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

[KDawg]

24 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Everyone here would love a rookie to groom the question is who and how much of a flier is said dude when we are likely picking in the late first round where its likely the top 4 QBs and some say the top 5 QBs (at least reputation wise) are already gone.  

 

 

Stafford has been almost Eli like as for duability.  Played 8 seasons in row, every game, the streak was finally broken last year.  This year he's been banged up some but still plenty durable.  I just read he will indeed start this Sunday, so that would be his 14th game he's played this year. 

 

Im talking long term durability and what those injuries mean to his ability to play, specifically in a new city. He’ll need a new contract, too. 
 

You and I are on totally different pages with which of the two QBs is more likely to be available, for sure.

 

And the total value when accounting for not only skill but long term potential and acquisition cost. 
 

For me it’s trade up for a rookie or stop gap. I don’t want to spend that much of our cap AND assets on one guy and a gamble. 

[kingdaddy]

22 minutes ago, Florgon79 said:

Is it just me or does Justin Fields struggle against good competition?

It's not just you...

[Anselmheifer]

Stafford is easily worth the 19th pick. How many wins is the 19th pick in the draft likely to add? And Stafford? I'd argue that his anticipated wins over replacement is very significant. 

[Est.1974]

In terms of the top half a dozen or so teams with the most cap space in 2021:
 

The Patriots and Colts are likely to have well in excess of 80mil in cap space each.

 

The Jets and Jags are equally well set. They are both drafting a QB, you would think.

 

The Bengals and Chargers are set.

 

Then there is us buried amongst that lot.

 

So, looks like both the Patriots and Colts have that inside track if a premier QB becomes available. The Colts may even retains Rivers.
 

Also, Bill loves Stafford for what it’s worth.

[KDawg]

4 minutes ago, Anselmheifer said:

Stafford is easily worth the 19th pick. How many wins is the 19th pick in the draft likely to add? And Stafford? I'd argue that his anticipated wins over replacement is very significant. 

1) not sure I agree. But could be swayed. 
2) I don’t think Detroit parts with him for 19 with the cap hit they absorb.

28 minutes ago, Florgon79 said:

Is it just me or does Justin Fields struggle against good competition?

He’s been pretty decent in the past, especially against Clemson but he has had a rough day today and that’s not great for his draft stock.

[Anselmheifer]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

2) I don’t think Detroit parts with him for 19 with the cap hit they absorb.

He’s been pretty decent in the past, especially against Clemson but he has had a rough day today and that’s not great for his draft stock.

This may well be true. And I'd be just as happy to move up and take Zach Wilson, or even your guy, Fields. I just want a solution that I feel can win us the division for the next 3-4 years. A QB and McLaurin and our DL should be able to do tha. 

[Skinsinparadise]

20 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Im talking long term durability and what those injuries mean to his ability to play, specifically in a new city. He’ll need a new contract, too. 

 

I wouldn't put Stafford on a higher risk concern than the average 33 year old QB.    They all have miles on them as they play in the league.  Comes with the turf when getting a veteran. 

 

20 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

You and I are on totally different pages with which of the two QBs is more likely to be available, for sure.

 

 

Yep for me its 1% chance that Dak hits the market. Only way I see it happen is if Dallas stumbles on drafting Justin Fields.  Jerry cares about sales, he would need a sexy plan B.  Good luck selling their fan base something like let the WFT play with Dak, we got Dalton, all is cool.   As for Stafford, I'd put it at 25%. 

 

20 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

And the total value when accounting for not only skill but long term potential and acquisition cost. 

 

I don't think we are that far apart.  You are being critical of a sceanrio I lay out in a vacuum while acting like there is likely going to be a perfectly more attractive option B.  My point is lets say there isn't an attractive option B.   IMO you have to play out realistic sceanrios.  Yeah I'd take Lance for free for example over giving a pick and more salary for Stafford.  But I don't think this is going to play out like that.  I think our disagreement is really what we envision reality to be.  I get the impression that you feel like we will have our share of attractive scenarios in the draft.  If I shared that optimism, i'd yawn at Stafford too.

 

20 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

For me it’s trade up for a rookie or stop gap. I don’t want to spend that much of our cap AND assets on one guy and a gamble. 

 

Stafford isn't that bad of a contract hit the first two years which is the remaining contract.  As for what they'd need to do in season 3, i am not sweating it that much now.  I think the next two years might be the window.  But taking Stafford out of this, to me its not a concept discussion.   

