Cicso didn't run due to the knee, but they estimated his 40 time at 4.45. Glad to see they viewed him as a sub-4.5

---

I'm just saying, having one player make another player look better than he actually is is usually considered a good thing, not a bad thing.

Now if you think we should have drafted another player that's a different subject.  But to say that Trevor Lawrence making Travis Etienne look better than he actually is is a problem... that just doesn't compute.  

It's pretty much a nonsensical statement.  Would you say for example that the problem with James Worthy was that Magic Johnson made him look better than he actually was?  That was a problem?  Wouldn't that be the opposite of a problem?   

Maybe you mean it's a problem for our opponents.  That I would agree with.

I mean it's a problem in that it might make Urban and others think it was the right thing to do, and that a callous disrespect of value should be continued. It's the sort of unmerited self confidence that keeps a team from ever reaching the potential that its new quarterback has. Do you understand what I'm saying, now?

Not to put too fine a point on this, but let's say that Etienne is in the league for 5 or 6 years. During that time he has 3 or 4 thousand yard seasons, scores 40-50 TDs (rushing and receiving), and catches around 300 passes for around 3000 yards. During those 5-6 years the Jaguars win 50-60 games, and go to the AFC championship once, getting smoked by the Chiefs, and losing a couple of other times in the wildcard or divisional round.

Was taking Etienne a good idea in that case? A lot of people will probably say "Hell yeah it was, we didn't win any Superbowls, sign me up for that." (a little humor, they won't even think about the missed chances for Superbowls, they'll be thinking about the fact that the Jaguars finally have a QB and are finally winning games)

What if instead of taking Etienne the team had taken one of the several defensive players taken almost immediately after him, or Rashod Bateman, and that player is a pro bowl level player at their position for the next 8-10 years. During that time the Jaguars win a superbowl or two, having a combination of later round running backs instead of Etienne that, over the next 5 or 6 years, have similar rushing yardage totals to Etienne's total yards between them, score 30-40 TDs, and catch around 250 passes for around 2500 yards.

Is taking Etienne the better move because he got marginally better production for a team that didn't win any Superbowls?

Now, we can't know what could have happened had we not taken Etienne, but if any of the guys taken between picks 26 and 32 turn out to be a stud, and Etienne really is done here after 5 years (not at all unlikely) then was taking a running back at 25 the smart move?

I'm starting from the position that Etienne was a very good pick, so it's gonna be hard for me to agree with you on any of that.

Of course if there was a better player at a different position perhaps we should've taken him but I just think that Etienne was the right pick at the right spot to begin with so that's where I come down.  

I happen to think Etienne is a fantastic player and in a year or two will all be glad we drafted him.  

So when you say, gee what if there was a better player we could've picked instead of him, I would say, of course if that was the case we should have picked that player, but I just don't think there was one.

---

I am willing to be that most if not all NFL teams has Lawrence and Waddle in their top 5. It's not that crazy.

---

I mean it's a problem in that it might make Urban and others think it was the right thing to do, and that a callous disrespect of value should be continued. It's the sort of unmerited self confidence that keeps a team from ever reaching the potential that its new quarterback has. Do you understand what I'm saying, now?

Not to put too fine a point on this, but let's say that Etienne is in the league for 5 or 6 years. During that time he has 3 or 4 thousand yard seasons, scores 40-50 TDs (rushing and receiving), and catches around 300 passes for around 3000 yards. During those 5-6 years the Jaguars win 50-60 games, and go to the AFC championship once, getting smoked by the Chiefs, and losing a couple of other times in the wildcard or divisional round.

Was taking Etienne a good idea in that case? A lot of people will probably say "Hell yeah it was, we didn't win any Superbowls, sign me up for that." (a little humor, they won't even think about the missed chances for Superbowls, they'll be thinking about the fact that the Jaguars finally have a QB and are finally winning games)

What if instead of taking Etienne the team had taken one of the several defensive players taken almost immediately after him, or Rashod Bateman, and that player is a pro bowl level player at their position for the next 8-10 years. During that time the Jaguars win a superbowl or two, having a combination of later round running backs instead of Etienne that, over the next 5 or 6 years, have similar rushing yardage totals to Etienne's total yards between them, score 30-40 TDs, and catch around 250 passes for around 2500 yards.

