I don’t know if that’s necessarily a bad thing. The shelflife of running backs is so short compared to other offensive weapons. And to listen to so many valuators, talk about the quality of the one he drafted, you have to believe this is a starting quality running back that can really be effective for us behind and alongside ETN. So I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing to get a running back every year.

I also think you should always be churning your number three spot in the quarterback room. You should always have a jar on the shelf that you were developing. Obviously, we have one of the best quarterbacks in the league who is only going to get better. But what if he gets injured? you want to have competent back ups behind him. And you want to develop future trade capital with developmental quarterbacks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I agree with this sentiment. Tank is here to push guys like Hasty and ofEarnest off the roster.

Keep the position young, cheap, and improving. It's odd considering how few people were confident in our RB not named Etienne this offseason, but there seems to be a bunch of huff about trying to make the room better.

I won't say take an RB every year just to say you did, but by no means should we be complacent about the RB that we had on the roster.

I get the idea and sentiment, but, with the 88th pick? That's a tough one there for me. He has to hit some impressive marks for me as a rookie to justify that. At least 175 total touches over the course of 17 games. This would average out to 10 opportunities per game for him to make something happen. 

I hope he comes out and kills it though. If he hits 800 yards of total offense off of those 175 touches and averages out 4.5 yards per clip? Not a bad deal I guess. Hopefully he hits 5+ TD's. My thinking though. With Strange being added, and clearly fitting that mold of H-Back with TE hands, and the blocking ability there?

We should see most of this RB group thrive. Should feel like last year's passing attack and philosophy meeting some of the things San Francisco likes to do from the backfield. Especially if Parish makes it and clears as an active FB on gamedays. 

That would be fun as hell man. Strange, Parish and any RB coming out of the backfield with the ability to fake some [BLEEP] and hit some nice underneath routes? I'll take that.

---

"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."

Do you get the sense that people don't want to work with Baalke?  Or maybe he just doesn't have a great understanding of how to value picks?

Just out of interest, everyone going on about not trading back into the 3rd? I'm interested to know what exactly you're expecting to give up?

I scrolled through all the trades done and the cast majority were late round picks to move up 3-5 spaces so you'd still lose the 3rd round pick?

Is the idea that we should've traded up to the top of the 3rd and gave up our 3rd? Or are you expecting an extra 3rd?

I know in theory you could offer value but that doesn't mean there's a bunch of teams willing to do it. If everyone is aware there isn't value further down it implies the teams value the 6/7ths even lower than the models.

There's not many if any examples this year of teams trading into the 3rd round from miles back.

o  No. 56 overall (Round 2) 340
o  No. 88 overall (Round 3) 150
o  No. 121 overall (Round 4) 52
o  No. 127 overall (Round 4) 45
o  No. 130 overall (Round 4) 42
o  No. 160 overall (Round 5) 28
o  No. 185 overall (Round 6) 18
o  No. 202 overall (Round 6) 11
o  No. 208 overall (Round 6) 9
o  No. 226 overall (Round 7) 3
o  No. 240 overall (Round 7) 1

So if we wanted to make an approximately fair offer, we're saying we'd need all three 4ths just to get into round 3 again. Worth it? Were we really willing to give up that much and were other teams still not interested. 

Obviously none of us know but you can get an idea of how difficult it is to try and create another 3rd rounder without giving up your own one.

We could've gone up from 88, 10-15 places perhaps but would've likely been giving up a lot still. 

I kind of think taking a bunch of dart throws/role players is a better strategy personally.

Everyone keeps harping on the "not trading back up" as a huge Baalke failure, and bring up the teams that traded up.

This completely forgets that the teams trading down have to believe they can still get they guy(s) they are targeting by trading back to the Jags pick. That just may NOT have been case. Plus in a draft where some of those teams didn't value the late round picks, it may not have happened without blowing them away with a 2024 pick overpay.

For example, the Jags had options to trade back even further from #27 but did not take them because they knew or thought Harrison would no longer be there after #28. 