 

To me its trade what and for whom?  Who would be the cheaper stopgap you'd prefer over someone like Stafford?   And how cheap do you think you'd get the dude.  For example, if I just gave up a 2021 and 2022 first rounder to trade to get Fields or Wilson, i'd do it.  But I think you likely going to pay more.   If I could land Marriota for a 4th rounder, I'd do it over Stafford for a first.    If I could get Darnold for a 2nd, I wouldn't do it over Stafford.    

Edited December 19, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[TheGoodBits]

With the turnover in Atlanta, I wonder if Matt Ryan would be made available for the right deal. The return required would likely be greater than Stafford, but I think he could be a stabilizing force here for the next three years. At $30m/yr, he’s got a fairly reasonable contract for the performance as well. 
 

Derek Carr is also someone I could see pursuing if the Raiders cut him. I feel that’s likely, as they’re going to have a hard time finding trade partners for his $25m/yr contract. Going into next season with Alex Smith as QB1 and Carr on a backup contract with starter incentives would be a decent option. 
 

WFT is in an interesting spot with the QB situation. The defense is good enough that we probably don’t need a top 10 QB to be competitive, but also good enough that we can’t afford to waste a window to compete just because we don’t have QB figured out. 

[Skinsinparadise]

lol, if there is a sentiment among executives as some have said that Zach Wilson has leapfogged Fields with some personnel people -- this game so far might add more fuel to that. 

[Skinsinparadise]

11 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

WFT is in an interesting spot with the QB situation. The defense is good enough that we probably don’t need a top 10 QB to be competitive, but also good enough that we can’t afford to waste a window to compete just because we don’t have QB figured out. 

 

It's a good summary for me.  The price you likely pay for running with an average to below average QB even at a good price is likely losing the chance to win a SB.  While a good QB might not seem on the surface to mean that much more than an average QB -- IMO the difference could mean the world. 

 

Eli wasn't a great QB when they won SBs but he was good.  And they had killer defenses.  We need an Eli. We don't need Rodgers.  Some here say that dude is already on this roster its Alex or Kyle.  I disagree.  And part of that is durability questions.  Eli was durable. 

 

If our defense was just good, I probably wouldn't care to run with average QB play versus good.  But if we can take that QB play just up a peg IMO the difference would be huge considering the context of the team.  So I am willing to pay a little more whether its in picks or salary to make that happen.  Otherwise i think we likely end up penny wise but pound foolish.  

Edited December 19, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[kingdaddy]

4 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

It's a good summary for me.  The price you likely pay for running with an average to below average QB even at a good price is likely losing the chance to win a SB.  While a good QB might not seem on the surface to mean that much more than an average QB -- IMO the difference could mean the world. 

 

Eli wasn't a great QB when they won SBs but he was good.  And they had killer defenses.  We need an Eli. We don't need Rodgers.  Some here say that dude is already on this roster its Alex or Kyle.  I disagree.  And part of that is durability questions.  Eli was durable. 

 

If our defense was just good, I probably wouldn't care to run with average QB play.  But if we can take that QB play just up a peg IMO the difference would be huge considering the context of the team.  So I am willing to pay a little more whether its in picks or salary to make that happen.  Otherwise i think we likely end up penny wise but pound foolish.  

Gotta field a team, with a QB, that can beat Mahomes if you want to win the SB. That's how I look a it. Can we find a guy that can outduel Mahomes with our defense? For me that means getting a vet QB for next year....

[KDawg]

21 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I wouldn't put Stafford on a higher risk concern than the average 33 year old QB.    They all have miles on them as they play in the league.  Comes with the turf when getting a veteran. 

 

 

Yep for me its 1% chance that Dak hits the market. Only way I see it happen is if Dallas stumbles on drafting Justin Fields.  Jerry cares about sales, he would need a sexy plan B.  Good luck selling their fan base something like let the WFT play with Dak, we got Dalton, all is cool.   As for Stafford, I'd put it at 25%. 

 

 

I don't think we are that far apart.  You are being critical of a sceanrio I lay out in a vacuum while acting like there is likely going to be a perfectly more attractive option B.  My point is lets say there isn't an attractive option B.   IMO you have to play out realistic sceanrios.  Yeah I'd take Lance for free for example over giving a pick and more salary for Stafford.  But I don't think this is going to play out like that.  I think our disagreement is really what we envision reality to be.  I get the impression that you feel like we will have our share of attractive scenarios in the draft.  If I shared that optimism, i'd yawn at Stafford too.

