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

[Thinking Skins]

6 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I mean it in good spirts but knowing some of the QBs you've been high on, it doesn't bother me that you aren't sold on Stafford -- ditto the thought that a SB win apparently doesn't prove that he's a winner with the right supporting cast. 😀

 

Its all fun and laughs. If we had Stafford, I'd be his biggest cheerleader right now. In part I hate on him because the Rams did what Danny tried to do, but just did it better. But I also never liked Stafford because he reminded me of Cousins and I never liked Cousins. That was partially because both were these great regular season guys but nothing in the playoffs guys. Actually they were the king of the 6-2 start and the collapse. So I never would get excited about a Stafford or Cousins team in the playoffs. I say the same about Ryan but he would at least make the playoffs. 

 

Now the profiles of those players has changed recently with Cousins making the playoffs a few times and winning a game in Minnesota (I think), Stafford winning a SB, and Ryan having a bad year last year. But deep cuts heal slowly (or something like that). Maybe in 10 years when I've had more time to breathe and hate on some other QB not on our team, I'll be more of a fan of these guys, but like I said in the other threads and in a previous post, I'm a fan of the guys who aren't the media darlings. To an extent that's Cousins and I liked him until he couldn't get us over the hump (and lost to the Panthers and Giants). But that's more guys like Flacco or Josh Allen who you can see where he improved his game and took his team deep in the playooffs. Heck I like Hurts because of his story. I don't think he'll last unless he can learn to throw it, but he took the team from Wentz. I admire that from a second rounder. 

[mistertim]

24 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Its all fun and laughs. If we had Stafford, I'd be his biggest cheerleader right now. In part I hate on him because the Rams did what Danny tried to do, but just did it better. But I also never liked Stafford because he reminded me of Cousins and I never liked Cousins. That was partially because both were these great regular season guys but nothing in the playoffs guys. Actually they were the king of the 6-2 start and the collapse. So I never would get excited about a Stafford or Cousins team in the playoffs. I say the same about Ryan but he would at least make the playoffs. 

 

Now the profiles of those players has changed recently with Cousins making the playoffs a few times and winning a game in Minnesota (I think), Stafford winning a SB, and Ryan having a bad year last year. But deep cuts heal slowly (or something like that). Maybe in 10 years when I've had more time to breathe and hate on some other QB not on our team, I'll be more of a fan of these guys, but like I said in the other threads and in a previous post, I'm a fan of the guys who aren't the media darlings. To an extent that's Cousins and I liked him until he couldn't get us over the hump (and lost to the Panthers and Giants). But that's more guys like Flacco or Josh Allen who you can see where he improved his game and took his team deep in the playooffs. Heck I like Hurts because of his story. I don't think he'll last unless he can learn to throw it, but he took the team from Wentz. I admire that from a second rounder. 

 

What would your offseason QB move have been, if not Wentz? Not being a smartass, I honestly just don't remember.

[NeverSurrender]

1 hour ago, veteranskinsfan said:

I remember a long time ago that Cousins got help by seeing a psychologist who helped him address pressure moments in games and how to deal with his mind in critical situations.  I wonder if Wentz has tried talking to a sports psychologist before each season starts.

Kirk needs to get his money back.

[Thinking Skins]

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

What would your offseason QB move have been, if not Wentz? Not being a smartass, I honestly just don't remember.

I never said what I would do because I didn't see any moves that would satisfy me and make me say "yeah that's the move". I really didn't see it last year so I wanted a shot to be given to Heinicke (more than even bringing in Stafford). But Given what he did this year I'm more optimistic about Ron's route, even calling up retired vets. I'm not negative on the Wentz trade or what we gave up. In fact I try to find reasons to be positive and I like his QBR and willingness to run the ball. I was ok with Mariotta or Tribs, but think they are in a tier below Wentz. Other guys - Ryan I was a no on, Wouldn't have minded trying for Rodgers or Wilson but didn't see it happening (although like Stafford I'm not as high on Rodgers because he's another guy who seems to collapse in the postseason. How many years have we had him as the #1 or #2 team in the conference only to lose out?). 

 

If we couldn't have done the Wentz deal I would have had Ridder 1 and Howell 2, though reading some of SIP's posts made me think of Corral as 2 or 3. I like Willis but question him developing into an all around QB (same with some of the others but because he is an elite athlete, I think he can get too comfortable with that). But aside from those options, I would have looked at some of the backups to see if teams were willing to part with them. I'm not too high on dude in Baltimore, but maybe him. Maybe Minnesota's backup who I liked in the draft last year, maybe Jax dude who is an Eagle now. I don't know though. Its a tough decision and I think that we were so deperate that we knew that SOMETHING had to be done and that is what made us even more desperate. 

