(03-04-2024, 11:00 AM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]Additionally, if he leaves in free agency, aren't we likely to get some form of compensatory pick in 2025?
Yes, based on his production with his new team it could would likely be at least a 4, maybe a 3 if he has a good year.
(03-04-2024, 10:59 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2024, 10:33 AM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]It's really no wonder you guys work yourselves up into clown paint. You can't possibly know anything about the negotiations between Ridley and Baalke other than players generally want to test free agency for obvious reasons. Just let it play out. The player also has to be willing to sign while forgoing the potentially true higher value he has that he can only find out by testing the market. Evans probably wanted to retire a Buc. And also, Cleatwood specifically, weren't you just saying don't pay him AND give up the 2nd? That's what you have to do to keep him IF he's even willing to forgo free agency.
For me, it boils down to, why did you even fork over a 3rd RD pick to begin with for Ridley? Correct me if I am wrong, but, wasn't that trade worked out before this offense showed any signs of life or competency during that turnaround in 2022?
It felt like they had a long term vision for Ridley in this offense. I can understand trying to game the system, where, you technically tag him and you're not losing a 2nd RD pick in the deal, however, it does shows a little bit of lack of awareness or know how in these situations.
Did he bank on Josh Allen NOT being as good as he was in 2023?
Did he bank on NOT having to use the franchise tag potentially on two different players?
Just seems reckless. Funny enough, this is the year you would WANT both of your third round picks because you're looking at a deep WR class. So, again, shows a lack of foresight and tactfulness as a general manager.
Again, we'll see what happens. I get that players can test the market and drive up their value, however, he could have and probably should have thought this through a little bit more to avoid being in this predicament to start with.
Like I said a moment after you posted this, wouldn't we be due some sort of compensatory pick should he sign a mega deal else where? If so, it could have been viewed more as a free look on Ridley for a year by moving a 3rd from 2024 to hopefully a 3rd in 2025. I think the compensatory picks are determined by net incoming and outgoing free agents, but a mega deal going out would certainly contribute to potentially getting something in return.
(03-04-2024, 11:04 AM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2024, 10:59 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]For me, it boils down to, why did you even fork over a 3rd RD pick to begin with for Ridley? Correct me if I am wrong, but, wasn't that trade worked out before this offense showed any signs of life or competency during that turnaround in 2022?
It felt like they had a long term vision for Ridley in this offense. I can understand trying to game the system, where, you technically tag him and you're not losing a 2nd RD pick in the deal, however, it does shows a little bit of lack of awareness or know how in these situations.
Did he bank on Josh Allen NOT being as good as he was in 2023?
Did he bank on NOT having to use the franchise tag potentially on two different players?
Just seems reckless. Funny enough, this is the year you would WANT both of your third round picks because you're looking at a deep WR class. So, again, shows a lack of foresight and tactfulness as a general manager.
Again, we'll see what happens. I get that players can test the market and drive up their value, however, he could have and probably should have thought this through a little bit more to avoid being in this predicament to start with.
Like I said a moment after you posted this, wouldn't we be due some sort of compensatory pick should he sign a mega deal else where? If so, it could have been viewed more as a free look on Ridley for a year by moving a 3rd from 2024 to hopefully a 3rd in 2025. I think the compensatory picks are determined by net incoming and outgoing free agents, but a mega deal going out would certainly contribute to potentially getting something in return.
Even then, what good does waiting until 2025 do for the team NOW? Especially in this deep of a WR class? It just doesn't make a ton of sense. We'll see. Maybe Baalke's cooking up something good, or, maybe he's just nuking a [BLEEP] gas station burrito in the microwave to force this fanbase to stomach and try to pass all off season.
(03-04-2024, 10:33 AM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]It's really no wonder you guys work yourselves up into clown paint. You can't possibly know anything about the negotiations between Ridley and Baalke other than players generally want to test free agency for obvious reasons. Just let it play out. The player also has to be willing to sign while forgoing the potentially true higher value he has that he can only find out by testing the market. Evans probably wanted to retire a Buc. And also, Cleatwood specifically, weren't you just saying don't pay him AND give up the 2nd? That's what you have to do to keep him IF he's even willing to forgo free agency.
100%. Still feel this way.
However, the smart and logical think to do, would have been to sign Allen last off season to a big deal. This would allow the Jags to place a franchise tag on Ridley, keep their 2nd rounder, and negotiate a contract with him over the summer (like Engram). I love Ridley the player but don't want to give a big contract as well as a 2nd rounder.
