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

[KDawg]

5 minutes ago, zskins said:

 

The kid named Grand Canyon Crevice.... is he a mobile QB like Lamar? is so then yeah definitely in the convo. 

I hear he’s a giant gap.

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

Tampa didn't blow us out of the water. We lost by 8 with a chance to tie it on our last drive. 

 

 

I know. I was being sarcastic.  😀   You were talking down what Arians said about this team so that was me talking them back up. 

 

I don't think you are an easy one to debate on this issue because recalling your positions you are on the extreme far side of the spectrum on the Qb position.  You do think you can find a Russell Wilson in the third round easier than most of us do.  You are intrigued by undrafted Free Agent QBs.    You get excited about Nick Mullens (who you've mentioned many times as an example of success) and dudes like that who aren't loved by others.   You've talk about feeling hesitant to take Qbs in the first round.

 

I am not saying you are wrong but you came out of it from a funky point of view compared to most which is you prefer to run with the more long shot models and are driven by optimism that they will work.  So in the context of this debate, I wouldn't expect you to agree no matter what the context. 

 

Heck if someone created a thread and said lets never use a first round pick on a QB again, I'd guess you'd echo right on and say stuff like if Dallas can get their Tony Romo without even using a draft pick, why can't we?   Why not trade a 6th rounder for Nick Mullens and stuff like that.  So for me that stuff is way left field.  And I don't think even if in your mind we had a stacked roster you'd still want to be aggressive but correct me if I am wrong. 

 

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

We can disagree on the Haskins stuff but Rivera started Haskins at the beginning of the season. He said what he should have done but he did what he did. He should have also played Everett or Reaves at FS or Curl at SS or Wes S at LG or Lucas at LT but he didn't. Maybe if we had a preseason and more competitions we would have done differently but we fielded the team we fielded. We were a 4-7 team that went to the playoffs. That's the truth. It is what it is. We are a middle of the pack team. We can compete with some of the better teams (Tampa) but can also get beat by some of the worse (Giants, Carolina, almost Philly). 

 

 

4-7?  This is the premise that we'd have the same record no matter who started.  Haskins, Alex, Heinicke, Allen they would have all lost those games and played like the 35th ranked out of 36th QB in the league (Haskins'PFF rating).  Lets agree to disagree.  I think Alex just wins is overplayed.  But your point would lead to the idea that Haskins = Alex Smith -- and IMO that is wildly off 

 

Your point seems to be is it is what it is and that's who they played.  For me that's off the mark in the context of what we are debating.  The debate isn't about whether they played the roster well enough during the season and earned the record they did.  The question is where are they now?

 

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

Can you not accept that a 7-9 team is not a world beater? 

 

The tough part about this debate is some on both sides of it at times bring hyperbole and drama to ridicule the other point.  You've seen enough from me to know what I think about the roster including the record.   It doesn't have to be about one point of view being wild and crazy one side versus the other.  😉

 

 

Edited January 22, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Dark Acre]

4 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

They lost to the Colts, Bears, Colts, Bengals and Titans on that stretch. Thats 4 playoff teams down the stretch.

That's 3 playoff teams, not 4.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

NFL Network analyst and former GM Charley Casserly joined 106.7 The Fan’s Sports Junkies on Friday morning and discussed the Washington Football team’s chances of landing a veteran quarterback this offseason.

“They’re going to be aggressive, in my opinion, to go and get a quarterback,” Casserly said. “I’m not sure where they’re going to get one, though. People talk about all these guys going to be available. I’m not sure who’s going to be available.”

A popular name that’s cropped up in trade rumors over the last few months is Lions quarterback Matt Stafford. The former Pro Bowler has two years left on the five-year, $135 million extension he signed with Detroit in 2017. Trading Stafford would give the Lions several premium draft picks with which to kick off a full-scale rebuild.

However, Casserly reports that conversations he had with potential candidates to fill the vacancies in Detroit, which were ultimately filled by Dan Campbell at head coach and Brad Holmes as GM, indicated that the team wouldn’t be pursuing a Stafford trade this offseason.

 

“No, he’s not going to be available,” Casserly said. "Everybody I talked to who went in for that job, they wanted to keep him. Holmes wants to keep him. He’s not going anywhere.”

