Reading Way Too Much Into Things & Ridiculous Scenarios
Because I am insanely bored and don't feel like writing about run of the mill draft stuff right now, I wanted to drop this on everyone. The other day in a chat with the fans, it was noted that the Jacksonville Jaguars are amidst a 4-year rebuilding project. This we all knew. Wayne Weaver said during the fan chat that he felt the team was a year or two away from competing at the highest level.
"We are realistically one or two drafts and one or two free agency periods away from being able to compete at the very highest level," Weaver wrote. "That’s when we can realistically getting [sic] into the postseason and having [sic] the opportunity to bringing [sic once again] a Super Bowl championship to Jacksonville."
Tin foil hat, engaged.
I saw a Jaguars fan on twitter talking about the four year plan, and mentioned why not see what you can get for David Garrard? While that sounds crazy... I want to jump on the crazy train.
Hear me out.
A team like the Minnesota Vikings is a team who's speculated to be interested in a quarterback in the 2011 NFL Draft. They're also speculated to be very interested in current Washington Redskins quarterback Donovan McNabb. Reportedly, the Redskins are going to ask for around a 3rd Round pick for McNabb. If the Jaguars truly feel they are another 2 drafts and free agency periods away, why not see if you can enter the "Minnesota needs a veteran QB" race? For the 2011 NFL season, McNabb is due a cool $1.75 million (plus a $10 million option bonus). Comparatively, David Garrard is due $7.975 million in 2011, about $4 million cheaper than McNabb. I would also argue at this point in their career's, Garrard is probably the better option.
If you could get a 3rd, even a conditional 4th round pick for David Garrard... would you do it?
So, if the Jaguars are at least two off-season's out of competing at the highest level (when Garrard would be turning 35) wouldn't it make sense to get that quarterback of the future? By the 2013 season (after the 2 off-seasons), that quarterback would be hitting their 3rd season and ideally would be on the rise and poised to be playing at a high level. Not only would you be rightfully primed to be competing at that level, but you'd also be primed to stay at that level in the long run with your quarterback already entrenched. Doesn't the owner of the team saying he feels they're about 2 seasons out of competing at the highest level indicate a quarterback at 16 is a real possibility? Or does it say they're set with Garrard and plan on riding him out?
Obviously, a move like such would be poo-poo'ed say on draft day, because a move like that says "We're not expecting to compete this season." However, what if a move like this was made at the end of the pre-season, after a lengthy training camp battle with a rookie quarterback and Luke McCown?
I don't know. I thought it was something to consider. Like the title says, Reading Way Too Much Into Things & Ridiculous Scenarios.
27 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yeah. I’d do it. Like you said, if you’re going to have a couple of more years before you expect to be a big contender, you might as well get your QB of the future on a shorter learning curve and let David seek greener pastures. Without that four year plan though, it would feel like giving up on David. With the plan, it may sting a little bit but would be worth it in the long run (2more yrs left on the 4yr deal)
Sean
Pax Armis Acquiritur
I actually like this idea.
I would absolutely take a 3rd rounder, and also take the conditional 4th. We might even be able to add a couple of other guys into the mix for that battle to be the starting QB. You are right when you say if the plan is a 4 year plan, and so this would give us 2 years to groom the QB of the future.
Also, kudos for saying you think DG is better than McNabb.
Fidelis Ad Mortem
obviously we're assuming
this is all contingent on drafting a qb in the first 2 rounds…no way am i going into the season with trent edwards or bouman
Well, we would draft one...
then let them battle it out in camp. Maybe invite like 5 veterans/UDFA and it’ll be like a Battle Royale. If its too close to call, we send the final 2 into a steel cage match – winner take all.
Fidelis Ad Mortem
Garrard’s on the top rope! Edwards is dazed!! Here comes the Flying 9, Garrards finishing move!! He jumps! Ohhhh and Garrard badly overshoots a wide open Edwards in the middle of the ring.
by jlana24 on Apr 13, 2011 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 5 recs
Can you even do it?
