Depends on how much he wants but honestly I'd rather have the higher draft pick and use the money for free agent depth. I think kirk, zay, and Ingram is a good trio. And try to find a guy with speed over the top. Doesn't have to be fulltime starter but you need that threat.

They will be 3 big weapons but as we saw this year, if they get injured the drop off behind is a problem. Washington took some steps forwards but feels we need to keep Ridley and hopes he gets better next year or bring in another WR that can be a starter.

---

The money would have to make sense for me to be willing to give up a 2nd for him. I'm not overpaying. He didn't produce at the level he needed to produce at for him to be a top end WR in pay.

---

The money would have to make sense for me to be willing to give up a 2nd for him. I'm not overpaying. He didn't produce at the level he needed to produce at for him to be a top end WR in pay.

If I remember correctly we only give up a second if we sign him to a long term deal so 1 or 2 year deal means we keep the 2nd.

---

The money would have to make sense for me to be willing to give up a 2nd for him. I'm not overpaying. He didn't produce at the level he needed to produce at for him to be a top end WR in pay.

If I remember correctly we only give up a second if we sign him to a long term deal so 1 or 2 year deal means we keep the 2nd.

No, it's if we sign him to an "in season extension" it gets moved to a 2nd from the 3rd.  In season extension sounds straight forward, but I think there's enough gray area where we'd like it to be defined but we as a group as of yet have not been able to get a concrete league interpretation of the term.

Specifically, does "in season" mean prior to week 18 ending or prior to the league year ending right before free agency begins?  We don't know.

---

I have such mixed emotions. He just never came up with a tough catch when we need it. However, come on the other hand, he is a very quality receiver, and those are hard to find. Also, he was only his first year back after prolonged absence. This is a gray area decision and it’s all of the details.

---

I think Ridley would be great next year if our OL and QB play better. The question is, do you resign him and spend the money/2nd round draft pick?

I'm not sure what they will do.

---

I think Ridley would be great next year if our OL and QB play better. The question is, do you resign him and spend the money/2nd round draft pick?

I'm not sure what they will do.

Salary cap hit aside, he just isn’t worth the draft capital. They’ll spend the same money in FA on a different receiver and keep the 2nd rounder, we need that pick too badly.

---

I think Ridley would be great next year if our OL and QB play better. The question is, do you resign him and spend the money/2nd round draft pick?

I'm not sure what they will do.

Salary cap hit aside, he just isn’t worth the draft capital. They’ll spend the same money in FA on a different receiver and keep the 2nd rounder, we need that pick too badly.

I mean if they could get a guy like Higgins i'd be alright with it I suppose.

---

Salary cap hit aside, he just isn’t worth the draft capital. They’ll spend the same money in FA on a different receiver and keep the 2nd rounder, we need that pick too badly.

I mean if they could get a guy like Higgins i'd be alright with it I suppose.

IF they can get Allen’s deal done before FA and don’t need the franchise tag for him, I suppose they could tag Ridley and not have to spend the draft capital on him and get a deal done next league year similar to how the Engram deal happened this past offseason. Might be something to keep an eye on? I think Higgins is going to get more on the open market than Ridley will on an extension.

---

I'm highly leaning to let Ridley walk for a few reasons:
1. I know the trade said "long term deal" but that is such vague language I suspect a Franchise tag would meet that criteria. If not why not say that a Franchise tag does not meet the criteria in the trade language.
2. Tagging Ridley means his salary next year has a full cap hit without allowing some of it being pushed into future years. Makes it harder to find some starting level players on IOL, IDL, LB, and WR.
3. Letting him go means there is some chance the Jags can get a compensatory 3rd round pick in 2025.
4. I think a multi year deal for him would be at least $20 million per year.

Best solution would be if you could find a team willing to give up a 2024 3rd round pick and maybe a another draft kicker (6th/5th round swap in 2025). Doubt it though as this year's draft is supposed to have a large number of very good WR's.

---

I have such mixed emotions. He just never came up with a tough catch when we need it. However, come on the other hand, he is a very quality receiver, and those are hard to find. Also, he was only his first year back after prolonged absence. This is a gray area decision and it’s all of the details.

