No that's not what you've said. You're the poster boy for preaching "you take the BAP no matter what. Doesn't matter the position, just add talent. BAP no matter what. Everybody who drafts with needs in mind get fired".

You can try and spin it however you want, now that you see his exact words, but that's not what you've been preaching bud.

I have said that multiple times.  Do you want me to go back and find them? Multiple times. People that draft for need do get fired.  You dont draft for position you draft for the best player.

So then why did you just say that if you're stacked a position, you take the lesser player/need instead? You always take the best player no matter what right, so who cares if your stacked at said position?

Your spin cycle is working full speed right now man.

---

I have said that multiple times.  Do you want me to go back and find them? Multiple times. People that draft for need do get fired.  You dont draft for position you draft for the best player.

So then why did you just say that if you're stacked a position, you take the lesser player/need instead? You always take the best player no matter what right, so who cares if your stacked at said position?

Your spin cycle is working full speed right now man.

I have said multiple times there are rare occasions just as Baalke said.  We havent been stacked at many if any positions in years to where a position isnt a need and we can just pass up better players on our board.  But if you are so stacked to where the player wont even see the field then take the next guy.

---

That's when you trade back and get a nice haul.  Hopefully one of those QBs do fall to our pick

Ah yes of course, the classic "just trade back 4Head".

Anyways here's words out of Baalke's own mouth.

“You’re always balancing need and value, and when you say that, really, each year, the board is different. There are different strengths and weaknesses in every draft. Some years, the O-line, D-line are more prominent than maybe the edge guys or vice-versa, inside versus out. You’re still seeing the board based on value," Baalke said.

"Once you’ve got the board set on value, then you start looking at the needs. You don’t want to push players up the board value-wise just because you have a need at that postion. I’ve been doing this a while now, and most of the time, the value and need come together. Very few times have I looked at the board and said there’s just no value at the position of need we have. Sometimes it might be a card off, but it’s still close enough where you can address the need.”

"I’m just expecting that the board is going to fall a certain way ... years ofexperience, you tend to get a feel for how the board is going to fall. That doesn’t mean it’s going to fall; I’ve been sittng at 29 before and had nobody on the board we felt was valued at that level. That happens. We feel good about this group, this class, that there’s going to be enough depth in the draft, that there’s going to be a player at a need-position we have valued in that area that will be there when we pick.”

So as you can see, from his own words, even if there's a player that's graded slightly lower than another, but fits the need they'll still take him. It's almost like we've been telling you this for years... Crazy right?

Thank you 

Horses mouth ^ 

So easy to understand unless you're blind and stubborn

---

Ah yes of course, the classic "just trade back 4Head".

Anyways here's words out of Baalke's own mouth.

“You’re always balancing need and value, and when you say that, really, each year, the board is different. There are different strengths and weaknesses in every draft. Some years, the O-line, D-line are more prominent than maybe the edge guys or vice-versa, inside versus out. You’re still seeing the board based on value," Baalke said.

"Once you’ve got the board set on value, then you start looking at the needs. You don’t want to push players up the board value-wise just because you have a need at that postion. I’ve been doing this a while now, and most of the time, the value and need come together. Very few times have I looked at the board and said there’s just no value at the position of need we have. Sometimes it might be a card off, but it’s still close enough where you can address the need.”

"I’m just expecting that the board is going to fall a certain way ... years ofexperience, you tend to get a feel for how the board is going to fall. That doesn’t mean it’s going to fall; I’ve been sittng at 29 before and had nobody on the board we felt was valued at that level. That happens. We feel good about this group, this class, that there’s going to be enough depth in the draft, that there’s going to be a player at a need-position we have valued in that area that will be there when we pick.”

So as you can see, from his own words, even if there's a player that's graded slightly lower than another, but fits the need they'll still take him. It's almost like we've been telling you this for years... Crazy right?

