For starters it's going to be tough to trade down from #4 with the TItans at #5 making their wishes to trade down very apparent. SImply put, teams would pay less to go to #5 than to #4. That said, I can still see the Panthers making a trade to #4 in their efforts to get Fournette. I'm starting to think the Jaguars will take Fournette if they stay put, however, they'd rather trade down.

Another alternative - a team wants to get ahead of the Titans, because they believe the Titans will take the DB or WR they really wanted. (Seems a bit unlikely, but you never know - perhaps a team is desperate for Adams for instance)

---

For starters it's going to be tough to trade down from #4 with the TItans at #5 making their wishes to trade down very apparent. SImply put, teams would pay less to go to #5 than to #4. That said, I can still see the Panthers making a trade to #4 in their efforts to get Fournette. I'm starting to think the Jaguars will take Fournette if they stay put, however, they'd rather trade down.


 

In my latest 4.0 mock I predict the Jaguars and TItans both trade down with the Jaguars getting the #8 and taking Jonathan Allen there. I then have them taking Cam Robinson and Everett Engram in round two, and then Jeremy McNichols in round three. We won't get a 2nd third to go to #8, however, we would get one should we drop further down like say to #12. At #12 the selections get tougher as Allen will be gone with Howard very likely gone. There's only a very slight chance that Howard makes it to #12 as I think the Bengals are taking him. I'd LOVE to get McCaffery at #12, but I'm convinced he's going #11 to the Saints.

I am starting to think the team has narrowed down its options to these:

 

1.  If Fournette is on the board at 4, the team takes him; unless

 

2.  The Jets offer a nice package to move up to 6, in which case, the Jaguars trade down, pick up an extra pick, and gamble the tacks won't trade down to a team wanting Fournette.

 

3.  If Fournette is off the board, the team is far more receptive to trading down.  I think at this point, Cleveland or any team wanting to get ahead of the Tacks for a DB or WR, or the Jets for a QB will call.  I could see the Jets, Chargers, or Browns as the likely trade partners.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Another alternative - a team wants to get ahead of the Titans, because they believe the Titans will take the DB or WR they really wanted. (Seems a bit unlikely, but you never know - perhaps a team is desperate for Adams for instance)

I think the Bills,maybe the Panthers, would be the team to trade up ahead of the tacks for a WR, but I think neither is likely.

 

I think the Bolts would be the team wanting to get up for a DB, especially if Lattimore and Adams go 2-3.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

For starters it's going to be tough to trade down from #4 with the TItans at #5 making their wishes to trade down very apparent. SImply put, teams would pay less to go to #5 than to #4. That said, I can still see the Panthers making a trade to #4 in their efforts to get Fournette. I'm starting to think the Jaguars will take Fournette if they stay put, however, they'd rather trade down.


 

In my latest 4.0 mock I predict the Jaguars and TItans both trade down with the Jaguars getting the #8 and taking Jonathan Allen there. I then have them taking Cam Robinson and Everett Engram in round two, and then Jeremy McNichols in round three. We won't get a 2nd third to go to #8, however, we would get one should we drop further down like say to #12. At #12 the selections get tougher as Allen will be gone with Howard very likely gone. There's only a very slight chance that Howard makes it to #12 as I think the Bengals are taking him. I'd LOVE to get McCaffery at #12, but I'm convinced he's going #11 to the Saints.

It may be cheaper to go to 5 than 4, but you may have to pay more than what other teams are offering at 5 than what you have to pay at 4.

---

Every year fans seemingly want to trade back, and every year it does not happen. Most years I agree with the notion; I love the idea of getting more 2nd day picks. This year is no different.

 

But unlike past years, I think the Jaguars actually will (desperately) try and trade back. Like, take below market value in order to do so. Having Tennessee right behind us wanting to trade back is why Jags might have to trade on the cheap. But I still think they will for 2 main reasons.

 

1) The players that fit our number 1 overall need, Offensive Line, are valued as middle of the first round players: Garett Bolles, Forrest Lamp, Ryan Ramczyk, Cam Robinson

 

2) The positions that fit our other pressing needs, Running back, Tight End,  Defensive End, Cornerback, are deep in this draft, allowing us to grab a first or second round talent at those positions, a round later.

 

Looking at it through this lens really makes the draft line up nicely based on our needs. O-line is a relatively shallow class- makes sense we would try to take our pick of the litter early, and as I mentioned CB, DE, TE, and CB being really, really deep also lines-up directly with our needs.

 

With this in mind, imagine what we could do with a mid 1st, a couple 2nds and a couple 3rds...

