Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Rookie QB or Veteran QB for 2021???


Renegade7

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

46 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

1. Denver Broncos

Packers get: CB Patrick Surtain II, WR Tim Patrick, QB Drew Lock, 2022 first-round pick, 2023 first-round pick

Broncos get: Rodgers, CB Eric Stokes

This is the most interesting offer a team could make for Rodgers, in my opinion. The Packers get only two first-round picks, but they get to add young, exciting talent at multiple positions who can step in immediately. If LaFleur & Co. think they can win with Love in 2021, this probably would be the best swap for them to consider.

The Packers would essentially get a third first-round pick as part of this deal by adding Surtain, who was the No. 9 overall selection on Thursday. In return, they would send their own first-round cornerback in Stokes, but the difference between the ninth and 29th picks is pretty significant, amounting to something like the 25th in a typical year. If Surtain pans out, he would team with Jaire Alexander and form one of the best sets of cornerbacks in football. Surtain would also crucially be on a below-market deal for at least the next three years, which is critical for a Green Bay team in rough cap shape at the moment.'

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/story/_/id/31375213/aaron-rodgers-trade-offers-seven-nfl-teams-proposals-ranked-least-appealing-most-attractive

 

 


Drew Lock sucks. Our offer beats that offer. Theirs is two 1sts, a CB swap and a young QB that isn’t clearly better than teddy bridgewater. Why would the Packers even want Lock when they have Love?

 

Three 1sts, a second and Matt Ioannidis is clearly a better offer.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Don't get me wrong. In the 2019 draft I didn't want Haskins. I wanted an ILB. I didn't know who, but I wanted an ILB. But what I REALLY didn't want was to trade up for Haskins. So when we got Haskins at 15, I was happy we were patient and got him instead of trading up like a lot of mocks had us doing.

 

I wasn't a fan of drafting Haskins, Campbell or Ramsey. My problem with the later two is that they were first round picks on risky QBs whose ceilings weren't at that franchise level (in my opinion). Haskins I thought had that potential, at least for the one year. I do remember reading your analysis of him and his dependency on screens / slants and that giving me pause, but I still liked him because he was seen in a lot of mocks as a top 10 QB. But given what I've read since then, he seems to be more similar to Campbell and Ramsey - a second round QB that we took in the first. 

 

I am not a fan of Dan getting involved in things, but until I know he's not involved I'm now going to assume he is.

 

 

By the time last season happened there was no debate on Haskins thread as for whether Dan was involved or not.  It was an accepted fact even from those that pushed Haskins.  It was all over town from just about everywhere including Keim.   But I recall at that point some (not all) of the few that defended Haskins focused on the idea that he wasn't overdrafted and by extension Dan's move to draft him was fine.  Because such and such talking head agreed with Dan.  I do recall you defending Haskins when things went south including saying he's played as well as Alex Smith but I don't recall if you joined into the debate about whether he was overdrafted or not.  If I recall you did.  But if I am misremembering that let me know.

 

For me, I got no doubt that Dan can pick a player that talking heads like.  If anything that's his ammo. It doesn't impress me.  The idea that Louis Reddick thought Haskins was Peyton Manning doesn't mean Dan made the right move.  When our scouts graded him as a third rounder, that's what I count.   And according to Banner and others they were far from alone on that,   So Haskins from my perspective hurts your point versus helps your point as for first rounders versus non first rounders.  I don't look at him as a first rounder.    I recall most draftniks rated Ramsey and Campbell as 2nd rounders, I don't know about WFT's scouts on it.  But I do recall reading that it was Dan who wanted Ramsey.  As for Campbell that's on Gibbs. 

 

My point is most of these mid-to late first round grabs in the first round, which some thought were reaches and most of whom have Dan's finger prints to me are more cases of defacto nonfirst round prospects than first round prospects.   I don't care about Dan who is arguably the biggest buffoon owner in the NFL as to how he evaluates these players.  He's not a scout.  And he gets almost everything wrong when he tried to be a scout.

 

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

 

 

My point is that we need more swings at the plate. I don't care about drafting a QB at #2 overall or whatever. But I don't like trading up for that. And if I'm risking losing a Chase Young for a Heath Schuler or Sam Darnold then I really have to do an analysis on is it worth it. Its like Casserly did when they drafted Mario Williams over that draft class, knowing they needed a QB but deciding that nobody was good enough. 

