Rookie QB or Veteran QB for "Next Season"??? (I didn't bump this, but I ended up being wrong anyway....)

[Skinsinparadise]

11 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

Michael Phillips from the RIchmond Times Dispatch was just on Finlay and BMitch and he said he thinks the team will try to find a QB to grow with this team and defense. He threw out Darnold as a non-draft option but insinuated the draft. AND he said it would make sense to target a non-1st round QB so it takes some of the pressure off to deliver immediately. Threw out Kyle Trask. But he also aluded to finding your Wilson/Dak in the mid rounds and that it might not be this year. Keep trying until you nail the pick/position, because getting a good QB on a rookie contract is key to winning a Super Bowl, and this team isn't competing for one this year, though he thinks they could in the next 3-5 years with the right rookie QB.

 

A lot of paraphrasing there on my part, but that was the gist of their conversation.

 

I listened to it, but that was Philiips giving his opinion.  I know from other segments, Phillips isn't a dude who is plugged in or pretends to be with the FO with the exception of he knows the Richmond political scene well so he's good with the training camp info. 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Thinking Skins]

6 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

Michael Phillips from the RIchmond Times Dispatch was just on Finlay and BMitch and he said he thinks the team will try to find a QB to grow with this team and defense. He threw out Darnold as a non-draft option but insinuated the draft. AND he said it would make sense to target a non-1st round QB so it takes some of the pressure off to deliver immediately. Threw out Kyle Trask. But he also aluded to finding your Wilson/Dak in the mid rounds and that it might not be this year. Keep trying until you nail the pick/position, because getting a good QB on a rookie contract is key to winning a Super Bowl, and this team isn't competing for one this year, though he thinks they could in the next 3-5 years with the right rookie QB.

 

A lot of paraphrasing there on my part, but that was the gist of their conversation.

He also stressed the lack of pressure on a non-first round QB and they generally don't have to start as rookies unless they're really good. 

[Koolblue13]

13 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

He also stressed the lack of pressure on a non-first round QB and they generally don't have to start as rookies unless they're really good. 

I'd guess non first round QBs are going to teams that have a QB and are established good teams already.

[Thinking Skins]

27 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

With your criteria though (at least based on some of your previous points), I can't really debate you because we seem to be looking for two different things.  I am looking for the steak and you seem pleased with a roast beef sandwich.  If I am looking for roast beef too, you'd be right on IMO.  

 

You don't seem that hung up on quality at that spot, you seem into guys that others (like me) deem to be just guys, I gather because you think one day they can go beyond or you are satisfied with a 9-7 run, here and there?  So if my bar is some of the QBs you've touted like Nick Mullens or when you tout the Case Keenum deal or you still aren't convinced that Jason Campbell wasn't the right QB for this team -- I am with you on that front if that's the bar.  If I am looking for next Jason Campbell or Keenum, what the heck don't waste a first rounder on finding that dude, you can find the next Keenum in the 6th round, I agree. 

Yeah, but part of it is just the fact that there isn't that much steak in existence. Think of it this way. Assume Platinum is the most valuable metal, but there's not much platinum in the world. So say one guy in the world gets to get some platinum jewelry. Then there's gold. Not as precious as platinum, but more of it. So say 5 guys can have gold jewelry and some guys can have more of it. Then there's silver. Silver is there in almost oversupply. There are silver depots saying "here, buy some silver jewelry". Question becomes can you build a nice enough wardrobe that gets you in the best dressed category with the silver jewelry? with the gold? Or do you have to be the lucky guy to get the platinum? 

 

I'd love to have an Aaron Rodgers QB - the platinum. But he's the exception, they don't grow Aaron Rodgers on trees. So I don't want to be a Cleveland trying every year thinking that this stone is platinum and ignoring other needs. I mean look at who they've drafted - Couch (1, 1), Quinn (1, 22), Weeden (1, 22), Manziel (1, 22), and Baker (1, 1). You can argue that 3 of those guys were known to not be the platinum of the draft (Quinn, Weeden and Manziel) and didn't even deserve to be first rounders. And Baker may be solid gold but he's not a platinum prospect. So they've been trying for 20+ years and drafted 5 guys and still have a guy whose career may still level out to something like Jason Campbell.

