lol no way? the defense is so inconsistent, too many dumb penalties committed, playcalling has been horrendous for most of the time. so im sure theres a way the coaching staff is at fault here.

---

whew

 

that's a lot of excuses why the Jags can't possible do a rebuild in 2 or 3 years.

 

The entire purpose of pointing out ALL of those teams is to illustrate the absurdity of saying it will take no less then 4 years to field a competitive team. not only is it possible but it should be EXPECTED to be competitive in year 2.

Lol. Right over your head, once again.

 

I'm not sure how many people are going to need to explain this to you for you to finally understand. Wow. 

---

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

 

<div> 
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Clown.
</div>
 
 
 

Lol. Right over your head, once again.

 

I'm not sure how many people are going to need to explain this to you for you to finally understand. Wow. 

 

Nothing's going over my head, I hear your excuses and I disagree with them. Those teams where not successfully simply because they got "lucky" they where successful for 2 reasons.

 

1 they found their QB

 

2 they made sure there was a structure for that QB to thrive in once they found him

 

it is with point 2 that we are having an issue.

---

Seattle's new regime was competitive in year 2 and had a winning record in year 3.

San Fransisco's new regime won the division year 1

Baltimore's new regime was in the playoffs in year 1

Kansas City is undefeated in year 1

Detroit's regime had them competitive in year 2 and in the playoffs in year 3. (you could argue this is the closest comparison to the Jags)

Indianapolis regime had them in the playoffs year 1

Denver's regime had them in the playoffs year 1 and now has one of the best teams in the league in year 2

Saints year 1 win the division in the playoffs

 

That's just a few off the top of my head. so yeah the 4 year rebuild days is a bunch of bull, team after team after team has done it, but not a single one of those rebuilds was structured around a blow it up philosophy. They found a QB, and retained/upgraded positions of need along the way.

 

To prove your point, you need to review the rosters of those teams prior to their seasons of breakout success. We all hear to the point of saturation how bad of a job Gene Smith did, did any of those new regimes inherit a mess like what Caldwell got himself into?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

To prove your point, you need to review the rosters of those teams prior to their seasons of breakout success. We all hear to the point of saturation how bad of a job Gene Smith did, did any of those new regimes inherit a mess like what Caldwell got himself into?

 

sure the Lions had Matt Millen's mess as a worse case example and they where competitive in year 2 and in the playoffs in year 3.

 

Seattle was dealing with Matt Hasselbeck and a huge amount of money thrown at WR that produced nothing. Behind that they had a 1st round bust in Arron Curry at LB and where relying on Deon Grant as the SS

 

The Broncos had Tim Tebow at QB when Elway came in............

 

 I can go on and on, those teams sucked for a reason, and they turned it around pretty quick, same way the Jags can and should be expected to. This 4 year line is garbage we bought with Gene Smith why would we fall for the SAME trap again? 2 year Dave make this team competitive.

---

Caldwell and Bradley inheited this:

 

LT: Going to walk at end of season

LG: one of the worst in the league

C: Old and badly needing to retire

RG: servicable but regressing fast

RT: Dumster fire

 

DE: 2nd round Bust

DT: 1st round bust

DT: Scrub nobody

DE: Over paid average player

 

OLB: Solid player

MLB:Solid player

OLB: Scrub nobody

 

CB: Injury prone meh player

CB: over the hill vet who is injury prone

CB: 2nd yr CB in over his head as starter

 

FS: Servicable player

SS: Meh player

 

QB : Worst in the NFL and one of the worst EVER.

 

Some if its coaching yes especially from the offensive side of the ball but this is a lack of talent plain and simple. Jim Harbaugh could probably have us at 2-6 and thats a stretch. Caldwell literally has to rebuild the entire offensive and defensives lines which Gene spent pick after pick trying to build in the first place. O yeah that and find a QB where Gene Smith busted on one in atrocious fashion.

 

We are in the #1 pick race not due to coaching but due to having nobody on the roster at key positions worth coaching. When he took over WR was the only position one could say was even decent everything else was trash empty spots on the roster.

