We could have taken Adams in the 1st, still drafted  Cam Robinson in the 2nd and could of had  Kareem Hunt in the 3rd. We took Smoot at pick 68 and Hunt didn't go until pick 86.

And we'd have known Hitler was a psycho we could've stopped his ride to power YEARS before he murdered millions of people. Hindsight really is 20/20 isn't it, not to mention I'd rather have Fournette than Hunt any day there's a reason why Hunts #s started falling off after his hot start. .

Godwin’s Law in the football forum? My oh my the internet has fallen on some hard times

---

It's hard to know if Fournette was what drove the mentality change of our offense or if it was really Marrone/Coughlin. Or perhaps some combination. It felt as though there were a ton of games where Fournette was averaging less than 4 yards a carry and doing nothing that a backup couldnt do. But maybe he really opened up the offense around him. It's easy to say he did and on the flipside it's easy to say there is no evidence for it. But it's hard to really know for sure.

As we talked about at length during the year, Fournette is probably one of the best backs in the league, if not the best, when he has an obvious hole to run through. Hard to bring down and surprisingly fast. A lot of guys have great initial quickness but dont have the breakaway speed whereas Fournette seems to get faster the longer the run. The downside with Fournette is he doesnt do well in traffic, doesnt change direction very well, and doesnt seem to see holes that are created away from where the run is supposed to go.

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

I'm just gonna add something to this because it's actually hilarious to me the people that don't appreciate what Fournette does for this team. First off Zhe had MANY game breaking runs that most backs can't pull off and if you can't remember/are too dense to spot them that's on you and it makes me wonder what you were actually looking at during the games? Number two, he was the fastest back in the NFL last year with the fasted clicked run at 22mph - that's unbelievable for how big he is and means he can take it to the house on any run, unlike most power backs. And finally, HE WEARS DEFENSES OUT like crazy, I think anybody that ever actually has played real tackle pad wearing football understands this. Having to tackle that guy all game and getting ran over a few times, is straight up demoralizing. Jags ended with a top five or so offense and it wasn't a coincidence that it was Fournettes first year.

 I appreciate the things you are saying about Fournette. I just think it's a bit of an exaggeration of the way it actually went down. 

Fournette had 8 very pedestrian running performances mixed into his season last year. In weeks 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, and 16 his contribution was marginal at best.  He had two other not so great ground games mixed in - but they were offset by his contribution catching the ball. 

You can chalk a few of these lackluster days to having fewer than 20 carries or coming back from injury, but I'm not going to pretend he didn't have some ineffective days on the football field in 2017. 

As I said earlier - I believe his contribution in 4 or 5 other games was crucial enough to be considered a significant factor in the wins. That's actually high praise as it's enough to change the course of a season for a team. 
I will continue to be realistic about his overall impact as a rookie though, and also continue to assert it should improve this season. I anticipate better run blocking will help (especially on those first downs) and I think the added speed at receiver will also have a positive effect.

---

The argument is not whether we'd be better off with Gallman than Fournette. 

It's whether we'd be better off with Jamal Adams or Patrick Mahomes than Fournette?

It is curious that a person who contends RBs should not be taken high because they can easily be found later would then turn around and advocate taking a SS in the top 5.  You can find a good SS anywhere, too.  (See: Chancellor, Kam.  See also: Lynch, John)

Mahomes or Watson?  I would get the argument for QBs.

But not SS under your established draft paradigm.

I think Adams shows enough interchangeability at the safety positions to warrant that pick. Of course you'll also need a FS who is happy to come down and hit/run support to make the pick truly effective. 
(i.e. employing a scheme that truly mixes/disguises the safety roles)

You have a good point though. Adams isn't the best example if you're going to just plug him into a traditional SS role. I just saw his talent level on a tier higher than Fournette's at draft time.

---

"Fournette had 8 very pedestrian running performances mixed into his season last year. In weeks 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, and 16 his contribution was marginal at best.  He had two other not so great ground games mixed in - but they were offset by his contribution catching the ball."

Along with every other back in the NFL... Ever played fantasy football? Name some backs that don't have up and down performances... Are too trying to say Fournette needs to go over 100 rushing with multiple TDs every game to be considered" worth the pick"?

