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

[wit33]

4 minutes ago, TheShredder said:

What kind of message do you send when you reach for a QB that isn't clearly an upgrade with an entire roster that is 100% behind TH?

This will play into any off-season additions for sure.

If you don't have an outstanding prospect that's within your reach via NFL draft, then they're not going to trade up.

Should the opportunity present itself and they acquire the services of a top 10 free agent QB, then it won't be a true competition going into the next season. They would have bet the farm and be tied to that play.

I think these are the two scenarios for acquiring a QB in the off-season. 

The scenario I would most like to see, that would be viewed as positive from the team would be adding solid competition for TH and allowing for a full QB competition.

If you get a shot at a free agent MVP QB, then you're going all-in and TH is your backup, which might be the best one of the shots you'd take with RR as your HBC in year 3.  That doesn't happen very often, so if it does, then I think they'd pull the trigger on that short list of players.

 

The reps given to Haskins, Allen, and Smith last year seemed like such a waste, at least this year there appears to be some potential long term value with Heineke. Whether it’s guiding a young QB, backing up Rodgers, or starting next season. 
 

My money is he’s starting next season. I give it -130 odds. 

[TheShredder]

27 minutes ago, wit33 said:

The reps given to Haskins, Allen, and Smith last year seemed like such a waste, at least this year there appears to be some potential long term value with Heineke. Whether it’s guiding a young QB, backing up Rodgers, or starting next season. 
 

My money is he’s starting next season. I give it -130 odds. 

Last off-season was a good example of how anything can happen.  Yeah wasted practice time for sure last year.  The upgrades to the WRs may yet come to pay dividends where Samuels can play 'Full-Monty' and the TE's can make enough plays to account for Logan being out.  The reps with receivers is definitely huge part of TH 70% completion rate over the last number of weeks.

 

[Berggy9598]

2 hours ago, wit33 said:

Know what else doesn’t consistently get you to the playoffs, young and inexperienced QBs who are 95% likely to bust/become below average starters in the league. 
 

Average to above QB play can get you to the promise land, it happens, but they must be at a bargain compared to the elite QBs they are competing against in the playoffs. Makes zero sense to have an average to above guy competing with an elite guy with only a 1-3% cap difference. 
 

If I’m going average to above they must be at 2-6% of the cap and have running ability to make up for their deficiencies whatever they are. This is the game the Patriots are playing at the QB spot is my guess. Be cheap at QB while not elite and attempt to dominate in every other area. 

 

 

If you like unfavorable odds you should average out how many undrafted QBs turn into viable starters. Also I don’t think the Patriots would have drafted a QB that high if they thought his ceiling was just a meh game manager and they’re hoping he plays well enough to earn a big second contract. There’s just no shortcuts when it comes to QBs. If Heinicke continues to develop and improve then great. If he doesn’t, he’s not a long term NFL starter period. Right now he’s above and beyond anything anyone could have hoped for and that’s great, but you’re not building a SB level team around him as things currently stand. If he does get to that level, he’ll demand a bigger contract. 

[skinny21]

4 hours ago, Berggy9598 said:

We were last in the league and historically bad on time of possession for the first 4 weeks which really compounded all the issues in the secondary, but the defense has been very good since then. The last two defenses we played were torched by Jimmy G and the Cowboys without Cooper and Lamb respectively, so the offense and the QB need to play better. 

I very much agree that the offense needs to score more, but I would add the caveat that if they keep winning low scoring games, that works too… until it doesn’t, and I do feel like we’re waiting for that shoe to drop (and this feels like the week for it).

 

As to your other points, I’m not sure I agree.  Weeks 3 and 4, the TOP was pretty close and the Giant and Falcons put up 29 and 30.  Ditto the Saints game in week 5.

Sure, Prescott and Garrapolo (with his less than stellar QBR) put up big numbers against the Raiders and Seahawks respectively, but they also both lost.  I mean, I’m not going to point to the Cowboys only giving up 3 points to the Falcons to argue their defense is exactly 10 times better than ours…

And I hate to say it, but Ironically, you talk about TOP affecting the defense - yet the Raiders and Seahawks both won the TOP battle to beat the Cowboys/49ers.  

 

But you’re right, this doesn’t feel sustainable - expecting the defense to hold opponents to low scores (particularly against Dallas), while the offense scores just enough to get the W.  To clarify, I’m saying that without sarcasm.  Of course, the flip side of that argument is who thought we’d beat Tampa, Oakland (considering injuries/travel/scheduling) or win 4 straight with this formula.  Not me.  I mean, yes, it felt like this was probably the right formula for us from the beginning of the season (and many of us said so), but I sure didn’t see this turnaround coming.

[petey hodge]

🤣

[Est.1974]

13 hours ago, Berggy9598 said:

Reasonably well at QB doesn’t win you a Super Bowl anymore or even get you to the playoffs on a consistent basis unless you have an all time great defense or Derrick Henry. There’s a good chance reasonably well QB play gets us swept by Dallas, which would turn the lights out on the playoff run. 

Nothing wrong with TH seeing out this year reasonably well. He’s still a maturing QB with very few starts. Unless you think all QBs should be great instantly? and a playoff run would be an unexpected bonus for me. I have lower expectations than that at the moment.

