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

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

6 hours ago, PartyPosse said:

My point is you’re sacrificing the team’s chances for a gamble for the team now, which is fine if the team was filled with vets. This is a young team that has a wide open window. Add to those pieces for the long run. Stafford has great numbers but what does that really mean? 

There are a handful of elite QBs that live up to massive contracts. More often than not (Carr, Wentz, Ryan, Flacco) they are one of the primary reasons a team falls from grace.

Not trying to be a downer but the NFL is so hot and cold that you can’t just say “we’ll add a QB later”. In recent history, I’m sure the Bears and Jags fans were having similar conversations in 2018 and 2017. Without getting that position solidified, you can’t count on ANYTHING year over year and that’s even with an elite defense. I’m not advocating for any QB in particular at the moment but they do have to try to maximize the cheap contracts they have before they become expensive and you have to let guys walk. 

[skinny21]

Regarding Stafford’s contract, what is the ‘dummy/void’ year in 2023?  Also, Detroit would have to eat the 10 mil signing bonus for 2021, right?  What about the restructure bonus?  I’d think that would stick with Detroit if he were traded?  Assuming new team would have to pay the roster and workout bonus.

So his cost is:  2021 - 24.95 mil (or 24, depending on restructure bonus), 2022 - 27.95 (or 23, depending on RB), 2023 - only has restructure bonus listed (no salary), so I’d assume a new contract would be needed at that point.

 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but were we to trade for Stafford, I believe Scherff, Allen, Roullier and Darby are the ‘only’ bigger potential re-signings in that window.  Most of his contract would be offset by losing Smith (at least in 2021) AFAIK.

 

Wouldn’t love losing a 1st though, especially as that’s probably our best shot at a long term qb.  On the flip side, it gives us a legitimate chance to be contenders for the next 2 years and seems like it doesn’t preclude us from re-signing our guys.  As I said though, we’d be back to looking for a qb a couple years down the road (and re-signing Stafford at that point seems quite risky).

 

 

 

[RWJ]

We traded a 5th for Allen.  I don't see us trading a pick in 2021 on a QB.  No one out there is really that impressive.  Got to think use a draft pick in 2021 on one.  

[PartyPosse]

50 minutes ago, BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 said:

Not trying to be a downer but the NFL is so hot and cold that you can’t just say “we’ll add a QB later”. In recent history, I’m sure the Bears and Jags fans were having similar conversations in 2018 and 2017. Without getting that position solidified, you can’t count on ANYTHING year over year and that’s even with an elite defense. I’m not advocating for any QB in particular at the moment but they do have to try to maximize the cheap contracts they have before they become expensive and you have to let guys walk. 

 No you can’t, which is why the idea of moving on from the QB that you’re winning with just seems asinine to me. Draft a guy this year, let him sit for a year and then you still have him for 4 (or 3 depending on where you draft him) to figure out what to do. This is what they should have done with Haskins.

[Est.1974]

What about continuity in the scheme. Lots of talk through the early part of the season about lack of knowledge of the scheme etc. I see 2021 being a disruptive offseason similar to 2020, is it realistic to bring in a high priced vet and expect him to lead us to the dance in year one? 

[Burgundy Yoda]

15 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

What about continuity in the scheme. Lots of talk through the early part of the season about lack of knowledge of the scheme etc. I see 2021 being a disruptive offseason similar to 2020, is it realistic to bring in a high priced vet and expect him to lead us to the dance in year one? 

****, I'd be happy with winning the division and stomping the other NFC East teams honestly lol. The path Cleveland and Buffalo are taking would make me happy if we could follow suit. 

[kingdaddy]

5 hours ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

What about continuity in the scheme. Lots of talk through the early part of the season about lack of knowledge of the scheme etc. I see 2021 being a disruptive offseason similar to 2020, is it realistic to bring in a high priced vet and expect him to lead us to the dance in year one? 

This is exactlly why I think we sign Cam Newton. If we keep Allen, sign Cam and draft a rookie we have TWO QB's in the barn who know the system. I AM NOT PUSHING FOR CAM but I believe RR, Turner and Cam are gonna make this happen. Remembering back on RR's comments on why he didn't pursue Cam this year you could almost hear regret in his voice. Also, signing Cam would cost us no draft picks assuming NE doesn't franchise tag him which is almost a given. Looking at all of our options, and seeing how good this defense is going to be in 2021, I am now about 75% certain that RR will invite Cam Newton to Washington. I believe the development of Gibson also increases the likelihood of Cam coming. We have our McCaffery now we just need our QB. 

