Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Rookie QB or Veteran QB for 2021???


Rookie QB or Veteran QB for next season(2021)???  

226 members have voted

  1. 1. Rookie QB or Veteran QB for next season (2021)???

    • Draft QB first round
    • Rookie QB from outside first round
    • Sign FA Veteran
    • Trade for Veteran
    • Stand Pat with one of the QBs we have on Roster, draft QB in 2022 Draft iinstead
    • I don't know
    • I don't care
    • I'm tired of 5 year development plans burned to the ground in less then 2
  2. 2. Rookie QB or Veteran QB for next season (2021)??? - (Feb 2020)

    • Draft QB first round
    • Rookie QB from outside first round
    • Sign FA Veteran
    • Trade for Veteran
      0
    • Stand Pat with one of the QBs we have on Roster, draft QB in 2022 Draft iinstead
    • I don't know
      0
    • I don't care
    • I'm tired of 5 year development plans burned to the ground in less then 2
      0


Recommended Posts

So this forum is very lucky to have the “Jethro Bodine” draft expert on it.  I got on this very scientific site and this is what I picked. For accuracy I even included a dog pick in the second round.  See, if the Redskins use just a bit of the “Jethro Bodine” tactic of basing draft logic on common sense, we would kick ass.


NFL DRAFT GAME 2021Logged in as: INMATE RUNNING THE ASYLUM
YOUR TEAM: WASHINGTON FOOTBALL TEAM
GAME OVER!
 

Your score is: 44197 (GRADE: A-)

Your Picks:
Round 2 Pick 31 (T.B.): Blake Hayes, P, Illinois (D-)
Round 3 Pick 10: Jamie Newman, QB, Georgia (A+)
Round 3 Pick 18: Trevon Moehrig, FS/SS, TCU (A+)
Round 3 Pick 23 (PITT): Tamorrion Terry, WR, Florida State (A+)
Round 3 Pick 24 (LAR): Alijah VeraTucker, OG, USC (A+)
Round 3 Pick 26 (MINN): Derion Kendrick, CB, Clemson (A+)
Round 3 Pick 28 (G.B.): Kenneth Gainwell, RB, Memphis (A+)
Round 3 Pick 30 (T.B.): Hamilcar Rashed, DE/OLB, Oregon State (A+)
Round 3 Pick 34 (N.O.): Daniel Faalele, OT, Minnesota (A+)

Your Future Picks:
2022 Round 1 Pick
2023 Round 1 Pick (ATL)
2023 Round 1 Pick

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a report out tonight that Washington's offer for Stafford was better than Rams offer.  Some on this message board were convinced Skins were going to beat out several other teams to get Stafford.   If the ESPN reporter is right so why did we not get him?  Hmm...could it be that Washington is still not a preferred destination by some players.  Or could it be that our new General Manager team is not so sharp as some on this message board think they are??

Edited by veteranskinsfan
edited word
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like Stafford was the more realistic fantasy here. That Watson trade is gonna hurt somebody. Too much boom or bust.

3 minutes ago, veteranskinsfan said:

There is a report out tonight that Washington's offer for Stafford was better than Rams offer.  Some on this message board were convinced Skins were going to beat out several other teams to get Stafford.   If the ESPN reporter is right so why did we not get him?  Hmm...could it be that Washington is still not a preferred destination by some players.  Or could it be that our new General Manager team is not so sharp as some on this message board think they are??

 

Yes and yes imo. One 7-9 season does not erase a generation of bull**** from an owner who (figuratively) is holding a grenade with no pin (ongoing league investigation) and Mayhew may or may not be buddy buddy with Stafford.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find myself pretty bummed we didn’t land Stafford.  As he ^ said, it was the most realistic of the fantasies.  I’m fine with it all told, but it would have been nice to lock down a good qb and have the position set for the next few/several years.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two firsts, a third and Goff. If we had a deal that was better the Lions saved us from ourselves.

 

Having said that: He fits well with the Rams and he’s going to make that team extremely dangerous.

