Matthew Stafford (merge)

[Myles]

Stafford is my pick.

[Mackrel829]

Stafford for #21 and maybe another pick up to a 3rd next year would be my ideal scenario. Anything more than that and I like it less.

 

If we can't get Stafford, I think I'd rather just draft a LT and an edge rusher, roll with Eason, and re-evaluate next off-season. If Eason is bad, we'll be closer to the top of the draft to get one of the top prospects, all of which are out of range this year.

[The Fish]

6 minutes ago, Mackrel829 said:

Stafford for #21 and maybe another pick up to a 3rd next year would be my ideal scenario. Anything more than that and I like it less.

 

If we can't get Stafford, I think I'd rather just draft a LT and an edge rusher, roll with Eason, and re-evaluate next off-season. If Eason is bad, we'll be closer to the top of the draft to get one of the top prospects, all of which are out of range this year.

This is why it won't happen. Ballard isn't going to put out a question mark at QB. If it's a guy who can't really play, it'll be JB again. They like him.

I really think JB starting again is more in the deck of cards than most of us want.

[Indeee]

I would pick Winton as he is virtually an unknown commodity... 

[BProland85]

If Stafford truly is going to cost a 1st plus more, I’d rather use that draft capital to get our longterm franchise guy by trading up in the draft. Fields and Lance could be had. 

[DougDew]

This will probably get merged but I hope we can stick to just the narrow topic of focusing on each of our favorites.

 

Stafford, Ryan, Wentz, Garrapolo.  Capital investment matters too.

 

I think Stafford is the best QB that is available, but I wonder if he is truly a good fit for what I think is a Reich dink and dunk offense.  Stafford would flourish in an Arians offense, and would do well with Reich, just not sure if Ballard sees him as the best fit.

 

I think Garrapolo would be a good fit.  Wentz.  I think Ryan can be a dink and dunker.  I'd support Darnold if Ballard brought him here, but I haven't really watched enough crappy Jets games to have seen much of him.

 

All we needed from Rivers last year was a stronger arm with a down the field push more frequently.  His play calling (aside from deep balls), completion percentage, and interception rate were all AFCCG quality.  The most immobile QB in the NFL is in the SB, so running ability for a QB is vastly overrated, IMO.  

 

All 4 Qbs listed have strong arms to get the ball down the field once in a while.

 

Winston: no.  Any of the college QBs not named Trevor: no.  I'd stick with Eason before I'd draft a mid first round QB with some flaws.

[Colt.45]

Other: Deshaun Watson....

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

Other: Deshaun Watson....

 

 

Watson 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Stafford out of the names here.

[Indeee]

Actually I think Winton is off the table as I think I read that he will be signing a one day contract to retire a Cowboy....

[2006Coltsbestever]

6 minutes ago, Indeee said:

Actually I think Winton is off the table as I think I read that he will be signing a one day contract to retire a Cowboy....

It is actually Witten for Dallas but at first I was like who the hell is Winton 

[Myles]

19 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

Other: Deshaun Watson....

 

 

I didn't include him because I don't think there is anyway that he is traded within the division.

[chad72]

This is my take on it. If we were picking in the Top 12, like the 49ers, I would not give up that first rounder for Stafford because the top 4 QBs in the draft are within striking distance if you do want a new QB by not giving up another first rounder, IMO.

 

However, if you are picking at No.20 and higher, which we are, you would have to hit the re-set button to give up draft capital and go get a rookie and give up 2 first rounders to get the guy you want. However, a 33 year old QB can be gotten with just 1 first rounder and a future pick, IMO. That is why I am leaning towards Stafford. Plus, getting a known commodity like Stafford will have a ripple effect in free agents coming here, IMO, over a team indicating a retool for a year or two.

[Nesjan3]

37 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

If Stafford truly is going to cost a 1st plus more, I’d rather use that draft capital to get our longterm franchise guy by trading up in the draft. Fields and Lance could be had. 

Fields and Lance could be busts

[Myles]

32 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

If Stafford truly is going to cost a 1st plus more, I’d rather use that draft capital to get our longterm franchise guy by trading up in the draft. Fields and Lance could be had. 