And without those "4 or 5" game changing performances leading to wins we probably don't get into the playoffs... Ever consider that?

---

"Fournette had 8 very pedestrian running performances mixed into his season last year. In weeks 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, and 16 his contribution was marginal at best.  He had two other not so great ground games mixed in - but they were offset by his contribution catching the ball."

Along with every other back in the NFL... Ever played fantasy football? Name some backs that don't have up and down performances... Are too trying to say Fournette needs to go over 100 rushing with multiple TDs every game to be considered" worth the pick"?

And without those "4 or 5" game changing performances leading to wins we probably don't get into the playoffs... Ever consider that?

Your bolded bit there literally repeats what I just typed in the post you quoted. 
Maybe you should read it again:

I believe his contribution in 4 or 5 other games was crucial enough to be considered a significant factor in the wins. That's actually high praise as it's enough to change the course of a season for a team. 

Also - I think you're misconstruing my points. I'm trying to simply give some perspective on how much impact he had - and at times didn't have.  While I don't think 8 games of looking pedestrian on the ground is a such a terrible thing, especially for a rookie, it's enough to make me hope we made the right pick that early in a draft. 

I didn't expect any more than we saw from him in year one because of the weaknesses in his game that three other posters have mentioned in this thread. If we're going to take a back that early, I'd much prefer he'd be able to improvise out of a busted play every now and then.  He almost never does.  Fournette seems to lack the vision and lateral agility to pull that off more than once in a blue moon.  

What he does well however, he does exceptionally well. Fight for extra yards, punish defenders, help to wear down a defense (when he gets enough touches), and of course blow the top off when he can space to get up to speed. 

The Jags seem to be catering to his strengths this offseason to some degree and i expect it to help his impact to grow.  In the meantime - It's OK for me to be mildly disappointed that he wasn't able to be more impactful in a few of those lackluster games he notched last year. I think there will be fewer of those in 2018.

---

It is curious that a person who contends RBs should not be taken high because they can easily be found later would then turn around and advocate taking a SS in the top 5.  You can find a good SS anywhere, too.  (See: Chancellor, Kam.  See also: Lynch, John)

Mahomes or Watson?  I would get the argument for QBs.

But not SS under your established draft paradigm.

I think Adams shows enough interchangeability at the safety positions to warrant that pick. Of course you'll also need a FS who is happy to come down and hit/run support to make the pick truly effective. 
(i.e. employing a scheme that truly mixes/disguises the safety roles)

You have a good point though. Adams isn't the best example if you're going to just plug him into a traditional SS role. I just saw his talent level on a tier higher than Fournette's at draft time.

A distinction with little difference, IMO.

FS are draft plentiful, too.

I don't say that to impugn Adams as a player.  I agree with you that Adams is quite the talent, whether you play him at SS, FS, or in a scheme where the Safeties flip.  Heck, at one point I made the argument he should be considered for us at 4 last year

But if we are simply focusing on positional draft value/availability, then how is a S (free or strong) any less plentiful in the typical draft than a RB?  Neither of our safeties on our top three defense were drafted.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

"Fournette had 8 very pedestrian running performances mixed into his season last year. In weeks 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, and 16 his contribution was marginal at best.  He had two other not so great ground games mixed in - but they were offset by his contribution catching the ball."

Along with every other back in the NFL... Ever played fantasy football? Name some backs that don't have up and down performances... Are too trying to say Fournette needs to go over 100 rushing with multiple TDs every game to be considered" worth the pick"?

And without those "4 or 5" game changing performances leading to wins we probably don't get into the playoffs... Ever consider that?

Your bolded bit there literally repeats what I just typed in the post you quoted. 
Maybe you should read it again:

I believe his contribution in 4 or 5 other games was crucial enough to be considered a significant factor in the wins. That's actually high praise as it's enough to change the course of a season for a team. 

Also - I think you're misconstruing my points. I'm trying to simply give some perspective on how much impact he had - and at times didn't have.  While I don't think 8 games of looking pedestrian on the ground is a such a terrible thing, especially for a rookie, it's enough to make me hope we made the right pick that early in a draft. 