There is basically nothing Baalke could have done to fix that. Unless he was supposed to 2-3 trades in a row ahead of time to keep moving up, but that is nearly impossible to do because of the same issue where teams don't want to trade their pick 10-15 picks prior to being on the clock because they don't know if their guys will be there or not.

Getting stuck with that many late picks is a failure any way you want to slice it. It wasn't their intent. 

Yes, it is absolutely the result of circumstance more than it is GM execution, but they rolled the dice gaining all those picks with the intent of packaging them to move up. 

Then they got stuck with them.

 A high number of long shots to make the roster will likely help our depth improve a little bit, and maybe we even unearth a starter or rotational guy, but the reality is we've got 6-8 players freshly added that are gonna get cut on August 29th or sooner. 

The strategy was swing and a miss. I don't hate them for swinging on the pitch, but they didn't connect. 
Pardon the drawn out baseball analogy, but all we can do is hope that a few of these long shot additions can bunt us around the bases at this point. 

Doesn't mean this is going to turn out to be a bad Jags draft class. Could end up a great one when we look back on it in 2025.

---

Everyone keeps harping on the "not trading back up" as a huge Baalke failure, and bring up the teams that traded up.

This completely forgets that the teams trading down have to believe they can still get they guy(s) they are targeting by trading back to the Jags pick. That just may NOT have been case. Plus in a draft where some of those teams didn't value the late round picks, it may not have happened without blowing them away with a 2024 pick overpay.

For example, the Jags had options to trade back even further from #27 but did not take them because they knew or thought Harrison would no longer be there after #28. 

There is basically nothing Baalke could have done to fix that. Unless he was supposed to 2-3 trades in a row ahead of time to keep moving up, but that is nearly impossible to do because of the same issue where teams don't want to trade their pick 10-15 picks prior to being on the clock because they don't know if their guys will be there or not.

Getting stuck with that many late picks is a failure any way you want to slice it. It wasn't their intent. 

Yes, it is absolutely the result of circumstance more than it is GM execution, but they rolled the dice gaining all those picks with the intent of packaging them to move up. 

Then they got stuck with them.

 A high number of long shots to make the roster will likely help our depth improve a little bit, and maybe we even unearth a starter or rotational guy, but the reality is we've got 6-8 players freshly added that are gonna get cut on August 29th or sooner. 

The strategy was swing and a miss. I don't hate them for swinging on the pitch, but they didn't connect. 
Pardon the drawn out baseball analogy, but all we can do is hope that a few of these long shot additions can bunt us around the bases at this point. 

Doesn't mean this is going to turn out to be a bad Jags draft class. Could end up a great one when we look back on it in 2025.

I agree that they didn't have a plan B. 

I think the plan B should have been maybe trade the late round picks for vets that other teams may be cutting for salary cap reasons. Still probably doesn't net you starters, but probably better rotational/depth players. Plus given the CBA, the original team would probably be eating most of the cap/dead money hit. 

They would have probably needed to foresee this as a potential issue though, and try to do these back in Feb/March. I think the draft issues probably come back to sitting on their laurels a bit too much back in Feb/March.

---

How can drafting more players be a failure, by all accounts every trade back they still selected the player they intended to at that position so all that happened is we got a few extra swings with lower round picks, better to swing on 5/6 players than just the one

---

How can drafting more players be a failure, by all accounts every trade back they still selected the player they intended to at that position so all that happened is we got a few extra swings with lower round picks, better to swing on 5/6 players than just the one

Because trading two fourth round picks + a fifth in order to move back into the third round may have yielded them a player with a higher probability to be an immediate impact player at a position of need. 

The "all accounts" you are describing I have only seen attributed to pick #27. 
They got Harrison despite two small trade backs to get him. 
It's a win, but...

Unfortunately those tracebacks were intended to provide currency for adding another 3rd or 4th round pick. 
That didn't happen because they couldn't convince a team to give up their position in those rounds. So they were stuck with late round picks. Lots of them. The odds of producing valuable players from all those 5th, 6th and 7th rounders are not good at all. 

