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

[KDawg]

Just now, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

Drafting Lance and retaining Allen and Heinicke is the most balanced approach in terms of resource management and utilisation.

 

Can’t see Rivera accepting the associated risk of flat-lining for a season though.

 

I'd rather flat line for one than three.

 

I'd also add that the risk in acquiring a vet is still existent. Even if they assimilate to the culture ala the GOAT in Tampa (and even improve it significantly via reports), the scheme fit may not be there, the comfort may not be there... and even if all of that is there... Injuries happen and you can flat line even when giving up significant resources and then hurt your long term.

 

And even still, I'm not convinced that we'd flatline if we manage to improve the rest of the roster this offseason.

 

I see us flatlining if: We get bad injury luck, we strike out completely in FA, we let Scherff AND Darby walk and struggle to replace them.

 

I don't think Allen/Heinicke/Insert vet or rookie here flatline us. I think poor roster construction does.

 

Now, I am also not naive enough to not realize that there is a chance that those guys struggle a bit. But I can't see a world where they can't get us to the same record at minimum IF we're relatively healthy. Alex Smith was able to do it with one leg because of who he is. But these guys were with Smith and are a continuity source.  

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

19 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

I think I must be doing a horrendous job getting my point across on a QB...

 

I don't think we have an easy path to one this offseason. I think almost any move we make is forcing it. And that is a bad move no matter what.

 

The only positive moves I could see are a trade up for Fields/Lance/Wilson. That is somewhat dependent on cost. And I'm not AS high on Wilson as many are but I like him more than some years' top QB guy so I'd be supportive of that if the team likes him. 

 

A Stafford trade could work, but the chances that it's a deal that fits what we can afford to lose asset wise/he wants to come here/there's not better offers on the table are slim.

 

There is a FA path to Dak, but again... it's not likely. Dallas likely signs him. If not, he is a really high cap hit... Which if you could guarantee he'd be the same player and healthy that he was in the beginning of 2020 then it may be worth it. But... He is coming off of a major injuries... So not only would that be tough because he's not likely available, but then you have to swallow the cap hit in a year the cap isn't likely to go up like it would have AND we have contracts that need to get done AND we don't know how well he comes back from the injury.

 

 

 

Some good points and I follow the logic but how do we know for example 2022 will be better?  The price always seems high to get a QB unless you get lucky. 

 

The number of teams in play for a QB might factor in the price but clearly all those teams won't solve their QB issue this year.  If we punt on it, we will likely have plenty of company.  

 

 

[tmandoug1]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

I don't believe it's code red. I think that's awfully dramatic, actually.

 

I don't think a "good QB" improves our ceiling. I think drafting a franchise QB long term improves our ceiling.

 

It's really simple stuff. Draft an elite QB or acquire a vet on a stacked roster and profit. 

 

Would a Stafford improve us this year? Likely. But not guaranteed.

 

My main point: But regardless of our differences in QB philosophy... Most teams are looking for a franchise QB to extend their ceilings above "having a chance" to "having a good chance"

 

They are going to hire Bieniemy and he'll be fine.

Exactly......I said this yesterday. Everyone is happy, and the owner needs that desperately to retain his fanbase. Eric gets much deserved coaching shot, Watson gets OC guru and owner gets fans back. If that doesn't happen then the owner is an idiot. 

[Est.1974]

I’ve said for months I think Kyle Allen gets us to 8-8 with his eyes shut. I really do. 
 

Challenge for me is I want a regular 12-4 team give or take a game. How do we add that extra edge. 
 

Picking #19 requires a compromise or good fortune. Or both.
 

 

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Some good points and I follow the logic but how do we know for example 2022 will be better?  The price always seems high to get a QB unless you get lucky. 

 

The number of teams in play for a QB might factor in the price but clearly all those teams won't solve their QB issue this year.  If we punt on it, we will likely have plenty of company.  

 

 

 

You never know on a year to year basis. You are 100% on the money there.

