2023 QB Carousel

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,053
Everyone should, the Ravens have been talking and acting for a week plus like they KNEW that they could let him talk to teams and not worry about it, and the teams all jumping all over themselves to say they aren't interested in even talking to an MVP caliber player not even in his prime yet, AND that all the owners were telling the press that they wouldn't let the Watson deal happen again......

yeah I have zero doubt that there have been a number of conversations among the owners about how important it is to be united against full guarantees, with Lamar being either expicitly or implicitly brought up (as Biscotti did publicly)

A lot of NFL Twitter is banging this same drum. I just don't see it. Any QB needy team has certainly already had internal discussions about Jackson and if they would be willing to give up two first rounders and a record setting fully guaranteed contract to sign him. News hits, well connected reported reaches out to team sources, quickly hears a few "not interested." Just doesn't seem that absurd to me.

It looks even less weird when you consider the circumstances of the reported teams:
-Raiders, Falcons, Panthers are all picking in the top 10 of the draft and are in the mix for the top 4 QBs. For a rebuilding team, a rookie QB on a smaller contract alone is arguably more appealing than Jackson and that's before you add in the extra cost in draft capital
-Miami doesn't have its 2023 first round pick - it CAN'T go after Jackson until after the draft
-Washington could be headed for a sale process - this probably makes it harder to make a quarter billion dollar guarantee
So I'd note among other things...
1. None of these teams even checked in on his cost, and ALL of them quickly leaked this... which doesn't make much sense as a leverage play if nothing else... if you're CAR, you probably don't get a top 4 QB in the draft without trading up... why eliminate some of your leverage in that situation.
2. Miami can talk to him, find out what he wants and then try to negotiate a sign and trade, that's happened more often than someone making an offer sheet.
3. Raiders aren't really high enough to be sure of a QB, and they aren't acting like a rebuilding team... they added DaVante Adams last year, they just franchised Josh Jacobs... why if they want to rebuild... (they are the one team I actually buy isn't colluding though.... Davis just doesn't have the capability to get that much liquid for escrow.)
.
 

Max Venerable

done galavanting around Lebanon
SoSH Member
Feb 27, 2002
1,187
Brooklyn, NY
If the Pats were to get in on Lamar and land him, could they not trade Mac Jones, thereby making up some of the pick value they would lose in the signing?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,053
If the Pats were to get in on Lamar and land him, could they not trade Mac Jones, thereby making up some of the pick value they would lose in the signing?
Bill should definitely kick the tires, because.....
1. It might not take two 1sts, you can negotiate a sign and trade.
2. Jones probably has value of a future 1st, maybe more if someone is in love with him.

Not sure they will though... Bill hasn't shown a willingness to spend that big on players, and Kraft has been sneakily cheap in terms of cash spending, also he's a leader among the owners so not sure he'd be willing to go against the group with a big guarantee.
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Daniel Jones has as many postseason wins as Lamar Jackson. The guy is a dynamic talent, but he's been around long enough that you'd like to think he would have produced one postseason run by now.

Right now you can't put him in the conversation with Mahomes, Allen, or Burrow, but he wants to be paid like them. I don't blame teams for being cautious.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
1. None of these teams even checked in on his cost, and ALL of them quickly leaked this... which doesn't make much sense as a leverage play if nothing else... if you're CAR, you probably don't get a top 4 QB in the draft without trading up... why eliminate some of your leverage in that situation.
2. Miami can talk to him, find out what he wants and then try to negotiate a sign and trade, that's happened more often than someone making an offer sheet.
3. Raiders aren't really high enough to be sure of a QB, and they aren't acting like a rebuilding team... they added DaVante Adams last year, they just franchised Josh Jacobs... why if they want to rebuild... (they are the one team I actually buy isn't colluding though.... Davis just doesn't have the capability to get that much liquid for escrow.)
.
The Panthers would need to move swiftly to clear cap space to have any chance to sign Jackson, and of course they couldn’t pursue anyone else. And while they were improved in the second half, they are hardly a QB away from contention. It’s just not the right situation. Better to be clear with the fan base up front that they’re out.

I can’t believe anyone thought Miami would be in on Lamar. Tua had a breakout year and is a better fit for their roster. They’ll kick the tires on Rodgers, but I’ll be surprised if they do anything except pick up Tua’s 5th-year option and defer a long-term decision for another year.

