Did you even bother to read the post of the links? I was talking about efficiency and how the inefficiency of the offense (22nd in terms of yards/drive, 23rd in points, 27th in TOP, 20th in getting first downs, 26th in INTs) isn't exactly putting the defense in a position to be successful. 

 

Your posts are worthless. 

 

Bottom line: 

 

Jags offense is 22nd in scoring (getting better for 2nd straight year)

 

Jags defense is 30th in scoring (getting worse for 4th straight year)

 

 

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what the problem is.

---

Your posts are worthless. 

 

Bottom line: 

 

Jags offense is 22nd in scoring (getting better for 2nd straight year)

 

Jags defense is 30th in scoring (getting worse for 4th straight year)

 

 

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what the problem is.

 

You're totally missing the point. I never said defense wasn't the problem. I said it was in my first post, but to pretend like that excuses Bortles and the offense for their sloppy play is stupid.

---

You're totally missing the point. I never said defense wasn't the problem. I said it was in my first post, but to pretend like that excuses Bortles and the offense for their sloppy play is stupid.

 

It's irrelevant. The offense nor the INTs are the reasons why we lose. It's the defense genius.

---

It's irrelevant. The offense nor the INTs is the reason why we lose. It's the defense genius.

 

Part of the reason the defense struggles to badly is because the offense puts them in situations that are tough to overcome for any unit. You have to look at the team as a whole, genius. 

---

Great post! I can't argue about the defense. But that's a huge reason why Gus needs to go. But that is why blakes mistakes are even more magnified.

Great post! I can't argue about the defense. But that's a huge reason why Gus needs to go. But that is why blakes mistakes are even more magnified.

That what it comes down to, 2nd year guys are going to throw picks. Just really tough on this team, with seemingly every mistake leading to points against.

---

Part of the reason the defense struggles to badly is because the offense puts them in situations that are tough to overcome for any unit. You have to look at the team as a whole, genius. 

 

Please.....when you can't stop Brian Hoyer, Winston, and EJ Manuel......you will never beat anybody. 

---

Part of the reason the defense struggles to badly is because the offense puts them in situations that are tough to overcome for any unit. You have to look at the team as a whole, genius.

Like pinning them inside the 10, and giving up third and longs on a consistent basis? That on Bortles as well?

---

Please.....when you can't stop Brian Hoyer, Winston, and EJ Manuel......you will never beat anybody. 

 

Of course not, the pass defense has been pitiful. But you can't win games when the QB is consistently turning the ball over and only completing 56% of his passes. At some point the offense needs to sustain drives and take off some of the pressure from the defense. I saw somewhere earlier (maybe in another thread) that Bortles has to be perfect for the team to win because the defense is so bad. Its true to an extent, but its equally valid to say that the defense is pressured to be perfect each game because the offense fails to sustain meaningful drives and score points at an efficient clip. There is truth to both, and until the team as a whole improves they won't be winning very many games. Offense and defense go hand in hand.

---

Of course not, the pass defense has been pitiful. But you can't win games when the QB is consistently turning the ball over and only completing 56% of his passes. At some point the offense needs to sustain drives and take off some of the pressure from the defense. I saw somewhere earlier (maybe in another thread) that Bortles has to be perfect for the team to win because the defense is so bad. Its true to an extent, but its equally valid to say that the defense is pressured to be perfect each game because the offense fails to sustain meaningful drives and score points at an efficient clip. There is truth to both, and until the team as a whole improves they won't be winning very many games. Offense and defense go hand in hand.

 

You're so annoying. If you match the Jags schedule up with the Patriots do you realize that Tom Brady, the greatest QB in NFL history perhaps would only be (4-3) with this defense? 

 

Wins and losses are irrelevant when your defense can't stop anybody.

---

You're so annoying. If you match the Jags schedule up with the Patriots do you realize that Tom Brady, the greatest QB in NFL history perhaps would only be (4-3) with this defense? 

 

Wins and losses are irrelevant when your defense can't stop anybody.

 

My point is that the defense wouldn't be so bad with Brady at the helm. Its like you don't understand that the reason the defense allows so many points is partly because of how inefficient the offense has been. Pick 6? Well that gets factored in to points allowed. Turnover and the opposing team starts in scoring position (or very close to it), and it becomes very hard to be a consistently good defense. 

---

This. The last thing we need is to make him think "oh man I can't throw a pick so here's a 2 yard check down"


That's why Gabbert had so few picks, he was afraid to take a shot.


You live and die by the gunslinger in Blake.

True.

 

I was going to bring up Gabbert in my retort, but then I didn't want to hear, BUT HE WON! But, this is so true. Blaine rarely threw INT's, but yet he rarely cracked 150 yds a game either and how many multiple TD games did he have? I'm loving our offense and the main reason we are losing is the dumb mistakes and if our D was just a little bit better against the pass. 

---

I credit poster "atburg" for posting this link in the AFC South forum but I found it be very impressive.

 

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/...ards/2015/

 

IMO, this is exactly the type of QB that we want, that any NFL team wants. A guy who is not just afraid, but who consistently takes successful shots down field. 

 

While we were successful with Garrard in the late 2000's, the biggest issue this team had was that there was no deep threat and opposing teams stacked the box. The WR's definitely played their part in it however Garrard was just as much the problem.

---

I credit poster "atburg" for posting this link in the AFC South forum but I found it be very impressive.

 

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/...ards/2015/

 

IMO, this is exactly the type of QB that we want, that any NFL team wants. A guy who is not just afraid, but who consistently takes successful shots down field. 

