The Consigliere

I do think trades like that are possible, but you have to think outside the box and send an overpay that anyone would consider a bit of an overpay, generally with a flashy piece if the org is stupid enough to be convinced of that (hey detroit willingly took on Goff's contract, anything is possible). I'd build a trade up around Chase Young and picks, or start with Payne and picks. I would include a '22 first if necessary (don't like that draft as much as this one).

Yay!!! <Ducks>

I don't agree. I think Trubisky has been largely terrible despite playing with legit weapons and at least competent coaching. Darnold had a good defensive coach in year 1 when he did well. Then they turned the team over to a total incompetent and slowly but surely sold off his OL, his TE got suspended and then injured, and his WR's were let go, as was his running game. You peel away the OL, and the playmakers, and give a QB a bottom 3-5 coach in the league, he's probably gonna suck. And Darnold did. I don't know if he has good in him anymore, he certainly hasn't shown it much and a good large percentage of highly thought of QB prospects that are dumped into manure piles for organizations tend to fail period, but we've definitely seen guys like Rich Gannon, Ryan Tannehill, Jim Plunkett etc (not research, just digging in memory) escape bad situations and be reborn. Tannehill not coincidentally had as a rookie a coach that's disappeared entirely and then that guy was replaced by the same idiot who will never be a HC again who has ruined Darnold. So w/regards to Darold, I see a lot of exculpatory evidence. Terrible coach, terrible team, key pieces of the offense allowed to depart to the point where his core RB, OL, and WR options as a rookie were all gone by year 3 (2020). As such, I think he absolutely deserves a chance w/a stable environment and quality coaching. As for Trubisky, not elite coaching, but not horrible either, basically bottom of the middle (I regard the coaching there for him as around the 25th-40th percentile in quality, whereas Darnold the last two years has had 1st-5th percentile coach). Trubisky also was gifted a solid to good OL, an elite WR1 option in Allen Robinson, the team also drafted Anthony Miller to supplement the passing game and signed Taylor Gabriel (not special but coming off a solid contract year) and David Montgomery and Tarik Cohen to provide him a run game to replace Jordan Howard who was competent if not special along with Trey Burton and Adam Shaheen for the TE role. None of this is elite beyond ARob. I like Anthony Miller, and I did not like Monty or Burton, though I was partial to Cohen and Shaheen (Shaheen def looks like a bust at this point, and drafted rounds ahead of George Kittle and Jonnu Smith, OUCH), but the key here is they give built a team around him, spent money on legit FA's, drafted replacements for WR, RB and TE with day 2 picks, and built him an OL and brought in a highly thought of coach whose no longer as highly thought of (funny how all the highly thought of coaches have great QB's). And he sucked anyway. Trubisky was given a solid to good situation and failed badly. Darnold has the great ship Darnold torpedo'd every offseason with ever increasing stupid moves: Sabotage the OL, take away his WR's, lose his TE, bring in a RB that the coach hates and is past it anyway etc. To me, Darnold may make it, or may not, and a betting man goes with not, but there's reason for hope based on situation. Trubksy flat out sucks, and there is no reason for hope. He's just failed, period. I get that he has better #'s than Darnold, but I also know that he has better position groups than Darnold at all levels including coaching and the difference isn't marginal, it's by orders of magnitude. So while neither option is attractive, to my mind, with Darnold, you get clarity. Either he can take advantage of what we have here and become what he showed glimpses of, or he's a bust, and you'll know pretty quick. With Trubisky you're just signing a guy you're gonna spend the next however many years wanted replaced and cut as soon as is possible period and you absolutely won't want him starting period.

