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

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[Thinking Skins]

14 hours ago, CurseReversed said:

I think it is easy to believe that there is a choice a football team makes regarding the necessity of a franchise QB, then just has to do what it takes to get them, but this is a fantasy.    The success rate for QB's in any round or slot is just very low.  The success rate for great QB's is astronomically low.  Yes it helps to have first pick at them and to try and find the good ones early, but you still have to play the long odds no matter what.  Every team is in the same boat, they have to scout as best they can and try to find the best QB value in the best draft slot and put them in the best position to succeed.  You might be a little more aggressive but aggression is not a substitute for ability, and draft slot is not a substitute for scouting or developing.    There is no magic formula and there sure is not proof at all that you can predetermine your chances of success just by picking in a certain spot.   You have to put a lot of pieces together to make it work. 

I like this mention of developing. This is kinda my point in this whole thread and others. I am all about developing QBs, which just seems like it doesn't happen any more. Everybody expects QBs to come in and either be all pro or show that spark that says "yeah he's got it". What happened to the Gibbs days of draft and stash like we did with Rypien? I'm not saying that any of these guys who are late round finds are going to become franchise QBs, but I'm also saying that just about every year teams make it far in the playoffs without franchise QBs - Keenum, Flacco, Bortels, Foles, Goff, Jimmy G. And I feel like what Minnesota did to Case Keenum is just criminal. Dude took you to the conference championship and his reward is getting shipped out of town. Where's the belief in him, the commitment, the investment? They just want microwave success. And the problem is that other teams (see Tampa and Denver) are winning with these get wins quick schemes and so the old ways of drafting and developing are going away because coaches are like whats the point when the coaches themselves may be fired before those young players can develop. 

[DWinzit]

3 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

I like this mention of developing. This is kinda my point in this whole thread and others. I am all about developing QBs, which just seems like it doesn't happen any more. Everybody expects QBs to come in and either be all pro or show that spark that says "yeah he's got it". What happened to the Gibbs days of draft and stash like we did with Rypien? I'm not saying that any of these guys who are late round finds are going to become franchise QBs, but I'm also saying that just about every year teams make it far in the playoffs without franchise QBs - Keenum, Flacco, Bortels, Foles, Goff, Jimmy G. And I feel like what Minnesota did to Case Keenum is just criminal. Dude took you to the conference championship and his reward is getting shipped out of town. Where's the belief in him, the commitment, the investment? They just want microwave success. And the problem is that other teams (see Tampa and Denver) are winning with these get wins quick schemes and so the old ways of drafting and developing are going away because coaches are like whats the point when the coaches themselves may be fired before those young players can develop. 

Speaking on Minny, I am very interested to see how they handle your boy Mond in the coming 2-3 years. Along with him they drafted their future starting LT, OG and WR3.

If they can work the inconsistency out of him he could be a good one. He has the tools

[Thinking Skins]

1 minute ago, DWinzit said:

Speaking on Minny, I am very interested to see how they handle your boy Mond in the coming 2-3 years. Along with him they drafted their future starting LT, OG and WR3.

If they can work the inconsistency out of him he could be a good one. He has the tools

Yeah, I am interested in that as well. Unfortunately I don't think Mond will last long there because I think Zimmer is on his way out and the new coach is totally unpredictable. If Mond was a first rounder maybe that would mean he stays longer. I guess the fact that he is cheap compared to Cousins will give them an option to just go with Mond over Cousins (similar to how Philly went with Hurts over Wentz). The true question though isn't if Mond gets a start or two, but will they let him play, see his flaws and try to improve on those flaws? Or will they just go with the next hot QB who becomes available (see Indy with Brissett). 

[KDawg]

Development isn’t just a QB thing. It goes for every position on the field. But the guy you’re developing has to come in with the necessary prerequisites to actually develop.

 

I was in the camp that Haskins had a base line while drafted but was over drafted (second round/late first rounder due to the way the league drafts QBs). Then the stuff that we, as fans, can’t see started to show up (the way he carried himself/what he perceived) and it became pretty apparent to me that if he didn’t change his tune quickly he wasn’t going to succeed. 
 

There was stuff in his game that wasn’t great either. 
 

I’m not using him as a way to bring back the Haskins Debates. Rather using a recent example to further the point.

 

When you draft a player in any position they have to have the necessary physical traits to succeed. What those are vary. Some staffs can utilize guys extremely effectively if they have a short coming but make up for it elsewhere. Others struggle with that.

 

But they also have to have the mental makeup to be open to growth opportunities and understand they are a young man in a professional world. 
 

They have to listen to veterans. Listen to coaches. Understand team make up. 
 

And then after that there’s the organization’s duty. They have to buy in to the prospect (here’s where the org has failed... the owner made a draft pick that the FO and staff weren’t on the same page with and it showed). They have to build around the prospect and support them (think Buffalo with Josh Allen). They have to commit to the time necessary to foster growth.

 

And then there’s the community. The community doesn’t have to be all aboard day one necessarily, but there has to be a large swall of support for the prospect (moreso if they are in a higher profile position). Again, Josh Allen in Buffalo is a great example. The Bills fans totally embraced the guy. 
 

