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

1 hour ago, Ball Security said:

Got it.  But my question is more around the unused cap from 2020 which is like 20-22M according to over the cap.  Either all or a portion of that should roll over in 2021?  Is he including that?

 

58 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:


good question, agree, not clear. Plus the Roullier deal changes those numbers.

 

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/

 

This number is different (47 mill...), however it gives the calculation-

Cap Space = (Team Salary Cap) - (Active Cap Spending) - (Dead Money)

Team Salary Cap = (Base Salary Cap) + (Carryover) +/- (Adjustments)

 

This would make me believe the 40 million listed includes the carryover. 

 

edit: Over the Cap is using 1 mill higher cap (176 mill) and has 5 million less in active spending.  That 5 mill difference might be Roullier related (but I can't tell).

Edited by jsharrin55
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side note relating to Watson:

 

PLEASE no to the QB making FO and coach decisions becoming the norm like the NBA. It’s somewhat inevitable, but that might be when I begin to check out but hopefully I still have another 15-20 years before that becomes the norm. 
 

Or hope Washington becomes like San Antonio or The Heat

Edited by wit33
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, wit33 said:

On a side note relating to Watson:

 

PLEASE no to the QB making FO and coach decisions becoming the norm like the NBA. It’s somewhat inevitable, but that might be when I begin to check out but hopefully I still have another 15-20 years before that becomes the norm. 
 

Or hope Washington becomes like San Antonio or The Heat

It won't. It's a desperate attempt by an awfully run org trying to keep their most marketable asset to both fans and hires happy. Plus, the PA has rules to stop that sort of thing.

There are other things that are making me check out, mainly the suspicion the NFL decides the results and the amount of money athletes make in these times.

Edited by steven11
Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I crazy? Trade two 2nds for Matthew Stafford and cross fingers hope and pray for a way to draft Devonta Smith? I think that alone transforms the offense and makes us ready for the super bowl. 

 

Matt Stafford Micd Up

Edited by OGDMV
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Catching up on all the pregame stuff.  Not that I needed to hear ex-players and former personnel guys say the obvious.  But they don't think an offense like this has a chance to make it through one game in the playoffs let alone win a SB.  I somewhat agree.  I do think you can sneak a playoff game win with a squad like this.  But I do think a SB would be really difficult.

 

That's my way of doubling down that we need a QB who is at least above average and we also need at least 2 more weapons on offense.  You do that and add a MLB and we'd be a serious threat IMO.

 

We go for Sam Darnold or name some other reclamation project, I think the odds are good next year we are back in the playoffs but with the same narrative about likely being one and done or close to that. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

We go for Sam Darnold or name some other reclamation project, I think the odds are good next year we are back in the playoffs but with the same narrative about likely being one and done or close to that. 


I think your head may explode if we picked up Darnold :ols:

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s the thing... this offense is capable of an explosion. But it’s not reliable and a consistent reliability. It’s a 10% thing. Not a 75% thing. And by explosion I mean 30+ pts. Not 40+. 
 

But I think the offense is good enough to get by. But it puts a real heavy weight on the D and asking them to carry the team for one game, let alone four, in the playoffs is a very difficult ask.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:


I think your head may explode if we picked up Darnold :ols:

 

lol, i don't hate the dude.  Seems like a nice dude and from what I read he has high intangibles unlike our previous young QB.  But diving into him some he strikes me as a poor man's Daniel Jones.  I think we got to aim higher.  😀

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish the Darnold talk would stop. I’d rather snag Rosen... and I don’t want him either.

 

The Darnold and Newton floats here are so odd to me. I don’t think either is an upgrade from what we have... and that’s not saying much. Newton at least has a very positive history. But Darnold... 

 

One of the big reasons for our success this season has been culture. But beyond that, Alex Smith has “it”. The unquantifiable intangible beyond the play and delving into trust and respect factor.

 

Any guy we think to bring in has to have those qualities or were downgrading.

 

Stafford? Yes. 

 

Watson? Yes. 
 

Dak? Yes.

 
Newton? Respect, yes. Trust? No.

 
Darnold? Neither.

 

Kyle Allen? Quite possibly yes to both but only because of his connection to Smith and this season. But that means something. Now... if you want to talk about his overall ability and injuries I’m not going to argue. 
 

But to me the starting point in bringing ANY QB in is trust and respect. If they have that, then evaluate their play and if it’s better than what is already in house.

 

If the team can’t trust or respect em... they aren’t it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, wit33 said:

PLEASE no to the QB making FO and coach decisions becoming the norm like the NBA. It’s somewhat inevitable, but that might be when I begin to check out but hopefully I still have another 15-20 years before that becomes the norm. 

