pwny Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 3 minutes ago, jrry32 said: If the first decision was stupid, the decision not to reconsider is also stupid. Teams don't reconsider things for no reason, it just doesn't happen. That's all we were ever saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, pwny said: Teams don't reconsider things for no reason, it just doesn't happen. That's all we were ever saying. There was a reason to reconsider, though. Bridgewater came out in the preseason and looked like the Bridgewater of old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwny Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 3 minutes ago, BayRaider said: The argument was you need a capable starter behind Bortles in case he does terrible, and start Bortles over Teddy to start the year. Now they have ZERO backup plan. Kessler? Please. No one here made anything resembling an argument that disagreed with the idea that Teddy would be the best backup option. The argument was that they clearly had already made an active decision that Blake was going to be the starter and an active decision via trade to have Kessler be the backup and the only way something was going to change that was if something happened to cause them to reconsider. Nothing happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayRaider Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 4 minutes ago, pwny said: No one here made anything resembling an argument that disagreed with the idea that Teddy would be the best backup option. The argument was that they clearly had already made an active decision that Blake was going to be the starter and an active decision via trade to have Kessler be the backup and the only way something was going to change that was if something happened to cause them to reconsider. Nothing happened. In that case everyone in your FO is a moron. You had a championship caliber defense, with a QB that 90% likely might not be good enough to get you that championship, and had nobody behind the guy. Terrible. No excuse what so ever. If I was a Jag fan I’d be furious, not sure why most Jag fans keep defending this decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwny Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 1 minute ago, jrry32 said: There was a reason to reconsider, though. Bridgewater came out in the preseason and looked like the Bridgewater of old. A good preseason performance should never alter an opinion. And if Bridgewater's post-injury look had any chance of altering their opinion of him, they would have brought him in and worked him out. But they didn't, because it wasn't something they had interest in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwny Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 7 minutes ago, BayRaider said: bot sure why most Jag fans keep defending this decision. Who is doing this? Explaining the logistics of something isn't the same as agreeing with the initial behavior that got them there. I've been incredibly critical of them not ever having anything resembling a backup plan in place for anything. Everything needs to go perfectly or else they have to make reactionary move after reactionary move. Nothing they do is proactive. This includes not having a viable plan behind Bortles, it includes coming into this season with ONE power back despite the entire offense being built on power running, it includes hanging the entire season's viability on two rookie receivers becoming a #1 and #2 simultaneously in their sophomore season. It includes not having adequate depth at any position. It includes expecting every single player to play to peak viability else the entire season goes to crap. Explaining that they've made their version of a proactive move by bringing in a low cost backup and that they won't make a change unless it's reactionary isn't agreeing with them, it's pointing out that it just won't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 6 minutes ago, pwny said: A good preseason performance should never alter an opinion. And if Bridgewater's post-injury look had any chance of altering their opinion of him, they would have brought him in and worked him out. But they didn't, because it wasn't something they had interest in. A good preseason performance should alter your opinion when the question is if his knee will allow him to get back to where he was. People who are unwilling to reconsider their opinions are going to be ineffective decision makers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, pwny said: Who is doing this? Explaining the logistics of something isn't the same as agreeing with the initial behavior that got them there. I've been incredibly critical of them not ever having anything resembling a backup plan in place for anything. Everything needs to go perfectly or else they have to make reactionary move after reactionary move. Nothing they do is proactive. This includes not having a viable plan behind Bortles, it includes coming into this season with ONE power back despite the entire offense being built on power running, it includes hanging the entire season's viability on two rookie receivers becoming a #1 and #2 simultaneously in their sophomore season. It includes not having adequate depth at any position. It includes expecting every single player to play to peak viability else the entire season goes to crap. Explaining that they've made their version of a proactive move by bringing in a low cost backup and that they won't make a change unless it's reactionary isn't agreeing with them, it's pointing out that it just won't happen. TBF, I think they were expecting with Lee, Moncrief, Cole, and Westbrook that they would have enough at the position to have a viable receiving corp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwny Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 Just now, jrry32 said: A good preseason performance should alter your opinion when the question is if his knee will allow him to get back to where he was. People who are unwilling to reconsider their opinions are going to be ineffective decision makers. They clearly weren't basing their decision on his knee, or they would have worked him out to check the knee out in the first place. But they didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwny Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 Just now, jrry32 said: TBF, I think they were expecting with Lee, Moncrief, Cole, and Westbrook that they would have enough at the position to have a viable receiving corp. They expected a slot receiver with injury history, a career #3/#4 receiver with injury history, and two sophomores to be a viable receiving group and had no protection built in if one of them got hurt for any amount of time or if one of them didn't develop into a much more viable option than they had been to this point in their career. It was a garbage plan that burned them; just like they've been burned on them at every turn for a decade. Last year was only that good because they had virtually no injuries at all and everything went right. The few spots they had injuries, they were lucky to have some unforeseen depth show up. So instead of keeping that depth, they stripped all the depth from those spots and expected the previous depth of the WRs to become the new strength of the group. Was an awful plan and it blew up like anyone who was paying any sort of attention would have guessed it would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayRaider Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 I agree for the most part pre season is pre season but a QB balling out is usually an indication they may ball out in regular season. Russell Wilson, Dak Prescott, and Jimmy G are all prime examples of this. And considering Teddy would of only cost a 3rd, and there no backup plan for Blake Bortles of all people... it was definitely worth the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwny Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 1 minute ago, BayRaider said: I agree for the most part pre season is pre season but a QB balling out is usually an indication they may ball out in regular season. Russell Wilson, Dak Prescott, and Jimmy G are all prime examples of this. And considering Teddy would of only cost a 3rd, and there no backup plan for Blake Bortles of all people... it was definitely worth the risk. Blaine Gabbert and Brett Hundley also had some spectacular preseasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayRaider Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 1 minute ago, pwny said: Blaine Gabbert and Brett Hundley also had some spectacular preseasons. We’ve seen what they can do in the regular season though. Point I’m making is it was worth a 3rd Round Gamble when you have a team that made the AFC Championship with a questionable QB and nobody behind him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 41 minutes ago, BayRaider said: We’ve seen what they can do in the regular season though. Point I’m making is it was worth a 3rd Round Gamble when you have a team that made the AFC Championship with a questionable QB and nobody behind him. Nate Peterman had a spectacular preseason. For me, it wasn't him doing well in the preseason that was the point. It was him looking normal. I know what Teddy can do when he's healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
game3525 Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 I still can't believe they weren't in on the Teddy sweepstakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.