What should Ballard do?

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

The whole Saints Draft for for 1 player & a RB at that is a Bust & will always be least ways it was for the Saints & Ditka .

 

 

Quote

 

[jshipp23]

Just now, ÅÐØNϧ 1 said:

 

I would he was'nt worth the Saints whole Draft & he looked hideous in his wedding gown IMO .

Fair enough...lol...His first 5 years were pretty good then he retired missed whole season came back 1 year and was suspended the next...99' 884 yards 28 receptions in only 12 games...2000', 1,000 yards, 44 receptions...2001', 1,245 yds, 60 receptions...2002', 1,853 yards, 47 reception all-pro 1 of greatest seasons ever...2003', 1,372 yards, 50 receptions...His biggest issue was he was crazy, but Ricky Williams could play..Even had a season late in career at 32 years old in 2009' with 1,121 yards and 53 receptions...

[Crunked]

Just now, Tracy Denton said:

Here is an interesting fact, We had the same amount of sacks last year as 2006 SB win.

yup, don't know what it has to do with what I just said, but you are correct......doesn't change the "need" for an edge rusher more than a RB, which was the point I was making, but there you have it......

[jshipp23]

5 minutes ago, ÅÐØNϧ 1 said:

The whole Saints Draft for for 1 player & a RB at that is a Bust & will always be least ways it was for the Saints & Ditka .

 

 

 

 similar to Herscel Walker deal, but not as Bad as RG111 deal, yes he wasn't worth all that because he was crazy, but he wasn't a bust...Leaf and Griffin were busts...Barkley doesn't seem to be mentally unstable like Ricky was...Ricky Williams was A GREAT talent though, maybe best college RB ever...

[jshipp23]

6 minutes ago, Crunked said:

yup, don't know what it has to do with what I just said, but you are correct......doesn't change the "need" for an edge rusher more than a RB, which was the point I was making, but there you have it......

Get 1 in 2nd or free agency...I would take Minkah Fitzpatrick over Chubb at 3 if we go defense and keep pick..Fitz is perfect fit for this defense since we are going to zone, and has more elite characteristics than Chubb at just as important of position as Defensive End...He would give us one of best secondaries in the league..I'd, even resign Melvin,  or sign Trumaine Johnson too to go along with Wilson, Hairston, Hooker, Geathers, Farley and move Green to linebacker..Draft Okoronkwo or Landry in 2nd for pass rush...

[jshipp23]

21 minutes ago, lance_m8 said:

So out of the 1000s of Running Backs to play in the NFL you thought of 5 and you are already trying to put a guy who hasn't played a down of NFL football into a category of Golden Jackets wearers

So is there any guarantee Chubb will be a Hall of Famer either? Defensive ends bust all the time...

[crazycolt1]

3 hours ago, SolidGold said:

Please keep that same energy for Barkley when Mack is named the starter and does everything you imagine Barkley doing but 1 year already under his belt and already proven he can play in the NFL. Mack is big, fast, strong, and slippery. We don't need Barkley. What Guard on our team is better or similar to Nelson ? The odds of Mack or any other back in the draft doing better or equal to Barkley this year is way higher than any other Guard out performing QN this year. IMO

Sorry, Mack is not an every down back like you describe him. I am not saying he is not good but there is a difference between running backs and what they bring to the team.

[lance_m8]

7 minutes ago, jshipp23 said:

So is there any guarantee Chubb will be a Hall of Famer either? Defensive ends bust all the time...

No guarantee but I am not calling chubb a future HOFer I am saying he fills a bigger need and makes our whole defense better we dont "need" a pure #1 RB we need a solid pass rusher though

[MPStack]

37 minutes ago, Tracy Denton said:

Here is an interesting fact, We had the same amount of sacks last year as 2006 SB win.

And that defense was terrible except for the first two playoff games and SB. The Colts caught lightning in a bottle with the return of B. Sanders. 

[Nesjan3]

Trading back for picks and still getting Chubb or Nelson sounds nice, but i am a fan of taking BPA with a high pick. That being said BPA at 3 would be Barkley

[southwest1]

4 hours ago, Aaron86 said:

I think we should get Barkley. He would take alot of pressure off of Andrew or whoever is back there throwing. I mean this guy can move and not only that he has amazing awareness. He would also be a good red zone threat kinda like Bradshaw was for Andrew.

