.Buzz Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, .Buzz said: ........ None of these are legit plan B's to having someone out there instead of Bortles. We would have picked top 5-10 with or without them. Although I do get that you are trying to go at a different angle here, I don't see how any of those guys present us showing that we have an alternative plan to if Blake fails/flames out fwiw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugboat Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, .Buzz said: When you're QB is missing guys 5 yards downfield and throwing atrocious looking passes like he did today while also being scared to throw to wide open WR's/TE's down the field than that answers everything. You aren't winning in today's NFL if you show to be that incompetent. This is early Blake bad. Mechanics are atrocious, the ball is even more wobblier than before, he's not taking off and running anymore really. He is scared to hit clearly open guys or just not reading the field and seeing these guys, etc. It's bad. It's really, really bad. And that's exactly why stubbornly clinging to this Plan A, and having gone into the season without the intent of ever going to a Plan B...is bad. Because it was always a possibility that Bortles would completely regress again. It's always been one step forward, two steps back with him. That was always a very serious possibility...some even would've argued a likelihood. There were no shortage of people in other fanbases even, making it abundantly clear how little faith one ought to put in Bortles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 1 minute ago, pwny said: I don’t disagree. But let’s assume Blake is 2017 Blake for just a little bit. The Receivers are what they are, the OL is in the situation it is now. What’s our record? What’s our record if you add a healthy LF, but we have no Carlos Hyde? To be the team we were supposed to be, I’m certain we had to hit on all four of those position groups. And that’s just ridiculous to expect. With the alternative rule changes this year that is favoring offenses more than ever before and even great defenses aren't altering games like they were even just last year, you may be right. But a 2017 Blake that had some games where he took over/was hitting on most all cylinders at times, it's hard to tell imo. Our defense, as I said, clearly look like they just don't care that much at times during games and it's been happening for a while. Last year, that unit was consistently fired up and pushing the gas to the floor pretty much all year. Telvin Smith has oddly regressed greatly this year as well, who is/was the heart of this defense last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, Tugboat said: And that's exactly why stubbornly clinging to this Plan A, and having gone into the season without the intent of ever going to a Plan B...is bad. Because it was always a possibility that Bortles would completely regress again. It's always been one step forward, two steps back with him. That was always a very serious possibility...some even would've argued a likelihood. There were no shortage of people in other fanbases even, making it abundantly clear how little faith one ought to put in Bortles. I just don't care to comment on "plan B" anymore after the options were presented to me. You can't tell me with a straight face that if we picked up anyone on that list besides maybe Bridgewater or McCarron (when he was still kind of shiny this past offseason) was much if at all superior to getting Kessler. I won't believe you if you tell me any different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedyg Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 The plan was clearly to follow last year's blueprint with the hope of an improved run game and QB play with minimal decline on defense. Norwell was supposed to be the interior anchor that was going to make us a dominant run game. With a dominant run game, teams will play man and we built our receiving group based on that with speed guys who can run crossers and get behind guys. The problem is that all went to **** when our OL got hit by injuries at the same time that Fournette went down. We knew it and talked about it last year, and hell even our maligned QB was caught on film asking an opposing DB: "why are you playing man? you know we like to run crossers" I mean the balls on this guy, right? Anyway, long story short, it was a cascading effect of not having Fournette, injuries on offensive line...and defenses catching on. Even in the past two games where Fournette has dominated and our OL ran well in the 1st half...defenses didn't play man. Pittsburgh got burned in the playoffs playing man vs Blake, and they zoned up to take away the crossers. buffalo too got burned playing man in the playoffs not by crossers but by Blake running. So they too, play pre dominantly zone. Any defensive coordinator who plays man vs this offense haven't watched a lick of film on this offense. I'm not willing to give them the injury excuse, because I think they were