The Official QB Thread- JD5 taken #2. Randall 2.0 or Bayou Bob? Mariotta and Hartman forever. Fromm cut

[KDawg]

2 hours ago, profusion said:

No more castoffs. Draft a guy and develop him. And somebody please find a way to isolate Dan on draft day.

Well, let’s pass on Tu’a for a third or a fourth then. Then, when we go into the draft and manage to NOT get the guy we want somehow. Or even the second. Maybe third… and we’re stuck with Heinicke and Trubisky as our top two…

 

Let me know how you feel.

 

 

Edited October 28, 2021 by KDawg

[bowhunter]

7 hours ago, London Kev said:

 

I derive no pleasure in pointing out your mistake, but the word is Schadenfreude 😀.

Uggh, A Schadenfreudian slip

[illone]

5 hours ago, method man said:

definitely wouldnt need to give fitz $10m for mentorship. You already have Heinicke for that

 

wait, what?!

 

did you just suggest heine would mentor the incoming rookie?

 

mentor him in what?!

 

How to noodle arm throws and give yourself up before scoring?!

 

😩

[Thinking Skins]

11 hours ago, KDawg said:

Well, let’s pass on Tu’a for a third or a fourth then. Then, when we go into the draft and manage to NOT get the guy we want somehow. Or even the second. Maybe third… and we’re stuck with Heinicke and Trubisky as our top two…

 

Let me know how you feel.

 

 

I'm not a believer in QBR as the ultimate metric for grading a QB but I think its better at grading mobile QBs than pure passer rating. That said, I thought I'd do a thought experiment on some potential QBs. What I've been saying is that with the QBs available they're not much better than Taylor. And QBR supports this. 

 

Taylor through 2021 season right now QBR: 45.0

 

So lets look at how other QBs who may be available compare to this. 

Tua: Year 1 - 52.5, Year 2 - 47.6

Tribusky: Year 1 - 32.4. Year 2 - 71.0, Year 3 - 41.5, Year 4 - 61.3, 

Mariota: Year 1 - 48.4, Year 2 - 59.1, Year 3 - 58.6, Year 4 - 53.2, Year 5 - 35.5

Darnold: Year 1 - 45.9, Year 2 - 45.6, Year 3 - 40.1, Year 4 - 41.9

Bridgewater: Year 1 - 54.4, Year 2 - 57.7, Year 4 - 31.3, Year 5 - 50.9, Year 6 - 64.2, Year 7 - 50.3

 

Some of these guys have better seasons or averages than Heinicke, but its not like we're striking gold with these guys. Tribusky had the best year but never repeated it. He's the guy I'd be highest on but its not like he has a long history of success. 

 

I will pause here to say that the golden child of Tannehill had similar numbers to these guys when he was in Miami

(48.4, 48.4, 59.3, 45.6, 48.6, 33.2) before having (64.2, 78.3, 61.7) in Tennessee.

So we see its possible but other teams are trying it too and just look at Darnold and Bridgewater for example as guys that teams thought would look a lot better in their second stints and it didn't happen. 

 

I'm OK with bring in a Tua or Tribusky or Mariota but I wouldn't go around expecting the world from them. They may not have the learning curve of a rookie but they won't have the potential there either. Its probably a case of more of what they have already been. 

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

 

I'm OK with bring in a Tua or Tribusky or Mariota but I wouldn't go around expecting the world from them. They may not have the learning curve of a rookie but they won't have the potential there either. Its probably a case of more of what they have already been. 

 

People keep repeating this (the bold) in respect to Tua or Mariota or Trubisky. Quite frankly its driving me nuts. You don't bring them in thinking they are the definitive long term answer. You bring them in to hedge your bets just in case. If they pan out, awesome. If they don't you should still be planning on finding a guy to build around. 

 

I disagree on the potential part with Tua specifically. Coming off the hip, which is an injury that takes a few years like an achilles. He absolutely has potential. But there is also the obvious possibility that he'll never be the same post injury and he is just a mid range guy or a bit lower.

 

Trubisky still has a lot of potential... Nagy crushed him. But let's also face reality... The guy airmails a lot of passes. His potential is locked in step with his ability to calm down and keep technique when throwing. It's not through the roof high potential but as a "just in case" option there aren't many better options.

