Rookie QB or Veteran QB for "Next Season"??? (I didn't bump this, but I ended up being wrong anyway....)

[Skinsinparadise]

21 minutes ago, -JB- said:

Washington doesn’t even have enough draft capital to make it a smart move to acquire Watson.  A team like Miami with 4 picks in the first two rounds and also Tua to give up makes much more sense from an organizational standpoint.  

 

Miami has much more capital to get Watson.  I disagree about the smart move part of your point though.

 

21 minutes ago, -JB- said:

Washington has made too much of a habit of trading away important draft picks over the years that they’ve dug a hole.  

 

Not really as for digging a hole.  We've held on our picks for the most part.  Been a long time since the 2012 trade.  We got picks.  We got cap room.   If this was 2014, I'd be with you. 

 

21 minutes ago, -JB- said:

  If only having a QB with no pieces to build around him was the answer then why hasn’t Houston won anything with Watson?  They didn’t even make the playoffs this year.  Just give up the pipe dream of having Deshaun Watson.  It can’t and won’t happen.  We don’t have what it takes yet to get that kind of deal done without crippling ourselves.

 

We had the #3 defense in the league according to Football Outsiders metrics.  The Texas has the third worse.   It's not an apples to apples comparison. 

 

We actually have the foundation of the two most important things (outside of a QB) that are key to winning and that is the trenches.  The Texans don't have a good O line or defense.  We do.   What are we missing?  Mainly a QB, a WR or two, a MLB.  No roster is perfect.  We are going to have weaknesses.  But sadly nothing holds a team back more than not having a Qb.  We can be really darn good without a great FS for example or without a #1 corner.  But without a QB, good luck.  

 

Just think of it this way, we went toe to toe with one of the most talented teams in the NFL, and we had an undrafted Fa playing QB.  Imagine if we had a QB who  can play right up there with the best of the best Qbs in the league.   That's not a been there done that thing with Dan.  It's not like hey do you recall when Dan traded for Aaron Rodgers when he was 27 and it blew up in our face because he didn't have a good enough supporting cast...

 

Your narrative IMO is on the money for most of Dan's years so I get the sentiment.  But IMO its wildly outdated.  And this is coming from a dude who previously hated win now moves.  I didn't think those rosters were ready.  I do think this roster is much closer.  And I am far from the only one on that. 

 

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-final-2020-offensive-line-rankings

6. WASHINGTON FOOTBALL TEAM

Coming in at 29th on the preseason edition of these rankings, Washington presents one of the biggest surprises of the regular season with their play up front.

The biggest question mark coming into the year surrounded who would win the left tackle job. Geron Christian won the job and started there for six games before being placed on injured reserve with a knee injury. Still, his replacement, Cornelius Lucas, actually provided some stability at the position with a 78.3 overall grade and an 83.1 grade in pass protection that ranked 11th at the position over the regular season.

Solid play from Lucas and Wes Schweitzer on the left side, paired with top-10 grades from each of Chase Roullier, Brandon Scherff and Morgan Moses at the other starting spots, resulted in a much-improved group from a season ago. Roullier recently got his long-term extension to stay in Washington, and Scherff will be looking for the same this offseason.

 

23. HOUSTON TEXANS

...They were the 30th-ranked run-blocking group in the NFL, and the only real bright spot was Laremy Tunsil at left tackle, who was once again one of the better pass-protecting left tackles in the NFL, earning his second consecutive pass-blocking grade of 85.0 or higher.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[CapsSkins]

Watson would be a wet dream but I don't see how we can outbid some of the teams in front of us, Miami being the most obvious. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 minute ago, CapsSkins said:

Watson would be a wet dream but I don't see how we can outbid some of the teams in front of us, Miami being the most obvious. 

 

Agree, it would shock me if it happened.  But that's not because it was a bad idea or its the same old same old for Dan but because we don't have enough capital to compete with some teams on this.

 

From a Dan perspective he's dreamt forever to get the next great thing in the draft and rolled the dice many times and failed.  So his only fallback has been to trade for good (not elite) QBs who were past their prime and hope they were still good.  That arguably has mostly failed, too.  But instead of dreaming about getting Superman, Dan hasn't actually traded for a bonafide Superman.  Because proven Supermans simply don't hit the market.  This would be wildly different than the typical Dan move.  

 

Dan's approach to the QB spot is to play the lottery and do it poorly or make due with other team's aging hand me downs.  This would be night and day different. 

