Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jdub03 said:

So your saying if the above happens and Fields is there at 8 you wouldn't take him?  I get that if he's your guy just take him at 2, but if this were to happen I'd change plans and draft Fields at 8.

I'd probably curse the gods for putting that decision on my plate... lol. i can't imagine it happening, but if it did... I would probably pass and see if i could trade out again... because if i have enough cautious-concern to pass on fields at #2 then I'm (like i said) committing to another path... If he was good enough to pull the trigger at 8, he's good enough to pull the trigger at 2

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

5 minutes ago, Paradis said:

 because if i have enough cautious-concern to pass on fields at #2 then I'm (like i said) committing to another path... If he was good enough to pull the trigger at 8, he's good enough to pull the trigger at 2

Scan the board.  I already said this.  

Geez you're cluttering up your own thread.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

😆

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

I'd probably curse the gods for putting that decision on my plate... lol. i can't imagine it happening, but if it did... I would probably pass and see if i could trade out again... because if i have enough cautious-concern to pass on fields at #2 then I'm (like i said) committing to another path... If he was good enough to pull the trigger at 8, he's good enough to pull the trigger at 2

Totally agree with this ... if you want Wilson .. take him at 2 ... unless you value Wilson and FIelds the same then you are hedging your bets trading down a couple spots.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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. 

every single thing ive heard would confirm this.  It's QB at 2 or trade down for playmakers. nothing else

Link to post
Share on other sites
It’s kind of amusing to watch a bunch of dudes who were screaming about Adam Gase being the worst coach ever snap back to saying that Sam Darnold is garbage and the team is too untalented to even dare trading a few picks for Deshaun Watson. If Darnold is irredeemable and the roster is that pathetic, then what was Gase supposed to do?

My point exactly. I want deshaun but not give up the farm. If not I’d roll with Sam and all the xtras we get


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nycdan said:

But...let's say you would pick Wilson at #2 if you had to choose.  But you believe (based on whatever intel you have) that you could drop to #4 and get Fields while picking up a 2nd rounder this year and another 1st next year. 

You can feel free to reverse the names of Wilson and Fields in that scenario.

The question is, knowing there's a certain amount of crapshoot and they are both really good prospects, would you rather take the leftover with the extra picks.  If you a) believe they are close in value, and b) believe you will get one at #4, then that really is a very rational option to consider.

I'm a Fields guy, but I would be fine with a move to #4 that netted the picks plus Wilson.

Way too many ifs in that scenario. Personally I highly doubt the Jets will rate Fields anywhere near to Wilson despite feeling that Douglas will prefer him in some ways. But lets do your scenario: We trade to Atlanta who takes Fields. Either Miami decides to do a Kyler Murray or they trade the pick and Wilson gets picked out 3. He will not make it past there IMO. It could be possible maybe if they rank Fields higher but not the other way. Unless they want Jones I just do not see them trading out and getting cute.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Charlie Brown said:

Your right!!!

The fallacy of @Paradis' argument is that he is assuming you either have a QB graded No.1 or not at all!

WRONG!!!!

Think what if you have a QB properly and rightly graded at No.23? 

Do you reach up and draft him because you have a need even if you don't believe the value is NOT there? Of course not!

You draft people according to where you value them and because of need..

In the instant case, what if the Jets believe that Wilson, Fields or Trey Lance is the good pick at best pick at 8 or 10 and all of he above might fit your system and you are confident taht you will let them sit and not rush them.  Under this scenario you might bee willing to drop down and take any one of the three!

This is precisely what Maccagnan did when he traded with the Colts.  No way could he know that Darnold was going to be passed over for Baker Mayfield.  The only way that trade makes a lick of sense based on what we know is that Mac had to say to himself I will be happy with Mayfied, Darnold or Rosen as the pick.

 

Sure but that's because he didn't have the option of picking at 2.

If Mac had the 2 pick - he wouldn't have traded to 4 because he liked all three the same.  He would have taken his guy at 2.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Charlie Brown said:

Your right!!!

