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

[FLSkinz83]

6 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

God this argument gets so old. Those are total one offs and those average QBs like Goff, Foles, Flacco who got to Super Bowls never sniffed it again. For that to happen you have to have a combination of a great supporting cast + great defense + plenty of luck + some magic pixie dust. The teams that are perennial contenders are the teams that have top QBs.

 

I don't want a team that needs an insane number of things that have to go just right in order to trip and fall forward into a Super Bowl appearance; it's super rare and the chances of it happening are tiny. I want a team that's a cotender year in and year out. That means a great franchise QB.

 

And my take isn't exactly some crazy theory that I pulled out of my ass. Pretty much every single team, head coach, and front office acknowledges it nowadays. Otherwise the Niners wouldn't have used 3 1st round picks on Lance after getting to a SB with Jimmy G and the Chiefs wouldn't have given up a bunch ot move up and draft Mahomes after being in the playoffs 3 years in a row with Alex smith.

 

Can we please stop this nonsense?

 

Of course any team has a much better chance to win it with a franchise level QB.   I was arguing against the comment made that certain teams have no chance unless they get Rodgers, Wilson, etc.  Those comments are just hyperbole.

[method man]

A smart play would be to give Mariota a 2 year deal so that if he has a big year, you still have him under control for another year at a reasonable price. You can either keep him or use him as a trade chip to just get a Day 2 pick or as a package piece to get a Wilson in 2023

 

Something that hurts us is we can’t send back even a bridge QB solution in a package

[Skinsinparadise]

37 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Yet you want to trade multiple picks and give a 40mil per year deal to Carr?!?!
 

This is why the play is to remain cheap at the QB spot (must have mobility) and compete with a well-rounded roster while searching for the next elite guy.

 

I don’t put Russel in the same category as Rodgers, I own this is complete bias position, due to never being the hugest supporter of Wilson being elite. 

 

I’d give anything for Rodgers. 

 

Logan Paulsen by the way echoed almost to a tee what I said about Carr as a player including comparing him to Stafford and believing he would be transformed like Stafford was from a "loser" to a "winner" pretty fast once his supporting cast changed. 

 

As for Carr and paying him 40 million, I haven't one time offered my opinion on that.  Only thing I mentioned was an ex-agent's opinion on that who would do it because he's heard the cap is about to climb pretty signficantly.  

 

But I got no interest to argue deep about players that are likely fantasy anymore.  It's exhausting and probably pointless. 

 

Arguing Jimmy G, I think that is seriously in play.    But as for the others, its a long shot scenario.  So you can sleep at night without worrying about Carr wearing burgundy and gold.  Wilson ditto.   I never said Wilson = Rodgers.  But its another wasted time debate.  I do put them both in the elite category.  But as I've said before Rodgers is probably the best QB in the history of the game next to Brady. 

Edited February 26, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[mistertim]

31 minutes ago, wit33 said:

This right here!

 

The media, old FOs, and some coaches are romantic with the past and what a QB should be able to do from 10-30 years ago. Many focus on what Willis can’t do and how that will impact a game versus what he can do and how that will impact a game. The RO, RPO, or QB designed run schemes are overlooked far too much when I hear evaluations. The run first QB goes against their football acumen and experiences, makes the game too easy. 
 

The floor for the elite mobile QB is highest among all their counterparts. Someday this will get corrected. Jalen Hurts season last year is Willis’ floor. 

 

So Kyle Shanahan is an old FO guy who is "romantic with the past"? He spent 3 1sts on Trey Lance and clearly didn't think he was ready to play his first year, even with Lance's elite athletic and running ability. And Willis is an inferior prospect to Lance.

 

I still don't get your obsession with running QBs. Literally one NFL team uses one, and unless Jackson's play and stats rebound in a major way, he's probably going to join the ranks of other has-been running QBs within a couple of years IMO. And it's also pretty obvious that the Ravens have the same concern, otherwise they would have given him a huge new contract by now instead of picking up his 5th year option.

 

The other elite QBs who can run and have great athletic ability (Mahomes, Allen, Murray, Wilson, etc) are elite passers first, and runners second.

[Skinsinparadise]

51 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said:

 

How can anyone make the statements prior to free agency and the draft?    

 

They are presuming teams like the Falcons and the others they mentioned aren't going to transform their teams in one off seaon to make them SB teams.

 

In life as we know anything is possible.  For all we know the Jets win the SB next year.  It's all about making predictions based on how you see the odds.  Nothing crazy to say teams like the Panthers, Jets, Giants, etc aren't hoisting a SB trophy next season without a signficant upgrade at QB.  

Edited February 26, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[DWinzit]

3 hours ago, method man said:

I think the sit and learn stuff with Willis is exaggerated. Given his size, strength and durability, you can run an RPO/run heavy system in year 1 as he adjusts to the NFL. Turner just has to be open to it.

