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

[FootballZombie]

4 hours ago, Conn said:

So when you say “I’m just comparing the two situations without context, purely Wentz at cost vs Mayfield at cost”, you’re living in a fantasy world far outside of reality. Nothing would have gone down the same way. While you’re in loony toons make believe land, you may as well say “would you rather have Wentz on his contract for what we traded or would you rather have drafted Tom Brady in 2000?” because you’re that outside of the real world timeline we live in. Get a grip.  

 

Thinking like that any questioning of alternate playcalls after a bad series on game day or giving player X more playing time would be high fantasy Dungeons and Dragons. Its missing the forest for the trees.

 

Like with many trades or major signings a game of "would you rather" broke out. Its like how half the conversations start on this board. The comparison and discussion is the whole point.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

33 minutes ago, zCommander said:

 

Realistically how many games you expect Wentz to win?

I think I can speak for the majority here, in that we expect him to play well, by threatening all levels, and marching the offense down the field rather regularly.  Basically, we expect him to be able to run a full NFL offense.

 

As far as how many games this team wins, that's up to a lot of variables.  We know you want to pin a # on it, a high # at that, so you can be disappointed with whatever that # is and pin it on Wentz no matter how he plays.

[Conn]

16 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

 

Thinking like that any questioning of alternate playcalls after a bad series on game day or giving player X more playing time would be high fantasy Dungeons and Dragons. Its missing the forest for the trees.

 

Like with many trades or major signings a game of "would you rather" broke out. Its like how half the conversations start on this board. The comparison and discussion is the whole point.

Yes but most people would agree that there is a difference in the type of discussion you’re having , for example, in these two cases:

 

1. “The Bears should have drafted Devante Parker over Kevin White in the 1st”. 

 

2. “The Bears should have just drafted Stefan Diggs in the 5th instead of Kevin White in the 1st”. 

 

One is a legitimate choice that could have been made and argued for even at the time, without being intellectually dishonest. The other is a fantasy land dream using the benefit of hindsight that never would have happened and isn’t a realistic evaluation of the options that were on the table at the time, so it’s disingenuous. 

[mistertim]

48 minutes ago, zCommander said:

 

Realistically how many games you expect Wentz to win?

 

Like @BatteredFanSyndrome, I really don't get the obsession with wins as the ultimate metric for how good a QB is. If I'm judging a QB, it's going to be on his play, not purely wins and losses, because so many factors can be involved there that the QB doesn't have control over. 

 

Now, obviously having a top tier QB helps a ton, so if Wentz were to return to his 2017 form (far from a given) and the defense doesn't completely **** the bed then with the weapons we have I'd certainly hope our offense would be humming and we'd at least be a 12+ win team with the schedule we have.

 

But again, that's not how I'm going to judge Wentz himself. If he balls out and throws 36 TDs and 7 INTs but we end up with a losing season, then I have serious doubts the problem was mainly Wentz. Likewise, if he throws for 25 TDs and 20 INTs and we win 12+ games I'm not going to give him much credit for it.

[FootballZombie]

6 minutes ago, Conn said:

One is a legitimate choice that could have been made and argued for even at the time, without being intellectually dishonest. The other is a fantasy land dream using the benefit of hindsight that never would have happened and isn’t a realistic evaluation of the options that were on the table at the time, so it’s disingenuous. 

 

Hate to spoil it for ya but the same type of convo is gonna break out when another QB shoe drops or information breaks surrounding Jimmy G or Watson. Its how this has always worked.

[Carsonfanforlife]

1 hour ago, zCommander said:

 

Realistically how many games you expect Wentz to win?

It's crazy how everyone wants to credit the QB for wins and losses all the time. I mean the packers have had 2 HOF QB's for 30 years and have 2 SB wins over that time. Dan Marino is one of the greatest QB's of all time and never won a SB. I honestly don't consider Brady the goat but he's got the most SB wins. He'd have less had Seattle ran the damn ball or Atlanta not completely **** the bed too. FB is such a team sport laying the w/l record on one player is asinine!

