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

[MartinC]

41 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

 

I think we need to let him see the field, and call these shorter plays like the outlets to Willims (Robinson is out Sunday) where he can see them too and not get mad when he chooses the RB over our $20 million WR. 

 

He just needs to let it loose. He's playing for his job/role next season. Do it on his terms (within the scheme obviously - but dont play to avoid sacks and negative plays)

[skinsmania123]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I listened, and then I went to look up Spielman's resume.  Sure, he was a GM for a long time.  2012 - 2021.

 

He is the one who hired Mike Zimmer.  He also is the one who signed Kirk to a contract he clearly didn't deserve that contract.  good player, not that contract good.  Which really caused issues with the rest of the roster.  

 

Here are the records for the team's he was the GM of:

2012: 10-6 (Lost wildcard to Packers)

2013: 5-10-1

2014: 7-9

2015: 10-6 (lost wildcard to the Seahawks)

2016: 8-8

2017: 13-3 (This was the Case Keenum year: made it to the NFC championship game on that ridiculously lucky play to beat the Saints, then lost to the 49ers.

-- SIGNED KIRK

2018: 8-8

2019: 10-6 (won Wild Card Round, lost division round to 49ers)

2020: 7-9

2021: 8-9

FIRED.  

 

So, he had 4 winning seasons, 4 losing seasons, and 2 8-8 seasons. Overall winning percentage of .534. Never had winning seasons back to back.  

 

His biggest move clearly hasn't worked out the way they were hoping it would. The QB he drafted high was Teddy Bridgewater.  Injuries played a role in derailing that experience, but he wasn't what they wanted either.  

 

So, my overall point: was he really that good at his job and should anybody take into account his opinion on how to pick a QB?

 

This is not in any way a repudiation of what he said. I don't even remember what he said.  It's more, is this persona REALLY an expert witness?  And does his track record indicate he's somebody who's opinion is worthy of reporting?  It's like if Matt Millen tried to offer GM advice.  Or, in a few years, some random person talking to Martin Mahew.  

 

The media tends to grab out-of-work (read: fired) folks in previous roles to give insight to things which got them fired.  And I find that interesting. 

Yes, I know he was with Minny and other teams. But what did he say in the interview with Keim exactly that you found foolish or wrong? Or did not consider it a sound process to follow? As a GM I think he made some errors.  As an example, he was known as the GM that traded down for more pics, and some questioned the lack of talent, when it came to the roster composition. 

 

But in this interview, I agreed with his process of how it should be done. He said you have to have the GM, HC, and owner on the "same page" when it comes to a QB.  And I 100% agree with that because the outcome of not having that consensus can be fairly disastrous, and you only need to look at Washington under Snyder ownership to know that. 

 

 The ironic part of his making that statement, one I was in 100% agreement with, is I never thought Zimmer was fully in agreement with having Kirk Cousins as QB regardless of what Spielman or the owner may have thought. He never seemed enthusiastic about him, and the contract was such, that they maybe he felt they had to settle in other areas of the roster. I don't know.  Because at the time in 2018, he signed the largest guaranteed contract in NFL history for a QB.  Maybe they had to settle a bit with the roster trying to cover salaries.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

28 minutes ago, skinsmania123 said:

es, I know he was with Minny and other teams. But what did he say in the interview with Keim exactly that you found foolish or wrong?

That really wasn't my point.

 

My point is to question whether or not he's actually a viable subject matter expert who knows what he's talking about.

 

You listen to SMEs in order to get their, wait for it, expert opinion.  But if the guy didn't draft a good QB, gave up on Keenum who led the team to the NFC Championship game, only to sign Kirk to a ridiculous contract, is he really an expert?

 

Just because you had a job doesn't mean you were good at it.

 

It's the same argument I use with Jay. Yeah, he was a head coach.  But he was a bad one.  So why is he considered an expert on anything?  Spielman was a GM.  But not a very good one.  Why is he considered an expert, specifically on picking a QB as a GM, when he failed at that rather miserably?