 

But I just don't want to limit it to the first round QBs. I didn't like the drafting of Cousins when we drafted RG3 that same year, but I like something like GBs philosophy of drafting QBs, where they were always drafting them, developing them and trading them for draft picks except I wouldn't trade them I would be looking for my eventual starter.

 

 

OK this is a departure from you wanting to debate the value of drafting a QB after the first round versus the first round.  Here you are saying you'd do both.  I am good with that.

 

As for trading up, depends on the QB for me and depends on the price.  By all indications that's how Ron sees it, too.

 

 

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Lets not forget that this franchise didn't want to go my route. Instead they brought in an old Brunell, overdrafted Campbell, paid too much for McNabb, started Grossman and Beck, paid for McCoy, traded for Smith, and overdrafted Haskins. How many low round QBs have been taken in that time? Cousins and Sudfield. We traded for Keenum but he was old by then and already had been paid a big money contract (not by us). And we've SUCKED. Big Time. So its not like its going to cost us a lot to try it my way. I just want to see us try. 

 

Keenum was like 30.  I recall through this day you laud that Keenum trade as proof that Bruce did some good things.  But those type points confuse me as to your position because he's not the only example of that type of player you use to tout QBs.  Keenum is just a guy.  he's not a SB QB.  He has had a good season and a half in his career.  He's a journeyman. 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Inigo Montoya said:


this right here… why isn’t this fan base more excited about Fitz!?!? I think he’s our QB for 3-4 more years and we draft a guy in 22/23 after deep playoff runs the next few years. We’re talking about the most talented and complete roster we’ve had in I can’t remember how long. 

 

I like Fitz.  He was the FA i wanted among the QBs.  If there is a dude who could be the exception to the rule and get hot in the playoffs its someone like Fitz because he's a gamer.

 

I don't think he has a big ceiling and he will be 39 years old this season so clearly he's not the long term bet.  But I do think for a season or two we are in good hands.  And IMO we will get above average QB play. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll see but listening to Schlereth right now on The Herd and he claims to have a source that has never been wrong.

 

https://247sports.com/Article/Aaron-Rodgers-Denver-Broncos-Mark-Schlereth-updates-desire-to-leave-Green-Bay-Packers-Brian-Gutekunst-164870239/

 

“I get a text from a very reliable source — not in Denver, outside of Denver — somebody who’s never steered me wrong, who I believe wholeheartedly, exactly what this person tells me, is that this thing is heating up and it’s close to a done deal in Denver, Aaron Rodgers,” Schlereth said. “So, I go on the radio and say, ‘Hey man, I'm just getting this information and I don’t know. It still could fall through, obviously, but it’s close.’ So anyhow, you know, it kind of dies down, some people tamp it down here in Denver.

 

“But then, I get — it’s not a text message, it’s direct message via text — from Aaron. And he goes, kinda like, ‘Who’s your source? What are you hearing?’ And I’m like, ‘Well this is what I heard.’ I go, ‘Is it true?’ …And so he didn’t pour cold water on it. He just said, ‘I’ll let you know as soon as I know.’ The bottom is, through sources — and it’s all over the internet — he’s saying he’s not going to play in Green Bay.”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

But what were we able to do with Cousins? Sure it wasn't a trip to the dance, but those are so unpredictable and so hard to even talk about.

 

Just pointing out...we did with Cousins exactly the same as we did with RG3: snuck into the playoffs 1 year and were quickly eliminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I wouldn't trade 2 firsts and 2 seconds for Aaron Rodgers at this point in his career.  

 

Obviously, I'd buy in and hope for the best if it happened.  But that just feels like doom to me.  Rodgers gets hurt, and we have nothing to draft with for two seasons.  Just nah.

 

I'd definitely give that up for Rodgers right now. But that's also assuming we could get a good 4-5 years out of him...which isn't a sure bet, but wouldn't necessarily be out of the question since he'd be playing at 41 in 5 years.

 

Though with Rodgers you'd also have to contend with him being potentially mercurial. He might suddenly decide at year 2 of a 5 year contract that he wants to retire and host Jeopardy full time. We might potentially try to recoup some money then, but you can't get draft picks back. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mistertim said:

 

I'd definitely give that up for Rodgers right now. But that's also assuming we could get a good 4-5 years out of him...which isn't a sure bet, but wouldn't necessarily be out of the question since he'd be playing at 41 in 5 years.

