Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(04-27-2023, 09:12 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2023, 08:50 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]

Slow white guy that doesn't get separation doesn't fit the Pederson system.   Who do you think we are, the NY Jets (kyle brady draft reference).

The OP asked for a prediction, I gave it..

(04-27-2023, 09:04 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2023, 08:06 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]What if we took Torrence in the first and traded up for Dawand Jones in the 2nd and went defense the rest of the way.  How would yall feel about that?

...how would you feel about your franchise QB playing behind two rookie starters, two second year guys and an oft-injured older guy?

I'm not fully against the notion, but if that's what we roll out on week 1, we are probably gonna put some extra pressure on Trevor's shoulders while the newbs get their footing.

Both are very capable at their craft, but I would still be nervous.

Seattle had 2 rookie starting tackles last year and they were their 2 best lineman and Geno Smith had a career year and got a huge contract. Torrence >>>Bartch
Jones>>>>Wells.  I'd feel much better with those 2 starting on the oline

What I would do:
Trade down. If I can't then
Take the best o lineman with a 1st round grade available. If there aren't any then
Take the best pass rusher left with a 1st round grade. If there aren't any then
Take the best DB available.

In that order you'll get a 1st rounder if you have to make a pick.

I think they take Wright, Harrison, or Jones. Protecting Lawrence has to be the priority.

(04-27-2023, 10:13 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]What I would do:
Trade down. If I can't then
Take the best o lineman with a 1st round grade available. If there aren't any then
Take the best pass rusher left with a 1st round grade. If there aren't any then
Take the best DB available.

In that order you'll get a 1st rounder if you have to make a pick.

I think they take Wright, Harrison, or Jones. Protecting Lawrence has to be the priority.

1,000% this. It's not even close. It's sound. This should be the pecking order and I would imagine it's exactly how Baalke and Co. are looking at this at the moment.

(04-27-2023, 10:13 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]What I would do:
Trade down. If I can't then
Take the best o lineman with a 1st round grade available. If there aren't any then
Take the best pass rusher left with a 1st round grade. If there aren't any then
Take the best DB available.

In that order you'll get a 1st rounder if you have to make a pick.

I think they take Wright, Harrison, or Jones. Protecting Lawrence has to be the priority.

This is 1000% what they should and what they likely will do.

The Jags can not afford to let Lawrence get beat like Luck.

(04-27-2023, 10:13 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]What I would do:
Trade down. If I can't then
Take the best o lineman with a 1st round grade available. If there aren't any then
Take the best pass rusher left with a 1st round grade. If there aren't any then
Take the best DB available.

In that order you'll get a 1st rounder if you have to make a pick.

I think they take Wright, Harrison, or Jones. Protecting Lawrence has to be the priority.

(04-27-2023, 10:24 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2023, 10:13 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]What I would do:
Trade down. If I can't then
Take the best o lineman with a 1st round grade available. If there aren't any then
Take the best pass rusher left with a 1st round grade. If there aren't any then
Take the best DB available.

In that order you'll get a 1st rounder if you have to make a pick.

I think they take Wright, Harrison, or Jones. Protecting Lawrence has to be the priority.

This is 1000% what they should and what they likely will do.

The Jags can not afford to let Lawrence get beat like Luck.

What if they aren't the BAP?  

(04-27-2023, 10:43 AM)RicoTx Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2023, 10:24 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]This is 1000% what they should and what they likely will do.

The Jags can not afford to let Lawrence get beat like Luck.

What if they aren't the BAP?  

You take the top guy.  I'm not taking Harrison when you have Porter fall to you. I don't think this changes their board especially when tackle was already a need and they have known about this.

(04-27-2023, 10:47 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2023, 10:43 AM)RicoTx Wrote: [ -> ]What if they aren't the BAP?  

You take the top guy.  I'm not taking Harrison when you have Porter fall to you. I don't think this changes their board especially when tackle was already a need and they have known about this.

LOLOLOLOLOL

You take the guy with the best value, not the best grade.
The top guy could be a WR

(04-27-2023, 10:49 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2023, 10:47 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]You take the top guy.  I'm not taking Harrison when you have Porter fall to you. I don't think this changes their board especially when tackle was already a need and they have known about this.

LOLOLOLOLOL

You take the guy with the best value, not the best grade.
The top guy could be a WR

A WR wouldn't even see the field.  You have to draft someone that would play.   Best player that will be able to get on the field is the best value to me.  RT is a much higher need than a safety to me but I'd still take Branch over all the ta kles that are expected to be there.  That's BPA drafting vs needs drafting.

(04-27-2023, 09:17 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2023, 09:04 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]...how would you feel about your franchise QB playing behind two rookie starters, two second year guys and an oft-injured older guy?

