(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.
Glennon’s deal was written in such a way to be basically a one year deal with a team option going forward. All of the guaranteed money was in year one this year. He can be and more than likely will be cut this offseason as I can’t see them paying a backup his salary next year or beyond.
(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.
I've been pro Bortles his entire tenure. I've defended him more than any poster except one. I'm just laying out our two options. If you were the GM and don't like option number one, then take option number two.
Would I rather have Bortles or a rookie 1st round quarterback? In a vacuum, I definitely would take Bortles. However, if I'm the GM and Jackson or Mayfield are sitting there at likely more than $16 million dollars per year cheaper for the next 4 seasons and I know I have more work to do with the offense, then I would have to strongly consider it, especially considering you could probably get a strong return on a Bortles trade.
(12-20-2017, 12:14 PM)Jaguarmeister 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.
Glennon’s deal was written in such a way to be basically a one year deal with a team option going forward. All of the guaranteed money was in year one this year. He can be and more than likely will be cut this offseason as I can’t see them paying a backup his salary next year or beyond.
It was a smart contract. It doesn't change the fact that it's a long-term starter contract with an out after a year if it doesn't work. If he worked out, they had a long-term starter on the cheap. If he didn't, or they drafted a quarterback (they did) they could cut bait after a season.
(12-20-2017, 12:17 PM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2017, 12:03 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ]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.
I've been pro Bortles his entire tenure. I've defended him more than any poster except one. I'm just laying out our two options. If you were the GM and don't like option number one, then take option number two.
Would I rather have Bortles or a rookie 1st round quarterback? In a vacuum, I definitely would take Bortles. However, if I'm the GM and Jackson or Mayfield are sitting there at likely more than $16 million dollars per year cheaper for the next 4 seasons and I know I have more work to do with the offense, then I would have to strongly consider it, especially considering you could probably get a strong return on a Bortles trade.
(12-20-2017, 12:14 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]Glennon’s deal was written in such a way to be basically a one year deal with a team option going forward. All of the guaranteed money was in year one this year. He can be and more than likely will be cut this offseason as I can’t see them paying a backup his salary next year or beyond.
It was a smart contract. It doesn't change the fact that it's a long-term starter contract with an out after a year if it doesn't work. If he worked out, they had a long-term starter on the cheap. If he didn't, or they drafted a quarterback (they did) they could cut bait after a season.
Jackson or Mayfield?
Bro... this ain't 2015, we won't be drafting high enough to get those guys.
Best case scenario, imo, would be a massive trade from 20 something to the teens for a worthy QB and even still...he's a rookie coming from a non traditional college offense.
The team realistically has 2 options, play Bortles at 19 mil or extend him. Cutting him just isn't happening after his sudden turnaround. Even if you're weary of setbacks the team has invested so much time into him I just don't see them cutting him.
I'd prefer they play him at 19 mil for one season. Yeah it's a lot of cash but if he regresses, it's a one and done. An extension, even if it gets down to 14-15 mil per year, Hell even if he takes a discount for 12-13... likely includes more guarantees than 19 mil over the course of the contract.
Bortles has no reason to take a discount though. He can play hardball if he keeps playing well and accept no less than the 19. If he bets on himself and wins, 19 mil will be a drop in the bucket on what he gets the next year. If he loses, he earns 19 mil and likely still gets a contract around 10 mil a year or more from someone else the following season.
Trading Bortles with his 19 mil for one year isn't an option. Extending him and then trading him makes even less sense really.
So a scenario where Bortles is not on the roster would HAVE to be breaking the bank on a FA (which options are even more slim than what was perceived at the beginning of the year) and drafting a QB OR drafting a QB in round 1, with a trade up to get a QB worthy of starting day one, and a cheap veteran back up, which looking at contracts everyone south of 10 mil is pretty much going to be 2016 Bortles or worse.
