Jump to content

DESHAUN OFFICIALLY REQUESTS TRADE BABY


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

I think it's more the idea that the Jets have a tremendous amount of draft capital for the next two years and it is probably their greatest opportunity to build a complete team on the cheap. Which they've never done. Those people have a point. 

On the other hand, the Jets are dumb and draft like sh*t. The above scenario is built on they assumption that that they'll get everything right on those picks. Which they have never done. People who point that aspect out also have a point. 

I have a point on my head

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just for me personally, I think we should build up the OL and give Sweet Sammy another shot, we can always trade for a 25-year-old top-5 QB a year from now. JMO

MAKE EET HAPPEN JOE DOUGLAS AND STUFF @Matt39 INTO A LOCKER

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

I think it's more the idea that the Jets have a tremendous amount of draft capital for the next two years and it is probably their greatest opportunity to build a complete team on the cheap. Which they've never done. Those people have a point. 

On the other hand, the Jets are dumb and draft like sh*t. The above scenario is built on they assumption that that they'll get everything right on those picks. Which they have never done. People who point that aspect out also have a point. 

If we are dumb as sh*t and continue to draft like sh*t, it won’t matter either way. At some point no matter how you slice it, you need to draft well. Get Watson and draft sh*tty, we have seen he can go 4-12 with a bad team, in a worse division than we are in

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

If this is mahomes or Rodgers In his prime you trade four firsts. Watson isn’t in the stratosphere of those two, let alone Brady.

Eh, based on what metric? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

If this is mahomes or Rodgers In his prime you trade four firsts. Watson isn’t in the stratosphere of those two, let alone Brady.

When A-A-Ron was 25 he was.. 28:13 TD INT, RTG 93.8, 63 COMP%, and 1 4k season.

Watson 33:7, RTG 112, 70.2 COMP%, with 2 4k seasons and 1 3800. 

 

25 to 25.. Watson is better. So why go out on that limb for A-A-Ron at 25 but not Watson? 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pointman said:

When A-A-Ron was 25 he was.. 28:13 TD INT, RTG 93.8, 63 COMP%, and 1 4k season.

Watson 33:7, RTG 112, 70.2 COMP%, with 2 4k seasons and 1 3800. 

 

25 to 25.. Watson is better. So why go out on that limb for A-A-Ron at 25 but not Watson? 

To the best of my knowledge, Rodgers did not have two torn ACLs at this age, and was not undersized with an average arm. People realize we play in the east coast in December right? Not in the south and in domes and great weather.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Flea Flicking Frank said:

I don’t have a metric, I watch every game, and that is my opinion. Watson is good, those guys are great.

Watson is also only 25 and hasn't entered his prime to date.  Those opposed to Watson are prone to assume that the QB he is now will be the QB he'll always be.  He's only going to get better, and easily end up on the level of those great QB's you list.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

To the best of my knowledge, Rodgers did not have two torn ACLs at this age, and was not undersized with an average arm. People realize we play in the east coast in December right? Not in the south and in domes and great weather.

Oh ok then.  I guess you should let the 15 or so other teams interested in Watson know about all these red flags then.  They need to know what a flawed product they're getting!

Then, please proceed to let us know when a 25-year old Aaron Rodgers comes available.  Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Watson is also only 25 and hasn't entered his prime to date.  Those opposed to Watson are prone to assume that the QB he is now will be the QB he'll always be.  He's only going to get better, and easily end up on the level of those great QB's you list.

Oh, he will easily end up as good as mahomes and Rodgers? Why didn’t you just say so. Now I’m convinced. Thanks 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Oh ok then.  I guess you should let the 15 or so other teams interested in Watson know about all these red flags then.  They need to know what a flawed product they're getting!

Then, please proceed to let us know when a 25-year old Aaron Rodgers comes available.  Thanks.

