They brought Blaine Gabbert in because they don't feel David Garrard has the eye of the tiger. They feel that when he leaves the facility, football is behind him. He could care less about the game. They don't think David Garrard is committed to excellence and winning. They think he's a good player and they like him, but they don't think he has that innate intangible and really drives and really wants to be a great pro. Now, maybe with Gabbert there he'll bring that intensity out, I'm not sure. Jack Del Rio always looks like he's on a one year deal and his job's in jeopardy every year, and I think Garrard will be the starter, but if Gabbert looks good he can put some heat on him.
Well, uh.. that's pretty harsh.
Now, I'm as big a David Garrard critic as any, but even I think that's harsh. I have heard his work in the offseason and preparation leaves a lot to be desired, and that was made public prior to the 2010 season when he was challenged by both Jack Del Rio and Wayne Weaver to do more work in the offseason. By David Garrard's own account he responded by studying more film than he had in any offseason previously.
Simmons chimed in afterward Lombardi basically put the howitzer to Garrard:
They probably get a little bit of the blame with Garrard because they gave him a lot of money. If you're going to make that kind of investment, especially if you're one of the smaller market teams, you better make sure you're 100% on who you're paying.
Bill Simmons has had that stance for quite a while. When David Garrard was given his $60M extension, Simmons was one of many who thought it was a bit too soon. "In retrospect, David Garrard's $60 million extension would be like NBC's giving Andy Samberg $60 million right after 'Dick In a Box.' You might have wanted to let that one breathe a little, Jacksonville,: Simmons quipped at the time.
So uh... shots fired?