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

[CurseReversed]

18 minutes ago, UK Skins said:

SIP I think you hit the nail on the head with the "consistent winning" point. A game manager can definitely get you to a SB, and even win it, but like you say, regular Playoff appearances needs that bit more. If you look at the SB odds every year, it is (or was now I guess) Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Mahomes, Roetheslsberger (sp?) and maybe one more. Every year. And every year those teams are in the Playoffs.

 

That's what I want too. I'm just not sure how we do it.

How to do it?  Well that is the issue isnt it?  I keep hearing people railing against this strawman fan that is satisfied with a mediocre qb.  Nobody is satisfied with that. Every fan and WFT coach/gm should want to upgrade every position, always.  We all want a great qb but they dont grow on trees and getting one isnt solely a function of wanting one more.  If there isnt one available, what else can a team do other then try to improve the position as best they can?  

 

If getting that top 5  franchise QB was the only thing that would satisfy us, this year or any year, then practically speaking the quickest and most reliable way to do this would be to tank and tank hard.  As of right now Watson is not even available so if we want an elite guy we will have to draft him.     So all of the fans that think that there desire for a top 5 qb is some kind of hot take, then put your money where your mouth is and call for the tank now.   If that is the only result that is worthwhile then the only real certain way to accomplish it is to play to lose and to keep doing it until you can draft the next elite guy at 1 overall. or close.  

 

Personally I wand to build the team and upgrade all the positions, including QB  and expect that they t can win and win consistently.  Maybe they will find a guy that is elite or maybe they wont but its hard to imagine it wont be from lack of trying. If thats not good enough for some of you, if that is poor strategy, then the WFT needs to lose and lose big.. so be honest about it and no more double talk.

  

 

Edited February 5, 2021 by CurseReversed

[JamesMadisonSkins]

@HigSkin Yeah, humph. Well, you know, if there are multiple NFL coaches (and John is a pro, he wouldn't be pushing guys throwing smoke or in positions to benefit from Darnold being traded to WFT) ... that say that Darnold is someone they would get "right now" ... maybe there's something us armchair GMs aren't seeing there. He is young, and that was an absolutely trash situation to be in top to bottom.

 

The thing I keep coming back to with Darnold is look at Ryan Tannehill. He floundered under Adam Gase, and suddenly looks like a Pro Bowler 2x in a row now leading a legitimate offense in Tennessee. Similar pedigree (top 10 picks) ... similar coaching situation early years of career (Gase) with limited weapons (Dolphins did and still dont have great weapons).

 

If he can be had for (not pick #19) and Ron thinks he's the long-term solution then, ok. But the risk is there in having to make a 5th year call on him THIS off-season. So I think that has to be built into the price. Idk if someone like Darnold would give WFT a "deal" on an extension if they bring him in, don't give him a 5th year, and he blows up. That's what the franchise tag is for, but I guess that would be a "good problem" to have.

[heyholetsgogrant]

40 minutes ago, UK Skins said:

sSIP I think you hit the nail on the head with the "consistent winning" point. A game manager can definitely get you to a SB, and even win it, but like you say, regular Playoff appearances needs that bit more. If you look at the SB odds every year, it is (or was now I guess) Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Mahomes, Roetheslsberger (sp?) and maybe one more. Every year. And every year those teams are in the Playoffs.

 

That's what I want too. I'm just not sure how we do it.

Those are a handful of teams...16 teams make the playoffs every year. Other than Brady, Big Ben, Rodgers, Wilson, and Mahome,  there hasn't been many QB's recently who have been to the playoffs/SB year in and out. Heck as I said earlier, Brady has been to 10 SB's and won 6 of em. I'm in the game manager camp until you can draft an elite QB without mortgaging the future. Everyone want's a franchise QB, but elite/franchise QB's are RARE. It's like winning the lottery. 

