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.

I think you have to go into the Foles negotiations that all the guaranteed money would be in the first 2 years. It is a tough sell, and I don't know if he will bite. But the Jaguars have shown good discretion to walk away if it gets too expensive before. 

But that way, you essentially have all the options available to you for cap hits for that class.

---

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.

I think you have to go into the Foles negotiations that all the guaranteed money would be in the first 2 years. It is a tough sell, and I don't know if he will bite. But the Jaguars have shown good discretion to walk away if it gets too expensive before. 

But that way, you essentially have all the options available to you for cap hits for that class.

A secondary concern would be the ability to keep guys like Dareus or Gipson.

If we sign Foles, could we keep both, one, or neither?

If we could only keep one, which one could we keep?

I'd rather keep Dareus than Gipson, though I know Gipson is a favorite of Marrone.

My preference would be to keep both.

I agree with you that traditionally, that's how Caldwell makes all of his contracts with players, but I'm hoping those front loaded deals don't make us lose a guy like Dareus.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

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

I absolutely believe that this is something Foles will ask. He knows what happened in Cleveland last season and how fickle fans can be. I doubt he'd have much of a problem if told that the Jags would be looking to draft a quarterback sometime after round 1 to develop and eventually become the starter. Foles' options will be quite limited, which will work very well in the Jaguars favor. Other than Miami, there really aren't any other legitimate contenders. It will likely come down to this:

How much do the Jaguars like Foles? If the really love him and get the strong endorsement of DeFillipo, this should be the move. If there's only one quarterback in the draft whom they feel is worthy of a top 7 pick, they should take Foles since they can't afford to trade up and Murphy's law says that either the Giants or another team which trades up will get that guy. If there are two or more quarterbacks they feel are worthy of the 7th pick, I'd rather they draft their guy (Haskins or Lock) and settle for a less expensive free agent like Tyrod Taylor to start the season. I do believe the Jaguars could get back to the playoffs next season with Taylor/Bridgewter as long as they can keep most of their defense intact. By not signing Foles, they could afford to re-sign Dareus- a key player in our run defense who would not be easily replaced.

---

I think you have to go into the Foles negotiations that all the guaranteed money would be in the first 2 years. It is a tough sell, and I don't know if he will bite. But the Jaguars have shown good discretion to walk away if it gets too expensive before. 

But that way, you essentially have all the options available to you for cap hits for that class.

A secondary concern would be the ability to keep guys like Dareus or Gipson.

If we sign Foles, could we keep both, one, or neither?

If we could only keep one, which one could we keep?

I'd rather keep Dareus than Gipson, though I know Gipson is a favorite of Marrone.

My preference would be to keep both.

I agree with you that traditionally, that's how Caldwell makes all of his contracts with players, but I'm hoping those front loaded deals don't make us lose a guy like Dareus.

Now that Dareus restructured. It helps that. For Gipson, the draft has some great options for safety and ideally where Jags find a cheaper replacement.

This really depends on how they need to bring in help for Foles. Free agents are not great at TE/WR. There are some RB, but they will be priced too high. If they determine that they have to use picks for WR/TE/RB's, they won't have the draft capital to pick up a safety or such.

A way to help out could be to trade future picks to get an extra pick this year. It is not that common NFL vs say NBA and comes at a bit of a premium, but it could work if there is a guy falling they just absolutely love.

---

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.

This somehow seems to be getting more and more likely.

---

Does Foles have an expiration date? I keep hearing that he is a short term answer but if he is good enough today to earn $15 million and be our starter who is to say he isn’t our man long term. Look at Brady and Brees and Manning. Super Bowl MVPs playing way into their 30s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Does Foles have an expiration date? I keep hearing that he is a short term answer but if he is good enough today to earn $15 million and be our starter who is to say he isn’t our man long term. Look at Brady and Brees and Manning.  Super Bowl MVPs playing way into their 30s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Expecting Foles to play good football way into his late 30s wouldn't be wise, especially when you consider he has one good full season of football in his career (and only played 13 games)

---

I really, really think Foles is fool's gold. He's a great person, and he had a magical 2017. But he's not a guy you build around. He doesn't have the raw potential that Haskins has.

---

I really, really think Foles is fool's gold.  He's a great person, and he had a magical 2017.  But he's not a guy you build around.  He doesn't have the raw potential that Haskins has.

I think it would be a huge mistake to clear out cap space only to eat it up by signing him.  Unfortunately...my gut instinct tells me that's exactly what is going to happen.

Just the latest in a series of bad moves at the QB position.

---

Why not get both? That should be an option as well.