 

Long way to go with our QB situation. TH is proving better than I thought he would. I’ve changed my perspective on him. Does that means he’s already the long term solution, no I don’t think it does. The next few games should give a balanced indication of his future potential in my opinion.

 

Im still adding a rookie QB in 2022 irrespective of how the season plays out.

[London Kev]

29 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

Nothing wrong with TH seeing out this year reasonably well. He’s still a maturing QB with very few starts. Unless you think all QBs should be great instantly? and a playoff run would be an unexpected bonus for me. I have lower expectations than that at the moment.

 

Long way to go with our QB situation. TH is proving better than I thought he would. I’ve changed my perspective on him. Does that means he’s already the long term solution, no I don’t think it does. The next few games should give a balanced indication of his future potential in my opinion.

 

Im still adding a rookie QB in 2022 irrespective of how the season plays out.

 

This pretty much sums up my thoughts as well, UK. While I'm blown away by the teams play recently, I still can't fully start to believe that we're going to make the playoffs just yet.

 

Our record so far is L, W, L, W, Lx4, Wx4, and while I'm obviously hoping that the streak continues, I see it as just as likely that we lose the next two or three and then have a few must-win games at the end of the season just to maybe sneak into the 7th spot.

 

A win against dallas this weekend would be huge (and I'm trying really hard to convince myself that we can win) , beating the eagles the following week would really make me start to believe.

 

I also agree that no matter how it all plays out, we should pick up a QB early in the draft to compete with TH next season.

[wit33]

3 hours ago, Berggy9598 said:

If you like unfavorable odds you should average out how many undrafted QBs turn into viable starters. Also I don’t think the Patriots would have drafted a QB that high if they thought his ceiling was just a meh game manager and they’re hoping he plays well enough to earn a big second contract. There’s just no shortcuts when it comes to QBs. If Heinicke continues to develop and improve then great. If he doesn’t, he’s not a long term NFL starter period. Right now he’s above and beyond anything anyone could have hoped for and that’s great, but you’re not building a SB level team around him as things currently stand. If he does get to that level, he’ll demand a bigger contract. 

 

 

 

Pats will be in the bottom tier in terms of paying a QB for next 4 years with an option for a 5th season. They identified Mac as a pro ready QB and now are benefiting not only from his play but just as much his pay. Who knows, but I speculate they will never pay the QB position a great deal unless that guy is elite. My guess is they have a certain percentage of cap they’re willing to dedicate to one player, yes, even the QB position.   They chose to pay the position nothing last year, then drafted a guy this season. No rumors of them being in on any high priced veteran signal callers. 
 

The answer is draft a guy next season and let Heineke do his thing again while a young guy sits.

 

9 hours ago, skinny21 said:

 

As to your other points, I’m not sure I agree.  Weeks 3 and 4, the TOP was pretty close and the Giant and Falcons put up 29 and 30.  Ditto the Saints game in week 5.

Sure, Prescott and Garrapolo (with his less than stellar QBR) put up big numbers against the Raiders and Seahawks respectively, but they also both lost.  I mean, I’m not going to point to the Cowboys only giving up 3 points to the Falcons to argue their defense is exactly 10 times better than ours…

And I hate to say it, but Ironically, you talk about TOP affecting the defense - yet the Raiders and Seahawks both won the TOP battle to beat the Cowboys/49ers.  
 

 

Red zone offense must improve, no doubt. Hopefully it proves beneficial that the team can focus on this one area and have it lead to improvement to close the season. Meaning, other areas of the offense are humming along pretty well, just need to get better in the red zone. Not that there aren’t other things that can 

 

9 hours ago, skinny21 said:

 

But you’re right, this doesn’t feel sustainable - expecting the defense to hold opponents to low scores (particularly against Dallas), while the offense scores just enough to get the W.  To clarify, I’m saying that without sarcasm.  Of course, the flip side of that argument is who thought we’d beat Tampa, Oakland (considering injuries/travel/scheduling) or win 4 straight with this formula.  Not me.  I mean, yes, it felt like this was probably the right formula for us from the beginning of the season (and many of us said so), but I sure didn’t see this turnaround coming.

The Patriots are using a similar formula and many are touting them as a SB sleeper. I don’t have numbers to back this claim up, but just from my fan view they seem similar some ways. They are much deeper on offense thoguh. Gibson goes down, Washington no longer has a power run game lol
 

Must improve situationally though. 

[Berggy9598]

2 hours ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

Nothing wrong with TH seeing out this year reasonably well. He’s still a maturing QB with very few starts. Unless you think all QBs should be great instantly? and a playoff run would be an unexpected bonus for me. I have lower expectations than that at the moment.

 

Long way to go with our QB situation. TH is proving better than I thought he would. I’ve changed my perspective on him. Does that means he’s already the long term solution, no I don’t think it does. The next few games should give a balanced indication of his future potential in my opinion.

 

Im still adding a rookie QB in 2022 irrespective of how the season plays out.

Not only is there nothing wrong with it but it’s an ideal scenario going forward. I just don’t agree with the notion that our need for a QB has been alleviated all together. Even if Heinicke only ends up as one of the best backups in the league he’s still a winning lottery ticket. That said, if he goes 4-1 or better the rest of the way there’s absolutely a case to be made that our first round pick should not be a QB. 

