Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

17 Mar 2018

Colts Trade Third Overall Pick to Jets

The New York Jets have re-signed Josh McCown and acquired Teddy Bridgewater already this season, but it looks like they're not done collecting quarterbacks.

The Jets made a trade with the Colts to acquire the third overall pick in this year's draft. In exchange, the Colts will get:

  • the sixth overall pick;
  • the 37th overall pick;
  • the 49th overall pick;
  • the Jets' 2019 second-round pick.

None of this is good news for Bryce Petty or Christian Hackenberg.

Posted by: Vincent Verhei on 17 Mar 2018

88 comments, Last at 26 Mar 2018, 3:26pm by Led


by mehllageman56 :: Sat, 03/17/2018 - 4:05pm

Sending 3 2nd round picks to move from 6 to 3 in the first round is overpaying, but I'm wondering if the Colts could have gotten more on the day of the draft. This trade only works for the Jets if their guy is available after the Browns and Giants pick; the rumor is that MacCagnan likes Darnold, Rosen and Allen. If MacCagnan has Josh Allen as the third best player in this draft... eh, it's not safe harbor time, I cannot write what I would like to. If MacCagnan has Josh Allen as the third best quarterback in this draft.. still can't write that. If MacCagnan drafts Josh Allen at 3, I won't be rooting for the Jets until everybody gets fired. Josh Allen is a mistake you let other GMs make.
Two things I remember right now; when the Jets traded up for Sanchez, I was cussing at my computer screen. Granted, I loved them going to consecutive AFC championship games, and that was a much better trade than this. The other thing I remember is a quote from Dan Marino's agent in the Elway to Marino ESPN special, about the Jets drafting Ken O'Brien instead of Marino; "I had a hard time explaining it in any way other than that these people just aren't smart". The Jets would be lucky if Josh Allen worked out as well as a guy who made the playoffs 3 times and led the league in passer rating one year. Most likely, they would have traded up to get Kyle Boller.

by theslothook :: Sat, 03/17/2018 - 4:18pm

I couldn't agree more. The Colts got better value, but I feel like they had a chance for something even juicier if they had just waited. I don't see why they did this move right now. Feels like a big opportunity lost.

by LondonMonarch :: Mon, 03/19/2018 - 8:39am

Disagree. It's possible (just about) that the Colts might've got an even bigger ransom on draft day, but:

1. The opposite could've been true, depending on who comes off at 1 and 2 and how desperate teams are for the 3rd QB

2. There are not many deals around which would've kept them as high in this draft as #6. Given the QB rush they may well get the 2nd non-QB off the board. They may have a particular fancy for someone.

3. There is value in knowing now that they will be picking #6, rather than having to take what comes on draft day, and suddenly picking at 13 or 26 not having really explored the players in that area.

by Raiderjoe :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 1:25am

Well , that's just, like, your opinion, man

This is response to Jets guy comparing Josh Allen to boller

by Raiderjoe :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 1:25am


by Cythammer :: Sat, 03/17/2018 - 4:31pm

Hmm, I'm not sure I get signing Bridgewater in the light of this move. If they are planning to draft a QB, but want that QB to stay on the bench for a while, they already had McCown to play the role of the bridge to the young future of the franchise. What happens now if Bridgewater actually plays well?

Also, while this may be bad news for Hackenberg and Petty, it's also pretty bad new for Bridgewater. He now might never get another serious run as a starting QB. Just a little while ago it seemed like he might stay and be a starter for the Vikings, one of the best teams in the NFL. Now he might be only a backup for one of the worst.

by Raiderjoe :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 1:37am

Bridgewater signed with jets for 1 year. .It is as much puzzling as why he did it maybe even more so than as to wjhy Jets did dela.

Jets bringing bakc McCown no brainer agfyer cousins didn't happen
Talks abot wanting to be mentor to young QB . Future cosch. Good teammate whole vareer. Since 2003 have alwaysliked this guy

Only thing can think of is jets tired and done with petty and hackenberg. Get lost, they say. Then want to surround rookie quarterback eith two classy, beloved teammate type quaretbacks who can play decent NFL footbal. Petty nice quality guy but stinks as NFL qb. Hackenberg? Pffft. Nobody knows anything about bim.