 

That's why you look for a reasonable deal on a guy you like and make it happen.

 

Now, here's the difference between 22 and 21 in my eyes: We will have a better overall roster. I don't think that's an overly optimistic view. We shed the Collins and Smith deals completely, the cap should go up and we will have our cupboard more stocked following this offseason than we do heading into this offseason. Yes, we have some deals to get done as well, but the foundation is more well balanced and the support cast stronger than now. 

 

If we struggle this season then we weren't in position to trade multiple assets to get a guy anyways... Unless the QB play is absolutely abysmal. Our QB play was pretty damn bad all season this year and we still wound up okay, though. And I don't see Allen/Heinicke/Whoever to wind up being worse.

 

I'd be LIKELY more on board for a trade scenario or a big FA QB or even a draft trade up next year than this year. I'm not saying I'd be definitively on board with it. But I think its a much less risky proposition. 

4 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

I’ve said for months I think Kyle Allen gets us to 8-8 with his eyes shut. I really do. 
 

Challenge for me is I want a regular 12-4 team give or take a game. How do we add that extra edge. 
 

Picking #19 requires a compromise or good fortune. Or both.
 

 

 

Man... So do I.

 

And that's why I don't want to give up the assets we need to fill this roster out, though I understand the overwhelming desire to get this situation sorted as soon as possible... especially because it seems like we have competent football people in place... (though I worry we are getting a ton of chefs and they are going to struggle with the menu... but that's a different topic)

[Riggo#44]

59 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

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.

 

I love your enthusiasm--and this is the best I've felt about this team moving forward in a long time. But I am going to pour some cold water on it.

 

I'll agree we had an off night against Tampa--it doesn't help they employed the Wilson-Phillips approach (just hold on, for one more play, things will go your way). However, I think we need 2 LBs, as Holcomb is our only starting quality LB. We could use another CB--as Moreland is terrible. And what happened to Fabian Moreau? He played well and then disappeared? Is he at Morton's with Eddie Royal? I think we can get by with Curl, Everett, and Reaves at S.

 

On offense, we're a train wreck--more than just QB. I worry about the left side of the line. Matsko did a fantastic job with what we had--our right side is good, other than McLaurin and Gibson, it's the only part of the offense that doesn't need fixing. I think we can go with Schweitzer, Charles, low-rung FA at LG and let them battle it out. Lucas and Christian are backups in my opinion--good ones, but still backups. I see that left side regressing next year without upgrades. Which is something we never seem to plan for. I love Gibson and McKissic, but we could use another RB to replace Barber (speaking of that '91 team, Barber is a poor-man's Gerald Riggs). Thomas was a bargain at TE, and serviceable, but not exactly dynamic. He could be upgraded too--I would love to see an athletic, can't-block-for-****, type TE in the draft--like Kenny Yeboah out of Ole Miss. We're in full agreement on WR--I'd love to get someone like Corey Davis at a slightly cheaper rate than a Robinson. We could stand to draft a slot-type too.

 

Which brings us to the big elephant in the room. QB. I am really leery about going after Stafford. He'll probably take a #1 to acquire--and it really makes me cringe at trading a 1st rounder for a 32 yr old QB. Yes he had a great year last year and is still a very good QB...but shades of McNabb are still looming. I know they're totally different players and situations, but still, I generally dislike giving up early picks for 30-plus players.

 

This reminds me of the 1999-2000 teams. 1999 we had a really good offense and a **** defense (opposite of what we have now). So the thought was "fix the defense and we are Super Bowl bound!" So we did, and that defense was really good--7th in points, 4th in yards. What happened? Tre Johnson blows out his knee, Casey Rabach gets hurt in camp, Westbrook blows out his knee. Brad Johnson regresses horribly, as a result Davis and Connell aren't as effective, and we plummet from 2nd to 24th in points--scoring more than 21 pts just twice. So, while not exactly the same situation (0% chance they bring in a cancer like George, Rivera takes dumps that are better head coaches than Turner was, same goes for Hurney/Smith et al over Cerrato), it give me pause about going after Stafford.

