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

5 minutes ago, ggarriso said:

There is no options out there that are better than running Allen / Heinikie and seeing if you can sneak up in the draft. Lets review:

 

So, HOLD with those DIAMOND HANDS or put together a mini package to get into Wilson on a rookie deal 

 


This is the first I’ve mostly agreed with you on this board. Stay put, keep the picks, and let the off-season come to you. I’m not all in on Wilson, as I don’t think his personality would work here. But I’m all for keeping our picks and following the scouting reports we’ve made. 
 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

A first-round pick (19th overall) plus a third rounder for Stafford was exactly what I was thinking would be a good offer. Offering anyone from our existing defensive line would have been ridiculous. But of course it does say the team does not see Alex or the other QBs for our future. I'm ok going into the season with Heineke. The only QB out there is Watson (if he is actually available for a trade). Either way, we're looking at a couple months for a FA QB signing (if that happens). 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a reason David Carr may be available, it's the same reason Alex Smith was traded from SF.  Teams felt they were not good enough to really contend. I'm getting the feeling we will settle for a  David Carr and be doomed to mediocrity.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, joeken24 said:

A first-round pick (19th overall) plus a third rounder for Stafford was exactly what I was thinking would be a good offer. Offering anyone from our existing defensive line would have been ridiculous. But of course it does say the team does not see Alex or the other QBs for our future. I'm ok going into the season with Heineke. The only QB out there is Watson (if he is actually available for a trade). Either way, we're looking at a couple months for a FA QB signing (if that happens). 

 

 

There is a lot of smoke, maybe some fire. The FO clearly wants to upgrade at QB, but I also think there's a difference between seeing Matt Stafford on the market and making a fair offer, and getting desperate and throwing picks around for "average" ... again I point to the Cooper situation last year. We were desperate for a WR, and turns out we offered a boatload for Cooper. But then when we didn't get him and the talent drop-off was substantial we didn't throw money at someone who wasn't "our guy" ... also didn't seem to get into the Stefon Diggs sweepstakes either, although maybe we did but didn't have the pick ammo to make it happen.

 

Who knows. I trust that there is a Plan A and Plan B for each stage of this off-season.

 

Ron and co. might really want Darnold or Mariota. They might also really want Fields or Lance. I trust that they won't overpay, and will view everything in the context of return on investment.

 

Why trade 2 #1s for Carr if you think there's a good chance you can trade that same package plus a 2nd and get Lance or Fields? Why trade 2 #1s for Carr if you anticipate Mariota getting cut and really like a mid-round prospect and feel you can have Mariota and mid-round prospect for the price of a 3rd? Its all in context.

 

I seriously doubt they're on the phones desperately trying to acquire every QB name out there. "We missed on Stafford, let's go after Carr. Crap, Carr is gonna be too pricey, let's see if we can pry Darnold loose. Ah, damn, a 1st is too rich ... okay, let's go offer 5 1st rounders for Watson."

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

There is a reason David Carr may be available, it's the same reason Alex Smith was traded from SF.  Teams felt they were not good enough to really contend. I'm getting the feeling we will settle for a  David Carr and be doomed to mediocrity.  

I was a big fan of winning games with Smith and would love to keep doing that while we improve. It's not like getting Carr means we can't continue to improve the position.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DefinitelyMaybe said:


Not really no, these injuries happen it’s part and parcel of being a footballer

 

Looks like he’ll be ready for next season and I can’t see how he’d lose ability just by being injured so not really sure what your point is

 

A compound ankle fracture with a dislocation isn't "part and parcel" of being a footballer. Do you realize how devastating an injury that is?

 

Ok so now walking on a zero gravity treadmill and doing workouts in a pool where he doesn't have to put any weight on his ankle is "ready for next season"? What are you even talking about? The guy can hardly walk and you're proclaiming him fit as a fiddle and ready to go?

 

As far as losing ability, there's certainly plenty of reason for caution about such an injury and how much it will impact his ability to play football at a high level, especially for a player who relies a lot on the stability of that join when it comes to not only pass dropbacks, but in running.

Edited by mistertim
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

I was a big fan of winning games with Smith and would love to keep doing that while we improve. It's not like getting Carr means we can't continue to improve the position.

 

The time to find the REAL answer at QB is now. Trading for a QB like Carr and then trying to beat the overwhelming odds of finding a franchise QB in the middle rounds is just not a plan.

 

I know you feel differently but you will never convince me that QBs like Alex and Carr are good enough. There is a reason teams with higher goals decided to move on.  

 

 

Edited by Darrell Green Fan
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Carr is just so underwhelming. I'd rather trade up for someone with some upside even though I've never been a big fan of Fields.

Agree. If Carr was good the Raiders would want to keep him. Gruden did not like him the minute he started coaching and he wants someone better. Ya I would take him for a 2 tops.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KDawg said:

 

A rookie THIS season probably leaves us in the 9 or 10 win range but allows us to build for 2022... which I feel is the year we should be looking at as our first real competitive season realistically.