I am never one to hide my misses lol. You won't see me doing that. I once traded a top 6 dynasty rookie pick for the combo of Corey Coleman, Laquon Treadwell, and Cameron Meredith reasoning (all 3 of them can't miss). I am and have always been a huge Josh Rosen fan, in terms of his upside. But that ship has sailed, he may just be a bust, or he may be a guy who landed in the absolute worst case scenario. I tend to think it's either the latter or a combo, but I think it's pure lunacy to argue that say a Josh Rosen, and Patrick Mahomes had equivalent opportunities to succeed or fail on their own terms. Rosen got drafted by a totally incompetent F.O. and a coaching staff that was flat out bottom of the barrell and was traded to be a stop gap for a team while they set about deliberately tanking for Tua (they were Jacksonville/NYJ tanking for Lawrence, before Lawrence). So what do you do there? If Rosen is elite, he probably figures out a way to make it work anyway, like guys like Watson, and Kyler, and Herbert, and Mahomes did, but every one of those guys were drafted into offenses designed to utilize their strengths with plenty of assets to use, Rosen had none of that, so again, I see both sides. Here's my biggest hits courtesy of Dynasty since '15: Nailed: All the RB's of the '17 class (I had them: McCaffrey, Mixon, Cook, Fournette, Hunt, Kamara as my top guys, then I loved Donte Foreman, Marlon Mack and Aaron Jones) Nailed most of the elite WR's of '17, '18, '19 and '20 Nailed Miles Sanders as the best RB of '19 Nailed the rankings of the RB's for the most part in '20: My predraft rankings were: 1A: Taylor 1B: Swift 3.Dobbins 4.Akers 5.CEH 6. Gibson Nailed TE rankings across the most recent classes in terms of what to dip into. My biggest misses: '16: Swung and missed wildly like a near sighted 4 year old with the entire '16 WR class. '17: I regret not having Hunt and Kamara higher though I liked both infinitely more than our pick. "17: I was pretty off on Corey Davis. I didn't like Ross but thought he was worth a day 2 pick. Thought Mike Williams was a reach though I like him well enough. '18: Was kind of a mess of an evaluation at RB, I still believe in most of my eval except Michel, based on my dynasty drafting, my eval was: 1.Barkley 2A. Guice 2B. Chubb 4. Penny 5. Michel 6. Kerryon I had no idea Guice had all that baggage, I was just flat out wrong about Michel, and Kerryon is much better than I thought (I would love to get him as a spell back for Gibson, I think he's a legit starter, and Detroit just got sick of his injuries). hmmm, I probably shouldn't even do it this way, but anyway I also totally botched the '18 QB class: 1.Baker 2.Darnold 2B Rosen 4. Josh Allen-who I totally hated (his lack of accuracy made him absolutely Do Not Draft for me). Interesting, in '17 I liked Mahomes, was worried about Watson's velocity test (the last time I'll ever worry about that, I'll just take tape grinders views of arm strength from now on), and didn't like Trubisky. In '19 I hated Jones and thought Haskins was fine as long as we didnt trade up for him. In '20 I had them 1.Burrow 1B Tua 3. Herbert I didn't see Herbert doing this at all. But yeah, historically the proof is in my rookie drafts, I'm sketchy at QB, but I tend to nail RB and WR. You've got me on McLaurin, I whiffed badly, but I have no issue with good process whiffs as long as you learn something from them (for me, it's that great talents can be hidden at schools like Ohio State, Clemson, Georgia and Alabama where they have so many 5 star guys that mental make up, and temperament or situation can result in elite players only proving it after the next jump up to the NFL level: see Jacobs, see McLaurin, see Chubb having to split carries with vastly inferior Michel etc. However that was also a caveat that was used to elevate Ruggs last year, and Ruggs was horrific, and as I and I imagine nearly everyone hear called on draft night, taking Ruggs over Lamb and Jeudy was pure 1000% idioicy. As right as I was about that though, I had no zero idea, zero, that Justin Jefferson would be Randy Moss 2.0 NEVER SAW THAT COMING, I had freaking Reagor ahead of him. In one rookie draft I was incensed that Reagor, Lamb and Jeudy were all gone, and I HAD to take Jefferson and I spent july and august trying to pawn him off on anyone. No bites LOL!. Sometimes stupidity pays off when everyone else is just as stupid. As for the conviction angle, I guess I am ----ty with tone, because it's not so much 100% confidence, it's just total confidence in the process, I believe absolutely in the process. If the process misses, if you can reevaluate it, see if it failed for a reason, good, that's a net positive, you fix a flaw, and if it was good process, and the hit was an outlier (which is mostly McLaurin, but I also think he showed a flaw in the process) than you can take it that way too. One of my points with McLaurin was that he has no successful comps, because nobody has really ever done what he's done (oddly, one of the few guys with a slightly similar profile was Tyreek Hill of all people, as well as Michael Thomas, kind of amusing that 2 of the 8 outliers out of the top 50 WR's over the last several years were 2 of the best 5 guys), and that secondly, guys with late breakout age's as WR's historically in the modern game account for basically about 8-14% or so of the typical annual top 50 WR's in the league. Now take that for what it means. It doesn't mean it never happens, it just means that at any given time across the last decade or so, only about 1 out of ever 6.5-8 WR's who've become successful have such a profile marker, while basically 5.5 to 7 out of every 8 successful WR's do not. In a case like that, do you want to bet on the guy holding the 85-92% chance of being right, or the guy with the 8-14% chance. You will hit with the latter guy sometimes, but you'll hit far more often with the former option. It's about probabilities and correlation. In a game where at best you're hitting 50% of the time (and that's just with first rounders) it's best to play the odds that reduce your risk of taking a bust, and wasting cap/draft capital assets in as much as possible, and when there are ways of doing that, you should do so. It's why I want no part of Najee Harris (too old, too short of a likely career), it's why I draft TE's who blow up the athletic drills, and especially the 40 (shows more correlation to future success than almost anything much like RB's who run a 4.5 or faster and definitely don't run 4.66 or slower), it's why WR's drills don't seem to matter much unless they also have nice breakout age, and to a lesser extent a good dominator/market share etc. Everything's about finding micro edge's to me. There are ways you can ramp up risk, and ways you can mitigate it, and I'm always trying to do the latter. My confidence is in the process itself and it's served me well generally speaking though there's no doubt I miss badly sometimes (I sure would like to have a lot more of Aiyuk for instance), but I do love that while everyone was picking the RB 7 or RB 8 I was gobbling up all the Shenault, Higgins, and Mims I could find. Oh and btw, it's not dominator, again, it's breakout age. And I get why people value tape, and I get that sometimes you'll see something I wont, but in the end I view QB eval as mostly witchcraft anyway, there aren't any analytics that are terribly helpful with QB eval. It's much more helpful with RB's and WR's and TE's.