 

On top of that, those 7 wins are a major illusion. One of the things I was worried about winning the division is the expectations getting ratcheted up to 11. Yes, our defense showed well, but it was also against the 9ers backups, Cowboys backups and MIke Nolan coached defense twice, the Ryan Finely lead Bengals (Burrow doesn't get hurt--I think we lose that game), the cratering Eagles twice. We played very well against the Steelers, who weren't the same after that game, and the Seahawks--both of those teams fired their OCs. We lost to the aforementioned Lions, the Giants twice (****ing HATE the Giants more than the Cowboys or Eagles at this point), and the Panthers--a combined record of 16-22. 

 

Now, our showing against the Bucs, Seahawks, and Steelers are very encouraging--but we're not at the point yet to make a win-now move like Stafford. Besides, I'd say the Colts are in a position to make a much more aggressive offer than we could--or should--at this point.

 

 

[CjSuAvE22]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

You don’t put it off. You just don’t force it.

 

You wind up doing more damage forcing it than making a good move.

 

If Stafford becomes available for a 2 and a 4 and he’s okay coming here? Do it. If Stafford is available for a 1 and 3? I wouldn’t do it.

 

If Watson is available for 2 firsts? Strong consideration. If he’s available for three firsts and Allen and 40M in cap? Hard pass. (I don’t think he’s available).

 

If the franchise rookie is available at 9 and it costs a 1st swap, an extra first and a second and we really like him? Do it. 
 

If we like a FA QB who is semi young to be the full time guy? Do it. If we want insurance for a bridge QB and want to see what the guys we have offer in the mean time? Do it.

We had a qb here that put up Stafford like numbers and nobody was happy with him....why are we pulling for Stafford now?? imo Cousins > Stafford...trading for Stafford doesn't help this team imo. Trust the scouting department if they see a rookie to fit the the schemes and plays Turner likes to do draft him otherwise sign someone in free agency as a stop gap or use what we have now in hopes of taking a qb in the draft next year...how many times has trading for a qb worked that's over 30 years old....id rather spend that 2nd and 4th on potential players

[KDawg]

13 minutes ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

We had a qb here that put up Stafford like numbers and nobody was happy with him....why are we pulling for Stafford now?? imo Cousins > Stafford...trading for Stafford doesn't help this team imo. Trust the scouting department if they see a rookie to fit the the schemes and plays Turner likes to do draft him otherwise sign someone in free agency as a stop gap or use what we have now in hopes of taking a qb in the draft next year...how many times has trading for a qb worked that's over 30 years old....id rather spend that 2nd and 4th on potential players

I don't know if you're referring to me... but I'm not really pulling for him. I'm "okay" with him. 

 

You basically said verbatim how I'd approach this.

Edited January 20, 2021 by KDawg

[Warhead36]

Stafford would be a SUBSTANTIAL upgrade over anything we've had her since like Ryp in 91. He's better then Cousins 2015-2017 stretch. We would instantly become an 11+ win team with him at the helm assuming we can shore up a few other weak spots in the off season.

 

The issue for me is I would not give up the 19th pick for him. He's 32 and he has had some injuries recently. He could completely fall off like what happened to McNabb when we traded for him(remember he was a Pro Bowler in 2009 the year before we got him). But I don't see the same thing happening here. McNabb got by because of scheme his last few years in Philly, Stafford IS the team in Detroit.

 

I'd rather draft and develop my own guy, that's the proven method for long term sustained success, but Stafford could be for us what Peyton Manning was for Denver from 2012-2015.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

I love your enthusiasm--and this is the best I've felt about this team moving forward in a long time. But I am going to pour some cold water on it.

 

Now, our showing against the Bucs, Seahawks, and Steelers are very encouraging--but we're not at the point yet to make a win-now move like Stafford. Besides, I'd say the Colts are in a position to make a much more aggressive offer than we could--or should--at this point.