(12-20-2017, 01:36 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2017, 12:17 PM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ]I've been pro Bortles his entire tenure. I've defended him more than any poster except one. I'm just laying out our two options. If you were the GM and don't like option number one, then take option number two.
Would I rather have Bortles or a rookie 1st round quarterback? In a vacuum, I definitely would take Bortles. However, if I'm the GM and Jackson or Mayfield are sitting there at likely more than $16 million dollars per year cheaper for the next 4 seasons and I know I have more work to do with the offense, then I would have to strongly consider it, especially considering you could probably get a strong return on a Bortles trade.
It was a smart contract. It doesn't change the fact that it's a long-term starter contract with an out after a year if it doesn't work. If he worked out, they had a long-term starter on the cheap. If he didn't, or they drafted a quarterback (they did) they could cut bait after a season.
Jackson or Mayfield?
Bro... this ain't 2015, we won't be drafting high enough to get those guys.
Best case scenario, imo, would be a massive trade from 20 something to the teens for a worthy QB and even still...he's a rookie coming from a non traditional college offense.
You just want to find something to argue about? I'm not saying those players will be there, but there is absolutely a chance that they will be there - this year more than any other year in recent memory is a year where quarterbacks will slide. Drew Brees, Kirk Cousins, Sam Bradford, Teddy Bridgewater, Case Keenum, Jimmy Garoppolo, and AJ McCarron are all potential franchise quarterbacks on the move next offseason in free agency. There is no real consensus on an order that quarterbacks will go in the draft this year, especially this early, and there are a ton of them - Josh Rosen, Sam Darnold, Lamar Jackson, Baker Mayfield, Mason Rudolph, and Josh Allen could all go in the 1st round.
(12-20-2017, 01:50 PM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2017, 01:36 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ]Jackson or Mayfield?
Bro... this ain't 2015, we won't be drafting high enough to get those guys.
Best case scenario, imo, would be a massive trade from 20 something to the teens for a worthy QB and even still...he's a rookie coming from a non traditional college offense.
You just want to find something to argue about? I'm not saying those players will be there, but there is absolutely a chance that they will be there - this year more than any other year in recent memory is a year where quarterbacks will slide. Drew Brees, Kirk Cousins, Sam Bradford, Teddy Bridgewater, Case Keenum, Jimmy Garoppolo, and AJ McCarron are all potential franchise quarterbacks on the move next offseason in free agency. There is no real consensus on an order that quarterbacks will go in the draft this year, especially this early, and there are a ton of them - Josh Rosen, Sam Darnold, Lamar Jackson, Baker Mayfield, Mason Rudolph, and Josh Allen could all go in the 1st round.
Jimmy and Brees aren't going anywhere.
(12-20-2017, 01:53 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2017, 01:50 PM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ]You just want to find something to argue about? I'm not saying those players will be there, but there is absolutely a chance that they will be there - this year more than any other year in recent memory is a year where quarterbacks will slide. Drew Brees, Kirk Cousins, Sam Bradford, Teddy Bridgewater, Case Keenum, Jimmy Garoppolo, and AJ McCarron are all potential franchise quarterbacks on the move next offseason in free agency. There is no real consensus on an order that quarterbacks will go in the draft this year, especially this early, and there are a ton of them - Josh Rosen, Sam Darnold, Lamar Jackson, Baker Mayfield, Mason Rudolph, and Josh Allen could all go in the 1st round.
Jimmy and Brees aren't going anywhere.
That's 13 quarterbacks. At the absolute most, 15 teams will be looking for a new quarterback next season and that includes teams like the Patriots, Steelers, and Chargers. There will be quarterbacks available at the end of round one.
If Brees and Jimmy stay put, that's 13 teams at most looking for a new quarterback and 11 available - no difference.
(12-20-2017, 01:56 PM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2017, 01:53 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Jimmy and Brees aren't going anywhere.
That's 13 quarterbacks. At the absolute most, 15 teams will be looking for a new quarterback next season and that includes teams like the Patriots, Steelers, and Chargers. There will be quarterbacks available at the end of round one.
