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

7 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Settlement doesn’t mean innocence. Just as the current situation doesn’t mean he’s guilty. There’s a stink surrounding him right now, though. Fair or not. Not saying to throw him out of the league... but to attempt to acquire him via the cost in assets and cap would be a ridiculous risk.


I don’t think he’s innocent. You’re not usually accused by 20 people if you’re innocent. I think that even if we thought he’d keep his nose clean, we wouldn’t bring him in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, zskins said:

Big Ben wasn't innocent either. He settled too. Right? He is still playing football. 

Who said he shouldn’t be playing football? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, KDawg said:

Who said he shouldn’t be playing football? 

 

Never said he should be. He beat the system. Watson is doing the same. 

 

 

Edited by zskins
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zskins said:

 

Never said he should be. He beat the system. Watson is doing the same. 

 

 

No. I’m asking you what your point was in conjunction with the conversation going on in this thread.

 

No one said he should be out of the league. 
 

*I* did say I wouldn’t move big assets for a risk.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KDawg said:

No. I’m asking you what your point was in conjunction with the conversation going on in this thread.

 

No one said he should be out of the league. 
 

*I* did say I wouldn’t move big assets for a risk.

 

 

 

I just read the last two posts and the whole settlement thing. That was just me two cents on the settlement part.  Nothing more and nothing less. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got to think Watson would be off limits for Rivera and the organisation. Goes against the grain of what we are building.

 

Rodgers, seems highly unrealistic that he’d ever end up here, but my God I would go all in with draft picks for him.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Anselmheifer said:


I don’t think he’s innocent. You’re not usually accused by 20 people if you’re innocent. I think that even if we thought he’d keep his nose clean, we wouldn’t bring him in. 

 

Not just that, how many people go through 20+ massuers in such a short space of time...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is zero chance we trade for Watson....zero. Rivera and this new regime have broke the barrier by hiring women to all kinds of high positions that women never had a chance at- including coaching positions- and I just don't see anyway possible he'd even entertain the thought of trading for Watson...and rightfully so, in my opinion.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, fearlessNelms said:

There is zero chance we trade for Watson....zero. Rivera and this new regime have broke the barrier by hiring women to all kinds of high positions that women never had a chance at- including coaching positions- and I just don't see anyway possible he'd even entertain the thought of trading for Watson...and rightfully so, in my opinion.

I wouldn't say it's a zero chance when your owner is Dan Snyder. If anyone could look past what Watson has done it would be him.

Edited by Burgundy Yoda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

I wouldn't say it's a zero chance when your owner is Dan Snyder. If anyone could look past what Watson has done it would be him.

Snyder has his own issues with women abuse accusations, so I would say even he will not want anything to do with Watson.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, HigSkin said:

If we're going the route of pursuing one of the "big boys" I'd prefer it be Russell Wilson next year.  I don't think it's what RR will do but that would be my preference over Rodgers or Watson.

 

 

 

the way i look at it is we've been eating at McDonalds when it comes to Qbs.  We have to be in the top 5 at least as for teams that just don't do franchise Qb where its actually part of he narrative about the franchise (in the Dan era and beyond) and if we had one of these top QBs it almost would seem strange.  Sort of like how people are wondering now about the Bears with Justin Fields.  Can the Bears have a good thing cooking with a QB?    

 

So the Watson, or Rodgers, or Wilson stuff to me doesn't feel like it will happen in part because star Qbs and the WFT don't really go hand in hand. Hopefully that streak breaks eventually.  But count me skeptical that we land any of the top QBs let alone picking my favorite of the three.

 

Crazy how some teams like SD seem to fall into franchise QBs whereas its so hard for us. 😧

 

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

16 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Crazy how some teams like SD seem to fall into franchise QBs whereas its so hard for us. 😧

Because we don't actually make a move for a good prospect outside of with RG3. It's always settling for stopgaps and reaching for one in the draft. And it's continuing to be that way under Ron.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, JoggingGod said:

Because we don't actually make a move for a good prospect outside of with RG3. It's always settling for stopgaps and reaching for one in the draft. And it's continuing to be that way under Ron.

