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

[PartyPosse]

8 minutes ago, Burgold said:

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.

I think it really depends on who is there when we draft. I don't think there's a pressure to start someone regardless. Hell Alex already knows all about that. KC gave up TWO firsts to move up to draft Mahomes and they still sat him for the year.

[CapsSkins]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

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?  

 

Bud I feel like you always confuse Fitzpatrick as "Fitzgerald" and it always throws me off!! Lol

[KDawg]

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. 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. 

Because one in MY opinion is shortsighted. Paying that cap money to a vet means we have less money in the pot to sign FAs and re-sign our guys. Just this year we will need to re-up Scherff for sure. McLaurin, Allen, Payne, Settle need contracts. Darby will need one and be more costly and if not him we’d need to sign a corner regardless. There are a lot of areas that need the cap money and I’d argue that right now our cap projections are misleading.

 

This is more of the same stuff that will shake out as we move closer to time for this stuff.

 

Though I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility a rookie with mobility can outplay Stafford here. But I do think Stafford being better is a higher likelihood... in the short term. 

[CapsSkins]

1 minute ago, PartyPosse said:

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.

 

Yeah just to be clear, if you manage your roster well and draft effectively the 3 year window should transitions seamlessly into another 3 year window. That's how teams can be contenders for long stretches like the Pats or Steelers. But any given window is only up to 3 years long until there will be enough roster turnover that you find yourself in a new window. 

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

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?  

I don’t consider Stafford an option currently. So no.

 

That can change with more news about asking prices and Detroit’s coaching search. 
 

Until then I don’t consider him an option when it comes to cost/availability.

[Skinsinparadise]

2 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

 

Bud I feel like you always confuse Fitzpatrick as "Fitzgerald" and it always throws me off!! Lol

 

 lol, my bad, I don't always but have done it some. 😀

[CapsSkins]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

Because one in MY opinion is shortsighted. Paying that cap money to a vet means we have less money in the pot to sign FAs and re-sign our guys. Just this year we will need to re-up Scherff for sure. McLaurin, Allen, Payne, Settle need contracts. Darby will need one and be more costly and if not him we’d need to sign a corner regardless. There are a lot of areas that need the cap money and I’d argue that right now our cap projections are misleading.

 

This is more of the same stuff that will shake out as we move closer to time for this stuff.

 

Though I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility a rookie with mobility can outplay Stafford here. But I do think Stafford being better is a higher likelihood... in the short term. 

 

Yeah this is my whole point about long-term vs. short-term.

 

I believe it's more myopic / short-sighted to pass up a window to contend just for the sake of the "long-term". At some point the long-term has to become the short-term or you'll never push in the chips for a run. It's not how successful teams are constructed.

 

Look at the Caps as an example of a team that balanced long-term roster building with short-term all-in moves to successfully take advantage of a window that led to a Stanley Cup in 2018.

 

You can't be dogmatic about short or long term. Need to strike a balance, attuned to how close or far you are from making a run in any given year. This year has showed us that next season could be a SB contending season if we play things right. Which to me necessitates finding a vet starter, even if we get lucky and a rookie outplays him.   

[Burgold]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

 Just this year we will need to re-up Scherff for sure.

There's a part of me that's still sketchy on resigning Scherff. He's certainly a player and his return combined with the elevation of Alex Smith certainly made the line seem much better than it was at the beginning of the year, but Scherff is almost a guarantee to miss multiple games every year. I think his price tag will be high, too. His salary will be commensurate with the top guards out there if not above/resetting the market.

 

Can you do that with a player likely to miss 4-6 games?

[PartyPosse]

3 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

 

Yeah just to be clear, if you manage your roster well and draft effectively the 3 year window should transitions seamlessly into another 3 year window. That's how teams can be contenders for long stretches like the Pats or Steelers. But any given window is only up to 3 years long until there will be enough roster turnover that you find yourself in a new window. 

Well, as we're learning with NE, they didn't need to load up on contracts as long as they had Brady. He made it easy to always field a winner since they never spent more than 3.50 on any other offensive player aside from Gronk.

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, CapsSkins said:

 

Yeah this is my whole point about long-term vs. short-term.

 

I believe it's more myopic / short-sighted to pass up a window to contend just for the sake of the "long-term". At some point the long-term has to become the short-term or you'll never push in the chips for a run. It's not how successful teams are constructed.

 

Look at the Caps as an example of a team that balanced long-term roster building with short-term all-in moves to successfully take advantage of a window that led to a Stanley Cup in 2018.

