(12-18-2018, 02:49 PM)Flagler Jagsfan Wrote: [ -> ] (12-17-2018, 04:41 PM)Jay Carter 904 Wrote: [ -> ]I believe we wasted that pick by wasting Hyde. He is a way better back than what we have seen. It all goes back to the coaching staff not using players correctly. That's the only reason Im on the fire Marrone wagon.
I'm with you on this. Hyde has been a good back on both the 49ers and the Browns. This coaching staff has a way of squandering talent and not using them to their potential. To me, it's blatantly obvious "they" are in over their head. And by "they" , I don't think any of them all the way up to Coughlin deserve a free pass. There are firings, personnel changes, and staff changes that have not taken place, and should be a direct reflection of upper level management that is not making these changes happen. They scooped up Hyde out of panic move and gave up our 5th round pick, and have barely used him. Meanwhile, other teams are looking dominant with undrafted 3rd and 4th string rookies.
(12-19-2018, 12:39 AM)Firesky Wrote: [ -> ] (12-18-2018, 10:32 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]I'm still not sure where you're going with this. What does the success of another team's RB have to do with the guy we acquired? All it tells me is the Browns knew Chubb was good, and that they could justify taking one RB out of their talent pool to acquire future picks. Did you account for the changes in coaching in Cleveland when you looked at that performance?
Are you saying that we could have acquired Chubb? Hyde was holding him back?
I agree we've been failing when it comes to amassing talent at every offensive position, not just RB. I just don't know how Chubb's stats indicate that the trade was good or bad.
This, chubb is good, baker and the offense improved, and .. they fired hue jackson which had more to do with it than anything.
People also want to act like Carlos Hydes 4 years on the niners (who werent very good talentwise on the whole) where he averaged 4.0 ypc each year didnt happen. And that stint includes two 900 yard campaigns in one of which he averaged 4.6 a clip. Hes not the problem.
Sooo Hyde goes from performing well on the niners and fournette goes from having 1k and 10 tds in 13 games to what we see now. Maybeee just maybeee having 4 of 5 oline starters and no semblance of a passing game is bogging down the running game and Hyde and Fournette are still talented.
I agree with both post.
The OL is trash. But, the coaching staff hasn't attempted to use these players correctly.
(12-18-2018, 03:30 AM)Eric1 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-18-2018, 02:39 AM)LMD Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately, for an incentive-laden contract to be "lucrative," it has to be possible to hit those incentives. Yeldon's not signing an incentive contract to be the 2nd, or potentially 3rd, back after being the most consistent rusher, receiver, and blocker on this team, when some team is going to pony up money up-front for his versatility. Especially when the team is obsessed with running LF straight up the middle 25 times a game, when he's not injured.
It's a shame that it took a few years for Yeldon to finally hit his stride; this team could have used this production years ago rather than just barely getting to reap the rewards of his potential only to lose him to FA.
As for Hyde, I'm absolutely speechless that this team so carelessly threw away a 5th. Someone needs to be fired for this trade. I don't even care if it's a random janitor. Trading a 5th for a player you refuse to use in the midst of a season spiraling out of control is inexcusable.
In hindsight, the trade is awful and a waste of a 5th round pick, agreed completely.
When the team actually made the trade, it did make complete sense. I've never been a fan of Hyde and it was a wasted pick, but we were hurting at RB when the trade was made and the season wasn't exactly over yet...
This team was 3-3 at the time of the trade. Fournette was out indefinitely with his hamstring injury. Grant was on IR and Yeldon was battling through an ankle injury.
Yeldon was our only RB at that time and he was playing with a bad ankle.. That's why they made the trade, because they were one ankle tweak away from having nobody at RB.
Oh, I understand why they made the trade. I didn't dislike the trade at the time, and I still don't dislike the trade in principle. A 5th to get the team's offensive identity back and try to salvage a season with such high expectations is a fine move in my books - and one I'd happily make every time.
It was the fact that after they traded for Hyde they then did nothing with him that gets me. How many games were we watching when everyone had to scratch their heads and say "why'd we trade for Hyde?" Heck, the the team traded a draft pick for Hyde and then in the first game he played with the team, closed the game out by passing on 31 consecutive plays.
