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

[TheGoodBits]

Wonder if Stafford would pull a Brady and take a very team friendly deal (heavy on incentives) to give his new team the best chance of winning a title in his remaining career. 

[PartyPosse]

41 minutes ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

We arent built to win now no team thats 7-9 is built to win now, we have no depth on the offensive side of the football outside of running back....

I meant the team has a solid core to build around is the general consensus. I tend to agree that we as a fanbase get too giddy about how certain aspects of the team looks and I understand the mindset where you only need a couple of your areas to excel to be credible contenders.

[KDawg]

4 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

I’m still not on board. I don’t think the team is as close as we think and I unfortunately expect a regression next year.

 

I'm of a similar mindset.

 

I'd say I'm on board with Stafford. I'm not on board with what it would take to get Stafford, so all things considered I wouldn't go after him.

 

I admit I'd be excited as a fan to have him. He's an excellent quarterback. But also as a fan: The draft compensation is key in figuring this out. A single first this year is a lot, but sometimes you have to pay a lot. I'd be... reluctant about it but I think if Rivera really thought that we needed Stafford I'd accept a 1 as the compensation. A 1 and a 4 or something like that would be... acceptable despite my reservations...

 

But if I were in a personnel position I'd caution very highly against making the trade.

 

There's too many positions we need help in to give up too much.

 

Making Stafford our first round pick this year... okay. Making him our first this year and next? No way.

Edited January 24, 2021 by KDawg

[KillBill26]

4 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

I was all for all the trades. DMac, RG3, Smith. It doesn't work. The final 4 QBs was used as an example. Not one trade and they sat. Grow your QB.

 

We're not the loser team we were and now have a real organization and we'll figure it out.

Dmac was the one trade I was against, partly bc he was past his prime (rational), partly bc I must hated the guy since he was the face of the eagles for so long (not so rational).

 

As for the final 4 qbs, we can throw the tom brady situation our the window.  The pats for the GOAT in the 6th round after every team passed on him multiple times.  That wasn't exactly them identifying their franchise qb and being aggressive to get him, and I wouldn't advise a team that needs a franchise qb to wait til day 3 for one to fall on their laps.

 

Josh allen and mahomes did involve trades involving draft picks.  When you look at what the bills gave up, it was a lot of draft capital and cordy glenn (a solid LT at the time).  There was risk to both (and watson and lamar) bc of the draft capital spent, and all those qbs were far from a sure thing (or else they would've went towards the top of their draft).  

 

A rod fell into the packers lap, but they were smart enough to take him before anyone else did, they deserve credit.  But like brady, I attributes that more to luck than sound strategy.

 

Allen, mahomes, watson, and lamar was sound strategy, but they did involve trades and giving up assets.  The difference is they were drafted, and some initially sat ( I don't think allen or watson did).  The only real difference is: do you use this assets towards a rookie and more of an unknown whether they can play in the nfl period; vs a veteran, where the question is can they CONTINUE to play at the necessary level to justify the trade.  Considering the vet will be plug and play and our young defense is ready to win now, I choose stafford over trading up for a rookie.  I'm not comfortable with our #1 plan being mac jones at 19 or buchele or newman on day 2.  As a fallback if we strike out on Stafford, maybe, but I still think stafford is the way to go (unless it costs 2 firsts, then I'm not so sure).  But I'd rather pay 2 firsts for stafford than pay 2 firsts for lance.

 

 

 

[FootballZombie]

3 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Making Stafford our first round pick this year... okay. Making him our first this year and next? No way.

 

I'd give a 1 and change for Stafford if I had too. I would not give 2 1s for him either.

 

Gotta be in the conversation for Stafford but if you get outbid, you get outbid.

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, KillBill26 said:

Dmac was the one trade I was against, partly bc he was past his prime (rational), partly bc I must hated the guy since he was the face of the eagles for so long (not so rational).

 

As for the final 4 qbs, we can throw the tom brady situation our the window.  The pats for the GOAT in the 6th round after every team passed on him multiple times.  That wasn't exactly them identifying their franchise qb and being aggressive to get him, and I wouldn't advise a team that needs a franchise qb to wait til day 3 for one to fall on their laps.

