JACKSONVILLE – Let's get to it …
Henry from 215 EverBank
There seems to be a lot of concern by the league that the expansion of reviewable plays would somehow lead to the degradation of the game. They don't want the integrity/judgement of the officials to be called into question. (It happens anyway.) Another argument is they don't want the game to drag on forever. Don't you think that the fact that teams are limited to two challenges per game prevents this from becoming a problem? Sure, it becomes a lot trickier when you're talking about "non-calls," but I think any official calls should be fair game for review.
I don't sense that officials' integrity/judgement being questioned has much to do with the NFL's general resistance to expanding replay; that's certainly not why I resist the idea. My skepticism about expanding replay rests with what expanding replay realistically solves. By bringing interference – calls and non-calls – into the equation, you indeed prevent the egregious mistake that perhaps decided the NFL Championship Game this past January. But you also bring in a slew of judgement interference penalties that replay won't satisfactorily decide. An example I previously have mentioned regarding this issue is the interference call against Jaguars cornerback A.J. Bouye late in the first half of the AFC Championship Game following the 2017 season. Jaguars fans considered it an obviously bad call; New England Patriots fans considered it an obviously good call. Jaguars Head Coach Doug Marrone likely would have challenged the call had the rules allowed. My guess is it's about 50-50 whether the call would have been reversed. Most interference calls will be similar in the sense that you'll be able to make a case for both sides of the argument. If that's the case, is replay solving anything? Or is it just adding time to the process? The thought here is it's the latter. As for challenges being limited, that will solve part of the time issue – but there will be cases late in games where previously unreviewable, marginal calls get automatically reviewed. That could make games drag for no reason. But enough of me screaming for you kids to get off my lawn. The rules have changed. We'll see what the changes bring soon enough.
Charles from Orange Park, FL
John, if an elite quarterback drops to you at No. 7, you must take him regardless of your starter, right? I've watched the Jags pass on franchise quarterbacks for the past 25 years. They simply cannot miss again. If your starter's psyche is so fragile he cannot accept competition, then you've got the wrong quarterback at the most important position. I realize there are greater needs at other positions, but Nick has not lasted a full 16-game schedule.
I'm on record saying I wouldn't mind the Jaguars selecting a quarterback at No. 7 overall in the 2019 NFL Draft – providing they believe there is one available capable of being an elite, franchise player. I don't think they will select quarterback, though. That's not because they're concerned about Nick Foles' psyche if presented with competition. It's because they signed Foles as an unrestricted free agent last month with the idea he can be the franchise quarterback for four, five, six years or longer. Because that's their belief, it would be surprising – nay, shocking – if they selected quarterback in Round 1.
Nobody's Fool from Fool town
You're all substance and no style. Or is it the other way around?
Neither. No, both.
Enoch from Sylvania, GA
When Will Richardson was drafted out of North Carolina State by the Jaguars in 2018, he had a second-round grade but slipped in the draft because of off-the-field issues. He was deemed the heir apparent to replace Jermey Parnell in the upcoming (2019) season at right tackle. While Richardson was shut down by the Jaguars last season because of injuries, Parnell is no longer on the roster – opening the door for Richardson to play the position. However, a year later the odds are leaning toward an offensive lineman being Jacksonville's top pick in the 2019 NFL Draft. Has something happened in Richardson's rehabilitation or in the Jaguars' perception of Richardson's talents to go offensive tackle in Round One instead of potentially tight end? If Richardson now is viewed more as a backup, then so be it. Just seeking some clarification.
Richardson indeed was the heir apparent at right tackle when he was drafted. He now is a player who hasn't played since his 2017 and hasn't practiced extensively since training camp of 2018. He therefore is more accurately described as an unknown. It's entirely conceivable Richardson could start somewhere at some time for the Jaguars, perhaps as early as 2019. But for the Jaguars to enter the season depending on him to start would be risky.
Sean from the Mean Streets of Arlington
What? Did you type something?
Michael from Fruit Cove, FL
How worried should we fans be about the change at offensive coordinator? I thought I read somewhere that Nathaniel Hackett been Jaguars Head Coach Doug Marrone's coordinator forever? They had a very good partnership until injuries ruined the offense last season. Now we've hired a guy who got fired last year because he didn't run the ball as much as his head coach wanted. I know a lot of fans didn't like Hackett, but that's fanning more so than Hackett being a bad coordinator. Seems at least a little concerning.
I have no idea how much you should worry, but I wouldn't overstress. Hackett indeed had been Marrone's offensive coordinator throughout stops with Syracuse, the Buffalo Bills and Jaguars – but experience with a head coach isn't the end-all when determining if a coordinator is right for the job. The obvious positive for the Jaguars entering 2019 is that new offensive coordinator John DeFilippo worked with Foles when DeFilippo was the quarterbacks coach in Philadelphia in 2017. That should help him know Foles' strengths and weaknesses. Another positive for the Jaguars is that Foles should be very familiar with DeFilippo's offense because it's very similar to what Foles ran in Philadelphia the past two seasons. I didn't believe Hackett should have been fired, and I believe he will do well as the offensive coordinator in Green Bay. But that doesn't mean DeFilippo won't do well in Jacksonville. There's no reason to think he won't.
Jaginator from (formerly of) Section 124
This line made me laugh: "The offensive line of the Eagles might have been elite, but that is all." Five elevenths of every offensive formation consists of linemen. Maybe the Eagles o-line was the "only" part of their team that was elite, but having Jason Kelce, Lane Johnson, and Jason Peters on your o-line is a built-in advantage that most starting quarterbacks in the NFL would be extremely happy to have. If that's the "only" advantage that Foles (or any other quarterback) could lean on, I think they'd be pretty happy with those odds. And when you add wide receiver Alshon Jeffery and tight end Zach Ertz to that equation … mannn, that's a nice lineup to have behind you.
Chris from Mandarin, FL
Can you tell us in your opinion why with the Twitterverse and social media that some journalists, in sports and many other outlets, find the need to be first on a story more important than being right? It's pretty frustrating and is also why I can forgive the Jaguars for not divulging information on moves until they are done deals.
The pressure to break a story first has existed for journalists since journalism has existed, but Twitter/social media has changed the terrain – and not for the better. Back in my newspaper "days" – the late 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s – newspaper reporters essentially had an entire day to work sources before reporting a story for the following day's paper. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was no "internet" on which to post a story immediately – and therefore, there was more time to get the story right. The internet increased the pressure to break a story more immediately, but it was the advent of Twitter that moved the process into what now is essentially real-time reporting. That has increased the pressure and also has reduced accuracy. Whereas in the past, a newspaper reporter might feel comfortable contacting multiple sources knowing he would not get "beat" during the time spent making those calls, the reporter now might tweet a story based on information from one source for fear someone else will report the story first. Social media/Twitter also has become so vast and overwhelming that it seems media has become "looser" – i.e., more comfortable with tweeting speculation and "sourced" material – knowing that fewer people remember the errors. Finally, Twitter/social media/internet has magnified everything. Not only is there more pressure in a reporter to be first – and therefore, more incentive to tweet before a reporter is absolutely sure – but more people see a reporter's errors. It's a tricky combination that leads to some inaccurate information getting out there.
Crash from the Westside
Nick Foles and the Jaguars reminds me of Brad Johnson and the Buccaneers.
Cool. I'll tell the higher-ups to order rings.