Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:I don't remember anyone, ANYone, saying to tank for Jevan Snead. I don't think Snead was ever a remote threat to be selected anywhere close to #1 overall, thus shooting holes in this claim. 

 

And to act as if Snead is/ was on the level of a prospect as Bridgewater?....well thats kinda funny. 

Kind of like saying Bridgewater is on the same level as Luck? Thought so!

Quote:Kind of like saying Bridgewater is on the same level as Luck? Thought so!

 

 

lolz....this from the guy with an A.J. McCARRON sig, rofl....  

No one is going to tank a season just to get a draft pick.

 

Success doesn't come from drafting a particular player, success comes from the team and coaching staff learning how to win. Anyone who has ever experienced success or has been a part of a winning process would understand this. The people who don't understand this have been nothing but bystanders their entire life.

Quote:No one is going to tank a season just to get a draft pick.

 

Success doesn't come from drafting a particular player, success comes from the team and coaching staff learning how to win. Anyone who has ever experienced success or has been a part of a winning process would understand this. The people who don't understand this have been nothing but bystanders their entire life.

 

Um, no.  You need talent to win.  You can't "learn to win" with no talent.

Quote:Um, no.  You need talent to win.  You can't "learn to win" with no talent.

Talent requires more than 1 pick. If your plan of winning revolves around acquiring 1 player then you aren't likely to win period.

There's a certain reality which is the players are out there doing their best to win.  We are losing because of lack of talent.  There are no "pick six" calls being called in by the sideline to make sure we lose a game. 

 

What we as fans want is irrelevant.  In some ways, it's nice to think the team is "tanking" because it provides a bit of hope that maybe the team isn't as utterly talentless as it is.

 

Oh well - the only way to really enjoy the game is to watch and see if Blackmon will continue to develop and can be a Pro Bowl receiver, watch our young draft picks and see if they're developing and can make us a better team in 2014. 

Quote:No one is going to tank a season just to get a draft pick.

 

Success doesn't come from drafting a particular player, success comes from the team and coaching staff learning how to win. Anyone who has ever experienced success or has been a part of a winning process would understand this. The people who don't understand this have been nothing but bystanders their entire life.

 

Questions to ponder: 

 

Mike Mularkey has been in the Pittsburgh Steelers organization.  Did he ever learn how to win?

 

Gus Bradley just came from the Seahawks, who went to the playoffs last year.  Did he ever learn how to win?

 

Mike Caldwell just came from the Falcons, who were a game away from the Super Bowl (about 10 yards, actually).  Before then, he was with the Colts under Bill Polian.  Did he ever learn how to win?

 

Over the past few seasons, the team drafted Blaine Gabbert, who had the highest level of success Missouri had in decades with him as QB.  Did he ever learn how to win?

 

The team also drafted Oklahoma State's Justin Blackmon, who was there during one of the mose successful runs in school history, and likewise for Luke Joeckel at Texas A&M and Andre Branch at Clemson.

 

Did they learn how to win?

 

If the answers to these questions are "Yes" then to what do you attribute the lack of success here thus far?  Do you think these guys somehow forgot that blocking, tacking, protecting the football offensively and forcing turnovers defensively are critically important to winning and that the surest way to lose is to not do those things? 

 

If the answers to these questions are "no" then how do you explain their presence in these various winning organizations?  These guys were there for decoration?

 

 

The thing is, nobody who desires the Jaguars have the first overall pick (or at least a pick as high as possible) thinks the Jaguars are one player away.  We want the team to be in the best possible position to land game changers-namely at QB.  That is best accomplished by possessing the first overall pick without having to trade up to acquire that pick, because trading up to get that pick will result in fewer opportunities to build the team.

 

Again, not a difficut concept.

Quote:Um, no.  You need talent to win.  You can't "learn to win" with no talent.

Precisely.

Quote:Questions to ponder: 

 

Mike Mularkey has been in the Pittsburgh Steelers organization.  Did he ever learn how to win?

 

Gus Bradley just came from the Seahawks, who went to the playoffs last year.  Did he ever learn how to win?

 

Mike Caldwell just came from the Falcons, who were a game away from the Super Bowl (about 10 yards, actually).  Before then, he was with the Colts under Bill Polian.  Did he ever learn how to win?

 

Over the past few seasons, the team drafted Blaine Gabbert, who had the highest level of success Missouri had in decades with him as QB.  Did he ever learn how to win?

 

The team also drafted Oklahoma State's Justin Blackmon, who was there during one of the mose successful runs in school history, and likewise for Luke Joeckel at Texas A&M and Andre Branch at Clemson.

 

Did they learn how to win?

 

If the answers to these questions are "Yes" then to what do you attribute the lack of success here thus far?

 

If the answers to these questions are "no" then how do you explain their presence in these various winning organizations?

