I See QB Rumors (2012 QB Thread: The Sixth Sense)

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Uh, the Giants?

Also, several players on the list produced above were #1 overall picks. Do you really want to wait until we have the first overall pick? I don't.

Cutler

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by irish

I'm trying to think of a team with a franchise QB that gave up the farm to get him.

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Cutler

Good example Alvin. Also Eli Manning, Carson Palmer, and Sanchize. Also, arguably, Kolb, Tebow, and Gabbert, depending on how one defines "franchise QB" and how one defines "giving up the farm."

The fact is, teams regularly give up a lot if it means they can land their QB guy.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Good example Alvin. Also Eli Manning, Carson Palmer, and Sanchize. Also, arguably, Kolb, Tebow, and Gabbert, depending on how one defines "franchise QB" and how one defines "giving up the farm."

The fact is, teams regularly give up a lot if it means they can land their QB guy.

Would it be fair, in every one of those cases including Cutler, to say that the team that they currently play for would have been much better off not trading for them than to trade for them? On a case-by-case level, that's probably not correct. But in the aggregate, I think I agree with irish that no team really bettered themselves by giving up a ton to go get a quarterback.

I think the Texans were rewarded for their move to get Schaub but that seemed to be more along the lines of picking up an undervalued asset at a (newly open) need position than trading a ton of picks for an established quarterback.

Perhaps the only trade up to get a QB that looks really good in hindsight is Shanahan's move to get Cutler, and we might have a totally different perception of him in Denver if McDaniels wasn't intelligent enough to sell high and grab picks for a guy he didn't know whether or not he fit his system. I mean, if Denver had held on to Cutler through the McDaniels era, we could have been talking about a situation where John Fox might have traded the last year of his contract for a fourth round pick. Could have happened.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Would it be fair, in every one of those cases including Cutler, to say that the team that they currently play for would have been much better off not trading for them than to trade for them? On a case-by-case level, that's probably not correct. But in the aggregate, I think I agree with irish that no team really bettered themselves by giving up a ton to go get a quarterback.

I think the Texans were rewarded for their move to get Schaub but that seemed to be more along the lines of picking up an undervalued asset at a (newly open) need position than trading a ton of picks for an established quarterback.

Perhaps the only trade up to get a QB that looks really good in hindsight is Shanahan's move to get Cutler, and we might have a totally different perception of him in Denver if McDaniels wasn't intelligent enough to sell high and grab picks for a guy he didn't know whether or not he fit his system. I mean, if Denver had held on to Cutler through the McDaniels era, we could have been talking about a situation where John Fox might have traded the last year of his contract for a fourth round pick. Could have happened.

Actually irish's claim was not about teams bettering themselves. His claim was that teams never give up a lot to get a QB. I simply pointed out that that was not true, whether such deals end up being smart or not.

As for whether giving up a lot for a QB is worth it, I agree that you must look on a case-by-case basis. I agreed with you on the argument about Eli the other day. But in Eli's case the Giants had other easy options. That is not always the case. So we might look at the Bears' acquisition of Cutler differently than we look at trading for Eli. And until we see more the jury remains out on folks like Palmer and Gabbert. If Palmer tears it up next year and the Raiders win the Super Bowl (I said IF), the Palmer trade looks a lot more respectable.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Actually irish's claim was not about teams bettering themselves. His claim was that teams never give up a lot to get a QB. I simply pointed out that that was not true, whether such deals end up being smart or not.

As for whether giving up a lot for a QB is worth it, I agree that you must look on a case-by-case basis. I agreed with you on the argument about Eli the other day. But in Eli's case the Giants had other easy options. That is not always the case. So we might look at the Bears' acquisition of Cutler differently than we look at trading for Eli. And until we see more the jury remains out on folks like Palmer and Gabbert. If Palmer tears it up next year and the Raiders win the Super Bowl (I said IF), the Palmer trade looks a lot more respectable.

