The Official QB Thread- JD5 taken #2. Randal 2.0 or Bayou Bob? Mariotta and Fromm battle for QB2 and so begins the Handsome Harem for Hartman

[kingdaddy]

10 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

You forgot the most important part of this though:

 

Hurts developed into an NFL MVP candidate caliber QB.  That’s a combination of good planning and good luck.  
 

If he has stunk, none of the other roster building would have mattered. 

 

Mahomes will get the MVP honors.  But Hurts might be second or third in voting.

 

It’s not just cheap that’s important.  It’s cheap AND great.

 

Also FWIW, Mahomes is NOT cheap and they are in the SB.

 

The key is getting great QB play.  If you have to pay for it, pay for it.  If you can get it cheap, get it cheap.

 

But the key is not the price.  It’s the quality of play.  
 

Of the 4 Conference Championship teams, 3 had legitimate top 10 QBs. I’d argue you could say top 5 QBs.  Clearly Mahomes and Burrow are top 5.  If Hurts isn’t, he’s definitely JUST outside it.  Herbert, Rodgers, Allen, Hurts, Brady would probably be in the mix for 3-7 if you say Burrow and Mahomes are 1/2. 
 

The 49ers are the outlier of the group.  
 

I’m fine rolling the dice with Howell, seeing if he develops.  But after 19 passes in a meaningless game, I’m not sure I’m willing to say if the Commanders upgraded the rest of the roster they would be the Eagles.  
 

Now, if they upgraded the roster and Howell turns out to be Steve Young? (Mobile, shorter QB with tremendous ability) then yeah, we’re cooking with gas.  
 

If he turns out to be … a slightly better Taylor Hienicke?  Eh, we’ll win a bit more but nothing of note. 
 

Unless you’re the 49ers, you basically need top 10 QB play to win a game or two in the playoffs.  
 

How you get it might vary, but that’s what you need. 

I didn't forget about the QB and I know that any team would love to have an MVP caliber QB. But, look at yesterday's game, Hurts didn't have to do much at all because the talent around him is so great that the Eagles can beat any team in a variety of ways both on offense and defense. 

How great would it have been to sign Hassan Reddick and stick him on our defense? What a message that would send to the other guys that we drafted and developed. Howie Roseman threw money at every hole the Eagles had. After the Commanders man-handled the Eagles defense Roseman went out and signed TWO veteran defensive tackles including Ndamakong Suh. What a boost for that locker room to see that. Our front office hasn't made moves like that in a long time instead going for cheaper, possible future prospects.

We have made our decision to roll with Howell now see who you can convince to come to DC thru free agency to make this roster more well-rounded and stronger. 

Think about what the Eagles did, they had just signed Wentz to a long-term extension and then completely changed course by drafting Hurts in round 2. Talk about a confusing message? But it seems as though Roseman made a decision to scrap the high priced QB and roll with the young prospect while building the roster everywhere else with the money he saved. It's gonna work out once they win in two weeks. The Eagles turned their team around in just 2 years with this philosophy.

We should be doing the exact same thing. Use our team leaders to recruit free agents to sign here and start paying guys to come in here and compliment the young talent we have. We'd be very dangerous.

[profusion]

1 hour ago, stoshuaj said:

RE: Jalen Hurts, I thought around here the only way to get a potential SB quarterback is to tank and get one in the top of the 1st round?

 

That's one vocal contingent. 

 

It rarely works, though. Peyton Manning and the Colts is the only semi recent example I can think of.

 

Tanking makes the culture toxic and cupboard so bare that, even if you manage to land the next Brady or Mahomes (which is purely a matter of luck), the guy will get injured, fail to develop, and/or take his talents elsewhere at the first opportunity.

 

Almost as bad is paying a guaranteed megacontract to a guy who's a step down from Brady/Rodgers/Mahomes. The Browns and Broncos will be messed up for years by doing that.

 

The Eagles and Niners seem to have the best ways of doing things. It takes an excellent GM and scouting team to make that work, of course.

[Zim489]

12 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

You forgot the most important part of this though:

 

Hurts developed into an NFL MVP candidate caliber QB.  That’s a combination of good planning and good luck.  
 

If he has stunk, none of the other roster building would have mattered. 

 

Mahomes will get the MVP honors.  But Hurts might be second or third in voting.

 

It’s not just cheap that’s important.  It’s cheap AND great.

 

Also FWIW, Mahomes is NOT cheap and they are in the SB.

 

The key is getting great QB play.  If you have to pay for it, pay for it.  If you can get it cheap, get it cheap.

 

But the key is not the price.  It’s the quality of play.  
 

