The Jaguars used the fourth overall pick in the 2017 NFL draft on running back Leonard Fournette. As a rookie, Fournette topped 1,000 yards, and the Jaguars improved from 3-13 to the AFC Championship Game. That has led many people to say that Fournette is proof that drafting a running back high in the first round can dramatically improve a team’s fortunes.


Those people are wrong.

The reality is, while Fournette was fine as a rookie, he was far from the game breaker people made him out to be. And the Jaguars were a good team last year because of their defense, not because of Fournette’s contributions.....

Click on the link below to see their reasonings.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...rspective/

So the question is: Do we fans overrate the value of Leonard Fournette? Would we have gotten the same overall team results with a Yeldon/Grant combo and no Fournette? If so who would you have rather drafted in the top 5?

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

Without reading the rest of the article:
Fournette as an individual, was a factor in 4, maybe 5 games IMO. Outside of those games - the work he did from the backfield could have been matched by a lesser back/ later draft pick.

Regardless of his "somewhat minimized" impact in 2017 - the much more important thing to me right now is what he will do with an improved O-Line - and lots of speed lining up at WR in 2018. I expect that he'll have a greater impact on the offense this time around as a result of those additions.

(after reading the article - they are a bit slippery/misleading suggesting how well Yeldon, Ivory and Grant did without LF because they omit mentioning Bortles' rushing numbers there.)

Anyway, I've always been a "don't draft a RB early" guy and I still am. Very glad he's a Jag, but still would not have chosen him.

---

 The Jaguars used the fourth overall pick in the 2017 NFL draft on running back Leonard Fournette. As a rookie, Fournette topped 1,000 yards, and the Jaguars improved from 3-13 to the AFC Championship Game. That has led many people to say that Fournette is proof that drafting a running back high in the first round can dramatically improve a team’s fortunes.


Those people are wrong.

The reality is, while Fournette was fine as a rookie, he was far from the game breaker people made him out to be. And the Jaguars were a good team last year because of their defense, not because of Fournette’s contributions.....

Click on the link below to see their reasonings.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...rspective/

So the question is: Do we fans overrate the value of Leonard Fournette? Would we have gotten the same overall team results with a Yeldon/Grant combo and no Fournette? If so who would you have rather drafted in the top 5?

While the defense obviously carried us majority of the year...Fournette was the offensive identity.  I don't think Yeldon/Grant would have ever commanded the attention that Fournette did.  He was the sole offensive player opposing teams had to gameplan for.  Hopefully Chark/ASJ can get some of that attention and we can see what Fournette can do against a non-loaded box.

---

I just read this and came straight to comment here. I agree that he didn't do enough outside of the 'homeruns' and that taking a RB that high is not a good plan. But there is also zero doubt in my mind that teams game planned for us differently when he was in. If he hadn't had those nagging injuries after the London game I wonder how much better he would have done.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

I think this article is a little off when talking about the big picture. Either the author didn’t know or omitted a key statistic. As per next gen stats, Fournette ran against an 8 plus man box on a whopping 48.51 percent of his carries last year and still put up over 1000 yards while missing 3 games. The next closest 1000 yard rusher saw only 42% 8 plus defenders in the box.

The point is, all the defenses keying in on Fournette so consistently allowed Bortles to improve and allowed the play action to be effective.

I think he is a lot more important to the Jags than what this article implies.

---

This is the kind of "article" that one writes when they look at statistics on a sheet and have never seen a single game the player who produced those stats played.

You can say he was drafted too high, and that's valid. Many do not believe RBs should be drafted that high no matter who you are.

But to suggest he did not produce or to pretend he was not the face/identity of the franchise offensively is simple ignorance.

Take him off this team and we would not have been in the playoffs last season. You aren't going to find what he means to this offense (in particular, Blake) buried in a stat sheet unless you're focused on the W/L column.

---

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

The thing that I don't understand about the "don't waste a high round pick on a WR" philosophy is that it seems to not view the draft as a single entity, which from my perspective, it is. 

I do understand the idea of taking a larger perspective on the draft, to me each class has it's own intrinsic value and that is based on the talent of the available players. Each draft has a "best" player in it, every single one. You need to get as many good players as you can but you only get one pool to gain talent from. For those that would not want Fournette, my response is "then who is better?" Which player out of that top ten has more talent? I get that there are possible answers to it, but I (way too optimistically probably) think that is the reason for why the Front Office collects the talent that it does.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

Didn't like the Fournette pick at the time and still don't but he had a good rookie year all things considered.

The larger point is why I didn't like the pick. Basically RBs are one of the least valuable positions in the sport and can be replicated with ease. They don't really win you games.

