Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, ajs723 said:

Haskins and Lock were the only QBs in the entire NFL who were less accurate last year than Wentz If the Colts get him they will be a lot worse than they were with Rivers. Barely 70% of his passes were on target this season. A good QB should be around 80%. Maybe he was hurt or something wasn't right, but I think Wentz is just bad at this point. 

Wentz took a beating this past season. Their O-line was ravaged by injuries. He also held on to the ball WAAYYY too long. He definitely looked lost at times (from what I saw). But, if he goes to the Colts, a Reich reunion along with a solid O-line, I like his chances of rebounding to 2017 form.

JMHO...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 413
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well, if you're the Bears, you'd give up many to move up ONE spot and NOT draft Patrick Mahomes. 

The question with guys like Wentz and Goff should not be "how much will you give for him" but rather "how much does the team getting rid have to throw in as compensation for their terrible contracts?"

10 hours ago, fluffy69 said:

Eason isn't even guaranteed the back up job. Chris Ballard didn't build a solid, competitive team in a weak division to tank lol.

I think he is. He'd have to suck incredibly bad in practice or whatever not to be. Who will they get as a backup that's better? He's an unknown but did well in college and is cheap. And I didn't say he wanted to tank.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BMcP said:

I can’t imagine a world in which Ballard would’ve consented to more than two firsts AND the equivalent of a young, starting-caliber QB drafted number-one overall - it’s just not his style to mortgage the future like that.

?  He shouldn't have had to. The Goff move favors the Rams, not the Lions. "Drafted number one overall" means absolutely nothing and Goff has IMO clearly shown he cannot and will not take a team to the promised land - so they're stuck with his big fat contract and no QB of the future who realistically at best will lead them to a .500ish season or perhaps a bit more and an early playoff exit. If they or anyone else thinks "Goff has a fresh start, he could be the man now!" they are seriously deluding themselves. 

My guess is Ballard wasn't even willing to offer two #1s, but who knows.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bomont said:

?  He shouldn't have had to. The Goff move favors the Rams, not the Lions. "Drafted number one overall" means absolutely nothing and Goff has IMO clearly shown he cannot and will not take a team to the promised land - so they're stuck with his big fat contract and no QB of the future who realistically at best will lead them to a .500ish season or perhaps a bit more and an early playoff exit. If they or anyone else thinks "Goff has a fresh start, he could be the man now!" they are seriously deluding themselves. 

My guess is Ballard wasn't even willing to offer two #1s, but who knows.

He didn’t have to - unless he wanted to beat the Rams offer, that is.
 

Goff is owed a little over $20M for the next two years - not a bargain by any means, but not exorbitant for a starting QB.  Plus they can cut him after this year for a negligible dead cap hit (and for none after 2022), so it’s not an albatross around their neck for years to come.

I agree with you in that he wasn’t willing to offer two firsts - so that renders the whole Goff add-in moot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm strongly doubting that Carr or Wentz get moved, but I'm all for additional rumors and conjecture right now.   

In Wentz's case, if anyone can get a good season out of him, its Reich, right?   I wouldn't have the stones to take him, even if Philly threw in a draft pick, but the Colts are probably the best team of the QB-less bunch right now.  They can say they're a QB away from a 12-13 win season, but they likely can't get Watson or a top rookie, and there just isn't anythijng else out there that looks great.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The 7th Beatles said:

The #Raiders have signed QB Nathan Peterman to a one-year contract extension.

Just as a reminder, we're talking about a QB with 573 career passing yards for 3 TD... and 12 INT. Oh, and 82 rushing yards for 1 TD and 2 fumbles.

And to highlight even more how weird the NFL is: the Bills paid him 700k in 2 years for 8 (not very good) games. The Raiders then paid him 1M in 2020 for 5 attempts and 2 sacks.

grudenface.gif

...and then they gave him an extension.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bomont said:

I think he is. He'd have to suck incredibly bad in practice or whatever not to be. Who will they get as a backup that's better? He's an unknown but did well in college and is cheap. And I didn't say he wanted to tank.

zero experience vs an nfl D and no 2020 training camp due to Covid. Don't be shocked if he's their 3rd string starting the year, although I hope he impresses enough to be their back up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BrianM said:

I'm strongly doubting that Carr or Wentz get moved, but I'm all for additional rumors and conjecture right now.   

In Wentz's case, if anyone can get a good season out of him, its Reich, right?   I wouldn't have the stones to take him, even if Philly threw in a draft pick, but the Colts are probably the best team of the QB-less bunch right now.  They can say they're a QB away from a 12-13 win season, but they likely can't get Watson or a top rookie, and there just isn't anythijng else out there that looks great.   