 

1st round) Pick one:

 

OL: Forrest Lamp, Garrett Bolles, Ryan Ramczyk, Cam Robinson

 

2nd round) Pick two:

 

DE: Charles Harris, TJ Watt, Tim Williams, Takkarist McKinley

RB: Dalvin Cook, Joe Mixon, Alvin Kamara

TE: David Njoku, Evan Engram, Bucky Hodges

CB: Kevin King, Quincey Wilson, Chidobe Awuzie

 

3rd round) Pick two:

 

DE: Carl Lawson, Derek Rivers, Jordan Willis

RB: D'Onte Foreman, Kareem Hunt, Jamaal Williams

TE: Jake Butt, Gerald Everett, George Kittle

CB: Cordrea Tankersley, Joudan Lewis, Sidney Jones, Jalen Tabor, Adoree' Jackson, Akhello Witherspoon

 

 

........Sweet.

 

Now I know most of your first reaction will be to scoff and LOL and tell me that I have X prospect in the wrong round, or that Y prospect is trash, but try not to get hung up on those details (btw most people like to say "There is no way that player lasts until the 3rd round" about 150 different prospects. It's going to happen. Players fall. Nobody knows anything so just blur your vision a bit and appreciate how much talent is going to be available on day two.

 

I think between Coughlin coming in and changing things up (Caldwell always talked about trading back but apparently was never very serious about it) and the unique matchup of our needs and value (see above) I believe there is a far better chance of us trading back this year compared to years past. I know it takes two to tango, but I don't think its really far-fetched that someone falls involve with one of the DBs or WRs that they may be worried about Tennesee taking, or even jump up to grab a QB at 4, fearing that team X may try to do the same with Tennessee at 5.

 

So what do you think? How would you do it if you had 5 picks within the first 3 rounds?

 

I'm not a fan of drafting in order of biggest need. I think you are potentially passing on better players just to fill a perceived need. 

---

I'm not a fan of drafting in order of biggest need. I think you are potentially passing on better players just to fill a perceived need. 

 

Not only this, but also you're doubling down on the pick.  If it doesn't work out, chances are you've got no contingency whatsoever.

---

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

Not only this, but also you're doubling down on the pick.  If it doesn't work out, chances are you've got no contingency whatsoever.

Explain this further please.

 

If you drafted BAP and it doesn't work out you still have no contingency.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

It may be cheaper to go to 5 than 4, but you may have to pay more than what other teams are offering at 5 than what you have to pay at 4.

 

 

You totally lost me. Say what?

---

'02

You totally lost me. Say what?

I think he meant that you'd get a better deal trading with us than you would with Tennessee.

 

If that is what he meant, I'd like to understand his rationale.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I think he meant that you'd get a better deal trading with us than you would with Tennessee.

 

If that is what he meant, I'd like to understand his rationale.

 

I'll explain it using money. The 4th pick is worth $5.50. The 5th pick is worth $5. You are Team A. Team B has offered $5.75 for the 5th pick to Team X. Team X wants $6 from you for the pick. You can get the 4th pick for $5.50. 

 

If you are in a bidding war for the 5th pick, it could be cheaper to trade for the 4th pick if there's less interest in that pick.

---

Explain this further please.

 

If you drafted BAP and it doesn't work out you still have no contingency.

 

Would you pass on an All-Pro player because you already have a Pro-Bowl player in that position, to draft a Pro-Bowl player in another position? If it doesn't work out it doesn't matter the philosophy, but if it does work out, you are leaving better players available to be picked by other teams.

---

Would you pass on an All-Pro player because you already have a Pro-Bowl player in that position, to draft a Pro-Bowl player in another position? If it doesn't work out it doesn't matter the philosophy, but if it does work out, you are leaving better players available to be picked by other teams.

 

 

It depends. 

 

Under your rationale, Indy might have been better served taking one of the QBs in 1999 instead of RB Edgerrin James, a year after taking Peyton Manning.

 

Lots of people trash the Jaguars for bypassing Ogden in favor of Kevin Hardy in 1996.

 

Had we drafted Ogden that year, we'd have an offensive line featuring Boselli at one tackle, Ogden at another tackle position (who knows whether he would have been as good), and Searcy at G.

 

Now assuming Ogden's career at RT for us would have mirrored his career at LT for Baltimore, we'd have a great OL.  But we wouldn't have been able to stop anyone at all.  LB would have continued to have been a huge liability.  We wouldn't have had the defense we had from 1996-1999. 

 

Hardy made a lot of plays that, while not flashy, bolstered the defense quite a bit.  He was a good blitzer overall (when he played for a coordinator who believed in practicing the timing of blitzes and actually utilized his skills in that area).  He was strong at the point of attack against the run.  He dropped well into coverage and was a sure tackler.  To date, nobody who has made this argument has explained where we would have gotten Hardy's 10.5 sacks in 1999 from without him.  If we kept Robinson, it s doubtful we'd get Hardy's production from him.  He's never recorded more than 6 sacks in a season, and he came from a blitz heavy defense in Houston/Tennessee.  To date, we have not had a better all around OLB.

 

Had we drafted Ogden, you could make the argument that we would have expended more free agency dollars on the defense, exacerbating the eventual salary cap hits and still not have produced as effective a group.  Eventually, the salary cap still would have cost us Boselli, Walker, Keenan, Ogden, Searcy, et al, and still have gotten no further than we did. 

