What would you do if you were the Jags? I don’t think we should keep both 3rd round picks.

1. Trade both 3rds and get into the 2nd round. Have two 2nd round picks if we like someone

2. Trade a 3rd round pick to Arizona for Rosen. Rosen will be better than any QB you draft in the 3rd. You shore up the back up spot as well as groom a successor for Foles 

3. Keep both picks.

---

What would you do if you were the Jags? I don’t think we should keep both 3rd round picks.

1. Trade both 3rds and get into the 2nd round. Have two 2nd round picks if we like someone

2. Trade a 3rd round pick to Arizona for Rosen. Rosen will be better than any QB you draft in the 3rd. You shore up the back up spot as well as groom a successor for Foles 

3. Keep both picks.

This is kind of an obvious answer, but #1 and #3 depend on what happens during the draft.  There's no way you should plan such a move in advance of knowing who is available late in the 2nd round.  

As for #2, maybe.  If we sign Foles, I'd prefer we use all our draft capital to get him some support.  We'd have 4 picks in the first 3 rounds to get a TE, WR, and one or more offensive linemen.   I'd prefer to do that rather than sign Rosen to sit on the bench, and besides, what does it say about Rosen if he is picked in the first round and traded for a 3rd rounder one year later?  That's a big red flag.

---

I would trade a 3rd for Rosen, but only if we passed on Foles. I believe Rosen has the ability to become a very good quarterback right now so why pay all that money for Foles if you make this trade? The draft could be used to get better players around him which he didn't have in Arizona. Is it possible that he turns out to be a bust? Absolutely, but it would be worth the risk since he won't cost much money and they could draft a quarterback next year.

---

I think even if we sign Foles, We should use one of those picks for Rosen.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I think even if we sign Foles, We should use one of those picks for Rosen.

Bullseye- is the reverse true as well? Would you still sign Foles if we dealt a #3 for Rosen today?

---

Season Ticket holder since 2004.

 

        

I have read the reports, but some team will give Arizona better than a 3rd for Rosen if they put him on the trade market.

---

Rosen would be a cheap back up. Arizona has paid over 65 percent of his contract already. If you are still going to draft a QB, Rosen for a 3rd is better than any QB you’ll draft in the 3rd or 4th. Low risk, high reward.

---

If we get stuck with Foles, this seems like a good move to me. Then you wouldn't be forced to throw Rosen in there right away and he could season a bit behind a vet.

Doubt it would happen though.

---

I have read the reports, but some team will give Arizona better than a 3rd for Rosen if they put him on the trade market.

I think you're right. The question then becomes would you give up a 2nd for him? I think I would, I think his struggles last season were down to a terrible supporting cast of players and coaches.

I'd also feel a lot more comfortable about it if we were to trade down from 7 and then trade one of the extra picks for Rosen.

---

Didn't the Cardinals just take Josh Rosen Top 10 less than a year ago? I know his rookie year was not great but there's no way they're only getting a 3rd for him. I'd give our 2nd in a heartbeat

---

I think even if we sign Foles, We should use one of those picks for Rosen.

Bullseye- is the reverse true as well? Would you still sign Foles if we dealt a #3 for Rosen today?

Good question.

There are arguments for both possibilities.

Yes we should still sign Foles because he is a more experienced QB and knows our offense. He has made a Pro Bowl, won a Super Bowl, and has learned under some of the best QB gurus (Andy Reid, Mike Pederson, Frank Reich) the league has seen.  Considering the defense is still good enough to rank in the top five, an experienced QB like Foles could be what it takes to take this team to the first Super Bowl.  Given that Rosen is in the second year of his rookie contract and his signing bonus has already been paid, his cap figure for the remainder of his rookie contract would be miniscule for an experienced backup, especially one with his abilities.  If we spent a 3rd round pick one one of the QBs in this draft, Rosen would be considered a better prospect by far than anyone we would get at that point in the draft.  Besides acquiring both is a hedge against one or both being a bust, and if we hit on both, the position is set for years and maybe we trade one.

On the other hand, given the salary he is going to command and its impact on the salary cap, it might be more harmful longer term to the overall success of the team to sign Foles under those circumstances.  Maybe it makes it more difficult to re-sign one of our younger defensive stalwarts.  Maybe another high salaried defender like Bouye has to be jettisoned to keep Ramsey, Jack and Ngakoue.  Maybe signing Foles and starting him hinders the development of Rosen, who certainly has the physical talent to be a special QB.

