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

[kingdaddy]

26 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

 

Well some of your options are different than others. Stafford would only cost $20M against the cap and you probably don't need to give up a 1st. Dak would cost $40M but it would be FA so no giving up any picks. Wilson or Fields would be on rookie deals so small cap hit.

 

All those options are way more appealing than Watson, which you pay $40M AND give up tons of picks/players.

Stafford wouldn't cost us a 1st? Really? If I recall, Carson Palmer commanded 2 or 3 1st round picks from the Raiders. Stafford most definitely will cost at least a 1st and likely more draft picks. Actually, I think Palmer was close to the same age as Stafford when he got dealt, it's not a bad comparison.

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

Now tell me how many of the Super Bowl winning QBs changed teams before becoming the QB.

That’s not a bad point, maybe it leans us toward the draft? Idk. Something to think about.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, CapsSkins said:

 

Trading for an elite QB AND paying a big cap hit AND trading away all your draft assets is really, really tough. The way our team is built, we don't need an elite QB. We need a good QB to drive the car while we build both sides of the ball. I just don't think it's wise to trade a ton of draft picks to also then pay $40M for your signal caller, even if he is a top 5 talent.

 

I follow the logic but disagree with most of your point.  But just curious who is your definition of a good QB that's right in front of us or easily gotten?

[Commander -JB-]

27 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 We've mostly had our full slate of picks in the draft in recent years and sometimes even more than 7.   So lacking draft picks over the years IMO is an outdated theory.  

 

You add a stud QB to this roster, call me crazy but I think it would take a step up and actually beat Tampa versus coming just short.

 

PFF which knows a thing or two about rosters, actually likes what we got, and believes big time QB is the missing component.  So I am not some loon  on an island off on the deep end. 

 

it wouldn't be terrible IMO to be aggressive to get Watson.  It would be awesome.  But as the PFF guy said who covers our team, the Texans would likely turn down that deal because it favors us not them.  Lets agree to disagee.  We are on totally different planets on this issue.  We aren't even a litle close on this.  That's cool.  To each their own. 😀. The odds of us landing him are almost nothing so we are arguing over a moot subject. 

It depends what you consider having a full slate of draft picks.  Trading a 2nd rounder to move up and get Montez Sweat plus the following years second does not constitute having a full slate of draft picks recently.  Only this season with 8 picks (4 in first 3 rounds) would I consider having a full slate.  Even so, we never have loaded drafts with more than 10 picks.  Not that it guarantees success but it makes it easier to make moves up in the draft.  I disagree that we are in good position to make a huge move up to get Watson & I agree with you that it won’t happen.  But it’s because of everything I already stated.

[CapsSkins]

12 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I follow the logic but disagree with most of your point.  But just curious who is your definition of a good QB that's right in front of us or easily gotten?

 

In no particular order: Rivers, Fitzpatrick, Stafford pending trade availability + price, Mariota pending trade availability, Jimmy G pending SF's plans, Minshew pending trade availability + price, Dalton, Tyrod, plus seeing what Heinicke/Allen can give you. Also drafting a rookie who could be an option in 2022 or 2023.

 

Also keep in mind in two years Aaron Rodgers will likely be available for trade at 40 years old. That's 5 years of Rodgers as an option on the table if you can find a stopgap between now and then. 

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by CapsSkins

[Simmsy]

Stafford? Ryan? Trading the house for Watson? Are you guys drunk? We've finally stopped making those terrible mistakes in the FO and now you want to go back and make the same mistakes all over again? If you're looking for a stop gap while we find our messiah, they're much better ways to do it. We can easily roll with Allen or Heinicke and be just fine. If you want a more permanent solution, they're are cheaper options than Watson. A QB doesn't have to be taken in the first round to be a legit NFL starter, how many first rounders taken have become legit? More often than not, they're busts or average at best. Look at Wilson, Rodgers, Cousins, etc. We can find our guy without potentially throwing everything at an unknown commodity.

[Est.1974]

Wow all of a sudden we’re too good for Stafford or Watson. Go Figure..

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

Wow all of a sudden we’re too good for Stafford or Watson. Go Figure..

Who has said that?

 

We’re not good enough for them given their cost is the general feel from what I’m reading here... not that they aren’t great.

[Est.1974]

3 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Who has said that?

 

We’re not good enough for them given their cost is the general feel from what I’m reading here... not that they aren’t great.

You either want a great QB or you don’t. If yes, eat the cost and move on.

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

You either want a great QB or you don’t. If yes, eat the cost and move on.

I don’t agree. At all. 

