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

[heyholetsgogrant]

42 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

I think our long term solution is still with the draft. The QB may need to sit for a year or even two but we aren’t 1 player away.

 

Also, why is everyone banking on Round 1 for a QB.

 

Why can’t we be like other teams and find the QB in other rounds. Why can’t we find the next: Montana,Wilson,Brees or Brady.

I’m okay with that, but there is there a steep drop off after the first round this year.  Heck you can make a case there is a steep drop off after the first 10 picks.  QB’s just aren’t going to fall anymore, the Aaron Rodgers situation nearly 2 decades ago just ain’t going to happen anymore.  The QB position is just too valuable.

[Inigo Montoya]

Like I said about Stafford, shoot your shot. Eminem style, whatever you want to say. This D could be elite with a great MLB and the window where we can afford them is now. If fields is the dude, trade an RG3 sequel type of scenario. You have to be balls to the wall when it comes to a QB

[KDawg]

1 hour ago, Inigo Montoya said:

Like I said about Stafford, shoot your shot. Eminem style, whatever you want to say. This D could be elite with a great MLB and the window where we can afford them is now. If fields is the dude, trade an RG3 sequel type of scenario. You have to be balls to the wall when it comes to a QB

If we’re going to go balls to the wall I feel best about it through the draft. 

1 hour ago, heyholetsgogrant said:

I’m okay with that, but there is there a steep drop off after the first round this year.  Heck you can make a case there is a steep drop off after the first 10 picks.  QB’s just aren’t going to fall anymore, the Aaron Rodgers situation nearly 2 decades ago just ain’t going to happen anymore.  The QB position is just too valuable.

You obviously haven't heard of Buechele. Shane... Buechele. 
 

 

I am actually high on him but the schtick of me mentioning him at every possible turn is becoming outrageously fun.

Edited February 2, 2021 by KDawg

[86 Snyder]

The only difference makers I see in play for us at QB are:

 

Watson

Fields

Wilson

 

Im not sure any of these are even moderately realistic, but they are the only ones that really move the needle for me.  Stafford was on this list previously fwiw.  Everyone else is just deck chair shuffling.

 

Lance is intriguing but the requisite patience is a bit of a turn off to me.  If we struck out on all 3, which is likely, Id advocate trying to trade up to get him, but Id prefer a more pro ready player.

 

Bottom line is we need to be aggressive because there look to be far few options available next year.  We should be good enough to win at minimum 5 or 6 games, which will push us out of conention for whoever becomes the top QB option in a weaker draft.  And maybe Dak becomes available next year but its seems likely there wont be as many FA options.

 

Again, I dont really believe we have the ammo to take down any of the 3, but I hope we go down swinging at least.

[CjSuAvE22]

Im still holding out hope we luck out and  find a russell wilson type in the 3rd or 4th hell even a kirk cousins type qb just someone that can play ball see what the defense is throwing at them etc score some touchdowns.....we can be good with that.

[Skinsinparadise]

To get Fields, I'd think almost for sure you got to trade up to #3 and I could see Carolina being the competition too.  I keep reading that Tepper, and apparently is big time into anaylitics, and is of the camp that you can't win in the league with a top QB and is supposedly obssessed with filling that spot.  Reading some of the Carolina clippings, Tepper would argue hard against some of the you just need game manager QB type proponents.  We know they offered their top 10 pick for Stafford so they certainly mean business. 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

Im still holding out hope we luck out and  find a russell wilson type in the 3rd or 4th hell even a kirk cousins type qb just someone that can play ball see what the defense is throwing at them etc score some touchdowns.....we can be good with that.

 

IMO "good" is the operative word, odds are big that we wouldn't be great with it.    I think we'd be on track to repeat the Gibbs 2 seasons.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

I think what misses the mark for the 'we don't need a great QB' folks is that we currently have a nucleus on the Dline that is going to want to be paid soon, heck - add Terry into that mix as well.  If we keep kicking the can down the road at QB, the chances that the stars align are minimal.  While I feel like Watson is a pipe dream for numerous reasons, the more I think about it - the more I'm inclined to bet the farm.  Not 3 1st's and 2 good players type of farm, but somewhere short of that.

[Skinsinparadise]

9 hours ago, RWJ said:

I know a lot of people are against Jones.  Nothing special as as far as scrambling with speed or super arm talent but he does have enough arm for short to intermediate throws and that fits Turner's O.  His biggest attribute is his being able to read a D and putting the ball at the right place at the right time.  That's why I like the guy.  If we even needed to trade up it would be ahead of possibly N.E. as Mock gurus have them the most interested in him.  We might be able to get him at #19 but adding an extra pick to move up 5 spots save us a lot of draft capital.  We all have our thoughts about the QB position.  Like I mentioned, if this F.O. only had a Plan A shame on them and the fail for not having a Plan B or C for a vet QB that RR said he wanted to get.  