The Raiders are one of the few teams I’d expect to kick the tires. They probably should be out, as I don’t see them leapfrogging the Chiefs and the Chargers, but given Davis’s apparent win-now attitude, I’m surprised they’re out so quickly. But Davis is probably the last owner I’d expect to cooperate with the sort of collusion that Florio is positing, so I’m not sold that that’s the explanation.
 
Last edited:

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
7,994
0-3 to 4-3
If fans like me know what Lamar is looking for then so does every single front office in the NFL. Why bother checking in with him if you don’t think he’s worth that money?

Also, maybe teams are a bit wary of committing major money to a player that has regressed as a passer, been injured in each of the past two seasons, and seemingly quit on his team last season.

As Deshaun Watson proved teams will do anything in terms of trade compensation and money if they think you’re the right QB in a QB starved league. I take this supposed lack of interest as a sign that teams don’t think as highly of Lamar as others expected they would more so than collusion.
 

Justthetippett

New Member
Aug 9, 2015
2,215
Everyone should, the Ravens have been talking and acting for a week plus like they KNEW that they could let him talk to teams and not worry about it, and the teams all jumping all over themselves to say they aren't interested in even talking to an MVP caliber player not even in his prime yet, AND that all the owners were telling the press that they wouldn't let the Watson deal happen again......

yeah I have zero doubt that there have been a number of conversations among the owners about how important it is to be united against full guarantees, with Lamar being either expicitly or implicitly brought up (as Biscotti did publicly)


So I'd note among other things...
1. None of these teams even checked in on his cost, and ALL of them quickly leaked this... which doesn't make much sense as a leverage play if nothing else... if you're CAR, you probably don't get a top 4 QB in the draft without trading up... why eliminate some of your leverage in that situation.
2. Miami can talk to him, find out what he wants and then try to negotiate a sign and trade, that's happened more often than someone making an offer sheet.
3. Raiders aren't really high enough to be sure of a QB, and they aren't acting like a rebuilding team... they added DaVante Adams last year, they just franchised Josh Jacobs... why if they want to rebuild... (they are the one team I actually buy isn't colluding though.... Davis just doesn't have the capability to get that much liquid for escrow.)
.
Forget the players union. If the top QBs in the league formed a QBs union they could quash this kind of thing in no time. Really disappointing that doesn't happen. These guys all deserve guaranteed deals.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,053
Daniel Jones has as many postseason wins as Lamar Jackson. The guy is a dynamic talent, but he's been around long enough that you'd like to think he would have produced one postseason run by now.

Right now you can't put him in the conversation with Mahomes, Allen, or Burrow, but he wants to be paid like them. I don't blame teams for being cautious.
I would say that the counter is... he won a playoff game with that dogshit roster, and their success with him is remarkable, and can be seen by how bad they are in the games he misses. If Lamar Jackson doesn't get drafted by the Ravens Harbaugh is getting ready for the UM/MSU rivalrly game against his brother last year, maybe 2 years ago.

I can understand wariness about his health, that's a real concern, but his talent is immense, you drop him on an average team and it's a contender.
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
7,994
0-3 to 4-3
The best ability is availability. You’re good with giving up two 1sts and a massive, guaranteed contract for him even after his inability to finish the past two seasons? And if so you think it’s crazy that not everybody feels that same way and so they must have a secret agreement to shut him out?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,092
Why would NFL teams collude to not pay Lamar Jackson if he’s so good?

There are teams that we’re willing to pay Deshaun Watson - a guy who’s never been an MVP and who has massive off field issues - huge dollars. And before we get into any sort of race issue (which I’m sure some people are thinking especially wondering how Daniel Jones is getting PAID), remember… again, Deshaun Watson.

So I have no idea why the league would COLLUDE to not pay Lamar Jackson. I can see why individual teams would not want to pay him, but why would teams collude to not pay him?

I don’t get it.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,640
Hartford, CT
Why would NFL teams collude to not pay Lamar Jackson if he’s so good?

There are teams that we’re willing to pay Deshaun Watson - a guy who’s never been an MVP and who has massive off field issues - huge dollars. And before we get into any sort of race issue (which I’m sure some people are thinking especially wondering how Daniel Jones is getting PAID), remember… again, Deshaun Watson.

So I have no idea why the league would COLLUDE to not pay Lamar Jackson. I can see why individual teams would not want to pay him, but why would teams collude to not pay him?

I don’t get it.
Because the owners had a shitfit over the deal Haslam gave to Watson, and I expect many of them will not greenlight a deal like that. The specter of fully guaranteed contracts is a real threat to the management-friendly business model they’ve maintained, and if individual owners step out of line it threatens the red line they’ve drawn.