 

Josh allen and mahomes did involve trades involving draft picks.  When you look at what the bills gave up, it was a lot of draft capital and cordy glenn (a solid LT at the time).  There was risk to both (and watson and lamar) bc of the draft capital spent, and all those qbs were far from a sure thing (or else they would've went towards the top of their draft).  

 

A rod fell into the packers lap, but they were smart enough to take him before anyone else did, they deserve credit.  But like brady, I attributes that more to luck than sound strategy.

 

Allen, mahomes, watson, and lamar was sound strategy, but they did involve trades and giving up assets.  The difference is they were drafted, and some initially sat ( I don't think allen or watson did).  The only real difference is: do you use this assets towards a rookie and more of an unknown whether they can play in the nfl period; vs a veteran, where the question is can they CONTINUE to play at the necessary level to justify the trade.  Considering the vet will be plug and play and our young defense is ready to win now, I choose stafford over trading up for a rookie.  I'm not comfortable with our #1 plan being mac jones at 19 or buchele or newman on day 2.  As a fallback if we strike out on Stafford, maybe, but I still think stafford is the way to go (unless it costs 2 firsts, then I'm not so sure).  But I'd rather pay 2 firsts for stafford than pay 2 firsts for lance.

 

 

 

 

I'm of the mind that you draft your quarterback. And that even if we acquire Stafford the plan is going to be to do exactly that in the next 2-3 seasons. Which is tough to do if you are lacking draft choices.

 

The rookie QB contract is a cheat code.

 

I'd trade 2 ones for Lance before I traded 2 ones for Stafford. Yes, the assets are a major gamble, but the added cap space for a 5 year window gives you a chance to compete even if the move doesn't work out. 

[Koolblue13]

Stafford is going to the Colts. Makes too much sense.

Just now, KDawg said:

 

I'm of the mind that you draft your quarterback. And that even if we acquire Stafford the plan is going to be to do exactly that in the next 2-3 seasons. Which is tough to do if you are lacking draft choices.

 

The rookie QB contract is a cheat code.

 

I'd trade 2 ones for Lance before I traded 2 ones for Stafford. Yes, the assets are a major gamble, but the added cap space for a 5 year window gives you a chance to compete even if the move doesn't work out. 

Exactly this. We have to trade up n the draft, while trading away picks for an old QB? Makes perfect sense. That's what losers do and we should know.

[Est.1974]

Rivera needs to capitalise whilst the team is on an upwards trajectory. If we regress this season and still don’t have a QB, jobs knackered for a couple more seasons. 

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

Rivera needs to capitalise whilst the team is on an upwards trajectory. If we regress this season and still don’t have a QB, jobs knackered for a couple more seasons. 

If we trade big assets for a veteran QB who gets hurt or doesn’t get it done or leads us to a similar record anyways... the job is set back even worse.

[PartyPosse]

16 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I'd say I'm on board with Stafford. I'm not on board with what it would take to get Stafford, so all things considered I wouldn't go after him.

I think that’s it. I would be an idiot if I didn’t think Stafford vastly improves the offense, but does that offset the potential of adding 3 or even 4 possible key additions on cheap contracts?

9 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

Stafford is going to the Colts. Makes too much sense.

Exactly this. We have to trade up n the draft, while trading away picks for an old QB? Makes perfect sense. That's what losers do and we should know.

To constantly play devil’s advocate with myself, in this instance it’s ideal for us as well. He’s not really an old QB imo. Most windows are 5 years tops unless you have Brady. This is the right time to bring in a good QB such as Matt. It all depends on the draft compensation though. 

[mhd24]

The most I'm giving up is the 2021 1st and a 2022 2nd.

 

I'd expect we'd offer 2021 1st and a 3rd this year.

 

I'm NOT IN FAVOR of giving up 2021 1st and 2022 1st.  

[TheGoodBits]

6 minutes ago, KDawg said:

If we trade big assets for a veteran QB who gets hurt or doesn’t get it done or leads us to a similar record anyways... the job is set back even worse.

If we trade assets for any QB that doesn’t work out, we set the team back. I’ll take a guaranteed pro bowl caliber QB along with the risk of injury, rather than a rookie who probably won’t be good (historically speaking) and a similar risk of injury. 

