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

[clskinsfan]

33 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.

Alex Smith is the 8th highest winning percentage QB in NFL history. Your anti Smith agenda wont change that fact. 

Edited March 1, 2021 by clskinsfan

[Wyvern]

Cooley....I wasn't criticizing your statement. More just keeping it real about Smith who's a nice guy and a great story, but....

 

I think in 2018, Smith played with a very conservative style, and while that was appropriate for talent he had At his disposal, it was still very frustrating to watch.

[Cooleyfan1993]

Just now, 86 Snyder said:

 

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.

Yeah, and the info HE gave (11-5 being the record as starting QB here) was simply him stating the record as starter. Nothing more, nothing less. How are you still not getting this? 

[redskinss]

Would you guys just stop already, it's a painfully stupid argument to begin with but adding the element of "refusal to be wrong" is making it nauseating 

[Cooleyfan1993]

1 minute ago, Wyvern said:

Cooley....I wasn't criticizing your statement. More just keeping it real about Smith who's a nice guy and a great story, but....

I’m aware. I was just pointing out that i think most people know that smith wasn’t a key factor in most of those wins 

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[Thinking Skins]

10 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

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.

I wouldn't have done the Brunell or Smith trades and I definitely wouldn't do a Carr trade for a first rounder. I wouldn't be hooting and hollering for a Stafford trade but I wouldn't cry about it either. I agree with you here though, I was in favor of the RG3 trade because he was considered a sure thing. Its funny though because before the 2011 college season he was known but not the guy, THE guy was Luck and it was suck for Luck. Then the year happened and people were like "RG3 may be better than Luck" I remember Chad Dukes hanging up on callers early in the season for trying to argue that point. 

 

But an RG3 type deal would be us going up to say number 2 for Wilson or Fields. That's not what I'd be in favor of, especially coming from 19 (I guess you could argue that going from 19 to say top 10 is similar because of what we'd have to give up). But for me landing Lance or Fields is like landing the #3 or #4 QB in the draft. Thats cool, but not nearly as satisfying. I'd compare it to trading up for Tannehill or Weeden. 

 

My thoughts are that this draft (like 2012) is so deep at QB that we can get some good value later in the draft like a Mond, Newman or Trask, ala Seattle or Washington in the later rounds. 

[86 Snyder]

2 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

I wouldn't have done the Brunell or Smith trades and I definitely wouldn't do a Carr trade for a first rounder. I wouldn't be hooting and hollering for a Stafford trade but I wouldn't cry about it either. I agree with you here though, I was in favor of the RG3 trade because he was considered a sure thing. Its funny though because before the 2011 college season he was known but not the guy, THE guy was Luck and it was suck for Luck. Then the year happened and people were like "RG3 may be better than Luck" I remember Chad Dukes hanging up on callers early in the season for trying to argue that point. 

 

But an RG3 type deal would be us going up to say number 2 for Wilson or Fields. That's not what I'd be in favor of, especially coming from 19 (I guess you could argue that going from 19 to say top 10 is similar because of what we'd have to give up). But for me landing Lance or Fields is like landing the #3 or #4 QB in the draft. Thats cool, but not nearly as satisfying. I'd compare it to trading up for Tannehill or Weeden. 

 

My thoughts are that this draft (like 2012) is so deep at QB that we can get some good value later in the draft like a Mond, Newman or Trask, ala Seattle or Washington in the later rounds. 

 

Fair enough, I agree with most of this and any disagreement really boils down to assessing the qb prospects differently.  Let me pose it this way...

 

Would you rather trade a mediocre, low ceiling vet (Carr, Stafford,, whoever that may be for you) or trade up for the hot prospect (Wilson)?  

 

Basically I d rather swing big and miss than get a known mediocre guy because it keeps you in purgatory.  And that's the historical representation of the Smith and RG3 deals, which is why I'm saying Smith is the worst deal we've made in the Snyder era.

[The Consigliere]

16 hours ago, actorguy1 said:

NFL draft boards aren't set until 2 weeks before the draft.  Complete crap shoot right now.

Was listening to Matt Kelley last week and he was laughing about how so many of the mock guys with major media are 1000% lost on how to do the mocks because they haven't had nearly as much access to scouts, and insiders are they normally do, and as a result, they're boards are a total mess, it sounds like the lack of a combine, and basic social distancing requirements are making a huge mess out of valuations, and plotted out boards to help assist in strategy with trading up and down and expectations. A lot of the kind of bonehead panic picks of drafts past where teams were surprised by a pick, and forced a need pick in a panic rather than going off their tiered value boards really seem like they could happen. Also explains why Toney is so much higher than he should be (personal opinion, but I think his rating is beyond idiotic). 

