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

[JoggingGod]

7 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Even when I agree with you... you want to be argumentative. I will continue to disagree in all future exchanges.

 

Because a lot of you don't get why there's so much talk about getting a guy like Watson, Dak, Stafford, or trading up in the draft. It's a QB driven league more than anything.

2 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

I think Dak's chances of hitting FA are even lower than Watson's chances of getting traded.

 

The chances of Watson getting traded are high so idk if that says much lol

[KDawg]

Just now, JoggingGod said:

Because a lot of you don't get why there's so much talk about getting a guy like Watson, Dak, Stafford, or trading up in the draft. It's a QB driven league more than anything.

I think you don’t know my position that I’d prefer trading up in the draft to any other option. 
 

“A lot of you don’t get” 

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[PartyPosse]

4 minutes ago, JoggingGod said:

Because a lot of you don't get why there's so much talk about getting a guy like Watson, Dak, Stafford, or trading up in the draft. It's a QB driven league more than anything.

That’s garbage. NONE of the QBs in the conference games had anything close to good years.

[bearrock]

2 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

That’s garbage. NONE of the QBs in the conference games had anything close to good years.

 

Did you forget the sarcasm tag?

[JoggingGod]

2 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

That’s garbage. NONE of the QBs in the conference games had anything close to good years.

I fancy the sarcasm

[PartyPosse]

Just now, JoggingGod said:

I fancy the sarcasm

Was it that obvious?

[JoggingGod]

8 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I think you don’t know my position that I’d prefer trading up in the draft to any other option. 
 

“A lot of you don’t get” 

 

 

 

Problem is a lot of users here are okay with Kyle Allen and Taylor Heinicke being starting options as if we have elite players at every other position to support them.

[FootballZombie]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

Nice job by Fowler to cover his own tail.

 

-Including a blub like that on a purely Watson article can only be visualized in one way.

-waits to let everyone run around like chickens and get him more pub

-hedge his bets so he is right either way

 

played the game well on that one

[PartyPosse]

1 minute ago, JoggingGod said:

Problem is a lot of users here are okay with Kyle Allen and Taylor Heinicke being starting options as if we have elite players at every other position to support them.

The other problem is there’s a giant gap between Watson and Kyle Allen. 

[bearrock]

7 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I think you don’t know my position that I’d prefer trading up in the draft to any other option. 
 

“A lot of you don’t get” 

 

 

 

 

I assume to trade up for Lance?  Or do you think Wilson will fall low enough for a meaningful trade opportunity?

[PartyPosse]

Here’s my take. I would not give up more than two draft picks for a single QB. Whether that means moving up or trading, I’m not fond of the idea of giving away too many future picks unless we’re guaranteed a SB.

[KDawg]

3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I assume to trade up for Lance?  Or do you think Wilson will fall low enough for a meaningful trade opportunity?

Lance, Fields, Wilson... whoever. I like all three. 

[bearrock]

Just now, KDawg said:

Lance, Fields, Wilson... whoever. I like all three. 

 

I just assumed Fields would be a non starter given how high we would have to go.  Feels like a package to climb from 19 into top 5 or 3 would be comparable to the Watson package.

 

Also, apparently some people think Stafford will command a 1st rounder?  That probably gets a pass from me.

4 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

Here’s my take. I would not give up more than two draft picks for a single QB. Whether that means moving up or trading, I’m not fond of the idea of giving away too many future picks unless we’re guaranteed a SB.

 

That depends on the QB.  If Mahomes was available under the franchise tag, you really wouldn't sign him because of the two first rounder price?  

[PartyPosse]

1 minute ago, bearrock said:

 

I just assumed Fields would be a non starter given how high we would have to go.  Feels like a package to climb from 19 into top 5 or 3 would be comparable to the Watson package.

 

Also, apparently some people think Stafford will command a 1st rounder?  That probably gets a pass from me.

I would give up a second and a third. Maybe make one of them conditional if one were a 2022 pick.

[PartyPosse]

7 minutes ago, bearrock said:

That depends on the QB.  If Mahomes was available under the franchise tag, you really wouldn't sign him because of the two first rounder price?  

I’m merely talking about the realistic players out there.

[KDawg]

13 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I just assumed Fields would be a non starter given how high we would have to go.  Feels like a package to climb from 19 into top 5 or 3 would be comparable to the Watson package.

 

Also, apparently some people think Stafford will command a 1st rounder?  That probably gets a pass from me.

 

That depends on the QB.  If Mahomes was available under the franchise tag, you really wouldn't sign him because of the two first rounder price?  

Some people think Fields is going to fall. I think they’re nuts. But if he does...

[Skinsinparadise]

33 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

 

Nice job by Fowler to cover his own tail.

 

-Including a blub like that on a purely Watson article can only be visualized in one way.

-waits to let everyone run around like chickens and get him more pub

-hedge his bets so he is right either way

 

played the game well on that one

 

I posted an excerpt from the article in question on this thread early the same morning it came out.  I took his point as that he's hearing that WFT is going to be aggressive this off season to address the QB position in general.  Some dude who has a lot of followers on twitter though took his comment as saying that WFT will be aggressive specifically as to chasing Watson.  Then some guys on radio talk shows ran with it.  I think their confusion was that he made the point in a Watson article.  But if you read the comment on its own, it wasn't Watson specific. 

