By the fact you're throwing out arbitrary stats and using that as justification for saying he's terrible and making wide generalizations (multiple INTs every game=pure trash, nope, nothing good about him) instead of talking about the nuances of the games and the context of what happened that resulted in those stats. I could literally go through every single game he played last season and give you the details of each pick and every play he made and why in context of what happened his play and the start to his career is not nearly as "disastrous" as you're making it out. Just from the way you talk about him I highly doubt you actually watch the games from start to finish week to week. Looking at cut ups of the game or switching back and forth from games or something and calling that "watching them every week" does not count.

 

I could do the same for Gabbert, Mallet, Locker, Henne, etc. The point is good QB's don't need excuses, they make things happen and make the team around them better. Luck walked on to a team that won what, 1 game? He still produced. Mariota walked on to a team with 2 wins and was one of the worst offensive teams last year, yet threw for 6 TDs in two games. They aren't just 'arbitrary' stats, they are an attempt at providing an objective analysis, that when coupled with game tape, give insight into the relative performance of players.

---

I could do the same for Gabbert, Mallet, Locker, Henne, etc. The point is good QB's don't need excuses, they make things happen and make the team around them better. Luck walked on to a team that won what, 1 game? He still produced. Mariota walked on to a team with 2 wins and was one of the worst offensive teams last year, yet threw for 6 TDs in two games. They aren't just 'arbitrary' stats, they are an attempt at providing an objective analysis, that when coupled with game tape, give insight into the relative performance of players.

 

sometimes stats tell the story.  Sometimes they don't, my friend.

 

By saying you could do the same for Gabbert, specicially calling out Gabbert and comparing him to BB5 shows you don't really know what you're talking about.

 

You can indeed point to statistics that show Gabbert as OK instead of a bust, but if you actually WATCH jaguar football and have an understanding of the game, you know he's a bust and not OK.

 

The converse is true for BB5.  The stats don't show the entire picture.  Whether you want to believe it or not is irrelevant.  The facts are the facts.  

 

Just because you live in a cave and see shadows projected on a wall does not make it reality, no matter how much you want to try and believe it...  

 

You don't watch Jaguar football, so you don't know.  Don't try to come here and act like an expert.  It's pathetic.

---

sometimes stats tell the story.  Sometimes they don't, my friend.

 

By saying you could do the same for Gabbert, specicially calling out Gabbert and comparing him to BB5 shows you don't really know what you're talking about.

 

You can indeed point to statistics that show Gabbert as OK instead of a bust, but if you actually WATCH jaguar football and have an understanding of the game, you know he's a bust and not OK.

 

The converse is true for BB5.  The stats don't show the entire picture.  Whether you want to believe it or not is irrelevant.  The facts are the facts.  

 

Just because you live in a cave and see shadows projected on a wall does not make it reality, no matter how much you want to try and believe it...  

 

You don't watch Jaguar football, so you don't know.  Don't try to come here and act like an expert.  It's pathetic.

 

What is pathetic are your reading comprehension abilities. I never compared Bortles to Gabbert, I never said stats tell the whole story (in fact I did so explicitly in the passage you quoted), and I said pretty clearly that I do watch the games. The best part about this thread is that a lot of people want to defend Bortles, but they just can't. There has yet to be one coherent argument formed in his defense, its just the same old, "well the stats are misleading in this particular case" or you "don't watch the games."

 

Bortles is widely regarded as one of the worst QBs in the league, and its fairly obvious to anyone not drinking teal kool-aid. Maybe everyone just has  PTSD from watching him play last year and are trying to block out the horrors of that reality.

---

Our maybe your writing is poor...


So you're saying you've watched every single play gabbert and henne played as jaguars??


Or you're saying stats to tell part of the story?


From what I quoted, you seem to be all over the place without making one single coherent statement.


Forgive me if I'm not following your train of thought, but it's not as though you have written a treatise of football dogma.


Please clarify

---

Ok sure ignore the disastrous start to his career, but at what point does the body of work for a player become indicative of his overall ability and trajectory? Luck has had a rough start to the new season, does that mean its fair to write off everything he has done before that? What about when Brady/Manning struggled last year? It seems you have to include a player's overall body of work to get an accurate depiction of their abilities, and one mediocre game doesn't change Bortles' overall outlook in my opinion. Recall the original point was that Mariota's first two games of his career were as good or better than Bortles' two best games, and I'm still willing to defend that point. What do you think were the two best games of his career?

 

 

This is obviously false, because I do in fact watch the games on a week to week basis. But humor me and explain your reasoning and how you drew this inference. 

