I was thinking about his rationale (and there are others who agree with his analysis).

They are essentially saying we have no QB and the Colts and Texans do.

Fine by me.

But the funny thing is, taking those assertions at face value, we went to the AFC championship without a QB.

Those teams finished 4-12.

What does that suggest about the rosters as a whole? If all three teams were without competent QBs, do they suggest the other 52 men on the Jaguars roster are six games better than theirs?

Now make no mistake, Watson played well for the Texans-when he played. But he was 3-3 as a starter.

i understand that the QB is the most important position on the field, but is Watson good enough to make up a 6 game difference, absent a serious roster upgrade?

Is Luck? The last full season he had as Colts' starter, they finished 8-8.

The point is, a good QB can cover a multitude of football sins. But they aren't a panacea for a roster bereft of talent.

---