In one of the best lines from "The Untouchables," Sean Connery is the grizzled Chicago beat cop who constantly asks the vastly overrated Kevin Costner "What are you prepared to do?"

Today I pose that question to you.


It is a given our Jaguars are a QB starved team.  Even with the salary cap departures sure to come, many of us have the sense we could still potentially be a playoff team if we can find a good young signal caller in the draft.  Dwayne Haskins has been a favorite subject of speculation, with a few indicating we should "give up the farm" to get him.

Indeed, even though many of the teams picking ahead of us drafted/acquired young QBs last year, QB is always a high demand position.  The Raiders at 4, Bucs at 5, Giants at 6 could potentially target a QB.  Below us, teams like Denver, Cincinnati, and as low as Washington at 15 could be interested in acquiring a signal caller and may be willing to deal up ahead of us to land him.

But should we "give up the farm" to trade up for Haskins?

That depends upon what constitutes the farm...specifically draft pick consideration.

Absent trading away established players, we may be asked to give up a future first round pick to move up.  If that's the case, I'm not sure I pull the trigger.

Next year is supposedly a stronger and deeper QB class.  Justin Herbert, who many speculated would have been the first QB taken in this year's crop.  Add in Tua, Fromm, and others, it appears the 2020 crop may rival the 2018 draft class.

Though that win over Miami cost us at least two draft spots, we are still in "reasonable" range to take Haskins.  As desperate as we are at QB, if I look at a long term approach, I'm inclined to take my chances with next year's class if the cost for trading up for Haskins involves a 2020 first round pick.    There is a chance we could move up without giving up next year's first or someone too valuable and still land Haskins.  If we wanted Haskins, got him, and still kept our 2020 first round pick, we could have a lot of draft capital next year if we understandably struggle with a rookie signal caller with our schedule.  If we hit on Haskins, with the strength of our schedule, we could still struggle and finish with a high pick.  In that scenario, we could finally pull off one of those blockbuster trades down that so many have wanted.

Of course there is considerable risk for that approach.  For Caldwell, Coughlin and Marrone, putting off finding a QB for another year could cost the team another winning season and them their jobs.  Without a young stud signal caller, we could see another underachieving and losing season.  A new GM/Coach combo would likely institute new schemes with new personnel requirements.  Furthermore, we are talented enough such that we could win enough games to put us out of range for one of the QBs next year.  With the quality of the signal callers in next year's class, teams within the top 5 or 10 may be more reluctant to deal down, and the cost of moving up may be more costly than it is this year, and at the end of the day, we may not have a QB this year OR next year.



If the cost for trading up involves next year's first round pick, I don't think I make the move up.

So what are you prepared to do...and why?

Well, back to your original question...  

There's no way I would wait until next year.   We have no QB right now, a decent "bridge" QB will cost a ton, and we don't have the cap space to waste.  

I know a lot of people think, Oh, my God, we cannot give up next year's first round pick, but if you look back at previous first round picks, what would we be giving up, Taven Bryan?  Hell yes, I would give up next year's first round pick IF I had a guy I thought was worth the move up.  So, no hesitation from me about giving up the farm to move up if I had a guy I really really wanted.   This year, we're only moving up a few spots.  That move will be a lot cheaper than it's going to be next year, when we could be picking in the bottom half of the first round.  

Look at it this way: if we hire a half-decent "bridge" starter, we will probably go 8-8 or better, which means moving up in the draft to get a great QB will be incredibly expensive.  


So, in summary, giving up the equivalent of Taven Bryan, DJ Chark, and Ronnie Harrison to get a franchise QB, HELL YES.

---

I had Tanner Lee as undraftable.

---

I know I certainly wouldn't waste a valuable draft pick on a QB who barely completed over half his passes. I seen so-so QB's with bad receivers, who had a higher completion percentage than that.

You said you wouldn't roster Lamar or Allen , so I presume you wouldn't roster Tyree.  

Would you have rostered Matt Stafford?

No, I would not roster Tyree. As far as Stafford, on his current contract? No way. He's way too expensive for a starting QB who is closer to "middle of the road." His contract has held the Lions hostage. If Stafford was was a player coming out in the draft though, on a rookie deal, of course I would sign him. With Stafford, it's not about ability, it's about his contract.

---

You said you wouldn't roster Lamar or Allen , so I presume you wouldn't roster Tyree.  

Would you have rostered Matt Stafford?

No, I would not roster Tyree. As far as Stafford, on his current contract? No way. He's way too expensive for a starting QB who is closer to "middle of the road." His contract has held the Lions hostage. If Stafford was was a player coming out in the draft though, on a rookie deal, of course I would sign him. With Stafford, it's not about ability, it's about his contract.

I actually think Stafford is very underrated. He has played well with virtually no run game, OLine or defense for the majority of his career.

---

No, I would not roster Tyree. As far as Stafford, on his current contract? No way. He's way too expensive for a starting QB who is closer to "middle of the road." His contract has held the Lions hostage. If Stafford was was a player coming out in the draft though, on a rookie deal, of course I would sign him. With Stafford, it's not about ability, it's about his contract.

I actually think Stafford is very underrated. He has played well with virtually no run game, OLine or defense for the majority of his career.

