Quote:Of course, he's a rookie, but he finished with a rating of 69.5, last in the NFL. He had only 11 TDs against 17 INTs, worst ratio in the NFL. He took 55 sacks, most in the NFL. Only Derek Carr's yards per attempt was worse.


In Byron Leftwich's rookie year, he finished with rating of 73.0, good for 21st out of 32 qualifiers in the NFL. He had 14 TDs against 16 INTs. He took only 19 sacks, one of the fewest in the NFL. His yards per attempt was18th in the NFL.


By nearly every comparative measure, Byron Leftwich's rookie season was far better than Blake Bortles'.


In Blaine Gabbert's rookie year, he finished with a rating of 77.4, 25th out of 32 qualifiers. He had 9 TDs against 6 INTs, He did take 22 sacks in limited snaps, one of the worst percentages in the NFL. His yards per attempt were worst in the NFL. Of course, the last two statistics were the best measure of his deficiencies.


But ask yourself, look at their stats, and is Bortles more like Gabbert or Leftwich, and how did Leftwich turn out for you?

I think you're making a good argument here, but like any statistical argument it can't truly stand on its own. This is especially true when you are comparing groups with different variables. For example the difference in talent around Blake and Byron.


One thing I take out of it is that Blake is a tough player. He took an incredible amount of sacks without sustaining an injury or ever appearing scared.


Your stats also show some of the issues he's had in the red zone considering the relatively high yardage with low TD numbers, and of course the issues with interceptions.


One thing the stats don't show is his fantastic ability to escape pressure and extend plays (not always a good thing). Or the added rushing ability he brings to the table.

---