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

[The Consigliere]

2 hours ago, FootballZombie said:

 

 

rightfully so

 

 

 

Justin Fields is no longer a prospect. We have ample film on him as a player. He is a scratch-n-sniff that has already had a penny taken to it and the smell aint very good.

You don't look at him the same way as unproven guys who have yet to play. You look at him as a failed QB project that you'd hope you can make better thru reclamation.

That pretty much covers it. The only thing I would add is that he's not a straight up bust in the way say, Blaine Gabbert or Zach Wilson are. Justin Fields can play football, and he can play Quarterback, there's just no evidence at all that his ceiling as a passer will ever be better than 14th-26th in the league, and typically on the lower end of that spread. As a guy that loved Fields, and yes, I think probably liked him more than Daniels, this disappoints me, but it's also just reality. Fields hasn't shown any evidence that he can be an above average, let alone a great passer with the ball with anything other than periodic and relatively rare, randomness. It's done in terms of him having elite potential. It is not happening. If it does, it will be some kind of weird Rich Gannon situation where he learns how to be great in his thirties. That happens but its exceptionally rare. 

 

Daniels meanwhile is Door #1, #2, and #3 situation, you don't know what's behind the door: Star? Competent QB? Crap QB? Something inbetween? That's whats behind the doors, Daniels eval appears to be much stronger than Fields was by consensus in '21, so the chances of landing the two positive scenarios (great/good or average) are just infinitely higher than with Fields which is basically at just a percent or two above zero. 

[Warhead36]

You don't try to develop two QBs at once, that's dumb. You draft a guy, you commit your entire franchise resources to his development. One guy. That's it.

 

That's why we're trading Howell. He's just as much a developmental project as whoever we'll take at 2.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

3 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

I think Cousins is a good example of this happening. Is this responsible for his success? Probably not. I still like the idea though. 

 

I'm fairly certain Kirk was drafter purely out of spite, which makes the fact that he is worth (checks notes) $14 Billion all the funnier.

[Going Commando]

Just now, Llevron said:

 

I think Cousins is a good example of this happening. Is this responsible for his success? Probably not. I still like the idea though. 

 

Mike Shanahan definitely didn't develop Kirk.  Kirk was hardly a franchise QB here (still isn't, but he's better now than he was as a Redskin), but if anyone deserves the credit for coaching him to the level he reached, it's Gruden.  Kirk wasn't any good for Shanny.  QBs didn't thrive for that man unless they were upstart rookies in the honeymoon phase with zero clout, or GOAT level QBs in the sunset of their careers that could tell him to **** off.

 

No team carries two developmental QBs with the intention letting them duke it out to see who gets to be the franchise QB.  None that actually achieve the outcome of developing a franchise QB anyway.  They quickly pick one and ship the other guy out.

[skinny21]

21 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Mike Shannahan always said it was better for two young guys to learn together and compete. I assume he was not the only one who thought that. While you have Howell, I see no reason why you wouldn't want to use him in that manner. And also injuries happen. Especially to rookies. Especially to rookies who run alot. Mariota is just another coaches ear in the room. (presumably, who really knows) 

This is one thing I keep coming back to - just psychologically speaking, teaching 2 guys at the same level could potentially make a big difference.  I’m reminded of Whitt talking about having a separate meeting for young guys so they feel like they can speak up more than they might around veterans.  Not saying it’s necessarily the ideal route, but I can see a benefit for sure.  

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

3 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

You don't try to develop two QBs at once, that's dumb. You draft a guy, you commit your entire franchise resources to his development. One guy. That's it.

 

That's why we're trading Howell. He's just as much a developmental project as whoever we'll take at 2.

 

We signed Mariota. So maybe we are going to develop one QB into a starter and one into a Christian missionary.

[Darrell Green Fan]

5 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

You don't try to develop two QBs at once, that's dumb. You draft a guy, you commit your entire franchise resources to his development. One guy. That's it.

 

That's why we're trading Howell. He's just as much a developmental project as whoever we'll take at 2.

But don't teams with a young established QB often draft a late round developmental QB?  That could be Howell only he has proven he can play. If nothing else perhaps as injuries occur during the season a team may overpay for him if they lost their first 2 QBs.  I just think his value to this team is higher than the pick they would get for him because he's so damned cheap and can play in this league. 

Edited March 12 by Darrell Green Fan

[Renegade7]

4 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

You don't try to develop two QBs at once, that's dumb. You draft a guy, you commit your entire franchise resources to his development. One guy. That's it.

 

That's why we're trading Howell. He's just as much a developmental project as whoever we'll take at 2.

 

I was thinking along same lines...he has more value to someone then to us as a some 3rd String project...he started multiple games and could do it for someone else.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

2 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

This is one thing I keep coming back to - just psychologically speaking, teaching 2 guys at the same level could potentially make a big difference.  I’m reminded of Whitt talking about having a separate meeting for young guys so they feel like they can speak up more than they might around veterans.  Not saying it’s necessarily the ideal route, but I can see a benefit for sure.  

 

It's dumb. No one does this. 