Josh Allen is a really good example of development being done correctly:

 

1. prospect has the necessary physical and mental tools.

2. Organizational support/commitment

3. Community buy in

 

He checks all three boxes. (Four if you separate physical and mental tools).

 

Haskins checked one of the four. The physical tools. The organization didn’t fully support him and neither did the community (was a split and it wasn’t a very kind split).

 

In short (  ) players themselves and the organization both share a role in prospect development. 
 

You can’t plug a schlub in and make them a franchise QB. But you also can’t plug a star into a poorly run franchise and grow a franchise level QB either. 
 

It’s not an either/or proposition. It’s a both.

[DWinzit]

5 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Yeah, I am interested in that as well. Unfortunately I don't think Mond will last long there because I think Zimmer is on his way out and the new coach is totally unpredictable. If Mond was a first rounder maybe that would mean he stays longer. I guess the fact that he is cheap compared to Cousins will give them an option to just go with Mond over Cousins (similar to how Philly went with Hurts over Wentz). The true question though isn't if Mond gets a start or two, but will they let him play, see his flaws and try to improve on those flaws? Or will they just go with the next hot QB who becomes available (see Indy with Brissett). 

I expected Brissett to flourish in Indy and was disappointed with the way that one turned out. Guess he just wasn't Reich's style.

[Thinking Skins]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

Josh Allen is a really good example of development being done correctly:

 

1. prospect has the necessary physical and mental tools.

2. Organizational support/commitment

3. Community buy in

 

He checks all three boxes. (Four if you separate physical and mental tools).

The problem with the Josh Allen example is that 1. He is a first round pick and 2. He came in and showed something special (the athleticism and running ability that we all agreed that Haskins didn't have). 

 

What I'm talking about is situations like Case Keenum (the most obvious) where a third string QB comes in and takes the team to the championship game after everybody thought their season was over because both Bradford and Bridgewater went down with season ending injuries. Keenum had a 3500 yard season with 23 TDs and 7 Ints. And he is not signed in the offseason. Was he a perfect QB? No, but he should have been seen as a find and somebody they should have tried to develop instead of a replaceable part that should be upgraded. 

 

I also mentioned Brissett. Indy talked him up after the Luck retirement. Sure he didn't lead them to wins, but he had 3000 yards 13 tds and 7 ints. Thats something to build around if they wanted to. But instead they went for the quick replacement and signed Philip Rivers. And now we have Brissett in limbo with nobody willing to invest the time to develop him. 

 

Haskins is one example and we have been through why he didn't work. But he's not really my main point because he's a first rounder who didn't get the opportunity. I'd look at what Carolina fans said about Heinicke and why he was cut as another example. Given, he was cut for another UDFA (Allen) and a third round pick (Grier) but he was cut after looking the best in the preseason (according to Carolina fans). And because nobody was willing to invest the time in developing him, he was a free agent well into the year last year. Luckily he got a chance last year and looked good. And how are we rewarding him? By signing another FA QB. Its not the same as Minnesota because Fitzpatrick's contract isn't nearly as bad as Cousins, and Heinicke didn't take us nearly as far or do nearly as much as what Keenum did for Minnesota and at least Heinicke is being given a chance to compete (says Ron).

 

I think it still holds up that its hard to find examples of teams who are willing to invest the time into a lower round pick to develop. I think the only real case lately I can think of is with us with Cousins, where he almost didn't play as a rookie, played almost a quarter of a season as a second year, and looked bad. Looked pretty bad in 2014. Then in 2015 he finally got it and took off. Thats 3 years we invested in him and let him grow into the QB he became. Who else has that kind of a story as a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th round QB? As an UDFA? Tony Romo? Even a lot of the low round gems like Wilson and Prescott came out looking decent to good and showing they could hold the job down and not make the critical mistakes while they learned. 

 

I was pitching tents for Mullins, Beathard, AJ McCarron, K Allen, Rypien, Hodges, Hogan, etc. But they weren't getting chances. I really thought that Mullins and Beathard could have been a nice QB competition in SF. Instead they went for Jimmy G and now are replacing him with Lance. 

[KDawg]

8 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

The problem with the Josh Allen example is that 1. He is a first round pick and 2. He came in and showed something special (the athleticism and running ability that we all agreed that Haskins didn't have). 

 

What I'm talking about is situations like Case Keenum (the most obvious) where a third string QB comes in and takes the team to the championship game after everybody thought their season was over because both Bradford and Bridgewater went down with season ending injuries. Keenum had a 3500 yard season with 23 TDs and 7 Ints. And he is not signed in the offseason. Was he a perfect QB? No, but he should have been seen as a find and somebody they should have tried to develop instead of a replaceable part that should be upgraded. 

 

I also mentioned Brissett. Indy talked him up after the Luck retirement. Sure he didn't lead them to wins, but he had 3000 yards 13 tds and 7 ints. Thats something to build around if they wanted to. But instead they went for the quick replacement and signed Philip Rivers. And now we have Brissett in limbo with nobody willing to invest the time to develop him. 