 

[Commander -JB-]

@Skinsinparadise I am all for attempting to land a QB of Watson’s ability @ the ripe age of 25.  What I’m saying is that we have continued to trade picks like with the Montez Sweat trade gave up two 2nd rounders.  You can say that worked out but it still kept us from drafting multiple impact players because Snyder made them draft Haskins.  Things have not changed like you are trying to say.  My point isn’t outdated.  It would be blunderous to give up 3 first rounders and second rounders included.  And fans are actually PRAYING for that kind of deal for Watson!  It’s laughable.  Miami giving up multiple picks makes sense since they have 4 in the first two rounds this year PLUS Tua to offer.  It just doesn’t make sense for Washington.  Especially if you’re willing to offer Montez Sweat on top of the picks.  Just terrible.

[PartyPosse]

15 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Just think of it this way, we went toe to toe with one of the most talented teams in the NFL, and we had an undrafted Fa playing QB.  Imagine if we had a QB who  can play right up there with the best of the best Qbs in the league. 

That’s the part that concerns me. The defense looked mediocre at best against a legit offense. I think the D is good but the numbers and final placement was definitely skewered by the strength of schedule. Especially in the last three weeks. They looked meh against a Carolina team that was without their best player, they looked meh against a Philadelphia team sitting half their players before benching their QB and then looked completely outclassed against TB. The schedule next year is far more potent and I’d honestly like to see how we do against real competition (we play TB, GB, Chargers, KC, NO etc) before taking the plunge on a QB that will decimate out draft stock.

[CapsSkins]

12 minutes ago, -JB- said:

@Skinsinparadise I am all for attempting to land a QB of Watson’s ability @ the ripe age of 25.  What I’m saying is that we have continued to trade picks like with the Montez Sweat trade gave up two 2nd rounders.  You can say that worked out but it still kept us from drafting multiple impact players because Snyder made them draft Haskins.  Things have not changed like you are trying to say.  My point isn’t outdated.  It would be blunderous to give up 3 first rounders and second rounders included.  And fans are actually PRAYING for that kind of deal for Watson!  It’s laughable.  Miami giving up multiple picks makes sense since they have 4 in the first two rounds this year PLUS Tua to offer.  It just doesn’t make sense for Washington.  Especially if you’re willing to offer Montez Sweat on top of the picks.  Just terrible.

 

I agree with -JB-. The problem with a big move is not that Deshaun Watson isn't an elite talent. He absolutely is. The problem is that building a contending team means getting guys to outperform their contracts to maximize value within the salary cap, and that means you need a steady flow of top performing guys on rookie deals. Otherwise you're going to lose guys to FA and not be able to replace them.

 

If you draft a franchise QB, you already know you're going to have to pay them ~15% of the cap when they need a new deal, which will squeeze out other guys on the roster. But ideally you've been drafting 1st and 2nd round guys who hit, and in a best case scenario you have some low round and UDFA contributors as well, which allows you to pay your QB. 

 

Trading for an elite QB AND paying a big cap hit AND trading away all your draft assets is really, really tough. The way our team is built, we don't need an elite QB. We need a good QB to drive the car while we build both sides of the ball. I just don't think it's wise to trade a ton of draft picks to also then pay $40M for your signal caller, even if he is a top 5 talent.

[kingdaddy]

12 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

That’s the part that concerns me. The defense looked mediocre at best against a legit offense. I think the D is good but the numbers and final placement was definitely skewered by the strength of schedule. Especially in the last three weeks. They looked meh against a Carolina team that was without their best player, they looked meh against a Philadelphia team sitting half their players before benching their QB and then looked completely outclassed against TB. The schedule next year is far more potent and I’d honestly like to see how we do against real competition (we play TB, GB, Chargers, KC, NO etc) before taking the plunge on a QB that will decimate out draft stock.

Well said. I think our defense was actually overrated by the end of the year and Tom Brady picked on us good. Jaylen Hurts ran on us too so thats two different style QB's that we struggled against. That being said, its a young defense that can add a playmaking LB or two and its going to be much, much better.

 

[PartyPosse]

1 minute ago, kingdaddy said:

Well said. I think our defense was actually overrated by the end of the year and Tom Brady picked on us good. Jaylen Hurts ran on us too so thats two different style QB's that we struggled against. That being said, its a young defense that can add a playmaking LB or two and its going to be much, much better.

