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

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Interesting how often Desean Watson gets brought up here when there's not a single report/rumor or even a talked about scenario amongst the talking heads in the media where he elects to be traded to Washington.  Nor are there any reports that indicate his legal troubles are a thing of the past or that he can actually play football.

 

 

[Chump Bailey]

7 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Interesting how often Desean Watson gets brought up here when there's not a single report/rumor or even a talked about scenario amongst the talking heads in the media where he elects to be traded to Washington.  Nor are there any reports that indicate his legal troubles are a thing of the past or that he can actually play football.

 

 

 

http://dcsportsking.com/2022/01/04/deshaun-watson-reportedly-wont-waive-no-trade-clause-for-washington/

 

Watson has a no-trade clause in his contract. According to ESPN’s John Keim, Watson is not willing to waive his no-trade clause for Washington.

“Everything I’ve heard leading up to this point is that he would not waive it to come to [Washington],” Keim said on his podcast. “So that would shut that down completely.”

 

Hard pass on Watson and Wentz for me. I think we would ultimately end up regretting a move for either one.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Chump Bailey

[Skinsinparadise]

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

48 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

Agree. You can. I think the Packers might just be working out how to do the same with Rodgers and Adams. **** or bust in 2 seasons.

Yes, but here's the problem. 

 

According to OverTheCap.Com, which I've found to be fairly accurate, the packers have an effective salary cap space of -$50 Million dollars. What that means is they have -$40 million in cap space right now, but only 41 players under contract for 2021.  So they have to sign 12 more players just to fill out the roster, and the minimum (based on league rules) they could spend is $10M. 

 

So, while I am saying out of one side of my mouth, you an do whatever the hell you want with the cap (which is true), out of the other side of my mouth, I'm saying when you already have a $50M deficit, that becomes much, much, much harder.

 

On the other hand, Washington has an effective cap space of $29M.  So, if they wanted to figure out how to squeeze both Rodgers and Adams and a new MLB in, they absolutely, positively could.   Also, Landon Collins has a $16M cap hit.  If they go all-in for Rodgers (or Wilson), that can't stand.  They'll have to either restructure Collins or release him.  They would save $6M against the cap if they cut him pre-June 1.

[KDawg]

3 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Yes, but here's the problem. 

 

According to OverTheCap.Com, which I've found to be fairly accurate, the packers have an effective salary cap space of -$50 Million dollars. What that means is they have -$40 million in cap space right now, but only 41 players under contract for 2021.  So they have to sign 12 more players just to fill out the roster, and the minimum (based on league rules) they could spend is $10M. 

 

So, while I am saying out of one side of my mouth, you an do whatever the hell you want with the cap (which is true), out of the other side of my mouth, I'm saying when you already have a $50M deficit, that becomes much, much, much harder.

 

On the other hand, Washington has an effective cap space of $29M.  So, if they wanted to figure out how to squeeze both Rodgers and Adams and a new MLB in, they absolutely, positively could.   Also, Landon Collins has a $16M cap hit.  If they go all-in for Rodgers (or Wilson), that can't stand.  They'll have to either restructure Collins or release him.  They would save $6M against the cap if they cut him pre-June 1.

I’m going to say something totally beyond my typical posts. Brace yourselves:

 

If this offense has McLaurin, Adams, Samuel, McKissick, Gibson and a rookie RB with Thomas, Bates and maybe Seals Jones… to pair with Rodgers..

 

We don’t need a new Mike. Let Mayo play there for all I care.

Edited January 24, 2022 by KDawg

[Voice_of_Reason]

54 minutes ago, actorguy1 said:

4. If Trubisky could pair with second round QB 

This would be my absolute worst case scenario.  If they get Mitch, they need to ALSO get a 1st rounder, and be aggressive doing so.

[Zim489]

1 minute ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

This would be my absolute worst case scenario.  If they get Mitch, they need to ALSO get a 1st rounder, and be aggressive doing so.

It really would be. Total miscalculation of the modern NFL and should be a massive Red Flag on the Ron evaluation

[88Comrade2000]

5 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

One thing to note: there is going to be a massive power vacuum in the NFC because there really is no top notch young up and coming QB in the conference. MAYBE Kyler Murray but he's still not quite there yet. You look at the AFC you got: Mahomes, Allen, Burrow, Jackson, Herbert etc. Its gonna be a bloodbath. But the NFC? If someone gets a guy, they can run it for the next decade.

