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


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:


I think we swung for Stafford, but not that hard. 

 

OK, lol, next time Breer is on air you can tell him he's off.    That's exactly how he phrased it.  Before the deal was made, most of us thought a first and a third was the ceiling for what to give up and that's exactly what they offered.  In the end it seemed paltry because of what the Rams offered but the Rams blew the other offers out the water.  

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, duffy said:

 

But I can see a scenario where Heineke, Allen and Fitz compete for the job, one of the young guys runs with it, and Fitz stays on as a backup/mentor like he did in Miami.

Yeah, I don't think I was suggesting anything other than a competition.  But to me it means you're brining in kindof the same guy.  Not a definite 100% backup like a Chase Daniels or Colt McCoy.  Fitzy can start a little bit.  So at the minimum there's a competition, which tells you (along with everything else they've done) they don't believe the guys they have are the long term answer.  

 

11 hours ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

Now they're saying Mariota likely will be cut, as opposed to traded.

For no compensation. I'd take him. And feel okay with him, Allen and Heinicke battling it out.

But still draft a QB on Day 1 or 2.

 

If they want him, I'd throw a 6th rounder at the Raiders and make the trade.  Because if you let Marriota hit the open market, you introduce the variable of somebody else throwing more money at him or him deciding to just go elsewhere.  If you cough up a late round pick, you have him under control for at least this year.

 

The reason you wouldn't do that is if you hate his contract.  But then you're in a competition, and if there's another team out there who's competing, you might end up at virtually the same spot anyway.

 

If that's your option, throwing a low round pick at it isn't a bad idea. 

 

10 hours ago, petey hodge said:

This is totally hypothetical, but...

 

Could Tom Brady win us a SB next year with the current roster (sans the QBs)?

No.  Because nobody can.  Tampa was LOADED with skill position players and had more defensive talent.  

 

He would get them to the next level, a 10-6/11-5 type team, but they aren't there yet with the rest of the roster to compete with the best teams.  

 

 

59 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Roethlisberger?!?

Good God Hell No.  The guy can't throw the ball more than 10 yards.  If you're going to do that just keep Smith.  

 

37 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Just the thought of a broken down Big Ben calling Joe, and asking for #7 after Dwayne pooped on it, is very unsettling.  I might throw up.

Haskins asking Joe was absolutely awful.  He hadn't earned the right.  

 

Ben wouldn't ask.  But he's a HOF player, and if HE wanted #7, I wouldn't have a problem with it.  Ben's earned it.  I also don't think Joe would have any problem with Ben wearing his number.  

 

but I don't want him here in any scenario.  So whatever.  

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

 

I actually think they ARE reading the field, and quite well actually. It's just different than the old way.

 

My argument isn’t they aren’t reading the field, but that it’s no longer the Holy Grail to being an effective QB. 

 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

When they escape the pocket, they are reading a pressure, which means they have likely diagnosed a coverage. Knowing the coverage allows you to attack weak points. Attacking weak points increases your accuracy. But breaking the pocket they are limiting their field read to half a field and if it's not there they are letting their instincts kick in. 

 

Not saying that’s not the case at times, but I think a lot of it is the high to low read isn’t there then it’s make a play time. The mobile QB understands they can dictate coverage and create easier throws when they escape the pocket and buy time. My hypothesis is this style of QB feels it’s a higher percentage play and puts them in a position of having more control on a particular play versus hanging in the pocket and relying on others to block.
 

Obviously, there’s a balance to this, but this approach is much more common and in my view requires less of the QB to need to read out each play while in the pocket. Probably just 20 years ago that it was frowned upon for a guy to manipulate the pocket or extend outside the pocket and get away from the “brilliant design of the OC/coach”. 
 

The comparison for me is Steph Curry and NBA as a whole, just roll the ball out and let them play. This is me engaging in hyperbole, I understand football is much more of a team game. 

 


 

 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

But I think you understand all of that...

 

But where you and I disagree is how important it is. It is extremely important. That is a major processing step. Break the pocket, read the field. 

 

Where the difference is: Traditional pocket guys have to be a five read guy on every down and don't really have the ability to break the pocket.

 

The pocket QB is dead. Exceptions will always exist, but they’re done. If you have one as your starter, your team is behind the other good to great teams. #TomBrady argument, qualifies as the exception in today’s NFL. 
 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

Dual Threat guys have to be a five read if in the pocket and be able to quickly navigate to a half field/hot read if they break it. 
 