[ananoman]

Interesting read on the Myth of the Franchise Quarterback

 

https://www.dailynorseman.com/platform/amp/2021/5/30/22273672/the-great-quarterback-fallacy-part-i

[goskins10]

I like Taylor to finish the season no matter how the games go. I think he has earned that. I do not want another FA QB unless thier name is either Russell Wilson (already said he des not want to come here) or Jameis Winston. Rogers would be way to expensive for a guy that old and he is too self centered. 

 

I see a lot of hate towards Kyle Allen. He was arguably our best QB last year until he got inured. It was clear he was still not fully health in preseason. His numbers last year? 68% comp, 4 TDs 1 Int and 99.3 QB Rating in basically 3 gms. I could see moving on but I like him as a backup. Draft someone this year, let them sit behind Taylor and Kyle. They could realyl help them learn the offense. Then after next year let them compete for the starting role unless Taylor has shown to be the guy. If he is and the drafted QB turns out to be good too, you can move one for some draft capitol, high draft capitol. NE has done it several times. 

 

I will say Taylor's play this year has at least given Ron options. Before that he was in a desperate situation to draft a top QB, almost at any cost. Now he can go at least another year unless Taylor takes a big step backwards. 

[Skinsinparadise]

On 12/9/2021 at 11:14 AM, Alcoholic Zebra said:

Campbell was not a MVP contender in the first half of 2008.  If anyone was getting any sort of buzz, it would have been Clinton Portis.  With a mention that the OL was playing extremely well.

 

As for Campbell not getting buzz per your point -- sorry you are wrong on that.  I recall that period well including even the debates here about it at the time. 

 

 It's not some arcane-off beat point of mine.  It was mentioned at the time by the media somewhat heavily, and not just that article I posted which talked about it, the buzz about Campbell has even been brought up years later but people who covered the team back them because its so wild with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. But yeah that reality indeeded existed at that given time. 

Edited December 12, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

As for Campbell not getting buzz per your point -- sorry you are wrong on that.  I recall that period well including even the debates here about it at the time. 

 

 It's not some arcane-off beat point of mine.  It was mentioned at the time by the media somewhat heavily, and not just that article I posted which talked about it, the buzz about Campbell has even been brought up years later but people who covered the team back them because its so wild with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. But yeah that reality indeeded existed at that given time. 

 

Yeah, I'm just going to flip that around and say the opposite.  Sorry you are wrong on that.  I also recall talking heads, ESPN, media types etc talking about the hot start.  How much credit and to whom.

 

Campbell was not in that conversation and was not getting the most credit for the team starting 6-2.  Portis and the O-line were.

 

I think I recall (could be wrong) that Zorn said something like he never envisioned coaching an offense that needed the run game to carry it.

 

The only hype Campbell was getting was for his consecutive passes without an interception streak, and how he had grown into being a great game manager.  That was it for him.

[Skinsinparadise]

5 hours ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

Yeah, I'm just going to flip that around and say the opposite.  Sorry you are wrong on that.  I also recall talking heads, ESPN, media types etc talking about the hot start.  How much credit and to whom.

 

Campbell was not in that conversation and was not getting the most credit for the team starting 6-2.  Portis and the O-line were.

 

I think I recall (could be wrong) that Zorn said something like he never envisioned coaching an offense that needed the run game to carry it.

 

The only hype Campbell was getting was for his consecutive passes without an interception streak, and how he had grown into being a great game manager.  That was it for him.

 

I actually show you an article that flat out said it, and I am the one who is wrong?  I didn't write the article myself. And it wasn't the only mention of it.  I recall the talking heads discussing it at the time too.  I know you are wrong.  100%.

 

You are saying Portis and others got credit by some.  That's true.    But you are saying that negates that anyone said it about Campbell, too -- that part is 100% not true.  But I don't care enough to keep arguing it. 

 

Some talk in the media back then indeed existed, and yeah as I mentioned some fans, too, I recall some of the discussions.  Here's one of the comments from a fan in the WP article ironically about Campbell's release.  Yeah it feels crazy in retrospect.  Campbell wasn't good.  But yeah he did have a period, brief one where he was the toast by some in the media and some fans.  

 

 

Edited December 12, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[goskins10]

5 hours ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

Yeah, I'm just going to flip that around and say the opposite.  Sorry you are wrong on that.  I also recall talking heads, ESPN, media types etc talking about the hot start.  How much credit and to whom.

 

Campbell was not in that conversation and was not getting the most credit for the team starting 6-2.  Portis and the O-line were.

 

I think I recall (could be wrong) that Zorn said something like he never envisioned coaching an offense that needed the run game to carry it.

 

The only hype Campbell was getting was for his consecutive passes without an interception streak, and how he had grown into being a great game manager.  That was it for him.

 

Not sure why this is a discussion, but @Skinsinparadise is 100% correct. Mike and Mike and Mel Kiper both were talking about Jason Campbell and Clinton Portis being in the MVP discussion. And they were not the only ones. There was even talk of that very thing on this board at the time. It was short lived as was the teams success, but Jason Campbell's first half of 2008, he was considered in the discussion for NFL MVP. 

