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

[Rskins91]

4 minutes ago, Anselmheifer said:

For Watson, does two 1sts, a 2nd, and Montez Sweat get it done? 

If we try for Watson, I think it's 3 firsts, 2 seconds, and a player to get it done. Sweat would pain me a lot - would prefer Ioannidis, Collins, but it might take a Sweat to get it done.

[JoggingGod]

https://twitter.com/Marco_Mart1205/status/1354834397044776961?s=20

Edited January 28, 2021 by JoggingGod

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

Sign me up for Dak/Watson/Stafford. Come on Dan, you ****ing idiot.

[heyholetsgogrant]

Just now, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said:

Sign me up for Dak/Watson/Stafford. Come on Dan, you ****ing idiot.

Do you want him to fire up the plane, WFT One?😄

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

1 minute ago, JoggingGod said:

https://twitter.com/Marco_Mart1205/status/1354834397044776961?s=20

 

I hope that's true as to the Colts, the only team we know (assuming the source was right) mentioned as kicking around a Stafford deal is SF.  There is speculation that there are others but if I recall SF is the only specific team mentioned by a media guy. 

 

 

 

 

[FootballZombie]

8 minutes ago, Anselmheifer said:

For Watson, does two 1sts, a 2nd, and Montez Sweat get it done? 

 

I could see something like that. I'd hate to do it, but I can see that

Sweat is a top 15 edge.

 

 

DET waited a bit to long to move Stafford, now we have competing markets. This will give another edge in trying to get the guy we personally want.

 

I would love if my new FO could lock down a new QB before FA. Really clarifies our future direction

 

 

 

Give a ton for Watson and see what happens.

 

 

[DefinitelyMaybe]

If it’s one first rounder for Stafford and little over 3 for Watson

 

We need to go all in and have this position wrapped for a decade

[goskins10]

44 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Some of the media's coverage of Watson is a bit annoying.  I'd hazard a guess that plenty fans know how special Watson is.  But it seems like they want to one up every trade proposal.  OK to them, three #1's and a #2 isn't enough.  But listening to some of them, you'd have to give the Texans your next four drafts in full like the Ricky Williams trade on steroids -- and each wants to re-up the other about how how much a team has to give up for Watson.  i bet if some fan said 5 #1's they'd say its just not enough guys, don't you get how special Watson is? 

 

 

 

 

 

I have been stating that we pay what we need to. But there are always limits. So just to be clear when I say that I mean still within reason. If we go after Watson and someone gives up 3 #1s or more, or anything approaching the Walker trade pass. And I am not trading Chase Young for anyone, even if it's straight up. The guy jsut brings so much to the team that goes beyond his on field contribution. This is the guy you can mold your entire franchise around in terms of culture and buying into the system.

 

Not liking the idea of trading any players to be honest. I saw someone suggest Montez Sweat. I am not touching the starting D line for anyone. I mean yes, Watson straight up for Sweat sure. But no one is ever doing that trade. 

[Darrell Green Fan]

7 minutes ago, DefinitelyMaybe said:

If it’s one first rounder for Stafford and little over 3 for Watson

 

We need to go all in and have this position wrapped for a decade

 

I don't think it will be only a first for Stafford even with a higher pick than 19, same with Watson.

[mistertim]

13 minutes ago, Rskins91 said:

If we try for Watson, I think it's 3 firsts, 2 seconds, and a player to get it done. Sweat would pain me a lot - would prefer Ioannidis, Collins, but it might take a Sweat to get it done.

 

I wonder though, how much his no-trade clause would factor into it. My understanding is it means he has to approve a trade. So if he has just a small list of teams he's interested in and those teams know it, wouldn't that make Houston's leverage much less?

 

Either way, if I remember correctly, I read there were some reports that Watson likes Miami and the Jets. Both of those teams could easily blow us out of the water in any trade.

[Thinking Skins]

19 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

But what would make you think Campbell could have been Schaub in his heyday?  Campbell has a long/slow delivery and his accuracy wasn't always hot.  Heck even as to Orton ironically from what I read it was the Bears liking Orton over Campbell was why they traded Cutler to the Bears instead of here.

 

Maybe a better way for me to put it is you have a predisposition to be very optimistic about guys on our roster even the undrafted ones.  We've debated enough on it that I can recall examples.  One of the more recent ones was I recall you trying to sell during the season that Haskins played as well as Alex Smith so we shouldn't give him a hard time for showing strong game manager tendencies.  Every now and then you pop up with something like that about some player who isn't as loved by others in the board.  Kapri Bibbs was hard to forget because you posted a lot about him at the time. 

 

I think our goals are higher at QB.  I agree with your premise that if you want to find the next Schaub for example or Orton you can do it without mortgaging resources.  I agree with your take on that.  Our differences I believe is what type of QB, I want.

