Aaron Rodgers to the Jets rumor: Merged

[Jetsfan80]

23 minutes ago, bitonti said:

the great thing about lurking (or signing up for a new username) is you start fresh and be anyone you want 

accumulate 26k posts on the same name (which is your actual name) and people will bring up your mistakes too

 So John Blaze, whoever you are, I say welcome. 

 

Now make a statement. One that can be thrown in your face in 4 years 

This thread is going down in history as the longest ever

stake your claim

 

 

Fast forward to - "Remember when everyone thought signing Aaron Rodgers would solve the Jets problem? Yeah that was a crazy 2 months, huh?" 

 

[Bobby816]

2 hours ago, bitonti said:

I liked those guys tbh. But everyone was talking about Josh Rosen and Sam.

If the Jets seriously entertained drafting either of those players we wouldn't be here talking about mortgaging the future for Aaron Rodgers. The whole league missed on Lamar 

Contradicting yourself now.

So the QB class sucked (your words not mine). Yet 2 of the top 5ish QBs in the whole NFL are from that class. Gotcha.

[T0mShane]

3 minutes ago, derp said:

I don't entirely get the train of logic for a few reasons.

-there is not necessarily a need to stick and pick at 13

-in this scenario the guys at 42 and 43 are hitting free agency along with Gardner and Wilson after their fifth year options expire

-aren't the conditions on a future pick in the theoretical trade intended to provide those protections?

If we say the 2+future conditional pick is the reasonable baseline, the statement is effectively let's overpay now because if you think about it, giving up more than you need to is really better in the long run if you ignore all of the reasons that it's worse to give up more than you need to.

I could see it if the argument was something like 13 and 112 (1220) for Rodgers, 45, and 78 ((650). That puts Rodgers' value at a high second round pick, Packers get a first rounder, Jets stock up on day three picks and don't have to give anything up after this year. And that's me being greedy, maybe it's just 13 for Rodgers and 45 or something. But just giving up 13 for the sake of it strikes me as silly.

Good points, but I think it’s premised on the idea that Wilson and Sauce are good enough that they don’t ever get to their fifth year options, and (imo) Jeremiah’s overarching point that 13 in this draft is worth sacrificing to eliminate any uncertainty as to what the future return to Green Bay might eventually look like.  

[T0mShane]

6 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

They think Rodgers' oldness makes him a weaker option than several of the other QBs who were/are out there this offseason, which is absurd.  

It is absurd. Is this an argument for Carr? I know it’s not an argument for Lamar. It’s like they want some imaginary unicorn injury-free young QB that doesn’t exist.

[Jetsfan80]

2 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

It is absurd. Is this an argument for Carr? I know it’s not an argument for Lamar. It’s like they want some imaginary unicorn injury-free young QB that doesn’t exist.

If only Mike White had like 10 extra pounds of muscle on his frame.  God dammit. 

[JoeNamathsFurCoat]

I don't want either guy, but if it comes down to Nuk vs OBJ, give me Nuk.

Sounds like Nuk is gonna be a Bill.

Can't imagine moving from the desert to Buffalo.

[JoeNamathsFurCoat]

If you do the math on it, Jets could package #13, #42 and #43 for...

#3 overall

I figured the Rodgers deal might be done after the Moore trade.

But maybe the Moore trade was for leverage and to set up a contingency in case they don't get Rodgers.

Not that I want either guy, but #3 would guarantee the Jets at least Will Levis and possibly Bryce Young

[TuscanyTile2]

 

[derp]

15 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

Good points, but I think it’s premised on the idea that Wilson and Sauce are good enough that they don’t ever get to their fifth year options, and (imo) Jeremiah’s overarching point that 13 in this draft is worth sacrificing to eliminate any uncertainty as to what the future return to Green Bay might eventually look like.  

I mean we're at the fifth year option for Quinnen Williams right now - if anything his cap hit probably goes down this year and up the following. That extra year of cost control is more valuable than having a cheap guy IMO. And again, the parameters of the pick protections can eliminate uncertainty of what the return to Green Bay would be.

For example, say in a trade involving 2024 picks Green Bay gets 42 and a second round pick in 2024 that could become a first round pick if the Jets make the Super Bowl. Pick 31 and pick 42 *this* year would be worth less on the trade value chart than pick 13 this year - so pick 13 this year is absolutely worth more - roughly the difference of a second round pick - than pick 42 this year and 31 next year. And that's in the Super Bowl scenario, pick 42 this year and a future second round pick is worth even less.

