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

20 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I don't have a dog in this Carr debate yet but I am open on it.  I just looked up the PFF ratings which I trust more than QB ratings, here it is, you can thank me later...:ols:

 

 

Screen Shot 2021-01-31 at 7.35.48 PM.png

Take a look at playerprofiler for 2020 vs 2019, it's night and day. Very odd QB. 

 

https://www.playerprofiler.com/nfl/derek-carr/#!#past-year

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burgold said:

I don't mind either model. I think both can work, but you need either great QB and good team or good QB and great team. It's very rare for any team to make it to the top with a Great QB and an average team or a Great team with an average QB.

 

So, the question is how do you get one without sacrificing too much of the other. 

 

Looking backwards, both Cousins and Alex Smith were probably good enough to meet the Good QB/Great Team model. Problem was, Kirk had poor to average teams backing him up. Smith too, though you could argue that towards the end of 2020, we had a average/good QB + very good defense + above average offense which is why we not only limped into the playoffs, but gave Tom Brady a scare.

I believe the answer to your question is in large part due to coaching. The best coaches figure out their rosters and know how to make the team great by who they add/subtract. The first step is getting a legit head coach who can build the roster the right way and make the right decisions. Do we have that here? I think most of us believe we do. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to give up that much for Watson. His injury history scare me, and I prefer home grown talent. But if I had to pick the two defensive starters, they'd be Holcomb and Moreland. No way am I dipping into our defensive line talent. I know that Allen's contract is coming due, but he's the leader of that pack, and leadership should be valued. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

Yep, Elway never won a SB til Denver got a great RB and a great defense. They stopped relying on Elway to win games totally by himself. To me, that's the other side of getting the stud QB, teams become dependent on that guy and are not as well rounded. Brees, Rodgers and others have won SB's and their teams have been consistently competitive but they usually fall short. 

I'm old fashioned, I believe in the running game first, stud QB second. I would take Tannehill and Henry with our defense and make SB plans next year. How do we find something like that if we can't get the stud like Watson?

 

I think here again we're running into a generational issue. The NFL that Elway played in was a completely different place than the NFL of today. And let's be honest...if Elway put up the numbers today that he was putting up in the 80s, he'd have been labeled a bust by the end of his 3rd season and traded for a 5th round pick. But again, totally different era, so it's not an apples to apples thing with today's QBs. Back then having a stud RB was THE priority for many teams even over QB, so of course they became more successful once they had one. Back then that was the way you won. Today the way is a top QB.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Think we should be rooting for a Wentz to Indy reunion. Hell, maybe Philly will have to pay them a pick to take on the contract. Eliminates QB needy team.

 

Dak gets tagged

QB goes 1-2 (Jets or Houston at #2). Or 1-2-3 if Miami deals for Watson.

 

Carr/Mariota seems like an unsustainable duo given the salary cap issues in Las Vegas ... so one of them might be the most logical given Carolina is gonna get the 4th QB if Atlanta doesn't get them.

 

Maybe San Francisco gets Kirk ... meaning the Vikings could go QB at #14 (Mac Jones?)

 

So many dominos to fall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, CapsSkins said:

 

I'd consider a 1st rounder "reasonable overpayment", so a 1st and 3rd I'd consider a high overpay but I could stomach it. Carr is a top 10 QB at a very manageable cap hit. Having Carr puts you in play for a WR like Allen Robinson, both in terms of cap space and Robinson knowing who's throwing him the ball. 

 

He's not a top 10 QB, he was a top 10 QB last year. The year before his #'s were not inspiring. 

 

You need to look at the profile, and not just a single year. Alex Smith was a superhero in 2017, but in the rest of his career he's been league average to abysmal. Carr is not that dissimilar, but I'd argue he has been a touch better w/a brief period ('15-'16) when he was better than league average. 

