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

[The Consigliere]

On 1/9/2023 at 6:35 AM, Skinsinparadise said:

This is coming from a dude who used to believe you need great-elite QB.  And don't get me wrong, I'd still love to find that guy.

 

But if anything this seems to be the season where the tide seems to be turning back old school some.

 

A. Running game and defenses seem to matter more.

 

B.  We see teams wtih strong rosters but with decent not great QBs winning.  Heck I watched a Jared Goff led team beat GB yesterday and the season before a Jimmy G led team beat GB as well.   The best QBs in the NFC playoffs right now are arguably Hurts and Kirk and Dak.   

 

C.  I agree if we were in the NFC dealing with Mahomes and J. Allen, it would feel tougher.

 

But if anything I think the trend based on this season is build a killer roster and just average to good QB play might be enough.  Granted that could be just an NFC thing but that's the playground we are playing in

 

 

Yeah the SF 49ers reporter thought the difference in the defense would be changed if you add a great LB and maybe a better CB.    He was lamenting the SF 49ers interior as the 49ers weakness

The best teams in the NFL by far right now all have franchise QB's save one. Buffalo's got Allen, KC's got Mahomes, Cincy's got Burrow, and the Eagles have one that produced a super elite season but is still questionable due to to the throwing/accuracy concerns.

 

I don't think there's any evidence at all that elite QB's are taking a back seat. Indeed 3 of those 4 teams also have semi-suspect, erratic running games and 2 of them have middling defenses. Big time elite QB's still define the league. 

[Warhead36]

If you want to sustain success year in year year out over a 5+ year period, then you absolutely need a franchise QB. Period.

[Inigo Montoya]

19 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

If you want to sustain success year in year year out over a 5+ year period, then you absolutely need a franchise QB. Period.

And you have to draft that player, Brady and Stafford can get you an "all in" 1 year win. But sustained success is homegrown 

[Skinsinparadise]

42 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

 

Beyond that, though, I agree w/you pretty much on everything. My only quibble is that while I'm overheated on Howell as well, and also view him as an unusual 5th rounder (he was a top 50-60 guy to me period and lasting into the mid-100's was insane to me) the draft capital is real and the history with QB's drafted that late is well and truly horrifying. We should not be operating as if we hit on a franchise QB, we should be operating like we are in perpetual search of one. I am hopeful with Howell, I think his floor is likely an NFL caliber 30th-45th ranked QB like Frerotte, or if we're lucky, Cousins to Cousins-lite productivity. That's not bad for a QB selected that late. 

 

I agree.  Ride it with some hope and i am always in the mode of continuing to look.

 

My only disagreement at times with the wait for this or that class is when there is a focus on one specific QB or even 2.    If I think the roster is decent, for me it has to be QB 3 or 4 that I focus on.  For example Caleb Williams or even Drake, I really doubt we'd be in position to get either even though it sounds cool to say lets wait for them.  Quinn Ewers now perhaps that's different, to me its about the depth, the top ticket QB I never expect to get or bank on. 

 

Coaches typically don't tank because it basically means tanking your own job to help your successor, no one does that, and when some blame the head coach for not tanking -- it comes off to me naive.  It has to be a rare situation where the owner directs it.  It has to be from them.  Where they go to the HC that they have their back to do it.  Still it can cause tension see Flores with Ross and they still didn't pull off Burrow in doing it.

 

But in general, I like to keep fishing for QBs.  

Edited January 12, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[mistertim]

I'd also say Lamar Jackson is completely out as well. If they can't get a deal done I'm assuming they'll non-exclusive tag him and then get two 1sts. He's also going to want a fully guaranteed long term $50 million per year contract. Which IMO is a huge huge risk for a running QB. Especially one who's still recovering from a knee injury that's kept him out. Lamar is only a mediocre passer. If his legs go, he's basically done.

[Skinsinparadise]

Breer.  I'd still ride with Howell.  But I'll defend Carr from the barbs I see here now and then that he's Wentz Part 2.  He's better than that IMO.

