The difference between people with functioning eyes and you sticking to the company line and having no clue is you could tell he wasn't the best receiver on the team in the preseason. Some don't need a whole season to play out to tell you what was quite evident from the jump. Who cares what he's done in previous years because he wasn't killing it then, he was alright. He's not good and a gimp. Fortunately nobody really listens to the dumb you speak so it really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. Keep up trying to be witty and clever though champ.

 

And yet, he was still the only proven entity on the roster when the season started. 

 

What he did in previous years is why he was still here.  Is it really that confusing for you?

 

The funny thing about saying nobody listens to the "dumb you speak" is that you obviously have, and still, what you've completely missed in this entire debate is that in the end, I was actually right.  Even in the preseason, I said the only reason he'd be retained is because of his experience and because Blackmon wasn't going to be available.  The expectation was that at least 2 of the rookies would rise and take the starting roles, and we actually saw 3 guys have an impact.  There was no guarantee that would happen when the season started, especially if you're a student of the game and understand that history shows receivers do tend to struggle as rookies. 

 

Shorts was the only receiver on this roster with at least some success in the NFL.  That's a simple fact.  He didn't rise to the challenge and assert himself in a way that would warrant a contract extension.  It hasn't hurt the team one bit to keep him around in order to see what we have in the new receivers. 

 

I know, that's more "dumb" I'm speaking, and someone as intellectually superior as you can't possibly wrap your  big brain around the logic.  I've tried to type slowly so you could keep up, so hopefully it sinks in. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

And yet, he was still the only proven entity on the roster when the season started. 

 

What he did in previous years is why he was still here.  Is it really that confusing for you?

 

The funny thing about saying nobody listens to the "dumb you speak" is that you obviously have, and still, what you've completely missed in this entire debate is that in the end, I was actually right.  Even in the preseason, I said the only reason he'd be retained is because of his experience and because Blackmon wasn't going to be available.  The expectation was that at least 2 of the rookies would rise and take the starting roles, and we actually saw 3 guys have an impact.  There was no guarantee that would happen when the season started, especially if you're a student of the game and understand that history shows receivers do tend to struggle as rookies. 

 

Shorts was the only receiver on this roster with at least some success in the NFL.  That's a simple fact.  He didn't rise to the challenge and assert himself in a way that would warrant a contract extension. It hasn't hurt the team one bit to keep him around in order to see what we have in the new receivers. 

 

I know, that's more "dumb" I'm speaking, and someone as intellectually superior as you can't possibly wrap your  big brain around the logic.  I've tried to type slowly so you could keep up, so hopefully it sinks in.

End of the day he isn't and wasn't the best receiver on the team at any stretch this year. Took you the whole year to realize it and some others didn't need a quarter of the time to see that. I never said they should've cut him this year in the preseason. I just said he wasn't the best receiver on the team and you dove right in like somebody asked your opinion on the subject and disagreed Mr. Student of the Game. So how were you right?

---

End of the day he isn't and wasn't the best receiver on the team at any stretch this year. Took you the whole year to realize it and some others didn't need a quarter of the time to see that. I never said they should've cut him this year in the preseason. I just said he wasn't the best receiver on the team and you dove right in like somebody asked your opinion on the subject and disagreed Mr. Student of the Game. So how were you right?

End of the day, he was the only receiver on the roster aside from Ace Sanders with more than a handful of catches.  That would make him the most productive receiver on the roster coming into the season.  The fact that he didn't at least match his production from last year is on him.  It doesn't diminish anything he did previously, and it doesn't dillute the fact that when the season started, he was the best receiver on the roster.  Go back and look at my posts from that point in time.  You say nobody listens, but you seem to have encyclopedic knowledge of what I was saying back then, so you're contradicting yourself here.  I was very clear in why Shorts needed to be retained.  It wasn't because I expected him to finish the season as the best receiver on the roster.  Quite the opposite.  I expected at least 1 of the rookies to surpass him coming into the season. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

End of the day, he was the only receiver on the roster aside from Ace Sanders with more than a handful of catches.  That would make him the most productive receiver on the roster coming into the season.  The fact that he didn't at least match his production from last year is on him.  It doesn't diminish anything he did previously, and it doesn't dillute the fact that when the season started, he was the best receiver on the roster.  Go back and look at my posts from that point in time.  You say nobody listens, but you seem to have encyclopedic knowledge of what I was saying back then, so you're contradicting yourself here.  I was very clear in why Shorts needed to be retained.  It wasn't because I expected him to finish the season as the best receiver on the roster.  Quite the opposite.  I expected at least 1 of the rookies to surpass him coming into the season. 

I'm just curious... Lets say the Jags would have taken Watkins at #3. Would Shorts still have been the best WR on the team when the season began?

