Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Haha Gene Smith is better than him

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

(03-03-2022, 06:43 PM)Eric1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-03-2022, 03:54 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]And Baalke is dead last by a wide margin.

On the flip side, Dave Caldwell was in the top 6! Pretty impressive but he whiffed on QB and Fowler.

Not too big of a surprise for me, Caldwell was always a very solid GM. Problem is he whiffed on his QB and that's what you live or die by.

Funny thing is that so many people on here said "it couldn't get any worse than Caldwell". Well what do you know LOL, it absolutely got a lot worse and it's not even close.

Anyone who said it can't get worse than Caldwell has a short memory. We had one of the worst GM's of all time immediately before him.

The people that defend Baalke because the 49ers were good when he first became GM there have no idea how the NFL works. How a team does usually has more to do with their veteran players than the guys from the current year's draft. The trajectory of his teams says a lot more than the results in one year, and the trajectory was decidedly downward.

(03-04-2022, 07:25 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-03-2022, 06:43 PM)Eric1 Wrote: [ -> ]Not too big of a surprise for me, Caldwell was always a very solid GM. Problem is he whiffed on his QB and that's what you live or die by.

Funny thing is that so many people on here said "it couldn't get any worse than Caldwell". Well what do you know LOL, it absolutely got a lot worse and it's not even close.

Anyone who said it can't get worse than Caldwell has a short memory. We had one of the worst GM's of all time immediately before him.

The people that defend Baalke because the 49ers were good when he first became GM there have no idea how the NFL works. How a team does usually has more to do with their veteran players than the guys from the current year's draft. The trajectory of his teams says a lot more than the results in one year, and the trajectory was decidedly downward.

Then the people who condemn Baalke for last year's 3-14 record are also wrong?

(03-04-2022, 07:59 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-04-2022, 07:25 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone who said it can't get worse than Caldwell has a short memory. We had one of the worst GM's of all time immediately before him.

The people that defend Baalke because the 49ers were good when he first became GM there have no idea how the NFL works. How a team does usually has more to do with their veteran players than the guys from the current year's draft. The trajectory of his teams says a lot more than the results in one year, and the trajectory was decidedly downward.

Then the people who condemn Baalke for last year's 3-14 record are also wrong?

Last year shouldn't have much if any bearing on why Baalke should go. The more important reasons would be that he's demonstrated through a significant number of years in the league that he isn't a good talent evaluator and the Jaguars have yet again made the mistake of having a coach and GM on different timelines.

Why is that a problem? Because if Baalke shows he needs to be fired in the next couple of years then the team has a coach going into year two or three and a GM that had nothing to do with hiring him. Every time the team does this it cuts them off from part of the market in their next hire. It also can cause a wasted year or two while the new GM waits to fire the current coach and hire his own guy, who will be a third or fourth choice because no good coaches will come into the situation of working for a GM heading for a pink slip.

They did it the right way when they hired Caldwell and sprinkles, they just made the wrong coaching hire.

(03-03-2022, 04:59 PM)Sibelius Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-03-2022, 03:30 PM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]So your preference would be that he not bother speaking to anyone who might be available around 65 that might benefit the passing offense? Chances are most everyone the team takes an interest in will have had some injury during their college career. I'd much rather we take time to check them out than to blindly dismiss a guy and potentially miss out on a valuable piece to building an offense.

or did we need to post the same tired joke again? I notice you made no critique of him talking to an undersized TE from a small school.

My preference is that he stop focusing disproportionately at injured players.

Pickens ran a 4.47 yesterday, I think he's recuperated.

(03-03-2022, 04:59 PM)Sibelius Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-03-2022, 03:30 PM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]So your preference would be that he not bother speaking to anyone who might be available around 65 that might benefit the passing offense? Chances are most everyone the team takes an interest in will have had some injury during their college career. I'd much rather we take time to check them out than to blindly dismiss a guy and potentially miss out on a valuable piece to building an offense.

or did we need to post the same tired joke again? I notice you made no critique of him talking to an undersized TE from a small school.