---

I blame Bradley... Even the worst coach gets a win... Mularkey.... wink wink

 

We should all bring UK flags to the next home game.... get these guys used to pledging their allegiance to the Queen before Kahn ships them over to London.

---

I ain't no monkey... I'm an ape.

That's why I only have issues with the starting of the rebuild, I'm not calling for Dave's head. I am pointing out that if your goal is to find the QB and be competitive in year 2 you can't afford to have a wasted offseason in year 1. Instead of looking to revamp the secondary last offseason we should've focused on the offensive line and the lack of pass rush both of which we knew where groups of issue.

 

Perhaps, but I counter with is.

 

If we get the right quarterback and there's the dramatic improvement that I expect (probably six to eight wins next season is what I'm looking for to feel good about the future), then how much of a waste will Year One really have been, if it brings us the quarterback we've been finally looking for?

 

 

Now, of course, there are no guarantees, and this hinges on Caldwell a] taking a QB and b] taking the right QB.

 

 

Additionally, I don't know if I think it's fair to draw the comparisons with other teams that you're making simply because just about all of those teams had or immediately acquired their quarterbacks. We haven't. And if you think we should have heading into this year, I'd be curious as to who you wanted (disclaimer: I was all about Geno with the second pick.)

---

On Wisconsin.

Perhaps, but I counter with is.

 

If we get the right quarterback and there's the dramatic improvement that I expect (probably six to eight wins next season is what I'm looking for to feel good about the future), then how much of a waste will Year One really have been, if it brings us the quarterback we've been finally looking for?

 

 

Now, of course, there are no guarantees, and this hinges on Caldwell a] taking a QB and b] taking the right QB.

 

 

Additionally, I don't know if I think it's fair to draw the comparisons with other teams that you're making simply because just about all of those teams had or immediately acquired their quarterbacks. We haven't. And if you think we should have heading into this year, I'd be curious as to who you wanted (disclaimer: I was all about Geno with the second pick.)

I agree with your post. I think Eric was saying the same thing though. You expect to be competitive in year two, and I think that's very reasonable. 

---

Perhaps, but I counter with is.

 

If we get the right quarterback and there's the dramatic improvement that I expect (probably six to eight wins next season is what I'm looking for to feel good about the future), then how much of a waste will Year One really have been, if it brings us the quarterback we've been finally looking for?

 

 

Now, of course, there are no guarantees, and this hinges on Caldwell a] taking a QB and b] taking the right QB.

 

 

Additionally, I don't know if I think it's fair to draw the comparisons with other teams that you're making simply because just about all of those teams had or immediately acquired their quarterbacks. We haven't. And if you think we should have heading into this year, I'd be curious as to who you wanted (disclaimer: I was all about Geno with the second pick.)

 

This year I think we made the set up for year two extremely difficult that's my worry and only point. It's obvious we're getting our "guy" at QB in the offseason one way or another. That said once he gets here he has to start, are we setting up a situation where any QB stands a chance?

 

Sure we have a pretty solid looking WR core but the line is miserable at best and needs at least 2 new possibly 3 starters.

 

At RB we've got a guy that might find some juice or he might be on a permanant to close to 30 downward trend, either way we can't count on MJD carrying the team while the young guy learns under center.

 

At TE we have a martial arts specialist but not much help for a young QB, can't count on Lewis for much of anything except maybe being a 3rd OT which at this point we're going to need.

 

Jump over to the defensive side we still have a problem with the front 7 just like last year.

 

There's promise in the secondary but we still have raw talent that's going to put is in holes next year.

 

So basically we decided this year, lets get another LT even though we already had a top 10 LT under contract, let's draft a secondary and plug in a few vets here and there. In year 2 we can find a QB, solidify an OL, find a replacement for MJD, figure out something at TE and maybe if we get lucky do something about the pass rush.

 

No vision with the front office, had they looked at the roster and really planed on being competitive in year 2, when they get whoever at QB, they would've focused on building the offensive line, and fixing the pass rush. That was the plan they sold us taking Joeckel at 2, he would help solidify the line for our future QB, then we traded the ONLY decent lineman we still had making the selection of Joeckel a pointless selection all we did was trade out the LT.

---

lol no way? the defense is so inconsistent, too many dumb penalties committed, playcalling has been horrendous for most of the time. so im sure theres a way the coaching staff is at fault here.

