Xmad Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 16 minutes ago, lancerman said: No Denver would have, because Denver is picking in the top 5 and they would have had a legitimate playoff chance, as good as they had in 2015. Bortles played far better than either of their QB's that year and better than any of the QB's they fielded this year. Denver would have LOVED to have Blake Bortles this year. Some of you guys just think QB's grow on trees and when you don't like someone that it isn't possible for a worse option. It's far more likely one of Darnold or Rosen busts and is far worse than Bortles (who was picked around where they are slotted) and Jacksonville won't even get a chance at then. And who knows when they will get a great opportunity at a QB, they watched the Texans be stacked for years and have trash at the QB position without finding their guy until Watson. And Bortles brought his team further than that Texans team ever got. People need perspective. Denver wouldn't have loved Bortles this year because if they had Bortles he'd be running for his life behind that terrible line and the Broncos would've still had a top 10 pick. Bortles is not the reason the Jaguars were successful this year. We've also seen countless teams with good to great rosters waste their chance at a SB because they continue to stick with QBs that we all know are going to regress back to the mean or not get them over the hump. See Jay Cutler and the bears, sure he was great the first few seasons and even got the bears to an NFC title game but he never got better than just "Maybe average" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr LBC Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 26 minutes ago, OleXmad said: No team would kill for Bortles, we all know he's a below average QB that's getting an extension because the Jaguars don't have a better option so they might as well *hope* Bortles plays better than he did last year. I'm just curious as to why they committed 2 extra years to him when they were only on the hook for this year, if he plays well next year franchise tag him, if he sucks move on. Now the Jags are on the hook for an extra 7 million or so because...Why? Statistically speaking the bolded's not true. Eye test? He's probably base-average, but knowledge of the system and being a known commodity goes a long way for some organizations. And when they have a quarterback who completed 60% of his passes for 21 TD's to 13 INT's why rush that out the door? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Just now, OleXmad said: Denver wouldn't have loved Bortles this year because if they had Bortles he'd be running for his life behind that terrible line and the Broncos would've still had a top 10 pick. Bortles is not the reason the Jaguars were successful this year. We've also seen countless teams with good to great rosters waste their chance at a SB because they continue to stick with QBs that we all know are going to regress back to the mean or not get them over the hump. See Jay Cutler and the bears, sure he was great the first few seasons and even got the bears to an NFC title game but he never got better than just "Maybe average" . Is he the reason for success? No. But he played more of a role in getting to the AFCCG than people want to believe. Our running game was poor after midseason when Fournette hurt his ankle. Defense also had their problems at times (mostly due to playcalling). No one's arguing he's great, but he's a lot better than most people that are replying in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Just now, The LBC said: Statistically speaking the bolded's not true. Eye test? He's probably base-average, but knowledge of the system and being a known commodity goes a long way for some organizations. And when they have a quarterback who completed 60% of his passes for 21 TD's to 13 INT's why rush that out the door? Because his name is Blake Bortles. Only reasonable explanation I can come to. As you stated, he's an average/slightly below average QB. That's better than a lot of guys and better than anyone but Cousins on the market. You aren't upgrading that without spending 30M a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Funny that some are trying to spin this as “well he’s only making 7.5M more guaranteed, but now over a 2/3 year period instead of 1”, as if the other money in the 54M won’t count against the cap if Bortles is on the roster. That said, I get their move. They’re not in position to draft an immediate, likely upgrade. Cousins is obviously a huge step forward but he’ll cost more than he’s probably worth and you’ll also be on the hook for more seasons with him. I imagine they want the flexibility to keep/extend some a lot of the players on their roster. Bortles is...well, Bortles. But he showed that he was able to string together some of his ability last season. I guess they hope he can do it more consistently then. My one gripe is that I would’ve looked to Keenum/Foles instead (even Bridgewater I’d have wanted more), but they’re playing the safe card here and are essentially saying that, even worst case scenario, we’ll ride with our bleh QB and let this defense carry us. They got to the AFCCG with the defense, run game, and the inconsistency of Blake. Don’t blame them for wanting another shot before making a major switch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr LBC Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, .Buzz said: Because his name is Blake Bortles. Only reasonable explanation I can come to. As you stated, he's an average/slightly below average starter. That's better than a lot of guys and better than anyone but Cousins on the market. You aren't upgrading that without spending 30M a year. FIFY, though I'm pretty sure that's what you were getting at. People tend to forget to factor in the backups who are rostered into the conversation when talking about average play-level. You want to see below-average, look at most teams' backups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Just now, Yin-Yang said: Funny that some are trying to spin this as “well he’s only making 7.5M more guaranteed, but now over a 2/3 year period instead of 1”, as if the other money in the 54M won’t count against the cap if Bortles is on the roster. That said, I get their move. They’re not in position to draft an immediate, likely upgrade. Cousins is obviously a huge step forward but he’ll cost more than he’s probably worth and you’ll also be on the hook for more seasons with him. I imagine they want the flexibility to keep/extend some a lot of the players on their roster. Bortles is...well, Bortles. But he showed that he was able to string together some of his ability last season. I guess they hope he can do it more consistently then. My one gripe is that I would’ve looked to Keenum/Foles instead, but they’re playing the safe card here and are essentially saying that, even worst case scenario, we’ll