I've heard plenty of people say that having a capable quarterback in Henne gives us the flexibility to draft a quarterback in the second round or later or even next year.  I couldn't disagree more.  He's a backup caliber quarterback and we need to find a way to get him to the bench as soon as possible.

It does give us some flexibility if Caldwell and Bradley don't believe there's a franchise QB at #3. If they think there's one at #3, having Henne isn't going to stop them from selecting said player. I wouldn't worry about that.

---

I think we'll see 4 DTs on the roster, especially in light of Miller's injury history.  I would expect that 4th guy to be Abry Jones, that Caldwell has spoken highly of during the open fan town hall discussions. 

 

Not a bad prediction.  Mine is based upon what I would do and not necessarily what I think Caldwell would do.  I know that I only kept three defensive tackles and I considered keeping Arbry Jones.  My feeling is that Alualu and Bryant could play some defensive tackle if needed.  I'd also keep at least one and probably two defensive tackles on the practice squad as well.  It was just a numbers game.  I felt like if I kept Arbry Jones, I would have to cut another defensive lineman which would likely be Ryan Davis.  However, I liked Davis's potential.  He had a sack and an interception in limited playing time.  I like him as a developmental player that could turn into more with experience.  I just hated to cut him.  I chose Davis over Jones, but I could see one arguing defensive tackle as a bigger need.  I guess another option would be to go with one less linebacker and keep both Davis and Jones.

---

You are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are the one who doesn't get it. I think many confuse "BAP" with "good scouting". They have nothing to do with each other. If you do a poor job at player evaluations, no strategy will work. That's what overwhelmingly sinks teams. However, no one purposely takes busts. When it happens, it's because the team misevaluated the player. Keep in mind that a team can misevaluate a non-need position just as easily as a need position. There are plenty examples of teams taking the presumed "BAP" only to have the player turn out to be a bust. Then you have neither value nor need. That's worst of all possible worlds.


I also think Vic & O-zone Man try to convince people that "need" means "reach" or "bust". It means no such thing. "Need" is short for "need to win". The goal is to win. If you need something to win, that's pretty darn important. I want to win. If you take someone other than what you need to win, aren't you trying to lose? I like the auto repair shop analogy. If you car won't run because the ignition is broken and the shop tells you that can either buy a new ignition for full price or you can buy tires at 5% off (and you already have virtually new tires), which do you buy? Do you really buy the tires because they are a better "value" and then walk home because you still have a car that doesn't run? Need can be more important than value.


I also think there's a misconception that "need" and "value" have to be two separate things. I want both. Put it this way, isn't "need and value" better than "non-need and value"? Why settle for anything less? I heard the story of an admissions coordinator at one of the top universities in the country who was asked whether he wanted the student got an "A" in a regular class or a "B" in the advanced class. He responded by saying "I want the guy who got the A in the advanced class." Me too. I want both need and value. A draft pick is only a win if it accomplished both. Ok, you might ask "what happens if the two aren't the same at a draft spot?" You are basically asking "what if you are in unwinnable situation"? I'm no Star Trek fan, but there is great wisdom in the second movie that relates to it. How can you avoid losing in an unwinnable situation? Stop right now and think about it. How can you avoid losing in an unwinnable situation? I only know of one way. In Star Trek, there's a simulator where it is impossible to win. Captain Kirk is the only one to ever beat it. How did he do it? He went in to the computer and changed the simulation. The answer to our question is that the only way to avoid losing in an unwinnable situation is to not be in that situation in the first place! If you're only choice at a draft position is need or value, then CHANGE YOUR POSITION! As I stated in my original post, I think in most cases outside of the first couple of rounds that you get multiple players with similar values and then you take the one that's a need. If that's not the case and your need isn't there, then TRADE IT. Keep in mind that one man's junk is another man's treasure. In the NFL, every position is going to be a need for some team. Trade your non-need player to the team that needs it and then draft your need where it does equal value. Don't take a non-need, shrug you shoulders, and say "BAP". That's accepting defeat. Good GM's combine need with value.


Now why is purely BAP a bad idea? Let me give some examples. Let's say that the BAP in the late rounds is at a complete non-need. As a result, the BAP doesn't make the team. A BAP player does you no good if he doesn't make the team. However, a player with slightly less value at a need position may make your team and upgrade a roster spot. The "need" helped you improve your team while the "BAP" did not. That's the goal, isn't it?


