Cut CJ and let him clear waivers for the PS. Rourke won't.

---

You have a preference for more athletic players. Fair enough but “more athletic” doesn’t necessarily mean better. Go listen to what Pederson has to say about Beathard. Rourke is an interesting project but there was a reason the dude was playing in the CFL.

There was a reason Kurt Warner was playing in the Arena League…

More athletic player?  How about a much better arm.

It happens but it’s fairly rare. Doug Flutie came from the CFL too. The point is you generally want a seasoned capable backup not a project.

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you. 
Check out the Jag's Forum Alternative: Duval Football Fans.

There was a reason Kurt Warner was playing in the Arena League…

More athletic player?  How about a much better arm.

It happens but it’s fairly rare. Doug Flutie came from the CFL too. The point is you generally want a seasoned capable backup not a project.

I'm not even sure that Rourke is a project compared to CJ. He just seems better.

---

Cut CJ and let him clear waivers for the PS. Rourke won't.

Yep I don't think anyone wants CJ. I also don't really see anyone claiming Rourke though for a backup.

I'm not even sure that Rourke is a project compared to CJ. He just seems better.

He has looked like a QB that has potential to win a game with him. CJ just looks terrible and needs everyone around him to win their own role on the play to have any chance of something good happening. There is no way to be successful with him as the QB.

I would hope Rourke could stay somehow but I don't see the Jags keeping him as the backup this year. While he has played better, teams generally don't want an inexperienced backup QB. Hopefully that means he stays on the PS as someone claiming him will have to put him on the roster.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

---

He looked better than Beathard to me.

I think CJB was stuck with a bunch of WR that weren't getting open, and his lesser mobility took some losses or altered throws. We can't forget Rourke's working with the bottom of the defenses' rosters, too.

I think Saturday's issue was much more surrounding cast than individual.  In other words, had the roles reversed, Rourke would have had the same struggles with the rest of the 2s. His mobility may have helped, but I kinda wonder if the D is more vanilla as you get deeper into the game (and roster).

Regardless, neither gave me the overwhelming confidence to say that if we have to rely on them for a few games that we can rest easy.

I'm cool with giving him a year to acclimate and then next year he's primary backup.

---

Never said he wouldn’t.  I said IF they only keep two that Rourke should be the backup.

CJ referred to Trevor as his "best friend", they're close. Doug has said multiple times he wants to keep as much consistency around Trevor as possible. Getting rid of CJ would go completely against that.

Put Rourke on the PS. Don't waste the roster spot keeping 3 QBs on the 53. If a team snatches him up in waivers, or off the PS, so be it. Wont be a big loss. Y'all putting way too much stock in somebody who played a preseason game against guys who will be selling used cars soon.

The Bobcat in me almost flagged this post.

I, sir, will be DEVASTATED.

---

I think Trevor feels more comfortable with CJ holding the clipboard. Don’t think their ever was a competition for the #2. The question has become does the team carry three QB’s and if so who gets cut to make room??

Why would he feel more comfortable? Does a starting QB really care much who the backup is? 
Honest questions. I’m not trying to be provocative.

I kinda think yes, they care.
If you have a mentor, do you care if that person is someone you trust, have confidence in their knowledge, and believe that they are able to help you improve?

That doesn't mean the young go-getter can't move up and help you, but it may take a while for you to build that rapport.

As far as CJ goes, after two years together, I think you'd be safe to say that the knowledge offload were complete at that point. Old dogs and new tricks, ya know?

---

So ‘keep who he’s comfortable with’ rather than the better player.  Makes perfect sense.

You have a preference for more athletic players. Fair enough but “more athletic” doesn’t necessarily mean better. Go listen to what Pederson has to say about Beathard. Rourke is an interesting project but there was a reason the dude was playing in the CFL.

Because he is from Canadia?

Because he didn't play college ball at a P5 school?

---

Why sign him in the off-season if it’s set in stone that Beathard is the backup?

Because teams look beyond today?
Because they saw that the kid has potential to be good, and wanted to try and develop that, rather than calling Mike Glennon for another go-round?
Because you want your receiver evaluation not to be marked with asterisks because the street FA you brought in throws nothing but wounded ducks at their feet?
Because they knew we needed SOMETHING to argue over now that we have a true franchise QB in place?

---

You need more than 2 QBs in camp.

So sign him to a two year contract because you need more than two QBs in camp rather than bringing in some scrub that would come in for next to nothing for one year.

this is the equivalent of complaining that Tre Herndon got guaranteed money on his contract.

Would you rather Doug and Nate Sudfeld did the reunion tour? I mean, he was available at the time.

Why not take a stab at a guy who either has potential to be the future backup, or might net you something in return if he does prove that he can cut it at this level? It's nice to have options.

---

When viewing DP's last presser, he indicates Beathard sees the field really well and has a good arm. He is absolutely resolute that Trevor is 1 and Beathard is 2. I do trust DP's judgement, especially as a former QB himself. I wonder if during the practices, that we fans don't witness, if Rourke throws a lot of balls he shouldn't or doesn't see open WRs. I personally hope they keep a 3rd spot on the roster for him, as he seems to be a nice development asset for the future, if needed, or to be used as trade bait in the season.

On a side note, Warren Moon turned into a 9x pro bowl QB in the NFL, after a lengthy initial stint in the CFL. I am not indicating Rourke is going to be Moon, but I would not discount Rourke's potential simply due to him cutting his pro QB teeth in the CFL.

---

Why would he feel more comfortable? Does a starting QB really care much who the backup is? 
Honest questions. I’m not trying to be provocative.

