Bridgewater could command 30m a year

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, stitches said:

I probably wouldn't... 

With all due respect you are silly. That is a fleece. 

[NFLfan]

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

She accepted a 44th pick for Cousins that is all, read above. Who wouldn't do that?

 

I would not give up the 44th pick for Cousins. 

 

If Colts fans believe they are ready to win now, Rivers would be better. You won't have to give up draft picks.

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

I would not give up the 44th pick for Cousins. 

 

If Colts fans believe they are ready to win now, Rivers would be better. You won't have to give up draft picks.

The 44th pick isn't that much for a proven QB in his prime that is good. Cousins is only 31. We still would have our 13th, 34th, and 75th picks plus gain a QB that is better than JB. That trade would be a fleece in my favor.

[Fisticuffs111]

8 minutes ago, stitches said:

I probably wouldn't... 

 

Yeah, I wouldn’t do that either. Mostly because I don’t want to hitch our hopes to Cousins.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, Fisticuffs111 said:

 

Yeah I wouldn’t do that either.

You wouldn't trade the 44th pick for Cousins? I guess people think Cousins sucks  . His team just beat the Saints in the playoffs and he puts up good numbers every year. Maybe I am missing something.

[stitches]

Just now, NFLfan said:

@stitches What I really want is to draft a QB. But after that PFF video (the podcast) that you posted, it seems only Joe Burrow and maybe Tua are expected to succeed as starters in the NFL. Maybe there will be a better crop of QBs in the next draft. What do you think?

For teams like ours it really doesn't matter. This is a relatively good QB class. How much better do we expect next year's crop of QBs to be(I haven't watched much of them... )? Especially for teams like the Vikings or the Colts? Do you think much better QBs than Herbert or Eason or Love will drop to the teens or twenties? Most drafts have very good QB prospects and most of them get drafted way outside of the range well built teams like the Vikings or Colts will be drafting. Great QBs with few or no warts don't last past the top 10 or so. Usually you have to draft a talented but raw/incomplete QB and develop him. This is where the uncertainty and thus the discount comes. You either bottom out and draft the Burrows/Trevor Lawrences of the world or you have to draft a QB that doesn't look generational but has talent. So yeah... I guess if I have to summarize it the options for teams like ours are:

 

1. Bottom out and draft a great QB prospect with few question marks

2. Sell the farm and your future for a QB prospect with few question marks

3. Draft an imperfect prospect and try to develop him. 

[stitches]

7 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

You wouldn't trade the 44th pick for Cousins? I guess people think Cousins sucks  . His team just beat the Saints in the playoffs and he puts up good numbers every year. Maybe I am missing something.

He doesn't suck... he just doesn't get you where you want to go and makes it harder to get where you want to get, first by putting you in no mans land QB-wise and second by having to give up assets that can be spent elsewhere. 

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

He doesn't suck... he just doesn't get you where you want to go and makes it harder to get where you want to get, first by putting you in no mans land QB-wise and second by having to give up assets that can be spent elsewhere. 

Only thing I suggested was giving up the 44th pick for him. It is not like I think we should give up our 13th or even 34th. Our O.Line is much better than Minnesota's. Cousins even like a Carr would have all day to throw. 

 

So we are giving up 1 asset = a 44th pick. That isn't much at all.

[Fisticuffs111]

6 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

You wouldn't trade the 44th pick for Cousins? I guess people think Cousins sucks  . His team just beat the Saints in the playoffs and he puts up good numbers every year. Maybe I am missing something.

 

He doesn’t suck. Just wouldn’t be my favorite solution. Part of not wanting to do the trade is just not wanting him to be our franchise guy.

 

I mean, we’ve even got a Viking fan saying he wouldn’t do it from our POV either.

[stitches]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Only thing I suggested was giving up the 44th pick for him. It is not like I think we should give up our 13th or even 34th. Our O.Line is much better than Minnesota's. Cousins even like a Carr would have all day to throw. 

44 is a high end asset for me. You don't spend high end asset for a non-franchise QB when you don't have a franchise QB. You use the high end assets to get a franchise QB - be it by drafting a QB or by using that asset in combination with with other assets to go get a potential franchise QB. 

[Fisticuffs111]

Also, our OL gets used to prop up any potential QB which at the moment is fair. But all I’d say is a lot can change from year to year with OL units. And if Glow continues to struggle or AC retires? Could be a different story.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

44 is a high end asset for me. You don't spend high end asset for a non-franchise QB when you don't have a franchise QB. You use the high end assets to get a franchise QB - be it by drafting a QB or by using that asset in combination with with other assets to go get a potential franchise QB. 

Difference between you and me, you think a QB in this draft will be a franchise QB for us. I do not, other than Burrow. Burrow is going #1. Has a QB like Love or Herbert given anyone the confidence they can be better than Carr or Cousins? I don't see it and I like Love's potential.

[stitches]

4 minutes ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

 

He doesn’t suck. Just wouldn’t be my favorite solution. Part of not wanting to do the trade is just not wanting him to be our franchise guy.

 

I mean, we’ve even got a Viking fan saying he wouldn’t do it from our POV either.

 

Paying a franchise QB type of money to a non-franchise QB sets your team back. It makes it extremely hard to build a championship team around him and it gives you no margin for error. Just look at that Vikings roster. This is arguably one of the best rosters in the entire league. They have everything... they have beasts on the DLine, they have amazing safeties, solid corners, great LBs, they have one of the best duos of receivers... they have one of the best RBs in the league, they have improving OL(ours is better, but yeah...)... And it's still not enough when Cousins is their QB. How much better of a roster do we think it's even reasonable for us to expect Ballard to build? 

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

Paying a franchise QB type of money to a non-franchise QB sets your team back. It makes it extremely hard to build a championship team around him and it gives you no margin for error. Just look at that Vikings roster. This is arguably one of the best rosters in the entire league. They have everything... they have beasts on the DLine, they have amazing safeties, solid corners, great LBs, they have one of the best duos of receivers... they have one of the best RBs in the league, they have improving OL(ours is better, but yeah...)... And it's still not enough when Cousins is their QB. How much better of a roster do we think it's even reasonable for us to expect Ballard to build? 

So what do you think about Dak Prescott? What you are saying is about 90% of the QB's in the league basically. You have to draw a line somewhere and settle for above average/good because we do not have Luck or Peyton anymore. 

[stitches]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Difference between you and me, you think a QB in this draft will be a franchise QB for us. I do not, other than Burrow. Burrow is going #1. Has a QB like Love or Herbert given anyone the confidence they can be better than Carr or Cousins? I don't see it and I like Love's potential.

That's alright, I won't fault Ballard if he doesn't like any of the QBs. Then keep the powder dry and use it next year. Trade for future picks that will help you land one of the better QBs next year then... For example, I wouldn't mind it if we traded 34 for a future 1st. I wouldn't mind if we traded 44 for a 3d and future 2nd... or something like that... I wouldn't mind us trading back from 13 to the 20s for a future 1st... I'd be good with all of that. 

 

You seem to expect Love or Herbert or other non top 5 QBs to look amazing from the get go. They won't. Where we are drafting and where we will probably continue to draft in the next several years (teens, maybe 20s?) you will never find an immediate no warts starter at the QB. Those get drafted quick and even they don't usually play winning football the first year or two. Whoever you draft you will have to develop. Whoever you draft can bust. You just have to love his traits and skill(+the player has to have the determination and desire to work hard on his craft) and believe in your coaches' ability to develop and mold that into a winning package and eliminate some of his weaknesses.  

[stitches]

9 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

So what do you think about Dak Prescott? What you are saying is about 90% of the QB's in the league basically. You have to draw a line somewhere and settle for above average/good because we do not have Luck or Peyton anymore. 

 

Dak might be good enough. He looked good enough this year, but I want to see it over longer period. I considered him somewhere on the margins of franchise QB during the season, and if he can do it one more time, IMO it will put him in that category. He also had a great offensive cast to help too... BTW. 

