(05-22-2021, 06:14 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote:

(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.

Little and Cisco were a .1 different.  I think they felt Cisco would fall to the 3rd and Little wouldn't make it there is another reason they took Little.  I'd bet anything they don't have a kicker and punter rated between a 7.0.amd 8.0 lol.  That's how you take a punter in the 3rd

I can't remember the last time someone so completely missed every point in one of my messages.  You ignored the part where I said that I believed the grades were "RELATIVE TO THE POSITION" and they "DO NOT FACTOR NEED OR POSITIONAL VALUE".  If a team isn't factoring positional value, then they would likely have the best punter in the draft rated a 7.0 or higher (unless it just happened to be a bad year for punters).  Again, you are only comparing the punter to other punters.  In absolutely no way does it mean that you draft a punter in the third round.  It's the reason I brought up the position.  Did you read my last two sentences.!?!?  I will repeat them "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."

I admit it is a theory, but it is the theory that I find most consistent with the facts.  I don't believe:

- The Jaguars were debating Waddle over Lawrence. 
- The Jaguars ignored their own board.  
- The Jaguars believed AVT is graded 7.5 when being compared to quarterbacks, conerbacks, etc.  

I do believe:

- The Jaguars consider Lawrence an elite quarterback and Waddle an elite wide receiver.  
- The Jaguars took Little because of positional value over Cisco.  They think Cisco is as good of a safety as Little is of an offensive tackle, but they valued an offensive tackle more.
- The Jaguars think AVP is near elite when being compared to other offensive guards.

My theory just makes sense.

---