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

[JamesMadisonSkins]

19 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Talented sure. Crazy sure! 

 

I'm surprised he's not mentioned more too though.

 

Looking at the two paths to a Super Bowl level team (and let's throw in the 49ers for this example too).

 

Rams - all-in, window maybe 2-3 years before they'll have to recycle talent. QB is good for a 4-6 year run but in terms of being an annual SB contender, it's a little more "gray"

 

Bengals - built through the draft. Tons of cap space and a full allottment of draft picks going forward, Burrow and Chase tandem on rookie contracts. Not only are they in a "perfect" short-term situation with their window of opportunity, but they're also set for 10-15 years.

 

49ers - Stopgap QB took them *almost* to the promised land. Have a pretty stacked roster, have a window to compete now and should have cap flexibility with Lance on a rookie deal. TBD on the abilities of Lance, but presumably he's the guy to take them the "next step" ... they gave up the draft capital to get him so their hands are tied for a couple of years in the draft, but they should be in a good cap position AND have a pretty stacked team.

 

I feel like we're more like the 49ers than anyone else from an existing roster standpoint. If we go the "rams" route of QB acquisition, we are probably less handicapped in terms of cap space going forward since we didn't go all-in on expensive vets. As for the Bengals, Of course, there is no Joe Burrow in this draft. There's also likely not a Trey Lance. But our roster is more 49ers than Bengals before we decide what to do at QB. So I do think going for a stop-gap option to try to get to that 10-11 win season next year while drafting a QB would be the most PRUDENT way to build a short-term and long-term window.

 

I throw all of this out the window if we could get Watson for 3 1sts or something like that. Definitely ties our hands in terms of cap, but we enter into the window of SB contender pretty quickly. Difference between this and Rams path is Watson presumably has another 7-8 years of career longevity over Stafford. So while our immediate Super Bowl window might start and be for the next 3 years, I think we'd be a perennial threat over most of Watson's remaining career.

 

I've made clear my preferred path. Sign Winston or Mariota to a 1 year deal. Hope your guy falls to #11. Draft him at #11 if he falls. If he doesn't, do everything in your power to get 2023 draft capital. Trade off #11, get a 2023 1st, and use the 1st/2nd/3rd/3rd this year to load up on offense, and the remaining FA money to load up on defense.

Edited February 1, 2022 by JamesMadisonSkins

[Est.1974]

Raiders aren’t committed to Carr just yet.

 

3 first for Wilson represents a massive risk. To think we are going to land the answer in the draft is a massive risk by sitting at #11. That’s the tough spot we are in. We may have to trade up for our QB1.

 

Needs must, unless Rivera plays safe with the ‘bridge’ QB approach with the addition of a later QB. I don’t see that appeasing anyone though.

[JamesMadisonSkins]

I feel pretty confident that with a full season of average QB play and our SOS next season, if our defense can take that next step (assuming we add talent in FA or draft) and our weapons on offense are moderately healthy (and we add through the draft as well) ... that this can easily be a 9, 10, 11 win wildcard team. Could we make a run like SF and get nearly to the Super Bowl with a dominant defense? We saw flashes in 2020, and many of us said we were most like the 49ers in 2020/2021.

 

I'm not trying to make it seem like 9-11 wins is a sure-thing. But our roster is build to allow that with average QB play. I am more concerned with the long-term.

 

Give me Winston+Corral + $40 million in cap space and all of our additional draft capital all day long. I'll feel pretty good about our prospects of being a WC team in 2022, and beyond that it'll likely depend on what we see/hear/get from Corral beyond 2022.

[KDawg]

4 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

I feel pretty confident that with a full season of average QB play and our SOS next season, if our defense can take that next step (assuming we add talent in FA or draft) and our weapons on offense are moderately healthy (and we add through the draft as well) ... that this can easily be a 9, 10, 11 win wildcard team. Could we make a run like SF and get nearly to the Super Bowl with a dominant defense? We saw flashes in 2020, and many of us said we were most like the 49ers in 2020/2021.

 

I'm not trying to make it seem like 9-11 wins is a sure-thing. But our roster is build to allow that with average QB play. I am more concerned with the long-term.

 

Give me Winston+Corral + $40 million in cap space and all of our additional draft capital all day long. I'll feel pretty good about our prospects of being a WC team in 2022, and beyond that it'll likely depend on what we see/hear/get from Corral beyond 2022.