I'm not fully against the notion, but if that's what we roll out on week 1, we are probably gonna put some extra pressure on Trevor's shoulders while the newbs get their footing.

Both are very capable at their craft, but I would still be nervous.

Seattle had 2 rookie starting tackles last year and they were their 2 best lineman and Geno Smith had a career year and got a huge contract. Torrence >>>Bartch
Jones>>>>Wells.  I'd feel much better with those 2 starting on the oline

I like Torrence too, big beast mode. Big.

(04-27-2023, 10:54 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2023, 10:49 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]LOLOLOLOLOL

You take the guy with the best value, not the best grade.
The top guy could be a WR

A WR wouldn't even see the field.  You have to draft someone that would play.   Best player that will be able to get on the field is the best value to me.  RT is a much higher need than a safety to me but I'd still take Branch over all the ta kles that are expected to be there.  That's BPA drafting vs needs drafting.

How can you not see that this is completely contradictory to every flawed argument that you've been making?  That absolutely is not BPA if WR is the highest ranked on your board.

(04-27-2023, 10:58 AM)Jag88 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2023, 09:17 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]Seattle had 2 rookie starting tackles last year and they were their 2 best lineman and Geno Smith had a career year and got a huge contract. Torrence >>>Bartch
Jones>>>>Wells.  I'd feel much better with those 2 starting on the oline

I like Torrence too, big beast mode. Big.

Yeah I'd love Torrence at 24

(04-27-2023, 10:54 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2023, 10:49 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]LOLOLOLOLOL

You take the guy with the best value, not the best grade.
The top guy could be a WR

A WR wouldn't even see the field.  You have to draft someone that would play.   Best player that will be able to get on the field is the best value to me.  RT is a much higher need than a safety to me but I'd still take Branch over all the ta kles that are expected to be there.  That's BPA drafting vs needs drafting.

So you're a needs based drafter now.

Got it. 

LOL

(04-27-2023, 11:04 AM)RicoTx Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2023, 10:54 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]A WR wouldn't even see the field.  You have to draft someone that would play.   Best player that will be able to get on the field is the best value to me.  RT is a much higher need than a safety to me but I'd still take Branch over all the ta kles that are expected to be there.  That's BPA drafting vs needs drafting.

How can you not see that this is completely contradictory to every flawed argument that you've been making?  That absolutely is not BPA if WR is the highest ranked on your board.

It's been mentioned 100 times the player has to be able to see the field.   That's the rare times that Baalke was talking about. WR is arguably our best position group and if we drafted a rookie he likely wouldn't even see the field unless injury.  You don't draft a player in the first that won't even see the field.  Most positions we aren't set at and a player would start, take that guy.  G, S, CB,OT, DT, TE,Edge,  take the top guy out of that group.  It's rare that when you pick that every position you are set at is at the top of your board.  If that's the case you might want to re look at your player evaluations.  This has been said for years.

---

(04-27-2023, 11:11 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2023, 10:54 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]A WR wouldn't even see the field.  You have to draft someone that would play.   Best player that will be able to get on the field is the best value to me.  RT is a much higher need than a safety to me but I'd still take Branch over all the ta kles that are expected to be there.  That's BPA drafting vs needs drafting.

So you're a needs based drafter now.

Got it. 

LOL

If I was then i wound take a OT 1st, then edge, then DB.  In that order.

(04-27-2023, 11:16 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2023, 11:04 AM)RicoTx Wrote: [ -> ]How can you not see that this is completely contradictory to every flawed argument that you've been making?  That absolutely is not BPA if WR is the highest ranked on your board.

It's been mentioned 100 times the player has to be able to see the field.   That's the rare times that Baalke was talking about. WR is arguably our best position group and if we drafted a rookie he likely wouldn't even see the field unless injury.  You don't draft a player in the first that won't even see the field.  Most positions we aren't set at and a player would start, take that guy.  G, S, CB,OT, DT, TE,Edge,  take the top guy out of that group.  It's rare that when you pick that every position you are set at is at the top of your board.  If that's the case you might want to re look at your player evaluations.  This has been said for years.

---

(04-27-2023, 11:11 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]So you're a needs based drafter now.

Got it. 

LOL

If I was then i wound take a OT 1st, then edge, then DB.  In that order.

But you're moving need up your board - ahead of a higher graded player in this scenario. 

You are either changing the rules because you lost the argument or you never actually understood what BAP drafting is.

I'm going with the former. LOL

(04-27-2023, 11:16 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2023, 11:04 AM)RicoTx Wrote: [ -> ]How can you not see that this is completely contradictory to every flawed argument that you've been making?  That absolutely is not BPA if WR is the highest ranked on your board.

