Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:I know that I'm coming back into this arguement rather late, my apologies.  Having 1 infant and 1 toddler, and a wife that doesn't understand why I don't jump ship off the Jaguars, makes it difficult to post as often as I like.

 

With that said, let me begin our debate again...

 

I've skimmed through the 6 or so pages since your response to me...  From what I've gleamed, this discussion has followed the typical Jungle MB zietgiest of being reduced to Bibbers V. Homers.  I don't care for this drama.  More often than not, it is unproductive--though I must admit rather entertaining.

 

I've read you're stuff for the past year or so, Bullseye, and you are absolutely not a "mouth-breather" or a "self-soiler" or whatever.  It's pretty wack (do kids still say that?) to think otherwise.  You're proposition regarding getting the #1 pick is fine.  If we can project that having the #1 pick will create an organization like the clots, then sure, let's tank.

 

However, the QB's coming out this draft won't solidify a Dynasty.  All we can hope for is a team that can contend.  Anything more-- based on tanking-- would be wishfull thinking.  Even though it's a QB driven league, you still need many aspects to ensure contender status, much less a dynasty.  These are all things you know, and I'm just restating it to provide a basis for my arguement. 

 

Now with the obvious out there, I'll go to history-- The history that backs my position, of course...  :-)

 

The Detroit Lions, under GM Matt Millen, bottomed out multiple times in the late 90's/early 2000's...  They had multiple high first round picks and finally got thier franchise QB, franchise WR, and the franchise DT...  Stafford, Megatron, BoynameSuh...  These picks were all touted at the time as key franchise picks that a bottom tier team could utilize to leap into not just parity, but contender status.

 

Without taking the time to search how often this nucleus has gone to the playoffs since Millen left, it's clear that the Lions are a tough team.  However, I do not recall the Lions getting to any Superbowls since bottoming out.  I don't remember the Lions being in the playoffs on a consistent basis.  What I see is a team that  has ups and downs, has good years and disappointing years...  It makes me wonder if maybe they are still trying to build a franchise that believes they are winners.  It also makes me wonder if perhaps all those high draft picks they got from bottoming out were not the best picks to have.  It then also makes me wonder if bottoming out is the best method to build a team.

 

If we look at draft picks in terms of game theory, then yes, statistically it makes sense to bottom out and get the "best" player.  For instance, when a pawn crosses into the opposing king row, the player can choose any piece to "promote" that pawn.  It's a given that the player will choose Queen. But the problem is that football is not perfect.  If you choose Queen as promotion, it does not solidify you will have a Franchise player worth the value of said promotion.

 

On top of that, you're dealing with humans.  We as humans are not subject to just enviornment.  We are also not subject to just genetics.  There's a combination that creates dynamic randomness. 

 

For me, I'd preferr we get a good GM that can build a team through multiple years.  I think we all agree with that.  Additionally, I do not believe that bottoming out implies a rise to contention.  I provided the Lions as my example.  You could put the Bills, Browns, Raiders, Jaguars (sigh), Vikings, etc into the mix.

 

To me, I think it's important to understand that we suck.  But to  suck consistently doesn't necessarily translate to future wins.  It just doesn't.  Not in the NFL.  You need a good evaluator of talent, you need a good HC that can build players, and you need a decent QB (franchise doesn't mean elite, just good enough) to become a perpetual contender.  I don't think Tanking is a philosophy that any team should consider. 

 

If you exclude the lottery ticket that occured for the clots when they hit on Luck, most teams don't turn it around consistently.  Even with that said, I'm still not sold that Luck with be better and provide the clots as many SB rings as Manning has...  That team's D is getting old on the D-line, and thier WR's are not very good.  Plus, Luck is not as accurate as Manning past 20 yards...  But that's a different discussion...

 

In conclusion, my theory is that we must continue to work towards wins.  Winning will not provide us a SB this year.  But winning will provide a leaping off point into the future.  Yes, we can tank this year and then get the #1 pick.  But my points above show historical evidence that #1 picks do not mean we will be contenders either.  (oh I just forgot about the tacks...  They got V.Young, had Chris Johnson in his prime, really good D that they picked up from Free Agency and high draft picks, but still were inconsistent).  Again, it's just the fact that we shouldn't expect that tanking like TMD would say to get Bridgewater should be our goal for this year.

