Quote:We Jaguars fans have been quite enthusiastic about the talent infusion the last 2-3 offseasons have provided, to the point where most, if not all Jaguars fans are prepared to hold Bradley responsible if the team doesn't win.  Khan himself has indicated he expects "substantial improvement" from the team this year.

 

Most outside observers agree that the Jaguars have had a good offseason this year and the past few years.  There were no shortage of kudos given to the Jaguars for their efforts during this past draft.  I haven't seen a draft grade lower than a B+ for our Jaguars in a draft that netted the Jaguars 2 of the consensus top 4 defensive players in this draft.  This year's NFL Network's top 100 players features 4 Jaguars home grown players.

 

But how has that translated into how the preseason mags have viewed the Jaguars and their chances to win this division?  In the four mags out to date (Athlon's, Lindy's, Sporting news, and Pro Football Weekly), the consensus is despite the talent infusion, the Jaguars are a middle of the pack team.  The Jaguars are rated 19th by the Sporting News, and 18th by Pro Football Weekly.  PFW also predicts the Jaguars to finish 3rd in a still mediocre but tight AFC South division with a 7-9 record, behind Indy (9-7) and Houston (8-8).  Also of interest from PFW, no Jaguars rate in their top 50 overall players.  Furthermore, with their positional player ratings system:

 

-Only one Jaguar (WR Allen Robinson-12th best WR) ranks among the best in the league at their position. 

 

-Of the top 15 QBs they rank, Matt Ryan pulls in the lowest rating with a 3.70.  According to the PFW scale, 4.0-5.0=Blue chip (Pro Bowl quality player), 3.0-3.99=red chip (impact player who falls short in at least one area), 2.4-2.99 =purple chip (starter who gets job done/still developing player).  Presumably this means Bortles is somewhere between 2.4-3.69.

 

So taking these things at face value, what do you guys think about the combined evaluations?  How could a team like the Jaguars have what most consider to be three good to great drafts in a row and still be considered a middle of the pack team?

 

The ratings here come from the rater. That's a quip and all, but it's true. I just can't see how anyone can have a scientific, objectively based approach to ranking these players. Even if they did, they still have humans watching "film" and giving grades on incomplete information. Essentially, the poor performances of past sins seasons reflect on the present ratings.


 

Is that a reflection of how poor the roster was before that it took 3 good to great drafts in succession to just reach middle of the pack status?

 

So much about this roster is still unproven. Hell, it's a fairly repeated statement even here that Bortles has a long way to go and he broke the Team record for touchdowns! Folks get tired of hearing / reading it, but this team is strikingly young. Even Julius Thomas is only in his sixth season. Almost all of the major contributors on the team were from the past three drafts. If that isn't telling about how bad the pre-Caldwell roster was, then I don't know what is.


 

Is it a sign of intransigence on the part of the publishers of these mags to acknowledge any improvement until the team shows it on the field, or do these mid pack rankings acknowledge that improvement?

 

I feel like I answered this above.


 

Do you think the nucleus and talent level is there but needs maturity?

 

Absolutely! That, and they simply need gametime to mature. Being great in practice is... well... "great" and all, but on field experience trumps all. They need that more than anything.


 

Is it more a sign of the outsiders' apprehension of Bradley as a coach?

 

As to that, I have no idea. The Head Coach gets blamed when losses pile up. That's just how it is. However, I do find solace in the fact of how well the Organization speaks of him and his consistent, unwavering approach and the Players' response to that. Time will tell us more about Bradley.


 

What are your thoughts on these somewhat conflicting analysis?