He went further to say Walker will be seen in 10 years from now to be the 2nd best draft pick from this draft.

25 and 33 were really bad picks so that's kind of damning with faint praise, but I agree.

Not sure I agree that he was a better prospect than Eugene Monroe was supposed to be though. Monroe was supposed to be a top 5 pick and the late knee issues had him slip enough that we supposedly got a steal a few picks later.

---

It's a bad pick period, because we took a guy based on having no game play information on him for 2 years. If he does work out, it's a lucky pick. Not a good one.

---

They couldn't have, because he didn't play a down for 2 years. Workouts and showcases mean nothing. That's the "underwear olympics." There are tons of players who look good in workouts and are terrible when it's a game situation. 90% of evaluations should be based on game play. Period. Otherwise, you're just guessing.

If you evaluate the player and make the pick, it isn't luck. It is a calculated risk.

You simply can't evaluate a player that hasn't played for 2 years. It can't be done! You can try and explain it as "evaluating," but that's not what evaluating is.

---

Well it's a good thing we saw him in game situations too. The only question is if he is healthy, his talent wasn't a question. Once he proved he was healthy I don't get the hang up.

Your either being hard headed or ignorant. There were no game situations for 2 years, so this is inaccurate. You cannot judge a player based off one full season as a freshman. That's idiotic. That is just guessing.

---

Well it's a good thing we saw him in game situations too. The only question is if he is healthy, his talent wasn't a question. Once he proved he was healthy I don't get the hang up.

Your either being hard headed or ignorant. There were no game situations for 2 years, so this is inaccurate. You cannot judge a player based off one full season as a freshman. That's idiotic. That is just guessing.

Man, just stop.  He was a 5 star recruit and playing like one of the top OTs in the nation, a lock for a first round pick.  Then he got hurt, then COVID.  Tons of players missed a year and were still drafted, including a guy at three who played one game last year and a guy at 5 who opted out.  Is that one extra year that catastrophic?  Hint, it's not, he's super young and hasn't touched his potential. I can't wait to come back to this thread in two years because the dude is legit.

---

“Terrible pick” by the morons, yet you had nothing to go off of and are a wait and see type person? You should take a break from the keyboard.

Absolutely. I stand by that statement. It was a terrible pick, regardless of what he does on the field, because there wasn't enough information on him to make him that high of a selection. He hadn't played football in 2 years. How do you not get that? With that said, no one knows what kind of player he's gonna be since there was no game information to gather on him since he got injured 2 years ago. We're flying blind. We hope he'll be good, but we have no clue. We have to wait and see. It was a very risky selection since there were proven players at the same position when we picked at #33 that would've been smarter choices, since we actually had recent game tape to judge them on. 

How about you try and do some critical thinking before you start spouting off nonsense? It might make your brain hurt, but you'll sound smarter.

A terrible pick regardless of what he does on the field?  Lol. If dude is our future LT and plays great it was a great pick.  If you didn't like the pick because he hasn't played in a few years than fine, but it could be a steal and a great pick

---

Absolutely. I stand by that statement. It was a terrible pick, regardless of what he does on the field, because there wasn't enough information on him to make him that high of a selection. He hadn't played football in 2 years. How do you not get that? With that said, no one knows what kind of player he's gonna be since there was no game information to gather on him since he got injured 2 years ago. We're flying blind. We hope he'll be good, but we have no clue. We have to wait and see. It was a very risky selection since there were proven players at the same position when we picked at #33 that would've been smarter choices, since we actually had recent game tape to judge them on. 

How about you try and do some critical thinking before you start spouting off nonsense? It might make your brain hurt, but you'll sound smarter.

A terrible pick regardless of what he does on the field?  Lol. If dude is our future LT and plays great it was a great pick.  If you didn't like the pick because he hasn't played in a few years than fine, but it could be a steal and a great pick

Homeboy is making zero sense.  I think he dug himself a hole and is being to proud to see it any other way.