 

 

I think this part really depends on the rookie in question. I could potentially see it with Lawrence, Wilson, or Fields perhaps...but not with Lance. IMO he's going to take some time to develop so I have a hard time seeing him come in immediately and being successful (unless Turner is willing/able to completely customize his system for a more running oriented QB).

 

2 hours ago, DWinzit said:

If the deem Watson and the top 4 prospects are too expensive they should focus more on involvement in 3 way Watson deals with either Miami (Tua) or the Raiders (Carr or Mariota).

I would be happy with Tua or settled with Carr or Mariota to match with Allen and Heinicke

 

Not so sure about the Tua thing. He's just too brittle. IMO if you pick up Tua you basically have to assume that he'll miss at least 2-3 games per season with injury. 

 

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

This is not just directed just at you as others have made similar suggestions but I keep seeing people mention Sweat or our other DL in trades. For me we finally have a team strength. I do not want to trade that away. Maybe Payne, or Allen are available if we don't think we can sign them. Or maybe Ioan who has troubles staying healthy (I love his play but he can't stay on the field) or Settle who despite some peoples opinion would likely start on more Dlines. But Sweat? Dude just had an amazing break out year. I even saw people mention Young as trade bait. Since he and Young 1st rd picks we have them for at least 3 more yrs. If you look at the teams that have dominant lines they invest in them over and over and never trade from them. Sure, sometimes you lose someone as a CAP casualty, but outside that keep that strength and make sure it stays a strength. 

 

There has to be a way to get a QB without damaging the one true strength you have as a team. 

 

In general I'm not a big fan of trading away guys from our strongest unit, but the fact is that we're just not going to be able to pay all of them, especially if they all demand top 5 money. So IMO we have to assume that within the next year or two we'll lose one of them one way or the other. I'd prefer to be able to actually get something for a guy if so.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if we flunk out in the vet market, how about a ‘trade up in the draft’ scenario. On the basis getting Fields for example is hard to see, what can we actually achieve;
 

Getting into the top three seems off limits to me. But what about #4 with Atlanta ?

 

- Atlanta are tied to Ryan for 2021. They do have an easier out in 2022 if required.

- They are significantly over the cap, with limited options to extend contracts to create space.

- They clearly will get under the cap, but that must take them out of much of the FA market.

- That potential cap/FA restriction may make them keen to acquire more draft picks.

- They tried to a trade up with us last year from #16 to #2, as they wanted Chase, so even though we bounced them, we’ve discussed a very similar size move in the past.

 

If we want a top 4 QB, the jump from #19 to #4 seems the most aggressive way to go about it.

Edited by UK SKINS FAN 74
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, carex said:

 

you're not only giving quality in this trade, you're giving the ability to get replacement quality at the same time.

Watson is the 4th best QB in the league and he is young. You can get replacement linemen in FA all the time but a QB like Watson only becomes available once every 10 - 12 years. Look at Tampa. They got guys on their D line that were trades or FA. We can get guys like that too. Is Sweat or Payne worth a QB that can win you a championship or do you want to spent the next 5 seasons struggling with the QB carousel you have been watching the last 10 years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

In general I'm not a big fan of trading away guys from our strongest unit, but the fact is that we're just not going to be able to pay all of them, especially if they all demand top 5 money. So IMO we have to assume that within the next year or two we'll lose one of them one way or the other. I'd prefer to be able to actually get something for a guy if so.

 

Hmmm..  I think I said that 🙂  My direct quote:   "Maybe Payne, or Allen are available if we don't think we can sign them. Or maybe Ioan who has troubles staying healthy (I love his play but he can't stay on the field) or Settle who despite some peoples opinion would likely start on more Dlines."

 

Again, my main concern was the talk of trading Sweat or Young - both of whom I have seen mentioned in possible trades for a QB - Sweat way more than Young to be fair. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 50yrSKINSfan said:

Watson is the 4th best QB in the league and he is young. You can get replacement linemen in FA all the time but a QB like Watson only becomes available once every 10 - 12 years. Look at Tampa. They got guys on their D line that were trades or FA. We can get guys like that too. Is Sweat or Payne worth a QB that can win you a championship or do you want to spent the next 5 seasons struggling with the QB carousel you have been watching the last 10 years. 

 

we've tried to get linemen like Payne and Allen in free agency and universally failed, so don't hand me that

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, carex said:

 

we've tried to get linemen like Payne and Allen in free agency and universally failed, so don't hand me that

 

Neither Payne nor Allen are elite DTs. They're both quality starters, but not studs or guys who defenses have to game plan around. It would suck to lose either of them, but let's not act like they're unreplaceable game wreckers. You can find decent quality interior DL starters in FA or the draft.

 

Now, one area that it might be tough to replace is leadership, and that's mostly Allen. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

I'm just looking at some stats for a bunch of these QBs and Tribusky is about on the same level as Bridgewater for me. Given he's two years younger and doesn't have the injury history. It seems like Bridgewater is the better passer but I'm afraid of committing to him long term. 