 

You can't be dogmatic about short or long term. Need to strike a balance, attuned to how close or far you are from making a run in any given year. This year has showed us that next season could be a SB contending season if we play things right. Which to me necessitates finding a vet starter, even if we get lucky and a rookie outplays him.   

I don’t see it as dogmatic. I see it as the prevailing strategy barring knowledge of exact circumstances. I think this is a point I’ve made quite clear.

2 minutes ago, Burgold said:

There's a part of me that's still sketchy on resigning Scherff. He's certainly a player and his return combined with the elevation of Alex Smith certainly made the line seem much better than it was at the beginning of the year, but Scherff is almost a guarantee to miss multiple games every year. I think his price tag will be high, too. His salary will be commensurate with the top guards out there if not above/resetting the market.

 

Can you do that with a player likely to miss 4-6 games?

Im noticing that most OL nowadays are missing time. Maybe it’s just what I perceive but they all seem to be missing a bunch of time.

[CapsSkins]

Just now, KDawg said:

I don’t see it as dogmatic. I see it as the prevailing strategy barring knowledge of exact circumstances. I think this is a point I’ve made quite clear.

 

Then we'll agree to disagree. I think it was the prevailing strategy until this past month where the team has flipped the switch. It's become quite clear we are much closer to contending than we thought in September. And I don't think that's lost on Ron or the FO.

 

I'd personally be very surprised if a rookie started Week 1 next year. I really see us pushing for guys like Stafford or Carr or even Mariota or Matt Ryan or Dak though that seems impossible. I don't think Stafford seems as impossible as Dak. I think they might sniff around Rivers too. Alex is the baseline, though he may retire, and they will seriously press to find an upgrade.  

[Skinsinparadise]

8 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I don’t consider Stafford an option currently. So no.

 

That can change with more news about asking prices and Detroit’s coaching search. 
 

Until then I don’t consider him an option when it comes to cost/availability.

 

 To simplify my take.  I've been saying for months i think there is a chance Stafford becomes available but I'd bet against it.  If he were available, in my book, he would be an attractive option to explore.   Some here were arguing that point specifically about whether Stafford would be a good get.  As for the price for him, agree, we don't know yet just like we don't know for any scenario. 

 

 My best guess right now is sadly the options in the draft will likely be taking more of a flier/roll of a dice type dude.     So FA/Trades will likely come into play.  And judging by what some like Keim have said I doubt Rivera's Plan A is to stay the course with the current QBs.  I think they will make some kind of aggressive move.  Will see. 

Edited December 19, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[PartyPosse]

I'm a little concerned about a regression season next year. IF we win the division our schedule becomes much harder. We already play KC, NO, TB and The Chargers not to mention the winner of the NFC West and the NFC North (shaping up to be the Rams and the Packers). The worst teams look to be Raiders and Denver. Not an easy schedule at all.

[Burgold]

2 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Im noticing that most OL nowadays are missing time. Maybe it’s just what I perceive but they all seem to be missing a bunch of time.

You may be right. I mostly pay attention to us. I do know that back in the glory years even though Grimm and Jacoby were mainstays and constants, they had a whole lot of surgeries.

[JSSkinz]

Based on current contracts and dead cap and all the mess involved with trying to get a good, older Qb from another team, I think what sticks out is Jameis Winston.

 

He's young and I know our FO wants that, he has talent, and he wont be too expensive.  Also Maryland has some of the best crabs you can get so there's a connection there😛.

 

But seriously he might be an option now that Taysom has shown he can play and he'll be a FA..

 

I'm not crazy about Jameis because he's careless with the ball but he might be a decent bridge QB.

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by JSSkinz

[CapsSkins]

7 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

Well, as we're learning with NE, they didn't need to load up on contracts as long as they had Brady. He made it easy to always field a winner since they never spent more than 3.50 on any other offensive player aside from Gronk.

 

Yup. If you get a transformative player like Brady it makes it a helluva lot cheaper to build a contending roster around him.

 

There are different combinations to get it done, some more structurally appealing than others. But ultimately you work with what you got. That's why I believe they push hard for a vet starter AND draft a guy they think could have the potential to be a Rodgers or Brady, but who won't have the pressure of starting week 1 to deal with. Then you hope that guy pans out and it makes your next several successive 3-year windows much easier to construct & maintain.  

Edited December 19, 2020 by CapsSkins

[Burgold]

Just now, PartyPosse said:

I'm a little concerned about a regression season next year. 

Just want to say... Given how 2020 started isn't it amazing that we can talk about regression next year with a straight face!!!

[actorguy1]

For years the prevailing logic in NFL has been. Draft a QB who you perceive as a year one or year two starter and build up the team around them as much as possible with cheaper positions (not QB, DE CB or WR) and hope you win.

