Performance has everything to do with whether you give the extension. You’re not going to sacrifice a second round pick, unless he plays at a level to justify it.
What I meant was that his performance doesn't dictate the value of the pick...the pick exchange isn't based on that, like the Jets pick for Rodgers was(a 2nd that becomes a 1st based on games played).
The Panthers pick in 2024 might be #1 overall, but there’s no way to predict that at the time of the trade. However, you know that a second round pick usually has a good chance to become a solid starter, and that’s what you’re sacrificing if you do the Ridley extension. On the other hand, if he has a great year, it would be worth it. The Jags would not have agreed to the trade, if they didn’t see it that way.
What I meant was that his performance doesn't dictate the value of the pick...the pick exchange isn't based on that, like the Jets pick for Rodgers was(a 2nd that becomes a 1st based on games played).
The Panthers pick in 2024 might be #1 overall, but there’s no way to predict that at the time of the trade. However, you know that a second round pick usually has a good chance to become a solid starter, and that’s what you’re sacrificing if you do the Ridley extension. On the other hand, if he has a great year, it would be worth it. The Jags would not have agreed to the trade, if they didn’t see it that way.
I think the Bears did the math that the Panthers wouldn't be lighting the league up with a rookie QB minus their best receiver and without McCaffery. Obviously they don't know if it will be #1...but I think they had a pretty good idea it would be top 10.
Of course not...but it wouldn't be the first time a receiver didn't live up to a 2nd round draft pick price tag either given Ridleys history.
The Panthers pick in 2024 might be #1 overall, but there’s no way to predict that at the time of the trade. However, you know that a second round pick usually has a good chance to become a solid starter, and that’s what you’re sacrificing if you do the Ridley extension. On the other hand, if he has a great year, it would be worth it. The Jags would not have agreed to the trade, if they didn’t see it that way.
I think the Bears did the math that the Panthers wouldn't be lighting the league up with a rookie QB minus their best receiver and without McCaffery. Obviously they don't know if it will be #1...but I think they had a pretty good idea it would be top 10.
Of course not...but it wouldn't be the first time a receiver didn't live up to a 2nd round draft pick price tag either given Ridleys history.
IOW, if Ridley does not play to a level to justify the extension, he’s not likely to get it. He’s got a big incentive this season.
I think the Bears did the math that the Panthers wouldn't be lighting the league up with a rookie QB minus their best receiver and without McCaffery. Obviously they don't know if it will be #1...but I think they had a pretty good idea it would be top 10.
Of course not...but it wouldn't be the first time a receiver didn't live up to a 2nd round draft pick price tag either given Ridleys history.
IOW, if Ridley does not play to a level to justify the extension, he’s not likely to get it. He’s got a big incentive this season.
That reminded me of Claypool. He has crazy-level physical gifts. But he didn't even learn the playbook for his big extension season here. Some of these guys (for various reasons) simply don't get it done in spite of great physical talent. We have seen that played out countless times over many years in the NFL. Even 1st overall picks of the draft have failed. Even Heisman Trophy winners have failed. Half the first round picks each year disappoint at the NFL level or flat-out bust. For some reason the physical talent often (yes, often) does not mean anything at the NFL level.
I think the Bears did the math that the Panthers wouldn't be lighting the league up with a rookie QB minus their best receiver and without McCaffery. Obviously they don't know if it will be #1...but I think they had a pretty good idea it would be top 10.
Of course not...but it wouldn't be the first time a receiver didn't live up to a 2nd round draft pick price tag either given Ridleys history.
IOW, if Ridley does not play to a level to justify the extension, he’s not likely to get it. He’s got a big incentive this season.
Ridley is earning $11 mill this season...what level of play would you say he needs to hit in order to make it worth it to extend him, and at what price tag? Also, I just saw that the 4th rounder they gave up for the 2024 draft becomes a 3rd rounder if Ridley plays 60% of the snaps, and a 2nd if he signs an extension. So he was basically traded for a 2023 5th and at minimum if he stays healthy a 2024 3rd, and a 2nd rounder if he signs an extension. If he doesn't sign the extension you gave up a 2023 5th and a 2024 3rd for 1 season of play...you still want to say you wouldn't get on Poles for that?
IOW, if Ridley does not play to a level to justify the extension, he’s not likely to get it. He’s got a big incentive this season.
Ridley is earning $11 mill this season...what level of play would you say he needs to hit in order to make it worth it to extend him, and at what price tag? Also, I just saw that the 4th rounder they gave up for the 2024 draft becomes a 3rd rounder if Ridley plays 60% of the snaps, and a 2nd if he signs an extension. So he was basically traded for a 2023 5th and at minimum if he stays healthy a 2024 3rd, and a 2nd rounder if he signs an extension. If he doesn't sign the extension you gave up a 2023 5th and a 2024 3rd for 1 season of play...you still want to say you wouldn't get on Poles for that?
Most of the WR2 level guys are getting $10-11M, so if he has 70+ receptions and 1,000+ yards, would give him another $11M next year on a 3yr. Contract with a lot of incentive money in year 2-3 without a lot guaranteed. If he has a very good season in 2023, other teams will be interested in him for 2024. What’s your answer to your question? I’m interested.
I will note that the offensive coordinator has total control over whether he gets 60%+ of snaps. If he doesn’t continue to play well and/or Jags fall out of playoff contention, they might screw around to shade him under 60%.
If Poles had traded for Ridley while he was suspended this board would have melted down. Period. End of discussion.
Hell ya, I hated the Claypool trade, could you imagine trading mid season for a guy you don't know when he'll be able to see the field? One thing if it's, he's suspended for the year, or 16, 20 games total. But indefinite? Poles would have been skewered by the entire Chicago media and fanbase.
If Poles had traded for Ridley while he was suspended this board would have melted down. Period. End of discussion.
Everyone except me. So far, it’s working well for the Jags, and I said at the time that I would have liked Poles to make the trade. I wanted him, or Hopkins, or Cooks, but I guess Poles figured he didn’t need any more receivers. Claypool is already gone, and Mooney has 8 receptions.