 

The line is... I don't know... somewhere around QB12 maybe... not sure. It's hard to pin point because there are old QBs that might be getting out of that range (Rivers, Roethlisberger, Brees, Brady, etc.) but there are also young QBs that might be getting in the range(Lamar, Baker?, Murray?, Allen?)... It's interesting time in the NFL and we are witnessing the changing of the guards. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

11 minutes ago, stitches said:

That's alright, I won't fault Ballard if he doesn't like any of the QBs. Then keep the powder dry and use it next year. Trade for future picks that will help you land one of the better QBs next year then... For example, I wouldn't mind it if we traded 34 for a future 1st. I wouldn't mind if we traded 44 for a 3d and future 2nd... or something like that... I wouldn't mind us trading back from 13 to the 20s for a future 1st... I'd be good with all of that. 

 

You seem to expect Love or Herbert or other non top 5 QBs to look amazing from the get go. They won't. Where we are drafting and where we will probably continue to draft in the next several years (teens, maybe 20s?) you will never find an immediate no warts starter at the QB. Those get drafted quick and even they don't usually play winning football the first year or two. Whoever you draft you will have to develop. Whoever you draft can bust. You just have to love his traits and skill(+the player has to have the determination and desire to work hard on his craft) and believe in your coaches' ability to develop and mold that into a winning package and eliminate some of his weaknesses.  

I have to admit I do like Love just from what I have seen but what a risk. I am not saying Cousins would be the solution to anything but if we just traded a 44 for him, IMO that would be a good deal - that was between @NFLfan and I being GM's. Regarding Carr or Rivers, I like both but only Rivers on a 2 yr deal because of his age. Carr is only 28 and still has upside IMO, you say he is average, I say above average. His W/L record isn't good but the Raiders have had some crappy teams. He went 12-3 in 2016.

[richard pallo]

3 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

So what do you think about Dak Prescott? What you are saying is about 90% of the QB's in the league basically. You have to draw a line somewhere and settle for above average/good because we do not have Luck or Peyton anymore. 

That's what the majority of fans are wishing for.  Another Peyton or Luck.  They forget we finished last to get those players.  Somehow I don't see Ballard trading up to get a Burrows or an injured Tua.  So the quickest way back is acquiring a veteran to get us there.  I can see Ballard doing that. 

[stitches]

17 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I have to admit I do like Love just from what I have seen but what a risk. I am not saying Cousins would be the solution to anything but if we just traded a 44 for him, IMO that would be a good deal - that was between @NFLfan and I being GM's. Regarding Carr or Rivers, I like both but only Rivers on a 2 yr deal because of his age. Carr is only 28 and still has upside IMO, you say he is average, I say above average. His W/L record isn't good but the Raiders have had some crappy teams. He went 12-3 in 2016.

 

I consider them very different propositions for the Colts.

 

To me acquiring Carr(giving up serious assets for him) means you move forward with him as your 'franchise' QB for at least 3 more years. And since I don't think he's good enough for it, I don't want it to happen.

 

On the other hand I consider Rivers a bridge QB. I think it doesn't change anything for us with regards to our long-term plans for the QB position - i.e. we still need to be looking for our long-term future franchise QB, just like we would if Rivers didn't come and we were rolling with Brissett... and the sooner we got that new QB in the building the better. The only thing getting Rivers changes is the quality of play we can expect from the QB position in the bridge year(s)... and possibly the quality of mentorship he can give to a young player(no idea if he's actually a good mentor, but his knowledge of football and the way he commands the LOS would be great for a young QB to learn from).

[stitches]

10 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

That's what the majority of fans are wishing for.  Another Peyton or Luck.  They forget we finished last to get those players.  Somehow I don't see Ballard trading up to get a Burrows or an injured Tua.  So the quickest way back is acquiring a veteran to get us there.  I can see Ballard doing that. 

