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

[Voice_of_Reason]

Just now, Zim489 said:

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

Rodgers

Wilson

Carr

Jimmy G. 

Mayfield

-------------------------

Mitch

Mariota

Teddy

Winston

 

(Cousins and Watson too, but I'm leaving them off the list.)

Every one of them would be a significant upgrade to the QB play we had in 2021.  Which, amazingly, was somewhat of an upgrade over the play in 2020.

 

We would honestly be lucky to get anybody above the line I drew.

 

But all of them would be a significant improvement.  And please do not try and convince me that TH is better than Mitch/Mariota or Winston.  He's not. And you will sound stupid saying he is.

 

Teddy I could hear an argument.  But he knows the system and has a better arm than TH.  But not as much mobility.  He is the closest thing to a push.  Though I'd give the nodd to Teddy's ability to drive the ball a bit more.  But that argument is a bit like trying to decide whether you'd prefer to be shot or hung. You're dead either way.  

3 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

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

No, that's not true. 

 

I had an option 3A and a 3B.  My 3A was IF the evaluation says you have a guy who can be a top-10 guy, then you aggressively trade up and draft them.  

 

3B says if you don't, then move on to trades for veterans who are in the 3rd teir.

 

I didn't assume anything.  I gave both options.  

 

[CapsSkins]

3 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Rodgers

Wilson

Carr

Jimmy G. 

Mayfield

-------------------------

Mitch

Mariota

Teddy

Winston

 

(Cousins and Watson too, but I'm leaving them off the list.)

Every one of them would be a significant upgrade to the QB play we had in 2021.  Which, amazingly, was somewhat of an upgrade over the play in 2020.

 

We would honestly be lucky to get anybody above the line I drew.

 

But all of them would be a significant improvement.  And please do not try and convince me that TH is better than Mitch/Mariota or Winston.  He's not. And you will sound stupid saying he is.

 

Teddy I could hear an argument.  But he knows the system and has a better arm than TH.  But not as much mobility.  He is the closest thing to a push.  Though I'd give the nodd to Teddy's ability to drive the ball a bit more.  But that argument is a bit like trying to decide whether you'd prefer to be shot or hung. You're dead either way.  

No, that's not true. 

 

I had an option 3A and a 3B.  My 3A was IF the evaluation says you have a guy who can be a top-10 guy, then you aggressively trade up and draft them.  

 

3B says if you don't, then move on to trades for veterans who are in the 3rd teir.

 

I didn't assume anything.  I gave both options.  

 

 

My point is 3B is not a real tier. Scouts don't have binary grades like "Can be a top 10 guy vs. Cannot be a top 10 guy". With first round prospects, several guys will have top 10 ceilings but various flaws and flags that may affect teams' belief in whether they can realize that potential. But my point is, we are at the point where you have to bet on talent and try to coach it out of a rookie. There is no 3B "none of these guys can do it" tier. There are high-risk bets that you may not want to make, but that you have to make.

 

Basically, I'd rather draft Dwayne Haskins at 11 and hope he can develop and pan out than stand pat and trade for a Jimmy G-type.  

[Est.1974]

35 minutes ago, KDawg said:

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

You can add Derek Carr to that very short list.

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

You can add Derek Carr to that very short list.

Yes, Carr, too.

 

My wishlist:

 

1- Rodgers

2- Wilson

3- Carr

4 - Howell

5 - Corral

6 - Willis

 

I’d be happy with any of them.

 

Trubisky, Mariota, Bridgewater only if paired with a rookie. 
 

Ridder, Zappe, Strong only if paired with a vet.

 

7- Jimmy G

 

If Fields became available hed be my #3.

[Zim489]

 No more ****ing bridges. Take a swing. They can’t continue this madness. If they want to take the year off again this year with a middling vet and a mid round QB fire them all mid season and build this team the right way.

 

The worst they can possibly do is a 1st rounder. Anything beyond that is just a total misunderstand of the position and the modern NFL as a whole.