 

I mean, sheesh, people are now drooling over Florida State's QB, and he won't be draftable till next year.  The point is that EVERY YEAR there will be a QB to "Tank" for.  Rather than tanking, why not create a winnin franchise philosophy.  Draft Well.  Develop your Talent.  Seek Value in Free Agency.  YEAR IN / YEAR OUT.  Become a Franchise of consitency. 

 

I look forward to your response.  I apologize for some of my ramblings.

Bravo sir!

 

You have said everything I haven't bothered to say. I will rest on your post, and defer from continuing on with this insanity.

 

It really serves no purpose anymore at this point.

Quote:The Giants won just as many Super Bowls within that time frame (2), as Pittsburgh and they did it with the first overall pick of the 2004 draft, Eli Manning.

They didn't tank their season to get the pick.

Quote:I'm perfectly fine with simple. My position is actually very simple. I don't ever root for my team to lose.


It doesn't get any simpler than that.


It makes it easy for me. I don't have to wonder if I'm cheering for a win or loss, and try to extrapolate that to a future with infinite variables.


I am simple. I want them to win every time. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. The outcome changes week to week, but my attitude toward winning will not change. I haven't heard a good reason yet to change to a losing mentality yet.

Actually... the outcome doesn't change every week. Its been the same for quite some time now.

Quote:  The point is that EVERY YEAR there will be a QB to "Tank" for.  Rather than tanking, why not create a winnin franchise philosophy.  Draft Well.  Develop your Talent.  Seek Value in Free Agency.  YEAR IN / YEAR OUT.  Become a Franchise of consitency. 

 

I look forward to your response.  I apologize for some of my ramblings.

Don't mean to jump into your guys' discussion, but your post was well thought out so I thought I'd jump in.

 

There definitely isn't a QB to tank for EVERY YEAR.  That's why we ended up drafting Joeckel this year.  No QBs worth taking.  I believe Caldwell saw that the 2013 QB class was mediocre at best, and opted for getting a potential perennial pro bowl tackle, knowing that next year the QB class is much better.

 

And I think a good GM tries to do both.  He should want to try to win, build a steady franchise of consistency, but look at what Caldwell had to work with.


He has explained that the roster was much worse than our record in years past indicated.  Winning 5 games in 2011, looking back at it now, seems like a miracle.  To keep going in that direction is the wrong move IMO.  The previous regime has made us believe we are closer than we really are.  We used to trade UP to get our guy because we were "close"...

 

I think the best thing for this team is to stockpile draftpicks.  It's good that we have 10 next year.  Hopefully we somehow manage to get a few more. 

These guys aren't going to tank to benefit a franchise. The owner and the fans are the only people who have an allegiance to a franchise.

 

It is delusional to think players and coaches would risk sacrificing their future earnings for a franchise that may just cut them the next year and leave them with nothing more than tank effort to be evaluated on when they go looking for a new job.

 

These are real people with real jobs in the real world. They aren't living in the fantasy land where people sacrifice themselves for a non committed employer where apparently some of you live.

 

Tanking is nothing more than a fantasy scenario produced by fans desperate to find a path to winning.

Quote:No one is saying that drafting a qb with the first pick will guarantee you a SB victory.  But what it will hopefully do is make your TEAM better and have the chance to maybe compete.

 

Losing every game will put you first in line at draft time.  And when you get there, maybe you'll get Manning, and maybe you'll get Bradford.

 

And what I said about championships and first overall picks is true, like it or not.  If you think I'm cherrypicking, go back into the 70s, 80s, and 90s.  TMD ironically used the name Montana a few posts back as evidence of how important it is to be first in line.  Check out where he was picked.

 

Really good QBs are rare.  Maybe Bridgewater will be that QB.  He has all the hype of Cam Newton, that's for sure.  But he may stay in school for another year, may pull an Elway/Eli, or maybe even get hurt. 

 

The only guarantee that losing grants is a better spot in line.

Why don't you guys get it - this team sucks.  It's not like they're purposely committing penalties to wipe out good plays or calling a pick six play in the huddle.

 

If the Jags get the first pick and trade back and get multiple picks - I'd consider that a GOOD thing.

 

If we pick first overall, then 33rd, etc. that would also be good. 

Quote:I'm with Dakota.  Let's finish 4-12, draft 5th, and miss out on the premiere players or the opportunity to trade down because finishing 4-12 is "better" than 0-16. 

 

Gotta love the simple folks....

 

 

At the very least I can see that we are finally starting to become educated as a fan base. 