You're not getting my point, though you're also not characterizing him fairly, he played like a snap as a rookie, was solid in his second year (compare his first year as starter to Manning's), injured his third year, and outstanding in his final year, then a FA. Yeah Watson wasn't that, agreed, but people had every reason to believe that Brees would be at bare minimum, a solid QB after '04. Doesn't matter though, my point about Brees was that much like with Brees, if we get Watson, we get a guy entering his age 26 season. This isn't getting a broken down past it Boonell, or McNabb or hell Mariota as some have mentioned, like with Brees, this is a guy just starting to enter his prime, and likely to have at least a 5+ year career beyond that and more likely a longer one considering the protections in place for QB's these days. Whereas in '99 we were getting Brad Johnson in the middle/late middle of his career, Boonell at the Tail End, and McNabb at the washed up period (and heck Alex Smith also approaching the washed up section), we're getting Watson several years younger than any of those guys when we landed them (and in some cases, nearly a full decade younger). It's a massive, orders of magnitude difference. It's also why a trade would make sense unlike with Stafford. It's still not my first choice, I'd rather trade up for a QB for the rookie contract angle, but failing that, trading the farm for a legit QB is well worth it because he's a franchise QB, period, and like Brees 15 years ago, he's got a long career ahead of him. He's no stop gap like a Rivers last year or a Stafford would've been. As for Houston sucking w/Watson, that's simple. Totally incompetent ownership and F.O. lead by a totally incompetent coach wasted a giant pile of draft picks, and players on idiotic trades to the point where multiple drafts were bereft of assets, the defense was a wasteland and the offense had an OL that wasn't helpful, and an oft injured and largely broken down collection of assets on offense (David Johnson was done and sucked, Kahale Warring has missed most of his first two years, Will Fuller has never been healthy ever (which is probably why he got nailed for PED's), Cooks is a concussion away from retirement. I could go on and on. While the redskins roster is still a mess (OL graded out well, but is not something I'm trusting), he'd still have in house a legit #1 WR, a TE who finished top 10 in the league, an elite young RB, and a defense that was like Houston's a couple of years ago, but even better up front. The team would be at worst, an instant .500 caliber club, and a legit one, and not the faux-one we had this year, because we'd have the consistency at QB to prevent the roof from caving in on our heads like it usually has since Gibbs I ended.

I said yes before you finished, and even though I'm not KDawg.