I thought all player movement was frozen with the exception of the draft until an agreement is reached.
Also, if it could happen, couldn’t you see Garrard in Cincy? He’s always been compared to Jeff Blake, so in my crazy mind, it makes perfect sense. Not to mention, he’s really not that big a drop off from Carson Palmer.
Lately....
I would say he’d be an improvement over Carson Palmer.
DG is the best we have and help is not on the way. I realize he's not perfect, but I feel a lot better about him at QB than I do the O-Line, DB's, or LB's ability to cover a TE.
I would agree with that
Especially given the weapons Palmer has compared to Garrard. Say what you want about their antics, but Chad Johnson and TO get open and make things happen.
I don't really like it.
I think what puts the Jaguars in the situation they are in right now, and makes me feel comfortable with this team, is that there is some stability at the quarterback position. I’m not a big fan of Garrard, but I really like the idea of having a veteran play while a rookie develops. If next year comes around, and someone is willing to give you something for him, I think that’s the time to do so. Right now I’d like to draft a quarterback and let him develop while Garrard goes out and keeps us in contention.
As an aside, lets say that the new quarterback is a first rounder, and he’s a huge bust. You’ve just sunk a bunch of money into him, and you may have to consider drafting another one. However, because of the ineptitude of the new guy, you’re now picking very high in the draft. Would they get a new quarterback in the next draft? I’m inclined to think not. I sort of think that’s what happened with Leftwich. Not that he was a huge bust, but they definitely knew that he wasn’t their guy after the first year. They were stuck though, and had to stick with him.
I had this thought early on last year...
I got over it pretty quick.
Truth is: Garrard is a pretty good option at QB and there aren’t as many of those as you might think. it also hangs Del Rio out to dry, and when you have a surge in fan support like we did last year, you don’t throw away a whole year to add a 3rd round pick.
A first…. maybe, but definitely not a 3rd.
Twitter: BLByline Youtube: BLByline
I'm willing to drink the Kool-ade, but I'm hungry for the truth.
Personally, I'd rather not.
Then again, I am more of a Garrard fan than I was after seeing him in the middle of last season.
Twitter: BLByline Youtube: BLByline
I'm willing to drink the Kool-ade, but I'm hungry for the truth.
by Brian Levenson on Apr 13, 2011 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
2nd round trade
I could see DG warranting a 2nd round pick and the Vikes pick is 49 overall. Then they can follow their division nemesis the Packers and groom one for a few years.
Vikes is 44 I think.
We’re 49
Twitter: BLByline Youtube: BLByline
I'm willing to drink the Kool-ade, but I'm hungry for the truth.
by Brian Levenson on Apr 13, 2011 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions
You better be pretty sure the QB you draft this year is "the man"
Otherwise, that trade is a huge set-back.
Is this a quarterback who can make the team around him look better, like Matt Ryan or Sam Bradford?
Also, I feel like we could get a second round pick for Garrard…
building on that
what if we pulled it off and packaged the 44 and 49 and for New England’s first
1st Round – #28 and 3rd Round – #74?
44 and 49 equals 870
28 and 74 equals 880
With the 28 pick, we can get one of those supposedly highly touted qbs whether it be Kaepernick, Locker, Ponder, Dalton.
I'd vote no
Having Garrard start over a presumed talented rookie is a fine luxery. There will be time for him to develop while we still try and be the best team we could be. If we have a stud on our hands then he will push Garrard anyway, who of course isn’t good enough to be above competition.
by jstnblke41 on Apr 13, 2011 4:53 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Its more likely that we trade garrard after next season… unless his contract expires in which case we just let him go. When does his contract expire again?
by Vicbow on Apr 13, 2011 6:09 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Why do people overrate Garrard when if comes to trading him, but when it comes to him being on the team, he is garbage? Why would a team want “garbage”, anyway, if a team would give us that for Garrard then I would love it…sorry though, that wont be happening.

by 































