Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Rookie QB or Veteran QB for 2021???


Renegade7

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


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, DWinzit said:

Lance is the one many of you see as our best possible target. 

 

If Ron decided to move up and was able to get him, how soon would you expect him to be ready to start? I have a hard time seeing being ready quickly even with his wheels.

 

Allen would be most needed at the beginning of the year if the team went with a Lance. If he isn't available and Smith is gone it means Heini and still get another experienced vet

This would be the optimal path. I'd sit Lance for a year, get him in on some designed runs, simple read plays like the Ravens did with Jackson.

Even with Matt Stafford, we are not just a QB away. Develop Lance right, and I think have a stud for longer and at less cost than getting Stafford. He's not a sure thing and there's considerable risk, but it's the right route for this team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

This would be the optimal path. I'd sit Lance for a year, get him in on some designed runs, simple read plays like the Ravens did with Jackson.

Even with Matt Stafford, we are not just a QB away. Develop Lance right, and I think have a stud for longer and at less cost than getting Stafford. He's not a sure thing and there's considerable risk, but it's the right route for this team.

 

I am guessing you got to get ahead of Carolina to get Lance.  So two first rounders and one 2nd rounder?  I think it will require something like that.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, drowland said:

Stafford's never won a playoff game and Goff won one just a few weeks ago with a broken thumb.  I'd say the Lions did great in this trade.  

Nah. Cant use that argument. Goff has had much much better support around him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I gather from this that you are in the camp of a game manager with a souped up supporting cast can win a SB?   

 

OK even if I ran with that thought which I mostly disagree with where do you think Rivera is missing out about understanding his roster and how to build it?  

 

He's strongly hinted leading up to this they are going to dive hard for a QB.    All the beat guys said their big quest this off season is QB, QB, QB.  Then we learn that they made a big offer for Stafford.  And Keim and Finlay expect them to chase Watson too if he hits the market.  

 

So clearly overall Rivera doesn't see it the same way.  So if i felt like you do, I'd also be down on Rivera.  So wonder how you feel about him now?

 

We all would love to draft the next Stafford, etc.   But at the spot we are in, I guess we all got to start buying the Mac Jones hype?  I think that's the dude who might be closest to our pick albeit some dudes think he goes before our pick.  I noticed Albert Breer said yesterday he knows a nunch of teams grade Mac Jones as a 2nd round talent.  

 

The Jamie Newman hype fizzled some after his practices weren't as hot after day 1 and he didn't look hot either yesterday in the game.  I don't mind him as a third rounder type or Mond maybe in that same range as a flier/lottery ticket type. 

That was more a response to Paulsen's typical "I'm on the radio so I'm smarter than you" post about getting outside the box or whatever.

I'm fine trading up in the draft so long as we're not giving up the farm. I really want a patient approach, something that's talked about a lot but never really practiced.

 

Or sign Dak if the Cowboys **** that all up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

This would be the optimal path. I'd sit Lance for a year, get him in on some designed runs, simple read plays like the Ravens did with Jackson.

Even with Matt Stafford, we are not just a QB away. Develop Lance right, and I think have a stud for longer and at less cost than getting Stafford. He's not a sure thing and there's considerable risk, but it's the right route for this team.

I believe that moving high enough up in the draft to have a shot at Lance (I'm guessing he goes in the pick 7-11 spot) will cost much more.

Edited by bowhunter
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Andre The Giant said:


IMO, there’s no way Dallas lets Dak walk out the door.  They’ll either Franchise or extend him.  Not a realistic option for WFT. 
 

Scarcity of QBs makes them too valuable to just let walk.  Dallas can always create more cap space.

Would have been inclined to agree with you 100% had Dallas not been picking in the top 10

 

That at least makes this interesting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

If Stafford is two 1s, a 3 and a premier position player (I’m not indicating Goff is great here, but he is a quarterback in the NFL)... I’m terrified at the Watson price.

 

My focus now shifts to Dak. I am hoping Dallas screws it up and doesn’t franchise him.

 

In the case they (Dallas) sign him I went them spending every penny of their cap space. 
 

If we lose out on the bigger name QBs I think the Carrs of the world come into play... but I’d also expect to hear news were trying to move up in the draft. 
 

I’m curious what it would cost to get to 4... 5... 6... in the draft.

 

If experts are right, which I’m not sold on, that gives a real strong chance of 2 of the Fields, Lance, Wilson triumvirate to be available if before 5... one of the triumvirate if after 5. 

 

I wouldn't hate acquiring Derek Carr if he could be had at a reasonable price. He has over 100 more TD passes than interceptions and I always thought he can play at a high level. He does have a fumbling problem, but aside from that he's been a solid QB. 

