(11-26-2017, 09:42 PM)spacecoastjag Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2017, 09:38 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Blake Bortles fourth quarter numbers on the season: 42-73, 419 yards, 1 TD, 4 INT, 55.6 rating, 5.7 Y/A, 1.3 TD%, 5.4 INT%
So clutch.....
Let me ask you a question genius......who's Bortles gonna go to down the stretch?! Slow Mercedes Lewis?! Stone hands Marquise Lee who cost us the Jets game?! There are ZERO weapons on this team. Zero. Dede may be good one day but he's not good now.
You have Patrick Peterson guarding Marquise Lee, the NFL leader in dropped passes. How do you expect the Jags to move the ball?!
Why does it matter that Peterson is guarding “stone hands” Lee? Lee sucks anyway right?
Jags were in position to have the lead on a FG with under 3 to play. Then Blake throws a terrible interception that was caused by no one but him.
You’re gonna defend Blake no matter how he plays so does it even matter?
Does Bortles even have game winning drives this year?
(11-26-2017, 04:32 PM)spacecoastjag Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2017, 04:29 PM)Pdiddy Wrote: [ -> ]Nobody says they wish they had bortles. Bortles still isn't good. All he has done is make less mistakes. Which has been good enough with our defense. He still shows bonehead plays with tipped passes at the line and innacurracy. Everytime he drops back, he has the potential to turn the game around for the other team. He should have lost the chargers game. He's not making elite throws. He is just managing and hoping he doesn't play like he did in Tennessee where despite good defense, he can still find a way to lose. Quit being delusional just because we are winning as a team and he is throwing the ball away instead of forcing it, doesn't make him "good". I hope he can keep getting better and and turn his mechanics around. But as of right now, labeling him as good is a stretch. Good coaching is getting the most out of him which makes you wonder if this is the best he can be...which isn't a good thing
Looks like you're still delousional and you think Mariota, Dak and others are better with even worse WRs. It's ok man. Thanksgiving crow tastes good.
Dak and Mariota both have better potenial than Bortles. Both have also game winning drives this season, as the opposite of Bortles.
Both Dak and Mariota can win you games when the game is on the line, can Bortles? Doubtful
(11-26-2017, 09:51 PM)MariGOATa Wrote: [ -> ]Does Bortles even have game winning drives this year?
I believe he was credited with one against the Chargers. Makes me want to vomit thinking about it.
(11-26-2017, 09:54 PM)Eye of the Storm Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2017, 09:51 PM)MariGOATa Wrote: [ -> ]Does Bortles even have game winning drives this year?
I believe he was credited with one against the Chargers. Makes me want to vomit thinking about it.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/p...r=BortBl00
(11-26-2017, 09:51 PM)MariGOATa Wrote: [ -> ]Does Bortles even have game winning drives this year?
(11-26-2017, 04:32 PM)spacecoastjag Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like you're still delousional and you think Mariota, Dak and others are better with even worse WRs. It's ok man. Thanksgiving crow tastes good.
Dak and Mariota both have better potenial than Bortles. Both have also game winning drives this season, as the opposite of Bortles.
Both Dak and Mariota can win you games when the game is on the line, can Bortles? Doubtful
I've never seen Dak win a game on his own without Elliott. You don't know what you're talking about. Bortles is 2-0 without Fournette this year and 1-1 with an injured Fournette.
Dak and Mariota are beneficiaries of solid O-lines (when healthy) and great run games. Take those away, they are below average.
(11-26-2017, 09:15 PM)spacecoastjag Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2017, 09:05 PM)JagFanFirst Wrote: [ -> ]His late INT killed us.
It was a bad pick but Bortles is the only reason the Jags are in the game. The Jags have TERRIBLE WRs and a TERRIBLE O line that Fournette can't even run behind.
Bortles first INT in 2.5 games.....Mariota threw 2 INTs today and his team still won because they actually played defense.
Let this sink in.....Jags gave up 27 points to Blaine Gabbert. Giving up 27 points and Fournette running for 20 yards isn't a formula for success.
Sadly this is very true. Marrone might not have given up on rushing if we were actually able to do it.
That kid Corky from that old TV show could have watched this game and seen which team had the better QB, and it wasn't ours. Sometimes folks want to argue past the good old "eye test".
(11-26-2017, 09:59 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Dak and Mariota are beneficiaries of solid O-lines (when healthy) and great run games. Take those away, they are below average.
Incorrect.
Dak and Mariota both shown pro bowl caliber play, Bortles never did.
