KillBill26

Does mac jones have a chance to leap trey lance? Uber productive qb playing in the sec or the raw qb who struggled vs central arkansas and even in the best case scenario will need 2 years to acclimate to the NFL. That possibility seemed impossible a few months ago but might be closer by the time the draft rolls around.

Congrats on being cancer free Coach!!

Right, his stock has dipped quite a bit. Not only is there the hip, but supposedly dolphins players didn't have much faith in tua during their playoff push. That could be simply that they felt the veteran fitz gave them the best chance of winning right now, which is understandable, or is it deeper than that and tua isn't everything he was expected to be as an nfl qb. I didn't follow his rookie season close enough to know tbh.

You are insane if you thought I was being serious. Us getting Okudah and a 2nd to take stafford off their hands is as likely as stafford is to get cut.

Maybe it's osweiler 2.0, and the lions have to throw in a 2nd rounder so we will take stafford off their hands. I'd consider it, but ONLY if they threw Okudah in. I think that's fair.

I made this same point awhile ago when looking at peoples lofty wish lists, and often the reply is how cap hell is imaginary, there are ways to work around it, etc. But that cap space dries up quick, especially when solid players are added, and if we are trying to build the team the right way with a long term vision for success that is sustainable, I think a lot of ppl will be disappointed with this offseason. A lot of ppl were complaining last off-season, and it was the best bang for your buck off-season in years.

RR seems to like guys who are flying under the radar and can be had for a short term prove it deal. I think mlb jarrad David would be a nice low cost option. I loved him coming out of florida. He rode the pine a lot in 2020, was hurt in 2019, but progressed nicely his first two years. A hard worker who isvery athletic, playing behind this dline, is bound to have success. Also a high character guy. Only 26 years old. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.detroitnews.com/amp/4094668001

I hang up once I hear the word chase, and I've been a big proponent of trading for stafford. But not at that price.

Safeties seem to go a lot earlier than expected. Keanu Neal, darnell savage, and demarious randall come to mind.

I don't think the FO would choose to part with him, safe to assume the only way he leaves is if he demands a trade. I'm too lazy to look at the contract, but if the player is willing to work with them they could probably get the dead cap number down, and a rod can just earn that money again from his new team.

As the great jim zorn said, "stay medium."

I just think we can use those assets for a more sustainable way of competing for titles. But you're right, if we add a rod, we have as good a shot as anyone in making a run next couple years.

Great! We get stafford!!

If I felt we could get 5 solid years out of him, absolutely. No brainier. But brady is an anomaly, he takes care of his body better than anyone. To expect a rod to remain effective until 42 like brady has is very very optimistic imo. That's my main concern. Minor concerns are he seemed to struggle adjusting to lafleurs scheme last year, he got all butt hurt when green bay used a high pick for his replacement (which we should be doing soon if our starter is 37), and in general he has a pretty thorny personality. A 1st and a 3rd seems too much, but I'd definitely be very excited for the next couple seasons if they did it. Long term I think we'd look back and regret it tho. And let's be honest, if he forces his way out, and only has a few years left, I don't think here would be high on his list.

Rodgers is great, but I hope we don't give anything near that for a 37 yr old.

Absolutely, as I said earlier I'm not coming into this discussion "I'm right, you're wrong", I'm just playing armchair gm and sharing my thoughts on how id personally approach it. But yeah, obviously it will be much better to understand after we see what happens. 😀

I'm not as big on lance as others. I think the odds are low that lance will struggle in his only game vs central arkansas in 2020, yet be ready to QB the skins for a super bowl run just 2 years later. Guy is raw. Maybe he will be a stud in '23 or '24, but again, I'm not big on lance so I wouldn't want to make that bet personally.

This is a significant point of where we disagree. If I felt stafford only gave us 3 solid years, I don't make the trade either. If after digging in to the level an nfl gm should,I feel he can give us 5, then I make the deal.

No, I get the point. I used AR as an example bc that was one that you yourself provided. And I am obviously higher on Stafford than you. My point is part of where I disagree with you is I don't think the 18 mil in cap space, which you provided real life examples of what that could translate to, is as incentivizing to settle for a riskier choice for the most important position in the game as you believe. To each their own. I see this as a disagreement based on several differences in philosophies that I've already outlined, not because you've made a point I'm unable to follow. Agree or disagree?

