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

[Darth Tater]

1 hour ago, method man said:

 

I personally believe it is the other way around and Wilson is my QB2 as I don't trust FIelds's ability to read the field at the pro level

Between Fields, Wilson and Lance, one will be a total bust, one will be a journeyman or game manager and one will actually prove worthy of his pick-level.  Just not sure of who will be who.

[Skinsinparadise]

7 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

  Darnold does nothing for me.  Though I also admit he's been in an absolute **** show of an organization and situation, so it's possible he's really good but just a victim of circumstance.  

 

 

His problem in college was fumbles and INTs.  His problem in the pros with a large enough sample:  Ints and fumbles.  I can't blame that on the Jets.  that's just how Darnold has rolled for a long time.  I can take it to an extent him being a turnover machine if he put up big numbers but he didn't do that either.

 

9 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

the difference being at least they know they need a QB and they're trying.  Gibbs thought he could win with Brunnell, then drafted JC.  Maybe JC was trying and failing, but I think this group REALY knows they have to get a QB and get one who can start now.

 

 

Agree, and have said so multiple times. 

[kingdaddy]

8 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

C'mon. Can we stop with this stuff? Yes the Eagles won a SB with Nick Foles, yes the Ravens won a SB with Flacco, yes the 49ers got to a SB with Jimmy G. It's by far the exception, not the rule. 

 

Those were one time things where a bunch of factors just happened to come together and a team with a mediocre QB went really far (though Foles was only in for the late part of the season). If it happens to a team like that, it pretty much happens once and then that's it. 

 

I do not want the WFT to be like that. I don't want flukes. I want a team that's a threat to go deep into the playoffs year in and year out. To do that you need a top QB. Period. 

We all want the prom queen... but we haven't had that in my 53 years of life with the Skins. So, if you can't get the big fish you find other ways to do it. Same as how Joe Gibbs did it...3 times. His rosters won those SB's he found QB's to compliment the teams he built.

With your theory you may be waiting a long, long time...

[NoVaSkins21]

1 hour ago, HigSkin said:

 

 

Shows that Bellichick is an A-hole and Stafford didn't want anything to do with him.  Brady didn't either.

[Skinsinparadise]

I just rewatched a chunk of the Mariota game versus SD.   I was impressed.

 

I looked up his speed.  He's faster than Hurts and by a decent margin both in the 40 and 10.  And the Eagles have Hurts running wild.  Mariota is the more polished passer than Hurts IMO.  And I've read he's a really good guy.

 

I've mentioned Mariota on and off.  I'll delve into him more now that Stafford is out.  But I'll say he intrigues me some. 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Est.1974]

Missing out on Stafford is a major kick in the nuts. 
 

It’s clear we want an immediate upgrade, a significant one, on who we’ve rolled with in 2020. And right now, it looks very difficult to achieve that. Almost impossible I would say based on the scenarios being floated.

[TheShredder]

Shouldn't cut your own throat with a reach, lunge, or grab at a QB this year.  The WFT isn't ready to win now.  I say bring in more competitive situation first and fill in some holes when you can't land your target. 

[Skinsinparadise]

27 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

Look at it this way, I the Eagles can win a SB with Nick Foles then we just have to keep adding everywhere we can and hope the strength of the roster allows us to have a QB who doesn't screw things up. Hell, Alex Smith wrote the blueprint this year. Add to the defense, add in the draft, add thru free agency...thats all we can do til we find Mr. Right who may not be a world beater (aka Foles)

 

You are selling that to the wrong guy.  😀  I've done my share of studying QBs who have won SBs and the game manager types are the exceptions not the rule. I've posted on that point plenty on this thread. 

 

Look at the 4 QBs who were in the championship games this year.  Over time the value of a franchise QB in today's NFL is going up not down.  

 

But no I don't believe a stacked roster and a game manager likely wins you a SB.  Ironically some say that's why KC moved on from Alex who had a 2-4 playoff record and a ceiling as to what he could do.

 

Clearly Rivera doesn't think a game manager ie enough to win a SB.  Otherwise he'd just stay pat with what he's got. 

Edited January 31, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[kingdaddy]

2 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

Missing out on Stafford is a major kick in the nuts. 
 

It’s clear we want an immediate upgrade, a significant one, on who we’ve rolled with in 2020. And right now, it looks very difficult to achieve that. Almost impossible I would say based on the scenarios being floated.

Keep the faith...we will find one. Still work to do on the roster but it's coming together. 

[sportsnut]

3 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

Missing out on Stafford is a major kick in the nuts. 
 

It’s clear we want an immediate upgrade, a significant one, on who we’ve rolled with in 2020. And right now, it looks very difficult to achieve that. Almost impossible I would say based on the scenarios being floated.

