I've never agreed with the Monroe trade's return because Monroe never (at least publicly) made any comments about not wanting to re-sign. And then sure enough, the Ravens re-signed him rather easily to a very fair deal. He wasn't elite, but Joeckel could have and would have gotten used to right tackle and we would have had a great tackle tandem for years.

 

But once that trade is made, for peanuts no less, you don't turn around and waste a top-5 pick on, essentially, his replacement. You just don't. You'd be giving away your #3 pick for a 4th and 5th rounder, or whatever Monroe fetched (I thought it was worse than that?)

 

 

I disagree. Joeckel never seemed all that comfortable at ORT. His skill set is better for OLT. People even said, that Joeckel looked better in the short time he was at OLT in that game, and more so - practice leading up to that game than he had all season at ORT. I think a combo of Joeckel/ Matthews blows away a combo of Monroe/ Joeckel. 

 

If the Jags make good use of the 4th and 5th it doesn't matter who was got first and how. 

---

lolz come on mods....

---

lolz come on mods....

 

come on mods, what?

---

My point is Watkins will be no better than a guy like Torrey Smith in the pro's. Yeah, thats a good WR, but not one anyone needs to take at 3 overall. 

 

Stop being so literal, clowny. 

 

 

Taking BAP is never a horrible misuse of assets. 

 

I was told the 4th and the 5th rounders was a good trade, lol,,,,,

 

I guess it is only when it fits your agenda. 

 

 

 

Yep, everyday of the week and 2x on Sundays. 

 

Not even close, really. 

 

Is Sammy Watkins going to have an almost 300 yard game in his rookie season???..,,,, HIGHLY DOUBT IT. 

 

Blackmon did that with Chad Henne at QB.....think about that for a few minutes....

 

So much fail in this post.

---

What's a good old fashioned draft-day-message-board-meltdown without a little carefully laid groundwork?

 

#clockwork

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9RqmdAwFvo

 

Only screens though. Right?

 

Seriously, this is just dumb. IDK why I replied to him and I don't know why others continuously do too. It's obvious at this point he's just trying to get a rise out of people. He likes to go with the unpopular opinion and the most unlikely scenario so he can trash on the Jags after the draft all the way up until the start of the season. It's obvious at this point that Matthews is less likely than a lot of other players at 3 right now.

---

I disagree. Joeckel never seemed all that comfortable at ORT. His skill set is better for OLT. People even said, that Joeckel looked better in the short time he was at OLT in that game, and more so - practice leading up to that game than he had all season at ORT. I think a combo of Joeckel/ Matthews blows away a combo of Monroe/ Joeckel. 

 

If the Jags make good use of the 4th and 5th it doesn't matter who was got first and how. 

 

Maybe because Joeckel has been playing LT his entire career and RT for only a few months? In time, it would have worked. The skill-set differences for your ideal LT and RT are becoming the same thing in this new-age NFL. With all of the pass rushers playing left end these days, your RT better know how to pass protect. 

 

A combo of Joeckel/Matthews, if both reach their potential, is a good amount better than Monroe/Joeckel, but it's not worth it. 

---

What's a good old fashioned draft-day-message-board-meltdown without a little carefully laid groundwork?

 

#clockwork

 

Just stop with the stupid lazy presumptions. I am not saying the Jags have to draft Matthews at 3 or else.....I listed FOUR players at 3 of which would make me happy with the pick. 

 

I notice its all the Sammy & Mack booster club that says garbage like the above. 

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9RqmdAwFvo

 

Only screens though. Right?

 

Seriously, this is just dumb. IDK why I replied to him and I don't know why others continuously do too. It's obvious at this point he's just trying to get a rise out of people. He likes to go with the unpopular opinion and the most unlikely scenario so he can trash on the Jags after the draft all the way up until the start of the season. It's obvious at this point that Matthews is less likely than a lot of other players at 3 right now.

 

Again, "only short passes" was hyperbole. I forget who I'm dealing with. The Sammy diaper brigade.....

 

The FACTS are that MOST of Sammy's receptions were short passes. 

 

THe WR metrics already broke it down. Sorry for you. 60-65% + of Sammy's receptions were of the variety of 5 yards and under when he caught the ball. 

---

 

Is Sammy Watkins going to have an almost 300 yard game in his rookie season???..,,,, HIGHLY DOUBT IT. 

 

Blackmon did that with Chad Henne at QB.....think about that for a few minutes....

 

Guarantee you that Sammy will have more TDs than Blackmon did in his rookie year.  More yards too.  

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

Just stop with the stupid lazy presumptions. I am not saying the Jags have to draft Matthews at 3 or else.....I listed FOUR players at 3 of which would make me happy with the pick. 

 

I notice its all the Sammy & Mack booster club that says garbage like the above. 

it's so obvious at this point that Sammy and Mack are the most likely players taken at 3, and you just happen to hate them. It really is so classic at this point from you. Let's go with a RT at 3, or QB's that you would be fine with at 3 that have been falling down boards according to most, and even our GM said he doesn't think that highly of this QB class and it needs plenty of work in his interview a couple days ago.

 

Seriously, you're setting things up so you can trash on them for the next few months and hate whoever we draft to piss people off. It's not hard to see that.

---

Again, "only short passes" was hyperbole. I forget who I'm dealing with. The Sammy diaper brigade.....