Edited by KDawg
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bowhunter said:

But those are FUTURE 1st rd picks, ie 2022 and 2023 so if you deduct one round for future years, the trade was really a 2nd and two 3rds (+/- Goff and his salary)

That "rule of thumb" gets wildly overstated, especially in regards to 1sts. Teams aren't so shortsighted that they are willing to give future picks for lower picks now very often. If even a few  GMs were willing to trade next year's 1 for a 2 this year, we would see that deal happen multiple times per draft. And, if you offer a 3rd to someone for a 1 two years hence, there is no one who would take that, probably ever (is Vinny a GM somewhere?).

 

That said, a 3 this year and a 1 next year is less value than the inverse. It just is. That means that that part of the deal isn't enough for Stafford. And Goff's contract is such an albatross, a 1st out in 2023 isn't nearly enough to take it on.

 

So, they really didn't get enough for Stafford plus they didn't get enough for taking Goff. Just a bad deal. They deserve a little credit both for realizing they need to rebuild and not being hung up on value in the short term, and for not taking less to move him out of the conference. But they still just didn't get enough.

 

Worse is that they are counting on getting their value out of future 1s from a team with maybe the league's best defense, one of the game's best offensive minds, good surrounding offensive talent, and now with Stafford. It will be at least a bit of an upset if either of those picks are higher than, say, 25 or so.

 

My guess is that Detroit is foolish enough to view Goff as close to neutral value and just got wowed by the idea of multiple 1s, plus "more". Just not a deal that bodes well for that organization's future. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys need to consider the reason the Lions are waiting on the 1sts is because they know they’ll suck for a while so why not push those picks out so that you have presumably productive players on rookie deals for longer during your competitive window? Look at this team...we essentially wasted 3 of J. Allen’s years here and got one cheap season out of him during a productive year for the team. Now we’ll owe him $10m as we enter our competitive window

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

No no the report seems to be that our deal was better THIS year. So I think, including Goff, gave the Lions a better total deal. But our deal was better in the first year. They chose the one that gave them a better return in the long run. 

1 minute ago, method man said:

You guys need to consider the reason the Lions are waiting on the 1sts is because they know they’ll suck for a while so why not push those picks out so that you have presumably productive players on rookie deals for longer during your competitive window? Look at this team...we essentially wasted 3 of J. Allen’s years here and got one cheap season out of him during a productive year for the team. Now we’ll owe him $10m as we enter our competitive window

Add this to my comment and we got our answer. 

 

Don't forget that this draft year is hard because of a lack of games and pre draft stuff. Less scouting events. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

That "rule of thumb" gets wildly overstated, especially in regards to 1sts. Teams aren't so shortsighted that they are willing to give future picks for lower picks now very often. If even a few  GMs were willing to trade next year's 1 for a 2 this year, we would see that deal happen multiple times per draft. And, if you offer a 3rd to someone for a 1 two years hence, there is no one who would take that, probably ever (is Vinny a GM somewhere?).

 

That said, a 3 this year and a 1 next year is less value than the inverse. It just is. That means that that part of the deal isn't enough for Stafford. And Goff's contract is such an albatross, a 1st out in 2023 isn't nearly enough to take it on.

 

So, they really didn't get enough for Stafford plus they didn't get enough for taking Goff. Just a bad deal. They deserve a little credit both for realizing they need to rebuild and not being hung up on value in the short term, and for not taking less to move him out of the conference. But they still just didn't get enough.

 

Worse is that they are counting on getting their value out of future 1s from a team with maybe the league's best defense, one of the game's best offensive minds, good surrounding offensive talent, and now with Stafford. It will be at least a bit of an upset if either of those picks are higher than, say, 25 or so.

 

My guess is that Detroit is foolish enough to view Goff as close to neutral value and just got wowed by the idea of multiple 1s, plus "more". Just not a deal that bodes well for that organization's future. 

 

Why would Goff be negative value for the Lions? 

 

At worst, he plays next year for $25 million, and then they trade him for a 4-6th rounder and eat $15.5 million more. 