---

Shorts will be gone.

 

/thread

---

I'm just curious... Lets say the Jags would have taken Watkins at #3. Would Shorts still have been the best WR on the team when the season began?

 

It's already been proven that Shorts wasn't the best WR on the team when the season began without drafting him.

 

I believe what FBT means is that he THOUGHT Shorts was the best WR on the team at the start of the season.

---

Not like we would ever have been able to get much from trading Shorts.  What would you give up for Shorts if you were running an NFL team? 

---

One of these years.............

It's already been proven that Shorts wasn't the best WR on the team when the season began without drafting him.

 

I believe what FBT means is that he THOUGHT Shorts was the best WR on the team at the start of the season.

 

If you guys split this hair any more, you'll need an electron microscope to see it.  

---

Especially if Blackmon is back, I see no reason to resign this guy.  We'll have Blackmon, Robinson, Lee, and Hurns, and some rookie or punt returner as the #5.

---

Not like we would ever have been able to get much from trading Shorts.  What would you give up for Shorts if you were running an NFL team? 

Nothing... I don't want him.

---

Not like we would ever have been able to get much from trading Shorts.  What would you give up for Shorts if you were running an NFL team? 

 

If the Jaguars had traded him to a WR needy team last season they probably could have recovered some decent value in what was clearly a season going nowhere.

 

Now, the Jaguars get nothing for him unless he signs elsewhere and blows up the league. Then the Jaguars *MIGHT* get a compensatory pick... if the Jaguars don't sign any difference making players.

---

If the Jaguars had traded him to a WR needy team last season they probably could have recovered some decent value in what was clearly a season going nowhere.

 

Now, the Jaguars get nothing for him unless he signs elsewhere and blows up the league. Then the Jaguars *MIGHT* get a compensatory pick... if the Jaguars don't sign any difference making players.

Trading who was our best receiver (for what, like a 4th or 5th round pick?) and relying on a bunch rookies would have been a weak plan.  We just drafted a rookie QB and he needs a reliable WR.  Hindsight is 20/20 and they had no clue he'd struggle like this.

---

You're delusional if you think we would have gotten anything for Shorts.

 

Then again, we got a 6th for Goobert.

---

One of these years.............

You're delusional if you think we would have gotten anything for Shorts.

 

Then again, we got a 6th for Goobert.

 

Shorts has some value still to this day.  He isn't worthless.

---

Trading who was our best receiver (for what, like a 4th or 5th round pick?) and relying on a bunch rookies would have been a weak plan.  We just drafted a rookie QB and he needs a reliable WR.  Hindsight is 20/20 and they had no clue he'd struggle like this.

 

A 4th or 5th round pick can turn into Telvin Smith or Luke Bowanko

 

Who is more valuable to the team going forward, Cecil or Luke/Telvin?

 

It was clear right from the start that Cecil wasn't a true #1 WR, he's the kind of WR that contributes but can be replaced and had some serious concerns.

---

He'll end up in New England and light it up next year

---

He'll end up in New England and light it up next year

 

exactly.  he has some physical talents that are underutilized in our offense.

 

he's still injury prone though.  he's not worth keeping at this point with the drops and him hurting a hammy every year.

---

A 4th or 5th round pick can turn into Telvin Smith or Luke Bowanko

 

Who is more valuable to the team going forward, Cecil or Luke/Telvin?

 

It was clear right from the start that Cecil wasn't a true #1 WR, he's the kind of WR that contributes but can be replaced and had some serious concerns.

I don't even know if they could have gotten that, it's pure speculation.  But again, what type of GM would plan on starting all rookies at WR when Shorts was producing just fine when he was healthy (and by all means was recovered)?  Maybe it was only a 6th rounder or nothing at all.

---

I don't even know if they could have gotten that, it's pure speculation.  But again, what type of GM would plan on starting all rookies at WR when Shorts was producing just fine when he was healthy (and by all means was recovered)?  Maybe it was only a 6th rounder or nothing at all.

 

He produced like a decent player on a team without anyone else to go to.

 

He's had a lot of injury excuses, but not a lot of production after 2012.

 

Maybe if Henne hadn't repeatedly thrown him into concussions he'd be okay right now, but as it is, Cecil is an NFL level player, but not a first tier guy.

---

Trading who was our best receiver (for what, like a 4th or 5th round pick?) and relying on a bunch rookies would have been a weak plan.  We just drafted a rookie QB and he needs a reliable WR.  Hindsight is 20/20 and they had no clue he'd struggle like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_NFL_draft

 

Take a look at some of those 4th rounders in this past draft: Martavis Bryant, Stork, Freeman, Bodine

---