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

[Skinsinparadise]

13 minutes ago, Capt'n Obvious said:

 

 

Could be something similar to the DET/LA deal with Jimmy being included in the package back to Minnesota.

 

Maybe.  I don't think it would be relevant to us unless we are in the Watson chase and it takes out another suitor. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

11 minutes ago, COWBOY-KILLA- said:

Let’s not create reasons that we really dont know much about. The teams floated out there just happen to be the teams with the most capital & draft positioning, I dont think that’s a coincidence. None of what you mentioned should stop us from putting in a killer offer to get it done. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work, let’s not sike ourselves out of it over any perceived notions. The offer will speak for itself, and he/team can decide.

I'm not concerned that we won't put together an offer though.  I'm certain we will be in the race.  Just simply setting realistic expectations about the potential it gets done.

[Conn]

40 minutes ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

My take is they are gonna roll with what we have the whiners will be upset till about week 6 when we are 4-2 and everyone will come to gather and forget that we missed out on Watson Carr Stafford Mickey Mouse and whatever else it is people want to trade draft picks for.....

This is so ****ing silly to read dude. These “whiners”  are just fans like you who want to see the team get better. We can disagree in here without infantalizing the opposing viewpoint I think. 

[Commander -JB-]

It’d be nice to actually use our picks instead of trade them away.  Multiple years in a row without a second rounder.  Keep building through the draft.  It’s one thing to always have a lot of picks and consistently draft well and THEN make a random deal one day to give up some picks for a guy.  But to always trade away draft picks is a recipe for disaster.  It’s why it never gets any better here.  I’m hoping they decide to keep their picks and actually make draft picks in the first 3 rounds.

[Warhead36]

Ideally for us all the other teams that want a QB go in a direction other then Watson to bring his price down. Then we convince the Jets to draft someone at 2.

[kingdaddy]

2 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

This is so ****ing silly to read dude. These “whiners”  are just fans like you who want to see the team get better. We can disagree in here without infantalizing the opposing viewpoint I think. 

Thank you. Couldn't have said it better....in fact, some on here even go as far as posting videos to mock others. No need for that stuff in my opinion. Everyone has an opinion, usually none are wrong or right, the team is gonna do what they do regardless of what we think. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by kingdaddy
added something

[Rufus T Firefly]

8 minutes ago, Blanka said:

Kirk going to SF would be great for us. I would then peg Jimmy G to NE. Knocks out 2 QB teams in front of us in draft and takes a Watson suitor in SF out of the picture. If we decided to go that route. 

And creates another one in Minnesota. 

[The Consigliere]

On 1/30/2021 at 10:45 PM, veteranskinsfan said:

There is a report out tonight that Washington's offer for Stafford was better than Rams offer.  Some on this message board were convinced Skins were going to beat out several other teams to get Stafford.   If the ESPN reporter is right so why did we not get him?  Hmm...could it be that Washington is still not a preferred destination by some players.  Or could it be that our new General Manager team is not so sharp as some on this message board think they are??

 

I think better is probably contingent on what management with Detroit wants. I think if they want to compete and rebuild, the Rams offer makes sense because it gave them both draft capital, and a perfectly adequate starting QB (he ain't great, but he's competent). That's not something we could give them. We have no long term competent anything at QB on the roster, dealing with the Rams gives them a stop gap QB for a year+ and the ability to both draft and develop the position w/o having to rush it while rebuilding. We could only offer picks and players w/o a legit QB stop gap.

 

I think the perception of better is purely along the lines of better talent+picks going there way, but our deal couldn't have provided them with QB cover which is probably why they passed. 

 

If I'm a GM, I don't care about QB cover, give me the better assets considering the Lions aren't contending, so the cover is irrelevant. 

[HigSkin]

18 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Maybe.  I don't think it would be relevant to us unless we are in the Watson chase and it takes out another suitor. 

 

I suppose it could be relevant if they need more draft picks to make the Kirk trade and we want to make a move up to #12?

 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2021 by HigSkin

[kingdaddy]

16 minutes ago, Blanka said:

Kirk going to SF would be great for us. I would then peg Jimmy G to NE. Knocks out 2 QB teams in front of us in draft and takes a Watson suitor in SF out of the picture. If we decided to go that route. 