The fallacy of @Paradis' argument is that he is assuming you either have a QB graded No.1 or not at all!

WRONG!!!!

Think what if you have a QB properly and rightly graded at No.23? 

Do you reach up and draft him because you have a need even if you don't believe the value is NOT there? Of course not!

You draft people according to where you value them and because of need..

In the instant case, what if the Jets believe that Wilson, Fields or Trey Lance is the good pick at best pick at 8 or 10 and all of he above might fit your system and you are confident taht you will let them sit and not rush them.  Under this scenario you might bee willing to drop down and take any one of the three!

This is precisely what Maccagnan did when he traded with the Colts.  No way could he know that Darnold was going to be passed over for Baker Mayfield.  The only way that trade makes a lick of sense based on what we know is that Mac had to say to himself I will be happy with Mayfied, Darnold or Rosen as the pick.

 

Who has a franchise QB graded at 23?

If you think your franchise QB is available at 23 you better trade up to 15.  Or 10. Or 8. Or stay at 2. 

If you have afranchise QB graded at 23 there are teams out there that have him graded similarly or higher.

You can NOT get cute at this position and "hope" to "luck out".

  • Upvote 1
  • Confused 1
  • Post of the Week 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

Sure but that's because he didn't have the option of picking at 2.

If Mac had the 2 pick - he wouldn't have traded to 4 because he liked all three the same.  He would have taken his guy at 2.

This.

Take your guy.

Don't leave it to chance.

Don't hope a Gettleman drafts a RB at 2.

 

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

Who has a franchise QB graded at 23?

If you think your franchise QB is available at 23 you better trade up to 15.  Or 10. Or 8. Or stay at 2. 

If you have afranchise QB graded at 23 there are teams out there that have him graded similarly or higher.

You can NOT get cute at this position and "hope" to "luck out".

Exactly you take a chance in trading down. 

If JD likes a QB draft him with the #2 no matter who it is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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. 

BS. Joe can love a QB anywhere in the draft and taking said QB at the top of the draft could be a complete waste of draft capitol. What a bunch of nonsense.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Peace Frog said:

If you didn't like him at 2, whey would you like him at 8?

He's either the franchise QB or he's not.

I don't want my GM sitting there dumbfounded at 8 saying "holy crap, never saw this happening!!

What I'm saying is if he thinks the value of a trade down + Sam is greater than JF at 2, that doesn't mean he doesn't like JF. He may have a similar grade on JF and Sam, and now that he's acquired more picks he has the option to reevaluate the situation.  I agree, if you like him at eight grab him at 2, but I can also see JD planning to run it back with Sam, and if one of the QBs he likes is around after the trade down, grabbing him.

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

I'd probably curse the gods for putting that decision on my plate... lol. i can't imagine it happening, but if it did... I would probably pass and see if i could trade out again... because if i have enough cautious-concern to pass on fields at #2 then I'm (like i said) committing to another path... If he was good enough to pull the trigger at 8, he's good enough to pull the trigger at 2

Trade out again, unless Pitts is there, rightl. I'm pretty sure your running to the podium if that played out, lol.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Peace Frog said:

Who has a franchise QB graded at 23?

If you think your franchise QB is available at 23 you better trade up to 15.  Or 10. Or 8. Or stay at 2. 

If you have afranchise QB graded at 23 there are teams out there that have him graded similarly or higher.

You can NOT get cute at this position and "hope" to "luck out".

Ummmmmm what I provided was a  hypothetical situation.  No one on this board knows who or what the Jets board have on it. 

People are making assumptions about what they think the Jets are doing.  

No one knows.... so to argue that Jets must do what we assume is just silly to me. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Charlie Brown said:

Your right!!!

The fallacy of @Paradis' argument is that he is assuming you either have a QB graded No.1 or not at all!

WRONG!!!!

Think what if you have a QB properly and rightly graded at No.23? 

Do you reach up and draft him because you have a need even if you don't believe the value is NOT there? Of course not!

