could jets trade for Sam Bradford & dump Ryan Fitzpatrick ? ? ?

[Greenseed4]

1 hour ago, Jet9 said:

Bradford hasn't played a full season since '12. But yeah, 'can't teach size' or some such nonsense. 

Making the "Fitzpatrick is a lesser injury risk" isn't really the argument to win this debate. 

Neither Fitz, nor Bradford, have a stellar "starts" record.  

The question is, moving forward who gives us the best chance to win football games. 

[PatsFanTX]

Yep, that's all it takes, be tall,  able to throw a football, and read, you'll have a solid career in the NFL

Jets haven't had a real NFL QB since Namath.

I'm sure you would be happy to resign Fitz for the next 5 years because he threw 31 TD's last year.

Jets have no shot whatsoever with Goff and Wentz.

Lynch is in their reach.

[Greenseed4]

HE'S SO DAMNED ACCURATE, THO!!!

[cant wait]

10 minutes ago, Greenseed4 said:

Making the "Fitzpatrick is a lesser injury risk" isn't really the argument to win this debate. 

Neither Fitz, nor Bradford, have a stellar "starts" record.  

The question is, moving forward who gives us the best chance to win football games. 

Bradford at least gives you a chance that he could develop into a long term franchise QB

[Mike135]

2 hours ago, Warfish said:

Why would we want Chase Daniels, or Bradford himself for that matter?

This is really getting sad, we have NY media and fans who literally pop up every time ANY QB is released, rumored to be released, or even mentioned saying "Jets will/could/should trade for him!"

Yeah, no.  Just stop, please.  We're not trading draft picks for other teams castoff #2/#3's, and we're not signing other teams unwanted released fodder when we have equally bad but experienced in our system losers like Geno Smith already.

I'm beginning to wonder if there is any QB some Jets Fan somewhere doesn't think we should sign.  Hey, I hear Browning Nagle might be available......

Definitely agree this is a really sad situation, but I can't blame fans for discussing every possible option.  

Desperate times call for desperate measures.  

Desperate time:  Some actually think we should pay Fitz 10+mil!

I don't think it gets more desperate than that.

So the resulting desperate measures:  Consider every possible option.  2015 Fitz @3/4mil would be one of these options, just like current options of 11mil Bradford, 2mil Geno, 4mil Hoyer, Glennon, and so on... just sure as hell NOT 2016 10mil+ Fitz.

[Rangers9]

I think we have to forget this obsession with long term franchise Qb. They are few and far between and to build a franchise (and trade the kind of pieces that the Rams did) just to get a guy who is only a prospect when you can have a SB contender with a good (but not great) Qb I think it's the direction you should take. We went through this with Mark Sanchez already. His career didn't pan out and he's a backup or fringe starter. A lot of these guys who everyone thought was great going into a draft couldn't hack it. Bradford isn't a great Qb and isn't elite. He's ok to good. Jamarcus Russell wasn't around very long. Only a small percentage of these guys live up to their draft position. While other Qbs like Aaron Rodgers and Russell Wilson exceed their draft position and have become elite. So I use the draft to build my infrastructure. And if you don't have a good O-line you're throwing you rookie prospect to the wolves.

[Greenseed4]

Just now, cant wait said:

Bradford at least gives you a chance that he could develop into a long term franchise QB

I agree.  He's only 28.

I prefer Bradford for a 4th (2016) and a conditional 2nd (2017)...over any of the draftees. Who else are we drafting in the 4th round that could have an impact on our team THIS year?  And the Eagles might go for that trade given what they gave up to get him (Foles, a 4th, and a 2nd), what they're paying him this year, and what their 2017 draft slate looks like after having moved the farm to get up to #2 overall.  