 

Apparently this was Watson effectively acting like a union rep for his teammates.  It wasn't just him, it was him speaking for a group of players that sounds like the core of the locker room.

 

This is what you invite into your organization when you don't hire a strong GM that everyone trusts.  The HC playing GM did a horrible job and pissed off and spooked his players by making awful, arbitrary roster decisions until he got himself fired.  Vacuums in power need to be appropriately filled, or else you will get coaches and players trying to do it.  It's absolutely a warning to us to go get a strong GM.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that throw just now from Josh Allen -- what a rifle.  Makes me hunger for a dude with that type of arm.  Only ones IMO in the mix with guns (but not Allen level) we've talked about here are Stafford, Z. Wilson, T. Lance unless am forgetting one?

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Apparently this was Watson effectively acting like a union rep for his teammates.  It wasn't just him, it was him speaking for a group of players that sounds like the core of the locker room.

 

This is what you invite into your organization when you don't hire a strong GM that everyone trusts.  The HC playing GM did a horrible job and pissed off and spooked his players by making awful, arbitrary roster decisions until he got himself fired.  Vacuums in power need to be appropriately filled, or else you will get coaches and players trying to do it.  It's absolutely a warning to us to go get a strong GM.

 

I think a major difference is Rivera working with Kyle Smith killed it as for the draft and FA last year so they are off to a good start IMO.  The Texans on the other hand made buffoonish moves and in turn became the league laughing stock.   From what I am reading, Rivera is going to hire a GM this off season. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KDawg said:

I wish the Darnold talk would stop. I’d rather snag Rosen... and I don’t want him either.

 

The Darnold and Newton floats here are so odd to me. I don’t think either is an upgrade from what we have... and that’s not saying much. Newton at least has a very positive history. But Darnold... 

 

 

I am with you on Darnold but I'd actually take him over Rosen.  Rosen is a hot mess with turnovers too. Rosen with better footwork but Darnold IMO with the better arm/mobilty.  Rosen has a little of the Haskins rep about not loving football and having work ethic issues but its nowhere as intense as the Haskins stuff so maybe he overcame it or it was overplayed?  Darnold's intangibles are supposed to be super good.  I wouldn't want either.  But I'd take Darnold easily if i had to choose between him and Rosen.    

 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

But to me the starting point in bringing ANY QB in is trust and respect. If they have that, then evaluate their play and if it’s better than what is already in house.

 

If the team can’t trust or respect em... they aren’t it.

 

Agree.  

 

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

 

I am with you on Darnold but I'd actually take him over Rosen.  Rosen is a hot mess with turnovers too. Rosen with better footwork but Darnold IMO with the better arm/mobilty.  Rosen has a little of the Haskins rep about not loving football and having work ethic issues but its nowhere as intense as the Haskins stuff so maybe he overcame it or it was overplayed?  Darnold's intangibles are supposed to be super good.  I wouldn't want either.  But I'd take Darnold easily if i had to choose between him and Rosen.    

 

 

Agree.  

 


I’m not talking just play. I rarely, if ever, do that unless noted. 
 

The assets and contract for Darnold don’t overcome his slightly better than Rosen play so far. Rosen would be cheaper and cost nothing.

 

Having said that, Rosen isn’t it. Obviously. 
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KDawg said:


I’m not talking just play. I rarely, if ever, do that unless noted. 
 

The assets and contract for Darnold don’t overcome his slightly better than Rosen play so far. Rosen would be cheaper and cost nothing.

 

Having said that, Rosen isn’t it. Obviously. 
 

 

 

OK, factoring money, I get it. 

 

I haven't watched much Josh Allen this season.  I am very impressed.  The Colts have a good D and a really good D coordinator.  It does make me crave some Trey Lance watching this.  Trey's raw but so was Josh.  And speaking about intangibles, Try supposedly has intangibles through the roof. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

OK, factoring money, I get it. 

 

I haven't watched much Josh Allen this season.  I am very impressed.  The Colts have a good D and a really good D coordinator.  It does make me crave some Trey Lance watching this.  Trey's raw but so was Josh.  And speaking about intangibles, Try supposedly has intangibles through the roof. 


Allen has been phenomenal. I’ve watched every game, at least in parts, flipping to CBS when WFT was in commercial. He is tremendous.

 

Ive been saying Lance is an Allen proxy and I stick to it. I can’t predict he’ll develop... Allen and the Bills did that together. But Lance has that potential. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Watson

 

I dont think its your typical star player getting involved ala NBA.