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2023/01/02/week-17-ten-takeaways-brock-purdy-derek-carr-jj-watt-mmqb?utm_source=reddit.com

 

So what’s next? My sense would be there’ll be a market for Carr. The Jets, Commanders and Panthers are three teams that should be looking, with teams that are ready to win now, and Carr would join Jimmy Garoppolo in a class of free-agent quarterbacks with experience and, almost certainly, an ability to come in and improve the position quickly. As for the Raiders, my sense would be they’ll give Carr’s camp permission to seek a trade ahead of the mid-February deadline, to see whether they can get anything for him. And if Carr isn’t inclined to help the team after all this (definitely possible), he could well sit on his hands, wield his no-trade clause and force them to cut him. After that, my understanding is the Raiders will look hard at the idea of bringing in Tom Brady or Jimmy Garoppolo, with their connections to Josh McDaniels and Dave Ziegler. Either way, for the Raiders and Carr, it’s over.

 

 

 

36 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

3. Jimmy G./Derek Carr. I don't think either one comes here.  Mostly because I don't think Dan's going to sign off on the money it would take to get either one of them.  Both are at least $20m+ per year contracts, and with the sale of the team, I don't see Dan making that kind of financial commitment.  We can argue whether we SHOULD get either one, but I don't think either one are viable options, so I'm not going to bother really going down this rabbit hole except to say both would be better than anything we've had on the roster since Kirk "Kurt" Cousins left.  

 

 

Standig highlighted today, Mayhew and Rivera mentioned the word "budget" in the press conference and stressed that's not a word you typically hear in press conferences like that.  Standig doubled down about what he hears about Dan's cash flow issues and that's in the past let alone now with a sale looming -- so in short he thinks there is a good chance they aren't spending big money right now on anyone. 

Edited January 12, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

Why did Carr have such a drop off from career norms? He had better weapons around him with Davante Adams and Josh Jacobs having career years. Jacobs had 2000 yards from scrimmage.

 

Also weird that Carr got benched and the backup came in and played the same as he did. No dropoff between the two.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, The Consigliere said:

The best teams in the NFL by far right now all have franchise QB's save one. Buffalo's got Allen, KC's got Mahomes, Cincy's got Burrow, and the Eagles have one that produced a super elite season but is still questionable due to to the throwing/accuracy concerns.

 

I don't think there's any evidence at all that elite QB's are taking a back seat. Indeed 3 of those 4 teams also have semi-suspect, erratic running games and 2 of them have middling defenses. Big time elite QB's still define the league. 

 

I didn't say my point like that.  And if anything in the past, I've been on the obnoxious side of pushing QB or bust.  So the Qb driven league point far from escapes me.

 

My point is right now in the NFC there is a rare dearth of top flight QBs.  Not the AFC but NFC.   And if your roster is fairly loaded ala a SF you can win with a nonelite QB for a window.

 

How do you win when you don't have that guy?  SF's model is good on that front IMO, Titans for a spell, KC when they had Alex.  But at the same time keep swinging for that killer Qb of course.

 

And the idea of a team with this level of talent is just somehow crashing and burning for Caleb to me comes off like a hipster fun draft blather that sounds interesting, sort of draft party talk that is fun on a chat thread but i'd assume gets laughed at as science fiction in a FO.   

 

For me its all about the depth of the draft at the spot versus banking for one guy unless the team is terrible ala the Texans and can easily crash organically.   

 

Edit:  not saying you are saying that, i am just saying when I see some say wait for this guy, usually name that elite in theory #1 guy in a future draft, my thought is its really unlikely we are getting that guy so for me i am curious about the depth at the spot, not the top dude going first in the draft. 

 

 

40 minutes ago, Always A Commander Never A Captain said:

Why did Carr have such a drop off from career norms? He had better weapons around him with Davante Adams and Josh Jacobs having career years. Jacobs had 2000 yards from scrimmage.

 

Also weird that Carr got benched and the backup came in and played the same as he did. No dropoff between the two.

 

Don't know but he's not the only dude who struggled with a new coordinator-system this year.  It wasn't the case for Stidham.  Carr has had a good career, not really up and down, last season I believe was his worst since his rookie year.

 

I don't really care though. I think almost zero chance he ends up here for multiple reasons.

Edited January 12, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[The Consigliere]

On 1/9/2023 at 5:18 PM, KDawg said:

Wouldn’t be surprised if Zach Wilson is given the ol heave ho soon. Mike White is better and they will look to a vet. Wilson is essentially useless.

