Jaguars Receive Multiple Trade Offers For Yannick Ngakoue

The Jaguars have received multiple offers for Yannick Ngakoue, including one package that included a Pro Bowler, according to Tom Pelissero of NFL.com (on Twitter). However, none of those offers have been to the Jaguars’ liking. Meanwhile, Pelissero hears that the unknown Pro Bowler wasn’t a fit for the Jaguars’ system. 

[RELATED: Ngakoue Willing To Play On Tag, If Traded]

Ngakoue’s camp is willing to table extension talks for any team that’s able to pull off a trade. Right now, a trade doesn’t seem likely. The Jaguars have been in a game of chicken with the 25-year-old edge rusher for months, and they have yet to blink.

As of this writing, Ngakoue is set to play out the 2020 season for a salary of $17.788MM. When the 4pm ET/3pm CT deadline passes, both sides will be formally barred from hammering out an extension until next year. In Ngakoue’s case, that’s strictly a formality – he has zero interest in staying in Jacksonville.

However, the two parties aren’t necessarily stuck with each other through the end of the season. As Ian Rapoport of NFL.com (on Twitter) points out, the Texans waited until August 31 of last year before shipping Jadeveon Clowney to the Texans. At last check, the Jaguars were seeking a first-round pick – plus more – for Ngakoue. But, over time, their asking price could come back down to earth. A 2021 third-round pick, for example, would be a slight upgrade over the 2022 third-round choice they’d get next year, via the compensatory pick formula.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.

View Comments (22)
newest oldest

22 comments on “Jaguars Receive Multiple Trade Offers For Yannick Ngakoue

  1. jb19

    What’s the point of not trading a player who has no interest in playing for your team, not getting a return for the player and then also paying said player nearly $18MM for one season? Take the best offer Jacksonville and move on….

    • Wyoming Bison Expansion Team

      If he’s still in Jacksonville, doubt he actually plays, which means he forfeits most of his salary, except for the minimum number of games he has to play to reach free agency.

  2. mlbnyyfan

    The Cowboys won’t trade a first round pick for Jamal Adams would they for this guy

    • justinkm19

      The Cowboys already offered a first for Adams and a CB and a late pick. They declined

    • rkmarx

      When I saw that, I didn’t even have to look to see that Zach Links wrote it. It’s amazing that Dierkes keeps that guy on the payroll. What a waste.

      • Ak185

        Easy there, tiger. As far as typing errors go, this isn’t the worst.

        Still, it’s been a couple of days, so…

  3. raider j81

    My guess is he’ll be traded before the season starts, he’s making the same demands to get out as Ramsey did last year. Everyone wants out of Jacksonville, AEW is the biggest game in town there!

  4. Appalachian_Outlaw

    They’re not going to get a 1st rd pick for him. I don’t blame them for trying, but the other team is going to have to pay this guy’s next contract.

      • wagner13

        Mack wasn’t a lockerroom problem and is among the NFL’s most consistent defenders according to PFF’s metrics. Ngakoue, while talented, isn’t in the same tier and his sack production doesn’t necessarily align with his pressure count

      • Appalachian_Outlaw

        Mack is a different caliber of player, and the Bears probably still overpaid. It was fortunate for the Raiders, but you don’t repeat other teams mistakes.

  5. Brownsfan83

    They Probably offered Jamal Adams since he is a pro bowler who is entering the final year of his rookie contract and is set to be paid big money him and Marcus maye and Pierre desir and blessuan Austin are cornerstones of the future

  6. crosseyedlemon

    I’m thinking he might want to return to his roots in Washington and a defensive HC like Rivera would have no objection to that.

  7. Brownsfan83

    If I did a Jets franchise on Xbox one should I move left end Henry Anderson for a pick because I have Clowney

Leave a Reply