 

Just looking at raw #'s, rather than the analytics side w/a deeper view, he looks more or less like this:

 

'14: 20

'15: 14

'16: 10

'17: 19

'18: 18

'19: 16

'20: 13

 

That's not any official ranking, just production totals putting him in those slots, but you can see there he's emphatically not a top 10 QB, period. He's got one top 10 finish, PFF likes him I guess top 10 this year, making it potentially 2, I can't see that far back with PFF, but looking at player profiler, and considering that the Raiders began trying to figure out how to move on from Carr after '18 tells you a story. 

 

Regardless, he's not a top 10 guy, he's basically league average, and you don't pay a 1st, let alone a 1st and a 3rd for a league average QB. No thank you, period. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:


In this reality? What? Please go watch some Carr this is getting hard to read. 


How about you look at what Carr has done across 7 seasons? There's nothing top 10 about him long term, though I'll give him playerprofiler's '20 top 10 rankings which he had a bunch of, but in '19 he was largely in the 20's. His career has largely bounced back and forth between a ranking in the low teens (12-13) to a ranking at the back end of the teens (18-20). He's never inside the top 10, and he has one top 10 season, one in seven years. That's not a top 10 guy. If he was a top 10 QB he'd do it more than in 2020, or if you're being kind, also in 2016. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:


How about you look at what Carr has done across 7 seasons? There's nothing top 10 about him long term, though I'll give him playerprofiler's '20 top 10 rankings which he had a bunch of, but in '19 he was largely in the 20's. His career has largely bounced back and forth between a ranking in the low teens (12-13) to a ranking at the back end of the teens (18-20). He's never inside the top 10, and he has one top 10 season, one in seven years. That's not a top 10 guy. If he was a top 10 QB he'd do it more than in 2020, or if you're being kind, also in 2016. 

 

He agrees with you.  Hes on the rational side.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Carr is serviceable but doesn't really move the needle. He wouldn't make us a contender the way Watson or even Stafford would.

Nobody is comparing Carr to Watson.  Watson is clearly superior, but will cost a kings ransom.  I'm not sure how wise it is to so severely deplete your draft capital for the next 2-3 years and lose 2 starters from your highly rated defense to land Watson.  After all, he can't win by himself - just look at Houston's record.  As to Stafford, I think the record shows that Carr isn't that far from Stafford.  Very comparable.  Carr actually had the better season this year and, believe it or not, Carr has let his team to game-winning drives and 4th quarter comebacks at a higher rate than Stafford for their careers.  And Stafford is well-known for his game-winning drives and 4th quarter comebacks.  Carr is younger than Stafford and figures to cost considerably less in trade.  My guess is a 2nd rounder would do it.  Of course, this all becomes moot if Las Vegas decides to keep Carr.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Settle is a good rotational guy who can come in fir 10 snaps a game and not embarrass himself.  That’s his ceiling.

 

Hes not a starter. When they’ve asked him to do more he’s failed spectacularly.  

What instances can you recall? Just curious because I don't remember him failing miserably. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:


How about you look at what Carr has done across 7 seasons? There's nothing top 10 about him long term, though I'll give him playerprofiler's '20 top 10 rankings which he had a bunch of, but in '19 he was largely in the 20's. His career has largely bounced back and forth between a ranking in the low teens (12-13) to a ranking at the back end of the teens (18-20). He's never inside the top 10, and he has one top 10 season, one in seven years. That's not a top 10 guy. If he was a top 10 QB he'd do it more than in 2020, or if you're being kind, also in 2016. 


I’m not sure if you quoted the wrong person but yes, I agree with you lol. I said in what reality is Carr a top-10 QB

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Consigliere said:

 

Quarterbacks in Conference Final's: 

 

2020 Final Four:

NFC: HOF vs HOF

AFC: HOF vs Up and Coming Star (Josh Allen)

 

2019:

NFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Jimmy G)

AFC: HOF vs Former top 10 pick having career year (Tannehill)

 

2018: 

NFC: HOF vs Mediocrity taken #1 overall (Goff)

AFC: HOF vs HOF

 

2017:

NFC: Mediocrity (Keenum) vs Mediocrity (Foles) 

AFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Bortles)

 

2016:

NFC: HOF vs HOF

AFC: HOF vs HOF

 

2015:

