Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(04-29-2023, 09:45 PM)RicoTx Wrote: [ -> ]They may have gotten value day three but how many of these guys are going to get meaningful playing time?

Sorry.  Nothing against Bigsby, but taking a short yardage back in the third (where you have somewhat of a shot to find a starter) just blew my mind.  It makes no sense with so many other holes.

I’ll remain optimistic, as always, but I was pretty underwhelmed.

If three of them do it'll be a solid class.

I was curious in whether our picks were considered "value" by the various media outlets.  I found a site that provided the rankings from the various sites that ranked draft prospects.  I used the median ranking for each of our draft picks.  I think that's fairer than average.  Average sometimes gets distorted by one ignorant person.  In the case of an even number of sites evaluating the player, I averaged the two rankings in the middle.  Below are our draft pick's positions compared to where they were ranked.  For example, if they were ranked 18th and drafted 20th, it would be +2.  If they were ranked 50th and drafted 40th, it would be -10.  Positive numbers are good negative numbers are bad.  Here are how our picks faired:

Antonio Johnson +110
Parker Washington +55
Tank Bigsby -0.5
Anton Harrison -3
Yasir Abdullah -9
Tyler Lacy -37
Ventrell Miller -38
Brenton Strange -47.5
Derek Parish -52
Cooper Hodges -205
Raymond Vohasek -233

Erick Hallett wasn't listed on their site, but that's not a good sign either.  

Basically, according to this, we got 2 steals, 3 just short of fair value and 6 major reaches of more than 1 round.  

Take it for what it's worth, but based upon pre-draft prospect projections, we did a poor job of getting value in this draft.

This seems like a draft that just didn’t fall the right way for us. I hope I’m wrong, but usually the wisdom of the crowd is correct.

https://www.nfl.com/news/2023-nfl-draft-...witter_atn

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

(04-29-2023, 10:06 PM)Newton Wrote: [ -> ]This seems like a draft that just didn’t fall the right way for us. I hope I’m wrong, but usually the wisdom of the crowd is correct.

I would agree with that as a generality.  When I look at the draft, I think there were a number of times where good potential picks for us that balanced need and value fell halfway between our draft positions.  Given our large number of later picks, this would seem like the ideal time to trade up.  However, it's hard to know who would have accepted what.  I'm aware that Baalke claimed he tried to trade up a bunch of times, but we have no way of knowing whether those offers were serious.  I could say I offered to trade up, but if I'm only offering a 7th rounder to move up 15 spots in the early rounds, that's the same as not trying to trade up.  The 2023 draft set the record for the number of draft day trades, so it's not as if there weren't a bunch of teams willing to trade down.

(04-29-2023, 09:45 PM)RicoTx Wrote: [ -> ]They may have gotten value day three but how many of these guys are going to get meaningful playing time?

Sorry.  Nothing against Bigsby, but taking a short yardage back in the third (where you have somewhat of a shot to find a starter) just blew my mind.  It makes no sense with so many other holes.

I’ll remain optimistic, as always, but I was pretty underwhelmed.

A shot to find a starter at what position?

(04-29-2023, 10:02 PM)TheDuke007 Wrote: [ -> ]I was curious in whether our picks were considered "value" by the various media outlets.  I found a site that provided the rankings from the various sites that ranked draft prospects.  I used the median ranking for each of our draft picks.  I think that's fairer than average.  Average sometimes gets distorted by one ignorant person.  In the case of an even number of sites evaluating the player, I averaged the two rankings in the middle.  Below are our draft pick's positions compared to where they were ranked.  For example, if they were ranked 18th and drafted 20th, it would be +2.  If they were ranked 50th and drafted 40th, it would be -10.  Positive numbers are good negative numbers are bad.  Here are how our picks faired:

Antonio Johnson +110
Parker Washington +55
Tank Bigsby -0.5
Anton Harrison -3
Yasir Abdullah -9
Tyler Lacy -37
Ventrell Miller -38
Brenton Strange -47.5
Derek Parish -52
Cooper Hodges -205
Raymond Vohasek -233

Erick Hallett wasn't listed on their site, but that's not a good sign either.  

Basically, according to this, we got 2 steals, 3 just short of fair value and 6 major reaches of more than 1 round.  

Take it for what it's worth, but based upon pre-draft prospect projections, we did a poor job of getting value in this draft.

