Jump to content
KRL

Breer: The 2018 Veteran QB Market

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Warfish said:

Who says he is an afterthought?

Why would a lower value prospect stop a team from drafting a high value prospect if QB is an identified serious need?

This was what I argued last year:  We could have selected Watson, and selected another QB in 18' as needed/wanted if the season went sideways.

Now, we have Hack/Petty going into 18', and a 6-12 range draft slot.  

Skipping Watson for two safeties looks more like a major mistake the more Watson plays well, and the more we win games in 17'.

What they should've did was have a 3 way competition between the 3 young quarterbacks from last year and may the best man win. Instead they did this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, August said:

What they should've did was have a 3 way competition between the 3 young quarterbacks from last year and may the best man win. Instead they did this

So lets walk through this idea:

They should have had a three-man competition at QB (Petty, Hack and who?  Our other QB was Fitz at that point).

So lets say they have a three-man competition between McCown/Petty/Hack, and best man won.  They did, and he did, it was McCown.  We can want it to be Petty, but it wasn't.

But lets ignore that for a moment.  Lets say we damn well WANT it to be Petty, so we play Petty anyway.  If he is better than McCown, we win just as many games, if not one or two more.

Then what?  Now we've played Petty, we're 6-10, and Petty was....ok.  Nothing great.  

What is your plan at that point, with Petty having shown he's average/backup material, and us picking worse than we would have under McCown?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cousins_inlinenew_grid_o.jpg
cousins_inlinenew_was_o.jpg
cousins_inlinenew_sfo_o.jpg
cousins_inlinenew_car_o.jpg
cousins_inlinenew_min_o.jpg
cousins_inlinenew_az_o.jpg
cousins_inlinenew_buf_o.jpg
cousins_inlinenew_cle_o.jpg
cousins_inlinenew_mia_o.jpg
cousins_inlinenew_nyj_o.jpg

Kirk Cousins and the Redskins haven't come close to working out a long-term deal, and there are no indications that anything has changed. Washington could place an unprecedented third consecutive franchise tag on Cousins this upcoming offseason, but it would cost close to $35 million.

 

If that price becomes prohibitive for the Redskins, Cousins could hit the market and become one of the few productive starting quarterbacks to ever reach free agency.

 

Before diving into why Cousins might (and might not) fit with the nine teams most likely to have starting QB needs in 2018, a quick word on the teams that did not make the cut. Rams coach Sean McVay was Cousins' offensive coordinator from 2014 to '16, but Jared Goff's improved performance makes L.A. a less likely match. Likewise, four teams with aging quarterbacks -- the Steelers, Chargers, Saints and Giants -- could become more viable candidates as circumstances evolve. Denver? The Broncos like Trevor Siemian and still have Paxton Lynch, but with John Elway as GM, nothing ever seems off the table.

 


Illustrations by Brian Konnick
Washington RedskinsWhy it could work

The Redskins are playing well enough to make keeping Cousins a priority, even if it means using the franchise tag a third time, which would carry a one-year price tag approaching $35 million. The team simply might not have a comparable option without making a play for someone such as Jimmy Garoppolo (if available) or Andy Dalton or AJ McCarron, who previously played under Jay Gruden.

Why it couldn't work

Cousins appears to have shown little interest in re-signing with the team after Washington failed to step up with a top-shelf contract offer once Cousins became eligible for a new deal following his third NFL season (2014). If the Redskins find the $35 million franchise price prohibitive, they could let Cousins walk.

San Francisco 49ersWhy it could work

San Francisco is the most obvious destination for Cousins now that former Redskins offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan is the 49ers' coach. San Francisco's decision to bypass quarterbacks in the 2017 draft after signing Brian Hoyer as a bridge to the future increased speculation that the team was targeting Cousins in 2018. The draft ammo San Francisco added in the Mitch Trubisky trade with Chicago could help the 49ers justify acquiring Cousins by trade if necessary.