That would cost us more draft capital than Stafford would.   It would be for a QB who may or may not be any good.   Trubisky, Rosen, Lynch, Darnold, Locker, Manziel, Tebow, Manuel, Haskins, Weedon, Gabbert, Bortles, Mariotta and Winston are just a few recent QB's taken in the first round.  

[The Fish]

3 minutes ago, chad72 said:

This is my take on it. If we were picking in the Top 12, like the 49ers, I would not give up that first rounder for Stafford because the top 4 QBs in the draft are within striking distance if you do want a new QB by not giving up another first rounder, IMO.

 

However, if you are picking at No.20 and higher, which we are, you would have to hit the re-set button to give up draft capital and go get a rookie and give up 2 first rounders to get the guy you want. However, a 33 year old QB can be gotten with just 1 first rounder and a future pick, IMO. That is why I am leaning towards Stafford.

The top 4?!

 

I'm gonna get off this in a sec, but I'm kind of blown away at this idea that there's just a bunch of proven commodities waiting to be drafted.

 

We should all be scared to death (figuratively) of a Mitch Trubisky situation. And we're flirting heavily with that if we go drafting the 3rd or 4th or 5th best QB in the class.

[Nesjan3]

I want Watson too but its just not happening, im not sure where people are getting this thought Houston would trade him to their rival.

[Myles]

1 minute ago, The Fish said:

T

 

We should all be scared to death (figuratively) of a Mitch Trubisky situation. And we're flirting heavily with that if we go drafting the 3rd or 4th or 5th best QB in the class.

Yep.   If you are not a good team, it's a different story.  Maybe you can plan to be competitive in a couple years.   The Colts are not at a point where they can afford to suck for a year or 2 while they go through the growing pains of a rookie QB.  

43 minutes ago, The Fish said:

This is why it won't happen. Ballard isn't going to put out a question mark at QB. If it's a guy who can't really play, it'll be JB again. They like him.

I really think JB starting again is more in the deck of cards than most of us want.

Are you the Brissett vote?

[jvan1973]

46 minutes ago, The Fish said:

This is why it won't happen. Ballard isn't going to put out a question mark at QB. If it's a guy who can't really play, it'll be JB again. They like him.

I really think JB starting again is more in the deck of cards than most of us want.

If Ballard thought JB could get it done,  he wouldn't have paid Rivers 25 million for last season

[Myles]

Overwhelming support for Stafford.

I'm a little surprised at the votes for Eason.  He's a total unknown and the Colts need a proven QB.   I say that because they have a good O-line and a good defense.   Almost everywhere else they a in pretty good shape and have the cap space to fix a few of those spots in free agency.  

[Thebrashandthebold]

Watson is the first choice because he is young and by far the best QB available. It will cost a lot to get him but it will fix the QB problem for the next ten to fifteen years. Stafford is going to cost a lot too and he is a temporary fix at best. My next choice is Cam Newton because he won't cost any draft picks and his salary will be affordable and it will let us work on shoring up other serious weaknesses like LT and some really good receivers. Cam would do very well in Indy and add to the running game with a big arm to make some deep passes. He knocked off the rust last year and the Patriots were not competitive because of their defense which suffered because they lost more all pro caliber players who opted out due to Covid. Cam is a former MVP and Super Bowl QB. He can do that again. 

 

If you draft a QB, then you are setting the team back two or three years. Rookies don't get to the Super Bowl or be competitive. They have to learn and while they are doing that your window is closing. Now if you are two or three years away and have the time then drafting a QB is the way to go. 

 

[The Fish]

15 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

If Ballard thought JB could get it done,  he wouldn't have paid Rivers 25 million for last season

No, I wasn't the JB vote @ Myles

 

I totally get that- some of the idea that JB could get the reigns this year is dependent on other plans falling through. I think Stafford, Ryan/Wentz then JB is the order of events. I just don't see Ballard putting a unproven guy out there and not to say JB would keep the job all year in this hypothetical. 

 

 

[Smoke317]

18 minutes ago, Myles said:

That would cost us more draft capital than Stafford would.   It would be for a QB who may or may not be any good.   Trubisky, Rosen, Lynch, Darnold, Locker, Manziel, Tebow, Manuel, Haskins, Weedon, Gabbert, Bortles, Mariotta and Winston are just a few recent QB's taken in the first round.  

