It's not that you tank if Trevor goes down.  But you do have to make some decisions on priorities -- every decision you make affects the dollars spent under the cap, the future draft picks you will have, etc.  Minshew is not a grizzled veteran, he is young quarterback with a future.  Most teams with a #1 pick quarterback will prioritize his development (whatever that means).  They do not prioritize winning a championship in his rookie season.  They want a quarterback that is most compatible with the climate of developing that young #1 pick -- like a veteran that brings stability to the film room or the practice field.  If Minshew has no trade value, it's a moot point.  But if he has trade value, you might prioritize Trevor's development over the idea of winning if he goes down.

I'd be willing to bet exactly zero NFL head coaches agree with this. 

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Developing a QB   -------------------------------------  Trying to win every game

Two different things.

---

It's not that you tank if Trevor goes down.  But you do have to make some decisions on priorities -- every decision you make affects the dollars spent under the cap, the future draft picks you will have, etc.  Minshew is not a grizzled veteran, he is young quarterback with a future.  Most teams with a #1 pick quarterback will prioritize his development (whatever that means).  They do not prioritize winning a championship in his rookie season.  They want a quarterback that is most compatible with the climate of developing that young #1 pick -- like a veteran that brings stability to the film room or the practice field.  If Minshew has no trade value, it's a moot point.  But if he has trade value, you might prioritize Trevor's development over the idea of winning if he goes down.

I'd be willing to bet exactly zero NFL head coaches agree with this. 

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Developing a QB   -------------------------------------  Trying to win every game

Two different things.

Then why do so many teams have back up QB's that would be hard pressed to win a game or few if pressed into service?

Also, I'd argue no one knows what Minshew's future really is.
Does anyone on this board think he will develop into a good starter or just a high level back up?
If he is only a back up, is he really already a top 10 back up QB in the league on this team as currently constructed or only on a team that has a decent roster around him?
Is really the guy who can groom a younger QB given the weaknesses we saw in his vision over his last 16 or so games? Does he even want to do that?

---

It's not that you tank if Trevor goes down.  But you do have to make some decisions on priorities -- every decision you make affects the dollars spent under the cap, the future draft picks you will have, etc.  Minshew is not a grizzled veteran, he is young quarterback with a future.  Most teams with a #1 pick quarterback will prioritize his development (whatever that means).  They do not prioritize winning a championship in his rookie season.  They want a quarterback that is most compatible with the climate of developing that young #1 pick -- like a veteran that brings stability to the film room or the practice field.  If Minshew has no trade value, it's a moot point.  But if he has trade value, you might prioritize Trevor's development over the idea of winning if he goes down.

I'd be willing to bet exactly zero NFL head coaches agree with this. 

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Developing a QB   -------------------------------------  Trying to win every game

Two different things.

I think you are confusing two things -- (1) the maximal effort to win every game, which is there; and (2) the roster priorities you set, with every spot and every dollar costing you somewhere else.

I will give you an example to help picture: you have one million extra dollars to spend. It comes down to an seasoned backup QB, one that could be ready to take over a championship caliber team in the playoffs, or a younger receiver with huge upside to develop alongside Trevor.

Both players will help you "win," when called upon. In that situation, you prioritize the player that will put Trevor in a position to win and grow. You do not prioritize the playoff run without Trevor.

---

I'd be willing to bet exactly zero NFL head coaches agree with this. 

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Developing a QB   -------------------------------------  Trying to win every game

Two different things.

Then why do so many teams have back up QB's that would be hard pressed to win a game or few if pressed into service?

Also, I'd argue no one knows what Minshew's future really is.
Does anyone on this board think he will develop into a good starter or just a high level back up?
If he is only a back up, is he really already a top 10 back up QB in the league on this team as currently constructed or only on a team that has a decent roster around him?
Is really the guy who can groom a younger QB given the weaknesses we saw in his vision over his last 16 or so games? Does he even want to do that?

I get what you are saying. Why not just keep both?

Minshew’s trade value cratered following the QB changes and a rich QB draft this offseason. Just wait for some of those solutions to fail and then trade him to a team that really needs a QB.