---

I really, really think Foles is fool's gold.  He's a great person, and he had a magical 2017.  But he's not a guy you build around.  He doesn't have the raw potential that Haskins has.

I think it would be a huge mistake to clear out cap space only to eat it up by signing him.  Unfortunately...my gut instinct tells me that's exactly what is going to happen.

Just the latest in a series of bad moves at the QB position.

I agree.  I'm really hoping it's not the direction we go in, but my gut feeling is that's what will happen.

---

Why not get both? That should be an option as well.

Because we need to get whoever our QB is some help.  A security blanket like Hockenson would be great for whoever is under C.  Hockenson is one of the best TE prospects to come out in a while and  our 2nd biggest need behind QB

---

I really, really think Foles is fool's gold.  He's a great person, and he had a magical 2017.  But he's not a guy you build around.  He doesn't have the raw potential that Haskins has.

100000% agree

I do not see the appeal of Foles like so many do.

---

I really, really think Foles is fool's gold. He's a great person, and he had a magical 2017. But he's not a guy you build around. He doesn't have the raw potential that Haskins has.

So you mean "FOLES' Gold"?

---

If we do get Foles, draft Hockenson at 7 and trade the 2nd to Pittsburgh for AB. If we don’t sign Foles, draft Haskins or Murray, keep Bortles, and still trade for AB.

---

If we do get Foles, draft Hockenson at 7 and trade the 2nd to Pittsburgh for AB.  If we don’t sign Foles, draft Haskins or Murray, keep Bortles, and still trade for AB.

Why would you want to trade for a 30+ year-old locker room cancer with a big contract?  I don't get the logic.

---

With Murray's measurables at the combine, Jaguars will probably have to trade up to get either of the top 2 rookie QB's.

So the question now becomes $18 million for Foles versus $5-6 million (draft slot for Top 5 pick) + however much your "bridge" QB will cost (Tyrod and Bridgewater will cost at least $6-8 million) + giving up at least a 3rd round pick.

NONE of these QB's are going to be elite QB's in the next 2 years, which is the window for the current crop of defense players. This team needs fill some holes no matter what to have any chance in that time frame, just for example at WR, TE, OL, ILB, 3rd down back, and possibly Safety. Without filling those hole, making the playoffs, much less getting to a SB will be difficult in this window.

So by passing on Foles, you are giving up at least a 3rd round pick to save $6-7 million. Are there difference maker FA's that fit within that budget? Is that trade off really worth it? With that space, the Jags have room to keep Parnell (average RT) and maybe add re-tread or depth signings.

I know everyone wants the promise of the next future "franchise QB", but even a franchise player needs other pieces on that team, meaning finding comparable players to defensive players the Jags will lose within 3 years. Even then, most franchise QB's only win 1 SB. That option will always be there in 2 years, and while Haskins and Murray definitely have hype, there is nothing assured of them achieving that status.

---

With Murray's measurables at the combine, Jaguars will probably have to trade up to get either of the top 2 rookie QB's.

So the question now becomes $18 million for Foles versus $5-6 million (draft slot for Top 5 pick) + however much your "bridge" QB will cost (Tyrod and Bridgewater will cost at least $6-8 million) + giving up at least a 3rd round pick. Maybe you can opt fo

NONE of these QB's are going to be elite QB's in the next 2 years, which is the window for the current crop of defense players. This team needs fill some holes no matter what to have any chance in that time frame, just for example at WR, TE, OL, ILB, 3rd down back and possibly Saftey. Without filling those hole, making the playoffs, much less getting to a SB will be difficult in this window.

So by passing on Foles,  you are giving up at least a 3rd round pick to save $6-7 million. Are there difference maker FA's that will fit within that budget? Is that trade off really worth it? With that space, the Jags have room to keep Parnell (average RT) and maybe add re-tread or depth signings.

I know everyone wants the promise of the next future "franchise QB" but even franchise player need other pieces on that team, meaning finding comparable players to defensive players the Jags will lose in 3 years. Even then, most franchise QB's only win 1 SB. That option will always be there in 2 years, and while Haskins and Murray definitely have hype, there is nothing assured of them achieving that status.

See GB and Aaron Rodgers this year for proof of your statment. Well put

---

Foles would be an instant upgrade over Bortles. And with our defense, we don't need to ask our quarterback to do much. I'd rather take Foles, draft some WRS and TEs - strengthen our OL....and then, next year, draft a QB from a much better class.

---

Foles would be an instant upgrade over Bortles. And with our defense, we don't need to ask our quarterback to do much. I'd rather take Foles, draft some WRS and TEs - strengthen our OL....and then, next year, draft a QB from a much better class.

The "alleged" much better class. You never really know.

---