Winston + Corral isn’t a bad group by any means. There’s also no guarantee we can even get Corral at 11.

 

I’m still not a believer that QBs don’t start going before our pick. Right now I believe at least 2 will be off the board when we are picking at 11.

 

I think Corral is one of those two. 
 

Failing to get one of the top 3-4 QBs… we have an 8 win team, middle of the first pick and still no long term QB answer in the pipeline and no easy path to get to one in the draft, either.

 

It will not be an easy task to get to the QBs in ‘23.

Edited February 1, 2022 by KDawg

[rumplestilskin]

8 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Winston + Corral isn’t a bad group by any means. There’s also no guarantee we can even get Corral at 11.

 

I’m still not a believer that QBs don’t start going before our pick. Right now I believe at least 2 will be off the board when we are picking at 11.

 

I think Corral is one of those two. 

I agree with this line of thinking. If you wait until a player reaches your pick it means you arent 100% sold on that player. Thats not really a plan that instills confidence. If we would pick the best QB that drops to us, that means none of them were really what we wanted in the first place. If you like a guy and are sold you got to go get him.

Edited February 1, 2022 by rumplestilskin

[JamesMadisonSkins]

12 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Failing to get one of the top 3-4 QBs… we have an 8 win team, middle of the first pick and still no long term QB answer in the pipeline and no easy path to get to one in the draft, either.

 

It will not be an easy task to get to the QBs in ‘23.

 

I suspect you're right re: QBs. I think we'll at least get the 3rd. I think Rodgers goes to Denver, which pulls them out of the competition and leaves us, basically, Carolina. I think Carolina goes QB. I personally prefer Howell and Corral. I also think Pickett could be "the guy" but the hands make me a bit nervous. Willis seems electric but idk, I haven't studied him at all.

 

BUT, I have a pretty strong feeling only 2 of those max are gone before we pick at #11. Now ... Ron and Company likely have some favorites, so will they sit back and let others dictate who they get? Idk. Last year proved that they were willing to sit back and let the draft come to them. Maybe with Winston or someone similar in the fold, they don't feel they HAVE to go up. But if the guy they like is there at #11 they snag him. If he's not, they hopefully trade down and accumulate draft capital.

 

I guess the worst case scenario in my mind is we end up with Winston, a 2nd round QB, and no additional 2023 draft capital. That's probably the worst-case scenario in my book because it gives you pretty limited long-term upside, and as you mentioned, your 2023 pick is unlikely to be high enough to get "the" QB. And truthfully, if the 1-2-3 picks are owned by teams needing a QB, it'll be tough to get up that high even with 2 #1s

 

BUT, I will absolutely say ... if we have a "the guy" in this draft we gotta go get him. If this staff thinks Matt Corral is the next (insert young stud QB here) then you make the move. You give up the picks. I don't care.

 

We'll have a veteran in the fold ahead of the draft simply out of insurance, so I don't think the trade needs to be pre-draft. I think you see how picks 1-3 go ... which right now doesn't look like a QB is in play ... and as soon as the Jets are on the clock at #4 you're offering them what it takes to move up.

You still get your guy, you still have the veteran as insurance to both start the season and prevent you from Having to trade up higher than #4 pre-draft ... and you have tons of cap flexibility going forward.

 

--------------

 

Reading the tea-leaves so far this off-season, we seem to be leaning much more heavily toward the veteran market than the draft class. And because of that, my sense is we aren't trading up to get any QB. And we likely aren't taking one at #11 unless it's someone we really do like that falls. I'm sure there's a gray area between "we think he's Joe Burrow we have to go get him" and "there are a couple options in the draft we think could develop but it's not our preference to get one" ... and I think we're in the second camp right now. And that might mean they look to 2023 and see Bryce Young and others and are a bit more intrigued by what could come and try to get to the plyoffs in 2022 to get to 2023 to make the splash. Idk.

 

If we swing and miss on Watson or Wilson, and we settle for a Plan B, then we gotta make a move one way or another. Either to draft a guy at #11 (again, assuming we don't LOVE someone, which, reading the room doesn't seem to be the case right now), or we trade back for 2023 draft capital so we can be aggerssive in the future.

