Schefter: Jaguars Will Likely Consider Trading Jalen Ramsey in the Offseason - Team Issues Denial

[ctk232]

57 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

Good and fair points but I'll say this:

 

If we aren't playoff/"make a run" contenders 2 years from now, both McD and Beane should be fired. 

 

If we don't have salary cap constraints in 2-3 years, we don't have enough good players.  

 

This is the new NFL.  There is no excuse anymore. You don't get to tank for a year or two and then scrape out an 8-8 year.

 

Say what you will about Whaley (I think he was mediocre at best) but he understood that in the new NFL, you accumulate talent over the short term and make your run.  His issue was basically ignoring the QB position while doing so (and some questionable "talent").  The Jags have the same problem.  There is NO reason they shouldn't have drafted a decent QB prospect since Bortles.  NONE.

1. Agreed - I want this all to work out, god knows we all do. But if we are competitive in two/three years, even if we only just miss the playoffs two years in a row, I say keep the train rolling and see what we can do starting with a foundation and not a rebuilding bottomless pit of turnover craze. Anything under .500 without just cause will be another nail in the coffin.

 

2. True, we'll most assuredly have some constraints, but I don't think they'll be hamstringing handicaps at that. Standard elite players being paid elite value, but within context and reason and not stupidly overbloated contracts to guys like Dareus, TT, or Clay, as exciting as they are at the time. I'm absolutely fine with not having the cap space if we also appropriately pay our elite talent. No need to have cap space if you already have all the guys you need on the roster.

 

3. I definitely see your point, but I'm also torn on the reality that a QB like Allen will more than likely have an 8-8 year next year at best, but I'd be more concerned with his actual play. A lot can go into being 8-8 that has nothing to do with Allen, and if that is the case, addressing roster needs is easier than trying to develop a player to x degree in a year. Reasons for why 8-8 is more likely next year are that he is still developing and will still be learning NFL defenses while mastering the playbook. We'll have new skill players next year that have to learn the book and how to receive throws from Allen. It's going to take longer than a year, maybe even two. But if we are in playoff competition well into December and dare I say November perennially, I'd call it progress. Once we establish that baseline of competency and competitiveness, I would just like to see us take that next step of getting double digit wins and have the sustainability to keep it going.

 

And I guess it depends on your goal, if it's to win an SB with an already competitive team? Short term roster moves that line up a cap explosion in two to three years are made for if you are contending for a SB, and only if you are doing so. Whaley's mistake was thinking TT could get us there and that our team was that close to winning, just like I believe the Jags stretched too far thinking Bortles could do so as well, and committing to signing those players to make a push that really just wasn't there (I'd argue the jags were infinitely closer than we were in all aspects of the team). What we are seeing with the Rams and Chiefs are exceptional, and by definition cannot be the norm. Defenses will start to scheme more match coverage in the next few years to combat the spread and rpo packages now dominating the "modern" nfl. I'm more preferential to building longer term success where we may not make the playoffs every single year, but we are in contention through november and december and become a dominant factor in the AFC. Hopefully, that long term sustainability leads to a point in time where we can make those short term moves to get us over the hump and push for an SB, or two, or three, or eeeeven four. That to me should be the goal of all of this, not spending the bank and essentially committing to a future tank three years down the line all while missing the mark for that short term period AND the few years following.

 

I agree extending Bortles was a terrible move and they should have addressed it - but looking at it with perspective: after reaching the conference finals, it's not easy to commit to a first round draft pick and start the whole thing over when your defense likely wouldn't be there in three years. The better scenario would have been signing a vet QB like Alex Smith to manage the game opposite the defense, and who knows, maybe they tried to and just didn't have the cap to offer the contract...

Edited November 20, 2018 by ctk232

[26CornerBlitz]

2 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

 

Ramsey: "It's a new week" (4:35)

All Pro cornerback Jalen Ramsey talks about playing defense in today's NFL, Bills rookie quarterback Josh Allen and moving past the Pittsburgh loss.

[BringBackOrton]

10 minutes ago, ctk232 said:

1. Agreed - I want this all to work out, god knows we all do. But if we are competitive in two/three years, even if we only just miss the playoffs two years in a row, I say keep the train rolling and see what we can do starting with a foundation and not a rebuilding bottomless pit of turnover craze. Anything under .500 without just cause will be another nail in the coffin.

