Stop Comparing Blaine Gabbert to Aaron Rodgers
by Alfie Crow on May 18, 2011 10:15 AM EDT
in Jacksonville Jaguars News
Email
PrintI see lots of people try to use Aaron Rodgers as an example to sit Blaine Gabbert, and it's one of the most disingenuous things I've ever seen written/said. Just stop, please. They're not in the same situation. When the Packers drafted Aaron Rodgers, he fell into their lap. They didn't move up to get him. They also had some guy named Brett Favre quarterbacking their team.
Every time someone says "Gabbert should sit, just look at Aaron Rodgers," it kills me inside, because they're situations are completely different. Everyone seems to forget also, Aaron Rodgers sat for THREE full seasons before he started. He sat not because he wasn't "ready", he sat because Brett Favre was still better.
If David Garrard can't beat out Blaine Gabbert in training camp, he won't start. They're not going to just sit Blaine Gabbert for the sake of sitting him. Brett Favre continuously beat out Aaron Rodgers. Once the team felt the were close, they moved on. They traded Brett Favre away and started Aaron Rodgers. Would Rodgers have been just as good if he had started right away? I have no idea. There's no way to tell.
If Gabbert's close to or beats out Garrard, he'll start and Garrard will be gone. If he's not, he won't and Garrard will start until the coaching staff deems it's time to make the switch. It's rather simple.
Saying "Look at Aaron Rodgers," is akin to saying "Tom Brady" when looking at finding late-round franchise quarterbacks. One example doesn't make proof, one way or another.
/rant
51 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
But just look at....
Phillip Rivers.
I think that’s the situation that is more akin to what we’re seeing with Gabbert vs. Garrard. Rivers missed much of the preseason due to a holdout, and couldn’t get the starting job from Brees, or the backup job from Doug Flutie. This offseason will be similar due to the lockout and then a potential holdout. David Garrard may get the job just because the competition hasn’t started yet (Gabbert may even sit the early part of the season behind McCown). In Rivers’ second year, he took the starting job after Brees injured his shoulder, and the Chargers decided to move on without Brees that following offseason.
Rivers sat for two full seasons.
by Alfie Crow on May 18, 2011 10:33 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
He came in at the end of the second season
after Brees injured his shoulder.
Can we just say it's going to be somewhere between the time it took Leftwich to supplant Brunell and the time it took Rodgers to get in and be done with it?
I think the longer the lockout goes, the less likely it is that Gabbert starts Opening Day 2011 unless Garrard’s finger did not heal properly. Keep in mind there’s also the possibility (likelihood) of a holdout on Gabbert’s part as his agent will wait until Locker signs, provided there is no rookie wage scale.
i say he starts by November
Can't stand the truth?
by Aristotle45 on May 18, 2011 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions
I think a lot of it is dependent on our record at the bye week
Again, all things equal if there is no lockout and the full season is played, if we go into the bye 6-2, does he get the nod? Personally, what I’d do given our down the stretch fades is pull the plug on Garrard beginning Week 13, even if we are 8-4 or 9-3 and see if this is the reason for our late season fades. I kind of think our over-dependence on the running game is a key factor in our fades, which leads to a gassed defense, especially what is primarily a passing division.
WTF?
You’d pull the plug on a 9-3 starting QB? That’s incredible. Oh well..only on Big Cat Country.
I am glad to know...
that the end of season collapse can all be laid on the shoulders of David Garrard. Now we know! Thanks Joe!
I’m not saying it all rests on Garrard’s shoulders, but he’s historically been awful in December/Jan.
by Alfie Crow on May 18, 2011 12:52 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
anytime
It’s crap stirring time. Look, here’s the deal. I like David. Think he’s an average to really good quarterback. But he’s at a point where he is what he is. Did I think he had games like the Dallas game in him? Yes. But there are not enough of those left in him. Personally, i don’t know if he can last the entire season given his style of play. I am also still very intrigued how he responds to surgery on his finger. It’s got to impact his throwing, right?
Do I think we’ll go 9-3 in our first 12 game? No. But the fact of the matter is we were at the door the last 2 years and we didn’t kick it down. Why should I believe Garrard is the guy to get it done in 2011?
Why should you believe Gabbert is the guy ?
Just curious ? What has he shown in the NFL to make you believe he’s good enough that you’d bench a guy that’s 9-3 ?
Here's hoping we have NFL football in 2011
Replacing a guy who is average and is currently making $60 million due to a 4th and 2 scramble in Pittsburgh one Saturday night in January.
Why not find out? For one, we in all likelihood will not be 9-3 so it’s a nebulous argument on my part. But a Garrard led Jaguars team has stumbled at the finish 2 years straight and to me that indicates a trend,
Do you honestly think
that DG was given that contract because of a single play ?
And while where at it, why don’t we have open tryouts for a QB and maybe Mark Wahlberg can come in and save the day.
The Jaguars lost to the Colts last year because the defense couldn’t slow down the WORST rushing attack in the NFL. Donald Brown ran for 129 yards, on 14 carries, and the Colts scored 34 points against what was a terrible defense all season.