 

Starters get like 75 percent of the snaps in practice. Backups get 25 percent. Sam Howells throw on the sidelines with the guys on IR.

Edited March 12 by Lombardi's_kid_brother

[BayouBrave86]

Everyone is going to need some strong alcohol come draft day.

[The Consigliere]

2 hours ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

Cousins was open to staying here, but we offered him a little more than bare minimum, it really doesn’t matter now but the amount of hate he gets is beyond me, before his injury year he was a durable accurate qb that most teams would want running their offense. 

I imagine its more some mix of his choking in virtually every big game ever, often with late in game interceptions, and pick sixes, and some may not like other things about him. I doubt it's about the money (although there are some people who are always annoyed at the $$$ athletes get which is silly to me for the most part). The entire Cousins experience was about disappointing empty stats seasons mixed, with a totally incompetent handling of his potential free agency and salary negotiations, kind of a reverse Bradley Beal, where the bad guy in that case was 1000% the redskins FO, and the bad guy with Beals was a mix of Beal killing any chance of value in a trade, lying about his commitment to DC (which some people like me, sniffed out as bull---- four years earlier), and a FO that was totally hopeless at handling the Beal situation after Walls last devastating injury. 

 

Cousins is fine, it was really the FO that was beyond totally unacceptable. I think most of us know that, but he was also an empty stats guy that was never gonna win squat, so losing him for nothing was stupid, but keeping him or not wasn't gonna help much either. But yeah, the FO/Allen/Snyder were 10000% to blame for that.

[Darrell Green Fan]

We saw with Tray Lance the Niners had a tight ship and nobody knew who the pick would be.  I think we'll see the same thing with Peters, we will probably have no clue who the pick will be until it's made. 

[Warhead36]

4 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

But don't teams with a young established QB often draft a late round developmental QB?  That could be Howell only he has proven he can play. If nothing else perhaps as injuries occur during the season a team may overpay for him if they lost their first 2 QBs.  I just think his value to this team is higher than the pick they would get for him because he's so damned cheap and can play in this league. 

Do they? I'm not sure. And those super late round picks are just lottery tickets that often get shelved aside. They don't get any sort of legitimate development time.

[Riggo-toni]

1 minute ago, Warhead36 said:

You don't try to develop two QBs at once, that's dumb. You draft a guy, you commit your entire franchise resources to his development. One guy. That's it.

Back in 2012 when it became obvious we had given away the farm to draft RG3, I started a thread that said we needed to draft 2 QBs.  I was trashed and mocked endlessly by posters on this board, most of them using this same reasoning.... and I got to keep bumping the thread back on to the front page for the next several years.

I don't care what talking heads think, we could just as easily be drafting the next Mitch Trubisky rather than the next Justin Herbert.  Most likely we are getting something halfway between Trevor Lawrence and Daniel Jones.  Throwing Howell away for a ham sandwich when he's on a rookie contract makes no sense unless we are drafting another project QB in the middle rounds 

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

Just now, Darrell Green Fan said:

We saw with Tray Lance the Niners had a tight ship and nobody knew who the pick would be.  I think we'll see the same thing with Peters, we will probably have no clue who the pick will be until it's made. 

 

We knew they had an internal division of opinion. We didn't know which player they'd take, but we did know it would either be Trey Lance or Mac Jones. We knew they were not high on Justin Fields.

[DJHJR86]

21 minutes ago, mistertim said:

What does Mariota have to do with Daniels?

 

Maybe nothing.  I didn't know they were in on Darnold as well.

[The Consigliere]

40 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

1937 pages of quarterback talk....and no one saw this coming at all.

 

You've all wasted your lives.

 

You have no idea what anyone is doing ever.

 

They are probably going to draft McCarthy now since they essentially just signed McCarthy But He's Old.

 

I don't know anything either. But I know I don't know.

This is why I find the individual player posts kind of pointless, 95-98% of the time we don't take the guys posted on. I've always preferred that people just give lists of their preferred tiers of guys in each of the first four or five rounds. Because a tiered out collection of OL's and WR's you like, as long as you're sane, is probably going to include a guy we actually take, if we hit that position. 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

5 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

But don't teams with a young established QB often draft a late round developmental QB?  That could be Howell only he has proven he can play. If nothing else perhaps as injuries occur during the season a team may overpay for him if they lost their first 2 QBs.  I just think his value to this team is higher than the pick they would get for him because he's so damned cheap and can play in this league. 

 

Teams draft late round QBs to be a third string QB because they don't want to spend any actual money on a third string QB and once every three or four years, one of those guys flashes in a pre-season game and the team is all "yea....we meant to do that."

[Warhead36]

The Chiefs didn't draft another QB the year they took Mahomes. Neither did the Bills the year they took Allen. Or Ravens the year they took Jackson. Or Bengals the year they took Burrow.

 

Teams don't split development time and resources on two young QBs. They pick one and go all in.

