A Retrospective: How much did the Jacksonville Jaguars 2007 season hurt?
Since going 11-5, making and winning in the playoffs in 2007, the Jacksonville Jaguars have gone just 20-28 and are in mid-rebuilding mode. In actuality, the 2007 season was one of the worst seasons in Jaguars history, in terms of what the future wrought. Similar to the 1999 season, it tricked the franchise and fan base into thinking they were close. Close to something they were actually far away from. How does a team go from being a dark horse playoff candidate to 5-11 and into rebuilding and roster purging just one off-season? They tricked themselves. They tricked themselves into thinking they were more talented than they actually were.
After the 2007 season, the Jacksonville Jaguars thought they were close to a Super Bowl. They had beaten the Pittsburgh Steelers in Pittsburgh in the playoffs, which not many teams have. They went blow for blow with the first half of the divisional round match-up with the New England Patriots the year the Patriots went 17-1 and lost the Super Bowl. It was a team seemingly on the rise.
So, what happened?
They bought into their own hype. Head coach Jack Del Rio got a 5-year contract extension, which the team is still saddled with today. Then new starting quarterback David Garrard was handed the keys to the franchise and hasn't gotten it out of first gear since. Those two alone are arguably the Jaguars biggest albatrosses. They hitched their wagon to quarterback and coach, and neither were what they thought. Say all you want about bad drafting and free agent busts, but those two deals still haunt the team. Many wanted Jack Del Rio fired, and deservedly so, but because of that quick-draw contract he's still owed $10 million on his deal that runs through 2012, guaranteed. While Garrard had a "career" season last year, he still faltered again down the stretch and is still due about $8 million this year and next.
After those two contracts, the Jaguars thought they were close. They went out and paid big money to wide receiver Jerry Porter, who looked like he was just trapped in the Black Hole of the Oakland Raiders and needed new scenery, when really he was just a turd who got paid, got hurt, and never seemingly wanted to fit in. They also went out and paid corner Drayton Florence and handed him a starting position he didn't deserve. Florence excelled as a nickel corner in San Diego, but as a starter in Jacksonville he struggled mightily. Because the Jaguars thought they were close, they traded up in the first round to get that pass rusher they needed and took Derrick Harvey. Why stop there? You can never have too many pass rushers when you have Peyton Manning in your division! The Jaguars then traded up again and took Quentin Groves. Neither player has yet to emerge as anything but serviceable. Harvey was benched in favor of journeyman Jeremy Mincey and 5th round rookie Austen Lane. Neither is really all that great, but that speaks more to Harvey than either of those two players. Groves now starts at outside linebacker for the Oakland Raiders after he was shipped out last off-season and is just really average.
So, what did the 2007 get?
A head coach still on contract most fans wanted fired.
A quarterback who's over paid and under performs in meaningful situations who most fans want replaced.
A draft class with only one remaining player who may not remain in the 2011 season.
A free agent period with $23 million in guaranteed money paid to two free agents that started a combined 14 games total in a Jaguars uniform.
A team who entered roster purge and rebuild mode just one season later.
Blame the total tenure of Shack Harris all you want, but it wasn't the drafting from 2003-2007 that killed a team on the rise. They miraculously were able to hold on and survive that with his draft picks that did work out. It was an off-season in 2008 of rushed mistakes and a false sense of worth that put the Jaguars where they're at today. In all reality, 2007 was a last gasp more than the start of a rise to the elite level of the NFL.
230 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
sorry... can't buy this argument...
normally, I would say things start at the top, but in this case I would say the glaring lack of talent is responsible for this team’s poor performance.
They have a lack of talent because they went for broke after 2008. That was the point.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 12:19 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I don't understand.
Are you saying that free agency is where we should be getting our talent? That is how it seems from the article, but I don’t think you believe that.
The way I see it, the mistake(s) with the most effect by a mile is the drafting. Porter and Florence only cost money, not picks. Del Rio and Garrard haven’t prevented us from drafting more talent.
by Conservative on Feb 15, 2011 12:41 PM EST up reply actions
So, signing Garrard to a $60M contract had ZERO effect on how the QB position or offense has been addressed? No factor whatsoever?
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 1:03 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
That is the issue...
Not Del Rio, not Harvey, not Florence. It’s Garrard.
You should rename the article “How much did the Jacksonville Jaguars giving David Garrard $60M hurt?”. The other points are meaningless.
by Fivus Viener on Feb 15, 2011 1:05 PM EST up reply actions
What other points?
Clearly I ONLY focused on David Garrard. I didn’t mention anything else, only Garrard. That was all I focused on, the entire article.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 1:18 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Signing Porter and Florence only hurt Weaver’s pocketbook. It had zero effect on the current roster.
by Fivus Viener on Feb 15, 2011 1:27 PM EST up reply actions
What hurts his pocketbook...
hurts this franchise. We do not have the resources to absorb busts. Its that simple.
agreed
As long as we have all of those empty club seats and suites we have to manage our payroll better than most, almost a moneyball approach.
I feel Gene is doing that and seems to “get” the business.
What long term effect did it have? If anything it had a positive effect because the team has stayed away from turds.
by Fivus Viener on Feb 15, 2011 1:32 PM EST up reply actions
Big contracts havent stopped Patriots, Colts, and others from drafting other QBs.
And DGs guaranteed money is all paid.
Well, obviously since we disagree on the matter, I should accuse you of having an agenda!
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 1:44 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I never said you had an agenda...
so do not accuse me of that please. I accused you as voicing your opinion as the opinion of the majority, and I do not think you should do that. It takes away form the credibility of your piece. An opinion is an opinion, and facts are facts. Opinions are based on facts, but are not necessarily true. You are welcome to your opinion, but that does not make it the same as mine or anyone’s. That’s all I am saying.
As disturbing as the contracts to Garrard and Del Rio are to you....
and yes I said to you, not, as you put it “to most fans”, I find the fact that you were given the reins to this great blog is to me……and most of its followers. This article was predictable before anyone ever read it. Nearly everything that is wrong with this team in your opinion is the fault of Garrard and Del Rio. I think you over state your opinion as being that of the majority of Jaguar fans…but I am just a fan and follower of this blog, nothing more and nothing less.