 

Haskins is one example and we have been through why he didn't work. But he's not really my main point because he's a first rounder who didn't get the opportunity. I'd look at what Carolina fans said about Heinicke and why he was cut as another example. Given, he was cut for another UDFA (Allen) and a third round pick (Grier) but he was cut after looking the best in the preseason (according to Carolina fans). And because nobody was willing to invest the time in developing him, he was a free agent well into the year last year. Luckily he got a chance last year and looked good. And how are we rewarding him? By signing another FA QB. Its not the same as Minnesota because Fitzpatrick's contract isn't nearly as bad as Cousins, and Heinicke didn't take us nearly as far or do nearly as much as what Keenum did for Minnesota and at least Heinicke is being given a chance to compete (says Ron).

 

I think it still holds up that its hard to find examples of teams who are willing to invest the time into a lower round pick to develop. I think the only real case lately I can think of is with us with Cousins, where he almost didn't play as a rookie, played almost a quarter of a season as a second year, and looked bad. Looked pretty bad in 2014. Then in 2015 he finally got it and took off. Thats 3 years we invested in him and let him grow into the QB he became. Who else has that kind of a story as a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th round QB? As an UDFA? Tony Romo? Even a lot of the low round gems like Wilson and Prescott came out looking decent to good and showing they could hold the job down and not make the critical mistakes while they learned. 

 

I was pitching tents for Mullins, Beathard, AJ McCarron, K Allen, Rypien, Hodges, Hogan, etc. But they weren't getting chances. I really thought that Mullins and Beathard could have been a nice QB competition in SF. Instead they went for Jimmy G and now are replacing him with Lance. 

The same criteria is necessary for a player despite the round they were drafted in. 
 

Tools and support from the org. And fan base. Rabidity aside it’s still the same ****tail. 
 

Keenum was supported. Not as THE guy, but as a player. They gave him time and resources. And each team he played for did so similarly. So as he accrued experience he was able to utilize his skill set to its fullest potential. Oh, and most fan bases liked him for what he was: stop gap/backup QB that is capable of coming in and making things happen. He ticked all the boxes for his role. 
 

Brady is a similar story. 6th rounder with the physical and mental ability, but the physical was just about baseline necessary. The mental was out of this world. The physical continued to grow as did the mental. The Patriots fully supported him from day one and the fan base was accepting yet not overwhelmed by him. But he was a backup to Bledsoe so they didn’t really care all that much. Once he came in the fans embraced him. 
 

The community support is the smallest ingredient in the soup. But it’s there.

 

I’m also not quite sure why first rounders don’t count in your hypothesis. They bust out all the time and likely due to missing one or more of the key 4 ingredients.
 

And you lost me with “Dwayne didn’t have a chance”. But I don’t want to go down that road as it wasn’t my intention to do that here. 

Edited May 4, 2021 by KDawg

[Thinking Skins]

7 minutes ago, KDawg said:

And you lost me with “Dwayne didn’t have a chance”. But I don’t want to go down that road as it wasn’t my intention to do that here. 

I don't think you interpreted that the way I meant. I was referring to him getting cut (which most first round QBs don't) and thus not sit on the bench and learn or learn through experience playing. I was saying that we've already been down that road as to why he was cut. But the point remains that he is not being developed here. I'm not saying he should have been. 

 

And its not that I'm saying that first round QBs don't count, just that I get a lot of flack for being so pro low round QBs. For years I'd look at other teams backups and say is there somebody on a roster we could trade for and build around the way Houston did with Matt Schaub or other teams did with GB QBs (Hasselback and Brunell and Brooks). @Skinsinparadise brought up the mathematical models of late round QBs having such a lower success rate than first round QBs and that's where this line of talk has come from. 

 

That said I do think that a similar thing can be said about first round QBs but its a bit different because if you look at Bridgewater or Darnold or Bradford or a number of other first round QBs, there have been a number of coaches who have said "I can fix this guy". You don't see those same coaches willing to put that kind of time to fix the fundamentals in a lower round QB. Its a frustration I have with this new era of the league. 

[DWinzit]

22 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I also mentioned Brissett. Indy talked him up after the Luck retirement. Sure he didn't lead them to wins, but he had 3000 yards 13 tds and 7 ints. Thats something to build around if they wanted to. But instead they went for the quick replacement and signed Philip Rivers. And now we have Brissett in limbo with nobody willing to invest the time to develop him. 

Brissett was one of my favorite options to come to WFT, especially when it was apparent they were not going to get their first line of targets. I know we should be in a better place this year with Fitz but he is only a one year wonder here. I would have been cool with Brissett at a 2 year deal battling with Heinicke and Allen or draft pick. I just think he has a high floor even if a not so high ceiling. 

