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

[PartyPosse]

33 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

 

Except he is competant and therefore devalues their own 1st by winning games, keeping them in the current QB purgatory we find ourselves.

 

Why can't teams commit to a real 3 year rebuild?  If I'm the Lions, I punt QB and take one of the other deals.  Trade current picks for 2022 picks and do the same next year unless I'm in position for the QB I want long term.  You could hit the 2023 draft with like 4 1sts and 3 2nds and really set things up.  The owner had to buy in though and agree no one gets fired for results in the short term.  I'd much rather be terrible for 2-3 years with a bright future versus always drowning in mediocrity.

Because if you throw say The ghost of Scott Mitchell out there then you have no chance of evaluating the rest of the offense. We would have no idea what we had in Logan Thomas or he’ll even Gibson if Haskins started all 16 games. You also send a bad message to your own players when you’re going out of your way to lose. You’re killing a year of their short careers. Everyone seems to think it’s so simple to just tank and screw the players. There’s a reason a lot of guys don’t want to stick around for these kind of eras. If you have a competent enough scouting department then you can turn around a franchise in the same amount of time picking from 10-16 every round as you can from 1-5.

[Malapropismic Depository]

Interesting, this was said about Tua, before last year's draft.

Ya think, sometimes analysts are kind of off, in their projections ?

 

 

[wit33]

26 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Personally I think it has to be an interior guy.  Sweat and Young are freaks for their position.  

 

The interior guys are good but they aren't IMO pro bowlers at least not yet.  I think it has to be either Ionnaidis or Payne.  I think you keep Allen in part because he's a culture guy. 

I have to imagine it will be two not one. 
 

Young and Sweat will most likely be $55mil or so when on send deals, right? I mean, a lot more numbers to crunch, but can you pay both elite money? 
 

My guess it’s Payne and Ice. Payne gets traded and Ice leaves via free agency. Might be able to get a 1 this year out of Payne, but say he has round 2 value if done next and requiring a team to pay him big dollars right away. 

Edited February 19, 2021 by wit33

[86 Snyder]

7 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

Because if you throw say The ghost of Scott Mitchell out there then you have no chance of evaluating the rest of the offense. We would have no idea what we had in Logan Thomas or he’ll even Gibson if Haskins started all 16 games. You also send a bad message to your own players when you’re going out of your way to lose. You’re killing a year of their short careers. Everyone seems to think it’s so simple to just tank and screw the players. There’s a reason a lot of guys don’t want to stick around for these kind of eras. If you have a competent enough scouting department then you can turn around a franchise in the same amount of time picking from 10-16 every round as you can from 1-5.

 

Not if you don't have a quarterback!!  See, Washington: 1993-2021 and beyond.  That's *exactly* how you end up with 400(!) page threads analyzing all these trash quarterbacks available.

 

You can't say what would or won't happen because no one has ever really tried it.  Cleveland flirted with it and was fairly successful...their only problem is they snagged a B- quarterback with their top pick.  And that's actually a damn good reference because they won what, 1 game in 2 seasons while building the roster.  Now they're a playoff team and you don't hear jack about that anymore.  Whatever players committed (Garrett) and were productive are still there.

 

[wit33]

Does hitting on a stud rookie MLB become a poor mans good QB on a rookie deal for this defense? Meaning, they’d be able to keep the gush together. 
 

For example, if they hit on a stud MLB in the first round versus paying David $17mil what impact would that have?

[RWJ]

11 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

 

Not if you don't have a quarterback!!  See, Washington: 1993-2021 and beyond.  That's *exactly* how you end up with 400(!) page threads analyzing all these trash quarterbacks available.

 

You can't say what would or won't happen because no one has ever really tried it.  Cleveland flirted with it and was fairly successful...their only problem is they snagged a B- quarterback with their top pick.  And that's actually a damn good reference because they won what, 1 game in 2 seasons while building the roster.  Now they're a playoff team and you don't hear jack about that anymore.  Whatever players committed (Garrett) and were productive are still there.

 

The reason for success before 1993 was Bobby Beathard and primarily Joe Gibbs.  Gibbs carried Casserly.    