I don’t know if we are seeing collusion here, but I don’t think it’s hard to see why we would.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,550
Why would NFL teams collude to not pay Lamar Jackson if he’s so good?

There are teams that we’re willing to pay Deshaun Watson - a guy who’s never been an MVP and who has massive off field issues - huge dollars. And before we get into any sort of race issue (which I’m sure some people are thinking especially wondering how Daniel Jones is getting PAID), remember… again, Deshaun Watson.

So I have no idea why the league would COLLUDE to not pay Lamar Jackson. I can see why individual teams would not want to pay him, but why would teams collude to not pay him?

I don’t get it.
I'm not saying there is collusion... but I presume the idea is that all NFL teams want to point to the Watson deal as an outlier, and not a trend setting deal. I don't think it has anything to do with Jackson specifically, they just might want to hold the line on this one, who knows.

If more players start getting 230M+ guaranteed, its' pretty hard for owners to argue it's not the new normal. Pretty soon their own QB will be expecting the same.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,552
Why would NFL teams collude to not pay Lamar Jackson if he’s so good?
I have some complex (to me) thoughts about it. Are they colluding? Probably. Owners were pissed about the Watson deal. Are they wrong to be colluding…well…they are violating a rule but I don’t know how much I care in a league that has a salary cap. The total amount of money going to players is not going to change(I assume this is true but don’t know for sure).
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,761
Bill should definitely kick the tires, because.....
1. It might not take two 1sts, you can negotiate a sign and trade.
2. Jones probably has value of a future 1st, maybe more if someone is in love with him.

Not sure they will though... Bill hasn't shown a willingness to spend that big on players, and Kraft has been sneakily cheap in terms of cash spending, also he's a leader among the owners so not sure he'd be willing to go against the group with a big guarantee.
What team is giving up a first for Mac Jones?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,053
What team is giving up a first for Mac Jones?
A future 1st say 2024? Probably somebody, I think LV would consider it, Commanders, probably a couple of the other QB needy teams.. Jets, Titans, Bucs. He'd be dirt cheap for 2 more years, and he threads the needle for teams that can't get Rodgers but also can't draft anyone this year, while also not having money. He's been inconsistent, but he's also got pedigree and has had at least some stretch of NFL performance above what the other options have put up. Could also end up as equivalent value to a future 1st like a 2023 2nd.
 

Justthetippett

New Member
Aug 9, 2015
2,215
A future 1st say 2024? Probably somebody, I think LV would consider it, Commanders, probably a couple of the other QB needy teams.. Jets, Titans, Bucs. He'd be dirt cheap for 2 more years, and he threads the needle for teams that can't get Rodgers but also can't draft anyone this year, while also not having money. He's been inconsistent, but he's also got pedigree and has had at least some stretch of NFL performance above what the other options have put up. Could also end up as equivalent value to a future 1st like a 2023 2nd.
His value is probably higher now than it would be after this year, even if he does improve. LV is in a really interesting spot. I think a lot depends on how stable the coaches and management feel. They really have to show something this year or Davis will probably have to make another change. Mac would likely stabilize them more than a rookie. Lamar would have made a lot of sense from a team competitiveness standpoint. It's basically the choice that will make or break McDaniels career as an HC.
 

P'tucket rhymes with...

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2006
11,617
The Coney Island of my mind
A future 1st say 2024? Probably somebody, I think LV would consider it, Commanders, probably a couple of the other QB needy teams.. Jets, Titans, Bucs. He'd be dirt cheap for 2 more years, and he threads the needle for teams that can't get Rodgers but also can't draft anyone this year, while also not having money. He's been inconsistent, but he's also got pedigree and has had at least some stretch of NFL performance above what the other options have put up. Could also end up as equivalent value to a future 1st like a 2023 2nd.
Hard to imagine anyone giving up a first in any year for a hole-plugger with upside you need to squint really hard to see at this point.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,931
New York City
A future 1st say 2024? Probably somebody, I think LV would consider it, Commanders, probably a couple of the other QB needy teams.. Jets, Titans, Bucs. He'd be dirt cheap for 2 more years, and he threads the needle for teams that can't get Rodgers but also can't draft anyone this year, while also not having money. He's been inconsistent, but he's also got pedigree and has had at least some stretch of NFL performance above what the other options have put up. Could also end up as equivalent value to a future 1st like a 2023 2nd.
No.