My preference is that he stop focusing disproportionately at injured players.

Maybe Neal and Hutchinson will blow an ACL during the combine. Then it's a no brainer for him, except for which injured player to choose at #1.

(03-04-2022, 08:13 AM)BSeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-04-2022, 07:59 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Then the people who condemn Baalke for last year's 3-14 record are also wrong?

Last year shouldn't have much if any bearing on why Baalke should go. The more important reasons would be that he's demonstrated through a significant number of years in the league that he isn't a good talent evaluator and the Jaguars have yet again made the mistake of having a coach and GM on different timelines.

Why is that a problem? Because if Baalke shows he needs to be fired in the next couple of years then the team has a coach going into year two or three and a GM that had nothing to do with hiring him. Every time the team does this it cuts them off from part of the market in their next hire. It also can cause a wasted year or two while the new GM waits to fire the current coach and hire his own guy, who will be a third or fourth choice because no good coaches will come into the situation of working for a GM heading for a pink slip.

They did it the right way when they hired Caldwell and sprinkles, they just made the wrong coaching hire.

It's also futile to look 6-7 years in the past in a different organization to determine the fate of someone today. Especially when the most recent work in a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately league actually yielded some decent results.

(03-04-2022, 11:04 AM)JaggedSioux Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-04-2022, 08:13 AM)BSeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]Last year shouldn't have much if any bearing on why Baalke should go. The more important reasons would be that he's demonstrated through a significant number of years in the league that he isn't a good talent evaluator and the Jaguars have yet again made the mistake of having a coach and GM on different timelines.

Why is that a problem? Because if Baalke shows he needs to be fired in the next couple of years then the team has a coach going into year two or three and a GM that had nothing to do with hiring him. Every time the team does this it cuts them off from part of the market in their next hire. It also can cause a wasted year or two while the new GM waits to fire the current coach and hire his own guy, who will be a third or fourth choice because no good coaches will come into the situation of working for a GM heading for a pink slip.

They did it the right way when they hired Caldwell and sprinkles, they just made the wrong coaching hire.

It's also futile to look 6-7 years in the past in a different organization to determine the fate of someone today. Especially when the most recent work in a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately league actually yielded some decent results.

Yielded decent results? Did it?

You'd expect to get five starters if you have five draft picks in the top 65. Trevor was a no-brainer, Etienne was a bad value pick, Campbell looks like a decent zone corner, we'll see if other guys continue to show out as better, and several have. Little looks like a decent lineman. Cisco might be good, but we haven't seen much yet.

Overall the draft looks okay, but the second and third picks look like they could be real reaches compared to what was available, and one okay draft isn't a great endorsement.

(03-04-2022, 11:13 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-04-2022, 11:04 AM)JaggedSioux Wrote: [ -> ]It's also futile to look 6-7 years in the past in a different organization to determine the fate of someone today. Especially when the most recent work in a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately league actually yielded some decent results.

Yielded decent results? Did it?

You'd expect to get five starters if you have five draft picks in the top 65. Trevor was a no-brainer, Etienne was a bad value pick, Campbell looks like a decent zone corner, we'll see if other guys continue to show out as better, and several have. Little looks like a decent lineman. Cisco might be good, but we haven't seen much yet.

Overall the draft looks okay, but the second and third picks look like they could be real reaches compared to what was available, and one okay draft isn't a great endorsement.

Yes, I think it was a very good draft. I believe Etienne will be very productive. Same with Campbell, Cisco and Little. There's your five starters. Farrell could still turn out to be a good blocking in-line TE. Time will tell, I guess.

(03-04-2022, 11:40 AM)JaggedSioux Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-04-2022, 11:13 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]Yielded decent results? Did it?

