It just seems very specific & suggests urgency to get the deal done.Otherwise why not play hardball to not include the 6th? Its as if the 3rd they received was not just getting the best value they could but part of some larger plan.Just a hunch.
If it's just the extra 3rd he's trading, then fine. I'm totally against trading our 1st and both 3rds for Mack.
So, what you're saying is, if it hasn't happened before, then it can never happen. If that were true, then we'd still be stuck in a singularity waiting for the Big Bang. Each situation is different. How many were surprised when BB traded a surefire replacement for Brady for a 2nd round pick? Given the critical nature of the QB position, it's very possible that a team would find itself in a crisis this season and agree to "overpay" for Teddy. I understand that Macc must've had other considerations besides the at-face compensation, but not knowing what his thinking is, I'm only going off what I can see. I don't think it's unrealistic to think that Bridgewater could've brought higher value, but it's water over the damn now.
If you think Teddy didn't learn anything from his past play with the Vikings, then I can see your reason. But we're talking about an experienced QB here that was a pro-bowler vs a player that has not played one down in a regular season game? I would trust a player like TB with the kind of mobility and experience to overcome the lack of talent surrounding him than Darnold at this point. Past experience with this team and QB's tell me this,
I don't hate the trade but it is concerning. No question, Darnold is the future of this team, and I'm glad he is now the perceived starter on day 1 as he should be. However, what do the Jets have in QB reserve now? A 39 year old journeyman who has never stayed healthy when given the opportunity to play, and a FA rookie just recently signed. I checked into Wolford and he does not inspire a lot of confidence as a 3rd option. He's listed at 6'1", 200 but I've seen other sites where he's listed at 5'11". Brooks Bollinger II? He had a breakout senior year at Wake Forest, which is not a football powerhouse, but prior to that, his career there was unremarkable, so he's not Baker Mayfield. Scouts evaluated his arm strength as average, so he's not Russell Wilson either, but he is quick and did make a lot of plays with his feet for whatever that's worth in the NFL. I think I'd feel better if the 3rd QB had some NFL experience. I saw Bowles quoted on another site saying Wolford would see action tonight if he learns enough of the playbook. Also scheduled to see action tonight on the other side is Christian Hackenberg. Should be interesting!
Wolford played at Wake Forest, right here in Winston-Salem where I live and he's not very good. If he has to play this season, he'd better be as fast as Mercury (the god, not the car); otherwise, he'll get killed.
It's a possibility but I think it depends on how Brees plays. Teddy I'm sure is looking to become a starting QB again. That opportunity could present itself in the next off season. Also have to look at the saints cap space, Brees would cost $21 million in dead cap so he's not going anywhere in 2019. Will Teddy be willing to sit for 2 years minimum and what can the Saints afford to pay him? Not much hype surrounding the 2019 QB class and there will be teams in need of a starting QB.
FIFY. As to "bashing it", why does questioning it = "bashing"? There's precedent for getting more than a 3rd rounder for a proven starting QB. Yes, he's coming off a career-threatening injury, but he's shown that he's virtually recovered. If he had the opportunity to prove that 100%, like say after playing a few games and having good stats what would his value be then? Certainly more than a 3rd round pick. There are those who believe "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush", but there are many highly successful people who got that way by taking reasonable chances. Hanging onto TB for a few games to make sure Darnold is okay, and to drive up his value, isn't really much of a risk, and saying that anyone who thinks following that approach is "bashing" Macc is just looking for a fight.
Clarify, do you mean the extra 3rd and our 1st? Or just the extra 3rd? I'm reading just the 3rd but am sure you meant our first and extra third.
No, I think his point is that unless it has happened regularly in the past it is unlikely to happen this year either. Therefore you are holding on in hope of an unlikely set of circumstances occurring and what is far more likely to happen is Bridgewater eats a roster space, sees little action and walks at the end of the season for no compensation (as we would not in all likelihood get a comp pick for him with our cap space). So do you play the long odds for a slightly better return, or take the offer on the table for almost no risk which benefits you a roster space this year and returns an extra draft pick in place of the one you traded away? I know which one I would take.
It's clear which one you would take, but you're basing this on an assumption that Macc wouldn't be able to make this trade during the season, and giving a lot of value to the roster spot he'd be taking up while he's here. I think it's entirely possible that he could get at LEAST a 3rd for him, and whoever the 53rd roster spot goes to isn't as valuable as TB, both as a backup while he's here, and as a trade chip. Macc obviously feels the deal was a good one, I get that, but if we're going to now stop being able to question moves made by the GM and coaches, let's just shut this site down now.