 

Darnold is bad. Always has been. Always will be. 

[philibusters]

14 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

I'm not a believer in QBR as the ultimate metric for grading a QB but I think its better at grading mobile QBs than pure passer rating. That said, I thought I'd do a thought experiment on some potential QBs. What I've been saying is that with the QBs available they're not much better than Taylor. And QBR supports this. 

 

Taylor through 2021 season right now QBR: 45.0

 

So lets look at how other QBs who may be available compare to this. 

Tua: Year 1 - 52.5, Year 2 - 47.6

Tribusky: Year 1 - 32.4. Year 2 - 71.0, Year 3 - 41.5, Year 4 - 61.3, 

Mariota: Year 1 - 48.4, Year 2 - 59.1, Year 3 - 58.6, Year 4 - 53.2, Year 5 - 35.5

Darnold: Year 1 - 45.9, Year 2 - 45.6, Year 3 - 40.1, Year 4 - 41.9

Bridgewater: Year 1 - 54.4, Year 2 - 57.7, Year 4 - 31.3, Year 5 - 50.9, Year 6 - 64.2, Year 7 - 50.3

 

Some of these guys have better seasons or averages than Heinicke, but its not like we're striking gold with these guys. Tribusky had the best year but never repeated it. He's the guy I'd be highest on but its not like he has a long history of success. 

 

I will pause here to say that the golden child of Tannehill had similar numbers to these guys when he was in Miami

(48.4, 48.4, 59.3, 45.6, 48.6, 33.2) before having (64.2, 78.3, 61.7) in Tennessee.

So we see its possible but other teams are trying it too and just look at Darnold and Bridgewater for example as guys that teams thought would look a lot better in their second stints and it didn't happen. 

 

I'm OK with bring in a Tua or Tribusky or Mariota but I wouldn't go around expecting the world from them. They may not have the learning curve of a rookie but they won't have the potential there either. Its probably a case of more of what they have already been. 

 

 

In terms of Tua the small sample size hurts.   Once a guy has had like 5 years I think it becomes a bit more unlikely he will improve than if he is in year 2 or 3.  For Josh Allen the big jump in QBR was from year 2 to 3.   For Derek Carr it was from 2 to 3.   Some guys don't fit that profile.  So far Kyler Murray has had a linear progression (57 to 61 to 65).   Long story short its too early to make any long term conclusions about Tua.

[Renegade7]

Some players you can tell in less then 5 years.  Haskins, Griffin, Taylor...

[Thinking Skins]

7 minutes ago, KDawg said:

People keep repeating this (the bold) in respect to Tua or Mariota or Trubisky. Quite frankly its driving me nuts. You don't bring them in thinking they are the definitive long term answer. You bring them in to hedge your bets just in case. If they pan out, awesome. If they don't you should still be planning on finding a guy to build around. 

 

I get this, but on some level its just kicking the can down the road isn't it? To an extent I am on board with this line of thinking because you have a "you know what you're gonna get" type of a return on it and its like what we did with the Brunell and McNabb returns only with younger guys and hopefully on the upswing instead of the downslide. But the problem with this approach is that we will often pass on a draft QB (in say the first) because we've got our guy. And like SIP keeps saying we never (rarely) go all in for a QB in the draft. 

[KDawg]

Just now, Thinking Skins said:

I get this, but on some level its just kicking the can down the road isn't it? To an extent I am on board with this line of thinking because you have a "you know what you're gonna get" type of a return on it and its like what we did with the Brunell and McNabb returns only with younger guys and hopefully on the upswing instead of the downslide. But the problem with this approach is that we will often pass on a draft QB (in say the first) because we've got our guy. And like SIP keeps saying we never (rarely) go all in for a QB in the draft. 

 

It's kicking the can but instead of a small used can of corn you're kicking the coffee pot tin down the road.

 

What WFT does or doesn't do isn't the same thing that I'd do.

 

I'd acquire the best talent I can for the lowest cost as my backup option. Acquire Plan B. 

 

Then go hard after A.

 

If I fail at A then at least I have B.

 

B = Tua, Trubisky, Mariota, Winston, Bridgewater

A = Rodgers, (an innocent) Watson, Wilson, Rookie

 

What WFT would do is a mystery to me. But yes, if they acquired a Plan B guy and didn't bother with Plan A that's a mistake. 