 

If they end up liking Mac Jones and take him at 19, as I've said previously I'd be one of the few people on the draft thread that wouldn't jump off a cliff.    But trading up for him would feel really rich for me.  If you are trading up from 19 to go ahead of NE, you likely are giving up a 2nd rounder. 

 

If we are going up in the draft for me its:

 

A.  Fields or Zach Wilson.  They are basically tied with me.

B.  Trey Lance.  for me Lance is a clear peg lower than Fields and Wilson

 

If they want to take a flier later in the draft with Newman or Mond, I'd be ok with that but I am not banking on either.    I don't want Trask. 

[KDawg]

6 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

This guy gets it.

[Skinsinparadise]

6 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I think what misses the mark for the 'we don't need a great QB' folks is that we currently have a nucleus on the Dline that is going to want to be paid soon, heck - add Terry into that mix as well.  If we keep kicking the can down the road at QB, the chances that the stars align are minimal.  While I feel like Watson is a pipe dream for numerous reasons, the more I think about it - the more I'm inclined to bet the farm.  Not 3 1st's and 2 good players type of farm, but somewhere short of that.

 

Yep exactly the band has to be broken up at some point.  You aren't paying Sweat, Payne, Allen, Ionanndis, Terry -- 15-20 million a shot.  We are going to likely lose 2 of these guys.    That's one of Standig's big refrains about there being a 2 year window to exploit the young talent.

 

 

2 minutes ago, KDawg said:

This guy gets it.

 

Yep.   Nick works for PFF.  PFF has some flaws but they really go to town on the point that Fields >>>>>>>>> Haskins. 

Edited February 2, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[KDawg]

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Yep exactly the band has to be broken up at some point.  You aren't paying Sweat, Payne, Allen, Ionanndis, Terry -- 15-20 million a shot.  We are going to likely lose 2 of these guys.    That's one of Standig's big refrains about there being a 2 year window to exploit the young talent.

 

 

The positive about us not trading a ton of our draft capital for a vet... cap room and/or draft picks to replace the two we lose.

[Est.1974]

17 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I think what misses the mark for the 'we don't need a great QB' folks is that we currently have a nucleus on the Dline that is going to want to be paid soon, heck - add Terry into that mix as well.  If we keep kicking the can down the road at QB, the chances that the stars align are minimal.  While I feel like Watson is a pipe dream for numerous reasons, the more I think about it - the more I'm inclined to bet the farm.  Not 3 1st's and 2 good players type of farm, but somewhere short of that.

Same here. I’m going after him. I feel like we flirted with Stafford but never really went all in. I suspect we felt we couldn’t top LA, which is hindsight seems nailed on, but I also think RR is aiming higher. 
 

Bottom line, it’ll take a massive trade up for a QB in the draft. Or we can keep our fingers crossed someone drops...will we wait until the end of April to roll the dice? doesn’t exactly help entice a premier free agent receiver either..

 

and the bulk of the vet QB market is mediocrity personified....

 

So, what gives.

Edited February 2, 2021 by UK SKINS FAN 74

[JamesMadisonSkins]

2 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

The positive about us not trading a ton of our draft capital for a vet... cap room and/or draft picks to replace the two we lose.

 

So. Trading up for a rookie QB. If he's the guy, then do it. I have no issue with it. And I LOVE draft picks. But trading up for a rookie QB buys you the 4 years on the rookie deal (5 with the 5th year option) which is gold in the NFL.

 

Why did the RG3 trade screw us? We had cap space before the trade, but then got that crushing cap penalty ... and it realllllly tied our hands. Not only did we lose out on some premier draft picks, but we couldn't take advantage of the RG3 rookie salary in the 1st and 2nd years. Of course, the injury was brutal as well, and it's hard to analyze the deal as it never played out in the right ways (although I guess in a sense it did with Cousins). We have not been in a "bad cap" situation SINCE 2013/2014, and a big reason is likely not having to ever pay a massive amount for a QB in that range. Even Smith's deal was pretty decent/fair.

 

So yeah, if you think Justin Fields can be the guy then go get him. ZERO issue with that.