In no galaxy would a team trade a first round pick for Mac Jones. What are people smoking?

edit - teams aren't willing to put up picks for Lamar Jackson but now Mac Jones is worth a first? People are crazy!
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,681
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
No.

In no galaxy would a team trade a first round pick for Mac Jones. What are people smoking?

edit - teams aren't willing to put up picks for Lamar Jackson but now Mac Jones is worth a first? People are crazy!
I'd rather keep my first rounder and just sign Jimmy Garoppolo for 28 million a year to be honest.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,053
No.

In no galaxy would a team trade a first round pick for Mac Jones. What are people smoking?

edit - teams aren't willing to put up picks for Lamar Jackson but now Mac Jones is worth a first? People are crazy!
Lamar's situation has very little to do with the picks and a whole lot to do with $200M guaranteed.

Sam Darnold with worse performance and a year less of control brought back a 2nd, 4th and 6th.
Josh Rosen was all-time bad... he drew a 2nd and a 5th.

It's rare for a starting QB to get traded on his rookie deal, but history has shown the floor on it is a 2nd ++, a 1st is far from unreasonable.
 

cournoyer

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2012
515
Enfield, Connecticut
No.

In no galaxy would a team trade a first round pick for Mac Jones. What are people smoking?

edit - teams aren't willing to put up picks for Lamar Jackson but now Mac Jones is worth a first? People are crazy!
In fairness, the Patriots traded Jimmy G for a second round pick. A player with less than 100 passes thrown in the NFL and 3 years of service time already accrued. Mac offers a level of stability as a mid range QB with some upside. There's something to be said for banking on the known versus the unknown.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,931
New York City
Lamar's situation has very little to do with the picks and a whole lot to do with $200M guaranteed.

Sam Darnold with worse performance and a year less of control brought back a 2nd, 4th and 6th.
Josh Rosen was all-time bad... he drew a 2nd and a 5th.

It's rare for a starting QB to get traded on his rookie deal, but history has shown the floor on it is a 2nd ++, a 1st is far from unreasonable.
You think the picks have no bearing on the Lamar situation? Nobody is trading a first pick for Mac Jones, a statue with a middling arm.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,053
You think the picks have no bearing on the Lamar situation? Nobody is trading a first pick for Mac Jones, a statue with a middling arm.
I think the picks have very very little to do with it. It's about money. If teams are trading 3-4 picks for Russell Wilson's corpse, for Watson, a 1st and 3rd for Wentz, 2 1sts and a 3rd for Stafford, multiple 1sts to move up in the draft for a lotto pick....then 2 1sts is a steal, and I'm sure teams would be very interested. What they are less interested in is paying a guy with injury concerns $200M+ in guaranteed money.

I feel like I'm one of the most down people on Mac on here.... but I can look at the past trades, and his performance and say... ok, if they made him available, at his contract... the minimum you'd expect is at least a 2nd and multiple other mid-round or higher picks. People get way too hung up on the idea of "oMG 1st rounder" we have the history of that type of trade, and the value should be around a future 1st for Mac Jones, whether that is a 2024 1st, a 2025 1st, or it's a 2023 2nd and multiple other day 2 picks.

Edit- this feels exactly like the whole Daniel Jones thing where everyone was like "he'll never sniff $40M a year AAV, he's not good"... and anyone who looked at contract history around the league could see he was looking at something around $40M a year... that's what was paid in the recent past, that's what those guys get. A Mac trade is the same thing. We can look at past trades, and determine the approximate range of value.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
I like Mac Jones but if the Pats are moving off of him his value would be very very very low, much lower than Watson/Wilson/Wentz because Jones doesn't have the great physical tools and if the Pats are dumping him that would suggest to other teams he doesn't have the mental tools either.

Daniel Jones 40 was going to happen but mac jones for a hypothetical 1? not seeing it. Maybe for a future second that becomes a 1 with a pro bowl appearance or 4000 yards or something
 

Valek123

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
975
Upper Valley
The cost of these QB's in their prime creates situations where it's hard to win, especially for a guy who is extremely talented but a run first QB that is often injured. Maybe I'm off here, but I've just never feared his arm in any match-up against the Pats and haven't watched enough of him outside of that.