[Koolblue13]

The panthers dont have a definite starter yet and were halfway through the offseason. We have a huge QB coming off a good (great at times) season and the defined starter.  No way would I swap QB situations with the Panthers. Definitely not if we swapped QB trade and pay compensation. 

[The Rook]

1 hour ago, zCommander said:

 

Realistically how many games you expect Wentz to win?

 

Seemed like a straight-forward question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rook

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[Conn]

1 hour ago, FootballZombie said:

 

Hate to spoil it for ya but the same type of convo is gonna break out when another QB shoe drops or information breaks surrounding Jimmy G or Watson. Its how this has always worked.

 

And some of the comparisons and debates are realistic, while some are fairy tale land. People are just telling you that yours in this case isn’t realistic, there were too many wacky variables to make it clean. That’s all imo. 

[Conn]

I bet Terry’s talked to Dotson by now

[Cooleyfan1993]

18 minutes ago, Conn said:

I bet Terry’s talked to Dotson by now

Probably giving him the silent treatment. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, FootballZombie said:

Like with many trades or major signings a game of "would you rather" broke out. Its like how half the conversations start on this board. The comparison and discussion is the whole point.

It broke out because you broke it out.  chuckle.

 

1 hour ago, Conn said:

One is a legitimate choice that could have been made and argued for even at the time, without being intellectually dishonest. The other is a fantasy land dream using the benefit of hindsight that never would have happened and isn’t a realistic evaluation of the options that were on the table at the time, so it’s disingenuous. 

And this seems to be the problem with the "would you rather" conversations.  If you look at them in a vacuum, they're meaningless because they don't take into account any context of the "would you rather" actually holding true.

 

This is the same argument we had with the "would you rather" conversation between Winston @ $4m hit this year + Honey Badger and 2 other guys I can't remember vs. Wentz.    

 

I guess it's fine to play the "would you rather" game, but it's completely pointless because:

 

1. The Winston @ $4m doesn't take into account the entire contract, or even the guaranteed money

2. Matthieu was going to go to the Saints unless they absolutely said no to him, because he's a Louisiana guy who played for LSU and that's where he wanted to go.  So he wasn't coming here (or anywhere else).

 

That leaves aside all the other things like Winston's injury, do we really need the other players, etc.  That's fine to discuss.  

 

But the context of the "would you rather" is busted from the beginning because the contract comparison is empirically false AND one of the players wasn't going to come here almost no matter what.

 

It's the same with this situation: Would you rather have Mayfield at $4m for one year or Wentz for $28m for 3 years.

 

Well, it really doesn't matter.  Just for a minute, let's take them for their word and say they they talked to every team about their QB availability.  When they called the Browns, Mayfield wasn't available.  

olina 

In order to make him available, they would have had to have offered a lot more than what the Panthers ended up paying because of the timing.

 

Now, what would have happened if the Commanders just sat and waited, didn't trade for Wentz?  We'll never know because Ron was adamant they were not going to wait forever to find an answer to QB.  They were going to sign/trade the best QB available to them as early as possible.  

 

So the premise of waiting until July 7th to get Mayfield on this deal with this compensation is basically invalid.  

 

Since you couldn't have had Mayfield for this compensation when we got Wentz, the hypothetical falls over on it's face.  

 

There is one thing which could have happened which could have made both the Ryan and the Baker hypotheticals actually plausible:  IF Cleveland had traded for Watson BEFORE we traded for Wentz, and that whole dance with Atlanta had taken place so Ryan was irritated also, and that happened FIRST, at that point the playing field would have been different.  Mayfield, Ryan and Wentz would all have been available when we traded for Wentz, and then who knows what we would have done, or what compensation for any of the guys would have been. But after the dust had settled, then you COULD play the "which would you rather have" game because all three options would have been available at the same time. 