Is it possible that, through the efforts of Garrard, Del Rio, and certain other other members of this team / coaching staff, the Jaguars have over achieved despite a lack of talent brought on by years of poor drafting? I am sure your answer will be “NO!!!!!!!!”. I guess we will never know the truth. This is nothing personal, just my opinion.
by GAJAGFAN on Feb 15, 2011 12:20 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Del Rio has overachieved based on the talent he has been provided with. You could argue that they paid Garrard too soon but I think most teams would have rewarded a coach in Del Rio’s position with a similar contract.
by Fivus Viener on Feb 15, 2011 12:49 PM EST up reply actions
Del Rio, by his own admittance, was part of the failed personnel process.
But, he’s just lying.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 1:16 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Who said he was lying? Based on the talent on the field, Del Rio has done a good job keeping the team competitive.
by Fivus Viener on Feb 15, 2011 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
Was not the failed personnel process....
that Jack referred to prior to his signing of the big contract in 2007? Was he not referring to the Shack years? If that’s the case, he was not lying, but it does not support his not being deserving of his coaching contract either.
Did I say Del Rio WAS NOT deserving of his contract?
Before you accuse me of having an agenda, try not to put words in my mouth. Makes it look like you have…. an agenda.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 1:39 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
You write.....
“They bought into their own hype. Head coach Jack Del Rio got a 5-year contract extension, which the team is still saddled with today. Then new starting quarterback David Garrard was handed the keys to the franchise and hasn’t gotten it out of first gear since. Those two alone are arguably the Jaguars biggest albatrosses. They hitched their wagon to quarterback and coach, and neither were what they thought.” If that does not say you do not think the contracts were not warranted, tell me what does. I am not putting anything in your mouth. You said this, not me.
Alfie, have you ever heard or seen the word albatross used in a complementary way?
Perhaps
when a father albatross tells his son, “today, you become an albatross.”
by acedarney on Feb 15, 2011 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
So THAT'S why they measure arm-span at the Combine...
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
Contributing Writer at PatsPulpit
by Comedic.Sans on Feb 16, 2011 7:10 PM EST up reply actions
Albatross
I think when you get a hole in one on a par four, it is called an albatross or a 3 on a par 5. That is good right? Besides that, Alfie was stating his distaste for DG and JDR.
by MrMakersMark on Feb 15, 2011 4:25 PM EST up reply actions
I kind of agree with him
The way you worded it definitely implies that you feel Del Rio was not deserving of his contract.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 2:34 PM EST up reply actions
I think if people put their emotions aside
and really look at the pros and cons of the current situation of the last 3 years and truly believe that we are “rebuilding”, a rebuilding franchise truly can’t move forward without change at the top. In the NFL, that change at the top is the HC and the QB. Money talks, but there is no way after the 2009 season (and again this year) JDR and DG would survie if they weren’t owed 10’s of millions of dollars in salary. I can’t believe that GM Gene and Wayne Weaver themselves even believe that. The economics of the situation have trumped reality. I hope I am wrong, but I am not optimistic that we are going to see a 9 year .500 NFL coach in JDR and a 10 year .500/80 QB Rating Quarterback in DG, lead us to a Ring. The benefits is that when there is a change, 90% of the foundation will be laid in what GM Gene is doing with teh roster, but still you will have a new QB and a new HC and that will . Even is the roster is “fixed” this year and their are still struggles and a DG/JDR are gone, that is going to take another year or two for the new QB/HC to develop, so when do we truly expects the results we all desire? Another 3-4 years?
by Slawsc on Feb 15, 2011 1:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
We owe Garrard NOTHING...
in guaranteed money. We can cut him today and never pay him again. Whay don’t we? Because we have no better option.
It wasn't DG giving up all those TDs to the opponents.
I am not a huge DG fan, and if we find someone better, than by all means start him. Until then, stop being lazy and blaming the QB. Its so easy.
by JPQ! on Feb 15, 2011 1:03 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Ok, let's forget all the INT that David has thrown in December the last two years.
Indy 2009.
Indy 2010.
Washington 2010.
It’s shouldn’t take a new QB/HC a year or two to develop. See Harbaugh/Flacco and Ryan/Sanchez.
by Fivus Viener on Feb 15, 2011 1:06 PM EST up reply actions
It is about the Ring and neither of those combos have one yet.
Everyone is forgetting that the goal is to win the Super Bowl. A ring.
HAHA!
Sanchez.
Any training school for free citizens must begin by teaching distrust, not trust. It must teach questioning, not acceptance of stock answers.
-Cammar Pilru
by peytonsurdaddy on Feb 16, 2011 3:20 PM EST up reply actions
*Dirty Sanchez.
FIFY
"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007
by peytonsthebest on Feb 17, 2011 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
You are clearly wrong and just want to blame everything on David Garrard.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 1:14 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
It doesn’t matter what the truth is. You’ve already made your mind up what the truth is.
You clearly know me and my intentions significantly better than I do myself. That’s pretty amazing.
Thanks, for turning this into something it wasn’t.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 1:07 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Alfie.....
You turned it into what it was by speaking your opinion as if it was that of the majority, which I do not believe it was. I simply called you on it. Even when a person has a valid point of view, when they express it as fact, and not opinion, it looses its credibility. And who has made their mind up as to the truth….you say its me…Hello Pot, this is the kettle calling, your black!
Clearly, you are right and I am wrong.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 1:27 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
You need a thicker skin my friend.
by Fivus Viener on Feb 15, 2011 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Or, you people could stop accusing me of things that are false. My skins plenty think, I just don’t appreciate being labeled with things that aren’t true.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 1:46 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
You people? Yikes. I think you would be better served by closing comments to anything you write so you can assume everybody agreed with you.
by Fivus Viener on Feb 15, 2011 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Am I asking everyone to agree with me?
No, I’m not.