 

2 years ago, I was pretty much alone in my explaining to the board that it would be in the Jags best interest to finish poorly and get the 1st overall pick and use it on Andrew Luck. I was met with tons of resistance, insults and the like...

 

I tried to point out what might happen if the Colts wind up with Luck, and what might happen if we did and didn't end up with that pick. 

 

Everything I predicted 2 years ago in those discussions came true.

 

I guess it was a hard lesson to learn, because as said, many people are now joining what I was preaching 2 years ago. The Jags need the top pick, need to bottom out to finally get better in the long run. A few extra meaningless wins in an already dead season mean nothing except for the likelyhood of continuing mediocrity for more years instead of just a few more games.  

Quote:At the very least I can see that we are finally starting to become educated as a fan base. 

 

2 years ago, I was pretty much alone in my explaining to the board that it would be in the Jags best interest to finish poorly and get the 1st overall pick and use it on Andrew Luck. I was met with tons of resistance, insults and the like...

 

I tried to point out what might happen if the Colts wind up with Luck, and what might happen if we did and didn't end up with that pick. 

 

Everything I predicted 2 years ago in those discussions came true.

 

I guess it was a hard lesson to learn, because as said, many people are now joining what I was preaching 2 years ago. The Jags need the top pick, need to bottom out to finally get better in the long run. A few extra meaningless wins in an already dead season mean nothing except for the likelyhood of continuing mediocrity for more years instead of just a few more games.  

Educated fan base?

 

Who cares what the fan base thinks. They aren't the ones out there coaching and playing the game.

 

I hate to burst your little delusional bubble, but the ones you need to execute your little tank plan have no intentions of tanking a single game. They will be thrilled with any and every game they can win.

 

And by the way, no point in patting yourself on the back because there is no gold star given for claiming to be the most right in a completely fictitious scenario.

Too bad Jameis Winston(FSU) can't come out this year ....He's young but he already looks like he is the best QB in College right now. (I'm a Gators fan but that kid is the truth.

Quote:I know that I'm coming back into this arguement rather late, my apologies.  Having 1 infant and 1 toddler, and a wife that doesn't understand why I don't jump ship off the Jaguars, makes it difficult to post as often as I like.

 

With that said, let me begin our debate again...

 

I've skimmed through the 6 or so pages since your response to me...  From what I've gleamed, this discussion has followed the typical Jungle MB zietgiest of being reduced to Bibbers V. Homers.  I don't care for this drama.  More often than not, it is unproductive--though I must admit rather entertaining.

 

I've read you're stuff for the past year or so, Bullseye, and you are absolutely not a "mouth-breather" or a "self-soiler" or whatever.  It's pretty wack (do kids still say that?) to think otherwise.  You're proposition regarding getting the #1 pick is fine.  If we can project that having the #1 pick will create an organization like the clots, then sure, let's tank.

 

1.  However, the QB's coming out this draft won't solidify a Dynasty.  All we can hope for is a team that can contend.  Anything more-- based on tanking-- would be wishfull thinking.  Even though it's a QB driven league, you still need many aspects to ensure contender status, much less a dynasty.  These are all things you know, and I'm just restating it to provide a basis for my arguement. 

 

Now with the obvious out there, I'll go to history-- The history that backs my position, of course...  :-)

 

2.The Detroit Lions, under GM Matt Millen, bottomed out multiple times in the late 90's/early 2000's...  They had multiple high first round picks and finally got thier franchise QB, franchise WR, and the franchise DT...  Stafford, Megatron, BoynameSuh...  These picks were all touted at the time as key franchise picks that a bottom tier team could utilize to leap into not just parity, but contender status.

 

Without taking the time to search how often this nucleus has gone to the playoffs since Millen left, it's clear that the Lions are a tough team.  However, I do not recall the Lions getting to any Superbowls since bottoming out.  I don't remember the Lions being in the playoffs on a consistent basis.  What I see is a team that  has ups and downs, has good years and disappointing years...  It makes me wonder if maybe they are still trying to build a franchise that believes they are winners.  It also makes me wonder if perhaps all those high draft picks they got from bottoming out were not the best picks to have.  It then also makes me wonder if bottoming out is the best method to build a team.

 

If we look at draft picks in terms of game theory, then yes, statistically it makes sense to bottom out and get the "best" player.  For instance, when a pawn crosses into the opposing king row, the player can choose any piece to "promote" that pawn.  It's a given that the player will choose Queen. But the problem is that football is not perfect.  If you choose Queen as promotion, it does not solidify you will have a Franchise player worth the value of said promotion.

