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

6 minutes ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

Where is the elite competition Zach Wilson faced? 

Obviously you haven't seen the footage from the Susans School of Cosmetology game film .

Edited by bowhunter
  • Haha 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Guard Bum said:

I’ve been watching a few film reviews and QB evaluations and am getting more interested in Kellen Mond from A&M.  Looks like he has a very large upside and a skill set that matches Turner’s scheme.  Looks like we could pick him up at our pick in the second or possibly the third.  Mond, along with the beer man and Allen, could carry us into the season.  If he realizes his “potential” we have our next guy, if not, we haven’t invested a huge  amount of capital in him.  Thoughts?
 

Pick up a true #2 WR in free agency (i.e.  Curtis Samuel), maybe a LT in the first round, a CB and another WR or S in the third and I think we are in business.

 

 

By definition I have to like Kellen Mond. It will be interesting to see where he goes. I don't think he will go in the second round, and I would not take him there. Maybe take him if he is still available in the third round, but, personally, I would not spend a third round pick on a developmental QB when we could fill another need -- like slot receiver Dwayne Eskridge, and he is very likely to still be available.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

What you're stating isn't even logically possible. He would have 100+ TDs, that just isn't the case. I've seen quite a few NFL throws into tight coverage where he places the ball beautifully in stride to his WRs. If they're open by 10+ yards, are they breaking stride to get the balls? This is what I saw with Haskins, he couldn't accurately put the ball in the basket even if they were wide open. 

 

That's a price worth paying IMO. If we're talking about highlights I can show you multiple throws where he beautifully places the ball over what I would consider good coverage. The guy has traits that can be molded into a legit NFL QB, an elite one maybe. He has great size, a rocket arm, a ball that comes out with plenty of velocity, I don't see any issues with his release, he can run a 4.5-4.6 40. 

 

Not to mention his production. 40 TDs and 0 Ints. People want to knock on who he played, yet Zach Wilson played scrub teams all year as well at BYU. Now if he struggled against that competition, okay then, that's obviously a huge red flag. 

Where is the elite competition Zach Wilson faced? 

 

Wilson is not a one year player. He's been starting since he was a freshman. He has played elite competition outside of this year

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

 

Wilson is not a one year player. He's been starting since he was a freshman. He has played elite competition outside of this year

Zach Wilson's previous seasons should not inspire any confidence in ANY team. He blew up this year, had some traits of good play the previous seasons but never put it all together. If anything, looking at Zach Wilson's previous seasons would hurt his stock in comparison. Teams are deservedly going to wipe the slate clean with him because of his increase in production and he found a way to put it all together. 

 

Lance and Wilson both play bad teams. That is my point. 

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

Zach Wilson's previous seasons should not inspire any confidence in ANY team. He blew up this year, had some traits of good play the previous seasons but never put it all together. If anything, looking at Zach Wilson's previous seasons would hurt his stock in comparison. Teams are deservedly going to wipe the slate clean with him because of his increase in production and he found a way to put it all together. 

 

Lance and Wilson both play bad teams. That is my point. 

That is all well and good. But you still have a ton more film to review for Wilson. And yes his 2019 was pretty subpar. But he played well in 2018.

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

 

That's true about Mond's completion percentage, however the thing I liked about it is that he steadily improved in that area over 4 seasons. 

 

FR: 51.5%

SO: 57.3%

JR: 61.6%

SR: 63.3%

 

 

I've been watching more of Mond recently too. I actually like him a lot. Size is ok but not prototypical (6'2 217), big arm, super fast release, footwork is not bad but could use some refinement, good ability to extend and make off-schedule plays, isn't a "running QB" but is very quick and has nice juke ability when he does, seems to go through multiple reads pretty well at times but isn't asked to do so all that often from what I could tell.

 

I think he'll need a little time to develop in the NFL but with his traits he could be a really nice pick up in round 3 or so. 

That's a good pull. I should be looking more in detail at things like this. Its different because some QBs played 4 years vs others who just played 1. In my initial round I just said I'd look at their 4 year sum stats but that doesn't show things like improvements throughout the years. This makes Mond better in my mind and he's separating himself from the pack as my favorite QB of the guys who could be available for us. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

That is all well and good. But you still have a ton more film to review for Wilson. And yes his 2019 was pretty subpar. But he played well in 2018.

I don't need to look at Wilson film to know he plays subpar competition though, which was my original point. It doesn't make sense to knock on Trey Lance for the competition he played, if Wilson also played a lot of bad teams. I think Wilson is a great prospect and was sold on him very early into the college season. 

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

I don't need to look at Wilson film to know he plays subpar competition though, which was my original point. It doesn't make sense to knock on Trey Lance for the competition he played, if Wilson also played a lot of bad teams. I think Wilson is a great prospect and was sold on him very early into the college season. 