Is taking Etienne the better move because he got marginally better production for a team that didn't win any Superbowls?

Now, we can't know what could have happened had we not taken Etienne, but if any of the guys taken between picks 26 and 32 turn out to be a stud, and Etienne really is done here after 5 years (not at all unlikely) then was taking a running back at 25 the smart move?

I'm starting from the position that Etienne was a very good pick, so it's gonna be hard for me to agree with you on any of that.

Of course if there was a better player at a different position perhaps we should've taken him but I just think that Etienne was the right pick at the right spot to begin with so that's where I come down.  

I happen to think Etienne is a fantastic player and in a year or two will all be glad we drafted him.  

So when you say, gee what if there was a better player we could've picked instead of him, I would say, of course if that was the case we should have picked that player, but I just don't think there was one.

Okay, I get it, you either don't understand or don't believe in draft value or don't understand the marginal value of a high round running back compared to those taken later. I won't bother you further on this.

---

I'm starting from the position that Etienne was a very good pick, so it's gonna be hard for me to agree with you on any of that.

Of course if there was a better player at a different position perhaps we should've taken him but I just think that Etienne was the right pick at the right spot to begin with so that's where I come down.  

I happen to think Etienne is a fantastic player and in a year or two will all be glad we drafted him.  

So when you say, gee what if there was a better player we could've picked instead of him, I would say, of course if that was the case we should have picked that player, but I just don't think there was one.

Okay, I get it, you either don't understand or don't believe in draft value or don't understand the marginal value of a high round running back compared to those taken later. I won't bother you further on this.

No really I understand what you're saying but I think you guys are stuck in this drafting for need versus drafting for value debate and how to maximize the total value of all of your picks. 

And that's an interesting academic discussion but in the real world we have a coach who says I have a vision for the type of team I want to build and I want this particular player.  The chef gets to select the ingredients to make the dish he wants to make, and you're not the chef, so who are you to tell him what ingredients he needs to make his dish?

Beyond that I think there is a large marginal difference between Travis Etienne and the next best running back.  I don't subscribe to the theory that you never draft a running back in the first round because you can find them in later rounds.  History shows the best running backs are drafted in the first round and the next best running backs are drafted in the second round and so on and so on.  Same as any other position.

---

Okay, I get it, you either don't understand or don't believe in draft value or don't understand the marginal value of a high round running back compared to those taken later. I won't bother you further on this.

No really I understand what you're saying but I think you guys are stuck in this drafting for need versus drafting for value debate and how to maximize the total value of all of your picks. 

And that's an interesting academic discussion but in the real world we have a coach who says I have a vision for the type of team I want to build and I want this particular player.  The chef gets to select the ingredients to make the dish he wants to make, and you're not the chef, so who are you to tell him what ingredients he needs to make his dish?

Beyond that I think there is a large marginal difference between Travis Etienne and the next best running back.  I don't subscribe to the theory that you never draft a running back in the first round because you can find them in later rounds.  History shows the best running backs are drafted in the first round and the next best running backs are drafted in the second round and so on and so on.  Same as any other position.

Just because Meyer gets to make the picks doesn't mean he's correct about who he's taking, or that he's implementing the optimal strategy. What is your point regarding that, anyway?

As for the marginal difference between Etienne and a running back taken later, you're probably right about there being a significant difference between their overall abilities, but that doesn't say anything about their overall ability to help the team win. If Etienne looks really good because of Lawrence that's not a good thing, that's a bad thing, you want players taken in the first round that make a difference, not guys who get made to look good by their QB.

Now, if Etienne is a Barry Sanders or something like that, I'll eat my words, but from what I've seen of him, he's a one cut and go guy without a lot of wiggle, and with decent speed. If he has better vision than Fournette then that's good, but it doesn't mean he's a good pick, even if he has good stats for a few seasons.