 

Maybe it's the hot girl in your signature, but either way, I totally agree with you.

 

The OP has been very outspoken in his defense of the coaching staff.  Which is fine.  But unless we brought in a coach with a legit pedigree and a coaching staff that also had a good background of success, I find his arguement to be only partially correct.

 

Yes, the talent on this team-- The Players-- are bad.

But to white wash the coaching staff from any culpability is foolish.

 

Gus Bradley does a great job with passion and possitivity.  But what have you seen from this team that shows progress.  I was very excited about what I saw in Denver on the offense.  I was also excited about the D after watching them in the first half.  They got after Manning and had good pressure throughout that first half. 

 

I expected that we had turned a corner.  That the coaches had figured out what they had and how to best utilize that.  You know, the whole "put your players in the best position for them to be successfull" thing you hear from all the retired or fired coaches that are now on TV. 

 

Then San Diego happened.  Then London happened... 

 

No progress from what we saw in Denver.  It could be argued we have regressed from Denver...

 

That is on the coaches.  Sorry Tommy.  But to say you can't blame the coaches sounds way too much like someone putting thier head in the sand.  I'm not calling for them all to be fired.  But to say fans cannot start scrutinizing the coaches is really just saying that you want to put your fingers in your ears and say "NAH NAH NAH" as smoke is building up in your house.

 

There is definately cause for concern. 

---

Maybe it's the hot girl in your signature, but either way, I totally agree with you.

 

The OP has been very outspoken in his defense of the coaching staff.  Which is fine.  But unless we brought in a coach with a legit pedigree and a coaching staff that also had a good background of success, I find his arguement to be only partially correct.

 

Yes, the talent on this team-- The Players-- are bad.

But to white wash the coaching staff from any culpability is foolish.

 

Gus Bradley does a great job with passion and possitivity.  But what have you seen from this team that shows progress.  I was very excited about what I saw in Denver on the offense.  I was also excited about the D after watching them in the first half.  They got after Manning and had good pressure throughout that first half. 

 

I expected that we had turned a corner.  That the coaches had figured out what they had and how to best utilize that.  You know, the whole "put your players in the best position for them to be successfull" thing you hear from all the retired or fired coaches that are now on TV. 

 

Then San Diego happened.  Then London happened... 

 

No progress from what we saw in Denver.  It could be argued we have regressed from Denver...

 

That is on the coaches.  Sorry Tommy.  But to say you can't blame the coaches sounds way too much like someone putting thier head in the sand.  I'm not calling for them all to be fired.  But to say fans cannot start scrutinizing the coaches is really just saying that you want to put your fingers in your ears and say "NAH NAH NAH" as smoke is building up in your house.

 

There is definately cause for concern. 

 

The biggest problem with the let down after Denver is it shows Gus can't get his team to play right week in and week out. We saw some talent in that game they have an ability to be competitive, maybe not win but at least look like they belong in the NFL, yet 7 out of 8 weeks this team and organization has been Bush league at best.

 

Anyone can get up for the emotional games, it's the good ones that do it every week.

---

I agree with your post. I think Eric was saying the same thing though. You expect to be competitive in year two, and I think that's very reasonable. 

 

Yes, but then your assumption that a QB will instantly increase the success of this team begs a question:  Will the coach be capable of taking a good QB and then creating a team that is a legit contender...


As an example.  Tony Romo has alot of weapons on offense.  He makes alot of dumb mistakes in critical positions.  But he also has team-mates that are also rather boneheaded.  The coaching staff that Jerry Jones constantly puts around him can never make that team with a franchise QB a consistent playoff contender, much less team that is thought to have Superbowl aspirations. 

 

The OCs that the cowboys have had could never figure it out.  The HCs have always been less than stellar.  Yes Bill Parcells was thier coach for a time, but he lost that locker room when Jerry decided to bring in TO against Parcells wishes. 

 

These types of things are important.  Being a "rah rah" guy is great.  But if you don't know how to run your team and get your coaching staff to get the best out of players, you'll still be just another team.

