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

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[Number 44]

22 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

If true, it seems to me that Stafford would be very interested in WFT.  If WFT could add a QB like Stafford, what team that would be considered in the hunt for a QB would be better positioned than WFT to be in the playoffs.  Given the teams that we need to beat out to win the division, seems like a real good bet to me that, with a solid QB, we'd be pretty strong favorites.  Stafford knows that getting into the tournament is the most important step.

[FootballZombie]

4 hours ago, jnhutchi3 said:

 

Not a good comparison.  Heinicke played great when it mattered the most -- during a playoff game against a good Tampa Bay defense.  The guy is a gamer, with a high football IQ.  It would be absolutely stupid of Washington to not let him compete for the starting job next year.  

 

Its a very good comparison. Its a lesson on the importance of sample size.

 

The question is not whether or not whether you let Taylor compete, its ensuring that you don't put all your eggs in an unreliable basket. A Taylor/Allen/X camp battle is still an option on the table, just not a primary or even secondary one. No NFL club will bang the table to rollout that kind of QB room. It would be one of the worst in the NFL.

 

If we can't make any other moves at the QB position, than the camp battle is certainly our fall back plan, as we can very easily have both Allen and Taylor on the roster next year, but any front office in the league would be doing the rational thing by looking to upgrade at the QB spot to do everything in their power to avoid that outcome.

 

 

 

 

[Warhead36]

Stafford throwing to McLaurin, Thomas, and presuambly a FA WR...with this defense...

 

We can go 11-5 and make a legit run.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

10 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Stafford throwing to McLaurin, Thomas, and presuambly a FA WR...with this defense...

 

We can go 11-5 and make a legit run.

 

[jnhutchi3]

1 hour ago, FootballZombie said:

 

Its a very good comparison. Its a lesson on the importance of sample size.

 

The question is not whether or not whether you let Taylor compete, its ensuring that you don't put all your eggs in an unreliable basket. A Taylor/Allen/X camp battle is still an option on the table, just not a primary or even secondary one. No NFL club will bang the table to rollout that kind of QB room. It would be one of the worst in the NFL.

 

If we can't make any other moves at the QB position, than the camp battle is certainly our fall back plan, as we can very easily have both Allen and Taylor on the roster next year, but any front office in the league would be doing the rational thing by looking to upgrade at the QB spot to do everything in their power to avoid that outcome.

 

 

 

 

 

There are no guarantees in this league.  I don't know what you consider a better "plan" than having Heinicke compete for the starting QB job.  The guy has proven he can play.  It's a plan with low risk.

 

Giving up draft picks and big money for someone like Stafford or Watson?  That's high risk and not a better plan in my opinion.

Edited January 20, 2021 by jnhutchi3

[kingdaddy]

20 minutes ago, jnhutchi3 said:

 

There are no guarantees in this league.  I don't know what you consider a better "plan" than having Heinicke compete for the starting QB job.  The guy has proven he can play.  It's a plan with low risk.

 

Giving up draft picks and big money for someone like Stafford or Watson?  That's high risk and not a better plan in my opinion.

This is the debate we will all have until the team decides what they are going to do. There is the "go cheap and go with Heinicke/Allen/veteran QB" camp that costs us nothing in assets vs. trade for a veteran and take on the larger contract camp. Who knows what side is the right way to go.

I am in the camp of not giving up 1st round picks for an  aging vet QB....build the roster and make it easier for whatever QB we roll with. Build this defense through free agency and the draft...find a stud WR to pair with T-Mac. Keep adding pieces until we find the right guy at QB. 

This is gonna be debated for weeks/months until RR clears it all up for us. 

[Riggo#44]

2 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

<Insert veteran here> throwing to <name #1>, <insert name #2>, and presuambly a FA WR...with this defense...

 

We can go 11-5 and make a legit run.

How many times have we said this only to finish 6-10 or worse?

