FootballZombie

I'd endorse that move just to see the fireworks. That locker room is divided and you want to bring in the mediocre QB who got you a SB? It will be the OK QB vs the bad QB who everybody feels gives them some form of hope. It would tear that team apart. Both guys would have to hire dudes to look over their shoulders during games. I can not see that going well and I would love every second of it.

Philly trying to strong arm somebody (the bears?) They are asking for the moon. Due to the massive dead cap hit, it really is not worth it to move Wentz unless you get at least a 1. 2 1s and a guy is a lot though

Alex smith apparently Otherwise I would have been traded that dude.

Now I REALLY want to see the 9ers pry Cousins away. Kill two NFC birds with one stone.

a bit tricky, but "a name" means different things to different people so, I can't really debate that from true solid ground. Considering the backlash Doug and the organization faced, I'd personally qualify him as a "name" even if it was for reasons other than football. Also, we had to send the Bucs draft compensation for the rights to Doug. He was not a FA. That is a trade. As far as sell-out, you'd have to put a definition on it. Packers gave up a 1 for Farve. That is pricey. Even more so with his injury concerns. If your asking how many teams have found success after trading 3 1s for a QB, then there is not a lot of history to pick thru as it does not happen often. Does it matter that Young was halfway to busting? I don't remember Sam Darnold or Mariota doing much in the NFL yet? Cam has not been good in years. Stafford has numbers, but has won jack squat. How far has Carr ever gotten? Aren't those players being tossed around as possible acquisitions (before trade)? Success has little to do with it in terms of being a name to me. He was an established presence at QB who was traded.

Depends on what you mean by sold out and successful. Most QBs fail in the NFL, so it goes to say most QB trades will also fail. Whether you look at the draft, FA or trade, a QB move taking a team to the promise land will almost always come up short. That being said, you can find examples if you look hard enough. Even on the WFT. We traded for Theisman, and that got us a SB. I don't remember what we gave up for him, but Doug Williams was acquired via trade and he got us a SB too. I'm pretty sure the 49ers traded for Steve Young Packers traded for Farve It happens, and it can work. Barring injury, I'd expect that many of us see the Rams as a SB contender in the NFC next year after their acquisition. I'm not sure I like their long term situation, but the short term is bright. No matter what avenue you take, it is less likely to work out than succeed if your measuring in SBs or even sustained success for that matter.

hey now, Josh McCown isn't even a coach yet. He is currently under contract as Hou backup QB for a cool 1M in 2021. maybe we should hit the Texans up and ask for a blockbuster trade.

Everybody knows less thinking equals talent takeover. It is more true in the FO than on the field. Don't use your brain when acquiring new players, just raw unadulterated gut feeling

Expected FO speak from the new administration. "We like what we have" "Evaluate all options" "We will make the smart choice" Nobody was going to come out and saying "Dear God, we have to use every available resource to get SOMETHING at QB!!" or "We have no plans to change the QB position" keep it close to the vest and don't look frantic We don't know anything more about their perspective now than we did yesterday, and that is how it should be

Fires getting lit good stuff. Now if only i could see some action on the Cousins to 49ers train... that would be great. I see us having interest in Carr, as we should, but if we didn't go crazy on Stafford, we wont go crazy for Carr either. Another competitive offer is in the cards. I can actually see some team overpaying for Carr tho, but not two 1s. He is juuuust young enough and good enough for some team to justify it.

I think exactly what the team is doing is the best plan. You should have your finger in every pie your interested in, at a price your comfortable with. While they didn't blow their wad to obtain Stafford, they placed a competitive offer. If a FA is available you think you can win with (never gonna happen but Dak) you try to bring him in. If draft day comes around and a QB they targeted is sliding, you can make a offer to move up. All the while, you blow up the Houston's GMs phone to the point it can be registered as a nuclear device.

That specific study covers 2 year outcomes. Not good for the case against Watson as he is well beyond the two year window. I think his 2nd one was in 2017? Not saying he isn't more prone, just saying that article does not provide any information to say Watson is more vulnerable today. This would be the same as saying a person who is recovering from a hip replacement surgery is pick-a-percent more likely to injure their hip The idea that someone recovering from an ACL surgery is more susceptible to re-injury during the recovery period is well known, as is the idea that it takes about 2 years for most guys to come all the way back, if they do at all. Sometimes you get freaks (Like AP) but the general idea is it takes 2 years to build back. I have seen many articles that have pointed out how a bad ACL injury is weaker post surgery. I have also seen articles about specific grafts and techniques (there are a bunch) that lead to an increase in strength. I have no idea exactly what process was utilized for either of Watson's surgeries, so I'm not sure your gonna find a study that definitively shows an individuals projected recovery path. I'd personally think he would have to be somewhat more prone, but that is more my personal opinion w/o facts to back it up.

Show me the guy who wants to give that up and I get to re-introduce myself to my dinner last week Zombie Pun

Players are debatable but yep Settle/Io/Payne and Curl and you got a deal

Nope Short of injury or physicals, nobody is backing out. Any agent/team that does will be blacklisted by NFL teams. A team can offer DET 3 1s for Stafford today and they wont take it.

