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

[Koolblue13]

3 minutes ago, sjinhan said:

i think you need to have one of the top QBs at least top 10 capable QB to win the Super Bowl.

 

Titan model works if you want a good competitive team but at any time over past 3-4 years, did they actually have a legit shot to win a Super Bowl?  In my opinion, NO.

I definitely think the Titans could have beaten the 49ers last year. The upset the Ravens and the Pats and if the Chiefs were so incredible, the Titans would have won the most recent SB.

[TheGoodBits]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Sadly he's not a FA, you got to trade for him.  I'd consider it if its not a heavy price.   Not sure about what you are driving at as for the Brinks truck for a QB who would hurt the culture, etc.  For starters, I'd trust Rivera wouldn't bring any QB that would hurt the culture.  And I can't think of a Brinks Truck type FA on the market aside from Dak and i don't think Dak ends up hitting the market. 

I’d be interested in trading (cheaply) for either Carr or Mariota, depending on which direction the Raiders go. One of those two, Rivers, Fitzmagic, maybe Tua if they trade for Watson. All cheaper options than Stafford and significantly cheaper than Watson. None other than *maybe* Tua would be a longterm solution, but could serve as a competent placeholder until we can find our guy. 

[Skinsinparadise]

56 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

Yes, bringing in the greatest QB and his top weapon absolutely had a profound impact on the Bucs. As did AB and addressing their Oline. Of course.

 

My point was that they sold out to stop Heinicke and couldn't, we held Brady to 22 of 40, which is great. LBers were the difference in that game or Heinicke could have absolutely been the winning QB that game. 

 

Their passing defense though isn't typically good.   It's their weakness.  You beat them in the air not on the ground.    You are focused on our weakness.  But their passing defense is horrendous.  That's likely part of why the game was even competitive.    I'd agree with your point if we dissected their strength.  But we didn't.  It's them who dissected our strength.  They dissected both our strength and weakness.  That's what Tom Brady brings.  I don't buy all of a sudden that our D line stinks.  Brady and their O line just beat them.  Kyle Allen would have unlikely duplicated that if he was on the other side. 

 

Heinicke had a game for the ages.  It was one of PFF's highest ranking game in eons by any QB in a playoff game.   I'd love to believe that hey that's what we got a 90 rating type of QB (according to one game at least via PFF) but that's not something I am just counting on.  Sadly he seems undersized and injury prone.  The PFF guy who rated that game didn't even think he'd rely on Heinicke as the answer.  I like having him in the mix as a backup and if he can prove he can stay healthy, I'd be game. 

 

50 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

I’d be interested in trading (cheaply) for either Carr or Mariota, depending on which direction the Raiders go. One of those two, Rivers, Fitzmagic, maybe Tua if they trade for Watson. All cheaper options than Stafford and significantly cheaper than Watson. None other than *maybe* Tua would be a longterm solution, but could serve as a competent placeholder until we can find our guy. 

 

How easy or hard do you think it will be to find the guy?  

Edited January 17, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Koolblue13]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Their passing defense though isn't typically good.   It's their weakness.  You beat them in the air not on the ground.    You are focused on our weakness.  But their passing defense is horrendous.  That's likely part of why the game was even competitive.   

 

Heinicke had a game for the ages.  It was one of PFF's highest ranking game in eons by any QB in a playoff game.   I'd love to believe that hey that's what we got a 90 rating type of QB (according to one game at least via PFF) but that's not something I am just counting on.  Sadly he seems undersized and injury prone.  The PFF guy who rated that game didn't even think he'd rely on Heinicke as the answer.  I like having him in the mix as a backup and if he can prove he can stay healthy, I'd be game. 

 

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. My point it that if we swapped LBs in that game, we'd be playing football this weekend. If we had Watson instead of Heinicke last week, it's improbable he puts up a better game(since "highest ranking game by any QB in eons") and it still comes down to the LBers. 

 

I'm not discounting the importance of a QB. I'm highlighting the importance of the team around him. If you throw away 3 more firsts to trade for a QB, you sacrifice the team. If we give away a 1rst for a QB with only a few more years, we sacrifice the team around him. 

