According to our favorite source, WR Matt Jones may be looking for a home

[iceberg]

Sure it does but Jax does not have Witten and TO on the other side and forcing teams to single cover the other side. That is the only weakness in our offense IMO (consistency of the #2 WR to get open)

Would Matt Jones be able to do that? it is definitely worth a 6th or a 7th to find out.

You cannot even start to compare stats of Crayton to Jones because of the other weapons we have.

Trust me, that doesn't stop anyone.

The numbers are fine to use to talk-up Crayton, but the flip-side is apparently a weak excuse for defending Jones.

Put up better numbers than 3 of Dallas' receivers, despite being deactivated.

so, we can't compare to crayton because of the weapons we have (don't get that logic but ok, i've already said the weaspons would greatly hamper jones' ability to sniff the ball) but you can compare jones to players who've not played?

tel me, if hurd caught a few more balls and did 1 yard better overall than jones, would it now be "matt out played 2 of our wr's" who happen to be 4 and 5 on the roster anyway?

then go back to say we can't use crayton to compare because of all the weapons, so we can agree (i hope) we have a lot of weapons but you can cherry pick the players your player did better than for your argument?

like i said, you're mixing and matching statistics and arguments to fit one side and that's just getting frustrating.

nothing is a knock on matt jones with you - it's just misunderstood.

 

[iceberg]

Not sure I understand you here?

you want jones to compliment crayton. at least that was your implication when i made that reply. i don't want (2) WRs to do what 1 should. if we get another WR it should be for #2 to compete for #1, not #3-6 to compete for #3. i think that's just the wrong focus regardless of who's name you tag onto this.

 

[Stash]

what I find most funny is that a receiver-starved club, which traded for one of the most inconsistent WRs in the game (Troy Williamson), is willing to give up on Matt Jones

yet he's our insurance??

c'mon, that doesn't make any sense

Ask yourself why the Jaguars continue to be receiver-starved?

Is it simply bad luck?

Or could it possibly be scheme or coaching (or lack thereof) resulting in multiple players struggling at the receiver position?

Again, it's not simply Matt Jones underachieving here.

Is it not possible, that there is a pattern here?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

That's true.

But what exactly are the Cowboys risking to find out?

A 6th or 7th round pick. Not much if you ask me.

and if we don't, we'll be just as fine

Put up better numbers than 3 of Dallas' receivers, despite being deactivated.

and that still didn't help him from being deactivated

I like Hurd, and I'm hopeful for Stanback, but I've seen nothing to make me believe that Austin will ever be an NFL receiver.

but the point is, if Mike Sherman can do wonders w/ Matt Jones, why can't he do the same w/ our guys? yes I know Matt Jones has done more than all 3 combined, because he was given a hell of alot more opportunities

So, he only played because he was a first round pick, but despite that fact it was OK to deactivate him? Seems a contradiction to me.

no, it seems you are overrating his production, that it still wasn't good enough to keep him from being deactivated

Again, his numbers are better than Austin, Hurd ort Stanback. That says improvement to me.

again, you're overrating the #s, he got those because they threw to him, because he was a 1st round pick, and because they were trying to get their investment out of him, not because he was a good WR

Did they excel?

None of the receivers in Jacksonville have done well. That's not coincidence, that's a pattern.

a pattern of bad evaluation perhaps? that could also be the case

That's where we disagree. I think there's blame to go around.

IMO, more should be placed on Jones

That's certainly true, and if Jones is unreceptive to a change of scenery and a fresh opportunity then he should be cut.

But the cost would still only be a 6th or 7th round pick to find out.

there's no harm in it, but we'd be just as well off w/o doing it IMO

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Sure there is a pattern. The pattern is the Jags organization continuing to draft bad WRs.

 

[Stash]

it's infatuated driven tunnel vision.

Maybe a little, but it's not a big gamble either.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Ask yourself why the Jaguars continue to be receiver-starved?

