There's a few guys I want above Fournette, but I'd be totally fine with him at 4.  I don't see the argument of "Well you have to have an elite O-line or you don't draft him".  Firstly, LSU did not have a dominant offense and because of horrible QB play, everyone and their mom keyed in on Fournette and he still had big games.  Yes, ideally you'd probably want him in an I formation or some type of formation that gives him more room, but he's a rookie also (well technically not even that) and you're hoping his vision and instincts improve also to where he can do just as well in a shotgun.

 

And unless Miss Cleo is posting in here, no one knows how good of a unit we're going to have this year or the next.  For all we know, Albert stays healthy and is a great LT, we draft a rookie guard who is a stud, and maybe get another guy next year and all of a sudden our O-line is dominant.  Oakland was a pretty good example of this.  Their line was garbage and they made a couple moves and signed a "backup-quality" LT (Penn) and all of a sudden they had a great O-line.

 

I think you underestimate the moves that Oakland made in upgrading their OL.

 

And it's not about whether he'll be successful. I think LF will be a good RB wherever he goes. He has enough pluses going for him for that to not happen (barring injury or just going to an awful situation). The argument is whether someone like him who you'll have to transform your entire offense around into having a lead-blocker is worth a 4th pick overall, especially in a draft like this where guys like Cook, McCaffrey, and Mixon are available in the 1st/early 2nd rounds.

 

Then there's other "big" backs too later in the draft that can give you that "grinding" running game...albeit without the explosiveness of LF (with possibly the exception of Foreman, who I'm not quite sold on either, but value wise, its there).

 

I'd understand if the Jags go with LF at 4 given the lack of premium positions that fit out needs at 4, but it wouldn't surprise me if any of the other backs taken after LF at a much lower cost end up being better than him in the NFL.

---

I think everyone was underestimating Oakland's moves when they were making them, which is sort of my point.  Teams can go from having a mediocre line to a really good one fairly quickly if all the pieces fall right.

 

Waiting on a back would be fine too, it makes sense.  I'm fine waiting because of other talent that is there at 4 and we know we can get a good starter day 2.

---

https://youtu.be/-7w9fq7FFNU


You still want this guy?

Yep, I see a guy getting hit behind the LOS a dozen times because he's running against 6 men in shotgun.

 

LSU's offensive line is terrible.

---

THERE IS A SKELETON INSIDE OF YOU.

 

RIGHT NOW. THIS IS NOT A JOKE.

I'll take Mixon in the 3rd.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejLsE8vz7g4

---

I'll take Mixon in the 3rd.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejLsE8vz7g4

Based off that video it looks like Mixon can run through some big holes (that most HB could run through) but doesn't really break any tackles.

---

So the problem people have is Fournette supposedly can't run out of the shutgun (and needs a FB) and Bortles needs to be under the gun to play well?

 

Couldn't we alleviate both issues and just run a lot of Pistol formation?

 

Blake gets to stay in the gun and Fournette basically gets the same looks he would in a "dot" formation. Everyone's happy.

---

There's a few guys I want above Fournette, but I'd be totally fine with him at 4.  I don't see the argument of "Well you have to have an elite O-line or you don't draft him".  Firstly, LSU did not have a dominant offense and because of horrible QB play, everyone and their mom keyed in on Fournette and he still had big games.  Yes, ideally you'd probably want him in an I formation or some type of formation that gives him more room, but he's a rookie also (well technically not even that) and you're hoping his vision and instincts improve also to where he can do just as well in a shotgun.

 

And unless Miss Cleo is posting in here, no one knows how good of a unit we're going to have this year or the next.  For all we know, Albert stays healthy and is a great LT, we draft a rookie guard who is a stud, and maybe get another guy next year and all of a sudden our O-line is dominant.  Oakland was a pretty good example of this.  Their line was garbage and they made a couple moves and signed a "backup-quality" LT (Penn) and all of a sudden they had a great O-line.

Ok, say our oline does magically get to become great, then a lesser RB we get round 2/3/4 would be able to dominate with that great oline too. If we're taking a RB at 5 it needs to be one that transcends an oline problem...

