Cam Newton/Panthers will part ways.

[jgb]

7 hours ago, New York Mick said:

NE lets Brady walk, starts a sh*t QB, NE tanks, Belly saves face because the starting QB is awful then they sign Lawrence and restart the franchise. 

Belichick and Gruden basically the only coaches with the job security to pull an outright tank for Trevor and be there to coach him after

[Villain The Foe]

9 hours ago, slats said:

These proven vets are on the market because they've either proven they're not the guy, or that they're not the guy anymore. Paying Kirk Cousins and Nick Foles hasn't worked. Peyton Manning is the exception to the rule, and some team may pay Brady to try to duplicate that, but none of these other guys are worth major coin. 

Teams are catching onto the fact that the shortcut to getting to the Super Bowl is landing a franchise QB in the draft, and building around him before his rookie contract is up. 

We can say the same thing for unproven rookies while stating that the few who became something were the exception to the rule. Ton's of so-called "franchise QB's" were never worthy of the title. They should simply be called unproven QB's on rookie deals. Calling drafted unproven QB's "Franchise QB" is a misnomer. 

An example are the Bears who are in a situation where they moved up thinking that they landed a franchise QB and are now paying for swinging and missing. They're currently ranked in the bottom 5 in terms of draft capital for this upcoming draft and yet they need a QB as well as Oline help. Being able to get a Phillip Rivers, a guy where you know his professional skillset, while resetting yourself in terms of draft capital given the mistake with Trubisky isnt a bad idea. Phillip Rivers is a capable quarterback who can make up for some offensive pieces that are missing.

An older Phillip Rivers is still a very good QB and is degrees better than anything Trubisky has fielded since the Bears traded up in the draft looking to make him their franchise QB. 

The Bears can go the KC route, bring in a good solid veteran QB who can win games while being able to replenish your draft pick situation...so when you have that opportunity to draft a guy that you like, then when he's ready you can trade or release Rivers and let the young man play. That's similar to what KC did when the got Alex Smith, except they didnt sign him via Free Agency but actually gave away a 2nd rounder and something else in order to aquire him in a trade with the 9ers. A couple years later they drafted Mahomes, a couple years after that they're SB champions...all while staying competitive every season and drafting well at other key positions, all while not having to throw out an unproven rookie asking the fans for time with this unproven franchise QB. 

Rivers is 38 years old and has a couple more years in him. Cam is now in the Mix, a former MVP of the league and participant in the SB. 

Sure, the Kirk Cousins pick didnt work, but folks forget that the Alex Smith trade absolutely did work out in the Chiefs favor. They got a winner, for a 2nd round pick, and when they didnt need him anymore after getting their Franchise QB, they traded him to the Redskins for a 3rd round pick to use in the future to build around their young QB. 

 

 

 

[New York Mick]

1 hour ago, jgb said:

Belichick and Gruden basically the only coaches with the job security to pull an outright tank for Trevor and be there to coach him after

I could see Belly sticking around after Brady if he has a chance at an potentially elite quarterback to prove he can win without him. 

[section314]

Rivers did pretty well in N.C.?

[slats]

10 hours ago, 14 in Green said:

That does seem to be a trend, what with Wentz, Goff and Mahomes. But...when you look closer, it's just about getting lucky, and finding the right guy. Just like it's always been.  Are the Jets, Browns, Cardinals and Bears any closer to the Super Bowl then they were before drafting young QBs? Nope.

There's really no rhyme or reason. The Eagles got their ring (with Foles) and chose to give Wentz the massive deal. Now what? Goff and the Rams got there, lost, and again, now what? The 49ers decided to trade for and give Garrafolo a huge deal after he sat behind Brady, and that looks to be the better move.

I never said getting a franchise (key word!) QB on his rookie deal was a cure-all, an immediate ticket to the Super Bowl, I said it was a short-cut in today's NFL. It is. 

The Jets, Browns, and Cards are all terrible franchises who have all overhauled their entire organizations in the last two years. The Bears aren't much better. The jury is still out on Mayfield and Darnold being franchise QBs, while Trubisky is questionable on a good day and Rosen is barely hanging on to a job. 