They also could still just give Allen the bag or stop being dumb and negotiate contracts with players during the season. They have botched the Allen/Ridley situation so badly.
This team has so many holes that if they just let Ridley leave in FA, they open up another gigantic one.
(03-04-2024, 11:04 AM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2024, 10:59 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]For me, it boils down to, why did you even fork over a 3rd RD pick to begin with for Ridley? Correct me if I am wrong, but, wasn't that trade worked out before this offense showed any signs of life or competency during that turnaround in 2022?
It felt like they had a long term vision for Ridley in this offense. I can understand trying to game the system, where, you technically tag him and you're not losing a 2nd RD pick in the deal, however, it does shows a little bit of lack of awareness or know how in these situations.
Did he bank on Josh Allen NOT being as good as he was in 2023?
Did he bank on NOT having to use the franchise tag potentially on two different players?
Just seems reckless. Funny enough, this is the year you would WANT both of your third round picks because you're looking at a deep WR class. So, again, shows a lack of foresight and tactfulness as a general manager.
Again, we'll see what happens. I get that players can test the market and drive up their value, however, he could have and probably should have thought this through a little bit more to avoid being in this predicament to start with.
Like I said a moment after you posted this, wouldn't we be due some sort of compensatory pick should he sign a mega deal else where? If so, it could have been viewed more as a free look on Ridley for a year by moving a 3rd from 2024 to hopefully a 3rd in 2025. I think the compensatory picks are determined by net incoming and outgoing free agents, but a mega deal going out would certainly contribute to potentially getting something in return.
They would only get a comp pick if they don't spend big in FA this off season. And all indications are that they will.
(03-04-2024, 11:16 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2024, 11:04 AM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]Like I said a moment after you posted this, wouldn't we be due some sort of compensatory pick should he sign a mega deal else where? If so, it could have been viewed more as a free look on Ridley for a year by moving a 3rd from 2024 to hopefully a 3rd in 2025. I think the compensatory picks are determined by net incoming and outgoing free agents, but a mega deal going out would certainly contribute to potentially getting something in return.
Even then, what good does waiting until 2025 do for the team NOW? Especially in this deep of a WR class? It just doesn't make a ton of sense. We'll see. Maybe Baalke's cooking up something good, or, maybe he's just nuking a [BLEEP] gas station burrito in the microwave to force this fanbase to stomach and try to pass all off season.
Again, the failure wasn't in the trade attempting to make your team better in 2023. The failure was in not having an alternative at center. Every other perceived "failure" stems from not being able to run the offense effectively in 2023 because the center and IOL in general was a major liability. Pushing a 3rd from 2024 to potentially a 3rd in 2025 in an earnest attempt to improve the roster in 2023 isn't that big of a deal in my opinion and lessens the blow of the narrative that we straight up gave up a 3 for a failed year.
This fundamentally results from Baalke doing absolutely nothing during the season. He has some idiotic policy of not negotiating until the offseason, and then he drags his feet meeting with Allen's team to the point that we are where we are.
Now, there is virtually zero chance that we keep Ridley, which means this genius wasted a 3rd rounder and opened yet another hole on a team with holes everywhere.
It's frankly inexcusable to have our cap situation with our results. We've wasted almost all of Lawrence's rookie deal with a piss poor OL and a horrible defense. We've given mediocre players the bag and have drafted too poorly to get better as a team.
Ridley and Allen are two examples of guys who openly said they wanted to be here and contribute to our success, and Baalke has missed the mark entirely in keeping them.
So fellas, we now need WR, 3-4 new OL, DL, and CB, and we've lost a 3rd rounder for nothing. 9-8 at best again.
(03-04-2024, 11:28 AM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2024, 11:16 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]Even then, what good does waiting until 2025 do for the team NOW? Especially in this deep of a WR class? It just doesn't make a ton of sense. We'll see. Maybe Baalke's cooking up something good, or, maybe he's just nuking a [BLEEP] gas station burrito in the microwave to force this fanbase to stomach and try to pass all off season.
Again, the failure wasn't in the trade attempting to make your team better in 2023. The failure was in not having an alternative at center. Every other perceived "failure" stems from not being able to run the offense effectively in 2023 because the center and IOL in general was a major liability. Pushing a 3rd from 2024 to potentially a 3rd in 2025 in an earnest attempt to improve the roster in 2023 isn't that big of a deal in my opinion and lessens the blow of the narrative that we straight up gave up a 3 for a failed year.
