Rookie QB or Veteran QB for 2021???

[redskins59]

With the success that running QB's are having, if there are running QB's available in the later rounds, why not draft them and go for a system similar to the Ravens?

The WFT has been pretty bad when it comes to drafting a QB.  Maybe try to draft a QB in the later rounds (the one that can run) and treat that position as expendable? 

[JoggingGod]

3 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Potential. 
 

Right now Wilson is the better QB. Lance is really, really raw. But he is big, strong, fast and has a good arm. He has the intangibles you want... if you’re looking to sit a guy for a couple of years and surround him with talent.

 

Wilson will likely need to sit a bit, too, but he could be a mid season guy where he’s ready relatively early in the process. I worry about his arm a little... he uses everything he has on all of his throws. But no one can deny his heart, ability and work ethic. 

What? Wilson has just as much potential. His arm is very good and he's continually making big plays on a weak offense. Also is a good rushing threat. You can't just compare potential solely off the arm. 

[Warhead36]

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

As has been mentioned, it's fair to ask where we are drafting.  Because top 3 might not be good enough, its may need to be #1 or #2, preferably #1.

 

Are we the worst team in football and ensured a #1 pick?  Would a veteran like Stafford leave us at 6-10 in 2021 with another offseason to work on the roster?

 

Getting the guy of the future is half the battle, how many times have we proven that or seen other franchises prove that?

 

The rule is if you suck at QB, keep drafting them.  How much draft capital have we been giving up to figure this out?  It's not working.

I like Stafford as much as anyone, but we have way too many holes on our roster. Its not like the Colts adding Phillip Rivers. We are still very much rebuilding. Trading for Stafford would be more like when we traded for McNabb back in 2010. I just don't think it makes all that much sense.

 

You keep drafting QBs until you get your franchise guy. That's just how it goes.

[Renegade7]

Mahomes was #10 pick, Rodgers was #24, Brady #199.

 

Kyle needs to do his homework so we don't have to lose as many games as possible to get the #1 pick and hope the first pick is the best guy because logic says so, because that isn't always accurate and I refuse to believe that's only way for us to get our guy.

[Warhead36]

1 minute ago, redskins59 said:

With the success that running QB's are having, if there are running QB's available in the later rounds, why not draft them and go for a system similar to the Ravens?

The WFT has been pretty bad when it comes to drafting a QB.  Maybe try to draft a QB in the later rounds (the one that can run) and treat that position as expendable? 

Because those guys tend to get hurt at a much higher rate so you have to then commit multiple draft picks to get multiple guys that can run the same scheme. Its just not sustainable long term.

 

I think we need to stop trying to reinvent the wheel here.

Just now, Renegade7 said:

Mahomes was #10 pick, Rodgers was #24, Brady #199.

 

Kyle needs to do his homework so we don't have to lose as many games as possible to get the #1 pick and hope the first pick is the best guy because logic says so, because that isn't always accurate and I refuse to believe that's only way for us to get our guy.

Of course it isn't the only way. But the higher draft pick you have, the better your odds. Nothing is guaranteed either way. For every Mahomes or Rodgers in the 1st you'll find a zillion Jake Lockers, Blaine Gabberts, JP Losmans etc...

[Renegade7]

Just now, Warhead36 said:

I like Stafford as much as anyone, but we have way too many holes on our roster. Its not like the Colts adding Phillip Rivers. We are still very much rebuilding. Trading for Stafford would be more like when we traded for McNabb back in 2010. I just don't think it makes all that much sense.

 

McNabb was done, that's different.

 

Just now, Warhead36 said:

You keep drafting QBs until you get your franchise guy. That's just how it goes.

 

Is it, or just what franchises that can never find the right in between guy do?  Green Bay didn't do that, hell they traded for Favre.

[Skinsinparadise]

17 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Trade for Stafford and win the NFC East for the next 3 years.

 

I haven't dived into the QBs yet in the draft but my current top choice is Larence, Fields if they land a pick in the top 2.   But otherwise I'd consider a veteran. I like Stafford but I looked up his contract, the Lions would have to eat a ton of cap room if they traded him. 

[Warhead36]

Just now, Renegade7 said:

 

McNabb was done, that's different.

 

 

Is it, or just what franchises that can never find the right in between guy do?  Green Bay didn't do that, hell they traded for Favre.

McNabb was a Pro Bowl QB the year before he came here.

 

Green Bay is an exception. They traded for Brett Favre sure. But they also drafted Aaron Rodgers. And they drafted ANOTHER QB in the 1st round this year when Rodgers is still very much in his prime.

