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

[RichmondRedskin88]

Just now, BruceAllenIsFootballGenius said:

This is what would get Watson trade done

 

19th pick, 51st pick, 22’ 1st, 22’ 2nd, 23’ 1st, and Daron Payne

 

 

Again Texans are crazy if they think they are getting that.  You have a QB outright saying your franchise is a wreck and doesn’t ever want to return.  He’s made it clear he’ll sit if necessary.  Watson loses value if they just sit on this.  Other teams will find solutions and they will eventually have very little options.  The NFL waits for no one. They also have no leverage as Watson gets to choose.  So they can feel free to let him rot because they want someone to hand over the farm but then they get nothing except revenge. And that doesn’t get you good players or draft picks. 

[CjSuAvE22]

4 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Dak is a huge gamble as well. The guy is coming off of a compound fracture and dislocation of his ankle. That's an absolutely devastating injury. Nobody knows whether he'll even be the same guy after he comes back. I don't get why people keep throwing Dak's name around as if he's just some FA who we'd have to pay big bucks to. He's a FA who can't even walk right now.

I'd rather go 2-14 and get to pick a blue chip QB prospect than be stuck around 8-8 for the next 5 years.

Gotta take a chance imo Dak has proven he can play and win football games, people said drew brees shoulder was screwed when San Diego unloaded him, if we could sign hi to a front loaded contracted for 3 or 4 years i wouldnt mind it we still keep our draft picks and we get a starter at QB..I like where the team is headed and dont want to derail the path moving forward by trading away draft picks 

Edited February 1, 2021 by CjSuAvE22

[Burgold]

So, 2 number ones, 2 number twos and Landon Collins plus Troy Apke. Hey, they're young defensive starters. Still, a bit high. Now, if they'll take a number one and a number three this year, a number two next year plus Apke and Collins, then we have a deal.

 

Remember, they specified "young" and "defensive starters" Nowhere did they say "good defensive starters."

Edited February 1, 2021 by Burgold

[Burgundy Yoda]

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Ionnidas and Curl should be the two players we offer with the picks.  Theres no way Houston takes Collins contract from us, wishful thinking.

This is kind of where I'm at with the player package. Obviously we'd love for Houston to accept trash from us but that's just not going to get them to budge. These are two studs outgoing to Houston and it would suck losing Curl because he's going to be a star IMO. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Burgundy Yoda

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, Jacoby6644 said:

Something else to keep in mind .... IF a deal with Houston were to be done, they also now become a QB needy team. IF Alex is HEALTHY and wants to continue playing, he could also be part of that deal. He is a good QB and with health on his side he could have a couple years to help aid in the development of QB that Houston drafts. 
Someone posted about patience will pay off here and I agree. Everyday that goes by in the standoff with Watson, the less Houston gets. If someone wants to throw the farm at them great. But with the no trade clause he can effectively punish them for as long as he likes. The key is to get him to want to come to WFT. If he doesn’t want to be here, doesn’t matter/mute point. 

 

Dude, nobody wants Alex Smith. Trying to include him in any package is laughable.

[The Consigliere]

21 hours 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...

 

Quarterbacks in Conference Final's: 

 

2020 Final Four:

NFC: HOF vs HOF

AFC: HOF vs Up and Coming Star (Josh Allen)

 

2019:

NFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Jimmy G)

AFC: HOF vs Former top 10 pick having career year (Tannehill)

 

2018: 

NFC: HOF vs Mediocrity taken #1 overall (Goff)

AFC: HOF vs HOF

 

2017:

NFC: Mediocrity (Keenum) vs Mediocrity (Foles) 

AFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Bortles)

 

2016:

NFC: HOF vs HOF

AFC: HOF vs HOF

 

2015:

NFC: #1 overall pick vs #1 overall pick

AFC: HOF vs HOF

 

2014:

NFC: HOF vs HOF

AFC: HOF Vs #1 overall Andrew Luck

 

2013:

NFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Kap)

AFC: HOF vs HOF

 

2012:

NFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Kap)

AFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Flacco)

 

2011:

NFC: #1 overall Eli vs #1 overall Alex Smith

AFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Flacco)

 

Just the last 10 conference title games, 40 QB appearacnes:

 

HOF QB's Featured out of 40 possible starts: 24/40

1st Round QB's Featured combined with future HOF's: 35/40 

QB's Featured who were the #1 overall pick or project to be HOF's: 30/40

Non future HOF/1st round QB Appearances: 5/40

 

 

This is why any argument other than getting a franchise QB strikes me as just patently absurd. It's nearly impossible to do. Looking at this past decade, 40 title game appearances, there were only 5 QB's out of 40 that weren't either a guaranteed HOF down the road, or a first round. FIVE out of 40. Five. That's 88.5% of appearances went to HOF's or former first rounders who aren't HOF's. 