I think it's a failure when you factor in that Lawrence is due a massive extension after this year and you also have another year into everybody's contract getting closer to expiring or having to move on from them completely from that 2022 free agency class.
We're essentially kicking the tires and pissing away a very rare window of opportunity in the NFL. This is where Baalke falls woefully short and it should ultimately result in his final nail in the coffin unless he starts working crazy voodoo magic here soon.
This is looking like a C grade sequel to his stint in San Francisco. It's the idea that you're losing a pick for a guy that you apparently didn't think much towards in terms of long term development or chemistry within the offense during a year where it's a pretty deep WR class. They're going to have to backfill his job. This also leaves you with one year of Zay Jones and maybe Jamaal Agnew.
Who else do we have now at WR outside of Christian Kirk? It's really not a lot man. I think it's being downplayed significantly now this off season because nobody wanted to look much further past the obvious issues above which is fair, to an extent. I said it earlier this year. Classic Jaguars. By the time they finally fix the offensive line? They'll be looking for another go-to receiver or two to move the chains with.
Blunder after blunder after blunder. Same old Jaguars.
We got the fire starter!
Cool, where's the wood?
We got the driver!
Cool, where's the car?
We got the Guns!
Cool, where's the ammo?
They never seem to marry it all up at the right time.
So I've not seen definitively anywhere whether the tag constitutes an "in season extension" per the trade stipulations? I mean, it technically is an extension. Was this ever determined to have an effect on the trade comp of bumping the 3 to a 2 in a scenario where a miraculous last minute deal is reached by Baalke and Allen?
(03-04-2024, 01:07 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]So I've not seen definitively anywhere whether the tag constitutes an "in season extension" per the trade stipulations? I mean, it technically is an extension. Was this ever determined to have an effect on the trade comp of bumping the 3 to a 2 in a scenario where a miraculous last minute deal is reached by Baalke and Allen?
The extension needs to happen before the start of the new league year.
A franchise tag is not a binding contract until the player signs it. Therefore, no deal would have been reached and the Jags can keep their 2nd rounder.
(03-04-2024, 09:12 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2024, 07:31 AM)JagFanatic24 Wrote: [ -> ]Ridley had a season almost identical to Jimmy Smith’s 2002 season. They both scored a 2 point conversion. Both missed playoffs.
Another something to think about is you let Ridely walk, and he goes out next season and puts up 96 1400 12.
Tag deadline is tomorrow.
...and we get our third back, essentially.
KC didn't sweat losing Hill, in fact they sent him home in the tournament. Smith also did his in 16 games, so he had a better per-game average than Rid, even if stats were similar.
What if we pay him, and he blows an ACL in week 2? Just as much likelihood of that happening as him blowing the doors open for an offense.
Can't go into an auction scared to lose, or you're gonna get taken for a ride. We'll put an offer on the table, don't worry. If he passes on the deal, next man up.
We get to keep our 2nd round pick. We are losing one of our 3rd round picks to Atlanta regardless, it would have become the 2nd round pick had we signed Ridley.
Unless of course, I have it wrong?
Otherwise, agree with the rest of the post.
(03-04-2024, 01:12 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2024, 01:07 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]So I've not seen definitively anywhere whether the tag constitutes an "in season extension" per the trade stipulations? I mean, it technically is an extension. Was this ever determined to have an effect on the trade comp of bumping the 3 to a 2 in a scenario where a miraculous last minute deal is reached by Baalke and Allen?
The extension needs to happen before the start of the new league year.
A franchise tag is not a binding contract until the player signs it. Therefore, no deal would have been reached and the Jags can keep their 2nd rounder.
Could Ridley, in a dick move, sign it immediately and have it become an in-season extension? If so, he could use the threat of that move as a leverage play to not be tagged should Allen sign.
(03-04-2024, 02:06 PM)anonymous2112 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2024, 09:12 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]...and we get our third back, essentially.
KC didn't sweat losing Hill, in fact they sent him home in the tournament. Smith also did his in 16 games, so he had a better per-game average than Rid, even if stats were similar.
What if we pay him, and he blows an ACL in week 2? Just as much likelihood of that happening as him blowing the doors open for an offense.
Can't go into an auction scared to lose, or you're gonna get taken for a ride. We'll put an offer on the table, don't worry. If he passes on the deal, next man up.
