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

[Redskins 2021]

Marcus is better but very very injury-prone. I am starting to think we can get Pickett at 11. Maybe Car , Atl, or Den takes him, but I don't think they will and I don't think anyone will move up that high to get him.

Edited March 1, 2022 by Redskins 2021

[Est.1974]

Imagine there actually being a bidding war over Trubisky. What a sorry state of affairs.

[kingdaddy]

58 minutes ago, Zim489 said:

And less sense it makes. A great franchise like the Steelers is willing to give up that capital for a QB. 

WHY IN THE **** WOULDNT WE JUST TAKE THE GUY THAN? It should be a big ringing alarm they are willing to give up those picks for Willis. 

Next year is a better crop of rookies according to the experts....Willis isn't graded to go as high as #11. That's why dude.

37 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

If we sign someone like Trubisky as QB1, Heinicke will be the backup/QB2. The rookie in that scenario will be later in the draft and QB3 with a view to being the backup when Taylors contract runs out after next season. 

 

Heinicke is good backup - knows the system, has starting experience and can get you through a few games competitively if the starter goes down.

And he's cheap!

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, kingdaddy said:

You know what I can see....Malik Willis sitting there at #11 and the Commanders phone ringing. 

"Hi, this is the Steelers, we'll offer you are 1st and 2nd this year plus a 1st next year for your pick right now".

Done.

Steelers take Malik Willis at #11 overall.

Washington gets the #20 overall pick plus Pittsburgh's 2nd rounder and 2023 1st round.

Steelers get Washington's #11 overall and a 6th round in 2023.

The Steelers are said to be hot on Willis.

I think if Picket is there at #11, then regardless of the phone calls, I think the Commanders pick Pickett.  They need a QB more than an extra #1 and #2 pick.  Hell, they might be tempted to just TAKE Willis at 11, assuming they have the ability to red-shirt him.  (I wouldn't, but they might.)

 

I do wonder if they could trade back with the Steelers, and then back up to get Picket if he was also on the board at 11.  Maybe they come out ahead a little bit, maybe with an additional second or something.

 

However, I think all the QBs are going to be over-drafted, though it really depends on who goes where in the trade market.  If the trade market does NOT develop at all, and everybody just stays put, the there's a fair bet Denver and Carolina will pick QBs ahead of us, regardless of where Kiper rates them on his big board.  

 

It's possible Detroit selects a QB (though very unlikely at #2 overall.  

 

The good news for us is the Giants have 2 picks and the Jets have 2 picks ahead of us, and neither team looks like they are going to take a QB.  Neither is Jacksonville or Atlanta.  

 

Absent a trade, the two spots where a QB most reasonably would be picked would be 6 to Carolina and 9 to Denver.  

 

If we REALLY like one of the QBs and they want to get him for sure, they have to go up to #4 to get in front of Carolina.  

 

If they have 2 that they like, they could probably move up to 8 with the Falcons.  That SHOULDN'T take too much to do.

 

The question is, do they love one of the QBs in the draft enough to spend more than just the #11 pick on them.  That's the big unknown. 

[Zim489]

1 minute ago, kingdaddy said:

Next year is a better crop of rookies according to the experts....Willis isn't graded to go as high as #11. That's why dude.

If the Steelers think he’s worth it. So should we. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

2 minutes ago, Est.1974 said:

Imagine there actually being a bidding war over Trubisky. What a sorry state of affairs.

Eh, each team will go up by $3.50. It wouldn't be much of a bidding war...

Just now, Zim489 said:

If the Steelers think he’s worth it. So should we. 

That's not how it works.

[kingdaddy]

Just now, Voice_of_Reason said:

I think if Picket is there at #11, then regardless of the phone calls, I think the Commanders pick Pickett.  They need a QB more than an extra #1 and #2 pick.  Hell, they might be tempted to just TAKE Willis at 11, assuming they have the ability to red-shirt him.  (I wouldn't, but they might.)

 

I do wonder if they could trade back with the Steelers, and then back up to get Picket if he was also on the board at 11.  Maybe they come out ahead a little bit, maybe with an additional second or something.

 

However, I think all the QBs are going to be over-drafted, though it really depends on who goes where in the trade market.  If the trade market does NOT develop at all, and everybody just stays put, the there's a fair bet Denver and Carolina will pick QBs ahead of us, regardless of where Kiper rates them on his big board.  