I have been thinking similar and can be used minimally in wild cat and other third down type situations with a section of the playbook made for him.

 

I also think they could do that with some of the other young guys to take advantage of the their skills. That is especially the case if we are stuck with some of those potential lamo vets 

[Darth Tater]

34 minutes ago, London Kev said:

 

 

It's like you're fishing for someone to bite. These slightly provocative one-liners make you come across as a bit of a troll (which I don't think you are).

 

More about my disgust with the team and my inability to just not give a flip anymore. Further, when I did my retirement planning, my 'splurge' was going to be season tickets (or at least a lot of one-off purchases), so probably a bit of depression that it may not happen and not for financial reasons.

[mistertim]

15 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said:

 

Of course any team has a much better chance to win it with a franchise level QB.   I was arguing against the comment made that certain teams have no chance unless they get Rodgers, Wilson, etc.  Those comments are just hyperbole.

 

Ok, sure. Technically every single team has a chance to go to the Super Bowl every single year. Just like literally every single person who buys a lottery ticket technically has a chance to win. But that doesn't mean it's anything less than extremely unlikely to happen. 

 

But the comments about teams being able to get to the SB without top franchise QBs are based on outliers and corner cases and hence are hyperbole as well, because it so rarely happens.

[Voice_of_Reason]

31 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

But I got no interest to argue deep about players that are likely fantasy anymore.  It's exhausting and probably pointless. 

But isn’t that like entire premise behind a message board?

[Skinsinparadise]

2 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

But isn’t that like entire premise behind a message board?

 

That's why i said "anymore"   I've already argued it enough.    Maybe the urge will hit me again to hit a deep dive into Wilson and Carr as for what I think of them as players.  But i already said plenty about it.  i am starting to even bore myself arguing the same stuff over and over again.  😀

Edited February 26, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[wit33]

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

God this argument gets so old. Those are total one offs and those average QBs like Goff, Foles, Flacco who got to Super Bowls never sniffed it again. For that to happen you have to have a combination of a great supporting cast + great defense + plenty of luck + some magic pixie dust. The teams that are perennial contenders are the teams that have top QBs.

 

What’s the percentage of any QB winning another SB or getting back to a second SB? 

 

Also, what’s the percentage of the elite QB getting paid elite money consistently being a SB contender? The only guy over the last 5-7 years is Aaron Rodgers and even his contract was manageable but top 10 for much of if not all the years in his recent extension. 
 

The greatest percentage opportunity is when the QB has elite impact on a rookie deal, after that their “SB contender status” drops significantly.

 

The elite QB being paid elite money offers much less value when getting paid. Not saying I wouldn’t prefer this formula, but this formula has low SB contender status. Many like to say if you have an elite QB you’re a SB contender, that’s simply not true. 

 

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

I don't want a team that needs an insane number of things that have to go just right in order to trip and fall forward into a Super Bowl appearance; it's super rare and the chances of it happening are tiny. I want a team that's a cotender year in and year out. That means a great franchise QB.

 

Super rare for the elite QB being paid elite dollars as well. 

 

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

And my take isn't exactly some crazy theory that I pulled out of my ass. Pretty much every single team, head coach, and front office acknowledges it nowadays. Otherwise the Niners wouldn't have used 3 1st round picks on Lance after getting to a SB with Jimmy G and the Chiefs wouldn't have given up a bunch ot move up and draft Mahomes after being in the playoffs 3 years in a row with Alex smith.

 

Can we please stop this nonsense?

It’s not only player related, but also financial. No doubt, you attempt to improve from the competent starter if you love a rookie. The team benefits substantially financially and the on the field is to be determined. My guess is they thought Lance would be ready sooner and some are wondering if he’s ready this upcoming season. 

 

1 hour ago, FLSkinz83 said:

 

Of course any team has a much better chance to win it with a franchise level QB.   I was arguing against the comment made that certain teams have no chance unless they get Rodgers, Wilson, etc.  Those comments are just hyperbole.

Cap hit is a factor. 
 

Wilson appearing in back to back to SBs on a rookie deal has led the masses to believing he’s SB contending QB no matter the situation. Fact is, once he got paid the Seahawks have not been a SB contender. But, I give full credit for being a playoff QB no matter the circumstances, that he has proven during time being paid big dollars.

 

 

55 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

So Kyle Shanahan is an old FO guy who is "romantic with the past"? He spent 3 1sts on Trey Lance and clearly didn't think he was ready to play his first year, even with Lance's elite athletic and running ability. And Willis is an inferior prospect to Lance.

