Just my opinion, but ANY rookie college QB is going to be worse than a veteran.  There are a few limited examples that say otherwise, but I would rather go for the veteran.  For all we know, Haskins or [insert college QB name here] could be nothing more than another Johnny Manziel.  Remember, these are kids that have never seen football at this level.

Of course, the probability that Foles would be better in the short term is very high. I really believe that it wouldn't be too long before Haskins overtakes him though and becomes better for a much longer period of time. I don't wanna build this team for the short term. I wanna build a dynasty like the Patriots and I truly believe Haskins can be a big puzzle piece toward building that type of team.

You are gonna be so sad when Haskins flames out.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Just out of interest, would people's expectation levels for the team be the same if we got Haskins or Foles? 

Ones a raw rookie, the other would be settling into a new team. Would Haskins be given a learning spell or would Foles be expected to hit the ground running?

No and Yes, in order of questions asked.

Bringing a rookie in, you have to temper expectations some. There will be a learning curve to reading defenses, adjusting to the speed of the game, etc. There's greater likelihood year one resembles Sam Darnold than Pat Mahomes. If Haskins or some other rookie comes in I believe the FO and coaches are safe for another year or two while we determine whether he is a franchise guy.

If Foles is brought in, the playoffs are likely the goal, and I imagine fans will be ready to jump off the f/k/a Modis building after his first stinker of a game. If we go 6-10 with Foles, I suspect Dave and Doug are unemployed before January 2020.

---

Of course, the probability that Foles would be better in the short term is very high. I really believe that it wouldn't be too long before Haskins overtakes him though and becomes better for a much longer period of time. I don't wanna build this team for the short term. I wanna build a dynasty like the Patriots and I truly believe Haskins can be a big puzzle piece toward building that type of team.

PREACH!

---

Of course, the probability that Foles would be better in the short term is very high. I really believe that it wouldn't be too long before Haskins overtakes him though and becomes better for a much longer period of time. I don't wanna build this team for the short term. I wanna build a dynasty like the Patriots and I truly believe Haskins can be a big puzzle piece toward building that type of team.

You are gonna be so sad when Haskins flames out.

As bad as that might feel, it would be better to miss on a rookie, than spending $25 million plus on veteran like Foles to a long term deal and still not win a Superbowl. That would really handcuff this franchise for years, especially when it comes to adding surrounding talent.

---

If the OC was able to turn Foles from a backup into a valuable FA target, let's get a younger, cheaper guy and see if he can do it again.

Whether that's a backup who hasn't broken through as a starter or a rookie, I much prefer either option to overspending on a free agent QB who may end up being no better than the QB we already overpaid for.

Why not just keep BB, he is younger and will not cost you anything he is already signed.  If he can make a diff with BB5 we will be back in the playoffs. If he cant we are drafting top 10 in 2020 with a much better QB selection. Cue cleatwood

Go  with  Best  Available.....Go  with  immediate  impact.....Go  with  a  proven  winner....that  means.....spend  the  money....you  get  what  you  pay  for......Go  with  FOLES!

---

Just out of interest, would people's expectation levels for the team be the same if we got Haskins or Foles? 

Ones a raw rookie, the other would be settling into a new team. Would Haskins be given a learning spell or would Foles be expected to hit the ground running?

You'd have to lower expectations for a rookie, big time.

If they want to "win now" as they claim to, they'll sign an impact veteran regardless of what they do in the draft.

Imagine if they do not land and start a veteran, and Haskins has an Aikman rookie season.

Will fans be bailing on Haskins and labeling him a bust too soon?  Would the team be nervous?  Would Dave finally get fired and they draft again?

If a rookie gets drafted and forced to start, the ramifications of it not working could be very costly.

I'm not "afraid" of them giving that a try.  But if they choose the rookie or bust route you have to get it right, or there will be consequences.

On one hand, I'd love for us to get Haskins and his career look like Aikman's when all is said and done - even if the first year is undesirable.

On the other, the better move is to grab a veteran and draft a rookie.  We could turn around much quicker and still have the QB of the future.  It's the more sound play.  Would it be possible to land a vet and a viable rookie in waiting?  Certainly.