 

Move up in the first for a rookie, without giving up multiple firsts or a late round pick to trade for a vet are fine, but don't mortgage the future.

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. My point it that if we swapped LBs in that game, we'd be playing football this weekend. If we had Watson instead of Heinicke last week, it's improbable he puts up a better game(since "highest ranking game by any QB in eons") and it still comes down to the LBers. 

 

 

I think our disagreement might be if we swapped Brady and Heinicke that day we'd have won IMO.   Listening to some of the Tampa reporters who appeared on 980/106.7 leading up to the game, coupled with some of the things Brady said during the game (he was miked up and you can hear a lot if you combine all of what became public, The Turning Point show in particular), I got the strong impression that Brady studied the heck out of our D line, Chase in particular.  And he helped his O line figure them out right down to how to befuddle Chase.  And he's a genius at setting pass protections.  Brady has now beat Del Rio's defenses in 10 of the last 11 matchups.  Brady can throw the ball.  But part of his magic is how cerebral he is.  They beat us both on the ground and the air.  The LBs weren't hot but it wasn't the only unit Brady outsmarted.   

 

3 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

 

I'm not discounting the importance of a QB. I'm highlighting the importance of the team around him. If you throw away 3 more firsts to trade for a QB, you sacrifice the team. If we give away a 1rst for a QB with only a few more years, we sacrifice the team around him. 

 

 

As much as I love the draft.  Three #1's likely in the 20s range would unlikely beat the value of a Deshaun Watson.  Most draft geeks including guys like Kiper said when we traded for RG3, three first rounders are easily worth it if he turns out to be the guy.  The problem was he wasn't the guy.  We already know Watson is the guy.  No mystery to it. 

 

3 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

 

Move up in the first for a rookie, without giving up multiple firsts or a late round pick to trade for a vet are fine, but don't mortgage the future.

 

 I think its really really really hard to find that QB.   If there is a theme to Dan's tenure beyond his dysfunction it would IMO be about all the tries and misses at QB.   IMO you are unlikely going to pull it off by trying things that are relatively cheap and easy.

Edited January 17, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Koolblue13]

In 10 years we've invested 4 !rsts, 2 2nds, 3 thrirds, 2 4rths and traded away a player to get a QB. I'd hardly call that cheap and easy. 

 

It has however hurt our overall team.

 

Also, looking at the playoffs this year, I'm pretty sure that Mayfield and Goff are the only QBs that didn't suck or sit and I think only 3 of them are top ten picks. 3 were FAs. Not a single one was brought in with a kings ransom.

Edited January 17, 2021 by Koolblue13

[TheGoodBits]

59 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

. 

 

 

How easy or hard do you think it will be to find the guy?  

Well considering we’ve been trying and failing for decades now... 

 

All those I mentioned are fallback options.
 

Stafford is my #1 preference right now. I think he’ll cost 19 and a 3rd, somewhere in that neighborhood, and give us QB play good enough to win a championship with for the next 3-4 years. 

 

I can justify the investment needed to get Watson, but I think it’s a pipe dream given the draft capital of teams ahead of us so I’m not seriously considering it. 
 

If we miss on Stafford and can’t get Watson, you’ve gotta start looking at the fallback options. And there are a number of those that I think are at least decent. 

Edited January 17, 2021 by skinsfan_1215

[Warhead36]

36 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

In 10 years we've invested 4 !rsts, 2 2nds, 3 thrirds, 2 4rths and traded away a player to get a QB. I'd hardly call that cheap and easy. 

 

It has however hurt our overall team.

 

Also, looking at the playoffs this year, I'm pretty sure that Mayfield and Goff are the only QBs that didn't suck or sit and I think only 3 of them are top ten picks. 3 were FAs. Not a single one was brought in with a kings ransom.

The Chiefs, Bills, and Ravens all traded UP for their QBs. Maybe not king's ransoms but they gave up quite a bit of draft capital. I believe the Chiefs dealt a future 1st.

