I honestly don't see how that table is relevant to anything. Just look around the NFL today and see how high the top running backs or even the starters were drafted. Not a lot of 1st rounders I'd be willing to bet. Or at least the numbers are decreasing fast. This table is about career yardage, which is pointless because these days teams don't really care about that, they just want a couple good years of production out of a RB and they can replace him with another guy. The position has been devalued, meaning RBs aren't often getting extended to big contracts anymore, they just move to other teams for mediocre contracts. Who cares if you have 1 running back with 5000 career yards or 2 with 2500 each?

Yes, a few teams seem to manage just fine with a committee of unremarkable backs (The Parriots and the Broncos for instance, although both are helped by having big name QBs) but other teams would clearly be weaker if they lost their top quality RBs.


And yes, you could pick another measure of RB success if you wanted. Yards per carry maybe ? Career touchdowns ? But career yards seems a pretty good measure of a running backs success (and one which is frequently used).


But that's all beside the point.


The point is that you stand a higher chance of drafting a successful back if you select one in the early rounds. (I think those tables show that very clearly)


Saying that more current NFL RBs are those selected in the later rounds is misleading. There have simply been more RBs picked in later rounds, so its hardly surprising there are a lot of them around !


To illustrate that, suppose 100 RBs are selected in the draft. 10 in the first round and the remaining 90 in the others.


Of those, fifty percent of the first round RBs turn out to be high quality backs. But only twenty percent of the later-round backs turn out to be any good.


Looking at those totals, you would say that later-round backs produced 18 quality starters and there were only 5 first round backs.


So it's better to wait until the later rounds, right ?


Or would you agree that is the wrong measure of success ?


We only usually select 1 RB in a draft, not 100, so if you want a quality one, doesn't it make sense to pick one early, rather than taking pot luck in the later rounds ?


(Having said all that I don't for a minute think we will use our first round pick on one, but I think there is a good argument for going RB in round 2)

---

Andy, there is no good argument for picking a running back in Round 2. Even Melvin Gordon would get tackled behind an offensive line that can't run block.

---

My only draft assumptions this year are that:

 

- Caldwell will find a few good players and

 

- we won't have to start so many of them right away thanks to cap space/free agency - and the number of rookies from last year's draft that will be second year starters. 

 

-------------------------------

 

No, I don't expect them to select a RB before the 4th round, and yes I think a pass rusher is likely if we stay at #3. I've stated my case several times about first round RBs.  They are becoming extinct and for good reason.  There will always be an exception to the rule here and there, but the amount of production being found from mid and late round RBs league-wide can't be ignored. 

 

Spending a first or second round pick on a RB has become more of a luxury IMO, and one that the Jags can't yet afford. Maybe next year.  

---

We had tons of cap space last year too. You think that helped us?

 

There is no reasoin to pick a pass rusher at #3.

---

We had tons of cap space last year too. You think that helped us?

 

There is no reasoin to pick a pass rusher at #3.

 

You keep saying the same thing over and over, and everyone is saying the team would probably lean towards to someone on the defensive line.  Who do you think is probably right?

 

Caldwell has already said we would be active in free agency.

---

You keep saying the same thing over and over, and everyone is saying the team would probably lean towards to someone on the defensive line.  Who do you think is probably right?

 

Caldwell has already said we would be active in free agency.

 

Why would the team lean toward a defensive lineman? What makes anybody think Caldwell will pick a defensive lineman in the first round? He is a needs-based drafter, not a BAP guy.

---

Why would the team lean toward a defensive lineman? What makes anybody think Caldwell will pick a defensive lineman in the first round? He is a needs-based drafter, not a BAP guy.

He drafted Joeckel when we already had Monroe. He drafted Bortles when we had Henne. If an opportunity presents itself to upgrade a specific position then I fully expect Caldwell to do so. Whether that be at DE, TE, LB, FS, RB etc.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

He drafted Joeckel when we already had Monroe. He drafted Bortles when we had Henne. If an opportunity presents itself to upgrade a specific position then I fully expect Caldwell to do so. Whether that be at DE, TE, LB, FS, RB etc.

