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

[redskinss]

1 minute ago, 86 Snyder said:

 

I must have missed the season where we went 11-5.  Haven't won 11 games since 1991.

I think he's referring to his overall record with the team.

[PartyPosse]

28 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

I'm pretty surprised they would move on from Smith this early in he offseason.

 

We are well under the cap and we are in a situation where we didn't have to cut him until we essentially had his "replacement" on the roster. We could hold onto to his rights to avoid any worst case QB scenario. Gimme reduced price Alex over Sam Darnold any day.

 

Either the FO is 100% sure Alex wont be back in any capacity, or they are doing him a solid by releasing him early to give him the best possible opportunity moving forward, which would be a classy move.

 

or maybe they have a QB transaction in the pipeline...

 

A lot of QB moves don't get made until they have to be so this does feel a bit odd. 

 

We are in a grave condition (Zombie Pun) at QB but the offseason is still young. Plenty of time and players left

I actually think it was done out of respect to Alex. There are a lot of QBs expected to move around this offseason so he’s giving Alex a chance to get a head start on selling himself to other teams.

[86 Snyder]

2 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

He means 11-5 record overall, not in one season. 6-4 in 2018, 5-1 in 2020, equals 11-5 as starter 

 

I know what he means and of course it doesn't work like that over here in reality land.

[The Consigliere]

18 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

He definitely wouldn't have been my first choice, but I always liked Rivera as a coach. I'd have much preferred to go with a younger, more innovative type of HC, but Rivera as Coach wasn't anywhere near the worst hire Snyder has made.

 

Rivera as de facto GM is another matter. My assumption was what we'd get with an older retread coach running personnel was a guy who would prioritize the short-term rather than recognize the opportunity the team's young talent and assets presented to potentially build a long-term powerhouse. That, imo, is exactly what transpired. 

 

Imagine someone with some vision running the organization last year. You could have traded away a number of players, maybe eating some of their salaries for a better return, in other cases maybe just moving the salary to benefit the cap. You accept that this will mean a couple of extra losses and the resultant draft position with it and prepare for the future. 

 

Right now, in that scenario, we'd be looking at likely being able to pick our QB without any trade being necessary (or, of course, we could be in position to at least be int he running if a Wilson or Watson became available) and we'd have draft capital to be able to address several other needs, maybe using said assets to move up for a couple more premium level picks. The team would have extra cap space to target a few FAs to fill things out. We'd be discussing right now exactly the best way to utilize those assets to start a long-term run at the top.

 

Instead, 7-9 and a first round playoff exit were treated as the brass ring. And we achieved it. But now it's hard to imagine how we can build on it and take the next step. That is a choice you'd expect from a coach, because you want coaches and players trying to win at all times. From a GM, though, it was a terrible choice of priorities. 

x1000

[Cooleyfan1993]

Just now, 86 Snyder said:

 

I know what he means and of course it doesn't work like that over here in reality land.

.....huh? What doesn’t work like that? All he said was smith had an overall record of 11-5 in his time here. He wasn’t saying they were ALL because of him. Just that it was indeed the record he had as starter here. Are facts not a thing for you?

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[dswerdlw]

Another reason to cut Smith now is that if Smith lands with another QB needy team (i.e. Chicago), then we may not have to compete with that team in our QB search. 

[Burgold]

What a weird, weird road Alex Smith will have had here. Arguably one of the most successful QBs of the Snyder years (based on win percentage in games he played,) but so few games and so much drama.

 

I wish him well. When he's ready, I suspect he'll make an incredible QB whisperer/QB coach. I hope he finds that satisfying. Despite his conservative style of play, he's very competitive. Being so close to the field, but unable to step on it may prove too frustrating for him.

[86 Snyder]

1 minute ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

.....huh? What doesn’t work like that? All he said was smith had an overall record of 11-5 in his time here. He wasn’t saying they were ALL because of him. Just that it was indeed the record he had as starter here. Are facts not a thing for you?

 

Misrepresenting facts are not a thing for me, no.  You don't get to cobble together parts of two separate seasons more than two years apart and call it "led us to 11-5".

 

And nevermind that most of those opponents were very bad teams...guarantee the won percentage was under 40% without even checking, probably worse.

[kingdaddy]

2 hours ago, clskinsfan said:

He made it to a Super Bowl In Carolina. That is success as far as I am concerned. And also remember that the owner that fired him was not the owner that hired him. 

I'm way in the minority, but if we brought in Cam and he was a backup to Heiny, Allen or both I'd be totally fine with that. I wanna see what we have in Heiny and Allen...That being said, I'd prefer Fitzpatrick with a chance to be the starter.