 

My wish list by tier:

 

Watson Rodgers

Wilson

Vet (Trubisky MM) + 1st round Rookie Preferably Willis 

 

Thats it for me. Anything else is unacceptable

Edited January 24, 2022 by Zim489

[HigSkin]

1 hour 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.

 

Or wait for it, throw in an extra 3rd or something and get Bobby Wagner to come along with Russell Wilson!   😂

[KDawg]

Just now, HigSkin said:

 

Or wait for it, throw in an extra 3rd or something and get Bobby Wagner to come along with Russell Wilson!   😂

Deal. But I’d even be okay with “Wrong Way” Bostic with that offense.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

So, this is not good, right?  

 

 

I don't think it is but not sure?

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours 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.

 

 

 

Yeah I think the odds are even lower that Desean comes here than Rodgers.  Keim said Watson is at a hard no as for waiving his no trade clause and that makes all the sense in the world to me. 

 

Look if I was accused of something like him, the last place I'd want to go is the one and only place which would bring MORE attention to that accusation.  

 

It's PR headache on both ends.  It magnifies the problem for both the WFT and Watson.  It's both sides adding to their PR hell. 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

38 minutes ago, Zim489 said:

 

 

 

 

 

[Zim489]

They are linking him because hes better than what we have which I dont disagree with but theres a reason hes being moved on from. Because hes not good enough to carry a team. Im just tired of comparing to what we have had or currently have. Compare to the league.

[No Nonsense]

53 minutes ago, Zim489 said:

 

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

I agree. He may be an upgrade over what we have, but they can get out of here with the “we’ll be lucky to have Jimmy G.” They want to see us with a second tier QB. 

Edited January 24, 2022 by No Nonsense

[Rufus T Firefly]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

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.  

So, the thing to remember with them is either Rodgers is restructuring or getting traded, which is how their cap becomes workable one way or another. 

 

Beyond that, there are three players I would think would be easy cuts (Preston Smith, Mason Crosby, Randall Cobb), who would save about 20 mil after replacements. Three guys (Bakhtiari, Clark, Jones) have roster bonuses that seem designed to turn into prorated signing bonuses, which would save about 12. And Z. Smith and Alexander are waiting on extensions which would lower their cap number by a great deal. 

 

So, they have work to do. But saying they "can't" tag Adams isn't really true. 

[mistertim]

29 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

 

lol @ talking about how Jimmy G is 4-1 in the playoffs.

 

Sure, it's true in a literal sense, but in those 5 games he's thrown for 2 TDs and 5 INTs.

 

Move over, Tom Brady.

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, actorguy1 said:

New Kiem podcast. 

 

1. Doesn't think they would be interested in Willis at pick 11

 

2. Brought up Ridder again as a second round target.

 

3. Said they will go after the best QB's that become available but don't leave out someone like Jimmy G if they can't get someone better.

 

4. If Trubisky could pair with second round QB 

 

5. Full focus will be on a trade and only if they strike out on all 5 QB'S would they move on to FA paired with rookie.

 

 

 

I listened to it, I'd add.

 

A. Mentioned Wilson

B.  And Carr if available

C.  There are chasing the big fish

 

 

Discussion between him with Niki from the WP, most of this but not all of it was from Keim

 

A. Trubisky and a young QB could be the backup idea if they miss out on the veterans in trades

B.  Mentioned players like to play with good QBs, and Trubisky won't draw in FAs

C. Wentz might also be in play if put on the market

D.  Keim seems like if he had to bet it will end up them swinging a trade for someone

 

 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Rufus T Firefly]

4 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

lol @ talking about how Jimmy G is 4-1 in the playoffs.

 

Sure, it's true in a literal sense, but in those 5 games he's thrown for 2 TDs and 5 INTs.

 

Move over, Tom Brady.

 

[mistertim]

3 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

 

 

And this has zero to do with my point. We're talking about how a QB himself performs. Jimmy G has overall been dismal in the postseason but people throw around the wins and losses as if it means something in regards to him, when if you look at his performances you'll find that the team won despite him sucking, not because of him in any way.

