Because of two key reasons. 1) Cousins is as much of a guaranteed lock of being at least "good" for years to come as possible whereas a drafted rookie QB (even though they may well turn out better than Cousins) has a high historical rate of failure. 2) Since Cousins would "only" cost money you still have that #6 pick burning a hole in your pocket which now you can just go out there and totally splurge on either the impact RB or potentially impact WR so the Jets offense would not only have a really good QB but now for the first time in 1000 years also have a "best player on the field" type guy that can make game changing plays at any time. I'd love to see the Jets pick and develop their own next great QB to anchor the franchise for a decade+ but if this was poker or whatever where they show the odds of winning the pot on the TV screen the harsh reality is that the Cousins route probably has the higher pot odds.
Is it though? I know there are a lot of QBs that will go in the first two rounds but do you really think this class ranks up there with the classes that had Eli Manning, John Elway, etc.? After the first two or three QBs are off the board I am not so sure the next guy is worth betting the farm on.
If about half come from the first and the other half is spread out among the remaining 6 rounds and UDFA, that's not really 50/50.
So trading away our entire draft this year and next year is worth a CHANCE at a top QB, when we can sign a top QB in FA and keep our entire draft this year? How does that make sense
yes it is. half in the 1st round, half after the 1st round. Also history proves that the 1st QB taken is rarely the best one in the NFL from the draft class.
A little hyperbole no? Not gonna have to trade away 2 entire draft classes to move up a couple spots. Mac needs to identify his guy that he is gonna gamble his job on and go get him.
Washington traded a 2012, 2013, and 2014 first round pick, as well as 2012 second round pick to move from 6 to 2. So no, you aren't trading you're entire draft class, but you are trading your top picks for a year maybe two.
I would trade that for Sam darnold, I mean those firsts were probably just gonna be used on non impact dline men
So yes hyperbole lol. A lot different than trading two straight draft classes. Also Washington gave up a lot more than either of the more recent Eagles or Rams trades, if I remember correctly.
Washignton's trade for RGIII was an exception, not the rule. Doesn't usually cost that much to jump up 3-4 spots like that, if the Colts or Browns want out of us what the Rams got out of Washington I would rather just see Mac sit and get Mayfield at 6.
My guess is that Buffalo tries to move up to draft a young QB as well, and they have an extra first this year to do so. We'd have to outbid them if we both try to trade for the same pick. The best possible move for this franchise to make is to sign Kirk Cousins to a 5 or 6 year deal, keeping all of our draft picks. We would be able to either land Barkley or Chubb at 6 this year (in this scenario it would be Barkley), giving us a game breaker on offense or defense. If we don't sign Cousins, then so be it, trade up if you need to.
Buffalo is going to have two mid 20s picks, gonna be very hard for them to get into top 5. More concerned about a team like Arizona or Washington trading up but really my big concern is Mac not recognizing the incredible opportunity in front of him, AGAIN!
I was worried about this too, but I'm thinking that they may be more tempted to commit to Tyrod Taylor long term after this playoff berth. We'll see how they do.
Buffalo would have to give up a ton to get ahead of the Jets, so much that it’s likely not a realistic concern. Why would Cleveland, Indy or the Giants want to go from a top 5 pick to the 21 and 25th pick?
Um not really. You responded to a poster saying that the chances of getting a FQB after the first round is slim, by delineating the rounds each current NFL starter was drafted then splitting that group between the first round and the field. Your list was flawed as was your reasoning. The odds of landing an effective starter at QB generally decrease as you move beyond the first, that has been proven through various studies. I would try to find some of those to post but too I'm lazy and I feel this debate, if I can even call it that, is worth it. To begin with 3 of the QBs placed in the non first round column (Keenum, Savage and Brissett) are back-ups who replaced first round picks. So technically the field list should be reduced by 3 and the 1st round list increased by the same amount. So even based on this very flawed logic the odds are better than 50/50 in favor of the 1st round. Now to the flawed logic itself; you are essentially adding up different odds and pitting the sum of those odds against one, the first round. Let's pretend its 50/50 like you "believe?". That means the latter 50 is the combination of rounds 2-7 plus UDFA. Lets say the chances decrease roughly by half each round totaling 50 all together; so the odds in the 2nd is 25%, 3rd 12.5%, 4th 6.25%...and so on. If you are a GM needing to draft a QB which odds are you willing to put your job on the line for 50% in the 1st or 6.25% in the 4th, 3.125% in the 5th?
2017 Draft, Chicago traded: 3rd overall 3rd round 3rd round 4th round 3rd round (2018) Recieved: 2nd overall So this was the going rate to move up one spot just last year. I would much much much rather take Cousins who 3-4 years from now "may" be a lesser QB than one of these top 2 guys and retain the picks. It's not that complicated. Cousins offers you a safe floor somewhere between the middling QBs in the NFL and below the top 5. A top prospect rookie you HOPE can offer you this level of production with the chance to be elite. Here's how that breaks down: - Cousins offers a known commodity. That comes at a high price, 20+ mil/year, you know what to expect and he should deliver right away. - A top QB prospect is an unknown commodity. That comes significantly cheaper cap wise but at great cost draft capital wise. However, you have no idea how long their development might take, potentially a year or two and even then it may never materialize. But you are committed to them based on how high they were drafted (Sanchez). Cousins costs cap (proven but limited) / Prospect costs draft picks (unproven but ?) If we don't land a decent functioning QB having all of that cap won't amount to anything. It willl be Denver 2.0 just no Elway to throw rocks at.
Idk that bears trade is only bad to me because of the fact trubisky was gonna be there at pick 3. I would give up those 3rd rounders to move up one spot this year
The price for trading up doesn’t dissuade my desire for the team to finally have its own identity. The price for a highly regarded QB in the draft is high in the modern NFL bc you simply can’t contend w.o one.Either accept the price of admission or prepare to keep pissing mid round picks away on mediocre passing prospects like the Jets have done over & over again. You are either in the right spot at the right time picking top 3 in a good positional year or you’re gonna have to trade up to get your man. It’s no longer a peril to package multiple picks for a QB..it’s now an inherent risk caused by supply & demand.. Unless of course your ok w Ryan Fitzpatrick,Josh Mccown or Neil O’Donnell while hoping picks like Glenn Foley,Brooks Bollinger or Bryce Petty develop to eventually replace the names above