If Brees and Jimmy stay put, that's 13 teams at most looking for a new quarterback and 11 available - no difference.
Great.
All I'm saying is Jimmy and Brees aren't going anywhere.
(12-20-2017, 01:50 PM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2017, 01:36 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ]Jackson or Mayfield?
Bro... this ain't 2015, we won't be drafting high enough to get those guys.
Best case scenario, imo, would be a massive trade from 20 something to the teens for a worthy QB and even still...he's a rookie coming from a non traditional college offense.
You just want to find something to argue about? I'm not saying those players will be there, but there is absolutely a chance that they will be there - this year more than any other year in recent memory is a year where quarterbacks will slide. Drew Brees, Kirk Cousins, Sam Bradford, Teddy Bridgewater, Case Keenum, Jimmy Garoppolo, and AJ McCarron are all potential franchise quarterbacks on the move next offseason in free agency. There is no real consensus on an order that quarterbacks will go in the draft this year, especially this early, and there are a ton of them - Josh Rosen, Sam Darnold, Lamar Jackson, Baker Mayfield, Mason Rudolph, and Josh Allen could all go in the 1st round.
Rosen and Darnold declared?
Jackson, Mayfield, Rudolph all gone before pick 20.
Allen is trash.
McCarron is a Bengal next season. Jimmy is a 9er. Keenum is a Vike. Brees ain't going no where, and Cousins ain't worth 30 mil. Bradford is an interesting thought, but dude is made of glass.
Never been a fan of Teddy.
I'm not arguing, just having a discussion on the topic. The move on Bortles contract must be made before the draft as well.
I'm not saying it is impossible to get a better QB situation for next season. I'm not even saying Bortles is "THE MAN", I'm just saying at this point the most logical decision would seem to be playing out the option. Henne can be replaced with any of the 2nd tier veteran bodies in free agency, perhaps even Bradford.
Otherwise we're gambling away the amazing state our roster is now in on either a QB no one wants or a rookie that could be Watson or could be Manziel.
As a fan, who has both defended and been critical of Bortles this season, I'd prefer to roll with Bortles at 19 mil AND draft a QB somewhere in rounds 2-4.
(12-20-2017, 02:05 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2017, 01:50 PM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ]You just want to find something to argue about? I'm not saying those players will be there, but there is absolutely a chance that they will be there - this year more than any other year in recent memory is a year where quarterbacks will slide. Drew Brees, Kirk Cousins, Sam Bradford, Teddy Bridgewater, Case Keenum, Jimmy Garoppolo, and AJ McCarron are all potential franchise quarterbacks on the move next offseason in free agency. There is no real consensus on an order that quarterbacks will go in the draft this year, especially this early, and there are a ton of them - Josh Rosen, Sam Darnold, Lamar Jackson, Baker Mayfield, Mason Rudolph, and Josh Allen could all go in the 1st round.
Rosen and Darnold declared?
Jackson, Mayfield, Rudolph all gone before pick 20.
Allen is trash.
McCarron is a Bengal next season. Jimmy is a 9er. Keenum is a Vike. Brees ain't going no where, and Cousins ain't worth 30 mil. Bradford is an interesting thought, but dude is made of glass.
Never been a fan of Teddy.
I'm not arguing, just having a discussion on the topic. The move on Bortles contract must be made before the draft as well.
I'm not saying it is impossible to get a better QB situation for next season. I'm not even saying Bortles is "THE MAN", I'm just saying at this point the most logical decision would seem to be playing out the option. Henne can be replaced with any of the 2nd tier veteran bodies in free agency, perhaps even Bradford.
Otherwise we're gambling away the amazing state our roster is now in on either a QB no one wants or a rookie that could be Watson or could be Manziel.
As a fan, who has both defended and been critical of Bortles this season, I'd prefer to roll with Bortles at 19 mil AND draft a QB somewhere in rounds 2-4.
