Can you kindly expound on what you'd consider 'busts' after 1 season for Winston and Mariota?  Surely, you'd hope they start our 3 games against them and experience growing pains in their rookie seasons leading to 3 wins.  Bust, I don't understand. 

 

And seriously, I feel as though all the other ifs are easily attainable, concurrently.  But 13?

Those aren't hopes.  I think we can beat the tacks and Buccaneers without them being a bust.  They'd be much harder however if they play up to the #1 and #2 draft spots.  


If all of those things happened (or even just the first four) I don't see how 13 is unreachable.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I think the Jags are getting better at the right time. The QBs who normally dominate the divisions like Brady, Brees, Rivers, Rothlesburger, The Mannings are all entering the twilight years. If Bortles pans out and this team makes the leap we could be good for years to come.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

I looked back at the 2014 season and asked myself if things would have been different if this year's team was on the field in 2014 ?


With a year's experience under Bortle's belt and a lot of offseason work on his mechanics, and a year's experience for our receiver group, and with the addition of several key players on both offense and defense through the draft and free agency, and a little GOOD luck ( we're due ), there were 7 close losses last year which I believe would be wins with the 2015 team.


Week 5: Steelers 17 at Jax 9

A 4th quarter pick six by the Steelers broke open a one point game. Also, Hurns dropped 3 passes


Week 6 : Jags 14 at Titans 16

A blocked FG by the Titans in the final seconds preserved the win for the Titans. Definitely winnable.


Week 8: Dolphins 27 at Jax 13

Two Bortles interceptions run back for touchdowns. Jags dominated first half. Bortles had 3 total turnovers.


Week 9 : Jags 23 at Bengals 33

The score was 26-23 Bengals well into second half.


Week 14 :

Houston 27 at Jax 13

Jags led at half, 13-10.


Week 15 : Jags 12 at Ravens 20

Jags led at the half 12-10. Bortles suffered 8 sacks. A blocked punt was returned for a score by the Ravens. Ravens had 31 rushing yards.


Week 17 : Jags 17 at Texans 23

Game was close ( 14-10 Houston ) at half. Watt had 3 sacks.


So, in my opinion, these were " winnable " games . With a more talented team and a year's worth of experience, I believe the Jags should win 4 or 5 more games in 2015. Not to mention Week 1, when the Jags shocked everyone by leading the Eagles 17-0 at half, only to lose 34-17.


Discuss.

I get where you're coming from with the 'close game' idea, but let me suggest another possibility; maybe some (not all) of those teams just kept it close because they didn't want to go out and 'blow out' an underdog team like the Jaguars because it could come back to haunt them in the near future. Teams tend to remember when an opponent really runs up a score against them needlessly. There is such a thing as 'pay back', and while the Jags weren't really viewed as possible contenders last season (or this season either really...) most pro's recognize that if the Jag's keep building up the roster with quality players that sooner or later, they will become contenders. If you are a hopeful contender yourself you don't want to be going out and giving your competition grounds for having a grudge. You want to win, of course, but you don't want to humiliate that other team. I think that the good teams we played kept it close 'by design'. The steelers, dolphins, ravens, bengals... could have run the score up but didn't. That's good gamesmanship.

 

... then again, maybe they just weren't as good as I was led to give them credit for, or perhaps our defense was good enough to not allow run-a-way scoring in those games; they allowed it in others, just not in these.

---

I y'ams who I y'ams and thats all I y'ams...

Yes, there were some close games that might've turned in to wins.


But on the flip side, a couple of their wins could've easily been losses too.


Do the Jags beat the Browns if the Cleveland punt returner doesn't try to field a punt at his own 2 yard line and let it bounce off of his helmet?


Do the Jags beat the Giants without a NY collapse by dropping the ball all over the place and allowing fumble returns for TDs?


The Jags appear to be building a team properly, but all these guys are still young and there's still a massive amount if work to be done.

Are every one of the new draft picks going to be solid contributors/starters? Or will a few of them turn out to be special teamers and weak backups?

Will the O-line truly be upgraded? Or will some if the new pieces not turn out to be as stout as we hope.


Let's hope so. Time will tell.

exactly.

---

I y'ams who I y'ams and thats all I y'ams...

No we won't. It will be "what's wrong with the Pats?"

exactly

---

I y'ams who I y'ams and thats all I y'ams...

The NFL isn't a blow out league. Blow outs are the exception, not the rule.

 

Good teams are good teams in this league because they win the close games more often than not.

 

8-8 wasn't a lofty goal even before the draft.

---

Those aren't hopes.  I think we can beat the tacks and Buccaneers without them being a bust.  They'd be much harder however if they play up to the #1 and #2 draft spots.  


If all of those things happened (or even just the first four) I don't see how 13 is unreachable.

 

But you'd have a #3 draftee with over a year of experience they'd be going against.  He should hopefully surpass them.  Like you, I consider [BLEEP] and Bucs favorable match ups.  But even an optimist like me, footballwise (not so much otherwise), can't believe you said 13.  But I like it, the higher the ceiling you create, the likelier you ascend towards that ceiling.  I'd take it over the sad '6-10 if all works out' predictions. They say it's been realistic, I say loser mentality.