As for the early rounds, a player's impact isn't determined solely by value but also by playing time. Has a player ever scored a touchdown while sitting on the bench? Let's use the school grading system of 1 to 100 with 100 being the best. Ok, an 81 is better than 80. BAP says that the 81 player should be the pick -- no "if's", "and's", or "but's". However, what if the 81 is at a position where you already have a 95 while the 80 is at a position where you are currently starting a 40? What's the result? The 81 sits the bench. Meanwhile the 80 is a huge upgrade over the 40. Which helps you win more games? Clearly the 80. Once again, the "need" helps your team win more games than the "BAP". The goal is to win games, isn't it?


Don't get me wrong, value is very, very important and will be the main factor in your draft. However, as I stated in my original post, I don't think there's going to be a world of difference between the 110th best projected player and the 111th best player. Vic would want you to think that there were 110 pro-bowlers in the draft and the next 100 would all be busts. That's not realistic. Realistically, if you asked all 32 teams, probably 16 would pick one and 16 would pick the other. If that's the case, why not take the need? At this point, we have no reason to suspect (particularly outside of the first couple of rounds) that the draft will go in any order other than value. As such, need becomes the factor and thus my message with position preference for the draft.

I think the point you are missing is the draft is not a sure fire pot of players. No matter the philosophy you can miss. But in my opinion BAP gives you the best value for the player you draft. You don't pick players from the draft to fill holes cause they are unknows. The draft is not free agency. The draft is a pool of talent so you pick the best from that pool of talent. Obviously need is a tie breaker but then you get the best talent you can from a pool of unknows. When you start projecting guys to be players that's where you start messing up.


Honestly there is no sure fire way to pick the right guy. I would just say BAP would make it less of a risk than need drafting. I think someone said in another thread that a good GM uses both and that's what I would agree with.

---

I will always defer to Green Bay and Aaron Rodgers. That was nothing but a value pick and look where it got them. The fans never had the foresight to realize that pick would set them up for another decade.

---

A fourth round qb after a first round qb; why not one in the sixth. 

Actually the fourth round quarterback was my final change before posting.  I originally didn't have us taking one.  Here's my thought process.  First, I didn't think any position with our second pick in the fourth round would have a legitimate chance of being a starter (barring a major surprise).  As such, what backup is the most important?  That would be quarterback.  Henne also has a huge salary.  If the fourth rounder can become a legitimate backup, we can drop Henne's big salary next year, allowing us to sign a good player at a different position in free agency.  I'm also told it is a deep draft for quarterbacks.  As for why not the sixth, I'm not a big believer in taking a quarterback in the 5th through 7th round.  Obviously there's going to be exceptions, but I think it's a position that goes quickly.  You either invest in a quarterback or you don't.  If I'm not taking one by 4th, I'm probably not taking one at all.  

---

No higher graded defensive player until the 5th round?

 

I'm surprised that I haven't gotten more comments about the lack of defensive players.  I knew that would be a criticism, but to me, it makes sense.  There are a bunch of reasons contributing to it.  To start, I think our defense was much better than our offense last year.  We then spent the off-season primarily upgrading the defense.  When I went draft spot by draft spot and position by position, offensive positions just made the most sense.  The first four picks for me were pretty easy for me.  We need a much better passing game; hence, a quarterback and receiver in the first two rounds.  I don't think Brewster or Rackley could make a bunch of teams in the NFL, not to mention being starters.  I also like that interior offensive linemen often drop in the draft.  Combine those two facts and they are easy picks in the third and fourth round.  They had the best chance of being starters.  I'd love a star defensive end, but to do so, you pretty much have to do it in the first round and quarterback is just a far bigger priority.  Linebacker would be my alternative choice for the 3rd or 4th round, but I think our current center/right guard are worse than our outside linebackers.  Interior linemen is also a position that is more likely to drop in the draft.  I also factored in that it is considered a weak draft for linebackers.  Assuming my plan was followed, I would probably predict defensive end followed by two linebackers as my first three selections in the 2015 draft.  As for the late rounds, I looked at our depth chart.  We actually have very good depth on the defensive line.  Again, I'd love a star, but you don't expect find a star defensive lineman in the late rounds.  The same could be said for the secondary.  I would love a star, but I think we have decent depth.  The bottom player at cornerback would be Harris.  He was a rookie last year.  I'd give him another year to prove himself.  I guess Prosinski at safety would be a possible candidate to upgrade, but he's a former fourth rounder and I don't think he's terrible.  I considered it iffy whether a 5th through 7th rounder would beat him out.  If the draft pick at safety can't beat Prosinski out, he's no good to us.  I thought my other offensive selections in the late rounds were bigger needs and had a better chance of making the team.  The one defensive position that lacked depth was linebacker and I did take a linebacker -- three times.