Again, attributing me with things I haven’t done.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 2:49 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
We all know that...
football is only played by the QB and the coach.. those are the only 2 positions that win and lose games.. the rest of the players on the field have absolutely no impact in the game.. so yeah, the Jaguars were doomed because and and ONLY because of the contracts given to Garrard and JDR, not because they WASTED 5 or 5 picks on 2 players that did absolutely nothing for this team… come on, Alfie wrote it, it MUST be true..
Blame Shack? Uh...yeah
Of course that drafting killed the team. Players like Fred Taylor, Jimmy Smith, Tony Brackens, Marcus Stroud, John Henderson, Paul Spicer, Rob Meier, Mike Peterson and Donovan Darius got old and were never replaced. 2007 was the last run for those guys.
The first round picks from 2003-2008 (except Lewis) were god awful. Do you really think the roster would have needed a complete rebuild if the team took Jordan Gross or Kevin Williams instead of Leftwich? Or Dunta Robinson, Ben Roethlisberger, Lee Evans or Jon Vilma instead of Reggie Williams? How about Roddy White, Aaron Rodgers or Demeco Ryans instead of Matt Jones? Dwayne Bowe or Jon Beason instead of Reggie Nelson? Ryan Clady or Joe Flacco instead of Derrick Harvey? The piss poor drafting set the team back for years. 2008 was just the last (and clearly worst) year of poor roster management.
Blame the total tenure of Shack Harris all you want, but it wasn’t the drafting from 2003-2007 that killed a team on the rise.
by Fivus Viener on Feb 15, 2011 12:33 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
I could be wrong, but...
I believe we owe Garrard nothing in guaranteed dollars. Pretty sure if we had (or acquire) a better option he would have been (or will be) cut.
The caption in the article sums it all up.
I think that that Harvey and Groves never emerging as effective tools for the defense hurt this team far worse than Harris or any other player. Of course Reggie Nelson and a constant shifting within the secondary played a major part as well.
I’ll also say that the O-line continues to contribute to our inconsistency. Monroe, Meester and Britton have really played spotty at times.
The lack of a developing QB will hurt this team in years to come unless something is done soon,
I can ALMOST buy this
But you completely overlooked the seismic collapse of the offensive line in the 2008 offseason and opener. If we had a consistent o line, who knows how 2008 would have gone?
We lost Manuwai and Mo Williams in the opener, Mo in warmups. Collier, no idea if he was going to make the squad. Lost Naeole to IR as well. Here were our o linemen on the roster at the end of the 2008 season:
72 Jordan Black T
63 Brad Meester C
61 Drew Miller C/G
62 Dennis Norman G/C
77 Uche Nwaneri G
79 Tony Pashos T
75 Stefan Rodgers T
70 Cameron Stephenson G
You tell me you’d feel comfortable going into battle with that motley crew? Dennis Norman are you freaking kidding me???
Can’t believe you neglected to mention this. Almost smacks of an agenda.
by Joe Fisher on Feb 15, 2011 1:18 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Oh yeah, I forgot longterm continuity and stability in key positions within a franchise was a bad thing.
Failed to convince me on pretty much any of your points here. I don’t believe Del Rio or Garrard are negatives, and it only took us 1 year and some cash to scrap all the free agent junk we did in that offseason.
I think Alfie is absolutely right when he addresses the Free Agent busts...
The fact of the matter is that a team like ours, in the smallest market, with fewer revenue streams, MUST NOT waste our money. Now, hindsight is 20/20, but wasting that money on 2 awful players hurts the organization. We simply cannot shrug off big money losses like Dallas, NYJ, NYG, et al… Its our cross to bear that we must use our scant financial resources wisely.
Well, you all figured me out. This was just a coy way of me writing about my David Garrard agenda.
I wish I could just muster up the courage to write about David Garrard instead of trying to slyly write an article to make it look like a criticism of a single off-season philosophy following a season where they got close and swung for the fence, and just wrote my true feelings. That everything is 100%.
I can’t slip anything through you guys.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 1:26 PM EST via mobile reply actions 1 recs
In fairness to you
I did not mean to imply it was only an agenda against #9. Just a case of revisionist history but let’s revise it if we had an offensive line who wasn’t UFL calibur.
Question: If the offensive line was so bad and lacked so much depth, why didn’t they know that PRIOR to the 2008 season?
What in the hell is my agenda, in any regard?
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 1:34 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Alfie's Agenda:
involves subverting the morals of the Gentile world, controlling the world’s economies, and controlling the press…oh, wait, that’s the Elders of Zion – my bad!
WHO THE HELL EXPECTS TO LOSE 2 STARTING LINEMEN IN WEEK 1?
SHOULD THEY HAVE CARRIED 15 DADGUM OFFENSIVE LINEMEN ON THE ROSTER JUST IN CASE? CAN’T HAVE ENOUGH INVENTORY!!!
Right, two starting lineman. Not five.
Two.
Two guards.
Maybe if they hadn’t traded all those draft picks to swing for the fence for the pass rush they thought was all they needed they could have taken a couple OL. Or maybe if they hadn’t swung for the fence in free agency and dropped $23 million on Porter and Florence, they could have signed more quality depth.
That’s what happens when you think you’re closer to a Super Bowl than you really are, isn’t it?
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 1:53 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Yes it is......
and that, my friend, is poor drafting / personnel management, and that is what killed this teams forward progress, not a coaching contract and a QB contract. I knew you would find the light….congrats, and welcome to right side!!!!!
Did I just rope him in with my rant?
or did we just pick out 5 words in his article and run with it like a pack of wolves?
I should have made mention of those poor trades and free agent signings in the article.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 2:00 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Do you truly not see those decisions....
as being much larger part of where this team is at this point than a couple of contracts?
You tell me. You seem to know what I feel and what my true intentions are.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 2:08 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Ok.....
Now your just being silly…..I asked you a legitimate questions, but to take the high road and answer yours, I do believe that you see David Garrard and Jack Del Rio as the two biggest parts of this teams failure, and see no chance of success with them as any part of this organization. How did I do?
by GAJAGFAN on Feb 15, 2011 2:13 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yes you are.......
and then please enlighten me as to your position if I got it wrong. Obviously I do not know you as well as you accuse me of.
