(04-30-2021, 12:03 PM)scottyg Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 11:57 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]And if we had a complete team that was competing for the Superbowl every year I would be all for it.
We have the worst team in the NFL with some of the worst OTs protecting TL. So we go RB.... when we already have a BETTER RB on the roster... it just makes no sense.
What if Robinson isn't better. What if ETN can do everything that Robinson can do, but has breakaway speed on top of it? Meyer really likes to spread things out and use RBs in a variety of ways, so having more than one good one could be a very good thing for his offense.
Personally, I would have preferred something other than RB at that spot, but what if ETN is the next MJD? Is he worth pick 25 then?
Not if he blows a block assignment and gets TL broken in half.
Not if one of our crappy OTs that could have been upgraded by using a few of our draft picks to trade up gets him broken in half.
Protecting TL should be the priority.. not giving him people to hopefully throw the ball to when he's running for his life.
(04-30-2021, 11:57 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 11:49 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]As to the point in bold, if TL is everything we hope he will be, why wouldn't Etienne benefit similarly in the NFL? Yes, there are differences between the college and pro game, but at least one of them-the narrower hashmarks-may actually work to Etienne's benefit?
And if we had a complete team that was competing for the Superbowl every year I would be all for it.
We have the worst team in the NFL with some of the worst OTs protecting TL. So we go RB.... when we already have a BETTER RB on the roster... it just makes no sense.
So a RB can't be effective unless he has a complete team around him? I submit that's news to MJD.
As for whether we have a better RB on the roster, let the competition decide.
(04-30-2021, 10:39 AM)JagFanFirst Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 09:46 AM)Sibelius Wrote: [ -> ]That thinking only works if Moe, Barimore and Jenkins are all available through the first pick of round 3, so we can get all the guys we SHOULD have picked before Etienne. Otherwise, we missed on a more needed player for the sake of taking a RB we didn't need.
By picking a RB we made our round 3 or 4 pick in round 1. What a waste.
You're assuming that running back at #3 or #4 would be as good as Etienne. He won't be. Get the best players when you can.
So we get a great player at a position we don't need and get not so great player at a position where we have a greater need. Great thinking.
(04-30-2021, 12:08 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 11:57 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]And if we had a complete team that was competing for the Superbowl every year I would be all for it.
We have the worst team in the NFL with some of the worst OTs protecting TL. So we go RB.... when we already have a BETTER RB on the roster... it just makes no sense.
So a RB can't be effective unless he has a complete team around him? I submit that's news to MJD.
As for whether we have a better RB on the roster, let the competition decide.
.....Are you reading what I wrote? I'm all for adding playmakers if we had a good team. We have a garbage team... but the ONE position we aren't garbage at? RB... and that was the selection. That's just STUPID.
We need to protect Trevor. Etienne does nothing for that.
(04-30-2021, 09:42 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 09:19 AM)Sibelius Wrote: [ -> ]From Frank Schwab, draft winners and losers:
Teams unnecessarily taking running backs: Running backs do matter. But they can be found later in the draft. Sometimes after the draft.
The Jaguars know this. Last year they got James Robinson as an undrafted free agent, and he had 1,414 yards from scrimmage. He was a good NFL starter.
And the Jaguars, who went 1-15 last season and have many needs, took a running back 25th overall. Clemson running back Travis Etienne is a very good player, but was that the best way for the Jaguars to use their draft resources?
About the bolded part- that is complete and total horse manure.
Since 2005, here is a breakdown of the RBs taken in the first round who became 1,000 yard rushers:
RD 1 - 55% 15/27
RD 2 - 29% 11/38
RD 3 - 16% 6/37
RD 4 - 7% 3/45
RD 5 - 7% 3/42
RD 6 - 4% 2/46
RD 7 - 2% 1/51
Case closed!
Sure, you can find a RB in the later rounds, just like you can find a QB in the later rounds (Tom Brady), but like any other position, you'll have the best result if you try to pick the best one.
/Leonard Fournette waves
//Trent Richardson stares at dirt, realizes he should wave too
Go back to those stats. Break down just how many had a vacuum at RB when they made their pick. Or how many were replacing a 1000 yard rusher from the year prior. Truth is, most of those teams were probably grabbing a glaring need, or adding a final piece to their roster (like CEH last year)
The contention was not that you can find Etienne later in the darft. It's that if you are looking for a change of pace/complement to the RB who just carried your offense, those change of pace guys can be found all throughout the draft.
The criticism is not over taking Etienne. It's over who is passed up to take someone to serve the role he's going to be expected to serve.
(04-30-2021, 12:07 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 12:03 PM)scottyg Wrote: [ -> ]What if Robinson isn't better. What if ETN can do everything that Robinson can do, but has breakaway speed on top of it? Meyer really likes to spread things out and use RBs in a variety of ways, so having more than one good one could be a very good thing for his offense.