I'm okay with signing Hogan, Cook, or Hack, but then you're talking a (likely) 3rd rounder, and then we still need to sign a veteran stop-gap (Fitz, Hoyer, etc.) to play this year.  I'm not even against Fitzpatrick; sh*t, I love the guy!  I'd LOVE to go watch a hockey game with him, or chill out at a BBQ.  But he is a reckless player who borders on mediocrity, and when its crunch time he's hit-or-miss; he's not the future.  Bradford is just young enough, that he could legit be our starter for at LEAST another five-year contract.  And having him play in front of Petty gives Bryce enough time to get ready, just in case Sam gets injured again. 

Bradford/Petty would be a fine ticket moving forward, IMO

 

[SenorGato]

I really like Bradford, that's as far as I commit on this. Whatever happens I want the Jets to bring in one veteran that can start and at least one or two draft picks.

[no psls]

Sam Bradford ; NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jetster]

44 minutes ago, Greenseed4 said:

I agree.  He's only 28.

I prefer Bradford for a 4th (2016) and a conditional 2nd (2017)...over any of the draftees. Who else are we drafting in the 4th round that could have an impact on our team THIS year?  And the Eagles might go for that trade given what they gave up to get him (Foles, a 4th, and a 2nd), what they're paying him this year, and what their 2017 draft slate looks like after having moved the farm to get up to #2 overall.  

I'm okay with signing Hogan, Cook, or Hack, but then you're talking a (likely) 3rd rounder, and then we still need to sign a veteran stop-gap (Fitz, Hoyer, etc.) to play this year.  I'm not even against Fitzpatrick; sh*t, I love the guy!  I'd LOVE to go watch a hockey game with him, or chill out at a BBQ.  But he is a reckless player who borders on mediocrity, and when its crunch time he's hit-or-miss; he's not the future.  Bradford is just young enough, that he could legit be our starter for at LEAST another five-year contract.  And having him play in front of Petty gives Bryce enough time to get ready, just in case Sam gets injured again. 

Bradford/Petty would be a fine ticket moving forward, IMO

 

This is a really good post. Bradford needs to finally have some stability & Jet fans are really underestimating the skill players Macc has assembled. There's a reason Fitz threw for 31 touchdowns last year & it wasn't because he was throwing to Clyde Gates, Stephen Hill & David Nelson. I see Bradfords accuracy as a huge plus for Chan Gaileys offense. 

So, imagine a scenario where the Jets trade Mo, have Bradford step in as the starting QB, save 8.7 million for some selective late season cuts that always surface before camp. Jets draft Dotson or Treadwell at #20 (perfect place to get 1 of the best WRs in this draft, go BPA 2nd/3rd/4th. 

Fans can say what they want but I'd be seriously excited to watch a Jet offense QBed by Bradford with Marshall, Decker, (Treadwell or Dotson), Amaro, Forte & Powell!!! WOW! Fitz had a great season & his arm couldn't even SPREAD the defense like Chans system is designed to do. Bradfords arm would be SCARY with these weapons. Chans offense is designed to get the ball out quickly, which greatly benefits a QB like Bradford. A franchise QB is not falling out of the sky to us, every choice we have is a crapshoot. Why not take a chance on a 28 year old, who FINALLY played an entire year. We could have a very, very good offense.

[flgreen]

2 hours ago, PatsFanTX said:

Jets haven't had a real NFL QB since Namath.

I'm sure you would be happy to resign Fitz for the next 5 years because he threw 31 TD's last year.

Jets have no shot whatsoever with Goff and Wentz.

Lynch is in their reach.

Nothing against Lynch, but it takes a hell of a lot more then being physically equipped and able to read to be an NFL QB.  Pats should probably trade up for him.  Brady is close to the end of the road, then the Pats will be right back where they were in 1999  0 NFL champions in 40 years  

[Larz]

maybe

maybe not

[GimmeShelter]

4 hours ago, PatsFanTX said:

Jets haven't had a real NFL QB since Namath.

 

One of your more ignorant posts.

