(02-19-2019, 08:35 PM)Cleatwood Wrote:

(02-19-2019, 04:24 AM)rpr52121 Wrote: The more I read or film I see about Haskins or Murray , the more I think Foles has to be the play. He is by far the safest bet for the next 2-3 years.

It will take the Jaguars being super bold to pull and not severe limit the ability to get other pieces, but that is what they should try.

Yes, getting a "franchise" 10 year QB is a great, but none of these 3 are sure bets for that. Plus even having that QB is not enough to win it all. You still need the other pieces that the Jags have on defense. They need to maximize the next 3 years.

What they need is to have a franchise QB for once in the history of this organization.

I think Haskins has that ability. Consistent winning comes from great QB play. Sure you may have a down year (7-9) but you’ll also have plenty of 10-12 win seasons. I’d only want Foles if he was around 12-15 million a year. No way would I spend 20-25 million on him. Even if we got Foles at 15 million, I’d stil draft Haskins because he’s the future.

I'd totally understand that plan that if most the draftniks considered Haskins or Murray as super top level prospect. But most don't. Murray could be great, but has some big red flags and risks. Haskins has some very good qualities, but most are putting on the level of a better Trubisky.

Not to mention with that plan, the window to win those 10-12 games won't be until 2020/2021 at the earliest, most likely that means this Front Office/Coaching staff is gone by then and Yannick/Ramsey will be past their primes or long gone too.

I also don't think Foles will cost $25 million a year. I just don't see the market for it. Denver was the Jags main competition, but they took Flacco. Unless the Giants move on from Manning, no one else would make any big play for him.

---