Stafford is a good stat QB that has never had many substantive wins. Some food for thought:  Tebow, Bortles, & Mariotta have more career playoff wins than Stafford.  If we gotta give up our 1st & another pick, I’d rather move up in the draft for Fields, Wilson, or Lance (in that order).  I’m not giving more than a 2nd or maybe a 2nd & 3rd or 4th for Stafford.

[jvan1973]

5 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

Stafford is a good stat QB that has never had many substantive wins. Some food for thought:  Tebow, Bortles, & Mariotta have more career playoff wins than Stafford.  If we gotta give up our 1st & another pick, I’d rather move up in the draft for Fields, Wilson, or Lance (in that order).  I’m not giving more than a 2nd or maybe a 2nd & 3rd or 4th for Stafford.

It will cost more than that

[Myles]

5 minutes ago, Thebrashandthebold said:

Watson is the first choice because he is young and by far the best QB available. It will cost a lot to get him but it will fix the QB problem for the next ten to fifteen years. Stafford is going to cost a lot too and he is a temporary fix at best. My next choice is Cam Newton because he won't cost any draft picks and his salary will be affordable and it will let us work on shoring up other serious weaknesses like LT and some really good receivers. Cam would do very well in Indy and add to the running game with a big arm to make some deep passes. He knocked off the rust last year and the Patriots were not competitive because of their defense which suffered because they lost more all pro caliber players who opted out due to Covid. Cam is a former MVP and Super Bowl QB. He can do that again. 

That's a big NO from me.   Cam is washed up.   He's thrown more INT's than TD's the past 2 seasons.  Even in his MVP season he threw for under 60% completions.  

[richard pallo]

29 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

Fields and Lance could be busts

And it looks like Goeff already is and Tua might not be far behind.  Busts happen with top picks all of the time.  We shouldn't take the risk with our current team.  It's Stafford all the way.  

[jvan1973]

8 minutes ago, Thebrashandthebold said:

Watson is the first choice because he is young and by far the best QB available. It will cost a lot to get him but it will fix the QB problem for the next ten to fifteen years. Stafford is going to cost a lot too and he is a temporary fix at best. My next choice is Cam Newton because he won't cost any draft picks and his salary will be affordable and it will let us work on shoring up other serious weaknesses like LT and some really good receivers. Cam would do very well in Indy and add to the running game with a big arm to make some deep passes. He knocked off the rust last year and the Patriots were not competitive because of their defense which suffered because they lost more all pro caliber players who opted out due to Covid. Cam is a former MVP and Super Bowl QB. He can do that again. 

 

If you draft a QB, then you are setting the team back two or three years. Rookies don't get to the Super Bowl or be competitive. They have to learn and while they are doing that your window is closing. Now if you are two or three years away and have the time then drafting a QB is the way to go. 

 

It won't be Cam 

[Myles]

6 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

Stafford is a good stat QB that has never had many substantive wins. Some food for thought:  Tebow, Bortles, & Mariotta have more career playoff wins than Stafford.  If we gotta give up our 1st & another pick, I’d rather move up in the draft for Fields, Wilson, or Lance (in that order).  I’m not giving more than a 2nd or maybe a 2nd & 3rd or 4th for Stafford.

Is that what you would hook your cart to?    You are a football fan, so you must know from watching games that Tebow, Bortles and Mariotta are nowhere near Staffords level.  

[DougDew]

I put this in the other thread too.

 

Analysis of Wentz' contract if traded before March 19.  Looks like $23.7 mill for 2 years basically, then the acquiring team can cut him with no future cap hit.  I think Philly would have a $22mill cap hit though.

 

An acquiring team would have Wentz under contract for $98.4 million over four years averaging $24.6 million per year. That would be pretty cost effective provided Wentz could resurrect his career. It would really only be a two-year commitment for $47.4 million because of the guarantees. After 2022, the acquiring team could exit the deal without any dead money or residual cap charges.

[Thebrashandthebold]

Someone is going to sign Cam and I look for him to outperform whoever the Colts sign unless it is Watson. I would not be surprised to see Cam wind up in Washington.

 

[Thebrashandthebold]

3 minutes ago, Myles said:

That's a big NO from me.   Cam is washed up.   He's thrown more INT's than TD's the past 2 seasons.  Even in his MVP season he threw for under 60% completions.  