Yeah, could be. I'm thinking that the team that stays patient the longest could land Watson if they trade him. We could be in a nice spot to remain patient given the QB's we have on the roster, if we re-sign them, especially if they want to deal him to the NFC.

[carex]

13 minutes ago, -JB- said:

It’d be nice to actually use our picks instead of trade them away.  Multiple years in a row without a second rounder.  Keep building through the draft.  It’s one thing to always have a lot of picks and consistently draft well and THEN make a random deal one day to give up some picks for a guy.  But to always trade away draft picks is a recipe for disaster.  It’s why it never gets any better here.  I’m hoping they decide to keep their picks and actually make draft picks in the first 3 rounds.

 

I mean two years is multiple, but those two seconds were used for a first rounder, so we're only one player down from the number we should have

 

overall, our trades(and comp picks) have netted us 18 picks in the last two drafts, four more than minimum

[HigSkin]

😂😂

 

 

[Mooka]

18 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

This is so ****ing silly to read dude. These “whiners”  are just fans like you who want to see the team get better. We can disagree in here without infantalizing the opposing viewpoint I think. 

 

Eh... always a little ribbing when talking sports. 

 

But there was a point last season where half the fans were asking what the point of drafting Chase Young was, when we were watching Drew Lock and Herbert duke it out slinging the ball all over the field. (or other young QBs) 

 

Then later in the year we watched Chase and the defense actually win some games for us. 

[The Consigliere]

On 1/30/2021 at 11:16 PM, Rufus T Firefly said:

That "rule of thumb" gets wildly overstated, especially in regards to 1sts. Teams aren't so shortsighted that they are willing to give future picks for lower picks now very often. If even a few  GMs were willing to trade next year's 1 for a 2 this year, we would see that deal happen multiple times per draft. And, if you offer a 3rd to someone for a 1 two years hence, there is no one who would take that, probably ever (is Vinny a GM somewhere?).

 

That said, a 3 this year and a 1 next year is less value than the inverse. It just is. That means that that part of the deal isn't enough for Stafford. And Goff's contract is such an albatross, a 1st out in 2023 isn't nearly enough to take it on.

 

So, they really didn't get enough for Stafford plus they didn't get enough for taking Goff. Just a bad deal. They deserve a little credit both for realizing they need to rebuild and not being hung up on value in the short term, and for not taking less to move him out of the conference. But they still just didn't get enough.

 

Worse is that they are counting on getting their value out of future 1s from a team with maybe the league's best defense, one of the game's best offensive minds, good surrounding offensive talent, and now with Stafford. It will be at least a bit of an upset if either of those picks are higher than, say, 25 or so.

 

My guess is that Detroit is foolish enough to view Goff as close to neutral value and just got wowed by the idea of multiple 1s, plus "more". Just not a deal that bodes well for that organization's future. 

 

Also relevant to note that the '22 class is particularly weak at playmaking positions, especially QB and RB. '21 class is really strong. 

 

I get why GM's view future picks as less valuable because you have to wait to use them (and I regard that as an inefficiency that should be taken advantage of, especially when you know a future class is weak or strong at a particular postion: For reference, the QB classes of '13, '14, '19 and '22 were/are regarded as tremendously weak years in advance, the whole "a future pick aint worth a now pick should be shoveled in the dust bin when you know something like that. Same deal with RB: RB elite in '15, '17, '18, '20, horrible in '16, '19 and '22, WR  horrendous in '16, '18 if memory serves, while '14, 19, and '20 were best in a decade caliber (last year's TE class was the worst in years and years as well).