Thank you 

Horses mouth ^ 

So easy to understand unless you're blind and stubborn

Oh i understand.   He literally said the same thing that's been said.  Rare occasion do you take a lesser rated player.  What the few needs drafters on here do is far from what Baalke is talking about.

---

That's when you trade back and get a nice haul.  Hopefully one of those QBs do fall to our pick

Ah yes of course, the classic "just trade back 4Head".

Anyways here's words out of Baalke's own mouth.

“You’re always balancing need and value, and when you say that, really, each year, the board is different. There are different strengths and weaknesses in every draft. Some years, the O-line, D-line are more prominent than maybe the edge guys or vice-versa, inside versus out. You’re still seeing the board based on value," Baalke said.

"Once you’ve got the board set on value, then you start looking at the needs. You don’t want to push players up the board value-wise just because you have a need at that postion. I’ve been doing this a while now, and most of the time, the value and need come together. Very few times have I looked at the board and said there’s just no value at the position of need we have. Sometimes it might be a card off, but it’s still close enough where you can address the need.”

"I’m just expecting that the board is going to fall a certain way ... years ofexperience, you tend to get a feel for how the board is going to fall. That doesn’t mean it’s going to fall; I’ve been sittng at 29 before and had nobody on the board we felt was valued at that level. That happens. We feel good about this group, this class, that there’s going to be enough depth in the draft, that there’s going to be a player at a need-position we have valued in that area that will be there when we pick.”

So as you can see, from his own words, even if there's a player that's graded slightly lower than another, but fits the need they'll still take him. It's almost like we've been telling you this for years... Crazy right?

It sounds to me like what Baalke is saying is, in spite of all the yearly arguing among ourselves about whether we should draft for need or draft for value, having to make that choice is actually very rare.  So we're arguing about something that rarely happens, at least according to Baalke.

---

Ah yes of course, the classic "just trade back 4Head".

Anyways here's words out of Baalke's own mouth.

“You’re always balancing need and value, and when you say that, really, each year, the board is different. There are different strengths and weaknesses in every draft. Some years, the O-line, D-line are more prominent than maybe the edge guys or vice-versa, inside versus out. You’re still seeing the board based on value," Baalke said.

"Once you’ve got the board set on value, then you start looking at the needs. You don’t want to push players up the board value-wise just because you have a need at that postion. I’ve been doing this a while now, and most of the time, the value and need come together. Very few times have I looked at the board and said there’s just no value at the position of need we have. Sometimes it might be a card off, but it’s still close enough where you can address the need.”

"I’m just expecting that the board is going to fall a certain way ... years ofexperience, you tend to get a feel for how the board is going to fall. That doesn’t mean it’s going to fall; I’ve been sittng at 29 before and had nobody on the board we felt was valued at that level. That happens. We feel good about this group, this class, that there’s going to be enough depth in the draft, that there’s going to be a player at a need-position we have valued in that area that will be there when we pick.”

So as you can see, from his own words, even if there's a player that's graded slightly lower than another, but fits the need they'll still take him. It's almost like we've been telling you this for years... Crazy right?

It sounds to me like what Baalke is saying is, in spite of all the yearly arguing among ourselves about whether we should draft for need or draft for value, having to make that choice is actually very rare.  So we're arguing about something that rarely happens, at least according to Baalke.

Exactly.

---

...because it's so easy to trade back.

If a QB is the best player on the board it will be.  There is always a team that needs a QB.  If you are the only team in the league with a QB at the top of the board you might want to look in the mirror and ask yourself why.

If QB is the best player on the board, but you know only one team is looking for a QB, why would that team have urgency to jump ahead of everyone else that doesn't want or need a QB? The end result is you get fleeced to move off the pick unless it's in demand.

So, sacrifice value just to say you moved off your best player on your board?