There's a lot riding on this.  There will be re-signings to make.  Without landing a sure "now" and/or "near future" QB on the roster, they have to start considering whether or not they can sustain this core, or whether the window has begun to shut on it and may as well begin a mini rebuild/reload if the QB of the future/present is still a couple years away.

And on a final note... Bortles was overwhelmingly "their guy."  Ditto Fournette.  For Bortles there were no hints prior that would be the pick, for Fournette we could have turned the card in months in advance.  Be wary of signaling prior to the time the card goes in, but honestly what concerns me the most is the judgment behind it.  Bortles ended up nothing close to what they expected, and there are now concerns about Fournette as well.  If Haskins is their next "guy," they can't afford to be wrong about it because there certainly will be consequences in many, many ways.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Just out of interest, would people's expectation levels for the team be the same if we got Haskins or Foles? 

Ones a raw rookie, the other would be settling into a new team. Would Haskins be given a learning spell or would Foles be expected to hit the ground running?

No and Yes, in order of questions asked.

Bringing a rookie in, you have to temper expectations some. There will be a learning curve to reading defenses, adjusting to the speed of the game, etc. There's greater likelihood year one resembles Sam Darnold than Pat Mahomes. If Haskins or some other rookie comes in I believe the FO and coaches are safe for another year or two while we determine whether he is a franchise guy.

If Foles is brought in, the playoffs are likely the goal, and I imagine fans will be ready to jump off the f/k/a Modis building after his first stinker of a game. If we go 6-10 with Foles, I suspect Dave and Doug are unemployed before January 2020.

---

Of course, the probability that Foles would be better in the short term is very high. I really believe that it wouldn't be too long before Haskins overtakes him though and becomes better for a much longer period of time. I don't wanna build this team for the short term. I wanna build a dynasty like the Patriots and I truly believe Haskins can be a big puzzle piece toward building that type of team.

PREACH!

Ma Home Boy didn't play his 1st year, other than I think the last game of the season. It was his 2nd season last year (which makes your point more solid). 

Kaskins will not likely set the world on fire year 1. Very few QBs do, including Peyton Manning, Elway, Favre, etc.

---

Just out of interest, would people's expectation levels for the team be the same if we got Haskins or Foles? 

Ones a raw rookie, the other would be settling into a new team. Would Haskins be given a learning spell or would Foles be expected to hit the ground running?

You'd have to lower expectations for a rookie, big time.

If they want to "win now" as they claim to, they'll sign an impact veteran regardless of what they do in the draft.

Imagine if they do not land and start a veteran, and Haskins has an Aikman rookie season.

Will fans be bailing on Haskins and labeling him a bust too soon?  Would the team be nervous?  Would Dave finally get fired and they draft again?

If a rookie gets drafted and forced to start, the ramifications of it not working could be very costly.

I'm not "afraid" of them giving that a try.  But if they choose the rookie or bust route you have to get it right, or there will be consequences.

On one hand, I'd love for us to get Haskins and his career look like Aikman's when all is said and done - even if the first year is undesirable.

On the other, the better move is to grab a veteran and draft a rookie.  We could turn around much quicker and still have the QB of the future.  It's the more sound play.  Would it be possible to land a vet and a viable rookie in waiting?  Certainly.

There's a lot riding on this.  There will be re-signings to make.  Without landing a sure "now" and/or "near future" QB on the roster, they have to start considering whether or not they can sustain this core, or whether the window has begun to shut on it and may as well begin a mini rebuild/reload if the QB of the future/present is still a couple years away.

And on a final note... Bortles was overwhelmingly "their guy."  Ditto Fournette.  For Bortles there were no hints prior that would be the pick, for Fournette we could have turned the card in months in advance.  Be wary of signaling prior to the time the card goes in, but honestly what concerns me the most is the judgment behind it.  Bortles ended up nothing close to what they expected, and there are now concerns about Fournette as well.  If Haskins is their next "guy," they can't afford to be wrong about it because there certainly will be consequences in many, many ways.

They won't bail on a rookie QB after year 1. They didn't even bail on Gabbert that fast and he was/is TERRIBLE. They also stuck with Leftwich for a while, and, as we all know, Bortles.