[HigSkin]

I'm just sprinkling in this Watson stuff because it looks like he may be an option for teams.  I get the vibe if Stafford doesn't work out, they go strong at Watson and if that doesn't work out they go to trading up in the draft.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by HigSkin

[TheGoodBits]

5 minutes ago, mhd24 said:

The most I'm giving up is the 2021 1st and a 2022 2nd.

 

I'd expect we'd offer 2021 1st and a 3rd this year.

 

I'm NOT IN FAVOR of giving up 2021 1st and 2022 1st.  

If it does take the second 1, just remember there’s a very good chance it won’t be a premium pick. 26-32 range. Not nearly as valuable as a top 15 or top 10 pick. 
 

edit- merged reply:

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by skinsfan_1215

[seantaylor=god]

I have always admired Stafford’s game. He has one of the best arms in the league, and he makes so many wow throws. 
 

Can anyone speak to his fit in our scheme? I’d be fine with the draft compensation that it would appear to take (1st and mid round or 1st and next years 2nd). But I don’t want him if he’s not a clear fit in Turner’s offense. 
 

Ideally, I’d love to keep picks and draft a QB but I don’t like the options (trade up/bidding war). 
 

I just don’t want to watch terrible QB play next year. And I like what we have but I don’t think any QB on our roster will make it more than 4 games until they prove it to me.

[PartyPosse]

I wonder what Denver would give up. #9, a third and Lock?

[RWJ]

4 minutes ago, HigSkin said:

I'm just sprinkling in this Watson stuff because it looks like he may be an option for teams.  I get the vibe if Stafford doesn't work out, they go strong at Watson and if that doesn't work out they go to trading up in the draft.

I think HigSkin you can cancel Watson as he will be too expensive draft picks wise.  I think IF Stafford is to high price and I think he will be we move up in the draft.  

[TheGoodBits]

2 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

I wonder what Denver would give up. #9, a third and Lock?

That would be an interesting package for Detroit. Would also give them plenty of  ammo to trade into the top 3 if they like a QB coming out this year. 

[Koolblue13]

The idea of a QB who can force an owners hand coming to a team that ran the owner out for a coach (and dumped his QB and the draft guy that spoke against it) sounds like what must be the worst idea ever. 

 

**** Watson.

[KDawg]

10 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

If we trade assets for any QB that doesn’t work out, we set the team back. I’ll take a guaranteed pro bowl caliber QB along with the risk of injury, rather than a rookie who probably won’t be good (historically speaking) and a similar risk of injury. 

 

Not entirely true, actually. The rookie is on a rookie contract. Yes, losing the assets is a blow.

 

But I keep hearing no risk no reward from people so... That fits nicely into that category...

 

But you have an extra 15-20M in cap space with the rookie in each season. And you could have the long term answer on roster.

 

In trading for Stafford, in particular, you have a 33 year old and you'll likely be trying to acquire a rookie franchise QB while he's still the starter. Which is hard to do without assets.

 

So I actually very much disagree with this point. 

10 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

If it does take the second 1, just remember there’s a very good chance it won’t be a premium pick. 26-32 range. Not nearly as valuable as a top 15 or top 10 pick. 
 

edit- merged reply:

 

 

Where do you get the idea it will be in the 26-32 range? 

 

 

[PartyPosse]

4 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

That would be an interesting package for Detroit. Would also give them plenty of  ammo to trade into the top 3 if they like a QB coming out this year. 

If Lock is part of the package then it wouldn’t make sense to trade up. They would probably rather have another 3rd or a 2nd next year if they were looking to draft a QB.

[KillBill26]

15 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

I'm of the mind that you draft your quarterback. And that even if we acquire Stafford the plan is going to be to do exactly that in the next 2-3 seasons. Which is tough to do if you are lacking draft choices.

 

The rookie QB contract is a cheat code.

 

I'd trade 2 ones for Lance before I traded 2 ones for Stafford. Yes, the assets are a major gamble, but the added cap space for a 5 year window gives you a chance to compete even if the move doesn't work out. 