There has to be a middle ground between 2 generational types of talents and settling for mediocre starters on franchise QB type salaries. I actually think the people that say "you just want Luck or Peyton" are the least likely to want to draft a QB that is not a Luck or Peyton. I actually acknowledge that it's incredibly hard to get your hands on a generational type talent at the QB position and I do NOT expect us to get one. This is precisely the reason I'm willing for us to go for one of those imperfect but talented QBs in the draft. I know there is a risk with them, I know they won't be ready quickly, but I also am willing to bet on their talent and our coaching staff's ability to coach them up. In other words - I don't want a Peyton/Luck/Lawrence, etc... I want us to take a talented QB who might be raw or have some weaknesses and develop him into a winning franchise QB(Watson, Mahomes, Lamar, Josh Allen?, etc). 

[richard pallo]

50 minutes ago, stitches said:

There has to be a middle ground between 2 generational types of talents and settling for mediocre starters on franchise QB type salaries. I actually think the people that say "you just want Luck or Peyton" are the least likely to want to draft a QB that is not a Luck or Peyton. I actually acknowledge that it's incredibly hard to get your hands on a generational type talent at the QB position and I do NOT expect us to get one. This is precisely the reason I'm willing for us to go for one of those imperfect but talented QBs in the draft. I know there is a risk with them, I know they won't be ready quickly, but I also am willing to bet on their talent and our coaching staff's ability to coach them up. In other words - I don't want a Peyton/Luck/Lawrence, etc... I want us to take a talented QB who might be raw or have some weaknesses and develop him into a winning franchise QB(Watson, Mahomes, Lamar, Josh Allen?, etc). 

I think in normal years drafting a QB is the way to go but this is not a normal year.  This is the first year I can remember when so many veteran QBs will be on the market.  And depending what happens with them there could be veteran starting QBs on the trade block.  Many of these QBs have already developed and have proven they can be franchise QBs.  Considering the strength of our team and the abundant cap space we have Ballard has to explore all of possibilities.  He wouldn't be a good GM if he didn't.  This year there is more than the usual way to upgrade the QB position.  To me this year is very different.  He may very well draft one  but like you said it could take a few years when and IF they are ready.  I think we are close and could win a SB with the right veteran and a good draft and FA.  So like every one says.  This is going to be one interesting off season.  

[EastStreet]

11 hours ago, NFLfan said:

 

Teddy was in his first 2 years of his career when he played with us. Cousins is in his prime. Teddy took over mid-season his rookie year and went 6-6 and then 11-5 in his 2nd year. Also, you cannot compare the team Teddy had when he was a rookie to what Cousins has had with the Vikings. Mike Zimmer had just taken over a bad team. Teddy had Matt Asiata as his main running back his rookie season after Peterson was suspended and McKinnon went on IR. Also, his receivers were not as good. Teddy would have won more with the players that Cousins has had. (Case Keenum did.)  

 

Anyway, I'm not going to go back and forth on this. It us hard for Colts fans to appreciate QBs like Teddy when they have had prolific passers like Peyton Manning and Luck as QBs.  Let's agree to disagree.

I've followed MN from afar because one of my fav ND players (Rudolf) is there. Not looking for a back and forth, just trying to understand.

 

I think you really need to compare both their 2nd years with MN. Teddy was new in 14, and Cousins came from a horrible Redskins team in 18 were he was more or less ruined lol. In 15, Teddy had AP (~1500 yards rushing), Diggs, and Rudolf. In 19, Cousins had Cook (~1100 yards rushing), Diggs, and Rudolf. Cook had another 500 receiving, but Rudolph had less and on the down. And Teddy had a better OL (at least PFF says so). And comparing those two years, Cousins has better stats across the board.

[NFLfan]

3 hours ago, EastStreet said:

I've followed MN from afar because one of my fav ND players (Rudolf) is there. Not looking for a back and forth, just trying to understand.

 

I think you really need to compare both their 2nd years with MN. Teddy was new in 14, and Cousins came from a horrible Redskins team in 18 were he was more or less ruined lol. In 15, Teddy had AP (~1500 yards rushing), Diggs, and Rudolf. In 19, Cousins had Cook (~1100 yards rushing), Diggs, and Rudolf. Cook had another 500 receiving, but Rudolph had less and on the down. And Teddy had a better OL (at least PFF says so). And comparing those two years, Cousins has better stats across the board.