Rosen almost certainly will declare. Darnold is questionable, but if he gets back from the advisory board that he'll go top of the 1st then I would think he would too. McCarron was traded before the trade was voided, I seriously doubt he'll be back to play backup to Andy Dalton some more. Those seven free agent quarterbacks will be signed by some team before the draft. That leaves at most 8 teams having any kind of desire for a starting quarterback and 6 potential 1st round quarterbacks. There will be some combination of quarterbacks available at the end of round one between those six - who they are remains to be seen.
The point is that if there is a quarterback that you like as a team's GM available to you at the end of round 1, regardless if it's Aaron Rodgers or Johnny Manziel, then you have to give it some serious consideration if you believe he's a franchise quarterback that'll be $13+ million cheaper for 4 more years.
(12-20-2017, 02:17 PM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2017, 02:05 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ]Rosen and Darnold declared?
Jackson, Mayfield, Rudolph all gone before pick 20.
Allen is trash.
McCarron is a Bengal next season. Jimmy is a 9er. Keenum is a Vike. Brees ain't going no where, and Cousins ain't worth 30 mil. Bradford is an interesting thought, but dude is made of glass.
Never been a fan of Teddy.
I'm not arguing, just having a discussion on the topic. The move on Bortles contract must be made before the draft as well.
I'm not saying it is impossible to get a better QB situation for next season. I'm not even saying Bortles is "THE MAN", I'm just saying at this point the most logical decision would seem to be playing out the option. Henne can be replaced with any of the 2nd tier veteran bodies in free agency, perhaps even Bradford.
Otherwise we're gambling away the amazing state our roster is now in on either a QB no one wants or a rookie that could be Watson or could be Manziel.
As a fan, who has both defended and been critical of Bortles this season, I'd prefer to roll with Bortles at 19 mil AND draft a QB somewhere in rounds 2-4.
Rosen almost certainly will declare. Darnold is questionable, but if he gets back from the advisory board that he'll go top of the 1st then I would think he would too. McCarron was traded before the trade was voided, I seriously doubt he'll be back to play backup to Andy Dalton some more. Those seven free agent quarterbacks will be signed by some team before the draft. That leaves at most 8 teams having any kind of desire for a starting quarterback and 6 potential 1st round quarterbacks. There will be some combination of quarterbacks available at the end of round one between those six - who they are remains to be seen.
The point is that if there is a quarterback that you like as a team's GM available to you at the end of round 1, regardless if it's Aaron Rodgers or Johnny Manziel, then you have to give it some serious consideration if you believe he's a franchise quarterback that'll be $13+ million cheaper for 4 more years.
Personally I think Dalton might be done in Cincy.
They're gonna have some turnover on staff that won't be tied to that QB per say.
Honestly I haven't seen anything in my scouring of the interwebs to find that Rosen is likely to declare. Jim Mora actually said he's pretty sure he's coming back to school.
But lets say they all declare.
So... say we're picking 25th... How many QB hungry teams will pick before us? You really think there'll be a clear cut franchise guy to be had there?
Sure, if Caldwell and Coughlin think there is a franchise QB at 25 I say pick him.
But I don't think that means we should go into the next season with that guy and some scrub 5 mil per year veteran.
It's asking to take a step or two back. I mean, the last time Caldwell saw a franchise guy, he picked him in the top 5 and it took him more than 3 years to develop.
It seems you're more interested in saving cap money than the team being good or competitive the next season.
We don't have a cap problem. The numbers were in our favor when discussing paying oodles to Cousins... Bortles 19 mil isn't going to break us and certainly wouldn't have any effect after 2018 should we have to move on.
Let me be clear, I think we should draft a QB... Hell, if it's round 1, then it's round 1.
But I don't think by drafting a QB we should cut Bortles just to save 13 mil on one year.