NFC: #1 overall pick vs #1 overall pick

AFC: HOF vs HOF

 

2014:

NFC: HOF vs HOF

AFC: HOF Vs #1 overall Andrew Luck

 

2013:

NFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Kap)

AFC: HOF vs HOF

 

2012:

NFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Kap)

AFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Flacco)

 

2011:

NFC: #1 overall Eli vs #1 overall Alex Smith

AFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Flacco)

 

Just the last 10 conference title games, 40 QB appearacnes:

 

HOF QB's Featured out of 40 possible starts: 24/40

1st Round QB's Featured combined with future HOF's: 35/40 

QB's Featured who were the #1 overall pick or project to be HOF's: 30/40

Non future HOF/1st round QB Appearances: 5/40

 

 

This is why any argument other than getting a franchise QB strikes me as just patently absurd. It's nearly impossible to do. Looking at this past decade, 40 title game appearances, there were only 5 QB's out of 40 that weren't either a guaranteed HOF down the road, or a first round. FIVE out of 40. Five. That's 88.5% of appearances went to HOF's or former first rounders who aren't HOF's. 

 

Heck 30/40 went exclusively to future HOF's or #1 overall picks (75%). 

 

 

There is no end around here. There is no way other than through. Get the QB, or jump on the pipe dream that not only almost never works, but also never appears to be remotely sustainable (QB's that made final four runs w/o first round pedigree, or future HOF credentials rarely ever came back again (only the Niners w/Kap did it that I can recall and that was split between former #1 overall Alex Smith and Kap). All the other teams that repeatedly made runs and had a sustained period of final four capability had either a HOF behind center, or a first rounder behind center (typically a #1 overall but not always).

 

If we don't have the QB, we're just pretenders, even to another division title, let alone contending long term. 

 

Thanks for putting in the work here. When you consider only a handful of teams have HOF QBs and they are represented so often in the championship game this should really end the idea of getting a marginal QB.  But as we know it won't.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Lord, please, no Carr, no Trubisky, no Mariota. I'd far rather draft who we can and roll with Allen and Heinicke than those guys. Just not even remotely enough of an upgrade to pick those guys. Would far rather wait. Don't think we have what it takes to get Watson, and don't know if I'd want to if we were willing. Just too big a price. Stafford was our best hope. I was all-in for that. 

 

Where's Yoda when you need him to say, "No, there is another ..."?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, CapsSkins said:

In 2020, Carr ranked:

 

#10 QBR

#11 ESPN's QBR

#11 passing yards

#11 TD's

#11 interception %

#6 yards per completion

#6 yards gained per pass attempt

#6 net yards gained per pass attempt (includes sacks)

#2 game-winning drives led by quarterback

 

Source: Pro-Football-Reference.com

 

I think the burden of proof is on people saying he isn't a top 10 QB right now, not me saying he is. :)  

 

And in 2014-2019? 

 

A player is not 2020 a player is their career. If you bet on an outlier season, you're always going to lose. If Carr was 2016 & 2020 Carr, the Raiders wouldn't have spent the last three years figuring out how to replace him and wouldn't have brought in Mariota in the first place. The problem is 2014, 2017, 2018 and 2019. Which guy is Carr? The answer is:

 

Both.

 

His ceiling is top 10-12 caliber seasons.

 

His floor is 20-24th caliber seasons depending upon how you look at the numbers. 

 

His Median is sitting around 16th-18th in the league. 

 

Again, not a top 10 QB. 

 

You are a lot more than the most recent season. 

 

In this sense he's a lot like all the rest of the QB's outside of the blue chip zone, toss out the elite guys, Mahomes, Murray, Rodgers, Watson, Wilson, Allen etc. Once you run out of these guys you start to see the giant lump of players that Carr sits amongst: Jared Goff, Kirk Cousins, Philip Rivers Corpse, Ben Roth's elbow, Jimmy G, Matt Stafford, Baker Mayfield, Ryan Tannehill, Teddy Bridgewater etc. 