 

The only major knock I have on him is in the NFL he is going to have to stay on his feet more. He seems to have a tendency to want to hurdle. But I think that can be tamed down in him.

Uh huh. Pretty much my sentiments too A86. 

3 hours ago, aaron11 said:

then we would still have a great running back.  i would go chubb over barkley myself, but its close.  so close that i wont be mad with either 

True, if we land Chubb. I won't be upset either. Not like when drafted Phillip Dorsett anyway. 

2 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

First off, I have to apologize to JShipp.  I have looked at tape consistently today for Barkley and Chubb, and I have changed teams on this. I'm all aboard the Barkley train. Some of this comes from the fact that we don't have McDaniels anymore, but Barkley looks amazing the more I look at him. His speed and agility is awesome, his burst is fantastic, he can catch the ball, he can return the ball if need be. A true all-purpose running back. The big problem I found with Chubb is his initial burst. He has trouble breaking through initial blocks and can be slow to sack the QB. I honestly see Chubb as a possible bust candidate like Bjoern Werner, while Barkley can be like Gurley, Elliott, or Fournette. The choice is obvious to take Barkley at 3 here.

Don't sweat it Jared. I admire when people have the you know what's to say, I messed up & after further consideration Barkley should be our pick. I'm not gonna pretend I've skimmed through hours of college tape because I haven't & that's not my idea of fun, but a potentially elite RB changes everything on offense & it gives a QB more balance not requiring them to throw the ball over 35-40 times a game. 

[aaron11]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

To add to C, the teams that have won the SB in the last 10-15 years while relying on one lead back have mostly had a back that wasn't drafted in the first round, or was acquired via free agency. I think you have to go back to the Saints to find a SB winner that even rostered a first round RB, and Reggie Bush was their #3 back by yardage and carries.

this might sound nit pickish in a thread that is getting a little out of hand, but marshawn lynch was a first round lead back and an important part of Seattle's superbowl season.  they blew the second one too, lynch could have helped them there on the one yard line

 

he wasnt drafted by the seahawks, but buffalo traded him because of legal problems.  he was just far too liberal for buffalo, and seattle was the perfect team and city for him 

 

 

[Crunked]

Just now, jshipp23 said:

Get 1 in 2nd or free agency...I would take Minkah Fitzpatrick over Chubb at 3 if we go defense and keep pick..Fitz is perfect fit for this defense since we are going to zone, and has more elite characteristics than Chubb at just as important of position as Defensive End...He would give us one of best secondaries in the league..I'd, even resign Melvin,  or sign Trumaine Johnson too to go along with Wilson, Hairston, Hooker, Geathers, Farley and move Green to linebacker..Draft Okoronkwo or Landry in 2nd for pass rush...

It is still too far out for me to have a strong conviction on exactly who would be the best pass rusher in any given round....I have some preferences at the moment, but do not by far have a complete picture of who and when would be the best value.....I just put RB (whoever it is) as about the 6th-8th most important fix we need....now if FA can significantly fill some of the more gaping holes we have.....that opinion may change, but as of right this moment, RB is a luxury need a.t.m. for me........and in regard to the above, Green is a sloppy tackling S, he (with no improvement) would be an occasional liability at DB in regards to angles and tackling.....it only projects that his glowing weakness would only get magnified moving him to LB.....that dude is either right on, or in the wrong zip code on any given play and you don't know which you are going to get at any given moment....

 

 

[MPStack]

5 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

Trading back for picks and still getting Chubb or Nelson sounds nice, but i am a fan of taking BPA with a high pick. That being said BPA at 3 would be Barkley

If the Colts trade back, I don't see either Chubb or Barkley being there. Nelson would be the most likely. At the moment. I'd stand pat and take Chubb, but its way to early seeing the combine has even started. 

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

37 minutes ago, jshipp23 said:

Fair enough...lol...His first 5 years were pretty good then he retired missed whole season came back 1 year and was suspended the next...99' 884 yards 28 receptions in only 12 games...2000', 1,000 yards, 44 receptions...2001', 1,245 yds, 60 receptions...2002', 1,853 yards, 47 reception all-pro 1 of greatest seasons ever...2003', 1,372 yards, 50 receptions...His biggest issue was he was crazy, but Ricky Williams could play..Even had a season late in career at 32 years old in 2009' with 1,121 yards and 53 receptions...