 

Heck 30/40 went exclusively to future HOF's or #1 overall picks (75%). 

 

 

There is no end around here. There is no way other than through. Get the QB, or jump on the pipe dream that not only almost never works, but also never appears to be remotely sustainable (QB's that made final four runs w/o first round pedigree, or future HOF credentials rarely ever came back again (only the Niners w/Kap did it that I can recall and that was split between former #1 overall Alex Smith and Kap). All the other teams that repeatedly made runs and had a sustained period of final four capability had either a HOF behind center, or a first rounder behind center (typically a #1 overall but not always).

 

If we don't have the QB, we're just pretenders, even to another division title, let alone contending long term. 

[wit33]

47 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am sort of in the PFF school when it comes to QBs.  They are economical and value driven as heck position by position.  i don't always agree with them on that front but i'll give them that they are methodical.  For example, they think the secondary these days trumps the value of the D line (I disagree).  They almost always believe in trading down in the draft because more beats less (I somteimes agree but sometimes don't on that point).  They don't believe in taking a RB high in the draft or spending much on the position.  And a host of other theories.

 

But to them the gloves are off at QB.  If I recall you agree as do I as does PFF that a franchise QB is the be all and end all as to becoming a consistent winner.  PFF isn't in the build a big time roster and a game manager will help you win the SB camp -- they don't buy that.  They are into doing whatever it takes to get the big time QB.  They don't think the QB position is overstated -- to them they think its if anything understated.    They believe you got to keep swinging hard for one until you get one.  I am somewhat in the same camp.

 

As for the value of a good QB versus an average QB with an extra player or two of supporting cast with the cost difference.  I'd probably go with the former over the later.    It depends on the price for a good QB.  But just in general within reason I don't want an average to below average QB.  I genuinely think you got like a 5% shot tops to win a SB like that.  If my goal though is 9-7, then what the heck a dude like Kyle Allen can do it.  But my sights are bigger than that.  I do think we'd have more of a fighting chance in the playoffs with someone like Carr versus Kyle Allen. 

Not well informed with PFF their values, but appreciate the context provided. 
 

I rather the franchise operate like a small business with great agility and ability to adapt to the ever changing external environment. This will allow the organization to engage in foresight, be opportunistic, and identify/be early on trends. Point of view being, every situation should be looked at independently, then determine the perceived value of that independent variable has in the current and long term system. 
 

PFF from my view is largely reliant on macro data which can leave them vulnerable to micro data and/or situational nuance. Not claiming you believe it’s 100% right, you mentioned disagreeing on some levels.  Your thoughts? 
 

I do agree the elite QB is the holy grail to being a consistent winner, but have moved off point that it’s the only key variable to winning the SB with the elite guy. Meaning, the elite QB and what he’s being paid at that time plays a potentially significant role as well (need to do more research on what the last remaining 4-8 QBs the last 10 seasons were ranked in terms of pay at that time). Which brings me to the hypothesis that each elite QB has various levels of value dependent on their current contract at that time( Not all elite QBs should be put in one box).

 

Does the average to above QB on a value based deal have a greater opportunity to close the gap with an elite highly paid QB? 

 

Getting the elite guy is the dream, but the pathway to getting the above average QB on a value deal is muuuch more achievable.  I was early on the value of a dual threat QB, but those guys are more common, so the gap in their skill sets isn’t what it once was. John Elway athleticism is the baseline now lol, so all QBs are expected to creat, extend, and make throws outside of the pocket. 
 

 

[Burgold]

Great quarterbacks are without question great, but there is a reason Dan Marino never won a Superbowl or even got back there after his rookie year. There's also a reason John Elway never won one until he was no longer a great quarterback.

 

You can't sacrifice half a team for a QB. You just can't. First and second rounders should be starters. So, there's four starters right there. Then, on top of that they want two more "young" defensive starters?

 

Six players would be half your offense or half your defense. I mean I realize what the GM is saying is we ain't trading unless a team offers us something stupid, but let's not play along with the notion that we are willing to be stupid. Watson would deserve a king's ransom. Watson would not rate half the kingdom.

