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

[Burgundy Yoda]

22 minutes ago, RWJ said:

Yoda, I'm starting to think with Keim coming out and putting Trask name out there on more than a couple of occasions, he's the pick in the 2nd round.  I don't think he makes it to the 3rd same with Mills.  So it will be between the two.  Zampese was there with Trask in FL so it makes sense.  6'5" 240lb QB that can take the punishing hits and w/stand the hits in the pocket.  When you stop and think about it and PFF has menionted that he fits ours and NE's offense the best.  I think Trask to DC is starting to gain wings, man.  

I could see it, I don't like him there in the 2nd but I could see it. I just hope that they don't view him as only a solid starter. Like, if you're going to draft a guy that high, you better at least think he turns out to be a Derek Carr type player or better. 

[Burgundy Yoda]

34 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Trask's accuracy is fine when he has Pitts, Toney, and Grimes to make plays for him. When he didn't have them vs OU he looked like a true freshman playing his first game. He was so bad they started rotating the backup in after the 1st quarter...so Trask wasn't even playing the whole game and still threw 3 INTs. 

 

Yes it's expected that a QB will suffer some when he's missing big playmakers. But to be THAT glaringly bad without them is a huge red flag. His footwork is slower than molasses, he has a very mediocre arm especially for a guy his size, and he has very little athleticism and ability to make plays outside of the pocket. 

 

IMO his ceiling in the NFL is a career backup.

It was an ugly game for Trask no doubt, but Trask didn't get to where he was by sheer talent. He is the type of player that needs continuous reps with his players to build a repertoire with them because he is an accuracy and timing thrower, so missing the guys he's been practicing all season with impacts a guy that doesn't rely on talent like Trask pretty heavily IMO. It's why if we drafted him, he definitely needs to sit a while. 

 

I think using that one game to write off everything he did in the season is a bit much. If that one quarter is all people can find on Trask gameplay-wise where he struggled, that is not bad at all. Lance looked very bad in his only game this year, it's hard to expect a 20-21 year old kid to be perfect every game especially when he was working with what essentially seemed like practice squad receivers.

 

If Trask did not have a mediocre arm, had athleticism, had quicker feet, the guy would be an obvious first round pick. He doesn't have those traits so he's probably solidly in the 2nd-3rd round range and in the Mond/Mills pack. I'm not willing to call him a starter or career backup because there's way too much between now and when he starts playing that ties into his career. 

 

A slight concern I would have with drafting him is that it's doubtful he fits with the timeline of the current team. If he ever does become a good player it won't be until year 3 or so and by that time our defense will probably start to fall off a bit. 

Edited April 12, 2021 by Burgundy Yoda

[Going Commando]

6 hours ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

A slight concern I would have with drafting him is that it's doubtful he fits with the timeline of the current team. If he ever does become a good player it won't be until year 3 or so and by that time our defense will probably start to fall off a bit. 

 

That'd be true of any drafted QB.  The Mahomes and Jackson type QBs who are immediate studs are the exception to the rule so rare that you can never expect it with any prospect.

 

It's on the FO to continuously reload to maintain the quality of the roster.  But that is also easier to do when you have stability at QB.

[Jericho]

12 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

That'd be true of any drafted QB.  The Mahomes and Jackson type QBs who are immediate studs are the exception to the rule so rare that you can never expect it with any prospect.

 

Actually, I'd argue it's the other way. Guys like Josh Allen, who stink initially and then develop, tend to be the exception. It's not that players literally cannot grow or change. They all can. But most show something very quickly. Even lower round guys like Wilson and Prescott flashed as rookies. Tom Brady had surplanted Drew Bledsoe by year two. A guy like Kirk Cousins or Alex Smith tend to be exceptions. Most guys like that end up as Blake Bottles.

[Riggo#44]

23 hours ago, TrancesWithWolves said:

However, the ONLY way that Atlanta will agree to trade the 4th pick is if we agree to send them ughhh...Chase Young.

He only had, what 7.5 sacks last year? Sell high on that bust!