 

So while I get that GM's do that, we absolutely should take advantage of it, because it's largely nonsense. What matters is the top end quality, and the depth quality of the classes themselves, and what you need stretched out across 2-4 year windows. If you're offense is dog pile, like ours has been for several years, understanding what years were good with what since we imploded is relevant:

'16:

QB: No

RB: No

WR: No

TE: Maybe

 

'17:

QB: Yes

RB: Yes

WR: Maybe

TE: Yes

 

'18: 

QB: Yes

RB: Yes

WR: Maybe

'TE: Maybe

 

'19: 

QB: No

RB: No

WR: Yes

TE: Maybe

 

'20:

QB: Yes

RB: Yes

WR: Yes

TE: No

 

'21: 

QB: Yes

RB: No

WR: Yes

TE: Yes

 

'22:

QB: No

RB: NO

WR: Maybe

TE: I don't know

 

Generally you can get a vibe for position groups 2 years in advance, and a real strong idea 18-20 months in advance, w/us, I argued for taking a QB in '20, or trading to acquire assets to move up for a QB in '21. We did neither, now we're screwed. 

 

We needed RB help and we used the right drafts to hit it and got unlucky until this year ('18 and '20).

 

We needed WR help, and used a good draft to do it ('19), and could do so again this year.

 

We blew TE, after it had banner years in '17, and '18 and a solid crop in '19, we wasted a day 3 pick on a nothing in Sprinkle, and then didn't attack the position in the other two years before last years god awful class. We got lucky with Logan. 

 

Hopefully we're smart about QB, RB, and WR this year, heck and TE. This is not the draft to get RB help and we're already set there anyway, this is a draft where you can get a QB, WR, or an elite TE. 

 

Will be interesting.

 

The team should be forward looking with regards to QB. We blew it (in my view) by not attacking the position in '20/'21, instead using a bad QB draft to reach for a guy (I didn't hate it, I thought Haskins at 15 was infinitely more justifiable than Jones inside the top 5 or so, which is supposedly something we wanted to do, so thankfully we didnt trade away future pieces for that, and I viewed Haskins as having a top 50 CV, so using a pick after the blue chippers was gone was a reach, but in a Jason Campbell/Patrick Ramsey sense, rather than a Mark Sanchez/Blake Bortles insanity sense. 

 

Anyway, am hoping we somehow can trade up for QB help, or trade for Watson or sign Dak. I'd also trade for Darnold, but after Stafford went for what he went for, I fear even Darnold's asking price will be ridiculous.

 

You make a great point about squaring that insane Goff Contract into the compensation which didn't happen, it's also relevant that none of these on the market guys carry value with their contracts which is part of the reason I see the cost as absurd. 

[The Consigliere]

On 1/31/2021 at 4:47 AM, Burgold said:

I might be proven wrong, but I wouldn’t pay 2 first rounders, a third rounder, and a starting QB for an aging, oft injured, immobile QB that’s led his team to three losing seasons in a row and only is on contract for two years. 
 

To me, Stafford is fool’s gold. I’m glad we lost out on him. 

 

I don't care for the lead part, as much as for the "not a cheap contract part". He's underpaid, but he's close to market value, and considering that, I don't want to pay that much to add him to the books.

 

At least someline like Darnold has '21 and a rookie option in '22, a reasonably cheap deal. The rest of these guys are all mega expensive FA's that also cost draft capital and other assets since they're not FA's. I find it odd that the financial cost of the contracts aren't factored in.

 

That being said, to me in order of preference it's probably:

#1 Dak #1: Only a cap cost, we don't have to give away anything else.

#2 Watson: he's a top 5 QB in the league, and he's young, as long as his body holds up, he could play elite football for another 5-10 years. 

 

The pupu platter options:

#3 Darnold: He's been a bust with NYJ, but he's on a cheap deal for 1 more year plus a rookie option and I believe in the talent to some extent. 

#4 Jimmy G: Went from above average to below average post injury. I'd like to see what he could do if he could stay healthy, has missed large chunks of two of the past 3 years. 

#5 Wentz: Expensive, but good with quality OL play but would probably cost too much if they dangled him. 

 

Trying to remember if anyone else is available. 

[Commander -JB-]

14 minutes ago, carex said:

 

I mean two years is multiple, but those two seconds were used for a first rounder, so we're only one player down from the number we should have

 

overall, our trades(and comp picks) have netted us 18 picks in the last two drafts, four more than minimum

And we can say we have had good drafts in back to back years.  I wanna keep that trend going.