Maybe Bridgewater sees field in 2018
Maybe not
Will be free agent after seasonm. If he is healthy my predici on is he will eventually get legit shot to start somewhere

by RickD :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 2:51pm

I would suspect Bridgewater would be the starter for 2018, with the chance to prove himself for a big contract somewhere while the draft pick gets time to learn the offense.

Bridgewater, when healthy, is certainly better than Petty and Hackenberg.

by Cythammer :: Sat, 03/17/2018 - 6:10pm

On the subject of the Colts maybe not getting as much as they could, I'm reading suggestions that they may trade down again. In other words, there are enough teams interested in moving up that getting the 6th back for the 3rd is a pretty good deal since you have the chance to turn it into even more picks, which wouldn't have happened if they had done a deal with, say, the Bills instead.

by Raiderjoe :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 1:24am

Yeah Clots coudl trade again but not sure they would.
Decent chance Gaints will trade down with bills or broncls
So draft very well could go qb, qb, qb to atart
. If that jappens, bills or borbcos or even cards may want to take a QB at pick 4 or 5. If Broncos stay at 5 they might be able to take a qb. Who knows. Too many sxnearios.

My best guess right now is that clots stay at 6 and take Chubb or nelson

by Raiderjoe :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 1:24am

Sorry doubler

by MarkV :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 3:20am

Not that it's the b all end all, but according to the old trade chart the colts absolutely fleeced the Jets. I'd agree. The Jets moved ahead of the colts and broncos, at the cost of 3 good picks. Honestly, a second and a third was probably reasonable, so the Jets offering more is strange, and makes me think they thought someone was going to make a better offer.

by RickD :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 2:52pm

Colts completely fleeced the Jets. One of the most imbalanced trades in recent memory.

by Raiderjoe :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 3:13pm

How so?

We don't know any players involved here

Certainly, if was clots fan would be happy as don't need 3rd pcik. Getting more picks to move doen to 6 is nice.

Cannot say trade bad for jets thiigj

by theslothook :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 4:01pm

I feel like Redskins and Rams paid much heavier prices than the Jets did. It was expensive, but I was hoping for more. Those two prior trades set the market at 3 first riunders.

by MarkV :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 6:16pm

NFL logic highly discounts trades for future years... Normally by approximately a round.
So the trade value of the 2013 first rounder was less than the 2 2nd rounders this year, and the 2nd next year is equal-ish to the 1st in two years.

Fwiw, the draft chart suggests that the Rams got an extremely good deal from the Titans, and that the Redskins got a fair deal from the Rams.

by theslothook :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 8:27pm

I'm not a fan of the time discounting, because a franchise operates indefinitely and a hall of famer with a 10 year career provides the same value today vs 10 years from now. I get that to the coaching staff, there's an enormous discount rate, but that becomes an agency problem.

Furthermore, a discount rate of one round is ridiculous since the expected AV between a mid 2nd and a mid 1st is enormous.

by MarkV :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 10:10pm

I completely agree.

It gets a bit silly at points too, as supposedly future picks are to be judged as average... So Cleveland's first for next year is equal to this year's 48th. And new Englands first for next year is worth this year's 48th. This despite Cleveland having picked earlier than ne in every year since being reincarnated.

A great example of this problem is the rgiii trade, where theoretically the pick that became Robinson (#2 overall) would have been valued equal to a 3rd rounder the year it was given.

I don't think the chart is reasonable in discounting future drafts, nor in the way it discounts so heavily in the first few picks. I also think it breaks down once teams start including more than 3 or so picks

by MC2 :: Mon, 03/19/2018 - 9:41am

I agree that a discount of a full round per year is too much, but if I'm reading your comment correctly, you're saying there should be no discount at all. If so, I strongly disagree.

You're a Colts fan, right? If the Colts traded this year's first round pick to, say, the Browns, for two future first round picks, one in 2040 and one in 2050, would you be happy about it?

by theslothook :: Mon, 03/19/2018 - 11:44am

Yes there should be a time discount, as the example you stated is a good one. Just not a full round as you say.

by justanothersteve :: Mon, 03/19/2018 - 11:06am

Part of the reason for the discount is you have no assurances where in the round that pick next year will be. While you can usually expect a bad team to continue to be bad, teams like the Rams and Jags improved significantly this year and this positional volatility is common every year. Here's some of the changes to the original draft slot in each round between last year and this year.