Long winded way of saying that the certainty of what you're giving up only matters if it's somewhere in between the possible outcomes outcomes. In this case, you're certain that you're giving up more than what you would in the high end of the range of outcomes. Just doesn't benefit in any way, in my opinion. Unless Green Bay is asking for a whole lot more.

That said, layering in that Green Bay really can't keep Rodgers and the Jets are the only suitor and that Joe Douglas was going to acquire Tyreek Hill without giving up a first round pick, I think this is closer to Green Bay getting like a conditional third in 2024 that can become a second than it is to the Jets needing to give up 13. But I could of course be way, way off - have been before and will be again.

[JoeNamathsFurCoat]

Question about the non-exclusive franchise tag cost of 2 first round picks...

Can the picks be anywhere in the 1st round?  I mean huge difference between 1.1 and 1.32 obviously.

If the Jets (or any team) was intent on getting Lamar, couldn't they theoretically trade down for 1.32 this year and 1.32 next year?

Stockpile day 2 / day 3 picks to make up for the loss of the 1st round picks you'd have to cough up to pry Lamar from the Ravens.

[Tranquilo]

23 minutes ago, JoeNamathsFurCoat said:

I don't want either guy, but if it comes down to Nuk vs OBJ, give me Nuk.

Sounds like Nuk is gonna be a Bill.

Can't imagine moving from the desert to Buffalo.

[RedBeardedSavage]

6 minutes ago, derp said:

For example, say in a trade involving 2024 picks Green Bay gets 42 and a second round pick in 2024 that could become a first round pick if the Jets make the Super Bowl. Pick 31 and pick 42 *this* year would be worth less on the trade value chart than pick 13 this year - so pick 13 this year is absolutely worth more - roughly the difference of a second round pick - than pick 42 this year and 31 next year. And that's in the Super Bowl scenario, pick 42 this year and a future second round pick is worth even less.

We can't even win the Super Bowl in your hypothetical SB run. 

[JohnnyLV]

33 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

They think Rodgers' oldness makes him a weaker option than several of the other QBs who were/are out there this offseason, which is absurd.  

It's not as absurd as you might think. There is a long history of QBs falling completely off a cliff when they get to around 40, there are exceptions notably Brady but we will be betting against that with Rodgers and bad thumb or no he did decline last year. Still very good last year but he could easily decline more, or get injured early or just slow down as the season goes on because 40 year old bodies just recover slower.

[Tranquilo]

13 minutes ago, JoeNamathsFurCoat said:

If you do the math on it, Jets could package #13, #42 and #43 for...

#3 overall

I figured the Rodgers deal might be done after the Moore trade.

But maybe the Moore trade was for leverage and to set up a contingency in case they don't get Rodgers.

Not that I want either guy, but #3 would guarantee the Jets at least Will Levis and possibly Bryce Young

I think we'd need to give up a future 1st too, at least

[JohnnyLV]

4 minutes ago, JoeNamathsFurCoat said:

Question about the non-exclusive franchise tag cost of 2 first round picks...

Can the picks be anywhere in the 1st round?  I mean huge difference between 1.1 and 1.32 obviously.

If the Jets (or any team) was intent on getting Lamar, couldn't they theoretically trade down for 1.32 this year and 1.32 next year?

Stockpile day 2 / day 3 picks to make up for the loss of the 1st round picks you'd have to cough up to pry Lamar from the Ravens.

Yes they could. Or what would be more likely to happen is that if Baltimore wants to refuse you'd work out a sign and trade with Baltimore and never really give him an offer to bring back

[T0mShane]

8 minutes ago, derp said:

I mean we're at the fifth year option for Quinnen Williams right now - if anything his cap hit probably goes down this year and up the following. That extra year of cost control is more valuable than having a cheap guy IMO. And again, the parameters of the pick protections can eliminate uncertainty of what the return to Green Bay would be.

For example, say in a trade involving 2024 picks Green Bay gets 42 and a second round pick in 2024 that could become a first round pick if the Jets make the Super Bowl. Pick 31 and pick 42 *this* year would be worth less on the trade value chart than pick 13 this year - so pick 13 this year is absolutely worth more - roughly the difference of a second round pick - than pick 42 this year and 31 next year. And that's in the Super Bowl scenario, pick 42 this year and a future second round pick is worth even less.

Long winded way of saying that the certainty of what you're giving up only matters if it's somewhere in between the possible outcomes outcomes. In this case, you're certain that you're giving up more than what you would in the high end of the range of outcomes. Just doesn't benefit in any way, in my opinion. Unless Green Bay is asking for a whole lot more.