[RichmondRedskin88]

Let’s be honest if we got Watson and he wins a Super Bowl or even if we just have major success in the division and playoffs we won’t think about the picks.  Now having said that we can’t just completely tear apart our team to get him either. 

[lovemaskins]

I hope we draft our own QB. I’d be willing to trade up a few spots like 19 to 12 for a 2nd and 4th (something like that) instead of trading half the defensive line and 3 1s for Watson.  Feels like it puts us years away from rebuilding the rest of the roster. 
 

The Texans just had Watson who had his best season ever and they sucked cause the roster didn’t give him enough help. I’d rather go Browns route and build it within with our guys who want to be here.

Edited February 1, 2021 by lovemaskins

[Warhead36]

3 minutes ago, lovemaskins said:

I hope we draft our own QB. I’d be willing to trade up a few spots like 19 to 12 for a 2nd and 4th (something like that) instead of trading half the defensive line and 3 1s for Watson.  Feels like it puts us years away from rebuilding the rest of the roster. 
 

The Texans just had Watson who had his best season ever and they sucked cause the roster didn’t give him enough help. I’d rather go Browns route and build it within with our guys who want to be here.

Ok but even then the Browns had to use the #1 overall pick to get their QB. You want us to suck that bad again? I'm kinda over going 3-13. Hell I'm over going 7-9.

[lovemaskins]

I understand your point and yes I agree we should draft a QB in the first but not pulling another RG3 type trade to do it. I believe teams that are run well can find a QB and build the team around his strengths which is what we haven’t done. We always do it bass ackwards. 
 

Draft a serviceable QB like the dude from Alabama give him a offensive line and some weapons and design a system for his talent and stop changing offensive coordinators every damn year and he can develop and win. I think we’re going about it wrong if our target is Pat Mahommes.  I’d be more than happy at Tannehill / Carr level QB with a monster defense.

[The Consigliere]

On 1/31/2021 at 5:38 AM, Skinsinparadise said:

My simple take is I am not rooting against whatever Rivera wants.  So if he offered the moon for Stafford then i am 100% on board with that.  I am not happy that he didn't get what he wanted.  And like i said yesterday if he said something like look Kyle Allen and Taylor Heinicke are the answer for this club -- I'd be on board with that too.

 

Even if I genuinely thought (which I don't) that they need an O lineman or a WR or whatever more badly than a new QB, I am not rooting against Ron Rivera getting his way whatever that wat is.

 

You saw his track record in Carolina right? He's not a HOF, he's basically a league average coach with a high end in terms of player management skills. His actual in game performance with teams isn't great. We've had awful coaches for decades other than Gibbs I and II (Gibbs II offseasons were horrific), and Shanny before he decided to go nuclear, So we're not used to coaches being competent by and large but I'm not in favor of letting coaches destroy the future of franchises with stupid offseason moves. Bill O'Brien's absolutely horrific work as the General Destruction of the Roster and Assets Manager for the Texans is precisely why Watson is done with Houston. O'Brien managed to check every single box of what not to do:

 

*Alienate best talent

 

*trade young and good for old and crap

 

*Trade future assets for present assets that won't actually allow you to contend, but rather just make incremental improvements. 

 

to name a few.

 

Rivera isn't a fool like O'Brien, but he's not Bill walsh or Billichek either. He's just a solid coach. Keep Coach and GM Separated, don't sacrifice the future for a non-existent present. 

 

I'm okay w/exceptions to that like bringining in likely HOF QB talent like Watson even if we have to overpay, but not in any other guise (paying through the nose for Stafford would've been beyond idiotic. He's a good, not great QB, whose injury prone to boot) and isn't worth what he cost, especially when you consider age as compared to Watson). 

On 1/31/2021 at 6:03 AM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am guessing you got to get ahead of Carolina to get Lance.  So two first rounders and one 2nd rounder?  I think it will require something like that.

If Fields is indeed falling from #2 QB to #3 or #4, I'd be all over that. People are going to regret passing on Fields in this draft if they do. Everyone save Jacksonville. 

[skinny21]

2 hours ago, wit33 said:

Ughhh... no way do I want to commit to a Derek Carr 3 year window. If a 1st is given (I can barely get my self to write that), then you 100% must extend him, maybe same situation with a 2nd. I would be okay with a 3rd and some change, but that’s getting into a large pool of subjectivity. 