He is now Tua's back up and will more than likely get playing time as a result of Tua's history (although would love to see him stay healthy). Will be interesting to see how they both work out this year

[Skinsinparadise]

Its going down 

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/story/_/id/31375213/aaron-rodgers-trade-offers-seven-nfl-teams-proposals-ranked-least-appealing-most-attractive#wsh

Aaron Rodgers trade offers: Seven NFL teams and proposals, ranked from least appealing to most attractive

 

2. Washington Football Team

Packers get: 2022 first-round pick, 2022 second-round pick, 2023 first-round pick, 2023 second-round pick, QB Ryan Fitzpatrick, DT Matt Ioannidis

Washington gets: Rodgers

I don't think it's remotely out of the question to suggest that Washington would be among the favorites to make it to the Super Bowl if it pulled off a Rodgers trade. Washington's defense ranked third in the league in defensive DVOA last season and arguably got better in free agency by replacing Ronald Darby with William Jackson. If that seems outlandish, remember that the 7-9 Buccaneers finished fifth in DVOA in 2019, added Tom Brady, then won Super Bowl LV.

Rodgers would be a transformative quarterback for a Washington team that has cycled through starter after starter over the past 25 years. He wouldn't be a long-term solution, but for an organization which has been downright adversarial to its fans during the Daniel Snyder era and wasn't exactly packing the stadium before the pandemic, he would represent a new era. The offensive line in Washington is questionable, but he could again look toward a promising one-two punch at receiver in Terry McLaurin and Curtis Samuel.

Washington would have to pay more than its AFC competition to get a deal done. The Packers would get four high draft picks, a useful defensive lineman in Ioannidis and a short-term replacement to compete with Love in Fitzpatrick, who has a better QBR over the past four years (67.8) than Rodgers (65.6).

[Thinking Skins]

2 minutes ago, DWinzit said:

Brissett was one of my favorite options to come to WFT, especially when it was apparent they were not going to get their first line of targets. I know we should be in a better place this year with Fitz but he is only a one year wonder here. I would have been cool with Brissett at a 2 year deal battling with Heinicke and Allen or draft pick. I just think he has a high floor even if a not so high ceiling. 

He is now Tua's back up and will more than likely get playing time as a result of Tua's history (although would love to see him stay healthy). Will be interesting to see how they both work out this year

I like Brissett, but I honestly am more of a fan of Heinicke and Allen. Maybe Brissett has a good skillset, but I wanted to invest in these guys. It'd be different if he was 23, but at 28/29 I can understand not wanting to develop him now as a starter (but say he comes in and leads Miami to the playoffs after Tua goes down, then I'd think Miami should invest in him). I was trying to talk myself into various FAs but I wasn't really excited about any of them other than maybe a Mond or some guys like that. 

[Skinsinparadise]

17 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

That said I do think that a similar thing can be said about first round QBs but its a bit different because if you look at Bridgewater or Darnold or Bradford or a number of other first round QBs, there have been a number of coaches who have said "I can fix this guy". You don't see those same coaches willing to put that kind of time to fix the fundamentals in a lower round QB. Its a frustration I have with this new era of the league. 

 

There is a reason for it.    Why is a dude drafted higher typically than lower?  Its not always the case but its often the case -- ceiling.  If you are fixing a MLB pitcher a dude that has lets say a wicked curveball or can throw the heat 95 miles an hour that is more intriguring to try to fix than a finesse pitcher.   Because you might hit lightening in a bottle. 

 

You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger Darnold hater on this thread than me.  But I would still say Darnold has upside.  If you can fix him the sky is the limit.  Nick Mullens isn't a sky is the limit type of dude.  Yes there are exceptions with raw but very talented QBs falling to the later rounds but usually they have very fundamental flaws -- slow deliveries, prior injury concerns, can't see the field or whatever and if those flaws manifest in the pros too they aren't always given a lot of rope -- but those cases aren't that common. 

 

The more common examples are QBs with high upsides like a Josh Allen tend to get drafted early.  And if you have a dude with arguably the strongest arm in the NFL and can also run.  The odds are you will give him more rope than a dude like Nick Mullens.  Draft status and raw talent usually are variables that are very but not always compatible. 

 

There are outliers to everything.  But as the analytics types will say if you ride your strategy on outliers the odds that you will fail are greater. 

Edited May 4, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

20 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

 

And its not that I'm saying that first round QBs don't count, just that I get a lot of flack for being so pro low round QBs. For years I'd look at other teams backups and say is there somebody on a roster we could trade for and build around the way Houston did with Matt Schaub or other teams did with GB QBs (Hasselback and Brunell and Brooks). @Skinsinparadise brought up the mathematical models of late round QBs having such a lower success rate than first round QBs and that's where this line of talk has come from. 

 

 

the reason why I ask you from time to time whether you want to win a SB or just be competitive is points like this which you tend to make.  You higlhight QBs that aren't that hard to obtain where the odds that you will win a SB is almost nill.   And you seem to get jazzed about them.  To me Matt Shaub yawn. He had a good 4 seasons or so but otherwise he had a unremarkable career.   We got our Brunell who we added to a good defense and running game but were no threat to win a SB.

Edited May 4, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[“Misdirection”]

Perhaps one reason there’s less developing of QBs is the quality of scouting and identifying guys that can play his higher, just based on resources and technology alone.

 

previously guys that can play weren’t universally recognized and could be had later in drafts and stashed. But nowadays those same guys would’ve been 1st/2nd round picks 

 

All said... I have nothing to back this up but conjecture lol 

[Thinking Skins]

33 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

the reason why I ask you from time to time whether you want to win a SB or just be competitive is points like this which you tend to make.  You higlhight QBs that aren't that hard to obtain where the odds that you will win a SB is almost nill.   And you seem to get jazzed about them.  To me Matt Shaub yawn. He had a good 4 seasons or so but otherwise he had a unremarkable career.   We got our Brunell who we added to a good defense and running game but were no threat to win a SB.

