It looks pretty certain that Foles is gonna be a Jag next year. It sounds like the contract will be reasonable, which for me makes it a sensible move, considering the absolute uncertainty about which QBs would be available to us in the draft.

Let's imagine for a moment that Haskins is there at 7 when we pick. Do you take him or not?

Arguments for:
1. Vital position. It is by far the most important position, having a respected veteran and a top prospect at the position greatly improved the odds of your team being good in BOTH the short and the long term.
2. Opportunity. Foles comes with no guarantees, but at the very least makes a very appealing bridge QB. The problem is that he may be good enough to get us over 500 but not good enough to make us elite, which would leave us without the possibility of picking in the top 10 again any time soon. Maybe we should take this opportunity to have a crack at a good rookie.
3. Trade value in the future. Imagine a year down the line, if Foles has played well but we feel Haskins would give us more we can trade him for decent value. If Foles hasn't played well then at least we are insured with Haskins ready to take over.
4. Learning the ropes. It gives us a great opportunity for a rookie to really sit for at least a year and learn the ropes before starting, increasing their chance of success, with a long term vision to build around.

Arguments against:
1. Lack of support. The main argument against it is that using our small amount of FA money and a top 10 pick on the same position severely handicaps our ability to surround our new QB with the top-class weapons he will need to succeed.
2. Creates future problems. First of all it would undermine Foles' authority on the team. He would know it is someone else's job long term. It could affect his confidence and team dynamic 
3. QB of the future. Foles is only 30, if we believe that he can be a franchise QB then you are looking at having a QB for at least the next 5 years and probably even longer the way QBs are these days. Why bother drafting a new one?

Honestly I think it's one of the hardest decisions to make. If it was me I would take Haskins, purely down to reason number 1 - anything that increases your chances of having good QB play short term and long term should be done in my book. You gotta try.

What would you do and why?

---

Yes

---

Yes. I run to the podium.

---

I would but I doubt he slips past NY.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

If he is a franchise QB on your board, then yes. If you have Foles for 2-3 years, then you need another QB ready to replace him. If Foles is there for 3-4 years, then they could wait and pick a QB later in the draft. They need to get into a habit of drafting a QB every 2 years anyways. You always need to be able to trade them if you don't need them and they have high value.

---

Nope. You can't sign Foles and then NOT add weapons around him. I am assuming he'll land a 2-3 year deal in the upwards of $10M+. You CANNOT tie up that much cash at the same position in which only one man starts. This isn't the TE, WR or CB position where you want to have too much talent and money tied up on it.

The QB controversy will always be over Foles' head as well. The moment he has an off game, and he will, this is Jacksonville. Not Philadelphia. The average fan will be screaming for his head. Then that just puts even more pressure on Haskins to step his game up. And he may, or may not be ready for it. So, they're either committing 110% to Foles for the next 2 - 3 years. And ONLY Foles...

Or, they hitch their future and hopeful fortunes on a rookie QB and hope for the best. But you can't have both guys tied up like that. Especially on a roster like this. Where the defense can only mask your [BLEEP] offense for so long on a weekly basis.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

I would, but I doubt he will, and I doubt we will.

---

No. I don't want to spend the money Foles is asking for anyway. We need weapons so if we take Nick, then we definitely need to add weapons first. We already have needed more depth on the OLine. TE class is legit so thats rd 2 or rd 3 so OL is right in the mix with that. QB can wait till later in the draft if we break the bank on foles.

---

Season Tix, Section 409

2023 and still counting.....SB will finally be ours soon enough.
TLaw aka 'the prince that was promised' supporter.

In a heartbeat.

---

Yes, I'm even ok with trading up to get him.

---

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

Definitely.

---

Yes.

It just makes too much sense for 1) the future, or (2) trade bait for a 1st

This is how the Patriots ruled the NFL for 20 years.

---

Maybe. If he's forced to start out the gate he's done. If he has time to sit and learn he might be ok.

---

A True Fan ladies and gentlemen:

Ramsey for Grier straight up

If anything, I would try to trade down if Haskins fell to the Jags pick. I don't get why everyone is treating Haskins and Murray like the second coming of Andrew Luck? There will be good QB prospects in future drafts. If they Jags need CHEAP good players at other positions of need. The draft is where you get those players.

If he is a franchise QB on your board, then yes. If you have Foles for 2-3 years, then you need another QB ready to replace him. If Foles is there for 3-4 years, then they could wait and pick a QB later in the draft. They need to get into a habit of drafting a QB every 2 years anyways. You always need to be able to trade them if you don't need them and they have high value.

People always put out this statement. If this pick is round 4 or later, then it makes some sense but even then only 3-4 years. But picks in the first 3 rounds are expected to be starters. You cannot have a consistent winning team in the salary cap era using up those pick by continually drafting QB's. No team will hit on enough QB's. Eventually the return on trades will never make up for the value of the picks you used to select all the QB's.