 

It's possible Detroit selects a QB (though very unlikely at #2 overall.  

 

The good news for us is the Giants have 2 picks and the Jets have 2 picks ahead of us, and neither team looks like they are going to take a QB.  Neither is Jacksonville or Atlanta.  

 

Absent a trade, the two spots where a QB most reasonably would be picked would be 6 to Carolina and 9 to Denver.  

 

If we REALLY like one of the QBs and they want to get him for sure, they have to go up to #4 to get in front of Carolina.  

 

If they have 2 that they like, they could probably move up to 8 with the Falcons.  That SHOULDN'T take too much to do.

 

The question is, do they love one of the QBs in the draft enough to spend more than just the #11 pick on them.  That's the big unknown. 

To your point, why would we reach for a QB this year when we could have the ammo to get a guy next year who isn't a reach and has better upside. In other words, for example, you take yourself out of the running for Burrow next year because you're desperate and need to pick Jimmy G. this year? If the Steelers offer us two 1sts for Willis then chances are pretty good their pick is gonna be a top 10 pick next season if they start Willis this season. 

3 minutes ago, Zim489 said:

If the Steelers think he’s worth it. So should we. 

That's the beauty of the draft, each team thinks differently on certain prospects. Think about what you're saying....so if the Rams think Goff is worth the #1 overall pick in the draft then we should too? 

From what I'm hearing/reading, this is not the year to go all in on a QB in round one as opposed to next year. I'd sooner load up on picks next year and get someone who is higher rated. 

It's cool if we disagree....I've been a Skins fan for almost 50 years now, I can wait another year to get our Joe Montana if the odds and prospects are better in next years draft.

[MartinC]

13 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

Willis isn't graded to go as high as #11. 

 

We don't really know how the QBs are graded by individual teams. Not least because the grading process is not complete.

 

What you hear said publicly at this point of the process can normally safely be disregarded to a large extent - or at least taken with a large pinch of salt. 

[mistertim]

35 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I’m not excited about bringing Trubisky in either.  But I’d take him over Heineke all day every day.  Primarily due to arm strength, but I don’t see any other areas where Heineke ranks higher either.  Both leave you scratching your head as to what they are seeing and accuracy.  Neither are long term answers but the ceiling for Trubisky is undoubtedly higher than Heineke and while I’m sure the Hive would disagree, there’s no chance Trubisky’s floor is lower than TH.

 

Yeah to me Trubisky is basically Heinicke but he's sturdier, has an NFL arm and actually uses his legs. They both have very poor PFF and adjusted completion passing grades. I would prefer Mariota, but his injury history is worrying.

 

Either way, I would be ok with a guy like Trubisky or Mariota as long as they draft a QB. But if they bring in any of these FAs as anything more than a bridge then I'll probably throw up in my mouth.

Edited March 1, 2022 by mistertim

[Darth Tater]

23 minutes ago, Zim489 said:

The entirety of the 2020s for this franchise is crumbled because Ron won one too many games in the 2020 season making us draft 19th instead of 9th by winning one of the worst football games I have ever seen. 

Totally disagree here. Had Ron not won as many games as he did, NFL history tells us that we'd have to win the 2022 championship or face another 2-3 years of rebuild, minimum, probably have the current staff in 2023 and then will probably have to go thru a minimum of 1 coaching staff. Remember, no coach in NFL history that started two ten or more loss seasons, has ever taken that team to anything but mediocrity. In fact, only 1 guy coaching a non-expansion ever started out with 3 consecutive non-playoff years and went on to any success with that team and few finished well if none in first two. We have our own example. Losses are the most consistent tell that it is time to move on.

 

While not nearly as great of a tell you've got a good coach is quick success. Lombardi had the Pack killing it in his first year after taking over a team with 11 straight non-winning seasons. Don Shula took over a 3-10-1 team that had never even had a winning season and had them in the playoffs that year. Gibbs took over a 6-10 team and had them competing for a playoff spot in his first year (a 7 point loss to Buffalo on Nov 29 was what ended it). Holmgren took over a Pack team that had only been to the playoffs twice since St. Vince, in year 1 they only missed the playoffs thanks to a Dallas fumble. While not as impressive since he did miss the playoffs for the next two years, Payton took a team that had only two winning seasons since 1993 to the conference game in his first year. Reid took over a KC team that had 4 10+ loss seasons over the previous 10 years, in his first year the team went to the playoffs. McVay took a team that had 6 10+ loss seasons in the previous 10 to the playoffs in year 1 relying on a QB that had looked like a bust the previous year. All of these coaches have won championships and only 1 has not seen more than 1.