It's been mentioned 100 times the player has to be able to see the field.   That's the rare times that Baalke was talking about. WR is arguably our best position group and if we drafted a rookie he likely wouldn't even see the field unless injury.  You don't draft a player in the first that won't even see the field.  Most positions we aren't set at and a player would start, take that guy.  G, S, CB,OT, DT, TE,Edge,  take the top guy out of that group.  It's rare that when you pick that every position you are set at is at the top of your board.  If that's the case you might want to re look at your player evaluations.  This has been said for years.

---

(04-27-2023, 11:11 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]So you're a needs based drafter now.

Got it. 

LOL

If I was then i wound take a OT 1st, then edge, then DB.  In that order.

So contrary to your continual arguments you are admitting that nobody drafts pure BPA.  LOL.  You've said as much with your very first sentence.  

And, I'm sorry, but this scenario is not 'rare'.

(04-27-2023, 11:31 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2023, 11:16 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]It's been mentioned 100 times the player has to be able to see the field.   That's the rare times that Baalke was talking about. WR is arguably our best position group and if we drafted a rookie he likely wouldn't even see the field unless injury.  You don't draft a player in the first that won't even see the field.  Most positions we aren't set at and a player would start, take that guy.  G, S, CB,OT, DT, TE,Edge,  take the top guy out of that group.  It's rare that when you pick that every position you are set at is at the top of your board.  If that's the case you might want to re look at your player evaluations.  This has been said for years.

---

If I was then i wound take a OT 1st, then edge, then DB.  In that order.

But you're moving need up your board - ahead of a higher graded player in this scenario. 

You are either changing the rules because you lost the argument or you never actually understood what BAP drafting is.

I'm going with the former. LOL

Wow. So now, when you draft BPA, they also have to be able to see see the field?! That almost sounds like.......

(04-27-2023, 11:31 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2023, 11:16 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]It's been mentioned 100 times the player has to be able to see the field.   That's the rare times that Baalke was talking about. WR is arguably our best position group and if we drafted a rookie he likely wouldn't even see the field unless injury.  You don't draft a player in the first that won't even see the field.  Most positions we aren't set at and a player would start, take that guy.  G, S, CB,OT, DT, TE,Edge,  take the top guy out of that group.  It's rare that when you pick that every position you are set at is at the top of your board.  If that's the case you might want to re look at your player evaluations.  This has been said for years.

---

If I was then i wound take a OT 1st, then edge, then DB.  In that order.

But you're moving need up your board - ahead of a higher graded player in this scenario. 

You are either changing the rules because you lost the argument or you never actually understood what BAP drafting is.

I'm going with the former. LOL

Rules?  I didn't know there were rules lol.   My stance is the same it's always been.  Take the BPA and not draft for need.  There are rare instances as I have said before along as well as Baalke.  Do you want me to go find my old posts where I said the same thing?  if the player isn't even going to see the field you can't draft the guy imo.   You have to use common sense, why would you draft a guy in the first that wouldn't even see the field?  It's comical the few of you don't know needs drafting vs BPA drafting is.  Taking a OT 1st, the a Pass rusher, then a DB, in that order is needs drafting.  If Branch or Mayer is at the top of my board when we pick I'm still taking him over OT or pass rusher even though I feel OT and pass rusher is a bigger need?  Do you understand know?

---

(04-27-2023, 11:46 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2023, 11:31 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]But you're moving need up your board - ahead of a higher graded player in this scenario. 

You are either changing the rules because you lost the argument or you never actually understood what BAP drafting is.

I'm going with the former. LOL

Wow. So now, when you draft BPA, they also have to be able to see see the field?! That almost sounds like.......

I mean I know I've had this conversation with you multiple times.  Did you already forget?  Lol. Do I really need to go find the old conversations to refresh your memory?  I know it can't be that bad

(04-27-2023, 11:51 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2023, 11:31 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]But you're moving need up your board - ahead of a higher graded player in this scenario. 

You are either changing the rules because you lost the argument or you never actually understood what BAP drafting is.

I'm going with the former. LOL

Rules?  I didn't know there were rules lol.   My stance is the same it's always been.  Take the BPA and not draft for need.  There are rare instances as I have said before along as well as Baalke.  Do you want me to go find my old posts where I said the same thing?  if the player isn't even going to see the field you can't draft the guy imo.   You have to use common sense, why would you draft a guy in the first that wouldn't even see the field?  It's comical the few of you don't know needs drafting vs BPA drafting is.  Taking a OT 1st, the a Pass rusher, then a DB, in that order is needs drafting.  If Branch or Mayer is at the top of my board when we pick I'm still taking him over OT or pass rusher even though I feel OT and pass rusher is a bigger need?  Do you understand know?

Yep, perfect description of needs drafting.