He has a total of 40 rushes through 5 games (not counting last week's healthy scratch). And that already-low number's only inflated because Fournette was ejected midway through one game, and this team doesn't know how to adjust mid-game, and the next week Fournette was suspended
and they benched Blake for the first time. Without his 23 runs in those 2 games, he only had 17 rushes through 3 games.
And I don't believe the playbook could have been such a big issue; all the guy needed to do in this offense was be told where to stand, get the ball from the QB, and run straight up the middle. He's a professional football player, I'm sure he could have figured
that out.
Trading a 5th for Hyde is fine. Trading a 5th for Hyde and then refusing to even try using him is the fireable offense, in my book. Had they run him 10-15 times a game for 4-5 weeks and said "this guy's terrible," I'd have accepted that and been disappointed at the result. But I could at least say "well, they tried." Trading for Hyde and never using him was just throwing a pick away for funsies.
Disconnect between front office in and the coaching staff. That is my opinion. The Front Office gets these guys and the coaching staff has other ideas.
(12-20-2018, 10:14 AM)MoJagFan Wrote: [ -> ]Disconnect between front office in and the coaching staff. That is my opinion. The Front Office gets these guys and the coaching staff has other ideas.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's hard excuse that if true when you see Coughlin on the sidelines in nearly every photo set posted from practices and Marrone talks about consulting TC regularly.
(12-20-2018, 10:26 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2018, 10:14 AM)MoJagFan Wrote: [ -> ]Disconnect between front office in and the coaching staff. That is my opinion. The Front Office gets these guys and the coaching staff has other ideas.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's hard excuse that if true when you see Coughlin on the sidelines in nearly every photo set posted from practices and Marrone talks about consulting TC regularly.
Thanks for additional information. I'm following remotely and get info from forums and main stories. This is just such an odd situation. Is he not an effective blocker? I mean was there not scouting reports that said he was a 1 to 2 down back and we figured the draft pick was worth it? This is just very odd.
(12-20-2018, 10:57 AM)MoJagFan Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2018, 10:26 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's hard excuse that if true when you see Coughlin on the sidelines in nearly every photo set posted from practices and Marrone talks about consulting TC regularly.
Thanks for additional information. I'm following remotely and get info from forums and main stories. This is just such an odd situation. Is he not an effective blocker? I mean was there not scouting reports that said he was a 1 to 2 down back and we figured the draft pick was worth it? This is just very odd.
It is odd.
I think it's a confluence of a bad/injured o-line, a messed up OC situation, and some underwhelming efforts by Hyde early on that didn't inspire confidence to give him more carries.
If it were me - after analyzing what he's done well in the past and choosing the most similar run plays from our playbook for him to execute - I'd have him running a dozen of those in each game to evaluate keeping him next season or not.
I agree NYC4jags what you outlined seems like an effective evaluation process (we skipped). It is staggering how bad we are on offense even accounting for injuries being a factor. There was an article today claiming how we aren't as bad as the record because of being a good defense and having good special teams rankings. The offense is a super red flag.
(12-20-2018, 01:09 AM)LMD Wrote: [ -> ] (12-18-2018, 03:30 AM)Eric1 Wrote: [ -> ]In hindsight, the trade is awful and a waste of a 5th round pick, agreed completely.
When the team actually made the trade, it did make complete sense. I've never been a fan of Hyde and it was a wasted pick, but we were hurting at RB when the trade was made and the season wasn't exactly over yet...
This team was 3-3 at the time of the trade. Fournette was out indefinitely with his hamstring injury. Grant was on IR and Yeldon was battling through an ankle injury.
Yeldon was our only RB at that time and he was playing with a bad ankle.. That's why they made the trade, because they were one ankle tweak away from having nobody at RB.
Oh, I understand why they made the trade. I didn't dislike the trade at the time, and I still don't dislike the trade in principle. A 5th to get the team's offensive identity back and try to salvage a season with such high expectations is a fine move in my books - and one I'd happily make every time.
It was the fact that after they traded for Hyde they then did nothing with him that gets me. How many games were we watching when everyone had to scratch their heads and say "why'd we trade for Hyde?" Heck, the the team traded a draft pick for Hyde and then in the first game he played with the team, closed the game out by passing on 31 consecutive plays.