[Zim489]

28 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

Willis isn't graded to go as high as #11.

Maybe to you but your arguments are invalid as soon as you bring up any sort of defense of TH

[Zim489]

6 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

Totally disagree here. Had Ron not won as many games as he did, NFL history tells us that we'd have to win the 2022 championship or face another 2-3 years of rebuild, minimum, probably have the current staff in 2023 and then will probably have to go thru a minimum of 1 coaching staff. Remember, no coach in NFL history that started two ten or more loss seasons, has ever taken that team to anything but mediocrity. In fact, only 1 guy coaching a non-expansion ever started out with 3 consecutive non-playoff years and went on to any success with that team and few finished well if none in first two. We have our own example. Losses are the most consistent tell that it is time to move on.

 

While not nearly as great of a tell you've got a good coach is quick success. Lombardi had the Pack killing it in his first year after taking over a team with 11 straight non-winning seasons. Don Shula took over a 3-10-1 team that had never even had a winning season and had them in the playoffs that year. Gibbs took over a 6-10 team and had them competing for a playoff spot in his first year (a 7 point loss to Buffalo on Nov 29 was what ended it). Holmgren took over a Pack team that had only been to the playoffs twice since St. Vince, in year 1 they only missed the playoffs thanks to a Dallas fumble. While not as impressive since he did miss the playoffs for the next two years, Payton took a team that had only two winning seasons since 1993 to the conference game in his first year. Reid took over a KC team that had 4 10+ loss seasons over the previous 10 years, in his first year the team went to the playoffs. McVay took a team that had 6 10+ loss seasons in the previous 10 to the playoffs in year 1 relying on a QB that had looked like a bust the previous year. All of these coaches have won championships and only 1 has not seen more than 1.

The past history with anything to do in regards with QB prior to 2011 is irrelevant. Hell maybe even longer than 5 years ago. 
 

the position has just changed so much and has never meant more. Everything is predicated on QB. Nothing else matters until you have an elite guy in place. You’ll never be consistently competing for anything of note. Your team is irrelevant. Your roster is irrelevant. Hell your Coaching staff might be irrelevant. Step one is QB. Do everything humanly possible to take that first step. If you can’t take that first step in a year do everything in your power to make the step easier to make the following year 

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

 

 

 

[Darth Tater]

 

The Trubisky narrative seems to me that somebody is either preparing the fan-base for him or trying to make the fan-base excited with any other choice of the low-tier options. Don't think he would be a superior bridge as either he is a successful recovery project (and a rookie this year is redundant) or he is a fail (and the rookie is the better option now). A good bridge guy is one that is good enough but no better until the rook is ready. If the bridge guy is actually good, it is usually because he was already on the roster (Smith with Mahomes) and/or is a premium guy getting old (Farve with Rodgers).

13 minutes ago, Zim489 said:

The past history with anything to do in regards with QB prior to 2011 is irrelevant. Hell maybe even longer than 5 years ago. 
 

the position has just changed so much and has never meant more. Everything is predicated on QB. Nothing else matters until you have an elite guy in place. You’ll never be consistently competing for anything of note. Your team is irrelevant. Your roster is irrelevant. Hell your Coaching staff might be irrelevant. Step one is QB. Do everything humanly possible to take that first step. If you can’t take that first step in a year do everything in your power to make the step easier to make the following year 

History, specially when you have multiple examples for all decades since 1950, has EVERYTHING to do with it.

[Redskins 2021]

 Pickett at 11 would not be that bad. 

Edited March 1, 2022 by Redskins 2021

[Burgold]

I guess I'd have to ask why Tribusky was so inaccurate and is this something that the Bills' coaches could have corrected because if not I don't know that he is a real upgrade. He's Heinike with a better arm, but less pocket presence, worse leadership, and probably worse ability to read the field.

[Zim489]

4 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

History, specially when you have multiple examples for all decades since 1950, has EVERYTHING to do with it.

It does though. It’s a completely different game 

[Burgold]

2 minutes ago, Zim489 said:

It does though. It’s a completely different game 

Nah, it's not. It's still running and passing and blocking and tackling. The wheel hasn't been completely reinvented. 