 

And any QB taken #1 overall should be considered a huge investment when you consider the opportunity cost of being able to trade down and pick up multiple 1sts.

 

Our problem hasn't been how much we've invested at QB, its that we're picking the wrong guys. But it doesn't mean you stop trying. If you don't have a franchise QB you're bringing a knife to a gun fight.

[Koolblue13]

3 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

The Chiefs, Bills, and Ravens all traded UP for their QBs. Maybe not king's ransoms but they gave up quite a bit of draft capital. I believe the Chiefs dealt a future 1st.

 

And any QB taken #1 overall should be considered a huge investment when you consider the opportunity cost of being able to trade down and pick up multiple 1sts.

 

Our problem hasn't been how much we've invested at QB, its that we're picking the wrong guys. But it doesn't mean you stop trying. If you don't have a franchise QB you're bringing a knife to a gun fight.

 

[KDawg]

5 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

The Chiefs, Bills, and Ravens all traded UP for their QBs. Maybe not king's ransoms but they gave up quite a bit of draft capital. I believe the Chiefs dealt a future 1st.

 

And any QB taken #1 overall should be considered a huge investment when you consider the opportunity cost of being able to trade down and pick up multiple 1sts.

 

Our problem hasn't been how much we've invested at QB, its that we're picking the wrong guys. But it doesn't mean you stop trying. If you don't have a franchise QB you're bringing a knife to a gun fight.

If you’re going to trade assets for a QB, trading up in the draft for a guy you like is the absolute best investment.

[Warhead36]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

If you’re going to trade assets for a QB, trading up in the draft for a guy you like is the absolute best investment.

This is how i see it as well. I'd rather trade up for a guy we love and are sure on(as sure as one can be)than settle for a Jason Campbell or Patrick Ramsey or Dwayne Haskins-tier prospect.

[Koolblue13]

1 minute ago, Warhead36 said:

This is how i see it as well. I'd rather trade up for a guy we love and are sure on(as sure as one can be)than settle for a Jason Campbell or Patrick Ramsey or Dwayne Haskins-tier prospect.

 

3 minutes ago, KDawg said:

If you’re going to trade assets for a QB, trading up in the draft for a guy you like is the absolute best investment.

This I agree with. Trade up for your guy. I'm fine with that approach. 

 

I don't fault Watson for wanting out of Texas. I would too. I've left jobs for less, but I wouldn't mortgage the future of my franchise for a player behaving like that. More power too him, but not for me.

 

I personally wouldn't trade a first for Stafford, but if it happened, I'd be "fine" with it.

[Riggo#44]

 

[TheGoodBits]

32 minutes ago, KDawg said:

If you’re going to trade assets for a QB, trading up in the draft for a guy you like is the absolute best investment.

I think it absolutely depends on the situation. Who is the veteran available, how good is he, how old is he? How far are you trading up? How much are you giving up in each situation? Is your team rebuilding or are you already competitive? 
 

To me, for a team that is ready to compete and win with a good QB, the absolute worst thing you could do is invest significant draft capital in trading up for a rookie. 
 

edit: use the Peyton Manning era Broncos as an example. They’d just taken Von Miller at #2 the previous year, showed some serious promise largely due to a good defense. They earned the 25th draft slot the next year. If their solution was to trade up to the top 10, they could have gotten Tannehill at 7 or 8. It would have cost a bundle. Tannehill turned out decent but took awhile. I seriously doubt they win their super bowl with a rookie or second year Tannehill, but they could with an aging Manning. 

Edited January 17, 2021 by skinsfan_1215

[KDawg]

10 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

I think it absolutely depends on the situation. Who is the veteran available, how good is he, how old is he? How far are you trading up? How much are you giving up in each situation? Is your team rebuilding or are you already competitive? 
 

To me, for a team that is ready to compete and win with a good QB, the absolute worst thing you could do is invest significant draft capital in trading up for a rookie. 

It’s a general statement. There are no absolutes in football. 
 

We are not in position to trade and use significant cap on a veteran QB. We have too many holes. We are a year out from being a real contender if we build correctly. But that’s IF we use our resources to build and we don’t throw them away.