You must be young.  That is not an indictment by the way, but there was a time when QB's were expected to ride the pine a few years before they even played let alone even start.  Bradshaw's first few years were horrible.  Look up Steve Young's stats when he was in Tampa.  Not every QB comes out of the gate at warp speed.  With that thought in mind not every QB that comes out on fire sustains it and many flame out.  Vince Young comes to mind.

 

Look I was as disappointed as the next guy over week one but come on, let's give the raw talent time to develop and not bury players in their second year after 2 games.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I could do the same for Gabbert, Mallet, Locker, Henne, etc. The point is good QB's don't need excuses, they make things happen and make the team around them better. Luck walked on to a team that won what, 1 game? He still produced. Mariota walked on to a team with 2 wins and was one of the worst offensive teams last year, yet threw for 6 TDs in two games. They aren't just 'arbitrary' stats, they are an attempt at providing an objective analysis, that when coupled with game tape, give insight into the relative performance of players.

Every player is different. We all knew Bortles was not ready last year. No excuses this year. The things I have seen make me believe he has improved significantly. It's year 2. I'm not worried about Mariota and where he is at now. I'm sure he will be up and down. Bortles is just fine being his own QB on his own path. As I said, no excuses this year.

---

What is pathetic are your reading comprehension abilities. I never compared Bortles to Gabbert, I never said stats tell the whole story (in fact I did so explicitly in the passage you quoted), and I said pretty clearly that I do watch the games. The best part about this thread is that a lot of people want to defend Bortles, but they just can't. There has yet to be one coherent argument formed in his defense, its just the same old, "well the stats are misleading in this particular case" or you "don't watch the games."


Bortles is widely regarded as one of the worst QBs in the league, and its fairly obvious to anyone not drinking teal kool-aid. Maybe everyone just has PTSD from watching him play last year and are trying to block out the horrors of that reality.

There has been plenty of coherent arguments. He worked with Tom House and corrected mechanics. He is moving much better in the pocket. He understands the offense this year and last year he was winging it. And Caldwell plainly said the best case scenario for Bortles was to sit for a year, but that didn't happen. If you want to hang onto last year than by all means. All I know is Jags haven't won a game in September in a long time. Haven't been .500 since 2011. And the reason they are, a big part, is Bortles. He stepped up big against Miami and lead the game winning drive.

---

You must be young. That is not an indictment by the way, but there was a time when QB's were expected to ride the pine a few years before they even played let alone even start. Bradshaw's first few years were horrible. Look up Steve Young's stats when he was in Tampa. Not every QB comes out of the gate at warp speed. With that thought in mind not every QB that comes out on fire sustains it and many flame out. Vince Young comes to mind.


Look I was as disappointed as the next guy over week one but come on, let's give the raw talent time to develop and not bury players in their second year after 2 games.

I hate when people compare what people did a years 1, 2 and/or 3. As you said every QB develops different, are in different situations and really need 3 years unless they are just that bad the first 2 years.

---

This is much ado about nothing imo. Mariota literally only had two games under his belt. You can look here or ther for signs, but for crying out loud give him one whole season before you make a complete judgement

---

This is much ado about nothing imo. Mariota literally only had two games under his belt. You can look here or ther for signs, but for crying out loud give him one whole season before you make a complete judgement

Eggzactly.

---

This is much ado about nothing imo. Mariota literally only had two games under his belt. You can look here or ther for signs, but for crying out loud give him one whole season before you make a complete judgement

 

But that's soooo boring!

---

Our maybe your writing is poor...


So you're saying you've watched every single play gabbert and henne played as jaguars??


Or you're saying stats to tell part of the story?


From what I quoted, you seem to be all over the place without making one single coherent statement.


Forgive me if I'm not following your train of thought, but it's not as though you have written a treatise of football dogma.


Please clarify

 

How are you going to criticize my writing when you start off with obvious spelling, grammatical, and syntactical errors? Read my post history in this thread, if my position isn't clear to you, quote a passage and I'll explain it for you in simpler terms.

You must be young.  That is not an indictment by the way, but there was a time when QB's were expected to ride the pine a few years before they even played let alone even start.  Bradshaw's first few years were horrible.  Look up Steve Young's stats when he was in Tampa.  Not every QB comes out of the gate at warp speed.  With that thought in mind not every QB that comes out on fire sustains it and many flame out.  Vince Young comes to mind.

 

Look I was as disappointed as the next guy over week one but come on, let's give the raw talent time to develop and not bury players in their second year after 2 games.

 

The game has changed, players are learning more pro concepts at a younger age than ever before. Players coming in and making an instant impact has been the new precedent, and we've seen 2 QBs in the AFC South come in during their rookie years and show instant production (Luck and Mariota). Sure in the 80's and 90's teams might have had the luxury to wait 4+ years to develop a guy (and even then it was only the good teams who were already set at the position), but in this day and age more is expected sooner from players. Does that change the fact that some players need more time to develop? No, but that doesn't change the fact that players with less experience are outperforming Bortles, and the onus is on him and the team to get better.