---

I will always defer to Green Bay and Aaron Rodgers. That was nothing but a value pick and look where it got them. The fans never had the foresight to realize that pick would set them up for another decade.

 

You can play that game until you are blue in the face.  I remember that many thought we should take the BAP in 1996 -- Lawrence Phillips.  I also remember listening to the radio on draft day in 1997.  They thought we should take the BAP -- Rae Carruth.  Wasn't he out of the league three years later?  I remember us not needing a defensive tackle in 1998, but Coughlin took one in fourth round because he thought he was BAP.  Harry Deligianis may be one of the worst picks in Jaguars history.  He didn't even make the first round of cuts.  In 1999, we didn't need a defensive tackle, but how could Coughlin resist the BAP -- Larry Smith?  Again, arguably one of our worst second round picks in our history.  At the same time, the Jaguars were considered reaching for a need when they took Brad Meester in the second round.  He started for us for how many years?  Akin Ayodele was considered a major reach too, but turned out to be one of our best third rounders.  Donovin Darius was considered a reach.  Gene Smith was laughed at for taking Cecil Shorts in the fourth, but it's arguably his best pick.  Again, you can play that game all day.  Some needs turn out to be busts, but some BAP's turn out to be busts too.  Some BAPs turn out to be the real deal, but some so-called reaches on draft day at need positions turn out to be great picks too.  It's all over the place.  It comes down to good scouting.  There's no denying that good player evaluations make or break teams in the draft, but that has nothing to do with a BAP drafting philosophy.  As I stated before, you can mis-project the value of a non-need just as easily as a need position.  Let me be clear.  I don't support reaching for a player.  If talent is close, you take the need.  If the talent isn't close and it isn't a need, you should trade the pick.  If no one wants to trade with you (including teams with a huge need at that position), doesn't that say something?  

---

It does give us some flexibility if Caldwell and Bradley don't believe there's a franchise QB at #3. If they think there's one at #3, having Henne isn't going to stop them from selecting said player. I wouldn't worry about that.

 

That's the point though.  It's a Henne love fest for some.  It does not give us flexibility.  Henne IS NOT a legitimate option as a starter for a winning team.  As long as he is a starter, we are not going to the playoffs.  We need a new starter.  If the Jaguars think the best quarterback in the draft will be there in the second round, fine, but that's one heck of a gamble, and if it's wrong there will be heck to pay.  (Censored for language.   )

---

You are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are the one who doesn't get it.  I think many confuse "BAP" with "good scouting".  They have nothing to do with each other.  If you do a poor job at player evaluations, no strategy will work.  That's what overwhelmingly sinks teams.  However, no one purposely takes busts.  When it happens, it's because the team misevaluated the player.  Keep in mind that a team can misevaluate a non-need position just as easily as a need position.  There are plenty examples of teams taking the presumed "BAP" only to have the player turn out to be a bust.  Then you have neither value nor need.  That's worst of all possible worlds.

 

I also think Vic & O-zone Man try to convince people that "need" means "reach" or "bust".  It means no such thing.  "Need" is short for "need to win".  The goal is to win.  If you need something to win, that's pretty darn important.  I want to win.  If you take someone other than what you need to win, aren't you trying to lose?  I like the auto repair shop analogy.  If you car won't run because the ignition is broken and the shop tells you that can either buy a new ignition for full price or you can buy tires at 5% off (and you already have virtually new tires), which do you buy?  Do you really buy the tires because they are a better "value" and then walk home because you still have a car that doesn't run?  Need can be more important than value. 

