I'd lean towards agreeing with the duke here. Being at 24 is a massive change from being top 5 or 6 again too a huge amount more variables/players in play.. I just hope we don't force it ... As.mentioned Issue Newsome was the master at it ... Let the draft come to us, and if you need to go up for a top player fine, If you can drop down fine, otherwise sit tight, don't get tempted into reaching for need and draft the best player you can and just keep improving your team.

---

I'd lean towards agreeing with the duke here. Being at 24 is a massive change from being top 5 or 6 again too a huge amount more variables/players in play.. I just hope we don't force it ... As.mentioned Issue Newsome was the master at it ... Let the draft come to us, and if you need to go up for a top player fine, If you can drop down fine, otherwise sit tight, don't get tempted into reaching for need and draft the best player you can and just keep improving your team.

I don't think you are agreeing with Duke then.  He has mentioned multiple times that he's likes drafting for need.

---

I'd lean towards agreeing with the duke here. Being at 24 is a massive change from being top 5 or 6 again too a huge amount more variables/players in play.. I just hope we don't force it ... As.mentioned Issue Newsome was the master at it ... Let the draft come to us, and if you need to go up for a top player fine, If you can drop down fine, otherwise sit tight, don't get tempted into reaching for need and draft the best player you can and just keep improving your team.

I don't think you are agreeing with Duke then.  He has mentioned multiple times that he's likes drafting for need.

I'm not against drafting for need in certain situations but for me it's all about balance ... If we get to 24 for example and there's a TE or especially a tackle/ guard there who were have graded marginally behind say a running back I'll weigh that decision and probably take the TE or OL... The reward may well be worth the risk. If Barry Sanders happens to be there I'll take the rb and take my chances! 

I think the point the duke was trying to make and which I agree with, but perhaps wasn't succinct enough with is when it gets to draft night being fluid enough to keep your options open, keep a clear head and understanding your own roster enough to figure out the best way to improve it... And then being able to act on that. I think the last thing any of us want to see is a situation where we approach the draft with a 'set plan's' whether that be moving up or down or chasing after certain targets. I'd absolutely agree that that's the kind of needs based drafting that lands you with C.j Henderson and a headache.

---

I'd lean towards agreeing with the duke here. Being at 24 is a massive change from being top 5 or 6 again too a huge amount more variables/players in play.. I just hope we don't force it ... As.mentioned Issue Newsome was the master at it ... Let the draft come to us, and if you need to go up for a top player fine, If you can drop down fine, otherwise sit tight, don't get tempted into reaching for need and draft the best player you can and just keep improving your team.

I'm with you here, in principle. 

The problem some folks get hung up on is that even Ozzie considered his needs in his drafting, just like every team does, every year. 

The word "reach" that you mentioned is where the trouble comes along. "How far?" is the million dollar question. 

If you've got the equivalent of Kam Chancellor and Earl Thomas at starting safeties and neither has imminent contract issues - you aren't selecting that safety who sits atop your team's prospect grades/big board at pick number 48. You're seeing which similarly graded prospects just below him might make sense to your roster needs without reaching too far down that list. 

We have some folks around here that will tell you that many GMs don't do this, shouldn't do this, and that it is bad. 
You take the third safety there, no matter what. 
They are wrong, but we get to have this fun little debate about it every year between February and April anyway 

---

1....  The word "reach" that you mentioned is where the trouble comes along. "How far?" is the million dollar question. 


2.... We have some folks around here that will tell you that many GMs don't do this, shouldn't do this, and that it is bad. 
You take the third safety there, no matter what. 
They are wrong, but we get to have this fun little debate about it every year between February and April anyway 

On point 1... Agree 100% and this is the point I wasn't clear enough in first time round, it's the gamble as I say. In a way you want a good gambler at GM ... Good enough to weigh up at what point does the reward outweigh the risk and vice versa. At what point does taking the best player in your board outweigh improving a weakness, ... The best front offices seem to find that balance most often and  are capable of weighing it up as the draft develops. 

One of the things that I always felt sank Caldwell in the Henderson/Chaisson draft was not just the fact the players didn't work out (which is the main thing when all is said and done) the fact he seemed so set on those two players going in ... There just didn't seem to be any flexibility to play the cards as they fell! The quote i believe was 'if Henderson wasn't there we were drafting Chaisson anyways' ... Now that may have just been gm speak but either way once you've put it out there it indicates a closed manner of thinking.