10 hours ago, 14 in Green said:

The Cowboys and Seahawks got good to great value with mid round picks Prescott and Wilson, but now the 'Boys have a big decision, and Wilson is eating up a huge amount of cap. At least Wilson is worth it, I don't think Dak is.

Russell Wilson is exactly what I'm talking about here. Back-to-back Super Bowl appearances on his rookie deal, and hasn't been back since he got paid. As worth it as he may or may not be (I think he's great!), that contract hurts the franchise's ability to keep a team around him. 

10 hours ago, 14 in Green said:

Mahomes is the only guy who truly fits your narrative. He got the Chiefs their ring inside the "rookie window" and looks like he's poised to win more. The Texans and Watson? The Bills and Allen? Two '19 playoff teams that I'd be shocked to see get a ring "in the window".

Is Josh Allen a franchise QB? He has a ways to go, IMHO. Still, he's in a great position to maybe Mark Sanchez his way into an AFCCG. They're building intelligently in Buffalo. 

But your problem is that your looking at it bass-ackwards. Just looking over the last decade, eight QBs on their rookie deals (including Wilson x2) made appearances. Two more home-drafted QBs made it on team-friendly second contracts (Newton and Rodgers). That would make half of the QBs in the Super Bowl over the last ten years. 

But I made that post because you posed this question: 

11 hours ago, 14 in Green said:

Why give up massive amounts of draft capital when you can renegotiate a deal with a proven vet?

Because over that same period of time, do you know how many QBs signed as free agents from another team made it to the Super Bowl? Two. Arguably two of the best to ever play in the NFL, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees. 

And speaking of Rodgers and Brees, two of the all-time greats and they only have two titles between them. Think maybe because Brees wasted away in San Diego before getting paid and Rodgers wasted away on the bench? 

There are multiple paths to the Super Bowl, but having a QB playing at a franchise level on his rookie deal gives a team their very best chance. 

[slats]

1 hour ago, Villain The Foe said:

We can say the same thing for unproven rookies while stating that the few who became something were the exception to the rule. Ton's of so-called "franchise QB's" were never worthy of the title. They should simply be called unproven QB's on rookie deals. Calling drafted unproven QB's "Franchise QB" is a misnomer. 

I didn't call drafted unproven QBs franchise QBs, and addressed most of your points in my post above. 

1 hour ago, Villain The Foe said:

Sure, the Kirk Cousins pick didnt work, but folks forget that the Alex Smith trade absolutely did work out in the Chiefs favor. They got a winner, for a 2nd round pick, and when they didnt need him anymore after getting their Franchise QB, they traded him to the Redskins for a 3rd round pick to use in the future to build around their young QB. 

Alex Smith was a place-holder. I'm sure he's a great guy, but he was never going to get anyone over the top. The Chiefs got over the top with Pat Mahomes and his $4.4M cap number. Cousins didn't work, Foles didn't work. Of all these guys coming onto the market, who's getting paid and by whom? If Cousins didn't prove to be such a bad decision, Tannehill might get some longer looks, but I think teams will be approaching him cautiously. Rivers looked like toast to me, and Brady's looking a little toasty, too. Is Andy Dalton taking anyone to the Super Bowl? 

No, given the chance I'm gonna try to find my QB in the draft and fast-track his development over any of those guys. 

[Smashmouth]

10 hours ago, T0mShane said:

But, to this point, the Rams looked to be one of the exciting young teams in the league and now they’re doomed because of one contract. Who wins in that scenario? The Jets are coming up on a similar scenario—they’re going to have to pay Darnold $22 mil plus and the rest of the team will be pretty much balls and ass. This helps parity? No. It suppresses greatness

If the stupid NFL wants to do something productive they would not allow the QB's contract to count towards the cap. They do everything else to hurt the game to protect them then they should do something to protect the teams who sh*t the bed once they have to pay 30 Mil + to the QB. 