[mistertim]

9 hours ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

It was an ugly game for Trask no doubt, but Trask didn't get to where he was by sheer talent. He is the type of player that needs continuous reps with his players to build a repertoire with them because he is an accuracy and timing thrower, so missing the guys he's been practicing all season with impacts a guy that doesn't rely on talent like Trask pretty heavily IMO. It's why if we drafted him, he definitely needs to sit a while. 

 

I think using that one game to write off everything he did in the season is a bit much. If that one quarter is all people can find on Trask gameplay-wise where he struggled, that is not bad at all. Lance looked very bad in his only game this year, it's hard to expect a 20-21 year old kid to be perfect every game especially when he was working with what essentially seemed like practice squad receivers.

 

If Trask did not have a mediocre arm, had athleticism, had quicker feet, the guy would be an obvious first round pick. He doesn't have those traits so he's probably solidly in the 2nd-3rd round range and in the Mond/Mills pack. I'm not willing to call him a starter or career backup because there's way too much between now and when he starts playing that ties into his career. 

 

A slight concern I would have with drafting him is that it's doubtful he fits with the timeline of the current team. If he ever does become a good player it won't be until year 3 or so and by that time our defense will probably start to fall off a bit. 

 

That's fair and I wasn't necessarily trying to say I was completely writing him off or making an entire analysis of him based on that one game. I watched him a decent amount before that and always had issues with his footwork and the other things I noted. But that game was definitely an eye opener as well because of just how bad he regressed without his playmakers around him. 

 

I think there's a possibility he can succeed in the NFL but I just don't seem him as having the tools or traits to be more than a backup. I could see a team liking certain aspects of his game and picking him up in the 3rd or so based on that. If you get a QB in the 3rd and he even winds up a starter or a good backup in the NFL then that's usually a successful pick. 

 

I we were to look for a QB after the 1st round, personally there are guys in the 2nd-4th round range who I'd be much more interested in than Trask: Mond, Newman, Mills, maybe Buechele as well. 

[skinny21]

Feels like the Trask stuff is Zampese sharing his opinion (vs a full on smokescreen) and reporters are making educated guesses based on that.  Could be wrong of course.

As for Trask himself - I found McElroy’s point interesting - that his lack of experience and the growth he showed (might mean we’re on the verge of seeing the player he could become.  Those limitations though...

[NoVaSkins21]

11 hours ago, Anselmheifer said:

 

Ugh. It's not that you can find them lying around anywhere. It's that none of them are truly elite. And we have a 1st rounder every year. I'd rather have a franchise QB and have one less 1st round caliber DT on the team. Pretty sure that's GM 101, not some crazy talk. 

 

The last time this team made a blockbuster trade in the draft, it didn't work out and they didn't get a franchise QB.  Franchise QBs are not are not as easy to find as they were about a decade ago.  Building a team around a defense and then finding a QB through FA or in the later rounds is a lot easier nowadays.

Edited April 12, 2021 by SAli457180

[Warhead36]

26 minutes ago, SAli457180 said:

 

The last time this team made a blockbuster trade in the draft, it didn't work out and they didn't get a franchise QB.  Franchise QBs are not are not as easy to find as they were about a decade ago.  Building a team around a defense and then finding a QB through FA or in the later rounds is a lot easier nowadays.

They have never been easy to find. But you gotta keep trying. 

[JoggingGod]

10 hours ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

Trask is far from horrible. He may look like he was born with two left feet that were surgically sewn on at birth when he drops back, but his accuracy still impresses the hell out of me. The guy hits his targets on the money and in stride at a consistent rate. 

He’s not accurate at all. His playmakers kept making insane adjustments to his ****ty balls.

[Burgundy Yoda]

7 minutes ago, JoggingGod said:

He’s not accurate at all. His playmakers kept making insane adjustments to his ****ty balls.

Lol, okay then. We are all entitled to our wrong opinions.  

[mistertim]

56 minutes ago, SAli457180 said:

 

The last time this team made a blockbuster trade in the draft, it didn't work out and they didn't get a franchise QB.  Franchise QBs are not are not as easy to find as they were about a decade ago.  Building a team around a defense and then finding a QB through FA or in the later rounds is a lot easier nowadays.