Seems like one hell of a guaranteed pile of cash for someone who's played 12 games the last two seasons including zero playoff games and 3 TD's and 5 INT's in his playoff career. He just seems like a poor choice for guaranteed cash allotment within the current roster construction constraints in the NFL.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,681
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
The cost of these QB's in their prime creates situations where it's hard to win, especially for a guy who is extremely talented but a run first QB that is often injured. Maybe I'm off here, but I've just never feared his arm in any match-up against the Pats and haven't watched enough of him outside of that.

Seems like one hell of a guaranteed pile of cash for someone who's played 12 games the last two seasons including zero playoff games and 3 TD's and 5 INT's in his playoff career. He just seems like a poor choice for guaranteed cash allotment within the current roster construction constraints in the NFL.
Maybe you should have, he has 7 passing TDs and a 107.2 passer rating in three games against the Patriots.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,053
I like Mac Jones but if the Pats are moving off of him his value would be very very very low, much lower than Watson/Wilson/Wentz because Jones doesn't have the great physical tools and if the Pats are dumping him that would suggest to other teams he doesn't have the mental tools either.

Daniel Jones 40 was going to happen but mac jones for a hypothetical 1? not seeing it. Maybe for a future second that becomes a 1 with a pro bowl appearance or 4000 yards or something
I agree it would be lower, those were comps for why Lamar's market will be set by $ not picks.
Mac's comp should be the Darnold/Rosen trades.
As to what teams should think about the Patriots trading Mac... very much depends on why. Nobody is saying "Pats don't think Mac Jones can play" if they trade him after signing a ready now MVP type QB. If they were trading him to sign Jimmy G... sure. Same way nobody thought "Patriots don't think Jimmy G can play, or Pats don't think Matt Cassel can play" when those trades happened, because they were trading them because they had an elite starter.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
I agree it would be lower, those were comps for why Lamar's market will be set by $ not picks.
Mac's comp should be the Darnold/Rosen trades.
As to what teams should think about the Patriots trading Mac... very much depends on why. Nobody is saying "Pats don't think Mac Jones can play" if they trade him after signing a ready now MVP type QB. If they were trading him to sign Jimmy G... sure. Same way nobody thought "Patriots don't think Jimmy G can play, or Pats don't think Matt Cassel can play" when those trades happened, because they were trading them because they had an elite starter.
Rosen was a second and a fifth if memory serves-that's probably about right. Darnold was such a high draft pick and is big athletic and big-armed so I think his price would be higher despite his termnal suck.
 

Valek123

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
975
Upper Valley
Maybe you should have, he has 7 passing TDs and a 107.2 passer rating in three games against the Patriots.
He abused them in 2019 with his legs and they won, so it seems they adjusted to say beat us with your arm in subsequent meetings. 1 TD passing, 2 on the ground.

In 2020 they adjusted and stopped the run let him throw and he was 2 TD 1 Int in a Ravens loss.

2022 he abused the Pats along with nearly everyone else for 4 TDS and 1 running. His 4 TD's were 5 yards(Andrews), 16 yards(Andrews had himself a day), 1 yard(Oliver) and 4 yard(Duvernay). The Ravens kicked the Pats butts that day, but I still haven't come away from any game against them saying he's a great passer that you leverage the future for.

Maybe I'm alone in this but it seemed the defense was in position to make plays and I recall multiple dropped INT's that would have been game changers. Perhaps my memory is just not what it was and we'll see how this looks in a few years to see if his freakish athletic talent continues or if the injury trends continue. The NFL is better with stars like Lamar, I hope for him he's successful against everyone except the Pats. I just wouldn't leverage the $ and the picks.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,539
02130
If I were BB and Kraft I would jump all over Lamar but I'm resigned to them not thinking like I do.

You obviously do your due diligence on the medicals but I think his injury history is overrated because of recency bias, expectations of the Ravens and that he's as a running QB. He basically has:
  • 38 games in three years in college with no injuries
  • No injuries in 2018 or 19 after becoming starter
  • Knee sprain in October 2020, didn't miss a game, missed one game that season with COVID
  • Concussion in '21 playoff game that they lost
  • Ankle sprain in December 2021, missed last 4 games (Ravens missed playoffs)
  • Knee sprain in December 2022, missed last 6 games
The trend is not the way you want to see it but before 2021 he had basically 6 years of being mostly a full-time starter and had just one non-COVID injury and didn't miss any time. If he had the 2021 ankle sprain in the preseason and only missed say, week 1, and played well in the playoffs, the narrative would be entirely different. He also has taken a lot of hits and held up -- If I were his coach I'd be limiting the designed runs for important situations and the playoffs, but I don't see any reason to think he's particularly fragile.

