Aaron Rodgers to the Jets rumor: Merged

[UntouchableCrew]

2 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Mabye you don't get him.  I'm fine with that.  Need another QB in 12 months either way.

I don't think Woody Johnson is onboard with that approach.

[Warfish]

3 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

On the topic of Ryan Tannehill:

1) Nobody thinks he's "the guy." He's just "the guy who prevents us from watching Zach Wilson play football."

Technically, anyone not named "Zach Wilson" is "the guy who prevents us from watching Zach Wilson play football."

That includes both me and you.  Not really upgrades, lol.

3 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

2) Zach Wilson was about as bad at QB as you can possibly be in this league and still started 9 games, and he went 5-4 in those games. This team is good and I think people are underestimating where we'd land with "competent" QB play.

No disagreement, Zach is the pits.

3 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

Tannehill may suck -- but we're a playoff team with him last year.

So far this offseason, at least one someone on this forum has said this exact "...with X, we were a playoff team last year" claim about literally every starting or backup QB in the NFL not named Zach Wilson.

[Larz]

next week is going to be “get lamar, get Tannehill get someone”
 

week after that is going to be “**** rodgers, he sucks anyway, fire JD , I hate the Jets “

week after that is “you know this Levis kid can spin it”

then when the trade goes down night before the draft “See, I knew we had it all along !” ?

[varjet]

• I listened to a TOTJ podcast today which presumably objectively argued that the Packers had no bargaining position and basically had to do that trade.  I basically agreed with it.  But as I think it about it more, I think what the Packers are doing is betting on Woody Johnson caving and giving them what the Packers want.  There is no other logical explanation.  Woody-this is your moment of truth-the Packers have to trade Rodgers and no one else is paying.   Stay strong.  If this was any other counterparty, the Packers would have realized that they were getting what they were getting, and the deal would be done already.  The Packers are betting on Woody's weakness.
• A second round pick, or two, for basically one to two years of glory, followed by at least three years of misery?  That seems like a very high price.  Then I looked up the last 10 or so years of Jet 2nd round/2 draft picks (high 3rd when no 2).
  • Breece Hall
  • Elijah More
  • Denzel Mims
  • Jacqui Polite
  • Nathan Shepherd
  • Marcus Maye
  • Christian Hackenburg
  • Jace Amaro
  • Geno Smith
  • Stephen Hill
  • Kenrick Ellis
  • Vlad Ducasse

For two years of playoff runs, the Jets can do without one or two of players like that. 

[AVM]

5 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Technically, anyone not named "Zach Wilson" is "the guy who prevents us from watching Zach Wilson play football."

That includes both me and you.  Not really upgrades, lol.

No disagreement, Zach is the pits.

So far this offseason, at least one someone on this forum has said this exact "...with X, we were a playoff team last year" claim about literally every starting or backup QB in the NFL not named Zach Wilson.

The Jets are a playoff team with Tom Tupa at QB last year

[AFJF]

3 minutes ago, varjet said:

• I listened to a TOTJ podcast today which presumably objectively argued that the Packers had no bargaining position and basically had to do that trade.  I basically agreed with it.  But as I think it about it more, I think what the Packers are doing is betting on Woody Johnson caving and giving them what the Packers want.  There is no other logical explanation.  Woody-this is your moment of truth-the Packers have to trade Rodgers and no one else is paying.   Stay strong.  If this was any other counterparty, the Packers would have realized that they were getting what they were getting, and the deal would be done already.  The Packers are betting on Woody's weakness.
• A second round pick, or two, for basically one to two years of glory, followed by at least three years of misery?  That seems like a very high price.  Then I looked up the last 10 or so years of Jet 2nd round/2 draft picks (high 3rd when no 2).
  • Breece Hall
  • Elijah More
  • Denzel Mims
  • Jacqui Polite
  • Nathan Shepherd
  • Marcus Maye
  • Christian Hackenburg
  • Jace Amaro
  • Geno Smith
  • Stephen Hill
  • Kenrick Ellis
  • Vlad Ducasse

For two years of playoff runs, the Jets can do without one or two of players like that. 

So because John Idzik and Mike Maccagnan were terrible GMs, the Jets should throw away picks on a one-year rental?

[JiFtheOracle]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

 

Like I said, some of you truly seem to prefer to suck fat dick or just keep blowing 

[AFJF]

15 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

I don't think Woody Johnson is onboard with that approach.

He's definitely not.  He just needs to keep his nose out of this one.  But of course, he will not.

[choon328]

1 hour ago, johnnysd said:

To be quite honest, that question infuriates me. People act like a one year rental of a 40 year QB is the only possible solution, take your shot and don't worry about any thing else. Rodgers is a horrible idea. And the Jets are definitely up against it at QB. But we need to find the solution best long term for the Jets not for a single year moon shot. Giving up multiple draft picks and $60 million in deap cap is just not the way to try and build long term success. But it seems Jets fans don't care. All they want is Rodgers for a year and then suck again.

So what would your plan be to address this issue short term and long term? 