Why it couldn't work

The 49ers could be well on their way to securing a top-five pick in the 2018 draft, which could let them land a college prospect with greater perceived upside than Cousins possesses. Why pay top dollar for Cousins if Shanahan is confident he can mold a more talented alternative at a lower price?

Jacksonville JaguarsWhy it could work

The Jaguars have in place a talented defense and No. 1 running back, but Blake Bortles could be too inconsistent to remain the starter beyond this season. Even with Bortles performing at a less-than-optimal level, the Jaguars could fare well enough this season to pick later than usual in the draft order. Why not pursue a veteran after whiffing on Blaine Gabbert and Bortles in recent drafts?

Why it couldn't work

The Jaguars' defense and running game could be strong enough for the team to compete for a division title even with Bortles' inconsistencies. The team could use a 2018 draft choice on a quarterback to compete with Bortles next season, in which case Cousins wouldn't factor into the equation.

Minnesota VikingsWhy it could work

With Sam Bradford's health a major concern and Teddy Bridgewater's career in question, the Vikings have become a version of the Bradford-era St. Louis Rams: a team that might contend if only its quarterback could play. The Vikings have zero dollars committed to quarterbacks beyond this season, and they have a history under general manager Rick Spielman of adding veteran quarterbacks such as Brett Favre, Donovan McNabb and Bradford.

Why it couldn't work

Bradford could return to health and play well enough for Minnesota to re-sign him during the season, which would remove the Vikings from the market for another veteran.

Arizona CardinalsWhy it could work

The Cardinals will be in the market if Carson Palmer does not return. His contract runs through 2018, his age-38 season. Pairing Cousins with David Johnson and a talented defense could keep Arizona competitive in a post-Palmer world.

Why it couldn't work

Cousins lacks the physical stature and throwing ability that coach Bruce Arians seems to covet, which could make Cousins a less-than-ideal fit if Arians returns for a sixth season with the team. Arizona might not be drafting early enough to snag one of the top QBs, which would make Cousins more appealing as a free agent.

Buffalo BillsWhy it could work

Tyrod Taylor's future with the team remains uncertain beyond this season, which could put the Bills in the market for a quarterback. Offensive coordinator Rick Dennison has ties to former Redskins coach Mike Shanahan, who remains one of Cousins' top advocates. Dennison was offensive coordinator under Shanahan from 2006 to '08. Of course, the Kyle Shanahan connection matters most, and that is not present in Buffalo.

Why it couldn't work

Taylor has generally exceeded expectations in Buffalo and could win the job heading into next season, especially if the Bills defy expectations by making a playoff run. General manager Brandon Beane has also talked up rookie fifth-round pick Nathan Peterman, who could be seen as an affordable developmental version of Cousins.

Cleveland BrownsWhy it could work

The Browns will probably need another option beyond 2017 second-round choice DeShone Kizer, who leads the NFL in interceptions. Cousins could finally stabilize a position that has been notoriously unstable in Cleveland for decades.

Why it couldn't work

The Browns look like they'll be drafting among the top few overall selections. They have resisted chances to select Carson Wentz, Mitch Trubisky, Patrick Mahomes II and others in recent years, but if the 2018 quarterback class is as strong as advertised, Cleveland might finally decide to draft one early. Through Week 5, the Browns have the best odds of drafting No. 1 overall. 

Miami DolphinsWhy it could work

Ryan Tannehill's season-ending knee injury will force the Dolphins to at least consider alternatives for 2018 and beyond. Jay Cutler doesn't look like a long-term solution. Tannehill has also reached the point in his contract when the team could release him without negative salary-cap consequences.

Why it couldn't work

Coach Adam Gase might prefer what he already knows in Tannehill and/or Cutler. That is the impression league insiders had as the season was getting under way, but with Miami's offense stuck in neutral, opinions could change.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2017 at 11:54 AM, Warfish said:

 

What is your plan at that point, with Petty having shown he's average/backup material, and us picking worse than we would have under McCown?

We'd know we have an average backup QB. Then we could drop Hack, and draft/sign a FA hopeful starter thus only carrying 2 Qb's instead of 3. 