[KillBill26]

5 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

I think Houston is gonna want Kameron Curl and Sweat...plus two 1sts and a 2nd. No question about it they ask for Sweat if they know we won't trade Chase Young. Then, Curl makes sense if they think he's as good as we all do. Losing Sweat and Curl would be very difficult to overcome on defense in my opinion...but I'd bet everything they'd ask for Montez Sweat and I'll bet we'd include him if the deal was right. 

For those two young players, the draft pick compensation needs to come way down.   Those two guys plus 2 firsts and a 2nd, I say no thanks.  Sweat himself is more valuable than a 1st round pick, let's say he is a 1st and a 3rd (that's fair, you could make a case he is worth more).  So we'd be giving up 3 1sts, a 2nd, a 3rd, and curl.  Too much.  And what draft pick compensation would you peg for curl?  When you add that to the tally, it looks even more ridiculous.

 

I dont doubt that watson will fetch an absurd amount, I just hope it's not us that pays it.

[kingdaddy]

2 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

 

Quarterbacks in Conference Final's: 

 

2020 Final Four:

NFC: HOF vs HOF

AFC: HOF vs Up and Coming Star (Josh Allen)

 

2019:

NFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Jimmy G)

AFC: HOF vs Former top 10 pick having career year (Tannehill)

 

2018: 

NFC: HOF vs Mediocrity taken #1 overall (Goff)

AFC: HOF vs HOF

 

2017:

NFC: Mediocrity (Keenum) vs Mediocrity (Foles) 

AFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Bortles)

 

2016:

NFC: HOF vs HOF

AFC: HOF vs HOF

 

2015:

NFC: #1 overall pick vs #1 overall pick

AFC: HOF vs HOF

 

2014:

NFC: HOF vs HOF

AFC: HOF Vs #1 overall Andrew Luck

 

2013:

NFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Kap)

AFC: HOF vs HOF

 

2012:

NFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Kap)

AFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Flacco)

 

2011:

NFC: #1 overall Eli vs #1 overall Alex Smith

AFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Flacco)

 

Just the last 10 conference title games, 40 QB appearacnes:

 

HOF QB's Featured out of 40 possible starts: 24/40

1st Round QB's Featured combined with future HOF's: 35/40 

QB's Featured who were the #1 overall pick or project to be HOF's: 30/40

Non future HOF/1st round QB Appearances: 5/40

 

 

This is why any argument other than getting a franchise QB strikes me as just patently absurd. It's nearly impossible to do. Looking at this past decade, 40 title game appearances, there were only 5 QB's out of 40 that weren't either a guaranteed HOF down the road, or a first round. FIVE out of 40. Five. That's 88.5% of appearances went to HOF's or former first rounders who aren't HOF's. 

 

Heck 30/40 went exclusively to future HOF's or #1 overall picks (75%). 

 

 

There is no end around here. There is no way other than through. Get the QB, or jump on the pipe dream that not only almost never works, but also never appears to be remotely sustainable (QB's that made final four runs w/o first round pedigree, or future HOF credentials rarely ever came back again (only the Niners w/Kap did it that I can recall and that was split between former #1 overall Alex Smith and Kap). All the other teams that repeatedly made runs and had a sustained period of final four capability had either a HOF behind center, or a first rounder behind center (typically a #1 overall but not always).

 

If we don't have the QB, we're just pretenders, even to another division title, let alone contending long term. 

Great stuff, good hustle on the research, I agree with everything you said, but the problem is finding the HOF QB...Look at Cleveland, how many times have they picked a QB in the 1st round and missed, year after year. Everyone who says you have better odds of winning the SB with a stud QB is obviously correct, I don't know how anyone in their right mind could argue that....the problem is finding one. We thought we had the guy in RGlll....the Eagles thought they were set for 15 years with their trade up to draft Wentz, look at that situation. 

My point is that, until we have the HOF QB in the barn, we need to focus on building the roster and see if someone else can get the job done. I'm sure everyone remembers Rich Gannon, there's an example of a journeyman QB who turned himself into a very good QB and took the Raiders to the SB. It can be done with good coaching and solid roster. 

A few years ago the Jaguars shouldve gone to the SB with a spectacular defense and a below average QB, and had they got there many thought they would've beaten the Eagles and NIck Foles.  Last year the Niners had KC beat in the 4th qtr with Jimmy G as their QB....I hope we get the stud QB, in my lifetime the Skins have never had a QB of 10 years who made us perennially good. Joe Theismann was the closest we had. I would kill to have a franchise QB, it just seems they are so hard to find. 