 

One guy played D1 teams and the other guy played D3 teams while being surrounded by other NFL players (Radunsz being a great example)

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, method man said:

 

One guy played D1 teams and the other guy played D3 teams while being surrounded by other NFL players (Radunsz being a great example)

Citing one offensive lineman really isn't helping your case IMO. An argument can be made that both were on talented teams for the division/conference they played in. Fact of the matter is good QBs perform well against any talent level and are consistent, which both showed. Trey Lance shouldn't receive any negative marks for playing great against inferior competition, just like Wilson shouldn't for performing. It shouldn't be a major knock against either. 

Edited by Burgundy Yoda
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stefanskins said:

Chanticleers!!!

Not very inspiring for zach wilson's resume to show that as far as his toughest competition in college, he almost beat coastal carolina.   Even hung 17 on em!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

How many of these ten college quarterbacks threw for 14,959 yards -- and 750 yards in one game -- and averaged 67.7% completions over four years -- and threw for 132 TDs -- and ran for another 22 TDs -- and had a year with only one interception -- oh, and averaged 47.2 yards per punt his senior year. And while Taylor Heinicke was not a Heisman winner like eight of these ten, he did win the Walter Payton award as the best player in FCS. Maybe he should replace one of those two who were lacking on this list?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DWinzit said:

Sure looks funny seeing Kirk at the top ahead of Mahomes and Rodgers.

 

And then there's Sam holding everyone's jocks

Only QB in the nfl that’s as bad as Haskins. At least haskins had the “immature” excuse. Darnold is just awful. 

8 hours ago, Guard Bum said:

I’ve been watching a few film reviews and QB evaluations and am getting more interested in Kellen Mond from A&M.  Looks like he has a very large upside and a skill set that matches Turner’s scheme.  Looks like we could pick him up at our pick in the second or possibly the third.  Mond, along with the beer man and Allen, could carry us into the season.  If he realizes his “potential” we have our next guy, if not, we haven’t invested a huge  amount of capital in him.  Thoughts?
 

Pick up a true #2 WR in free agency (i.e.  Curtis Samuel), maybe a LT in the first round, a CB and another WR or S in the third and I think we are in business.

 

 

What I am about to say has nothing to do with Mond as a qb. Just what I can’t stop thinking about when I first saw his picture. Does he look like a much much older man then normal? I thought he looked 45 when I saw his pic

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, method man said:

 

One guy played D1 teams and the other guy played D3 teams while being surrounded by other NFL players (Radunsz being a great example)


FCS is Division 1. Plenty of talent to come out of FCS. Ask Jimmy Moreland. Or Darius Leonard. And NDSU plays in one of the 2 best divisions at that level. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:


FCS is Division 1. Plenty of talent to come out of FCS. Ask Jimmy Moreland. Or Darius Leonard. And NDSU plays in one of the 2 best divisions at that level. 

Yeah, and as I recall, TH played in that other conference, rather successfully, too. :cheers:

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

Watching Trey Lance now a little more in depth. We would be fools not to trade up for him, that's just my honest opinion. I'll just go ahead and say it and take the flak now, I like him more than Fields. 

 

His upside is spectacular.  Like a faster version of Allen or Luck.  But I'm not trading up for him with this staff.  I don't trust them with him.  Fields would be a safer bet to trade up for.  His pocket footwork and touch is already NFL quality and he's still got big time speed and agility like Lance.  The field vision and reading ability can come with time and you can keep things simple with him early if you give him a short passing game outside the numbers and load up the running game around him.

 

The way this staff and organization as a whole handles their QBs, and not just Haskins either... Do you really think it's a good idea to deal a bunch of picks to bring in a completely raw QB with Taylor Heinecke and ****ing Kyle Allen--who apparently is viewed by them as the second coming of Steve Young--breathing down his neck?  I think we'd set Lance up for failure.  At the very least, I would want Kyle Allen gone before we try anything with another raw QB prospect because thus staff can not be objective about Allen and his mere presence undermines the commitment it takes to develop a QB prospect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

His upside is spectacular.  Like a faster version of Allen or Luck.  But I'm not trading up for him with this staff.  I don't trust them with him.  Fields would be a safer bet to trade up for.  His pocket footwork and touch is already NFL quality and he's still got big time speed and agility like Lance.  The field vision and reading ability can come with time and you can keep things simple with him early if you give him a short passing game outside the numbers and load up the running game around him.

 

The way this staff and organization as a whole handles their QBs, and not just Haskins either... Do you really think it's a good idea to deal a bunch of picks to bring in a completely raw QB with Taylor Heinecke and ****ing Kyle Allen--who apparently is viewed by them as the second coming of Steve Young--breathing down his neck?  I think we'd set Lance up for failure.  At the very least, I would want Kyle Allen gone before we try anything with another raw QB prospect because thus staff can not be objective about Allen and his mere presence undermines the commitment it takes to develop a QB prospect.

