JW you are right.
I still like our squads chances of winning every week. Every team we played is .500 or better (counting tacks winning tonight) we actually had a tough schedule in the early portion of the season. 3-3 is pretty good. Let’s rally and get a win next week.
Go Jags
(10-16-2017, 03:28 PM)Etdavis2006 Wrote: [ -> ]JW you are right.
I still like our squads chances of winning every week. Every team we played is .500 or better (counting tacks winning tonight) we actually had a tough schedule in the early portion of the season. 3-3 is pretty good. Let’s rally and get a win next week.
Go Jags
I am not confident we will win
every game, but it would take a major upset loss to not win the division. Two of our losses (Jets and Rams) were a few plays away from being wins for us. You are wrong about the strength of schedule because Baltimore's wins were against losing teams (Bengals, Browns, and Raiders) and one loss was against a losing team (Bears) so the 3-3 record is misleading. However, the Jets should have defeated New England, which would have made them appear legit.
Go Jags
(10-16-2017, 10:08 AM)Jagsfan32277 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-16-2017, 10:00 AM)Frailbones Wrote: [ -> ]Have.... Have you watched the Browns play?
The Jags play down to their level. The game thread and the forum threads go ballistic with anger threads. lol
That logic certainly explains the blowout wins they've had against better opponents.
You're really firing on all cylinders.
(10-16-2017, 04:03 PM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ] (10-16-2017, 10:08 AM)Jagsfan32277 Wrote: [ -> ]The Jags play down to their level. The game thread and the forum threads go ballistic with anger threads. LOL
That logic certainly explains the blowout wins they've had against better opponents.
You're really firing on all cylinders.
We even had a blowout win against a team that later won three games with their rookie QB. It's not like we only beat crappy teams.
(10-16-2017, 01:28 PM)JaguarsWoman Wrote: [ -> ] (10-16-2017, 01:23 PM)J-Mizzal Wrote: [ -> ]Yea Jags were so ground and pound when we had Jimmy Smith and Keenan catching 90 balls for over 1000 yards
The Giants were so ground and pound with Eli throwing over 4,000 yards for 5 years and almost there 2 other years with Tom
Your clueless Coughlin likes a wide open offense with a good running game
You are clueless if you think what the best two WRs in franchise history has any relevance to our current WR room.
Well, Keenan is the position's coach. Would seem relevant.
(10-17-2017, 11:12 AM)fredalwaysajag Wrote: [ -> ] (10-16-2017, 01:28 PM)JaguarsWoman Wrote: [ -> ]You are clueless if you think what the best two WRs in franchise history has any relevance to our current WR room.
Well, Keenan is the position's coach. Would seem relevant.
I was obviously referring to his
playing career.
Obviously the season isn't over. They've only played 6 games. The season is 16 games. Every football fan should know this.
(10-16-2017, 02:11 PM)spacecoastjag Wrote: [ -> ] (10-16-2017, 01:54 PM)Frailbones Wrote: [ -> ]Do you think Blake is a good QB? Yes or no.
Yes, I think he is a top 12-15 QB and until the Jags can find someone better why even debate it?
There are certain players who are replaceable and certain players who aren't. TJ Yeldon for example is garbage. Clearly needed a 1,000-1,500 yard RB and not a 400 yard back. Upgrading Yeldon is EASY. Upgrading Bortles is NOT easy. Most on this board wanted Brian Hoyer in the offseason or Henne. Those aren't upgrades.
I don't even listen to the clueless who think Eli Manning or Kirk Cousins is going to WANT to come here.
You are brutally wrong. 12-15? Maybe in the AFC.
Even in the AFC, that would include a few backups.
Bortles with a 6.3 YPA and 79 passer rating with 57% completion is not gonna get it done and doesn't put him anywhere near 12-15. Crazy thought if JAX drafts Watson they would be super bowl contender IMHO. Hindsight is crazy.
(10-17-2017, 01:53 PM)jradMITEX Wrote: [ -> ]Bortles with a 6.3 YPA and 79 passer rating with 57% completion is not gonna get it done and doesn't put him anywhere near 12-15. Crazy thought if JAX drafts Watson they would be super bowl contender IMHO. Hindsight is crazy.
Watson WITHOUT Fournette? Get outta here. The Jags don't have a Hopkins nor do they even have a Fuller.