---

Your either being hard headed or ignorant. There were no game situations for 2 years, so this is inaccurate. You cannot judge a player based off one full season as a freshman. That's idiotic. That is just guessing.

Man, just stop.  He was a 5 star recruit and playing like one of the top OTs in the nation, a lock for a first round pick.  Then he got hurt, then COVID.  Tons of players missed a year and were still drafted, including a guy at three who played one game last year and a guy at 5 who opted out.  Is that one extra year that catastrophic?  Hint, it's not, he's super young and hasn't touched his potential. I can't wait to come back to this thread in two years because the dude is legit.

Yes, it is. There is only his freshman year to go off of. Selecting him in round 2 was the equivalent of throwing a dart at a list of names and selecting the player that the dart landed on. You can come back to this thread any time you want, because my opinion will never change. I don't care if Little is Tony Boselli, Anthony Munoz and Walter Jones all rolled up into one guy. That is irrelevant. The process this team used to select Little was unprofessional, lacked any research and was completely asinine. I will go to my grave believing this. Just because teams like San Francisco made a stupid move and drafted a player in basically the same kind of situation, is this supposed to sway me? San Francisco made a bad selection and so did we, regardless of the outcome.

---

Absolutely. I stand by that statement. It was a terrible pick, regardless of what he does on the field, because there wasn't enough information on him to make him that high of a selection. He hadn't played football in 2 years. How do you not get that? With that said, no one knows what kind of player he's gonna be since there was no game information to gather on him since he got injured 2 years ago. We're flying blind. We hope he'll be good, but we have no clue. We have to wait and see. It was a very risky selection since there were proven players at the same position when we picked at #33 that would've been smarter choices, since we actually had recent game tape to judge them on. 

How about you try and do some critical thinking before you start spouting off nonsense? It might make your brain hurt, but you'll sound smarter.

A terrible pick regardless of what he does on the field?  Lol. If dude is our future LT and plays great it was a great pick.  If you didn't like the pick because he hasn't played in a few years than fine, but it could be a steal and a great pick

No. Again, it would not be a good pick, it would be a lucky pick based on zero research since his freshman season, because there is nothing to research. Period. Lucky and good are two entirely different things.

---

A terrible pick regardless of what he does on the field?  Lol. If dude is our future LT and plays great it was a great pick.  If you didn't like the pick because he hasn't played in a few years than fine, but it could be a steal and a great pick

Homeboy is making zero sense.  I think he dug himself a hole and is being to proud to see it any other way.

This has nothing to do with pride, "homeboy." This has everything to do with the process and lack of research that was put into making this selection. If you can't see that, you're blind. You simply don't spend high draft picks on players who haven't played a full game since their freshman season. This isn't the NBA, it's the NFL. You need a much more complete resume in order to form an educated opinion on the guy. I will always believe this.

---

Homeboy is making zero sense.  I think he dug himself a hole and is being to proud to see it any other way.

This has nothing to do with pride, "homeboy." This has everything to do with the process and lack of research that was put into making this selection. If you can't see that, you're blind. You simply don't spend high draft picks on players who haven't played a full game since their freshman season. This isn't the NBA, it's the NFL. You need a much more complete resume in order to form an educated opinion on the guy. I will always believe this.

This is just a ridiculous statement.

---

Anyway, super interesting semantics issues aside.

Little is the player outside of Lawrence that I am most interested in watching. Hopefully he hits that boom potential they think he has!

---

Homeboy is making zero sense.  I think he dug himself a hole and is being to proud to see it any other way.

This has nothing to do with pride, "homeboy." This has everything to do with the process and lack of research that was put into making this selection. If you can't see that, you're blind. You simply don't spend high draft picks on players who haven't played a full game since their freshman season. This isn't the NBA, it's the NFL. You need a much more complete resume in order to form an educated opinion on the guy. I will always believe this.

I understand this, but I think you are combining two process philosophies:
1) You need guys who played a lot of games/tape to draw opinion.
2) You cannot draft guys who haven't played in long time.

