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.)

Well Said even though I feel that BB5 will prevail due to his knack of learning the game...


NH3...

---

"AZANE"

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.)

 

Exactly.  You're not going to hurt him by letting him sit.  The same isn't a certainty if they rush him out there.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Exactly.  You're not going to hurt him by letting him sit.  The same isn't a certainty if they rush him out there.

LOL...


That clip is Hilarious...


NH3...

---

"AZANE"

I take a look at how well it worked out for Rodgers and Palmer, and how the shots Aikman took his rookie season shortened his career considerably, and I see no compelling evidence against the redshirt season.

 

In fact, taking a breather without the pressure to start completely turned around Steve Young's career in the NFL (even though it wasn't his rookie year.)

 

No, there doesn't appear there for a need to make artificial timelines, yet I'm not sure there's evidence that shows that starting QBs from day one has any positive affect on development vs. letting the QB grow at his own pace.

 

Perhaps "development" isn't the proper word at all.  Maybe it has more to do with the coach's confidence in the player, confidence that he'll be able to react the way they would expect him to in any given situation.

 

This is exactly what I have always said about redshirting quarterbacks. But with no memory of Troy Aikman's rookie season, I look at Peyton Manning's interceptions stat.

 

People hate the idea of redshirting a quarterback for one reason: Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin, Andy Dalton, and Russell Wilson did not need it to be good. The problem with this line of thought is Blaine Gabbert. His first start was Game 3 in 2011. We all know how that turned out.

 

If the incumbant starter can play, there is no reason to start the rookie. David Caldwell made the right decision for Blake Bortles.

---

 

 

http://badmanbureau.com/2014/06/02/blake...-redshirt/

 

A well written piece... Thanks for sharing. 

---

ImATexan

I take a look at how well it worked out for Rodgers...

 

Aaron Rodgers wasn't red-shirted. He took snaps in both his rookie & his sophomore seasons. Not a whole lot, but he took some. He was, in fact, the #2 QB on the depth chart, getting first team snaps in practice & was "ready" to go if something were to happen to the IronMan. 

 

Still... I think the F.O. is just saying what they feel they need to say to qwell any QB controversy that may arise. This allows Bortles & Henne to develop at their own pace with out any unnecessary pressure. If Henne falls on his face, & they think Blake is not ready to start, then they can just come out & say, "I tolds y'all, Blake isn't going to start until next season." But if he's ready, he's going to play. 

 

However, I think Gabbert's biggest issue was that his OC & HC weren't very good at identifying what he struggled with & what he was comfortable with. Therefore they couldn't really develop a game plan to help Blaine be successful. So if Henne falls on his face, I'd be worried that you're going to throw Blake out there with an incompetent OC. 

---

ImATexan

This is exactly what I have always said about redshirting quarterbacks. But with no memory of Troy Aikman's rookie season, I look at Peyton Manning's interceptions stat.

 

People hate the idea of redshirting a quarterback for one reason: Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin, Andy Dalton, and Russell Wilson did not need it to be good. The problem with this line of thought is Blaine Gabbert. His first start was Game 3 in 2011. We all know how that turned out.

 

If the incumbant starter can play, there is no reason to start the rookie. David Caldwell made the right decision for Blake Bortles.

 

Stop using Gabbert as an example.  He was a bad QB.  He wasn't ruined.  He was bad when we took him, and he stayed that way his whole career here.  

---

A well written piece... Thanks for sharing. 

A good article indeed. 

---

Nice work man. Fun read.

---

:thanks: Extra Life 2016 is 11/05/16 :thanks:

Stop using Gabbert as an example.  He was a bad QB.  He wasn't ruined.  He was bad when we took him, and he stayed that way his whole career here.  

 

Yes, we get it,....

 

"I have a structured QB settlement but I want Bortles starting NOW!!!" 

 

Call C.G. Bradley, 877 START NOW!!!!!!!!

---

I feel like Gabbert couldn't handle it due to him still being immature. He was scared mostly. Blake looks like he can handle the sort of problems Blaine couldn't. Either way I am all for Blake sitting until next year when we have a much more improved roster. Lee & Robinson will hopefully be much more improved by next year as do most receivers in becoming better in their 2nd & 3rd seasons. CKAP & Wilson had a solid base around them which made them better, this is what Dave & Gus are more than likely going for.

