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

[jnhutchi3]

13 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

It kills me. I HATE Alex’s game and it frustrates me to no end. But the dude just always wins no matter where he is. I don’t think he’s had a losing record in 10 years. And it’s always because of everything else. It’s never him knowing what he needs to do and what he shouldn’t do. He knows how to read the game situations. He won’t take unnecessary risks if he doesn’t have to and he will when he does. Doesn’t always work out but that man has so much game awareness.

 

Winning is not the most important QB stat.  Not according to these guys.  QB rating is more important than risk management and situational awareness, according to these guys.

 

One of them told me today that won/loss record is not a QB stat.  LOL.

[justice98]

23 hours ago, Kelvin Bryant said:

Kyle Allen is the best QB currently on the roster. Change my mind.

 

Allen: Passing Rating 99.3 TDs: 4 INTs: 1

Haskins: Passing Rating 79.4 TDs: 4 INTs: 3

Smith: Passing Rating 79.0 TDs: 4 INTs: 6

 

I actually agree with this.  

[Renegade7]

7 minutes ago, KDawg said:

It’s a little nerve wrecking. People are willing to trade for Stafford, his contract and assets and it scares the **** out of me for where their minds are.

 

The window point is the big one that I have trouble gripping. I don’t want a small one or two year window... Not only do you need the horses to succeed with that approach but you have to be lucky, too, with injuries.

 

Trading multiple assets is eschewing the future in order to gamble that the asset you are acquiring stays healthy, plays similarly or better in their new environment and that they fit within the organization and they are comfortable. 
 

A window is something bad franchises chase. Good organizations strive for continued excellence. 
 

Making short sighted moves is a real big mistake.

 

We don't know how long Stafford can play.  If folks are saying stuff like Alex will play 16 games next year or year after, its not short-sighted to say Stafford is more likely.

 

This to me is more about whether Alex is healthy right now to be saying he'll be healthy next year or even playing.  This isnt about a window, this is about finding best bridge QB we can to get most out of this defense while we have it together.

 

The future is the future, now is now.

[PartyPosse]

10 minutes ago, jnhutchi3 said:

One of them told me today that won/loss record is not a QB stat.  LOL.

I don’t think it is as much as wins/losses are indicative of a pitcher’s success (Degrom comes to mind).

 

however I do think there is much to say about a qb that always seems to be consistently on a winning team despite never having to put up massive numbers. That means the team as a whole is playing winning football with you under center.

[mistertim]

14 minutes ago, jnhutchi3 said:

 

Winning is not the most important QB stat.  Not according to these guys.  QB rating is more important than risk management and situational awareness, according to these guys.

 

One of them told me today that won/loss record is not a QB stat.  LOL.

 

Winning isn't a QB stat, it's a team stat. Can you honestly say that putting up what he put up in the last 4 games would have won it for us if the defense hadn't been dominating? Even when we beat up on Dallas he only had 149 yards passing, 1 TD and 1 INT. That game was us absolutely gashing them on the ground. What did Smith have to do with that? Not fumbling handoffs?

 

He's isn't a bad QB but he's not a guy who's going to help you be a perennial contender. It's not a coincidence that the teams who threaten to go all the way almost year in and year out have top notch QBs who elevate the team and make big plays. Alex Smith is just not one of those guys. He never has been. Pretty good game manager but not a playmaker.

Edited December 17, 2020 by mistertim

[PartyPosse]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

The future is the future, now is now.

Well how much of the future are you willing to sacrifice for now? Would you trade a first for Stafford?

1 minute ago, mistertim said:

He's isn't a bad QB but he's not a guy who's going to help you be a perennial contender.

Except literally every year he’s been a starter the team is a contender.

[Anselmheifer]

11 minutes ago, KDawg said:

It’s a little nerve wrecking. People are willing to trade for Stafford, his contract and assets and it scares the **** out of me for where their minds are.

 

The window point is the big one that I have trouble gripping. I don’t want a small one or two year window... Not only do you need the horses to succeed with that approach but you have to be lucky, too, with injuries.

