And Evans has Glennon and McCown? Watkins working with Manuel and Orton?

 

Also, Eli threw 27 picks last year. Enter Beckham and Eli now has played a lot better. All I'm saying is the rookie excuse doesn't always work. Larry Warford for the Lions was like a 6th round pick LG last year and I believe he made the pro-bowl.

 

I think a better OC could have gotten more out of this offense this year. Now next year, he should absolutely be putting up 24 a game since the core pieces of this offense won't be rookies.

 

Warford is a good player. Third round pick last year, just like Linder is this year. But of course he plays on an offense loaded with veterans (Stafford, Bush, Megatron, Tate) but you knew that.

---

Prisco was on the Frangie show today and seems convinced the Jags are building towards something special in a few years. I know some dislike Pete, but hearing him talk about all the young players we have and how they'll all grow up together is nice to hear.


I happen to agree with him and think once they add some veterans to the offense and some young defensive pass rushers, this team will look a whole lot different in the next couple of years.

Its the team that everyone feels is going to do great but so far hasnt panned out.  At least we can remain hopeful which is more than we had under Mularkey.

---

I sure hope so - I think we are going to be significantly improved next season.

It would seem logical that this team will 'start' to see improvement next season; and when I say 'improvement', I am referring to more wins, not just better personal statistics. The question is ... how are you defining 'significant' improvement? It's looking probable that we are going to finish this season at 3-13. At this point, would 6-10 seem like 'significant' improvement, or is anything less than 8-8 to be deemed unacceptable?

 

I happen to be one of the one's who proposed the 8-8 record to be the 'benchmark'. However I'm now reconsidering the validity of that goal and suggesting that reaching 6-10 next season would be 'significant' improvement for this team. If the Jag's can't, at the very least, reach 6-10... then I have to step off the 'lets support Dave/Gus' bandwagon and have to start seriously questioning if their philosophy is really working here. I think that by the end of next season there will have been enough time to start seeing some tangible improvement; and bear in mind I define improvement by the win/lose record.

 

So while I'm sure my opinion will get flamed by those individuals who are bent on lynching GM's and HC's for producing anything less than super bowl contenders, I'll modify my original baseline goal of 8-8 and say that the minimum record next season that would indicate 'improvement' is to reach at least 6-10. This is not an unrealistic goal.

---

I y'ams who I y'ams and thats all I y'ams...

Didn't Prisco predict us to win only 4 games this year and we thought he was off his rocker?

---

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

Jags should trade down few spots (even for 3rd round) and pick Brandon Schreff. It may sound crazy, it will do few things

 

1) Bolster the offensive line

2)  Schreff can play as guard as well as RT and can be a swing guy playing LT as well. 

3) He will bring nastiness to the offensive line that has been lacking. He will  handle JJ Watt with swagger and other players as well. 

4) Fix the offensive line with one player. 

 

I know there are some good pass rushers but I am all for fixing any side of the line permanently then trying to fix both at the same time. The offensive line is close to be fixed (Thanks to Linder, Bowanko. Also Joeckel is progressing slowly. Even if Joeckel is not able progress next year, we can make Schreff Joeckel's replacement). Get some pass rushers offseason and covet for Schreff. Our offense would be very good next year. Blake will have less hurries, knockdowns and it would speedup his growth vastly. Something tells me Schreff is going to be sleeper in the draft but when it is all set and done he ends up in Canton. 

 

Any thoughts fellows?

---

Didn't Prisco predict us to win only 4 games this year and we thought he was off his rocker?

 

Some of us thought he was off his rocker.

 

Then there were those of us who recognized that going into a season with Henne as your starter is essentially giving up on being competitive in a season before it even starts.

---

I guess that is my concern about GM Dave Caldwell and HC Gus Bradley in regards to signing and starting QB Chad Henne, how did they miss so bad on him?

---

I guess that is my concern about GM Dave Caldwell and HC Gus Bradley in regards to signing and starting QB Chad Henne, how did they miss so bad on him?

 

I'm not sure they weren't planning to make this season a mulligan right from the start.

 

Caldwell's insistence of making sure Henne didn't make it to free agency always puzzled me.

