Absolutely.  Bought them when I moved here from DC; the same year we drafted Leftwich.

---

Wow, OK.   I'm surprised you could still root for a loss in the stadium.  I have to admit, I was kinda "meh" walking in, but once they kicked off, there was NO WAY I could not root for a win.

I get your point about draft position, but I just can't root against my team.    I did mention on our way out that that would hurt our draft position, but was still glad to beat the colts.

A meaningless win on the tail end of a lost season isn't a win, it's actually a loss going forward.

The season essentially ended a couple of weeks ago, now every game they win at the end of this season is essentially just making it harder for the team to win in the future.

So while I'll forgive the short-sighted fan that just wants their id fed right now, I can do without the histrionics judging those fans that care more about the team's success moving forward in the future.

---

Wow, OK.   I'm surprised you could still root for a loss in the stadium.  I have to admit, I was kinda "meh" walking in, but once they kicked off, there was NO WAY I could not root for a win.

I get your point about draft position, but I just can't root against my team.    I did mention on our way out that that would hurt our draft position, but was still glad to beat the colts.

A meaningless win on the tail end of a lost season isn't a win, it's actually a loss going forward.

The season essentially ended a couple of weeks ago, now every game they win at the end of this season is essentially just making it harder for the team to win in the future.

So while I'll forgive the short-sighted fan that just wants their id fed right now, I can do without the histrionics judging those fans that care more about the team's success moving forward in the future.

Bolded is hogwash. 

That's mere speculation dependant upon the incredibly dubious assumption that picking 13th instead of 7th is going to actually impact anything negatively. Chances of things working out that way are similar to what you'll get playing the pass line at the craps table - and you may not see the benefit or detriment of the pick for some time to come. 

I pay good money to attend the games, and I don't do that to see them forfeit winnable contests.  And believe me pal,  it doesn't have a damn thing to do with my id, my ego, any type of short-sightedness, or your sophomore psych class.

---

A meaningless win on the tail end of a lost season isn't a win, it's actually a loss going forward.

The season essentially ended a couple of weeks ago, now every game they win at the end of this season is essentially just making it harder for the team to win in the future.

So while I'll forgive the short-sighted fan that just wants their id fed right now, I can do without the histrionics judging those fans that care more about the team's success moving forward in the future.

Bolded is hogwash. 

That's mere speculation dependant upon the incredibly dubious assumption that picking 13th instead of 7th is going to actually impact anything negatively. Chances of things working out that way are similar to what you'll get playing the pass line at the craps table - and you may not see the benefit or detriment of the pick for some time to come. 

I pay good money to attend the games, and I don't do that to see them forfeit winnable contests.  And believe me pal,  it doesn't have a damn thing to do with my id, my ego, any type of short-sightedness, or your sophomore psych class.

Exactly. The season ticket holders deserve the wins, at least at home

---

Brady was selected with pick #199, a compensatory pick, in the sixth round of the 2000 NFL Draft.

Because Tom Brady's are available in every round of every draft?

---

My brain says the season is lost and playing for the highest draft pick is smart strategy.

But my heart says JUST WIN BABY! Shutting out the clots and severely damaging their wild card hopes is priceless.

This sums up my perspective exactly.  

If we win now we may lose out later but I enjoy every victory.

Exactly.

---

I know only one thing for certain; I will NEVER want to see this team lose to the colts, either in a tanking manner or by just sheer incompetence.

I'll take a win over them any day of the week, thank you. Call me petty, but any day we can watch the Jags stack the deck against the colts winning the division is a good day.

Even years ago when Indy purposely rested players in Week 17 in attempt to get the #1 draft pick so they could take Andrew Luck?  Had we lost that game, the Colts would have taken RG III with the #2 pick

Bingo.

Did that meaningless end of season win stack the deck against the Colts winning the division or even making the playoffs in 2011?  No.  The Colts were nowhere close to either accomplishment.

But did that meaningless end of season win stack the deck against the Colts beating us, making the playoffs, or winning the division from 2012 forward?  No.  With that loss, the Colts were able to take Andrew Luck, and they have been in contention most of the time since then, which is more than what the Jaguars can say during the same time period.

I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

We have picked at the top of the draft for years and really hasn't produced great results.  Forget the draft, I want to see wins.  Stomp on the titans thursday too

In many of those years, we had Gene Smith picking the players.  We know how that went.

Since 2013, Caldwell has been picking the players.  Our roster is more talented as a result, even though he missed on a QB.

But your post tacitly argues that since we haven't drafted well picking high, we have a better chance of improving the team by picking lower and choosing from a smaller talent pool.

That doesn't make much sense to me.

---

All the so called fans that want us to lose so we can somehow end up with a better draft position should take note that this franchise has never actually drafted a franchise QB. Leftwitch, Gabbert, and Bortles have all been Top 10 draft picks and none of them have worked out. 

I also don't have a lot of confidence with the current regime as they are 0-1 when it comes to franchise QB picks, so I'd rather try and win and see how everything shakes out.

I have never argued that picking highly does guarantee success in finding a franchise QB or any other position.

But how does picking lower improve the odds?

---

How about Mahomes and Watson? Drew Brees? Russell Wilson? Aaron Rodgers? Matt Ryan?

1st rounder. 1st rounder. Top of the 2nd. 3rd rounder. 1st rounder. 3rd overall.

 The only point people are trying to make is that having a higher draft pick gives you the better chance to take the player you want. There are more players to choose from giving you the better chance to nail the pick.

I understand you're trying to prove a point that QBs can come from all over but of the 32 opening day starters, 24 of them were 1st rounders and 16 of those were top 10 picks. A couple more just outside the top 10.

Exactly.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

1st rounder. 1st rounder. Top of the 2nd. 3rd rounder. 1st rounder. 3rd overall.

 The only point people are trying to make is that having a higher draft pick gives you the better chance to take the player you want. There are more players to choose from giving you the better chance to nail the pick.

I understand you're trying to prove a point that QBs can come from all over but of the 32 opening day starters, 24 of them were 1st rounders and 16 of those were top 10 picks. A couple more just outside the top 10.

My point is you don’t have to have a top 10 pick to find your guy. You DO need to find your guy in the first round to have the best chance AND have a FO smart enough to identify those guys, but it doesn’t have to be a top pick.

This argument tends to fail on a couple of levels.

If it's NOT particularly advantageous to have a top ten pick when it comes to getting a franchise QB, why DO you NEED to find your guy in the first round?  Why not wait until the 6th or 7th round?  You can find examples of teams hitting on guys at virtually every position-including QBs-at that point in the draft or later.

Furthermore, by picking lower in the draft order, you have to count on the other teams ahead of you getting it wrong.  You also have to count on teams behind you either not being able to trade ahead of you to get your guy, or by not targeting your guy if they move ahead of you.

---

Well Leftwich and Gabbert were second choice QBs. Palmer/Newton went before them. So before people go off on this look how it worked in the past ... they were second choices. Bortles was #3 overall and a total project. That QB class was absolutely terrible. Using those as examples as to saying why it hasn't worked out... is so dumb. We likely will be stuck with a second choice QB again. Only way to get the best guy is a higher pick and try to move to #1. Moving from 10 to 1 would be selling the absolute farm. Won't be done. 5 to 1? Yes this can happen. One more win and we've likely completely tied ourselves with the second choice.

Well, it's not the "only way" to get the best guy.

It's entirely possible that all of the teams ahead of you will either not take a QB, not take the best one, or not trade the pick to a team that will take the best one.

As scarce as franchise QBs are, do you really want to take the chance our guy magically falls to us?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

You always play to win the game... NEVER for draft position.  This is the NFL.  It's PROFESSIONAL football.  Being a professional means doing your job to the best of your ability.  That's why coaches/players work as hard as they do to win the next game... no matter what.  It's what they get paid to do.

My guess is that the people that think the team should play for draft position either a) play too much fantasy football or b) play too much Madden or similar games.

Look at the top 10 picks in the last 3 year's drafts.  There aren't many on the list that are absolute game-changers or stars.  The ones that I would list are as follows.

2015 DRAFT CLASS

Maybe Todd Gurley drafted at #10
Reaching Amari Cooper drafted at #4

2016 DRAFT CLASS

This draft class produced some very good players in the top 5.  After the top 5 it drops off.