Maybe Minshew has an excellent preseason. Maybe there is a QB injury on a competitive team. Maybe the QB class next year will look weak. I don’t know, but right now it is a buyers market, so I see no need to sell.

I would prefer to keep my Minshew investment, because I think it will get more valuable. I do think he is a high level backup with at least some potential to be an average starter. He also has value to me as the primary backup in the mean time.

Let Beathard mentor Trevor on the bench as a 3rd QB. If Minshew is traded this year we will still have a meh backup at least.

---

Mentor mentor mentor

I think Lawrence should be mentoring CJ.

---

I'd be willing to bet exactly zero NFL head coaches agree with this. 

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Developing a QB   -------------------------------------  Trying to win every game

Two different things.

Then why do so many teams have back up QB's that would be hard pressed to win a game or few if pressed into service?

...

Are you serious?? 

Half of the teams in the league can't find a STARTING quarterback that will get them to .500

Of course the options are limited to back them up.  Do you think these teams are strategically employing bad quarterbacks? They are not.

---

I'd be willing to bet exactly zero NFL head coaches agree with this. 

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Developing a QB   -------------------------------------  Trying to win every game

Two different things.

I think you are confusing two things -- (1) the maximal effort to win every game, which is there; and (2) the roster priorities you set, with every spot and every dollar costing you somewhere else.

I will give you an example to help picture:  you have one million extra dollars to spend.  It comes down to an seasoned backup QB, one that could be ready to take over a championship caliber team in the playoffs, or a younger receiver with huge upside to develop alongside Trevor.  

Both players will help you "win," when called upon.  In that situation, you prioritize the player that will put Trevor in a position to win and grow.  You do not prioritize the playoff run without Trevor.

I've confused nothing. 

The point you are attempting to make is moot in the modern salary cap era. What most teams spend on their back-up QB in no way impedes them from making difficult roster decisions elsewhere. 
There's always a way to find a couple million in space. Take a look at current NFL news and all of the restructured contracts getting done right now. It will never come down to the fictional decision you've proposed above.

There is nothing keeping this coaching staff and front office from properly developing Lawrence AND ALSO prioritizing wins the same as they would in any other season. 
Nothing. Whether the back-up is Minshew, Alex Smith, Blake Bortles or Roscoe P. Coltrane.

---

I think you are confusing two things -- (1) the maximal effort to win every game, which is there; and (2) the roster priorities you set, with every spot and every dollar costing you somewhere else.

I will give you an example to help picture:  you have one million extra dollars to spend.  It comes down to an seasoned backup QB, one that could be ready to take over a championship caliber team in the playoffs, or a younger receiver with huge upside to develop alongside Trevor.  

Both players will help you "win," when called upon.  In that situation, you prioritize the player that will put Trevor in a position to win and grow.  You do not prioritize the playoff run without Trevor.

I've confused nothing. 

The point you are attempting to make is moot in the modern salary cap era. What most teams spend on their back-up QB in no way impedes them from making difficult roster decisions elsewhere. 
There's always a way to find a couple million in space. Take a look at current NFL news and all of the restructured contracts getting done right now. It will never come down to the fictional decision you've proposed above.

There is nothing keeping this coaching staff and front office from properly developing Lawrence AND ALSO prioritizing wins the same as they would in any other season. 
Nothing. Whether the back-up is Minshew, Alex Smith, Blake Bortles or Roscoe P. Coltrane.

Got it.  To paraphrase:  there are no trade-offs in building out an NFL roster.  Just do ALL THE THINGS.  Priorities?  Prioritize EVERYTHING.  Done.

---

https://twitter.com/MiaOBrienTV/status/1...08000?s=19

---

I've confused nothing. 

The point you are attempting to make is moot in the modern salary cap era. What most teams spend on their back-up QB in no way impedes them from making difficult roster decisions elsewhere. 
There's always a way to find a couple million in space. Take a look at current NFL news and all of the restructured contracts getting done right now. It will never come down to the fictional decision you've proposed above.

There is nothing keeping this coaching staff and front office from properly developing Lawrence AND ALSO prioritizing wins the same as they would in any other season. 
Nothing. Whether the back-up is Minshew, Alex Smith, Blake Bortles or Roscoe P. Coltrane.

