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

[MrJL]

26 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Maybe. But it also wouldn't surprise me if Ron took the job knowing that he had a first round QB that was taken just one year earlier who by all accounts was considered talented, but very raw.  It is hard to give up on a first rounder sight unseen who's only had about half a season worth of games under his belt and actually did flash a little towards the end.

 

I remember most of ES was convinced that Haskins would wind up being the better QB between him and Daniel Jones (not that that wound up meaning all that much).

 

hell Haskins is still in the league he could be the Steelers QB next year

[The Consigliere]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Apples to oranges.  Clausen was a mid 2nd round pick.  That would be like saying we can't take a QB in 2023 because we took Ridder in the mid 2nd.  

 

The Cardinals had the first pick in the draft in 2019.  Murray looked like a can't miss prospect.  Rosen got off to a rough start including with questions about his work ethic.

 

Ironically its come out that they would have taken Burrow if they had the first pick in the draft.  I gather they talked Dan into that.  So apples to apples to the Cardinals they would have done exactly the same thing that you are criticizing them for not doing. Apparently they weren't high enough on Herbert to go through the trouble of convincing Dan to let go of his guy.

 

They only reason why I give you a hard time about Rosen has nothing to do about you getting it wrong with him but because of reminding you how emotionally you sold your point about him and did so with total convinction where anyone who sees things different is wildly wrong.   Like its binary cut and dry decision with no nuance or context that matters to the discussion. 

 

You are doing it here again IMO emotionally.  It's hard for me to believe that as a fan for this team for this long that you think its a piece of cake for a new coach to talk Dan into discarding his QB right from the jump.    Heck the last teacher's pet Qb that Dan had, RG3, Jay couldn't even talk Dan out of keeping him on the bench in 2014 after coming back from his injury that season -- that's 2 years deep into bad play from RG3 and Dan's still hanging on.  And you think Ron can get Dan to move on from Haskins from the jump just like that?

 

 

Don't know.  Just know they wanted a ton of picks and at least one major player.  I gather if they thought that Fields was Burrow level good, they'd have pulled the trigger.  I like Fields better than most but he hasn't exactly lit the world on fire his rookie season -- so the outrage about this is a bit premature, lets see how it plays out.  A Bears client of mine would laugh at this discussion, he already thinks Fields is a bust.  I don't think he will bust.  i like Fields but I am reserved on the idea that they missed out on a lifetime opportunity and there was no price too big for him.  Will see.

 

Too bad they couldn't trade within the NFC East with the Giants but apparently Mara and Dan hate each other.

 

 

Much of what you mentioned happened before this regime.  Bruce Allen was a moron. 

 

As far as Rivera, he's basically screaming that this is a QB driven league.   He clearly gets it.  He swung for Fields, swung for Stafford and missed.  Based on reports, they would have had to signficantly outbid the Rams for Stafford to get him, I gather then three #1 picks because they wanted to send Stafford to where he wanted to go.

 

If it makes you feel better they seem willing to give up three 1's and change for name that top 10 QB.  You said they don't get the value of a QB.   The bigger concern with some here is do they have any limits right now as to what aren't they willing to pay.  They basically have a help wanted ad out right now saying we will outbid any team for a QB. 

Btw, the latter point, it didnt make me feel better. The Stafford move is fine for a team that's a player away, were we? I think this year showed we clearly weren't, and I am not a fan of trading a giant pile of picks for a QB in his mid-thirties with a bad back. That's a non-starter. I'm okay with going after the rare vet availability like Drew Brees nearly 20 years ago or Watson now, where you can buy the bulk of their prime, but when you're buying their likely decline? No thank you. Wilson, Rodgers and Stafford are all too old, and two of the three have a lot of injury dings on them that would have me "out". I'd rather try to nail a QB in the draft because a huge portion of the value in hitting on a QB is the rookie deal. If you have to trade away multiple firsts AND have to give up the huge contract there is little value in that if the player, on top of that, is old. It makes zero sense. We've literally done a discount version of that 4 times in the last 23 years and its literally NEVER worked. Brad worked for some, not for me, Boonell was a disaster, McNabb was even worse, and Alex Smith actually ruined our ability to land an elite QB through his heroics in one season, while derailing other season(s) with his injuries. I'm not a fan of that pretty much ever. I'm a draft and develop guy unless you can get a steal, Brees was a steal, Watson wouldn't be a steal but at this point he'd come at a reasonable discount, especially compared to his talent (top 8 QB in the league with top 3 upside). 