Edited January 22, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Thinking Skins]

10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I know. I was being sarcastic.  😀   You were talking down what Arians said about this team so that was me talking them back up. 

 

I don't think you are an easy one to debate on this issue because recalling your positions you are on the extreme far side of the spectrum on the Qb position.  You do think you can find a Russell Wilson in the third round easier than most of us do.  You are intrigued by undrafted Free Agent QBs.    You get excited about Nick Mullens (who you've mentioned many times as an example of success) and dudes like that who aren't loved by others.   You've talk about feeling hesitant to take Qbs in the first round.

 

I am not saying you are wrong but you came out of it from a funky point of view compared to most which is you prefer to run with the more long shot models and are driven by optimism that they will work.  So in the context of this debate, I wouldn't expect you to agree no matter what the context. 

 

Heck if someone created a thread and said lets never use a first round pick on a QB again, I'd guess you'd echo right on and say stuff like if Dallas can get their Tony Romo without even using a draft pick, why can't we?   Why not trade a 6th rounder for Nick Mullens and stuff like that.  So for me that's stuff way left field.  And I don't think even if in your mind we had a stacked roster you'd still want to be aggressive but correct me if I am wrong. 

 

Its weird because I hate overspending for a QB but at the same time I want to have the position settled. So while I wouldn't have made the trades for Brunell, McNabb or Smith (instead staying with Ramsey, Campbell and Cousins) I could understand why they were made. The only one I was even the least bit emotional about was McNabb because that trade just smelled fishy (coming from a division opponent for an aging QB when we have somebody who is steady under contract). I had no problem with the Grossman contract and in general I have no problem with those type of deals, the giving an opportunity to a QB who didn't look so good in his first opportunity but maybe needs a change of scenery. I would have preferred letting them duke it out in camp than the alternative. 

 

And fast forward to today and that's more of what I want, just more competition. I'd go further than what you said above. I'd be in favor of always trading out of the first round. Beathard did that in the 80s. People say all the time that QB is the most dependent position in all of sports. QBs at Alabama and Ohio State are often overrated because they have so many weapons and such a good defense that even the bad ones are able to put up stats that are leaps and bounds above the rest of the players in college ball. When we draft/sign a QB we can only play him until he proves himself or busts or gets hurt. At other positions its more natural to rotate and if somebody's not playing well it doesn't set the whole team back. But putting all these resources into one pick and if that pick doesn't work, being forced to wait 3 years to find out is just not good. Meanwhile we can sign a guy like Tribusky (who I don't want but he would be free) to compete with Heinicke and Allen and all of a sudden we can have an answer immediately. 

 

Maybe I'm playing around at the floor instead of shooting for the stars but when we trade for the 33 year old QB looking for one last contract (Brunell, McNabb, Smith), isn't it very similar only with ABSOLUTELY NO chance for this being the long term solution because of age. But like I said, I'd rather have the position solved. So if we can get a Watson or a Prescott and be done with it, then yeah its one less gap we have to fill. But it doesn't change my philosophy of wanting more competition on this roster up and down, and I'd still be in favor of keeping the two guys we have as strong backups to hopefully be groomed as trade bait like GB used to do. 

[Thinking Skins]

37 minutes ago, GothSkinsFan said:

That's 3 playoff teams, not 4.

Not if you count the Colts twice since they played them twice

[Skinsinparadise]

 

18 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Its weird because I hate overspending for a QB but at the same time I want to have the position settled. So while I wouldn't have made the trades for Brunell, McNabb or Smith (instead staying with Ramsey, Campbell and Cousins) I

 

I wasn't a fan of the Alex Smith trade.  I don't recall what I felt about the others but I'd guess i was cool about them at the time.

 

18 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

And fast forward to today and that's more of what I want, just more competition. I'd go further than what you said above. I'd be in favor of always trading out of the first round. Beathard did that in the 80s. People say all the time that QB is the most dependent position in all of sports. QBs at Alabama and Ohio State are often overrated because they have so many weapons and such a good defense that even the bad ones are able to put up stats that are leaps and bounds above the rest of the players in college ball.

 

Your take here seems to be its more about the support provided to the QB than the actual QB.  So for example if we drafted two marquee receivers -- we could ride with a Keenum or Mullins type and win a SB or be good enough or something like that?  