incredibly short-sighted with their plan in not addressing plan B at QB (which I've been vocal here: we were gifted Lamar and we were too stupid to see it). But there is very little you can do when you're on a 4th LT (and that 4th tackle was a guy a team with also bad OL decided was better without), you're on your backup LG,C, and you're RG/RT are just ok. Almost every single rush came from that left side/middle off a stunt. We probably wouldn't have advanced as far as last season had our OLine stayed healthy but you can't really be a power running team with backups on your line and your franchise rb injured for most of the season. But I'm sure I'm not the only fan who realized how ridiculous the breaks we got on defense last season that allowed us to win. 7 TDs and 30 takeaways just wasn't going to be sustainable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugboat Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 5 minutes ago, .Buzz said: ........ None of these are legit plan B's to having someone out there instead of Bortles. We would have picked top 5-10 with or without them. Probably, yeah...we're still having a trash season with most, if not all of those guys. But that doesn't excuse going into a season with Bortles as your Plan A...and opting to just forgo a Plan B altogether. You can't just say, "ahhh shucks some other bad stuff we didn't expect went wrong, so who cares what the rest of the depth or backup QB looks like". That's how the same mistakes keep getting repeated...because it's never that problem it's the other thing's fault. Until next time, when the other other thing goes wrong and it's that things fault. I mean, i'd even cut them a bit of slack if they'd sack up and show that they actually do view Kessler as a viable QB by letting him play. I think it'd be a disaster...but at least it'd show that they were thinking the right way about it. But stubbornness about Bortles aside, i still don't even think that's how they actually view Kessler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwny Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 In the state the offense is now, with all four groupings crapping out on terrible bets, of course no QB available is going to fix this. But if they had signed Hyde or someone like that in the offseason so you don't crap out when Fournette goes down, added a Taylor Gabriel to the mix, and made a move for a Teddy, McCown, Tyrod or the like, this team would be in a significantly different position compared to where they are now. Super Bowl contender? Probably not, but they wouldn't be the laughing stock in a 7 game slid that could easily tun into 12 by the end of the year like they are now. They'd probably be contending for a playoff spot instead of seeing how far they can slide towards the #1 pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 Just now, Tugboat said: Probably, yeah...we're still having a trash season with most, if not all of those guys. But that doesn't excuse going into a season with Bortles as your Plan A...and opting to just forgo a Plan B altogether. You can't just say, "ahhh shucks some other bad stuff we didn't expect went wrong, so who cares what the rest of the depth or backup QB looks like". That's how the same mistakes keep getting repeated...because it's never that problem it's the other thing's fault. Until next time, when the other other thing goes wrong and it's that things fault. I mean, i'd even cut them a bit of slack if they'd sack up and show that they actually do view Kessler as a viable QB by letting him play. I think it'd be a disaster...but at least it'd show that they were thinking the right way about it. But stubbornness about Bortles aside, i still don't even think that's how they actually view Kessler. See, I think where we disagree is what a plan B is. I just don't see any of those names as you bringing in a guy in case something happens to Bortles except Bridgewater, who is murky at best argument wise with his knee concerns. Them bringing in most any of those QB's listed pretty much is what we did bringing in Kessler. A backup QB that can come in and play if your starter is injured, but you're still likely/are going to lose unless the guys around him ball out and he doesn't make mistakes. Kessler at least brings the young, unknown with him that the rest of those don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugboat Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, .Buzz said: See, I think where we disagree is what a plan B is. I just don't see any of those names as you bringing in a guy in case something happens to Bortles except Bridgewater, who is murky at best argument wise with his knee concerns. Them bringing in most any of those QB's listed pretty much is what we did bringing in Kessler. A backup QB that can come in and play if your starter is injured, but you're still likely/are going to lose unless the guys around him ball out and he doesn't make mistakes. Kessler at least brings the young, unknown with him that the rest of those don't. That's where you're looking at it