(08-24-2017, 12:15 PM)Senor Fantastico Wrote: [ -> ]Coughlin and Marrone were hired in tandem, and announced on the same day.
I highly doubt Coughlin mandated anything in regards to the coaching search.
But what does twitter have to say?
(08-24-2017, 11:47 AM)jg77 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-24-2017, 11:36 AM)MoJagFan Wrote: [ -> ]Heck I don't see any viable alternatives anywhere right now. The draft was not a QB friendly class and free agency was awful. I laugh at the Kaep seekers. The guy was down to being coached for a single read.
Trubisky, Mahomes, and Kizer have all looked fine. I'm not sure why you're saying the draft wasn't QB friendly. Not to mention that Kizer could've been a realistic target for us.
Trubisky was gone by our pick.
Mahomes likely will not start for KC. Kizer is doing well in Cleveland, but may not have been a good choice here.
Had we taken him in the first, everyone would have said we reached.
Had we taken him in the 2nd, we wouldn't have Cam Robinson OR Branden Albert. The OL we complain about now would be even worse, and Kizer (or Fournette for that matter) could not succeed behind it.
Trubisky, Mahomes, and Kizer have all looked fine. I'm not sure why you're saying the draft wasn't QB friendly. Not to mention that Kizer could've been a realistic target for us.
*************
We will see when the season starts. QB friendly as in consensus picks I guess.
(08-24-2017, 11:03 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ] (08-24-2017, 10:53 AM)jg77 Wrote: [ -> ]The fact that we didn't bring in any QB competition at all this year makes it more likely to be true in my opinion. Just because DC said something to the media doesn't mean he was saying the opposite behind closed doors. It's mind boggling that we didn't even attempt to address the QB situation after Bortles' last year performance.
I'm not sure I buy this.
What veteran would you have brought in that would have definitively fixed the position?
Given the finite number of draft picks, it's entirely possible they liked a QB but went with more immediate needs or the better player.
A rookie would not be expected to compete with Bortles his first year. As much as Houston liked Watson, right now Savage is the starter. As much as the Chiefs like Mahomes, right now Smith is the starter. Denver spent a first round pick on Lynch a couple of years ago, but Simien is the starter.
(08-24-2017, 10:55 AM)BklynJag Wrote: [ -> ]Not just Dave, but it falls on Coughlin too. Another QB should have been brought in and to be honest, it was quite obvious.
Same answer to you.
WHo would you have brought in?
I think Jay Cutler for a year or two would have been a better option than either Bortles or Henne and would have given an opportunity to find the next Jaguars QB in the next draft or two.
(08-24-2017, 12:51 PM)JagAU09 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-24-2017, 11:03 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure I buy this.
What veteran would you have brought in that would have definitively fixed the position?
Given the finite number of draft picks, it's entirely possible they liked a QB but went with more immediate needs or the better player.
A rookie would not be expected to compete with Bortles his first year. As much as Houston liked Watson, right now Savage is the starter. As much as the Chiefs like Mahomes, right now Smith is the starter. Denver spent a first round pick on Lynch a couple of years ago, but Simien is the starter.
Same answer to you.
WHo would you have brought in?
I think Jay Cutler for a year or two would have been a better option than either Bortles or Henne and would have given an opportunity to find the next Jaguars QB in the next draft or two.
Maybe.
He has the physical ability, but it speaks volumes that despite his arm, two teams (Denver, Chicago) have given up on him. I think there is something about his intangibles that have turned teams off.
I mean he was unemployed for most of the summer. Well he was set to be an analyst for Fox, until the Miami QB got hurt a couple of weeks ago. Only then, a coach familiar with him and who knew he knew his system, brought him in.
Either by age or intangibles, Cutler would have been a short term fix at best.
(08-24-2017, 12:27 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ] (08-24-2017, 11:47 AM)jg77 Wrote: [ -> ]Trubisky, Mahomes, and Kizer have all looked fine. I'm not sure why you're saying the draft wasn't QB friendly. Not to mention that Kizer could've been a realistic target for us.
Trubisky was gone by our pick.
Mahomes likely will not start for KC. Kizer is doing well in Cleveland, but may not have been a good choice here.
Had we taken him in the first, everyone would have said we reached.
