(05-22-2021, 02:26 PM)SeldomRite Wrote:

(05-22-2021, 02:03 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: I'm just saying, having one player make another player look better than he actually is is usually considered a good thing, not a bad thing.

Now if you think we should have drafted another player that's a different subject.  But to say that Trevor Lawrence making Travis Etienne look better than he actually is is a problem... that just doesn't compute.  

It's pretty much a nonsensical statement.  Would you say for example that the problem with James Worthy was that Magic Johnson made him look better than he actually was?  That was a problem?  Wouldn't that be the opposite of a problem?   

Maybe you mean it's a problem for our opponents.  That I would agree with.

I mean it's a problem in that it might make Urban and others think it was the right thing to do, and that a callous disrespect of value should be continued. It's the sort of unmerited self confidence that keeps a team from ever reaching the potential that its new quarterback has. Do you understand what I'm saying, now?

Not to put too fine a point on this, but let's say that Etienne is in the league for 5 or 6 years. During that time he has 3 or 4 thousand yard seasons, scores 40-50 TDs (rushing and receiving), and catches around 300 passes for around 3000 yards. During those 5-6 years the Jaguars win 50-60 games, and go to the AFC championship once, getting smoked by the Chiefs, and losing a couple of other times in the wildcard or divisional round.

Was taking Etienne a good idea in that case? A lot of people will probably say "Hell yeah it was, we didn't win any Superbowls, sign me up for that." (a little humor, they won't even think about the missed chances for Superbowls, they'll be thinking about the fact that the Jaguars finally have a QB and are finally winning games)

What if instead of taking Etienne the team had taken one of the several defensive players taken almost immediately after him, or Rashod Bateman, and that player is a pro bowl level player at their position for the next 8-10 years. During that time the Jaguars win a superbowl or two, having a combination of later round running backs instead of Etienne that, over the next 5 or 6 years, have similar rushing yardage totals to Etienne's total yards between them, score 30-40 TDs, and catch around 250 passes for around 2500 yards.

Is taking Etienne the better move because he got marginally better production for a team that didn't win any Superbowls?

Now, we can't know what could have happened had we not taken Etienne, but if any of the guys taken between picks 26 and 32 turn out to be a stud, and Etienne really is done here after 5 years (not at all unlikely) then was taking a running back at 25 the smart move?

I'm starting from the position that Etienne was a very good pick, so it's gonna be hard for me to agree with you on any of that.

Of course if there was a better player at a different position perhaps we should've taken him but I just think that Etienne was the right pick at the right spot to begin with so that's where I come down.  

I happen to think Etienne is a fantastic player and in a year or two will all be glad we drafted him.  

So when you say, gee what if there was a better player we could've picked instead of him, I would say, of course if that was the case we should have picked that player, but I just don't think there was one.

---