He very obviously mentioned drafting and personnel management
Did you not read the article? You can’t just read through the third paragraph and decide that that’s all the content in the article.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 2:12 PM EST up reply actions
And you need to read the last paragraph....
Alfie writes “Blame the total tenure of Shack Harris all you want, but it wasn’t the drafting from 2003-2007 that killed a team on the rise.” With that line he implies that though drafting may have been an issue, it was not the drafting, but the two contracts (DG and JDR) that cast the future of the Jaguars to this point. He then uses the personnel argument when discussing the matter with Joe…….my question is which is it? Which is the killing blow? The bad personnel choices, the two contracts? What killed the Jags? They both can’t be the biggest reason.
..
That’s because the drafting from 2008 was the main issue. The drafting from 2003-2007 was A problem, but not THE problem.
2003: Rashean Mathis, Vince Manuwai, George Wrighster
2004: Daryl Smith, Greg Jones, Ernest Wilford, Josh Scobee, Bobby McCray
2005: Khalif Barnes, Scott Starks, Gerald Sensabaugh
2006: Marcedes Lewis, Maurice Jones-Drew
2007: Justin Durant, Mike Sims-Walker, Uche Nwaneri, Adam Podlesh
These draft were not amazing, but they still provided some solid players. However, 2008:
Derrick Harvey, Quentin Groves, Thomas Williams, Trae Williams, Chauncey Washington
ALL of these players were useless. The 2008 draft was the death blow; 2003-2007 weren’t awesome, but they weren’t horrible either.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 2:23 PM EST up reply actions
The first round picks were all busts except Lewis. It’s great they hit on some mid-late rounders but even those were almost non-existent after 2004.
by Fivus Viener on Feb 15, 2011 2:45 PM EST up reply actions
True
But those drafts still provided talent that contributed to the success of the team. 2008 not only didn’t contribute at all, but it cut the team’s available picks in half to do so. I would agree that the 2003-2007 drafting was not what killed the Jaguars’ momentum; the 2008 draft combined with the awful FA contracts and the Garrard extension were what killed it. That’s just my opinion.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
Only one first rounder
in that 03-07 list. That was the biggest problem. None of the first rounders did anything.
You decided for yourself what it implied
I took it to imply that a combination of the 2008 draft, the 2008 free agent signings, and the JDR/Garrard extensions all killed the momentum.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 2:26 PM EST up reply actions
Now the last sentence I can agree with you on.
But losing the Guards and I believe Uche was raw in 2008 as well and asked to shoulder quite a load. Hard to play quarterback from your ass, which was what DG was knocked on quite a bit in 2008.
you know, it would be nice if you debated instead of resorting to petulance
by Joe Fisher on Feb 15, 2011 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It’s impossible to debate. I have an agenda, so it doesn’t matter what I say. Minds are made up, regardless of my actual words or feelings. That’s been made pretty obvious.
I’ll ask again: What agenda do I have?
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 1:57 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
well, for one, nothing at all positive about DG
but we knew that. Little rests on the shoulders of JDR, and it’s all Wayne Weaver’s fault for being unduly benevolent to undeserving players.
Does that about cover it?
Sometimes this site is a carbon copy of the Pete Prisco show.
You wanted to know why I couldnt debate?
There you go. You showed why I can’t. I’m not allowed.
It’s hard to debate when I’m constantly attributed with things I’ve never said, done, or think. As I said, it’s pretty obvious what I actually type doesn’t matter. It’s pointless.
You clearly already know what I think, regardless if I’ve actually said it or not.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 2:20 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Maybe we all are lacking a little reading comprehension
ahh, the painkillers and Grey Goose are kicking in…
Anyway, if I had left out the part about “smacks of agenda”, then I don’t think there is much in my post that you could disagree with.
For the one line innuendo, I apologize. Bad play on my part.
They did not know prior to the 2008 season....
because they were too focused on DG and JDR’s contracts. It blinded them, and that is how those two contracts hurt the team. C’mon Alfie, you know that!
Honestly I would love to see Alfie write an article
that just has the words “David Garrard” and a picture.
Nothing else and see what happens.
I would love to see it too.....
maybe even use the picture with the fedora. The point is, we all know he can’t, no matter how hard he might try.
Yep. Its a big birthday for great QBs:
Garrard, Steve McNair, Drew Bledsoe, and Jim Kelly. (Also, Patrick Ramsey and Jared Lorenzen)
Some..........
come on Joe….say what you really mean…..Alfie will make an argument that Ramsey and Lorenzen are better than David!
Nope.
I will not put words in Mr. Crow’s mouth. If he thought that, I’d really question his foorball IQ.
Let the questioning begin.....
I ma just kidding. I am sure he knows more than I ever will, and I mean that in all seriousness. I just think he needs to work on his presentation…that’s all.
I meant football by the way
I agree. I get aggraveted reading his stuff sometimes, but the dude does know his stuff.