[Jetsfan80]

11 hours ago, 14 in Green said:

Mahomes is the only guy who truly fits your narrative. He got the Chiefs their ring inside the "rookie window" and looks like he's poised to win more. The Texans and Watson? The Bills and Allen? Two '19 playoff teams that I'd be shocked to see get a ring "in the window".

The Patriots' presence skewed everything.  Lots of teams with QB's on their rookie deals would have rings/deep playoff runs if not for the cheating Patriots.  The Rams being one.  The Seahawks should have had 2 with Russell Wilson on a rookie deal.  Mahomes might have 2 rings now as well.  Hell, the Jaguars got to an AFC Title game with Blake Bortles at QB, and gave the Pats a run for their money.  

The rule is very recent, and teams are starting to adjust.  

[Greenseed4]

8 hours ago, DirtyJersey said:

No team should touch Cam as long as he stays vegan.  Production will continue to fade and will have a hard time recovering from injury.

Head to youtube and look up Rogan talking about vegan athletes.  He rattles off guys who went vegan, saw production slip and they had to add meat back in.

Um, you know the GOAT is vegan, right?

 

 

 

[Barry McCockinner]

12 hours ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

I don't think it's that stupid. It insures some level of parity. 

The problem isn't paying Mahomes a fortune. They'll be very good for a long time with a healthy Mahomes and his bloated contract provided they are smart with the rest of their cap space and draft properly. It won't be easy, but it shouldn't be easy. 

The problem is with guys like Goff who you can with when he is on his rookie contract but when he demands 25 million a year, you are in a lose/lose situation. If you don't pay him, you have to start from scratch. If you do pay him, he simply isn't good enough to offset the amount of salary cap space he takes up.  

And the Rams realized this, went all in with high priced vets and traded away a ton of draft capital. It backfired and now they are in some serious trouble imo. 

 

Has the salary cap in the NFL really created parity? The cap started in 1994. That year the 49ers won their 5th championship. 6 years later the longest dynasty in the history of the league took over for 2 decades.

[Bruce Harper]

13 hours ago, 14 in Green said:

You might be right, but I look at this glutting of the market the exact opposite way you do.

Why give up massive amounts of draft picks to move up? Stay put, take who is there, or sign a vet. Why mortgage your future for an unknown quantity when you have so many other options?

Pay a failed guy 20 mil + or try to develop your own guy on a rookie contract?  Which would you do?

[Fantasy Island]

11 hours ago, New York Mick said:

He could hangout with Rodman at the Hardrock. 

oh.....Hard ROCK , gotcha 

[Fantasy Island]

52 minutes ago, Greenseed4 said:

Um, you know the GOAT is vegan, right?

 

 

 

Serena is Vegan?

[New York Mick]

54 minutes ago, Greenseed4 said:

Um, you know the GOAT is vegan, right?

 

 

 

Hippie propaganda crap

[Jetsfan80]

4 minutes ago, New York Mick said:

Hippie propaganda crap

^^^ Farmer/Big Meat lobbyist

[14 in Green]

24 minutes ago, Bruce Harper said:

Pay a failed guy 20 mil + or try to develop your own guy on a rookie contract?  Which would you do?

That's not what I was saying though. If a good young QB is there when it's tour turn to pick, wht wouldn't tou take him?

I was talking about a team considering using a vast amount of draft picks to move up and get a QB. In my scenario, I can see a team like the Bears doing that when they did. They had a solid team, looked like they can contend for a few years, they just picked the wrong guy, 

However if I'm the GM of a bad team with a gutted roster like the Dolphins, I wouldn't waste the draft capital I'd accrued to move up 3 spots just because I was worried someone might take a QB ahead of me like the Bears did. I'd sit where I was and let the draft unfold.

To answer your question though, nobody is looking to overpay a "failed guy", lets say Mariota(?) 20 million. However signing a really good QB like a Rivers at the end of his career, realizing you're looking not for what he was seven years ago, but trying to get two or three decent years out of him while you use those picks you saved to fortify your roster is a viable option. So if I'm picking high In the draft, like Miami, and my guy is there when my turn comes, I take the young QB, but I'm not moving up and losing two future #1's to do so. 