They did get a 2024 4th rounder in their move with the saints, so there's that. 

TLDR - Give me another pick in the third over two 4ths and a 5th. I like my chances better there.

---

Getting stuck with that many late picks is a failure any way you want to slice it. It wasn't their intent. 

Yes, it is absolutely the result of circumstance more than it is GM execution, but they rolled the dice gaining all those picks with the intent of packaging them to move up. 

Then they got stuck with them.

 A high number of long shots to make the roster will likely help our depth improve a little bit, and maybe we even unearth a starter or rotational guy, but the reality is we've got 6-8 players freshly added that are gonna get cut on August 29th or sooner. 

The strategy was swing and a miss. I don't hate them for swinging on the pitch, but they didn't connect. 
Pardon the drawn out baseball analogy, but all we can do is hope that a few of these long shot additions can bunt us around the bases at this point. 

Doesn't mean this is going to turn out to be a bad Jags draft class. Could end up a great one when we look back on it in 2025.

I agree that they didn't have a plan B. 

I think the plan B should have been maybe trade the late round picks for vets that other teams may be cutting for salary cap reasons. Still probably doesn't net you starters, but probably better rotational/depth players. Plus given the CBA, the original team would probably be eating most of the cap/dead money hit. 

They would have probably needed to foresee this as a potential issue though, and try to do these back in Feb/March. I think the draft issues probably come back to sitting on their laurels a bit too much back in Feb/March.

Just how would that work? If we trade for the dude, we're taking on the very same cap burden, and last I checked we were not swimming in cap room. If the guy is too pricey for the other team to handle, he's probably well beyond any reasonable glimmer of fitting inside our tiny window of space.

---

How can drafting more players be a failure, by all accounts every trade back they still selected the player they intended to at that position so all that happened is we got a few extra swings with lower round picks, better to swing on 5/6 players than just the one

(allegedly)

it's rare that a GM is gonna address the media and state "we were hoping to get [dude], but we traded too far back and had to settle for [guy] instead."

even if you settled, you're going to hype the guy like he was the prize from the get-go.

---

I agree that they didn't have a plan B. 

I think the plan B should have been maybe trade the late round picks for vets that other teams may be cutting for salary cap reasons. Still probably doesn't net you starters, but probably better rotational/depth players. Plus given the CBA, the original team would probably be eating most of the cap/dead money hit. 

They would have probably needed to foresee this as a potential issue though, and try to do these back in Feb/March. I think the draft issues probably come back to sitting on their laurels a bit too much back in Feb/March.

Just how would that work? If we trade for the dude, we're taking on the very same cap burden, and last I checked we were not swimming in cap room. If the guy is too pricey for the other team to handle, he's probably well beyond any reasonable glimmer of fitting inside our tiny window of space.

---

How can drafting more players be a failure, by all accounts every trade back they still selected the player they intended to at that position so all that happened is we got a few extra swings with lower round picks, better to swing on 5/6 players than just the one

(allegedly)

it's rare that a GM is gonna address the media and state "we were hoping to get [dude], but we traded too far back and had to settle for [guy] instead."

even if you settled, you're going to hype the guy like he was the prize from the get-go.

Exactly !  We traded back and still got some good guys. We entered the draft with a 1,2,3,4,4,6,6,6,7 nine picks. These were not at the beginning of the rounds like we are used to. We picked 13 times adding 2 5th round, 2 7th round and the Saints 2024 4th round pick. I am sure they might could have traded up if they were willing to give up some of next year's picks. If you look at the teams that moved up in the 4th and 5th rounds a lot gave up 2024 picks one round lower than the round they moved up in. (would you want to trade back for 6th and 7th round picks? really now)

https://www.nfl.com/news/2023-nfl-draft-...since-star

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Maybe our back ups won’t get humiliated as much now in the preseason games. Maybe

---

Just how would that work? If we trade for the dude, we're taking on the very same cap burden, and last I checked we were not swimming in cap room. If the guy is too pricey for the other team to handle, he's probably well beyond any reasonable glimmer of fitting inside our tiny window of space.