---

Grades can be done different ways.  Sometimes in addition to value, they also factor positional importance and need.  I'm looking at the grades that we were shown.  I think it is pretty obvious that these grades do not factor need or positional value.  If they did, the Jaguars would not have selected a 6.8 (Little) ahead of a 6.9 (Cisco).  I also think the grades are relative to the position.  Basically, I think the Jaguars believe Little compared to other offensive tackles is roughly equivalent of Cisco compared to other safeties.  However, they value offensive tackle much more than safety.  That's why Little was taken in second round and Cisco in the third.  Does anyone really believe that the Jaguars were having an internal debate about whether to take Lawrence or Waddle as both were graded 8.0?  No.  Basically, they thought Lawrence was an elite quarterback and Waddle was an elite wide receiver.  However, positional value and need made Lawrence an easy pick despite the same grade.  7.5 may seem very high for AVT, but if the Jaguars considered him a guard and are only comparing AVT to other guards, many would probably agree with 7.5.  I'm guessing the best kicker and punter probably had grades of between 7.0 and 8.0 too.  I think these grades are all relative to the position and can't really be used to compare players at different positions.  Some positions are more important than others.

---

Grades can be done different ways.  Sometimes in addition to value, they also factor positional importance and need.  I'm looking at the grades that we were shown.  I think it is pretty obvious that these grades do not factor need or positional value.  If they did, the Jaguars would not have selected a 6.8 (Little) ahead of a 6.9 (Cisco).  I also think the grades are relative to the position.  Basically, I think the Jaguars believe Little compared to other offensive tackles is roughly equivalent of Cisco compared to other safeties.  However, they value offensive tackle much more than safety.  That's why Little was taken in second round and Cisco in the third.  Does anyone really believe that the Jaguars were having an internal debate about whether to take Lawrence or Waddle as both were graded 8.0?  No.  Basically, they thought Lawrence was an elite quarterback and Waddle was an elite wide receiver.  However, positional value and need made Lawrence an easy pick despite the same grade.  7.5 may seem very high for AVT, but if the Jaguars considered him a guard and are only comparing AVT to other guards, many would probably agree with 7.5.  I'm guessing the best kicker and punter probably had grades of between 7.0 and 8.0 too.  I think these grades are all relative to the position and can't really be used to compare players at different positions.  Some positions are more important than others.

Little and Cisco were a .1 different.  I think they felt Cisco would fall to the 3rd and Little wouldn't make it there is another reason they took Little.  I'd bet anything they don't have a kicker and punter rated between a 7.0.amd 8.0 lol.  That's how you take a punter in the 3rd

It all depends on how well Little performs. If we're still stuck with the same under-performing starting OT's we had last season, I'd become a run heavy team in order to protect our new QB. As I have said on many occasions, I don't trust Robinson and especially not Taylor in pass protection. I don't wanna see Trevor get "Burrowed." With James Robinson and Travis Etienne in the backfield, I would have no problem going very run heavy in Trevor's rookie year, both to protect him and bring him along slowly in the passing game, using TE's as extra blockers on the edge. IMO, that may be the smartest way to go at this.

While part of me wants to see the offense with TL fully unleashed, I am more than happy with a conservative approach, especially if the OL is still a weakness and since TL is still young.   Justin Herbert managed to do okay without the best protection, but I don't want to risk it with TL.  At minimum, I'd prefer the team to start off conservatively until TL has a better handle on what NFL defenses will do to attack the offense and for the OL to settle with the new schemes and protections, and for Little to knock more of the rust off.

---

We don't have any tight ends; we have assistant offensive tackles.

---

LOL

Pretty much.  
Barring an O'Shaughnessy renaissance that eclipses his former ceiling or an unprecedented emergence from Tyler Davis...  we still need a receiving TE.

At this stage, I am hoping Njoku is cut and we pick him up.

---

I'm just saying, having one player make another player look better than he actually is is usually considered a good thing, not a bad thing.

Now if you think we should have drafted another player that's a different subject.  But to say that Trevor Lawrence making Travis Etienne look better than he actually is is a problem... that just doesn't compute.  

It's pretty much a nonsensical statement.  Would you say for example that the problem with James Worthy was that Magic Johnson made him look better than he actually was?  That was a problem?  Wouldn't that be the opposite of a problem?   

Maybe you mean it's a problem for our opponents.  That I would agree with.

I mean it's a problem in that it might make Urban and others think it was the right thing to do, and that a callous disrespect of value should be continued. It's the sort of unmerited self confidence that keeps a team from ever reaching the potential that its new quarterback has. Do you understand what I'm saying, now?