 

Venturing just a bit outside my scope, but from my viewing, the guys I listed are not 5 read QBs and I contend a QB shouldn’t always take the risk to get to all 5 reads, rather, break the pocket and take control of the play. 

 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

Lamar Jackson doesn't really fit in either of those categories to me when I watch him play. He is a big arm, big play quarterback that doesn't read the field as well but has ridiculous athleticism and can stretch the field with his arm. 


This is a lazy perspective shared by many when I compare him to other guys credited with being able to read a field. I don’t think Josh Allen all of sudden reads the field better than Jackson. Russel Wilson looked atrocious im the playoff game and in the second half the season with his ability to read the field. Not saying improvements don’t need to be made on his part, but I hypothesize there a schematic issues going as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Fitz >>> Roethlisberger at this point of their careers.

 

The Steelers fans I've talked to and heard from say he looked absolutely washed last year. Dink and dunk constantly, can't throw the ball downfield anymore, overweight and lazy, limited mobility, etc. They said he looked finished. 


I'd much rather have Fitz. I want Roethlisberger the same way I want Darnold... in an Eagles or Cowboys jersey.

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

 

A 1st and a 3rd is a pretty hard swing. But we couldn't out-do the swing of the Rams. They took a running start up to the batter's box, Happy Gilmore style. We just weren't willing to look that stupid so we let them have it. 


agreed we did have a go, although I don’t think our offer was better than the Carolina one either, that said, he was always eying LA anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KDawg said:

@wit33whats lazy is lumping mobile QBs all together. 
 

Lazy perspective my ass.

 

 

My apologies, I shouldn’t have put it in that way.
 

 I do believe the mobile QB gets unfair treatment and saddled with not being able to read a field if they experience any sort of friction in their respective QB journey. Rodgers hasn’t won a SB 10 plus years, but never has a game been broken down questioning his ability to read a defense in a critical playoff game. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fitz would mean that WFT thinks a project guy like Trey Lance will be available. Have Fitz, Heineke and Allen fight for 1 and 2 while Lance is your expected 3 and hopefully at least your number 2 no later than the back half of the season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

 

My apologies, I shouldn’t have put it in that way.
 

 I do believe the mobile QB gets unfair treatment and saddled with not being able to read a field if they experience any sort of friction in their respective QB journey. Rodgers hasn’t won a SB 10 plus years, but never has a game been broken down questioning his ability to read a defense in a critical playoff game. 

Rodgers has played relatively well in the playoffs all things considered. But he also HAS been criticized for the very thing you say he hasn’t. There were people wondering if he was done not long ago. And he’s a MVP. You picked a **** example to prove a point.

 

If you don’t think Lamar is different than other mobile QBs I don’t know what else to tell you. The guy isn’t a great passer. Never has been. He’s improving. But he’s a passer that capitalized on mistakes. 
 

Wilson’s issues stemmed from him pressing because his OL fell apart and the offensive gameplan went from pass heavy to run heavy and he was trying to make things happen.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Rodgers has played relatively well in the playoffs all things considered. But he also HAS been criticized for the very thing you say he hasn’t. There were people wondering if he was done not long ago. And he’s a MVP. You picked a **** example to prove a point.

 

Not attempting to prove any point, rather just attempting to avoid conclusions and engage in discussion. 

 

5 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

If you don’t think Lamar is different than other mobile QBs I don’t know what else to tell you. The guy isn’t a great passer. Never has been. He’s improving. But he’s a passer that capitalized on mistakes. 
 

 

Oh ya, horrible passer of the football in comparison to his fellow starters in the league. 
 

I think he’s great on the move as a passer. 

 

5 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 


 

Wilson’s issues stemmed from him pressing because his OL fell apart and the offensive gameplan went from pass heavy to run heavy and he was trying to make things happen.

 

 

Can the same external variable excuses be applied to Jackson? Or is just all Jackson’s fault? 
 

The Russel Wilson Ram game is about the ugliest performance as one can provide. Maybe just maybe he didn’t read the field as well as could’ve in the game. Sure, many other factors involved, but many guys get absolved from this is all I’m saying. Who cares Wilson hasn’t been out of the divisional round in 6 years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

Fitz would mean that WFT thinks a project guy like Trey Lance will be available. Have Fitz, Heineke and Allen fight for 1 and 2 while Lance is your expected 3 and hopefully at least your number 2 no later than the back half of the season.