 

Luke Joeckel was his only BAP pick. Blake Bortles was a need pick because Chad Henne sucks. My understanding is David Caldwell put off picking a quarterback because he knew the 2014 class was better than his options in 2013.

---

Of course I would want to pick a defensive lineman early if we needed one. But we don't have anyone in that position group who is near retirement or past his prime, so even with the veterans it is still a young line.

 

Like I said, if there is someone as good as J.J. Watt in the draft, I would not be mad if we pick him. But I can't justify picking a player who will be "just another guy" on the line.

Clemons was our most disruptive rusher and he is 33. How much longer do you expect him to be disruptive? He was good, but he wasn't great. We have an opportunity to draft a potentially GREAT, YOUNG defensive lineman. This means in a couple of years, he'll be really hitting his peak and Clemons will be mid 30's and probably done. We may not ultimately go with a pass rusher here, but if we did, it makes a ton of sense. They are a premium position and we may not have the opportunity and draft slot again in a couple of years when we will most definitely need to upgrade due to age.

---

Clemons was our most disruptive rusher and he is 33. How much longer do you expect him to be disruptive? He was good, but he wasn't great. We have an opportunity to draft a potentially GREAT, YOUNG defensive lineman. This means in a couple of years, he'll be really hitting his peak and Clemons will be mid 30s and probably done. We may not ultimately go with a pass rusher here, but if we did, it makes a ton of sense. They are a premium position and we may not have the opportunity and draft slot again in a couple of years when we will most definitely need to upgrade due to age.

 

You sound like Chris Clemons never rotates with younger defensive ends, something he does every week. All four starters split time with their backups. Sure, a young guy can't hurt the team, but it is not something we need right now.

---

Yes, a few teams seem to manage just fine with a committee of unremarkable backs (The Parriots and the Broncos for instance, although both are helped by having big name QBs) but other teams would clearly be weaker if they lost their top quality RBs.

And yes, you could pick another measure of RB success if you wanted. Yards per carry maybe ? Career touchdowns ? But career yards seems a pretty good measure of a running backs success (and one which is frequently used).

But that's all beside the point.

The point is that you stand a higher chance of drafting a successful back if you select one in the early rounds. (I think those tables show that very clearly)

Saying that more current NFL RBs are those selected in the later rounds is misleading. There have simply been more RBs picked in later rounds, so its hardly surprising there are a lot of them around !

To illustrate that, suppose 100 RBs are selected in the draft. 10 in the first round and the remaining 90 in the others.

Of those, fifty percent of the first round RBs turn out to be high quality backs. But only twenty percent of the later-round backs turn out to be any good.

Looking at those totals, you would say that later-round backs produced 18 quality starters and there were only 5 first round backs.

So it's better to wait until the later rounds, right ?

Or would you agree that is the wrong measure of success ?

We only usually select 1 RB in a draft, not 100, so if you want a quality one, doesn't it make sense to pick one early, rather than taking pot luck in the later rounds ?

(Having said all that I don't for a minute think we will use our first round pick on one, but I think there is a good argument for going RB in round 2)

I don't understand your argument because it doesn't even remotely resemble reality. The reality is that its rare a RB is even selected in the 1st round, and they are successful nonetheless. And we'll have to disagree on the importance of career totals. Yes that's good to get a guy in the hall of fame, but not that important to a team if the RB accumulated many of those yards with someone else.


As far as picking a RB early, or grabbing the first RB in the draft, well absolutely, if you are that one team that feels you are a running back away from a Superbowl. Sure, get the best guy. Otherwise, value has to play into it somehow.

---

I don't understand your argument because it doesn't even remotely resemble reality. The reality is that its rare a RB is even selected in the 1st round, and they are successful nonetheless. And we'll have to disagree on the importance of career totals. Yes that's good to get a guy in the hall of fame, but not that important to a team if the RB accumulated many of those yards with someone else.


