LOL.  In every draft there are several players who turn out to be impact players.  They are selected at different spots and in different rounds.  I happen to feel that Caldwell has the ability to identify talent and the ammunition to trade up if he feels it's necessary.  I think he's very likely to get someone that's a long term impact player in the first round regardless of which pick position. 

 

(I couldn't care less about #1 picks compared to #3  - that was a random example.)

The point is that the #1 pick is always more valuable than the #3 pick.  If there's a player that he would pick at #3, then he will surely pick that same player if our pick is at #1.  Furthermore, he doesn't have to trade up from #3 to #2 or #1 and lose more picks in the later rounds.  The same logic applies if the plan is to trade down.

---

There is no benefit unless you believe in that momentum crap. Lol momentum for a 4-12 team....blows my mind.

 

4-12??........Well, if we finished 4-12, we'd have lost 3 of our last 4 games, ergo no momentum...

 

However, if we finished 6-10, or 7-9, I think we'd clearly be entering next season with some carry over momentum. 

---

One thing that jumps out with the excellent work that MalabarJag put together is in the 22 seasons of evaluation,  only in 2011 did both pick # 1 and pick # 2 turn out to be green ( Franchise Players. ). 

 

The only possible other draft that both players might be considered Franchise Players appears to be  2006,  as Reggie Bush certainly has had his moments.  Objectively though,  I think Bush would be classified as a color between green and red,  if it existed in this spectrum.

---

4-12??........Well, if we finished 4-12, we'd have lost 3 of our last 4 games, ergo no momentum...

 

However, if we finished 6-10, or 7-9, I think we'd clearly be entering next season with some carry over momentum. 

On average, the talents (or rather lack of talents) of a 2-14 team is very close to that of a 5-11 team or any team with less than 5 wins.  A 2-14 is not close to that of a 6+ wins team.  A 6+ wins team doesn't need to "tank" because their roster is adequate enough.  A 4-12 team is better with the first overall pick because they need all the help they can get.

---

One thing that jumps out with the excellent work that MalabarJag put together is in the 22 seasons of evaluation,  only in 2011 did both pick # 1 and pick # 2 turn out to be green ( Franchise Players. ). 

 

The only possible other draft that both players might be considered Franchise Players appears to be  2006,  as Reggie Bush certainly has had his moments.  Objectively though,  I think Bush would be classified as a color between green and red,  if it existed in this spectrum.

Just because you're a Lions fan, I think you're opinion of Bush is bias.  While he's not a bust, he's not the player he was drafted to be.  In fact, if there was a redo of that 2006 draft, Bush would not be drafted in the first round.  Bush is a 3rd down, luxury back.  He would need to be in a specific type of offense -- Saints or Lions -- in order to maximize his talent. 

 

Also, Would love it if Malabarjag could do one with 3rd overall pick.

---

LOL.  I can't believe there is a discussion about how much losing is enough losing and how much winning is too much <i>winning.</i>

 

 

In fact  - I can't believe I just typed the words "too much winning."    

 

I realize we don't know a lot about  Caldwell at this point - but this whole thing lands on him.  I'm slightly more inclined to trust his judgement than to doubt him at this early stage.  If there's a QB he's gotta have - he'll likely find a way to get him.  

 

Living in fear of of draft position is for losers.   I refuse to do it.  You guys go ahead. 

---

Just because you're a Lions fan, I think you're opinion of Bush is bias.  While he's not a bust, he's not the player he was drafted to be.  In fact, if there was a redo of that 2006 draft, Bush would not be drafted in the first round.  Bush is a 3rd down, luxury back.  He would need to be in a specific type of offense -- Saints or Lions -- in order to maximize his talent. 

 

Also, Would love it if Malabarjag could do one with 3rd overall pick.

 

Reggie Bush is more than a 3rd Down back.   He's not a 25 carry type of back but he has been effective between the tackles this season.  Bush has opened up many passing opportunities for Matthew Stafford this season.

 

Considering that in his 8th season Reggie Bush has been very productive this season,  with the significant exception of his fumbles,  I'm confident Bush would be drafted in the 1st Round.  Bush doesn't deserve to be drafted close to pick # 2 and he didn't have the overall career that MJD did but it would take plenty of research proving that there are 32 players from the 2006 Draft that have had better NFL careers than Bush. 

---

The point is that the #1 pick is always more valuable than the #3 pick.  If there's a player that he would pick at #3, then he will surely pick that same player if our pick is at #1.  Furthermore, he doesn't have to trade up from #3 to #2 or #1 and lose more picks in the later rounds.  The same logic applies if the plan is to trade down.

 

Enjoy wanting to suck so bad you might be good one day.  

 

I'd rather start working towards improvement now. 

---

Enjoy wanting to suck so bad you might be good one day.  

 

I'd rather start working towards improvement now. 

You can improve and not win. The Jags weren't the best team on the field last week. If Weeden didn't go full implosion mode with 3 combined turnovers in his own territory in less than minutes the Jags would have lost. If he had only committed two and the Jags had indeed lost would you all of the sudden feel like they weren't working toward improvement. No of course not. The team has been improving all year all the end result of a win or a loss isn't going to change that opinion for me.

---

You can improve and not win. The Jags weren't the best team on the field last week. If Weeden didn't go full implosion mode with 3 combined turnovers in his own territory in less than minutes the Jags would have lost. If he had only committed two and the Jags had indeed lost would you all of the sudden feel like they weren't working toward improvement. No of course not. The team has been improving all year all the end result of a win or a loss isn't going to change that opinion for me.

You can't just discount the mistakes a team makes. Why not discount the jags mistakes? Why not play the what if game with Cecil's drops?

 

Bad teams make a lot of mistakes, that's why they are bad. Cleveland was not the better team that day.

---

You can improve and not win.

 

To a limited extent, you can improve and not win, but improvement eventually leads to wins.   It's unavoidable.  

---

You can improve and not win. The Jags weren't the best team on the field last week. If Weeden didn't go full implosion mode with 3 combined turnovers in his own territory in less than minutes the Jags would have lost. If he had only committed two and the Jags had indeed lost would you all of the sudden feel like they weren't working toward improvement. No of course not. The team has been improving all year all the end result of a win or a loss isn't going to change that opinion for me.

Or you could say the jags forced 3 turnovers and won the game.  Turnovers are part of football and what good defenses strive to get.

---

To a limited extent, you can improve and not win, but improvement eventually leads to wins.   It's unavoidable.  

 

And that is apparently a problem for some people.

---

I was part of the tanking group. I wanted the #1 pick at all costs. I wanted us to go 0-16. But, now that I realize it, it doesn't matter where you draft. As long as you hit on your pick, it shouldn't matter where you draft. Pick #1 can be just as valuable as pick #3 if you hit on the pick. I enjoy winning, and hope we win out. 

 

I trust Caldwell.

---

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

 

<div> 
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Clown.
</div>
 
 
 

And that is apparently a problem for some people.

You're so short-sighted. It's obvious the only way to win is to lose.

---

You're so short-sighted. It's obvious the only way to win is to lose.

 

I forgot. We have to lose to improve. Not win because we've improved.

---

We improve either way. 5 wins versus 1 win...still awful records, still a losing season.

---

We improve either way. 5 wins versus 1 win...still awful records, still a losing season.

 

No. You just assume getting the first pick guarantees improvement. Meanwhile, the team has won 3 of 4 and has actually improved. No assumptions needed.

---

;

;

Improving is not really improving unless you improve.  Conversely, you can improve by not currently improving only if you improve in areas that you need improvement.

---

Lol at tankers finally realizing winning is a good thing.

---