 

My thought sometimes reading your posts is you don't have a SB on your mind but sneaking into the playoffs with a 9-7 record is plenty good enough.  Correct me if i am wrong but that's the vibe I get from some of your posts.  

 

22 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

But it doesn't change my philosophy of wanting more competition on this roster up and down, and I'd still be in favor of keeping the two guys we have as strong backups to hopefully be groomed as trade bait like GB used to do. 

 

Wanting more competion at the spot though strikes me about modest goals at the spot.  You don't bring in Prescott, Stafford, Watson to duke it out in training camp with Kyle Allen.  So to say your point differently, you'd want somewhat of a modest conquest.  Lets say a dude like Brissett.  Let him battle in camp and the best guy wins?  do I have you right?

 

[Thinking Skins]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Your take here seems to be its more about the support provided to the QB than the actual QB.  So for example if we drafted two marquee receivers -- we could ride with a Keenum or Mullins type and win a SB or be good enough or something like that?  

 

Thats assuming that a lot of the things that were strenghts in 2020 continue that way in 2021. I'd also think about bringing in competition at LT, LG, TE and RB. I still think that a QBs best friend is the running game and next is the TE. outside of Gibson and Thomas those weren't strong areas for us this year. And when Gibson went down we saw very little production from our RBs. In the FB thread, I spoke about a Rock Cartwright or Mike Sellars type player or an H Back role to help with both our running game and our passing game. 

 

But Keenum/Mullins/Heinicke/Allen are all question marks. I think they have high floors in terms of getting us first downs and to the red zone consistantly, but are tehy playmakers who can get that 4th quarter TD drive, we don't know. But who is? Is Watkins? The only guys I know who are like that are Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Mahomes. Even Allen, and Jackson have stuggled on game winning drives. 

 

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

My thought sometimes reading your posts is you don't have a SB on your mind but sneaking into the playoffs with a 9-7 record is plenty good enough.  Correct me if i am wrong but that's the vibe I get from some of your posts.  

 

Ultimately I want to win a SB. But I don't just want a SB. I want sustained success. I think that so much time and attention is paid to I'm going to trade in my "car that gets me where I need to go" for a "car that looks nice while its getting me where I need to go". But that second car isn't always one that works or has chemistry or gets injured. I look at the replacements I mentioned and on one hand I can understand the upgrades, Ramsey hadn't played well; Campbell had been OK but unremarkable especially down the stretch in 2009; Cousins looked great until he got to a big game and then he crapped the bed. But in each case we just gave up on them and annointed the next guy as the savior. Obviously none of these cases was as bad as the Brad Johnson / Jeff George situation but it reaks of that. We're chasing this championship that we think is one good QB away and so we are willing to give up the steps in building along the way to get there. 

 

9-7 is not good enough, but isn't it remarkable that Rivera going 7-9 and winning the division is the first time that's happened in team history (winning the division). We're excited about Marty and Gibbs going 8-8 their first years. Other teams have won 10 games their first year because it was expected. I want to go to the playoffs every year. Obviously that is easiest with a franchise QB, but if you don't have a franchise QB the solution isn't just to keep rotating them in and out like we've been doing. Its to have the same guy starting for 4+ seasons and just growing with him. 

 

 

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Wanting more competion at the spot though strikes me about modest goals at the spot.  You don't bring in Prescott, Stafford, Watson to duke it out in training camp with Kyle Allen.  So to say your point differently, you'd want somewhat of a modest conquest.  Lets say a dude like Brissett.  Let him battle in camp and the best guy wins?  do I have you right?

 

 

I don't want Prescott / Watson / Stafford for more competition. I want it to resolve the position. If getting those guys means we don't draft a first round QB in the next 10 years, then sign me up because even 3 firsts for Watson is cheap because we spent more than that on Ramsey/Campbell/Griffin and got no franchise QBs out of it. So we spent 3+ firsts so far and we are still looking for a franchise QB. If signing Watson settles this, then lets do it because at this point I'm like the husband who is just tired of arguing about what's for dinner and just ready to cook. 

[heyholetsgogrant]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

NFL Network analyst and former GM Charley Casserly joined 106.7 The Fan’s Sports Junkies on Friday morning and discussed the Washington Football team’s chances of landing a veteran quarterback this offseason.

