Hahaha when in doubt... blame the refs! They're the reason we lose! They have it out for us!


Classic.

You must not have watched that San Diego game.  This team got robbed multiple times. 

---

You must not have watched that San Diego game. This team got robbed multiple times.

They're not the reason we lost dude.

---

That game was lost before it even started.  You give up that many yards to Ryan Matthews you have major problems on the DLine. 

---

They're not the reason we lost dude.

I am not claiming it is. It attributes

---

Color coded for convenience:

 

 

Change has been for the better.  We didn't trade up in this last draft.  We didn't reach on a Quarterback because it was a desperate need.  Even Jim Irsay has said that Khan is doing things the RIGHT WAY

 could i get the link to the article that said this? I'm not calling you out or anything i just have a genune desire to read it.

---

 could i get the link to the article that said this? I'm not calling you out or anything i just have a genune desire to read it.

 

It was on twitter.

 

https://twitter.com/JimIrsay/status/384406500539908096

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

We were dead last in payroll last year. We're somewhere middle of the pack this season which is even more frustrating.

Wrong.

 

The Jaguars had the fourth highest player payroll in the league in 2012 at $142 million while finishing 2-14 according to figures compiled by ESPN.

---

I have a very big question for those of you that are ok with the jags losing.

 

What if Caldwell has a difference of opinion and believes another position aside from QB is the better pick 1st overall.

 

This team has really big needs at DE

 

Would it still be okay to lose if Caldwell does not take a QB with the 1st overall pick?

 

Another Scenario:  If a team offers a bargin and Caldwell trades the 1st overall pick for a load of picks. 

 

Is it still acceptable?

 Either is fine with me; it's all about acquiring talent. 

 

This team is losing because it lacks talent.  Not hard to figure out.  Other teams have better players than we do.  But if you look at all of the "premiere" teams in the NFL, the common theme is franchise, elite QB's. 

---

So sacrifice the future for four wins.


And YOU called other people idiots?

 

Not sacrificing the future for meaningless wins today = TANKING.

---

That game was lost before it even started.  You give up that many yards to Ryan Matthews you have major problems on the DLine. 

 

Colts missed the memo?

---

Another Scenario:  If a team offers a bargin and Caldwell trades the 1st overall pick for a load of picks. 

 

Is it still acceptable?

 

By 'a load of picks', do you mean he trades our 1st round pick for fourth and a fifth round picks?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I say we take Clowney in the draft and we could probably get Jay Cutler for cheap in the off-season. 

---

No pain, no gain.

There is no objective way to determine worst team in NFL history.

 

The NFL doesn't name that team, and there's no way for the teams to play each other to make that determination.

 

At best you can compare numbers, but that would only get you so far.  You can't name the teams in the past that successfully rebuilt by becoming the worst team in NFL history.

 

However, you CAN name several teams who successfully rebuilt after losing to the point where they had the top pick in the draft.

There may not be an objective way, but at the rate we are going we will be number 1 on everyone's subjective list.

---

Not sacrificing the future for meaningless wins today = TANKING.

You obviously have a different idea of 'tanking'.

---

You obviously have a different idea of 'tanking'.

 

If you'd rather win 4 games than 0 games, then you're not for tanking. If you'd rather win 0 games than 4 games to get a better pick, then you are tanking. I didn't think it's that difficult. Apparently, for you it is.

---

If you'd rather win 4 games than 0 games, then you're not for tanking. If you'd rather win 0 games than 4 games to get a better pick, then you are tanking. I didn't think it's that difficult. Apparently, for you it is.

You need to understand what 'tanking' is first. Then again, that's probably difficult for you.

---

I say we take Clowney in the draft and we could probably get Jay Cutler for cheap in the off-season. 

 

Sign a surly 31 year old currently injured QB? Great plan.

---

;

;

Colts missed the memo?

 

Do I care if the Colts missed the memo?

---

If you refuse to ignore it, that's a you problem. Get some thicker skin and deal with it. One more time, this is a football team.

You don't sit in the stands as many have, for many years. You can sit in front of the TV and act like you feel our pain. I certainly don't need a lecture from you, telling me " it's a football team"...

Thick skin? Its thick enough...from years of sitting in 90 degree games for 4 quarters.

Try it. Then lecture.

---

Blakes Life Matters

You need to understand what 'tanking' is first. Then again, that's probably difficult for you.

 

 

So what is your definition of tanking then? I'd like to read your brilliant definition of it. But my guess is you won't have anything to say other than insults that would even shame 5 year old kids in the playground.

---