Not really. That just shows that the Jags had very few players better than those from the last two drafts (assuming that draft picks weren't given starts ahead of better players, e.g. see Williams, Reggie). You're essentially dividing by zero here.


 

I personally think the 2014 draft was excellent, but that chart proves nothing.

Agreed...though it would be scary to consider the state of the roster if those numbers did not change at all.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Not really. That just shows that the Jags had very few players better than those from the last two drafts (assuming that draft picks weren't given starts ahead of better players, e.g. see Williams, Reggie). You're essentially dividing by zero here.


 

I personally think the 2014 draft was excellent, but that chart proves nothing.

 

It helps show how terrible the 2011 and 2012 drafts were

---

Not really. That just shows that the Jags had very few players better than those from the last two drafts (assuming that draft picks weren't given starts ahead of better players, e.g. see Williams, Reggie). You're essentially dividing by zero here.


 

I personally think the 2014 draft was excellent, but that chart proves nothing.

 

Lazy analysis on your part.

 

What it shows is that we've drafted contributors.  Otherwise, the same would have been true for the previous seasons.  That was NOT the case.

 

Much more there than your casual glance is seeing.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Lazy analysis on your part.

 

What it shows is that we've drafted contributors.  Otherwise, the same would have been true for the previous seasons.  That was NOT the case.

 

Much more there than your casual glance is seeing.

 

The chart doesn't prove that we've drafted contributors.  There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.  The chart shows statistics, not the story behind those numbers.  It shows that the 2011 and 2012 drafts sucked, but the numbers on 2013 and 2014 are due to the roster purge allowing the rookies to play, not because it was an exceptional draft class.

---

One of these years.............

The chart doesn't prove that we've drafted contributors.  There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.  The chart shows statistics, not the story behind those numbers.  It shows that the 2011 and 2012 drafts sucked, but the numbers on 2013 and 2014 are due to the roster purge allowing the rookies to play, not because it was an exceptional draft class.

 

Cool story, bro.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Cool story, bro.

 

Thanks for the productive feedback bro.

---

One of these years.............

Thanks for the productive feedback bro.

 

Can't make you see what you're not seeing, or choosing not to see.

 

A creative world-view.  Sign of the times.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Can't make you see what you're not seeing, or choosing not to see.

 

A creative world-view.  Sign of the times.

 

I think I see now.  Because I made a post that disagreed with your conclusion, I'm the moron!  I made a point with some logic to it and because you're an almighty moderator, you get to dismiss it as wrong without telling me why I'm wrong.  Glad to contribute to your self worth.

 

My point was that the chart you posted showed that the 2011 and 2012 draft classes were putrid, but to draw the conclusion that the 2013 and 2014 drafts are definitely good would be a false assumption.  The reason we had so many players from the last 2 drafts start was because we jettisoned just about all of our other potential starters so that we could let the young guys play.  This doesn't say that the draft classes are bad...it just gives the reason that they played so much.  Would you like to comment on my point, or would you like to continue trying to belittle me for disagreeing with you. 

 

Tell me what I fail to see, oh grand master of the message board.

---

One of these years.............

I think I see now.  Because I made a post that disagreed with your conclusion, I'm the moron!  I made a point with some logic to it and because you're an almighty moderator, you get to dismiss it as wrong without telling me why I'm wrong.  Glad to contribute to your self worth.

 

My point was that the chart you posted showed that the 2011 and 2012 draft classes were putrid, but to draw the conclusion that the 2013 and 2014 drafts are definitely good would be a false assumption.  The reason we had so many players from the last 2 drafts start was because we jettisoned just about all of our other potential starters so that we could let the young guys play.  This doesn't say that the draft classes are bad...it just gives the reason that they played so much.  Would you like to comment on my point, or would you like to continue trying to belittle me for disagreeing with you. 

 

Tell me what I fail to see, oh grand master of the message board.

 

We're blessed to have you.  You seem to have it all figured out for us.  Neato.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Can't someone just close this thread already. The title just annoys me now

---

Those are silly statistics.

While I agree that our 2014 draft class was a good one, I think the 2013 class was average to below average with many "meh" players, especially in the top 3 rounds. The late round gems Denard and McCray saved that draft.


Starting on the 7-25 jags in that span doesn't mean anything. Joeckel started all games this year, as did Cyprien, and they were both poor.


You have Josh Evans starting many games not because he's a good contributor, but because we have nobody else.

Those numbers are misleading.


I do think that overall our 2013 and 2014 classes are way better as a whole than any 2 years of the gene smith era though.

---

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

Lazy analysis on your part.

 

What it shows is that we've drafted contributors.  Otherwise, the same would have been true for the previous seasons.  That was NOT the case.

 

Much more there than your casual glance is seeing.

 

Not at all.


 

Had the analysis been done after the 2012 season, there would have been a lot more 'contributors' games from those drafts, and the bars for those years woiuld have been high. Gabbert played a lot in his first two years, as did Rackley, Shorts and Prosinski. How'd that work out?


 

Teams play their draft picks. That's especially true of teams with depleted rosters to begin with.

---

                                                                          

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

Not at all.


 

Had the analysis been done after the 2012 season, there would have been a lot more 'contributors' games from those drafts, and the bars for those years woiuld have been high. Gabbert played a lot in his first two years, as did Rackley, Shorts and Prosinski. How'd that work out?


