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

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, JoggingGod said:

Bro Wilson's skillset is great. He's not a Daniel Jones or Josh Rosen. The ability to throw at various angles, the great ball placement deep, the rushing threat, the quick release... I mean yeah Lance technically has a stronger arm and is faster but Wilson's absolute ceiling is not that far off and he has less questions.

When have I said he doesn’t have a good skill set? You’re arguing against ghosts my man. I don’t think his arm is as strong as you do, that’s for sure. But he has a good arm. Otherwise I’m with you. I like Wilson.

 

I think Lance’s arm, speed and size (25 pounds or so on Wilson) is going to make teams fall in love with him. 
 

For us? Right now? I’d prefer Wilson. If there’s a stop gap that can help turn this around in place? Toss a coin as long as we can develop either one. 

[Warhead36]

Just now, KDawg said:

The point I haven’t seen anyone really bring up so far in this thread is the salary cap.

 

The cap may decrease. While we have cap room, bringing in an expensive vet is costly and takes away from your ability to build the team properly around them.

 

A rookie, if one is available that fits what you determine to be a valuable skill set has a much lower hit and allows for more team building around them. 
 

A trade costs money and resources. Of course, some guys are worth it. But the likelihood of getting one of those AND them wanting to come here are low.

Yep that too.

 

Okay lets say you get a guy like Stafford. You're gonna have to give up a draft pick for him. Say you give up a 3rd(he'd probably cost more but just for sake of arguments). That's a 3rd rounder that could potentially be another Terry McLaurin or Antonio Gibson. So now you're investing extensive salary(someone like Stafford is gonna cost a lot)AND you lose out on one more potential young building block. For a guy who is 33 and had a pretty bad injury last year.

 

And don't get me wrong, I LOVE Stafford. I actually have advocated for trading for him before. But the more I watch this team, the more evident it is just how many holes we have on our roster. We are not in win now mode and only teams in win now mode trade for someone like Stafford.

[Renegade7]

Just now, Warhead36 said:

Brees is an exception. QBs like that never hit FA. He only did because of a supposed injury and because he was so bad his previous few years that the team spent a 1st rounder on his replacement already(notice a trend, teams keep trying at QB).

 

Yes the Broncos signed Manning. But they already had a team ready to win. They made the playoffs with Tim freaking Tebow. They were in win now mode. We are not.

 

Exception exception exception.

 

Look if this is how we're going to do this where I make a point on how we can buy ourselves time like someone else did and you say we can't, why are we going in circles.

 

It's fine, we will get Lawrence just like we got Young, ignore me, we all know its coming.  And will probably trade up to do it. Yah.

[Warhead36]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

My argument is to pump breaks on just getting the next flashy toy when our house is still on fire.  

I wouldn't consider a franchise QB a flashy toy. Its literally the most important part of a football team.

 

You get the QB right and everything else is cake. You don't and you're climbing Mount Everest backwards with blindfolds on.

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Exception exception exception.

 

Look if this is how we're going to do this where I make a point on how we can buy ourselves time like someone else did and you say we can't, why are we going in circles.

 

It's fine, we will get Lawrence just like we got Young, ignore me, we all know its coming.  And will probably trade up to do it. Yah.

Trading up is a mistake if it’s more than a spot or two. The cost is detrimental to team building.

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, JoggingGod said:

Yup. Every penny. He's a long term franchise QB who will keep the Rams in contention. And I have no doubt that Lawrence will be even better than him.

 

If he keeps it up, I'll give you that on Goff, every example I gave still stands.  Rather us do our homework then hoping the #1 pick does our homework for us.

Just now, KDawg said:

Trading up is a mistake if it’s more than a spot or two. The cost is detrimental to team building.

Which is exactly why I don't want to do this, but we will anyway. Watch.

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

If he keeps it up, I'll give you that on Goff, every example I gave still stands.  Rather us do our homework then hoping the #1 pick does our homework for us.

Which is exactly why I don't want to do this, but we will anyway. Watch.

Im not sure if we’ll need to or not. This team is pretty bad. But it’s this squad’s style to win a few games that seemed impossible... so...

[Warhead36]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Exception exception exception.

 

Look if this is how we're going to do this where I make a point on how we can buy ourselves time like someone else did and you say we can't, why are we going in circles.

