Hey, remember when we drafted the player at 3 that we would have drafted with the first overall pick?...and we got him. At 3. Despite suffering the misfortunes of winning a few games....

*barf*

if you're adamently convinced that he will be the pick at #1, then, hypothetically speaking, why should a team want to have the #3 pick, risking losing him to the #1 and #2 pick?

---

Actually, Carr won his starting spot by default because the Raiders found out Schaub no longer has an NFL arm. If judging by preseason performances, both Bortles and TB outperformed the other rookies.


As far as who is the best rookie QB this season, we need at least four or five more games to make a more sound decision.

 

If your eyes haven't shown you that Carr has looked the most pro ready of the class coming out of the gates, then quite frankly I can't help you.

 

I'm not a fan of the QB or the team, and I don't expect him to have the best career of them all when all is said and done, but his readiness compared to the others has been somewhat surprising.  But it makes sense, given that he basically grew up with his brother in the NFL learning what to expect through him at a young age.

 

Caldwell said they all need seasoning and he was right, just some appear as if they'll need more than others before they reach full potential.  But then, I suppose some may already be there regardless.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

He doesn't look like the most NFL ready. At this point, all three rookie QBs are in the same boat.

---

He doesn't look like the most NFL ready. At this point, all three rookie QBs are in the same boat.

 

to be fair, he's been as advertised.

 

He makes some throws and plays that make you think he will be a perennial all-pro QB, but then makes some really huge mistakes.

 

He's not ready nor is he polished, but I love the upside.  He needs to develop though, but that's not different from any other rookie really.

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

if you're adamently convinced that he will be the pick at #1, then, hypothetically speaking, why should a team want to have the #3 pick, risking losing him to the #1 and #2 pick?

You don't try to lose no matter what the circumstance.


Hypothetically speaking, what if we had decided to tank and lost every game on purpose. Then we drafted Blake #1 overall....and he's a bust. Sooooo.....good job...?


You are asking professional athletes...millionaires....egotists...to lose on purpose and jeopardize their careers, so that we can acquire some 22 year old who may or may not be any good?


You're kidding right?


"Hey player X, I need you to go out there today, risk injury and earning potential by playing terribly."


"Excuse me coach...why?"


"Because there is this kid down at State University that we need to draft to replace you next season."


Some plan.

---

Bortles has 4 pick sixes.  Two of them were yesterday and were the difference in the game.

 

Longer term, Bortles may well be the better of the two, but as it stands now, he is certainly not heads and shoulders above Bridgewater.

 

On the Jaguars Monday show yesterday, Pete Prisco made a point with which I agree. It is misleading to continually refer to 4 of Bortles interceptions as pick sixes. They are interceptions, and that's the extent of how bad they are in terms of the development of Bortles as a QB. That four were returned for TDs does not really make them worse in the context of how he is progressing.

---

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


 

On the Jaguars Monday show yesterday, Pete Prisco made a point with which I agree. It is misleading to continually refer to 4 of Bortles interceptions as pick sixes. They are interceptions, and that's the extent of how bad they are in terms of the development of Bortles as a QB. That four were returned for TDs does not really make them worse in the context of how he is progressing.

I've been thinking this also. What happens after the interception is irrelevant in terms of Bortles' developement.

---

I like nate's post. Keep slinging it.

---

Season Ticket holder since 2004.

 

        

On the Jaguars Monday show yesterday, Pete Prisco made a point with which I agree. It is misleading to continually refer to 4 of Bortles interceptions as pick sixes. They are interceptions, and that's the extent of how bad they are in terms of the development of Bortles as a QB. That four were returned for TDs does not really make them worse in the context of how he is progressing.

I understand your point, but ultimately the goal isn't just to develop the QB.  The goal is to win.

 

To the degree pick sixes hurt the team's chance to win, they are much worse than the INT on the hail mary right before half.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I understand your point, but ultimately the goal isn't just to develop the QB.  The goal is to win.

 

To the degree pick sixes hurt the team's chance to win, they are much worse than the INT on the hail mary right before half.

 

I think they are worse because on 3 of them they were the worst possible outcome; he chose the worst recevier running the worst route at the worst possible location where the INT could hurt the worst. The one taken back 80 yards is not nearly as much on BB5 as the Pitt one where the guy basically walked in the end zone by jumping the route. Had he thrown that ball somewhere else it's entirely possible that the INT doesn't become 6 points, but he picked the wrong throw for the situation.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

That a little "winning streak" will carry some momentum going into next (this) season?

So where is that momentum ? *whistle*

Although this statement sounds good, it's way overused and really doesn't hold water today based on all the players that typically change teams from year to year. Besides, it's a loser's way of saying hey.... look how we finished. At the end of the day, finishing on somewhat of a high note to camoflauge a lousy season still makes it a lousy season. 

---