 

I do question your use of the word bust for year 1 QBs though. We know all top QBs get at least 3 years to solidify that status ; ).  Gabbert, Ponder, Locker, what a class!  At least Cam stuck.  I get ya, you meant if they underwhelm in our games.

---

Success is a journey, not a destination.  Go all out Mighty Jaguars.

The NFL isn't a blow out league. Blow outs are the exception, not the rule.

 

Good teams are good teams in this league because they win the close games more often than not.

 

8-8 wasn't a lofty goal even before the draft.

 

Exactly.  I cringe at 6-10, or '5 minimum to keep his job' talk.  At least we are aspiring to 8-8 here.  

---

Success is a journey, not a destination.  Go all out Mighty Jaguars.

Ha, titans are a bad word.  Dang right it is.  Even when shortened.  Lmhjbbbo.

---

Success is a journey, not a destination.  Go all out Mighty Jaguars.

I get where you're coming from with the 'close game' idea, but let me suggest another possibility; maybe some (not all) of those teams just kept it close because they didn't want to go out and 'blow out' an underdog team like the Jaguars because it could come back to haunt them in the near future.

No. What comes back to haunt a team in the near future is keeping a game close when they should have put it away, so that a brief run of good form by their opponent results in a L instead of a W.

---

The Steelers, Titans, dolphins and last Texans games all should have been guaranteed wins. The ravens game was a joke how we lost as well. If you take away our poor tackling on the Jeremy Hill td we probably would have beaten the bengals. I would even throw in the Colts game that was 3-3 for the longest time. Easily could have won it. We need some luck to strike us one of the years, lets go baby.

---

<b>We Believe In Victory..</b>

16-0 is possible... until you lose. Realistically, some assurance we're on the upswing should be reality. 6-8 wins. Would be nice to get those first two at home. Just starting 2-0 or having a winning record at any point during the season would feel amazing.

---

No pain, no gain.

I get where you're coming from with the 'close game' idea, but let me suggest another possibility; maybe some (not all) of those teams just kept it close because they didn't want to go out and 'blow out' an underdog team like the Jaguars because it could come back to haunt them in the near future. Teams tend to remember when an opponent really runs up a score against them needlessly. There is such a thing as 'pay back', and while the Jags weren't really viewed as possible contenders last season (or this season either really...) most pro's recognize that if the Jag's keep building up the roster with quality players that sooner or later, they will become contenders. If you are a hopeful contender yourself you don't want to be going out and giving your competition grounds for having a grudge. You want to win, of course, but you don't want to humiliate that other team. I think that the good teams we played kept it close 'by design'. The steelers, dolphins, ravens, bengals... could have run the score up but didn't. That's good gamesmanship.

 

... then again, maybe they just weren't as good as I was led to give them credit for, or perhaps our defense was good enough to not allow run-a-way scoring in those games; they allowed it in others, just not in these.

I can buy that theory in games where there's a double digit lead and the coach "calls off the dogs " in the third or fourth quarter, but in these 7 games either team could have won, and I can't conceive of a coach backing off the gas with a small lead.

---

At 3 years of the new GM & HC working together they cant truly blame a losing season solely on the roster (especially with back to back years in Top 5 of the draft) and no salary cap problem.

If the Jaguars dont come close to breaking even I cant see how Gus Bradley or even Dave Caldwell's job (if the feeling is the roster as a problem) in keeping their jobs.

 

I am confident the team will get at least 7 wins this year but not sure if they can get much over that.

---

No. What comes back to haunt a team in the near future is keeping a game close when they should have put it away, so that a brief run of good form by their opponent results in a L instead of a W.

also true.

---

I y'ams who I y'ams and thats all I y'ams...

I can buy that theory in games where there's a double digit lead and the coach "calls off the dogs " in the third or fourth quarter, but in these 7 games either team could have won, and I can't conceive of a coach backing off the gas with a small lead.

I could conceive it if I knew the opponent was so incompetent on offense that there was little chance of a comeback win; but hey, that's me. As has already been pointed out by others on here, it's risky to keep a game close; so, I could be completely off course with this line of thinking. 

---

I y'ams who I y'ams and thats all I y'ams...

Atrocious offensive play calling, really bad pass protection, running backs that were injured and/or utilized poorly by the OC, and rookie wide receivers with a rookie gun slinger... thus resulted in an offense that average abut 13 points a game.


If we average 20 points per game this year, we win 7-9 games

---

This is easily the best roster Gus has had to work with.

 

 

^THIS

---

I can buy that theory in games where there's a double digit lead and the coach "calls off the dogs " in the third or fourth quarter, but in these 7 games either team could have won, and I can't conceive of a coach backing off the gas with a small lead.

Agreed. Also, I don't understand the "teams don't want to blow them out" Yes they do. They always want to win by a large margin. Teams want to score as much and as fast as they can (outside of certain clock management) but in the first half? Yeah I want to put up 50.


I am 100% positive teams don't keep it close just to be a nice guy.

---

IT WAS ALWAYS THE JAGS

No you need a number 1 receiver and to score points. Until we see that 8-8 is not realistic.

---

Bleeding Teal since 1995. The Icon Teal Time Radio aka ctjags

  #Gojags