Jared Goff drafted #1
Carson Wentz drafted at #2
Joey Bosa drafted at #3
Ezekiel Elliott drafted at #4
Jalen Ramsey drafted at #5

2017 DRAFT CLASS

Only two stick out in my mind making a huge difference for their respective teams.

Leonard Fournette drafted at #4 - He makes a difference in our offense when he is playing.
Patrick Mahomes drafted at #10 - He has been playing lights out and is well worth his draft position.

My point is that getting a high draft pick doesn't always equal success.  There are MANY players drafted near the top that turn into huge busts.  We have one on the team now that was let go by his former team (Ereck Flowers drafted #9 in 2015) that is only on an NFL team due to injuries.

Exactly. I mean are Mayfield, Darnold, Rosen, Allen taking their team to the playoff? Most QB's need a learning curve, Mahomes is a freak one off and plays in an O that gives him lots of options. He doesn't have to make the play, he just needs to find the open receiver. 

I just can't get my head around Jags fans saying high picks gives you the best shot at talent. We are the example it doesn't!

Yes, those of us who advocate draft position assert that having better draft position gives you the best shot at talent.  It is a position established by the NFL itself.

No, those of us who advocate draft position do NOT assert picking a superior player is guaranteed with the high draft position.  Teams still have to get the pick right.  They just have a larger talent pool from which to draw which theoretically improves your chances of getting a good player.

Not a difficult concept.

Consider the top of the 1989 draft.

1.  Troy Aikman-QB
2.  Tony Mandarich
3.  Barry Sanders
4.  Derrick Thomas
5.  Deion Sanders

That's four (4) hall of famers and a bust.  Only one QB.

Teams 3-5 that year (Detroit, Kansas City, Atlanta) all did their homework and got a great player. 

But only one team out of that top five got the franchise signal caller-that was the team picking first-Dallas.

Out of the four teams that drafted Hall of Famers with those top 5 picks, only one of those teams reached the Super Bowl within 5-7 years-the team that took the QB.

Is it possible that those other teams could have concluded that Aikman was the best overall player and the team that could have turned their franchises around?  Absolutely.

But is it possible those other teams could have drafted Aikman?  No, because Dallas, the owner of the first overall pick, was unwilling to trade out of that pick.  They realized the only way to get Aikman was the superior draft position that the #1 pick overall afforded them.

Taking this a little further if you examined the rest of that draft-then 12 rounds-you'll notice something interesting.

While there are good players, the remainder of that draft is completely devoid of Hall of Famers.

You have Steve Atwater who has been nominated but never got the votes.  You will see a guy like Mark Stepnoski who made some Pro Bowls.

But isn't it odd that the Hall of Famers are concentrated at the very top of that class?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Draft position doesn't guarantee squat.

It guarantees a larger talent pool from which to draw at the time of their selection than a team with inferior draft position.

That is undeniable.

There is no way a team picking at 10 has a larger pool of available players from which to choose than a team picking at 1.

Might they ultimately choose more wisely than the team choosing at 1?  Sure.  Nobody asserts otherwise.

Going back to that 1989 draft for a moment, a talent pool that featured Aikman, Derrick Thomas, Barry and Deion Sanders is a far different talent pool than what was available to teams starting at pick 6-7.

Look at the rest of that first round

http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/years/1989

There were some good players picked in the rest of that first round.  If you look closely, you'll see a couple of guys who would become Jaguars (Lageman and Rison).

But as good as the Rison's, Lageman's, Atwater's and Louis Oliver's were, were any of them anywhere near as good as those four guys taken in the top 5?

No.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

A meaningless win on the tail end of a lost season isn't a win, it's actually a loss going forward.

The season essentially ended a couple of weeks ago, now every game they win at the end of this season is essentially just making it harder for the team to win in the future.

So while I'll forgive the short-sighted fan that just wants their id fed right now, I can do without the histrionics judging those fans that care more about the team's success moving forward in the future.

Bolded is hogwash. 