He has a total of 40 rushes through 5 games (not counting last week's healthy scratch). And that already-low number's only inflated because Fournette was ejected midway through one game, and this team doesn't know how to adjust mid-game, and the next week Fournette was suspended and they benched Blake for the first time. Without his 23 runs in those 2 games, he only had 17 rushes through 3 games.
And I don't believe the playbook could have been such a big issue; all the guy needed to do in this offense was be told where to stand, get the ball from the QB, and run straight up the middle. He's a professional football player, I'm sure he could have figured that out.
Trading a 5th for Hyde is fine. Trading a 5th for Hyde and then refusing to even try using him is the fireable offense, in my book. Had they run him 10-15 times a game for 4-5 weeks and said "this guy's terrible," I'd have accepted that and been disappointed at the result. But I could at least say "well, they tried." Trading for Hyde and never using him was just throwing a pick away for funsies.
You pretty well summed up my thoughts about this. I can't wrap my head around the idea of trading for the guy and not using him.
I'm not gonna be very happy if we cut Hyde. It's not because I like him that much, it's because it means we basically flushed a 5th round pick right down the toilet. If we didn't intend to keep him, why did we trade for him? When we traded for him we were 3-4 and things looked bleak. Did this front office actually believe a RB was the key to turning things around? If so, we've got the wrong people running this team. We could've just picked up a free agent RB and kept our pick. Not only that, but Yeldon and Grant are free agents. If we cut Hyde, that basically leaves us with Fournette and Rawls as the only viable RB's on the roster and we all know, Fournette should not be counted on to play a full season at this point. Luckily, this is a fantastic RB draft class. I don't advocate using a pick on a RB, because we have too many other needs, but there will be some very, very good RB's available as UDFA's. If we cut Hyde, we're gonna need to be aggressive immediately after the draft and bring in 2-3 RB's from this talented class. In fact, I would say RB and O-Line should be our main priority, when it comes to UDFA's.
(02-21-2019, 07:59 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not gonna be very happy if we cut Hyde. It's not because I like him that much, it's because it means we basically flushed a 5th round pick right down the toilet. If we didn't intend to keep him, why did we trade for him? When we traded for him we were 3-4 and things looked bleak. Did this front office actually believe a RB was the key to turning things around? If so, we've got the wrong people running this team. We could've just picked up a free agent RB and kept our pick. Not only that, but Yeldon and Grant are free agents. If we cut Hyde, that basically leaves us with Fournette and Rawls as the only viable RB's on the roster and we all know, Fournette should not be counted on to play a full season at this point. Luckily, this is a fantastic RB draft class. I don't advocate using a pick on a RB, because we have too many other needs, but there will be some very, very good RB's available as UDFA's. If we cut Hyde, we're gonna need to be aggressive immediately after the draft and bring in 2-3 RB's from this talented class. In fact, I would say RB and O-Line should be our main priority, when it comes to UDFA's.
This front office made the trade for Hyde because nobody knew how long Fournette was going to out. Grant got put on IR and Yeldon was our only other RB, who just so happened to be nursing an ankle injury at the time as well.
They plucked David Williams off of the Broncos practice squad and signed FA Jamaal Charles. The RB position was in complete shambles when they made the trade.
I'm not saying it was a good trade or anything like that, but that's why they made it.
(02-21-2019, 08:27 PM)Eric1 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-21-2019, 07:59 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not gonna be very happy if we cut Hyde. It's not because I like him that much, it's because it means we basically flushed a 5th round pick right down the toilet. If we didn't intend to keep him, why did we trade for him? When we traded for him we were 3-4 and things looked bleak. Did this front office actually believe a RB was the key to turning things around? If so, we've got the wrong people running this team. We could've just picked up a free agent RB and kept our pick. Not only that, but Yeldon and Grant are free agents. If we cut Hyde, that basically leaves us with Fournette and Rawls as the only viable RB's on the roster and we all know, Fournette should not be counted on to play a full season at this point. Luckily, this is a fantastic RB draft class. I don't advocate using a pick on a RB, because we have too many other needs, but there will be some very, very good RB's available as UDFA's. If we cut Hyde, we're gonna need to be aggressive immediately after the draft and bring in 2-3 RB's from this talented class. In fact, I would say RB and O-Line should be our main priority, when it comes to UDFA's.