You draft people according to where you value them and because of need..

In the instant case, what if the Jets believe that Wilson, Fields or Trey Lance is the good pick at best pick at 8 or 10 and all of he above might fit your system and you are confident taht you will let them sit and not rush them.  Under this scenario you might bee willing to drop down and take any one of the three!

This is precisely what Maccagnan did when he traded with the Colts.  No way could he know that Darnold was going to be passed over for Baker Mayfield.  The only way that trade makes a lick of sense based on what we know is that Mac had to say to himself I will be happy with Mayfied, Darnold or Rosen as the pick.

 

Quarterback is a completely different animal. You will always “overdraft” a quarterback because of the nature of the position and supply/demand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, NYJ1 said:

BS. Joe can love a QB anywhere in the draft and taking said QB at the top of the draft could be a complete waste of draft capitol. What a bunch of nonsense.

Totally. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jdub03 said:

Trade out again, unless Pitts is there, rightl. I'm pretty sure your running to the podium if that played out, lol.

Lol man... the gods will never favour me enough to see that day. I’m sure we all feel that way in some measure. 

“why I can’t we have nice things”

-every Jets Fan. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours 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

Trading out of 2 would give us....8, 23, 34, 51, and probably another day 2 pick or two. Maybe more.

 

You could build a pretty damn good team around almost anyone that way.

 

Is Sam average enough to be a top 20 QB surrounded by a sh*t ton of talent? Don't know.

 

But having a top 3 Oline, real, actual talented WRs, a coherent offense, and a Defense that could actually generate pressure would be....interesting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Charlie Brown said:

Ummmmmm what I provided was a  hypothetical  situation.  No one on this board knows who or what the Jets board have on it. 

People are making assumptions about what they think the Jets are doing.  

No one knows.... so to argue that Jets must do what we assume is just silly to me. 

That’s hypocritical. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NYJ1 said:

BS. Joe can love a QB anywhere in the draft and taking said QB at the top of the draft could be a complete waste of draft capitol. What a bunch of nonsense.

Good plan. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jet_Engine1 said:

Trading out of 2 would give us....8, 23, 34, 51, and probably another day 2 pick or two. Maybe more.

 

You could build a pretty damn good team around almost anyone that way.

 

Is Sam average enough to be a top 20 QB surrounded by a sh*t ton of talent? Don't know.

 

But having a top 3 Oline, real, actual talented WRs, a coherent offense, and a Defense that could actually generate pressure would be....interesting. 

He’s more than average. We could win with him. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be clear to just about everyone that Zach Wilson will most likely be the Jets QB within 8 weeks.

The Jets are taking Wilson at #2 and trading Darnold to the highest bidder. Period.

There’s an outside shot that they take Fields over Wilson, but that’s really the only other alternative. The Jets hanging onto Darnold and trading down from #2 is far less likely IMO.

With that said, hopefully the Jets can package Darnold and #23 to San Fran for #12.

Wilson + Slater + Etienne/Moore/Toney in the Top 35 would be an amazing start to the first two rounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Jet_Engine1 said:

Trading out of 2 would give us....8, 23, 34, 51, and probably another day 2 pick or two. Maybe more.

#2 pick should get us a "sure thing" player i'm staying at #2 with the way this team drafts. 

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

It should be clear to just about everyone that Zach Wilson will most likely be the Jets QB within 8 weeks.

The Jets are taking Wilson at #2 and trading Darnold to the highest bidder. Period.

There’s an outside shot that they take Fields over Wilson, but that’s really the only other alternative. The Jets hanging onto Darnold and trading down from #2 is far less likely IMO.

With that said, hopefully the Jets can package Darnold and #23 to San Fran for #12.

Wilson + Slater + Etienne/Moore/Toney would be an amazing start to the first two rounds.

Wilson Toney and a top interior lineman and I’d be ecstatic. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours 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?