(04-29-2023, 10:06 PM)Newton Wrote: [ -> ]This seems like a draft that just didn’t fall the right way for us. I hope I’m wrong, but usually the wisdom of the crowd is correct.

This draft was about depth and laying bricks on top of a decent foundation that was established last year, primarily through free agency.

You're not going to land a starter in every round. You can, however, pin prospects down for specific roles and that's what they did in this draft.

I see at least three starters here with five to six role players. The rest of these guys are practice squad material that will have to really cut their teeth on special team's or outshine an already established 3rd - 4th string player on the roster.

This draft generally provided many, many problems for the experts, amateurs and armchair mock community. I saw A LOT of so called "can't miss, day one, day two" prospects fall as far as the bottom of round three and round four.

This also staggered other players down. Will Levis went from Vegas odds 1/2 overall to day 2. McDonald and Forbes, "undersized" defenders that were day two players went before guys like Murphy, Smith, Banks & Gonzalez.

We landed a nickel S/CB in Johnson at 160 today when everybody said we were taking Branch at 24 when also slipped to day 2. Same for Torrence. We were also told 3, 4 TE's would be drafted on the opening night to just Kincaid barely being the lone pick there with Buffalo.

We saw LaPorta off the board before Mayer. We saw Washington free fall to RD3. We saw a wide variety of things the experts said would happen that ultimately didn't.

While it's cute that we like dishing grades out. Myself included. The reality is that you can't truly grade any of these guys yet because they get to take tests that go on for at least two, three years.



Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

(04-29-2023, 10:34 PM)Thewitnessofsolinvictus Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2023, 09:45 PM)RicoTx Wrote: [ -> ]They may have gotten value day three but how many of these guys are going to get meaningful playing time?

Sorry.  Nothing against Bigsby, but taking a short yardage back in the third (where you have somewhat of a shot to find a starter) just blew my mind.  It makes no sense with so many other holes.

I’ll remain optimistic, as always, but I was pretty underwhelmed.

A shot to find a starter at what position?

So you think it was a good pick?

(04-29-2023, 10:02 PM)TheDuke007 Wrote: [ -> ]I was curious in whether our picks were considered "value" by the various media outlets.  I found a site that provided the rankings from the various sites that ranked draft prospects.  I used the median ranking for each of our draft picks.  I think that's fairer than average.  Average sometimes gets distorted by one ignorant person.  In the case of an even number of sites evaluating the player, I averaged the two rankings in the middle.  Below are our draft pick's positions compared to where they were ranked.  For example, if they were ranked 18th and drafted 20th, it would be +2.  If they were ranked 50th and drafted 40th, it would be -10.  Positive numbers are good negative numbers are bad.  Here are how our picks faired:

Antonio Johnson +110
Parker Washington +55
Tank Bigsby -0.5
Anton Harrison -3
Yasir Abdullah -9
Tyler Lacy -37
Ventrell Miller -38
Brenton Strange -47.5
Derek Parish -52
Cooper Hodges -205
Raymond Vohasek -233

Erick Hallett wasn't listed on their site, but that's not a good sign either.  

Basically, according to this, we got 2 steals, 3 just short of fair value and 6 major reaches of more than 1 round.  

Take it for what it's worth, but based upon pre-draft prospect projections, we did a poor job of getting value in this draft.

Can those dorks find the square root of Deez Nuts?

(04-29-2023, 10:43 PM)RicoTx Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2023, 10:34 PM)Thewitnessofsolinvictus Wrote: [ -> ]A shot to find a starter at what position?

So you think it was a good pick?

This is one of the few complaints I have from this draft. 88 is a good pick that should yield a starter in most cases.

I agree with you on this.

Washington at TE.
Ringo at CB.
Freeland at OT.
Bradford at OG.

Would have been happy with any of those four players above there at 88 and you more than likely land a starter that gets more snaps in the long run than Bigsby battling behind Etienne, Hasty and Johnson.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

(04-29-2023, 10:43 PM)RicoTx Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2023, 10:34 PM)Thewitnessofsolinvictus Wrote: [ -> ]A shot to find a starter at what position?

So you think it was a good pick?

Yes. A short-yardage running back coupled with a fullback can negate or mitigate the need of finding a starting defensive back or defensive lineman, but not vice versa. A starting defensive back or defensive lineman won't necessarily negate or mitigate the need for a short-yardage RB or FB. Whether it will be a good pick is yet to be determined. 
Back to the point- a starter at what position?