 

 

Some good points there, my argument with it is:

 

A.  if we are waiting for every hole to be filled or close enough we will never be ready because its never going to happen.  We are going to have weaknesses.  Maybe its slot CB and FS and O line depth or something else.  While lets say we fill WR, TE and MLB.  Or name that premutation.  Every roster has holes.  Heck even the mighty Tampa Bay team who some say have the most loaded roster in the NFL can be had with their passing defense.   

 

B.  We will fill some of those key holes in the off season.  Getting a QB doesn't preclude that.  It's not and either or

 

C.  I think this roster has much more potentail than the 1999-2000 team but more on point the potential of having a cheap D line with plenty of cap room to spare presents a unique opportunity that's not lasing for a long time. 

 

D.  I'd put money against us finding that QB in the new few years.  Whether its in 2021 or 2022 or 2023.  I don't have that belief when the time is right, the Deshuan Watson will likely manifest, will just need to be patient.  Not that I am betting that it happens this year either but i am cynical about our chances to pull it off.   Yes we can get lucky.  I wouldn't put money on it though. 

 

We came close to beating arguably the most talented team in the NFL (lol, at least Madden thinks they are 😀) with all of these holes on our roster.  We didn't look like a team that's a mile away from the promised land. 

27 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Stafford would be a SUBSTANTIAL upgrade over anything we've had her since like Ryp in 91. He's better then Cousins 2015-2017 stretch. We would instantly become an 11+ win team with him at the helm assuming we can shore up a few other weak spots in the off season.

 

 

Agree.

 

27 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

 He's 32 and he has had some injuries recently. He could completely fall off like what happened to McNabb when we traded for him(remember he was a Pro Bowler in 2009 the year before we got him). But I don't see the same thing happening here. McNabb got by because of scheme his last few years in Philly, Stafford IS the team in Detroit.

 

 

He's much more talented than McNabb IMO.  But running with your point, there is risk with almost anything we do.  But you always got a risk including the draft.  I love Zach Wison, I'd trade up for him within reason.  Yet, he can become a bust. 

Edited January 20, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Riggo#44]

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Some good points there, my argument with it is:

 

I think we're on the same page--if Stafford could be had for a Trent Williams 3rd and 5th, I'd be down, but whatever we're willing to part with, I think the Colts top. Just a hunch. With all the other holes--we cannot trade a 1st for Stafford. But, we'll see how this offseason plays out.  

 

54 days until the Legal Tampering Period...what stupid ****ing name.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

7 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Stafford would be a SUBSTANTIAL upgrade over anything we've had her since like Ryp in 91. He's better then Cousins 2015-2017 stretch. We would instantly become an 11+ win team with him at the helm assuming we can shore up a few other weak spots in the off season.

 

The issue for me is I would not give up the 19th pick for him. He's 32 and he has had some injuries recently. He could completely fall off like what happened to McNabb when we traded for him(remember he was a Pro Bowler in 2009 the year before we got him). But I don't see the same thing happening here. McNabb got by because of scheme his last few years in Philly, Stafford IS the team in Detroit.

 

I'd rather draft and develop my own guy, that's the proven method for long term sustained success, but Stafford could be for us what Peyton Manning was for Denver from 2012-2015.

 

Stafford isn't anywhere near falling off physically.  The question with him is if he wants to continue taking the beating with four little girls and $250,000,000 in the bank.  

 

When talking about Stafford, don't look at the numbers.  Look at the amount of players and FO people who go out of their way to go to bat for him.  Unprovoked.  I believe Rodgers did a few weeks ago.  The guy wants to win so bad. Started a meaningless game with three or four injuries that would have sidelined other QBs and played great ball.

 

Unfortunately, the Detroit Lions organization is a black hole.  It's a mistake IMO, to trade him unless Stafford wants out.

 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

You never know on a year to year basis. You are 100% on the money there.

 

That's why you look for a reasonable deal on a guy you like and make it happen.