Personally, I would have preferred something other than RB at that spot, but what if ETN is the next MJD? Is he worth pick 25 then?
Not if he blows a block assignment and gets TL broken in half.
Not if one of our crappy OTs that could have been upgraded by using a few of our draft picks to trade up gets him broken in half.
Protecting TL should be the priority.. not giving him people to hopefully throw the ball to when he's running for his life.
And yet, if we had taken a WR at that spot, it would have been much less controversial. I do agree that the OL needs work... Jenkins with our next pick would be just fine by me.
(04-30-2021, 09:48 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 09:46 AM)Sibelius Wrote: [ -> ]That thinking only works if Moe, Barimore and Jenkins are all available through the first pick of round 3, so we can get all the guys we SHOULD have picked before Etienne. Otherwise, we missed on a more needed player for the sake of taking a RB we didn't need.
By picking a RB we made our round 3 or 4 pick in round 1. What a waste.
Like I showed in the post above this one, RBs taken in rounds 3 and 4 are generally crap. RBs taken in round 1 are generally very good.
No, RBs taken in 3 and 4 are generally not your bell cow RB. Don't misconstrue the stat. Look at average carries, average receptions, KO return yards, etc to get a better picture than one yardage stat. RBs taken in round 1 are expected to carry the workload for the run game, and rightfully so. I am not certain that TE's role is going to be that prominent.
(04-30-2021, 09:54 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 09:51 AM)Sibelius Wrote: [ -> ]So you're saying that a player at any position taken in the first round tends to outperform players at that position taken in later rounds? No kidding!
The issue is that we have greater needs than a RB and we had excellent options at those positions.
No [BLEEP] kidding. They wanted a game breaking RB who can catch passes and can score from any spot on the field. Apparently, that's important to the offense they plan to run. So that's what they did.
this just in, a game breaking RB brought in to catch passes is probably not running for 1000 yards. Your uberstat is now meaningless.
(04-30-2021, 12:08 PM)Sibelius Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 10:39 AM)JagFanFirst Wrote: [ -> ]You're assuming that running back at #3 or #4 would be as good as Etienne. He won't be. Get the best players when you can.
So we get a great player at a position we don't need and get not so great player at a position where we have a greater need. Great thinking.
All of the players we want are available at 33. We get that player and Eitienne? That's a great deal.
(04-30-2021, 12:07 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 12:03 PM)scottyg Wrote: [ -> ]What if Robinson isn't better. What if ETN can do everything that Robinson can do, but has breakaway speed on top of it? Meyer really likes to spread things out and use RBs in a variety of ways, so having more than one good one could be a very good thing for his offense.
Personally, I would have preferred something other than RB at that spot, but what if ETN is the next MJD? Is he worth pick 25 then?
Not if he blows a block assignment and gets TL broken in half.
Not if one of our crappy OTs that could have been upgraded by using a few of our draft picks to trade up gets him broken in half.
Protecting TL should be the priority.. not giving him people to hopefully throw the ball to when he's running for his life.
But we could still upgrade one of our crappy OTs, right?
Guys that many of us were hoping we'd take at 25 (Jenkins, Eichenberg, even Radunz) are still on the board at 33, and may even be on the board at 45. Isn't it true that a guy like Spencer Brown or Jalen Mayfield could be taken at 65 and still upgrade Taylor at RT?
I don't suggest you do not have legitimate concerns. Etienne was not my top choice at 25. If I had my way, I would have taken Jenkins.
But I'm not understanding your logic.
If we drafted Jenkins at 25 and he blows a block assignment, would TL be any less broken in half? Would that one missed assignment render Jenkins a bad pick? For that matter, if Trevor Lawrence does not identify a blitzer pre-snap, does not adjust the blocking, and he gets blasted by the defender and gets himself knocked out of the game, would that have made his selection a mistake?
Should Dallas being bad enough to post a 1-15 record in 1989 precluded them from drafting Emmitt Smith in 1990? Should Indy finishing 3-13 in 1998 precluded them from drafting Edgerrin James in 1999? What of the Chargers in the early 2000s drafting LaDanian Tomlinson? Why does a team need to be complete before drafting a RB high? Why can't a highly drafted RB make a team more complete?
(04-30-2021, 12:20 PM)JagFanFirst Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 12:08 PM)Sibelius Wrote: [ -> ]So we get a great player at a position we don't need and get not so great player at a position where we have a greater need. Great thinking.
All of the players we want are available at 33. We get that player and Eitienne? That's a great deal.
But we don't have enough picks to get all the players we need because we wasted #25 on a RB. That's NOT a good deal.
(04-30-2021, 12:22 PM)Sibelius Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 12:20 PM)JagFanFirst Wrote: [ -> ] All of the players we want are available at 33. We get that player and Eitienne? That's a great deal.