Edited March 12 by Warhead36

[Llevron]

9 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

 

Mike Shanahan definitely didn't develop Kirk.  Kirk was hardly a franchise QB here (still isn't, but he's better now than he was as a Redskin), but if anyone deserves the credit for coaching him to the level he reached, it's Gruden.  Kirk wasn't any good for Shanny.  QBs didn't thrive for that man unless they were upstart rookies in the honeymoon phase with zero clout, or GOAT level QBs in the sunset of their careers that could tell him to **** off.

 

No team carries two developmental QBs with the intention letting them duke it out to see who gets to be the franchise QB.  None that actually achieve the outcome of developing a franchise QB anyway.  They quickly pick one and ship the other guy out.

 

I'm not even arguing any of this. I'm saying two young guys can study together and compete with each other. Anything past that is outside of my argument. 

 

10 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

This is one thing I keep coming back to - just psychologically speaking, teaching 2 guys at the same level could potentially make a big difference.  I’m reminded of Whitt talking about having a separate meeting for young guys so they feel like they can speak up more than they might around veterans.  Not saying it’s necessarily the ideal route, but I can see a benefit for sure.  

 

Coaches literally talk about playbooks as learning new languages. No one learns a new language talking to themselves. Its not a hard concept and it is a proven way to learn. Im not sure why its causing so much consternation lol 

 

 

Q: Is it sometimes helpful to learn with other people. 

A: Yes. 

 

Yall wanna make this so difficult and its not really. 

[The Consigliere]

15 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

You don't try to develop two QBs at once, that's dumb. You draft a guy, you commit your entire franchise resources to his development. One guy. That's it.

 

That's why we're trading Howell. He's just as much a developmental project as whoever we'll take at 2.

Yes you can, the Packers spun all sorts of value out of drafting and developing and then trading guys (Hasselbeck, Flynn, can't remember what they got, if anything, for Favre when Rodgers took over), over and over and over again for nearly a decade. It's true you can't give a guy all the reps you want for them to have a better chance of hitting, but when it comes to QB, it makes sense to invest in the position to develop value, both due to injury rate, for trade, and if you hit on a guy whose better than your in house guy. 

[Warhead36]

1 minute ago, The Consigliere said:

Yes you can, the Packers spun all sorts of value out of drafting and developing and then trading guys (Hasselbeck, Flynn, can't remember what they got, if anything, for Favre when Rodgers took over), over and over and over again for nearly a decade. It's true you can't give a guy all the reps you want for them to have a better chance of hitting, but when it comes to QB, it makes sense to invest in the position to develop value, both due to injury rate, for trade, and if you hit on a guy whose better than your in house guy. 

That's different. They took guys like Hasselbeck and Flynn etc. when they already had established high quality starters in place and we're cycling young cheap backups(or guys they could develop and flip for better picks later).

 

I'm talking about when teams take a QB for the first time. They don't then take ANOTHER QB in the same draft. Its just not something good teams do.

[The Consigliere]

2 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

The Chiefs didn't draft another QB the year they took Mahomes. Neither did the Bills the year they took Allen. Or Ravens the year they took Jackson. Or Bengals the year they took Burrow.

 

Teams don't split development time and resources on two young QBs. They pick one and go all in.

Secondarily, Howell's cost is miniscule and his value to us is pretty darn high as a high floor guy with some ceiling potential. It's fine. 

Just now, Warhead36 said:

That's different. They took guys like Hasselbeck and Flynn etc. when they already had established high quality starters in place and we're cycling young cheap backups(or guys they could develop and flip for better picks later).

 

I'm talking about when teams take a QB for the first time. They don't then take ANOTHER QB in the same draft. Its just not something good teams do.

Oh, okay, I see what your saying, but I don't see the WFT taking Maye and then drafting another QB in the 4th or whatever. Strikes me as highly unlikely, but I also don't have a problem with a '22 guy like Howell, and Maye from '24 in house, its fine. Let them compete, we need injury cover, our line sucks, and both those guys take a lot of hits/sacks. 

[skinny21]

3 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

It's dumb. No one does this. 

I assume you’re right, though I suppose I have no idea really.  

To be clear though, I wasn’t saying to only carry/coach 2 young guys.  Shanahan had Grossman along with Robert and Kirk.  I would add that we’re in sort of a unique position having the combo of an assistant qb coach that was just playing, a qb coach, and a pass game coordinator that was very recently coaching qbs… but it’s a moot point with Mariota added to the fold. 

 

I have no idea what’s going to happen next.  Maybe Howell gets traded, maybe Mariota winds up just a camp body for us, maybe we carry 3 qbs.  Tempted to add that we might even trade down and only carry Howell/Mariota (just in the interest of being thorough) but that’s a crazy long shot, virtually guaranteed not to happen IMO.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The Cousins pick was especially weird because we took him relatively high in the fourth round.

 

He was not a 6th or 7th round flyer. A high fourth rounder is a spot where you still have hope of drafting a starter/high end backup/special teams stud. We took a QB knowing that we were going to be insanely short of draft picks going forward.

 

The Cousins pick was entirely Mike Shanahan walking around Ashburn with a large erection demanding that people stare at it.