 

I love Watson, but he would absolutely have to play like a 40 million dollar QB for us to be competitive. Last year would need to be the absolute floor. Also, I think the team would be much more competitive with cornerstone draft pieces at LB, CB, WR and OL and a lesser option at QB than just with Watson. 

[KDawg]

Since were talking what if’s and we’ll sees:

 

If Miami trades for Watson and doesn’t include Tua... what are we thinking about going after him and what would you be willing to pay (if anything)?

 

Theres going to be a market.

 

I was high on him in the draft EXCEPT for the injury. And watching him a bit this year he looked hesitant to run. So now it would be a question of: was he still recovering? Can he recover?

 

He didn’t look the same.

 

He also, apparently, didn’t seem to be loved in the Dolphin locker room as a quarterback/leader.

 

Having said that he still is a talented player. 
 

I’d give up a 3 no problem. MAYBE a 2. Nothing more. 

2 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

I love Watson, but he would absolutely have to play like a 40 million dollar QB for us to be competitive. Last year would need to be the absolute floor. Also, I think the team would be much more competitive with cornerstone draft pieces at LB, CB, WR and OL and a lesser option at QB than just with Watson. 

Absolutely.

[CapsSkins]

I just think we're building this team the right way and we need to stay the course. That means spend the money on a FA receiver, on Lavonte David or KJ Wright, and draft BPA. If you want a big upgrade at QB then make calls on Stafford, otherwise roll with Heinicke/Allen & a vet like Fitzpatrick or Rivers or Tyrod w/ open competition in camp. Don't do a big trade up for a rookie QB, but move up for your guy if he starts to fall into your general ballpark.

 

Roster construction is all about getting guys to outperform contracts to balance out "overpaying" your FA prize acquisitions and star re-signings. It's very, very difficult to do that if you're paying $40M AND giving up multiple 1st round picks AND trading away a roster player for one guy. Football is the ultimate team sport after all.

[Skinsinparadise]

Just caught Mike Renner on a recent radio appearance podcast, who is one the more known guys from PFF talk about our team.  His points:

 

A.  He'd have an all hands on deck approach at QB if he were running this team.  He goes the defense is too good to waste it on mediocre Qb play which will keep the team into purgatory.  He'd be very aggressive to address it and would be willing to trade picks including next year's #1 to do it. 

 

B.  Asked what he'd do at 19, he said he'd trade up into the top 10 to get one of the top 4 QBs.   He's less interested in veterans because he doesn't think the market ends up hot.

 

C.  He talked some about Lance.  He's not sold on his accuracy but he finds his running ability and raw talent make him intriguing. 

 

D.  He thinks Mac Jones belongs somewhere in the teens/early 20s in the draft.  Their metrics show his ball placement/timing is really good.  But they see his arm talent as ordinary and don't love the fact that he lacks mobility.  

 

E.  He's not super intrigued about Heinicke because he doesn't see enough arm talent/measurables where he'd bank on him as the guy.  But he'd keep him around.  But not as the #1 starter.

 

F.  They clearly aren't fans of Darnold.  He thinks they'd be nuts not to trade Darnold. 

 

[Commander -JB-]

15 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

I just think we're building this team the right way and we need to stay the course. That means spend the money on a FA receiver, on Lavonte David or KJ Wright, and draft BPA. If you want a big upgrade at QB then make calls on Stafford, otherwise roll with Heinicke/Allen & a vet like Fitzpatrick or Rivers or Tyrod w/ open competition in camp. Don't do a big trade up for a rookie QB, but move up for your guy if he starts to fall into your general ballpark.

 

Roster construction is all about getting guys to outperform contracts to balance out "overpaying" your FA prize acquisitions and star re-signings. It's very, very difficult to do that if you're paying $40M AND giving up multiple 1st round picks AND trading away a roster player for one guy. Football is the ultimate team sport after all.

Absolutely.

[TheGoodBits]

You could make the argument that Tua for  19 would be a reasonable gamble. He was drafted top 5 last year, has only played in a partial rookie season (with no training camp btw), and is still coming off a serious injury. I didn’t watch any of his games so I don’t have the full story, but his rookie highlight video did show some good throws and decent elusiveness in the pocket. Any QB you drafted at 19 would be nothing more than a project, so I feel like Tua would be a better investment even after his mediocre rookie season. 
 

Put it this way: taking a QB at 19, do you think Tua would work out better longterm than Mac Jones (who may go around that range). IMO I’d take Tua. 