That's mere speculation dependant upon the incredibly dubious assumption that picking 13th instead of 7th is going to actually impact anything negatively. Chances of things working out that way are similar to what you'll get playing the pass line at the craps table - and you may not see the benefit or detriment of the pick for some time to come. 

I pay good money to attend the games, and I don't do that to see them forfeit winnable contests.  And believe me pal,  it doesn't have a damn thing to do with my id, my ego, any type of short-sightedness, or your sophomore psych class.

If teams pick with the idea of picking the best player, with the ultimate goal of winning the Super Bowl, and teams are capable of picking the right player, then picking 13th instead of 7th can negatively impact your draft.

Might you get a good or even great player at 13?  Yes.  I don't assert otherwise.

But it's entirely possible (probable) the best player for you-maybe even a QB-is taken before you pick at 13.

As for you being a season ticket holder and wanting to see the team win, I can certainly understand this perspective being a 24 year STH myself.

But aren't there circumstances that impact your enjoyment of the game even in the event of a win?

Do you want the starters to play all four quarters in a preseason game, using the entire playbook to win?  Why or why not?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

[quote pid='1175746' dateline='1543979272']
 No.  With that loss, the Colts were able to take Andrew Luck, and they have been in contention most of the time since then, which is more than what the Jaguars can say during the same time period.

[/quote]

This says more about how bad the Jaguars have been than how good the clots have been. They have been more competitive than we have, but they haven’t won or even been to a Super Bowl. Meanwhile two QBs taken in the third round of the same draft have won Super Bowls.

---

[quote pid='1175746' dateline='1543979272']
 No.  With that loss, the Colts were able to take Andrew Luck, and they have been in contention most of the time since then, which is more than what the Jaguars can say during the same time period.

This says more about how bad the Jaguars have been than how good the clots have been. They have been more competitive than we have, but they haven’t won or even been to a Super Bowl. Meanwhile two QBs taken in the third round of the same draft have won Super Bowls.
[/quote]

Maybe so, but the Colts have been a contributing factor in our poor performance.

Luck is, by my count 8-4 lifetime against us.

No, the Colts have not been to a Super Bowl under Luck.  But that's more an indictment on the remainder of his team than it is Luck.

The Colts HAVE been to the playoffs several years under Luck.  

Would you honestly rate either Nick Foles or Russell Wilson as better QBs than a healthy Luck?  If so, you are in the minority.

Now would you honestly rate the Colts rosters under Luck as better overall than the Eagles who won the Super Bowl last year, or the Seahawks that won the Super Bowl under Wilson?

If you put Luck on that Eagles' team or on that Seattle team, does he win a Super Bowl?

If you put either Foles or Wilson on the teams Luck has had, do either come close to winning it?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

[quote pid='1175746' dateline='1543979272']
 No.  With that loss, the Colts were able to take Andrew Luck, and they have been in contention most of the time since then, which is more than what the Jaguars can say during the same time period.

This says more about how bad the Jaguars have been than how good the clots have been. They have been more competitive than we have, but they haven’t won or even been to a Super Bowl. Meanwhile two QBs taken in the third round of the same draft have won Super Bowls.

Maybe so, but the Colts have been a contributing factor in our poor performance.

Luck is, by my count 8-4 lifetime against us.

No, the Colts have not been to a Super Bowl under Luck.  But that's more an indictment on the remainder of his team than it is Luck.

The Colts HAVE been to the playoffs several years under Luck.  

Would you honestly rate either Nick Foles or Russell Wilson as better QBs than a healthy Luck?  If so, you are in the minority.

Now would you honestly rate the Colts rosters under Luck as better overall than the Eagles who won the Super Bowl last year, or the Seahawks that won the Super Bowl under Wilson?

If you put Luck on that Eagles' team or on that Seattle team, does he win a Super Bowl?

If you put either Foles or Wilson on the teams Luck has had, do either come close to winning it?
[/quote]

I think that Russell Wilson is every bit as good as Luck. I’m ok with being in the minority.  Still, we’re talking about Andrew Luck, universally regarded as  a generational prospect at the most important position in football and there can still an argument between him and a 3rd round pick in the same class.