 

[Number 44]

12 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

 

Quarterbacks in Conference Final's: 

 

2020 Final Four:

NFC: HOF vs HOF

AFC: HOF vs Up and Coming Star (Josh Allen)

 

2019:

NFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Jimmy G)

AFC: HOF vs Former top 10 pick having career year (Tannehill)

 

2018: 

NFC: HOF vs Mediocrity taken #1 overall (Goff)

AFC: HOF vs HOF

 

2017:

NFC: Mediocrity (Keenum) vs Mediocrity (Foles) 

AFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Bortles)

 

2016:

NFC: HOF vs HOF

AFC: HOF vs HOF

 

2015:

NFC: #1 overall pick vs #1 overall pick

AFC: HOF vs HOF

 

2014:

NFC: HOF vs HOF

AFC: HOF Vs #1 overall Andrew Luck

 

2013:

NFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Kap)

AFC: HOF vs HOF

 

2012:

NFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Kap)

AFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Flacco)

 

2011:

NFC: #1 overall Eli vs #1 overall Alex Smith

AFC: HOF vs Mediocrity (Flacco)

 

Just the last 10 conference title games, 40 QB appearacnes:

 

HOF QB's Featured out of 40 possible starts: 24/40

1st Round QB's Featured combined with future HOF's: 35/40 

QB's Featured who were the #1 overall pick or project to be HOF's: 30/40

Non future HOF/1st round QB Appearances: 5/40

 

 

This is why any argument other than getting a franchise QB strikes me as just patently absurd. It's nearly impossible to do. Looking at this past decade, 40 title game appearances, there were only 5 QB's out of 40 that weren't either a guaranteed HOF down the road, or a first round. FIVE out of 40. Five. That's 88.5% of appearances went to HOF's or former first rounders who aren't HOF's. 

 

Heck 30/40 went exclusively to future HOF's or #1 overall picks (75%). 

 

 

There is no end around here. There is no way other than through. Get the QB, or jump on the pipe dream that not only almost never works, but also never appears to be remotely sustainable (QB's that made final four runs w/o first round pedigree, or future HOF credentials rarely ever came back again (only the Niners w/Kap did it that I can recall and that was split between former #1 overall Alex Smith and Kap). All the other teams that repeatedly made runs and had a sustained period of final four capability had either a HOF behind center, or a first rounder behind center (typically a #1 overall but not always).

 

If we don't have the QB, we're just pretenders, even to another division title, let alone contending long term. 

So, all we gotta do is draft HOF quarterbacks?  (Head slap).  Why haven't we thought of that before?

[sportsnut]

Houston shouldn’t get fair market value for Watson because he’s disgruntled and will hold out.  Just like we didn’t get it for Trent.

Edited February 1, 2021 by sportsnut

[Burgundy Yoda]

1 minute ago, KillBill26 said:

For those two young players, the draft pick compensation needs to come way down.   Those two guys plus 2 firsts and a 2nd, I say no thanks.  Sweat himself is more valuable than a 1st round pick, let's say he is a 1st and a 3rd (that's fair, you could make a case he is worth more).  So we'd be giving up 3 1sts, a 2nd, a 3rd, and curl.  Too much.  And what draft pick compensation would you peg for curl?  When you add that to the tally, it looks even more ridiculous.

 

I dont doubt that watson will fetch an absurd amount, I just hope it's not us that pays it.

This is going to sound outlandish but Curl to me is at a 1st round value right now. He's 21, highly productive, and is on a dirt cheap rookie contract. We shouldn't accept anything less than a 1st for him in any trade. He's only going to get better and his potential is insane (look at the 24 reps he put on the bench press, that's nuts for a DB). 

 

Sweat and Curl is simply too much. That's a huge hit to our defense, Houston would be better off asking for one of our DTs. 

[mistertim]

2 minutes ago, Number 44 said:

So, all we gotta do is draft HOF quarterbacks?  (Head slap).  Why haven't we thought of that before?

 

Don't intentionally misrepresent his point. The point is that getting a top franchise QB should be a teams #1 priority over other things whenever possible. That doesn't mean you suddenly stop building the roster, but it does mean that until you have that QB, your chances of being a perennial contender are close to nil in today's NFL. So it always has to be first thing on your mind. And I don't care if you've drafted and missed on a bunch of high round QBs. Suck it up, upgrade your scouting department if need be, then keep going for it...and stop playing into the sunk cost fallacy. 

