It's a valid point,.   I would say there are exceptions, but in general, having the worst record means you are the worst team.  Kansas City was an aberration.   I don't know how they managed to lose all those games with that roster, but they certainly didn't do it on purpose, and having the first pick didn't propel them into the playoffs because they spent the first pick in the draft on a guy who is currently an average RT.  

 

What is this argument about, anyway?   We can't choose to win or lose.   So I guess we're arguing about whether we should be happy with winning.    Which is really a pointless argument, because whether we're happy or not doesn't affect anything.   So why not choose to be happy winning?

I don't buy the aberration theory. The year before that the Colts had the first pick and again, talent wise they were far from the worst team. Granted, they likely tanked, but the point remains, draft order isn't a referendum on overall talent. Thus the argument that we should be happy with a lower pick because it would mean we were a better team doesn't really hold water.

---

LEONARD FOURNETTE FAN CLUB PRESIDENT. I WAS BEHIND HIM WHEN YOU ALL SAID HE WAS BRANDON JACOBS. QUIT HATING ON THE JAGUARS. GUS IS GONE. COUGHLIN HAS RESTORED ORDER. FOURNETTE IS FRED TAYLOR. DONT BELIEVE ME JUST WATCH.

I don't buy the aberration theory. The year before that the Colts had the first pick and again, talent wise they were far from the worst team. Granted, they likely tanked, but the point remains, draft order isn't a referendum on overall talent. Thus the argument that we should be happy with a lower pick because it would mean we were a better team doesn't really hold water.

 

To which I would respond, yes, draft order is not always a valid referendum on roster talent.   But the order in which a player is picked is not always a valid referendum on the relative talent of that player, either.  In general it is, just like, in general, draft order is a valid referendum on talent.   Where was Lawrence Taylor picked?  Dan Marino, Jerry Rice?  Emmitt Smith?  Who was picked ahead of Tony Boselli?  

 

Sure, whether we're talking about draft order or  the order in which players are taken, we're talking in generalities. That doesn't demolish my argument, which is, in general, the way to get a high draft pick is to have a lousy roster to begin with.  

 

You say they likely tanked, how did they do that?   Did the coach do that?  He got fired.   Did the players lay down and lose games  just so they could draft a guy to play right tackle?  That's absurd. 

---

To which I would respond, yes, draft order is not always a valid referendum on roster talent.   But the order in which a player is picked is not always a valid referendum on the relative talent of that player, either.  In general it is, just like, in general, draft order is a valid referendum on talent.   Where was Lawrence Taylor picked?  Dan Marino, Jerry Rice?  Emmitt Smith?  Who was picked ahead of Tony Boselli?  

 

Sure, whether we're talking about draft order or  the order in which players are taken, we're talking in generalities. That doesn't demolish my argument, which is, in general, the way to get a high draft pick is to have a lousy roster to begin with.  

 

You say they likely tanked, how did they do that?   Did the coach do that?  He got fired.   Did the players lay down and lose games  just so they could draft a guy to play right tackle?  That's absurd.

It likely came down from their narcissist owner. They basically redshirted Peyton and rolled into the season with Collins/Orlovsky/Painter. They tanked hard. Historical context isn't really applicable to this situation either. You have to look at the talent in this years crop. Bridgewater will be an elite NFL QB. He probably won't be Brady level, but how many guys will? He's a guy that can change the direction of your franchise for the next decade. Sure other guys in later rounds could prove to be good QB's as well and you might win the lottery tomorrow. The difference between the first pick and the fifth pick this year is gigantic.

---

LEONARD FOURNETTE FAN CLUB PRESIDENT. I WAS BEHIND HIM WHEN YOU ALL SAID HE WAS BRANDON JACOBS. QUIT HATING ON THE JAGUARS. GUS IS GONE. COUGHLIN HAS RESTORED ORDER. FOURNETTE IS FRED TAYLOR. DONT BELIEVE ME JUST WATCH.

The players  are going to play hard and the coaches are going to do their best.  

 

Therefore, the only way to come up with the number one pick is to actually be the worst team in the league.   

The first statement is true, I addressed that in a later post.

 

The second statement is not true. All you have to do is look at the Chiefs last year. There was no way they were less talented than the Jags last year. In a small sample size league (16 games very SSS) tons of chance plays into how the actual standings finish. 

---

The first statement is true, I addressed that in a later post.

 

The second statement is not true. All you have to do is look at the Chiefs last year. There was no way they were less talented than the Jags last year. In a small sample size league (16 games very SSS) tons of chance plays into how the actual standings finish. 

 

I also addressed that point in an earlier post.  

 

Which is correct: that the team with the worst record in the league is the worst team?   Not always.   How about, the first player taken is the best player in the draft.   Obviously, that one is not always correct either.   So we're both speaking about things in general.  

---

What is this argument about, anyway?   We can't choose to win or lose.   So I guess we're arguing about whether we should be happy with winning.    Which is really a pointless argument, because whether we're happy or not doesn't affect anything.   So why not choose to be happy winning?  

Ok, well by this standards they might as well just scrap the entire message boards. Us being happy or not about trading Eugene Monroe and making a 30 page thread about it affects nothing, nor will any discussion/debate about any topic that the board has ever had or ever will have. Just let it all unfold and sit in our little boxes and watch it happen. 

---

It likely came down from their narcissist owner. They basically redshirted Peyton and rolled into the season with Collins/Orlovsky/Painter. They tanked hard. Historical context isn't really applicable to this situation either. You have to look at the talent in this years crop. Bridgewater will be an elite NFL QB. He probably won't be Brady level, but how many guys will? He's a guy that can change the direction of your franchise for the next decade. Sure other guys in later rounds could prove to be good QB's as well and you might win the lottery tomorrow. The difference between the first pick and the fifth pick this year is gigantic.