On point 2... Haha yeah, and I'm desperately trying not to fall into the trap!!! I've watched it year after year and the funny thing is to a large degree everyone is right ... You should draft players you need and you should draft the best player available ... Everyone just has a slightly different idea of where the line between the two is .... So it's fire vs ice ... The unwinnable argument ??

Still ... I'm bored out of my mind by the off-season already and we haven't got through the super bowl yet so I dare say I'll be in there with the middle of the argument with all the rest in a week or two... Gotta talk about something ...

Just don't take a punter in the 3rd!!! And steer clear of the Tebow thread and we'll all stay sane!

---

Need vs BAP is dumb. just use common sense.

---

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

Aye well .... Well played sir ...

That's probably a significantly quicker way of putting what I was trying to say hahaha!!!

---

My realistic top 5 bigboard for the Jags is 5 different positions

---

I'd lean towards agreeing with the duke here. Being at 24 is a massive change from being top 5 or 6 again too a huge amount more variables/players in play.. I just hope we don't force it ... As.mentioned Issue Newsome was the master at it ... Let the draft come to us, and if you need to go up for a top player fine, If you can drop down fine, otherwise sit tight, don't get tempted into reaching for need and draft the best player you can and just keep improving your team.

I'm with you here, in principle. 

The problem some folks get hung up on is that even Ozzie considered his needs in his drafting, just like every team does, every year. 

The word "reach" that you mentioned is where the trouble comes along. "How far?" is the million dollar question. 

If you've got the equivalent of Kam Chancellor and Earl Thomas at starting safeties and neither has imminent contract issues - you aren't selecting that safety who sits atop your team's prospect grades/big board at pick number 48. You're seeing which similarly graded prospects just below him might make sense to your roster needs without reaching too far down that list. 

We have some folks around here that will tell you that many GMs don't do this, shouldn't do this, and that it is bad. 
You take the third safety there, no matter what. 
They are wrong, but we get to have this fun little debate about it every year between February and April anyway 

All these years and you haven't paid attention.  There is very rare occurrences where you don't take the top player.  For instance if a QB falls and is the top player, you trade back being we have Trevor and 2 QBs can't play at once.  If we are so stacked at a position and the player won't even see the field, trade back and let someone else get him.  If you are the only team that has that player at the top of your board you might want to ask yourself why.  This problem you bring up, what if we have Thomas and Chancellor and a S is the top player is an issue we have never had to deal with so we won't worry about that just yet.  Just take the top guy, and when our team is so stacked and we have all these All Pros and future HOF that we can't fit in the top guy mabey we can adjust our draft strategy, or just trade back.

---

I'm with you here, in principle. 

The problem some folks get hung up on is that even Ozzie considered his needs in his drafting, just like every team does, every year. 

The word "reach" that you mentioned is where the trouble comes along. "How far?" is the million dollar question. 

If you've got the equivalent of Kam Chancellor and Earl Thomas at starting safeties and neither has imminent contract issues - you aren't selecting that safety who sits atop your team's prospect grades/big board at pick number 48. You're seeing which similarly graded prospects just below him might make sense to your roster needs without reaching too far down that list. 

We have some folks around here that will tell you that many GMs don't do this, shouldn't do this, and that it is bad. 
You take the third safety there, no matter what. 
They are wrong, but we get to have this fun little debate about it every year between February and April anyway 

All these years and you haven't paid attention.  There is very rare occurrences where you don't take the top player.  For instance if a QB falls and is the top player, you trade back being we have Trevor and 2 QBs can't play at once.  If we are so stacked at a position and the player won't even see the field, trade back and let someone else get him.  If you are the only team that has that player at the top of your board you might want to ask yourself why.  This problem you bring up, what if we have Thomas and Chancellor and a S is the top player is an issue we have never had to deal with so we won't worry about that just yet.  Just take the top guy, and when our team is so stacked and we have all these All Pros and future HOF that we can't fit in the top guy mabey we can adjust our draft strategy, or just trade back.

All these years and you still don't know how to conjugate a verb. 