 

It's fine, we will get Lawrence just like we got Young, ignore me, we all know its coming.  And will probably trade up to do it. Yah.

Yes we can buy ourselves time. But what does that mean exactly? Is your goal to go 6-10 for the next couple of years? If so fine, trade for Stafford or Ryan.

 

Personally if we aren't a playoff contender with young talent and upside then I'm fine going 2-14 or 3-13. There is nothing worse than purgatory of 6-10 or 7-9 and that's what veteran stopgap QBs take you.

 

The best teams in the NFL, for the most part, are built around franchise QBs. Franchise QBs they drafted with high picks and then developed. Yes you can cherry pick exceptions, but they are rare and not reliable whatsoever. You're ignoring 50+ years of history to try for a moonshot when we don't even fit the circumstances.

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, Warhead36 said:

I wouldn't consider a franchise QB a flashy toy. Its literally the most important part of a football team.

 

You get the QB right and everything else is cake. You don't and you're climbing Mount Everest backwards with blindfolds on.

 

It shouldn't be, but that's how they get treated once they are in the building.

 

Franchise has lost all credibility with me on dealing with rookie QBs right now.  Just continuing to bang our head against the wall isn't the solution.

 

If we end up with the #1 pick, I'll shut up.

 

But just getting a new guy because we are supposed to, nah, we can wait, and we should, there's nothing here for the new guy, who doesn't have to be generational to win a superbowl.

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

Im not sure if we’ll need to or not. This team is pretty bad. But it’s this squad’s style to win a few games that seemed impossible... so...

 

At least one or two every year : )

 

If we aren't #1, then we have to trade up for Lawrence, right?  I can't do it, I won't do it.

[KDawg]

@Renegade7 if we’re 2 I don’t trade up. Fields is the guy I want, to be honest. Not going to deny Lawrence’s ability but I genuinely feel Fields is a better fit here. But a lot of that is dependent on his season, which starts this Saturday at noon. 
 

He’ll either solidify where he belongs in the convo for top QB or fall off. I’m guessing he solidifies, but if he plays poorly there’s our litmus test and we’d need to pass. 

[Warhead36]

I'm not advocating trading up for Lawrence. But if we get the #1 pick, we take him 100%.

 

If we pick #2...I'm not sure. I don't know enough about Fields. I'm not sold on him but I haven't really watched him much. I'm skeptical on these super athlete types. I want a guy who can run an NFL offense and make accurate throws into tight windows.

[KDawg]

Just now, Warhead36 said:

I'm not advocating trading up for Lawrence. But if we get the #1 pick, we take him 100%.

 

If we pick #2...I'm not sure. I don't know enough about Fields. I'm not sold on him but I haven't really watched him much. I'm skeptical on these super athlete types. I want a guy who can run an NFL offense and make accurate throws into tight windows.

In my opinion you have Fields pegged wrong. He is a super athlete. But your last sentence is what he does. He’s not a runner. 

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Yes we can buy ourselves time. But what does that mean exactly? Is your goal to go 6-10 for the next couple of years? If so fine, trade for Stafford or Ryan.

 

There's 7 playoff teams now, we could be talking about sneaking in and trying to find our QB outside the top 10 or trading up when we find a guy that fits our system instead of our dreams.

 

2 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Personally if we aren't a playoff contender with young talent and upside then I'm fine going 2-14 or 3-13. There is nothing worse than purgatory of 6-10 or 7-9 and that's what veteran stopgap QBs take you.

 

Does the young talent have to be at QB?  If we are that bad next year, we can draft somebody next year.  What's wrong with that?

 

2 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

The best teams in the NFL, for the most part, are built around franchise QBs. Franchise QBs they drafted with high picks and then developed. Yes you can cherry pick exceptions, but they are rare and not reliable whatsoever. You're ignoring 50+ years of history to try for a moonshot when we don't even fit the circumstances.

 

I'm not ignoring anything. And plenty of teams that tried the next rookie after the other and it NEVER worked for them. Still isn't, still lost in the wilderness.

[Skinsinparadise]

20 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

My argument is to pump breaks on just getting the next flashy toy when our house is still on fire.  

 

The QB is the main part of the house.  I am in love with developing an O line as much as anyone, I harp on it on the draft thread all the time, but its not super hard to do when you dicatate resources to it -- draft picks and money.  We haven't signed a big time FA for the O line in eons.  Maybe Lauvao was the last big FA O line signing?  And the last time we dedicated even a pick in the top two rounds at O line was 2015.