 

I'm stacking together a few blocks here but you have:

 

-Suffering under the dumbest coach in the league BOB

-The "inmates running the prison" comments from owner about anthem protests

-Trading Nuk

-Being told you'd be consulted on the coaching hire

-Suggesting your guy, who just so happens to be an incredible candidate and is black

-Your suggestion being completely ignored

 

I dont follow Texans news closely and I'm not saying this is based on truth, but I would not be surprised if those anthem comments (and perhaps its representative a bad team culture ala the Skins, who knows) and his minority candidate suggestion getting zero attention after being told he'd be consulted are leading to a whole lot more than your typical disgruntled superstar situation.

 

These are just my observations, not accusations.

 

Also, as a player, Watson is elite.  He's much, much better than Dak and every bit in Mahomes tier.  If you trade Mahomes and Watson I dont think there's much change in either teams results.

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

I think a major difference is Rivera working with Kyle Smith killed it as for the draft and FA last year so they are off to a good start IMO.  The Texans on the other hand made buffoonish moves and in turn became the league laughing stock.   From what I am reading, Rivera is going to hire a GM this off season. 

 

Rivera has made fairly drastic and arbitrary decisions that have been questionable too.  Without rehashing the Haskins fiasco, two big ones that come to mind: deciding that no one would get a contract extension going into the year and perhaps pricing ourselves out of Scherff as a result, demanding that Trent prove himself to them and then shipping him off in the middle of the draft for a weak return.  But he's fresh and still in the honeymoon phase so people have stayed bought in to his regime despite the bumps.

 

One of the most egregious mistakes Bill O'Brien made was in the way he handled DeAndre Hopkins.  He spooked his roster by shipping him out so abruptly, and for such a terrible return.  And the decision was driven by a personality conflict that had a racial element to it.  It was an absolutely disastrous decision, and I have no doubt that's what lost him the team.  And it's the kind of thing that can happen when a coach has final power over personnel and doesn't have a GM telling him no, managing personalities, and advocating for the big picture of what's best for the organization.

 

IMO, Rivera should not be the one making the decision to hire the guy who is supposed to be his boss.  That's not a front office structure with a real GM.  The decision to hire his boss should be coming from the team president and a traditional top down front office hierarchy should be established.  We have given Rivera a crazy amount of power even though we hired Jason Wright and everyone thought that was a great move.  Why isn't he the one organizing the front office?

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

IMO, Rivera should not be the one making the decision to hire the guy who is supposed to be his boss.  That's not a front office structure with a real GM.  The decision to hire his boss should be coming from the team president and a traditional top down front office hierarchy should be established.  We have given Rivera a crazy amount of power even though we hired Jason Wright and everyone thought that was a great move.  Why isn't he the one organizing the front office?

But we know that the GM won't be Rivera's boss, no matter who we hire. And this goes with all coaches. At some point they become so successful that they want more input into personnel. Some are able to handle that better than others - the ultimate one being Parcells who could wear both hats well. But we started with Beathard hiring Gibbs and they worked well together until they butted heads. Of course JKC chose Gibbs over Beathard and Beathard left. That happens a lot of places unless the GM is willing to become second fiddle as the coach becomes the number 1 guy. Or an organization like Pitt or Baltimore comes along and the GM proves he is one of the greats. 

 

The problem I have with the coach centric model (and I'm not sure this is exactly how it will play out) is that there is not enough time to watch film on your next opponent, coach your current players, and build scouting profiles for every player getting ready for the draft and free agency. We hear Rivera giving his assistant coaches a lot of praises for their work in free agency and we've heard things about how good Gruden was at scouting. But I want talented individuals to be building those profiles and having a lot of stuff for Ron and his coaches to go over so they have enough information to have good drafts. 

 

The thing about this being Ron's show is that he has the power to bring in a Rick Smith and have him understand that he's number 2 and will never be number 1, or let a Kyle Smith continue to be the lead personnel guy but understand that even if he becomes GM, he'll never have final say because of Ron, and it eliminates the idea of the butting of heads that generally comes with successful teams. I think its what we had with Marty for that one year and what we see right now with Seattle (same guy as the personnel / GM). 

 

But who is willing to take this position? We know Kyle is because he is doing it now. Just like Schneider had a similar role here to what he has in Seattle except he has the title there but didn't have it here. I think Kyle is setting himself up for the GM role because Rick Smith will probably want more power than he'll get here, I mean he had it before and was pretty good at it. 