---

I'm speaking of fans bailing, which always happened the first year we had with any qb (aside from Garrard, who was the backup - and everyone loves the backup when the starter is floundering.)

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

I'm speaking of fans bailing, which always happened the first year we had with any qb (aside from Garrard, who was the backup - and everyone loves the backup when the starter is floundering.)

Or.... Now stay with me here... The young QB is good! (Watson, Mayfield, Darnold, Wentz, Luck, Newton) And then this young QB gives Jags fans hope for the future. Crazy right?!

---

I really think Haskins is not all that good of an NFL prospect. Nor does Bleachers.....

Dwayne Haskins, QB, Ohio State

"He's probably QB1 in this class, but that doesn't mean he's a good quarterback. This is a bad draft for passers, but he's still going top five. It's just how the league works now." — AFC scouting director

"Haskins scares me, but he has the most traits to work with. Still, he's not [Jared] Goff or anything. He would have been QB4 in last year's class." — NFC area scout

---

Dream scenario for me is Foles' stock continuing to drop - allowing Jags to sign him affordably to a three year deal.
Then the giants decide to wait until 2020 to draft Manning's replacement and the Jags select Haskins at #7.

---

I wonder if the chance the Jaguars draft a QB at #7 could potentially scare Foles away from wanting to be a Jag? Getting both Foles and a rookie QB would be an ideal situation though. However, I think he only signs here if given the word that no QB will be selected #7

---

Dream scenario for me is Foles' stock continuing to drop - allowing Jags to sign him affordably to a three year deal.
Then the giants decide to wait until 2020 to draft Manning's replacement and the Jags select Haskins at #7.

I think Haskins is a high risk/reward pick. Too high on the risk side though. I'd almost prefer the Giants get him and the Jags wait a year to draft Foles' eventual replacement.

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you.

I’d be fine with Haskins or Murray, but man Foles and Grier in the second would be nice as well.

---

I’m still on the Foles Train. Draft o-line, TE, WR and try to make a run the next few years.

---

I’d be fine with Haskins or Murray, but man Foles and Grier in the second would be nice as well.

This is pretty much my feeling as well. I am a huge fan of Grier and if we can get him in the second I would be really happy. I am really warming up to the idea of drafting Murray, because I feel with the right OC, he is going to be special. And don't get me started about Haskins. I would be through the roof if we landed him.

---

I'm slowly changing my tune on Foles. And it's mostly about the money. If we can get him cheap, then im all for it. Otherwise, I say do everything to draft haskins and go after bridgwater.

---

Let's Get Em!!!! Go Jags!

I’m still on the Foles Train.  Draft o-line, TE, WR and try to make a run the next few years.

Exactly

---

I’m still on the Foles Train.  Draft o-line, TE, WR and try to make a run the next few years.

I think that's the best approach.  If they don't land Foles, the team will wind up having to give up picks to go after Haskins, making it more difficult to fill other needs.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I’m still on the Foles Train.  Draft o-line, TE, WR and try to make a run the next few years.

I think that's the best approach.  If they don't land Foles, the team will wind up having to give up picks to go after Haskins, making it more difficult to fill other needs.

Would not want to give up a ton of draft capital for Haskins. I would even just prefer just whomever falls to them in round 2.

---

I’m still on the Foles Train.  Draft o-line, TE, WR and try to make a run the next few years.

I think that's the best approach.  If they don't land Foles, the team will wind up having to give up picks to go after Haskins, making it more difficult to fill other needs.

That is the balance I have been wrestling with-the short term vs. the long term approach.

Signing Foles and building around him is clearly the best short term approach.  If we can keep the bulk of the defense intact the next 2-3 years, I think we can field contending teams during that stretch with good health.

However, not signing Foles and then drafting Haskins (or any QB and hitting big on the pick) would certainly be in the team's best long term interests.

However, there are good cross arguments for both propositions.

One could argue signing Foles and building around him could, if all went right, lead to a Super Bowl, which would improve the team's popularity on a local, nationwide, and international level, which would help the team financially thrive here long term.

One could also argue that not signing Foles and hitting on a drafted QB this year would be better for the team cap wise the next couple of years, which would enable us to keep more of the defensive players (I'm looking at you, 2016 draft class) , which will give the team the chance to win short term.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!