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[The Consigliere]

1 hour ago, Zim489 said:

If youre entering your season with John Beck and Rex Grossman as your QBs you know you need to tank. Start the worst QB all year

And get Andrew Luck. Yep, I'd double down on that. We were two flukey results away from having the 1.01 that year and all of this being irrelevant (especially since we built a better OL than the Colts did during that time period). 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 minute ago, The Consigliere said:

Btw, the latter point, it didnt make me feel better. The Stafford move is fine for a team that's a player away, were we? I think this year showed we clearly weren't, and I am not a fan of trading a giant pile of picks for a QB in his mid-thirties with a bad back. 

 

 

 he was 32 at the time of the trade soon to turn 33.  Not the mid 30s.  His durability for his carer was really good. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RWJ]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

We have a lot of competition that's for sure.  The Broncos have the ammo this year as far as picks are concerned.  We match up with them as far as cap space is concerned though.

[The Consigliere]

1 hour ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

I understand Hurney wasn't here before the 2020 draft, but just in terms of the discussion of whether we should have taken Herbert there- If you're a new regime, you have the number 2 pick and you feel Herbert is going to be anything near what he ultimately became and you don't chose him because you have Haskins, you are clueless. The only reasons for such a decision are because a) you are catering to Danny and his infatuation with a guy who went to the same HS as his son. In which case you were taking a job knowing the worst owner in sports was going to micromanage you; or b) you were so bad at judging QBs that you thought Haskins was an answer worthy of nullifying any other considerations. 

 

Either way it's a clear sign of a bad decision-making process.

 

Again, my guess is that they didn't think that highly of Herbert, which I didn't really either. Perfectly understandable. But in terms of the discussion above, not taking Herbert because Haskins was here is not any kind of worthy excuse. 

x1000. 

 

It's absolutely ridiculous they didn't go QB in 2020 and 2021. Absolutely ridiculous, and those of us in the know we're already screaming bloody murder for years that the drafts you couldn't go QB in were '19 and '22, and what do we do? 

 

It's just bad process, pure and simple. Hell, when the cowboys weren't sure about Aikman, they doubled down and took Steve Walsh in the supplemental. Suddenly we think we're set with Haskins after a year of already learning he's a last in first out clown? Beyond idiotic.

 

I understand going against the owner costs you your job but so what. How many people are hiring you after you took Herbert? What position is Snyder in if you take Herbert anyway and he does what he did in '20? The idea that there's some terrible risk here is kinda crazy to me. Work for a clown, and be tarred with his moronic picks, or go down w/your own? Seems pretty simple for me. Easy for me to say, I know, but still, life's too short, sometimes it really comes down to taking a stand, and what's the loss really, you get fired by Snyder? Big ----ing deal. Who cares? It will likely come out a god blessing to be canned by such an ---head. 

41 minutes ago, RWJ said:

People shouldn't get their hopes up for Wilson, Rodgers, Murray, Watson etc...  Just saying.  Let's hope RR doesn't go the Jimmy G and Carson W. route as well.  We need to stay far, far away from them.  Injuries and taking on contract money are the issues and even if they're released, I'd stay away from both of them.  

 

Reality is Trubisky/Winston, maybe Mariota FA vet and drafting a QB at #11.  That's reality.  If by some chance we get a team to agree to a mega deal with Wilson or Carr then we'd be fortunate and in a good place, but I think we can forget Rodgers, Murry and Watson for various reasons.  Google those reasons for those three.  

I'm not, I don't want any of them other than Watson, and I'd rather draft a QB than trade for Watson unless I can get him on a discount (like 2 firsts, for Watson and their #2 in '23). This team needs to find its own star QB, not trade the house for some AARP option for the fifth time in 20 years, expecting it to work out better than the other four failed trades worked. 

