Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(03-06-2024, 04:14 PM)Protozoa Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-06-2024, 02:35 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]This makes no sense to me. By default, he was considered the WR1 all year. Zay was in and out of the line-up routinely last year. Kirk went down and missed the last five games on the year. 

If anything, it allowed Lawrence to target Ridley more, for this offensive coaching staff to utilize him a little more. The fact that he put up the numbers he did IN SPITE of everybody being in and out of the line-up around him is probably the best case you could have made for him to be brought back. 

Kirk's serviceable. He's a slot receiver. He's not a true #1. 
Jones' is questionable now. He got arrested last year for a baby mama dispute. Then he misses half a season worth of football games.

This is further compounded with the obvious issues in the starting line-up with the offensive line, no running game at all and Lawrence physically falling apart towards the end of the year. 

Ridley did a number of things in 2023 that I simply do not see in Kirk's and Zay's game. His route running is superb, his ability to catch rifles are impressive, sure, he had his concentration drops and we wanted to kill him, but, hate to break it to you, so did the rest of this receiving core all year and they only finished 15th in dropped passes as a team.

Not nearly as bad as it was the year prior I believe.

That's my point he was forced to be more of the focal point. If Kirk and Zay played the whole year does Ridley still have 1000 yards and 8 touchdowns (the same numbers Kirk put up the year before btw). I don't feel Ridley makes it over 1000 yards if Kirk plays those last five.

I respect your opinion and understand what you'resaying. but 20 mil and a 2nd for Ridley who cost us multiple games with his drops and inconsistencies understanding the play book and what route he was running. Yes the line was bad but the line didn't cause the above that's on him.

Where are you getting the 1,000+ yards and 8 TD's then on offense in 2024? With a WR1 currently not on the roster? Line play has a lot to do with a lot of things. A poor throw, a rushed throw, an incompletion, a missed read, etc. Poor line play dictates the way you have to game plan, scheme and call an offense. 

A lot easier to cover somebody when you don't have to respect the running game. A lot harder to keep a front seven on it's toes because the play action game is not there due to inadequate time in the pocket. I think we'll be right back where we were in 2022 and 2023 at this rate. 

We'll see marginal improvements being made on offense because we've created too many greater needs once again as a football team on defense. We're stuck in neutral as a franchise because the person in charge of the personnel department doesn't know how to elevate the roster properly. 

Again, we're complaining about the same exact issues for the third straight year in a row. 

1. No interior presence on defense. Which allows too much time in the pocket for opposing QB's. 

2. No interior presence on offense which enables the running game and the ability to open up the playbook. 

3. No "Alpha" or "X" receiver presence on the outside to offer a trickle down effect of enabling WR2, WR3 and TE1 to achieve more production in the scheme of things.

(03-06-2024, 04:26 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-06-2024, 04:14 PM)Protozoa Wrote: [ -> ]That's my point he was forced to be more of the focal point. If Kirk and Zay played the whole year does Ridley still have 1000 yards and 8 touchdowns (the same numbers Kirk put up the year before btw). I don't feel Ridley makes it over 1000 yards if Kirk plays those last five.

I respect your opinion and understand what you'resaying. but 20 mil and a 2nd for Ridley who cost us multiple games with his drops and inconsistencies understanding the play book and what route he was running. Yes the line was bad but the line didn't cause the above that's on him.

Where are you getting the 1,000+ yards and 8 TD's then on offense in 2024? With a WR1 currently not on the roster? Line play has a lot to do with a lot of things. A poor throw, a rushed throw, an incompletion, a missed read, etc. Poor line play dictates the way you have to game plan, scheme and call an offense. 

A lot easier to cover somebody when you don't have to respect the running game. A lot harder to keep a front seven on it's toes because the play action game is not there due to inadequate time in the pocket. I think we'll be right back where we were in 2022 and 2023 at this rate. 

We'll see marginal improvements being made on offense because we've created too many greater needs once again as a football team on defense. We're stuck in neutral as a franchise because the person in charge of the personnel department doesn't know how to elevate the roster properly. 

Again, we're complaining about the same exact issues for the third straight year in a row. 

1. No interior presence on defense. Which allows too much time in the pocket for opposing QB's. 

2. No interior presence on offense which enables the running game and the ability to open up the playbook. 

3. No "Alpha" or "X" receiver presence on the outside to offer a trickle down effect of enabling WR2, WR3 and TE1 to achieve more production in the scheme of things.

And in my opinion if we resign Ridley we will still have number 3 as an issue and less cap and draft capital to address 1 and 2. I understand your point of who replaces the 1000 yards and 8 touchdowns it valid. I would argue Krik has done it so it's more of a matter of who is going to be that 800 yard 6 touchdown WR.

(03-06-2024, 04:48 PM)Protozoa Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-06-2024, 04:26 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]Where are you getting the 1,000+ yards and 8 TD's then on offense in 2024? With a WR1 currently not on the roster? Line play has a lot to do with a lot of things. A poor throw, a rushed throw, an incompletion, a missed read, etc. Poor line play dictates the way you have to game plan, scheme and call an offense. 

A lot easier to cover somebody when you don't have to respect the running game. A lot harder to keep a front seven on it's toes because the play action game is not there due to inadequate time in the pocket. I think we'll be right back where we were in 2022 and 2023 at this rate. 