As many have discussed on here, cap hell is slightly exaggerated, I think you are exaggerating the pain of cutting stafford when the time comes. One, I think it's such a low percentage that stafford comes here and bombs right away. So by the time you realize the stafford experiment should be over, you are a few years into the approximately 5 year deal. Make it a june 1st cut at a time the cap is around 240 mil, it's not as crippling as you are making it out to be. Case in point, remember the anger on here when AS got his big extension. Now we can get out of that deal with a very manageable 4.3 cap hit the next two years as a june 1st cut. (Stafford's deal will be more money, cap hits will be higher, my point is getting out of the "huge" contract wasn't nearly as bad as many feared). And I like my chances that MS won't have a near amputation leg injury early in the contract.

The extra 18 mil would get us allen robinson. So you'd have the process of lance sitting, then the growing pains, all for the benefit of a star at a much less important position. I'd rather invest in the qb with a higher probability of success. I know I'm saying this not personally being as high on lance as others are.

I forgot to speak to this in my last response. If you get stafford in tow, you are set with your starting qb for 5 years. Then you can draft the jamie newman's and shane beucheles in the mid rounds every other year. If after 2 years, you don't feel they have what it takes to take over the torch, cut them and try again. Over a 5 year period, you could draft 3 of these midrounders to see if they can hack it. I'd feel better about stafford starting on day one and having some extra time to hit on one of those midrounders, than taking lance and wanting him to deliver sooner rather than later while young, sweat, and co are in their prime.

We disagree a bit here, and while I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, hopefully I can explain my take and why I disagree. I hear ya on the rookie QB being the cheat code. But that's not a secret. It's the fact that even after you give up significant assets, you still have a young qb who you have to sit, ride out the growing pains, and you are STILL unsure if they can hack it in the nfl. Once you know they're a bust, 3 years have passed (especially someone as raw as lance). Lance vs stafford is a great example. Let's say cost is the same (2 first round picks). Stafford has a MUCH higher floor than lance. I think we all would agree on that, as lance is pretty raw and the only game he played this year he struggled vs central arkansas. On the flip side, what are the odds of lance having a MUCH higher ceiling than stafford. If the stars align and trey lance can check all the boxes vs nfl competition, then he would absolutely surpass what stafford could provide, especially considering cap number during the rookie contract. However, considering we aren't in a cap crunch, and we have a good young core (still have a number of holes, but remember, in both examples we are losing 2 first rounders,.so draft capital to fill those holes is equal, the only difference is cap space, whereas stafford would be around 25 and lance around 7 (herbert's contract). So I'm guessing you are saying you'd rather take the 18 mil in cap space per year, even though the odds are lower that lance can reach stafford's level. But I agree with you,.if lance does reach stafford's level, and maybe even surpass it, then we hit the lottery. I feel confident the elevated qb play stafford will provide, along with the remaining cap space we would still have along with non first round draft picks to fill remaining holes, will make us a contender. I'd rather invest in treasury bonds than powerball tickets. There was a good article posted here yesterday about how stafford could succeed in a variety of schemes.

Dmac was the one trade I was against, partly bc he was past his prime (rational), partly bc I must hated the guy since he was the face of the eagles for so long (not so rational). As for the final 4 qbs, we can throw the tom brady situation our the window. The pats for the GOAT in the 6th round after every team passed on him multiple times. That wasn't exactly them identifying their franchise qb and being aggressive to get him, and I wouldn't advise a team that needs a franchise qb to wait til day 3 for one to fall on their laps. Josh allen and mahomes did involve trades involving draft picks. When you look at what the bills gave up, it was a lot of draft capital and cordy glenn (a solid LT at the time). There was risk to both (and watson and lamar) bc of the draft capital spent, and all those qbs were far from a sure thing (or else they would've went towards the top of their draft). A rod fell into the packers lap, but they were smart enough to take him before anyone else did, they deserve credit. But like brady, I attributes that more to luck than sound strategy. Allen, mahomes, watson, and lamar was sound strategy, but they did involve trades and giving up assets. The difference is they were drafted, and some initially sat ( I don't think allen or watson did). The only real difference is: do you use this assets towards a rookie and more of an unknown whether they can play in the nfl period; vs a veteran, where the question is can they CONTINUE to play at the necessary level to justify the trade. Considering the vet will be plug and play and our young defense is ready to win now, I choose stafford over trading up for a rookie. I'm not comfortable with our #1 plan being mac jones at 19 or buchele or newman on day 2. As a fallback if we strike out on Stafford, maybe, but I still think stafford is the way to go (unless it costs 2 firsts, then I'm not so sure). But I'd rather pay 2 firsts for stafford than pay 2 firsts for lance.

I admit, I was all about the rg3 trade. I wasn't a huge fan of the AS trade, and I didn't like giving up KF, but I was ok with it, and more supportive of the move than most. All for the reasoning you mentioned above, getting a franchise qb is so hard. You have to be aggressive to try to nail it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.