(12-19-2017, 05:05 PM)Krayz_Jville_D Wrote: [ -> ]as great as he has played and as happy as I am to see it.. there is absolutely no way in hell im paying him 19 mill a year... that will 100% cap strap us... the reason we have an advantage on other teams to sign all these other good players and lock up our guys is because we arent putting 19 or more mill at the QB position
I'd happily pay him 10 to 12 if he finishes the year strong.. but there's no way in hell I am paying him 19 mill per LMAO
I would absolutely rather draft a rookie QB or sign a stop gap for a fraction of that cost. This team's defense and running game is good enough to compete, Bortles has been playing awesome but he is not the main reason this team is winning
They paid Garland $10M in 2007 man. Zero chance of that happening.
(12-19-2017, 05:05 PM)Krayz_Jville_D Wrote: [ -> ]as great as he has played and as happy as I am to see it.. there is absolutely no way in hell im paying him 19 mill a year... that will 100% cap strap us... the reason we have an advantage on other teams to sign all these other good players and lock up our guys is because we arent putting 19 or more mill at the QB position
I'd happily pay him 10 to 12 if he finishes the year strong.. but there's no way in hell I am paying him 19 mill per LMAO
I would absolutely rather draft a rookie QB or sign a stop gap for a fraction of that cost. This team's defense and running game is good enough to compete, Bortles has been playing awesome but he is not the main reason this team is winning
$19 mil is what a good starting QB costs these days. Even if we were to get a rookie, if by chance he does turn out to be any good, then we'd have to start paying him something well over $20 mil a few years from now. You can't just keep cutting your QB and starting over.... that's the Bears and Browns mentality and it sure hasn't doen them any good.
(12-19-2017, 06:07 PM)D6 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-19-2017, 06:00 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ]Indeed. I think they should draft a 2nd-4th round QB.
Also would like to add Glennon got 15 mil on the market.... we should have no issues with Bortles getting 19.
Even if it turns out that Blake Bortles is the long term answer for the Jaguars and he stays relatively healthy the next 4 years, an investment in a QB in the 2nd to 4th Round should help further push Bortles, provide some insurance, and possibly trade compensation in a few years much like New England has been able to convert.
With the salary cap likely going up, the Jaguars have that much more flexibility to have Bortles on the books at $ 19 million for 2018.
I do totally agree about adding and then properly developing a later round qb with the right skill-set to eventually take over. In a few years, we'd have to make the call to pay one or the other, but it's imperative to have that choice. You don't want to hang your hate on any one guy unless you know he's Rodgers or Brees, etc.
As for the salary cap, don't count on it going up. They're already including a projected increase at spotrac.com and overthecap.com, and it's possible they are already overestimating the increase by not fully taking into account the NFL protests. The Jaguars appear to be right up against the next cap while relying on the cutting of a few players along with roll-over money to provide cap space.
(12-19-2017, 06:42 PM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ]Franchise tag for a quarterback would be about $24 million anyways. If you aren't willing to pay Blake $19 million for the option or at least $17 million for a long term contract, then you are cutting him.
I've read that it would cost the Redskins right about $34.5 mil to franchise Cousins.
02 i thought that they announced that the cap would go up between 10-12 mil last week?
(12-20-2017, 01:57 AM)Jags02 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-19-2017, 06:42 PM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ]Franchise tag for a quarterback would be about $24 million anyways. If you aren't willing to pay Blake $19 million for the option or at least $17 million for a long term contract, then you are cutting him.
I've read that it would cost the Redskins right about $34.5 mil to franchise Cousins.
That's because they've already used the franchise tag on him twice. It increases by a pretty big amount every time you use the tag on somebody multiple times.
(12-20-2017, 02:09 AM)Eric1 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2017, 01:57 AM)Jags02 Wrote: [ -> ]I've read that it would cost the Redskins right about $34.5 mil to franchise Cousins.
That's because they've already used the franchise tag on him twice. It increases by a pretty big amount every time you use the tag on somebody multiple times.
I was under the impression you could only do it twice and the transition once. Interesting.
Anyways, I think you have to work something out this year(pre 2018 season), 19 million is not a good # for a guy who hasn't really done this well until now. Don't look at 2015 either, we were down in so many games we had to throw it, and we lost a lot of games because of his sloppy/bad turnovers over the last 2 years prior to this one. He has done well for a few games this year when it mattered(SEA, BAL, PIT), and he has really played poorly in a few(LAC, ARI, TEN). You give him a prove it deal, something like they did up in MN with Bradford, 2 year 35 or double that, 4 year 70. You do not want to do what Baltimore did and pay a guy for getting hot and then you regret it when you have to let other guys go because you gave your below average QB 100 million.