[86 Snyder]

6 minutes ago, RWJ said:

The reason for success before 1993 was Bobby Beathard and primarily Joe Gibbs.  Gibbs carried Casserly.    

 

I am aware.

[Darth Tater]

1 hour ago, 86 Snyder said:

Why can't teams commit to a real 3 year rebuild?  If I'm the Lions, I punt QB and take one of the other deals.  Trade current picks for 2022 picks and do the same next year unless I'm in position for the QB I want long term.  You could hit the 2023 draft with like 4 1sts and 3 2nds and really set things up.  The owner had to buy in though and agree no one gets fired for results in the short term.  I'd much rather be terrible for 2-3 years with a bright future versus always drowning in mediocrity.

If you don't include new franchises, only 1 coach in the SB era ever was given 3+ years to rebuild and did so successfully. In fact, you can usually tell if the coach will rebuild successfully no later than year 2.  When Norv Turner failed to make the playoffs in 1996, that pretty much told me that he was a fail. Jay Gruden's regression in 2016 is pretty much why I always called him Norv Gruden.

[PartyPosse]

15 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Does hitting on a stud rookie MLB become a poor mans good QB on a rookie deal for this defense? Meaning, they’d be able to keep the gush together. 
 

For example, if they hit on a stud MLB in the first round versus paying David $17mil what impact would that have?

I don’t think a great impact and I’ll explain my point of view. A rookie Lb, especially MLB’s development is very contingent on the other backers and even the safeties doing their job. Otherwise you run the risk of a guy panicking or trying to do too much. They never develop as they’re too busy running around trying to cover for everyone else. I think David and a rookie however would be ideal.

[86 Snyder]

13 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

If you don't include new franchises, only 1 coach in the SB era ever was given 3+ years to rebuild and did so successfully. In fact, you can usually tell if the coach will rebuild successfully no later than year 2.  When Norv Turner failed to make the playoffs in 1996, that pretty much told me that he was a fail. Jay Gruden's regression in 2016 is pretty much why I always called him Norv Gruden.

 

I won't derail the thread any further but this is exactly my point.  Teams don't rebuild the right way and/or do it for a long enough period.

[DeaconBlue]

12 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

I don’t think a great impact and I’ll explain my point of view. A rookie Lb, especially MLB’s development is very contingent on the other backers and even the safeties doing their job. Otherwise you run the risk of a guy panicking or trying to do too much. They never develop as they’re too busy running around trying to cover for everyone else. I think David and a rookie however would be ideal.

 This sounds strangely like getting a new QB and not having good players around him as well. Wonder why that's a problem on defense but not a problem the other way around?Maybe I'm missing something?

 

[Conn]

45 minutes ago, RWJ said:

The reason for success before 1993 was Bobby Beathard and primarily Joe Gibbs.  Gibbs carried Casserly.    

Nothing about our success in that era really matters or applies today because it was pre-salary cap. The rosters you could build and maintain, with or without a HOF QB talent, were ridiculous.

[PartyPosse]

16 minutes ago, DeaconBlue said:

 This sounds strangely like getting a new QB and not having good players around him as well. Wonder why that's a problem on defense but not a problem the other way around?Maybe I'm missing something?

 

I think you cater a system around the QB's strengths to run the show where as a MLB has a job as a MLB. 

[Darth Tater]

2 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

Nothing about our success in that era really matters or applies today because it was pre-salary cap. The rosters you could build and maintain, with or without a HOF QB talent, were ridiculous.

It has nothing to do with being in a pre-salary cap era. It was more about guy like Gibbs changing how talent is evaluated, innovative schemes, ability to integrate and understanding that a good coaching staff is as important than the talent of the players.

[Conn]

1 minute ago, Darth Tater said:

It has nothing to do with being in a pre-salary cap era. It was more about guy like Gibbs changing how talent is evaluated, innovative schemes, ability to integrate and understanding that a good coaching staff is as important than the talent of the players.