Shocker that people are picking out the parts they want and addressing those
The main point of this article is that the Jaguars overrated the talent level of their roster heading into the 2008 season. Was Garrard’s outstanding 2007 the reason? Perhaps. Was the defense’s solid performance the reason? Perhaps. Was it something completely different? Perhaps. All I know is that hindsight being 20/20, the offseason following the 2007 season was a disaster. Someone said signing Porter and Florence didn’t hurt the team. SERIOUSLY??? Not only did they disrupt the team chemistry and royally suck, but they cost an enormous amount of money. How many other players could the Jaguars have signed with the same money that could have helped the team more than those two free agent busts? Quite a few. I see people saying that Alfie is pinning this all on Garrard…reading comprehension fail. Try again. The collapse after 2007 was based on a multitude of factors, all of which he touched on in his article.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
This is true
The problem is that the offensive line supposedly had enough depth. The starters were Barnes, Manuwai, Meester, Williams, and Pashos. Naeole, Norman were solid backups. Nwaneri was drafted to develop on the line. Williams was the swing tackle as well as playing guard, so the team thought they were covered there as well. Overall at that point the line was starting to get old, but simply wasn’t addressed via the draft. Perhaps they would’ve had picks to address the offensive line if they hadn’t traded half their draft to get Harvey and Groves? The offensive line situation seems VERY similar to the quarterback situation this year…going into 2008, the offensive line was supposed to be solid enough; however, all it took was a couple injuries and Pashos falling off to turn a supposed strength into a huge weakness. Was it poor planning? Bad luck? Both? Who knows exactly what it was, but if the Jaguars had not signed Porter and Florence or traded half their draft for two underperforming pass-rushers, they easily could have addressed offensive line.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
agreed
Plus, you can’t underestimate the impact the Collier shooting had on this team. Then the losing started, and folks thought they deserved more money, new contracts, etc. and I am sure there was a LOT of acrimony toward the qb in the locker room with the $60M deal.
Because you’re focusing on what transpired on the field in 2008. I focused on what transpired BEFORE the 2008 season. The injuries to Manuwai and Williams in 2008 didn’t effect the team in 2009 or 2010.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 2:27 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Indirectly
Manuwai was still recovering from ACL surgery in 2009. Williams’s injury allowed Nwaneri to play the 2007 season, and he was more effective in the 2009+ seasons.
I think Alfie addressed all the issues, and I like his writing...
But he uses the quantifiers “most fans want him gone” when referencing DG and JDR. Really? Based on what? Did he do a phone poll? Go door to door?
Also, he says Garrard and JDRs contracts are keeping them here. Wayne Weaver has repeatedly said that is not the case, so who is telling the truth…WW or AC? I will go with WW, no offense.
I have two very honest questions:
How many Jaguars fans do you interact with on a daily basis?
How many Jagurs fans do you think I interact with on a daily basis?
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 2:24 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I probably have a group of about 6 -10 I talk to pretty much every day.
I am sure you interact with more than I do each day.
However, are you telling me you interact with MOST Jaguar fans each day. Or have heard the opinion of MOST Jaguar fans on the subject of DG/JDR?
Have you ever heard of sampling?
You are absolutely nit-picking this article. Whether or not “most” Jaguar fans actually want Garrard replaced really doesn’t have much to do with the content of the article. YOU are turning it into a Garrard discussion, not Alfie. I would personally rather talk about the piss-poor 2008 draft, as I believe that to be the main reason the team took a huge step backward.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 2:31 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think it is nit-picking. It’s a valid. You shouldn’t say something like “most Jaguar fans…” without knowing it is correct.
If he wanted to nit-pick, he could have said how poor this sentence is:
A draft class with only one remaining player who may not remain in the 2011 season.
by Fivus Viener on Feb 15, 2011 2:34 PM EST up reply actions
Even if that's true,
it has almost nothing to do with the purpose of the post. That’s what nit-picking is. Whether it’s true or not is not really relevant to the content of this article.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
The purpose of the post gets lost...
when the opposing side expresses their opinion as that of the majority, and their is no proof to that. That is what I was trying to express to Mr. Crow.
That's a fair point of view,
but if you re-read your initial post in this thread, you went about it very poorly. Your initial post:
As disturbing as the contracts to Garrard and Del Rio are to you….
and yes I said to you, not, as you put it "to most fans", I find the fact that you were given the reins to this great blog is to me……and most of its followers. This article was predictable before anyone ever read it. Nearly everything that is wrong with this team in your opinion is the fault of Garrard and Del Rio. I think you over state your opinion as being that of the majority of Jaguar fans…but I am just a fan and follower of this blog, nothing more and nothing less.
Is it possible that, through the efforts of Garrard, Del Rio, and certain other other members of this team / coaching staff, the Jaguars have over achieved despite a lack of talent brought on by years of poor drafting? I am sure your answer will be "NO!!!!!!!!". I guess we will never know the truth. This is nothing personal, just my opinion.
Your post reads like this to me:
I can’t believe you have the reins to this blog. Everyone knows you have beef with Garrard and that’s all you write about. You don’t care what anybody else thinks.
Can you see how your initial post would read as more of a combative post than the point you were trying to make, which I do believe is a fair point?
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 2:43 PM EST up reply actions
I believe....
that holding the position Mr. Crow does comes with a responsibility. He, in my opinion, does not carry out that responsibility when he embellishes his position with false statements like “to most fans”. I made an aggressive first post, and I meant it, because it needs to stop in my opinion.
I do not care that he does not like David, and often see his point of view (not this time, but that is irrelevant). I saw Alfie’s post as combative because of the way it was written, and I responded in kind to get the response I did. He may have had the same plan! I do see your point though.
Can you show something that makes my statement false?
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 3:08 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Ehhh
I think I’m with GAJAGFAN here…by saying “most fans”, the burden of proof is on your to say that it is indeed “most fans”. I think it would make more sense to simply add “in my experience discussing with Jag fans” or something of the sort. I think he makes a fair point. I don’t agree that this much of this discussion should be about the “most fans” part, but it is at least a fair point.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
Well, if he’s going to accuse me of making a false statement, he should at least have evidence of the contrary.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 3:18 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
That it true as well
I missed that wording.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 3:24 PM EST up reply actions
There is no win here .....
and a quick poll that closes before most folks can get home from work will not prove anything either. Alfie, I think you have forgotten more about football that I will ever know. I was a lineman, and did not consider much else of the game. I respect your knowledge.
I only tried to point out that your stories come across in a way that takes away from your credibility in my opinion. Take for what it is worth, or don’t take it at all. Go Jags!
Why do they come of in a way that effects my credibility? Because you disagree? Because you don’t feel the same way?
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 3:54 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Because they seem one sided...
and not open minded to me. I have also said that I have seen your point on many articles even when I disagreed with you, but not this one, and not many that deal with JDR and David G. The general position that you seem to take is that the team would be much better without them, and there is no way anyone will ever know that for sure, because no one can turn back time, yet it is presented as fact, not opinion. This was not about me disagreeing with you, just that this article, and others (but not all) are written as if they are fact, and not opinion, and I think that is a bad practice.