 

I just want a chance at the dance. I don't buy a lot of the hype that it takes these great QBs to become larger than the game. Sure they help but I think it takes a complete team and a mediocre to good QB on a well built team is also good. You can point out the flaws in Schaub as a passer, but he's also better than any QB we've had here except maybe Cousins. But its not about that name in particular, its about the idea. You've brought this up as well - we seem to rarely go all in on a QB and when we do its all in on a vet guy who is a has been (Brunell, McNabb). We tried with RG3 and we tried with Haskins. Both were failures. All were failures. But what were we able to do with Cousins? Sure it wasn't a trip to the dance, but those are so unpredictable and so hard to even talk about. We've been finishing 3rd or last in our division how many times in the last 30 years? I just want good football and let the chips fall where they may. 

17 minutes ago, LLandryistheshiz said:

Perhaps one reason there’s less developing of QBs is the quality of scouting and identifying guys that can play his higher, just based on resources and technology alone.

 

previously guys that can play weren’t universally recognized and could be had later in drafts and stashed. But nowadays those same guys would’ve been 1st/2nd round picks 

 

All said... I have nothing to back this up but conjecture lol 

I've heard this before, then we got Minshew. Washington recently found Heinicke on the street. Maybe this is true to an extent, but I just think that its the way the league is now geared. 

[Anselmheifer]

Should we change this thread title to 2022?

[Skinsinparadise]

44 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I just want a chance at the dance. I don't buy a lot of the hype that it takes these great QBs to become larger than the game. Sure they help but I think it takes a complete team and a mediocre to good QB on a well built team is also good. You can point out the flaws in Schaub as a passer, but he's also better than any QB we've had here except maybe Cousins. But its not about that name in particular, its about the idea. You've brought this up as well - we seem to rarely go all in on a QB and when we do its all in on a vet guy who is a has been (Brunell, McNabb). We tried with RG3 and we tried with Haskins. Both were failures. All were failures. But what were we able to do with Cousins? Sure it wasn't a trip to the dance, but those are so unpredictable and so hard to even talk about. We've been finishing 3rd or last in our division how many times in the last 30 years? I just want good football and let the chips fall where they may. 

 

It's not hype.  It's not wild gossip thrown around for QB hungry fans.  Just look it up.  What happened to NE with its constant playoff team cast without Brady?  What happened with Tampa's loaded roster without a QB?  then what happened when they obtained one?

 

I do agree you likely need it all to win. the supporting cast versus QB conversation sometimes lacks IMO needed grey.  Personally, I don't really fall in what i perceive to be either extreme.  I am not a give a just decent QB a loaded cast and win a SB type.  I think its possible but its unlikely and more on point its not very sustainable.   I am also not in the mode of give a great QB a crap roster and watch them win.  I think you need both a supporting cast and a great QB to have sustainable success. 

 

I think a 9-10 level QB can win though with a 7-8 level roster.    It is very hard to maintain a 9-10 level roster outside of the QB because of the cap.  I recall some saying look at Jax, they are doing it without a QB with a killer defense.  But that car crashed fast.  Heck even the hype about the Eagles building a sustainable winner crashed fast.  The Giants had a nice run for a bit of a longer time but that car crashed big time too.  Whereas teams like GB, Seattle, Pitts, etc have always stayed in the hunt. 

 

To your other points.  Schaub had 3 really good seasons, won over 9 games a season just once.   If his whole career played out like his 3 best seasons, then i'd agree with you.  Then he's be sort of like a Matt Ryan type but his career didn't play out that way.

 

Russell Wilson, Aaron Rodgers and I'd bet soon Josh Allen joins that club among others are in play for the big dance every year whether they win it or not.  A Nick Foles type can hit lightening in a bottle and get hot and win a SB once in a blue moon but its not the norm and clearly it doesn't last. 

 

You are citing our failures at first round QBs but they were all arguably seen as reaches at the time with the exception of RG3.  And your point, (I know unintentionally) gives major props to Dan Snyder.  At least in 3 of those 4 cases, Dan's hands were heavy on those picks.  In the Haskins thread, you strongly defended the Haskins pick and by extension Dan in the past because some talking heads agreed with him.  But that's not how you build a team by letting your dummy owner reach for 2nd-3rd round talents in the first round. 

 

And you somewhat plays both sides of this point I noticed.  On the FO thread you hammer Dan for his interference.  But on the Haskins thread you defend his decision because some talking heads on TV agree with him.  It can't work both ways.  You got a pick a side on it.   As far as I am concerned if you continue to not factor Dan's finger prints on these QB calls and defend the actual picks than you are defacto on the side of Dan's interference.  The thing is Dan's involvement is usually by most accounts at the QB spot.   