 

I’m sure there were tough discussions behind the scenes on whether to go all in with Lance during his rookie year and lean heavy on a QB run/play action scheme. They decided to go with Jimmy G who beloved in the locker room and who guys believe in.’

 

Nope, Kyle supports my argument and you can’t claim him lol He’s thinking progressively by drafting a guy you wouldn’t want to touch. You should be rooting against this situation to support your dinosaur like view on the QB position  All in fun. Love the back and forth. 
 

 

55 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I still don't get your obsession with running QBs. Literally one NFL team uses one, and unless Jackson's play and stats rebound in a major way, he's probably going to join the ranks of other has-been running QBs within a couple of years IMO. And it's also pretty obvious that the Ravens have the same concern, otherwise they would have given him a huge new contract by now instead of picking up his 5th year option.

 

No, Josh Allen was a run first QB coming out and has blossomed into below average pocket passer and elite runner/backyard football playing QB. 
 

Check that Chiefs game and tell me how many times he got to his third read, how many times it was a QB designer run, or how many times he looked high/low then looked to play backyard football. 
 

My side claims Josh Allen, he wouldn’t have made it past year two with your belief system about QBs. Required changing norms, rules, and beliefs to allow him to flourish. 
 

Mahomes is neutral and don’t think he’s a great pocket QB and was terrible early on. Foot work is still horrible. 
 

55 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

The other elite QBs who can run and have great athletic ability (Mahomes, Allen, Murray, Wilson, etc) are elite passers first, and runners second.

You strip their run ability and these dudes are out of the league. Not elite passers of the football. More so early on in their careers, they could probably survive like Derek Carr, Tannenhill, and Cousins do without run ability. 

 

You should be rooting for Mac Jones types, he fits your model  

Edited February 26, 2022 by wit33

[wit33]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Logan Paulsen by the way echoed almost to a tee what I said about Carr as a player including comparing him to Stafford and believing he would be transformed like Stafford was from a "loser" to a "winner" pretty fast once his supporting cast changed. 
 

 

Just to be clear I think QB 10-20 can win a SB under the right circumstances. 
 

I rate a QBs ability to extend and create plays inside and outside the pocket close to accuracy, so I’m incredibly bullish on this trait. Derek Carr is atrocious as a playmaking QB. Stafford provides playmaking much like Tom Brady does from inside the pocket, so he provides this much needed element to the QB spot that Carr doesn’t and a big reason why I’m not pro in being aggressive to obtain his services. 

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

As for Carr and paying him 40 million, I haven't one time offered my opinion on that.  Only thing I mentioned was an ex-agent's opinion on that who would do it because he's heard the cap is about to climb pretty signficantly.  
 

 

Yup, I’ll give you that. I can careless about the amount and it’s all about cap percent allocated for a given year or over the contract. I can stomach the non mobile competent QB at around 8-10% of the cap, but do t favor this. If Carr agreed to this cap percentage it would put me in a neutral to bearish position. 

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

But I got no interest to argue deep about players that are likely fantasy anymore.  It's exhausting and probably pointless.

 

 

I’m cool with anything during the off season, it’s all fantasy talk at this point. Shocked if Davis and crew pay Carr north 12-17% of the cap. 
 

 

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

Arguing Jimmy G, I think that is seriously in play.    But as for the others, its a long shot scenario.  So you can sleep at night without worrying about Carr wearing burgundy and gold.  Wilson ditto.   I never said Wilson = Rodgers.  But its another wasted time debate.  I do put them both in the elite category.  But as I've said before Rodgers is probably the best QB in the history of the game next to Brady. 

Oh I know, you’ve said a few times Rodgers is a clear peg above Wilson. I don’t lump them in same category of “do whatever to acquire “ that you seem to do. Is that true?

[mistertim]

@wit33I don't think you're really getting what I'm looking for in a QB, or maybe I'm not explaining it well enough (completely possible). I do not have a "dinosaur view" of the QB position. I've been quite clear many times that the era of the immobile pocket passer is over. I want a QB who can run. But I don't want a running QB. I want an elite passer who can also make plays with his legs when things break down (or occasionally on designed runs, to mix things up).

 

You appear to see little difference between a guy like Jackson and guys like Mahomes, Allen, etc. I see a huge difference. I think if you stripped Mahomes or Allen of their ability to run then they'd certainly be different QBs, but their ability to pass the ball at an elite level, from the pocket as well as from outside of it, would mean IMO they could absolutely still be elite QBs. If you stripped Jackson of his ability to run, he'd be out of the NFL by the next season.

