Lageman?....the guy who once said that Akin Ayodele was the best pass rusher he ever saw?

 

Provide a link.

 

I'll take Lageman's INFORMED opinion over, well, yours any day of the week.  He doesn't have to set aside his research to make a batch of fries.  He looks at the film for a living.  You simply read mock drafts and draft analysis and somehow think that makes you an expert.

---

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

Don't knock DnD!

As long as you're not saving your navel lint for knitting purposes, I'll turn a blind eye.

---

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

Lageman?....the guy who once said that Akin Ayodele was the best pass rusher he ever saw?

 

I never heard Lageman say that, though he did assure me that Reggie Williams was not having difficulty separating from corners in practice.

 

That said, I'd take his analysis way over anyone on this board.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

...says the guy who's the worst of them all, but claims to be the best.

 

I've got to hand it to you, of all the threads you've been beaten down in over the years... this is one of your most pathetic.

 

It's reaching EPIC status.

 

yeah yeah.....and then Watkins turns out just like I predicted, and all the people thumping their chests abotu him in this thread act like they never took that take...

 

I know the drill...

---

Lageman?....the guy who once said that Akin Ayodele was the best pass rusher he ever saw?

 

LOL... as if you could even come close to having his credentials and respect...

---

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

Also, I will never get that line out of my head that you said. "Drafting Watkins or Mack would be like flushing #3 down the toilet." Like [BAD WORD REMOVED]? Even if we took Matthews I wouldn't think that. Any top 10 prospect in this draft would do beyond wonders for this team for the long haul. That is about the dumbest line I have ever seen.

 

You're not a fry cook in New Jersey either.  So, you've got that going for you...which is nice.

---

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

I never heard Lageman say that, though he did assure me that Reggie Williams was not having difficulty separating from corners in practice.

 

That said, I'd take his analysis way over anyone on this board.

 

Someone allegedly local posted Lageman making that quote either today or yesterday on the board in one of the threads. 

 

Lageman usually has good takes, but his opinion on Watkins doesn't really sway mine either way. 

---

LOL... as if you could even come close to having his credentials and respect...

 

Or prove that Lageman said that

---

yeah yeah.....and then Watkins turns out just like I predicted, and all the people thumping their chests abotu him in this thread act like they never took that take...

 

I know the drill...

 

That's the same line you said with Dan Lefevour coming out right?

---

yeah yeah.....and then Watkins turns out just like I predicted, and all the people thumping their chests abotu him in this thread act like they never took that take...

 

I know the drill...

 

...because that's how you behave.  You wrote the book.  It's why this thread is what it is, or didn't you realize that?!?!

---

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

You're not a fry cook in New Jersey either.  So, you've got that going for you...which is nice.

 

...and neither have I <i>ever been. </i>

 

But keep up your schtick....even though you're big on using that word against others. 

---

I never heard Lageman say that, though he did assure me that Reggie Williams was not having difficulty separating from corners in practice.

 

That said, I'd take his analysis way over anyone on this board.

 

I don't recall Lageman making that claim either.  I can't wait for TMD to provide the link. 

 

I do remember the Reggie Williams comments.  Everyone gets a mulligan I guess.

 

Lageman is a smart guy, and a film rat.  Very few can break down film as well as he does.

---

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

That's the same line you said with Dan Lefevour coming out right?

 

Yes, because of Dan LeFevour, that disproves/ discredits everything ever said. Yep.  

---

Someone allegedly local posted Lageman making that quote either today or yesterday on the board in one of the threads. 

 

Lageman usually has good takes, but his opinion on Watkins doesn't really sway mine either way. 

 

So, someone said it, and that makes it fact?  Provide a link, princess. 

 

Nice to see you back tracking all of a sudden when challenged about Lageman. 

 

Not to worry.  Nobody cares if Lageman sways your opinion.  We just recognize which viewpoint has merit, and which one is just crap. 

---

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

Yes, because of Dan LeFevour, that disproves/ discredits everything ever said. Yep.

More so whenever you have an opinion, you act as if it's a fact. Just like you made with him.

 

"You watch what happens, i'm always right". That's what your opinions are always stated as, and yet you get made when people talk trash to you for "just stating your opinions."

---

Yes, because of Dan LeFevour, that disproves/ discredits everything ever said. Yep.

 

Well, this is certainly a worthwhile point.  LeFevour was a guy who you evaluated and spouted an opinion about.  Guess what?  Crap! 

---

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

How long have you, myself, and many many others lamented about the dearth of speed on the roster? Here is a guy that is velocity in a helmet. That gets over the top of Defenses when they know that he is the #1 option in the passing offense. That takes swing passes and generates 10 yard gains on them just because the Defense is backed off because they are terrified of what he can do.

 

Watkins was tailor made for the 'site read syncronized' offense in that he can see if he should back off for a swing pass, or push deep into the Secondary based on coverage. I get that there are other talented players around but this is the type of player that has been needed on this roster for a long time.

 

You are preaching to the choir here.

 

I'm sold on him as a player, even with the question about his ability to escape the jam.

 

My rationale for maybe passing him up at three is simple. 

 

The Jaguars have needs all over the roster.  Just about every guy speculated to be our pick at 3, if he is what everyone thinks he is, would be a tremendous upgrade over anyone on the roster at that position. 

 

The problem is, the talent distribution in this draft class is not even at these positions of need.

 

If Mack is a consideration, then the gap between him and other OLBs is wider than the gap between Watkins and the other WRs.  Furthermore, the talk has been the WR class this year is almost historically deep, with starting caliber talent to be found possibly into the 4th round.

 

If Mack can play LEO (very important caveat), I'd rather the team take him at 3 then take advantage of the WR depth later than the team take Watkins at WR and find the pickings scarce at LEO. 

 

If, OTOH, you view Mack more as a good all around LB but not a LEO (think Carl Banks instead of Lawrence Taylor), then I'd be better with Watkins at 3.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I'd say Mack is more of a risk than Watkins, but that's jmo

---

...
 

If Mack is a consideration, then the gap between him and other OLBs is wider than the gap between Watkins and the other WRs.  Furthermore, the talk has been the WR class this year is almost historically deep, with starting caliber talent to be found possibly into the 4th round.

 

If Mack can play LEO (very important caveat), I'd rather the team take him at 3 then take advantage of the WR depth later than the team take Watkins at WR and find the pickings scarce at LEO. 

 

If, OTOH, you view Mack more as a good all around LB but not a LEO (think Carl Banks instead of Lawrence Taylor), then I'd be better with Watkins at 3.

 

You have crystallized my stance. I love the threat of Watkins, but the drop off in talent from Clowney and Mack is a lot bigger than the drop off from Watkins to someone like Lee or even Huff. This draft is loaded with Offense, and it makes sense to exploit that to the best advantage.

 

But I can't get over how special Watkins looked in his Freshman season. And I like having special players.

 

Oh the drama.

 

 

Can someone pour me a drink?

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

You have crystallized my stance. I love the threat of Watkins, but the drop off in talent from Clowney and Mack is a lot bigger than the drop off from Watkins to someone like Lee or even Huff. This draft is loaded with Offense, and it makes sense to exploit that to the best advantage.

 

But I can't get over how special Watkins looked in his Freshman season. And I like having special players.

 

Oh the drama.

 

 

Can someone pour me a drink?

 

1 non alcoholic diet beer coming up 

---