I am not waiting around for a 25 year old Rodgers. I’m drafting fields....

as for the other teams, let them make a 4 first round draft pick blunder

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

Oh, he will easily end up as good as mahomes and Rodgers? Why didn’t you just say so. Now I’m convinced. Thanks 

I said "could easily" and yes, he could.  Even if he doesn't, he'll still be a top 5 QB throughout his career.  Not good enough for you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

I am not waiting around for a 25 year old Rodgers. I’m drafting fields....

as for the other teams, let them make a 4 first round draft pick blunder

50+ % bust rate on QB's.  Good luck with that.  And by the way, Fields is my # 2 choice after Watson as well.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, derp said:

I absolutely understand what you’re saying and I also think the mock draft simulators are the worst thing that’s happened to fan expectations, especially for a fan base that already wants to trade down annually, in a long time.

I do wonder if Watson gets traded this offseason but post draft. We’ve seen it recently with Adams. If the Texans are stubborn I’d love to see Douglas add to his already advantageous 2022 draft capital position. Maybe Detroit beats the Jets out if they’re terrible but it’s a really good spot right now he can make better and still add to the team. Not absurd for the Jets to have three ones next year and have added a really good player this draft. Potentially better if they deal Darnold.

I just think that’s a massive game of chicken, though. Watson is doing everything he can to shoot his way out of town ASAP and everyone is going to come a-running once Caserio accepts that fate. I don’t think Douglas can afford to **** around with this because the alternatives are long shots to the extreme

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

I mean, let’s ignore all the hypotheticals of two additional drafts + free agency periods and go broke on an A/B question..

What are the intermediate possibilities between A and B that I’m missing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

+1 It’s such a unicorn situation that I feel like the detractors are treating it as trading the 2 for, like, Jay Cutler. Watson is a set-in-stone elite 25 year old QB coming free at a time when the Jets were outright gifted two extra ones for Jamal. That there’s anyone even remotely against the effort to trade for him is insane, imo. It’s Zack Wilson, Alex Leatherwood, and the 18th overall in 2022? Fuuuuck that

Your post makes NO sense. That is nothing close to the situation.

Lets say it is 3 1s which most people here seem to think is low

Wilson would make about $8M a year

So if we get Watson we LOSE the folliwing:

3 #1s including the 2nd pick which is worth three first rounders itself. But just taking them as just ones that have about 50% chance to be a strong starter or higher. So 1or 2

Watson's cap is not much this year, but it is $40 million in 2022 so we have $32 million less in cap. That is a HUGE amount of money. That is like 4 to 6 well above average players, or even a couple of the day one guys.

So with Watson by year 2 we have Watson but somewhere between 4 and 8 starters some of whom are likely pro bowl level NOT on the team. That's like 25% less talent on the team.

If we draft Wilson, even if he is bad we probably win more games without Watson than with him because we will have a better overall team.

We are better off taking Wilson and building a team. 

There is HUGE amount of precedent for having a QB playing under the rookie contract because of the above reason as almost the secret to getting to the SB,

Since 2012 every year but two has had at least one starting QB  in the SB that was on his rookie contract or was a team with a QB on their roster but not playing due to injury

011 XLVI Eli ManningMVP New York GiantsN Tom Bradydagger New England PatriotsA
2012 XLVII Joe FlaccodaggerMVP Baltimore RavensA Colin Kaepernick San Francisco 49ersN
2013 XLVIII Russell Wilsondagger Seattle SeahawksN Peyton Manning* Denver BroncosA
2014 XLIX Tom BradydaggerMVP New England PatriotsA Russell Wilsondagger Seattle SeahawksN
2015 50 Peyton Manning* Denver BroncosA Cam Newtondagger Carolina PanthersN
2016 LI Tom BradydaggerMVP New England PatriotsA Matt Ryandagger Atlanta FalconsN
2017 LII Nick FolesdaggerMVP Philadelphia EaglesN Tom Bradydagger New England PatriotsA
2018 LIII Tom Bradydagger New England PatriotsA Jared Goffdagger Los Angeles RamsN
2019 LIV Patrick MahomesdaggerMVP Kansas City ChiefsA Jimmy Garoppolodagger San Francisco 49ersN
2020 LV Tom BradydaggerMVP Tampa Bay BuccaneersN Patrick Mahomesdagger Kansas City ChiefsA

2011 Saw Manning and Brady:

Let's keep in mind Brady played in 5 of the 9 games (a QB, who by the way always was below market value)

2012 - Flacco and Kapenick

2013   Wilson

2014 Wilson

2015 NONE

2016 NONE

2017 Wentz (Foles playing as backup)

2018 Goff

2019 Mahomes

2020 Mahomes (yes still in rookie deal he signed a 10 year extension, even his firth year is on rookie deal.

So of the 13 teams that made the SB excluding Brady 8/13 teams had a QB on rookie contract who were able to build better teams aroud him.