I agree.  We will probably have to settle for Fitz, Brissett, or Tyrod competing with Heineke.

[Burgold]

18 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

C'mon. Can we stop with this stuff? Yes the Eagles won a SB with Nick Foles, yes the Ravens won a SB with Flacco, yes the 49ers got to a SB with Jimmy G. It's by far the exception, not the rule. 

 

Those were one time things where a bunch of factors just happened to come together and a team with a mediocre QB went really far (though Foles was only in for the late part of the season). If it happens to a team like that, it pretty much happens once and then that's it. 

 

I do not want the WFT to be like that. I don't want flukes. I want a team that's a threat to go deep into the playoffs year in and year out. To do that you need a top QB. Period. 

So... what you are implying is that you need a Foles, a Flacco, a Dilfer, or a Garrapolo or you need Tom Brady/Maholmes, but that you don't need a Rogers or a Brees because they aren't good enough. On that basis, I'm even happier we didn't get Stafford.

[kingdaddy]

2 minutes ago, TheShredder said:

Shouldn't cut your own throat with a reach, lunge, or grab at a QB this year.  The WFT isn't ready to win now.  I say bring in more competitive situation first and fill in some holes when you can't land your target. 

What he said.

[RWJ]

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I just rewatched a chunk of the Mariota game versus SD.   I was impressed.

 

I looked up his speed.  He's faster than Hurts and by a decent margin both in the 40 and 10.  And the Eagles have Hurts running wild.  Mariota is the more polished passer than Hurts IMO.  And I've read he's a really good guy.

 

I've mentioned Mariota on and off.  I'll delve into him more now that Stafford is out.  But I'll say he intrigues me some. 

From what I've heard/read the Raiders might eventually make him their starter and move on from Carr.  It could be poppy****.  Who knows.  I'd rather have Mariota than Carr though.

[kingdaddy]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

So... what you are implying is that you need a Foles, a Flacco, a Dilfer, or a Garrapolo or you need Tom Brady/Maholmes, but that you don't need a Rogers or a Brees because they aren't good enough. On that basis, I'm even happier we didn't get Stafford.

I'm implying that you don't have to have the stud to win the SB and lots of stud QB's never won a SB. Build the team right and good things will follow. Watson hasn't sniffed a SB and he has JJ Watt on the other side.

The best way to get a stud QB is to draft one and that is even veey diffi url to do...

[Burgold]

1 minute ago, kingdaddy said:

I'm implying that you don't have to have the stud to win the SB and lots of stud QB's never won a SB. Build the team right and good things will follow. Watson hasn't sniffed a SB and he has JJ Watt on the other side.

The best way to get a stud QB is to draft one and that is even veey diffi url to do...

Actually, I'm on your side... though I did say it in a rather snarky way.

 

I was definitely not in the Stafford camp. I wonder if I'll be proven right, wrong, or an idiot?

[mistertim]

5 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

We all want the prom queen... but we haven't had that in my 53 years of life with the Skins. So, if you can't get the big fish you find other ways to do it. Same as how Joe Gibbs did it...3 times. His rosters won those SB's he found QB's to compliment the teams he built.

With your theory you may be waiting a long, long time...

 

You might as well be talking about a different game. Gibbs did that in the 1980s and early 90s. I doubt I need to tell you how different the game is now. Back then if you had a stout defense, a good running game that ate up the clock, and a QB who could manage the game, you could go any given year. That simply isn't the case anymore. 

 

I'd argue that your theory would take even longer, given how rare it is for a mediocre QB to win the SB. Even when you have an excellent defense it's FAR more likely that without that top QB you'll keep that defensive unit for a few years and then when contracts come up you have to water it down...all without ever even getting to the SB.

 

IMO that's the territory we're headed into. Potentially great defense for 3-5 years, but unless it somehow turns into the 85 Bears or 00 Ravens, it's very unlikely that it will win us a SB with a mediocre QB (even with those defenses it took a bit of luck). So we'll be stuck in 7-9 to 9-7 purgatory with maybe a year of over 10 wins peppered in and one or two playoff appearances depending on the rest of the conference.

 

So basically...yeah what was noted a bit earlier by someone else...we'll be the Gibbs 2 team all over again.

 

[mistertim]

11 minutes ago, Burgold said:

So... what you are implying is that you need a Foles, a Flacco, a Dilfer, or a Garrapolo or you need Tom Brady/Maholmes, but that you don't need a Rogers or a Brees because they aren't good enough. On that basis, I'm even happier we didn't get Stafford.

 

7 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

I'm implying that you don't have to have the stud to win the SB and lots of stud QB's never won a SB. Build the team right and good things will follow. Watson hasn't sniffed a SB and he has JJ Watt on the other side.