Rams ----- 5 --- 23
Jags ----- 4 --- 29
Eagles -- 12 --- 32
Saints -- 11 --- 27

by theslothook :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 8:26pm


by mehllageman56 :: Mon, 03/19/2018 - 2:15pm

Rams got two extra first round picks and one 2nd round pick from the same year to move from 2 to 6. That is an overpayment. People would talk more about how bad that trade was if Cousins had not worked out.
Tennessee got an extra 1st for the next year, two 2nd round picks for the current year, one 3rd round pick from the current year and one 3rd round pick from the next year to move down to 15.

Looking at those trades, it seems the Jets got off easy. I still think it was a poor move. I'll address that in my comment below.

by Raiderjoe :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 3:14pm

Doubler again

by jimbohead :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 1:38am

So, devil's advocate here. Why is everyone assuming QB? Has the Jets brass said something? Is it crazy to think that this may be for Barkley, who 10:1 odds should be there at 3?

by Raiderjoe :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 1:45am

Jets signed I. Crowell and sitll have Powell and McGuire at RB. Seems they are set there
Tema has no QB signed to be on tea m in 2019 except for maybe Hackenberg. Not sure if hsi rookie deal is 3 or 4 years

by Raiderjoe :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 1:51am

Haven't seenb Chubb paly enough to be confident on whag type of pro he will be so kinds just going with draft commentary on hin. Seems to be considered by most as best pass rusher. Colts need thay. Also could get better at offensive libe. Not caring about Mewhort. Do think q. Nelson real deal and if Colts take him, not bad choice at all. Am sure a. Luck would like that.

by Sifter :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 4:19pm

Heavy price to pay for whoever the 3rd best QB happens to be on the day. My team, the Eagles, traded up to #2 the week before 2016 draft and it makes you wonder - even if you like both QBs, surely you have a preference, and wouldn't it be worth waiting until the day of the draft - just in case?

This trade certainly muddies the water anyway. What have the Jets gained? Leaping Browns and Broncos is great, but do the Browns even take a QB? Theoretically, the Jets have forced the Browns to take the QB at 1, instead of 4, but do you really trade a 3rd for Tyrod knowing you'll take a QB at #1? Not sure, but they could very certainly pass (again) on a 1st round QB. I guess the upside for the Jets is: if Browns pass on a QB, then they are guaranteed at least their 2nd choice at #3. Then the Broncs..would they really have wanted the 3rd/4th best QB at pick #5? Maybe, but it certainly was not a lock. Keenum should be decent, and maybe Lynch finds himself this year.

Gotta love the QB carousel!

by The Ninjalectual :: Tue, 03/20/2018 - 2:02pm

It's not so simple. [Typically bad] Teams tend to get paranoid about another team trading for the same pick instead of them. I think this fear is way overblown but it is a real thing. Also a draft day trade is less valuable for the team holding the pick, because it leaves them in limbo now. Trading later round picks is easier because chaos theory will begin to assert itself in more and more meaningful ways

by Sixknots :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 4:33pm

I think this says that both the Browns and the Giants are taking a QB at 1 & 2. If that were not the case, the Jets should have been able to trade for at least the 2nd pick with what the Jets gave the Colts for the 3rd pick.

by jds :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 5:09pm

Not sure about that. If the Bills want that #2, how much would they pay (and how much will the Giants ask for)? Jets have set the floor. Bills have admitted Taylor is not the answer, can't think they have convinced themselves that AJ McCarron is.

by Sixknots :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 7:22pm

The Jets have *now* set the floor. But I gotta believe that they talked to the Browns and Giants first.

by Sixknots :: Sun, 03/18/2018 - 10:44pm

It seems to me that if the Giants do not want to draft a FQBAE (franchise QB after Eli)this year when they have the 2nd pick in a QB rich draft, they would want to trade for multiple future picks to use to trade up then, something the Jets could have done and also given them multiple second round picks this year to build for that future. I suspect that the Giants are going FQBAE this year.

by Lebo :: Mon, 03/19/2018 - 6:01am

That's my thinking, too. Which makes me think that the first four picks will be QB, QB, QB, RB.

by Sixknots :: Mon, 03/19/2018 - 10:56am

Yep, unless the Bills trade up to 4th.

by Lebo :: Mon, 03/19/2018 - 11:03am

True. But I just can't see the Browns missing the opportunity to draft Saquon Barkley, having drafted a (presumptive) franchise QB at #1, unless the Bills send an absurd number of picks to Cleveland.

by MC2 :: Tue, 03/20/2018 - 10:21am

I don't think drafting Barkley makes any sense, given that they just signed Carlos Hyde to a big contract, and they still have a solid 3rd down back in Duke Johnson. If you're going to use a top 5 pick on a RB, then presumably, you're expecting to get an every-down workhorse, not a guy splitting carries in a crowded backfield.

by jtr :: Tue, 03/20/2018 - 10:39am

I was thinking that too, but I'm not sure that logic still totally holds up. Cleveland signed Hyde before the Jets traded up, so they had reason to believe that the Colts would take the top non-QB off the board before their second pick. At that point, it made sense to plan for not getting Barkley.