[RWJ]

6 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

I'm not, I don't want any of them other than Watson, and I'd rather draft a QB than trade for Watson unless I can get him on a discount (like 2 firsts, for Watson and their #2 in '23). This team needs to find its own star QB, not trade the house for some AARP option for the fifth time in 20 years, expecting it to work out better than the other four failed trades worked. 

With a salary cap it's had to keep a team together and in tack.  We had a D that is good and can probably keep together for another 3 - 4 years and our OL is relatively young and doing well.  I think we need to win now, and RR knows it. Give me a 33-year-old RW and I'd swing for the fences all day long.  Watson has so many issues he may not play for a long time depending on the outcome of the hearings.  We agree on process and that's we more than likely sign a FA QB and draft (we hope) a franchise QB at #11. 

[The Consigliere]

37 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Oooh. He bypassed a chance to get a Franchise QB and then won enough games to ensure he wouldn't have a chance to draft another one? Hooray for him then!

 

No doubt. What he did was great for building team chemistry and creating a great room, otoh, it also costs us any chance whatsoever we had to land a franchise changing QB, which is the only thing that matters. Chemistry and a great room is huge, no doubt, but all of that in the world is 100% irrelevant if your QB is a bionic Alex Smith, a Heinickie, or another bionic QB in Fitzmagic. 

 

So yes, it was lovely if you weren't paying attention to the long term cost of each win, but that franchise turn around killed us in the same way an extra win or 2 in '11 took us from Andrew Luck to RGIII. Were those two wins worth that cost? No chance, but many fans always say yes in the moment, because they can't cheer for the future, preferring immediate gratification, ignoring the fact that futures hang on moments like that. We lost out on Trever Lawrence and Just Fields and Mac Jones etc for a couple of extra wins and a 1 and done playoff exit, same with Andrew Luck. Green Bay lost Troy Aikman when they won a season finale in 1988 (and the freaking Cowboys got 3 Lombardi Trophies because of that one Packers victory in December of 1988), they were only saved from that mistake by the Falcons stupidity in trading Favre for peanuts (thank you Jerry Glanville). 

 

 

[VirginiaVibes]

22 minutes ago, RWJ said:

We have a lot of competition that's for sure.  The Broncos have the ammo this year as far as picks are concerned.  We match up with them as far as cap space is concerned though.

 

The Broncos have a lot more to offer. 

 

They have picks, they have cap space, they have two great WRs who are young, 6'4, and both locked up long term, they can trade someone like Jerry Jeudy and not suffer at all, and they have an RB who is predicted to be top 5 next season (and had 900 yards this season) plus they have a very very good TE in Fant

 

[The Consigliere]

22 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 he was 32 at the time of the trade soon to turn 33.  Not the mid 30s.  His durability for his carer was really good. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33 is mid thirties, and he's a guy with a bad back whose wife recovered from cancer, not saying this as any form of judgment, but if there's a player that could retire tomorrow a la Andrew Luck, it's definitely Matt Stafford, and especially Matt Stafford, Redskins QB, as opposed to Matt Stafford, Rams QB. Life is way too short to be playing for Daniel Snyder with a bad back when your wife is fighting or was fighting the cancer fight. Wouldn't shock me at all if we were successful in our offer, and he turned around and retired two years later, or one year later, or asked for a trade again especially after the hell year we just had. 

 

So, I was someone at the time, and 100% now, that was not in any way shape or form, in favor of trading for Stafford.

 

Just to give you an example of situations where I would consider it? If I'm the Rams, if I'm Tampa now, if I'm the Saints, if I'm Pittsburgh (Pitt is borderline since their OL has fallen apart) or Denver etc. Basically teams w/weapons and a chance to be competitive with a good FO, sure, go for it, a dumpster fire like the redskins? Hell no. There's a reason people leave here and become successful, but nobody actually comes here and becomes a part of something super successful. We're a bad organization. We've literally had what, 4 or 5 conference championship appearances and like 3 super bowl appearances from former staff guys who were here in the last ten years. We find talent, it just never sticks around, EVER, because you're not building anything here w/Snyder around, and our persistent incapability of solving the QB problem just compounds the problem. 

