As fun as being one of the few realists with Fowler is, I am on vacation and the family is up now so I will leave the rest to you all. Have fun.

---

Every single snap. I think all of them twice even, but I am hesitant to say every single one twice I think I stopped my DVR a bit short for some of the blowouts.

And the biggest predictor of future ACL injury is past ACL injury. He is fine now, but it's a major factor if you're talking about someone having to give up big value for him.

I'd be interested to see some data on that statement.

Sorry I missed this one but it's quick. There are studies all over the place google is your friend. The risk of injuring the ACL the first time is pretty low. The odds of injuring it a second time are roughly 1/3. That's huge.

---

Kind of like you did with Beasley?  His sack number isn't even really all that great.  It's his pressures along his run defense.

Nope, I was warning that Beasley's league leading sack total two years ago was a bit misleading. He was very good, but not best in the league good. I'm a realist when it comes to both love and hate. The average pressure to sack total is 7-9:1. Beasley's that year was 4.5-1 (still a very solid 50 pressures compared to Fowlers 20 though). I said we should expect that to fall quite a bit. Of course tearing a hamstring in the preseason exacerbated the regression.

Fowler's was an absurd 2.2:1 last year.

I dont believe the pressure number.  Fowler has the QB on the run more often than not

---

Am I wrong in thinking Fowler had a great run defense grade in 2016?

---

Am I wrong in thinking Fowler had a great run defense grade in 2016?

Grade, no grade, the guy played well vs the run. I'm not blind. 

Is there anyone that watched Dante Fowler the past two years and thought "He's not very good against the run"? 
Never came to my mind at all, and there were at least 10 instances where I thought just the opposite. 
I'll trust my instincts here.

---

I have asked a version of this question in another thread, but I can't find it, so I will post the current version of this tangentially related hypothetical.

Suppose the Packers brass decided they need an edge rusher and are all in on Marcus Davenport, but he is taken off the board before their pick. They do not like any other edge rusher in this class, and decide to offer their first round pick straight up for Fowler.

That would give the Jaguars picks 14 and 29 in the first round.

1. Do you take the trade?
2. If so, what position do you address at pick 14? What position do you address at 29?

3. Would your answers change if the trade was not straight up for a first round pick, but an inducement for a swap of first round draft position, where the Jaguars sit only at pick 14 in the first round, not at 14 and 29?

Either of your scenarios would be a steal in my mind, but I am confident we will lose Dante next offseason anyway.

Could someone like Vea be available at that pick and solve our interior DL budget concerns?

How about having their choice of OL prospects (other than Nelson).

---

Am I wrong in thinking Fowler had a great run defense grade in 2016?

Grade, no grade, the guy played well vs the run. I'm not blind. 

Is there anyone that watched Dante Fowler the past two years and thought "He's not very good against the run"? 
Never came to my mind at all, and there were at least 10 instances where I thought just the opposite. 
I'll trust my instincts here.

I agree. He's a + run defender. He knows what he's doing.  

Just if PFF is what he's using to come to his conclusion I'm pretty sure they had him graded highly there too. Not that I'm a big PFF guy.

---

I have asked a version of this question in another thread, but I can't find it, so I will post the current version of this tangentially related hypothetical.

Suppose the Packers brass decided they need an edge rusher and are all in on Marcus Davenport, but he is taken off the board before their pick.  They do not like any other edge rusher in this class, and decide to offer their first round pick straight up for Fowler.

That would give the Jaguars picks 14 and 29 in the first round.

1.  Do you take the trade?
2.  If so, what position do you address at pick 14?  What position do you address at 29?

3.  Would your answers change if the trade was not straight up for a first round pick, but an inducement for a swap of first round draft position, where the Jaguars sit only at pick 14 in the first round, not at 14 and 29?

Either of your scenarios would be a steal in my mind, but I am confident we will lose Dante next offseason anyway.

Could someone like Vea be available at that pick and solve our interior DL budget concerns?

How about having their choice of OL prospects (other than Nelson).

It's entirely possible Vea could be there at 14.  Would you cut Abry Jones?