Carr is a quality NFL starter.  If Wentz can fix the throwing mechanics issue that seems to have begun with his ACL injury a while back, then he's a quality NFL starter as well.  What seems to be happening though, is NFL teams seem to be moving away from "having a quality NFL starter is good" to "unless we have a top 3-5 QB in the league, we're going to continue trying out QBs via draft or trade until we do." 

The Rams trading for Stafford was as much about freeing themselves from Goff's contract and cap hit as it was about getting Stafford.  The real goal was to set the Rams for a mini-rebuild without completely tearing things down, not to "slightly upgrade" at the QB position.  Stafford gives them a plausible QB to run the offense and hasten their departure from cap hell. Meanwhile hoping their other core players like Aaron Donald, Woods, Kupp, and Akers can get them into the playoffs and hope for a hot streak like the 2011 Giants (9-7 and not really a strong team overall) to win the Lombardi. That's why teams like the Colts, Panthers, and Jets didn't offer up enough to make the Stafford trade happen.  They're all conserving their ammo for the final battle to come, not engaging in a small side skirmish.  

Edited by jumper
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jumper said:

Carr is a quality NFL starter.  If Wentz can fix the throwing mechanics issue that seems to have begun with his ACL injury a while back, then he's a quality NFL starter as well.  What seems to be happening though, is NFL teams seem to be moving away from "having a quality NFL starter is good" to "unless we have a top 3-5 QB in the league, we're going to continue trying out QBs via draft or trade until we do." 

The Rams trading for Stafford was as much about freeing themselves from Goff's contract and cap hit as it was about getting Stafford.  The real goal was to set the Rams for a mini-rebuild without completely tearing things down, not to "slightly upgrade" at the QB position.  Stafford gives them a plausible QB to run the offense and hasten their departure from cap hell. Meanwhile hoping their other core players like Aaron Donald, Woods, Kupp, and Akers can get them into the playoffs and hope for a hot streak like the 2011 Giants (9-7 and not really a strong team overall) to win the Lombardi. That's why teams like the Colts, Panthers, and Jets didn't offer up enough to make the Stafford trade happen.  They're all conserving their ammo for the final battle to come, not engaging in a small side skirmish.  

 

 

Not saying you're wrong here, but giving two 1sts and a 3rd seems counterproductive even in a mini re-build.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, fluffy69 said:

 

 

Not saying you're wrong here, but giving two 1sts and a 3rd seems counterproductive even in a mini re-build.

 

Yeah, not going to disagree. Even if the Rams management was looking at this from an accounting / cap space management perspective, it would have made more sense to make a move on someone like Trubisky.  Bears would have given him away cheap, his salary / cap hit is better, and he clears the Rams from QB cap hell more quickly.  Personally I'd rather had the draft picks and Trubisky over Stafford, but my job isn't on the line either.  Eat the $22mm in dead money for Goff this year as part of the trade, avoid paying the $43mm in guaranteed money remaining on his contract, and take a swing on a couple rook' QBs in the draft and hope you hit on one.  Even if both were mid 1st rounders, their entire rookie contract value would be like $13mm for all 4 years.  

Guess the Rams made the decision they'd rather try to make playoffs and make a run with Stafford, then wave the white flag with Trubisky and probably just miss the playoffs yet keep those 1st round picks.  Seems like a Chargers sort of move to me, field a decent team but refuse to make the hard choices to go all out for a SB win.

 

 

Edited by jumper
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2021 at 8:16 PM, BMcP said:

Goff is owed a little over $20M for the next two years - not a bargain by any means, but not exorbitant for a starting QB.  

It is when you know he isn't going to lead you to the promised land. But yeah, I didn't realize it was just for one year that the cap thing was bad, I thought it was multiple years.

  

15 hours ago, fluffy69 said:

zero experience vs an nfl D 

And?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jumper said:

The real goal was to set the Rams for a mini-rebuild without completely tearing things down, not to "slightly upgrade" at the QB position.  Stafford gives them a plausible QB to run the offense and hasten their departure from cap hell. Meanwhile hoping their other core players like Aaron Donald, Woods, Kupp, and Akers can get them into the playoffs and hope for a hot streak like the 2011 Giants (9-7 and not really a strong team overall) to win the Lombardi. That's why teams like the Colts, Panthers, and Jets didn't offer up enough to make the Stafford trade happen.  They're all conserving their ammo for the final battle to come, not engaging in a small side skirmish.  

??  Trading for Stafford wasn't any kind of a rebuild in any way whatsoever. That was a TOTAL "win now" move. Stafford is far more than a plausible QB; he's damn good. It was a smart move.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jumper said:

Seems like a Chargers sort of move to me, field a decent team but refuse to make the hard choices to go all out for a SB win.