[The Consigliere]

13 minutes ago, RWJ said:

With a salary cap it's had to keep a team together and in tack.  We had a D that is good and can probably keep together for another 3 - 4 years and our OL is relatively young and doing well.  I think we need to win now, and RR knows it. Give me a 33-year-old RW and I'd swing for the fences all day long.  Watson has so many issues he may not play for a long time depending on the outcome of the hearings.  We agree on process and that's we more than likely sign a FA QB and draft (we hope) a franchise QB at #11. 

Yep, which is why you get the QB first along with his OL, rather than the DL. If you don't have the QB, you don't have anything. I don't think Wilson turns us into a Super Bowl Contender, I think he turns us into a 8-9 win team, instead of a 4-6 win team. Could be wrong though, and I'll toss this quite reasonable bone. 

 

The AFC is a nightmare, the NFC is wide open. There aren't many young franchise QB's whatsoever in the NFC, nearly all of them are in the AFC. The NFC has Dak, and Kyler, and then literally nothing else that's reasonably young and elite other than Fields if he hits. The AFC has Josh Allen, Mac Jones, Joe Burrow, Lamar Jackson, Watson for now, Trevor Lawrence, Herbert, and Mahomes, basically 8 of the 10 best QB's under 30. 

 

So yeah, there are probably short cuts available to sneak into getting the ---- kicked out of you in a super bowl in the NFC instead because there's only Kyler Murray, Dak, and Stafford in your way as elite QB's (and possibly Fields if he hits like I think he will), and Stafford probably retires in a year or two. I don't expect him to play as long as Brees, Brady, and Rodgers. 

 

I still wouldn't do it this way though. I'd trade DL assets and other pieces to rebuild around the '23 QB class, that's how I'd do it as GM, blow it up for a run at a top QB in '23, keep the OL (no trades there) but blow up everything else. But that's just me. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, The Consigliere said:

Clausen had a 1st round grade going into his final year in college so he had pedigree. His stock fell to 1st/2nd round turn pick. It's not apples and oranges to me as Clausen was basically a 1st rounder on body of work that fell to 2nd with an iffy final year (damn early 2nd as well), and Haskins was elevated due a 1 and done great single year at a flagship program beyond where he was graded (mid 2nd to early 3rd was what I heard earlier). 

 

 

He went in the mid 2nd.  Who cares that his stock fell.  Heck Matt Barkley was going top 5 in his junior year if he came out according to mocks.  

 

Haskins went top 15 and more on point he was the owner's pick.   Yes to me clear apples to oranges.

 

1 hour ago, The Consigliere said:

 

 

Now as for Rosen, it is kind of weird you say that because I didn't actually have Rosen #1 in that class, I ended up Baker as my #1 (you can tell by the fact that I took Baker on multiple Dynasty Superflex teams. Indeed I tend to flip flop over Darnold and Rosen, it was a struggle for me. I picked Lamar Jackson on one where he was inexplicably still available in the late 1st. I avoided Josh Allen except in an RSO league where he was still there in the early 3rd in a 10 team league (everyone hated him because of his lack of accuracy). It's not an emotional viewpoint.

 

 

When Rosen was on the trading block you went on and on about how we'd be fools not to trade for him.  And you said it in no uncertain terms as you often make your points about players.   It's hard to forget the posts.  Because plenty of people are opinionated and heck we can be over the top where some find it even a bit obnoxious -- certainly including me as for being over the top from time to time.  But no one comes off to me more consistently certain about their points on the draft-trades than you.   So the posts about Rosen among others are hard for me to forget.   I am not saying you shouldn't roll that way, to each their own, but if your premise is you got as you like to say the right process -- its fair game to say for someone else like me, maybe you do or maybe you don't.   

 

I don't buy that there is some absolute right process that works so across the board where you can box it into some sweeping way to evaulate all players.

 

1 hour ago, The Consigliere said:

 

 

Its pure logic. WIth the Dan, I'd just leave, I'd make the point, and if he was dead set on his guy, I'm out. You're working for a garbage organization and everyone league wide knows it, I very much doubt other teams would hold against you a conflict with that dolt snyder. Yes, easy for me to say, but is it really worth it to not only work for Snyder, but be submarined by his idiocy and have his stupidity smeared on you if you give in? Screw that. Make your case, take your guy and if he fires you, so be it, or you can resign. Life is way too short to live under that kind of thumb. 