 

I don't think any team is going to be trading a young QB prospect with Favre like potential. We're gonna have to draft another one of our own sooner or later.

[Jericho]

Both are generally bad options. It's very rare for good QBs to become available in free agency. Some times you get the perfect storm of events and something happens where a decent one becomes available. But most of the time, you're paying big money for a Case Keenum (Denver), Nick Foles (Jacksonville), or Mike Glennon (Chicago) or maybe you throw a lot of cash at an end of career Philip Rivers (Indianapolis) or Tom Brady (Tampa). And you try to talk yourself into something that isn't there. Let's say Cam Newton stays healthy for 2020. He's going to get a lot more money next year and it's not likely to be some one year deal. Even one of the biggest free agency "wins" at this position was Kirk Cousins (who Washington let leave). Most likely anything you get here is a stop gap anyhow. Ideally a very good stop gap, but most likely an overpaid mediocre one at best. For a rebuilding team, not sure that's worth a whole lot.

 

The draft is *very* risky. A lot of first round QBs just don't pan out. And it gets worse the further down the draft you go. Non-first round QBs becoming bona fide starters is fairly rare, but even among first rounders the last few drafts have produced plenty of guys like Paxton Lynch, Mitchell Trubisky, Sam Darnold, Josh Rosen, Daniel Jones, etc... Of course, they've also produced Lamar Jackson, Patrick Mahomes, and Kyler Murray. You can swing and miss big here, but it's likely the only viable option for a true franchise QB.

 

And I guess the third option is a trade. But that's almost always a fail. First it requires giving up valuable assets (something this team can't really afford to burn) and then it requires finding another team wanting to offload a QB. And let's be honest here, what team is actually trading a good QB? Washington has been down this road before. Burnell? McNabb? Alex Smith? Has any of these come close to working out? It's almost always a failure.

 

If you're not drafting a QB you love in round 1, you probably should just punt on the position and stick with a guy like Kyle Allen. Troll the free agency waters for any prove-it type one year deals (Winston?) and call it a day.

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, Warhead36 said:

Of course it isn't the only way. But the higher draft pick you have, the better your odds. Nothing is guaranteed either way. For every Mahomes or Rodgers in the 1st you'll find a zillion Jake Lockers, Blaine Gabberts, JP Losmans etc...

 

And just as many Tim Couch's, Heath Shullers...

 

Goff

Winston

Bradford

Alex Smith

David Carr

Jeff George...

[IrepDC]

I want a Left Tackle if we are top 5 or a MLB if top 10. Bringing another QB in is pointless. You already see our fanbase annointing Lawrence a savior. He's not. Even the great QBs have teams around them but we still think a magic QB will save us. It's a setup for failure.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[JoggingGod]

Just now, Renegade7 said:

 

And just as many Tim Couch's, Heath Shullers...

 

Goff

Winston

Bradford

Alex Smith

David Carr

Jeff George...

Putting Goff in that category is insulting. He's legitimately one of the better QBs in the NFL right now.

[KDawg]

10 minutes ago, JoggingGod said:

What? Wilson has just as much potential. His arm is very good and he's continually making big plays on a weak offense. Also is a good rushing threat. You can't just compare potential solely off the arm. 

I don’t think you understand. I’m not comparing potential just off of arm. Trey Lance’s ceiling due to his entire skill set is through the roof. I’m not sure how people don’t see that. Here’s the problem: he has a pretty low floor, too. 
 

Wilson’s floor is higher by quite a bit from Lance. But his ceiling is a bit lower. Lance is a better athlete and has a rocket for an arm, whether we as fans and amateur scouts like that or not is irrelevant. Those traits get you drafted higher in the draft.

 

Wilson is a safer pick, Lance the higher ceiling.  I could absolutely see the argument that he’s possibly QB3. Trask certainly isn’t right now in my opinion. 
 

A team that can wait should draft Lance. A team that needs a guy Wilson. But what usually happens is teams jump at the big arm regardless of their situation (see Redskins, Washington) and they try plugging the project into a starter role. 
 

I’m not approaching this necessarily from a “who would I take” perspective. More how I think the draft will go. 
 

 

Edited October 18 by KDawg

[carex]

32 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

That's my concern, put Lawrence on this team right now, how's that going to go?  We might get him killed at worst, not win anymore games at best.

 

Is it a rule that we have to have our QB of the future to win games?  How many did we have to win super bowls?  I'm just...I can't get behind tanking for another victim, we have no credibility on getting a QB that actually can solve this problem we keep finding ourselves in with the revolving door at QB. 