 

Heinicke is at least a quality human and has the locker room behind him. 
 

Wilson is the anti-Heinicke.

I'm curious. Was anyone high on him like the jets?

 

I have no issue putting out my embarrassing takes in general.

 

That class I had:

Tier 1:

1.Lawrence

1B. Fields-I remain stunned at Fields stunted throwing development.

 

Tier 2:

3.Lance

4.Mac Jones

 

Tier 3:

5.Davis Mills

6. Zach Wilson

 

Tier 4:

7.Kyle Trask

 

That's what I remember anyway. I drafted Zach in one RSO league simply because he dropped way below his ADP and its a superflex league, but other than that, never had him anywhere. I got the sense at the time that people liked his athleticism and arm but there didnt seem much evidence he was legit, short track record, bogus competition level, very sketchy prospect. Why did they do it? I don't give a get out of jail free card for analysts or the league because while a ton of people rated Lance, and Mac Jones higher by that April, I never heard anyone except fans suggest he wasn't a 1st round talent. Just bizarre to me that they went after him. Now its donezo. 

[tmandoug1]

18 minutes ago, Always A Commander Never A Captain said:

Why did Carr have such a drop off from career norms? He had better weapons around him with Davante Adams and Josh Jacobs having career years. Jacobs had 2000 yards from scrimmage.

 

Also weird that Carr got benched and the backup came in and played the same as he did. No dropoff between the two.

Sirius xm NFL guys were saying that McDaniels was not flexible in playcalling and there was a beef between the two on that issue. That was over a month ago and I hoping I'm remembering it correctly. 

[Warhead36]

Carr was allowed to audible more/change plays at the line the last few years. McDaniel is a lot less flexible about that kinda stuff. My way or the highway type of guy when it comes to playcalling. And he's also just a legitimately bad coach that turns everything he touches into poop.

[dc1]

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

Neither Carr nor Brady are coming here. That's as much of a pipe dream as it was when people were talking about Wilson or Watson coming here (though on both of those counts we might have actually dodged a bullet).

 

Having our owner and coaching situation so completely up in the air is going to anathema to guys like that who can basically choose their destinations. Sure, we have some talent on our roster, but so do other teams with much more stable situations.

I want to add that Carr not coming here is like a blissful day on Little House on the Prairie expect with butter pecan ice cream and the internet.

[Jumbo]

I'm still mesmerized by guys who were able to heap praise all over a Taylor Heinieke level of player and turn around and consistently dump on carr like he's been a perpetual bum.

 

Crazy.

 

I don't "want" carr. But I know he's no wentz and he's better than we have had since Kirk, arguably better than Kirk now or at least equal, though he really did have poor personal play at times this last season. 

 

Posting he's some kind of known garbage dump at the position is fittingly goofy coming from fingers that cast th as a top quality back up. Really just clueless.

 

But I'd still rather front Sam, draft another guy this year, and get one of the group of current, widely, highly regarded back ups  that will be floating, and call it a day. That's as things stand now. It's a long way away and **** could change.

 

 

 

[Hooper]

Carr will come here and wash out quick.

 

I hope I'm wrong, but Ron is a desperate man.

 

 

[Koolblue13]

I'm all in on Howell. Bring in Brian Johnson at OC and sign Minshew to back him up, then draft a guy. That's my one A plan, but Carr is an excellent QB and I'd be happy with it especially if we didn't trade for him.

[Jumbo]

2 minutes ago, Hooper said:

Carr will come here and wash out quick.

 

I hope I'm wrong, but Ron is a desperate man.

 

 

 

I do think it's possible Carr is now on a downhill slide. But I can't intelligently claim any surety. Lots of issues with the team again this year and the previous season  he was excellent in another **** storm of a situation, organizationally. I do wonder if now it might be a continuing decline after a decade of playing where he's played and might have peaked. Just don't know and am not enthused about trying. Just want new blood and a solid, objectively proven back up.