 

I'll give you that the rules have gotten a significant (can't decide between upgrade and downgrade) so that offensive players have it much, much easier than they used to, but it's still slants and curls and posts. Gibbs ran a ton of three receiver sets in 1987. People have been in shotgun for a long time. QBs were used in the running game since the 1800's. 

 

It's not a completely different game. Anymore than a Mackintosh is a completely different kind of apple.

[actorguy1]

 

[skinny21]

2 hours ago, Zim489 said:

I dont care if they love them or not. IMO they have to take one. They cant go into season 3 with nothing at QB to be excited about. Its incomprehensible that a Staff in 2022 takes 3 years and still doesnt have a possible answer at QB. I still dont think they understand the position what so ever.

I get the doom and gloom angle you’re operating from - qb position has been a problem for ages, there’s no easy answer for Rivera to find one, if he doesn’t it will be the end of his time here, and if he waits and gives up significant resources next year, it could even affect the next staff.

 

Where you lose me though is with comments like the above, or your comment that if the Steelers want a guy, we should take him.  As I said, there’s no easy answer, and that’s because of the unknowns.  So it should be about hedging bets.

Maybe taking a qb at 11 is the right thing to do, or maybe it’s chasing a vet, or maybe it’s taking a reduced risk this year (a stopgap and 2nd rounder) and shooting for a more talented qb next year (ideally with more draft ammo in hand).  I don’t think that drafting a guy just to draft them is the right move though… you’ve got to have some belief that he could develop into a franchise guy.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I’m not excited about bringing Trubisky in either.  But I’d take him over Heineke all day every day.  Primarily due to arm strength, but I don’t see any other areas where Heineke ranks higher either.  Both leave you scratching your head as to what they are seeing and accuracy.  Neither are long term answers but the ceiling for Trubisky is undoubtedly higher than Heineke and while I’m sure the Hive would disagree, there’s no chance Trubisky’s floor is lower than TH.

Sorry, my second paragraph (including my lack of excitement about Trubisky) wasn’t meant to be directed at you… 

 

Honestly, I’m not sure what to think in comparing the 2 guys, but in terms of your comment of ranking higher, I think it’s fair to point out -

Heinicke threw for more yards than any of Mitch’s 4 seasons

He ran for more yards than 3 of Mitch’s 4 seasons

He had 3 4th quarter comebacks and 4 game winning drives compared with 5 and 10 for Mitch’s 4 seasons combined

He had a better completion percentage than 2 of Mitch’s 4 seasons

He had more passing 1st downs than any of Mitch’s 4 seasons

He threw for more tds than 3 of Mitch’s 4 seasons.

 

I’m not listing those to say you’re incorrect or are looking at it wrong, I mean I’m totally cherry-picking stats here (even if I used a lot of key ones), and there’s nuance to those stats that matter.  I’m just saying that comparing Heinicke’s 1 season to Mitch’s 4, Heinicke’s got some favorable numbers, it’s not a one-sided thing.

 

Again though, just to be clear, my point was if Heinicke is better at the non-statistical  things (reading defenses, poise, heart, or whatever) I could see that trumping a stronger arm.  Combining the stats I mention above, plus the idea that Heinicke could be better at the less tangible things, I just don’t think it’s “ridiculous” for someone to think Heinicke is a better qb (or better option or would win a camp battle or whatever).  Maybe that’s just me.

[veteranskinsfan]

I subscribe to Mark Bullock's emails about the team.  Today he analyzed Mitchell Trubisky.  He said he would take Jameis Winston over Trubisky and Marcus Mariota over him as well.

Here is his last sentence- "In terms of what he's put on film, Trubisky would be more of a Plan F or G than a Plan B for me".  He did say that Rivera has ties to the football people in  Buffalo if he needs to get feedback about him.

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

2 hours ago, Zim489 said:

Fixed it for you. League average is the worst place you can be 

 

I disagree, it's hard to build up talent and a roster with league bottom-ish QB play.  You can have a gem and not know it.  You can overvalue certain players because they can kind of function with an awful QB, and not realize some that would flourish with better QB play.

 

Eventually, you build up the roster, you swap out the league average QB for someone you think can be elite, and hope it works.  Alex Smith to Mahomes.  Jimmy G to Trey Lance.  Drew Brees to Philip Rivers (although Brees wound up developing further to the pleasant surprise of New Orleans). 