Ridley made some really impressive catches but he’s damaged goods. He seems to check out at times and I don’t know if that was team driven or just one of his traits. Given that Atlanta was willing to deal him away tells me they saw the same thing.

---

I'm highly leaning to let Ridley walk for a few reasons:
1. I know the trade said "long term deal" but that is such vague language I suspect a Franchise tag would meet that criteria. If not why not say that a Franchise tag does not meet the criteria in the trade language.
2. Tagging Ridley means his salary next year has a full cap hit without allowing some of it being pushed into future years. Makes it harder to find some starting level players on IOL, IDL, LB, and WR.
3. Letting him go means there is some chance the Jags can get a compensatory 3rd round pick in 2025.
4. I think a multi year deal for him would be at least $20 million per year.

Best solution would be if you could find a team willing to give up a 2024 3rd round pick and maybe an another draft kicker (6th/5th round swap in 2025). Doubt it though as this year's draft is supposed to have a large number of very good WR's.

For 20m a year I let him walk as well, for all the above reasons, namely the WR’s in the draft being projected quite deep and strong (wouldn’t mind giving up some of next years if we have to)


https://x.com/jasrifootball/status/17448...01251?s=46

W

W

---

For 20m a year I let him walk as well, for all the above reasons, namely the WR’s in the draft being projected quite deep and strong (wouldn’t mind giving up some of next years if we have to)


https://x.com/jasrifootball/status/17448...01251?s=46

Apologies as I’m clearly not good at tagging videos on my phone but looking at the above there is at least 6 dropped tds by Ridley, that is not a 20m a year receiver

---

With Baalke picking the 2nd rounder just keep Ridley

---

I think we should keep him.

We need some stability at some point. I would bring the same QB with his WR group (Zay, Kirk, Ridley, Washington and Agnew).
Make them work hard this offseason and bring 2 or 3 big uglies from FA and draft (center and guard pleaseeeeeeeeeee)

---

I mean if they could get a guy like Higgins i'd be alright with it I suppose.

IF they can get Allen’s deal done before FA and don’t need the franchise tag for him, I suppose they could tag Ridley and not have to spend the draft capital on him and get a deal done next league year similar to how the Engram deal happened this past offseason. Might be something to keep an eye on? I think Higgins is going to get more on the open market than Ridley will on an extension.

Could transition tag him, let him see what others will pay and then sign him to the same deal, especially if it keeps the draft pick a 3rd instead of a 2nd

---

IT WAS ALWAYS THE JAGS

IF they can get Allen’s deal done before FA and don’t need the franchise tag for him, I suppose they could tag Ridley and not have to spend the draft capital on him and get a deal done next league year similar to how the Engram deal happened this past offseason. Might be something to keep an eye on? I think Higgins is going to get more on the open market than Ridley will on an extension.

Could transition tag him, let him see what others will pay and then sign him to the same deal, especially if it keeps the draft pick a 3rd instead of a 2nd

There's likely language in the deal that a tag counts as resigning him and gives them the 2. I can't find it anywhere so far, but that would be a massive loophole if left available to the Jags.

---

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

Could transition tag him, let him see what others will pay and then sign him to the same deal, especially if it keeps the draft pick a 3rd instead of a 2nd

There's likely language in the deal that a tag counts as resigning him and gives them the 2. I can't find it anywhere so far, but that would be a massive loophole if left available to the Jags.

I agree 

I doubt Jags get a free pass on that compensation by tagging

---

Let him hit the market but make him a fair offer. Even without him, WR is one of our stronger groups. Much more important to upgrade at center and guard.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Let him hit the market but make him a fair offer.  Even without him, WR is one of our stronger groups.  Much more important to upgrade at center and guard.

Are we still sure about that?

---

IT WAS ALWAYS THE JAGS

Let him hit the market but make him a fair offer.  Even without him, WR is one of our stronger groups.  Much more important to upgrade at center and guard.

Are we still sure about that?

Kirk is very good. 

Zay is average and I would love to move on from him.

Ridley was ok this year and I think he will be better next year but a 2nd rounder plus a contract? I don’t know about that.

They need young juice man. This WR class is LOADED. This WR room needs a lot of help I think.

---