We also got an answer to the question of: what is Bryce Petty? which at this point I don't know that anyone could say with certainty. He may suck, he may not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Stark said:

We'd know we have an average backup QB. Then we could drop Hack, and draft/sign a FA hopeful starter thus only carrying 2 Qb's instead of 3. 

We also got an answer to the question of: what is Bryce Petty? which at this point I don't know that anyone could say with certainty. He may suck, he may not.

1. We're not dropping Hack.  He's a second round pick by this GM.  He's also what, like 14 years old?  He's going to play out his entire rookie contract, be assured.

2. The staff clearly does not like Petty.  I'm amazed if anyone thinks otherwise, because to me it seems rather obvious.  Petty will be cut before Hack will be.

3. We already know what Petty is:  a generally average talent, a below-average top-end potential, who suffers from a fragility issue.  

4. With all that said, I'd be HAPPY to see Petty play.  I wanted him to win the job, I would argue he did win it....till he got hurt, of course.  I think playing Petty is in fact the right choice right now for us.  But it isn't going to happen till we are out of contention (or McCown gets hurt).  We don't have to like it, but it is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Warfish said:

1. We're not dropping Hack.  He's a second round pick by this GM.  He's also what, like 14 years old?  He's going to play out his entire rookie contract, be assured.

2. The staff clearly does not like Petty.  I'm amazed if anyone thinks otherwise, because to me it seems rather obvious.  Petty will be cut before Hack will be.

3. We already know what Petty is:  a generally average talent, a below-average top-end potential, who suffers from a fragility issue.  

4. With all that said, I'd be HAPPY to see Petty play.  I wanted him to win the job, I would argue he did win it....till he got hurt, of course.  I think playing Petty is in fact the right choice right now for us.  But it isn't going to happen till we are out of contention (or McCown gets hurt).  We don't have to like it, but it is what it is.

Didn't the Jets turn down a trade offer for Petty? If true, I would think that means they like him in some sort of way. And hasn't he been active as the back up all year while Hack continues to be inactive? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Warfish said:

1. We're not dropping Hack.  He's a second round pick by this GM.  He's also what, like 14 years old?  He's going to play out his entire rookie contract, be assured.

2. The staff clearly does not like Petty.  I'm amazed if anyone thinks otherwise, because to me it seems rather obvious.  Petty will be cut before Hack will be.

3. We already know what Petty is:  a generally average talent, a below-average top-end potential, who suffers from a fragility issue.  

4. With all that said, I'd be HAPPY to see Petty play.  I wanted him to win the job, I would argue he did win it....till he got hurt, of course.  I think playing Petty is in fact the right choice right now for us.  But it isn't going to happen till we are out of contention (or McCown gets hurt).  We don't have to like it, but it is what it is.

1.  Hack theoretically should be a back up next year. 

2.  Petty should theoretically be traded for at least another 4th rounder, if he can play.

3.  Could I see a Fitz2 next year with McCown-yes, yes I could.  Maybe next year is draft pick, McCown, Hack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, varjet said:

1.  Hack theoretically should be a back up next year. 

2.  Petty should theoretically be traded for at least another 4th rounder, if he can play.

3.  Could I see a Fitz2 next year with McCown-yes, yes I could.  Maybe next year is draft pick, McCown, Hack.

1. Yes.

2. Never happen.  Don't believe the NY Media tall tale re: Petty trade offers.

3. No chance IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2017 at 12:54 PM, Warfish said:

So lets walk through this idea:

They should have had a three-man competition at QB (Petty, Hack and who?  Our other QB was Fitz at that point).

So lets say they have a three-man competition between McCown/Petty/Hack, and best man won.  They did, and he did, it was McCown.  We can want it to be Petty, but it wasn't.

But lets ignore that for a moment.  Lets say we damn well WANT it to be Petty, so we play Petty anyway.  If he is better than McCown, we win just as many games, if not one or two more.

Then what?  Now we've played Petty, we're 6-10, and Petty was....ok.  Nothing great.  