 

Look at the Cowboys. Their oline was so good that McFadden averaged a top 5 in the league 4.6 yards per carry in 2015. Then they take a top 5 pick and Zeke helped them to a whole 1/5 of a yard better 4.8 yards per carry...at the cost of Jalen Ramsey. Does anyone really think that's better? They could have taken a number of late RBs and paired him with McFadden and been way better off with that + Ramsey. 

---

https://youtu.be/-7w9fq7FFNU


You still want this guy?

 

Actually, only watching about a minute of it, including Alabama getting all kinds of penetration, I was pretty impressed with Fournette.  He looks pretty good in that tape, at least, the one minute I watched, which included Alabama and Ole Miss. 

---

McCaffrey is better...

 

McCaffrey is my pick for rookie of the year, but I don't compare him to Fournette, because they are so totally different.   The success of either one of them will depend on the system he goes to.   Even though I love McCaffrey, and I got on the McCaffrey bandwagon before anyone else, I'm not sure I want McCaffrey to come to the Jags.  I don't think we run the right system for him.  

---

Ok, say our oline does magically get to become great, then a lesser RB we get round 2/3/4 would be able to dominate with that great oline too. If we're taking a RB at 5 it needs to be one that transcends an oline problem...


Look at the Cowboys. Their oline was so good that McFadden averaged a top 5 in the league 4.6 yards per carry in 2015. Then they take a top 5 pick and Zeke helped them to a whole 1/5 of a yard better 4.8 yards per carry...at the cost of Jalen Ramsey. Does anyone really think that's better? They could have taken a number of late RBs and paired him with McFadden and been way better off with that + Ramsey.

You don't really have to sell me too hard on waiting on a RB. There's day 2 guys that I think are going to be good NFL RBs and I'm totally fine waiting. Fixing the O-line would be huge and upgrade the running game no matter what. Just depends on how they grade LF compared to what else is there at 4.


When Dallas took Elliott and Ramsey was on the board I nearly flipped the table. I think it was a mistake on their part, but their scouts must have had a higher grade on Elliott somehow. Obviously like you said, their ypc didn't improve much so looks like a mistake, but he's a really good player at least.

---

Out of all those talked about being selected by us at 4 none would disappoint me more than Fournette.


There are numerous other options that would be better, smarter and present greater value.

Agreed. I would even prefer O.J. Howard over Fournette at this point.

---

It's amazing watching how easily some people here are influenced by the media or some popular tweets.

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

Fournette seems to get tripped up by the legs pretty easily. Go look at D'onta Foreman, he is able to continue running after someone tries to trip him up. I would rather have OJ Howard in the with a trade down or BAP at 4. 

---

I sure do. I see mostly terrible blocking, Jacksonville has a garbage o-line 

Let me stop you here and let you think

---

Fournette seems to get tripped up by the legs pretty easily. 

Weak ankles

---

I'm with KY on this. Fournette freaks me out a little bit. Would rather wait and see if McCaffrey falls to 2nd round or take a late back.

---

Shock the world

It's amazing watching how easily some people here are influenced by the media or some popular tweets.

 

Allen has no arms, Fournette no ankles, and McCaffrey has no position.

 

The purpose of my exaggeration is to point out the nitpicking that happens every year, and how things get put under a microscope that most times don't even factor on draft day.

 

In reality, it will be very difficult to miss on our pick no matter who we take, much like last year.

 

Unless the player goes down in OTAs with injury, we're looking at a really good player that will contribute no matter who we take.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Allen has no arms, Fournette no ankles, and McCaffrey has no position.


The purpose of my exaggeration is to point out the nitpicking that happens every year, and how things get put under a microscope that most times don't even factor on draft day.


In reality, it will be very difficult to miss on our pick no matter who we take, much like last year.


Unless the player goes down in OTAs with injury, we're looking at a really good player that will contribute no matter who we take.

I completely agree. It's almost pointless to even jump into any discussions on players we might pick round 1 at this point. Evwry thread has basically jumped the shark.


There are only a handful of regular posters on here that seem to think about things objectively and logically anymore.


Draft day can't come soon enough.

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

Draft day can't come soon enough.

 

^  QFT

---

McCaffrey is better...

 

 

You won't get an argument from me because I started out saying this after watching tape of both and seeing their combine results. I've slowly moved over to the Fournette is better side, but it's still a real toss-up for me. My gut still says McCaffery is actually better.

---

'02