We'll see marginal improvements being made on offense because we've created too many greater needs once again as a football team on defense. We're stuck in neutral as a franchise because the person in charge of the personnel department doesn't know how to elevate the roster properly. 

Again, we're complaining about the same exact issues for the third straight year in a row. 

1. No interior presence on defense. Which allows too much time in the pocket for opposing QB's. 

2. No interior presence on offense which enables the running game and the ability to open up the playbook. 

3. No "Alpha" or "X" receiver presence on the outside to offer a trickle down effect of enabling WR2, WR3 and TE1 to achieve more production in the scheme of things.

And in my opinion if we resign Ridley we will still have number 3 as an issue and less cap and draft capital to address 1 and 2. I understand your point of who replaces the 1000 yards and 8 touchdowns it valid. I would argue Krik has done it so it's more of a matter of who is going to be that 800 yard 6 touchdown WR.

1. Ridley = 1200+, 10+
2. Kirk = 1000+, 8+
3. Jones = 800+, 6+
4. Engram = 700+, 5+

That would be ideal and that's probably achievable with Ridley in another year on this offense and a few investments along the offensive line. Which they have the cap to do within reason. 

If they cut Robinson, that inserts Walker Little at LT. 

If they sign Andre James or Lloyd Cushenberry, which shouldn't break the bank, he replaces Fortner at C. 

That leaves LG up to either believing in Cleveland and bringing him back or drafting a LG to start there (They have interviewed 12 lineman for this draft for a purpose, willing to bank they draft one no later than RD4 this year to start).

RG with Scherff is interesting. He's not the best. But, he's also not the worst. Would have to see what Cooper Hodges looks like in addition to probably either pursuing a guy like Kevin Dotson or Robert Hunt to start there and also drafting a prospect. 

All of that's doable above without having to backfill WR again and trying to have a new face learn this system and come up with the numbers. If you resign Ridley during free agency you're not losing a 2nd RD pick. We're losing the 3rd RD pick regardless. So, might as well double down on that investment and keep him on the roster.

(03-06-2024, 03:16 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-06-2024, 12:03 PM)JagFan81 Wrote: [ -> ]How to solve a problem like Ridley?

He must be one of the most divisive players we've had. Not in a negative way but is he worth the pick/money. I think we all thought he was a good addition when we traded for him and would be another weapon in the WR room.

I understand what you are stating, however, I don't think it should be viewed as divisive.  The fact that Ridley was acquired and performed to the level that he can now command a $20/year million salary shows that it was indeed a good trade.  As such, when you have good players, tough decisions need to be made.   We've always had easy decisions of letting players leave because our drafts were pretty much horrendous from 2007 through 2018ish. 

I think the Jags would be looking at this totally differently if we didn't give up 150+ yards to Derrick Henry and lose to the Titans in the final week.  It could have been the Jags once again winning in the 1st rounds of the playoffs against the Browns and advancing to the divisional round vs the Ravens.    That said, other position weaknesses on the Jags was totally exposed so now they're left to question how to better spend their $$$ as there are glaring needs on both sides of the line and in the secondary.

I actually think your right and that's what the FO's thinking was. They would have kept Ridley but they will have to pay Josh and make some moves in FA to strengthen the roster in other areas and Ridley became a luxury they probably would have kept but couldn't afford. Plus with Kirk, Zay, Engram, Washington and maybe another WR added they thought they could get similar production without him. 

Like you say it's what makes being a GM such a tough job. Getting those big calls right more than wrong and making the whole roster as strong as possible.

They let 3 starters go in Rayshawn, Williams and Fatukasi and would probably have had to let Scherff and Cam go to keep Ridley so your just making more holes to fill.

I don't think Ridley should be resigned to a big contract, but I do think he should of been tagged and given another year to see if hes worth a big contract or not.

Re-signing Ridley didn't make sense anyway due to age. If they'd got the Allen deal done then tagged him for another year fine.

However, we have a lot of resource tied up in receivers (that hasn't really paid much dividends)

Now is 100% the time to be drafting one, ideally with pick 17 and probably another one too. You only want to pay one WR and that is currently Kirk. Plus Engram paid too. This is the year with a stacked class meaning potentially a few get pushed lower than they would in other years. It just makes so much sense, it's bound to happen right?

(03-07-2024, 07:59 AM)wassy04 Wrote: [ -> ]Re-signing Ridley didn't make sense anyway due to age. If they'd got the Allen deal done then tagged him for another year fine.

However, we have a lot of resource tied up in receivers (that hasn't really paid much dividends)

Now is 100% the time to be drafting one, ideally with pick 17 and probably another one too. You only want to pay one WR and that is currently Kirk. Plus Engram paid too. This is the year with a stacked class meaning potentially a few get pushed lower than they would in other years. It just makes so much sense, it's bound to happen right?

Ok. If resigning Ridley didn't make sense anyway due to age, why waste the 3rd RD investment for a one year rental to begin with? It's not like the man was going to go from 29 years old to 35 years old in one off season. 

Also, yes, it's a deep class, we're not heavily tied up though in the receiving group cap wise. Kirk has the highest contract on the books, Zay is less than $5M on the year and could technically still be cut, that leaves Agnew, who may or may not be back, his salary is relatively inexpensive for what he does and then you have a 6th RD pick from last year, an undrafted guy in Cooks and another undrafted guy in Tim Jones. 