What is your plan at that point, with Petty having shown he's average/backup material, and us picking worse than we would have under McCown?

2017 is the perfect time to play a young quarterback and seeing what we have in them or seeing if they could be the guy. Petty, Hackenberg and Geno should've been competing for the starting job in 2017, why would you think I'm talking about Fitzpatrick? The ultimate goal is finding a franchise quarterback. Playing old guys like Fitzpatrick and McCown accomplishes nothing long term. 

Let me ask you a question let's say we go 6-10 with McCown, while he is playing decent but nothing great what do you do? What is your plan? McCown has been a journeyman quarterback his whole career, we play McCown who's 38 and have no future here now what? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2017 at 9:30 AM, August said:

2017 is the perfect time to play a young quarterback and seeing what we have in them or seeing if they could be the guy. Petty, Hackenberg and Geno should've been competing for the starting job in 2017, why would you think I'm talking about Fitzpatrick?

Respectfully, I'm not re-debating the Geno Smith debate.  He's a Giant now.  That's all that matters.

Quote

The ultimate goal is finding a franchise quarterback. Playing old guys like Fitzpatrick and McCown accomplishes nothing long term.

Generally, I agree.  Playing a QB who (to the staff) is clearly not a franchise QB (Petty) or ready to even audition as a franchise QB (Hack) also accomplishes nothing.

It's Fan Fallacy #1:  If Fans don't see a QB play, it does not mean the staff and front office cannot and do not evaluate those players and see what they have to offer.

Quote

Let me ask you a question let's say we go 6-10 with McCown, while he is playing decent but nothing great what do you do? What is your plan? McCown has been a journeyman quarterback his whole career, we play McCown who's 38 and have no future here now what? 

I think I've posted my plan a dozen times, but am happy to do so again:

1. I draft the best available QB at our pick slot in the 2018 Draft.

2. Petty and Hack compete to start in 2018.  The Draft pick is the #3.

3. McCown can be retained as an asst. coach (I wouldn't, but it's acceptable) if a "veteran QB mentor" is needed.

I'll also remind you, had what I wanted been done (we draft Watson instead of the Safety last year) we wouldn't be having this conversation today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2017 at 3:37 PM, Mogglez said:

I thought about starting a thread on this a couple of days ago but I guess I'll just throw the nugget here.

If it went by who they have been doing the most homework on (so far) it would be:

- Josh Rosen

- Sam Darnold

- Luke Falk

- Baker Mayfield

- Mason Rudolph

- Jarrett Stidham

- Jake Browning (slowly creeping up, has drawn some Kirk Cousins comparisons)

- Josh Allen

- Lamar Jackson

In that order, for those who might be confused too.

*Edit*

Tagging @Paradis in this one because I'm sure he'd be interested to read it.

Thanks for sharing. No secret how I feel about Rosen & Falk... Don't personally believe in Rudolph, Allen and Browning. Uncertain about Baker and Lamar...

There's something about Luke Falk that just make sense and feels like a fit. I'd take Rosen in a heartbeat over them all, but that boat sailed thanks to Josh beating up our competition for the #1 pick. 

 

How come no one's talking about Riley Ferguson? I wouldn't slot him into the top 3 or 4, but there's no way Browning or Stidham are that much better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this talk about free agent QB's make me laugh.  The Jetiest thing to do would be to extend McCown and that is what is going to happen.  That coupled with a draft of a CB or Tiny LB in the first round.  Some people/teams never learn.  But Hey...6-10 is totally worth it amirite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2017 at 10:37 AM, Warfish said:

Respectfully, I'm re-debating the Geno Smith debate.  He's a Giant now.  That's all that matters.

Generally, I agree.  Playing a QB who (to the staff) is clearly not a franchise QB (Petty) or ready to even audition as a franchise QB (Hack) also accomplishes nothing.

It's Fan Fallacy #1:  If Fans don't see a QB play, it does not mean the staff and front office cannot and do not evaluate those players and see what they have to offer.