 

In general, it’s better to draft your guy than trade for him. Check out the Super Bowl winning QBs and then check to see how many weren’t drafted by their team...

[TheGoodBits]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

It’s a general statement. There are no absolutes in football. 
 

We are not in position to trade and use significant cap on a veteran QB. We have too many holes. We are a year out from being a real contender if we build correctly. But that’s IF we use our resources to build and we don’t throw them away.

 

In general, it’s better to draft your guy than trade for him. Check out the Super Bowl winning QBs and then check to see how many weren’t drafted by their team...

You and I view the roster differently. I think we have 3-4 major holes and QB is the biggest. You can fill 3 holes with competent players in one offseason. See my edit above about Denver when they got Manning... 

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

You and I view the roster differently. I think we have 3-4 major holes and QB is the biggest. You can fill 3 holes with competent players in one offseason. See my edit above about Denver when they got Manning... 

We have more than 3-4 major holes, so yes... we view it very differently.

[Ball Security]

23 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

Maybe he’s saying we should bring back Griffin, Cousins, Haskins, or Sudfeld if he is going to count Foles.  Haha.

 

And, technically, the Giants didn’t draft Manning.

[TheGoodBits]

4 minutes ago, KDawg said:

We have more than 3-4 major holes, so yes... we view it very differently.

In order: QB, MLB, FS, WR 

 

Those are the biggest ones. There are other positions that could certainly be upgraded, but filling the major ones with at least competent players should get us to a place where we’re winning 11+ games. 

[JoggingGod]

27 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

I mean a third of that 15 was from one QB.

[KDawg]

5 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

In order: QB, MLB, FS, WR 

 

Those are the biggest ones. There are other positions that could certainly be upgraded, but filling the major ones with at least competent players should get us to a place where we’re winning 11+ games. 

WR2, Slot, QB, Bellcow back, LT, ILB, ILB, FS

Edited January 17, 2021 by KDawg

[DWinzit]

13 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

In general, it’s better to draft your guy than trade for him. 

Yes, even you are moving up to grab someone using some assets, you have them for that rookie contract before that big second contract comes up. 

 

With trading you lose all the assets involved plus you do not have them under the 5 year rookie contract

 

 

8 minutes ago, KDawg said:

WR2, Slot, QB, Bellcow back, LT, ILB, ILB, FS

I feel like you could add a CB and an all around TE also. May need a G also...

[Est.1974]

30 minutes ago, JoggingGod said:

I mean a third of that 15 was from one QB.

Yep, devil is in the detail as ever.

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

If you’re going to trade assets for a QB, trading up in the draft for a guy you like is the absolute best investment.

I do agree with you, 99% of the time. The situation with Watson is very much a ‘unique’ situation in the making that we would have to seriously look into, IMO. To be fair, even Stafford to a less degree. He’s a baller and still young enough to get 5 years from. Ryan, no thanks.

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

In 10 years we've invested 4 !rsts, 2 2nds, 3 thrirds, 2 4rths and traded away a player to get a QB. I'd hardly call that cheap and easy. 

 

 

I didn't say we did it cheap and easy.  I said the way you suggested we do it, isn't that aggressive.  We've made trades for unproven prospects in the draft and aging veterans who were never elite ever in their careers.  What's the apples to apples move to what we've done in the past to chasing Watson?

 

The difference between trading for a dude who we hope could be a Deshaun Watson type to actually chasing the real deal is night and day different. 

 

I think we are spinning our wheels over nothing though.  Even if he hits the trade market, I don't see how we have the capital to land him versus some other teams.   

Edited January 17, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[mistertim]

4 hours ago, kingdaddy said:

Tannehill changed teams and has been very good after being below average in Miami. You just never know. 

 

I know, but I noted in my replies that Tannehill is a complete outlier in that regard. Assuming it will happen again is fool's gold because it really hasn't in almost any other circumstance (Jim Plunkett notwithstanding). Generally if you go out and get a proven mediocre NFL QB you're going to get...mediocre production out of them.