[Ghost]

1 hour ago, slimjasi said:

When you say that this would have happened by now - do you mean a trade specifically to the jets or a trade in general? Cuz the thing is, he hasn’t been traded to any team yet. So, unless you think he’s retiring or staying with GB, I don’t see why things are appreciably different for us now than they were, say, a week or two ago. 
 

I tend to think that the draft is the first natural deadline for the trade because I presume (maybe I’m wrong?) that GB would want at least one pick from this year’s draft. I wouldn’t worry until at least after the draft has come and gone (still three weeks away). And, even then, there is nothing in principle to stop the jets from trading for Rodgers as late as August.  

Long way to go, IMO

It worries me that all parties are interested in getting things done yet we haven’t reached our goal. 

[Dunnie]

The Jets are a playoff team with Tom Tupa at QB last year

Too bad the Jets were much better last year than they are right now.

Lots of time to rectify .. but JD has his work cut out.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[Joe W. Namath]

My intention is to start going to the gym again soon.

[Pac]

My impression of the last 100 pages:

 

[Skeptable]

2 hours ago, Ghost said:

I said this weeks ago and got made fun of. This trade is not happening. 

And you are still wrong

[Dunnie]

My intention is to lose 10 pounds by Christmas.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[BelarusJetsFan]

17 minutes ago, varjet said:

• I listened to a TOTJ podcast today which presumably objectively argued that the Packers had no bargaining position and basically had to do that trade.  I basically agreed with it.  But as I think it about it more, I think what the Packers are doing is betting on Woody Johnson caving and giving them what the Packers want.  There is no other logical explanation.  Woody-this is your moment of truth-the Packers have to trade Rodgers and no one else is paying.   Stay strong.  If this was any other counterparty, the Packers would have realized that they were getting what they were getting, and the deal would be done already.  The Packers are betting on Woody's weakness.
• A second round pick, or two, for basically one to two years of glory, followed by at least three years of misery?  That seems like a very high price.  Then I looked up the last 10 or so years of Jet 2nd round/2 draft picks (high 3rd when no 2).
  • Breece Hall
  • Elijah More
  • Denzel Mims
  • Jacqui Polite
  • Nathan Shepherd
  • Marcus Maye
  • Christian Hackenburg
  • Jace Amaro
  • Geno Smith
  • Stephen Hill
  • Kenrick Ellis
  • Vlad Ducasse

For two years of playoff runs, the Jets can do without one or two of players like that. 

Just because the Jets suck at drafting doesn’t make draft picks less valuable 

[freestater]

3 hours ago, Beerfish said:

We need to send someone from Downtown, Morty and Mitch to have a talk with Douglas.

[freestater]

Hey you! Yes you! Reading this a thread....

GFY!

[varjet]

25 minutes ago, AFJF said:

So because John Idzik and Mike Maccagnan were terrible GMs, the Jets should throw away picks on a one-year rental?

Mac, Idzik and JD all missed the 2nd round.

We should not burn 2nd round draft picks, and the real compensation here is taking the contract, but a second or two for games in January/February with the roster we have now seems ok.  I would rather compete every year, but its ok.  

[Beerfish]

2 hours ago, Jets Things said:

*Mitch and Murray

Sorry.

Funny thing is after I posted that I thought dang i don't think that is right, but I left to go for a 2 hour hike.  I knew I'd be corrected.  ?

[Skeptable]

Just now, varjet said:

Mac, Idzik and JD all missed the 2nd round.

We should not burn 2nd round draft picks, and the real compensation here is taking the contract, but a second or two for games in January/February with the roster we have now seems ok.  I would rather compete every year, but its ok.  

giving up 2 2nd round picks for an 'aging' Rodgers is not giving up on competing every year... in fact its the opposite... Its giving the Jets the ability to compete for the superbowl the next 2 years while they find  a replacement qb... Its actually the best case scenario, or else they would have had to overpay for one of 2 QBs (Carr and Jimmy G).

In 2 years we have no idea of what the veteran market for QB is especially after next years draft that is suppose to have at least 5 top tier QBs.

[JazzyJet]

32 minutes ago, AFJF said:

So because John Idzik and Mike Maccagnan were terrible GMs, the Jets should throw away picks on a one-year rental?

[BelarusJetsFan]

1 minute ago, Skeptable said:

giving up 2 2nd round picks for an 'aging' Rodgers is not giving up on competing every year... in fact its the opposite... Its giving the Jets the ability to compete for the superbowl the next 2 years while they find  a replacement qb... Its actually the best case scenario, or else they would have had to overpay for one of 2 QBs (Carr and Jimmy G).

In 2 years we have no idea of what the veteran market for QB is especially after next years draft that is suppose to have at least 5 top tier QBs.

More than likely they will need to gamble on a QB in the draft. The Jets gave up two top six picks and three seconds for Sam Darnold and Zach Wilson. 

[slimjasi]

50 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Mabye you don't get him.  I'm fine with that.  Need another QB in 12 months either way.

No chance it’s 24 months in your mind?