I would agree with you up until this season. He finally has an every down runner now in Johnson and the O-Line looks a lot better, but I didn't really see him take a step up. He does need a consistent TE and another receiving threat, but at this point, imo, he's just slightly better than average.

---

You said you wouldn't roster Lamar or Allen , so I presume you wouldn't roster Tyree.  

Would you have rostered Matt Stafford?

No, I would not roster Tyree. As far as Stafford, on his current contract? No way. He's way too expensive for a starting QB who is closer to "middle of the road." His contract has held the Lions hostage. If Stafford was was a player coming out in the draft though, on a rookie deal, of course I would sign him. With Stafford, it's not about ability, it's about his contract.

No, as in would you have chosen him in the draft.

---

No, I would not roster Tyree. As far as Stafford, on his current contract? No way. He's way too expensive for a starting QB who is closer to "middle of the road." His contract has held the Lions hostage. If Stafford was was a player coming out in the draft though, on a rookie deal, of course I would sign him. With Stafford, it's not about ability, it's about his contract.

No, as in would you have chosen him in the draft.

Today, based on his college stats alone, I would, but not as a first rounder and probably not as a 2nd rounder, but as a 3rd round pick definitely. Although his completion percentage was not good in college, I believe he made a huge leap his final season and showed improvement every year. That's what separates him. Tyree Jackson regressed from 60.3% to 55.3% last year. That is quite a dropoff and he had one of the better receivers in the country, (Anthony Johnson.)

---

No, as in would you have chosen him in the draft.

Today, based on his college stats alone, I would, but not as a first rounder and probably not as a 2nd rounder, but as a 3rd round pick definitely. Although his completion percentage was not good in college, I believe he made a huge leap his final season and showed improvement every year. That's what separates him. Tyree Jackson regressed from 60.3% to 55.3% last year. That is quite a dropoff and he had one of the better receivers in the country, (Anthony Johnson.)

Unless you are using adjusted accuracy and factoring in style of offense + ADOT i think accuracy % lies to you. Bortles for instance was highly accurate in college. Better off to analyse how they play

---

Sub question:

Assume the Giants (or some other team) make the trade up to # 1 to take Haskins.

Given the other teams that will still need QB after that above trade is made, would you be willing to deal up for one of the other QBs on the board?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Sub question:

Assume the Giants (or some other team) make the trade up to # 1 to take Haskins.

Given the other teams that will still need QB after that above trade is made, would you be willing to deal up for one of the other QBs on the board?

I'm a Grier fan - but I'm not trying to move up from 7  to get him.

---

Sub question:

Assume the Giants (or some other team) make the trade up to # 1 to take Haskins.

Given the other teams that will still need QB after that above trade is made, would you be willing to deal up for one of the other QBs on the board?

Not me.

I think Haskins is a tier all by himself.

Take a WR or someone else at 7 and then a QB in the 2nd.

---

Sub question:

Assume the Giants (or some other team) make the trade up to # 1 to take Haskins.

Given the other teams that will still need QB after that above trade is made, would you be willing to deal up for one of the other QBs on the board?

Absolutely not.

---

Sub question:

Assume the Giants (or some other team) make the trade up to # 1 to take Haskins.

Given the other teams that will still need QB after that above trade is made, would you be willing to deal up for one of the other QBs on the board?

up from 7? no way José.

up from the second to the back half of the first? Only for Lock or Grier.

Frankly, nobody else in front of us needs a QB, and if anyone behind us wants to overspend to move ahead of us for guys that probably don't fit until mid-round at the most, let them.

Honestly, I don't even think I take QB at 7 if anyone jumps ahead of us to get Haskins.

---

Sub question:

Assume the Giants (or some other team) make the trade up to # 1 to take Haskins.

Given the other teams that will still need QB after that above trade is made, would you be willing to deal up for one of the other QBs on the board?

up from 7? no way José.

up from the second to the back half of the first? Only for Lock or Grier.

Frankly, nobody else in front of us needs a QB, and if anyone behind us wants to overspend to move ahead of us for guys that probably don't fit until mid-round at the most, let them.

Honestly, I don't even think I take QB at 7 if anyone jumps ahead of us to get Haskins.

Now that Arians has been named HC in Tampa, I would cross Tampa off the list of teams ahead of us that needs a QB.

But that still leaves a definite Giants team, and possibly the Raiders ahead of us needing a QB.

That also leads a few teams behind us that could use a QB too.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

up from 7? no way José.

up from the second to the back half of the first? Only for Lock or Grier.

Frankly, nobody else in front of us needs a QB, and if anyone behind us wants to overspend to move ahead of us for guys that probably don't fit until mid-round at the most, let them.

Honestly, I don't even think I take QB at 7 if anyone jumps ahead of us to get Haskins.

Now that Arians has been named HC in Tampa, I would cross Tampa off the list of teams ahead of us that needs a QB.

But that still leaves a definite Giants team, and possibly the Raiders ahead of us needing a QB.

That also leads a few teams behind us that could use a QB too.

I think it's the Jags and Giants with the best shot at Haskins.

Jets are probably going to want more draft picks in this draft so the fact the Jags have 2 3rd rounders and the Giants have zero really helps our cause if we want to trade up.

---