Who are people? If you're talking about fans, then maybe that's true, but then again, they are not part of the equation when it comes to Bortles. The coaches and management and owner are all on the same page about what they are doing with Bortles, and why they are doing it. Do they care what the fans think? Probably, but not enough for them to change their plans.

 

It's probably best to just accept that this is the plan. You will be happier for it.

 

Yes, I mainly meant that the general consensus among Jaguars fans is that he should sit.  I think Gabbert plays a big part in the way most people are approaching this.

 

Does it affect Gus/Dave?  I think it might SLIGHTLY.  Surely they analyzed the Gabbert era and can see the faults the prior regime made, and they will attempt to do better.  Which may or may not include sitting him.  I think at the end of training camp, there will be a discussion.  Nothing has been decided yet.

---

Yes, I mainly meant that the general consensus among Jaguars fans is that he should sit. I think Gabbert plays a big part in the way most people are approaching this.


Does it affect Gus/Dave? I think it might SLIGHTLY. Surely they analyzed the Gabbert era and can see the faults the prior regime made, and they will attempt to do better. Which may or may not include sitting him. I think at the end of training camp, there will be a discussion. Nothing has been decided yet.

I doubt it has anything to do with Gabbert. If we taken Bridgewater or Manzeil later I feel most people would want them to start day one because they were more pro ready or had different tools to get them by. Bortles has a different skill set and would benefit from sitting just like Gabbert would have from sitting. This is the same situation with two different qbs but the response is the same not because the previous failed, it's because their situation is the same. A big raw talented player who is young and hasn't had the reps in college. Also a rookie wideouts and a new line. The only difference is the plan got abandoned on Blaine. It's more about setting him up to succeed than see if you can will hisself to victory.



Back on topic; neither is superior or inferior to the other. It all depends on the qb and the situation they entered. Every qb is different and every situation is different.

---

Gene Smith may have recognized Gabbert's shortcomings, but Del Rio recognized his job was in jeopardy.  Smith didn't throw Gabbert out there early.  Del Rio did.  Both sank as a result.

 

 

Gabbert wasn't all that to begin with. Throwing him out there is an excuse IMO.

---

while there is no method I do believe it can save him from getting the crap best out of him and playing with lots of inexperience. I think in that sense it could benefit him.

 

As a Kentucky sports fan, I used to be a pretty big proponent of the "If only Tim Couch had an offensive line!" crowd, but to be blunt, I don't think that would have made him or David Carr perennial Pro Bowl quarterbacks. That's what you're hoping to get out of the No. 1 pick in the draft, but they both had glaring flaws in their game. 

 

Couch could have wound up healthier, to be sure, but as I said in the article, I'm a staunch "You are what you are" guy. I think Rodgers was going to be an MVP-caliber passer regardless of when he first played.

---

I'm a strong advocate for let them learn through experience.  If he can play, he'll stand out from the crowd.  If he can't play at the NFL level, then no amount of sitting on the bench and "learn" will help him be successful in the long term.

---

I doubt it has anything to do with Gabbert. If we taken Bridgewater or Manzeil later I feel most people would want them to start day one because they were more pro ready or had different tools to get them by. Bortles has a different skill set and would benefit from sitting just like Gabbert would have from sitting. This is the same situation with two different qbs but the response is the same not because the previous failed, it's because their situation is the same. A big raw talented player who is young and hasn't had the reps in college. Also a rookie wideouts and a new line. The only difference is the plan got abandoned on Blaine. It's more about setting him up to succeed than see if you can will hisself to victory.



Back on topic; neither is superior or inferior to the other. It all depends on the qb and the situation they entered. Every qb is different and every situation is different.

 

I think it certainly has affected the fans' opinions on when he should start playing.  Almost every time somebody makes an argument for sitting Bortles, they mention Gabbert.

---

As a Kentucky sports fan, I used to be a pretty big proponent of the "If only Tim Couch had an offensive line!" crowd, but to be blunt, I don't think that would have made him or David Carr perennial Pro Bowl quarterbacks. That's what you're hoping to get out of the No. 1 pick in the draft, but they both had glaring flaws in their game.


Couch could have wound up healthier, to be sure, but as I said in the article, I'm a staunch "You are what you are" guy. I think Rodgers was going to be an MVP-caliber passer regardless of when he first played.

I could understand that logic. I'm still in favor of sittiting him in the mean time and letting the rest of the offense gel. So much youth at the receiver position it's scary.

