Justin Fields and his Steelers

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
WAS on the record referenced our situation, when they decided to start Howell, who led the NFL in pass attempts. So teams are already trying out mid to late round guys on team controlled deals, to see if they can land a QB1. O'Connell is another example, in LV.

Peter King was talking about CHI he says he does a weekly CHI call in to their sports show, and he's been saying for weeks, the idea I am talking about. Trade back and keep building up your team. If you build it up enough, the QB will take care of itself, or be at least a lot better environment where someone can come in and thrive.

Darnold makes the room better, but forget Darnold, as you seem to be stuck on him. Could be Tyrod Taylor. Or Heinicke or whoever. Someone with better QB chops than Peterman or Bagent. You like Peterman and Bagent? I'm talking about improving the QB room. Even if you draft Caleb and clean break from Fields, you want a QB2. Sometimes your top pick gets injured, see the Colts. Wentz would be a more serious QB2, than Peterman. Peterman actually got into the week 18 game, when Fields got into the blue tent.

Brother, are you not paying attention? Washington was one of the worst teams in the NFL and their coach is now fired. They will almost certainly take a QB at #2 overall, and Howell will be on the bench. O'Connell had very little success and is also going to be relegated to the bench at the first real opportunity. None of these two examples show success at filling the starting QB position, lol. Not even remotely close.

I'm not stuck on Darnold either. You suggested the Bears signing him so I responded. And the response applies to Heinecke, Tyrod Taylor, or any similar QB, as well. These two in particular have beyond enough experience to show they are quality backups at best. Adding quality backups to a QB room does not solve a hole at QB1. That is the subject of the debate. Beyond that, nobody is saying they can't draft a guy and sign a backup. The point is replacing or sticking with Fields.

We can agree to disagree, you said SF is not a blueprint, well it is. When other HCs are saying we are gonna try what SF is trying, that's a blueprint. No guarantee of success, regardless your method.

You are stuck on Darnold, and you are making incorrect points. You said Darnold "doesn't do anything". I'm pretty sure you yourself, don't believe that. Darnold would make their QB room better. He's way better than Nate Peterman, who's known as one of the worst backups around. And an undrafted from Shepherd College. Look at Geno, he was added to SEA as a backup, and was a CPOY and $100m+ man. You want talent in the room, and talent on roster, to give yourself the best shot of something like that. That's one reason NFL is fun, you can draft a Trey Lance, and Purdy is the QB1. So I don't view it as add a guy to be the backup, I view it as build the best room you can, and see what happens.

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I'm sort of on faithful's side on this one.

Due to Brock Purdy, I think teams will try to acquire more mid to late round QBs and focus on building a team around the QB position first.

For example, if I'm Washington, I would strongly consider trading down, with the assumption they're not blown away by one of the QBs. They just gutted their team, and they are clearly in rebuild mode. Drafting a QB high with no talent around them is not a great strategy to me.

However, the Bears are in a different situation. I think they have talent; they just need a rookie QB potentially put them over the edge to become a playoff team. And Darnold does not, and should not, move the needle for any team.

I also think the Falcons clearly messed up not trying hard enough acquire a good QB, they have talent on both sides of the ball.

It really depends on the stage you're in roster wise.

Originally posted by Waterbear:
I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I'm sort of on faithful's side on this one.

Due to Brock Purdy, I think teams will try to acquire more mid to late round QBs and focus on building a team around the QB position first.

For example, if I'm Washington, I would strongly consider trading down, with the assumption they're not blown away by one of the QBs. They just gutted their team, and they are clearly in rebuild mode. Drafting a QB high with no talent around them is not a great strategy to me.

However, the Bears are in a different situation. I think they have talent; they just need a rookie QB potentially put them over the edge to become a playoff team. And Darnold does not, and should not, move the needle for any team.

I also think the Falcons clearly messed up not trying hard enough acquire a good QB, they have talent on both sides of the ball.

It really depends on the stage you're in roster wise.

Would argue Washington does have talent of offense. That's why Howell was able to have some success for parts of the year. That said, I wouldn't blame them if they went another direction and kicked QB down the road. The Bears are in a different position just being at 1 and not 2 and having that additional pick. They have no reason to roll out Fields again other than to placate a portion of delusional fans in their fanbase. Get what you can for Fields, get a top prospect (and an especially elite prospect by majority opinion) and re-set that rookie contract. Still have plenty of ammunition to improve.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Waterbear:
I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I'm sort of on faithful's side on this one.