 

I don't see how Kyle picking Lance somehow supports what you're saying. I think Kyle wants an elite passer, and also loves guys with top athleticism and realizes that's the way the NFL is going. I'm guessing he saw in Lance a guy who had the tools and work ethic to become an elite passer, but would need more work. I seriously doubt he scouted Lance and said "I think I should draft this guy because I want a running QB and I think that's good enough for us"

 

So I don't really dislike prospects like Lance or Willis, with the caveat that the coaches are drafting him not because he's a great runner and they want a running QB, but because they believe he has the ability to morph from a run first guy to an elite passer in the NFL, but who stll has the ability to run. So that's my assumption with Kyle and Lance and that would be my sincere hope if we draft a guy like Willis.

 

And the idea that Allen was a run first QB in college is nonsensical. He ran for 204 yards his last season at Wyoming. Mahomes ran for 285. In what universe are those numbers that a run first QB would put up?

 

Compare that with Wills, Lance, and Jackson in college. Their final years they put up 878, 1100, and 1601 yards respectively. That's what a run first QB looks like. So IMO Willis and Lance both have far more in common with Jackson than they do with Mahomes or Allen. And that's something I find a bit worrying when it comes to analyzing QBs because IMO Jackson isn't going to last, whereas Mahomes and Allen will probably be top 5 QBs for the next 10 years.

Edited February 26, 2022 by mistertim

[Redskins 2021]

3 first for Carr as high as I go and I think they would still say no.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

 

Just to be clear I think QB 10-20 can win a SB under the right circumstances. 

 

The fact that you lumped the 10-20 QBs all together sums up why are spinning our wheels in these debates.  While Russell Wilson doesn't equal Rodgers as you point out.  But your point often generalizes to the extent where the 11 best Qb is the same as the 20th best.   

 

I know you seperate it a little by playing up mobility.  for me the difference is the dudes in the 10-14 are in another strata than the 15-20 guys.  I think the odds are very low for the 15-20 range to make it.  As for the 10-14 guys, I think they have a fighting chance if two things are in play:

 

A.  A really good supporting cast

B.  they are clutch - gamer type players

 

I don't feel like revisiting that deeply but there are similarities to me between the caliber of the QB that Stafford and the context as for where they come from to Carr.  I recall the conversations about Stafford when he was a Lion.  They just don't win.  He isn't good enough to make them winners.  He's just not a winner, etc.  Now he won a SB a year later.  A lot of the same arguments I used for Stafford IMO apply to Carr. 

 

You like to say Stafford has more mobility?  To me there are in the same ballpark.  Carr by the way ran a 4.69.  Trubisky who I am touting his mobilty ran a 4.67.  Stafford 4.81.  Carr rushes pretty much the same every year that Stafford does.  He's not a statue in the pocket. 

 

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

 

 

I’m cool with anything during the off season, it’s all fantasy talk at this point. Shocked if Davis and crew pay Carr north 12-17% of the cap. 

 

 I got no problem talking fantasy but I am a bit burnt out on talking to death about fantasy stuff, which I think I've done more than my share,  

 

I've talked to death about Carr, and Wilson, etc. I am not saying others need to stop of course, to each their own on that.  But I am boring even myself repeating the same stuff.  I need some sliver of hope that there is a chance to get that QB at this point for me to be in the mood to keep going to town discussing a QB.  I am burnt out on selling Wilson and Carr in particular.     Even though I do a little Carr sale again above, but it feels like I am a Raiders fan when I do it considering that's likely where he ends up.    So if you want to counter argue Carr feel free, I probably won't respond so you can have the last word. 

 

 

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

 

Oh I know, you’ve said a few times Rodgers is a clear peg above Wilson. I don’t lump them in same category of “do whatever to acquire “ that you seem to do. Is that true?

 

I've been going on and off almost every year to games at Fedex for over 20 years.  It saddens me what this franchise has become.  Loverro calls it Ghost Town Field and he's right.  I've watched the whole regression and its depressing.  Heck these days I prefer to go to games on the road and for the one game I still go to Fedex I try to guess a game where the stadium isn't overrun with opponent's fans.

 

We here on this board, at least most of us, can't be chased away.  We've already proven we can endure just about anything.  . But most fans aren't like us IMO...

 

I don't think this fan base can endure much more mediocrity and for that matter nonsexy play at QB.   I feel a bit bad for Rivera because I don't think he can comprehend how burnt out this fan base is about never having a top 10 QB.  It predates him give or take for 30 years running.  Heck not even a 10-14 type QBs except for really brief interruptions of it. 

 

My point is acquiring a top 10 QB does more than just make them an instant playoff contender.  It also makes 2 things happen very unique to this franchise under Dan.  And I know many here agree with me but some disagree. 

 

A.  Makes us an actual playoff threat.  People can talk all day long about why can't we be the Nick Foles Eagles team from years back, etc.  But most of us know the odds are incredibly slim for that.  If we go to battle with name that reclamation project and we actually make the playoffs...most of us would bet that the team we play who has Russell Wilson, Aaron Rodgers, Dak, etc will beat us.  This would change IMO that narrative in a big way.  Our current SB is just to make the playoffs and expect an exit.