Had we taken him in the 2nd, we wouldn't have Cam Robinson OR Branden Albert. The OL we complain about now would be even worse, and Kizer (or Fournette for that matter) could not succeed behind it.
I was just pointing out the false statement that the QB class wasn't friendly. There were some decent prospects in that draft. I'm happy we didn't trade up for or even think about taking Trubisky. Kizer would've been nice value in the 2nd though.
(08-24-2017, 01:36 PM)jg77 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-24-2017, 12:27 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]Trubisky was gone by our pick.
Mahomes likely will not start for KC. Kizer is doing well in Cleveland, but may not have been a good choice here.
Had we taken him in the first, everyone would have said we reached.
Had we taken him in the 2nd, we wouldn't have Cam Robinson OR Branden Albert. The OL we complain about now would be even worse, and Kizer (or Fournette for that matter) could not succeed behind it.
I was just pointing out the false statement that the QB class wasn't friendly. There were some decent prospects in that draft. I'm happy we didn't trade up for or even think about taking Trubisky. Kizer would've been nice value in the 2nd though.
I think a fair statement would be the QB class was friendly to SOME teams. I think if TC saw a superstar caliber QB in this draft, he may have pulled the trigger, especially if he had doubts about Bortles.
(08-24-2017, 01:36 PM)jg77 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-24-2017, 12:27 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]Trubisky was gone by our pick.
Mahomes likely will not start for KC. Kizer is doing well in Cleveland, but may not have been a good choice here.
Had we taken him in the first, everyone would have said we reached.
Had we taken him in the 2nd, we wouldn't have Cam Robinson OR Branden Albert. The OL we complain about now would be even worse, and Kizer (or Fournette for that matter) could not succeed behind it.
I was just pointing out the false statement that the QB class wasn't friendly. There were some decent prospects in that draft. I'm happy we didn't trade up for or even think about taking Trubisky. Kizer would've been nice value in the 2nd though.
Boy I love using high picks on "decent" (QB) prospects. Woof. It was a bad QB class from literally everyone's view point. Watson has looked overmatched, Kizer is a very flawed prospect, and has Mahomes even taken a snap from under center in his life?
So yet another thread citing fake news?
Multiple sources have said front office made it clear the preference was to start Bortles. The Jags and the Jax media can play whatever word games they want to with that.
Was there a clear mandate that Blake MUST start? That seems unlikely. Was pushing Bortles on potential HCs a good way to run off good candidates? Obviously.
(08-24-2017, 03:19 PM)TealHammer Wrote: [ -> ]Multiple sources have said front office made it clear the preference was to start Bortles. The Jags and the Jax media can play whatever word games they want to with that.
Was there a clear mandate that Blake MUST start? That seems unlikely. Was pushing Bortles on potential HCs a good way to run off good candidates? Obviously.
There is nothing innately sinister about that.
The team just recently invested a first round pick on the guy.
He had a statistically promising season just two years ago, and regressed last year, even though he still had a positive TD-INT ratio.
I'm sure the inclination was to see if he bounced back, and not invest a high draft pick on a QB unless absolutely necessary.
If there were an absolute mandate, Henne would not start tonight.
This whole thread is based on fake news.
I find it hard to believe that there would be a mandate to start and/or play any player, regardless of the position.
Forced to start Bortles but yet Henne is starting game three of preseason makes a ton of sense.
(08-24-2017, 06:05 PM)trunt87 Wrote: [ -> ]Forced to start Bortles but yet Henne is starting game three of preseason makes a ton of sense.
/Thread
(08-24-2017, 11:47 AM)jg77 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-24-2017, 11:36 AM)MoJagFan Wrote: [ -> ]Heck I don't see any viable alternatives anywhere right now. The draft was not a QB friendly class and free agency was awful. I laugh at the Kaep seekers. The guy was down to being coached for a single read.
Trubisky, Mahomes, and Kizer have all looked fine. I'm not sure why you're saying the draft wasn't QB friendly. Not to mention that Kizer could've been a realistic target for us.
Dude...it's pre-season. Bortles looked good in his first pre-season, but it was obvious that he needed that red-shirt year.
Also, why in the hell do people think having a bottom 5 running game would've been ok? QBs who don't have a solid run game almost always end up having a bad time. Passing up LF or CMcC would have been stupid.