What would be the cap ramifications of cutting Jones or Jackson or Dareus this year?

Of the three, I'd rather keep Dareus for as long as possible.

Regarding OL prospects, being at 14 likely would give us our choice of anyone other than Nelson.  The question is would any of the remaining OL options be worth the 14th overall pick, and philosophically, would Vea/any OL other than Nelson be worth Fowler?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Kind of like you did with Beasley?  His sack number isn't even really all that great.  It's his pressures along his run defense.

Nope, I was warning that Beasley's league leading sack total two years ago was a bit misleading. He was very good, but not best in the league good. I'm a realist when it comes to both love and hate. The average pressure to sack total is 7-9:1. Beasley's that year was 4.5-1 (still a very solid 50 pressures compared to Fowlers 20 though). I said we should expect that to fall quite a bit. Of course tearing a hamstring in the preseason exacerbated the regression.

Fowler's was an absurd 2.2:1 last year.

Maybe he's just really good at finishing the job.

---

Caldwell spoke directly on Fowler yesterday...though he made no definitive statement on whether to keep him either way.

- The Jaguars have not made a decision on fourth-year defensive end Dante Fowler's fifth-year option. The team has until early May to make a decision. Caldwell said the team will meet after next week's NFL Draft to discuss the option.

"I thought he had a nice year [in 2017]," Caldwell said. "He had double-digit sacks throughout the playoffs and he's 23 years old in his second year of full-time play. He made good strides not only on the field but off the field too."

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/sp...-543512286

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

You can call him "a backup DE" or you can call him "a 10-sack DE."   Backup or no backup, he got 10 sacks last year.  

So,
1) Deal him.
2) Extend him.
3) Keep him for one year.  

Extending him is probably out of the question, because of the cost.  So what would we get in a trade?  Keep in mind, whoever trades for him would have the same alternatives we have- extend him, or keep him for one year.   So I would guess in a trade we might get a 3rd round pick.  

So, what do you want, 10 sacks in 2019 and then he's gone, or a 3rd round pick?

Give me option A.

This is a team close to the Super Bowl.  His presence on the roster could help us get there.  He had two sacks against the Patriots in the AFC title game, and now they are without Nate Solder.  He could be huge against the Patriots here in week 2, and more important should Campell and/or Ngakoue get hurt.

If he leaves as a UFA, we could get a compensatory pick for him as high as a 3rd round pick, anyway.

But how much longer do we keep a 32 year old Calais Campbell?

Until he shows signs of slowing down. He had a career year. You certainly can't get rid of him, just because he's older.

---

Give me option A.

This is a team close to the Super Bowl.  His presence on the roster could help us get there.  He had two sacks against the Patriots in the AFC title game, and now they are without Nate Solder.  He could be huge against the Patriots here in week 2, and more important should Campell and/or Ngakoue get hurt.

If he leaves as a UFA, we could get a compensatory pick for him as high as a 3rd round pick, anyway.

But how much longer do we keep a 32 year old Calais Campbell?

Until he shows signs of slowing down. He had a career year. You certainly can't get rid of him, just because he's older.

So we don't sign Fowler to an extension, he and Campbell play well this year, Fowler walks in 2019, Campbell falls off, then what?  We have a declining, expensive player on the roster in 19, but lose a young, still well in his prime player?

For that matter, if he doesn't win Defensive player of the year award this year, does that mean he's slowing down?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

In a weird spot where I'm not prepared to give him the option but also not prepared to sell low on him. I'd need a first or something like a 2nd and 3rd to trade him.  

Keep him over summer and see how he develops , see how he plays over the first few weeks of the season then either trade or try get an extension done. If he's not producing much we might be able to convince him to sign a cheapened deal.