Watson is basically Drew Brees 2.0. People barely even remember that Brees was with the Chargers for several years before he even became a Saint and then he had a 15 year career in New Orleans. The same thing happening is very possible with Watson. It's not my priority, because of the cost, but it's a no brainer to try if you can't trade up in the draft because you mitigate the concern of drafting a bust. There is no bust potential for Watson outside of injury, and if his career follows a reasonable arc, he should be legit till at least 2027, in which case you should have all your draft assets for at least 75%+ of his career, if not the benefits of the cheap rookie deal (I'm using '27 because both McNabb and Vick had shorter careers than typical as super athletic, running QB's, admittedly Cunningham, Tarkenton, Elway, Young and others lasted far longer).

This doesn't make sense. Btw, he was a Georgia QB before he was an Ohio State QB. He's not even an Ohio State system guy to begin with, they just moved heaven and earth to get him when Georgia fumbled away landing the #1B prospect in the Lawrence recruiting class (was that '17 or '18, I never remember, I think it was '17).

Lol, I forgot to even mention Sweat. This truly is hilarious, we have four elite DL's acquired with first round draft capital AND an elite DL acquired with day 3 draft capital on a legit starter contract now. It's an absolute no brainer to trade one of these guys, we just need to be smart in establish value and not sell cheaply (if it does cost that to acquire firsts). Oh and I'd love to pawn off the Landon Collins deal as one of the defensive pieces, I'd do that in a second, needles to say.

That's my point though: You have four elite DL players. No team can pay for second contracts on four different guys like that. Sure we can cut Iron man when his dead cap hit is reasonable, but you won't be able to afford Allen/Payne/Chase either in 2025, you have to make choices here, trade from a strength to address a weakness. Figure out which guy you can afford to lose in terms of value based upon production, likely cost to resign, chemistry etc. establish values, and move one of them. If we have a four man elite DL, but a dumpster fire at QB, we still have nothing. If we have an elite QB, we can have a dumpster fire at DL and be a .500 team, if we're just competent on the lines with an elite QB, we're a playoff team. We're trying to build this bloody thing in reverse.

Personally, I'd try to trade up right now for a top 3 pick, just blow them away immediately w/an overpay. If that fails: then I go after a pick inside the top 4-5. If that fails too. Then I go after Watson. If that fails, I get a stop gap, and then try a live draft trade up. If that fails, try again next year. We've sucked for nearly 30 years, another year of suck is not going to be surprising. Just realize the '22 draft class is weak at QB, and as such, trading a way a first from that class that is likely to be high (I think the assumption that we're a playoff team w/o a massive improvement at QB is pure folly) to move up for a QB from a much better positional class makes sense. Needless to say, this is why I advocated either taking a QB last year, or trading back and down to acquire ammo to move up this year. If I didn't take Tua/Herbert last year, I would have worked every angle to insure I had 1 more 1st, and hopefully another day 2 pick beyond the SF pick to improve offers with. Barring getting our QB last year, I absolutely would have done everything possible to be going into this draft with: 1sts: 2 2nds: 2 3rds: 2 Then when you add a '22 1st or 2nd, it's damn hard for a team to say no to your offer whatever it may be. The absolute worst case scenarios from my position last year was: #1 just winning that Giants game and gifting them Chase Young #2 Doing what we did, taking Chase Young at slot. While it gave us the defense to make a playoff run when Alex came back it did nothing to address a fundamental core problem that will knee cap the team during this window (which isn't really a window unless we get a Dak or Watson) where our front four on defense is so good we have a '07/'11 Giants capability if we just had at least a league average offense (which we don't). Love Chase Young, but the bottom line is that guys like Chase Young don't make your team a long term contender unless you have the elite QB on the other side of the ball.

I don't disagree w/anything you said, though I'm a fan of the Watson idea. If it were me, I'd be all in on a trade up for: 1. Lawerence 2. Fields 3. Lance or Wilson 4. Lance or Wilson It's only after that that I'd consider the lesser options of paying through the nose for Watson, or trying to get Darnold on the cheap etc. If it can be done, I'd be offering Chase Young or any other DL asset, the 19 pick and '22 1st to move up for Lawrence/Fields, I'd do that in a second, especially if we could switch Young out for Iron Man, or Allen or Payne. No doubt about it, I'm 100% sold on Lawrence I'm about 85% sold on Fields I'm 55/45 on Wilson and 45/55 on Lance. For Wilson and Lance I'm paying a lot less than for Lawrence or Fields (and I'm very happy if Fields is guaranteed to fall out of the top 5).

I'm utterly stunned that Wilson and Lance appear to be ahead of him. It makes absolutely no sense to me. People are really going to regret letting him fall if they do.