 

If we can get that guy, we can be that team that just dominates. But of course, all the other teams are thinking the same thing.

The nfc might not win a Super Bowl for years.

 

The afc could go on a streak like the nfc did in the 80’s/90’s.

[mistertim]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

I’m going to say something totally beyond my typical posts. Brace yourselves:

 

If this offense has McLaurin, Adams, Samuel, McKissick, Gibson and a rookie RB with Thomas, Bates and maybe Seals Jones…

 

We don’t need a new Mike. Let Mayo play there for all I care.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

13 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

So, this is not good, right?  

 

10 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I’m going to say something totally beyond my typical posts. Brace yourselves:

 

If this offense has McLaurin, Adams, Samuel, McKissick, Gibson and a rookie RB with Thomas, Bates and maybe Seals Jones…

 

We don’t need a new Mike. Let Mayo play there for all I care.

 

 

Clarifying question: is this WITH my pipe dream of Rodgers, or just any QB.

 

With that group, I still don't think TH could do a lot. Better? Sure.  But a lot of their talents would be wasted. 

 

Mitch/Mariota/Teddy/Winston could probably make it go pretty well.  

 

Rodgers/Wilson, I think it's a top 5 offense, maybe top 3, if everybody stays healthy.

 

EDIT: IF we were to get that group, and you were a QB, you'd be absolutely nuts not to want to force your way here.  Absolutely, completely, and totally stark raving nuts.  

 

 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Voice_of_Reason

[Est.1974]

15 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

According to OverTheCap.Com, which I've found to be fairly accurate, the packers have an effective salary cap space of -$50 Million dollars. What that means is they have -$40 million in cap space right now, but only 41 players under contract for 2021.  So they have to sign 12 more players just to fill out the roster, and the minimum (based on league rules) they could spend is $10M. 

GB have an absurd amount included in there on about 6 or 7 contracts. Nearly 50mil in against Rodgers already, a combined 50mil on the OLB due named Smith, a 13mil 5th year option on a CB plus another 50 mil covering their premier OT and DT combined.

 

They could make it work if needs be. Only the Saints look really screwed on cap IMO.

[Chris 44]

16 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I’m going to say something totally beyond my typical posts. Brace yourselves:

 

If this offense has McLaurin, Adams, Samuel, McKissick, Gibson and a rookie RB with Thomas, Bates and maybe Seals Jones… to pair with Rodgers..

 

We don’t need a new Mike. Let Mayo play there for all I care.

All we are missing then is the new nickname to engrave on the SuperBowl trophy, Washington ..........

[CapsSkins]

Trading for Jimmy G in 2022 would be essentially the same as trading for Alex Smith in 2018. It doesn't make sense.

 

If you can't get one of the big guns (Wilson/Rodgers/Carr) via trade, you go all-in on a rookie and sign a Trubisky-type to back them up.

 

You HAVE to go high ceiling at QB.

[KDawg]

13 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

So, this is not good, right?  

 

 

 

Clarifying question: is this WITH my pipe dream of Rodgers, or just any QB.

 

With that group, I still don't think TH could do a lot. Better? Sure.  But a lot of their talents would be wasted. 

 

Mitch/Mariota/Teddy/Winston could probably make it go pretty well.  

 

Rodgers/Wilson, I think it's a top 5 offense, maybe top 3, if everybody stays healthy.

 

EDIT: IF we were to get that group, and you were a QB, you'd be absolutely nuts not to want to force your way here.  Absolutely, completely, and totally stark raving nuts.  

 

 

Rodgers or Wilson. It would need to be one of them. Adams isn’t coming here without one of them.

[Voice_of_Reason]

2 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Rodgers or Wilson. It would need to be one of them. Adams isn’t coming here without one of them.

Yes, I agree. 

 

And I agree, if you have that offense, assuming my thoughts on Turner are at least somewhat accurate (he's not a complete bum and with a good cast he can excel), it would be a hell of a good offense.

 

I mean, again, assuming it's well designed and coordinated, there is literally no-way you could cover that group of skill position players.  If you double any one of them (Most likely Adams), then you're going to leave McLaurin/Samuel most likely 1:1 or at least in some type of a zone concept. 