[Conn]

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I listened, and then I went to look up Spielman's resume.  Sure, he was a GM for a long time.  2012 - 2021.

 

He is the one who hired Mike Zimmer.  He also is the one who signed Kirk to a contract he clearly didn't deserve that contract.  good player, not that contract good.  Which really caused issues with the rest of the roster.  

 

Here are the records for the team's he was the GM of:

2012: 10-6 (Lost wildcard to Packers)

2013: 5-10-1

2014: 7-9

2015: 10-6 (lost wildcard to the Seahawks)

2016: 8-8

2017: 13-3 (This was the Case Keenum year: made it to the NFC championship game on that ridiculously lucky play to beat the Saints, then lost to the 49ers.

-- SIGNED KIRK

2018: 8-8

2019: 10-6 (won Wild Card Round, lost division round to 49ers)

2020: 7-9

2021: 8-9

FIRED.  

 

So, he had 4 winning seasons, 4 losing seasons, and 2 8-8 seasons. Overall winning percentage of .534. Never had winning seasons back to back.  

 

His biggest move clearly hasn't worked out the way they were hoping it would. The QB he drafted high was Teddy Bridgewater.  Injuries played a role in derailing that experience, but he wasn't what they wanted either.  

 

So, my overall point: was he really that good at his job and should anybody take into account his opinion on how to pick a QB?

 

This is not in any way a repudiation of what he said. I don't even remember what he said.  It's more, is this persona REALLY an expert witness?  And does his track record indicate he's somebody who's opinion is worthy of reporting?  It's like if Matt Millen tried to offer GM advice.  Or, in a few years, some random person talking to Martin Mahew.  

 

The media tends to grab out-of-work (read: fired) folks in previous roles to give insight to things which got them fired.  And I find that interesting. 

 

Yes, people who have operated at the pinnacle of their field and failed in relation to their peers are still 99% more qualified to comment than anyone else. This is one of your favorite arguments to make (especially about Jay Gruden’s radio appearances lol) and you’re wrong every time imo. You aren’t going to get insightful commentary from someone currently excelling in the league, they are working and not gossiping with the knowledge they have. These “fired” guys are the closest you can get. And they do have valuable insight, even if they failed to be elite at the absolute top of their field. It’s a sliding scale of course. A guy like Millen, yeah I get you more on that. That’s an extreme.

Edited December 22, 2023 by Conn

[Rufus T Firefly]

7 minutes ago, Conn said:

 

Yes, people who have operated at the pinnacle of their field and failed in relation to their peers are still 99% more qualified to comment than anyone else. This is one of your favorite arguments to make (especially about Jay Gruden’s radio appearances lol) and you’re wrong every time imo. You aren’t going to get insightful commentary from someone currently excelling in the league. These “fired” guys are the closest you can get. And they do have valuable insight, even if they failed to be elite at the absolute top of their field. 

It's also, imo, a simplistic view about how success occurs in these occupations. GMs can make the right move, but it not work our. GMs can know what the right thing is to do, but are under pressure from ownership, or for their own job security, to do something different. GMs can do most things right and have a couple of mistakes undermine their overall performance. 

 

People just don't acknowledge luck as a factor in success. Bobby Beathard was, for my money, the best GM ever. But he couldn't put San Diego over the top. Jimmy Johnson's job rebuilding Dallas was a total masterclass. But he never got much done in Miami, with one of the best QBs ever. No matter how good they are, things need to fall their way.

 

I'm pretty sure anyone who has been even a total mediocrity as a GM can do a pretty good job of recognizing every team's flaws and have a decent take on potential fixes. Whether they are creative enough to have been able to do something special in the opportunity, or whether they would be able to pivot when their plan A doesn't work out, or again, just plain luck, are what divides them from ultimate success.

 

A moderately successful GM like Speilman is a pretty valuable resource for us to listen to. Doesn't mean we have to agree with everything he says, but just dismissing him out of hand is frankly just dumb.  

[skinsmania123]

50 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

That really wasn't my point.

 

My point is to question whether or not he's actually a viable subject matter expert who knows what he's talking about.