Due to Brock Purdy, I think teams will try to acquire more mid to late round QBs and focus on building a team around the QB position first.

For example, if I'm Washington, I would strongly consider trading down, with the assumption they're not blown away by one of the QBs. They just gutted their team, and they are clearly in rebuild mode. Drafting a QB high with no talent around them is not a great strategy to me.

However, the Bears are in a different situation. I think they have talent; they just need a rookie QB potentially put them over the edge to become a playoff team. And Darnold does not, and should not, move the needle for any team.

I also think the Falcons clearly messed up not trying hard enough acquire a good QB, they have talent on both sides of the ball.

It really depends on the stage you're in roster wise.

Would argue Washington does have talent of offense. That's why Howell was able to have some success for parts of the year. That said, I wouldn't blame them if they went another direction and kicked QB down the road. The Bears are in a different position just being at 1 and not 2 and having that additional pick. They have no reason to roll out Fields again other than to placate a portion of delusional fans in their fanbase. Get what you can for Fields, get a top prospect (and an especially elite prospect by majority opinion) and re-set that rookie contract. Still have plenty of ammunition to improve.

They do... but i'd assume someone like Terry Mclaurin would be a prime candidate for an offseason trade. I haven't looked at all the numbers, but with their midseason trades of Sweat and Young, I would assume everyone is on the table at this point. Letting Bob Myers and probably Adam Peters make a team from scratch could be a very good thing.

Fields probably knows he's done. I really don't know if he's a starter anywhere with his play style.

Originally posted by Waterbear:
They do... but i'd assume someone like Terry Mclaurin would be a prime candidate for an offseason trade. I haven't looked at all the numbers, but with their midseason trades of Sweat and Young, I would assume everyone is on the table at this point. Letting Bob Myers and probably Adam Peters make a team from scratch could be a very good thing.

Fields probably knows he's done. I really don't know if he's a starter anywhere with his play style.

See I think a team like Atlanta could end up taking a flyer on Fields. Might be too low in the draft to get their prospect without a big trade, and they could get Fields for a 2nd or 3rd rounder and change.

I personally would never do that but I bet some teams would take the chance. Feel like Pitt is another potential option. Maybe a couple more too.

Regardless, I have no doubt there will be more teams that take flyers on late round QB's… but to plan around having success in that is nothing but a ticket to getting fired. Go ahead and draft them as supplemental moves and if you hit its a bonus (just like it was for us). Not totally unlike Was taking RG3 and Cousins. Plan around RG3 and if Cousins hits… great.

Originally posted by Waterbear:
I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I'm sort of on faithful's side on this one.

Due to Brock Purdy, I think teams will try to acquire more mid to late round QBs and focus on building a team around the QB position first.

For example, if I'm Washington, I would strongly consider trading down, with the assumption they're not blown away by one of the QBs. They just gutted their team, and they are clearly in rebuild mode. Drafting a QB high with no talent around them is not a great strategy to me.

However, the Bears are in a different situation. I think they have talent; they just need a rookie QB potentially put them over the edge to become a playoff team. And Darnold does not, and should not, move the needle for any team.

I also think the Falcons clearly messed up not trying hard enough acquire a good QB, they have talent on both sides of the ball.

It really depends on the stage you're in roster wise.

I'll say thanks to you & Smokey for an interesting convo, it's a fascinating aspect of team building. QB is so important, yet so hard to predict how prospects will translate.

My preference as of now, would be get your Hutchinson, your LaPorta, your Sewell, your Gibbs, and then a QB that wasn't wanted, starts looking pretty darn good.
Green Bay deserves a mention, they are the one team actually giving years of development time to QBs. They are also the one team that's trying to chain together 45 years of HOF play at the position. Love just had a monster year. So they seem to be rewarded for a patience that no other club is even attempting.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I'll say thanks to you & Smokey for an interesting convo, it's a fascinating aspect of team building. QB is so important, yet so hard to predict how prospects will translate.

My preference as of now, would be get your Hutchinson, your LaPorta, your Sewell, your Gibbs, and then a QB that wasn't wanted, starts looking pretty darn good.
Green Bay deserves a mention, they are the one team actually giving years of development time to QBs. They are also the one team that's trying to chain together 45 years of HOF play at the position. Love just had a monster year. So they seem to be rewarded for a patience that no other club is even attempting.