 

 

I'm assuming this response was to me, though you didn't quote anyone.  Regardless, you're stating the obvious above as if it's a revelation which it isn't.  Scouting isn't exact.  All you can hope to be is better than all or at least better than most.  You're going to get it wrong sometimes.  Proper scouting, however, wasn't the premise of your original post and you're dragging it in now as an attempt to support your original argument when it's actually irrelevant to the BAP vs Need debate.  It is a separate issue.  No one would argue that a terrible scouting department is more desirable than a good one and accurate scouting doesn't specifically support either side.


 

And you're welcome to criticize Vic or Oehser, but at least do so with out straw man arguments which your post is littered with.  And the kindest thing I can say about your analogy is it is incredibly weak.  If the ignition doesn't work, the car doesn't work.  If a position on a team is manned by a weak link, the team still plays and can still win.  I can't believe I'm having to type out why that analogy is terrible, it's that bad and it's that obvious.


 

 

I also think there's a misconception that "need" and "value" have to be two separate things.  I want both. Put it this way, isn't "need and value" better than "non-need and value"?  Why settle for anything less?  I heard the story of an admissions coordinator at one of the top universities in the country who was asked whether he wanted the student got an "A" in a regular class or a "B" in the advanced class.  He responded by saying "I want the guy who got the A in the advanced class."  Me too.  I want both need and value.  A draft pick is only a win if it accomplished both.  Ok, you might ask "what happens if the two aren't the same at a draft spot?"  You are basically asking "what if you are in unwinnable situation"?  I'm no Star Trek fan, but there is great wisdom in the second movie that relates to it.  How can you avoid losing in an unwinnable situation?  Stop right now and think about it.  How can you avoid losing in an unwinnable situation?  I only know of one way.  In Star Trek, there's a simulator where it is impossible to win.  Captain Kirk is the only one to ever beat it.  How did he do it?  He went in to the computer and changed the simulation.  The answer to our question is that the only way to avoid losing in an unwinnable situation is to not be in that situation in the first place!  If you're only choice at a draft position is need or value, then CHANGE YOUR POSITION!  As I stated in my original post, I think in most cases outside of the first couple of rounds that you get multiple players with similar values and then you take the one that's a need.  If that's not the case and your need isn't there, then TRADE IT.  Keep in mind that one man's junk is another man's treasure.  In the NFL, every position is going to be a need for some team.  Trade your non-need player to the team that needs it and then draft your need where it does equal value.  Don't take a non-need, shrug you shoulders, and say "BAP".  That's accepting defeat.  Good GM's combine need with value.  

 

Ok Capt. Kirk, it's great that you want Need to meet Value every time, but you're literally living in lala land.  There are 11 different players on the field for you on offense and 11 different on defense.  Most of these positions are not interchangable.  When you factor in players that come in for specific packages like Nickel Corner, there are even more.  When Value and Need meet at your time to draft, it's more by coincidence than anything else which is also assuming your scouting is completely accurate.  No one is arguing that if you have your franchise QB for instance and the highest rated player at your time to draft is QB that trading back would be a bad idea.  It's just another example of you using straw man arguments to justify your position.  Here are two points to keep in mind:  There aren't always trade partners to trade back with or who will offer sufficient value to do so and depth is just as much of a need as any individual position by itself is.  And the bad analogies just keep on rolling...  Star Trek?  Really?


 

Now why is purely BAP a bad idea?  Let me give some examples.  Let's say that the BAP in the late rounds is at a complete non-need.  As a result, the BAP doesn't make the team.  A BAP player does you no good if he doesn't make the team.  However, a player with slightly less value at a need position may make your team and upgrade a roster spot.  The "need" helped you improve your team while the "BAP" did not.  That's the goal, isn't it?

 

As for the early rounds, a player's impact isn't determined solely by value but also by playing time.  Has a player ever scored a touchdown while sitting on the bench?  Let's use the school grading system of 1 to 100 with 100 being the best.  Ok, an 81 is better than 80.  BAP says that the 81 player should be the pick -- no "if's", "and's", or "but's".  However, what if the 81 is at a position where you already have a 95 while the 80 is at a position where you are currently starting a 40?  What's the result?  The 81 sits the bench.  Meanwhile the 80 is a huge upgrade over the 40.  Which helps you win more games?  Clearly the 80.  Once again, the "need" helps your team win more games than the "BAP".  The goal is to win games, isn't it? 

