(08-31-2018, 08:12 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(08-31-2018, 08:05 PM)Upper Wrote: He said Bortles vs Rodgers was "team vs no team". You are saying rookie QB vs Rodgers. We'll be able to keep our young stars either way. We might not be filling them in with as good of players compared to a rookie deal QB, or we would be filling them in with almost exactly as good of players if we still have Bortles. Either way, having one of the most elite QBs in the game is better than unproven rookie + 3 good players or average QB + one good player.

I interpreted it as:  rather having Bortles and a good team around him (including a sustainable championship defense) - opposed to over-investing/committing to Rodgers but giving up that sustainability. 

Rodgers' deal would dismantle the Jags defense in 2020 and that is why I'd take Bortles right now over Rodgers at that $99 million price. This defense gives us a chance to win with a mid-tier quarterback. I'm all about keeping that kind of defense in place as long as possible.

I'm saying there is no real difference in supporting cast between Bortles or Rodgers. One good player, not even a really good player. Now if Bortles fails to win us a ring and we are going back to a rookie QB as you suggested then there is more flexibility to keep building a supporting cast...but that's 2-3 years down the road and we're screwed regardless.

---