As far as picking a RB early, or grabbing the first RB in the draft, well absolutely, if you are that one team that feels you are a running back away from a Superbowl. Sure, get the best guy. Otherwise, value has to play into it somehow.

 

Keep in mind the first round has 32 picks. Is it a reach if a playoff team picks a running back? Not saying we should trade down two or three times, but I think people criticize the idea of picking a running back early because of our pick number. The Saints traded up into the first to pick Mark Ingram at #22 IIRC. Obviously they feared he would not be available later. When you want a player bad enough to do that, does it really matter what position he plays?

 

Of course I don't want the Jaguars to trade up for Melvin Gordon. That would be stupid. But if one of the best 32 players is a running back, I am not going to say a team that needs one should wait two days to pick a less talented guy for the job.

---

Yes, a few teams seem to manage just fine with a committee of unremarkable backs (The Parriots and the Broncos for instance, although both are helped by having big name QBs) but other teams would clearly be weaker if they lost their top quality RBs.


And yes, you could pick another measure of RB success if you wanted. Yards per carry maybe ? Career touchdowns ? But career yards seems a pretty good measure of a running backs success (and one which is frequently used).


But that's all beside the point.


The point is that you stand a higher chance of drafting a successful back if you select one in the early rounds. (I think those tables show that very clearly)


Saying that more current NFL RBs are those selected in the later rounds is misleading. There have simply been more RBs picked in later rounds, so its hardly surprising there are a lot of them around !


To illustrate that, suppose 100 RBs are selected in the draft. 10 in the first round and the remaining 90 in the others.


Of those, fifty percent of the first round RBs turn out to be high quality backs. But only twenty percent of the later-round backs turn out to be any good.


Looking at those totals, you would say that later-round backs produced 18 quality starters and there were only 5 first round backs.


So it's better to wait until the later rounds, right ?


Or would you agree that is the wrong measure of success ?


We only usually select 1 RB in a draft, not 100, so if you want a quality one, doesn't it make sense to pick one early, rather than taking pot luck in the later rounds ?


(Having said all that I don't for a minute think we will use our first round pick on one, but I think there is a good argument for going RB in round 2)

 

You've convinced me.   I think the other posters are missing your point.   A running back picked in the first 2 rounds stands a better chance of success than a running back selected later.   It is not true that all running backs are equal, or that you stand just as good a chance of getting a good one in later rounds as in earlier rounds.   The reason so many later round RB picks succeed is just the law of numbers: so many are picked later, some of them are bound to succeed.   

---

Andy, there is no good argument for picking a running back in Round 2. Even Melvin Gordon would get tackled behind an offensive line that can't run block.

 

Not this year, but that's not his point.   What he was arguing is that it is false to say that you can get a running back in later rounds that would be as good as a running back taken in earlier rounds.    He's not saying we should pick one this year.   He's saying that it is wrong to say you can get one in later rounds as easily as you can get one in an earlier round. 

---

What irritates me is a lot of people say we must take a defensive lineman in the first round despite the obvious fact that our best position group by far is the defensive line. There is no reason to think we need one but people continue to insist there is no reason not to. These are the same people who say it is stupid to pick a running back in the first round. The reality is unless the player's job is to kick footballs, his job title is irrelevant.

 

Three things matter: team needs, value for the pick, and availability. The first criterion eliminates wide receiver, left tackle, center, right guard, quarterback, cornerback, defensive tackle, and defensive end. So we are limited to right tackle, running back, tight end, free safety, strong safety, middle linebacker, and outside linebacker. Strong safety is eliminated by the second criterion because we would draft one as a backup. MIddle linebacker is not a value pick either because he would be a backup in 2015, then compete for the starting job in 2016. Now our choices are right tackle, running back, tight end, outside linebacker, and free safety. So in my opinion based on what we need and how we will use rookies, the #3 pick should be one of those five positions depending on who we get in free agency unless someone is going to be the next J.J. Watt or Richard Sherman. The only time I favor picking the BAP is when nobody at a position we need is graded close to our pick number. I will never understand why anybody thinks just because a certain job title is more valuable than another, we should pick a defensive lineman or wide receiver on April 30 and wait until May 2 to pick a running back.