I'm sorry but this also makes no sense. Go all out for a SB win is exactly what this move was about. They should be far more than "decent" with Stafford. They were a playoff team with Goff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Philadelphia Inquirer's Jeff McLane reports the Eagles are "getting closer to trading" Carson Wentz.

This confirms reports from NFL Network and ESPN. Teams are making "aggressive offers" to the Eagles currently, and Wentz "wants to move on" from the organization that opted to draft his eventual replacement (Jalen Hurts) instead of adding more help in last year's draft. Philly will be taking on $33.8 million in dead money by trading him, but the relationship may be too fractured to keep him inside the building. The asking price is what's delaying a trade right now. McLane believes GM Howie Roseman is "probably" searching for multiple first-round picks after seeing what Matthew Stafford was traded for. It's unclear how many teams would be willing to give up even one first-round pick after Wentz finished 31st out of 32 quarterbacks in passing EPA per dropback, but the Colts and Bears are potential suitors. Both teams were involved in Stafford talks and currently sit outside of rookie quarterback striking distance.

Feb 5, 2021, 7:12 PM ET
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bomont said:

It is when you know he isn't going to lead you to the promised land. But yeah, I didn't realize it was just for one year that the cap thing was bad, I thought it was multiple years.

  

And?

thinking is hard eh?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2021 at 6:21 PM, The G Man said:

Wentz took a beating this past season. Their O-line was ravaged by injuries. He also held on to the ball WAAYYY too long. He definitely looked lost at times (from what I saw). But, if he goes to the Colts, a Reich reunion along with a solid O-line, I like his chances of rebounding to 2017 form.

JMHO...

I want Fitzmagic, not Prince Harry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2021 at 11:54 AM, jumper said:

 

Yeah, not going to disagree. Even if the Rams management was looking at this from an accounting / cap space management perspective, it would have made more sense to make a move on someone like Trubisky.  Bears would have given him away cheap, his salary / cap hit is better, and he clears the Rams from QB cap hell more quickly.  Personally I'd rather had the draft picks and Trubisky over Stafford, but my job isn't on the line either.  Eat the $22mm in dead money for Goff this year as part of the trade, avoid paying the $43mm in guaranteed money remaining on his contract, and take a swing on a couple rook' QBs in the draft and hope you hit on one.  Even if both were mid 1st rounders, their entire rookie contract value would be like $13mm for all 4 years.  

Guess the Rams made the decision they'd rather try to make playoffs and make a run with Stafford, then wave the white flag with Trubisky and probably just miss the playoffs yet keep those 1st round picks.  Seems like a Chargers sort of move to me, field a decent team but refuse to make the hard choices to go all out for a SB win.

 

 

Trubisky I believe is Going to be a free agent so if they wanted to have him they definitely could. 
 

A lot of ppl think Matt stafford is a top 10 QB talent that has been stuck in football hell. He’s never had a Good offensive line, one 1000 yard rusher “Reggie Bush 2013”, never had a good OC, never had a good defense, Calvin Johnson left him after 5 years the rest of his weapons since then have been average level talents. He has to carry the whole team without almost any help and what seems like a front office that is in constant half assed rebuild mode. 
 

Meanwhile Goff has had a great run game most of his tenure, a great offensive coach, a good oline most of his career, a good defense. His WRs might be the weak point of the team and they’re pretty good. I’m assuming the front office and mcvay  think Matt stafford can take all that and propel them to another Super Bowl. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Iron-cock said:

49ers may be interested in Sam Darnold.

 

 

For something like a 3rd rounder (even if conditional) then Darnold is a reasonable risk to take as a reclamation project.  The Jets are going to hold out for something like a high 2nd rounder (or god forbid even a first) and at that price they won't find any takers. 

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

For something like a 3rd rounder (even if conditional) then Darnold is a reasonable risk to take as a reclamation project.  The Jets are going to hold out for something like a high 2nd rounder (or god forbid even a first) and at that price they won't find any takers. 

Schefty this am said could be low first with maybe a low pick back in return. That seems a bit high to me but if a team thinks he needs a new start to tap into potential maybe they pay it

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

Schefty this am said could be low first with maybe a low pick back in return. That seems a bit high to me but if a team thinks he needs a new start to tap into potential maybe they pay it

Miami trading the Cards for Josh Rosen is probably closest analog in recent memory, 'Fins gave a low 2nd (62nd overall) and got a 5th back.  IMHO getting a low first is a pipe dream, but what the hell do I know when the Texans just traded DHop for a washed David Johnson and some magic beans.  I'm just trying to think of what team would be stupid enough to trade for Darnold as a standalone and give a 1st for him.   Jets are dumb enough but they already have the dude. Texans are out because they don't have a 1st.  Bears are dumb enough but they seem to be set on trading for Wentz.  Any other usual suspects I'm leaving out? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...