 

Seems someone of Henne's level would get CHEAPER after he's been out of a job for a while, and anyone who really thought he would be snapped up as if he had any value at all needs their head examined.

---

We need a nasty oline to match our nasty dline.  The offense will get so much better in year 2 with the rookies settling in.

---

Protect and affect the pass. I would be very shocked if we don't go OL or DL in the first rd

---

It would seem logical that this team will 'start' to see improvement next season; and when I say 'improvement', I am referring to more wins, not just better personal statistics. The question is ... how are you defining 'significant' improvement? It's looking probable that we are going to finish this season at 3-13. At this point, would 6-10 seem like 'significant' improvement, or is anything less than 8-8 to be deemed unacceptable?

 

I happen to be one of the one's who proposed the 8-8 record to be the 'benchmark'. However I'm now reconsidering the validity of that goal and suggesting that reaching 6-10 next season would be 'significant' improvement for this team. If the Jag's can't, at the very least, reach 6-10... then I have to step off the 'lets support Dave/Gus' bandwagon and have to start seriously questioning if their philosophy is really working here. I think that by the end of next season there will have been enough time to start seeing some tangible improvement; and bear in mind I define improvement by the win/lose record.

 

So while I'm sure my opinion will get flamed by those individuals who are bent on lynching GM's and HC's for producing anything less than super bowl contenders, I'll modify my original baseline goal of 8-8 and say that the minimum record next season that would indicate 'improvement' is to reach at least 6-10. This is not an unrealistic goal.

It doesn't make any sense to predict records or levels of improvement before the offseason takes place. There's so many unknown variables, it doesn't make sense to predict much of anything at this point.

---

Next season we should be a lot closer to 8 wins than 3.

 

There has been a lot of grumbling this season... premature pitchforks...

But next season we should be starting less (if any) rookies.

Everyone skill position will be manned by a vet (2 year, 3 year, stop gap)

Our ST should improve, our Oline has no reason to be worse...

 

 

There is a lot of reason to be optimistic about the future.

But the groaning and griping will hold a lot more water if we finish the 2015 campaign picking top 5 draft talent again.


I see no reason why Bortles, Lee, Robinson, Hurns, Drob, and the plethora of youthful playmakers on D (Davis, Smith, Colvin, Cyp) can't win 8 games next season.

 

If they don't... they're either misses (or the oft-overly-used-busts) or the coaching isn't getting what they are worth.

By this time next year we'll know if youth, scheme, or talent is/was the problem

And we'll know who to truly blame.

 

Anything less, in my opinion, of 7 or 8 wins next season is a failure.

This season I didn't measure failure by wins and losses. I watched as much as I could with my eyes. I saw the talent, the flashes, the growing pains, the problems. 

It is all correctable. And so... I patiently await correction.

 

Super Bowl? I dunno if this squad will ever be that good. Time will tell. But I just want to be back to where this team was mid 2000's. Competing. Playoff contention. A wild card game every now and then.

I don't think it is too much to expect this squad to give us a 10 win or better 2016 campaign.

Next season... and the rest to come (until we must rebuild again) will be the time to count the w's and measure our coaches and front office by such.

---

I swear everyone loses all common sense when the Jaguars sneak a win.

Hopefully I can provide a sensible, factual perspective.

 

Over the last 20 years, EIGHTY TWO (82) rookie QBs got starts and played enough to be given a win or a loss, according to information obtained from pro football reference. 

 

These rookie QBs have played with a variety of coaches and coordinators, from Bill Belicheck and Bill Cowher and Mike Shanahan to Norv Turner, Cam Cameron, and John Fox.  The rookies range from hall of fame candidates like Peyton Manning to complete busts like Jamarcus Russell, and any number of quality passers in between.

 

 Assuming my numbers are right...

 

Combined, these rookies managed to accumulate 294 wins between them-or an average of 3.58 wins per rookie season.

 

These same rookies managed to accumulate 510 losses between them-or an average of 6.21 losses per rookie season.

 

These numbers include the 13-0 2004 rookie season by Ben Roethlisberger, the twin 11-5 seasons put up by MAtt Ryan and Joe Flacco in 2008, and the 2012 "bumper crop" of rookie QBs Andrew Luck (11-5), RG III (9-6), and Russell Wilson (11-5).