I kinda think yes, they care.
If you have a mentor, do you care if that person is someone you trust, have confidence in their knowledge, and believe that they are able to help you improve?

That doesn't mean the young go-getter can't move up and help you, but it may take a while for you to build that rapport.

As far as CJ goes, after two years together, I think you'd be safe to say that the knowledge offload were complete at that point. Old dogs and new tricks, ya know?

---

You have a preference for more athletic players. Fair enough but “more athletic” doesn’t necessarily mean better. Go listen to what Pederson has to say about Beathard. Rourke is an interesting project but there was a reason the dude was playing in the CFL.

Because he is from Canadia?

Because he didn't play college ball at a P5 school?

Take off, eh? It’s because he drinks Elsinore beer with his jelly donuts!

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you. 
Check out the Jag's Forum Alternative: Duval Football Fans.

CJ is like a statue back there in the pocket. It's like everything needs to be perfect for him to get off a good pass.

---

So ‘keep who he’s comfortable with’ rather than the better player.  Makes perfect sense.

You have a preference for more athletic players. Fair enough but “more athletic” doesn’t necessarily mean better. Go listen to what Pederson has to say about Beathard. Rourke is an interesting project but there was a reason the dude was playing in the CFL.

To get Molson and Heineken on domestic happy hour specials?

---

Why sign him in the off-season if it’s set in stone that Beathard is the backup?

Because teams look beyond today?
Because they saw that the kid has potential to be good, and wanted to try and develop that, rather than calling Mike Glennon for another go-round?
Because you want your receiver evaluation not to be marked with asterisks because the street FA you brought in throws nothing but wounded ducks at their feet?
Because they knew we needed SOMETHING to argue over now that we have a true franchise QB in place?

---

So sign him to a two year contract because you need more than two QBs in camp rather than bringing in some scrub that would come in for next to nothing for one year.

this is the equivalent of complaining that Tre Herndon got guaranteed money on his contract.

Would you rather Doug and Nate Sudfeld did the reunion tour? I mean, he was available at the time.

Why not take a stab at a guy who either has potential to be the future backup, or might net you something in return if he does prove that he can cut it at this level? It's nice to have options.

Who are you speaking to?  I want Rourke on the team and quite frankly would rather have him as backup.  I’m questioning some of the comments that were made to me.

---

When viewing DP's last presser, he indicates Beathard sees the field really well and has a good arm. He is absolutely resolute that Trevor is 1 and Beathard is 2. I do trust DP's judgement, especially as a former QB himself. I wonder if during the practices, that we fans don't witness, if Rourke throws a lot of balls he shouldn't or doesn't see open WRs. I personally hope they keep a 3rd spot on the roster for him, as he seems to be a nice development asset for the future, if needed, or to be used as trade bait in the season.

On a side note, Warren Moon turned into a 9x pro bowl QB in the NFL, after a lengthy initial stint in the CFL. I am not indicating Rourke is going to be Moon, but I would not discount Rourke's potential simply due to him cutting his pro QB teeth in the CFL.

I agree that is why they like him but he is generally too slow to throw it, doesn't have a great enough arm to make up for all the unathletic shortcomings. I said the same stuff earlier that everyone else has to win for the play to be successful. That doesn't happen a lot in the NFL so the team will struggle if he has to play.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

---

You have a preference for more athletic players. Fair enough but “more athletic” doesn’t necessarily mean better. Go listen to what Pederson has to say about Beathard. Rourke is an interesting project but there was a reason the dude was playing in the CFL.

To get Molson and Heineken on domestic happy hour specials?

Well it's not like he's the BOAT.

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you. 
Check out the Jag's Forum Alternative: Duval Football Fans.

Never said he wouldn’t.  I said IF they only keep two that Rourke should be the backup.

CJ referred to Trevor as his "best friend", they're close. Doug has said multiple times he wants to keep as much consistency around Trevor as possible. Getting rid of CJ would go completely against that.

Chaisson and 6 other players on the cut line just said they are best friends with Trevor too.

---

Because teams look beyond today?
Because they saw that the kid has potential to be good, and wanted to try and develop that, rather than calling Mike Glennon for another go-round?
Because you want your receiver evaluation not to be marked with asterisks because the street FA you brought in throws nothing but wounded ducks at their feet?
Because they knew we needed SOMETHING to argue over now that we have a true franchise QB in place?

---

this is the equivalent of complaining that Tre Herndon got guaranteed money on his contract.

Would you rather Doug and Nate Sudfeld did the reunion tour? I mean, he was available at the time.

Why not take a stab at a guy who either has potential to be the future backup, or might net you something in return if he does prove that he can cut it at this level? It's nice to have options.

Who are you speaking to?  I want Rourke on the team and quite frankly would rather have him as backup.  I’m questioning some of the comments that were made to me.

were you? I'll beg pardon, then. I got a bunch of condescension in the tone, seemed more like you were favoring the disposable band aid than the team actually trying to discover something better than the Jason Whites and Jake Lutons we tend to see at the bottom of the QB depth chart.

---

https://twitter.com/JStCyrTV/status/1693...32220?s=20

---

Rourke doesn’t care where he ends up. He got his audition tape out on the street and that’s all that matters to him. If we don’t sign him, he’s gone for sure.

---

Rourke doesn’t care where he ends up. He got his audition tape out on the street and that’s all that matters to him. If we don’t sign him, he’s gone for sure.

Yep

He's gonna be QB2 somewhere in the NFL before this season is done.

---