Yep, his youth is why a trade for him makes 1000x more sense than Stafford. The faux-playoff run helps in that regard as we may not be considered quite the dumpster fire we still are after what happened in the second half of the season, especially considering so many of the issues we did have were rightly traceable to bottom quartile of the league caliber quarterback play. Assuming he stays health, we get him for a decade. That makes a multiple 1st trade, immaterial. The only knock is the cap hit. You don't get the rookie contract for years going out which is why my #1 priority was landing Lawrence or Fields. 5 years of those guys on a rookie deal is just banana's, but the vast bulk of the NFL's teams have shown that you can compete for the super bowl even w/cap busting QB contracts if you have a legit franchise QB: see Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Seattle, New England etc. If you've got a generational QB, you have to screw up badly, nearly everywhere else, perpetually, to make it not work (Atlanta's kind of done that with Matt Ryan, whose a tier below the above, the Lions have also done so with Stafford, but I'd argue that Stafford until maybe this past year, was largely a tier below Ryan, the Cowboys have also failed to fully realize their potential with Romo and now Dak, though they did make the playoffs a bunch but all these franchises are pretty notorious for garbage front offices, which hopefully is something we move away from (and we already have seen a measurable improvement in the teams handling of the draft in recent years so there's that).

yes it does. You can't keep all of them. Allen's rookie deal plus option is over in January '22 Payne's rookie deal plus option is over in January '23 Young's rookie deal plus option is over in January January '25 We already paid Ionnaidis. We can't pay all of them. Trading one of them makes a ton of sense as you're going to have to start making tough decisions on whom you'll let move on just one year from now. So yes, you absolutely can and should include one, you CAN'T keep them all and have a functional roster. Like QB, you address this issue by continuing to attack the position. DT/Edge is one of the most valuable positions to address with first rounders because of the rookie option and the cost of elite DT/Edge help in FA. The way you solve losing them is drafting more of them in draft's featuring a solid to good DT/Edge class where a guy is there for you to take a chance on.

It wasn’t dominator, he had no dominator, the problem was breakout age. He never broke out. Honestly, how do you evaluate a player that was never used. What were you going to buy his potential on? Character? Being a great gunner. The reason I was anti-McLaurin was simple: he never did anything. There are no examples in the modern NFL of guys w/his profile doing anything. None. It’s one thing if there were tons of markers missed but there weren’t. You seem to bash analytics here but the only selling points were intangibles and athleticism the latter of which you should probably also not care about as it’s far less relevant than breakout age. What McLaurin underlined is that w/mega programs like Clemson, Ohio State, and Alabama, elite guys like Josh Jacobs and McLaurin can slip through the cracks and be beat out by inferior players. Rare, but it happens. Sony Michel once split snaps w/Chubb after all.