 

The Raiders of the 70's and 80s and Cowboys of the 1990s had two all time great OLs and both had Super Bowl winning dynastys with them.  But they also had balanced teams, with talent on both sides of the ball.  I think Hardy was important enough to those defenses on those TC era to say that without him, we'd lack that balance to have been a serious contender.  In a best case scenario, we'd be like the Marino era Dolphins.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

It depends. 

 

Under your rationale, Indy might have been better served taking one of the QBs in 1999 instead of RB Edgerrin James, a year after taking Peyton Manning.

 

Lots of people trash the Jaguars for bypassing Ogden in favor of Kevin Hardy in 1996.

 

Had we drafted Ogden that year, we'd have an offensive line featuring Boselli at one tackle, Ogden at another tackle position (who knows whether he would have been as good), and Searcy at G.

 

Now assuming Ogden's career at RT for us would have mirrored his career at LT for Baltimore, we'd have a great OL.  But we wouldn't have been able to stop anyone at all.  LB would have continued to have been a huge liability.  We wouldn't have had the defense we had from 1996-1999. 

 

Hardy made a lot of plays that, while not flashy, bolstered the defense quite a bit.  He was a good blitzer overall (when he played for a coordinator who believed in practicing the timing of blitzes and actually utilized his skills in that area).  He was strong at the point of attack against the run.  He dropped well into coverage and was a sure tackler.  To date, nobody who has made this argument has explained where we would have gotten Hardy's 10.5 sacks in 1999 from without him.  If we kept Robinson, it s doubtful we'd get Hardy's production from him.  He's never recorded more than 6 sacks in a season, and he came from a blitz heavy defense in Houston/Tennessee.  To date, we have not had a better all around OLB.

 

Had we drafted Ogden, you could make the argument that we would have expended more free agency dollars on the defense, exacerbating the eventual salary cap hits and still not have produced as effective a group.  Eventually, the salary cap still would have cost us Boselli, Walker, Keenan, Ogden, Searcy, et al, and still have gotten no further than we did. 

 

The Raiders of the 70's and 80s and Cowboys of the 1990s had two all time great OLs and both had Super Bowl winning dynastys with them.  But they also had balanced teams, with talent on both sides of the ball.  I think Hardy was important enough to those defenses on those TC era to say that without him, we'd lack that balance to have been a serious contender.  In a best case scenario, we'd be like the Marino era Dolphins.

 

There was no QB in 1999's draft who was as good as Manning in 1998's draft, so that doesn't fit my rationale. 

 

Kevin Hardy was an All-Pro in 1999, so that fits within my rationale. 

---

I'll explain it using money. The 4th pick is worth $5.50. The 5th pick is worth $5. You are Team A. Team B has offered $5.75 for the 5th pick to Team X. Team X wants $6 from you for the pick. You can get the 4th pick for $5.50. 

 

If you are in a bidding war for the 5th pick, it could be cheaper to trade for the 4th pick if there's less interest in that pick.

 

 

I'm still lost, or that is, if I'm reading this correctly, this is ludicrous. The 4th picks will ALWAYS cost more than the 5th pick.

---

'02

To date, we have not had a better all around OLB.

 

 

Nothing against Hardy, but Daryl Smith was a better OLB... and Mike P was a better LB than Daryl.

---

'02

Nothing against Hardy, but Daryl Smith was a better OLB... and Mike P was a better LB than Daryl.

Daryl Smith was a good all around LB.  But Daryl Smith was NOT a better overall OLB than Hardy.  Hardy was bigger, more physical, and could provide far more of a pass rush than Smith.  In fact, the difference between Hardy's physicality vs the run and pass rush skills vs Smith's is greater than the difference between Smith's pass coverage and Hardy's.

 

Mike Peterson was a Mike here, not an OLB.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

There was no QB in 1999's draft who was as good as Manning in 1998's draft, so that doesn't fit my rationale. 

 

Kevin Hardy was an All-Pro in 1999, so that fits within my rationale. 

Taking this at face value (don't feel like quibbling over the Manning point), discuss the overall substance (or lack thereof) of my argument.

 

Do you assert that Hardy was BAP when we picked in the first round in 1996?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Taking this at face value (don't feel like quibbling over the Manning point), discuss the overall substance (or lack thereof) of my argument.

 

Do you assert that Hardy was BAP when we picked in the first round in 1996?

Yes. Selecting Hardy, Simeon Rice, or Ogden would have been BAP. 

---

I'm still lost, or that is, if I'm reading this correctly, this is ludicrous. The 4th picks will ALWAYS cost more than the 5th pick.

 

How so?

---

I'm still lost, or that is, if I'm reading this correctly, this is ludicrous. The 4th picks will ALWAYS cost more than the 5th pick.

I think he's saying that we might be prepared to settle for less, to entice a team to trade up with us and not the Titans.


Doesn't make any sense, but that's how I understood it!

---