Jaguars QB Nick Foles breaks clavicle, out indefinitely

[.Buzz]

 

[Adrenaline_Flux]

time for memes to become dreams

[JaguarCrazy2832]

Just terrible 

Really wanted to see if he had the goods especially since his contract is basically for 2 years

[Tugboat]

Lmao. So much for this season. 

 

I guess this is why smart teams have backup plans. 

[JiffyJag]

4 hours ago, Tugboat said:

Lmao. So much for this season. 

 

I guess this is why smart teams have backup plans. 

but hey I'm sure we'll sign........idk, Matt Cassel? 

[JaguarCrazy2832]

9 hours ago, Tugboat said:

Lmao. So much for this season. 

 

I guess this is why smart teams have backup plans. 

What backup were you expecting? We cant spend a 1st/2nd round pick on a QB when we had Foles and we had much more pressing needs STARTING that we didn't need to spend such a high pick on a backup

[.Buzz]

10 hours ago, Tugboat said:

Lmao. So much for this season. 

 

I guess this is why smart teams have backup plans. 

Please tell me a team that can lose their starting QB and have a "backup plan" and be fine.

[KhanYouDigIt]

I think everyone knew it would be a when not if.

Time to see what Gardner can do. 

 

[DuvalsKing]

🤷‍♂️  

On 3/5/2019 at 2:58 PM, DuvalsKing said:

The Jags are just happy to have a decent QB fall in their lap. Ultimately they think they can rekindle 2017 by taking Defilipo and Foles combined with their defense minus possibly Gipson, and Jackson that the defense will remain playing to the same level. They are are also hoping everyone stays healthy I hopes that they can keep Foles up right for 16 games. I love how everyone has amnesias and they forget when Philly was clamoring for Wentz to return basically rushing him back because Foles was so subpar at the beginning of last season but Wentz went down again and Foles did well down the stretch they get into the playoffs and Foles is the darling. It’s a lot of trust but you’ve still yet to see Foles play a full 16 games since probably Obama’s first term and your mortgaging your long term stability on a retread.

 

 

[Tugboat]

13 hours ago, .Buzz said:

Please tell me a team that can lose their starting QB and have a "backup plan" and be fine.

There's tons of teams that can lose their starter and take a hit, but still stand a chance of winning some games.  Especially if they have strong surrounding casts.

Just quickly browsing around the league:

-Carolina might be okay with their investment in Grier as a backup.

-Chicago lost Trubisky last year for a minute and didn't really fall apart with Chase Daniel.

-Indy lost a linchpin MVP caliber quarterback and they're still not necessarily completely dead in the water with Brissett.  Decent chance they finish ahead of us tbh.

-LA Rams have a backup who we literally trotted out as our starter for years.

-LA Chargers would take a big hit losing Rivers, but Tyrod is at least a fringe game managing starter caliber insurance policy.

-Miami really probably wouldn't see any really drop-off from Fitz to Rosen - and they're not even really trying to win games lol.

-The Pats always seem to relatively survive when they have to replace their GOAT QB for games...i'm sure the same would be true of Stidham who they just invested in.

-The Saints would probably be alright unless Teddy has really regressed from that injury.

-The Giants are obviously going to make their move to their backup intentionally at some point and probably won't see a lot of drop-off.

-The Niners have Mullens kicking around, who people were talking about having fringe starter upside.  Fell flat without Jimmy last year, but more on the weakness of their roster than the QB backup plan who stepped in just fine for the most part.

-The Titans might even be a better team if they were forced to go to Tannehill over Mariota.

-The Redskins started the year already on their backup plan, and they obviously have a strong backup plan behind that with Haskins waiting in the wings.

-We've literally lost games to teams putting Gabbert in as their "backup plan".

-Heck, "our guy" Foles is the biggest example you can imagine of a team having a backup plan at QB who can step in and literally win them a Super Bowl.

 

I don't think it's outlandish or nearly as huge a "luxury" as you're making it out to be, to have a viable backup plan at QB.  Especially if you're in a clear "win now" mode and you're going in with a starter who may or may not even be that good, and has never actually played a full season schedule.

 

I mean, maybe Minshew will be found money and be as awesome as his moustache and we'll be just fine.  But i'm skeptical it'll hold up against less terrible defenses who also have a whole week to prepare for him.  But the point is, whether it miraculously work out for us or not...fundamentally, pinning your "backup plan" to a 6th round pick who was one phone call away from retiring as a quarterback a year ago, is hugely risky.  It's about the process and the foresight/planning.  Same way it was a stupid unnecessary risk to roll into last season with a Bortles you can't really trust and noodle arm Kessler as the only backup plan.  Which obviously blew up in their faces completely, when it inevitably came time to yank the Bortles experiment and Kessler confirmed that he does indeed suck if he has to actually play.

