Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(02-14-2018, 04:49 PM)JAGFAN88 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2018, 04:34 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]http://gridironnow.com/jaguars-qb-dilemm...=hootsuite

Go find Hays and try to make all the same weak arguments that were tried here and see what he says.

He did not include the third option of signing him to an extention now at 20-22 mill for 2 0r 3 years which if they are comitted to BB5 is the best option for the salary cap.

Commiting long term to Blake right now is pointless. You have an option year and a franchise year.

The important thing to remember with our cap is that we ARE going to be losing and cutting some of our best players.

Calais and Malik won't be here forever. Dareus might be gone next year.

Jack is a great talent but needs to show a lot more to be worth paying 10 million a year. We should also ask ourselves do we want to pay two off ball linebackers 20+ million a year?

Priority signings
Yannick
Ramsey

We have enough cap to keep them regardless of who we have at QB. Our cap is future proofed for the next 3-4 years. No reason why we should be in any cap trouble.

(02-14-2018, 06:05 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2018, 04:34 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]http://gridironnow.com/jaguars-qb-dilemm...=hootsuite

Go find Hays and try to make all the same weak arguments that were tried here and see what he says.

His argument is strictly based upon Cousins vs Bortles.  (either will get you in cap trouble in 2020)

The argument should be Cousins vs Bortles (for one year) and a then rookie from the 2018 draft to take over in 2019. 

 Also his long term money argument is weak as hell. He just conveniently dimisses Fowler and Myles Jack's second contracts and doesn't even try to do the math should both of them play well enough to warrant being kept.

Yeah he was only focusing on one common argument, which has been brought up here and reddit a ton.

Hopefully he does the next one which is your suggested Cousins vs grooming rookie QB. I showed the raw ballpark math that said historically we'd have a ~10% chance of finding a franchise QB (being as loose with the term franchise QB as possible too) with a late 1st round pick or later...and an even less than 10% chance of that rookie QB being ready to take over a top contending team as soon as 2019.

(02-14-2018, 06:43 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2018, 06:05 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]His argument is strictly based upon Cousins vs Bortles.  (either will get you in cap trouble in 2020)

The argument should be Cousins vs Bortles (for one year) and a then rookie from the 2018 draft to take over in 2019. 

 Also his long term money argument is weak as hell. He just conveniently dimisses Fowler and Myles Jack's second contracts and doesn't even try to do the math should both of them play well enough to warrant being kept.

 I showed the raw ballpark math ...

Thanks for that "raw ballpark math."  Whatever the hell that means.

You'll pardon me if I don't adopt that as my benchmark. 
BTW - they can move up to get their guy if they want. Way to continue ignoring that. 

Of course they can't count on finding their franchise QB in the draft. But I think they'd be foolish not to try.
And - as I keep pointing out - they don't need to land the next Montana - they need the next "better than Bortles." 
That definitely changes your "raw ballpark math" a bit. 

Their odds are better than your "10%" guess IMO, and they aren't limited to picking at #29.

(02-14-2018, 10:53 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2018, 06:43 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ] I showed the raw ballpark math ...

Thanks for that "raw ballpark math."  Whatever the hell that means.

You'll pardon me if I don't adopt that as my benchmark. 
BTW - they can move up to get their guy if they want. Way to continue ignoring that. 

Of course they can't count on finding their franchise QB in the draft. But I think they'd be foolish not to try.
And - as I keep pointing out - they don't need to land the next Montana - they need the next "better than Bortles." 
That definitely changes your "raw ballpark math" a bit. 

Their odds are better than your "10%" guess IMO, and they aren't limited to picking at #29.

I already explained but I guess I can do it again. I just went and looked back at all of the drafts since 2000, and I was pretty loose with what I called a franchise QB, counting guys like Dalton, Garrard, and Schaub since you have already played the next Montana card too. I set the bar low.

