(03-18-2018, 08:50 AM)SeldomRite Wrote:

(03-17-2018, 09:33 PM)Bullseye Wrote: I am having this debate with TMD as well.

My question to you is when did Caldwell have any real viable opportunity to get a deal like the Colts?

The 2013 draft, especially at the top, was a complete load of crap.  Not only were there no QBs worthy of a top 5 selection in that draft, from a talent perspective outside of QB, there weren't any real game changing players that commanded those kind of trade up offers.  The Raiders originally had the 3rd pick, IIRC.  They only got a 2nd round pick for trading with Miami to move down 9 spots.

The 2014 draft was the Bortles draft.  The team needed a QB and the Jaguars felt Bortles was worthy of a top 3 selection.  Supposedly, the Bills offered the same deal they offered Cleveland at 4 (the 9 overall in 2014 and their first rounder in 2015).  But Caldwell wasn't going to risk missing out on the QB he wanted.  Cleveland traded  the past two years and missed out on Wentz and Watson.  1 win out of 32 games later, the Browns still don't have their QB.  Jacksonville could have suffered a similar fate.  Instead, Bortles had us 2:37 away from the Super Bowl.

The top of the 2015 draft had two potential franchise signal callers in Winston and Mariota.  Jacksonville picked 3rd.  There wasn't the demand for the 3rd pick in 2015 the way there is this year with three QBs presumably carrying top 5 grades.  Even if Caldwell took a player you agreed was not a reach at three, the fact is he still would have failed to get the trade down package the Colts got through no real fault of his own (aside from picking enough good players in 2014 to win enough games to knock them to 3rd overall).

You acknowledge everything came together in 2016.  I'd hate to think that at this stage, anyone can find fault with Caldwell for not trading down and getting a Colts like deal when standing pat got us Ramsey, Jack, and Ngakoue.  To be honest, the Colts, with all their picks, will be damn lucky to get three players of that caliber in this draft.

In referencing last year, there are a few things to consider.  First, TC has a preference for bigger RBs.  To the degree he had influence in the draft room, it influenced the decision to draft Fournette.  Secondly, if we were offered a trade down deal with the Panthers, there's no guarantee we take either of the backs you mention later.  Taking Lattimore at 9 could have altered the course of the draft for everyone between 9 and our pick in the 3rd round and they may not have been available, or they may not have been viewed as a fit by Coughlin.  Furthermore, even if we took one of them in the 3rd, there's no guarantee they have a similar level of success here they had in KC or New Orleans.  Presumably, we'd still have the same holes at G we had last year.  Presumably, defenses still wouldn't respect the passing game, especially after Robinson blew out his knee on the 3rd play.  Why wouldn't they load 8-9 men in the box just like they did last year?  Why would they have significantly more success against those fronts?  By the way, I made a post around this time last year arguing for Lattimore at 4.  There were a few who commented on it who indicated it would be too much allocated to one area, because we just signed Bouye a year after drafting Ramsey.  https://www.duvalpride.com/showthread.ph...#pid978106


At the end of the day, given how well the Jaguars have drafted and the results we finally achieved once we finally got competent coaching and some veteran leadership, lamenting about Caldwell not trading back and getting a Colts like deal is nitpicking.

Clearly we can never know just what was left on the table, because Caldwell won't admit his fixation on certain guys and other teams won't admit they wanted to trade away value to land someone they were in love with, but in every draft there is opportunity to trade around. How do we know this? We can just go back and look at the drafts and observe the number of trades.

1.  The 2014 draft is a great example, there were two trades in the top 5 picks and three in the top 10. Buffalo traded up to get Sammy Watkins (a terrible move) but that could have been a trade the Jaguars made instead, and guys like Odell Beckham Jr, Aaron Donald, and Taylor Lewan were all available after Buffalo's #8 pick. Now that doesn't mean that Buffalo was willing to give the Jaguars what they wanted to get to that spot, but Cleveland clearly understood just how flat the talent level at the top of that draft was. Teams picking 10-15 arguably got players as good as the teams picking 1-5. Would taking Aaron Donald at #8 and getting another 3rd rounder from Buffalo have been worth it? Maybe, or maybe not. All we can do is look at what the results were, and the Jaguars got a middle tier starting QB at #3 when they could have gotten a perennial all pro player there instead.

2.  2015 had no big trades at the top, but that doesn't mean there wasn't some opportunity for it, plus Dante Fowler wasn't even close to a can't miss pass rush prospect. In fact his dings going into the draft have clearly shown to be correct, mostly that he wasn't actually a pass rusher in college and had shown no ability to generate pass rush. If a guy doesn't actually generate pass rush, and instead can only be a complementary rusher when others are the ones creating the mismatches I'd argue he's not even close to being worthy of a #3 overall selection. I was a Leonard Williams advocate going into the 2015 draft, and while he hasn't set the world on fire, either, he's been a more impactful player than Fowler, who would be more aptly named "Fouler" for what seems to be his biggest on field contributions.

3.  2016 has a Golden egg laid right on Caldwell's lap, I can't blame him for not trading back from Ramsey.

4.  2017 is another example of trades being there if Caldwell wanted one. There was a top 10 trade after the Jaguars' pick. Also a lot of noise was made about Carolina badly wanting to get Fournette. Could the Jaguars have gotten an extra 2nd and maybe more? We'll never know, but if they could have then they should have taken it, in my opinion.