[Thinking Skins]

30 minutes ago, philibusters said:

 

 

In terms of Tua the small sample size hurts.   Once a guy has had like 5 years I think it becomes a bit more unlikely he will improve than if he is in year 2 or 3.  For Josh Allen the big jump in QBR was from year 2 to 3.   For Derek Carr it was from 2 to 3.   Some guys don't fit that profile.  So far Kyler Murray has had a linear progression (57 to 61 to 65).   Long story short its too early to make any long term conclusions about Tua.

My problem with Tua all along hasn't been his potential but his injury history and likelihood. And like my frustration with Taylor, I think its impacting Tua's playing style. 

[justice98]

18 hours ago, Dexter said:

If available...you trade for Tua.  

 

He's 23 years old, has tons of talent and we won't be able to get anyone decent to come to town.

 

I would be on board with trading for Tua.  Send a 3rd rounder and get it done.  Anything more than a 3rd then I would keep it rolling with Heinike.  

 

I'm could live with Tua, except I wouldn't want getting him to preclude trying to make other moves at QB.  

[NewCliche21]

27 minutes ago, justice98 said:

 

I'm could live with Tua, except I wouldn't want getting him to preclude trying to make other moves at QB.  

 

I agree, I think that's the whole point, these need to be parallel processes.  One should have nothing to do with each other (aside from not having conflicting draft capital).

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

It just occurred to me who would the perfect guy to stabilize the position for two years while you figured out a long term plan.

 

Kirk Cousins.

 

Edited October 28, 2021 by Lombardi's_kid_brother

[Warhead36]

Just now, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

It just occurred to me who would the perfect guy yo stabilize the position for two years while you figured out a long term plan.

 

Kirk Cousins.

 

I do believe the Vikings may cut him for salary cap reasons at season's end, especially if they miss the playoffs again.

 

I doubt he wants to come here though after already experiencing first hand what a mess of an organization are. There are gonna be legit contenders like Pittsburgh and New Orleans that will be in need of a QB.

[Renegade7]

4 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

It just occurred to me who would the perfect guy to stabilize the position for two years while you figured out a long term plan.

 

Kirk Cousins.

 

 

I wouldn't be against it...

[MartinC]

On Tua great break down here by JT O'Sullivan who produces GREAT QB and X and O content on YouTube. Some good some pretty bad. If reports are to believed we have no interest in Tua, if the price is cheap enough we should have interest IMO - even if its only as a bridge guy because we don't like the options in the 2022 draft.

 

If we did get Tua you would need to design the offense around what he is very good at which is the RPO game. He's great at that. It starts to get dicey when he gets behind the chains and has to start reading coverages, seeing pressures and making good decisions. Plus arm but some footwork issues he needs to clean up as well - but nothing like Haskins in that regards.

 

 

[Cooleyfan1993]

32 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

It just occurred to me who would the perfect guy to stabilize the position for two years while you figured out a long term plan.

 

Kirk Cousins.

 

Lol....oh how full circle that would be. Doubt it happens, but I’d be ok with it, if only to see what the reactions would be for the fan base. 
 

However i could totally see dannyboy vetoing that, for obvious reasons i wont get into here 

Edited October 28, 2021 by Cooleyfan1993

[CjSuAvE22]

19 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I wouldn't be against it...

neither would i what 3 year 66 million(I don't think he gets more then that) ? WHILE ALSO drafting a couple young guys? Could actually be worthwhile. 

17 minutes ago, MartinC said:

On Tua great break down here by JT O'Sullivan who produces GREAT QB and X and O content on YouTube. Some good some pretty bad. If reports are to believed we have no interest in Tua, if the price is cheap enough we should have interest IMO - even if its only as a bridge guy because we don't like the options in the 2022 draft.

 

 

Problem is I don't think they let Tua go for anything less than a 2nd most likely a 1st would be needed I just don't like that price tag for him. 

Edited October 28, 2021 by CjSuAvE22

[MartinC]

29 minutes ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

 

Problem is I don't think they let Tua go for anything less than a 2nd most likely a 1st would be needed I just don't like that price tag for him. 

