Jaguars 2009 Draft: The Case for Number Eight
by silencecs on Jan 15, 2009 3:10 AM EST
in 2009 NFL Draft
31 comments
The Jaguars had pick number 26 last year and traded all the way up to number 8 in order to draft rookie Derrick Harvey in the first round. Now, they'll have the number eight overall pick again courtesy of a 5-11 record. The Front Office debacle that was the 2008 Jacksonville Jaguars has already claimed it's prize victim... James Shack Harris. Shack's departure has opened up the door for one of the organization's "old hats". Gene Smith has worked his way up through the Jaguars' organization and is more than deserving of this opportunity. He has earned it, and I for one look forward to his regime's first draft. He is the epitome of how hard work can pay off.
One of the major issues facing Gene is what to do with the number eight overall selection in the 2009 NFL draft? Some are calling for him to trade down, others are screaming for one of the top tackles to be taken with the pick, and still others are crying for the team to just draft the best available player at number 8 as a surefire way to fill one of our many holes. I have to say I agree with the two latter choices, either taking one of the top three tackles, or using the pick on another position of need on the team.
The major complaint of having a top draft pick is the money the team is required to invest in the player. Well, the Jags inadvertently did themselves a major favor by not cracking under Harvey's contract demands. They set the bar low (relatively speaking) for this year's number 8 pick. The team signed Harvey to 23.8 million dollar contract with possible incentives reaching only 33 million. Only 17.5 million of that is guaranteed money. When you compare that to Vernon Gholston's contract of 5 years 50 million with 21 million guaranteed, or Sedrick Ellis' deal worth 39 million with 19.5 million guaranteed, the deal the Jags got looks awfully sweet.
So, the Jaguar's frugality paid off and is a major reason the team can afford to pay another number 8 pick this year should they choose to do so. The other issue is that the Jaguar's hurt themselves by getting such a good deal from the Ravens to jump up from 26. The Ravens got two 3rd rounders and a 4th rounder to drop 18 spots. They then gave up a 3rd and a 6th to jump back up to 18. So to drop 10 spots, they gained a 3 and a 4, and lost a 6th. Not that great of a deal.
Another trade example is what NE did. They traded the number 7 pick and their 5th rounder for the Saints number 10 pick and their 3rd rounder. That would seem to be a much more feasible trade in my opinion, however, I don't think you can justify making that trade if one of the three main LT are on the board because I don't think the reward of one extra pick is worth losing out on the chance to draft a fixture at LT.
All I'm saying is that the Jaguar's can afford to pay another number 8 pick because of how well they negotiated Harvey's contract. Plus, the trade value of a top 10 pick isn't what it used to be and I doubt the Jags are going to get anything more than what they gave the Ravens last year... I'm not sure that's worth giving up one of the stalwart LTs in this year's draft.
What should we do? Trade at all costs, or get the best player we can?
-Collin
0 recs |
31 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I'm a fan of trading down
The Jaguars are a team that have many holes to fill right now and a huge stockpile would be a great way to address as many needs as possible. Especially because of the fact that so much solid talent is available in the 2nd and 3rd round.
Also I feel that there are 4 premium LTs in the draft, rather than 3 unless I’m mistaken and one of the players I like has announced that they’re returning to school. Michael Oher of Ole Miss, Andre Smith of Alabama, Jason Smith of Baylor, and Eugene Monroe of Virginia were the four I had in mind and according to most experts Jason Smith will drop out of the top 10. If the Jaguars could drop back, if only 4-5 spots another pick could be obtained in the first day to help fill some more holes.
by SoCalStites on Jan 15, 2009 3:30 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Last Year...
OT’s went 1, 12, 17, 19.
Every Team wants to build their line, but when draft day gets here, a flashy name and position goes further with the fans than the no-name offensive tackle.
I think with some shrewd trading, the Jags can get some really good core players to build around. If they can focus at least 2 picks on the offensive line, they will decrease the age of the team considerably and not be strapped for cash. Man… we need some young cheap talent.
by Jaghomer on Jan 15, 2009 7:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It depends
This teams has many holes right now. With a top 10 draft pick you can fill one of that holes, and although LT is the biggest need right now, their are major concerns in the secondary, at defensive line, and the by the receivers(although I hope they will not draft another WR in the 1st round, even he is the BAP, THEN they can trade down)
Plus don’t forget this year there are no real big money teams ahead of us, like the Jets was last year, and they thrown a ton of money to Gholston,and make our contract negotations with Harvey very difficult.
So I’m for keep the top 10 pick, and trade down with later (for example the 2nd rounder choice) picks for more.
by Zoltan from Budapest on Jan 15, 2009 4:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The Big Picture
As much as this year’s draft is stacked with talent, next year’s draft will be shallow to that same extent. Because of the CBA issues, a large number of next years first day picks are declaring this year. So why trade down this year? If you want to stock up on picks this year, trade next year’s picks. They’ll serve you better this year anyway. I’m not saying they should spend every one of next year’s picks, but how about trading next year’s 2nd and 3rd round picks for a 2nd and 3rd this year?
by benraze2001 on Jan 27, 2009 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ravens trade analysis flaw
I did a piece on Harvey awhile back and looked at that trade with Baltimore. The Ravens got 4 picks from the Jags for their 1 pick. With those 4 picks, the Ravens landed THREE players on their roster, with TWO of them being starters.