Is it simply bad luck?

Or could it possibly be scheme or coaching (or lack thereof) resulting in multiple players struggling at the receiver position?

Again, it's not simply Matt Jones underachieving here.

Is it not possible, that there is a pattern here?

it could be just picking the wrong receivers

it happens, it happened to us

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Sure there is a pattern. The pattern is the Jags organization continuing to draft bad WRs.

:laugh2:

 

[Stash]

and pretty convenient that it's jacksonvilles fault (to you it would seem, you did say bad coaching) that he's not gotten any better but they're a team on the rise and to watch out for next year.

coaching failed one player but built a team?

your "objectivity" falls too hard to one side, stash.

I'm speaking about the wide receiver position specifically, not an entire team. Not one player, but several have "underachieved" in Jacksonville.

A head coach can do a great job with certain areas and a poor job with others.

The NFL has plenty of examples of this.

Just because a coach is goodwith some, doesn't mean he's good with all of them.

 

[Stash]

so, we can't compare to crayton because of the weapons we have (don't get that logic but ok, i've already said the weaspons would greatly hamper jones' ability to sniff the ball) but you can compare jones to players who've not played?

Given my position, I'm not advocating bringing Jones in to replace Crayton, but more to improve over Hurd, Austin, and Stanback. Crayton had better numbers than Jones di last year, but I believe only for last year. A year where Crayton was forced to start while Jones was forced to the bench. I would hardly call using just last year's stats fair, would you?

tel me, if hurd caught a few more balls and did 1 yard better overall than jones, would it now be "matt out played 2 of our wr's" who happen to be 4 and 5 on the roster anyway?

I don't think so. At that point, it wouldn't matter much and as Jones doesn't play special teams it doesnt make sense either.

then go back to say we can't use crayton to compare because of all the weapons, so we can agree (i hope) we have a lot of weapons but you can cherry pick the players your player did better than for your argument?

like i said, you're mixing and matching statistics and arguments to fit one side and that's just getting frustrating.

nothing is a knock on matt jones with you - it's just misunderstood.

I agree this team has plenty of weapons, but I'm not advocating the aforementioned trio among them.

If Crayton or Owens get hurt, this team has little else to fall back on at the receiver position. That's what I'm saying.

 

[Stash]

Sure there is a pattern. The pattern is the Jags organization continuing to draft bad WRs.

Funny that a Cowboys fan can say that.

This team hasn't had much success drafting that position either.....

 

[iceberg]

I'm speaking about the wide receiver position specifically, not an entire team. Not one player, but several have "underachieved" in Jacksonville.

A head coach can do a great job with certain areas and a poor job with others.

The NFL has plenty of examples of this.

Just because a coach is goodwith some, doesn't mean he's good with all of them.

and it's coming across like you'll find any excuse you can regardless of how it fits in the rest of the picture, then say no one else will see the whole picture.

i see it. i just don't try to make a square peg fit in a round hole cause it's our favorite peg and that's the hole we happen to have.

coaching sucks, but only for WR. slant - jones.
he can outperform our #3-5 WR's cause they rarely play - slant jones.
can't compare him to crayton cause we've got weapons - slant jones.

and i could go on and on with your points and all will simply - "slant - jones" to you because you want to find a way to get him on the team.

keep at it. i suppose we all need a windmill from time to time.

 

[iceberg]

If Crayton or Owens get hurt, this team has little else to fall back on at the receiver position. That's what I'm saying.

most teams would be hurting if their #1 and #2 wr's went down.

matt jones wouldn't help any team in that regard.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

i just don't try to make a square peg fit in a round hole cause it's our favorite peg and that's the hole we happen to have.

damn, that's a great analogy

 

[DFWJC]

Ask yourself why the Jaguars continue to be receiver-starved?

Is it simply bad luck?

Or could it possibly be scheme or coaching (or lack thereof) resulting in multiple players struggling at the receiver position?