Edited February 1, 2022 by JamesMadisonSkins

[KDawg]

8 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

 

 

Reading the tea-leaves so far this off-season, we seem to be leaning much more heavily toward the veteran market than the draft class. And because of that, my sense is we aren't trading up to get any QB. And we likely aren't taking one at #11 unless it's someone we really do like that falls. I'm sure there's a gray area between "we think he's Joe Burrow we have to go get him" and "there are a couple options in the draft we think could develop but it's not our preference to get one" ... and I think we're in the second camp right now. And that might mean they look to 2023 and see Bryce Young and others and are a bit more intrigued by what could come and try to get to the plyoffs in 2022 to get to 2023 to make the splash. Idk.

 

If we swing and miss on Watson or Wilson, and we settle for a Plan B, then we gotta make a move one way or another. Either to draft a guy at #11 (again, assuming we don't LOVE someone, which, reading the room doesn't seem to be the case right now), or we trade back for 2023 draft capital so we can be aggerssive in the future.

 

This is a lethal blow.

 

We have done this before.

 

2019 we draft Haskins.

 

2020: We have a QB.

 

2021: We have Fitz, get a QB next year.

 

2022: We can get a stop gap guy and draft one next year.

 

2023: Not high enough and can't trade up, get a QB next year* (prediction)

[Redskins 2021]

Tom Brady done officaly that puts 9 teams who may be looking for a QB.

[JamesMadisonSkins]

@KDawg it's a dangerous, vicious cycle. BUT, I wouldn't let the QB at Pick #11 prevent us from getting a QB next year if we have a guy we really want. In 2020 I was in the camp of "you have to draft Chase" ... if we were in a similar position next year with an unknown at QB, I'd be way more open to going QB again.

[Going Commando]

50 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

Serious question… how good is Russell Wilson at this point? Is he an upgrade over Heinicke? Certainly, no question. But is his performance advantage worth multiple first round picks? He’ll turn 34 next season. Is he a good enough quarterback and is the team good enough that you feel like adding him this offseason gives us a legit shot to win a Super Bowl in the next two years? If the answer isn’t a resounding “yes” then I don’t think you can justify pulling the trigger on it. Not that the price Seattle is going to require. 

 

I guess I need to watch him from this year, and I'm aware that he fell off hard at the end of last season, but he's a HoF bound QB.  He'd be a revelation here, and make us legit super bowl contenders IMO.

 

QB levels of play are so variable.  There was a point this season where Kirk and Tannehill were playing the best football at the position league wide.  And a point where Mahomes looked pretty rough.  I have no doubt that Russ is capable of coming here and looking absolutely elite.  Players of his quality are good bets to hit that level of play.  My reservations are mainly about his cost.  Three first round picks is crippling.  That's not what the Rams just gave up for their QB.  It's not what Tampa Bay gave up the year before.  Your teambuilding work isn't done after getting a stud QB, and he's not going to play like a stud if the team around him is deeply flawed.  We're not the type of team that has frequently plucked good starters from the draft outside of the first, much less championship caliber stars like Fred Warners and Deebo Samuels.  We've needed our first round picks to find almost every single one of our good players.  Either that or FA dollars, and I feel like we're crippling ourselves if we lose both our cap space and our near window firsts to address QB.

 

We need to make some moves that produce massive amounts of extra value against what you'd expect from the team building resource spent.  I love Russ, but if the price is three firsts, that just feels too rich for me.

[KDawg]

Just now, Redskins 2021 said:

Tom Brady done officaly that puts 9 teams who may be looking for a QB.

 

Steelers, Saints, Commanders, Bucs, Titans, Broncos, Panthers, Colts

 

Could be in the mix: Atlanta, Detroit, Giants, Vikings

 

Could trade themselves into the mix: Seattle, Vegas, Packers

2 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

@KDawg it's a dangerous, vicious cycle. BUT, I wouldn't let the QB at Pick #11 prevent us from getting a QB next year if we have a guy we really want. In 2020 I was in the camp of "you have to draft Chase" ... if we were in a similar position next year with an unknown at QB, I'd be way more open to going QB again.

 

No, it shouldn't stop us. But if we are just good enough to be a playoff team or close.... we won't have the chance at getting a top guy next year. So it's the same boat. It's an unacceptable cycle.

 

Get a guy at 11 or trade up. Stop playing games.

[Redskins 2021]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

 

Steelers, Saints, Commanders, Bucs, Titans, Broncos, Panthers, Colts

 

Could be in the mix: Atlanta, Detroit, Giants, Vikings

 

Could trade themselves into the mix: Seattle, Vegas, Packers

That alot of teams it's going to be expensive to get a qb.