Now I think they just might take Barkley if he falls to 4. Neither Hyde nor Johnson is so good of a player as to ignore a generational talent (if they believe that is what Barkley will be). They're not really that committed to Hyde--$5M per year is not much to a team that still has about $75M in cap space, and they can cut him without too much pain after this season. I could pretty easily see them go through this season with a crowded backfield, then cut Hyde and transition to a future where Barkley is the main guy and Johnson gets a handful of snaps as the change-up.

by Sixknots :: Tue, 03/20/2018 - 11:42am

I totally agree that it doesn't make sense to draft a RB in the top 5 in today's NFL, generational or not. But what jtr just posted could happen too.

by jtr :: Tue, 03/20/2018 - 12:48pm

The backlash against RB's has gotten a little bit overblown at this point, IMO. Positional value doesn't completely invalidate individual talent. If Barkley really is an outstanding player, of Adrian Peterson or Ladainian Tomlinson caliber, is it really going to be bad value to spend a high pick on him? Seattle for instance went from #1DVOA rushing in 2014 with Lynch as the full time back, to #4 DVOA rushing in 2015 with Lynch only playing about half the time, to #22 DVOA rushing in 2016 when they tried to replace him with a bunch of random dudes. And in that case we're talking about the impact of a very good running back, not an incredible one.

I don't think Dallas or LA have been regretting picking a running back high in the draft in the past few years. If he's really the best player available, he's not a bad pick. We'll see another position-value rule broken this year, where OG Quenton Nelson will almost certainly be selected in the first half of the first round, well ahead of all of the tackles.

by MC2 :: Tue, 03/20/2018 - 3:48pm

Well, I don't know that you can really compare Barkley to Tomlinson or Peterson, as the NFL has changed quite a bit since they were drafted.

As for the more recent comparisons, if Barkley turns out to be as good as Gurley or Elliott, it would be hard to say it was a "bad" pick, although you could still argue that they might have been better off to trade down, assuming they get a reasonable offer. And he could turn out to be like Fournette, who was given the "generational talent" label by some draft experts last year, but who so far looks like a typical "good-but-not great" back, of the type that are readily available in the 2nd or 3rd round of almost every draft.

by theslothook :: Tue, 03/20/2018 - 5:58pm

The part that has to be weighed here is just how bust resistant is Barkley. I think, like left tackles, Running Backs have the view that they are less bust prone than other positions. A look over the history shows thats kind of true, but then its rare that even a top running back produces at a hall of fame level and that's basically what you are expecting when you take Barkley that high.

I firmly believe, if he's not hugely functional in the passing game, then his value is significantly muted given just how fungible and team dependent running backs are in the run game.

by justanothersteve :: Tue, 03/20/2018 - 9:00pm

I think it's Barkley's passing game skills that have so many analysts excited. He caught 54 passes at 11.7 yds/catch. He also had 28 passes for over 14 yds/catch his sophomore year. Mayock said during the combine that he's also a good blocker. He's essentially Ezekiel Elliott with better stats.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Wed, 03/21/2018 - 10:05am

Tomlinson had 5000 receiving yards.

If anything, he would have been more valuable today than in his era.

by jtr :: Wed, 03/21/2018 - 10:12am

Plus he threw seven touchdowns! There was nothing LT couldn't do in the passing game.

by MC2 :: Wed, 03/21/2018 - 7:55pm

Tomlinson's skill set was certainly very well suited to today's game. The same is true for Marshall Faulk.

But I don't think either of those guys would have as much raw value now as they did then, simply because none of today's head coaches build their offense so much around a single dominant back, like Vermeil and Schottenheimer did back then.

For example, in NFL history, there have been 11 seasons in which a RB scored 20 or more TDs. 9 of those came between 1994 and 2006. (The other two were in 1983 and 1985). In this entire decade (2010-2017), there have only been 4 RBs with at least 16 TDs in a single season. Offenses just aren't built the same way they used to be.

by Travis :: Thu, 03/22/2018 - 9:05am

For example, in NFL history, there have been 11 seasons in which a RB scored 20 or more TDs. 9 of those came between 1994 and 2006. (The other two were in 1983 and 1985).

If you include receiving TDs, running backs have scored 20+ offensive touchdowns in 25 different seasons.

by MC2 :: Thu, 03/22/2018 - 9:19am

True, but 20 of those 25 came between 1994 and 2008. And the top 5 all came between 1995 and 2006. So, my basic point stands.

by Travis :: Thu, 03/22/2018 - 9:35am

15 of 25. The real cluster are those Faulk-Holmes-Alexander-L.Johnson seasons between 2000 and 2006.

by MC2 :: Thu, 03/22/2018 - 10:12am

You're right. My brain counted 15, but for some reason, my fingers typed 20.

by The Ninjalectual :: Thu, 03/22/2018 - 6:59pm

That kind of does weaken your point though, especially if you're the type to discount all the Vermeil-designed Rams and Chiefs RB-years by bundling them together as an anomaly.

by MC2 :: Fri, 03/23/2018 - 12:58am

I don't think it really weakens my point much, because almost all the other years were before the current era. Here's the number of 20+ TD seasons in each decade:

1960s: 3
1970s: 2
1980s: 3
1990s: 4
2000s: 11
2010s: 2

A similar pattern occurs if we use seasons with 2,000 total yards from scrimmage:

1960s: 1
1970s: 4
1980s: 14
1990s: 14
2000s: 24
2010s: 8

It seems pretty clear that the era of prolific offenses built around superstar RBs is basically over. Today's coaches (the good ones, at least) build their offenses around superstar QBs. If a team is lucky enough to have a stud RB (especially one who is a "matchup nightmare" in the passing game), that's a bonus. But they won't be the centerpiece of the offense in the same way that they once were. Peterson, and especially Tomlinson, were great players, but they were also fortunate to play in an era in which the "workhorse RB" concept was at the height of its popularity.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Mon, 03/26/2018 - 8:38am

The 1960s should have 6. You're applying a 16-game standard to 12- (1960) and 14-game (1961-1969) game seasons.

Granted, Jim Brown had 4 of the 6.

The 1970s have 13 -- mostly OJ and Walter -- controlling for 14 game seasons.

Seen in that light, the 2000s are still an outlier, but it's the 1960s and 2010s that now seem like aberrations.

by dmstorm22 :: Mon, 03/19/2018 - 11:30am

Great trade for the Colts, though makes me a bit bitter knowing they do this now when in 2012 they couldn've gotten a haul three times this and kept Peyton Manning. Of course, understand all the reasons they didn't do that and drafted Luck at the time, but count me in a loud minority of Colts fans that would've rather just gambled on 18 and got a bunch of picks.

Anyway, enough living in teh past.

The Colts should make out great. If there's a run on QBs, they may still get whoever they would have drated at #3 (and I don't think they would pick Barkley), hopefully still get Nick Chubb at a position of tremendous need. The two additional 2nd rounders is so nice as well. Remains to be seen if Chris Ballard can actually make good with those picks, but from a trade perspective this was great.

Also has to make you think the Colts are fairly comfortable with Luck's progress in recovery.

by Raiderjoe :: Mon, 03/19/2018 - 3:39pm

nick chubb is position iof need for Clots btu can get him in 2nd round, maybe even 3rd. other Chubb is Bradley. he is guy you mean and Bradley Chubb is one ctls might take 6th overall. am personalluy not familiar with intricacies of various pass rusghers in this darft so will not make declarative statement that B. chubb is best or not best pass ruisher.

by dmstorm22 :: Mon, 03/19/2018 - 3:53pm

Thanks, yes meant Bradley not Nick (though I guess if he's available with on the three second rounders, may be fine with Nick as well).

They need a pass rusher. Like you said, I don't know nearly enough to know if Bradley Chubb is the best pass rusher or as good as advertised, but from what I've read he seems quite good.

by billprudden :: Tue, 03/20/2018 - 11:35am

Sir -

It brought me great satisfaction to read your support of trading Luck's pick back in the day and keeping Manning a little longer. I felt exactly the same way, also informed by the idea that once 18 was really done, as soon as the next year perhaps, there's always another QB in the draft...

I had thought I was in the extreme minority, and that y'all had drunk Luck-flavored Kool-Aid.


by theslothook :: Tue, 03/20/2018 - 11:52am

Manning is my favorite player and probably the reason I became a colts fan, but I thought they should have moved on. There was just way too much uncertainty with his neck. It's not like Manning was coming back from a broken collarbone or torn ACL.

by billprudden :: Tue, 03/20/2018 - 1:32pm

To be clear, I totally see that angle too. Especially how everybody felt about Luck as "best candidate since Elway" and so on.

We'll probably never know, but I'd love to know exactly what 18 could and could not do with a football the week the Colts cut him. And what the rate of improvement had been.

by theslothook :: Tue, 03/20/2018 - 2:18pm

Im not convinced it would have worked out. Not with the GM and coach they hired. Also, the entire team was aging badly and the free agent signings weren't all that smart. Even with three first round picks and some seconds + Manning the recruiter, I'm not convinced that Grigson doesn't trade one of them for Trent Richardson and another of the 2nds for some other random bit player on another team and flub every free agent pitch.

We'll never know, but best case - the Colts keep winning the AFC South and being in the mix, but hardly the juggernaught that the Broncos were from 12-15.

by billprudden :: Tue, 03/20/2018 - 3:20pm

I'm allowed to find your first paragraph hilariously bitter, yes? Sports is a curse.

(the preceding was brought to you by a Raiders fan who (a) hates the tuck rule and (b) to this day thinks we could'a run on the Bucs in that SB, esp. if we had our center)

by The Ninjalectual :: Tue, 03/20/2018 - 2:46pm

Letting Manning walk may or may not have been a poor decision by the Colts, but it was good for the NFL overall to shake things up. Imagine how much less hatable Brady would be if he had spent the last four years as a Raven or Eagle or Bronco or something. Full disclosure, I'm a Broncos fan and may or may not be biased here ;)

FWIW, Luck's career stats over five seasons are comparable or worse than Manning's four years in Denver.

by theslothook :: Tue, 03/20/2018 - 11:52am

Manning is my favorite player and probably the reason I became a colts fan, but I thought they should have moved on. There was just way too much uncertainty with his neck. It's not like Manning was coming back from a broken collarbone or torn ACL.

by dmstorm22 :: Tue, 03/20/2018 - 5:19pm

Logically, I agree. But then again Denver decided to take on that risk like two weeks after the Colts cut him. Granted, they didn't have the first overall pick as Plan B.

Still, I think the Colts would've been fine with Manning. That team, for all its flaws, went 11-5 three straight years with Luck, and at least 2012-13 Manning was way, way better than 2012-13 Luck. In 2014, it gets a little closer.

My main point was let him come back, if he retires, team probably is terrible that year and get a top pick the next year.

The fact you can make the argument that it would have ended up being the better move is purely hindsight bias, but I definitely believed it (my heart > my head) at the time.

by MarkV :: Wed, 03/21/2018 - 10:48am

The broncos was different, as the contract had no money until Manning could pass a physical iirc. Denver also had a tebow problem - extremely popular extremely bad qb, so Manning was a great solution to a tough situation.

Fwiw I tend to think luck is ridiculously overrated because of epic comebacks

by dmstorm22 :: Wed, 03/21/2018 - 10:58am

I believe the money tied to passing a physical was for the 2013 and 2014 seasons. 2012 was guaranteed.

by theslothook :: Wed, 03/21/2018 - 12:26pm

It's all about tradeoffs. If the Broncos had a chance at Luck, they would have chosen him instead of Manning. I think every team in that situation would have. I just think his neck injury was way too much of an uncertainty relative to Luck's, even though it was nigh impossible for Luck to be a better qb.

by The Ninjalectual :: Wed, 03/21/2018 - 8:38pm

What makes you so certain you know what the Broncos would have done? That's pretty ridiculous to say you know for sure. I think the opposite, for example, I think it's more in line with Elway's personality to go with Manning.

Was there some reason the Colts couldn't have kept both Manning and Luck for a year to see how it worked out?

by theslothook :: Wed, 03/21/2018 - 10:00pm

Manning was a lot older, a lot more expensive, and a lot more on an uncertainty given his neck than Luck was, especially given the pedigrees coming from college.

by The Ninjalectual :: Thu, 03/22/2018 - 6:55pm

Okay, but I wasn't arguing about any of that. I don't think Elway would necessarily agree, and you're dismissing the idea that a team might PREFER gambling they'll get 3 all-history seasons with Manning vs whatever Luck's career turns out to be like. If your goal is winning a Super Bowl, Manning is clearly the better option. If your goal is contending for a decade, Luck may be better for you. There are good arguments both ways, and you're dead wrong to assume you know what any team would have done.

by theslothook :: Thu, 03/22/2018 - 11:21pm

Of course I don't know. It just seems to me that, with the information we had at the time, Manning's neck was a huge wildcard.

by theslothook :: Wed, 03/21/2018 - 12:33pm

It will be very instructive to see how Luck performs this year. At his best, he's a high variance player with skittish accuracy, decision making, and pocket awareness, but has a pure ceiling that's as high as Rodgers.

But that's been under the Pagano regime with awful talent overall around him. If Frank Riech is able to coax better more consistent play from him, then I believe a lot of his struggles can be blamed on the prior coaching staff. If not, then it's just who he is, a cam Newton level qb.

by Bobman :: Sat, 03/24/2018 - 2:29am

I've drunk Luck-flavored Kool-Aid. Tastes alright, but one ends up spitting out neck-beard hairs all afternoon. pthlah! Then I started apologizing at random and congratulating everybody who knocked me down. Now my shoulder freakin' hurts....

by MarkV :: Mon, 03/19/2018 - 1:59pm

Assuming that Overthecap is right on dead money, and the quote from Brandon Beane in MMQB today was right, then Buffalo already has plans to have about 9 million more in dead money than they currently have.

I don't follow the bills, but assuming that they aren't planning on cutting someone (but waiting til later - which would be a jerk move), I would guess that mean they have a tenative trade worked out involving players that would cause ~9 million in dead money.

There aren't a lot of players that are roughly 9 million dead on their team - Charles clay is that exactly, Eric Wood is 10.5. If they were rounding quite a bit, Shady and Jerry Hughes combine for 11 in dead money.

I am somewhat divided - assuming that the quote meanings something the logical answer would be Clay, but I don't really see a team seeing loads of value in Clay (even though it would be 4.5 million yr for 2 years - that seems about appropriate value, not something to trade for).

An interesting potential development RE the #2 pick.

by ssereb :: Mon, 03/19/2018 - 3:02pm

Eric Wood is retiring because of a potentially serious disc injury, so his dead money is accelerating onto the cap.

by MarkV :: Mon, 03/19/2018 - 3:49pm

Thanks, very helpful

by mehllageman56 :: Mon, 03/19/2018 - 2:28pm

So, having thought about this some more, I'm just going to root for Bridgewater to succeed. Here are my issues with this trade from a Jets fan's perspective:

1). Bridgewater signed yesterday. The Jets don't even know how he looks on the field right now or not. Isn't there a mini-camp before the draft? How could you make this commitment to a rookie quarterback when you don't even know how your 25 year old quarterback looks? He could be the long-term answer. 3 second round picks is a high price to pay for a back-up.

2). It is possible that the Jets traded up to get Barkley, Chubb or Minkah Fitzpatrick. If they did, this was a really foolish waste of resources; running backs are tangible, Chubb isn't the best pass rusher in the draft (Landry is) and won't fit the Jets' defense, and Fitzpatrick will be a safety in the NFL, like the two guys the Jets drafted last year.

3). I would have preferred to Jets to trade down and pick up more picks. I was hoping Fitzpatrick would fall to them and the Niners at 9 would take the bait. Lamar Jackson would be a good pick at 9, and then the Jets would have an extra pick or two to shore up the offensive line in a deep draft at the interior positions.

4) The Jets could have picked Orlando Brown and one of the center prospects with their picks in the second round. I'll be happy if they get Brown in the third round, but he did well at the Oklahoma pro day after tanking the combine, so that's not likely.