 

Gosh, where do I start... I can't see how you can compare Teddy's second year with Cousins' second year in Minny. Cousins was a seasoned vet while Teddy was still learning. Cousins' Vikings teams were a lot better overall.

 

You mentioned that Teddy had Diggs in 2015. Diggs was a rookie then and was inactive the first 3 or 4 games. He also was not the complete receiver he is now. Neither was Thielen. As for AP, at times I found him to be more of a detriment than a positive. (Many fans thought the same.) Most of the time AP got 2 yards or less per carry, then would get a 20+ yarder that made his numbers look better. We were often in third and long situations. Yet Teddy found ways to sustain drives and avoid three and outs. Minny had the fewest 3 and outs that year and 2nd lowest 3 and outs percentage in 2015. 

 

Cousins situation is nothing like Teddy's. Teddy played all his home games outside, not in a dome. Minnesota was building their new stadium in those years. Teddy did not enjoy playing in great weather as Cousins has in the new stadium. Second, Zimmer was in his first and second years as head coach when Teddy played. He was very conservative and preferred to play ball control. This year Zimmer tried getting ultra conservative again (see first game) and Diggs and Thielen voiced their displeasure, leading to the coaches opening the offense again. 

 

Cousins took over a team that had gone 13-3 with Bradford and Case Keenum 2017. We went 8-7-1 with Cousins as starter in 2018. And he was not a rookie. 

 

As for the OLs, they have been bad since 2015. They look worse with Cousins because he has very poor pocket presence and he does not step away from pressure like Keenum did. 

 

Unless you watched the games, it is hard for outsiders to understand. 

[EastStreet]

28 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

Gosh, where do I start... I can't see how you can compare Teddy's second year with Cousins' second year in Minny. Cousins was a seasoned vet while Teddy was still learning. Cousins' Vikings teams were a lot better overall.

 

You mentioned that Teddy had Diggs in 2015. Diggs was a rookie then and was inactive the first 3 or 4 games. He also was not the complete receiver he is now. Neither was Thielen. As for AP, at times I found him to be more of a detriment than a positive.  Most of the time AP got 2 yards or less per carry, then would get an 80 yarder to boost his stats. We were often in third and long. Yet Teddy found ways to sustain drives and avoid three and outs. Minny had the fewest 3 and outs that year and 2nd lowest 3 and outs percentage in 2015. 

 

Cousins situation is nothing like Teddy's. Teddy played all his home games outside, not in a dome. Minnesota was building their new stadium in those years. Teddy did not enjoy playing in great weather as Cousins has in the new stadium. Second, Zimmer was in his first and second years as head coach when Teddy played. He was very conservative and preferred to play ball control. This year Zimmer tried getting ultra conservative again (see first game) and Diggs and Thielen voiced their displeasure, leading to the coaches opening the offense again. 

 

Cousins took over a team that had gone 13-3 with Bradford and Case Keenum 2017. We went 8-7-1 with Cousins as starter in 2018. And he was not a rookie. 

 

As for the OLs, they have been bad since 2015. They look worse with Cousins because he has very poor pocket presence and he does not step away from pressure like Keenum did. 

 

Unless you watched the games, it is hard for outsiders to understand. 

IDK, I guess we just see things differently. 

To me, Cousins has the #4 completion %, #7 AVG, #13 QBR, and a good TD/INT ratio. Not saying he's perfect, but I simply see him has better than Teddy. Not really a big fan of Cousins anyway, so no dog in the fight. And I don't understand why they gave up on him so soon if the FO and fans thought he was good.

[NFLfan]

34 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

IDK, I guess we just see things differently. 

To me, Cousins has the #4 completion %, #7 AVG, #13 QBR, and a good TD/INT ratio. Not saying he's perfect, but I simply see him has better than Teddy. Not really a big fan of Cousins anyway, so no dog in the fight. And I don't understand why they gave up on him so soon if the FO and fans thought he was good.