[Est.1974]

If we aren’t going all in for a vet, or are unsuccessful, I would prefer to see us swing a trade to jump up to the top of the draft. Sitting at 11 means you are just accepting QB3 probably. 
 

Not much conviction in that kind of approach.

[CTskin]

I’m sick of stop gap QBs and those who keep us around .500. Mediocrity will get us nowhere.

 

jimmy g, Carr, jameis will not elevate this team to anything special. Maybe we’ll end up barely on the plus side of .500, but that’s not making it move for me. Either shoot for the stars or shoot for the floor.

 

would love Watson, but that can’t happen. Would love Wilson, but we feel like a longshot in that sweepstakes.

 

I’ve done a complete 180 and am all about Mitch. I believe there’s a minimal chance that his reclamation project works- awesome if it does, great if it doesn’t because then we should have a high pick in a better qb class.

[JamesMadisonSkins]

6 minutes ago, KDawg said:

No, it shouldn't stop us. But if we are just good enough to be a playoff team or close.... we won't have the chance at getting a top guy next year. So it's the same boat. It's an unacceptable cycle.

 

Get a guy at 11 or trade up. Stop playing games.

 

Yeah, this is why I said the worst scenario would be to NOT draft a QB at #11 and NOT trade back for 2023 picks. If we had a pair of #1s in 2023, even if mid to late round picks, we'd be in a better position than if we just had our own 1st. But even then, it would be tough to crack into the Top 3 or 5 if those teams need QBs.

 

If we end up with our own pick at, say, #22 ... and had a Steelers 1st in 2023 at pick #18 ... we could offer those picks and a 2024 1st to move into the Top 5. But that's far from a guarantee. I kind of agree ... go get the veteran and if you fail, get a stopback Plan B, and use #11 to get a QB (by trading up or getting your guy there)

3 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

If we aren’t going all in for a vet, or are unsuccessful, I would prefer to see us swing a trade to jump up to the top of the draft. Sitting at 11 means you are just accepting QB3 probably. 
 

Not much conviction in that kind of approach.

 

We probably can't go up too high until the draft though. It will be tough to get to Pick 1-2-3 to get a QB, and even then pre-draft someone can leapfrog you. So I think we have to get the veteran stopgap no matter what in FA, and try to trade to #4 to get QB1 (or higher if someone is willing to trade) on draft day. But there's more unknowns there, hence needing the Winston/Mariota type to be the Week 1 plan at QB no matter what happens on draft day.

 

The Jets at #4 are the pick I have circled right now as most likely trade-up spot to get the QB1

Edited February 1, 2022 by JamesMadisonSkins

[Redskins 2021]

6 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

 

Yeah, this is why I said the worst scenario would be to NOT draft a QB at #11 and NOT trade back for 2023 picks. If we had a pair of #1s in 2023, even if mid to late round picks, we'd be in a better position than if we just had our own 1st. But even then, it would be tough to crack into the Top 3 or 5 if those teams need QBs.

 

If we end up with our own pick at, say, #22 ... and had a Steelers 1st in 2023 at pick #18 ... we could offer those picks and a 2024 1st to move into the Top 5. But that's far from a guarantee. I kind of agree ... go get the veteran and if you fail, get a stopback Plan B, and use #11 to get a QB (by trading up or getting your guy there)

I like the idea but anyone who needs a Qb or could potentially be bad will probably not want to deal next years pick.

Also, from looking at radiers board there is a belief that the radiers are very interested in Russel Wilson as are we.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Redskins 2021

[Est.1974]

3 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

 

We probably can't go up too high until the draft though. It will be tough to get to Pick 1-2-3

 

Can’t or won’t ?
 

Bottom line is that it will be tough to get a QB period. It is going to cost significantly more than any of us feel reasonable. That’s the hand Rivera chose to play.

[Going Commando]

Just now, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

If we aren’t going all in for a vet, or are unsuccessful, I would prefer to see us swing a trade to jump up to the top of the draft. Sitting at 11 means you are just accepting QB3 probably. 
 

Not much conviction in that kind of approach.

