Login

jg77 · 10-17-2017, 04:14 PM

Even if Watson sucks after this year his one good rookie year could probably take us to the superbowl. If had marginal QB play we'd probably be undefeated right now.

flgatorsandjags · 10-17-2017, 05:30 PM

(10-17-2017, 04:14 PM)jg77 Wrote: Even if Watson sucks after this year his one good rookie year could probably take us to the superbowl. If had marginal QB play we'd probably be undefeated right now.

Naw, we wouldn't have much of a run game and our receivers are no where near as good as Fuller and Hopkins without A Rob and Westbrook

JackCity · 10-17-2017, 06:29 PM

(10-16-2017, 10:26 AM)Tyler1Reformed Wrote:
(10-13-2017, 12:04 AM)JackCity Wrote: He's going to break the rookie TD record with an awufl Oline. Anytime you pass on a good QB where in dire need of one deserves a WELP.

Yet getting a #1 RB and LT instead is a bad move in your eyes when we can get a FA QB and draft a QB next year and have a BETTER #27 and Cam to go with him? Come on, I wanted Dalvin and HATED with a PASSION when we picked LF... it was completely the right pick now looking back.

No it's not a bad move at all. I love LF7 despite the doubts I had pre-draft.

I just felt that picking Watson at #4 would have us in a much better place than we are right now. A franchise QB and a cornerstone LT would be more beneficial to use than a franchise RB and a cornerstone LT for obvious reasons. LF7 was a good pick but Watson was and is a better pick in my eyes. Cam was a knockout pick in the 2nd round either way.

JackCity · 10-29-2017, 06:04 PM

Watson playing v well against the Seahawks in Seattle....

Upper · 10-29-2017, 06:46 PM

(10-29-2017, 06:04 PM)JackCity Wrote: Watson playing v well against the Seahawks in Seattle....

Yeah I know fanaticism is going to keep most people from admitting it, but this is a pick we are already regretting. And he went to a division rival to make it that much worse.

HURRICANE!!! · 10-29-2017, 06:51 PM

(10-29-2017, 06:46 PM)Upper Wrote:
(10-29-2017, 06:04 PM)JackCity Wrote: Watson playing v well against the Seahawks in Seattle....

Yeah I know fanaticism is going to keep most people from admitting it, but this is a pick we are already regretting. And he went to a division rival to make it that much worse.

.... remember when Houston looked like idiots for drafting Clowney over Bortles ..... then they looked like geniuses. It's really hard to tell in Year 1

Upper · 10-29-2017, 06:56 PM

What Watson is doing is already 10x more legit than Bortles' sham of a 2015.

flgatorsandjags · 10-29-2017, 07:01 PM

(10-29-2017, 06:46 PM)Upper Wrote:
(10-29-2017, 06:04 PM)JackCity Wrote: Watson playing v well against the Seahawks in Seattle....

Yeah I know fanaticism is going to keep most people from admitting it, but this is a pick we are already regretting. And he went to a division rival to make it that much worse.

I doubt Tom and Dave regrets taking Fournette

Upper · 10-29-2017, 07:02 PM

They might not, but they absofrigginlutely should.

JackCity · 10-29-2017, 07:12 PM

(10-29-2017, 06:51 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote:
(10-29-2017, 06:46 PM)Upper Wrote: Yeah I know fanaticism is going to keep most people from admitting it, but this is a pick we are already regretting. And he went to a division rival to make it that much worse.

.... remember when Houston looked like idiots for drafting Clowney over Bortles ..... then they looked like geniuses. It's really hard to tell in Year 1

Clowney was a better pick than Bortles though

The takes on Watson on here haven't aged well. (my take on Goff didn't either)

Franchise QB>>> a very good running back every day of the week.

JackCity · 10-29-2017, 07:58 PM

(10-29-2017, 06:46 PM)Upper Wrote:
(10-29-2017, 06:04 PM)JackCity Wrote: Watson playing v well against the Seahawks in Seattle....

Yeah I know fanaticism is going to keep most people from admitting it, but this is a pick we are already regretting. And he went to a division rival to make it that much worse.

Precisely. There was a franchise QB (maybe 2) waiting for us at #4 to pick and we passed.