 

Here is the thread dedicated to the topic - the title says is all - and it is from 2008, not just recently: 

 

 

Here is a Bleacher Report article where the first sentence was Jason Campbell and a few others started the season looking like they were on the road to MVP glory. 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/87083-no-more-speculation-final-favorites-for-the-nfls-superlatives

 

Back to our current QB issue - as I said already, I like drafting a QB this year but unless Taylor totally falls apart down the stretch, let that person sit behind him with Kyle as the back-up, then in 2023 let them battle it out in camp. 

 

Today will go a long way as after two teams have put more men in the box and held us to 17 pts each, I would be shocked if dallas did not do the same thing, dare Taylor to beat them by taking away the run. Scott and Taylor need to show they can force the ball down field. Dallas has a better offense than Seattle or LV. It will take 24 to 28 pts at least to win I think. 

 

 

 

[KDawg]

I think some of us are blinded by the tree and can’t see the forest. Is Heinicke the best QB in the NFL? Absolutely not. So is he upgradeable? Absolutely. 
 

If people want to dispute that they can of course, but it would be a silly conversation that dances around the issue.

 

On the opposing side, though… the “you can’t shortcut the QB” spot mantra is equally uninformed. It’s difficult to find a high end QB in today’s NFL. 
 

Since Super Bowl 26, our last Lombardi:

 

Only 17 quarterbacks have won the Super Bowl. Seventeen. Just about 30 years. 
 

There’s been expansion teams and such in that time frame, but if you were to figure 30 teams over 30 years you figure you have 900 opportunities to be a starting QB. Obviously there haven’t been 900 different QBs, but 900 opportunities. Seventeen men have won the Super Bowl since our last. 
 

Setting the bar at “mediocre QBs don’t win the Super Bowl” is nearly unattainable. And while the premise is correct, it’s mostly special players to have won the Super Bowl at the QB position, it seems to suggest that if you don’t have a QB you should just fold up shop and quit because there’s no point.

 

Flacco, Brad Johnson, Nick Foles prove that isn’t true. Granted, chances are lower of winning with guys like that than the true franchise guy. But there’s a chance.

 

So in lieu of being in that “perfect storm” spot you have to try to find a way the best you can to give yourself a chance.

 

What does Heinicke bring? Charisma, familiarity with the playbook, escapability, fearlessness. Also, occasional bad decisions, lack of complete arm strength.

 

Financially he brings stability at a low cost, which increases the odds of winning with a non top quarterback 

 

It really shouldn’t even be a debate in my opinion. 
 

Too long version:

 

1) Heinicke is upgradeable, but not just with anyone

 

2) We can’t just give up because we don’t have a top guy so cost + ability of Heinicke opens up a different dimension to us

 

3) If we happen to find ourselves in a perfect storm and that guy who is a major upgrade falls in our laps it’s a no brainer.

 

The debate seems to be what constitutes as a major upgrade. So my opinion there:

 

1) High end QB. The highest possible tier of quarterback. Odds of getting this: Slim to None

 

2) High end rookie. This year I don’t think the upgrade will be there given our current draft position, but there are mid round prospects who have developmental potential to be behind Heinicke. It’s possible that a guy falls to us, but I don’t see it personally. Odds of that happening this year: 20ish%? Odds change year to year.

 

3) Trade/FA for a tier 2 or lower QB: the cost in assets for a trade make this a zero sum game in a trade. Just a bad idea. FA, high salary cost to pay a guy who will, realistically, lead you as far as Heinicke can.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

This should be an interesting off season for QB.  And this post isn't directed at anyone.  I am just explaining my mindset.  

 

I think the wildcard is playing out right in front of us.   I got some questions about Heinicke being the answer but I don't really have a hardcore view on it.   For me: my thing is this: can we win games in the home stretch primarily because of Heinicke?  A game where our running game is "meh" and the defense perhaps struggles but Heinicke kills it and they win anyway?   As a franchise under Dan, we aren't used to that. 

 

We've had some moments on that front, including with Taylor, but typically we've not had the guy to go toe to toe with someone like Drew Brees if he got hot lets say in a game.   But yes as we know NFL teams win some games like that.   If Brees in his prime got hot in a playoff game, Dak if he's on his game could battle him toe to toe.  That's the type of guy I want.   And NFL prognastictors tend to see those teams as more dangerous in the playoffs and more likely to be consistent from season to season versus being a one off team.   Because that's how it often has played out.

 

The franchise QB talk I think sometimes lacks a medium.  Do I think finding the next Aaron Rodgers is really really hard.  Of course it is.  Do I think finding the next Matt Ryan or Derrick Carr is some crazy mountain to climb?  No I don't.  Almost every NFL team in the last 20 years has pulled something like that off or close enough, many have pulled it off twice in that span.  It's no miracle.    It's actually more of an odd miracle that we've flubbed this repeatedly when we've tried.  The fact that we've struck out doubles down on why we've sucked as a franchise.  We are the joke of the NFL at QB and not the norm  We'd be a fun ESPN 30-30 special as to screwing up at QB.   

 

I used to feel that us stinking at the QB game means hey if we could never get the steak like every other team does at one point than what they heck get the best hamburger you can and accept the fact that we are just different.  Unlike almost every other team, we don't eat steak at some point.  It is what it is.  So let's accept being a burger team and celebrate the burger and hope it turns to steak.  I get it.  I used to feel that way but I am tired of it.  And the debate about how its nice to dream about filet minion but its an unrealistc fantasy -- OK, cool, I get that.  But I don't think getting a nice piece of skirt steak is some wild fantasy.