 

Now, here's the difference between 22 and 21 in my eyes: We will have a better overall roster. I don't think that's an overly optimistic view. We shed the Collins and Smith deals completely, the cap should go up and we will have our cupboard more stocked following this offseason than we do heading into this offseason. Yes, we have some deals to get done as well, but the foundation is more well balanced and the support cast stronger than now. 

 

 

OK, so if I follow, you aren't opposed to being aggressive to get a QB including trading major assets but you'd do it if needed in 2022 not 2021.  OK, if so our points aren't a mile away.  I'd do it now if the opportunity presented itself.  I gather you would, too.  But I'd be willing to give up more than you would to get the guy.   

 

Some draft geeks are down about the 2022 QB prospects.   I like Howell but I am guessing he'd be out of our range. Ditto Rattler.  I haven't studied them yet and things always change so its too early to project. 

 

I am guessing the challenge will be similar to this season, we likely will be picking in the 20s and it might not be easy to find a team who is both willing to forgo the opportunity to take the QB and also be willing to drop that far down in the draft.  But that's just a guess.  Will see.   

 

I doubt FA would be the answer albeit it rarely is for QB.  Those are the on course 2022 QB FAs. 

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

9 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

I think we're on the same page--if Stafford could be had for a Trent Williams 3rd and 5th, I'd be down, but whatever we're willing to part with, I think the Colts top. Just a hunch. With all the other holes--we cannot trade a 1st for Stafford. But, we'll see how this offseason plays out.  

 

54 days until the Legal Tampering Period...what stupid ****ing name.

 

Trent was an older LT, who took a season off, coming off of a major health scare and was on a one year deal left.  If we got Stafford for the same price, it would likely be one of the biggest steals in a long time.  It's arguably even cheaper than we we paid for Alex.  I think zero chance that happens though.   

 

I'd think best case scenario would be a 2nd and 4th.    But more likely it would take a 1.  I know some say a 2nd and change.  Will see.  Still doubt he gets put on the market.

[KDawg]

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

OK, so if I follow, you aren't opposed to being aggressive to get a QB including trading major assets but you'd do it if needed in 2022 not 2021.  OK, if so our points aren't a mile away.  I'd do it now if the opportunity presented itself.  I gather you would, too.  But I'd be willing to give up more than you would to get the guy.   

 

Some draft geeks are down about the 2022 QB prospects.   I like Howell but I am guessing he'd be out of our range. Ditto Rattler.  I haven't studied them yet and things always change so its too early to project. 

 

I am guessing the challenge will be similar to this season, we likely will be picking in the 20s and it might not be easy to find a team who is both willing to forgo the opportunity to take the QB and also be willing to drop that far down in the draft.  But that's just a guess.  Will see.   

 

I doubt FA would be the answer albeit it rarely is for QB.  Those are the on course 2022 QB FAs. 

 

 

 

If something DID totally go off the rails this year and our QBs stunk and we had injuries... we get a high pick and a roster that is much more solid and coming back to health...

 

Trade for a QB at that point (hopefully UP in the draft and not a vet) and you’re in business... but if the QBs are horrendous and we’re injured we’re probably picking top 10. Where there is risk in the current room... there is also reward. 
 

I want us to be good. But if the worst happens then we’re in good overall shape. 

[Otis Wonsley Posse]

On 1/18/2021 at 1:01 PM, Wildbunny said:

https://riggosrag.com/2021/01/18/dark-horse-quarterback-washington-football-team-acquire/

 

Dark horse quarterback who the Washington Football Team should acquire

 

The Washington Football Team played a competitive Wild Card game against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers with Taylor Heinicke as their quarterback. That fact alone should tell you that with merely competent quarterback play, Washington can be a dangerous team as early as 2021. But as history shows over and over again, finding a competent quarterback is no simple matter.

 

However, there is one out there, and acquiring him would not require mortgaging the future.

 

If he is healthy and up to speed by opening day, Kyle Allen should be Washington’s starting quarterback. If he is not, it should be Tyrod Taylor.

