Jump to content

To be clear; 0% chance Jets trade OUT of #2 and still take a QB


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I understand this is a pompous position to take but I’m seeing some of you pull the Charlie Day gif here with trades back and taking Lance, or whomever etc.  that will never happen. If you love a

If I had to guess what Joe Douglas dreams about at night, it’s trading back to 8, drafting Slater, and Darnold magically becoming good behind a good OL

In fairness, Douglas comes from the school of thought that did just what you mention in 2008 when he was a Ravens scout. Baltimore liked Flacco plenty but not way up at #8, because they felt no o

Posted Images

This is my feeling. You either believe in a guy there and take him(for me its Wilson) or you're trading for picks to somebody who does. Not much middle ground. If you see a franchise QB you take him, if not you trade it to somebody who does

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

I understand this is a pompous position to take but I’m seeing some of you pull the Charlie Day gif here with trades back and taking Lance, or whomever etc. 

that will never happen. If you love a QB you don’t fck around. Joe doesn’t love Lance at 8. He either loves him at #2 or not at all. There is no cake and eat it too scenario. 

Trade back means Darnold and playmakers.  Pick your side of the Fence. 

This.

If you see a QB any QB as your franchise QB, you don't risk losing him by getting cute.  There are no 2 QBs that you love 1A and 1B and you'd be happy with either.  That's just not real.

And even if it were real, you don't let anyone take your prefered 1A QB and settle for your 1B QB for extra picks.  That's a weak mentality. And it's just too important.

Not saying I love Lance but if the FO sees something in him and they take him at 2, I'll be happy.  Same with Wilson and Fields. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sec101row23 said:

Agreed.  Its only the fantasy football people who come up with this stuff.  A real NFL GM doesn’t mess around if he really likes QB.  

Look, I don't love Daniel Jones but the Giants took a stand and went with it.  Could they have used pick 17 to take him or traded back a bit and gotten him at 10 or 12 or whatever? Sure, but they decided, rightly or wrongly, that he was their guy.

Gotta have conviction about your QB.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Paradis said:

I understand this is a pompous position to take but I’m seeing some of you pull the Charlie Day gif here with trades back and taking Lance, or whomever etc. 

that will never happen. If you love a QB you don’t fck around. Joe doesn’t love Lance at 8. He either loves him at #2 or not at all. There is no cake and eat it too scenario. 

Trade back means Darnold and playmakers.  Pick your side of the Fence. 

Totally agree.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, there is always a point that value meets pick # and if it is the case with a position player why not a QB.

I know history suggests what Paradis is saying is true but why should it be?

The ideal thing if this is the case is to trade down twice.

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

If I had to guess what Joe Douglas dreams about at night, it’s trading back to 8, drafting Slater, and Darnold magically becoming good behind a good OL

Works for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Paradis said:

I understand this is a pompous position to take but I’m seeing some of you pull the Charlie Day gif here with trades back and taking Lance, or whomever etc. 

that will never happen. If you love a QB you don’t fck around. Joe doesn’t love Lance at 8. He either loves him at #2 or not at all. There is no cake and eat it too scenario. 

Trade back means Darnold and playmakers.  Pick your side of the Fence. 

People are just lying to themselves to satisfy their own wants.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

I disagree, there is always a point that value meets pick # and if it is the case with a position player why not a QB.

I know history suggests what Paradis is saying is true but why should it be?

The ideal thing if this is the case is to trade down twice.

Maybe in some very specific scenario where Stafford or some aging veteran is your QB and you find yourself unexpectedly staring down the QB you traded out of - maybe. Big maybe. 

not a chance in hell in our situation. You’re either in or you’re out. Committed to Injecting playmakers and pieces In the offense on the Darnold 4th year contract - or you’re sold on the future signal caller. You wouldn’t second guess your position/plan on that topic at #8 or #12

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Paradis said:

I understand this is a pompous position to take but I’m seeing some of you pull the Charlie Day gif here with trades back and taking Lance, or whomever etc. 

that will never happen. If you love a QB you don’t fck around. Joe doesn’t love Lance at 8. He either loves him at #2 or not at all. There is no cake and eat it too scenario. 

Trade back means Darnold and playmakers.  Pick your side of the Fence. 

 

14 minutes ago, sec101row23 said:

Agreed.  Its only the fantasy football people who come up with this stuff.  A real NFL GM doesn’t mess around if he really likes QB.  

Devils Advocate: Baltimore did it with Flacco. And Lamar Jackson too (kinda)

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like all of the options are acceptable to me.  Whether we keep Sam, trade him and draft Wilson at 2, or trade for DWat.  Its the first time I had the feeling in the 40 years of being a Jet Fan.  My preference is to draft a QB and trade Sam, hope the best for him and his career.  But if we keep Sam it will be fun to see what we acquire through our boatload of picks to improve this football team.

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

 

Devils Advocate: Baltimore did it with Flacco. And Lamar Jackson too (kinda)

Stability at the position and roster as I intimated played a role. Far from the norm. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd have to like three QB's fairly equally to trade down to number 8. 

Which would be errily similar to that one time we liked three QBs fairly equally and traded up to number 3, only for the two other guys we didn't like to be the only ones that were actually good. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

I disagree, there is always a point that value meets pick # and if it is the case with a position player why not a QB.

I know history suggests what Paradis is saying is true but why should it be?

The ideal thing if this is the case is to trade down twice.