Sure. I’m not trying to get into a debate about how great Gibbs was on a scale from great to greatest. All I was saying was how those rosters were built and maintained isn’t really possible now. Same for most of those 70’s-90’s dynasties. 

[clskinsfan]

1 minute ago, Darth Tater said:

It has nothing to do with being in a pre-salary cap era. It was more about guy like Gibbs changing how talent is evaluated, innovative schemes, ability to integrate and understanding that a good coaching staff is as important than the talent of the players.

The cap changed everything about team building though. Pre cap the Skins would put someone on IR with a hangnail in order to develop them. You cant get away with that in todays game. 

[DeaconBlue]

But aren't you trying to point out that a MLB could fail because of the lack of supporting cast around him but I see people failing to recognize the same issue with gettig a new QB should there be no realistic way to improve his supporting cast as well. Again maybe I'm missing something.

[PartyPosse]

2 minutes ago, DeaconBlue said:

But aren't you trying to point out that a MLB could fail because of the lack of supporting cast around him but I see people failing to recognize the same issue with gettig a new QB should there be no realistic way to improve his supporting cast as well. Again maybe I'm missing something.

If A MLB fails the defense can still thrive. 

 

As we saw with Haskins, when the QB fails the entire offense fails.

[86 Snyder]

Please stop conflating "quarterbacks of the defense" with actual quarterbacks.  Thanks.

[Malapropismic Depository]

1 minute ago, 86 Snyder said:

Please stop conflating "quarterbacks of the defense" with actual quarterbacks.  Thanks.

 

I know, it's like everyone is looking for a conflatation, these days.

[Darth Tater]

1 minute ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

Sure. I’m not trying to get into a debate about how great Gibbs was on a scale from great to greatest. All I was saying was how those rosters were built and maintained isn’t really possible now. Same for most of those 70’s-90’s dynasties. 

You do know that average turnover from year to year was about the same? The longest lived dynasties were in the current era. This is the first year since 2000 that New England has not had a winning season.  Pittsburgh has had 1 losing season since 2000. Colts, only 4. Baltimore only 4. Saints just 7 and most of those were really close. Packers just 4. The Seahawks have 5 and one of those was a playoff.

[bowhunter]

1 hour ago, PartyPosse said:

Because if you throw say The ghost of Scott Mitchell out there then you have no chance of evaluating the rest of the offense. We would have no idea what we had in Logan Thomas or he’ll even Gibson if Haskins started all 16 games. You also send a bad message to your own players when you’re going out of your way to lose. You’re killing a year of their short careers. Everyone seems to think it’s so simple to just tank and screw the players. There’s a reason a lot of guys don’t want to stick around for these kind of eras. If you have a competent enough scouting department then you can turn around a franchise in the same amount of time picking from 10-16 every round as you can from 1-5.

I've always thought something like this should happen every year. This year we have 2 third round picks. Trade one of them for next years 2nd. Then in 2022 we will have 2 second rounders, trade one of them for a 2023 1st. Then trade one of your 2023 firsts for a 2024 1st ,and 2023 2nd., etc.etc.etc. Then you can have an almost infinitesimal amount of draft capital to spend when "that guy" shows up without every having given anything for it.

[86 Snyder]

7 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

You do know that average turnover from year to year was about the same? The longest lived dynasties were in the current era. This is the first year since 2000 that New England has not had a winning season.  Pittsburgh has had 1 losing season since 2000. Colts, only 4. Baltimore only 4. Saints just 7 and most of those were really close. Packers just 4. The Seahawks have 5 and one of those was a playoff.

 

Aaaaaand what was the common denominator among those teams?  

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

Interesting, this was said about Tua, before last year's draft.

Ya think, sometimes analysts are kind of off, in their projections ?

 

 

Sure, but that is a super extreme example, and not really that reflective of the majority of analyst opinions about Tua; most said he was very talented but also had plenty of concerns. You could probably find some extreme(ly wrong) examples of pre-draft analysis/scouting on pretty much any player if you look hard enough.

Edited February 20, 2021 by mistertim

[Darth Tater]

4 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

 

Aaaaaand what was the common denominator among those teams?  

Coaching staff and solid front office was the most common.