 

Why Tyrod Taylor could make sense for the Washington Football Team

Taylor is not a sexy pick. As I was going over all the free agents, trade candidates, and potential draftees who could be on Washington’s radar, his name was overshadowed by at least a dozen others. But the more I thought about the likelihood of acquiring any new QB, and the cost associated with doing so, the more it became apparent that Taylor is the ideal choice.

 

Click on the link for more

 

Allen should be the starter? Why is that? If it cam down to Heinicke and Allen it’s the former all day

[tmandoug1]

5 minutes ago, Otis Wonsley Posse said:

 

Not sure we do this.......middle of the road in my opinion. We either go hard at Watson/Stafford or we roll with what we have and add a young QB in the draft. 

[Skinsinparadise]

21 minutes ago, KDawg said:

If something DID totally go off the rails this year and our QBs stunk and we had injuries... we get a high pick and a roster that is much more solid and coming back to health...

 

Trade for a QB at that point (hopefully UP in the draft and not a vet) and you’re in business... but if the QBs are horrendous and we’re injured we’re probably picking top 10. Where there is risk in the current room... there is also reward. 
 

I want us to be good. But if the worst happens then we’re in good overall shape. 

 

I get the mindset.  We can be like the Texans where they traded the farm for a LT of all things in a win now move, fell back this season instead of moving up, and are screwed now because they don't have the high pick and still have a long way to go.  Or something like that.   That would stink.  And it could happen, I agree.

 

For me, I see some potential scenarios as attractive and rare if they manifest.   That's what guides my sense of urgency.   For example, I see here there are a range of opinions on Stafford.  I am on the higher end of that spectrum, I think he's really good.  I don't just see him as the best of the bad lot.  I'd see it as a unique opportunity to upgrade the spot in a way that I doubt emerges in 2022.  Dudes like Stafford aren't on the trade market every year.   

 

Ditto if Watson hits the market for example.  I am not thinking well Watson hit it this year but for all we know next year it could be Mahomes. These scenarios might not manifest but if they do i am being aggressive because I am betting against another Stafford hitting the market in 2022 

 

I am not saying you are on the other side of these points.  I am cynical about QB, I typically think we will be out of range to get the best one in the draft, won't get lucky with our own Russell Wilson find, and a franchise type will unlikely hit the market.  

 

In 2022, I'd bet more money that we'd be talking about the 4th best Qb in the draft (perception wise) hoping they land at our pick or should we sign Mariota or Tysom Hill in FA versus name that prospect that feels like we get our franchise QB.  

Edited January 20, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[KDawg]

15 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I get the mindset.  We can be like the Texans where they traded the farm for a LT of all things in a win now move, fell back this season instead of moving up, and are screwed now because they don't have the high pick and still have a long way to go.  Or something like that.  

 

For me, I see some potential scenarios as attractive and rare if they manifest.   That's what guides my sense of urgency.   For example, I see here there are a range of opinions on Stafford.  I am on the higher end of that spectrum, I think he's really good.  I don't just see him as the best of the bad lot.  I'd see it as a unique opportunity to upgrade the spot in a way that I doubt emerges in 2022.  Dudes like Stafford aren't on the trade market every year.   

 

Ditto if Watson hits the market for example.  I am not thinking well Watson hit it this year but for all we know next year it could be Mahomes.  Now that's best case scenario.  They might not manifest but if they do i am being aggressive because I am betting against another Stafford hitting the market in 2022 

 

I am not saying you are on the other side of these points.  I am cynical about QB, I typically think we will be out of range to get the best one in the draft, won't get lucky with our own Russell Wilson find, and a franchise type possibility will unlikely hit the market.  

 

In 2022, I'd bet more money that we'd be talking about the 4th best Qb in the draft (perception wise) hoping they land at our pick or should we sign Mariota or Tysom Hill in FA versus name that prospect that feels like we get our franchise QB.  