[KDawg]

8 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

 

I do think it's possible Carr is now on a downhill slide. But I can't intelligently claim any surety. Lots of issues with the team again this year and the previous season  he was excellent in another **** storm of a situation, organizationally. I do wonder if now it might be a continuing decline after a decade of playing where he's played and might have peaked. Just don't know and am not enthused about trying. Just want new blood and a solid, objectively proven back up.

 

Slide or not, he'd be the best QB we've had since Cousins.

 

Having said that, I pass. Howell is a guy we drafted and on a rookie deal. He allows us to shore up the roster and give it a shot. It is strategically sound to go after a Super Bowl with a QB on a rookie contract by building the roster. A quarterback means we're paying good money (Daniel Jones wants an absurd amount, how much do we think Carr will cost?).

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

Galdi echoed in a recent podcast, a point that I make here a lot which is one veteran doesn't = another veteran.  One draft pick doesn't equal another draft pick from the past.  Every transaction is its own animal. 

 

It's like saying don't buy Apple stock because you bought IBM years back and it failed and since its the same sector, enough said.   

 

For me when i think about Derek Carr or whomever, I can care less about McNabb or Wentz or whomever.    They have nothing to do with each other IMO.  Zero.

 

Carr is a leader, works hard, is smart, is clutch.   I'd love him in a vaccum.  But for 30 million and change I pause.  For that money AND draft picks, that's a hard no for me.

 

And i am very intrigued to see Howell play out.  The Holy Grail for QBs and roster building, the lottery ticket is the cheap QB who allows you to build up the rest of the roster.

 

Jay Gruden who studied this offense, @Voice_of_Reason's guy 😀, talked about this situation specifically on Standig's last podcast.  He'd chase Carr in a heartbeat and thinks he's the perfect mentor for Howell.  My issue though is Carr would play too long for just being a mentor for Howell, he'd basically override Howell.   Jay said if the issue is losing Payne or getting Carr, he'd do Carr in a heartbeat.  Jay knows a ton about Carr from his brother and loves apparently what he's heard about him.  and Jay by the way loves Payne.   Jay also said outside of Carr as to available QB names he's heard about, he'd ride with Howell and sign a veteran as insurance like Brissett or Dalton and bring back Payne.

 

I like Carr, I am not though as enthused as Jay.  But all the praise God, please no Derek Carr, maybe those posts will age well, at the moment I doubt they will but will see.  Derek isn't a top 10 QB but he's a solid good QB. 

 

Some say we chase mediocrity at QB.  I don't know what we chase as a category per se but we end up with much less than mediocrity -- mediocrity would be an improvement for what we've had.  We have the lowest QBR at QB in the league, post Kirk.  Not average.  Dead last.     The PFF guy was on 980 this morning, saying Heinicke finished 2nd to last on their metrics this year as to starters, only topping Zach Wilson, and Wentz was just a few spots above Taylor.  

 

We've been really really bad at QB.  Not mediocre.  Very bad.   A dude like Carr would be a major step up.  Feels a little like when some wanted Kirk out the door where good wasn't good enough for them.  Well, some reject good.  For me, I crave good, I'll accept mediocre, I do think we got to get lucky to stumble on great. But I have been living as we all are (some stragglers, i think are in denial about this) in the world of bad QB play.  

Edited January 12, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Standig highlighted today, Mayhew and Rivera mentioned the word "budget" in the press conference and stressed that's not a word you typically hear in press conferences like that.  Standig doubled down about what he hears about Dan's cash flow issues and that's in the past let alone now with a sale looming -- so in short he thinks there is a good chance they aren't spending big money right now on anyone. 

Dan might/might not have had cash flow issues in the past.  That is, at this point, a completely irrelevant point as we look to the future. I'll concede the point: Dan was broke as a church mouse for the past 2 years and told Ron he couldn't spend more than the $70m guaranteed they spent last year.  Fine.  But what happened in the past is completely, totally, and in every possible way irrelevant now. 

 

The only thing which is relevant is the deal and the economics which effect the deal.  With the data room created, the financials locked down, bids entered, and the deal probably in financial diligence, based on the deal timeline, anything significant which would change the financials takes the sale process back 5 steps.

 

What some accounting firm (we haven't gotten any information on this, but it could/most probably is BDO because they are the team's audit firm, and would be the most logical choice) has to do at the end of every fiscal period during the sale process is roll the financials forward and then those are added to the data room with comparatives.