For some reason, the thought I had this morning was that if we somehow did not sign Foles, we would lose some leverage in any trade for Rosen.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Interesting topic on Good Morning Football (available on NFL.com). They each ranked the rookie QBs and included Rosen in the mix. Universally among them, Murray and Rosen were either 1st or 2nd ranked. Then generally, Haskins and Lock. If the Jags don't pick up Foles, and they could pick up Rosen for a 2nd or 3rd pick, I would not be disapppointed. You would be picking up Rosen with a year of rookie QB development under his belt.

---

Bullseye- is the reverse true as well? Would you still sign Foles if we dealt a #3 for Rosen today?

Good question.

There are arguments for both possibilities.

Yes we should still sign Foles because he is a more experienced QB and knows our offense. He has made a Pro Bowl, won a Super Bowl, and has learned under some of the best QB gurus (Andy Reid, Mike Pederson, Frank Reich) the league has seen.  Considering the defense is still good enough to rank in the top five, an experienced QB like Foles could be what it takes to take this team to the first Super Bowl.  Given that Rosen is in the second year of his rookie contract and his signing bonus has already been paid, his cap figure for the remainder of his rookie contract would be miniscule for an experienced backup, especially one with his abilities.  If we spent a 3rd round pick one one of the QBs in this draft, Rosen would be considered a better prospect by far than anyone we would get at that point in the draft.  Besides acquiring both is a hedge against one or both being a bust, and if we hit on both, the position is set for years and maybe we trade one.

On the other hand, given the salary he is going to command and its impact on the salary cap, it might be more harmful longer term to the overall success of the team to sign Foles under those circumstances.  Maybe it makes it more difficult to re-sign one of our younger defensive stalwarts.  Maybe another high salaried defender like Bouye has to be jettisoned to keep Ramsey, Jack and Ngakoue.  Maybe signing Foles and starting him hinders the development of Rosen, who certainly has the physical talent to be a special QB.

For some reason, the thought I had this morning was that if we somehow did not sign Foles, we would lose some leverage in any trade for Rosen.

Ideal for me would be to sign Foles at 2 years with an option year and land Rosen with a #3. Rosen develops over the two years and Foles never sees the option year (unless he's the 2nd coming of TB12 or Rosen stinks). Then put another QB in the system to develop under Rosen. 

Our SB window is open, we can't have a Bortles-Kessler-Henne type driving the bus. Your morning thought is interesting but I'm not sure we have any real leverage anyway.

Question: If we did land Rosen, would we still have the 5th year option on him?

---

Season Ticket holder since 2004.

 

        

But doesn't it give any of you guys pause that the Cards are willing to deal away Rosen one year after drafting him? Isn't that kind of strange?

During the draft last year, I heard a lot about Rosen's weird personality, and the fact that his college teammates didn't like him.

---

But doesn't it give any of you guys pause that the Cards are willing to deal away Rosen one year after drafting him?   Isn't that kind of strange?  

During the draft last year, I heard a lot about Rosen's weird personality, and the fact that his college teammates didn't like him.

It does give me some pause.

But when you consider his talent and potential, the draft choice to be expended to get him-we are talking about a 3rd for the most part--he position he plays and the cap number he will have, he is a small risk as opposed to a potentially huge reward.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

But doesn't it give any of you guys pause that the Cards are willing to deal away Rosen one year after drafting him?   Isn't that kind of strange?  

During the draft last year, I heard a lot about Rosen's weird personality, and the fact that his college teammates didn't like him.

It makes me pause...but for the cost of a 3rd rounder or a 3rd this year and next...I'm for it.

---

But doesn't it give any of you guys pause that the Cards are willing to deal away Rosen one year after drafting him? Isn't that kind of strange?

During the draft last year, I heard a lot about Rosen's weird personality, and the fact that his college teammates didn't like him.

It would a little, but it would moreso if it wasn't a new regime with that's bringing a radically different scheme to the table. I think they'd wind up getting more than a third for him. I could see us having to give our 2nd and one of the 3rds...which I'd still do.

---