“They’re going to be aggressive, in my opinion, to go and get a quarterback,” Casserly said. “I’m not sure where they’re going to get one, though. People talk about all these guys going to be available. I’m not sure who’s going to be available.”

A popular name that’s cropped up in trade rumors over the last few months is Lions quarterback Matt Stafford. The former Pro Bowler has two years left on the five-year, $135 million extension he signed with Detroit in 2017. Trading Stafford would give the Lions several premium draft picks with which to kick off a full-scale rebuild.

However, Casserly reports that conversations he had with potential candidates to fill the vacancies in Detroit, which were ultimately filled by Dan Campbell at head coach and Brad Holmes as GM, indicated that the team wouldn’t be pursuing a Stafford trade this offseason.

 

“No, he’s not going to be available,” Casserly said. "Everybody I talked to who went in for that job, they wanted to keep him. Holmes wants to keep him. He’s not going anywhere.”

 

 

Stafford could pull heavy handed move by asking for a trade OR retire. At that point Detroit would get nothing, 

Edited January 22, 2021 by heyholetsgogrant

[Skinsinparadise]

4 minutes ago, heyholetsgogrant said:

 

 

Stafford could pull heavy handed move by asking for a trade OR retire. At that point Detroit would get nothing, 

 

He could.  don't know if that's his style though.  I've heard he's close with the Lions owner as is his wife.  This isn't like the Watson situation.  But hopefully him just being discontent is enough for him to be moved.  Will see. 

 

 

 

Edited January 22, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

16 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

 

But Keenum/Mullins/Heinicke/Allen are all question marks. I think they have high floors in terms of getting us first downs and to the red zone consistantly, but are tehy playmakers who can get that 4th quarter TD drive, we don't know. But who is? Is Watkins? The only guys I know who are like that are Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Mahomes. Even Allen, and Jackson have stuggled on game winning drives. 

 

 

Would a dude like Stafford be in the same conversation for you with Keenum/Allen, etc?

 

16 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

We're chasing this championship that we think is one good QB away and so we are willing to give up the steps in building along the way to get there. 

 

 

If by that you mean its a habit with this team, I think its a mischaracterization of what we've done at the QB spot with the exception of thr RG3 trade.  We've swung hard for potential singles at the spot but then got dissapointed that they weren't homeruns and or were just meh.

 

Some of these posts on this thread give off the vibe that we've traded for Dan Marino, Aaron Rodgers, Brett Favre and we've continually failed.   What we've done is far from that.  We've gone for aging QBs which teams wanted to discard and weren't even close to elite even in their prime.   And in the draft aside from RG3, we've not drafted the most ballyhooed prospects.  We've overdrafted the equivalent of the modern day Kyle Trask and then somehow we are shocked that they haven't worked.

 

I think a radio guy on 106.7 summed it up well last night which is WFT fans are suffering from post traumatic stress/shock at the QB spot especially after RG3 and Haskins.  I think we need to get over it.  Other teams have failed multiple times at QB, too.  And then got it right.  It happens.

 

 

Edited January 22, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[wit33]

No way a new coach is going to want to get rid of Stafford, he gives your livelihood a chance right off the bat. If Stafford gets moved it’s an owner and player coming to the decision. Campbell has about as much pull with that decision as I do. 
 

Yes, all other owners have a heavy hand in who the QB is. 

Edited January 22, 2021 by wit33

[actorguy1]

My only hope is that if WFT can't get Watson or Stafford that at least teams above them in the draft can get them to heighten the chance that one of the top 4 falls out of the top 10 or close enough to it that a trade up is feasible. 

[wit33]

1 minute ago, actorguy1 said:

My only hope is that if WFT can't get Watson or Stafford that at least teams above them in the draft can get them to heighten the chance that one of the top 4 falls out of the top 10 or close enough to it that a trade up is feasible. 

I have zero knowledge on a guy like Trey Lance outside of 15min video of his highlights, but wouldn’t mind at all to take a flier on a dual threat guy. I do believe the dual threat QBs value has depreciated over the last 10 years, due to cost, most of the league having guys that can create in and out of the pocket (less of an advantage now than say 5-7 years ago), and overall familiarity with what they do well. It’s interesting though, as these guys now have the advantage of open minded coaches that are willing to go through the growing pains of them becoming more efficient in the pass game. Let them run wild and play backyard football while learning to play the position— like say... Josh Allen and Mahomes. 