I totally agree with this.  But, it seems, there are two pretty passionate factions here - ones who think that GMs should and do think in a binary way that a player is either a franchise QB or not, and those who think that QBs can be anywhere on the value spectrum and should be drafted accordingly.  Count me in the latter category.

I think it's possible (but not definite) that Joe D. believes Darnold, Z. Wilson, and perhaps Fields or another rookie QB all have the potential to be franchise QBs.  If that's true, he believes that the Jets already have a franchise QB in their pocket and Wilson, Fields, etc., are just alternate franchise QB options that would have more years left on their rookie contract.  Then it all becomes a value proposition, and maybe Fields (for example) at 2 is not more valuable than Sam, but Fields at 8 with a few extra draft picks would be.

We'll probably never get a real answer to this, but I would love to hear the opinion of Joe D. and other GMs on this question.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am with Paradis on this one.  If I am taking a QB in the first round, I am taking him with the expectation that he can be a franchise QB who can lead my team for the next decade.  If I have one of these guys graded that high, then I am taking him at 2.  I am not screwing around, trading back, trying to get cute.  I am taking my QB at 2.  If I don't think a guy has the potential to be a top half of the league franchise QB, then I am not using a first rounder on him. 

Just my opinion, but to me, either take a QB at 2,or pass on the top QBs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Untouchable said:

It should be clear to just about everyone that Zach Wilson will most likely be the Jets QB within 8 weeks.

The Jets are taking Wilson at #2 and trading Darnold to the highest bidder. Period.

There’s an outside shot that they take Fields over Wilson, but that’s really the only other alternative. The Jets hanging onto Darnold and trading down from #2 is far less likely IMO.

With that said, hopefully the Jets can package Darnold and #23 to San Fran for #12.

Wilson + Slater + Etienne/Moore/Toney in the Top 35 would be an amazing start to the first two rounds.

Thank you Nostradamus....

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, K_O_Brien said:

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. 

4

if we trade to 8 Carolina will take 1

Mia trades to Houston for Watson or to another team and theres 2

good posibilty Atlanta picks one at 4 or trades to someone who does want one.

Denver and maybe Philly could trade up to get QBs or Philly can sit at 6 and take one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i bet if JD had to do it again he would have forced Gase to bench half the team to lose for Trevor.

keep Sam, ...Trade for Watson,.. Draft a QB.... the Jets winning 2 meaningless games made his job 10,000 times harder. if he gets the QB wrong he will never be a GM again

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you love one guy you take him for sure.

But that does not mean you hate all of the QBs if you trade down or it shouldn't.

If you trade down and look and at 8 Fields is there then do you by pass on him even if he is the top rated 'player' on your board?

I think that things are changing the way we look at QBs

  • Post of the Week 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mfmartin said:

Quarterback is a completely different animal. You will always “overdraft” a quarterback because of the nature of the position and supply/demand.

Hmmmmm it is thinking like this that got us Mark Sanchez, Geno Smith, Hackenberg and now Darnold. 
 

A Great QB is a big difference from a middling QB.   This is a world of difference and folks who don’t know the difference end up with QBs like those above and then not knowing what to do with them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MykePM said:

I totally agree with this.  But, it seems, there are two pretty passionate factions here - ones who think that GMs should and do think in a binary way that a player is either a franchise QB or not, and those who think that QBs can be anywhere on the value spectrum and should be drafted accordingly.  Count me in the latter category.

I think it's possible (but not definite) that Joe D. believes Darnold, Z. Wilson, and perhaps Fields or another rookie QB all have the potential to be franchise QBs.  If that's true, he believes that the Jets already have a franchise QB in their pocket and Wilson, Fields, etc., are just alternate franchise QB options that would have more years left on their rookie contract.  Then it all becomes a value proposition, and maybe Fields (for example) at 2 is not more valuable than Sam, but Fields at 8 with a few extra draft picks would be.

We'll probably never get a real answer to this, but I would love to hear the opinion of Joe D. and other GMs on this question.

You sir are a thinking man!! :)  

  • Haha 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...