Week 12: Jacksonville Jaguars (3-7) @ Buffalo Bills (3-7) - Status Quo

[Tugboat]

Just now, .Buzz said:

Again, how many teams have backup QB's that you look at and view as a viable backup plan to your starting QB ****ting the bed or getting hurt besides the teams that are getting ready to move on from a veteran guy in the next couple years and drafted a guy round 1?

He is/was most definitely a "viable backup" in the NFL. As a backup NFL QB, he's definitely a solid option if you need a guy for a couple games compared to the rest of the NFL as those lists indicate.

It doesn't even really matter where you or i land on Kessler specifically in this instance.  The point they're continuing to drive home is that they don't see Kessler as a serious and viable backup plan.  Not worth playing over this broken Bortles that they've essentially tried to completely take the ball away from.

That's NOT a good backup plan.

[JaguarCrazy2832]

49 minutes ago, pwny said:

This season went to **** because they cut depth and quality players, and then expected everyone to be healthy and as good/better than they were last year. When that didn't happen, the season was over.

 

And I thought that they drafted guys for depth. Realized recently that isn't the case; they drafted guys so they can save money in 2019. Taven Bryan was drafted so they can cut Malik. DJ Chark was drafted so they can cheap out on receiver next year and not continue to spend on a FA contract priced like Moncrief's. Ronnie Harrison was drafted so they could cut a Safety, probably Church. Will Richardson was drafted so they can cut Parnell. Makes a whole lot more sense now.

I thought we were talking about that alot, you included? 

[JaguarCrazy2832]

25 minutes ago, pwny said:

Hurns, Ivory, Marcedes, Robinson were all let go. Some of the moves as singular moves made sense to a certain degree. But them doing so while also not having a safety net in place is the problem.

My problem isn't just that they don't plan for the future. It's that they don't plan for anything except what is staring them directly in the face. They saw that they are 7 million over the cap next year, and decided that was all they needed to address in the draft, so they drafted 4 players at spots that they will be able to cut someone to save money. That's not exactly the forward thinking behavior that I'm asking for.

The 1st 3 I have zero problem letting them walk. Hurns couldn't stay healthy(although we extended Lee so idk), Ivory was terrible and Marcedes basically asked to be cut after we signed ASJ. Now A-Rob, I wish we would have kept. Give him Moncrief's money and find a few extra million from someone we didn't need

[Adrenaline_Flux]

2 minutes ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

Now A-Rob, I wish we would have kept. Give him Moncrief's money and find a few extra million from someone we didn't need

Wouldn't have mattered. He didn't want to be here anymore and he wanted to be in the midwest. 

edit: Well, midwest or northeast.

[.Buzz]

5 minutes ago, pwny said:

The signed ASJ after they picked up Marcedes' option and only let go of Marcedes because he asked to be paid more. The initial idea seemed to be that Marcedes was supposed to be the #2, and therefore I wouldn't call what they did finding a replacement?

So let me ask a serious question. During the offseason, I said that this was a terrible plan. I noted that there was a serious problem expecting Dede and Cole to make the strides that were expected of them. I noted that expecting Moncrief to take on a larger role was a mistake. I said expecting Lee to stay healthy was a fool's errand. I said that any expectations for an unpolished rookie were foolhardy. Tuggy said the exact same things. So why are we pretending like what happened this season with these receivers wasn't completely predictable and that I have just pretend like they did the right thing and that it just didn't work out?

So because we didn't sign a guy after Marcedes that means we didn't have a replacement? We have had JOS who has shown solid ability since we got him and is fantastic on ST. Just because we don't sign a guy doesn't mean we don't have depth/didn't have a backup plan. If anything I think us cutting Marcedes due to him wanting more $ and not picking up anyone shows that we thought of JOS as a solid replacement.

You may have thought this, but that doesn't mean it was felt that way everywhere. You act like because you on Tugboat said it here on FF that means it was definitely a lock to happen. I know I was cautiously optimistic about the idea of a Cole/Dede/Chark trio with Lee/Moncrief as decent vets who have had solid seasons prior. Mickens also stepped up once we picked him up and made some large plays for us last year, who I thought was a pretty solid #6 guy.

What other WR should we have gotten that you thought was a #1 guy besides ARob (who isn't even a legit #1 WR imo) that was out there? It's not like they are just easily available.