Very curious about how it plays out. Really bummed we've moved out so many of our guys in such an unstable year. 

[DWinzit]

6 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

But an RG3 type deal would be us going up to say number 2 for Wilson or Fields. That's not what I'd be in favor of, especially coming from 19 (I guess you could argue that going from 19 to say top 10 is similar because of what we'd have to give up). But for me landing Lance or Fields is like landing the #3 or #4 QB in the draft. Thats cool, but not nearly as satisfying. I'd compare it to trading up for Tannehill or Weeden. 

 

My thoughts are that this draft (like 2012) is so deep at QB that we can get some good value later in the draft like a Mond, Newman or Trask, ala Seattle or Washington in the later rounds. 

I agree with most of your comments and have no problem going 3rd round on a guy you list if they really believe in him. 

While not really a Fields or Lance guy their potential feels much higher than Tannehill or Weeden. They feel more like the Jones of this draft.

[Darrell Green Fan]

33 minutes ago, 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 prevailed -- due to the defense, to the ground game, or due to the opponents' miscues.  

 

Yeah I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.  This game is not as simple as "Alex Smith was 11-5 as a starter", there was much more to it than that.  

12 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

 

Fair enough, I agree with most of this and any disagreement really boils down to assessing the qb prospects differently.  Let me pose it this way...

 

Would you rather trade a mediocre, low ceiling vet (Carr, Stafford,, whoever that may be for you) or trade up for the hot prospect (Wilson)?  

 

Basically I d rather swing big and miss than get a known mediocre guy because it keeps you in purgatory.  And that's the historical representation of the Smith and RG3 deals, which is why I'm saying Smith is the worst deal we've made in the Snyder era.

 

I would never call Mathew Stafford a mediocre QB with a low ceiling.  He is much better than that and better than Carr.  

[86 Snyder]

1 minute ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Yeah I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.  This game is not as simple as "Alex Smith was 11-5 as a starter", there was much more to it than that.  

 

The ironic thing is the guy that made the statement seems to completely understand this lol

[Cooleyfan1993]

1 minute ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Yeah I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.  This game is not as simple as "Alex Smith was 11-5 as a starter", there was much more to it than that.  

Sure, there is more to it than that, nobody’s saying there isn’t. Still doesn’t change the fact that 11-5 was the record as a starting QB. it’s just that, a fact. 

 

[Thinking Skins]

1 minute ago, 86 Snyder said:

 

Fair enough, I agree with most of this and any disagreement really boils down to assessing the qb prospects differently.  Let me pose it this way...

 

Would you rather trade a mediocre, low ceiling vet (Carr, Stafford,, whoever that may be for you) or trade up for the hot prospect (Wilson)?  

 

Basically I d rather swing big and miss than get a known mediocre guy because it keeps you in purgatory.  And that's the historical representation of the Smith and RG3 deals, which is why I'm saying Smith is the worst deal we've made in the Snyder era.

See, that's not the perspective I like to look at it. I'd like to succeed. Is it better to trade for the QB who becomes a bust or the mediocre guy who helps stabilize the franchise? Honestly I started to bring this up in the Bruce Allen thread because @Skinsinparadise made a comment that Bruce Allen had never won a trade and I was going to bring up the Case Keenum trade where we gave up almost nothing and got somebody who could come in and play immediately and could have stabilized the position if not for Haskins. Now which was a better pick up, trading for Keenum or drafting Haskins? 

 

I'm all about risk vs reward. There is much lower risk with the wait and see approaches to drafting QBs (see who is available at our pick), but that way you're more likely to miss out on the top guys. But what about when we land in the top 5 like in 2020, 2015, 2010, 2007, 2005 (could have had Aaron Rodgers), 2004, etc. We've had chances to draft QBs high (not saying they would have been gems, but thats the risk you're talking about right? It just so happens that outside of Herbert and Rodgers all the QBs available at our picks have sucked. So I'm also not a fan of just drafting a guy because we have a need and said person is the "best on the board". We could have traded up for Vick in 2000 (with picks 2 and 3) or Russell in 2007, or Bradford in 2010, or Winston or Mariotta in 2015, but would that have been much better? 

[VaK9Trainer]

36 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

Day 3 pick for Mariota, see if they bite.

I'll take Trubisky all day over Mariota. 

 

[max21]

I’m almost expecting us to get Mac Jones, I can feel it down in my plums 

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

17 minutes ago, VaK9Trainer said:

I'll take Trubisky all day over Mariota. 

 

You know, he’s 29-21 in the games he started and is close to 65% completions. I’m not saying he’s great but I was surprised to see the stats. Maybe they’re hollow, idk. 