As others have said if you look at his supporting cast (Andrews and a lot of JAGs) his passing stats seem a lot better and his rushing ability speaks for itself. On a team with a good OC, better OL, decent WRs and better RBs (like the Patriots) he would be extremely good I think. With the money guarantee if he gets hurt you're fucked, but that's a risk you're taking no matter who you have (or one NE may be taking with a QB with a much worse ceiling in a few years).

I'm not quite sure if teams are colluding or if they think they can get him for less than the two first round picks and are waiting around. As others have said it would be hard to prove.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
13,805
Interesting. Anthony Richardson is exactly 1 day younger than Josh Allen when adjusting for their draft year.

So...

Player A:
Last college season: 7.6 AY/A, 131.0 rating, 17/9 TD/INT, 654 yards rushing, 9 rush TDs
College career: 7.4 AY/A, 133.6 rating, 1.6/1 TD/INT ratio, 1,116 yards rushing, 12 rush TDs

Player B:
Last college season: 6.9 AY/A, 127.8 rating, 16/6 TD/INT, 204 yards rushing, 6 rush TDs
College career: 7.7 AY/A, 137.7 rating, 2.1/1 TD/INT ratio, 767 yards rushing, 12 rush TDs
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,725
I like Mac Jones but if the Pats are moving off of him his value would be very very very low, much lower than Watson/Wilson/Wentz because Jones doesn't have the great physical tools and if the Pats are dumping him that would suggest to other teams he doesn't have the mental tools either.

Daniel Jones 40 was going to happen but mac jones for a hypothetical 1? not seeing it. Maybe for a future second that becomes a 1 with a pro bowl appearance or 4000 yards or something
There's a distinction to be made here.

Watson didn't just cost the Browns 3 1st round picks (plus 3rd and 4th rounders), he also cost them $250,000,000

Wilson didn't just cost the Broncos 2 1sts, 2nds (and other players), he also cost them $240,000,000

Wentz didn't just cost the Colts a 1st and a 3rd, he also cost them $21.5mil/year.


Mac would cost a team potentially a 1st round pick and what, $10mil.


That's a big distinction, and why Mac's value on the pick side is higher than people are giving credit.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
There's a distinction to be made here.

Watson didn't just cost the Browns 3 1st round picks (plus 3rd and 4th rounders), he also cost them $250,000,000

Wilson didn't just cost the Broncos 2 1sts, 2nds (and other players), he also cost them $240,000,000

Wentz didn't just cost the Colts a 1st and a 3rd, he also cost them $21.5mil/year.


Mac would cost a team potentially a 1st round pick and what, $10mil.


That's a big distinction, and why Mac's value on the pick side is higher than people are giving credit.
Another distinction is that Mac blew chunks last year and the home crowd was booing him and calling for Bailey Fucking Zappe. His market value is, I suspect, very very very low.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
36,744
Hingham, MA
Another distinction is that Mac blew chunks last year and the home crowd was booing him and calling for Bailey Fucking Zappe. His market value is, I suspect, very very very low.
I don't think NFL GMs think of it this way. I think they see what a tire fire Patricia and Judge were.

Plus, beauty is in the eye of the beholder (e.g., Rosen, Darnold, etc.).
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,725
Another distinction is that Mac blew chunks last year and the home crowd was booing him and calling for Bailey Fucking Zappe. His market value is, I suspect, very very very low.
I think we obviously disagree on how much of that was on Mac, but let's look at the other guys if you think Mac was bad last year:

Carson Wentz final season in Philly: 3-8-1 record, 2,600 yards, 16tds, 15int (led NFL), 72.8 rating, sacked 50 times (led NFL) in 12 games, his 5th NFL season.

Russell Wilson final season in Seattle: 6-8 record, 3,100 yards, 25tds, 6int, 103.1 rating, age 33. Of course, we now know how good that offense around him was given what Geno fucking Smith was able to do the following year.

DeShaun Watson: 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 because he was too busy sexually assaulting massage therapists.


And these guys got crazy picks and dollars compared to what any of us are saying Mac would bring back.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,053
Another distinction is that Mac blew chunks last year and the home crowd was booing him and calling for Bailey Fucking Zappe. His market value is, I suspect, very very very low.
It's a dumb comparison in general since those guys went for 2-5 times the value we're discussing for Mac, but yeah, NFL GMs don't care about crowds or idiots on WEEI.