 

He is only 29- will turn 30 soon- and he has only missed two starts in his 7 years in the league. The old saying is "Your best ability is your availibilty" and that couldn't hold truer for any player more than your QB.

 

Don't know if the Raiders are even interested in trading him, but if they are, I think Carr is a guy we should absolutely take a strong look at.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

It's not left field both Finlay and Keim said they'd think they will be all in


Yeah but what would have to really offer? We don’t want to touch D line from the talks.  So picks?  How many?  I get the no trade clause puts Texans in a weird spot but that doesn’t mean they are giving a discount.  Like I said I see us making a run but not sure how.  I’m sure it’s impossible but I’d love to hold onto that 19 pick this year to get Watson some help if we made a trade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

That was more a response to Paulsen's typical "I'm on the radio so I'm smarter than you" post about getting outside the box or whatever.

I'm fine trading up in the draft so long as we're not giving up the farm. I really want a patient approach, something that's talked about a lot but never really practiced.

 

Or sign Dak if the Cowboys **** that all up.

 

Running with the Paulsen point, i don't believe I know better than Rivera and their FO as to the status of their roster and what they believe they need to do next.  I have an opinion about it but if Rivera sees it differently, I'll go on that ride without rooting against him getting what he wants whatever that is. 

 

My point on that front is i am not rooting against Rivera getting what he wants.   If he feels the time is now for a QB, I am not thinking dude you are wrong and stay patient my friend.  Or lets say he prefers a veteran over a rookie as some purport, that's cool with me too.  Look I love Zach Wilson for example and I'd trade up for him or Fields but if they aren't as convinced then that's fine with me.   

 

I am not saying everyone should feel the same way of course.  My only question is for those who have their own ideas of what they should do and sometimes that puts them at odds with Rivera's take on the roster to the extent they are rooting for something different than what he apparently wants -- I wonder then how they feel about Rivera?  

 

If I felt Rivera was misguided as to his off season approach, i'd feel down about Rivera just in general.

 

This point isn't really directed to you but to some other posts I've been reading.   And that's not me challlenging those opinions.  We all got different takes.  But I am just saying for myself once I cross the line (which I did when Bruce was running things) where i am rooting against the powers that be getting what they desire because I disagree with them -- then i can't really trust the powers that be that much and I'd be hankering for a change at some point. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dodged a bullet on the Stafford deal.  Really didn't want him.  I'm still in the minority who think that he shares the blame in the Lions woes.

 

The smart move is one that's used at any and every auction.  Sit tight, let the initial frenzy die down.  Someone will fall through the cracks and you'll get a deal.  If that doesn't happen, do what good franchises do, find and develop your own QB.  No need to force anything here.  This team is not a QB away.  There are many holes to fill.  Selling the farm for that one position only sets you back and hurts the rest of the roster.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:


Watson is not waiving his no-trade clause to go to DET lmao come on. Not in the realm of possibility 

Not only that but Detroit has too many other holes to fill and they'll also be in prime position to grab one of the top 3 potential franchise QB's in this years draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ball Security said:

Who’s to say Watson would waive his no-trade clause to come here?  Stafford obviously had no wishes of playing here.


Stafford probably wanted the LA weather and contender before hanging it up.  Retirement plan no doubt. Watson is young.  We fits the mold of our team.  He honestly is the perfect fit for what we’re doing here in our rebuild plus we have a defense that takes pressure off him. Plus his issues run deeper with the FO and for now we seem to be doing everything right FO wise minus the owner being in trouble. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RichmondRedskin88 said:


Yeah but what would have to really offer? We don’t want to touch D line from the talks.  So picks?  How many?  I get the no trade clause puts Texans in a weird spot but that doesn’t mean they are giving a discount.  Like I said I see us making a run but not sure how.  I’m sure it’s impossible but I’d love to hold onto that 19 pick this year to get Watson some help if we made a trade. 

 

Agree but that's a different topic.  You say we'd try to do something out of left field.  Finlay and Keim both thought they'd be all in on Watson.   So it wouldn't feel left field to me.  But as to obtaining him, i agree that will be very hard.    Holding onto the 2021 first rounder would for sure be impossible.  IMO the better question is knowing for sure it will take 2021 and 2022 for starters, could they still keep their 2023 first rounder?  My guess is no.  three first rounders and change I think is the minimum. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

This would be the optimal path. I'd sit Lance for a year, get him in on some designed runs, simple read plays like the Ravens did with Jackson.

Even with Matt Stafford, we are not just a QB away. Develop Lance right, and I think have a stud for longer and at less cost than getting Stafford. He's not a sure thing and there's considerable risk, but it's the right route for this team.