 

Teams play their draft picks. That's especially true of teams with depleted rosters to begin with.

 

 

Ummmm. Prosinski played very few snaps his first year. He had 16 whole  tackles.  

 

Shorts had 2 catches his first year. Allen Hurns tripled Shorts' number of receptions with Touchdowns in his rookie season. 

 

Rackley was a joke.   I'm not sure this theory holds up. 

---

We're blessed to have you.  You seem to have it all figured out for us.  Neato.

 

Point proven.

---

One of these years.............

Not at all.


 

Had the analysis been done after the 2012 season, there would have been a lot more 'contributors' games from those drafts, and the bars for those years woiuld have been high. Gabbert played a lot in his first two years, as did Rackley, Shorts and Prosinski. How'd that work out?


 

Teams play their draft picks. That's especially true of teams with depleted rosters to begin with.

 

Shorts barely played as a rookie. Try again.

---

;

;

I think I see now. Because I made a post that disagreed with your conclusion, I'm the moron! I made a point with some logic to it and because you're an almighty moderator, you get to dismiss it as wrong without telling me why I'm wrong. Glad to contribute to your self worth.


My point was that the chart you posted showed that the 2011 and 2012 draft classes were putrid, but to draw the conclusion that the 2013 and 2014 drafts are definitely good would be a false assumption. The reason we had so many players from the last 2 drafts start was because we jettisoned just about all of our other potential starters so that we could let the young guys play. This doesn't say that the draft classes are bad...it just gives the reason that they played so much. Would you like to comment on my point, or would you like to continue trying to belittle me for disagreeing with you.


Tell me what I fail to see, oh grand master of the message board.

I agree with you on this 100%. It's nice to see that we have starters from our recent draft class, for sure, but it's because we purged the roster and were kind of forced to start in a way.


Don't mind pirkster man.

---

Shock the world

Ummmm. Prosinski played very few snaps his first year. He had 16 whole  tackles.  

 

Shorts had 2 catches his first year. Allen Hurns tripled Shorts' number of receptions with Touchdowns in his rookie season. 

 

Rackley was a joke.   I'm not sure this theory holds up. 

 

 

Shorts barely played as a rookie. Try again.

 

Shorts and Proz both played extensively in 2012. The analysis was the number of games played in 2014; the contributions of the 2011 and 2012 drafts would have looked good if done after the 2012 season. Rackley may have been a joke, but he was a joke who started, which was my point. He's in the same category as Josh Evans. Just because a rookie or first year vet contributes on the graph doesn't mean he's any good.


 

The only difference here is that the 3 and 4 year old drafts would have looked better from a 2012 perspective, but Gene Smith wasn't going to cut his own draft picks. The change at GM enabled the Jags to part with a lot of the 20111/2012 draft picks.

---

                                                                          

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

Shorts and Proz both played extensively in 2012. The analysis was the number of games played in 2014; the contributions of the 2011 and 2012 drafts would have looked good if done after the 2012 season. Rackley may have been a joke, but he was a joke who started, which was my point. He's in the same category as Josh Evans. Just because a rookie or first year vet contributes on the graph doesn't mean he's any good.


 

The only difference here is that the 3 and 4 year old drafts would have looked better from a 2012 perspective, but Gene Smith wasn't going to cut his own draft picks. The change at GM enabled the Jags to part with a lot of the 20111/2012 draft picks.

 

pretty much this.

 

Another way to look at it:

Despite these new supposed contributors we're drafting, our win total in the last 2 years is the same as the previous 2 years (7 total).

 

What does that tell you about how this organization is being run?

---

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

Shorts and Proz both played extensively in 2012. The analysis was the number of games played in 2014; the contributions of the 2011 and 2012 drafts would have looked good if done after the 2012 season. Rackley may have been a joke, but he was a joke who started, which was my point. He's in the same category as Josh Evans. Just because a rookie or first year vet contributes on the graph doesn't mean he's any good.


 

The only difference here is that the 3 and 4 year old drafts would have looked better from a 2012 perspective, but Gene Smith wasn't going to cut his own draft picks. The change at GM enabled the Jags to part with a lot of the 20111/2012 draft picks.

 

Evans and Rackly are good comparisons re: rookie production (or lack thereof)  - except that Evans was a sixth rounder.  Rackley was a third round pick.  Gratz would compare better  --  but he was much better at his position than Racily was at his. 

 

Caldwell's 2014 draft class may be young to evaluate - but Robinson, Hurns, Linder, Telvin and even Bortles all make it seem silly to compare Caldwell's rookie contributors to Gene's.  Just my opinion.  Seems clear to me that the rookies contributing under the current GM are of better quality than the few who did anything of note under Gene's tenure except maybe J Blackmon. 

---

Caldwell's 2014 draft class may be young to evaluate - but Robinson, Hurns, Linder, Telvin and even Bortles all make it seem silly to compare Caldwell's rookie contributors to Gene's.  Just my opinion.  Seems clear to me that the rookies contributing under the current GM are of better quality than the few who did anything of note under Gene's tenure except maybe J Blackmon. 

 

I agree with this. Telvin and Linder are already top NFL players. The rest look promising.


 

My point was that the graphs Pirkster linked to don't prove anything.

---

                                                                          

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