What's Lamar Jackson's trade value?

[ET80]

1 hour ago, mse326 said:

First the chances of either QB being as good as Jackson are incredibly small, even if you like them as prospects.

(Posting while watching soccer - this is a first for me, so apologies in advance for misspellings or grammar errors).

I understand this is a given, but it’s not just that QB you’re factoring into it - again if it’s 1.1 you’re talking about, do the trade, but it’s not going to be Jackson for 1.1 - you’re throwing significant assets towards this, assets that are requested to build up a team that is thin right now. 

Phrased differently: Do you prefer Jackson over a top 10-12 QB, a pass rusher who can get 12-15 sacks, a 1,000/10TD WR and two or three key rotation guys? Because that’s what you’re signing up for if you’re giving up the assets needed to get Jackson.

1 hour ago, mse326 said:

Even if the trade is a bit more than what we got from Watson it is basically trading Watson and a bit for Lamar, you take that and run.

We don’t see it now, but Cleveland is going to have a very hard time replenishing talent around Watson in Y2/Y3 of his career. We saw it in Houston - Houston mortgaged its future to get Watson to begin with (trading away pick + Osweiler to free up space, trading up to get Watson) and they had to go full upside down to protect Watson. A trade for Jackson for the cost of the Watson trade would put Jackson on a team that was SIGNIFICANTLY worse than the 2017 team Watson joined, and it would be a few years before you could reasonably bring in guys to fill that gap - because you traded away all the picks that could bring in talent.

Do you REALLY want to go through that again?

[mse326]

4 hours ago, ET80 said:

I’ll address the rest later - but do you really believe this is a half decade long rebuild? Seriously, you’re basically saying we’ll have another World Cup come and go before the Texans are competitive. I don’t think we can find an example of any team (football or otherwise) that a single FO took that long to rebuild (unless you’re assuming Nick Caserio is going to be fired somewhere in the next five years).

I get that we’re down on the Texans, but be real here. If it’s another half decade, it won’t be Nick Caserio’s rebuild (and honestly, it won’t be Nick Caserio’s replacements’ rebuild either). The cap space, draft assets are in place and the bad contracts are gone, the poisonous presence in the FO was fired - incremental growth need to be demonstrated at some point, you can’t just rebuild in perpetuity (again, unless you think Caserio is going to get fired within the next season or two).

You are the one that said long rebuild

Quote

This is a long term build

Jackson is only 26 so if you simply ment built to last then he is more than young enough to be part of a plan for long term success.

[ET80]

5 minutes ago, mse326 said:

You are the one that said long rebuild

I meant 2-3 years max - when a QB is still in year 2 or 3 of their rookie deal.

6 minutes ago, mse326 said:

Jackson is only 26 so if you simply ment built to last then he is more than young enough to be part of a plan for long term success.

Not at $40mm/year, though.

[mse326]

4 hours ago, ET80 said:

Phrased differently: Do you prefer Jackson over a top 10-12 QB, a pass rusher who can get 12-15 sacks, a 1,000/10TD WR and two or three key rotation guys? Because that’s what you’re signing up for if you’re giving up the assets needed to get Jackson.

I'd say you are living in a fantasy world as you seem to be taking that as close to a given of what we are giving up. 1st round picks hit about 50% of the time. The overwhelming likelihood is the picks don't amount to close what you have stated there.

Let's just look at top 5 pick QBs in the last 10 drafts

2013- None
2014- Blake Bortles
2015- Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota
2016- Jared Goff, Carson Wentz
2017- Mitchell Trubisky
2018- Baker Mayfield, Sam Darnold
2019- Kyler Murray
2020- Joe Burrow, Tua Tagovailoa
2021- Trevor Lawrence, Zach Wilson, Trey Lance
2022- None

The hit rate is appalling. You are damn right I'm betting on Jackson and then figuring out the rest than taking the hail mary that is drafting a QB

[Duluther]

7 minutes ago, ET80 said:

I meant 2-3 years max - when a QB is still in year 2 or 3 of their rookie deal.

Not at $40mm/year, though.

Disagree. Franchise QB contracts are a wart, but you can’t hold back a blank check from Lamar. Keep him at any cost.

[ET80]

12 minutes ago, mse326 said:

I'd say you are living in a fantasy world as you seem to be taking that as close to a given of what we are giving up. 1st round picks hit about 50% of the time.

Ok - a 1,000/10TD guy OR a 12-15 sack guy (50%, by your estimation). With the picks you’re giving up, you’re destined to give up a pick that turns into a valuable asset. THAT’S the point here.