 

Heck only the Patriots can get lucky and find Mac Jones?  Teams can land a Derrick Carr.  But that's not for us?   Heck the Chargers can luck out drafting:  Brees, Rivers and Herbet -- but the idea we can get it right even once is like dreaming about the Lotto?    IMO, we can do this.  This FO isn't run by clowns anymore.  This isn't Cerrato or Bruce -- and the lead clown Dan has been responsible for most of these QB picks.  Is it any shocker that we've been the biggest clownshow at QB?

 

I get how all of our misses might have conditioned us that getting a franchise QB is some wild fantasy like some nerd landing a Sports Ilustrated model.  But it doesn't have to be that.  I do think its hard to find generational legendary QBs like the next Aaron Rodgers.  But finding name that 8-14 range QB  is something that really just about every team has done in the last 20 years but us and few other straggler teams.    It's not an out of reach dream -- its actually pathetic that we've not been able to pull it off.

 

Speaking of things we haven't pulled off.  Rivera might be the first coach we've had to hit two consecutive playoff seasons under Dan.  Will see.  And if he does it, I think its ok to dream a little bigger than we are used to doing.  And i know it may feel wild that we can find the next Mac Jones, Matt Ryan, Derrck Carr but it shouldn't feel that way even a whit -- it might just feel that way because of how pathetic we've been at it.  But that is a disease that we've suffered from that isn't endemic throughout the league.   It's exclusive to us and a few other straggler teams.  Maybe Rivera could actually pull it off.  I want to see him try.

 

And I mean this all irrespective of Heinicke.  If Heinicke proves to be that guy, I'd love it.  But if the season ends and he comes off like a dude who is short of being an 8-14 range type QB, i'd be swinging for a QB in their shoes.  And that's vibe I get too from the beat reporters who have talked about it as far as what they've heard.  But I think this is an open ended question right now.  Lets see it play out.  If he plays well and beats Dallas today -- for me it will go a long way.  i don't love this matchup for Taylor.  So him thriving today would help win me over in a big way.   

 

Edited December 12, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[method man]

4 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

This should be an interesting off season for QB.  And this post isn't directed at anyone.  I am just explaning my mindset.  

 

I think the wildcard is playing out right in front of us.   I got some questions about Heinicke being the answer but I don't really have a hardcore view on it.   For me.  my thing is this: can we win games in the home stretch primarily because of Heinicke?  A game where our running game is "meh" and the defense perhaps struggles but Heinicke kills it and they win anyway?   As a franchise under Dan, we aren't used to that. 

 

We've had some moments on that front, including with Taylor, but typically we've not had the guy to go toe to toe with someone like Drew Brees if he got hot lets say in a game.   But yes as we know NFL teams win some games like that.   If Brees in his prime got hot in a playoff game, Dak if he's on his game could battle him toe to toe.  That's the type of guy I want.   And NFL prognastictors tends to see those teams as more dangerous in the playoffs and more likely to be consistent from season to season versus being a one off team. 

 

The franchise QB talk I think sometimes lacks a medium.  Do I think finding the next Aaron Rodgers is really really hard.  Of course it is.  Do I think finding the next Matt Ryan or Derrick Carr is some crazy mountain to climb?  No I don't.  Almost every NFL team in the last 20 years has pulled something like that off or close enough, many have pulled it off twice in that span.  It's no miracle.    It's actually more of an odd miracle that we've flubbed this when we've tried.  The fact that we've struck out doubles down on why we've sucked as a franchise.  We are the joke of the NFL at QB not the norm  We'd be a fun ESPN 30-30 special as to screwing up at QB.   

 

I used to feel that us stinking at the QB game means hey if we could never get the steak like every other team does at one point than what they heck get the best hamburger you can and accept the fact that we are just different.  Unlike almost every other team, we don't eat steak at some point.  It is what it is.  So let's accept being a burger team and celebrate the burger and hope it turns to steak.  I get it.  I used to feel that way but I am tired of it.  And the debate about how its nice to dream about filet minion but its an unrealistc fantasy -- OK, cool, I get that.  But I don't think getting a nice piece of skirt steak is some wild fantasy.

 

Heck only the Patriots can get lucky and find Mac Jones?  Teams can land a Derrick Carr.  But that's not for us?   Heck the Chargers can luck out drafting:  Brees, Rivers and Herbet -- but the idea we can get it right even once is like dreaming about the Lotto?    IMO, we can do this.  This FO isn't run by clowns anymore.  This isn't Cerrato or Bruce -- and the lead clown Dan has been responsible for most of these QB picks.  Is it any shocker that we've been the biggest clownshow at QB?

 

I get how all of our misses might have conditioned us that getting a franchise QB is some wild fantasy like some nerd landing a Sports Ilustrated model.  But it doesn't have to be that.  I do think its hard to find generational legendary QBs like the next Aaron Rodgers.  But finding name that 8-14 range QB  is something that really just about every team has done in the last 20 years but us and few other straggler teams.    It's not an out of reach dream -- its actually pathetic that we've not been able to pull it off.