Every player is different. We all knew Bortles was not ready last year. No excuses this year. The things I have seen make me believe he has improved significantly. It's year 2. I'm not worried about Mariota and where he is at now. I'm sure he will be up and down. Bortles is just fine being his own QB on his own path. As I said, no excuses this year.

 

I think this is a reasonable stance to take. Sure last year was horrible for him, but this is going to be the determinate season for him. If he doesn't show notable improvement, I think the Jags need to start re-evaluating their rebuild.

There has been plenty of coherent arguments. He worked with Tom House and corrected mechanics. He is moving much better in the pocket. He understands the offense this year and last year he was winging it. And Caldwell plainly said the best case scenario for Bortles was to sit for a year, but that didn't happen. If you want to hang onto last year than by all means. All I know is Jags haven't won a game in September in a long time. Haven't been .500 since 2011. And the reason they are, a big part, is Bortles. He stepped up big against Miami and lead the game winning drive.

 

So show me one, because I must have missed them. Mariota was supposed to be a project player too, who wasn't going to be ready for a pro style offense. Yet here he is, adjusting just fine to the NFL game. Bortles was arguably more 'pro-experienced' than Mariota coming into the league, but has never shown flashes of having the same type of impact.

---

I think this is a reasonable stance to take. Sure last year was horrible for him, but this is going to be the determinate season for him. If he doesn't show notable improvement, I think the Jags need to start re-evaluating their rebuild.

 

So show me one, because I must have missed them. Mariota was supposed to be a project player too, who wasn't going to be ready for a pro style offense. Yet here he is, adjusting just fine to the NFL game. Bortles was arguably more 'pro-experienced' than Mariota coming into the league, but has never shown flashes of having the same type of impact.

 

I'm sure there were tons of opinions on Mariota.  You are latching onto the one that fits your argument.  Marcus Mariota was thought of being one of the top picks.  Bortles was not because he was too much of a project.  Jags surprised a lot of people selecting him that high.  Most people would agree that Mariota was more ready to play from the start than Bortles.  He was projected to start.  Bortles was not and he didn't until Henne was so bad he had to.

 

Bortles has already shown notable improvement.  He has shown it in camp.  He showed it in preseason and he showed it against Miami.  He had a bad first game and looked to be tight/trying to hard.  He settled down the 2nd game.  And I expect him to look closer to week 2 than 1 this week against the pats.  

 

Mariota story is still being written.  You are putting too much into one week.  Just like you are putting too much into Bortles week one play.  Time will reveal what is what.  Mariota may be good, he may not.  Who knows.  I actually like Mariota more than most people on this board.  But to keep comparing two different styles of QB's in two different offense two weeks into the season is silly.  

---

As far as coherent arguments go, there were plenty.  Coherent doesn't mean arguments you agree with.  Maybe you are looking for a different word.

 

• So multiple turnovers and 2 TDs is better than Bortles' best game? I think you haven't actually watched Bortles play.
  
• The Jags are Number 2 in the league in drops since Bortles has been a QB.
  
• In fact, the Jags almost DOUBLED the Titans drops last year. (32 vs 17).
  
• RG3 had two 4 TD games his rookie year.
  
• Caldwell has always said that he believes that guys like Bridgewater will, initially in their careers, play better than Bortles.  Bortles was very raw coming out of college. He was selected because he has a higher ceiling than all the QBs coming out in 2014.  The plan was to have him sit last year and learn, and I still don't know why they didn't do that.  He played behind an awful OL, was sacked 60 times, and had mostly rookie receivers.
  
• I'm giving Bortles a clean slate because of all the work he put in this offseason to improve. What I'm saying is that I see an entirely different qb, so I choose to judge him as the qb he's become since putting in that work.
  
• That is not an indictment by the way, but there was a time when QB's were expected to ride the pine a few years before they even played let alone even start.  Bradshaw's first few years were horrible.  Look up Steve Young's stats when he was in Tampa.  Not every QB comes out of the gate at warp speed.  With that thought in mind not every QB that comes out on fire sustains it and many flame out.  Vince Young comes to mind.
  

---

 

As far as coherent arguments go, there were plenty.  Coherent doesn't mean arguments you agree with.  Maybe you are looking for a different word.

 

• So multiple turnovers and 2 TDs is better than Bortles' best game? I think you haven't actually watched Bortles play.
  
• The Jags are Number 2 in the league in drops since Bortles has been a QB.
  
• In fact, the Jags almost DOUBLED the Titans drops last year. (32 vs 17).
  
• RG3 had two 4 TD games his rookie year.
  
