Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...ssion=true

And cut Grinnage.

I was not a fan of Grinnage to begin with, so it makes sense.

(11-12-2018, 09:27 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]I was not a fan of Grinnage to begin with, so it makes sense.

Grinnage played well in London aside from one whiff in protection.  But he was injured in practice last week. I'd chalk this move up to yet another TE injury - and not poor play by Grinnage. 

They are lucky Koyack is healthy again this soon.  I wonder if his injury settlement terms will let him play right away?

(11-12-2018, 09:32 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-12-2018, 09:27 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]I was not a fan of Grinnage to begin with, so it makes sense.

Grinnage played well in London aside from one whiff in protection.  But he was injured in practice last week. I'd chalk this move up to yet another TE injury - and not poor play by Grinnage. 

They are lucky Koyack is healthy again this soon.  I wonder if his injury settlement terms will let him play right away?

If I remember correctly he couldn't play for the jags for ten weeks, so I guess he'll be able to go now that it's been 11 weeks since he was cut injured.

This front office should be spending more time online looking at mock drafts, not acquiring players that could adversely impact our draft status.

I'd rather hear the Jags bring Brunell (circa 1999) back.

(11-12-2018, 10:35 PM)Rockman1966 Wrote: [ -> ]I'd rather hear the Jags bring Brunell (circa 1999) back.

1999 Brunell had a 58.7% comp, 14 tds, 9 ints, only 3000 yards, and a season Rating of 82. And that's with Jimmy and Keenan.

Blake is actually better right now than 1999 Brunell.

(11-12-2018, 11:29 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-12-2018, 10:35 PM)Rockman1966 Wrote: [ -> ]I'd rather hear the Jags bring Brunell (circa 1999) back.

1999 Brunell had a 58.7% comp, 14 tds, 9 ints, only 3000 yards, and a season Rating of 82. And that's with Jimmy and Keenan.

Blake is actually better right now than 1999 Brunell.

This is one of those times the numbers do not tell the whole story.  The NFL was different when Brunell played.  The Running game was top priority and the defense was allowed to be much more physical.  Shots the QB's head, slams, destroying receivers coming across the middle, Db's man handling recievers (Darius), etc. was common place back then.  The game has changed.

(11-12-2018, 11:59 PM)jaguarmvp Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-12-2018, 11:29 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote: [ -> ]1999 Brunell had a 58.7% comp, 14 tds, 9 ints, only 3000 yards, and a season Rating of 82. And that's with Jimmy and Keenan.

Blake is actually better right now than 1999 Brunell.

This is one of those times the numbers do not tell the whole story.  The NFL was different when Brunell played.  The Running game was top priority and the defense was allowed to be much more physical.  Shots the QB's head, slams, destroying receivers coming across the middle, Db's man handling recievers (Darius), etc. was common place back then.  The game has changed.

Agreed.  Most QBs and WRs would not stand a chance in the NFL of old....

---

Ahh the good old days.......

(11-12-2018, 11:29 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-12-2018, 10:35 PM)Rockman1966 Wrote: [ -> ]I'd rather hear the Jags bring Brunell (circa 1999) back.

1999 Brunell had a 58.7% comp, 14 tds, 9 ints, only 3000 yards, and a season Rating of 82. And that's with Jimmy and Keenan.

Blake is actually better right now than 1999 Brunell.

Hahahahahahah … So who is going to get Jimmy numbers on this team?

1999
Receiving
Jimmy 1636 - 6 TDs
Keenan 891 - 5 TDs
Rushing
Stewart - 931 Yds
Taylor - 732 Yds

2018 After 9 Games 
Receiving
Moncrief 477
Dede 465

Rushing
Yeldon 346 Yds
Bortles 269 Yds
Fournet 124 Yds

Im surprised he wasn't on the team before. I thought he was hurt. SMH Jags. He is a option than the other two imo.

(11-13-2018, 10:30 AM)Jay Carter 904 Wrote: [ -> ]Im surprised he wasn't on the team before. I thought he was hurt. SMH Jags. He is a option than the other two imo.

