Number 44

You have admitted that you have watched him zero times. Stats don't show anything about what you are talking about. Ever. Box score says he pass is complete to player A. Who was the primary target? Come on, man. That Smith had a great season in no way is a negative for Jones. It just isn't. Don't worry, it's not just you. As I said, I read others on this site and elsewhere that somehow claim that the fact that Jones played on a good team is a negative for Jones. So, therefore, I guess we should only ever draft players from bad teams. I really don't get that logic at all. I guess also the theory is that somehow the key to winning a national championship is to recruit excellent players everywhere but quarterback. That way any old slug can be your quarterback and you will win. Logical? I think not.

Again, Waddle's injury is obviously a primary reason for that, although Smith would have seen a lot of passes thrown his way even if Waddle wasn't injured. Metchie and Bolden are good college WRs, but just aren't at the level of Smith and Waddle. Few are. Hard to see how completing passes to Smith can be viewed as a negative for Jones, frankly. If you've got a guy like that, you throw him the ball. Failing to do so would be a bad thing.

Alabama played the toughest schedule in college football this year. The notion that Jones didn't play against anybody doesn't hold water. Smith was the #2 rated WR for Alabama entering the season. Waddle was the #1, but got injured in game 3. Smith put up a Heisman season, but to suggest that Jones did nothing without Smith is just wrong. The guy put up a statistically historic season and had zero bad games. Character, leadership, and decision making are all strengths, from what I've read. The major knocks against him that I have read are that he played with a good team, which seems like a silly knock to me, and that he not a running threat, which may make him a poor fit for what RR and ST are looking for in a QB. I've read that NFL scouts and coaches like what they see in Jones, and were impressed by him at the Senior Bowl workouts. My guess is that he will be drafted in Round 1. I'm just not sure if he is on WFT's radar. Denver and New England seem like good possibilities for him.

My guess is you haven't seen a lot of Alabama games.

I said point blank offer no more than a 4th round pick. Odd that you were confused by that. Your posts, however, were not very clear to me. You seemed to be concerned by the money, as it dominated your posts - hence my response. As I stated, the money would seem to be more of a factor to the Raiders than WFT, IMO. If you weren't concerned with the money... umm... okay?

Incentives don't affect the cap hit. If he achieves all the incentives, he's played well. Not seeing the big downside you seem to be seeing. To me, the key is holding the trade cost down. Give the Raiders a 4th round pick, tops. Your concern about the money he makes doesn't strike me as being a big deal at all to the WFT. Now, to the Raiders, $11.35M is an awful bug cap hit for a back-up QB, so a 4th rounder and no cap hit should make them happy.

We don't have a 6th, unless you mean 2022.

WFT isn't in position to mortgage the next 2 drafts on a "what if" like this. The "window" for our defense is the next 3-4 years, and this move closes about half of that window. We have Alex Smith, but he isn't anywhere near the same Alex Smith that KC had when they drafted Mahomes. That is obvious. And, I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your premise that Lance is likely to be Mahomes. The guy is a project with tools, and just isn't worth the gamble, IMO, given WFT's situation. If RR and company believe he is, fine, but I strongly doubt that.

Not interested in this at all. No reason to waste so much draft capital on a project like this. The team is looking for QB help this year. This trade is counterproductive to that. And you wouldn't have him for 5 years if he was "grey-shirted" in 2021, it would be 4 years, even if he was ready in 2022, with virtually no game experience since 2019. Hard to imagine a worse way for WFT to proceed. I could see a team like Carolina selecting Lance and rolling with Bridgewater for 2021 while Lance learns the game, but Lance is a terrible fit for WFT, IMO.

Why on earth would anyone pay more for Carr than Rams overpaid for Stafford? Makes no sense at all. Stafford only cost a 2022 first (roughly equivalent to a 2021 second) and a 2021 third. The 2023 first was really the cost of taking on the Goff contract. Multiple firsts for Carr is ridiculous. Even one first is a massive overpay.

Should have known. B-21 was a bad call.

That would explain it.

Yeah, because he's retired.

Curtis Samuel gets a lot of hype. I'm not sure why. Decent player. I wouldn't mind having the guy, but not at $10M+ a year for 4 years. What has he done to merit a contract like that?

Which is a big improvement for WFT. I think the point being missed here is that the cost for Carr will in no way damage the current team, and will leave almost all of our draft capital intact. The search for that elusive franchise QB can continue unimpeded while the team will actually also be fielding a decent team that would be a favorite to win the division and receive an invitation to the playoff dance. The idea that somehow having Carr will eliminate any chance of finding a franchise QB is just illogical.

Nobody is comparing Carr to Watson. Watson is clearly superior, but will cost a kings ransom. I'm not sure how wise it is to so severely deplete your draft capital for the next 2-3 years and lose 2 starters from your highly rated defense to land Watson. After all, he can't win by himself - just look at Houston's record. As to Stafford, I think the record shows that Carr isn't that far from Stafford. Very comparable. Carr actually had the better season this year and, believe it or not, Carr has let his team to game-winning drives and 4th quarter comebacks at a higher rate than Stafford for their careers. And Stafford is well-known for his game-winning drives and 4th quarter comebacks. Carr is younger than Stafford and figures to cost considerably less in trade. My guess is a 2nd rounder would do it. Of course, this all becomes moot if Las Vegas decides to keep Carr.

His point, and now yours, is that having a great QB leads to winning. My point was - and remains - that it is pretty obvious that all of us, and every NFL team, is very much aware of that.

So, all we gotta do is draft HOF quarterbacks? (Head slap). Why haven't we thought of that before?

I've seen that mentioned, but I question its validity. The official word from the Texans is that Watson is their quarterback and they are not shopping him. Seems odd that they would state what they want in a Watson trade, while simultaneously stating that they aren't planning to trade him. Perhaps the price you quoted is a guess from someone in the media. Or perhaps they are really publicly releasing two opposing statements of their position, but I would tend to doubt that.

Yes.

I suppose that a team could possibly escape unscathed were they to cancel the trade in the event one of the players having an injury or major illness before March 17, but cancelling merely due to buyers remorse would effectively render that team unable to make trades ever again. All of the other teams would blackball the team for such a display of bad faith.

It would be ironic if Stafford thinks the guy who drafted him was poor at drafting.

Brilliant. It sure is smart to know what to do. LOL.