62019

Player 2 is much better than player 1.
Player 2 also has an extra year at less money than Player 1.
Player 1 got traded for a 2nd, 4th and 6th despite all those disadvantages, and it was considered a perfectly reasonable deal. That's the comparison people should be looking at.

If you think Mac was bad last year... sure, but he was still a starter, and he was a lot better his previous year, and he's cheap, and he has good draft pedigree. NFL GMs aren't drunk fans, they can look at context, they also place a lot of value on production per dollar, especially at QB.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
It's a dumb comparison in general since those guys went for 2-5 times the value we're discussing for Mac, but yeah, NFL GMs don't care about crowds or idiots on WEEI.

View attachment 62019

Player 2 is much better than player 1.
Player 2 also has an extra year at less money than Player 1.
Player 1 got traded for a 2nd, 4th and 6th despite all those disadvantages, and it was considered a perfectly reasonable deal. That's the comparison people should be looking at.

If you think Mac was bad last year... sure, but he was still a starter, and he was a lot better his previous year, and he's cheap, and he has good draft pedigree. NFL GMs aren't drunk fans, they can look at context, they also place a lot of value on production per dollar, especially at QB.
Darnold (and Rosen too actually) are also pretty damn physically gifted in ways Jones is not. Anyhow the Darnold example isn't really helping the argument that Jones might get a first round pick.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,681
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
It's a dumb comparison in general since those guys went for 2-5 times the value we're discussing for Mac, but yeah, NFL GMs don't care about crowds or idiots on WEEI.

View attachment 62019

Player 2 is much better than player 1.
Player 2 also has an extra year at less money than Player 1.
Player 1 got traded for a 2nd, 4th and 6th despite all those disadvantages, and it was considered a perfectly reasonable deal. That's the comparison people should be looking at.

If you think Mac was bad last year... sure, but he was still a starter, and he was a lot better his previous year, and he's cheap, and he has good draft pedigree. NFL GMs aren't drunk fans, they can look at context, they also place a lot of value on production per dollar, especially at QB.
QB 1 had better tools, was drafted higher and was placed in an even worse situation than Mac in terms of coaching and talent around him. Yeah NFL GMs look at context and all of that also plays into the context.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,053
Darnold (and Rosen too actually) are also pretty damn physically gifted in ways Jones is not. Anyhow the Darnold example isn't really helping the argument that Jones might get a first round pick.
I think much better actual performance and a year more control is likely more significant to GMs than tools in terms of something like Darnold where they needed him to produce quickly. And... a 2nd/4th/6th is comparable value to a future 1st, so unless we're making the (kinda dumb) argument that teams are going to balk at giving up less value because it is a 1, I don't really buy it.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,725
Darnold (and Rosen too actually) are also pretty damn physically gifted in ways Jones is not. Anyhow the Darnold example isn't really helping the argument that Jones might get a first round pick.
Player 1:

6'2.5", 217lbs
40 yard dash: 4.82
Vertical: 32 inches
Broad jump: 9-8
Shuttle: 4.39
3-Cone: 7.04

Player 2:

6'3" 221lbs
40 yard: 4.85
Vertical: 26.5
Broad Jump: 8-9
3 Cone: 6.96

Player 3:

6'4, 226lbs
40 yard: 4.92
Vertical: 31 inches
Broad Jump: 9.3
3 Cone: 7.09


Player 1 is Mac, 2 is Darnold, 3 is Rosen.

Mac is athletic, he's not Lamar Jackson or Mahomes, but he's not Bledsoe either. If we're talking about arm strength, his was less of a concern, IIRC, coming out of college than Rosen's was.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,053
Player 1:

6'2.5", 217lbs
40 yard dash: 4.82
Vertical: 32 inches
Broad jump: 9-8
Shuttle: 4.39
3-Cone: 7.04

Player 2:

6'3" 221lbs
40 yard: 4.85
Vertical: 26.5
Broad Jump: 8-9
3 Cone: 6.96

Player 3:

6'4, 226lbs
40 yard: 4.92
Vertical: 31 inches
Broad Jump: 9.3
3 Cone: 7.09


Player 1 is Mac, 2 is Darnold, 3 is Rosen.