 

For context, a similar jump in picks (assuming we go Top 5) was Atlanta going from 27 to 6 in 2011 for Julio. They gave up their 1st (27), 2nd, 4th and the next year's 1st and 4th.

 

I would think we could probably get up into the Top 5 with #19, #72, 2022 1st and 2023 2nd. But depends on who else is bidding.

 

Miami seems like a good bet, but they'd probably want to add premier assets and falling all the way to #19 is probably a bit too far.

 

Atlanta at #4 could be the sweet-spot ... they might want to add draft capital to build the roster out a bit while riding with Matt Ryan another year. Getting future draft picks as assets to move up for a QB in the future could be their play.

[KDawg]

So, for you "Watson no matter what" folks... I have a question.

 

Forgetting the fact I vehemently disagree with giving up what appears to be the price for a moment...

 

Is your plan to do nothing while we hope Houston actually trades him?

 

Because that's just about the worst idea if you don't want Heinicke/Allen as our guy this year.

Just now, JamesMadisonSkins said:

 

So. Trading up for a rookie QB. If he's the guy, then do it. I have no issue with it. And I LOVE draft picks. But trading up for a rookie QB buys you the 4 years on the rookie deal (5 with the 5th year option) which is gold in the NFL.

 

Are you trying to get me to buy into this plan?

 

I think I've led the train on this thought around here. If you are trading assets for a QB, trade them for a rookie. Yes, you give up draft capital. But you have the cheat code... a five year rookie contract.

 

Second best move is signing a vet in FA. Yes, they cost a lot of cap, but you keep draft assets.

 

The worst move is trading cap and draft picks for a vet.

 

 

Quote

Why did the RG3 trade screw us? We had cap space before the trade, but then got that crushing cap penalty ... and it realllllly tied our hands. Not only did we lose out on some premier draft picks, but we couldn't take advantage of the RG3 rookie salary in the 1st and 2nd years. Of course, the injury was brutal as well, and it's hard to analyze the deal as it never played out in the right ways (although I guess in a sense it did with Cousins). We have not been in a "bad cap" situation SINCE 2013/2014, and a big reason is likely not having to ever pay a massive amount for a QB in that range. Even Smith's deal was pretty decent/fair.

 

So yeah, if you think Justin Fields can be the guy then go get him. ZERO issue with that.

 

For context, a similar jump in picks (assuming we go Top 5) was Atlanta going from 27 to 6 in 2011 for Julio. They gave up their 1st (27), 2nd, 4th and the next year's 1st and 4th.

 

I would think we could probably get up into the Top 5 with #19, #72, 2022 1st and 2023 2nd. But depends on who else is bidding.

 

Miami seems like a good bet, but they'd probably want to add premier assets and falling all the way to #19 is probably a bit too far.

 

Atlanta at #4 could be the sweet-spot ... they might want to add draft capital to build the roster out a bit while riding with Matt Ryan another year. Getting future draft picks as assets to move up for a QB in the future could be their play.

 

I would probably do the deal you outlined to get into the top 5... As long as Fields is there. I wouldn't trade that much for Wilson. But I'd trade close to that for him. 

[JamesMadisonSkins]

Whether we trade up for QB or not, we need to get someone in here in FA or via trade. Mariota, Tyrod, Cam, someone. Someone that doenst make you desperate.

 

Because if FIelds is "the guy" you gotta trade to #2 to guarantee you get him. And that would take a lot more than going to #3, #7, etc, and it would have to be done pre-draft. So don't pidgeonhole yourself into that scenario. Get a vet in here who can lead the team in 2021 (which you might want/need anyway if you draft Fields).

Trade LV a 5th for Marcus Mariota.

Draft day roles around, if Fields starts to slide a bit, make the calls. If Jets go Wilson, Dolphins stand pat at #3 and go Sewell or Chase or Smith, then game on. Call Atlanta, Call Cincy, Calll Philly ... whatever it takes.

 

Let's say it plays out:

1. JAX - Lawrence

2. NYJ - Wilson

3. MIA - Smith

4. ATL - Sewell

5. CIN - Slater

6. PHI - Chase

 

If you have Mariota in the fold as your 2021 QB, this puts us in a great position. Offer to move up with Detroit. Sure, Carolina could trade up with Miami or Atlanta, but draft-day trades are always more rare than we expect. Teams need to want to trade out. But if Fields/Lance are there at #7 we should be calling to make a move, and I don't think it would cost more than #19, #72 and a 2022 1st.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

5 minutes ago, KDawg said:

So, for you "Watson no matter what" folks... I have a question.