 

B.  We are the equivalent of making movies exclusively with B star actors.  Having Harrison Ford in his prime, Tom Cruise, etc would feel wildy surreal in a cool way.  We aren't a Tom Cruise type of move.  The idea if having a A level headliner at QB even sounds ridiculous.   So to make something that feels ridiculous and turn it into reality, I think it would have a wow level of shockwaves with fans who expect disappointment typically.  I am convinced for many fans that the novelty alone would generate some major needed excitement to a dormant fan base.

 

My wife, a Giants fan, once said when she saw Peterson play for us -- that it didn't seem to fit our team.  She doesn't equate stars with this team.  I got what she was saying.  It's part of the reason why I wanted Chase Young.  Chase is a bonafide national college star -- we for whatever reason don't have dudes like that here often.  That goes double for a QB.  So yeah if a dude like Russell Wilson came here, my level of excitment would be a 10 out of 10.  And I think it would do more for this franchise and its bleeding fan base than some people can fathom. 

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[FLSkinz83]

2 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

Ok, sure. Technically every single team has a chance to go to the Super Bowl every single year. Just like literally every single person who buys a lottery ticket technically has a chance to win. But that doesn't mean it's anything less than extremely unlikely to happen. 

 

But the comments about teams being able to get to the SB without top franchise QBs are based on outliers and corner cases and hence are hyperbole as well, because it so rarely happens.

 

It's happened 4 times in the last 10 years.

[mistertim]

2 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said:

 

It's happened 4 times in the last 10 years.

 

So 4 teams out of 320. 1 in 80 chance. That's definitely better than playing the lottery, I'll give you that. But I still don't like the odds.

 

With an elite QB you'll be in the mix every season. Certainly doesn't mean you'll go to the SB every season with one, but you'll probably be in the playoffs amost every season with one.

 

I'll take that any time over spending years hoping you can defy the odds and luck into one magical season with a mediocre QB.

[wit33]

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

@wit33I don't think you're really getting what I'm looking for in a QB, or maybe I'm not explaining it well enough (completely possible). I do not have a "dinosaur view" of the QB position. I've been quite clear many times that the era of the immobile pocket passer is over. I want a QB who can run. But I don't want a running QB. I want an elite passer who can also make plays with his legs when things break down (or occasionally on designed runs, to mix things up).

 

I understand you desire the unicorn QB who can run, extend, and throw from the pocket. Who doesn’t lol? Though, the narrative of allowing the QB to extend, create, run, and play backyard football has and continues to grow a great deal as the “old heads” get replaced or evolve. 
 

You claim Josh Allen for your argument but your expectations that you share about the QB spot would’ve put you in position of wanting to get rid of him after his rookie or second season. It’s okay, no ones philosophy/system are going to allow every QB to flourish. 

 

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

You appear to see little difference between a guy like Jackson and guys like Mahomes, Allen, etc. I see a huge difference. I think if you stripped Mahomes or Allen of their ability to run then they'd certainly be different QBs, but their ability to pass the ball at an elite level, from the pocket as well as from outside of it, would mean IMO they could absolutely still be elite QBs. If you stripped Jackson of his ability to run, he'd be out of the NFL by the next season.

 

I rather have Mahomes and Allen versus Jackson just to be clear.

 

You believe Allen and Mahomes are elite passers from the pocket, I disagree completely. They’re below to average, in my view. Jackson is one of the worst from the pocket, just to clarify. 

 

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

I don't see how Kyle picking Lance somehow supports what you're saying. I think Kyle wants an elite passer, and also loves guys with top athleticism and realizes that's the way the NFL is going. I'm guessing he saw in Lance a guy who had the tools and work ethic to become an elite passer, but would need more work. I seriously doubt he scouted Lance and said "I think I should draft this guy because I want a running QB and I think that's good enough for us"

 

Taking a completely raw running QB doesn’t support the argument? Of course they hope he becomes an elite passer, but that falls in the hope category. Really, it’s getting your athletic QB to level of average on 3rd and long passing situations.  
 

My guess is they expect him to make big plays down the field, support a unique run scheme, and be dynamic in play action. Everything else falls in category of hope.
 

What’s your over/under for rush yards for Lance next season, if he starts? I say 6-800 yards.  

 

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

So I don't really dislike prospects like Lance or Willis, with the caveat that the coaches are drafting him not because he's a great runner and they want a running QB, but because they believe he has the ability to morph from a run first guy to an elite passer in the NFL, but who stll has the ability to run. So that's my assumption with Kyle and Lance and that would be my sincere hope if we draft a guy like Willis.