If they want a first round pick I would wish them well in getting that kind of compensation elsewhere.

A 3rd next year plus something conditional like  say a 2nd in 23 based on appearances and some performance benchmarks and I think we should be talking.

[Renegade7]

44 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Lol....oh how full circle that would be. Doubt it happens, but I’d be ok with it, if only to see what the reactions would be for the fan base. 
 

However i could totally see dannyboy vetoing that, for obvious reasons i wont get into here 

 

Thought his beef was with Bruce, not Dan.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

Edited October 30, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

On 10/28/2021 at 9:22 AM, Thinking Skins said:

I get this, but on some level its just kicking the can down the road isn't it? To an extent I am on board with this line of thinking because you have a "you know what you're gonna get" type of a return on it and its like what we did with the Brunell and McNabb returns only with younger guys and hopefully on the upswing instead of the downslide. But the problem with this approach is that we will often pass on a draft QB (in say the first) because we've got our guy. And like SIP keeps saying we never (rarely) go all in for a QB in the draft. 

 

Yeah I do say that as for needing to be more aggressive at QB.   And I believe it more now than ever. 

 

But I got no problem at all with doubling up.  I don't like to use the word hedging to describe it.  To me its more taking multiple shots at the well.  Increase the odds.

 

Seattle signed Matt Flynn who was a flop but also drafted Russell Wilson.  NE resigned Cam but also drafted Mac Jones.  We drafted RG3 and Kirk.    Cowboys took Walsh and Aikman.    Cards took Murray and Rosen in back to back drafts.  

[Skinsinparadise]

On 10/28/2021 at 4:58 PM, Renegade7 said:

 

Thought his beef was with Bruce, not Dan.

 

Yeah by most accounts that's true.   Among other things I recall hearing that Dan and Jay called Kirk when he left to wish him good luck, Bruce did not.  Multiple stories about how Kirk didn't care for Bruce albeit Kirk wouldn't take a public shot at anyone.  

 

If anything Kirk's supposed bad relationship with Bruce, might actually intrigue Dan to do it.

 

Kirk though has 45 million dead money on the cap.  I think with Kirk if it ever happened would be more likely in 2023.

 

So i think its unlikely.  I like Kirk more than most do on the board and purely from the angle of his rabid haters here who are way tougher on him than even I am on dudes like Sam Darnold, it would be amusing to watch the fallout.  

 

But Kirk wouldn't be a top target for me.  i want a young guy everything being equal.  It would definitely feel like things would come full circle for me if they did that, when they let Kirk go I said i don't want a 34 year old veteran, I wanted a young QB in that draft.  They didn't do it.  So if they did Kirk that would be again going for a 34 year old QB.  34 year olds seem to be Dan's favorite age  😧 give or take for QBs.  Brunell, McNabb, Alex.   And none of it ended well.   I'll give Kirk though he's been oddly remarkably durable. 

[Skinsinparadise]

This was posted by someone else on the draft thread.  I watched it.   Some of us know Sullivan, ex-Qb, whio is famous for doing some good detailed QB breakdowns.  He spends some time anaylzing Willis here. 

 

lol, watching it, made me a feel a bit better.  I got mocked a little by someone here for touting Malik Willis, with that person saying he's a 3rd-4th round talent QB, and I am crazy to compare his running to Michael Vick.  I am not saying that dude is wrong.  I got no idea.  Too early in the process for me, haven't watched enough games of his, to do a hard argument but my initial instinct is he's a legit first round prospect. 

 

Also, its clear my thoughts on Willis aren't absurd. I am finding too many other people, including mock drafters, agreeing about him so I know I am not some oddball outlier.   I'll stick to the idea that Willis' talent is hard to miss.  He needs some polish though as I talked about weeks ago in the draft thread.  I need to watch a few more games to land a hard opinion on him. 

 

Sullivan calls Willis' running ability "special" and "ridiculous".  Ditto as to his arm talent.  I am intrigued to see his matchup next week against Corral.  Corral is still my guy so to speak but i've also spent the most time on Corral, I got to catch up on some of the other QBs including Willis. 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[mojo]

I would not argue with Armstrong from UVA. How he’s not in the Heisman race is beyond me. All he does is throw for 400 every week.  He can run as well.