 

Yeah Crazy plus he did love smoking the Left Handers ..

[Bluefire4]

The best case scenario for me is trading back and drafting Bradley Chubb. There are games where he is in the backfield nearly every play. It's crazy how much speed and power he has.

 

There have been plenty of times where this Colts defense let quarterbacks sit in the pocket without pressure for far too long, and I think Chubb shores that up immediately. 

 

I have Barkley and Chubb rated just about the same, but I'm going with the one who would be much more valuable to this team.

 

Also, the more I watch Kerryon Johnson, the more I want to take him in the 2nd round instead of taking Barkley in the 1st.

[BOTT]

34 minutes ago, jshipp23 said:

Get 1 in 2nd or free agency...I would take Minkah Fitzpatrick over Chubb at 3 if we go defense and keep pick..Fitz is perfect fit for this defense since we are going to zone, and has more elite characteristics than Chubb at just as important of position as Defensive End...He would give us one of best secondaries in the league..I'd, even resign Melvin,  or sign Trumaine Johnson too to go along with Wilson, Hairston, Hooker, Geathers, Farley and move Green to linebacker..Draft Okoronkwo or Landry in 2nd for pass rush...

Fitzpatrick might be the better pick....not completely sold on Chubb.  

[southwest1]

1 hour ago, ÅÐØNϧ 1 said:

 

I disagree  if Chris Ballard  trades down we may not get any of them but still get quality players .

  I 'm all for it if 1 of these players are available   But if not it is what it is man ..

What does clinical trolling mean ?

I liked your cartoon & it's caption there Adonis because it illustrates that the draft is not an exact science & nobody knows how it will play out for us or 31 other teams. Still, it's interesting to read about everybody's take though. I don't see us trading back. INDY will turn in their card at #3. Not saying it can't happen. Just a feeling I have. 

[Superman]

23 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

this might sound nit pickish in a thread that is getting a little out of hand, but marshawn lynch was a first round lead back and an important part of Seattle's superbowl season.  they blew the second one too, lynch could have helped them there on the one yard line

 

he wasnt drafted by the seahawks, but buffalo traded him because of legal problems.  he was just far too liberal for buffalo, and seattle was the perfect team and city for him 

 

I always have in my mind that Lynch was a second rounder, I don't know why. You're right, he would be the last one.

 

But to my point, Seattle got him for a 4th and a conditional 5th. 

 

And while it's true that he was good for them and helped them win a SB, should have had the game winning TD in a second, my argument has never been that good RBs don't help you win. It's that investing a first round pick, especially a high first rounder, for a RB is a misuse of a valuable resource. 

[Mr.NotSoCreative]

4 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I have already said it a few times but I still think the Giants are going to take Barkley.

We can debate, argue and come up with umpteen reasons we all have different opinions but in the end it falls on Ballard. No matter who is taken having 25 threads made up in different ways makes no difference.

I have been personnally writing a letter to CB on a weekly basis suggesting what he should do. I laughed at the deputy that handed me some sort of paper about an order of strained something, or was it restraining an order on amazon? No matter. I ll keep you posted on what we come up with via more threads.

[Andrew Luck fan club]

 

 

But you guys want a RB with subpar vision and decision making lol. 

[rockywoj]

From an NFL.com article ...

 

1. Quenton Nelson, OG, Notre Dame

Analysis: Not since the 1970s has a guard had a legitimate claim to be the No. 1 overall pick. This year's quarterback class will prevent Nelson from making it happen, and some teams will have RB Saquon Barkley as their top prospect (rightfully). But Nelson is as close to the top of the heap as any guard has been since Hall of Famer John Hannah destroyed New England's opponents for 13 seasons. Whichever team selects Nelson in the top 10 will watch him become a perennial Pro Bowler as a nasty and athletic leader on the line.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000916400/article/2018-nfl-draft-team-fits-for-10-safest-prospects

 

With a slight trade down from the 3rd slot.

[jshipp23]

5 minutes ago, Andrew Luck fan club said:

 

 

But you guys want a RB with subpar vision and decision making lol. 

