The Official QB Thread- JD5 taken #2. Randal 2.0 or Bayou Bob? Mariota and Fromm battle for QB2

[Morneblade]

On 3/28/2023 at 3:13 PM, srtman04 said:

 

I think Jackson's biggest issue is his injury history.   He is injury prone and it's an expensive gamble on that....one we cannot afford to make.  

 

250 million guaranteed for a guy that already has a injury history, plays recklessly, for a team that is still remembers RGIII?

 

And people wonder why we're not interested?

[zCommander]

1 hour ago, Hooper said:

Ron has to win -- no more classic 500 Ron -- in order to survive. He has to know this.  

 

For this reason, barring Sam looking head and shoulders better in camp, I'm thinking Ron will pivot to Jacoby as we get closer to opening day.

 

EB will be the factor that will determine if Ron can win with him and the QB he ends up starting. He is letting EB run the offense. It is going to be an EB show. EB is already having all of the offensive coaches reporting for duty at 7am every day. The coaches have seen the potential they can have with Howell this past year. EB will need to take him to the next level. In the event if this project fails then Brissett comes in and you start looking for your next franchise QB in the 24 draft with the new owners and staff in place. 

 

I want Howell to be the starter and not some backup journeyman QB. I would like to see some stability in a season filled with uncertainty and unstability. We are not going to win the SB in 23 so need to pretend that we can. Keep on building. This is something this franchise under Dan has lacked year in and year out. 

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by zCommander

[samy316]

1 hour ago, Darth Tater said:

Because, at this point, you are NOT going to be able to fire Rivera. There is only 1 scenario were such a move is great and that has rarely happened. If Lamar is about what he's been for Baltimore, you will then have a coach who is going to be hard to fire and you have a good chance of condemning your team to another 3-5 years of mediocrity (though it may be more fun than the last 3 and maybe you get to be the new Dallas Cowboys, going to the playoffs but doing that 1 and done thing). If the signing is a fail, you'll have no resources and have the new coach and he'll be forced to take a QB he may not want.

 

Watson? I bet the Browns will be the AFC-North basement guys for the next several years.

Wilson?  So far that looks like a fail.

Stafford?  Rams were above average to elite (albeit, just once) for the 4 years before he was acquired. They had the resources and, personally, I don't know if what they did was worth it.

Brady? A true FA, there was 0 downside risk for the Bucs (at least as close to 0 downside risk as you can get in the NFL).

 

History suggests that you get your QB organically, a guy that everyone thinks is a has-been and thus is cheap or you already are near elite.

 

Finally, data indicates that the only predictive measure (about 99%) of a QB developing is either the HC,  OC or the QB coach.  The team does fail this year, you'll more likely have the resources and opportunity to get your guy organically.

 

Uh, HELL YES it was worth it.  Last time I checked, the Rams won the SB, with Stafford as QB, right?  You win an SB after that big gamble to trade for Stafford, it will always be worth it.  My cousin is a Rams fan, and he frequently stated last year that he’d gladly sacrifice the next 5-10 years for that 1 SB season.  I would too, if I were a Rams fan.

[wit33]

48 minutes ago, samy316 said:

Uh, HELL YES it was worth it.  Last time I checked, the Rams won the SB, with Stafford as QB, right?  You win an SB after that big gamble to trade for Stafford, it will always be worth it.  My cousin is a Rams fan, and he frequently stated last year that he’d gladly sacrifice the next 5-10 years for that 1 SB season.  I would too, if I were a Rams fan.

Fascinating discussion.
 

I’d take 10 years of playoffs over a SB and 10 years no playoffs. 
 

Nothing worst than wasting time watching bad football, we know lol

[zCommander]

4 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Fascinating discussion.
 

I’d take 10 years of playoffs over a SB and 10 years no playoffs. 
 

Nothing worst than wasting time watching bad football, we know lol

 

It depends on how deep of a run into the playoffs though. Losing in the wild card round would still indicates lots of work is still needed to get to conference championship at least. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

27 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Fascinating discussion.
 

I’d take 10 years of playoffs over a SB and 10 years no playoffs. 
 

Nothing worst than wasting time watching bad football, we know lol

I wouldn't.  At all.  I'd take 1 SB and 10 years of suck.

 

Though, rarely does that happen.  Even the teams that sortof pop in, win a SB, then pop away typically have 2-3 years of being competitive surrounding the SB.  Then a lot of them go back to suck.

 

The Bills are probably the most cursed franchise.  4 SB appearances, 0 wins.  Now they have Allen, and they can't get to the SB.  

 

[samy316]

9 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I wouldn't.  At all.  I'd take 1 SB and 10 years of suck.

 

Though, rarely does that happen.  Even the teams that sortof pop in, win a SB, then pop away typically have 2-3 years of being competitive surrounding the SB.  Then a lot of them go back to suck.