 

Don't get me wrong, value is very, very important and will be the main factor in your draft.  However, as I stated in my original post, I don't think there's going to be a world of difference between the 110th best projected player and the 111th best player.  Vic would want you to think that there were 110 pro-bowlers in the draft and the next 100 would all be busts.  That's not realistic.  Realistically, if you asked all 32 teams, probably 16 would pick one and 16 would pick the other.  If that's the case, why not take the need?  At this point, we have no reason to suspect (particularly outside of the first couple of rounds) that the draft will go in any order other than value.  As such, need becomes the factor and thus my message with position preference for the draft.

 

No one that understands BAP has ever advocated that you're still implementing it later in the draft or that anyone's boards would have the players graded that distinctly differently later in the draft.  I'm not going to pretend as if I know in what round the transition takes place, but no one that is on the other side from you is saying what you're saying they are above.  So it appears we have another straw man.


 

You can try to disguise Need as Value, but you'd only be doing your team a disservice.  Value is how the players grade out, not whether he starts right away and plays more because you're team has a hole there.  That's need.  They don't have to be mutually exclusive, but as I illustrated above, more often than not it is.


 

I might agree in the scenario that a player graded as an 80 and is a need would be taken ahead of one that is an 81 and isn't a great need, but it's an over simplified example designed to fit your argument and not one that actually plays out like that in real life.  For instance, a player that graded out as a 40 wouldn't be in the league, much less, the current starter on your roster.  An example that's closer to reality might be someone that grades out as a 75 is your current starter and do you take the 80 to start in front of him or the 81 to sit behind someone else.  Even that is still too simplified because we're not taking into account the contracts of the players in the example to know whether the 81 might be starting next year anyway due to the player in front of him having left in free agency.


 

I don't think Vic ever said what you're saying he said above or anything close to it.  I'm not here to defend Vic, but I am pointing out straw man arguments when you use them which this is another example.  I'm not against taking a QB at 3 if he's the highest rated player.  I'm against forcing a QB at 3 which you seem to have no problem with.  I get it, we all want to see better QB play.  We haven't had it in a very long time.  But your position reeks of desperation as a result of that.  A good GM who has an owner that enables him to draft properly, should be drafting for the future a few years down the road and not focusing on filling needs for this year through the draft. The best way to serve the future is to take the best available player on your board.  Free Agency is the channel that should be and is used to focus on the needs of this year.  Can you find rookies in the draft that start right away and even excel? Yes, but that shouldn't be the expectation.  The expectation is that these rookies, even those that start right away, are going to go through a learning curve for the first year or two before they fully develop and reach their full potential. 


 

Caldwell is still early in his tenure here and should be given the leeway to draft properly without the fear that if the team is still relatively bad this year that he'll be fired next year.  If Khan is a good owner and allows him to do his job, he's not going to force any pick and will be allowed to focus on the future by taking the best player available in the early rounds.  If he does take a QB at 3 or even trades back and takes him a little later then I'll trust his judgement and will cheer on whoever is at QB when they take the field later in the year but I don't think that's the scenario that's going to play out.  I believe if we are to get one of the top quarterbacks, it will be by standing pat in the 2nd or by trading back up into the late 1st round.  If we don't get a QB in the first or 2nd I won't be upset either.  I'm more interested in seeing how it unfolds than being emotionally invested in whether my mancrush gets drafted by my team.  Only time will tell whether the decisions made in this year's draft will be good ones, but I can say with certainty that your "plan" isn't.  If Caldwell's plan is to get fired, then you have an excellent blueprint for him.  I can picture him sliding that across the desk to Khan now and the cheery eyes of Khan slowly shifting to a bloodrage.
  Hopefully Caldwell won't use the Star Trek analogy.  Khan might paint his office walls in Caldwell's blood if so.

---

You are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are the one who doesn't get it.  I think many confuse "BAP" with "good scouting".  They have nothing to do with each other.  If you do a poor job at player evaluations, no strategy will work.  That's what overwhelmingly sinks teams.  However, no one purposely takes busts.  When it happens, it's because the team misevaluated the player.  Keep in mind that a team can misevaluate a non-need position just as easily as a need position.  There are plenty examples of teams taking the presumed "BAP" only to have the player turn out to be a bust.  Then you have neither value nor need.  That's worst of all possible worlds.