They'll be looking at a WR more than likely in FA anyway because they have no choice really. They're depleted without Ridley being guaranteed to return now and you're also looking at Kirk, Jones & Agnew returning from various injuries. However, expecting Baalke to take a WR with the 17th pick is wishful thinking in my opinion. 

It just doesn't seem like he's going to do that. Not historically and not currently. I see him going defense there and it's probably going to be a player we're either really excited about as a fanbase or ho hum about as a fanbase. 

For example, we would probably like Quinyon Mitchell or Cooper DeJean, he'll take Nate Wiggins or Terrion Arnold instead. We'll probably like Brian Thomas Jr. or Adonai Mitchell, he'll take Laiatu Latu or Jared Verse instead. It's just something you have to kind of expect out of him and this front office in my opinion.

(03-07-2024, 08:31 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-07-2024, 07:59 AM)wassy04 Wrote: [ -> ]Re-signing Ridley didn't make sense anyway due to age. If they'd got the Allen deal done then tagged him for another year fine.

However, we have a lot of resource tied up in receivers (that hasn't really paid much dividends)

Now is 100% the time to be drafting one, ideally with pick 17 and probably another one too. You only want to pay one WR and that is currently Kirk. Plus Engram paid too. This is the year with a stacked class meaning potentially a few get pushed lower than they would in other years. It just makes so much sense, it's bound to happen right?

Ok. If resigning Ridley didn't make sense anyway due to age, why waste the 3rd RD investment for a one year rental to begin with? It's not like the man was going to go from 29 years old to 35 years old in one off season. 

Also, yes, it's a deep class, we're not heavily tied up though in the receiving group cap wise. Kirk has the highest contract on the books, Zay is less than $5M on the year and could technically still be cut, that leaves Agnew, who may or may not be back, his salary is relatively inexpensive for what he does and then you have a 6th RD pick from last year, an undrafted guy in Cooks and another undrafted guy in Tim Jones. 

They'll be looking at a WR more than likely in FA anyway because they have no choice really. They're depleted without Ridley being guaranteed to return now and you're also looking at Kirk, Jones & Agnew returning from various injuries. However, expecting Baalke to take a WR with the 17th pick is wishful thinking in my opinion. 

It just doesn't seem like he's going to do that. Not historically and not currently. I see him going defense there and it's probably going to be a player we're either really excited about as a fanbase or ho hum about as a fanbase. 

For example, we would probably like Quinyon Mitchell or Cooper DeJean, he'll take Nate Wiggins or Terrion Arnold instead. We'll probably like Brian Thomas Jr. or Adonai Mitchell, he'll take Laiatu Latu or Jared Verse instead. It's just something you have to kind of expect out of him and this front office in my opinion.

Why waste a 3rd round investment for a one-year rental to begin with?  Because we thought we were that close to contending for the Super Bowl.  

In my opinion, the $20 million per year that we would have had to give Ridley to re-sign him would be much better spent on offensive linemen.  If we run the ball better, if we can pick up a first down on 3rd and 1, if we can protect our QB better, we don't even need Ridley. 

Last year, we had 120 running plays that went for zero yards or a loss.  That's about 7 times per game.  You can't win games that way.  So I really don't care that we failed to retain Ridley.  He's irrelevant if we don't have a much better offensive line.

(03-07-2024, 08:39 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-07-2024, 08:31 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]Ok. If resigning Ridley didn't make sense anyway due to age, why waste the 3rd RD investment for a one year rental to begin with? It's not like the man was going to go from 29 years old to 35 years old in one off season. 

Also, yes, it's a deep class, we're not heavily tied up though in the receiving group cap wise. Kirk has the highest contract on the books, Zay is less than $5M on the year and could technically still be cut, that leaves Agnew, who may or may not be back, his salary is relatively inexpensive for what he does and then you have a 6th RD pick from last year, an undrafted guy in Cooks and another undrafted guy in Tim Jones. 

They'll be looking at a WR more than likely in FA anyway because they have no choice really. They're depleted without Ridley being guaranteed to return now and you're also looking at Kirk, Jones & Agnew returning from various injuries. However, expecting Baalke to take a WR with the 17th pick is wishful thinking in my opinion. 

It just doesn't seem like he's going to do that. Not historically and not currently. I see him going defense there and it's probably going to be a player we're either really excited about as a fanbase or ho hum about as a fanbase. 

For example, we would probably like Quinyon Mitchell or Cooper DeJean, he'll take Nate Wiggins or Terrion Arnold instead. We'll probably like Brian Thomas Jr. or Adonai Mitchell, he'll take Laiatu Latu or Jared Verse instead. It's just something you have to kind of expect out of him and this front office in my opinion.

Why waste a 3rd round investment for a one-year rental to begin with?  Because we thought we were that close to contending for the Super Bowl.  

In my opinion, the $20 million per year that we would have had to give Ridley to re-sign him would be much better spent on offensive linemen.  If we run the ball better, if we can pick up a first down on 3rd and 1, if we can protect our QB better, we don't even need Ridley.