 

My point is Campbell, Haskins and Ramsey to me are examples of 2nd-3rd round QBs.  It doesn't matter to me that our dummy owner took them earlier.  I'll give him a break on Campbell though since that was Gibbs' call.   In my book the only true first round failure shooting for the moon type was RG3 and ironically for a fleeting time it was our best brush of success under Dan albeit it flamed out fast. 

 

Your point seems to be go for more:  Sudfeld, Brennan, J. Palmer, Hamden, Husak type picks because while it may take years of misses but you will eventually find a Kirk and at least you aren't sacrificing a high pick to do it.  And some would say even Kirk isn't a SB caliber QB so not sure if even that point saves you.  I get the logic but if we did that how long is Rivera's leash? 10 years?  Because it can take that long to find the rare needle in the haystick pick. 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[justice98]

3 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

I like this mention of developing. This is kinda my point in this whole thread and others. I am all about developing QBs, which just seems like it doesn't happen any more. Everybody expects QBs to come in and either be all pro or show that spark that says "yeah he's got it". What happened to the Gibbs days of draft and stash like we did with Rypien? I'm not saying that any of these guys who are late round finds are going to become franchise QBs, but I'm also saying that just about every year teams make it far in the playoffs without franchise QBs - Keenum, Flacco, Bortels, Foles, Goff, Jimmy G. And I feel like what Minnesota did to Case Keenum is just criminal. Dude took you to the conference championship and his reward is getting shipped out of town. Where's the belief in him, the commitment, the investment? They just want microwave success. And the problem is that other teams (see Tampa and Denver) are winning with these get wins quick schemes and so the old ways of drafting and developing are going away because coaches are like whats the point when the coaches themselves may be fired before those young players can develop. 

 

What happened to the days of draft and stash?  They changed the rules so that you can't do that anymore. Not to mention, that was 30 some years ago. Can't invent injuries to keep guys around.  And if you wanna keep them on the practice squad, they can just get poached after you've put in the hard work developing them.  We're basically talking abbut developing people that nobody thinks much of. 

 

Now, I'm not sure what your definition of "franchise QB" is, but most of those guys you named actually were franchise QBs at one point.  Flacco was a first rd pick that started 163 out of 169 games in a Raven uniform.  Goff was the first overall pick.  The Niners made Jimmy G the highest paid player in NFL history because they made him their franchise QB.  Now, this franchise QB label isn't a lifetime position.  You can play yourself out of it and quickly if you're not careful..   

 

Plus, I wouldn't confuse a one year run with sustainability.  Like with the Keenum example.  I think they knew Keenum wasn't for real.  The entirety of his career would seem to support that.  Sometimes you gotta know what you have and whether you got all you can get out of a guy.  Now, could the Vikings have gotten an 8-7-1 record the next year for a fraction of the cost at QB.  Probably.  But Cousins threw 30 TDs to only 10 INTs, not like he threw up on himself.  As I recall that was the year Dalvin Cook missed 3/4 of the season.  I don't really believe in rewarding QBs for momentary feats of success.  We rewarded Doug Williams with the starting gig in '88 and history doesn't really remember this part, he wasn't really particularly good.  We just remember the good stuff.  The Eagles did the right thing by not falling into that trap with Foles.  Even Rypien was great for one year, kinda just ok the rest of them.  If that's the kind of dude you're relying on, you'd better be loaded.

 

I guess it comes down to, do you want a year of lightning in a bottle, or do you want a bunch of years.

Edited May 4, 2021 by justice98

[Anselmheifer]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Its going down 

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/story/_/id/31375213/aaron-rodgers-trade-offers-seven-nfl-teams-proposals-ranked-least-appealing-most-attractive#wsh

Aaron Rodgers trade offers: Seven NFL teams and proposals, ranked from least appealing to most attractive

 

2. Washington Football Team

Packers get: 2022 first-round pick, 2022 second-round pick, 2023 first-round pick, 2023 second-round pick, QB Ryan Fitzpatrick, DT Matt Ioannidis

Washington gets: Rodgers

I don't think it's remotely out of the question to suggest that Washington would be among the favorites to make it to the Super Bowl if it pulled off a Rodgers trade. Washington's defense ranked third in the league in defensive DVOA last season and arguably got better in free agency by replacing Ronald Darby with William Jackson. If that seems outlandish, remember that the 7-9 Buccaneers finished fifth in DVOA in 2019, added Tom Brady, then won Super Bowl LV.

Rodgers would be a transformative quarterback for a Washington team that has cycled through starter after starter over the past 25 years. He wouldn't be a long-term solution, but for an organization which has been downright adversarial to its fans during the Daniel Snyder era and wasn't exactly packing the stadium before the pandemic, he would represent a new era. The offensive line in Washington is questionable, but he could again look toward a promising one-two punch at receiver in Terry McLaurin and Curtis Samuel.

 

Washington would have to pay more than its AFC competition to get a deal done. The Packers would get four high draft picks, a useful defensive lineman in Ioannidis and a short-term replacement to compete with Love in Fitzpatrick, who has a better QBR over the past four years (67.8) than Rodgers (65.6).

I’d do this in a heart beat. What was the offer that beat this?