That said, layering in that Green Bay really can't keep Rodgers and the Jets are the only suitor and that Joe Douglas was going to acquire Tyreek Hill without giving up a first round pick, I think this is closer to Green Bay getting like a conditional third in 2024 that can become a second than it is to the Jets needing to give up 13. But I could of course be way, way off - have been before and will be again.

This all makes sense and is probably accurate. I think I was just swayed by the idea of giving up 13 in a relatively weak draft just to be done-done with the return aspect, but you’re right. It’s probably not worth it solely for the comfort of finality

[JohnnyLV]

16 minutes ago, JoeNamathsFurCoat said:

If you do the math on it, Jets could package #13, #42 and #43 for...

#3 overall

I figured the Rodgers deal might be done after the Moore trade.

But maybe the Moore trade was for leverage and to set up a contingency in case they don't get Rodgers.

Not that I want either guy, but #3 would guarantee the Jets at least Will Levis and possibly Bryce Young

If the Jets REALLY love one of the guys I would rather do that then trade for Rodgers. Sign Bridgewater and have 2 QBs you really like to develop for the future. This board would completely lose its mind though.

[derp]

4 minutes ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

We can't even win the Super Bowl in your hypothetical SB run. 

Pick 32 wouldn’t be part of the maximum compensation the Jets could give back!

[JoeNamathsFurCoat]

11 minutes ago, Tranquilo said:

I think we'd need to give up a future 1st too, at least

480 (#42) + 470 (#43) + 1150 (#13) = 2100

#3 pick is worth 2200

#4 pick is worth 1800

So Jets' value lies somewhere in between #3 and #4.  Closer to #3 than #4.

Maccagnan got taken to the freaking cleaners when he give up three 2nd rounders to hop from #6 to #3.

[T0mShane]

4 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

There is a long history of QBs falling completely off a cliff when they get to around 40,

There is also a long history of QBs breaking down when they’re 37 and 38.*
 

*Rodgers won MVP in his age 37 and 38 seasons. 

[derp]

2 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

This all makes sense and is probably accurate. I think I was just swayed by the idea of giving up 13 in a relatively weak draft just to be done-done with the return aspect, but you’re right. It’s probably not worth it solely for the comfort of finality

It definitely made for a good talking point, just don’t think it actually made sense. That said if the Jets could flip 13 to New Orleans for 29 and 40 predraft and then give up 29 and be done, different story.

But you could argue even 29 is too much. I really don’t think the Packers want a lot of leverage.

Would be funny if the Packers and Douglas were arguing about a third or a fourth this year plus a conditional pick next year or Douglas said it’s a third for a bit but a fourth after that, Packers waited it out and then Douglas just moved the third in the Moore trade.

[playtowinthegame]

57 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

It is absurd. Is this an argument for Carr? I know it’s not an argument for Lamar. It’s like they want some imaginary unicorn injury-free young QB that doesn’t exist.

I wanted Derek Carr, but I'm also happy with getting Aaron Rodgers. It was two different strategies towards getting into the NFL Tournament so to speak. Trading for Rodgers is without a doubt the sexier headline ticket selling move, and it also gives hope at salvaging Zach Wilson...fingers crossed Rodgers farting in the QB room with him will make him better. The other move was not trading any draft picks and locking up Derek Carr for a longer window of time and building up the team around him. Both are different moves. A lot of people say we would have been mediocre with Carr. I say whatever to that. Opinions are like assholes everyone has one. In the end, I'm happy for Derek Carr, because I think he's in a perfect situation in New Orleans in a dome, a weaker division, a strong defense, and they too have some great skill position players - Chris Olave, Michael Thomas, Alvin Kamara, and Juwan Johnson. Carr gets to be a Saint and try and replicate the success Drew Brees had there.

I truly hope the Jets do some great things with Aaron Rodgers, because I'm a Jets fan, but don't think I won't be paying attention to what the Saints do with Derek Carr. Just like those who didn't want Derek Carr will be paying attention ready to say I told you so. Time will tell which choice was better and for how long.

[Jetsfan80]

57 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

It's not as absurd as you might think. There is a long history of QBs falling completely off a cliff when they get to around 40, there are exceptions notably Brady but we will be betting against that with Rodgers and bad thumb or no he did decline last year. Still very good last year but he could easily decline more, or get injured early or just slow down as the season goes on because 40 year old bodies just recover slower.

Could it happen?  Sure.