 

What the new owner will be looking for is large swings, which would send them back to the negotiating table on price.  

 

So, when a company retains an IBank, in this case Bank of America Securities, they basically go into a "don't do anything drastic" mode from a financial perspective because anything Signiant effects deal price and deal timing.  

 

With that said, it is EXTREMELY unlikely the team is going to change it's cash (by giving a huge signing bonus) or expense (by committing guaranteed dollars) to anybody while the deal is ongoing.  

 

That's not to say they won't do some things.  Because some expense will roll off the books which was already accounted for, other expenses will be added.  Things which are "normal course of business" will be done.

 

For example, if they wanted to pay a RG $15m/year with a $15m signing bonus, that's not going to be a problem.

 

Paying a QB $50m in signing bonuses and commit to $150m would change the financial cash, escrow and long-term expense position significantly enough there would be a re-negotiating of the sale price.  

 

With all due respect to Standig, Keim, Bram and JP, they have all said things in the last 2-3 days where they are grasping and trying to connect dots but they are connecting the dots in ways which are probably entirely wrong, or nonsensical, and cannot work except in exceptional circumstances.  Which, to this point, we haven't seen evidence of. 

 

Put another way, they are WAY out of their depth on the financial inner-workings of a $7 billion dollar financial transaction. Which is fine, they are football beat reporters.  They shouldn't be expected to be experts in any of this. But they've all wandered into territory recently which is just massively unlikely to happen.  

 

I've been working in that world for the past 8 years, and I'm somewhat clueless about the details of a transaction of this magnitude.  It's big, it's complex, and our football beat reports are saying some things which are absolutely factually incorrect out of ignorance.  And I'm not blaming them, this isn't what they know.  Keim and Bram were talking on Bram's show about whether a new, non-approved owner could green light something, and Keim was like, "Maybe Bezos could say, fine, go after Carr" before he took over ownership of the team.  And as I have said, that's virtually impossible and never happens.  

[FootballZombie]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

We've been really really bad at QB.  Not medicore.  Very bad.   A dude like Carr would be a major step up.

 

It would be a monumental step up. We'd be going from the absolute worst to above average. It would have a synergistic effect on the other phases of the team as well, that had to support that bad QB play all year. Maybe give that 3rd rank D some leads to protect, or allow them the comfort that it is OK to take some chances here and there.

 

Goes right back to Cooley saying this is a SB roster w/ an improvement like D Jones. Imagine what Carr would make us. Scary thought.

 

As long as your allowed to spend the money, you take the swing.

If your not allowed to spend the money, then your hands are tied and its beyond your control.

[Skinsinparadise]

13 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Dan might/might not have had cash flow issues in the past.  That is, at this point, a completely irrelevant point as we look to the future. I'll concede the point: Dan was broke as a church mouse for the past 2 years and told Ron he couldn't spend more than the $70m guaranteed they spent last year.  Fine.  But what happened in the past is completely, totally, and in every possible way irrelevant now. 

 

The only thing which is relevant is the deal and the economics which effect the deal.  With the data room created, the financials locked down, bids entered, and the deal probably in financial diligence, based on the deal timeline, anything significant which would change the financials takes the sale process back 5 steps.

 

 

Makes sense.  Standig only brought up the past to make the point in normal times he believes if Dan's been reluctant to spend money but can you imagine now in this context?

 

13 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

What some accounting firm (we haven't gotten any information on this, but it could/most probably is BDO because they are the team's audit firm, and would be the most logical choice) has to do at the end of every fiscal period during the sale process is roll the financials forward and then those are added to the data room with comparatives.

 

What the new owner will be looking for is large swings, which would send them back to the negotiating table on price.  

 

So, when a company retains an IBank, in this case Bank of America Securities, they basically go into a "don't do anything drastic" mode from a financial perspective because anything Signiant effects deal price and deal timing.  

 

 

I can imagine.  I argued this a little on the FO thread in the context of making wholesale coaching changes and my feeling is that's very unlikely considering the context of the sale.

 

Heck I know from small real estate transactions you want the bank accounts to look stable in the process with no late game upheavals so i can just imagine in major transaction like this

Edited January 12, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[tmandoug1]

I would like to see Carr, Howell, and Heinicke in the QB room next year.  Best two on the team and last one on the Psqaud.

