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

[The Consigliere]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I like how Wentz looks in Dallas' colors.  

 

 

That's pretty funny. On the one hand I think, "they can't be this stupid, on the other hand I think, "they replaced the clapper, with Mike McCarthy and it wasn't an April Fool's joke". This is not a smart team. If they do anything well, it's acquire high end distressed assets inexcusably falling in drafts, but beyond that, they're not too smart (though they're better than they were in the post-Jimmy Johnson years in terms of FO work. 

 

Remember folks, landing Dak wasn't the plan, it was an accident. They got jumped by other teams for two other QB's, both of them so bad, neither ever started a full, complete season. 

[redskinss]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

Back on topic:

 

Howell will need a similar backup to his skillset.

 

I think there are guys in the draft who can fit the mold: Duggan, Haener, maybe Bennett to the extent his legs can carry him, maybe Hendon Hooker, definitely Anthony Richardson but I think that's a move too rich for us.

 

There aren't as many FA options who fit that role. 

 

There's a few. But not many. 

 

I would think you'd want a similar style of player regardless of who the OC is, but the OC hire is going to dictate if the OC has a preference of a QB to bring in with him that fits that mold. 

I'm not sure we're at that point yet, we don't really know what we have with Howell with only one start under his belt.

I like the plan to roll into the offseason with him as number one but I also don't think we should put all our eggs in one basket just yet.

 

With the dearth of talent we've had at the position our focus should probably just be to get the most talented guy we can find with the most potential regardless of particular skillset and then see which one works out best for us.

 

[The Consigliere]

1 hour ago, zCommander said:

 

From the same article I was reading it also said: 

 

"Jake Fromm Praised by Anonymous NFL Exec: 'He'll Play 10 to 12 Years'"

 

Maybe that is what you were thinking. 

 

I remember him being highly thought of in college, but as he was wrapping up things in school I think there was a general consensus that he had issues similar to Heini, he simply didn't have the physical tool kit to be a starter in this league. You could stash him on a bench and get away with him in a pinch, kinda like Colt McCoy, but you were waiving the white flag on the season if you put him anywhere near #1 overall QB on your roster status. 

[KDawg]

4 minutes ago, redskinss said:

I'm not sure we're at that point yet, we don't really know what we have with Howell with only one start under his belt.

I like the plan to roll into the offseason with him as number one but I also don't think we should put all our eggs in one basket just yet.

 

With the dearth of talent we've had at the position our focus should probably just be to get the most talented guy we can find with the most potential regardless of particular skillset and then see which one works out best for us.

 

Let me ask you:

 

Forget Howell himself. Think about his style. 
 

Strong arm, can run a little, athletic QB.

 

Why wouldn’t you aim for a similar back up in that mold… regardless of what point we’re at?

 

I’d also argue we SHOULD be at that point.

[The Consigliere]

1 minute ago, redskinss said:

I'm not sure we're at that point yet, we don't really know what we have with Howell with only one start under his belt.

I like the plan to roll into the offseason with him as number one but I also don't think we should put all our eggs in one basket just yet.

 

With the dearth of talent we've had at the position our focus should probably just be to get the most talented guy we can find with the most potential regardless of particular skillset and then see which one works out best for us.

 

I do fully expect them to troll the vet cast off line to get a guy whose either everyone's favorite emergency type (Dalton) or a once great vet who now may just suck (Matt Ryan). I tend to think based on the stories about Howell having right of first refusal (don't suck in camp and you'll be the starter) that we're unlikely to go for a name, unless he's really cheap, so I dont expect us to go after the big names, but guys like Dalton could be in the offing. Personally, I'm okay w/the team imploding if Howell can't get it done because from my perspective, it's damn near impossible to build something long term sustainable without a legit franchise QB behind center (Niners and Ravens have been the only consistent counter examples the past 2+ decades) so if Howell isn't that, and obviously isn't that, I'd rather us rock bottom out for a QB in '24/'25 (preferably '25) though I do agree w/the sentiment that the generalized talent of the team suggests thats probably impossible, in the short term. The good news for me is that I think Howell, at his worst, is probably as good as whatever the high end has been for us since Cousins walked (not saying much, but if we were willing to get by w/crap at QB for nearly half a decade, we should be willing to see what the hell Howell is and might become for at least one season).