This is your problem: You assume way too much and read into things that aren’t there. You keep implying I’m laying the majority of the blame on the JDR and DG contracts when I simply included them in a litany of bad decisions.
Feel free to prove anything I said wrong. I interact with hundreds of Jaguars fans on a daily basis. The majority wanted JDR fired and the majority want Garrard replaced. While it may not be a quantifiable literal fact, I have no problem stating it matter of factly because of the amount of fans I interact with on a daily basis.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 4:20 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I do not have a problem.....
this is a blog site, and nothing on here would ever pose a problem for me. I expressed an opinion, albeit possibly with more aggression than I should have about your writing style, and I stand behind it. I think you present your opinion on things in too factual of a manner, and I think it is a mistake. I guess I feel that is your problem. Look at that, we both have problems. Guess that makes us human!
This statement must be a lie.
There is no such thing as “hundreds of Jaguars fans.”
Any training school for free citizens must begin by teaching distrust, not trust. It must teach questioning, not acceptance of stock answers.
-Cammar Pilru
by peytonsurdaddy on Feb 16, 2011 8:07 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
He has a point (see below)
You said:
He, in my opinion, does not carry out that responsibility when he embellishes his position with false statements like "to most fans".
He stated it as an opinion; you are the one making the factual allegation that his statement is false. The burden of proof now rests on you to prove that his statement is false.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 3:25 PM EST up reply actions
I mean see above, not below
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 3:25 PM EST up reply actions
Wow. I guess we see how important facts are to you...
“whether its true or not is not really relevant to the content of this article”. Are you serious? So, to get the “main point” of an article across, people should just sprinkle their writing with little phrases like “most Jaguar fans want” or “most Americans believe”. That is an awful, awful attitude for someone who contributes written pieces. I shall now take your pieces with a grain of salt, given your disregard for truth.
by JPQ! on Feb 15, 2011 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
So you believe that instead of first addressing the purpose of the post, then diving into semantics,
we should simply focus on the parts of the post that, if removed, would not change the content of the post? I don’t have a problem with trying to correct these opinions; the thing that bothers me is that people have ignored the purpose of this post to do so. Perhaps I stated my opinion poorly above, and I apologize for that.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
I actually agree with you...
that Alfie included the FA busts and bad drafts in his assesment. As I have said before, AC does great things here, but it just seemed like he glossed over the Shack mistakes and put an unfair amount of blame on DG and JDR.
This was certainly a great discussion post, though!!!
Agreed on the draft problems (and FA busts).
Really? Holding a writer accountable for his words is “nitpicking”? I am a Jag fan and I don’t want JDR fired, and neither do “most” of my friends.
Maybe, as blog writers, you all should be alittle more receptive to questions from your readers. If you write it, then debate about what you believe and back it up.
I like Alfies writing, he does a lot of great things, but I certainly have the right to disagree with him.
...
He said “wantED” fired, not “want fired”. Indeed, from my experience, MOST Jaguar fans were calling for Del Rio’s head after the collapse in 2009.
I completely support the opinion that perhaps that was not the best choice of words. My point is that there are 114 comments in this thread, and it seems the majority of them are trying to address parts of the post that aren’t relevant to the purpose of the post. Perhaps that’s an error by the author, but it absolutely does not promote discussion when people ignore the post’s actual content to harp on opinions that don’t really have anything to do with the post’s purpose. Whether or not Del Rio and Garrard’s contracts are “albatrosses” is certainly relevant to the discussion, but whether or not “most” fans want them replaced is really not relevant at all.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 2:39 PM EST up reply actions
Isn’t addressing parts of the post the point of having a post?
and it seems the majority of them are trying to address parts of the post that aren’t relevant to the purpose of the post.
by Fivus Viener on Feb 15, 2011 2:43 PM EST up reply actions
Example
Say you write a FanPost about how the Jaguars drafting Marcedes Lewis was an awesome pick. You write several paragraphs detailing how Lewis has progressed and has become a Pro-Bowler. In the article, you include a statement saying something like “when he was picked, most Jaguar fans were a little disappointed”. Now imagine that there are 100 comments on your post, and when you check the comments, 75% of them have to do with whether or not “most” Jaguar fans were disappointed when Lewis was picked. The content of your post has been ignored. What’s your opinion? I would personally be upset that my article was completely glossed over in favor of a sentence that, if removed, would not change the content of my post one bit. That’s all I’m trying to say.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 2:47 PM EST up reply actions
I hear what you are saying...
I am a former English major and teacher of writing – all I’m saying is I( would be careful of those little phrases because they are what people will harp on. I just think he couldve phrased it better.
However, you are 100% right that the posts main points are apart from that.
I agree with you
Glad we could work this out. :)
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
I wouldn’t say “most Jaguar fans..” without some proof. You cannot make generalizations and then get upset when people call you out for them.
by Fivus Viener on Feb 15, 2011 2:51 PM EST up reply actions
Again, agreed
I personally would avoid statements like that. However, I would argue that his proof would be his experience talking to Jaguar fans. Out of the fans I’ve personally spoken with, the majority want Garrard replaced, and the majority wanted Del Rio fired after the 2009 collapse. There really isn’t a way to prove that “most” Jaguar fans wanted them replaced; all you can do is sample the population. In his sample (and mine), most fans wanted them replaced. If he had qualified that statement by saying “in my experience talking with other Jaguar fans, most of them wanted Garrard replaced”, would that be fair game? That seems fair to me.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
That's based on his experience with Jaguar fans
From my own experience with Jaguar fans, I would completely agree that “most fans want him replaced”. Probably somewhere near 75-80% of Jaguar fans I’ve interacted with think we need to upgrade at quarterback.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 2:28 PM EST up reply actions
So then...
the words he (and you) should be using are “most of the fans I speak to”.
And, please include me in the fans looking to upgrade at QB!!!