The best way to get a stud QB is to draft one and that is even veey diffi url to do...

 

Christ almighty. Which part of this are you guys not getting?

 

If you want a team that is a perennial contender you need a top QB.

 

How many years since they've been there have the Brees and Rodgers led teams been to the playoffs and been seen as a threat to go all the way? Most years. It is the norm to have GB or the Saints as SB contenders most years. 

 

Did they always get deep into the playoffs or to the SB if they did? Of course not. But most years they've been threats and have at least gotten into the playoffs. They're a perennial contender. Why? Well, let's see...prior to 2006 the last time the Saints went to the playoffs was 2000...and then before that it was 1992. Since? 9 years. Hm...wonder what the difference was.

 

 

Without that top QB you basically need a bunch of stuff to come together in a perfect storm in order to make a serious run. I don't want to have to luck into a run. We need a top QB these days to be a year in and year out threat.

[Skinsinparadise]

14 minutes ago, RWJ said:

From what I've heard/read the Raiders might eventually make him their starter and move on from Carr.  It could be poppy****.  Who knows.  I'd rather have Mariota than Carr though.

 

I have watched Carr some over the years but not enough to have a firm opinion on him.     

 

 

 

[DWinzit]

13 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I just rewatched a chunk of the Mariota game versus SD.   I was impressed.

 

I looked up his speed.  He's faster than Hurts and by a decent margin both in the 40 and 10.  And the Eagles have Hurts running wild.  Mariota is the more polished passer than Hurts IMO.  And I've read he's a really good guy.

 

I've mentioned Mariota on and off.  I'll delve into him more now that Stafford is out.  But I'll say he intrigues me some. 

 

I have been warming some to either Mariota or Carr over the other options. That is if the decision is not reaching for a top draft pick and Watson is out of the equation. 

They can be the starter more than likely be told they need to earn the starting spot over Heinicke and Allen. Then if a decent draft selection falls to them on day 2 go for it. Otherwise wait a year and rill with what you have.

 

Do you think RR would be adamant about bringing in a known vet to win now if Allen were definitely healthy? would he focus more on the draft

7 minutes ago, RWJ said:

From what I've heard/read the Raiders might eventually make him their starter and move on from Carr.  It could be poppy****.  Who knows.  I'd rather have Mariota than Carr though.

I can't stand Gruden and am bummed we would need to trade with him.  Gruden will probably trade one of them, he loves accumulating QB's so he would be able to search for more with one of these guys off his plate.

[dyst]

Is there a reason why some people want Mariota over Carr if it came down to those two? I know stats don’t paint the whole picture but Marcus’ stats are well below Carr’s in comparison. I think between those two you take Carr.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[TheShredder]

4 minutes ago, DWinzit said:

I have been warming some to either Mariota or Carr over the other options. That is if the decision is not reaching for a top draft pick and Watson is out of the equation. 

They can be the starter more than likely be told they need to earn the starting spot over Heinicke and Allen. Then if a decent draft selection falls to them on day 2 go for it. Otherwise wait a year and rill with what you have.

That's a legit Plan B for a second year on a rebuild.  The trade expense just needs to be fair. 

[86 Snyder]

36 minutes ago, SAli457180 said:

 

Shows that Bellichick is an A-hole and Stafford didn't want anything to do with him.  Brady didn't either.

 

No, it doesnt.  He didnt want to be reunited with Matt Patricia.  And Brady was there for 20 years.  He obviously didnt have much of a problem with Belichick.

[kingdaddy]

11 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

 

Christ almighty. Which part of this are you guys not getting?

 

If you want a team that is a perennial contender you need a top QB.

 

How many years since they've been there have the Brees and Rodgers led teams been to the playoffs and been seen as a threat to go all the way? Most years. It is the norm to have GB or the Saints as SB contenders most years. 

 

Did they always get deep into the playoffs or to the SB if they did? Of course not. But most years they've been threats and have at least gotten into the playoffs. They're a perennial contender. Why? Well, let's see...prior to 2006 the last time the Saints went to the playoffs was 2000...and then before that it was 1992. Since? 9 years. Hm...wonder what the difference was.

 

 

Without that top QB you basically need a bunch of stuff to come together in a perfect storm in order to make a serious run. I don't want to have to luck into a run. We need a top QB these days to be a year in and year out threat.

No one disagrees with what you're saying, however Brees, Rodgers and Foles all have the same number of rings. Your theory is spot on correct, just let us all know how to get the stud QB you speak of...if you can do that the WFT should hire you.

Until then, "lucking" into a SB with a well built roster and an average QB might be our best shot. Doesn't mean we dont keep trying to find the stud though.

[RWJ]

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

If the Skins want Jonesy they will need to move up ahead of the Pats.  They can do so w/o giving up too much.