(04-29-2023, 10:51 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2023, 10:43 PM)RicoTx Wrote: [ -> ]So you think it was a good pick?

This is one of the few complaints I have from this draft. 88 is a good pick that should yield a starter in most cases.

I agree with you on this.

Washington at TE.
Ringo at CB.
Freeland at OT.
Bradford at OG.

Would have been happy with any of those four players above there at 88 and you more than likely land a starter that gets more snaps in the long run than Bigsby battling behind Etienne, Hasty and Johnson.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

If Biggby isn’t the #2 back, they really failed on the pick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(04-29-2023, 10:56 PM)I am Yoda Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2023, 10:51 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]This is one of the few complaints I have from this draft. 88 is a good pick that should yield a starter in most cases.

I agree with you on this.

Washington at TE.
Ringo at CB.
Freeland at OT.
Bradford at OG.

Would have been happy with any of those four players above there at 88 and you more than likely land a starter that gets more snaps in the long run than Bigsby battling behind Etienne, Hasty and Johnson.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

If Biggby isn’t the #2 back, they really failed on the pick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. He puts the ball on the ground as well. 8 times in 3 years on 540 career attempts. That's something to watch closely. Hopefully this whole group is good at holding onto it this year. Etienne had his fair share.

Cannot do that [BLEEP] in the NFL when the scores get tighter. Hurts cost the Eagles a 14 point swing against the Chiefs in their Superbowl loss. It's that TIGHT.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

We have no way of knowing whom Baalke wanted to trade up for (and was denied), but let's just assume the draft ended up like this:

Rd. 1: Anton Harrison  (Best move by Baalke as he gets starting tackle, two 5th's and a 7th)

Rd. 2: Brian Branch  (Moving from 54 to 45 would not have cost much- likely a 4th and 6th)

Rd. 3: Ya Ya Diaby (Move from 88 to 82 by giving up one of 5th rounders (more than generous)

Rd. 4: Nick Herbig (instead of Lacey)

Rd. 5: Payne Durham (instead of Abdullah) and Antonio Johnson

Rd. 6: Luke Wypler, Zack Kuntz and Hodges-Tomlinson (totally different players)

Rd. 7: Andrew Vorhees and Parrish


This revised draft nets the Jags:

1. Offensive linemen Harrison and Vorhees (current and future starters at tackle and guard)

2. Much improved secondary (Branch will be pro-bowl safety, Tomlinson and Johnson cover the slot and tight end  respectively

3. Durham and Kuntz can be just as good as Strange at tight end

4. Pass rushers Diaby and Herbig much better prospects than what they got

5. Wypler competes for interior line spot and Parrish is jack of all trades who excels on special teams


Agree with these picks or not, but it would have been very do-able with a General Manager that others will deal with. The Jaguars end up with 11 players who better meet the team's needs including several more capable of eventually become starters or being valuable depth.

This draft was a weird one for me, because for 10+ years I tried to really do my own research on a ton of prospects pre-draft. This year I just didn't have the time to do that, so outside of maybe the top 10-15 prospects I was pretty clueless. It was disheartning to hear everyone call every pick we made a reach, because I didn't really have any idea past what other people have said.

So for me, i'm not super critical about any of the players we took, I do however question some of the positions we chose to take early.. but this is a big "wait and see" for me.

Baalke can't draft past round 3.

His past 2 drafts with us have all been garbage after round 3 and pretty much all of his drafts with the 49ers were garbage after round 3.

Don't see any reason why this draft will be any different.

(04-30-2023, 02:30 AM)Eric1 Wrote: [ -> ]Baalke can't draft past round 3.

His past 2 drafts with us have all been garbage after round 3 and pretty much all of his drafts with the 49ers were garbage after round 3.

Don't see any reason why this draft will be any different.

This.
Last year (on top of his day 3 history as you already pointed out) there was another good exemple of that that had consequences this year too: Baalke used a 5th and 2 6th rounders to move up for short yardage RB Snoop Connor.
He was so good in fact that he decided to spend a valuable 3rd rounder on another RB this year (who I think is a good player, not a star, but that's not the point) all on top of having a 1st round starter and good depth with Hasty and Johnson.

I don't hate the players we drafted although I would have preferred a different strategy. I liked other TEs but on Strange I will trust Doug evaluation and how he wants to utilize him.
The guy looks like he can move and has great hands on top of being a capable blocker so again I'll trust Doug.

I don't buy that Baalke couldn't find willing partners to trade up in a draft that was historic in terms of trades being executed. It all depends how much he was offering.