 

Though with Rodgers you'd also have to contend with him being potentially mercurial. He might suddenly decide at year 2 of a 5 year contract that he wants to retire and host Jeopardy full time. We might potentially try to recoup some money then, but you can't get draft picks back. 

The bolded is why I just wouldn't feel comfortable with doing it.  Love watching him play, but he's a bit of a diva for my taste.  I'd have a hard time getting the warm and fuzzies, and always be waiting for it to turn bad.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I wouldn't trade 2 firsts and 2 seconds for Aaron Rodgers at this point in his career.  

 

Obviously, I'd buy in and hope for the best if it happened.  But that just feels like doom to me.  Rodgers gets hurt, and we have nothing to draft with for two seasons.  Just nah.

 

 

If it came to that price to get the deal done, even at his current age, as long as Rodgers was fully committed to playing here I would do it.

 

We’ve had tons of first and second round draft picks in all the years since our last championship in 1991. Yet what has it gotten us?

 

On paper-  (and of course the only game you win on paper is tic tac toe)- on paper, with Rodgers we immediately skip to the front of the class of those challenging Tampa Bay for the NFC championship.

 

With this defense, our draft/free agent class, and Aaron Rodgers, we can go all the way.

 

Can you say the same thing about the unknown rookies that we would draft over the next two years?

Edited by TrancesWithWolves
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, HigSkin said:

We'll see but listening to Schlereth right now on The Herd and he claims to have a source that has never been wrong.

 

https://247sports.com/Article/Aaron-Rodgers-Denver-Broncos-Mark-Schlereth-updates-desire-to-leave-Green-Bay-Packers-Brian-Gutekunst-164870239/

 

“I get a text from a very reliable source — not in Denver, outside of Denver — somebody who’s never steered me wrong, who I believe wholeheartedly, exactly what this person tells me, is that this thing is heating up and it’s close to a done deal in Denver, Aaron Rodgers,” Schlereth said. “So, I go on the radio and say, ‘Hey man, I'm just getting this information and I don’t know. It still could fall through, obviously, but it’s close.’ So anyhow, you know, it kind of dies down, some people tamp it down here in Denver.

 

“But then, I get — it’s not a text message, it’s direct message via text — from Aaron. And he goes, kinda like, ‘Who’s your source? What are you hearing?’ And I’m like, ‘Well this is what I heard.’ I go, ‘Is it true?’ …And so he didn’t pour cold water on it. He just said, ‘I’ll let you know as soon as I know.’ The bottom is, through sources — and it’s all over the internet — he’s saying he’s not going to play in Green Bay.”

 

My takeaway is really dont talk to these media guys just because they're ex-players.    Schlereth went right to the airwaves blabbing like "Aaron texted me and he said this and he said that."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brady should be eliminated from all arguments, due to his unique willingness (in today’s market) to work with the team in sustaining success by remaining in and around 8-12% of the cap. This was strategic and differs from other elite QBs getting every possible dollar they can. This upcoming season he will count 5% against the TB salary cap. His approach is old school and legacy driven. 
 

More time is needed to input new data relating to the elite and top 12-14 QBs looking to maximize dollars each year and how that relates and compares to winning with QBs on rookie deals or starters being paid 3-10% of the cap. For example, Russel Wilson hasn’t come close to the SB after being paid elite dollars; should there another tier level of expectations for the elite guys getting paid elite money.
 

The time will come when nuanced arguments of A Fitzpatrick at 10mil having more value than a Wilson at 30. Not elite like Wilson, but an elite cap deal. 
 

I don’t think recent data supports paying elite guys or above average QBs 15-20% of the cap equates conference title or SB appearances. Long term historical data doesn’t apply, due to the QB market place radically changing (Brady being the exception). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, tmandoug1 said:

I hope Denver gets him.....way to much draft capital for him. Plus I'd want to punch the TV every time he smiled after that ****ing 12 men on the field bull****. 

 

Please. Rodgers on this team, as it's built, would make us a Super Bowl contender immediately, which is something we haven't said since 1991. Look at well he played last year, and look at how well Brady is playing at 43. There's no reason why we couldn't get 4-5 great years out of Rodgers. If getting him thrusts us into a Super Bowl window for the next few years, then you absolutely do 2 firsts, a few seconds, etc, to make it happen. You swing for the fences for that Lombardi.