[UntouchableCrew]

41 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Technically, anyone not named "Zach Wilson" is "the guy who prevents us from watching Zach Wilson play football."

That includes both me and you.  Not really upgrades, lol.

Tannehill kinda sucked last year but still completed 65% of his passes and had a 2:1 TD to INT ratio. That's competent play and not worthy of comparison to fans like us.

41 minutes ago, Warfish said:

No disagreement, Zach is the pits.

So far this offseason, at least one someone on this forum has said this exact "...with X, we were a playoff team last year" claim about literally every starting or backup QB in the NFL not named Zach Wilson.

That's because it's true in most cases.

[slimjasi]

26 minutes ago, Ghost said:

It worries me that all parties are interested in getting things done yet we haven’t reached our goal. 

I hear you but that’s because there hasn’t been any pressure to get it done. Not really. 
 

If you listened to Douglas last week, he flat out said that there was no rush - because he’s trying to squeeze the Packers and the Packers are trying to squeeze him. Things don’t have to happen until they have to happen. Deadlines tend to motivate people to get things done. If it doesn’t happen by the draft, I’d start to worry a bit.

[Jet_Engine1]

1 minute ago, slimjasi said:

I hear you but that’s because there hasn’t been any pressure to get it done. Not really. 
 

If you listened to Douglas last week, he flat out said that there was no rush - because he’s trying to squeeze the Packers and the Packers are trying to squeeze him. Things don’t have to happen until they have to happen. Deadlines tend to motivate people to get things done. If it doesn’t happen by the draft, I’d start to worry a bit.

Isn't that Parkinsons Law?

[dbatesman]

27 minutes ago, BelarusJetsFan said:

Just because the Jets suck at drafting doesn’t make draft picks less valuable 

It actually makes them more valuable.

[AFJF]

11 minutes ago, slimjasi said:

No chance it’s 24 months in your mind?

Very slight chance.  We know the Jets are asking for protection if Rodgers walks away after 1 season and the Packers aren't willing to give it.  Tells us both sides believe it's likely he leaves after this season.

[slimjasi]

12 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

Tannehill kinda sucked last year but still completed 65% of his passes and had a 2:1 TD to INT ratio. That's competent play and not worthy of comparison to fans like us.

That's because it's true in most cases.

It’s really sad - but if you look at Tannehill’s career in Tenn (last 4 seasons, 2019-2022), has a single Jets QB EVER had 4 consecutive seasons as good as his? 
 

it’s remarkable how bad our QB play has been over the years. It’s almost unfathomable. 

[slimjasi]

8 minutes ago, Jet_Engine1 said:

Isn't that Parkinsons Law?

Bingo 

[AFJF]

16 minutes ago, JazzyJet said:

Greatest interview ever.

Except she was making stuff up. 

 

The OP shows picks from previous GMs as an reason why the picks Joe Douglas will make are not that valuable.

Edited April 5, 2023 by AFJF

[Skeptable]

22 minutes ago, BelarusJetsFan said:

More than likely they will need to gamble on a QB in the draft. The Jets gave up two top six picks and three seconds for Sam Darnold and Zach Wilson. 

OK 2 different GMs... And I wouldn't worry about the next QB until you cross that bridge.  So many things can happen. Lamar could be a FA or Some other QB rises up. Nobody knows. You can't just make assumptions that things will be barren in a few years especially since there are going to be a few teams ready to give up on anybody to draft one of the hot QBs coming out next year... or if you wait till 2025 there is Arch manning... Nobody knows.

[MichaelScott]

2 hours ago, Warfish said:

Continue what "process"? 

The process of "close your eyes and pray while drafting bust-ass QB's", busts some of us had nailed long before we stupidly picked them?

I want nothing to do with that so-called "process" anymore.

The only thing I'm shocked about this offseason is that the Jets aren't all-in on Bryce Young, because if anything says "Jets QB Draft Pick" it's a massively costly trade up to get a 5'11" starting QB, lol.

So to his point - In your opinion, How does all that money and premium draft picks for a 40 year old, 1 year rental on an ascending, but not super bowl ready roster, achieve your goals? Are we that desperate for a year with a wildcard appearance? And again, to his previous point, when he retires after next season, what position are we in the following year? 

Trading premium draft capital for a 40 year old rental is something a team like the Rams do to go all in when they are close. Thus, why it worked out pretty well for them. When a team like the currently constructed Jets does it, you do not get the same results. You get one year of an improved but, ultimately, not good enough team who will be worse off the following year when he retires. 

Rodgers doesn't even make this team a favorite in the division letalone a legitimate superbowl contender? Do you honestly think the Jets are a Superbowl team with Rodgers? If your answer is yes, I concede my point because if you see the Jets as a superbowl team than I can absolutely see being 100% behind this move (I would just agree to disagree on that assertion). If the answer is no, then I ask, what is this really getting us? One year of more interesting Sundays? 

[Ghost]

1 hour ago, bicketybam said:

What else do you see? Any lottery numbers?

17 24 36 35 12 

7

 

youre welcome