Of the 4 Conference Championship teams, 3 had legitimate top 10 QBs. I’d argue you could say top 5 QBs.  Clearly Mahomes and Burrow are top 5.  If Hurts isn’t, he’s definitely JUST outside it.  Herbert, Rodgers, Allen, Hurts, Brady would probably be in the mix for 3-7 if you say Burrow and Mahomes are 1/2. 
 

The 49ers are the outlier of the group.  
 

I’m fine rolling the dice with Howell, seeing if he develops.  But after 19 passes in a meaningless game, I’m not sure I’m willing to say if the Commanders upgraded the rest of the roster they would be the Eagles.  
 

Now, if they upgraded the roster and Howell turns out to be Steve Young? (Mobile, shorter QB with tremendous ability) then yeah, we’re cooking with gas.  
 

If he turns out to be … a slightly better Taylor Hienicke?  Eh, we’ll win a bit more but nothing of note. 
 

Unless you’re the 49ers, you basically need top 10 QB play to win a game or two in the playoffs.  
 

How you get it might vary, but that’s what you need. 

\

 

The people arguing you can win with lower tier QBs are just emphatically wrong and out of touch with modern football.

 

Now the next evolution is getting the people who agree with this to understand where you have to get these QBs most of the time. Rodgers was pre 2011 Rookie Wage scale which changed everything about QB drafting. So his spot is irrelevant. Hurts is an outlier but everyone else is a top 10 pick. Except for Lamar who hasnt gotten there yet so you maybe couldnt even include him. 

 

Essentially football now is if you dont have a top 10 drafted QB you have no chance of reaching conference championships unless youre Kyle Shanahan. 

 

If you dont have a top 10 draft QB find a way to get one. If youre not positioning yourself to have one youre doing your entire franchise building wrong.

[Zim489]

25 minutes ago, profusion said:

Tanking

I think there is a VERY WRONG stigma around "tanking". Some people think tanking is players and coaches throwing games. I couldnt disagree with that more. Coaches and players never tank. GMs "tank". They tank by jettisoning talent that wont be with your organization in 2-3 years time. They play encourage youth over vet even if it means losses. Its maneuvering to opportunistically set yourself forward in years ahead. Theres no point in making your 6 win team try and win 8 with a bunch of middle of the road 27 year olds when you can be a 4 win team instead playing your 23 year olds. 

[JSSkinz]

41 minutes ago, profusion said:

The Eagles and Niners seem to have the best ways of doing things. It takes an excellent GM and scouting team to make that work, of course.

With all the great things they've done they have a messy QB situation and it's probably why they have no super bowls.

[Jumbo]

21 hours ago, RWJ said:

Thanks, SIP.  At least we respect each other and can agree to disagree at times.   

 

 

Subversive and insurrectionist view.

 

Please report to the ES Member Compliance Center for the Member Re-Alignment Process.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

42 minutes ago, Zim489 said:

I think there is a VERY WRONG stigma around "tanking". Some people think tanking is players and coaches throwing games. I couldnt disagree with that more. Coaches and players never tank. GMs "tank". They tank by jettisoning talent that wont be with your organization in 2-3 years time. They play encourage youth over vet even if it means losses. Its maneuvering to opportunistically set yourself forward in years ahead. Theres no point in making your 6 win team try and win 8 with a bunch of middle of the road 27 year olds when you can be a 4 win team instead playing your 23 year olds. 

 

Agree, its not coaches.  Disagree its the GMs.  It's owners IMO who decide to tank and then the GM executes that.

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[Rufus T Firefly]

49 minutes ago, Zim489 said:

I think there is a VERY WRONG stigma around "tanking". Some people think tanking is players and coaches throwing games. I couldnt disagree with that more. Coaches and players never tank. GMs "tank". They tank by jettisoning talent that wont be with your organization in 2-3 years time. They play encourage youth over vet even if it means losses. Its maneuvering to opportunistically set yourself forward in years ahead. Theres no point in making your 6 win team try and win 8 with a bunch of middle of the road 27 year olds when you can be a 4 win team instead playing your 23 year olds. 

Yes. It's almost impossible to have any discussion around wanting any kind of a rebuild because there are so many people who immediately call that "tanking" and then the nonsense about wanting to have  players and coached throwing games come into it. 

[Zim489]

23 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Yes. It's almost impossible to have any discussion around wanting any kind of a rebuild because there are so many people who immediately call that "tanking" and then the nonsense about wanting to have  players and coached throwing games come into it. 

I think a rebuild is inevitable within the next 2 ish years with the new staff coming in. Hopefully they do it right and dont value short term meaningless wins over long term ceilings 

[RWJ]

52 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

 

Subversive and insurrectionist view.

 

Please report to the ES Member Compliance Center for the Member Re-Alignment Process.

 

 

Just being respectful to the members of the site when I post.  

[Rufus T Firefly]

7 minutes ago, RWJ said:

Just being respectful to the members of the site when I post.  