The texans was the one place I didn't want him to. Oh well maybe we can get it right this year. Just remember all the people who trashed Watson, they'll be the ones trashing Mayfield and Jackson this year...

Upper · 10-29-2017, 08:05 PM

(10-29-2017, 07:58 PM)JackCity Wrote: Precisely. There was a franchise QB (maybe 2) waiting for us at #4 to pick and we passed.

The texans was the one place I didn't want him to. Oh well maybe we can get it right this year. Just remember all the people who trashed Watson, they'll be the ones trashing Mayfield and Jackson this year...

I wasn't a fan of Watson, but I am also not so stubborn or enslaved by my biases that I would stick to saying Fournette (or anyone else) was the right pick. It absolutely should have been Watson.

JackCity · 10-29-2017, 08:16 PM

(10-29-2017, 08:05 PM)Upper Wrote:
(10-29-2017, 07:58 PM)JackCity Wrote: Precisely. There was a franchise QB (maybe 2) waiting for us at #4 to pick and we passed.

The texans was the one place I didn't want him to. Oh well maybe we can get it right this year. Just remember all the people who trashed Watson, they'll be the ones trashing Mayfield and Jackson this year...

I wasn't a fan of Watson, but I am also not so stubborn or enslaved by my biases that I would stick to saying Fournette (or anyone else) was the right pick. It absolutely should have been Watson.

Been half thinking this week how crazy it would look with Lattimore here also. Not sure how you attack that

Upper · 10-29-2017, 08:23 PM

(10-29-2017, 08:16 PM)JackCity Wrote:
(10-29-2017, 08:05 PM)Upper Wrote: I wasn't a fan of Watson, but I am also not so stubborn or enslaved by my biases that I would stick to saying Fournette (or anyone else) was the right pick. It absolutely should have been Watson.

Been half thinking this week how crazy it would look with Lattimore here also. Not sure how you attack that

Sure, Lattimore, Hooker, Adams, Howard, Fournette...all were/would have been fine picks. Just not the right pick.

JackCity · 10-29-2017, 08:29 PM

(10-29-2017, 08:23 PM)Upper Wrote:
(10-29-2017, 08:16 PM)JackCity Wrote: Been half thinking this week how crazy it would look with Lattimore here also. Not sure how you attack that

Sure, Lattimore, Hooker, Adams, Howard, Fournette...all were/would have been fine picks. Just not the right pick.

I tried tell y'all to be fair

flgatorsandjags · 10-29-2017, 08:29 PM

(10-29-2017, 08:23 PM)Upper Wrote:
(10-29-2017, 08:16 PM)JackCity Wrote: Been half thinking this week how crazy it would look with Lattimore here also. Not sure how you attack that

Sure, Lattimore, Hooker, Adams, Howard, Fournette...all were/would have been fine picks. Just not the right pick.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Watson wouldn't be putting up no where close to these kind of numbers with our receivers

JackCity · 10-29-2017, 08:43 PM

(10-29-2017, 08:29 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote:
(10-29-2017, 08:23 PM)Upper Wrote: Sure, Lattimore, Hooker, Adams, Howard, Fournette...all were/would have been fine picks. Just not the right pick.
Sorry to burst your bubble but Watson wouldn't be putting up no where close to these kind of numbers with our receivers

No instead he'd have a much better line, defense and running game to lean on. He'd still be much more effective than Blake, which is the important part.

Upper · 10-29-2017, 08:46 PM

(10-29-2017, 08:29 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote:
(10-29-2017, 08:23 PM)Upper Wrote: Sure, Lattimore, Hooker, Adams, Howard, Fournette...all were/would have been fine picks. Just not the right pick.
Sorry to burst your bubble but Watson wouldn't be putting up no where close to these kind of numbers with our receivers

He wouldn't have the same raw numbers no, but he'd still be showing all of the signs you would want to see that would put our decade long search for a QB to rest for the foreseeable future. That would be so calming and peaceful.

flgatorsandjags · 11-02-2017, 08:43 PM

Still want Watson?

JackCity · 11-02-2017, 09:06 PM

(11-02-2017, 08:43 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: Still want Watson?

Yep.