 

On top of that, you're dealing with humans.  We as humans are not subject to just enviornment.  We are also not subject to just genetics.  There's a combination that creates dynamic randomness. 

 

3.  For me, I'd preferr we get a good GM that can build a team through multiple years.  I think we all agree with that.  Additionally, I do not believe that bottoming out implies a rise to contention.  I provided the Lions as my example.  You could put the Bills, Browns, Raiders, Jaguars (sigh), Vikings, etc into the mix.

 

To me, I think it's important to understand that we suck.  But to  suck consistently doesn't necessarily translate to future wins.  It just doesn't.  Not in the NFL.  You need a good evaluator of talent, you need a good HC that can build players, and you need a decent QB (franchise doesn't mean elite, just good enough) to become a perpetual contender.  I don't think Tanking is a philosophy that any team should consider. 

 

If you exclude the lottery ticket that occured for the clots when they hit on Luck, most teams don't turn it around consistently.  Even with that said, I'm still not sold that Luck with be better and provide the clots as many SB rings as Manning has...  That team's D is getting old on the D-line, and thier WR's are not very good.  Plus, Luck is not as accurate as Manning past 20 yards...  But that's a different discussion...

 

4. In conclusion, my theory is that we must continue to work towards wins.  Winning will not provide us a SB this year.  But winning will provide a leaping off point into the future.  Yes, we can tank this year and then get the #1 pick.  But my points above show historical evidence that #1 picks do not mean we will be contenders either.  (oh I just forgot about the tacks...  They got V.Young, had Chris Johnson in his prime, really good D that they picked up from Free Agency and high draft picks, but still were inconsistent).  Again, it's just the fact that we shouldn't expect that tanking like TMD would say to get Bridgewater should be our goal for this year.

 

 

 

Before I respond in substance, I'd like to commend you for your stand on civility and for the proposition you can disagree without being disagreeable.  Furthermore, though we have some disagreement, I certainly wouldn't categorize your response as "rambling."

 

Nevertheless, there are points of disagreement between our positions, and I'd like to address them here.  I have taken the liberty to number your various points, and my numbered replies will correspond to the numbered points above.

 

1.  Let's assume you define "dynasty" as a team that wins multiple Super Bowls within a short period of time.  Using that operational definition, then no, a QB, standing alone, is not the difference between this current Jaguars team and a dynasty.  Obviously you need other pieces.  But I get the sense you are more making a statement about this QB class.  If so, your tacit proclamation there are no "dynasty caliber" QBs is speculative, just like our endorsement of Bridgewater or any number of QBs in this draft class.  Furthermore, if, by drafting the top QB in this draft gives legitimate hope for contention, I submit to you that is light years beyond where we are now.  Furthermore, as another poster observed, a QB isn't the only position that can help this team.  If Bridgewater and Mariota were to decide to return to college, Clowney would be a heckuva consolation prize.  Whether to take the top QB in this class or the top pass rusher in this draft, I want the Jaguars to have access to those guys without having to trade up.

 

2.  You cite many teams who have had many years of high draft picks to not become perennial contenders as a basis for saying a top pick does not automatically translate into wins.  Nobody on our side ever argued differently.  The only thing that having the worst record guarantees is increased access to the talent pool above teams with better records.  That's what I want.  No, the Lions did not become perpetual contenders to this point.  But they HAVE made the playoffs since acquiring Johnson, Stafford and Suh, they are in contention this year, and they have been infinitely more exciting overall since before their arrival.  Yes, we are dealing with humans, who can be unpredictable and unreliable.  That isn't mitigated by picking lower in the draft order, which brings me to my next point.

 

3.  I have never argued that high draft position mitigates the need to have a good GM.   I DO maintain, however, that having higher draft position, as a general rule, enables a GM to potentially do his job better.  I submit that as bad as Gene Smith was, even he would be capable of identifying Andrew Luck as the top prospect in last year's draft and drafting him, if he had the number one overall pick. When he didn't have the number one overall pick, and when the Colts were unwilling to deal out of that pick, that possibility would not have been available to him.  Had the Bucs not been willing to trade out of the #5 pick last year, the possibility of drafting Blackmon would not have been available to him, either.   Is Colts GM Ryan Grigson a good GM?  That's uncertain.  While he hit on Luck and some other players, the trade of a first round pick for Trent Richardson is questionable.  But without that first overall pick, there is no way in the world he hits on Luck.  We may well have a good GM in Caldwell.  It's too soon to tell.  But I want to optimize his chances of getting it right.