Edited February 5, 2021 by heyholetsgogrant

[Stefanskins]

1 hour ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

This is just not true. We still have fans referencing Trent Dilfer or Gibbs' 3 rings with 3 different QBs, there is still a large population of the fan base that still believes the way to go is build a great roster and then slap on a mediocre QB.  This still boggles my mind but that opinion is pretty active.  

yes, but Gibbs is the only coach in NFL history to win with three different QBs...ever...hell, I can't think, off the top of my head, of any franchise that has won with three different QBs...so to be able to do what Gibbs did you need HoF Hogs...

[skinny21]

@The Consigliere I hear you on including Chase for Watson/top qb of the draft.  Obviously it’s not going to happen, so moot point, but playing along with the point...

I think the problem becomes valuation for me.  Chase isn’t just a 1st rounder, or even a high 1s rounder.  He proved why he was seen as the best player in the draft.  He looks like he’s becoming the face of the franchise, and his infectious style/leadership are essentially a force multiplier for the team.  He also plays maybe the 2nd most important position in the game.  All told, I honestly don’t know that I trade him for 3 1st rounders, given the bust rate of 1st rounders or chance a 1s rounder lives up to their draft position.  Odds are even higher (I believe) that a top of the draft qb doesn’t become a franchise qb.  

Trading Chase for a top qb?  I could maybe see it, depending on their age, contract, injury history, etc.  

Trading him for the chance to draft a potential top qb?  I don’t like the odds there.  I’m open to trading anyone else for this chance though.  It would be tough to replace Sweat for example, but it’s at least possible.

 

I should be clear here though, by top of the draft qb, I’m not including Lawrence.  Chase for the #1 pick (maybe slightly more), I could probably(?) get on board with. 

 

What do I know though.

 

[CommDownMan]

3 hours ago, HigSkin said:

I think the Darnold thing has a lot to do with coaches who see flashes (his one or two per game) and think they can fix him like Trubisky, Lock, Winston and whoever I missed.  It's like pick your poison in that group.

 

https://thejetpress.com/2021/01/18/ny-jets-gamble-sam-darnold-risk/

 

The NY Jets are not going to pick up Sam Darnold‘s fifth-year option. General manager Joe Douglas has until May to officially make that decision, but it’s a given that he won’t. The question is, will Sam Darnold still be a member of the NY Jets by then?

The cost of picking up Darnold’s fifth-year option would be in the neighborhood of $25 million for the 2022 season. Darnold is under contract with the team in 2021 and is slated to make $9.7 million in what would be the last year of his rookie deal.

 

Not only will the Jets not pick up the fifth-year option, but any team that trades for Sam Darnold won’t either. The truth is that. For better or for worse, Darnold has become a reclamation project. Darnold will be playing on a one-year prove-it deal, no matter where he plays in 2021.

If the Jets decide to keep Darnold, they will effectively be putting him on the hot seat.

In effect, the Jets will be giving Darnold one last chance to prove that he is worthy of being a franchise quarterback.

 

 

And people are saying a 1st rounder...

 

Prove it deals are cheap.

 

9.7 mill and a 1st is not cheap.

1 hour ago, Warhead36 said:

I don't think people realize how bad Darnold was last year. He was basically Haskins.

 

Yeah, but if only 2 QBs were left in the world, we'd all still pick Darnold.  😆 

[CapsSkins]

I watched exactly 0% of the Jets, but statistically Darnold was basically Haskins - aka trash. I'd vomit unless we get him for a day 3 pick, in which case I'd root for Heinicke to win the camp battle.    

[Rskins91]

6 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

I watched exactly 0% of the Jets, but statistically Darnold was basically Haskins - aka trash. I'd vomit unless we get him for a day 3 pick, in which case I'd root for Heinicke to win the camp battle.    

The only thing giving me pause is the Gase effect. We saw what Tannehill was able to become when he escaped Adam Gase.

 

But agreed on compensation. I’d do it for a day 3, but likely will have to stomach up a Day 2 pick.

 

No way for a 1st. 

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[CapsSkins]

3 minutes ago, Rskins91 said:

The only thing giving me pause is the Gase effect. We saw what Tannehill was able to become when he escaped Adam Gase.

 

But agreed on compensation. I’d do it for a day 3, but likely will have to stomach up a Day 2 pick.

 

No way for a 1st. 

 

Yeah Gase is the wild card. Are there any reports on Darnold's character? Maybe he's a really hard worker so there's a chance he just needs the right guidance. But it's not like he's flashed all that much from the looks of it. 

[The Consigliere]

36 minutes ago, HigSkin said:

 

 

I don't really disagree w/that take, though those guys are all quite dissimilar except for results.

 

Cousins: Classic empty stat QB mixed in w/an odd aversion to big game moments. For whatever reason, his teams and him never win in prime time or in big moments (which is odd since my first memory of him was a hail mary TD pass for a victory for MSU beating Wisconsin in a big saturday night game back in the fall of '11). 

 

Carr: I don't know what you can say, his quarterbacking has been incredibly uneven, he's been a top 12 or so QB twice, he's been a bottom 1/3 of the league caliber starter like twice, and he's been a bottom of the middle of the road guy like twice. I just don't think he's that good, I think he's league average, but with more volatility than most league average guys, plus his teams have mostly been trash (he had weapons at first, and now circa '19-'20, but in those middle years ('15-'18 most of the guys around him on offense stunk as did the defense which made for difficult situations).

 

Goff just flat out isn't good. He had lots of weapons and an OL and running game, but as a Cal Alumn, I've never seen him as anything more than league average on his best day. 

 

Flacco's harder to evaluate. His teams were built with defense first, and great running game, good TE play, and the deep ball/INT approach. He was never elite to begin with, and seemed to sit quite consistently in that 14th-19th zone until he aged out. He was high enough end as a manager that he wouldn't sabotage a well built team which his why his ravens teams were superb the first half of the aught-teens, but once the defense began to fell off, and rice obliterated his career, his middling QB quality made the Ravens a mediocre at best team. 

 

Of those four guys, the only one who had potentially elite talent was Cousins, but he seemed to have a mental makeup/temperament that didn't fill his teammates with confidence, he constantly threw game killing int's and he was notoriously bad in big moments. 

 

 

I think Carr is the one that's nebulous. Does he have the capacity to be a 10th-12th QB in the league consistently, if he has some weapons and an OL? Maybe. How would he be in big moments? Well the comeback record suggests that he handles certain types of pressure better than most, just not sure about big games since the raiders never win them, but how much of that was on him since they've largely been trash and expected to lose anyway? Not sure. 

 

Regardless, I don't think he's the answer at that price, if they really want a first or a first plus, I have less than zero interest. 

[Burgundy Yoda]

At this point, what QB in the league isn't worth a 1st according to Schefter? 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Burgundy Yoda

[PartyPosse]

1 hour ago, mhd24 said:

 

LOL, you beat me to the adding Paris Campbell.  But, I don't think there is anyway Wentz garners a 1st by himself.

 

Maybe its Wentz+Philly 2nd for Indy 1st.

I do. Hes 28, has been fairly consistent outside of this past year, the biggest concern is injury (which, admittedly is a big concern). Colts have a TON of space and can absorb that deal for the next three seasons. I think he thrives in Indy.

[Stefanskins]

Did anyone hear through the grapevine that Andrew Luck may be returning?...I'd take him...

[PartyPosse]

1 minute ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

At this point, what QB in the league isn't worth a 1st?

Cousins

[FootballZombie]

Just now, Burgundy Yoda said:

At this point, what QB in the league isn't worth a 1st?

 

Alex smith apparently

 

Otherwise I would have been traded that dude.

[Burgundy Yoda]

Just now, PartyPosse said:

Cousins

Weird how an actual good QB isn't worth a 1st yet Darnold and Wentz are lol. 

[BC-Redskins]

I hope to god it’s not us trading for WENTZ and giving away a 1st and more.

 

I wouldn’t be against WENTZ but not a 1st and more 

 

1 minute ago, Stefanskins said:

Did anyone hear through the grapevine that Andrew Luck may be returning?...I'd take him...

If he is then I’m sure he’ll be back at the colts 

[CapsSkins]

1 minute ago, BC-Redskins said:

I hope to god it’s not us trading for WENTZ and giving away a 1st and more.

 

I wouldn’t be against WENTZ but not a 1st and more 

 

 

Philadelphia would not trade Wentz within the division. I'm guessing it's Indy.

[kingdaddy]

1 hour ago, PartyPosse said:

I can see Wentz to Colts for a first and Parris Campbell.

That's beyond overpayment by the Colts from what I've been reading. The Eagles may have to sweeten the pot rather than get a 1st and a solid WR prospect like Campbell. 

 

[CommDownMan]

Just now, CapsSkins said:

 

Philadelphia would not trade Wentz within the division. I'm guessing it's Indy.

 

It says aggressive offer(S).  I wonder how many teams have legitimately put in offers.

 

I agree it's unlikely to be WFT, unless they think he has regressed and will be McNabb like...

[The Consigliere]

34 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

@HigSkin Yeah, humph. Well, you know, if there are multiple NFL coaches (and John is a pro, he wouldn't be pushing guys throwing smoke or in positions to benefit from Darnold being traded to WFT) ... that say that Darnold is someone they would get "right now" ... maybe there's something us armchair GMs aren't seeing there. He is young, and that was an absolutely trash situation to be in top to bottom.

 

The thing I keep coming back to with Darnold is look at Ryan Tannehill. He floundered under Adam Gase, and suddenly looks like a Pro Bowler 2x in a row now leading a legitimate offense in Tennessee. Similar pedigree (top 10 picks) ... similar coaching situation early years of career (Gase) with limited weapons (Dolphins did and still dont have great weapons).

 

If he can be had for (not pick #19) and Ron thinks he's the long-term solution then, ok. But the risk is there in having to make a 5th year call on him THIS off-season. So I think that has to be built into the price. Idk if someone like Darnold would give WFT a "deal" on an extension if they bring him in, don't give him a 5th year, and he blows up. That's what the franchise tag is for, but I guess that would be a "good problem" to have.

 

I'm one of the one's who would consider trading for him for the raw talent. The #'s are dog pile, the issues he had coming out are still completely present according to tape scouts. But you also have to note the three most accurate depictions of his career to this point:

#1: He's been awful since Bowles left.

 

#2: His offense was destroyed by totally incompetent front office management and coaching from if not the worst coach in the league, one of the worst: position group wise since he was drafted:

OL: Much worse

WR: worse

RB: Worse

TE: Same but worse because Herndon was suspended and injured, his one healthy year was Darnold's one borderline competent year.

 

#3: Would any QB anywhere have looked good in this situation?

Consider Watson, Mahomes, Trubisky, Allen, Rosen, Baker, Kyler, Haskins, Jones, Burrow, Tua, and Herbert from these classes. How many of them had anywhere close to as bad a situation?

 

Rosen and that's it. Not a coincidence that the two guys that air dropped into total dumpster fires are two of the least successful guys.

 

Imagine Mahomes, Watson, Kyler, or Herbert with the Jets? How much is different with Gase taking over and Gase and the GM dumping the OL, and WR positions groups, treading water at best at RB and TE, and letting the D fall apart. I imagine all four would've handled it better but do you think any of them would be considered good or great if they'd been with the Jets for their career instead of the Chiefs, the Texans offense (before O'Brien destroyed it in '19 and '20), the Cardinals in the spread, or Herbert with the Chargers playmaker rich and OL solid squad? I highly doubt it.

 

It's fair to say that Darnold's failed and sucked in a situation where it was virtually impossible to not play suck and fail football. 

 

Is he any good? I don't know. I don't know if he sucks, he's been David Carr'd, or if there's hope, but I think he came into the league w/a lot of potential and talent, and if he hasn't had his pocket awareness and confidence shredded by the past two seasons, there's a reasonable chance he can become at least league average.

 

Which then means, how much would he cost? 2 cheap years left on the deal. I'm not paying a first, period. So maybe I don't get him, and I'm fine with that, I'd trade lesser picks, like the dolphins did for rosen, I'm not paying a first. 

 

[Andre The Giant]

17 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

I could see the Bears taking a swing at Wentz, and sending Foles back to Philly.  Bears GM and HC are both on the hot seat.  Need a QB and otherwise have a good roster.

 

Would be positive PR in Philly to get Foles back.  Take some of the sting away from trading Wentz.

 

No way Foles would stay in Chicago if Wentz is there.

 

Total guess ...

 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, UK Skins said:

SIP I think you hit the nail on the head with the "consistent winning" point. A game manager can definitely get you to a SB, and even win it, but like you say, regular Playoff appearances needs that bit more. If you look at the SB odds every year, it is (or was now I guess) Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Mahomes, Roetheslsberger (sp?) and maybe one more. Every year. And every year those teams are in the Playoffs.

 

That's what I want too. I'm just not sure how we do it.

 

i'd categorize QBs somewhat like this:

 

A.  Top 5.  If you find a top 5 its almost guaranteed that you are always a winner.  Look at Seattle they are always in the mix even when they've had "meh" defenses.   You can have a hiccup year with them too but it doesn't tend to last long.

 

B.  A 5-10 type QB likely gets you in the mix, too.  But you are more likely to have more bumps.  And head to head in big games, you'd rather have the A guy.  Mahomes over Josh Allen for example. 

 

C.  I think where it gets more interesting and nunaced arre the 11-15 type Qbs.  Stafford to me was the high end of this category. 10-11 type. 

 

For these guys, I think you need that supporting cast too.  So i get the notion of not paying the moon for someone like a Carr ironically because while they are good QBs you need to give them really good help too.   Not saying the better QBs don't need help either but IMO not as much.  But I do think you can win a SB with a stacked roster and a 10-15 QB.  But not when you are paying a 10-16 guy crazy money.  So the cap implication here IMO is a bigger deal.  But if you pay them big money, you still are at least likely relevant and don't suck but you also are not a SB threat and you'll have more down years than you would with the better QBs.

 

D. 17-25 type QBs.  To me this is no man's land even if you get them cheap.  I think its very unlikely you will sniff the SB with a guy like this, I don't care how big you make the supporting cast.   But you can have a Mark Brunell kind of run with them.  Like I said if we want to repeat the Gibbs 2 run we can do it with category D but my sights are higher than that.

 

Some will argue a cheap category D QB beats an expensive QB C.  I somewhat disagree but it will depend on how high or low they are on the spectrum of those categories.  IMO at least with C the supporting cast with that type of Qb could take you to the promised land.   In the playoffs anyone I guess can get hot but it doesn't happen that much where a medicore Qb catches fire in the playoffs.  Nick Foles was a unicorn as opposed to common happenstance.

 

Bringing this to the current situation if there is a dude you like in the B or A category I'd at least take a swing.  I like Rivera's mindset to this which is to swing at things and set a value at what you are swinging for.  I'd go after Carr if I could get him without giving up the store especially because his cap hit isn't too bad. 

 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[The Consigliere]

41 minutes ago, heyholetsgogrant said:

Those are a handful of teams...16 teams make the playoffs every year. Other than Brady, Big Ben, Rodgers, Wilson, and Mahome,  there hasn't been many QB's recently who have been to the playoffs/SB year in and out. Heck as I said earlier, Brady has been to 10 SB's and won 6 of em. I'm in the game manager camp until you can draft an elite QB without mortgaging the future. Everyone want's a franchise QB, but elite/franchise QB's are RARE. It's like winning the lottery. 

 

But the only teams that are year in and year out contenders, that make multiple title game runs, have those QB's. Without them, you're a one and done, Colts, Panthers, Titans, niners type team. It's just way harder to build the team you want. It looks easier, but it isn't, because the stability necessary doesn't come, when you need an answer at QB and don't have it. You'd have to go back to the eighties and early nineties, pre-free agency to find teams that could build rosters and get away with McMahon and Simms lead offenses. That's just not true anymoe, can't keep the roster, and often can't keep the FO/coaches that make it possible either.