Worth the risk?  Abso-f**kin-lutely.  It's not like someone like Ryan friggin Tannehill is anything special even at his best.

[dbatesman]

1 hour ago, T0mShane said:

Jeremiah’s overarching point that 13 in this draft is worth sacrificing to eliminate any uncertainty as to what the future return to Green Bay might eventually look like.  

Worrying about the uncertainty makes no sense because it insulates us. Say Rodgers breaks his ankle in week 4 and we end up going 6-11. I’d rather have given up a 2023 second and a 2024 fourth than a 2023 first. On the other hand, if Rodgers wins us a Super Bowl, no one (me included), will care that the compensation ended up being a 2023 second and a 2024 first.

[dbatesman]

1 hour ago, derp said:

I mean we're at the fifth year option for Quinnen Williams right now - if anything his cap hit probably goes down this year and up the following. That extra year of cost control is more valuable than having a cheap guy IMO. And again, the parameters of the pick protections can eliminate uncertainty of what the return to Green Bay would be.

For example, say in a trade involving 2024 picks Green Bay gets 42 and a second round pick in 2024 that could become a first round pick if the Jets make the Super Bowl. Pick 31 and pick 42 *this* year would be worth less on the trade value chart than pick 13 this year - so pick 13 this year is absolutely worth more - roughly the difference of a second round pick - than pick 42 this year and 31 next year. And that's in the Super Bowl scenario, pick 42 this year and a future second round pick is worth even less.

Long winded way of saying that the certainty of what you're giving up only matters if it's somewhere in between the possible outcomes outcomes. In this case, you're certain that you're giving up more than what you would in the high end of the range of outcomes. Just doesn't benefit in any way, in my opinion. Unless Green Bay is asking for a whole lot more.

That said, layering in that Green Bay really can't keep Rodgers and the Jets are the only suitor and that Joe Douglas was going to acquire Tyreek Hill without giving up a first round pick, I think this is closer to Green Bay getting like a conditional third in 2024 that can become a second than it is to the Jets needing to give up 13. But I could of course be way, way off - have been before and will be again.

 

1 hour ago, T0mShane said:

This all makes sense and is probably accurate. I think I was just swayed by the idea of giving up 13 in a relatively weak draft just to be done-done with the return aspect, but you’re right. It’s probably not worth it solely for the comfort of finality

Nevermind, I see you boys are on top of this

[Barry McCockinner]

Since we're looking at historical precedence, can anyone present historical precedence of an NFL QB playing the season w/broken thumb on throwing hand and what that looked like compared to Arod last year?

[JoeNamathsFurCoat]

Odell was an All-Pro what 7 years ago?

Maybe they can sign Adrian Peterson, too.

He's a future HOFer who was also good 7 years ago.

Committing to Odell now only gives the Packers more leverage.  Without Rodgers, the Odell signing makes no sense. 

[Bobby816]

15 minutes ago, JoeNamathsFurCoat said:

Odell was an All-Pro what 7 years ago?

Maybe they can sign Adrian Peterson, too.

He's a future HOFer who was also good 7 years ago.

Committing to Odell now only gives the Packers more leverage.  Without Rodgers, the Odell signing makes no sense. 

Injury prone? Sure I’ll give you that.

 

Washed up? No. Last time he was healthy we was not only good… he was great. So at 30… it’s possibly worth the chance. Especially if it’s mostly incentives

[JetPotato]

I'm old enough to remember when this Aaron Rodgers thread was about Aaron Rodgers.

[Bobby816]

Surprised he didn’t go on McAfee this week. 

[JohnnyLV]

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Could it happen?  Sure.

Worth the risk?  Abso-f**kin-lutely.  It's not like someone like Ryan friggin Tannehill is anything special even at his best.

Not in my opinion. Not really behind a 1 year rental. It accomplishes almost nothing unless we magically make a deep run. We will just be in the exact same position next year only with less cap room and draft picks. And if we fail to get to the playoffs yet another whole new regime.

[ptisme]

19 hours ago, Lurker89 said:

Lol I'd just burn the house down with Zach in it if thats the case.

DAMB RITE HOSS!!   TEL THE CHEEZ WIZ TO POWND SAND!   WE GUN WINNITAL WITHOUT ROGER

[Jetsfan80]

57 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

Not in my opinion. Not really behind a 1 year rental. It accomplishes almost nothing unless we magically make a deep run. We will just be in the exact same position next year only with less cap room and draft picks. And if we fail to get to the playoffs yet another whole new regime.

So what's your plan dude.  

[oatmeal]

[Jets4Life1979]