[JamesMadisonSkins]

Who knows if it'd be made available, but there was talk today on SiriusXM about Trey Lance supposedly being on the table for a 3rd rounder if the Purdy injury isn't too bad (if it's Tommy Johns, forget it, Lance isn't close to available). 

Forget the merits of the claim, but that seems really inexpensive for a former Top 3 raw talent who has all the traits who hasn't seen much action in 2 years for various reasons. I'd happily throw our 2nd at Lance just to have two young mobile QBs with pedigree to compete for the job this year. I could see Rivera making that sort of move since it could both A) buy him time but b) give him a competition at the most important position with the winner presumably being pretty well positioned to win. Both on rookie deals, not a lot of draft capital to part with. 

 

BUT, and this is the most important part, while I would very much rather have the new GM and Coach make the long-term QB decision post-2023, this is one of the few if only scenarios I could see that would give us both short-term and long-term upside without really mortgaging the future (other than just rolling with Howell and say, a 5th round rookie + a vet backup).

 

Anyway, I didn't scroll back through to see how many hundreds of times this has been brought up in here lately, but just putting it out there.

Edited January 30, 2023 by JamesMadisonSkins

[Jumbo]

1 hour ago, RWJ said:

Just being respectful to the members of the site when I post.  

 

Oh, so another contrarian disrespecting our ancient traditions. What's next? Open mindedness? Objective, evidence-based argument?  Down this road lies deterioration of all our posting traditions. No sir, not on my watch.

 

[mistertim]

3 hours ago, kingdaddy said:

I didn't forget about the QB and I know that any team would love to have an MVP caliber QB. But, look at yesterday's game, Hurts didn't have to do much at all because the talent around him is so great that the Eagles can beat any team in a variety of ways both on offense and defense. 

How great would it have been to sign Hassan Reddick and stick him on our defense? What a message that would send to the other guys that we drafted and developed. Howie Roseman threw money at every hole the Eagles had. After the Commanders man-handled the Eagles defense Roseman went out and signed TWO veteran defensive tackles including Ndamakong Suh. What a boost for that locker room to see that. Our front office hasn't made moves like that in a long time instead going for cheaper, possible future prospects.

We have made our decision to roll with Howell now see who you can convince to come to DC thru free agency to make this roster more well-rounded and stronger. 

Think about what the Eagles did, they had just signed Wentz to a long-term extension and then completely changed course by drafting Hurts in round 2. Talk about a confusing message? But it seems as though Roseman made a decision to scrap the high priced QB and roll with the young prospect while building the roster everywhere else with the money he saved. It's gonna work out once they win in two weeks. The Eagles turned their team around in just 2 years with this philosophy.

We should be doing the exact same thing. Use our team leaders to recruit free agents to sign here and start paying guys to come in here and compliment the young talent we have. We'd be very dangerous.

 

Sure, Hurts didn't single handedly win every game for them, but if they didn't have a QB who was playing at an elite level this season, they never would have gotten where they are now, no matter how many rando pieces they brought in on defense.

[FootballZombie]

1 minute ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

Who knows if it'd be made available, but there was talk today on SiriusXM about Trey Lance supposedly being on the table for a 3rd rounder if the Purdy injury isn't too bad (if it's Tommy Johns, forget it, Lance isn't close to available). 

 

I have doubts he would be that cheap if available but if so I don't see how anyone could get mad at shipping out a 3 for the guy... which reinforces my hesitance that the price-point is way too low.

[Hooper]

There is a very good chance Trey Lance is terrible and Kyle was talked into drafting. 

 

Seriously, he looked average -- at best -- in limited action. And this in an offense that has made pretty much every QB look good. 

 

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Hooper

[Zim489]

I absolutely loved Trey as a prospect. But hard pass now. 3 years in and would be on his 3rd crew come 2024 offseason. Keep the picks. 

[Number 44]

39 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

 

Oh, so another contrarian disrespecting our ancient traditions. What's next? Open mindedness? Objective, evidence-based argument?  Down this road lies deterioration of all our posting traditions. No sir, not on my watch.

 

Nip it in the bud.  Nip it.  Nip it.  Nip it.

[Rufus T Firefly]

12 minutes ago, Zim489 said:

I absolutely loved Trey as a prospect. But hard pass now. 3 years in and would be on his 3rd crew come 2024 offseason. Keep the picks. 

I loved him as a prospect too, but I thought he needed a lot of coaching akin to the way they built Josh Allen's accuracy. And one of the reasons I liked him was that his intangibles seemed off the charts, which would lend it self to such coaching.

 

Now, it didn't seem anything in his throwing had changed much early this season. So, clearly we here can't ell whether that's because he hasn't been coached up well enough, he needs a little more time, or he's just not able to be developed. 