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

If Stafford is really off the table I call Atlanta and The Raiders and I see if we can pry either Ryan or Carr away from them.  

 

If neither of those pan out and we are not enamored with a rookie and we have to pick from the scrap heap to compete w/ our guys: Then I think I’m taking mister Crab Leg himself Jameis Winston 121 TD’s 88 Ints career 86.9 passer rating.  Dont laugh me outta the building just yet. He’s a former number 1 pick, Who basically took this year off and worked under Brees and Sean Payton. His last season starting he threw 33 TD’s and 30 picks. That was by far his worst INt number of his career. Other than that season he’s never thrown more than 18 (1), 15(1), 14(1) and so on. He far from perfect but I think he presents the best package of actual stats, relative youth, baseline skills, and went through the Humbling over this last year. Brees seemed to have liked working with him, and I think that’s a good sign. 

 

Mariota - has never thrown more than 20 TD’s and he did 20 in only 1 of his seasons.

 

Tyrod has also never thrown for more than 20 TDs in a season, and only did that once.

 

Trubisky has thrown 24 TD’s in 1 of his four seasons. Never thrown for more than 3300 yds.
 

Fitzpatrick has thrown 20+ 5 times in his career but only once in his last 5 seasons. And it was exactly 20. Career 82.3 passer rating. 

So given the choices, I’d gamble on someone who at minimum can and has thrown lots of TD’s. Imo, he’s the likeliest of the scrap heap candidates to have a renaissance in the second half of his career. He just turned 27 hrs old.

 

and yes it would be to compete with Allen and Taylor and may the best man win. Roast away.✌🏽😂

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

3 minutes ago, COWBOY-KILLA- said:

 

 

Mariota - has never thrown more than 20 TD’s and he did 20 in only 1 of his seasons.

 

Tyrod has also never thrown for more than 20 TDs in a season, and only did that once.

 

Trubisky has thrown 24 TD’s in 1 of his four seasons. Never thrown for more than 3300 yds.
 

Fitzpatrick has thrown 20+ 5 times in his career but only once in his last 5 seasons. And it was exactly 20. Career 82.3 passer rating. 

So given the choices, I’d gamble on someone who at minimum can and has thrown lots of TD’s. Imo, he’s the likeliest of the scrap heap candidates to have a renaissance in the second half of his career. He just turned 27 hrs old.

 

and yes it would be to compete with Allen and Taylor and may the best man win. Roast away.✌🏽😂

 

lol, yeah I suspect we will be debating in the end FA options because I am guessing no good trade prospects manifest and I think it will be too hard to trade up in the draft.

 

As for Winston, supposedly the Saints intent on bringing him back on as a starter.  I am not a fan of Winston for reasons I've stated before but I am gathering we might need to get into a bidding war for him if that's the target.

[Est.1974]

Our trade for Alex Smith was done in January. I think we’ll have a QB deal in the bag early. 

[wit33]

I can get behind Matt Ryan, but it would have to be a similar situation to that of Peyton Manning leaving the Colts, no compensation the Falcons being classy and letting him choose his new home. 

[oraphus]

Fitzmagic is the best we can hope for.. and even he will get overpaid this offseason.  I am ok with Allen, Fitz and Heini competing for a starting gig with each having the ability to step in and play at an avg+ level. Maybe a 2nd round QB as well depending on who drops. If Skins can sign a top flight LB and a complement at WR to Mclovin.. we have a 9-10win team with a legit top 5D and an average O

[mhd24]

29 minutes ago, wit33 said:

I can get behind Matt Ryan, but it would have to be a similar situation to that of Peyton Manning leaving the Colts, no compensation the Falcons being classy and letting him choose his new home. 

 

 

Its IMPOSSIBLE for the Falcons to trade Ryan.  They have no cap space and the dead cap hit would be prohibitive.  He's not going anywhere.

[Skinsinparadise]

Just listened to Finlay, he said he's heard they are excited with the new GM set up and are ready to get to work with QB being the top quest.