His value is highest now though. If we keep him through the year, we risk losing him and getting nothing, but a compensatory pick. To me, if we get anything better than a 3rd rounder (which is the max we'd get in a compensatory pick), it would be a win. Even if he has an off year, I see no way we get him to sign anything less than a $12 million per year deal and that is gonna put us in a bind as well. This is kinda why I didn't want to spend any money in free agency this year, because I didn't want to have to start making tough decisions like this. In the end, we need Norwell much more than we need Fowler, so I guess his signing was worth it as long as Norwell pans out. We cannot afford to keep everyone though. This is the price you pay for spending money in free agency and keeping a veteran QB. Eventually, the bill is gonna have to get paid.

---

He is our 3rd DE this year.  Next year Calais will be 33, cut Campbell and keep Fowler next year

What if Calais has another monster season and Fowler's stats dip? Then, we lose one of our top defensive players and we'd be on the hook for $14.2 million in 2019 for keeping Fowler. I don't like that at all.

---

I think you simply let 2018 play out on the field (don't pick up the option) and the decision may become easier.
The money being spent on Dareus, Campbell and Jackson is prohibitive.  

The first and easiest way to help find a way to keep Fowler (and still re-sign the more obvious keepers of Jack/Ramsey/Ngakoue) is to move on from Dareus in 2019 when the "out" in his contract comes up.  
That likely means going all in on a run stuffing DT/NT in the 2019 draft (unless they surprise us and draft one next week.)
Campbell, who will be 33 by week one of the 2019 season, also has an out in his contract after this season.  Will he show any signs of father time nipping at his heels?  Does Smoot flash enough this year to give us confidence to move on?

There are just too many unanswered questions for me right now to want to deal Fowler away. I'd like to find a way to keep all of the contributing young players on this defense and I think saying goodbye to a vet (maybe two) and replacing them with draft picks may be all that is required.

Can we afford to lose Dareus? Look at how our run defense completely turned around once we picked him up. He fit like a glove. What if we let him leave and we strike out on drafting a NT to replace him. Do you really wanna go back to the run defense being a major weakness? Age or not, Campbell may have been our best defensive player in 2017. He had a career year and allowed Yannick to thrive as well. I certainly don't wanna get rid of him. That's not even an option in my eyes. I am not a fan of Smoot. IMO, that would be a huge downgrade. 

I don't wanna have to deal Fowler either, but it's time to pay the piper and I absolutely do not want to get rid of any of our defensive starters on the D-Line, linebacker or CB. I refuse to even allow that to be an option right now in my mind. Given the future cap situation, we have to make a decision. You simply don't just cut major contributing defensive veterans and replace them in the draft. You don't always find their replacements right away. Sometimes you strike out and end up worse off. Our defense is what carried us last season. As long as we have a QB who can't carry the team on his back, we need to have a top defense and that means keeping our starters as long as possible.

---

I have asked a version of this question in another thread, but I can't find it, so I will post the current version of this tangentially related hypothetical.

Suppose the Packers brass decided they need an edge rusher and are all in on Marcus Davenport, but he is taken off the board before their pick.  They do not like any other edge rusher in this class, and decide to offer their first round pick straight up for Fowler.

That would give the Jaguars picks 14 and 29 in the first round.

1.  Do you take the trade?
2.  If so, what position do you address at pick 14?  What position do you address at 29?

3.  Would your answers change if the trade was not straight up for a first round pick, but an inducement for a swap of first round draft position, where the Jaguars sit only at pick 14 in the first round, not at 14 and 29?

Yes. I would see if one of the QB's fell to #14. If not, I trade back and add draft picks. 

I would not accept a simple swap of draft picks though.

---

I’d keep him.

If we’re going to make another run at the Super Bowl we need to have quality depth on the defensive line and while he’s not set the world on fire yet, he’s still a very good player and one opponents have to worry about.

And as with Blake, there is no harm in picking up the option.

If he doesn’t work out this season we can still decide not to take up that option.

If he does work out, then we offer him a longer term deal (and in that scenario, why wouldn’t we want to pay a quality DE who has produced over the course of the season?)

Unless someone is willing to offer us a first round pick (I don’t believe anyone would for a player who has yet to really shine) then a trade simply doesn’t do enough for us.

What if we pick up the option and he gets injured? Then we are on the hook for $14.2 million no matter what. That could happen.

