So, if given the choice who would you take, Brunell or Bortles?

I'd take pre-1997 Brunell, but Brunell was a mediocre QB (after his knee injury) with amazing talent around him.

Sure, the times were different. But Brunell had the same YPA, completion %, and same interception % (with about 40 fewer YPG) with one of the best tackles, running backs, and wide receivers in history. Bortles is far more reliable too. 

Bortles has a knack for choking sometimes, but Bortles didn't have the privilege of playing with three players that have legitimate arguments for being one of the best at their positions in history. I'm taking Bortles over Brunell post-1997.

Not even close.

---

Taylor is #16 in yards and has not many TDs
Smith is #23 and not many TDs
Boselli maybe but he didn't play enough time.

---

I'd take pre-1997 Brunell, but Brunell was a mediocre QB (after his knee injury) with amazing talent around him.

Sure, the times were different. But Brunell had the same YPA, completion %, and same interception % (with about 40 fewer YPG) with one of the best tackles, running backs, and wide receivers in history. Bortles is far more reliable too. 

Bortles has a knack for choking sometimes, but Bortles didn't have the privilege of playing with three players that have legitimate arguments for being one of the best at their positions in history. I'm taking Bortles over Brunell post-1997.

Are you serious?  Go look at the 90s qb ratings. Being in the 80s was very good.  In fact I remember Brunel was ranked in the top 5 or 10 all time at a certain time in terms of qb rating and was a million times better than Bortles will ever be. End of discussion.

Absolutely.

I'm clear that it's easier to put up stats in today's NFL. I'm just not impressed with Brunell after his injury. He was strictly average despite amazing talent around him--even during the different era. 

I'd take pre-1997 Brunell, but Brunell was a mediocre QB (after his knee injury) with amazing talent around him.

Sure, the times were different. But Brunell had the same YPA, completion %, and same interception % (with about 40 fewer YPG) with one of the best tackles, running backs, and wide receivers in history. Bortles is far more reliable too. 

Bortles has a knack for choking sometimes, but Bortles didn't have the privilege of playing with three players that have legitimate arguments for being one of the best at their positions in history. I'm taking Bortles over Brunell post-1997.

Not even close.

---

Taylor is #16 in yards and has not many TDs
Smith is #23 and not many TDs
Boselli maybe but he didn't play enough time.

Taylor missed 36 games and averaged 80 YPG. I'm not calling him the best because he missed too much time, but when he played, he dominated teams with his speed and power. He was routinely taken out of goal line situations. 

Smith was a starter for 10 seasons. The difference between #23 and #10 is about 2,200 yards. The average career for the top-10 receivers is 15 years. Jimmy was throwing up 1,000 yard season until cocaine forced him out. His average is 1,200 a year as a starter. The dude was amazing. 

Boselli absolutely was one of the best OL of all-time. 

I'm not arguing for Hall of Fame. I'm arguing for talent and performance given that Brunell is be lauded as some sort of good QB when he wasn't post 1997.

---

Are you serious?  Go look at the 90s qb ratings. Being in the 80s was very good.  In fact I remember Brunel was ranked in the top 5 or 10 all time at a certain time in terms of qb rating and was a million times better than Bortles will ever be. End of discussion.

Absolutely.

I'm clear that it's easier to put up stats in today's NFL. I'm just not impressed with Brunell after his injury. He was strictly average despite amazing talent around him--even during the different era. 

Not even close.

---

Taylor is #16 in yards and has not many TDs
Smith is #23 and not many TDs
Boselli maybe but he didn't play enough time.

Taylor missed 36 games and averaged 80 YPG. I'm not calling him the best because he missed too much time, but when he played, he dominated teams with his speed and power. He was routinely taken out of goal line situations. 

Smith was a starter for 10 seasons. The difference between #23 and #10 is about 2,200 yards. The average career for the top-10 receivers is 15 years. Jimmy was throwing up 1,000 yard season until cocaine forced him out. His average is 1,200 a year as a starter. The dude was amazing. 

Boselli absolutely was one of the best OL of all-time. 

I'm not arguing for Hall of Fame. I'm arguing for talent and performance given that Brunell is be lauded as some sort of good QB when he wasn't post 1997.

He was hands down the best qb we've ever had.

---

Oh my goodness. Is this even a question? Brunell or Bortles??

Brunell could spin it. He made a pro bowl a few times. He actually won the MVP in that game. Brunell took us to the playoffs 4 times. And he also has some of the most memorable plays in franchise history. He was marketable with Burger King, First Union, and Ford.

Brunell threw the football natural.

Brunell’s teams didn’t get blowed out all the time. So he didn’t have to throw 40 to 50 times to play catch up. Bortles gets blowed out 28-0 at halftime with 83 yards and then end the game with 335 yards.

Please stop saying "blowed out". Its blown out. I'm only calling you out on this because you've done it in the last 2 threads I've read. If you said that in person to somebody it would be really embarrassing so I figured I would let you know before that happens.

---

I'd rather hear the Jags bring Brunell (circa 1999) back.

1999 Brunell had a 58.7% comp, 14 tds, 9 ints, only 3000 yards, and a season Rating of 82. And that's with Jimmy and Keenan.

Blake is actually better right now than 1999 Brunell.

This would be one of those times that using PFR's rate+ stats that adjust every stat to the average for that individual season is very useful.

Brunell's stats were actually above average across the board in 1999. His TD% was a bit low at 91, and he led the league in INT%. Everything else is solidly in the 100-110 range. Bortles is once again average here and there but mostly a bit below average in most spots.

---

Im surprised he wasn't on the team before. I thought he was hurt. SMH Jags. He is a option than the other two imo.

Uninformed much? He has not been eligible to return to the team. He was injured and had to be released to make room on the roster. He signed an injury settlement which prevented him from legally returning to the roster for the agreed upon length of recovery from the injury plus a mandatory 6 weeks in addition to that period. 

This method allowed the team to reacquire Koyack now rather than having to place him on IR and lose him for the season -- or using the "return from IR" designation which now appears to be used with justified higher priority on ASJ and Wells. 

It's very likely that the team has been in steady contact with Koyack about reacquiring him when legally possible so that he didn't sign elsewhere during those six weeks (if he was even healthy enough to play.)

You should read this: 
https://nationalfootballpost.com/what-is...ettlement/

lol

---

If you think I offended you, don't worry, I meant to. #facts 
  
#iamlegend

Uninformed much? He has not been eligible to return to the team. He was injured and had to be released to make room on the roster. He signed an injury settlement which prevented him from legally returning to the roster for the agreed upon length of recovery from the injury plus a mandatory 6 weeks in addition to that period. 

This method allowed the team to reacquire Koyack now rather than having to place him on IR and lose him for the season -- or using the "return from IR" designation which now appears to be used with justified higher priority on ASJ and Wells. 

It's very likely that the team has been in steady contact with Koyack about reacquiring him when legally possible so that he didn't sign elsewhere during those six weeks (if he was even healthy enough to play.)

You should read this: 
https://nationalfootballpost.com/what-is...ettlement/

lol

Are we laughing at your lack of knowledge of the situation or something else? Enlighten me.

---

By my count, that's 7 for #8 (this includes mine) and 1 for #5.

---

lol

Are we laughing at your lack of knowledge of the situation or something else? Enlighten me.

I don't the "uninformed much?" was needed in that response. So instead of getting a warning, I just laughed.

But thank you for that info.

---

If you think I offended you, don't worry, I meant to. #facts 
  
#iamlegend