 

I would disagree with you when it comes to the case of a very early pick like we have this year.  

 

If you make that pick based on team needs, and throw out talent as a criterion, you are drafting for short term results and ignoring long term value.  You would be drafting for the next 8 games, when the 3rd overall pick should be spent on a player for the next 8 years.   This team has a lack of star players.   This is (we hope) our last chance to draft this high.   If there is a defensive lineman who is a better value than another player who plays a position of need, if we don't take him, then not only do we have less overall talent on our team as a result, but we also wind up in a situation where we have to face a guy like JJ Watt twice a year for the next 8 years.   You've let another team pick a player who is better than the one you picked before them!  

 

Besides, the 3rd overall pick isn't the only shot we have at filling team needs.   We have free agency, and the rest of the draft.  

 

With the 3rd overall pick, you have to pick the very best player.   It's a rare shot at getting a star player.  Even if the guy plays defensive line. 

 

The reason people are saying we will pick defensive line with our first pick is because there are a couple of defensive linemen rated higher than everyone else in the draft. 

---

You've convinced me. I think the other posters are missing your point. A running back picked in the first 2 rounds stands a better chance of success than a running back selected later. It is not true that all running backs are equal, or that you stand just as good a chance of getting a good one in later rounds as in earlier rounds. The reason so many later round RB picks succeed is just the law of numbers: so many are picked later, some of them are bound to succeed.

Thank you. That's one anyway !

---

I don't understand your argument because it doesn't even remotely resemble reality. The reality is that its rare a RB is even selected in the 1st round, and they are successful nonetheless. And we'll have to disagree on the importance of career totals. Yes that's good to get a guy in the hall of fame, but not that important to a team if the RB accumulated many of those yards with someone else.


As far as picking a RB early, or grabbing the first RB in the draft, well absolutely, if you are that one team that feels you are a running back away from a Superbowl. Sure, get the best guy. Otherwise, value has to play into it somehow.

Oh well, never mind. I'm not going to convince everyone !

---

I would disagree with you when it comes to the case of a very early pick like we have this year.  

 

If you make that pick based on team needs, and throw out talent as a criterion, you are drafting for short term results and ignoring long term value.  You would be drafting for the next 8 games, when the 3rd overall pick should be spent on a player for the next 8 years.   This team has a lack of star players.   This is (we hope) our last chance to draft this high.   If there is a defensive lineman who is a better value than another player who plays a position of need, if we don't take him, then not only do we have less overall talent on our team as a result, but we also wind up in a situation where we have to face a guy like JJ Watt twice a year for the next 8 years.   You've let another team pick a player who is better than the one you picked before them!  

 

Besides, the 3rd overall pick isn't the only shot we have at filling team needs.   We have free agency, and the rest of the draft.  

 

With the 3rd overall pick, you have to pick the very best player.   It's a rare shot at getting a star player.  Even if the guy plays defensive line. 

 

The reason people are saying we will pick defensive line with our first pick is because there are a couple of defensive linemen rated higher than everyone else in the draft. 

 

I never said we should reach for lesser talent. I hated the Tyson Alualu pick when JPP was on the board. Gene Smith was like the 49ers picking Alex Smith instead of Aaron Rodgers. I think Jaguars fans forget the mistake in the past was picking the wrong guys to fill needs. If there is a player at a position we need who grades in the top five - and I am not saying there is - you pick him instead of a defensive lineman who also grades in the top five. If the best player available will be the next J.J. Watt, of course I will like having him - as long as there is not a safety who will be the next Earl Thomas.

---