12 minutes ago, mse326 said:

2013- None
2014- Blake Bortles
2015- Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota
2016- Jared Goff, Carson Wentz
2017- Mitchell Trubisky
2018- Baker Mayfield, Sam Darnold

So around here, people should have figured out that drafting a QB in that top 5 is fruitless, but then if people used these metrics they miss out on the Burrow/Tua/Lawrence QBs of the world.

Past events don’t predicate future results, but if this is the route we’re gonna run, trading significant assets for a high end QB fails pretty spectacularly as well (ask Denver how life with Russ is working out for them).

[ET80]

3 minutes ago, Duluther said:

Disagree. Franchise QB contracts are a wart, but you can’t hold back a blank check from Lamar. Keep him at any cost.

With a competitive team, maybe. Specific to the Texans? You’re just creating another Watson situation.

[mse326]

17 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Ok - a 1,000/10TD guy OR a 12-15 sack guy (50%, by your estimation). With the picks you’re giving up, you’re destined to give up a pick that turns into a valuable asset. THAT’S the point here.

So around here, people should have figured out that drafting a QB in that top 5 is fruitless, but then if people used these metrics they miss out on the Burrow/Tua/Lawrence QBs of the world.

Past events don’t predicate future results, but if this is the route we’re gonna run, trading significant assets for a high end QB fails pretty spectacularly as well (ask Denver how life with Russ is working out for them).

Predicate? No. Predict? Absolutely yes. The value of draft picks is literally based on predicting the worth of the player you'd get and compensating for risk.

But even so you are overrating how much we'll lose. We have 4 1st round picks in the next two years. Even if we give 3 of them up we still have Jackson and another 1st. We aren't mortgaging the next 3 years of drafts to do it like the Broncos did. Again, it is basically flipping Watson and maybe a 2nd for Lamar. I'll do that no problem.

And the issue is risk. If you don't have a QB and the only way to get one is draft, then you have to take the shot. But if you can trade for a known great QB, particularly without mortgaging your future, which we wouldn't be, then you absolutely do it.

[ET80]

8 minutes ago, mse326 said:

But even so you are overrating how much we'll lose. We have 4 1st round picks in the next two years.

Take a good look at this Texans team and tell me if four first round picks is better spent on four different players (one of which could be a QB) or one QB plus an extra player.

11 minutes ago, mse326 said:

We aren't mortgaging the next 3 years of drafts to do it like the Broncos did.

I brought up Denver less about the picks given up and more about the return they’re currently getting with DisasteRUSS.

Outside of the MVP Jackson won, Wilson has a considerably better resume and has performed better as a passer leaving Seattle. Denver is now stuck for the next five years (because of the extension that’s a pre-requisite for trades of this magnitude) and has no way of bringing in bodies to replace players who start to decline.

As much as we’d like to think trading for Lamar Jackson is a “safe” bet, we have seen multiple occasions where trading for a QB turns into a disaster for the team trading for them. Jackson is not without his flaws, and nobody really knows if there are MORE flaws under the hood until it’s too late.

18 minutes ago, mse326 said:

Again, it is basically flipping Watson and maybe a 2nd for Lamar. I'll do that no problem.

Reminder: Deshaun Watson went 4-12 with a BETTER Texans team than Lamar would be joining. So banking on Lamar plus that extra first to turn things around quickly is really risking a lot on Lamar (who - all things considered - is on equal footing as Watson).

21 minutes ago, mse326 said:

And the issue is risk. If you don't have a QB and the only way to get one is draft, then you have to take the shot. But if you can trade for a known great QB, particularly without mortgaging your future, which we wouldn't be, then you absolutely do it.

The danger with this is assuming Jackson will be the same QB in Houston that he is in Baltimore. That’s not guaranteed.

[43M]

1 hour ago, ET80 said:

The danger with this is assuming Jackson will be the same QB in Houston that he is in Baltimore. That’s not guaranteed.

This sums it up perfectly.

I can understand both sides, but at the very least, Id want to make sure whatever QB is coming on board is coming to a team that has the tools to win without OVERLY relying on a QB to carry them.

Lamar is a very good QB who CAN BE elite at times, but he also has major question marks when it comes to the biggest games and general consistency.     

I think the Texans are in great position to build a really good team, but I think Id focus on building the rest of the team first before considering trading multiple 1sts for ANY QB.   

QB is obviously THE position, but I feel like people ignore how important the rest of the team is AS A WHOLE because QB gets so much attention. 