He has not played in the last two years just last year. You had the QB last year who threw the most interception in the league before he came here. He didn't have that problem here and neither would Cam. He isn't washed up and you obviously didn't watch him play. Yes, his completion rate is lower because he goes for some home runs. He could do that here and make big plays. He is not a dink and dunk QB. I like him a lot and I think he is a very special talent.

[ztboiler]

39 minutes ago, chad72 said:

This is my take on it. If we were picking in the Top 12, like the 49ers, I would not give up that first rounder for Stafford because the top 4 QBs in the draft are within striking distance if you do want a new QB by not giving up another first rounder, IMO.

 

However, if you are picking at No.20 and higher, which we are, you would have to hit the re-set button to give up draft capital and go get a rookie and give up 2 first rounders to get the guy you want. However, a 33 year old QB can be gotten with just 1 first rounder and a future pick, IMO. That is why I am leaning towards Stafford. Plus, getting a known commodity like Stafford will have a ripple effect in free agents coming here, IMO, over a team indicating a retool for a year or two.

If you can get Stafford for a 1, even a 1 + something less than a 2, that's hard to pass up.  However, the dynamics of this draft are such that it's not out of the question to believe you could draft the 2nd QB off the board by jumping in front of the Lions at 6.  In 2011 the Falcons got all the way to 6 from 27 for a late 2nd, 4th, and next year's 1 and 4.   Might not cost much more than that from 21 this year.  The Eagles have 6, are keeping Wentz and are in the perfect reset mode to use a windfall of picks....

[The Fish]

6 minutes ago, Thebrashandthebold said:

 I like him a lot and I think he is a very special talent.

 

*was

[chad72]

29 minutes ago, ztboiler said:

If you can get Stafford for a 1, even a 1 + something less than a 2, that's hard to pass up.  However, the dynamics of this draft are such that it's not out of the question to believe you could draft the 2nd QB off the board by jumping in front of the Lions at 6.  In 2011 the Falcons got all the way to 6 from 27 for a late 2nd, 4th, and next year's 1 and 4.   Might not cost much more than that from 21 this year.  The Eagles have 6, are keeping Wentz and are in the perfect reset mode to use a windfall of picks....

 

The Falcons gave up their first-round pick that year along with their second and fourth-round picks in 2011. They gave up their first and fourth-round picks in the 2012 draft as well.

 

So, they did give up 2 first rounders, the 2011 draft first rounder and the next year's first rounder in 2012. The number of first rounders talked about in a trade ALWAYS includes the first rounder swapped as well. 

 

Plus, ever since they put the rookie wage scale in place, I think starting 2011 when Cam Newton was drafted No.1, it has gotten more expensive in terms of draft picks to move into the Top 6, IMO. Not everyone is the Jets but look at what Ballard got just for moving back from No.3 to No.6 from the Jets. The Jets moved up three spots to No. 3, while sending the No. 6 overall pick, two second-round choices in 2018 (Nos. 37 and 49) and their second-rounder in 2019 to the Colts.

 

This is what the Chiefs gave up to move up to No.10 to get Mahomes:

 

Patrick Mahomes draft pick trade details

Kansas City Chiefs received: No. 10 pick in 2017 NFL Draft (Patrick Mahomes)

Buffalo Bills received: No. 27 pick in 2017 NFL Draft (Tre'Davious White); third-round 2017 pick (this pick was packaged in a trade that led to Buffalo taking both tackle Dion Dawkins and receiver Zay Jones); first-round 2018 pick (used to trade up and take linebacker Tremaine Edmunds; Buffalo also drafted defensive back Siran Neal with a final pick acquired along with Edmunds)

 

There is a reason the Chiefs waited till Mahomes got to No.10. They did believe in him but it would have cost them more to get into the top 6 or 8 to get him.

 

So, most likely, it will take us 2021 first rounder, 2022 first rounder and possibly a 2022 second rounder (and a 3rd rounder in one of the drafts) to move into the Top 6. Way too cost prohibitive for something you are not sure about. If you think Zach Wilson is a generational talent like Mahomes, you do it. Otherwise, too much is on the line for the GM and head coach. Frank Reich is not an established HC like Andy Reid was then, and Ballard is still a first time GM with 2 playoff appearances in 4 years.