---

Until he shows signs of slowing down. He had a career year. You certainly can't get rid of him, just because he's older.

So we don't sign Fowler to an extension, he and Campbell play well this year, Fowler walks in 2019, Campbell falls off, then what?  We have a declining, expensive player on the roster in 19, but lose a young, still well in his prime player?

For that matter, if he doesn't win Defensive player of the year award this year, does that mean he's slowing down?

That's why I believe we should trade Fowler now. Not signing him to extension and losing him means a 3rd round compensatory pick at best. Trading him now, nets us no lower than a 2nd rounder. I just don't see Calais falling off. 32 is not ancient, especially for a guy that had a career year in his first season on the team. I just don't understand why anyone thinking we should cut Calais would even be an option. 

Slowing down to me would mean basically falling off a cliff. Like 6 sacks or less. I don't see that happening. Neither option (losing Calais or Dante), is a good option, but it's all we have.

---

awgeeznotthisstuffagain.jpg

---

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

If I'm Fowler there's no way I sign a cheap extension. He will be like 24/25 when he hits the open market. Had an amazing season last year in limited playing time. Showed up big in the playoffs. Even if he has a down year, it can be blamed on limited play. Someone will pay BIG for a 24/25 yo FA DE who has shown some serious potential. Much more than what the Jags can offer, that's for sure. That money will be going to Ngakoue.

---

If I'm Fowler there's no way I sign a cheap extension. He will be like 24/25 when he hits the open market. Had an amazing season last year in limited playing time. Showed up big in the playoffs. Even if he has a down year, it can be blamed on limited play. Someone will pay BIG for a 24/25 yo FA DE who has shown some serious potential. Much more than what the Jags can offer, that's for sure. That money will be going to Ngakoue.

Not necessarily if we're in position to move on from Calais, Malik, Dareus. Who knows, a lot can change. That's why you pick up the option, it would likely be cheaper than the big money deal.

---

IT WAS ALWAYS THE JAGS

---

I'd be interested to see some data on that statement.

Sorry I missed this one but it's quick. There are studies all over the place google is your friend. The risk of injuring the ACL the first time is pretty low. The odds of injuring it a second time are roughly 1/3. That's huge.

I'm finding that they are not really at any more risk than they would be before it  

https://www.phillymag.com/birds247/2015/...-the-odds/

---

IT WAS ALWAYS THE JAGS

I feel like Fowler is still developing. 

I’d like to see how it goes.

Same. Take as much time as we have with that one, worst case scenario, we take whatever compensatory pick we can get. 

I think we will continue to see him blossom and he could become an integral cog.

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

In a weird spot where I'm not prepared to give him the option but also not prepared to sell low on him. I'd need a first or something like a 2nd and 3rd to trade him.  

Keep him over summer and see how he develops , see how he plays over the first few weeks of the season then either trade or try get an extension done. If he's not producing much we might be able to convince him to sign a cheapened deal.

His value is highest now though. If we keep him through the year, we risk losing him and getting nothing, but a compensatory pick. To me, if we get anything better than a 3rd rounder (which is the max we'd get in a compensatory pick), it would be a win. Even if he has an off year, I see no way we get him to sign anything less than a $12 million per year deal and that is gonna put us in a bind as well. This is kinda why I didn't want to spend any money in free agency this year, because I didn't want to have to start making tough decisions like this. In the end, we need Norwell much more than we need Fowler, so I guess his signing was worth it as long as Norwell pans out. We cannot afford to keep everyone though. This is the price you pay for spending money in free agency and keeping a veteran QB. Eventually, the bill is gonna have to get paid.

---

He is our 3rd DE this year.  Next year Calais will be 33, cut Campbell and keep Fowler next year

What if Calais has another monster season and Fowler's stats dip? Then, we lose one of our top defensive players and we'd be on the hook for $14.2 million in 2019 for keeping Fowler. I don't like that at all.

What if Calais slows down and Fowler lights it up?

---

You def. pick up the option and make a decision at the end of the year like we did with Bortles

---