 

But I just hope this conversation (who fires who) isn't one we're having any time soon. Ozzy Newsome and Kevin Colbert haven't had their powers questioned much in part because they haven't had to fire many coaches. Same with Schneider. And if Ron can stay here for an equivalent amount of time as Harbaugh / Tomlin / Carroll, etc then this is less of an issue. Lets just get to winning. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't really considering Rivers as an option before today but watching him he's not bad. Clutch throws on third down.  Gritty performance.  He still wouldn't be my top choice by a long shot.  But if we struggle to find that dude and the Colts don't bring him back, I wouldn't hate it.  Granted it would be just a band aid. 

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

i would not be surprised if Dak Prescott ends up with us.  Dallas cannot afford to tag him again.  they only have 22 million in cap space.  they would have to restructure a lot of contracts in order to keep Dak.  it would be best for the cowboys to move on without him.  

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

 

Rivera has made fairly drastic and arbitrary decisions that have been questionable too.  Without rehashing the Haskins fiasco, two big ones that come to mind: deciding that no one would get a contract extension going into the year and perhaps pricing ourselves out of Scherff as a result, demanding that Trent prove himself to them and then shipping him off in the middle of the draft for a weak return.  But he's fresh and still in the honeymoon phase so people have stayed bought in to his regime despite the bumps.

 

Punting on a Scherff contract and the Trent fiasco was sent in motion before he got here though.  Ditto the Haskins fiasco set in motion by the owner.   From what I gathered they intend to try to keep Scherff, Rivera is clearly a big fan of his and seems to value continuity at that spot.  I doubt he ends up costing much more this off season then he did in the prior one.  Cap is going down and Scherff is already the highest paid guard in the league as is.   As for Trent, based on what I read, it came off that he wanted to leave unless he got a big pay raise -- in other words, he seemed to want the opposite of a home discount.  I gather Rivera valued players who wanted to stay. 

 

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

IMO, Rivera should not be the one making the decision to hire the guy who is supposed to be his boss.  That's not a front office structure with a real GM.  The decision to hire his boss should be coming from the team president and a traditional top down front office hierarchy should be established.  We have given Rivera a crazy amount of power even though we hired Jason Wright and everyone thought that was a great move.  Why isn't he the one organizing the front office?

 

From what I gathered about the Rivera hire, Dan probably wouldn't have a shot at someone at his caliber unless he gave up that kind of control.   Jason Wright is in charge of the business side of the organization.  He's even said his niche isn't football personnel.  We got arguably the worst owner in the NFL and one of the worst in sports in general.   Rivera has had to clean up a lot of crap to establish a culture.  He didn't handle it perfectly but by and large did a nice job.  The FA crop was one of our best in the last 20 years.  Good draft, too.  The players seem to love him.  The O line is suprisingly decent.  The D finally lived up to its potential.  They are playing in the playoffs.  I think he's off to really good start.

 

I do agree that I'd rather have the GM in charge as opposed to the coach.  So I don't disagree with your point on that front.  My only potential disagreement is the dude actually IMO did a really nice job in season 1 both as to coaching and personnel.  No one is going to be perfect.  Belichick screws up too.  And I think with our clown of an owner, we wouldn't get a dude like Rivera unless we put out more red carpet than other teams did.   Sort of like what the Raiders had to do to get Jon Gruden.  They like us were a clown organization and you aren't typically getting top people unless you give up more. 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I wasn't really considering Rivers as an option before today but watching him he's not bad. Clutch throws on third down.  Gritty performance.  He still wouldn't be my top choice by a long shot.  But if we struggle to find that dude and the Colts don't bring him back, I wouldn't hate it.  Granted it would be just a band aid. 

This team isn't much different than the Colts - a QB. We would probably have similar results that they had with Rivers. I would take a season like the Colts had in a heartbeat. 

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

I wasn't really considering Rivers as an option before today but watching him he's not bad. Clutch throws on third down.  Gritty performance.  He still wouldn't be my top choice by a long shot.  But if we struggle to find that dude and the Colts don't bring him back, I wouldn't hate it.  Granted it would be just a band aid. 


I’m going to get crushed for this, but I’d rather have Newton than Rivers if both come available. Just abundantly clear with each year the QB must be able to make throws outside the pocket to win consistently. Josh Allen was 15-20 with two tds today outside the pocket lol.  Exceptions exist and Rivers certainly qualifies, but just a preference for the elite mobile QB. Once again, if all things were equal, I may lean River’s direction, but with Newton’s great history with Rivera and scheme he has more value to Washington than another team. 

Edited by wit33
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   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...