 

I would give up what was listed in that article in a heartbeat.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Brady should be eliminated from all arguments, due to his unique willingness (in today’s market) to work with the team in sustaining success by remaining in and around 8-12% of the cap. This was strategic and differs from other elite QBs getting every possible dollar they can. This upcoming season he will count 5% against the TB salary cap. His approach is old school and legacy driven. 
 

More time is needed to input new data relating to the elite and top 12-14 QBs looking to maximize dollars each year and how that relates and compares to winning with QBs on rookie deals or starters being paid 3-10% of the cap. For example, Russel Wilson hasn’t come close to the SB after being paid elite dollars; should there another tier level of expectations for the elite guys getting paid elite money.
 

The time will come when nuanced arguments of A Fitzpatrick at 10mil having more value than a Wilson at 30. Not elite like Wilson, but an elite cap deal. 
 

I don’t think recent data supports paying elite guys or above average QBs 15-20% of the cap equates conference title or SB appearances. Long term historical data doesn’t apply, due to the QB market place radically changing (Brady being the exception). 

 

 

You are taking the debate in a different direction.  Forget paying an elite guy, or great guy or just good guy, etc.   What are they worth, etc.  The debate we are having is how do you find that guy period and develop them. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted Rodgers, but in 2022. His trade value coming off an MVP season is through the roof and if Martin offered a 1st and a 3rd for Stafford, I could see us doing maybe a touch more for Rodgers who is 5 years older than him. 

 

I'd do a 2022 1st and 3rd round pick, and a 2023 2nd round pick. That's a **** ton for a 37 year old QB that could very well decline next season but it's a gamble I would take. I dont care if we have a dynasty with multiple years of contending, I just want the best chance at one superbowl for 1 season like the Bucs last year. 

 

I dont think Aaron wants to come here though. We are still in the eyes of many, a dysfunctional organization. Next year will be a massive year for us to prove we are truly on the upswing. I think this group is special, I think most of us feel like this group is special, I think even the coaches think this is a good group, but its going to take a lot for the media and other players to catch on. 

Edited by Burgundy Yoda
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 106.7 they are going over a comment Rivera made yesterday on national radio which was "If Ryan plays well and shows he has a lot left, what's to say we don't bring him back?"

 

I've made similar points.  While i've argued try to get a franchise QB if you can and I've been willing to trade up.  i've also disagreed with the people here of late with the sky is falling narrative and acting like Fitz is just a guy and this team is stuck in mediocrity with him at best.

 

I don't think Fitz is just a guy.  He's not elite.  He's not great.  But IMO he's a good QB.  And in a big playoff game if we get there -- I'd trust him over everyone of the slew of Qbs we've had under Dan aside from 2012 RG3 and by a decent margin. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

On 106.7 they are going over a comment Rivera made yesterday on national radio which was "If Ryan plays well and shows he has a lot left, what's to say we don't bring him back?"

 

I've made similar points.  While i've argued try to get a franchise QB if you can and I've been willing to trade up.  i've also disagreed with the people here of late with the sky is falling narrative and acting like Fitz is just a guy and this team is stuck in mediocrity with him at best.

 

I don't think Fitz is just a guy.  He's not elite.  He's not great.  But IMO he's a good QB.  And in a big playoff game if we get there -- I'd trust him over everyone of the slew of Qbs we've had under Dan aside from 2012 RG3 and by a decent margin. 

Minus RG, I agree.  I do think we need to sign Fitz to tutor a QB we MUST get in 2022, IMO.  Fitz can't play forever but I really want us to sign him for 2022.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

On 106.7 they are going over a comment Rivera made yesterday on national radio which was "If Ryan plays well and shows he has a lot left, what's to say we don't bring him back?"

 

I've made similar points.  While i've argued try to get a franchise QB if you can and I've been willing to trade up.  i've also disagreed with the people here of late with the sky is falling narrative and acting like Fitz is just a guy and this team is stuck in mediocrity with him at best.

 

I don't think Fitz is just a guy.  He's not elite.  He's not great.  But IMO he's a good QB.  And in a big playoff game if we get there -- I'd trust him over everyone of the slew of Qbs we've had under Dan aside from 2012 RG3 and by a decent margin. 

You think Fitzpatrick is better than Cousins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

You think Fitzpatrick is better than Cousins?