[Jetsfan80]

3 minutes ago, 14 in Green said:

However if I'm the GM of a bad team with a gutted roster like the Dolphins, I wouldn't waste the draft capital I'd accrued to move up 3 spots just because I was worried someone might take a QB ahead of me, like the Bears did. I'd sit where I was and let the draft unfold.

That's now how this works though.  These are humans, not robots.  When you go through the pre-draft process and fall in love with a QB prospect, you do what you have to to move up to get him.  This happens virtually every year.

You don't let the board "fall to you".  That's how you end up with a Running Back as your QB.  

[playtowinthegame]

18 minutes ago, Bruce Harper said:

Pay a failed guy 20 mil + or try to develop your own guy on a rookie contract?  Which would you do?

I think a team that is a competent quarterback away from becoming a serious contender might choose the veteran quarterback route if they have the cap space. Obviously you want to be able to draft a quarterback and have him on the cheap for years to come, but I think it's still wise for a team to hedge their bets with a veteran quarterback. For every Patrick Mahomes there is several quarterbacks drafted who aren't good enough to help a team win games on a consistent basis let alone win a Super Bowl. Point is teams who sign a veteran quarterback this off-season could very well still draft a quarterback this year within the first 100 picks of the 2020 NFL Draft.

[Jetsfan80]

5 minutes ago, playtowinthegame said:

I think a team that is a competent quarterback away from becoming a serious contender might choose the veteran quarterback route if they have the cap space. Obviously you want to be able to draft a quarterback and have him on the cheap for years to come, but I think it's still wise for a team to hedge their bets with a veteran quarterback. For every Patrick Mahomes there is several quarterbacks drafted who aren't good enough to help a team win games on a consistent basis let alone win a Super Bowl. Point is teams who sign a veteran quarterback this off-season could very well still draft a quarterback this year within the first 100 picks of the 2020 NFL Draft.

 

How often do teams win a Super Bowl with a QB they didn't draft?  I can only think of the 2015 Broncos (Peyton) and 2010 Saints (Brees) in the last 15-20 years.  And of course the 2009 Cardinals (Warner) made it to the SB.   I think we can all agree those were all very unique cases, with injury histories involved as the reason they were let go by the teams that drafted them.    

Foles bounced around before coming back to Philly as a backup, but he was still drafted by the Eagles.  

[14 in Green]

4 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

That's now how this works though.  These are humans, not robots.  When you go through the pre-draft process and fall in love with a QB prospect, you do what you have to to move up to get him.  This happens virtually every year.

You don't let the board "fall to you".  That's how you end up with a Running Back as your QB.  

That's your philosophy 80, and I can see what you're saying. It's not a hard and fast rule though.

A lot depends on the roster of the team, how much they really like said player, and how much they would have to give up to move up in the draft.

There always comes a point where you have to decide if the price a seller is asking exceeds what your perceived value is for an item

[Jetsfan80]

3 minutes ago, 14 in Green said:

That's your philosophy 80, and I can see what you're saying. It's not a hard and fast rule though.

A lot depends on the roster of the team, how much they really like said player, and how much they would have to give up to move up in the draft.

There always comes a point where you have to decide if the price a seller is asking exceeds what your perceived value is for an item

 

This gets skewed when it comes to a QB.  If you don't have one, you're sunk.  And GM's can't afford to wait a year and "kick the can down the road" on QB decisions.  That's an easy way to get fired very quickly.  

If a GM has a lot of job security to play with, sure.  But if you're that kind of GM, you've probably already found your QB at that point anyways.  

[Bruce Harper]

8 minutes ago, 14 in Green said:

That's not what I was saying though. If a young QB is there when it's tour turn to pick, wht wouldn't tou take him?