 

2. True, we'll most assuredly have some constraints, but I don't think they'll be hamstringing handicaps at that. Standard elite players being paid elite value, but within context and reason and not stupidly overbloated contracts to guys like Dareus, TT, or Clay, as exciting as they are at the time. I'm absolutely fine with not having the cap space if we also appropriately pay our elite talent. No need to have cap space if you already have all the guys you need on the roster.

 

3. I definitely see your point, but I'm also torn on the reality that a QB like Allen will more than likely have an 8-8 year next year at best, but I'd be more concerned with his actual play. A lot can go into being 8-8 that has nothing to do with Allen, and if that is the case, addressing roster needs is easier than trying to develop a player to x degree in a year. Reasons for why 8-8 is more likely next year are that he is still developing and will still be learning NFL defenses while mastering the playbook. We'll have new skill players next year that have to learn the book and how to receive throws from Allen. It's going to take longer than a year, maybe even two. But if we are in playoff competition well into December and dare I say November perennially, I'd call it progress. Once we establish that baseline of competency and competitiveness, I would just like to see us take that next step of getting double digit wins and have the sustainability to keep it going.

 

And I guess it depends on your goal, if it's to win an SB with an already competitive team? Short term roster moves that line up a cap explosion in two to three years are made for if you are contending for a SB, and only if you are doing so. Whaley's mistake was thinking TT could get us there and that our team was that close to winning, just like I believe the Jags stretched too far thinking Bortles could do so as well, and committing to signing those players to make a push that really just wasn't there (I'd argue the jags were infinitely closer than we were in all aspects of the team). What we are seeing with the Rams and Chiefs are exceptional, and by definition cannot be the norm. Defenses will start to scheme more match coverage in the next few years to combat the spread and rpo packages now dominating the "modern" nfl. I'm more preferential to building longer term success where we may not make the playoffs every single year, but we are in contention through november and december and become a dominant factor in the AFC. Hopefully, that long term sustainability leads to a point in time where we can make those short term moves to get us over the hump and push for an SB, or two, or three, or eeeeven four. That to me should be the goal of all of this, not spending the bank and essentially committing to a future tank three years down the line all while missing the mark for that short term period AND the few years following.

 

I agree extending Bortles was a terrible move and they should have addressed it - but looking at it with perspective: after reaching the conference finals, it's not easy to commit to a first round draft pick and start the whole thing over when your defense likely wouldn't be there in three years. The better scenario would have been signing a vet QB like Alex Smith to manage the game opposite the defense, and who knows, maybe they tried to and just didn't have the cap to offer the contract...

But if we are competitive in two/three years, even if we only just miss the playoffs two years in a row, I say keep the train rolling and see what we can do starting with a foundation and not a rebuilding bottomless pit of turnover craze.

 

I understand, but it will be decided on the manner in which we miss the playoffs.  We need to be more like the 2017 Chargers than the 2017 Bills (if the Ravens won that game).

 

Standard elite players being paid elite value, but within context and reason and not stupidly overbloated contracts to guys like Dareus, TT, or Clay, as exciting as they are at the time. I'm absolutely fine with not having the cap space if we also appropriately pay our elite talent.

 

So there's the rub.  All three of those contracts were justified. Dareus was coming off a season where he was a top 2 DT in football.  The lack of morality/suspension clauses was dumb, but he earned that contract.  And as much schitt as I give Whaley for the Clay contract, this team desperately needed TE help in a league where there are like 10 good ones.  And unfortunately, for good players, you need to overpay in FA.  It's the nature of the game.  Clay is still something like the 12-14th best TE, and there are a handful of guys WAY worse than him making more or comparable.

 

More on TT below.

 

I agree extending Bortles was a terrible move and they should have addressed it - but looking at it with perspective: after reaching the conference finals, it's not easy to commit to a first round draft pick and start the whole thing over when your defense likely wouldn't be there in three years.

 

I don't think extending Bortles was so bad.  The Jags hands were pretty much tied, you don't boot a QB who just took your team deep into the playoffs with no other option.  But THAT'S the problem.  They had no other option.  Look at the Pats, the Steelers, the Giants, the Saints ,the Chiefs (in 2017).  All of the them have QB's whose days as starters are numbered and they ALL have dedicated resources to shoring up the QB position behind them.  The Jaguars (and Bills) haven't done that.  When we entered the 2017 season, we knew TT was on his last legs as a starter unless he drastically improved. Nothing.  When the Jags entered the 2018 season, they knew they gave Bortles a bridge deal because he wasn't really proven.  Nothing.  