This front office made the trade for Hyde because nobody knew how long Fournette was going to out. Grant got put on IR and Yeldon was our only other RB, who just so happened to be nursing an ankle injury at the time as well.
They plucked David Williams off of the Broncos practice squad and signed FA Jamaal Charles. The RB position was in complete shambles when they made the trade.
I'm not saying it was a good trade or anything like that, but that's why they made it.
I still think it was a horrible idea to trade a 5th round pick, if they were only gonna keep him for that season. You don't just throw away draft picks like that. We acquired him 7 games into the season. By then, we knew our O-Line had problems and the running game is only as good as the O-Line. Yes, we suffered key injuries to the O-Line after Hyde was acquired, but the O-Line had problems before that. On top of that, he was barely used with us. He never had more than 13 carries in a game, after we got him. Most games, he only totaled single digit carries. Why spend a 5th round pick on a guy if we barely use him?
(02-21-2019, 07:59 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not gonna be very happy if we cut Hyde. It's not because I like him that much, it's because it means we basically flushed a 5th round pick right down the toilet. If we didn't intend to keep him, why did we trade for him? When we traded for him we were 3-4 and things looked bleak. Did this front office actually believe a RB was the key to turning things around? If so, we've got the wrong people running this team. We could've just picked up a free agent RB and kept our pick. Not only that, but Yeldon and Grant are free agents. If we cut Hyde, that basically leaves us with Fournette and Rawls as the only viable RB's on the roster and we all know, Fournette should not be counted on to play a full season at this point. Luckily, this is a fantastic RB draft class. I don't advocate using a pick on a RB, because we have too many other needs, but there will be some very, very good RB's available as UDFA's. If we cut Hyde, we're gonna need to be aggressive immediately after the draft and bring in 2-3 RB's from this talented class. In fact, I would say RB and O-Line should be our main priority, when it comes to UDFA's.
Why did the niners throw a 6th at us for Blaine Gabbert? in both cases, the teams saw enough to say they wanted to try them out on a short-term plan to see if they were a longer-term solution. Most of the time your fifth-round pick is going to be a bottom-of-the-depth-chart guy who sees most of their PT on kick coverage. It's not a crippling loss in the long term, and it was a gamble. Sometimes, gambles don't pay out.
Reminds me of my friend, who had just gone hunting that morning --
Me: "Hey, you get anything this morning?"
Him: "Nah."
"Well, that sucks."
"If you bagged a deer every time you went in the woods, they'd call it 'killing', not 'hunting'."
I know it's a salary cap move but I wish we could keep him. He may be the best running back on the team right now (depending on LF's status and attitude). What a way to waste a draft pick. :-(
Why wasn't this thread moved?
(03-03-2019, 06:06 PM)Steelers Beaches Wrote: [ -> ]Why wasn't this thread moved?
Because he is still a Jag, you nub.
(03-03-2019, 06:06 PM)Steelers Beaches Wrote: [ -> ]Why wasn't this thread moved?
Carlos Hyde was a Jaguar player when the thread began, and he remains a Jag currently.
The thread is in the correct forum.
Please post on topic and don’t spam the board with your personal displeasures concerning the forum differentiation. Your odd inability to grasp the very basic organization of threads here should not become the focal point of threads. If it continues to happen - warnings will ensue.
On topic:
I still think Hyde can be an asset backing up/spelling Fournette in 2019 if they deem his salary worthy of retaining him.
The probable attempt to sign Foles and the cost of that deal will likely determine Hyde’s fate.
(03-03-2019, 06:42 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2019, 06:06 PM)Steelers Beaches Wrote: [ -> ]Why wasn't this thread moved?
Because he is still a Jag, you nub.
Is name calling OK here?
Plenty of threads about current Jags have been moved.
Jaguars reportedly will release Carlos Hyde, possibly to free up the team's salary cap for free agency next month. 
![[Image: tenor.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/images/8cdf502135cfb4d44540b11cb4d79d42/tenor.gif)