I didn't expect any more than we saw from him in year one because of the weaknesses in his game that three other posters have mentioned in this thread. If we're going to take a back that early, I'd much prefer he'd be able to improvise out of a busted play every now and then.  He almost never does.  Fournette seems to lack the vision and lateral agility to pull that off more than once in a blue moon.  

What he does well however, he does exceptionally well. Fight for extra yards, punish defenders, help to wear down a defense (when he gets enough touches), and of course blow the top off when he can space to get up to speed. 

The Jags seem to be catering to his strengths this offseason to some degree and i expect it to help his impact to grow.  In the meantime - It's OK for me to be mildly disappointed that he wasn't able to be more impactful in a few of those lackluster games he notched last year. I think there will be fewer of those in 2018.

But even the games you're saying he didn't have an impact was mostly because teams were stacking the box and game is planning to stop HIM daring Bortles to win the game, so yes when other teams game plan to stop Fournette, it opens up passing options and therefore has a massive influence on the game. He faced the highest percent of 8 man boxes and still had almost 1300 all purpose yards in 13 games played as a Rookie. IDK man, looks like a massive impact to me.

EDIT: Corection he had 1342 yards from scrimmage on 13 games played (really about 12 and half or so). Play that out over a full 16 games and he has about 1750 or so yds from scrimmage as A ROOKIE.

---

...

The Jags seem to be catering to his strengths this offseason to some degree and i expect it to help his impact to grow.  In the meantime - It's OK for me to be mildly disappointed that he wasn't able to be more impactful in a few of those lackluster games he notched last year. I think there will be fewer of those in 2018.

But even the games you're saying he didn't have an impact was mostly because teams were stacking the box and game is planning to stop HIM daring Bortles to win the game, so yes when other teams game plan to stop Fournette, it opens up passing options and therefore has a massive influence on the game. He faced the highest percent of 8 man boxes and still had almost 1300 all purpose yards in 13 games played as a Rookie. IDK man, looks like a massive impact to me.

I don't see it that way. Did some of the defenses we faced key on Fournette? Yeah, they did. When you trot out some of the run formations we used on first down they don't really have a choice do they?

But like I mentioned earlier in the thread, the majority of those stacked boxes would have happened anyway in direct response to the run formations the Jags frequently put on the field. They stacked the box frequently in direct response to the offensive formation, not because the guy back there was wearing number 27. I hope the Jags get smarter about telegraphing the run   --  like they did in the first half of the game in new england.
 Fournette's opportunities could benefit from a lot more running room if they mix that up IMO. Would have been a wiser and more impactful way to use him  in his rookie year IMO. 

He helped open up the pass at times, he had a good rookie year, he helped us win some games. I stop short of saying "massive impact" though.  I just don't see it that way.  Maybe he'll earn that from me in 2018. We'll see.

---

But even the games you're saying he didn't have an impact was mostly because teams were stacking the box and game is planning to stop HIM daring Bortles to win the game, so yes when other teams game plan to stop Fournette, it opens up passing options and therefore has a massive influence on the game. He faced the highest percent of 8 man boxes and still had almost 1300 all purpose yards in 13 games played as a Rookie. IDK man, looks like a massive impact to me.

I don't see it that way. Did some of the defenses we faced key on Fournette? Yeah, they did. When you trot out some of the run formations we used on first down they don't really have a choice do they? sw

But like I mentioned earlier in the thread, the majority of those stacked boxes would have happened anyway in direct response to the run formations the Jags frequently put on the field. They stacked the box frequently in direct response to the offensive formation, not because the guy back there was wearing number 27. I hope the Jags get smarter about telegraphing the run   --  like they did in the first half of the game in new england.
 Fournette's opportunities could benefit from a lot more running room if they mix that up IMO. Would have been a wiser and more impactful way to use him  in his rookie year IMO. 

He helped open up the pass at times, he had a good rookie year, he helped us win some games. I stop short of saying "massive impact" though.  I just don't see it that way.  Maybe he'll earn that from me in 2018. We'll see.