 

Trading multiple assets is eschewing the future in order to gamble that the asset you are acquiring stays healthy, plays similarly or better in their new environment and that they fit within the organization and they are comfortable. 
 

A window is something bad franchises chase. Good organizations strive for continued excellence. 
 

Making short sighted moves is a real big mistake.

 

Finally. A well reasoned post in this thread. I can see why giving up the assets would be scary. But, we don't even know what those assets are. 

For the record, I don't think making short sighted moves is always bad. Anything the Patriots could do to load up while they had Brady would have made sense. If the Packers want to push it all into the middle of the table and go big in FA and move up for the top WR on the board, that makes sense to me. How much longer will they have a prime Aaron Rodgers? Better to try to win it while you have the assets to win it. 

[KDawg]

40 minutes ago, Tedskins 21 said:

Stafford is a surefire top 15 QB today (PFF has him at 13.)  Alex is one of the bottom starters in the league (PFF has him at 30, Haskins is 39 for reference.)  You move from a bottom half starter to an upper half starter, you significantly improve the team.  More points.  More leads being protected.  More of a chance for the defense to attack.  Synergy baby.  Stafford makes so much sense.  I just don't think the Lions get rid of him.  But we will see.

 

25 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Absolutely zero defensive coaches are afraid of Alex Smith or our offense. He's pretty much never a threat to make any big plays. You're never going to field a perennial playoff team with a guy like that. He might help you squeak into a playoff game here or there if the defense is playing great, but that's about it.

 

It seems that you don't like that this is an offense-centric passing league now that centers around the QB for the most part. Sorry about that. But that doesn't change that it's simply a fact of the game right now. There are aberrations (Jackson in Bal) but for the most part it holds true and likely will continue to hold true. It's not the 1980s.

 

22 minutes ago, redskins4ever28 said:

Go watch some Stafford games. Tell me if that team had even a slightly competent defense or running game over the past few years that they would not be a consistent 10+ win team. Stafford is miles better then smith. Even the Detroit fans know how much he’s carried them over the years

 

What Stafford did in Detroit does not mean he will do the same here. He is aging. He is getting more and more banged up, and mostly with torso type injuries. 

 

By trading for Stafford you do a few things:

 

1) Drastically, talent wise, improve the QB position.

2) Take on a giant contract (and more apt to our discussion a giant cap hit)

3) You are essentially giving yourself a two year window to compete. Stafford will not come asset cheap. Whether it's the contract a 2 and a 3, the contract and a 1 or whatever... There are assets to come with him. I doubt you get him for anything less than I stated here. 

4) By giving away assets, you prevent yourselves from stockpiling talent and retooling rather than rebuilding. Dynasties are built in two offseasons. They take time. I want this to be a dynasty, not a team chasing a Super Bowl and then falling flat. Do it right.

 

10 minutes ago, jnhutchi3 said:

 

So what if they're not afraid of Smith?  Winning is all I care about.  And that's what Smith does.  I hope they continue being unafraid and Smith keeps picking them apart.

 

Let other teams like Pittsburgh throw 50 times per game and lose.  I'll take Smith winning ugly any day.  You don't understand the intangibles that Smith brings to a team and I doubt you ever will.

 

 

Agreed. Who teams are afraid of and not afraid of doesn't make much difference. And I know they used "afraid of" in a means like they have to plan for that player, but defensive coordinators aren't afraid of anybody. They game plan for guys... But they aren't afraid of anyone. 

 

Another point that I think people miss sometimes is that synergies work as far as styles as well. Dominant defense to hang your hat on? Control the clock. Throwing 50 times a game wears them out. Sustain drives and keep those guys fresh. 

 

An offense that has big play potential but can't really sustain drives? You want your defense to be a bunch of ruthless risk takers. One way or another you want the offense back on the field to give yourself more chances, so they push for turnovers, sacks and big plays and leave themselves more vulnerable. 

 

I'm a big fan of sustaining drives. To beat teams like the Chiefs you have to limit the time Mahomes is on the field and get him to turn the ball over. And I think that kind of team, a team that can sustain drives, is the key to the long term success here.