 

Trubisky has also led his teams to the playoffs on a similar build, this great defense and a running game. I'm more interested in what happened to him in 2019 and why he was so badly thought of in Chicago. Is it just hindsight and seeing that they could have had Watson and Mahomes? He's not going to command a contract the likes of a Dak but he's a free agent and could stabilize the QB position. 

 

How anyone can believe that Mitchell Trubisky would "stabalize the QB position" is mind numbing to me.  

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, Watson’s the obvious one to chase, but I balk at giving away 2 defensive starters or more than 3 1sts (though if you get to that point, a 2nd or whatever thrown is... digestible.

 

Carr I could see for something like a 1st, but I don’t see the Raiders settling for that.  To me, Carr is an uptick at the qb spot, but doesn’t provide the chance at a title.

 

Stafford made the most sense for our team (again, IMO)

 

The staff liking Fields, that doesn’t mean much to me.  ‘Liking’ doesn’t mean “he’s who we’re going after”.  With that said, I could see trading up, cutting Smith, and then adding a vet like Cam, or whatever vet doesn’t cost much in terms of resources.  See how the 3 vets look in camp, and keep 2 of them.  If Allen isn’t ready, he goes to the PUP.  I understand the argument that RR didn’t chase after Cam last year, but in evaluation mode, I think it made sense for him to stick with the young guys - Haskins/Allen.  I could actually see keeping Smith another year if we did trade up.  Sure, given their injury issues, we could wind up cycling through Smith, Heinicke, Allen and finishing off with the rook.  In the process though, the vets give us a chance to win (or at least look respectable) while the rookie develops, and the rookie (quite possibly) gets a bit of playing time toward the end of the year.  With a rookie contract, the cap increasing, and moving on from Smith and maybe Landon Collins next year, we’ve got a chance to keep the band together (for the most part) while adding some more pieces.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

There is a reason David Carr may be available, it's the same reason Alex Smith was traded from SF.  Teams felt they were not good enough to really contend. I'm getting the feeling we will settle for a  David Carr and be doomed to mediocrity.  

 

What's keeping the Raiders from contending is they don't play any defense, not the QB.  They give up 30 every week (29.9 to be exact).  I don't know what the deal is with him and Gruden, but that relationship never seemed all that warm from the beginning.

 

Am I wrong for thinking Derek Carr isn't a bad option?  He's improved since Gruden got there and the last 2 years have been the best of his career.  Frankly, I don't see a whole lot of difference between Stafford and Carr.  Stafford has more gunslinger/flair for the dramatic (even though their late game heroics in recent years are pretty comparable, if not the edge to Carr), I don't see this perceptual wide gap.  Clearly, Stafford has a better reputation for some reason, but it's not play on the field in recent years.  But if that difference in rep means a lower trade compensation price tag, I'd be in for that.  Carr's also a younger, cheaper, better version of what Ryan is right now, if folks were thinking he was on the table. 

 

Since 2019 avg: 4100 yards, 69% completion, 24 TDs/9 INTs, 7.9 ypa, 101 passer rating/68 QBR

 

For only $21m for the next two years, I'd be in on that. 

Edited by justice98
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, justice98 said:

 

What's keeping the Raiders from contending is they don't play any defense, not the QB.  They give up 30 every week (29.9 to be exact).  I don't know what the deal is with him and Gruden, but that relationship never seemed all that warm from the beginning.

 

Am I wrong for thinking Derek Carr isn't a bad option?  He's improved since Gruden got there and the last 2 years have been the best of his career.  Frankly, I don't see a whole lot of difference between Stafford and Carr.  Stafford has more gunslinger/flair for the dramatic (even though their late game heroics in recent years are pretty comparable, if not the edge to Carr), I don't see this perceptual wide gap.  Clearly, Stafford has a better reputation for some reason, but it's not play on the field in recent years.  But if that difference in rep means a lower price tag, I'd be in for that.  Carr's also a younger, cheaper, better version of what Ryan is right now, if folks were thinking he was on the table. 

 

Since 2019 avg: 4100 yards, 69% completion, 24 TDs/9 INTs, 7.9 ypa, 101 passer rating/68 QBR

 

For only $21m for the next two years, I'd be in on that. 

No you’re not alone that would like Carr. But the problem is the cost. Carr for a 3? Amazing. Carr for a 2? Eh. Carr for a 1? Crazy. Carr for two 1s? :ols:

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Neither Payne nor Allen are elite DTs. They're both quality starters, but not studs or guys who defenses have to game plan around. It would suck to lose either of them, but let's not act like they're unreplaceable game wreckers. You can find decent quality interior DL starters in FA or the draft.

 

Now, one area that it might be tough to replace is leadership, and that's mostly Allen. 

I dsagree.   And no we can't because we've tried and we've failed

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think most people here necessarily consider Carr to be a "bad option", just that they don't want to overpay for him. I wouldn't give up more than a 2nd, and the idea of giving up two 1sts is beyond laughable. 

  • Like 3
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
×
×
  • Create New...