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

[Skinsinparadise]

As for Stafford some said he was not a winner and his record with the Lions was very relevant because they just weren’t winning.

 

I pushed him. He is talented. Big numbers .Said give him a better team.   Plus he is super clutch. And that matters.

 

We saw the clutch gene again just now. And shocker he’s now a winner. 
 

Why I am I making this point?  While I think Derek Carr is a half a peg below Stafford, there are some similarities to me. 
 

The Raiders put the team on Carr’s back just like the Lions did with Stafford. And Carr puts up big numbers and is also super clutch.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[KDawg]

Just now, Skinsinparadise said:

As for Stafford some said he was not a winner and his record with the Lions was very relevant because they just weren’t winning.

 

I pushed him. He is talented. Big numbers .Said give him a better team.   Plus he is super clutch. And that matters.

 

We saw the clutch gene again just now. And shocker he’s now a winner. 
 

Why I am I making this point?  While I think Derek Carr is a half a peg below Stafford, there are some similarities to me. 
 

The Raiders put the team on Carr’s back just like the Lions did. And Carr puts up big numbers and is also super clutch.

 

Carr would be great. I doubt he's available. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

 

Carr would be great. I doubt he's available. 

 

Agree. I actually think there is a better shot at Wilson because at least I bet he could be available.

 

I bring up Carr because some of the posts about him (not from you) remind me a lot of the posts trashing the idea of trading for Stafford last year.  And ironically I find some strong parallels between Carr and Stafford.

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Agree. I actually think there is a better shot at Wilson because at least I bet he could be available.

 

I bring up Carr because some of the posts about him (not from you) remind me a lot of the posts trashing the idea of trading for Stafford last year.  And ironically I find some strong parallels between Carr and Stafford.

 

I don't understand alot of the trashing of these guys around here.

 

I've seen people saying they wouldn't want Carr, Rodgers, Wilson.

 

I can't even wrap my head around it.

[Warhead36]

8 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

I don't understand alot of the trashing of these guys around here.

 

I've seen people saying they wouldn't want Carr, Rodgers, Wilson.

 

I can't even wrap my head around it.

Our fan base is full of idiots. 

[KDawg]

Derek Carr? Aaron Rodgers? Russell Wilson? No thanks. I’ll take Marcus Mariota by choice. The receiver we take that will inevitably play a week or two before getting injured is more important than a top 10 QB.

 

To be fair, anyone who is saying Mariota, Trubisky, Bridgewater because they don’t think the other guys are attainable… I get you and that completely.

 

But there are people here that legit would rather roll with Heinicke or those types of options than acquire a top 10 guy. 
 

Amazing.

[Skinsinparadise]

16 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

I don't understand alot of the trashing of these guys around here.

 

I've seen people saying they wouldn't want Carr, Rodgers, Wilson.

 

I can't even wrap my head around it.

 

Agree.  Feels like there is some parallel universe cooking that I'm missing on this front.  😀

 

To me and clearly some others here, we've been in the desert.  We've barely even had water to drink let alone name that high end beverage, lets say champagne.

 

To some others it seems like we have plenty of reasons to be picky.  Champagne?  Will it depends on what brand otherwise "meh".

 

The way I see it and some others too we are the joke of the NFL for the last 30 years at the QB spot.  We aren't in the mode of being picky.  We are lucky to even get a date with someone who has any appeal let alone be picky about whether its the best Sports Illustrated model or not.  

Edited January 24, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[mhd24]

5 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Derek Carr? Aaron Rodgers? Russell Wilson? No thanks. I’ll take Marcus Mariota by choice. The receiver we take that will inevitably play a week or two before getting injured is more important than a top 10 QB.

 

To be fair, anyone who is saying Mariota, Trubisky, Bridgewater because they don’t think the other guys are attainable… I get you and that completely.

 

But there are people here that legit would rather roll with Heinicke or those types of options than acquire a top 10 guy. 
 

Amazing.

I don't think any of those three are attainable.  Of course. I'd want one of those three, but I don't think it is realistic.  Why would a new regime in Vegas trade Carr?  Carroll, at 70, isn't trading. away his one shot at competitiveness.  Rodgers has better options elsewhere.  

 

It HAS to be draft if we want a QB.

[Skinsinparadise]

6 minutes ago, mhd24 said:

I don't think any of those three are attainable.  Of course. I'd want one of those three, but I don't think it is realistic.  Why would a new regime in Vegas trade Carr?  Carroll, at 70, isn't trading. away his one shot at competitiveness.  Rodgers has better options elsewhere.  

 

It HAS to be draft if we want a QB.

 

You miss every shot you don't take.