The tackles and TFL I think he will be able to do at next level it's the sacks part I'm worried about...He is gonna be a very good player, and it will be hard to run on us with him for sure...He just might be a step slow off the ball in NFL to be a high sack guy..Could be wrong ultimately Ballard knows more than us so we will see come draft night...Would not shock me if we take Fitzpatrick at 3, over Barkley and Chubb tbh...

[LJpalmbeacher2]

7 minutes ago, Mr.NotSoCreative said:

I have been personnally writing a letter to CB on a weekly basis suggesting what he should do. I laughed at the deputy that handed me some sort of paper about an order of strained something, or was it restraining an order on amazon? No matter. I ll keep you posted on what we come up with via more threads.

 

You got his attention. That's Great.

Keep writing.

[Andrew Luck fan club]

3 minutes ago, jshipp23 said:

The tackles and TFL I think he will be able to do at next level it's the sacks part I'm worried about...He is gonna be a very good player, and it will be hard to run on us with him for sure...He just might be a step slow off the ball in NFL to be a high sack guy..Could be wrong ultimately Ballard knows more than us so we will see come draft night...Would not shock me if we take Fitzpatrick at 3, over Barkley and Chubb tbh...

There’s so much more to being a great edge player than sack numbers. 

 

Not only is his burst, hands and bend excellent(traits of a good pass rusher) he is a force against stopping the run. 

[jshipp23]

2 minutes ago, Andrew Luck fan club said:

There’s so much more to being a great edge player than sack numbers. 

 

Not only is his birst and bend excellent(traits of a good pass rusher) he is a force against stopping the run. 

I'm liking Fitzpatrick more and more, especially in zone defense...He looks like a bigger, faster Xavier Rhodes to me..He is kinda stiff in hips sometimes but has great closing speed..

[Superman]

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Well I think he has a chance to being an all-time Great. You may not? Do I think Chubb does? No, You may? If I thought Chubb was Reggie White like, I would be on here shouting that Chubb would end up with 200 Sacks or so when his career ends.

 

Of the two of us, you're the only one making this about Barkley vs Chubb. I'm only talking about Barkley.

 

The likelihood that any player in any draft winds up being an all time great is pretty low. This is a really bad argument for any player, and I hope it's not how Ballard justifies any of his draft decisions. You can scout the player without falling in love with a marginal chance that he winds up being a HOFer.

 

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It changes the whole narrative IMO because I never once thought Barkley would gain over 1400 Yards 5 seasons in a row. That never happens as you even said. I said average and that is possible.

 

Average or not, it doesn't change the narrative. RBs don't hit 1400 five years in a row, they don't even average 1400 five years in a row. It hasn't happened in almost 15 years, and the further we get away from the '90s and early 2000s, the less likely it is to happen again. 

 

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Players that have averaged over 1400 Yards in a 5 year span just off the top of my head are:

Eric Dickerson from 1983-1987

Emmitt Smith from 1991-1995

Barry Sanders from 1994-1998

LT even did it from 2001-2005

Terrell Davis did it in a 4 year span from 1995-1998, he got injured in 1999 otherwise that would've been another.

- That is just off the top of my head. Had James not got injured he would've probably done it as well. I just think Barkley has the potential to do so, we will see. Like I said I could be wrong.

 

Another "if" talking about TD. And a similar "if" for Edgerrin. Any very talented RB is more likely to have a good 3-4 year stretch and then fall apart, like TD, than to repeat what LT did. Which is part of my point. RBs don't produce for several years in a row like that, even great ones. Not anymore. The fact that you have to go back 20-30 years to identify players who did is a testament to that fact.

 

And by the way, even if you could guarantee me that Barkley is going to produce like LT and for as long -- which you can't, no matter how great he looks as a prospect, and LT didn't even make it to 30 as an elite producer -- we still have to talk about the impact that even great RBs have on the win/loss column, typically. Even LT played for a handful of 5-8 win teams, and that was back when RBs had more impact than they do now. 

[Mr.NotSoCreative]

2 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

You got his attention. That's Great.

Keep writing.

Will do! Just trying to keep it lightened up around here. Some serious stuff going on and soooo much time till we have answers to matters that not a single one of us has control over. 