Not to put too fine a point on this, but let's say that Etienne is in the league for 5 or 6 years. During that time he has 3 or 4 thousand yard seasons, scores 40-50 TDs (rushing and receiving), and catches around 300 passes for around 3000 yards. During those 5-6 years the Jaguars win 50-60 games, and go to the AFC championship once, getting smoked by the Chiefs, and losing a couple of other times in the wildcard or divisional round.

Was taking Etienne a good idea in that case? A lot of people will probably say "Hell yeah it was, we didn't win any Superbowls, sign me up for that." (a little humor, they won't even think about the missed chances for Superbowls, they'll be thinking about the fact that the Jaguars finally have a QB and are finally winning games)

What if instead of taking Etienne the team had taken one of the several defensive players taken almost immediately after him, or Rashod Bateman, and that player is a pro bowl level player at their position for the next 8-10 years. During that time the Jaguars win a superbowl or two, having a combination of later round running backs instead of Etienne that, over the next 5 or 6 years, have similar rushing yardage totals to Etienne's total yards between them, score 30-40 TDs, and catch around 250 passes for around 2500 yards.

Is taking Etienne the better move because he got marginally better production for a team that didn't win any Superbowls?

Now, we can't know what could have happened had we not taken Etienne, but if any of the guys taken between picks 26 and 32 turn out to be a stud, and Etienne really is done here after 5 years (not at all unlikely) then was taking a running back at 25 the smart move?

A lot of what ifs here lol

---

I'm starting from the position that Etienne was a very good pick, so it's gonna be hard for me to agree with you on any of that.

Of course if there was a better player at a different position perhaps we should've taken him but I just think that Etienne was the right pick at the right spot to begin with so that's where I come down.  

I happen to think Etienne is a fantastic player and in a year or two will all be glad we drafted him.  

So when you say, gee what if there was a better player we could've picked instead of him, I would say, of course if that was the case we should have picked that player, but I just don't think there was one.

Okay, I get it, you either don't understand or don't believe in draft value or don't understand the marginal value of a high round running back compared to those taken later. I won't bother you further on this.

The fact that you think that a running back in the 5th and 6th round would be better than ETI is ridiculous... ETI wouldn't have been there even in the next round... the bills admitted that they were going to take him a few pics after ours

---

Okay, I get it, you either don't understand or don't believe in draft value or don't understand the marginal value of a high round running back compared to those taken later. I won't bother you further on this.

The fact that you think that a running back in the 5th and 6th round would be better than ETI is ridiculous... ETI wouldn't have been there even in the next round... the bills admitted that they were going to take him a few pics after ours

The difference between those players is not that great.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

No really I understand what you're saying but I think you guys are stuck in this drafting for need versus drafting for value debate and how to maximize the total value of all of your picks. 

And that's an interesting academic discussion but in the real world we have a coach who says I have a vision for the type of team I want to build and I want this particular player.  The chef gets to select the ingredients to make the dish he wants to make, and you're not the chef, so who are you to tell him what ingredients he needs to make his dish?

Beyond that I think there is a large marginal difference between Travis Etienne and the next best running back.  I don't subscribe to the theory that you never draft a running back in the first round because you can find them in later rounds.  History shows the best running backs are drafted in the first round and the next best running backs are drafted in the second round and so on and so on.  Same as any other position.

Just because Meyer gets to make the picks doesn't mean he's correct about who he's taking, or that he's implementing the optimal strategy. What is your point regarding that, anyway?

As for the marginal difference between Etienne and a running back taken later, you're probably right about there being a significant difference between their overall abilities, but that doesn't say anything about their overall ability to help the team win. If Etienne looks really good because of Lawrence that's not a good thing, that's a bad thing, you want players taken in the first round that make a difference, not guys who get made to look good by their QB.

Now, if Etienne is a Barry Sanders or something like that, I'll eat my words, but from what I've seen of him, he's a one cut and go guy without a lot of wiggle, and with decent speed. If he has better vision than Fournette then that's good, but it doesn't mean he's a good pick, even if he has good stats for a few seasons.

Give it up and stick to your username already

---

Your beliefs become your thoughts,
Your thoughts become your words,
Your words become your actions,
Your actions become your habits,
Your habits become your values,
Your values become your destiny.

I'm just saying, having one player make another player look better than he actually is is usually considered a good thing, not a bad thing.