 

There was nothing wrong with TT's contract escapades.  He was our starter, played well in spots and having control of when he left was infinitely valuable.  The problem was not preparing for his eventual departure which we all saw coming.  It's why I don't believe that McD's "hands were tied" not drafting a QB in 2017.  He KNEW TT was most likely gone.  His contract was going to start negatively impacting the Bills and he had proved nothing.  He punted, which resulted in him having to throw our new QB to the wolves.  

 

The line between "bloated contracts" and "have to pay good players" is really dependent on if your team's ceiling is 9-7 or 13-3.  The difference between 9-7 and 13-3 is usually a serviceable QB versus a good one.  Not taking a QB in 2017 will haunt the McBeane regime unless Allen is a hit, and even then may still loom large over them.  I don't want to face an experienced vet in Mahomes 3 years from now in KC for the AFCCG. Or a veteran Watson in Houston for the divisional round.  

 

McBeane gambled on "win now and win in the future" and it's going to cost them.  They put too much on the bandaid in year one, and then tanked.  Waste of resources, time, and years that our few remaining good players don't have.  

 

The Jags equally gambled on the "now."  They just had better players and a better team.  Not accounting for the QB position will haunt them as well.  Imagine riding Yeldon and Ivory year one of Marrone with Watson backing up Bortles.  They may have been 8-8 that first year instead of 10-6, but they probably would be 11-5 this season and contenders for Watson's entire rookie contract.  Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.

[26CornerBlitz]

 

 

[cba fan]

On ‎11‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 10:23 AM, Augie said:

The other option they are considering is to glue his mouth shut and keep him, but apparently there’s an issue with that in the CBA..... 

Super Glue = Super Bowl

 

I see what you did there. Nice...…..lol

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[ctk232]

22 hours ago, BringBackOrton said:

But if we are competitive in two/three years, even if we only just miss the playoffs two years in a row, I say keep the train rolling and see what we can do starting with a foundation and not a rebuilding bottomless pit of turnover craze.

 

I understand, but it will be decided on the manner in which we miss the playoffs.  We need to be more like the 2017 Chargers than the 2017 Bills (if the Ravens won that game).

 

Standard elite players being paid elite value, but within context and reason and not stupidly overbloated contracts to guys like Dareus, TT, or Clay, as exciting as they are at the time. I'm absolutely fine with not having the cap space if we also appropriately pay our elite talent.

 

So there's the rub.  All three of those contracts were justified. Dareus was coming off a season where he was a top 2 DT in football.  The lack of morality/suspension clauses was dumb, but he earned that contract.  And as much schitt as I give Whaley for the Clay contract, this team desperately needed TE help in a league where there are like 10 good ones.  And unfortunately, for good players, you need to overpay in FA.  It's the nature of the game.  Clay is still something like the 12-14th best TE, and there are a handful of guys WAY worse than him making more or comparable.

 

More on TT below.

 

I agree extending Bortles was a terrible move and they should have addressed it - but looking at it with perspective: after reaching the conference finals, it's not easy to commit to a first round draft pick and start the whole thing over when your defense likely wouldn't be there in three years.

 

I don't think extending Bortles was so bad.  The Jags hands were pretty much tied, you don't boot a QB who just took your team deep into the playoffs with no other option.  But THAT'S the problem.  They had no other option.  Look at the Pats, the Steelers, the Giants, the Saints ,the Chiefs (in 2017).  All of the them have QB's whose days as starters are numbered and they ALL have dedicated resources to shoring up the QB position behind them.  The Jaguars (and Bills) haven't done that.  When we entered the 2017 season, we knew TT was on his last legs as a starter unless he drastically improved. Nothing.  When the Jags entered the 2018 season, they knew they gave Bortles a bridge deal because he wasn't really proven.  Nothing.  

 

There was nothing wrong with TT's contract escapades.  He was our starter, played well in spots and having control of when he left was infinitely valuable.  The problem was not preparing for his eventual departure which we all saw coming.  It's why I don't believe that McD's "hands were tied" not drafting a QB in 2017.  He KNEW TT was most likely gone.  His contract was going to start negatively impacting the Bills and he had proved nothing.  He punted, which resulted in him having to throw our new QB to the wolves.  

