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

[HigSkin]

Good listen but lengthy interview with Michael Phillips from Richmond Times Dispatch.  He makes the point that trading for a aging vet QB shouldn't cost you a first because it's a basic salary dump for teams that want to start over, i.e. Lions and Stafford.

 

 

 

Edited January 12, 2021 by HigSkin

[Commander -JB-]

Just now, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

I guess the rookie has had 0 snaps, 0 experience, but is 21 years old and just entering the league. Heinicke has less that 100 career completions at the age of 28 lmao SMH.

 

Both represent a risk to some degree.

Doug Flutie was on the bench during his prime because they said he was too short.  He had to finally get his shot and run with it.  It happens.  

[CapsSkins]

1 minute ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

Both represent a risk to some degree.

 

No offense but this is a nothing statement. Trading for Stafford who has spent his career in a different system is also "a risk to some degree". Literally every move is a risk to some degree; we're talking about comparing risks here.

 

I think Heinicke is less risky than just about every rookie out there considering he's been out there in live fire before in a way rookies haven't.

[Est.1974]

20 minutes ago, -JB- said:

Which is more completions (especially playoff completions) than every rookie QB that you would draft.

I would expect a 28 year old pro QB to have more completions than someone not yet in the league.

 

I think Heinicke played great. I’m staggered though that one performance has had such an impact of fan perception of our need at QB. 

[Commander -JB-]

Just now, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

I would expect a 28 year old pro QB to have more completions than someone not yet in the league.

 

I think Heinicke played great. I’m staggered though that one performance has had such an impact of fan perception of our need at QB. 

Sometimes All you get is one shot.  It’s what you do with it.

[Est.1974]

20 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

So for a team looking to make a serious run, i do think it would be nuts to just ride on Heinicke and Allen even if its just based on health alone. 

You would think so, wouldn’t you.

[CapsSkins]

1 minute ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

I would expect a 28 year old pro QB to have more completions than someone not yet in the league.

 

I think Heinicke played great. I’m staggered though that one performance has had such an impact of fan perception of our need at QB. 

 

Because we're being told an undervalued stock is probably not undervalued because stock markets are efficient. Nevermind the recent earnings growth. It's such backwards logic.

[Bacon]

I would be disappointed but by no means surprised if we kneecapped our roster with an expensive, aging McNabb type in an attempt to minimize risk at QB.

Of course, I would expect better of "actual football people."

[Est.1974]

4 minutes ago, -JB- said:

Doug Flutie was on the bench during his prime because they said he was too short.  He had to finally get his shot and run with it.  It happens.  

You’ve convinced me now.

[CapsSkins]

Just now, Bacon said:

I would be disappointed but by no means surprised if we kneecapped our roster with an expensive, aging McNabb type in an attempt to minimize risk at QB.

Of course, I would expect better of "actual football people."

 

I trust Ron and Kyle. I predict they'll either draft someone like Lance who falls low enough to be in striking range and/or they'll sign a low-cost vet like Tyrod and have an open competition in camp.

[Commander -JB-]

1 minute ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

You would think so, wouldn’t you.

How is it crazy?  We made the playoffs in a season in which we arguably had the worst QB play in history in a good handful of games with Haskins.  If this defense is going to be as good as we think it is it just doesn’t make sense to suddenly go away from our new strategy of building through the draft to bring in an aging QB who is going to be too expensive.  It defies all logic!

[Bacon]

Just now, CapsSkins said:

 

I trust Ron and Kyle. I predict they'll either draft someone like Lance who falls low enough to be in striking range and/or they'll sign a low-cost vet like Tyrod and have an open competition in camp.

And I would do the same.

 

The problem comes when you sink so much money into a new QB that any "competition" is entirely superficial. That's what many of us are concerned about.

[Est.1974]

4 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

 

No offense but this is a nothing statement.

 

I think Heinicke is less risky than just about every rookie out there considering he's been out there in live fire before in a way rookies haven't.

That’s so staying medium.
 

That confirms Heinicke’s performance has lowered the bar of expectation. 
 

Rivera won’t get fooled by one game.

 

I’ll reiterate that I do think Heinicke played great. I’m still initially aiming higher in the offseason though.

[CapsSkins]

1 minute ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

That’s so staying medium.
 

That confirms Heinicke’s performance has lowered the bar of expectation. 
 

Rivera won’t get fooled by one game.

 

I’ll reiterate that I do think Heinicke played great. I’m still initially aiming higher in the offseason though.

 

No it's not. I think you're doing a bad job of evaluating tradeoffs. Incrementally higher risk in rolling with a Heinicke-Allen-Tyrod trio (as an example) is offset by the ability to use cap space and draft picks elsehwere. Bc that incrementally higher risk is offset by the lower risk of signing Allen Robinson and Lavonte David and drafting Najee Harris. That's just an example, but the point is you have finite resources and can allocate elsewhere if you can find value relative to $ at the QB position.

 

You cannot have the QB conversation without discussing the effects on cap space and draft picks, which affects ability to address other holes on the roster.

[Est.1974]

6 minutes ago, -JB- said:

How is it crazy?  We made the playoffs in a season in which we arguably had the worst QB play in history in a good handful of games with Haskins.  If this defense is going to be as good as we think it is it just doesn’t make sense to suddenly go away from our new strategy of building through the draft to bring in an aging QB who is going to be too expensive.  It defies all logic!

To be fair I never stated anything in the post about aging QBs, I’m open to what approach we take. I’m just not taking the stance that Heinicke is that #1 guy.

 

[Commander -JB-]

1 minute ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

To be fair I never stated anything in the post about aging QBs, I’m open to what approach we take. I’m just not taking the stance that Heinicke is that #1 guy.

