Also according to Walterfootball two QB needy teams in the Top 5 had Bortles as their Top QB.  Given that Walter was shocked by the Jags taking Bortles, I'd say the Jags weren't one of those teams that told him that.


Houston was one.  (You know, the one Bill O'Brien is coaching)

 

The other had to be either:


Cleveland or Oakland.  I don't think it's a stretch to say that Cleveland might have picked Bortles.  And if not, then I think Oakland could very well have.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I think the comparison to Gabbert was brought on a little by Dave himself when one of the first reasoning given for his choice is listing Bortles measurables. People remember that was also one of the first things mentioned by our people when we drafted Gabbert.

another thing Caldwell said about Blake was how coachable and eager to learn he was.. I feel like we won't see him pouting on the sideline like Gabbert did.

---

Caldwell didn't cite his measurables as his first reason he liked Bortles.

 

One of...? I got the impression from what was said in that post/ quote that measurables was one of the first praises they spoke about Bortles?....no? If not what was some of the first qualities they were praising?

---

One of...? I got the impression from what was said in that post/ quote that measurables was one of the first praises they spoke about Bortles?....no? If not what was some of the first qualities they were praising?

 

Watch the presser Caldwell and Bradley had after the draft.

 

Yes they did cite size as a positive, but it wasn't like it was the first thing or the best thing about him.

 

That article took one of the things that was said and put it out there like it was the first thing said about him.

 

They did cite his movement in the pocket and his ability to throw in the pocket AND on the run AND at that size being a very rare ability.

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

One of...? I got the impression from what was said in that post/ quote that measurables was one of the first praises they spoke about Bortles?....no? If not what was some of the first qualities they were praising?

coach ability, toughness, he can throw really well on the run. Watch his 2012 tape vs 2013. Two totally different players.

---

I really hope we get to see him play this coming year.. I will be upset if we dont see him at all.. there is no better learning than learning on the job... that goes for anything

---

Also, for the first time in our history, we were able to take the first QB in the draft.

 

We didn't get any of the "leftovers".... we took what we believed was by far the best QB prospect in the draft.

 

Not a guy that is "good enough" but "THE guy."

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

I like how people just assume we could have traded down and still got Bortles. There's literally no way to prove it so it just gives yall something extra to complain about

---

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3SWyWwP7hYU good illustration of his downfield on the run ability

---

So that makes having those measurables a bad thing?

 

No, not at all. .....but people have memories. They remember draft day in 2011 and what was said to defend the Gabbert selection. Measurables was one of the first. 

 

Put it this way - Andrew Luck had the measurables too...however, he was so good in college, that his QB PLAY/ QB talent did the talking and was clearly the first thing people would say when speaking his attributes. His size was almost a "bonus". 

---

Also, for the first time in our history, we were able to take the first QB in the draft.

 

We didn't get any of the "leftovers".... we took what we believed was by far the best QB prospect in the draft.

 

Not a guy that is "good enough" but "THE guy."

 

Yep.

 

Well... we could have last year, but Geno Smith really wasn't worth it.  (I still think he'll be the best of last years class, unless one of the guys who haven't got a chance to play do something).  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I like how people just assume we could have traded down and still got Bortles. There's literally no way to prove it so it just gives yall something extra to complain about

 

Caldwell and the Jags were sure Bortles would be the pick at #4.  

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3SWyWwP7hYU'>http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3SWyWwP7hYU</a> good illustration of his downfield on the run ability

TMD watch this tape.. Maybe it will warm you up to Bortles more.. Or maybe not...

---

another thing Caldwell said about Blake was how coachable and eager to learn he was.. I feel like we won't see him pouting on the sideline like Gabbert did.

 

But at the time of his drafting, wasn't the above also said about Gabbert? Later it obviously proved to not be the case (or he was unable to take what he was being coached and execute it on the field. )

---

No, not at all. .....but people have memories. They remember draft day in 2011 and what was said to defend the Gabbert selection. Measurables was one of the first. 

 

Put it this way - Andrew Luck had the measurables too...however, he was so good in college, that his QB PLAY/ QB talent did the talking and was clearly the first thing people would say when speaking his attributes. His size was almost a "bonus". 

 

Yeah, but correlation doesn't equal causation. 

 

Gabbert didn't fail because measurables were his best traits.  He failed because of his worst traits.  Much like Derek Carr, if he fails -- won't be because his brother failed.  But because he of the flaws he had (some of which happen to be the same as his brother's).

 

I think people are being too quick to compare Bortles and Gabbert just because they both had the power word 'measurables'. 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

But at the time of his drafting, wasn't the above also said about Gabbert? Later it obviously proved to not be the case (or he was unable to take what he was being coached and execute it on the field. )

 

Yeah it was said about Gabbert.  But that correlation doesn't imply the end result will be similar.

 

http://youtu.be/3SWyWwP7hYU?t=1m35s

 

watch this play at 1:35... You haven't seen Gabbert do that one single time in his life.  This is where I see Big Ben

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

Caldwell and the Jags were sure Bortles would be the pick at #4.  

 

....that doesn't mean they were right. 

 

I believe that Cleveland wanted to trade down the entire time and figured they could get a top player after that trade down and still get one of the 3 top QB of this draft later in the first round either at their pick or by trading up (which they did)

---

But at the time of his drafting, wasn't the above also said about Gabbert? Later it obviously proved to not be the case (or he was unable to take what he was being coached and execute it on the field. )

I think Gabbert just hurt you too bad man... if you keep making that comparison your just gonna depress yourself.

---

....that doesn't mean they were right.


I believe that Cleveland wanted to trade down the entire time and figured they could get a top player after that trade down and still get one of the 3 top QB of this draft later in the first round either at their pick or by trading up (which they did)

I really think Cleveland would have taken Bortles. From what I heard they were pretty high on him.

---

....that doesn't mean they were right. 

 

I believe that Cleveland wanted to trade down the entire time and figured they could get a top player after that trade down and still get one of the 3 top QB of this draft later in the first round either at their pick or by trading up (which they did)

 

Caldwell has more sources than you do though.  And Walterfootball (again, not a great source to use, but whatever) said that two teams in the Top 5 had Bortles as their Top QB.  That they didn't take a QB when they traded down, and instead traded UP to grab a CB in Justin Gilbert, suggests that Manziel and Bridgewater weren't really THAT high on their list.  Houston was one of the two teams to have Bortles as the #1 QB.  They were QB needy teams, so you can cross of St. Louis (as much as they'd like a new QB I'm sure, they don't really NEED one just yet).  Given the surprise of WF -- Jacksonville probably wasn't one of those two teams to say they had Bortles ranked first.  That leaves Cleveland and Oakland.

 

It's not a stretch at all to believe that Cleveland would have taken Bortles if we hadn't.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke.