Rapoport: Patriots quietly bring in Lamar Jackson for Pre Draft Visit

[manxman2601]

Interesting considering their need



Suggests they really are moving up for one of the top four.

 

[Ras-IR Dowling]

Interesting considering their need



Suggests they really are moving up for one of the top four.

Or they’re really trying to disquise their interest in LJ. Heard a story a few days back of Denver doing a similar strategy with cutler.

 

[manxman2601]

Or they’re really trying to disquise their interest in LJ. Heard a story a few days back of Denver doing a similar strategy with cutler.

It’s been suspected from the start that the Bills were manoeuvring to get to near the top of the draft. If that’s your goal then you don’t really need to study QBs that aren’t in that category. At least that’s what I’m suspecting might be their rational. Alternatively you could be right or they just don’t like Jackson as a QB.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Interesting considering their need



Suggests they really are moving up for one of the top four.

I think Jackson is similar to Tyrod Taylor in style and Buffalo probably wants to get away from that.

 

[Ring 6]

Interesting considering their need



Suggests they really are moving up for one of the top four.

Or they just dont like him.

 

[primetime]

I'm sure the Bills opinion of Lamar Jackson is exactly what fits with my opinion of the player so I'm going with smokescreen.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm sure the Bills opinion of Lamar Jackson is exactly what fits with my opinion of the player so I'm going with smokescreen.

Well that’s open minded.
So the bills will draft the qb. of their future without ever speaking to him, because they want to trick others into thinking they dint like him? Because everyone has to evaluate him like you do.

 

[primetime]

Well that’s open minded.
So the bills will draft the qb. of their future without ever speaking to him, because they want to trick others into thinking they dint like him? Because everyone has to evaluate him like you do.

It was a joke, since everyone else was just speculating that the reason had to be something that conformed to their own biases.

 

[lancerman]

What the hell are you talking about? Not one team would take Rodgers over Brady. Even Cleveland would get that right.

But that's not even relevant to the general issue of run v. pocket. Exceptions aren't the rule, by definition.

There's nothing wrong with having a "pocket" QB who can run. But the list of successful NFL true quality QBs who aren't/weren't "pocket" QBs in their thoughts can be read off of one hand, and you'd still have fingers to spare.

I'm sorry but you are being a homer. Right now nearly every team in the league would take the 34 year old guy whose considered the best physical specimen to every play the position even if Brady is the GOAT. If they both were in their prime maybe it would be a little different.

But right now today, if Rodgers hit free agency, every team in the league would be making a run at him and would consider discarding their current QB. Even Belichick would think about it.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm sorry but you are being a homer. Right now nearly every team in the league would take the 34 year old guy whose considered the best physical specimen to every play the position even if Brady is the GOAT. If they both were in their prime maybe it would be a little different.

But right now today, if Rodgers hit free agency, every team in the league would be making a run at him and would consider discarding their current QB. Even Belichick would think about it.

I wasn't being a homer, at all. You called for a re-draft. A re-draft typically means you go back to when players were drafted, armed with the information you have now, and you do the draft armed with that knowledge. Knowing what everyone knows now, Tom Brady would be the #1 pick chosen in any draft of all available players, and nobody would give a comparative damn about the #2 pick.

Now, if you want to talk about who you'd take over all other players as they are today, I could still make a case for Brady (3 SBs in his last 4 seasons is 2 more SBs than Rodgers has in his entire career, after all), and I could make a case for other QBs as well (Russell Wilson and Carson Wentz come quickly to mind), though I'd give a great deal of thought to going with Rodgers.

 

[lancerman]

He's intriguing, but I just don't want a damn 1st round pick spent on a QB (let alone 2 packaged to trade up) especially when the team needs some major talent infusion on both sides of the ball. There's holes/aging players/question marks at LT, TE, WR, RB, LB, Safety (Chung and McCourty turn 31 soon).

QBs in the 1st round are the biggest gamble you can possibly take. Now factor in a guy like this with a low completion %, low football intellect, primarily familiar with running, and needs developing as a passer. No thanks.

Ride it out with Brady and go for #6. Build a young, strong, reliable defense that'll be there for Brady, who deserves it, and his future successor when the time comes.

Brady is at the age where he could hit the wall at any time, and Hoyer isn't the answer. Doesn't matter how many holes you fill once that happen. Yes a 1st round QB is risky. It's still the best bet of you finding a legitimate franchise QB.

Peyton Manning
Aaron Rodgers
Drew Brees (tech 2nd round but he was the 32nd pick)
Dan Marino
Ben Roethlisberger
John Elway
Jim Kelly
Troy Aikman
Phillip Rivers

all were round 1. In round 1 it's an educated guess. In the rest of the draft you are just hoping you get lucky with a diamond in the rough.

As far as Brady, no matter who is drafted he'll have 5 years before he's out of time to get 6.

 

[lancerman]

I wasn't being a homer, at all. You called for a re-draft. A re-draft typically means you go back to when players were drafted, armed with the information you have now, and you do the draft armed with that knowledge. Knowing what everyone knows now, Tom Brady would be the #1 pick chosen in any draft of all available players, and nobody would give a comparative damn about the #2 pick.

Now, if you want to talk about who you'd take over all other players as they are today, I could still make a case for Brady (3 SBs in his last 4 seasons is 2 more SBs than Rodgers has in his entire career, after all), and I could make a case for other QBs as well (Russell Wilson and Carson Wentz come quickly to mind), though I'd give a great deal of thought to going with Rodgers.

Yeah that's not what it typically means. Right now you could try to make the case for a team to pick Brady over Rodgers, but the reality is you would only be trying to change minds. Most teams would easily go Rodgers with his age and physical tool set. He's the best QB in the league who isn't dangerously near the end.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yeah that's not what it typically means.

Yeah, it is what it typically means, and media outlets do that crap all the time as a means of filler and clicks. Here are a few quick examples, from more than just the NFL:

2010 NFL Re-Draft: Rams Get Suh, Jags Land Gronk
2010 NFL Re-Draft: Gronk to Seahawks, Chancellor to Patriots, Tebow Plunges
Re-Draft of the 2017 NBA Lottery Picks…How Far Down Does Markelle Fultz Fall?
2011 NFL Draft Do-Over: Buffalo Bills land J.J. Watt at No. 3

Right now you could try to make the case for a team to pick Brady over Rodgers, but the reality is you would only be trying to change minds. Most teams would easily go Rodgers with his age and physical tool set. He's the best QB in the league who isn't dangerously near the end.

I don't buy your argument. Being 34 (will turn 35 during the season), missing about half a season in two of the last 5 years, and putting up a decidedly underwhelming career w/l record would have a lot of people thinking beyond Rodgers. Wentz, for example, would give teams an extra decade, and Wilson would give an extra 5 years. I'm a big Rodgers fan but, if you're going to play the "as they are now" game, I can see excellent arguments for several different players as the #1 selection.

 

[lancerman]

Yeah, it is what it typically means, and media outlets do that crap all the time as a means of filler and clicks. Here are a few quick examples, from more than just the NFL:

2010 NFL Re-Draft: Rams Get Suh, Jags Land Gronk
2010 NFL Re-Draft: Gronk to Seahawks, Chancellor to Patriots, Tebow Plunges
Re-Draft of the 2017 NBA Lottery Picks…How Far Down Does Markelle Fultz Fall?
2011 NFL Draft Do-Over: Buffalo Bills land J.J. Watt at No. 3



I don't buy your argument. Being 34 (will turn 35 during the season), missing about half a season in two of the last 5 years, and putting up a decidedly underwhelming career w/l record would have a lot of people thinking beyond Rodgers. Wentz, for example, would give teams an extra decade, and Wilson would give an extra 5 years. I'm a big Rodgers fan but, if you're going to play the "as they are now" game, I can see excellent arguments for several different players as the #1 selection.

You're confusing a redraft for a specific year and a redraft today. They are two different things.

I don't care if you buy the argument. The reality is across the league Rodgers is considered the most physically talented QB of this generation and possibly ever and there's alot of GM's who would take him over Brady outright without considering age just based off that. Add age and it becomes a no brainer. Oh he got injured and missed his 10th season as a starter? I seem to remember some other QB who got injured and missed his 8th season as a starter.

Wentz could be a flash in the pan like a dozen other first or 2nd year QB's. Also he's more of an injury liability. Wilson is the only other QB I'd consider.

 

[Deus Irae]

You're confusing a redraft for a specific year and a redraft today. They are two different things.

I'm not confusing anything. You chose the wrong term and I responded appropriately to it. I've answered for both the re-draft and the "if you could choose one player from today" options. Let it go.

I don't care if you buy the argument. The reality is across the league Rodgers is considered the most physically talented QB of this generation and possibly ever and there's alot of GM's who would take him over Brady outright without considering age just based off that. Add age and it becomes a no brainer. Oh he got injured and missed his 10th season as a starter? I seem to remember some other QB who got injured and missed his 8th season as a starter.

Wentz could be a flash in the pan like a dozen other first or 2nd year QB's. Also he's more of an injury liability. Wilson is the only other QB I'd consider.

I don't care if you keep posting your weak argument (If you can downgrade for age, so can I, after all), and you're out of your mind if you think GMs would pick Rodgers over Brady without the age factor. Also, calling Wentz more of an injury liability when both he and Rodgers just had lost NFL seasons, but Rodgers' was his second season with major time lost in five years, is ridiculous.

 

[lancerman]

I'm not confusing anything. You chose the wrong term and I responded appropriately to it. I've answered for both the re-draft and the "if you could choose one player from today" options. Let it go.



I don't care if you keep posting your weak argument, and you're out of your mind if you think GMs would pick Rodgers over Brady without the age factor. And calling Wentz more of an injury liability when both he and Rodgers just had lost seasons, but Rodgers' was his second in five years, is ridiculous.

You’re just being intellectually dishonest now.

1. To refute my point about the redraft you posted links where the premise was to redo a specific year. Which was not my original premise. So yeah if you change the entire context of the argument, you are right. Big win there.

2. No you are a homer if you think the vast majority of GM’s would take Brady over Rodgers right now. We’d probably sign him if he was a free agent and said he wanted to play here.

3. Rodgers had two injuries 5 years apart. Both are injuries that are not tough to come back from. Wentz is a riskier player and got himself injured on a needless play. Wentz was injured in 2015 in college and was injured this year. So he was injured 2 out of the 3 most recent years he played. Whose riskier, the guy who had two injuries 5 years apart in a career that so far has spanned 10 years in the pros as a starter or the guy who was injured his last year of college and second year in the pros? Also let’s go a step further, how many QB’s had incredible rookie or sophomore years only to crash back to Earth? The answer is a lot. This is a league about consistency. Last year you would have argued for Dak

 

[Kontradiction]

Like I said... disinformation.

 

[supafly]

Like I said... disinformation.

Comments from Belichick, social media acknowledgement from Brady, the obligatory pics from Logan, “super secret” meetings, and having the story conveniently repeated again a few days ago were all very strong hints that you hit the nail on the head.

 

[captain stone]

Not that I wanted him anyway - at all - but I still would've taken LJ than a ****ing RB...

...or, better still...

TRADE THE ****ING PICK TO THE RAVENS, BILL, YOU ****ING IDIOT.

 

[Ring 6]

Not that I wanted him anyway - at all - but I still would've taken LJ than a ****ing RB...

...or, better still...

TRADE THE ****ING PICK TO THE RAVENS, BILL, YOU ****ING IDIOT.

Captain you are off the rails.