[Cooleyfan1993]

1 minute ago, 86 Snyder said:

 

Misrepresenting facts are not a thing for me, no.  You don't get to cobble together parts of two separate seasons more than two years apart and call it "led us to 11-5".

 

And nevermind that most of those opponents were very bad teams...guarantee the won percentage was under 40% without even checking, probably worse.

He wasn’t “cobbling together parts of two separate seasons”. He was saying, simply, that he led the team to an 11-5 record in games that he started. That’s just a fact. Was the team 11-5 with him,or not? Answer: YES. Which is what he was saying. 

[Thinking Skins]

2 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

 

Misrepresenting facts are not a thing for me, no.  You don't get to cobble together parts of two separate seasons more than two years apart and call it "led us to 11-5".

 

And nevermind that most of those opponents were very bad teams...guarantee the won percentage was under 40% without even checking, probably worse.

I'm just stating his record as a starter. The same way I could state Brunell's or Campbell's. Alex Smith's record as a starter here isn't bad. Sure he didn't lead us to an 11-5 season but that doesn't make trading a third and Kendall Fuller the worse trade in our history. We traded more for RG3 who had one good season and then seemed to have fallen off the face off the earth. So is one 10-6 season and one 3-13 season more worth the 2 firsts and a second we traded for RG3 than the third and Fuller getting us to a 6-4 record and a 5-1 record? I think all the trades I mentioned are just worse trades? I mean we gave up just about the same thing for TJ Duckett who I don't think played a down for us. 

[The Consigliere]

18 hours ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

I mean, probably, it cost Buffalo the 53rd and 56th pick to move up to select Josh Allen from 12th to 7th. That's a pretty high price to move up 5 spots, but I bet Buffalo would do that deal every single time. You call Detroit, have this as your initial offer and move from there. I'm hoping they're willing to overpay if they love a QB prospect.

 

It's not high. Drafts have tiers, the preset values are based on the NFL from decades ago, all drafts are different, '22 sucks at QB, and isn't great at WR and is awful at RB, the current draft is shallow but strong at the top at RB, deep with top end talent and second tier WR talent and slot guys, and the best TE class in years, and one of the best QB drafts of the past 35 years at the top. '22 is the polar opposite. You need to work within the environment of particular classes, and take advantage of inefficiencies like the draft trade value chart Dallas used, like the fact that the '22 draft is super weak in what we need, but the '21 draft is well stocked and act accordingly.

 

Buffalo had a strong defense and not much else in '18, they knew the '19 QB class was straight trash, and so used assets they'd back loaded, to maneuver to get their guy so they wouldn't have to wait for '20 or '21 and it worked. I hated Josh Allen and would not recommend betting on a QB figuring out accuracy after college, that virtually never works ever, but props to them as it has, at least in the short term, regardless they handled QB right. 

 

We have the DL, we don't have the OL, or the back 7 on defense or depth at WR. We can decide to let this DL fade into the sunset or trade pieces of it to get that QB and other pieces of help, if we stand pat and pick at slot and tinker with FA we are screwed. We have an overabundance in an area that can make you mediocre but can't make you good or great. They need to think real long and hard on what to do. If I was sold on Fields and Lance (I am on Fields, less so on Lance though I like hime), I'd sell the farm to move up to get him because QB help via the draft is at least two years away and if you hit on a Fields or Lance you are set and the draft capital/player capital loss is irrelevant, and if you miss, you'll suck soon enough anyway, putting you back in position to fix yourself with the '23 and '24 classes. 

 

That's how I'd handle it. If we can't move up, I'd start trading pieces to acquire draft capital to maneuver in the '23 and '24 classes that are almost certainly better at QB than '22 and wait it out. But yeah, I'd trade almost anything to move up for Fields or Lawrence, and I'd do a standard trade for Lance if I was sold (2 firsts, a second, and a player and a day 3 pick whatever, but I wouldn't sell '23 or '24 assets). 

[86 Snyder]

4 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

He wasn’t “cobbling together parts of two separate seasons”. He was saying, simply, that he led the team to an 11-5 record in games that he started. That’s just a fact. Was the team 11-5 with him,or not? Answer: YES. Which is what he was saying. 

 

And where did the 11-5 come from?  Was it two separate seasons 2 years apart?  Was it mostly against ****ty competition?  I realize nuance can be difficult but context matters.

[bakedtater1]

Interesting to see jj watt go to the cardinals

[Cooleyfan1993]

2 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

 

And where did the 11-5 come from?  Was it two separate seasons 2 years apart?  Was it mostly against ****ty competition?  I realize nuance can be difficult but context matters.

Who the **** cares who it was against? An 11-5 record OVERALL, is still that, an 11-5 record OVERALL. 
 

good lord, it shouldn’t have to be pointed out to you what the guy was saying, but yet here we are. Was his record as starter 11-5, or was it not 11-5? You know the answer here. Stop it. 