There were roughly 8-9 QBs drafted late 1st and later each draft (some drafts like 2004 had half a dozen 7th rounders alone so I didn't count those that would really skew it), and there was on average less than 1 long term starting QB per draft...so ballpark ~10% were long term starters. And a lot of those that did count didn't start in their first two seasons...so less than 10% chance whoever we draft is not only a long term starting QB type but also ready to help us in 2019.

And I'm still not saying don't try to draft a QB, by all means try. It's just not even close to the better than 50/50 proposition you said. If we do hit that's great, but the stick with Blake and replace him with our draftee in 2019 option is far fetched especially with our SB aspirations.

(02-15-2018, 12:00 AM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2018, 10:53 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for that "raw ballpark math."  Whatever the hell that means.

You'll pardon me if I don't adopt that as my benchmark. 
BTW - they can move up to get their guy if they want. Way to continue ignoring that. 

Of course they can't count on finding their franchise QB in the draft. But I think they'd be foolish not to try.
And - as I keep pointing out - they don't need to land the next Montana - they need the next "better than Bortles." 
That definitely changes your "raw ballpark math" a bit. 

Their odds are better than your "10%" guess IMO, and they aren't limited to picking at #29.

I already explained but I guess I can do it again. I just went and looked back at all of the drafts since 2000, and I was pretty loose with what I called a franchise QB, counting guys like Dalton, Garrard, and Schaub since you have already played the next Montana card too. I set the bar low.

There were roughly 8-9 QBs drafted late 1st and later each draft (some drafts like 2004 had half a dozen 7th rounders alone so I didn't count those that would really skew it), and there was on average less than 1 long term starting QB per draft...so ballpark ~10% were long term starters. And a lot of those that did count didn't start in their first two seasons...so less than 10% chance whoever we draft is not only a long term starting QB type but also ready to help us in 2019.

And I'm still not saying don't try to draft a QB, by all means try. It's just not even close to the better than 50/50 proposition you said. If we do hit that's great, but the stick with Blake and replace him with our draftee in 2019 option is far fetched especially with our SB aspirations.

Again. 

No one said anything about a "long term starter." 
I said "better than Blake Bortles."  This team doesn't need a top tier QB to win. They need a marginal upgrade. They may not even need that if they get some better run blocking. 

I look at Bridgewater, Prescott, Carr, Garappolo and even UDFA Keenum and see plenty of reason to be optimistic the Jags can find a 2019 decent starter in this draft.  Nothing in this league is easy - and that includes drafting a decent QB - but I want no part of dismantling this defense in two years to sign a marginal upgrade for way too much money. 

And for the 4th time - stop acting like the team is relegated to choosing a QB at #29 or later. They can move up.

I'd also prefer to keep those SB aspirations you mention intact for a longer window. I think the way to do that is to preserve a championship caliber defense. Not to shoehorn in a makeshift QB.

Haha well now you got yourself in trouble with everyone else around here by labeling Bridgewater, not to mention OL made QBs like Prescott and Carr (their words not mine), better than Bortles.

I have also acknowledged trading up many times in many threads so don't keep saying I'm ignoring it. We aren't going to be able to trade up enough to get Rosen, Darnold, or Mayfield and we are already discussing Jackson/Rudolph at 29 so if we trade up for one of them to be safe that doesn't change much.

(02-14-2018, 06:33 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2018, 04:49 PM)JAGFAN88 Wrote: [ -> ]He did not include the third option of signing him to an extention now at 20-22 mill for 2 0r 3 years which if they are comitted to BB5 is the best option for the salary cap.

Commiting long term to Blake right now is pointless. You have an option year and a franchise year.

a 2-3 yr extention is not long term. the option year is 19 and franchise is estimated 25 so thats 44 mill over 2 years. with the 25 hitting in the second year. if you extend him for lets say 21 giving him a 2m raise for this years performance you are in at 42 m over 2 years with only 21 hitting the second year. i know its only a couple million either way but it eases the signing of other players in the next 2 years.