 

 

[Mrshadow008]

 

[samy316]

27 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

I get the doom and gloom angle you’re operating from - qb position has been a problem for ages, there’s no easy answer for Rivera to find one, if he doesn’t it will be the end of his time here, and if he waits and gives up significant resources next year, it could even affect the next staff.

 

Where you lose me though is with comments like the above, or your comment that if the Steelers want a guy, we should take him.  As I said, there’s no easy answer, and that’s because of the unknowns.  So it should be about hedging bets.

Maybe taking a qb at 11 is the right thing to do, or maybe it’s chasing a vet, or maybe it’s taking a reduced risk this year (a stopgap and 2nd rounder) and shooting for a more talented qb next year (ideally with more draft ammo in hand).  I don’t think that drafting a guy just to draft them is the right move though… you’ve got to have some belief that he could develop into a franchise guy.

 

 

 

Sorry, my second paragraph (including my lack of excitement about Trubisky) wasn’t meant to be directed at you… 

 

Honestly, I’m not sure what to think in comparing the 2 guys, but in terms of your comment of ranking higher, I think it’s fair to point out -

Heinicke threw for more yards than any of Mitch’s 4 seasons

He ran for more yards than 3 of Mitch’s 4 seasons

He had 3 4th quarter comebacks and 4 game winning drives compared with 5 and 10 for Mitch’s 4 seasons combined

He had a better completion percentage than 2 of Mitch’s 4 seasons

He had more passing 1st downs than any of Mitch’s 4 seasons

He threw for more tds than 3 of Mitch’s 4 seasons.

 

I’m not listing those to say you’re incorrect or are looking at it wrong, I mean I’m totally cherry-picking stats here (even if I used a lot of key ones), and there’s nuance to those stats that matter.  I’m just saying that comparing Heinicke’s 1 season to Mitch’s 4, Heinicke’s got some favorable numbers, it’s not a one-sided thing.

 

Again though, just to be clear, my point was if Heinicke is better at the non-statistical  things (reading defenses, poise, heart, or whatever) I could see that trumping a stronger arm.  Combining the stats I mention above, plus the idea that Heinicke could be better at the less tangible things, I just don’t think it’s “ridiculous” for someone to think Heinicke is a better qb (or better option or would win a camp battle or whatever).  Maybe that’s just me.

 

Therein lies the problem though.  Rivera doesn't have much time left to develop a franchise guy.  He's really put himself in a terrible position.  He's going into year 3 of a 5 year deal.  He should've drafted a QB last year, then he would've had more time to develop and gage the progress of the drafted QB.  Rivera wasting this past offseason signing 38 year old Ryan Fitzpatrick, instead of drafting a QB in a much better QB class will come back to haunt him and his tenure here in DC.  Why else do you think he's telegraphed the desperation the team has to get their guy THIS year?  It's because he realizes the major mistake he made last offseason.

 

It's why this offseason is so pivotal.  The QB situation, along with the re-branding of the team will make or break this franchise going forward.  If they strike out trying to trade for Watson/Wilson/Rodgers, and have to settle for signing a mediocre scrub like Trubisky or Mariotta, then they HAVE to draft a QB in the 1st or 2nd round.  If they just sign a terrible bridge QB like Trubisky/Mariotta without drafting a QB, then you'll likely see no more than 500 home fans at Fed-Ex Field next season.  The re-brand will get off to a horrific start if all you have to show for your efforts to get a QB are Trubisky/Mariotta and nothing else.

Edited March 1, 2022 by samy316

[clskinsfan]

3 hours ago, MartinC said:

 

If we sign someone like Trubisky as QB1, Heinicke will be the backup/QB2. The rookie in that scenario will be later in the draft and QB3 with a view to being the backup when Taylors contract runs out after next season. 

 

Heinicke is good backup - knows the system, has starting experience and can get you through a few games competitively if the starter goes down.

I think it depends who the rookie is. If it is Pickett I dont see him sitting for a year. The rest of the guys in this draft? Sure they could all use it. But Pickett is ready to play day one IMO. 

3 hours ago, Zim489 said:

And if they pass up Malik themselves this staff in place is full of morons.

I disagree. He is a project. And a raw one at that. I dont know that this staff has time for a project in all honesty. 

1 hour ago, Redskins 2021 said:

 Pickett at 11 would not be that bad. 

Would be ideal IMO.