Please, I'm a big fan of Teddy's , but the "pro bowl" label is a joke. 5 of the 6 QBs selected passed and the league was desperate for bodies to play. He was 22nd in the league in passing yards and passer rating had 14 TDs to 9 picks. He was very inconsistent and had no business getting an invite. Teddy is definitely more experienced, but no where as durable , and not as mobile. The line, even without Beachum played very well as far as the pass blocking. The pressures were almost entirely from the outside. Darnold has a better chance of surviving than Teddy.
We're talking semantics here. Pro bowler is better than a no-bowler. And Darnold having a better chance? Compared to what? We have no clue how this line will perform once the season starts. Remember what happened last year when Garret came in for a few plays with the Browns?
It's fine that that's the way you see things and the offer you'd take. It's also fine to question this trade and the timing and specifics of this trade (giving NO back a 6th round pick). This sounds like Mac initiated the trade and was too eager, too anxious to make a deal. Of course it could be that no QB goes down with an injury and the Jets were "stuck" with Teddy (I can think of a lot of worse things that could happen). It could also be that a QB will go down with a serious injury. Just because it doesn't happen often or hasn't happened regularly in the past doesn't mean that it couldn't or wouldn't happen this year, particularly if as many NFL OLs are questionable/bad as some posters here seem to think. That's just not the way life and the NFL work. How many QBs suffer gruesome leg injuries to the extent that their leg may have to be amputated in a non-contact drill? AFAIK it's only happened one time, but it DID happen. Just because the odds aren't very high of something happening doesn't mean that it wouldn't/couldn't happen to the Jets. With the way the Jets' luck runs I'm actually surprised that more posters weren't unhappy at least initially with this trade.
I was in favor of Teddy starting and Darnold sitting but that option is gone. I'm fine with Sam starting or McCown getting the first 8 games. The bottom line is Sam will have to play eventually and every play carries risk for every player. There are things you just can't learn from the bench. Sam has shown the mental ability to adjust,and recover quickly. He spent all of last season under pressure and he was fine. Teddy was never mobile or elusive, he has been a rhythm passer his entire career, going back to HS. In fact his lack of mobility was a concern pre draft and as far as target size they are the same height, Darnold is just much more solidly built. I think interceptions could be an issue with alignments and disguises more so than injury.
I have a feeling if I started a poll a couple days ago asking if Bridgewater and a 6th rounder for a 3rd rounder is a good deal, most of TGG would've voted no.
Yes, you are right . .Above the "good Qbs" like Teddy there are some that are I consider "very good": Ryan and Wilson--taken their teams to a SB and playoff wins Rivers, Luck, A Smith--Length of service/exp in NFL,QB ratings But Goff Prescott and Wentz are off to promising starts but I woundnt annoint them "very good"..Carr is also a close call between good and very good The way I see it is that the elite players (great) command at least 2 firsts and several 2nds etc and prob alot more.... Very Good would get at least a first two seconds and more ...Good gets at least a second rounder as part of the deal As to the Teddy deal just feel Mac should have waited to the trade deadline played it a little tougher in the negotiating maybe see if someone goes down or teams are more desperate to give up at LEAST a second for Teddy and then we get a compensatory pick next year I guess I am OK with it now but really dont like it and no I would not say Mac is a shoo in for GM of the year..its MORE beneficial to NO and Teddy Why? Because New O can now have something of a cushion with a good backup for Drew B in TB (they have another QB who is a beast and plays Spec Teams..so guy could get hurt)..Teddy wins big witha new home where they might eventually have him replace Brees in say 4 years And the Jets?? People say this a psych burden lifted from Sam so he is clearly the starter and Josh the only back up...this is clearly the FOs plan now.. So glad we have Sam and NOT Capt Kirk (thanks for not including him..lol)
Well no... I did my research before posting about it. QBs traded for first round picks since the year 2000: Jay Cutler Sam Bradford Carson Palmer Trent Green All four were starters the year before they were traded. Two of them were traded because a starter went down. None of them were backups. So what's the precedent here? There's absolutely none. Even if you want to pretend like 4 trades over the last 18 years is "precedent", you'd have to admit that the odds are severely against you.