 

If its going to be a revolving door, let it be on folks we know what we are getting.  I say trade for someone now to hold over until we are ready for the future guy, that's what Alex was supposed to be.  Giving him that money was the bigger problem, and I don't want to get into not keeping Kirk, it will become revisionist history.

 

We need a solid stop gap guy, not another project.  We are in no position for another project, and GD if Snyder has his hand in another rookie on his way out.

 

Against an 0-5 football team, they gave up 4 sacks to one guy just 7 days ago. 4 sacks...to one player.

 

in the free agent era your idea doesn't work.  By the time you're ready to replace the stop gap the team you built around him is ready for free agency and you have to adjust the team for the cap

 

As for the sacks last week, they changed two members of the OL following that.  Even with Charles going down two plays in we still had Wes Schweitzer in a different position for this game

 

 

[Warhead36]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

And just as many Tim Couch's, Heath Shullers...

 

Goff

Winston

Bradford

Alex Smith

David Carr

Jeff George...

So what exactly is your argument? You can't possibly suggest that going after a veteran retread is a better option for team building and sustaining long term success than drafting a QB in the first round. Look at the teams that win consistently in the NFL. Then look at their QBs and look at where they are drafted. For the MOST PART, they were 1st round picks if not high 1st rounders.

 

If your argument is that this team is close to winning and just needs a veteran to steady the ship, well then I'm not exactly sure what you're watching. We have humongous holes all over the roster. A Matt Stafford or Matt Ryan isn't going to alleviate much. No, a Trevor Lawrence won't either, but at least he's young and will grow with the rest of the young growing roster. Getting a vet means you're going for a 2-3 year window. We won't even be READY to compete for another 2 years minimum.

[Renegade7]

Just now, Warhead36 said:

McNabb was a Pro Bowl QB the year before he came here.

 

And traded because Andy knew he was done.

 

Just now, Warhead36 said:

Green Bay is an exception. They traded for Brett Favre sure. But they also drafted Aaron Rodgers. And they drafted ANOTHER QB in the 1st round this year when Rodgers is still very much in his prime.

 

I don't think any team is going to be trading a young QB prospect with Favre like potential. We're gonna have to draft another one of our own sooner or later.

 

I know what they did, that's why I brought them up : )

 

The point is they traded for someone, waited until he was almost done then drafted someone, then waited until ready to move before drafting the next guy.  To me, THAT'S how it should be, and it worked, they got two rings in that span while we keep trying this same approach and have none.

 

Broncos didn't draft Peyton they signed him, Saints signed Brees, this is not unheard of to be competitive with a veteran QB without a plan for a future young face of the franchise.  That wasn't the plan for either of them and they still got rings.

 

I want to emphasize that I'm not saying we should never try to draft our future QB, just not 2021.

[JoggingGod]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

I don’t think you understand. I’m not comparing potential just off of arm. Trey Lance’s ceiling due to his entire skill set is through the roof. I’m not sure how people don’t see that. Here’s the problem: he has a pretty low floor, too. 
 

Wilson’s floor is higher by quite a bit from Lance. But his ceiling is a bit lower. Lance is a better athlete and has a rocket for an arm, whether we as fans and amateur scouts like that or not is irrelevant. Those traits get you drafted him in the draft.

 

Wilson is a safer pick, Lance the higher ceiling.  I could absolutely see the argument that he’s possibly QB3. Trask certainly isn’t right now in my opinion. 
 

A team that can wait should draft Lance. A team that needs a guy Wilson. But what usually happens is teams jump at the big arm regardless of their situation (see Redskins, Washington) and they try plugging the project into a starter role. 
 

I’m not approaching this necessarily from a “who would I take” perspective. More how I think the draft will go. 
 

 

Bro Wilson's skillset is great. He's not a Daniel Jones or Josh Rosen. The ability to throw at various angles, the great ball placement deep, the rushing threat, the quick release... I mean yeah Lance technically has a stronger arm and is faster but Wilson's absolute ceiling is not that far off and he has less questions.

[Florgon79]

5 minutes ago, Jericho said:

Both are generally bad options. It's very rare for good QBs to become available in free agency. Some times you get the perfect storm of events and something happens where a decent one becomes available. But most of the time, you're paying big money for a Case Keenum (Denver), Nick Foles (Jacksonville), or Mike Glennon (Chicago) or maybe you throw a lot of cash at an end of career Philip Rivers (Indianapolis) or Tom Brady (Tampa). And you try to talk yourself into something that isn't there. Let's say Cam Newton stays healthy for 2020. He's going to get a lot more money next year and it's not likely to be some one year deal. Even one of the biggest free agency "wins" at this position was Kirk Cousins (who Washington let leave). Most likely anything you get here is a stop gap anyhow. Ideally a very good stop gap, but most likely an overpaid mediocre one at best. For a rebuilding team, not sure that's worth a whole lot.