[Conn]

Dak changing teams within the division would be a legendary NFCE storyline for years, and would simultaneously wreck the Cowboys while only costing us cap space, if they don’t want to or can’t afford to franchise tag him again or sign him long-term. That has to be what we hope for, and we keep all our draft capital and are able to sign a stud WR with him on board if it goes down. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

16 hours ago, RWJ said:

We have Settle who is just reaching his potential this past season and Ioanman so to me Allen or Payne are expendable.  I'd let Payne go before Allen but it's a toss up.  You can't pay both of them top money as you have other key positions to pay.  You make one expendable in a trade NOW for a QB.

Settle is a good rotational guy who can come in fir 10 snaps a game and not embarrass himself.  That’s his ceiling.

 

Hes not a starter. When they’ve asked him to do more he’s failed spectacularly.  

[JamesMadisonSkins]

1 minute ago, sportsnut said:

Houston shouldn’t get fair market value for Watson because he’s disgruntled and will hold out.  Just like we didn’t get it for Trent.

 

Depends on how long they let this play out. And who he waives his no-trade clause for. IF everyone who is rumored to be interested "plays" and the Texans retain leverage, these are the deals I think are most likely/realistic/could go down.

 

Jets: 1st (#2), 1st (#23), 3rd (#66), 2022 1st, Sam Darnold

Dolphins: 1st (#3), 1st (#18), 3rd (#81), Tua Tagovailoa

49ers: 1st (#12), 2nd (#43), 2022 1st, 2023 1st

WFT: 1st (#19), 2nd (#51), 2022 1st, 2022 2nd, Montez Sweat

 

IF, BIG IF, teams don't play, call Texans bluff ... or Texans wait this whole thing out ... I could see us making away with:

#19, #51, #72, 2022 1st, 2022 2nd ... no players.

2 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

Dak changing teams within the division would be a legendary NFCE storyline for years, and would simultaneously wreck the Cowboys while only costing us cap space, if they don’t want to or can’t afford to franchise tag him again or sign him long-term. That has to be what we hope for, and we keep all our draft capital and are able to sign a stud WR with him on board if it goes down. 

 

Just occurred to me, but what if Dallas franchise tags Dak prior to the FA cycle. Dallas offers the rights to Dak and #10 to Houston for Deshaun? Dak signs a megadeal in Houston. Houston has pick #10 to get a WR or OT. Don't even need to change numbers.

[kingdaddy]

18 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Great quarterbacks are without question great, but there is a reason Dan Marino never won a Superbowl or even got back there after his rookie year. There's also a reason John Elway never won one until he was no longer a great quarterback.

 

You can't sacrifice half a team for a QB. You just can't. First and second rounders should be starters. So, there's four starters right there. Then, on top of that they want two more "young" defensive starters?

 

Six players would be half your offense or half your defense. I mean I realize what the GM is saying is we ain't trading unless a team offers us something stupid, but let's not play along with the notion that we are willing to be stupid. Watson would deserve a king's ransom. Watson would not rate half the kingdom.

Yep, Elway never won a SB til Denver got a great RB and a great defense. They stopped relying on Elway to win games totally by himself. To me, that's the other side of getting the stud QB, teams become dependent on that guy and are not as well rounded. Brees, Rodgers and others have won SB's and their teams have been consistently competitive but they usually fall short. 

I'm old fashioned, I believe in the running game first, stud QB second. I would take Tannehill and Henry with our defense and make SB plans next year. How do we find something like that if we can't get the stud like Watson?

[The Consigliere]

21 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

OK dug up the source on Carr.  The Junkies don't break much news but the few times they are on gossip stuff they are often right, they are the ones that broke that Alex's injury is really bad before it became common knowledge. 

 

 

 

 

He's got a weird profile and his #'s were pretty dramatically different in '19 vs '20 and I don't really know why. In '19 he was basically a bottom quartile to bottom 1/3 in the league caliber QB, whereas in '20 he was basically right smack in the middle generally amongst the 32 teams. 

 

He would be a stop gap that's adequate, but won't lift anything. He's better than anything we have had since Cousins left, but he's not a difference maker. We'll basically tread water if we get him, and I'd predict a 6-10 season. 

 

21 hours ago, RWJ said:

IF you want Carr, I'm guessing it will cost our #19, our early 3rd and 2022 2nd or possibly 1st.  Stafford's trade messed things up trade value wise.  

There's zero chance I'd even give one first for him. 