Also, you are basically saying that even if you get an Andrew Luck level QB prospect, the level of talent around him matters. Why then is it not better to bring a QB on to a better team. If we all agree that the players are trying to win. Why then is it so much more significant to pick 4 or 5 draft positions earlier than to have several players who are already on your roster play well enough to win 3 or 4 more games.

---

So while I'll forgive the short-sighted fan that just wants their id fed right now, I can do without the histrionics judging those fans that care more about the team's success moving forward in the future.

I pay good money to attend the games, and I don't do that to see them forfeit winnable contests.  And believe me pal,  it doesn't have a damn thing to do with my id, my ego, any type of short-sightedness, or your sophomore psych class.

This ^^^^^

---

Bolded is hogwash. 

That's mere speculation dependant upon the incredibly dubious assumption that picking 13th instead of 7th is going to actually impact anything negatively. Chances of things working out that way are similar to what you'll get playing the pass line at the craps table - and you may not see the benefit or detriment of the pick for some time to come. 

I pay good money to attend the games, and I don't do that to see them forfeit winnable contests.  And believe me pal,  it doesn't have a damn thing to do with my id, my ego, any type of short-sightedness, or your sophomore psych class.

But it's entirely possible (probable) the best player for you-maybe even a QB-is taken before you pick at 13.

As for you being a season ticket holder and wanting to see the team win, I can certainly understand this perspective being a 24 year STH myself.

But aren't there circumstances that impact your enjoyment of the game even in the event of a win?

Do you want the starters to play all four quarters in a preseason game, using the entire playbook to win?  Why or why not?

Regarding the bolded bit of your response - I hesitate to use the word "probable" because of the unpredictable nature of those picks. Is there ostensibly a slight advantage to picking 7th instead of 13th? Sure. It might work out that way. It might not.  With a slight advantage leaning towards 7 being a better spot.  When I put that on a scale and weigh it against watching my team beat a divisional opponent at home and another in prime time -- I'll always choose the wins. 

Cliffs notes: I don't value draft position as much as some in this thread do, and I don't share the trepidation about moving up to get a targeted player in the draft.

RE: the last bit of your post  - 
Preseason games don't end up on the team's record and are not considered the same way when the jobs of coaching staff and better players are on the line. These decisions affect the longevity of a franchise -  and down the stretch losses can lead to such decisions being made from a skewed perspective. I'd rather these decisions be made from a retrospect of the entire season being performed on a level playing field.

---

I think that Russell Wilson is every bit as good as Luck. I’m ok with being in the minority.  Still, we’re talking about Andrew Luck, universally regarded as  a generational prospect at the most important position in football and there can still an argument between him and a 3rd round pick in the same class.

Also, you are basically saying that even if you get an Andrew Luck level QB prospect, the level of talent around him matters. Why then is it not better to bring a QB on to a better team. If we all agree that the players are trying to win. Why then is it so much more significant to pick 4 or 5 draft positions earlier than to have several players who are already on your roster play well enough to win 3 or 4 more games.

First, you are to be commended to be willing to be with the minority.  We all are at one point or another, but to willingly embrace it can be an admirable trait.  Kudos to you on that point, even though we disagree philosophically on the whole draft position thing.  Hopefully you use that for good!

Having dispensed with that, let's assume for argument's sake that Wilson is equal to Luck as a QB (and I don't necessarily disagree with the assertion).  How many 3rd round picks or lower over the last 40 years could be considered legitimate franchise QBs?  I will spot you two (Brady and Montana, and add in Russell Wilson).  Even with that, I submit you'd have a hard time reaching ten-twelve guys.  With Wilson, Montana, and Brady, you are talking about the exception of the exception of the exceptional player.

As to the point about surrounding talent, of course it's better to bring in even a great QB to a team with a great surrounding cast.  But the reality is it rarely happens.  The reality is, consensus franchise QBs are typically gone within the top 5-10 picks of a given draft, and the teams that are in a draft position to get them are typically bad teams without much talent with which to surround the stud rookie QB.  Since franchise QBs are such a rarity, it makes sense to get them when you have the ability to do so and fill in the surrounding talent later.   If you build a talented team without a franchise QB, while you invariably fall short of your goal of winning the Super Bowl, you typically pick so low in the process, the odds of acquiring the franchise signal caller-already low-becomes even lower.