[southwest1]

2 hours ago, WoolMagnet said:

Run for the hills!

Honest question: Does this reply mean you're in favor of drafting Barkley or abstaining from voting in the survey itself? 

 

I'm not really sure which way you're leaning WM? Just curious. 

[Andrew Luck fan club]

14 minutes ago, jshipp23 said:

I'm liking Fitzpatrick more and more, especially in zone defense...He looks like a bigger, faster Xavier Rhodes to me..He is kinda stiff in hips sometimes but has great closing speed..

Having 10 snaps at outside corner for the entire season is concerning. But I like him too. He, like Chubb, have the attitude we need on defense. 

[Tsarquise]

5 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Why?  Even if Luck won't be available Brissett under Reich will be just fine. We need more positions at this point than a QB. I believe Ballard when he said Brissett was traded for the future. IMO Brissett was traded for to cover any possibilities Smart move by Ballard.

Brissett is not a starting calibur QB. 

[Peterk2011]

5 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Why?  Even if Luck won't be available Brissett under Reich will be just fine. We need more positions at this point than a QB. I believe Ballard when he said Brissett was traded for the future. IMO Brissett was traded for to cover any possibilities Smart move by Ballard.

 

Acquiring Brissett was a fine move, but sticking to him wouldn't be that smart. He is a fine backup, and he might be a good trade subject in near future. But he will never be a true starting caliber QB. Ok, that's maybe too harsh. Let's give him the benefit of doubt, and say, he has his chances. But those chances are slim. Realistically, very slim. With the 1/3 in hand, and IF (IF!!) Luck's future is in jeopardy, the Colts must pick a QB. It would be silly if they didn't. You don't know when you'll have your next chance to pick so high, so if you miss this chance, and you will be forced to trade up for your guy that would cost a fortune.

 

Come april, if Luck's status is unknown, draft a QB, and forget about Chubb, whoever. If Luck is indeed done, you'll have your next franchise QB, and there's nothing more important than that. (Even if the new guy won't be a Luck caliber.) And in case Luck comes back, you can sit the young guy, start Luck and see how his shoulder holds. If it's OK, you can put the new guy on trade block and one third of the league will knock on your door the next hour willing to give up their first rounder (or more). So you will get you 1st rounder back (maybe not a 1/3 but not far from it considering where teams without franchise QB's use to pick.)

[southwest1]

8 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

If Luck is indeed done, you'll have your next franchise QB, and there's nothing more important than that.

I stopped reading your post & broke out laughing once I read such a ludicrous statement. 

 

Take a deep breath PK11. No need to break the glass & contemplate doomsday scenarios yet. Relax. No disrespect intended of course. 

[TheMarine]

What would I do...

 

Draft Barkley or Chubb. This team is so devoid of talent, we MUST get play makers. That said, I look to move down in the 2nd, stay 3rd, stay 4th, and look to move up a couple spots in rounds 5, 6 and 7.

 

We need playmakers. Lots. and lots. Of playmakers. Do not pass go. Do not collect draft picks. Get the best damn playmakers who can make plays. Find a way to get them on the field. Coach them up.

[aaron11]

39 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I always have in my mind that Lynch was a second rounder, I don't know why. You're right, he would be the last one.

 

But to my point, Seattle got him for a 4th and a conditional 5th. 

 

And while it's true that he was good for them and helped them win a SB, should have had the game winning TD in a second, my argument has never been that good RBs don't help you win. It's that investing a first round pick, especially a high first rounder, for a RB is a misuse of a valuable resource. 

i hear ya, and i know a lot of people do agree.  

 

as for the trade, there were plenty of sports writers that feel the bills botched that before he ever took a snap in seattle.  he was arrested, then benched, and then injured before they moved him almost two years later.  he had that big run or the "beast quake" in his first season there 

 

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Tsarquise said:

Brissett is not a starting calibur QB. 

In your opinion. He done fine last season considering he was the most hit and sacked QB in the league last season. He is tough and that is a trait needed to be a starter.

[indyagent17]

5 hours ago, jshipp23 said:

Im sure we will improve the line, but Gore had 1,000 yards behind it last year so it's probably safe to say Barkley would beat that by a significant amount if he stays healthy...