 

Cool. We can agree on this. The ideal situation is a freak running QB can someday scan the field and throw dimes on third down.
 

Also, there run ability is why I believe the have the highest floor. The OC should be able to scheme up competent offense with an elite running QB. 

 

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

And the idea that Allen was a run first QB in college is nonsensical. He ran for 204 yards his last season at Wyoming. Mahomes ran for 285. In what universe are those numbers that a run first QB would put up?

 

I can careless about his college numbers, just sharing what I observed and continue to watch as he plays in the NFL. He certainly was a running QB early on in his career. To this day, his default is to extend, run, and play backyard football when his his high/low read are covered.

This is a better solution than remaining in the pocket and trusting all the variables around you to hold up, in my opinion. OCs continue to relinquish control and let the elite talents do there thing—Aaron Rodgers is the OG in this regard. 
 

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

Compare that with Wills, Lance, and Jackson in college. Their final years they put up 878, 1100, and 1601 yards respectively. That's what a run first QB looks like. So IMO Willis and Lance both have far more in common with Jackson than they do with Mahomes or Allen. And that's something I find a bit worrying when it comes to analyzing QBs because IMO Jackson isn't going to last, whereas Mahomes and Allen will probably be top 5 QBs for the next 10 years.

I lump Mahomes in because he didn’t read the field well (still doesn’t) and relies heavily on his ability to extend and create. He’s not in the same class as Allen or other running QBs you mention.  
 

Allen is good prototype for organizations to use with the run first QB. Many organizations and coaches would’ve benched Allen early on in his career. I speculate the running QB with a cannon will be given a longer time to develop because of Allen (a running QB early on). 

[Riggo#44]

4 hours ago, mistertim said:

But to play devil's advocate, the counter question I'd ask is: if we were able to trade for Rodgers right now (let's say for 3 1st round picks), given all the question marks that could come with him...between having him and having 3 1st round picks at other positions over the next 3 years, which of those two options are more likely to lead us to a Super Bowl in the next 3 years? Rodgers or those 3 other guys we pick?

 

My opinion is that, even with all his possible baggage and unknowns, Rodgers would still easily be the odds-on favorite between those two.

I'm generally opposed to the push all your chips in for 1-2 years. It rarely, if ever, works out. That being said, I am not opposed to swinging big for a QB. 3 1sts for Russell Wilson makes more sense to me than 3 for Rodgers. Russell gives us a longer window. I also think Rodgers is a great QB--but, like you said, he's also an asshole.

Rodgers gives us the best chance to win a SB in a year or two over 3 complete unknowns. But what if one of those unknowns is Watson, Mahomes, Allen, or Herbert? That changes the equation. 

[wit33]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The fact that you lumped the 10-20 QBs all together sums up why are spinning our wheels in these debates.  While Russell Wilson doesn't equal Rodgers as you point out.  But your point often generalizes to the extent where the 11 best Qb is the same as the 20th best.   
 

 

Play making is my main differentiator with the above to average QBs, no doubt. It’s also what you have to pay QB 10-14 or whatever for me. Stafford is/was a financial asset at the QB spot at around 10% of the cap for the SB champs. 10% is the sweet spot number, in my opinion. 

 

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I know you seperate it a little by playing up mobility.  for me the difference is the dudes in the 10-14 are in another strata than the 15-20 guys.  I think the odds are very low for the 15-20 range to make it.  As for the 10-14 guys, I think they have a fighting chance if two things are in play:

 

A.  A really good supporting cast

B.  they are clutch - gamer type players

 

Some more than the other, great deal of nuance. As I mentioned, cost and playmaking being two key factors.
 

For example, Ryan Tannenhill at 5.8% of the cap this past season versus 18% this upcoming season is worlds different. I would not lump him as a viable option or QBs 10-20 for season 2022. He’s now a financial liability moving forward and the Titans will probably move on from him due to his inordinate cost after this season. 
 

 

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I don't feel like revisiting that deeply but there are similarities to me between the caliber of the QB that Stafford and the context as for where they come from to Carr.  I recall the conversations about Stafford when he was a Lion.  They just don't win.  He isn't good enough to make them winners.  He's just not a winner, etc.  Now he won a SB a year later.  A lot of the same arguments I used for Stafford IMO apply to Carr. 
 

 

Most people in the know valued Stafford a great deal from my experience taking in information about him last year. 
 

It’s an easy connection to make and agree Carr has his supporters, but doesn’t seem to be at the same level of Stafford. Many here felt Kirk Cousins would flourish with a top flight organization, that didn’t happen. 
 