I remember last offseason numerous Steeler fans were pushing for us to trade for Rodgers or Wilson.   I was opposed because I knew we weren't in position to accommodate them....and boy, was that an understatement...

[Soko]

Picks for Jackson sounds good…but so did picks for Russ. 

You could probably (strongly) argue that Lamar’s been better than Seattle Russ lately, but just goes to show that not every transition is as seamless as Stafford to LAR. Still need things to work around him. The expectation is that he plays as well, or better, than he is now but with a worse HC, worse defense, and in a completely new offense to what he’s always run for his career. It’s a gamble. 

If I’m Houston, I’m using my resources to build the team instead of going all in on a QB that needs a deal. Exception would be for a guy like Mahomes…

[AngusMcFife]

2 hours ago, ET80 said:

Outside of the MVP Jackson won, Wilson has a considerably better resume and has performed better as a passer leaving Seattle. 

This is a bit of a reach. Wilson was entirely dependent on a strong ground game in order to unlock the thing he does well (deep passes), and mask the things he does poorly (intermediate, over the middle passes). Despite the "free Russ" chants from Seattle fans, it was obvious that Carroll had to invest considerable resources in RBs, run-blocking O-line, and good WRs for success. 

Lamar, by contract, is transformative insofar he generates a dominant ground game by his mere presence on the field, and can put up league-average passing stats with scrubs at WR. 

Quote

As much as we’d like to think trading for Lamar Jackson is a “safe” bet, we have seen multiple occasions where trading for a QB turns into a disaster for the team trading for them. Jackson is not without his flaws, and nobody really knows if there are MORE flaws under the hood until it’s too late.

The danger with this is assuming Jackson will be the same QB in Houston that he is in Baltimore. That’s not guaranteed.

You are also discounting that Lamar could be considerable BETTER than he is in Baltimore, given that Harbaugh and the Ravens front office have never demonstrated much competence at all in offensive coaching and WR drafting and development. 

Russ showed signs of decline, and was entering his mid-30s when he was traded. 

Lamar has clearly improved his throwing mechanics every offseason, is entering his prime years. 

I'm not saying you should want Lamar in Houston, but I think he is considerably more appealing than Russ was last year. With Russ you hope he is able to maintain his skill, whereas Lamar has a lot of potential that could be unleashed by 1) good offensive coaching, and 2) better WR development. 

[AngusMcFife]

43 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Picks for Jackson sounds good…but so did picks for Russ. 

You could probably (strongly) argue that Lamar’s been better than Seattle Russ lately, but just goes to show that not every transition is as seamless as Stafford to LAR. Still need things to work around him. The expectation is that he plays as well, or better, than he is now but with a worse HC, worse defense, and in a completely new offense to what he’s always run for his career. It’s a gamble. 

If I’m Houston, I’m using my resources to build the team instead of going all in on a QB that needs a deal. Exception would be for a guy like Mahomes…

It's pretty clear, though, that Harbaugh doesn't really know anything about coaching offense. Aside from the one year Kubiak was OC and Lamar's breakout year, the best Harbaugh can ever muster for an offense is mediocrity.

It would be very interesting to see what kind of offense a great offensive mind such as Reid, Payton, Shanahan, McVay, etc., could design with Lamar. Lord knows we don't see those kind of coaches in Baltimore very often.   

[Soko]

2 minutes ago, AngusMcFife said:

It's pretty clear, though, that Harbaugh doesn't really know anything about coaching offense. Aside from the one year Kubiak was OC and Lamar's breakout year, the best Harbaugh can ever muster for an offense is mediocrity.

It would be very interesting to see what kind of offense a great offensive mind such as Reid, Payton, Shanahan, McVay, etc., could design with Lamar. Lord knows we don't see those kind of coaches in Baltimore very often.   

More to HCing than offense, bringing that up had more to do with Lamar leaving a good, stable environment and heading to a bad one. For as flawed as Roman is, he plays to Lamar’s strengths. 

Putting Lamar in an octane passing offense would be pretty interesting, one way or another.

[AngusMcFife]

6 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

More to HCing than offense, bringing that up had more to do with Lamar leaving a good, stable environment and heading to a bad one. For as flawed as Roman is, he plays to Lamar’s strengths. 

Putting Lamar in an octane passing offense would be pretty interesting, one way or another.

I for one would like to see Lamar in a Shanahan/Kubiak system, which is not really an octane passing offense. But also given how much Sean Payton loved Taysom Hill, that would be an interesting pairing as well.