[lavar1156]

3 minutes ago, tmandoug1 said:

I would like to see Carr, Howell, and Heinicke in the QB room next year.  Best two on the team and last one on the Psqaud.

 

Heinicke ****ing sucks. No thanks. I'd rather we draft another QB in the mid rounds.

[CapsSkins]

28 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Dan might/might not have had cash flow issues in the past.  That is, at this point, a completely irrelevant point as we look to the future. I'll concede the point: Dan was broke as a church mouse for the past 2 years and told Ron he couldn't spend more than the $70m guaranteed they spent last year.  Fine.  But what happened in the past is completely, totally, and in every possible way irrelevant now. 

 

The only thing which is relevant is the deal and the economics which effect the deal.  With the data room created, the financials locked down, bids entered, and the deal probably in financial diligence, based on the deal timeline, anything significant which would change the financials takes the sale process back 5 steps.

 

What some accounting firm (we haven't gotten any information on this, but it could/most probably is BDO because they are the team's audit firm, and would be the most logical choice) has to do at the end of every fiscal period during the sale process is roll the financials forward and then those are added to the data room with comparatives.

 

What the new owner will be looking for is large swings, which would send them back to the negotiating table on price.  

 

So, when a company retains an IBank, in this case Bank of America Securities, they basically go into a "don't do anything drastic" mode from a financial perspective because anything Signiant effects deal price and deal timing.  

 

With that said, it is EXTREMELY unlikely the team is going to change it's cash (by giving a huge signing bonus) or expense (by committing guaranteed dollars) to anybody while the deal is ongoing.  

 

That's not to say they won't do some things.  Because some expense will roll off the books which was already accounted for, other expenses will be added.  Things which are "normal course of business" will be done.

 

For example, if they wanted to pay a RG $15m/year with a $15m signing bonus, that's not going to be a problem.

 

Paying a QB $50m in signing bonuses and commit to $150m would change the financial cash, escrow and long-term expense position significantly enough there would be a re-negotiating of the sale price.  

 

With all due respect to Standig, Keim, Bram and JP, they have all said things in the last 2-3 days where they are grasping and trying to connect dots but they are connecting the dots in ways which are probably entirely wrong, or nonsensical, and cannot work except in exceptional circumstances.  Which, to this point, we haven't seen evidence of. 

 

Put another way, they are WAY out of their depth on the financial inner-workings of a $7 billion dollar financial transaction. Which is fine, they are football beat reporters.  They shouldn't be expected to be experts in any of this. But they've all wandered into territory recently which is just massively unlikely to happen.  

 

I've been working in that world for the past 8 years, and I'm somewhat clueless about the details of a transaction of this magnitude.  It's big, it's complex, and our football beat reports are saying some things which are absolutely factually incorrect out of ignorance.  And I'm not blaming them, this isn't what they know.  Keim and Bram were talking on Bram's show about whether a new, non-approved owner could green light something, and Keim was like, "Maybe Bezos could say, fine, go after Carr" before he took over ownership of the team.  And as I have said, that's virtually impossible and never happens.  

 

Recovering investment banker chiming in here to second virtually all of this post — the exception is the last part about Bezos giving tacit permission for certain moves. If you’re selling to a private equity firm that primarily cares about MoM or IRR, then yes. But with someone like Bezos, he very well could say whatever, the bid is the bid, I want the team to be competitive, I’m fine taking a swing on a good quarterback and won’t hold up the transaction for it.

 

It just depends.

[slinky]

If Purdy goes on a run in the playoffs (which he should because of defense) he likely cements himself as QB1 in San Fran next year if he has not already. Would the 9ers keep both Lance and Purdy... 2 QBs on the cheap? Could Lance, who was drafted to be their QB1, request a trade as he knows he will have to fight to get QB1 back if he has a chance at all? I saw some articles suggesting they could trade him on cheap for a 2nd rounder (cheap for what they gave up to get him)... would you trade for Lance if situation arose? I probably wouldn't... I'd likely just roll with Sam and a vet backup + rookie drafted next year and if things fail, then draft in 2024.