Make's some sense. I have seen some recent projections that have Lance going 3rd and Fields falling a little. Either way it may truly mean you need to get to the 4th pick to insure a top 4 QB.  I for one am scared and scarred from Ohio State QB's.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Getting the Lions to suck up that hefty Goff salary was a work of genius.  

 

 

 

 

Was Bill O'Brien a genius when he gave up a 2nd to get rid of Brock O's contract?  Who gave Goff that big contract, someone not named Les Snead or McVay?  I don't see much difference between Goff and Stafford.  Stafford is probably slightly better but okay the Rams gave up two future 1st rounders and a 3rd for an older slightly better QB with a friendlier contract.  But even with Goff's contract, after this year, he only has a think $15M in gurenteed money over the final 3 years and a reasonable avg so the Lions are positioned to do what they want with him.  I think there's a bigger chance this trade puts the Rams in Texans territory and we're seeing that Scooby Doo meme in the coming years of McVay being unmasked to reveal it's BOB then we do seeing this trade put them over the top.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF Watson is on the market (I still don't think he gets traded), than Miami, Jets, and Panthers will all offer much more IMO.  I could see Carolina offering three #1s+Derrick Brown.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Agree but that's a different topic.  You say we'd try to do something out of left field.  Finlay and Keim both thought they'd be all in on Watson.   So it wouldn't feel left field to me.  But as to obtaining him, i agree that will be very hard.  


Thats why it’s kind out of left field.  Analysts can say we’re all in but that doesn’t matter if you have nothing to give.  Being a team that makes senses to do something and the actual reality of what is needed are completely different.  I just feel like we’re gonna turn on ESPN and find us having made some block buster deal.  I don’t think we’d hand over the farm but I think after the Stafford thing we make a legit push.  Watson may actually go for it too.  He wants to win and he wants a fresh start.  We got a top 5 defense and a second year coach coming off a division title. With Watson we’re division favorites and now a possible contender. It really actually makes a lot of sense. 

2 minutes ago, bakedtater1 said:

Something tells me cam newton comes here.

Doubt it.  Ron had that chance last year and passed.  And that’s when he knew we had terrible QB options so that says something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the basis we were heavily in the race for Stafford, may as well get on with releasing Smith. He’s clearly history.

 

A Watson trade is highly dangerous. Massive potential risk, massive potential reward. Can’t see that one.

 

So it’s what, Jimmy G, Carr or finally Cam when all else fails?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bakedtater1 said:

Something tells me cam newton comes here.

His arm looks shot, but if push came to shove I’ll don my tin hat and say as a one year stop gap with a strong investment at wideout and Dak, Watson etc not attainable I could go with it for a year

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't want Lance at first,  but as the season went on I started to trust our coaching and player development more and I'd be okay with him, under the assumption that he doesn't start year 1(but would use him occasionally in special packages like how the Saints use Taysom Hill).

 

I think he fits exactly what Rivera and Turner are looking for in a QB: someone with some mobility and athleticism. The offense ran its best when we had Heinecke and Allen in there who could run around and make plays.

 

Let Heinecke and Allen duke it out for the starting job this year while Lance sits and learns. Worst comes to worst we get off to a bad start and can bring Lance in as a spark like Lamar Jackson in 2018 or Jalen Hurts last year(hopefully he's a lot closer to LJ if that situation were to arise).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, drowland said:

 

Was Bill O'Brien a genius when he gave up a 2nd to get rid of Brock O's contract?  Who gave Goff that big contract, someone not named Les Snead or McVay?  I don't see much difference between Goff and Stafford.  Stafford is probably slightly better but okay the Rams gave up two future 1st rounders and a 3rd for an older slightly better QB with a friendlier contract.  But even with Goff's contract, after this year, he only has a think $15M in gurenteed money over the final 3 years and a reasonable avg so the Lions are positioned to do what they want with him.  I think there's a bigger chance this trade puts the Rams in Texans territory and we're seeing that Scooby Doo meme in the coming years of McVay being unmasked to reveal it's BOB then we do seeing this trade put them over the top.  

 

Bad teams like our teams under Bruce tend to double down on their mistakes versus fix them.  All teams make gaffes.  So playing off the fact that the Rams made a big mistake giving Goff a big contract like that and then they were able to unloaded whats left of it anyway on another team -- I think that was well done.  And I am not alone on that.

 

If you think it exposes McVay as a boob like he's a Bill O'Brien clone and dumping Goff and obtaining Stafford backfires.   Cool.  Will see. 😀

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
Link to comment
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...