ride with our bleh QB and let this defense carry us. They got to the AFCCG with the defense, run game, and the inconsistency of Blake. Don’t blame them for wanting another shot before making a major switch. No one is arguing about if he's still on the roster or not. But he won't be if he doesn't improve, that's the point. This deal is to serve as a bridge and if he doesn't improve he's gone within the next two years. That's the whole point. This was really a no brainer and if he does improve next year than we got a bargain. If he doesn't, we lessen the cap hit and allow for us to pay others. The cap hit will be less with this extension than the 5th yr option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Just now, .Buzz said: No one is arguing about if he's still on the roster or not. But he won't be if he doesn't improve, that's the point. This deal is to serve as a bridge and if he doesn't improve he's gone within the next two years. That's the whole point. This was really a no brainer and if he does improve next year than we got a bargain. If he doesn't, we lessen the cap hit and allow for us to pay others. The cap hit will be less with this extension than the 5th yr option. The only reason someone can argue against this is if they think we should have paid Cousins. That's the only superior option for next season. Anyone listing an often injured Bradford or Keenum I can't take seriously and we weren't taking a top qb at 29th. Plus with a win now roster we weren't starting a rookie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinderFournette Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 15 minutes ago, OleXmad said: Denver wouldn't have loved Bortles this year because if they had Bortles he'd be running for his life behind that terrible line and the Broncos would've still had a top 10 pick. Bortles is not the reason the Jaguars were successful this year. We've also seen countless teams with good to great rosters waste their chance at a SB because they continue to stick with QBs that we all know are going to regress back to the mean or not get them over the hump. See Jay Cutler and the bears, sure he was great the first few seasons and even got the bears to an NFC title game but he never got better than just "Maybe average" . part of the reason the jags started Bortles over henne was simply due to Bortles ability to make plays with his feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr LBC Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Worth pointing out that statistically, Bortles' 2017 season is on par with the season's Eli Manning put up in the seasons he took the Giants to the Super Bowl. So, I'm failing to see why people think a guy who had similar clout in personnel in that instance (Coughlin) would be falling over himself to move on without a clearly better option already on the roster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malik Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 3 minutes ago, The LBC said: Worth pointing out that statistically, Bortles' 2017 season is on par with the season's Eli Manning put up in the seasons he took the Giants to the Super Bowl. So, I'm failing to see why people think a guy who had similar clout in personnel in that instance (Coughlin) would be falling over himself to move on without a clearly better option already on the roster? Definitely not on par with Eli in 2011. Only thing similar was the int%. Being on par with 07 Eli is not a compliment either. The closest analog to this Jacksonville team are the 10 Jets that similarly coasted on overperforming defenses, strong o-line's, and heavily on the running game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmad Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 11 minutes ago, LinderFournette said: part of the reason the jags started Bortles over henne was simply due to Bortles ability to make plays with his feet. Wasn't that his rookie year? How is that relevant now? Sure he's mobile but it doesn't matter how mobile you are behind a terrible line all QBs will struggle (See Wilson) 10 minutes ago, The LBC said: Worth pointing out that statistically, Bortles' 2017 season is on par with the season's Eli Manning put up in the seasons he took the Giants to the Super Bowl. So, I'm failing to see why people think a guy who had similar clout in personnel in that instance (Coughlin) would be falling over himself to move on without a clearly better option already on the roster? Coughlin is 71 years old at this point, he's cautious and not likely to change things up too rapidly. Which is a problem when the Jaguars have a clear issue at QB they probably won't address unless they get great value or feel like Bortles isn't the answer (They clearly feel comfortable enough to basically give him 2 more years as the starter contract wise so I doubt they'll draft a QB or trade up for one like they probably should) Texans and Chiefs did it this past offseason* and they're better off for it (Well the texans are at least, Chiefs we'll see) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 18 minutes ago, .Buzz said: No one is arguing about if he's still on the roster or not. But he won't be if he doesn't improve, that's the point. This deal is to serve as a bridge and if he doesn't improve he's gone within the next two years. That's the whole point. This was really a no brainer and if he does improve next year than we got a bargain. If he doesn't, we lessen the cap hit and allow for us to pay others. The cap hit will be less with this extension than the 5th yr option. Thanks for sharing. Never referenced any of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinderFournette Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Just now, OleXmad said: Wasn't that his rookie year? How is that relevant now? Sure he's mobile but it doesn't matter how mobile you are behind a terrible line all QBs will struggle (See Wilson) Coughlin is 71 years old at this point, he's cautious and not likely to change things up too rapidly. Which is a problem when the Jaguars have a clear issue at QB they probably won't address unless they get great value or feel like Bortles isn't the answer (They clearly feel comfortable enough to basically give him 2 more years as the starter contract wise so I doubt they'll draft a QB or trade up for one like they probably should) Texans and Chiefs did it this past offseason* and they're better off for it (Well the texans are at least, Chiefs we'll see) the team opened up the competition in the preseason. went with bortles cuz Mobility. Jags probably draft a qb day 2 which imo is where they should have anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Just now, Yin-Yang said: Thanks for sharing. Never referenced any of that. Well you're talking about us referencing 2/3 years instead of 1. It is cheaper towards the cap and is an easy out if he doesn't work out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.