Got it.  To paraphrase:  there are no trade-offs in building out an NFL roster.  Just do ALL THE THINGS.  Priorities?  Prioritize EVERYTHING.  Done.

Who are you paraphrasing? 

Not me. 

Please find me a coach that doesn't prioritize winning regardless of who is starting at QB. I'll wait. 

While you're at it - find me a front office that will go with their third choice at back-up QB instead of their second choice because "we aren't prioritizing a championship this season."  

LOL

---

https://twitter.com/MiaOBrienTV/status/1...08000?s=19

Yeah, he had a pretty good day today. It sounds like he has nice chemistry with Etienne and they scored at least one other TD today. Maybe he will have a nice preseason and that could help his trade value.

---

Got it.  To paraphrase:  there are no trade-offs in building out an NFL roster.  Just do ALL THE THINGS.  Priorities?  Prioritize EVERYTHING.  Done.

Who are you paraphrasing? 

Not me. 

Please find me a coach that doesn't prioritize winning regardless of who is starting at QB. I'll wait. 

While you're at it - find me a front office that will go with their third choice at back-up QB instead of their second choice because "we aren't prioritizing a championship this season."  

LOL

The LOL was a nice, friendly touch. It's a joy to converse.

But anyway, to spell out it differently, the competing priorities are not "win championship, not win championship." The competing priorities are "value at position X, value at position Y." An NFL roster is a balance between different types of needs.

If Minshew has no trade value, it's an entirely moot point. Just keep him. But if you can strengthen your roster in a different way, by trading him then it becomes interesting. And finally, when the goals that are competing against each other are "now" and the "future," teams are put in the position of adding that into the mix.

For example, under your logic, the Jags should go hard after Aaron Rodgers. He is a better quarterback right now than Trevor. He is the answer to the question "Which quarterback would be a better choice if the goal is to win a championship this season." But that would be silly, for reasons that you know.

---

It's not that you tank if Trevor goes down.  But you do have to make some decisions on priorities -- every decision you make affects the dollars spent under the cap, the future draft picks you will have, etc.  Minshew is not a grizzled veteran, he is young quarterback with a future.  Most teams with a #1 pick quarterback will prioritize his development (whatever that means).  They do not prioritize winning a championship in his rookie season.  They want a quarterback that is most compatible with the climate of developing that young #1 pick -- like a veteran that brings stability to the film room or the practice field.  If Minshew has no trade value, it's a moot point.  But if he has trade value, you might prioritize Trevor's development over the idea of winning if he goes down.

Who are you paraphrasing? 

Not me. 

Please find me a coach that doesn't prioritize winning regardless of who is starting at QB. I'll wait. 

While you're at it - find me a front office that will go with their third choice at back-up QB instead of their second choice because "we aren't prioritizing a championship this season."  

LOL

The LOL was a nice, friendly touch.  It's a joy to converse.

But anyway, to spell out it differently, the competing priorities are not "win championship, not win championship."  The competing priorities are "value at position X, value at position Y."  An NFL roster is a balance between different types of needs.  

If Minshew has no trade value, it's an entirely moot point.  Just keep him.  But if you can strengthen your roster in a different way, by trading him then it becomes interesting.  And finally, when the goals that are competing against each other are "now" and the "future," teams are put in the position of adding that into the mix.

For example, under your logic, the Jags should go hard after Aaron Rodgers.  He is a better quarterback right now than Trevor.  He is the answer to the question "Which quarterback would be a better choice if the goal is to win a championship this season."  But that would be silly, for reasons that you know.

Replies that move the goalposts and put words in my mouth inaccurately often receive such joyful and friendly touches. 

I've quoted your original failed logic so we can loop back to the original point you are convoluting more and more with each reply. 

The first bolded bit paints a picture of two things mutually exclusive from one another. 
They are not. 

The next bit moves to conflate Lawrence's development with Minshew's trade value and assumes a different (but lesser??) QB would somehow benefit him more. 