Then there's something fundamentally wrong with their thought process and approach in that building. We were never one player away from the Super Bowl. Pretty naive to believe. 

And, as previously cited about that philosophy with the $20M being allocated to the offensive line, here's my problem with that. 

1. We've been hearing that now for three years. The guy still in charge of finding these players has swung and missed on this group more times than not. Including giving out contracts to players that cost the team games last year and had a perfectly good waste of a 2nd RD pick at LT rotting away to replace the $17.M cap hit now.

2. Immediately after the 2022 play-off loss to Kansas City, we kept hearing, "If Kirk just could have hauled in that one pass, If Agnew just could have held onto the football instead of fumbling it there, I can't WAIT for Ridley to be in the line-up next year! We're missing that, "DAWG!" that "Alpha!" on the outside as the kids say". 

That's a lot of IF's my friend. A lot of IF's. The same IF's we heard in the 2022 off season, the same IF's we heard in the 2023 off season, annnnnnnnd it's the same IF's we're hearing now in the 2024 off season. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK6TXMsvgQg

---

(03-07-2024, 08:39 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-07-2024, 08:31 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]Ok. If resigning Ridley didn't make sense anyway due to age, why waste the 3rd RD investment for a one year rental to begin with? It's not like the man was going to go from 29 years old to 35 years old in one off season. 

Also, yes, it's a deep class, we're not heavily tied up though in the receiving group cap wise. Kirk has the highest contract on the books, Zay is less than $5M on the year and could technically still be cut, that leaves Agnew, who may or may not be back, his salary is relatively inexpensive for what he does and then you have a 6th RD pick from last year, an undrafted guy in Cooks and another undrafted guy in Tim Jones. 

They'll be looking at a WR more than likely in FA anyway because they have no choice really. They're depleted without Ridley being guaranteed to return now and you're also looking at Kirk, Jones & Agnew returning from various injuries. However, expecting Baalke to take a WR with the 17th pick is wishful thinking in my opinion. 

It just doesn't seem like he's going to do that. Not historically and not currently. I see him going defense there and it's probably going to be a player we're either really excited about as a fanbase or ho hum about as a fanbase. 

For example, we would probably like Quinyon Mitchell or Cooper DeJean, he'll take Nate Wiggins or Terrion Arnold instead. We'll probably like Brian Thomas Jr. or Adonai Mitchell, he'll take Laiatu Latu or Jared Verse instead. It's just something you have to kind of expect out of him and this front office in my opinion.

Why waste a 3rd round investment for a one-year rental to begin with?  Because we thought we were that close to contending for the Super Bowl.  

In my opinion, the $20 million per year that we would have had to give Ridley to re-sign him would be much better spent on offensive linemen.  If we run the ball better, if we can pick up a first down on 3rd and 1, if we can protect our QB better, we don't even need Ridley. 

Last year, we had 120 running plays that went for zero yards or a loss.  That's about 7 times per game.  You can't win games that way.  So I really don't care that we failed to retain Ridley.  He's irrelevant if we don't have a much better offensive line.

Replying again because you tacked on the running plays. Again, my response still counters this point. They'll get the ground game fixed, they'll get more competence out of Etienne and then we'll still be pissing and moaning when we don't have a receiver on the outside that can separate at the top of his route, make the tough grab and not cough it up in a road game in the play-off's. 

I can see it now, we'll be in Kansas City, Buffalo or Cincinatti in January of 2025 and we'll see the same exact nonsense from the 2022 season. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. I'll be the first one on here to say I told you so or I'll HAPPILY eat my crow if I got this wrong. PIN IT. I don't care. I just have a hunch.

(03-07-2024, 08:31 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-07-2024, 07:59 AM)wassy04 Wrote: [ -> ]Re-signing Ridley didn't make sense anyway due to age. If they'd got the Allen deal done then tagged him for another year fine.

However, we have a lot of resource tied up in receivers (that hasn't really paid much dividends)

Now is 100% the time to be drafting one, ideally with pick 17 and probably another one too. You only want to pay one WR and that is currently Kirk. Plus Engram paid too. This is the year with a stacked class meaning potentially a few get pushed lower than they would in other years. It just makes so much sense, it's bound to happen right?

Ok. If resigning Ridley didn't make sense anyway due to age, why waste the 3rd RD investment for a one year rental to begin with? It's not like the man was going to go from 29 years old to 35 years old in one off season. 

Also, yes, it's a deep class, we're not heavily tied up though in the receiving group cap wise. Kirk has the highest contract on the books, Zay is less than $5M on the year and could technically still be cut, that leaves Agnew, who may or may not be back, his salary is relatively inexpensive for what he does and then you have a 6th RD pick from last year, an undrafted guy in Cooks and another undrafted guy in Tim Jones. 

They'll be looking at a WR more than likely in FA anyway because they have no choice really. They're depleted without Ridley being guaranteed to return now and you're also looking at Kirk, Jones & Agnew returning from various injuries. However, expecting Baalke to take a WR with the 17th pick is wishful thinking in my opinion. 

It just doesn't seem like he's going to do that. Not historically and not currently. I see him going defense there and it's probably going to be a player we're either really excited about as a fanbase or ho hum about as a fanbase. 