 

But I'd say what I've seen of him in SF seems more like Kyle is more interested in using him as a running style QB than developing the rest of his game. It's similar to how he coached RG3 here- make use of the legs and figure out how to make him weapon now rather than develop the throwing style (and I'm not blaming him for all of RG3's struggles or interested in discussing him at all). 

 

For a cheap price it would be dumb not to take a chance on him, but someone still needs to work him to make him who he could be. 

[Warhead36]

I doubt the 9ers give up on Lance so easily. I still think Shanahan looks at him and thinks he can mold him into something special, and in his system that would be a truly lethal QB. 

[Zim489]

20 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

I loved him as a prospect too, but I thought he needed a lot of coaching akin to the way they built Josh Allen's accuracy. And one of the reasons I liked him was that his intangibles seemed off the charts, which would lend it self to such coaching.

 

Now, it didn't seem anything in his throwing had changed much early this season. So, clearly we here can't ell whether that's because he hasn't been coached up well enough, he needs a little more time, or he's just not able to be developed. 

 

But I'd say what I've seen of him in SF seems more like Kyle is more interested in using him as a running style QB than developing the rest of his game. It's similar to how he coached RG3 here- make use of the legs and figure out how to make him weapon now rather than develop the throwing style (and I'm not blaming him for all of RG3's struggles or interested in discussing him at all). 

 

For a cheap price it would be dumb not to take a chance on him, but someone still needs to work him to make him who he could be. 

If we’re talking a 5/6th sure what ever but a 2nd or 3rd? Hard pass 

[Rufus T Firefly]

3 minutes ago, Zim489 said:

If we’re talking a 5/6th sure what ever but a 2nd or 3rd? Hard pass 

LOL. It's kind of comical to be talking about how you "loved" a guy who was considered a serious project two years ago to now repeating "hard pass" a the idea of giving a 3rd round pick for him after he missed a year with an injury. 

[profusion]

3 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Yes. It's almost impossible to have any discussion around wanting any kind of a rebuild because there are so many people who immediately call that "tanking" and then the nonsense about wanting to have  players and coached throwing games come into it. 

 

Tanking, per se, doesn't happen in the NFL. The rosters are so much larger than basketball or baseball, and midseason integration of players so much more difficult, that in-season roster dumps just don't happen to that degree in the NFL. Guys do get traded for picks, but trading a player here and there is not full-on fire sale the way rebuilding MLB teams do it.

 

The culture around the NFL also makes it less likely that teams would do this. Coaches and player will never willingly lose games, and GMs understand that a winning culture matters and that losing a lot of games erodes that.

 

4 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

With all the great things they've done they have a messy QB situation and it's probably why they have no super bowls.

 

So, was I hallucinating when I saw the Eagles win a Super Bowl with Nick Foles at QB at few years ago?

 

The 49ers have been to either the NFC Championship Game or the SB 3 of the last 4 years. It seems to be working for them pretty well.

 

Here's how I see the breakdown of possibilities:

• Lose a LOT of games regularly ("tanking") and naturally get the top 5 pick. If this worked, we'd have seen Super Bowls by the Jets, Browns and Lions in recent history. It doesn't work, because the QB alone can't win anything, and perennial losers are bad at making decisions. A few otherwise good teams have lucked into this by having an off-year when there just happened to be top QB available (Andrew Luck and Eli Manning). That's not a plan, though.
• Build a good roster and live with a second- or third-tier veteran QB. This is basically what teams like the Titans do, and a number of teams have been trying to get by with it (including the Commanders). It also doesn't work because QB *is* important. You could say that the 49ers are here, except they were aggressive in getting Trey Lance--it just hasn't worked out yet. What they do going forward will be telling. Going with Purdy or Garoppalo would fall in line with this, I think.
• Build a good roster and draft aggressively for QB frequently. If you hit on the right guy, you've got your 4-5 year Super Bowl window with a packed roster before he becomes unaffordable.
• Point 3, but then keep the star QB afterward at a ridiculous price and hope he can carry a depleted roster. Mahomes can, Brady did, Wilson can't, and the jury's out on Watson.

Or, you can just flail around hopelessly like the Redskins/Commanders have for the last 20 years or so.

[Zim489]

2 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

LOL. It's kind of comical to be talking about how you "loved" a guy who was considered a serious project two years ago to now repeating "hard pass" a the idea of giving a 3rd round pick for him after he missed a year with an injury. 

The odds of the said 3rd rounder are significantly higher in being here in 2025 than a traded Trey lance 

[Rufus T Firefly]

5 minutes ago, Zim489 said:

The odds of the said 3rd rounder are significantly higher in being here in 2025 than a traded Trey lance 

LOL. Okay, guy who "loved" Lance as a prospect.