 

Completion percentage is one of the most overrated stats. Bradford had a great completion percentage in 2016 too. Didnt he break the record that Brees held? We went 8-8 that year after starting 5-0. 

 

To the quotes in bold, you are wondering why the Vikings gave up on Teddy?? Zimmer is on record as saying he wanted to keep Teddy. However, the medical staff said that Teddy would not recover from that horrific knee injury. He almost lost his leg. As much as I liked Teddy, I understood why the team did not want to take a chance and sign him to an extension. But Zimmer wanted to keep him. Teddy is the perfect QB for the conservative Zimmer who probably would like a guy like Jake Fromm. 

 

Anyway, I appreciate your sharing your opinion. Thank you. Btw, who do you want to be the Colts QB next year? (Besides Joe Burrow)

[Moosejawcolt]

8 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

You wouldn't trade the 44th pick for Cousins? I guess people think Cousins sucks  . His team just beat the Saints in the playoffs and he puts up good numbers every year. Maybe I am missing something.

I am not a cousins fans. However i find it so interesting that people  r willing to give up picks for Love or Hebert who have proved nothing

[EastStreet]

29 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

Completion percentage is one of the most overrated stats. Bradford had a great completion percentage in 2016 too. Didnt he break the record that Brees held? We went 8-8 that year after starting 5-0. 

 

To the quotes in bold, you are wondering why the Vikings gave up on Teddy?? Zimmer is on record as saying he wanted to keep Teddy. However, the medical staff said that Teddy would not recover from that horrific knee injury. He almost lost his leg. As much as I liked Teddy, I understood why the team did not want to take a chance and sign him to an extension. But Zimmer wanted to keep him. Teddy is the perfect QB for the conservative Zimmer who probably would like a guy like Jake Fromm. 

 

Anyway, I appreciate your sharing your opinion. Thank you. Btw, who do you want to be the Colts QB next year? (Besides Joe Burrow)

Thank you too. Good info on Zimmer. Wonder if Zimmer wants him back?

 

I'd be happy with the more realistic options like Herbert, Love, Gordon, Carr, etc.. Not too picky, I just don't want "limited" or a game manager type. I'd prefer a bit of a gamble for a higher ceiling. I think a Carr/Kelly combo would put us in the best "win now" and intermediate mode. A Rivers/Love combo would be a good middle ground that would give everyone hope now, but also future hope that Love would be a long term guy.

 

I agree that completion % alone is overrated, but not when coupled with a good AVG. 

[EastStreet]

18 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

I am not a cousins fans. However i find it so interesting that people  r willing to give up picks for Love or Hebert who have proved nothing

No rookie has proven anything at the NFL level. If you think Burrow and Tua have, then you're not considering the fact they played with top tier supporting talent (OL, WRs, RBs) that the others were lacking. Every draft is a gamble, and teams give up picks all the time, especially for QB.

[MPStack]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001102711/article/top-101-nfl-free-agents-of-2020-tom-brady-fourthranked-qb
 

No love for Teddy. 64th out of 101. lol

[NFLfan]

On 2/22/2020 at 3:08 PM, richard pallo said:

This is the first year I can remember when so many veteran QBs will be on the market.

 

It is. You might appreciate this article. The author makes a lot of good points.

 

Link to article

 

Quote

According to Football Outsiders, Bridgewater's DVOA last season (15.7 percent) ranked above those of Cousins (14.5 percent), Garoppolo (11.2 percent), Deshaun Watson (9.6 percent), Aaron Rodgers (9.1 percent), Rivers (6.8 percent) and Brady (2.6 percent), as well as Foles, Dalton, Newton, Winston, Carson Wentz, Jared Goff and many, many others. Plus, he has spent two years in a quarterback room with Brees, persevered through adversity and done all the other stuff that allegedly turns guys like Garoppolo into franchise quarterbacks via osmosis...

 

The author mentions the Colts first as a team that could benefit from signing Bridgewater. I believe he would be a good fit for the Steelers. Had he been their backup last year instead of those they had, the Steelers would have easily made the playoffs. 

 

It will be interesting where he signs.