 

I get your point that elite guys are so hard to find so why even sweat it.  If you get lucky you get lucky on that front.  I even agree with your other point about finding dudes like Mullins, Keenum, Orton, etc aren't that hard.  I think our difference is for me there is a clear and critical middle ground between the Mahomes types and Kyle Orton types.  It's those QBs in the 8-13 range.  We've struggled with that, too.  Those guys aren't easy to find either.  And you aren't typically finding them in the 6th round.  And heck it matters if you have Matt Stafford at the helm versus Kyle Orton.  Orton isn't taking you to the SB in all likelihood, at best once inawhile you'd make the playoffs and will get eliminated right away.  With a dude like Stafford you have a shot albeit not as good a shot as someone like Mahomes.  For both type of QBs they need a supporting cast.   But the Stafford types if you build them a good supporting cast you have a shot.  With a dude like Orton even with a killer supporting cast its unlikely you are going deep in the playoffs let alone winning a SB. 

It's difficult to make the same argument now because it's hindsight, but at the time Campbell had just led us to the playoffs in 2007, albeit with help of Todd Collins. Then we went 8-8 with Jim Zorn and 4-12, but with Jim freakin Zorn. After 3 years of Campbell starting we kinda knew what he was and wasn't. He wasn't the worst ever but he wasn't the one I want if we're down 8 with 2 minutes to go. He was a decent QB who if everything else wad right, wouldn't lose the game for us. When CP the bad year in 2009,it hurt Campbell. 

 

But i had no visions of Campbell suddenly becoming this franchise QB. But i thought we could keep him there, possibly bring in some competition like Grossman and continue building. 

 

And that's my entire point. It's not the the first rounders it's the way we rebuild. It's that we always abandon one QB for a new QB. Where's the transition? Where's the competition? That's why it's easier to root for the lower round guys because they naturally have to win a QB competition and prove they're the best. 

[Conn]

2 hours ago, ZarG3 said:

What about Jared Goff is the Rams decide to part ways with him? I'd take a flyer. Personally I think he got the raw end of the stick in LA and needs a change of scenery.

Raw end of what stick? He’s in one of the most beneficial, QB-friendly offenses in the league. He stinks and will not be better elsewhere. No reason to think they’re making things harder for him over there in a way another team could avoid. And he’s been loaded with weapons and for multiple seasons in the past good defenses, too. 

[Fat Stupid Loser]

21 minutes ago, Rskins91 said:

If we try for Watson, I think it's 3 firsts, 2 seconds, and a player to get it done. Sweat would pain me a lot - would prefer Ioannidis, Collins, but it might take a Sweat to get it done.

No player is worth that. No player.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

28 minutes ago, Anselmheifer said:

For Watson, does two 1sts, a 2nd, and Montez Sweat get it done? 

I think so....and I'd pull the trigger on that deal.

[Skinsinparadise]

I wouldn't go as far as this dude who is a drak geek I follow and isn't a WFT fan but i do agree that our roster with some adjusting is pretty good sans the QB spot. 

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

I have been stating that we pay what we need to. But there are always limits. So just to be clear when I say that I mean still within reason. If we go after Watson and someone gives up 3 #1s or more, or anything approaching the Walker trade pass. And I am not trading Chase Young for anyone, even if it's straight up. The guy jsut brings so much to the team that goes beyond his on field contribution. This is the guy you can mold your entire franchise around in terms of culture and buying into the system.

 

Not liking the idea of trading any players to be honest. I saw someone suggest Montez Sweat. I am not touching the starting D line for anyone. I mean yes, Watson straight up for Sweat sure. But no one is ever doing that trade. 

 

Don't get me wrong i am all in on Watson and I am willing to be super aggressive.   It's hard for me to see though how we have a shot.  My point was media members are trying to outdo each other by hyping how a Watson trade would demand the sun, stars, and moon.  For my taste they are starting to get obnoxious about it.  I think fans get it that it will take a lot.  They don't need to preached by the national media about it IMO. 

[Rskins91]

7 minutes ago, Fat Stupid Loser said:

No player is worth that. No player.

I'm not saying I'd do it per se... just acknowledging the cost of doing business.

 

If I could get away without offering Sweat I'd do the deal. Or if they insist on Sweat, remove a 1st and 2nd as suggested by the poster I quoted.

[goskins10]

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I wouldn't go as far as this dude who is a drak geek I follow and isn't a WFT fan but i do agree that our roster with some adjusting is pretty good sans the QB spot. 

 

 

Don't get me wrong i am all in on Watson and I am willing to be super aggressive.   It's hard for me to see though how we have a shot.  My point was media members are trying to outdo each other by hyping how a Watson trade would demand the sun, stars, and moon.  For my taste they are starting to get obnoxious about it.  I think fans get it that it will take a lot.  They don't need to preached by the national media about it IMO. 

 

 

I was agreeing 😉  

[JamesMadisonSkins]

2 minutes ago, Rskins91 said:

I'm not saying I'd do it per se... just acknowledging the cost of doing business.

 

If I could get away without offering Sweat I'd do the deal. Or if they insist on Sweat, remove a 1st and 2nd as suggested by the poster I quoted.

 

See, take Sweat away and we immediately need to upgrade our other DE, and won't have a 1st round pick for at least two years to address that spot, in addition to LT, CB, WR and other high-cost positions.