[Thinking Skins]

25 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

You are citing our failures at first round QBs but they were all arguably seen as reaches at the time with the exception of RG3.  And your point, (I know unintentionally) gives major props to Dan Snyder.  At least in 3 of those 4 cases, Dan's hands were heavy on those picks.  In the Haskins thread, you strongly defended the Haskins pick and by extension Dan in the past because some talking heads agreed with him.  But that's not how you build a team by letting your dummy owner reach for 2nd-3rd round talents in the first round. 

 

And you somewhat plays both sides of this point I noticed.  On the FO thread you hammer Dan for his interference.  But on the Haskins thread you defend his decision because some talking heads on TV agree with him.  It can't work both ways.  You got a pick a side on it.   As far as I am concerned if you continue to not factor Dan's finger prints on these QB calls and defend the actual picks than you are defacto on the side of Dan's interference.  The thing is Dan's involvement is usually by most accounts at the QB spot.   

 

Don't get me wrong. In the 2019 draft I didn't want Haskins. I wanted an ILB. I didn't know who, but I wanted an ILB. But what I REALLY didn't want was to trade up for Haskins. So when we got Haskins at 15, I was happy we were patient and got him instead of trading up like a lot of mocks had us doing.

 

I wasn't a fan of drafting Haskins, Campbell or Ramsey. My problem with the later two is that they were first round picks on risky QBs whose ceilings weren't at that franchise level (in my opinion). Haskins I thought had that potential, at least for the one year. I do remember reading your analysis of him and his dependency on screens / slants and that giving me pause, but I still liked him because he was seen in a lot of mocks as a top 10 QB. But given what I've read since then, he seems to be more similar to Campbell and Ramsey - a second round QB that we took in the first. 

 

I am not a fan of Dan getting involved in things, but until I know he's not involved I'm now going to assume he is. The one reason I thought Bruce was doing a good job was that he was keeping Dan out of it. I forget who it was but some people on this board knew how much Dan wanted Moss over Gardener and for that reason wanted Moss to be a bust so that it would prove Dan wrong. I think you made a point that he only interferes with QBs but I think his fingerprint is on everything in this org and I force myself to root for this team in spite of him. That said, I have to judge each move individually. And say, even if X was a Dan pick, is it a bad pick. I hated the McNabb trade, then there was a stretch when he put together some good games and I was coming around to liking him. Then the Philly game happened and I was just shaking my head. 

 

Its hard because I know how I've wanted this team to be built for the last 30 years (since my teen years) but Its almost never taken that approach. So I have to constantly watch "smarter" people than me make these dumb moves and convince myself that they're going to work, only to watch them blow up. 

 

25 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

My point is Campbell, Haskins and Ramsey to me are examples of 2nd-3rd round QBs.  It doesn't matter to me that our dummy owner took them earlier.  I'll give him a break on Campbell though since that was Gibbs' call.   In my book the only true first round failure shooting for the moon type was RG3 and ironically for a fleeting time it was our best brush of success under Dan albeit it flamed out fast. 

 

Your point seems to be go for more:  Sudfeld, Brennan, J. Palmer, Hamden, Husak type picks because while it may take years of misses but you will eventually find a Kirk and at least you aren't sacrificing a high pick to do it.  And some would say even Kirk isn't a SB caliber QB so not sure if even that point saves you.  I get the logic but if we did that how long is Rivera's leash? 10 years?  Because it can take that long to find the rare needle in the haystick pick. 

 

My point is that we need more swings at the plate. I don't care about drafting a QB at #2 overall or whatever. But I don't like trading up for that. And if I'm risking losing a Chase Young for a Heath Schuler or Sam Darnold then I really have to do an analysis on is it worth it. Its like Casserly did when they drafted Mario Williams over that draft class, knowing they needed a QB but deciding that nobody was good enough. 

 

But I just don't want to limit it to the first round QBs. I didn't like the drafting of Cousins when we drafted RG3 that same year, but I like something like GBs philosophy of drafting QBs, where they were always drafting them, developing them and trading them for draft picks except I wouldn't trade them I would be looking for my eventual starter.

 

So say we had Ramsey. I wouldn't have traded for Brunell. Maybe brought in a younger guy or let Ramsey show he didn't belong. Then maybe draft Campbell (we should have gone for Rodgers, knowing that we needed a QB and he was supposed to go 1 or 2 and dropped to us, that was a value pick at 5 or 6). Honestly I probably wouldn't even draft Campbell because that year was a good QB class so I may even have gone for a lower round QB. But then I'd let them battle it out. And then if they didn't work, in 2008 or 2009, I'm drafting or signing another QB. It doesn't have to be a first rounder, just keeping the competition open. 

 

Lets not forget that this franchise didn't want to go my route. Instead they brought in an old Brunell, overdrafted Campbell, paid too much for McNabb, started Grossman and Beck, paid for McCoy, traded for Smith, and overdrafted Haskins. How many low round QBs have been taken in that time? Cousins and Sudfield. We traded for Keenum but he was old by then and already had been paid a big money contract (not by us). And we've SUCKED. Big Time. So its not like its going to cost us a lot to try it my way. I just want to see us try. 

