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

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/ron-rivera-says-redskins-wouldve-been-confident-going-after-cam-newton-if-circumstances-allowed-it/amp/
 

Circumstances are very different now with Dwayne and potentially both Alex and Kyle out of the equation, Cam has proven to be somewhat durable this past season

 

I wouldn’t be surprised if Ron and Scott will believe they can fix some of the passing issues they’ve worked with him on it before to good affect

 

I think this has a legitimate chance of happening, but only if once Free Agency and the draft have come and gone

Link to post
Share on other sites

My dream scenario this offseason currently is to trade up for Lance and then let him develope behind Heinicke and Allen. If one of those two guys has a good starter-type season we can capitalize on it and trade that player to a QB needy team whenever Lance is ready. The sample size would be big enough to warrant a high pick if they produce a good season. On the other hand, if said starter is better than we think Lance could be, trade him before he sees the field and lowers his stock. I think its a good way to keep the draft picks coming. Hopefully we will be able to get back what we traded up for to get Lance. 

 

The plan obviously hinges on Kyle Allen or Heinicke looking like long-term starters though which is a lot to ask, especially since Allen hasn't proven otherwise and Heinicke hasn't had enough time to display whether hes capable or not. 

Edited by Burgundy Yoda
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Yeah, I just have a hard time seeing Cam agree to it, I suppose. Though he might not have many options. But even if he does agree to it...agreeing to it in theory and then doing it in practice may end up being two totally different things and he'd end up ****ing anyway.

 

As far as QB by committee, it could work I suppose. But personally I'd prefer it if they simply pick a QB and go with him. If that's a guy we bring in like Mariota or Fitz, fine. If that ends up being Heinicke or Allen, fine.

 

Outside of Heinicke actually proving to be a hidden gem, none of those guys are probably long term answers, so which one it is doesn't really matter a ton to me, to be honest.

Heinicke deserves the ability to earn the starting role. Due to his injury history and style of play there needs to be a solid second. To me any of the others mentioned are an upgrade to Allen.

A guy like Fitz or Taylor is a 1-2 year guy. That is okay if you the plan is to draft a guy the really like later like Newman.

If that isn't the plan and perhaps a Mariota or Winston to complete with Heinicke makes more sense as they could be more than a 1 year plan.

Any of these guys on not a huge contract could be good options if no real future long term QB option is available.

I'd rather avoid Darnold

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DWinzit said:

Heinicke deserves the ability to earn the starting role. Due to his injury history and style of play there needs to be a solid second. To me any of the others mentioned are an upgrade to Allen.

A guy like Fitz or Taylor is a 1-2 year guy. That is okay if you the plan is to draft a guy the really like later like Newman.

If that isn't the plan and perhaps a Mariota or Winston to complete with Heinicke makes more sense as they could be more than a 1 year plan.

Any of these guys on not a huge contract could be good options if no real future long term QB option is available.

I'd rather avoid Darnold

 

I think Heinicke will get a shot to win the job (outside of some crazy scenario where we get Watson), but it's pretty clear IMO that RR and the rest of the FO do not necessarily see him as the answer. Otherwise they wouldn't be out there publicly talking about needing to upgrade the position.

 

As for Mariota, I have a hard time seeing him take a 1 year deal. He'll probably have a few teams offering him a mult-year deal so we'd probably need to do the same. Fitz could be a 1 year thing or maybe a couple. 

 

Agreed on Darnold. If he were a FA or maybe even just a 6th or 7th round pick, I'd be ok with it. But they want at least a 2nd reportedly. Hard pass on that one. 

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

 

I think Heinicke will get a shot to win the job (outside of some crazy scenario where we get Watson), but it's pretty clear IMO that RR and the rest of the FO do not necessarily see him as the answer. Otherwise they wouldn't be out there publicly talking about needing to upgrade the position.

 

As for Mariota, I have a hard time seeing him take a 1 year deal. He'll probably have a few teams offering him a mult-year deal so we'd probably need to do the same. Fitz could be a 1 year thing or maybe a couple. 

 

Agreed on Darnold. If he were a FA or maybe even just a 6th or 7th round pick, I'd be ok with it. But they want at least a 2nd reportedly. Hard pass on that one. 