 

The thing is, nobody who desires the Jaguars have the first overall pick (or at least a pick as high as possible) thinks the Jaguars are one player away.  We want the team to be in the best possible position to land game changers-namely at QB.  That is best accomplished by possessing the first overall pick without having to trade up to acquire that pick, because trading up to get that pick will result in fewer opportunities to build the team.

 

Again, not a difficut concept.

Everyone in professional sports has won at some position and level in their career.

 

What people need to learn is how to win at their current position and current level. Tanking is the exact antithesis to building a winning team.

 

Fortunately, the people in this organization, unlike many of you on this message board, have experienced winning in a competitive environment and realize there is much more to it than tanking for a player who may or may not turn out to be what you hoped for.

 

Jimmy Johnson went 1-15 his first season. According to the stupid point you are trying to make, he never needed to learn how to win in the NFL.

Quote:Everyone in professional sports has won at some position and level in their career.

 

What people need to learn is how to win at their current position and current level. Tanking is the exact antithesis to building a winning team.

 

Fortunately, the people in this organization, unlike many of you on this message board, have experienced winning in a competitive environment and realize there is much more to it than tanking for a player who may or may not turn out to be what you hoped for.

 

Jimmy Johnson went 1-15 his first season. According to the stupid point you are trying to make, he never needed to learn how to win in the NFL.

According to the stupid point you are trying to make, he didn't need talent.

 

Using your logic, Jimmy Johnson, in NO WAY, benefitted from having the first overall pick in 1989 and being able to pick Troy Aikman.

 

Barry Switzer-always known for his keen intellect and quick study-had zero learning curve learning how to win in the NFL despite never playing a down in the league and never coaching a down in the league either as an assistant or a head coach prior to 1994.  Under your rationale, having the most talented roster in the NFL-including a Hall of Fame QB, RB, WR, and OL and arguably the best OL in history- had nothing to do with his success.

 

Using your logic, Peyton Manning had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Colts run between 1999-2010.

 

But hey, we beat the Colts twice in 2011.  We sure learned to win after those games, didn't we?

 

Conversely, the Colts, who lost at least two more games than we did that same year, continue to pay the price for losing those all important games after long since being eliminated from playoff contention, right?

 

Pay no attention to those standings behind the curtain!

I don't know how some.of you think this team is capable of winning more than a game or two this year. Have you even been watching this team?


Best case scenario I think we go 3 and 13. Does that instill a winning mentality? No.. They would still be losers.


I say get the first pick. Being 1 and 15 vs 3 and 13 is no different in terms of sucking.... But next year you wanna have first dibs on whoever u think is worth it

Quote:I don't know how some.of you think this team is capable of winning more than a game or two this year. Have you even been watching this team?


Best case scenario I think we go 3 and 13. Does that instill a winning mentality? No.. They would still be losers.


I say get the first pick. Being 1 and 15 vs 3 and 13 is no different in terms of sucking.... But next year you wanna have first dibs on whoever u think is worth it

Some twisted sense of self righteousness/safistfaction gained from two meaningless wins is apparently worth potentially missing out on a franchise QB.

It takes a combination of both. You need winners to bring out the best in talented players.

Well yeah, you get winners.from college... Add in maybe a couple of free agent winners... Everyone on this roster has been a winner at some point.

Quote:Sure thing, mensa.


You and those like you are so short sighted that you don't understand that picks outside of the number one overall pick can be winners. For every Andrew Luck, there is a JaMarcus Russell, David Carr, Tim Couch, and Jeff George. You are all so bloodthirsty for a first overall pick, and you may have the next one of those guys.


Guys like Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, Tom Brady, and Drew Brees think you're just a little off base about needing the first pick to get a quality QB.


Then again, Don't let little things like that stop you from wishing loss on your team. Losers love to lose. Losers get upset about wins. It's in your blood, and you can't help it.

The guys that fall in the draft, like those mentioned above, are the ones who proved the scouts wrong. Are you proclaiming that your odds are the same or better of drafting the "guy" late round one as opposed to early round one? Or better yet, one overall?


There's busts all the time, you just have to hope our guys in the FO are making good decisions with draft picks, and not picking the media consensus just because. In that scenario, I would rather my GM have the first overall pick, than #2-32 overall.


As a fan you have to assume the organization makes the right choice regarding who they draft, just like you have to assume they aren't tanking..

Even though I hope we lose 8-9 more games, purely for draft purposes, I hope we try in them.

Quote:Talent requires more than 1 pick. If your plan of winning revolves around acquiring 1 player then you aren't likely to win period.

 

Of course you need more than one draft pick to acquire talent.  The Jaguars do have more than one.  However, its pretty clear that in today's NFL, the quarterback is by far the most important position on the field.  You want to put yourself in a position to solidify that position for many years to come.  Even if you find studs at other positions, its basically meaningless if you're stuck with a dud quarterback who can't win games.