as very Black and White. Either the guy is a starter, or he's no different than Kessler. And that's very much a point we seem to disagree on. I don't believe that at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KhanYouDigIt Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 They have given Blake 5 years and he still looks like absolute crap. If they don’t move on from him this off-season, I don’t know what to say. He’s terrible. They don’t even trust him to throw the ball. A one dimensional offense (run offense) in a passing league. Not great bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 1 minute ago, Tugboat said: That's where you're looking at it as very Black and White. Either the guy is a starter, or he's no different than Kessler. And that's very much a point we seem to disagree on. I don't believe that at all. So if we would have signed Gabbert instead of brought in Kessler and Gabbert was the guy on the bench right now, you would have felt better about what the FO did this offseasn and thought they brought in a feasible plan B? I'm struggling to believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrenaline_Flux Posted November 25, 2018 Author Share Posted November 25, 2018 24 minutes ago, pwny said: They all failed because they were all bad bets that were more likely to fail than not. The fact that there were so many and not other things to lean on when they did fail is a problem. And it's not just all of the failing is why we're here. We have Fournette healthy and another bruiser to lean on and we're still losing to bad teams and getting stomped by good teams. Pick any two of them, make them *as expected* for the year, and what do you think our record is? Pick three of them, make them *as expected*, do you really think we're the Super Bowl contender we were supposed to be? I've already said there are a multitude of factors on why we are bad. But yeah, if everything went perfectly well, we would be doing well especially considering we've been in it at the end in a handful of our losses as-is. Or even just a combination of them as you're saying. I wouldn't really call them bad bets; especially not when you try to come up with realistic alternatives to what they could have done because even if you flip out the names or add even more guys, it would still be "they should have done more". If we had not picked up Moncrief and had instead picked up Albert Wilson and Danny Amendola like the Dolphins did, does anything change? If we had brought in some other QB like the ones Tuggy mentioned, does anything change (nevermind that two of who he listed are Henne and Gabbert who we've had before)? not even sure how to handle the OL portion as I'm not even sure who all we could have realistically brought in as depth with the prospect of being a 4th/5th OT (yet capable of starting the majority of the season without being a giant liability). If this offense during the season was: QB: Chase Daniel RB: Chris Ivory, TJ Yeldon WR: Danny Amendola, Dede Westbrook, Albert Wilson, Keelan Cole, DJ Chark TE: Marcedes Lewis Does the discussion we're having now change that much? Are we that much better than 3-8? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrenaline_Flux Posted November 25, 2018 Author Share Posted November 25, 2018 5 minutes ago, .Buzz said: So if we would have signed Gabbert instead of brought in Kessler and Gabbert was the guy on the bench right now, you would have felt better about what the FO did this offseasn and thought they brought in a feasible plan B? I'm struggling to believe that. I'm struggling with the idea of bringing in our old and worse QB to push the QB we replaced him with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrenaline_Flux Posted November 25, 2018 Author Share Posted November 25, 2018 7 minutes ago, KhanYouDigIt said: They have given Blake 5 years and he still looks like absolute crap. If they don’t move on from him this off-season, I don’t know what to say. He’s terrible. They don’t even trust him to throw the ball. A one dimensional offense (run offense) in a passing league. Not great bob. I think it's pretty clear they're going to move on. There's a lot of dead money, but it's still a net cap savings based on the information I've seen so it doesn't matter (and that's if we don't elect him as a post June 1st cut which he'd probably be). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwny Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, Adrenaline_Flux said: If this offense during the season was: QB: Chase Daniel RB: Chris Ivory, TJ Yeldon WR: Danny Amendola, Dede Westbrook, Albert Wilson, Keelan Cole, DJ Chark TE: Marcedes Lewis Does the discussion we're having now change that much? Are we that much better than 3-8? Titans - 9 | Jaguars - 6 Eagles - 24 | Jaguars - 18 Colts - 29 | Jaguars - 26 Steelers - 20 | Jaguars - 16 Bills - 24 | Jaguars - 21 I think it's perfectly fair to think that we could flip 3 of those games. 6-5 (or even 5-6) isn't great, but at least it's not a dumpster fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.