 

To be clear, I don't believe Smith is the long term guy here. But I want to make sure my point is clear: Snagging a Stafford is no guarantee, and there is a pretty good chance it doesn't work out the way you intend and not only do you miss your window, but you start your rebuild much sooner than anticipated. Again. 

 

7 minutes ago, Anselmheifer said:

 

I can't tell if you really believe this stuff or you really are that glib. Stafford has been very productive and pretty efficient. He doesn't need McLaurin to rescue his production. It's already 5 miles better than that of Alex Smith. Detroit has never surrounded him with a team. 
 

And the league is a passing league now. A few teams make it interesting by bucking the trend and implementing run heavy schemes. This can be effective as it plays off of league defenses gearing up to stop the pass. But, who won the Super Bowl? The best QB. Coached by Andy Reid. It's not a passing league by accident. The league has intentionally changed the rules and the enforcement of the rules to make it so.

 

His production with Detroit does not = his production with Washington. Maybe he's better, maybe he's worse. But there is no way to know that. One thing that you can bank on... He comes at an extremely high cost and high risk.

 

5 minutes ago, jnhutchi3 said:

 

Winning is not the most important QB stat.  Not according to these guys.  QB rating is more important than risk management and situational awareness, according to these guys.

 

One of them told me today that won/loss record is not a QB stat.  LOL.

 

I don't think winning/losing is a QB statistic, I truly believe teams win and lose games and not any one guy. But I do believe that there are just some quarterbacks who inspire entire teams do it everything possible to be successful and Smith is one of those guys.

 

The proof of that is to ignore his individual statistics and take a look at the club's winning % with him at QB and without him at QB. Smith has played in less than almost two seasons worth of games than the team has played since his arrival and they have won more games with him at the helm than everyone else... combined. That is not a coincidence. 

[Renegade7]

Just now, PartyPosse said:

Well how much of the future are you willing to sacrifice for now? Would you trade a first for Stafford?

Yes. Its gonna be low anyway in year with really weird situations in college sports.

 

  QB is one position we don't stand a chance with without an answer.  Kyle Allen is not a good answer, im not sold on that, he's a great backup and thats it, he's proven nothing more.

 

I've been off the wagon on Alex health, and Haskins can't hit the broadside of a barn right now.  A LT and linebacker or WR dont matter without a QB, trade it, and draft someone next year we'll have better tape on and can learn from Stafford for year or two.

 

Defense is loaded, the idea with that of Terry, Gibson, Stafford could shock people, worth a better shot then some rookie, why I made this thread.

[PartyPosse]

If you trade for Stafford then you don’t draft a QB this year. Simple as that. If you do that then you have nothing in the cupboards for afterwards. Draft someone. Show patience, let him learn on the bench and hopefully by the time Smith retires he’s ready to take command.

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

Yes. Its gonna be low anyway in year with really weird situations in college sports.

 

  QB is one position we don't stand a chance with without an answer.  Kyle Allen is not a good answer, im not sold on that, he's a great backup and thats it, he's proven nothing more.

 

I've been off the wagon on Alex health, and Haskins can't hit the broadside of a barn right now.  A LT and linebacker or WR dont matter without a QB, trade it, and draft someone next year we'll have better tape on and can learn from Stafford for year or two.

 

Defense is loaded, the idea with that of Terry, Gibson, Stafford could shock people, worth a better shot then some rookie, why I made this thread.

So if you had the chance at say Smith, Pitts, Terry and Gibson or Stafford, Terry and Gibson what’s more appealing now and then say 3 years down the road?

[KDawg]

7 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

We don't know how long Stafford can play.  If folks are saying stuff like Alex will play 16 games next year or year after, its not short-sighted to say Stafford is more likely.

 

This to me is more about whether Alex is healthy right now to be saying he'll be healthy next year or even playing.  This isnt about a window, this is about finding best bridge QB we can to get most out of this defense while we have it together.

 

The future is the future, now is now.

 

You have to do a cost analysis.

 

The point I can agree with: Finding the best quarterback for the franchise's situation is paramount.