 

I think its likely the draft too.  But by all indications they are going to swing for some of these guys.    Carr likely doesn't get traded.  Wilson already said he wants to consider options.  i think there is at least shot he gets traded.  

 

Keim is paranoid about getting things wrong, so he's rarely wrong, here he says we will take a shot.  They likely swing and miss.  But I applaud the swing. 

 

 

 

 

[KDawg]

13 minutes ago, mhd24 said:

I don't think any of those three are attainable.  Of course. I'd want one of those three, but I don't think it is realistic.  Why would a new regime in Vegas trade Carr?  Carroll, at 70, isn't trading. away his one shot at competitiveness.  Rodgers has better options elsewhere.  

 

It HAS to be draft if we want a QB.

I don’t think they will be either. But that’s entirely different than saying, “give me Heinicke over them! We’ll get a QB next year!

 

Then next year comes, “Hey we got Heinicke, shore up X position! We’ll get a QB next year”

 

rinse and repeat while we cycle Josh Johnson and Taylor Heinicke in and out of the QB lineup.

[Zim489]

Carr is slightly above Kirk. Costs too much and not great. Will end up hamstringing your team for the following 4-5 years

 

thats worse than having a bad QB

[mhd24]

7 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I don’t think they will be either. But that’s entirely different than saying, “give me Heinicke over them! We’ll get a QB next year!

 

Then next year comes, “Hey we got Heinicke, shore up X position! We’ll get a QB next year”

 

rinse and repeat while we cycle Josh Johnson and Taylor Heinicke in and out of the QB lineup.

Oh yeah, you are 100% right.  We must upgrade at QB this off-season (via either a legit vet and/or high pick).  Heineke being anywhere near playing is a recipe for disaster.  Frankly, I don't think he's better than a  QB3 type tbh.  He was 2nd in the NFL in turnover worthy plays.

[redskin301]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

As for Stafford some said he was not a winner and his record with the Lions was very relevant because they just weren’t winning.

 

I pushed him. He is talented. Big numbers .Said give him a better team.   Plus he is super clutch. And that matters.

 

We saw the clutch gene again just now. And shocker he’s now a winner. 
 

Why I am I making this point?  While I think Derek Carr is a half a peg below Stafford, there are some similarities to me. 
 

The Raiders put the team on Carr’s back just like the Lions did. And Carr puts up big numbers and is also super clutch.

Yeah but why would the raiders want to move on from Carr 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 minutes ago, redskin301 said:

Yeah but why would the raiders want to move on from Carr 

 

I hear you.  I gave plenty of context to my point including to your question.  I am too lazy to repeat myself on it in the middle of the playoff game. 

[kingdaddy]

If Ron calls his old buddy Sean McDermott and SM endorses Trubisky as a talented QB who really grasped the offense in Buffalo, has a good attitude and is worth investing in then I see RR going after Trubisky IF nothing bigger develops. That would be step one. Then, I think we go best available in round one of the draft and either trade into the back of round one or more likely grab a QB who falls with our 2nd round pick. We roll with something like Heinicke, Trubisky and the rookie. Allen moves on. 1st round pick is a playmaker that can start right away on either side of the ball. 

If this plan falls short again we sell out for a rookie QB in 2023 draft. 

[mistertim]

31 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

If Ron calls his old buddy Sean McDermott and SM endorses Trubisky as a talented QB who really grasped the offense in Buffalo, has a good attitude and is worth investing in then I see RR going after Trubisky IF nothing bigger develops. That would be step one. Then, I think we go best available in round one of the draft and either trade into the back of round one or more likely grab a QB who falls with our 2nd round pick. We roll with something like Heinicke, Trubisky and the rookie. Allen moves on. 1st round pick is a playmaker that can start right away on either side of the ball. 

If this plan falls short again we sell out for a rookie QB in 2023 draft. 

 

I don't get why some people seem to have this persistent aversion to taking a QB high in the 1st for some reason. Why all the talk about picking up a guy who falls to the 2nd or trying to trade back into the 1st for a guy who slipped? Why not figure out who our guy is in the draft and go get him early in the 1st round? At this point the positional value and importance of QB for this team trumps any sort of "BPA" philosopy. QB is our BPA. Nothing else matters until we hit on that.

[MrJL]

1 minute ago, mistertim said:

 

I don't get why some people seem to have this persistent aversion to taking a QB high in the 1st for some reason. Why all the talk about picking up a guy who falls to the 2nd or trying to trade back into the 1st for a guy who slipped? Why not figure out who our guy is in the draft and go get him early in the 1st round? At this point the positional value and importance of QB for this team trumps any sort of "BPA" philosopy. QB is our BPA. Nothing else matters until we hit on that.