[Myles]

20 minutes ago, Thebrashandthebold said:

He has not played in the last two years just last year. You had the QB last year who threw the most interception in the league before he came here. He didn't have that problem here and neither would Cam. He isn't washed up and you obviously didn't watch him play. Yes, his completion rate is lower because he goes for some home runs. He could do that here and make big plays. He is not a dink and dunk QB. I like him a lot and I think he is a very special talent.

Reich plays a dink and dunk offense, so Cam doesn't fit well.   

 

I do think he is washed up.

[Indeee]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It is actually Witten for Dallas but at first I was like who the hell is Winton 

Dude, that's the joke. Look above at QB choices in the poll...

[Hark]

I have pretty much been running mocks with the assumption they trade this year's 1 and 3 for Stafford. May take something in next year's draft as well. This team is fortunate that they don't need a QB to save them, just someone to come in and do their part. Rivers did a great job of that and the team had a successful year. I believe Stafford is an upgrade that should allow them to have an even better season in 2021.

[ztboiler]

9 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

The Falcons gave up their first-round pick that year along with their second and fourth-round picks in 2011. They gave up their first and fourth-round picks in the 2012 draft as well.

 

So, they did give up 2 first rounders, the 2011 draft first rounder and the next year's first rounder in 2012. The number of first rounders talked about in a trade ALWAYS includes the first rounder swapped as well. 

 

Plus, ever since they put the rookie wage scale in place, I think starting 2011 when Cam Newton was drafted No.1, it has gotten more expensive in terms of draft picks to move into the Top 6, IMO. Not everyone is the Jets but look at what Ballard got just for moving back from No.3 to No.6 from the Jets. The Jets moved up three spots to No. 3, while sending the No. 6 overall pick, two second-round choices this year (Nos. 37 and 49) and their second-rounder in 2019 to the Colts.

 

This is what the Chiefs gave up to move up to No.10 to get Mahomes:

 

Patrick Mahomes draft pick trade details

Kansas City Chiefs received: No. 10 pick in 2017 NFL Draft (Patrick Mahomes)

Buffalo Bills received: No. 27 pick in 2017 NFL Draft (Tre'Davious White); third-round 2017 pick (this pick was packaged in a trade that led to Buffalo taking both tackle Dion Dawkins and receiver Zay Jones); first-round 2018 pick (used to trade up and take linebacker Tremaine Edmunds; Buffalo also drafted defensive back Siran Neal with a final pick acquired along with Edmunds)

 

So, most likely, it will take us 2021 first rounder, 2022 first rounder and possibly a 2022 second rounder (and a 3rd rounder in one of the drafts) to move into the Top 6. Way too cost prohibitive for something you are not sure about. If you think Zach Wilson is a generational talent like Mahomes, you do it. Otherwise, too much is on the line for the GM and head coach. Frank Reich is not an established HC like Andy Reid was then, and Ballard is still a first time GM with 2 playoff appearances in 4 years.

We agree on price...you just don't like my accounting verbage...

 

We also agree on Stafford....but that's not the point.  Ballard has said it's not about picking or signing a QB...it's about being right.  If he thinks he is right about the 2nd QB available being a future HOF guy...then those prices are worth paying to go get him.  Not expecting it...but the dynamic could be right.

[chad72]

8 minutes ago, ztboiler said:

We agree on price...you just don't like my accounting verbiage...

 

We also agree on Stafford....but that's not the point.  Ballard has said it's not about picking or signing a QB...it's about being right.  If he thinks he is right about the 2nd QB available being a future HOF guy...then those prices are worth paying to go get him.  Not expecting it...but the dynamic could be right.

 

Fair enough. No one thought Mahomes would be what he is right now. Right coaching, right system, right supporting cast.

 

We sure don't have the offensive playmakers with wow factors that Mahomes is surrounded with to embellish any new QB drafted with such a cost, there is that too. Dodds and Ballard probably believe in the Seahawks way more than the Chiefs way, based on how they have drafted OL and Defense in Round 1, though it is slightly changing with early Round 2 picks in Pittman and Taylor. Still, nothing like a Hill or Kelce. 

[danlhart87]

Did you miss the QB thread that has over 60 pages?