 

This pile shifts back and forth every season w/guys approaching retirement falling into it (Ben Roth, Rivers and Brees the past two years, Matt Ryan skirting the edge of it) and young players learning the game climbing up into it, and flash in the pans like Gardner Minchew floating around the periphery depending upon # of starts. 

 

Carr is nowhere near the elites (currently Mahomes, Murray, Rodgers, Wilson, Allen, Watson etc), and he's nowhere near as bad as the bottom of the barrell dreck like Trubisky, Jones and Haskins, Fitzpatrick etc. 

 

He's what he's always been, a league average level QB, not bad enough to send you hunting for a replacement, not good enough to leave you satisfied, which not coincidentally is why while the Raiders were playing irrelevant season after irrelevant season with him, they still didn't quite go after a replacement until last year with mariota who was more, stop gap if they can trade him, than replacement. 

 

Edited by The Consigliere
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

He's what he's always been, a league average level QB

Which is a big improvement for WFT.

 

I think the point being missed here is that the cost for Carr will in no way damage the current team, and will leave almost all of our draft capital intact.  The search for that elusive franchise QB can continue unimpeded while the team will actually also be fielding a decent team that would be a favorite to win the division and receive an invitation to the playoff dance.  The idea that somehow having Carr will eliminate any chance of finding a franchise QB is just illogical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Texans wanting a couple of starters on D is nonsense. 
 

I could see it being a 1st and 2nd this year, plus 2022 #1 and 2023 #1

 

So, on the basis we’d have to use this years 1st and 2nd to move up for a half decent prospect in the top 10 anyway...

 

Top 10 rookie this year, whilst retaining those future #1s

 

or Watson at QB for the next decade, having no 1st in either 2022 or 2023.

 

Additional thought - what’s to say we won’t trade a DL asset in 2022/2023 as we may not be in a position to pay them all...

 

or, we bring in a tier 2-3 placeholder QB which will effectively restrict our potential to divisional winner at best?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like the Texans sent that out deliberately towards Washington. They want to trade with the NFC. But, this is the beginning of the negotiation. Washington could come back and say, “No. two firsts. A second and two thirds and a fifth.”

 

Houston scoffs. Eventually, something in the middle is agreed upon. 
 

Maybe two firsts. A second. Two thirds and Payne. 
 

Honestly, it’s gonna be difficult retaining all these D-Linemen anyway as their rookie deals start coming to an end. 

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

Just hope that RR and Co. have a Plan B because Stafford wasn't a slam dunk when he was made available for trade.  We shall see how good the new F.O. of talking heads really are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Thanks for putting in the work here. When you consider only a handful of teams have HOF QBs and they are represented so often in the championship game this should really end the idea of getting a marginal QB.  But as we know it won't.  

It can't end that argument, and it shouldn't.  Seriously, realistically it can't because HOF QB's don't grow on trees and you can't just go buy one at Best Buy. There are franchises that have never had a HOF QB and it's not for lack of trying. The fact is, until we figure out how to find a QB we are left with strategizing other ways as to how to win a SB. Think about it, we are seeing teams across the league that used high draft picks to get their next stud, and they all felt great about it, only to now think they need to find someone else. Look at this list of teams who drafted QB high and now are having problems:

Rams; Took Goff #1 overall in 2016....just traded him.

Eagles: Wentz, #2 overall pick in 2016....benched in week 13, future in doubt in Philly. Eagles drafted Jalen Hurts in 2nd round 2020 draft.

Jets: Darnold....high 1st round pick of the Jets, jury still very much out on Darnold

Bears: Trubisky....Bears traded up to get their QB of the future in 2017. He's about done there....

Broncos: Lock....2nd round pick of Denver in 2019 and they just tried dealing for Stafford but came up short. They're not sold on Lock

Miami: Tua.....already rumblings that he is not the answer in Miami and they picked him high in the 2020 draft. 