---

I think the Fournette pick was about very clearly establishing the identity of this team as being a physical defense / power running offense team. I think it was about sending a message to everyone on this team "this is what we are about now". I think Coughlin was probably behind taking us in that direction after evaluating exactly what we had and the fastest route to becoming competitive again.

That said, I wouldn't take a RB in the top 10, and if anything Kamara and Hunt proved that last year. At the same time, I expect Fournette to improve greatly and actually be up there challenging for the rushing title at the end of the season.

---

The thing that I don't understand about the "don't waste a high round pick on a WR" philosophy is that it seems to not view the draft as a single entity, which from my perspective, it is. 

I do understand the idea of taking a larger perspective on the draft, to me each class has it's own intrinsic value and that is based on the talent of the available players. Each draft has a "best" player in it, every single one. You need to get as many good players as you can but you only get one pool to gain talent from. For those that would not want Fournette, my response is "then who is better?" Which player out of that top ten has more talent? I get that there are possible answers to it, but I (way too optimistically probably) think that is the reason for why the Front Office collects the talent that it does.

For me it really comes down to this simple opinion. (for better or worse)

I think it's easier to find an impactful RB in the second-fourth rounds than it is to find an impactful defender or QB there. (OT deserves mention as well ahead of RB when picking early)
Adams and Mahomes are the obvious examples of that in that particular draft to me. I'd see them as wiser usage of the pick. I could even make a case for Jon Allen there over Fournette. 

---

Another thing floating around this topic is this idea that "putting Fournette on the field forced defenses to load the box." I don't know about that. 
I think that about 60-70% of those loaded boxes were a direct response to the offensive formation. Not the guy standing in the backfield. The Jags telegraphed run quite often last season when Fournette was in the game - and the responses many of those run sets garnered would likely have been the same if it were Ivory lined up behind an identical set.

---

No random second-fourth round RB could have filled the role Fournette did, leading our team to the success we had on offense.

In fact, the ineffectiveness of the second rounder we took lead us to the need for the Fournette pick.

---

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

No random second-fourth round RB could have filled the role Fournette did, leading our team to the success we had on offense.

In fact, the ineffectiveness of the second rounder we took lead us to the need for the Fournette pick.

That's definitely not what I said. 
The comment about rounds 2-4 was strictly about draft philosophy with the RB position in general - and does not reflect directly on Fournette's role on the 2017 Jags.  While I think we got a great back, I have concerns about his limitations, and I think other players of greater overall value were preferable there. 

 I also said that he made an impact in 4 or 5 games. Outside of those games, I do believe a lesser back would have impacted the games similarly to Fournette. Even Yeldon.  As evidenced by the three wins in his absence. 
4 or 5 impactful games is a big deal though. Could really break a season to drop three of those.

---

Yet, we were a top 5 offense in the NFL and it was our offense that won us the playoff game in Pittsburgh.

---

No random second-fourth round RB could have filled the role Fournette did, leading our team to the success we had on offense.

In fact, the ineffectiveness of the second rounder we took lead us to the need for the Fournette pick.

I don't think it's as hard to replicate that production with 2nd/3rd/4th round backs as you think.  

You give a lot of RBs that level of volume behind a very good run blocking line and they are gonna crack 1k yards.

---

I am also not a fan of drafting a RB as early as LF was drafted... however... I think LF has a LOT more than what he showed last year. He brings the attitude we want the rest of the offense to embody. He has the swagger that we want the team to embody, and he has the talent to be a Pro Bowler.

Looking back at the draft and who else was available at that pick, I would redraft LF. I think he was the right pick.

---

While Fournette could’ve been better. I wasn’t nearly as impressed with the O-line in the run game. I really wanted one “road grader” guards this draft to help but Norwell and a year under his belt should help.

---

With Norwell in the fold, I'm envisioning Fournette looking more like he did in college and high school.

---

'02

We won games without him. But with that said. He showcased and flashed a lot of talent. Especially in the first trip up to Pittsburgh and especially against the Rams. I don't think we as fans overvalue his contributions.

I think it's just been a very, very, very long time since we've had a legitimate running back that has breakaway speed and home run ability. Maybe that [BLEEP] wipe at PFT should go back and look at how horrendous the running game had been here over the last six or seven years.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

The discrepancy between LF27 and the next man up is large imo.

Well worth the selection.

---

It’s not just the numbers he put up last year, it’s how his presence forced defenses to play us with him as the focus. Lesser backs might have put up similar numbers, but I think he helped open up things a little more for Blake last year where a lesser back probably wouldn’t have. That sort of thing doesn’t show up on stat sheets directly.

I’m expecting a big year from him this year with a full offseason and improved o-line. I’m sure he’ll still be the focal point for opposing D’s though.

---