You'd expect to get five starters if you have five draft picks in the top 65. Trevor was a no-brainer, Etienne was a bad value pick, Campbell looks like a decent zone corner, we'll see if other guys continue to show out as better, and several have. Little looks like a decent lineman. Cisco might be good, but we haven't seen much yet.

Overall the draft looks okay, but the second and third picks look like they could be real reaches compared to what was available, and one okay draft isn't a great endorsement.

Yes, I think it was a very good draft. I believe Etienne will be very productive. Same with Campbell, Cisco and Little. There's your five starters. Farrell could still turn out to be a good blocking in-line TE. Time will tell, I guess.

Etienne wasn't ever good enough while in College. Never saw anything special there when he was WHOLE.

Now with a Linsfranc? I'm a better option at RB. I'm bigger with more muscle, actually..

(03-04-2022, 10:14 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-03-2022, 04:59 PM)Sibelius Wrote: [ -> ]My preference is that he stop focusing disproportionately at injured players.

Pickens ran a 4.47 yesterday, I think he's recuperated.

He's still inconsistent and disappears in many games.

(03-04-2022, 10:14 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-03-2022, 04:59 PM)Sibelius Wrote: [ -> ]My preference is that he stop focusing disproportionately at injured players.

Pickens ran a 4.47 yesterday, I think he's recuperated.

Great! I hope he holds up . . . on another team

(03-04-2022, 12:23 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-04-2022, 11:40 AM)JaggedSioux Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I think it was a very good draft. I believe Etienne will be very productive. Same with Campbell, Cisco and Little. There's your five starters. Farrell could still turn out to be a good blocking in-line TE. Time will tell, I guess.

Etienne wasn't ever good enough while in College. Never saw anything special there when he was WHOLE.

Now with a Linsfranc? I'm a better option at RB. I'm bigger with more muscle, actually..

Whether he was a good pick or not is up for debate, but this is just baloney.

(03-04-2022, 01:10 PM)RicoTx Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-04-2022, 12:23 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Etienne wasn't ever good enough while in College. Never saw anything special there when he was WHOLE.

Now with a Linsfranc? I'm a better option at RB. I'm bigger with more muscle, actually..

Whether he was a good pick or not is up for debate, but this is just baloney.

Pff... if you can name an ACC defense worthy of an SEC jockstrap go ahead and name it.

(03-04-2022, 01:14 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-04-2022, 01:10 PM)RicoTx Wrote: [ -> ]Whether he was a good pick or not is up for debate, but this is just baloney.

Pff... if you can name an ACC defense worthy of an SEC jockstrap go ahead and name it.

Pfffff...I see we have another SEC homer.

(03-04-2022, 01:15 PM)RicoTx Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-04-2022, 01:14 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Pff... if you can name an ACC defense worthy of an SEC jockstrap go ahead and name it.

Pfffff...I see we have another SEC homer.

Not really.

I saw special in Dalvin Cook. He carved through every single defense that attempted to stop him

Etienne is a dime a dozen scrawny scat back with no value at the NFL level. Seriously.. playing QB at 17 I was so much bigger than him. His musculature is sad at best

And that was BEFORE the linsfranc.

With it? He's more useless than my dead granny... at least the other players would be like, huh? before they tackled her corpse.

(03-03-2022, 03:54 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-03-2022, 03:49 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]This is the guy that Shad is enamored with. Just embarrassing.

https://twitter.com/Tucker_TnL/status/14...3845097473

And Baalke is dead last by a wide margin.

On the flip side, Dave Caldwell was in the top 6! Pretty impressive but he whiffed on QB and Fowler.

The more I look at it the more it's heavily skewed by what kind of team you inherited. A guy like Baalke who inherited a beastly Niners team is obviously not going to have as much room for draft picks to break into regular playing time to stack up WAR. On the flip side, a guy like Caldwell had oodles of his own draft picks racking up WAR because there wasn't much on the team to block them.

My guess is that our FA haul will be significantly affected by the fact that nobody wants to work with Trent Baalke.

I doubt that thinking very much.