[Inigo Montoya]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

Washington would have to pay more than its AFC competition to get a deal done. The Packers would get four high draft picks, a useful defensive lineman in Ioannidis and a short-term replacement to compete with Love in Fitzpatrick, who has a better QBR over the past four years (67.8) than Rodgers (65.6).

this right here… why isn’t this fan base more excited about Fitz!?!? I think he’s our QB for 3-4 more years and we draft a guy in 22/23 after deep playoff runs the next few years. We’re talking about the most talented and complete roster we’ve had in I can’t remember how long. 

[Thinking Skins]

11 minutes ago, justice98 said:

 

What happened to the days of draft and stash?  They changed the rules so that you can't do that anymore. Not to mention, that was 30 some years ago. Can't invent injuries to keep guys around.  And if you wanna keep them on the practice squad, they can just get poached after you've put in the hard work developing them.  We're basically talking abbut developing people that nobody thinks much of. 

 

Now, I'm not sure what your definition of "franchise QB" is, but most of those guys you named actually were franchise QBs at one point.  Flacco was a first rd pick that started 163 out of 169 games in a Raven uniform.  Goff was the first overall pick.  The Niners made Jimmy G the highest paid player in NFL history because they made him their franchise QB.  Now, this franchise QB label isn't a lifetime position.  You can play yourself out of it and quickly if you're not careful..   

 

Plus, I wouldn't confuse a one year run with sustainability.  Like with the Keenum example.  I think they knew Keenum wasn't for real.  The entirety of his career would seem to support that.  Sometimes you gotta know what you have and whether you got all you can get out of a guy.  Now, could the Vikings have gotten an 8-7-1 record the next year for a fraction of the cost at QB.  Probably.  But Cousins threw 30 TDs to only 10 INTs, not like he threw up on himself.  As I recall that was the year Dalvin Cook missed 3/4 of the season.  I don't really believe in rewarding QBs for momentary feats of success.  We rewarded Doug Williams with the starting gig in '88 and history doesn't really remember this part, he wasn't really particularly good.  We just remember the good stuff.  The Eagles did the right thing by not falling into that trap with Foles.  Even Rypien was great for one year, kinda just ok the rest of them.  If that's the kind of dude you're relying on, you'd better be loaded.

 

I guess it comes down to, do you want a year of lightning in a bottle, or do you want a bunch of years.

Very valid points. I mention some of these names because they are generally not thought of in that light. Flacco is often seen as teh lesser of those two QBs taken that year (Ryan the other) and had to prove himself in that SB season before they gave him a contract. Jimmy G did get the contract and had the hype initially (he doesn't lose games), but quickly and especially that SB year was showing that he wasn't a franchise QB. Goff was a bust until he wasn't, until he was again. 

 

Keenum I disagree with. True in STL he was never exceptional, but he was a decent guy. I thought Minny had a good QB group with him as their third and they saw that when he played and played well. I'd say that he wasn't the thing that moved that offense or that team as they had a good defense and a good running game and two top WRs, but Keenum didn't do what we saw Grossman and other QBs do, and mess it up. I would have thought that a defensive guy like Zimmer would love Keenum and his style of play and letting his defense do what it does, and Keenum would put the ball in the hands of his playmakers and let it go. I think he had a better year than Cousins in 2018. 

 

The draft and stash is gone, but not totally. Teams still draft guys and develop them or sign them and keep them. Its what Pitt is doing with Rudolph right now. But the problem is that these guys are rarely given the reigns to take over. So if Big Ben were to retire today, I'm sure that Pitt would trade for somebody or sign somebody. If not today, then next offseason. That's my problem. We don't see the young QBs who need time to develop into a starter get the chance to make mistakes unless they are a first rounder. They've got to hit the ground running. 

[Skinsinparadise]

57 minutes ago, Anselmheifer said:

I’d do this in a heart beat. What was the offer that beat this?

1. Denver Broncos

Packers get: CB Patrick Surtain II, WR Tim Patrick, QB Drew Lock, 2022 first-round pick, 2023 first-round pick

Broncos get: Rodgers, CB Eric Stokes

This is the most interesting offer a team could make for Rodgers, in my opinion. The Packers get only two first-round picks, but they get to add young, exciting talent at multiple positions who can step in immediately. If LaFleur & Co. think they can win with Love in 2021, this probably would be the best swap for them to consider.

The Packers would essentially get a third first-round pick as part of this deal by adding Surtain, who was the No. 9 overall selection on Thursday. In return, they would send their own first-round cornerback in Stokes, but the difference between the ninth and 29th picks is pretty significant, amounting to something like the 25th in a typical year. If Surtain pans out, he would team with Jaire Alexander and form one of the best sets of cornerbacks in football. Surtain would also crucially be on a below-market deal for at least the next three years, which is critical for a Green Bay team in rough cap shape at the moment.'

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/story/_/id/31375213/aaron-rodgers-trade-offers-seven-nfl-teams-proposals-ranked-least-appealing-most-attractive

 

 

[LetThePointsSoar]

I'd LOVE to get Rodgers, but at that price ESPN listed? 

 

A big fat HELL NO.  That's not worth the 2-3 year window. For that price, you better lock up someone that could be the guy for a decade plus. And as great as Rodgers is, he's not that. 

 

Hail.