Mac is athletic, he's not Lamar Jackson or Mahomes, but he's not Bledsoe either. If we're talking about arm strength, his was less of a concern, IIRC, coming out of college than Rosen's was.
Yeah, Darnold had a bigger arm than Mac, but it wasn't a big time arm, and Rosen was probably a 1:1 comp with Mac in terms of tools, arguably less athletic, his whole thing was that he was "the smart one with great technique". Neither was the raw/toolsy type, both were praised for their complex college offenses and ability to make progressions.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
Yeah, Darnold had a bigger arm than Mac, but it wasn't a big time arm, and Rosen was probably a 1:1 comp with Mac in terms of tools, arguably less athletic, his whole thing was that he was "the smart one with great technique". Neither was the raw/toolsy type, both were praised for their complex college offenses and ability to make progressions.
Didn't you just spend a season telling us that Mac Jones has no physical talent, no athleticism, and a way below average arm?
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,173
Player 1 is Mac, 2 is Darnold, 3 is Rosen.

Mac is athletic, he's not Lamar Jackson or Mahomes, but he's not Bledsoe either. If we're talking about arm strength, his was less of a concern, IIRC, coming out of college than Rosen's was.
I agree, of all the things to criticize Mac of, when he has to run, he seems to run pretty well. You can talk about his pocket movement, lack of big arm, but when he gets out of the pocket he's average / above average. As you said he's not Mahomes or Jackson but he's plenty quick enough to pick up a 3rd and 5 or 3rd and 8.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,018
I know we're just talking hypotheticals as we wait for FA to open, but Belicheck did not hire O'Brien to go and dump Mac.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,053
Didn't you just spend a season telling us that Mac Jones has no physical talent, no athleticism, and a way below average arm?
I mean, I spent a season saying that he doesn't have great athleticism or a plus arm... and neither did Rosen. Darnold also had neutral to poor athleticism but a good, not elite arm.

I honestly don't even get this argument track you're on... Mac Jones has had a mediocre NFL career so far, he's still not terrible, he's just not a difference maker.
Plenty of teams will play non-difference makers this year at QB, and a lot of them will be paying more for them than Mac Jones. It's why absent a top QB falling into their lap the Patriots will start Mac and it's the right call.
If you can reasonably get Lamar Jackson (a difference maker) you do, then you trade Jones, and history has show worse QBs than Mac Jones return solid draft compensation.... including Sam Darnold. Because.... if you're a different team that can't get a difference maker at QB, but doesn't want to tear it down the second best way to contend is to get the best, cheapest non-difference maker you can and build an elite team around them (see Jimmy G in SF, Goff in LA, etc.)

If people want to argue that Sam Darnold was seen as a guy with elite athletic/arm traits 3 years into his career, they can, but that doesn't match the pre-draft and post-draft writings of the time, you can look it up they're all still on the internet. Expecting Mac Jones to return at minimum what Darnold did is more than reasonable, if anything expecting less assumes a wild change in the evaluation of QBs in the last 2 years... and there isn't the evidence for it.

I know we're just talking hypotheticals as we wait for FA to open, but Belicheck did not hire O'Brien to go and dump Mac.
DUmp him... no. But I think we've seen enough of Bill the GM to know that if he can massively upgrade his talent he's not letting past draft picks, or anything else stand in his way. He hired BOB because he needed an OC, and he didn't have one. If he could reasonably add an elite QB he'd move on from Mac in an instant. The question came out of.... if BIll wanted to do it, and Kraft opened the pocketbook for Lamar. what do you do with Mac.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,338
Somewhere
Re: Mac’s value, if other teams see elements of Mac’s play/ability as worth a 1st+ then the Patriots likely see the same things. So it’s unlikely they spin him off for that package.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,053
Re: Mac’s value, if other teams see elements of Mac’s play/ability as worth a 1st+ then the Patriots likely see the same things. So it’s unlikely they spin him off for that package.
umm... they don't? I mean in the situation mooted... you think that if the Patriots see Mac as being worth a 1st, they wouldn't trade him and a 1st for a league MVP caliber QB? I really don't buy that. You trade a pair of 1sts for a top QB any day of the week (assuming you can pay his contract), the going rate for a player like Lamar should be 3-4 1sts floor. His contract demands are unique and limiting his market (especially with the archaic escrow rule), but I don't think anyone in the league sees the difference between him and Mac Jones as only a 1st. Hell I'm not sure Mac Jones' mother thinks her son is only a 1st less valuable than Lamar. In the situation laid out (in a position to sign Lamar and interested) the Patriots would trade Mac Jones unless they thought he was a borderline All-Pro player starting almost right away.

Edit- of course none of it matters because no way Bill and Kraft pay the contract Lamar wants
 
Last edited: