Welcome to the Redskins Chase Young DE Ohio State

[wit33]

45 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Mahomes is probably the most physically talented of the quarterbacks remaining, and on a rookie deal. Will Mahomes be able to win ala Aaron Rodgers if he takes a large % of his team's cap? Remains to be seen.

 

Mahomes being the Michael Jordan of football and being on a rookie deal isn’t fair lol. 
 

Love this conversation as it relates to the QB tiers/contracts and building the roster. How the NFL adapts and which teams find an edge will be fun to observe.  
 

For example, if a team was ready to take a leap next year, then Dalton becomes a huge value pickup. His perceived value seems to be low— Get him in for a contract at 4-7% of the cap and roll with it. 
 

45 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

I think its easier to build a team around a modest QB than it is to find a stud QB, pay them, and be successful.
 

 

There are other ways to get it done than having an elite QB, but that requires an organization to be operating at a high level and be elite in the trenches, often times. I’m with you on this model and have been talking about it for years. As you said, there are many ways to skin a cat. 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

Just now, KDawg said:

 

So, I agree. Brady is a unicorn... But that doesn't mean he should be. 

 

I think quarterbacks would be smart to take a little less to build a little more. You can have a GIANT nestegg at, say, 12% versus needing 20%.

 

Maybe but the sample size is so large and it just doesn't seem to happen.  Brees got all he could when he was a FA years back, Peyton ditto.  Brady has a multi millionaire wife and I gather is just unusually generous.   I get for all of us here its insane money so what's the difference between 30 million a year or 35, etc but for athletes they tend to go after whatever the market value is and its been going on for a long time. 

[KDawg]

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Maybe but the sample size is so large and it just doesn't seem to happen.  Brees got all he could when he was a FA years back, Peyton ditto.  Brady has a multi millionaire wife and I gather is just unusually generous.   I get for all of us here its insane money so what's the difference between 30 million a year or 35, etc but for athletes they tend to go after whatever the market value is and its been going on for a long time. 

 

I completely agree. It's tough to fault any of them for doing that.

 

But you have to wonder how many do it so they set the market for other QBs and are worried about the political backlash of the move versus their team and legacy.

 

I have no idea what I'd do in that situation. And most people are in that same boat.

 

But I can guarantee you one thing... I'd at LEAST think about taking less to build more. 

[Skinsinparadise]

13 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

 

For example, if a team was ready to take a leap next year, then Dalton becomes a huge value pickup. His perceived value seems to be low— Get him in for a contract at 4-7% of the cap and roll with it. 

 

I notice you like to use Dalton as a model for this but not sure he's the right one for 2020.  His arrow is trending downward and not known to be oozing with talent.  Going to be 33 next year.  He was ranked 27th among QBs in QBR, benched at one point for a rookie QB. 

 

Fitzpatrick to me is a more intriguing example because while he's inconsistent his upside is more intriguing and has his big moments in the mix of the lows. 

4 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

I completely agree. It's tough to fault any of them for doing that.

 

But you have to wonder how many do it so they set the market for other QBs and are worried about the political backlash of the move versus their team and legacy.

 

I have no idea what I'd do in that situation. And most people are in that same boat.

 

But I can guarantee you one thing... I'd at LEAST think about taking less to build more. 

 

I recall that was one of the points Drew Brees made when if I recall he was the first 20 million a year plus QB, he said he has to maximize his value not just for himself but all the Qbs who follow.  Kirk ironically in one interview alluded to Brees suggesting to him to do the same. 

 

It would be interesting to see anyone else follow Brady.  I got my doubts.  I think its more likely going to come from a FO balking. 15-20 million once seemed high.  then 20-25 million.  Then 25-30 million.  Now the talk seems to be going to 35-40 million discussion where if you got a QBs in the high 20s, you got a bargain.  

 

I get there is inflation and the cap rises but for Qbs its really going nuts with the prices rising super fast. 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[KDawg]

13 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

It would be interesting to see anyone else follow Brady.  I got my doubts.  I think its more likely going to come from a FO balking. 15-20 million once seemed high.  then 20-25 million.  Then 25-30 million.  Now the talk seems to be going to 35-40 million discussion where if you got a QBs in the high 20s, you got a bargain.  

 

I get there is inflation and the cap rises but for Qbs its really going nuts with the prices raises super fast. 

 

Part of it is teams' are afraid to let a guy go that looks good. So they pay him a ton because they think another team is going to make that quarterback a crazy offer in free agency. 

 

So they pony up, even if they don't think the guy is worth that much. And if it works, they're golden. If it doesn't, they lean on "well, that was the market" answer. Which I think is weak sauce.