We get to keep our 2nd round pick. We are losing one of our 3rd round picks to Atlanta regardless, it would have become the 2nd round pick had we signed Ridley.
Unless of course, I have it wrong?
Otherwise, agree with the rest of the post.
The assumption is that if Rid signs elsewhere for a Brinks truckfull of cash, we lose this year's 3rd as comp for the trade and next year we earn a 3rd comp pick due to losing Rid. So that which we lose comes back a year later.
Frankly we might want the picks next year - Lawrence is going to cost a lot to keep and we're going to need to make a bunch of tough roster choices to care for the cap. Extra picks may help plug holes in affordable fashion.
(03-04-2024, 02:14 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2024, 01:12 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]The extension needs to happen before the start of the new league year.
A franchise tag is not a binding contract until the player signs it. Therefore, no deal would have been reached and the Jags can keep their 2nd rounder.
Could Ridley, in a dick move, sign it immediately and have it become an in-season extension? If so, he could use the threat of that move as a leverage play to not be tagged should Allen sign.
turnabout is fair play, we still haven't made the long-term offer or guaranteed more cash than he'd get on the tag....jus sayin
more of a mutual back-scratching makes everyone happier in the long run kind of play.
(03-04-2024, 02:52 PM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2024, 02:06 PM)anonymous2112 Wrote: [ -> ]We get to keep our 2nd round pick. We are losing one of our 3rd round picks to Atlanta regardless, it would have become the 2nd round pick had we signed Ridley.
Unless of course, I have it wrong?
Otherwise, agree with the rest of the post.
The assumption is that if Rid signs elsewhere for a Brinks truckfull of cash, we lose this year's 3rd as comp for the trade and next year we earn a 3rd comp pick due to losing Rid. So that which we lose comes back a year later.
Frankly we might want the picks next year - Lawrence is going to cost a lot to keep and we're going to need to make a bunch of tough roster choices to care for the cap. Extra picks may help plug holes in affordable fashion.
(03-04-2024, 02:14 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]Could Ridley, in a dick move, sign it immediately and have it become an in-season extension? If so, he could use the threat of that move as a leverage play to not be tagged should Allen sign.
turnabout is fair play, we still haven't made the long-term offer or guaranteed more cash than he'd get on the tag....jus sayin
more of a mutual back-scratching makes everyone happier in the long run kind of play.
Yeah I actually agree. Most everything is fair in negotiating the best deal for yourself. That's why I always say just let it play out and don't get emotionally invested in one side or the other. I turned the phrase because the intent of the tag is generally to work out a long term deal and that may very well be the intent in such a scenario and Ridley signing immediately to cause the Jaguars to lose draft capital could be viewed in a negative light, but it's a fair tactic to threaten in this hypothetical as players generally do not want to get tagged for obvious reasons.
(03-04-2024, 02:52 PM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2024, 02:06 PM)anonymous2112 Wrote: [ -> ]We get to keep our 2nd round pick. We are losing one of our 3rd round picks to Atlanta regardless, it would have become the 2nd round pick had we signed Ridley.
Unless of course, I have it wrong?
Otherwise, agree with the rest of the post.
The assumption is that if Rid signs elsewhere for a Brinks truckfull of cash, we lose this year's 3rd as comp for the trade and next year we earn a 3rd comp pick due to losing Rid. So that which we lose comes back a year later.
Frankly we might want the picks next year - Lawrence is going to cost a lot to keep and we're going to need to make a bunch of tough roster choices to care for the cap. Extra picks may help plug holes in affordable fashion.
(03-04-2024, 02:14 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]Could Ridley, in a dick move, sign it immediately and have it become an in-season extension? If so, he could use the threat of that move as a leverage play to not be tagged should Allen sign.
turnabout is fair play, we still haven't made the long-term offer or guaranteed more cash than he'd get on the tag....jus sayin
more of a mutual back-scratching makes everyone happier in the long run kind of play.
That would be only if we don't bring in anyone in FA. I think we have to bring in a couple FAs this year
(03-04-2024, 02:45 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]https://x.com/CalvinRidley1/status/17647...28926?s=20
https://x.com/CalvinRidley1/status/17647...88003?s=20
Shipley also dropped a report or article not too long ago. With us showing interest or "hoping" that Mike Evans would have been available in free agency for us to pick-up. He's essentially getting $26M over the next two years. I think that's the starting point in contract talks.
Probably said it in this thread. A four year deal worth $75M would be ideal. It would be $18.5M - 20M per year but I would incentive it, front load it and guarantee more of it. Give yourself an easier out by the third year of the deal.