For example, we would probably like Quinyon Mitchell or Cooper DeJean, he'll take Nate Wiggins or Terrion Arnold instead. We'll probably like Brian Thomas Jr. or Adonai Mitchell, he'll take Laiatu Latu or Jared Verse instead. It's just something you have to kind of expect out of him and this front office in my opinion.

I think Latu or Verse would be a good pick.  I'd take both over AD.  It will be interesting to see what needs they fill in FA.

(03-07-2024, 08:45 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-07-2024, 08:39 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Why waste a 3rd round investment for a one-year rental to begin with?  Because we thought we were that close to contending for the Super Bowl.  

In my opinion, the $20 million per year that we would have had to give Ridley to re-sign him would be much better spent on offensive linemen.  If we run the ball better, if we can pick up a first down on 3rd and 1, if we can protect our QB better, we don't even need Ridley.

Then there's something fundamentally wrong with their thought process and approach in that building. We were never one player away from the Super Bowl. Pretty naive to believe. 

And, as previously cited about that philosophy with the $20M being allocated to the offensive line, here's my problem with that. 

1. We've been hearing that now for three years. The guy still in charge of finding these players has swung and missed on this group more times than not. Including giving out contracts to players that cost the team games last year and had a perfectly good waste of a 2nd RD pick at LT rotting away to replace the $17.M cap hit now.

2. Immediately after the 2022 play-off loss to Kansas City, we kept hearing, "If Kirk just could have hauled in that one pass, If Agnew just could have held onto the football instead of fumbling it there, I can't WAIT for Ridley to be in the line-up next year! We're missing that, "DAWG!" that "Alpha!" on the outside as the kids say". 

That's a lot of IF's my friend. A lot of IF's. The same IF's we heard in the 2022 off season, the same IF's we heard in the 2023 off season, annnnnnnnd it's the same IF's we're hearing now in the 2024 off season. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK6TXMsvgQg

---

(03-07-2024, 08:39 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Why waste a 3rd round investment for a one-year rental to begin with?  Because we thought we were that close to contending for the Super Bowl.  

In my opinion, the $20 million per year that we would have had to give Ridley to re-sign him would be much better spent on offensive linemen.  If we run the ball better, if we can pick up a first down on 3rd and 1, if we can protect our QB better, we don't even need Ridley. 

Last year, we had 120 running plays that went for zero yards or a loss.  That's about 7 times per game.  You can't win games that way.  So I really don't care that we failed to retain Ridley.  He's irrelevant if we don't have a much better offensive line.

Replying again because you tacked on the running plays. Again, my response still counters this point. They'll get the ground game fixed, they'll get more competence out of Etienne and then we'll still be pissing and moaning when we don't have a receiver on the outside that can separate at the top of his route, make the tough grab and not cough it up in a road game in the play-off's. 

I can see it now, we'll be in Kansas City, Buffalo or Cincinatti in January of 2025 and we'll see the same exact nonsense from the 2022 season. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. I'll be the first one on here to say I told you so or I'll HAPPILY eat my crow if I got this wrong. PIN IT. I don't care. I just have a hunch.

I'm just saying, constructing a roster involves choices.  You can't have it all.  I'd rather allocate the money we would have spent on Ridley to the offensive line.

In regards to your answer #1 above, it sounds like you are saying we should give up on our offensive line because we have tried and failed to improve it in the past.  Is that what you're saying?

(03-07-2024, 08:55 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-07-2024, 08:45 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]Then there's something fundamentally wrong with their thought process and approach in that building. We were never one player away from the Super Bowl. Pretty naive to believe. 

And, as previously cited about that philosophy with the $20M being allocated to the offensive line, here's my problem with that. 

1. We've been hearing that now for three years. The guy still in charge of finding these players has swung and missed on this group more times than not. Including giving out contracts to players that cost the team games last year and had a perfectly good waste of a 2nd RD pick at LT rotting away to replace the $17.M cap hit now.

2. Immediately after the 2022 play-off loss to Kansas City, we kept hearing, "If Kirk just could have hauled in that one pass, If Agnew just could have held onto the football instead of fumbling it there, I can't WAIT for Ridley to be in the line-up next year! We're missing that, "DAWG!" that "Alpha!" on the outside as the kids say". 

That's a lot of IF's my friend. A lot of IF's. The same IF's we heard in the 2022 off season, the same IF's we heard in the 2023 off season, annnnnnnnd it's the same IF's we're hearing now in the 2024 off season. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK6TXMsvgQg

---

Replying again because you tacked on the running plays. Again, my response still counters this point. They'll get the ground game fixed, they'll get more competence out of Etienne and then we'll still be pissing and moaning when we don't have a receiver on the outside that can separate at the top of his route, make the tough grab and not cough it up in a road game in the play-off's. 

I can see it now, we'll be in Kansas City, Buffalo or Cincinatti in January of 2025 and we'll see the same exact nonsense from the 2022 season. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. I'll be the first one on here to say I told you so or I'll HAPPILY eat my crow if I got this wrong. PIN IT. I don't care. I just have a hunch.

I'm just saying, constructing a roster involves choices.  You can't have it all.  I'd rather allocate the money we would have spent on Ridley to the offensive line.

In regards to your answer #1 above, it sounds like you are saying we should give up on our offensive line because we have tried and failed to improve it in the past.  Is that what you're saying?