 

I’m all about the benefits we reap from rolling with our own guy and keeping our draft picks.  Especially considering we have nailed two straight drafts.  This is only the beginning if we continue to do it the right way.  Sky’s the limit.

[Est.1974]

3 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

 

No it's not. I think you're doing a bad job of evaluating tradeoffs. Incrementally higher risk in rolling with a Heinicke-Allen-Tyrod trio (as an example) is offset by the ability to use cap space and draft picks elsehwere. Bc that incrementally higher risk is offset by the lower risk of signing Allen Robinson and Lavonte David and drafting Najee Harris. That's just an example, but the point is you have finite resources and can allocate elsewhere if you can find value relative to $ at the QB position.

 

You cannot have the QB conversation without discussing the effects on cap space and draft picks, which affects ability to address other holes on the roster.

No idea how that post related to what i stated. I think you are doing a bad job of comprehending what I posted. I kinda understand resource management and the impact of various scenarios ahead of us at QB.

 

I simply stated I haven’t anointed Heinicke as my 2021 #1 QB.

[CapsSkins]

Just now, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

No idea how that post related to what i stated. I think you are doing a bad job of comprehending what I posted. I kinda understand resource management and the impact of various scenarios ahead of us at QB.

 

I simply stated I haven’t anointed Heinicke as my 2021 #1 QB.

 

No one is "anointing" him as anything but if you "initially aim higher" and say trade for Matt Stafford then you are not giving Heinicke a chance bc you're anointing the new guy.

[Rex Tomb]

2 minutes ago, -JB- said:

I’m all about the benefits we reap from rolling with our own guy and keeping our draft picks.  Especially considering we have nailed two straight drafts.  This is only the beginning if we continue to do it the right way.  Sky’s the limit.

I agree! I don't want to throw a bunch of picks to the Lions for Stafford given what we saw in Heinicke on Saturday.  Why not offer him a really reasonable three year contract, make him prove it, and then continue to build up our LB, S, TE, and WR positions.  If we dump a bunch of money into a Matt Stafford, that will really hamper our ability to keep our own guys (like the D-Line).  Heinicke is serviceable at the very least and a gamer at his best.  If he stinks it up next year, then we are in good position to have a good selection of QBs to pick from in the following draft and we won't have to give up a bunch of capital to do it.  

[Est.1974]

9 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

 

No one is "anointing" him as anything but if you "initially aim higher" and say trade for Matt Stafford then you are not giving Heinicke a chance bc you're anointing the new guy.

Not sure why the conversation reverts back to Stafford or a vet. I would consider drafting Lance as ‘initially aiming higher’ than Heinicke. You are drafting Lance to start by 2022 and be the future.

[CapsSkins]

5 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

Not sure why the conversation reverts back to Stafford or a vet. I would consider drafting Lance as ‘initially aiming higher’ than Heinicke. You are drafting Lance to start by 2022 and be the future.

 

That I would definitely be on board with. But like you mention, you aren't drafting him to start in 2021 or potentially 2022 either, depending on Trey's development and what kind of performance you get from the QB room in 2021.

[Est.1974]

5 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

 

That I would definitely be on board with. But like you mention, you aren't drafting him to start in 2021 or potentially 2022 either, depending on Trey's development and what kind of performance you get from the QB room in 2021.

But let’s be honest, if you use a first round pick on a QB and bring in a guy like Tyrod Taylor on a 5-6mil one year deal, like you advocated earlier, that isn’t really giving Heinicke much of a chance is it?

 

If you want to advocate giving Heinicke a chance , you let him and Allen fight it out for the #1 and #2 berths and use that valuable draft capital and salary cap resource elsewhere? 
 

So, I’m confused what your actual position/stance is really.

[CapsSkins]

Just now, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

But let’s be honest, if you use a first round pick on a QB and bring in a guy like Tyrod Taylor on a 5-6mil one year deal, like you advocated earlier, that isn’t really giving Heinicke much of a chance is it?

 

If you want to advocate giving Heinicke a chance , you let him and Allen fight it out for the #1 and #2 berths and use that valuable draft capital and salary cap resource elsewhere? 
 

So, I’m confused what your actual position/stance is really.

 

If I draft Lance then I'm cutting Tyrod or Allen (or potentially Heinicke) depending on the camp battle. Also if I draft Trey, there's basically zero chance I start him in 2021 unless he has a stunning offseason performance, so 2021 Starter is an open role for which Heinicke has just as much a chance as anyone else. And I would give Taylor a meaningful share of first team reps, AKA first crack at it.

 

I'm also not giving up a ton of draft capital to move up to the top 10 to pick Lance. If he falls to 13, then yes, but I doubt that will happen. So that's why I'm not really looking at Lance as an option. If no Heinicke, then I'd consider a big trade up to get him. But having Heinicke significantly cuts my Willingness to Pay to move up.

 

I'm also not considering a vet like Stafford or Ryan or Rivers. I'm not paying the farm for Watson if he's available. I would only seriously consider Dak if he hits FA, but even then it would depend on price. 

 

 

[Est.1974]

10 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

 

If I draft Lance then I'm cutting Tyrod or Allen (or potentially Heinicke) depending on the camp battle. Also if I draft Trey, there's basically zero chance I start him in 2021 unless he has a stunning offseason performance, so 2021 Starter is an open role for which Heinicke has just as much a chance as anyone else. And I would give Taylor a meaningful share of first team reps, AKA first crack at it.

 

I'm also not giving up a ton of draft capital to move up to the top 10 to pick Lance. If he falls to 13, then yes.

Yep, that’s similar to me. Spending resource, either draft capital, and/or reasonable cap space to generate competition with a view to improving what we have at QB.

[redskin301]

I feel like we have a window for this defense 

before we gotta start paying guys I think we should trade for Stafford and sign a WR in free Agency