 

But I like Wentz, hated him as an Eagle, loved week 1 2020 when we finally got after him. And now I'm rooting for him to silence the haters. 

[HigSkin]

I don't know but....

 

 

[Warhead36]

Colts OL and RB is better. Our WR corps is better. TE is a coin flip. 

[FootballZombie]

Colts have put a good team product on the field already, we just have stuff on paper.

 

If Dynami contributes and the new WR is good

If Samuel can do what he was brought in for

If Young n Sweat take a step

If the whole D improves

If Turners play calling actually works in practice and not just in theory

If the reworked O-line works as well as last years

 

Then you can say the surrounding cast is better than Indy's, but not before we see at least a few of those things happen.

Edited May 4, 2022 by FootballZombie

[NoVaSkins21]

44 minutes ago, HigSkin said:

I don't know but....

 

 

He's got a great #1 WR in Terry, but it's too early to tell about the rest of the WRs

[RWJ]

This makes a huge difference for Carson along with us having a running game and a pass blocker in Robinson.  

 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2022 by RWJ

[zCommander]

2 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

Colts OL and RB is better. Our WR corps is better. TE is a coin flip. 

 

But didn't we have a top 10 OL last season? our RB has improved a lot after the draft now and McKissic coming back as well. Logan Thomas is good - hopefully he stays healthy for all 17 games this year. 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

 

9 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

I and I never liked Cousins. That was partially because both were these great regular season guys but nothing in the playoffs guys. Actually they were the king of the 6-2 start and the collapse. So I never would get excited about a Stafford or Cousins team in the playoffs. I say the same about Ryan but he would at least make the playoffs. 

 

 

i think its simple.  On the off chance for example the Lions over the years make the playoffs the odds are they are going to be smoked by the likely better team they face.    For example when we faced GB in the playoffs years back or even Tampa the last time, we were underdogs, we were expected to lose.  If we make the playoffs this time, we likely are going to be the underdog again.  And if we lose it probably won't be the fault of Carson Wentz but it will be about he's simply up against a better Qb and a better team.

 

If you make the playoffs you are playing a big boy team usually especially if you sneak in with a 9-7 type of record where you end up playing a top seed type team.

 

Teams that have marginal success in a typical season who are lucky to sneak into the playoffs every now and then, like the Lions with Stafford, the Raiders with Carr or this team -- the odds are they are going to be beat by a significantly more talented team once they make the post season.  And teams in the playoffs don't play down to their competition with the stakes being so high. 

 

9 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Now the profiles of those players has changed recently with Cousins making the playoffs a few times and winning a game in Minnesota (I think), Stafford winning a SB

 

Kirk helped beat New Orleans on the road in the playoffs which is arguably a bigger win than Dan has had in his sad 20 plus years running this team.  Ryan took his team to a SB.  Stafford won one.   IMO of the good QBs who aren't great, I'd take Carr, Stafford, Ryan over Kirk because they are all clutch players.  Kirk will have an occasional big game when the stakes are high but clearly not enough of them.    But I don't hate Kirk the way some here do.  I have had more first hand observation with Kirk than any other player (not a ton but enough for me to at least in my own mind to get a read on what kind of person he is) and he seems like a really classly guy. 

 

Wentz has a little bit of that Kirk narrative about not being clutch following him here.  I don't know if its justified but it clealy exists. 

Edited May 5, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[madden lot]

15 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

you're right but it doesn't do anything to the point I was making which is to respond to the person saying hey he wasn't into Stafford as if the season he just had shows that they were justfied into not thinking he's good.  For the Stafford doubters, last season didn't help them prove they were right.  He just won a SB and had a good season. 

 

https://theramswire.usatoday.com/2022/01/30/rams-matthew-stafford-lions-wins-stat-career/

It’s almost as if Stafford wasn’t the problem in Detroit as some have made him out to be. He’s been plenty successful with the Rams, showing what he can do when he has a quality supporting cast around him.

You're right. It doesn't. I saw the mistake you made and had to correct you🤪 because you're a elite poster🍺 and i was super shock you forgot the sb mvp. 

[RandyHolt]

Colts had home games. Wentz will be lucky to get 2 here. Winning may cure that but to me there is more to a team than surrounding cast. Org dysfunction aside, its nothing short of awkward for our new players to see our stadium overrun every week Opposing teams must be inspired to do well for the fans collectively spending millions of dollars to support them on the road.

