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

[Skinsinparadise]

1 minute ago, JSSkinz said:

I think they might come to the conclusion they are stuck with Wentz and then what, could they possibly look to move Hurts? 

 

They trade the hot young cheap rookie?  That would be a stunner.  I'd be surprised.  But even if so they'd trade their hot rookie to some team within the division -- that would make an even more all time stunner to me. 

[KDawg]

There have been back and forth rumors on Wentz wanting out of Philly and then saying he doesn’t want out of Philly. But I wonder if Wentz would re-do his deal just to get out if that’s what he wants.

 

This is more just curiosity, but I am intrigued with him and don’t think he’s anywhere near as bad as he has played this year. If he’s traded I think he can help a team out. Would be something to see him in Chicago with Foles. 
 

But Trubisky has been pretty good lately so I’m not sure they do that. Trubisky has been awesome lately, though, and I think he stays as the QB there for the long run.

 

Wentz to Denver is intriguing, too. Lock doesn’t have it, in my opinion. 

8 hours ago, Anselmheifer said:

 

Really? Lance looks like a major project. My impression is that he is more of a 1st read guy and stares his receivers down. I love his mobility. And he reportedly is a super high character guy with a great work ethic. But to me, he's a high ceiling, low floor shot in the dark. And he's going to cost more draft capital than Stafford would. And Stafford would immediately put us in contention.

 

Someone above said they thought Stafford would cost a 1st and a 3rd and that's exactly what I was thinking. I'd rather trade a 1st and a 3rd for Stafford than two 1sts and a 2nd for Lance. 

Since we are talking about the cap and finding a franchise QB, I know this is a sin, but I would consider packaging Jonathan Allen and picks to go up and get Zach Wilson. Allen is having a great year. But he tends to get dinged up and his 2nd contract is coming up and we can't keep everybody. Franchise QB. All other considerations secondary. 

I don’t think Lance costs more draft capital than Stafford if you think Stafford is a first and a third. But even with that, Lance would be significantly less against the cap, so if the trade comp. was even I’d prefer the rookie (whoever it is)

[Est.1974]

57 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

so if they trade him versus release him it wouldn't be a 60 million cap hit but based on this wonder would their cap hit would be?  Regardless, I wouldn't want to make that trade and if the Eagles are willing to trade another Qb to us of all teams I'd have a buyer beware philosophy. 

Pre June 1st trade the dead cap would be 34m in 2021.

 

Post June 1st trade the dead cap would be 9m in 2021.

 

They can’t cut him but a trade seems fairly straightforward. A potential buyer has the Eagles by the nuts through.

[Anselmheifer]

32 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

I don’t think Lance costs more draft capital than Stafford if you think Stafford is a first and a third. But even with that, Lance would be significantly less against the cap, so if the trade comp. was even I’d prefer the rookie (whoever it is)

 

The cap par IS huge. I agree with you. It looks more and more like we are picking 19th or later. I think Lance goes pretty high. What is his floor, 12 to Denver? It's going to cost us more than the 19th pick and a 3rd round pick to get to 12. Unless you think Lance really falls he's going to cost a good bit more. I'd actually be ok with that for a guy that doesn't feel like as much of a shot in the dark as Lance. Is Lance really that much better a prospect than Drew Lock? Mitchell Trubisky? Daniel Jones? I'm not sure. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

I don’t think Lance costs more draft capital than Stafford if you think Stafford is a first and a third. But even with that, Lance would be significantly less against the cap, so if the trade comp. was even I’d prefer the rookie (whoever it is)

 

It would likely cost you your 2021 first rounder at a minimum to trade up for Lance unless he falls really far down the draft.  

 

Cliff notes version of this:

 

A.  for a veteran like Stafford you are likely giving up a first rounder in 2020.   Maybe change added to it, maybe not.  So one first rounder. 

 

B.  for a rookie you are likely devoting your 2020 first rounder and 2021 first rounder to trade up.  Change added to that is very likely.  Probably your 2nd rounder too.   So two first rounders and likely change. 

 

I am cool with trading up for a rookie QB but no way i am trading the farm for Lance.  Too much bust potential.  And with all the needy QB teams in the draft, I'd guess the odds of having to trade the farm to go get one is high.  

Edited December 21, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[KDawg]

8 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

It would likely cost you your 2021 first rounder at a minimum to trade up for Lance unless he falls really far down the draft.  

 

Cliff notes version of this:

 

A.  for a veteran like Stafford you are likely giving up a first rounder in 2020.   Maybe change added to it, maybe not.  So one first rounder. 

 

B.  for a rookie you are likely devoting your 2020 first rounder and 2021 first rounder to trade up.  Change added to that is very likely.  Probably your 2nd rounder too.   So two first rounders and likely change. 

 

I am cool with trading up for a rookie QB but no way i am trading the farm for Lance.  Too much bust potential.  And with all the needy QB teams in the draft, I'd guess the odds of having to trade the farm to go get one is high.  

I don’t count the first rounder you’re exchanging as an extra pick. You’re swapping places but you still have the first round pick. 
 

