(10-04-2017, 12:56 PM)JaguarsWoman Wrote:

(10-04-2017, 12:50 PM)Frailbones Wrote: He did it in case Bortles had a turn around season and played a lot better under Marrone. Bortles is still inaccurate and inconsistent.

It's really not that hard to connect the dots. Instead of arguing with everyone about this topic, think it through and jump on board!

My logic is based on connecting the dots.

---

(10-04-2017, 12:54 PM)Kane Wrote: For one... had they not picked it up and Bortles came out on fire, they'd be on the hook for much much more.
And in theory, they could have let him play it out and wait and see... but I think it has to do with giving Bortles a little confidence entering the season.
Alas, 4 games in, he's playing like poo mostly....

I wouldn't worry about Bortles' contract situation.
It really is gonna be someone else's problem.

My guess is he'll sign on with a lower tier team as competition for a young QB or as a developing prospect with a team like the Pats (assuming Jimmy G leaves in FA)

If it was about confidence, every team in our situation would do it.

Not every team is run as poorly as ours lol
But seriously...... it's an option that the team picked up because they know they don't actually have to pay it as long as Bortles is able to play next season.
If he played well this year, they could keep him on the hook for 18 mil while figuring out the next contract step... if he didn't (which he isn't) they'll be able to cut bait barring serious injury.
It really isn't hard to comprehend. They were protecting themselves in case Bortles had a Joe Flacco type contract year.
With the 5th year option, there is no discussion to be had.

---