This is yet another example of why I argue that NFL F.O.'s are lead by dinosaur morons to an astonishing degree. Look at how they evaluate Goff there: Multiple playoff wins. Beat Brees and Wilson in their buildings? Let's dig deep shall we? Why did the Rams win games with him? Well? Borderline NFL's best Defense, Prime Todd Gurley before his knees gave out to arthritis, and oh yeah, HE DIDN"T BEAT THE SAINTS. The Officials gifted them a ticket to the super bowl. Have we already forgotten what went down in history as the NFL's equivalent of Don Deckinger's safe call in '85 or the notorious Gregg Marlin's strike zone of '97? That's almost certainly gone down as the worst sports call since USA Basketball was flat out Mafia Style Robbed against Russia in the Olympics in '72. So for the love of God, on that alone, it's absurd, then add in the fact that it was the Rams Defense (allowed only 14 points in the Super Bowl AND THE RAMS STILL GOT BEAT BY DOUBLE DIGITS) and not Goff. But let's not let facts get in the way of the guy who was QB when the team went far. The same thinking that got people to believe that Mark Sanchez was good circa 2010 because the Jets beat the Pats a few times, or that Flacco deserved his mega overpay because he won the super bowl with the Ravens, and the Ravens run circa 2010-2014 had zilch to do with I don't know, the freaking Ravens Defense? Goff's playoff performances: 2017: 53% vs Atlanta 259 yards 1 TD 0 Picks in a loss. 13 Points scored 2018: 54% 186-0-0 in win over Dallas: 30 points scored (if you're wondering how they did this, Gurley and CJ Anderson ran for nearly 250 yards and 3 TD's) 62% 297-1-1 in stolen game over the Saints. 20 points scored, 26 if you add 6 after the refs stole the game. 50% 229-0-1 in abysmal loss to Patriots in Worst Super Bowl of my life time. 3 points scored 2020: 47% 155 1-0 in win over seahawks. 23 offensive points scored. 78% 174 1-0 in loss to GB. 18 offensive points scored. I don't think it's hard to figure out what's going on here. He's got 7 playoff starts, he's gone 3-4 in them. In 2 of the 3 wins, the running game and defense annihilated his opponents (Dallas was down 23-7 with a few minutes left in the 3rd quarter before they came back to make it not ugly), the Rams D allowed only 1 scoring drive through like 40 minutes in '18, and Gurley and Anderson accounted for more than 60% of the offense. The Upset over the seahawks this year came courtesy of a pick 6, and Cam Akers accounting for like 60% of the entire Rams offensive production. I'll give Goff the good game against the Saints, he played well, game stolen or not stolen, and he's only really been horrible in one of the games (loss to the Patriots, and one missed pass probably cost them that super bowl), but he wasn't responsible for the teams being in the position they were those years, nor for the wins themselves. The wins were a byproduct of the running game, elite defense, and Goff avoiding a total ---- show level performance in any of them. That being said, he didn't "win" or lead them to any of this. A close look at the games shows him applying game manager at best level production, just trying not to ---- it all up. Yet he's now suddenly getting credit the same way guys like Joe Flacco, Mark Sanchez got credit in the past for what was patently obvious a product of defense and the running game. Some of these GM's and personel men are just flat out morons. Look under the hood, watch the damn games. Just because the guy doesn't ---- his pants every other snap, or puke all over his center when he has to run a 2 minute drill doesn't mean he's leading anyone anywhere.

And in 2014-2019? A player is not 2020 a player is their career. If you bet on an outlier season, you're always going to lose. If Carr was 2016 & 2020 Carr, the Raiders wouldn't have spent the last three years figuring out how to replace him and wouldn't have brought in Mariota in the first place. The problem is 2014, 2017, 2018 and 2019. Which guy is Carr? The answer is: Both. His ceiling is top 10-12 caliber seasons. His floor is 20-24th caliber seasons depending upon how you look at the numbers. His Median is sitting around 16th-18th in the league. Again, not a top 10 QB. You are a lot more than the most recent season. In this sense he's a lot like all the rest of the QB's outside of the blue chip zone, toss out the elite guys, Mahomes, Murray, Rodgers, Watson, Wilson, Allen etc. Once you run out of these guys you start to see the giant lump of players that Carr sits amongst: Jared Goff, Kirk Cousins, Philip Rivers Corpse, Ben Roth's elbow, Jimmy G, Matt Stafford, Baker Mayfield, Ryan Tannehill, Teddy Bridgewater etc. This pile shifts back and forth every season w/guys approaching retirement falling into it (Ben Roth, Rivers and Brees the past two years, Matt Ryan skirting the edge of it) and young players learning the game climbing up into it, and flash in the pans like Gardner Minchew floating around the periphery depending upon # of starts. Carr is nowhere near the elites (currently Mahomes, Murray, Rodgers, Wilson, Allen, Watson etc), and he's nowhere near as bad as the bottom of the barrell dreck like Trubisky, Jones and Haskins, Fitzpatrick etc. He's what he's always been, a league average level QB, not bad enough to send you hunting for a replacement, not good enough to leave you satisfied, which not coincidentally is why while the Raiders were playing irrelevant season after irrelevant season with him, they still didn't quite go after a replacement until last year with mariota who was more, stop gap if they can trade him, than replacement.

How about you look at what Carr has done across 7 seasons? There's nothing top 10 about him long term, though I'll give him playerprofiler's '20 top 10 rankings which he had a bunch of, but in '19 he was largely in the 20's. His career has largely bounced back and forth between a ranking in the low teens (12-13) to a ranking at the back end of the teens (18-20). He's never inside the top 10, and he has one top 10 season, one in seven years. That's not a top 10 guy. If he was a top 10 QB he'd do it more than in 2020, or if you're being kind, also in 2016.