[FootballZombie]

6 hours ago, jnhutchi3 said:

There are no guarantees in this league.  I don't know what you consider a better "plan" than having Heinicke compete for the starting QB job.  The guy has proven he can play.  It's a plan with low risk.

 

Giving up draft picks and big money for someone like Stafford or Watson?  That's high risk and not a better plan in my opinion.

 

Yeah, I'd consider a QB that has played more than 5 Qtrs of ball since 2018 and has actually been in the NFL a better plan. Don't have to give draft picks to get that, there is a guy already basically on the roster and there are numerous FA options. Honestly given the opportunity between Kyle and Taylor, I'd be pretty confident in Kyle's ability to win the competition, but he presents many of the same issues as Taylor. 

 

Rolling w/ our current QB situation may be low cost but it is not low risk. You'll likely have severe difficulty bringing in any high end talent in FA. (especially on O where you would not be able to tell them who they will be catching passes from or protecting ala A. Cooper) Its also easier on the coaches to build a complete offensive plan if they know before hand what person and skillset will be running it.

 

There is an immortal saying that if you have 2 QBs, you don't have 1. The same goes for someone with 0 QBs. If you have to go into camp and hold a QB battle to determine who starts, than in the previous offseason you don't have a QB. That is where we are right now. We have some cheap fallback plans, but we don't have an undisputed guy.

 

The path forward is certainly debatable, whether to spend some assets, just use FA or just roll with what we got, but what is not at all debateable is that we don't at this moment have a QB1 since we are so likely to move on from Smith. We have some guys that may compete to be one. We have some guys that we hope may become one. We don't have one however.

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by FootballZombie

[steven11]

To all the people dreaming of Watson, if he has an issue with how the Texans are ran, I don't think he'll find the WFT much better. Ditto with the broncos, bears and jets.

I think his spat is tone-deaf right now but that's for another forum.

 

[Est.1974]

8 hours ago, Riggo#44 said:

How many times have we said this only to finish 6-10 or worse?

to be fair Stafford isn’t comparable to almost every move from the past, well not to me anyway. 
 

but we are all haunted by past failings. 

[steven11]

I doubt we get Stafford unless we improve OL and sign someone like ARob. I just don’t see a vet choosing us over Denver

[Koolblue13]

37 minutes ago, steven11 said:

I doubt we get Stafford unless we improve OL and sign someone like ARob. I just don’t see a vet choosing us over Denver

Or Indy

[FootballZombie]

Don't have to woo Stafford with squat. He is not a FA so he would only be available via trade, and I don't believe he has a no trade clause.

They have a new head coach and Front Office so they don't personally owe him anything. I don't see them eating a 19M cap hit just to be cool and let him hit FA and choose his next team. They will try to move him for something, if at all.

 

This situation would be more like normal NFL trades. It would be less about where he wants to go and more about the most appealing offer to Det.

Edited January 20, 2021 by FootballZombie

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, FootballZombie said:

Don't have to woo Stafford with squat. He is not a FA so he would only be available via trade, and I don't believe he has a no trade clause.

They have a new head coach and Front Office so they don't personally owe him anything. I don't see them eating a 19M cap hit just to be cool and let him hit FA. They will try to move him for something, if at all.

 

This situation would be more like normal NFL trades. It would be less about where he wants to go and more about the most appealing offer to Det.

Trading for a QB who doesn’t want to play for you is a great way to ensure you gave up assets for nothing. If you’re WFT you talk to his agent ahead of any trade. If there’s no interest you don’t move forward.

[FootballZombie]

2 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Trading for a QB who doesn’t want to play for you is a great way to ensure you gave up assets for nothing. If you’re WFT you talk to his agent ahead of any trade. If there’s no interest you don’t move forward.

 

That would be true of any trade, but asking a guy if he is willing to play for another team, and stacking your roster to woo a player are two different things.

 

 

On that note, I'd seriously doubt a vet QB on a rebuilding team would turn down an offer to join a playoff team. 