Yes, you do put value on guys that you know you won't be picking, but it's for this specific purpose - flesh out who is likely to target that player, where they typically will fit in a darft, and how valuable is it to you to either move off your pick in a trade or take someone else at that spot. It's a finesse game, not a digital sequence of ones and zeroes that say this is the top guy, so therefore take this one guy or trade off the pick. The Venn diagram is rarely a circle.

---

That's when you trade back and get a nice haul.  Hopefully one of those QBs do fall to our pick

Ah yes of course, the classic "just trade back 4Head".

Anyways here's words out of Baalke's own mouth.

“You’re always balancing need and value, and when you say that, really, each year, the board is different. There are different strengths and weaknesses in every draft. Some years, the O-line, D-line are more prominent than maybe the edge guys or vice-versa, inside versus out. You’re still seeing the board based on value," Baalke said.

"Once you’ve got the board set on value, then you start looking at the needs. You don’t want to push players up the board value-wise just because you have a need at that postion. I’ve been doing this a while now, and most of the time, the value and need come together. Very few times have I looked at the board and said there’s just no value at the position of need we have. Sometimes it might be a card off, but it’s still close enough where you can address the need.”

"I’m just expecting that the board is going to fall a certain way ... years ofexperience, you tend to get a feel for how the board is going to fall. That doesn’t mean it’s going to fall; I’ve been sittng at 29 before and had nobody on the board we felt was valued at that level. That happens. We feel good about this group, this class, that there’s going to be enough depth in the draft, that there’s going to be a player at a need-position we have valued in that area that will be there when we pick.”

So as you can see, from his own words, even if there's a player that's graded slightly lower than another, but fits the need they'll still take him. It's almost like we've been telling you this for years... Crazy right?

@Obviously this is a sign that Baalke sucks@

---

Ah yes of course, the classic "just trade back 4Head".

Anyways here's words out of Baalke's own mouth.

“You’re always balancing need and value, and when you say that, really, each year, the board is different. There are different strengths and weaknesses in every draft. Some years, the O-line, D-line are more prominent than maybe the edge guys or vice-versa, inside versus out. You’re still seeing the board based on value," Baalke said.

"Once you’ve got the board set on value, then you start looking at the needs. You don’t want to push players up the board value-wise just because you have a need at that postion. I’ve been doing this a while now, and most of the time, the value and need come together. Very few times have I looked at the board and said there’s just no value at the position of need we have. Sometimes it might be a card off, but it’s still close enough where you can address the need.”

"I’m just expecting that the board is going to fall a certain way ... years ofexperience, you tend to get a feel for how the board is going to fall. That doesn’t mean it’s going to fall; I’ve been sittng at 29 before and had nobody on the board we felt was valued at that level. That happens. We feel good about this group, this class, that there’s going to be enough depth in the draft, that there’s going to be a player at a need-position we have valued in that area that will be there when we pick.”

So as you can see, from his own words, even if there's a player that's graded slightly lower than another, but fits the need they'll still take him. It's almost like we've been telling you this for years... Crazy right?

"You don’t want to push players up the board value-wise just because you have a need at that postion. "

....and the sentence that followed?

---

Ah yes of course, the classic "just trade back 4Head".

Anyways here's words out of Baalke's own mouth.

“You’re always balancing need and value, and when you say that, really, each year, the board is different. There are different strengths and weaknesses in every draft. Some years, the O-line, D-line are more prominent than maybe the edge guys or vice-versa, inside versus out. You’re still seeing the board based on value," Baalke said.

"Once you’ve got the board set on value, then you start looking at the needs. You don’t want to push players up the board value-wise just because you have a need at that postion. I’ve been doing this a while now, and most of the time, the value and need come together. Very few times have I looked at the board and said there’s just no value at the position of need we have. Sometimes it might be a card off, but it’s still close enough where you can address the need.”

"I’m just expecting that the board is going to fall a certain way ... years ofexperience, you tend to get a feel for how the board is going to fall. That doesn’t mean it’s going to fall; I’ve been sittng at 29 before and had nobody on the board we felt was valued at that level. That happens. We feel good about this group, this class, that there’s going to be enough depth in the draft, that there’s going to be a player at a need-position we have valued in that area that will be there when we pick.”