Quote:According to the stupid point you are trying to make, he didn't need talent.

 

Using your logic, Jimmy Johnson, in NO WAY, benefitted from having the first overall pick in 1989 and being able to pick Troy Aikman.

 

Barry Switzer-always known for his keen intellect and quick study-had zero learning curve learning how to win in the NFL despite never playing a down in the league and never coaching a down in the league either as an assistant or a head coach prior to 1994.  Under your rationale, having the most talented roster in the NFL-including a Hall of Fame QB, RB, WR, and OL and arguably the best OL in history- had nothing to do with his success.

 

Using your logic, Peyton Manning had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Colts run between 1999-2010.

 

But hey, we beat the Colts twice in 2011.  We sure learned to win after those games, didn't we?

 

Conversely, the Colts, who lost at least two more games than we did that same year, continue to pay the price for losing those all important games after long since being eliminated from playoff contention, right?

 

Pay no attention to those standings behind the curtain!

You don't play to lose, looser..

 

Maybe in your never succeeded at anything competitive in your life, you can justify failing for a draft pick. I promise you these professionals don't see it in your pathetic way. Unlike you, these guys are born winners. They would have never made it this far in their careers if they had your pathetic attitude about the importance of winning.

 

It's obvious you have never earned anything competitive in your life. Don't equate people who's jobs are based on being highly driven to your no effort position you fell into.

Quote:You don't play to lose, looser..[sic]

 

Maybe in your never succeeded at anything competitive in your life, you can justify failing for a draft pick. I promise you these professionals don't see it in your pathetic way. Unlike you, these guys are born winners. They would have never made it this far in their careers if they had your pathetic attitude about the importance of winning.

 

It's obvious you have never earned anything competitive in your life. Don't equate people who's jobs are based on being highly driven to your no effort position you fell into.

 

Lose the argument...attack the poster? 

 

What's next?  "Fry cook?" 

 

The board changed, yet the posters didn't. 

 

Look, in no way do I deny that the losing is eating away at the coaches and players on the team, and that irrespective of the circumstances, most will want to win every game.  I don't deny that my position likely runs counter to those competitive instincts those players and coaches hold.

 

But if you've ever identified a position of weakness on the team, I guarantee your analysis likely runs counter to the opinions of the players who man those positions.  I guarantee most on the roster believe they can play their positions at a very high level.

I guarantee that while on some level, the players who thrive upon competition will welcome the challenge, most would dread it if they knew they would be unemployed and the move made to upgrade their position may well mean the end of their NFL lives. 

 

If you've ever shook your head at playcalling, you indict the coaches who put in the hours studying film and studying the personnel on both sides in the effort to give the team the best chance to win.  I'm sure the criticized coaches would tell you they deserve their positions or better.

 

However, a player and a coach having a strong will to win does not mean they actually win.  Competitive drive, absent talent, does not come close to guaranteeing success in the NFL.  Talent is the closest thing to an objective measure of what it takes to win in the NFL.

 

This is why those on your side of the argument, throughout these seven and counting pages of debate, have not even come close to addressing the point I raised about the long standing rules determining draft order. 

 

Would you support a rules change that rewarded the best teams with the highest draft position and penalized the worst teams with lesser draft position, such that the Super Bowl champion would end up with the top overall pick and the worst team would end up with the 32nd overall pick?  What about one where the draft order was always alphabetical, or one where the teams would rotate draft order every year such that a team would have the top overall pick once every 33 years or so?  What about a draft lottery system where the order is completely random, or a system where a team on the clock got to submit seven names (representing one pick in each round) at once, taking them all out of the draft pool before the next team on the clock?  What about abolishing the draft altogether?

 

If you honestly think draft order has no influence whatsoever on talent distribution, you should have no problem arguing effectively for any or all of those rules changes listed above.

Quote:Lose the argument...attack the poster? 

 

What's next?  "Fry cook?" 

 

The board changed, yet the posters didn't. 

 

Look, in no way do I deny that the losing is eating away at the coaches and players on the team, and that irrespective of the circumstances, most will want to win every game.  I don't deny that my position likely runs counter to those competitive instincts those players and coaches hold.

 

But if you've ever identified a position of weakness on the team, I guarantee your analysis likely runs counter to the opinions of the players who man those positions.  I guarantee most on the roster believe they can play their positions at a very high level.

I guarantee that while on some level, the players who thrive upon competition will welcome the challenge, most would dread it if they knew they would be unemployed and the move made to upgrade their position may well mean the end of their NFL lives. 

 

If you've ever shook your head at playcalling, you indict the coaches who put in the hours studying film and studying the personnel on both sides in the effort to give the team the best chance to win.  I'm sure the criticized coaches would tell you they deserve their positions or better.