 

We don't have to be the most appealing place on the market, just more appealing then his current situation. By all means, we already are so I don't think we would need to add a single player to our roster to get a guy like Stafford.

[DWinzit]

16 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Trading for a QB who doesn’t want to play for you is a great way to ensure you gave up assets for nothing. If you’re WFT you talk to his agent ahead of any trade. If there’s no interest you don’t move forward.

Would they be allowed to discuss extension prior to trade? seems like that occurs sometimes.

7 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

 

That would be true of any trade, but asking a guy if he is willing to play for another team, and stacking your roster to woo a player are two different things.

 

 

On that note, I'd seriously doubt a vet QB on a rebuilding team would turn down an offer to join a playoff team. 

 

We don't have to be the most appealing place on the market, just more appealing then his current situation. By all means, we already are so I don't think we would need to add a single player to our roster to get a guy like Stafford.

WFT needs to stack the roster regardless of wooing any particular player. Without a decent QB the top WR's would rather go  where there is a QB that gets them receptions and into the playoffs. A QB wants to go where a team has a good line and receivers. Right now WTF needs a QB, 2 receivers and OL help. Makes it tough. Plus a 7-9 isn't really viewed upon as a stellar playoff team.

 

What we do have is a coach that many players like and a defense which had players look like they had fun and played great. They should be able to build on that to bring in some good quality players. 

[FootballZombie]

25 minutes ago, DWinzit said:

Would they be allowed to discuss extension prior to trade? seems like that occurs sometimes.

 

While you cant just call up a player and start getting into deets (that would be tampering) you can speak through a proxy of the owning team.

 

If you are trading for a guy and you have to give him a new deal, I'd image 90% of the contract details are already worked out and you'd just need to hammer out some minor details.

 

There have been numerous situations where guys have had no idea they were even being shopped, let alone traded, but that is a rare occurrence at the QB position.

 

 

25 minutes ago, DWinzit said:

WFT needs to stack the roster regardless of wooing any particular player

 

Getting help in FA at any position, and especially WR, would require some form of wooing. Your going to have to sell the guy on your vision, and their personal role in it. They have their choice of destination and are not handcuffed by having to get traded. I don't see us getting any of the better WR options without upgrading the QB position either.

 

The good thing about trading for a QB, is that it would likely go down before FA begins. That will allow us to hit the ground running and go after our preferred WR targets, filling some major holes on this roster.

Edited January 20, 2021 by FootballZombie

[DWinzit]

6 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

 

 

Getting help in FA at any position, and especially WR, would require some form wooing. Your going to have to sell the guy on your vision, and their personal role in it. They have their choice of destination and are not handcuffed by having to get traded. I don't see us getting any of the better WR options coming without upgrading the QB position either.

 

The good thing about trading for a QB, is that it would likely go down before FA begins. That will allow us to hit the ground running and go after our preferred WR targets, filling some major holes on this roster.

I get it if we can trade for Stafford it makes WFT a m ore desirable destination. Unfortunately it would cost a number of draft picks and possibly players to get him...but that's another discussion. It is a way to get out of the catch 22 to bring in FA's but probably lose top draft picks, the building blocks for teams in my eyes.

If they do end out trading for Stafford it would be in their best interest to have already had extension talks otherwise it is a waste of future assets. 

[Skinsinparadise]

11 hours ago, Riggo#44 said:

How many times have we said this only to finish 6-10 or worse?

 

 This is the best defense we've had since Gibbs 2 IMO.  The thing that held back Gibbs 2's teams?  A Qb. 

 

I get some are sour now on the defense based on the Tampa game.  But the defensive line is legit.  The difference between having Sweat and Young versus lets say Kerrigan/P Smith is big.  Difference with having Payne/Allen/Ionnanidis/Settle versus for example McClain/McGee/Hatcher is big.  Heck its a better group than Gregg Williams' defenses:  Andre Carter, Daniels, Wynn, etc. 