---

(allegedly)

it's rare that a GM is gonna address the media and state "we were hoping to get [dude], but we traded too far back and had to settle for [guy] instead."

even if you settled, you're going to hype the guy like he was the prize from the get-go.

Exactly !  We traded back and still got some good guys. We entered the draft with a 1,2,3,4,4,6,6,6,7 nine picks. These were not at the beginning of the rounds like we are used to. We picked 13 times adding 2 5th round, 2 7th round and the Saints 2024 4th round pick. I am sure they might could have traded up if they were willing to give up some of next year's picks. If you look at the teams that moved up in the 4th and 5th rounds a lot gave up 2024 picks one round lower than the round they moved up in. (would you want to trade back for 6th and 7th round picks? really now)

https://www.nfl.com/news/2023-nfl-draft-...since-star

You may have inadvertently pointed out what went wrong with our ability to trade up in the 2023 draft. 

---

Exactly !  We traded back and still got some good guys. We entered the draft with a 1,2,3,4,4,6,6,6,7 nine picks. These were not at the beginning of the rounds like we are used to. We picked 13 times adding 2 5th round, 2 7th round and the Saints 2024 4th round pick. I am sure they might could have traded up if they were willing to give up some of next year's picks. If you look at the teams that moved up in the 4th and 5th rounds a lot gave up 2024 picks one round lower than the round they moved up in. (would you want to trade back for 6th and 7th round picks? really now)

https://www.nfl.com/news/2023-nfl-draft-...since-star

You may have inadvertently pointed out what went wrong with our ability to trade up in the 2023 draft. 

LMAO !!

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

If there was a player they wanted bad enough they could have traded away some of next year’s picks.

---

Next years picks can’t be traded rounds 2,3,4,5 are all tied to the Calvin Ridley trade, this year will determine which pick it is but as of right now they’re tied up

---

Everyone keeps harping on the "not trading back up" as a huge Baalke failure, and bring up the teams that traded up.

This completely forgets that the teams trading down have to believe they can still get they guy(s) they are targeting by trading back to the Jags pick. That just may NOT have been case. Plus in a draft where some of those teams didn't value the late round picks, it may not have happened without blowing them away with a 2024 pick overpay.

For example, the Jags had options to trade back even further from #27 but did not take them because they knew or thought Harrison would no longer be there after #28. 

There is basically nothing Baalke could have done to fix that. Unless he was supposed to 2-3 trades in a row ahead of time to keep moving up, but that is nearly impossible to do because of the same issue where teams don't want to trade their pick 10-15 picks prior to being on the clock because they don't know if their guys will be there or not.

Getting stuck with that many late picks is a failure any way you want to slice it. It wasn't their intent. 

Yes, it is absolutely the result of circumstance more than it is GM execution, but they rolled the dice gaining all those picks with the intent of packaging them to move up. 

Then they got stuck with them.

 A high number of long shots to make the roster will likely help our depth improve a little bit, and maybe we even unearth a starter or rotational guy, but the reality is we've got 6-8 players freshly added that are gonna get cut on August 29th or sooner. 

The strategy was swing and a miss. I don't hate them for swinging on the pitch, but they didn't connect. 
Pardon the drawn out baseball analogy, but all we can do is hope that a few of these long shot additions can bunt us around the bases at this point. 

Doesn't mean this is going to turn out to be a bad Jags draft class. Could end up a great one when we look back on it in 2025.

If they got the same guy at #27 that they were going to draft at #24, and gained picks in the process, how is that a failure?  Or even if they had 4 guys they rated about the same, and got one of them at pick #27, how is that a failure?  Isn't it possible that trading down wasn't so much a "strategy" as it was an opportunity?  Free picks.  

We judge the draft like we're all-seeing, all-knowing gods of the draft.  When in reality, we don't have any clue about who these players are, or what went into these decisions.   Then we act like we're the smartest guy in the room, and would have done so much better than Trent Baalke did, but guess what?  I'm the smartest guy in the room, because I know that I don't know [BLEEP] about the draft or the players in it, compared to an NFL GM.