I think I've posted my plan a dozen times, but am happy to do so again:

1. I draft the best available QB at our pick slot in the 2018 Draft.

2. Petty and Hack compete to start in 2018.  The Draft pick is the #3.

3. McCown can be retained as an asst. coach (I wouldn't, but it's acceptable) if a "veteran QB mentor" is needed.

I'll also remind you, had what I wanted been done (we draft Watson instead of the Safety last year) we wouldn't be having this conversation today.

The only reason I mentioned Smith at the moment was because we could've killed 2 birds with one stone. He's a vet but was still young enough and still had some semblance of upside. Let the young guys compete and we either see if the current guys can be potential long term answers or we know we need to draft another quarterback. Under my scenario one of the young guys would be our starter now, and not the 38 year old. I'm well aware where Smith is now, just simply answering a question. 

 

I never said that the front office isn't seeing these guys in practice and is evaluating them. But you make it seem as if the front office is always right. Did we not see how wrong the regime handled a lot of things the last 2 years? If Petty is not a franchise quarterback well lets see how he does in 2017, because playing the 38 year old accomplishes nothing, we KNOW that McCown is not a franchise quarterback, Petty still has a semblance of upside and I'd rather find out once and for all what we have in him. 

Your plan makes sense but you have it backwards. My plan would've been to give Hackenberg who they drafted the year before, and Petty who was drafted 2 years prior along with the incumbent Smith a chance to compete for the job, whoever wins you put them in the best possible position to succeed and you don't make them feel like they're looking over their shoulder. If they fail then it's the next man up. If we see that none of the guys on the roster show you enough. THEN you draft a quarterback in '18. Before you draft a guy, you want to give the current guys an opportunity to prove themselves first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, August said:

I never said that the front office isn't seeing these guys in practice and is evaluating them. But you make it seem as if the front office is always right. Did we not see how wrong the regime handled a lot of things the last 2 years?

Then you want the regime fired for poor managment?  Forgive me, maybe too many discussions going at once, but I'm confused.

The current admin sees Petty and Hack every day, chooses to play neither.  This says a ton about what they think of them.

We think they could be wrong yet again about QB's, but at the same time we all want to trust them with the #1/#1 pick in 2018 and their choice of QB?

I feel the collective mind of JN is slightly crazy right now, because it seems we simply cannot get what we really want, a new regime picking exactly the right QB as dictated by some portion of the fans?

Ugh.

2 hours ago, August said:

If Petty is not a franchise quarterback well lets see how he does in 2017

I'm sure we will (well, possible we won't and we'll see Hack instead).....once we're out of contention.  we will not see either, barring injury, before then.

2 hours ago, August said:

....because playing the 38 year old accomplishes nothing, we KNOW that McCown is not a franchise quarterback, Petty still has a semblance of upside and I'd rather find out once and for all what we have in him. 

Why does it matter that you or I "find out what we have in him"?  That was my point before, this staff knows what they have in him, and aren't playing him and don't seem to like him.

Now, if you and I were Head Coach and GM, our view might matter, but again, fan fallacy that we (fans) need to see a guy play in order to "know" what he is.  We WANT to see him, but the front office and coach see him every single day, and they know him far better than we can. 

Could they be wrong, sure?  Like fans who turn one shining moment vs. #3's no longer in the league and call it "potential franchise QB" play.

2 hours ago, August said:

Your plan makes sense but you have it backwards. My plan would've been to give Hackenberg who they drafted the year before, and Petty who was drafted 2 years prior along with the incumbent Smith a chance to compete for the job, whoever wins you put them in the best possible position to succeed and you don't make them feel like they're looking over their shoulder. If they fail then it's the next man up. If we see that none of the guys on the roster show you enough. THEN you draft a quarterback in '18. Before you draft a guy, you want to give the current guys an opportunity to prove themselves first. 

Fine, but I'm not going to comment because again, I'm not re-debating anything re: Geno Smith.  It's just not worth it at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Then you want the regime fired for poor managment?  Forgive me, maybe too many discussions going at once, but I'm confused.

The current admin sees Petty and Hack every day, chooses to play neither.  This says a ton about what they think of them.