 

So my thing is that (and I'm going to steal this from Michael Phillips) drafting a QB is like playing the lottery. Look at the 2011 year when we knew it was a bad draft class. Cam was going 1 overall and everybody knew it but even he was a suspicious pick because of the 1 year. But after that there was nothing. So I would not have drafted a first round QB. But I would have taken a chance on Locker, Gabbert, Ponder, Dalton or Kaepernick in the second. None of these guys were thought to be platinum and Shanny decided as much when he drafted Kerrigan. That's my philosophy because what's the point of drafting a guy just to say we addressed the position? I know you want the elite guys but they're not there. Kaep had the best chance after Newton of being that cream of the crop but his style was so different from what we had seen before but I would have taken the chance on him in the second if we got a chance to because its low risk high reward and no pressure on him. 

 

And if he doesn't become the superstar you want, then we get to my other point which is that you don't need a superstar QB to win it all. for years the football community debated this because we didn't see Tom Brady as elite and so it was a Brady vs Manning thing where Manning had all the skills but Brady had the perfect team built around him and the perfect coach. Now suddenly Brady is the other side of the coin and has become the franchise guy with all the skills but I still hold that if we can take the pressure off a QB and have a solid TE, solid running game and solid defense then we don't need a Mahomes, we just need a Tannehill. 

[Jericho]

29 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

Michael Phillips from the RIchmond Times Dispatch was just on Finlay and BMitch and he said he thinks the team will try to find a QB to grow with this team and defense. He threw out Darnold as a non-draft option but insinuated the draft. AND he said it would make sense to target a non-1st round QB so it takes some of the pressure off to deliver immediately. Threw out Kyle Trask. But he also aluded to finding your Wilson/Dak in the mid rounds and that it might not be this year. Keep trying until you nail the pick/position, because getting a good QB on a rookie contract is key to winning a Super Bowl, and this team isn't competing for one this year, though he thinks they could in the next 3-5 years with the right rookie QB.

 

A lot of paraphrasing there on my part, but that was the gist of their conversation.

 

I still think the problem with this possible strategy is that any non first round QB you draft, you do so with the expectation they're just a back-up. You can hope they develop into more. And it is possible they do, just very unlikely. I really hope the scouts really love some guy, cause otherwise, you're just cycling through warm bodies every few years. We'll see...

[Thinking Skins]

8 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

I'd guess non first round QBs are going to teams that have a QB and are established good teams already.

The thing with Seattle was that they had just given that other dude the big contract off 1 game and drafted Wilson in the third with no pressure. Then Wilson outperformed him in training camp and so they started Wilson. Wilson had no pressure because he was playing with house money. That's why I'm so much in favor of a Mond/Trask/Newman - because if they can come in here and beat out Heinicke and Allen then all of a sudden its a rookie QB on a rookie deal that can set us up for a nice future.

[Koolblue13]

1 minute ago, Thinking Skins said:

The thing with Seattle was that they had just given that other dude the big contract off 1 game and drafted Wilson in the third with no pressure. Then Wilson outperformed him in training camp and so they started Wilson. Wilson had no pressure because he was playing with house money. That's why I'm so much in favor of a Mond/Trask/Newman - because if they can come in here and beat out Heinicke and Allen then all of a sudden its a rookie QB on a rookie deal that can set us up for a nice future.

That's exactly how I feel. Allen and Heinicke won't stay on the field and a rookie is going to play, but if the team is established and the offense is playing consistent, it makes it much easier for a rookie to step in gain experience while being legit.

 

If you build a great car and ask a kid to go race it, he'll probably do a lot better than dropping him at the junkyard and telling him to drive home.

[Thinking Skins]

Just now, Koolblue13 said:

If you build a great car and ask a kid to go race it, he'll probably do a lot better than dropping him at the junkyard and telling him to drive home.

I love that analogy. 

[Koolblue13]

1 minute ago, Thinking Skins said:

I love that analogy. 

Thanks, I used it a while ago and it's stuck with me. I usually compare it to Dak. I remember thinking the Patriots were idiots for benching a healthy Bloodsoe too though.

[mistertim]

I can certainly get the sentiment of wanting to find a non 1st round gem. And I understand that 1st round QBs are "hit or miss" when it comes to being really good NFL QBs and it's true. But that's leaving out the fact that non 1st round QBs are pretty much 95% miss for the same thing.