 

The Bills are probably the most cursed franchise.  4 SB appearances, 0 wins.  Now they have Allen, and they can't get to the SB.  

 

Do people realize how hard it is to cash in on a championship?  Ask Browns, Jags, Lions & Texans fans if they would sacrifice 10+ years of ineptitude in exchange for 1 ring.  Hell, it’s been 32 years since we last won a championship.  If we went all in like the Rams, and cashed in on a SB win, I’d gladly sacrifice the next 10 years.  It’s not even a question.

Edited March 30, 2023 by samy316

[FootballZombie]

SB all day ever day. Not even a question.

 

The Rams move for Staffy has been a resounding success no matter what happens next. They got their ring. If they gotta pay for that w/ some down years, boo hoo.

[CommanderDOOM]

23 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I wouldn't.  At all.  I'd take 1 SB and 10 years of suck.….

Bills are probably the most cursed franchise….

 

Vikings running close 

 

13 minutes ago, samy316 said:

 

I must’ve deleted what samy said so let me paraphrase….  ‘It’s a no brainer’.

Shiiiiit, To have that feeling again winnin it all I’ll raise u 11.

 

47 minutes ago, zCommander said:

 

It depends on how deep of a run into the playoffs though. Losing in the wild card round would still indicates lots of work is still needed to get to conference championship at least. 

 

That’s Barkley….

 

52 minutes ago, wit33 said:

..I’d take 10 years of playoffs over a SB and 10 years no playoffs...

u buggin.

[tmandoug1]

 I want a strong franchise that has the possibility of going to the SB every year. Not one and done......makes no sense to me. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by tmandoug1

[El Mexican]

2 hours ago, samy316 said:

Do people realize how hard it is to cash in on a championship?  Ask Browns, Jags, Lions & Texans fans if they would sacrifice 10+ years of ineptitude in exchange for 1 ring.  Hell, it’s been 32 years since we last won a championship.  If we went all in like the Rams, and cashed in on a SB win, I’d gladly sacrifice the next 10 years.  It’s not even a question.

 

Didn't we try that in the early Snyder era?

 

 

[NYSkins21]

8 hours ago, wit33 said:

Fascinating discussion.
 

I’d take 10 years of playoffs over a SB and 10 years no playoffs. 
 

Nothing worst than wasting time watching bad football, we know lol

Technically it would be “…over a SB and 10 years 1 playoff lol. But I agree wit cha wit.

[Simmsy]

 

[Warhead36]

I mean Im still living off the Nats 2019 World Series

[zCommander]

1 hour ago, Warhead36 said:

I mean Im still living off the Nats 2019 World Series

 

For me it was nice to have back to back championships. Caps (the same year, in January, I bought my single family home and will never forget) and then the Nats.

 

[Andre The Giant]

 

[NoCalMike]

I think it sort of depends on the situation.  Like are we talking about being a playoff team that gets booted routinely in the first or second round on & off for a decade or are we talking about being a playoff team for three years, then attempting to go all in for a championship run which means they better win it all or the team will get torn apart and have to rebuild the following season?    

[redskinss]

We've had a chance to be a playoff team every year with horrible quarterback play.

That comment falls into the no **** category.

 

If they get any sort of good quarterback play they have a chance to be a contender in the nfc but nobody has the balls to say that so they say whats already painfully obvious based off past results.

 

 

[philibusters]

On 3/29/2023 at 7:48 PM, samy316 said:

Uh, HELL YES it was worth it.  Last time I checked, the Rams won the SB, with Stafford as QB, right?  You win an SB after that big gamble to trade for Stafford, it will always be worth it.  My cousin is a Rams fan, and he frequently stated last year that he’d gladly sacrifice the next 5-10 years for that 1 SB season.  I would too, if I were a Rams fan.

 

The thing about the Rams Superbowl is they were probably only the 4 or 5th best team that season.   I would say the Bills, Chiefs, Bucs, Packers, and maybe the Cowboys were better teams than the Rams over the course of the season.  However, the Rams got hot in the Superbowl and then got a bit lucky in their draws, getting a BUCs team that had significant injuries and was not peaking (in a game they barely held on to win) and then missed both the Chiefs and the Bills from the AFC.

 

In the end the gamble paid off, but I am not sure it was a smart bet.  I think they thought they were going to have like a 3 or 4 year window so they would have 3 or 4 bites of the apple.  I don't think they anticipated how quickly things would fall apart.

[Warhead36]

12 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

I think it sort of depends on the situation.  Like are we talking about being a playoff team that gets booted routinely in the first or second round on & off for a decade or are we talking about being a playoff team for three years, then attempting to go all in for a championship run which means they better win it all or the team will get torn apart and have to rebuild the following season?    

Its kind of a silly argument. The teams that win Super Bowls are typically teams that are good year in year out for a 5+ year stretch to begin with. Nobody goes 5-11 for a decade, wins a Super Bowl, and then goes 5-11 for another decade. 