If we trade down I hope we trade down twice.  To 4 then to 8. Taking Pitts nd then I'm rolling with Sam. Using the exta pics on C, G, WR TE WR RT RB RB.  CB or Edge at 23, whichever doesn't get solved in FA. I want offense.  

I'm not taking Mac Jones mid late 1st or Kyle Trask in round 3 hoping he's a franchise QB.

And please, no more 4th round flyers on this year's Morgan.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, nycdan said:

I once really liked two girls.  I dated both until one found out and dumped me.  I was fine continuing on with the other.  Isn't that something like trading down and taking whichever one falls to you?  The time I had dating both was kind of equivalent to the extra draft picks.

Poor game management has nothing to do with who the two girls are.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you’ve been around the NFL long enough you’ve seen QBs come and go. They’re vital but they’re just people and there’s always options. Do you want to start the clock on the rookie contract in 2021 with a roster missing a lot of pieces? Does make more sense to start that clock next year with a better roster that can support what you’re going to ask if your rookie QB?

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

If you’ve been around the NFL long enough you’ve seen QBs come and go. They’re vital but they’re just people and there’s always options. Do you want to start the clock on the rookie contract in 2021 with a roster missing a lot of pieces? Does make more sense to start that clock next year with a better roster that can support what you’re going to ask if your rookie QB?

If I squint hard enough at this, I'll agree and then go to church every day and pray Sam becomes the QB some of us thought he'd be.  

That would be the ultimate success story.  

But a flashy new young QB throwing the ball around the sandlot would be pretty entertaining.  

Honestly, I could go either way.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jets Voice of Reason said:

I'd also add on that take a qb at #2 and keeping Sam for a "bridge" year is also not really realistic as some people want to make the argument for.

Not realistic and a waste of capital.  If you are commiting to QB at 2, trade Sam for the best offer and fill another spot (or spots) on the roster.  

This whole "well if Sam turns out to be great we've got a massive draft chip next year" is BS.  

If you have 2 QBs you don't have any QBs.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we luck out and be like Parcells and sigh a veteran like Bridgewater and then trade down for more picks and then grab Lance. Kind of Vinny/Chad situation where the rook sits for a year or even two ,if Teddy or whoever plays well.
Which BTW also gives Morgan more time to grow into the position and possibly have two young starters in two years.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Paradis said:

I understand this is a pompous position to take but I’m seeing some of you pull the Charlie Day gif here with trades back and taking Lance, or whomever etc. 

that will never happen. If you love a QB you don’t fck around. Joe doesn’t love Lance at 8. He either loves him at #2 or not at all. There is no cake and eat it too scenario. 

Trade back means Darnold and playmakers.  Pick your side of the Fence. 

AMEN!!

 

Role with Same and add some play makers

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, nycdan said:

I once really liked two girls.  I dated both until one found out and dumped me.  I was fine continuing on with the other.  Isn't that something like trading down and taking whichever one falls to you?  The time I had dating both was kind of equivalent to the extra draft picks.

But what if the one that dumped you was the ONE?  Married, best friends, lifetime soulmates, traveled the world, raised a family.

Chick 1B , was fine but not the ONE. 

You let the ONE get away because of ambivalence.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

Not realistic and a waste of capital.  If you are commiting to QB at 2, trade Sam for the best offer and fill another spot (or spots) on the roster.  

This whole "well if Sam turns out to be great we've got a massive draft chip next year" is BS.  

If you have 2 QBs you don't have any QBs.  

PHI once had 2 QBs.  One got hurt.  The other won the SB.

Just sayin...

  • Upvote 1
  • Post of the Week 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Peace Frog said:

If I squint hard enough at this, I'll agree and then go to church every day and pray Sam becomes the QB some of us thought he'd be.  

That would be the ultimate success story.  

But a flashy new young QB throwing the ball around the sandlot would be pretty entertaining.  

Honestly, I could go either way.  

It depends right. Sam is Sam but you don’t want to let your frustration with him inflate your assessment of Wilson/Fields or your feelings on what’s best for the rest of the roster. 

I could get behind Fields at #2, but there’s also something mature/hard way but the right way vibe about trading back (when you can while you can) and plugging holes. 

based on the Wilson hype you could be looking at a Ricky Williams haul. Car calls and offers 2022 & 2023 1st round picks on addition to 2nd round this year, 4th rounder and 3rd next year 

Me—

F71D14DA-698A-490D-85E5-BE9F885C5FC2.gif.b655bd09a634fb0ba4d8389a05f1d07e.gif

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Peace Frog said:

But what if the one that dumped you was the ONE?  Married, best friends, lifetime soulmates, traveled the world, raised a family.

Chick 1B , was fine but not the ONE. 

You let the ONE get away because of ambivalence.  

 

I was young.  They were both on rookie deals.  Ultimately neither was probably a Franchise GF so maybe the analogy breaks down a bit.

But it was therapeutic to dredge that back up.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fltflo said:

Can we luck out and be like Parcells and sigh a veteran like Bridgewater and then trade down for more picks and then grab Lance. Kind of Vinny/Chad situation where the rook sits for a year or even two ,if Teddy or whoever plays well.
Which BTW also gives Morgan more time to grow into the position and possibly have two young starters in two years.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

Luck is not a strategy.

If you love Lance and you trade down to 8 hoping he's there and he goes at 4 or someone trades up to 5-6-7 and he's gone there, you've lost out on the guy you thought was your franchise QB.

I'm not sure Lance is 2nd pick worthy but if the FO does, they better damn well draft him at 2.

  • Upvote 1
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...