[Est.1974]

12 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I’d argue that right now our cap projections are misleading

in what respect are they misleading?

[PartyPosse]

1 minute ago, CapsSkins said:

 

Yup. If you get a transformative player like Brady it makes it a helluva lot cheaper to build a contending roster around him.

 

There are different combinations to get it done, some more structurally appealing than others. But ultimately you work with what you got. That's why I believe they push hard for a vet started AND draft a guy they think could have the potential to be a Rodgers or Brady, but who won't have the pressure of starting week 1 to deal with. Then you hope that guy pans out and it makes your next several successive 3-year windows much easier to construct & maintain.  

IF we draft someone, I'd honestly much rather have Alex starting than some other vet on the market. First off he already knows the system so continuity helps. Second, he's a smart competitive guy with a great story and I expect all of that would rub off on a rookie as opposed to some journeyman looking to cash out one last time. The more I think about it, the more Trey Lance makes sense. 

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, CapsSkins said:

 

Then we'll agree to disagree. I think it was the prevailing strategy until this past month where the team has flipped the switch. It's become quite clear we are much closer to contending than we thought in September. And I don't think that's lost on Ron or the FO.

 

I'd personally be very surprised if a rookie started Week 1 next year. I really see us pushing for guys like Stafford or Carr or even Mariota or Matt Ryan or Dak though that seems impossible. I don't think Stafford seems as impossible as Dak. I think they might sniff around Rivers too. Alex is the baseline, though he may retire, and they will seriously press to find an upgrade.  

Some of those names listed are absolute no ways in my book. To the point I’d rather play Kyle Allen/Alex Smith over them. 
 

Some, like Ryan, Stafford and Dak are possibilities but only if the circumstances make sense.

 

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 To simplify my take.  I've been saying for months i think there is a chance Stafford becomes available but I'd bet against it.  If he were available, in my book, he would be an attractive option to explore.   Some here were arguing that point specifically about whether Stafford would be a good get.  As for the price for him, we don't know yet just like we don't know for any scenario. 

 

 My best guess right now is sadly the options in the draft will likely be taking more of a flier/roll of a dice type dude.     So FA/Trades will likely come into play.  And judging by what some like Keim have said I doubt Rivera's Plan A is to stay the course with the current QBs.  I think they will make some kind of aggressive move.  Will see. 

 

I think the plan involves Allen regardless. Smith if he wants to be here. If he retires then I think the plan is mid range vet and rookie.

 

I think a rookie is in the plans regardless and there’s a few guys I think may be big time sleepers. Ahlers, Newman are two among them. 
 

1 minute ago, PartyPosse said:

I'm a little concerned about a regression season next year. IF we win the division our schedule becomes much harder. We already play KC, NO, TB and The Chargers not to mention the winner of the NFC West and the NFC North (shaping up to be the Rams and the Packers). The worst teams look to be Raiders and Denver. Not an easy schedule at all.

I don’t think this roster is as good as many people currently believe it is. So trading for a vet, giving assets and cap in my opinion is a super gamble.

[Est.1974]

3 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Based on current contracts and dead cap and all the mess involved with trying to get a good, older Qb from another team, I think what sticks out is Jameis Winston.

 

He's young and I know our FO wants that, he has talent, and he wont be too expensive.  Also Maryland has some of the best crabs you can get so there's a connection there😛.

I mentioned him a long time back. Rivera is likely to have a very strong opinion on him from his Carolina days. I would think it’s a mixed opinion to be honest.

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

in what respect are they misleading?

Didn’t I explain it? 
 

I swear I am posting stuff and no one is reading it

 

We have a lot of spots we need to spend it on. And that doesn’t account for spending roughly 20% of it on a quarterback AND draft capital that helps fill the roster.

[Thinking Skins]

4 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

I'm a little concerned about a regression season next year. IF we win the division our schedule becomes much harder. We already play KC, NO, TB and The Chargers not to mention the winner of the NFC West and the NFC North (shaping up to be the Rams and the Packers). The worst teams look to be Raiders and Denver. Not an easy schedule at all.

Do you think we had an easy one this year? Arizona, Cleveland Baltimore, SF, Pitt, Seattle, Burrow. No cake walk

[JSSkinz]

Just now, actorguy1 said:

For years the prevailing logic in NFL has been. Draft a QB who you perceive as a year one or year two starter and build up the team around them as much as possible with cheaper positions (not QB, DE CB or WR) and hope you win.

Yeah but whats happens when it's the inverse?

 

I'm not saying you're wrong but if you put a good team together prior to landing a long term solution at Qb then maybe you have to think a bit differently.