I trade up in 2022 in the draft if we can if we are able to upgrade the roster this offseason well enough. Plus we’ll have a more definitive answers on Heinicke/Allen at that point... and a rookie (read: Buechele, Shane  )... so we’ll know how much QB is a need.

 

If Heinicke is our starter and gets hurts week 3 and misses significant time, cross him off. He can’t be durable enough. If Allen gets hurt or struggles, cross him off. 
 

Likewise, if Heinicke plays 10/16 games like the playoff game with 2 better and 4 worse or much worse we still know what we have with him. Same thing if Allen plays. 
 

I just think there is less long term risk to rolling with what we have + a vet or rookie, or trading up and getting our rookie this year than trading the farm. If everything goes off the rail aside from the vet QB and the vet QB is even decent our draft pick is low and our roster is decimated. There is more short term risk in this approach, though.
 

If I thought we had a better roster right now I’d feel differently. 

Edited January 20, 2021 by KDawg

[Est.1974]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Some good points and I follow the logic but how do we know for example 2022 will be better?  The price always seems high to get a QB unless you get lucky. 

 

The number of teams in play for a QB might factor in the price but clearly all those teams won't solve their QB issue this year.  If we punt on it, we will likely have plenty of company.  

 

 

Yeah based on how the first year has gone under Rivera I think, in whatever capacity it takes, he tries to find his answer at QB. At least one to last 3-4 years anyway.

1 hour ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

why are we pulling for Stafford now?? imo Cousins > Stafford...trading for Stafford doesn't help this team imo.

Stafford>>>>>>Cousins.

 

Thats not even close in my opinion.

[Est.1974]

1 hour ago, Warhead36 said:

The issue for me is I would not give up the 19th pick for him

I’d give up #19 for Stafford if that was the only compensation needed to acquire him.

 

Still having picks in 2,3,3,4,5 is enough to work with. And a bit of cap space to acquire a couple of high end FA’s. Sound good to me.

[kingdaddy]

15 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

I’d give up #19 for Stafford if that was the only compensation needed to acquire him.

 

Still having picks in 2,3,3,4,5 is enough to work with. And a bit of cap space to acquire a couple of high end FA’s. Sound good to me.

Pretty sure I would do this too, but only if I was convinced that Stafford was a level above Allen and Heinicke for this team. We would then acquire our franchise QB for just our #19 overall pick. That's pretty much a no-brainer if Stafford is healthy and his contract is reasonable. 

[CjSuAvE22]

42 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

 

 

Thats not even close in my opinion.

I don't think so its very close and I give a slight edge to cousins, Cousins has his team in playoff contention more times than Stafford has a playoff win and has played in more playoff games and been a  starter for much less time. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

I don't think so its very close and I give a slight edge to cousins, Cousins has his team in playoff contention more times than Stafford has a playoff win and has played in more playoff games and been a  starter for much less time. 

 

I've taken a lot of arrows from the Kirk haters over the years.   My beef with how that was played was we are giving up a good QB without a net below us.  And I hate (as its obvious in this thread) not having a good QB with a passion.  So my Kirk credentials are fairly solid. 😀

 

Most of Dan's reign has been about mediocre to less than that QB play.  And if we are dumping Kirk at least get some trade value for him.  Giving him up for a 3rd round comp pick (which is basically a 4th because its at the end of the round) is a ridiculously poorly handled job from Bruce who botched the whole thing royally. And I hit Bruce for it repeatedly because it felt at the time that it captured why he was bad at his job.  And if there was ever any doubt about that he showed it wasn't an anamoly considering how he handled the Trent situation. 

 

Having said that, Kirk has a ceiling.  He's an overacheiver.  He's not a freak talent.  I am not in the camp of blaming him or any QB for that matter for wins and loses.  They are a factor but not the whole factor.  If the argument is Kirk's ability doesn't elevate the whole team -- meaning he can't like Aaron Rodgers carry a team on his shoulders -- that's true.  Kirk isn't a great QB.  He's not Mahomes, Aaron Rodgers, Watson. He's be in that next 2nd tier group. 

