Tugboat Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 2 hours 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. No. That's literally the opposite of what i'm saying. That's why i said it doesn't really matter what i'd prefer and that the specific name doesn't matter. And didn't want to bother listing off specific options. It's about getting a QB that our staff would have actually had the intention of playing in football games if things went as sideways as they have with Bortles. Instead of what they're doing now, which is basically what you're suggesting..."either Bortles swims or the whole team sinks who cares none of the other QBs would make a difference so we're going with this non-threatening cheap guy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugboat Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 2 hours 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. No. That's literally the opposite of what i'm saying. That's why i said it doesn't really matter what i'd prefer and that the specific name doesn't matter. And didn't want to bother listing off specific options. It's about getting a QB that our staff would have actually had the intention of playing in football games if things went as sideways as they have with Bortles. Instead of what they're doing now, which is basically what you're suggesting..."either Bortles swims or the whole team sinks who cares none of the other QBs would make a difference so we're going with this non-threatening cheap guy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 53 minutes ago, Speedyg said: He's benched him once right? Vs. Houston. I don't count pre-season, especially when he went right back to him the following week. And even when asked about Blake after that Houston benching, he was quick to say that it wasn't just Blake's fault (which it wasn't, not for that game). Then after last week vs. Pittsburgh, he came right back and said Blake would be starting this week. I really don't think Bortles is Marrone's "guy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedyg Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 8 minutes ago, Adrenaline_Flux said: He said he was trying to spark the offense and that he only benched Blake because he couldn't bench all of the offense. Regardless, if there was this mandate, he wouldn't have benched him then or in the preseason last year. The reason he keeps going back to Bortles is because he sees him as the best option to win. Probably because of his mobility. This may sound shocking, but typically coaches try to do what they think is the best option for the team in order to win even if it's choosing a guy you don't trust over a guy with a noodle arm (whether he has made the right decision is another argument and whether there is a right decision is yet another one). I think there's a good chance we see Kessler before the end of the year though. I don't even know what you are arguing because what you typed just proved EXACTLY my point. The one time he sat Blake wasn't a "real" benching. It was a last ditch effort to give a team a spark when everyone was playing ****. And he went right back to him the game after. Last preseason he wasn't even benched. He was just so bad that Doug opened up competition for following week, then went back to Blake after. Doug has been a major supporter of Blake for as long as he's been here. He has even brought up the George O'Leary connection before on interviews. A pseudo "open competition" that really wasn't open in preseason and a "benching" in a game in which the entire team was a mess doesn't change any of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuvalsKing Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 I think ultimately they bring Blake back next year but I highly doubt he'll be the starter.. I think the only way they get rid of him is if they fire Caldwell but I think ultimately they Draft a QB and start him with Blake as the back up. But I think this will be Blakes last year as starter even if he is here. Tom may have liked Watson but I believed Caldwell convinced him to give him a year to see what Bortles could do and the stars just aligned for Bortles. Blake even said as much when he said the brief conversation Tom had with him after the AFC title lose when he said Tom came up to him and said something sly to him to the affect of good first half and he just walked off and said nothing else after that. Last year gave Blake a sense of self security last year that he just couldn't capitalize on going forward. Tom didn't draft Watson because he didn't want to get here and shake things up but now Coughlin is going to run Blake and Caldwell the hell out of Jax this is going to be the I gave you a year and I told you so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedyg Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 5 minutes ago, .Buzz said: I really don't think Bortles is Marrone's "guy". You guys go on believing that. I sounded the alarm on this team as this entire board celebrated a week 2 win vs the Patriots. I would be very very very shocked if Blake isn't starting next season. He won't finish it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrenaline_Flux Posted November 26, 2018 Author Share Posted November 26, 2018 9 minutes ago, Speedyg said: I don't even know what you are arguing because what you typed just proved EXACTLY my point. The one time he sat Blake wasn't a "real" benching. It was a last ditch effort to give a team a spark when everyone was playing ****. And he went right back to him the game after. Last preseason he wasn't even benched. He was just so bad that Doug opened up competition for following