2019 NFL draft where the jags pick at 32;) (Update: pick at 7)

[.Buzz]

 

[JiffyJag]

On 1/4/2019 at 11:32 PM, Adrenaline_Flux said:

. It's fine if you don't like Drew Lock or Daniel Jones. However, we need a QB, they have qualities that are worth a first round selection given the value of QBs (shoutout to whoever said they wOuLDnT dRaFt hIm bEfoRe tHe tHiRd), and no one who we pick will be a surefire thing one way or the other. 

yes yes that was me

and I completely agree with you if your overall point here is "teams reach on QBs every year so if we want a QB we're just gonna have to reach on someone because the only QBs worthwhile in this draft will be gone by round 2 regardless". Daniel Jones is not a 1st round prospect IMO but I'd agree with you that someone is taking him round 1 so if we think there's any chance he's the guy, we gotta take him. That being said, I'd rather we just go all in and move up like 4 picks and get Haskins. He's a significantly better prospect and this FO should be desperate for a win.

[Forge]

2 hours ago, .Buzz said:

Tbh it depends on the draft.

If Haskins ends up lighting the world on fire it'll be more expensive. As it stands right now, doubt we have to give the bank.

Could see 2 1s, but I expect our 1st, 2nd, LAR 3rd and like a 2 next year.

That's pretty close to my second deal. I could see that happening. But again, like you said, could vary wildly on a few different factors. 

[Tugboat]

5 hours ago, .Buzz said:

Tbh it depends on the draft.

If Haskins ends up lighting the world on fire it'll be more expensive. As it stands right now, doubt we have to give the bank.

Could see 2 1s, but I expect our 1st, 2nd, LAR 3rd and like a 2 next year.

Think you also have to consider the Jaguars staff and their precarious sort of position.  Not inconceivable they'd rather move next year's 1st instead of say, a 2nd this year or something, and actually keep picks this year wherever they can.  Especially in the first few rounds, to get themselves another weapon or other piece to play with their QB next year.  If they can't put the right pieces in place to win games next year, they're probably gone before that 1st has any chance to matter anyway.

Just in general, i think Hays might even be onto something when he hints at the front office maybe being more inclined toward a Veteran "quick fix" than a lot of the fanbase.  If you're say...Doug and Dave especially, you're probably putting all your weight behind the guy that keeps you around by helping you field a competitive team next year.  Putting all your eggs in a rookie basket, especially one who is effectively a 1-year college starter...and expecting to win a ton of games, is a huge gamble against what typically happens with the ups and downs and learning curve of the position.

But even if they are going the rookie route, and specifically the "trade up for Haskins" route...probably doesn't hurt to at least think about it a little bit from the perspective of some guys on thin ice who might not have much longer to really prove they can field a winner consistently.  I mean, as a fan i guess it's cool to hedge against the team failing again.  But i'm not sure the guys actually making the pick can all afford to hedge their bets like that.  It's probably more...winning record in 2019 or walking papers.  And if you want to win with a rookie QB...you need other pieces for this team sooner.  If you're making that big splash to go up and get a guy...kinda have to believe in your QB pick enough to think they'll turn your record around and you're only giving up a later (playoff team) 1st next year, instead of a really high 2nd anyway.  Right?

 

Who really knows.  Maybe they just sorta blindly throw everything at getting a rookie QB for the future, and want to play it like they've got jobs guaranteed well through this coming season.  But i'm not sure i'd be banking on that if i were in their shoes.

[JaguarCrazy2832]

If they are trading up for Haskins including a 2020 1st they better have a better plan at QB next year or that pick will still be very high

[Tugboat]

8 hours ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

If they are trading up for Haskins including a 2020 1st they better have a better plan at QB next year or that pick will still be very high

If they're trading up for Haskins...he is the plan at QB next year.  Rookie QBs don't sit for long, if at all.  Especially not one that you hypothetically move up from #7 to get.

As to the bolded though...isn't that the case, no matter what?  If they don't have a plan at QB that works out and this team has another bum season, and that pick ends up still being very high...i don't think many of our staff survive that.  Doug and Dave would for sure be gone, and i'd imagine Coughlin probably quietly asked to step away or into more of a "mascot" role or something.

Finding a capable QB for the 2019 season seems pretty imperative to their survival...no matter which route they go.

[.Buzz]

17 hours ago, Tugboat said:

Think you also have to consider the Jaguars staff and their precarious sort of position.  Not inconceivable they'd rather move next year's 1st instead of say, a 2nd this year or something, and actually keep picks this year wherever they can.  Especially in the first few rounds, to get themselves another weapon or other piece to play with their QB next year.  If they can't put the right pieces in place to win games next year, they're probably gone before that 1st has any chance to matter anyway.

Just in general, i think Hays might even be onto something when he hints at the front office maybe being more inclined toward a Veteran "quick fix" than a lot of the fanbase.  If you're say...Doug and Dave especially, you're probably putting all your weight behind the guy that keeps you around by helping you field a competitive team next year.  Putting all your eggs in a rookie basket, especially one who is effectively a 1-year college starter...and expecting to win a ton of games, is a huge gamble against what typically happens with the ups and downs and learning curve of the position.

But even if they are going the rookie route, and specifically the "trade up for Haskins" route...probably doesn't hurt to at least think about it a little bit from the perspective of some guys on thin ice who might not have much longer to really prove they can field a winner consistently.  I mean, as a fan i guess it's cool to hedge against the team failing again.  But i'm not sure the guys actually making the pick can all afford to hedge their bets like that.  It's probably more...winning record in 2019 or walking papers.  And if you want to win with a rookie QB...you need other pieces for this team sooner.  If you're making that big splash to go up and get a guy...kinda have to believe in your QB pick enough to think they'll turn your record around and you're only giving up a later (playoff team) 1st next year, instead of a really high 2nd anyway.  Right?

