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

[wit33]

3 minutes ago, KDawg said:

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.

How about a division title window for next 3 years?? 

[KDawg]

5 minutes ago, KillBill26 said:

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.

 

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

I don’t think Stafford is as sure of a thing as you do. 
 

I don’t think anyone is. Schematically, talking passing game, Stafford should be excellent. His style translates well. Mobility? Has none. He has pocket presence and awareness though. So that’s a good thing.

 

But we have no idea how he’d fit here. Or his effect. With the schedule we have next year what’s the possibility we struggle a bit and finish 6-11 or 7-10? I’d say pretty high if we don’t take care of other positional holes. 
 

And then what? Try again next year when the schedule is a bit easier?

 

Lance is a gamble. Any rookie QB is. But yes, the extra $18M or so is Allen Robinson. Or Corey Davis/Aaron Jones... or Corey Davis/Curtis Samuel. Or Lavante David. 
 

 

2 minutes ago, wit33 said:

How about a division title window for next 3 years?? 

I think we could have that without Stafford.

[Stefanskins]

1 hour 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....

the Bills were 6-10 in 2018 then went 10-6 in 2019...and now they are in the AFC Championship...

[KDawg]

4 minutes ago, KillBill26 said:

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.

 

 

You’re making a quite large assumption that Stafford 1) lasts 5 years and 2) his cost doesn’t destroy us in the back end.

[KillBill26]

2 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Lance is a gamble. Any rookie QB is. But yes, the extra $18M or so is Allen Robinson. Or Corey Davis/Aaron Jones... or Corey Davis/Curtis Samuel. Or Lavante David. 

 

 

I think we could have that without Stafford.

The extra 18 mil would get us allen robinson.  So you'd have the process of lance sitting, then the growing pains, all for the benefit of a star at a much less important position. I'd rather invest in the qb with a higher probability of success.  I know I'm saying this not personally being as high on lance as others are.

 

[PartyPosse]

2 minutes ago, Stefanskins said:

the Bills were 6-10 in 2018 then went 10-6 in 2019...and now they are in the AFC Championship...

 

4 minutes ago, Stefanskins said:

the Bills were 6-10 in 2018 then went 10-6 in 2019...and now they are in the AFC Championship...

Bills are another team looking better than they really are. They took advantage of a really weak division (6-0) and their schedule as a whole wasn’t all that impressive. When they faced real challenges they looked bad. Beating Baltimore last week isn’t really a big deal since Baltimore is overrated in their own way. I expect KC to give them a harsh reality check today.

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, KillBill26 said:

The extra 18 mil would get us allen robinson.  So you'd have the process of lance sitting, then the growing pains, all for the benefit of a star at a much less important position. I'd rather invest in the qb with a higher probability of success.  I know I'm saying this not personally being as high on lance as others are.

 

 

No. You missed the point entirely.

 

I'm not necessarily on the Robinson train anyways. I was naming (and I named more than Robinson for what its worth) assets that could be here on TOP of a potential franchise QB due to the savings in salary cap. 

 

I'd do the same trade for Wilson or Fields

[PartyPosse]

2 minutes ago, KillBill26 said:

The extra 18 mil would get us allen robinson.  So you'd have the process of lance sitting, then the growing pains, all for the benefit of a star at a much less important position. I'd rather invest in the qb with a higher probability of success.  I know I'm saying this not personally being as high on lance as others are.

 

I’d be all for Lance and sitting him a year. 2022 is the year I’m really expecting us to be a major contender. 

[KillBill26]

3 minutes ago, KDawg said:

You’re making a quite large assumption that Stafford 1) lasts 5 years and 2) his cost doesn’t destroy us in the back end.

As many have discussed on here, cap hell is slightly exaggerated, I think you are exaggerating the pain of cutting stafford when the time comes.

 

One, I think it's such a low percentage that stafford comes here and bombs right away.  So by the time you realize the stafford experiment should be over, you are a few years into the approximately 5 year deal.  Make it a june 1st cut at a time the cap is around 240 mil, it's not as crippling as you are making it out to be.  Case in point, remember the anger on here when AS got his big extension.  Now we can get out of that deal with a very manageable 4.3 cap hit the next two years as a june 1st cut. (Stafford's deal will be more money, cap hits will be higher, my point is getting out of the "huge" contract wasn't nearly as bad as many feared). And I like my chances that MS won't have a near amputation leg injury early in the contract.  

  

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, KillBill26 said:

As many have discussed on here, cap hell is slightly exaggerated, I think you are exaggerating the pain of cutting stafford when the time comes.