He's not a top 10 QB, he was a top 10 QB last year. The year before his #'s were not inspiring. You need to look at the profile, and not just a single year. Alex Smith was a superhero in 2017, but in the rest of his career he's been league average to abysmal. Carr is not that dissimilar, but I'd argue he has been a touch better w/a brief period ('15-'16) when he was better than league average. Just looking at raw #'s, rather than the analytics side w/a deeper view, he looks more or less like this: '14: 20 '15: 14 '16: 10 '17: 19 '18: 18 '19: 16 '20: 13 That's not any official ranking, just production totals putting him in those slots, but you can see there he's emphatically not a top 10 QB, period. He's got one top 10 finish, PFF likes him I guess top 10 this year, making it potentially 2, I can't see that far back with PFF, but looking at player profiler, and considering that the Raiders began trying to figure out how to move on from Carr after '18 tells you a story. Regardless, he's not a top 10 guy, he's basically league average, and you don't pay a 1st, let alone a 1st and a 3rd for a league average QB. No thank you, period.

Take a look at playerprofiler for 2020 vs 2019, it's night and day. Very odd QB. https://www.playerprofiler.com/nfl/derek-carr/#!#past-year

Considering what happened with Haskins. It seems clear that Snyder will inevitably interfere with decision making in perpetuity unless he drops dead. He may come in and out of phases of interference and non-interference, but if that moronic half-wit could literally botch entire decades of decisions and still get his incompetent hands all over a 1st round draft pick as recently as 2019, it seems clear stupidity will always be just a change over in the FO away, if not even closer. He's never learned a damn thing. Not one. In 22 years of ownership. It's extraordinary. Takes a lot of work to be that thoroughly ignorant.

I wouldn't, if he costs anything more than a day 3 pick. Straight pass. If they want a sweetner, I'll throw in some Jason Campbell rookie cards since they liked him enough to trade for him a decade ago.

He's got a weird profile and his #'s were pretty dramatically different in '19 vs '20 and I don't really know why. In '19 he was basically a bottom quartile to bottom 1/3 in the league caliber QB, whereas in '20 he was basically right smack in the middle generally amongst the 32 teams. He would be a stop gap that's adequate, but won't lift anything. He's better than anything we have had since Cousins left, but he's not a difference maker. We'll basically tread water if we get him, and I'd predict a 6-10 season. There's zero chance I'd even give one first for him.

Quarterbacks in Conference Final's: 2020 Final Four: NFC: HOF vs HOF AFC: HOF vs Up and Coming Star (Josh Allen) 2019: NFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Jimmy G) AFC: HOF vs Former top 10 pick having career year (Tannehill) 2018: NFC: HOF vs Mediocrity taken #1 overall (Goff) AFC: HOF vs HOF 2017: NFC: Mediocrity (Keenum) vs Mediocrity (Foles) AFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Bortles) 2016: NFC: HOF vs HOF AFC: HOF vs HOF 2015: NFC: #1 overall pick vs #1 overall pick AFC: HOF vs HOF 2014: NFC: HOF vs HOF AFC: HOF Vs #1 overall Andrew Luck 2013: NFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Kap) AFC: HOF vs HOF 2012: NFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Kap) AFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Flacco) 2011: NFC: #1 overall Eli vs #1 overall Alex Smith AFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Flacco) Just the last 10 conference title games, 40 QB appearacnes: HOF QB's Featured out of 40 possible starts: 24/40 1st Round QB's Featured combined with future HOF's: 35/40 QB's Featured who were the #1 overall pick or project to be HOF's: 30/40 Non future HOF/1st round QB Appearances: 5/40 This is why any argument other than getting a franchise QB strikes me as just patently absurd. It's nearly impossible to do. Looking at this past decade, 40 title game appearances, there were only 5 QB's out of 40 that weren't either a guaranteed HOF down the road, or a first round. FIVE out of 40. Five. That's 88.5% of appearances went to HOF's or former first rounders who aren't HOF's. Heck 30/40 went exclusively to future HOF's or #1 overall picks (75%). There is no end around here. There is no way other than through. Get the QB, or jump on the pipe dream that not only almost never works, but also never appears to be remotely sustainable (QB's that made final four runs w/o first round pedigree, or future HOF credentials rarely ever came back again (only the Niners w/Kap did it that I can recall and that was split between former #1 overall Alex Smith and Kap). All the other teams that repeatedly made runs and had a sustained period of final four capability had either a HOF behind center, or a first rounder behind center (typically a #1 overall but not always). If we don't have the QB, we're just pretenders, even to another division title, let alone contending long term.