---

Getting stuck with that many late picks is a failure any way you want to slice it. It wasn't their intent. 

Yes, it is absolutely the result of circumstance more than it is GM execution, but they rolled the dice gaining all those picks with the intent of packaging them to move up. 

Then they got stuck with them.

 A high number of long shots to make the roster will likely help our depth improve a little bit, and maybe we even unearth a starter or rotational guy, but the reality is we've got 6-8 players freshly added that are gonna get cut on August 29th or sooner. 

The strategy was swing and a miss. I don't hate them for swinging on the pitch, but they didn't connect. 
Pardon the drawn out baseball analogy, but all we can do is hope that a few of these long shot additions can bunt us around the bases at this point. 

Doesn't mean this is going to turn out to be a bad Jags draft class. Could end up a great one when we look back on it in 2025.

If they got the same guy at #27 that they were going to draft at #24, and gained picks in the process, how is that a failure?  Or even if they had 4 guys they rated about the same, and got one of them at pick #27, how is that a failure?  Isn't it possible that trading down wasn't so much a "strategy" as it was an opportunity?  Free picks.  

We judge the draft like we're all-seeing, all-knowing gods of the draft.  When in reality, we don't have any clue about who these players are, or what went into these decisions.   Then we act like we're the smartest guy in the room, and would have done so much better than Trent Baalke did, but guess what?  I'm the smartest guy in the room, because I know that I don't know [BLEEP] about the draft or the players in it, compared to an NFL GM.

I know I've said it in the thread already, but their admitted intent with gaining the picks was to use them as currency to move up later.  Then they couldn't do it. 

Not sure how to explain that more plainly.

---

If they got the same guy at #27 that they were going to draft at #24, and gained picks in the process, how is that a failure?  Or even if they had 4 guys they rated about the same, and got one of them at pick #27, how is that a failure?  Isn't it possible that trading down wasn't so much a "strategy" as it was an opportunity?  Free picks.  

We judge the draft like we're all-seeing, all-knowing gods of the draft.  When in reality, we don't have any clue about who these players are, or what went into these decisions.   Then we act like we're the smartest guy in the room, and would have done so much better than Trent Baalke did, but guess what?  I'm the smartest guy in the room, because I know that I don't know [BLEEP] about the draft or the players in it, compared to an NFL GM.

I know I've said it in the thread already, but their admitted intent with gaining the picks was to use them as currency to move up later.  Then they couldn't do it. 

Not sure how to explain that more plainly.

But if you accept their explanation, then you also have to accept that they lost nothing as a result, because they still took the player they had targeted all along.  It's like if someone hands me $10, and I intend to use it at the bar, but the bar is closed, have I failed?  Or have I gained $10?  

All this bull [BLEEP] about a "failed strategy" implies that they actually risked something, and lost something as a result, when actually, if you accept their explanation, they risked nothing and lost nothing, but gained extra picks for free.

---

I know I've said it in the thread already, but their admitted intent with gaining the picks was to use them as currency to move up later.  Then they couldn't do it. 

Not sure how to explain that more plainly.

But if you accept their explanation, then you also have to accept that they lost nothing as a result, because they still took the player they had targeted all along.  It's like if someone hands me $10, and I intend to use it at the bar, but the bar is closed, have I failed?  Or have I gained $10?  

All this bull [BLEEP] about a "failed strategy" implies that they actually risked something, and lost something as a result, when actually, if you accept their explanation, they risked nothing and lost nothing, but gained extra picks for free.

They are literally admitting the failure to get back into a higher round where players have a higher probability of producing in the NFL. 

If you think that's bull [BLEEP], take it up with them. I didn't say it, Trent Baalke did.

---

I know I've said it in the thread already, but their admitted intent with gaining the picks was to use them as currency to move up later.  Then they couldn't do it. 

Not sure how to explain that more plainly.

But if you accept their explanation, then you also have to accept that they lost nothing as a result, because they still took the player they had targeted all along.  It's like if someone hands me $10, and I intend to use it at the bar, but the bar is closed, have I failed?  Or have I gained $10?  

All this bull [BLEEP] about a "failed strategy" implies that they actually risked something, and lost something as a result, when actually, if you accept their explanation, they risked nothing and lost nothing, but gained extra picks for free.

Dude.

They tried to gather more picks in an attempt to use those picks to move back up in the later rounds. Then, no one would trade with them and they were stuck with the picks.

Their initial strategy didn’t work and they had to use more picks in this draft than they intended to.

---

Prepare for many drafts like this if Trevor progresses and we don't get eaten alive by the salary cap. It won't be a splashy draft but it could be future players we need but didn't realize at the time of selection. Honestly I don't watch enough college football to know who anyone is anymore. I do watch an okay enough amount of Jaguar football to know that our flashy drafts were dud drafts.

Edit:
Jeez auto correct drives me crazy. The darn chat bots make it worse. Glad that those bots aren't in these posts.  That said my language skills could be better.

---

Birth of the Franchise - November 30, 1993
Death of the Franchise - November 29, 2011

Fans deserve better. Thanks for all the good times too many are in the past.

But if you accept their explanation, then you also have to accept that they lost nothing as a result, because they still took the player they had targeted all along.  It's like if someone hands me $10, and I intend to use it at the bar, but the bar is closed, have I failed?  Or have I gained $10?  

All this bull [BLEEP] about a "failed strategy" implies that they actually risked something, and lost something as a result, when actually, if you accept their explanation, they risked nothing and lost nothing, but gained extra picks for free.

Dude.

They tried to gather more picks in an attempt to use those picks to move back up in the later rounds. Then, no one would trade with them and they were stuck with the picks.

Their initial strategy didn’t work and they had to use more picks in this draft than they intended to.

I know they did not manage to use the extra picks to move up, but to call the whole transaction a failure, when they got the player they would have picked anyway, and got 3 extra picks without losing anything, is way overstating it.  Like I said before, if someone hands me $10, and I intend to use it at the bar, but the bar is closed, have I failed?  Or have I gained $10?

---

Dude.

They tried to gather more picks in an attempt to use those picks to move back up in the later rounds. Then, no one would trade with them and they were stuck with the picks.

Their initial strategy didn’t work and they had to use more picks in this draft than they intended to.

I know they did not manage to use the extra picks to move up, but to call the whole transaction a failure, when they got the player they would have picked anyway, and got 3 extra picks without losing anything, is way overstating it.  Like I said before, if someone hands me $10, and I intend to use it at the bar, but the bar is closed, have I failed?  Or have I gained $10?

You are not seeing this correctly. 

Let's say you were given your mythical $10 in the form of 10 chips at a casino. Two blue chips and 8 green chips. 

You're permitted to use the blue chips on a game that gives you a 1 in 5 chance of winning a sizable payout. 

The other 8 chips (green chips) must be used to play a game that gives you a 1 in 25 chance of a similar payout. 

However - you're informed that among the patrons of the casino there are likely persons willing to give you another blue chip in exchange for three of your green chips. You just need to find them. It would behoove you to improve your odds of a win by finding one of those patrons who likes to roll the dice. 

Or look at it this way -
$10 dollars spent on more a worthy investment opposed to $10 spent on a lesser product in greater quantity. 

---

Now - departing from this analogy - let's just have a little reminder that we can't just add 13 rookies to our roster beyond August 29. We're going to have to release some of them before we really get a chance to know their true potential.  So wouldn't it make more sense to have one higher rated prospect + five lower rated prospects instead of 8 lower rated prospects?

Also - I think "calling the whole transaction a failure" may not be an accurate way to describe fans descriptions here regarding the glut of late picks. And speak for yourself with this "we judge the draft like all-seeing, all knowing gods..." bit.

I'm only talking about basic probability and an admission by our own GM.

---