Well you won't see spacecoast next season (thank goodness) as his hero will be searching for another BACK UP qb job.
(11-26-2017, 09:22 PM)Eye of the Storm Wrote: [ -> ]Gabbert made 2 clutch throws to get his team into position for the game winning FG. Bortles on the other hand, throws a pick while his team is in FG range. Gabbert is more clutch than Bortles.
But was Gabbert shorted his 2 best receivers and 2 starting line men? He had at least twice as much protection as Bortles. 3-4 seconds v Bortles 1-2 seconds of protection. This is a world of difference. That TD pass bomb by Gabbert was a millisecond from being a sack or turnover.
I am not giving Bortles a pass for that boneheaded int, but you cannot apples-to-apples this. There was plainly and literally more pressure on Bortles, mentally and physically.
Given the same amount of protection, does anyone honestly like Gabbert more than Bortles? Bortles is almost as resilient and stalwart as Big Ben. Gabbert is a paper tiger.
Now I'm not saying Gabbert is trash. He's obviously honed his skills and benefiting off 6 years of league experience far beyond where he was at when we dumped him. But pass for pass, pound for pound, I'll stick with Bortles over Gabbert happily.
Sheeeeid, Gabbert had A [BLEEP] P in his back pocket avg'ing 4 yards a carry for 80 yards. Aged though he may be, AP still can go beast mode - believe that takes a lot of pressure off your QB and never forget it. What did we get from Fournette (who I still like though) this game? 2 yards per carry for 25 yards...
Bortles had to run for TWICE as many yards as all our backs COMBINED!
But we're gonna act like this game was a fair litmus test for which QB is definitively more clutch. Nah. You can keep that one. Take away the Cards 2 best receivers and nullify AP one of the best backs ever and still shredding defenses, then you can compare apples to apples with Bortles this game - except no you can't because Jags had 2 backups on the O-line.
It all starts with the O-line.
(11-27-2017, 12:35 AM)JagWar84 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2017, 09:22 PM)Eye of the Storm Wrote: [ -> ]Gabbert made 2 clutch throws to get his team into position for the game winning FG. Bortles on the other hand, throws a pick while his team is in FG range. Gabbert is more clutch than Bortles.
But was Gabbert shorted his 2 best receivers and 2 starting line men? He had at least twice as much protection as Bortles. 3-4 seconds v Bortles 1-2 seconds of protection. This is a world of difference. That TD pass bomb by Gabbert was a millisecond from being a sack or turnover.
I am not giving Bortles a pass for that boneheaded int, but you cannot apples-to-apples this. There was plainly and literally more pressure on Bortles, mentally and physically.
Given the same amount of protection, does anyone honestly like Gabbert more than Bortles? Bortles is almost as resilient and stalwart as Big Ben. Gabbert is a paper tiger.
Now I'm not saying Gabbert is trash. He's obviously honed his skills and benefiting off 6 years of league experience far beyond where he was at when we dumped him. But pass for pass, pound for pound, I'll stick with Bortles over Gabbert happily.
Sheeeeid, Gabbert had A [BLEEP] P in his back pocket avg'ing 4 yards a carry for 80 yards. Aged though he may be, AP still can go beast mode - believe that takes a lot of pressure off your QB and never forget it. What did we get from Fournette (who I still like though) this game? 2 yards per carry for 25 yards...
Bortles had to run for TWICE as many yards as all our backs COMBINED!
But we're gonna act like this game was a fair litmus test for which QB is definitively more clutch. Nah. You can keep that one. Take away the Cards 2 best receivers and nullify AP one of the best backs ever and still shredding defenses, then you can compare apples to apples with Bortles this game - except no you can't because Jags had 2 backups on the O-line.
It all starts with the O-line.
Dude really? Despite of wich QB had the better line, its obvious that Gabbert was the best QB, more effiecent and got rid of the ball quick and made great decisions besides that Fumble. Gabbert outplayed Bortles in every aspect of this game.
Gabbert looked better today.
We'd need a miracle worker to play with this group out there. There is no rhythm or urgency. Apparently we don't practice timing. You see Ben throw to Brown before Brown even started to break out of his route. That is the kind of chemistry you need to be consistently good. Not physical at all up front in run game or pass game blocking. Receivers dropping the ball, stupid motion penalties, QB getting slammed into the ground every play.
(11-26-2017, 09:54 PM)Eye of the Storm Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2017, 09:51 PM)MariGOATa Wrote: [ -> ]Does Bortles even have game winning drives this year?
I believe he was credited with one against the Chargers. Makes me want to vomit thinking about it.