 

because we don't believe the risk is worth the reward, especially this year

[Zim489]

5 minutes ago, MrJL said:

 

because we don't believe the risk is worth the reward, especially this year

Well Ron isnt afforded that luxury 

[Riggodrill44]

12 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

The problem with getting Jimmy G rather than a Trubisky or Mariota is that if we give up a 2nd round pick as well as likely give him a big new contract then there's almost no way they're going to be bringing him in purely as a bridge QB to a rookie. So we'll have to suffer through years of being a ho-hum boring team that is decent but never really has a chance to be true contenders. Then we have to start all over again from scratch.

 

 

We're back to trying to judge longer term trends by one game, I see.

 

The Packers are in the mix for a ring every single year. The reason is they have an elite QB. The Bengals have gone from bottom dwellers to a top team. The reason is they found an elite QB. The Bills have gone from a perennialy mediocre team to a powerhouse. The reason is they found an elite QB. Cardinals have done the same. The reason? Elite QB.

 

Just because the Packers lost doesn't suddenly negate the fact that nowadays in order to be a contender year in and year out you need to have a franchise QB.

In the hunt every year? 
 

So, where are all the rings? All I know is Jimmy G is going to play for the right to go to ANOTHER Super Bowl. He is far away from any kind of franchise QB.

[Enforcer_FFX]

Even IF Carr were to be available, the Raiders owner was upset he had to fire Gruden due to emails from the WFT investigation. Doubtful he would do business here.

[FootballZombie]

7 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I don't get why some people seem to have this persistent aversion to taking a QB high in the 1st for some reason. Why all the talk about picking up a guy who falls to the 2nd or trying to trade back into the 1st for a guy who slipped?

 

If you don't see a specific guy worth anywhere near pick 11, then taking that guy at 11 is a bad move even if its a QB. Especially if you see him as a 2nd round talent

[HigSkin]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

You miss every shot you don't take.

 

I think its likely the draft too.  But by all indications they are going to swing for some of these guys.    Carr likely doesn't get traded.  Wilson already said he wants to consider options.  i think there is at least shot he gets traded.  

 

Keim is paranoid about getting things wrong, so he's rarely wrong, here he says we will take a shot.  They likely swing and miss.  But I applaud the swing. 

 

 

 

 

Ref Keims post, I want to see them do more than just try, throw their hat in the ring or inquire with Wilson.  If he is available and we lose out, I want to hear we threw a crap load of picks/options at Seattle and tried to sell the heck out of Washington to him.  I'll be satisfied knowing they got super aggressive and not conservative and stubborn. 🙂

 

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2022 by HigSkin

[mistertim]

22 minutes ago, MrJL said:

 

because we don't believe the risk is worth the reward, especially this year

 

So the answer is Heinicke or to (statistically speaking) throw away a later pick on a hope and a prayer QB? Or Jimmy G? Trubisky?

 

The problem with the risk/reward equation with those options is that there's almost certain to be zero reward. So low risk with little to no reward, or high risk potentially high reward? I'm in the latter camp.

 

16 minutes ago, Riggodrill44 said:

In the hunt every year? 
 

So, where are all the rings? All I know is Jimmy G is going to play for the right to go to ANOTHER Super Bowl. He is far away from any kind of franchise QB.

 

Yes, every year the Packers are a threat to go all the way. Take a look at their record since Rodgers has been starting. Since his second year starting they've won less than 10 games once and have missed the playoffs once. In 12 years they've missed the playoffs one time. How do you get to the Super Bowl and win it? Well, you start by getting into the playoffs.

 

The more seasons you're in the playoffs the more chances you have to get all the way. Whether or not you do get all the way certainly has a separate conversation and possible reasons. But it's just a simple logical fact that the more often you're in the playoff race, the more chances you have.

 

Now compare the Packer's record over the last 12 years with the Niners records over the past 12 years. With that data over the long run would you be putting bets on the Niners or the Packers? If you said Niners I have a bridge for sale.

 

Jimmy G is riding the coattails of the rest of the team into the NFC championship game. He did pretty much nothing to get them there so far.

 

15 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

 

If you don't see a specific guy worth anywhere near pick 11, then taking that guy at 11 is a bad move even if its a QB. Especially if you see him as a 2nd round talent

 

I find it really hard to believe that the WFT coaches and scouts have literally zero QBs from this year's crop graded as 1st round talents. If you're in the hunt for a QB and have a QB with a 1st round grade you don't play games and try to get cute; you take him wherever you can in the 1st. 

Edited January 24, 2022 by mistertim

[SoCalSkins]

Overpay whatever it takes for Aaron Rodgers. Reigning NFL MVP available first time ever. It’s a no brainer. 

[zCommander]