 

 

I'll start with I don't think Rivera loved Herbert to die on the sword for him -- basically giving up 25 million dollars to make the point.  Apparently it was different for Burrow but alas Burrow was gone by pick #2 and Cincy wasn't willing to trade him. None of Dan's coaches have your fortitude apparently to quit.  

 

1 hour ago, The Consigliere said:

 

As to the outrage about Fields being out of place because he had a crappy first year, I don't agree, I'm about process. I can forgive good process that results in a bust. People make fun of busts all the time, but when a prospect has all the boxes ticked and fails anyway, but you did the scouting and evaluation, and the player just couldn't make the leap. In my view, that's good process and in the long run you win with good process.

 

So for you, you don't like trading a mega amount of picks for a veteran QB no matter how good they are unless they are young which almost never happens.  But you will trade the moon for a prospect so whatever Rivera was willing to give up for Fields he failed since it wasn't enough and should have been willing to give up whatever it takes to land him.

 

Just so you know not every NFL personnel guy agrees with your take.  Some say the worst thing to do is trade the moon for an unproven QB because if you fail, its not easy to replace him and try again.   It's ok to think this way, I am just saying its not a no brainer who doesn't see the NFL world this kind of way, take.

 

The more common take about going for young QBS is not to give up the store for a QB in the draft but instead keep drafting them, save your draft capital so you can keep swinging until you land a guy.  There are some hints that they will use this very approach if they don't land a top 10 type veteran this year,

 

1 hour ago, The Consigliere said:

 

That's my deal. I don't have all the answers with prospects, I just have the process, that's it. At this point I have no clue which QB will hit and which won't, I'm just much better with RB's, and WR's than QB's other than sniffing out definitive busts (and even then, I miss on Rosen's as you mention, and hell, that whole freaking class I basically had backwards other than Baker (who was #3, and I had #1). 

 

Thinking though "you have the process" comes off a bit arrogant to me.  There are different ways to slice the pie.  And I subscribe to every freakin analytics thing you can think of.  Warren Sharp.  PFF.  Football Outsiders.  Among others.  I read every theory and approach I can get my hands on.   And yeah IMO there is not a definitve "process" to find a QB.  No one has found it.   And there isn't IMO a definitive process where you can actually say with certainty that they missed as to not going after a particular QB -- just because name your metric (every mock drafter loved him, PFF, or name it)

 

I don't care as I told you many times about you missing on Rosen among other players.  We all miss.  My argument with your takes is you don't have the definitive method and argument -- since IMO there is no such thing.   There are some common themes to assess players but no such carte blanche Robocop style definitive way to assess players.  And it's easy for you to dismiss (again made defintively at the time) in retrospect some of your misses by saying your arguments were right-the process was perfect, it was just the wrong player but otherwise you'd be right.  

 

Edited February 19, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Burgold]

18 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

Yep, which is why you get the QB first along with his OL, rather than the DL. If you don't have the QB, you don't have anything. I don't think Wilson turns us into a Super Bowl Contender, I think he turns us into a 8-9 win team, instead of a 4-6 win team. Could be wrong though, and I'll toss this quite reasonable bone. 

 

But we're not a 4-6 win team. We are clearly a 7 win team and very much a borderline one and done playoff team right now.  It's not hard to imagine a better QB pushing us into that 9 or 10 win spectrum or a good QB getting us there. Heck, Heinike would have got us to the playoffs if we hadn't lost half the team to Covid and lost Samuel, Thomas for the season and McKissic for half a season. In fact, I bet if just McKissic stayed healthy (and didn't have the Covid implosion) we would have been in the playoffs.

[RWJ]

36 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

Yep, which is why you get the QB first along with his OL, rather than the DL. If you don't have the QB, you don't have anything. I don't think Wilson turns us into a Super Bowl Contender, I think he turns us into a 8-9 win team, instead of a 4-6 win team. Could be wrong though, and I'll toss this quite reasonable bone. 