 

Gibson and McKissic would thrive.  

 

Get yourself a sledge-hammer back...

 

I mean, that's offensive fire-power that can do damage.  

[MrJL]

38 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Go through what exactly?  I'm confused.

 

 

 

I'm talking about your consequences of the trade bit, you know dismantle everything and the be the first team to be 0-17 and all

[Voice_of_Reason]

8 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

If you can't get one of the big guns (Wilson/Rodgers/Carr) via trade, you go all-in on a rookie and sign a Trubisky-type to back them up.

10 second hypothetical:  

 

You evaluate all of the rookie QBs and your evaluation determines they have a ceiling somewhere around Jimmy G., except that ceiling is probably 2-3 years away.

 

You are Ron Rivera entering year 3 of a rebuild.

 

Do you reach for a QB who you believe can only be an "ok" to "Good" starting QB?

 

Or do you go ahead and get your "good" QB, and then draft another one next year?

 

If you sign Jimmy, you extend him 3 years for a total of 4 years.  The last year you can probably get out of.  So you have your stop-gap QB, who has shown to play at least decent when available.  

 

Then you can draft a guy you want to take over next year and red-shirt him for a year or two.  It is a pressure release valve.

 

I like that better than reaching for a QB.  

 

However, I really want them to be all-in on Rodgers/Wilson.  Specifically Rodgers.  And bring Adams with him.  Which I've posted about just a few times today.  

[No Nonsense]

Speaking of Devante Adams, I would think GB franchises him. 

[Redskins 2021]

1 minute ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

10 second hypothetical:  

 

You evaluate all of the rookie QBs and your evaluation determines they have a ceiling somewhere around Jimmy G., except that ceiling is probably 2-3 years away.

 

You are Ron Rivera entering year 3 of a rebuild.

 

Do you reach for a QB who you believe can only be an "ok" to "Good" starting QB?

 

Or do you go ahead and get your "good" QB, and then draft another one next year?

 

If you sign Jimmy, you extend him 3 years for a total of 4 years.  The last year you can probably get out of.  So you have your stop-gap QB, who has shown to play at least decent when available.  

 

Then you can draft a guy you want to take over next year and red-shirt him for a year or two.  It is a pressure release valve.

 

I like that better than reaching for a QB.  

 

However, I really want them to be all-in on Rodgers/Wilson.  Specifically Rodgers.  And bring Adams with him.  Which I've posted about just a few times today.  

depending on price 

[Voice_of_Reason]

Just now, MrJL said:

 

I'm talking about your consequences of the trade bit, you know dismantle everything and the be the first team to be 0-17 and all

You wouldn't have to dismantle everything until AFTER Rodgers retires.  And I think 0-17 was a bit of an exaggeration to make a point: You KNOW what you are doing.  You're doing what the Bucks and Rams have done the last few years: load up on talent and go for it.  

 

The Bucs are going to have to tear it all down when Brady retires.  They won the SB last year, and were in the Division round this year.  They'll have a shot next year unless Gisele forced Tom to retire.  Is that worth the impending 3-14 season?  I'd say yes.  

 

The Rams won't have a first round pick until my daughter is in college, and she's 8.  So what?  They're in the NFC Championship game this year, they played in the SB a few years ago.  They win one this year or next, who cares?  Will it catch up with them?  I think it will eventually.  So what?  

[CapsSkins]

2 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

10 second hypothetical:  

 

You evaluate all of the rookie QBs and your evaluation determines they have a ceiling somewhere around Jimmy G., except that ceiling is probably 2-3 years away.

 

You are Ron Rivera entering year 3 of a rebuild.

 

Do you reach for a QB who you believe can only be an "ok" to "Good" starting QB?

 

Or do you go ahead and get your "good" QB, and then draft another one next year?

 

If you sign Jimmy, you extend him 3 years for a total of 4 years.  The last year you can probably get out of.  So you have your stop-gap QB, who has shown to play at least decent when available.  

 

Then you can draft a guy you want to take over next year and red-shirt him for a year or two.  It is a pressure release valve.

 

I like that better than reaching for a QB.  

 

However, I really want them to be all-in on Rodgers/Wilson.  Specifically Rodgers.  And bring Adams with him.  Which I've posted about just a few times today.  