 

FWIW, my guess is Atlanta and Indy would have traded QBs, possibly straight up, and then I have no idea if Ron and company would have traded for Baker or not.  They might have decided they preferred the Mitch Mariota + Pickett route in that scenario over Baker on a one year deal, and they would have drafted Pickett at 16 after a modest trade down, like the one we made.  Though, also in that scenario, it's possible the Steelers would have tried to move up for Pickett if they knew Washington was in the market for a QB.  But we'll never know.  

 

So anyway, the "would you rather" game is fine, but if either option is not actually available, then it's pointless.

 

Like, I had a really nice prom date. She was lovely.  But "would I rather" have taken Jennie Garth to prom?  (I had a HUGE crush in 1995.)  Abso-freaking-lutely.  (With all due respect to my prom date, she really was lovely) But that option wasn't available to me.  But I would have rather taken Jennie. (even though she's a few years older than me, I'd have been fine with that...)

 

For all you yungun's who aren't familiar with Jennie Garth, she was on a show called 90210 and she was hot. At least to 18 year old me.  

2 hours ago, FootballZombie said:

 

Hate to spoil it for ya but the same type of convo is gonna break out when another QB shoe drops or information breaks surrounding Jimmy G or Watson. Its how this has always worked.

I don't think anybody is going to bring up a "would you rather" for Jimmy G. except you.  If he is moved, the deal is going to be very light in compensation and also probably "better" than Wentz's $28m.

 

So I'm pretty sure you're going to come on here and say you would prefer it.  

 

But that also will be fictitious because we couldn't have gotten him either for whatever the price ends up being in March.  We probably know that because I'm just going to assume Ron talked to them to gage their interest.  

 

So, sure, if you start the conversation, it will happen.  I guarantee that...

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

2 hours ago, FootballZombie said:

 

Hate to spoil it for ya but the same type of convo is gonna break out when another QB shoe drops or information breaks surrounding Jimmy G or Watson. Its how this has always worked.

We can always rank QB’s based on their value, and create fairy tale scenarios, where we could get X guy.

 

But it’s just that, hypotheticals and fairy tales, when you ignore the timelines, context and other variables involved.

[FootballZombie]

23 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

It broke out because you broke it out.  chuckle.

 

I talked about it in response to someone else's query of preferring Mayfield.

 

 

 

Here's a fun question, who wants it more:

 

 

Wentz vs the Colts

 

or

 

Mayfield vs the Browns

[Conn]

Huh wonder how honest people here will be about how well this would have gone over:

 

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

9 minutes ago, Conn said:

Huh wonder how honest people here will be about how well this would have gone over:

 

 

I swear the athletic seems to be in the payroll of the owners.  Maybe certain owners.  

[FootballZombie]

21 minutes ago, Conn said:

Huh wonder how honest people here will be about how well this would have gone over:

 

Can't imagine it being much different then the last guy with documented behavioral issues is my guess.

[Conn]

37 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I swear the athletic seems to be in the payroll of the owners.  Maybe certain owners.  

I wouldn’t say the site itself, but the agent and NFL team to reporter pipeline remains strong. I agree it’s very transparent, just like it was with Wentz 

[TheShredder]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

At least they're doing something. There had to be a BBQ and some socializing post workout. Wentz, Terry, and Jahan getting acclamation reps is 💰

You've got athletes that are highly motivated to succeed. Wentz is in his put up or shut up season. TM is in always All-In. Jahan is playing every rep like it's the last one his cancer fighting mom will ever see!

 

[CobraCommander]

Is it a bad sign that Curtis Samuel isn’t there?

 

[zCommander]

7 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I think I can speak for the majority here, in that we expect him to play well, by threatening all levels, and marching the offense down the field rather regularly.  Basically, we expect him to be able to run a full NFL offense.

 

As far as how many games this team wins, that's up to a lot of variables.  We know you want to pin a # on it, a high # at that, so you can be disappointed with whatever that # is and pin it on Wentz no matter how he plays.

 

So saying we should win at least 11 games with Wentz is now a high number?

