Okay man. If you don't understand the difference we'll stop here.

You don't always have high first round picks. You use high first round picks on OT's, if you can, but your not always in a position to have high first round picks. I thought this was common sense. You should always use first rounders (high or low) to find starting OT's, no matter where you are picking in round 1. That's where you normally find the best ones.

"Usually" meaning 30% of the time, lol.

---

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

You don't always have high first round picks. You use high first round picks on OT's, if you can, but your not always in a position to have high first round picks. I thought this was common sense. You should always use first rounders (high or low) to find starting OT's, no matter where you are picking in round 1. That's where you normally find the best ones.

"Usually" meaning 30% of the time, lol.

Huh? According to the list you provided 50% of the top 10 OT's were taken in round 1.

---

"Usually" meaning 30% of the time, lol.

Huh? According to the list you provided 50% of the top 10 OT's were taken in round 1.

C'mon now, the difference between pick 28 and pick 34 is insignificant.

---

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

Huh? According to the list you provided 50% of the top 10 OT's were taken in round 1.

C'mon now, the difference between pick 28 and pick 34 is insignificant.

So, I guess the same can be said for pick #1 and #6, according to your logic? Way to change facts, so you can fit them in your narrative.

---

C'mon now, the difference between pick 28 and pick 34 is insignificant.

So, I guess the same can be said for pick #1 and #6, according to your logic? Way to change facts, so you can fit them in your narrative.

The facts are the same, you don't have to take a 1st round tackle to have a good tackle. You are in denial about what you think you know that isn't so.

---

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

So, I guess the same can be said for pick #1 and #6, according to your logic? Way to change facts, so you can fit them in your narrative.

The facts are the same, you don't have to take a 1st round tackle to have a good tackle. You are in denial about what you think you know that isn't so.

No, you don't HAVE TO, but your chances go way up for getting a good one if you do. This list of the top 10 NFL OT's you provided proves that. Thanks for helping me prove my point. 

---

The facts are the same, you don't have to take a 1st round tackle to have a good tackle. You are in denial about what you think you know that isn't so.

No, you don't HAVE TO, but your chances go way up for getting a good one if you do. This list of the top 10 NFL OT's you provided proves that. Thanks for helping me prove my point. 

Lol, clearly you are satisfied in your own ignorance.

---

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

No, you don't HAVE TO, but your chances go way up for getting a good one if you do. This list of the top 10 NFL OT's you provided proves that. Thanks for helping me prove my point. 

Lol, clearly you are satisfied in your own ignorance.

Clearly, you don't like that your list helped me prove my point. I guess it backfired on you. 

---

Lol, clearly you are satisfied in your own ignorance.

Clearly, you don't like that your list helped me prove my point. I guess it backfired on you. 

The list proves that your take is incorrect, because no matter how much you dig your heels in, you have just as good a chance of picking a good tackle after pick 28 as before. Your insistence that you need to spend 1s on tackles is simply not accurate according to the statistics.

---

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

Clearly, you don't like that your list helped me prove my point. I guess it backfired on you. 

The list proves that your take is incorrect, because no matter how much you dig your heels in, you have just as good a chance of picking a good tackle after pick 28 as before. Your insistence that you need to spend 1s on tackles is simply not accurate according to the statistics.

Dude, you are as stubborn as my 78 year old father. When 5 of the top 10 best OT's in the NFL were first round picks, that shows your best chance to find a franchise OT is in round 1. That's just a fact, no matter how you choose to spin it. And there are 32 picks in round 1, not 28. Geez! You're hard headed. Facts are facts.

---

The list proves that your take is incorrect, because no matter how much you dig your heels in, you have just as good a chance of picking a good tackle after pick 28 as before. Your insistence that you need to spend 1s on tackles is simply not accurate according to the statistics.

Dude, you are as stubborn as my 78 year old father. When 5 of the top 10 best OT's in the NFL were first round picks, that shows your best chance to find a franchise OT is in round 1. That's just a fact, no matter how you choose to spin it. And there are 32 picks in round 1, not 28. Geez! You're hard headed. Facts are facts.

You're impossible. 50% means it just as likely to find one after round 1 as in round 1.

---

Dude, you are as stubborn as my 78 year old father. When 5 of the top 10 best OT's in the NFL were first round picks, that shows your best chance to find a franchise OT is in round 1. That's just a fact, no matter how you choose to spin it. And there are 32 picks in round 1, not 28. Geez! You're hard headed. Facts are facts.

You're impossible. 50% means it just as likely to find one after round 1 as in round 1.

There are 7 rounds in the draft. 50% of the top 10 OT's came from round 1. Figure it out.