Trading for Watson is the worst of the moves we can make. It is far more insidious and damaging than it appears if you only view the trade on the surface.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, johnnysd said:

1s including the 2nd pick which is worth three first rounders itself. But just taking them as just ones that have about 50% chance to be a strong starter or higher. So 1or 2

Before we continue, please explain what you mean by every clause in this paragraph

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

If we draft Wilson, even if he is bad we probably win more games without Watson than with him because we will have a better overall team.

Point to me the “good overall team” that was competitive without a QB. The Cowboys, perhaps? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

What are the intermediate possibilities between A and B that I’m missing?

Seriously?

Option A -take QB at 2

Option B - take a non QB player at 2, draft QB at 23 or move up sligtly for a QB like Lance or Jones

Option C- take a non QB player at 2, stick with SAM

Option D - tread down, select mid round guy again and have even more picks to build a team

Option E - trade down, do not take a QB stick with SAM

Option F - trade the future for Watson

So like 4 possibilities in between A and B. Interestingly both the A and the F option also match the letter grades for that particular move.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

Before we continue, please explain what you mean by every clause in this paragraph

Viewing all #1s as equal (which is incorrect but good for this exercise) is we draft 3 #1 picks we are likely to get 1 or 2 (1.5 at 50% chance) really good players.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

Seriously?

Option A -take QB at 2

Option B - take a non QB player at 2, draft QB at 23 or move up sligtly for a QB like Lance or Jones

Option C- take a non QB player at 2, stick with SAM

Option D - tread down, select mid round guy again and have even more picks to build a team

Option E - trade down, do not take a QB stick with SAM

Option F - trade the future for Watson

So like 4 possibilities in between A and B. Interestingly both the A and the F option also match the letter grades for that particular move.

 

 

So, like, in every other option, you’re gambling that you can end up, at some indeterminate point in the future, with an elite QB.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

Point to me the “good overall team” that was competitive without a QB. The Cowboys, perhaps? 

The Rex Ryan Jets teams for one. Even this year Chargers were competitve if you look into their games with Herbert.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, johnnysd said:

Viewing all #1s as equal (which is incorrect but good for this exercise) is we draft 3 #1 picks we are likely to get 1 or 2 (1.5 at 50% chance) really good players.

You can have eight “really good players” and it doesn’t mean anything if the QB isn’t elite. This is the history. This is the rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, johnnysd said:

The Rex Ryan Jets teams for one. Even this year Chargers were competitve if you look into their games with Herbert.

Herbert was an elite QB, and the Ryan Jets won nothing. Also, Sanchez put up QB ratings of 90+ in the playoffs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, T0mShane said:

So, like, in every other option, you’re gambling that you can end up, at some indeterminate point in the future, with an elite QB.

No guarantees but not all successful QBs are taken at #2, and if you have a much stronger team overall you can be very competitive- look at Goff, or even Wentz for that matter, their teams were so strong that it made all of them look much better than they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, johnnysd said:

No guarantees but not all successful QBs are taken at #2, and if you have a much stronger team overall you can be very competitive- look at Goff, or even Wentz for that matter, their teams were so strong that it made all of them look much better than they are.

Or, the Rams and Eagles are actually pretty bad teams and even mediocre QBs like Goff and Wentz elevated them, ultimately collapsing when those QBs played poorly

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

You can have eight “really good players” and it doesn’t mean anything if the QB isn’t elite. This is the history. This is the rule.

If the QB is good and you have a good team, you will do better than a bad team with a great QB. And I don’t even think Watson is great. He’s good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

If the QB is good and you have a good team, you will do better than a bad team with a great QB. And I don’t even think Watson is great. He’s good.

List your top ten QBs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...