Not that I think it would play out this way, but if you’re looking for a qb that gives you a chance to win now (not saying Carr is that guy, but he at least has more pedigree/experience than what we’ve got) and a potential bridge to a young guy... you could play Carr for a year or two and then either trade him or let him walk for a comp pick.

 

Invest a 2nd (though I think he will cost a bit more), get back a 3rd (roughly).

Gain a competitive qb (might help to land a FA receiver at some point).

Have a better chance to win in the short term.

Gives the team a bridge to a young qb.

His deal is up (whether traded in 2 years, or he walks in 3) right in the middle of our expensive re-signs.

 

🤷‍♂️

[samy316]

Just now, lovemaskins said:

I understand your point and yes I agree we should draft a QB in the first but not pulling another RG3 type trade to do it. I believe teams that are run well can find a QB and build the team around his strengths which is what we haven’t done. We always do it bass ackwards. 
 

Draft a serviceable QB like the dude from Alabama give him a offensive line and some weapons and design a system for his talent and stop changing offensive coordinators every damn year and he can develop and win. I think we’re going about it wrong if our target is Pat Mahommes.  I’d be more than happy at Tannehill / Carr level QB with a monster defense.

I agree with trying to get a QB like a Carr, while adding pieces to our team to become a contender.  I don’t agree with sitting on our hands and rolling with what we have going into next year.  There’s no guarantee the division will ever be as bad as it was this year, and depending on Heinecke or Allen to guide us next year will not get us to where we want to be.

 

We either need to sign a FA QB, or trade up to get a franchise QB.  We can’t sit and be patient and role with what we have now, because it’s not good enough.

[The Consigliere]

On 1/31/2021 at 6:28 AM, drowland said:

 

Was Bill O'Brien a genius when he gave up a 2nd to get rid of Brock O's contract?  Who gave Goff that big contract, someone not named Les Snead or McVay?  I don't see much difference between Goff and Stafford.  Stafford is probably slightly better but okay the Rams gave up two future 1st rounders and a 3rd for an older slightly better QB with a friendlier contract.  But even with Goff's contract, after this year, he only has a think $15M in gurenteed money over the final 3 years and a reasonable avg so the Lions are positioned to do what they want with him.  I think there's a bigger chance this trade puts the Rams in Texans territory and we're seeing that Scooby Doo meme in the coming years of McVay being unmasked to reveal it's BOB then we do seeing this trade put them over the top.  

 

Stafford's significantly better than Goff. 

 

Goff is basically a QB that will sit you somewhere between 16th-24th in the league in passing, his high end is middle of the road, his low end is 25th percentile. 

 

Stafford's basically a QB that will sit you in the 8th-18th zone, his high end is basically 75th-80th percentile, and his low end is about 40th percentile in the league. May seem like a little, but generally speaking, you're at worst getting league average play from Stafford and more typically he's a top 10-15 QB in most weeks, meaning QB won't be your problem, generally speaking. He's definitely a QB with limitations too, so he doesn't work for all systems, so there's that. But yeah, they're definitely not at the same level. Also worth noting that Stafford has done this generally with a horrible defense, and mediocre to bottom third in the league talent around him. Goff has consistently had top 10-15 talent on offense help positionally on offense (until they had to release the bulk of their OL), and elite defense. 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

13 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

 

You saw his track record in Carolina right? He's not a HOF, he's basically a league average coach with a high end in terms of player management skills.

 

I disagree that he's just an average coach.  But regardless, either I have faith in the people running the team or i don't.   I didn't have faith in Bruce or Vinny.  Once I think I from afar can judge how to upgrade this roster better than the powers that be -- then I'd want those people fired.  

 

We aren't always right with our takes.  I can actually recall some of yours that were proven wrong.  i can recall some of mine that were also proven wrong.  All these guys are going to make mistakes.  The key is to get more decisions right than wrong.  And, regardless, I want the people running the team to get what they want.    If they are proven incompetent that's a different story but I'd also want them gone if that goes down. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Skinsinparadise