And if memory serves me, the best player on the Jaguars roster, MJD, sat out the last 2 games of the year. But hay, be talk facts when it’s so much easier to blame the QB for everything.
I notice that Houston has a better QB, a much better WR, a statistically better RB last year and hey, they still didn’t win many games because their defense, like the Jaguars, SUCKS.
Here's hoping we have NFL football in 2011
All I'm saying is Weaver did not have to give him the contract at that time.
And no, not one singular play, otherwise Josh Scobee would be a $5 million a year kicker. He did a very admirable job in 2007 but, and you can’t deny this, he was a game manager.
We lost to the Colts because Austin Collie killed us, then got kayoed and we severely underestimated Donald Brown. The f’ed up onsides didn’t help matter either.
Joe....
I agree. In your own words “Why not find out?” My point is this can all be found out in camp and preseason games. Yes I know nothing is like the real deal, but an NFL coaching staff should be able to tell who is the best guy in those non-game situations.
You showed your hand.
With the pull the plug comment. You have been seen for what you are.
I don't compare Gabbert to Rodgers
because of the situation they are and were in, i compare them based on playing style.
Can't stand the truth?
Great observation Alfie.
If David Garrard can’t beat out Blaine Gabbert in training camp, he won’t start. They’re not going to just sit Blaine Gabbert for the sake of sitting him.
I agree 100%. That is the way it should be in the NFL. You play your best players. Now there will be times when a younger player has steadily improved to the point where he is very close to a declining veteran, and the move is made for the long term, but keeping a better QB on the bench to “season” him is foolish IMO. If he knows the plays and can run the offence, then let him start.
"Filling a need doesn’t necessarily mean you’re getting a good player," said Schwartz. "It doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re getting a player that best fits; it doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re getting a player that’s better than what you have already."
What people are seeing is:
No one within the organization thinks Gabbert will beat out Garrard in training camp.
Twitter: BLByline Youtube: BLByline
I'm willing to drink the Kool-ade, but I'm hungry for the truth.
by Brian Levenson on May 18, 2011 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions
No one has said he can’t, either.
Del Rio said Garrard will have to hold him off. McDonough said they didnt draft any developmental players and feel all will contribute. They’ve not tipped their hand one way or the other. They’ve left it open, as it should be.
Ive talked to some sources I have with the team, plenty think he can win the starting job.
by Alfie Crow on May 18, 2011 11:40 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I'd be very surprised if he did win the job
and even more skeptical.
Twitter: BLByline Youtube: BLByline
I'm willing to drink the Kool-ade, but I'm hungry for the truth.
by Brian Levenson on May 18, 2011 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions
You said the same thing about a 1st round QB, too.
by Alfie Crow on May 18, 2011 12:55 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Lo and behold...
I am both very surprised and very skeptical.
Twitter: BLByline Youtube: BLByline
I'm willing to drink the Kool-ade, but I'm hungry for the truth.
by Brian Levenson on May 18, 2011 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
+1
And I do seem to remember that one of the first things Gene and Jack said was that Garrard will start while Gabbert develops. I also seem to to remember Jack even saying Garrard had been pretty darn good. I also remember MJD saying that Garrard will win the job.
by Ewdtrey on May 18, 2011 1:31 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
what else is he going to say?
It would do the organization absolutely no good to criticize Garrard and have what is effectively our only viable option for the right now as a malcontent. McCown is an unknown entity off the ACL and Gabbert is not signed. Edwards is awful and not getting any better and Bouman is plowing corn right now.
They criticized him last off season
and he seemed to improve some. He still needs better pass protection and receivers who can get open and make catches consistently.
Here's hoping we have NFL football in 2011
chicken or the egg?
Why does he need all of these supporting pieces to do his job?
Manning has a receiver from Mt. Union. So do we.
Manning has 2 young offensive line bookends. So do we, only difference is they’re now 3 year vets.
Manning has a brittle running back. We have a stout guy back there who carried this team for half a season.
Manning has a really good TE, We do too, and we have a young backup who has proven to make plays when called upon.
Because nobody is trying to say DG's
Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. Nobody on here has ever tried to say that. We all know what he is. But replacing him willy nilly with a guy just because he might be better is just plain foolish. Especially when there are so many other reasons for this teams collapse at the end of the season.
And as I just pointed out, that brittle little RB’s backup rushed for 129yds on 14 carries against the Jaguars defense.
I certainly hope Gabbert is the second coming of Joe Montana because I’d hate to have to go through these idiotic discussions again next year if he’s not. Or even worse, have to listen to all the Garrard haters finally come around to blaming the defense for why Gabbert isn’t winning more games.
Anyone who doesn’t see that the defense is the weakest part of this team isn’t being honest with themselves.
Here's hoping we have NFL football in 2011
The coaching staff
could have easily just said we will evaluate them as they go or there will be an open competition, but instead the 2 most important people deciding who the starting QB is (Gene and JDR) both said Garrard will start.