 

I also think Vic & O-zone Man try to convince people that "need" means "reach" or "bust".  It means no such thing.  "Need" is short for "need to win".  The goal is to win.  If you need something to win, that's pretty darn important.  I want to win.  If you take someone other than what you need to win, aren't you trying to lose?  I like the auto repair shop analogy.  If you car won't run because the ignition is broken and the shop tells you that can either buy a new ignition for full price or you can buy tires at 5% off (and you already have virtually new tires), which do you buy?  Do you really buy the tires because they are a better "value" and then walk home because you still have a car that doesn't run?  Need can be more important than value. 

 

I also think there's a misconception that "need" and "value" have to be two separate things.  I want both. Put it this way, isn't "need and value" better than "non-need and value"?  Why settle for anything less?  I heard the story of an admissions coordinator at one of the top universities in the country who was asked whether he wanted the student got an "A" in a regular class or a "B" in the advanced class.  He responded by saying "I want the guy who got the A in the advanced class."  Me too.  I want both need and value.  A draft pick is only a win if it accomplished both.  Ok, you might ask "what happens if the two aren't the same at a draft spot?"  You are basically asking "what if you are in unwinnable situation"?  I'm no Star Trek fan, but there is great wisdom in the second movie that relates to it.  How can you avoid losing in an unwinnable situation?  Stop right now and think about it.  How can you avoid losing in an unwinnable situation?  I only know of one way.  In Star Trek, there's a simulator where it is impossible to win.  Captain Kirk is the only one to ever beat it.  How did he do it?  He went in to the computer and changed the simulation.  The answer to our question is that the only way to avoid losing in an unwinnable situation is to not be in that situation in the first place!  If you're only choice at a draft position is need or value, then CHANGE YOUR POSITION!  As I stated in my original post, I think in most cases outside of the first couple of rounds that you get multiple players with similar values and then you take the one that's a need.  If that's not the case and your need isn't there, then TRADE IT.  Keep in mind that one man's junk is another man's treasure.  In the NFL, every position is going to be a need for some team.  Trade your non-need player to the team that needs it and then draft your need where it does equal value.  Don't take a non-need, shrug you shoulders, and say "BAP".  That's accepting defeat.  Good GM's combine need with value.   

 

Now why is purely BAP a bad idea?  Let me give some examples.  Let's say that the BAP in the late rounds is at a complete non-need.  As a result, the BAP doesn't make the team.  A BAP player does you no good if he doesn't make the team.  However, a player with slightly less value at a need position may make your team and upgrade a roster spot.  The "need" helped you improve your team while the "BAP" did not.  That's the goal, isn't it?

 

As for the early rounds, a player's impact isn't determined solely by value but also by playing time.  Has a player ever scored a touchdown while sitting on the bench?  Let's use the school grading system of 1 to 100 with 100 being the best.  Ok, an 81 is better than 80.  BAP says that the 81 player should be the pick -- no "if's", "and's", or "but's".  However, what if the 81 is at a position where you already have a 95 while the 80 is at a position where you are currently starting a 40?  What's the result?  The 81 sits the bench.  Meanwhile the 80 is a huge upgrade over the 40.  Which helps you win more games?  Clearly the 80.  Once again, the "need" helps your team win more games than the "BAP".  The goal is to win games, isn't it? 

 

Don't get me wrong, value is very, very important and will be the main factor in your draft.  However, as I stated in my original post, I don't think there's going to be a world of difference between the 110th best projected player and the 111th best player.  Vic would want you to think that there were 110 pro-bowlers in the draft and the next 100 would all be busts.  That's not realistic.  Realistically, if you asked all 32 teams, probably 16 would pick one and 16 would pick the other.  If that's the case, why not take the need?  At this point, we have no reason to suspect (particularly outside of the first couple of rounds) that the draft will go in any order other than value.  As such, need becomes the factor and thus my message with position preference for the draft.

 

Great explanation, Duke, and I agree completely.

 

Ultimately, however, I think you are spitting into the wind with this post.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

It's good to know that David Caldwell reads my messages!    We got our quarterback in round one and a wide receiver in round two.  Let's see if he gets our center in round three.  I like the odds!

---