Edited May 5, 2022 by RandyHolt

[ExoDus84]

3 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

Colts OL and RB is better. Our WR corps is better. TE is a coin flip. 

 

Colts OL is most assuredly not better than ours. Ours graded out significantly better than theirs last season.  

 

Agree with everything else. 

[RWJ]

Howell is the perfect QB to learn under Carson.  The Commanders have a ton of talent now at WR and TE.  This about Howell from PFF:

 

2022 NFL Draft Position Rankings: Quarterbacks | College Football | PFF

 

Overall ranking from all players in the draft and writeup:

 

2. SAM HOWELL, NORTH CAROLINA

BIG BOARD RANK: 34

Howell may have taken a step back as a passer, but he proved to be a legitimate threat as a runner this season. He broke an absurd 63 tackles and ran for 1,072 yards in 2021.

Edited May 5, 2022 by RWJ

[mistertim]

9 minutes ago, ExoDus84 said:

 

Colts OL is most assuredly not better than ours. Ours graded out significantly better than theirs last season.  

 

Agree with everything else. 

 

Colts had a pretty decent OL overall, but ours was better. PFF ranked us #6 and them #12 at the end of last season. Though their OL was mainly really good at run blocking. They were pretty awful in pass pro.

Edited May 5, 2022 by mistertim

[Voice_of_Reason]

5 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

Colts OL and RB is better. Our WR corps is better. TE is a coin flip. 

RB yes.

 

OL? Maybe.  The Colts OL wasn’t very good and ours was. Granted we will see because we’re replacing both guards.

 

WR we’re better.

 

But if you look at all the “weapons” as a group, because I think we’re going to see a different type of offense, we’re clearly better.  
 

Amd I don’t think it’s so much a hot or lukewarm take, loads of the stars people have said it….

4 hours ago, NoVaSkins21 said:

He's got a great #1 WR in Terry, but it's too early to tell about the rest of the WRs

That by itself makes our groups better…

[Thinking Skins]

11 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

i think its simple.  On the off chance for example the Lions over the years make the playoffs the odds are they are going to be smoked by the likely better team they face.    For example when we faced GB in the playoffs years back or even Tampa the last time, we were underdogs, we were expected to lose.  If we make the playoffs this time, we likely are going to be the underdog again.  And if we lose it probably won't be the fault of Carson Wentz but it will be about he's simply up against a better Qb and a better team.

 

If you make the playoffs you are playing a big boy team usually especially if you sneak in with a 9-7 type of record where you end up playing a top seed type team.

 

Teams that have marginal success in a typical season who are lucky to sneak into the playoffs every now and then, like the Lions with Stafford, the Raiders with Carr or this team -- the odds are they are going to be beat by a significantly more talented team once they make the post season.  And teams in the playoffs don't play down to their competition with the stakes being so high. 

 

 

Kirk helped beat New Orleans on the road in the playoffs which is arguably a bigger win than Dan has had in his sad 20 plus years running this team.  Ryan took his team to a SB.  Stafford won one.   IMO of the good QBs who aren't great, I'd take Carr, Stafford, Ryan over Kirk because they are all clutch players.  Kirk will have an occasional big game when the stakes are high but clearly not enough of them.    But I don't hate Kirk the way some here do.  I have had more first hand observation with Kirk than any other player (not a ton but enough for me to at least in my own mind to get a read on what kind of person he is) and he seems like a really classly guy. 

 

Wentz has a little bit of that Kirk narrative about not being clutch following him here.  I don't know if its justified but it clealy exists. 

Thats all legit, but it still doesn't help me see these guys as regular season stat padders who can't win the big games. Ryan may be the king of leadership and I'll give it to him that he was the winningest of a lot of these stat padders, but he still would lose in the playoffs compared to everybody else. To me there was an upper echilon of QBs you want - Brady, Manning, Wilson, Flacco (though his regular season leaves a lot to be desired), Mahomes, Until last year Stafford was 0-3 in the playoffs. Sure its the Lions, but Josh Allen took over he Bills and won a playoff game (three) with them. 

 

And this is where I bring up your old argument. I will start with saying that my feelings about Kirk are not saying I did not want him here. I am a believer in mediocre QBs and great teams taking you all the way (Stafford is my example but I digress). But he was frustrating because he couldn't win the late season game but wanted the big contract. But If he's not a top 5 QB then he shouldn't be getting top 5 money. I don't want to pay a QB top 5 money to just make the playoffs and lose out every year. We can do that with a team built on defense and rushing. I want at least what Rodgers has done and make it to the NFC Championship game a few times. 