 

I'd rather build around this defense. Maybe if Watson REALLY wants to come to the WFT, he'd waive his no trade clause for us and we could get a "deal" ... but that's pretty damn unlikely.

[BurgundyBooger]

I can't believe we're still discussing giving a 1st for this bum Stafford. We thought Minnesota was crazy for handing Kirk that ridiculous contract and now Detroit is probably looking at other teams the same for potentially giving up a 1st and more (plus having to eat his bloated contract) for their homegrown disappointment.

[Skinsinparadise]

22 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

It's difficult to make the same argument now because it's hindsight, but at the time Campbell had just led us to the playoffs in 2007, albeit with help of Todd Collins.

 

Not really.  They had a losing record when he got hurt.  I was at the game when Campbell got hurt and Collins came in, it changed the trajectory of that game arguably and that season.   They won the rest of their games with Collins and made the playoffs.

22 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

 

And that's my entire point. It's not the the first rounders it's the way we rebuild. It's that we always abandon one QB for a new QB. Where's the transition? Where's the competition? That's why it's easier to root for the lower round guys because they naturally have to win a QB competition and prove they're the best. 

 

But the debate is sort of like what's better a burger or a hotdog when the goal is to eat streak.  I don't find the discussion that interesting and if anything its sad and defeatist.  Beck or Rex?   Friez or Ferrotte or Shuler?  Campbell or Brunell?  Brunell or Ramsey?  

 

My kids are still somewhat young.  They've watched plenty of SBs.  I take them to multiple games every year.    Pre-COVID, we've gone to our share of SB parties, and every now and then they ask me why can't it ever be the WFT?  

 

It would be a sad answer if I told them hey we are the WFT we don't do SBs, that was eons ago. Our sights need to be lower.  We are the land of the Mark Brunells, Jason Campbells, John Becks, etc.  We don't do Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, etc -- other teams have those big mansions in the neighborhood, we could gawk at those mansions and admire them but don't torture youself by ever envisioning yourself in a place like that. 

 

Edited January 28, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Est.1974]

28 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Not liking the idea of trading any players to be honest. I saw someone suggest Montez Sweat. I am not touching the starting D line for anyone. I mean yes, Watson straight up for Sweat sure. But no one is ever doing that trade. 

Neither would Mayhew based on a recent interview. Clear strap line from the FO that it all starts in the trenches. Both lines. He actually mentioned both Young and Sweat as cornerstone pieces. 
 

DL, OL, QB were the key roster components. Sounds good to me.

[KDawg]

56 minutes ago, Anselmheifer said:

For Watson, does two 1sts, a 2nd, and Montez Sweat get it done? 

I don’t think so.

 

My line for Stafford is a 1 and 3. 
 

Watson is 8 years younger and more elite. I’d probably set my line for him at 2 ones and a 3.

 

Thats even too much for me. But I could get over that cost for Watson.

 

I have a feeling it’s going to be three 1s, a 2 or more and a 3.

[mistertim]

26 minutes ago, Fat Stupid Loser said:

No player is worth that. No player.

 

If you somehow knew that it was getting you top 5 QB play for the next 10-15 years and along with that the likelihood of being a perennial SB contender you'd do it. 10 years from now do you really think you'd be saying to yourself "Man, I can't believe we've been stuck with this elite QB for all these years after that trade. I really would have rather taken an OL and maybe a WR or a DL with those 1st rounders"? Please.

[FootballZombie]

30 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I wonder though, how much his no-trade clause would factor into it. My understanding is it means he has to approve a trade. So if he has just a small list of teams he's interested in and those teams know it, wouldn't that make Houston's leverage much less?

 

Its everything.

 

Aside from trading within div/conference, a team could pretty much take their pick of incoming offers for a desired player. That means they can pretty much accept the best deal on the table.

 

When a player has a no trade clause, they can personally veto any move/destination they don't want to go to. If Hou accepts the trade package from team X, and Watson chooses not to go there, the trade will not go thru.

 

That means that instead of looking for the best return for Watson, they will have to look for the best return from teams he is willing to go to.

 

By all means Hou will get an absolute HAUL for Watson, but the no trade clause seriously reduces the amount of suitors that have a shot to land him. Less buyers, less haul

[kingdaddy]

5 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I don’t think so.

 

My line for Stafford is a 1 and 3. 
 

Watson is 8 years younger and more elite. I’d probably set my line for him at 2 ones and a 3.

 

Thats even too much for me. But I could get over that cost for Watson.

 

I have a feeling it’s going to be three 1s, a 2 or more and a 3.

I would give up three 1sts and one of our 3rds this year for Watson and not bat an eye. We just became SB contenders for years in the NFC and Houston gets three 1st rounders all higher lower than #19 and most likely in the mid twenties. 

Getting Watson would put us over the top and this team would be set, especially after adding a big time WR. The rest would be about building the defense and adding to the offensive line depth. I am also very confident that we are going hard after him....that's how Dan has always worked. Shoot for the stars and open up the wallet.