Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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

Renegade7

By Renegade7
in The Stadium

 Share

Rookie QB or Veteran QB for next season(2021)???  

227 members have voted

  1. 1. Rookie QB or Veteran QB for next season (2021)???

    • Draft QB first round
      52
    • Rookie QB from outside first round
      23
    • Sign FA Veteran
      40
    • Trade for Veteran
      38
    • Stand Pat with one of the QBs we have on Roster, draft QB in 2022 Draft iinstead
      38
    • I don't know
      10
    • I don't care
      9
    • I'm tired of 5 year development plans burned to the ground in less then 2
      18

  2. 2. Rookie QB or Veteran QB for next season (2021)??? - (Feb 2020)

    • Draft QB first round
      5
    • Rookie QB from outside first round
      1
    • Sign FA Veteran
      4
    • Trade for Veteran
      0
    • Stand Pat with one of the QBs we have on Roster, draft QB in 2022 Draft iinstead
      6
    • I don't know
      0
    • I don't care
      2
    • I'm tired of 5 year development plans burned to the ground in less then 2
      1

Recommended Posts

CommDownMan

CommDownMan

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Lovi said:


yeah but the quote was 75M in year 1. lol 

 

So I didn't read all the comments, so this might have been answered already...

 

There is a 66 million signing bonus paid this year and a 9 mill salary (66+9=75million) this year.  They have a 5th year that will void to spread 66 mill portion over 5 years (it says 2026 as well but they don't have prorated values there...so this may be a little off as well).  Overall that's how is has 75 mill cash this year, but the cap isn't crushed based on SB proration.

 

His cap hit 2021 and 2022 of 22mill and 33 mill aren't too bad.  Then it goes 44, 47 and 2025 there is a dead cap hit of 13 mill.  If the cap goes up it's not too bad (if he it truly healthy and preforms).  Now is it worth it?  Personally no.

 

image.png.2cf22ad55aa25877c0e184d469eba573.png

19 hours ago, Dexter said:

I've been talking Trubisky for a long time also.  I think he's the closest thing to Heinicke and he was on fire at the end of the season.  

 

But I think he's going under the radar for a reason.  I believe he will have a ton of interest when FA begins.

 

I think he is my favorite of the could-be good, hasn't shown it club.  He should be fairly low cost and has shown more moments of getting it. 

Edited by jsharrin55
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NickyJ

NickyJ

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bacon said:

Spending top dollar on a veteran journeyman to captain a roster that isn't even all that great to begin with is a terrible idea. At best, we'll be perennially above average and nobody wants that after a few watchable seasons that go nowhere. 

 

Except for legendary QBs, who are so incredibly talented and successful that they attract talent at a discount, it's the surrounding roster that matters. Look at Wentz. It's blatantly obvious that he's a deeply flawed QB that got carried by a superb roster in his MVP season. The Eagles fell off once they had to pay him and his weapons and protection grew worse. Amazing, right?

 

Repeat after me: there is no football capital more valuable than a QB on a rookie contract.

 

Go get Heinicke or Mac Jones the weapons and protection they need and they will win us lots of football games. It's not rocket science. 

Fans can put up with throwaway seasons. Players can't afford to. If we want weapons to come here through anything besides the draft, we need something more than empty promises that we'll try better next year. Getting a QB who's floor is more than mediocrity is the place to start.

Edited by NickyJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesMadisonSkins

JamesMadisonSkins

Posted
Posted

Jerry Jones knows something about the new TV deals. My guess is the rumor that the cap will be rising to $250m by 2024 is probably accurate.

 

And if the cap is $250m in 2024, you should start being okay with a RG contract making $18m a year.

 

And $30m a year for Chase Young when the time comes.

 

Which is why finding a rookie QB this or next year would be massive for our long-term prospects.

 

Anyway, this is probably why APY won't be impacted this year. Teams will kick those $$ into future years where a player likely won't even be around to realize the bloated numbers. As is always the case. The Raiders just cut/traded/released all 4 of their huge FA contracts from 2019 off-season with fairly minimal impact overall. Sure it wasn't great for their cap, but they took the lumps and aren't in a terrible situation.

 

We have 3 contracts on the books for 2024. Roullier, Landon Collins, Tress Way.

 

You better believe some of the deals and extension we get in place this off-season will kick big money into 2024 that will be easy to re-work or very release-able after 2023.

 

Current projected cap for 2024 is $256m. We have $31m on the books. Bloated years for Roullier and Collins (very expendable).

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Est.1974

Est.1974

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

 

We have 3 contracts on the books for 2024. Roullier, Landon Collins, Tress Way.

 

You better believe some of the deals and extension we get in place this off-season will kick big money into 2024 that will be easy to re-work or very release-able after 2023.

 

Current projected cap for 2024 is $256m. We have $31m on the books. Bloated years for Roullier and Collins (very expendable).


I mean, we have even more cap space in 2025 at the minute.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rufus T Firefly

Rufus T Firefly

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, jsharrin55 said:

There is a 66 million signing bonus paid this year and a 9 mill salary (66+9=75million) this year.  They have a 5th year that will void to spread 66 mill portion over 5 years (it says 2026 as well but they don't have prorated values there...so this may be a little off as well). 