[The Consigliere]

20 hours ago, daveakl said:

Build the rest of the team. Vet QB's are always out there and if you have everything else in place, you are a destination.

Rodgers, Dak, Derek, Watson, Wilson, one of them will be available to be had either via trade or released / FA.

This approach almost never works. The vast majority of vet QB's never hit free agency so no they aren't always out there (if you mean good ones), and when they do, the bidding war tends to lead them to teams that are willing to pay and contend, and we're not able to address both of those topics honestly AND unlike Brees in '05, only 2 of those guys are young, 1 is in his prime (but is mediocre+), I just don't see any of them looking at the worst owner in the NFL with no franchise relevance in thirty years, and say, "I want to go there". End of the line guys, sure, but not guys looking to top off their career like Brady just did. 

 

Lastly, this means you skip the NFL cheat code which is a franchise QB on a rookie deal that renders your cap, heaven set for 5 years. 

[86 Snyder]

4 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

I'm just stating his record as a starter. The same way I could state Brunell's or Campbell's. Alex Smith's record as a starter here isn't bad. Sure he didn't lead us to an 11-5 season but that doesn't make trading a third and Kendall Fuller the worse trade in our history. We traded more for RG3 who had one good season and then seemed to have fallen off the face off the earth. So is one 10-6 season and one 3-13 season more worth the 2 firsts and a second we traded for RG3 than the third and Fuller getting us to a 6-4 record and a 5-1 record? I think all the trades I mentioned are just worse trades? I mean we gave up just about the same thing for TJ Duckett who I don't think played a down for us. 

 

The point I was making is that Alex was a known commodity, which is to say not good enough to take us where we want to go, and even if you throw out the injury delivered exactly what we all expected.  It kept us in QB purgatory for 4 years.  

 

RG3 was pure upside.  It didn't work, but I'd do *that* type of deal again rather than a Smith deal in heartbeat.  The current comparison would be trading Carr versus trading up for Fields or Lance.

8 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Who the **** cares who it was against? An 11-5 record OVERALL, is still that, an 11-5 record OVERALL. 
 

good lord, it shouldn’t have to be pointed out to you what the guy was saying, but yet here we are. Was his record as starter 11-5, or was it not 11-5? You know the answer here. Stop it. 

 

Bruh...context...it matters.  The whole point was oh nevermind.  See above and try to absorb it.

[Wyvern]

Also, it's a stretch to say that Alex Smith was the key factor for Washington's 11 wins when Smith was playing.  There were times when Smith turned in some poor performances but the Washington still prevailed -- due to the defense, to the ground game, or due to the opponents' miscues.  

Edited March 1, 2021 by Wyvern

[daveakl]

2 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

Lastly, this means you skip the NFL cheat code which is a franchise QB on a rookie deal that renders your cap, heaven set for 5 years. 

I am not solely advocating for building the team, signing a vet, and calling it a day.

Build the team, sign the vet, draft the rookie. (see KC Chiefs)

 

But the idea that we should have traded a ton to get assets so that we could go get Watson or Wilson, or that we should trade 4 picks to go get a top 4 QB this year?  Our team isn't ready to make that move.

[Cooleyfan1993]

Just now, Wyvern said:

Also, it's a stretch to say that Alex Smith was the key factor for Washington's 11 wins when Smith was playing.  There were times when Smith turned in some poor performances but the Washington still prevaiked, Due to the defense, to the ground game, or due to the opponents' miscues.  

Nobody said he was a key factor (or, at least I’m not) 

[RichmondRedskin88]

So at what point do Texans give up and accept Watson ain’t coming back? 

[Cooleyfan1993]

2 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

Bruh...context...it matters.  The whole point was oh nevermind.  See above and try to absorb it.

The POINT (once again......) that the guy was making was simply saying what smiths overall record as starter here was. 11-5 is still 11-5, no matter how many seasons it took to reach that record. It’s still (GASP!!!) 11-5. Simple. That was all he was saying. No other context matters in terms of that being simply his record as starter. You seem to not be comprehending that. 

[Est.1974]

Day 3 pick for Mariota, see if they bite.

[86 Snyder]

1 minute ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

The POINT (once again......) that the guy was making was simply saying what smiths overall record as starter here was. 11-5 is still 11-5, no matter how many seasons it took to reach that record. It’s still (GASP!!!) 11-5. Simple. That was all he was saying. No other context matters in terms of that being simply his record as starter. You seem to not be comprehending that. 

 

I'm talking about MY point, which he was responding to, with info that doesn't jive.  I'd suggest taking the chain from the top.