It's a fail at both turns. 
A - Prioritizing development over winning is completely unnecessary in the Jaguars situation.
B - Minshew's trade value will determine whether or not he stays or goes - Not prioritizing Lawrence's development. Every player has a price, and if they are offered enough for Minshew, they'll take it. 

You also seem to be operating under the assumption that Minshew is a bad fit to aid in Lawrence's development. I don't know how we would know that to be true either.

---

Apparently they want to offer an insult as trade value so keep him as he is way more valuable as insurance.

---

The next bit moves to conflate Lawrence's development with Minshew's trade value and assumes a different (but lesser??) QB would somehow benefit him more. 

It's a fail at both turns. 
A - Prioritizing development over winning is completely unnecessary in the Jaguars situation.
B - Minshew's trade value will determine whether or not he stays or goes - Not prioritizing Lawrence's development. Every player has a price, and if they are offered enough for Minshew, they'll take it. 

You also seem to be operating under the assumption that Minshew is a bad fit to aid in Lawrence's development. I don't know how we would know that to be true either.

For A, can you explain how you are saying they can do both in current Jags situation? I just don't understand that argument.

For B, I would say the new coaching staff/FO seems to have said that Minshew is abad fit for Lawrence's development or else why sign Beathard to such guaranteed deal? If they were that sold on Minshew being here and being a good fit for Lawrence's development, that deal makes no sense.

Also, I know that I definitely don't know clearly what it really takes to develop a QB or what goes on in those meetings/behind the scenes. That is probably true for most fans.

Just because Minshew has shown some flashes on practice field and his first few games with people vouching for his mind to grasping gameplans, doesn't meant he would fit to be able help another QB supplant him, or that he would want to at this point in his career. I know he was eyeing becoming a coach before going to Leach at WSU, but I haven't heard him already getting experience with that since his career skyrocketed after that.

---

The next bit moves to conflate Lawrence's development with Minshew's trade value and assumes a different (but lesser??) QB would somehow benefit him more. 

It's a fail at both turns. 
A - Prioritizing development over winning is completely unnecessary in the Jaguars situation.
B - Minshew's trade value will determine whether or not he stays or goes - Not prioritizing Lawrence's development. Every player has a price, and if they are offered enough for Minshew, they'll take it. 

You also seem to be operating under the assumption that Minshew is a bad fit to aid in Lawrence's development. I don't know how we would know that to be true either.

For A, can you explain how you are saying they can do both in current Jags situation? I just don't understand that argument.

For B, I would say the new coaching staff/FO seems to have said that Minshew is abad fit for Lawrence's development or else why sign Beathard to such guaranteed deal? If they were that sold on Minshew being here and being a good fit for Lawrence's development, that deal makes no sense.

Also, I know that I definitely don't know clearly what it really takes to develop a QB or what goes on in those meetings/behind the scenes. That is probably true for most fans.

Just because Minshew has shown some flashes on practice field and his first few games with people vouching for his mind to grasping gameplans, doesn't meant he would fit to be able help another QB supplant him, or that he would want to at this point in his career. I know he was eyeing becoming a coach before going to Leach at WSU, but I haven't heard him already getting experience with that since his career skyrocketed after that.

Bethard and Baalke are tied from the niners. Beathard's deal isn't so large that it prevents him being cut. 2.75 mil guaranteed is nothing in today's NFL spending. 

The Jags best chances to win games this year are 99.9999% certain to come with Lawrence at QB.  Is there a better way to develop the hottest prospect in a decade than to put him on the field? If he gets hurt (knocking on all the wood everything) then how is having the best available backup QB to replace him going to hinder his development?  What aspect of developing Lawrence would be in danger by simply keeping whomever the 2nd best QB is as his primary backup? 

I'm sure Minshew is unhappy about losing his starting role. Assuming that will make him have bad chemistry with Lawrence is a leap I'm not going to take, personally. These young men have spent several years at this point in locker rooms that see various starters become back-ups many times each season. This dynamic is not new to them and many of them  have learned to handle it gracefully. 