^
Agree. Also have to take into account somehow keeping the pieces around QB which made him successful, and even upgrading those areas
(12-20-2017, 05:44 AM)JagsFanSince95 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2017, 02:09 AM)Eric1 Wrote: [ -> ]That's because they've already used the franchise tag on him twice. It increases by a pretty big amount every time you use the tag on somebody multiple times.
I was under the impression you could only do it twice and the transition once. Interesting.
Anyways, I think you have to work something out this year(pre 2018 season), 19 million is not a good # for a guy who hasn't really done this well until now. Don't look at 2015 either, we were down in so many games we had to throw it, and we lost a lot of games because of his sloppy/bad turnovers over the last 2 years prior to this one. He has done well for a few games this year when it mattered(SEA, BAL, PIT), and he has really played poorly in a few(LAC, ARI, TEN). You give him a prove it deal, something like they did up in MN with Bradford, 2 year 35 or double that, 4 year 70. You do not want to do what Baltimore did and pay a guy for getting hot and then you regret it when you have to let other guys go because you gave your below average QB 100 million.
That sounds nice, but we have to deal with reality, and in the real world, if Blake keeps up this level of play, he won't accept a "prove-it" type of contract. He'll do like Cousins and say, "Franchise me, or let me go, or do a long term deal."
(12-20-2017, 02:04 AM)ColoJag Wrote: [ -> ]02 i thought that they announced that the cap would go up between 10-12 mil last week?
Any chance you have a link or at least recall where you heard this?
This sounds about right as spotracis using $11.5 mil as the increase for the cap. At this amount they have the Jaguars $3.7 mil under with $35 mil additional roll-over space. The $10 mil figure may be due an attempt to account for the boycotts and may be more accurate. This would have the Jaguars $2.2 mil under plust their roll-over space putting them $37.2 mil under the cap.
Interstingly, over-the-cap applies top-51 rules to account for additional rookies so that 51 players are counting as would be the case in the offseason. For this reason they have a slightly lower number. They also use $11.5 mil as the increase, but show the Jaguars a total of $32 mil under the cap. Using what I presume to be a more likely lower increase of only $10 mil, this has the Jaguars at a mere $30.5 mil under the cap with 51 players. Using this figure, for every player you add be sure to subract the rookie minimum for the player knocked off the top 51.
(12-20-2017, 08:15 AM)Jags02 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2017, 02:04 AM)ColoJag Wrote: [ -> ]02 i thought that they announced that the cap would go up between 10-12 mil last week?
Any chance you have a link or at least recall where you heard this?
This sounds about right as spotracis using $11.5 mil as the increase for the cap. At this amount they have the Jaguars $3.7 mil under with $35 mil additional roll-over space. The $10 mil figure may be due an attempt to account for the boycotts and may be more accurate. This would have the Jaguars $2.2 mil under plust their roll-over space putting them $37.2 mil under the cap.
Interstingly, over-the-cap applies top-51 rules to account for additional rookies so that 51 players are counting as would be the case in the offseason. For this reason they have a slightly lower number. They also use $11.5 mil as the increase, but show the Jaguars a total of $32 mil under the cap. Using what I presume to be a more likely lower increase of only $10 mil, this has the Jaguars at a mere $30.5 mil under the cap with 51 players. Using this figure, for every player you add be sure to subract the rookie minimum for the player knocked off the top 51.
Also let's remember that $30~ under the cap already includes Blake's $19mil option number.
Also, Kyle Brandt just did an awesome little rant on Bortles being an underappreciated storyline.
Why do we have to do anything right now? As it stands, Blake will be playing under a 1 year $19 million deal in 2018. We don't have to make any decisions until after next season. Let him play through the current contract and then make an evaluation. Doing anything other than that at this time, would be jumping the gun.
(12-19-2017, 06:21 PM)Krayz_Jville_D Wrote: [ -> ]man, yall have done a way to quick of a 180 for me tbh... yes hes playing really good lately, but it was just a few weeks ago that in the arizona game and san diego game he was clearly holding us back
I am just not willing to shell out that kind of money yet.. maybe we franchise him? Is that option even available?
Franchise tag is MORE than 19 mil iirc...
I don't get people talking about everyone doing a 180...
Sure some people can't help themselves but to knee jerk at every corner.... by no means am I advocating for signing Bortles to a long term 20+ mil a year deal.
Also I want to draft a young insurance/project/developmental guy.