 

And fanbases will hang the front office fast if the guy leaves and looks decent elsewhere. (Of course, there will also be fans that understand why it happened and are more than fine with it).

 

You don't HAVE to pay market value for a QB that you don't believe is worth it. You can choose to, but it was your choice.

 

Dak is going to get paid. I don't think he's worth the contract he's about to get. But because he's a good quarterback, someone will pay him... even if it's not Dallas. So it's fairly likely Dallas ponies up for him. 

 

I always have disagreed with Brees in a way, though, in that quote about needing to set the foundation for future QBs. While he was doing just that, what he wasn't doing was looking out for other players who could have their positional market value increased if the QB took less. 

 

It's really a strange dynamic involved in all of this. 

 

And, because staying on topic is vitally important to threads... This is a similar dynamic to edge rushers.

 

Khalil Mack was traded from the Raiders because they thought his value as draft picks and his contract off the books was more important than his value to the team as an edge rusher... Annnnnnd...

 

They were probably right. The Bears haven't been much better off with Mack, even though Mack is an absolute monster. And the Raiders are... about the same as they were before it. 

Edited January 13, 2020 by KDawg

[wit33]

4 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I notice you like to use Dalton as a model for this but not sure he's the right one for 2020.  His arrow is trending downward and not known to be oozing with talent.  Going to be 33 next year.  He was ranked 27th among QBs in QBR, benched at one point for a rookie QB. 

 

Fitzpatrick to me is a more intriguing example because while he's inconsistent his upside is more intriguing and has his big moments in the mix of the lows. 

That’s precisely why his value is at an all time high. Dalton belongs nowhere near a top 15-20 type salary, but get him in at 6% of your cap with a team loaded/ready to compliment him, then that makes great sense. The Bengals are atrocious and sneakily chose the path you support in tanking. Not sure the elite of the elite could’ve made that team a playoff type team this year. 
 

33 is still a QBs prime, IMO. 
 

Subjective, but Fitzpatrick is very poor at managing games and his arm talent probably the worst in the NFL. Sure, his leadership intangibles and willingness to gun sling can be the catalyst to some wins, but I’d pass on him on a team ready to compete. 
 

I believe Kirk after this next season is going to have supreme value, not a cheap shot, just a feeling. 
 

Tannehill was another guy I’ve mentioned as being of potential great value after this year, but that was before he went on a tear. He will lose a ton of value,  due to Titans having to most likely commit 12-15% of their cap to him. 
 

All subjective though. We’ll see. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

 

 

Dak is going to get paid. I don't think he's worth the contract he's about to get. But because he's a good quarterback, someone will pay him... even if it's not Dallas. So it's fairly likely Dallas ponies up for him. 

 

 

Yeah he's an interesting test case IMO.  I think he's a good QB at times very good but not great.  Supposedly he already turned down a 30 million offer and wants 35.  I don't know if I would pay 35 million for the dude.   But if you let him go what do you have to replace him with?  That's the dilemma. If you got a top 5 pick its much easier to roll the dice on something like this, and take one of the ballyhooed college players but they aren't in that spot. 

[wit33]

6 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Dak is going to get paid. I don't think he's worth the contract he's about to get. But because he's a good quarterback, someone will pay him... even if it's not Dallas. So it's fairly likely Dallas ponies up for him. 
 

 

 

The smart move would be to franchise him, but the tag is still viewed by many as a slight, especially to the QB, but that stigma may slowly go away. Dallas has been slow to get the deal done, but I’m with you, I thing it will get done and be a monster contract.

[HTTRDynasty]

11 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Khalil Mack was traded from the Raiders because they thought his value as draft picks and his contract off the books was more important than his value to the team as an edge rusher... Annnnnnd...

 

They were probably right. The Bears haven't been much better off with Mack, even though Mack is an absolute monster. And the Raiders are... about the same as they were before it. 

 

This is true.  But the narrative would be much different if the Bears had drafted Watson or Mahomes in 2017 instead of trading up to draft Tribustky.

 

3 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

 

The smart move would be to franchise him, but the tag is still viewed by many as a slight, especially to the QB, but that stigma may slowly go away. Dallas has been slow to get the deal done, but I’m with you, I thing it will get done and be a monster contract.

 

The problem with franchising him is, what if he then goes the Kirk route?  He could just keep getting franchised until he's at an astronomical tag and you're forced to trade him or let him hit FA.  Except, as with Kirk, teams will just wait for him to be a free agent and all you'll get out of it is a 3rd round comp pick.

 

I think Dallas has to decide this offseason whether they want Dak long-term or not.  Franchising him is only going to hurt them in the long run, which is why I hope they go that route.

[Skinsinparadise]

13 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

Subjective, but Fitzpatrick is very poor at managing games and his arm talent probably the worst in the NFL. Sure, his leadership intangibles and willingness to gun sling can be the catalyst to some wins, but I’d pass on him on a team ready to compete. 
 

I believe Kirk after this next season is going to have supreme value, not a cheap shot, just a feeling. 
 

Tannehill was another guy I’ve mentioned as being of potential great value after this year, but that was before he went on a tear. He will lose a ton of value,  due to Titans having to most likely commit 12-15% of their cap to him. 
 

All subjective though. We’ll see. 

 

Fitzpatrick was ranked 9th in QBR with as much of a garbage supporting cast as Cincy had.   Neither him or Dalton have a strong arm.  I think Fitzpatrick has better pocket presence and just general much more moxie and to use one of your favorite words -- intangibles.  He's a smart dude, went to Harvard, teammates believe in him.

 

I've followed Tannehill's career fairly closely.  He actually has been a decent QB (more arm talent, mobility than a dude like Dalton).  If I wanted to go cheap at QB, I'd look at someone like him, someone with talent who has underachieved for whatever reason. 

 

If I am trying to win next year, Dalton wouldn't be the dude I am rolling the dice on.   If I am going cheap and still want to win, I think I'd go with someone like Mariota over Dalton. 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[wit33]

25 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

 

I think Dallas has to decide this offseason whether they want Dak long-term or not.  Franchising him is only going to hurt them in the long run, which is why I hope they go that route.

Im adding a variable that doesn’t support the model of franchising above average to good QBs, but the CBA being up may provide a win/win for both sides and not lead to any bad feelings next season. 
 

Im with you though, you’d like to have stability and a plan, but this can’t be overvalued by a franchise in certain situations. 
 

**The CBA is another variable in Kirk Cousins contract situation that doesn’t get enough attention. This played a significant part in the contract negotiations with Kirk’s team. 
 

20 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Fitzpatrick was ranked 9th in QBR with as much of a garbage supporting cast as Cincy had.   Neither him or Dalton have a strong arm.  I think Fitzpatrick has better pocket presence and just general much more moxie and to use one of your favorite words -- intangibles.  He's a smart dude, went to Harvard, teammates believe in him.

 

Don’t have any proof, but Dalton seems to have an average arm, and Fitzpatrick one of the weaker ones on the game. Not willing at this point to just lump them in the same category, due to neither having good to elite type arm. 
 

 

Quote

 

I've followed Tannehill's career fairly closely.  He actually has been a decent QB (more arm talent, mobility than a dude like Dalton).  If I wanted to go cheap at QB, I'd look at someone like him, someone with talent who has underachieved for whatever reason. 
 

 

The train has left to get Tannehill on a “cheap” deal. My guess, he’ll command a salary cap percentage of 10-14%. But yes, Tannehill coming into this year had great value, especially if he didn’t play at all this year. A team would’ve gotten Tanny at 5-7% of the cap with the potential we’re seeing now. His value will diminish greatly next year,IMO. 
 

Quote

 

If I am trying to win next year, Dalton wouldn't be the dude I am rolling the dice on.   If I am going cheap and still want to win, I think I'd go with someone like Mariota over Dalton. 

 

Totally with you on the value Mariota will have next year, he’s fit right in the model I’m bringing up. A team will get a young supremely talented QB who’s experienced some success at a very low cost. 
 

Dalton or Mariota types and which is better is totally subjective, but the speculative value is real.  

Edited January 13, 2020 by wit33

[PF Chang]

Every NFC playoff team had a QB making $25 million or more. You can pay your QB and still have a good team around him. Though if you pay Jared Goff $33.5 million a year you may be screwed. 

[skinsmania123]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

 

Aaron Rodgers is paid a metric **** ton. His team is still pretty good around him. He's an outlier. He sees defenses pre-snap and adjusts protections well. 

Honestly when I consider week 12 Packers vs. the Niners it was 20-zip Niners by the third quarter because Rodgers O line could not protect him.  No run game. He was reduced to mediocrity frankly.  He was sacked numerous times. He was stripped of the ball etc.   They scored only 8 points in that game and their D could not stop the Niners.  

 

It was exactly what happened to the Vikings yesterday. In fact it was almost a carbon copy game.

 

 When I look at the Packers schedule for 2019 they beat teams with records of .500 and under and they dominated absolutely no one.   I don't think he is surrounded by a pretty good team actually. But I am only going by the schedule they played this year. I like Rodgers a great deal so I watch him a lot.

 

They even lost to the Chargers pretty badly the week before they were destroyed by the Niners.   That surprised me.

 

I never thought for a minute that Seattle had a chance with them however yesterday because they have no running game, down both starters and a few other starters were out and they were relying on Lynch for heaven's sakes and still Wilson almost came back in the second half. Now he is a super smart QB IMO.  