[Est.1974]

Watson will get to pick his own destination. They can’t really just ship him out with that no trade clause (even though he wants out).

[CapsSkins]

8 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Just caught Mike Renner on a recent radio appearance podcast, who is one the more known guys from PFF talk about our team.  His points:

 

A.  He'd have an all hands on deck approach at QB if he were running this team.  He goes the defense is too good to waste it on mediocre Qb play which will keep the team into purgatory.  He'd be very aggressive to address it and would be willing to trade picks including next year's #1 to do it. 

 

B.  Asked what he'd do at 19, he said he'd trade up into the top 10 to get one of the top 4 QBs.   He's less interested in veterans because he doesn't think the market ends up hot.

 

C.  He talked some about Lance.  He's not sold on his accuracy but he finds his running ability and raw talent make him intriguing. 

 

D.  He thinks Mac Jones belongs somewhere in the teens/early 20s in the draft.  Their metrics show his ball placement/timing is really good.  But they see his arm talent as ordinary and don't love the fact that he lacks mobility.  

 

E.  He's not super intrigued about Heinicke because he doesn't see enough arm talent/measurables where he'd bank on him as the guy.  But he'd keep him around.  But not as the #1 starter.

 

F.  They clearly aren't fans of Darnold.  He thinks they'd be nuts not to trade Darnold. 

 

 

Wow I basically totally disagree with him except on Mac Jones and Darnold.

 

I would not be overly aggressive on QB at the expense of other upgrades. I would not spend a ton to move up from 19 into the top 10. I definitely am not starting a rookie next year probably before he's ready compared to a vet who's a known commodity. I'm not counting out Heinicke just bc of his measurables.

 

Only parts where I agree are that Mac Jones is not interesting bc he lacks mobility and Darnold is unimpressive. 

[Skinsinparadise]

48 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

That’s the part that concerns me. The defense looked mediocre at best against a legit offense. I think the D is good but the numbers and final placement was definitely skewered by the strength of schedule. Especially in the last three weeks. They looked meh against a Carolina team that was without their best player, they looked meh against a Philadelphia team sitting half their players before benching their QB and then looked completely outclassed against TB. The schedule next year is far more potent and I’d honestly like to see how we do against real competition (we play TB, GB, Chargers, KC, NO etc) before taking the plunge on a QB that will decimate out draft stock.

 

They need a MLB and a FS.  All teams can run down their throat. That's the main thing that needs fixing on the defense IMO.  But in short, I don't think this defense is fool's gold.  Our front 4 is as good as any other.  Next year we should have Ionnaidis back.  You add someone like KJ Wright or Lavonte David to this defense it should help a ton.  Our MLB is one of the worst in the league and that can be exposed by really balanced teams like Tampa.

 

Speaking of Tampa, how come Tampa couldn't make the playoffs for eons?  Now they are all of a sudden a hot SB pick?  A Qb changes everything.  

 

But lets run with the idea that the defense was exposed and maybe our defense is overrated.  That point has to work both ways then. It would then mean our offense was underrated.  It showed that our offense is actually good enough to go toe to toe with one of the most explosive offenses in the league.    

[CapsSkins]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Speaking of Tampa, how come Tampa couldn't make the playoffs for eons?  Now they are all of a sudden a hot SB pick?  A Qb changes everything.  

 

True but let's not act like a 43-year-old Brady is still a top 5 QB. A competent QB can change everything for a team that's built well. Could be a guy like Stafford or Rivers or Ryan, doesn't need to be a player of Watson's caliber. 

[kingdaddy]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

They need a MLB and a FS.  All teams can run down their throat. That's the main thing that needs fixing on the defense IMO.  But in short, I don't think this defense is fool's gold.  Our front 4 is as good as any other.  Next year we should have Ionnaidis back.  You add someone like KJ Wright or Lavonte David to this defense it should help a ton.  Our MLB is one of the worst in the league and that can be exposed by really balanced teams like Tampa.

 

Speaking of Tampa, how come Tampa couldn't make the playoffs for eons?  Now they are all of a sudden a hot SB pick?  A Qb changes everything.  

 

But lets run with the idea that the defense was exposed and maybe our defense is overrated.  That point has to work both ways then. It would then mean our offense was underrated.  It showed that our offense is actually good enough to go toe to toe with one of the most explosive offenses in the league.    

I dont think our offense was underrated for most of December, it was just flat out bad.