 

So all Fowler was saying was that he's heard from sources that WFT plans to be aggressive in addressing the QB spot as opposed to the aggressiveness centering on squarely chasing Watson.

 

I got why he wanted to clarify it because I took it just the way he apparently intended it to come off.  But others didn't take it that way.  So he explained.   

 

His points centered on

A.  The WFT thinks they are close.

B.  They think Qb is the key spot and intend to be aggressive to address it. 

C.  Obviously the conclusion is if they think their QBs in house are the answer -- there would be no urgency to upgrade the spot.

 

How is it related to the conversation here?  I think its pretty pointed if his sources are on the money because not everyone here agrees that WFT intends to be aggressive or they need to be aggressive for that matter. 

 

This again is assuming the dude is correct.  But his take jives with the comment posted from Rivera and somewhat jives also what the beat guys have been saying which is they are on the hunt for a QB.   So while we don't know what reality will be I think we can safely guess that there is at least a strong intent to upgrade the QB spot this offseason with an aggressive mentality.  Will see.   

 

 

[KDawg]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I posted an excerpt from the article in question on this thread early the same morning it came out.  I took his point as that he's hearing that WFT is going to be aggressive this off season to address the QB position in general.  Some dude who has a lot of followers on twitter though took his comment as saying that WFT will be aggressive specifically as to chasing Watson.  Then some guys on radio talk shows ran with it.  I think their confusion was that he made the point in a Watson article.  But if you read the comment on its own, it wasn't Watson specific. 

 

So all Fowler was saying was that he's heard from sources that WFT plans to be aggressive in addressing the QB spot as opposed to the aggressiveness centering on squarely chasing Watson.

 

I got why he wanted to clarify it because I took it just the way he apparently intended it to come off.  But others didn't take it that way.  So he explained.   

 

His points centered on

A.  The WFT thinks they are close.

B.  They think Qb is the key spot and intend to be aggressive to address it. 

C.  Obviously the conclusion is if they think their QBs in house are the answer -- there would be no urgency to upgrade the spot.

 

How is it related to the conversation here?  I think its pretty pointed if his sources are on the money because not everyone here agrees that WFT intends to be aggressive or they need to be aggressive for that matter. 

 

This again is assuming the dude is correct.  But his take jives with the comment posted from Rivera and somewhat jives also what the beat guys have been saying which is they are on the hunt for a QB.   So while we don't know what reality will be I think we can safely guess that there is at least a strong intent to upgrade the QB spot this offseason with an aggressive mentality.  Will see.   

 

 

See... I have an issue with the whole “we’re going to be aggressive, damnit!” Mindset.

 

It’s basically admitting, “we’re going to force it and fleece ourselves!”

 

Nothing is saying the report is correct. And with new management maybe they change that stance a bit. Sometimes the details on these things are held back a bit.

 

Maybe it’s “we’re going to be aggressive if an opportunity presents itself and it’s not too crazy”.

 

 

[kingdaddy]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

We agree on something. Let's celebrate by signing Dak... and have him be healthy. 

 

He's one of the only big names I really would be okay with. His cap hit will probably be a bit... much...

 

But not giving up assets to get him is high end good news to me. 

Hold on here, you're confusing me, you talked about not wanting to be cap strapped by having to pay Watson but Dak would cost more and is coming off of a serious injury? Am I missing something? Or is it the draft picks that bother you most about going after Watson? 

I'm a little surprised that you'd take Dak at his number over Watson....

[tmandoug1]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

Some people think Fields is going to fall. I think they’re nuts. But if he does...

Read some where the knock on Fields was accuracy......is accuracy fixable? Not sure it is.

[KDawg]

5 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

Hold on here, you're confusing me, you talked about not wanting to be cap strapped by having to pay Watson but Dak would cost more and is coming off of a serious injury? Am I missing something? Or is it the draft picks that bother you most about going after Watson? 

I'm a little surprised that you'd take Dak at his number over Watson....

I’m not sure where you’d get the idea that the cap number was my biggest problem with a Watson or Stafford trade. I don’t like the cap hit... the rookie contract is the equivalent of a cheat code.

 

But if I have to pick... from the big names (as I said here...) I’d rather take the one who doesn’t take assets. 

 

2 minutes ago, tmandoug1 said:

Read some where the knock on Fields was accuracy......is accuracy fixable? Not sure it is.

Im not sure Fields accuracy is bad? 

[DWinzit]

47 minutes ago, KDawg said:

See... I have an issue with the whole “we’re going to be aggressive, damnit!” Mindset.

 

It’s basically admitting, “we’re going to force it and fleece ourselves!”

Yup. overdrafting, overpaying, overcompensating 

[rumplestilskin]

19 minutes ago, tmandoug1 said:

Read some where the knock on Fields was accuracy......is accuracy fixable? Not sure it is.

Josh Allen has cleaned up his accuracy issues. I guess the answer is "It depends"

[bowhunter]

2 hours ago, JoggingGod said:

Problem is a lot of users here are okay with Kyle Allen and Taylor Heinicke being starting options as if we have elite players at every other position to support them.

Wait?? Are you implying that we don't? As if there are many other holes to fill on this team with draft capital and salary??  Hmmmm. What are good ways to prevent overspending money and draft picks???