 

You listen to SMEs in order to get their, wait for it, expert opinion.  But if the guy didn't draft a good QB, gave up on Keenum who led the team to the NFC Championship game, only to sign Kirk to a ridiculous contract, is he really an expert?

 

Just because you had a job doesn't mean you were good at it.

 

It's the same argument I use with Jay. Yeah, he was a head coach.  But he was a bad one.  So why is he considered an expert on anything?  Spielman was a GM.  But not a very good one.  Why is he considered an expert, specifically on picking a QB as a GM, when he failed at that rather miserably?

Wow this is difficult to answer because I can only imagine that GM's, like Spielman, who have had a modicum of success, might have taken a lot of time to reflect. Things they could have done different. You could say the same for coaches like Gruden. Reflecting on where they have been, the decisions they made, both good and bad.  If you do something like that it would actually make you fairly good at analysis.  

 

So, listening to Spielman, it is clear he put a lot of thought into how Washington could go about evaluating Howell. He was thorough. Covered numerous angles. Maybe it made sense to me because Washington operated in an almost entirely different manner for Snyder's entire tenure.  If you want a healthy culture there has to be cohesion, respect has to exist between ownership, the GM and HC. If you have it at the top, the rest of the organization reflects it or falls inline IMO. 

 

What makes someone an expert or worth listening to is how they reflect on subject matter they have been through IMO.  Experience. 

[Thinking Skins]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

That really wasn't my point.

 

My point is to question whether or not he's actually a viable subject matter expert who knows what he's talking about.

 

You listen to SMEs in order to get their, wait for it, expert opinion.  But if the guy didn't draft a good QB, gave up on Keenum who led the team to the NFC Championship game, only to sign Kirk to a ridiculous contract, is he really an expert?

 

Just because you had a job doesn't mean you were good at it.

 

It's the same argument I use with Jay. Yeah, he was a head coach.  But he was a bad one.  So why is he considered an expert on anything?  Spielman was a GM.  But not a very good one.  Why is he considered an expert, specifically on picking a QB as a GM, when he failed at that rather miserably?

See, I disagree with this. I have a PhD and whether you value my work since, most people will hear that and say woah and sit and respect it and ask my opinion on things. I'd think the same about a former NFL GM no matter his reputation. And you quoted a pretty good rep without a QB. QBs are hard to find. 

 

Like we say about players, they are the top of the top 1%. These execs are the same. You don't think other companies don't want to come to NFL jobs too? There are 32 openings for NFL GM jobs Max, and maybe 3-10 get open a year. That's slim pickings. Yes there is some stuff like hiring family but there is also stuff like people rising through the ranks of being a scout. For so long I wanted that to be my life's story - the Charlie Casserly life story. I don't think you can knock a Speilman for the reasons you're knocking him, 

[philibusters]

3 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

That really wasn't my point.

 

My point is to question whether or not he's actually a viable subject matter expert who knows what he's talking about.

 

You listen to SMEs in order to get their, wait for it, expert opinion.  But if the guy didn't draft a good QB, gave up on Keenum who led the team to the NFC Championship game, only to sign Kirk to a ridiculous contract, is he really an expert?

 

Just because you had a job doesn't mean you were good at it.

 

It's the same argument I use with Jay. Yeah, he was a head coach.  But he was a bad one.  So why is he considered an expert on anything?  Spielman was a GM.  But not a very good one.  Why is he considered an expert, specifically on picking a QB as a GM, when he failed at that rather miserably?

 

Every GM and every former GM is a subject matter expert.  Some of them are better than others.  I don't know what your job.  But it probably involves some technical expertise.  Now the odds are there are people in the world better than  you at your job.   It doesn't make you an idiot though whose opinion regarding your work is worthless.

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

3 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

That really wasn't my point.

 

My point is to question whether or not he's actually a viable subject matter expert who knows what he's talking about.

 

You listen to SMEs in order to get their, wait for it, expert opinion.  But if the guy didn't draft a good QB, gave up on Keenum who led the team to the NFC Championship game, only to sign Kirk to a ridiculous contract, is he really an expert?