 

So bringing this to Stafford.  Stafford IMO is in the top end of the 2nd tier group.  His arm is probably in the top 5 in the league.  He has more mobility and can throw off platform better than Kirk.  The one criticism of Kirk that some of his detractors use against him which I agree with is he's not clutch.  Kirk has had his clutch moments but at large he's not a QB that I'd want with a game on the line.  Stafford on the other hand is super clutch.   Stafford >>> IMO Kirk. 

 

Before someone jumps on me I disagree with the tweet that they'd take Stafford over Rodgers with the game on the line.  But the fact that its even in conversation brings home how clutch that dude has been. 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

I trade up in 2022 in the draft if we can if we are able to upgrade the roster this offseason well enough. Plus we’ll have a more definitive answers on Heinicke/Allen at that point... and a rookie (read: Buechele, Shane  )... so we’ll know how much QB is a need.

 

 

You've pushed Buechele maybe even more than I pushed Ridder as a later round type (back when I thought he was coming out).  I'll get to watching him but with all this hype from you if he's anything short of Brady I'd be dissapointed. 

 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

If Heinicke is our starter and gets hurts week 3 and misses significant time, cross him off. He can’t be durable enough. If Allen gets hurt or struggles, cross him off. 
 

Likewise, if Heinicke plays 10/16 games like the playoff game with 2 better and 4 worse or much worse we still know what we have with him. Same thing if Allen plays. 

 

There are two angles I noticed to challenge Heinicke

 

A.  It's 1.25 game sample.  The 1 game he started in Carolina wasn't hot, 3 INTs.   The league has had flashes in the pan like that before that flamed out so it would be crazy to just run with a hot game for a dude that has bounced around the league.

 

So I reject A.   I am among the crowd that rejects that and says he's not Scott Mitchell Part 2.   So I think relatively speaking I am very high on Heinicke. So considering that i think I am far enough on the deep end on him.    Even though to some i am not far enough. 

 

B. He himself admitted he's under 6 foot, some say under 200 pounds too.  He's been banged up in his short career.  A beat guy said checking into his sources with the team, they are worried about his durability and plan to proceed with business as usual to finding a QB this off season.

 

It's B that makes me pause.  What me or you or whomever project about the dude obviously doesn't matter.  But if multiple reporters are saying that they are going to try to get a QB still and one is saying they are concerned about his durability then I see that all as obvious red flags.

 

If I heard them say instead:  they think Heinicke is the guy but they want to give him some competition -- I'd feel 180 degrees different.  I'd love to believe he's the answer.  I am flat out rejecting the super small sample size argument so I am plenty far on the deep end about the dude.   But I tend to trust guys like Keim and Standig among others.  They aren't always right as to their sources with the team but they are usually right. 

 

As for Allen, I am less convinced that he can elevate the team.  I didn't see anything special in him.  Heinicke at least looked special albeit for one game.  But again if Keim or whomever said the team is feeling very good at QB, they aren't sure but are leaning that Kyle is likely the guy, i'd feel better that he might be the guy.  But that's not the vibe i am getting from anyone who is covering the team.  I am getting the vibe they are hot to trot at QB this off season.

 

 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

I just think there is less long term risk to rolling with what we have + a vet or rookie, or trading up and getting our rookie this year than trading the farm. If everything goes off the rail aside from the vet QB and the vet QB is even decent our draft pick is low and our roster is decimated. There is more short term risk in this approach, though.
 

If I thought we had a better roster right now I’d feel differently. 

 

I think i like this roster perhaps better but to me more on point is they will upgrade this roster obviously.  So its not for example like its Stafford and the rest stays the same.  So I am factoring that in the soup.  It will be a QB and other holes filled too. 

 

I  agree expanding resources is more risky.  But like Arians likes to say no risk it, no biscuit.  😀 

Edited January 20, 2021 by Skinsinparadise