Quote:Yes, I remember that, but how does that change what I said? The Jaguars have been underdogs even playing against other bottom feeders, because the Jaguars are the bottom feeders of the bottom feeders.
That streak includes two games last year against the worst team in the league. It also includes two games against the Raiders.
Quote:That streak includes two games last year against the worst team in the league. It also includes two games against the Raiders.
I think the argument could be made that the Jaguars were the worst team in the league through that span.
In individual seasons their record might have been better than several teams, but over the span, the Jaguars have been by far the worst team I've ever seen take an NFL field.
Those other teams were bad in single seasons in spite of their level of talent. The Jaguars are bad because of their (lack of) talent.
Dude, we are making history in all the wrong ways. You're REALLY bad when you have two records within a week span. One for most losses and one for most underdog. This means we SUCK. Yes keep Bradley here another year!
![[Image: gBGKxFq.gif]](http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/gBGKxFq.gif)
Hmm, records. Let's see:
1. First team in NFL History to start 1-9 in 3 consecutive seasons
2. Most double digit losses (many by blowouts) in NFL history over a 3 year span
3. 2 games away from having a record Underdog streak by Vegas odds (Titans game odds TBD)
I said it a long time ago, and I still believe it:
The Jags are in the middle of a decade long stretch of futilty (just like the Bucs, Lions, Bungles, Oilers, Browns, 'Aints, Raiders). It's the Jags turn. I know some of those teams had some worse single season records, but my eyes tell me the 0-16 Lions and many of those futility squads were better teams than the current Jaguars.
They're young. It will get better at some point. But, there's still another 3-4-5 years of this coming. I really believe it. They may post a season or two with 6-7 wins. But, they will be the outliers during this long stretch.
Quote:Hmm, records. Let's see:
1. First team in NFL History to start 1-9 in 3 consecutive seasons
2. Most double digit losses (many by blowouts) in NFL history over a 3 year span
3. 2 games away from having a record Underdog streak by Vegas odds (Titans game odds TBD)
I said it a long time ago, and I still believe it:
The Jags are in the middle of a decade long stretch of futilty (just like the Bucs, Lions, Bungles, Oilers, Browns, 'Aints, Raiders). It's the Jags turn. I know some of those teams had some worse single season records, but my eyes tell me the 0-16 Lions and many of those futility squads were better teams than the current Jaguars.
They're young. It will get better at some point. But, there's still another 3-4-5 years of this coming. I really believe it. They may post a season or two with 6-7 wins. But, they will be the outliers during this long stretch.
I get to travel some for my job. I go to Dallas and Charlotte mostly. I almost always get asked when the Jaguars are ever going to get good. They are the laughingstock of the league. Records like those are just affirming what we already know. We suck. Big time.
The sad thing about breaking historical records is that the NFL has been doing everything to promote parity in the NFL. At least the Houston Oilers can claim there was no salary cap in the 1970s. Also, Houston had only been in the league for 10 years whereas we just celebrated 20 years.
Quote:I get to travel some for my job. I go to Dallas and Charlotte mostly. I almost always get asked when the Jaguars are ever going to get good. They are the laughingstock of the league. Records like those are just affirming what we already know. We suck. Big time.
I know. It sucks. It's really hard for alot of Jag fans to accept, seeing the success right out of the gate after creation of the franchise. Fact is, the Jags and Panthers had it better than alot of those other teams did (they were both in their conference championship games after 2 years).
All that has come crashing down. And it's a pill that Jag fans have not had to swallow before. It's very bitter.
Fans of the old Bucs, Bungles, Lions, Oilers, 'Aints, know what it's like. It really, really sucks. No one likes it at all. But, if you look back at NFL history, many franchises go through this sort of thing. It's pretty cyclical. And, it takes a while for a franchise to rise out of it. The Jags are right in the middle of their futlity.
It'll get better. But it'll be a few more years before they are in "serious" contention again. Just my opinion.
Being "historically bad" like the team has been the last few years means that many franchises do not have to go through this sort of thing.
Quote:The sad thing about breaking historical records is that the NFL has been doing everything to promote parity in the NFL. At least the Houston Oilers can claim there was no salary cap in the 1970s. Also, Houston had only been in the league for 10 years whereas we just celebrated 20 years.