 

To emphasize the importance of draft position, I offer you the same challenge I earlier posted to Predator.  Make an argument in support of changing the rules of determining draft order from what it is now (inverse W-L-T order) to something else (actual W-L-T record where the Super Bowl champion picks first in each round and the worst teams pick at the bottom), alphabetical, rotational, random, or no draft.  Predator avoided it altogether, and I think you (or anyone else) would have a difficult time arguing persuasively for any of these alternate schemes.

 

4.     What leaping point did the wins in 2011 provide to this team?  That season ending win preceded a 2-21 stretch for the team.  I pose to you the same challenge I offered to Dakota, that he continues to avoid.  What tangible or intangible benefit did the team derive from winning those meaningless games in 2011? 

Quote:They didn't tank their season to get the pick.

No, but they still benefitted from having the number one overall pick on their team, paid the price to get the number one overall pick on their team, and the Chargers certainly benefitted from having that top pick.

Quote:At the very least I can see that we are finally starting to become educated as a fan base. 

 

2 years ago, I was pretty much alone in my explaining to the board that it would be in the Jags best interest to finish poorly and get the 1st overall pick and use it on Andrew Luck. I was met with tons of resistance, insults and the like...

 

I tried to point out what might happen if the Colts wind up with Luck, and what might happen if we did and didn't end up with that pick. 

 

Everything I predicted 2 years ago in those discussions came true.

 

I guess it was a hard lesson to learn, because as said, many people are now joining what I was preaching 2 years ago. The Jags need the top pick, need to bottom out to finally get better in the long run. A few extra meaningless wins in an already dead season mean nothing except for the likelyhood of continuing mediocrity for more years instead of just a few more games.  

Its a hard truth that any die hard does not want to hear. And of course the team is not straight up tanking to get the first pick, they are just really bad and are not looking to benefit this season with a few meaningless games. Call it tanking or whatever you want, when the jaguars are picking their own Franchise QB, its gonna be a whole lot better in this town. And i do believe caldwell is the man for the job. 

 

Am i rooting for a loss? No, jaguars are losing all by themselves, they dont need my help. I do pull for my team on gamedays win or lose, they are just that bad, and i see the big picture. It would be in the best interest of the team to lose all games and get the first pick, that does not mean im rooting for that. But the jags are doing that all themselves. 

 

And Predator, they dont give a damn about you or me. TMD is just stating what actually WOULD make this team a whole lot better. Does that mean he is saying the team is thinking that way? No, he said its in our best interest, and honestly, he has a point. 

 

Go ahead, want them to go 4-12, miss out on more franchise QB, whatever makes you happy. I want to win, and i want bridgewater. 

Quote:Careful there, navy.


You'll find yourself among us "loosers," "bibbers," "self soilers," and baggers.


Wouldn't want that now, would you?

Why is tanking/not tanking even an issue? It seems to me that tankers/not tankers both come out ahead this season.


For the fans that want to win:

The team (most players/ coaches) seems to be putting forth a strong effort to try to win.


For the fans that want to tank:

This team is gawd awful. There's really no need for them to purposely try to tank. Even though the players/coaches may be trying to win, it's a real possibility that they won't even get one victory. I know that's hard to do. But, it is definitely a possibility with this year's team. They are that bad.


We all know the old saying "Any Given Sunday." I always believed it to be true, until this year with this awful team. I really don't think they're getting a win.


So, I'm happy that the team is trying to win. But, I'll be real happy when they get the top pick because the team couldn't win because they flat out suck.


What's to argue about?

Quote:I know that I'm coming back into this arguement rather late, my apologies.  Having 1 infant and 1 toddler, and a wife that doesn't understand why I don't jump ship off the Jaguars, makes it difficult to post as often as I like.

 

With that said, let me begin our debate again...

 

I've skimmed through the 6 or so pages since your response to me...  From what I've gleamed, this discussion has followed the typical Jungle MB zietgiest of being reduced to Bibbers V. Homers.  I don't care for this drama.  More often than not, it is unproductive--though I must admit rather entertaining.

 

I've read you're stuff for the past year or so, Bullseye, and you are absolutely not a "mouth-breather" or a "self-soiler" or whatever.  It's pretty wack (do kids still say that?) to think otherwise.  You're proposition regarding getting the #1 pick is fine.  If we can project that having the #1 pick will create an organization like the clots, then sure, let's tank.