 

 

Stafford isn't that bad of a contract hit the first two years which is the remaining contract.  As for what they'd need to do in season 3, i am not sweating it that much now.  I think the next two years might be the window.  But taking Stafford out of this, to me its not a concept discussion.   

 

To me its trade what and for whom?  Who would be the cheaper stopgap you'd prefer over someone like Stafford?   And how cheap do you think you'd get the dude.  For example, if I just gave up a 2021 and 2022 first rounder to trade to get Fields or Wilson, i'd do it.  But I think you likely going to pay more.   If I could land Marriota for a 4th rounder, I'd do it over Stafford for a first.    If I could get Darnold for a 2nd, I wouldn't do it over Stafford.    

You’re bringing up points I’ve personally addressed already though. On mobile so can’t break it up but:

 

re: acquiring a vet - exactly. This is why I don’t want to use draft assets AND cap for a vet. 
 

Of course Dallas doesn’t let Dak go unless they plan on drafting a QB. I would think that’s pretty common sense. Same goes for Stafford and Dallas will pick higher. 
 

I think you’re operating in a vacuum more than I am, to be honest. We get vet. Vet plays the same or better than he was in Detroit and fits in, buys into the culture and adapts to our offense (Turner isn’t experienced enough to retool the entire offense, imo). He will need a new contract as well. And will cost draft capital. 
 

I do not think we have attractive scenarios. I think our best bet is to see what happens and move forward appropriately. I can’t tell you my plan because there’s too much variance in what could happen as of now. 
 

There’s a lot of things that can happen between now and FA start. 
 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by KDawg

[method man]

25 minutes ago, KDawg said:

1) not sure I agree. But could be swayed. 
2) I don’t think Detroit parts with him for 19 with the cap hit they absorb.

He’s been pretty decent in the past, especially against Clemson but he has had a rough day today and that’s not great for his draft stock.

 

I don't think the new GM/coach in Detroit will look to compete for the playoffs right away in year 1 so they may be perfectly fine eating the cap hit in year 1. (Dead cap hit wouldn't flow into 2022 and beyond unless they move on from Stafford post June 1).

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, method man said:

 

I don't think the new GM/coach in Detroit will look to compete for the playoffs right away in year 1 so they may be perfectly fine eating the cap hit in year 1. (Dead cap hit wouldn't flow into 2022 and beyond unless they move on from Stafford post June 1).

Not a bad point at all. I don’t think it changes much, though. Detroit is notoriously cheap and paying for a guy to not be on their roster doesn’t seem very Liony. But again, who knows. Too many questions to make this conversation a fruitful one.

Edited December 19, 2020 by KDawg

[Skinsinparadise]

5 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

Gotta field a team, with a QB, that can beat Mahomes if you want to win the SB. That's how I look a it. Can we find a guy that can outduel Mahomes with our defense? For me that means getting a vet QB for next year....

 

I am cool with this theory if we can get the right one.  

[method man]

25 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I wouldn't put Stafford on a higher risk concern than the average 33 year old QB.    They all have miles on them as they play in the league.  Comes with the turf when getting a veteran. 

 

 

Yep for me its 1% chance that Dak hits the market. Only way I see it happen is if Dallas stumbles on drafting Justin Fields.  Jerry cares about sales, he would need a sexy plan B.  Good luck selling their fan base something like let the WFT play with Dak, we got Dalton, all is cool.   As for Stafford, I'd put it at 25%. 

 

 

I don't think we are that far apart.  You are being critical of a sceanrio I lay out in a vacuum while acting like there is likely going to be a perfectly more attractive option B.  My point is lets say there isn't an attractive option B.   IMO you have to play out realistic sceanrios.  Yeah I'd take Lance for free for example over giving a pick and more salary for Stafford.  But I don't think this is going to play out like that.  I think our disagreement is really what we envision reality to be.  I get the impression that you feel like we will have our share of attractive scenarios in the draft.  If I shared that optimism, i'd yawn at Stafford too.

 

 

Stafford isn't that bad of a contract hit the first two years which is the remaining contract.  As for what they'd need to do in season 3, i am not sweating it that much now.  I think the next two years might be the window.  But taking Stafford out of this, to me its not a concept discussion.   

 

To me its trade what and for whom?  Who would be the cheaper stopgap you'd prefer over someone like Stafford?   And how cheap do you think you'd get the dude.  For example, if I just gave up a 2021 and 2022 first rounder to trade to get Fields or Wilson, i'd do it.  But I think you likely going to pay more.   If I could land Marriota for a 4th rounder, I'd do it over Stafford for a first.    If I could get Darnold for a 2nd, I wouldn't do it over Stafford.    

