Quote:I think something more fundamental is being missed here.

 

Caldwell has been here two offseasons.

 

If we agree with the axiom that it is preferable to build through the draft, then let's look at the two drafts with which Caldwell has had to work.

 

This year, the team wound up with 9 picks (they had 11 after the Thomas, Monroe, and Gabbert trades, but utilized those picks in trades up.).

 

Last year, the team wound up with 8 picks.

 

If my math is right, that's a total of 19 picks gross and 17 picks net after the trades up this year.

 

Considering we've had a complete roster overhaul because we've gotten next to nothing from Gene Smith's drafts, does anyone honestly expect this or ANY team to get 17-19 quality starters-adequately filling holes on both sides of the ball-within two drafts?

 

Sub question:  does anyone expect this or ANY team to hit on 17-19 players in the draft in two offseasons and have them be immediately good with no rookie hiccups whatsoever, even operating under the generous assumption that all 17-19 picks eventually turn into quality starters?

 

For those who assert we should have kept those extra 4th and 6th round picks, does that mean you would be willing to do without Allen Robinson?

 

Did anyone expect all 17-19 drafted players to enjoy perfect health as they developed?

 

Now some have argued it was a mistake for the team to let players like Monroe, Smith and Knighton walk in free agency.

 

We had all three of those guys on the roster for the entirety of the Gene Smith era.  During that span, they produced ZERO (0) winning seasons.

 

If you assume we kept all three players, but also assume not every single one of the 17 draft picks would develop into quality starters without any rookie hiccups, why would we expect a winning record this year with those guys?

 

I know we want to win, but I'm not sure what the expectations were these first five weeks, especially given the early schedule we had.

 

Regarding the bringing in talent irrespective of coaching philosophy and somehow adjusting the philosophy to the talent, doing things that way makes it impossible to formulate any sort of identity at all.

 

If we drafted a 335 lb mauler in a G that works well in a phone booth but does not pull well, any play that would require pulling (traps, some sweeps/toss plays, screens) would have to be taken out of the playbook to accommodate him.   If we had one mauler and one pulling guard defenses could simply key on down, distance and personnel.

 

Think back to Bryce Paup for a minute.  Prior to coming to Jacksonville, Paup thrived and made pro bowls as a pass rushing OLB in a 3-4 defense.    His whole thing was going forward and disrupting the passer.  He comes to Jacksonville and he is placed as a 4-3 OLB where he was forced to drop into coverage against TEs, RBs, and in some instances of poor matchups, WRs.  The results were not good.  That was a classic instance of just acquiring talent without regard to whether the talent fit the scheme.