 

They had an off night against Tampa,  It is what it is.  We add a MLB to that group and I think its the best defense we've had since the 1991 SB team.  And I didn't feel that way about previous concoctions of the team.  I actually can't recall ever thinking this team is a SB threat once in the 2000s.

 

I do think it is now but only with a real QB versus the modern day equivalent of Brunell, Ramsey, Campbell.  Just a guy or game manager didn't IMO give those teams a chance in the post season.  I feel the same way this time.   We didn't even have a QB then who was good enough to battle Hasselbeck.   

 

Now, I'd say we are in a similar boat to those teams.  Limited offensive weapons.  Stud WR, good TE, really good RB.  Question to me do we upgrade the WR corp for real or add a modern day version of Randle El and Brandon Lloyd.  Do we fix Qb?  Or draft a dude like Jason Campbell?  If we do it better now then we did it then -- I think we are a threat for a SB.  Stafford has more talent in his pinky than our QBs then did.  You get someone like Stafford and add a serious weapon or two via FA/Draft.  I think we for the first time are a serious threat since 1991.

 

this is from a dude who writes for the cowboys.com 

 

 

  

1 hour ago, DWinzit said:

Would they be allowed to discuss extension prior to trade? seems like that occurs sometimes.

WFT needs to stack the roster regardless of wooing any particular player. Without a decent QB the top WR's would rather go  where there is a QB that gets them receptions and into the playoffs. A QB wants to go where a team has a good line and receivers. Right now WTF needs a QB, 2 receivers and OL help. Makes it tough. Plus a 7-9 isn't really viewed upon as a stellar playoff team.

 

What we do have is a coach that many players like and a defense which had players look like they had fun and played great. They should be able to build on that to bring in some good quality players. 

 

I think we can get away without O line help if needed.  At least from the vantage point of WR FAs, they wouldn't be turned off by the O line which was one of the top rated ones in the league via PFF with every starter having above average grades.  I wouldn't mind upgrading LT but its not a code red position or turn off for a prospective WR.

 

But I agree the Qb spot would be a turnoff right now everything being equal for the top WRs.  

Edited January 20, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

Let's dig in to the top of Hurney's to-do list if he gets the job:

1. Who is QBX? - Rivera admitted that the top priority for the Washington Football Team is to solve its quarterback situation. Kyle Allen and Taylor Heinicke are restricted free agents, which likely means they will be back if Washington wants them, but the bigger issue is Alex Smith and his $24 million salary-cap hit in 2021. Smith's story is incredible, and his comeback was even more remarkable, but the late-season calf strain/bone bruise he dealt with provided a reality check for the organization. Can Washington really count on Smith in 2021, and beyond that, can Washington count on Smith at $24 million against the cap? If that answer is no, what's the next option? Draft? Veteran free agent? A major trade? That's what Hurney is walking into. This team won seven games in 2020 while starting four different quarterbacks. Solve the QB riddle, and a 10-win season seems possible. Flop at QB? Back to the abyss.   

 

 

[Koolblue13]

We are not back to the abyss if we don't solve QB this offseason. That's silly. We're good and going to improve regardless. We won't be shoving a Haskins out front to take loses.

[mhd24]

3 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

We are not back to the abyss if we don't solve QB this offseason. That's silly. We're good and going to improve regardless. We won't be shoving a Haskins out front to take loses.

 

 

Yeah, with Haskins, you could tell the team had no confidence with him.  Heineke ran the offense so much better in both of his appearances.  

[Koolblue13]

1 minute ago, mhd24 said:

 

 

Yeah, with Haskins, you could tell the team had no confidence with him.  Heineke ran the offense so much better in both of his appearances.  

So did Smith and Allen and I bet Montez would have too. 

 

For Smith to have such a bad statistical year and have such a great W/L record just tells me that this team is very good already, so no. I doubt we get worse this season without doing a thing at QB.

 

We may not improve, but we won't be worse.

[actorguy1]

Rivers is no longer an option if he ever was.