 

However, a player and a coach having a strong will to win does not mean they actually win.  Competitive drive, absent talent, does not come close to guaranteeing success in the NFL.  Talent is the closest thing to an objective measure of what it takes to win in the NFL.

 

This is why those on your side of the argument, throughout these seven and counting pages of debate, have not even come close to addressing the point I raised about the long standing rules determining draft order. 

 

Would you support a rules change that rewarded the best teams with the highest draft position and penalized the worst teams with lesser draft position, such that the Super Bowl champion would end up with the top overall pick and the worst team would end up with the 32nd overall pick?  What about one where the draft order was always alphabetical, or one where the teams would rotate draft order every year such that a team would have the top overall pick once every 33 years or so?  What about a draft lottery system where the order is completely random, or a system where a team on the clock got to submit seven names (representing one pick in each round) at once, taking them all out of the draft pool before the next team on the clock?  What about abolishing the draft altogether?

 

If you honestly think draft order has no influence whatsoever on talent distribution, you should have no problem arguing effectively for any or all of those rules changes listed above.

How can I lose an argument when you are completely talking out your rear?

 

There isn't a switch that you turn on and off that decides if you are going to try to win or not. If you had ever competed in anything athletically in your life you would understand that. This isn't a video game. Peoples careers are at stake.

 

To even have a conversation about these people tanking just shows how completely ignorant you are. Quit making a fool out of yourself and just accept the fact that these people are going to go out there and win as many games as possible because that is what they do, that is why they are involved with this game.

 

Quit trying to put your acceptance for losing mentality on these people. They do what they do because they are obviously nothing like you. Tank for your video games. Don't expect these guys to cultivate a losing mentality in an environment that is full of a bunch of professionals whose only goal is to beat you.

 

Regardless of your silly flawed logic, these guys would happily trade draft spots for wins, if for nothing more than the time, effort, and difficulty to win in this highly competitive environment.

 

There is no "easy" button you push to start winning, regardless of your draft position. I'm not trying to insult the poster, but this is a downright stupid conversation.

Quote:How can I lose an argument when you are completely talking out your rear?

 

There isn't a switch that you turn on and off that decides if you are going to try to win or not. If you had ever competed in anything athletically in your life you would understand that. This isn't a video game. Peoples careers are at stake.

 

To even have a conversation about these people tanking just shows how completely ignorant you are. Quit making a fool out of yourself and just accept the fact that these people are going to go out there and win as many games as possible because that is what they do, that is why they are involved with this game.

 

Quit trying to put your acceptance for losing mentality on these people. They do what they do because they are obviously nothing like you. Tank for your video games. Don't expect these guys to cultivate a losing mentality in an environment that is full of a bunch of professionals whose only goal is to beat you.

 

Regardless of your silly flawed logic, these guys would happily trade draft spots for wins, if for nothing more than the time, effort, and difficulty to win in this highly competitive environment.

 

There is no "easy" button you push to start winning, regardless of your draft position. I'm not trying to insult the poster, but this is a downright stupid conversation.

 

Let me preface by stating the bulk of your reply, in form and substance, is complete filibuster.

 

Talking out of my rear?  Really?

 

Our side of this debate cited numerous historical and factual  examples over decades of NFL football showing how teams have benefitted greatly from bottoming out and drafting a great player due to the superior draft position.

 

Our side cited the NFL draft rules regarding draft order and the rationale behind it.

 

What have you offered but insults and condescension?

 

You should be able to show tangible, on field benefit for winning those games in 2011 were your argument such a no brainer.

The fact that you can't, instead engaging in wholly baseless personal invective, speaks volumes.

 

But I specifically want to address your empty platitudes regarding players careers.

 

Spare me the nonsense.

 

What in the WORLD do YOU care about players careers, especially once they are gone from the team?

 

Granted, I don't know you at all, but somehow I suspect you aren't writing letters of recommendation for "crunk juice."

 

Somehow, I get the sense you don't know what Le'Shai Maston is doing these days.

 

Just a guess here, but I'm pretty sure you aren't making sure Vinny Clark has food in his pantry.

 

Maybe I'm just spitballing here, but I have the feeling you aren't holding candlelight vigils every cutdown day in somber recognition of the guys who didn't have what it takes to make the roster.  You certainly weren't there to ensure Jimmy Smith could pass a drug test for a potential employer.

 

I know I'm not.

 

I don't expect the players on the team to tank.  But as they continue to perform at this level, whether they are tanking or not, I expect them to lose, and ultimately, I, like any fan, expect them to be replaced, tanking or not.  When they are replaced, I want them replaced by the best possible players.  Superior draft position helps in that area.

 

If you can't see the value of superior draft position despite all of the evidence, perhaps this is a "stupid" conversation for you.  Might I recommend the kiddie table?