 

That contract was only an albatross for the Rams.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reports that our offer was “better” don’t have to literally mean that we offered more than what the Rams did in raw value. It can mean that Anderson and the others who picked up her report think what they DID offer was “better”, meaning they prefer the idea of the #19 pick this year and whatever else we offered to what the Lions actually took in the end. I wouldn’t take it to mean that we necessarily offered multiple 1sts, a 3rd, and a player or even more and got passed over.

 

But yes it is also possible that Stafford preferred playing for McVay and the Rams, too. 

Edited by ConnSKINS26
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it worked heavily in Detroit’s favor. It’s very obvious they’re going to draft a developmental guy this year or next and have Goff start this year and be the backup next. Having two QBs making a combined 30 mil a year isn’t all that bad. They can cut him after 2023 with no cap hit. I’d honestly rather have Goff than any other QB we have here currently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DisgruntledLionFan#54,927 said:

 

Why would Goff be negative value for the Lions? 

 

At worst, he plays next year for $25 million, and then they trade him for a 4-6th rounder and eat $15.5 million more. 

 

That contract was only an albatross for the Rams.

 

 

How is $41 mil for one year of a non-top 20 QB a negative? 

 

I guess I don't have an answer for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

How is $41 mil for one year of a non-top 20 QB a negative? 

 

I guess I don't have an answer for that.


Its not really a negative for a total rebuild if you have the money to burn and no interest in winning short term. It also helps them hit the salary cap floor easier by “wasting” salary on a mediocre QB without actually improving. It’s expensive as hell but well worth the extra picks. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Goff serves no purpose on the Lions outside of the draft capital he brought in. They took on his contract for picks, which is all well and good if the money is right, but keeping him requires that they pay a premium in the short term for worse QB play. And, seeing as they are a fundamentally bad team, spending extra to downgrade an area of strength is certainly not a good thing.

 

The deal itself is a net positive because of their current needs and philosophy, but Goff himself is a net negative.

 

@ConnSKINS26's point about the cap floor is a salient one though. Goff could be the only thing about the team that won't scream "we're tanking!!"

Edited by Bacon
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only say "THANK YOU" that we came short on the Matthew Stafford sweepstakes. THANK. YOU. The added bonus is that the deal drove up the already premium price of other available QBs whose agents fancy their players on par or better than Stafford, so win-win. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stafford was my #1 qb preference, so I'm bummed we didn't get him.  But that was a lot of premium draft capitol.   I do wonder what the lions were asking for if goff wasn't involved.  Considering his subpar performance and huge contract, did the rams have to throw in higher pick(s) just for them to take JG off their hands.  If so, could we have gotten MS for 2 first rounders?  

 

I think mcvay will be able to prove wrong the ppl doubting stafford has years of productivity ahead of him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BurgundyBooger said:

I can only say "THANK YOU" that we came short on the Matthew Stafford sweepstakes. THANK. YOU. The added bonus is that the deal drove up the already premium price of other available QBs whose agents fancy their players on par or better than Stafford, so win-win. 

Why would driving up the prices of the other available QBs be a good thing?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the numbers, I think the rams win this trade.

 

Goff has a dead cap hit of 22 mil.  He would have had a dead cap hit of 65 mil if he was a pre june 1st cut.  Post june 1st cut would've been a dead cap hit of 15 in 2021, and 50 in 2022.  Translation - ain't happening.

 

22 mil is a lot, and it's close to a wash in 2021 to get rid of goff, but now they have an extra 26 mil to spend on FA during the last 3 years of that contract.   And they also don't have to carry a qb they don't want, wasting a roster spot and a potentially toxic environment.

 

Those two firsts will be picks in the 20s.  Rams went 10-6 with goff and have their core coming back.  I don't see them regressing now that they've got a qb mcvay covets.

 

Rams get:

Stafford

26 mil per yr

 

Lions get:

Couple late 1st round picks

89 overall in 2021

Overpaid, mediocre qb

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...