 

I've made the same point that RG3 was their one hard swing for the fences so no disagreement there from me.   I don't have the same angst though about Ron. 

 

They swung hard for Stafford.  According to some who supposedly knew their thinking in this draft they liked some of the QBs but not loved them enough to give the store up for them.  so the game plan was if they couldn't get them cheapish, they'd build the roster stronger to set up the next QB who they will likely swing hard for next year.

 

 

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

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

the way i look at it is we've been eating at McDonalds when it comes to Qbs.  We have to be in the top 5 at least as for teams that just don't do franchise Qb where its actually part of he narrative about the franchise (in the Dan era and beyond) and if we had one of these top QBs it almost would seem strange.  Sort of like how people are wondering now about the Bears with Justin Fields.  Can the Bears have a good thing cooking with a QB?    

 

So the Watson, or Rodgers, or Wilson stuff to me doesn't feel like it will happen in part because star Qbs and the WFT don't really go hand in hand. Hopefully that streak breaks eventually.  But count me skeptical that we land any of the top QBs let alone picking my favorite of the three.

 

Crazy how some teams like SD seem to fall into franchise QBs whereas its so hard for us. 😧

 

With the exception of Allen thru Gibbs 1.0, it is not for the lack of trying to find the guy. Since Snyder: Ramsey, Campbell, RG3 and Haskins (not to mention multiple trades).  Since Baugh, Snead was the closest because we flipped him for Sonny. Our best direct guys were Rypien, Ferrotte and Cousins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents worth

 

Aaron Rodgers is really good and would make the WFT better for a couple years.  He’s arrogant and is now pouting.  His game to me is one that could drop off quickly in the next couple years and I just wouldn’t mortgage the future for him.  If a deal could be worked that didn’t cost the next three 1st round picks it’s worth looking at.  Maybe a trade for Scherff and a couple picks.  Word seems to be he wants to head to the other coast so I don’t think this is happening.

 

Deshaun Watson is a little more interesting.  I don’t know the legal implications of his civil suits and I expect the NFL will suspend him for a couple games whenever he suits up again.  I know there have been no criminal charges and the burden of proof in civil cases is much less; he will pay and this will get settled.  He is a very good football player with a bunch of years left and would certainly make the WFT better for several years to come.  I don’t see any way Coach Ron is even considering this move; goes against the character he is seeking.  I am very confident this isn’t happening.

 

In conclusion, we will still be looking for our next franchise QB going into next years draft and that’s Ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

With the exception of Allen thru Gibbs 1.0, it is not for the lack of trying to find the guy. Since Snyder: Ramsey, Campbell, RG3 and Haskins (not to mention multiple trades).  Since Baugh, Snead was the closest because we flipped him for Sonny. Our best direct guys were Rypien, Ferrotte and Cousins

 

We mostly do the equivalent of pay $50 for a steak at Outback and hope we get lucky and it ends up premium quality.  And agree we play hard in that sand box.   We don't play in the Ruth Chris Steak House type of zip code.  Chasing a Brad Johnson, aging Alex Smith or McNabb seems to be our speed.  Not Aaron Rodgers, Watson, Russell Wilson. 

 

We haven't really swung for a homerun IMO outside of RG3.   They've overshot at players IMO who weren't considered the top of the top types both in trades and in the draft. 

 

As it's come out the WFT own scouts graded Haskins as a third rounder.  Campbell and Ramsey were 2nd rounders in many mocks back then -- they ended up being taken in the last first.  No one was talking about them at the time as having sick talent.  Our moves sans RG3 in the draft would be be equivalent IMO as a modern day move like taking Kyle Trask in the last first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike Floria on The Junkies this morning said we'd be in on Watson but I don't trust him.  He may be using info back to before all the stuff hit on Watson when I think we had legitimate interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JoggingGod said:

Because we don't actually make a move for a good prospect outside of with RG3. It's always settling for stopgaps and reaching for one in the draft. And it's continuing to be that way under Ron.