5) This trade only works if the Jets get their franchise quarterback. Even if they take Mayfield or Jackson and those guys turn into star quarterbacks there will always be the question of whether they could have stayed put and got them. If the Patriots take Mike White or Kyle Lauletta and those guys turn into Brady 2.0 the Jets will still be questioned, even if their guy works out. If Bridgewater becomes the guy, the Jets will have wasted four picks on one back-up. And if they draft Josh Allen, they will have wasted four picks on a bust no matter what else happens.

by Led :: Mon, 03/19/2018 - 3:27pm

I disagree with this. Putting any stock in Bridgewater, who hasn't seen the field in two years, as a future franchise QB would be foolish. He's a reasonable investment for his potential upside as an insurance policy and trade chip, but his signing should have no impact on the Jets draft strategy. So I think there is literally zero chance they pick anybody but a QB at #3, and I hope it's either Rosen or Mayfield. If the the QB they pick turns out to be a good (not even great) QB for the Jets, then NOBODY will question this move. If the QB stinks, then everybody will rightfully pan it. There are very few ways to get a true franchise QB, and the position is important enough to "overpay." Overpaying by one second round pick to draft a guy is actually much better for the team than overpaying in salary cap space, all else (quality of the QB, etc.) being equal.

by mehllageman56 :: Mon, 03/19/2018 - 4:05pm

I agree that if the QB they pick pans out nobody will question the move except me. I just believe there are more than 3 options in this draft for quarterbacks. I do agree that overpaying this way is much better than overpaying in cap room, I just didn't think they had to do it this year.

As far as Raiderjoe's complaint that I think Josh Allen is 'poo', well I think Josh Allen is a terrible prospect. I'd pick Kyle Lauletta or Mike White ahead of him. That isn't meant to demean Allen personally. If I am insulting anyone, it's the Jets' management for not using their resources well. As far as quarterbacks I was impressed with in the past, I liked Luck, RGIII, Russell Wilson, Geno Smith, Winston, Mariota, Aaron Murray, Teddy Bridgewater, Jared Goff, Dak Prescott, Jacoby Brissett, Mitch Trubisky and Chad Kelly. The Jets drafted Geno and that did not work out obviously. I also liked David Fales as a late round guy, and he didn't work out either. So a couple of those guys I liked did not work out well. The jury is out on a bunch of them as well. There are a couple of guys I was down on that have done well: Tannehill, Derek Carr (didn't hate him, just wasn't thinking he'd be great), Sanchez, etc. I wasn't all in on Carson Wentz either, and I did think Brett Hundley would work out.

by Raiderjoe :: Mon, 03/19/2018 - 4:14pm

faier enough. not sure what it is, just seems like way too much vitriol for j. allen leik he is bad guy or something. from qwhat am seeing from ppl who don't like him it seems like j. allen kicked their grandma or soemthing

by Led :: Mon, 03/19/2018 - 5:25pm

Josh Allen never hurt my grandma, although that's because both of mine died before he was born rather than any particular humanitarian qualities he possesses. Not that I have any reason to believe Allen is a grandma kicker generally, living or dead. I just don't like spending a prime draft pick on a toolsy project that looks the part but only completes 56% of his passes.

by Raiderjoe :: Mon, 03/19/2018 - 3:35pm

no offnse but who are yout o say Josh allen is basically a gigantic piece of elephant poo poo?

do yoy have newslwtter with your old draft takes to see who you have gotten it right with every college pl;ayer entering nfl? if you can't do thism, then just write things like, "I THINK allen is hot garbage"

whiel it may be true s. Bradford is frequently injured, woul so love to see him start 14+ games in 2018 and lead cards into playoffs. also, would love to see josh allen succed whether it be with giants, browns, hets or bils, as longas it not with bronbos it would be nice. just love to see internet peiopel backpedal about jhosh allen sometijme this autumn or autumn of 2-019.

by The Ninjalectual :: Tue, 03/20/2018 - 2:51pm

running backs are tangible,

Literally true!

by mehllageman56 :: Tue, 03/20/2018 - 6:54pm

I was wondering when someone was going to catch that mistake. Yes, I meant fungible. The only running backs that aren't tangible are the ones made entirely of hot air. You know, gas beings from planet x.

by The Ninjalectual :: Wed, 03/21/2018 - 3:53am

Oh I'm sure lots of people caught it, but it was clear what you meant. I only said something because I saw a small joke in it xD

by dbostedo :: Sun, 03/25/2018 - 6:03pm

"Intangible" would make a good, sly nickname for a running back that was hard to catch or tackle.

"He's so fast and shifty that he's intangible!"

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Mon, 03/26/2018 - 8:39am

Barry Sanders had excellent intangibles.

by Led :: Mon, 03/26/2018 - 3:26pm