 

Speaking of things we haven't pulled off.  Rivera might be the first coach we've had to hit two consecutive playoff seasons under Dan.  Will see.  And if he does it, I think its ok to dream a little bigger than we are used.  And i know it may feel wild that we can find the next Mac Jones, Matt Ryan, Derrck Carr but it shouldn't feel that way -- it might just feel that way because of how pathetic we've been at it.  But that is a disease that we've suffered from that isn't endemic throughout the league.  Maybe Rivera could actually pull it off.  I want to see him try.

 

And I mean this all irrespective of Heinicke.  If Heinicke proves to be that guy, I'd love it.  But if the season ends and he comes off like a dude who is short of being an 8-14 range QB, i'd be swinging for a QB in their shoes.  And that's vibe I get too from the beat reporters who have talked about it as far as what they've heard.  But I think this is an open ended question right now.  Lets see it play out.  If he plays well and beats Dallas today -- for me it will go a long way.  i don't love this matchup for Taylor.  So him thriving today would help win me over in a big way.   

 

Did you forget about Kirk?

[Skinsinparadise]

5 minutes ago, method man said:

Did you forget about Kirk?

 

I hate the Kirk debates here.  So I typically tend to avoid discussing him. 

 

But Kirk yeah would help make my point.  Kirk was someone who Shanny supposedly liked.  No interference from Dan supposedly on that front.

 

I know some would disagree.  But I do think Kirk helps add to the point that its not a fantasy to find an above average QB.  IMO Kirk is on the tail end of the 8-14 range.  His numbers are great.  And I don't scoff at that like some do.  I think it matters.  but he's not clutch so I grade him down on that front. 

 

The other reason why I didn't include Kirk is yeah they drafted him but they flubbed keeping him -- that's not easy to do but they pulled that off so for me it fits in the pile of their dysfunction at the spot as opposed to competence.    So I don't like giving the organization credit for Kirk. 

Edited December 12, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[goskins10]

34 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I hate the Kirk debates here.  So I typically tend to avoid discussing him. 

 

But Kirk yeah would help make my point.  Kirk was someone who Shanny supposedly liked.  No interference from Dan supposedly on that front.

 

I know some would disagree.  But I do think Kirk helps add to the point that its not a fantasy to find an above average QB.  IMO Kirk is on the tail end of the 8-14 range.  His numbers are great.  And I don't scoff at that like some do.  I think it matters.  but he's not clutch so I grade him down on that front. 

 

The other reason why I didn't include Kirk is yeah they drafted him but they flubbed keeping him -- that's not easy to do but they pulled that off so for me it fits in the pile of their dysfunction at the spot as opposed to competence.    So I don't like giving the organization credit for Kirk. 

 

 

If you get Kirk, even using a 1st rd pick, without giving up all they gave up for Robert, then the team looks much different. I do not like kirk, but more for personal reasons. While here he did not have that clutch gene. He has done better in Minn but is still la bit wobbly. However, he did also have some great 4th Q drives only to have the D let him down. Happened to him last week when they lost to Detroit. 

 

ESPN ranks every QB we have had since Mark Rypien. It's a really sad list. It was written Sept 16, 2021.  That is why Taylor is ranked 29th. I would guess if they did it again right now Taylor would be a bit higher. But what a list of losers!  

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32202487/as-washington-football-team-qb-quest-enters-year-29-espn-analytics-ranks-30-starters

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

If you get Kirk, even using a 1st rd pick, without giving up all they gave up for Robert, then the team looks much different. I do not like kirk, but more for personal reasons. While here he did not have that clutch gene. He has done better in Minn but is still la bit wobbly. However, he did also have some great 4th Q drives only to have the D let him down. Happened to him last week when they lost to Detroit. 

 

ESPN ranks every QB we have had since Mark Rypien. It's a really sad list. It was written Sept 16, 2021.  That is why Taylor is ranked 29th. I would guess if they did it again right now Taylor would be a bit higher. But what a list of losers!  

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32202487/as-washington-football-team-qb-quest-enters-year-29-espn-analytics-ranks-30-starters

 

 

Lol, I'll endanger myself by giving my general take on Kirk today.     I am not speaking of you clearly on this point but there are some who continue to harp on Kirk and trash him in different threads -- and it feels odd to me, its like someone always talking about how much they dislike their ex-girlfriend.  The opposite of love is indifference.  To each their own.  But I hate the discussion topic unless its the angle of how Bruce handled it.  the reason being I am very emotional about how much I think Bruce has ruined this franchise with Kirk just being one example of it.  But I am not emotional about Kirk or any ex-player from here really.  Once they leave here I am typically indifferent.  I try not to be too player obsessed and instead more team obsessed with the exception of my draft man crushes.  

 

I used to care about Kirk in Minny but for different reasons than most.  For me it was purely about Bruce and how it showcased how much a buffoon the dude was as a negotiator.  And I said at the time if Bruce is gone, i won't care about Kirk.  And I've kept to that word.     And as far as Bruce goes, i don't even mind the Kirk haters on this if they agreed with me that they mishandled the situation even if their angle is they should have traded him.  I just don't see ANY angle no matter how they feel about Kirk that involved applauding Bruce.  But in real time at the time, Bruce had his defenders including on this issue -- and I found it cringe worthy back then so I was feisty when I engaged in a debate on it.    Hard for me to think about Kirk without thinking about Bruce. 

