I don't see it as worse value than Mack at all. 

 

At worst. Bridgewater is a similarly skilled player at his position as Mack is at his. So then to break that tie, you consider that Bridgewater plays the most important position on the field, and the above premise is proven incorrect. Bridgewater gives you more value than Mack. 

 

Clowney is the only player that at 3, you can really make the argument that he could give more value than Bridgewater and thats because some project him as one of the better players at his position maybe ever, with his raw talent/ physical ability. 

I like Teddy but not at #3. No way.

---

But heres the difference - even though I am a Teddy fan, I've also prepared myself for a scenario where we don't get him, and get another QB like Manziel or Garoppolo. I can see there are other ways to get value and still be good picks. The Gene Smith method - that I hate, btw, is to fall in love with that one player and take him at your pick, ignoring other variables and opportunities. You can't be so rigid on draft day that you leave points on the field, so to speak.


The only player you absolutely have to take at 3 should they fall to you is Clowney. Bridgewater I really like, and certainly won't complain if they select him at 3, but since he's projected to fall a bit I also won't mind passing on him for a trade down because there would still be the chance to get him after that trade down.

I just went through 16 different prominent/semi-prominent big boards. Every single one had Mack ranked between 3 and 5. About 50% had him at #3. I was going to make it to 20 and post all the links, but my phone sucks and my browser crashed and I'm not going to do it again from my phone.


If EVERY known board has Mack between 3-5 then that's his value. Sorry.

---

I like Teddy but not at #3. No way.

 

Then its no way for both Teddy and Mack at 3. Trade down unless you take Clowney at 3. 

---

Then its no way for both Teddy and Mack at 3. Trade down unless you take Clowney at 3.

How are you ok with Teddy at 3? But not Mack?

---

How are you ok with Teddy at 3? But not Mack?

 

explained on post 360

---

So prospects are not allowed to have bad games? Who would you rather the Jags select at 3?

I prefer a trade down and then draft a QB. I think we can take a pass rusher later I mean we do have 11 picks. Gus got production out of Andre Branch and Ryan Davis so a second round guy like lets say Van Noy would be a very good pick IMO. Mack has skills no doubt, but just not my guy at pick 3. Sorry.

---

Shock the world

I just went through 16 different prominent/semi-prominent big boards. Every single one had Mack ranked between 3 and 5. About 50% had him at #3. I was going to make it to 20 and post all the links, but my phone sucks and my browser crashed and I'm not going to do it again from my phone.


If EVERY known board has Mack between 3-5 then that's his value. Sorry.

Yeah, I actually did something similar yesterday and came to the same conclusion.  He wouldn't be a reach at 3 by any means for anyone but the draft experts on this message board. 

 

It's clear we're not going after a QB at 3.  The next item to tick off the list is pass rush.  If Clowney isn't there, and we're not able to trade down, I'd be fine with Mack. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I just went through 16 different prominent/semi-prominent big boards. Every single one had Mack ranked between 3 and 5. About 50% had him at #3. I was going to make it to 20 and post all the links, but my phone sucks and my browser crashed and I'm not going to do it again from my phone.


If EVERY known board has Mack between 3-5 then that's his value. Sorry.

 

i appreciate the work, time to get a windows phone dude. 

---

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 appreciate the work, time to get a windows phone dude. 

 

It's a Bionic.  I can't upgrade because I'll lose my unlimited data - the bastards.  I'm going to get onto a new plan through my job soon enough though where I get 10 month upgrades, 20 percent off, and unlimited data.

---

It's a Bionic.  I can't upgrade because I'll lose my unlimited data - the [BAD WORD REMOVED].  I'm going to get onto a new plan through my job soon enough though where I get 10 month upgrades, 20 percent off, and unlimited data.

 

not to derail the thread but you can always buy a phone on craigslist, ebay, or just pay full price and you can keep your current plan. 

 

also ideally the jaguars will get clowney or mack at the top of the draft. a qb starts to fall, and then the extra picks we got from monroe allow us to move into position to get our qb of the future too. 

---

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."

Not a fan of Mack at 3. He has talent, but go watch his tape against Baylor and Stony Brook.. It's like he wasn't even out there

Take a gander at Demarcus Ware's game log from his senior season. 

 

0 sacks, FF, or INT in any of these games 

Idaho - 1 assisted tackle total

MTSU - 1 solo 

Northern Illinois - 3 solo total

LSU - 2 solo

New Mexico State - 1 solo 

 

You could do the same for any pass rusher. The position just isn't designed to rack up stats. Even in the NFL, Monroe completely no statted Julius Peppers and Jared Allen in the same season. Not a single even assisted tackle. That's just the nature of the position that happens. 

---

Yeah, I actually did something similar yesterday and came to the same conclusion.  He wouldn't be a reach at 3 by any means for anyone but the draft experts on this message board. 

 

It's clear we're not going after a QB at 3.  The next item to tick off the list is pass rush.  If Clowney isn't there, and we're not able to trade down, I'd be fine with Mack. 

 

Makes too much sense.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Take a gander at Demarcus Ware's game log from his senior season.


0 sacks, FF, or INT in any of these games

Idaho - 1 assisted tackle total

MTSU - 1 solo

Northern Illinois - 3 solo total

LSU - 2 solo

New Mexico State - 1 solo


You could do the same for any pass rusher. The position just isn't designed to rack up stats. Even in the NFL, Monroe completely no statted Julius Peppers and Jared Allen in the same season. Not a single even assisted tackle. That's just the nature of the position that happens.

I understand your point completely. Just something about him doesn't scream pick 3 to me. Just my opinion. If we did, however, select him then I will 100% trust Dave and root for him to the fullest.

---

Shock the world

not to derail the thread but you can always buy a phone on craigslist, ebay, or just pay full price and you can keep your current plan. 

 

also ideally the jaguars will get clowney or mack at the top of the draft. a qb starts to fall, and then the extra picks we got from monroe allow us to move into position to get our qb of the future too. 

 

Of course.  However, I'm not spending $700 - $800 for a phone I'll only have for a year and a half.

---

Makes too much sense.

Some folks want to make it as complicated as they possibly can.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Things don't need to be identical for the concept to be seen as similar. 

 

Mack at 3 would be taking a player that should go around 10, 11, or 12 ish. 

Then name the 9, 10, or 11 better prospects.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

Clowney, Teddy and Watkins for me are the only ones above Mack. Not counting OTs because it doesnt make sense for us to take one.

---

Then name the 9, 10, or 11 better prospects.

 

It's asinine.  He's all for Ted with that pick, but not Mack.

 

And good luck with an answer to the question.  We're still waiting for the TMD "recs" 2014.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

It's asinine.  He's all for Ted with that pick, but not Mack.

 

And good luck with an answer to the question.  We're still waiting for the TMD "recs" 2014.

You make a good point. He wants to prove how stupid it would be to "overdraft" a player by insisting we draft a player who is rated MUCH lower. That's quality thinking right there.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

I don't want Mack at #3 either...but to post on the topic...I love how people called Gene "little School Gene" but then advocate taking a kid from Buffalo at #3...

 

I would much rather have Watkins at 3 than Mack personally.

---