(12-20-2017, 02:40 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2017, 02:17 PM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ]Rosen almost certainly will declare. Darnold is questionable, but if he gets back from the advisory board that he'll go top of the 1st then I would think he would too. McCarron was traded before the trade was voided, I seriously doubt he'll be back to play backup to Andy Dalton some more. Those seven free agent quarterbacks will be signed by some team before the draft. That leaves at most 8 teams having any kind of desire for a starting quarterback and 6 potential 1st round quarterbacks. There will be some combination of quarterbacks available at the end of round one between those six - who they are remains to be seen.
The point is that if there is a quarterback that you like as a team's GM available to you at the end of round 1, regardless if it's Aaron Rodgers or Johnny Manziel, then you have to give it some serious consideration if you believe he's a franchise quarterback that'll be $13+ million cheaper for 4 more years.
Personally I think Dalton might be done in Cincy.
They're gonna have some turnover on staff that won't be tied to that QB per say.
Honestly I haven't seen anything in my scouring of the interwebs to find that Rosen is likely to declare. Jim Mora actually said he's pretty sure he's coming back to school.
But lets say they all declare.
So... say we're picking 25th... How many QB hungry teams will pick before us? You really think there'll be a clear cut franchise guy to be had there?
Sure, if Caldwell and Coughlin think there is a franchise QB at 25 I say pick him.
But I don't think that means we should go into the next season with that guy and some scrub 5 mil per year veteran.
It's asking to take a step or two back. I mean, the last time Caldwell saw a franchise guy, he picked him in the top 5 and it took him more than 3 years to develop.
It seems you're more interested in saving cap money than the team being good or competitive the next season.
We don't have a cap problem. The numbers were in our favor when discussing paying oodles to Cousins... Bortles 19 mil isn't going to break us and certainly wouldn't have any effect after 2018 should we have to move on.
Let me be clear, I think we should draft a QB... Hell, if it's round 1, then it's round 1.
But I don't think by drafting a QB we should cut Bortles just to save 13 mil on one year.
At most 8 teams in front of us would have use of a 1st round quarterback, assuming the Patriots and Steelers want one and they are picking in front of us. Yes, I absolutely believe there will be multiple quarterbacks available in the mid 20s that some NFL GM views as a franchise quarterback. There are late 1st round quarterbacks every year.
No, I'm not saying we should do it. I'm saying its one of two real options for us. If we choose not to invest in Bortles long-term, he needs to be traded while he still has value and we can add a 1st round rookie and a veteran placeholder. Or we can draft him some competition and re-evaluate the decision after next season, which may be costly, cap-wise.
We don't have a cap problem, but we soon will have one. That's what happens when you have a veteran starting quarterback under contract. Yannick and Jalen are going to be very expensive while Fowler and Jack will both be $7+. We can't keep all of our players.
(12-20-2017, 02:52 PM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2017, 02:40 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ]Personally I think Dalton might be done in Cincy.
They're gonna have some turnover on staff that won't be tied to that QB per say.
Honestly I haven't seen anything in my scouring of the interwebs to find that Rosen is likely to declare. Jim Mora actually said he's pretty sure he's coming back to school.
But lets say they all declare.
So... say we're picking 25th... How many QB hungry teams will pick before us? You really think there'll be a clear cut franchise guy to be had there?
Sure, if Caldwell and Coughlin think there is a franchise QB at 25 I say pick him.
But I don't think that means we should go into the next season with that guy and some scrub 5 mil per year veteran.
It's asking to take a step or two back. I mean, the last time Caldwell saw a franchise guy, he picked him in the top 5 and it took him more than 3 years to develop.
It seems you're more interested in saving cap money than the team being good or competitive the next season.
We don't have a cap problem. The numbers were in our favor when discussing paying oodles to Cousins... Bortles 19 mil isn't going to break us and certainly wouldn't have any effect after 2018 should we have to move on.
Let me be clear, I think we should draft a QB... Hell, if it's round 1, then it's round 1.