 

The FACTS are that MOST of Sammy's receptions were short passes. 

 

THe WR metrics already broke it down. Sorry for you. 60-65% + of Sammy's receptions were of the variety of 5 yards and under when he caught the ball. 

So what? In that video he showed you he can make plays passed the 5 yard mark. So it wasn't 60%+, he showed he can do it all. It's not his fault Clemson used him in that way, and it's not his fault he was one of the biggest playmakers in college last year doing what he did. Why would a college coach go away from that when Watkins was killing everyone?

---

Maybe because Joeckel has been playing LT his entire career and RT for only a few months? In time, it would have worked. The skill-set differences for your ideal LT and RT are becoming the same thing in this new-age NFL. With all of the pass rushers playing left end these days, your RT better know how to pass protect. 

 

A combo of Joeckel/Matthews, if both reach their potential, is a good amount better than Monroe/Joeckel, but it's not worth it. 

 

We'll just agree to disagree, with pretty much everything said above. Saying "in time" it would have worked is a wishful guess. 

 

The skill set differences for each position are still there, and Joeckel/ Matthews' have them. Joeckel is pretty much perfect for OLT and Matthews with his better push for the run game and shorter arms is better for ORT than OLT. Matthews still has proven quite capable at pass pro, however, which is a bonus, and will make him that much more complete at RT. 

 

I disagree that it wouldn't be "worth it". IN this day and age, and this division with Houston likely adding another pass rusher, it will be well worth it. 

---

Guarantee you that Sammy will have more TDs than Blackmon did in his rookie year.  More yards too.  

 

Guarantee huh? lol I'll take that bet. 

---

Just stop with the stupid lazy presumptions. I am not saying the Jags have to draft Matthews at 3 or else.....I listed FOUR players at 3 of which would make me happy with the pick. 

 

I notice its all the Sammy & Mack booster club that says garbage like the above. 

LOL.

 

1.  I'm not a member of either of those "booster clubs."

 

2. My comment was based on your draft day history dating back 4 years.  Maybe you should look up the word "presumption."  It doesn't apply. 

 

3. Thanks for calling me stupid and lazy.  That was nice.   

 

4. You know you are going to lose it and have a 5 page rant about one of the early picks.  You do it every year.  Do you really think you'll deviate this year? 

---

it's so obvious at this point that Sammy and Mack are the most likely players taken at 3, and you just happen to hate them. It really is so classic at this point from you. Let's go with a RT at 3, or QB's that you would be fine with at 3 that have been falling down boards according to most, and even our GM said he doesn't think that highly of this QB class and it needs plenty of work in his interview a couple days ago.

 

Seriously, you're setting things up so you can trash on them for the next few months and hate whoever we draft to [BAD WORD REMOVED] people off. It's not hard to see that.

 

Sammy and Mack aren't the "most likely players"....they are the players that the booster club(s) wants. Theres nothing by Jags brass that suggests that we're leaning that way. Theres been more that suggests the Jags are leaning Matthews or Bridge than Mack/ Watkins. So if anything, my take is actually aligned with the team's. So you and the club are wrong. 

---

Sammy and Mack aren't the "most likely players"....they are the players that the booster club wants. Theres nothing by Jags brass that suggests that we're leaning that way. Theres been more that suggests the Jags are leaning Matthews or Bridge than Mack/ Watkins. So if anything, my take is actually aligned with the team's. So you and the club are wrong. 

 

Let's see all these reports of us leaning towards Matthews. That ESPN one saying how we might think of him at 3 doesn't count, because they pretty much said that because we brought him in for a visit.

 

And yes, we have been shown being interested in QB's, that does not mean we want one at 3. Listen to Caldwell's latest presser and tell me where it sounds like he is thinking of a QB at 3, especially when he says "This class needs a lot of work." You don't generally take a guy at 3 in this type of draft if that player needs "a lot of work", maybe in a trade down, but at 3? Unlikely to say the least.

---

Let's see all these reports of us leaning towards Matthews. That ESPN one saying how we might think of him at 3 doesn't count, because they pretty much said that because we brought him in for a visit.

 

And yes, we have been shown being interested in QB's, that does not mean we want one at 3. Listen to Caldwell's latest presser and tell me where it sounds like he is thinking of a QB at 3, especially when he says "This class needs a lot of work." You don't generally take a guy at 3 in this type of draft if that player needs "a lot of work", maybe in a trade down, but at 3? Unlikely to say the least.

 

of course it doesn't count...lol

---

of course it doesn't count...lol

 

LOL, that is seriously the only report you have isn't it? Classic. 

 

"There's been more that suggest Matthews or Bridge than any other" my [BAD WORD REMOVED].

---

Sammy and Mack aren't the "most likely players"....they are the players that the booster club(s) wants. Theres nothing by Jags brass that suggests that we're leaning that way. Theres been more that suggests the Jags are leaning Matthews or Bridge than Mack/ Watkins. So if anything, my take is actually aligned with the team's. So you and the club are wrong. 

 

I suspect Caldwell will take Mack if we stay at #3. He's the safest pick.


 

Taking a LB with the 3rd pick would be bad IMO. Haven't the Jags scouts proven clueless about DPRs?


 

What would be worse is if Caldwell reaches for a DT in his second draft after picking a LT and then dumping the serviceable LT we already had in his first draft, That would be Gene Smith 2.0.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"