 

I don't mind taking flyers on QBs in later rounds...it's a good idea IMO because even in the likely scenario where they don't end up as top notch starters, there's also the possibility that you end up with a quality young backup caliber guy, which is also important. But I don't want the fact that the 1st round QBs are hit or miss (or the fact that we've not had any luck there historically) stop us from still taking our swings on them.

[Est.1974]

Hopefully the Smith release is the trigger for another move. I’d take a chance on Mariota at this stage. 

[Chris 44]

Interesting to think about. I wonder how many 1st round "busts" would have been able to have a great career if allowed to sit for 3 years? Understanding 1st rounders are drafted because the team needs a QB right away and they don't have that luxury, where 3rd and 4th rounders normally can sit because there is normally an established QB in front of them. But those élite 1st rounders may have just needed a year or two to sit before starting before getting thrown tot he wolves on a bad team, which is usually the case for teams drafting top 3 or 4.

[skinny21]

I know this probably goes against the consensus, but I’m intrigued by Trask.  Don’t see WFT drafting him because of his lack of mobility, but he checks a lot of boxes - the excellent size, good arm, good touch, ability can make all the throws, seems like he has the intangibles (work ethic, primarily, but I could be way wrong here).  Also put up good production pretty consistently, has experience, etc.  Don’t love the drop against tougher Ds, but as far as I can tell, he wasn’t bad in those games.  My big questions, as I haven’t watched much (and zero all-22), is how well does he go through reads, does he manipulate defenders with his eyes, throw with anticipation, etc.

Of course, I’m also not convinced he is quite the ‘statue’ PFF calls him - I don’t really see him all that differently (mobility-wise) as guys like Haskins or Peyton Manning.

I could see him maybe fitting with teams like the Steelers or Falcons.

 

 

On further consideration, probably should have put this in the draft thread...

Edited March 5, 2021 by skinny21

[skinny21]

28 minutes ago, mistertim said:

I can certainly get the sentiment of wanting to find a non 1st round gem. And I understand that 1st round QBs are "hit or miss" when it comes to being really good NFL QBs and it's true. But that's leaving out the fact that non 1st round QBs are pretty much 95% miss for the same thing.

 

I don't mind taking flyers on QBs in later rounds...it's a good idea IMO because even in the likely scenario where they don't end up as top notch starters, there's also the possibility that you end up with a quality young backup caliber guy, which is also important. But I don't want the fact that the 1st round QBs are hit or miss (or the fact that we've not had any luck there historically) stop us from still taking our swings on them.

For me personally, I’d distinguish ‘later round qbs’ by those in the 5th-7th that you’re hoping can someday be a competent (and cheap) backup, and those in rds 2-4 that have a (however small) chance at developing behind a vet and becoming a starter.  Depending on situation, I could see drafting a qb in the earlier rounds every few years or so.  I’d probably look to trade back to add picks so that the occasional skipping of BPA is alleviated.

 

As for us, I think the above makes some sense - use FA smartly, trade back in the 1st (if we can), and grab a qb we like in the early rounds (if there is one).  Takes the pressure off the rookie since we have Heinicke/Allen (I’m assuming we sign him), and we’ll hopefully take a step forward on the team build.  The rook might have to play given the others’ injury history, but the season is probably a lost cause anyway if we’re on our 3rd qb.  

 

If we can land a future pick, we have more ammo to trade up in the future (generally good policy, IMO, depending on BPA tiering).  With a lot of luck, the rook becomes a starter.  With a little luck, they are an eventual backup and we mitigated the loss of whatever pick we used on them via the trade back.  Not saying this is THE way to go, but without a lot of good options, it’s a fairly sensible one, IMO.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[clskinsfan]

I actually wouldnt be disgusted with Trubisky. He will be affordable. And has shown flashes of being very good. No to Darnold. He has shown no flashes at all. Trubisky at least led a team with a good defense to an 11-3 record. And played pretty damn well in that 2018 season. 

[RWJ]

27 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

Mariota is fine but I still would like Carr.  Maybe, just maybe the Raider will reconsider trading however I am not looking for it to happen.

[VaK9Trainer]

9 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

I actually wouldnt be disgusted with Trubisky. He will be affordable. And has shown flashes of being very good. No to Darnold. He has shown no flashes at all. Trubisky at least led a team with a good defense to an 11-3 record. And played pretty damn well in that 2018 season. 