Negative. I am saying we're repeating the definition of insanity for the third straight year and off-season in a row. Expecting the same guy in charge of the personnel department to achieve something he's yet to show over the last two, three years.

I am saying, don't hold your breath and don't get your hopes up when we don't get adequate enough talent to get this team over the barely .500 hump for the third straight year in a row. 

We're expecting the same guy, to, replace the WR1 role, replace the CB2 and Nickel CB role, replace a big bodied DT, the C position, the LG position, and potentially the LT and RG position in one off season. Again, to your point, that is correct, you can't have it all.

BUT... you speak of the Super Bowl and we were supposedly "close" and yet, when you look at the teams that typically hit that achievement? Guess what they normally have? They relatively "have it all". Star QB, Star playmaker on offense, a consistent game changer, a chain mover, a running game, a solid offensive line, a disruptive defense, again, usually enough stars to make enough plays at every level.

Honest question here, and take your time, name me the superstars on this team that you see, and, how far off are we from being where we need to be to win the Superbowl, how many players are we off from achieving your vision, and, can it realistically be accomplished in one off season? 

Cheers!

(03-07-2024, 08:55 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-07-2024, 08:45 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]Then there's something fundamentally wrong with their thought process and approach in that building. We were never one player away from the Super Bowl. Pretty naive to believe. 

And, as previously cited about that philosophy with the $20M being allocated to the offensive line, here's my problem with that. 

1. We've been hearing that now for three years. The guy still in charge of finding these players has swung and missed on this group more times than not. Including giving out contracts to players that cost the team games last year and had a perfectly good waste of a 2nd RD pick at LT rotting away to replace the $17.M cap hit now.

2. Immediately after the 2022 play-off loss to Kansas City, we kept hearing, "If Kirk just could have hauled in that one pass, If Agnew just could have held onto the football instead of fumbling it there, I can't WAIT for Ridley to be in the line-up next year! We're missing that, "DAWG!" that "Alpha!" on the outside as the kids say". 

That's a lot of IF's my friend. A lot of IF's. The same IF's we heard in the 2022 off season, the same IF's we heard in the 2023 off season, annnnnnnnd it's the same IF's we're hearing now in the 2024 off season. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK6TXMsvgQg

---

Replying again because you tacked on the running plays. Again, my response still counters this point. They'll get the ground game fixed, they'll get more competence out of Etienne and then we'll still be pissing and moaning when we don't have a receiver on the outside that can separate at the top of his route, make the tough grab and not cough it up in a road game in the play-off's. 

I can see it now, we'll be in Kansas City, Buffalo or Cincinatti in January of 2025 and we'll see the same exact nonsense from the 2022 season. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. I'll be the first one on here to say I told you so or I'll HAPPILY eat my crow if I got this wrong. PIN IT. I don't care. I just have a hunch.

I'm just saying, constructing a roster involves choices.  You can't have it all.  I'd rather allocate the money we would have spent on Ridley to the offensive line.

In regards to your answer #1 above, it sounds like you are saying we should give up on our offensive line because we have tried and failed to improve it in the past.  Is that what you're saying?

The issue is the GM.

All the problems with the roster have been by his design. He has botched the Oline, DLine, linebacker situation (drafting Muma and Ventrell Miller?), WR room…. He also is the actual worst GM when it comes to drafting in rounds 4-7. That’s not even a debate. He’s the actual worst GM in the league.

Gimme Caldwell back.

---

https://twitter.com/hashtaguars/status/1...915L-t18Xg

(03-06-2024, 09:21 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-06-2024, 09:09 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]This is what good teams do. They move on from guys before they overpay.

What can we do with 15-20M if we move on? We saw what happened when we had him and no help up front.

Nobody is saying he isn't good, or that we'll miss his production. But if we have to gut the roster even more just to keep him around, is it really worth it?

---

I saw rust maybe a few weeks into the season. The rest of the way, it was just we were incapable of running a realistic offense because our line was abhorrent.

We're not a good team. Not implying you're saying we're a good team, but, this team has a lot of work to do in a short amount of time this off season to get itself out of the middle of the road teams. Good teams don't start off 8 - 3 and then proceed to collapse and finish 9 - 8. 

I think people are concerned about having cap space for a front office that has shown for the past three years that they're hit or miss with finding adequate talent, upgrades and we're now entering year three of complaining about the same three issues again.

1. No interior presence on defense. 
2. No interior presence or push on offense. 
3. No "Alpha" or "X" type receiver on the outside for this offense. 

Also, need to put definitions or parameters around the term "gutting" when it comes to this roster. They're hovering around $50M in cap space, they could maybe make the next most logical choice, and that's outright cut Cam Robinson to come up with the $17.5M to maybe fork over towards Ridley, but, due to said incompetence above? We don't have a reliable or confident answer for Cam Robinson.

Because, if it was Walker Little? Cam's sorry, overpaid [BLEEP] is already off the roster by now, so, there's that. I think what bothers most of us, like Hurricane is stating, is that, we essentially pissed away a 3rd RD pick on a team that we're currently seeing a little bit of "gutting" to make room for massive contract's that are due more than likely at the end of this year, going into 2025, etc. 