They will likely be able to move Goff in future years for a pick of two, with minimal financial hit. The Lions are an all new administration. Their seats are ice cold. They can afford to wait a year for the picks to kick in so I can see the allure of taking this deal over our own. Glad we didn't get froggy. I would have lost my mind if we gave up two ones a three and a player for Stafford. That is a 1 and a player too much.

I think we are doing exactly what we need to with Stafford. Put a competitive offer on the table, one you are comfortable with paying. Don't bite on all these attempts from Det to get someone to whale. Stand your ground at your price-point. All these reports that Stafford would like to go to teams that are not even reported to be in the mix are pure smoke. If another team chooses to take the bait and blow their wad, let-em. If not, you might just get your guy, on your terms. We are still very early in the QB market offseason, the only one off the board so far is Haskins, and its not like he was an option. No need to mash the panic button just yet

Pfft. I've been saying Watson was a possibility during the regular season, before the GM/coaching hire and before it was cool. I called it a fever dream, but I recognized the possibility that he could request a trade and force his way out. I didn't need a dream to do it either. That was a 100% zombie original thought... that I acquired through thought ozmosis after eating the brain of a crazy guy.

The Saints are an absolutely putrid, ugly and horrific 100M over the cap. They will have to take a Jason sized meat cleaver to that roster and they still wont be able to pay a new QB in anything but monopoly money. The only way they are get a chance to take a bigger name QB off the board is by trading and giving up salary in the process. Most teams giving up these QBs are not looking to acquire salary, so i don't see them having too many options. The Colts have a poor draft pick, but money to burn. they can take on a few toxic assets to acquire a QB, or take on a pricey QB. The Bears are not so lucky. They have a worse pick than ours and very little cash. I think the Bears and Saints are the ones left wanting and will have to compete is the secondary post June 1st QB trade market

This talk of Goff being involved in a trade for Stafford is very interesting. The Rams are in bad shape cap wise. The combination of dead cap from Goff and the newly acquired cap from Stafford would hurt bad. They are already 30M over and at best case scenario, w/ a cap friendly deal for Stafford they would be sitting at 40M over after the trade. They would have to dice their team up quite a bit to get back under the salary cap. The Lions themselves are capped out. They would be putting themselves in a bit of a crunch taking on 25 M hit from Goff and 19 M in dead cap from Stafford. It would be workable but not desirable. All this and the Rams don’t even have a 1st round pick this year to give…. Leads me to a couple possible actualities… 1.) The Lions greatly value Goff and think he has the ability to be more than a bridge 2.) Goff would agree to take a massive pay cut to facilitate this 3.) The Lions are not getting offers that include 1st rounders, otherwise they would not even consider a deal like this one. Personally, I think the market for Stafford has been a little overblown. While allot of people may have inquired, most of the serious bids are from people showing up to shop at the 99¢ store. Getting him may not even cost what a lot of us have been speculating.

Mass scouting turnover was inevitable when we brought in a new staff. Good year to do it I guess since the draft will be a bit more of a crap shoot than usual. Been prepared for this for quite some time so honestly, all the maneuvering is just... meh.

Houston bringing in a 20M QB is unlikely. they are already 17M over a 180M cap. They are going to take an additional 5 M hit for Watson, so you'd be looking at being almost 40 M over the cap after such a transaction. They need cheap QB options. Sub 10 Mil. Stafford is not it. Same problem w/ Dak, but it wont work for Dallas either. Any sign and trade for Dak would require Dal to eat Dak's new deal G money as dead cap and then take on the new contract of the incoming player. Even horrifically low-balling it, Dak will get 60M in G money. Dallas can't take that kind of cap hit. even if Dak signs the franchise tag, its fully G, so Dallas would again be taking a 37M dead cap hit to trade him. Dallas will have to make some wiggle room just to fit Dak on the roster. Doubt they can look to afford Dak's ghost and an additional big money QB. Only way Dallas can bring in a pricey QB not named Dak is if they straight up let Dak walk.

It would do well for the Raiders to make a call and make one of their QBs available to take advantage of all this demand. You wont have more QB needy teams then you will have right now. Seeing a lot of rumbling that Hou would prefer Watson to hit the NFC. That would be massive in terms of our ability to pick him up if they all but rule out the AFC teams at the top of the draft.

Injuries I guess? You add Watson to this roster and we are unquestioned NFC E favs. That is div win and at min pick 19. If key players get hurt, then yeah, you can have a bum year. On paper tho, you wont be picking higher than 19 any time soon.

Its everything. Aside from trading within div/conference, a team could pretty much take their pick of incoming offers for a desired player. That means they can pretty much accept the best deal on the table. When a player has a no trade clause, they can personally veto any move/destination they don't want to go to. If Hou accepts the trade package from team X, and Watson chooses not to go there, the trade will not go thru. That means that instead of looking for the best return for Watson, they will have to look for the best return from teams he is willing to go to. By all means Hou will get an absolute HAUL for Watson, but the no trade clause seriously reduces the amount of suitors that have a shot to land him. Less buyers, less haul