Fair enough, agree to disagree then but a rookie back that averages over a 100 yds from scrimmage per game (see my edit) while having a nagging injury for half of his games started gets me excited.

---

I don't see it that way. Did some of the defenses we faced key on Fournette? Yeah, they did. When you trot out some of the run formations we used on first down they don't really have a choice do they? sw

But like I mentioned earlier in the thread, the majority of those stacked boxes would have happened anyway in direct response to the run formations the Jags frequently put on the field. They stacked the box frequently in direct response to the offensive formation, not because the guy back there was wearing number 27. I hope the Jags get smarter about telegraphing the run   --  like they did in the first half of the game in new england.
 Fournette's opportunities could benefit from a lot more running room if they mix that up IMO. Would have been a wiser and more impactful way to use him  in his rookie year IMO. 

He helped open up the pass at times, he had a good rookie year, he helped us win some games. I stop short of saying "massive impact" though.  I just don't see it that way.  Maybe he'll earn that from me in 2018. We'll see.

Fair enough, agree to disagree then but a rookie back that averages over a 100 yds from scrimmage per game (see my edit) while having a nagging injury for half of his games started gets me excited.

I respect and appreciate your opinion. You make good points. I hope Fournette makes me his biggest fan this year.

---

I think a lot of great points have been made here about his impact. He had some decent numbers despite missing time and despite nursing that ankle of his off and on throughout his rookie campaign. But, as it's been said already. He forced defenses to respect the running game again. Something we lacked as far back as MJD's best season in Jacksonville. Bortles doesn't have the year he had without that aspect IMHO.

With a more developed line and the third highest graded G now added to the line up it should only elevate the ground game further which in turn should further elevate Bortles and the rest of the passing game. Fournette truly has game breaking and game changing speed though. Didn't he end up registering the fastest play on the field overall in Pittsburgh? And then I think he damn near tied it or broke it a week or two later in another game.

I think that's what makes him worth that fourth overall selection.

---

"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."

I think Adams shows enough interchangeability at the safety positions to warrant that pick. Of course you'll also need a FS who is happy to come down and hit/run support to make the pick truly effective. 
(i.e. employing a scheme that truly mixes/disguises the safety roles)

You have a good point though. Adams isn't the best example if you're going to just plug him into a traditional SS role. I just saw his talent level on a tier higher than Fournette's at draft time.

A distinction with little difference, IMO.

FS are draft plentiful, too.

I don't say that to impugn Adams as a player.  I agree with you that Adams is quite the talent, whether you play him at SS, FS, or in a scheme where the Safeties flip.  Heck, at one point I made the argument he should be considered for us at 4 last year

But if we are simply focusing on positional draft value/availability, then how is a S (free or strong) any less plentiful in the typical draft than a RB?  Neither of our safeties on our top three defense were drafted.

I concede to your superior analysis, Bullseye.  Adams was a bad example for the point I was trying to make. He sprang to mind as he was sort of a target on my personal wishlist that year. RB and S may be on more similar footing draft-value-wise than I indicated, though the undercurrent/agenda of "pass, pass, pass" being pushed by the league could change that over time.

I still cringe at taking a RB that high though! 

---

WHERE THE HECK IS THIS WRITER GETTING HIS ASSUMPTIONS FROM (EXCERPTS FROM HIS ARTICLE SHOWN IN RED BELOW)?  IT'S NOT LIKE HE'S ALL OVER THE COVERS OF MAGAZINES OR APPEARING ON ESPN ?  HECK, PERHAPS ONE COULD INSERT ZEKE ELLIOTT IN PLACE OF FORNETTE'S NAME AS HE WAS THE ONE THAT GOT ALL OF THE ROOKIE HYPE A YEAR AGO.  


"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.

So where does the perception that Fournette had a great rookie year come from?"

---

A distinction with little difference, IMO.

FS are draft plentiful, too.

I don't say that to impugn Adams as a player.  I agree with you that Adams is quite the talent, whether you play him at SS, FS, or in a scheme where the Safeties flip.  Heck, at one point I made the argument he should be considered for us at 4 last year

But if we are simply focusing on positional draft value/availability, then how is a S (free or strong) any less plentiful in the typical draft than a RB?  Neither of our safeties on our top three defense were drafted.