 

But here's the thing... There is a world where that quarterback could be Kyle Allen or Alex Smith.

 

Now, I think even as a card carrying Smith guy, it's safe for me to admit to the masses that even those of us who think the dude is an absolute monster would be much, much, much, much, much, MUCH more comfortable with a better talent at the quarterback position. Justin Fields, Trevor Lawrence, Zach Wilson maybe? Trey Lance maybe? There's a ton of guys I'd love to have there. Kyle Allen and Alex Smith as the quarterbacks are a scary factor for the offense from a production point of view. But they both DO bring some positives.

 

Familiarity. Continuity. Relationships. Psychology. 

 

What they lack in their ability to produce in stats they very well may bring to the team in other ways. 

 

Can Stafford do that? Maybe. We have no idea, as you said. But is the cost worth it? 

 

What happens if we trade a 1 and get Stafford's contract and he goes down in week 4? That's 20% of our salary cap on IR. 

 

Now, again, as a Smith fan - We just had that happen to us. I don't want to relive that nightmare.

 

Stafford is aging, still not an old man, but aging. His torso is taking a beating.

 

Now, I'll cap this off with this statement: If we can get Stafford for a 3rd and his contract, I'd certainly consider it. I'd still be iffy, but more open. If we can get Stafford for a 3rd and a renegotiated contract where his cap hit isn't so big I'm more than open to at least exploring it.

 

But I think too many here are too willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[mistertim]

2 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

 

Except literally every year he’s been a starter the team is a contender.

 

So if you look back at 2018 you really think we were a SB contender? We were 6-3 and had won most of those games by the skin of our teeth while barely managing 20 points. It was fun to be a winning team but our offense was pretty weak and I don't think most people here harbored illusions about us going all the way that season.

[jnhutchi3]

8 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

I don’t think it is as much as wins/losses are indicative of a pitcher’s success (Degrom comes to mind).

 

however I do think there is much to say about a qb that always seems to be consistently on a winning team despite never having to put up massive numbers. That means the team as a whole is playing winning football with you under center.

 

I agree.  Smith reminds me a lot of Theismann.

 

This notion that Smith is not productive is ridiculous.  The dude has over 35,000 career passing yards and a career 86.9% passer rating.  That's pretty damn good.

[JoggingGod]

3 minutes ago, KDawg said:

But here's the thing... There is a world where that quarterback could be Kyle Allen or Alex Smith.

 

No there isn’t. There is no world where one legged Alex Smith or noodle arm Kyle Allen are viable QB options in 2021. It’s nuts how much you’re trying to tear down Stafford who’s a proven top QB but are trying to rationalize guys who literally have not done ****.

Edited December 17, 2020 by JoggingGod

[Darrell Green Fan]

10 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

Well how much of the future are you willing to sacrifice for now? Would you trade a first for Stafford?

Except literally every year he’s been a starter the team is a contender.

 And 2 contending teams felt he was not good enough so they moved in a different direction. The operative word is contending teams.  Alex Smith has played on good teams, that is why they were contenders not Alex Smith. They both improved and went further once he was replaced.   

 

Sonny Jurgenson would disagree that winning is a  QB stat. So would DeShaun Watson and Mathew Stafford for that matter.  

[KDawg]

Just now, JoggingGod said:

No there isn’t. There is no world where one legged Alex Smith or noodle arm Kyle Allen are viable QB options in 2021. It’s nuts how much you’re trying to tear down Stafford who’s a proven top QB but are trying to rationalize guys who literally have not done ****.

 

1) I'm not tearing down Stafford. Stafford is a good QB. 

 

This isn't about Matthew Stafford the football player in a vacuum.

 

This is about Matthew Stafford the football player, asset cost, cap %, longevity and fit within the Washington organization.

 

If you think in a vacuum you're going to get sucked in.

[Tedskins 21]

@KDawg.  You can get Stafford and retool.  It just depends on the cost.  I am not advocating giving up a first.  The best bet would be to improve the QB position this offseason as well as draft someone to develop.  Counting on Kyle and Alex to be healthy for 16 games and be above average is a risk.