Personally, I don't really care who the backup is, but I clearly really want them to choose one that gives them the best chance to win. Not one they think may not be the best but has chemistry with Lawrence. Lawrence doesn't need a friendly stablemate. He can do fine with a competitive natured backup IMO. There's also this quote from Urban this week:

"Whoever is going to be on that field is going to give us the best chance to win," he said. "Ultimately, I've got to make a decision on the guy who's going to help us win. That's a daily conversation as well."

---

then how is having the best available backup QB to replace him going to hinder his development? 

The best backup will not hinder his development, but the tradeoff is getting a better supporting cast for Trevor at another position.

For example, one might conclude "We can get Ertz for Minshew, and I'd really like to have a veteran tight end in place for Trevor."
Reply: "But if Trevor goes down this year, we need to replace him with something close to Trevor to maximize our chance of winning a championship."
Counter-reply: "I realize that, but for where we are now, I'm going to prioritize having Ertz be in place as a stable piece to put with Trevor. Backup QB is lower priority for the ultimate direction of this team."

---

then how is having the best available backup QB to replace him going to hinder his development? 

The best backup will not hinder his development, but the tradeoff is getting a better supporting cast for Trevor at another position.

For example, one might conclude "We can get Ertz for Minshew, and I'd really like to have a veteran tight end in place for Trevor."  
Reply:  "But if Trevor goes down this year, we need to replace him with something close to Trevor to maximize our chance of winning a championship."  
Counter-reply:  "I realize that, but for where we are now, I'm going to prioritize having Ertz be in place as a stable piece to put with Trevor.  Backup QB is lower priority for the ultimate direction of this team."

Do you actually think keeping or not keeping Minshew is going to result in a player of Ertz quality being added/not being added to this roster?  

'Cause that's pretty far out there. 

If you can improve a roster spot of higher value than QB2 by trading QB2, then you have to do that. That is not de-prioritizing winning/championships, nor is it prioritizing development. It's roster value 101.

---

The best backup will not hinder his development, but the tradeoff is getting a better supporting cast for Trevor at another position.

For example, one might conclude "We can get Ertz for Minshew, and I'd really like to have a veteran tight end in place for Trevor."  
Reply:  "But if Trevor goes down this year, we need to replace him with something close to Trevor to maximize our chance of winning a championship."  
Counter-reply:  "I realize that, but for where we are now, I'm going to prioritize having Ertz be in place as a stable piece to put with Trevor.  Backup QB is lower priority for the ultimate direction of this team."

Do you actually think keeping or not keeping Minshew is going to result in a player of Ertz quality being added/not being added to this roster?  

'Cause that's pretty far out there. 

If you can improve a roster spot of higher value than QB2 by trading QB2, then you have to do that. That is not de-prioritizing winning/championships, nor is it prioritizing development. It's roster value 101.

Ertz being feasible is besides the point. It was an illustrative example of how player development can compete with other choices in building a roster.

Some decisions prioritize the present over the future, some prioritize the future over the present. For example, if you trade a player that is now good for future draft picks, you have theoretically subtracted from this year's team for next year's. It's something you do -- at some point, you're set with what you've got and think you can afford to deal a player that would otherwise make your squad. Doesn't mean you're going to tank, doesn't mean you wouldn't like to win a Superbowl, but you still choose between different scenarios.

---

Do you actually think keeping or not keeping Minshew is going to result in a player of Ertz quality being added/not being added to this roster?  

'Cause that's pretty far out there. 

If you can improve a roster spot of higher value than QB2 by trading QB2, then you have to do that. That is not de-prioritizing winning/championships, nor is it prioritizing development. It's roster value 101.

Ertz being feasible is besides the point.  It was an illustrative example of how player development can compete with other choices in building a roster.

Some decisions prioritize the present over the future, some prioritize the future over the present.  For example, if you trade a player that is now good for future draft picks, you have theoretically subtracted from this year's team for next year's.  It's something you do -- at some point, you're set with what you've got and think you can afford to deal a player that would otherwise make your squad.  Doesn't mean you're going to tank, doesn't mean you wouldn't like to win a Superbowl, but you still choose between different scenarios.

The Ertz example being feasible is not "beside the point," because it grossly exaggerates Minshew's likely trade value. This is why your example is not illustrative, but rather contorted.  And it says absolutely nothing about player development.

---