---

<b>We Believe In Victory..</b>

One thing I saw early on in Gabbert's career that concerned me was his tendency to pout on the sideline. He didnt have a very good attitude.

---

Aaron Rodgers wasn't red-shirted. He took snaps in both his rookie & his sophomore seasons. Not a whole lot, but he took some. He was, in fact, the #2 QB on the depth chart, getting first team snaps in practice & was "ready" to go if something were to happen to the IronMan. 

 

Still... I think the F.O. is just saying what they feel they need to say to qwell any QB controversy that may arise. This allows Bortles & Henne to develop at their own pace with out any unnecessary pressure. If Henne falls on his face, & they think Blake is not ready to start, then they can just come out & say, "I tolds y'all, Blake isn't going to start until next season." But if he's ready, he's going to play. 

 

However, I think Gabbert's biggest issue was that his OC & HC weren't very good at identifying what he struggled with & what he was comfortable with. Therefore they couldn't really develop a game plan to help Blaine be successful. So if Henne falls on his face, I'd be worried that you're going to throw Blake out there with an incompetent OC. 

 

this makes most sense to me. If Henne is playing like crap, the calls for a swap will come in, however if Borles isn't showing that he would be an improvement, they have a nice little fall back and get to talk about 'staying the course' and 'sticking to the plan' etc.

 

Should Bortles start for any reason other than a Henne injury, they can make a big song and dance about how great he was in practice and how despite what they said, they just couldn't leave him riding the pine.

---

Just to be different, Bortles.

in my opinion, they like the gamer in him, but also recognize his mechanics will have to improve in order for him to succeed at the next level. if he begins his career starting with an o line that has yet to find its footing, and a corp of wrs who are young, he will only revert back to his old habits. he has the size and the touch, once he learns to drive the ball with his legs and proper footwork he will be starting.

---

His main issues seem to be his lazy footwork and long throwing motion which when watching him from the fiesta bowl to combine to the short clips from OTA'S has improved.....we have to remember that this is the first time he's ever had someone as a Qb coach which is probably why Caldwell would prefer if we didn't have to play him this season

---

I didn't see Blaine Gabbert, Jake Locker, or Christian ponder on the 2nd list.

---

"Don't argue with an idiot, people watching may not be able to tell the difference."

I didn't see Blaine Gabbert, Jake Locker, or Christian ponder on the 2nd list.

 

Maybe because they didn't start day one, but neither did they redshirt.

 

Gabbert came in week 3?

 

Locker sat most the year, but not all.  Ponder idk.

---

I didn't see Blaine Gabbert, Jake Locker, or Christian ponder on the 2nd list.

 

They didn't qualify.

---

in my opinion, they like the gamer in him, but also recognize his mechanics will have to improve in order for him to succeed at the next level. if he begins his career starting with an o line that has yet to find its footing, and a corp of wrs who are young, he will only revert back to his old habits. he has the size and the touch, once he learns to drive the ball with his legs and proper footwork he will be starting.

 

Exactly. THats why the fans trying to rush this are foolish. Its not going to be something that will be ready to go as soon as week 1, 3 or probably even 7 or 8. Blake has to get to the point where its in his muscle memory and he's not reverting back to bad habits through instinct. Bradley and Caldwell seem to get it and thats why they have repeatedly stated that he's likely not to play much in 2014 at all. 

---

Yes, we get it,....

 

"I have a structured QB settlement but I want Bortles starting NOW!!!" 

 

Call C.G. Bradley, 877 START NOW!!!!!!!!

 

Post referenced in your reply had nothing to do with Blake, and everything to do with Gabbert sucking from day one.  Jaguarswoman used Blaine as an example of why you should sit a rookie QB.  My point was that Blaine wouldn't have benefited from sitting simply because he was a bad QB.  But you are right, I want Bortles starting as soon as possible and don't understand how people can be content on Henne starting.

 

I remember a much larger population here agreeing with the fact that if our guy couldn't beat out Henne in training camp that we had taken the wrong guy.  Nobody wants to say that now.  Curious.

---