 

So you are saying that Irsay told Bill Polian, the GM, and Caldwell, the head coach, that they had to use those quarterbacks, which they did, and then at the end of the season they both got fired.    That doesn't make any sense.  

---

I also addressed that point in an earlier post.  

 

Which is correct: that the team with the worst record in the league is the worst team?   Not always.   How about, the first player taken is the best player in the draft.   Obviously, that one is not always correct either.   So we're both speaking about things in general.  

Nope, I'm not arguing that drafting #1 guarantees you get the best player in the draft. But it's impossible to argue that not having the entire field of options to choose from is better than having your choice of everyone. That's the pragmatic view. 

---

Ok, well by this standards they might as well just scrap the entire message boards. Us being happy or not about trading Eugene Monroe and making a 30 page thread about it affects nothing, nor will any discussion/debate about any topic that the board has ever had or ever will have. Just let it all unfold and sit in our little boxes and watch it happen. 

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't argue about this.   It's an enjoyable argument.  

---

So you are saying that Irsay told Bill Polian, the GM, and Caldwell, the head coach, that they had to use those quarterbacks, which they did, and then at the end of the season they both got fired.    That doesn't make any sense.  

 

That dead horse has been beaten over and over again on this board. There is zero chance that Polian, Caldwell or any player lost games on purpose. I did get a chuckle when TMD suggested that Irsay gave them some sort of severance bonus after being fired if they lost intentionally.

---

;

;

Nope, I'm not arguing that drafting #1 guarantees you get the best player in the draft. But it's impossible to argue that not having the entire field of options to choose from is better than having your choice of everyone. That's the pragmatic view. 

 

Again, no one is arguing about the value of having the number one pick.   I am simply trying to point out the terribly high price of that pick, which some people seem to be ignoring. 

---

Nope, I'm not arguing that drafting #1 guarantees you get the best player in the draft. But it's impossible to argue that not having the entire field of options to choose from is better than having your choice of everyone. That's the pragmatic view. 

 

Quite simply. What do you want them to do?

---

;

;

Quite simply. What do you want them to do?

'They' aren't going to do anything about it. As I said earlier on the inside no one is going to try less than 100% to win every game. From the outside we can say that is all well and good but it's just statistically winning a few late games is not as good as having the #1 overall pick. Big difference. 

---

So you are saying that Irsay told Bill Polian, the GM, and Caldwell, the head coach, that they had to use those quarterbacks, which they did, and then at the end of the season they both got fired.    That doesn't make any sense.

Firstly, Polian was only GM until 2009 and was only serving as team president at the time. Irsay was likely calling the shots, just as he made the final decision on Peyton. Most people have already accepted the fact that the Colts tanked, but you can believe what you want.

---

LEONARD FOURNETTE FAN CLUB PRESIDENT. I WAS BEHIND HIM WHEN YOU ALL SAID HE WAS BRANDON JACOBS. QUIT HATING ON THE JAGUARS. GUS IS GONE. COUGHLIN HAS RESTORED ORDER. FOURNETTE IS FRED TAYLOR. DONT BELIEVE ME JUST WATCH.

'They' aren't going to do anything about it. As I said earlier on the inside no one is going to try less than 100% to win every game. From the outside we can say that is all well and good but it's just statistically winning a few late games is not as good as having the #1 overall pick. Big difference.

I'm suggesting we insert Gabbert into our starting lineup, who is essentially the nuclear bomb of tanking and finally get some utility out of that first round selection!

---

LEONARD FOURNETTE FAN CLUB PRESIDENT. I WAS BEHIND HIM WHEN YOU ALL SAID HE WAS BRANDON JACOBS. QUIT HATING ON THE JAGUARS. GUS IS GONE. COUGHLIN HAS RESTORED ORDER. FOURNETTE IS FRED TAYLOR. DONT BELIEVE ME JUST WATCH.

'They' aren't going to do anything about it. As I said earlier on the inside no one is going to try less than 100% to win every game. From the outside we can say that is all well and good but it's just statistically winning a few late games is not as good as having the #1 overall pick. Big difference. 

 

What statistics?

---

Again, no one is arguing about the value of having the number one pick.   I am simply trying to point out the terribly high price of that pick, which some people seem to be ignoring. 

There is just so much variance that can play in to a win or a loss that isn't pure talent. If Weeden hadn't self imploded with 3 turnovers on their side of the field in less than two minutes to end the half the Jags wouldn't have won. Do we feel differently about the talent/future of the team simply because of the end result? I don't. I love that the team is playing their butts off and getting better, but if we can look improved and still lose then that's ultimately the better result in the long run.

 

I will agree that these wins are better than the late meaningless wins against the Bucs and Colts in 2011 that cost us Andrew Luck. That team was stagnant and uninspiring on all levels. This is better than that, but still not as good as looking youthful and improved while still losing.  

---

What statistics?

The statistic that having 100% of available options produces a better result more often than not having 100% of options available. That's just stats 101.

---

If the jaguars win tomorrow, we really are going to be hurting ourselves in the future. Wins are nice, but this team is not a contender or can they hold for 16 games without a QB.

---

The statistic that having 100% of available options produces a better result more often than not having 100% of options available. That's just stats 101.

 

This is what you said:

 

just statistically winning a few late games is not as good as having the #1 overall pick
 

 

So what statistics show that "winning a few late games is not as good as having the #1 pick". I mean if it's just stats 101, it should not be that difficult to show, right?

---