I'm kind of on the fence with it. On the one hand, I'm tired of seeing the trash that Bortles has to offer. On the other hand, I trust the coaches evaluation of QB depth in regards to saying Bortles is the best of the bunch. I think the coaching staff is full of a bunch of idiots but I don't think they are dumb enough to bench someone with more talent than Bortles (Allen).

You trust the coaches, of a QB that has regressed far beyond anything mechanically/mentally in his entire visible career, even dating back to UCF?... And you trust the staff responsible for the worst record over 60+ games coached in NFL history? Sorry, I may not be a coach but I don't have to be to know these guys are probably not the greatest at evaluating talent, or good at anything for that matter. Tom Brady was taken in the 6th round and was a backup. Wilson was a 4th rounder as was Dak, both were expected backups to be groomed behind Flynn and Romo. Hell even Romo was undrafted. Until you play these wildcard QB picks you really don't know what you have until they get in there when its for real. Look at Gabbert's preseasons, they were pretty promising. When it was for real, he sucked. You don't truly know what you have until they play for real. I want to see Allen start from her eon out, but I can count on that not happening. He won't even get one with this staff.

---

If they stay with bbint....he's going to get worse....much worse.

oh well.

---

"Stay tight, stay close. Great things are going to continue to happen for this football team."  - Doug Peterson

Watching Blake this year all like

 

---

<p style="margin-left:80px;">Bradley and Caldwell's job are linked to Bortles so I can see why they start him for the rest of the year.  Bradley is most likely gone after this year but Caldwell seems to have a good chance of staying...I doubt he is ready to admit the he was wrong about his selection of Bortles and if Caldwell remains our GM next year we can expect another year of Bortles.

---

 

<p style="margin-left:80px;">Bradley and Caldwell's job are linked to Bortles so I can see why they start him for the rest of the year.  Bradley is most likely gone after this year but Caldwell seems to have a good chance of staying...I doubt he is ready to admit the he was wrong about his selection of Bortles and if Caldwell remains our GM next year we can expect another year of Bortles.

 

 

Caldwell pretty much replaced Joekel in the same amount of time.

---

At first I thought yes.  But after thinking about it, maybe not.  If you play Allen the last 4 games and he lights it up, that would be a good outcome.  But that would be the only good scenario.  If you play him less than that, you probably have too small of a sample size.  If you play him 4 games and he's anything less that spectacular, you've wasted Bortles reps and experience.  As bad as Bortles is playing, the whole idea is for him to get better for next year, whether he's the starter or not.  Even if he can't fix his mechanics this year, he can still gain experience.

 

But looking at it from the perspective of the coaching staff, they're not going to waste their last 4 games on an experiment, and playing Henne would be nonsensical.  The coaching staff isn't playing for next year, so Allen may not even be a consideration.  

 

 

I don't see where an additional four games for Bortles is going to gain him all that much in terms of experience. The potential risk to further injury to his fatigued throwing arm is of more concern to me.

---

'02

 

<p style="margin-left:80px;">Bradley and Caldwell's job are linked to Bortles so I can see why they start him for the rest of the year.  Bradley is most likely gone after this year but Caldwell seems to have a good chance of staying...I doubt he is ready to admit the he was wrong about his selection of Bortles and if Caldwell remains our GM next year we can expect another year of Bortles.

 

I fear this too. I remember Michael Lombardi's quotes about how the Jags front office had turned themselves an echo chamber and were not honestly evaluating their acquisitions. At the time there was anger about those quotes, not it looks sentient. 

---

Caldwell pretty much replaced Joekel in the same amount of time.

It's far different to compare a lineman with a QB as far as legacy impact. Also, he didn't really replace Joeckel he just moved him...but he definitely didn't go out of his way to give Joeckel legitimate starting competition he straight handed him the starting LG job.

---

It's far different to compare a lineman with a QB as far as legacy impact. Also, he didn't really replace Joeckel he just moved him...but he definitely didn't go out of his way to give Joeckel legitimate starting competition he straight handed him the starting LG job.

Beachum.

---

Beachum.

I know what it was supposed to mean, my point is that replacing him at LT and simply handing him another starting spot doesn't really count as willing to admit and move past a mistake I don't think.

---

I know what it was supposed to mean, my point is that replacing him at LT and simply handing him another starting spot doesn't really count as willing to admit and move past a mistake I don't think.

When Dave didnt give him the 5 year option was pretty much admitting he made a mistake, and when he doesnt get resigned this year will just be the nail in the coffin

---

I don't see where an additional four games for Bortles is going to gain him all that much in terms of experience. The potential risk to further injury to his fatigued throwing arm is of more concern to me.

 

I think there's good arguments both ways.  But I remember comments that Brett Favre made to (I think) Tony Romo early into his career.  Whoever it was, they were injured (shoulder or something similar) and Brett's advice was they should absolutely go out and play anyway.   I'm assuming Brett Favre played with worse and I think Bortles has the same mentality.

 

So clearly, Romo may not have been the best example.  But Farve seemed OK until whatever team (I think New Orleans maybe) completely destroyed him.

---

I know what it was supposed to mean, my point is that replacing him at LT and simply handing him another starting spot doesn't really count as willing to admit and move past a mistake I don't think.

Isn't that the smart thing to do though? Bring in starter level competition for Joeckel , if Luke gets beat out try him out at guard, he'll either be good there and start or he'll get beat out there too. Then you can move on from him and at very least have a guy with starter experience at left tackle and guard as a backup for the rest of the season.

---

Isn't that the smart thing to do though? Bring in starter level competition for Joeckel , if Luke gets beat out try him out at guard, he'll either be good there and start or he'll get beat out there too.

If he would have brought in starter level competition for him at LG then yes. I consider what he did a half measure at best.

---

It's far different to compare a lineman with a QB as far as legacy impact. Also, he didn't really replace Joeckel he just moved him...but he definitely didn't go out of his way to give Joeckel legitimate starting competition he straight handed him the starting LG job.

 

Yes.  Joeckel was his top 5 lineman, but not his left tackle.  I'm just saying, if you are right about something right now, it may be just as good as being right about something 3 years ago. 

---

If he would have brought in starter level competition for him at LG then yes. I consider what he did a half measure at best.

Wasn't Luke playing decently at LG apart from his one or two huge whiffs a game?

---

Wasn't Luke playing decently at LG apart from his one or two huge whiffs a game?

I don't think results in either a positive or negative way are relevant to the theory. 

---

I don't think results in either a positive or negative way are relevant to the theory.

Positive results would indicate that Caldwell was correct to bring in competition at left tackle while also being content with Luke starting at guard instead of leaving him on the bench as proof that you are moving on from your mistake, no?

---

Positive results would indicate that Caldwell was correct to bring in competition at left tackle while also being content with Luke starting at guard instead of leaving him on the bench as proof that you are moving on from your mistake, no?

I would call it 'moving around' not 'moving on'. He still stayed heavily invested in his pick by gift wrapping a starting job for him regardless of which position it was at. 

 

The results of that decision in hindsight don't matter toward that theory either way, I don't believe. 

---

I would call it 'moving around' not 'moving on'. He still stayed heavily invested in his pick by gift wrapping a starting job for him regardless of which position it was at.


The results of that decision in hindsight don't matter toward that theory either way, I don't believe.

Don't you see the benefit of at least seeing how Luke played at LG instead of leaving him on the bench? Get to see if he can play at a starter level at another spot, which it looked like he did in the small sample, and you get to have a guy with starter experience at LT and G on the bench if it doesn't work out.

---