I was talking about a team considering using a vast amount of draft picks to move up and get a QB. In my scenario, I can see a team like the Bears doing that when they did. They had a solid team, looked like they can contend for a few years, they just picked the wrong guy, 

However if I'm the GM of a bad team with a gutted roster like the Dolphins, I wouldn't waste the draft capital I'd accrued to move up 3 spots just because I was worried someone might take a QB ahead of me like the Bears did. I'd sit where I was and let the draft unfold.

To answer your question though, nobody is looking to overpay a "failed guy", lets say Mariota(?) however signing a really good QB like a Rivers at the end of his career, realizing you're looking not for what he was seven years ago, but trying to get two or three decent years out of him while you use those picks you saved to fortify your roster is a viable option.So if I'm picking high In the draft, like Miami, and my guy is there when my turn comes, I take the young QB, but I'm not moving up and losing two future #1's to do so. 

A good point about draft capital and trading up.  Very tough to give up picks, especially for a rebuilding team. 

But I would submit that a guy like Cam or Rivers or Brady is not "really good" anymore.  The teams that they will have just left know them better than anyone and, despite a clamoring fan-base, decided to let them walk.  Thinking they might be really good for your team under a new system and coach is entirely unrealistic.  It will clobber your salary cap and delays a real rebuild. 

[14 in Green]

3 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

How often do teams win a Super Bowl with a QB they didn't draft?  I can only think of the 2015 Broncos (Peyton) and 2010 Saints (Brees) in the last 15-20 years.  And of course the 2009 Cardinals (Warner) made it to the SB.   I think we can all agree those were very unique cases.  

Foles bounced around before coming back to Philly as a backup, but he was still drafted by the Eagles.  

Meh

To use your words in an earlier post this morning, "the Patriots skewed everything"...

[Jetsfan80]

1 minute ago, 14 in Green said:

Meh

To use your words in an earlier post this morning, "the Patriots skewed everything"...

 

Right but the few times teams were able to de-throne the cheaters, they did it with homegrown QB's, not mercenaries.  That's the model for success.  

[14 in Green]

5 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

This gets skewed when it comes to a QB.  If you don't have one, you're sunk.  And GM's can't afford to wait a year and "kick the can down the road" on QB decisions.  That's an easy way to get fired very quickly.  

If a GM has a lot of job security to play with, sure.  But if you're that kind of GM, you've probably already found your QB at that point anyways.  

So your position is, just buy,,, pay the man, no matter what his asking price is?

[Jetsfan80]

4 minutes ago, 14 in Green said:

So your position is, just buy,,, pay the man, no matter what his asking price is?

No.  My position is when you need a QB, you can't afford to be passive in the draft IF there's a guy you want.  

I don't know what the "deal breaker" amount is when trading up for one.  Since this is such a QB-driven league we've seen some crazy trade packages.  But for some of those teams, its worked out.  The Rams got to a Super Bowl after trading up for Goff. 

The Chiefs traded up for Mahomes too, though that cost much less.  

Quote

K.C. traded the No. 27 overall pick, a third-round pick and their 2018 first-round selection to the Buffalo Bills to move up to No. 10 to select Mahomes.

 

That one worked out great for the Chiefs.  Absolutely dreadfully for the Bills, lol.

[14 in Green]

3 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

No.  My position is when you need a QB, you can't afford to be passive in the draft IF there's a guy you want.  

I don't know what the "deal breaker" amount is when trading up for one.  Since this is such a QB-driven league we've seen some crazy trade packages.  But for some of those teams, its worked out.  The Rams got to a Super Bowl after trading up for Goff. 

The Chiefs traded up for Mahomes too, though that cost much less.  

 

That one worked out great for the Chiefs.  Absolutely dreadfully for the Bills, lol.

Okay, let me ask you and @Bruce Harper a serious question. There's no right or wrong answer, it's only your opinion, and lets leave the merits of whether a QB is going to become a franchise guy or not out of it. Simply a roster management question.

Assuming we had a competent GM, which do you think would be the better Jets roster heading into next season?

The one we have, or the one we'd have if we took a QB at #6 and kept our 3 2nd round picks back in 2018?