 

We are going to likely have a high 2nd round pick, and two third rounders in the mix of our picks and a ton of cap room.  Nothing is easy but it is a mile easier to find a couple of O lineman or even 3 then it is to find an elite QB.   You can do both.  It's not and either or question. 

 

Jason Campbell, Patrick Ramsey, Haskins or name that other dude here weren't elite talents that were failed by the supporting casts.  You can bring a dude like Kyler Murray who flashed in his rookie year and build for him the following year like the Cards did.  The supporting cast isn't incredibly hard to get if you focus at it.  Not long ago we had D. Jax, Crowder and Garcon.  We've had really good O lines in the mix in the past, especially in the Gibbs era.  What were we missing?  An elite QB.

 

The QB is the unicorn.  And yeah they can flash right away if they are really good.  Bengals O line isn't good.  But Cincy can already see they got a good one in Burrow.  If you have a rare opportunity to land one of the top QBs in the draft, you do it.  The history of this franchise is not having those opportunities.  

 

I recall being jealous as heck when the Colts were positioned to get Andrew Luck.  Luck's O line stunk early in his career yet he made the playoffs right from the start.  As Sam Monson from PFF said on 106.7, the really great QBs can actually help elevate the supporting cast.  The just good ones need the supporting cast to elevate them.  He goes if you pick at the top of the draft and can get a great one you do it without looking back because those type of players make a franchise. 

 

The problem IMO isn't that we've been failing our Andrew Lucks but that we aren't drafting the Andrew Luck types.  That's not really anyone's fault, its just been that we haven't been in position to do it. 

 

Edited October 18, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

@Renegade7 if we’re 2 I don’t trade up. Fields is the guy I want, to be honest. Not going to deny Lawrence’s ability but I genuinely feel Fields is a better fit here. But a lot of that is dependent on his season, which starts this Saturday at noon. 
 

He’ll either solidify where he belongs in the convo for top QB or fall off. I’m guessing he solidifies, but if he plays poorly there’s our litmus test and we’d need to pass. 

 

Fair, this will play itself out where like you said our pick order answers this question for us.

 

I want to emphasis that I'm not saying we should never draft a qb again, just after what I watched today, I'm in no rush to throw another 20 year old out there and hope he sinks or swims.

[Warhead36]

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

There's 7 playoff teams now, we could be talking about sneaking in and trying to find our QB outside the top 10 or trading up when we find a guy that fits our system instead of our dreams.

 

 

Does the young talent have to be at QB?  If we are that bad next year, we can draft somebody next year.  What's wrong with that?

 

 

I'm not ignoring anything. And plenty of teams that tried the next rookie after the other and it NEVER worked for them. Still isn't, still lost in the wilderness.

I don't want to be talking about sneaking in. Why are we trying to settle for 9-7? I want to build an elite team that is good year in year out. Those teams don't screw around at QB. They get their franchise guy.

 

Yes ideally you want a young QB. The way the league is set up now, you get a rookie QB on a cheap deal for 4 years(5 if he's a 1st rounder)and you can build the roster around them since they don't take up much cap space. Of course we can draft a QB next year, but we have no idea who will be available. It could be one of those crappy QB classes like 2013 where there is nobody worth taking.

 

Yes some teams are still whiffing on QBs. And they'll keep trying til they get it right. The Bills kept trying, they didn't have a guy after Jim Kelly retired. Now they have one in Josh Allen. The Bengals had a solid vet in Andy Dalton but let him walk because they had a shot at Joe Burrow who looks like a stud right out of the gate.

[heyholetsgogrant]

21 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Yep that too.

 

Okay lets say you get a guy like Stafford. You're gonna have to give up a draft pick for him. Say you give up a 3rd(he'd probably cost more but just for sake of arguments). That's a 3rd rounder that could potentially be another Terry McLaurin or Antonio Gibson. So now you're investing extensive salary(someone like Stafford is gonna cost a lot)AND you lose out on one more potential young building block. For a guy who is 33 and had a pretty bad injury last year.

 

And don't get me wrong, I LOVE Stafford. I actually have advocated for trading for him before. But the more I watch this team, the more evident it is just how many holes we have on our roster. We are not in win now mode and only teams in win now mode trade for someone like Stafford.

