Excellent points.


I will say that ultimately, what the player does in games is all that ultimately matters.


I think back to that classic Allen Iverson press conference where he states "We talkin' about practice." Aside from being good for a chuckle, I think it is instructive. I have no doubt there are plenty of players who go all out in practice and contribute nothing during games. I'm also sure thee are talented players who have occasionally loafed during practice who excelled in games (Lawrence Taylor). Guess who the fans and coaches want on their teams more.

Exactly, its all about results.


Think its worth noting the contrast between different fanbases beliefs and expectations of player development.


For instance , if you look at the perennially good teams like the Steelers, Bengals, Patriots etc etc you'll see the fans of those teams have far more patience and belief in player development than the likes of us for many reasons.


Those teams are good and obviously pick later in the draft so the player drafted doesn't even NEED to be good off the bat and the fans have faith in trust in their proven coaching staff to develop these players well. Even if they don't turn out well, they have faith the franchise will do well.


With us on the other hand , those early first round guys like Fowler or Bortles NEED to be good players in order for us to finally win games. After years of busts and failure we are completely used to players busting and being stuck in this rut.


Whether its fair or unfair we have had little faith to trust in player development so when things don't look good from the off we tend to write them off early. We have had a remarkable amount of 1st round busts in the last while after all.

---

I think there is still some hope for both, but I call it as it is, both were bad/mediocre this past season.

 

I am willing to give Bortles 1 more year and 2 for Fowler

That is fair.  I'm there with you.  I think that's where the team is, TBH.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I think I get what you are saying, but I want to be sure.

 

Can you think of a non QB that exemplifies your closing point?

 

I believe many WRs fall into this, as well as many OL.

 

It seems like we're always talking about how eye popping a particular candidate is, only to have guys under the radar (or at least further down the board) outperform them.

 

Joeckel is one.  Most thought we got the better of the two at the top.  Both were looked at as mostly plug and play, and certainly stars after settling into the league.  Instead, these OL drafted behind them went to Pro Bowls:

Kyle Long G

Travis Frederick C

David Bakhtiari T

 

Now, of course I don't think we should have taken them at #2 - but if your concerns are great enough (or if you projections were good enough) then you'd want to get out of that draft spot and/or pick up one of the other players later.  If it were a crystal ball business, we'd have taken Ansah instead at 2 and been able to get our LT later in round four (where we selected Ace Sanders [TMD props here.])

 

At a position like WR there are so many it's hard to know where to start.  There are more Heyward-Bey's than there are Coopers.  The second round talent seems to hit more there.

 

It could be said about RB as well.  But style, "fit," workload, and mileage also play a factor.  I don't think that position is more/less predictable than in the past so RB is probably not applicable here.

 

I think for the same reason WR and OL are less predicatable, so are secondary players.  Shut down corners and hard hitting safeties seem to be rather predictable, but anyone in between seems less so.  I think secondary, WR, and OL all suffer a bit from basketball on turf syndrome.  If athletes are making plays and dominating their competition, I question how much coaches put into fundamentals with guys like that?  Are they letting them get away with sloppier play because they're making the plays?  I think it's a question worth asking.  And of course, in an NFL scout's mind they either don't want to lose what they see as rare physical talent, and most coaches probably have the mentality that they can fix and/or work with anything.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Exactly, its all about results.


Think its worth noting the contrast between different fanbases belief and expectation of player development.


For instance , if you look at the perennially good teams like the Steelers, Bengals, Patriots etc etc you'll see the fans of those teams have far more patience and belief in player development than the likes of us for many reasons.


Those teams are good and obviously pick later in the draft so the player drafted doesn't even NEED to be good off the bat and the fans have faith in trust in their proven coaching staff to develop these players well. Even if they don't turn out well, they have faith the franchise will do well.


With us on the other hand , those early first round guys like Fowler or Bortles NEED to be good player in order for us to finally win games. After years of busts and failure we are completely used to players busting and being stuck in this rut.


Whether its fair or unfair we have had little faith to trust in player development so when things don't look good from the off we tend to write them off early. We have had a remarkable amount of 1st round busts in the last while after all.

Precisely!

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I believe many WRs fall into this, as well as many OL.

 

It seems like we're always talking about how eye popping a particular candidate is, only to have guys under the radar (or at least further down the board) outperform them.

 

Joeckel is one.  Most thought we got the better of the two at the top.  Both were looked at as mostly plug and play, and certainly stars after settling into the league.  Instead, these OL drafted behind them went to Pro Bowls:

Kyle Long G

Travis Frederick C

David Bakhtiari T

 

Now, of course I don't think we should have taken them at #2 - but if your concerns are great enough (or if you projections were good enough) then you'd want to get out of that draft spot and/or pick up one of the other players later.  If it were a crystal ball business, we'd have taken Ansah instead at 2 and been able to get our LT later in round four (where we selected Ace Sanders [TMD props here.])

 

At a position like WR there are so many it's hard to know where to start.  There are more Heyward-Bey's than there are Coopers.  The second round talent seems to hit more there.