 

The AFC is a nightmare, the NFC is wide open. There aren't many young franchise QB's whatsoever in the NFC, nearly all of them are in the AFC. The NFC has Dak, and Kyler, and then literally nothing else that's reasonably young and elite other than Fields if he hits. The AFC has Josh Allen, Mac Jones, Joe Burrow, Lamar Jackson, Watson for now, Trevor Lawrence, Herbert, and Mahomes, basically 8 of the 10 best QB's under 30. 

 

So yeah, there are probably short cuts available to sneak into getting the ---- kicked out of you in a super bowl in the NFC instead because there's only Kyler Murray, Dak, and Stafford in your way as elite QB's (and possibly Fields if he hits like I think he will), and Stafford probably retires in a year or two. I don't expect him to play as long as Brees, Brady, and Rodgers. 

 

I still wouldn't do it this way though. I'd trade DL assets and other pieces to rebuild around the '23 QB class, that's how I'd do it as GM, blow it up for a run at a top QB in '23, keep the OL (no trades there) but blow up everything else. But that's just me. 

That's cool.  Whatever float your boat.   Me, with the team we have in tack, I would rather put up some draft picks and a player and get me a proven QB now and win.  Just me.  

[Skinsinparadise]

34 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

Yep, which is why you get the QB first along with his OL, rather than the DL. If you don't have the QB, you don't have anything. I don't think Wilson turns us into a Super Bowl Contender, I think he turns us into a 8-9 win team, instead of a 4-6 win team. Could be wrong though, and I'll toss this quite reasonable bone. 

 

The AFC is a nightmare, the NFC is wide open. There aren't many young franchise QB's whatsoever in the NFC, nearly all of them are in the AFC. The NFC has Dak, and Kyler, and then literally nothing else that's reasonably young and elite other than Fields if he hits. The AFC has Josh Allen, Mac Jones, Joe Burrow, Lamar Jackson, Watson for now, Trevor Lawrence, Herbert, and Mahomes, basically 8 of the 10 best QB's under 30. 

 

So yeah, there are probably short cuts available to sneak into getting the ---- kicked out of you in a super bowl in the NFC instead because there's only Kyler Murray, Dak, and Stafford in your way as elite QB's (and possibly Fields if he hits like I think he will), and Stafford probably retires in a year or two. I don't expect him to play as long as Brees, Brady, and Rodgers. 

 

I still wouldn't do it this way though. I'd trade DL assets and other pieces to rebuild around the '23 QB class, that's how I'd do it as GM, blow it up for a run at a top QB in '23, keep the OL (no trades there) but blow up everything else. But that's just me. 

 

lol, mid 30s to me isn't 32-33.  But whatever.  Your posts indicate to me that Rivera can't win with you aside from just doing one thing which is taking a QB in the top 10 but only in a year loved by mock drafters for Qb and in that year he can give up all the draft capital in the world to get said Qb.  And if he doesn't do that he's a moron. 

[Burgold]

1 minute ago, RWJ said:

That's cool.  Whatever float your boat.   Me, with the team we have in tack, I would rather put up some draft picks and a player and get me a proven QB now and win.  Just me.  

I think the only thing that would frustrate me is if we go with a mid-tier vet and call it a day.

 

If we get Mariota, Tribusky, Garropola, and don't keep our number one which we use to draft a QB I'll be frustrated. I won't be frustrated if we trade a boatload for Wilson.  Trade a boatload to get whoever we decide is the best rookie in the draft. Trade a raftload for Carr.  Get a steady vet and a high potential rookie. I'd even be okay with bypassing a rookie qb and any sort of vet if we think that we can stink enough to get a QB that we love that much more next year. I've suffered for twenty years. I can suffer for twenty-two.

[RWJ]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

I think the only thing that would frustrate me is if we go with a mid-tier vet and call it a day.

 

If we get Mariota, Tribusky, Garropola, and don't keep our number one which we use to draft a QB I'll be frustrated. I won't be frustrated if we trade a boatload for Wilson.  Trade a boatload to get whoever we decide is the best rookie in the draft. Trade a raftload for Carr.  Get a steady vet and a high potential rookie. I'd even be okay with bypassing a rookie qb and any sort of vet if we think that we can stink enough to get a QB that we love that much more next year. I've suffered for twenty years. I can suffer for twenty-two.