 

I would rather give up the first for Stafford than a 4th for Mariota to ensure with a high degree of confidence that I'm getting a strong solution at the most important position on the field. We have a 3-year window here (before Sweat gets his big deal) and I don't want to waste that window hoping that Mariota and Darnold will pan out.

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am cool with this theory if we can get the right one.  

 

That guy's point would push for Carr, who has outdueled Mahomes a couple times now

[Darrell Green Fan]

6 minutes ago, method man said:

 

I would rather give up the first for Stafford than a 4th for Mariota to ensure with a high degree of confidence that I'm getting a strong solution at the most important position on the field. We have a 3-year window here (before Sweat gets his big deal) and I don't want to waste that window hoping that Mariota and Darnold will pan out.

 

That guy's point would push for Carr, who has outdueled Mahomes a couple times now

 

Yeah I'm with you.  Mariotta had plenty of opportunity to show who he is and who is is a
QB who is not good enough to be a starter, especially on a team looking for that guy to push them into contention.   

 

Regardless of what they do it's obvious that they are going to make a move at the most important position in football, possibly in all sports. It will be interesting to see what ends up happening.  

[Skinsinparadise]

19 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

re: acquiring a vet - exactly. This is why I don’t want to use draft assets AND cap for a vet. 
 

 

Ideally that's true.  But my point is we might have to make a choice.  What if the best QB available at our pick is Kyle Trask and we don't love him.  What if the best FA QB that hits the market is Fitzgerald?  And our options are that and trading for Stafford?  I gather your point would be suck it up with what we got and maybe take a flier at a QB later in the draft?  If so that's where we'd disagree.  And that's what I am debating -- that type of context.  In the perfect world, we'd like a stud rookie QB at a cheap price or a stud veteran FA QB where we don't have to give up a pick.

 

19 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Of course Dallas doesn’t let Dak go unless they plan on drafting a QB. I would think that’s pretty common sense. Same goes for Stafford and Dallas will pick higher. 

 

 

If Dallas loses out I think there is better chance than there is now that they take a QB because they can likely get Fields or Zach without trading up.  I'd still bet that they resign Dak.  Fields isn't doing himself many favors today though.

 

19 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

I think you’re operating in a vacuum more than I am, to be honest. We get vet. Vet plays the same or better than he was in Detroit and fits in, buys into the culture and adapts to our offense (Turner isn’t experienced enough to retool the entire offense, imo). He will need a new contract as well. And will cost draft capital.

 

 

I don't think I am the one playing more in a vaccum.  My whole thing is get specific as much as possible.  I've actually even laid out scenarios of trading up for QBs and for which QBs on this thread.  The Stafford stuff is just a recent thing since it was brought up. So I played out the Stafford scenario.  And I played it out in a way as if there is no easy attractive option in the draft because to me that is possible. 

 

lol, maybe I should do this like i did in 2018. In January that year, I laid out every possible scenario that I thought was possible at QB and i ranked them from my favorites to least favorites.  i did have trading Alex Smith in that list as my least favorite scenario.  😀. that's what they did.  I am hesitant to do it now because i might jinx it again. 

 

19 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

I do not think we have attractive scenarios. I think our best bet is to see what happens and move forward appropriately. I can’t tell you my plan because there’s too much variance in what could happen as of now. 
 

There’s a lot of things that can happen between now and FA start. 

 

 

I agree.  that's the same thing I said to you in an exchange yesterday.    

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Ideally that's true.  But my point is we might have to make a choice.  What if the best QB available at our pick is Kyle Trask and we don't love him.  What if the best FA QB that hits the market is Fitzgerald?  And our options are that and trading for Stafford?  I gather your point would be suck it up with what we got and maybe take a flier at QB later in the draft?  If so that's where we'd disagree.    And that's what I am debating.  In the perfect world, we'd like a stud rookie QB at a cheap price or a stud veteran FA QB where we don't have to give up a pick.

 

 

If Dallas loses out I think there is better chance than there is now that they take a QB because they can likely get Fields or Zach without trading up.  I'd still bet that they resign Dak.  Fields isn't doing himself many favors today though.

 

 

I don't think I am the one playing more in a vaccum.  My whole thing is get specific as much as possible.  I've actually even laid out scenarios of trading up for QBs and for which QBs on this thread.  The Stafford stuff is just a recent thing since it was brought up. So I played out the Stafford scenario.  And I played it out in a way as if there is no easy attractive option in the draft because to me that is possible. 