I'm pretty sure Mariota is not a free agent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Number 44 said:

I'm pretty sure Mariota is not a free agent.

 

He isn't. But there's some speculation that unless they can get some picks for him, the Raiders will cut him because they're in a pretty bad cap situation and Mariota is set to make over $10 million this season. They can cut him with no dead cap hit.

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

 

 

There may be a lull but those team wanting to trade their QBs better get it done before FA because once it starts up one has to think their value goes down with teams signing Taylor, Fitzpatrick, etc..  Not great QB but options non the less and w/o giving up draft picks.  Just a thought.  SIP I think you and I agree on this.  I might be wrong. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, RWJ said:

There may be a lull but those team wanting to trade their QBs better get it done before FA because once it starts up one has to think their value goes down with teams signing Taylor, Fitzpatrick, etc..  Not great QB but options non the less and w/o giving up draft picks.  Just a thought.  SIP I think you and I agree on this.  I might be wrong. :)

 

Yeah that's what I mentioned yesterday but it wouldn't surprise me it ramps up that last week leading to FA, March 8th-12th.  i am guessing though the only two that get moved is Darnold and Mariota.    Maybe Bridgewater. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Yeah that's what I mentioned yesterday but it wouldn't surprise me it ramps up that last week leading to FA, March 8th-12th.  i am guessing though the only two that get moved is Darnold and Mariota.    Maybe Bridgewater. 

This makes sense as some teams will want to fill roster voids before the draft and those guys teams are going realize it is now or never to get anything out of these guys. What will be good is their value would be lower the closer we get to the start of free agency

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting a set in stone Cap number would help speed things up.

 

That would accelerate the player cuts these teams are making and give more organizations a much clearer look into their own financial situation, letting them know what kind of dead cap they could potentially eat or how much money they have available to facilitate a move at a big money position like QB.

 

Nobody wants to cut someone they don't have too, so all the cuts up to now have been the "obvious choices". Once teams have a full understanding of their cap situation, they will have to make tougher choices, or will be in a situation where they are much more motivated to trade an asset like a Mariota.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

To many teams need a QB that draft ahead of us. The top 4 QBs aren’t falling. I also don’t see us trading assets to move up to get one of the rookie QBs or Watson; should Houston cave.

 

 

And 2-3 of those teams will be needing QBs in a couple of years.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, redskins4ever28 said:

What? Not sure what you are even taking about? The ass kissing comment?

 I mean come on, they were doing the typical “kiss the guests ass” that interviewers always do. We all damn well know Cam wasn’t top 10 or even top 20 last year and I just thought it was refreshing he said “I don’t deserve that” when other players would sit there and let people keep ass kissing.

 

What part of Cam's game do you say no to? Injury history? He had a "bad" year according to many. I admit, I did not watch one Patriots game so I don't know if he was inaccurate or show a 'weak" arm etc. I only heard from the media pundits that Cam wasn't playing up to his MVP level. Was he inaccurate or was he having difficulty with the offensive scheme? It is absolute horror when you're not able to see the field which happens when you're trying to learn the offense. I personally don't think he's washed up. I think its more about who he is and a particular narrative than his ability. I'm going to watch a few Patriot games to see specifically what the deal is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Rapoport on NFL Network just now thinks there is a decent chance Mariota gets released as opposed to traded. 

 

My gut could be worthless, but if you put any stock into any buzz out there, my guess is Cam to DC has some traction. Maybe the FO pursues him to compete with TH and hopes we can land someone in the draft. Again, having Cam and Taylor competing for QB1 isn't the end of the world. And, again, it preserves our draft capital AND FA capital, since Cam will probably be fairly cheap.

 

Not sure what's up with Mariota at this point. I know we were apparently interested, but I would guess one of those two ends up in DC. Maybe Mariota goes to NE and Cam comes back south.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

 

 

WFT gets their QB in Lance and parts with a 19, a 3rd and a 2022 1st.

I would puke all over myself if this happened. Giving up 3 picks for a guy who is a complete project? No thanks. 

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

I would puke all over myself if this happened. Giving up 3 picks for a guy who is a complete project? No thanks. 

If they're moving up and Pitts is there, I'd rather they do that if they absolutely feel compelled to move up.