But, and I am sure yuo agree when I say this.....
looking to upgrade is far different than feeling that the current QB contract has been a major contributor to the downfall of the team.
Please show where I said the majority of fans felt that.
To quote myself: “…who most fans want replaced.”
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 2:46 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Was this meant to go to JPQ?
Because I can’t see where it applies to my last post? From what I understand, the majority of the bloggers feel this way too!
Also
Are you sure he said they ARE keeping them here, or that they WERE keeping them here? I read it as the reason they were on the roster from 2008 to 2010, not the reason they’re on the roster in 2011.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 2:29 PM EST up reply actions
Both
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 2:40 PM EST up reply actions
I took issue with him saying this. It is just a crazy statement to make.
Blame the total tenure of Shack Harris all you want, but it wasn’t the drafting from 2003-2007 that killed a team on the rise.
by Fivus Viener on Feb 15, 2011 3:07 PM EST up reply actions
I don't agree that that's a crazy statement to make,
and I explained why earlier in this thread.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
As did I. Mine is the one highlighted in green in case you wanted to find it.
by Fivus Viener on Feb 15, 2011 3:20 PM EST up reply actions
...
Would you be happy if they replaced those bust first-round picks with the guys you suggested, but replaced the picks they did hit on (Smith, Jones-Drew, etc.) with bust players instead? They whiffed the first round, but at least they got some good players.
It’s a statement that can be disagreed with, for sure, but it’s definitely not “crazy”.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 3:28 PM EST up reply actions
Christ.
This mess just went .com boards on us. Reel it in, gentlemen.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~Carl Sagan
"Boy, that escalated quickly
I mean that really got out of hand fast" – Ron Burgundy
"I’m going to punish him. If he hits me, fine, but if I catch him, believe me, I’m going to get the better shot." - Fred Taylor
by kterr on Feb 15, 2011 2:46 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
I went through every single comment
And you sir made the best one hands down.
Garrard is more then an average QB
hes a good QB, but he works with a limited passing offense, when something doesn’t go right, everybody is quick to blame somebody, without looking deeper into the sitatuion, and unfortunately, Garrard is always blamed.
"Don't go away Mad, Just go away."
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000348972710
and by the way
this is a good article, that makes good sense.
"Don't go away Mad, Just go away."
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000348972710
by rhettchrystal on Feb 15, 2011 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
For the record...
Your “Should Garrard be replaced” poll is a complete fraud.
By whom are you saying he should be replaced? Bouman, Edwards, McCown? An as yet undrafted QB? Peyton Manning? Tom Brady?
Of course MOST people are going to say yes to this poll, because you have a variable as his replacement. Whoever votes Yes can see a great QB in his place, not a potential Ryan Leaf.
For the umpteenth time: I also want him replaced…IF WE GET A BETTER OPTION.
I put the poll question in the exact same manner I made my statement, absent of qualifiers. I didn’t say who or with what. I just said wanted replaced.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 3:12 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I think there's a little more to it then yes or no
Like I want Garrard replaced from the starting position within a season, but I think no matter who we draft they won’t be nearly as effective as Garrard will be next season. So I voted no in the poll, although I don’t want Garrard as our started in 2012.
So then, you want him replaced?
My statement was rather ambiguous. I simply said most fans wanted him replaced. I didn’t specify by who, what, or when.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 3:32 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I’m not focusing on DG. I’m focusing on a statement i made that was labeled as “false”.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 3:55 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Any fan in their right mind....
would want their QB replaced with a better QB. This poll will prove nothing but that point. you know this is a much deeper question than that. You just happen to be of the opinion that he should be gone, and created a poll to prove your point. Well at least we all had fun today.
Now, hold on just second.
I made an ambiguous statement that most fans wanted David Garrard replaced. You and a few others accused me of embellishing and making a false statement.
I put up a poll, with the exact same abigiouity that the statement was made go get a tangible gauge, and it’s not meaningful?
How can you throw a fit about me making an ambiguous statement, then in the same breath pitch a fit about a poll giving tangible evidence to a statement you claimed was false?
Why should there be qualifiers? The statement you claimed was false had none.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 3:47 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Dont wanna get in the middle of this cause i honestly dont care
but he does have a point here
"I’m going to punish him. If he hits me, fine, but if I catch him, believe me, I’m going to get the better shot." - Fred Taylor
When you put it that way then yes, I do want him replaced
I took it more as do I want Garrard as my QB tomorrow, so I voted no.
That's why this poll is a farce.
Alfie will get his result, and we will all be taught a lesson for questioning one of his pieces.
You’ll be taught a lesson in the danger of taking an ambiguous statement, and assigning meaning YOU WANT to it when it really had none.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 3:51 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Actually, no. I won't.
The lesson I will glean from this is that you cannot have your sweeping statements questioned. Duly noted.
It must be nice
by JPQ! on Feb 15, 2011 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
It’d just be nice to make an ambiguous statement and not have it twisted into something it wasn’t intended to be.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 4:01 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
What's so great
about an ambiguous statement? Just say what you mean clearly that cannot be misconstrued or read into, and this post is 10 comments long. We probably would have gotten more out of those ten comments than this whole deal (except kterr’s comment that’s now green above…hilarious).
It could have been avoided by asking for clarification, too.
I said what I meant. Most fans want him replaced. I didnt specify how or when, because there are so many varying degrees.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 6:04 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
It could have been avoided.....
by providing clarification too! Touché Mr. Crow. Have a great night, and look forward to tomorrow!
If you think I should have provided clarification, the onus is on you to ask for it.
It’s only not clear because you don’t understand it. It’s clear to me when I write it. I’m not going to ask everyone if they understand what everything I said, meant. That’s not my responsibility. Sure, I can be more clear, but it’s impossible to be 100% clear. If it’s not, simply ask.
Series of events:
1. Alfie says “A quarterback who’s over paid and under performs in meaningful situations who most fans want replaced.”
2. GAJAGFAN says “He, in my opinion, does not carry out that responsibility when he embellishes his position with false statements like ‘to most fans’.”
