Tom Coughlin: Bortles is QB for Jaguars 'right now'
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001...-right-now
When asked about the future of Blake Bortles in Jacksonville, executive vice president Tom Coughlin said the veteran is the Jaguars' quarterback "right now." Is the QB on his way out?
The media loves to read between the lines of responses to questions that are intended to put the other person "on the spot."
while its possible BB% will be gone....its also very possible he'll be around until June or so....or heck even on to the preseason and season.
We'll just have to wait.
(02-21-2019, 11:19 AM)Mowerguy Wrote: [ -> ]The media loves to read between the lines of responses to questions that are intended to put the other person "on the spot."
while its possible BB% will be gone....its also very possible he'll be around until June or so....or heck even on to the preseason and season.
We'll just have to wait.
It’s all procedural at this point. He’s a gonner. It’s just a matter of when is all.
I think the key words in that sentence are 'right now.'
Coughlin is not going to tell you his plans. Not surprised by the "presently" correct statement.
He's keeping it literal. We still have to go through free agency, the combine, the individual college team workouts, interviews, etc.
They may not feel comfortable nor confident with what this year's market offers at the QB position.
Either way. It's a gamble. Which they're not shy about. It was a gamble doubling down on Bortles during last year's off season.
In this case. An indecision is still a decision. But it may not be a bad decision at all for 2019. But they won't draft a QB or trade for one just for the sake of it.
At least I hope not.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Philly knows the Jags are their best potential trading partner for Foles. They are playing chicken with the franchise tag right now.
If Coughlin comes out right says, "we are letting Bortles go", it could give Philly the assurance it needs to tag Foles. If Coughlin, plays it straight and talks up Bortles, maybe Philly decides to just let him go to free agency.
This is all a poker game. Don't show your cards until you have to.
Coughlin's not going to tell a member of the media that Bortles is as good as gone. There's still a chance someone might want to give us a conditional ham sandwich for him.
Blake is costing a mere $4.5 mil if kept than if we cut him. That's the bottom line, so why not keep him at least as a backup if not a bridge starter?
If we do get Haskins (say in a trade up to #3) we could even afford to let Blake start until he struggles or the rookie is ready allowing us to bring in some top free agents like TE Jared Cook.
Should we manage to get Foles in free agency, however, then Blake would be a great backup able to come in and perform in Foles goes down and providing insurance in case Foles struggles. The move would then allow us to draft Drew Lock at #7 with his phenomenal deep game wherein we can let him sit and develop properly his entire rookie season. Lock has much to learn about footwork and scrambling to buy time before he should ever step on the field, but his potential once developed is through the roof.
Or we could get a RT or TE (Hockenson) at #7 while getting Grier with our 2nd pick whether that means staying put or trading up to late round one in order to get the 5th year option on him. Grier could use a good year developing as well.
(02-22-2019, 04:46 AM)Jags02 Wrote: [ -> ]Blake is costing a mere $4.5 mil if kept than if we cut him. That's the bottom line, so why not keep him at least as a backup if not a bridge starter?
Because the Message Board Contingent hates him, that's why. This Front Office always does what this group wants, so we can be assured that he's as good as cut.
As I said in the last Bortles thread, I'll be completely unsurprised if he's on the roster opening day.
I do hope they re-sign Corey Grant (if healthy). He showed a lot of promise last season.
(02-22-2019, 04:46 AM)Jags02 Wrote: [ -> ]Blake is costing a mere $4.5 mil if kept than if we cut him. That's the bottom line, so why not keep him at least as a backup if not a bridge starter?
If we do get Haskins (say in a trade up to #3) we could even afford to let Blake start until he struggles or the rookie is ready allowing us to bring in some top free agents like TE Jared Cook.
Should we manage to get Foles in free agency, however, then Blake would be a great backup able to come in and perform in Foles goes down and providing insurance in case Foles struggles. The move would then allow us to draft Drew Lock at #7 with his phenomenal deep game wherein we can let him sit and develop properly his entire rookie season. Lock has much to learn about footwork and scrambling to buy time before he should ever step on the field, but his potential once developed is through the roof.