[win4ever]

Bradford was never the same after his shoulder injury to his throwing arm.  Tommy John surgery would have been less stressful, as even pitchers struggled to come back after shoulder issues.  He's fine as a short-field passer, but I don't think he has the big arm he once did to be uber-successful.  In a way, connected to the Jets, because he was supposed to come out after the 2008 season, where he almost assuredly would have been the No. 1 pick.  This ofcourse would have knocked Stafford down, which may have meant we don't draft Sanchez.  Bradford was good enough that he played basically 1 and a half game the next season, got shoulder surgery, and still went No. 1 the following year.  However, he's just not the same player after shoulder surgery.

[artemusclyde]

Had a 65% completion rating while also throwing for 3725 yards, all with a terrible receiving corps that consistently would drop the ball and let him down. But he obviously sucks and he's injury prone so we might as well label him a bust and go pay 10 mil to Fitzpatrick who had a 59.6 completion rating while throwing for 3905 with Marshall and Decker. Or better yet maybe we could trade for Mike Glennon with his 57.6% completion rating while throwing to the likes of Mike Evans and Vincent Jackson. 

Edit: For more reasons on why Bradford is such an obvious bust brought to you from the geniuses at Jetnation Bradford Drop Stats

[afosomf]

Ummm Fight Brownies for Watson in 2017.  He will bring jets at least 2 SB's.  Means sucking this yr 2-14.  Im sure most of you would could take a vacation this yr to gain a stud franchise QB.

[drdetroit]

Holy Crap this is a dumb idea

[Jetster]

1 hour ago, afosomf said:

Ummm Fight Brownies for Watson in 2017.  He will bring jets at least 2 SB's.  Means sucking this yr 2-14.  Im sure most of you would could take a vacation this yr to gain a stud franchise QB.

Even with Geno at QB this is still a 7 win team. No way your beating the Brownies for #1. They're already penciling Watson in at #1 next year, why do you think they traded out of #2 this year. Those analytic dudes ain't stupid!

[Tinstar]

when the schedule came out, I took a look and saw the possibility of the Jets starting out 0-6 but finishing up 9-7 .  the back end of our schedule is favorable .

[afosomf]

9 minutes ago, Jetster said:

Even with Geno at QB this is still a 7 win team. No way your beating the Brownies for #1. They're already penciling Watson in at #1 next year, why do you think they traded out of #2 this year. Those analytic dudes ain't stupid!

I agree it will be tough to beat out brownies for watson, this kid will be better than Cam.  And I hate Clemsoning with a passion.  

[JohnnyLV]

4 hours ago, Jetster said:

Even with Geno at QB this is still a 7 win team. No way your beating the Brownies for #1. They're already penciling Watson in at #1 next year, why do you think they traded out of #2 this year. Those analytic dudes ain't stupid!

As it stands right now 7 wins is VERY optimistic for the Jets

[Ex-Rex]

On 4/23/2016 at 0:42 PM, PatsFanTX said:

Jets need to do what it takes to grab Lynch.

Fitz, Bradford, Hoyer, Glennon, Geno, etc. are not the answer.

I can't believe that I agree with a Patriots fan.

[Ex-Rex]

Cleveland will probably take Lynch at the eight spot. I can't see going into a season with RGIII and McCown as my QB's. Maybe for one season while Lynch learns, but I think the Browns are going to be all over him at 8.

[PatsFanTX]

I can't believe that I agree with a Patriots fan.

That's because you are one of the smarter posters on the board.

[Warfish]

Jets Fans: Giving Up on the Season Before We've Even Had the Draft.  Pathetic.

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, johnnysd said:

As it stands right now 7 wins is VERY optimistic for the Jets

If you are a SOJF, who cries how brutal the schedule is when it comes out, yes.

If youre a football fan, no

[Tony The Wiz]

On April 23, 2016 at 0:08 PM, kelly said:

• 
  Rich CiminiESPN Staff Writer

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
• Email
• print
• comment

Reaching into the New York Jets mailbag, one last time before the draft :

@RichCimini Any chance the Jets give up on Fitz and try to trade a pick for Bradford? #jetsmail

@RichCimini : I don't see this happening for a few of reasons, Bryan. ThePhiladelphia Eagles say they're not trading Sam Bradford and the Jets say their primary focus is re-signing Ryan Fitzpatrick. I'm going to take their comments at face value and assume neither side will pursue your proposed trade.