 

Also - what are the chances we build a dynasty?  Slim.  Everyone wants a dynasty, but if you can compete next year for a SuperBowl, you go for it.

[PartyPosse]

2 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

So if you look back at 2018 you really think we were a SB contender? We were 6-3 and had won most of those games by the skin of our teeth while barely managing 20 points. It was fun to be a winning team but our offense was pretty weak and I don't think most people here harbored illusions about us going all the way that season.

Why not? We were in first place and winning games. It’s not like the Giants or the Eagles ever looked like legit contenders but somehow they got 3 rings out of it. Winning in dominant fashion doesn’t guarantee anything. Just ask the 18-0 Patriots.

 

Point is every year he’s a starter the team is in the playoffs or just misses. The two years out of the last 8 (discounting the Washington years)  he didn’t make the playoffs he was 8-7 and 6-2-1.

[jnhutchi3]

10 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

 

 

What Stafford did in Detroit does not mean he will do the same here. He is aging. He is getting more and more banged up, and mostly with torso type injuries. 

 

By trading for Stafford you do a few things:

 

1) Drastically, talent wise, improve the QB position.

2) Take on a giant contract (and more apt to our discussion a giant cap hit)

3) You are essentially giving yourself a two year window to compete. Stafford will not come asset cheap. Whether it's the contract a 2 and a 3, the contract and a 1 or whatever... There are assets to come with him. I doubt you get him for anything less than I stated here. 

4) By giving away assets, you prevent yourselves from stockpiling talent and retooling rather than rebuilding. Dynasties are built in two offseasons. They take time. I want this to be a dynasty, not a team chasing a Super Bowl and then falling flat. Do it right.

 

 

 

Agreed. Who teams are afraid of and not afraid of doesn't make much difference. And I know they used "afraid of" in a means like they have to plan for that player, but defensive coordinators aren't afraid of anybody. They game plan for guys... But they aren't afraid of anyone. 

 

Another point that I think people miss sometimes is that synergies work as far as styles as well. Dominant defense to hang your hat on? Control the clock. Throwing 50 times a game wears them out. Sustain drives and keep those guys fresh. 

 

An offense that has big play potential but can't really sustain drives? You want your defense to be a bunch of ruthless risk takers. One way or another you want the offense back on the field to give yourself more chances, so they push for turnovers, sacks and big plays and leave themselves more vulnerable. 

 

I'm a big fan of sustaining drives. To beat teams like the Chiefs you have to limit the time Mahomes is on the field and get him to turn the ball over. And I think that kind of team, a team that can sustain drives, is the key to the long term success here.

 

To be clear, I don't believe Smith is the long term guy here. But I want to make sure my point is clear: Snagging a Stafford is no guarantee, and there is a pretty good chance it doesn't work out the way you intend and not only do you miss your window, but you start your rebuild much sooner than anticipated. Again. 

 

 

His production with Detroit does not = his production with Washington. Maybe he's better, maybe he's worse. But there is no way to know that. One thing that you can bank on... He comes at an extremely high cost and high risk.

 

 

I don't think winning/losing is a QB statistic, I truly believe teams win and lose games and not any one guy. But I do believe that there are just some quarterbacks who inspire entire teams do it everything possible to be successful and Smith is one of those guys.

 

The proof of that is to ignore his individual statistics and take a look at the club's winning % with him at QB and without him at QB. Smith has played in less than almost two seasons worth of games than the team has played since his arrival and they have won more games with him at the helm than everyone else... combined. That is not a coincidence. 

 

You make a lot of really good points.  Very well said.  A defense's best friend is a ball-control offense that eats up a lot of clock and this is something that Smith excels at.  Stafford?  Not so much.

 

Even if Stafford is the more "productive" QB, there is definitely no guarantee that Washington wins more games with him.  It's not a risk worth taking in my opinion.

 

  

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, Tedskins 21 said:

@KDawg.  You can get Stafford and retool.  It just depends on the cost.  I am not advocating giving up a first.  The best bet would be to improve the QB position this offseason as well as draft someone to develop.  Counting on Kyle and Alex to be healthy for 16 games and be above average is a risk.

