Pictures in article are from "the hunt" series the jaguars put out. Interesting to see. Jaylen Waddle and Lawrence both graded as a "8.0" by the jaguars, they also had jalean philips @ 7.5. Very interesting. Also had Zach Wilson as a 7.0, aswell as ETN at 7.0
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/jaguars-for...32797.html
Pretty clear that they didn't go best value.
(05-22-2021, 08:14 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Pretty clear that they didn't go best value.
Based on their grades they did.
Man, they had the same grade on Campbell and Moore with both a 6.9. Wish they took Moore but hopefully Campbell turns out to be a great corner
Super interesting article thanks for sharing.
(05-22-2021, 08:21 AM)ChrisJagBoy Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2021, 08:14 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Pretty clear that they didn't go best value.
Based on their grades they did.
When you grade based on need then you're not drafting for value.
They have Cisco listed as a FS, something I think most new
(05-22-2021, 09:12 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2021, 08:21 AM)ChrisJagBoy Wrote: [ -> ]Based on their grades they did.
When you grade based on need then you're not drafting for value.
We wouldn't of taken Etienne and Campbell if they were grading based on need
(05-22-2021, 09:25 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]They have Cisco listed as a FS, something I think most new
(05-22-2021, 09:12 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]When you grade based on need then you're not drafting for value.
We wouldn't of taken Etienne and Campbell if they were grading based on need
You're 100% wrong about Etienne, Meyer has all but admitted that much, and Campbell sure didn't look like a BAP when he was taken. Still, sometimes NFL teams do everything wrong but still have success. That might happen here, too.
(05-22-2021, 09:46 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2021, 09:25 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]They have Cisco listed as a FS, something I think most new
We wouldn't of taken Etienne and Campbell if they were grading based on need
You're 100% wrong about Etienne, Meyer has all but admitted that much, and Campbell sure didn't look like a BAP when he was taken. Still, sometimes NFL teams do everything wrong but still have success. That might happen here, too.
Meyer said he took Etienne because of need? Why didn't it look like they had Campbell BPA? He was only a .1 difference from the guy they took at 25 so it's likely they had him as BPA along with Moore. Campbell and Moore they both had the same grade on so its likely Moore would of been taken had they not selected Campbell.
(05-22-2021, 09:53 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2021, 09:46 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]You're 100% wrong about Etienne, Meyer has all but admitted that much, and Campbell sure didn't look like a BAP when he was taken. Still, sometimes NFL teams do everything wrong but still have success. That might happen here, too.
Meyer said he took Etienne because of need? Why didn't it look like they had Campbell BPA? He was only a .1 difference from the guy they took at 25 so it's likely they had him as BPA along with Moore. Campbell and Moore they both had the same grade on so its likely Moore would of been taken had they not selected Campbell.
Why Are you trying to argue in circles? We started by my declaration that if you're heading with need as part of it then you're not drafting for ability.
(05-22-2021, 09:56 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2021, 09:53 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]Meyer said he took Etienne because of need? Why didn't it look like they had Campbell BPA? He was only a .1 difference from the guy they took at 25 so it's likely they had him as BPA along with Moore. Campbell and Moore they both had the same grade on so its likely Moore would of been taken had they not selected Campbell.
Why Are you trying to argue in circles? We started by my declaration that if you're heading with need as part of it then you're not drafting for ability.
I'm not trying to argue anything. I'm asking you how you figure this? If we were selecting for need I don't think RB and CB would of been our 2nd and 3rd pick.
(05-22-2021, 08:21 AM)ChrisJagBoy Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2021, 08:14 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Pretty clear that they didn't go best value.
Based on their grades they did.
They had Little at 6.8 and Cisco at 6.9.
(05-22-2021, 10:00 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2021, 09:56 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]Why Are you trying to argue in circles? We started by my declaration that if you're heading with need as part of it then you're not drafting for ability.
I'm not trying to argue anything. I'm asking you how you figure this? If we were selecting for need I don't think RB and CB would of been our 2nd and 3rd pick.