 

Nope but that wasn't my point.  My point was post season driven.  I've battled the Kirk haters aplenty when he was here. :ols:  So I am relatively friendly to Kirk.  Kirk is a streaky QB.  Kind of like Romo.  I find it funny every year it seems when Kirk gets off to his annual slow start that some destroy him as if this proves he's some sort of scrub.  Then he heats up like he always does.  And then he will cool off for awhile and then heat up again. Overall, he will have more good games than bad.   My point on rehashing this is there is something in common between Fitz and Kirk and that is their streakiness.  They will both have hot and cold fazes more than most.  But when they are hot they tend to be red hot. 

 

My issue with Kirk is his play in big games with everything on the line.  He's not IMO the disaster that some say he is on that front.  But IMO he's "meh" in big games.  His detractors like to say he never plays well with the game on the line.  I disagree.  He has moments especially in the 4th quarter.  But is Kirk a guy I'd bet on to march a team through the playoffs?  Nope.  Could he win a playoff game.  Sure.  Which he has. But I wouldn't bet on him to take a team all the way. Sample size is getting too big on that now.  Is Alex Smith the guy I want outdueling name that big QB in the playoffs?  Nope.  Was Mark Brunell?  Nope.  Could they maybe win a game?  Sure. 

 

It's not that I think Fitz can plow through the playoffs where I'd count on it.    But he seems to play his best at times when the lights are the brightest.  So i'd bet on his streakiness in the playoffs specifically over Kirk.   As for during the season, I'd take Kirk.  In the playoffs, I'd take Fitz.  And I don't think Fitz is a mile off from Kirk during the season.  He finished 5th in QBR last year.  I admit I am more of an optimist than most on Fitz but I buy into the narrative that he's getting better with age. 

 

The argument some give about hey look at Foles or look at Eli and that proves how defenses win championships and they can just bring the QB along for the ride and you don't need a top guy, etc.  My rebuttal to that is two fold:

 

A.  It's rare.  It's the outlier not the most common way it happens. 

 

B.  Those QBs got hot in the post season.  They were a key part of the SB wins -- winning SB MVPS, etc.   They weren't just supporting actors -- they were the lead actors.  They got hot at the right time. 

 

 

If I am running with an outlier type QB who is streaky and can get hot in big games.  Fizpatrick fits that profile IMO.  I made that point awhile ago.  It was cool to see someone from PFF make a similar point recently.    The reason why I liked hearing the same point from PFF is they are really snobby about the QB spot -- PFF is certaintly in the you need a big time Qb to win big in the NFL crowd. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are all aware that there’s a chance that the next QB of the WFT is... Kirk Cousins, right?

 

His contract is up after 2022. If we re-sign Fitz next offseason and don’t get our franchise guy the 2022 offseason could see us with Cousins. I think it’s a long shot but it’s a realistic one.

 

Kinda crazy to think about :ols:

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, KDawg said:

You guys are all aware that there’s a chance that the next QB of the WFT is... Kirk Cousins, right?

 

His contract is up after 2022. If we re-sign Fitz next offseason and don’t get our franchise guy the 2022 offseason could see us with Cousins. I think it’s a long shot but it’s a realistic one.

 

Kinda crazy to think about :ols:

 

Except yesterday Ron said if Fitz play well this year then he will be back next year. So don't expect to draft a QB next year especially if we end up in the playoffs again. By the way, just say no to Kurt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, zskins said:

 

Except yesterday Ron said if Fitz play well this year then he will be back next year. So don't expect to draft a QB next year especially if we end up in the playoffs again. By the way, just say no to Kurt. 

I think you misread what I said.

 

I said “if we re-sign Fitz next offseason”. 
 

I then said 2022 offseason but obviously meant 2023.

Edited by KDawg
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, KDawg said:

You guys are all aware that there’s a chance that the next QB of the WFT is... Kirk Cousins, right?

 

His contract is up after 2022. If we re-sign Fitz next offseason and don’t get our franchise guy the 2022 offseason could see us with Cousins. I think it’s a long shot but it’s a realistic one.

 

Kinda crazy to think about :ols:

I don't think there actually is a chance the next QB of the WFT is Kirk Cousins. For one thing, Cousins wouldn't consider it unless we offered him an enormous wad of cash. For another, his play while statistically impressive in Washington and Minnesota has proven he isn't worth an enormous wad of cash.


Think about it. Would you really offer him forty million dollars per year (to correct a wrong) and guarantee yourself a 7-10 or 8-9 season?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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...