 

One, I think it's such a low percentage that stafford comes here and bombs right away.  So by the time you realize the stafford experiment should be over, you are a few years into the approximately 5 year deal.  Make it a june 1st cut at a time the cap is around 240 mil, it's not as crippling as you are making it out to be.  Case in point, remember the anger on here when AS got his big extension.  Now we can get out of that deal with a very manageable 4.3 cap hit the next two years as a june 1st cut. (Stafford's deal will be more money, cap hits will be higher, my point is getting out of the "huge" contract wasn't nearly as bad as many feared). And I like my chances that MS won't have a near amputation leg injury early in the contract.  

  

 

I'm not. I promise. Cash beats cap, yada yada yada. I'd rather not have to do financial gymnastics to get around a monster contract when it was largely, in my opinion, unnecessary to begin with. 

 

If we are somehow able to: Strengthen our OL, add two quality receiver types, have a regular threat in the running game, find two inside linebackers and a free safety (without letting Scherff go and Darby go) then I think Stafford opens a Super Bowl window for us.

 

Otherwise I think he is just going to make us a game or two better than we would have been.

 

And my larger point: I don't think Stafford is going to be the guy for 5 years. So in 3ish years we have to do this song and dance again. 

Edited January 24, 2021 by KDawg

[wit33]

14 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I don’t think Stafford is as sure of a thing as you do. 
 

I don’t think anyone is. Schematically, talking passing game, Stafford should be excellent. His style translates well. Mobility? Has none. He has pocket presence and awareness though. So that’s a good thing.

 

But we have no idea how he’d fit here. Or his effect. With the schedule we have next year what’s the possibility we struggle a bit and finish 6-11 or 7-10? I’d say pretty high if we don’t take care of other positional holes. 
 

And then what? Try again next year when the schedule is a bit easier?

 

Lance is a gamble. Any rookie QB is. But yes, the extra $18M or so is Allen Robinson. Or Corey Davis/Aaron Jones... or Corey Davis/Curtis Samuel. Or Lavante David. 
 

 

I think we could have that without Stafford.

Let’s say we operating within paradigm of assigning percentages to likely outcomes for the team: 

 

What percentage would you give the team I winning the division the next 3 seasons with Stafford versus alternative plan? 

[RWJ]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

Keim without info is a waste.  Like the guy but he hears things after Schefter reports it or Rappoport.  We all know things will get interesting.  Come on John!

[KDawg]

Just now, wit33 said:

Let’s say we operating within paradigm of assigning percentages to likely outcomes for the team: 

 

What percentage would you give the team I winning the division the next 3 seasons with Stafford versus alternative plan? 

This isn't possible to even remotely do.

 

I don't know the alternative plans... But just for the sake of playing along.

 

Stafford: 45%

Carr: 42.5%

Heinicke/Allen: 40%

 

Lance? Depends on his development. 

 

 

 

 

 

[KillBill26]

4 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

No. You missed the point entirely.

 

I'm not necessarily on the Robinson train anyways. I was naming (and I named more than Robinson for what its worth) assets that could be here on TOP of a potential franchise QB due to the savings in salary cap. 

No, I get the point. I used AR as an example bc that was one that you yourself provided.  And I am obviously higher on Stafford than you.  My point is part of where I disagree with you is I don't think the 18 mil in cap space, which you provided real life examples of what that could translate to, is as incentivizing to settle for a riskier choice for the most important position in the game as you believe.  To each their own.  I see this as a disagreement based on several differences in philosophies that I've already outlined, not because you've made a point I'm unable to follow.  Agree or disagree?

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

 

[kingdaddy]

For what its worth, which is likely nothing, the panel on ESPN gameday (Rex Ryan, Moss, Bruschi, Ponder) all just kicked around who the top teams are for Stafford to land. Their responses; New England, Dallas, Indy, SF....no mention of the WFT. In fact, it's almost like we are an after thought. 

[KillBill26]

6 minutes ago, KDawg said:

And my larger point: I don't think Stafford is going to be the guy for 5 years. So in 3ish years we have to do this song and dance again. 

This is a significant point of where we disagree.  If I felt stafford only gave us 3 solid years, I don't make the trade either.  If after digging in to the level an nfl gm should,I feel he can give us 5, then I make the deal.

[Skinsinparadise]

7 minutes ago, RWJ said:

Keim without info is a waste.  Like the guy but he hears things after Schefter reports it or Rappoport.  We all know things will get interesting.  Come on John!

 

If he is saying buckle up, I'd presume he means we are in the Stafford chase, maybe Watson?  Will see

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, KillBill26 said:

No, I get the point. I used AR as an example bc that was one that you yourself provided.  And I am obviously higher on Stafford than you.  My point is part of where I disagree with you is I don't think the 18 mil in cap space, which you provided real life examples of what that could translate to, is as incentivizing to settle for a riskier choice for the most important position in the game as you believe.  To each their own.  I see this as a disagreement based on several differences in philosophies that I've already outlined, not because you've made a point I'm unable to follow.  Agree or disagree?