 

And yes, Rodgers has only won 2 playoff games since 2017, but he threw for 9 TDs and 2 INTs in all of the playoff games in that time period.

[Skinsinparadise]

7 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

lol @ talking about how Jimmy G is 4-1 in the playoffs.

 

Sure, it's true in a literal sense, but in those 5 games he's thrown for 2 TDs and 5 INTs.

 

Move over, Tom Brady.

 

I think all of the Heinicke Hive has gotten to you -- Stockholm Syndrome.    You pushing that Jimmy G is just a little better than Heinicke, is the first sign.  😀  We might need to do some deprogramming. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rufus T Firefly]

2 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

And this has zero to do with my point. We're talking about how a QB himself performs. Jimmy G has overall been dismal in the postseason but people throw around the wins and losses as if it means something in regards to him, when if you look at his performances you'll find that the team won despite him sucking, not because of him in any way.

 

And yes, Rodgers has only won 2 playoff games since 2017, but he threw for 9 TDs and 2 INTs in all of the playoff games in that time period.

My point (which had a lot to do with yours, actually) was that judging QBs by virtue of W-L in a handful of games is pretty silly. Bortles isn't as good as Rodgers and Garappolo isn't in the same class as Brady and Mahomes. (I was actually agreeing with you, btw). 

[Skinsinparadise]

I regret posting that tweet about Sheehan's podcast.  I thought that was new but it isn't.  I heard that podcast from last week and that was purely Sheehan and Cooley just speculating

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Conn]

Hello, Malik Willis. Shoot for the stars 

[Voice_of_Reason]

4 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I think all of the Heinicke Hive has gotten to you -- Stockholm Syndrome.    You pushing that Jimmy G is just a little better than Heinicke, is the first sign.  😀  We might need to do some deprogramming. 

Now you’ve gone and done it.  You’ve gone and insulted the legend that is Taylor Heineke.  
 

Thou shall be smited with incorrect facts, illogical argument and fantastical stretches of truth until your eyebrows freeze in the unseasonable cold weather in Florida. (I seem to recall you live in Florida)

[mistertim]

9 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I think all of the Heinicke Hive has gotten to you -- Stockholm Syndrome.    You pushing that Jimmy G is just a little better than Heinicke, is the first sign.  😀  We might need to do some deprogramming. 

 

He's definitely better than Heinicke, but you're right that I don't think the difference is as big as others believe. Jimmy G is in a spot where he has more weapons and can lean on a dominant defense and he still put up close to the same numbers Heinicke did this season.

 

Again, this has nothing to do with me saying Heinicke is any good...he's not (as your graphic shows). But I don't think we'll get a whole lot more production out of Jimmy G because he's basically like Heinicke with a better arm. He's a pure game manager who you can't rely on to put the team on his back if need be.

 

It's essentially like a repeat of the Alex Smith trade. We'd get slightly better but still not have any realistic shot at anything besides a possibly one and done playoff appearance.

 

 I think he'd heve less turnovers, and we'd probably win 1 or 2 more games with him, but my issue is that IMO that slight increase isn't worth a 1st or 2nd round pick and a big new contract.

Edited January 24, 2022 by mistertim

[No Nonsense]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I regret posting that Sheehan tweet.  I thought that was new.  I heard that podcast from last week and that was purely Sheehan and Cooley just speculating

 

 

 

 

 

I find it weird that he’d wave his no trade to Chicago, but not Washington? 

[mistertim]

7 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

My point (which had a lot to do with yours, actually) was that judging QBs by virtue of W-L in a handful of games is pretty silly. Bortles isn't as good as Rodgers and Garappolo isn't in the same class as Brady and Mahomes. (I was actually agreeing with you, btw). 

 

Ah, gotcha. My bad, I thought you were trying to maybe make a point that only wins matter when talking about QBs. Which I agree is a silly metric to measure a QB by, especially when talking about a small sample of games.