In an interview and I quote:
Rich Eisen " Is this still David Garrard’s team to quarterback?"
JDR “Well it is…and certainly we anticipate David being able to hold off a talented young player”
Even if Gabbert doesn't win the job
Garrard seems to perform better when he has legitimate competition for the starting job. This team will be better off this season because Blaine Gabbert is on the roster, regardless of whether or not he’s starting.
by acedarney on May 18, 2011 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is a great point
I really think this too, if Garrard has someone breathing down his neck I wouldn’t bet against him. I think he will come out and play really well this season with added pressure and be able to hold Blaine off for awhile.
If you ask the haters on here
McCown and Edwards were both just as good as Garrard was last year and could have easily replaced him. Heck, there’s even been several to suggest that they cut/trade Garrard and let McCown start while Gabbert learns the ropes. So if he could start in his place with no drop off, one would assume that to be competition, no ?
Here's hoping we have NFL football in 2011
Who said he'd get paid to ride the pine ?
That was in direct response to you’re “legitimate competition” comment.
I’m 100% behind Gabbert taking over as soon as he’s the better option, even if that’s day 1 of the 2011 season.
I’m just not as willing as many to throw away a decent starting QB just because he’s never going to be a HOF’er. Especially since the odds are severely against Gabbert ever being as good as Garrard, let alone Manning or Brady.
Here's hoping we have NFL football in 2011
I'd like to know what constitutes beating someone out
in training camp ?
I totally agree that if the COACHES think he’s ready a starting him in place of DG is best for the team, then he’ll definitely start. But if he looks better in a preseason game or 2, assuming we have preseason games, that does not mean he’s won the job.
The preseason is very vanilla both offensively and defensively and just completing more passes doesn’t necessarily mean the coaches will think he’s ready if they have questions on his ability to read blitzes and check out of plays etc…
Here’s hoping that both QB’s play exceptionally well and make this decision extremely difficult on the coaches.
Here's hoping we have NFL football in 2011
I think this discussion is setteled very simply.....
which ever one of the three QB’s (Garrard, Gabbert, or McCown – I know I am leaving out Edwards) plays better through whatever there is of training camp and the preseason will be the 2011 starting quarterback for the Jacksonville Jaguars. It will not be decided on if Gabbert should sit a while because he is not ready, because if he is not ready, he will not out play Garrard and McCown. Any preconceived notions that currently exist within the organization, and I am sure there are plenty, will be disregarded based on my opening sentence. Matter settled!
What I find interesting will be the response of us fans to the decision made by the Jaguars, especially those on BCC. Every one of us reading this site has their own preconceived notion as to why we think David or Blain (and maybe some Luke lovers say Luke) will start opening day. Based on this opinion, many will develop a justification for the actual decision. Gabbert lovers will assume that if DG starts, then the organization wanted to sit Gabbert for a while, you know, like Rogers. They will never assume he was just not as good as they thought at that point, or heaven forbid, that DG is not as bad as they thought.
I will leave it up to the trained eye of the coaching staff to make the correct decision, and sit back and laugh come the beginning of May at how it is interpreted.
by GAJAGFAN on May 18, 2011 12:29 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Alfie, are you bashing Garrard again???
Saying he is not as good as Favre…how dare youi!
Garrard apologists, have at him!
Fidelis Ad Mortem
Gabbert will start when he is a better option than Garrard
I don’t think anyone has said much different from that. As it should be. I’m sure that Blaine and David would both agree with that, and neither would be comfortable otherwise. It seems you’re just trying to manufacture a controversy where none exists.
One benefit of the the Jax QB situation
..is that all of the players they have on roster at the position are somewhat similar in style. Garrard, McCown, Gabbert, are all mobile, athletic quarterbacks who still rely on passing. So they don’t have to tailor the offense to suit whoever is in at the time. Gabbert probably get up to speed on the playbook fairly quickly since his Wonderlic score was triple Garrard’s.
stop looking..
at any situation that has happened at all. This is jacksonville, not st. Louis, NE, or Green Bay. We don’t have Brett Favre, Aaron Rodgers, Philip Rivers, or anything. We have Gabbert and Garrard. I agree with Alfie on the point that whoever should start will. If Gabbert impresses and looks ready and the best option he’ll play. That’s it cut and dry.
Dammit just go out there and play to win and I'll be here to cheer!!!!
wow. wtf
a lot of folks just need to take a break away from football
i say again. wow.
too many people can see the future.
Sean
Pax Armis Acquiritur
The break in football is why these pseudo arguments about hypothetical nothingness are taking place.
Do I really think they’d pull the plug on David if he went 9-3 going into the last quarter of the season? No. Hell, Weaver would probably give him an extension!
Bottom line, this is the first real open competition we’ve seen since Preseason 2007. I hope Garrard beats Gabbert in camp. He should, as he’s been a starter for going on 5 years.
It should be interesting.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Big Cat Country
Related FanShots on Big Cat Country
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Detroit Lions DT Nick Fairley arrested again; now has more NFL arrests than NFL sacks
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