Redskins: Haskins.....1st round pick in 2019, cut in December. We all know the story

I could go on and on and on.....Waiting for or trying to find a HOF QB is so hard that you have to plan to win in other ways. It doesn't mean you settle for another QB, but sometimes a marginal QB is what is in the cards so you go from there and do your best with what you've got....keep looking for sure. Good scouting departments can help ease some of these struggles (see Kansas City/Mahomes). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jericho said:

If this team gave up a first for David Carr, I'd probably just have to walk away. There's only so many terrible veteran QB trades a team can make before you just got to say enough is enough. Carr would be pretty far down my list of options, but I'd give up a 4th rounder for him.

 

Also, I found this humorous:

 

 

 

This is yet another example of why I argue that NFL F.O.'s are lead by dinosaur morons to an astonishing degree. Look at how they evaluate Goff there: 

 

Multiple playoff wins. Beat Brees and Wilson in their buildings? 

 

Let's dig deep shall we? Why did the Rams win games with him? Well? Borderline NFL's best Defense, Prime Todd Gurley before his knees gave out to arthritis, and oh yeah, HE DIDN"T BEAT THE SAINTS. The Officials gifted them a ticket to the super bowl. Have we already forgotten what went down in history as the NFL's equivalent of Don Deckinger's safe call in '85 or the notorious Gregg Marlin's strike zone of '97? That's almost certainly gone down as the worst sports call since USA Basketball was flat out Mafia Style Robbed against Russia in the Olympics in '72. So for the love of God, on that alone, it's absurd, then add in the fact that it was the Rams Defense (allowed only 14 points in the Super Bowl AND THE RAMS STILL GOT BEAT BY DOUBLE DIGITS) and not Goff.

 

But let's not let facts get in the way of the guy who was QB when the team went far. The same thinking that got people to believe that Mark Sanchez was good circa 2010 because the Jets beat the Pats a few times, or that Flacco deserved his mega overpay because he won the super bowl with the Ravens, and the Ravens run circa 2010-2014 had zilch to do with I don't know, the freaking Ravens Defense? 

 

Goff's playoff performances: 

2017: 53% vs Atlanta 259 yards 1 TD 0 Picks in a loss. 13 Points scored 

 

2018: 

54%  186-0-0 in win over Dallas: 30 points scored (if you're wondering how they did this, Gurley and CJ Anderson ran for nearly 250 yards and 3 TD's)

62%  297-1-1 in stolen game over the Saints. 20 points scored, 26 if you add 6 after the refs stole the game. 

50%  229-0-1 in abysmal loss to Patriots in Worst Super Bowl of my life time. 3 points scored

 

2020: 

47% 155 1-0 in win over seahawks. 23 offensive points scored. 

78%  174 1-0 in loss to GB. 18 offensive points scored. 

 

I don't think it's hard to figure out what's going on here. 

 

He's got 7 playoff starts, he's gone 3-4 in them. In 2 of the 3 wins, the running game and defense annihilated his opponents (Dallas was down 23-7 with a few minutes left in the 3rd quarter before they came back to make it not ugly), the Rams D allowed only 1 scoring drive through like 40 minutes in '18, and Gurley and Anderson accounted for more than 60% of the offense. The Upset over the seahawks this year came courtesy of a pick 6, and Cam Akers accounting for like 60% of the entire Rams offensive production. 

 

I'll give Goff the good game against the Saints, he played well, game stolen or not stolen, and he's only really been horrible in one of the games (loss to the Patriots, and one missed pass probably cost them that super bowl), but he wasn't responsible for the teams being in the position they were those years, nor for the wins themselves. The wins were a byproduct of the running game, elite defense, and Goff avoiding a total ---- show level performance in any of them. That being said, he didn't "win" or lead them to any of this. A close look at the games shows him applying game manager at best level production, just trying not to ---- it all up.

 

Yet he's now suddenly getting credit the same way guys like Joe Flacco, Mark Sanchez got credit in the past for what was patently obvious a product of defense and the running game. 

 

Some of these GM's and personel men are just flat out morons. Look under the hood, watch the damn games. Just because the guy doesn't ---- his pants every other snap, or puke all over his center when he has to run a 2 minute drill doesn't mean he's leading anyone anywhere. 

  • Like 2
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...