 

Also, I think Newton is a decent emergency plan if it comes to that. Not ideal, but if we're in May or June, all the big names have found new homes and we didn't draft a QB, bringing in Cam last minute on a vet deal isn't terrible.

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

Mariota signed a two year contract for 2020/2021 with a $10,625,000 base salary for 2021 plus a workout bonus of $100,000.

They get a workout bonus? Did not know that you have to pay them to stay in shape? Interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2021 at 6:05 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Even though if we really go through it, I'd have no problem putting up my position on that thread versus yours.  My points on that thread centered on I'd have given Kirk the 24 million a year when they could. And i said that in real time.  I also said once they blew that, I would not have given the 27 million plus.  I also said that in real time.  


My main point of contention was not wanting to pay an above average QB (top12-15) elite money. This has proven to be correct from my point of view. 
 

This is where a great deal of nuance comes in, I don’t believe 24 million was on the table at the end of the 2016 season. It’s been reported that after the 2015 season (I’m like 80% sure Kirk said after this on a radio show, but it could’ve been after the 2016 season) Kirk and reps wanted a guaranteed deal. Your points above about money would put you on the side of Bruce/Scott from standpoint of not believing he was worth the deal he knew he could command in the open market. 
 

I will concede that after the 2016 season maybe there could’ve been some compensation and who knows, a first possibly from the Niners, though, I’ve heard nothing to definitively support this. I look forward to a potential Bruce interview someday about it all as well lol. He’s probably muffled somehow contractually or playing nice in hopes a former friend gives a FO job of some sort. Hopefully that fades away he’ll be willing to share his side.
 

After the 2017 season there was no way any compensation was available for the team as Kirk and reps were in no way going to allow Washington to dictate where he was going to go. Personally, I feel this is true for 2016 as well due to being hyper-focused on securing a deal never before done (all guaranteed). 


It comes down to the 2016 off-season and that’s it, in my opinion. I don’t think it was years of opportunity. They chose a year of above average QB and a 3rd round comp pick, which should’ve resulted in a playoff game. I’m on side he was never going to sign, even if he won the Giant game. 

 

On 2/22/2021 at 6:05 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I said Kirk wasn't elite but good to very good.  I criticized the games where he didn't play well.  I think I was pretty balanced on the topic. I thought Bruce blew the contract negotiation and Kirk's agent played him like a fiddle.   I think Bruce's press release and reading of it was embarassing.  My main push on the subject was about being very critical of Bruce. 

 

I can’t quite remember the nuance of your argument with Kirk and may have wrongly lumped you in with the crowd that said Kirk was worth whatever he wanted and was borderline elite (some argued elite) or had the chance to become elite. Most have walked back on this and say a top half of the league starter, which is what I was pounding home since day 1. 
 

This is what I was more passionate about in the debate, due to actually being able to watch and assess his play. It’s difficult to navigate through the nuances of stuff behind the scenes with all the competing agendas, especially at Washington park. 

 

On 2/22/2021 at 6:05 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I don't recall you having any issues with Bruce as to how he handled things which made you very unusual among the Kirk critics because the others at least to a certain extent thought Bruce mishandled something whether it was the contract or not trading him or both.  I recall even one of Kirk's bigger critics on that thread said the Bruce press release was embarassing.

 

Admittedly, my emotions were a bit involved from a philosophical standpoint and didn’t like the idea of Kirk demanding a guaranteed deal that would make him the highest paid QB in the league when a top half of the league starter.    
Unlike you and many others, I feel Kirk shares culpability in the situation and that Washington was put in precarious position that no other franchise has faced. 

 

On 2/22/2021 at 6:05 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 It was hard for me to forget your take on defending Bruce's handling of the compensation for Kirk since that was if anything was the most unique position on that thread.  And you directly (hard for me to forget because you were the only one who did) challenged me and others every time we criticized that they could have gotten more than they did for Kirk.  You did at times said not a first but you also went beyond that and directly challenged the idea that they could have gotten more.  And you defended Bruce hard on the compensation drill.

 

If the Niners #2 overall pick was made available, then it’s a travesty he was not traded, especially since they must’ve known Kirk was not coming back. I don’t believe at all this pick was on the table. To give up a #2 pick and pay a QB $30mil per season was a lot to ask, but if there’s a guy to go all in like that, Kyle would be it— he doesn’t give a damn about what others think.