Easy to counter argue in our favor. Ridley is good, he's not Mike Evans good. Giving him a little bit more than what Kirk is getting per year is fair as his role is more demanding and in year two of the same offense he should be able to hit any incentives laid out in the contract.
He'll probably want more, so, if it's the per year deal, shorten it to three years and call it a deal. That would bump him up to over $20M. Again, he's good, just not Mike Evans good.
If they do end up losing Ridley, I would try to get Gallup then draft AD Mitchell.
(03-02-2024, 12:25 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-01-2024, 10:11 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]You say these things like they are hypotheticals. Every last one of them was on the roster last year and the offense did not revolutionize the game of football as we know it.
You like stats, so here's some for us to digest:
All 5 players active: 4-2 W-L, 25.67 PPG. avg 16.8 rush / 67.6 yds / 4TD (.67/gm). avg 22 rec / 243.5 yds / 7TD (1.16/gm) that's 4.4rec/48.7yds avg per receiver
No Zay (4 receivers): 4-2 W-L 27 PPG. avg 17.3 rush / 60.83 yds / 4TD (.67/gm). avg 17.8 rec / 192.17yds / 4TD (.67/gm) that's 4.5rec/48.04yds avg per receiver
No Kirk (4 receivers): 0-3 W-L 18 PPG. avg 13.3 rush / 41 yds / 1TD (.33/gm). avg 23 rec / 210 yds / 4TD (1.33/gm) that's 5.75 rec/52.5 yds avg per receiver
No Zay No Kirk (3 rcvr): 1-1 W-L 19 PPG. avg 11 rush / 57 yds / 2TD (1/gm). avg 15.5 rec / 158.5 yds / 2TD (1/gm) that's 5.1rec/52.83 yds avg per receiver
Ridley's stats when all 5 active: 33 rec / 473 / 4TD (5.5/78.83/.67 per game) when at least 1 inactive: 43/543/4 (3.9/49.36/.36 per game)
So you can see that losing Kirk hurt us, W-L wise, but that also coincided with Trevor getting hurt. Zay out of the lineup did not result in any of these four picking up his slack - we either lost those yards or passed to other WR. Our run game has a slight benefit when all 5 players are playing, but not enough to say they are posing significant distraction to a D.
Ridley's numbers are the interesting one, though. You'd think that when at least one of our primary targets are unavailable, more work would be sent his way. He personally benefitted from the extra distraction of a full roster of targets, averaging 1.5 more catches and 60% more yards per game when everyone was active.
Should we expect a $20M receiver to be able to do that without the benefit of needing a complete arsenal around him? Do we think that a comparable, drafted receiver would be capable of producing similar results in the same situation? Does anyone think he's not going to settle for a payday somewhere near the tag?
We've seen this team both with and without Ridley. Both years resulted in 9-8 records, Passing numbers were comparable. I don't think Ridley is as necessary as some others here might, especially at that price tag. I think we are just as capable without him. We need SOMEBODY, mind you, that can produce similar results, but breaking the bank to keep the gang together doesn't seem like it's going to yield any different results.
Agreed. The real issue last year was when Kirk got hurt. Zay got nicked up "practicing" against the Lions and never got really healthy. What we need to go with our core receiver set is a big body burner. someone about 6'4". When everyone is healthy Kirk, Zay and Engram are our core group. Ridley last year was a 20 million dollar receiver with a 5 cent head. He could not be counted on to be where he was suppose to be. That can be covered up if the QB has more time, unfortunately that was not the case in 2023.
Agree they don't need Ridley, but I do think they need a lot more depth and flexibility in that receiver room. I just don't think you can expect TE/WR's to play more than 13 games a year anymore. Yes some do, but it is more the exception. As good as Kirk is and "the role" Zay is for this team, the offense should not have floundered to the levels it did while they were out. I get that their injuries were more the final straws after the O-Line issues, the predictability of the running game, and Lawrence's injury.
But it just seems more and more that Pedersen/Taylor are not great at a full offensive scheme/design pivot mid game or even mid season. That is acceptable, but then you have to have depth at the TE/WR that should be able to prevent the offense from face planting as much as it seem to do in 2023 when the teams faces honestly predictable injuries.