While both makes sense and I'm sure many teams use those adjust their draft board. Even guys who meet those qualification have a low hit rate. So if your draft room, scouts, and all think they have done the due diligence or have a few more ears to the ground, it can makes a sense to take a few risks. For example, lots of players are drafted high as red-shirt juniors with only 1 season of tape or as starters. That is always a risk that people discuss, but if they had more tape they all would have become high 1st draft picks. Its about all the additional knowledge you get on the guy

Additionally, for the second philosophy, not drafting guys who haven't played in a while makes sense normally, but I  this is a special year that each team has to look at opt outs who didn't play because of the circumstances not because they were hurt. Yes that can make it tough to judge, but the certainty you want would only be found in a OT that ranked in the top 15 of the draft.

---

If Barry Sanders only played 1 year in college I would still draft him.

---

If Barry Sanders only played 1 year in college I would still draft him.

That's ridiculous! No matter how his career turns out, he's a bust!

---

Man, just stop.  He was a 5 star recruit and playing like one of the top OTs in the nation, a lock for a first round pick.  Then he got hurt, then COVID.  Tons of players missed a year and were still drafted, including a guy at three who played one game last year and a guy at 5 who opted out.  Is that one extra year that catastrophic?  Hint, it's not, he's super young and hasn't touched his potential. I can't wait to come back to this thread in two years because the dude is legit.

Yes, it is. There is only his freshman year to go off of. Selecting him in round 2 was the equivalent of throwing a dart at a list of names and selecting the player that the dart landed on. You can come back to this thread any time you want, because my opinion will never change. I don't care if Little is Tony Boselli, Anthony Munoz and Walter Jones all rolled up into one guy. That is irrelevant. The process this team used to select Little was unprofessional, lacked any research and was completely asinine. I will go to my grave believing this. Just because teams like San Francisco made a stupid move and drafted a player in basically the same kind of situation, is this supposed to sway me? San Francisco made a bad selection and so did we, regardless of the outcome.

---

A terrible pick regardless of what he does on the field?  Lol. If dude is our future LT and plays great it was a great pick.  If you didn't like the pick because he hasn't played in a few years than fine, but it could be a steal and a great pick

No. Again, it would not be a good pick, it would be a lucky pick based on zero research since his freshman season, because there is nothing to research. Period. Lucky and good are two entirely different things.

That's the reason he fell to the mid 2nd.  He was projected to be a top 10 pick a year or 2 ago.  It's not lucky when they have done their due diligence, and Urban has liked him for years, that's not lucky.  It might be lucky that nobody picked him before us

---

I'm a "wait and see" type person. I had no information on the guy since he hasn't played in 2 years, so I have nothing to go off of. I sincerely hope he is at least good enough to replace Jawaan Taylor. That should be pretty easy, but until I see it, I just don't know. We need at least one upgrade at OT.

Yesterday, Lageman was saying after watching the tape on him, Walker Little is the best LT prospect the Jaguars have had since Boselli.

I hope he is right, and Little gets the rust off quickly.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Man, just stop.  He was a 5 star recruit and playing like one of the top OTs in the nation, a lock for a first round pick.  Then he got hurt, then COVID.  Tons of players missed a year and were still drafted, including a guy at three who played one game last year and a guy at 5 who opted out.  Is that one extra year that catastrophic?  Hint, it's not, he's super young and hasn't touched his potential. I can't wait to come back to this thread in two years because the dude is legit.

Yes, it is. There is only his freshman year to go off of. Selecting him in round 2 was the equivalent of throwing a dart at a list of names and selecting the player that the dart landed on. You can come back to this thread any time you want, because my opinion will never change. I don't care if Little is Tony Boselli, Anthony Munoz and Walter Jones all rolled up into one guy. That is irrelevant. The process this team used to select Little was unprofessional, lacked any research and was completely asinine. I will go to my grave believing this. Just because teams like San Francisco made a stupid move and drafted a player in basically the same kind of situation, is this supposed to sway me? San Francisco made a bad selection and so did we, regardless of the outcome.