First is that running back is bad value in the first, so taking one of the first means disregarding value. But aside from that he's said several things about thinking he needed someone like Percy Harvin, and his preference at the pick was Toney. When you're trying to take someone to fill a role that's not taking value, that's taking need. Regardless of whether their "board had that player ranked highest" or anything like that is irrelevant because if you're taking "need" into account when you rate players value, then you're not actually taking players based on their absolute impartial value and ability. I can't believe I have to keep explaining this.
(05-22-2021, 10:58 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2021, 10:00 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not trying to argue anything. I'm asking you how you figure this? If we were selecting for need I don't think RB and CB would of been our 2nd and 3rd pick.
First is that running back is bad value in the first, so taking one of the first means disregarding value. But aside from that he's said several things about thinking he needed someone like Percy Harvin, and his preference at the pick was Toney. When you're trying to take someone to fill a role that's not taking value, that's taking need. Regardless of whether their "board had that player ranked highest" or anything like that is irrelevant because if you're taking "need" into account when you rate players value, then you're not actually taking players based on their absolute impartial value and ability. I can't believe I have to keep explaining this.
You dont think Kamara is valuable to the Saints? Henry for the Titans? They are most valuable player on their teams, same with McCaffrey. It really depends on how Urban uses Etienne to determine his value, that remains to be seen so you really have no clue how valuable he will be. He said he wanted someone lile Harvin didn't say he needed it or he was gonna reach for one or take that into account when he was ranking players. That's all just speculation on your part. If Phillips would of been there when we pick based on they had him a 7.5 rating. We aren't sure what rating Toney had on him but he went at 20 to the Giants. Toney is a rare explosive play maker and would of been perfect for this offense. It was clear they took
(05-22-2021, 01:13 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2021, 10:58 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]First is that running back is bad value in the first, so taking one of the first means disregarding value. But aside from that he's said several things about thinking he needed someone like Percy Harvin, and his preference at the pick was Toney. When you're trying to take someone to fill a role that's not taking value, that's taking need. Regardless of whether their "board had that player ranked highest" or anything like that is irrelevant because if you're taking "need" into account when you rate players value, then you're not actually taking players based on their absolute impartial value and ability. I can't believe I have to keep explaining this.
You dont think Kamara is valuable to the Saints? Henry for the Titans? They are most valuable player on their teams, same with McCaffrey. It really depends on how Urban uses Etienne to determine his value, that remains to be seen so you really have no clue how valuable he will be. He said he wanted someone lile Harvin didn't say he needed it or he was gonna reach for one or take that into account when he was ranking players. That's all just speculation on your part. If Phillips would of been there when we pick based on they had him a 7.5 rating. We aren't sure what rating Toney had on him but he went at 20 to the Giants. Toney is a rare explosive play maker and would of been perfect for this offense. It was clear they took
I think we'll find out how valuable Kamara is now that Brees has retired, my guess is hell seem less valuable when he's not paying with a future hall of famer at QB. Still be wasn't taken in the first round.
As for Henry, he's a great running back, still didn't go to the superbowl or anything. And the bigger story with the titans is Tannehill. When they were starting Mariota, Henry was good but not like he's been playing now that he's got decent QB play going on.
We'll see how things work out, but the biggest problem with Etienne is that if Lawrence is what we think he is, then Etienne will be made to look better than he actually is.
Even at Clemson Etienne was by far their 2nd most valuable player behind TLaw
(05-22-2021, 01:21 PM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2021, 01:13 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]You dont think Kamara is valuable to the Saints? Henry for the Titans? They are most valuable player on their teams, same with McCaffrey. It really depends on how Urban uses Etienne to determine his value, that remains to be seen so you really have no clue how valuable he will be. He said he wanted someone lile Harvin didn't say he needed it or he was gonna reach for one or take that into account when he was ranking players. That's all just speculation on your part. If Phillips would of been there when we pick based on they had him a 7.5 rating. We aren't sure what rating Toney had on him but he went at 20 to the Giants. Toney is a rare explosive play maker and would of been perfect for this offense. It was clear they took
We'll see how things work out, but the biggest problem with Etienne is that if Lawrence is what we think he is, then Etienne will be made to look better than he actually is.