 

I mean I know the Rams sucked this past year, but from 2017-2021 they made the playoffs four times(and the one year they didn't they still went 9-7), culminating in the Super Bowl win in 2021. They weren't some flash in the pan fluke team. They have to rebuild now, but they had a 5 year stretch of sustained success.

Edited March 31, 2023 by Warhead36

[samy316]

2 hours ago, philibusters said:

 

The thing about the Rams Superbowl is they were probably only the 4 or 5th best team that season.   I would say the Bills, Chiefs, Bucs, Packers, and maybe the Cowboys were better teams than the Rams over the course of the season.  However, the Rams got hot in the Superbowl and then got a bit lucky in their draws, getting a BUCs team that had significant injuries and was not peaking (in a game they barely held on to win) and then missed both the Chiefs and the Bills from the AFC.

 

In the end the gamble paid off, but I am not sure it was a smart bet.  I think they thought they were going to have like a 3 or 4 year window so they would have 3 or 4 bites of the apple.  I don't think they anticipated how quickly things would fall apart.

 

None of that matters.  The objective for every team is to win a Super Bowl.  Once you've accomplished that, then the pressure is off.  The Rams had only 1 SB title to their name before last year.  They went all in to ensure that they would win another SB.  They might be in purgatory for a few years (maybe more), but ask their fans if it was worth it or not.  It was a smart bet, no questions about it.  They set a goal, worked to achieve that goal, and ultimately accomplished their goal of winning a SB.  If those other teams were better than the Rams that year, then they would be SB champs.

 

Also, the way they won the SB shouldn't have any what if's or buts.  I don't need to remind anyone here that 2 of our 3 SB wins were during strike shortened seasons.  Does that make our titles any less valid?

Edited March 31, 2023 by samy316

[philibusters]

8 minutes ago, samy316 said:

 

None of that matters.  The objective for every team is to win a Super Bowl.  Once you've accomplished that, then the pressure is off.  The Rams had only 1 SB title to their name before last year.  They went all in to ensure that they would win another SB.  They might be in purgatory for a few years (maybe more), but ask their fans if it was worth it or not.  It was a smart bet, no questions about it.  They set a goal, they worked to achieve that goal, and ultimately accomplished their goal of winning a SB.  If those other teams were better than the Rams that year, then they would be SB champs.

 

Also, the way they won the SB shouldn't have any what if's or buts.  I don't need to remind anyone here that 2 of our 3 SB wins were during strike shortened seasons.  Does that make our titles any less valid?

 

I am not saying their Superbowl is less valid, I am more saying the bet they made was not a smart bet.  They thought they had a 3 to 4 year window to win a Super Bowl.  It now looks like they had a 1 year window to win a Super Bowl. 

Long story short, I don't think I would make the bet they made if I was running a team today that was in a similar position to what they were in during the 2021 off season.   A trade that improves you from maybe the 12th best team to the 5th best team when you realistically only have a couple year window to win a Super Bowl.

[MartinC]

On 3/29/2023 at 6:34 PM, FootballZombie said:

SB all day ever day. Not even a question.

 

The Rams move for Staffy has been a resounding success no matter what happens next. They got their ring. If they gotta pay for that w/ some down years, boo hoo.

 

100%. And it wont take them ten years to rebuild and restock. McVay didn't stay on as HC without there being a clear plan to rebuild and retool for the next run - they will take most of their cap pain this year but from 2025 on their cap situation looks better and they start to have draft picks to invest.

[Warhead36]

22 hours ago, philibusters said:

 

I am not saying their Superbowl is less valid, I am more saying the bet they made was not a smart bet.  They thought they had a 3 to 4 year window to win a Super Bowl.  It now looks like they had a 1 year window to win a Super Bowl. 

 

They had a five year window from 2017-2021. They just happened to not win it until the very last year.

[philibusters]

13 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

They had a five year window from 2017-2021. They just happened to not win it until the very last year.

 

The context I was talking about what was trading 3 first rounders and Jared Goff for Matthew Stafford, which was made January 30, 2021.   My point is I think it was a bad trade.   It worked out well, but I think at the time they made it it was a bad trade.   I think when they made it they thought they would have a window in 2021, 2022, 2023, and maybe even 2024.  I don't think they realized how short the window would end up being (just 2021).  Luckily for them, they won it in 2021, but they did get lucky.  They got a Tampa team depleted by injuries and missed the Chiefs and Bills altogether.  They were a good team in 2021, I'd have them as probably the 5th or 6th best team out of 32 teams that year, but they gave up an awful lot for a one year gamble.   I have to think if they realized they were only going to have a one year window when they made that trade, they would not have made it.

 

Edit: Two first rounders, not three

Edited April 1, 2023 by philibusters