[Koolblue13]

3 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

This is exactlly why I think we sign Cam Newton. If we keep Allen, sign Cam and draft a rookie we have TWO QB's in the barn who know the system. I AM NOT PUSHING FOR CAM but I believe RR, Turner and Cam are gonna make this happen. Remembering back on RR's comments on why he didn't pursue Cam this year you could almost hear regret in his voice. Also, signing Cam would cost us no draft picks assuming NE doesn't franchise tag him which is almost a given. Looking at all of our options, and seeing how good this defense is going to be in 2021, I am now about 75% certain that RR will invite Cam Newton to Washington. I believe the development of Gibson also increases the likelihood of Cam coming. We have our McCaffery now we just need our QB. 

Now we just need Luke to unretire.

[JSSkinz]

17 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I think @JSSkinz asked Joel Corry something alone these lines?  @JSSkinz do you know what the cap hit would be if we traded for Stafford?

@PartyPosse   I was wondering how creative FO's can get and I do understand they dont want teams trading cap space like stock but I thought if it was specific to the transaction then it might be ok but per Joel he said the following.

 

Edited December 18, 2020 by JSSkinz

[Darrell Green Fan]

9 hours ago, BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 said:

Not trying to be a downer but the NFL is so hot and cold that you can’t just say “we’ll add a QB later”. In recent history, I’m sure the Bears and Jags fans were having similar conversations in 2018 and 2017.

 

This was my position going back to Kirk. Fans seem to think you can just find a QB any time you need one.  It doesn't work that way.  This team has been searching for the long term answer since Joe Theisman.

 

I can see @KDawg's opinion on trading draft capital for old vets, it does seem to be the old way of doing business. And yes a contract such as Stafford's will handicap the team moving forward. But this is not a 2-3 year window, QBs play into their late 30's and even over 40 today, especially QBs who do not rely on mobility. But I got news for you, an established QB such as Mathew Stafford will cost at least a first.  That should make some heads explode around here.  

Edited December 18, 2020 by Darrell Green Fan

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

This was my position going back to Kirk. Fans seem to think you can just find a QB any time you need one.  It doesn't work that way. 

 

I can see @KDawg's opinion on trading draft for old vets, it does seem to be the old way of doing business. And yes a contract such as Stafford's will handicap the team moving forward. But this is not a 2-3 year window, QBs play into their 40's today, especially QBs who do not rely on mobility. But I got news for you, an established QB such as Mathew Stafford will cost at least a first.  That should make some heads explode around here.  

 

This is absolutely my point, and not a risk I'm willing to take. Your mileage may vary. My priority is building a winning franchise for the long term. Not the short term.

 

If we're going to give up a one, let's try to move up in the draft for one of the guys our FO believes can achieve success. That also allows us to keep the guys that our locker room is comfortable with and ease the transition.

 

But I'm not sure I love that plan either. I like it a lot more than trading for a costly, aging, torso injury piling up guy, despite how much better he is than what is on our roster.

[Darrell Green Fan]

1 hour ago, kingdaddy said:

This is exactlly why I think we sign Cam Newton. If we keep Allen, sign Cam and draft a rookie we have TWO QB's in the barn who know the system. I AM NOT PUSHING FOR CAM but I believe RR, Turner and Cam are gonna make this happen. Remembering back on RR's comments on why he didn't pursue Cam this year you could almost hear regret in his voice. Also, signing Cam would cost us no draft picks assuming NE doesn't franchise tag him which is almost a given. Looking at all of our options, and seeing how good this defense is going to be in 2021, I am now about 75% certain that RR will invite Cam Newton to Washington. I believe the development of Gibson also increases the likelihood of Cam coming. We have our McCaffery now we just need our QB. 

 

What has Cam done in New England that would lead you to believe he would be the answer here?  I didn't hear any reservations in RR's voice, he sounded pretty clear that they were not interested. And that was before he laid an egg in NE.  

6 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

This is absolutely my point, and not a risk I'm willing to take. Your mileage may vary. My priority is building a winning franchise for the long term. Not the short term.

 

If we're going to give up a one, let's try to move up in the draft for one of the guys our FO believes can achieve success. That also allows us to keep the guys that our locker room is comfortable with and ease the transition.

 

But I'm not sure I love that plan either. I like it a lot more than trading for a costly, aging, torso injury piling up guy, despite how much better he is than what is on our roster.

 

In a perfect world I share your opinion. I would much prefer they find their QB in the draft and just have that guy for a decade. But as we all know drafting a QB does not work that way, they are much more likely to give up that first and a 2nd and a 5th, move up, and have that guy not work out. So while I'm not promoting the idea I'm not totally against the idea of trading for Matt Stafford (if he is even available) because that sounds like the safest move of them all.