Have they?
From what I can tell the NFL is doing everything they can to create a two-tier system where teams that have franchise level QBs compete every year, teams that have elite QBs are great every year, and teams without that level of QB play wallow between mediocrity and outright losing for years to decades.
The NFL did everything it could to make sure the colts and patriots didn't have to worry about how much they needed to pay Peyton and Brady.
The NFL invoked a salary cap and revenue sharing to create parity amongst the Green Bays (small market) and New York's (large market) of the NFL. The rule changes are a result of the NFL protecting their TV market to ensure they have the top NFL players on the field for 16 games per season. Trust me, the NFL is not out to make certain the Colts are successful. It's our fault that we can't find the talent to reap the benefits of the rule changes. Perhaps with Bortles and our new WR additions we'll be sitting back in a few years laughing when teams get flagged for hitting our defenseless WR or for toughing Bortles after he throws the ball.
Quote:Being "historically bad" like the team has been the last few years means that many franchises do not have to go through this sort of thing.
Technically,,, Yeah you're right. But those Bungles,'Aints, Lions, Bucs teams were way down too.
How many franchises have gone through years of suckness? Colts, Bucs, Oilers, Browns, Bungles, Patriots, Lions, 'Aints, Raiders, Bills, Texans, Packers,, the list probably goes on. Yes, alot of teams do go through 5-10-15 years of futility. I think the Jags are in theirs.
Quote:Have they?
From what I can tell the NFL is doing everything they can to create a two-tier system where teams that have franchise level QBs compete every year, teams that have elite QBs are great every year, and teams without that level of QB play wallow between mediocrity and outright losing for years to decades.
The NFL did everything it could to make sure the colts and patriots didn't have to worry about how much they needed to pay Peyton and Brady.
What? Have you had a stroke?
So the League somehow prevents teams from drafting and developing and paying franchise level QBs?
You make no sense.
Quote:What? Have you had a stroke?
So the League somehow prevents teams from drafting and developing and paying franchise level QBs?
You make no sense.
If the league wanted parity it wouldn't have changed the rules so heavily to favor the passing game.
It used to be there were a lot of ways to build a successful team, but now, no matter how good your running game and defense are you're not getting past wildcard weekend without at least a franchise QB. (edit: unless you're facing another team without a franchise QB, the way the texans advanced past the bengals)
Quote:Eli Manning
Russell Wilson
Both good, but if that's your definition of "franchise QB" then it's not a major hurdle for any team to find one.
They're both franchise guys.
Not necessarily elite, but franchise level.
You're exaggerating the ease of finding them.
Eli was a #1 overall pick, and while Wilson was a 3rd round pick his translation to the NFL level seems to have caught the league rather off guard. So not sure why you think he was so easy to spot.
Quote:I'd say these QBs are all better than Eli Manning:
Peyton Manning
Brady
Rodgers
Ryan
Flacco
Stafford
Rivers
Roethlisberger
Brees
Luck
Add in Kaepernick since SF made it to the Superbowl, and you have 13 teams out of 32 with franchise QBs. And there are a few who might arguably be better than Eli, such as Romo, Cutler, Alex Smith, and Foles. That's half the NFL at one instant of time with a franchise QB.
I think you're reaching to call Alex Smith a franchise guy.
Either way you've listed a good number of guys, but considering the length of careers for QBs is somewhere around 15 years you're essentially showing that one of those teams has a shot at a possible franchise level guy per season. Of course sometimes a guy isn't readily apparent.
Even worse is that some years no franchise guy comes out while in other years multiple franchise guys come out.
Either way if less than half of the teams have franchise level guys and about one comes out per season, that means that the other 16+ teams in the league spend more than a decade hoping to land their guy, when sometimes that franchise guy goes to a team that already had one before, like Rodgers and Luck.
Quote:As Hurricane pointed out, most of those were before the salary cap and free agency. Until the rules changes in the '90s a bad team had to recover solely through the draft (trades were rare even back then).
While that is true,, over just the past decade we have seen the Raiders, Browns, Bills, Bucs, Lions, Texans (first 10 years,, I'll give you they were expansion team) have a long stretch of basic irrelevance.
That is just since around 2002, 2004?
I agree, it should be easier these days. But, it still happens to some franchises.
Jags