So as you can see, from his own words, even if there's a player that's graded slightly lower than another, but fits the need they'll still take him. It's almost like we've been telling you this for years... Crazy right?

It sounds to me like what Baalke is saying is, in spite of all the yearly arguing among ourselves about whether we should draft for need or draft for value, having to make that choice is actually very rare.  So we're arguing about something that rarely happens, at least according to Baalke.

Thing is, I don't know of many here (other than one) that is black and white need or value and never the twain shall meet. Most of us have been arguing that like Baalke, the aim is to find where need and value overlap. It's extremely rare that a GM is going to lean entirely toward need or entirely toward value. Those are the GMs that are going to be in trouble if their picks miss or their trades end up lopsided against them.

Are you saying that it is rare that a GM darfts where the value aligns with a position of need? Because to me that is the exact opposite of what Baalke suggested above.

---

Ah yes of course, the classic "just trade back 4Head".

Anyways here's words out of Baalke's own mouth.

“You’re always balancing need and value, and when you say that, really, each year, the board is different. There are different strengths and weaknesses in every draft. Some years, the O-line, D-line are more prominent than maybe the edge guys or vice-versa, inside versus out. You’re still seeing the board based on value," Baalke said.

"Once you’ve got the board set on value, then you start looking at the needs. You don’t want to push players up the board value-wise just because you have a need at that postion. I’ve been doing this a while now, and most of the time, the value and need come together. Very few times have I looked at the board and said there’s just no value at the position of need we have. Sometimes it might be a card off, but it’s still close enough where you can address the need.”

"I’m just expecting that the board is going to fall a certain way ... years ofexperience, you tend to get a feel for how the board is going to fall. That doesn’t mean it’s going to fall; I’ve been sittng at 29 before and had nobody on the board we felt was valued at that level. That happens. We feel good about this group, this class, that there’s going to be enough depth in the draft, that there’s going to be a player at a need-position we have valued in that area that will be there when we pick.”

So as you can see, from his own words, even if there's a player that's graded slightly lower than another, but fits the need they'll still take him. It's almost like we've been telling you this for years... Crazy right?

It sounds to me like what Baalke is saying is, in spite of all the yearly arguing among ourselves about whether we should draft for need or draft for value, having to make that choice is actually very rare.  So we're arguing about something that rarely happens, at least according to Baalke.

It sounds to me like he has zero problem bypassing a few players at the top of his board that he doesn't need badly to select a player who presents value. 
Just like every GM does with most of their early picks.

---

It sounds to me like what Baalke is saying is, in spite of all the yearly arguing among ourselves about whether we should draft for need or draft for value, having to make that choice is actually very rare.  So we're arguing about something that rarely happens, at least according to Baalke.

Thing is, I don't know of many here (other than one) that is black and white need or value and never the twain shall meet. Most of us have been arguing that like Baalke, the aim is to find where need and value overlap. It's extremely rare that a GM is going to lean entirely toward need or entirely toward value. Those are the GMs that are going to be in trouble if their picks miss or their trades end up lopsided against them.

Are you saying that it is rare that a GM darfts where the value aligns with a position of need? Because to me that is the exact opposite of what Baalke suggested above.

It's just like car shopping man. You go into a dealership with a price range in mind, you know where you're willing to overspend or where you're drawing a line in the sand. Sometimes you go in and get out looking for exactly what you wanted, or, sometimes, the flashy car, with the highest trim, heavier engine, and leather interior convinces you to spend a little more and enjoy it. 

At the end of the day? You're walking out of that [BLEEP] place with a new car and feeling a lot better than you did before you walked in. Only time will tell as to whether or not you made the right decision, but, you won't really give a [BLEEP] about any of that until you've managed to put 100K miles on it or it malfunctions and goes to [BLEEP] before you expected anything like that to happen.