 

Just because you had a job doesn't mean you were good at it.

 

It's the same argument I use with Jay. Yeah, he was a head coach.  But he was a bad one.  So why is he considered an expert on anything?  Spielman was a GM.  But not a very good one.  Why is he considered an expert, specifically on picking a QB as a GM, when he failed at that rather miserably?

I really have no opinion about Spielman but this all incredibly harsh. You’re acting like he was Matt Millen. He was a perfectly fine GM and had plenty of real world experience building a decent team pretty much year in and year out. Again, we’re just talking about analysis, not giving him a job. 
 

 

[88Comrade2000]

Sam wins by beating the Jets. Instead of likely be replaced by a QB picked with our Top 5; we fall out of range for the top qbs.

 

Of course, we are still likely drafting a qb at some point but that qb will have to compete with Sam for the job.

[wit33]

 

 

GMs and head coaches ought to be evaluated on distinct scales based on whether they had the advantage of an elite quarterback compared to those who didn’t.

 

If you won consistently over a five year period  or so (playoffs) without an elite QB, that’s big time IMO. 

[Skinsinparadise]

speaking of Jay with a nice run picking games. Don’t tell @Voice_of_Reason 😀

 

 

 

 

[NoCalMike]

How does the "coming back to earth" of Jalen Hurts have everyone feeling about our QB situation?  Does it change anything about how you'd proceed with Howell beyond this season?

 

I'll be honest I've never been a Jalen Hurts guy.  I think he's good but not elite and never really showed elite ability, just that with a championship caliber roster around him he could facilitate the ball when having all day to throw, and take off & run when he had to, but I didn't think he was the kind of QB that could keep the ship running once some of the talent moved on through free agency or otherwise.   I also wonder how the 49ers are going to approach Brock Purdy's contract when he is due in another season. I like how Purdy fits in the Shanahan WCO but it is sort of a similar situation where he has so much elite talent around him I am not sure if he is doing anything that approx 15 other QB's couldn't do in that offense. I just saw a stat that said he leads the league in passing despite the fewest passing attempts. That is insane and shows much immersing your QB in talent can do.

 

I think whatever the organization decides to do whether it is run with Howell or draft a rookie, it will be imperative that they plan on developing him and really designing on offense around his strengths from the get-go.

[Gurgeh]

6 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

How does the "coming back to earth" of Jalen Hurts have everyone feeling about our QB situation?  Does it change anything about how you'd proceed with Howell beyond this season?

 

 

 

Our problem is the team has fallen apart. To draft one of the top 2 QBs we'd need to trade the future, and then have the problem of fixing the OL with what remains of the draft picks to ensure our rookie doesn't suffer the same fate as Sam, plus somehow fix the worst pass defense in the league so our new QB isn't under constant pressure just to keep us in the game. And even then, you have a 50% chance the guy you traded up for turns out no better than Sam, or worse.

 

On the whole I think I'd look to trade down if we can get someone's 1st rounder next year as part of the deal. It's unlikely, but some team might want a QB that's there at #4. Then we roll with Sam and draft to fix the squad as best we can. That way, next year we'd have two firsts if things didn't work out and a better environment for a rookie.

[Chris 44]

7 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

How does the "coming back to earth" of Jalen Hurts have everyone feeling about our QB situation?  Does it change anything about how you'd proceed with Howell beyond this season?

 

I'll be honest I've never been a Jalen Hurts guy.  I think he's good but not elite and never really showed elite ability, just that with a championship caliber roster around him he could facilitate the ball when having all day to throw, and take off & run when he had to, but I didn't think he was the kind of QB that could keep the ship running once some of the talent moved on through free agency or otherwise.   I also wonder how the 49ers are going to approach Brock Purdy's contract when he is due in another season. I like how Purdy fits in the Shanahan WCO but it is sort of a similar situation where he has so much elite talent around him I am not sure if he is doing anything that approx 15 other QB's couldn't do in that offense. I just saw a stat that said he leads the league in passing despite the fewest passing attempts. That is insane and shows much immersing your QB in talent can do.