• Caldwell has always said that he believes that guys like Bridgewater will, initially in their careers, play better than Bortles.  Bortles was very raw coming out of college. He was selected because he has a higher ceiling than all the QBs coming out in 2014.  The plan was to have him sit last year and learn, and I still don't know why they didn't do that.  He played behind an awful OL, was sacked 60 times, and had mostly rookie receivers.
  
• I'm giving Bortles a clean slate because of all the work he put in this offseason to improve. What I'm saying is that I see an entirely different qb, so I choose to judge him as the qb he's become since putting in that work.
  
• That is not an indictment by the way, but there was a time when QB's were expected to ride the pine a few years before they even played let alone even start.  Bradshaw's first few years were horrible.  Look up Steve Young's stats when he was in Tampa.  Not every QB comes out of the gate at warp speed.  With that thought in mind not every QB that comes out on fire sustains it and many flame out.  Vince Young comes to mind.
  

 

 

This isn't an argument, this a just a collection of facts and opinions.  But I'll play along.

 

1) Bortles' best game was against the Dolphins, he still only managed to complete 54% of his passes. 2 TDs and 54% completion is not comparable to 4 TDs in a half at 81% completion rate.

2) Every QB in the league deals with drops, its part of the game. Are you counting the dropped INTs as well? How do you account for the fact that the Colt's lead the league in drops? Luck still managed to throw for 40 TDs despite that fact. 

3) I'm not sure why the Titans receivers are relevant? Lets give Bortles the 15 added completions for the sake of argument. Does it change the fact that he barely managed 12 TDs while throwing 19 INTs (5 pick sixes)? Do you really believe that difference changes the overall trajectory of his outlook?

4) What's your point? He's also had catastrophic injuries and a coaching staff that doesn't support him. Regardless, what's the point?

5) Mariota was presumed to be even more raw than Bortles, but that didn't stop him from showing he can contribute based on raw talent alone.

6) I already referred to this in my previous post--the league has changed. The precedent has been set for players to come in and make an early impact. Or at least show consistent flashes of ability. 

---

This isn't an argument, this a just a collection of facts and opinions. But I'll play along.


1) Bortles' best game was against the Dolphins, he still only managed to complete 54% of his passes. 2 TDs and 54% completion is not comparable to 4 TDs in a half at 81% completion rate.

2) Every QB in the league deals with drops, its part of the game. Are you counting the dropped INTs as well? How do you account for the fact that the Colt's lead the league in drops? Luck still managed to throw for 40 TDs despite that fact.

3) I'm not sure why the Titans receivers are relevant? Lets give Bortles the 15 added completions for the sake of argument. Does it change the fact that he barely managed 12 TDs while throwing 19 INTs (5 pick sixes)? Do you really believe that difference changes the overall trajectory of his outlook?

4) What's your point? He's also had catastrophic injuries and a coaching staff that doesn't support him. Regardless, what's the point?

5) Mariota was presumed to be even more raw than Bortles, but that didn't stop him from showing he can contribute based on raw talent alone.

6) I already referred to this in my previous post--the league has changed. The precedent has been set for players to come in and make an early impact. Or at least show consistent flashes of ability.

I'm not here to argue them. Of course they were arguments and they were coherent. It took me a few minutes to scroll through the thread and find the arguments. I even made it easy for You since some how missed them all. You don't have to agree with them. I'm not comparing Bortles to Mariota. You keep doing so over and over. I really don't care. Did Mariota have a better start to his career than Bortles? Absolutely. But I'm not concerned with 2014 Bortles. I'm concerned with 2015 Bortles. 2 game in. Both teams 1-1 and lots of football to be played. You love your guy and think he is superior to Bortles. Great! On to week 3.

---

I could do the same for Gabbert, Mallet, Locker, Henne, etc. The point is good QB's don't need excuses, they make things happen and make the team around them better. Luck walked on to a team that won what, 1 game? He still produced.

 

 

You do realize that Gabbert finished with a better rookie qb rating than Luck.

---

'02

Bortles is widely regarded as one of the worst QBs in the league, and its fairly obvious to anyone not drinking teal kool-aid. Maybe everyone just has  PTSD from watching him play last year and are trying to block out the horrors of that reality.

 

 

Most everybody outside of Duval has never watched Bortles play and are making a judgment based purely on stats.

---

'02

You do realize that Gabbert finished with a better rookie qb rating than Luck.

There is another one of those "coherent arguments" you are so badly looking for baconhead.

---

Most everybody outside of Duval has never watched Bortles play and are making a judgment based purely on stats.

And that is all he has done is quoted stats. Anyways, no way around it. Bortles struggled last year. Yet we aren't arguing for last year. We are talking about this year.

---