 

Come on man, if this staff decides to deal a bunch of picks to trade up for a QB, they just stuck their neck out and will have every reason to give whoever that is ever chance to succeed.  Their jobs will be on the line..

 

This feels more like residual take lock from your Haskins evaluation.  This staff didn't pick him, he was foisted on them.  They correctly evaluated him as not competent to be QB1 and cut ties quickly when he started acting out.  Using that outcome as the basis for future decisions they actually have control of makes no sense.

 

ETA- I agree with you about Lance btw.  His upside is through the roof.  I'd be fine dealing up for him, Fields, or Wilson.  But Lance has the highest ceiling IMO.

Edited by 86 Snyder
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

 

Come on man, if this staff decides to deal a bunch of picks to trade up for a QB, they just stuck their neck out and will have every reason to give whoever that is ever chance to succeed.  Their jobs will be on the line..

 

This feels more like residual take lock from your Haskins evaluation.  This staff didn't pick him, he was foisted on them.  They correctly evaluated him as not competent to be QB1 and cut ties quickly when he started acting out.  Using that outcome as the basis for future decisions they actually have control of makes no sense.

 

Haskins wasn't the only QB they bailed on for Allen.  They did it with Cam Newton and would have done it last year with Smith if Allen hadn't gotten hurt and ended up on IR.  Rivera's comment about how Kyle Allen could have dug us out and led this team to the playoffs too alienated Smith and demonstrates the lack of objectivity they have regarding Allen.  It's not just with Haskins, this staff handles their QBs in a way that alienates them and undermines their confidence and I think I'm one of the only posters here who recognizes and acknowledges this because I was one of the only posters who actually saw value in Haskins.

 

I am not at all sure that Rivera's job would be on the line if he absolutely blew it with a prospect like Lance.  It should be.  But the organization is going through such a dramatic and unconventional restructuring and Bruce Allen got five separate tries to **** up quarterback because there was always a specific scapegoat to fire or blame.  I could see Scott Turner and Trey Lance catching all of the blame and getting fired/cut, but the rest of the structure left in place.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Haskins wasn't the only QB they bailed on for Allen.  They did it with Cam Newton and would have done it last year with Smith if Allen hadn't gotten hurt and ended up on IR.  Rivera's comment about how Kyle Allen could have dug us out and led this team to the playoffs too alienated Smith and demonstrates the lack of objectivity they have regarding Allen.  It's not just with Haskins, this staff handles their QBs in a way that alienates them and undermines their confidence and I think I'm one of the only posters here who recognizes and acknowledges this because I was one of the only posters who actually saw value in Haskins.

 

 

I'm not saying that we develop quarterbacks well. But I would say that Rivera probably bailed on Cam Newton because he was washed. Look at him now. And, he didn't bail on Haskins soon enough. He should never have been installed as the de facto starter. He just doesn't have it. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

His upside is spectacular.  Like a faster version of Allen or Luck.  But I'm not trading up for him with this staff.  I don't trust them with him.  Fields would be a safer bet to trade up for.  His pocket footwork and touch is already NFL quality and he's still got big time speed and agility like Lance.  The field vision and reading ability can come with time and you can keep things simple with him early if you give him a short passing game outside the numbers and load up the running game around him.

 

The way this staff and organization as a whole handles their QBs, and not just Haskins either... Do you really think it's a good idea to deal a bunch of picks to bring in a completely raw QB with Taylor Heinecke and ****ing Kyle Allen--who apparently is viewed by them as the second coming of Steve Young--breathing down his neck?  I think we'd set Lance up for failure.  At the very least, I would want Kyle Allen gone before we try anything with another raw QB prospect because thus staff can not be objective about Allen and his mere presence undermines the commitment it takes to develop a QB prospect.

From what I've read Lance is a true student of the game, he wants to be great. I think when it comes to QB development the QB has got to want to be great, but the staff also has to build a playbook around them, not sure if Turner is that guy or not. I don't think this is the best staff for Lance but if they truly love him as a prospect and trade up for him in the 1st round, I don't think he has anything to worry about with Kyle Allen and Taylor Heinicke. 

 

It's really hard to tell how raw Lance actually is because the game seems to come so naturally for him so a lot of his play is unconventional. If I were to guess though, I would say he needs a year to learn the NFL game. I wouldn't mind going into next season with Kyle Allen or Taylor Heinicke as the starter as long as we had a rookie back-up learning from them in the wings. If they're the plan and the only thing we have at the position, I'll be irritated with the staff. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, redskins4ever28 said:

What I am about to say has nothing to do with Mond as a qb.

meh...I wasn't impressed with him when he played my Heels last month...and my Heels didn't have a good defense...he definitely shouldn't be picked before the 3rd...

  • Like 1
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...