 

I think whatever the organization decides to do whether it is run with Howell or draft a rookie, it will be imperative that they plan on developing him and really designing on offense around his strengths from the get-go.

I'm more convinced than ever that as wonderful as it would be to have a generational quarterback it's much more important to build the team that surrounds the position. 

[Skinsinparadise]

While I think Hurts recent struggles are a bit overplayed as for the macro picture relating to him -- I think his struggles hurts not helps Sam's case.  Hurts is often put as the high bar that Sam can reach.

 

Sam Howell has nice traits but nothing sexy.  Some say well look at Hurts.  He's a similar size for example.   But he succeeds thanks in part to a killer supporting cast.  Hurts still has that killer supporting cast on offense. 

 

The way I see it with Sam is if he for example had Drake Maye prototype QB traits then you patiently go through the ups and downs and see if his play meets his elite traits.  Sam  doesn't have elite traits IMO. 

 

I think Sam's high bar is he can be a good QB in the league.   He's not good yet.  He has had flashes of good.  Some don't think he will meet that bar for being a consistently good QB.  Some think he's already there.  I am in neither camp.  I am optimistic that he eventually be a good QB.  But its not guartanteed.  I'd bet money he will never be great.

 

So the question IMO is simple.

 

A.  Do you think Sam is a scrappy QB -- as some say Gardner Minshew Part 2 -- below average but has moments

 

B.  Do you think Sam will be good

 

C.  Do you think Sam will be great

 

Seems like the debate is somewhere between A and B.  I am much closer to B.     But as for C -- is there an alternative in the draft that has that great ceiling.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Chris 44 said:

I'm more convinced than ever that as wonderful as it would be to have a generational quarterback it's much more important to build the team that surrounds the position. 

 

I am the opposite.  You need both.  It feels real in this moment that the problem with this organization has been the supporting cast for the QBs we've tried to groom for the last 30 years or so.  But its mostly been the opposite.  We've had some good supporting casts but without the right QB.

 

I get the argument that its hard to find that generational QB so make due with what you have.  But if its a choice for me go get the generational QB.  

 

The QB is so hard to find.  Just about every team has been part of the franchise QB party in the last 30 years.  I think we are one of like 6 or 7 teams who haven't had one drink in that punch bowl.  It's been unbelievable.  

 

How many teams with generational QBs suck?  And if they do for how long?  We had lightening in a bottle one season with RG3 -- with arguably a mediocre supporting cast.  But he didn't last so the ride didn't last.

 

We've had some really good O lines over the years.  Some years with stellar defenses.  We've had some good receivers.  We have had good running games.  But heck Todd Collins, Mark Brunell, etc weren't getting us through the playoffs.  Or Kirk head to head against Aaron Rodgers.

 

Going up against franchise QBS in the playoffs with average QBs means typically one and out -- along with 9-7 years.  We've lived that life for 30 years or so.   

 

Yes we can get back to a stronger roster with average QB play.  But that's a not a new life for this franchise.  That's ground hog day.  

Edited December 23, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[RWJ]

34 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

While I think Hurts recent struggles are a bit overplayed as for the macro picture relating to him -- I think his struggles hurts not helps Sam's case.  Hurts is often put as the high bar that Sam can reach.

 

Sam Howell has nice traits but nothing sexy.  Some say well look at Hurts.  He's a similar size for example.   But he succeeds thanks in part to a killer supporting cast.  Hurts still has that killer supporting cast on offense. 

 

The way I see it with Sam is if he for example had Drake Maye prototype QB traits then you patiently go through the ups and downs and see if his play meets his elite traits.  Sam  doesn't have elite traits IMO. 

 

I think Sam's high bar is he can be a good QB in the league.   He's not good yet.  He has had flashes of good.  Some don't think he will meet that bar for being a consistently good QB.  Some think he's already there.  I am in neither camp.  I am optimistic that he eventually be a good QB.  But its not guartanteed.  I'd bet money he will never be great.