[Skinsinparadise]

The Andy Dalton stuff from Jason Reid.  I listened to it.  

 

I like Reid but he seemed to be winging it on Howell.  And I don't blame him for it because Keim asked him and he responded to the question and its hard to set a ceiling and floor on a QB with hardly any sample size.

 

He thought Howell's limits were his athleticism and adjusting from North Carolina's system to the pros.

 

I had concerns about whether Howell's more physical running style would translate to the NFL.  But after seeing him do it at the Senior Bowl, the preseason and the Dallas game, I am sold about him on that front with that data so I was surprised he listed that as a concern.

 

As far as the Dalton comparison.  I think Dalton's top weakness is arm strength.  Howell's top strength is arm strength. 

 

Granted he didn't compare the two stylistically but referenced similar caliber player.  But If i am going apples to apples and saying one dude is peak another dude -- I'd want the two players to be somewhat similar.  And I don't find Dalton and Howell that similar.   Howell IMO's strength is using his arm strength to make some wicked throws, deep outs, go routes, etc and can his his mobility to improvise when the pocket collapses.   That's not what i think of when I watch Dalton.  

 

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[redskinss]

18 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Let me ask you:

 

Forget Howell himself. Think about his style. 
 

Strong arm, can run a little, athletic QB.

 

Why wouldn’t you aim for a similar back up in that mold… regardless of what point we’re at?

 

I’d also argue we SHOULD be at that point.

I know you're really high on Howell and I like the kid too I'm just saying he hasn't entrenched himself as starter yet so it's premature to build the position around him.

It's sort of like drafting best available or need, you always want to draft best available if you can and need second but it doesn't always work out that way.

If the best available is a quarterback like Howell then we grab him and celebrate.

If the best available is someone who doesn't fit his mold and we reach for someone who does then that seems foolish to me considering the position is far from set.

 

If you're going to use a generic description like, strong armed athletic qb who can run a little that describes all the elite quarterbacks in the league and becomes a no brainer but doesn't mean you're molding him after howell.

 

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by redskinss

[FootballZombie]

1 minute ago, redskinss said:

If the best available is someone who doesn't fit his mold and we reach for someone who does then that seems foolish to me considering the position is far from set.

 

Double that line of thinking if the offensive philosophy will be amazingly run heavy and not built around the QB anyway. If a gift horse is looking you in the mouth in the form of a QB your comfortable with, you don't turn it away b/c he is not the same stylistic brand of QB as Howell.

[KDawg]

34 minutes ago, redskinss said:

I know you're really high on Howell and I like the kid too I'm just saying he hasn't entrenched himself as starter yet so it's premature to build the position around him.

It's sort of like drafting best available or need, you always want to draft best available if you can and need second but it doesn't always work out that way.

If the best available is a quarterback like Howell then we grab him and celebrate.

If the best available is someone who doesn't fit his mold and we reach for someone who does then that seems foolish to me considering the position is far from set.

 

If you're going to use a generic description like, strong armed athletic qb who can run a little that describes all the elite quarterbacks in the league and becomes a no brainer but doesn't mean you're molding him after howell.

 

 

Again, separate Howell from it.

 

31 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

 

Double that line of thinking if the offensive philosophy will be amazingly run heavy and not built around the QB anyway. If a gift horse is looking you in the mouth in the form of a QB your comfortable with, you don't turn it away b/c he is not the same stylistic brand of QB as Howell.

 

You are aware that we are the Washington Commanders and we are ballin’ on a budget, right? 

[redskinss]

20 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Again, separate Howell from it.

I did in my last paragraph. 

This debate started with you suggesting that we should find a backup quarterback with Howells skillset.

If you take Howell out of the equation and just use generic descriptors such as strong armed, athletic and runs a little then yes that makes it obvious. 

That describes almost every good quarterback in the league and makes the debate moot.

My point is that in my opinion it's too early to use Howells skillset as any type of barometer for who to bring in, just bring in the best dollar for dollar quarterback available who is most likely to succeed in our new coordinators scheme and let the chips fall where they may.

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, redskinss said:

I did in my last paragraph. 

This debate started with you suggesting that we should find a backup quarterback with Howells skillset.

If you take Howell out of the equation and just use generic descriptors such as strong armed, athletic and runs a little then yes that makes it obvious. 