Huh?  We have either made a move since 1999 many times, tried or did not need 7 or 8 times. The best moves we've made for a franchise-type guy was actually flipping Snead for Sonny back around the time I was born then trading a second rounder for the rights to some guy up in Canada in the early 70s. Further, the second best way to make sure you pick a bust is to trade up huge. Only team to have success with this strategy in recent years was good to begin with (had been for several years a playoff team) and a coach who is the spiritual successor to probably the greatest QB guru ever (Holmgren).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

We mostly do the equivalent of pay $50 for a steak at Outback and hope we get lucky and it ends up premium quality.  And agree we play hard in that sand box.   We don't play in the Ruth Chris Steak House type of zip code.  Chasing a Brad Johnson, aging Alex Smith or McNabb seems to be our speed.  Not Aaron Rodgers, Watson, Russell Wilson. 

 

We haven't really swung for a homerun IMO outside of RG3.   They've overshot at players IMO who weren't considered the top of the top types both in trades and in the draft. 

 

As it's come out the WFT own scouts graded Haskins as a third rounder.  Campbell and Ramsey were 2nd rounders in many mocks back then -- they ended up being taken in the last first.  No one was talking about them at the time as having sick talent.  Our moves sans RG3 in the draft would be be equivalent IMO as a modern day move like taking Kyle Trask in the last first. 

RG3 was not the only home run swing we've made. I KNOW since 1999, we've taken that home run swing 7-8 times.  Because a mock has a QB rated one way has nothing to do with whether the pick was a home run swing or not.  In fact, mocks that rated Campbell as a 2 probably make the move a bigger swing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the goal is to trade for an elite QB, can't discount the fact that Watson in an AFC QB.

 

I can't imagine how much harder it would be to get Rodgers or Wilson to stay in the NFC, especially if they don't have a no trade clause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Darth Tater said:

RG3 was not the only home run swing we've made. I KNOW since 1999, we've taken that home run swing 7-8 times.  Because a mock has a QB rated one way has nothing to do with whether the pick was a home run swing or not.  In fact, mocks that rated Campbell as a 2 probably make the move a bigger swing.

 

 

 

Reading your point about Campbell makes me think you are missing my point. 

 

Your point seems to be the fact that they swung hard for prospects that weren't even ballyhooed players shows how hard they are swinging. 

 

My point was they don't play in the Tiffany's sandbox when it comes to shopping for QB.  They like to play in the tier or two below that.  Oh yeah they are willing to pay Tiffany prices for non-Tiffany products.  In fact that's part of the narrative as why this time has been such a loser.    It's actually my point. 

 

I don't celebrate being aggressive for products that don't warrant it.  If they did a 30-30 special on the team's lack of success at QB, I really doubt you'd hear scouts say they were shocked that Haskins, Ramsey, Campbell didn't end up top tier franchise QBs.  Instead, they'd likely nod that they were reaches at the time alas what Joe Banner said at the time about the Haskins pick.  Mark Brunell according to some was about to be released.  Yet we gave a third for him.  McNabb was spent when we acquired him.  Alex was a good but rarely a great QB previously except for the career year he had and was 34.  The WFT failures to find a franchise Qb aren't really that shocking if you go by them acquistion by acquistion.  The fact that they aggressively gave up a lot of compensation to get them add to the sadness.  

 

Dan has been aggressively stupid plenty of times and his finger prints are on some of these QBs acquistions.   But the WFT's quest for QBs rarely involved chasing the top 2 prospects at QB in the draft or a bonafide top of the line franchise QB.  We shoot lower than that.

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Darth Tater said:

With the exception of Allen thru Gibbs 1.0, it is not for the lack of trying to find the guy. Since Snyder: Ramsey, Campbell, RG3 and Haskins (not to mention multiple trades).  Since Baugh, Snead was the closest because we flipped him for Sonny. Our best direct guys were Rypien, Ferrotte and Cousins

 

But guys like Ramsey and Campbell were pretty weak tries. Basically second round guys the team overdrafted in the late first. Odds of success there are likely less than 10 percent. Griffin was a hard swing. Haskins was a solid swing...sort of. It seemed the league as a whole did not like Haskins nearly as much as the draft "experts". But he still was a better prospect than either Ramsey or Campbell. Ramsey and Campbell were hail mary type moves. Reasonably high picks, but mediocre talent with little upside. In 20+ years, that's not a lot of effort.

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...