Quote:This team needs either Josh Norman or Jalen Ramsey / Vernon Hargreaves III / Eli Apple some really good corner in order to be good this year... otherwise they are going to continue to get killed in the passing game.. sure tashaun gipson helps out a lot along with M. Jackson & healthy Fowler & Marks back to the line along with Odrick and Miller ... having Prince & House is great but they still could use one more good corner (IMO)
But see also what Gettleman says:
Quote:Shutdown corner is a misnomer. There's very few of them. It's so hard. You can't cover forever. If there's no pass rush, there's no shutdown corners.
Dallas appears not to be interested in Joey Bosa, and with the Eagles & Rams trading up for 1 & 2 for most likely QBs Jared Goff & Wentz that only leaves the Chargers if he is the guy you want unless you are thinking of Shaq Lawson as the edge rusher in the draft?
---------------Lawson--------------
Bleacher Report's Matt Miller reports "at least" a dozen teams passed Lawson on his physical, but a couple teams want to take another look. He is scheduled to go back for the medical re-check in April. Lawson reportedly played through the shoulder issue in college. Lawson is a first-round talent, but he could slide down draft boards if the re-check reveals a structural problem. Mar 17 - 11:40 AM
Source: Albert Breer on Twitter
-----------------Ramsey-------------------------
Dallas very high on Ohio State RB Ezekiel Elliott along with CB Jalen Ramsey
(April 9th
Source: Draftinsider.net from Rotoworld)
He added a 41 1/2-inch vertical at 6-foot-1, 209 pounds. Although evaluators seem split on Ramsey's NFL position, his athleticism can't be questioned. He finished first in both the broad jump and vertical among defensive backs in this year's class, and came in seventh in the forty. Per NFL Network researcher Evan Lazar, Ramsey's 11-foot-3 broad jump tied for fifth best by a defensive back at the Combine since NFL Net began charting every drill in 2003. Feb 29 - 1:24 PM
(Source: Evan Lazar on Twitter)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIGc2LooeFs
--------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Quote:If the defense is improved like it should be, an idiot could go 8-8 to 9-7 with this team. Especially with that schedule.
What makes you believe it's even close to fixed? Gus Bradley is still here. He's been inept every year he's been here with a #25-#30 ranked D. Clapping your hands doesn't make you better Gus
Not sure anyone would be safe after a season that ends with 3 wins.
I have to believe we'll take another step.
Maybe it doesn't result in a lot more wins. And maybe the end result isn't good enough to keep the coaching staff.
But I can not fathom this team only winning 3 games this season after winning 5 last season and being really close to winning a couple more.
The thread elicited some engaging discussions but the title is misleading.
ESPN Writers as a unit did not predict a 3-13 record. The poster macro tallied win predictions based on individual assessments. As someone stated, on an individual team v team basis, many will dismiss Jags, within reason. Nearly all NFL fans would predict a W for their team v. Jags. Winning changes that. We have to earn our way out of easy dismissals.
If you asked ESPN Writers as a unit to predict for the year, you'd see the expected 5 to 8 win predictions.
Quote:The thread elicited some engaging discussions but the title is misleading.
ESPN Writers as a unit did not predict a 3-13 record. The poster macro tallied win predictions based on individual assessments. As someone stated, on an individual team v team basis, many will dismiss Jags, within reason. Nearly all NFL fans would predict a W for their team v. Jags. Winning changes that. We have to earn our way out of easy dismissals.
If you asked ESPN Writers as a unit to predict for the year, you'd see the expected 5 to 8 win predictions.
Not only did they not predict it as a unit, they didn't predict it individually, either. Nobody sees the Jaguars as a 3-13 team, and the OP knows that full well. This is trolling at its... well, not it's best, because it's pretty weak. At its most typical? Maybe.
As you say, ESPN writers would probably all predict 5-8 wins (maybe a bit higher - the Jaguars are the go-to 'ready to make the jump' team along with the Raiders this year, so predictions would probably span up to 9 or 10 wins). They just all predict that *someone else* will be giving the Jaguars their wins.