Also, with 6 possible QBs in the first I think it’s possible Lance falls to the mid to late teens. 

Edited December 21, 2020 by KDawg

[Anselmheifer]

Just now, KDawg said:

I don’t count the first rounder you’re exchanging as an extra pick. You’re swapping places but you still have the first round pick. 

That makes no sense. If Lance costs a 2021 and a 2022 1st rounder, he costs 2 first rounders. If Stafford costs a 2021 1st rounder, he costs one first rounder. 

[Skinsinparadise]

5 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I don’t count the first rounder you’re exchanging as an extra pick. You’re swapping places but you still have the first round pick. 
 

Also, with 6 possible QBs in the first I think it’s possible Lance falls to the mid to late teens. 

 

I count it.

 

If you trade your 2020 pick for Stafford you are expending one pick for the QB.  If you are trading up for a QB you are likely spending both your 2021 and 2022 picks for that same QB.  So yeah it cost you an additional first rounder.

 

To simplify this if you trade up for a QB in this draft say goodbye in all likelihood to your 2022 first round pick and more.  If you trade for a veteran you will have your 2022 first rounder still. 

Edited December 21, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[KDawg]

4 minutes ago, Anselmheifer said:

That makes no sense. If Lance costs a 2021 and a 2022 1st rounder, he costs 2 first rounders. If Stafford costs a 2021 1st rounder, he costs one first rounder. 

It makes plenty of sense.

 

I started the day with a 2020 and a 2021 first.

 

I end the day with a better 2020 pick. 

If we trade for Stafford I start the day with a 2020 and a 2021 first. 
 

I end the day with a 2021 first and no 2020.
 

The pick you exchange isn’t a factor.

 

You have one remaining first rounder in both scenarios.

[Skinsinparadise]

15 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

You have one remaining first rounder in both scenarios.

 

How do you have one remaining first rounders in both scenarios?    

 

The options are likely

 

A.  2021 and 2022 first rounders to trade up for a rookie and change

 

versus

 

B.  2021 first rounder and maybe change for the veteran

 

if I understand you -- you are saying that since you keep a 2021 first rounder in effect you don't lose anything in 2021.   But the thing is you are using that same 2021 pick for the QB since that's the point of trading up.  So yes its costing you two first rounders to land that QB versus just one.  

 

Or to put it on point you do have your 2022 first rounder one way but not the other way. 

Edited December 21, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[KDawg]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

How do you have one remaining first rounders in both scenarios?    

 

The options are likely

 

A.  2021 and 2022 first rounders to trade up for a rookie and change

 

versus

 

B.  2021 first rounder and maybe change for the veteran

How don’t you? If you are trading up for a QB you were going to use one on a QB anyways. Acquiring Stafford for one is the same thing. You’re essentially drafting him. 
 

So when you use the swapped pick for a QB it’s the same as drafting a QB later in regards to that pick. The additional cost is where you judge the trade.   
 

If I trade up 3 spots and give my first and a third for a first the cost is the third. The gain is draft position.

 

EDIT: I see what you guys are saying about using two firsts versus using 1. 
 

But swapping firsts to me signifies the desire to use it on a QB anyways. 
 

The difference is, of course, the next year’s pick that you aren’t getting a piece versus getting a piece with a trade for Stafford. That’s not lost on me.

 

Also, as I said, I think Lance falls and the trade compensation we’re talking about in this thread is a first and a third. Roughly the same for both. Not 2 firsts and a third. 
 

If I trade a first and a third for Stafford and his salary, or I swap firsts and a third for Lance it’s the same cost minus the cap. That’s what spawned this discussion. 
 

 

Edited December 21, 2020 by KDawg

[Skinsinparadise]

3 minutes ago, KDawg said:

How don’t you? If you are trading up for a QB you were going to use one on a QB anyways. Acquiring Stafford for one is the same thing. You’re essentially drafting him. 
 

So when you use the swapped pick for a QB it’s the same as drafting a QB later in regards to that pick. The additional cost is where you judge the trade.   
 

If I trade up 3 spots and give my first and a third for a first the cost is the third. The gain is draft position.

 

lets take the drafting Stafford point you make.

 

Version A.

 

Your 2021 first round pick is Matt Stafford

 

Version B

 

Your 2021 first round pick AND 2022 first round pick is Trey Lance

Edited December 21, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[JSSkinz]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

They trade the hot young cheap rookie?  That would be a stunner.  I'd be surprised.  But even if so they'd trade their hot rookie to some team within the division -- that would make an even more all time stunner to me. 

Agree, its more likely Wentz is gone, with the reports coming out of Philly I don't see how it works with both of them on the team next season.  We have the cap space needed and he has to approve any trade so they might be forced to make a move they normally wouldn't make.

[KDawg]

Just now, Skinsinparadise said:

 

lets take the drafting Stafford point you make.

 

Version A.

 

Your 2021 first round pick is Matt Stafford

 

Version B

 

Your 2021 first round pick AND 2022 first round pick is Trey Lance

Read my edit. No where in the scenarios laid out was it 2 firsts to trade up. I ascertained that Lance would be available in the mid teens. 1 first and 1 third was the cost provided. Not two firsts. 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Read my edit. No where in the scenarios laid out was it 2 firsts to trade up. I ascertained that Lance would be available in the mid teens. 1 first and 1 third was the cost provided. Not two firsts. 