That's when a warranty is crucial.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

It sounds to me like what Baalke is saying is, in spite of all the yearly arguing among ourselves about whether we should draft for need or draft for value, having to make that choice is actually very rare.  So we're arguing about something that rarely happens, at least according to Baalke.

It sounds to me like he has zero problem bypassing a few players at the top of his board that he doesn't need badly to select a player who presents value. 
Just like every GM does with most of their early picks.

It's really just not worth it anymore.

There's always an excuse or some change to the BPA myth.

---

It sounds to me like what Baalke is saying is, in spite of all the yearly arguing among ourselves about whether we should draft for need or draft for value, having to make that choice is actually very rare.  So we're arguing about something that rarely happens, at least according to Baalke.

Thing is, I don't know of many here (other than one) that is black and white need or value and never the twain shall meet. Most of us have been arguing that like Baalke, the aim is to find where need and value overlap. It's extremely rare that a GM is going to lean entirely toward need or entirely toward value. Those are the GMs that are going to be in trouble if their picks miss or their trades end up lopsided against them.

Are you saying that it is rare that a GM darfts where the value aligns with a position of need? Because to me that is the exact opposite of what Baalke suggested above.

Hell no.  I did not say that!  How in the world did you get that from what I wrote?  Re-read what I said.  I said, according to Baalke, it is rare that a GM has to make a choice between need and value.  

So, when we argue about need vs BPA, we are arguing about a situation that is rare, at least according to Baalke.  So if you believe him, and I have no reason not to, we should probably dispense with these arguments about "need vs BPA."  It just doesn't happen often enough to worry about it.

---

Back on topic.

A few national reporters are saying Van Ness to the Jags. I'm intrigued

---

Back on topic.

A few national reporters are saying Van Ness to the Jags. I'm intrigued

I'm really not getting any 'feel' for who they are taking.  I think it's hard to target anyone at 24 because I just don't think there's any predicting who goes where, somewhat even at the top.

It'll be interesting.

---

Back on topic.

A few national reporters are saying Van Ness to the Jags. I'm intrigued

Yeah - I've seen him listed more this week as a potential pick. 

Makes sense on paper, but his scouting reports make him sound like another T Walker in terms of development and learning curve. I'm open minded about the kid.

---

Back on topic.

A few national reporters are saying Van Ness to the Jags. I'm intrigued

That's what I heard, too. The big question is whether he'll be on the board at 24 since he has been being mocked as early as pick 10 and late round 1 in others. I understand the differences of opinion on him, however, since his strengths could make him great and his weaknesses could make him a bust. Will he be able to develop an arsenal of pass rush moves rather than having to rely on pure strength? If he can, the sky is the limit but Walker demonstrated last season that this is not so easy to do. Due to that reason, I slightly prefer Myles Murphy- although he is also likely to be off the board. 

My top pick would be either Murphy, Banks or Porter. Hopefully one of them slides and is available at pick 24. If not, I'd hope to get a trade offer if Hendon Hooker is still on the board (doubtful) or the Chiefs want to move up to get a receiver they covet (more likely). Receiving pick 31 plus an additional 3rd rounder would be worth it since there is little difference picking 24 or 31 in this scenario. Personally, I'd be just as happy with McDonald, Branch or even Cody Mauch at 31 as I would with Van Ness at 24. I realize most do not share this opinion, but that's what makes the draft so entertaining! It will likely take at least a full season to know which draft picks will become very good and which will be busts. If they take Van Ness, I'll hope that my opinion was wrong about taking him at 24!

---

Thank you 

Horses mouth ^ 

So easy to understand unless you're blind and stubborn

Oh i understand.   He literally said the same thing that's been said.  Rare occasion do you take a lesser rated player.  What the few needs drafters on here do is far from what Baalke is talking about.