 

So the question IMO is simple.

 

A.  Do you think Sam is a scrappy QB -- as some say Gardner Minshew Part 2 -- below average but has moments

 

B.  Do you think Sam will be good

 

C.  Do you think Sam will be great

 

Seems like the debate is somewhere between A and B.  I am much closer to B.     But as for C -- is there an alternative in the draft that has that great ceiling.

Great points, SIP.  The biggest, I think is Howell's supporting cast.  It helps most QBs where some QBs are just special and they are few and far between.  Names such as Brady, Elway, Marino to name a few.  

[Skinsinparadise]

10 minutes ago, RWJ said:

Great points, SIP.  The biggest, I think is Howell's supporting cast.  It helps most QBs where some QBs are just special and they are few and far between.  Names such as Brady, Elway, Marino to name a few.  

 

Howell IMO high bar is likely in that Kirk range.  And i think he will meet that bar.  Some think he's more in that Minshew range.   I get that point too, its not crazy.

 

I do think if we surround Howell with a very good supporting cast, he hits that bar.  But if that's the goal, we need to do it fast.  He's on a cheap contract for 2 more years.

 

If Howell elevates his game to being good consistently -- he likely commands 40 million a year.  And its not easy to maintain a stellar supporting cast for long when you are paying a QB that kind of money.

 

I am OK with building around Howell.  But I don't think its a given that he's a good QB.   I got my doubts we can win a SB wih Howell.  But I'd be good with that decision if the FO goes on that ride.

 

The idea though of building a good team and plugging the QB and hoping for the best.  It's not a new rodeo for this team.  Jason Campbell in particular had a good team around him IMO. Kirk had good offensive playmakers and a good o line.   Our last four rodeos to the playoffs where we were eliminated -- that was more about the QB not being up to snuff on that big stage versus the supporting cast.

 

 

Edited December 23, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[Wyvern]

Sorry to add this sidebar, to this thread, but I'm a little concerned about the growing overuse of the use of the describing term "Generational QB", on potential draftees which seems to be a bit of a media-created term as a way for more hyperbolic ways to describe developing news.

 

A generation is defined as the period of time, usually considered to be about thirty years, that it takes for children to grow up and become adults and have children of their own.

 

Now I can see how "generational" can  applied to wealth, but to a QB still in college who's yet to be tested in the NFL?  And just how many "generational" QBs can you have in a generation? When did the generational period start?  2024?  .... 2016?

 

And what does it mean to be a generational QB?  The implication could be that it can only be one, i.e., the standout QB out of 30 years worth of NFL QBs.  Seems like a high bar, so some might want it to apply to the best 10 QBs in 30 years?  If that's the case, perhaps another term needs to be used like a "QB with legacy potential" or "QB with All-Pro" potential.  Or maybe one of "The Top-10 QBs  of the '20s through the '40s?

 

Also, before everyone starts announcing a player as "Generational"' maybe they should wait until they have a sufficient body of work on which to make such determination. (I doubt anyone thought Brady was a generational QB at his draft-time.) Even so, with the way the rules are being changed to favor more offense, it'd be very difficult to compare QBs over a 30 year span.

 

Frankly, I much prefer the term "franchise QB'" ... even though that player's chance of making their mark in history still relies a lot on his teammates and his franchise's coaching and front office.

[Skinsinparadise]

Keim

 

The case for and against Sam Howell remaining Commanders' QB

 

...How he has handled the situation

One member of the organization said Howell deserves a lot of credit for how he's handled a tough year -- from the number of sacks to the losses and to the typical ups and downs of a first-year starter. "He could have easily imploded," the source said.

Howell has been sacked 59 times this season, including 40 in the first seven games. Players and coaches like that it didn't cause him to become too skittish in the pocket. In the first seven games, his sack percentage of 12.8% was second worst in the NFL. In the last seven games, it's 6.1% -- 19 quarterbacks have a higher number.

