adult would even consider for a minute that a person employed by an NFL team would attempt to lose on purpose in order to potentially better the teams future. Even dumber when those persons will all be fired/cut before said savior player ever suits up for the team.

Quote:You're underestimating how bad we suck.  I know you like to complain, for whatever reason, but we're going to have the top pick next May.

 

A part of me thinks, if we do get the top pick and draft Teddy, you'll flip flop -- like you usually do -- and call him overrated and continue to moan about the state of the franchise.  I'm calling it now.

 

We do suck bad. But we sucked bad the last 3 weeks, too, and still won 2 of the 3 games....thats what can happen when you have a schedule as easy as the Jags have in the 2nd half. 

 

As for the the other, I wouldn't call Teddy overrated. 

Quote:I don't agree with what he said either.

But, you do realize that the other side feels that "pro meaningless win" crowd's arguments are just as dumb. It goes both ways.

 

Wins are not meaningless.  They mean something.   Three weeks ago we had the worst team of all time, a lock to go 0-16.   Winning two out of the last three games means we are not as far away from having a good team as we thought.  

 

Some people would like to have the worst team of all time if it means we can get Teddy Bridgewater.    I am not in that camp.  

Quote:Winning two out of the last three games means we are not as far away from having a good team as we thought.  

  

 

 

Scary if you honestly believe this. Thats Jack Del Rio level simple minded. 

Quote:Wins are not meaningless. They mean something. Three weeks ago we had the worst team of all time, a lock to go 0-16. Winning two out of the last three games means we are not as far away from having a good team as we thought.


Some people would like to have the worst team of all time if it means we can get Teddy Bridgewater. I am not in that camp.

exactly, if we lose every game we obviously havnt improved, you can tell our young players are improving what most of us on here want which leads to wins. I hope we improve every week and win as many games as we can and if Caldwell is a good gm he will find talent where ever we pick

Quote:He is suggesting that coaches, players, management is intentionally losing games in order to secure a college player who may or may be a good player.

Dumb.

Especially when you consider the fact that management, coaches and many players will not be here next year if they keep losing.

What part of that had anything to do with the 'pro-meaningless win' crowd?

Nothing. It's just dumb. It's ridiculous that an adult would even consider for a minute that a person employed by an NFL team would attempt to lose on purpose in order to potentially better the teams future. Even dumber when those persons will all be fired/cut before said savior player ever suits up for the team.

Ok, not what I meant at all by that post. Never mind. I agree that that guy's post was dumb and for the same reasons. Let's just leave it at that.

Quote:Scary if you honestly believe this. Thats Jack Del Rio level simple minded. 

I believe it too.  But then, I'm a winner.

 

Like Jack Del Rio.

 

Please remove all sharp objects from your house if the Broncos win tonight, TMD.

Quote:Those are all very valid points. I don't disagree that I'd like to Caldwell to be able to get his guy instead of having him off the board by the time the Jags get on the clock.


The issue is, I don't know if I can give you a 100% tangible gain. I'd like to say that by not tanking, and instead trying to win, and then actually winning, you're installing the right kind of mentality and culture in the team. We saw it in, I believe it was 2008, when the team was kind of falling apart and Del Rio didn't really know what to do, so he flipped the switch and became an authoritarian like coach who was banning walkmen and ipods and stuff in the clubhouse. We saw it in Gene's first off-season when he dropped Porter and Florence almost immediately and basically said it was because they were more concerned about their money than the team and winning. It was something I was worried about after the '10 season where the team failed, for the 2nd year in a row, to make the playoffs when they were in control of their own destiny. I started getting worried that the mentality of the guys who were supposed to be the core nucleus for years wouldn't be strong enough to will the team to victory when things got tough in the future. I'm worried that telling a group of young guys to lie down and not care will set the wrong tone for the culture of this team. But, I'll admit, I can't tell you with 100% certainty that that will happen. I can't promise you that continuing to try hard, and win, will boost this team's competitive drive and/or confidence. I'd like to believe it does, but its tough to say because we don't really know what those guys are thinking. But, I will say, I'd rather err on the side of their confidence being boosted and their competitive nature being nurtured, than on the side of them getting complacent and accepting losses.