Though I will say the Jaguars continual winning of games late in lost seasons has probably contributed to a lot of their draft problems. Moving down several spots in a meaningless late season game under Gus didn't help anything, but happened in several seasons. The Jaguars sucked badly from 2008 to 2017 but never got a #1 overall pick.

(Paragraph numbering added)

You indicated at the end of paragraph #1 that "all we can do is look at what the results were."  I agree completely.  I think there are two objective results based standards we should examine in evaluating these trades down, based upon the context of the discussion.

• Did the team trading down get a deal equal to or better than the Colts deal yesterday?  The whole purpose of the thread was to address the lament that the Jaguars don't get deals like this.  If the team trading down did not get a comparable deal, the trade down can't be in any way persuasive.
  
• The second line of inquiry should be whether the teams trading down, assuming they got comparable deals to the Colts deal yesterday, got any further than the Jaguars in the time since the trade.  To quote Herm Edwards, "Hello?!?  You play to win the game!"
  

With these two objective criteria established, let me address your points.

1.  First, the 2014 NFL draft had only two trades in the top ten of that draft, not three.  Cleveland traded from 4 to Buffalo's pick at 9.  Then Cleveland traded back up to 8 with Minnesota.  http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/0ap200000...-the-moves.  Now in looking at the terms of the Cleveland-Buffalo trade, to move down 5 spots and switch places with Buffalo, the Bills gave the Browns a 2015 first round pick and a 2015 4th round pick.  Because the trade involved a future first round pick and a 4th, let's call it comparable to the Colts deal from yesterday.  The second line of inquiry is whether, in the time since this trade, have the Browns advanced any further than the Jaguars?   Since that 2014 trade down, the Browns have finished 7-9, 3-13, 1-15, and 0-16.  While the three seasons between 2014 and 2016 haven't exactly been smashing successes for the Jaguars, last year saw the Jaguars reach the AFC championship game, being only 2:37 away from reaching the Super Bowl.  By the time the players involved from that trade reached their prime years, the Browns and Jaguars could not be further apart.  Applying this standard to the second trade, Minnesota only got a 5th round pick by moving down one spot with Cleveland, so that trade fails the first criteria.

2.  Since, by your own admission, there were no trades at the top of the 2015 draft, there's not much in the way of examining the objective, results based criteria.  However, since the Jaguars pick at #3 put them below the much desired top two picks, one could surmise there was no team willing to offer the Jaguars a deal comparable to or better than the Colts deal yesterday.  Viewed slightly differently, since that draft had two potential franchise signal callers in Jameis Winston and Marcus Mariota, we could reasonably assume there had to have been offers for those picks too, ostensibly more lucrative than whatever offers we may have had for pick 3, and perhaps equal to or better than the Colts deal down yesterday.  But note neither Tampa nor Tennessee traded down from those picks despite the offers they could have had.  Is it possible, then, to conclude there are circumstances under which accepting a trade down, even a very lucrative offer, is not advisable?  Keep reading.

3.  In 2016, the Browns traded down from #2 overall with Philadelphia to #8 overall.  In exchange for the 2nd overall pick and a 4th rounder thrown in, the Browns received the #8 overall pick, a 2016 3rd round pick, a 2016 4th round pick, a 2017 first round pick, and a 2018 2nd round pick.  Considering the picks the Browns received included a future first and a future second, we'll say they got a better deal than the Colts received yesterday.  The Browns traded back again from #8 to #15, and got a 2016 3rd round pick and a 2017 second round pick for their trouble.  That trade was not comparable to what the Colts received.  But as to the 2nd objective criteria, I refer back to the bottom of my answer to paragraph 1.  The tacks also traded down in the first round in 2016. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...rom-titans  Given the consideration received, you could say that deal too was comparable to what the Colts received yesterday.  But based on the second criteria, the titans did not advance further than the Jaguars did since that trade was made.  While the tacks did have two 9-7 seasons and reached the playoffs in 2017 while the Jaguars only had one winning season, the Jaguars did pass the tacks during that time, winning a division title and reaching the AFC championship game.  The tacks have not advanced any further than the Jaguars since that trade.  Back to my closing question from 2.  You have acknowledged you don't blame Caldwell for standing pat when Ramsey is on the board.  While I could easily stop the examination here, let's look at Cleveland, who traded down twice.  They missed out on QB Carson Wentz and T Jack Conklin.   What are their two biggest offensive holes?  QB and T.  What has been their record since making those two trades down?  1-31.  Moral of the story?  Sometimes it's best NOT to trade down even if you receive lucrative deals to do so.

4.  Yes, there was a top 10 trade after the Jaguars picked in 2017.  Buffalo traded the #10 overall pick to Kansas City, in exchange for the 25th overall pick, a 2017 3rd round pick, and a 2018 first round pick.  Considering the Colts got a 1 and 3 second round picks, including 2 this year, for moving down three spots, you could argue the Colts trade down was more lucrative than what the Bills got for moving down 15 last year, but for the purposes of this discussion, we'll call the trades a push.  Since the trade, have the Bills advanced further than the Jaguars?  No.  In fact, the Jaguars knocked the Bills out of the playoffs this year.
 
Looking objectively, the teams that traded down and got deals comparable to what the Colts got went no further than the Jaguars did, who accomplished that without trading down from their top 5 draft positions at all.

---