(11-26-2017, 09:54 PM)Eye of the Storm Wrote: [ -> ]I believe he was credited with one against the Chargers. Makes me want to vomit thinking about it.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/p...r=BortBl00
Wasnt that the same guy he threw 2 costly picks in the last two minutes in the 4th Q?
(11-27-2017, 02:45 AM)MariGOATa Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2017, 09:54 PM)Eye of the Storm Wrote: [ -> ]I believe he was credited with one against the Chargers. Makes me want to vomit thinking about it.
Wasnt that the same game he threw 2 costly picks in the last two minutes in the 4th Q?
Bortles had a good game but let it down with a pick. Frustrating but a Mariota/smith wouldn't fare any better. O line was awful. No running game. Terrible wrs. We really do criticise him unfairly.
Cousins is about the only possible QB I'd take. The rest of them only produce when their team is doing well everywhere else.
(11-27-2017, 02:25 AM)JaguarJosh05 Wrote: [ -> ]We'd need a miracle worker to play with this group out there. There is no rhythm or urgency. Apparently we don't practice timing. You see Ben throw to Brown before Brown even started to break out of his route. That is the kind of chemistry you need to be consistently good. Not physical at all up front in run game or pass game blocking. Receivers dropping the ball, stupid motion penalties, QB getting slammed into the ground every play.
Thats called anticipation a skill good qbs have bortles does not.
(11-27-2017, 12:35 AM)JagWar84 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2017, 09:22 PM)Eye of the Storm Wrote: [ -> ]Gabbert made 2 clutch throws to get his team into position for the game winning FG. Bortles on the other hand, throws a pick while his team is in FG range. Gabbert is more clutch than Bortles.
But was Gabbert shorted his 2 best receivers and 2 starting line men? He had at least twice as much protection as Bortles. 3-4 seconds v Bortles 1-2 seconds of protection. This is a world of difference. That TD pass bomb by Gabbert was a millisecond from being a sack or turnover.
I am not giving Bortles a pass for that boneheaded int, but you cannot apples-to-apples this. There was plainly and literally more pressure on Bortles, mentally and physically.
Given the same amount of protection, does anyone honestly like Gabbert more than Bortles? Bortles is almost as resilient and stalwart as Big Ben. Gabbert is a paper tiger.
Now I'm not saying Gabbert is trash. He's obviously honed his skills and benefiting off 6 years of league experience far beyond where he was at when we dumped him. But pass for pass, pound for pound, I'll stick with Bortles over Gabbert happily.
Sheeeeid, Gabbert had A [BLEEP] P in his back pocket avg'ing 4 yards a carry for 80 yards. Aged though he may be, AP still can go beast mode - believe that takes a lot of pressure off your QB and never forget it. What did we get from Fournette (who I still like though) this game? 2 yards per carry for 25 yards...
Bortles had to run for TWICE as many yards as all our backs COMBINED!
But we're gonna act like this game was a fair litmus test for which QB is definitively more clutch. Nah. You can keep that one. Take away the Cards 2 best receivers and nullify AP one of the best backs ever and still shredding defenses, then you can compare apples to apples with Bortles this game - except no you can't because Jags had 2 backups on the O-line.
It all starts with the O-line.
Hilarious that you want to blame injuries on Bortles poor play in that moment. WE GOT BEAT BY THE CARDINALS 3RD STRING QB!
(11-26-2017, 09:38 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Blake Bortles fourth quarter numbers on the season: 42-73, 419 yards, 1 TD, 4 INT, 55.6 rating, 5.7 Y/A, 1.3 TD%, 5.4 INT%
So clutch.....
That's one of the big problems. Blake just never rises to the occasion. He played mediocre for most of the game.
Yes the OL wasn't as good as normal. Chandler Jones was feasting.
But every QB deals with that. Every QB deals with struggles on the offense. The truly good QBs find ways to overcome that.
Generally, it's our defense that's been bailing Blake out.
I don't think Blake is horrible, but there are nice upgrades that will be available next season and it would be silly to continue with Blake, unless the front office restructures with him and is confident a rookie could step in fast.
I wouldn't pay that 5th year option price to a guy who can't win us games
(11-27-2017, 12:20 AM)haveaseat Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2017, 11:24 PM)MariGOATa Wrote: [ -> ]Incorrect.
Dak and Mariota both shown pro bowl caliber play, Bortles never did.
Brah Mariota is trash
Shouldn't drink so much on Sundays. I'd rather have Blake than Mariota, and I don't want Blake.