 

It could be said about RB as well.  But style, "fit," workload, and mileage also play a factor.  I don't think that position is more/less predictable than in the past so RB is probably not applicable here.

 

I think for the same reason WR and OL are less predicatable, so are secondary players.  Shut down corners and hard hitting safeties seem to be rather predictable, but anyone in between seems less so.  I think secondary, WR, and OL all suffer a bit from basketball on turf syndrome.  If athletes are making plays and dominating their competition, I question how much coaches put into fundamentals with guys like that?  Are they letting them get away with sloppier play because they're making the plays?  I think it's a question worth asking.  And of course, in an NFL scout's mind they either don't want to lose what they see as rare physical talent, and most coaches probably have the mentality that they can fix and/or work with anything.

(Emphasis added)

 

Good arguments overall, though the emphasized portion begs the question:  How do we know that lower drafted players are outperforming the higher drafted ones  due to college preparation for the NFL game, as opposed to NFL coaching, individual intangibles, etc.?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I can agree if the failure to develop lies solely within the player.


But TC himself said there were offensive deficiencies (OL inability to protect, inability to run the ball) that adversely impacted Bortles performance.


If the team is sticking with Bortles at least this year, I don't think it is standing pat on bad years, as evidenced by Bortles going back to California to work with the coaches, after being told not to last year, and Coughlin already addressing OL and presumably TE.

Bullseye, I'm sorry to say this but you can't make sense to people on the Message Board who are still suffering from the losing seasons syndrome. I agree with everything you're saying and I hope this message resonate with everyone on here.

---

(Emphasis added)

 

Good arguments overall, though the emphasized portion begs the question:  How do we know that lower drafted players are outperforming the higher drafted ones  due to college preparation for the NFL game, as opposed to NFL coaching, individual intangibles, etc.?

 

I don't think we ever know for sure.  It's the age old question: nature or nurture?

 

I do think though, what they probably need to look for first (at an organizational level, not just a player level) is core values like work ethic, etc.

 

In life, it's not the most talented people who rise to the highest achievements, as much as talented people with an amazing work ethic.  Not the "A" students necessarily, but the "B" student who was able to balance schoolwork with a job, Boy Scouts, year round sports, several clubs, and positions of leadership in those pursuits.  Diversified achievement, adaptability.  Not just excellence at one thing without experience in other important areas.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

I can agree if the failure to develop lies solely within the player.

 

But TC himself said there were offensive deficiencies (OL inability to protect, inability to run the ball) that adversely impacted Bortles performance.

 

If the team is sticking with Bortles at least this year, I don't think it is standing pat on bad years, as evidenced by Bortles going back to California to work with the coaches, after being told not to last year, and Coughlin already addressing OL and presumably TE.

And in the meantime while we figure out if failure to develop lies solely withing the player, we go 3-13. 

 

A different, but maybe too radical, concept would be to add competition, and if the aforementioned player develops and earns the starting job that's fantastic. 

 

What if we changed the adage to "draft and develop, but don't depend"? Everyone would be on board with that. 

---

And in the meantime while we figure out if failure to develop lies solely withing the player, we go 3-13. 

 

A different, but maybe too radical, concept would be to add competition, and if the aforementioned player develops and earns the starting job that's fantastic. 

 

What if we changed the adage to "draft and develop, but don't depend"? Everyone would be on board with that. 

I would not be averse to upgrading Henne at all and giving Bortles a push.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Tyrod Taylor has thrown for 3,000 yards 17 passing touchdowns and 6 rushing touchdown interception. Those numbers don't scream franchise quarterback. Blake Bortles during his regression year has thrown 23 touchdowns 3906 yards 4 rushing touchdowns, one receiving touchdown comma and 15 interceptions despite not having much around him this past season. Your being ignorant right now defending someone that is a game manager at best.

Since bortles was total [BLEEP] this year and still had good stats, shouldnt that tell you that just staring at stats isnt a good way to assess quarterbacks?

---

Since bortles was total [BAD WORD REMOVED] this year and still had good stats, shouldnt that tell you that just staring at stats isnt a good way to assess quarterbacks?

There are certainly stats that are good ways to assess quarterbacks, they just aren't overall yards/TDs/INTs. 

---

There are certainly stats that are good ways to assess quarterbacks, they just aren't overall yards/TDs/INTs.

Oh yeah obv. That was an oversimplification.


Its just weird that blake was total trash and still had decent box score stats and for some reason no one thinks that invalidates that argument, but instead gives it more credence.

---

Oh yeah obv. That was an oversimplification.

Its just weird that blake was total trash and still had decent box score stats and for some reason no one thinks that invalidates that argument, but instead gives it more credence.

It's all good that you're in love with a game manager and it maybe because he reminds you of David Garrard. Maybe David Garrard gave you autograph or something when you were growing up.

---

It's all good that you're in love with a game manager and it maybe because he reminds you of David Garrard. Maybe David Garrard gave you autograph or something when you were growing up.