There's only 2 real scenarios here. Bortles is a Jag for 19 mil next year or he's cut an he plays somewhere else for like 15 mil (Mike Glennon's contract from this year)
Outside of a total collapse in the final 2 games/playoffs... I don't see why anyone would have a problem letting him play out his option at 19 in a prove-it style year, especially if we draft a QB as early as round 2/3
This is a good problem to have.
In my opinion you do one of either two things. Either you trade Bortles, draft a 1st round quarterback, and sign a cheap $5-10 million dollar veteran on a 1 or 2 year deal or you draft a quarterback somewhere between rounds 1 and 3 and let Bortles play next year on $19 million and re-examine this in another year.
(12-20-2017, 11:12 AM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ]This is a good problem to have.
In my opinion you do one of either two things. Either you trade Bortles, draft a 1st round quarterback, and sign a cheap $5-10 million dollar veteran on a 1 or 2 year deal or you draft a quarterback somewhere between rounds 1 and 3 and let Bortles play next year on $19 million and re-examine this in another year.
In the first scenario, please tell me what vet QB you can sign for $5-10 million? Mike Glennon just got $15.
(12-20-2017, 11:18 AM)imtheblkranger Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2017, 11:12 AM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ]This is a good problem to have.
In my opinion you do one of either two things. Either you trade Bortles, draft a 1st round quarterback, and sign a cheap $5-10 million dollar veteran on a 1 or 2 year deal or you draft a quarterback somewhere between rounds 1 and 3 and let Bortles play next year on $19 million and re-examine this in another year.
In the first scenario, please tell me what vet QB you can sign for $5-10 million? Mike Glennon just got $15.
Yeah... not sure where people are getting this magic 10 million number from...
Chad Freakin Henne got 8 mil to hold a clipboard.
So basically... people want Henne. Or a Henne equivalent
Mike Glennon got a long-term deal. We aren't talking about veteran quarterbacks that are signed to be the man. Cutler got $10 million. McCown $6 million. All the high end backups are less than $5 million. Even a guy like Keenum will have a very volatile market value. He could be anywhere from $10 million to $16 or 17 million with the amount of quarterbacks available and only half a season of production.
(12-20-2017, 11:23 AM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2017, 11:18 AM)imtheblkranger Wrote: [ -> ]In the first scenario, please tell me what vet QB you can sign for $5-10 million? Mike Glennon just got $15.
Yeah... not sure where people are getting this magic 10 million number from...
Chad Freakin Henne got 8 mil to hold a clipboard.
So basically... people want Henne. Or a Henne equivalent
Yes, Henne equivalents are cheap. He got $3.25 million to hold the clipboard.
(12-20-2017, 11:25 AM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ]Mike Glennon got a long-term deal. We aren't talking about veteran quarterbacks that are signed to be the man. Cutler got $10 million. McCown $6 million. All the high end backups are less than $5 million. Even a guy like Keenum will have a very volatile market value. He could be anywhere from $10 million to $16 or 17 million with the amount of quarterbacks available and only half a season of production.
(12-20-2017, 11:23 AM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah... not sure where people are getting this magic 10 million number from...
Chad Freakin Henne got 8 mil to hold a clipboard.
So basically... people want Henne. Or a Henne equivalent
Yes, Henne equivalents are cheap. He got $3.25 million to hold the clipboard.
Ahh... 8 mil was the total deal, that's my bad.
Either way... say we win 1 playoff game and we're done.
Would you people really rather have a rookie QB (likely the 3rd or 4th best QB in the draft from where we pick) and Matt Schaub/Brian Hoyer/Josh McCown going into next season?
We went from wanting to get rid of Bortles and throwing the bank at Cousins/Brees/whoever... to wanting to get frugal and rely on a rookie and some veteran no one wants to pay more than 10 mil to?
My mind is being blown right now.
(12-20-2017, 12:03 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2017, 11:25 AM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ]Mike Glennon got a long-term deal. We aren't talking about veteran quarterbacks that are signed to be the man. Cutler got $10 million. McCown $6 million. All the high end backups are less than $5 million. Even a guy like Keenum will have a very volatile market value. He could be anywhere from $10 million to $16 or 17 million with the amount of quarterbacks available and only half a season of production.
Yes, Henne equivalents are cheap. He got $3.25 million to hold the clipboard.
Ahh... 8 mil was the total deal, that's my bad.
Either way... say we win 1 playoff game and we're done.
Would you people really rather have a rookie QB (likely the 3rd or 4th best QB in the draft from where we pick) and Matt Schaub/Brian Hoyer/Josh McCown going into next season?
We went from wanting to get rid of Bortles and throwing the bank at Cousins/Brees/whoever... to wanting to get frugal and rely on a rookie and some veteran no one wants to pay more than 10 mil to?
My mind is being blown right now.
Amazing isn't it?