This explains it perfectly.  Caldwell made up his mind and waited for the scouts reaction.  When they realized they all said Bortles was in agreement, they went with it.

 

Can't argue with that.

 

 

Caldwell said he thinks Bortles will be the Jaguars’ starting quarterback for a decade or more, and Caldwell views Bortles as the kind of elite prospect who doesn’t come along very often.

 

“It was very easy,” Caldwell said. “There’s not a lot of 6-foot-5, 245-pound pro-style quarterbacks with the athleticism Blake has.”

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...-it-quiet/

---

On the flip side, Bortles is a loser because he has pressure based on Gabbert's failure?  Why are Manizel/Bridgewater winners? 

 

This guys a joke.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/-daily-...?eref=sihp

---

On the flip side, Bortles is a loser because he has pressure based on Gabbert's failure?  Why are Manizel/Bridgewater winners? 

 

This guys a joke.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/-daily-...?eref=sihp

 

What does the below even mean?

 

He'll be forced to do so without the same inherited support system Manziel and Bridgewater will enjoy.
 

---

What does the below even mean?

 

It means he has an irrational dislike for the Jaguars and doesn't have a clue about what is in place here, Cleveland, or Minnesota.

 

He basically outed himself as a complete hack.

---

It means he has an irrational dislike for the Jaguars and doesn't have a clue about what is in place here, Cleveland, or Minnesota.

 

He basically outed himself as a complete hack.

 

Well, since he's writing for something titled the "Daily Jolt" that should give you a pretty good indication of the type of approach he takes to his writing.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

I hate this kind of obvious defense of the pick....

 

You could say the same thing for many failed picks of the past as well. 

 

Ooooh, so Caldwell & the scouts were in agreement....well no [BLEEP] sherlock. 

 

 

To me, its a weak and obvious defense of the selection. 

 

Similar to how the previous regime defended the Alualu pick. 

---

Well, since he's writing for something titled the "Daily Jolt" that should give you a pretty good indication of the type of approach he takes to his writing.

 

Nothing churns the pageviews like ignorance.

---

 

 

“It was very easy,” Caldwell said. “There’s not a lot of 6-foot-5, 245-pound pro-style quarterbacks with the athleticism Blake has.”

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...-it-quiet/

 

I don't like reading the above. You draft QB based on arm talent (accuracy/ consistent ball placement) and how they command the position. 

 

The above sounds very similar to reasoning we used to draft Gabbert - measurables over QB ability. Ugh. (Do we still have the same scouts here as in 2011??)

 

 

I even remember people defending Gabbert by saying that despite him playing in Missouri that he was allegedly a better "pro style" prospect than most in that draft. 

---

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/05/09/nfl-draft-...e-jaguars/

 

Here is a better SI article by Greg Bedard. He thinks it was a good pick as long as we have the patience to sit and develop him.

---

I hate this kind of obvious defense of the pick....

 

You could say the same thing for many failed picks of the past as well. 

 

Ooooh, so Caldwell & the scouts were in agreement....well no [BAD WORD REMOVED] sherlock. 

 

 

To me, its a weak and obvious defense of the selection. 

 

Similar to how the previous regime defended the Alualu pick. 

 

Ummm genius, every GM says that about their high draft pick.

---

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

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/05/09/nfl-draft-...e-jaguars/

 

Here is a better SI article by Greg Bedard. He thinks it was a good pick as long as we have the patience to sit and develop him.

 

That's the plan.

---

I don't like reading the above. You draft QB based on arm talent (accuracy/ consistent ball placement) and how they command the position.


The above sounds very similar to reasoning we used to draft Gabbert - measurables over QB ability. Ugh.



I even remember people defending Gabbert by saying that despite him playing in Missouri that he was allegedly a better "pro style" prospect than most in that draft.

Bortles also has ability.

---

I don't like reading the above. You draft QB based on arm talent (accuracy/ consistent ball placement) and how they command the position.


The above sounds very similar to reasoning we used to draft Gabbert - measurables over QB ability. Ugh.



I even remember people defending Gabbert by saying that despite him playing in Missouri that he was allegedly a better "pro style" prospect than most in that draft.

I don't read it that way. Kid reminds me a lot of roethlisberger and is anti Gabbert IMO

---

I don't like reading the above. You draft QB based on arm talent (accuracy/ ball placement) and how they command the position. 

 

The above sounds very similar to reasoning we used to draft Gabbert - measurables over QB ability. Ugh. 

 

 

I even remember people defending Gabbert by saying that despite him playing in Missouri that he was allegedly a better "pro style" prospect than most in that draft. 

 

Is your opinion on this QB literally changing after every article you read about someone else's OPINION?  Gotcha.

 

Bortles is the anti-Blaine gabbert under pressure.

 

Steps up into the pocket, moves very well, doesn't get scared, and can deliver the ball from the pocket or on the run.

 

Also, he has the clutch trait.  He has taken UCF with much less talent around him to a BCS bowl win.  He did a lot with less talent around him. 

---

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

Ummm genius, every GM says that about their high draft pick.

 

I know, it just gets under my skin. 

---

I know, it just gets under my skin.

Cool. Well you need to get some thicker skin there kiddo

---

Is your opinion on this QB literally changing after every article you read about someone else's OPINION? Gotcha.


Bortles is the anti-Blaine gabbert under pressure.


Steps up into the pocket, moves very well, doesn't get scared, and can deliver the ball from the pocket or on the run.


Also, he has the clutch trait. He has taken UCF with much less talent around him to a BCS bowl win. He did a lot with less talent around him.

obviously he has a lot to work on but the upside is tremendous. He is really

Good at throwing on the run.

---

I know, it just gets under my skin. 

 

Yeah, but don't let it get under your skin.

 

Watch all of the interviews about him.  Don't take one line about his size as the main point.  The size definitely helps, but it's what he does with his size.  He moves incredibly well and can throw on the run.  Gabbert had size and speed but never did any of the things Bortles was able to do.  That speaks volumes.

---

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

I know, it just gets under my skin. 

 

You're too sensitive.

---

I don't read it that way. Kid reminds me a lot of roethlisberger and is anti Gabbert IMO

 

But when they cite measurables as one of the first reasoning for why he likes him....

 

While I agree that Gabbert and Bortles were different styles in college, I got the same underwhelming feeling when watching his play in college. 

 

Potential? Sure. But Gabbert also had the same sort of "potential" and a lot of it was based off of the measurables and chalk talk. 

 

 

I dunno, I would feel less apprehensive if measureables weren't one of the first thing Caldwell used there to trump the pick up. Accuracy/ ball placement/ quick release; perfect mechanics/ command of the position/ pocket presence should be the amongst the main reasons you draft a QB, not measurables. 

---