You think that would be a problem?
(05-22-2021, 01:34 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2021, 01:21 PM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]We'll see how things work out, but the biggest problem with Etienne is that if Lawrence is what we think he is, then Etienne will be made to look better than he actually is.
You think that would be a problem?
If course it is. If your team can be better why wouldn't you want it to be better? If there was a fourth or fifth round back that could give us 90% of what Etienne does but we also get a player at another position that gives us 30 or 40% more than the guy at that position right now, would you still rather have a 10% better pass catching running back (a relatively low impact position) or significantly better offensive lineman, linebacker, or receiver?
(05-22-2021, 01:57 PM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2021, 01:34 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]You think that would be a problem?
If course it is. If your team can be better why wouldn't you want it to be better? If there was a fourth or fifth round back that could give us 90% of what Etienne does but we also get a player at another position that gives us 30 or 40% more than the guy at that position right now, would you still rather have a 10% better pass catching running back (a relatively low impact position) or significantly better offensive lineman, linebacker, or receiver?
I'm just saying, having one player make another player look better than he actually is is usually considered a good thing, not a bad thing.
Now if you think we should have drafted another player that's a different subject. But to say that Trevor Lawrence making Travis Etienne look better than he actually is is a problem... that just doesn't compute.
It's pretty much a nonsensical statement. Would you say for example that the problem with James Worthy was that Magic Johnson made him look better than he actually was? That was a problem? Wouldn't that be the opposite of a problem?
Maybe you mean it's a problem for our opponents. That I would agree with.
(05-22-2021, 02:03 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2021, 01:57 PM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]If course it is. If your team can be better why wouldn't you want it to be better? If there was a fourth or fifth round back that could give us 90% of what Etienne does but we also get a player at another position that gives us 30 or 40% more than the guy at that position right now, would you still rather have a 10% better pass catching running back (a relatively low impact position) or significantly better offensive lineman, linebacker, or receiver?
I'm just saying, having one player make another player look better than he actually is is usually considered a good thing, not a bad thing.
Now if you think we should have drafted another player that's a different subject. But to say that Trevor Lawrence making Travis Etienne look better than he actually is is a problem... that just doesn't compute.
It's pretty much a nonsensical statement. Would you say for example that the problem with James Worthy was that Magic Johnson made him look better than he actually was? That was a problem? Wouldn't that be the opposite of a problem?
Maybe you mean it's a problem for our opponents. That I would agree with.
I mean it's a problem in that it might make Urban and others think it was the right thing to do, and that a callous disrespect of value should be continued. It's the sort of unmerited self confidence that keeps a team from ever reaching the potential that its new quarterback has. Do you understand what I'm saying, now?
Not to put too fine a point on this, but let's say that Etienne is in the league for 5 or 6 years. During that time he has 3 or 4 thousand yard seasons, scores 40-50 TDs (rushing and receiving), and catches around 300 passes for around 3000 yards. During those 5-6 years the Jaguars win 50-60 games, and go to the AFC championship once, getting smoked by the Chiefs, and losing a couple of other times in the wildcard or divisional round.
Was taking Etienne a good idea in that case? A lot of people will probably say "Hell yeah it was, we didn't win any Superbowls, sign me up for that." (a little humor, they won't even think about the missed chances for Superbowls, they'll be thinking about the fact that the Jaguars finally have a QB and are finally winning games)
What if instead of taking Etienne the team had taken one of the several defensive players taken almost immediately after him, or Rashod Bateman, and that player is a pro bowl level player at their position for the next 8-10 years. During that time the Jaguars win a superbowl or two, having a combination of later round running backs instead of Etienne that, over the next 5 or 6 years, have similar rushing yardage totals to Etienne's total yards between them, score 30-40 TDs, and catch around 250 passes for around 2500 yards.
Is taking Etienne the better move because he got marginally better production for a team that didn't win any Superbowls?
Now, we can't know what could have happened had we not taken Etienne, but if any of the guys taken between picks 26 and 32 turn out to be a stud, and Etienne really is done here after 5 years (not at all unlikely) then was taking a running back at 25 the smart move?