[.Buzz]

8 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

It doesn't even really matter where you or i land on Kessler specifically in this instance.  The point they're continuing to drive home is that they don't see Kessler as a serious and viable backup plan.  Not worth playing over this broken Bortles that they've essentially tried to completely take the ball away from.

That's NOT a good backup plan.

It's not a backup plan. He's the BACKUP QB. There is a big difference here.

Not many teams besides teams who take a QB high in the draft/pick up a guy like Bridgewater have a good backup plan. If you lose your QB and didn't just draft a guy in the 1st, your season is likely squashed.

As a backup QB, when we're talking about this team having solid depth in areas, is what I'm talking about. Kessler is a solid backup QB in the NFL which is all I'm talking about.

[Adrenaline_Flux]

I mean, we did sign Niles Paul.

[pwny]

8 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

23 minutes ago, .Buzz said:

Also, they just paid Bortles. They clearly weren't going for someone to threaten Bortles job security. Right or wrong is one thing, but we did have competent depth behind him as a backup regardless. If you think we should have had another legit starting caliber QB that's a whole different argument.

This is true, and the real crux of the issue.  Regardless of where we go back and forth on what we personally view Kessler as...It's where their own feelings about Kessler as a backup plan really show through, and continue to show through today.

They didn't want to bring in a viable Plan B at quarterback here to be a "backup plan".  They wanted to bring in a completely non-threatening Kessler for cheap, and ride or die with Bortles to the end.  And that's exactly what they did.  Kessler is a guy they brought in with the intention of letting the season live or die solely on Bortles hand.  Kessler isn't a "capable backup plan"...he's a, "guy we'll play if Bortles gets injured and we have no other choice i guess".

Willfully forgoing a competitive backup plan doesn't make it copacetic.

Yeah, this is the problem. When you have shaky situations, you have to have a secondary plan in place. Maybe the secondary and tertiary plans aren't the greatest thing in the world, but you need something there that you can turn to if things don't go right with the first thing. 

Kessler was the guy you have as a backup that you put in there when the QB goes down, because you don't have a better option. He's cheap at the vet minimum, but he doesn't really provide you with anything that you can point to as "he could win us a game here or there". That's perfectly fine to have behind a player with Blake's longevity and ability to not get hurt if you trust that the QB is the guy for you. 

The problem comes in - and is a real big miss when it comes to management when you have a shaky player with that behind it. You're betting the farm on the shaky player keeping it together. And the team absolutely needs to be torn apart for that, because it was completely unnecessary to do so.

[.Buzz]

6 minutes ago, Adrenaline_Flux said:

I mean, we did sign Niles Paul.

Forgot about him. So yes, actually, we did.

Edit: not that I don't think JOS was the alternative plan without Lewis. I like the guy. But if you wanted another TE that we brought in from outside, than here it is.

[pwny]

4 minutes ago, .Buzz said:

You may have thought this, but that doesn't mean it was felt that way everywhere. You act like because you on Tugboat said it here on FF that means it was definitely a lock to happen. I know I was cautiously optimistic about the idea of a Cole/Dede/Chark trio with Lee/Moncrief as decent vets who have had solid seasons prior. Mickens also stepped up once we picked him up and made some large plays for us last year, who I thought was a pretty solid #6 guy.

What other WR should we have gotten that you thought was a #1 guy besides ARob (who isn't even a legit #1 WR imo) that was out there? It's not like they are just easily available.

No, I'm not acting like because I saw something that it was a lock to happen. I'm acting like if I can predict something and that thing comes true, maybe a staff making millions of dollars could have the foresight to see it and plan for it. I'm sitting on my couch predicting these things that the staff misses every year, and I'm supposed to just accept that they know what they're doing and everything is okay? 

As for other options - you're right in that there wasn't another #1 option available. But there were plenty of guys who could provide an impact at a decent level; Taylor Gabriel, Albert Wilson, Michael Crabtree, John Brown or Danny Amendola all would have been sizable upgrades to our group at some level, either as a #2, #3 or as depth and insurance for situations.

[pwny]

12 minutes ago, .Buzz said:

Forgot about him. So yes, actually, we did.

Edit: not that I don't think JOS was the alternative plan without Lewis. I like the guy. But if you wanted another TE that we brought in from outside, than here it is.