The Jets' patience with Fitzpatrick will run out at some point, but I don't think it will happen before the draft, which is only five days away. I also don't think they're keen on giving away draft picks. They have only six picks, including two seventh-rounders -- not exactly a treasure trove of draft capital. They'd probably have to give up a third- or fourth-rounder for Bradford, and that would create a sizable hole in the middle of their draft. The Jets, an older team, can't keep trading away draft picks.

If they trade for Bradford, they'd inherit the two-year contract he recently signed with the Eagles. That would mean adding $11 million in guarantees to the payroll -- his $7 million base salary this season, plus $4 million of his $13 million base in 2017. There's also a $4 million roster bonus next year. All told, it's two years, $24 million -- not a bad deal for a 28-year-old starting quarterback. But can you count on Bradford, considering his injury history and inconsistent play?

The Eagles say Bradford will be their starter this season, but it's only a temporary gig. After trading up to No. 2, they will pick a quarterback -- probably Carson Wentz -- and make Bradford a very expensive placeholder. Financially, it would be very difficult to trade him. His contract includes an $11 million signing bonus, and the Eagles are on the hook for that amount. Right now, he's counting $12 million on the cap. If they trade him, they'd save $1.5 million, but it's insane to take an $11 million cap hit for a guy you signed only two months ago. They'd have to be blown away by a trade offer to eat that kind of dough, and I don't see that offer coming from the Jets.

>     http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york-jets/post/_/id/59932/could-jets-trade-for-sam-bradford-and-dump-ryan-fitzpatrick

Loved Bradford at Oklahoma but he is injury prone. If anything you wouldn't have to give up much to the Rams for Foles. He has had some success in the East in the NFL. He is worth a shot.

[Sperm Edwards]

On April 23, 2016 at 0:38 PM, varjet said:

Sam Bradford in signing with the mismanaged Eagles made a very big mistake.  Let's see if it affects the Eagles to sign players going forward.  But in any event, he should realize that he is in a priviledged position to play this game, and he should do his best, count his money and be quiet.  

The Eagles at 2 are likely playing Wentz.  Wentz sits for at least a year.   Bradford gets to start and show what he can do, if he does not get hurt.  If and when Wentz is ready, the Eagles will trade or cut Bradford.  Bradford is doing fine in the big picture.

The Giants are lucky to be in the same division as the Eagles, Redskins and sometimes Cowboys.

There are 22 million reasons why it was not a big mistake for him to re-sign with them. He gets $35M for 2 seasons or $22M for 1 season. We should all make mistakes like that. 

[PatsFanTX]

Jets Fans: Giving Up on the Season Before We've Even Had the Draft.  Pathetic.

Have you analyzed the last 10 years of Jets drafts?

[TheMagicRat]

15 hours ago, artemusclyde said:

Had a 65% completion rating while also throwing for 3725 yards, all with a terrible receiving corps that consistently would drop the ball and let him down. But he obviously sucks and he's injury prone so we might as well label him a bust and go pay 10 mil to Fitzpatrick who had a 59.6 completion rating while throwing for 3905 with Marshall and Decker. Or better yet maybe we could trade for Mike Glennon with his 57.6% completion rating while throwing to the likes of Mike Evans and Vincent Jackson. 

Edit: For more reasons on why Bradford is such an obvious bust brought to you from the geniuses at Jetnation Bradford Drop Stats

Bradford played in a very friendly quarterback offense too. Foles looked like a stud running Kelly's offense.  Also, were those drops due to the wide receivers, or how Bradford throws the football? 

Trading for him doesn't make much sense unless the Eagles are willing to eat up some of his contract, he's willing to restruct or we get him for a low draft pick. 