 

Not in this draft.  It just doesn't have good enough QB prospects for multiple guys to go top ten.  And conversely it does have the defensive and OL talent at the top to get teams to pass on QB.  My guess is Carolina is the only team who picks a QB in front of us and we're picking from QB 2 at 11.  And there is also very little consensus on who QB 1 is, so we can get our QB 1 even if someone else drafts a QB in front of us.

 

Another factor to consider is the draft has unusually good QB 4-6 prospects who are likely to be on the board at the end of the first and beginning of the second, and very little QB demand from the teams picking after Pittsburgh in the first.  That takes the pressure off of teams shopping for QBs at the top of the draft, us included.  The result of all of this is that I could see three QBs getting picked in a range of like 9-20 but almost none before or after that in the first round.  We're going to have good options at the position in both the first and second round.  We don't need to trade up from 11.

[Redskins 2021]

2 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

 

Can’t or won’t ?
 

Bottom line is that it will be tough to get a QB period. It is going to cost significantly more than any of us feel reasonable. That’s the hand Rivera chose to play.

I think we could easily get to 2. I would not trade up but 11 and Sweat for 2 would move us up.

 The lions or texans would be nuts not taking that Sweat as good or close to as good as the two defensive ends available in this draft and you get another impact player at 11. To make that deal the Qb you think can change this team for next ten years better be there.

[JamesMadisonSkins]

5 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

 

Can’t or won’t ?
 

Bottom line is that it will be tough to get a QB period. It is going to cost significantly more than any of us feel reasonable. That’s the hand Rivera chose to play.

 

I would say "cant" simply because you don't have any guarantees unless you get to #1 and I can't see that happening.

 

I did a FanSpeak where I offered #11 and a 2023 1st to the Jets for #4 and got QB1 Pickett and paired him with WR Metchie from Bama in the 2nd. But we likely have to give up 1+2+1 to get up that high unless we threw in someone like Payne instead of the 2nd round pick (or instead of the future 1st)

[Koolblue13]

There is no reason to trade up for a QB in this draft. Heck, it's not even a sure bet that we pick one at 11. These QBs aren't remotely as good as the other prospects that will be available. Wouldn't shock me to see the first QB go to Pittsburg.

[Est.1974]

8 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Not in this draft.  It just doesn't have good enough QB prospects for multiple guys to go top ten.  And conversely it does have the defensive and OL talent at the top to get teams to pass on QB.  My guess is Carolina is the only team who picks a QB in front of us and we're picking from QB 2 at 11.  And there is also very little consensus on who QB 1 is, so we can get our QB 1 even if someone else drafts a QB in front of us.

I feel like this discussion arises most offseason pre draft. I’m admittedly no expert so rely on this board to look into prospects. But I fail to see how we can sit at #11 at be confident in getting QB2. I can personally Atlanta looking at a QB to sit behind Ryan for one season for example. Half the league has a potential opening at QB. 

 

Rivera is very brave sit tight to go down that route for the second draft running. 

[KDawg]

3 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

There is no reason to trade up for a QB in this draft. Heck, it's not even a sure bet that we pick one at 11. These QBs aren't remotely as good as the other prospects that will be available. Wouldn't shock me to see the first QB go to Pittsburg.

 

Hope you're ready for the Jimmy G and Heinicke show.

[Est.1974]

13 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

 

I would say "cant" simply because you don't have any guarantees unless you get to #1 and I can't see that happening.

The 49ers traded up to #3 a full month before the draft. Miami then preceded to to trade back up to #6 the same day. Again, a month before the draft. They both got their guys I believe.

 

I know there is always uncertainty, however I think within league circles most teams know who is going in what direction long before the draft. Especially top 10.

[JamesMadisonSkins]

1 minute ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

The 49ers traded up to #3 a full month before the draft. Miami then preceded to to trade back up to #6 the same day. Again, a month before the draft. They both got their guys I believe.

 

I know there is always uncertainty, however I think within league circles most teams know who is going in what direction long before the draft. Especially top 10.

 

I get that, but they also had less control. For them, 1-2 looked like a lock because the Jags and Jets needed to go QB and SF knew they were going to get at worst, QB3. In this draft, I don't see there being a situation where we go to #3 and feel "good" we can get our guy. Picks #1 and #2 are far from locks, and there's nothing to prevent, say, Carolina from offering #6 and future picks to the Jags or Lions for #1 or #2 to get "their guy" which leaves us with QB2. QB2 might be our QB1 internally, but there's no guarantee.