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

[method man]

16 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

My question is whether or not Bill B would actually pony up a 1st rounder for Stafford. He's notoriously stingy with his draft picks. Then again, it's easier to be draft stingy when you lucked into the GOAT at QB and had him for just shy of 20 years. He might be a bit more willing to part with high draft picks now so we'll see.

 

Another one to watch is SF. Both SF and the Pats will likely have higher picks than us.

 

Both Jimmy G and Stafford have 2 years remaining on their contracts but Stafford's is way more team friendly as far as his base salary, and SF only takes a $2.8 million cap hit if they release Jimmy G in 2021. Question then is whether SF thinks a 33 year old Stafford is a sufficient upgrade over a 29 year old Jimmy G to warrant giving up a 1st round pick. That and whether they think they'll be in position to draft one of the top 3 QBs coming out.

 

NE is in a weird spot. On one hand, they should move up to get one of the 4 QBs in the draft. On the other hand, they do have a Super Bowl D with a LOT of cap room this offseason. They can easily fit Stafford in and sign a receiver or two in FA and compete next season. If SF moves on from Jimmy G, it is more likely NE goes after him than Stafford.

 

It also helps that Wentz will be on the block. That should hopefully take Indy out of the equation. We are then left with the 9ers as serious competitors for Stafford but keep in mind that they are so cap strapped that they will have to let Sherman leave in FA.

[Riggo'sRangers]

35 minutes ago, method man said:

 

He is forgetting the Patriots. That is who I am most scared of from a competition perspective. They will pick higher, have more cap room and the allure of Belichek - I wouldn't be surprised if Stafford gets some say on where he is headed.

My hope is that with our inspiring play, players will WANT to come here finally.  We really have not had an allure to anyone in recent years.  The tide has shifted methinks.  For the next few years, with fingers crossed, we will finally have a shot at the free agents we covet.  The Team is making football fun for me again.  I really did not expect it, but loving the ride.  Hell, I am pining for the game Sunday (have all week honestly) and can't wait.  It harkens back to the old glory years (I am 60) when I couldn't wait for evey game every week.  Good time ahead.  Hail

[mistertim]

10 minutes ago, method man said:

 

NE is in a weird spot. On one hand, they should move up to get one of the 4 QBs in the draft. On the other hand, they do have a Super Bowl D with a LOT of cap room this offseason. They can easily fit Stafford in and sign a receiver or two in FA and compete next season. If SF moves on from Jimmy G, it is more likely NE goes after him than Stafford.

 

It also helps that Wentz will be on the block. That should hopefully take Indy out of the equation. We are then left with the 9ers as serious competitors for Stafford but keep in mind that they are so cap strapped that they will have to let Sherman leave in FA.

 

The thing about Wentz is that contract...OOF. I don't see anyone being willing to pick that up. Especially when it would be in addition to having to give up draft picks. Now, Wentz and a new team could agree on a new contract, but it's not like Wentz has to do that. AFAIK that would be his choice. Otherwise whatever team is acquiring him would have to pick up his contract.

[PartyPosse]

I wonder if NE would be interested in Alex Smith. They have a boat load of pass catching backs, watch them draft Pitts and the offense is built for him.

[Est.1974]

57 minutes ago, method man said:

 

He is forgetting the Patriots. That is who I am most scared of from a competition perspective. They will pick higher, have more cap room and the allure of Belichek - I wouldn't be surprised if Stafford gets some say on where he is headed.

I said that yesterday. Bill is on record as loving Stafford. If he gets out of Detroit, NE is the team to beat to Stafford’s signature.

[Darrell Green Fan]

34 minutes ago, jnhutchi3 said:

 

The point I'm making is that taking a chance on the Josh Rosens and Blaine Gabberts of the world makes more sense to me than spending a fortune on Stafford.  You don't need a superstar QB to win a Super Bowl, which has been proven multiple times.  And there is definitely no guarantee that you'll get to a Super Bowl with Stafford.  He's not worth the gamble in my opinion, not when you have to make sacrifices in other areas because of his price tag.  I would rather focus on the draft and use other team's QB castoffs and maybe find a diamond in the rough over the next couple of years.

 

In the meantime, I think Smith and maybe Allen are good enough for Washington to contend in the NFC during the next couple of years.  The key is mistake-free football and both of them have played well this season.  

 

But Mathew Stafford is not a big gamble, we know exactly what he is.  And what he is is just the type of QB this team needs to elevate to the next level. This offense as it is now is not nearly good enough to compete for a title. 

 

Even with a low price tag Josh Rosen is a much larger gamble because the chances of him ever being good enough is like a 400 to one (and I'm still looking for that one example).  Again I look at the league history of 1st round busts who were traded to back up that figure.   

[mistertim]

5 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

But Mathew Stafford is not a big gamble, we know exactly what he is.  And what he is is just the type of QB this team needs to elevate to the next level. This offense as it is now is not nearly good enough to compete for a title. 

 

Even with a low price tag Josh Rosen is a much larger gamble because the chances of him ever being good enough is like a 400 to one (and I'm still looking for that one example).  Again I look at the league history of 1st round busts who were traded to back up that figure.   