 

7 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

Like @BatteredFanSyndrome, I really don't get the obsession with wins as the ultimate metric for how good a QB is. If I'm judging a QB, it's going to be on his play, not purely wins and losses, because so many factors can be involved there that the QB doesn't have control over. 

 

Now, obviously having a top tier QB helps a ton, so if Wentz were to return to his 2017 form (far from a given) and the defense doesn't completely **** the bed then with the weapons we have I'd certainly hope our offense would be humming and we'd at least be a 12+ win team with the schedule we have.

 

But again, that's not how I'm going to judge Wentz himself. If he balls out and throws 36 TDs and 7 INTs but we end up with a losing season, then I have serious doubts the problem was mainly Wentz. Likewise, if he throws for 25 TDs and 20 INTs and we win 12+ games I'm not going to give him much credit for it.

 

Wentz is 8 times better than TH when it comes to INT so why would you even think this is even a possibility? I don't even understand your point here. Wentz will be let go if that happens. Wentz can't afford to do that if he wants to be here longer than one year. i personally don't care about style points. Wining the game no matter what is ideal for him and his teammates moral and hopes of being in the playoffs. 

 

7 hours ago, Carsonfanforlife said:

It's crazy how everyone wants to credit the QB for wins and losses all the time. I mean the packers have had 2 HOF QB's for 30 years and have 2 SB wins over that time. Dan Marino is one of the greatest QB's of all time and never won a SB. I honestly don't consider Brady the goat but he's got the most SB wins. He'd have less had Seattle ran the damn ball or Atlanta not completely **** the bed too. FB is such a team sport laying the w/l record on one player is asinine!

 

Well it is a stat after all. It shows up on the stats sheet too. Brady is a real cerebral QB. He plays with almost perfect timing and expects his WR to be on that spot he is throwing to. The ball leaves his hand  in 1.5 seconds or less after he looks to his right and then left and then throws in the middle instead. He is like a robot. This is why he has been so successful. His OL didn't needed to be top notch because he doesn't hold on to the football longer than 1.5 seconds, but very rarely has gone to 2.5 seconds. He is the GOAT so far. Would love to see anyone do that with such precision.

 

I was not talking about Wentz winning a SB in 22. But, Wentz does have a SB ring though. 

 

Unfortunately, QB plays can determine a W/L record. For example, putting a clutch 2 min drive to win the game by making plays to do that. It is a team sport but the QB still has to be his best to help his team win too. 

 

[mistertim]

17 minutes ago, zCommander said:

 

Wentz is 8 times better than TH when it comes to INT so why would you even think this is even a possibility? I don't even understand your point here. Wentz will be let go if that happens. Wentz can't afford to do that if he wants to be here longer than one year. i personally don't care about style points. Wining the game no matter what is ideal for him and his teammates moral and hopes of being in the playoffs. 

 

 

The point is that judging a QB purely by the team record is dumb, because a QB can play really well and the team still loses due to other factors, or a QB can play like crap and the team still wins due to other factors.

 

I put those numbers out there to illustrate that point. If Wentz puts up mediocre or crappy numbers but we still have a winning record, it probably means the team mostly did it despite him and not because of him. If he puts up great numbers but we have a losing record, it probably means the rest of the team didn't hold up their end of the bargain.

 

So if we go by your logic and judge Wentz purely based on record, then if he had 25 TDs and 20 INTs and we still win 12 games, we should keep him. If he tosses 36 TDs and 7 INTs and we have a losing record, we should jettison him.

 

Which of course would be stupid.

[Koolblue13]

Matt Stafford didn't win ****, until he was on a good team. Did he suddenly become a great QB or was he swimming in toilet for years? 

 

The QB = wins arguement is dumb, but you do need a QB to win.

[Riggo'sRangers]

11 hours ago, CobraCommander said:

Is it a bad sign that Curtis Samuel isn’t there?

 

 

He's staying under wraps, bubble wrap that is.