But I don't think by drafting a QB we should cut Bortles just to save 13 mil on one year.
No, I'm not saying we should do it. I'm saying its one of two real options for us. If we choose not to invest in Bortles long-term, he needs to be traded while he still has value and we can add a 1st round rookie and a veteran placeholder. Or we can draft him some competition and re-evaluate the decision after next season, which may be costly, cap-wise.
We don't have a cap problem, but we soon will have one. That's what happens when you have a veteran starting quarterback under contract. Yannick and Jalen are going to be very expensive while Fowler and Jack will both be $7+. We can't keep all of our players.
Wow... WHO is going to trade for Bortles on a one year 19 mil deal?
Yannick and Jalen's contracts are down the road still, lots of dollars to move between now and then.
Right now our only contract worries are Colvin and AR15.
Fowler has yet to earn any sort of contract extension. Same for Jack a second year player.
You worry about those contracts when you have to. And our guys have been pretty good at keeping contracts under check.
The Bortles hit is ONLY for this year until you extend him.
In another season, we may be moving on from FA guys with bigger cap hits. We likely won't be dipping into the FA market for a lot so we don't need to spend the money there.
You seem to have our options mixed up.
1. Bortles plays for 19 mil as a Jag, with drafting a guy in ANY round.
2. Bortles is CUT, and we either play a rookie or whatever FA we can land with the best case scenario likely being Tyrod Taylor or Sam Bradford.
There is no scenario where Bortles can be, would be, or will be traded.
And given those two options, #1 is WAAAY better.
Those are the two options I mentioned almost verbatim... The only difference is trading Bortles instead of cutting him on option 2.
Who would trade for Bortles? Any team that likes him and needs a franchise quarterback. Bruce Arians liked Blake so the Cardinals are one option. Trade for Bortles, release Palmer, extend Bortles. It's pretty cut and dry...
This team's window is open, there's no time for a placeholder because as soon as it opens it starts closing. Resign BB5 for 3 to 5 years at whatever cap friendly deal they can work out and draft a guy this year. Caldwell is trustworthy with the contracts for the future and this team clearly can win now.
(12-20-2017, 03:07 PM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ]Those are the two options I mentioned almost verbatim... The only difference is trading Bortles instead of cutting him on option 2.
Who would trade for Bortles? Any team that likes him and needs a franchise quarterback. Bruce Arians liked Blake so the Cardinals are one option. Trade for Bortles, release Palmer, extend Bortles. It's pretty cut and dry...
Cards will be one of the QB needy teams likely to get Mayfield, Rudolph, or someone in the first.
If YOU as a Jag fan don't believe in Bortles enough, why would Bruce Arians want to pay him 19 mil and give up draft equity to do so?
It's one of the more crazy ideas I've heard...
Trade for Bortles... with a 19 million one year deal...
I can see the GMs lining up now.
Not sure why now that Bortles seemingly is getting good people are trying to figure out ways to get rid of him.
Especially based solely on his 19 mil contract. Willing to bet after all the dust is settled, Bortles' 19 mil will probably have him just outside the top 5 QBs paydays next season.
Regardless.. the best scenario for team and Bortles is playing out that option, imo.
We'd still have the $ to resign Colvin if they wish, get a deal done with AR15, and sign draft picks. While we wouldn't have a lot of money for free agents, we shouldn't need too many free agents at this point with the roster.
Most everyone else's deals won't need to be done until after Bortles is cut or extended following next season. At that point, the deal Bortles gets and signs would likely move enough dollars around here and there to allow more room in the cap to continue signing core guys to extensions...
Eventually we'll be at a point where we also start letting go of some of these higher priced free agents And that in turn will open up more cap space.
One thing often missed is how well this team has done structuring contracts. I wouldn't worry about the salary cap just yet.
Mayfield with Arians? Thats a scary good combo IMO.
(12-20-2017, 03:07 PM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ]Those are the two options I mentioned almost verbatim... The only difference is trading Bortles instead of cutting him on option 2.