Until we start winning football games. It's going to be this way.
We've been a pretty bad football team folks. The last time we finished at .500 was six years ago under JDR. We went 8-8 in 2010.
2011 - 5 & 11
2012 - 2 & 14
2013 - 4 & 12
2014 - 3 & 13
2015 - 5 & 11
It's garbage. And until we see W's. I won't take anything to heart that the National Media has to say. We play the NFC North and AFC West this year. Not that bad. But from a Win and Loss perspective. All of those teams were better than us last year. With the exception of the Chargers (Who beat us anyway) last year. Anything can happen. But I don't believe in Gus Bradley. I think it'll be miraculous if he manages to win seven or eight games this year. I am hopeful we win nine or ten and sneak into the play-offs as the 6th seed though if the defense decdies to show up this year on third down and the offense can cutback on turnovers and actually run the football.
Making predictions on past trends is usually a safer bet but at some point they're all going to be wrong.
Quote:Making predictions on past trends is usually a safer bet but at some point they're all going to be wrong.
It's also lazy thinking. Your predictions will *never* be accurate in a changing model if all you're willing to predict is what happened last year.
Quote:It's also lazy thinking. Your predictions will *never* be accurate in a changing model if all you're willing to predict is what happened last year.
How is it lazy thinking? The past is the best and only true measurement to judge a team... We know the Pats are gonna be good because they have been good for years or the past per say... So that same notion can be used to judge bad teams.. Its not lazy thinking but logical..
Hella lazy. As said, in a system with constant changes, the past shouldn't be the crux of one's future predictions, which is what these 'analysts' often lazily go by.
Quote:Not only did they not predict it as a unit, they didn't predict it individually, either. Nobody sees the Jaguars as a 3-13 team, and the OP knows that full well. This is trolling at its... well, not it's best, because it's pretty weak. At its most typical? Maybe.
As you say, ESPN writers would probably all predict 5-8 wins (maybe a bit higher - the Jaguars are the go-to 'ready to make the jump' team along with the Raiders this year, so predictions would probably span up to 9 or 10 wins). They just all predict that *someone else* will be giving the Jaguars their wins.
The OP has a history of validating his opinions by making things up.
Quote:How is it lazy thinking? The past is the best and only true measurement to judge a team... We know the Pats are gonna be good because they have been good for years or the past per say... So that same notion can be used to judge bad teams.. Its not lazy thinking but logical..
Things change in the NFL every year. If your prediction is based solely on the past, it's not a prediction. You'll never predict the teams that go from fourth to first in their divisions. You'll never predict the rises and falls that are inevitable.
Sure, you can judge a team on its results. But we're not talking about that here - we're talking about predictions. (And in this case, predictions that were never actually made...) And if you're saying you can't predict a team to improve because they were bad last year, then you're saying you suck at predicting.
Quote:Things change in the NFL every year. If your prediction is based solely on the past, it's not a prediction. You'll never predict the teams that go from fourth to first in their divisions. You'll never predict the rises and falls that are inevitable.
You should always base predictions on what has happened in the recent past. The sun has come up earlier and set later every day this year. Based on that, by the end of the year that there will no longer be any night.
*sitting in for brklyn. she's busy*
welp
Quote:You should always base predictions on what has happened in the recent past. The sun has come up earlier and set later every day this year. Based on that, by the end of the year that there will no longer be any night.
As someone who works in an industry based on making forecasts and predictions, this philosophy would put you in the unemployment line in a heartbeat.
Predictions are made by analyzing data and comparing them to historical trends, not on what happened yesterday.
Stating what happened recently is not a prediction, it is just stating what happened recently.
Well thank God forecasting is what you do, Predator, not language assessment, or recognition.
Quote:Well thank God forecasting is what you do, Predator, not language assessment, or recognition.
Looks like I missed the sarcasm at the end.
Oh well, back to numbers.
ESPN writers were correct