I concede to your superior analysis, Bullseye.  Adams was a bad example for the point I was trying to make. He sprang to mind as he was sort of a target on my personal wishlist that year.  RB and S may be on more similar footing draft-value-wise than I indicated, though the undercurrent/agenda of "pass, pass, pass" being pushed by the league could change that over time.

I still cringe at taking a RB that high though! 

Dunno if sarcasm or serious...but I don't think my analysis is "superior" here for the record.  You are among many very knowledgeable and rational fans here who have made very good arguments pro and con.

But your stance begs the question:  Are there ever instances where a player's talent at a "dime a dozen" position justifies a high draft pick in your estimation?

By the way...lots of civility expressed in this thread.  Am I on the right board?  

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

History has shown if you give 2nd/3rd/4th round backs the same amount of volume as a 1st round back that their production is near identical.

"But you have to consider how many backs taken in that range ended up as busts" Well yes but the same is true for every single position in the draft. The difference being that it's much rarer to find upper tier QBs, pass rushers, corners etc etc in rounds 2, 3 , 4. Where as with running backs it's fairly common.

I think Fournette is a good back and not a "bust". I also think his injury history is worrying and that taking a back like him that high in the draft is always a bad move. Even more so when you consider we could have drafted someone like Watson there.

---

I concede to your superior analysis, Bullseye.  Adams was a bad example for the point I was trying to make. He sprang to mind as he was sort of a target on my personal wishlist that year.  RB and S may be on more similar footing draft-value-wise than I indicated, though the undercurrent/agenda of "pass, pass, pass" being pushed by the league could change that over time.

I still cringe at taking a RB that high though! 

Dunno if sarcasm or serious...but I don't think my analysis is "superior" here for the record.  You are among many very knowledgeable and rational fans here who have made very good arguments pro and con.

But your stance begs the question:  Are there ever instances where a player's talent at a "dime a dozen" position justifies a high draft pick in your estimation?

By the way...lots of civility expressed in this thread.  Am I on the right board?  

Serious, not sarcastic. 

There are definitely players that you might deem somewhere approaching "generational talent"  -  and that makes their positional value go out the window on draft day. 

I happened to be in that minority that thought LF27 came close to that in certain traits and fell well short of it in others, so he didn't make that outlier list for me personally. 

RE: civility - 
winning really does help everything!

---

History has shown if you give 2nd/3rd/4th round backs the same amount of volume as a 1st round back that their production is near identical.    

"But you have to consider how many backs taken in that range ended up as busts" Well yes but the same is true for every single position in the draft. The difference being that it's much rarer to find upper tier QBs, pass rushers, corners etc etc in rounds 2, 3 , 4. Where as with running backs it's fairly common.  

I think Fournette is a good back and not a "bust". I also think his injury history is worrying and that taking a back like him that high in the draft is always a bad move. Even more so when you consider we could have drafted someone like Watson there.

That is misleading IMO.  2nd/3rd/4th round backs only get that amount of volume if they are good.  We couldn't have just taken any RB and expect him to be as productive as Fournette.  There's a reason Yeldon wasn't getting that volume and that he's probably gone in 2019.

---

In my opinion, a running back needs to become a top 15 richer, a great hybrid back ala Marshall Faulk, Roger Craig, etc or put up a few 1500+ yard seasons to truly justify being drafted that high. At least in today’s game

---

History has shown if you give 2nd/3rd/4th round backs the same amount of volume as a 1st round back that their production is near identical.    

"But you have to consider how many backs taken in that range ended up as busts" Well yes but the same is true for every single position in the draft. The difference being that it's much rarer to find upper tier QBs, pass rushers, corners etc etc in rounds 2, 3 , 4. Where as with running backs it's fairly common.  

I think Fournette is a good back and not a "bust". I also think his injury history is worrying and that taking a back like him that high in the draft is always a bad move. Even more so when you consider we could have drafted someone like Watson there.

Watson will be dog doo next year.

---