[New York Mick]

35 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

^^^ Farmer/Big Meat lobbyist

?

[14 in Green]

Just now, New York Mick said:

?

Why would anyone go vegan or vegetarian? I don't get it, LOL

[New York Mick]

2 minutes ago, 14 in Green said:

Why would anyone go vegan or vegetarian? I don't get it, LOL

Because they’re brainwashed by a pussified American culture that’s shoved down their throats by douchebag drug addict celebrities that are desperately trying to find a cause so they’re relevant in society. 

[Bruce Harper]

2 minutes ago, 14 in Green said:

Okay, let me ask you and @Bruce Harper a serious question. There's no right or wrong answer, it's only your opinion, and lets leave the merits of whether a QB is going to become a franchise guy or not out of it. Simply a roster management question.

Assuming we had a competent GM, which do you think would be the better Jets roster heading into next season?

The one we have, or the one we'd have if we took a QB at #6 and kept our 3 2nd round picks back in 2018?

Overall roster would be better if we stayed at six but the position of QB is so much more important than any other position that I think we made the right move.  I would rather have Darnold (whom I still consider to be a potential franchise guy) and a less deep roster than Rosen or Allen (whom I consider to be JAGS) and a couple of more good players that we would have gotten with those second round picks if we kept them.  A franchise QB can lift all boats and is worth more than three solid starters.  Do we know yet if Darnold is that guy?  No.  But sometimes you gotta roll the dice.

[slimjasi]

12 hours ago, New York Mick said:

NE lets Brady walk, starts a sh*t QB, NE tanks, Belly saves face because the starting QB is awful then they sign Lawrence and restart the franchise. 

I've seen this theory in several places recently.  

I would argue that there is almost no chance of this happening. 

For starters, Belichick will be 68 before the start of next season. People are obviously focused on Brady's limited window, but the same conversation with Belichick is just around the corner. You're telling me he gives up one of the precious seasons he has left to go all in with a rookie QB at age 69? I personally don't buy it. 

Add to that the fact that you are talking about a guy who is obsessed with winning every game he coaches, apparently to the point of repeatedly breaking rules, playing starters on special teams and in meaningless games, etc. I just don't see Belichick ever "tanking." He's MUCH more likely to sign a decent veteran like Dalton and try to make an improbable wild card run. 

[New York Mick]

8 minutes ago, slimjasi said:

I've seen this theory in several places recently.  

I would argue that there is almost no chance of this happening. 

For starters, Belichick will be 68 before the start of next season. People are obviously focused on Brady's limited window, but the same conversation with Belichick is just around the corner. You're telling me he gives up one of the precious seasons he has left to go all in with a rookie QB at age 69? I personally don't buy it. 

Add to that the fact that you are talking about a guy who is obsessed with winning every game he coaches, apparently to the point of repeatedly breaking rules, playing starters on special teams and in meaningless games, etc. I just don't see Belichick ever "tanking." He's MUCH more likely to sign a decent veteran like Dalton and try to make an improbable wild card run. 

I don’t think it will happen either but it’s a red headed stepchild outlook of being a Jets fan. 

[Jetsfan80]

20 minutes ago, 14 in Green said:

Okay, let me ask you and @Bruce Harper a serious question. There's no right or wrong answer, it's only your opinion, and lets leave the merits of whether a QB is going to become a franchise guy or not out of it. Simply a roster management question.

Assuming we had a competent GM, which do you think would be the better Jets roster heading into next season?

The one we have, or the one we'd have if we took a QB at #6 and kept our 3 2nd round picks back in 2018?

 

The one where we took Watson in 2017, like I suggested along with @dbatesman and to a lesser extent @JiF.

[14 in Green]

8 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

The one where we took Watson in 2017, like I suggested along with @dbatesman and to a lesser extent @JiF.

LOL  I get it, we all know about you and Watson, but you need to focus here 80.

My question referred to the '18 draft, because the three of us are talking about the merits of moving up to get a QB, and that's when the Jets did it..

Again, there's no correct answer, I'm just asking your opinion.