Trade Down.... But for Trey Lance

[JetBlue]

I know there are no guarantees but if we could get the Lions to trade their 7th, and 21st along with other draft picks, for # 2, I would strongly consider doing it and drafting Trey Lance. The key is knowing he probably needs to sit for a year.  We could bring back Darnold and let them compete and then trade Darnold next year.  If Darnold show signs of becoming the player we thought he would be, we could always turn around and trade Lance.  Either way we would have our franchise quarterback and the capital to build around them.   If Lance is gone at 7, take Pitts or best available offensive player (Chase, Smith etc.) and roll with Sam for the year.   Either way you look at it, we can add some serious talent.  If Sam is not the answer, we will have Lance waiting in the wings and ready to take over by mid season or next.  

[riggy001]

1 minute ago, JetBlue said:

I know there are no guarantees but if we could get the Lions to trade their 7th, and 21st along with other draft picks, for # 2, I would strongly consider doing it and drafting Trey Lance. The key is knowing he probably needs to sit for a year.  We could bring back Darnold and let them compete and then trade Darnold next year.  If Darnold show signs of becoming the player we thought he would be, we could always turn around and trade Lance.  Either way we would have our franchise quarterback and the capital to build around them.   If Lance is gone at 7, take Pitts or best available offensive player (Chase, Smith etc.) and roll with Sam for the year.   Either way you look at it, we can add some serious talent.  If Sam is not the answer, we will have Lance waiting in the wings and ready to take over by mid season or next.  

I could see doing this, add picks by trading to 7, and then select Lance, However, i would not keep Darnold, and would roll with lance from day 1. Between trading down from 2, and dealing Sam, you should get several more picks to surround Lance with more offense

[Beerfish]

I like this as well.   A trade down will give us a lot of options but a trade down and get a QB prospect even if he needs seasoning is a decent idea.

Heck for all we know a trade down and Fields and Lance might be threre.

[JetBlue]

6 minutes ago, riggy001 said:

I could see doing this, add picks by trading to 7, and then select Lance, However, i would not keep Darnold, and would roll with lance from day 1. Between trading down from 2, and dealing Sam, you should get several more picks to surround Lance with more offense

I was thinking the same thing but it just gives us the additional flexibility and we wouldn't have to "rush" him if he need more seasoning.  We could trade Darnold and sign another mid level quarterback to compete with him as well.   

 

[JetBlue]

6 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

I like this as well.   A trade down will give us a lot of options but a trade down and get a QB prospect even if he needs seasoning is a decent idea.

Heck for all we know a trade down and Fields and Lance might be threre.

Tell you the truth; I would not be shocked that in 3 years he could be the best of the bunch or second only to Lawrence.   But I agree that it is possible that Fields could be there too. 

[JetBlue]

Trey Lance Analysis: 

 

[ljr]

 

something like this only would work if JD/Saleh valued several of the QB prospects at the same level ... and then I'd think the trade back would still have to be a 1 or 2 spot dropback, so worst case scenario we'd still get one of the QB's

I can't see them not deciding that they like 1 QB better than the others though ... if that's the case then you pick the QB and don't jerk around

[CanadaSteve]

10 minutes ago, riggy001 said:

I could see doing this, add picks by trading to 7, and then select Lance, However, i would not keep Darnold, and would roll with lance from day 1. Between trading down from 2, and dealing Sam, you should get several more picks to surround Lance with more offense

We do that and we run the risk of Darnold 2.0.  Darnold doesn't have that great of value right now.  So, if we run with him for a year and he plays well, maybe we keep him, or maybe we turn him into a #1.  

But Lance is not ready for the NFL, and throwing him to the wolves I think will get him killed and, ultimately, waste the #7 overall draft pick.

 

[prime21]

Any trade down for a QB is a gamble.  Someone can trade up to snatch a guy like Lance if Fields and Wilson are gone.

[56mehl56]

17 minutes ago, JetBlue said:

I know there are no guarantees but if we could get the Lions to trade their 7th, and 21st along with other draft picks, for # 2, I would strongly consider doing it and drafting Trey Lance. The key is knowing he probably needs to sit for a year.  We could bring back Darnold and let them compete and then trade Darnold next year.  If Darnold show signs of becoming the player we thought he would be, we could always turn around and trade Lance.  Either way we would have our franchise quarterback and the capital to build around them.   If Lance is gone at 7, take Pitts or best available offensive player (Chase, Smith etc.) and roll with Sam for the year.   Either way you look at it, we can add some serious talent.  If Sam is not the answer, we will have Lance waiting in the wings and ready to take over by mid season or next.  