 

But then again over the last 30 years I've had a depressing life as a fan. So maybe it would be nice to be the Tennessee TItans and go 8-8 ever year, maybe it would be nice to make the playoffs and get bounced every year, maybe it would be nice to be actually building something and feel like there's some cohesion instead of thinkng that every 3 years the breakdown and buildup will result in a stronger foundation and SB run. 

[mistertim]

7 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Thats all legit, but it still doesn't help me see these guys as regular season stat padders who can't win the big games. Ryan may be the king of leadership and I'll give it to him that he was the winningest of a lot of these stat padders, but he still would lose in the playoffs compared to everybody else. To me there was an upper echilon of QBs you want - Brady, Manning, Wilson, Flacco (though his regular season leaves a lot to be desired), Mahomes, Until last year Stafford was 0-3 in the playoffs. Sure its the Lions, but Josh Allen took over he Bills and won a playoff game (three) with them. 

 

And this is where I bring up your old argument. I will start with saying that my feelings about Kirk are not saying I did not want him here. I am a believer in mediocre QBs and great teams taking you all the way (Stafford is my example but I digress). But he was frustrating because he couldn't win the late season game but wanted the big contract. But If he's not a top 5 QB then he shouldn't be getting top 5 money. I don't want to pay a QB top 5 money to just make the playoffs and lose out every year. We can do that with a team built on defense and rushing. I want at least what Rodgers has done and make it to the NFC Championship game a few times. 

 

But then again over the last 30 years I've had a depressing life as a fan. So maybe it would be nice to be the Tennessee TItans and go 8-8 ever year, maybe it would be nice to make the playoffs and get bounced every year, maybe it would be nice to be actually building something and feel like there's some cohesion instead of thinkng that every 3 years the breakdown and buildup will result in a stronger foundation and SB run. 

 

So to summarize your POV, you're good with mediocre QBs as long as they're not getting paid as top QBs? Just trying to wrap my head around you panning good QBs but then pushing guys like Heinicke and Nick Mullens.

[Thinking Skins]

Just now, mistertim said:

 

So to summarize your POV, you're good with mediocre QBs as long as they're not getting paid as top QBs? Just trying to wrap my head around you panning good QBs but then pushing guys like Heinicke and Nick Mullens.

pretty much. I'm for investing in QB every year until we get one but not over-investing in first rounders. Like the ROdgers year, I wanted him because he dropped (supposed to go first overall and dropped to 7 when we picked Carlos instead of him), then GB picked him and we traded up for Campbell. I was like WTF. I loved the RG3 pick because i thought he was a unique talent who was a good passer and runner. I was wrong. The only other first round QB I've been high on before the draft is Josh Allen. But even with him I wanted him mid-first, probably about where he went (but thought he would go higher). Guys have intrigued me like Darnold and Tribusky and Haskins but I wasn't really in favor of drafting them. I did pull for Haskins cause I thought that we could build a team around him until he made his costly mistake. 

 

With the low round guys its just that you're not investing as much in them. The pick matters less. If they bum out so be it. But if they can be a Cousins or even a Foles or a Minshew or a Tyrod then I think you've got the foundation to get us to where we haven't been since 2005 - a playoff victory. I think its much easier to build a defense and running fb team than to find a frnchise QB and I would not rather go 3-13/14 over and over again until we find one. I'd like to be knocking on the door every year. 

[Warhead36]

Colts OL pass protection #s suffered because Wentz likes to hold on to the ball. They've got two studs in their line in Kelly and Nelson. Our OL got worse with Scherff and Flowers departing. 

[mistertim]

8 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

pretty much. I'm for investing in QB every year until we get one but not over-investing in first rounders. Like the ROdgers year, I wanted him because he dropped (supposed to go first overall and dropped to 7 when we picked Carlos instead of him), then GB picked him and we traded up for Campbell. I was like WTF. I loved the RG3 pick because i thought he was a unique talent who was a good passer and runner. I was wrong. The only other first round QB I've been high on before the draft is Josh Allen. But even with him I wanted him mid-first, probably about where he went (but thought he would go higher). Guys have intrigued me like Darnold and Tribusky and Haskins but I wasn't really in favor of drafting them. I did pull for Haskins cause I thought that we could build a team around him until he made his costly mistake. 

 

With the low round guys its just that you're not investing as much in them. The pick matters less. If they bum out so be it. But if they can be a Cousins or even a Foles or a Minshew or a Tyrod then I think you've got the foundation to get us to where we haven't been since 2005 - a playoff victory. I think its much easier to build a defense and running fb team than to find a frnchise QB and I would not rather go 3-13/14 over and over again until we find one. I'd like to be knocking on the door every year. 