 

Also - what are the chances we build a dynasty?  Slim.  Everyone wants a dynasty, but if you can compete next year for a SuperBowl, you go for it.

 

You're not wrong. But here's the thing: You should always be looking to build a dynasty and make moves while you do it to enhance your ability to win now and later. It doesn't always work that way. Sometimes things go wrong or don't balance the way you want. 

 

But that big of a cap hit AND asset loss is a big hole. 

 

I understand some here are just saying Stafford is a good QB and they'd like him and they aren't advocating for trading big assets. My contention to that is: Detroit isn't going to want to let him go unless they get something good out of it. And that is going to be a 2 and a 3, a 1, etc. 

 

If we can get him for a bag of chips and his contract I'd be a LOT more open to kicking the tires. He's a talented guy. 

[Renegade7]

12 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

If you trade for Stafford then you don’t draft a QB this year. Simple as that. If you do that then you have nothing in the cupboards for afterwards. Draft someone. Show patience, let him learn on the bench and hopefully by the time Smith retires he’s ready to take command.

So if you had the chance at say Smith, Pitts, Terry and Gibson or Stafford, Terry and Gibson what’s more appealing now and then say 3 years down the road?

 

We need to confirm what the cost will be before talking ourselves out of it.  I said I would, would you trade a first?  I don't know who Pitts is, ill listen.  If he's a rookie, I've already answered that question.

[jnhutchi3]

9 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

So if you look back at 2018 you really think we were a SB contender? We were 6-3 and had won most of those games by the skin of our teeth while barely managing 20 points. It was fun to be a winning team but our offense was pretty weak and I don't think most people here harbored illusions about us going all the way that season.

 

What part of "6 - 3" don't you understand?

 

It's hilarious hearing Washington fans quibble about "barely" winning, when this team hasn't won jack **** in almost 30 years now.

[KDawg]

8 minutes ago, JoggingGod said:

No there isn’t. There is no world where one legged Alex Smith or noodle arm Kyle Allen are viable QB options in 2021. It’s nuts how much you’re trying to tear down Stafford who’s a proven top QB but are trying to rationalize guys who literally have not done ****.

 

Also, didn't you start this thread?

 

2021 New Head Coach/GM Thread - The Stadium - Extremeskins (redskins.com)

 

I wouldn't call anything anyone else posts "nuts"

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

We need to confirm what the cost will be before talking ourselves out of it.  I said I would, would you trade a first?  I don't know who Pitts is, ill listen.  If he's a rookie, I've already answered that question.

 

I go the other way, and its semantics, but it's the way I think about it:

 

We need to confirm what the cost will be before talking ourselves into it. 

[PartyPosse]

6 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

And 2 contending teams felt he was not good enough so they moved in a different direction. The operative word is contending teams.  Alex Smith has played on good teams, that is why they were contenders not Alex Smith. They both improved and went further once he was replaced.   

I get it. It’s never Alex. It’s always the team. SF chased the dragon and it backfired. They went 12-4 the next year and then fell off a cliff. The team declined significantly year by year and by year three of the post Alex world the team was dead last in offense. KC went in a different direction because the defense fell apart and they wanted to change things up. They wanted to be an offensive-minded team, something that isn’t Alex’s game. 

[mistertim]

2 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

Why not? We were in first place and winning games. It’s not like the Giants or the Eagles ever looked like legit contenders but somehow they got 3 rings out of it. Winning in dominant fashion doesn’t guarantee anything. Just ask the 18-0 Patriots.

 

Point is every year he’s a starter the team is in the playoffs or just misses. The two years out of the last 8 (discounting the Washington years)  he didn’t make the playoffs he was 8-7 and 6-2-1.

 

Why not? Because our offense was basically molasses. There was absolutely no way we'd ever get close to winning anything even resembling shooting match with a team that had a very good offense, and our defense was ok but nothing special. IMO that start was mostly smoke and mirrors. As I said it was fun to win, but we were in no way a championship caliber team.