---

If anything, I would try to trade down if Haskins fell to the Jags pick. I don't get why everyone is treating Haskins and Murray like the second coming of Andrew Luck? There will be good QB prospects in future drafts. If they Jags need CHEAP good players at other positions of need. The draft is where you get those players.

If he is a franchise QB on your board, then yes. If you have Foles for 2-3 years, then you need another QB ready to replace him. If Foles is there for 3-4 years, then they could wait and pick a QB later in the draft. They need to get into a habit of drafting a QB every 2 years anyways. You always need to be able to trade them if you don't need them and they have high value.

People always put out this statement. If this pick is round 4 or later, then it makes some sense but even then only 3-4 years. But picks in the first 3 rounds are expected to be starters. You cannot have a consistent winning team in the salary cap era using up those pick by continually drafting QB's. No team will hit on enough QB's. Eventually the return on trades will never make up for the value of the picks you used to select all the QB's.

Generally it makes sense for 3rd round or later. With Foles though, Foles would probably be the one going in 3-4 years.

I definitely don't want them using top 2 round picks on a QB unless they need to find a starter. They should be drafted one though every few years so they have options. The rate of finding good QBs is low, so increase the odds and pick more of them.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

---

If anything, I would try to trade down if Haskins fell to the Jags pick. I don't get why everyone is treating Haskins and Murray like the second coming of Andrew Luck? There will be good QB prospects in future drafts. If they Jags need CHEAP good players at other positions of need. The draft is where you get those players.

If he is a franchise QB on your board, then yes. If you have Foles for 2-3 years, then you need another QB ready to replace him. If Foles is there for 3-4 years, then they could wait and pick a QB later in the draft. They need to get into a habit of drafting a QB every 2 years anyways. You always need to be able to trade them if you don't need them and they have high value.

People always put out this statement. If this pick is round 4 or later, then it makes some sense but even then only 3-4 years. But picks in the first 3 rounds are expected to be starters. You cannot have a consistent winning team in the salary cap era using up those pick by continually drafting QB's. No team will hit on enough QB's. Eventually the return on trades will never make up for the value of the picks you used to select all the QB's.

One of the best advantages in building a contender right now is having a franchise QB on a rookie deal unless you already have a HOF caliber QB in place. 
The jags haven't drafted a good QB in the entire history of their franchise. 

They need a QB more than they need any other position, even with Foles.

---

It looks pretty certain that Foles is gonna be a Jag next year. It sounds like the contract will be reasonable, which for me makes it a sensible move, considering the absolute uncertainty about which QBs would be available to us in the draft.

Let's imagine for a moment that Haskins is there at 7 when we pick. Do you take him or not?

Arguments for:
1. Vital position. It is by far the most important position, having a respected veteran and a top prospect at the position greatly improved the odds of your team being good in BOTH the short and the long term.
2. Opportunity. Foles comes with no guarantees, but at the very least makes a very appealing bridge QB. The problem is that he may be good enough to get us over 500 but not good enough to make us elite, which would leave us without the possibility of picking in the top 10 again any time soon. Maybe we should take this opportunity to have a crack at a good rookie.
3. Trade value in the future. Imagine a year down the line, if Foles has played well but we feel Haskins would give us more we can trade him for decent value. If Foles hasn't played well then at least we are insured with Haskins ready to take over.
4. Learning the ropes. It gives us a great opportunity for a rookie to really sit for at least a year and learn the ropes before starting, increasing their chance of success, with a long term vision to build around.

Arguments against:
1. Lack of support. The main argument against it is that using our small amount of FA money and a top 10 pick on the same position severely handicaps our ability to surround our new QB with the top-class weapons he will need to succeed.
2. Creates future problems. First of all it would undermine Foles' authority on the team. He would know it is someone else's job long term. It could affect his confidence and team dynamic 
3. QB of the future. Foles is only 30, if we believe that he can be a franchise QB then you are looking at having a QB for at least the next 5 years and probably even longer the way QBs are these days. Why bother drafting a new one?

Honestly I think it's one of the hardest decisions to make. If it was me I would take Haskins, purely down to reason number 1 - anything that increases your chances of having good QB play short term and long term should be done in my book. You gotta try.

What would you do and why?

You say, Foles is not good enough to make us elite, but he was pretty elite when he played for the Eagles, so what was the difference in that situation and this one?  The answer is, the supporting cast.  So I say, we use all our draft capital to build his supporting cast.   So I say, no to drafting Haskins if we sign Foles.  

Now, on the other hand, if the Jags' brass thinks Haskins is an absolute superstar, then fine, draft him, but (speculating) I don't think they feel that way.

---

Cant believe this many people would take Haskins over Murray.

---