 

Sure, you're not investing much in the low round guys, because they're not very good and have next to no chance of doing anything in the NFL. Yes, the "hit" rate (though that's a bit subjective) in the 1st round is probably around 30-40% but the hit rate on low round QBs is way worse. You could probably spend your next 50 low round picks on QBs and never get a guy who's going to do anything of note for you.

 

You say you want to be knocking on the door every year, but picking low round QBs isn't knocking on the door, it's buying a bunch of $1 lottery tickets over and over and over in the hopes that you'll win $20 million.

[Thinking Skins]

1 minute ago, mistertim said:

 

Sure, you're not investing much in the low round guys, because they're not very good and have next to no chance of doing anything in the NFL. Yes, the "hit" rate (though that's a bit subjective) in the 1st round is probably around 30-40% but the hit rate on low round QBs is way worse. You could probably spend your next 50 low round picks on QBs and never get a guy who's going to do anything of note for you.

 

You say you want to be knocking on the door every year, but picking low round QBs isn't knocking on the door, it's buying a bunch of $1 lottery tickets over and over and over in the hopes that you'll win $20 million.

Yeah, you say that but we just finished an era where our best guys were Kirk > Heinkicke > Alex Smith > Kyle Allen > Haskins . Now we could Sprinkle Case Keenum and Colt McCot in there, and probably put Kirk > RG3 > Heinkcie, but it doesn't change the fact that we've been able to find some mediocre QBs with low draft value - basically giving us the equivalent of what we'd get from a first round pick. Look at Daniel Jones in NY or Darnold in NY and Car or a bunch of the busts. Its harder to move on from them because they've invested so much in them. With a lower round guy like Heinicke we can be honest about him. He did a serviceable job but we can see that he's not the #1 going forward. If pressed into duty I'm sure he will do a good job again but he's not the guy and lets move on to somebody else. If we didn't have Wentz, we could do the same with a fifth in Howell - its what Jacksonville did with Minshew. But because theyre low round guys people want to act like they can't be good or we can't win with them. They're unlikely tobe Romo or Warner but they can be better than Jimmy G (regular season) or Jared Goff (regular season) who took their teams to the SB. 

[Conn]

19 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Colts OL pass protection #s suffered because Wentz likes to hold on to the ball. They've got two studs in their line in Kelly and Nelson. Our OL got worse with Scherff and Flowers departing. 

This is incorrect, the QB holding the ball is accounted for in those ranks. The entire point is to isolate individual and position group play. Our OL was not discernibly worse without Scherff last year except maybe in the running game, we got deep into our reserves on the interior OL and still graded well in pass protection. Flowers was upgraded on imo but at worst it’s a wash. Flowers still hasn’t even been signed anywhere despite being a guy who wouldn’t effect anyone’s comp picks, he’s hardly even above average. What’s happening in this post. 

Edited May 5, 2022 by Conn

[mistertim]

4 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Yeah, you say that but we just finished an era where our best guys were Kirk > Heinkicke > Alex Smith > Kyle Allen > Haskins . Now we could Sprinkle Case Keenum and Colt McCot in there, and probably put Kirk > RG3 > Heinkcie, but it doesn't change the fact that we've been able to find some mediocre QBs with low draft value - basically giving us the equivalent of what we'd get from a first round pick. Look at Daniel Jones in NY or Darnold in NY and Car or a bunch of the busts. Its harder to move on from them because they've invested so much in them. With a lower round guy like Heinicke we can be honest about him. He did a serviceable job but we can see that he's not the #1 going forward. If pressed into duty I'm sure he will do a good job again but he's not the guy and lets move on to somebody else. If we didn't have Wentz, we could do the same with a fifth in Howell - its what Jacksonville did with Minshew. But because theyre low round guys people want to act like they can't be good or we can't win with them. They're unlikely tobe Romo or Warner but they can be better than Jimmy G (regular season) or Jared Goff (regular season) who took their teams to the SB. 

 

But you're basically the only person who seems to think this is a successful strategy. NFL GMs, FOs, coaches...they all disagree. The teams that ended up with good QBs from the mid or low rounds didn't do that on purpose. They didn't have a strategy of "keep getting low round QBs until one hits." It was complete random luck.

 

And sure, you can find some "ok" QBs with mid or low round picks, but unless you get a one in a million guy like Brady they're probably not going to make you a perennial contender. They're basically space fillers who might help you be a mediocre team, but nothing more. That's why teams who have the Minshews, the Heinickes, the Mullens, etc pretty much always move on as soon as they have a shot at a better prospect.