 

 

On 2/22/2021 at 6:05 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 And I'll end with who gives a rats behind who is right or wrong about whatever, including Kirk, we will all nail stuff right and get things wrong.  It's all about discussing football -- the tit for tat stuff on who got what right or wrong to me seems petty and boring.   But you come off like you are gloating at times on the Kirk subject and it comes off odd to me considering my point above.

 

I will say the same in reverse when posting a graphic of Washington being number 6 in payment to QBs over a 3 year period. When obviously Smith situation was a one of a kind situation that requires additional resources to be dedicated to the position.  I was okay with the Alex deal from a year to year cap standpoint (hovering at 9-11% per season). I’ll admit to being triggered when seeing that graphic with Kirk just above it lol

 

On 2/22/2021 at 6:05 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

If you buy into what Jay and others have said it was a mix of things.  If he would have won that infamous Giants game by Kirk's admission and a beat reporter or two, they might have worked it out.  But that game caused tension in the negotiating and then McVay left soon after that.  McVay was Kirk's guy.  The combination of the two seemed to finish it off for good.

 

I thought I remembered Jay saying he wasn’t sure if it would’ve mattered about the Giant game. No? More like he wasn’t sure. 
 

Ya, I’m on side Kirk was at times disingenuous at times. I think his chest was fully out after that 2016 season knowing he secured himself generational wealth and had zero plans to resign with the team. 

 

On 2/22/2021 at 6:05 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

But you aren't on the side of anyone you mention there aside from Bruce.   Scot wanted to trade Kirk so did Jay.  Jay liked Kirk and he explained why.  But as Jay said if you can't retain him then get a haul.   You defending the haul they got puts your squarely at odds with Jay.  Heck even his brother made fun of the haul they got for Kirk in his own press conference.  The compensation for Kirk, isn't a minor point in the plot.  It's a major point.  If we would have gotten the 2nd pick in the first round of the draft it could have changed the fortune of this team.  Jay labeled it as the biggest regret of his tenure.  It was a big deal.  And you were the one dude who defended how they handled it.

 

Did you few Jay liked Kirk previous to that interview? I don’t think the conversation with Sheehan got nuanced enough to allow Jay to appropriately share some of the qualms he had  with Kirk. Of course overall Jay is going to say he liked Kirk as a QB, Kirk performed well and has continued to do so with the Vikings, but let’s just say he didn’t like Kirk as much Colt lol. 
 

I think Jay was sharing the overall situation with Kirk was his biggest regret. A top half of the league starter was unable to be retained during his tenure. That’s disappointing for a coach and I’m sure he was humbled a bit after going through all he did with the QB position post Kirk. Jay struck me as a guy who believed his system was gold and he could make it work with a Colt type QB, once again, he was humbled. 

 

 

On 2/22/2021 at 6:05 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

And look like I said so what?  I thought Paul Richardson was a good FA signing for example.  And I got other things wrong, too.  We all get some right and wrong.   But if you are going to throw Kirk in my face every now and then where you come off pedantic -- tough for me not to feel a bit put off considering I know your take on the whole thing doesn't put you in an I told you so mode.


I was also defending Alex Smith signing, wasn’t  just about Kirk.
 

What were you doing with posting the graphic about teams paying QBs? 

 

On 2/22/2021 at 6:05 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

But anyway, if that's not what you are doing and just having fun, cool.  But I've held my fire on this topic for a long time eventually it would hit my breaking point where I'd give you my take so that's what this is. :ols:

 

 

Ya man, I’m always wanting to engage and will poke and prod at times. I own that. Will manage that better in the future. Good times! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is a given that Smith will not be back, and we will absolutely need another QB on the roster. If the Raiders release Mariota it is because they are not getting any offers. In that case, get him on the cheap and let him compete. Worst case, we have an experienced backup along with Allen. 

But another thought -- if we cannot get the right deal, maybe just roll the dice with TH and Allen and keep Montez on the practice squad. If we get into a game where TH and Allen both go down, just give the reins to Logan Thomas to finish the game and scramble like hell. Or maybe not.

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...