(10-17-2017, 02:02 PM)spacecoastjag Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2017, 01:53 PM)jradMITEX Wrote: [ -> ]Bortles with a 6.3 YPA and 79 passer rating with 57% completion is not gonna get it done and doesn't put him anywhere near 12-15. Crazy thought if JAX drafts Watson they would be super bowl contender IMHO. Hindsight is crazy.
Watson WITHOUT Fournette? Get outta here. The Jags don't have a Hopkins nor do they even have a Fuller.
No they don't but with a competent QB who can move the ball and make plays they wouldn't need those guys. The Jags have more than enough weapons on Offense coupled with a good QB and that defense to beat anyone. Whats you seem to be missing is that with an incompetent QB will make good receivers look bad. Check out Hopkins and Fullers 2016 numbers with OS
Hopkins 78 954 4 TD's
Fuller 47 635 2 TD's.
Looking at that its hard to make the argument that Hopkins and Fuller are making Watson, seems like the other way around or a little of both. The Jags receivers look bad because BB is just not an NFL caliber starting QB. He can't beat 8 and 9 man fronts like any decent QB should be able to.
(10-17-2017, 01:53 PM)jradMITEX Wrote: [ -> ]Bortles with a 6.3 YPA and 79 passer rating with 57% completion is not gonna get it done and doesn't put him anywhere near 12-15. Crazy thought if JAX drafts Watson they would be super bowl contender IMHO. Hindsight is crazy.
Agreed. We would definitely be contending for the 1 or 2 seed if we had Watson. He was right there, sitting in our laps.
(10-17-2017, 02:45 PM)BklynJag Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2017, 01:53 PM)jradMITEX Wrote: [ -> ]Bortles with a 6.3 YPA and 79 passer rating with 57% completion is not gonna get it done and doesn't put him anywhere near 12-15. Crazy thought if JAX drafts Watson they would be super bowl contender IMHO. Hindsight is crazy.
Agreed. We would definitely be contending for the 1 or 2 seed if we had Watson. He was right there, sitting in our laps.
Are you nuts? You actually think if we would have drafted Watson we would have a 1 or 2 seed and beat a team like the Patriots or Chiefs for those spots? You are crazy bro.
(10-17-2017, 03:12 PM)Brett Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2017, 02:45 PM)BklynJag Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed. We would definitely be contending for the 1 or 2 seed if we had Watson. He was right there, sitting in our laps.
Are you nuts? You actually think if we would have drafted Watson we would have a 1 or 2 seed and beat a team like the Patriots or Chiefs for those spots? You are crazy bro.
I don't think its crazy to think this team could be 5-1 right now with a solid QB under center. They have a +10 takeaway/giveaway through 6 games which is elite, last year KC led the league with 16. Even if they slow down they should be the league leader. Last year the Texans averaged 17 ppg, this year they are at 29 ppg. The Jags pass D right now is historically good, like they are playing amazing right now. They are holding opposing passers to a 60 passer rating, you have to go all the way back to the 2009 Jets to find a team that finished better. Yes the run d hasnt been good but this is a passing league. If they force turnovers and shut down the pass like this, you are talking about elite level historic defense. With a competent offense they could easily hang with the likes of KC or Pitt (who they just beat in Pitt) or NE. But with a one dimensional offense that sees 8 or 9 men fronts, they have very little margin for error if they get behind.
(10-17-2017, 03:12 PM)Brett Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2017, 02:45 PM)BklynJag Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed. We would definitely be contending for the 1 or 2 seed if we had Watson. He was right there, sitting in our laps.
Are you nuts? You actually think if we would have drafted Watson we would have a 1 or 2 seed and beat a team like the Patriots or Chiefs for those spots? You are crazy bro.
He is a lot of nuts. I don't know how people forget the Chiefs won their first five games, starting with the Patriots, before losing to the STEELERS.
Wow...I actually agree with JDub. I don't believe at all that we would be a #1 or #2 seed with a rookie QB even despite how good Watson has looked. That is way too far stretching it in my opinion...
(10-17-2017, 04:01 PM)Brett Wrote: [ -> ]Wow...I actually agree with JDub. I don't believe at all that we would be a #1 or #2 seed with a rookie QB even despite how good Watson has looked. That is way too far stretching it in my opinion...
One major reason for that is if we had drafted Watson, we would not have Fournette, and everyone saw last year what games are like without a star RB.