 

Forgetting the fact I vehemently disagree with giving up what appears to be the price for a moment...

 

Is your plan to do nothing while we hope Houston actually trades him?

 

Because that's just about the worst idea if you don't want Heinicke/Allen as our guy this year.

I'm not exactly a 'no matter what' guy as what's been put out there rumor wise is too rich for my blood, which tells me its too rich for the league's blood as well.  Hell, the Texans may not even trade him at all.  So my plan is definitely not to do nothing.  I wouldn't have my scouts stop looking at quarterbacks that's for sure.

 

But I don't really like what it would take to get any of the other vets available.  Besides maybe Fitz, as a consolation prize while drafting a rookie to groom.

[Est.1974]

13 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Yep exactly the band has to be broken up at some point.  You aren't paying Sweat, Payne, Allen, Ionanndis, Terry -- 15-20 million a shot.  We are going to likely lose 2 of these guys.    That's one of Standig's big refrains about there being a 2 year window to exploit the young talent.

 

The knock from people on trading away draft capital for an established QB is that it is a damaging short term move that will negatively impact our ability to enhance other areas of the roster. It’s perceived to be poor resource management.

 

On the contrary, trading for Watson is an extremely strong long term move. We get a franchise QB for a decade. 8-10 years is a fair estimate. It fits in our cap situation, short-medium term that we can budget for, and we would still have a healthy stock of day 2 and day 3 picks 2021 through 2023.

 

Terry Mclaurin 3rd round. Kam Curl 7th round, recent examples. Only need a handful more of those in the next 3 years to supplant the QB move.

 

We will lose some of our future FAs. All teams do. You can never keep them all. The fact they are all DL actually helps, because losing a couple doesn’t decimate the whole unit.

 

I don’t get the reservations.

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I'm not exactly a 'no matter what' guy as what's been put out there rumor wise is too rich for my blood, which tells me its too rich for the league's blood as well.  Hell, the Texans may not even trade him at all.  So my plan is definitely not to do nothing.  I wouldn't have my scouts stop looking at quarterbacks that's for sure.

 

But I don't really like what it would take to get any of the other vets available.  Besides maybe Fitz, as a consolation prize while drafting a rookie to groom.

 

For the people who are saying offer the farm for Watson... How long do you give the Texans to accept any offer you send them? Beyond the draft holding out hope they balk and trade him? Until the draft where we may trade up? Do we offer Dak a contract if he hits FA and pull the Texans offer if he signs? Or do we not even try for Dak or a rookie because we're hoping to get Watson?

[Est.1974]

13 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

 

I would think we could probably get up into the Top 5 with #19, #72, 2022 1st and 2023 2nd. But depends on who else is bidding.

thing is, you simply can’t justify sitting out the Watson sweepstakes and then plough all of that draft capital out of the door for a rookie. 

[KDawg]

Just now, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

thing is, you simply can’t justify sitting out the Watson sweepstakes and then plough all of that draft capital out of the door for a rookie. 

 

Yes you can.

 

2 firsts

1 second

1 third

 

vs.

 

3 firsts

2 seconds

player

 

Rookie contract vs. Bloated contract.

 

Plenty of justification. You just don't agree. And that's cool. But it's justifiable.

[Est.1974]

15 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Is your plan to do nothing while we hope Houston actually trades him?

 

I would think the free agency market will be a wash with similar ranked tier 2 free agents for a number of months. Then the pieces will get hovered up post draft.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

4 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

For the people who are saying offer the farm for Watson... How long do you give the Texans to accept any offer you send them? Beyond the draft holding out hope they balk and trade him? Until the draft where we may trade up? Do we offer Dak a contract if he hits FA and pull the Texans offer if he signs? Or do we not even try for Dak or a rookie because we're hoping to get Watson?

I think you have to multitask obviously and I don't think you can afford to go beyond the draft.  The all-in for Watson strategy has to have an end point and I'd consider that draft day, all the while being prepared to draft a QB.  Dak is sort of a wild card, as for whatever reason - I just don't see him getting away from the Cowboys.

[kingdaddy]

23 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

The positive about us not trading a ton of our draft capital for a vet... cap room and/or draft picks to replace the two we lose.

Not to mention we won't be paying Haskins 1st round/franchise money. 

[KDawg]

Just now, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

I would think the free agency market will be a wash with similar ranked tier 2 free agents for a number of months. Then the pieces will get hovered up post draft.

Doesn't answer my question, though.

 

What's the plan while we wait?

 

Do we make a Texans offer and do nothing through FA part 1, Draft and then see in FA part 2?