---

You're impossible. 50% means it just as likely to find one after round 1 as in round 1.

There are 7 rounds in the draft. 50% of the top 10 OT's came from round 1. Figure it out.

Lol I did my man. 

Maybe try reading? 

50% came from round 1. 50% came from the rest of the draft. Therefore, it's equally likely to find an OT in round 1 as it is in the rest of the draft combined. It's not a question of the highest odds in each individual round. 

Maybe we need an infographic to help?

Round 1 OL                      Rounds 2-7 OL
     50%                                        50%

I legitimately have no idea how to explain this any simpler.

---

The facts are the same, you don't have to take a 1st round tackle to have a good tackle. You are in denial about what you think you know that isn't so.

No, you don't HAVE TO, but your chances go way up for getting a good one if you do. This list of the top 10 NFL OT's you provided proves that. Thanks for helping me prove my point. 

The list also failed to account for the number of first round tackles that end up serviceable or worse.

You can have draft crushes, that's fine. But saying that we didn't REACH for an OT that did not fit where we were picking (or choosing more talented players at other positions in the same spot, or givng the pick away just to move down) is not the same as doing nothing to address the line.

---

I see no point furthering an argument. This FO is the one making the picks and have repeatedly passed on great line talent at whatever spot we were drafting to go another route. TE, OL and QB even. I can't argue with people that try and defend the logic this FO uses. Hopefully they go when this FO does as well.

---

Season Tix, Section 409

2023 and still counting.....SB will finally be ours soon enough.
TLaw aka 'the prince that was promised' supporter.

I see no point furthering an argument.  This FO is the one making the picks and have repeatedly passed on great line talent at whatever spot we were drafting to go another route.  TE, OL and QB even.  I can't argue with people that try and defend the logic this FO uses.  Hopefully they go when this FO does as well.

Of course you can't argue, you have no case. And you should probably be the one to go, it's clear you aren't interested in this team winning anymore, only about posting your fragile emotions for all to see.

---

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

We'll knock $20 million off the 2020 cap just by cutting Dareus and an addition $5.5 million by cutting Andrew Norwell. Calais would free up an additional $15 million, but I'd hate losing his leadership in the locker room. I'm still hoping he gets things together and finishes the season strong, but the decline from last year to this season has been noticeable. If he ends the season under 8 sacks, I might be willing to part with him, especially since by just getting rid of those 3 guys, we could save $40 million. That still leaves us with Allen, Ngakoue and Smoot. That's a pretty good trio of edge rushers. We could use the savings to re-sign Ngakoue and maybe add some free agents like FS Devin McCourty, NT Jordan Phillips and TE Austin Hooper.

Someone's been playing some madden j/k.  Don't forget Lee's 5 million is off the books also.  so thats 45 mil and i am hoping we can get hooper and pick up a FS in FA.  It just sucks that we are still screaming for OL help after yelling about it for the past 2 drafts when dave just decided to do whatever he wants to call it.  We want to be a run first team and just gleam over OL in early rounds for whatever reason.  Same can be said for TE but whatevs.

(Emphasis added)

As someone who was screaming for Will Hernandez in 2018, the last two offseasons saw the Jaguars sign big ticket free agent Andrew Norwell and traded up to draft RT Jawaan Taylor in the second round this year.

Now we may not like the results we've gotten, but I can't say Caldwell has neglected the offensive line.

---

One can complain about the choices made for the o-line if they wish.
(Norwalk, Robinson, Taylor, Richardson)

One cannot say it has been neglected without appearing a fool.

Beat me to it.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

What some people fail to realize is that there is not a huge difference between the best and worst NFL teams.  Just because a team doesn't reach the postseason is not a reason for a "rebuild".  Upgrade players/positions? Sure.  Remember, only 1/3rd of teams in the league play in the post season.

Well, it also depends on what happens with the coaching staff after the season.

If Marrone and the current coaching staff are retained, then the "rebuild effect" is limited.

Yes, there will be some guys that may need to be replaced (Dareus, Campbell, Norwell, Lee), but keeping the current coaching staff is the best way to make the transition more gradual.

If Khan decides to scrap the FO and coaching staff after the season, then all bets are off.

---

I see no point furthering an argument.  This FO is the one making the picks and have repeatedly passed on great line talent at whatever spot we were drafting to go another route.  TE, OL and QB even.  I can't argue with people that try and defend the logic this FO uses.  Hopefully they go when this FO does as well.

So from a purely talent standpoint, which OL/TE should we have taken instead of Ramsey in 2016?

From a purely talent standpoint, which OL/TE should we have taken instead of Allen this year?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!