 

That's one thing about Del Rio that I think we've all seen now.  He had Garrard, a horrible O-line, a WR group that couldn't make it on any other team, a D that couldn't get off the field on 3rd and longs, but he was at least always competitive come December...  Besides his last year of course when the writing was on the wall. 

 

Again, not saying that Gus Bradley can't become a great HC.  But I ask anyone to tell me what the philosophy of this team is.  What is the direction Bradley wants this team to go?  What type of identity do we have?  Yeah, the team sucks.  But shouldn't there be some sort of mantra, other than "we're building" and "we're gonna build on this" type of talk.

 

Shouldn't we have some recognition of where this team will be come next year?  Yeah, a QB will make a better.  What what type of QB does Bradley want?  What's his offensive philosophy?  Whats his defensive philosophy? 

 

Year 2 will be better.  But if the HC is just throwing darts up at the board to figure out his overal direction and coaching style...  Year 3 and year 4 will be plateaus...  Then we're right back where we started.

---

This year I think we made the set up for year two extremely difficult that's my worry and only point. It's obvious we're getting our "guy" at QB in the offseason one way or another. That said once he gets here he has to start, are we setting up a situation where any QB stands a chance?

 

Sure we have a pretty solid looking WR core but the line is miserable at best and needs at least 2 new possibly 3 starters.

 

At RB we've got a guy that might find some juice or he might be on a permanant to close to 30 downward trend, either way we can't count on MJD carrying the team while the young guy learns under center.

 

At TE we have a martial arts specialist but not much help for a young QB, can't count on Lewis for much of anything except maybe being a 3rd OT which at this point we're going to need.

 

Jump over to the defensive side we still have a problem with the front 7 just like last year.

 

There's promise in the secondary but we still have raw talent that's going to put is in holes next year.

 

So basically we decided this year, lets get another LT even though we already had a top 10 LT under contract, let's draft a secondary and plug in a few vets here and there. In year 2 we can find a QB, solidify an OL, find a replacement for MJD, figure out something at TE and maybe if we get lucky do something about the pass rush.

 

No vision with the front office, had they looked at the roster and really planed on being competitive in year 2, when they get whoever at QB, they would've focused on building the offensive line, and fixing the pass rush. That was the plan they sold us taking Joeckel at 2, he would help solidify the line for our future QB, then we traded the ONLY decent lineman we still had making the selection of Joeckel a pointless selection all we did was trade out the LT.

 

Actually, its you just failing to understand their vision.

 

They got rid of players who were not in their future plans and brought in cheap guys to hopefully find a diamond in the rough or two like Seattle did. They did not spend on big name big contract players because there is no point to do that in a year when you dont have a QB, and you know you wont be competitive. This year was all about finding young guys who could possibly contribute long term, it wasnt about trying to win 5 games.

 

This offseason, now that we have tons of cap space because we didnt waste any last year, we will spend on some higher profile guys. We could easily add 1 very good interior offensive lineman, 1 good LEO, and some a couple other mid level guys where patching needs done.

 

Combine the FA with the draft and we can solve the offensive line, QB, RB, and LEO spots. We would still not have much depth because you need to find solid starters at all positions before building it up, but the only holes remaining would be LBs and a run stuffing DT and a 5tech.

---

Actually, its you just failing to understand their vision.

 

They got rid of players who were not in their future plans and brought in cheap guys to hopefully find a diamond in the rough or two like Seattle did. They did not spend on big name big contract players because there is no point to do that in a year when you dont have a QB, and you know you wont be competitive. This year was all about finding young guys who could possibly contribute long term, it wasnt about trying to win 5 games.

 

This offseason, now that we have tons of cap space because we didnt waste any last year, we will spend on some higher profile guys. We could easily add 1 very good interior offensive lineman, 1 good LEO, and some a couple other mid level guys where patching needs done.

 

Combine the FA with the draft and we can solve the offensive line, QB, RB, and LEO spots. We would still not have much depth because you need to find solid starters at all positions before building it up, but the only holes remaining would be LBs and a run stuffing DT and a 5tech.

 

Wrong, go back and look of the 9 new starters Seattle had in year 1 of the rebuild 4 of them where on the roster the previous year (IE the opposite of what the Jags did they evaluated what they had), 1 was traded for (Lynch) and 3 guys they brought in Free Agency as stop gap players the last one was a drafted rookie.

