Thinking about our team and the offseason we have had to this point, I realize that free agency has possibly brought us as many as six new starters (but more likely four):

 

Julius Thomas

Jermey Parnell

Jared Odrick

Davon House

Dan Skuta

Sergio Brown

 

That is a staggering number in itself, but then you consider the ascent of some rookies last year (i.e. Marqise Lee, Aaron Colvin), and you figure at least two guys from this upcoming draft if Caldwell is accurate in his evaluations and the draft falls right:

 

Our first round pick (if we don't trade down, possibly a DL-Fowler, Williams) and a RB sometimes later.

 

Conservatively speaking, we could see TEN (10) new starters.

 

Now if Caldwell reasonably replicates the degree of success he had last year, that number could go higher, especially if he trades down and gets a big return.

 

From opening day last year to opening day this year we could see changes at

 

QB:  Henne to Bortles

RB:  Gerhart to ...???

TE:  Marcedes to Thomas

WR:  Shorts to Robinson, Lee or Hurns and/or...draft pick

RT:  Pasztor/guy we cut to Parnell

LE:  Bryant to Odrick

DT:  Marks (possibly initially due to the ACL recovery) or Miller to possibly Williams.

LEO:  Clemons to possibly Fowler or Beasley

Otto: ???     to Skuta or draft pick

WLB:  From Hayes to Telvin Smith

CB:  Gratz to possibly House or Colvin

FS:  Guy/Evans to Brown or possible draft pick.

 

 

I know Caldwell has indicated there is no pressure to acquire starters in this draft, but doesn't it seem possible that over half -maybe 12 or 13- of our starting 22 from last year, could be new guys?  This doesn't even factor in an unexpected steal somewhere in the draft or UDFA.

 

Can anyone else recall a time (aside from an expansion team) where a team could have THAT many new starters from one year to the next?

 

While we went 3-13 last year, will that many new faces hurt the development of the team while it takes time to gel, or will the infusion of talent pay immediate dividends?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Wasn't McClendon the center to start last year?

---

Wasn't McClendon the center to start last year?

I think he was.  Good catch.

 

Another question:  If the number of new starters is below a certain number, would that represent a disappointment?  Why or why not?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

In my opinion too many, not too few starters would be a disappointment. That would mean last years starters just aren't progressing at a fast enough rate and here we are starting at the bottom again. The other side of the coin would be that Coach lives up to the "competition" mantra and the best fit at the position plays! Big contract or not, I want the best player starting, not the one with the biggest contract. This should be a fun training camp for sure!

---

I think he was.  Good catch.

 

Another question:  If the number of new starters is below a certain number, would that represent a disappointment?  Why or why not?

I don't think so.  At the end of the day, if the number of new starters is below a certain number, it is possible this is due to the fact that the guys who were in those starting roles showed marked improvement from last year to this.  We had a lot of young starters on the roster last year who are still developing.  We also had guys in starting roles who had never been in that position before, and other guys who were getting a shot and had nagging injuries.  So, there is always the possibility that these players could come back this year and hold their starting jobs. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

In my opinion too many, not too few starters would be a disappointment. That would mean last years starters just aren't progressing at a fast enough rate and here we are starting at the bottom again. The other side of the coin would be that Coach lives up to the "competition" mantra and the best fit at the position plays! Big contract or not, I want the best player starting, not the one with the biggest contract. This should be a fun training camp for sure!

Agreed.  I'd be more concerned if we  had a high number of new starters over last year.  Especially in positions where we had rookies starting last season. The expectation is that they'd struggle as rookies, adjust to the speed of the game, and work on development over the off season, returning in year 2 a much better player.  Doesn't always pan out that way, but that should be the expectation.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Agreed.  I'd be more concerned if we  had a high number of new starters over last year.  Especially in positions where we had rookies starting last season. The expectation is that they'd struggle as rookies, adjust to the speed of the game, and work on development over the off season, returning in year 2 a much better player.  Doesn't always pan out that way, but that should be the expectation.

So you are less concerned over a new starter that starts over a veteran than you would be over a rookie from last year?

 

Where does Gratz fall in that continuum?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

As long as we get better in those spots, this should def be a good thing.


Also, this breakdown of sorts has me thinking about the same type of observation when it comes to the coaching changes of the offseason. This is a big offseason

---

You Gotta Be Able To Run Da' Rock~

In my opinion too many, not too few starters would be a disappointment. That would mean last years starters just aren't progressing at a fast enough rate and here we are starting at the bottom again. The other side of the coin would be that Coach lives up to the "competition" mantra and the best fit at the position plays! Big contract or not, I want the best player starting, not the one with the biggest contract. This should be a fun training camp for sure!