(03-04-2024, 05:53 PM)rpr52121 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2024, 12:25 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed. The real issue last year was when Kirk got hurt. Zay got nicked up "practicing" against the Lions and never got really healthy. What we need to go with our core receiver set is a big body burner. someone about 6'4". When everyone is healthy Kirk, Zay and Engram are our core group. Ridley last year was a 20 million dollar receiver with a 5 cent head. He could not be counted on to be where he was suppose to be. That can be covered up if the QB has more time, unfortunately that was not the case in 2023.
Agree they don't need Ridley, but I do think they need a lot more depth and flexibility in that receiver room. I just don't think you can expect TE/WR's to play more than 13 games a year anymore. Yes some do, but it is more the exception. As good as Kirk is and "the role" Zay is for this team, the offense should not have floundered to the levels it did while they were out. I get that their injuries were more the final straws after the O-Line issues, the predictability of the running game, and Lawrence's injury.
But it just seems more and more that Pedersen/Taylor are not great at a full offensive scheme/design pivot mid game or even mid season. That is acceptable, but then you have to have depth at the TE/WR that should be able to prevent the offense from face planting as much as it seem to do in 2023 when the teams faces honestly predictable injuries.
Exactly. They went into the regular season hoping that Ridley, Kirk and Jones would all stay healthy for 17 games. Ridley managed to hold up, the other two didn't. That then left us with Agnew, an oft injured special teams player that has limited experience at WR, who also didn't finish the season because of his proneness to injuries as well.
After that?
It's Tim Jones, a guy that flashes in preseason but nowhere else. Parker Washington, a rookie, who was also working his way back from a knee injury earlier on during the year and limited with practice, and then, Elijah Cooks, a big bodied receiver that never found his footing to make an impact right away, yet, out of a draftclass that had thirteen or fourteen selections in it, he ended up being the lone undrafted player they kept on the active roster.
I think WR is a bigger need than people care to realize or admit right now. Even if they address two positions on the offensive line, they still have to show competence, gel, etc. We had no threat of a running game at all last year, which also didn't help anybody.
Depending on what happens with Ridley? WR to me becomes an immediate need within the first two to three rounds for this football team. This is with me HOPING they manage to address some of the IOL positions and IDL needs in free agency before they get there in the draft. It's tough. Baalke and Pederson thought they were close after that 2022 run.
They were wrong. This team still has an uphill battle and a long way to go and they really blew it last year with that draft in my opinion.
(03-04-2024, 01:04 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2024, 11:28 AM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]Again, the failure wasn't in the trade attempting to make your team better in 2023. The failure was in not having an alternative at center. Every other perceived "failure" stems from not being able to run the offense effectively in 2023 because the center and IOL in general was a major liability. Pushing a 3rd from 2024 to potentially a 3rd in 2025 in an earnest attempt to improve the roster in 2023 isn't that big of a deal in my opinion and lessens the blow of the narrative that we straight up gave up a 3 for a failed year.
I think it's a failure when you factor in that Lawrence is due a massive extension after this year and you also have another year into everybody's contract getting closer to expiring or having to move on from them completely from that 2022 free agency class.
We're essentially kicking the tires and pissing away a very rare window of opportunity in the NFL. This is where Baalke falls woefully short and it should ultimately result in his final nail in the coffin unless he starts working crazy voodoo magic here soon.
This is looking like a C grade sequel to his stint in San Francisco. It's the idea that you're losing a pick for a guy that you apparently didn't think much towards in terms of long term development or chemistry within the offense during a year where it's a pretty deep WR class. They're going to have to backfill his job. This also leaves you with one year of Zay Jones and maybe Jamaal Agnew.
Who else do we have now at WR outside of Christian Kirk? It's really not a lot man. I think it's being downplayed significantly now this off season because nobody wanted to look much further past the obvious issues above which is fair, to an extent. I said it earlier this year. Classic Jaguars. By the time they finally fix the offensive line? They'll be looking for another go-to receiver or two to move the chains with.
Blunder after blunder after blunder. Same old Jaguars.
We got the fire starter!
Cool, where's the wood?
We got the driver!
Cool, where's the car?
We got the Guns!
Cool, where's the ammo?
They never seem to marry it all up at the right time.
Agree with everything you’re saying throughout the thread. Also have to get guys like Etienne and Campbell paid, oh and possibly Williams and Cisco.
I’m willing to lose Ridley if they keep ZJones.
The way Trent is handling this stuff seems like he ain’t taking it as serious as he needs to. Meanwhile he’s sitting in on defensive coaching interviews. Get your butt out there and get these guys signed, Trent.