 

The line between "bloated contracts" and "have to pay good players" is really dependent on if your team's ceiling is 9-7 or 13-3.  The difference between 9-7 and 13-3 is usually a serviceable QB versus a good one.  Not taking a QB in 2017 will haunt the McBeane regime unless Allen is a hit, and even then may still loom large over them.  I don't want to face an experienced vet in Mahomes 3 years from now in KC for the AFCCG. Or a veteran Watson in Houston for the divisional round.  

 

McBeane gambled on "win now and win in the future" and it's going to cost them.  They put too much on the bandaid in year one, and then tanked.  Waste of resources, time, and years that our few remaining good players don't have.  

 

The Jags equally gambled on the "now."  They just had better players and a better team.  Not accounting for the QB position will haunt them as well.  Imagine riding Yeldon and Ivory year one of Marrone with Watson backing up Bortles.  They may have been 8-8 that first year instead of 10-6, but they probably would be 11-5 this season and contenders for Watson's entire rookie contract.  Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.

I understand, but it will be decided on the manner in which we miss the playoffs.  We need to be more like the 2017 Chargers than the 2017 Bills (if the Ravens won that game).

 

Agreed - though another season like that will likely give this regime more time yet still under the Pegulas. Objectively, if that were to some how happen, it wouldn't be the worst thing for Allen to experience the post season in some regard.

 

So there's the rub.  All three of those contracts were justified. Dareus was coming off a season where he was a top 2 DT in football.  The lack of morality/suspension clauses was dumb, but he earned that contract.  And as much schitt as I give Whaley for the Clay contract, this team desperately needed TE help in a league where there are like 10 good ones.  And unfortunately, for good players, you need to overpay in FA.  It's the nature of the game.  Clay is still something like the 12-14th best TE, and there are a handful of guys WAY worse than him making more or comparable.

 

I saw/see it differently, just a bit (long-winded response forthcoming) - I feel like we were slightly duped on Dareus as he was coming off a season under Jim Schwartz, who by no argument, completely galvanized our front 7 scheme in which Dareus thrived. Even though his skills still fit within the one-tech role and his size as a NT in a 3-4 scheme, I think what earned him his contract was his play within the Schwartz defense. He was still a first round pick, but the writing was on the wall with the attitude and off-field issues, and extending him while hiring Rex Ryan - a notorious player friendly coach that seemed to encourage toxic behavior, paying him that much for that long of a term, seemed over the top, even for a player like him. I get the thought was that he'd anchor the line for the future, but we were all suspect on his ability to remain there long term given motivation issues - just seemed contradictory given the extension offer. The fact that we saved $10mil over 5 years by trading him tells you just how not worth his contract he was - and still isn't really for the Jags either.

Clay I understand we needed a TE, and I'll be the first to admit I liked Clay coming out of Miami and was thrilled to have a real pass catching TE in our roster. The issue there were his known lingering injuries prior to offering the contract - a risk many FA signings negotiate, and I can't remember how the terms of that contract were decided, but I hope the appropriate clauses were used to save us there. Obviously we kept him as he is a serviceable option at TE. Unfortunately, he was under-utilized during his prime years under TT, and while he's still better than most, his cap hit is starting to outweigh his results. It's hard out there for a GM looking for a TE - but still think this position is almost always better addressed through the draft, unless it's Gronk or Kelce.

TT...oh TT. This one I go back and forth and hindsight is a helluva drug. If I'm being honest, I liked the extension at the time. I initially bought into the TT train and thought there was more coming. At the time, we needed a stable, consistent QB as much as we needed a stable, consistent HC. TT did enough to prove that he wouldn't commit game changing mistakes, and keep our team in it. Coupled with our defense at the time, it seemed we could do plenty with that. We all know how the tape rolled on that one, but I would fault Whaley less so for extending TT.

 

The problem was not preparing for his eventual departure which we all saw coming.  It's why I don't believe that McD's "hands were tied" not drafting a QB in 2017.  He KNEW TT was most likely gone.  His contract was going to start negatively impacting the Bills and he had proved nothing.  He punted, which resulted in him having to throw our new QB to the wolves. 

