Login

navyjagfan · 10-18-2021, 11:36 PM

(10-18-2021, 09:10 PM)rfc17 Wrote:
(10-18-2021, 08:42 PM)jaguarmvp Wrote: Enough with the "ETN was a crap pick" He got hurt so we do not know what he can contribute.

Yea I dont get the hatred of the Etienne pick. With the versatility of elite players to flex between RB and WR, position designations are almost irrelevant in the NFL these days. It's all about playmakers. You don't draft Etienne because you want him to get 25 carries out of the back field like a traditional RB. You draft him to get him 15-20 touches a game in a variety of roles expecting him to be a game breaker. Everyone says RBs are a dime a dozen. Well 5'10 WRs are a dime a dozen as well but Tyreek Hill isn't. The dude is a playmaker. Makes big plays that changes the course of games. Who cares what his position is called. That is essentially what they are drafting Etienne to be. A playmaker who changes the outcome of games with one or two big plays a game. The Etienne pick shouldnt be critiqued because of the position title next to his name. It should be critiqued on whether they scouted him well and if he can be the playmaker they expect him to be. And even for those who are stuck in in the traditional mindset of each team having one bell cow RB getting 30 touches a game, was it a problem when we had Fred Taylor and MJD on the same team? Of course not. Just imagine if we had those two and Trevor Lawrence. Good Lord that would have been a great offense.

Getting back to Baalke, it's too early to make an assessment. I'm not a fan of what he did in SF and so far not a huge fan of what we've done here. I don't love the draft strategy of taking injured guys. In the offseason however it sounded as though that would really pay off. But we havent seen much of Little or Cisco now that the real games have begun. I'd like to see them get Cisco some reps. The defense needs someone who can make big plays and he was known as being a ballhawk. Ironically he'd likely replace the one guy in Winguard that actually generated a turnover (Lawson's was a gift), but we need someone who can consistently do it. Didn't love the Campbell pick at the time and haven't seen anything to change my mind yet. As far as guys who were on the team, dropping Quincy Williams looks like a mistake but maybe he'd be a bad fit in this scheme. Some of those trades seem to have backfired. Maybe Jones and Schobert aren't doing much for their teams but I think we could use them. At this point I'd rather have Schobert than Wilson. We're getting killed by Wilson's inability to cover and Schobert would fit in well there. CB looked like a major strength during training camp and now we are picking up guys off the street to start for us.

I will give them credit that the offensive line isn't as bad as I thought it'd be. Injuries could change that. But so far they haven't been that bad. I still would like to see them address it next offseason. Think they'll have to with the number of guys nearing the end of their contract.

The reason that fans don't like the ETN pick is because it's not a good value pick. You can get a good RB (or OG or safety) in the later rounds, but it's much harder to get a solid LT or QB later on in the draft. For example, Rashawn Slater was available in 1st round instead of ETN and he's playing extremely well. There were good RB's available in the 3rd and 4th rounds.

Sure, ETN got injured so the jury is still out on him, but it's not about him per se as much as it is realizing the draft is about matching talent to positional value, because in the long run that's how good teams manage their salary cap.

(10-18-2021, 03:36 PM)jaguarmvp Wrote: It is way too early to judge this draft class but do understand it has been mediocre so far outside of Lawrence. With that said, he has traded away some dead weight that may end up being huge gains down the road. Arnold outside of his bad game yesterday gave us more production in a few games than CJ Henderson has in about 18. He did help build a Superbowl roster so there is that.

I'd give Baalke a solid C- grade. Below average. Nowhere near deserving any sort of credit.