[Number 44]

9 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Don't intentionally misrepresent his point. The point is that getting a top franchise QB should be a teams #1 priority over other things whenever possible. That doesn't mean you suddenly stop building the roster, but it does mean that until you have that QB, your chances of being a perennial contender are close to nil in today's NFL. So it always has to be first thing on your mind. And I don't care if you've drafted and missed on a bunch of high round QBs. Suck it up, upgrade your scouting department if need be, then keep going for it...and stop playing into the sunk cost fallacy. 

His point, and now yours, is that having a great QB leads to winning.  My point was - and remains - that it is pretty obvious that all of us, and every NFL team, is very much aware of that.  

[The Consigliere]

21 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am close to the same place on Carr.  I think he's probably better than Alex Smith.  I'd put him in the 13-16 range of QBs.  i'd say he's good but a distance from being great.   

 

But beggars can't be chosers and I'd take him over the FA corps.  I love the top 4 QBs in this draft but I think getting them is a pipe dream, ditto Watson.

I wouldn't, if he costs anything more than a day 3 pick. Straight pass. If they want a sweetner, I'll throw in some Jason Campbell rookie cards since they liked him enough to trade for him a decade ago. 

[Burgold]

1 minute ago, kingdaddy said:

Yep, Elway never won a SB til Denver got a great RB and a great defense. They stopped relying on Elway to win games totally by himself. To me, that's the other side of getting the stud QB, teams become dependent on that guy and are not as well rounded. Brees, Rodgers and others have won SB's and their teams have been consistently competitive but they usually fall short. 

I'm old fashioned, I believe in the running game first, stud QB second. I would take Tannehill and Henry with our defense and make SB plans next year. How do we find something like that if we can't get the stud like Watson?

I don't mind either model. I think both can work, but you need either great QB and good team or good QB and great team. It's very rare for any team to make it to the top with a Great QB and an average team or a Great team with an average QB.

 

So, the question is how do you get one without sacrificing too much of the other. 

 

Looking backwards, both Cousins and Alex Smith were probably good enough to meet the Good QB/Great Team model. Problem was, Kirk had poor to average teams backing him up. Smith too, though you could argue that towards the end of 2020, we had a average/good QB + very good defense + above average offense which is why we not only limped into the playoffs, but gave Tom Brady a scare.

[Riggo#44]

David Mufalete right now, talking to Martin Mayhew

[ThomasRoane]

33 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

...

 

This is why any argument other than getting a franchise QB strikes me as just patently absurd. It's nearly impossible to do. Looking at this past decade, 40 title game appearances, there were only 5 QB's out of 40 that weren't either a guaranteed HOF down the road, or a first round. FIVE out of 40. Five. That's 88.5% of appearances went to HOF's or former first rounders who aren't HOF's. 

 

Heck 30/40 went exclusively to future HOF's or #1 overall picks (75%). 

 

 

There is no end around here. There is no way other than through. Get the QB, or jump on the pipe dream that not only almost never works, but also never appears to be remotely sustainable (QB's that made final four runs w/o first round pedigree, or future HOF credentials rarely ever came back again (only the Niners w/Kap did it that I can recall and that was split between former #1 overall Alex Smith and Kap). All the other teams that repeatedly made runs and had a sustained period of final four capability had either a HOF behind center, or a first rounder behind center (typically a #1 overall but not always).

 

If we don't have the QB, we're just pretenders, even to another division title, let alone contending long term. 

 

You put a lot of effort into this.  I can see your point.  But I can't see giving up what Houston will ask for Watson.  Mainly because I don't think the players around him on offense are good enough to get to a Super Bowl anytime soon.  If the team was just a QB away then of course, you make the move.  

[The Consigliere]

21 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The worst part to me is that contract extension.  Bruce I gather was trying to show up Kirk because he wouldn't give him a third year of guarantees so he turns around with Alex by not just giving him three years but 5 years of guarantees in the contract.   We will be paying off that contract if i recall through 2022.   It's that type of petty nonsense that Bruce would do whether its the QB situation or Trent, etc where winning a spitting match was more important than winning.  Or maybe Dan put him up to it for all I know.  Hopefully that type of crap is over with. 

Considering what happened with Haskins. It seems clear that Snyder will inevitably interfere with decision making in perpetuity unless he drops dead. He may come in and out of phases of interference and non-interference, but if that moronic half-wit could literally botch entire decades of decisions and still get his incompetent hands all over a 1st round draft pick as recently as 2019, it seems clear stupidity will always be just a change over in the FO away, if not even closer. 

 

He's never learned a damn thing. Not one. In 22 years of ownership. It's extraordinary. Takes a lot of work to be that thoroughly ignorant.