Just real quick, good on you for making your point without being insulting.


To clarify, I would never advise the team to tell the coaches or players to intentionally lay down. You don't want them doing that, and I don't think they would even if you did.


If you're going to do it, you simply make a change or two to younger guys to "give them a look" in what is already a lost season. It's not like our QB play has warranted any loyalty to them, we could easily play somebody like Scott without it being 100% transparent that we were throwing a game.

Quote:He is suggesting that coaches, players, management is intentionally losing games in order to secure a college player who may or may be a good player.

Dumb.

Especially when you consider the fact that management, coaches and many players will not be here next year if they keep losing.

What part of that had anything to do with the 'pro-meaningless win' crowd?

Nothing. It's just dumb. It's ridiculous that an adult would even consider for a minute that a person employed by an NFL team would attempt to lose on purpose in order to potentially better the teams future. Even dumber when those persons will all be fired/cut before said savior player ever suits up for the team.

You seriously think Caldwell or Gus are in danger of being fired after this year? I find that hard to believe. I think if they'd actually gone 0-16, they were still safe.

in this division, a 7-9 playoff run is possible. haha

Quote:You seriously think Caldwell or Gus are in danger of being fired after this year? I find that hard to believe. I think if they'd actually gone 0-16, they were still safe.

I was referring to the Texans staff as the original quoted poster was suggesting that they were doing the right thing in tanking for Teddy.

Quote:I was referring to the Texans staff as the original quoted poster was suggesting that they were doing the right thing in tanking for Teddy.

My mistake. Thanks for clarifying for me.

Wins are never meaningless.  

 

In our case,  winning means we have some good, young, improving players we can build  around.   Winning means we have a coaching staff that can keep a team motivated through adversity.   Winning means we have players that have enough character to play hard even if we are 1-9.   Winning means we are not the worst team of all time like some people thought we were 3 weeks ago.  

 

So to say these wins are meaningless is really nonsensical. 

Quote:sorry, double post

Quote:You seriously think Caldwell or Gus are in danger of being fired after this year? I find that hard to believe. I think if they'd actually gone 0-16, they were still safe.

Not me.

 

No coach survives 0-16.  I'm not sure Caldwell could've either, but he'd have been the safer bet.

Quote:Wins are not meaningless.  They mean something.   Three weeks ago we had the worst team of all time, a lock to go 0-16.   Winning two out of the last three games means we are not as far away from having a good team as we thought.  

 

Some people would like to have the worst team of all time if it means we can get Teddy Bridgewater.    I am not in that camp.

I'm not in anyone's camp. You can search this board for me wanting a specific player but you won't find it.

Quote: 

To clarify, I would never advise the team to tell the coaches or players to intentionally lay down. You don't want them doing that, and I don't think they would even if you did.


If you're going to do it, you simply make a change or two to younger guys to "give them a look" in what is already a lost season. It's not like our QB play has warranted any loyalty to them, we could easily play somebody like Scott without it being 100% transparent that we were throwing a game.

 

This is my take as well. Amazing how some people are incapable of understanding the concept. No one is suggesting that the players out there would intentionally lay down. 

Quote:Wins are never meaningless.  

 

In our case,  winning means we have some good, young, improving players we can build  around.   Winning means we have a coaching staff that can keep a team motivated through adversity.   Winning means we have players that have enough character to play hard even if we are 1-9.   Winning means we are not the worst team of all time like some people thought we were 3 weeks ago.  

 

So to say these wins are meaningless is really nonsensical. 

 

Or winning today just meant we sucked less than the opponent. Probably a more accurate representation of what really went on in todays game. 

Quote:This is my take as well. Amazing how some people are incapable of understanding the concept. No one is suggesting that the players out there would intentionally lay down. 

 

Then why argue about something you can't control?