Probably important to note:

Goff - top 10 pick.
Love - Round 1.

Lions probably going to eventually run into the same wall the Rams did as well. We'll see.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I'll say thanks to you & Smokey for an interesting convo, it's a fascinating aspect of team building. QB is so important, yet so hard to predict how prospects will translate.

My preference as of now, would be get your Hutchinson, your LaPorta, your Sewell, your Gibbs, and then a QB that wasn't wanted, starts looking pretty darn good.
Green Bay deserves a mention, they are the one team actually giving years of development time to QBs. They are also the one team that's trying to chain together 45 years of HOF play at the position. Love just had a monster year. So they seem to be rewarded for a patience that no other club is even attempting.

Probably important to note:

Goff - top 10 pick.
Love - Round 1.

Lions probably going to eventually run into the same wall the Rams did as well. We'll see.

Washington should sign Trey Lance then.... BOOM, problem solved.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I'll say thanks to you & Smokey for an interesting convo, it's a fascinating aspect of team building. QB is so important, yet so hard to predict how prospects will translate.

My preference as of now, would be get your Hutchinson, your LaPorta, your Sewell, your Gibbs, and then a QB that wasn't wanted, starts looking pretty darn good.
Green Bay deserves a mention, they are the one team actually giving years of development time to QBs. They are also the one team that's trying to chain together 45 years of HOF play at the position. Love just had a monster year. So they seem to be rewarded for a patience that no other club is even attempting.

Probably important to note:

Goff - top 10 pick.
Love - Round 1.

Lions probably going to eventually run into the same wall the Rams did as well. We'll see.

On Goff, #1 overall, but I would argue he was viewed as a bust, like a Baker Mayfield almost. Only reason he wasn't a FA is he was tacked on to the Stafford trade. At the time it was almost DET eating salary, and being compensated in picks. He wasn't really viewed as the future in DET, and just today I read someone post how surprised that he's done well in DET. But it's a good situation, or at least it has become one. Love was round 1, but he was also very much available. Big value difference between late round 1 and pick 1. Both Goff and Love could have been had, for pretty inexpensive investments, compared to say, the TL investment, or the cost of selecting Caleb Williams.

Now if Goff fails, ok fine, they already drafted Hooker. And Hooker if they want to go that route, plays with LaPorta, Gibbs, St Brown, Sewell, on a team that has figured out their culture, coaching, and how to win. So your odds go way up imo, thanks to good environment.

Originally posted by Waterbear:
Washington should sign Trey Lance then.... BOOM, problem solved.

I thought they were one of the few trade spots that made sense for him before the season honestly. I think an argument could be made the year would have been better spent playing/developing him over giving Howell a chance. Kind of right back to square one (which could have happened with Trey as well I guess).

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
On Goff, #1 overall, but I would argue he was viewed as a bust, like a Baker Mayfield almost. Only reason he wasn't a FA is he was tacked on to the Stafford trade. At the time it was almost DET eating salary, and being compensated in picks. He wasn't really viewed as the future in DET, and just today I read someone post how surprised that he's done well in DET. But it's a good situation, or at least it has become one. Love was round 1, but he was also very much available. Big value difference between late round 1 and pick 1. Both Goff and Love could have been had, for pretty inexpensive investments, compared to say, the TL investment, or the cost of selecting Caleb Williams.

Now if Goff fails, ok fine, they already drafted Hooker. And Hooker if they want to go that route, plays with LaPorta, Gibbs, St Brown, Sewell, on a team that has figured out their culture, coaching, and how to win. So your odds go way up imo, thanks to good environment.

He wasn't viewed as a bust. He was viewed as a QB that wasn't good enough to be a SB winner. A non franchise QB in that context. The Rams had success with him. Just rightly wanted to improve. I think that will probably happen in Detroit as well, but the reality is it's hard to find those players. The best way is to draft them high and history has repeatedly shown that. That doesn't mean it's impossible to find one buried late in the draft. Just extremely, by a very large margin, less likely.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
On Goff, #1 overall, but I would argue he was viewed as a bust, like a Baker Mayfield almost. Only reason he wasn't a FA is he was tacked on to the Stafford trade. At the time it was almost DET eating salary, and being compensated in picks. He wasn't really viewed as the future in DET, and just today I read someone post how surprised that he's done well in DET. But it's a good situation, or at least it has become one. Love was round 1, but he was also very much available. Big value difference between late round 1 and pick 1. Both Goff and Love could have been had, for pretty inexpensive investments, compared to say, the TL investment, or the cost of selecting Caleb Williams.

