Come on dude. I usually don't jump on you like everyone else does but you know this isn't true.

 

Mack is widely considered one of the elite prospects in this draft (Robinson, Watkins, Mack, and Clowney). Alualu was no where near the top of anyones board. Mack in some cases has been mocked #1... Was Alualu ever mocked in the top 20? By anyone?!

 

Read what I said about Ware, above. Ware didn't even go top 5 or even top 10....and he is and was better than Mack. 

---

And if they did that draft over again, you think Ware would still last to #10? nope.

 

He'd be the second pick after Aaron Rodgers

---

And if they did that draft over again, you think Ware would still last to #10? nope.

 

Exactly, Ware is a bit of a freak. He wasn't expected to be as good as he is, and he was already better than Mack at the time of his drafting. If you think Mack is somehow going to be similar to Ware as a pro, well....c'mon man.....lol. 

---

Ware and Mack shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence. 

---

He's right. ....Other than the few Mack fanboys we have on here it would be a waste of value to select Mack at 3. Disappointing to most. 

 

You are just setting up a scenario where you can complain if we draft Mack and things go wrong, even though he is a top 5 pick in every talent evaluators eyes.

---

Ware and Mack shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence. 

 

exactly. 

---

Read what I said about Ware, above. Ware didn't even go top 5 or even top 10....and he's better than Mack. 

And? That just means the teams that selected Cedric Benson, Cadillac Williams, Troy Williamson, Ronnie Brown, Mike Williams and Antrel Rolle all made stupid selections because they felt Ware playing at Troy somehow hurt him.

 

If Ware and Mack are somewhat comparable (Ware obviously being better), you don't think those teams would take Mack over all those other duds?

---

Ware and Mack shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence. 

 

You can say that about every single prospect.

 

You shouldn't mention Bridgewater and Aikman/Luck in the same sentence, but some people do.  (I'm looking at you, TMD)

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

exactly. 

If we can't trade down and Clowney/Watkins are off the board, who do you want the Jags to select? You wouldn't want Mack on this team?

---

If we can't trade down and Clowney/Watkins are off the board, who do you want the Jags to select? You wouldn't want Mack on this team?

 

If we stay at 3?....

 

one of Manziel/ Bridgewater/ Matthews

 

 

I won't mind if we trade back and then selected Mack. 

---

If we stay at 3?....

 

one of Manziel/ Bridgewater/ Matthews

 

 

I won't mind if we trade back and then selected Mack. 

 

You always talk about trading back.  Other teams are going to squeeze as much out of us as we are trying to squeeze them.  It's not always an option.

 

You think you can push an agenda, and your way is the only way.  It's amazing.

---

Ware and Mack shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence. 

 

(Pro Bowl player) and (Prospect) shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence.

---

;

;

If we stay at 3?....

 

one of Manziel/ Bridgewater/ Matthews

 

 

I won't mind if we trade back and then selected Mack. 

So you think Bridgewater is a better prospect than Mack?

---

If we stay at 3?....

 

one of Manziel/ Bridgewater/ Matthews

 

 

I won't mind if we trade back and then selected Mack. 

 

Yeah, Bridgewater would be a great value...

---

;

;

Yes, absolutely. 

 

Mack after a trade down, I'm okay with. Mack at 3 reeks of Alualu all over again. 

 

except for the fact that alualu was widely predicted by pretty much everyone to go no earlier than the second round and mack is projected top 5 by pretty much everyone on earth, but he is your new target so no point in really arguing with you. 

 

#becausehashtags

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

So you think Bridgewater is a better prospect than Mack?

 

 

Yeah, Bridgewater would be a great value...

 

I think Bridgewater at 3 is better value than Mack at 3, yes. 

---

I think Bridgewater at 3 is better value than Mack at 3, yes. 

Yikes... which scenerio here is better. Assuming we can't make any trades and stay at #3 and #39

 

Mack and Garropolo/Mettenberg

 

Bridgewater and Dee Ford/Van Noy

---

New Year, Same Song

 

I didn't come here lookin' for trouble,

I just came to do The TMD Shuffle

---

If we stay at 3?....

 

one of Manziel/ Bridgewater/ Matthews

 

 

I won't mind if we trade back and then selected Mack. 

 

matthews is projected to go 10-15 so that to me based on your logic would scream alualu all over again. taking a player at 3 instead of further down the draft where he belongs...... right? just like you were saying?

 

and also if the jaguars do draft mack at 3, and he becomes a perennial pro bowler.. still a waste because you say he could be grabbed lower and you get another draft pick in a trade down scenario. 

 

there is just no making you happy. youre an anti-fan. just likes to stir up controversy when the barstool isnt feeling as good. 

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

I think Mack is going to be a Terrell Suggs type player. He'll average about 8 sacks a year and make a few other disruptive plays like forced fumbles and interceptions.


Now whether that's worth the third pick of the draft is up for debate. I wouldn't mind it but we would need to still land a playmaking WR at some point early in the draft then.

---