LinvilleGorge

I have no idea what you're trying to do. I just know that you're really hung up on a sunk cost to the point that you're admittedly fully willing to pass up on a franchise QB prospect at #8 simply simply because of a relatively small value trade made to acquire a former high pick bust of a QB.

They don't really believe in him. They negotiated for weeks over a paltry trade sum. If we really wanted him we wouldn't have risked losing him to someone else.

You're asking for proof but where's yours? As mentioned before, what we gave up in trade is peanuts for the QB position. Honestly, Darnold's trade value is better evidence AGAINST that. We wouldn't have been negotiating for weeks over a relative pittance if we REALLY wanted him. Verge has also said that if Darnold was black he wouldn't even be in the league right now.

Yep. We tried the smart, physically limited QB last year. It didn't work out. So now we're trying the physically talented underachiever.

Agreed. We wanted Watson. We legit tried for Stafford. We sniffed around Russell Wilson just for due diligence. We called Miami about #3. We obviously projected the draft and didn't see #8 working out for us at QB, thus here we are. If the leaves fall in a way that #8 works out, you don't let Sam Darnold, a 4th rounder, and a 2nd and 6th next year slow you down.

I just don't see that trade as much of an investment. Certainly not enough to forego adding a better option at QB if the opportunity presents itself. I honestly think that trade was made simply so that our hand wouldn't be forced. I don't think making the trade will force our hand the opposite way.

That'd be a tremendous improvement. One of the things that made Jake special was his clutch ability. He was basically just an average starting QB for the most part, but the bigger the moments the better he usually was.

Yep. I'm just nowhere near as convinced of that happening as you are. Honestly, I'd probably out the odds at 95% against. 90% if I'm being generous.

This is a key reason why I'm hoping we don't draft a CB in the 1st. I like the CB prospects likely to be there at the top of the 2nd better than I do the OT prospects likely to be there.

I think we traded relative pennies considering the position for a guy who has some talent to work with (more than Teddy) but who is probably a lon shot to actually work out and the trade compensation tells that story. 23 year old former #3 overall pick QBs don't get traded for a 4th and future 2nd and 6th unless the rest of the league has pretty much given up on him. The most recent close comp to this situation is Josh Rosen.

So you're really letting the sunk cost of a 4th round pick and future 2nd and 6th round picks keep you from making the pick you would've made otherwise? That's exactly what I hope we DON'T do.

Please, enlighten us. You throw a lot of shade at other opinions usually without offering much other than that.

Hell, I hope Sam Darnold is the Super Bowl MVP next year, but I'm not gonna engage in mental gymanstics and try to convince myself that he's "basically a rookie" so that I can ignore his three seasons of atrocious NFL QB play.

I want no part of Mac Jones, but this.

Yeah, that's what concerns me. Teddy first, now Darnold. If Darnold goes no better then there's a serious question on whether or not Rhule knows how to evaluate NFL QB talent. I don't think they think he sucks. I do think that they think he was their best option available at the time and none of them were fantastic.

What is Rhule supposed to say? Yeah, we know he sucked but we're really hoping he won't here. It's coach speak.

This is one area where college experience is an advantage IMO. College rosters are a lot bigger and you're constantly developing young talent.

You keep saying that Darnold is basically a rookie but that's just hilarious. He's started more games in the NFL than any of these college prospects we're talking about have started in college. He isn't basically a rookie. He's IS a bust looking to resurrect his career. Let's not gloss over three years of terrible play and pretend like he's basically a rookie.

You have it all figured out but you're wrong. My opinion is that Darnold is highly unlikely to be good. History isn't kind to the idea of top pick bust QBs bouncing back elsewhere. People love the Tannehill como but it isn't a comp. Tannehill was MUCH better in Miami than Darnold was in NY. I don't know whether Fields will be good either. What I do think though is that if we have him valued as a franchise QB prospect, then he likely has a much better chance of being good than Darnold. The trade is a sunk cost. If you pick Fields, having Darnold means you don't have to force Fields into action too soon. It also means that if Darnold plays well, now you have your choice of the two and you can trade the other. That's a great problem to have.

Take Cam off of those teams and you have an absolutely terrible run of football for the Panthers. Cam is a great example of the impact of an elite QB. Most of those teams pretty much sucked minus Cam. The fact that people still immediately go all the way back to the Dilfers and Johnsons of the NFL is exhibit 1A on why that philosophy of roster building no longer works on today's NFL where the rules are continually tweaked to create advantages for the offense - particularly the passing game.

Sure. It is what it is. I have no say in the matter. I think Darnold could deliver Howell, so let's go!

He hasn't said anything about any QB by name. Hell, he couldn't when we were pursuing trade options. That's tampering. He shouldn't when discussing draft options. That's dumb. But he has always been very vocal about needing a franchise QB.

Woody Johnson may be the most hands off owner in the NFL. He let his coach hire his own GM. How's that been working out for the Jets? I expect Tepper to keep the football on track with the philosophy. Everything roster related is secondary to finding the QB. That's the only piece of the roster puzzle that absolutely has to be solved to field a consistently competitive team. A stud LT is a great thing to have but you can build a good OL without one. A stud CB is a great thing to have but you can build a good secondary without one. A stud QB is a good thing to have but you can build an elite offense without one... oh wait, no you can't.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying you live in a fantasy world if you expect business owners to just meekly sit back and be okay with whatever is happening in their business, for better or worse. I certainly don't want another Al Davis, but Tepper was pretty clear about his football philosophy. Coach, GM, QB. Presumably he hired people who are onboard with that philosophy. If they think there's a franchise QB on the board, they should draft him based on that philosophy. Plenty of average tackles and average CBs have played in SBs in the modern era. Foles is probably the only average QB who has and he certainly wasn't playing average during that SB run. You gotta have a QB.

Have you ever dealt with a business owner on anything? You don't get rich coming from humble beginnings by quietly sitting back and nodding and saying "okay". That's just not how it works. I don't think Tepper would force Fields on them if they don't already really like him, but if they do and they need a little nudging to take him over some OT or CB that's where I'd fully expect a nudge to come in.