 

15 of Seattles 21 starters where on the roster in 2009, 1 of their starters in 2010 was a rookie they drafted, and the remaining 5 where free agents/trades

 

Jacksonville on the other hand has 35 of 53 new players in year 1.

---

Wrong, go back and look of the 9 new starters Seattle had in year 1 of the rebuild 4 of them where on the roster the previous year (IE the opposite of what the Jags did they evaluated what they had), 1 was traded for (Lynch) and 3 guys they brought in Free Agency as stop gap players the last one was a drafted rookie.

 

15 of Seattles 21 starters where on the roster in 2009, 1 of their starters in 2010 was a rookie they drafted, and the remaining 5 where free agents/trades

 

Jacksonville on the other hand has 35 of 53 new players in year 1.

 

Who cares where the guys came from? The point was to give relative no name guys who were either cheap or young a chance to play in their new system and prove themselves worthy of staying around. They found Browner and Red Bryant doing this. Maybe the long term contributers we found are Marks and Blackmon.

 

Why would you want the jags to look at players we had from last year, you mean the backups to the bad players we cut/ didnt re-sign?

---

Who cares where the guys came from? The point was to give relative no name guys who were either cheap or young a chance to play in their new system and prove themselves worthy of staying around. They found Browner and Red Bryant doing this. Maybe the long term contributers we found are Marks and Blackmon.

 

Why would you want the jags to look at players we had from last year, you mean the backups to the bad players we cut/ didnt re-sign?

 

I'm pointing out how inaccurate yours and many others statements of "we're doing it just like Seattle" is, we are actually doing the polar opposite.

 

Seattle evaluated their roster on hand, allowed what little talent they had to play until they found replacements/upgrades, they didn't come in and blow it up like Caldwell has.

 

edit: doing it like "Seattle" did would have meant we retained players like Cox, Knighton, Smith, Middleton, Landry and focused on replacing players like Meester, Rackley, Mathis, Ross and Babin.

---

Actually, its you just failing to understand their vision.

 

They got rid of players who were not in their future plans and brought in cheap guys to hopefully find a diamond in the rough or two like Seattle did. They did not spend on big name big contract players because there is no point to do that in a year when you dont have a QB, and you know you wont be competitive. This year was all about finding young guys who could possibly contribute long term, it wasnt about trying to win 5 games.

 

This offseason, now that we have tons of cap space because we didnt waste any last year, we will spend on some higher profile guys. We could easily add 1 very good interior offensive lineman, 1 good LEO, and some a couple other mid level guys where patching needs done.

 

Combine the FA with the draft and we can solve the offensive line, QB, RB, and LEO spots. We would still not have much depth because you need to find solid starters at all positions before building it up, but the only holes remaining would be LBs and a run stuffing DT and a 5tech.

 

Failing to understand the vision - versus flailing to conform to the hypnosis -  is a very fine line...  We're beginning to see that here in terms of arguements in this thread.... 

 

But carry on as I continuously try to uncross my eyes...

---

Failing to understand the vision - versus flailing to conform to the hypnosis -  is a very fine line...  We're beginning to see that here in terms of arguements in this thread.... 

 

But carry on as I continuously try to uncross my eyes...

Not sure how you are failing to see the big picture?  But maybe you are just "flailing" ?

---

This is not Coach Bradley's fault. If you look at the roster, and then look at the next worst team's roster, Tampa, St. Louis, Oakland, Minn, they all have leaps and BOUNDS more talent than what we have.

 

I knew this was going to be a rebuild. I just didn't know it was to this extent. Gene Smith put us this far into the gutter, that the next worst team, has close to 4x more impact players than we do. That is telling. Very, very telling. And if you blame Coach Bradley or any of the coaches, than you know absolutely nothing about football. There is no possible way ANY coach can possibly be graded with this amount of talent. This season can be summed up by looking at the roster. Yes, it is that bad.

 

Compare some rosters. I dare you. Do it, and then try to tell me this is Coach Bradley's fault. 

"I think you have a very remarkable brain"

---