 

OK, got it, that means really just trading a third to trade up.   A third to swap positions in the first.   I think that's unlikely.   Lance would have to drop further than the 8-10 range IMO for it to be that cheap.

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

OK, got it, that means really just trading a third to trade up.   A third to swap positions in the first.   I think that's unlikely.   Lance would have to drop further than the 8-10 range IMO for it to be that cheap.

I think he drops to mid teens. Or not necessarily Lance, but an attractive QB option.

[Skinsinparadise]

8 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I think he drops to mid teens. Or not necessarily Lance, but an attractive QB option.

 

Don't know but I got my doubts about that.  So many needy QB teams in this draft.  Seeing Hurts as another Qb with mobility exceeding expectations might be the gravy that ensures Lance isn't a faller in this draft.

 

I think Mac Jones might be our best shot among rookie QBs as to within range of our pick and I once thought for sure he'd be there at our pick -- now i am not as sure of it. 

 

I'll say this, this might be the one intriguing off season we've had in eons.   So many moving parts and I can't recall ever feeling in the past like some pieces might secure a SB. 

 

If it keeps our heads spinning in a thread like this imagine our FO.  So many possibiilities to consider. 

Edited December 21, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[Est.1974]

No chance you would need to include your 2022 first to move up for Lance. Not from #19 anyway.

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

No chance you would need to include your 2022 first to move up for Lance. Not from #19 anyway.

It would be a terrible move. That’s not the compensation for moving up in that part of the draft. I totally agree with you.

[Blanka]

I’m gonna call my shot..

 

 

the QB room next season will be Darnold, Kyle and mid/late round prospect if Alex retires. Alex/Sam/Kyle if he doesn’t. 

 

 

[KDawg]

3 minutes ago, Blanka said:

I’m gonna call my shot..

 

 

the QB room next season will be Darnold, Kyle and mid/late round prospect if Alex retires. Alex/Sam/Kyle if he doesn’t. 

 

 

 

While I don't love the idea of Darnold, there are a few things that could make this the most realistic trade scenario:

 

1) He's younger than Joe Burrow. (Burrow: 12/10/96, Darnold: 6/5/97)

2) He's not a giant cap hit

3) It won't cost major draft equity to get him

 

Problem is that you have to wonder if he's damaged goods at this point. 

[Thinking Skins]

14 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

While I don't love the idea of Darnold, there are a few things that could make this the most realistic trade scenario:

 

1) He's younger than Joe Burrow. (Burrow: 12/10/96, Darnold: 6/5/97)

2) He's not a giant cap hit

3) It won't cost major draft equity to get him

 

Problem is that you have to wonder if he's damaged goods at this point. 

Why would you go for Darnold over Haskins? They are similar i age, stats and development. And Darnold has a worse injury history. I don't see the big thing about Darnold. 

[KDawg]

5 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Why would you go for Darnold over Haskins? They are similar i age, stats and development. And Darnold has a worse injury history. I don't see the big thing about Darnold. 

Do people read my posts? Or do I talk to my ****ing self? Read the first line.

 

But I don’t want Haskins, either.

[Skinsinparadise]

3 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Why would you go for Darnold over Haskins? They are similar i age, stats and development. And Darnold has a worse injury history. I don't see the big thing about Darnold. 

 

Chiming in.  I wouldn't want either guy.  But there is a reason why scuttlebutt is Haskins maybe fetches a 6th rounder in a trade and Darnold a 2nd.  Darnold's talent > Haskins but not by a mile.  Darnold's intangibles are supposedly super good and Haskins is in question.  Darnold has one at least OK but not hot full season under his belt 19 TDS, 13 INTs. 7-6 record.  Over 3000 yards.

 

https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/football-team/report-dwayne-haskins-poor-study-and-practice-habits-led-his-benching

 

Washington Football Team quarterback Dwayne Haskins was benched on Wednesday in part due to poor practice and study habits, a source familiar with the situation told Les Carpenter of the Washington Post

Haskins' lack of preparation during the week was evident on Sundays, as Haskins overthrew multiple pass-catchers and missed chances to hit open receivers, the source told Carpenter.

One teammate additionally called Haskins out, according to the source, saying then-third-string quarterback Alex Smith would arrive to the team facility earlier than Haskins and prepare better for games, even though Smith knew he was going to be inactive come game day.

 

https://jetswire.usatoday.com/2020/12/19/new-york-jets-los-angeles-rams-sam-darnold-aaron-donald-week-15/

Donald acknowledged that Darnold and the 0-13 Jets are not playing their best football right now. However, Donald thinks Darnold has some characteristics that stand out on tape.

“Obviously, they’re not playing how they want to play, but I think he’s a good quarterback,” Donald said. “He’s really mobile. He can move, make things happen with his feet and get out of trouble. It looks like he’s strong. I’ve seen a couple times when it looked like he was about to get sacked, but he was able to break out and make something happen.”