mistertim

I'd absolutely take Heinicke in that situation. I was definitely harder on Kirk than I am on TH, because TH generally makes plays when it counts, and Kirk generally shat the bed when it counted. That was my biggest issue with Cousins and why I didn't think he was worth the money he wanted.

Yeah, I mean...at that point we're basically in agreement but for some details. I think this depends on what the coaching staff truly thinks Heinicke's ceiling is after this season and whether or not they really like some of the QBs coming out in the 22 draft. Also...it might not be 100% technically accurate, but Heinicke is getting a full year as starter now. He came in before the second half of the first game and has been starter since. It's true that we don't have a good track record, but we also shouldn't let that stop us from trying. Again, it all depends on how much the staff likes some QBs who are coming out. But we might be in another tricky situation. It looks like we're basically playing well enough to play ourselves out of a top draft spot while not being good enough to go far into the playoffs. So we'd probably have to really love a QB to move up for him. Rivera has already said he's hesitant to "mortage the future" for a QB. However we also know that he's willing to give up picks if they really like a guy, as they offered a 1st plus more for Stafford. I think to move way up for a QB they'd have to really love him. Because going from 19 or so to top 10 (or higher) will probably cost two 1sts or more.

LOL. OMGLULZ. ROFLCOPTER! Dude, stop. Just stop. I've been consistent about saying I like Heinicke personally and think he's a decent but limited QB. Nothing has changed there. You just don't like the fact that I don't think he has the ability to be an upper echelon QB. Sorry about that. Unrelated: You might want to think about removing that picture because of the profanity bypass.

I'm fine with keeping him. I agree with keeping him. But you don't stop looking for a potentially elite QB upgrade because you have a decent one currently. So keep Heinicke, but also keep looking for an upgrade. That's basically been my stance for a while now.

I think it exists, but it's probably capped at a certain spot most likely. He's a great dude and has tons of intangibles but he just doesn't have the natural talent to ever truly be an upper echelon guy IMO. At this point my gut is telling me that his ceiling is likely as a mid-tier top 15 guy. Which obviously isn't bad and you can win with it, but I think it still means we keep looking for an upgrade. It's like Alex Smith with the Chiefs. They were winning with him and they were a playoff team, but they knew he had a ceiling and when they found a guy they liked they went big for him as they thought his ceiling was higher.

I think Tennessee is an outlier because they have an absolutely dominant All-Pro RB who's borderline unstoppable. But they also have a QB who's having a down year right now but who has been close to a top 10 guy the last couple of seasons. So they can pound the ball and there's almost nothing you can do about it, but if you decide to put all of your resources into stopping Henry, they have the QB and firepower to go big through the air as well. So yes, I'd absolutely love to have Derrick Henry and a top 10 QB. But we don't have that. But @NewCliche21is right as well. It's a gameday thread. Those things are their own animals and are the equivalent of having a week long drug and booze bender with lots of poor decisions and the resulting highs and lows of the whole thing crammed into 3 hours. Pointing to tons of things said during a gameday thread is sort of like pointing out really stupid things you did when you were drunk. It doesn't change them and you probably regret it anyway so there's no use in piling on.

Sure, with a potent offense you can still have some of the same results, but you also have a wider number of outcomes. With a pound the rock, control the clock, stingy defense plan you're most likely not going to be a high scoring offense, unless you're up against a really awful defense that you can just gash the whole game. If your defense isn't playing well you're likely in trouble because you're not built for shootouts. So that basically takes that possibility off the table. With a potent offense you can at least keep up if your defense isn't playing well. I think in the 80s and 90s for the most part the standard template for building teams was that running and ball control concept, so usually teams were kind of on the same page. I think that was partially just the philosophy then and partially because the rules were more favorable for that kind of game. Over time it's become much more of a passing centric league with high powered attacks and a top passing QB being the primary ideal template that most teams lean towards. So if you have a pound the rock, control the clock, stingy defense mindset, you're mostly an outlier. That doesn't mean it can't ever work, but it's much harder nowadays because the game simply isn't geared towards it anymore.

They actually put it up during the game. I don't remember the exact percentage but we were 31st in the NFL in red zone TD scoring efficiency.

