A few tidbits here. Click on the link and take what you must from these:

https://twitter.com/JohnOehser/status/11...43333?s=20

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

Direct link to the Oehser summary article for the twitter-phobic:

https://www.jaguars.com/news/draft-lunch...ak-further

(edit: article is not an overall summary but focuses on the absent players and further comments on that form Coughlin/Marrone)

---

Caldwell chat today with Shadrick:
https://www.jaguars.com/video/caldwell-t...-available


Marrone with media attendees:
https://www.jaguars.com/video/marrone-wh...layer-tick

And Coughlin w/ Shadrick:
https://www.jaguars.com/video/coughlin-f...-important

---

BPA comments make me feel a lot better about Taylor not being the pick at 7.

---

Direct link to the Oehser summary article for the twitter-phobic:

https://www.jaguars.com/news/draft-lunch...ak-further

(edit: article is not an overall summary but focuses on the absent players and further comments on that form Coughlin/Marrone)

Marrone and Pollard had the wrong number, which is why Ramsey did not respond to Marrone.

A wrong number caused all of the hand wringing among the fans and NFLN talking heads?

Shaking my head in dismay.

My only question is how did the organization not have the right number for Jalen freaking Ramsey?

Did somebody enter in a number incorrectly?  Did Ramsey change phones and have it slip his mind to inform the team?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

BPA comments make me feel a lot better about Taylor not being the pick at 7.

It's boilerplate language designed to obfuscate their intent.

Maybe they go BPA.  Maybe they don't.

But saying specifically and honestly "we'll draft for need" tips their hand.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

It was interesting to me when TC was asked about the TE prospects. He gave the standard draft speak about the depth at the position, but did go into some additional detail of the importance of the position, and the importance of the TE position to catch and block. Reading into the comments leads me to believe that he'd be more interested in a rounded Hockenson type, a good receiver and blocker, as opposed to some of the other TE prospects in the draft that are good receivers but not known to be good blockers.

---

Definitely better than continuing with last years strategy to take the Worst Player Available (WPA)

---

It was interesting to me when TC was asked about the TE prospects.  He gave the standard draft speak about the depth at the position, but did go into some additional detail of the importance of the position, and the importance of the TE position to catch and block.  Reading into the comments leads me to believe that he'd be more interested in a rounded Hockenson type, a good receiver and blocker, as opposed to some of the other TE prospects in the draft that are good receivers but not known to be good blockers.

I think if that were not the case, we would have drafted guy like Hurst or Andrews last year.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

It was interesting to me when TC was asked about the TE prospects.  He gave the standard draft speak about the depth at the position, but did go into some additional detail of the importance of the position, and the importance of the TE position to catch and block.  Reading into the comments leads me to believe that he'd be more interested in a rounded Hockenson type, a good receiver and blocker, as opposed to some of the other TE prospects in the draft that are good receivers but not known to be good blockers.

Given what we know of TC historically, I can't ever imagine a scenario in which he'd draft a TE that doesn't project well as a blocker. Just seems abject to his whole philosophy. 

That said, he certainly straddled the fence when indicating the possibility of TE at #7.

He critiqued the notion that 7 is too high for the right prospect, and then talked about how deep the position group is (hinting a later selection.) 

I think they will get a lineman at 7 and wait on TE personally, but I'd be happy with a Hockensen pick there for sure. 

The one thing I feel may influence this decision is the Foles/DeFilippo factor. If Cough-well recognize the prolific use of TE that's possible in the new playbook - this f.o. may be persuaded to pick outside the box at #7.

---

BPA comments make me feel a lot better about Taylor not being the pick at 7.

Their view of BPA and your view may differ, though.

The quote said nothing about where Taylor stood on the draft board, or others, for that matter. Be ready for anything.

---

BPA comments make me feel a lot better about Taylor not being the pick at 7.

Their view of BPA and your view may differ, though.

The quote said nothing about where Taylor stood on the draft board, or others, for that matter. Be ready for anything.

Not to mention the answer was a typical draft-week canned response. 

F.O. guys spout BPA all the time and then turn right around and draft 2 positions of great need before the fourth round. It's very commonplace. Hell, Caldwell has done it here nearly every year. 

If anything were to be gleaned from that comment, I'd guess that it would suggest that they have a target and a contingency, but if the right player falls to them they'll eschew their plan to take the greater value.

---

Their view of BPA and your view may differ, though.

The quote said nothing about where Taylor stood on the draft board, or others, for that matter. Be ready for anything.

Not to mention the answer was a typical draft-week canned response. 

F.O. guys spout BPA all the time and then turn right around and draft 2 positions of great need before the fourth round. It's very commonplace. Hell, Caldwell has done it here nearly every year. 

If anything were to be gleaned from that comment, I'd guess that it would suggest that they have a target and a contingency, but if the right player falls to them they'll eschew their plan to take the greater value.

Well said. That's how I see it to, but I word so poorly I couldn't state it sensibly.

---