 

"He's smart, he learns from his mistakes," Washington offensive coordinator Eric Bieniemy said. "He's done a great job having pocket presence after having the issues at times. He does a great job of communicating with the guys up front. I'm very happy with his development and his growth process. Do we have a long way to go? Yes, we do, but he's taking the necessary steps moving forward, and that's the excitement that really generates us as an offensive staff, because he's growing every single day."

They also liked that he didn't let a bad play get him down.

"With Sam, every time there's some adversity, he came back the next week and did a really good job," receiver Terry McLaurin said. "He's handled this season like a pro. There have been ups and downs and he's had good times and bad times, and it's just his ability to stay focused and come back better when he gets that opportunity is something I look forward to."

 

...The draft

Yes, it can work against Howell, as well. A new staff could determine that Daniels -- or Michael Penix Jr., or another quarterback -- offers the best fit to grow in their scheme. Or that a rookie has a higher ceiling. Or, perhaps, the Commanders could attempt to acquire one of the top two picks and select either Williams or Maye. Washington owns five picks among the first 100, having added a second- and third-round pick at the trade deadline.

If Chicago ends up with the top pick, courtesy of Carolina, and wants to stick with Justin Fields at quarterback, then there probably will be competition for that spot. In that case, Reid said picking one of the top two passers would make the most sense. He said he had Howell as a late second-round pick in 2022. He has both Williams and Maye rated much higher.

"The gap is significant," Reid said. "Both of them can be transcendent franchise quarterback types. Sam is an Andy Dalton type, top 15-20 starter at his peak. When Andy had his run, [the Bengals] made the playoffs. He was a playoff quarterback. So that's not a shot at Sam. I'm trying to envision what he could be at his peak. He can still attain that ceiling, but [Williams and Maye] are a different type of prospect."

Spielman said, thinking as an organization, "If we believe we have a shot at Caleb Williams or Drake Maye and those guys will get you to the Super Bowl, then I don't know if you can pass on them regardless of how you feel about him."

The contract

 

When Rivera mentioned last offseason why they wanted to develop Howell, he'd point to his contract -- in addition to his talent and potential. Howell will be on a rookie contract for the next two seasons, allowing the franchise to invest in other positions before needing to determine his future value.

However, if a new staff comes in and determines they'd prefer another quarterback -- whether to start or just to compete with Howell -- that clock could start over. It could allow the Commanders to have a quarterback on a rookie deal for four or five years if they select one in the first round and have an option year.

"You have to evaluate a lot of things before you come up with a final resolution," Spielman said.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39162186/the-case-sam-howell-commanders

[Chris 44]

8 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am the opposite.  You need both.  It feels real in this moment that the problem with this organization has been the supporting cast for the QBs we've tried to groom for the last 30 years or so.  But its mostly been the opposite.  We've had some good supporting casts but without the right QB.

 

I get the argument that its hard to find that generational QB so make due with what you have.  But if its a choice for me go get the generational QB.  

 

The QB is so hard to find.  Just about every team has been part of the franchise QB party in the last 30 years.  I think we are one of like 6 or 7 teams who haven't had one drink in that punch bowl.  It's been unbelievable.  

 

How many teams with generational QBs suck?  And if they do for how long?  We had lightening in a bottle one season with RG3 -- with arguably a mediocre supporting cast.  But he didn't last so the ride didn't last.

 

We've had some really good O lines over the years.  Some years with stellar defenses.  We've had some good receivers.  We have had good running games.  But heck Todd Collins, Mark Brunell, etc weren't getting us through the playoffs.  Or Kirk head to head against Aaron Rodgers.

 

Going up against franchise QBS in the playoffs with average QBs means typically one and out -- along with 9-7 years.  We've lived that life for 30 years or so.   

 

Yes we can get back to a stronger roster with average QB play.  But that's a not a new life for this franchise.  That's ground hog day.  

Going to sound weird for me to say this since I'm in the build a team around the quaterback group, but I do agree with what your saying to an extent, however  my counter would be teams like SF and Philadelphia. I don't think either team has a top QB but look where they are at due to the supporting cast. If your stud QB gets hurt and you don't have a good team your definetly not going anywhere. I understand that the great QB will get you further in the playoffs such as a Mahomes or Allen but your one injury away from mediocrity again.

