(05-22-2021, 03:39 PM)TheDuke007 Wrote: Grades can be done different ways.  Sometimes in addition to value, they also factor positional importance and need.  I'm looking at the grades that we were shown.  I think it is pretty obvious that these grades do not factor need or positional value.  If they did, the Jaguars would not have selected a 6.8 (Little) ahead of a 6.9 (Cisco).  I also think the grades are relative to the position.  Basically, I think the Jaguars believe Little compared to other offensive tackles is roughly equivalent of Cisco compared to other safeties.  However, they value offensive tackle much more than safety.  That's why Little was taken in second round and Cisco in the third.  Does anyone really believe that the Jaguars were having an internal debate about whether to take Lawrence or Waddle as both were graded 8.0?  No.  Basically, they thought Lawrence was an elite quarterback and Waddle was an elite wide receiver.  However, positional value and need made Lawrence an easy pick despite the same grade.  7.5 may seem very high for AVT, but if the Jaguars considered him a guard and are only comparing AVT to other guards, many would probably agree with 7.5.  I'm guessing the best kicker and punter probably had grades of between 7.0 and 8.0 too.  I think these grades are all relative to the position and can't really be used to compare players at different positions.  Some positions are more important than others.

(05-07-2021, 07:42 PM)Bullseye Wrote:

(05-06-2021, 09:47 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: It all depends on how well Little performs. If we're still stuck with the same under-performing starting OT's we had last season, I'd become a run heavy team in order to protect our new QB. As I have said on many occasions, I don't trust Robinson and especially not Taylor in pass protection. I don't wanna see Trevor get "Burrowed." With James Robinson and Travis Etienne in the backfield, I would have no problem going very run heavy in Trevor's rookie year, both to protect him and bring him along slowly in the passing game, using TE's as extra blockers on the edge. IMO, that may be the smartest way to go at this.

While part of me wants to see the offense with TL fully unleashed, I am more than happy with a conservative approach, especially if the OL is still a weakness and since TL is still young.   Justin Herbert managed to do okay without the best protection, but I don't want to risk it with TL.  At minimum, I'd prefer the team to start off conservatively until TL has a better handle on what NFL defenses will do to attack the offense and for the OL to settle with the new schemes and protections, and for Little to knock more of the rust off.

---

(05-07-2021, 09:54 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: We don't have any tight ends; we have assistant offensive tackles.

---

(05-07-2021, 10:01 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: LOL

Pretty much.  
Barring an O'Shaughnessy renaissance that eclipses his former ceiling or an unprecedented emergence from Tyler Davis...  we still need a receiving TE.

At this stage, I am hoping Njoku is cut and we pick him up.

(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?