[drdetroit]

6 hours ago, Warfish said:

Jets Fans: Giving Up on the Season Before We've Even Had the Draft.  Pathetic.

And listening to the Qb evaluation guru tx. Same guy who thought Ryan Mallett was going to wreck the nfl

[drdetroit]

41 minutes ago, Tony The Wiz said:

Loved Bradford at Oklahoma but he is injury prone. If anything you wouldn't have to give up much to the Rams for Foles. He has had some success in the East in the NFL. He is worth a shot.

Lol that's a funny joke!?!?!  Foles! Lolz

[Greenseed4]

11 minutes ago, TheMagicRat said:

Bradford played in a very friendly quarterback offense too. Foles looked like a stud running Kelly's offense.  Also, were those drops due to the wide receivers, or how Bradford throws the football? 

Trading for him doesn't make much sense unless the Eagles are willing to eat up some of his contract, he's willing to restruct or we get him for a low draft pick. 

1. He throws an incredibly catchable ball. And would be coming to a very ideal offense which suits his skill set; getting the ball out quick. 

2. Eat some contract. Yes. I proffered off-setting said contract eating by trading one if OUR players (namely, David Harris), whose $8.5M is on OUR books. They still take a loss, but that has more to do with the initial contract & subsequent trading up to take a QB; either way they mismanaged the position financially.

3. Restructure for future, yes. And if he's forcing a trade outta Compton he would need to be amenable to such an idea. But one would hope that restructures of the sort are easier to swallow when the trading team is a favorable destination (Marshall, Decker, Forte, Defense). 

4. Still, the deal has to make sense to the org. So draft picks, yes. I propose a 4th (2016) and a conditional 2nd (2017). This almost exactly replicates the deal they made to get him. So it seems on surface that it would work for them.  For us, it allows focusing our earlier picks on rounding out the roster, and if he's who we think he is, a future 2nd is kibble bits.  If he's not, the conditional part makes it another low pick within reason of the risk we take. 

Win-win-win

[drdetroit]

3 minutes ago, Greenseed4 said:

1. He throws an incredibly catchable ball. 

2. Eat some contract. Yes. I proffered off-setting said contract eating by trading OUR players who are in a similar situation (namely, David Harris, whose $8.5M is on OUR books. 

3. Restructure for future, yes. And if he's forcing a trade outta Compton he would need to be amenable to such an idea. But one would hope that restructures of the sort are easier to swallow when the trading team is a favorable destination (Marshall, Decker, Forte, Defense). 

4. Still, the deal has to make sense to the org. So draft picks, yes. I propose a 4th (2016) and a 2nd (2017). This almost exactly replicates the deal they made to get him. 

Yeah let's avoid giving Fitz a ridiculous contract by taking on an even worse contract given to an inferior player who cannot stay healthy

 

And then, let's create another hole on the roster by trading Harris

[Greenseed4]

5 minutes ago, drdetroit said:

Yeah let's avoid giving Fitz a ridiculous contract by taking on an even worse contract given to an inferior player who cannot stay healthy

 

And then, let's create another hole on the roster by trading Harris

Literally NONE of this. 

The contract would be for $7M ish this year, and a reasonable restructured amount for next year.  If the contract were to stay in place for next year tho it would sill be less than what Fitzy (a five year older, similarly injury prone, less accurate QB) is reportedly requesting.  

The only thing you said above that makes any sense is the "creating of another hole" by trading Harris.  That in itself is arguable.  Henderson/Carter/Lattimore/draft pick.  In another thread I suggested drafting Jordan Jenkins (Georgia) and having him play an interchangeable ILB/OLB role, and then signing the Edge rusher we're complaining about in the 3rd round.  But if you think about the defense we run, HOW often are we running two ILBs anyway?  It makes more sense to play a third safety/CB and/or an extra OLB than to have Harris.  And if it means signing a potential franchise QB to "get faster" on defense.  Sign me up.