[.Buzz]

19 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

There's tons of teams that can lose their starter and take a hit, but still stand a chance of winning some games.  Especially if they have strong surrounding casts.

Just quickly browsing around the league:

-Carolina might be okay with their investment in Grier as a backup.

-Chicago lost Trubisky last year for a minute and didn't really fall apart with Chase Daniel.

-Indy lost a linchpin MVP caliber quarterback and they're still not necessarily completely dead in the water with Brissett.  Decent chance they finish ahead of us tbh.

-LA Rams have a backup who we literally trotted out as our starter for years.

-LA Chargers would take a big hit losing Rivers, but Tyrod is at least a fringe game managing starter caliber insurance policy.

-Miami really probably wouldn't see any really drop-off from Fitz to Rosen - and they're not even really trying to win games lol.

-The Pats always seem to relatively survive when they have to replace their GOAT QB for games...i'm sure the same would be true of Stidham who they just invested in.

-The Saints would probably be alright unless Teddy has really regressed from that injury.

-The Giants are obviously going to make their move to their backup intentionally at some point and probably won't see a lot of drop-off.

-The Niners have Mullens kicking around, who people were talking about having fringe starter upside.  Fell flat without Jimmy last year, but more on the weakness of their roster than the QB backup plan who stepped in just fine for the most part.

-The Titans might even be a better team if they were forced to go to Tannehill over Mariota.

-The Redskins started the year already on their backup plan, and they obviously have a strong backup plan behind that with Haskins waiting in the wings.

-We've literally lost games to teams putting Gabbert in as their "backup plan".

-Heck, "our guy" Foles is the biggest example you can imagine of a team having a backup plan at QB who can step in and literally win them a Super Bowl.

 

I don't think it's outlandish or nearly as huge a "luxury" as you're making it out to be, to have a viable backup plan at QB.  Especially if you're in a clear "win now" mode and you're going in with a starter who may or may not even be that good, and has never actually played a full season schedule.

 

I mean, maybe Minshew will be found money and be as awesome as his moustache and we'll be just fine.  But i'm skeptical it'll hold up against less terrible defenses who also have a whole week to prepare for him.  But the point is, whether it miraculously work out for us or not...fundamentally, pinning your "backup plan" to a 6th round pick who was one phone call away from retiring as a quarterback a year ago, is hugely risky.  It's about the process and the foresight/planning.  Same way it was a stupid unnecessary risk to roll into last season with a Bortles you can't really trust and noodle arm Kessler as the only backup plan.  Which obviously blew up in their faces completely, when it inevitably came time to yank the Bortles experiment and Kessler confirmed that he does indeed suck if he has to actually play.

If you have any of those guys you just listed those teams fall apart/are falling off VERY hard. Can they get maybe ok play from a few of them and win a game or two? Sure. But pretty much all of those lose any playoff aspirations if their starter goes down for 8+ weeks unless you have a rookie like Haskins that you ended up hitting on and does well right out of the gate.

Losing a QB nowadays is pretty much a season killer unless the backup catches fire/is someone that ends up surprising. You think Mullens last year when he took over was considered where he is now or they expected that if Garrapolo went down?

Edited September 10, 2019 by .Buzz

[Tugboat]

15 minutes ago, .Buzz said:

If you have any of those guys you just listed those teams fall apart/are falling off VERY hard. Can they get maybe ok play from a few of them and win a game or two? Sure. But pretty much all of those lose any playoff aspirations if their starter goes down for 8+ weeks unless you have a rookie like Haskins that you ended up hitting on and does well right out of the gate.

Losing a QB nowadays is pretty much a season killer unless the backup catches fire/is someone that ends up surprising. You think Mullens last year when he took over was considered where he is now or they expected that if Garrapolo went down?

Of course you're going to have some drop-off.  I just think there's a difference in how far the fall-off potential is.  As well as a difference between those type of situations, and basically just rolling into a season "all in" on your starter with only a Cody Kessler or a 6th round rookie as your plan.

It's one thing if you're going in with a star QB who your team is fully built around and has shown a ton of durability to play every game year after year.  It's another thing when you're going in knowing that your starter might still be trash (Bortles last year), or hasn't really demonstrated a track record of playing every game...much less for multiple years in a row (Foles).

 

Sure, Mullens probably wouldn't have be perceived as such a solid option last year, before he emerged as potentially something.  But just because it fortunately worked out...doesn't mean it was a great plan last year.  This year though, now you've seen that he's a high-end backup plan.  So now it is a stronger backup plan.

If Minshew miraculously works out as a stud backup and spot starter...it'd still be risky and questionable planning to go into this season with him as the only other guy.  Next year...it'd be a solid plan, if that proves to be the case.  It'd be understandable to lean on him as your backup plan if he has that credibility as a strong backup.  Different hypothetical situation though.