Who would trade for Bortles? Any team that likes him and needs a franchise quarterback. Bruce Arians liked Blake so the Cardinals are one option. Trade for Bortles, release Palmer, extend Bortles. It's pretty cut and dry...
Seriously, what do you think we could get in trade for Bortles? If he plays well enough to garner a first or second round pick, don't you think it would be kind of dumb to trade him and start over at the position?
(12-20-2017, 02:40 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2017, 02:17 PM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ]Rosen almost certainly will declare. Darnold is questionable, but if he gets back from the advisory board that he'll go top of the 1st then I would think he would too. McCarron was traded before the trade was voided, I seriously doubt he'll be back to play backup to Andy Dalton some more. Those seven free agent quarterbacks will be signed by some team before the draft. That leaves at most 8 teams having any kind of desire for a starting quarterback and 6 potential 1st round quarterbacks. There will be some combination of quarterbacks available at the end of round one between those six - who they are remains to be seen.
The point is that if there is a quarterback that you like as a team's GM available to you at the end of round 1, regardless if it's Aaron Rodgers or Johnny Manziel, then you have to give it some serious consideration if you believe he's a franchise quarterback that'll be $13+ million cheaper for 4 more years.
Personally I think Dalton might be done in Cincy.
They're gonna have some turnover on staff that won't be tied to that QB per say.
Honestly I haven't seen anything in my scouring of the interwebs to find that Rosen is likely to declare. Jim Mora actually said he's pretty sure he's coming back to school.
But lets say they all declare.
So... say we're picking 25th... How many QB hungry teams will pick before us? You really think there'll be a clear cut franchise guy to be had there?
Sure, if Caldwell and Coughlin think there is a franchise QB at 25 I say pick him.
But I don't think that means we should go into the next season with that guy and some scrub 5 mil per year veteran.
It's asking to take a step or two back. I mean, the last time Caldwell saw a franchise guy, he picked him in the top 5 and it took him more than 3 years to develop.
It seems you're more interested in saving cap money than the team being good or competitive the next season.
We don't have a cap problem. The numbers were in our favor when discussing paying oodles to Cousins... Bortles 19 mil isn't going to break us and certainly wouldn't have any effect after 2018 should we have to move on.
Let me be clear, I think we should draft a QB... Hell, if it's round 1, then it's round 1.
But I don't think by drafting a QB we should cut Bortles just to save 13 mil on one year.
Jim Mora is no longer the head coach. I see no reason why Rosen
won't declare. He doesn't fit Chip Kelly's offense at all. Kelly needs a mobile QB for that scheme and Rosen is a pure drop back passer that needs good blocking. Just look at the injuries he has amassed. He's not durable enough to run Kelly's system.
There probably won't be a franchise QB fall to #25, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. I've seen a lot crazier things happen. I never would've believed Aaron Rodgers would've fallen as far as he did, but it happened. You never know.
In any case, I agree with you though. Keep Bortles on his current deal through 2018 and draft a QB high.
I feel like nobody reads what I am posting. This feels fruitless to discuss further if anything I post isn't read.
As I have stated, NOBODY has defended Bortles more than me except one poster on this board. I do not want to get rid of him. I wanted to draft him when he was barely considered a draftable prospect. I have laid out scenarios that the team may take in this offseason.
Either...
A.) They aren't sold on him - in which case a trade and rookie replacement makes sense.
B.) They are sold on him - in which case a new deal makes sense.
C.) They still aren't sure - in which case letting him play out the option and drafting competition makes sense.
I don't know how to make it any more plain than that, sorry.
Nobody is planning on trading for Bortles to play him for one season and then let him walk. Quit being purposely dense. If a team traded for him, they have a long-term contract in mind. Why trade a 2nd round pick for a quarterback that you are only going to play for 5 games after being mathematically eliminated from the playoffs? Because the 49ers plan on giving him a giant long-term deal.