I've said it's not a viable long term strategy. Because in today's NFL it's going to lead to tons and tons of very close games and you're not always going to win those. Luckily we have the last several weeks, but those could very easily have gone the other way. A team playing this kind of ball is more likely than not going to be, at best, an 8-8 or 9-7 team. You're not always going to get the good bounces. Guys aren't always going to drop would-be pick sixes like happened today in the 4th quarter. The grind it out ball control thing is only fun when it works. When it doesn't people will start talking about how boring our offense is and how predictable it is and how we need to start getting bigger plays because what we're doing is not working. I mentioned this earlier in this thread. A "pound the rock, control the clock, stingy defense" game plan in today's NFL really only has 3 outcomes for the most part, and 2 of them are losses. 1) Your defense plays well and you win a very close game. 2) Your defense plays well and you lose a very close game. 3) Your defense plays poorly and you lose in a blowout. And yes our offense is stagnant. It's been putting up well less than the average that opposing defenses have been giving up until that point. We have one of the very worst red zone percentages in the NFL. We seem to be able to move the ball ok between the 20s but we're horrid in the red zone and we can't seem to score. That's stagnant. And if you think scoring 15 or so points is going to get us a win against Dallas, I have a bridge to sell you.

Our defense has been playing very well since the bye. They've held multiple good teams to well below their average points scored prior to that game. Contrary to that, many times our offense has put up decidedly less points against defenses than they were giving up on average. Please stop making it sound like we didn't do anything and Heinicke singlehandedly drove us to victory with his arm. He's a game manager and he managed the game relatively well. Accurate in the short and intermediate, not many big shots, but not many big mistakes. We had a good running game, our defense held them to way under their average up to that point, and even though our offense sputtered we managed to eek out enough points to narrowly edge them.

I've already said I think it's highly unlikely for him to do it once. He's a guy that probably needs to a top defense and top supporting cast, including a good running game, in order to do it. Basically the stars have to align, because he's not a guy who's going to get us there with his arm. And the reason I say that 2-3 year window with a middle ot he pack QB is because it's basically impossible in the modern NFL to keep a star studded group together for any longer than that, because you're simply not going to be able to pay them all and will inevitably have to let some walk or trade them.

Not entirely sure how saying that Taylor Heinicke isn't as good as Matthew Stafford is somehow a weird or controversial thing.

I'm not saying I think TH will win a SB. I think the chances are incredibly slim, like they are for any middle of the road QB. Those guys basically need magic pixie dust consisting of a great supporting cast, a great defense, and some luck in order to get to the big game. What I'm saying is I think if TH does manage to get us to a SB, it will be one an done. Teams with middle tier QBs aren't perennial contenders so all of the stars have to align for them to get to the SB and they don't make it back. Dilfer, Flacco, Kaep, Jimmy G, Foles, Goff. All of those guys went to one SB and pretty much never sniffed it again. Getting a top QB is pretty much the only way to guarantee the chance of being a perennial contender for a long time. With a middle tier QB, a top supporting cast, and a top defense, you have about a 2-3 year window. With an elite QB you have a 10-15 year window. And yes, getting a top 5 QB is hard, and includes quite a bit of luck. I bet the Chiefs are really regretting trading up for a QB in the 1st when they had just gotten to the playoffs with a perfectly serviceable one. Just because it's hard doesn't mean you stop trying. Pretty much every single coach and FO knows this. That's why QBs keep getting picked so high.

For now I'm sticking with my instinct that Heinicke's potential is probably a mid-tier guy. Top 20 or top 15. He's definitely a guy you keep, but you absolutely still look for an upgrade because there really is nothing that can compare to having a true top 5 type franchise QB. Hopefully we like a guy in the 1st and he falls to us, but I doubt we'll be in a position for one of the top prospects unfortunately. I think Heinicke is a guy you might be able to win 1 SB with, but it would take a top defense, good running game, and some luck. That's what it took for Dilfer, Flacco, Kaep, Jimmy G, Goff, and Foles to get there. I've never been interested in trying to go for Wilson or Rodgers. Wilson is pretty much irrelevant because he has final say over where he'd be traded, and I think there's about a .001% chance we're on his short list. Rodgers is just a pain in the ass and a complete dip**** and I want no part of him. Amazing QB, but such a numskull. Heinicke is not better than Cousins. And this is coming from a guy who wasn't a huge fan of Kirk anyway. The only thing that Heinicke has over Kirk is that Kirk is a choke artist and Heinicke seems to do well under pressure. But from a QB skill standpoint there's simply no comparison. Kirk wins that hands down.