One problem your assuming either Lance or Sam become the FQB. That may be a bit of a reach. If you could trade down and get Fields or Wilson you might have a better argument.  Trust me I have no clue if Lance will become a FQB there's just not enough known about him other than one amazing season .

[JetBlue]

4 minutes ago, 56mehl56 said:

One problem your assuming either Lance or Sam become the FQB. That may be a bit of a reach. If you could trade down and get Fields or Wilson you might have a better argument.  Trust me I have no clue if Lance will become a FQB there's just not enough known about him other than one amazing season .

Can't you say the same for Wilson?  Bottom line is if you work him out and feel he can be that guy, then you take him.   Then again, he could be gone by 4 to Atlanta and we are looking at Fields or maybe a team trades up and takes him right before us so it is a risk either way you look at it.  And yes I assuming that Lance, with some serious coaching, can become a franchise quarterback.  I truly believe that.   When you get right down to it, none of these guys are guaranteed to be FQBs and that includes Lawrence.   I just like what Lance brings to the table and if he had played this season, I would not be surprised if he was the consensus # 2 quarterback after TL.  

[FidelioJet]

If Trey Lance is your top QB than take him at 2.  If you believe him to be your future you don't risk losing him.

If he's not your top QB on the board then you take whoever it is at 2.

The real advantage at #2 overall is that you get to pick before every team but one.  

[FidelioJet]

1 minute ago, JetBlue said:

Can't you say the same for Wilson?  Bottom line is if you work him out and feel he can be that guy, then you take him.   Then again, he could be gone by 4 to Atlanta and we are looking at Fields or maybe a team trades up and takes him right before us so it is a risk either way you look at it.  And yes I assuming that Lance, with some serious coaching, can become a franchise quarterback.  I truly believe that.   When you get right down to it, none of these guys are guaranteed to be FQBs and that includes Lawrence. 

But you can say that about any QB ever drafted.

[JetBlue]

3 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

But you can say that about any QB ever drafted.

Exactly so you go with you feel can be that guy.  Before the season started the conversation was Lawrence, Fields and Lance so it is not like we are talking about some one who is coming out of nowhere.  Him not playing this year really hurts as he could have used the reps and experience, not the mention more game film to evaluate him. That is why I would not plan to start him his first year or at least for most of it.  He does need coaching but his talent level is elite. 

[JetBlue]

14 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

We do that and we run the risk of Darnold 2.0.  Darnold doesn't have that great of value right now.  So, if we run with him for a year and he plays well, maybe we keep him, or maybe we turn him into a #1.  

But Lance is not ready for the NFL, and throwing him to the wolves I think will get him killed and, ultimately, waste the #7 overall draft pick.

 

If you actually read my post, I said he would need to sit for a year.....  

[Joe Willie White Shoes]

This is a mistake on so many levels:

1) If the Jets trade down, no QB they want may be left on the board

2) Lance has virtually no college experience. History shows that lack of game experience in college is a predictor for failure as a QB in the NFL.  One year of college starts makes Lance a likely bust.

3) If he sits for a year, it delays the rebuild a year as well

 

[Jetsfan4life90]

12 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

If Trey Lance is your top QB than take him at 2.  If you believe him to be your future you don't risk losing him.

If he's not your top QB on the board then you take whoever it is at 2.

The real advantage at #2 overall is that you get to pick before every team but one.  

Except I don't see a situation where Trey Lance goes #2 overall. He would most likely would be there at #7.

[JetBlue]

6 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

If Trey Lance is your top QB than take him at 2.  If you believe him to be your future you don't risk losing him.

If he's not your top QB on the board then you take whoever it is at 2.

The real advantage at #2 overall is that you get to pick before every team but one.  

I don't agree with this. I think Wilson or Lance and perhaps even Fields could become a top quarterback. I am not going to "fall in love" with any of them.  I will evaluate the board, see what deals might be on the table and weigh the risks of 1 of the 3 still being on the table.   If none are, we still have Darnold who could have bounce back year with better coaching and weapons around him.   Now after working out each qb if you really do feel that he is head and shoulders above the others then fine, take him at two.  