That describes almost every good quarterback in the league and makes the debate moot.

My point is that in my opinion it's too early to use Howells skillset as any type of barometer for who to bring in, just bring in the best dollar for dollar quarterback available who is most likely to succeed in our new coordinators scheme and let the chips fall where they may.

That was my point from the beginning. I actually said that was my point, sir.

[mistertim]

3 hours ago, method man said:

One of the draft guys I really like is Jordan Reid who is at ESPN now. He would have given Howell a 3rd round grade in this draft and thinks his upside is 18-22 ranked QB. He pointed out that turnovers and reading half the field vs full field in Longo’s Air Raid system as issues

 

That's kind of an odd take from a guy who had Malik Willis going #2 overall in his mock draft. In 2021 Willis had a higher turnover rate than Howell, played a much easier schedule, and was in a system that was even less "pro-style" than UNC's. Howell also ran for almost as many yards and TDs as Willis did that season. Really the only thing Willis definitely has over Howell is straight line speed. They both have cannons so that's more or less a wash. 

[NewCliche21]

30 minutes ago, KDawg said:

That was my point from the beginning. I actually said that was my point, sir.

 

Good, I'm finally you finally agreed with you.

[FootballZombie]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

You are aware that we are the Washington Commanders and we are ballin’ on a budget, right? 

 

Budget has squat to do with the idea that if you can get something you like and are comfortable with, you don't have to try an pigeon-hole the exact perfect mold of player.

 

If a guy comes along and is willing to sign here for whatever QB role and you like him, believe he can do the job and you can pay whatever his price is, you don't tell him to hit the bricks because he does not fit the same mold of QB as Howell.

 

 

Would it be nice for all your QBs to have the physical capability to be able to run the exact same installed Offense? Sure, In the same way you'd like to have your wealth spread across the roster instead of all in one position group. But that is not how things often pan out and we have to drop the ideal scenario and deal with what we got.

[Jumbo]

I think if RR is making roster decisions somehow for next season we should just use a dart board. 

 

This post courtesy of HotTakes-R-Us.

 

 

 

[NewCliche21]

57 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

I think if RR is making roster decisions somehow for next season we should just use a dart board. 

 

This post courtesy of HotTakes-R-Us.

 

 

 

 

Okay I'm confused (shocker). What role, if any, do you want to see Rivera in next year and beyond?

Full disclosure: I'm 80% in on Ron regardless of ownership in the role he has but ceding final call to a real GM. I'm not in love with him, but the guy does give me a consistent, if flickering, flame of hope in this perpetual hurricane.

[Jumbo]

12 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

Okay I'm confused (shocker). What role, if any, do you want to see Rivera in next year and beyond?

Full disclosure: I'm 80% in on Ron regardless of ownership in the role he has but ceding final call to a real GM. I'm not in love with him, but the guy does give me a consistent, if flickering, flame of hope in this perpetual hurricane.

 

Love him as a culture guru and person, think he doesn't just suck as talent evaluator but only  see him in a range of poor to ok with ok not being his average but his ceiling, and when it comes to qbs have big questions. So I like him more away from on field stuff as much as possible if he's going to be here.

 

I'll also cop to this being what I consider only a somewhat informed take more than a thoroughly informed one. 🤔 

[kingdaddy]

10 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

 

Love him as a culture guru and person, think he doesn't just suck as talent evaluator but only  see him in a range of poor to ok with ok not being his average but his ceiling, and when it comes to qbs have big questions. So I like him more away from on field stuff as much as possible if he's going to be here.

 

I'll also cop to this being what I consider only a somewhat informed take more than a thoroughly informed one. 🤔 

IMO, Frank Reich would be a great get for RR....Former NFL QB can run the offense and groom Howell; you go to the defensive meetings Ron and tell them 85 Bears stories.

[El Mexican]

18 hours ago, FootballZombie said:

 

Somebody had to hand the ball off 40 times a game I guess.

 

Dude won games for us like the McGuire Twins won the Tour de France... meaning they didn't.

 

 

 

Look man, we can only gauge the W-L record of Wentz vs TH (Howell's lone game doesn't count).

 

Objectively we won more games with TH. 

 

We can argue all day about it but that's the sad brutal reality.