[kingdaddy]

28 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

Stafford? Ryan? Trading the house for Watson? Are you guys drunk? We've finally stopped making those terrible mistakes in the FO and now you want to go back and make the same mistakes all over again? If you're looking for a stop gap while we find our messiah, they're much better ways to do it. We can easily roll with Allen or Heinicke and be just fine. If you want a more permanent solution, they're are cheaper options than Watson. A QB doesn't have to be taken in the first round to be a legit NFL starter, how many first rounders taken have become legit? More often than not, they're busts or average at best. Look at Wilson, Rodgers, Cousins, etc. We can find our guy without potentially throwing everything at an unknown commodity.

Been a Skins fan since 1972 and, other than Joe Theisman, we've never really had a QB that lasted longer than 5 years where we had sustained success. I am starving for a Brady, Roethlisberger, Rivers, McNabb, Rodgers, Brees type of situation where we have a QB that will allow us to compete every season for a decade or so. Look what Brees has done for the Saints and how good they've been for so long. I'm not drunk but I probly would get drunk if we made a deal to acquire Watson for a package that didn't destroy the nucleus or future of the team. We would become the talk of the league and we'd be dangerous for the next 8 years easy. Watson on offense, Chase Young on defense....count me in.

[Est.1974]

Just now, KDawg said:

I don’t agree. At all. 

I know, that’s fine. Bucs should have hung 40 on us. Opinions would have been so different. One game by a Covid reserve has hypnotised the fan base. 

5 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

Been a Skins fan since 1972 and, other than Joe Theisman, we've never really had a QB that lasted longer than 5 years where we had sustained success. I am starving for a Brady, Roethlisberger, Rivers, McNabb, Rodgers, Brees type of situation where we have a QB that will allow us to compete every season for a decade or so. Look what Brees has done for the Saints and how good they've been for so long. I'm not drunk but I probly would get drunk if we made a deal to acquire Watson for a package that didn't destroy the nucleus or future of the team. We would become the talk of the league and we'd be dangerous for the next 8 years easy. Watson on offense, Chase Young on defense....count me in.

I mean yes, that’s seem logical to me. Agree.

[KDawg]

5 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

I know, that’s fine. Bucs should have hung 40 on us. Opinions would have been so different. One game by a Covid reserve has hypnotised the fan base. 

It’s not fine, apparently, because you’re trying to justify our lack of agreement based on some strange straw man.

 

I was never in the “trade major assets for a big name elite QB” camp. Even prior to Heinicke. It’s a big time mistake.

 

How many of these guys left a team they were great on and continued to help bring their new team to the Super Bowl? Let alone win one?

 

Now, off that list, how many got there after gutting their current team of assets to acquire that player?

 

Having said that, if our roster was in better shape I’d feel better about it. I don’t think we’re as close as you seem to, so I actually think your argument hurts your take more than it helps it. 
 

Tampa hanging 40 means we aren’t there. At all. 
 

Things are coming along nicely. Let’s not self sabotage.

Edited January 16, 2021 by KDawg

[Est.1974]

Just now, KDawg said:

Let’s not self sabotage

I’m confident we won’t with Rivera in charge. 

[Skinsinparadise]

3 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Now tell me how many of the Super Bowl winning QBs changed teams before becoming the QB.

 

How many 25 year old top 5 QBs have been traded in the prime?  A good number of the QBs that changed teams are mostly aging Qbs who were on the decline.   Still....😀

 

In the 2000s:  Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Nick Foles, bounced around but was on the Rams before coming back to Philly. Brady won 6 of those SBs as we know.  You take Brady's dominance out of the equation then the number of QB's who won after changing teams is actually not a bad percentage.   That surprised me because frankly QBs don't change teams much, at least the good ones typically don't. 

 

I actually had no idea until I just counted them.  But even if the number were smaller I don't think there is an easy apples to apples comparison to the Watson situation.  I don't think in the end it unfolds, its almost too ridiculous for the Texans to do it. 

 

 

[KDawg]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

How many 25 year old top 5 QBs have been traded in the prime?  A good number of the QBs that changed teams are mostly aging Qbs who were on the decline.   Still....😀

 

In the 2000s:  Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Nick Foles, bounced around but was on the Rams before coming back to Philly. Brady won 6 of those SBs as we know.  You take Brady's dominance out of the equation then the number of QB's who won after changing teams is actually not a bad percentage.   That surprised me because frankly QBs don't change teams much, at least the good ones typically don't. 

 

I actually had no idea until I just counted them.  But even if the number were smaller I don't think there is an easy apples to apples comparison to the Watson situation.  I don't think in the end it unfolds, its almost too ridiculous for the Texans to do it. 