We think they could be wrong yet again about QB's, but at the same time we all want to trust them with the #1/#1 pick in 2018 and their choice of QB?

I feel the collective mind of JN is slightly crazy right now, because it seems we simply cannot get what we really want, a new regime picking exactly the right QB as dictated by some portion of the fans?

Ugh.

I'm sure we will (well, possible we won't and we'll see Hack instead).....once we're out of contention.  we will not see either, barring injury, before then.

Why does it matter that you or I "find out what we have in him"?  That was my point before, this staff knows what they have in him, and aren't playing him and don't seem to like him.

Now, if you and I were Head Coach and GM, our view might matter, but again, fan fallacy that we (fans) need to see a guy play in order to "know" what he is.  We WANT to see him, but the front office and coach see him every single day, and they know him far better than we can. 

Could they be wrong, sure?  Like fans who turn one shining moment vs. #3's no longer in the league and call it "potential franchise QB" play.

Fine, but I'm not going to comment because again, I'm not re-debating anything re: Geno Smith.  It's just not worth it at this point.

Nope, never said I wanted management fired nor did I imply that either. When certain Jets fans were panicking and demanding that Bowles get fired I was saying that he should keep his job. When certain fans were starting to write off Mac I defended him. So with that said. You are saying that since they see them in practice everyday that means playing a veteran quarterback over the younger quarterbacks makes sense. It doesn't make sense. It's the same shortsighted nonsense that got us in this predicament in the first place. Petty should've been starting since week 3, what sense does it make to play Petty or even Hackenberg in week 14? Why not play Petty and get a good long look at him over the course of a season so we can evaluate him over the course of a full season and get a real feel for what he is? 

We need to see what we have in him because this is a team in search of and in need of a young starting quarterback so a team in our position doesn't have the luxury to throw anyone to the curb before going bing them a look. Also if Petty shows some things we can then focus on other positions and don't have to burn a pick on a QB. 

 

You dont want to comment on Smith but you made a Mark Sanchez thread. Hilarious but I get it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, August said:

You dont want to comment on Smith but you made a Mark Sanchez thread. Hilarious but I get it.

Yup. 

It's usually a SAR argument, but the "you're better off with consistency" argument, plus the "when you draft a guy in the top, he should last 10-15 years" argument made me ponder the idea.

2nd round picks do not get such consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Yup. 

It's usually a SAR argument, but the "you're better off with consistency" argument, plus the "when you draft a guy in the top, he should last 10-15 years" argument made me ponder the idea.

2nd round picks do not get such consideration.

So when we drafted players in the 2nd round we did it for the **** of it? We weren't drafting them in the hopes that they be around 10 + years?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, August said:

So when we drafted players in the 2nd round we did it for the **** of it? We weren't drafting them in the hopes that they be around 10 + years?

 

Of course we were.  But clearly we're not good at taking QB's in the second round, because they all fail miserably.  Do we really need to rehash this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm trying to figure out how/why it's so apparent our administration is so down on petty, when bowles seems to be the only one with a vote.. what is pointing to anything else?? maccagnan certainly doesn't have one.. are we to believe morton has the authority to start petty against bowles' wishes??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Warfish said:

Of course we were.  But clearly we're not good at taking QB's in the second round, because they all fail miserably.  Do we really need to rehash this?

Different topic of discussion 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2017 at 10:22 AM, slats said:

This is basically where I'm at. I don't really see a viable solution here. 

They really have to exhaust the Petty and Hackenberg options before handing someone else's backup a starting QB contract. 

Really we have barely any idea if Garapolo is any good. And if he is the Pats are keeping him. Basically it's the big contract/flyer on Mccarron if the Bengals don't cut Andy Dalton, so that may not even be an option.  And old Brees, up and down and older Smith and a mess of question marks. And every one of those guys is gonna cost you a pile of guaranteed cap room while a draft pick gets a reasonable slotted salary for a few seasons.  Simply these free agent options are terrible. Which is why getting a high draft pick is the better option. And it's not close. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now




×