That's kinda funny because tons of people are stumping for bulking up the OL and drafting RB at 4 so they can turn Blake into a game manager. 

---

Book reports of excuses. To say well, it is the coaches jobs to change everything.


Then you undermine all the college ones and high school ones.


To say, Give Bortles a better line and running game. And he will magically be a franchise player?


You in essence say, Big Ben, Manning, Brady, and a boat load of others. Should of stunk too. They did not.


And had less to work with then we currently do. And made it work.


Bortles even with all the improvements will be nothing more than a game manager.


By enabling his poor qb play. And saying. "Blake needs all these peices in order to be efficiant"


The way I see it. He should play light out and no more excuses after this year.


And if only ends up a game manager. It is time to move on period.


Did he look good in 2015? Absolutely?


However. Did that turn into wins? Nope.


Did he look good in 2016? No way.

Still did he fight to get wins? Nope.


How was he in 2014? Did we win? Nope.


So all the pointless writting means nothing.


Cause the fact remains, over his entire Career?


He has won 13 games total. Which is pathetic.


So excuse me, if I am not giddy with all the upgrades. And say give poor ole Blakey another chace.


He is a good little boy. He deserves it.


But let me add this. As your in the stands and we barely hit 500 for the 10th straight year.


Will all that fancy talk and ya book of excuses matter? Nope.


Just more upset ticket holders for sticking with Blake.


So I do not need to be great at english or have off the chain. Writting skills. To know.


If we dont have competition at qb. We are all screwed once again.

---

Bleeding Teal since 1995. The Icon Teal Time Radio aka ctjags

  #Gojags

It's all good that you're in love with a game manager and it maybe because he reminds you of David Garrard. Maybe David Garrard gave you autograph or something when you were growing up.

I wasnt even the one that brought tyrod up. Unless blake pays your bills theres no need to be so sensitive about this.

---

That's kinda funny because tons of people are stumping for bulking up the OL and drafting RB at 4 so they can turn Blake into a game manager. 

 

I actually think it's not a bad idea.  (even if they take a RB later than #4) 

 

With Lee, A-Rob, and Hurns out there,  the PA shots taken from behind a solid run game could be scary if Blake just gets his footwork and timing put together marginally this offseason.  

 

                                                                                   Clearly, that's a big if  -  but it's do-able.       

 

 

I think player development will be more of a focus moving forward, and I think the position-coaching changes reflect that. 

---

I actually think it's not a bad idea. (even if they take a RB later than #4)


With Lee, A-Rob, and Hurns out there, the PA shots taken from behind a solid run game could be scary if Blake just gets his footwork and timing put together marginally this offseason.


Clearly, that's a big if - but it's do-able.



I think player development will be more of a focus moving forward, and I think the position-coaching changes reflect that.

And there is nothing wrong with that. If we have the players in place. To do that with.

---

Bleeding Teal since 1995. The Icon Teal Time Radio aka ctjags

  #Gojags

...


If we dont have competition at qb. We are all screwed once again.

 

I think there will be competition, but it might not be the competition you prefer.  It's also possible they wait one more season to add another viable QB. 

You know I'm hoping for a guy like Webb in the 4th round of the draft or something similar. 

 

Still you should check out what Coughlin had to say on the matter: 

http://www.jaguars.com/media-gallery/vid...438723a01d

 

"There's plenty of work for everybody to do. Blake included. To raise the game to a higher level, it takes all components. That's why I mention the protection...the timing...taking care of the football which is paramount to that position. There can be no way the ball is turned over to that extent. "

 

How much does the gap between running and passing bother you?

 

"A lot. I don't think you're helping the QB at all when you don't rush the football."

 

<i> </i>Milanovich went from a HC candidate elsewhere to the QB coach here. How did that process happen? 

 

"I can tell you this:  (paraphrased) "...of all the candidates that sat in that chair, and there were other outstanding ones, Doug did his due diligence on all of them and that's the one he thought did the best job and that's why he's here." 

 

^^player development relevance  ^^ 

 

 

<i> </i>Coughlin isn't satisfied clearly,  and he expects a lot more from Blake.

 If you are going to tout TC as the new voice of reason in the building in other posts, you'll need to be accepting of his treatment of the QB position as well. And it may not be the treatment you desire. 

---

That's kinda funny because tons of people are stumping for bulking up the OL and drafting RB at 4 so they can turn Blake into a game manager. 

Providing a QB balance doesn't necessarily make him a game manager.  It helps to make him successful.

 

I doubt Polian envisioned Peyton Manning to be a game manager when he drafted Edgerrin James the next year,

John Elway didn't win anything until he had a stud rushing attack behind him.

Brett Favre wasn't a game manager, either, but he didn't win anything until Dorsey Levens established himself as a legit rushing threat.

Big Ben can throw the ball all over the place, but that did not stop the Steelers from adding a guy like LeVeon Bell.

While he never won a Super Bowl, Phillip Rivers is hardly considered a game manager, and he had LaDanian Tomlinson behind him for much of his career.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!