Otherwise no need to freak out, just stay cool and play the board as it comes. We are in the drivers seat here.  I mean if we end up with 3 number one picks this year and have to bring back Darnold, and still have additional picks added for this year and next year, that is still a win win.  We take Pitts at 7 and continue to build the team with the haul we received. 

[JetBlue]

Just now, Jetsfan4life90 said:

Except I don't see a situation where Trey Lance goes #2 overall. He would most likely would be there at #7.

Exactly. That is like us moving down and still landing Denzel.  If JD were to make such a move and snag Lance, he would get my vote for Jet GM Hall of Fame. 

[riggy001]

I don’t want Sam back under any circumstances. If you want Lance to sit for a yr, then sign Mullins, who actually knows the system.

[JetBlue]

2 minutes ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

This is a mistake on so many levels:

1) If the Jets trade down, no QB they want may be left on the board

2) Lance has virtually no college experience. History shows that lack of game experience in college is a predictor for failure as a QB in the NFL.  One year of college starts makes Lance a likely bust.

3) If he sits for a year, it delays the rebuild a year as well

 

Not true, the rebuild is actually accelerated because of all the premium picks we have acquired.  Whether it is Lance, Darnold or even Morgan we would have a much better overall team heading into 2023.   Lance has year of experience and played a level that rivaled Trevor Lawrence.  Sure he is raw but with the right coaching he could be a super star.  Again if no quarterback is on the board we roll with Darnold, which alot of the forum wants to do anyway.   Now you take Pitts or Smith at 7 and give him an elite weapon for the passing game. 

[JetBlue]

2 minutes ago, riggy001 said:

I don’t want Sam back under any circumstances. If you want Lance to sit for a yr, then sign Mullins, who actually knows the system.

Hey I am okay with that too. I am just laying out different scenarios.  Mullins or Beathard I would be fine with.  

[JetBlue]

27 minutes ago, prime21 said:

Any trade down for a QB is a gamble.  Someone can trade up to snatch a guy like Lance if Fields and Wilson are gone.

Yep do doubt about it is a gamble. 

[joewilly12]

Not a bad option BUT then we lose out on the top tier talent at QB,WR,RB,OL etc and take player that may not even ever start for us at QB while say DeVonta Smith or J'Marre Chase tears the NFL up. 

[FidelioJet]

5 minutes ago, Jetsfan4life90 said:

Except I don't see a situation where Trey Lance goes #2 overall. He would most likely would be there at #7.

And there you have it.  It's short sighted to mess around with the QB position.  You take your top rated QB as soon as you can take your top rated QB.

[the Claw]

I don’t get the love for this guy. He’s really athletic but I just don’t see a 1st round, let alone the 2nd or 7th pick. I’ve been wrong plenty of times when it comes to qbs, but I just don’t see it. 2nd or 3rd round I can see (I might be able to be talked into the end of the 1st), but I’d take Mac Jones before Lance, and I don’t even like Jones that much.

[HessStation]

49 minutes ago, JetBlue said:

I know there are no guarantees but if we could get the Lions to trade their 7th, and 21st along with other draft picks, for # 2, I would strongly consider doing it and drafting Trey Lance. The key is knowing he probably needs to sit for a year.  We could bring back Darnold and let them compete and then trade Darnold next year.  If Darnold show signs of becoming the player we thought he would be, we could always turn around and trade Lance.  Either way we would have our franchise quarterback and the capital to build around them.   If Lance is gone at 7, take Pitts or best available offensive player (Chase, Smith etc.) and roll with Sam for the year.   Either way you look at it, we can add some serious talent.  If Sam is not the answer, we will have Lance waiting in the wings and ready to take over by mid season or next.  

I don’t see Lance, Wilson or Fields as THAT different in potential, it’s going to be more dependent on which teams they go to....so yeah, I’d be cool with this. 

[Beerfish]

30 minutes ago, prime21 said:

Any trade down for a QB is a gamble.  Someone can trade up to snatch a guy like Lance if Fields and Wilson are gone.

Well you re not going to trade down if you love one of the QBs, you just take him.  However if you trade down and suddenly say I can't believe that guy fell that far.