I think you're spot on. I have been advocating for Trubisky for weeks and honestly believe that he is going to be the choice of the WFT if they can come to terms on a Free Agency deal. Lots of people call him trash but forget that he has made a Pro Bowl in his career and has led the Bears to playoffs twice. He's young, has a great arm and is very mobile. With some coaching from Zampese, I think he can be a solid QB for us. 

[mistertim]

12 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

I actually wouldnt be disgusted with Trubisky. He will be affordable. And has shown flashes of being very good. No to Darnold. He has shown no flashes at all. Trubisky at least led a team with a good defense to an 11-3 record. And played pretty damn well in that 2018 season. 

 

I dunno. To me Trubisky isn't really much of an upgrade over what we have already. Or if he is, it's a very small one. I'd see him more as a camp body who might be able to win the starting job depending on the health and play of Allen and Heinicke. But that's about it.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

 

So my thing is that (and I'm going to steal this from Michael Phillips) drafting a QB is like playing the lottery. Look at the 2011 year when we knew it was a bad draft class. Cam was going 1 overall and everybody knew it but even he was a suspicious pick because of the 1 year. But after that there was nothing. So I would not have drafted a first round QB. But I would have taken a chance on Locker, Gabbert, Ponder, Dalton or Kaepernick in the second. None of these guys were thought to be platinum and Shanny decided as much when he drafted Kerrigan. That's my philosophy because what's the point of drafting a guy just to say we addressed the position? I know you want the elite guys but they're not there. Kaep had the best chance after Newton of being that cream of the crop but his style was so different from what we had seen before but I would have taken the chance on him in the second if we got a chance to because its low risk high reward and no pressure on him. 

 

 

I understand the thinking but my issue with it is there is a big time relevant middle ground.  It's not Aaron Rodgers versus Case Keenum per se.  It could be Baker Mayfield or Matt Stafford versus Case Keenum.  And that's a big difference.   You IMO have a shot at the SB with Matt Stafford but small shot at best with Jason Campbell. 

 

Also its tough to really zone in on a macro theory about anything because it really depends on the specific draft.  As I've said and you have, some drafts really have little excitement at QB, yet teams will take one high anyway.  For example, its not really a shocker that outside of Kyler Murray that the other QBs from 2019 have been meh. Plenty talked about it being a meh QB draft.   Kyler was the one can't miss talent wise.  The others had serious question marks.  And I am discounting the mock drafters as part of this point -- those guys seem to fall for a lot of QBs. 

 

Locker as a top 10 pick?  He wasn't even that good his senior year.  Ponder seemed like a reach in real time, etc.    Next year right now is shaping up to be potentially a 2019 yawn type of QB draft where I'd guess one emerges out of nowhere but the others end up being stretches yet some team will take these guys earlish anyway. 

 

So for example lets take Dwayne Haskins.  He had talent but there were plenty of question marks about him.  If you told me before the draft put money on Haskins or name that random QB lower in the draft being successful, I'd take Haskins (with the exception of Lock who I didn't love either but liked better than Haskins).  Even though I wasn't a Haskins guy to say the least 

 

But if you told me I'd have a choice of ALL the QBs after Haskins from the 2nd through 5th round where I can draft all of these guys: Drew Lock, Stidham and Finlay and Minshew and Will Grier and Easton Stick, Clayton Thorson.  I'd take those 7 QBs.  Some like to make the argument that since among the 7 QBs you beat the 1 QB in the first round then it means that later rounds are equal or close enough to the first round at QB -- but that's silly.  All it means is the odds that you get a hit with seven players are better or equal or close enough to one player.   That same point would be true of all positions not just QB but its a meaningless point because reality doesn't play out that way.

 

I'd add no one remembers dudes like Clayton Thorson.   But people will remember Haskins.  When people talk about the lower rounds the rare successes are repeated to death, dudes like Thorson and the slew of others like him are forgotten.   So it sort of presents a false narrative IMO in some people's heads that a guy like Dak is pretty common.  And dudes like Davis Webb, Lauletta, D. Kizer, Hackenberg, Conner Cook, Cardale Jones and Kevin Hogan on and on and on are forgotten.  And many of them had cool stories at the time, I can recall some of them.  Conner Cook was supposedly the next Kirk.  Lauletta was the Senior Bowl star and riser, etc, etc. 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Koolblue13]

If we aren't going all out for a clear QB1 vet, then we are running with Allen/Heinicke and the draft. We don't have the capital to steal a top QB in the draft from anyone. Maybe Jones or Trask, but that's as good as it gets.