(02-15-2018, 02:36 AM)JAGFAN88 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2018, 06:33 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Commiting long term to Blake right now is pointless. You have an option year and a franchise year.

a 2-3 yr extention is not long term. the option year is 19 and franchise is estimated 25 so thats 44 mill over 2 years. with the 25 hitting in the second year. if you extend him for lets say 21 giving him a 2m raise for this years performance you are in at 42 m over 2 years with only 21 hitting the second year. i know its only a couple million either way but it eases the signing of other players in the next 2 years.

Why sign him to a short term extension and give him a raise, when he is already under contract and we are still unsure about him as a long term starter? That makes no sense.

(02-15-2018, 06:37 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-15-2018, 02:36 AM)JAGFAN88 Wrote: [ -> ]a 2-3 yr extention is not long term. the option year is 19 and franchise is estimated 25 so thats 44 mill over 2 years. with the 25 hitting in the second year. if you extend him for lets say 21 giving him a 2m raise for this years performance you are in at 42 m over 2 years with only 21 hitting the second year. i know its only a couple million either way but it eases the signing of other players in the next 2 years.

Why sign him to a short term extension and give him a raise, when he is already under contract and we are still unsure about him as a long term starter? That makes no sense.

He wouldn't sign it either, you don't get to force players to sign like some people seem to think.

(02-15-2018, 02:21 AM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]Haha well now you got yourself in trouble with everyone else around here by labeling Bridgewater, not to mention OL made QBs like Prescott and Carr (their words not mine), better than Bortles.

I have also acknowledged trading up many times in many threads so don't keep saying I'm ignoring it. We aren't going to be able to trade up enough to get Rosen, Darnold, or Mayfield and we are already discussing Jackson/Rudolph at 29 so if we trade up for one of them to be safe that doesn't change much.

Nice try.  Even though I would not be remotely surprised to see Bridgewater outperform Bortles, I didn't "label" him anything. 

I was very clear and succinct. Try reading this sentence again and refrain from putting words in my mouth:

Quote:I look at Bridgewater, Prescott, Carr, Garappolo and even UDFA Keenum and see plenty of reason to be optimistic the Jags can find a 2019 decent starter in this draft.

 
I cited those QBs as reason to be optimistic picking a QB ( more specifically, picking outside of the top twenty) in this draft. 
I didn't say they were "better than Blake" even though it's not much of a stretch.

You took sentences from two separate paragraphs and morphed them.

(FTR - My take on that QB class was "Teddy in the first, or Garrapolo in the second. Bortles is fine if you value the size/durability." I was lukewarm on him outside the one bowl game. I wanted no part of Carr, Manziel, or McCarron)

The way this coaching staff calls the games... They can double down on beefing up the defense and offensive line and call it an offseason. We can plug in multiple options to get what we already have.

(02-15-2018, 06:37 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-15-2018, 02:36 AM)JAGFAN88 Wrote: [ -> ]a 2-3 yr extention is not long term. the option year is 19 and franchise is estimated 25 so thats 44 mill over 2 years. with the 25 hitting in the second year. if you extend him for lets say 21 giving him a 2m raise for this years performance you are in at 42 m over 2 years with only 21 hitting the second year. i know its only a couple million either way but it eases the signing of other players in the next 2 years.

Why sign him to a short term extension and give him a raise, when he is already under contract and we are still unsure about him as a long term starter? That makes no sense.

The going rate on FA QB is almost 30 mill. so if he does improve and makes the steps forward then he will be a FA next year. We can franchise him but that would be est 25 mill. If you sign him to an ext. then you have him under contract and wont need to give him the big QB contract untill after you took care of your core defensive players. Its a business decision.

(02-15-2018, 08:21 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-15-2018, 06:37 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Why sign him to a short term extension and give him a raise, when he is already under contract and we are still unsure about him as a long term starter? That makes no sense.