 

I'd rather reach on a rookie than give up draft assets *and* cap space to trade and extent Jimmy G.

 

If you have three seasons to replace Jimmy, while he's taking you to 12-5 or 11-6 seasons, you want your full assortment of picks to be able to trade up for the QB prospect you eventually want because you won't be picking in range to get him.

 

If Jimmy were a FA then it would be a different story. But Ron delaying getting a QB last year means the chips have to go in this year. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

3 minutes ago, No Nonsense said:

Speaking of Devante Adams, I would think GB franchises him. 

They are $50M over the cap.

 

I don't think they can.  I mean, they technically can.  But I'm not sure how they fit him under the cap unless they restructure and release half the team.  

 

And then they're playing with half the roster they have now, and I don't know that either Davante or Aaron wants that.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 minute ago, CapsSkins said:

 

I'd rather reach on a rookie than give up draft assets *and* cap space to trade and extent Jimmy G.

 

If you have three seasons to replace Jimmy, while he's taking you to 12-5 or 11-6 seasons, you want your full assortment of picks to be able to trade up for the QB prospect you eventually want because you won't be picking in range to get him.

 

If Jimmy were a FA then it would be a different story. But Ron delaying getting a QB last year means the chips have to go in this year. 

Reaching on a rookie is completely pointless. You're just going to sub-optimize everything and take time to do it.   If you're going to reach on a rookie, just trade what you're reaching for and get a guy who you know can play. Or don't reach at all and draft a MLB.  

 

Again, I'm not in on Jimmy G.  as the "first" answer.  I've posted this a million times.

 

Option 1: Trade for Wilson/Rodgers

Option 2: Trade for 2nd tier starter, such as Carr or maybe Baker.

Option 3A: IF your evaluation of the draft is there is a guy who can be a legitimate top 10 guy, you sign a FA vet (Mitch/Teddy/Winston/Mariota) and aggressively pursue that guy.

Option 3B: If your evaluation says that guy isn't there, then you go after Jimmy or other 3rd tier starting QBs in a trade.

 

I wouldn't touch Wentz.  Unless it was for a day 3 pick and they are just using him in place of the Mitch/Teddy/Winson/Mariota group an they are drafting a guy they think can be a top 10 guy also.  

[Zim489]

 

Oh **** off with saying we should be so lucky to think we have Jimmy G

[CapsSkins]

1 minute ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Reaching on a rookie is completely pointless. You're just going to sub-optimize everything and take time to do it.   If you're going to reach on a rookie, just trade what you're reaching for and get a guy who you know can play. Or don't reach at all and draft a MLB.  

 

Again, I'm not in on Jimmy G.  as the "first" answer.  I've posted this a million times.

 

Option 1: Trade for Wilson/Rodgers

Option 2: Trade for 2nd tier starter, such as Carr or maybe Baker.

Option 3A: IF your evaluation of the draft is there is a guy who can be a legitimate top 10 guy, you sign a FA vet (Mitch/Teddy/Winston/Mariota) and aggressively pursue that guy.

Option 3B: If your evaluation says that guy isn't there, then you go after Jimmy or other 3rd tier starting QBs in a trade.

 

I wouldn't touch Wentz.  Unless it was for a day 3 pick and they are just using him in place of the Mitch/Teddy/Winson/Mariota group an they are drafting a guy they think can be a top 10 guy also.  

 

The issue with your hypothetical is that you're assuming the FO wouldn't consider any of the rookies to have high ceilings.

 

That's not how it works. There are guys with high ceilings but flaws that give you pause and affect your overall grade. But my point is you cannot go into next year with a guy who does not have a high ceiling. You pick the rookie you think is closest and then pray you can develop the hell out of him.

 

I didn't say you said Jimmy was the first answer - you asked me a hypothetical and I responded to it. But my point is that he's not only not plan A, he's not Plan D either. It literally does not make sense in any scenario to trade assets and then tie up cap space in a guy you don't think is good enough, hampering your ability to eventually find a guy you think is good enough.

 

The only guys I want starting under center next season are guys with high ceilings. Hopefully it's one of the Big Gun vets who are known commodities. But short of a Rodgers/Wilson/Carr, it has to be a 1st round rookie.