The needle isn't moving enough in the right direction, we're right there in the middle, and with this many holes and concerns, again, THE SAME HOLES AND CONCERNS we've been griping about for now three years in a row? This team feels like it's just a really good, smelly, strong Mayport gust of wind from falling down to being a 6 - 11 team or worse. 

I know, I know, "But..but..but..Caldrac...C'mon man.... it's not NEARLY as bad as it was X amount of years ago". Yes, you're right. I agree. But, it's damn near close to being a brief fart in the wind with blundered opportunities. We're not capitalizing enough. Otherwise we're not having this conversation or debate now. 

Cheers though!

Yeah, wasn't necessarily projecting "good" onto us, but maybe "wise" would have been a better word choice. Don't fall in love with a player, whether it's FA, darft or renewals. Know when the juice isn't worth the squeeze, and be prepared to walk away. We may not fully be prepared, but we're also seeing the end result of spending like madmen a few years back - we got good production out of a few, but now we have to wave goodbye to starters to keep the cap healthy. I certainly hope our current leadership is paying attention to what wise teams do to model their own decision making.

So now we are facing the reality of multiple holes to fill, and limited resources to address the matter - we only have so much cap room and so many picks. Do we throw 40% of our open cap at Rid? We know Allen is going to cost 40-50% as well. Do we make any effort to bring in vets at either LG or C, or do we solely rely on rookies to address those gaps? What about Foley, Jenkins, Williams, and other potential starters that are gone? I don't envy our GM for having to navigate these waters, but that chunky salary sure makes the headaches a lot easier to bear, I'm sure.

You're right that a savvy team would be more prepared at this point. Young guys would be ready to take over for the guys you walk away from. No idea if that happens this year in the form of returning youth (Johnson, Buster, Lacy?) or darft, but next year the cycle will repeat with a new cast - we'll be making cap decisions and potentially walking away from good players (Campbell, Cisco, Zay, Kirk, Etienne). If we spend like crazy again this year just to maintain status quo, I don't see how we expect results to improve.

(03-06-2024, 10:00 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Amp Wigg hit it on the head yesterday.

So many resources thrown at the Oline... Still a massive need.
So many resources thrown at CB.... Still a massive need.
So many resources thrown at the DLline.... Still a massive need.
So many resources thrown at WR... Still a massive need.

Baalke is being saved by Trevor and Doug Pederson.

I don't think CB is a massive need. And cap-wise nearly everyone in that room is on rookie or low-dollar contracts.

Outside of Ham, what significant resources do we have thrown at the DL?

Is WR a massive need? Yes, we currently have not re-signed a 1000 yard receiver, but seems to be a prevailing view that there are a plethora of good receivers available in this darft. Between Engram, Kirk, Zay and Etienne, I think the passing game is fine.

Maybe I'm just more chill than Amp.

(03-06-2024, 11:38 AM)cland Wrote: [ -> ]Something I read on PFT caught my eye regarding Ridley...that I don't think has been settled on this board yet.  It states "Tagging Allen means that the Jaguars won’t be using a franchise or transition tag on wide receiver Calvin Ridley. If he re-signs with the team, they will send a second-round pick to the Falcons to complete their trade for the wideout. If he doesn’t return, it will be a third-round selection."

I think the general consensus was that if Ridley hits the FA market, then resigned that the traded pick would still be a 3.  However the above statement, indicates that no matter when Ridley resigns with the Jaguars that the traded pick would be a 2.

Now I don't know if the above statement is accurate--or it's missing language--but assuming it's true it would certainly add to the "cost" of signing Ridley in FA.  It makes sense that the trade clause couldn't be so easily reduced by having Ridley not sign his agreed upon contract until the first day of FA.  On the other hand, what if he doesn't sign until after the actual draft?

PFT Article

Just wondering if someone had evidence of something more definitive.

My ventured guess would be that the assumption here is that we don't let Rid test the FA waters. So if we get a deal done before next Tues when the league year begins, yeah, we're on the hook for a twoth rounder.

If the old contract expires, I think the terms of the deal are closed.

Disclaimer: not a lawyer

---

(03-06-2024, 02:06 PM)Protozoa Wrote: [ -> ]I think Kirk and Zay going down hurt Ridley in that it makes it seem like his number were more to do with picking up slack than making a difference. If Ridley had put up the numbers he did with Kirk and Zay in the line up the whole year then there would be no question about resigning him.

IIRC Rid's numbers remained pretty level throughout the year. Engram's numbers spiked when Kirk went down, especially.

(03-07-2024, 06:19 AM)Hurricane Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think Ridley should be resigned to a big contract, but I do think he should of been tagged and given another year to see if hes worth a big contract or not.

...and in doing so let Allen test FA?

Which is easier to find, a 1000-yard receiver or a 15-sack OLB?

(03-07-2024, 09:42 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-06-2024, 10:00 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Amp Wigg hit it on the head yesterday.

So many resources thrown at the Oline... Still a massive need.
So many resources thrown at CB.... Still a massive need.
So many resources thrown at the DLline.... Still a massive need.
So many resources thrown at WR... Still a massive need.

Baalke is being saved by Trevor and Doug Pederson.

I don't think CB is a massive need. And cap-wise nearly everyone in that room is on rookie or low-dollar contracts.

Outside of Ham, what significant resources do we have thrown at the DL?