 

I'll just say this if the team is really feeling cool about their QB room or simply want to give a little competitive boost to it -- they got one heck of a smoke screen cooking because it seems like everyone and their mother echoing they are on an off season mission to upgrade the Qb spot.

 

Sounds cool and I agree with the all hands on deck supposed approach to upgrade the spot.  But I am wondering though what happens if no attractive option hits the market?  I'd guess then they'd look at the draft.   Reading what i have about other teams this off season, Carolina seems to be giving off a similar vibe about willing to go aggressive at Qb.  Some expect the Colts to be aggressive albeit Ballard's comments indicate that he might not per se play it aggressive.

 

 

 

On another note, you can the zip on Lance's arm.  Alas though I've seen him top 5 in multiple mocks in the mix of late.  Usually QBs go high.  I am doubting he drops close to our pick. 

 

 

 

Edited January 22, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[PartyPosse]

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

I have zero knowledge on a guy like Trey Lance outside of 15min video of his highlights, but wouldn’t mind at all to take a flier on a dual threat guy. I do believe the dual threat QBs value has depreciated over the last 10 years, due to cost, most of the league having guys that can create in and out of the pocket (less of an advantage now than say 5-7 years ago), and overall familiarity with what they do well. It’s interesting though, as these guys now have the advantage of open minded coaches that are willing to go through the growing pains of them becoming more efficient in the pass game. Let them run wild and play backyard football while learning to play the position— like say... Josh Allen and Mahomes. 

The biggest problem with Lance is that everyone knows he needs at least one year planted on the bench to learn before even considering him to be ready to start. And even then there's no way of knowing what he's capable of until say year 3. Right now we're in that window to compete now, at least with that front 4. Can the team afford to wait that long without knowing?

[wit33]

30 minutes ago, oraphus said:

Fitzmagic is the best we can hope for.. and even he will get overpaid this offseason.  I am ok with Allen, Fitz and Heini competing for a starting gig with each having the ability to step in and play at an avg+ level. Maybe a 2nd round QB as well depending on who drops. If Skins can sign a top flight LB and a complement at WR to Mclovin.. we have a 9-10win team with a legit top 5D and an average O

He just doesn’t make sense for this roster, IMO. Hes become folklore, but he’s an up and down QB with high propensity to turn the ball over. Would be shocked if Ron went his direction, just doesn’t seem like a fit. 

[PartyPosse]

1 hour ago, COWBOY-KILLA- said:

If neither of those pan out and we are not enamored with a rookie and we have to pick from the scrap heap to compete w/ our guys: Then I think I’m taking mister Crab Leg himself Jameis Winston 121 TD’s 88 Ints career 86.9 passer rating.  Dont laugh me outta the building just yet. He’s a former number 1 pick, Who basically took this year off and worked under Brees and Sean Payton. His last season starting he threw 33 TD’s and 30 picks. That was by far his worst INt number of his career. Other than that season he’s never thrown more than 18 (1), 15(1), 14(1) and so on. He far from perfect but I think he presents the best package of actual stats, relative youth, baseline skills, and went through the Humbling over this last year. Brees seemed to have liked working with him, and I think that’s a good sign. 

Here's the biggest issue with Winston. We're a team that's going to rely on our defense to be our strength. We need them to be able to do their thing but they'll struggle mightily if the team is average at least 2 INT a game. It's demoralizing and it's exhausting. That's why Smith worked so well. At worst he's giving the defense a rest and rarely is he putting the team in back-breaking field position. I don't mind a gunslinger but having an irresponsible QB unable to take care of the ball is an insult to how much we've put into the defense.  

2 minutes ago, wit33 said:

He just doesn’t make sense for this roster, IMO. Hes become folklore, but he’s an up and down QB with high propensity to turn the ball over. Would be shocked if Ron went his direction, just doesn’t seem like a fit. 

Also, unless Miami trades for Watson, it would make sense for him to go back there.

[HogsVa7]

I've been reading that the Texans are considering Josh McCown as their Head Coach. If that goes, you guys think Watson already been wanting out? Or wanted a player type coach?

 

When I meant by a player type coach I didn't mean by a former player just in case someone thought that.

Edited January 22, 2021 by RedskinsVa7