Heinicke changed all that cause he drastically upgraded the QB play and, in turn, the offense. 

Our defense beat up on the Niners and Cowboys putrid QB's...we caught the Steelers on very short rest and really didnt play many good teams. The ones we did play beat us but Dwayne was our QB.

No doubt they will be much better next season in year two of Chase and Kurl, year 3 of Montez and some additions.

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

Go Hard and Go Big at QB either in the draft, Trade, or FA.  Just playing a little devils advocate here.  I totally get the overall sentiment of being slightly conservative for QB (stay put and draft, sign Fitz for example to compete with Taylor/Allen), and continue building out the rest of the squad. It’s sensible, it’s safer, and it’s arguably smarter.

 

But Ask yourself, what’s most likely to happen in that scenario?

And what does it get you in the end?

9-7, 10-6 a limited chance to make a run in the playoffs? If all you have is a chance, I’d like to increase those probability, at that moment, with a legitimate threat.

 

If ultimately this is about LOMBARDY’s then you have to have the goods at QB. Stafford or Dak or Wilson or Watson or Fields would be swings at Greatness. If I’m gonna strikeout, I’m going big.

 

It’s the hard thing to do. The easy thing to do is not do much, let Heinicke Allen and a vet or rook compete and bide your time for a year or two, then pounce when we’re  more ready. May be the right formula. No pressure, because you didn’t really go for it, and you are still obviously limited somewhat. 

But with how much the NFL changes from year to year and the bedrock of what consistently keeps great teams great is QB I’m going to try and lock that in, now. 
 

Then if you really went there with it, and it just didn’t work out, be it because of draft capital/money/ and or other teams. I’m fine with the bridge plan till we find it. But go for it hard.  I find that if I really want something I make it happen. We’ll see soon how bad they really want it and what their appetite for risk is.  
 

Edited January 16, 2021 by COWBOY-KILLA-

[CapsSkins]

3 minutes ago, COWBOY-KILLA- said:

Go Hard and Go Big at QB either in the draft, Trade, or FA.  Just playing a little devils advocate here.  I totally get the overall sentiment of being slightly conservative for QB (stay put and draft, sign Fitz for example to compete with Taylor/Allen), and continue building out the rest of the squad. It’s sensible, it’s safer, and it’s arguably smarter.

 

But Ask yourself, what’s most likely to happen in that scenario?

And what does it get you in the end?

9-7, 10-6 a limited chance to make a run in the playoffs? If all you have is a chance, I’d like to increase those probability, at that moment, with a legitimate threat.

 

If ultimately this is about LOMBARDY’s then you have to have the goods at QB. Stafford or Dak or Wilson or Watson or Fields would be swings at Greatness. If I’m gonna strikeout, I’m going big.

 

It’s the hard thing to do. The easy thing to do is not do much, let Heinicke Allen and a vet or rook compete and bide your time for a year or two, then pounce when we’re  more ready. May be the right formula. No pressure, because you didn’t really go for it, and you are still obviously limited somewhat. 

But with how much the NFL changes from year to year and the bedrock of what consistently keeps great teams great is QB I’m going to try and lock that in, now. 
 

Then if you really went there with it, and it just didn’t work out, be it because of draft capital/money/ and or other teams. I’m fine with the bridge plan till we find it. But go for it hard.  I find that if I really want something I make it happen. We’ll see soon how bad they really want it and what their appetite for risk is.  
 

 

Well some of your options are different than others. Stafford would only cost $20M against the cap and you probably don't need to give up a 1st. Dak would cost $40M but it would be FA so no giving up any picks. Wilson or Fields would be on rookie deals so small cap hit.

 

All those options are way more appealing than Watson, which you pay $40M AND give up tons of picks/players.

[KDawg]

The Texans have had Watson. They have yet to win a Lombardi with him.

 

The Lions have had Stafford. No Lombardi trophies.

 

That is not a knock on them, but rather a point towards the team mattering more than the QB. We need to play this smart and not bet the farm.

 

Build the roster.

 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, -JB- said:

@Skinsinparadise I am all for attempting to land a QB of Watson’s ability @ the ripe age of 25.  What I’m saying is that we have continued to trade picks like with the Montez Sweat trade gave up two 2nd rounders.  You can say that worked out but it still kept us from drafting multiple impact players because Snyder made them draft Haskins.  Things have not changed like you are trying to say.  My point isn’t outdated.  It would be blunderous to give up 3 first rounders and second rounders included.  And fans are actually PRAYING for that kind of deal for Watson!  It’s laughable.  Miami giving up multiple picks makes sense since they have 4 in the first two rounds this year PLUS Tua to offer.  It just doesn’t make sense for Washington.  Especially if you’re willing to offer Montez Sweat on top of the picks.  Just terrible.