 

I am not sure how good I think Rodgers is anymore and it is hard to tell because I just don't think he has decent talent around him. Now if they beat San Fran it is going to be because Rodgers is going to have use his smarts to change the play at the LOS and keep the Niners off guard.  I also think one thing they could do which may help is if they have a good blocking TE, maybe put him on the line to help protect Rodgers blind side.   That niners front is quick, strong and very young.  

 

 It just seems to me that having an O line that can actually protect the QB is essential, as well as a decent running back.   As far as the Vikings deserting the run game, yeah because the Niners D was stuffing Cook every carry - 9 rushes - for 18 yards, I guess they could have continued but I think it would have been 18 rushes for maybe 40 yards tops.

 

 

[SoCalSkins]

Burrow sealed the number 1 pick with that first half not that is wasn’t a lock already. 30 more minutes of football and barring disastrous injury, Chase is a Redskin!

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[SoCalSkins]

If we keep Kerrigan, we will have 5 Redskins drafted first round picks on D line plus Settle and Ionnidis. On paper on the level of the Eagles D line with Reggie White, Jerome Brown and Clyde Simmons.

 

 

Edited January 14, 2020 by SoCalSkins

[bakedtater1]

34 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

If we keep Kerrigan, we will have 5 Redskins drafted first round picks on D line plus Settle and Ionnidis. On paper on the level of the Eagles D line with Reggie White, Jerome Brown and Clyde Simmons.

 

 

Just curious...when you typed in Matt's last name did you just straight type it in or did you google his last name figuring out how it's spelled?...any time I think about typing in his last name I'm like nope unless I google it first cuz I'd get it so bad it wouldnt even be considered butchered lol

[Tay]

On 1/3/2020 at 2:45 PM, Master Blaster said:

 

Yes because the one year starter who had 5208 yards, 55 tds, 6 ints at a wide-open offense at LSU is drastically better than the one year starter who had 4831 yds, 50 tds, 8 ints at OSU.

 

Have you changed your mind yet?

[SoCalSkins]

1 hour ago, bakedtater1 said:

Just curious...when you typed in Matt's last name did you just straight type it in or did you google his last name figuring out how it's spelled?...any time I think about typing in his last name I'm like nope unless I google it first cuz I'd get it so bad it wouldnt even be considered butchered lol

I memorized it off his jersey on tv. I have an unusual name myself so I unconsciously pay attention to weird names on the skins. I hope I spelled it right. I had a few watching the game tonight. 😂

[Burgold]

Just read about Burrow's performance. If he ain't the Bengals first pick than they truly are the Bungles.

[lovemaskins]

Why if Burrow stays in school another year because he doesn’t want the Bungles?????😫

[redskinss]

7 hours ago, Tay said:

On 1/3/2020 at 3:45 PM, Master Blaster said:

 

Yes because the one year starter who had 5208 yards, 55 tds, 6 ints at a wide-open offense at LSU is drastically better than the one year starter who had 4831 yds, 50 tds, 8 ints at OSU.

 

Have you changed your mind yet?

 

Burrow did finally dethrone the mighty king brennan in the oh so useless college stat bowl!

 

Seriously though I think burrow is a great prospect and I'm very grateful he had an excellent game last night so we can get chase young.

 

Haskins may not be the prospect that burrow is but he's a good young prospect and I'll take that with a prospect the likes of young all day and be giddy about it.

 

It's funny how college success doesn't always translate to the pros, if it did haskins and burrow would both be backups to j.t. barrett.

Edited January 14, 2020 by redskinss

[KDawg]

6 hours ago, SoCalSkins said:

I memorized it off his jersey on tv. I have an unusual name myself so I unconsciously pay attention to weird names on the skins. I hope I spelled it right. I had a few watching the game tonight. 😂

 

Ioannidis.

 

But close

[Tay]

31 minutes ago, redskinss said:

 

Burrow did finally dethrone the mighty king brennan in the oh so useless college stat bowl!

 

Seriously though I think burrow is a great prospect and I'm very grateful he had an excellent game last night so we can get chase young.

 

Haskins may not be the prospect that burrow is but he's a good young prospect and I'll take that with a prospect the likes of young all day and be giddy about it.

 

It's funny how college success doesn't always translate to the pros, if it did haskins and burrow would both be backups to j.t. barrett.

I'm actually a fan of Haskins, and I think he can be special. I think Burrow is special. The ideal scenario would be to draft Young, but if he goes 1 (which he won't) I wouldn't hesitate to draft Burrow

[dicksogj]

1 hour ago, lovemaskins said:

Why if Burrow stays in school another year because he doesn’t want the Bungles?????😫

 

He is a senior