If we sign Fitz and then draft a QB; we aren’t keeping both Kyle and Taylor.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The QB that makes the most sense, is obviously Rivers.

Because that's the trend.

Last year we hired Rivera. His name translated, means "River".

Then we hired Del Rio, whose name translated means "Of the River".

So since we have 2 guys named River, that means we have plural Rivers, so we need a QB named Rivers. Our offense will really flow, then.

  • Haha 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

Not attempting to prove any point, rather just attempting to avoid conclusions and engage in discussion. 

 

 

Oh ya, horrible passer of the football in comparison to his fellow starters in the league. 
 

I think he’s great on the move as a passer. 

 

 

 

Can the same external variable excuses be applied to Jackson? Or is just all Jackson’s fault? 
 

The Russel Wilson Ram game is about the ugliest performance as one can provide. Maybe just maybe he didn’t read the field as well as could’ve in the game. Sure, many other factors involved, but many guys get absolved from this is all I’m saying. Who cares Wilson hasn’t been out of the divisional round in 6 years. 

It’s rarely just one guy’s fault. Baltimore doesn’t have receivers to help Jackson’s weakness. His best safety valves are Andrews and had been Ingram. 
 

Brown can stretch a field but he isn’t a traffic guy. They need help there. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

Fitz would mean that WFT thinks a project guy like Trey Lance will be available. Have Fitz, Heineke and Allen fight for 1 and 2 while Lance is your expected 3 and hopefully at least your number 2 no later than the back half of the season.

 

I think it could indicate that they're very open to taking a guy like Lance if he falls. But I'm sure they'd have plenty of contingency plans besides that. Lance is just so damn hard to project because of his rawness and his very limited sample size. He could potentially go anywhere from top 5 to bottom of the 1st / top of the 2nd. I think both extremes are unlikely, but certainly possible. If we want him, we're probably still going to have to trade up to get him. Maybe not into the top 5 but if he starts to fall...at least into the top 10 most likely. Not sure how I feel about that in general, but if they're sold on him I'm much more ok with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the point in bringing in Fitz. He's not demonstrably better than what we have now and would just suck up precious cap dollars.

 

As I've said before unless we're bringing in a real needle mover I wouldn't bother. At best just draft someone and take a shot that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Malapropismic Depository said:

 

 

All conversations lead back to Alex Smith.

And not always in a good way. :(

 

 

At the time before the trade the reason why I rallied so hard against Alex as an option wasn't that I was down on Alex the player.  I just didn't think the roster was ready to add a good albeit not great veteran QB.   I thought we'd just tread water and it would be a road to nowhere especially with it requiring to give up some youth to make that move. 

 

I said back then if Kirk leaves then rebuild, go cheap at QB versus a veteran.  Instead we let Kirk go for money reasons while giving Alex 4 years worth of guaranteed money -- then Alex gets hurt and you got to add more players to make up for it.  It was basically another in a series of crappy moves from Bruce Allen.  As I said back then Alex would be a good get for a contender, not this team.  You could say that it was bad luck but heck Bruce refused to offer Kirk more than 2 years of guaranteed money yet gives Alex 4.5 years of guaranteed money which we are swallowing through this day. 

 

And the kicker was 1 reporter and a radiop personality who covers this year said they know for a fact that they could have gotten the 2nd pick in the draft (SF's first rounder) at the time.  Jay himself said they knew they could have gotten a big haul for Kirk.    Crazy how that was mishandled in so many ways.  Then they double down on that approach with Trent.  Water under the buridge but man would could have been if they played it right.  :ols:

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

I don't see the point in bringing in Fitz. He's not demonstrably better than what we have now and would just suck up precious cap dollars.

 

As I've said before unless we're bringing in a real needle mover I wouldn't bother. At best just draft someone and take a shot that way.

 

I really doubt Fitz is going to be asking for some gargantuan contract. If we let Alex Smith go, the amount we save from his contract for this season (a little over $24 million with bonus) minus his dead cap hit (about $10 million) will more than cover how much we'd potentially pay Fitz. We'd have about $14 million freed up from Alex and Fitz was paid $8 million last season. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 7:12 AM, mistertim said:

...

Cam? No, just no.

...

Cam is a ****ty QB who's a pain in the ass personality-wise. Hard pass. 

Can we get this kid?

Is he old enough yet?

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 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...