That team is very well coached. Come on now, your starting become a firehose with blame game---the QB, the scheme, the coach.

The Jags really are not that bad off at WR except that they have no #1 guy.
Northcut and Reggie Williams are coming around. But I do agree, they still need a star.

The Jags passing game is not enemic---it is just average (17th out of 32). Part of that is due to them having a fantastic backfield and a solid run blocking line. The QB was only in his 1st year as the starter too....but he did very well. They did go 11-5.

 

[Stash]

you want jones to compliment crayton. at least that was your implication when i made that reply. i don't want (2) WRs to do what 1 should. if we get another WR it should be for #2 to compete for #1, not #3-6 to compete for #3. i think that's just the wrong focus regardless of who's name you tag onto this.

I think that Jones and Crayton has completely different skill-sets.

Crayton has better hands and runs better routes while Jones has better speed and size.

I think each brings different strengths and weaknesses to the table.

And if there's a better available alternative who is an established #2 receiver, I would certainly be iopen to hearing about it. I'm not locked into Matt Jones only, but I feel the risk/reward involved in getting him makes sense.

 

[Stash]

and it's coming across like you'll find any excuse you can regardless of how it fits in the rest of the picture, then say no one else will see the whole picture.

i see it. i just don't try to make a square peg fit in a round hole cause it's our favorite peg and that's the hole we happen to have.

Sorry if it comes across that way. As I've said, I'm open to realistic alternatives but those seem in short supply.

coaching sucks, but only for WR. slant - jones.

Again, the other receivers' performance tends to support that stance.

he can outperform our #3-5 WR's cause they rarely play - slant jones.

Numbers bear that out too.

can't compare him to crayton cause we've got weapons - slant jones.

Compare him to Crayton if you'd like, but compare all aspects, not just 2007.

and i could go on and on with your points and all will simply - "slant - jones" to you because you want to find a way to get him on the team.

keep at it. i suppose we all need a windmill from time to time.

Sorry if I seem unbiased here, but this is a risk/reward scenario that makes tremendous sense to me, much like prior risks in Owens and Pacman Jones did.

But I would seriously like to thank all of you for contributing your thoughts to this topic - (even you Dbair!) as it's a subject I'm obviously very interested in and it's fun to discuss it.

 

[dbair1967]

And thanks again for dodging the question. Way to contribute!


if you cant see that Owens, Crayton and even a 75% Glenn are eons better than Jones, nothing can be done for you

As are these baseless, unsubstantiated bash-fest posts.

Again, I've presented facts supporting my stance rather than going the mindless "Matt Jones sucks" route.

he was a 1st rd pick who cant start for his current team...he blows so much that they have tried left and right to replace him almost since the day he got there...he's a bust

thats the fact

David

 

[Stash]

That team is very well coached. Come on now, your starting become a firehose with blame game---the QB, the scheme, the coach.

Again - for the record, I have never blamed the quarterback play for the receivers' lack of production.

The Jags really are not that bad off at WR except that they have no #1 guy.
Northcut and Reggie Williams are coming around. But I do agree, they still need a star.

Would you consider "not that bad off" as good?

The Jags passing game is not enemic---it is just average (17th out of 32). Part of that is due to them having a fantastic backfield and a solid run blocking line. The QB was only in his 1st year as the starter too....but he did very well. They did go 11-5.

No doubt, they're good at what they do.

I think their approach is similar to Tennessee's.

Run the ball, and play good defense and pass when you need to.

It's been successful as both made the playoffs last year.

But I wouldn't call that approach conducive for receivers to put up great numbers.

 

[Stash]

And thanks again for dodging the question. Way to contribute!


if you cant see that Owens, Crayton and even a 75% Glenn are eons better than Jones, nothing can be done for you

You're right, I can't see a 75% Glenn.

What is that?

The same guy who couldn'tplay all of last season and then contributed nothing when he did?

You're right, I can't see that. Not again anyway.