Uninformed much? He has not been eligible to return to the team. He was injured and had to be released to make room on the roster. He signed an injury settlement which prevented him from legally returning to the roster for the agreed upon length of recovery from the injury plus a mandatory 6 weeks in addition to that period. 

This method allowed the team to reacquire Koyack now rather than having to place him on IR and lose him for the season -- or using the "return from IR" designation which now appears to be used with justified higher priority on ASJ and Wells. 

It's very likely that the team has been in steady contact with Koyack about reacquiring him when legally possible so that he didn't sign elsewhere during those six weeks (if he was even healthy enough to play.)

You should read this: 
https://nationalfootballpost.com/what-is...ettlement/

(11-13-2018, 10:03 AM)old_man Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-12-2018, 11:59 PM)jaguarmvp Wrote: [ -> ]This is one of those times the numbers do not tell the whole story.  The NFL was different when Brunell played.  The Running game was top priority and the defense was allowed to be much more physical.  Shots the QB's head, slams, destroying receivers coming across the middle, Db's man handling recievers (Darius), etc. was common place back then.  The game has changed.

Agreed.  Most QBs and WRs would not stand a chance in the NFL of old....

---

Ahh the good old days.......

Yes indeed. When the QB would be blamed for a WR getting blown up by a LB over the middle.

Glad he's back

Koyack has good hands. Glad to see him back.

(11-12-2018, 11:29 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-12-2018, 10:35 PM)Rockman1966 Wrote: [ -> ]I'd rather hear the Jags bring Brunell (circa 1999) back.

1999 Brunell had a 58.7% comp, 14 tds, 9 ints, only 3000 yards, and a season Rating of 82. And that's with Jimmy and Keenan.

Blake is actually better right now than 1999 Brunell.

So, if given the choice who would you take, Brunell or Bortles?

(11-13-2018, 10:57 PM)Rockman1966 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-12-2018, 11:29 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote: [ -> ]1999 Brunell had a 58.7% comp, 14 tds, 9 ints, only 3000 yards, and a season Rating of 82. And that's with Jimmy and Keenan.

Blake is actually better right now than 1999 Brunell.

So, if given the choice who would you take, Brunell or Bortles?

I'd take pre-1997 Brunell, but Brunell was a mediocre QB (after his knee injury) with amazing talent around him.

Sure, the times were different. But Brunell had the same YPA, completion %, and same interception % (with about 40 fewer YPG) with one of the best tackles, running backs, and wide receivers in history. Bortles is far more reliable too. 

Bortles has a knack for choking sometimes, but Bortles didn't have the privilege of playing with three players that have legitimate arguments for being one of the best at their positions in history. I'm taking Bortles over Brunell post-1997.

Oh my goodness. Is this even a question? Brunell or Bortles??

Brunell could spin it. He made a pro bowl a few times. He actually won the MVP in that game. Brunell took us to the playoffs 4 times. And he also has some of the most memorable plays in franchise history. He was marketable with Burger King, First Union, and Ford.

Brunell threw the football natural.

Brunell’s teams didn’t get blowed out all the time. So he didn’t have to throw 40 to 50 times to play catch up. Bortles gets blowed out 28-0 at halftime with 83 yards and then end the game with 335 yards.

(11-14-2018, 12:32 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-13-2018, 10:57 PM)Rockman1966 Wrote: [ -> ]So, if given the choice who would you take, Brunell or Bortles?

I'd take pre-1997 Brunell, but Brunell was a mediocre QB (after his knee injury) with amazing talent around him.

Sure, the times were different. But Brunell had the same YPA, completion %, and same interception % (with about 40 fewer YPG) with one of the best tackles, running backs, and wide receivers in history. Bortles is far more reliable too. 

Bortles has a knack for choking sometimes, but Bortles didn't have the privilege of playing with three players that have legitimate arguments for being one of the best at their positions in history. I'm taking Bortles over Brunell post-1997.

Are you serious?  Go look at the 90s qb ratings. Being in the 80s was very good.  In fact I remember Brunel was ranked in the top 5 or 10 all time at a certain time in terms of qb rating and was a million times better than Bortles will ever be. End of discussion.

Koyack thread? Lets make it about BB5 .....Again. BB5 lives rent free in a lot of you suckers head. It's quite comical.