 

Who really knows.  Maybe they just sorta blindly throw everything at getting a rookie QB for the future, and want to play it like they've got jobs guaranteed well through this coming season.  But i'm not sure i'd be banking on that if i were in their shoes.

The problem is there is not vet on the market for a quick turnaround. Flacco had an elite defense and had a poor record. Foles will require a big payday AND draft pick compensation based on what people are saying. What other vet is an option?

Bevell is known for his scouting and development and he appears to be a high end OC candidate for us. 

[.Buzz]

Also did a a Giants thing on Twitter but...

[Tugboat]

2 hours ago, .Buzz said:

The problem is there is not vet on the market for a quick turnaround. Flacco had an elite defense and had a poor record. Foles will require a big payday AND draft pick compensation based on what people are saying. What other vet is an option?

Bevell is known for his scouting and development and he appears to be a high end OC candidate for us. 

I'm not saying they'll for sure go the vet route.  I wouldn't rule it out, and think it's a more realistic possibility than most seem to be giving it credit, but...

More to the point there, even if they do go with a guy like Haskins this year who they have to move up for...giving up a pick next year might be more attractive than giving up a "lesser" pick this year.  Even more so than normal.  Simply because that 2019 pick could essentially be looked at a a player they can get into the lineup to help their rookie QB keep their head above water.  Whereas, if the QB rookie doesn't do well in 2019...all three are probably gone anyway and don't have to care how high a pick in 2020 they give up for them.

 

There's really no easy way out of this situation.  Which is why it's a bit scary that they've kept the three amigos together with their heads effectively on the chopping block and what appears to be a predominantly "win now" mandate.

[Tugboat]

2 hours ago, .Buzz said:

 

Bevell is known for his scouting and development and he appears to be a high end OC candidate for us. 

That they're looking at Bevell as OC doesn't tell me a lot either way. 

1.Maybe they're looking at him to groom their own "Russell Wilson".  Maybe he's got his eye on a guy in the 3rd round even, just like Russ.  

2.Maybe they're interested in him working with a highly drafted guy like Haskins. 

3.Maybe they're just interested in him coming in and bringing a very run-heavy scheme that tries to take a lot of load off some veteran "game manager" QB or something.  Tyrod would seem like a reasonable facsimile of a prospective Bevell QB for instance.

I could see Bevell making sense in any of those three scenarios, and the first and last scenario might even overlap a bit.  Just doesn't really tell me a lot.  Especially since it's still just "a candidate" anyway.

[.Buzz]

49 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

That they're looking at Bevell as OC doesn't tell me a lot either way. 

1.Maybe they're looking at him to groom their own "Russell Wilson".  Maybe he's got his eye on a guy in the 3rd round even, just like Russ.  

2.Maybe they're interested in him working with a highly drafted guy like Haskins. 

3.Maybe they're just interested in him coming in and bringing a very run-heavy scheme that tries to take a lot of load off some veteran "game manager" QB or something.  Tyrod would seem like a reasonable facsimile of a prospective Bevell QB for instance.

I could see Bevell making sense in any of those three scenarios, and the first and last scenario might even overlap a bit.  Just doesn't really tell me a lot.  Especially since it's still just "a candidate" anyway.

Don't think Bevell is a run heavy guy, is he?

I would be fine getting a vet, just doubt we see that be the only thing added at the position.

[Tugboat]

2 hours ago, .Buzz said:

Don't think Bevell is a run heavy guy, is he?

I would be fine getting a vet, just doubt we see that be the only thing added at the position.

He really has been though, mostly.  Or at least, "run-first".

He was there with the Vikes as OC during a couple of APs thousand+ yard season type deals.

And when you look at the Seahawks offenses under Bevell in terms of Run% ratio it's like...

2011 - 10th.

2012 - 1st.

2013 - 1st.

2014 - 1st.

2015 - 4th.

2016 - 17th.

2017 - 22nd.

 

Clearly something happened in 2016 that made him veer away from the running game.  I can think of one thing named Beast Mode leaving.  But that's also kinda where the Seahawks started having cap casualties all over the place and started having to build a pretty different sort of team in general.  Also around where they were paying Wilson "Rodgers money" and seemingly started asking him to shoulder more appropriately.  Also seemed to start having less of the designed/optioned run plays for Russell with all they had invested in him.

I've always thought of him as a pretty run-based OC.  Especially when he's had a horse at RB.  He'll take those deep shots...but it's kind of a run-run-run-set up the big explosion off play action deal?  Like that was always the thing with Wilson early in his career.  He'd make the big explosive plays, and often off of broken scramble plays tbh...but plenty often, he'd only be asked to throw the ball like ~18-25 times a game.

The last couple years with the Seahawks, Bevell really went away from from that...but it almost seemed like he just abandoned the run because it wasn't getting anywhere.  Which is the thing i'd want to understand if we're bringing him in as an OC.  Did the running game fall apart due to lack of a stud RB?  Was it Tom Cable ****ery and a pathetic OLine?  Was it having to call games different because the defense started declining?

But he's probably top of my list among the names i've seen tossed around for OC here.  Especially for the sort of team they've tried to build here and where our QB situation is likely to be no matter which direction they go.

 

 

[LinderFournette]

James Williams RB Washington state should be picked in the mid rounds as a replacement for yeldons pass catching.  he had 83 catches last year lol

[JaguarCrazy2832]

11 hours ago, .Buzz said:

Also did a a Giants thing on Twitter but...

Yea its getting weird now

[Tugboat]

9 hours ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

Yea its getting weird now

Didn't we have something like this sort of social media stuff and followbacks with like Teddy and Watson and who knows who else...but not really actually Bortles who we ended up with?