[Burgundy Yoda]

If we get Trubisky or Mariota, we still don't have a clear #1 QB and I couldn't tell you who would win a QB competition between our three guys. We also probably don't have a future franchise QB with the group that we would have. I'm still hoping we trade up (or stay put) for a QB in this draft, it needs to be done. 

 

Edit: Has anyone advocating for any of these guys actually watched them play a few games? We are talking about trading for a Las Vegas's backup and the Bears aren't even going to re-sign a guy they drafted at #2 in 2017. The odds of these guys actually working out for us are extremely slim. We need to stop bargain shopping on other teams rosters. 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Burgundy Yoda

[Skinsinparadise]

Which quarterbacks will Washington target?

Washington offered first- and third-round picks to the Detroit Lions for veteran quarterback Matthew Stafford, but he ended up with the Los Angeles Rams.

The team has looked into multiple quarterbacks, including Marcus Mariota (Las Vegas Raiders) and Sam Darnold (New York Jets), but there would be obstacles to getting either of those trades done. Mariota, 27, has escalator clauses in his contract that could almost double his 2021 deal to about $20 million -- even if he starts 12 games and the team wins six of them. In other words, he could get a big bump in a mediocre season.

Darnold, a 2018 first-round pick by the Jets, has two years left on his contract, but the final year would be about $25 million -- a hefty sum for a player who has struggled often in his first three seasons.

That could mean Washington will sign a free-agent quarterback. Among those who will be available: Ryan Fitzpatrick, Andy Dalton and Tyrod Taylor.

 

If the Carolina Panthers acquire a quarterback (they have the No. 8 pick) and move on from Teddy Bridgewater, he could make sense for Washington, too. Washington offensive coordinator Scott Turner worked with Bridgewater in Minnesota and Washington's executive vice president of player personnel, Marty Hurney, was with Carolina when it signed Bridgewater last offseason.

Jameis Winston is another possible free-agent pickup, but the New Orleans Saints likely will keep him; sources close to him say he felt he was in a good situation there.

Most, if not all, of these solutions would likely be short-term. Drafting a quarterback is always a possibility, but there is no guarantee a quarterback Washington likes will be available when it picks at No. 19 in the first round, and the price of trading up could be exorbitant.

If Washington finds a solution this offseason, the plan would be to add as much as it can to the offense -- be it bringing in more wide receivers or strengthening the line. That way it can build a strong base and, perhaps in 2022, could aggressively pursue a quarterback with a stronger roster -- making the team less fearful of mortgaging its future.

 

https://www.espn.com/blog/washington/post/_/id/41096/with-alex-smith-out-what-is-washingtons-next-move-at-qb

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

If my choices are guys like Trubisky and Darnold, I'll just roll with what we have and see what happens, either in this draft or the next.  

[HigSkin]

1 hour ago, skinny21 said:

I know this probably goes against the consensus, but I’m intrigued by Trask.  Don’t see WFT drafting him because of his lack of mobility, but he checks a lot of boxes - the excellent size, good arm, good touch, ability can make all the throws, seems like he has the intangibles (work ethic, primarily, but I could be way wrong here).  Also put up good production pretty consistently, has experience, etc.  Don’t love the drop against tougher Ds, but as far as I can tell, he wasn’t bad in those games.  My big questions, as I haven’t watched much (and zero all-22), is how well does he go through reads, does he manipulate defenders with his eyes, throw with anticipation, etc.

Of course, I’m also not convinced he is quite the ‘statue’ PFF calls him - I don’t really see him all that differently (mobility-wise) as guys like Haskins or Peyton Manning.

I could see him maybe fitting with teams like the Steelers or Falcons.

 

 

On further consideration, probably should have put this in the draft thread...

 

FWIW, one of the "talking heads" ex-players on Sports media yesterday, think it was TJ Houshmandzadeh said he was standing next to Trask a couple weeks ago and said he thought he was Carson Wentz.  He said the dude is huge and can really sling it.  Not that it means anything.  LOL