I will be too.  RR knows this.  He has put himself out there by interviewing and telling the NFL world and fanbase that they are swinging for the fences and his rep. is on the line.  I expect our #11 to be a QB IF we don't trade the pick and picks/and or player for a Wilson/Carr/Mayfield type QB.  

[Skinsinparadise]

Jay's not much of a Heinicke or Trubisky guy, I know from his 980 segments.

 

Neither is Mike Shanahan as to Trubisky which I know from a Sheehan appearance.

 

I'd love for these guys to be asked about Mariota or someone else for a change.  Why is every question Trubisky or Jimmy G it seems?   

 

I can't wait until this QB thing is resolved.  My mind is so locked into this spot, I barely think about anything else when it comes to sports right now. 😧

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 hours ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Looks like it’s been taken off his twitter profile now. Either that, or Psuedo RG3 photoshopped “take command” into a screenshot of Russ’s twitter account to mess with us 😂

 

Never, ever take Not Robert Griffin seriously lol…everything he posts is meant as a joke.

[Skinsinparadise]

PFF's pick for us in an article

 

WASHINGTON COMMANDERS: QUARTERBACK

Early Fit: MALIK WILLIS, LIBERTY
Late Fit: CARSON STRONG, NEVADA

If there is one team that absolutely should take a swing at a quarterback in Round 1, it's the Commanders. And if you’re going to swing in this class, you might as well swing for the fences with a guy like Malik Willis. His 11.0% big-time throw rate in 2021 was the second-highest we’ve charted in a single season since we started in 2014.

 

https://www.pff.com/news/draft-2022-nfl-draft-early-late-round-fits-all-32-nfl-teams-biggest-needs-2#WSH

[RWJ]

16 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Jay's not much of a Heinicke or Trubisky guy, I know from his 980 segments.

 

Neither is Mike Shanahan as to Trubisky which I know from a Sheehan appearance.

 

I'd love for these guys to be asked about Mariota or someone else for a change.  Why is every question Trubisky or Jimmy G it seems?   

 

I can't wait until this QB thing is resolved.  My mind is so locked into this spot, I barely think about anything else when it comes to sports right now. 😧

 

You're not alone, SIP.  😆

[RWJ]

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

Just to add to my point about there is no definitive process at the QB spot as to how to fish for one.

 

This isn't like buying a quantative based mutual fund where you robotically buy stocks that hit certain metrics at specific times.  You can buy into different models but you still got to scout the actual player for a reason.

 

Cole from PFF, I've been posting some of his work among others who have on the draft thread on and off for weeks, he has been pushing out tweet after tweet that upon studying college prospects he found a major correlation betweem a QBs ability to avoid sacks and their success in the NFL.  Pressure to sack conversion rate.

 

So on that front Corral easily has the best score among the top QBs in this draft, consistent year after year.  So would Ron be a fool not to take him first?  As much as I like Corral, I'd say scout the player, factor metrics like this one and among others and make a decision.  There isn't a one size fits all approach.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Dark Acre]

10 hours ago, KDawg said:

IF Watson is innocent he will have a hell of a counter lawsuit for potential lost wages and defamation.

Neither the criminal trial nor the civil suit will result in him being found "innocent".  A criminal results in either guilty or not guilty.  There is no innocent.  Some states have a process whereby that determination can be made, but it is not part of a criminal trial.  In order to sue the state or county, he would have to bring a civil rights violation lawsuit and that would require him to prove that it was so obvious he was not guilty that the government essentially intentionally went after a guy it knew didn't do it.  You think this is remotely the case?

 

As for the civil suits, all he gets if he wins is his court costs -- fees he has to pay to the court for various things.  BFD.  The only way he has any remedy is if the jury finds in his favor and he proves that the plaintiffs engaged in malicious prosecution -- that no reasonable lawyer would take the case because it was objectively frivolous AND the plaintiffs brought it with malice or subjectively bad intent.  Just losing doesn't mean he has a countersuit.