 

As a dude, I like Kirk a lot.  I am a sucker for anyone who is nice to my kids.  And my kids did a QB camp with Kirk, and he was so engaged with them and nice and cool including remembering their names the whole time among other things.  He really impressed me.   Then we were at the team hotel once.  And players often avoid fans like the plague in that setting.  Kirk saw one of my kids from a distance in the hotel in the lobby and walked up to them and asked if they wanted an autograph.  It was one of the nicest things I've seen from a player. I've been around plenty of settings with players where I see them engage with fans like in camp, etc.  And Kirk was part of two of the coolest things I've seen over the years on that front. 

 

As a player, I think Kirk is good.  I'd take him over every QB we've had here sans RG3 2012.   He reminds me a lot though of Romo for better and worse.  That is, he is really streaky.   Starts off seasons cold typically.  Then gets red hot.  Then its up and down in the home stretch.  I think its hyperbole from some (not you) when they say he can't win big games.  And actually ditto about Romo back in the day.  Heck he helped win a playoff game on the road in New Orleans.  We'd kill for that here.  He played big in the game in Philly to make the playoffs in 2015 among other games.  But overall to me, he's "meh" in big moments.  He's not this useless trainwreck that some of his critics say he is in big moments.   But, he's not the guy I want with the ball in his hands in a big playoff game or a big game to make the playoffs.  It's not that he fails EVERY time as some critics claim he does.  But he fails too many times for my taste.   Russell Wilson on the other hand for example, is killer good in big games-big moments. 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[goskins10]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

Lol, I'll endanger myself by giving my general take on Kirk today.     I am not speaking of you clearly on this point but there are some who continue to harp on Kirk and trash him in different threads -- and it feels odd to me, its like someone also talking about how much they dislike their ex-girlfriend.  The opposite of love is indifference.  To each their own.  But I hate the discussion topic unless its the angle of how Bruce handled it.  the reason being I am very emotional about how much I think Bruce has ruined this franchise with Kirk just being one example of it.  But I am not emotional about Kirk or an ex-player really.  Once they leave here I am typically indifferent.  I try not to be too player obsessed and instead more team obsessed with the exception of my draft man crushes.  

 

I used to care about Kirk in Minny but for different reasons than most.  For me it was purely about Bruce and how it showcased how much a buffoon the dude was as a negotiator.  And I said at the time if Bruce is gone, i won't care about Kirk.  And I've kept to that word.     And as far as Bruce goes, i don't even mind the Kirk haters on this if they agreed with me that they mishandled the situation even if their angle is they should have traded him.  I just don't see ANY angle no matter how they feel about Kirk that involved applauding Bruce.  But in real time at the time, Bruce had his defenders including on this issue -- and I found it cringe worthy back then so I was feisty when I engaged in a debate on it.    Hard for me to think about Kirk without thinking about Bruce. 

 

As a dude, I like Kirk a lot.  I am a sucker for anyone who is nice to my kids.  And my kids did a QB camp with Kirk, and he was so engaged with them and nice and cool including remembering their names the whole time among other things.  He really impressed me.   Then we were at the team hotel once.  And players often avoid fans like the plague in that setting.  Kirk saw one of my kids from a distance in the hotel in the lobby and walked up to them and asked if they wanted an autograph.  It was one of the nicest things I've seen from a player.  I don't really get a chance to have personal type experiences with players and I've been around plenty of settings where I see them engage with fans like in camp, etc.  And Kirk was part two of the coolest things I've seen over the years on that front. 

 

As a player, I think Kirk is good.  I'd take him over every QB we've had here sans RG3 2012.   He reminds me a lot though of Romo for better and worse.  That is, he is really streaky.   Starts off seasons cold typically.  Then gets red hot.  Then its up and down in the home stretch.  I think its hyperbole from some (not you) when they say he can't win big games.  And actually ditto about Romo back in the day.  Heck he helped win a playoff game on the road in New Orleans.  We'd kill for that here.  He played big in the game in Philly to make the playoffs in 2015 among other games.  But overall to me, he's "meh" in big moments.  He's not this useless trainwreck that some of his critics say he is in big moments.   But, he's not the game I want with the ball in his hands in a big playoff game or a big game to make the playoffs.  It's not that he fails EVERY time as some critics claim he does.  But he fails too many times for my taste.   Russell Wilson on the other hand for example, is killer good in big games-big moments. 

 

 

 

 

Will not continue the Kirk discussion after this and my apologies for continuing it but I think was important to the context of the history of QBs here and how we perceive the best way forward. 

 

Bruce completely botched the Kirk situation. That is a fact. Kirk didn't help things and he lost me when he pushed the charity ref and then some other personal things that I will not go into here. But I totally respect your experiences and your right to think of him different. We all have our own life experiences that impact how we feel about players as people. 

 

As a QB I was one of those defending his play on a regular basis except when he **** the bed in big situations. And as I said above, I really think had they only drafted Kirk, even as a 1st rd pick the resources saved would have changed everything. To the relevance of this conversation, I trust this FO to draft someone and then get fair market value out of them if they do not end up being our QB. The previous FOs, really all the way back to just after Gibbs 1 have horribly managed the QB position. Sometimes just bad luck but mostly poor management and that includes Gibbs 2. But agree none were worse than Bruce and how he handled Kirk. 