Let's say we are on the clock at #24

The Jags top rated available players in order of the grades our F.O. and staff have given them are:

WR - Zay Flowers
WR - Jordan Addison
TE - Dalton Kincaid
OT - Darnell Wright
DT - Calijah Kancey

Those are your best grades available at #24 in order ^

Who should the Jaguars draft?

---

Oh i understand.   He literally said the same thing that's been said.  Rare occasion do you take a lesser rated player.  What the few needs drafters on here do is far from what Baalke is talking about.

Let's say we are on the clock at #24

The Jags top rated available players in order of the grades our F.O. and staff have given them are:

WR - Zay Flowers
WR - Jordan Addison
TE - Dalton Kincaid
OT - Darnell Wright
DT - Calijah Kancey

Those are your best grades available at #24 in order ^

Who should the Jaguars draft?

Darnell Wright for me. Not even hesitating. The logic is sound there. 

For starters. I don't need a WR there if I have Ridley for a year, with the expectation that he could be the legitimate, #1 WR that will command a major contract while also costing me draft picks in next year's draft. Kincaid is good, but, we have Engram for another year and this is a deep TE class. 

Kancey is an intriguing prospect. I just can't justify passing up on a guy as good as Wright there from this list of choices. He fits a need. Provides an upgrade. Gives us flexibility and premium insurance in the event Cam Robinson cannot physically hold up and Little doesn't pan out as hoped at RT or LT. 

Robinson's contract is also a huge, huge issue for me. I think he's a $20M hit this year. He [BLEEP] sucks. He's not worth that kind of money and I cannot get over the fact that he has [BLEEP] box technique. It's been heavily scrutinized by actual former NFL players. The best breakdown coming from Uche Nwaneri actually (RIP). 

But, yeah. This is a no brainer. I would have Darnell Wright's name already inked and dried the moment the Vikings make their selection. Giving Lawrence a half a second or second longer in the pocket or making him feel more comfortable and confident as a passer in 3rd and obvious passing situations only bodes well for this football team in the long run.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

Back on topic.

A few national reporters are saying Van Ness to the Jags. I'm intrigued

Yeah - I've seen him listed more this week as a potential pick. 

Makes sense on paper, but his scouting reports make him sound like another T Walker in terms of development and learning curve. I'm open minded about the kid.

I like the selection. With Josh Allen on his 5th year deal it allows you to rotate Van Ness in and out and keep him fresh as a rookie. Something he's used to doing already since that's how he was used at Iowa. He'll be a good compliment to Walker in 2024 and beyond. 

What sold me on him is his snap counts from last year. 242 snaps outside the tackles with another 155 inside the B-gap. 13 career sacks over the last two years. Showed a healthy amount of consistency in a good way. I really like the idea of having another towering, strong presence out there with Walker.

Take his teammates Sam LaPorta and Riley Moss while we're at it!

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

Oh i understand.   He literally said the same thing that's been said.  Rare occasion do you take a lesser rated player.  What the few needs drafters on here do is far from what Baalke is talking about.

Let's say we are on the clock at #24

The Jags top rated available players in order of the grades our F.O. and staff have given them are:

WR - Zay Flowers
WR - Jordan Addison
TE - Dalton Kincaid
OT - Darnell Wright
DT - Calijah Kancey

Those are your best grades available at #24 in order ^

Who should the Jaguars draft?

As ever i bend the knee to those with a more in depth knowledge of the prospects than I... But from everything I've read and digested Wright would be the fella I'd like in the first round... Or to give the FO some leeway whoever their top right tackle is!

I'd even go further and say if he's there when the commanders are on the clock and he's the last of the better tackles remaining id be happy to take the gamble and see if we could make a wee move up if the price was right! Unfortunately I'm not sure I see that scenario panning out, if I was guessing I'd predict a CB...

For those gamblers amongst us you can pick up 50/1 on the jags first rounder being a safety as well over here ... Hellish fine odds if you happen to be a Brian Branch fan!!

---