 

Well, if you consider that a 3-13 team would have numerous holes to fill, are more new starters necessarily a bad thing?

 

There are legitimate holes minimally at RB, and FS, a potential hole at DT where Marks is because of his rehab from an ACL.

 

Considering Clemons is 34, I'm not sure if we can count on him generating another 9 sacks this year.  That could be considered a hole.

 

Gratz could also be considered a liability from last year.

 

Shorts?

 

I guess my question to you and FBT would be how many new starters would be too many, in your eyes?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Won't it be nice someday when our rookie class mostly sits the bench?

---

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

Won't it be nice someday when our rookie class mostly sits the bench?

Yes.

 

This should be the last year of widescale roster turnover. 

 

If we are going through this again next year, something went very wrong in 2015.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

We could have 22 new starters. The number doesnt ask or answer the question. The number, in my opinion, doesnt even bode the question. It's whether that new starter is going to improve that spot overall. Is this guy an upgrade?

---

You Gotta Be Able To Run Da' Rock~

We could have 22 new starters. The number doesnt ask or answer the question. The number, in my opinion, doesnt even bode the question. It's whether that new starter is going to improve that spot overall. Is this guy an upgrade?

I get your point completely, but the number of new starters CAN be somewhat instructive on one or two points:

 

1.  How good have the acquisitions been prior to this year?

 

2.  How good are the acquisitions this year?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I get your point completely, but the number of new starters CAN be somewhat instructive on one or two points:


1. How good have the acquisitions been prior to this year?


2. How good are the acquisitions this year?

Oh, ok. I see what You're sayin.. and if we continue to have to replace a high # of starters each year, progression is minimal. True, like spinning wheels

---

You Gotta Be Able To Run Da' Rock~

Good thread.  Meaningful in this ridiculously slow time period.


 

This seems like a lot, and probably is, but I don’t have a base line to compare it against.


I’d love to see what other roster turnover looks like.  Seattle, NY Giants and maybe Tampa (Top, Mid, Bottom is what I was going for).


I know their stars, but don’t know their roster in detail like I know the Jaguars.


 

Of course I don’t have the time or patience to do this myself, but it would be nice to see how it compares.

---

Mike Brewster.  The legend.

---

I think in most cases it will be due to a significant upgrade.  Several of last year's opening day starters are no longer with the team, so those positions will have new starters by definition.  Other positions were upgraded in FA - you certainly hope most of the new UFA signings will earn starting jobs in training camp.  That's also a good thing, if we can upgrade a weak position like FS or RT, or fill the OTTO position with a solid starter in Skuta.  Then there are draft choices who may be ready to contribute right away - slot WR, RB, LEO, PR, KR?

---

This seems like a lot, and probably is, but I don’t have a base line to compare it against.


I’d love to see what other roster turnover looks like.  Seattle, NY Giants and maybe Tampa (Top, Mid, Bottom is what I was going for).


I know their stars, but don’t know their roster in detail like I know the Jaguars.


 

Of course I don’t have the time or patience to do this myself, but it would be nice to see how it compares.

Good points.

 

To do a proper analysis along those lines, there would have to be several lines of inquiry, including but not limited to:

 

• How many new starters?
  
• How did the positions become open (retirement, free agency, plain lack of talent in need of upgrade)?
  
• Is there a change of coaches/scheme involved?
  
• Do the new starters represent an upgrade, downgrade, or push?
  
• as you indicated above, how strong was the team coming into this offseason?
  

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

So you are less concerned over a new starter that starts over a veteran than you would be over a rookie from last year?

 

Where does Gratz fall in that continuum?

No, that's not my point.

 

Even for a guy like Gratz, I'd categorize him as a young guy who needs more development.  The hope is that with his experience and more work, he'll improve.  If not,  he'll be replaced. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Good post.

 

I think with roster turnover, it can go both ways. We are going to have more roster turnover this year with new faces that will immediately become starters. I think in this circumstance, especially so far, you would want and expect that turnover to affect the roster in a good way. Adding Julius Thomas, one would hope he would make the team better immediately, where as, if you drafted a TE in the first, maybe expectations can be tempered. 

 

Last year and the season in the past. I think a lot of our turnover was given to younger players who we drafted or under the radar free agents. Obviously we are building from the ground up. That roster turnover did not in return give us immediate results. I think especially with what the Jaguars under this regime are doing, that was okay. I think this  season, that roster turnover needs to turn into results. 

---