The other thing this could set up is a trade down twice (which is what i have been doing in my mocks often)

[#27TheDominator]

In all honesty, this is kind of what I hope for - because from the limited amount I have seen with my untrained eye, I kind of like Lance the best.  OTOH, I agree with @ljr if they like Lance better than Wilson or Fields, then you take him at 2 and don't **** around.  The only reason to do this is if they are just unsure about the QBs and don't think any are worth 2, but if they're worth 7 they are worth 2.  .  

[HessStation]

2 minutes ago, the Claw said:

I don’t get the love for this guy. He’s really athletic but I just don’t see a 1st round, let alone the 2nd or 7th pick. I’ve been wrong plenty of times when it comes to qbs, but I just don’t see it. 2nd or 3rd round I can see (I might be able to be falked into the end of the 1st), but I’d take Mac Jones before Lance, and I don’t even like Jones that much.

Trey Lance + #21 + another 3rd or 4th round pick is just as good as Fields or Wilson at #2 for me..

[32EBoozer]

17 minutes ago, Jetsfan4life90 said:

Except I don't see a situation where Trey Lance goes #2 overall. He would most likely would be there at #7.

He may be there at #23 also..... just saying there is not a lot of tape on him. Remember when Rodgers and Mahoney fell down the board? If JD has Lance in the 2nd level of Qb’s like Trask and Jones you take them later.

[HessStation]

1 minute ago, #27TheDominator said:

In all honesty, this is kind of what I hope for - because from the limited amount I have seen with my untrained eye, I kind of like Lance the best.  OTOH, I agree with @ljr if they like Lance better than Wilson or Fields, then you take him at 2 and don't **** around.  The only reason to do this is if they are just unsure about the QBs and don't think any are worth 2, but if they're worth 7 they are worth 2.  .  

Yup. That’s sorta where I’m at too. You also make a good point that by the time the draft roles around they’ll have a favorite out of the three and regardless of who that is, it would take enormous balls to move down and hope their guy is still there....and you can’t play around like that for your supposed future franchise QB...you just take him when you know you have him at #2. Unless they really feel confident in multiple QBs but that’s not really how it works or is realistic. Their entire job is to have a ranking/pecking order going into it. Taking the second or third guy in your ranking to bank everyone’s careers on just doesn’t happen. 

[JetBlue]

5 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

In all honesty, this is kind of what I hope for - because from the limited amount I have seen with my untrained eye, I kind of like Lance the best.  OTOH, I agree with @ljr if they like Lance better than Wilson or Fields, then you take him at 2 and don't **** around.  The only reason to do this is if they are just unsure about the QBs and don't think any are worth 2, but if they're worth 7 they are worth 2.  .  

2 as a pick is worth a hell of a lot more than 7.  That would a straight McCaggnan move.  Unless you just could not make a deal, you trade back.    Yes I do agree if you like one that much more than the others you just take him but if all things are equal, plus you already have a 23 year old former 3rd pick of the draft at quarterback, there is no need to "reach" for one at 2.   We don't have to make moves out of desperation.  We need to be strategic about this. 

[FidelioJet]

43 minutes ago, JetBlue said:

I don't agree with this. I think Wilson or Lance and perhaps even Fields could become a top quarterback. I am not going to "fall in love" with any of them.  I will evaluate the board, see what deals might be on the table and weigh the risks of 1 of the 3 still being on the table.   If none are, we still have Darnold who could have bounce back year with better coaching and weapons around him.   Now after working out each qb if you really do feel that he is head and shoulders above the others then fine, take him at two.  

Otherwise no need to freak out, just stay cool and play the board as it comes. We are in the drivers seat here.  I mean if we end up with 3 number one picks this year and have to bring back Darnold, and still have additional picks added for this year and next year, that is still a win win.  We take Pitts at 7 and continue to build the team with the haul we received. 

Darnold will be gone before the draft or they're not taking a QB.  There's no middle ground there. The last thing the Jets need right now is a QB controversy.  

You take the QB you like the most at 2 and don't look back.  It really isn't complicated.  It's the smart, logical move.

[Skeet Ulrich]

I think there's a non-zero percentage that Lance is the best QB in the draft 5 years from now.

I do not think he reaches that potential with the Jets.