I think it all depends on expectations. I don't expect Heinicke to go out and make tons of big throws and pass for 450 yards and 4 TDs, so for me this was a pretty good game for him. Took what the defens gave him, moved the chains when needed, made some good plays with his legs, had some nice intermediate passes, a few "eek" passes but not many (that dropped INT that would have probably been a pick 6 to seal the game was a very "eek" throw). So yeah, for me it was pretty much standard Heinicke and an overall good game for him.

What did Heinicke have to do with beating Carr? Our defense overall has been playing great and mostly stifled a good (fringe top 10) QB and an offense that's generally been playing well. The defense didn't necessarily have "less work to do". The Raiders literally had the exact same number of drives as we did; they had to stop them just as many times as they had to try and stop us. Why can't we just say that the defense did a really good job? Why does it somehow have to have something to do with Taylor Heinicke? As far as TH I thought he played pretty well overall. Accurate, efficient. Not many big plays, but not many dumb ones. Plenty of short and intermediate stuff. Managed the game well. Had some very nice intermediate passes near the sideline, which requires good timing, so that was nice to see. I think so far my view of him is mostly the same after this game as well: top 15-20 QB who can win you games with the help of a strong running game and good defense. Not necessarily a guy who's going to put up a ton of yards and TDs or make tons of huge plays, but can move the chains when needed and doesn't make too many costly mistakes. I still think there are serious issues with our offense overall. I'm not entirely sure if there's one thing to blame more than another, but it gets super stagnant at times and we really just suck in the red zone and don't score all that much. We consistently put up less points (far less in many cases) vs a team than what that team's defense was allowing on average. Yes, we've managed to eke out some close wins with the help of a defense that seems to have finally found its legs. But it's still concerning. There are really only so many games you're going to be able to win when scoring 10-20 points.

I'll take that as "I can't actually point out any flaws in what you said"

We switched to Geico.

Sure. "Just win, baby" is legit. But it's fleeting when you're talking about squeaker games. "Pound the rock, control the clock, have a stingy defense" in the modern NFL basically can have 3 outcomes: If your defense shows up and plays well: 1) You win a squeaker 2) You lose a squeaker If your defense doesn't show up and play well: 3) You lose in a blowout I'm always happy with a W. But we can't assume our defense is going to keep holding teams below 20 points, especially teams like Dallas who are averaging 30 per game. If our offense doesn't figure out why it can't seem to score more, we're due for a blowout soon, I fear.

I said after the INT that the game wasn't over but that it certainly could be and noted that "pound the rock, control the clock, have a stingy defense" 1980s game plans in the modern NFL are a very specious idea because in order for it to work many things have to go right and almost nothing can go wrong. That INT at a crucial time, for instance. Luckily our defense was able to hold them to a FG, but if that pass into the end zone had been 5 inches shallower, it would almost certainly have been an L. Our offense is stagnant. We're going to have to figure out how to start actually scoring more points because what we're putting up now is not going to cut it for long. Our defense has absolutely been showing up big time over the last several game, so hats off to them.

By getting into the end zone more usually. We don't get into the end zone very much. Pretty straightforward.

Bull****. The Raiders are averaging 24 points per game. We've held them to 12 so far. The offense is trash.

This is one reason that "pound the rock, control the clock, have a stingy defense" game plans are iffy at best these days. They rely on many things going right and almost nothing going wrong. One mistake at the wrong time can cost the game. Case in point that INT. Obviously this game isn't over yet, but now the Raiders have a chance to go ahead late in the 4th.

This is not a playoff team, and it's certainly not a team that will go deep into the playoffs. We just don't put enough points on the board. We've put up 7 points so far against a crappy defense that has an all time record setting bad red zone rating. We put up 10 points against a Chiefs team that's literally the worst in the NFL. Our offense is stagnant outside of one or two occasional good drives.