They rung the bell big time with that trade, especially when you consider that they are now in the AFC Championship game. So, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the Ravens got hosed in that deal.
It’s not just the number of picks, but what you DO with those picks that must also be considered. How to supplement the draft with FA’s is also critical. And UNFORTUNATELT, we don’t have a very good track record on this especially when you consider the debacle that was last offseason. The Jags (along with the rest of us) seriously underestimated their personell needs (injuries not withstanding).
I want Gene Smith to succeed BIG TIME. Given that he’s been part of the recent past – I’ll take a wait and see approach. Overall, I feel they should take one of the premium LT’s, if not there, trade down for picks. This team has many holes to fill and we can’t fill them with one or two guys. Finding the hidden jems will be critical for success I beleive.
by OGN on Jan 15, 2009 9:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
who said they got hosed?
My point was that in terms of the “trade value chart” they got a worse deal then the Jags. My point wasn’t that the Ravens got a bad deal, but that a top 10 pick isn’t as valuable as it used to be in terms of trade value.
by silencecs on Jan 15, 2009 9:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
given what they DID with the picks - I disagree :-)
by OGN on Jan 15, 2009 10:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Read THIS : IN TERMS OF THE "TRADE VALUE CHART"
They got the short end of the deal. In terms of starting players, they came out on top. No question about it, it’s clear as day. They did well with their picks and we didn’t so they came out on top.
IN TERMS OF THE TRADE VALUE CHART, WE GOT A MUCH BETTER DEAL.
Although the trade value chart is no longer valid with all the big money top 10 picks get.
by silencecs on Jan 15, 2009 11:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bull
They ACTUALLY GOT 2 starters on a team contending for the superbowl. Trade Value chart be damned. What an organization actually does with its picks is WHAT DETERMINES REALIZED VALUE.
We will have to agree to disagree on this issue.
by OGN on Jan 15, 2009 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No we don't have to agree to disagree, because we already agree...
The trade value chart is the trade value chart, all it does is give a hypothetical value to each pick…. I’m beginning to think you aren’t actually reading my replies, but just waiting for a chance to regurgitate the same thing over again.
We actually agree on this, and I am only going to use quotes from my first two replies to your post to prove I’ve already said this… here goes:
QUOTE 1
" In terms of starting players, they came out on top. No question about it, it’s clear as day."
QUOTE 2
“They did well with their picks and we didn’t so they came out on top.”
Quote 3
" My point wasn’t that the Ravens got a bad deal, but that a top 10 pick isn’t as valuable as it used to be in terms of trade value."
So as you see, we actually agree on this one. The Ravens got a way better deal because they were able to use the picks to trade back up, grab there guy, and secure another solid player. However, if Derrick Harvey had 10 sacks we’d be saying that it was a good deal for both teams because we were able to move up and grab him without losing a 2nd rounder.
Do you realize that not long ago Mike Ditka gave up his whole draft just to get Ricky Williams. Times have changed, that’s my point. If we had hit big with Harvey then it would’ve been a good deal for both teams. As it stands, they took advantage of their picks and we didn’t.
Hope I cleared it up… we’re on the same page and have the same perspective. It’s what you do with the picks that counts, not the predetermined value chart. However, if you have more value on the chart there is a higher chance for a homerun, which we clearly didn’t hit on this trade.
-Collin
by silencecs on Jan 15, 2009 2:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ha! This was a ridiculous argument
I could understand arguing about this before we found out what the players involved do on the field. Hindsight is 20/20. That said, we still don’t know for sure who got the better end of the deal. The Ravens could lose both starters they obtained from career-ending injuries and/or Harvey could become the most prolific pass-rusher of all time. You really don’t know the true value of a draft for a few years.
by Nebraska Jag on Jan 15, 2009 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So why do you think the Ravens got hosed?
:) just playing. Nice thought process and great post.
Big Cat Country!:: The Official Home of the Unofficial Blog of the Jacksonville Jaguars!
by Tkopa on Jan 15, 2009 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
LT is vital
Anybody remember Tony Boselli? He was a beast with a mean streak who protected Brunell from late/cheap hits and gave the Jags a bit of a swagger on the O-line. Granted, he was a great one, but if we have the chance to get another guy like that then we would be fools not to take advantage of it. Hopefully we aren’t this bad for another several years and therefore our drafts picks will only get lower and the probability of finding another bookend lessens. If the top guys are gone then we should trade for more picks, but otherwise we should fill a vital position with a stalwart who we won’t have to worry about for decade.
P.S. I hear Oher is lazy with a bad attitude. Does this mean we’re guaranteed to pick him?
by Jags-Fan-In-Chicago on Jan 15, 2009 10:53 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Thank you
I’m sure you and Gene would have a great conversation.
As for Oher, we will pick him if he knocks down one of our scouts at the combine. That is what impresses them the most.