---

A terrible pick regardless of what he does on the field?  Lol. If dude is our future LT and plays great it was a great pick.  If you didn't like the pick because he hasn't played in a few years than fine, but it could be a steal and a great pick

No. Again, it would not be a good pick, it would be a lucky pick based on zero research since his freshman season, because there is nothing to research. Period. Lucky and good are two entirely different things.

Even if it's a "lucky" pick, I'll gladly take it.  It's not as if we haven't had our share of unlucky picks over the years (i.e. Blackmon, Fowler).

If he turns out to be a good player at a premium position-especially LT-I still don't see how you would arrive at the conclusion it's a bad pick.  Joeckel, Barnes, Monroe, Jawaan Taylor, Cam Robinson all did not miss the better part of two years before being drafted.  Because the scouting process was more complete than this (based on your logic), would that make them good or better picks based solely on the process?  Soward, Blackmon, Matt Jones, Reggie Williams...heck, every other bust pick in Jaguars history didn't miss two years before being drafted.  HThe better process did not translate into being better picks in any of those cases.  

I can see the "lucky" descriptor you give being accurate throughout the years.  That could be construed as a fair criticism. But if the team hits on Walker Little and he's our franchise LT for the next decade protecting Trevor Lawrence, there's no way it's a bad pick no matter how you slice it, no matter how you justify it, no matter how lucky you think it is.  He plays a premium position and would have been taken at a non premium draft slot (a relative rarity for the position), protecting our premium QB prospect for less than a premium contract.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Probably important to remember that just because we only have 1 year of game tape to watch on him, scouts will have been watching him since high school, and will of spoken to his coaches to males as good of an opinion on him as possible, the same as every player in every draft, you take the players you fee will develop, having a different opinion to the scouts doesn’t make it dumb or ridiculous. They can be right and can be wrong like all of us, let it play out,

---

I'm a "wait and see" type person. I had no information on the guy since he hasn't played in 2 years, so I have nothing to go off of. I sincerely hope he is at least good enough to replace Jawaan Taylor. That should be pretty easy, but until I see it, I just don't know. We need at least one upgrade at OT.

Yesterday, Lageman was saying after watching the tape on him, Walker Little is the best LT prospect the Jaguars have had since Boselli.

I hope he is right, and Little gets the rust off quickly.

Who cares what an NFL Vet says… O-Line Matters on a Jaguars message board said he was a bust.

---

---

They couldn't have, because he didn't play a down for 2 years. Workouts and showcases mean nothing. That's the "underwear olympics." There are tons of players who look good in workouts and are terrible when it's a game situation. 90% of evaluations should be based on game play. Period. Otherwise, you're just guessing.

He played in 22 college games!  In his first season, he was Freshman Co-Offensive PAC-12 player of the year, ESPN Freshman All American, and All Pac-12 honorable mention.  In his second season, he was first team All Pac-12.  He has shown that he can play through game play.  The only question is whether he is healthy.  The "underwear olympics" and medical evaluations can determine whether a player is healthy and Little showed that he is.

---

---

They couldn't have, because he didn't play a down for 2 years. Workouts and showcases mean nothing. That's the "underwear olympics." There are tons of players who look good in workouts and are terrible when it's a game situation. 90% of evaluations should be based on game play. Period. Otherwise, you're just guessing.

He played in 22 college games!  In his first season, he was Freshman Co-Offensive PAC-12 player of the year, ESPN Freshman All American, and All Pac-12 honorable mention.  In his second season, he was first team All Pac-12.  He has shown that he can play through game play.  The only question is whether he is healthy.  The "underwear olympics" and medical evaluations can determine whether a player is healthy and Little showed that he is.

Not enough. You need to be a 5 year starter who has never missed a game otherwise it's just too risky. Not enough information.

---