---

I'm a strong advocate for let them learn through experience.  If he can play, he'll stand out from the crowd.  If he can't play at the NFL level, then no amount of sitting on the bench and "learn" will help him be successful in the long term.

 

Bortles' flaws are mostly mechanical, though ... things he needs to learn off the field before applying them to in-game situations. There was no amount of experience that could have alleviated Gabbert's inability to stand tall against an NFL pass rush, but I'm completely with Caldwell on this one.

 

Now, it's a totally different debate when discussing how smart it is to waste the first year of a first-round quarterback's rookie deal -- the most valuable contract in sports at the moment -- on a guy who has to spend at least a season on the bench.

---

Gene Smith may have recognized Gabbert's shortcomings, but Del Rio recognized his job was in jeopardy.  Smith didn't throw Gabbert out there early.  Del Rio did.  Both sank as a result.

You My Sir just hit the "Nail on the Head"...


The GM and the HC wasn't on the same page as we have Dave and Gus... One had an contract extension and the other was seriously being judged...


NH3...

---

"AZANE"

some people just fell for the early hype and didnt watch the games. Reality finally kicked in.

For some it still hasn't.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

Bortles' flaws are mostly mechanical, though ... things he needs to learn off the field before applying them to in-game situations. There was no amount of experience that could have alleviated Gabbert's inability to stand tall against an NFL pass rush, but I'm completely with Caldwell on this one.


Now, it's a totally different debate when discussing how smart it is to waste the first year of a first-round quarterback's rookie deal -- the most valuable contract in sports at the moment -- on a guy who has to spend at least a season on the bench.

I don't think there wasting it if he's not ready. When he's ready he'll play.

---

I'm a strong advocate for let them learn through experience.  If he can play, he'll stand out from the crowd.  If he can't play at the NFL level, then no amount of sitting on the bench and "learn" will help him be successful in the long term.

And In This Case, of playing the player as soon as possible, Bortles is more ready than BG was ready. I feel that if Bortles were to start the season as the #1 QB he'd overall be more successful than BG simply because of his will accompanied by the team's better talent of surroundings...


Especially the Defense, O-Line, LBs, WRs, DBs...


Get My point?


NH3...

---

"AZANE"

We went through Gabbert, so people are concerned with what might happen if he starts right away.  People around here are not looking at 50 years of NFL history, they have Gabbert as a fresh reminder of a guy who was/is not ready.

 

Gabbert wasn't ruined by playing too fast.  He was just a bad QB.  Why is this so difficult to understand?  

---

Gabbert wasn't ruined by playing too fast.  He was just a bad QB.  Why is this so difficult to understand?  

 

I agree, but it seems like most of our fans are concerned with playing guys early because of what happened with Gabbert.

---

Gabbert was really done a disservice as he didn't get a ton of reps with the #1s before being named the starter. They set him up to fail and crossed their fingers he would just 'get it' and win.

 

Agree.

 

Though there are those who feel (and they may be right) that he wasn't going to succeed regardless.

 

Which... is simply more support in favor of sitting the rookie until he's ready.  If he's going to stink it up and never make it, let him do that on the practice field rather than in games (since they count.)

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

I don't think there wasting it if he's not ready. When he's ready he'll play.

 

Precisely.

 

Plus, the "point" of his rookie contract being important is exactly backwards.  This is likely the cheapest contract, and the cheapest year of the current contract.  Money plays zero factor, nor should first round status.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

While everyone and every situation is unique, when Football Outsiders did a study to find correlations among QBs who succeeded in the pros they found the best indicators are career college starts and completion percentage.    Basically the more polished you are the first time you step on the field, the better.   Given that Bortles declared early and only started for 2 years, he should be more on the redshirt end of the spectrum.  

---

While everyone and every situation is unique, when Football Outsiders did a study to find correlations among QBs who succeeded in the pros they found the best indicators are career college starts and completion percentage. Basically the more polished you are the first time you step on the field, the better. Given that Bortles declared early and only started for 2 years, he should be more on the redshirt end of the spectrum.

can you find the link to that? It'd be an interesting read.

---

can you find the link to that? It'd be an interesting read.

It is an old adage that Bill Parcels came up with. He focused on how many starts a guy had, their completion percentage and how man tds they threw in their final year.

---

We went through Gabbert, so people are concerned with what might happen if he starts right away.  People around here are not looking at 50 years of NFL history, they have Gabbert as a fresh reminder of a guy who was/is not ready.

Bortles is More Ready than Gabbert was by far...


NH3...

---

"AZANE"