He wouldn't sign it either, you don't get to force players to sign like some people seem to think.

He does not have to sign it, but if like yall #anyonebutblake ppl keep saying the team is not sold on him yet, they have the leverage now. if he improves next year and is a top 10 QB, then he will have the leverage. he may be willing to sign the prove it type extension now.

This is a lower criteria than "elite level", but since 1990, QBs taken by round that have become multi-year NFL starters...

Round 1 (1-15) 81%
Round 1 (16-32) 65%
Round 2 48%
Round 3 25%
Round 4 13%
Round 5 6%
Round 6 16%
Round 7 6%

Link:
https://www.milehighreport.com/2017/6/28...arterbacks

Yeah this is part of why I said ballpark cause there are all types of ways to label what is a hit as a QB. If you are going to count Henne, Geno Smith, Quincy Carter, Colt McCoy, Kellen Clemens, Tarvaris Jackson, Charlie Batch (and many more very questionable ones...and that's only counting the late 1st/2nd rounders that are being skewed) as hits like that article does then we're gonna have to just agree to disagree.

(02-15-2018, 02:36 AM)JAGFAN88 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2018, 06:33 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Commiting long term to Blake right now is pointless. You have an option year and a franchise year.

a 2-3 yr extention is not long term. the option year is 19 and franchise is estimated 25 so thats 44 mill over 2 years. with the 25 hitting in the second year. if you extend him for lets say 21 giving him a 2m raise for this years performance you are in at 42 m over 2 years with only 21 hitting the second year. i know its only a couple million either way but it eases the signing of other players in the next 2 years.

It's pointless risk. 

If he sucks this year you are paying a QB you don't want for another 2 seasons after that. All just to save 2 million? 

Relax. We have more than enough cap. We don't need to ease the signing of players. We are future proofed.

(02-15-2018, 06:17 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-15-2018, 02:36 AM)JAGFAN88 Wrote: [ -> ]a 2-3 yr extention is not long term. the option year is 19 and franchise is estimated 25 so thats 44 mill over 2 years. with the 25 hitting in the second year. if you extend him for lets say 21 giving him a 2m raise for this years performance you are in at 42 m over 2 years with only 21 hitting the second year. i know its only a couple million either way but it eases the signing of other players in the next 2 years.

It's pointless risk. 

If he sucks this year you are paying a QB you don't want for another 2 seasons after that. All just to save 2 million? 

Relax. We have more than enough cap. We don't need to ease the signing of players. We are future proofed.

You do know that even if a player is under contact you can cut him before the next league year starts dont you. or cut him anytime.

(02-15-2018, 06:20 PM)JAGFAN88 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-15-2018, 06:17 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]It's pointless risk. 

If he sucks this year you are paying a QB you don't want for another 2 seasons after that. All just to save 2 million? 

Relax. We have more than enough cap. We don't need to ease the signing of players. We are future proofed.

You do know that even if a player is under contact you can cut him before the next league year starts dont you. or cut him anytime.

You do know that you would still have to pay him for the money guaranteed to him right? 

Unless of course you are suggesting having no guaranteed money in this mythical contract, in which case why would he ever sign it?

(02-15-2018, 06:06 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah this is part of why I said ballpark cause there are all types of ways to label what is a hit as a QB. If you are going to count Henne, Geno Smith, Quincy Carter, Colt McCoy, Kellen Clemens, Tarvaris Jackson, Charlie Batch (and many more very questionable ones...and that's only counting the late 1st/2nd rounders that are being skewed) as hits like that article does then we're gonna have to just agree to disagree.

Not one of your listed players went late first round. What I find ironic, is you are trying to pound your point of quarterbacks drafted outside of the top 10 are crap . Meanwhile you continue to pump up your fourth round legend.

I honestly don't think uppers argument is that complicated/controversial.

Off the top of my head the only franchise QB drafted in the 20-32 range over the last 15+ years is Rodgers.