Now if you think we should have drafted another player that's a different subject.  But to say that Trevor Lawrence making Travis Etienne look better than he actually is is a problem... that just doesn't compute.  

It's pretty much a nonsensical statement.  Would you say for example that the problem with James Worthy was that Magic Johnson made him look better than he actually was?  That was a problem?  Wouldn't that be the opposite of a problem?   

Maybe you mean it's a problem for our opponents.  That I would agree with.

I mean it's a problem in that it might make Urban and others think it was the right thing to do, and that a callous disrespect of value should be continued. It's the sort of unmerited self confidence that keeps a team from ever reaching the potential that its new quarterback has. Do you understand what I'm saying, now?

Not to put too fine a point on this, but let's say that Etienne is in the league for 5 or 6 years. During that time he has 3 or 4 thousand yard seasons, scores 40-50 TDs (rushing and receiving), and catches around 300 passes for around 3000 yards. During those 5-6 years the Jaguars win 50-60 games, and go to the AFC championship once, getting smoked by the Chiefs, and losing a couple of other times in the wildcard or divisional round.

Was taking Etienne a good idea in that case? A lot of people will probably say "Hell yeah it was, we didn't win any Superbowls, sign me up for that." (a little humor, they won't even think about the missed chances for Superbowls, they'll be thinking about the fact that the Jaguars finally have a QB and are finally winning games)

What if instead of taking Etienne the team had taken one of the several defensive players taken almost immediately after him, or Rashod Bateman, and that player is a pro bowl level player at their position for the next 8-10 years. During that time the Jaguars win a superbowl or two, having a combination of later round running backs instead of Etienne that, over the next 5 or 6 years, have similar rushing yardage totals to Etienne's total yards between them, score 30-40 TDs, and catch around 250 passes for around 2500 yards.

Is taking Etienne the better move because he got marginally better production for a team that didn't win any Superbowls?

Now, we can't know what could have happened had we not taken Etienne, but if any of the guys taken between picks 26 and 32 turn out to be a stud, and Etienne really is done here after 5 years (not at all unlikely) then was taking a running back at 25 the smart move?

WhAT iFF ETN is a pro bowl RB, and Christian Barmore or whomever you would have liked over him was TAveN bryAN?? what ifs dont count for anything brother.

---

Based on their grades they did.

They had Little at 6.8 and Cisco at 6.9.

Cisco just torn his ACL last october. Bad example.

---

Okay, I get it, you either don't understand or don't believe in draft value or don't understand the marginal value of a high round running back compared to those taken later. I won't bother you further on this.

The fact that you think that a running back in the 5th and 6th round would be better than ETI is ridiculous... ETI wouldn't have been there even in the next round... the bills admitted that they were going to take him a few pics after ours

Grats on completely failing to understand what's being discussed.

---

I think the fact that we even have this information to discuss reflects poorly on the FO.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I think the fact that we even have this information to discuss reflects poorly on the FO.

Why?  It was after the draft, what is it going to do? Lol

---

I think the fact that we even have this information to discuss reflects poorly on the FO.

Why?  It was after the draft, what is it going to do? Lol

Teams don't reveal their boards or grades, this is not a new thing.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I think the fact that we even have this information to discuss reflects poorly on the FO.

You find every way possible to bash Meyer and the front office huh?

---

I think the fact that we even have this information to discuss reflects poorly on the FO.

You find every way possible to bash Meyer and the front office huh?

The weird part is that they let proof slip out that they weren't always picking the player with the highest grade. I don't know if it's shame, or just a feeling of unaccountability, but teams don't often let the proof slip out that they weren't taking the highest graded player for any particular selection.

---

I think the fact that we even have this information to discuss reflects poorly on the FO.

You find every way possible to bash Meyer and the front office huh?

I'll make you a deal. They quit doing stupid stuff and I'll quit pointing out that they're doing stupid stuff. Fair?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I think the fact that we even have this information to discuss reflects poorly on the FO.

You find every way possible to bash Meyer and the front office huh?

I am not a fan of Meyer at this point, but he said it reflects poorly on the front office. I don’t think it is reasonable to hit Meyer on this. Balke and his staff should definitely know better than to allow a leak of the grades. It can give other teams insight into how we value certain player types. If another team can predict how you will approach the draft it is an advantage.

---