week, then went back to Blake after. Doug has been a major supporter of Blake for as long as he's been here. He has even brought up the George O'Leary connection before on interviews. A pseudo "open competition" that really wasn't open in preseason and a "benching" in a game in which the entire team was a mess doesn't change any of that. If Blake was Marrone's boy then why bench him at all? And why do it multiple times? And this isn't "benching" like when a QB is benched when the game is completely out of hand. Benching is benching regardless of whether it fits your narrative or not. Coachspeak where he isn't openly throwing a guy under the bus to the public also isn't evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrenaline_Flux Posted November 26, 2018 Author Share Posted November 26, 2018 10 minutes ago, DuvalsKing said: I think ultimately they bring Blake back next year but I highly doubt he'll be the starter.. I think the only way they get rid of him is if they fire Caldwell but I think ultimately they Draft a QB and start him with Blake as the back up. But I think this will be Blakes last year as starter even if he is here. Tom may have liked Watson but I believed Caldwell convinced him to give him a year to see what Bortles could do and the stars just aligned for Bortles. Blake even said as much when he said the brief conversation Tom had with him after the AFC title lose when he said Tom came up to him and said something sly to him to the affect of good first half and he just walked off and said nothing else after that. Last year gave Blake a sense of self security last year that he just couldn't capitalize on going forward. Tom didn't draft Watson because he didn't want to get here and shake things up but now Coughlin is going to run Blake and Caldwell the hell out of Jax this is going to be the I gave you a year and I told you so. Can't wait for the heroic Coughlin to run those dastardly animated villains out of town! but isn't the bolded all a bit contradictory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuvalsKing Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 21 minutes ago, Adrenaline_Flux said: Can't wait for the heroic Coughlin to run those dastardly animated villains out of town! but isn't the bolded all a bit contradictory? The only reason Tom keeps Blake will be for insurance and salary cap implications but he won’t let him be the starter next year IMO. But I think he ultimately doesn’t even want Blake on the team if he can help it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrenaline_Flux Posted November 26, 2018 Author Share Posted November 26, 2018 21 minutes ago, DuvalsKing said: The only reason Tom keeps Blake will be for insurance and salary cap implications but he won’t let him be the starter next year IMO. But I think he ultimately doesn’t even want Blake on the team if he can help it. How would he be insurance if we don't trust him now? And you can't keep him around. It just doesn't work 99 out of 100 times. As for salary cap implications, we save money by cutting him at the start of the league year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 1 hour ago, Speedyg said: You guys go on believing that. I sounded the alarm on this team as this entire board celebrated a week 2 win vs the Patriots. I would be very very very shocked if Blake isn't starting next season. He won't finish it though. The guy who drafted him is still in this building and is Marrone's boss. Coughlin also bought in on him as we gave him an extension and he oversees football operations. But you go on believing the people who run football operations aren't wanting the HC to play the QB they just paid $20M per with guarantees until June 1st next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrenaline_Flux Posted November 26, 2018 Author Share Posted November 26, 2018 Didn't even take 24 hours for a lot of these comments to not age well. Speaking of, @Speedyg does this count as Bortles being benched or is there another excuse about how this doesn't fit your definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 23 hours ago, Adrenaline_Flux said: Didn't even take 24 hours for a lot of these comments to not age well. Speaking of, @Speedyg does this count as Bortles being benched or is there another excuse about how this doesn't fit your definition? ☝️ Missed this, but good question for @Speedyg to answer. Keep this man at 3T please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedyg Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 23 hours ago, Adrenaline_Flux said: Didn't even take 24 hours for a lot of these comments to not age well. Speaking of, @Speedyg does this count as Bortles being benched or is there another excuse about how this doesn't fit your definition? No, there's no excuse. They also fired the OC. They are clearly trying to reset this offense. I'd still be very shocked if he wasn't starting next season. You go keep harping on that pre-season game as a benching. I believe Boselli even commented that he thinks Blake sees the field again this year. I wouldn't go that far, but clearly hes got the vibe that this isn't the end of Blake. I would have loved to have seen Kessler earlier on, but he's not exactly given the best scenario to work with. No LT, LG, C...and no Fournette. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedyg Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 20 minutes ago, .Buzz said: ☝️ Missed this, but good question for @Speedyg to answer. Keep this man at 3T please. Taven might have played his best game yet. Nothing special, but at least he didn't look lost out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.