Finally, taking a QB high does not preclude a team from building a good team around them.  The Steelers were a nothing franchise until they selected Bradshaw first overall in the 1970 draft.  In subsequent years, they added Hall of Famers L.C. Greenwood, Jack Ham, Jack Lambert, Mel Blount, Franco Harris, Mike Webster, Lynn Swann and John Stallworth (and at least one more guy that should be in-Donnie Shell).  But had they not finished 1-13 in the 1969 season, they would not have been in position to select Bradshaw. 

Dallas was able to select Troy Aikman first overall in 1989 because they finished 3-13 in 1988.  In subsequent drafts, they added Emmitt Smith, Jay Novacek, Alvin Harper, Erik Williams, Larry Allen, Charles Haley, Leon Lett, Kevin Smith, Darren Woodson, etc.

The Colts were able to select Peyton Manning first overall because they finished 3-13 in 1997.  After adding Manning, they added Edgerrin James, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Dwight Freeney, Robert Mathis and Bob Sanders, and wound up winning the Super Bowl.

In a draft day trade, the Giants were able to deal for Eli Manning, who was selected first overall by the Chargers.  They were only able to pull off this deal:

1.  because the Chargers had the first overall pick and were in position to select Manning
2.  Manning refused to play for the Chargers
3.  There happened to be another QB in that draft (Rivers) that scouts felt was a potential franchise guy in one of the two best QB first rounds in memory (1983 was the gold standard)
4.  The Giants were in a high enough draft position (4th overall) to be in a position to select Rivers (whom the Chargers also liked).
5.  The Giants were willing to pay the rest of the trade compensation to pull off the deal.

If any one of those elements were missing, Eli Manning never ends up a Giant.

But since that happened, the Giants were able to add a bunch of players around him and they became two time Super bowl champs.  But it started with superior draft position.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Kessler was so bad the Camera kept panning to Bortles, I expected them to put him in at the 4th Qtr.

---

I'd prefer they finish 4-0 than 0-4, but I'd also rather them go 0-4 than 1-3 for draft positions sake. If they win out it would be the first time since 06-07 they had back to back non-losing seasons.

---

You always play to win the game... NEVER for draft position.  This is the NFL.  It's PROFESSIONAL football.  Being a professional means doing your job to the best of your ability.  That's why coaches/players work as hard as they do to win the next game... no matter what.  It's what they get paid to do.

My guess is that the people that think the team should play for draft position either a) play too much fantasy football or b) play too much Madden or similar games.

Look at the top 10 picks in the last 3 year's drafts.  There aren't many on the list that are absolute game-changers or stars.  The ones that I would list are as follows.

2015 DRAFT CLASS

Maybe Todd Gurley drafted at #10
Reaching Amari Cooper drafted at #4

2016 DRAFT CLASS

This draft class produced some very good players in the top 5.  After the top 5 it drops off.

Jared Goff drafted #1
Carson Wentz drafted at #2
Joey Bosa drafted at #3
Ezekiel Elliott drafted at #4
Jalen Ramsey drafted at #5

2017 DRAFT CLASS

Only two stick out in my mind making a huge difference for their respective teams.

Leonard Fournette drafted at #4 - He makes a difference in our offense when he is playing.
Patrick Mahomes drafted at #10 - He has been playing lights out and is well worth his draft position.

My point is that getting a high draft pick doesn't always equal success.  There are MANY players drafted near the top that turn into huge busts.  We have one on the team now that was let go by his former team (Ereck Flowers drafted #9 in 2015) that is only on an NFL team due to injuries.

Dude. What?

From 2017 you left out Trubisky, CMac, Adams and Myles Garrett. They're all making a huge difference on their teams.
2016 the entire top 5 plus Stanley and Conklin. Can't leave out Oline.
2015, Scherf is a top 3 guard in the league and Leonard Williams is one of the best DTs in the league.

Still. It's a fact that choosing higher in the draft gives you a better chance of getting a great player. It's not a guarantee but it gives you better odds. Not sure what's so hard to comprehend here.

---