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

You like to say Stafford has more mobility?  To me there are in the same ballpark.  Carr by the way ran a 4.69.  Trubisky who I am touting his mobilty ran a 4.67.  Stafford 4.81.  Carr rushes pretty much the same every year that Stafford does.  He's not a statue in the pocket. 
 

 

I shared the Brady angle in an attempt to highlight playmaking can be done in different ways other than having a solid 40time. Carr doesn’t feel pressure or escape well at all—this well documented and a main issue amongst fans and media of the Raiders.
 

Stafford is solid and sometimes excels when forced or deciding to play make. This was also a main reason why he was targeted by the Rams over Jared Goff. 
 

 

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 I got no problem talking fantasy but I am a bit burnt out on talking to death about fantasy stuff, which I think I've done more than my share,  

 

I've talked to death about Carr, and Wilson, etc. I am not saying others need to stop of course, to each their own on that.  But I am boring even myself repeating the same stuff.  I need some sliver of hope that there is a chance to get that QB at this point for me to be in the mood to keep going to town discussing a QB.  I am burnt out on selling Wilson and Carr in particular.     Even though I do a little Carr sale again above, but it feels like I am a Raiders fan when I do it considering that's likely where he ends up.    So if you want to counter argue Carr feel free, I probably won't respond so you can have the last word. 
 

 

For sure, I don’t believe we are too far off on our evaluation of Carr. 
 

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

I've been going on and off almost every year to games at Fedex for over 20 years.  It saddens me what this franchise has become.  Loverro calls it Ghost Town Field and he's right.  I've watched the whole regression and its depressing.  Heck these days I prefer to go to games on the road and for the one game I still go to Fedex I try to guess a game where the stadium isn't overrun with opponent's fans.

 

We here on this board, at least most of us, can't be chased away.  We've already proven we can endure just about anything.  . But most fans aren't like us IMO...

 

I don't think this fan base can endure much more mediocrity and for that matter nonsexy play at QB.   I feel a bit bad for Rivera because I don't think he can comprehend how burnt out this fan base is about never having a top 10 QB.  It predates him give or take for 30 years running.  Heck not even a 10-14 type QBs except for really brief interruptions of it. 

 

My point is acquiring a top 10 QB does more than just make them an instant playoff contender.  It also makes 2 things happen very unique to this franchise under Dan.  And I know many here agree with me but some disagree. 

 

A.  Makes us an actual playoff threat.  People can talk all day long about why can't we be the Nick Foles Eagles team from years back, etc.  But most of us know the odds are incredibly slim for that.  If we go to battle with name that reclamation project and we actually make the playoffs...most of us would bet that the team we play who has Russell Wilson, Aaron Rodgers, Dak, etc will beat us.  This would change IMO that narrative in a big way.  Our current SB is just to make the playoffs and expect an exit.

 

B.  We are the equivalent of making movies exclusively with B star actors.  Having Harrison Ford in his prime, Tom Cruise, etc would feel wildy surreal in a cool way.  We aren't a Tom Cruise type of move.  The idea if having a A level headliner at QB even sounds ridiculous.   So to make something that feels ridiculous and turn it into reality, I think it would have a wow level of shockwaves with fans who expect disappointment typically.  I am convinced for many fans that the novelty alone would generate some major needed excitement to a dormant fan base.

 

My wife, a Giants fan, once said when she saw Peterson play for us -- that it didn't seem to fit our team.  She doesn't equate stars with this team.  I got what she was saying.  It's part of the reason why I wanted Chase Young.  Chase is a bonafide national college star -- we for whatever reason don't have dudes like that here often.  That goes double for a QB.  So yeah if a dude like Russell Wilson came here, my level of excitment would be a 10 out of 10.  And I think it would do more for this franchise and its bleeding fan base than some people can fathom. 

 

This is a unique perspective that I will lean on as I’ve never been to a home Washington game. I agree Wilson would do wonders for the excitement, so you’re right in that regard. Expecting playoffs is a huge step for this organization and Wilson would provide that. I concede to your overall view on Wilson. No way would I be upset if it were to happen.  

Edited February 27, 2022 by wit33

[FLSkinz83]

2 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

So 4 teams out of 320. 1 in 80 chance. That's definitely better than playing the lottery, I'll give you that. But I still don't like the odds.

 

With an elite QB you'll be in the mix every season. Certainly doesn't mean you'll go to the SB every season with one, but you'll probably be in the playoffs amost every season with one.

 

I'll take that any time over spending years hoping you can defy the odds and luck into one magical season with a mediocre QB.

 

That's fuzzy math on your part.   20 QB's have played in the Superbowl the past 10 years.   4 of the 20 were not franchise QB's or top 15 QB's at the time.

[mistertim]

@wit33It seems a lot of this comes down to us having a very different opinion on whether or not guys like Mahomes and Allen (and I assume their predecessors in Rodgers and Wilson) are elite passers regardless of their ability to run.