Or we could get a RT or TE (Hockenson) at #7 while getting Grier with our 2nd pick whether that means staying put or trading up to late round one in order to get the 5th year option on him. Grier could use a good year developing as well.
From a logical point of view, I think it makes a lot of sense to keep him on the roster, even as a starter on opening day. I think the fans would react very negatively though. Should the staff be concerned about that? Normally I'd say no, but this may be one of the rare exceptions where the PR value in having someone else under center on opening day may outweigh the football and business logic of the situation.
Until our future QB is secured he will remain on the roster for this team. We can cut him on June 1st for an additional cap savings of $6.5 million. I get wanting to "do right by him" and let him explore free agency sooner. That said, lets hang onto him through free agency and the draft. Whether Foles, Bridgewater, Keenum come here via trade or free agency; or Haskins, Murray, Jones or Grier are brought in via the draft. I don't feel comfortable outright axing him to appease the masses.
Here's what i know for sure. When the team was healthy and playing well around him. He took this team to 10-6, a division title for the first time this millenium, and an AFCCG apperance where in the weeks leading up to that he was playing the best he's played in his career. He started this season 3-1 and looked like "the guy" in doing so until the injuries set in and the season went off the rails. We know what we can do with him. Why get rid of him without a successor on board? I've seen Cody Kessler play and if we're not able to secure any of the aforementioned QB's from the first paragraph ... how far is Kessler or McGough realistically going to take us?
tl;dr hold Bortles as a "last resort" type option until a successor is brought in and under contract.
(02-22-2019, 05:01 PM)Firesky Wrote: [ -> ]Until our future QB is secured he will remain on the roster for this team. We can cut him on June 1st for an additional cap savings of $6.5 million. I get wanting to "do right by him" and let him explore free agency sooner. That said, lets hang onto him through free agency and the draft. Whether Foles, Bridgewater, Keenum come here via trade or free agency; or Haskins, Murray, Jones or Grier are brought in via the draft. I don't feel comfortable outright axing him to appease the masses.
Here's what i know for sure. When the team was healthy and playing well around him. He took this team to 10-6, a division title for the first time this millenium, and an AFCCG apperance where in the weeks leading up to that he was playing the best he's played in his career. He started this season 3-1 and looked like "the guy" in doing so until the injuries set in and the season went off the rails. We know what we can do with him. Why get rid of him without a successor on board? I've seen Cody Kessler play and if we're not able to secure any of the aforementioned QB's from the first paragraph ... how far is Kessler or McGough realistically going to take us?
tl;dr hold Bortles as a "last resort" type option until a successor is brought in and under contract.
I’m of the same mindset. Hell, if we always tried to appease the public, Jacksonville would not have a team at this point. Between Mularkey, Bradley, London, etc. there was a large population that threw their hands up and said get rid of this trash team.
I think Blake is due a $2 million roster bonus at the start of the league year if he's still on the roster.
(02-22-2019, 09:48 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2019, 04:46 AM)Jags02 Wrote: [ -> ]Blake is costing a mere $4.5 mil if kept than if we cut him. That's the bottom line, so why not keep him at least as a backup if not a bridge starter?
Because the Message Board Contingent hates him, that's why. This Front Office always does what this group wants, so we can be assured that he's as good as cut.
Looking at the results of how they done it appears they would be better off listening to the message board.
(02-22-2019, 04:46 AM)Jags02 Wrote: [ -> ]Blake is costing a mere $4.5 mil if kept than if we cut him. That's the bottom line, so why not keep him at least as a backup if not a bridge starter?
This really isn't accurate, as the only way we only save 4.5 mil would require immense incompetence by the people in charge. As in, we cut him within the next month without designating him a post-June 1st cut and then no other team signs him. Neither of those is happening.
If he's cut with the post-June 1st designation (or we just hold on to him then cut him after) it's a saving of almost 10 mil this season. He also has offsets in his contract, so we'd be looking at a savings of roughly 15 mil, depending on how much he gets with another team.