3. Alfie says “Well, if he’s going to accuse me of making a false statement, he should at least have evidence of the contrary.”
4. Alfie posts a poll asking for “evidence of the contrary.” The poll is worded EXACTLY as the statement in the original post is stated.
There were multiple errors in this whole process. The first error was Alfie posting his sampling as a majority opinion. The second error was GAJAGFAN accusing Alfie of his opinion being a false statement of fact without any evidence to the contrary.
Can we all agree that saying “most fans want Garrard replaced” is a statement that cannot be proven either true or false by discussion or a poll on Big Cat Country? If sampling is going to be rejected as a method of statistic-gathering, it’s fair to say that this is an impossible task.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 3:57 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
Congratulations
You’ve made the first level headed and accurate post on this article
"I’m going to punish him. If he hits me, fine, but if I catch him, believe me, I’m going to get the better shot." - Fred Taylor
I am in agreement......
and I do think that this is the most logical post of the day…maybe not the funniest, but the most logical.
Most members of Big Cat Country are Jaguar fans
Most Jaguar fans are not members of Big Cat Country
The poll proves nothing
How do you know most Jaguars fans are not members?
How dare you make such an embellished and false statement.
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 4:04 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Do you not realize how many Jaguar fans I talk to on a daily basis. I run around town asking people two questions:
1.) Are you a Jaguar fan
2.) Are you a member of Big Cat Country
I am around Jacksonville all day, everyday baby!
Me and Poor Penny Carson.
by Fivus Viener on Feb 15, 2011 4:27 PM EST up reply actions
Its mind numbing.
He is putting up a poll to ask if fans want the QB replaced – without regard to by whom, or when said replacement takes place. Really? Let’s put up another poll every day for the next 53 days and and see if the fans want to replace each player – at some point in time, and by someone.
Did I do either in the statement that people had issue with and was labeled embellished and false?
by Alfie Crow on Feb 15, 2011 4:06 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Aside...
You see, the problem with the Rec/Flag system is that whenever I click on actions, I am redirected to the top of the screen. I then have to scroll down through all of the posts again to find the one that I wanted to Rec. This is not a problem in threads with fewer replies. However, in one such as this one with great length(no jokes) it’s kind of a pain in the ass. Anything we can do about this?
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~Carl Sagan
That's not important right now.....
we are in the middle of an endless argument. Come on J, support your fellow 435ers and jump in! I am just kidding of course.
That's weird
My computer does not do that. Perhaps it’s your browser?
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 4:51 PM EST up reply actions
are you accusing him of having an inadequate browser?
Which browser should JLydon37 use?
Explorer
Firefox
Navigator ( do they still have that?)
I'm not accusing anyone of anything
I don’t understand how you read it that way at all.
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 5:28 PM EST up reply actions
Bah

Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 15, 2011 5:31 PM EST up reply actions
I've never heard of that happening to anyone.
Any training school for free citizens must begin by teaching distrust, not trust. It must teach questioning, not acceptance of stock answers.
-Cammar Pilru
by peytonsurdaddy on Feb 16, 2011 9:04 PM EST up reply actions
I got a great idea...
…everybody go and get drunk, wake up tommorrow afternoon, and start over…
"Don't go away Mad, Just go away."
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000348972710
by rhettchrystal on Feb 15, 2011 4:25 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
Rabble rabble rabble
Head writer at TheJaggernaut.com.
Follow me on Twitter
by Adam Stites on Feb 15, 2011 5:44 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
You missed the Anchorman reference obviously
by jstnblke41 on Feb 15, 2011 11:51 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I thought it was a South Park reference
Contributor for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Feb 16, 2011 6:12 PM EST up reply actions
Wow. I can't believe I missed all of this!
I can’t believe one fragment of a sentence caused all of this madness. I can’t believe that people don’t realize that this is a blog, and as such is all opinion. Every column on this and every other blog should be read as opinion and not fact. The reason for the comments is for healthy debate. This was not healthy debate. I read every single comment, and I felt like strangling certain people.
Now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, I have a hard time believing that anyone thinks that Garrard has lived up to his $60M contract. I also can’t believe that people don’t think that the money could have been better used elsewhere. And I also can’t believe that people don’t see that money is what’s keeping Garrard’s and JDR’s butts in their jobs. Wayne Weaver may be filthy rich, but that doesn’t mean that $10M is the same as $20 to him. $10M is a LOT of money to give somebody for nothing.
.500 is nothing?
there’s folks in Buffalo, Detroit, San Fran, Oakland, Houston, Cleveland, and Arizona who’d kill for consistent .500 with a playoff berth every now and again.
We’re not that bad, especially rebuilding on the fly. Alfie said a great word the other day in regards to Garrard. Called him a bridge. That’s about the best description of Garrard at this stage of his career. I’m sure many of us expected better things after 2007 and in a few spots this year, he showed us that when he’s at his best, he’s damn good. Unfortunately he has not shown that enough.
Is that a fair statement?
Maybe.
If I understand what you’re trying to say, then yes, it’s fair. However, you don’t want to pay your bridge guy $60M. And the nothing I was referring to was cutting ties with a coach and paying him $10M to sit on his couch or coach another team.
LOUD NOISES!!!!!!
Coach Crennel, if all of your Coors Lights can talk what happens when you open your fridge? There's generally "Hoopla" involved.
I'm not entirely sure how the David Garrard $60m contract becomes a giant albatross, if a better alternative presents itself
The New England Patriots signed Drew Bledsoe to a then-record 10-year, $103m contract… in March 2001.
Bledsoe was hurt early on in the season, Tom Brady took over, and the rest is history.
by April 2002 he was traded to Buffalo, having only played one of his ten contracted years for the Patriots (and having done so mostly on the bench).
If the organisation thinks Garrard isn’t the way to go, they can get rid of him and move in another direction, and all they’ll eat is the signing bonus (to an extent).
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
Contributing Writer at PatsPulpit

by 