 

This is just a sunk costs fallacy. And the reason franchise QBs aren't as "easy" to find as they were a decade ago (though I'd argue more like 20 years) is the exact reason that your second premise is false. Because the days where a team with really good defense, really good running game, and mediocre QB running a ball control offense could be perennial contenders are over. Today if you want to be team that has a shot to go all the way on any given year then you have to have that elite QB.

 

Because of the above, building a team and finding a QB through FA or in later rounds is absolutely harder now than in the past. In the past you didn't have to have an elite QB to be contenders year in and year out. So you could use those ok guys you might be able to find after the 1st round who were pure game managers. Those guys are now nothing but backups or journeymen.

 

Yes, 1st round QB busts absolutely happen. But there have been lots of statistical analyses shown that you're by far more likely to find that top franchise QB in the first round. There's a huge drop off of your chances after that. You have to keep taking shots at it. Be smart about it, but if you have the shot and you think that's your guy for the next 10-15 years then you pull the trigger.

[Burgundy Yoda]

2 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

That's fair and I wasn't necessarily trying to say I was completely writing him off or making an entire analysis of him based on that one game. I watched him a decent amount before that and always had issues with his footwork and the other things I noted. But that game was definitely an eye opener as well because of just how bad he regressed without his playmakers around him. 

 

I think there's a possibility he can succeed in the NFL but I just don't seem him as having the tools or traits to be more than a backup. I could see a team liking certain aspects of his game and picking him up in the 3rd or so based on that. If you get a QB in the 3rd and he even winds up a starter or a good backup in the NFL then that's usually a successful pick. 

 

I we were to look for a QB after the 1st round, personally there are guys in the 2nd-4th round range who I'd be much more interested in than Trask: Mond, Newman, Mills, maybe Buechele as well. 

Trask caught a lot of flak for that game and he definitely deserved a lot of it. You would think that you'd be a little more cautious with the football than he was throwing to unfamiliar players, but nope. 

 

I forgot who it was, but someone made a really good point in either this thread or the draft thread a few months back saying there's no point in drafting a mid round QB because they almost never work out, or turn into stars. I kind of agree with that line of thinking, QB is the one position you don't want to be satisfied with just a starter caliber player, you will always be looking to upgrade from him if he isn't at least a Derek Carr level QB (Carr is my absolute floor for a QB). If you're taking one in the 3rd, you better be damn sure that a bunch of teams ahead of you missed something. I would be okay if we drafted one in the 3rd if the team truly felt that they had a Kirk Cousins or Dak Prescott type player that got overlooked in the draft. 

 

I'm really not convinced those players you mentioned in the 2nd-4th are better than Heinicke or Allen (I need to watch Buechele though). My biggest QB crush besides the top two is Trey Lance, he is pretty raw but his tools are very intriguing. He's got that big arm that really raises the ceiling of his potential, and can be a legitimate threat on the ground if needed. 

Edited April 12, 2021 by Burgundy Yoda

[NoVaSkins21]

3 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

This is just a sunk costs fallacy. And the reason franchise QBs aren't as "easy" to find as they were a decade ago (though I'd argue more like 20 years) is the exact reason that your second premise is false. Because the days where a team with really good defense, really good running game, and mediocre QB running a ball control offense could be perennial contenders are over. Today if you want to be team that has a shot to go all the way on any given year then you have to have that elite QB.

 

Because of the above, building a team and finding a QB through FA or in later rounds is absolutely harder now than in the past. In the past you didn't have to have an elite QB to be contenders year in and year out. So you could use those ok guys you might be able to find after the 1st round who were pure game managers. Those guys are now nothing but backups or journeymen.

 

Yes, 1st round QB busts absolutely happen. But there have been lots of statistical analyses shown that you're by far more likely to find that top franchise QB in the first round. There's a huge drop off of your chances after that. You have to keep taking shots at it. Be smart about it, but if you have the shot and you think that's your guy for the next 10-15 years then you pull the trigger.