We disagree a bit here, and while I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, hopefully I can explain my take and why I disagree.

 

I hear ya on the rookie QB being the cheat code.  But that's not a secret.  It's the fact that even after you give up significant assets, you still have a young qb who you have to sit, ride out the growing pains, and you are STILL unsure if they can hack it in the nfl.  Once you know they're a bust, 3 years have passed (especially someone as raw as lance).

 

Lance vs stafford is a great example.  Let's say cost is the same (2 first round picks).  Stafford has a MUCH higher floor than lance.  I think we all would agree on that, as lance is pretty raw and the only game he played this year he struggled vs central arkansas.  On the flip side, what are the odds of lance having a MUCH higher ceiling than stafford.  If the stars align and trey lance can check all the boxes vs nfl competition, then he would absolutely surpass what stafford could provide, especially considering cap number during the rookie contract.

 

However, considering we aren't in a cap crunch, and we have a good young core (still have a number of holes, but remember, in both examples we are losing 2 first rounders,.so draft capital to fill those holes is equal, the only difference is cap space, whereas stafford would be around 25 and lance around 7 (herbert's contract).

 

So I'm guessing you are saying you'd rather take the 18 mil in cap space per year, even though the odds are lower that lance can reach stafford's level.  But I agree with you,.if lance does reach stafford's level, and maybe even surpass it, then we hit the lottery.  

 

I feel confident the elevated qb play stafford will provide, along with the remaining cap space we would still have along with non first round draft picks to fill remaining holes, will make us a contender.

 

I'd rather invest in treasury bonds than powerball tickets.

 

11 minutes ago, seantaylor=god said:

Can anyone speak to his fit in our scheme? 

There was a good article posted here yesterday about how stafford could succeed in a variety of schemes.  

[TheGoodBits]

3 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Not entirely true, actually. The rookie is on a rookie contract. Yes, losing the assets is a blow.

 

But I keep hearing no risk no reward from people so... That fits nicely into that category...

 

But you have an extra 15-20M in cap space with the rookie in each season. And you could have the long term answer on roster.

 

In trading for Stafford, in particular, you have a 33 year old and you'll likely be trying to acquire a rookie franchise QB while he's still the starter. Which is hard to do without assets.

 

So I actually very much disagree with this point. 

Depends entirely if you think you want to win in the next 2-3 year or are building for  another 4-5 years. 
 

A top tier defense is also expensive. Our core guys are all on rookie contracts so we have a window. Quarterback is the absolute hardest position to fill effectively, especially drafting rookies.
 

Plugging Stafford into this roster opens up a Super Bowl window for us in the next 3 years. What happens after that doesn’t really matter IMO. 

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

Depends entirely if you think you want to win in the next 2-3 year or are building for  another 4-5 years. 
 

A top tier defense is also expensive. Our core guys are all on rookie contracts so we have a window. Quarterback is the absolute hardest position to fill effectively, especially drafting rookies.
 

Plugging Stafford into this roster opens up a Super Bowl window for us in the next 3 years. What happens after that doesn’t really matter IMO. 

I think our defense can be better than it was last year even without 2 of the DL that are coming due if we have the draft capital to draft it in the coming seasons in the first three rounds... and with Settle in place. I don’t buy our D being as good as many. It’s very good, but I think a slight downgrade at DL and upgrades at LB and S makes this defense even better. 
 

We disagree big time about a Super Bowl window. I’ll leave it at that.

[KillBill26]

11 minutes ago, KDawg said:

In trading for Stafford, in particular, you have a 33 year old and you'll likely be trying to acquire a rookie franchise QB while he's still the starter. Which is hard to do without assets.

I forgot to speak to this in my last response.  If you get stafford in tow, you are set with your starting qb for 5 years.  Then you can draft the jamie newman's and shane beucheles in the mid rounds every other year. If after 2 years, you don't feel they have what it takes to take over the torch, cut them and try again.  Over a 5 year period, you could draft 3 of these midrounders to see if they can hack it.  I'd feel better about stafford starting on day one and having some extra time to hit on one of those midrounders, than taking lance and wanting him to deliver sooner rather than later while young, sweat, and co are in their prime.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by KillBill26