But we don't have enough picks to get all the players we need because we wasted #25 on a RB. That's NOT a good deal.
We wouldn't have enough picks to get all of the players we need even if we DIDN'T spend 25 on a RB.
Barring a historically great draft (think 1974 Steelers with FOUR hall of famers), we weren't going to get enough players out of this drfat to make this team complete in one year. That one pick alone wouln't make the difference between 1-15 and 13-3. As bullish as I am on Trevor Lawrence, I don't even think HE alone could make that difference.
You beat me to it bro!!
WaaaaAAaaaAAAAAaaaaa I WANT A TACKLE...WAAAAAAAA
If we’re not going to draft defense then by gosh give me the playmakers!!!!
(04-30-2021, 12:35 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 12:22 PM)Sibelius Wrote: [ -> ]But we don't have enough picks to get all the players we need because we wasted #25 on a RB. That's NOT a good deal.
We wouldn't have enough picks to get all of the players we need even if we DIDN'T spend 25 on a RB.
Exactly - and that's why the #25 pick was so bad. We didn't NEED a RB.
(04-30-2021, 12:38 PM)Sibelius Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 12:35 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]We wouldn't have enough picks to get all of the players we need even if we DIDN'T spend 25 on a RB.
Exactly - and that's why the #25 pick was so bad. We didn't NEED a RB.
We NEED good players.
At 1-15, we can't turn up our noses at anyone who could be a difference maker.
You can pick great players in any round. ET is going to be a beast.
The OT’s that you guys are drooling over are fools gold. I’m tired of drafting tackles. Give me some DANG playmakers!
(04-30-2021, 12:42 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 12:38 PM)Sibelius Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly - and that's why the #25 pick was so bad. We didn't NEED a RB.
We NEED good players.
At 1-15, we can't turn up our noses at anyone who could be a difference maker.
You're making my point. We NEED several good players - so it makes no sense to get a good player at a position where we already have a good player. We need good players in other positions more.
(04-30-2021, 12:45 PM)JagFanatic24 Wrote: [ -> ]You can pick great players in any round. ET is going to be a beast.
The OT’s that you guys are drooling over are fools gold. I’m tired of drafting tackles. Give me some DANG playmakers!
LOL I think the OTs we have already are the fool's gold.
I would have gone in a different direction with that pick. However, I think it is misleading when people talk about Robinson being "replaced". You need two running backs in the NFL. Last year, the Jaguars were actually dead last (32 out of 32 teams) in rushing attempts. If we were average or even a little above average in running attempts, we could give a number of carries to ETN without reducing carries to Robinson. I think we will have many more carries next year due to not being behind so much in games as well as having an offense that doesn't consistently go 3 and out. Second, many NFL analysts felt that James Robinson was over-worked last year. He was 6th in the NFL in rushing attempts despite missing multiple games. A slight reduction in carries for Robinson wouldn't be the end of the world. Third, they are different style running backs. ETN will primarily be used where he makes sense and Robinson will be used where he makes sense.
(04-30-2021, 12:50 PM)Sibelius Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 12:42 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]We NEED good players.
At 1-15, we can't turn up our noses at anyone who could be a difference maker.
You're making my point. We NEED several good players - so it makes no sense to get a good player at a position where we already have a good player. We need good players in other positions more.
(04-30-2021, 12:45 PM)JagFanatic24 Wrote: [ -> ]You can pick great players in any round. ET is going to be a beast.
The OT’s that you guys are drooling over are fools gold. I’m tired of drafting tackles. Give me some DANG playmakers!
LOL I think the OTs we have already are the fool's gold.
Ive copy and pasted for the past 3 days...no need to trade Cam to draft Cam.
He’s a veteran starter and this is what we got. But now instead of Luton we have the MAN!!
(04-30-2021, 06:45 AM)I am Yoda Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 06:04 AM)MarleyJag Wrote: [ -> ]The player is very talented but it seems like an odd pick. What does this say about the staff's opinion of Robinson or for that matter, Hyde whom they just re-signed?
I'm still scratching my head over the Hyde signing. He didn't do anything when he was here the first time. He's nothing special.
I don't know why some people are so obsessed with the Hyde signing. He wasn't signed because he was "special". He was signed as a stop gap player as our third string running back. Barring injury to Robinson, he was never going to be a significant part of the offense. As for performance, it's not as bad as some portray. Hyde had a bad season in Jacksonville, but the four seasons surrounding it were much better. In 3 out of those 4 seasons, Hyde had over 900 rushing yards and in the fourth year (where he had fewer carries), he still averaged 4.4 yards per carry. He's a similar style running back to Robinson which I think made him appealing to Meyer. If Robinson goes down mid-game, you don't have to change your game plan.