 

Nothing against Taylor as I hope he can prove to the franchise guy we have been looking for, and no that does NOT mean being Brees, Rogers, Brady. You can win championships with good to very good QBs, you do not have to have a transformational HOF QB, although it helps 🙂  But I really think some younger competition would be good for Taylor and the team. He, Scott and Kyle can groom them over the next whatever years. If Taylor has a nice long career here as the starter (nothing would make me happier BTW), then trade the young stud to someone for draft resources. 

[Berggy9598]

8 hours ago, KDawg said:

I think some of us are blinded by the tree and can’t see the forest. Is Heinicke the best QB in the NFL? Absolutely not. So is he upgradeable? Absolutely. 
 

If people want to dispute that they can of course, but it would be a silly conversation that dances around the issue.

 

On the opposing side, though… the “you can’t shortcut the QB” spot mantra is equally uninformed. It’s difficult to find a high end QB in today’s NFL. 
 

Since Super Bowl 26, our last Lombardi:

 

Only 17 quarterbacks have won the Super Bowl. Seventeen. Just about 30 years. 
 

There’s been expansion teams and such in that time frame, but if you were to figure 30 teams over 30 years you figure you have 900 opportunities to be a starting QB. Obviously there haven’t been 900 different QBs, but 900 opportunities. Seventeen men have won the Super Bowl since our last. 
 

Setting the bar at “mediocre QBs don’t win the Super Bowl” is nearly unattainable. And while the premise is correct, it’s mostly special players to have won the Super Bowl at the QB position, it seems to suggest that if you don’t have a QB you should just fold up shop and quit because there’s no point.

 

Flacco, Brad Johnson, Nick Foles prove that isn’t true. Granted, chances are lower of winning with guys like that than the true franchise guy. But there’s a chance.

 

So in lieu of being in that “perfect storm” spot you have to try to find a way the best you can to give yourself a chance.

 

What does Heinicke bring? Charisma, familiarity with the playbook, escapability, fearlessness. Also, occasional bad decisions, lack of complete arm strength.

 

Financially he brings stability at a low cost, which increases the odds of winning with a non top quarterback 

 

It really shouldn’t even be a debate in my opinion. 
 

Too long version:

 

1) Heinicke is upgradeable, but not just with anyone

 

2) We can’t just give up because we don’t have a top guy so cost + ability of Heinicke opens up a different dimension to us

 

3) If we happen to find ourselves in a perfect storm and that guy who is a major upgrade falls in our laps it’s a no brainer.

 

The debate seems to be what constitutes as a major upgrade. So my opinion there:

 

1) High end QB. The highest possible tier of quarterback. Odds of getting this: Slim to None

 

2) High end rookie. This year I don’t think the upgrade will be there given our current draft position, but there are mid round prospects who have developmental potential to be behind Heinicke. It’s possible that a guy falls to us, but I don’t see it personally. Odds of that happening this year: 20ish%? Odds change year to year.

 

3) Trade/FA for a tier 2 or lower QB: the cost in assets for a trade make this a zero sum game in a trade. Just a bad idea. FA, high salary cost to pay a guy who will, realistically, lead you as far as Heinicke can.

 

 

Like I said, no shortcuts at QB. Nick Foles is a very apt comparison though because he'll win a few games in a pinch, but during the course of a full season he'll ALWAYS average out. Diatribe from here till next Tuesday, wind the clock back to 2002 for whatever reason you decided to bring that Bucs team up, to a different era and a defense with a handful of hall of famers (I'm not even going to acknowledge the Trent Dilfer comparison beyond this) but the fact still remains, you can't compete for a title with a high end backup at QB starting a full season. That's what Heinicke is, that's what he'll always be, and more importantly, an upgrade over a high end backup does not take a "perfect storm". In the modern day NFL, teams draft and attempt to develop a QB, period end of story. Every NFL team without a franchise QB has access to Wikipedia so I imagine they are aware of how many QBs have won a superbowl, but nobody in their right mind is giving up on trying to find a legit starter because Taylor Heinicke is on their roster. He should be among the highest paid backups in the NFL, if not the highest, but QB is still this team's number one need. Simply average QB play gets us a W today. 

[Berggy9598]

Let's preempt something here before the names Jared Goff and Jimmy Garoppolo come up. Goff's numbers the season before he went to the SB, and the season he went to the SB:

296/477 3804 28TD 7INT

364/561 4688 32TD 12INT

 

Garoppolo's numbers the season he went to the SB

329/475 3978 27TD 13 INT

 

Do we currently have a QB on the roster that's going to put up numbers like that during the course of a season? 

 

[NickyJ]

5 minutes ago, Berggy9598 said:

Let's preempt something here before the names Jared Goff and Jimmy Garoppolo come up. Goff's numbers the season before he went to the SB, and the season he went to the SB:

296/477 3804 28TD 7INT

364/561 4688 32TD 12INT

 

Garoppolo's numbers the season he went to the SB

329/475 3978 27TD 13 INT

 

Do we currently have a QB on the roster that's going to put up numbers like that during the course of a season? 

 

Yes, Logan Thomas.