You don't stop looking.
 Just because you find a guy capable of leading you to the playoffs, doesn't mean you stop looking for a better Quarterback.  The position is too important, and it's part of the reason the Jaguars are as bad as they are right now.  We went far too long between drafting Quarterbacks.  From 2003 to 2010 we didn't draft a single Quarterback.  Not in round 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7.  You can't do that.  Even when you have Peyton Manning.  

 

This I completely agree with! You absolutely keep on looking with an eye to upgrade. But when you keep on looking, you must understand that with any venture, failure must be accounted for. You can't simply pile all of your chips on one position hoping that you finally find an all-time great. The odds are just not in your favor. So while you are looking for QB, you are also looking to upgrade the roster.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

I'm taking the TARDIS back to 2005 and I'm changing the pick from Matt Jones to Aaron Rodgers.

---

Who is saying this?  I haven't seen the first person say this.  Lying doesn't win an argument, rather, it's a sign of defeat.

Nobody has said this to that extent, but they are definitely referring it. 

---

I think Bridgewater at 3 is better value than Mack at 3, yes.

 

<div> 
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Clown.
</div>
 
 
 

I'm taking the TARDIS back to 2005 and I'm changing the pick from Matt Jones to Aaron Rodgers.

 

...About that. I kind of sort of maybe went back in time to do that already.  And in doing so... it caused Shack Harris to take Matt Jones anyway.  Sorry about that.  So sorry.  Turns out sports are a fixed point in time.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Nobody has said this to that extent, but they are definitely referring it.

Um...no.


And they aren't INFERRING it either.

---

Um...no.


And they aren't INFERRING it either.

 

Or even implying it.  Though he may be inferring it.

---

...About that. I kind of sort of maybe went back in time to do that already. And in doing so... it caused Shack Harris to take Matt Jones anyway. Sorry about that. So sorry. Turns out sports are a fixed point in time.

Hey! That's not your line!

---

We are Jaguars.

If I had the first pick, I would trade it for multiple picks....Get 3 picks out of it. The other teams 1st rounder and next years first rounder plus thier 2nd round pick....The talent you could aquire with those picks.  WOW!!

---

Failure is not an option. 2nd place = 1st loser.

Nobody has said this to that extent, but they are definitely referring it.

Hehe.


"Referring it".

---

Um...no.


And they aren't INFERRING it either.

Um.. yes. They are. A poster saying anybody could have been behind center and Seattle still would have won the Super Bowl? What do you call that? Or can you just not read? 

---

I think Bridgewater at 3 is better value than Mack at 3, yes.

 

<div> 
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Clown.
</div>
 
 
 

Hehe.


"Referring it".

Another blank, weightless pointless post. 

 

I made a mistake, and you pounced on it because you have nothing intelligent to add to the thread. Can't say I'm surprised.

---

I think Bridgewater at 3 is better value than Mack at 3, yes.

 

<div> 
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Clown.
</div>
 
 
 

Um.. yes. They are. A poster saying anybody could have been behind center and Seattle still would have won the Super Bowl? What do you call that? Or can you just not read? 

Like Charlie Whitehurst or Tarvaris Jackson or Matt Flynn? Oh yeah they tried all of that and it failed. Then once they got lucky and found a rare outlier QB in the draft they won the Super Bowl in short order. 

---

Um...no.


And they aren't INFERRING it either.

 

 

Um.. yes. They are. A poster saying anybody could have been behind center and Seattle still would have won the Super Bowl? What do you call that? Or can you just not read? 

 

You should probably take a moment to find out what infer means before taking that stance with someone else.  What you likely mean is that they were implying it. 

 

They weren't doing that either, but it at least fit in the context of your sentence.

---

Like Charlie Whitehurst or Tarvaris Jackson or Matt Flynn? Oh yeah they tried all of that and it failed. Then once they got lucky and found a rare outlier QB in the draft they won the Super Bowl in short order. 

Are you agreeing with me or..? 

 

That's exactly what I'm saying.

---

I think Bridgewater at 3 is better value than Mack at 3, yes.

 

<div> 
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Clown.
</div>
 
 
 

Are you agreeing with me or..? 

 

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Yes, I was agreeing with you and expounding even further by attaching names to the previous attempts and fails.

---

You should probably take a moment to find out what infer means before taking that stance with someone else.  What you likely mean is that they were implying it. 

 

They weren't doing that either, but it at least fit in the context of your sentence.

Whether I made a grammar mistake or not, Rico's stance in the argument is that you no longer need an elite QB to win football games. 

---

I think Bridgewater at 3 is better value than Mack at 3, yes.

 

<div> 
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Clown.
</div>
 
 
 

Yes, I was agreeing with you and expounding even further by attaching names to the previous attempts and fails.

Thank you.

---

I think Bridgewater at 3 is better value than Mack at 3, yes.

 

<div> 
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Clown.
</div>
 
 
 

Whether I made a grammar mistake or not, Rico's stance in the argument is that you no longer need an elite QB to win football games. 

 

First, you don't need an elite QB to win football games.  You never have.  The Seahawks could have beaten Denver with any QB capable of a hand-off.  It was ridiculous, and unexpected, but that's how it went.  There are numerous examples of bad QBs making the playoffs (hi Timmy), or the superbowl (hi Rex), and even a few pretty lack luster QBs winning them (Hi Trent).  So I think you should re-consider the word "need".

 

Second, the argument was never that because the Seahawks could win this game without elite QB play, it means we don't want an elite QB, or that we shouldn't try to find one, or that having one doesn't make everything a whole lot better.  You're taking two completely separate points and trying to make them related, where none was implied.

---

Like Charlie Whitehurst or Tarvaris Jackson or Matt Flynn? Oh yeah they tried all of that and it failed. Then once they got lucky and found a rare outlier QB in the draft they won the Super Bowl in short order. 

 

In that particular game?  The statement was made that in the Super Bowl they could have had anybody behind center and won.  And they quite possibly could have.

---

First, you don't need an elite QB to win football games.  You never have.  The Seahawks could have beaten Denver with any QB capable of a hand-off.  It was ridiculous, and unexpected, but that's how it went.  There are numerous examples of bad QBs making the playoffs (hi Timmy), or the superbowl (hi Rex), and even a few pretty lack luster QBs winning them (Hi Trent).  So I think you should re-consider the word "need".

 

Second, the argument was never that because the Seahawks could win this game without elite QB play, it means we don't want an elite QB, or that we shouldn't try to find one, or that having one doesn't make everything a whole lot better.  You're taking two completely separate points and trying to make them related, where none was implied.

 

Exactly.  People love to twist statements around.

---