 

As this team is presently contracted, they are going into 2021 with Fitzpatrick as the presumed starter with Heinicke and Allen him.  All veterans and unless they do make a move to trade up in the draft and get one top rated QBs available, that's the depth chart for the upcoming season.  Do I want a franchise QB like a Maholmes or Josh Allen?  Of course.  However, I don't know if Rivera and Co. want to go in that direction by mortgaging the future and not win now.

[RWJ]

5 hours ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

Lol, okay then. We are all entitled to our wrong opinions.  

I agree with you, Yoda.  Trask as much those who don't like him must read all the profile stuff out there.  He might not have a cannon of an arm  but his accuracy was very good. 

[kingdaddy]

On 4/11/2021 at 9:25 AM, TrancesWithWolves said:

This makes me gut sick even to think about it let alone type it but I have a question that needs to be asked.

 

Assume the following:

 

1. Atlanta is on the clock and willing to make a trade with us.

2. The young qb that we love AND that Rivera firmly believes can potentially make a Patrick Mahomes type impact on our team in a few years is there for the taking.

3. However, the ONLY way that Atlanta will agree to trade the 4th pick is if we agree to send them ughhh...Chase Young.

4. Atlanta is not bluffing. There is neither the time nor the incentive for Atlanta to negotiate. No other combination of players, picks or cash will suffice. If we don’t give them Chase they have a deal in place with another team that they will take.

 

Tick...tick...tick...

 

What do you do?

 

A. Laugh at them and hang up the phone.

B. Give up a once in a lifetime edge player and team leader for a potential franchise trajectory changing quarterback?

C. Other.

 

 

If they ask for Chase Young I then ask them how many more #1 picks are they tossing into the trade? There's no chance we trade Chase, it's just too risky to have him only to deal him for an unproven QB prospect who only played one season in college. Besides, RR already said we are not desperate to find our QB of the future so I don't see this deal happening.

If Atlanta wants a player it'll be an interior defensive lineman or possibly Gibson in my opinion. Would we be willing to give up D'Ron Payne and #19, plus a 2nd round pick for the #4 pick? Would we give up Gibson and #19 straight up? I doubt it...

[Warhead36]

15 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

If they ask for Chase Young I then ask them how many more #1 picks are they tossing into the trade? There's no chance we trade Chase, it's just too risky to have him only to deal him for an unproven QB prospect who only played one season in college. Besides, RR already said we are not desperate to find our QB of the future so I don't see this deal happening.

If Atlanta wants a player it'll be an interior defensive lineman or possibly Gibson in my opinion. Would we be willing to give up D'Ron Payne and #19, plus a 2nd round pick for the #4 pick? Would we give up Gibson and #19 straight up? I doubt it...

I'd happily trade 19 and Gibson straight up for 4. Ditto the Payne trade. No way that's all it would take though, those guys don't have that kind of value.

[Dark Acre]

Chase Young is to WFT what Babe Ruth was to the Boston Red Sox.

[Captain Wiggles]

11 minutes ago, GothSkinsFan said:

Chase Young is to WFT what Babe Ruth was to the Boston Red Sox.

 

Hes going to get traded to the Yankees so Snyder can finance a Broadway musical? 

[Conn]

28 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

Would we be willing to give up D'Ron Payne and #19, plus a 2nd round pick for the #4 pick?

 

If a QB we love is there and that offer was on the table? Of course we would, and should.

 

28 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

Would we give up Gibson and #19 straight up? I doubt it...

Lol what? If this was on the table it would be the easiest trade into the top-5 to accept of all time. Ever. A semi-proven (and explosive, sure) RB and the #19 pick? For #4?  Any team in the league would pull the trigger on that trade and laugh all the way to the bank. You doubt it?? 

[kingdaddy]

1 hour ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

If a QB we love is there and that offer was on the table? Of course we would, and should.

 

Lol what? If this was on the table it would be the easiest trade into the top-5 to accept of all time. Ever. A semi-proven (and explosive, sure) RB and the #19 pick? For #4?  Any team in the league would pull the trigger on that trade and laugh all the way to the bank. You doubt it?? 