 

The overwhelming majority of rookie QBs-even those with good to great head coaches/coordinators, and even those who wound up to be good to great QBs-wound up with losing records.

 

Under the expectations created by the last 20 years of rookie QB performance, the expectation is that the teams QBed by these rookies lose about twice as many as they win.

 

Jacksonville has played 12 of the team's 15 games this year with a rookie QB.  None of the rookie QBs this year have even .500 records as starters.

 

I think people evaluating coaching performance (and player performance) should keep this in mind when evaluating Bradley et al.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

It would seem logical that this team will 'start' to see improvement next season; and when I say 'improvement', I am referring to more wins, not just better personal statistics. The question is ... how are you defining 'significant' improvement? It's looking probable that we are going to finish this season at 3-13. At this point, would 6-10 seem like 'significant' improvement, or is anything less than 8-8 to be deemed unacceptable?

 

I happen to be one of the one's who proposed the 8-8 record to be the 'benchmark'. However I'm now reconsidering the validity of that goal and suggesting that reaching 6-10 next season would be 'significant' improvement for this team. If the Jag's can't, at the very least, reach 6-10... then I have to step off the 'lets support Dave/Gus' bandwagon and have to start seriously questioning if their philosophy is really working here. I think that by the end of next season there will have been enough time to start seeing some tangible improvement; and bear in mind I define improvement by the win/lose record.

 

So while I'm sure my opinion will get flamed by those individuals who are bent on lynching GM's and HC's for producing anything less than super bowl contenders, I'll modify my original baseline goal of 8-8 and say that the minimum record next season that would indicate 'improvement' is to reach at least 6-10. This is not an unrealistic goal.

 

It is logical that this team will "start" to see improvement next season...here's the problem with that logic...so will the other 31 teams in the NFL. The Jaguars aren't the only team who have "promising" young players who will improve from year 1 to year 2 to year 3. Even if Blake, Cyp, Luke, and our receivers improve, it will not be enough unless we add more talent to this team through veteran free-agency. And by that, not reclamation projects, whether they worked (Marks) or not (Hayes/Watson). I mean, legitimate veteran starters of winning teams....not veteran starters who are only good enough on a 3-win team filled with 1st and 2nd year players on the roster.

---

I'm not outraged, and I'm glad Prisco is finally talking good about the Jaguars. But that's just not realistic. Can't believe some on here thinking it's a knee-jerk when it doesn't mesh with their agenda.

 

Lol, people hated Prisco when he trashed the Jags when he was on the radio, now you want to trash him when he thinks the Jags are on the up swing.  Hilarious.

---

Hopefully I can provide a sensible, factual perspective.


Over the last 20 years, EIGHTY TWO (82) rookie QBs got starts and played enough to be given a win or a loss, according to information obtained from pro football reference.


These rookie QBs have played with a variety of coaches and coordinators, from Bill Belicheck and Bill Cowher and Mike Shanahan to Norv Turner, Cam Cameron, and John Fox. The rookies range from hall of fame candidates like Peyton Manning to complete busts like Jamarcus Russell, and any number of quality passers in between.


Assuming my numbers are right...


Combined, these rookies managed to accumulate 294 wins between them-or an average of 3.58 wins per rookie season.


These same rookies managed to accumulate 510 losses between them-or an average of 6.21 losses per rookie season.


These numbers include the 13-0 2004 rookie season by Ben Roethlisberger, the twin 11-5 seasons put up by MAtt Ryan and Joe Flacco in 2008, and the 2012 "bumper crop" of rookie QBs Andrew Luck (11-5), RG III (9-6), and Russell Wilson (11-5).


The overwhelming majority of rookie QBs-even those with good to great head coaches/coordinators, and even those who wound up to be good to great QBs-wound up with losing records.


Under the expectations created by the last 20 years of rookie QB performance, the expectation is that the teams QBed by these rookies lose about twice as many as they win.


Jacksonville has played 12 of the team's 15 games this year with a rookie QB. None of the rookie QBs this year have even .500 records as starters.


I think people evaluating coaching performance (and player performance) should keep this in mind when evaluating Bradley at al.