Is WR a massive need? Yes, we currently have not re-signed a 1000 yard receiver, but seems to be a prevailing view that there are a plethora of good receivers available in this darft. Between Engram, Kirk, Zay and Etienne, I think the passing game is fine.

Maybe I'm just more chill than Amp.

They're all still massive needs which is why you see everyone mock has the Jags taking a CB, WR, OL or DT.

CB- as of now, Campbell is the only starting CB with real experience. Montaric Brown played ok but is still very unproven.
DL- Foley, RRH, Smoot, Chaisson, Travon (who actually is good), Jay Tufele, Jordan Smith.... And yet the Jags still struggle with consistent pressure.
WR- Zay is currently the only starting outside WR on this team with experience and he's a WR3. Kirk is a vertical slot and is very good but he isn't an outside WR.
IOL- no LG at the moment, horrific center, aged and declining RG, Overpaid LT who is a PED away from a year suspension and a very good RT in Anton

Baalke isn't good and appears to never have a vision. He patches up all his mistakes with money and hasn't accumulated building blocks through draft picks (which is what ALL great teams do). Who are the true building blocks he has drafted? Trevor, Anton, Travon. Not sure you can definitively add Campbell, Lloyd, Antonio, or Cisco to that mix. I don't have any faith in Baalke to build a championship level roster which is what you need if you want to compete with the Ravens, Chiefs, Bengals, Bills..... Which is the end goal right?

(03-07-2024, 09:08 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-07-2024, 08:55 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I'm just saying, constructing a roster involves choices.  You can't have it all.  I'd rather allocate the money we would have spent on Ridley to the offensive line.

In regards to your answer #1 above, it sounds like you are saying we should give up on our offensive line because we have tried and failed to improve it in the past.  Is that what you're saying?

Negative. I am saying we're repeating the definition of insanity for the third straight year and off-season in a row. Expecting the same guy in charge of the personnel department to achieve something he's yet to show over the last two, three years.

I am saying, don't hold your breath and don't get your hopes up when we don't get adequate enough talent to get this team over the barely .500 hump for the third straight year in a row. 

We're expecting the same guy, to, replace the WR1 role, replace the CB2 and Nickel CB role, replace a big bodied DT, the C position, the LG position, and potentially the LT and RG position in one off season. Again, to your point, that is correct, you can't have it all.

BUT... you speak of the Super Bowl and we were supposedly "close" and yet, when you look at the teams that typically hit that achievement? Guess what they normally have? They relatively "have it all". Star QB, Star playmaker on offense, a consistent game changer, a chain mover, a running game, a solid offensive line, a disruptive defense, again, usually enough stars to make enough plays at every level.

Honest question here, and take your time, name me the superstars on this team that you see, and, how far off are we from being where we need to be to win the Superbowl, how many players are we off from achieving your vision, and, can it realistically be accomplished in one off season? 

Cheers!

I don't think we are one offseason from Super Bowl contention.  I think it will take at least 2 offseasons if we are lucky.  We have at least 5 needs- 2 on the interior offensive line, interior defensive line, cornerback, and wide receiver.   

So, based on your answer above, what you are saying is, there is no hope.  That's a reasonable position to take.  Nothing wrong with that.  I've chosen to have hope because I'm a lot happier that way.  Besides, if there is no hope, what's the point of even discussing what we think the team should do?  I think we have a good QB and a good head coach, and if we can improve our offensive line and get the running game going more consistently, if all things stay the same, we should be an 11-win team or a 12-win team.  Last year, we put our offense in 2nd-and-12 and 3rd-and-12 consistently.  And that crippled our offense.  

I think it was reasonable to think we were close to having a great team, because of the way we finished the 2022 season.  We were wrong.  It happens to almost everybody.  

And, one of my pet peeves is, "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result" is NOT the definition of insanity.  I wish people would stop saying that.

(03-07-2024, 09:42 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-06-2024, 10:00 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Amp Wigg hit it on the head yesterday.

So many resources thrown at the Oline... Still a massive need.
So many resources thrown at CB.... Still a massive need.
So many resources thrown at the DLline.... Still a massive need.
So many resources thrown at WR... Still a massive need.

Baalke is being saved by Trevor and Doug Pederson.

I don't think CB is a massive need. And cap-wise nearly everyone in that room is on rookie or low-dollar contracts.

Outside of Ham, what significant resources do we have thrown at the DL?

Is WR a massive need? Yes, we currently have not re-signed a 1000 yard receiver, but seems to be a prevailing view that there are a plethora of good receivers available in this darft. Between Engram, Kirk, Zay and Etienne, I think the passing game is fine.

Maybe I'm just more chill than Amp.

I agree with most of what Wig said but he wasn't high on Allen at all and wanted to trade him last year and he was very high Jawaan Taylor and wanted to extend him.  With that said Baalke hasn't been very good.  They last couple years I think Baalke let the coaches get theybguys they wanted in the draft.  Doug is a good coach but not a guy I want picking his players.  Hopefully they let Nielsen who he wants on defense.  Between Baalke and Nielsen I think they can find the right guys on D.  Offense I'm not sure.  This draft and FA will be very telling and if we are heading in the right direction.  I'm not going to get up or down until I see FA and the draft.