I do. I don't think we give up Gibson, he's too good. Call me crazy....he's our McCaffery.

[kingdaddy]

9 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

This is just a sunk costs fallacy. And the reason franchise QBs aren't as "easy" to find as they were a decade ago (though I'd argue more like 20 years) is the exact reason that your second premise is false. Because the days where a team with really good defense, really good running game, and mediocre QB running a ball control offense could be perennial contenders are over. Today if you want to be team that has a shot to go all the way on any given year then you have to have that elite QB.

 

Because of the above, building a team and finding a QB through FA or in later rounds is absolutely harder now than in the past. In the past you didn't have to have an elite QB to be contenders year in and year out. So you could use those ok guys you might be able to find after the 1st round who were pure game managers. Those guys are now nothing but backups or journeymen.

 

Yes, 1st round QB busts absolutely happen. But there have been lots of statistical analyses shown that you're by far more likely to find that top franchise QB in the first round. There's a huge drop off of your chances after that. You have to keep taking shots at it. Be smart about it, but if you have the shot and you think that's your guy for the next 10-15 years then you pull the trigger.

How many times have the Cleveland Browns taken a QB in the 1st round over the past 25 years and how many have panned out? Mayfield is still a big question mark too....How bout the NYJ? They haven't had a stud QB since Joe Namath and it's not for lack of drafting them in the 1st round. Sure the odds might be higher in the draft but there seem to be many more busts than hits on QB's drafted in the 1st round....especially recently like in the past 10 years. Put me in the camp of building the team and finding a QB over trading the farm for a high pick that may or may not hit. 

[Dark Acre]

Some of you guys need to find better quality weed because some of these "shoulds" are crazy.  We finally have a coach and FO building this team the right way, to win now and later, but some of you want to start putting blue chips down on boxcars, yell "hit me!" while holding 19, and absolutely certain that you have to put your next 3 mortgage payments on green or you'll never be able to build that Super Bowl-worthy mancave.  Push away the free drinks, sober up, and learn to gamble the smart way.  (Don't pass, max odds, top shelf scotch, and a monte cristo.)

[Malapropismic Depository]

 

[mistertim]

14 minutes ago, GothSkinsFan said:

Some of you guys need to find better quality weed because some of these "shoulds" are crazy.  We finally have a coach and FO building this team the right way, to win now and later, but some of you want to start putting blue chips down on boxcars, yell "hit me!" while holding 19, and absolutely certain that you have to put your next 3 mortgage payments on green or you'll never be able to build that Super Bowl-worthy mancave.  Push away the free drinks, sober up, and learn to gamble the smart way.  (Don't pass, max odds, top shelf scotch, and a monte cristo.)

 

Yeah that Andy Reid guy is such a moron for giving up a bunch of draft capital for that Mahomes loser while they already had built a winning team that had just made a playoff run.

 

26 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

How many times have the Cleveland Browns taken a QB in the 1st round over the past 25 years and how many have panned out? Mayfield is still a big question mark too....How bout the NYJ? They haven't had a stud QB since Joe Namath and it's not for lack of drafting them in the 1st round. Sure the odds might be higher in the draft but there seem to be many more busts than hits on QB's drafted in the 1st round....especially recently like in the past 10 years. Put me in the camp of building the team and finding a QB over trading the farm for a high pick that may or may not hit. 

 

Again, it's the sunk cost fallacy. Since it hasn't worked for some team in the past doesn't change the fact that the 1st round has a way higher hit rate on QBs than any other. And if you build a good team but only have a middling QB you're probably not going anywhere. You MIGHT have a bunch of things go your way and wind up in one Super Bowl, but that's a long shot. And you'll never be there again with that QB or team (Foles, Flacco, Kaep, for example). 

 

I don't get why so many people seem to think it's one or the other. See my response above. KC had a winning team with a top defense and an efficient offense with a decent but not great QB. They just came off of a playoff run and decided to give up big draft capital to move up for a new QB. It could have turned out horribly for them. Nobody doubted the raw talent of Mahomes but he was far from seen as a "sure thing". But they took the chance and I doubt they're upset they did it.