 

However, the QB's coming out this draft won't solidify a Dynasty.  All we can hope for is a team that can contend.  Anything more-- based on tanking-- would be wishfull thinking.  Even though it's a QB driven league, you still need many aspects to ensure contender status, much less a dynasty.  These are all things you know, and I'm just restating it to provide a basis for my arguement. 

 

Now with the obvious out there, I'll go to history-- The history that backs my position, of course...  :-)

 

The Detroit Lions, under GM Matt Millen, bottomed out multiple times in the late 90's/early 2000's...  They had multiple high first round picks and finally got thier franchise QB, franchise WR, and the franchise DT...  Stafford, Megatron, BoynameSuh...  These picks were all touted at the time as key franchise picks that a bottom tier team could utilize to leap into not just parity, but contender status.

 

Without taking the time to search how often this nucleus has gone to the playoffs since Millen left, it's clear that the Lions are a tough team.  However, I do not recall the Lions getting to any Superbowls since bottoming out.  I don't remember the Lions being in the playoffs on a consistent basis.  What I see is a team that  has ups and downs, has good years and disappointing years...  It makes me wonder if maybe they are still trying to build a franchise that believes they are winners.  It also makes me wonder if perhaps all those high draft picks they got from bottoming out were not the best picks to have.  It then also makes me wonder if bottoming out is the best method to build a team.

 

If we look at draft picks in terms of game theory, then yes, statistically it makes sense to bottom out and get the "best" player.  For instance, when a pawn crosses into the opposing king row, the player can choose any piece to "promote" that pawn.  It's a given that the player will choose Queen. But the problem is that football is not perfect.  If you choose Queen as promotion, it does not solidify you will have a Franchise player worth the value of said promotion.

 

On top of that, you're dealing with humans.  We as humans are not subject to just enviornment.  We are also not subject to just genetics.  There's a combination that creates dynamic randomness. 

 

For me, I'd preferr we get a good GM that can build a team through multiple years.  I think we all agree with that.  Additionally, I do not believe that bottoming out implies a rise to contention.  I provided the Lions as my example.  You could put the Bills, Browns, Raiders, Jaguars (sigh), Vikings, etc into the mix.

 

To me, I think it's important to understand that we suck.  But to  suck consistently doesn't necessarily translate to future wins.  It just doesn't.  Not in the NFL.  You need a good evaluator of talent, you need a good HC that can build players, and you need a decent QB (franchise doesn't mean elite, just good enough) to become a perpetual contender.  I don't think Tanking is a philosophy that any team should consider. 

 

If you exclude the lottery ticket that occured for the clots when they hit on Luck, most teams don't turn it around consistently.  Even with that said, I'm still not sold that Luck with be better and provide the clots as many SB rings as Manning has...  That team's D is getting old on the D-line, and thier WR's are not very good.  Plus, Luck is not as accurate as Manning past 20 yards...  But that's a different discussion...

 

In conclusion, my theory is that we must continue to work towards wins.  Winning will not provide us a SB this year.  But winning will provide a leaping off point into the future.  Yes, we can tank this year and then get the #1 pick.  But my points above show historical evidence that #1 picks do not mean we will be contenders either.  (oh I just forgot about the tacks...  They got V.Young, had Chris Johnson in his prime, really good D that they picked up from Free Agency and high draft picks, but still were inconsistent).  Again, it's just the fact that we shouldn't expect that tanking like TMD would say to get Bridgewater should be our goal for this year.

 

I mean, sheesh, people are now drooling over Florida State's QB, and he won't be draftable till next year.  The point is that EVERY YEAR there will be a QB to "Tank" for.  Rather than tanking, why not create a winnin franchise philosophy.  Draft Well.  Develop your Talent.  Seek Value in Free Agency.  YEAR IN / YEAR OUT.  Become a Franchise of consitency. 

 

I look forward to your response.  I apologize for some of my ramblings.

 

QFT, again.

Quote:Why don't you guys get it - this team sucks.  It's not like they're purposely committing penalties to wipe out good plays or calling a pick six play in the huddle.

 

If the Jags get the first pick and trade back and get multiple picks - I'd consider that a GOOD thing.

 

If we pick first overall, then 33rd, etc. that would also be good. 

I think everyone gets that the team sucks.  I think the issue is the years of consistent sucking.