 

I don't believe Lance is a riskier choice when you factor in all parts of it.

 

If you are asking me in a vacuum who I'd prefer to be our quarterback between Lance and Stafford.... The answer is obviously Stafford at this point. I actually REALLY like Stafford. I think he has been wasted in Detroit.

 

But these events don't happen in a vacuum.

 

Reality is Stafford is a banged up 33 year old who has been a part of a losing culture for a real long time. Now, he seems to be the kind of guy that can rebound from that... but there is inherent risk there as well. 

 

Now, factor in draft compensation.

 

IF: You have to trade 2 1s for Stafford and IF the cost was identical to trade up and get Lance:

 

Lance costs much less and allows further building of the roster around him. Stafford's floor is higher, Lance's ceiling is higher. I take Lance.

 

IF: You have to trade 2 1s for Lance and only 1 first this year for Stafford with nothing else added:

 

Lance still would cost less salary wise, but the single first rounder makes Stafford our first this upcoming season. With no further compensation included I'd take Stafford here as it doesn't impact our future draft position to select building blocks for the team and gives us an upgrade at the QB position immediately.

 

As I've said numerous times, this isn't clear... We have to see what happens with this to truly understand it. 

[kingdaddy]

2 hours ago, DisgruntledLionFan#54,927 said:

 

Stafford's agent is in the loop regarding trade negotiations. If I'm recalling correctly, Stafford has earned near $230,000,000 in his career.

 

I don't think money is going to be a sticking point at all.

 

 

 

 

Thanks, that's good info. I would bet the Lions go to Stafford's agent with the teams that have reached out and then they let Stafford eliminate certain spots. The Lions would then be smart to negotiate with every team that shows interest even if Stafford has already ruled some of them out. If this is how it plays out then I would hope Mayhew reaches out to Staffords agent (if that's even allowed without being considered tampering) letting them know how much we want him here, if we even do. 

[Est.1974]

56 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.

Rivera has a major issue with our QB situation, that says it all. #1 priority is get a QB.

 

If you get Stafford for less the multiple first rounders it is a bargain. All we can do is watch this unfold.

29 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

I don’t think anyone is. Schematically, talking passing game, Stafford should be excellent. His style translates well. Mobility? Has none. He has pocket presence and awareness though. So that’s a good thing.

 

But we have no idea how he’d fit here. Or his effect. With the schedule we have next year what’s the possibility we struggle a bit and finish 6-11 or 7-10? I’d say pretty high if we don’t take care of other positional holes. 

Ah schematically and fit, today’s buzz words  

 

If we are in the race, Rivera must think he’s a fit. If we’re not, he isn’t. 
 

That said, anyone who thinks Stafford isn’t a fit here is off their rocker.
 

 

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

Rivera has a major issue with our QB situation, that says it all. #1 priority is get a QB.

 

If you get Stafford for less the multiple first rounders it is a bargain. All we can do is watch this unfold.

Ah schematically and fit, today’s buzz words  

 

If we are in the race, Rivera must think he’s a fit. If we’re not, he isn’t. 
 

That said, anyone who thinks Stafford isn’t a fit here is off their rocker.
 

 

You keep bringing up Rivera. Ultimately, yes, he is who makes the decision. But until he makes one we're talking about our own preferences here.

[Skinsinparadise]

17 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Let’s say we operating within paradigm of assigning percentages to likely outcomes for the team: 

 

What percentage would you give the team I winning the division the next 3 seasons with Stafford versus alternative plan? 

 

for me it would be

Stafford:  70%

Allen/Heincke:  25%

Fitzpatrick:  35%

 

We need to figure out how to beat the Giants.  It's ridicolous how they've owned us just about every year.  I wish I can blame that on Haskins but he didn't start either game against them this season.  When Dallas has started Dak, we've struggled against them.  Eagles almost beat us with Hurst and have a good defense.  I don't think we will own that division with mediocre Qb play.  We will be a factor but not the favorite IMO.

 

It's not that Stafford is twice the QB Allen is statisitically but the value of adding a top 10 QB to a defense like this IMO would be tremendous.  And yes we can still upgrade the rest of the roster.  The league isn't going to prohibit whatever team lands Stafford to forgo the rest of the draft picks and cap room.   We can actually add linebacker help and a WR and Stafford. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[KillBill26]

22 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

I’d be all for Lance and sitting him a year. 2022 is the year I’m really expecting us to be a major contender. 

I'm not as big on lance as others.   I think the odds are low that lance will struggle in his only game vs central arkansas in 2020, yet be ready to QB the skins for a super bowl run just 2 years later.  Guy is raw.  Maybe he will be a stud in '23 or '24, but again, I'm not big on lance so I wouldn't want to make that bet personally.