Anyway...
How about instead of all of this fantasy horse [BLEEP] you've invented that depends on other teams magically trading with us exactly how you envision it, we just take the similarly graded player 2 or 3 spots down the big board that immediately upgrades our roster?  You know, the way that 32 general managers do it every single year.

---

Need vs BAP is dumb.  just use common sense.

For those of us not being burdened with this whole common sense thing, could you please elaborate as to how use of common sense would manifest itself when you are on the board?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

All these years and you haven't paid attention.  There is very rare occurrences where you don't take the top player.  For instance if a QB falls and is the top player, you trade back being we have Trevor and 2 QBs can't play at once.  If we are so stacked at a position and the player won't even see the field, trade back and let someone else get him.  If you are the only team that has that player at the top of your board you might want to ask yourself why.  This problem you bring up, what if we have Thomas and Chancellor and a S is the top player is an issue we have never had to deal with so we won't worry about that just yet.  Just take the top guy, and when our team is so stacked and we have all these All Pros and future HOF that we can't fit in the top guy mabey we can adjust our draft strategy, or just trade back.

All these years and you still don't know how to conjugate a verb. 

Anyway...
How about instead of all of this fantasy horse [BLEEP] you've invented that depends on other teams magically trading with us exactly how you envision it, we just take the similarly graded player 2 or 3 spots down the big board that immediately upgrades our roster?  You know, the way that 32 general managers do it every single year.

*incoming Bruce Arians article*

---

Need vs BAP is dumb.  just use common sense.

What is your "common sense" pick when you are on the clock in this situation in the second round?

Needs listed in order of priority. Nobody wants to trade for your pick.

---

Still curious what you BAP purists and "common sense" purveyors would do in the above scenario?

I'm taking the CB in that situation, and I believe most NFL GMs would do the same.

---

Still curious what you BAP purists and "common sense" purveyors would do in the above scenario? 

I'm taking the CB in that situation, and I believe most NFL GMs would do the same.

For me, I think it depends on the WR. Big guy or smaller route runner?

However without knowing the actual players, I’m likely taking CB too. OT is too a big a drop in value for me.

---

Need vs BAP is dumb.  just use common sense.

What is your "common sense" pick when you are on the clock in this situation in the second round?

Needs listed in order of priority. Nobody wants to trade for your pick.

Personally, I'm taking the WR every time, if he is my highest graded player. There isn't a single position on this team other than QB and maybe Punter, that I wouldn't look to upgrade. I'm not completely buying into the idea that Ridley will be the same player he was in 2020. I'm praying he return to that form, but there are no guarantees. He's been away from the game almost 2 years. If I see a big, fast, sure-handed receiver who runs excellent routes and he is my top rated player, I'm definitely taking him over the rest. That's just me.

---

I think the one thing we need to remember this year is just because they select a player you wouldn’t have selected doesn’t make it a bad pick or that the team is clueless. And just because they pick a player at a position of need doesn’t mean it’s fixed and it’s a good pick. Enjoy the process and roll on next season so we can watch it play out

---

I think the one thing we need to remember this year is just because they select a player you wouldn’t have selected doesn’t make it a bad pick or that the team is clueless. And just because they pick a player at a position of need doesn’t mean it’s fixed and it’s a good pick. Enjoy the process and roll on next season so we can watch it play out

Wait. We are supposed to trust the front office and coaching staff? 

As Jags fans, do we know how to do that?

---

What is your "common sense" pick when you are on the clock in this situation in the second round?

Needs listed in order of priority. Nobody wants to trade for your pick.

Personally, I'm taking the WR every time, if he is my highest graded player. There isn't a single position on this team other than QB and maybe Punter, that I wouldn't look to upgrade. I'm not completely buying into the idea that Ridley will be the same player he was in 2020. I'm praying he return to that form, but there are no guarantees. He's been away from the game almost 2 years. If I see a big, fast, sure-handed receiver who runs excellent routes and he is my top rated player, I'm definitely taking him over the rest. That's just me.

You are missing the point

This isn't about the Jaguars

Hypothetical team - hypothetical draft and big board

Left side is what your team needs - right side is what you have spent the winter and early spring grading. 

Choose

---

Need vs BAP is dumb.  just use common sense.

For those of us not being burdened with this whole common sense thing, could you please elaborate as to how use of common sense would manifest itself when you are on the board?

Venn diagram. Darft where Need and BAP overlap.

Debate over.

---