Expecting garbage to be good, with either if those guys, is not planning depth in an acceptable way. 

[.Buzz]

Just now, pwny said:

No, I'm not acting like because I saw something that it was a lock to happen. I'm acting like if I can predict something and that thing comes true, maybe a staff making millions of dollars could have the foresight to see it and plan for it. I'm sitting on my couch predicting these things that the staff misses every year, and I'm supposed to just accept that they know what they're doing and everything is okay? 

As for other options - you're right in that there wasn't another #1 option available. But there were plenty of guys who could provide an impact at a decent level; Taylor Gabriel, Albert Wilson, Michael Crabtree, John Brown or Danny Amendola all would have been sizable upgrades to our group at some level, either as a #2, #3 or as depth and insurance for situations.

The guys you list weren't really seen as superior top of the depth chart options to Moncrief imo back in the FA procress. 

As far as the first paragraph, teams bet and miss on circumstances all the time. You aren't going to be great at every position group and you're going to have to hope that some of the choices you make you get lucky on. I don't see any of the alternatives you listed as clearly superior or better options back in the FA process. We were going to sink or swim based on the young guys either taking a step or falling off either way. Not to say I don't like Grabiel, Amendola, and Wilson but still...

[.Buzz]

2 minutes ago, pwny said:

Expecting garbage to be good, with either if those guys, is not planning depth in an acceptable way. 

Act as if a #2/#3 TE is going to be some legit solid piece to a team?

Marcedes has been awful as a pass catcher and has slowed wayyyy down. He may be a solid extra blocker on a formation, but at the price tag he wanted? Nah.

Loved the guy and wanted him as a career Jaguar, but again, what TE on the market after he asked for a pay raise and was upset about that were out there to be had to replace him that was superior?

[Tugboat]

1 minute ago, .Buzz said:

It's not a backup plan. He's the BACKUP QB. There is a big difference here.

Not many teams besides teams who take a QB high in the draft/pick up a guy like Bridgewater have a good backup plan. If you lose your QB and didn't just draft a guy in the 1st, your season is likely squashed.

As a backup QB, when we're talking about this team having solid depth in areas, is what I'm talking about. Kessler is a solid backup QB in the NFL which is all I'm talking about.

This is exactly what what @pwny and i are harping on about though.

It's looking at things as "backup on the depth chart", rather than as an actual "Plan B" if the original idea doesn't work...for whatever reason.

It's where they expected everything to go swimmingly just like last year on the injury front.  Which is a mistake, but that's one thing.  They expected WRs and a bunch of others to pick up and carry on even better from where they were in last year's tremendously fortunate season.  Which is a mistake, but that's also just one thing.  It's just compounded all together in a truly frustrating way when you add in the QB thing with Kessler where even if they had somehow miraculously made it through the season unscathed on the expectation of a repeat completely healthy season, and if position players had miraculously universally carried on progressing upward and onward...they STILL would've tanked the season, when Bortles regressed to a garbled mess of a a quarterback. 

Because they seemingly didn't want a real contingency or viable "backup plan"...they just plugged a cheap guy onto the depth chart and called him "backup".  Used the same sort of excuses and justification you're using there, and called it a day.  "Oh, there's worse backups out there.  He's still young and cheap.  He might be able to play a few games if Bortles gets injured", etc.

Like you said...that's not a BACKUP PLAN.  That's the point.  Why did they not have any apparent interest in a backup plan?

It's the same thing as the Tackle injury/depth situation.  Yes, they had a capable "backup" on the depth chart.  But it's the lack of a larger "backup plan" in what to do if 2 Tackles got injured at one time, that i take issue with.

They have a Plan A...and then, a guy on the depth chart whose name is "backup", and he's not for playing.  He's for backup.  And there's no apparently Plan B beyond that.

Even when they have a promising Plan B materialize right in front of them in Ronnie Harrison supplanting Church...it's like they're still so stuck in Plan A tunnel vision that they can't pull the trigger and adapt their vision on the fly.

[.Buzz]

Just seems like all the other options that have been listed as potential backups is more or less marginal one way or the other on being a "better option". I mean, we're talking about bringing in guys like Glennon, Michael Crabtree, etc. instead of what we did bring in as potential things that screwed us depth wise in case of injuries?

IDK, seems like it's a reach.

Too each their own though. I just don't see it.