I think he had a great day 1 as I loved the Anton Harrison pick both from a talent standpoint and strategic standpoint (protect Trevor, get ready to replace Cam ASAP, offers versatility and I trust Rauschner judgment on the guy) while accumulating more picks.

I think that after that Baalke probably failed to predict how the board would fall and some "I'm smarter than you" tendency came up in him.
It's speculation of course but as it seems that they missed out on some guys they wanted to trade up for I think he that it was partially because he wasn't decisive enough with the trade up package he was offering (I know better, I'll keep trading back and came back later again line of though.....too bad the talent pool was drying up and later picks were losing value to other teams) and partially because probably there was an unexpected sudden run on some guys they were eyeing.

We ended up drafting mostly backups even on day 2. Other than TE where our TE room was basically zero depth level they added RB where we have a good room already and LB where they invested massively over the last 3 years and it's hardly a need.

Again, I don't hate the players and we could have found some gems on day 3, that's not the point. I think they ended up scrambling as they spent months talking about needing to invest at the pass rush and Doug Pederson was big on that on pre draft but the board feel how they weren't expecting and them possibly being cheap with trading up after day 1 made them run out of their favourite options there and at other positions.

I wish they'd be way more aggressive on day 2 right away rather than getting 200000000 picks for day 3 and next year.

Again though: I like some of these players and I'll root for them. Some of them could be heavy contributors right away (other than the obvious Harrison I think Strange could be big for us soon) or down the road (I love the way Parker Washington moves and catches, in an ideal world he turns out to be another Christian Kirk in a couple of years, Antonio Johnson could replace Jenkins and so on).

Let's just hope a couple of others are the unexpected gems that could give the team cheap help.
Realistically more than half of day 3 picks won't make the team will be on PS so coaches job to try and develop some diamonds there.

Balkes late draft blunders are soley based on the fact that he goes out of his way to either find somebody who is freakishly athletic with underwhelming game tape (reason they fall) or somebody who was projected to go higher, but had a serious injury.

In other words, he takes the boom or bust approach. And it typically fails. But with that being said, most teams don't find great players late in the draft in general, it's even more of a crapshoot than the first 2 or 3 rounds.

(04-30-2023, 05:29 AM)ChrisJagBoy Wrote: [ -> ]Balkes late draft blunders are soley based on the fact that he goes out of his way to either find somebody who is freakishly athletic with underwhelming game tape (reason they fall) or somebody who was projected to go higher, but had a serious injury.

In other words, he takes the boom or bust approach. And it typically fails. But with that being said, most teams don't find great players late in the draft in general, it's even more of a crapshoot than the first 2 or 3 rounds.

I think that's a reasonable approach.  If you don't do that, you're basically saying "I think this guy definitely belongs in the 6th round."  Why draft guys who predictably suck?  Why not draft guys who look like they have a chance to become something?

Jacksonville Jaguars: B
Top needs entering the draft: CB, OT, DE, OLB, TE

Jaguars general manager Trent Baalke made two trades down in Round 1, acquiring extra fourth-, fifth- and seventh-round picks in the process. That's a coup for dropping down just three spots and still getting an offensive tackle who could start as a rookie. With Cam Robinson facing a suspension for violating the NFL's performance-enhancing drug policy, Anton Harrison (27) might have to be thrown into the fire on the left side. Harrison allowed just one sack over the past two seasons. He had a lot of fans inside the NFL.

If Baalke & Co. didn't go with a tackle in the first round, I thought they might go with a tight end. The Jags filled that need with Brenton Strange (61) in Round 2. Strange had been rising since the combine; I went back to study his tape after his combine workout, and I liked what I saw. He has the talent to turn into a solid pass-catcher. I also liked the value for edge rusher Yasir Abdullah (136) and safety Antonio Johnson (160) on Day 3, but I would have gone with running back Roschon Johnson over Tank Bigsby (88) in the third round. Bigsby is a physical runner, but does he have the speed to rip off chunk yardage? It was just a little high for me.

Jacksonville ended up with six selections in the final two rounds, and my favorite was wideout Parker Washington (185), who has a chance to contribute early out of the slot. Baalke took a few fliers late, which I always recommend.

There's not much flash about this class, but the substance is important, as Harrison and Strange fill holes and have high-level potential.

Kipers grade and write up on the jags draft. Echos what some of.the more level.headed people on the board were saying.