Good point, but I pray our offensive line is it least in the middle of the pack for 2018

[Moosejawcolt]

I believe they want trade back if the opportunity arises.  Just a gut feeling, but I think they would like the extra picks and then  draft Tremaine Edwards.  He mayb a game changer  at  middle linebacker  much like Urlacher.  He would b a perfect fit for the scheme  that they want to employ. If he gains weight, cause he is only 19, he could transtion  into a  future D end. 

[WoolMagnet]

2 hours ago, southwest1 said:

Honest question: Does this reply mean you're in favor of drafting Barkley or abstaining from voting in the survey itself? 

 

I'm not really sure which way you're leaning WM? Just curious. 

Hmmm.  Tough question.

i wish i watched more college fb to be better informed of Chubb, but i'll attempt to answer.

its hard for me to (at #3) pass up production.  IMO, a #3 pick should make a big impact on your team, preferably  (but not necessarily) right away.  I could see Chubb or Barkley fitting that.  We NEED a pass rusher, BUT , its hard to dismiss what Barkley could bring......points, 1st downs, time of possession, etc.  but i also remember what freeney gave us.

i guess i would look at the gap between chubb and other possible options at position and compare to barkley vs productin from other possible RBs.  If Chubb is that good, i'd go that route i think and pick up a rb later.  If we can get free agent rush or Ballard sees other options in draft, then i'd go barkley, minkah, or trade back.

i ONLY would trade back if we still get a difference maker tho.  I'd rather have one stud difference maker than 2 or 3 "good" players.

  Maybe we can get a pass rush guy from a team as a trade with picks traded.  Denver trades us 1st picks, and gives us their #2 and their 2nd best pass rusher (the kid from missouri).

i dont know supe, i'm torn.  I think when i see these guys at combine, i'll have a better idea.

and theres always that outside chance we too might need to look at QB.

i'm not sure if i answered or danced around the question.

[southwest1]

17 minutes ago, WoolMagnet said:

Hmmm.  Tough question.

i wish i watched more college fb to be better informed of Chubb, but i'll attempt to answer.

its hard for me to (at #3) pass up production.  IMO, a #3 pick should make a big impact on your team, preferably  (but not necessarily) right away.  I could see Chubb or Barkley fitting that.  We NEED a pass rusher, BUT , its hard to dismiss what Barkley could bring......points, 1st downs, time of possession, etc.  but i also remember what freeney gave us.

i guess i would look at the gap between chubb and other possible options at position and compare to barkley vs productin from other possible RBs.  If Chubb is that good, i'd go that route i think and pick up a rb later.  If we can get free agent rush or Ballard sees other options in draft, then i'd go barkley, minkah, or trade back.

i ONLY would trade back if we still get a difference maker tho.  I'd rather have one stud difference maker than 2 or 3 "good" players.

  Maybe we can get a pass rush guy from a team as a trade with picks traded.  Denver trades us 1st picks, and gives us their #2 and their 2nd best pass rusher (the kid from missouri).

i dont know supe, i'm torn.  I think when i see these guys at combine, i'll have a better idea.

and theres always that outside chance we too might need to look at QB.

i'm not sure if i answered or danced around the question.

Rest assured, you answered the question WM. There's really no wrong answer. You either go the infantry route with Barkley or somebody who can get in a QB's face like Chubb. I know I frown on entries which advocate for drafting another QB & I'm not changing my mind on that one because I think fans need to be patient & stop acting like Luck is crippled or something because he's not. 

 

I get why some people wanna trade back & get more picks except there's a difference between quantity & quality & most players within the top 20 are immediate impact players if you've done your homework. Stick with our #3 slot & get a guy who should be a mainstay on our roster for the next 10-12 yrs. I favor Barkley personally since good to great backs always give you short, manageable third downs. 3rd & 4 as opposed to 3rd & 8. 

 

I'm not saying pass rushers aren't important. They are. I just think Barkley is worth it if he's still on the board at 3. If not, then get Chubb. Most teams won't give you a king's ransom unless they are really desperate for a QB like say the Jets. If they gave us a ridiculous offer, we gotta hear the sales pitch. But my intuition tells me we remain steadfast in our spot & get a game changing back. 

 

You didn't dance around my friend. You answered my question just fine. Thank you.