Big Cat Country!:: The Official Home of the Unofficial Blog of the Jacksonville Jaguars!
by Tkopa on Jan 15, 2009 3:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Who was that
that got knocked down? Was that Harris or the DL coach.
by Ewdtrey on Jan 15, 2009 5:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ted Monachino the d-line coach...
that was really funny by the way TKOPA…
by silencecs on Jan 15, 2009 5:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well written bro
I’ll have my response up by this time tomorrow
"I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."-Bill Hicks
by Jonathan Loesche on Jan 15, 2009 12:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
trade value chart
I would take that trade value chart and flush it down the toilet, just like some of the other things they judge players on at the combine. One thing they never measure is heart and how much passion a guy has for the game. I would trade down and accumulate picks if the Jags can get lucky and find another sucker like Harris. The Ravens are riding that trade (steal) right to the AFC Championship game. This is a deep draft and a lot of good players won’t even get drafted. To think James Harrison wasn’t even drafted, what were these teams smoking on draft day.
by jagsrealist on Jan 16, 2009 6:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Would it still be a steal if
Boller or Troy Smith had managed to stay healthy? Because Joe Flacco was never supposed to be starting this year at all. The Ravens’ third rounder Tavares Gooden hasn’t done anything this year at all. And they traded the 4th rounder from the Jags to the Raiders for Fabian Washington, who has done a decent job…but the Raiders were also very high on DeAngelo Hall last offseason and really should be thrown out of any equation. Clearly Randy Moss was worth more than a 4th rounder. The Raiders are the best at getting fleeced.
Look, this is just going to keep going in circles. This is a results business. The Ravens managed to get lucky with Flacco and got the results they wanted. But on draft day, was this is a good trade? Would this have been a good trade if Flacco hadn’t ended up being competent? If Al Davis was worth a damn at GMing?
No, no, no. If you throw out the draft value chart, sure you might get lucky. Or you can stick to it, keep the value of your picks, and put yourself in a better position to pick good players, which I still believe Harvey will be, and everyone else should too, because it is WAY TOO EARLY to judge a rookie defensive end playing without a training camp. And he managed 4 sacks anyway, only 0.5 less than Mario Williams in his rookie season.
by MoveThoseChains on Jan 16, 2009 11:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I will wait on Harvey
But please look also at tackles as well as sacks when comparing Derrick to Mario. Mario didn’t have a bad rookie season.
Big Cat Country!:: The Official Home of the Unofficial Blog of the Jacksonville Jaguars!
by Tkopa on Jan 16, 2009 11:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What he said... ;)
Seriously… very eloquently put Bro, couldn’t have said it better myself.
-Collin
by silencecs on Jan 16, 2009 11:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously
Ok soooo one mock draft has us taking Sanchez?!?!? http://www.draftempire.com/nfl_mock_draft…..please explain to me how anyone thinks we should take Sanchez given our current OT, WR and DB positions.
by kterr on Jan 16, 2009 12:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
That's ridiculous... I guarantee right now that we won't take him, even though he did play at USC and Del Rio loves him some trojans.
by silencecs on Jan 16, 2009 12:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I read a couple more
mock drafts in the last 1-2 months here, just to see other “experts” opinions: http://walterfootball.com/draftdata.php
Belive me, there were sites, with much more stupider picks among them. For example, half of them thinks the Jaguars should pick a WR in the 1st round, there are sites who thinks we should pick Malcolm Jenkins or another CB, and yes, there are some, who belives, this team will pick an LT.
But since the jaguars and owner Wayne Weawer says it’s BAP is in, plus this draft is looking to be a strong one, who knows, who will be the guy in late April.
by Zoltan from Budapest on Jan 16, 2009 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ooups
I wrote wrongly Mr. Weaver’s name.
by Zoltan from Budapest on Jan 16, 2009 12:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There is no shot Sanchez will do well in the NFL
I’m going to throw that out there right now. Even Pete Carroll basically said he wasn’t ready in a press conference after Sanchez made his decision. After the Matt Ryan/ Joe Flacco miracle year this season, though, I expect Sanchez to be taken early and thrust into the hero role which I highly doubt he’ll do anything in.
by SoCalStites on Jan 16, 2009 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sanchez has never really looked very good
except when playing an overmatched overrated opponent in the Rose Bowl. And that’s really it…
by MoveThoseChains on Jan 16, 2009 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My problem with Sanchez
is that he doesn’t read defenses really well.
Most all QB’s are better when using play action. But there is a defference between using it and relying on it and Sanchez relys on PA. I don’t think he’s a 3 step drop and let it go guy, at least not to WR’s.
I think this problem is linked to why Bradford returned to college. Bradford had precise passing, but I doubt his ability to get the ball out quickly, at least right now. That’s probably why he stayed another year to learn how to dissect defenses better. He’s good against safetys, but can he read dropping LB’s. Fortunately for Bradford as well as Sanchez opposong LB’s usually stayed out of their way because the LB’s were worried about stopping the run or blitzing to no avail because Bradfords and Sanchez OL’s were so good.
However I’m not saying they can’t be good eventually, I’m just saying I haven’t seen enough that tells me that they will be good.
by Ewdtrey on Jan 17, 2009 10:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
