Quote:We've already been over how much of a misnomer the late riser junk is ad nauseum though. I also don't buy the rushed into action excuse, either. Blaine could have been given half a decade to sit and learn and would have been the exact same IMO. Just watching Bortles for even one cutup and it's painfully obvious they are polar opposites when it comes to pocket manipulation and facing a pass rush. If anything that is Bortles' best trait. 

Gabbert was doomed to mediocrity and would never have been a good QB here, imo, but Del Reject didn't do him any favors by cutting Garrard, realizing how terrible Luke McCown was, then tossing Gabbert into the starting lineup in the third game of his career. And this was after a lockout cost him a chance at training camp. Gabbert had no business being on the field, let alone starting. If he'd been sitting for a year behind Garrard or McCown, his career might have been more average and less disastrous.

 

Quote:Sloppy mechanics under pressure, questionable pocket presence. Gabbert was drafted for his potential, as Bortles will be. I don't think Bortles will come close to Gabbert bust level, but I wouldn't be shocked if Bortles busted in the traditional sense.

I could see Bortles being a competent starter for a long time. Is that enough for a top-ten pick to be considered successful?

 

Quote:3+ years for what? if he needs seasoning, you can do that in 1 year. i mean maybe 2 if youre super raw. but to project 3 whole years is kind of outlandish.

Romo came from the same school, same conference, and needed three years. Garoppolo is a better prospect than Romo was, but I wouldn't be the least bit shocked if he needed a year and a half, maybe two, before he's ready to go.

---