 

While we were successful with Garrard in the late 2000's, the biggest issue this team had was that there was no deep threat and opposing teams stacked the box. The WR's definitely played their part in it however Garrard was just as much the problem.

 

But if you look at the history of success, its the exact opposite of what you want in a QB. Ultimately in football you win by making the plays that have the highest likelihood of success, even if that play is a short checkdown. You don't force the issue or make costly mistakes and keep the drive alive and give players a chance to make a play. Look at the YAC for QBs like Brady, Brees, Rodgers for example All super bowl winners and locks for the hall of fame. Brady is has only half of his yards come through the air, but is nonetheless putting up what is arguably the best season of his career. And he's doing it with guys like Edelman and Lafell, so its not exactly like he is being carried by playmakers. Bortles is good at the deep ball, but it is inherently a low % play, you don't win games relying on the deep ball. You win games by making the high percentage plays and minimizing mistakes. He is horribly inefficient (56% completion) and turns the ball over often. That is not the type of QB who wins a lot of games in the NFL.

---

I credit poster "atburg" for posting this link in the AFC South forum but I found it be very impressive.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/quarterback-air-yards/2015/'>http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/quarterback-air-yards/2015/</a>


IMO, this is exactly the type of QB that we want, that any NFL team wants. A guy who is not just afraid, but who consistently takes successful shots down field.


While we were successful with Garrard in the late 2000's, the biggest issue this team had was that there was no deep threat and opposing teams stacked the box. The WR's definitely played their part in it however Garrard was just as much the problem.

Don't waste your time with this clown. Blake COULD be having the 3rd best age 23 season in NFL history and best in Jags history and Baconator would say he sucks......oops Bortles is.

---

I credit poster "atburg" for posting this link in the AFC South forum but I found it be very impressive.

 
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/quarterback-air-yards/2015/'>http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/quarterback-air-yards/2015/</a>

 

IMO, this is exactly the type of QB that we want, that any NFL team wants. A guy who is not just afraid, but who consistently takes successful shots down field. 

 

While we were successful with Garrard in the late 2000's, the biggest issue this team had was that there was no deep threat and opposing teams stacked the box. The WR's definitely played their part in it however Garrard was just as much the problem.

Thanks, I stumbled across it looking for Baconator repellent, lol.

---

But if you look at the history of success, its the exact opposite of what you want in a QB. Ultimately in football you win by making the plays that have the highest likelihood of success, even if that play is a short checkdown. You don't force the issue or make costly mistakes and keep the drive alive and give players a chance to make a play. Look at the YAC for QBs like Brady, Brees, Rodgers for example All super bowl winners and locks for the hall of fame. Brady is has only half of his yards come through the air, but is nonetheless putting up what is arguably the best season of his career. And he's doing it with guys like Edelman and Lafell, so its not exactly like he is being carried by playmakers. Bortles is good at the deep ball, but it is inherently a low % play, you don't win games relying on the deep ball. You win games by making the high percentage plays and minimizing mistakes. He is horribly inefficient (56% completion) and turns the ball over often. That is not the type of QB who wins a lot of games in the NFL.

 

 

Definitely a good point; however, again the fact that Bortles is not afraid and takes those successful shots down field absolutely makes the opposing defense play on it's heels. I believe that most QB's including Bortles can improve in the short game, typically the same cannot be said the other way around.  

---

But if you look at the history of success, its the exact opposite of what you want in a QB. Ultimately in football you win by making the plays that have the highest likelihood of success, even if that play is a short checkdown. You don't force the issue or make costly mistakes and keep the drive alive and give players a chance to make a play. Look at the YAC for QBs like Brady, Brees, Rodgers for example All super bowl winners and locks for the hall of fame. Brady is has only half of his yards come through the air, but is nonetheless putting up what is arguably the best season of his career. And he's doing it with guys like Edelman and Lafell, so its not exactly like he is being carried by playmakers. Bortles is good at the deep ball, but it is inherently a low % play, you don't win games relying on the deep ball. You win games by making the high percentage plays and minimizing mistakes. He is horribly inefficient (56% completion) and turns the ball over often. That is not the type of QB who wins a lot of games in the NFL.

Not sure how this is accurate, if it was just Blake we were depending on for wins this team is 4-4 and in first.

---

But if you look at the history of success, its the exact opposite of what you want in a QB. Ultimately in football you win by making the plays that have the highest likelihood of success, even if that play is a short checkdown. You don't force the issue or make costly mistakes and keep the drive alive and give players a chance to make a play. Look at the YAC for QBs like Brady, Brees, Rodgers for example All super bowl winners and locks for the hall of fame. Brady is has only half of his yards come through the air, but is nonetheless putting up what is arguably the best season of his career. And he's doing it with guys like Edelman and Lafell, so its not exactly like he is being carried by playmakers. Bortles is good at the deep ball, but it is inherently a low % play, you don't win games relying on the deep ball. You win games by making the high percentage plays and minimizing mistakes. He is horribly inefficient (56% completion) and turns the ball over often. That is not the type of QB who wins a lot of games in the NFL.

And yet he's the MOST efficient QB in the league in deep balls.

---

Thanks, I stumbled across it looking for Baconator repellent, lol.

 

Definitely an eye opening article, credit goes where it's due  :thanks:

---

History of NFL greats speaks for itself. I'll take consistency and precision any day. Give me the MVPS, Super Bowl rings, and WINS over the guy who has a flashy deep ball but can't manage a single win on the road.

---