 

You seem to think that guys like Mahomes and Allen (and again, should I assume this extends to Rodgers and Wilson?) don't generally go through progressions and aren't great passers outside of their ability to extend plays. I think this is a bit nuts. No NFL QB is going to be successful for long if he isn't able to diagnose defenses, go through progressions, and make the right decisions.

 

To say that guys who are such incredibly successful passers are average or below at actual passing outside of playing "backyard football" makes no sense. The ability to extend plays and create off schedule is a huge plus and guys like Mahomes, Allen, Murray, Wilson, and Rodgers have it in spades. But the idea that that's all they do flies in the face of reality. Do you think every single pass that Mahomes or Allen makes is just them getting the snap and running around until someone is open? Have you watched them play? It's completely and utterly false.

 

Have they completely fooled people like PFF? They get elite passing grades from them. Are PFF guys just too dumb to realize when watching hundreds of hours of film that guys like Mahomes and Allen don't go through progressions and apparently just get the ball, run around like chickens with their heads cut off for 5-8 seconds and then heave a pass up to a guy who seems to be open?

[wit33]

 

31 minutes ago, mistertim said:

@wit33It seems a lot of this comes down to us having a very different opinion on whether or not guys like Mahomes and Allen (and I assume their predecessors in Rodgers and Wilson) are elite passers regardless of their ability to run.

 

You seem to think that guys like Mahomes and Allen (and again, should I assume this extends to Rodgers and Wilson?) don't generally go through progressions and aren't great passers outside of their ability to extend plays. I think this is a bit nuts. No NFL QB is going to be successful for long if he isn't able to diagnose defenses, go through progressions, and make the right decisions.

 

To say that guys who are such incredibly successful passers are average or below at actual passing outside of playing "backyard football" makes no sense. The ability to extend plays and create off schedule is a huge plus and guys like Mahomes, Allen, Murray, Wilson, and Rodgers have it in spades. But the idea that that's all they do flies in the face of reality. Do you think every single pass that Mahomes or Allen makes is just them getting the snap and running around until someone is open? Have you watched them play? It's completely and utterly false.

 

Have they completely fooled people like PFF? They get elite passing grades from them. Are PFF guys just too dumb to realize when watching hundreds of hours of film that guys like Mahomes and Allen don't go through progressions and apparently just get the ball, run around like chickens with their heads cut off for 5-8 seconds and then heave a pass up to a guy who seems to be open?

 

The extremes are never where the truth lies. Mahomes has relied a great deal on play making and off schedule to be the QB he is today. His level reached has been more to do with off schedule than on schedule ability, in my opinion. 
 

Do I believe because Mahomes passes for a lot of yards and TDs that automatically means he reads the field at a high-level—Nope!
 

How about hearing what you feel makes no sense from Patrick Mahomes:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2879589-chiefs-qb-patrick-mahomes-says-he-didnt-learn-to-read-defenses-until-last-year.amp.html 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by wit33

[mistertim]

13 minutes ago, wit33 said:

The extremes are never where the truth lies. Mahomes has relied a great deal on play making and off schedule to be the QB he is today. His level reached has been more to do with off schedule than on schedule ability, in my opinion. 
 

Do I believe because Mahomes passes for a lot of yards and TDs that automatically means he reads the field at a high-level—Nope!
 

How about hearing what you feel makes no sense from Patrick Mahomes:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2879589-chiefs-qb-patrick-mahomes-says-he-didnt-learn-to-read-defenses-until-last-year.amp.html 

 

 

What Mahomes said there has little to nothing to do with what you've seemed to be claiming.

 

That article was from 2020 and he said he didn't learn how to read defenses until the year before...so 2019. Which was his 2nd year playing. If you watch the video he also sort of backtracked and clarified.

 

He first said he didn't understand how to read defenses until the year before. But then he specifically said "I understood coverages, but how to be able to pick up little tendencies that defenses do, stuff that Brady and them have done and they know it and just do it"

 

So basically he was saying it wasn't until his second year playing in the NFL that he was able to do more than just read and understand coverages and begin to understand and notice the little intricacies and nuances that elite experienced guys like Brady do.

 

So a young NFL QB understood coverages but couldn't start to understand things like Brady could until after he'd been in the NFL for a couple of years. I am shocked.

[Warhead36]

What you have to factor in when trading #1s for a stud QB is that you're gonna be a contender with that QB, which means those picks aren't gonna be high. You're not gonna be picking in the top 10 or even top 20 with Aaron Rodgers or Russel Wilson. You're gonna be picking 28, 29, 30 etc. I'd gladly give up three picks in the 28+ range for a Rodgers or Wilson.