 

lol, maybe I should do this like i did in 2018. In January that year, I laid out every possible scenario that I thought was possible at QB and i ranked them from my favorites to least favorites.  i did have trading Alex Smith in that list as my least favorite scenario.  😀. that's what they did.  I am hesitant to do it now because i might jinx it again. 

 

 

I agree.  that's the same thing I said to you in an exchange yesterday.    

 

It’s the same thing I’ve been saying since the start of this God forsaken convo.

[CapsSkins]

@KDawg disagree that playing a rook is a better strategy than finding a vet. IMO you can't rely on a young guy to be Justin Herbert in his first season even if you think he's a slam dunk pick and trade up to the top 10 to get him.

 

I think we should draft a rookie we like, sit him and still find a vet to drive the car until the Rook has had some time to cook. Whether that vet is Alex or Stafford or Carr or Dak or Matt Ryan or Mariota or whoever is a function of who's available at what price. But SOME vet will be available at SOME price guaranteed, even if that just means another season of Alex.

 

But if the price is broadly reasonable (aka a 1st + another pick) I would definitely take Stafford. I'd extend him, too. Think we'd be crazy not to.

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by CapsSkins

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, CapsSkins said:

@KDawg disagree that playing a rook is a better strategy than finding a vet. IMO you can't rely on a young guy to be Justin Herbert in his first season even if you think he's a slam dunk pick and trade up to the top 10 to get him.

 

I think we should draft a rookie we like, sit him and still find a vet to drive the car until the Rook has had some time to cook. Whether that vet is Alex or Stafford or Carr or Dak or Matt Ryan or Mariota or whoever is a function of who's available at what price. But SOME vet will be available at SOME price guaranteed, even if that just means another season of Alex.

 

But if the price is broadly reasonable (aka a 1st + another pick) I would definitely take Stafford. I'd extend him, too. Think we'd be crazy not to.

 

*sigh*
 

When did I say that playing the rook would be better than playing a proven vet?

 

I said I believe in building a roster with a rookie contract. And I’d rather do that than pay in cap and assets to trade for a QB. 

[Burgold]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Everyone here would love a rookie to groom the question is who and how much of a flier is said dude when we are likely picking in the late first round where its likely the top 4 QBs and some say the top 5 QBs (at least reputation wise) are already gone.  

 

 

Stafford has been almost Eli like as for duability.  Played 8 seasons in row, every game, the streak was finally broken last year.  This year he's been banged up some but still plenty durable.  I just read he will indeed start this Sunday, so that would be his 14th game he's played this year. 

 

Actually, I would lean against drafting a QB in round 1. I would go forward with Smith/Allen and draft the best second or third round QB available. That way there won't be pressure to start them immediately, but we can work on developing the prospect. Mind you, this argument is all contingent on the how Rivera and Turner really feel about Haskins.

[CapsSkins]

6 minutes ago, KDawg said:

*sigh*
 

When did I say that playing the rook would be better than playing a proven vet?

 

I said I believe in building a roster with a rookie contract. And I’d rather do that than pay in cap and assets to trade for a QB. 

 

How is that not the same thing? I believe we have a 3 year window starting next year that we need to attack, and we gotta do it with a vet whether it takes only cap space or cap + assets. You build w/ a rookie contract if you think you're still a couple years away, or if both sides of the ball are developed enough to carry a youngster. We're not in that situation. We're ready to compete now bc of the Defense, but we also have to keep building out the offensive side of the ball.

 

So I disagree with you in that I no way would start a rookie Week 1 of 2021. Need a vet starter. 

Edited December 19, 2020 by CapsSkins

[PartyPosse]

1 minute ago, CapsSkins said:

 

How is that not the same thing? I believe we have a 3 year window starting next year that we need to attack, and we gotta do it with a vet whether it takes only cap space or cap + assets. You build w/ a rookie contract if you think you're still a couple years away, or if both sides of the ball are developed enough to carry a youngster.

If I've learned anything it's that if you have a creative enough cap manager, this window could be as big as 7-8 years. That's why I was advocating earlier this year to sign some of the bigger names now and frontload them. We had the money and could have spend a lot on Scherff and Allen now and had them be cheaper by the time we had to re-sign Terry and Payne.

[Skinsinparadise]

17 minutes ago, KDawg said:

It’s the same thing I’ve been saying since the start of this God forsaken convo.

 

What I said there is i'd trade for Stafford if that was a possibility and the next best options would be someone like Fitzgerald at QB in FA and the top 5 QBs are gone before our pick in the draft.  So you are saying you agree?