 

The draft is *very* risky. A lot of first round QBs just don't pan out. And it gets worse the further down the draft you go. Non-first round QBs becoming bona fide starters is fairly rare, but even among first rounders the last few drafts have produced plenty of guys like Paxton Lynch, Mitchell Trubisky, Sam Darnold, Josh Rosen, Daniel Jones, etc... Of course, they've also produced Lamar Jackson, Patrick Mahomes, and Kyler Murray. You can swing and miss big here, but it's likely the only viable option for a true franchise QB.

 

And I guess the third option is a trade. But that's almost always a fail. First it requires giving up valuable assets (something this team can't really afford to burn) and then it requires finding another team wanting to offload a QB. And let's be honest here, what team is actually trading a good QB? Washington has been down this road before. Burnell? McNabb? Alex Smith? Has any of these come close to working out? It's almost always a failure.

 

If you're not drafting a QB you love in round 1, you probably should just punt on the position and stick with a guy like Kyle Allen. Troll the free agency waters for any prove-it type one year deals (Winston?) and call it a day.

 

By your logic there is no way to get a good QB. And yet every year teams end up with good qbs. 

 

What we need is football people making the decisions. Not Danny and his cronies. 

[TryTheBeal!]

6 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I haven't dived into the QBs yet in the draft but my current top choice is Larence, Fields if they land a pick in the top 2.   But otherwise I'd consider a veteran. I like Stafford but I looked up his contract, the Lions would have to eat a ton of cap room if they traded him. 

Cap room is what it is.

 

Stafford is moving and he’s moving pretty soon.  
 

He would look great in the B&G.  Reeling off 11-5 seasons.

 

Come fly with me...

[Renegade7]

4 minutes ago, JoggingGod said:

Putting Goff in that category is insulting. He's legitimately one of the better QBs in the NFL right now.

Generational?  "The extension is worth $134 million and includes an NFL-record $110 million guaranteed" worth it?

[KDawg]

The point I haven’t seen anyone really bring up so far in this thread is the salary cap.

 

The cap may decrease. While we have cap room, bringing in an expensive vet is costly and takes away from your ability to build the team properly around them.

 

A rookie, if one is available that fits what you determine to be a valuable skill set has a much lower hit and allows for more team building around them. 
 

A trade costs money and resources. Of course, some guys are worth it. But the likelihood of getting one of those AND them wanting to come here are low.

[Warhead36]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

And traded because Andy knew he was done.

 

 

I know what they did, that's why I brought them up : )

 

The point is they traded for someone, waited until he was almost done then drafted someone, then waited until ready to move before drafting the next guy.  To me, THAT'S how it should be, and it worked, they got two rings in that span while we keep trying this same approach and have none.

 

Broncos didn't draft Peyton they signed him, Saints signed Brees, this is not unheard of to be competitive with a veteran QB without a plan for a future young face of the franchise.  That wasn't the plan for either of them and they still got rings.

 

I want to emphasize that I'm not saying we should never try to draft our future QB, just not 2021.

Brees is an exception. QBs like that never hit FA. He only did because of a supposed injury and because he was so bad his previous few years that the team spent a 1st rounder on his replacement already(notice a trend, teams keep trying at QB).

 

Yes the Broncos signed Manning. But they already had a team ready to win. They made the playoffs with Tim freaking Tebow. They were in win now mode. We are not.

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

So what exactly is your argument? You can't possibly suggest that going after a veteran retread is a better option for team building and sustaining long term success than drafting a QB in the first round. Look at the teams that win consistently in the NFL. Then look at their QBs and look at where they are drafted. For the MOST PART, they were 1st round picks if not high 1st rounders.

 

If your argument is that this team is close to winning and just needs a veteran to steady the ship, well then I'm not exactly sure what you're watching. We have humongous holes all over the roster. A Matt Stafford or Matt Ryan isn't going to alleviate much. No, a Trevor Lawrence won't either, but at least he's young and will grow with the rest of the young growing roster. Getting a vet means you're going for a 2-3 year window. We won't even be READY to compete for another 2 years minimum.

 

My argument is to pump breaks on just getting the next flashy toy when our house is still on fire.  

[JoggingGod]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

Generational?  "The extension is worth $134 million and includes an NFL-record $110 million guaranteed" worth it?

Yup. Every penny. He's a long term franchise QB who will keep the Rams in contention. And I have no doubt that Lawrence will be even better than him.