Nov 12, 2026 12:00 PM
After plenty of trade speculation, the Jaguars decided to keep WR Brian Thomas Jr. at the trade deadline. Why didn't Jacksonville move on from the struggling receiver?
The Jacksonville Jaguars were one of the most active and aggressive teams at the NFL's trade deadline this past Tuesday.
Jacksonville mortgaged much of its future to bolster its chances of reaching the franchise's first Super Bowl this season.
The Jaguars sent next year's second-round pick and a 2028 fifth-round pick to the Atlanta Falcons for star safety Jessie Bates III (trade grade), starting Monday morning off with a bang.
Shortly after, they traded their 2028 sixth-round selection to the New Orleans Saints for defensive tackle Davon Godchaux (trade grade).
Related stories
Then came the stunning blockbuster. Just hours later, Jacksonville shocked the league by acquiring DT Jordan Davis from the Philadelphia Eagles for 2027 first-round and 2029 second-round picks (trade grade).
The enormous price the Jaguars paid for Davis has been widely criticized by the national media, especially after addressing the same position earlier in the day with Godchaux.
However, despite all the additions, the Jaguars also made waves for a trade they didn't make.
After weeks of renewed speculation, the Jaguars opted to hold onto struggling wide receiver Brian Thomas Jr., despite strong interest from numerous teams.
Since his Pro Bowl rookie year in 2024, Thomas has fallen off a cliff. Last season, he was a shell of the player he was as a rookie, even as the rest of the offense took off in Liam Coen's first season as head coach.
There was a ton of optimism that Thomas would return to form this season, but he has been even worse. Over the first eight games, Thomas has only 10 catches for 117 yards and two touchdowns. He has only one catch in Jacksonville's last four games and four in the last six.
The stunning lack of production and a return of issues with drops has led to his playing time being significantly reduced, which reignited speculation that the Jaguars would finally move on from the talented 24-year-old.
They didn't, opting to hold onto Thomas, as they did throughout this past offseason.
Jacksonville's decision comes as at least a moderate surprise to many, including myself.
So, why did the Jaguars decide against trading BTJ, especially when he could have brought back some much-needed future draft capital?
Jeremy Fowler and Dan Graziano of ESPN explained Jacksonville's decision.
Wanted To Add, Not Subtract
Fowler and Graziano reported that Jacksonville only wanted to add, not subtract, at the deadline.
They also noted that keeping BTJ protects the Jaguars in case of an injury to top WRs Parker Washington and Jakobi Meyers, pointing out the Los Angeles Rams losing both Davante Adams and Puka Nacua to significant injuries.
"Fowler: Thomas, meanwhile, garnered significant interest, but in the end the Jaguars, a true contender, didn't want to subtract. They only wanted to add. And they value Thomas, though his numbers don't reflect that. He has speed that demands defensive attention.
"Graziano: Thomas doesn't appear to be an important player for the Jaguars anymore when you check the box score, but look around the league. The Rams are almost out of receivers. The 49ers have been scrambling to fill those spots all season. Injuries happen, and if something should happen to Jakobi Meyers or Parker Washington, the Jaguars believe Thomas could help them if he suddenly got thrust into a higher-volume role. The Jaguars are very clearly thinking about getting the top seed in the AFC and winning the Super Bowl. Maintaining quality depth at premium positions is important.
"Fowler: What's tough about Thomas' situation is he has only one reception in the past four games, and my sense is the player would have welcomed a fresh start had a trade happened. But that's a lot of talent on which to give up. Thomas was, quite easily, the most gifted athlete on the field when I visited Jaguars training camp. So while Taylor staying in Indy was a matter of the Colts' high demands, I don't think that was the case with Thomas. The Jaguars could have gotten a quality pick for him. They just didn't seem interested in moving him, even though he could have helped recoup some of the lost capital from Monday's flurry of trades.
"But Jacksonville should probably try to find a way to get Thomas involved more. It will need him in January"
That last sentence is key. If Jacksonville wants the decision to keep Thomas to pay off, it must find a way to get him going.
Final Thoughts
The explanation from Fowler and Graziano makes plenty of sense, but whether or not Jacksonville made the right decision is still up for debate.
Rookie Josh Cameron has seemingly passed Thomas on Jacksonville's food chain. If either Washington or Meyers gets hurt, Cameron would likely get the first crack at replacing them. The Jaguars also have Travis Hunter, who may be their most talented WR.
Understandably, the team doesn't want to overload Hunter, who has excelled in his first season as a full-time cornerback. However, replacing an injured Washington or Meyers with Hunter sounds a lot more appealing.
There is also the huge issue of Jacksonville's lack of future draft picks. The Jaguars are already down their first- and second-round picks next year, two late 2028 picks, and 2029's second-round selection.
That's a ton of future assets gone.
For a team that is built for long-term success, Jacksonville may regret its lack of draft picks. Thomas likely would have brought back a valuable draft pick, likely a second-rounder. The Jaguars surely could have used it.
Next season is the last year of BTJ's rookie contract, unless Jacksonville picks up his fifth-year option, which is incredibly unlikely, even if Washington wasn't about to receive a massive extension.
Thomas doesn't appear to be a part of Jacksonville's long-term future, and the Jaguars may have missed their last chance to trade him while he still has plenty of value.
Comments
Powered by RoundtableAn AI/DeFi-powered Enterprise Media Operating System. Learn more at Roundtable.io.© Roundtable 2026. By using this site you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy


