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

[PartyPosse]

5 minutes ago, KillBill26 said:

I'd be ok with that.  

#1 - AS.      #2 - Allen to step in if AS gets hurt   #3 - haskins - inactive on game days, one more season to show growth and earn another shot here.  If not, bye bye.      I like that we can enter the draft without feeling forced to draft a QB, which will most likely result in overpaying for a bust at the expense of filling other holes with that draft capitol.  If a prospect we like is there for us to take on draft day, great, take him.  I'd have no problem cutting ties with DH to groom future franchise qb, and the rookie QB can be the 3rd string / inactive / redshirt. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think Haskins is done here. I was so disappointed in what he did against SF. I want someone who can come in and look competent the way Mariota did last night. I would rather spend a high pick on a QB providing one falls that we’re confident in. Otherwise I’d rather just ride with Alex and Allen and Montez.

[Darrell Green Fan]

29 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

You don’t have to explain it. That’s intangibles. He was a winner in SF and in KC. He just knows what is required of him to win. He’s not interested in stats and pro bowls, he’s all about wins and losses.

 

Again, this is coming from someone that HATES Alex’s game. I hate watching him play. I hate his stupid check downs and unwillingness to take risks and open it up. It’s annoying and frustrating. But I can’t argue with his track record. And right now we’re on a 4 game win streak coinciding with when he took over the offense. There could be a million reasons why were winning. Doesn’t matter. He’s a big part of it even without the big numbers.

 

Again Alex Smith was on very good teams in SF and KC.  Once he was replaced both teams went to the Super Bowl. Giving Alex Smith credit for those team's records is just not accurate, both teams showed they could win and win bigger once he was no longer the QB.  

Edited December 18, 2020 by Darrell Green Fan

[Skinsinparadise]

22 minutes ago, wit33 said:

If Ron and company decide to ride with Alex, then it must include Kyle Allen. Almost treat those two as 1a and 1b and draft a young dude. I think that’s the easy solution. 

 

I just can't ignore Allen's sample size in Carolina.  He was streaky but overall his numbers were atrocious.  Maybe he's turned the corner now but that would be a wild guess versus something to just bank on. 

[Skinsinparadise]

37 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

I’m not saying we only go into the year with Alex. If we plan on starting him next year then we absolutely have to draft someone this year. Trading for Stafford hinders the ability to do so in that by trading draft capital were forced to make a choice between drafting someone to improve the team now or not drafting a qb. I don’t trust Alex’s long term health but I’m not exactly convinced Stafford has that much left in him either before he completely breaks down.

 

OK so it  sounds like you aren't hung up on Alex but instead don't like the idea of acquiring Stafford?

 

I am not married to Stafford as the solution though I do see him as a clear upgrade over Alex.   I'd rather have a young QB, too.  Question is can we though pull it off considering where we likely will be drafting.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[Thinking Skins]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I just can't ignore Allen's sample size in Carolina.  He was streaky but overall his numbers were atrocious.  Maybe he's turned the corner now but that would be a wild guess versus something to just bank on. 

He was a borderline rookie. I say the same things about him that I say about Haskins, he needed to learn to play in the league. He put up some impressive wins last year and really had Carolina talking about life after Cam. Then he hit a wall and teams started confusing him and studying his tape. The question is still out there as to whether he's a starter in the future but if you look at the comparison between 2019 Carolina Stats and 2020 Washington Stats under Allen, you see a start improvement in just about every area. 

 

My only concern with him is his injuries, but even with that, I'd be happy going into next year with Allen as my number 1, Haskins as number 2 and a rookie as number 3. 

[KDawg]

Just now, Skinsinparadise said:

 

OK so it  sounds like you aren't hung up on Alex but instead don't like the idea of acquiring Stafford?

 

I am not married to Stafford as the solution though I do see him as a clear upgrade over Alex.   I'd rather have a young QB, too.  Question is can we though pull it off considering where we likely will be drafting.

 

Why would you rather trade for an aging quarterback with a massive cap hit who is accumulating torso injuries vs. trading up in the draft?

 

To me, unless Stafford is able to be had for a 3rd or lower, there's really not even a discussion. Stafford handicaps us. If he goes down one-fifth of our cap is flushed down the toilet. And there's nothing saying he comes to DC and is comfortable and performs the same (nothing saying he doesn't do better, either, to be clear).

 

Rookie + risk + assets > Vet + risk + assets

 

Stafford is one of the worst options in my eyes, despite his skills. 

 

I wholeheartedly admit that if it completely works out this team would be dangerous offensively. He's good. Real good. But I don't think there's as high a % that he does that as there is that a rookie does.

 

If we're giving assets, in my opinion, it HAS to be a rookie that we get a 5 year rookie deal out of to control the cap and open the window and long term potential of the franchise. 

[Thinking Skins]

What's interesting is that I was in the camp that thought Nick Mullens [>=] Jimmy G and it was a similar argument to what I just said about Kyle Allen, young QB needs to be given a chance to work with the weapons that the vet was given. But after Sunday's game I can see the problem with Mullens - he puts a lot more balls into risky situations than he needs to. He can probably be coached out of that, but I wouldn't bet on him winnng more games than Jimmy G. Same goes for why Drew Lock and Brett Rypken are probably going to have mediocre careers, too many turnovers. It seems like Daniel Jones is getting better there but still has problems with pressure. That's an area I liked with Haskins under Callahan and earlier this year (other than Cleveland) and I'm not sure if it was Turner's playcalling or just playing safe but I thought we could win with Haskins playing that way with a better defense. 

 

If we have a similar defense next year to what we have this year (the last few games), I would simply want a QB (and offense) who isn't making mistakes and putting the defense in critical situations and I think we can get that with any of the 3 QBs on the roster right now. 

[Skinsinparadise]

55 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I would let him choose, but then base my offseason on letting him know he’s not guaranteed a roster spot if he returns, move forward with Allen as the de facto one, grab a vet and grab a rookie and let all four compete. Low man on the totem pole leaves.

 

And for Alex, if he’s not the starter he’s probably the one removed. 
 

But yes, there has to be a plan at QB beyond Allen and Smith. That much I think 98% of this forum agrees on. But it’s just not an easy task especially now. 
 

we have no idea how this plays.

 

Someone may fall in our laps.

 

Or we may find ourselves without any real Avenue to improving the position without doing something drastic.

 

I am good with all of this.  It's more or less what I am thinking.  But to me the operative point is we likely need an open minded zen approach to the spot because its not typically one where the opportunities are boundless where we can pick or choose.

 

For example the Dak Prescott debate.  To me its wild to spend energy on it in part because why would Dallas let something like that play out?  They struggle this season without Dak and then take the PR hit of letting him move to the division rival to boot?  It would the story of the upcoming season -- Dak's revenge tour against Dallas playing with Dallas' hated rivals.    I just don't think it is even a little realistic.

 

The Stafford scenario is probably the most realistic of the veteran options but I'd put money against that happening, too.

 

I got my doubts that an attractive veteran scenario will present itself.   And as for the draft it would be really hard to trade all the way to pick #3 for example.  

 

But I do think they will do something.  I just caught up with Keim's podcast, I trust him the most, he said he expected them to "look hard" for an answer at Qb in the off season.  At least he doesn't give me the vibe that they are thinking yawn if we got to ride with the QBs we got, that's cool.  Not saying you are saying otherwise. 

Edited December 18, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[HanburgerHelper55]

39 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

You don’t have to explain it. That’s intangibles. He was a winner in SF and in KC. He just knows what is required of him to win. He’s not interested in stats and pro bowls, he’s all about wins and losses.

 

Again, this is coming from someone that HATES Alex’s game. I hate watching him play. I hate his stupid check downs and unwillingness to take risks and open it up. It’s annoying and frustrating. But I can’t argue with his track record. And right now we’re on a 4 game win streak coinciding with when he took over the offense. There could be a million reasons why were winning. Doesn’t matter. He’s a big part of it even without the big numbers.

Better  Qb for us- Stafford or Smith? Money is not the issue.

[PartyPosse]

9 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

OK so it  sounds like you aren't hung up on Alex but instead don't like the idea of acquiring Stafford?

 

I am not married to Stafford as the solution though I do see him as a clear upgrade over Alex.   I'd rather have a young QB, too.  Question is can we though pull it off considering where we likely will be drafting.

I don’t think Stafford is the answer. He’s had 12 or 13 years and while he’s been good he’s never been great. I don’t think he’s that much of an upgrade for this team over Alex. That’s not saying he’s not better. He very obviously is. But I don’t think he moves the needle in terms of making us serious contenders. I just don’t think the offense we have here has enough. I think there are other areas of real weakness I would rather address. I think Alex can win here if we continue to concentrate on building that defense. That’s our strength. It’ll never be the offense and if we do go against Mahomes or someone of that stature in the super bowl I don’t think either Alex or Matthew would outgun him so it’s moot between the two. We need to find our own gunslinger who would be cost controlled for 5 years. Some seem to think you just plug in Stafford’s stats into the equation and assume the changes in numbers means changes in wins/losses. That’s not how football works.

21 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Again Alex Smith was on very good teams in SF and KC.  Once he was replaced both teams went to the Super Bowl. Giving Alex Smith credit for those team's records is just not accurate, both teams showed they could win and win bigger once he was no longer the QB.  

SF went to the super bowl and completely fell off the cliff. Two years later Colin was out of the league and the offense ranked dead last in the NFL. Alex was replaced in KC by someone trending to be one of the top 5 of all time and they won a Super Bowl. So yes, you’re right. Patrick Mahomes is better than Alex.

3 minutes ago, HanburgerHelper55 said:

Better  Qb for us- Stafford or Smith? Money is not the issue.

Stafford 

[HanburgerHelper55]

So Stafford is an upgrade over Smith, Yes? Both better than Allen or Haskins?
 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 minute ago, PartyPosse said:

I don’t think Stafford is the answer. He’s had 12 or 13 years and while he’s been good he’s never been great. I don’t think he’s that much of an upgrade for this team over Alex. That’s not saying he’s not better. He very obviously is. But I don’t think he moves the needle in terms of making us serious contenders. I just don’t think the offense we have here has enough. I think there are other areas of real weakness I would rather address. I think Alex can win here if we continue to concentrate on building that defense. That’s our strength. It’ll never be the offense and if we do go against Mahomes or someone of that stature in the super bowl I don’t think either Alex or Matthew would outgun him so it’s moot between the two. We need to find our own gunslinger who would be cost controlled for 5 years. Some seem to think you just plug in Stafford’s stats into the equation and assume the changes in numbers means changes in wins/losses. That’s not how football works.

 

I follow your logic, I agree with the young gunslinger part but disagree with most of the rest.   To address one of your points -- some of us have actually watched a lot of Stafford versus just reading his PFF numbers or whatever.  My opinion on him has nothing to do with reading his stats.  I've watched Stafford plenty of times.    So explaining to us to stop being hung up on stats and  that's not how football works comes off a bit preachy and unfairly so.   

 

But I think its boring (at least for me) to continually debate Stafford versus Alex when my gut tell me that scenario doesn't even present itself in reality.  But I do think there is at least a fighting chance that it might.  Will know I guess in 6 weeks or so.

 

Not that Keim is infalliable but he's been the most accurate from what I've noticed over the years.  This is the 2nd time I've heard him say that they are going to look "real hard" at improving the QB spot in the off season.  If he's right I am assuming he's not getting the vibe from his peeps in the FO that they feel really good about running with the status quo at QB next season.

[CapsSkins]

I think y'all are crazy to say Stafford isn't that much of an upgrade over Alex. He's 6 years younger & has been more productive than Alex's last few years, not to mention he still has two functional legs.

 

If we go the vet route, Stafford >> Alex. I'd be big on getting him, depending on the cost. 

 

Dak would be a dream but I just don't see Dallas letting him walk. Matt Ryan might be better than Stafford on the field but he's 35 and his cap hit is about to shoot up, although he may come a lot cheaper than Stafford because of it, and you have an out after the '21 season for $26M dead cap which isn't crushing but it sure ain't pretty.

 

I think fans get a little too obsessed with "long term over short term" thinking. Competitiveness is based on windows. You prioritize the long-term if your window isn't open, but once you get a crack at a 3-year window you have to prioritize the short term to capitalize, and hope good drafting will give you another 3-5 year window at the end of the current one.

 

We are about to enter a 3-year window. We have to take advantage, which means we need both a short-term and a long-term solution at QB. The long-term solution is either a Rook we draft in the next few years (as soon as this year) or Kyle Allen, depending on how he may grow as a player. The short-term solution is a vet. Here's how I'd rank the options so far:

 

1) Dak (exceedingly unlikely that he is available, so this is a bit moot)

2) Derek Carr if for some reason Gruden decides he wants to move on, probably unlikely

3) Stafford

4) Ryan

5) Alex

6) Mariota (way more likely to be available)

7) Wentz

 

And then all the other assorted options (Jameis, Minshew, etc.)

 

Alex's health is a wildcard as to where he goes on the list. I think the calf strain has splashed some cold water on his potential availability over the course of a 16 game season.

Here is an addendum. In an ideal world, you may get lucky and your Long-Term Solution for QB aka the Rookie you draft may turn out to be a Short-Term Solution as well, a la Justin Herbert. But you don't count on that happening, bc you don't want to rush a guy (Mr. Simba). If you do get lucky though and your Rook can really ball from day 1, you've just immediately tacked on 2-3 years to your window. It's that meaningful.

[Anselmheifer]

32 minutes ago, KDawg said:

This is not a new concept. 
 

Why do you think the Ravens D didn’t give up when their offense **** the bed continually? They knew Dilfer worked his ass off and tried.

 

Why do you think Manning’s Broncos were able to come his horrendous physical play but rally behind him anyways?

 

The idea is to find a guy the locker room believes in and has some skill. Usually it’s a balancing act.

 

Cousins was a guy that teammates didn’t completely buy in to. Look at him in Minny. He’s been underwhelming because he’s not a real relatable dude.

 

Notice I’m not saying he’s not likeable. Just not a guy that has the charisma of a Manning type. 

 

Its not all about likeability. 
 

The word to use is trust. And yes, entire teams falter all the time because the QB is a problem. This team was on that path with Haskins.

 

 

I just don't believe in this line of thinking. The Ravens D didn't give up when their offense **** the bed continually because they were an awesome defense. The same reason our defense didn't give up when Haskins was in for the 2nd half of the 49'ers game. The defense isn't looking to the offense for motivation. Sure, they will play better if they are better rested and if they have some leads to protect and can pin their ears back. But, it's our defense that has been winning the games. 

 

Now, on offense, I think it's more complicated. Receivers are probably more inclined to finish routes and stay available as plays break down if they have more confidence in the QB. Maybe the offensive line could also find some motivation and play better. But, then you should see this reflected in the stats somewhere. If Smith isn't completing a higher percentage of his passes, throwing for more yards or more TD's, then you we should at least be able to see his influence in 3rd down %, time off possession, or in turnovers. Can someone show stats that support that?

 

Also, our wins in 2018 winning record was widely recognized as fools gold. We weren't actually that good and we weren't winning in a way that was sustainable. It had an entirely different feel from this year. 

 

"The 6 wins the Redskins had early in the year now have a combined 32-50-1 record.  The only win the Redskins had over a team with a winning record was the Cowboys, who we beat at home in a rivalry game by 3 points.  Also, the Cowboys only have a winning record after being the last team standing in a weak NFCE this year (someone has to win the division games).  "

 

https://forums.footballsfuture.com/topic/15100-the-redskins-6-3-record-was-fools-gold/

[KDawg]

Just now, Anselmheifer said:

 

I just don't believe in this line of thinking. The Ravens D didn't give up when their offense **** the bed continually because they were an awesome defense. The same reason our defense didn't give up when Haskins was in for the 2nd half of the 49'ers game. The defense isn't looking to the offense for motivation. Sure, they will play better if they are better rested and if they have some leads to protect and can pin their ears back. But, it's our defense that has been winning the games. 

 

Now, on offense, I think it's more complicated. Receivers are probably more inclined to finish routes and stay available as plays break down if they have more confidence in the QB. Maybe the offensive line could also find some motivation and play better. But, then you should see this reflected in the stats somewhere. If Smith isn't completing a higher percentage of his passes, throwing for more yards or more TD's, then you we should at least be able to see his influence in 3rd down %, time off possession, or in turnovers. Can someone show stats that support that?

 

Also, our wins in 2018 winning record was widely recognized as fools gold. We weren't actually that good and we weren't winning in a way that was sustainable. It had an entirely different feel from this year. 

 

"The 6 wins the Redskins had early in the year now have a combined 32-50-1 record.  The only win the Redskins had over a team with a winning record was the Cowboys, who we beat at home in a rivalry game by 3 points.  Also, the Cowboys only have a winning record after being the last team standing in a weak NFCE this year (someone has to win the division games).  "

 

https://forums.footballsfuture.com/topic/15100-the-redskins-6-3-record-was-fools-gold/

Ive seen it. First hand. In locker rooms. It exists. And you can look at me like I’m crazy, but I’m telling you. The vibe when a team trusts it’s QB is very different than when it doesn’t. 
 

You can spin the stats any way you want. But 66% vs. 18% in win pct with Smith as starter versus not. We weren’t beating those bad teams very often without him at the helm.

 

[Skinsinparadise]

26 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Why would you rather trade for an aging quarterback with a massive cap hit who is accumulating torso injuries vs. trading up in the draft?

 

Is he a massive cap hit?  I am assuming no if the Lions eat the bonus money.  If its in the low 20s as i believe it to be, then it actually comes close to Alex's cap hit.  If you got to take the Lions full cap hit then I wouldn't be in favor. 

 

As for trading up in the draft.  It depends on how much we have to give up.  If its trading from the 19-22 range to go get Zach Wilson assuming at #3, we'd likely have to give up probably 4 high draft picks, it won't come cheap.   Trading for a veteran or a prospect is all about context -- what's the price?   We can pretend we know the scenario/price but pretend would be the operative word.  If you gave me a pretend scenario, I'd tell you what I'd do.

 

31 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

 

Rookie + risk + assets > Vet + risk + assets

 

 

Of course and I said that on this thread and iother threads including recently.   But it's not a pure theorticial conversation.  We can argue what's better Ruth's Chris versus Mortons to get the best steak for dinner tonight and then pretend both are right in our backyard and we will be choosing one over the other but that's not reality.   The reality I am guessing will be a lot messier and complex versus neatly theoritical.   

 

So I am at least trying to think about this situation in a messier nonideal way because I think that's more likely how it plays out.  I don't subscribe to what some on this thread seem to think which is the FO is likely comfortable with riding the status quo if an obvious scenario doesn't present itself.  My gut is they are going to roll the dice on something.   My gut also is they won't box themsleves into one corner but play out the best hand that presents itself.   And the best hand will be somwhat predicated by luck.

 

38 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Stafford is one of the worst options in my eyes, despite his skills. 

 

  

Stafford's been very durable throughout his career until last season.  I am not a doctor so I'd let the team doctors judge his future health.  Moving health aside, I have a strong opinion on Stafford.  I've liked him for various reasons (similar to what Aaron Rodgers said about him).  So when people debate Stafford i am not glued in to the concept of a veteran QB or hung up on why the Lions haven't been great under him.  My opinion is very Stafford centric versus veteran centric.  And I've liked him for a long time.  If others see him as just a guy and not as good as Alex or whatever, I think they are dead wrong.  But that's just my opinion and its all I got.  😀

 

41 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

If we're giving assets, in my opinion, it HAS to be a rookie that we get a 5 year rookie deal out of to control the cap and open the window and long term potential of the franchise. 

 

It depends to me on what are the assets?  What player?  How much?  I don't see how we can argue the point without that information.  In theory, I'd rather have Zach Wilson than Matt Stafford and if we can trade the same amount to get both its a no brainer.  But that's very unlikely.   In reality, we might not be able to get Zach Wilson or Fields or if we do the compensation required could be insane.  I'd need to see scenarios actually play out to decide what i would actually do. 

[CapsSkins]

10 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Ive seen it. First hand. In locker rooms. It exists. And you can look at me like I’m crazy, but I’m telling you. The vibe when a team trusts it’s QB is very different than when it doesn’t. 
 

You can spin the stats any way you want. But 66% vs. 18% in win pct with Smith as starter versus not. We weren’t beating those bad teams very often without him at the helm.

 

 

You are 100% correct and it's very similar to hockey, where teams play night-and-day differently when they do or don't trust the goaltender.

 

One of the biggest things I've learned in my own career and life is that even though it's vague and squishy to define, Leadership matters. It just does.

[PartyPosse]

11 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Ive seen it. First hand. In locker rooms. It exists. And you can look at me like I’m crazy, but I’m telling you. The vibe when a team trusts it’s QB is very different than when it doesn’t. 
 

You can spin the stats any way you want. But 66% vs. 18% in win pct with Smith as starter versus not. We weren’t beating those bad teams very often without him at the helm.

 

I think there's a confusion between motivation and inspiration.

[Darrell Green Fan]

38 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

 

SF went to the super bowl and completely fell off the cliff. Two years later Colin was out of the league and the offense ranked dead last in the NFL. Alex was replaced in KC by someone trending to be one of the top 5 of all time and they won a Super Bowl. So yes, you’re right. Patrick Mahomes is better than Alex.

 

The point remains when Alex Smith was winning games in SF and KC he was playing with very very good teams  So using is W/L record as some sort of evaluation tool for AS is not completely accurate.  

[Skinsinparadise]

So Alex Smith was just ruled out for this Sunday. 

[PartyPosse]

30 minutes ago, HanburgerHelper55 said:

So Stafford is an upgrade over Smith, Yes? Both better than Allen or Haskins?
 

Yep. But the cost isn't worth the rewards IMO.

[NoCalMike]

Stafford coming here in 2021 would almost feel like Gannon to the Raiders when Gruden was building that Raiders squad into contenders.  At the time, not much was thought of the Gannon signing, he was and older vet, admirable but unspectacular career as mostly a back up, but with a good defense, stout running game, and good cast of role players on offense he had a resurgence and was a leader on that team for those handful of seasons.  Now personally, I think Stafford is better than Gannon ever was outside maybe 1-2 seasons when Gannon was playing way over his head, however if Stafford was to end up here I think it would be a big deal in the press as more and more analysts are looking at the film and suggesting QB play from all three is holding back things on offense.  

 

Other thing to keep in mind that while the defense still has holes and upgrades to make, the unit currently as is, is good enough to be a part of a championship team, it just needs to be paired with an offense that can score more points.  Imagine this defense if they didn't have to be on the field 60% of the time most games.  They are already carrying the load for this team and that is with a trio of linebackers who are average at best and constant turn around at the safety position due to injuries and draft picks not being ready to start (yet? hopefully),

 

I am not all in on it having to be Stafford, just using him as an example, but also making the point that you don't always need to sign a QB with "for the next 10 years" in mind.  If you have a team that is either ready to contend now or on the verge, a veteran franchise QB can make a huge difference and accelerate the situation.  

[Anselmheifer]

7 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Ive seen it. First hand. In locker rooms. It exists. And you can look at me like I’m crazy, but I’m telling you. The vibe when a team trusts it’s QB is very different than when it doesn’t. 
 

You can spin the stats any way you want. But 66% vs. 18% in win pct with Smith as starter versus not. We weren’t beating those bad teams very often without him at the helm.

 

 

I do believe that it is better for a team to trust it's QB than not. I guess the idea I am bucking here is the perception that Smith is way better than his stats suggest. I DO think he's better than Haskins. I am not sure if he is better than Allen, but if pressed, I probably would feel more comfortable with Smith than Allen going into Seattle. I feel like you mostly know what you are going to get. And Allen, though better this year, could easily regress to the mean. 

I just don't think Smith is good enough to make us NFCE favorites for the next 3-4 years, and that's the ideal I think we should be striving for. 

[PartyPosse]

1 minute ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

The point remains when Alex Smith was winning games in SF and KC he was playing with very very good teams  So using is W/L record as some sort of evaluation tool for AS is not completely accurate.  

No it's not. You are correct. However being a consistent winner means he'll rarely be the weak link of a team. In other words way more often than not teams aren't saying "we would have won if it wasn't for Alex" or "we lost because of Alex." He's not glamorous but he'll give you at worst what you need. Were we able to say that with Haskins, Cousins or RG3?

[Darrell Green Fan]

Guys if you think Stafford can be had with less than a 1st you are probably mistaken.  Teams like the Bears, Pats, SF and several others could be very very interested. There will be several teams bidding the price up.