 

Agreed. I don't really see how Stafford is a gamble from a playing perspective. He's shown he can consistently play at a high level in the league and he's been dragging around a dog**** team/franchise for years now. He's also tied for 7th overall number of 4th quarter comebacks in NFL history behind guys like Peyton, Brady, Brees, Big Ben, and Marino. Hell, he's done it to us in the past. And that's only since 2009.

[PartyPosse]

My issue with Stafford is he's been there for like 15 years now and have they even won a playoff game? Sure, you can very rightly look at the roster on a consistent basis but at a certain point you can't discount the one consistent common factor - he's never been able to elevate the team. He's good, no doubt, but no one knows what he's capable of come playoff time really. It's boom or bust with him. If he's not effective, you're blowing this window. Young or not, eventually we'll have to pay all these guys on the DL and I'd rather draft someone and have friendly team control for 5 years than spend 40-50 on two years of a vet only to have to start the process of finding a QB all over.

[NoCalMike]

If Washington is going to go the veteran QB route, it needs to be a proven franchise QB like a Stafford or Rivers.  You get a veteran in here that is ready to win games now, while drafting the future franchise QB as soon as you can.

[mistertim]

7 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

My issue with Stafford is he's been there for like 15 years now and have they even won a playoff game? Sure, you can very rightly look at the roster on a consistent basis but at a certain point you can't discount the one consistent common factor - he's never been able to elevate the team. He's good, no doubt, but no one knows what he's capable of come playoff time really. It's boom or bust with him. If he's not effective, you're blowing this window. Young or not, eventually we'll have to pay all these guys on the DL and I'd rather draft someone and have friendly team control for 5 years than spend 40-50 on two years of a vet only to have to start the process of finding a QB all over.

 

It's a fair point, but I don't think anyone would argue that just from an ability standpoint he'd be a huge upgrade over Kyle Allen and Alex Smith. I don't necessarily see him as a "boom or bust" guy though. I think he's consistently demonstrated that he can play, so there's a really low likelihood that he'll suddenly suck once he gets here. The question for me isn't whether he'd bust but whether the 1st round price tag would potentially get us to a SB or if it would just end up being a moderate upgrade without any postseason success. That's where your point about the Lions not getting into the postseason does certainly come into play.

[CrypticVillain]

10 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

If Washington is going to go the veteran QB route, it needs to be a proven franchise QB like a Stafford or Rivers.  You get a veteran in here that is ready to win games now, while drafting the future franchise QB as soon as you can.

I don't understand how anyone could come to any conclusion other than this.

 

See if you can trade for Stafford or some other QB, (Ryan... Rodgers???) and draft a QB you REALLY like It doesn't necessarily have to be the best one you like.

[Darrell Green Fan]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

SB winning QBs post our last SB.  Not too many scrubs in that mix.  😀

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for doing the work. I was all set to present this information to @jnhutchi3when he claimed you don't need a star QB to win the Super Bowl.  It's pretty clear that the average QB winning a ring is the exception to the rule. It's even more obvious when you consider only 1/4 of the league has a great QBs yet they win the the majority of Super Bowls. 

 

I have no idea why this is still being debated.  

[jnhutchi3]

30 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

But Mathew Stafford is not a big gamble, we know exactly what he is.  And what he is is just the type of QB this team needs to elevate to the next level. This offense as it is now is not nearly good enough to compete for a title. 

 

Even with a low price tag Josh Rosen is a much larger gamble because the chances of him ever being good enough is like a 400 to one (and I'm still looking for that one example).  Again I look at the league history of 1st round busts who were traded to back up that figure.   

 

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I don't think spending a fortune on someone like Stafford makes sense, no matter how good he is.  He has 5 good years left in him, if that.  The NFL is not the NBA.  It's ridiculous spending huge amounts of money on any 1 player, no matter how good he is. 

 

Stafford could play great for 5 years and Washington could still be just an also-ran who loses in the first round of the playoffs each year, because Stafford's salary prevents upgrades at other key positions.  Washington is good enough at the QB position right now with Smith and Allen.  Search for a long-term solution at QB, which is not Stafford.

[Darrell Green Fan]

3 minutes ago, jnhutchi3 said:

 

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I don't think spending a fortune on someone like Stafford makes sense, no matter how good he is.  He has 5 good years left in him, if that.  The NFL is not the NBA.  It's ridiculous spending huge amounts of money on any 1 player, no matter how good he is. 

 

Stafford could play great for 5 years and Washington could still be just an also-ran who loses in the first round of the playoffs each year, because Stafford's salary prevents upgrades at other key positions.  Washington is good enough at the QB position right now with Smith and Allen.  Search for a long-term solution at QB, which is not Stafford.

Having a good QB gives you a huge leg up on being a contender, there are very very few examples of teams without a good QB being in that position year after year.  Pittsburgh, KC, Green Bay, New Orleans and several other teams invested a good portion of their cap to their QB and they have zero regrets.  