You can only amortize bonuses over 5 years, maximum, so the voidable year in 2026 won't show up that way. It is essentially irrelevant at the moment. Pretty sure they put that year in there so that in later years they can come back and tuen salary into bonus and have that year to spread the hit into. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Malapropismic Depository

Malapropismic Depository

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Darnold though is the darling of the media mock drafters who predicted he'd be great when he came out years back.

Only upside IMO for trading for Darnold is whoever does it will bask in major good will/press from Kiper, DJ, McShay, etc who will tout the trade as pure genius.  Just like the Dolphins supposedly got a steal when they traded for Rosen.  

 

So, what you're saying is, when the professional mock drafters pick the next great QB, they will eternally die on that hill, rather than ever admit they were wrong, no matter how bad he becomes, or for how long 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bacon

Bacon

Posted
Posted (edited)

Darnold is worth a shot with a team, but probably not as a week 1 starter, and definitely not here. Our defense deserves better than to pull mediocrity out of the fire game after game, and that's the best we've seen from Darnold so far. 

Edited by Bacon
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

 

Kyle Brandt was saying Darnold was just the result of bad coaching.

He said they shouldn't bother drafting his replacement with the 2nd pick, but instead use their numerous #1's, including trading down in the 1st, giving them three #1's. to surround him with more talent. And that talent, combined with improved coaching, could be what helps him break out of his shell.

He compared Darnold to Tannehill's start in Miami.

I'm not saying I agree with him.

But it's not impossible.

 

Nothing is impossible.  But when they use the Tannehill comparison they immediately lose credibility with me because its blatantly untrue.  Tannehill wasn't brought up or drafted by Gase's regime.  Tannehill played 2 of his 6 years in Miami with Gase.  And Tannehill wasn't bad.  He was decent to good.   Tannehill became a better QB with the Titans that's true.  But he wasn't horrible the way Darnold has been with the Jets and I can't blame Tannehill's progress purely on escaping Gase considering most of his career in Miami was already without Gase. 

 

Darnold also wasn't drafted by Gase.  It's not like he killed it the one year without him.  It was same stuff as his other two years.  Arguably Darnold's best season ironically was Gase's first season. 

 

So as I like to say to the Tannehill straggler backers, give me a rationale for why he will be good that goes beyond the Jets stink, Gase, Tannehill.   I am one of Darnold's harshest critics.  Yet, I think I've ironically presented the best pro Darnold arguments from the stand point of selling some his actual attributes.  Since Darnold has been mentioned as a trade target, I've watched 4 of his college games and 4 of his pro games.  And I've really tried hard to sell myself on him.  I see what people like.  But for me at least there was too much I didn't like.  He's a different dude than Rosen and Haskins but he reminds me of them in one way which is they all have a killer good attribute in the mix of the soup.  With Haskins it was his arm strength when he actually stepped into his throws.  With Rosen it was his footwork.  With Darnold its him making plays on roll outs and there is some Romo escapability about him in the pocket.  But for me at least all three of them have too many flaws for me to want them.

 

My main issue though with Darnold isn't even so much him.  Any of these reclamation projections for all we know might turn their game around and maybe can be fixed.  I wouldn't put money on it but what the heck if you got nothing to lose then roll the dice and see.  But on that point, like Joe Theismann said Mariota is the better roll of the dice bet because he likely comes cheaper than Darnold.  If you are going for Darnold and you have to pay up a 2nd rounder and change as most say you are paying a hefty price for a roll of the dice guy.  

 

The Titans traded a 4th round pick for Tannehill.  And Tannehill showed much more production and good play than Darnold did.  And its not even close.  If we likewise got Darnold for a 4th, I wouldn't care.  But most of the buzz is it will take a 2nd and something like a 4th.  That's a big price to pay for a dude who by many measures has been the worst QB in the NFL in the last 3 years.  

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

 

So, what you're saying is, when the professional mock drafters pick the next great QB, they will eternally die on that hill, rather than ever admit they were wrong, no matter how bad he becomes, or for how long 😄

 

I've noticed a pattern that most mock drafters stick with their favorite predraft picks through thick and thin for ahwile.  Heck even Kiper and McShay needle each other about it in the podcast they do with each other when they go over some of the careers of "their guys".  I get it, its human nature and it's cool.  If I sold Sam Darnold like crazy before the draft and I am being paid to be right or look like a smart evaluator it would behoove me to blame the player's lack of success on context.  In other words, it's not my fault but its circumstance, etc. 

 

It's really hard to figure out whether a college QB will be successful or not in the pros.  It gets a little easier once they start playing in the pros.  I wouldn't bet for or against any young QB's success or lack thereof with any certaintly in part because their intangibles is a wildcard that is a key factor and we have no idea what type of people the players are.  

 

My issue with Darnold centers almost squarely on the trade compensation it will require.  It looks very steep for a reclamation project.  It doesn't look like it will be a Tannehill type trade.  So,  you aren't likely getting a fixer up at a fixer up price -- but instead paying almost a full blown price for the house.  That's my issue with it.  Otherwise I can give a rats behind what reclamation project they try.  I just want the reclamation project to be cheap not expensive. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...