 

Again, it's easy to say this with hindsight. And despite all who thought Mahomes was, in fact, the player he now is - the vast majority believed 2017 to be a very weak QB class. Highlighted by Mahomes, Trubisky, Kizer and Watson. No one was saying this was the year for a QB, and many were already saying 2018 was "the year of the QB." I don't believe McD was the absolute final say in players drafted, but he certainly had a hand - but the entire FO, McD included, bought into this and didn't draft a QB following our scouts and what the draft ended up providing us. I don't like the hindsight argument of passing on Mahomes as it happens almost every draft and you could point to any example, but none of it means it wouldn't have gone differently had we drafted him. What's more, Beane wasn't involved in that first draft. If we're to evaluate the "regime" of McDermott/Beane, it really started this season, and in Beane's first year and draft as GM, he went and got a QB, just like you said we should've done to not waste valuable years of veteran players. Speculation: I suspect they had identified 2018 as the year to get their QB when they hired a GM for the future, and use 2017 to fill out other player needs, which were there.

 

Not taking a QB in 2017 will haunt the McBeane regime unless Allen is a hit, and even then may still loom large over them.  I don't want to face an experienced vet in Mahomes 3 years from now in KC for the AFCCG. Or a veteran Watson in Houston for the divisional round. 

 

I mean, you can say that about any first round pick at anytime. We've had to face Brady twice a year the past 18 years and we're still here. I know the plan is to get better, but there will always be a "Brady," "Mahomes," or "Watson" in the conference every year to varying degrees. We drafted our guy and he'll either work out or he won't - I don't really see too much of the "one and only chance" that much of the tone of this board is taking. I get that in the context of the Beane/McDermott regime, but there's no reason why any of that is uncommon, just not preferable to us.

 

McBeane gambled on "win now and win in the future" and it's going to cost them.  They put too much on the bandaid in year one, and then tanked.  Waste of resources, time, and years that our few remaining good players don't have.  

 

I agree the timing of it all has terrible optics. It caused an unnecessary media storm, and while our QB options were historically bad, there were and are plenty other teams with the same record as this historically bad offense...and I'd argue, much larger internal s***shows like the Giants and Raiders.

But I digress, year one to me was a bit of a surprise for everyone. It was a year where league parity was at an all time high and 9-7 would likely land you a wildcard. Halfway through the season, the ball bouncing our way, we had a choice to make: 1. commit to the playoff run, get the largest monkey any franchise in any professional sport has ever seen off our backs, and go from there, or 2. middle our way through and likely end up 7-9 or 8-8. We simply played too well in the first year to "tank" for a top QB - we combatted this by accumulating draft picks to move up and take a guy anyway. The issue was we couldn't trade up highly enough in my opinion, but sounds like Allen was almost always going to be their guy.

The vets on the roster then wouldn't have been on it when we would eventually be ready to compete anyway, and there wasn't enough of a foundation in place for us to have a year this year like the Chiefs or Rams. Just look at those rosters from 2017 going into 2018 - the Rams only question mark was how Goff would play. The Chiefs solidified an offense in the years leading up to 2017 and iced the cake in 2018 giving Mahomes his supporting cast. We didn't have those options on offense, and unexpectedly lost 2 OLmen from our offensive foundation. Not somewhere you want to build from.

 

I might be misreading your points, but it's very difficult to say "extending Bortles wasn't so bad" and then say "not accounting for the QB position will haunt them." I might get what you're getting at here, and I agree that there wasn't much issue with the extension at that time as it was the simplest and seemingly most logical solution. The issue being I think we all saw who Bortles was going to be, and I do wonder if they tried to trade for Jimmy G or sign an FA - but given who they were already paying I think limited the resources they could use to bring anyone else in limited their options for competing "now." Again, hindsight comes into play a bit here, but I don't believe Bortles ever gave a consistently confident performance worthy of extension, but the jags thought this was the way to make the best of their situation and put them in the best place to win it all. And coming off of a conference finals appearance would only serve to support that thought. But I bet even Coughlin wasn't entirely confident in re-signing Bortles, but given the situation he entered, he figured this to be the best bet to give the franchise a winning culture while his defense was under contract.

 

Really appreciate the discussion here - and thanks for putting up with my overly verbose thought trains

Edited November 21, 2018 by ctk232

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[PeterDude]

I hope the Bills trade for him.  However, just doesn't seem like a McBeane type player.

[BullBuchanan]

I think the Jags could use the return on a Ramsey trade to help get them a QB. The Rams could make an interesting trade partner, as could the chiefs. I think he has to go to a team that's Super Bowl ready with a QB on a rookie deal. That way you could pay  Ramsey the $20M/season he'll need while you ride out the cheap years of your rookie.

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[PittsforDave]

1 minute ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

I don’t think grown men care about stupid gossip.  This is all media hype and it’s *****. 

[26CornerBlitz]

Shhhh!