Stafford in WFT Plans? He’s Available

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

Wait! Are you saying that we should draft our quarterback of the future, rather than trade for him? Are you sure?

I tend to lean on this logic too. Drafting a qb of the future is way more cost effective than trading for one. Not to mention how much your roster will be set back if the qb you trade for doesn't pan out.

Unless Watson could be had for a fair price I'm not mortgaging the future to win now.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by mooby

I tend to lean on this logic too. Drafting a qb of the future is way more cost effective than trading for one. Not to mention how much your roster will be set back if the qb you trade for doesn't pan out.

Unless Watson could be had for a fair price I'm not mortgaging the future to win now.

It’s absolutely more cost effective. But it’s also absolutely a crapshoot.

The premium you pay for a guy like Stafford, multiple picks and a high dollar contract, you’re paying that premium for the certainty that you’ve got a QB you can build around, someone who allows you to move on and focus on building out the rest of the roster.

But like anything else, you have to decide whether the premium price was worth it. It was worth trading for, but not at this price.

We should explore other options. It beats rolling the dice on a rookie.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by mooby

I tend to lean on this logic too. Drafting a qb of the future is way more cost effective than trading for one. Not to mention how much your roster will be set back if the qb you trade for doesn't pan out.

Unless Watson could be had for a fair price I'm not mortgaging the future to win now.

That was a joke. I know where he stands, it's painfully obvious if you take the time to read his books.

I'd rather sign a FA and draft our future QB too. That is my preferred method of solving the QB situation. I wouldn't hate it if they signed Dak, then you can wait on that future QB thing.

I also wouldn't hate it if they traded for Carr if it was a reasonable (not Stafford-like) offer.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Yet another crazy stat courtesy of Albert Breer:

what a dumb stat.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

what a dumb stat.

How is it dumb. When 0% of a position drafted in the 1st round is on their original team 5 yrs later (2016)that should be a cautionary tale. When it happens consistently, it should be a strong warning that drafting a qb in the 1st round, even repeated attempts at it, is not a definitive way to get the right guy.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

How is it dumb. When 0% of a position drafted in the 1st round is on their original team 5 yrs later (2016)that should be a cautionary tale. When it happens consistently, it should be a strong warning that drafting a qb in the 1st round, even repeated attempts at it, is not a definitive way to get the right guy.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

50% of 1st rouders bust anyway. so does that mean you do not try and draft one? i sure would like to have watson, murray, allen, rodgers, carr, herbert, mahomes, burrow. in 10 or 11 years chances are some of those young guys will have moved on or won't be playing. that is the nature of the beast.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

50% of 1st rouders bust anyway. so does that mean you do not try and draft one? i sure would like to have watson, murray, allen, rodgers, carr, herbert, mahomes, burrow. in 10 or 11 years chances are some of those young guys will have moved on or won't be playing. that is the nature of the beast.

Right, so the point is valid. If your strategy is solely to jump up to grab the kid that looks like a sure thing, it is a dumb strategy. If you have an NFL proven starter you can get for a first round pick or even 2, that is a better deal because as you said 50% of the 1st round drafted qbs are gonna bust.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[EdmundDorf]

Future draft picks are usually considered as equal to a round later of the current years picks, that's why you so often see a trade of this years second for next years first. On top of that, with Stafford the Rams picks are likely to be be very late in the first round now. And on top of that they are taking on Goffs contract. To my mind the 19th pick this year is worth more than what they got, but I think in the end Stafford wanted to go there and that is the point. WFT still has a bad reputation in the eyes of many, if you think one of the premier wide outs is coming here without an established QB you are dreaming, unless the only thing they are looking for is to make the most money

[sdskinsfan2001]

Scalper, can you stop writing novels on 90% of your post? Fuck me, even if I agree with 100% of your post, I need to live my life.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

Scalper, can you stop writing novels on 90% of your post? Fuck me, even if I agree with 100% of your post, I need to live my life.

don't forget warthog!

[mredskins]

I am smiling if I am a Lions fan today, especially if Goff finds his own self.

The Rams might given up to much for a QB that old. That package is what I would thought it take to get Watson.

[SkinzWin]

I just want to know what we offered. All this cloak and dagger crap pisses me off. If your “source familiar with the situation” is able to tel you they offered more than LA, do a little investigative journalism and go a step further and ask, what was the offer?

Per @BenStandig

Washington made the Lions a significant offer for QB
Matthew Stafford, per sources. One person familiar with the situation said the WFT offer included more immediate help than what Lions landed. Detroit went another way. The search for a QB rolls on.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SkinzWin

I just want to know what we offered. All this cloak and dagger crap pisses me off. If your “source familiar with the situation” is able to tel you they offered more than LA, do a little investigative journalism and go a step further and ask, what was the offer?

Per @BenStandig

Washington made the Lions a significant offer for QB
Matthew Stafford, per sources. One person familiar with the situation said the WFT offer included more immediate help than what Lions landed. Detroit went another way. The search for a QB rolls on.

I would interpret this as a first round pick this year and a solid defensive player like Montez Sweat or Payne...or maybe Landon Collins too?

[Number44]

Originally Posted by SkinzWin

I just want to know what we offered. All this cloak and dagger crap pisses me off. If your “source familiar with the situation” is able to tel you they offered more than LA, do a little investigative journalism and go a step further and ask, what was the offer?

Per @BenStandig

Washington made the Lions a significant offer for QB
Matthew Stafford, per sources. One person familiar with the situation said the WFT offer included more immediate help than what Lions landed. Detroit went another way. The search for a QB rolls on.

This doesn't really say much. The argument can be made that the 19th pick alone represents more immediate help than what the Lions landed in this trade.

[GridIron26]

Two 1st round picks, one 3rd pick and Goff.. Man, imagine how much we would need to spend to trade for Watson if he is actually available..

Rams constantly mortgages their future for to win today and so far it hasn't paid dividends for the team. I love McVay but I'm not fan of his & Rams FO's strategy. Although, I have to admit, this time it might pay dividends since the QB was the position that held them back in 2020.