[CobraCommander]

1 hour ago, Jumbo said:

I think if RR is making roster decisions somehow for next season we should just use a dart board. 

 

This post courtesy of HotTakes-R-Us.

 

 

 

What could go wrong?

 

 

[El Mexican]

19 hours ago, Jumbo said:

 

No "he" didn't win those games. Think. We can argue about how much he contributed to the win. Those wins were team wins. We can also argue about which units, play callers, and any of the individual players had more or less to do with a given win. Is this too complicated for those of a certain leaning here? It sure seems so.

 

All of it been laid out clearly and accurately by the vast majority of longtime solid football posters here. It's unfortunate how poorly some chosen positions are presented.

 

As you said, it's almost impossible to pin down the exact contribution each of the variables here (players and especially TH) contributed to an overall win.

 

By that same logic, how much of Wentz's loses were team loses of just due to poor QB play? We just don't know.

 

We can only know the final W-L record of each of our QBs. TH is clearly better. Which is not saying a lot, but that's our reality.

19 hours ago, tmandoug1 said:

Technically not all was true...

Marcus Marriotta

Matt Ryan

Malik Willis

Mike White

Davis Mills

Baker Mayfield

Zach Wilson

And lo and behold Carson Wentz were suckier this year according to the almighty internet.

 

This is still fun though...right guys?

 

I have no idea who most of those gentlemen are.

 

Sad thing is everyone knew Wentz sucked last year before arriving here.

 

Everybody except our top brass. Mistakes were made. 

[FootballZombie]

12 minutes ago, El Mexican said:

Look man, we can only gauge the W-L record of Wentz vs TH (Howell's lone game doesn't count).

 

I see Mod suggestions go over your head higher than the ability to evaluate analytics.

 

 

Protect your Neck bro. Livin' dangerously

[El Mexican]

19 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

You can be a sucky QB and still be part of a team that wins games. It's happened several times before.

 

When you say the "real problem" was RR evaluating QB incorrectly, what exactly do you mean? He wasn't fair enough to Heinicke? He overestimated Wentz? He didn't give Howell enough of a shot?

 

 

Hey! I resemble that remark!

 

He just overestimated Wentz. That's my main point.

 

Poof. There goes the season.

 

It's very very hard to win by sheer luck in this League. Same with a sucky QB.

Yet, if our sucky QB won more games for us than the other guy how much is actually his poor play and how much is the overall suckiness of the entire team and organizaction?

 

This will be a long offseason. 

1 minute ago, FootballZombie said:

 

I see Mod suggestions go over your head higher than the ability to evaluate analytics.

 

 

Protect your Neck bro. Livin' dangerously

 

I suggest we return to the actual W-L record of each QB and go from there instead of endless arguments over subjective factors.

 

The season is over. We can look back with more objectivity at our QB situation now.

[Conn]

37 minutes ago, El Mexican said:

I have no idea who most of those gentlemen are.

Disclaimer: I think this is fine, I’m not trying to gatekeep football chat. But it cries out for commentary. 
 

Don’t you think the above should cause you to pause a moment before bulling ahead with full confidence in your own opinion? You’re touting the old QB winz argument that’s been disproven a million times, simplifying a very complex subject to the point that the conversation is pointless, and in addition you don’t know who a ton of QBs across the league are? 
 

Again, that’s fine. But maybe this isn’t the topic to have strong feelings about. 

Edited January 26, 2023 by Conn

[mistertim]

24 minutes ago, El Mexican said:

 

I suggest we return to the actual W-L record of each QB and go from there instead of endless arguments over subjective factors.

 

The season is over. We can look back with more objectivity at our QB situation now.

 

Not going to rehash the stuff above this as it's already been discussed ad nauseam re: Heini/Wentz.

 

The W-L thing has been rehashed before as well, but I think it applies to the QB position in general so it can be addressed without discussing those guys specifically. IMO W-L record is one of the least objective ways to look at a QB situation because there are so many factors that go into winning or losing games. You can have a QB play like crap and win a game or a QB play like a star and still lose.

 

I'm not saying W-L is meaningless but it has to be taken with a big grain of salt and is only a small part of the QB analysis equation. If we went purely on W-L records, then the Texans should have benched Deshaun Watson during the 2020 season. They didn't. Why? Because he was playing at an All-Pro level and was clearly not the reason they were losing games.