Now if Goff fails, ok fine, they already drafted Hooker. And Hooker if they want to go that route, plays with LaPorta, Gibbs, St Brown, Sewell, on a team that has figured out their culture, coaching, and how to win. So your odds go way up imo, thanks to good environment.

He wasn't viewed as a bust. He was viewed as a QB that wasn't good enough to be a SB winner. A non franchise QB in that context. The Rams had success with him. Just rightly wanted to improve. I think that will probably happen in Detroit as well, but the reality is it's hard to find those players. The best way is to draft them high and history has repeatedly shown that. That doesn't mean it's impossible to find one buried late in the draft. Just extremely, by a very large margin, less likely.

Just to jog my memory I googled, this was the first recap of the deal I landed on, from CBS Sports:

When the Rams sent Jared Goff to the Lions in the 2021 trade that landed them quarterback Matthew Stafford, hardly anyone blinked an eye. In fact, plenty wondered why Detroit would even bother with Goff at all; the Rams were making a clear upgrade, many posited, while the Lions were simply inheriting the necessary evil that was Goff's contract, in order to facilitate the deal.

that's more or less how I summed it up, and how I recall the perception at the time.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Waterbear:
Washington should sign Trey Lance then.... BOOM, problem solved.

I thought they were one of the few trade spots that made sense for him before the season honestly. I think an argument could be made the year would have been better spent playing/developing him over giving Howell a chance. Kind of right back to square one (which could have happened with Trey as well I guess).

He's one day older than the Washington QB playing in the championship tonight. And less than a year older than the projected #1 QB Caleb Williams.

Washington would be a good spot for him as a flier. But certainly not a #1 or #2 you can count on. I know I'm preaching to the choir there...

Originally posted by Waterbear:
He's one day older than the Washington QB playing in the championship tonight. And less than a year older than the projected #1 QB Caleb Williams.

Washington would be a good spot for him as a flier. But certainly not a #1 or #2 you can count on. I know I'm preaching to the choir there...

Yea it's just a different spot now because now Washington can get their own guy at 2. That's a better option than trading for Trey on a near expiring rookie deal. Trey's just kind of f**ked honestly.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Just to jog my memory I googled, this was the first recap of the deal I landed on, from CBS Sports:

When the Rams sent Jared Goff to the Lions in the 2021 trade that landed them quarterback Matthew Stafford, hardly anyone blinked an eye. In fact, plenty wondered why Detroit would even bother with Goff at all; the Rams were making a clear upgrade, many posited, while the Lions were simply inheriting the necessary evil that was Goff's contract, in order to facilitate the deal.

that's more or less how I summed it up, and how I recall the perception at the time.

That is not more or less how you summed it up, lol. It's exactly as I described. A QB who wasn't viewed as a franchise guy/elite player who was being paid like one. He very clearly wasn't a bust. The contract sucked, the player didn't.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Just to jog my memory I googled, this was the first recap of the deal I landed on, from CBS Sports:

When the Rams sent Jared Goff to the Lions in the 2021 trade that landed them quarterback Matthew Stafford, hardly anyone blinked an eye. In fact, plenty wondered why Detroit would even bother with Goff at all; the Rams were making a clear upgrade, many posited, while the Lions were simply inheriting the necessary evil that was Goff's contract, in order to facilitate the deal.

that's more or less how I summed it up, and how I recall the perception at the time.

That is not more or less how you summed it up, lol. It's exactly as I described. A QB who wasn't viewed as a franchise guy/elite player who was being paid like one. He very clearly wasn't a bust. The contract sucked, the player didn't.

I described it as a salary dump, same as the article. The article asks why DET is even bothering with Goff, but for that reason. Few felt Goff would be the long term solution in DET. This all points to him being a bust more or less. I wager and I am probably right, see if you agree, most any team could have traded for Goff from LAR. Flip a mid round pick, and take on that contract. This of course, would had to have been prior to LAR unloading him (prior to McVay heading to Cabo). You are right, his contract was viewed by LAR as more than his game. That all lines up with him being a bust more or less. Or at least, he could have been had, for far less draft investment, than how LAR acquired him.

Thanks to his play in DET he's rehabbed a lot of that value. DET will probably pony up and pay him again.