I liked (and still like) the Palmer trade for the Raiders because they didn't have a whole lot of options based on the timing of Campbell's injury, and I typically enjoy teams that error on the side of aggression. There is almost no way that Palmer is worth what the Raiders gave up for him. That was more a case of the Bengals getting to name their price.

But I don't think the Raiders were deluded into thinking they were trading for a franchise quarterback. They were trading for a guy who was still one of the NFL's top 15 passers (with the hope [but not expectation] that he could be a top 10 guy over the next three years) while knowing that the only QB under contract for them in 2012 was Terrelle Pryor at close to league minimum. I always viewed the Raiders as less concerned about winning the trade and more concerned with solidifying the position for the immediate future. But it's still the Raiders, so who knows their true intentions?

The Bears gave up picks in the Jay Cutler deal that could have become franchise quarterbacks, either Josh Freeman in 2009 (the actual pick they traded to Denver for Cutler was eventually used by Tampa for Freeman), or Tebow/Clausen/McCoy/Kafka in 2010. The real issue though is that the guy who they included in the trade for Cutler (Orton) hasn't been all that much worse than Cutler since the trade. To me, the lack of a supporting cast for Cutler is not an excuse for his play when evaluating a trade where it cost so much to get him: well of course he has a limited supporting cast, the Broncos fleeced the Bears in terms of compensation.

Point being: there are never not other options at quarterback. Never. They aren't always great options, but if you're going to give up a ton of draft pick value to get a guy you like, I think you have forfeited your right to complain about the available options. I don't mind erring on the side of aggression, just make sure you are right about it, and you better win something within three years, otherwise, you surely left better choices on the table.

[Higskin]

The Super Bowl match up is a bit telling about what it takes to get to there.

Defensively: Both teams have horrendous defenses, ranked virtually at the bottom of the barrel, #27 & #31. The run defenses are in the bottom half and pass defenses in the bottom 4.

Offensively: Both teams had pathetic run game stats in the regular season ranked in the bottom half, Giants #31.

So how did these two teams get to the Super Bowl? What stands out about them? Both are in the top 5 in passing, #2 & #3. That's where they both stand apart from other teams. Yeah, there's more to passing numbers than just the QB, but that's where it begins and ends.

We get caught up in alot of other areas of need on this team, but QB is the most important position on the field.

Heck, the Skins had a better defense than either team but that's not this years SuperBowl theme or Pittsburgh and SF would be there.

If you think a QB like Luck or Bradford gets you "over" at that position, you do whatever it takes to get one of them.

Shanny himself has said on more than one occassion recently, that this team is close. Yeah, obviously, we're in need of a franchise QB.

Glad to hear there's a trade like that in the plans.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Higskin

Defensively: Both teams have horrendous defenses, ranked virtually at the bottom of the barrel, #27 & #31. The run defenses are in the bottom half and pass defenses in the bottom 4.

The stats for the Giants defense is a bit misleading. Remember they had tons of injuries at the beginning of the season on the defensive side of the ball. They have Tuck and Osi back and they are destroying QBs with that 4 man rush. It lets them do more things with their defense than what they could do before.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Good example Alvin. Also Eli Manning, Carson Palmer, and Sanchize. Also, arguably, Kolb, Tebow, and Gabbert, depending on how one defines "franchise QB" and how one defines "giving up the farm."

The fact is, teams regularly give up a lot if it means they can land their QB guy.

Outside of Eli, there is no way the rest of the QBs you named are franchise QBs.

It just seems to me that teams that go and get a QB that actually makes a difference are already solid teams that are only a QB away from winning titles. The Redskins arent that team.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by irish

Outside of Eli, there is no way the rest of the QBs you named are franchise QBs.

It just seems to me that teams that go and get a QB that actually makes a difference are already solid teams that are only a QB away from winning titles. The Redskins arent that team.

You may think those guys aren't franchise QB's. That's fair enough. But their teams do or they would not have paid the high prices. Heck, Sanchez's coach called him "Sanchize" so we know that at least at one time an NFL coach had a perception different from yours.