Wow. Thank you for the research and fact check Bullseye. I expect this post to go unnoticed from the usual suspects.

---

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

Hopefully I can provide a sensible, factual perspective.

 

Over the last 20 years, EIGHTY TWO (82) rookie QBs got starts and played enough to be given a win or a loss, according to information obtained from pro football reference. 

 

These rookie QBs have played with a variety of coaches and coordinators, from Bill Belicheck and Bill Cowher and Mike Shanahan to Norv Turner, Cam Cameron, and John Fox.  The rookies range from hall of fame candidates like Peyton Manning to complete busts like Jamarcus Russell, and any number of quality passers in between.

 

 Assuming my numbers are right...

 

Combined, these rookies managed to accumulate 294 wins between them-or an average of 3.58 wins per rookie season.

 

These same rookies managed to accumulate 510 losses between them-or an average of 6.21 losses per rookie season.

 

These numbers include the 13-0 2004 rookie season by Ben Roethlisberger, the twin 11-5 seasons put up by MAtt Ryan and Joe Flacco in 2008, and the 2012 "bumper crop" of rookie QBs Andrew Luck (11-5), RG III (9-6), and Russell Wilson (11-5).

 

The overwhelming majority of rookie QBs-even those with good to great head coaches/coordinators, and even those who wound up to be good to great QBs-wound up with losing records.

 

Under the expectations created by the last 20 years of rookie QB performance, the expectation is that the teams QBed by these rookies lose about twice as many as they win.

 

Jacksonville has played 12 of the team's 15 games this year with a rookie QB.  None of the rookie QBs this year have even .500 records as starters.

 

I think people evaluating coaching performance (and player performance) should keep this in mind when evaluating Bradley at al.

---

I don't understand? You think I'm a band wagon fan? I'm glad you think the Jaguars are super bowl contenders in 2 years. O wish it would be true, but you need to lay off the Gus juice. Formulate your own opinion based upon the product on the field.


I swear everyone loses all common sense when the Jaguars sneak a win. I bet you think we win next week. Probability of that happening I'm sure is low, especially how they Embarrased the Ravens today.

You only talk about the record. We aren't sure you even watch the games. Not sure what you are referencing here.

---

Hopefully I can provide a sensible, factual perspective.

 

Over the last 20 years, EIGHTY TWO (82) rookie QBs got starts and played enough to be given a win or a loss, according to information obtained from pro football reference. 

 

These rookie QBs have played with a variety of coaches and coordinators, from Bill Belicheck and Bill Cowher and Mike Shanahan to Norv Turner, Cam Cameron, and John Fox.  The rookies range from hall of fame candidates like Peyton Manning to complete busts like Jamarcus Russell, and any number of quality passers in between.

 

 Assuming my numbers are right...

 

Combined, these rookies managed to accumulate 294 wins between them-or an average of 3.58 wins per rookie season.

 

These same rookies managed to accumulate 510 losses between them-or an average of 6.21 losses per rookie season.

 

These numbers include the 13-0 2004 rookie season by Ben Roethlisberger, the twin 11-5 seasons put up by MAtt Ryan and Joe Flacco in 2008, and the 2012 "bumper crop" of rookie QBs Andrew Luck (11-5), RG III (9-6), and Russell Wilson (11-5).

 

The overwhelming majority of rookie QBs-even those with good to great head coaches/coordinators, and even those who wound up to be good to great QBs-wound up with losing records.

 

Under the expectations created by the last 20 years of rookie QB performance, the expectation is that the teams QBed by these rookies lose about twice as many as they win.

 

Jacksonville has played 12 of the team's 15 games this year with a rookie QB.  None of the rookie QBs this year have even .500 records as starters.

 

I think people evaluating coaching performance (and player performance) should keep this in mind when evaluating Bradley at al.

 

I think this could be useful info if you divided the stats with those who went on to be franchise QBs versus those who didn't.

 

The averages here don't tell us a whole lot.

 

I personally have not once used Blake Bortles' performance as a reason I don't back Bradley as a solid HC.

---

Didn't Prisco predict us to win only 4 games this year and we thought he was off his rocker?

 

I believe that's right.

---