 

 

You named a bunch of guys who signed as free agents. Not giant trade assets.

5 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

I’m confident we won’t with Rivera in charge. 

Me too. Which is why I don’t see us doing that kind of trade.

[Est.1974]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

But even if the number were smaller I don't think there is an easy apples to apples comparison to the Watson situation.  I don't think in the end it unfolds, its almost too ridiculous for the Texans to do it. 

 

 

Yep they’d be mad to let him go. I would also estimate as a minimum 75% of the teams in the league would trade the farm for him. 

3 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Which is why I don’t see us doing that kind of trade.

Likely. Although sometimes in life the biggest mistakes you make aren’t the things you do, but the things you fail to do. Watson is a unique situation brewing. But yeah, it’s not happening, right.

[Skinsinparadise]

4 minutes ago, KDawg said:

You named a bunch of guys who signed as free agents. Not giant trade assets.

 

Name me some precendents for teams who traded for under 27 year old QBs who were considered top 5 QBs at the time, where it blew up in that team's face?

[KDawg]

Just now, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Name me some precendents for teams who traded for under 27 year old QBs who were considered top 5 QBs at the time, where it blew up in that team's face?

There isn’t one. Most top end elite QBs under 27 don’t get traded. If they do... something is wrong.

 

The Texans are a mess. 
 

That much is true.

 

As is that Watson is great in the community and an elite talent. 
 

But his issue with not being in the convo about the GM and his stance after signing a MASSIVE contract gives me a tiny bit of concern.

 

Moreso, I don’t think we’re as close as some here think we are. I think we CAN be. But not if we give up a ton of major assets in cap and draft picks. 
 

 

[CapsSkins]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Name me some precendents for teams who traded for under 27 year old QBs who were considered top 5 QBs at the time, where it blew up in that team's face?

 

It hasn't really happened, but to get close as possible in terms of trades for starting QBs: Jay Cutler who did not work for Chicago, Carson Palmer who did not work for Oakland, Matt Cassel who did not work for Kansas City, Daunte Culpeper did not work for Miami, Drew Bledsoe did not work for Buffalo.

[Koolblue13]

We have zero shot at Watson and I bet the Colts go all in for Stafford. Neither of these are worth us fighting over.

[Skinsinparadise]

5 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

Yep they’d be mad to let him go. I would also estimate as a minimum 75% of the teams in the league would trade the farm for him. 

 

Yep.   It's crazy.  Young QBs in their prime don't get traded because they are the hardest thing to find in arguably all of sports.

 

We've not even been in the ballpark of having an elite QB with the exception of 2012.  

 

To me the conversation is like we are so used to driving a Ford Taurus.  No offense to the Taurus, its a nice steady car but its not a luxury car.   When we talk about landing a luxury car, to us its something like an Acura TLX.   We'd kill for a TLX because even a car of that caliber has been hard for us to find.   

 

And we have to use our Taurus on a race track in competition and for some reason for 20 plus years our Taurus always seem to lag behind so many other cars in particular the Ferrari.  The Ferrari has been out of reach no many how many times we've tried to get one.  We don't even dream about a Ferrari anymore, that's too lofty of a thought, those are for our rich neighboors who have Yachts.  😀   Our more realistic dream is the TLX. 

 

But, out of nowhwere a neighbor might be willing to sell us a Ferrari (and they hardly ever go on sale).   But, yawn because the price is high?  

 

I think Watson is likely a pipe dream.  But I am with the WFT PFF guy, a dude like Watson changes a franchise.  You pay big but its worth it.   

 

 

7 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

We have zero shot at Watson and I bet the Colts go all in for Stafford. Neither of these are worth us fighting over.

 

I'd put money on you being on right.  I think more of a shot exist on Stafford though. 

[KDawg]

See, these analogies are the opposite for me. This is like having a $40k/year job and having a vehicle that gets the job done but not flashy... but instead of making the smart financial decision and upgrading your car as your salary/job situation improves (or in this case the roster) you go and sell your house for that Ferrari. 
 

 

[Riggo#44]

Here is my hope for Watson: He goes to the 9ers, Panthers, Broncos or the like--removes one of the QB needy teams ahead of us, and also allows for a trade-up target a the Texans would probably be looking to recoup picks because Bill O'Brien is a moron.

[KDawg]

Just now, Riggo#44 said:

Here is my hope for Watson: He goes to the 9ers, Panthers, Broncos or the like--removes one of the QB needy teams ahead of us, and also allows for a trade-up target a the Texans would probably be looking to recoup picks because Bill O'Brien is a moron.

So much this.