 

I agree time to move on, have a good day. 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Darrell Green Fan

[jnhutchi3]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

SB winning QBs post our last SB.  Not too many scrubs in that mix.  😀

 

 

 

 

 

No, but I would easily take Smith over Trent Dilfer.  I would take Smith over Brad Johnson and Peyton Manning as well.

[PartyPosse]

16 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

It's a fair point, but I don't think anyone would argue that just from an ability standpoint he'd be a huge upgrade over Kyle Allen and Alex Smith. I don't necessarily see him as a "boom or bust" guy though. I think he's consistently demonstrated that he can play, so there's a really low likelihood that he'll suddenly suck once he gets here. The question for me isn't whether he'd bust but whether the 1st round price tag would potentially get us to a SB or if it would just end up being a moderate upgrade without any postseason success. That's where your point about the Lions not getting into the postseason does certainly come into play.

Let’s be honest, is the offense any better than what he’s had in Detroit? I feel like just with Cousins there was always an excuse, a justification as to why he was always good but not great. Lack of weapons, no OL, no RB etc. Some QBs just have a knack of elevating their to the point where that doesn’t matter. GB doesn’t really have much by way of weapons. NE didn’t for a while. I’m not saying it’s easy to find a Rodgers or a Brady but what good is having Stafford behind center if what we’ve seen is as good as as it’s going to get?

[Darrell Green Fan]

1 minute ago, PartyPosse said:

Let’s be honest, is the offense any better than what he’s had in Detroit? I feel like just with Cousins there was always an excuse, a justification as to why he was always good but not great. Lack of weapons, no OL, no RB etc. Some QBs just have a knack of elevating their to the point where that doesn’t matter. GB doesn’t really have much by way of weapons. NE didn’t for a while. I’m not saying it’s easy to find a Rodgers or a Brady but what good is having Stafford behind center if what we’ve seen is as good as as it’s going to get?

If he gave us what they got out of him in Detroit he will be a huge upgrade over what is here now.  Detroit never had this defense.  

[PartyPosse]

Also, I would like to add in that prior to the start of next season, Stafford will be the same age as Donovan Mcnabb was when we traded for him.

[jnhutchi3]

36 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Agreed. I don't really see how Stafford is a gamble from a playing perspective. He's shown he can consistently play at a high level in the league and he's been dragging around a dog**** team/franchise for years now. He's also tied for 7th overall number of 4th quarter comebacks in NFL history behind guys like Peyton, Brady, Brees, Big Ben, and Marino. Hell, he's done it to us in the past. And that's only since 2009.

 

Stafford may not be a gamble from a playing perspective, but he is a gamble from a money and planning-for-the-future perspective.  And that does matter.  

 

And even veteran QBs struggle in new offenses.  Case in point -- Brady in Tampa Bay.

[Skinsinparadise]

11 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Thank you for doing the work. I was all set to present this information to @jnhutchi3when he claimed you don't need a star QB to win the Super Bowl.  It's pretty clear that the average QB winning a ring is the exception to the rule. It's even more obvious when you consider only 1/4 of the league has a great QBs yet they win the the majority of Super Bowls. 

 

I have no idea why this is still being debated.  

 

Winning SB Qbs have been mostly elite to very good.  There have been a few exceptions of good QBs getting hot in the playoffs.  Dilfer probably the worst QB to win it but he did so in an era that still was favorable for defenses and even so it was still a rare anamoly. 

 

If I understand correctly the Lions would have to eat the bonus money and if so we'd be paying Stafford in the low 20s for the next two seasons which is cheap relatively speaking.

 

The odds of winning a SB with a dude like Josh Rosen would have to be like 1000 to 1 if they took bets on it in Vegas.  I'd put money that with this defense the SB odds for the WFT would be pretty good with someone like Stafford. 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[JSSkinz]

I think Wentz has become the scapegoat for a franchise that has done a poor job drafting.

 

There's a good QB still in there somewhere.

[jnhutchi3]

1 minute ago, PartyPosse said:

Also, I would like to add in that prior to the start of next season, Stafford will be the same age as Donovan Mcnabb was when we traded for him.

 

Good point.  And McNabb had a lot more playoff success than Stafford has so far.

[PartyPosse]

3 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

If he gave us what they got out of him in Detroit he will be a huge upgrade over what is here now.  Detroit never had this defense.  

They did in 2014 when they made the playoffs. And then Stafford proceeded to **** the bed against Dallas. I remember how angry I was at him for that. The defense was ranked third in the nfl and had at the time one of the two or three most feared pass rushers in the NfL at the time.

[JoggingGod]

This forum has a serious issue comprehending how the modern NFL works. I seriously don’t don’t understand how people are okay with Josh ****ing Rosen or Haskins as our starting QB just because they’re young but someone who’s borderline top 10 in Stafford would “ruin” this team.

[jnhutchi3]

5 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

I think Wentz has become the scapegoat for a franchise that has done a poor job drafting.

 

There's a good QB still in there somewhere.

 

Agreed.  I would take Wentz before I took Stafford.