[Tedskins 21]

Cam is not coming here.

8 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

In a perfect world I share your opinion. I would much prefer they find their QB in the draft and just have that guy for a decade. But as we all know drafting a QB does not work that way, they are much more likely to give up that first and a 2nd and a 5th, move up, and have that guy not work out. So while I'm not promoting the idea I'm not totally against the idea of trading for Matt Stafford (if he is even available) because that sounds like the safest move of them all.

 

I agree Stafford would be the safest move, but Zach Wilson is the real deal.  Giving up multiple firsts (2021, 2022) would be worth it.  It probably takes more than that, though.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Tedskins 21

[Darrell Green Fan]

4 minutes ago, Tedskins 21 said:

Cam is not coming here.

 

I agree Stafford would be the safest move, but Zach Wilson is the real deal.  He would be an upgrade over Haskins out the gate.  He's going to be a franchise guy.

 

But we don't know that. Fans thought Winston would be that guy, then Marriotta, Mitch, etc. The list goes on forever.

[KDawg]

10 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

What has Cam done in New England that would lead you to believe he would be the answer here?  I didn't hear any reservations in RR's voice, he sounded pretty clear that they were not interested. And that was before he laid an egg in NE.  

 

In a perfect world I share your opinion. I would much prefer they find their QB in the draft and just have that guy for a decade. But as we all know drafting a QB does not work that way, they are much more likely to give up that first and a 2nd and a 5th, move up, and have that guy not work out. So while I'm not promoting the idea I'm not totally against the idea of trading for Matt Stafford (if he is even available) because that sounds like the safest move of them all.

There isn’t a lot of evidence to support trading for an aging guy who has recently had injuries piling up working out, either. 
 

If there’s evidence to the contrary I’m willing to listen. 
 

But rookie contract + risk > Vet contract + risk

[skeenzfan]

8 hours ago, PartyPosse said:

 No you can’t, which is why the idea of moving on from the QB that you’re winning with just seems asinine to me. Draft a guy this year, let him sit for a year and then you still have him for 4 (or 3 depending on where you draft him) to figure out what to do. This is what they should have done with Haskins.

Depends what winning you are referring to. If you are happy with a 8-8 sort of season with the offense holding you back then fine otherwise you have to find at least a top 10ish QB to have any chance of being a consistent winning team. The whole sitting for 1 year never made sense to me. The rookie QB wouldn't get any first team reps, wouldn't get used to the speed of the game and in Haskins case wouldn't have the work ethic to dedicate to preparing himself. Then all of a sudden the starter goes out because of injury and you have an unprepared rookie QB that is forced to start. Why wait an additional year to find out that he can't play and then start over again? 

[Tedskins 21]

11 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

But we don't know that. Fans thought Winston would be that guy, then Marriotta, Mitch, etc. The list goes on forever.

 

Well I know my opinion is dog (you know what) compared to professional scouts and even some of you who do a great job breaking down prospects, but I never had any faith in Winston, and wasn't very high on Mariotta or Mitch (although Mitch is playing better football right now.)  I just want to go on record with the Zach train so I can look back and say 'told you so.'

4 minutes ago, skeenzfan said:

Depends what winning you are referring to. If you are happy with a 8-8 sort of season with the offense holding you back then fine otherwise you have to find at least a top 10ish QB to have any chance of being a consistent winning team. The whole sitting for 1 year never made sense to me. The rookie QB wouldn't get any first team reps, wouldn't get used to the speed of the game and in Haskins case wouldn't have the work ethic to dedicate to preparing himself. Then all of a sudden the starter goes out because of injury and you have an unprepared rookie QB that is forced to start. Why wait an additional year to find out that he can't play and then start over again? 

 

Agreed.  I love Alex and what he has done for this team, but before he got here the Chiefs may have started their run a season earlier had they played Mahomes all year or at least the end of the year.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Tedskins 21

[skinny21]

23 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

@PartyPosse   I was wondering how creative FO's can get and I do understand they dont want teams trading cap space like stock but I thought if it was specific to the transaction then it might be ok but per Joel he said the following.

 

Ah, that answers my question about the restructure bonus, which means Stafford’s contract would be 20/24 mil in 2021/2022.  That’s not a bad deal at all, IMO (purely in terms of cost of a franchise qb).

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

There isn’t a lot of evidence to support trading for an aging guy who has recently had injuries piling up working out, either. 
 

If there’s evidence to the contrary I’m willing to listen. 
 

But rookie contract + risk > Vet contract + risk

Working out in terms of leading a team to a Super Bowl?