 

 We've mostly had our full slate of picks in the draft in recent years and sometimes even more than 7.   So lacking draft picks over the years IMO is an outdated theory.  

 

You add a stud QB to this roster, call me crazy but I think it would take a step up and actually beat Tampa versus coming just short.

 

PFF which knows a thing or two about rosters, actually likes what we got, and believes big time QB is the missing component.  So I am not some loon  on an island off on the deep end. 

 

it wouldn't be terrible IMO to be aggressive to get Watson.  It would be awesome.  But as the PFF guy said who covers our team, the Texans would likely turn down that deal because it favors us not them.  Lets agree to disagee.  We are on totally different planets on this issue.  We aren't even a litle close on this.  That's cool.  To each their own. 😀. The odds of us landing him are almost nothing so we are arguing over a moot subject. 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

33 minutes ago, COWBOY-KILLA- said:

Go Hard and Go Big at QB either in the draft, Trade, or FA.  Just playing a little devils advocate here.  I totally get the overall sentiment of being slightly conservative for QB (stay put and draft, sign Fitz for example to compete with Taylor/Allen), and continue building out the rest of the squad. It’s sensible, it’s safer, and it’s arguably smarter.

 

But Ask yourself, what’s most likely to happen in that scenario?

And what does it get you in the end?

9-7, 10-6 a limited chance to make a run in the playoffs? If all you have is a chance, I’d like to increase those probability, at that moment, with a legitimate threat.

 

If ultimately this is about LOMBARDY’s then you have to have the goods at QB. Stafford or Dak or Wilson or Watson or Fields would be swings at Greatness. If I’m gonna strikeout, I’m going big.

 

 

Exactly.  It's not some loony WFT fan idea to think we have a shot at the big dance.  Not that long ago it would be.  Some smart dudes and national observors who aren't tied to this organziation have expressed this point.  I can't recall that type of buzz about the roster since the late 90s.  This is coming from the dude who mocked Bruce's "We are Close" as a running joke in last years game thread.

 

But this defense is different.   People can call it overrated but at a minimum its emerging.  The O line might not be great but is good.  We got a really good young receiver and RB.  IMO Cooley (another dude who is no dummy about football and leans on the cynical side in the past about this roster) saying this team is a WR and QB away from being super dangerous -- is likely on the money.  The PFF guy I listened to who studied our roster summed up the off season if he were running this team as he would do whatever it takes to find a QB because he thinks otherwise they might waste this roster.

 

Every rosters has holes.  Are the Chiefs loaded everywhere? Nope they got some big holes.  So does GB.  It's not that every playoff teams is super loaded without flaws.  

 

We can plod our way with a mediocre QB but the odds are good that we might have some regret years later when lets say we peak at 10-6 and say remember when we had Chase, Sweat, Payne, Ionnaidis, Allen on the cheap?  Wow, we could have really won back then, if only we had a QB. 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

15 minutes ago, KDawg said:

The Texans have had Watson. They have yet to win a Lombardi with him.

 

The Lions have had Stafford. No Lombardi trophies.

 

That is not a knock on them, but rather a point towards the team mattering more than the QB. We need to play this smart and not bet the farm.

 

Build the roster.

 

Super Bowl winning teams the last 30 years that didn’t have great players at QB who were great for an extended time: Foles, Dilfer, Rypien, Hostedler, Brad Johnson, (Flacco? He was pretty good for a minute), Eli is debatable, and it’s No knock on these guys.  But 25 of the 30 Super bowl winners. I think the numbers bare out in favor of shooting for the stars. 

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, COWBOY-KILLA- said:

Super Bowl winning teams the last 30 years that didn’t have great players at QB who were great for an extended time: Foles, Dilfer, Rypien, Hostedler, Brad Johnson, (Flacco? He was pretty good for a minute), Eli is debatable, and it’s No knock on these guys.  But 25 of the 30 Super bowl winners. I think the numbers bare out in favor of shooting for the stars. 

Now tell me how many of the Super Bowl winning QBs changed teams before becoming the QB.