[MartinC]

14 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am the opposite.  You need both.  It feels real in this moment that the problem with this organization has been the supporting cast for the QBs we've tried to groom for the last 30 years or so.  But its mostly been the opposite.  We've had some good supporting casts but without the right QB.

 

I get the argument that its hard to find that generational QB so make due with what you have.  But if its a choice for me go get the generational QB.  

 

The QB is so hard to find.  Just about every team has been part of the franchise QB party in the last 30 years.  I think we are one of like 6 or 7 teams who haven't had one drink in that punch bowl.  It's been unbelievable.  

 

How many teams with generational QBs suck?  And if they do for how long?  We had lightening in a bottle one season with RG3 -- with arguably a mediocre supporting cast.  But he didn't last so the ride didn't last.

 

We've had some really good O lines over the years.  Some years with stellar defenses.  We've had some good receivers.  We have had good running games.  But heck Todd Collins, Mark Brunell, etc weren't getting us through the playoffs.  Or Kirk head to head against Aaron Rodgers.

 

Going up against franchise QBS in the playoffs with average QBs means typically one and out -- along with 9-7 years.  We've lived that life for 30 years or so.   

 

Yes we can get back to a stronger roster with average QB play.  But that's a not a new life for this franchise.  That's ground hog day.  

I don’t think you need elite physical traits to become an elite QB. If look back over time at the guys with gold jackets not all of them are 6’ 4” with a rocket for an arm and a 4.4 40.

 

I still consider Joe Montana the best QB I’ve seen play - with due respect to Brady - and he was marginal physically. It’s the mental ability to process, understand what a D is doing and make consistently good decisions under physical and mental pressure that separates the great QBs. More recently Drew Brees was under sized, no threat to run with a good but not great arm.

 

That doesn’t mean Howell can become elite, he’s far more likely to have a ceiling as an average starter and a floor as a good backup. But it’s what’s going on between his ears - and the coaching and supporting cast - that will determine what that ceiling is.

[The Consigliere]

15 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am the opposite.  You need both.  It feels real in this moment that the problem with this organization has been the supporting cast for the QBs we've tried to groom for the last 30 years or so.  But its mostly been the opposite.  We've had some good supporting casts but without the right QB.

 

I get the argument that its hard to find that generational QB so make due with what you have.  But if its a choice for me go get the generational QB.  

 

The QB is so hard to find.  Just about every team has been part of the franchise QB party in the last 30 years.  I think we are one of like 6 or 7 teams who haven't had one drink in that punch bowl.  It's been unbelievable.  

 

How many teams with generational QBs suck?  And if they do for how long?  We had lightening in a bottle one season with RG3 -- with arguably a mediocre supporting cast.  But he didn't last so the ride didn't last.

 

We've had some really good O lines over the years.  Some years with stellar defenses.  We've had some good receivers.  We have had good running games.  But heck Todd Collins, Mark Brunell, etc weren't getting us through the playoffs.  Or Kirk head to head against Aaron Rodgers.

 

Going up against franchise QBS in the playoffs with average QBs means typically one and out -- along with 9-7 years.  We've lived that life for 30 years or so.   

 

Yes we can get back to a stronger roster with average QB play.  But that's a not a new life for this franchise.  That's ground hog day.  

Well put. Of course I'm just agreeing a better articulated version of my own arguments, but I like them all the same 😁.

 

 

 

[PolarExpress]

On 12/21/2023 at 7:50 AM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I don't think Ron is a bad guy.  I still think he's a good person.  But...

 

A. Saying one thing but doing something else is a hallmark of his regime

B.  Constant spin from him.  What he says one week can be totally different the next week

C.  The culture change is in the building -- nicer people work there now.  But as for the team, culture didn't improve.  The culture is of losing and excuses

I don’t think lying about something as serious as someone’s career is a good person.  It’s not like he told him he looked slim in his uniform when he didn’t.