 

Not that it should be a major part of the calculus, but I’m interested in the idea that we likely get a comp pick back for Stafford were we to trade for him and then not re-sign him.  Give up a 1st (let’s say), and then recoup a 3rd down the line.  Given the low (relatively) contract, and the money Detroit would have to eat, I wonder if a 1st is the low end of what they’d expect in compensation...

 

I’m a fan of chasing the rookie contract for a (potential franchise) qb.  Looking at the numbers - contract (and length), and the re-signings I’d like to see over the next 2 years - trading for Stafford looks a lot better than I expected.  The injuries are a concern, but I’d feel better with a guy like Allen backup (and it’s not like Stafford has missed much time).

[kingdaddy]

51 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

What has Cam done in New England that would lead you to believe he would be the answer here?  I didn't hear any reservations in RR's voice, he sounded pretty clear that they were not interested. And that was before he laid an egg in NE.  

 

In a perfect world I share your opinion. I would much prefer they find their QB in the draft and just have that guy for a decade. But as we all know drafting a QB does not work that way, they are much more likely to give up that first and a 2nd and a 5th, move up, and have that guy not work out. So while I'm not promoting the idea I'm not totally against the idea of trading for Matt Stafford (if he is even available) because that sounds like the safest move of them all.

I believe, after hearing RR speak about Cam, that he really likes and believes in Cam. I am not agreeing with or endorsing bringing Cam Newton here, and I don't know that he has done anything to prove that he should come here. I do believe RR has a familiarity and a comfort with Cam Newton, a former league MVP, and that he might be willing to roll the dice on a cheap veteran who is still in his early 30's and knows the offense. RR is all about culture and team, if he feels Cam can come in here and add to what he is building then all I'm saying is do not be surprised. Did you see the story several weeks ago where Turner and Cam were working on expanding the offense in Carolina to best fit Cam's skill set and how excited Newton was? All before Carolina made the coaching and QB changes. 

When you look at all of the options, and what it would take to get a Stafford or Ryan, or trading up to get a rookie QB, Newton becomes more and more a possible option if he is just sitting there on the open market. Again, just look at the big picture and it makes sense. If Belicheck thought enough to bring Cam Newton to New England then why wouldn't RR who has had success with him before? 

[PartyPosse]

1 hour ago, JSSkinz said:

@PartyPosse   I was wondering how creative FO's can get and I do understand they dont want teams trading cap space like stock but I thought if it was specific to the transaction then it might be ok but per Joel he said the following.

 

So his 34 million dollar cap hit in 21 would be all against Washington, correct?

[Renegade7]

9 hours ago, PartyPosse said:

 No you can’t, which is why the idea of moving on from the QB that you’re winning with just seems asinine to me. Draft a guy this year, let him sit for a year and then you still have him for 4 (or 3 depending on where you draft him) to figure out what to do. This is what they should have done with Haskins.

 

How is it asinine if Alex health is a huge red flag and he's about to be 37?  Talking about him playing next year, is he going to play next game?

[PartyPosse]

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

How is it asinine if Alex health is a huge red flag and he's about to be 37?  Talking about him playing next year, is he going to play next game?

Prior to that devastating leg injury Alex was as durable as they came. I don’t know the lingering effects of what he went through but my guess is that leg is as strong as it’s ever been. 

[JSSkinz]

3 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

So his 34 million dollar cap hit in 21 would be all against Washington, correct?

It looks that way but he's exposed because his contract expires after the 2022 season, I don't think Stafford would be ok with being traded with only 2 years remaining so I would expect a new contract to be signed which will change all the numbers.

 

 

[Renegade7]

9 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

Prior to that devastating leg injury Alex was as durable as they came. I don’t know the lingering effects of what he went through but my guess is that leg is as strong as it’s ever been. 

 

Isn't that the leg he has the calf injury on?

 

I'm trying to be realistic here, I dont see Alex being healthy enough to be the answer for 2021.  I'm stunned he's playing this year, miracles arent plans.

[Anselmheifer]

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

How is it asinine if Alex health is a huge red flag and he's about to be 37?  Talking about him playing next year, is he going to play next game?

 

It's not asinine. I'd bet a good bit of money that he plays next year, and I don't think his health is a red flag. It's been years since his leg injury and he hasn't proven to be a fragile player over the years. I'd bet good money that if we tell Alex he's starting for us next year, he comes back. 

Now, I don't think we should do that. Not unless we draft someone like Zach Wilson and want to let him sit. We need to upgrade the QB position. For all the talk in this thread about intangibles, you'd think Ryan Anderson could start at QB. Or DE.