Omg, if we gave up a pick for Stanford I would puke. 🤮

[Daniel.redskins]

1 minute ago, heyholetsgogrant said:

Omg, if we gave up a pick for Stanford I would puke. 🤮

I agree.  Why would we want another dude that can't run?  Have we learned anything from Haskins?  You need a qb that can move in modern day football.  That and arm strength.  We don't have a qb on this team that can do both.  

[Warhead36]

I love Stafford and he's actually more mobile than you think. If we were closer to winning I would absolutely want to trade for him. But it makes on sense for us to do so now.

[Renegade7]

8 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

I don't want to be talking about sneaking in. Why are we trying to settle for 9-7? I want to build an elite team that is good year in year out. Those teams don't screw around at QB. They get their franchise guy.

 

Because I'm tried of all or nothing, there's this middle ground called being competitive that we used to demand.  Why can't we chew gum and walk at the same time? We used to.

 

Quote

Yes ideally you want a young QB. The way the league is set up now, you get a rookie QB on a cheap deal for 4 years(5 if he's a 1st rounder)and you can build the roster around them since they don't take up much cap space. Of course we can draft a QB next year, but we have no idea who will be available. It could be one of those crappy QB classes like 2013 where there is nobody worth taking.

 

Yes some teams are still whiffing on QBs. And they'll keep trying til they get it right. The Bills kept trying, they didn't have a guy after Jim Kelly retired. Now they have one in Josh Allen. The Bengals had a solid vet in Andy Dalton but let him walk because they had a shot at Joe Burrow who looks like a stud right out of the gate.

 

Andy Dalton is a FA this offseason.  Just saying.

 

Edited October 18, 2020 by Renegade7

[petey hodge]

 

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

I love Stafford and he's actually more mobile than you think. If we were closer to winning I would absolutely want to trade for him. But it makes on sense for us to do so now.

 

I know you meant "no sense", and don't agree with you, but Stafford can do his job and wasted out in Detroit.

[CobraCommander]

6 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Because I'm tried of all or nothing, there's this middle ground called being competitive that we used to demand.  Why can't we chew gum and walk at the same time? We used to.

 

 

Andy Dalton is a FA this offseason.  Just saying.

 

I get the sneaky feeling that Dalton will do well with his opportunity, get the Cowboys to the playoffs and get a new contract from them.

Edited October 18, 2020 by Florgon79

[drowland]

50 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Yeah exactly.    Haskins, Campbell, Ramsey weren't the top QBs in the draft or even the 2nd most highly regardled.  You aren't ever going to get a 30-30 ESPN special about how did dudes like them who just screamed bonafide star suprisingly fail in the NFL.  All of them had major asterisks about them before the draft.   

 

It's not like we've been drafting universally loved prospects and the league has been shocked that they haven't succeeded.

 

The failures here make sense.  RG3 being an exception and he soared for a season until the injury.

 

We keep swinging.  We can say how can Geron Christian fail considering all the stud LTs we've drafted?  Prior moves on a position doesn't have anything to do with future moves.  Especially when coaching staffs change and FO people change.  Cerrato and Bruce Allen and Kyle Smith are all different dudes.  Ditto Shanny, Gibbs, Zorn and Rivera.

 

But how much has Dan played in drafting QBs?  He was heavily involved with Ramsey from what I remember.  Ole Ball Coach never seemed interested in personnel outside of his former Gators so I think his opinion was sure fine.  With Campbell, Dan was at the private workout.  Gibbs was calling the shots but I think Gibbs never planned to play Campbell and agreed to draft him for the next guy so again it's sure he's fine.  We know Dan and Bruce had to convince Mike on RGIII and Mike then drafted Cousins in later rds who he liked better.  And now Haskins who Jay didn't want and Kyle reportedly didn't have a 1st rd grade on.  There's always been one constant and the best QB we've drafted in the last 20 years (Cousins) got the cold shoulder from Dan early in his career because he wasn't Dan's choice.  If Dan pushes another QB, Kyle and Ron should quit.

Edited October 18, 2020 by drowland

[TradeTheBeal!]

4 minutes ago, Florgon79 said:

I get the sneaky feeling that Dalton will do well with his opportunity, get the Cowboys to the playoffs and get a new contract from them.

This post is violence.