[Thinking Skins]

I just can't wrap my head around 5 QBs going in the first round. That happened in (I've also listed their college attempts and completion percentage)

1999 with Tim Couch (1184, 67.1), Donovan McNabb(938, 58.4),  Akili Smith (571, 56.6), Daunte Culpepper (1097, 65.7) and Cade McNown (1250, 55.5) all picked in the firs 12 picks and

2018 with Baker (1497, 68.5), Darnold (846, 64.9), Allen (649, 56.2), Rosen (1170, 60.9), and Jackson (1086, 57) but the first 4 went in the top 10 and the 5th went at pick 32. 

 

Four QBs is much more common, happening in

2003 with Palmer (1442, 65.1), Leftwich (1301, 65.1), Boller (1110, 47.8) and Grossman (1180, 58.1),

2004 with Manning (1363, 60.8), Rivers (1710, 63.6), Roetheslisberger (1304, 65.5) and Losman (987, 57.8), 

2011 with Newton (292, 65.4), Locker (1147, 54), Gabbert (933, 60.9), and Ponder (965, 61.8)

2012 with Luck (1064, 67), RG3 (1192, 67.1), Tannehill (774, 62.5) and Weeden (1103, 69.5)

2020 with Burrow (945, 69.3), Tua (684, 69.3), Herbert (1293, 64), and Love (1125, 61.2)

 

Only 4 of these 30 prospects had less than 700 passing attempts in college (Akili Smith, Josh Allen, Cam Newton, and Tua) the rest had such massive bodies of work. And it seemed that even in these years the reason there was 4 or 5 picks was because everybody had what they were looking for in their QB. Boller and Grossman - why are they first rounders? Losman - why is he a first rounder? Locker? 

 

I just contrast that with this year's prospective first round picks: 

Lawrence (1138, 66.6)

Wilson (837, 67.6)

Fields (618, 68.4)

Lance (318, 65.4)

Jones (556, 74.3)

 

This year we've got 3 of the 5 guys with so little experience. If they had more experience would their reputations have just risen? Or would we have seen more flaws in their game that dropped them from first rounders to mid rounders, but possibly making the 2022 draft deeper? And I'm not saying they'll be busts, especially Fields and Lance because they have mobility which I think helps with the experience factor. But historically we just don't see this many inexperienced guys go in the first round. 

[CjSuAvE22]

1 hour ago, clskinsfan said:

Alex Smith is the 8th highest winning percentage QB in NFL history. Your anti Smith agenda wont change that fact. 

Yet two More athletic younger qbs took the same teams he was on to super bowls, yeah he wins games good for him but he cant get his teams over the hump and he was never taking us to a super bowl, ill take the 24.5 million cleared in salary cap over 2018 alex smith any day. It was a massive mistake by the team trading for him they puked all over themselves and im glad we are finally moving on

Edited March 1, 2021 by CjSuAvE22

[clskinsfan]

22 minutes ago, max21 said:

I’m almost expecting us to get Mac Jones, I can feel it down in my plums 

I am fine with that as long as it happens at 19.

[Mooka]

13 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

But historically we just don't see this many inexperienced guys go in the first round. 

 

Gotta think this will be the new norm with the rookie pay scale vs the contract demands for vet QBs.

[Darrell Green Fan]

46 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Sure, there is more to it than that, nobody’s saying there isn’t. Still doesn’t change the fact that 11-5 was the record as a starting QB. it’s just that, a fact. 

 

 

He also wasn't very good, this too is a fact.  So what are we doing here?  

[Cooleyfan1993]

Just now, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

He also wasn't very good, this too is a fact.  So what are we doing here?  

Him not being good doesn’t change 11-5 being what the record was in his time as a starter. It IS possible to say both things, 1) the record in games he started was 11-5, and 2) he wasn’t a key factor, but still helped at least a little bit. 
 

both things can be true. 

[86 Snyder]

For anyone who cares...

 

Alex Smith went 11-5 over two seasons spanning 3 years in Washington.

 

Opponents record in wins: 73-116-3 (38.62%)

 

Opponents record in losses: 41-23 (64.5%)

 

He's exactly who we thought he was.  He can manage games to victory against bad competition.  He has an incredibly difficult time against good competition.  

 

Only 5 of his 16 starts came against teams who finished the year with a winning record.

 

Only 2 of his 11 wins came against teams who finished the year with a winning record.

[Thinking Skins]

1 minute ago, Mooka said:

 

Gotta think this will be the new norm with the rookie pay scale vs the contract demands for vet QBs.

But how long has the rookie pay scale been in place? I give that the COVID has something to do with it, but that doesn't give them experience. So the question becomes how will these guys play next year, especaially compared to the guys like Jones (if he goes 2nd or later), Mond, Trask, Newman, etc. I think there's less pressure on these late round guys in general but also in this COVID world where they can gain reps in practice without the spotlight.